Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple), Amritsar

"ਇਸ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਸਮਕਾਲੀ ਫ਼ਾਰਸੀ ਲਿਖਤਾਂ ਇੱਕਠਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਦੁਰਲੱਭ ਤੇ ਨਾਯਾਬ ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ੰਸਾਯੋਗ ਹੈ (It is really commendable to collect contemporary Persian writings on this important subject and to obtain these rare photographs)" - Late Dr. Kirpal Singh, Pre-eminent Historian & erstwhile Project Incharge, Editing Sikh Historical Source Material, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar
INTRODUCTION

Aurangzeb, Emperor Shah Jahan’s sixth child, was born on 24th October 1618 at Dohad in Madhya Pradesh, and wrested India’s crown from his father before the end of June 1658, after defeating his brother Crown Prince Dara Shukoh’s armies, first at Dharmat near Ujjain (15th April 1568) and again at Samugarh on 29th May 1658. The War of Succession to the richest throne in the world was practically over with this victory, and Aurangzeb secured his position by making Murad, his brother and accomplice in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner, by treachery, on 25th June. He had already made his old father Emperor Shah Jahan a prisoner in the Agra Fort (8th June 1658).

Shah Jahan survived his confinement by nearly eight years and the disgraceful manner of his burial (Exhibit No. 6) will ever remain a stigma on this unscrupulous son. Aurangzeb’s advent to the throne in his father’s life time was not welcomed by the people of India because of the treacherous manner it was achieved; but public opinion became all the more hostile towards him when Prince Dara Shukoh, the favourite son of Shah Jahan, the translator of the Upanishads (Exhibit No. 2), and a truly liberal and enlightened Musalman, was taken prisoner on the Indian border, as he was about to enter Persia. Dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the streets of Delhi on 29th August 1659. The French Doctor Bernier was an eye-witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for Dara (Exhibit No. 3) which so much alarmed Aurangzeb that he contrived to obtain a decree from his Clerics announcing death-sentence for his elder brother on the charge of apostasy (Exhibit No. 5).

Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power. Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam who would rule according to the directions of the Shari‘at, and with the advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries, and for all times to come! One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb’s policy was to demolish Hindu Temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666) removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai Temple at Mathura, he had observed ‘In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a Temple’, and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No. 8). This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka Temple in Delhi (Exhibit Nos. 16 & 17).

In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of Temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos. 19 & 20). Soon after this, the great Temple of Keshava Rai was demolished (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No. 23 & 24) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba, in order to be continually trodden upon by the Musalmans, and the name of ancient and sacred town Mathura was changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No. 24) is thus no fancy imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.

This was followed by Aurangzeb’s order to demolish the highly venerated Temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian Text, Exhibit No. 22), Keshava Rai Temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text and Painting, Exhibit Nos. 23 & 24), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No. 21). To save the idol of Shrinathji from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that Aurangzeb would have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave troops, before he could even touch the idol (Exhibit No. 25)

Aurangzeb’s zeal for Temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. The opportunity to earn ‘religious merit’ by demolishing hundreds of Temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open support of the Rathors. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during which the Temples built on the bank of Rana’s lake were destroyed by his orders (Exhibit No. 31) and also about two hundred other Temples in the environs of Udaipur (Exhibit No. 33), including the famous Jagannath Rai Temple built at a great cost in front of the Maharana’s palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs (Exhibit Nos. 32 & 34).

Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 Temples there which included some of the finest Temples of Kumbha’s time and even earlier (Exhibit No. 35). From Marwar (in Western Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per Aurangzeb’s orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No. 30). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the Mughal Emperor alienated the Hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed.

In June 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated Jagannath Temple in Orissa (Exhibit No. 38). Shortly afterwards, in September 1682, the famous Bindu-Madhav Temple in Banaras was also demolished as per the Emperor’s orders (Exhibit No. 42). On 1st September 1681, while proceeding to the Deccan, where his rebel son Prince Akbar, escorted by Durga Das Rathore, had joined Chhatrapati Shivaji’s son, Shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, Aurangzeb ordered that all the Temples on the way should be destroyed. It was a comprehensive order not distinguishing between old and newly built Temples (Exhibit No. 40). But in the district of Burhanpur, where there were a large number of Temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the Muslims were too few in number in the district and no purpose would have been served by giving them the shape of mosques so that the Muslims could perform namaz in them (Exhibit No. 41). In his religious frenzy, even Temples of the loyal and friendly Amber state were not spared, such as the famous Temple of Jagdish at Goner near Amber (Exhibit Nos. 45). In fact, his misguided ardour for Temple destruction did not abate almost till the end of his life, for as late as 1st January 1705 we find him ordering that the Temple of Pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the Temple precincts (Akhbarat 49-7).

The number of such provocative acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been highlighted supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of his reign and credible Persian sources; the limitation of space in any exhibition restricts the number of exhibits, unlike in case of a book.

In obedience to the Quranic injunction, Aurangzeb reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on 2nd April 1679 (Exhibit No. 27), which had been abolished by Emperor Akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the Hindus of the country. A massive peaceful demonstration against this tax in Delhi was ruthlessly crushed. This hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor Hindus and caused humiliation to each and every Hindu (Exhibit No. 28). In the same vein were his discriminatory measures against the Hindus in the form of exemption of the Muslims from the taxes (Exhibit No. 12), ban on atishbazi and restriction on Diwali (Exhibit No. 10), replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims so that the Emperor’s prayers for the welfare of Muslims and glory of Islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (Exhibit Nos. 9 & 15). He also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines, such as of Shitla Mata and folk Gods like Pir Pabu (Exhibit No. 18), another ban imposed was on their travelling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims! (Exhibit No. 47). In the same vein came brazen attempts to convert Hindus by inducement, coercion (Exhibit Nos. 37 & 39) or by offering Qanungoship (Exhibit No. 36) and to honour the converts in the open Court. His personal directions were that a Hindu male be given Rs.4 and a Hindu female Rs.2 on conversion (Exhibit No. 43). “Go on giving them”, Aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted 150 Hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (Exhibit No. 11). Such display of Islamic orthodoxy by the State under Aurangzeb gave strength and purpose to the resistance movements such as of the Marathas, the Jats, the Bundelas and the Sikhs (Exhibit No. 26).

On the 12th May 1666, the dignity with which Shivaji carried himself in the Mughal court and defied the Emperor’s authority, won him spontaneous admiration of the masses. Parkaldas, an official of Amber (Jaipur State) wrote in his letter dated 29th May 1666, to his Diwan. “Now that after coming to the Emperor’s presence Shivaji has shown such audacity and returned harsh and strong replies, the public extols him for his bravery all the more …” (Exhibit No. 7). When Shivaji passed away on April 1680 at the age of 53 only, he had already carved a sufficiently large kingdom, his Swarajya, both along the western coast and some important areas in the east as well.

Aurangzeb could never pardon himself for his negligence in letting Shivaji escape from his well laid trap and wrote in his Will (Exhibit No. 48) that it made him "to labour hard (against the Marathas) to the end of my life (as a result of it)." He did not realize that it was his own doing: the extremely cruel manner, even for those times, in which he put to death Shivaji’s son, Shambhaji, (Exhibit No. 46) which made the Maratha king a martyr in the eyes of the masses and with that commenced the People’s War in Maharashtra and the Deccan which dug the grave of the Mughal empire.

Till the very end Aurangzeb never understood that the main pillars of the government are the affection and support of the people and not mere compliance of the religious directives originating from a foreign land in the seventh-eighth centuries.

His death after a long and ruinous reign lasting half a century, ended an eventful epoch in the history of India. He left behind a crumbling empire, a corrupt and inefficient administration, a demoralized army, a discredited government facing bankruptcy and alienated subjects.


Prof. V.S. Bhatnagar (Retd.)
Department of History, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
Former Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, India

1. MUGHAL EMPIRE C. 1707

For a minute demarcation of the boundaries of the different subas or provinces of the Empire, the reader
may consult Prof. Irfan Habib’s “An Atlas of Mughal Empire”, Oxford University Press, 1982.

2. PRINCE DARA SHUKOH TRANSLATING THE UPANISHADS

Prince Dara Shukoh, the eldest son of Emperor Shah Jahan, was like his great ancestor Akbar, a very liberal and enlightened Musalman and a true seeker of truth. Akbar respected all religions - Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc., and gave their votaries complete religious freedom. He was ever keen to discuss and understand their religious beliefs, practices and philosophy and, in order to make the Musalmans familiar with the culture, and universal values, philosophy and traditions of India, he had the great epics of India - Ramayana and Mahabharat - translated into Persian. He also arranged for the translation of the Atharva-veda.

Continuing the unfinished work of Emperor Akbar, Prince Dara Shukoh too, assisted by the Indian scholars, got translated Bhagvad Gita, Prabodha Chandrodaya (a philosophical drama written in 1065 A.D.), and Yoga Vasistha into Persian. He also translated fifty two Upanishads, which are the fountain-head of Indian philosophy, with the help of learned Pandits from Banaras, well versed in the Vedas and the Upanishads. The translation of the Upanishads by him entitled Sirr-i-Akbar (The Grand Secret) was completed on the 28th June 1657, shortly before the commencement of the War of Succession, which he lost to his crafty and unscrupulous brother, Aurangzeb who ruled India from 1659-1707.

In the painting above, Dara is shown translating the Upanishads, assisted by Indian scholars.

3. CAPTIVE DARA BEING PARADED IN DELHI

29th August 1659

The painting above, based on Dr. Bernier’s eyewitness account, shows a captive Dara Shukoh and his son being carried on an elephant on the streets of Delhi, girt round by troops ready to foil any attempt to rescue the prisoner, and led by Bahadur Shah on an elephant. Behind Prince Dara Shukoh is Nazar Beg, their goaler. Dara is shown throwing his wrapper to a beggar who had cried out, “Dara! When you were master, you always gave me alms, today I know well thou hast naught to give.” Describing the scene Bernier writes, “The crowd assembled was immense; and everywhere I observed the people weeping and lamenting the fate of Dara in the most touching language … men, women and children were wailing as if some mighty calamity had happened to themselves.”

The outburst of popular sympathy for Crown Prince Dara Shukoh and the contemptuous response which Aurangzeb had received from the people for his outrageous treatment of his brother made him procure in all haste a decree from the Clerics in his own pay, and had his elder brother beheaded on the charge of apostasy.

This was a sad end of a genuine seeker of truth, translator of the Upanishads, author of many works on Sufi philosophy, and one who could have revived and carried the enlightened policies of his great ancestor Akbar to fulfillment.

4. AURANGZEB ORDERS THE EXECUTION OF SARMAD

Sarmad was a well known saint who came to Delhi towards the end of Shah Jahan’s reign. Prince Dara Shukoh, the eldest son of Shah Jahan and translator of the Upanishads in Persian, sought his company and gave him much respect due to a saint and philosopher.

Sarmad was disliked by the Mullas for his unorthodox views and free-thinking. He used to say that whosoever had realized the God, annihilates the distance between him and the Supreme Reality, i.e. remains constantly in communion with the Divine. When he said that “while the Mullas say that the Prophet ascended to the heaven but Sarmad declares that the heaven came down to the Prophet,” he meant that the highest state of bliss is attainable in this very life. He generally remained in the nude state and had acquired knowledge of the highest non-dualism. When summoned to the court and asked to repeat the Kalimah, he only went so far as to declare that there is no God, saying that his realization went no further: he saw the non-difference between the individual soul of every one and the Supreme Soul. The Mullas decreed that he must be put to death for apostasy. When the executioner came with his axe to cut off his head, Sarmad welcomed him with the words, “I know You, in whatever form You come,” and embraced death for the sake of his views and freedom of conscience.

The sketch above shows Sarmad in the Emperor’s court, the executioner waiting to perform the hateful task.

5. DARA SHUKOH’S FARCICAL TRIAL AND VERDICT

Crown Prince Dara’s immense popularity and sympathy for him among the masses was evident when he along with his young son was taken out on the streets of Delhi on the 29th August 1659 in a degrading manner (Exhibit No.3). The outburst of popular sympathy for Dara Shukoh and the contemptuous and sullen response which Aurangzeb had received from the people for his outrageous behaviour with his elder brother filled his dark heart with misgivings if Dara remained alive even as prisoner in the Gwalior fort or elsewhere. It was felt among his inner circle of confidants that Dara must be put to death without delay on the ground of apostasy.

Following a farcical trial in absentia, the Ulama in pay of Aurangzeb decreed death for Dara for his infidelity and deviation from Islamic orthodoxy, and because “the pillars of the Canonical Law and Faith apprehended many kinds of disturbances from his life.” This was in reality a fraud on truth.

Prince Dara Shukoh was murdered and his severed head was sent to Aurangzeb to satisfy him that his rival was really dead. By his orders, the headless corpse of his brother was placed on an elephant and paraded through the streets of Delhi a second time and then buried without the customary washing and dressing of the body. The sketch above portrays the trial of Dara in absentia and his severed head being brought before his brother, Emperor Aurangzeb.

6. SHAH JAHAN’S BURIAL PROCESSION

The painting above is based on a contemporary letter sent by the Amber State official Parkaldas to the Diwan of Amber, Kalyandas, dated Phalgun Vadi 30, 1722 V.S. / 23rd February, 1666.

It is a night scene in the Red Fort of Agra where Emperor Shah Jahan had been kept in strict confinement by his son Aurangzeb for the past several years. The two wives of the Emperor, Akbarabadi Begum and Fatehpuri Begum, who were with him when his end came, are being stopped at the door by the guards, and are sadly seeing the bier of their husband, Shah Jahan, the Emperor of India, being taken out by four kahars or palquin bearers, as if he was some common prisoner. No son, grandson or nobles are there to give shoulder to the body of the Emperor. In the tabut or bier, the pale face of the Emperor is uncovered. Shah Jahan’s devoted daughter, Jahanara is looking at the sad spectacle from a window of the palace, her entreaties with Khoja Phul (the eunuch) not to take the body for burial in the night without waiting for the daybreak having failed. “I have orders from the Emperor (Aurangzeb) to carry the coffin this very night”, he had replied. The Khoja is walking some steps ahead of the tabut. The body was taken out by the Mori Gate and hurriedly consigned to the grave in the Taj Mahal mausoleum.

There might be very few examples indeed of such an unceremonious and hurried burial, marked by stealthiness and tainted by guilt, as that of Shah Jahan, who had been Emperor of India for about thirty years (1627-1658) and who was leaving behind a son, now the Emperor (Aurangzeb), and a number of grand children and relations and countless nobles.

7. SHIVAJI LEAVING AURANGZEB’S COURT IN ANGER

Shivaji reached Agra on the 12th May 1666 by noon, and had to be rushed to the Court to attend the special darbar on Aurangzeb’s 50th lunar birthday. Shivaji was presented to the Emperor by Asad Khan in the Diwan-i-Khas and was then directed to stand in the line of 5 hazari mansabdars. “The Emperor neither talked nor addressed any word to him.” The work of the court proceeded and Shivaji seemed to have been forgotten.

Shivaji was not expecting this kind of reception. He was very much upset when Kumar Ram Singh (son of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber), in response to his query, informed him that the noble standing in front of him was Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur. He flared up “Jaswant, whose back my soldiers have seen! I too stand behind him? What it all means ?”

He was made to feel neglected in other ways also. At this he began to fret and “his eyes became wet with anger.” The Emperor noticed the commotion and told Ram Singh, “Ask Shivaji, what ails him.” When Kumar came, Shivaji burst forth, “You have seen, your father has seen, and your Padishah has seen, what sort of man I am, and you have wilfully made me stand up so long. I cast off your mansab …”

After saying this he then and there turned his back to the throne and rudely walked away. Kumar Ram Singh caught hold of his hand, but Shivaji wrenched it away …

In the painting above, the said scene, based on a contemporary letter, has been depicted. Shivaji is shown coming out of the Court in great anger, his back towards Aurangzeb, his sword half drawn, and Kumar Ram Singh of Amber trying in vain to pacify him. Wrote Parkaldas of Amber to the State’s Diwan in his letter of 29th May 1666, “The people had been praising Shivaji’s high spirit and courage before. Now that after coming to the Emperor’s presence he has shown such audacity and returned harsh and strong replies, the public extols him for his bravery all the more …”

8. EVEN TO LOOK AT A TEMPLE IS IMPROPER FOR A MUSALMAN

‘It was reported to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the Temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura, there was a stone railing presented by ‘Bishukoh’ (one without dignity i.e. Prince Dara, Aurangzeb’s elder brother). On hearing it, the Emperor observed, “In the religion of the Musalmans, it is improper even to look at a Temple and this Bishukoh had installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith).” His Majesty ordered Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the kathra, which was in the middle of the Temple. The Khan went and removed it. After doing it he had audience. He informed that the idol of Keshava Rai was in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in front of the chamber and that, formerly, it was of wood. Inside the kathra used to stand the sevakas of the shrine (pujaris etc.) and outside it stood the people (khalq)’.

Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai,
Julus (R.Yr.) 9, Rabi II 24 / 13 October 1666.

Commentary:

Aurangzeb’s solemn observation recorded in his own Court’s bulletin that “In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a Temple” and therefore, presentation of a stone railing to Keshava Rai Temple by Dara was “totally unbecoming of a Musalman” casts serious doubts about a few instances of religious toleration and Temple grants attributed to him. Only two years before his long awaited death, he had ordered (1st January 1705) to “demolish the Temple of Pandharpur and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the Temple … It was done.” (Akhbarat, 49-7, cited in J.N. Sarkar, Aurangzeb, Vol.III, 189).

9. HINDUS TO BE REPLACED BY MUSALMANS

Hindu Chowkinavis and Amins of the Haft-chowkis to be replaced by the Musalmans.

“Orders were issued by the Sublime Court to dismiss the Hindu Chowkinavis and to appoint in their place Musalmans, and, likewise, a way should be found for replacing the Amins of the Haft-chowkis by the Musalmans.”

Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu'alla,
Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Zilhijja 16/30 May 1667

Commentary:

Such dismissal of Hindu officials (Chowkinavis and Amins of Haft-chowkis) on the ground of religion foreshadowed the other discriminatory measures which Aurangzeb was to take in the coming years, influenced by the Shari‘at and his own religious convictions, thereby alienating the Hindus towards the Mughal government for ever.

10. RESTRICTION ON ATISHBAZI

“The Emperor ordered Jumdat-ul-Mulk to write to the Mutsaddis of all the subahs (provinces) of the empire that display of fire-works (atishbazi) is being forbidden. Also, Faulad Khan was ordered to arrange for announcement in the city by the beat of a drum that no one is to indulge in atishbazi.”

Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla,
Julus 10, Shawwal 24 / April 9th 1667.

Commentary:

The Hindus celebrate Diwali to commemorate the return of Lord Ram to Ayodhya, after fourteen years of exile and victory over Ravana, by lighting lamps and bursting crackers etc. Some time before imposing the ban on atishbazi (fireworks) Aurangzeb had written (22 November 1665) to the Subahdar of Gujarat that “In the city and parganas of Ahmedabad (or Gujarat) the Hindus, following their superstitious customs, light lamps in the night on Diwali… It is ordered that in bazars there should be no illumination on Diwali.” (Mirat, 276).

11. LARGE NUMBER OF CONVERSIONS BY FAUJDAR, BITHUR: GRANT OF SAROPAS AND CASH SANCTIONED BY AURANGZEB

‘Shaikh Abdul Momin, the Faujdar of Bithur, wrote to Jumdatul Mulk that he had converted one hundred fifty Hindus making them Musalman, and had given them saropas and cash (naqd). The Emperor said “continue giving liberally.”’

Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla,
Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Shawwal 26 / 11th April 1667.

Commentary:

This is only one of the few recorded evidence of the State subserviently acting for the advancement of Islam during the Medieval period of India’s history (1200-1790 A.D.). The process in its most invidious form was operative throughout Aurangzeb’s reign as it had been for more than three hundred years from 1200-1526 A.D. under the Delhi Sultanate, specially during the time of Sultan Firuz Tughlaq (1350-88 A.D.).

12. MUSLIMS EXEMPTED FROM PAYING ZAKAT

“A darvesh brought to the notice of the Emperor that the Musalmans (of the country) felt dejected on account of (the burden of) Zakat and that they should be exempted from paying it. Jumdat-ul Mulk now sought the Emperor’s orders regarding the matter. The Emperor (Aurangzeb) ordered that the Musalmans were to be exempted from paying it, but it should be charged from the Hindus.”

Siyaha Akhbart-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla,
Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Zilqada 2 / 16th April 1667.

Commentary:

Here the word Zakat has been used for custom duty charged on all commodities brought for sale. J.N. Sarkar (Aurangzeb, Vol.III, p.181) is right in saying that it must not be confounded with the Zakat or tithes which all Muslims had to pay as per the Quranic injunction and was meant to be spent on the Musalmans alone. When the Muslims were found to be misusing the concession, they were made to pay at half the rate of what was charged from the Hindu traders.

13. AURANGZEB RESTORING THE OFFICE OF QANUNGOSHIP TO HINDU OFFICIALS WHO WERE FORCED TO BECOME MUSALMAN

There are a large number of Akhbarat (Aurangzeb’s Court Bulletins) which mention that either Qanungoi was restored on becoming Musalman, or that a person or persons were appointed Qanungos on accepting Islam, or that they agreed to become Musalman, obviously under pressure or as inducement.

A typical entry in the Akhbarat, such as of R.Yr. 10, Zilqada / April 22, 1667, reads “Makrand etc., in all four persons, became Musalman. The Qanungoi of Parganah Khohri was restored to them. Four Khil‘ats were conferred upon them.” Sir Jadunath Sarkar is right in saying that “Qanungoship on becoming a Muslim”, had become a proverb.

As Qanungo had intimate knowledge of the customs and tenures of the land, he could serve as the best agent for protecting the interests of the Musalmans and in extending influence of Islam in the rural areas. The sketch above shows four Qanungos being restored their Qanungoi on becoming Musalman.



14. QANUNGOSHIP ON BECOMING MUSALMAN

Of the three Akhbarat of April 21st, April 22nd and May 4th 1667, the first mentions that Thakkar etc, four Qanungos of parganah Bhure, became Musalman and were awarded dresses of honour; the second says that the office of Qanungo was restored to four persons (Makrand etc.) on becoming Musalmans; the third records that Parmanand, Qanungo of Meerut, became a Musalman ‘as promised by him’.

15. MUSALMANS TO REPLACE HINDU OFFICIALS

Musalmans to replace Hindu officials as cure for ineffectiveness of prayers.

"The Emperor said to Shaikh Nizam that his prayers were not having any effect. What could be the reason for this ? The Shaikh said, 'The reason is that a large number of Hindus are serving as ahlikhidmat (officials and officers) and as musahibs (courtiers) and they are ever (seen) in the Royal presence, and, as a result, the prayers do not have any effect'. The Emperor ordered that it is necessary that the Musalmans be appointed to serve in place of the Hindus."

Siyaha Waqai Darbar,
Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Muharram 18 / 1st July 1667.

Commentary:

The object of the Emperor's prayers or the nature of the desired result is not mentioned, but it appears that it was the elevation and dominance of Islam, progress of its mission through means, such as jihad, which are very differently regarded by people of other faiths, and the welfare of the Musalmans in particular. The instant impact of the Shaikh’s analysis of the problem and implied advice to Aurangzeb is also indicative of the high degree of influence wielded by this religious class during the reign of Emperor Aurangzeb.

16. DEMOLITION OF KALKA TEMPLE, I

“The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abul Mukaram has sent this arzi to the sublime Court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka Temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the Hindus is seen here. Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bid‘at (heresy) and this matter deserves consideration. Whatever orders are required should be issued.

Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka Temple and other structures in its neighbourhood which were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt.”

Siyah Waqa’i-Darbar,
Regnal Year 10, Rabi I, 23 / 3 September 1667.

Commentary:

Kalkaji’s Temple which stands today was rebuilt soon after Aurangzeb’s death (1707 A.D.) on the remains of the old Temple dedicated to Goddess Kali. The two Akhbarat dated R.Yr. 10, Rabi I, 23 and Rabi II, 3 (Sept.3 and Sept. 12, 1667) provide details regarding the demolition of the Temple on Aurangzeb’s orders. Since 1764, the Temple has been renovated and altered several times but the main 18th century structure more or less remains the same. The site is very old dating back to Emperor Asoka’s time (3rd century B.C.). There is mention of Kalkaji in the Maratha records of 1738. People flock to the Temple in large numbers, especially during Navratras.

17. DEMOLITION OF KALKA TEMPLE, II

“Saiyad Faulad Khan has reported that in compliance with the orders, beldars were sent to demolish the Kalka Temple which task they have done. During the course of the demolition, a Brahmin drew out a sword, killed a bystander and then turned back and attacked the Saiyad also, inflicting three wounds. The Saiyid managed to catch hold of the Brahmin.”

Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla,
Julus 10, Rabi II, 3 / 12 September 1667.

Commentary:

There are only a few recorded instances of armed opposition by outraged Hindus, such as at Goner (near Jaipur), Ujjain, Udaipur and Khandela, but there must have been many more such instances of angry outbursts and resistance against Muslim vandalism which do not find mention in the official papers of Emperor Aurangzeb.

Most of the Hindus took the destruction of these Temples philosophically considering these as acts of ignorance and folly for a vain purpose. They regarded that it was beyond the understanding or intelligence of the Musalmans to comprehend the principle behind the idol worship or the fundamental oneness of saguna and nirguna worship. The Hindus believed that the Gods and Goddesses leave for their abode before the hatchet or the hammer of the “mlecchas” or “asuras” so much as even touched the idols. The idea has been well described in Kanhadade Prabandha (wr. 1456 A.D.) when giving an account of the destruction of the Somnath Temple by Sultan Alauddin’s troops in 1299.

18. RESTRICTION ON THE GATHERING OF HINDUS

Restriction on the gathering of Hindus at the shrines of Shitla Mata and Pir Pabuji. Muslims too not to gather at these places.

“For different reasons, and also out of apprehension, people visit in large numbers (the mazars or shrines) of Shah Madar, Khwaja Muin-ud-din, Salar, Sarur Sultan and Pir Ganun (Pir Pabu?) etc. They go for ziyarat (visit to sacred tombs) and perform tawaf (circumbulation) which are bid‘at. Orders were issued to stop these practices.

Also, the Hindus, and quite often the Musalmans also, flock at (the shrines of) Devi for worship and that of Pir Pabu. The Emperor ordered that this should be stopped. It was also ordered that the Hindus must not crowd at these places, and worship of Shitla wherever it is performed, should be held at a distance (from the habitation).”

Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10,
Rabi II, 17 / 26th September 1667.

Commentary:

In orthodox view of Islam, pilgrimages are permitted to three places only – Macca, Madina and Jerusalam, and the practice of visiting tombs of saints and holy men is sternly condemned, such as by the Wahabis, who saw in it violation of the doctrine of the ‘unity’. Earlier, Sultan Firuz Tughluq (1350-88) had put a ban on the visit of women for ziyarat.