Kpry

7 AURANGZEB'S RELIGIOUS POLICY

Q- How far did Aurangzeb follow an extremely orthodox religinus policy?

Ans:
Not. many historical figures have aroused as many emotive react ions as
Aurangzeb. AfterAkber, he is perhaps the only Mughal emperor or whom
historians have Conducted extensive studies. Some historianS have
regarded the accession of Aurangzeb as the triumph of Muslim orthhodoxy.
However, no fhistorian has managed to analyze lhim in a neutrattight. and
some element of bias aiways creeps in. The notion generatly held is that
hewas a religious bigot and scholars likeN' Sarkartt-SR-Sharma arcuse
h i m of attempting to establish a theocratic state based on thepincipie of
o the 'shariat._ They, quote examples of destruction of tempies,
ímposition of jiziyah', non-inclusion of Hirdus in Imperial services,
discrimnatory regulations against non-/Auslims and general persecution of
thesame, a_ measures directed towards establishing an Islamic state in
India. But, the place & the role that are to be assigned t oreligion in
history, especially determining the content & pace of social change, are
Issyes
5 maRK on which hËstorians differ. Thus, another group of historians. led by
Satish Chandra &Athar Alisuggest that the religious overtones of,
Aurangzeb's measures were necessitated by social & political factors and
do not/signify any attempt to establish an Islamic State in "ndia
Scholars have postulated that all acts of Aurangzeb in pursuance of his
SO-called religious policy were motivated soleiy by his strici udiererncs to
the slhariat'. uch a view stems Out otthe assumption that the religious
policy of the Mughals was largely a reflection of their pérennial religious
Viewsandthat the political, social & cultural factors, at best, played of
a

new phase
marginal role. Thus, to say that Aurangzeb inaugurated a
Muslim orthodoxy would be factually incorrect, aince he followed a policy
his predecessors, however a bit more rigidly. To understand
as
set downby
to ciscusSs the fmotives-that
..to why policy became harsher, we have
his
a economic scenanio in whích
speJwee in hismind and also the socio-political
he was operating.
 InUN Sarkar'stopinion, Aurangzeb's
the war of suCcession_itself and religious policy had iis beginning in
'jiziyah' and hi attempt to annex whiehwas climaxed by re imposition of
Marwar & subdue Mewar. )
The war
whom
was
fought duning the reign of Shahjahan again'st
Aurangzeb considered a religious heretic. To
Dara_Shikoh
by proclaiming himself as a defender of the give himself
draw away attention from a faithful, Aurangzeblegitimacy
made an excuse. purely political event. Dara Shikoh hoped to
Seeing the course of the was, thus
himself as the "champion war, Aurangzeb proiected
Shikoh who was supposediyofthe orthodoxy"- protestor of islam as against Dara
that his
religíous "champion of líberalism". But, the very fact
orthodoxy was not
support he received from a large taken very seriously was proved by the
part of Rajput nobles. This
-up-byJN Sarkarand is supported bySR views taken
Another plausible
argument
Sharma a Prasad.
myth of 'religious orthodoxy' put forward byAthar Alil which shattcrs
was
the
knew that he lhad come to the throne in Aurangzeb's problem of legitimacy. He
therefore ensure the support of the
to exceptional circumstances and
act of a Muslim powerful nobility, he donned the
_orthodox. 1 was an example of using religion for purely
political needs.
(Athar Ali & S. "Mcosvi|explain the accusation that
discriminatory policy as resultant of political & econoric Aurangzeb followed a
to Moosvi, the inbuilt nature of the crisis. According
of the peasantry. jagirdari system led to the. exploitation
After 1670, the empire started stabilizing and
had to start reducing
the ranks of the nobiity.The most obvious Aurangzeb
were the Rajputs who had-been
the staunchest allies of the
choice
whose support he waS always a_sured of. They were the Mughals and
nobility-he could diseriminate against.'Also, the support only part of the
of-the-Marathas
and Muslims was crucial for the
empireAthar Alisays that
durning the war of suCcession and madereligion
an important issue was not

analysis of the nobles ot opposite sides. He a

quantitative
there was only a marginal difference in came to the Conc.usion that
the ratio of
opposite sides. Moreover, his cordial relations with Rajputs,non-Musli on
recruitment of
non- Muslims and land
grants for Hindus counter the proposition that his
accéssion meant the triumph of
For a proper analysis orthodoxy.) )
of Aurangzeb's religious policy, it has been divided
into tivo phases;
1658-1679 and 1679-1707. It was in the first half of his
reign that Aurangzeb followed-a-vigorous-policy
of persecution against the-
non-Muslims Jt was probably in this pericd that JN Sarkar)concentrated
 and described his measures as
islamic state in India. 'insidious' attempt to establish and
an
ruld a kaen in bgliyt
UNDay & Athar Aliopine that his measures were of
the nature of ihe
circumstances in which he took the throne ard the situation
upon to handte. he was called
Aurangzeb did not try to change the nature of the state but
reasserted its Islamic character. He took vanOus only
direction. measures in this
Though the
policy of inducting Hindu chiefs continued under him, the
disurimination against them, especially the Rajputs, increased as years
went by. Athar Ali
lin a detailed study showed that the number of
nobles delined fföm 14.6% (1658-78) to 12.6% (1679-1707). HoweverRajput
there
are no indications of
Aurangzeb having annexed any Rajput kingdom,and
i s potty uí discrimintion was soSuRtte that it was untikety to to be
be
oticed C t was
Yet what
emerged as being very creative was 'the change in spirit in
Aurangzeb's Hindu policy: For him, unlike Akbar, it became a matter of
policy to induct Rajput chiefs. He definitely did not consider them at par
with Muslim nobles, a fact he has
repeatedly mentioned in his letters.
In-1671, an order ('farman'), was passed by which all petty revenue
officials (Hindus), 'peshkars' (lerks) and "diwans' (accountants) were
replaced by Muslims. Already in 'the_1660s, the custom duties on goods
were doubled for Hindu merchantsAthar Ali| points out that during
Aurangzeb's réign, the percentage of Hindumansabdars was 21.6% tn the
-

first phase and 33.7 % in the second phase as compared to 22.5 % during
Akbar's reign. Theirincusion was a part of potticat exnediency, thus it
---

would not be correct to say that Aurangzeb discriminated against

Muslims by not including them in the imperial aervices.)

The most important act was, no doubt, the re-imposition of the

jiziyah'in 1679. All Hindus resented this step as it had been earlier
abolished during Akbar's reign (1564). There were two main objections to
this tax: first, that it was a symbol of inferiority & meant a punishment to0
non-Muslims for not accepting Islam and second, that it was a regressive
tax. The question that anises is as-to why he levied tthe tax at all when the
Hindu
Rajputs wielded the sword side by 'side with the Mughals and the
soldiers fought the itfpeiialbattte in comradeship with the Muslims.
 7(YFarooqui&Quereshbasically represent this step as a resutt of
growing spint & militant.oppresSiOn to the empire among Hindus.Themas
ollisays that the re-imposition was the result of economic necéssTty and
had been keen to effect the
Uhe need to Convert Hindus. If Aurangzeb
forcible conversion oí the Hindus, asiSarkar believed, he might have
attempted it in of the newly conquered territories n the Deccan: But
some

there is no evidence of any such attempt. This is further proved by the

fact that state servants were exempted from payment of the jiziyah. The
economic motive behind the tax is quite tenable, as the impact it had on
the impenal treasury ultimately led to its complete drainage due to the
long campaigns of Aurangzeb.js. Chandra ladds that the revénue yielded
by jiziyah' was not enough tO affect the financial crisis that had aisen
due to abolition of about eighty types of taxes, an action that tiad
ultimnately affected the state exchequer (Manucci").

It has been contended that if Aurangzeb was guided by religious motives

then why did it take him 22 years to re-impose 'jiziyah'. Thandra argues
that his decision was borne out of a despairing politicai crisis, which in
Aurangzeb's'reign had been brOLugii-üut by the "disloyaltyof the
dominant section of the Rajputs and gaining_power of the Marathas who
were constantly threatening to Overwhelm the Deccani states and thus
endanger the stability of -the empieThe re-impasition of the jiziyah',
was an attempt on Aurangzeb's part to rally Mustim opinion behind him.
He further argues that this action has to be seen in the context of aCute
unemployment among the theological classes. Moreover, for the orthodox
clergy, jiziyah' was additional reyenue for employment.)

Also important vwere-the changes.in .the Mughal court where we notice

the gradual-Islamization of court functions & rituals. In 1659, the practice
of inscibing "kalma' on coins was discontinued, a nar_one substituted
thesólar calendar; 'jharokha-darshan was abolished as it was considered

a Hindu tradition. In. the same ycar the Parsi festival of "Navroz was
banned since Aurangzeb considered a part of an infidel 'relígion. The
tradition of weighing the emperor with money (Tuladan') was also
banned along with the cultivation of bhang. In 1659, a 'muhtasib' was
Islamic
appointed to see that the lives of the Muslims conformed to
or poetry.
principles. Aurangzeb did not patronize musiC, dance, paînting
Old mosques & monasteries were repaired & made new; the practice of
tilak_was given up and were granted daily allowances. These
students.

13 sels
 measure, however, were moral & puritanical in nature and not religious a5
accused by ISarka. Also these were a part of attempts made by Aurangzeb
to assert the lslamic character of the state in the initial years to legitimize
his accession, which W2s being questioned by the orthodoxy...Religious
terminology may have been used due to Aurangzeb's inherent orthodox
nature or to get support of th2 ulema Mystic people. Further, these
measures should be regarded as austerity measures as the Mughal state
was facing financial crisis and needed to cut down expenses.
Writers ike GRe
Writers tike Sarka have argued that Aurangzèb followed a 'systemat ic
and 'planried' way.of destroying temples, that too in accordance with the
shariat', whose poticy on the temples was: "no new temples/buitdings to
be built in opposition to Islam.. and ".old temples could be repaired and
should not be destroyed.."Chandra says that "Aurangzeh's attitude
towards Hindu temples of old standing varied from time to time according
to circumstances, i.e. political exigencies...the basic trerd was cefinitely
in thie direction of greater laxity.
n 1669, Aurangzeb, isSued orders, according to Mcasir-i-Alamg1ri of
Müstaid Khan. to all the governors to demolish the schocts & temples of
Even in his
the infidela and strongly put down their teachings & practices.
of an
Benaras FarmarD of 1652, Aurangzeb while acknowledging the duty to
made it clear that no new temples were
emperor tofoster all religions,
due to their gecigraphical
be built. Some temples were in fact destroyed
the south. e.g. The
nature/that °hindered Aurangzeb's expansion in
Ekarath Bhugah' templeat Sirhind. a farman addressed by
Hówever the Asiatic Society of Bengal publishedThis reveals Aurangzeb's
the emperor to Abu'l Hasan, governor of Benaras.
of his Hindu subjects. Abu'l Hasan is told
care& concern for the weti beiig
but at the same to ailow
time, not anynew
not to destroy local temples no person should interfere with
the
temples to come up. It also states that that
Brahmanas & Hindus in an unlawful manner. This proves
affairs of the
no wanton destruction of temples and only political
there was
circumstances determined
his actions. During wars, the cases of temple
dramatically. During these periods, .it became a
destruction increased was completely ignored.
Political ends
mater of policy änd the 'shariat 1680, _63
considerations. For example, in February
over-rode religious TSarkar's_argument,
destroyed in Chittor itself. Thus,
temples were an order for for general
followed byS R Sharma that Aurangzeb issued order
an
has not been accepted
as no copy of such
destruction of temples
 orrho aox / n d o s Aurangzeb
found to sho that
have been places
But
evidences
favours to no1-Muslini
otier
found. and temple 2t
has been out land
grantsS
the "Vishwanath"
like
continued
to give
of temples exaraple of his
XDestruction
etc can simply be an
worship. Mathura
of "Kishan Rai" at
Benaras,
'shariat
orthodoxy tried to foliow the
of HindUs, as 5arkar
Aurangzeb
theçonversions
went, conversion

Asfar as to effect
the forcible
attempt in any
of the newl
kéen suck
too.He was is no
e v i d e n c e of any
Conversions
became a
political
there
b e l i e v e d . But
were

But again, during war, o t h e r . r e i i g i o n s to Islam

terntories. from. punished
acquired Converts
were often
local rebels. other religions
tool to subvert Muslim
c o n v e r t s to

w e l c o m e d although were
with politics
mixing religion
harshly. of
Jahangir. in  u r a n g z e b ' S
right from
i n c r e a s i n g i n c i d e n t s

The
The
had been growing extremely great.
that acts w a s to
phenomena
to justify political shrewd enough
religion but he was
u s e of personally
case, the an
orthodox collapse. would
have been the empire
He may support, m a n y : t e m p l e s A U r a n g z e b

realize hat without Rajput destruction of

new policy that
the not a
-of ordering shrines. It was
o f his
Also, inispite Hindu
other the policies
Continued to patronize a
continuation of
but
was
following
tone.
Aurangzeb intensive
a harsh
&
in be explained
orthódoxy coyld
predecessors

growing évén-thöugh
that
Aurangzeb's
We also; notice
tl;at
w e notice factors. was always
Thus, &
economic 'sulh-i-kul"
political in public life,
the mantle
with purely orthodox, made him don the
that "triumph
"triünph
political factors a c c e s s i o n meant the
personaily*
he w a s mainly
it w a s that his "shanat"
was

Thus, to say the

maintained.

correct.; If,
irlamic orthodoxy.
'shanat,
be entirely
would not
saine
of it was the
with
orthodoxy" orthodoxy, dealing
of Muslim (terròr) in
Muslim
of
the symbol of 'siyasat" Muslim
Muslim
taken to be s y m b o l .of-
the use of-
vith
takei. as*the
away asthe-symbol
him to do one of
which led see as
was.
the 'shariat' should also, be continued the
And: if
offences. of Shahjahan A u r a n g z e b . m e r e l y
then the reign. Islam as reign was
a
orthodoxy, for Aurangzeb's
and triumph said is that its
religious bigotry What can be orthodoxy but not
his
ancestors.
of Islamic of
extremne
policies of culmination
the blockage
towards the logica! policies
his
and
step within light.
contradictions moderate
zenith. The in a moie
place his policy
Muslim orthodoxy

-N-