Om du är ny här, kan du önska att få stamgästuppdateringar via RSS-matning. Tacka dig för att besöka!

Allra har de Muslim linjalerna, som härskade vast territorier av Indien från 712 till CE 1857, antagligen ingen mottagit så mycket fördömelse från västra och hinduiska författare som Aurangzeb. Han har castigated som en religiös Muslim, som var anti-Hinduisk, som beskattade dem, som försökte att konvertera dem, som diskriminerade mot dem, i att tilldela den administrativa kicken, placerar, och som störde i deras religiösa materier. Detta beskådar har tungt främjats i de regerings- godkända läroböc挥猥挥猥挥䍁╒c佃䵍乏3丼⬺䕎呕剅>kerna skolar in och högskolar över posta-delningen Indien (dvs., efter 1947). Dessa är fabriceringar mot en av de bäst linjalerna av Indien som var from, lärd, helgonlik, fördomsfri, frisinnad, storsint, tolerant, kompetent och framsynt.

Lyckligtvis under senare år har några hinduiska historiker kommit ut i det öppet gräla de beskyllningar. Till exempel kasserade historiker Babu Nagendranath Banerjee beskyllningen av den tvungna omvandlingen av Hindus vid Muslim linjaler, genom att påstå att, om det var deras avsikt därefter i Indien som i dag skulle där för att inte vara nästan fyra tider så många Hindus som jämfördes till Muslims, illviljan faktumet som Muslims hade härskat för nästan tusen år. Banerjee utmanade den hinduiska hypotesen att Aurangzeb var anti-Hinduisk, genom att resonera det, om sistnämnden var riktigt skyldig av sådan bigotteri, hur kunde han bestämma ett hinduiskt som hans militära överbefälhavare? Säkert kunde han ha haft råd med för att bestämma en kompetent Muslim general placerar däri.

Påstådd Banerjee mer ytterligare:

”Inget bör anklaga Aurangzeb av att vara kollektivt sinnat. I hans administration formulerades den statliga politiken av Hindus. Två Hindus rymde det högst placerar i den statliga kassan. Några dömde Muslims ifrågasatte även meriten av hans beslut för att bestämma non-Muslims till sådan kickkontor. Kejsaren motbevisade det, genom att påstå som var det honom, hade varit efter diktaten av Shariahen (islamisk lag) som begärningar som bestämmer högra personer i rätt, placerar.”,

Under Aurangzebs långa regeringstid av femtio år rymde många Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem bärare Singh, Dilip Roy och Rasik Lal Crory, mycket kick administrativ placerar. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

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.¹ 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.”²

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.”³

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.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of the jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that the zakaat (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. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure.⁴

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. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous — more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims.

Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to “neatly divide our world.” Let truth vanquish falsehood.

1. Mughal Government [back]
2. Surah al-Baqarah (2):256 [back]
3. op. cit., p. 138 [back]
4. Vindication of Aurangzeb [back]