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.
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. NE
RE:THE LIES AGAINST THE MUGHAL EMPEROR AURNAGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 03:30 AM 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:THE LIES AGAINST THE MUGHAL EMPEROR AURNAGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 04:04 AM Permalink
I just realized that 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 reimposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or atleast get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
RE:THE LIES AGAINST THE MUGHAL EMPEROR AURNAGZEB
by VIJAYA BUDDHIRAJU on Mar 11, 2007 08:24 AM Permalink
This Mike Gandhi writes absolute nonsense. For him Yahhya Khan who raped and plundered the Bangali Hindus followed by muslims was a kind hearted fellow who had no other choice but to rape them for their own good. Super trash of Mr. Gandhi should be kept in his attik for his grnad kids to perpetrate lies. Vijaya Kumar
