A critical look at criticisms lobbied against Hazrat Aurangzeb from a post by Aryan Khan:
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 ofthe 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.