Ayodhya Revisited
Page 74
Thus, Shah Jahan survived the vile attempt of parricide by his son.
(8) Maasir-i-Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan
This book is an authentic history of the reign of Aurangzeb. Its first ten years’ accounts have been taken from “Alamgiri-nama” of Muhammad Kazim in a very abridged form. The history of remaining period of Aurangzeb’s reign till his death in 1707 A.D. has been written by Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan.
This history book was completed in 1708 A.D., i.e. within one year of Aurangzeb’s death. Saqi Must’ad Khan has given the background of his writing the book:
“This humble servant, who considered it his duty to be true to the salt of the virtuous Emperor, and had been all his life one of the knot of servants standing outside the door of His Majesty’s Court, recorded what he had seen, and what he had learnt on inquiry from the trusty friends who had borne office during that reign. As this book of fortunate victories contains the triumphs of the Emperor ‘Alamgir, I considered “Maasir-i-Alamgiri” as its proper title, that phrase being its title as well as giving its date (year of completion). 1120 A.H./1708 A.D.”(pp. 45-46)
The author was a constant follower of the imperial court for 40 years and an eyewitness of many events which he has recorded. The following is his narrative of Aurangzeb’s general order to demolish all temples and centres of learning:
“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan and especially at Benares, the Brahman misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” (edited by J.N. Sarkar, pp. 51-52)”
From the above account of Saqi Must’aid Khan it is clear that Aurangzeb issued “orders to the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” The order was issued to all governors of all the provinces for the demolition of schools and temples of infidels with utmost urgency. This ‘with utmost urgency’ is very important. All governors of all provinces took this order very seriously and demolished temples with utmost urgency. Thus, the important temples of Mathurā, Benares etc. were demolished and mosques were constructed on most of the sites.
Mustaid Khan further adds:
“It was reported that according to the Emperor’s command, his officers had demolished the temple of Viswanath at Kashi.” (P. 55)
This information was received in early September of 1669. Thereafter, Mustaid Khan furnishes the following information on the demolition of the magnificent temple of Lord Krishna at Mathurā built by Bir Singh Bundela at a cost of Rupees Thirty Three Lakh:
“On Thursday, 27th January/(1670 A.D.) 15th Ramzan, 1081 H. the justice-loving Emperor issued order for the ...demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers, the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished, and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum. This temple of folly was built by that gross idiot Bundela. Before his accession to the throne, the Emperor Jahangir was displeased with Shaikh Ãbul Fazl. [96] This infidel became a royal favourite by slaying him, and after Jahangir’s accession was rewarded for this service with the permission to build the temple, which he did at an expense of thirty-three lakhs of rupees.
Praised be the august God of the faith of Islam, that in the auspicious reign of this destroyer of infidelity and turbulence, such a wonderful and seemingly impossible work was successfully accomplished. On seeing this instance of the strength of the Emperor’s faith and the grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud Rajas were stifled, and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall. The idols, large and small, set with costly jewels, which had been set up in the temple, were brought to Agra, and buried under the steps of the mosque of the Begam Sahib, in order to be continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.”(p. 60)
It is clear from this historical account that Aurangzeb had issued a general order on 8th April, 1669 A.D. to all governors of provinces to destroy schools and temples of infidels to put a stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. The demolition of the temples of Vārānasī and Mathurā is mentioned in this book but not that of Ayodhyā. However, it is confirmed by the accounts of Tieffenthaler, Manucci and Mentelle. Some established historians have suggested that since Mustaid Khan’s statement has not been supported by other chroniclers, it should not be relied upon. But those historians have failed to cite any important statement of Mustaid Khan which has been controverted by any historical document of proven nature.
(9) Prof. Satish Chandra’s untenable defence of Aurangzeb’s religious policy
On the basis of a few Farmans in favour of some Brahmins Prof. Satish Chandra, too, has tried to defend Aurangzeb’s religious bigotry in his book ‘Essays on Medieval Indian History’ in the following words:
“It was in pursuance of this policy that Farmans were issued (which are extant) to the Brahmans at Banaras and Vrindavan, assuring them that local officials would not be allowed to interfere in their repairing old temples. In 1665, a number of Hindu temples in Gujarat, including the temple of Somnath, which Auranzeb as a Prince and Viceroy of Gujarat had destroyed or bricked up, but which had been rebuilt in the interval, were to be demolished. There is no reason to believe that subsequently Aurangzeb departed from this policy of limited toleration and ordered a general destruction of temples. No such orders have been found, nor is there any reference to them in Aurangzeb’s letters or the Akhbarat. They are referred to only in Ma’asir-i-Ãlamgiri, written after Aurangzeb’s death. Moreover, not only did many old Hindu temples continue to exist in different parts of the country, there is also documentary evidence of Aurangzeb’s renewal of land grants enjoyed by Hindu temples at Mathura and elsewhere, and of his offering gifts to them (such as to the Sikh gurudwara at Dehra Dun, continuation of madad-i-m ‘aash grants to a math of Nathpanthi yogis in pargana Didwana, sarkar Nagor; to Ganesh Bharti and his successors in pargana Siwana, etc. However, during the period, Aurangzeb adopted a policy of selective destruction or bricking up of a number of Hindu temples, either as a warning to local Hindu rajas, or as a reprisal for rebelliousness. Thus, some of the famous temples at Vrindavan, Mathura, Kashi and Thatta etc., were destroyed as a part of this policy. This reached a climax in 1679 when, following the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh, and resistance on the part of the Rathors as a protest against bringing Marwar under direct Mughal administration pending a decision of the succession dispute, a number of old standing temple in the area were destroyed or bricked up. However, when the Mughals over-ran the Maratha territory and south India up to Jinji after 1687, the temples in the area were, except in a few isolated cases, left undisturbed, many of them being listed by contemporary writers, such as Bhimsen.” (p. 486)
There are many fallacies in the above observation:
His observation that ‘there is no reason to believe that subsequently Aurangzeb departed from this policy of limited toleration and ordered a general destruction of temples’ is not based on historical facts. During the reign of Aurangzeb there was hardly any important temple in the country which was not demolished. His fake Farman to a Brahmin at Benaras is highlighted but his crimes of turning the famous Viśvanātha temple in the sacred city is downplayed. Kāśī never gave any trouble to the Mughal Empire during his time and the Pandās of this temple have never been imparting education to persons outside their clan. B.N. Pande’s article in support of Aurangzeb has been proved to be a figment of imagination in this
very chapter only.
Similarly, even if it is accepted that some land at Mathurā and Vrindāvana was granted to a temple or to a Brahmin at Siwana, it will not absolve Aurangzeb of the charge of religious bigotry. The demolition of the temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna, built by Bir Singh Bundela at a cost of Rs. 33 lakh in c. 1610 A.D. cannot be compensated by some land-grants here and there. Even the Banaras firman of Aurangzeb which has been projected as a strong evidence of his liberal religious policy has been proved in this chapter to be a forgery.
Prof. Satish Chandra puts another argument in defence of Aurangzeb by stating, “No such orders have been found, nor is there any such reference to them in Aurangzeb’s letters or the Akhbarat. They are referred to only in ‘Maasir-i Alamgiri’, written after Aurangzeb’s death.” The great historian should have made it clear that it was written in 1708, one year after Aurangzeb’s death. And it was written after all official records were made available to the author Saqi Must’ad Khan. His accounts are found trust-worthy and correct. Besides, Sir Jadunath Sarkar informs in his book ‘History of Aurangzeb’ (vol. III), Ist edition, 1928, Orient Longman (Reprint, 1972), (p. 186) that De Graaf heard of Aurangzeb’s order when Graaf was at Hugli in 1670. Sarkar’s reference is based on Orme’s ‘Historical fragments of the Mogul empire’ wherein Orme writes:
“He (Aurengzebe) determined to enforce the conversion of the Hindoos throughout the empire, by the severest penalties. DE GRAFF, when at Hughly in Bengal, in the year 1670.” (p. 250)
Orme further informs that when De Graaf was at Hughly in Bangal in the year 1670 Graaf recorded the following events:
“Au mois de Janvier tous les Gouverneurs & Officiers Motes recurrent Ordre du, Grand Mogol d’ empecher dexercice de la religion payenne dans le pays, & de saire murer tous les Temples ou Pagodes des Idolatres. On diminua en même temps les taxes des Marchands Mahometans. & on augmenta celles des Idolatres, dans l’ esperance que quelques Payens embrasseroient la Religion Mahomedanne, Et pour mieux faire paroitre fa pieté, I empereur envoya à la Mccque, une tres grosse somme d’ argent à l’ honneur de son grand Prophete Mahomet. II dépecha aussi des ordres pour défendre tous les lieux publics de débauche; mais pour luiiln’obseryoit pas ces ordres dans son Palais.” (“Voyages De Nicolas De Graaf Aux Indes Orientales,” pp. 43-44)
This passage has been translated by Prof. K.M. Tiwary into English in the following words:
“In the month of January the Great Moghul ordered all the Governors and Moorish officers to stop the practice of the Heathens’ religion in the whole country, and to wall up (= close down) all the pagodas and temples of the idolaters. Or to reduce the taxes of Mohammedan merchants, but at the same time, increase the taxes of the idolaters in the hope that some of the heathens would embrace the Mohammedan religion. In order to highlight his piety (= devotion) the emperor sent a very large sum of money to Mecca to honour his great prophet, Mohammad. He also hurriedly dispatched orders to protect all public places from debauchery (= practices of excessive sensual pleasures), but as for himself, he did not observe orders in his palace.”
This passage is from Nicolas De Graaf’s French book “Voyages De Nicolas De Graaf Aux Indes Orientales” which was published at Amsterdam in 1719 A.D. Graaf was a doctor in service of Dutch East India Company. Edward Farley Oaten in his book “European Travellers in India: During the Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” writes thus about the importance of Graaf’s account:
“By far, however, the most interesting and valuable narrative of travel in Bengal, from the pen of one of these less important writers, is that of Graaf.” (p. 243)
He was a widely travelled man and before coming to Bangal in 1668 he had made two voyages from Europe to India.
It is a damning condemnation of the religious policy of Aurangzeb and demolishes the defence of established historians in favour of their favourite Mughal Emperor. Besides, it completely corroborates the writing of Saqi Must’ad Khan that Aurangzeb had issued a general order that Hindus’ places of worship and centres of learning be demolished throughout his empire. Aurangzeb’s general order to demolish all temples in the country is corroborated by two independent contemporary sources. Excerpts from the Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694) are quoted later in this chapter only and “according to French archival sources, B.N., N.A., 62/3(16), the Emperor had ordered all Hindu temples to be destroyed including that of Jagannath at Puri. This had brought about a Hindu rebellion as a result of which the edict was not enforced.” (p. 1234, f.n. 31)
Thus, Prof. Satish Chandra’s defence that Saqi Must’ad Khan’s assertion has got no corroboration is not justified.
Prof. Satish Chandra’s another observation that the order for the demolition of temples in Aurangzeb’s empire is not supported by other sources is not correct because Manucci, an impartial contemporary Italian, says that Aurangzeb demolished a large number of Hindu temples, though it does not mean that all temples were razed to the ground because the number was so large that it could not be accomplished by any tyrant. Another contemporary witness Francois Martin, the Governor of the French East India Company, has written memoirs of events between 1670 and 1694 A.D. and shown how temples after temples were destroyed by Aurangzeb’s orders and even the worship of idols in private homes was not allowed during his reign. According to him, if the Hindus could save some minor temples or continued worship in their homes, it was due to the fact that they used to bribe the officers and commanders of Aurangzeb. One cannot think that a scholar like Prof. Satish Chandra is unaware of the writings of Manucci or Martin but it is the predetermined prejudice on his part which has led to the suppression of such historical facts.
Prof. Satish Chandra accepts that a large number of temples were destroyed or bricked up in Marwar after the Rajputs’ protest against bringing Marwar under Mughal administration. But the fact of the matter is that the temples were demolished by May, 1679 and the war against the Mughals started after the arrival of Durgadas three months later.
Then Prof. Chandra says that when the Mughals over-ran the Maratha territory and South India up to Jinji after 1687, the temples in the area except a few remained undisturbed. But Francois Martin’s account is a testimony to the religious tyranny perpetrated by Aurangzeb.
Francois Martin has described the utter religious suppression of the Hindus by Aurangzeb in his book ‘India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and Political, Memoirs of Francois Martin 1670-1694, translated by Lotika Varadarajan and published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1989). Some of relevant excerpts are quoted below:
“When it had come to the knowledge of the Emperor that many rich Gujarati banias had built temples within their homes to perform their devotions, in his religious fervour, he ordered that the Governors of the province should carry out an inspection. All the temples in the cities and villages had been destroyed. Now these inner sanctums were also to be laid low and the least sign of the practice of the Hindu religion was to be wiped out. The numbers of this community, particularly at Hyderabad and Cambay where they were to be found in large numbers, were greatly alarmed at these instructions. It was said that the banias managed to circumvent the Mughal orders by giving presents to the Governors who thereupon took their inspection tours very lightly.” (ibid p. 914)
It shows that Aurangzeb was not ready to tolerate even small temples inside Hindus’ houses. This is a contemporary account and there is no reason to be biased. But Hindus did resist the demolition of their temples. It is confirmed by the following account of Francois Martin:
“Following the Emperor’s orders with regard to the destruction of temples, the Moors brought one down in the Carnatic. This incited the Hindus to revolt in an attempt to prevent this action. The two communities clashed openly and both sides sustained loss of life. As a result, the Moors were forced to postpone their demolition activities to a later date.” (ibid p. 1249)
It further suggests that communal clash at a large s
cale took place during the time of Aurangzeb. Because of the demolition of Hindu temples by Aurangzeb’s army, his many capable Hindu generals left the royal service and revolted against him. They established their independent principalities. Yachappa Nayak was such a noble about whom Francois Martin writes:
“Yachappa Nayak, the Hindu noble to whom I have referred earlier in my narrative, on seeing that the Mughal army after repeated orders from the Emperor, was bent on the destruction of the Hindu temples, left Mughal service and entered the territory of Gingee with his men. From there, he wrote to all the Hindu Princes, urging them to unite against the enemy of their community and religion.” (ibid p. 1256)
On the contrary, the conduct of Shivaji, on whom Khafi Khan has placed choicest abuses in his book ‘Muntakhabu-l Lubab’, has been praised by the latter in these words:
“Sivaji had always striven to maintain the honour of the people in his territories. He persevered in a course of rebellion, in plundering caravans, and troubling mankind; but he entirely abstained from other disgraceful acts, and was careful to maintain the honour of the women and children of Muhammadans when they fell into his hands. His injunctions upon this point were very strict, and anyone who disobeyed received punishment.” (“History of India” by Elliot and Dowson Vol. VII, p. 305).
Similarly, Aurangzeb Alamgir was surprised when he learnt from the captive daughter of Prince Akbar that Durga Das had employed a female tutor for her and she had remembered the whole Koran by rote during her captivity with the Rathods.
On the eve of the final assault on Golkonda Fort, Abdur Rahim Khan was appointed to a special post of the Muhtasib with orders to suppress the rites of infidelity and other innovations (bidat), which the ‘irreligious’ Abdul Hasan had made compulsory. As per the direction of Aurangzeb the temples were to be destroyed and mosques to be built in Golkunda. Aurangzeb also instructed the Subahdars not to allow any bidat. But Prof. Chandra adds,