Now after reading two stories the following questions arise:
(i) At present, there is no published book or unpublished manuscript anywhere in the world which directly or indirectly corroborates this baseless story.
(ii) No named person in the world had ever seen such ‘a rare manuscript’. What Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya had informed in his book that an unnamed Mulla had read such a rare manuscript and told this story to his friend whom he had promised to give the manuscript but never gave it to him and died. Now the Mulla’s friend, who heard the story but never saw the manuscript, informed whom is not clear. Sitaramayya does not claim that the Mulla’s friend was his friend also. The Mulla’s friend narrated this story to how many persons and it reached Sitaramayya’s ears after how many generations or channels is not known.
(iii) Then it is not a piece of history but a trash to be discarded lock, stock and barrel.
(iv) Now it should be examined historically also. There is no record to show that Aurangzeb ever took any expedition to Varanasi and beyond, when he was the emperor.
(v) There is no record to show that at any stage the Rani or Raja of Kutch was the part of his entourage during his visit to Vārānasī.
(vi) It is clearly mentioned in Masir-i-Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan that this mosque was built after demolishing the famous Viśvanātha temple at Vārānasī which followed the general order of Aurangzeb issued on 9th April, 1669 to demolish all temples in the Empire. Mustaid Khan informs that on 2nd September, 1669 news came to Court that according to Emperor’s command, his officers demolished the temple of Viśvanātha at Benares. From Mustaid Khan’s account it is clear that the news of the demolition of the Viśvanātha temple reached the Emperor’s Court and not his army camp. It nails the lies hidden in this concocted story.
(vii) It was never expected of an orthodox ruler like him to allow anyone to worship idolatry and that, too, after halting any expedition.
(viii) Even if it is accepted that Pandās had robbed or misbehaved with any lady, they should have been killed instantaneously but what was the rationale behind the demolition of the famous Jyotirlinga temple?
(ix) The fanciful story further informs that it was on the insistence of Rani of the Kutch that a mosque was built there to please her!
(x) The fanciful story depicts the Rani of Kutch as a helpless solitary pilgrim woman. It was a time-honoured practice that Ranis were accompanied by a group of court ladies. Morever, every established family has a traditional family pandā, who escorts every member and gets the religious rites performed.
(xi) It appears that Sitaramayya had never visited Kāśī Viśvanātha temple because it was built by Ahalyabai Holker in the Nagara style of architecture and the Sikh King Raja Ranjit Singh mounted the Kalash made of mounds of gold and “it is not humble cottage in which the marble Siva-linga is housed.”
(xii) Very few persons had read Sitaramayya’s book. To B.N. Pande, an ex-bureaucrat, it proved to be a pot of gold. He had no sense of the appreciation of historical evidences, otherwise he would have dismissed it forthwith. But with a desire to become a secular historian, he wrote an article and with his bureaucratic background and secular claim he became a historian overnight.
(xiii) But in order to acquit Aurangzeb of sacrilege he has played havoc with history. He is no more, so he cannot be asked to apologize but a request is made to the prestigious institute Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library to withdraw the book which is a slur on the writing of history.
(4) Aurangzeb’s Benares Firman: a forged document
There has been a sustained campaign by established historians to portray Aurangzeb as a liberal emperor. The basis of the most ‘impressive’ argument placed by them has been a firman supposedly issued by Aurangzeb for the protection of long-standing temples and non-harassment of Brahmanas at Banaras.
In the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal’, New Series Vol. VII of 1911 (pp. 687-691), the following article was published late in the year 1915 A.D. written by Rajani Ranjan Sen, B.L. with a translation of the firman by Lieut-Colonel D.C. Phillot:
“While at Benares last October I happened to come across a document of a unique nature likely to be of much interest to the antiquarian and the historian alike. Messrs. Saeed Brothers, Photographers, of Benares, gave me a photo-copy of a firman in Persian which they alleged to be a true and faithful reproduction of the original, which purported to be an imperial decree addressed to one Abul Hosein by Emperor Aurangzeb and communicated through his son Sultan Muhammad Bahadoor.
All historians have up to time been almost unanimous in giving to Aurangzeb a character directly opposed to what appears from the above document. He has been held to be bitterly opposed to the Hindus as evidenced by his imposition of the Jiziah tax, and has further been reputed to have de- molished numbers of Hindu temples at Benares, and erected the mosque over the Pancha Ganga Ghat in that city with the couple of tall minarets going by the name of Madhoji-ka-deora upon the ruins of the old temple of Beni Madhav which he had destroyed. As it was, I confess, I could not but look upon the document in question without considerable suspicion. I therefore thought it proper to keep silence till I obtained satisfactory and authentic informations regarding the existence of the original. On another flying visit to Benares I was enabled to get a sight of the original firman itself through the courtesy of Khan Bahadur Sheik Muhammad Tyab, City Inspector of Police, Benares.
This gentleman, who sent for the document from its present owner for my inspection, gave the following history in connection with its find:
‘In the Mungla Gauri Muhulla of this city (Benares) lived a Brahmin named Gopi Upadhyaya who died about 15 years ago. This firman was in the custody of Gopi Upadhyaya. This man had no son, but had a daughter. His daughter has a son named Mangal Pandey who also lives at Mungla Gauri now. Mangal Pandey had obtained the document from Gopi Upadhyaya along with his other papers. In April, 1905, I held an enquiry under orders of the Magistrate of Benares in the matter of a complaint by Mangal Pandey. Mangal is a ghatia Brahmin, who sits on the river-bank to ply his business as a ghatia pujari, to whose stall bathers in the river resort for various religious observances, and for purchasing various appurtenances of worship. Some Guzrati Bunniah women, he had complained, used to go to the place where he used to sit, and in accordance with a curious custom would frequently set up a wailing and weeping there. Mangal complained that no one would frequent his ghat to bathe if they were allowed to continue their practice of weeping there in that way. There was thus a dispute between Mangal and the Bunniahs. I asked him to show his documents, if he had any, to prove that he had his alleged right to the portion or space of the ghat that he occupied. He and his servant, one Babu Nandan, produced several papers before me, and I found this firman among them. It has since then been all along in his possession.’
Such being the occasion when this precious deed was found, as narrated by the Khan Bahadur, I felt convinced of its authenticity, and examined the document carefully and noticed that it was a slightly yellowish piece of old paper with a piece of thin linen pasted at the back leaving bare only a small portion, 4.1/2” inches by 4” inches, containing writings and Sultan Muhammad’s seal 1” inche in diameter. It is in an excellent state of preservation and the handwriting is very distinct and legible and the letters bold and large. The whole is written in deep black ink, excepting a small portion at the top 3” inches by 2.1/4” inches written in red in an ornate style enclosed within some lines in the form of an oblong in the middle at the top of the first page and to the left of the seal of Aurangzeb. The document measures 2 feet 10.1/ 2 inches by 1 foot 5.1/2 inches. On the next page appears in smaller letters the note of despatch through Prince Sultan Muhammad Bahadur with his seal on the right. This seal has some numerals looking like some dates, but are not very legible.
From the papers contributed by Prof. Jadunath Sarkar in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. II, No. 6 (New Series, 1906
, pp. 223-267, with copies of two other firmans of Emperor Aurangzeb, in respect to certain Revenue Regulations and fiscal measures and certain rules for the guidance of Shaista Khan in connection with the Government of Bengal, it would appear that this monarch was after all not exactly what he had been represented to be, and that he was rather solicitous for insuring peace and security to his subject.
With a view that further researches may be made in respect to this matter by antiquarian experts, I append herewith a copy of the firman (and a translation of it in English, for which I am indebted to Samsul Ulamah Maulvi Kamaluddin Ahmad, and Maulvi Abdul Latif).”
Now let us examine the firman. The following is the Persian content of the firman published in the Asiatic Society of Bengal:
Aurangzeb’s spurious Benares Firman.
“Let Abu’l Hasan worthy of favour and countenance trust to our royal bounty and let him know that, since in accordance with our innate kindness of disposition and natural benevolence the whole of our untiring energy and all our upright intentions are engaged in promoting the public welfare and bettering the condition of all classes high and low, therefore in accordance with our holy law we have decided that the ancient temples shall not be overthrown but that new ones shall not be built. In these days of our justice information has reached our noble and most holy court that certain persons actuated by rancour and spite have harassed the Hindus resident in the town of Benares and a few other places in that neighbourhood, and also certain Brahmins, keepers of the temples, in whose charge those ancient temples are, and that they further desire to remove these Brahmins from their ancient office (and this intention of theirs causes distress to that community), therefore our Royal Command is that after the arrival of our lustrous order you should direct that in future no person shall in unlawful ways interfere or disturb the Brahmins and the other Hindus resident in those places, so that they may as before remain in their occupation and continue with peace of mind to offer up prayers for the continuance of our God-given Empire that is destined to last to all time. Consider this an urgent matter. Dated 15th of Jumãda-‘s-Sãniya A.H. 1064 (=A.D. 1653 or 4).”
In the original translation published in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal the Firman was said to have been issued on the 15th of Jumada-‘s-Saniya A.H. 1064 (= A.D. 1653 or 54). Rajani Ranjan Sen wrote that the paper of the Firman was in an excellent state of preservation. It also creates suspicion because a Firman of 1659 or 1653-54 A.D. kept with a Ghatia Brāhmana in a haphazard way could not be in an excellent state of preservation for almost 250 years. Secondly, Mr. Sen has informed that on the next page of the Firman is written in smaller letters the note of dispatch through Prince Sultan Muhammad Bahadur with his seal on the right. Here even the Prince’s name is not written correctly. Instead of Muhammad Sultan it is Sultan Muhammad Bahadur.
Prof. Jadunath Sarkar, believing the Firman to be genuine corrected the date of its issuance from 1653 to 1659 with the following comments:
“Aurangzib’s “Benaras Farman” addressed to Abul Hassan, dated 28th Feb 1659 A.D. granted through the mediation of Prince Muhammad Sultan is now published in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1911, on page 689 with many mistakes notable about the date, which I have corrected from a photograph of the firman.”
Sir J.N. Sarkar claimed that this date 1064 H. was not a correct reading of the original text. There is slight ambiguity about the date. It is Persian digit. The first, second and the fourth digits are 1, 0, 9 respectively. But the third is not clear, so it can be read either 4 or 6. If it is read 4, the year comes to be 1049, i.e. 1639 A.D. But if it is read 1069, it 1659 A.D. The first date falls in the reign of Shah Jahan and the second date is in the initial year of Aurangzeb’s reign.
It is written as: . Here the figures 1, 0, and 9 are very clear. The doubt exists about the third digit whether is 4 or 6. If it is 4, then the year is 1049 H, i.e. 1639 A.D. In that case it will be completely in the reign of Shah Jahan. But if it is 1069 H. as read by Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar, then it is 1659 and the day calculated by Sarkar falls on 28th Feb. 1659.
Besides, on the right side of this firman is written:
“Sultan Muhammad Bahadur ibn-e Muhammad Aurangzeb Shah Bahadur 1680 Ghazi.”
It is not the usual style to call the emperor Aurangzeb Shah Bahadur. Then what does the figure 1680 indicate here? It cannot be 1680 A.H. because still it is 1433 A.H.; 247 years away in 2011 A.D. Here 1680 is very clear and it exposes the spurious character of the Firman because forgers forget the Hizri date and indicated the Roman calender day of 1680 which fell during Aurangzeb’s reign.
In the article published in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Lieut. Colonel D.C. Phillot translated it with the help of Shamsul Ulamah Maulvi Kamaluddin Ahmad, and Maulvi Abdul Latif. The date given in this translation is 15th of Jamada-s-Saniya A.H. (=1653 or 54) which comes to the reign of Shah Jahan. Even if we accept the date suggested by Sarkar, it does not help us because historical facts make it impossible for a Firman of such tenor issued on that day, when Aurangzeb was in hot pursuit against his arch-enemy Dara Shukoh in Rajasthan and his son was chasing his uncle Shuja in Bengal at a distance of almost 2000 kms.
The fact that Aurangzeb was not liberal towards the Hindus is proved by Aurangzeb’s decision of stopping the pension of the great poet Kavīndrāchārya granted by Shah Jahan and it is confirmed by the following trivial testimony of Francois Bernier who was an admirer of Aurangzeb and wrote thus about him in his memoirs “Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656-1668” in 1665 A.D.:
“During one year he was in the constant habit of visiting my Agah, to whom he paid his court in the hope that he would exercise his influence to obtain the pension of which Aureng-Zebe, anxious to appear a true Musulmann, deprived him on coming to the throne.”
(Travels in the Mogul Empire AD. 1656-1668, p. 341)
But even if this date of 28th February, 1659, is accepted as a true translation, it is shown below that no Firman could have been issued on that date with the seals of Prince Sultan Muhammad and Aurangzeb. Sultan Muhammad was the eldest son of Emperor Aurangzeb. He had actively participated in favour of his father in the battles of Dharmat and Samugarh. Thereafter, he had been dispatched for fight against Prince Shuja. In the Maasir-i-Alamgiri of Saqi Must’ad Khan, a detailed description of the movements of Prince Muhammad Sultan and Emperor Aurangzeb has been given. Moreover, Sir J.N. Sarkar, too, has furnished additional information from other sources.
On 30th December, 1658 when Shuja reached Khajwa from Patna with 25,000 cavalry and artillery boats, he found Sultan Muhammad ‘barring his path’.
On 2nd January, 1659 “the imperial tents were pitched outside the village of Korra, where Prince Muhammad Sultan was staying with the advanced detachment, and four kos from which Shuja was waiting.” On 4th January, 1659, “the third day following the Emperor’s arrival at Korra it was ordered that the artillery should not be carried in front but made to fire opposite the army of Shuja, and the imperial army should engage in battle.” Aurangzeb ‘marched his army in perfect order and reached one mile in front of the enemy’s camp’. In the wee hours of 5th January, 1659, Maharaja Jaswant Singh in the imperial camp revolted and sent a message to Shuja to attack the imperial army from one side. He along with his 14,000 strong Rajput troops “plundered the camp of Muhammad Sultan which was in his way.” Much of the ‘Emperor’s own camp suffered the same fate.’ Tactless Shuja, even after having received Jaswant’s message and heard of the tumult in the vicinity, did not move at night, fearing it to be “a mere ruse contrived between Aurangzeb and Jaswant to lure him on to his destruction!”
Aurangzeb remained unmoved and addressed his officers, “This incident is a mercy vouchsafed to us by God. If the infidel had played the traitor in the midst of the battle, all would have been lost. His flight (now) is good for us.”
Thus, on 5th January, 1659 Aurangzeb had been betrayed by a powerful Hindu chief on the eve of the crucial battle at
Khajwa, 3 days’ march from Allahabad. On this fateful day, Shuja lost the battle in a devastating manner. He “galloped away from the field with his sons, his general Sayyied Alam and a small body of troops.” Aurangzeb immediately sent a ‘pursuing column under Muhammad Sultan after Shuja’.
Since then, i.e. 5th January, 1659 Prince Muhammad was in the eastern part of India, particularly in Eastern Bihar and Bengal, chasing and fighting the forces of his uncle Shuja. It continued until 8th June, 1659 when Prince Muhammad Sultan left the imperial post of Dogachi and defected to Shuja side because he had long been chafing under the tutelage of Mir Jumla and aspired to reign independently! Shuja offered him the hands of his daughter Gulrukh Banu and sought Prince’s help in securing the throne. Saqi Mustiad Khan writes in ‘Maasir-i-Alamgiri’:
Ayodhya Revisited Page 71