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.
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.
Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:26 PM Permalink
I am really touched by seeing your love and earnesty towards Aurangzeb, the Great(?) Until reading your comments, I did not know that the Islamic rulers (Aurangzeb being their pinnacle), were so loving and pious ones. I guess, they invaded India, for the well-being of the Natives itself!!! I have been hearing about countless genocides, plunders, ransacks done by Aurangzeb & co. But now I must trust that it was a false propaganda by some Hindu fanatics, isnt it? What is popularly known about Aurangzeb - razing the Kashi-vishweshwar temple, killing his own father and brother - Dara Shukoh must be totally false! There must have been some Hindu fanatic organization in those days also, who must have created this propaganda to defame, the holy Aurangzeb. isnt it?
He had lot of Hindu officials in his court, that shows his love to the natives. I had heard that when he used to set his Hindu generals on campaign, he made sure that another Muslim general will accompany him, since Aurangzeb never believed the Kafirs. But now I guess, he must be doing it in order to set the communal harmony between the Hindu's and Muslims.
I had also heard, that Aurganzeb's general (the highest military rank) Mirza Raja Jaysing (note - A Hindu !!!!) underwent slow poisoning by the Emperor, because he suspected his general would become too powerful for him. But now I dont have any doubt that he (and his likes) must have died natural deaths, and some anti-social elements of those times allegated
Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:38 PM Permalink
Sons of Aurangzeb - Akbar and Muajjam revolted against him - such a saintly figure. Aurangzeb himself was afraid of getting assassinated by his sons (as he had done same unto his father and brothers). For this reason, he used to always keep them as governors of some remote areas. As per the tradition of Islamic rulers, his sons started waiting/planning for their fathers death (correction in your post, you call this the Indian way that princes fight and kill each other after their kings death. I am ashamed to see a fellow indian quoting that "People kill their own family members for a piece or land or other property dispustes in India" - while this kind of activity was privilage of Islamic rulers in India). Well, so coming back to the point, I do not understand why sons of Aurangzeb could never understand the glory and saintlyhood of their father, and rather tried to revolt against him. The poor, helpless father then had to set some trecherous plots to leave them helpless, such that one of his Sons - Akbar - had to finally abscond to Iran.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:46 PM Permalink
Finally, the cruel assassination of Sambhaji (son of Shivaji). Sambhaji was first asked for getting converted to Islam - and he would be spared his life. Upon not submitting to this, his eyes were taken off, then tounge and finally faced a terrible death. But after reading your article, I see something is missing here. Aurangzeb, himself being so secular cannot do this. Had he been present at the scene, I am sure he would have stood in the way of Mughal soldiers, saying first kill me and then touch Sambhaji. Isnt it???
I think in coming days I will be able to read similar arguments - saying Britishes never did Jaliyanwala - for they had so many % of Indian people serving in their empire. (From %age, got an interesting thought - I never knew Shah-jahan and Aurangzeb too were management gurus - to watch their annual performances on the basis of %age of statastics!!!)
Re: Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:45 PM Permalink
Finally, the cruel assassination of Sambhaji (son of Shivaji). Sambhaji was first asked for getting converted to Islam - and he would be spared his life. Upon not submitting to this, his eyes were taken off, then tounge and finally faced a terrible death. But after reading your article, I see something is missing here. Aurangzeb, himself being so secular cannot do this. Had he been present at the scene, I am sure he would have stood in the way of Mughal soldiers, saying first kill me and then touch Sambhaji. Isnt it???
I think in coming days I will be able to read similar arguments - saying Britishes never did Jaliyanwala - for they had so many % of Indian people serving in their empire. (From %age, got an interesting thought - I never knew Shah-jahan and Aurangzeb too were management gurus - to watch their annual performances on the basis of %age of statastics!!!)
