Saturday 29 August 2015

Aurangzeb


Almost all Muslim rulers in India were secular. This they were in their own interest, for the vast majority of their subjects were Hindus. So if they persecuted Hindus there would be revolts and turbulences regularly, which no ruler wants.

Thus, the Mughals, Nawabs of Avadh and Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, Nizam of Hyderabad etc were almost all thoroughly secular. For instance, the Nawabs of Avadh used to celebrate Holi, Dussehra and Diwali, organize Ramlilas, etc and give respect to all religions. Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu temples ( see online ''History in the Service of Imperialism by B.N. Pande'' ).

Akbar used to hold discussions with people of all religions, and give them respect (see my judgment in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs.Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat online and 'Akbarnama').He propounded and practised the policy of Suleh-e-Kul, i.e. Universal Toleration of all religions ( at a time when Europeans were massacring each other in the name of religion ). His son Jehangir used to regularly meet the Hindu sadhu Jadrup, and hold discussions with him ( see 'Jehangirnama').
The controversy is about Aurangzeb. I discussed about him with many Professors of history in Aligarh Muslim University and Allahabad University. Strangely enough, The Professors of AMU with whom I discussed Aurangzeb, and who are Muslims, regard Aurangzeb as communal, while the Professors of Allahabad University, who are Hindus, regard him as secular. Which is the correct view ?

My own view is that more research is required.

On the one hand there is evidence to show that in Aurangzeb's time grants were given to several Hindu temples, e.g. Mahakal temple at Ujjain, the Chitrakoot temple, etc.( see online 'History in the Service of Imperialism', which is a speech given in the Rajya Sabha by Dr. B.N. Pandey, former Professor of History of Allahabad University and Governor of Orissa ). Details of the grants to Hindu temples in Aurangzeb'e reign can be seen there. Many of Aurangzeb's army commander's e.g. Raja Jai Singh were Hindus.

I had been to Bikaner a few years back. A part of the Maharaja's palace has been converted into a museum. I went to that museum and saw there a letter by Aurangzeb to the new Maharaja of Bikaner, who was a young man whose father (the previous Maharaja) had just died. Aurangzeb writes to the young Maharaja consoling him, and said that he could understand the loss of one's father. He concludes the letter saying that the young Maharaja should regard Aurangzeb as his own father, and if he needed anything he had only to inform Aurangzeb.

Now the point is that if Aurangzeb hated all Hindus would he have written such a letter ?

On the other hand, the fact cannot be denied that Aurangzeb reimposed jeziya on Hindus, a tax which his great grandfather Akbar had revoked. When I mentioned this to the Allahabad University Professors ( with whom I discussed Aurangzeb) they said that Aurangzeb needed money for his wars. Now if Aurangzeb needed money for his wars he should have imposed a tax on everyone, why only Hindus ?

The charge against Aurangzeb is that he demolished several Hindu temples e.g. the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, which is now the Gyanvapi mosque, standing next to the present temple built in the 18th Century by Maharani Ahilyabai Holkar. In fact the rear wall of the Gyanvapi mosque has Hindu carvings, which are clearly discernible.

Which is therefore the true Aurangzeb ?

My own view is that he was somewhere in between, but more research is required. While he was a very honest man earning his living by making caps, he also had some bigotry in him, which was a departure from the policy of his forefathers, and because of this bigotry he antagonized many Rajputs,  Marathas, Sikhs, etc which hastened the demise of the Mughal Empire.

. After his death in 1707 within a few years the Mughal Empire's size was reduced to Delhi and its suburbs only ( ' Saltanat-e-Shah Alam, Az Dilli ta Palam').

Though Aurangzeb was a totally honest man ( he earned his living by making caps), he seemed to lack the great quality which Akbar had, of accomodating everyone and pursuing a tolerant and flexible, instead of rigid policy. Akbar realized that India is a country of great diversity, and so only a tolerant, flexible and accomodating policy can keep the Empire together. This realization, evidently, Aurangzeb lacked.

However , this is only my tentative opinion, and more objective research is required by experts

13 comments:

  1. https://archive.org/stream/Maasir-i-alamgiriAHistoryOfEmporerAurangzebAlamgir#page/n0/mode/2up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, I have read that besides being a king, he used to earn his livelihood by writing copies of Holy Quran.

      Delete
    2. saya mengucapkan banyak terimakasih kepada AKI MUPENG yang telah menolong saya dalam kesulitan ini tidak pernah terfikirkan dari benak saya kalau nomor yang saya pasang bisa tembus dan ALHAMDULILLAH kini saya sekeluarga sudah bisa melunasi semua hutang2 kami,sebenarnya saya bukan penggemar togel tapi apa boleh buat kondisi yang tidak memunkinkan dan akhirnya saya minta tolong sama AKI MUPENG dan dengan senang hati AKI MUPENG mau membantu saya..,ALHAMDULILLAH nomor yang dikasi AKI MUPENG semuanya bener2 terbukti tembus dan baru kali ini saya menemukan dukun yang jujur,jangan anda takut untuk menhubungiya jika anda ingin mendapatkan nomor yang betul2 tembus seperti saya,silahkan hubungi AKI MUPENG DI nomor 0852 9445 0976 ,INI KISAH NYATA DARI SY TEMAN” ,terima kasih

      Delete
  2. sir aurngjeb ke pap me batata hu,sikho ke 9th guru ke pass Kashmiri pandit aye ke aurngjeb hame jabardasti islam kabol karwa raha hai,guru ji ne kaha aurngjeb se kaho agar mera dharam badal sakta hai te hum sab islam kabol lenge,aurngjeb ne chandni chowk delhi me guru ji ka sar kalam karwa dia,unke ek sathi ko lakdi se band kar bich me se chir dia,ek ko rui(cotton) me lapet kar jala dia,ek ko ublte pani me dal dia,ye sab dillhi ke logo ko ikathe kar ke kia,guru ji ke grandson jo 7 or 9 saal ke the unko sirhind(punjab city) me jjinda diwar me chinwa dia(through sirhind nawab) behosh hone par talwar se kat dia,sikh soldier banda singh bahadar ko silakho se band kar unke 1saal ke bache ka dil nikal kar unke mu(mouth) me dal dia,aur bohat kuch he sar,inki khandan ki ladie jo bohat buri halat me hai(financially) apni family ke saath golden temple apne bajurgo ke kiye ki maffi mang kar gayi hai,sir aurngjeb ke paap likhte kuch hour nahi kuch din(days) chahiye,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aurangzeb was the most cruel of them all, his persecution of Sikh gurus and his many war crimes are registered in different books. Babur, Jahangir were same. Akbar became very secular at the end of his life but in the beginning he was a murderer too- He killed 30k people in Chittor and also, insulted Hinduism and raped too. Babur & Aurangze were worst of all .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agree sir, killing of Guru Teg Bahadur for not cenverting into Muslim and building a Mosque at Kasi Viswanath temple are secular.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sir according to you Guru Teg Bahadur was either a terrorist or a stupid then? Aurangzeb destroyed many temples till Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur threatened to retaliate him same action. When Jaswant Singh died, Aurangzeb said "Aaj Kuffar ka darwaza toot gaya."

    ReplyDelete
  6. The history of that period shall not be looked with communal point of view. The states were not nations but kingdoms. Kingdoms were made by winning opponent kings using brutal force using the soldiers of any religion capable of fighting and killing. There are evidences of killing and looting of people of self religion and also of the other. Same thing in the case of destruction of worship places. One should not look history with parameters of present. Nothing good will be extracted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The history of that period shall not be looked with communal point of view. The states were not nations but kingdoms. Kingdoms were made by winning opponent kings using brutal force using the soldiers of any religion capable of fighting and killing. There are evidences of killing and looting of people of self religion and also of the other. Same thing in the case of destruction of worship places. One should not look history with parameters of present. Nothing good will be extracted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The history of that period shall not be looked with communal point of view. The states were not nations but kingdoms. Kingdoms were made by winning opponent kings using brutal force using the soldiers of any religion capable of fighting and killing. There are evidences of killing and looting of people of self religion and also of the other. Same thing in the case of destruction of worship places. One should not look history with parameters of present. Nothing good will be extracted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Could it be possible that Aurangzeb was communal at particular time of his life and became secular later on or vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob Singh:

    "inki khandan ki ladie jo bohat buri halat me hai(financially) apni family ke saath golden temple apne bajurgo ke kiye ki maffi mang kar gayi hai"

    who is this lady??

    ReplyDelete
  11. is it possible to run country like India where a dzn of religion are there and Hindu are in majority and he was running anti Hindu policies and he reign 50 year without supports of Hindus

    ReplyDelete