Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies: A Critical study of Temple Destruction, Jaziyah, and Music | Study notes Indian History

AURANGZRB: RELIGIOUS POLICIES , TEMPLES DESTURCATION AND

MUSIC

Introduction

Aurangzeb is known as the last strong ruler of the Mughal Empire. He ruled from 1658 to

1707, and his time as emperor was full of controversies and debates. Under his rule, the

Mughal Empire became the biggest it had ever been, but after that, it also started to decline.

Aurangzeb became emperor while his father Shah Jahan was still alive. To take the throne, he

killed his brothers, which is called fratricide. In Indian history, Akbar is often seen as the

good ruler (hero) and Aurangzeb as the strict or harsh ruler (villain).

Aurangzeb had to fight his elder brother Dara Shikoh, who was supposed to become the next

emperor according to Mughal tradition. Their armies fought in the Battle of Samugarh, where

Aurangzeb won. People think Dara was more open-minded and kind, while Aurangzeb was

more strict and religious. But this war was not just about religion, because both Hindu and

Muslim rulers were present on both sides.

After winning, Aurangzeb went to Delhi and took control. His father, Shah Jahan, was put in

prison, but some sources say he was not treated badly. He lived for 8 more years in the

women’s section of the fort and was cared for by his daughter Jahanara.

This event began Aurangzeb’s long and debated rule. During his time, the Mughal Empire

reached its largest size—from Kashmir in the north to Jinji in the south, and from

Chittagong in the east to Hindukush in the west.

Aurangzeb ruled in a very personal and strict way. He followed a policy of expansion and

wanted to conquer more areas in the east, northeast, and south (Deccan). During his rule,

new powers like the Sikhs and Marathas became strong. It was also a time when many

religious and cultural movements were growing in India.

Historian Katherine Butler said that just hearing his name makes people think of religious and

political oppression, even without knowing the real facts.

This idea has been questioned by many modern historians like Satish Chandra, Richard Eaton,

Audrey Truschke, and others. They believe that Aurangzeb has often been shown unfairly or

misunderstood in history. Most history books blame him for the fall of the Mughal Empire.

But this essay will try to understand the truth about his policies—especially his actions related to

Jaziyah tax, music, and temple destruction—based on what these historians have written. It

will try to see whether he was really a religious extremist, or if that image is just the result of

biased or one-sided history.

Partial preview of the text

Download Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies: A Critical study of Temple Destruction, Jaziyah, and Music and more Study notes Indian History in PDF only on Docsity!

AURANGZRB: RELIGIOUS POLICIES , TEMPLES DESTURCATION AND

MUSIC

Introduction

Aurangzeb is known as the last strong ruler of the Mughal Empire. He ruled from 1658 to 1707 , and his time as emperor was full of controversies and debates. Under his rule, the Mughal Empire became the biggest it had ever been , but after that, it also started to decline. Aurangzeb became emperor while his father Shah Jahan was still alive. To take the throne, he killed his brothers , which is called fratricide. In Indian history, Akbar is often seen as the good ruler (hero) and Aurangzeb as the strict or harsh ruler (villain). Aurangzeb had to fight his elder brother Dara Shikoh , who was supposed to become the next emperor according to Mughal tradition. Their armies fought in the Battle of Samugarh , where Aurangzeb won. People think Dara was more open-minded and kind , while Aurangzeb was more strict and religious. But this war was not just about religion , because both Hindu and Muslim rulers were present on both sides. After winning, Aurangzeb went to Delhi and took control. His father, Shah Jahan, was put in prison , but some sources say he was not treated badly. He lived for 8 more years in the women’s section of the fort and was cared for by his daughter Jahanara. This event began Aurangzeb’s long and debated rule. During his time, the Mughal Empire reached its largest size —from Kashmir in the north to Jinji in the south , and from Chittagong in the east to Hindukush in the west. Aurangzeb ruled in a very personal and strict way. He followed a policy of expansion and wanted to conquer more areas in the east, northeast, and south (Deccan). During his rule, new powers like the Sikhs and Marathas became strong. It was also a time when many religious and cultural movements were growing in India. Historian Katherine Butler said that just hearing his name makes people think of religious and political oppression , even without knowing the real facts. This idea has been questioned by many modern historians like Satish Chandra, Richard Eaton, Audrey Truschke , and others. They believe that Aurangzeb has often been shown unfairly or misunderstood in history. Most history books blame him for the fall of the Mughal Empire. But this essay will try to understand the truth about his policies—especially his actions related to Jaziyah tax, music, and temple destruction —based on what these historians have written. It will try to see whether he was really a religious extremist , or if that image is just the result of biased or one-sided history.

Aurangzeb’s religious policy Historians have different opinions about Aurangzeb’s rule , especially about his religious and ideological policies. He ended Akbar’s policy of religious tolerance , which caused many Hindus to lose trust in the Mughal Empire. Some historians like Jadunath Sarkar have called Aurangzeb a religious bigot. But many modern historians argue that this view is not fair. They believe that the Hindus had become too powerful and disloyal because earlier emperors were too soft, and so Aurangzeb had to use strict methods to control the empire and gain support from Muslims. Historians like Zahiruddin Faruki believe that Aurangzeb’s actions were not based on religion but were practical decisions made to solve the social and economic problems of that time. In recent studies, researchers try to understand his policies by looking at the political, social, and economic conditions of his rule, not just religion. Aurangzeb was personally a strict follower of Islam, but it’s important to look at how much his personal beliefs influenced his rule. To understand his religious and political views, we need to go back to how he became emperor. As mentioned earlier, religion was not the main reason behind the war for the throne. It was not simply a fight between Aurangzeb’s strict beliefs and Dara Shikoh’s more open-minded views. Aurangzeb took the throne while his father Shah Jahan was still alive , which made his rule look questionable. So, he had to find a way to prove and justify his authority. Historian Athar Ali pointed out that since Shah Jahan lived until 1666, Aurangzeb couldn’t make major changes early on , as this might have caused people, especially powerful nobles, to try and bring Shah Jahan back to power. It was only after 1666 that Aurangzeb started making real changes in the Mughal court. He began to limit the power of the Rajputs , who were Hindu nobles, and used religion to give his rule a more Islamic image. Because of his strict religious nature , he wanted to present himself as a ruler chosen by Islamic law. This was the beginning of his religious policies , which tried to make the Mughal Empire look more Islamic. Historian Satish Chandra explains Aurangzeb’s religious policies in two phases:

1658–1679 (the early part of his rule), and
1679–1707 (the later years).

JAZIYAH Some historians believe that when Aurangzeb brought back the Jaziyah tax in 1679, it was a major turning point in Mughal history. They argue that it encouraged religious intolerance and caused anger, rebellions, and distance from groups like the Rajputs and Marathas—eventually leading to the decline of the empire. But other historians disagree with this view. They believe that increasing opposition from some Hindu groups in the empire pushed Aurangzeb to take steps to win back Muslim support. Scholars like Satish Chandra suggest that instead of just blaming religion, we should look more closely at the political and economic situation at the time, the religious ideas in the royal court, and the deeper meaning and purpose of the Jaziyah tax itself. Muhammad Sadqi Mustaid Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s official historian, wrote that the emperor’s goal was to support Islamic law and weaken the influence of non-Muslims. Other writers like Iswardas and Ali Muhammad Khan agreed with him but said that Aurangzeb mainly followed the advice of religious scholars (ulama), who pushed him to bring back the Jaziyah tax to strengthen Islamic law (Sharia). Even European visitors and traders had their own views. Thomas Roll, who worked for the English trading post in Surat, said the tax was brought back not just to raise money for the empire but also to pressure poor people into converting to Islam. Another traveler, Manucci, believed that the death of Jaswant Singh (a strong Hindu leader) and the high cost of military campaigns also played a role in Aurangzeb’s decision.

TEMPLE Richard Eaton says that many of the examples of temple destruction used by Hindu nationalist writers like Sita Ram Goel actually come from Persian texts that were translated and published during British rule in India. One well-known collection is “History of India as Told by Its Own Historians” by H.M. Elliot. Eaton points out that these sources were shaped by British efforts to make their rule look fair and civilized compared to what they called the cruel and backward "Muslim rule" before them. These biased writings have often been used to paint Mughal emperors, especially Aurangzeb, as religious fanatics who destroyed temples all over the empire. Eaton explains that not all temples were destroyed during Aurangzeb’s time. The Mughal Empire did not have a religious rule that forced the destruction of idols or temples. Instead, in Indian history, temples were seen as important political places. They symbolized the shared power between the gods and the king. So, during wars, attacking a temple was like attacking the ruler’s power. Eaton gives examples of Hindu kings who also destroyed temples or took idols from their enemies to show their power, like the Pallava king Nara-simha-varman I who took an idol of Ganesa from a rival capital. Eaton says that temples were often targets in fights over who should rule, even before Muslim rulers came to India. So, the Muslim rulers just followed this existing tradition, not because of religious hatred or orders from their faith. [Eaton further elaborates that temple desecration occurred in the context of military conquest/warfare where Indo-Muslim states expanded into the territories of the non-Muslim states or a non-Muslim vassal/officer rebelled against the empire.] Eaton explains that temples were damaged mainly during wars or when the Mughal empire was expanding into new areas. Sometimes, if a non-Muslim officer or local leader rebelled, temples were targeted as part of the conflict. For example, in 1669, some landowners were suspected of helping Shivaji escape from Mughal custody. It was also believed that Jai Singh, a relative of a famous ruler who built an important temple in Benares, helped Shivaji. Because of this, Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of that temple in September 1669. The attacks on temples were never aimed at the people but at the “enemy king” and the temple’s image of that king. After these temples became part of the Mughal empire (especially from Akbar’s time), they were treated as state property. The empire protected the temples, the priests who served there, and even let Rajputs build their own temples. They also supported the worship of Jagannath Puri. Aurangzeb continued this tradition and, in 1659, gave state protection to the temples in Benares. However, he did not allow new temples to be built, although it is unclear why. Many historians believe this rule applied only to Benares, not the whole empire. So, according to Eaton, Aurangzeb’s temple policies were not very different from those of earlier rulers. He also mentions that mosques were never destroyed because they were not linked to royal authority and were seen as separate from politics.

Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies: A Critical study of Temple Destruction, Jaziyah, and Music, Study notes of Indian History

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies: A Critical study of Temple Destruction, Jaziyah, and Music and more Study notes Indian History in PDF only on Docsity!

AURANGZRB: RELIGIOUS POLICIES , TEMPLES DESTURCATION AND

MUSIC

Introduction