The late scholar and historian, Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande%u2019s research efforts exploded myths on Aurangzeb%u2019s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to teach us if only we study it dispassionately
The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1,000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus %u201Chad not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?%u201D Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight%u2013volume History of India from with contributions from British historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with %u2018Muhammedans%u2019, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.
However, the noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, who passed away in New Delhi on June 1, 1998, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was %u2018originally compiled by European writers%u2019 whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.
Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895%u201399 and Viceroy 1899%u20131904 (d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they should %u201Cso plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened%u201D.
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884%u201388), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the %u201Cdivision of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage%u201D, and that he expected %u201Csome good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material%u201D.
%u201CWe have maintained our power in India by playing%u2013off one part against the other%u201D, the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862%u201363), %u201Cand we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.%u201D
In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: %u201CThus under a definite policy the Indian history text%u2013books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no com
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:02 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and actively promoted forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. By passing discriminatory laws based on the Shariat he created the conditions for his administrators to actively pursue his forced conversion agenda. He didn't go from house to house to convert people he didn't need to his job was to create the conditions within which he plan would be implemented, thats what rulers do.
e.g.,
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Surat in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself.
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor.. In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over the rivals. Pragana headmen and qanungos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert.
Regarding Hindus serving for Mughal emperors especially Aurangzeb. These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
From: "Mughal warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire 1500-1700" by Jos J. L. Gommans. Page 40.
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:05 PM Permalink
The Jaziyah argument cuts both ways, if as the author claims that it's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay for not joining the army, then that forces the poorer sections of society to convert or join the arm y therefore inflating the Hindu numbers in the army. This conclusively proves that the whole aim of Aurangzeb's re imposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or at least get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
