Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Rashmun, don't be afraid to post about Aurangzeb.

panini press wrote:On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Rashmun, don't be afraid to post about Aurangzeb.

.

Looks like this thread has rattled Rashmun. He has now taken to asking that I don't bring up these matters in some threads!

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Not true. Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widow	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widow	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

It is important to cross-reference all evidence related to the table above into this thread as well. So here goes.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64558

One last piece on the Nizams' destruction of Hindu temples.

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

More evidence of temples destroyed by the Nizam.

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64556

The history of the Deccani Sikhs can be traced back to the visit of Guru Nanak who, accompanied by two disciples, Bala, a Hindu, and Mardana, a Muslim, crossed the Deccan, including Hyderabad. Thereafter, about three centuries ago, i.e. some time in September 1708 A.D., Guru Gobind Singh, while on a sojourn to the South, expired at Nanded. As was common in those days, the Guru had an entourage of about 300 persons with him. Some of these people stayed back and made Nanded their home by marrying into local families. It is the descendants of these Sikhs who are known as Deccani Sikhs.

The second phase of the entry of Sikhs into the Deccan was during the regime of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1828-1839), some time in 1832. During those days, the Nizam of Hyderabad ruled over the 16 provinces of the Deccan which included Mahaboobnagar, Nargunda, Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Medak, Nanded, Purbani, Beed, Usmanabad, Aurangabad, Gulburga, Reicher and Bidar. As he was being exploited by local zamindars, mansabdars, jagirdars, nawabs etc., his Prime Minister, Maharaja Chandu Lal, advised him to enlist the help of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Consequently, the Nizam sent his advocate Darvash Mohammed to the Maharaja with gifts. Ranjit Singh agreed to the Nizam's proposal on the condition that he would cooperate in the construction of a gurdwara at Nanded, where Guru Gobind Singh had breathed his last.

The Nizam readily agreed to the proposal and the gurdwara was constructed in 1840. Deccani Sikhs of erstwhile Hyderabad state at a get-together Maharaja Ranjit Singh then dispatched a strong army of 14,000 men to Hyderabad with the instructions that he would give them their salaries and that none should return till recalled. The army reached Hyderabad in four months and was given a place to set up a cantonment at Mir Alam Tank, Attapur, on Rajendranagar road.

To this day, the descendants of the soldiers stay here. The soldiers were soon able to control the revolt against the Nizam. Since the Nizam was extremely pleased with the performance of the Sikh army, he didn?t let the soldiers return to Punjab after Ranjit Singh?s death. So, they came under the Nizam?s control and married into local Rajput families of Hyderabad and adjoining districts. According to an elderly Sikh gentleman who had worked in the Nizam?s army, there were four main categories of soldiers in the army during the Nizam?s days ? risaldar, za*****, siladar and sepoy. After the retirement of the father, the son was appointed to the same post after he attained the age of 18. Till the age of five, the child was allowed to stay with his parents. Thereafter, till the age of 18 he was trained at the Amberpet Police Training School in Hyderabad and subsequently absorbed into the Nizam?s army. That is why even now 90 per cent of the Sikhs are in government service. However, of late, some Deccani Sikhs have ventured into business.

The third phase of the arrival of Sikhs in Hyderabad was after Partition. The Sikhs who had been engaged in various trades in Pakistan had to work their way up in Hyderabad. The local Sikhs are basically Andhraites. Though most of them don?t speak Punjabi, let alone read or write, they chant verses from the Guru Granth Sahib, go to gurdwaras, and observe all Sikh religious customs. In short, it is very difficult to distinguish between a Deccani Sikh and a Punjabi Sikh. At present, the Sikhs control a big chunk of the local business, especially automobile spare parts transport, steel etc. The Punjabi community in Hyderabad is represented by a body known as the Andhra Pradesh Punjabi Sabha. Sardar Darshan Singh, a descendent of Deccani Sikhs whose forefathers contributed to the development of the Sikh community in Hyderabad, said "The Punjabi Sabha was given 200 acres of land by the fourth Nizam at Attapur Sikh cantonment for the development of a housing society. This scheme has, however, run into legal trouble, and nobody is willing to help us out." WAHAGURU JI KA KHALSA SRI WAHAGURU JI KI FATHA.

http://wikimapia.org/788645/Gurudwara-Shaib-Gowliguda-Sat-Sri-Akal

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.
Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

Now the first part, that the Muslim invaders broke temples, has been mentioned in our history books, but the second part, which is of ten times longer duration, that the descendents of these invaders, who were local rulers used to foster communal harmony they used to give land grants for building Hindu temples, they celebrated and organized Hindu festivals, has been deliberately suppressed by the British from our history books, the whole game being divide and rule. Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other.

If you go on line and read the speech called 'History in the Service of Imperialism' a speech by Professor B. N. Pandey, Professor of History in Allahabad University, who later became Governor of Orissa, given in 1977 in the Rajya Sabha, the upper House of Parliament. Prof. Pandey has mentioned in great detail how the British policy was to make Hindus and Muslims inimical to each other.

For instance he [Professor B.N. Pandey] has mentioned that in 1928 when he was a Professor of History in Allahabad University some students came to him with a book written by one Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit of Calcutta University in which it was mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam otherwise they will be killed, and those 3000 Brahmins committed suicide rather than becoming Muslims. On reading this Professor B. N. Pandey wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him on what basis have you written this? What is the source of your information? Prof. Harprasad Shastri wrote back that the source of information is the Mysore Gazetteer. Then Prof. Pandey wrote to Prof. Shrikantia, Professor of History in Mysore University asking him whether it is correct that in Mysore Gazetteer it is mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Shrikantia wrote back that this is totally false, he had worked in this field and there is no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer, rather the correct version was just the reverse, namely, that Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, he used to send grants to the Shankaracharya of Shringheri, etc.

Now, just imagine what mischief has been done. Deliberately our history books have been falsified so that the mind of a child at an impressionable age is poisoned so that he should start hating Muslims in India and in Pakistan he should start hating Hindus. The poison put in the mind of an impressionable age is very difficult to remove at a later age. All our history books have been falsified in this manner.

It is time we re-write our History books and show that in fact upto 1857 there was no communal problem at all in India. A composite culture in India had been developing. Hindus used to participate Eid and Muharram, and Muslims used to participate in Holi, Diwali etc.. There were some differences no doubt but they were becoming narrower. In 1857 the great Mutiny took place. Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. After suppressing that Mutiny it was decided by the British rulers that the only way to control this country to divide and rule. In other words, Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other. All communal riots start after 1857. The English Collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit and give him money to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and give him some money to speak against Hindus. A very beautiful racket was started in this way, and this resulted ultimately in the partition of 1947.

I am just telling you this to show that now the time has come when we must see through this game. I mean how long are you going to be taken for a ride. Are we fools that anybody can come and make fools out of us and make us fight each other.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-05/india/30477217_1_west-indies-immigrants-mauritius/8

Rashmun, thanks for posting more evidence about temple building by both Nizam and Aurangzeb to this thread.

Based on this evidence, I am tempted to revise the definitive comparison table. Stay tuned.

Rashmun wrote:Now the first part, that the Muslim invaders broke temples, has been mentioned in our history books, but the second part, which is of ten times longer duration, that the descendents of these invaders, who were local rulers used to foster communal harmony they used to give land grants for building Hindu temples, they celebrated and organized Hindu festivals, has been deliberately suppressed by the British from our history books, the whole game being divide and rule. Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other.

If you go on line and read the speech called 'History in the Service of Imperialism' a speech by Professor B. N. Pandey, Professor of History in Allahabad University, who later became Governor of Orissa, given in 1977 in the Rajya Sabha, the upper House of Parliament. Prof. Pandey has mentioned in great detail how the British policy was to make Hindus and Muslims inimical to each other.

For instance he [Professor B.N. Pandey] has mentioned that in 1928 when he was a Professor of History in Allahabad University some students came to him with a book written by one Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit of Calcutta University in which it was mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam otherwise they will be killed, and those 3000 Brahmins committed suicide rather than becoming Muslims. On reading this Professor B. N. Pandey wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him on what basis have you written this? What is the source of your information? Prof. Harprasad Shastri wrote back that the source of information is the Mysore Gazetteer. Then Prof. Pandey wrote to Prof. Shrikantia, Professor of History in Mysore University asking him whether it is correct that in Mysore Gazetteer it is mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Shrikantia wrote back that this is totally false, he had worked in this field and there is no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer, rather the correct version was just the reverse, namely, that Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, he used to send grants to the Shankaracharya of Shringheri, etc.

Now, just imagine what mischief has been done. Deliberately our history books have been falsified so that the mind of a child at an impressionable age is poisoned so that he should start hating Muslims in India and in Pakistan he should start hating Hindus. The poison put in the mind of an impressionable age is very difficult to remove at a later age. All our history books have been falsified in this manner.

It is time we re-write our History books and show that in fact upto 1857 there was no communal problem at all in India. A composite culture in India had been developing. Hindus used to participate Eid and Muharram, and Muslims used to participate in Holi, Diwali etc.. There were some differences no doubt but they were becoming narrower. In 1857 the great Mutiny took place. Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. After suppressing that Mutiny it was decided by the British rulers that the only way to control this country to divide and rule. In other words, Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other. All communal riots start after 1857. The English Collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit and give him money to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and give him some money to speak against Hindus. A very beautiful racket was started in this way, and this resulted ultimately in the partition of 1947.

I am just telling you this to show that now the time has come when we must see through this game. I mean how long are you going to be taken for a ride. Are we fools that anybody can come and make fools out of us and make us fight each other.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-05/india/30477217_1_west-indies-immigrants-mauritius/8

.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Rashmun, do you still think jaziya is communal?

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Not true. Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

.

panini press wrote:I know the evidence is already overwhelming that Aurangzeb did not destroy temples, but what am I if not overwhelming in my evidentiary powers? Here is more conclusive proof that Aurangzeb was secular.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history textbook, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal and published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

.

panini press wrote:I made a serious mistake in my earlier copy-paste of the Milli Gazette article in the previous page of this thread. I am sorry for this mistake, and I would like to rectify it. You see, I copy-pasted the first few arguments there regarding Aurangzeb the Great's greatness, but forgot to post the rest. I hope the Spirit of Aurangzeb the Great forgives my error.

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 saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Rejecters) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his stature, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

This is conclusive proof that Aurangzeb did not really destroy the temples he is accused of destroying. If he did destroy those temples, there is no way he would be considered a saintly emperor.

.

I may have been too hasty in conceding that Aurangzeb destroyed some temples. It looks like something similar to the Tipu Sultan story in large bold letters above happened to Aurangzeb also -- that's why people think he destroyed temples. In fact he did not destroy temples.

The following chart shows the progress of the generous sides of Aurangzeb and Nizam in terms of number of posts on their threads. When do you think Aurangzeb will surpass the Nizam?

Rashmun wrote:Let us consider the very first row where PP says that Aurangzeb appointed a hindu commander-in-chief. This is not true.

[Historian Babu Nagendranath] Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64283

Rashmun wrote:Was Aurangzeb's policy framed by hindus? no it was not.

[Historian Babu Nagendranath] Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64283

Rashmun wrote:Was Aurangzeb extolled by Guru Gobind Singh? Charvaka emphasizes the fact that a a few verses of Zafarnama written by Gobind Singh extoll Aurangzeb.

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that a few verses written by Guru Gobind Singh do extol Aurangzeb. The praise given him there is very high indeed. More than any praise you were able to find for the Nizam from anyone. Here an enemy of Aurangzeb was praising him so highly, but even friends of the Nizam are not as effusive in their praise of the Nizam!

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on young and middle-aged hindu men; Nizam did not.

He did not impose it on all Hindus. He only imposed it on people who didn't want to join the army. He also imposed a tax on Muslims who didn't want to join the army.

Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb destroyed some hindu temples; the Nizam did not.

You are wrong, Nizam did destroy some Hindu temples.

---

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64556

---

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rashmun has a misconception about Sir Jadunath (literally, "master of magic") Sarkar (literally, "government"). You may interpret his name as "will do magic for those in government," but that's your bad.

Rashmun wrote:Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-like tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on young and middle-aged hindu men; Nizam did not.

He did not impose it on all Hindus. He only imposed it on people who didn't want to join the army. He also imposed a tax on Muslims who didn't want to join the army.

Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb destroyed some hindu temples; the Nizam did not.

You are wrong, Nizam did destroy some Hindu temples.

---

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64556

---

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

.

In the spirit of the thread on the Nizam which is now the central repository of all manner of musings about Akbar and Jahangir, I am planning to turn this into a discussion about the monetary policies of the US and the eurozone. If you have any objections to this, please let me know before 1 pm Pacific today.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Doesn't care for US or EU monetary policy	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added comparison line regarding attitude to US and EU monetary policy.

It is true that the Nizam was appointed by the Mughals. Soon after Aurangzeb's death, in fact. So how does the Nizam compare to Aurangzeb? See the table above. While the Nizam was clearly Not-Communal (TM) by virtue of being certified as such by Rashmun, he also seems to have fallen short of the Aurangzebian standard of being not-communal. Why did this happen? Why didn't the Nizam have his policy made by Hindus? Why wasn't his commander-in-chief Hindu? Why didn't Sikh gurus extol him? My theory is that the Nizam suffered an unfortunate loss of head at some time during his life, because of which he fell short of the Aurangzebian standard. He is close to, but not quite as not-communal as, Aurangzeb.

I have some new, breaking news on Aurangzeb.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110110062814AAmUDaT



According to this Yahoo! Answers question-asker, the "VERY GOOD" "EXCELLENT" response is that Aurangzeb was the greatest king among the Mughals. Take that, Akbar.

One of the points that these historians appear to overlook is that although most Mughals were consciously “secular”, at no point during their rule did they allot administrative posts in proportion to the actual population of Muslims and Hindus; Muslims were always over-represented. It is pertinent, then, that although Aurangzeb identified closely with Islamic orthodoxy, more Hindus were employed in his court than Akbar’s.


http://tribune.com.pk/story/419225/another-view-on-aurangzeb/

---

Yes, Aurangzeb was secular, just like the Nizam.

I have decided to copy paste this article in full.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/419225/another-view-on-aurangzeb/

Historians do not often agree on much, least of all about South Asian history, but there seems to be an almost unanimous consensus that the downfall of the Mughal Empire should be blamed on Aurangzeb.

Most historians who study the Mughal Empire have sought to blame the sixth emperor entirely for its collapse, contrasting his religious conservatism with his great grandfather Akbar’s eclectic tolerance that undoubtedly led to architectural innovations and cultural synthesis during the latter’s reign. Those who admire the synergetic traditions that developed in Akbar’s court point to the stylistic fusion that took place in Fatehpur Sikri and to how some talented Hindus played an important role in his administration.
But even as Aurangzeb’s sectarian and messianic tendencies may have been the immediate catalyst for some of the rebellions that eventually triggered the downfall of the Mughal Empire, they should not be seen as the sole reasons for the empire’s disintegration. Challenges to Mughal rule had already begun right after Akbar’s military successes and historians, who write admiringly and uncritically about Akbar’s “secularism” and eclectic tastes and draw too sharp a distinction between Akbar and Aurangzeb, miss many such crucial points.

One of the points that these historians appear to overlook is that although most Mughals were consciously “secular”, at no point during their rule did they allot administrative posts in proportion to the actual population of Muslims and Hindus; Muslims were always over-represented. It is pertinent, then, that although Aurangzeb identified closely with Islamic orthodoxy, more Hindus were employed in his court than Akbar’s. Aurangzeb, like his predecessors, continued the practice of seeking alliances with Hindu rulers but he abandoned the practice of developing marital ties with them. This decision did come with a cost and it is true that without the bonds of inter-marriage and with a tax base that was becoming less stable, the motivation for the Rajputs to fight Mughal battles began to wane.

Furthermore, in their support of the arts and music, the tastes of the early Mughals remained strongly biased towards the Muslim traditions of Central Asia and Persia. The only foreign non-Muslim influences were the Chinese traditions. Miniatures sponsored by Babar were entirely in the Samarqand/Bukhara tradition while, during Akbar’s rule, Persian and Western imitations also became popular.

Interestingly it was only with Akbar’s son Jahangir, who was born of a Rajput mother, that the Mughal arts lost their hotchpotch and uneven character and began to develop a distinctive and more consistent style. Jehangir was considerably influenced by Rajput tastes and rewarded skilled Hindu artisans with prominent positions in his court. With a remarkable eye for excellence in design and execution in the arts and crafts, he encouraged talent and promoted merit without discrimination. He also took an interest in local flora and fauna and, like Akbar, had an interest in philosophy. Aurangzeb’s elder brother Dara Shikoh and father Shah Jahan were inheritors of this taste for creative sophistication and ornamental exuberance.

Yet even as it became more influenced by indigenous Indian cultures, Mughal court culture remained inaccessible to ordinary citizens of the empire. With Shah Jahan, a refined delicacy came to define courtly tastes, but there was also a trend towards rarefied formalism, which prevented the Mughal tradition from imbibing popular and folk influences in the manner of the Rajput or Bundelkhand rulers.

Mughal courtly culture also remained somewhat apart from the folk traditions of the Indian masses through the promotion of Persian as the language of culture, and Urdu as the language of administration. Although popular with urban intellectuals and the cultural elite, Urdu, with its plethora of Persian and Arabic words and non-Indian script could not gain mass acceptance and remained a language primarily of the elite. Outside the Hindi belt, this was an even bigger problem.

But it was not just a cultural aloofness or the dominance of the Muslim minority that made Mughal rule unpalatable. Even more fundamental factors were in play. For instance, the high rate of taxation on the peasantry was simply unsustainable. But another important reason for the unravelling of Mughal power was that beyond Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir and the Yamuna and Gangetic plains, Mughal rule had simply not made enough of a positive contribution to justify its continuity.

It is therefore somewhat ironic that some of the highest admiration for the Mughal Empire’s “unification” of India into a highly centralised polity comes from people who are ardent advocates of economic and political decentralisation of modern India. Another factor often ignored is that the “unification” of India that Akbar had achieved was almost entirely through war and coercion.

But more importantly, the benefits of this centralisation did not flow throughout the empire. Some territories paid tribute but received no tangible gains in exchange. In particular, the regions corresponding to present-day Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Chota Nagpur and Vidarbha, eastern Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and much of North Bihar were starved of investment, and experienced stagnation or decline.

Furthermore, beyond the main trade routes that linked northern India to the rest of the world, the Mughal state invested neither in agricultural expansion nor in manufacturing or infrastructure to promote trade. Since the bulk of the Mughal manufacturing towns was located either along the Yamuna and Gangetic plains (or along the Indus), it is no coincidence that Mughal legitimacy survived primarily only in these regions of India.

Thus, considering the steady drain of wealth from areas further away from Mughal capitals and urban centres, it was almost inevitable that alienation from Mughal rule would set in very quickly. The plateau regions of Central India (and other outlying regions) simply had no stake in a unified Mughal empire and that is why a broad and secular coalition of forces arose in defiance of Mughal authority in such areas.

Unfortunately, such shortcomings of Mughal rule have largely escaped the attention of serious historians in India. And those who have been critical have focused almost exclusively on the communal angle (on the repression of Hindu religion and culture), ignoring socio-economic and political factors that may have been equally, or far more, relevant. Communally focused critics of Mughal rule have often ignored how particular caste categories offered their services and allegiance to the Mughals, and received tangible benefits in return. The Kayasthas in particular experienced upward mobility as they rose from being scribes and junior record-keepers to holding important administrative posts, and achieved a social rank comparable to court Brahmins. Mercantile caste categories also had a stake in the success of Mughal rule. Hindu money-lenders and shopkeepers did quite well in the prosperous Mughal towns, and a majority of the top revenue administrators under the Mughals (even during the reign of Aurangzeb) were either Hindu Banias or Brahmins.

Bihar’s Maithil Brahmins had been promoted by earlier Islamic rulers, and their regional and local authority was not challenged by the Mughals. And while other regional Hindu rulers (such as the Mewar and Hill Rajputs, or the Bundelkhandis) often felt oppressed by Mughal rule, they nevertheless lived lives of considerable comfort and leisure, and this restrained them from organising collectively and mounting any serious challenge to Mughal rule.
But perhaps the most crippling deficiency of Mughal rule was the failure of Mughal rulers to devote even a fraction of their treasuries to anything resembling modern education. In that respect, Aurangzeb can be held to blame as he was especially sceptical about the relevance of modern science and technology. Whereas the European nations had begun to invest in printed books and public universities, the Mughal rulers demonstrated at best a passing interest in the sciences. As a result, even though the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb had successfully fended off the expansion of European trading settlements in India, no durable foundation for the unity and scientific advancement of India had been laid by the Mughals. Mughal rule had left India largely incapable of dealing with the challenge of European military and cultural ascendance.

For British historians, however, treating Mughal rule as the high point of Indian civilisation has served a tactical purpose: by depicting it as such, they have tried to create an impression that all great things in India have required external stimulus.

Their interest in Mughal rule has also stemmed from the subconscious desire to represent colonial rule in India as not too different from that of the Mughals. The fact that the Mughals came as alien conquerors and created a vast empire gives apologists for British colonial rule an excuse to ignore the uniquely devastating consequences of European colonisation.

That the Mughals increased the taxes on the peasantry, introduced a language that was laden with foreign words and written in a foreign script, and in certain respects remained aloof and apart from indigenous cultural trends, makes British rule appear more a continuation than a sharp departure from the Indian experience.

But in spite of such parallels, there are vital and important distinctions that separate Mughal rule from British rule in India. Firstly, at no point during the Mughal rule was the impoverishment of the peasantry and the broad masses as extreme as it was during the period of British colonisation. It should also be noted that whereas Indian manufactures acquired a well-deserved reputation for outstanding quality, and were in great demand during the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, India became a dumping ground for European exports and manufacturing suffered a precipitous decline after the Battle of Plassey.

For all their flaws and alien instincts, the Mughals came to settle in India. Over time, they became steadily indigenised and that is why the last Mughals resisted the British during the rebellion of 1857. Local influences rubbed off on the Mughals to a much greater extent than on the British rulers.

But more importantly, even as the Mughals frittered away the wealth they extracted from the peasantry, their legacy of fine arts and architecture remained in India and India’s wealth was not systematically transferred to another country (as was the case with the British).

Thus, no matter how artfully British intellectuals have used their representations of Mughal rule to rationalise the immiserization of India during British rule, the colossal drain of wealth and destruction that took place simply has no parallels in Indian history. For that reason, Mughal rule cannot and should not be equated to European colonisation.

Jaziya is used as an excuse by critics of Aurangzeb to paint him as communal. In fact, jaziya was not communal at all. It was only levied on men who didn't want to sign up for the army. These critics of Aurangzeb probably had ancestors who were roughed up by Aurangzeb when they were too afraid to sign up for the army, so they are defaming him now -- after poor Aurangzeb has been dead for so long!

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

Here is more proof of the secular ways of Aurangzeb the Great. In the library of the Benares Hindu University, in the great holy state of Uttar Pradesh, there is a firman (imperial edict) issued by Aurangzeb. The full text of the firman with English and Hindi translations are provided at this site: http://indianmuslims.in/aurangzeb-in-banaras-hindu-university/





---

In this firman, Aurangzeb directs his people to not harm brahmins or Hindu temples. This shows that Aurangzeb was secular.

Note that this firman is located at BHU, which is a Hindu university. And it shows that Aurangzeb was a protector of Hindu shrines and brahmins. Also note that no such edicts from the Nizam have been posted here. This is increasing the gap between the Nizam and Aurangzeb in terms of being not-communal.

[quote="panini press"]Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman.

panini press wrote:It seems unbelievable but it is reportedly a historical fact that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb built a temple 323 years ago at Chitrakoot, a region now divided between UP and MP.

[Aurangzeb] ordered his men to build a grand temple then and there. He also conferred 330 bighas of precious and fertile land with seven villages and one rupee daily from the state treasury for the maintenance of the temple. These villages are Hamutha, Chitrakoot, Rodra, Sarya, Madri, Jarva and Dohariya in Allahabad district, UP.

What we have always known and Aurangzeb must have known too, is that Chitrakoot, today in shambles and civic disarray, is sacred ground, the abode of Lord Ram, Sitaji and Lakshman for nearly eleven and a half years of their exile.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM21/Aurangzeb-at-Chitrakoot/Article1-199287.aspx

.

panini press wrote:On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Rashmun, don't be afraid to post about Aurangzeb.

.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Not true. Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.


---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of 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 it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).


It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

.

panini press wrote:Here is more proof of the secular ways of Aurangzeb the Great. In the library of the Benares Hindu University, in the great holy state of Uttar Pradesh, there is a firman (imperial edict) issued by Aurangzeb. The full text of the firman with English and Hindi translations are provided at this site: http://indianmuslims.in/aurangzeb-in-banaras-hindu-university/





---

In this firman, Aurangzeb directs his people to not harm brahmins or Hindu temples. This shows that Aurangzeb was secular.

.