william sonoma part time remote jobs

date: 07 mar 2008


why an exhibition on aurangzeb?

françois gautier

fact, the trust which i head, is doing an exhibition on 'aurangzeb as he was according to moghol documents' .

why an exhibition on aurangzeb, some may ask ? firstly, i have been a close student of indian history and one of its most controversial figures has been aurangzeb (1658-1707). it is true that under him the moghol empire reached its zenith, but aurangzeb was a very cruel ruler ' some might even say monstrous. what are the facts? aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the kashi vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. all other hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. a few examples: krishna's birth temple in mathura, the rebuilt somnath temple on the coast of gujurat,  the vishnu temple replaced with the alamgir mosque now overlooking benares and the treta-ka-thakur temple in ayodhya. the number of temples destroyed by aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures. aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, dara shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in hindu religion and the sikh guru tegh bahadur was beheaded because he objected to aurangzeb's forced conversions.

thus we thought we should go at the root of the matter. history (like journalism) is about documentation and first hand experience. we decided to show aurangzeb according to his own documents. there are an incredible number of farhans, of original edicts of aurangzeb, hand-written in persian in india's museums, particularly in rajasthan, such as the bikaner archives. it was not always easy to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes downright hostility and we had to go once to the cm to get permissions. indeed the director of bikaner archives told us that in 50 years, we were the first ones asking for these farhans dealing with aurangzeb destructive deeds. then we asked painters from rajasthan to reproduce in the ancient moghol style some of the edicts : the destruction of the somnath temple, or the trampling of hindus protesting jizya tax by aurangzeb's elephants, or the order from aurangzeb prohibiting hindus to ride horses and palanquins, or the beheading of teg bahadur and dara shikoh.

people might say: 'ok, this is all true, aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but why rake the past, when we have tensions between muslims and hindus today' ? there are two reasons to this exhibition. the first one is that no nation can move forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their own history, the good and the bad, the evil and the pure.  the french for instance have many dark periods of their history, more recently some of the deeds they did during colonization in north africa or how they collaborated with the nazis during the 2d world war and handed over french jews who died in concentration camps (french people are only coming to terms with it now).the argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against the other does not hold either: french catholics and protestants, who share a very similar religion, fought bitterly each other. catholics brutally murdered thousands of protestants in the 18th century; yet today they lived peacefully next to each other. france fought three wars with germany in the last 150 years, yet they are great friends today.

let then hindus and muslims come to terms with what happened under aurangzeb, because muslims suffered as much as hindus. it was not only shah jahan or dara shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's indian muslims who have been converted at 90%. aurangzeb was the hitler, the asura of medieval india. no street is named after hitler in the west, yet in delhi we have the aurangzeb road, a constant reminder of the horrors aurangzeb perpetrated against indians, including against his own people.

finally, aurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that sunni islam was the purest form of his religion and he sought to impose it with ruthless efficiency - even against those of his own faith, such as his brother. aurangzeb clamped  down on the more syncretic, more tolerant islam, of the sufi kind, which then existed in india.but he did not fully succeed. four centuries later, is he going to have the last word ? i remember, when i started covering kashmir in the late seventies, that islam had a much more open face. the kashmir muslim, who is also a descendant of converted hindus, might have thought that allah was the only true god, but he accepted his kashmir pandit neighbor, went to his or her marriage, ate in his or her house and the hindu in turn went to the mosque. women used to walk with open faces, watch tv, films. then the shadow of aurangzeb fell again on kashmir and the hard-line sunnis came from pakistan and afghanistan : cinemas were banned, the burqua imposed, 400.000 kashmiri pandits were chased out of kashmir by violence and became refugees in their own land and the last sufi shrine of srhar-e- sharif was burnt to the ground (i was there). today the shariat law has been voted in kashmir, a state of democratic, secular india,up's muslims have applauded, and the entire indian media, which went up in flames when the government wanted vande mataram to be sung, kept quiet. the spirit of aurangzeb seems to triumph. 

but what we need today in india - and indeed in the world - is a dara shikoh, who reintroduces an islam which, while believing in the supremacy of its prophet, not only accepts other faiths, but is also able to see the good in each religion, study them, maybe create a synthesis. islam needs to adapt its scriptures which were created nearly 15 centuries ago for the people and customs of these times, but which are not necessarily relevant in some of their injunctions today. kabir, dara shikoh and some of the sufi saints attempted this task, but failed. aurangzeb knew what he was doing when he had his own brother's head cut. and we know what we are saying when we say that this exhibition is very relevant to today's india

may the spirit of dara shikoh come back to india and bring back islam to a more tolerant human face.

françois gautier

aurangzeb as he was  according to mughal records

aurangzeb, emperor shah jahan's sixth son, was born on 24th october 1618 at dohad in madhya pradesh, and wrested india's crown from his father before the end of june 1658, after defeating his brother prince dara shukoh's armies, first at dharmat near ujjain (15th april 1568) and the second, led by dara himself, at samugarh on 29th may 1658. the war of succession to the richest throne in the world was practically over with this victory, and aurangzeb secured his position by making murad, his brother and  accomplice in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner, by treachery, on 25th june. he had already made his old father emperor shah jahan a prisoner in the agra fort (8th june 1658). 

shah jahan survived his confinement by nearly eight years and the disgraceful manner of his burial (exhibit no.5)will ever remain a stigma on this unscrupulous son aurangzeb's advent to the throne in his father's life time was not welcomed by the people of india, because of the treacherous manner it was achieved; , but public opinion became all the more hostile towards him when prince dara shukoh, the favourite son of shah jahan, the translator of the upanishads (exhibit no.2), and a truly liberal and enlightened musalman, was   taken prisoner  on the indian border,  as he was going to persia. dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the streets of delhi on 29th august 1659. the french doctor, bernier, was an eye-witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for dara (exhibit no.3) which so much alarmed aurangzeb that he contrived to have a decree from his clerics announcing death-sentence for his elder brother on the charge of apostasy (exhibit no.4).

throughout the war of succession, aurangzeb had maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off the threat to islam, which was inevitable in case dara shukoh came to power. many, including his brother murad, were deceived by this posture. after his formal accession in delhi (5th june 1659) he posed as a defender of islam who would rule according to the directions of the shariat, and with the advice of the clerics or ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century arabia, persia and iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries, and for all times to come.

one of the main objectives of aurangzeb's policy was to demolish hindu temples. when he ordered (13th october 1666)removal of the carved railing, which prince dara shukoh had presented to keshava rai temple at mathura, he had observed 'in the religionof themusalmans it is improper even to look at a temple', and that it was totally unbecoming of a muslim to act like dara shukoh (exhibit no.6, akhbarat, 13th october 1666). this was followed by destruction of the famous kalka temple in delhi (exhibit no.6, 7, 8, akhbarat, 3rd and 12th september 1667).

in 1669, shortly after the death of mirza raja jai singh of amber, a general order was issued (9th april 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (exhibit nos.9 & 10). soon after this the great temple of keshava rai was destroyed (jan.-feb. 1670) (exhibit no.12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. the idols, the author of maasir-i-alamgiri informs, were carried to agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by begum sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of mathura was changed to islamabad. the painting (exhibit no.13) is thus no fancy imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place. 

this was followed by aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated temple of vishwanath at banaras (persian text, exhibit no.11), keshava rai temple (jan.-feb. 1670) (persian text, exhibit no.12 and painting, exhibit no.13), and of somanatha (exhibit no.14).to save the idol of shri nathji from being desecrated, the gosain carried it to rajputana, where maharana raj singh received it formally at sihad village, assuring the priest that aurangzeb would  have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave rajputs, before he couldeven touch the idol (exhibit no.15)

this was followed by aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated temple of vishwanath at banaras (persian text, exhibit no.11), keshava rai temple (jan.-feb. 1670) (persian text, exhibit no.12 and painting, exhibit no.13), and of somanatha (exhibit no.14).to save the idol of shri nathji from being desecrated, the gosain carried it to rajputana, where maharana raj singh received it formally at sihad village, assuring the priest that aurangzeb would  have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave rajputs, before he couldeven touch the idol (exhibit no.15)

aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. the opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of maharaja jaswant singh of jodhpur in the kabul subah, he tried to eliminate the rathors of marwar as a political power in rajputana. but maharana raj singh of mewar, in line with the great traditions of his house, came out in open support of the rathors.. this led to war with both mewar and marwar during which the temples built on the bank of rana's lake were destroyed by his orders (exhibit no.23, akhbarat 23rd december 1679) and also about three hundred other temples in the environs of udaipur. (exhibit no.25, text), including the famous jagannath rai temple built at a great cost in front of the maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of rajputs (exhibit nos.20, 21). 

not only this, when aurangzeb visited chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of the finest temples of kumbha's time (exhibit no.22). from marwar (in western rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the court and under the steps of jama masjid (exhibit no.19). such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the mughal emperor alienated hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed. 

in june 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated jagannath temple in orissa (exhibit no.24, akhbarat, 1st june 1681).,  shortly afterwards, in september 1682, the famous bindu-madhav temple in banaras was also demolished as per the emperor's orders (exhibit no.27, akhbarat, julus 26, ramzan 20). on 1st september 1681, while proceeding to the deccan, where his rebel son prince akbar, escorted by durga das rathore, had joined chhatrapati shivaji's son, shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, aurangzeb ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed. it was a comprehensive order not  distinguishing between old and newly built temples (exhibit no.26, akhbarat, julus 25, ramzan 18). but in the district of burhanpur, where there were a large number of temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the muslims were too few in number in the district. (exhibit no.28, akhbarat 13th october 1681). in his religious frenzy, even temples of the loyal and friendly amber state were not spared, such as the famous temple of jagdish at goner near amber (exhibit nos.30, akhbarat, 28th march and 14th may 1680). in fact, his misguided ardour for temple destruction did not abate almost up to the end of his life, for as late as 1st january 1705 we find him ordering that the temple of pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the temple precincts (akhbarat 49-7).

the number of such ruthless acts  of aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of aurangzeb's period and by such credible persian sources as maasir-i-alamgiri.

i in obedience to the quranic injunction, he reimposed jizyah on the hindus on 2nd april 1679 (exhibit no.16), which had been abolished by emperor akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the hindus of the country .a massive peaceful demonstration against this  tax in delhi, was ruthlessly crushed (exhibit no.17), this hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor hindus and caused humiliation to each and every hindu (exhibit no.18). in the same vein,  were his discriminatory measures against hindus in the form of exemption of the muslims from the taxes (exhibit no.31, akhbarat 16th april 1667) ban on atishbazi and restriction on diwali (exhibit no.32), replacement of hindu officials by muslims so that  the emperor's prayers for the welfare of muslims and glory of islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (exhibit nos.33, 34). he also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the hindus at religious shrines, such as of shitla mata and folk gods like pir pabu (exhibit no.35, akhbarat 16th september 1667), another ban on their travelling in palkis, or riding elephants and arab-iraqi horses, as hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the muslims! (exhibit no.36). in the same vein came  brazen attempts to convert hindus by inducement, coercion (exhibit no.41) or by offering qanungoship (exhibit no.44, 45, 46) and to honour the converts in the open court.  his  personal directions were that a hindu male be given rs.4 and a hindu female rs.2 on conversion (exhibit no.43,akhbarat 7th april 1685). 'go on giving them', aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the faujdar of bithur, shaikh abdul momin, had converted 150 hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (exhibit no.40, akhbarat, 11th april 1667). such display of islamic orthodoxy by the state under aurangzeb gave strength and purpose to the resistance movements such as of the marathas, the jats, the bundelas and the sikhs (exhibit no.46).

on the 12th may 1666, the dignity with which shivaji carried himself in the mughal court and defied the emperor's authority, won him spontaneous admiration of the masses. parkaldas, an official of amber (jaipur state) wrote in his letter dated 29th may 1666, to his diwan. 'now that after coming to the emperor's presence shivaji has shown such audacity and returned harsh and strong replies, the public extols him for his bravery all the more ?#39; (exhibit no.37).when shivaji passed away on april 1680 at the age of 53 only, he had already carved a sufficiently large kingdom, his swarajya, both along the western coast and some important areas in the east as well. 

aurangzeb could never pardon himself for his intelligence in letting i escapefrom his well laid trap and wrote in his will (exhibit no.48)that it made him 'to labour hard (against the marathas) to the end of my life (as a result of it)'. he did not realize that it was his own doing: the extremely cruel manner ' even for those times - in which he put to death shivaji' son, shambhaji (exhibit no.38)made the maratha king a martyr in the eyes of the masses and with that commenced the people' war in maharashtra and the deccan which dug the grave of the mughal empire.

till the very end aurangzeb never understood that the main pillars of the government are the affection and support of the people and not mere compliance of the religious directives originating from a foreign land in the seventh-eighth centuries.

his death after a long and ruinous reign lasting half a century, ended an eventful epoch in the history of  india . he  left behind a crumbling empire, a corrupt and inefficient administration, a demoralized army, a discredited government facing public bankruptcy and alienated subjects.




fake amazon reviews
getting paid amazon reviews ???????????