What's new

The best ruler of the Indian Subcontinent - Aurangzeb Alamgir

Do you think Alamgir was the best ruler of the subcontinent

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 60.0%

  • Total voters
    45

AfrazulMandal

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
3,289
Reaction score
-1
Country
India
Location
India
Aurangzeb Alamgir was the sixth and the last great mughal emperor of India. He ruled India from 1658 to 1707 AD. He was one of the greatest mughal emperors and lived a very simple life. He lived on a small quantity of food, he used to write the Holy Quran with his own hand and sell them to earn extra wages. If he wanted, he could have lived a life of extra ordinary luxury as the, emperors, kings, nawabs, rajas, maharajas did in those days.

Aurangzeb was a well-read man, he kept up his love of books till the end. He wrote beautiful Persian prose. A selection of his letters (Ruq’at-i-Alamgiri) has long been a standard model of simple but elegant prose. He understood music well but he gave up this amusement in accordance with Islamic injunctions.

Emperor Aurangzeb is considered as the greatest of all the mughal kings. The mughal state reached its height under his leadership. The state has 29.2% of the world population under its flag (175 million out of 600 million in 1700 AD) and was one of the richest states the world had ever seen, with a world GDP of 24.5% ($ 90.8 billion out of $ 371 billion in 1700).

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857AD, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters.

This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved text books in 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.

He did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam, which are in fact the moving spirit of every faith. Historical facts must be interpreted in their true and objective spirit, and not subjectively as expressed by the Hindu writers.

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.

Demolition of Kashi Vishwanath Temple
Dr. Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.

One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. That was a fact, but Dr. Pande unraveled the reason for it.

“While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath.

Aurangzeb readily agreed.

“Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey to the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.

“When Aurangzeb came to know about this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the elephant – headed god) which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonored and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.”

"The Raja demanded salutary action, and Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant (head priest) be arrested and punished.”

Employment for Non-Muslims
Aurangzeb has often been accused of closing the doors of official employment on the Hindus, but a study of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were more Hindu officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor. Though this was primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that there was no ban on the employment of Hindus.

Jizya and other Taxes
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of the Jizya tax which had drawn severe 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.

Before 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 was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country.

That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. 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 incumbent upon the Muslim Government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, 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 agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab).

The Muslims also paid Sadaqah, Fitrah and Khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim.

As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.

Further to Aurangzeb’s credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned.

In his book Mughal administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mention’s that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees from the state treasury.

Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished 80 types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one (jizya), not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. 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 straight.

Some important points related to charactor of Aurangzeb
Just think a man of such character, caliber that cares and concern for public can be unjust, cruel. Just imagine a king such cruel and unjust to the majority could rule a huge country, for about 50 years, where high majority members serving highest position and comprising 80% in the military.

He was so pious and the best character person noble and just througout his tenure. You cannot find a single one in the present leaders. His personal piety however is undeniable. He led an exemplary simple pious life. He cares for the royal treasury as public treasury and for public. The present leaders considers public treasury to personal treasury.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal treasury as a trust of the citizens of his empire and did not use it for personal expenses. He was Subedar in Deccan and Gujarat. He didn’t destroy any temple. His period was peaceful and prosperous, called golden period.

Despite more than two decades he campaigned as subedar in Deccan and Gujarat there is no record of temple destruction in the region. He continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu temples. His period was golden period and relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.

Aurangzeb is maligned that he was against Art and Music. But the fact is that he was an accomplished musician playing VEENA. The largest numbers of books on classical Indian music in Persian were written during Aurangzeb’s reign, but banned all nude dances.

Aurangzeb's cruelty is mere rumors or at best lies invented by Hindu bigotry during colonial period through British historians who wanted to weaken India by their divide and rule policy. So that Indians do not become united and put a fight against the British rule. Bankim Chatterjee, who served his whole life to British government, was a tool of this conspiracy, and divide and rule theory.

Aurangzeb was so concerned about duties; he did not miss prayers even during the ongoing war. He spread his prayer rug and prayed in the midst of battle ground, brought him much fame. He stopped all bad things, which today everybody want.

Aurangzeb forbade sati, drinking, gambling, prostitution, devadasies, dancing in brothels, ashrams and mutts. He put jizya to Dhimmis (non-believers) which around 2.5% like Muslim pay their Zakat, 2.5% eligible person should pay. The old, women, children were exempted. Only the young man who didn’t want to serve in the army should pay the jiziya. Indian parliament still hung the bill of Lok Pal, whereas Aurangzeb was the only ruler who appointed Lok Pal to control corruption in Judiciary, Finance and other departments.

He appointed Muhattasib (Lok Pal) to control injustice and atrocities. The Brahmins and higher caste Hindus now found themselves facing Islamic law courts for the atrocities on lower castes Hindus. He was best knowledgeable and brilliant administrator. He never tolerateed injustice. He was a brave soldier and best commander in the field. He was the only who controlled Deccan and Bijapur dynasty.

Under his leadership, in particular, he led Mughal forces in the conquest of the Deccan, seizing first the Golkunda and Bijapur Sultanates, and then attacking the Maratha chieftains. He annexed all the Maratha territories. He left Shivaji because he was no threat to his kingdom.

These are the few evidence of his greatness. The Brahmins and higher caste were subject to Aurangzeb justice. They maligned,created, invented and fabricated all baseless stories to twist history, and to meet their end in both pre and post independent India.

This is all about emperor Aurangzeb. I am confident that when you will go through all these facts and figures your perception towards this Mughal emperor will change. Our nation had never seen an emperor like Aurangzeb. Our medieval history consists of various false stories. History must be taught as it was, without twist and extra spice.

Like it or not, history is just a story and should be narrated honestly. By removing the nameplate from a road no one can remove the great Aurangzeb from world's history. Brave people do not alter the facts from within existing history. Rather, they try to place themselves in the upcoming history.
 
.
The primary topics of this thread will revolve around the following threads -

1. Religious tolerance of Aurangzeb
2. Military policies
3. Social policies
4. Introduction of Jizya and other Islamic diktats
5. Abolishment of pagan superstition
6. Destruction of places of corruption, temples and vice
 
.
Islamic loot: How the Mughals drained wealth out of India

Aurangzeb: A cut above

The cruel and fanatic Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was perhaps the biggest Indian donor to Muslim lands. During the years 1661-67, he received at his court the kings of Persia, Balkh (in Afghanistan), Bukhara, Kashgar (in Xinjiang, China), Urganj (Khiva) and Shahr-i-Nau (in Iran), and the Turkish governors of Basra (in Iraq).

According to the Cambridge History of India, “His policy was to dazzle the eyes of these princes by lavish gift of presents to them and to their envoys, and thus induce the outer Muslim world to forget his treatment of his father and brothers. The fame of India as a soft milch cow spread throughout the middle and near East, and the minor embassies were merely begging expeditions.”

On the embassies received and the return-embassies sent out, Aurangzeb spent in presents nearly Rs 3 million in the course of seven years, besides the large sums which he annually distributed at Mecca and the gift of Rs 1 million to Abdullah Khan, the deposed king of Kashgar, who had taken refuge in India in 1668 and died at Delhi in 1675.

The Sharif of Mecca in particular used to send his agents to the Delhi court every year with the object of levying contributions in the name of the Prophet, till Aurangzeb’s patience was worn out and he stopped all donations to the Sharif. However, the flow of cash to Mecca continued – Aurangzeb sent his gifts to scholars and mendicants through his own agents.

Ripoff artists from the Islamic crescent

Mughal gift giving was a purely one-way street as far as the flow of wealth was concerned because the return gifts were pretty pathetic or at best ordinary and base. This is illustrated by an episode from the travelogue of Francois Bernier, the Frenchman who spent a considerable length of time in Delhi.

In 1664, the Christian monarch of Ethiopia sent an embassy represented by two ambassadors – an Armenian Christian named Murat and a Muslim merchant. They arrived in Delhi with the following ‘gifts’ – a mule skin, the horn of an ox, some arrack and a few famished and half-naked African slaves.

Upon receiving them, Aurangzeb presented the embassy with a brocade sash, a silken and embroidered girdle, and a turban of the same materials and workmanship; and gave orders for their maintenance in the city. Later at an audience, he invested each with another sash and made them a present of Rs 6,000. However, the fanatic that he was, Aurangzeb divided the money unequally – “the Mahomaten receiving four thousand roupies, and Murat, because a Christian, only two thousand”.

And that wasn’t the end of Aurangzeb’s largesse. The cunning merchant solemnly promised Aurangzeb that he would urge his King to permit the repair of a mosque in Ethiopia, which had been destroyed by the Portuguese. Hearing this, the emperor gave the ambassadors Rs 2,000 more in anticipation of this service.

Another interesting embassy came from the Uzbek Tatars. The two envoys and their servants brought some boxes of lapis-lazuli, a few long-haired camels, several horses, some camel loads of fresh fruit, such as apples, pears, grapes, and melons, and many loads of dry fruit.

The embassy which was led by two Tatars is described by Bernier as remarkable for the “filthiness of their persons”. He adds: “There are probably no people more narrow minded, sordid, or unclean than the Uzbek Tatars.”

But to Aurangzeb – who otherwise took the greatest offence at the smallest of slights – the wretched condition of the stinking embassy was a minor inconvenience that could be easily overlooked. All that mattered was that the beneficiaries were Muslims. So, in the presence of all his courtiers, he invested each of them with two rich sashes and Rs 8,000 in cash. Plus, a large number of the richest and most exquisitely wrought brocades, a quantity of fine linens, silk material interwoven with gold and silver, a few carpets, and two daggers set with precious stones.

In total Aurangzeb sent Rs 70 lakh to Muslim countries in six years. “This amount was almost twice the total revenue of England,” “This wasn’t foreign diplomacy since nothing but Islamic relics ever came back in return. The same Aurangzeb hanged to trees all Indian peasants who had defaulted on tax.”


Reality of Mughal rule

Leftist and secular historians are right about one thing – the Mughals were the richest dynasty of their time. But wealth has never been the yardstick for greatness. What they don’t see is the reality hiding in plain sight – India under the Mughals was one of the most miserable countries in the world. The relentless wars of the Mughals, in particular Aurangzeb’s 28 year war of attrition with the Marathas, and the loot of the peasantry were the prime reasons why the Indian economy was in tatters. In contrast to the previous Hindu rulers who taxed the farmers just 16 per cent of the total produce, the Mughal tax rate was 30-50 per cent, plus some additional cesses.

As Bernier observed, gold and silver “are not in greater plenty here than elsewhere; on the contrary, the inhabitants have less the appearance of a moneyed people than those of many other parts of the globe”. This is perhaps the greatest indictment of Mughal rule – that the richest empire in the world also had the greatest mass of poor citizens.

Even during Jehangir’s time, the English ambassador Thomas Roe had noted the backwardness of the countryside. While his eyes dazzled at the mountains of diamonds, rubies and pearls displayed in the Mughal court, he also noted the generally large number of destitute people – all along the route from Surat to Delhi.

Under Aurangzeb’s rule the condition of the people worsened. It is “a tyranny often so excessive as to deprive the peasant and artisan of the necessaries of life, and leave them to die of misery and exhaustion,” writes Bernier.

It is owing to this miserable system of government that most towns in Hindoustan are made up of earth, mud, and other wretched materials; that there is no city or town which, if it be not already ruined and deserted, does not bear evident marks of approaching decay.

A significant reason for India’s growing backwardness under the Mughals – as it was under the previous Sultanate Period of 334 years – was a predatory and unsustainable economic system institutionalised by India’s new rulers who had supplanted the country’s ancient Hindu royal houses.

Labourers perish due to bad treatment from Governors. Children of poor are carried away as slaves. Peasantry abandon the country driven by despair. As the land throughout the whole empire is considered the property of the sovereign, there can be no earldoms, marquisates or duchies. The royal grants consist only of pensions, either in land or money, which the king gives, augments, retrenches or takes away at pleasure.”

According to historian K.S. Lal, All the resources available in India were fully exploited to provide comforts and luxuries to the Muslim ruling and religious classes. “Muslim chronicles vouch for this fact. They also vouch for the fact that the enjoyment of the Muslim elite was provided mainly by the poorest peasants through a crushing tax system.”
 
. . . . .
In total Aurangzeb sent Rs 70 lakh to Muslim countries in six years. “This amount was almost twice the total revenue of England,” “This wasn’t foreign diplomacy since nothing but Islamic relics ever came back in return. The same Aurangzeb hanged to trees all Indian peasants who had defaulted on tax.”
Says a lot about bigotry. And Pakistanis who support him just because he was Muslim have the audacity to lecture Indians about tolerance. I've learnt one thing on PDF: religious Muslims can never be trusted. They will always try to go one up over you in the cheapest way possible.
India under the Mughals was one of the most miserable countries in the world. The relentless wars of the Mughals, in particular Aurangzeb’s 28 year war of attrition with the Marathas, and the loot of the peasantry were the prime reasons why the Indian economy was in tatters. In contrast to the previous Hindu rulers who taxed the farmers just 16 per cent of the total produce, the Mughal tax rate was 30-50 per cent, plus some additional cesses.
They had to pay for wars, didn't they? They brought almost the whole of Delhi camp to the Deccan to conquer the region.

Thanks for sharing this.
 
.
Says a lot about bigotry. And Pakistanis who support him just because he was Muslim have the audacity to lecture Indians about tolerance. I've learnt one thing on PDF: religious Muslims can never be trusted. They will always try to go one up over you in the cheapest way possible.

They had to pay for wars, didn't they? They brought almost the whole of Delhi camp to the Deccan to conquer the region.

Thanks for sharing this.

Have you ever met a "non religious" muslim ? And I am not talking about atheists born into muslim families.
 
. .
Lol as expected---poor Hindutva incels getting mad in this thread.

Aurangzeb had great positives and as expected, some negatives too. His reign, his conquests, and his policies can be critiqued. But to imagine a balanced view of him from inferiority-complex stricken Hindus is laughable. Afterall, Aurangzeb literally stretch the domination of Mughals across the length and width of Indian landmass like no ruler in Medieval India had ever done so before.

Although, Aurangzeb's reign also coincided with the time where global Islamic domination was setting, and the era of Europe as a the new global hegemon was rising. He died in the 18th century----by mid 18th century, another Islamic empire (Afsharid empire) was arguably the most powerful empire on the face of the Earth. However, after mid 18th century, it was all Europe (that had been rising since quite some time now)

Even in India, after Mughals decline post Aurangzeb---few decades of chaos existed where Sikhs, Marathas etc made small territorial gains temporarily (poor Indians call those meager gains as "empire" LOL)---but by 1757, Brits at Plassey had announced their arrival and domination of India passed from Mughals to Brits effectively.

Aurangzeb, nevertheless, was one of the most powerful and influential Indian ruler. Much more so than any Hindu ruler of Medieval times.

Ironically, Aurangzeb had more power over Indian landmass and population than Modi does today :rofl:
 
.
Have you ever met a "non religious" muslim ? And I am not talking about atheists born into muslim families.
Yes. Some are Muslims in just name. I'll trust them any day over the religious ones. One of my friends is an irreligious Muslim (who is a girl btw). But the percentage of irreligious Muslims is less as compared to irreligious Hindus.
 
.
Yes. Some are Muslims in just name. I'll trust them any day over the religious ones. One of my friends is a Muslim (who is a girl btw). But the percentage of irreligious Muslims is less as compared to irreligious Hindus.

Ask them to ear pork and watch their reaction. That will give you an idea how "irreligious" they are.
 
.
Ask them to ear pork and watch their reaction. That will give you an idea how "irreligious" they are.
Not eating pork is fine. I am an irreligious Hindu but I still won't eat beef. There are just certain sentiments that we have that can't be avoided.

Ask them to ear pork and watch their reaction. That will give you an idea how "irreligious" they are.
Also, one Muslim with whom I used to play cricket used to invite me for drinks (alcohol). I won't call him a close friend but at one period, we used to play regularly. He was basically a driver of a man living near my house. I always declined his invitations as I don't drink alcohol. Even he was somewhat irreligious.
 
.
Not eating pork is fine. I am an irreligious Hindu but I still won't eat beef. There are just certain sentiments that we have that can't be avoided.

You will find Hindus who eat beef. Maybe they are communist.

But even "communist" Muslims won't eat pork. Though they will eat beef.

The pork test is the best test to reveal their true beliefs and values. Rest is all pop culture.

This is the problem when you draw False equivalence because you are desperate to find some bridge.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom