By Dr.

Habib Siddiqui
Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006
Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE
, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu write
rs as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu
, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in a
warding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious mat
ters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks i
n schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are
fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly,
saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the o
pen disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerj
ee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by st
ating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be ne
arly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslim
s had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesi
s that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilt
y of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chi
ef? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that
position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being com
munal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus.
Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Musl
ims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such hig
h offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the di
ctates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in ri
ght positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notab
ly Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dil
ip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the
highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya S
ingh, 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 positio
n all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, w
ho could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus we
re favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen H
indu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu
high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) 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 saint
ly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose hi
s will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (su
rah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your reli
gion 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 contra
ry to the dictates of the Qur'an.
Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Intro
duction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Auran
gzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there wou
ld not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Auran
gzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares
, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are s
till extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Ch

itrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. T
he proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Var
anasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The sa
me 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 acti
vities." (p. 138) 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 ofthe jizya tax which had drawn seve
re 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. Befor
e 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 wa
s collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Mus
lim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That i
s, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the coun
try. 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 incumbe
nt upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its no
n-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citize
ns, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agric
ultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond
a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. No
ne of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per cap
ita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Aur
anzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usu
ally mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost
historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in powe
r, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly r
evenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.
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 s
traight.