I would also like to state here that before the advent of Islam in India, Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith) War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers. Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy)
Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration," Sir Jadunath Sarkar3, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb%u2019s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
I could see how even fair-minded individuals like Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen may have been deceived by the deadly venoms of dishonest, prejudiced historians whose sole aim has been to smear Muslim history. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous - more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims. Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to "neatly divide our world." Let truth vanquish falsehood.
1 For example, see Shri Binoy Ghosh%u2019s Bharatjaner Etihash (Bengali for: History of Indian People), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
2 Quoted in Chepe Rakha Itihash (The History %u2013 Hushed Up) by G. A. Murtaza, Barddhaman, India.
3 He demonstrated his vast knowledge of Persian-language (the official language during the Mughal period) sources. However, he was a Euro-centric historian and thus, not flawless in historical accounts. He served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT AURANGZEB
by JAIKRISHNA BHAT on Mar 31, 2007 06:26 PM Permalink
Dear Mr. Francois, if you happen to know a writer by name Mr.S.L.Bhyrappa, who writes in Kannada (his works are translated in to many languages) has recently written a book (published in Feb'07) about Aurangazeb and his atrocities, the name of the book is "Awarana" roughly translated - Coverup, (or how during solar eclipse sun is covered by moon, and we end up seeing only moon as there is no sun to be seen)the same case with our Indian History, where most of the time we read or rather end up reading whatever our (pseudo)secular (pseudo)intelligentia wants us to read by covering whatever is the fact! along with Mr. Bhyrappa, you have done a fantastic job.
By your logic all able-bodied muslims in india should also pay a war tax as muslims are creating all the wars in india. whether it was 92 riots or burning of trains, everywhere muslims are involved. they are doing terrorism in jammu and kashmir. they are supporting bangladesh and pakistan. so all muslims must collectively bear the cost of war on india by muslims
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb%u2019s imposition of 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%u2019s 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 while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. Zakat (2.5% of savings) and %u2018Ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT AURANGZEB
by Aniruddha Kaul on Mar 28, 2007 06:56 PM Permalink
By your logic all able-bodied muslims in india should also pay a war tax as muslims are creating all the wars in india. whether it was 92 riots or burning of trains, everywhere muslims are involved. they are doing terrorism in jammu and kashmir. they are supporting bangladesh and pakistan. so all muslims must collectively bear the cost of war on india by muslims
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT AURANGZEB
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 29, 2007 10:20 PM Permalink
. Non-believers are called Dhimmis in Muslim States. The Non-Muslims have to pay levy, tax or Jizya.
2. The Non-Muslims Young Man who are eligible to pay not serving in the Army. The Old, Woman, children exempted.
3. This is not paid as bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the Army.
4. The Muslim Government responsible for their protection by all means from crusading armies, tribal or communal warfare.
5. The special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat 2.5 percent.
6. All eligible Muslims have to pay zakat 2.5 percent.
7. All Muslims and Dhimmis have to pay Zakat on Farming 10 percent if the production is more than the Nisab(fixed amount decided by the Economist) or the person is eligible.
8. The Zakat is must for Muslims also some western writer miss-informed. Our First Caliph Abu Baker Siddiq R.A. Said if any body is not giving Zakat take by anyway if its war. So-called journalists scream that the Jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the Zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.
FOR YOU KIND INFORMATION. We Muslims are ready to pay Jizya 2.5% and we will not pay house tax, land tax, income tax, sales tax and other taxes.
We are ready to join Police, Army and Air force give us chance and the Jobs.
The Government should give us Guarantee to protect from the Communal and other warfare%u2019s and genocides.
Today we are paying hell of taxes directly and indirectly and the fools still talk about the Jizya and other things. You people must understand this is all Propaganda against Islam. This already gave Islam a boost from West to East and North to South people reading about Islam and coming into the fold of Islam.
Muslim historians supporting aurangzeb have distorted history and created their own versions. it is well-known that islam has spread as much by lies, deceits and manipulation as by sword
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%u2019an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur%u2019an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Unbelievers) 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 which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur%u2019an. Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history text book, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal, published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, 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%u2019s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same text book reads: "During the 50-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%u2019s 50-year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
These above references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.
It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee2 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%u2019s long reign of 50 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, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, in Aurangzeb%u2019s administration 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 14 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. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148. But when truth is hostage to bigotry, facts are substituted for fiction, 148 may appear to be smaller than 14 to disingenuous historians, and that is an unfortunate reality we face.
In a polarized world that we live in (which is, sadly, getting ever more polarized now by every minute and hour), we have often assumed that what is good for "our" people had to be bad for the "other" people. A glaring example is the personality of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who ruled India for 50 years. Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 C.E., probably no one generates as much controversy as Aurangzeb. He has been hailed as anyone from a "Saintly or Pauper Emperor" to one who "tried hard to convert Hindus into Muslims." Depending on one%u2019s religious rearing, one will favor one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious Muslim, who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them away from high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted ruler. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government-approved text books in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947) is sufficient.1 The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records.
There is no need to dwell in history in search of aurangzeb. there are plenty of modern ones.
Team of jihadis
by Anthony Joseph on Mar 28, 2007 06:20 PM | Hide replies
Musharraf's pakistan cricket team is also full of jihadis led by teh murderous aloo. the beasts even brutally killed their christian coach bob woolmer. yusuf youhana, the only christian in the team was harassed into accepting islam. probably he knew how pakistan is treating christians and thus he had to convert
RE:modern aurangzebs
by sania on Mar 28, 2007 07:09 PM Permalink
its a waste telling anything to a muslim.. becuz even if they are educated they act like illiterates.. only the illiterates think they r right all the time...
