Mohammad Alamullah | Clarion India
INDIA is witness to a surge in bigoted and prejudiced statements following the release of director Laxman Atekar’s film Chhaava. Based on propaganda and lies, the film portrays the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb as a cruel and oppressive ruler. With the film’s release, calls to erase monuments associated with Aurangzeb have begun to reverberate across the country. Simultaneously, discussions and debates have started in various legislative assemblies. These are driven solely by a hateful and baseless narrative, fuelled by the BJP, its supporters and the ‘Godi’ media. While it might be tempting to ignore such matters, the reality is that a new history of India is being written — or rather, an attempt is being made to create a distorted history. Therefore, it is crucial to shed light on facts, away from fictional and biased narratives.
Before proceeding further, it is imperative to clarify that this essay draws upon the works of Allama Shibli Nomani’s Aurangzeb Alamgir Par Ek Nazar (A Glimpse of Aurangzeb Alamgir), Syed Sabahuddin Abdul Rahman’s Muslim Hukmarano Ki Mazhabi Rawadari (Religious Tolerance of Muslim Rulers) Volume 3, Maulvi Zakaullah’s Aurangzeb Alamgir, and Maulana Najib Ashraf Nadwi’s Muqaddama Raqaate Alamgir (Introduction to the Letters of Alamgir).
Of all the Muslim dynasties in the subcontinent, the Mughals had the longest reign, lasting nearly three and a half centuries, from 1526 to 1857. Although their control over the entire region was not always consistent, with many territories coming under and falling away from their rule, the Mughals remained a symbol of power throughout most of this period. The sixth ruler of this dynasty was Aurangzeb Alamgir.
Aurangzeb Alamgir was born to Mumtaz Mahal in 1618 and passed away in 1707, living a full 90 years. He had the fortune of ruling from 1657 to 1707, a remarkable 50-year reign. Under his leadership, the Indian subcontinent expanded to an extent it had never seen before or since. His reign saw the establishment of a vast empire stretching from present-day Afghanistan to the borders of Bangladesh, and from Ladakh and Tibet in the north to Kerala in the south. This vast territorial expansion is solely attributed to his rule.
All historians, including his critics, agree on his moral qualities: he was a dervish who sat on the throne, meeting his needs by copying the Qur’an and sewing hats. At the time of his death, he left a will instructing that his income should be used to furnish and bury him. There are few examples of such an ascetic, dervish-like, contented, and austere king, not only in India but also in the entire world history. These characteristics reflect his personal life. Additionally, Aurangzeb implemented remarkable reforms during his reign: he carried out developmental projects, abolished unjust decrees, and allocated funds for the welfare of the people and charitable causes. In this context, a few key points are worth mentioning:
Until now, various taxes were imposed on the people, a practice not only followed by the Mughal rulers but also by the princely states and smaller governments of the time. Shivaji used to collect a quarter of the produce from the territories he controlled. Except for property tax, Aurangzeb Alamgir abolished all taxes – 80 in total – deeming them unjust and harmful to farmers, despite the substantial revenue they generated. It is noteworthy that while Aurangzeb is often portrayed as anti-Hindu, he abolished several taxes that specifically targeted Hindus, such as the Ganga Puja tax and the tax on men bathing in the Ganges.
Aurangzeb established the principles of wealth management and reinforced its administration, to the extent that the empire’s income stood at approximately 25 million pounds during Shah Jahan’s reign and rose to about 40 million pounds during Alamgir’s reign.
It was a common practice in governments that when an official passed away, all his property would be confiscated and transferred to the state treasury. Even today, some Western countries have laws stipulating that if a person dies without a will, his entire estate is taken into government custody. Aurangzeb abolished this practice to ensure that the heirs of the deceased were not treated unjustly.
He sought to make justice easily accessible to the oppressed. He held public courts two to three times a day, allowing unrestricted access to all. People of all backgrounds— young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and non-Muslim — could freely present their grievances, and prompt justice was delivered. He did not hesitate to rule against his own family members, princes, or close officials. Moreover, he issued a decree appointing official representatives in every district to serve the needs of people from distant areas. If the subjects had a grievance against the king or the government, they could present it before these representatives, who would investigate the matter and ensure that justice was served.
A significant achievement of Aurangzeb was the establishment of a system for chronicling events and issuing pamphlets to keep the government informed. Through this system, information was gathered from every corner of the empire, enabling the government to take appropriate action based on a comprehensive understanding of the situation. This mechanism not only safeguarded the country but also ensured timely assistance to the people and held officials accountable for their actions.
One of its greatest benefits was the curbing of bribery. High-ranking government officials often received bribes under the guise of “gifts,” a term that concealed corruption. In those days, such payments were made in the name of offerings, which were presented to the kings by government officials and wealthy elites, and to officials by their subordinates. Aurangzeb strictly prohibited all forms of offerings, particularly during the Nowruz celebrations, when nobles traditionally presented large sums to the king. In the 21st year of his reign, he abolished this practice altogether.
Generally, in societies governed by absolute monarchies, people are conditioned to hold exaggerated notions about the king to ensure their obedience and submission. Among the Mughals, a form of king worship, influenced by Hindu traditions, was prevalent. During Akbar’s reign, seeing and prostrating before the king was considered an act of worship, and countless people performed this ritual daily. Jahangir abolished the practice of prostration, yet traces of it remained. Aurangzeb completely ended the tradition of Jharoka Darshan, where people would gather each morning to behold the king as an act of devotion, refraining from eating or drinking until then. However, it was permitted that if someone had a petition or request, he/she could tie it to a rope and have it delivered to the king in his court directly.
Generally, the extravagant spending and indulgence of rulers places a heavy burden on the poor. Aurangzeb Alamgir made every effort to eliminate such excesses, as he discontinued royal offerings. In the royal court, poets would compose praises for the king, and an official known as “Malik al-Shu‘ara” was appointed to oversee them. Aurangzeb abolished this position, as he disliked grandiose and exaggerated poetry in his praise.
To entertain the king, special arrangements were made for music and performances in the court. Qawwals and dancers would amuse the ruler through their singing and dancing, with vast sums of money spent on them. Aurangzeb put an end to this practice. Gold and silver pens were traditionally used for the king’s writing, but Aurangzeb advised replacing them with simple pens. Prize money was presented in large silver bowls, a tradition that he also discontinued.
Typically, vast amounts of money were allocated for the personal expenses of kings. Even today, the expenditure on accommodation, travel, and luxuries for the heads of government in democratic countries often surpasses the lavish spending of past monarchs. However, Aurangzeb Alamgir neither built a grand palace for himself nor established any gardens for his pleasure.
He paid special attention to the development of education, ensuring that teachers were appointed in every city and town. Not only were stipends allocated for teachers and land grants provided, but the government also took responsibility for covering students’ expenses and livelihood. It is said that a significant number of Aurangzeb’s edicts were related to education, as cited by several of the chroniclers.
During that era, industry and crafts were not as developed as they are today, and agriculture was the backbone of the economy. Aurangzeb placed great emphasis on agricultural development, actively encouraging farmers and providing financial assistance from the state treasury to those who lacked the means to cultivate their land. When necessary, farmers were also granted tax exemptions.
Uncultivated and barren lands were allocated to those willing to settle and farm them. Aurangzeb instructed his officials to levy taxes on farmers only to the extent that they could afford and were willing to pay. If farmers preferred to pay in kind rather than in cash, their produce was to be accepted as payment. He regarded it as the government’s duty to dig wells, repair existing ones, and enhance irrigation facilities to support agriculture.
He paid special attention to land surveys to identify uncultivated areas and explore ways to make them arable. In one of his decrees, he wrote: “The greatest desire and aspiration of the king is that agriculture should flourish, the country’s food production should increase, farmers should prosper, and the common people should live freely, as it is a trust given to the king by God.”
As a result of his policies, agricultural production thrived, even in newly conquered territories where expenditures initially exceeded revenues. Despite these financial challenges, there was never a shortage of food. Had this agricultural prosperity not been achieved, Aurangzeb would not have been able to rule over such a vast empire for five decades, and the kingdom would likely have fragmented due to internal unrest and rebellion.
Aurangzeb’s significant achievements also included social reforms. He banned the cultivation of cannabis, prohibited alcohol and gambling, ended prostitution, and compelled prostitutes to marry. He also forbade the keeping of concubines, slaves, and eunuchs.
The practice of Sati had long been prevalent in Hindu society, where a widow was burned on her husband’s funeral pyre. This was considered a religious act. The Mughals, including Aurangzeb, generally refrained from interfering in the religious affairs of non-Muslims. While Aurangzeb did not legally prohibit Sati, he sought to reform the practice by instructing officials to dissuade women from practicing it through persuasion and counseling by other women. Additionally, he imposed a restriction that Sati could not be performed without the permission of the provincial governor. This measure ensured that no woman was forced into the practice by her husband, in-laws, or other members of society. As a result, the practice of Sati was nearly eradicated during his reign.
Beyond this, Aurangzeb’s charitable contributions — such as repairing old roads and inns, constructing new roads and guesthouses, and granting estates to educational institutions and places of worship — were significant enough to be remembered with admiration. Even those who portray him as a stern and rigid ruler acknowledge his compassion, justice, and mercy. He consistently pursued a policy of reconciliation and forgiveness toward his adversaries, whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims, Sunnis or Shias, Pathans, Marathas, or Rajputs. His repeated acts of clemency toward Shivaji and the warm reception of Shivaji’s son stand as notable examples of this approach.
However, during the British rule, a deliberate effort was made to create division between the two major communities of India — Hindus and Muslims. To achieve this, the British distorted the history of the Mughal period, particularly targeting the last great Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, whom they saw as an obstacle to their colonial ambitions. Certain writers, acting as British instruments, produced works that were more fiction than history, filled with baseless claims detached from reality. These accounts falsely portrayed Aurangzeb as an anti-Hindu ruler, often citing his conflicts with Shivaji as evidence. In truth, their conflict was political, not religious. Aurangzeb’s most trusted commander in the war against Shivaji was Raja Jai Singh, a Rajput. Furthermore, his army included numerous Rajput and Maratha chiefs, as well as a significant number of Pathans, Rajputs, and Marathas who opposed Shivaji.
During Aurangzeb’s reign, many Marathas held prominent government positions, including Shivaji’s sons-in-law and nephews. Allama Shibli has listed 26 of them by name. Aurangzeb granted Shivaji the Panj Hazari Mansab, a prestigious rank also held by some princes, close relatives of the monarch, and trusted officials. Shivaji sought the higher rank of Haft Hazari, but the Rajput and Pathan nobles in the government opposed it.
The other side of the story is that Shivaji, who fought guerrilla warfare against the Mughals, would loot villages and destroy forts. This looting was a constant part of his strategy, and there was no distinction between Hindus and Muslims in his attacks. Surat, the largest market in South India at that time, was a major hub for imports and exports, and it had a predominantly Hindu population. Shivaji would often attack Surat, causing the population to vacate the city. In these attacks, it didn’t matter whether the people were Hindus or Muslims, locals or foreigners; everyone sought refuge from the raids. Since most of the traders were Hindus, they suffered the most.
Shivaji, often regarded as the protector of the Marathas, acted in similar ways to maintain his power, just as any king would. The first Sultan of Bijapur granted the “Jawali” territory to a Maratha family, which gradually built a strong state and expanded its influence throughout the Kokan region. The family was led by a king named Chandra Rao. Shivaji realised that unless Chandra Rao was eliminated and his kingdom seized, his dream to have a vast empire could never be realised. Consequently, Shivaji deceived and killed Chandra Rao, injured his brother, and took control of the kingdom.
The conflict between Aurangzeb and Shivaji was not a religious war but a political one, as is common among rulers. Aurangzeb did not wage this war from an Islamic perspective, nor did Shivaji’s attacks stem from a desire to defend Hindu dignity.
Aurangzeb is often accused of destroying Hindu places of worship and desecrating temples. While it is true that some temples were demolished during his reign, the reasons behind these actions need to be considered. According to unbiased historians, Aurangzeb only demolished temples that were built illegally. For instance, a temple constructed by Babur Singh Dev in Orchha was razed by Aurangzeb. Babur Singh Dev had first brutally killed Abul Fazl and then used his wealth to build the temple. This explains why Raja Devi Singh of Orchha did not object when the temple was demolished.
Aurangzeb also destroyed temples where conspiracies were being plotted against the government or where immoral acts took place. One example is the Vishwanath Temple in Banaras. Dr BM Pandey recounts the story: When Aurangzeb passed near Banaras on his way to Bengal, Hindu kings and commanders in his army requested to stay for a day so their queens could bathe in the Ganges and worship at the Vishwanath Temple. Aurangzeb agreed and made full security arrangements. After bathing, the queens went to the temple, but upon their return, some of them were found missing. Despite an extensive search, they could not be found. Eventually, investigators moved a Ganesh idol installed in the wall, which was movable, and discovered stairs hidden behind it. These stairs led to a basement where some queens were found, who had been raped and were crying bitterly. The Rajput commanders in Aurangzeb’s army, outraged by this discovery, demanded the demolition of the temple. Aurangzeb ordered that the idol be moved respectfully to another place. Since a sacred religious site had been desecrated, he decreed that the temple should be demolished, and the Mahant (priest) should be arrested and punished.
It is important to note that during the reign of Akbar, many mosques were demolished and converted into temples. Hindus would forcibly marry Muslim women and bring them under their control. This situation continued during the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan and persisted until the 12th year of Aurangzeb’s rule. This may provide some context for the demolition of certain temples. Furthermore, while Aurangzeb is known for demolishing temples, he also had mosques destroyed.
One such instance involves Tana Shah, the famous ruler of the Golconda Empire, who had not paid royal tribute to the Mughal emperor of Delhi for years. To conceal his wealth, he buried a large treasure underground and built the Jamia Masjid in Golconda on top of it. When Aurangzeb learned of this, he ordered the demolition of the mosque and used the treasure for public welfare projects. Unfortunately, sectarian, prejudiced, and deceitful historians failed to mention Aurangzeb’s generosity and open-mindedness, which were his true character.
Communal elements sometimes even ponder over how Hindus themselves destroyed Buddhist monasteries, Jain temples, and Muslim mosques. Shivaji, for example, demolished mosques in Sitara, Parli, and the occupied areas brick by brick. Why did the Buddhists in Ellora and Ajanta feel the need to cover their grand monasteries with mud to protect them from Hindu encroachment? Even today, the Jagannath Temple stands as a testament to Hindu atrocities. Originally a Buddhist temple, it was forcibly occupied by Hindus. Thousands of mosques were demolished in 1947 and 1948, and during Indira Gandhi’s reign, the largest place of worship for Sikhs, the Golden Temple and Akal Takht, were destroyed brick by brick. How many mosques were destroyed during the 2002 riots in Gujarat, with the government refusing to rebuild them? Will these sectarian elements dare face the mirror that reveals the truth?
Aurangzeb’s indictment also includes the claim that he imposed jizya on Hindus, yet it fails to mention that he waived 80 types of taxes, many of which were related to Hindus. The jizya was imposed on them because zakat was collected from Muslims. If zakat had been collected from Hindus as well, it would have been forcing them to perform an Islamic act, which would have violated the principle of religious freedom. Therefore, Islam imposed this tax on non-Muslim citizens under a separate name, and its amount was very small: 12 dirhams per person, less than 13 tolas of silver. According to Shariah (Islamic law), Aurangzeb exempted women, children, religious leaders, the disabled, and the poor from this tax. In return for paying jizya, the protection of non-Muslim people was guaranteed.
————–
Mohammad Alamullah is an author and a journalist. He did his PhD from Dr KR Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. Alamullah has written innumerable columns, poems, travelogues, and short stories. He has also served as a media consultant at Jamia Millia Islamia and is the author of two books, Muslim Majlis Mushawarat: Ek Khususi Tareekh and Kuch Din Iran Mein.