December 18,

2015passerbyindunyaLeave

a comment

AURANGZIB

NOTES ON AURANGZIB
Some random notes being collated below for a future article on Hadhrat
Aurangzeb Alamgir (rahmutallahi alayh), who was arguably the most pious and
puritanical ruler to have ruled a vast Islamic Empire in the past five hundred
years.
The evidence collected here should refute much of the slanderous allegations
and lies propagated regarding Hadhrat Aurangzeb (May Allah have Mercy upon
him) by serfs, sirs, and handmaids of the British imperialist historians whose
express intention was to demonise the Muslim rulers of India, and upon whose
fabricated history the force-fed educational diet of entire generations of Indians
were based and which should also serve as yet another example of largescale manipulation of the masses by the elite through propaganda.
Any relevant evidences, accounts, books, quotes, etc. sent through the
comments box below will be much appreciated.
AURANGZEB A PURITANICAL FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC RULER
There is no doubt that Hadhrat Aurangzeb was the epitome of puritanical Islam
and amongst the most pious, rigid adherent to Islamic teachings. According to
the popularly accepted history which has been swallowed willingly and
regurgitated aggressively by many academics and historians (honest
exceptions aside), it is puritanical Islam which was the driving force behind the
alleged tyranny and oppression supposedly inflicted by Muslim rulers upon
India. Such alleged tyranny and oppression, in the fabricated revisionist history,
include genocide and forced conversions of countless non-muslims (Kuffaar) of
all faiths, and the systematic destruction of their places of worship.
Since there are abundant sources and contemporary accounts to shed light on
Hadhrat Aurangzeb and his reign, we will be able to gauge whether this alleged
connection between puritanical Islam and tyranny is tenable or not, and we will
be able to compare and contrast such tyranny and oppression with that of
other nations and eras including this modern age of civilization.
Evidences from a range of sources, including eye-witness accounts, should
provide an adequate glimpse into the life and character of Hadhrat Aurangzeb,

the most fanatical, puritanical and ardent practitioner of Islam amongst the
rulers of India, and his supposedly tyrannical regime, ruled with an iron-fist, in
which non-muslims are supposed to have been systematically subjected to
mass-slaughter or mass-conversions, and their places of worship destroyed at
every possible opportunity.
We shall begin with Saubhagya Vijaya, a priest of the Jains who were regarded
as Kaafir Hindus by Hadhrat Aurangzeb and other Muslim rulers. Saubhagya
Vijaya relates in his chronicle of Jain saints, Prachin Tirtha mala, an occasion
on which the Jain priest, Lal Vijaya, visited Hadhrat Aurangzeb whose
reputation at the time the chronicle was written (1693), near the end of his 50year reign, would have been cemented thoroughly far and wide throughout
India and even in other nations:
His

[Charitrya Vijayas a Jain saint] disciple,

Lal Vijaya Gani, who adorned the title
of Pundit, went to Agra and met Aurangzeb,
the King of Delhi. The Virtuous King of Delhi
gave him monestry [poshala a grant]
extensive in size, for the Tapagachchha sects
of the Jains, and he (Aurangzeb) issued a
Firman (an imperial order) to that effect, so
that he may live there with all comforts.
[Prachin Tirthmala, Saubha Vijaya, Page 99]

Worth noting from the quote above, as will become even more evident from
numerous other eye-witness accounts of contemporaries, is the fact that
Hadhrat Aurangzeb held an open-door policy in his court, as was the Sunnah
(way) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sunnah of all the pious
Muslim rulers in history. In an Empire which Hadhrat Aurangzeb stretched to its
greatest limits (governing one quarter of the worlds entire population) despite
severe limitations an empire which even exceeded the Ottoman Empire in
magnitude, from a couple of angles every person, whether Muslim or Kaafir
(non-muslim), poor or rich, was able to petition Hadhrat Aurangzeb directly in
his court.
Stanley Lane-Poole relates Ovingtons first-hand experience of the English
merchants in India who recognised Hadhrat Aurangzebs justice, despite being
amongst his least partial critics:
Not

merely Indian writers but also foreigners

bear testimony to the fair administration of
justice under Aurangzeb. Ovington, who

derived his opinions and information from

Aurangzebs least partial critics, the English
merchants at Bombay and Surat, says that
the Great Mogul The great Mogul is the main
ocean of justice He generally determines
with exact justice and equity, for there is no
pleading of peerage or privilege before the
emperor, but the meanest man is as soon
heard by Aurangzib as the chief Omrah
(noble.) With a thoughtfulness not common
with Oriental despots, Aurangzib is said to
have maintained relief kitchens for his poorer
subjects in times of famine, and to have
remitted various vexatious taxes that pressed
heavily upon them.
The views of his least partial critics fully corroborates the following picture of
Aurangzeb as a judge, quoted by Stanley Lane-Poole from Bakhtawar Khan, an
officer of Aurangzebs:
The

author Mirat-i-Alam, Bakhtawar Khan

gives us the following picture of Aurangzeb
the judge:
.
In his sacred Court no improper conversation,
no word of backbiting or falsehood, is allowed.
His courtiers, on whom his light is reflected,
are cautioned that if they have to say
anything which might injure the character of
an absent man, they should express
themselves in decorous language and at full
detail.
.
He appears two or three times every day in
his court of audience with a pleasing countenance and mild look, to dispense justice to
complainants who come in numbers without

any hindrance, and as he listens to them with

great attention, they make their
representations without any fear or hesitation,
and obtain redress from his impartiality.
.
If any person talks too much, or acts in an
improper manner, he is never displeased, and
he never knits his brows. His courtiers have
often desired to prohibit people from showing
so much boldness, but he remarks that by
hearing their very words, and seeing their
gestures, he acquires a habit of forbearance
and tolerance.
.
All bad characters are expelled from the city
of Dehl, and the same is ordered to be done
in all places throughout the whole empire. The
duties of preserving order and regularity
among the people are very efficiently
attended to, and throughout the empire,
notwithstanding its great extent, nothing can
be done without meeting with the due
punishment enjoined by the Muhammadan
law. Under the dictates of anger and passion
he never issues orders of death.
The contemporary Scottish merchant, Alexander Hamilton, who
attended Hadhrats Aurangzeb court, was so impressed by the proceedings he
witnessed that he felt they embodied the Christian principles of morality and
forgiveness, and he contrasted Hadhrat Aurangzebs behaviour with that of
the English merchants at the time. Robert Markley quotes Alexander Hamilton
from his travelogue, A New Account of the East Indies (1727), as follows:
Hamilton

represents the emperors court

as a model of civil and well- orchestrated
governance in contrast to the tyrannical,
corrupt, and uncivil behavior of Child and

his henchmen. His narrative turns

Aurangzeb into an embodiment of Western
indeed universalmorality. To this end,
Hamilton includes a translation of
Aurangzebs letter to the ambassadors, and it
functions as a model of how a just and even
merciful monarch exercises his power. The
emperor, according to Hamilton (1727,
1:229), was not desirous to use Severity
in punishing Offences and Affronts; but,
like an indulgent Prince, only told [the
English] their Faults, and prudently
admonished them not to be guilty of
falling into such like Errors, and, in a
majestick Stile, advised them to receive
his Favours and Graces with great
Respect, and that they ought to make the
Law the Standard of Justice, and in all his
Words and Actions, used a Christian
Moderation. By using Christian as an
adjectival marker of civilized behavior,
Hamilton makes explicit what Ovington
only backhandedly acknowledges: the
Mughalsin this case the emperor himself
embody the very principles that define
Christian morality and forgiveness.
In another part of the same book, Alexander Hamilton, who witnessed Indian
society during the later part of Aurangzebs reign, stated that the Hindus
enjoyed full toleration for their religion:
The

Gentows [i.e. Hindus] have full toleration

for their religion, and keep their fasts and
feasts as in former times, when the
sovereignty was in pagan princes hands. [A
New Account of the East Indies, Vol 1, pp 159]

He mentions that everyone was free to practice their own religion and that

persecution for the sake of religion was unknown:

There

are above an hundred different sects

[i.e. of various religions] in this city (Surat);
but they never have hot disputes about their
doctrine or way of worship. Every one is free
to serve and worship God their own way. And
persecutions for religions sake are not known
among them.

It was evident that temples and churches existed for each religion. Hamilton
states elsewhere:
The

Black Town is inhabited by Gentows,

Mohametans and Indian Christians, viz.
Armenians, and Portugueze, where there are
Temples and Churches for each Religion,
every one being tolerated; and every one
follows his proper Employment.
Although the accounts of European travellers are replete with myths, fables,
gossip and tales from the bazaar, they have some value when they narrate
direct personal experiences and eye-witness accounts.
William Norris, an English Ambassador sent by the King of England to seek an
audience with Hadhrat Aurangzeb, narrates his personal experience of India as
follows:
.
I

think it hard to judge whether the Moores

[i.e. Muslims] or Rashbootes [i.e. Hindus] are
more ridiculous in their ceremonies; the
Moores favour more of the papistes & this
ceremony is like their exposing the Relics of
some saint.
.
This I think is observable that there is not the
least clashing or falling out amongst so many
different sects & castes as there are in this
Town. They live quietly and contented
amongst one another, each sect & cast
enjoying his superstition & performing their

idolatrous worship without any disputes or

molestation..I heartily pity them for their
ignorance & mistaken devotion, but really
they might teach Christians this one Lesson
who are of different opinions in some points to
live quietly & peacably amongst themselves &
not tear one another in pieces.
And also:
.
In

these 3 months that I have been here I

have neither seen nor heard of any
drunkenesse disorder, riott or quarelling in the
Town. It would be well if European Citys would
take example. [Das, The Norris Embassy]
William Norris narrated his experience right near the end of Aurangzebs reign
when Aurangzebs alleged tyranny and bigotry was supposed to have reached
their worst levels. One aspect which William Norris repeatedly mentioned, and
which will be delved into in much more detail later, is the fact that the Mughal
nobility, princes, and officials had degenerated into an abject state of
corruption, worldly indulgence and extravagance a degeneration that began
several generations before Aurangzeb came to power. One exception to the
overwhelming norm of corruption in William Norriss experience and with whom
he had the opportunity to interact with was Yar Ali Beg, one of Aurangzebs
closest and most trusted officers.
.
It is worth quoting the superlative estimation Norris acquired regarding this
individual since much of the praiseworthy Islamic qualities he witnessed in the
person of Yar Ali Beg is to a far greater extent applicable to Yar Ali Begs
superior, Hadhrat Aurangzeb, as will become self-evident from other evidences
to be produced on this page:
.
[in

the] midst of the most base vitious &

corrupt court in the universe this minster
alone is virtuous. The sole business of all other
ministers is to gripe squeeze all the money
they can from all people by the bases &
indirect means imaginable openly &

barefaced. This man alone despises riches & is

above the temptation of any bribe can be
offered. Just to the greatest nicety & firm to
the interest he espouses & not to be
disobliged, but by suspecting his integrity or
offering bribery to debauch it.
.
He is courted by everybody & dreaded by all
the corrupt ministers of the court who stand in
awe of his virtue & rigid manners.
.
The virtue of the ancient Romans eminently
appears in him & seems a compound of
Ffabritius [and] Cato ye Censer [a reference
to the Roman Republican statesman Marcus
Cato, known for his honesty and integrity, and
to the Roman general Fabricius Luscinus
famed for his simplicity and probity].
.
This man, that commands what he pleases of
the Emperour & the Empire, may enrich
himself as he pleases by his great commands
offices & favour with the King [Aurangzeb]
contents himself with doing the Emperour real
& true Service without amassing up riches to
himself & pays a great sum every month into
the Kings Treasure out of the produce of his
offices.
.
And in the midst of a luxurious dissolute
effeminate debauched Empire is the only man
I yet have heard of that lives like one of the
ancient Romans I have named. His habit, his
little house & furniture not all to the value of

20 rups, lies upon a bare cott which he is not

ashamed to show in the room of his
entertaining strangers. His diet as spare as his
furniture a little rice & water & yet in this
little place the greatest men in the court come
& pay their court & salam to the ground to
him.
.
It is impossible for one man to stem the
current of vice & corruption or else this good
mans example might be very prevalent.
It needs to be stated that the qualities mentioned above, which only very few
exhibited during Aurangzebs reign, were once the overwhelming norm in
Islamic society, during the early ages when the Muslims used to diligently put
into practice all the precepts of Islam.
.
Returning to the high regard the Jain Hindus had for Aurangzeb, the Hindu
historian, Jnan Chandra, states in Alamgirs Tolerance in the light of
Contemporary Jain literature that:
.
There

may be many more such instances of

Aurangzibs favour towards Jain religion and
its institutions, that created esteemed opinion
about him in the minds of its followers.
Such is the high esteem in which the Jain Hindus would hold this supposed
temple-destroying, kuffaar-massacring tyrant, that Jnan Chandra found books
of the Jains to contain colophons which praised Aurangzeb, near the end of his
reign, when his reputation would have firmly entrenched itself into Indian
society. Jnan Chandra quotes a few such instances of praise found in the
colophons of the books written by Jain priests, poets and authors:
.
Here

rules the King Aurangzib, whose orders

are obeyed everywhere. Such is the grace of
the King that no one has any kind of fear.
[Bhagvti Das in his Brahma-Vilas written in
1698]
King Aurangzib is gallant and valiant. During

his reign I composed this book with all joy and

peace. [The Jain poet, Ramchandra, in his
Ram Vinod]
In his [Aurangzebs] reign there is nothing for
any religious-minded people to fear about
their studies. [Jagatrai Rai in his Padmanandi
Panchvisika]
S
i
d
e
b
a
r