Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

In Aurangzeb's SuCH career, page 9 was the easiest of them all.

As you can see from the pictures above, there are significant differences between Aurangzeb and the Nizam. I am going to highlight those differences.

1. Miserly side: Aurangzeb's miserly side is a tad longer than Nizam's. Aurangzeb wins this one, but barely.

2. Philandering side: Aurangzeb's philandering side is tiny compared to the Nizam's. The Nizam wins this one by a lot.

3. Generous side: While the Nizam has a prominent generous side, Aurangzeb has him beat in this department. Sorry Nizam.

4. Treacherous side: Aurangzeb showed excellent potential in this department in his early years, but once he became top dog, he lost some of his treacherous edge. He was awesome at treachery when he fought his father and brothers. But the Nizam beats him easily with his support for Pakistan when India was at war with that ocuntry.

5. Deceitful side: There is no clear winner on this one. Both about the same.

6. Power-hungry side: The Nizam was no pushover when it came to hunger for power, but he can't hold a candle to Aurangzeb the Great in this department. Aurangzeb killed his own brothers to secure his hold on power. Nizam had no such luck; Aurangzeb wins.

7. Communal side: Aurangzeb has the stronger reputation for having a well-developed communal side, but that is only because the Nizam is not well-known outside Telangana. When evaluated on facts, it is clear that the Nizam has a much more elongated communal side than Aurangzeb. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p400-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67528

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 6.

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
Abolished sati to protect Hindu women	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Patronized paintings	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired BW, a Hindu, to cook	No	Yes	Nizam
Traveled by airplane	No	Yes	Nizam
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. Also added Aurangzeb's ban on sati.

Note 6: Added a line about inspiring Bollywood movies.

Note 7: Added a line about paintings.

Note 8: Added a line about inspiring BW to cook. Revised comparison factor to 8 down from 10.

Note 9: Added air travel line. New method for computing comparison factor: (number of items for Aurangzeb - number of items for Nizam) * 2 - number of items where they are the same. Applying this highly scientific method, we get: (8-2)*2 - 6 = 6.

panini press wrote:There is a discussion going on regarding Aurangzeb in another thread. I would be remiss not to post links here.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67462

.

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 has run out of arguments why jaziya is communal. With that goes the claim of Aurangzeb being communal. He may be afraid of acknowledging this, but if Nizam is secular, Aurangzeb is certainly secular.

panini press wrote:Time for some more pictures...

Aurangzeb on the peacock throne. Note that peacock is a Hindu motif. Aurangzeb's throne itself was secular, and he sits happily on it.

.

panini press wrote:Another picture of Aurangzeb in action. As you can see, there is a temple in the background which Aurangzeb has not destroyed.

.

panini press wrote:Here is another painting of Aurangzeb facing a mad elephant. The name of the elephant, you ask: Sudhakar. Now, if Aurangzeb was communal, tell me why his elephants have Hindu names!

.

Talking about Aurangzeb's secular credentials, he stopped the practice of stamping Koranic verses on coins. That's like taking out "in God we trust" from US currency -- only the most secular-minded people in the US ask for that.

---

Aurangzeb felt that verses from the Quran should not be stamped on coins, as done in former times, because they were constantly touched by the hands and feet of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#Coins

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

.

It is said that Aurangzeb was communal. This is not so. He built Hindu temples, and he appointed Rajput chieftains.

As his predecessors had done, Aurangzeb appointed the Rajput chieftains to many of the highest offices of state where they worked side by side with Muslims, writes Hambly.


http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote: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.

.

.

panini press wrote:A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kashi (Varanasi) can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138)

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

---

It is high time that people like Rashmun stopped calling Aurangzeb communal. He was clearly secular in that he gave land grants to temples in Kashi, the epicenter of Hinduism located in the holy state of Uttar Pradesh.

I am glad to note that Rashmun has stopped calling Aurangzeb communal, and instead calls him a complex personality now. I applaud him for changing his views.

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The most ROFLworthy parts of this epic thread are the mental maps of the two gents and of course, that ever expanding tabular comparison.

Thank you. I appreciate that so many people are avidly reading this thread for its informational content. I take my sycophancy rather seriously, and am willing to create my own illustrations to back up my hero-worship. The right balance of copy-paste, dotting, original illustration, absolute opinion, and personal subjective opinion is IMO the secret to running an epic thread.

.

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:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67537

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67542

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67550

.

panini press wrote: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.

.

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.

Obviously, some temples were destroyed, quite unfortunately, during Aurangzeb's reign. This happened despite the emperor's wishes expressed in his firman. "Mischievous elements" may have been involved in this. Also:

It should also be noted that his temple destruction policy was mainly directed at temples where political aspirations against him were being plotted, as well as [u]temples that breeded anti-social activity and corruption.


http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-5-of-6-temple.html

Aurangzeb was basically a reformer of Hinduism. He abolished sati and destroyed temples that were breeding anti-social activity and corruption. In this connection, he took the example of his grandfather, Jahangir. Jahangir had the Sikh guru executed because he was a traitor. Similarly, temples that had political aspirations against Aurangzeb were destroyed by him. We know full well that Jahangir's actions were thoroughly secular, so it follows that Aurangzeb's actions were secular as well.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873p50-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67664

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

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

.

.

panini press wrote:One more Aurangzeb story... note that his name Alamgir is to Mohiuddin Aurangzeb as Akbar is to Jalaluddin Mohammad.

---

.. there was a incident where alamgir's kid was very snotty to his teacher. one time his teacher punished the kid, and upon hearing this alamgir stormed into the teacher's chamber. The teacher was sure alamgir would be harsh for punishing his kid, but instead alamgir praised the teacher for doing his job. another time, the teacher could not bend down to make wudu so alamgir himself bent down for the teacher and washed his feet. imagine...an emporer doing such things today.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?28320-Mughal-Emperor-Sultan-Aurangzeb-Alamgir-Bad-Ruler-or-Bad-History&s=e587a33cb8d10d337eb352b2e834848f&p=290244&viewfull=1#post290244

.

panini press wrote:A good painting of Aurangzeb. Shakespeare wrote of the great emperor: "Yon Alamgir has a lean and hungry look!"

.

One more scholarly piece on Aurangzeb. Some good news here for avid Aurangzeb fans: (a) he is human, (b) he is a complex, (c) he continued Mughal policies towards Islam and its priests, and (d) he was certainly more generous than his forbears.

---

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/printpage.php?main_id=500&doc_type=60

Berated as a villain and a fiercely anti-Hindu fanatic by his Hindu critics and lauded as a champion of Islam by his Muslim admirers, the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb was actually far more complex a person than either camp makes him out to be. In a refreshing attempt to humanise his image, this book seeks to discuss Aurangzeb's religious policies by setting them within a broader political framework. Rather than being solely guided by religious beliefs, the book shows that Aurangzeb's religious policies were a result of a complex interplay of personal as well as political factors. In this way, the book provides a far more nuanced picture of the Emperor than what both his vehement critics and his passionate backers present.

Far from causing a radical break with Mughal precedent, Bhatia argues, Aurangzeb's religious policies, in particular his attitude towards the orthodox Sunni ulema, represent, in many senses, a continuation of it. As before, under Aurangzeb, sections of the ulema received generous royal support, and they, in turn, proved to be a major ideological pillar for the regime. Although Aurangzeb was certainly more generous with his patronage of the ulema than several of his predecessors, he did not allow them to dictate state policies. Though they were given prestige, the ulema remained, in the final analysis, subservient to the state and lacked an effective independent voice to enforce their views. While Aurangzeb sometimes sought their advice on matters of the shariah, he often dispensed with their views altogether, preferring his own opinions to theirs.

---

Note that this is what Akbar and Jahangir did as well.

Now, back to the story...

---

As before, the shariah, in the sense of fiqh or historical Muslim jurisprudence, remained only one, although in some spheres major, source of law under Aurangzeb, and it was often supplemented, even supplanted, by imperial edicts and customary laws, some of which were directly in contravention of the shariah as the 'orthodox' Sunni ulema viewed it.

Bhatia supplies numerous instances to substantiate this argument. Aurangzeb's imprisonment of his own father and murder of his brothers, which brought him to power, were, of course, just two of these instances, but there were others as well. When the imperial qazi refused to read the khutba in his name, Aurangzeb had him summarily dismissed, and, later, when the Shaikh ul-Islam refused to supply him with a fatwa legitimising his plans to invade the Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan, he caused him to meet with the same fate.

---

Rashmun has often told with relish the story of how Akbar dealt with a priest who disagreed with him. Aurangzeb also brooked no such disrespect; he was a tad more humane in his treatment, given his more secular-minded views, that's all.

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/printpage.php?main_id=500&doc_type=60

---

At the same time as Aurangzeb forbade the construction of new temples, he is also said to have granted tax-free lands to some temple establishments and to have instructed his officials not to harass the priests who were in-charge of old temples.

Likewise, Bhatia points out, it was only twenty-two years after his ascent to the throne that Aurangzeb decided to impose the jizya on the Hindus, and this may have actually been a response to the outbreak of rebellions of the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and others. Certain classes of Hindus, including government officials, were exempted from the jizya, while, at the same time, Aurangzeb made arrangements for the zakat to be collected from Muslims. Bhatia writes that 'It is also stated that long before jizya was imposed, Aurangzeb had ordered the abolition of a number of unauthorised taxed which placed heavy burden on the Hindus' (p.52).

More good stuff from the same source (review of a book written by a guy called Bhatia -- note the clearly Hindu name):

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/printpage.php?main_id=500&doc_type=60

---

the total collection from the jizya was only slightly more than the money spent on collecting it

Finally the summary of Bhatia's book:

---

Despite stern opposition from the 'orthodox' ulema, partly for what these ulema saw as some of their unwarranted beliefs and practices but also because of jealousy owing to their mass support, popular Sufis, including those who preached the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud or the 'unity of existence' and sought to stress the oneness of Hindus, Muslims and others, continued to flourish. Furthermore, the 'orthodox' ulema, Bhatia writes, were unable to present a united front, often at odds with each other and riddled with internal jealousies and rivalries.

In other words, Bhatia argues—critiquing both those who demonise as well as eulogise Aurangzeb for his religious policies—in the face of the various political and other constraints that Aurangzeb was confronted with, 'the idea of an Islamic state under Aurangzeb remains no more than a mere fiction' (x).

You can find the same review here: http://twocircles.net/2008sep09/book_review_aurangzeb_revisited.html

The book is written by M.L. Bhatia and the review by Yoginer Sikand. M.L. Bhatia is a total authority on medieval India; he wrote two books on it:

http://www.amazon.com/M.-L.-Bhatia/e/B001ICOZN2/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1

Rashmun, if you want to argue based on authority, why don't you believe a real authority like Bhatia? Is it because your ancestors were roughed up by Aurangzeb? It's been a long time now, so heal thyself and start seeing the truth.

panini press wrote:

blabberwock wrote:

panini press wrote:

blabberwock wrote:

This is the latest thread in my much-acclaimed series, Generous Sides of Despotic Tyrants. Based on the excellent source material and scholarly research I have posted here, I think this thread can become the longest-ever.

When will you get to Pol Pot?

Pol Pot is a bachcha compared to Aurangzeb and Nizam. Pol Pot was born in 1925. Aurangzeb was born in 1618. Nizam was born on the day god created the world.

.

panini press wrote:

blabberwock wrote:

This is the latest thread in my much-acclaimed series, Generous Sides of Despotic Tyrants. Based on the excellent source material and scholarly research I have posted here, I think this thread can become the longest-ever.

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67531

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67536

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67542

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67542

.

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67537

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67549

.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67564

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67549

.

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67564

.

.