History of India- 3.2.3.2
Polity: 1550-1750
State and religion: Aurangzeb’s religious policies – Part I
GLOSSARY
Jahangir (1569 – 1627) – Son of Akbar, he was the Mughal Emperor from 1605 to 1627.
Aurangzeb (1618 – 1707) – Son of Shah Jahan, he was the Mughal Emperor from 1658 to 1707.
Mansabdar – A rank-holding officer in the Mughal administrative setup.
Shia – Branch of Islam that believes in Ali and the imams as the rightful successor of Mohammad and in the concealment and messianic return of the last recognized Imam.
Mahtasib – Officer in charge of the moral behavior of the public.
Shariat – Islamic laws
Kazi – Islamic religious head of a small town
Zat – The rank or position of the Mansabdar appointed by the emperor.
Farmaan – Royal edict or decree
Jiziya – Religious tax for being a Hindu that was imposed by Aurangzeb.
OBJECTIVES
The students will
- Learn about the religious policies adopted by Aurangzeb
- Trace Aurangzeb’s growth in religious austerity
- Evaluate if Aurangzeb was responsible for the downfall of the Mughal Empire
SUMMARY
Aurangzeb’s reign and especially his religious or anti-Hindu policies remain a controversial issue among the historians even today. Aurangzeb’s religious attitude can be divided into four phases – the general attitude, the temple policies, the Jiziya and the employment of Hindi mansabdars. In the initial years Aurangzeb’s austerity manifested itself in the abolition of many practices that he considered un-Islamic. Some court practices were abolished because of economic crisis. However his temple policies and the imposition of Jiziya do reveal his prejudice against the Hindus.
But it surprising that during his reign there was the highest number of Hindu mansabdars. So the fact that he was anti-Hindu is not particularly true although he was surely anti-Rajput. But to blame the downfall of the Mughal Dynasty on Aurangzeb alone is not justified as the Jiziya was abolished soon after and the Mughal reign continued after 150 years of his death.
FAQs
1.How do the modern historians defend Aurangzeb about the downfall of the Mughal Empire?
Modern researches like Nurul Hassan, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Arthar Ali have shown that there was crisis during the later years of Aurangzeb. According to Irfan Habib it was an Agrarian crisis, Arthar Ali and Nurul Hassan think that it was a Jagirdari crisis. Generally, it was the economic crisis and therefore it was impossible for a person to salvage the whole thing. Therefore one cannot blame the decline solely on the anti-Hindu policies of Aurangzeb.
2. What were the practices that Aurangzeb banned from his court as un-Islamic?
Aurangzeb abolished the Persian practice of Sijda (prostration of the noble before the emperor)as it was un-Islamic. Then he abolished the Kalima which is written in the coins, as he understood that the coins are sometimes trampled under the feet. In 1670 Aurangzeb banished music from the court. Then he abolished the Nauroz festival, which was a pre-Islamic Persian festival of the New Year as un-Islamic.
3. What was the job of the Muhtasib?
Muhtasib looked after the public moral of the citizen. But he also looked after the weights in the market, the surrounding wall of the city, the bridges and in general the city’s resources.
4. What changes did Aurangzeb initiate in court because of monetary crisis?
Aurangzeb stopped the writing of the official history from the tenth year. Then the silver ink pot of the durbar was changed to ceramic. The gold railing of the durbar was also changed. Most of these were due to the economic crisis that was developing.
5. Why were the Hindus objecting to the imposition of Jiziya?
The payment of the Jiziya meant that the poor were more burdened than the rich. Also the Hindus objected to the way it is collected. The Amins who were appointed in every province, used to go from house to house, calling the people personally to pay the tax, and while paying the tax, they were abused. Therefore the Hindus objected to the payment of Jiziya.
6. What is the opinion of Jadunath Sarkar about Aurangzeb as an emperor?
Jadunath Sarkar concluded that Aurangzeb was a bad ruler because due to his policies the Mughal Empire declined. He became Anti Hindu in contrast to the liberalism of Akbar and the Hindus were alienated; they rebelled, and the Mughal Empire fell.
7. What is the Jharokha-e-Darshan?
Jharoka-e-Darshan was the royal practice of the emperor standing at the window/ balcony for his subjects to see that the emperor was alive.
8. What was Aurangzeb’s attitude to music?
In 1670 Aurangzeb banished music from the court. However the playing of the instrument continued in the Nahabatkhana that was on the deuri or on the door. Only the vocal music particularly in the court had been stopped. Incidentally Aurangzeb was an excellent Veena player and it was during his period and with his sponsorship that the best Persian works on Indian classical music was written.
9.Why did the nobles oppose the removal of Hindu accountants?
Aurangzeb gave an order in 1670, that all Hindu accountants were to be replaced by Muslim accountants. But this was opposed by the nobles because the khatris and the kayastas, who used to occupy these places, were very efficient; they knew the language, they were experienced people, and therefore they objected to it and Aurangzeb had to change the order.
10.What were the three types of taxes in the Jiziya?
The Jiziya are three types of taxes: Pariyar, per person on the basis of his property other than land which is Rs. 3 1/3, Rs. 6 1/3 and Rs. 13 1/3.
QUIZ
1. The practice of prostration of a person before the king is called
A) Jharoka-e-Darshan B) Sijda C) Zimmis
2. The Jharoka-e-Darshan was exploited by
A) Saqi Mustad Khan B) Jahangir C) Dara
3. For the collection of Jiziya, Aurangzeb appointed A) Amins B) Kazis C) Muhtasibs
4. Aurangzeb was a maestro at playing the
A) Sarangi B) Flute C) Veena
5. The word Jiziya is derived from
A) Spanish B) Persian C) Latin
6.‘The Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb’ is written by
A) Jadunath Sarkar B) Athar Ali C) Irfan Habib
7. Nauroz festival (festival of the New Year) was originally from
A) Persia B) China C) Egypt
8. The officer appointed to look after the public moral of the citizens was
A) Kayastha B) Muhtasib C) Kazis
9. The Jiziya was abolished by
A) Akbar B) Aurangzeb C) Jahangir
10. ‘Masiri Alamgiri’ was written by
A) Jahangir B) Aurangzeb C) Saqi Mustad Khan
ASSIGNMENT
1. Briefly describe the religious attitude of Jahangir.
2. Discuss the policy that Aurangzeb introduced regarding old temples.
3. Explain the rise of Hindu mansabdars during Aurangzeb’s reign.
4. Highlight the measures taken by Aurangzeb that were particularly Anti-Hindu.
5. Assess Aurangzeb’s role in the decline of the Mughal Empire.
History of India- 3.2.3.2
Polity: 1550-1750
State and religion: Aurangzeb’s religious policies – Part I
We will see the policy of Aurangzeb and will try to understand the various complexities lying in the policy. The policy of Aurangzeb is a very controversial one even now, and it has continued to be so due to several factors.
Jahangir’s religious policy
Jahangir succeeded in 1605, after the death of Akbar through a palace intrigue. After that one could see his mentality, in his own memoir written by him called Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. Looking at this memoir we see that his mentality is full of contrasts and full of contradictory things e.g. he began to discuss and continued to discuss with religious leaders of different communities. At the same time he was very much against Guru Arjun and the Jains, some of whom he punished. In other places e.g. at Kangra, when he went to see the temple, he did not break the temple, but he sacrificed a bullock there despite the protests of the priests. Therefore there is a kind of contrasting attitude as far as Jahangir is concerned.
In one way one could say that he was more generous than Shan Jahan and more orthodox than Akbar e.g. in his policy of employment of the mansabdars, he took more Rajputs from different areas, more that Akbar had done. Akbar had taken mainly the Kachuas of Rajputs mainly, the Amber people. But Jahangir had expanded this into Bikaner, Jodhpur, and many other places. Therefore there was an expansion in Hindu nobility under Jahangir to a slight extent.
Aurangzeb’s religious policies
Aurangzeb has remained a controversial ruler. There are differences of opinion in whether he was a successful ruler. Pakistani historians found him very successful. But English historians of the 19th century like F.N. Stone or the Hindu historian Jadunath Sarkar, of the 20th century found that he was a bad ruler because due to his policy the Mughal Empire declined. He became Anti Hindu in contrast to the liberalism of Akbar and the Hindus were alienated, they rebelled, and the Mughal Empire fell.
But we need to remember that when Aurangzeb died in 1707, the Mughal Empire continued for 150 years after that. It is difficult to accept this kind of theory and as we see the recent researches do not support this Anti Hindu theory of Aurangzeb. But we will start with the generalization as we have done, and now we see that Aurangzeb’s period has been divided into two halves.
1) From his accession to 1669,
2) From 1670 to his death, 1707.
In the first half Aurangzeb is seen as not as a very liberal person but he did not persecute the Hindus at all. As a matter of fact some of the Hindus got very high posts in this period. In the second half, it is stated that he became a very orthodox man, leaned towards the orthodox Ulemas, due to the political failures and so on. This was the division that Prof. Athar Ali has done in his book ‘The Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb’.
Emperor Aurangzeb as a ruler
Regarding the controversy whether Aurangzeb’s Anti Hindu policy was responsible for the decline of the Mughal Empire, there are some doubts nowadays. Modern researches like Nurul Hassan, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra, Athar Ali had shown that there is a different aspect of the crisis.
There were crisis during the later years of Aurangzeb, and this was principally the economic crisis, although the scholars differ from one another in detail, e.g. Irfan Habib thinks it is an Agrarian crisis, Athar Ali and Nurul Hassan think that it is due to Jagirdari crisis. Whatever it was, it was the economic crisis of the Mughal Empire, and therefore it is beyond the hope of a person to salvage the whole thing. Therefore one could, in the beginning, say that there are more aspects than merely the Anti Hindu policy.
Aurangzeb’s entire period as far as his social and religious attitude is concerned, can be divided into four stages, although the stages overlap one another, it is by the measures that we have come this decision.
1) General attitude
2) Temple policy
3) Policy of Jiziya
4) Employment of Hindu mansabdar
General attitude
In the first stage we see that Aurangzeb abolished certain rules e.g. he abolished the Persian practice of Sijda, which is the prostration of the noble before the emperor because he thought it was un-Islamic. Then he abolished the Kalima which is written in the coins, on the ground that the coins are sometimes trampled under the feet. So that had to go. Then he abolished the Nauroz festival, which he said was un-Islamic. It was a pre-Islamic Persian festival, the festival of the New Year. Then he abolished the Jharoka-e-Darshan i.e. the emperor standing on the window, this is the old practice started by Akbar and the practice is as Abul Fazal had explained, is to show the people that the emperor was living. This is very important because when Shah Jahan became ill, Dara put a slave in the garb of Shah Jahan and put him in the window. That was also gone.
In 1670 Aurangzeb banished music from the court. The contemporary ‘Masiri Alamgiri’, Saqi Mustad Khan’s book stated that the musicians took out a procession when Aurangzeb was going to the Jama Masjid. When Aurangzeb asked what the procession is, they said that they were going to bury the music. This a little exaggerated. The playing of the instrument continued in the Nahabatkhana that was on the deuri or on the door; that still continued. Only the vocal music particularly in the court had been stopped. Incidentally Aurangzeb was an excellent Veena player and it was during his period and with his sponsorship that the best Persian works on Indian classical music was written. Therefore, he was not at all anti music as Saqi Mustad Khan tried to tell us, but there are other reasons for this.
Then there are various other small reasons, like he stopped the writing of the official history from the tenth year. The reason was perhaps economic; he did not want to spend money on this. Then the silver ink pot of the durbar was changed to ceramic. The gold railing of the durbar was also changed. Most of these were coming due to the economic crisis that was developing.
But certain other measures as part of the General Attitude e.g. the Holi celebration in public places was stopped, one could play it in one’s own house but it was not allowed in public. Similarly, Muharram, processions of the Shias was also stopped at the same time.
All these measures continued in the general period and in this general period one could see that there was some kind of economic crisis coming. These were not all against the Hindus, but some certainly were e.g. Aurangzeb gave an order in 1670, that all Hindu accountants were to be replaced by Muslim accountants. But this was opposed by the nobles because the khatris and the kayastas, who used to occupy these places, were very efficient, they knew the language, they were experienced people, and therefore they objected to it and Aurangzeb had to change the order. For some he helped them e.g. he appointed an official called muhtasib. Muhtasib is to look after the public moral of the citizen. But he also looks after the weights in the market; he also looks after the surrounding wall of the city, the bridges and so on and so forth. In the General Attitude it was not anti Hindu totally.
Temple policy
In case of the temple (this is a controversial one) the Shariat says that if the Zimmis are there i.e. the Hindus or Christians and if they remain loyal, they can perform their religious functions. But at the same time it is stated in the Shariat that the old temples are to be destroyed and to construct a new temple, the permission of the emperor is necessary. Aurangzeb made a farman of this. The problem was what the definition of an old temple was - 10yrs, 12 yrs, 25 yrs, 50 yrs, and 1000 yrs. And it all depends upon the kazis or the local people to decide which one is old and which one is not.
Similarly he ordered the destruction of some temples, those temples which had been destroyed earlier like, the temple of Somnath. He found that worship had started and he stopped it, destroyed the temple fully. Therefore in the temple policy of Aurangzeb he had followed a certain policy based on the Shariat. Old temples were not destroyed but later on he gave the order that, temples more that 12 yrs old should not be destroyed.
At the same time we see that Aurangzeb was having problem, rather war with the Maratha and the Jats. But in those areas he began to destroy the temples as part of the punishment policy. As a result the Hindus got more alienated because of this. Therefore in the temple policy it is more or less clear, but the Ulemas forced him to do something e.g. in case of the temple at Vrindavan and Mathura (the Mathura one was constructed during the time of Jahangir) were destroyed on the false ground that the anti Islamic propaganda is being carried on there.
J.H. Farukki in his book has given this reason but he has not given any evidence to show that the anti Islamic propaganda was going on. Till 1669, we see that Aurangzeb was far more liberal. In December 1669 we have a report of a French man from Surat. He said that Kazi of Surat had destroyed the temple and in protest the Hindu merchants had all left Surat and had gone to Cambay. The matter had reached Aurangzeb, he immediately transferred the Kazi and the Hindus had come back.
But up to 1669 December this was the policy but the same French man who was living in India was the merchant of the East India Company, said that later on this did not happen again. No Kazi was later transferred. Therefore in the temple policy, there was a slight change and as we go towards the second half, as we see more and more Aurangzeb getting involved in the wars against the Marathas Jats etc. there are more temple destructions than earlier.
Policy of Jiziya