NAME: - JUBIN JAMES

ROLL NO.: - 331

1
Critically evaluate the religious policy of Aurangzeb whether or not he made a
departure from his liberal predecessor Akbar?

Introduction
Aurangzeb is regarded as the Mughal Empire's last powerful emperor. The reign of
Aurangzeb, from 1658 to 1707, was one of the most contentious periods in Mughal history.
Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached its territorial apex, but it also came to an end.
Aurangzeb was the first Mughal ruler to assume imperial authority during the reign of his
father, the then-reigning Emperor Shah Jahan, for which he committed fratricide by
assassinating his brothers. In Indian history, Akbar and Aurangzeb are widely regarded as
the Mughal period's hero and villain. He ascended to the throne following a succession war
with his elder brother Dara Shikoh, who was supposed to be the ruler according to Mughal
tradition. Dara's and Aurangzeb's forces fought in the battle of Samugarh, with Aurangzeb
emerging victorious. Despite the fact that Dara was regarded as a liberal and Aurangzeb as
the face of religious orthodoxy, this battle cannot be viewed as a conflict between religious
orthodoxy and liberal ideas because Hindu (Rajput) and Muslim Rajas were equally placed
on both sides. Following the victory, Aurangzeb marched towards Delhi with his ailing
father Shajahan on the throne, but he was forced to surrender and was imprisoned. However,
according to some sources, he was never ill-treated and lived for 8 years in the fort's female
apartments, lovingly nursed by one of his daughters, Jahanara. This marked the start of the
most contentious rule in Mughal history. The Mughal empire reached its zenith and
territorial climax during Aurangzeb's reign, stretching from Kashmir in the north to Jinji in
the south, and from the Chittagong in the east to the Hindukush ranges in the west. His rule
was distinguished by a highly personalised approach, and he pursued an expansionist policy
in order to expand the Mughal empire to the east, north east, and Deccan. During his reign,
empires such as the Sikhs and the Marathas rose to prominence. It was also a time when
many significant cultural religious revivalist movements were gaining traction in India.
Aurangzeb’s religious policy
Historians have long argued about Aurangzeb's accomplishments as a ruler in terms of
religion and ideology. He reversed Akbar's policy of religious tolerance, undermining Hindu
loyalty to the empire. Scholars such as Jadunath Sarkar have labelled Aurangzeb a bigot.
Some modern historians, on the other hand, believe that Aurangzeb has been unfairly
maligned, that the Hindus had become disloyal and too powerful as a result of the laxity of
Aurangzeb's predecessors, leaving Aurangzeb with no choice but to adopt harsh methods and
try to rally the Muslims, on whose support the empire had to rely in the long run. Certain
scholars, such as Zahiruddin Faruki, try to give the impression that all Aurangzeb's policies
were dictated only by the real socioeconomic needs of the time, and that religion had no role
to play at all. In recent writings, efforts have been made to assess Aurangzeb's political and
religious policies in the context of social, economic, and institutional development.
In his personal life, Aurangzeb is known to be an orthodox Muslim. However, it is worth
analyzing to what extent he has allowed his personal beliefs to dominate state policy. To

2
understand his religious and ideological beliefs, we must look back at the battle for the
succession and Aurangzeb's ascension to the throne. As we have seen above, it is very clear
that religion is not the deciding factor in the war of succession and it cannot be viewed
simply as an ideological conflict between Aurangzeb fundamentalism and Dara's liberalism.
The manner in which Aurangzeb gained power during his father's lifetime made legitimacy
an issue and he had to justify his hold on power. Mr. Athar Ali pointed out that Shahjahan
was alive until 1666, and it cannot be ignored that any serious change in the policy of the
court, adversely affecting the interests of a large part of the nobility, could all lead to an
attempt to restore the Shahjahan. It seems that it was only around 1666 that Aurangzeb
began to adopt a policy that, if not directly opposed, was at least in spirit different from that
of his predecessors. It was during this period and in that context that the emperor began to
restrict the recruitment and promotion of Rajputs. A new justification had to be found for his
coup of 1658-59. In keeping with his orthodox temperament, which he developed, this
justification was provided by an emphasis on the Islamic character of the Empire, and a new
religious policy was introduced to create cast a religious halo around the imperial crown.
This was accompanied by an attempt to align Islamic orthodoxy as closely as possible with
the Empire. The religious policies of Aurangzeb were perceived by Satish Chandra roughly
in two periods: the first covering the first part of his reign (1658-1679) and the second
covering the rest of his reign. his reign (1679-1707). In 1659, when Aurangzeb took power,
the Qazi chieftain denied the crown to Aurangzeb since his father was still alive. In the end,
he had to appeal to Qazi Abdul Wahab of Gujrat (who was rewarded with the position of
Qazi chieftain), who ruled that because Shah Jahan was too weak and weak to carry out his
royal duties, so Aurangzeb's coronation is legal. This is one of the earliest examples of
Aurangzeb using religion to justify political actions.
Aurangzeb also stopped practicing Jharoka Darshan or showing himself to the public from
the balcony, as he considered it a superstitious practice against Islam. Likewise, he forbade
the ceremonial weighing of gold, silver and other items of the emperor on his birthday,
known as Tuladan. In 1675, he also forbade astrologers to prepare diaries. In 1679, the
practice of the emperor placing a tika on the forehead of a new raja was stopped. The
atmosphere in the court also eased. Even the official story-writing department was abolished
as a cost-saving measure. Clearly, financial and political problems have led to most of these
measures, and even if they are justified on religious grounds, it should be remembered that
none of these measures are discriminatory. In this respect, Aurangzeb has not deviated from
the policy of his predecessors.
The controversial Temple destruction and Imposition of Jizya
Two well-known measures introduced by Aurangzeb that can be called discriminatory and
show bigotry towards non-Muslims are the destruction of temples and the re-imposition of
the Jizya tax. These two charges must be why he is referred to by historians as a fanatic and
purist ruler. In the early years of his reign, Aurangzeb reiterated Sharia's view of temples,
churches and synagogues that "an old temple should not be demolished, but a new one
should not be built". This is evident from sources indicating that he issued some existing
peasants (royal orders) to the Brahmins of Benares and Vrindavan. Aurangzeb's orders

3
regarding temples are not new. He reasserted the prevailing position during the Sultanate
period and was repeated by Shah Jahan at the beginning of his reign. But in reality, the
interpretation of the words "long standing," left a lot of latitude to local elected officials. In
1665, several temples in Gujrat including the famous temple of Somnath, which Aurangzeb
the prince of Gujrat destroyed. Ultimately, there is no precise reason to believe that
Aurangzeb later deviated from this policy of limiting tolerance, going against Sharia law and
ordering the destruction of temples in general. No orders of destruction have been
discovered, and there is no mention of them in Aurangzeb's letters. And mention of such
destruction can only be found in Maasir-i-Alamgiri, written after the death of Aurangzeb.
Furthermore, many ancient Hindu temples still exist, and there is also written evidence of
Aurangzeb renewing land grants to famous Hindu temples in Mathura and he also gave them
gifts, such as Sikhs. Gurudwara in Dehradun, yogis in Pargana Didwana. , Sarkar Nagor.
Another proof that Aurangzeb was not a fanatic like what he has been depicted as a rock
inscription from the historic temple of Balaji or Vishnu, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat,
still shows him in command. by the emperor himself. Further evidence of Aurangzeb
granting land to prominent Hindu religious sites such as the temple in Varanasi can easily be
verified from existing work for these sites. However, Aurangzeb later followed a policy of
selective destruction or construction of Hindu temples, and this was done as a warning to the
local Hindu rajas or as retaliation for the invasion. rebellion. As a result, several famous
temples in Vrindavan, Mathura and Thatta were destroyed as part of their policy. This
became acute when, in 1679, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh and the resistance of
Rathors to oppose placing Marwar under Mughal government while awaiting a controversial
succession decision, several throne ancient temples in the area were destroyed. Aurangzeb's
unbiased opinions also suggest that the destruction of temples also entails the destruction of
mosques. However, when the Mughals attacked the Maratha territory and invaded southern
India as far as Jinji after 1687, the temples in these regions were left undisturbed except in a
few exceptional cases and many were listed in Bhimsen's memoirs. His so-called religious
fanaticism or prejudice was therefore carried out due to a number of political factors and
mainly the transformation of the Sikh, Maratha and Deccani kingdoms into powerful entities
posing a serious threat to the Mughal Empire. is clear. It can be assumed that he was not
against the Hindu religion, but against adherents of a religion that posed a serious threat to
the stability of the Mughal Empire.
According to Niccolao Manucci, Aurangzeb was motivated by the need to replenish its
coffers, which had been depleted by the war, and to force poorer Hindus to convert to Islam.
Zahiruddin Faruki believes that Aurangzeb paid about 80 other taxes and that by imposing
Jizya he was able to regulate his finances and appease the ulema by performing religious
duties. Compulsory conversion of Hindus is not an issue as evidenced by the fact that public
officials have been exempt from payment. However, Satish Chandra points out that these
arguments are inconsistent with critical scrutiny.
The most important measure of Aurangzeb's religious policy was the re-establishment of
Jizya on April 2, 1679, with the official objective of "controlling the infidels and
distinguishing a believer's land from the of the infidels". However, the fact that it was
imposed almost 17 years after joining amply shows that religion is not the only reason to
4
reposition it. Under the new law, all non-Muslims are divided into three categories: poor,
middle class and rich, and they pay 12, 24 or 48 dirhams or rupees. 3/1/3, RS. 6/2/3 and Rs.
13/1/3 respectively each year. Groups such as women, children under fourteen and underage
children are exempt. According to Sir JN Sarkar, the tax payable is 6% of their gross income
for the poor, 6 to 6¼% for the middle class and less than 2½ per 1000 for the rich. Thus,
jizya is a regressive tax levied on the poor over the rich.
Conclusion
Historians are deeply divided over Aurangzeb's reign and his religious policies. According to
some, he is known to have changed Akbar's policy of religious tolerance and thereby
weakened the loyalty of the Hindus to the Mughals, leading to uprisings and disturbances in
community which erodes the vitality of the empire. But on the other hand, some modern
historians argue that Aurangzeb was wrongly accused, and that the Hindu Maharajas and
Diwans became disloyal and over-powerful due to the laxity of Aurangzeb's predecessors, so
Aurangzeb as ruler of an empire went the other way and continued with harsh methods and
tried to rally the Muslim support, whom he believed for the long period of the empire has
rested. In recent works on Aurangzeb and his reign, attempts have been made to evaluate
Aurangzeb's political and religious policies in light of the economic, social and institutional
development of his reign. Based on this research, there is no doubt that he is orthodox in his
beliefs. He was not interested in philosophical debates or mysticism, and although he
occasionally visited Sufi saints to gain blessings, it would be unfair to look at Aurangzeb's
religious policy within a rigid framework, based on their personal religious beliefs. As ruler,
Aurangzeb faced many political upheavals, economic, social and administrative problems.
There is therefore no doubt about the religious orthodoxy of Aurangzeb but it would not be
correct to describe him as a religious fanatic or a purist or as a fanatic without regard to
political, economic and social problems and crisis during his reign. So indeed he made some
departure from his predecessor Akbar’s liberal approach as it was necessary for the long run
of his empire.

Bibliography
Satish Chandra – Medieval India, From Sultanate to the Mughals
Satish Chandra – Mughal Religious Policies, The Rajputs and The Deccan
Jadunath Sarkar – History of Aurangzeb, Volumes III & IV
M. Athar Ali – The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb
Zahiruddin Faruki – Aurangzeb and His Times