aurangzeb

[Guest guest]

just hoping that there may be an odd one out there interested in this.

we must as anation in my opinion learn to view both history and

mytholgy and all human beings not in a shade of black or white buta s

the varied shades of grey they are. so in essence even avatars (which

simply had a greater percentage of vishnu ansh than others) also made

mistakes, and before we satrt hating peopel from history and each

other as hindus, muslims, indian pakistani etc blindly it helps to

just open history texts written from a balanced point of view.

 

understanding auranzeb..

 

(here is a brief 2 page report from an analysis of indian history i am

currently working on as a matter of personal interest)

 

I would like to dwell a bit more into the life of this emperor as he

is blamed for bringing down several hindu temples and indeed the

current Gujrat riots in India started because Hindu fanatics brought

down Babri Masjid in 1992 and are threatening to build a temple at the

site. Their claim is that Aurangzeb brought down a holy hindu temple

at that site. Much of the rise of hindu extremism in the past few

years in India though clearly a ploy by politicians to win votes seems

to be based on exploiting sentiments regarding this temple.

 

No other Mughal emperor invites such strong reactions in the Indian

subcontinent as Aurangzeb. Views of his reign as given by hindu and

muslim historians are diametrically opposite till today. Hated greatly

by the Hindus and Sikhs as their foe number one, he is considered a

stern puritan and a religious bigot who sought to impose orthodox

Islam on all of India. He dismissed Hindus from public service,

reimposed tax (Jizya ) on them, and destroyed their temples. however

invalid hindu men and women were exempted from these taxes. There are

several tales of choice of forcible conversion or a horrendous death

circulating, some documented too.

 

At the same time, there is genuine respect among the muslims for his

kindness and pious attitude to life. This i have agthered on

discussion with a few Indian muslims as well as read by islamic

historians all over the subcontinenet. He was an austere person with

no interest in wine or women, which was a commendable achievement

given that he was an emperor of a rich large country. Not only this,

he supported his family by weaving and selling caps.

My understanding of Aurangzeb is that he looked upon himself as a

social reformer. And not only hindu temples but several mazars of pirs

were also brought down by him in order to clear the imposters from the

genuine saints. (there is a stort told about ajmer sharif which i will

quote below) nOt only this money and jagirs were donated by him to

some shiv temples. However all said and done, the question still

remains as to why was Aurangzeb the last of the great Mughal emperors,

and the answer cannot be found until one questions his policies.

Though 17 emperors came after him before India officially came under

British crown, they are not considered important enough to be

mentioned individually by the history texts. There were invasions like

that of Nadir Shah in 1739 which looted and played havoc in Delhi.

Sikhs, Marathas, rajputs were emerging strong and independent. And

slowly weakened Hindustan fell from it's glory to become a jewel in

the British crown.

 

my references in his defence...the ones against him i think are

written on many hindu hearts.

 

 

reference 1

 

If Aurangzeb was so ferocious a communalist, why is it, some

historians have asked, that the number of Hindus employed in positions

of eminence under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his

father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule? They

suggest, moreover, that Aurangzeb did not indiscriminately destroy

Hindu temples, as he is commonly believed to have done so, and that he

directed the destruction of temples only when faced with insurgency.

This was almost certainly the case with the Keshava Rai temple in the

Mathura region, where the Jats rose in rebellion; and yet even this

policy of reprisal may have been modified, as Hindu temples in the

Deccan were seldom destroyed. The image of Aurangzeb as an

idol-breaker may not withstand scrutiny, since there is evidence to

show that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land grants

(jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple

in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, Umanand temple in

Gauhati, and numerous others. [5]

 

 

reference 2

 

However, as the text of the fatwa on the tax imposed on hindus, which

is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various

classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without

employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on.

Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being

uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay. The statement

that the jizyah was imposed as well on "the people of the Book" --

here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews -- is particularly

significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed

particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver

Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.

 

Source:

 

Al-Fatawa al-Alamgiriyyah = Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah fi Madhhab al-Imam

al-A`zam Abi Hanifah al-Nu`man (Beirut: Dar al-Ma`rifah, 1973),

2:244-245.

 

reference 3

 

The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was well-known for his orthodoxy. He

found society in his day a slave of baseless traditions and

superstitions. Exploitation of the ignorant masses by religious

impostors had reached a high peak. Well-built graves and impressive

tombs attracted larger crowds than mosques. Aurangzeb was fully aware

of the eminence of "Aulia" and the reverence due to them. He had no

objection to the people going to the tombs of 'Aulia" but he was

against people going to every impressive grave and bowing down in

reverence. He was also aware of the problem of the layman who could

not judge the spiritual greatness of a person, living or dead. This

problem is alive even today. He started a campaign against this

superstition. He adopted a novel method in the light of Koran and

Hadith to solve this problem. He went to every famous tomb and offered

salutations (Salaam) loudly. If he got the response, he paid his

respects and moved forward. In the absence of a reply, he ordered the

demolition of the grave, and leveling the ground, to discourage people

from visiting the tomb. Ajmer was the most famous centre of pilgrimage

even in those days and people of all religions thronged at the tomb of

Hazrat Khaja Moinuddin. Meddling with is was a risky job. But it was

not his policy to be politic and expedient in matters of religion.

After some hesitation he decided to carry on his test here also. As

usual he offered his Salaams. There was no response. Even on the

second attempt he got no response. He decided to reduce the tomb to

ground level if his third attempt also failed to get a response. He

was prepared to face any kind of opposition. He had a pleasant

surprise when his third attempt was successful. His curiosity

increased. He offered his apologies and inquired why his first two

attempts did not get any response. He got the reply that Hazrat Khaja

was in his prayers (Namaz) and he could not reply. As a token of his

reverence and devotion, Aurangzeb constructed a magnificent gate which

exists even today