By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to
1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and
Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who
was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated
against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in
their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government
approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e.,
after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who
was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant,
competent, and far-sighted.
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in
the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath
Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim
rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there
would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the
fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged
the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the
latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his
military commander-in- chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a
competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one
should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded.
In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus
held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even
questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high
offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the
dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in
right positions."
During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant
Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy,
and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the
highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya
Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of
two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh,
Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would
he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the
military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where
Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had
fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had
148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact
is somewhat less known.
Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu
Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be
a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to
impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in
religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To
you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a
learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do
things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.
Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya
(Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states:
"If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques,
there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the
contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support
thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for
these land grants are still extant."
A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north
of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor
himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites
in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those
sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not
a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu
religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured
India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every
one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition of the jizya tax which had
drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was
lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later
reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or
taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing
more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim
male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the
defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who
volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and
neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment
of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the
life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the
government failed to protect its
citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10%
of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some
wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah,
fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a
matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of
non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes,
although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration,
Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that
during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were
abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from
the state treasury.
While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and
historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set
the record straight.
Allah Knows Best
Adil Naveed
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^
Try the new Yahoo! India Homepage. Click here. http://in.yahoo.com/trynew
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
