India has long been renowned for its religious diversity and the harmonious blending of different cultures. Dargahs, Sufi saint festivals, fir celebrations, and places like Velankanni exemplify the synergy among Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, where people have lived with mutual cooperation and tolerance. Recently, however, Hindutva forces have been systematically attempting to dismantle this harmony, fostering enmity between communities.
Sufi dargahs, such as Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti’s in Ajmer and Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya’s in Delhi, are visited by both Hindus and Muslims, serving as meeting points for these faiths. Yet, we are witnessing efforts to destroy this tolerance. Reports of attacks on churches and Christian believers have appeared in newspapers. Traditionally, Bahujans have practiced visiting mosques for tayattu (amulets) during illness or inviting church priests for prayers at home. Today, certain groups are instilling fear to prevent such interfaith interactions, part of a conspiracy to sow discord and divide people.
Moreover, some portray Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb as cruel tyrants, selectively highlighting incidents from his reign, embellishing them with fabrications, and spreading misinformation. These tactics aim to divide communities and incite hatred.
Aurangzeb, the sixth Mughal emperor, ruled for nearly 50 years. Some claim he massacred millions of Hindus and destroyed thousands of temples, but these assertions lack credible historical evidence.
When asked why they vilify Aurangzeb, Hindutva advocates often cite his execution of his brothers and sons and the imposition of the jizya tax on Hindus. Beyond these, they offer little else to substantiate their criticism.
Eliminating rivals to secure power was common in monarchical systems, practiced not only by Aurangzeb but also by other Mughal rulers like Babur, Humayun, Akbar, and Shah Jahan. Political strategists note this was done to prevent civil wars, rebellions, and instability.
The jizya tax, levied on non-Muslims for state protection, religious freedom, and exemption from military service, was in place since Alauddin Khilji’s time (1296–1316). Akbar abolished it in 1564, but Aurangzeb reinstated it in 1678 for economic reasons. Women, children, the elderly, the poor, ascetics, beggars, the mentally ill, and Brahmins (upon request) were exempt. Meanwhile, Muslims paid the zakat (alms tax). In medieval Europe, taxes like chevage and payments to avoid pogroms served similar purposes. The jizya contributed only 1% to the treasury’s revenue.
Due to biased propaganda, Aurangzeb’s administrative reforms have been overshadowed. For instance, he abolished around 80 taxes, including the pilgrim tax (ziyarat), transit tax (rahdari), market tax (pandari), professional tax, and marriage tax. He held daily darbar sessions to resolve public grievances on the spot. A Wikipedia map, “The Mughal Empire at its height 1707,” shows that 90% of what we consider “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India) was unified under Aurangzeb’s rule.
Aurangzeb abstained from alcohol and opium, banning them in his court and kingdom. He rejected the lavish lifestyle typical of emperors, earning his living by copying the Quran and refusing to draw personal expenses from the treasury.
Aurangzeb died on March 23, 1707, in Maharashtra. Per his wishes, he was buried simply beside his Sufi mentor, Sayyad Zainoddin Shiraizi, in a modest tomb. He famously said, “I came here as a nameless man, and I depart as a nameless man.” Compared to the grand tombs of Humayun and Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb’s remains unassuming, later adorned with marble by British Viceroy Lord Curzon.
Three centuries after his death, Aurangzeb remains a political tool, exploited to garner votes.
Recently, I watched a YouTube video by Dr. Ram Puniyani, who mentioned that Aurangzeb demolished 12 temples and a few mosques for political reasons but supported the construction and maintenance of over 100 Hindu temples, as documented by Dr. B.N. Pande in his book Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan: Evaluation of Their Religious Policies (1996). Scholars like Audrey Truschke and Richard M. Eaton have frequently cited Pande’s findings.
Pande’s book demonstrates, with evidence, that Aurangzeb maintained religious neutrality and provided financial aid to numerous Hindu temples and monasteries. The following section is a summarized adaptation of Pande’s chapter on Aurangzeb’s religious policies, written in the first person, not a verbatim translation. For further details, refer to Pande’s book (linked in the original).
What struck me most was a recurring phrase in Aurangzeb’s farmans (royal decrees) to Hindus: “They should pray to God for the empire’s eternity.” This suggests he harbored no animosity toward Hindu deities.
The notion that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu is a creation of biased scholars. His brother Dara Shikoh, who studied Sanskrit with scholars and translated the Upanishads and other texts, was favored by these scholars, who likely saw him as a ruler who would advance their interests. Aurangzeb, disapproving of this, eliminated Dara and distanced scholars by banning poets and artists from his court. This explains the enduring resentment against him. (See my blog: “Mughal Rulers and Sanskrit Scholars.”)
It is time to set aside this propaganda and reassess Aurangzeb from a historical perspective.
Aurangzeb’s Religious Policy: A Summarized Adaptation of Dr. B.N. Pande’s Work
Between 1948 and 1953, as chairman of the Allahabad Municipality, I encountered a dakhil kharij (mutation) case involving a property dispute linked to the Someshwar Nath Mahadev Temple at the Ganga-Yamuna confluence. After the temple’s mahant (head priest) died, two claimants emerged. One presented inherited documents—farmans issued by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb—stating that Aurangzeb had granted the temple a jagir (land) and cash. I was stunned and skeptical, suspecting forgery.
How could Aurangzeb, infamous for destroying idols, grant land for a Hindu temple’s rituals and support idol worship? Doubting the documents’ authenticity, I consulted Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a renowned scholar of Persian and Arabic. After careful examination, Sapru confirmed the farmans were genuine. He then instructed his assistant to retrieve files from a pending case at the Allahabad High Court involving Varanasi’s Jangambadi Shiva Temple, which also held Aurangzeb’s farmans.
This revelation reshaped my view of Aurangzeb’s character. On Sapru’s advice, I wrote to mahants of major Indian temples, requesting photocopies of any Aurangzeb-issued farmans. The response was astonishing. Copies arrived from Mahakaleshwar Temple (Ujjain), Balaji Temple (Chitrakoot), Umanand Temple (Guwahati), Shatrunjaya Jain Temples, and numerous other temples and gurdwaras in North India, issued between 1659 and 1685 CE.
These examples, though limited, showed that historians’ portrayals of Aurangzeb were partial and one-sided. India is vast, with thousands of temples. Further research would likely uncover more evidence of Aurangzeb’s generosity toward Hindus.
While researching these farmans, I met historians like Shri Gyan Chand and Dr. P.L. Gupta, former curator of the Patna Museum, who were also studying Aurangzeb’s history. Their efforts to uncover the truth were heartening, as biased historians have depicted Mughal rule as exclusively Muslim, framing Aurangzeb as a cruel Muslim ruler. A poet once lamented:
“Tumhein lekh ke saari dastaan mein yaad hai itna; ke Alamgir Hindu-kush tha, zalim tha, sitamgar tha…”
(When speaking of a thousand years of Muslim rule in India, they remember only this: Alamgir [Aurangzeb] was a Hindu-killer, a tyrant, a merciless ruler!)
Among the farmans cited to label Aurangzeb anti-Hindu is the famous “Banaras Farman,” issued to a Brahmin family in Varanasi’s Mohalla Gauri. Presented in a 1905 dispute before a city magistrate and published in 1911 in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, it has been frequently referenced. Issued on March 10, 1659, to a local official, it responded to a Brahmin’s complaint about harassment at his temple. The farman stated: “Old temples should not be demolished, and new temples should not be built.” Crucially, it emphasized protecting Hindus from harm and ensuring they could live peacefully, praying for the empire’s continuity.
Clearly, this farman was not issued to persecute Hindus but to uphold existing norms while prioritizing their safety. Another Banaras farman reinforces this:
“Maharaj Dhiraj Raja Ram Singh (Banaras) gifted a building constructed by his father to Guru Bhagwat Gosai for residence, but some are harassing him. Protect their rights.” Aurangzeb ordered officials to ensure this.
Other farmans exist. When Jangams (Shaivite ascetics) complained that Muslims had occupied the Jangambadi Math, Aurangzeb ordered an investigation, directing that guilty Muslims be removed and punished. These farmans show Aurangzeb issuing special orders to protect Hindu rights.
This evidence suggests that labeling Aurangzeb solely as an anti-Hindu ruler is misleading. He demonstrably ensured justice for Hindus and protected their temples. Bringing such truths to light is essential.
The farman also reveals Aurangzeb’s impartiality in distributing nisar (monetary aid) to Hindu ascetics. He personally donated 178 bighas (110 acres) to Jangams, as evidenced by a farman issued on April 29, 1661 CE:
“To all present and future officials of Pargana Haveli, Banaras (Subah Allahabad)… By the emperor’s order, 178 bighas of land in Banaras Pargana are allocated for the Jangams’ livelihood. No one else has rights to it. Their rights are confirmed, and as they are alive and using the land, we reassign it to them as a gift, declaring it tax-free for them and their heirs to use perpetually. They should pray to God for the empire’s eternity.”
Another farman from 1687 CE shows Aurangzeb granting land to a Hindu guru in Banaras:
“At this auspicious time, a farman is issued. A plot measuring 5.8 dira near Benimadho Ghat on the Ganga in Banaras, lying vacant under Baitul Mal (state treasury), is granted as inam land to Ram Jeevan Gosain and his son. Holy Brahmins and devotees should use it to build residences, engage in divine meditation, and pray for the empire’s eternity. Our sons, ministers, umara, darbar officials, and kotwals—present and future—must diligently enforce this farman. The land remains under the grantee and his heirs, exempt from all taxes and fees, without requiring a new sanad annually.”
Aurangzeb’s respect for his subjects’ religious sentiments is evident in a farman issued in his ninth regnal year to Sudaman Brahmin, priest of Umanand Temple in Guwahati. Previous Hindu rulers in Assam had granted the temple and its priest land and forest revenue. After conquering Assam, Aurangzeb restored these rights, issuing a farman to ensure the temple’s land and income:
“To all ryots in Pata Bengesar village, Pargana Pandu, under Sarkar Dakshin… 2½ biswa of land from the village sakara, yielding 30 rupees, was allocated to Sudaman and his son Umanand for temple priesthood under past rulers. Their rights are confirmed, and we reassign the land and income to them. Officials must keep it under their permanent control for enjoyment. They should pray for the empire’s eternity. No taxes or fees should be imposed, and no new sanad should be required annually. Issued on 2nd Safar, 9th regnal year (August 20, 1666 CE).”
Aurangzeb’s tolerance is further supported by claims from Mahakaleshwar Temple priests in Ujjain, a major Shiva temple. They state that four sher of ghee were supplied for its perpetual lamp, a tradition upheld during Mughal rule, including under Aurangzeb. While no official Mughal decree confirms this, priests cite a 1651 CE order by Murad Bakhsh during Shah Jahan’s reign. Historian Hakim Muhammad Mehdi verified this after examining old records, confirming the tehsildar was to supply four sher of Akbari ghee. This order was recopied in 1740, 92 years later.
These facts challenge the narrative that Aurangzeb was wholly anti-Hindu. He protected many temples, respected Hindu priests, and allocated land for their sustenance. Mughal history must be examined holistically, not through a single lens.
Additional royal documents preserved by Mahant Lakshmi Narayan revealed more from Aurangzeb’s era. Historians often highlight the demolition of Ahmedabad’s Chintamani Temple, built by the city’s seth. Yet, they ignore that Aurangzeb granted land to the same seth for Shatrunjaya and Abu temples.
A sanad for Shatrunjaya Temple states:
“To Satidas, a jeweler, land in Shatrunjaya (under Sorath Sarkar, Palitana district) is permanently granted. Future administrators must strictly enforce this farman, and no new sanad is required annually.”
Another grant rewarded the seth for services:
“Santidas Jawhari, of the Shravak community, for his exceptional services, is granted Palitana village, Shatrunjaya Hill, its temple, and rights to use its timber freely. Similarly, Girnar Hill in Junagadh and Abu Hill under Sirohi are gifted to the Shravak community. No one should interfere, and violators will face divine wrath.”
Viswanath Temple Demolition & Golconda Mosque Destruction:
While stationed in Varanasi, Hindu kings requested to perform rituals at the Viswanath Temple. A crisis erupted when a queen disappeared there. Aurangzeb’s investigation revealed she was hidden in a secret tunnel behind a Ganesha idol, part of an abduction plot. As punishment, he ordered the temple’s complete demolition.
In Golconda, the ruler refused to pay tribute. Aurangzeb invaded, seized the treasury, and demolished a mosque there.
These incidents demonstrate Aurangzeb’s impartiality, treating temples and mosques equally under the law.
Bishambhar Nath Pande (December 23, 1906 – June 1, 1998) was a freedom fighter, social worker, and Indian parliamentarian. Pande dedicated his life to national integration and advancing Gandhian principles. His passion for history led him to promote communal harmony in India with historical evidence.
Conclusion
Aurangzeb’s religious policy reveals a complex ruler who balanced governance with respect for diverse faiths. While propaganda paints him as a Hindu-hating tyrant, evidence from farmans and historical records shows he supported Hindu temples, protected priests, and upheld justice. His demolitions, like those of the Viswanath Temple and Golconda mosque, were driven by specific violations, not religious bias. A nuanced understanding of Mughal history is crucial to counter divisive narratives and foster unity.
By Bolloju Baba
March, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment