It's fascinating to delve into the history of Aurangzeb's reign and its impact on the Mughal

Empire. After emerging victorious in a succession war and imprisoning his father, Emperor
Shahjahan, Aurangzeb ascended the throne in 1658. Over the next forty-nine years, the
empire reached its territorial zenith, expanding southward into the Karnataka region and
even penetrating eastwards into the heart of the Ahom territory. However, Aurangzeb's
legacy is a subject of debate. Traditional historiography often portrays him as communal or a
religious bigot, attributing discontentment and Hindu rebellions to his orthodox policies of
oppressive treatment towards Hindu subjects. But it's important to contextualize his actions
and avoid simplifying them into a religious binary. Understanding the complexities of
Aurangzeb's rule is crucial before labeling him as communal or a bigot.

Sure, let's summarize the key points you mentioned about Aurangzeb's religious policies.
According to scholars like Sarkar, SR Sharma, and John F Richards, Aurangzeb's actions
reflected his religious orthodoxy. He appointed Ulema for public censorship, outlawed Hindu
fairs, banned practices like Jharokha darshan, Tulaadan, and Tika Ceremony, and imposed
Jiziya in 1679. These policies were seen as an attempt to establish an Islamic state in India
and suppress non-Muslims. Scholars argue that by burdening non-Muslims with Jiziya,
Aurangzeb aimed to incentivize their conversion to Islam. However, it's worth noting that
newer studies have rejected the frameworks put forward by Sarkar and Sharma, highlighting
the need for a nuanced understanding of Aurangzeb's reign.

When it is said that Aurangzeb outlawed Hindu fairs, it means that he banned or prohibited
these events from taking place. As for the specific practices you mentioned, "Jharokha
darshan" refers to the tradition where the king or ruler would appear in public and interact
with the people from a balcony or window. "Tulaadan" refers to the act of weighing oneself
against a particular item, often gold or silver, and then donating an equivalent amount to
charity. "Tika ceremony" is a Hindu ritual where a red mark, called a tika, is applied to the
forehead as a symbol of blessing and protection. These practices were banned during
Aurangzeb's reign as part of his religious policies.

You make an interesting point about the contradiction in Aurangzeb's objectives regarding
conversion to Islam. While it is true that Aurangzeb did not enforce mass conversions in the
newly acquired territories of the Deccan, it's important to consider the context and
motivations behind his actions. The recorded cases of conversions show that they were
often driven by personal gain or incentives, such as expected preferential treatment
or official posts. Historian Irfan Habib suggests that Aurangzeb exempted many poor
farmers from heavy tax burdens, focusing on collecting taxes from the rich class. This can be
seen from the protests by shopkeepers and merchants when the Farman was issued.
Therefore, the imposition of Jiziya should not be simply seen as an act of religious
superiority, but rather as a means to exert control and extract resources from certain
sections of society. It's crucial to approach historical events with a nuanced understanding,
taking into account various perspectives and motivations involved.

It's interesting to consider Satish Chandra's analysis of Aurangzeb's policies during his later
years. According to Chandra, Aurangzeb divided his reign into two periods: the first phase,
which lasted until the conquest of Bijapur and Golconda in 1687, and the second phase,
from 1687 until his death in 1707. During the first phase, Aurangzeb believed that his
Deccan project could be successful by creating a divide between the Deccani rulers and the
Marathas, appealing to religious sentiments. He wrote to the Deccan rulers, urging them to
abandon their support for "infidel" Sambhaji and join forces with the Emperor, who was seen
as a protector of Muslims. This suggests that Aurangzeb's motivations were not solely based
on religious supremacy, but also on political strategies to achieve his goals in the Deccan.

Aurangzeb believed that creating a divide between the Deccani rulers and the Marathas
based on religious sentiments could be a successful strategy for his Deccan project. By
appealing to the religious sentiments of the Deccani kingdoms, Aurangzeb aimed to weaken
the unity and alliance between the Deccani rulers and the Marathas. This division would
potentially make it easier for Aurangzeb to assert his control and influence over the Deccan
region. By positioning himself as the protector of Muslims and appealing to their religious
identity, Aurangzeb sought to gain support from the Deccani rulers and undermine the
strength of the Marathas.

It seems that during a period of unrest in the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb responded by
emphasizing Islam as a unifying factor among the diverse ruling class. Munis D Faruqi, in his
work on religious interactions in Mughal India, argues that the re-imposition of Jizya served
Aurangzeb's religious motivations and helped him reconcile with the ulama, the orthodox
clergy. The ulama sought to establish a religious hierarchy, and Jizya not only provided them
with employment opportunities but also allowed for the harassment and humiliation of
non-believers. This policy, while serving Aurangzeb's religious goals, also aimed to reinforce
the authority of the ulama and maintain control over a fragmented ruling class.

The re-imposition of Jizya, or the hazira tax, helped Aurangzeb reconcile with the ulama and
orthodox clergy because it aligned with their religious beliefs and provided them with
employment opportunities. The ulama class wanted to establish a religious hierarchy and
promote Islamic principles. By reinstating Jizya, Aurangzeb demonstrated his commitment to
implementing Islamic law and supporting the ulama's agenda. Additionally, Jizya served as a
means for the ulama to exert their authority and control over non-believers, aligning with
their desire to enforce religious orthodoxy. This policy allowed Aurangzeb to gain the support
and approval of the ulama and orthodox clergy, strengthening his position and fostering unity
within the empire.

You're absolutely right! The re-imposition of Jizya not only had religious implications but also
had financial benefits for Aurangzeb. The Jizya tax was deposited in a separate treasury
called the khanzanah-i-jiziya, which was used for welfare purposes. This tax helped fund the
stipends of various individuals in the Mughal state, including army officials, theologians, and
literati. However, as Irfan Habib and Satish Chandra have pointed out in their articles, there
were significant financial challenges faced by the Mughal state during Aurangzeb's reign.
While the imposition of Jizya may have provided employment opportunities and benefited
the treasury, the disadvantages of this policy outweighed its benefits. It highlighted the
discriminatory nature of the emperor, as the tax was imposed on non-Muslims, creating a
sense of inequality and division within the empire.
You're absolutely right! There was no overall ban on art or music during Aurangzeb's reign.
As Katherine Butler Brown explains, it was not a complete ban but rather a prohibition of
performative arts in the presence of the emperor due to his personal renunciation. In fact,
new findings suggest that there were actually more musical treaties being composed during
Aurangzeb's rule. His letters reveal his deep knowledge of literature and references to
renowned poets such as Sadi, Hafiz, and Rumi. It's surreal to believe that there was a ban
on art or literature when Aurangzeb not only supported the imperial library but also donated
large sums for the preservation of manuscripts. While he may not have had a fascination for
paintings and condemned poetry as "purveyors of falsehood," it's important to note that his
policies were not aimed at religious suppression but rather tactical decisions to redirect royal
patronage's expenditure on expansion and consolidation in the South. So, it's clear that the
situation was more nuanced than a simple ban on art and literature.

Sure! According to historians like Jadunath Sarkar, SR Sharma, and Ishwari Prasad, there is
evidence of temple destruction under the reign of Aurangzeb, such as the Vishwanath
temple in Benaras and temples throughout Rajputana. They argue that these actions
demonstrate Aurangzeb's biased feelings. However, Audrey Truschke provides evidence of
Aurangzeb also supporting Jain religious institutions, indicating a more complex perspective.
Richard Eaton suggests that some of the temple destruction was politically motivated, such
as in the case of the Ahom rulers in Assam and the rebellions in Marwar and Mewar. So, it
seems that the situation surrounding temple destruction during Aurangzeb's reign is
multifaceted, involving both religious and political factors.

Temple destruction during Aurangzeb's reign was sometimes politically motivated as a

means to suppress rebellions or assert control over certain regions. For example, in Assam,
the Mughals were defeated by the Ahoms and were unable to annex new territories. As a
result, they destroyed chief temples patronized by the Ahom rulers to weaken their political
power. Similarly, the destruction of the Vishwanath temple was linked to Jai Singh, who
allegedly helped Shivaji escape, leading to Aurangzeb's desire to assert dominance.
Additionally, temples throughout Rajputana were targeted during the Marwar and Mewar
rebellions as a way to quell opposition to Mughal rule. So, political motivations played a role
in some instances of temple destruction during Aurangzeb's reign.

There are records of several temples in Rajputana being destroyed during Aurangzeb's
reign. While I don't have specific information about which temples were destroyed in relation
to Jai Singh allegedly helping Shivaji escape, it is believed that Aurangzeb desired to assert
dominance and punish those who went against his rule. The destruction of the Vishwanath
temple, which was built by Jai Singh, could be seen as one example of this. However, it's
important to note that historical accounts may vary, and further research can provide more
specific details about the temples that were affected during that time.

Jai Singh allegedly held Shivaji because there were reports that Jai Singh had helped Shivaji
escape from Mughal captivity. This angered Aurangzeb, who wanted to assert his
dominance and punish those who went against his rule. As a result, the Vishwanath temple,
which was built by Jai Singh, was destroyed as a way to assert Mughal authority. However,
it's important to note that historical accounts may vary, and further research can provide
more specific details about the motivations behind Jai Singh's alleged involvement with
Shivaji.

Absolutely! Richard Davis and Richard Eaton share the belief that the act of temple
destruction to establish political superiority was not unique to Aurangzeb's reign but had a
historical precedent. They argue that this practice can be traced back to ancient times and
was continued by the Turkish invasions and the Mughal rule. According to their perspective,
the destruction of temples and the construction of mosques served as a means for
Aurangzeb to solidify the legitimacy of his rule and maintain political order. This suggests
that it was not solely driven by personal religious bigotry but rather a strategic move to assert
authority and establish control. By summarizing their views, we can understand that temple
destruction during Aurangzeb's reign had political motivations intertwined with the religious
aspect.

It is evident that Aurangzeb's religious policy went through different phases during his reign.
One significant development was the suspension of jizyah in the Deccan in 1704. This
decision was made due to the distress caused by famine and the ongoing Maratha war.
However, the suspension of jizyah can be seen as an admission of the failure of the religious
policy that Aurangzeb had initially proclaimed with great enthusiasm in 1679. Despite his
efforts, many of the intended outcomes of this policy did not come to fruition. This highlights
the complexities and challenges faced by Aurangzeb in implementing his religious policies
and achieving the desired results.

You're absolutely right! The religious policy of Aurangzeb was shaped by a complex interplay
of various factors. The beliefs and personal predilections of rulers, the attitudes and
behaviors of the ruling class, the influence of theological groups, the social and political
values of the masses, and the political-economic demands of the time all played a role in
shaping Aurangzeb's religious policies. It's important to acknowledge that the truth of
Aurangzeb's rule and motivations is much more intricate than what is commonly portrayed.
While there may be a tendency to exaggerate Aurangzeb's conservatism, it is more accurate
to view him as a product of his era, following the customs of the time in order to safeguard
his position. Understanding the evolution of Aurangzeb's religious policy requires considering
these multifaceted factors that influenced his decisions.