Aurangzeb

S0814258 Semester 2, Essay 2 Monday,22 March 2010
1
Indian Civilization 1
Semester 2, Essay 2
To what extent may Aurangzeb be held responsible for the breakdown of
the Mughal empire?
‘I confirm that all this work is my own except where indicated, and that I have understood the
rules about Plagiarism.’
Signed: _________________________ Monday, 22 March 2010
Word count: 2,338 words.

2
We halted four days in Sironj... the walls are crumbling away through the negligence of the
Mogul king [Aurungzeb] whose object is to destroy all the strong places of the Hindus... so
that their conquered princes may not rebel against him. His only anxiety is to fortify and
supply the forts that are on the frontiers of his kingdom. (Fisher 2007, p.123)1
The Mughal king in this account is Aurangzeb who reigned from 1658 to 1707. He is
regarded by some as a “pious” and “ruthless ruler” with “brilliant administrative capacity and
as cunning as statesmen as ever mounted an Indian throne” (Wolpert, 1993, p.157). However,
this account contrasts vividly with Wolpert’s description and shows Aurangzeb in an
unflattering light. It even seems to imply a ruler that is not in full control of his empire, and
hints that it may be about to fall. However, Percival Spear argues that Aurangzeb became, at
the time, a symbol for everything that Hindus disliked and feared, that Aurangzeb “bored the
blame of anything bad, [for example] if a temple was ruined, it was Aurangzeb who did it”
(Spear, 1951 p.133). Following the logic of this argument, it could be seen that Aurangzeb
was a scapegoat for many events, so could become a scapegoat of the downfall of the Mughal
empire. In this essay, I shall discuss the extent that Aurangzeb can be held responsible of the
fall of an empire that P. Saran argues a mere hundred years earlier, was ruled by “that most
enlightened emperor, Akbar” (Saran, 1952 p. 126).
According to John Keay, the accession of Aurangzeb to the throne was not easy. In 1658,
Aurangzeb, “deposed his father Shah Jahan and imprisoned him in Agra’s fort for the rest of
his days” (Keay, 2000 p.328). On first reading, this may seem like a portent for a decline of
an empire, but it was common in Mughal culture for there to be difficulties in the accession
of the throne, with Emperor Jahangir even declaring, “Sovereignty does not regard the
1
A quote fromNiccolaoManucci (1639-1717) whowasa Venetianthattravelledasaservantto the
BritishcitizenHenryBardto India.Bard carriedthe self-giventitle,“EnglishAmbassadortothe
Mughals.”

3
relation of father son” (Keay, 2000 p.328)2. However, by choosing his name to be “Alambir”
or “Conqueror of the World,” Aurangzeb was putting onerous commitments on himself in
what his achievements were to be (Keay, 2000 p.341) which could run the risk of being too
ambitious and thus lead to a downfall or breakdown of an empire.
I agree with Wolpert’s view that when Aurangzeb acceded the throne, “the era of religious
tolerance and Hindu-Muslim equality of treatment that had been initiated by Akbar was now
abandoned” (Wolpert, 1993 p.159). Aurangzeb also instigated muhtasibs (censors of public
morals) “to every provincial capital and other large city in his realm ordering them to be sure
that Islamic law was obeyed” (Wolpert, 1993 p.159). This would, no doubt, encourage a
culture of suspicions and may be a factor that could lead to a downfall of an empire.
In 1668, fairs connected to Hindu religious traditions were banned and temple permits ceased
to be issued nor permission from Aurangzeb granted to repair derelict temples (Wolpert, 1993
p.159). There is some disagreement amongst scholars about the extent of the physical damage
to Hindu temples and ideological damage to Hindu religious traditions that Aurangzeb caused.
J Tallboys Wheeler cites a “great Hindu pagoda... near Delhi” and a “pagoda at Muttra” being
destroyed and argues that it was all in the name of Aurangzeb’s scheme for the “conversion
of Hindus to the religion of the Koran” (Wheeler, 1881 p.108). Keay adds that these measures
were “blatantly discriminatory... against non-Muslims” with “heavily patronised shrines”
such as the Vishvanatha temple in Varanasi “razed and replaced by mosques” (Keay, 2000
p.342). Orders were also given for the viceroys of the regions to eliminate all “pagodas and
idols” in a “like manner” (Wheeler, 1881 p.108). Spear argues with this view, stating that
though Aurangzeb “differed from Akbar in consciously tolerating Hindus rather than treating
them as equals,” Aurangzeb “supposed” intolerance is “little more than a hostile legend based
2
Specificallyin Jehangir,Waaki’ai Jahangri etcp.374.

4
on isolate acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares” (Spear, 1979
p.55) In support of this argument, one most note that Aurangzeb never did “press for
universal conversion” but this was more as Aurangzeb feared this would lead to “hostility
among the mass of peasantry whose labours the state relied on” (Stein, 2008 p.180) rather
than for religious or moral reasons. In balancing the evidence, I would argue that there were
great changes in the religious tolerance of the ruler in Aurangzeb reign which were wholly
stemmed from Aurangzeb himself and caused great hostility in the Hindu community of the
time. Thus, I feel it is one of the factors for the breakdown of the Mughal Empire.
A factor that increased hostility towards the Mughal rulers was the introduction of the jizya
(poll tax) on Hindus in 1679 (Wolpert, 1993, p.159). The onus on the collection of the jizya
was placed on the Rajputs (Wheeler, 1881, p.109). Previously, Ali argues that during
Aurangzeb’s early years of reign “seems to have treated the Rajputs with a certain amount of
consideration” (Ali, 1997 p.23). By compelling this measure on the Rajputs, Aurangzeb
irrevocably damaged and destroyed what little relationship he had with them, with as an
example. Wheeler describing how the Rana of Oodeypore “was deaf to all the demands and
threats of Aurangzeb” and though facing the real threat of Mughal invasion of his territories
and capture of his cities, his people would “fly to the recesses of the Aravulli mountains and
fight on until bitter end” (Wheeler, 1881, p.110).
The introduction of the jizya, combined with the doubling of duty so that Hindu merchants
“were obliged to pay on the same produce bought and sold by Muslims” led to protests at the
Red Fort that Aurangzeb swiftly crushed with imperial elephants (Wolpert, 1993 p.159).
More rebellions against the jizya followed with “Sikhs rebelling in the Punjab and Bengals
rebelling” (Wheeler, 1881, p.109) with Wheeler even going as far as arguing that the as

5
though there existed twenty or thirty Hindus for every Muslim, the main reason that they
were not able to “throw off the yoke of the Muhammadans” is that they lacked a national
leader (Wheeler, 1881, p.109). This theory should be treated with some caution however, as
the book was published in India, and could be biased by Hindu nationalist sentiment. I would
argue that the jizya imposed to a great extent by solely Aurangzeb was one of the key factors
in the increasing discontent of non-Muslim Indians that culminated in rebellions which paved
the way for the fall of the Mughal Empire.
Wolpert develops his argument by declaring that “the primary cause of revolt was economic
not religious” (Wolpert, 1993 p.159). The imperial treasury had already been much depleted
after the richness of Shah Jahn’s reign through the hotly contested contest for throne (Wolpert,
1993 p.154). Peasants would rather risk death from treachery to the state than almost certain
death from starvation (Wolpert, 1993 p.159). This led to more revolts under Gokula in the
region of Mathura, with the Satnamis later rebelling (Wolpert, 1993 p.159). A weak economy,
which to a large extent through Aurangzeb’s doings is a tangible sign of a falling dynasty.
Aurangzeb also attempted to change the cultural values of India, values which had developed
over thousands of years. Aurangzeb tried to “abolish gambling and illicit sex from the land
that had virtually invented the former and practiced the latter as one means of worship”
(Wolpert, 1993, p.160). This “extensively codified norms” was collected as the Fatawa-i-
Alamgiri (Stein, 2008 p.181). Opium was also banned and the entire makeup of the court
was changed with “dancers, musicians and artists dismissed from imperial employ replaced
by bearded Jurists and Quranic divines” (Keay, 2000 p.342). This makes the court seems
much less like a traditional Indian court and more like a Persian heavily influenced foreign
court. The practise of the Mughal ruler appearing at his jharoka-i darsham or balcony (Asher,

6
2006 p.227) was also discontinued. This meant that the people were not able to gain an
apotheosised view of their ruler (Keay, 2000 p.342) and could create a small perception
change of the ruler and slightly weaken his rule. Furthermore, alcohol, music with lyrics and
dance all labelled and banished as “infidel habits” (Wolpert, 1993 p.154). All these attempts
seem to indicate that Aurangzeb was trying to rid India of certain key defining components
that create the country India itself. This is a risky strategy and can invariably lead to the
overthrowing of an empire, as it did in the case of the Mughal Empire. To temper this
however, it is worth remembering that this did not necessarily stop art being produced but
made it much more regional and away from the Mughal centre of power (Asher, 2006 p.230)
It is important to note that Aurangzeb was not entirely consistent in the orthodoxy of his
beliefs. Though Aurangzeb had banned nobles wearing opulent clothes, he continued “to
display himself to them on Shah Jahan’s gold bejewelled peacock throne” (Asher, 2006
p.228). This is especially inconsistent as Aurangzeb had declared vanity an enemy of Islam
(Keay, 2000 p.342). Aurangzeb also presented luxurious gifts as presents to loyal nobles
although he had expressly banned luxury gifts (Asher, 2006 p.228). This inconsistency could
lead to isolation from the Muslims in his court and also produce discontent amongst the
Hindus, and is a reason, albeit minor, for the events that then lead to the collapse of the
Mughal Empire. This must be mitigated with that fact that Aurangzeb was aware that if he
had not provided gifts to his nobles, many would “exchange their loyalty for competing
courts” (Asher, 2006, p.228).
If these were the only arguments that could be used to support the assertion that Aurangzeb
was responsible for the fall of the Mughal Empire, I would argue that Aurangzeb was only
responsible in part for its downfall. However, there is one major event or series of event that

7
radically changes the view in history of Aurangzeb: his conquests in the Deccan. Although
Aurangzeb did successfully leave “the empire larger than he found it” (Spear, 1979, p.55), he
did “destroy [it] in the process” and expanded it so much that “it could hardly be ruled any
longer” with large distances not making ruling any easier (Herman and Kulke, 2008, p.208).
There is broad agreement that there is a strong link with the decline of the Mughal Empire
and the “preoccupation of Aurangzeb with conquering the Deccan” (Asher, 2006 p.231). The
conquest took many years, affected a great region “entailed enormous expenditure and
commitment of human resources on the part of the Mughal Empire” with the territories
“slipping out of the empires’ hands within decades” (Asher, 2006 p.231). Aurangzeb also
alienated much of the Mughal court and gentry who felt that their contributions were not
being recognised- this is a key factor as now means that Aurangzeb is alienating both Hindus
and Muslims. This is a potent mix and ripe for the fall of the Mughal Empire.
The Deccan conquest also had a large effect on Mughal moral. Stein argues that not only did
Aurangzeb “obsession with the Deccan” bleed India of “treasure and men” but also meant
that it lost the “confidence and commitment of the military elite” (Stein, 2008 p.185). This
invariably led to corruption, with Stein adding that there was a “systematic diversion of
military funds to private ends” (Stein, 2008 p.185) There were also complaints of officials
fighting at the Deccan unable to fund themselves on their limited income given by Aurangzeb
(Stein, 2008 p.186). Once a ruler’s army reaches a certain low point of moral, and corruption
and apathy begin to set in, this is a key point where it is very likely that an empire will fall.
Aurangzeb was, to a large extent, responsible for this setting in.

8
There is one major counter argument to the downfall of the Mughal Empire being purely due
to Aurangzeb’s measures and rule. As war took its toll, rural and urban new class was born. A
gentry which relied to a lesser extent “upon state employment than property it had
accumulated and local political domination through wealth and influence over local
administrative officials” (Stein, 2008 p.181). This meant that when the “gentry interests could
no longer be sustained” by Aurangzeb, the allegiances shifted “to those who stood ready to
protect their property” (Stein, 2008 p.181). These were the Western Europeans powers. An
argument could be made that were it not for the invasion of the West into India, the Mughal
Empire could still have remained for longer, though weakened by the Marathas. However, in
my opinion, the European Colonial powers merely acted as a catalyst for the downfall of the
Mughal Empire.
Though some critics theorise that Aurangzeb has been “unduly denigrated” (Spear, 1979 p.55)
and that Aurangzeb’s predecessor, Shah Jahan actually discriminated against those who were
not Muslims with Aurangzeb destroying “relatively few temples” (Keay, 2000 p.343), I think
the weight of evidence suggest that Aurangzeb clearly introduced many policies that were
designed to benefit Muslims, and were anti-Hindu, with the most blatant example being the
jizya. This combined with the many rebellions, attempt to change of social and culture norms
of India and problems of economy make Aurangzeb already to a certain extent responsible
for the breakdown of the Mughal Empire. Although Europeans did play some part in
influence in the breakdown of the Mughal Empire, the biggest single influence on the fall of
the Mughal Empire was the Deccan conquests. This was, entirely instigated and waged on
Aurangzeb’s orders. I therefore conclude that to a large extent Aurangzeb was responsible for
the breakdown of the Mughal Empire.

9
Bibliography
Ali, M.Athar, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, © Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1997.
Asher, Catherine B.Asher and Cynthia Talbot, India before Europe, © Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2006.
Fisher, Michael H., Visions of Mughal India, © I.B Tauris, London, 2007.
Keay, John, A History of India, © Harper Perennial, London, 2000.
Kulke, Herman and Dietmar Rothermund, A History of India © Routledge, London, 2008.
Saran, P., Studies in Medieval Indian History, © Ranjit Printers & Publishers, Delhi, 1952.
Spear, Percival, Twilight of the Mughals,© Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1951.
Spear, Percival, A History of India 2, © Penguin, London, 1979.
Stein, Burton, A History of India, © Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2008.
Wheeler, J. Tallboys, Tales from Indian History, © Thacker, Spink and Co., Calcutta 1881.
Wolpert, Stanley, A New History of India, © Oxford University Press, Oxford 1993.

Aurangzeb

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Aurangzeb