Ayodhya Revisited
Page 70
Most of the Mughal monarchs respected this sentiment and did not interfere with the social and religious customs of the Hindus.
(31) Shah Jahan’s Farman to restore a temple
During the period I was associated with Ayodhyā dispute, the Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked me to find out some instance where an Indian Muslim King restored any converted mosque to the owner of the temple. I worked hard on the topic and one day in the library of the National Archives I found the following firman which was issued by the emperor Shah Jahan who restored the mosque converted from a Jain temple constructed by Shantidas at a cost of 25 lakh rupees to its Jain proprietor. It is published in the “Journal of the University of Bombay,” vol. 9 in the form of an article captioned ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, by Khan Bahadur M.S. Commissariat.
This firman is dated July 3, 1648 and the restoration had taken place on the petition of Mulla Abdul Hakim who had represented to the Emperor that this building, by reason of its being the property of another person, could not be considered a mosque according to the inviolable Islamic law. The following is the description and the text of the firman:
“The Farman of Shah Jahan, with the Nishan and Seal of Prince Dara Shukoh, directing Ghairat Khan, the Deputy Viceroy of Gujarat, and other officials of the province, to restore to Shantidas the temple of Chintamani which had been converted into a mosque by Prince Aurangzeb in 1645, and to make complete restitution for the damage done by the faqirs and the Bohras. Dated the 21st of Jumad-as-Sani, H. 1058 (July 3, 1648).
(Tughra) 1. Farman-i-Abul Mazaffar Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Sahib Qiran-i-Tsani Shah Jahan Badshah-i-Ghazi.
2. Nishan-i-Alishan Dara Shukoh ibn Shah Jahan BadshahiGhazi.
(Seal) As in Plate X.
Be it known to the governors, subahdars and mutasaddis, present and future, of the province of Gujarat, especially the one who has been worthy of various favours (here follow several honorific epithets), Ghairat Khan, who has been reliant on and gladdened by royal favours, that formerly, in respect of the temple of the leading person of the time (zubdat-al-akran), Satidas Jawahari, an exalted and blessed order had been issued to Umdat-ul-mulk Shahistah Khan to this effect: ‘Shahzada Sultan Aurangzeb Bahadur having constructed in that place some mihrabs (prayer-arches) had given it the name of a mosque; and, thereafter Mulla Abdul Hakim had represented to His Majesty that this building, by reason of its being the property of another person, could not be considered a mosque according to the inviolable Islamic law; a world-obeyed order, therefore, obtained the honour of being issued that building is the property of Satidas, and that because of the mihrab which the famous Prince had made in that place the above-mentioned person should not be harassed, and that the mihrab should be removed and the aforesaid building should be handed over to him.
Now, at this time, the world-obeyed and illustrious order has been issued that the mihrab which the victorious and exalted Prince has constructed may be retained, and a wall be built near the same as a screen between the temple and the mihrab. Hence, it is ordained that, since his exalted Majesty has, as an act of favour, granted the aforesaid temple to Satidas, he should be in possession of it as before, and he may worship there according to his creed in any way he likes, and no one should obstruct or trouble him; and also that some of the Faqirs (beggars) who have made their abode in that place should be turned out, and Satidas should be relieved from the troubles and quarrels on their account. And since it has been represented to His Majesty that some of the Bohras have removed and carried away the materials of that temple, in the event of this being so, those materials should be got back from them and should be restored to the person referred to above (Satidas), and if the aforesaid materials have been used up, their price should be recovered from them and should be paid to Satidas.
In this matter, this order should be considered extremely urgent, and there should be no deviation from or disobedience to it. Written on the twenty-first of the month of Jumad-us-Sani in the year 1058 H. (July 3, 1648).”
After reading the Farman the Prime Minister Rao was very pleased and informed me that those Muslim leaders, who had been telling him that the instances of restoration of mosques to other forms of shrines or relocation of mosques to other places in Egypt and other countries would not be acceptable to them because Hanafi law was in vogue in India would be confronted them with this Farman at an opportune moment.
It is now proved that all Mughal Emperors from Babur to Shah Jahan were quite liberal and had made indelible imprint even on Sanskrit scholars and India under these Mughal Emperors witnessed one of the finest phases of history in prosperity, munificence and liberalism.
Amongst marvellous magnificent buildings built by Shah Jahan the Diwan-i-Khas is considered, after the, Taj Mahal, the most magnificent and it records the following famous lines:-
Agar firdaus bar ru-yi zamin ast
Hamin ast, u hamin ast u hamin ast!
(If there be a paradise on earth,
It’s this, it’s this, it’s this!)
At the end of this chapter the following lines from the poem ‘Akbar’s Dream’ written by famous English poet Tennyson are quoted to highlight the need of the hour to propagate the pluralistic philosophy in the society.
I hate the rancour of their castes and creeds,
I let men worship as they will, I reap
No revenue from the field of unbelief.
I cull from every faith and race the best
And bravest soul for counsellor and friend.
(Akbar’s Dream by Alfred Lord Tennyson)
Chapter Fifteen
Inferno of Fanaticism during the reign of Aurangzeb
[(1) Introduction (2) Testimony of an article published in 1752 A.D. (3) Demolition of the Vis´vanãtha temple (4) Aurangzeb’s Benares Firman: a forged document (5) The destruction of Jodhpur temples (6) The Religious Issue in the War of Succession (7) Horrendous display of savagery (8) Maasir-i Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan (9) Prof. Satish Chandra’s untenable defence of Aurangzeb’s religious policy (10) Two historic letters to Aurangzeb by two great men of the time (11) Aurangzeb’s life: a total failure as a ruler]
(1) Introduction
Aurangzeb had many sterling qualities which included indefatigable industry, tenacity of purpose, undaunted courage, ceaseless activity and admirable austerity. He deserves profuse plaudits for performing punctiliously and abstaining scrupulously from the common vices of his time. But he was a fierce fanatic who infuriated a vast section of the society through a series of administrative measures based on communal consideration.
The confidence of the people of India which Akbar had so assiduously gained and Jahangir as well as Shah Jahan had admirably retained was miserably lost by Aurangzeb. The demolition of temples was the most momentous mission of his life. It is a historical fact that he got most of the important Hindu temples demolished in the country and mosques were constructed at many of those places instantly.
From 1645 A.D., when Aurangzeb, as Governor of Gujarat, had desecreted the grand Jain temple built by Shanti Lal Jain to 1705 A.D. when the famous temple of Pandharpur was demolished by his order, he had relentlessly pursued this task. But for the spree of demolition of temples during his oppressive regime, it would have been one of the most glorious periods in Indian history. Instead, it tragically became the most harrowing one.
In the light of liberal religious policies of Akbar the Great and his successors, the Hindus had almost forgotten devastating demolition of Hindu temples by Mahmud of Ghazni, and a very harmonious relation had developed in the country between the two communities. However, the religious tyranny of Aurangzeb opened up wounds of the Hindus and it has not completely healed even after three centuries since his death. Established historians have started a consistent campaign to condone his archiconoclastic activities and portray him as a liberal ruler. In this chapter certain documents have been examined with objectivity to a
ssess some aspects of his personality.
(2) Testimony of an article published in 1752 A.D.
The following interesting article published within 45 years of Aurangzeb’s death in ‘The London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer’ in 1752 A.D. is an apt assessment of the monarch, who had been responsible for the psychic schism between the two major communities of India. The title of the article was ‘The Character of the Mogul Emperor Aurenzeb, who died in the Year 1707’ which was included in ‘The History of the Revolutions of the Arabian Empire’ by the Abbé de Marigny (1690-1762), a French historian, who has written the History of the Caliphs from Mahomet to the death of Mostazem.
“Aurenzeb had nothing majestic in his person, his aspect was meagre, but his eyes were quick and sparkling and seemed to penetrate every breast upon which they were turned. His countenance was so seldom influenced by the emotions of his mind, that he appeared to be insensible both of joy and grief and his purpose was as effectually concealed as his passion; for his whole policy was founded on dissimulation in which he was so great a master that he could hide under what external appearance he pleased all that passed in his breast, which was always inaccessible by the keenest penetration and was never disclosed to his wife, his children or his friends. He has been celebrated for the regularity of his manners which were formed upon the strictest principles of morality; for his constant attendance on public worshipe in which his behaviour was an example to the most devout for his abstinence from wine and his contempt of those pleasures which were neither criminal in themselves nor forbidden by any positive institution, and appeared always busied in the discharge of his duty; when he was only viceroy of Deccan, he applied himself to the study of civil and military government with the greatest diligence, and listened to those whom he believed able to instruct him, not only with attention but pleasure. His deportment was solemn he spoke little, and affected great plainness in his furniture, his apparel and his equipage; so that in the whole of his appearance there was an austerity and simplicity that discovered rather the philosopher than the prince.
But ambition was notwithstanding the first motive of all his actions, and urged him to commit the most flagitious enormities. He hesitated at nothing that opened his way to the throne, nor was any duty moral or divine a sufficient barrier against the execution of his designs. He disregarded even the voice of the public, he frequently rendered religion itself subservient to the vilest purposes and his success was generally the effect of cunning and deceit. The merit of others, even of his children gave him pain and every successful event in which he was not interested, he regarded with regret; he was totally destitute of clemency, generosity and gratitude, and wholly possessed by avarice, suspicion, and cruelty. His genius was unbounded, and he could concenter the most important projects in one point of view, so as to see every difficulty with which they were embarrassed and all possible means by which the execution of them might be facilitated. Bribery, treachery and potion, he said, were the most speedy and effectual means to deliver him from his enemies and to preserve the lives of his soldiers: and his ability to practice these detestable maxims was so astonishing that it was almost impossible to elude his cunning or render his stratagems ineffectual. His penetration and presence of mind in pressing exigencies were so much beyond the attainment of others, and his expedients were so numerous and successful, that he was generally believed to be in compact with some powerful and evil spirit.
Upon the whole, he was utterly destitute of virtue as a principle of action he was an hypocrite and impostor, who sported with the laws both God and man. If he was frugal sober modest or devout, it was either the effect of habit constitution, or policy; his constitution made temperance absolutely necessary to the preservation of his life; and this he displayed with ostentation as it gave him occasion to punish intemperance in others who had stronger temptations and weaker motives to resist. When his interest or his jealousy, his revenge his avarice or his ambition were to be gratified at the expense of life, he made the advancement of religion, or the good of the state a pretence to cut off his enemies, and his friends were not always exempted. The terror even of his name was at length sufficient to maintain the tranquillity of his dominions, to preclude the projects of his sons and to keep them in perpetual awe, dependence, and apprehension. He was an unnatural son, a cruel parent, a perfidious friend and a formidable enemy; treacherous perjured, unmerciful, avaricious deceitful, and universally hated.
To finish the portrait of Aurenzeb I shall add only one stroke which, as it is a fact may heighten the general likentis.
He published an edict that on a certain day all the Faquirs in his kingdom should assemble themselves on a large plain that he might do himself the pleasure of dining with them. He ordered a vast number of new cassocks to be got ready and made a presence of one to every Faquir ordering them to drip off the old ones and throw them in a heap. The Faquirs made some difficulty of this, but the emperor would be obeyed and caused them all to be burnt to ashes. This brought a good round sum of money into his coffers. He was no stranger to the tricks of those pretended monks, he knew them to be great collectors of alms, which for safety they quilted in the folds of the cassocks; and this was the motive of his generosity to tile poor Faquirs.”
It is an objective assessment of the Emperor by a person who had no bias or prejudice.
It is interesting to see that John Dryden wrote a drama ‘Aurangzeb: A tragedy’ which was first played in 1675 and published in England in 1676 during the time of Aurangzeb. It is a fictional and quasi-historical account of Aurangzeb’s life. Besides, Samuel Say published a poem written on Aurangzeb on 11 April, 1698. A few lines from the poem are quoted below:
Unhappy Aureng-zebe! who griev’d we find
By Sons Unnatural and a Sire Unkind.
They Zeal for Him, He little did regard,
And long refus’d thy Duty its Reward :
Loyal, Thou sought’st a Father to defend;
But They thy Throne, Rebellious, wou’d ascend.
With more than Eighty toilsome Years opprest,
Thy Age is still deny’d its needful Rest.
UNHAPPY AURBNG-ZEBE! Whom Heaven’s Decree
Ordains from Troubles never to be free.
Yet let thy Sorrows now and constant Grief,
For some few Hours at least, admit Relief:
Heaven to accuse, Great Prince! At length forbear;
All, All is paid by MELESINDA’S Tear.
(pp. 43-44, Poemes on Several Occasions: And Two Critical Essays by Mr. Samuel Say. London, 1745.)
(3) Demolition of the Viśvanātha temple
Now it has become a fashion to defend the demolition spree of Aurangzeb by the established historians. Aurangzeb is being portrayed an ideal ruler by Pakistani historians. In their case it is understandable and it may be even condonable. But the dishonesty of Indian historians in defending Aurangzeb’s attempt to demolish important temples must be condemned. An ex-beaurocrat B.N. Pande, who became a renowned historian overnight by writing an unsubstantiated piece of article in defence of Aurangzeb’s demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple, got many coveted awards. Mr. Pande, who became Governor of Orissa, gave the following account of the demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple ironically in an article titled ‘Distortion of Medieval Indian History’:
“The story regarding demolition of Vishwanath temple is that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made a journey on the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering Puja all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know
of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat. The Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. As the crime was heinous, the Rajas demanded exemplary action. Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.”
Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his famous book, ‘The Feathers and the Stones’ has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. Dr. P.L. Gupta, former Curator of Patna Museum, has also corroborated this incident. (pp. 44-45)
Now the readers should know what Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya has written in his book ‘The Feathers and the Stones’:
“There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot in religion. This, however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is illustrated by one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the site of the original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like mosque in Mathura is another. The revival of jazia is a third but of a different order. A story is told in extenuation of the first event. In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign king in a country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles. They all set out one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst them was a Ranee of Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the Temple, the Ranee of Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out, East, North, West and South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a more diligent search revealed a Tah Khana or an underground story of the temple which to all appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it was found barred, they broke open the doors and found inside the pale shadow of the Ranee bereft of her jewellery. It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life one did not know. Anyhow in this case, there was no time for mischief as the search was diligent and prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests, Aurangazeb declared that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of God and ordered it to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left there. But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid being built on the ruin and to please her, one was subsequently built. That is how a Musjid has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar temple which is no temple in the real sense of the term but a humble cottage in which the marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the Mathura Temple. This story of the Benares Masjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists.”