(continued from Part 2)
3. A third set of problems - failure of contextualization
A significant portion of Ms. Truschke's contextualization does not serve to absolve Aurangzeb of religious intolerance unless one is fundamentally biased against Hindus and Hinduism. The arguments very much resemble an often-heard mishmash of Pakistan nationalist cognitive dissonance whereby modern 'liberal social justice' principles are sought to be applied to contextualize Muslim religious aggression towards 'unbelievers' and 'idol-worshippers'. This results in convoluted arguments whose tendency is that all Muslim acts are/were justified since Hindus being fundamentally errant, need/needed to be brought to justice. The logic goes 'give us the Muslim's act and we will find the errancy of the Hindu that caused it'.
For example, she writes "In reality, Aurangzeb pursued no overarching agenda vis-a-vis Hindus within his state. 'Hindus' of the day often did not even label themselves as such and rather prioritized a medley of regional, sectarian, and caste identities(for example, Rajput, Maratha, Brahmin, Vaishnava)." (p 17)
Even if Hindus in his time did not call themselves Hindus, Aurangzeb had no problems of definition. He termed them collectively, variously as 'idol-worshippers', 'infidels' and 'unbelievers'. In Aurangzeb's royal orders ordering demolishing of Hindu temples, dismissal of Hindu civil servants, exaction of discriminatory octroi rates, collection of jizya, ending Hindu religious practice and learning in Thatta, Multan and Benares, not just Aurangzeb but also members of his vast bureaucracy tasked with implementing his royal orders, all, knew exactly who were Hindus.
It is difficult to dispute, given the considerable historical record of his reign, that Aurangzeb's overaraching agenda was to rule successfully as a devout Sunni Mughal ruler. He had an aversion for religious persuasions other than his own. His dealings with Hindus have to be seen in that context. Sometimes he was pragmatic and sometimes he was bigoted.
From "Ruqaʿāt-i ʿĀlamgīrī" (CLXI), Aurangzeb wrote to Zulfiqar Khan Nasrat Jung
"Why should a fertile land be given to an ungrateful ‘káfir-i-harabi’?* Why should we be negligent in carrying out works which it is impossible to accomplish without any evident objection? Have we not read about the reward of the crusade (against the infidels) in the ‘Sahihain’*? Have we not got power of conquering kingdoms and of imprisoning rebels?" (*infidel who is deserved by Mohammedans to be fought with and ruined) (https://persian.packhum.org)
Contexualization of his dealings with Rajputs, taking the common sense path, given the facts instead of the convoluted reasoning path:
About his dealings with Rajputs, maybe we could consider a realistic contextualization instead of the self-serving one of Ms. Truschke. Namely, that Aurangzeb and his Rajput allies needed to maintain the historic alliances they had with each other to maintain power over their respective realms. Given these constraints, Aurangzeb's temple breaking and laws targeting Hindus were bitter pills Rajputs were forced to swallow, while the Rajputs' Hindu faith was a bitter pill Aurangzeb had to swallow.
The Rajputs' willingness to ally with Aurangzeb was not a definitive indication of his religious tolerance nor was Aurangzeb's willingness to ally with the Rajputs a definitive indication of his religious tolerance. Their willingness to ally with each other was definitive of their pragmatism to maintain their respective levels of sovereignty.
The most offensive(to me) and ahistorical contextualization was as follows
(page 111)
"..religious reasons may have been in play. .. According to Saqi Mustaid Khan, a historian who wrote after Aurangzeb's death,in 1669 the king learned that 'in Thatta, Multan and especially in Benares, deviant Brahmins were teaching false books at their established schools. Curious seekers--Hindu and Muslim alike--travelled great distances to gain depraved knowledge from them.."
Though it is her own translation, she doesn't cite the entire quote on this episode.
A translation of the same Saqi Mustaid Khan passage in 'Ma-ásir-i 'Álamgírí' published by H Eliot states-
"it reached the ear of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the provinces of Thatta, Multán, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Bráhmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Musulmáns as well as Hindús, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The “Director of the Faith” consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship."
Jadunath Sarkar's translation of the same passage in Maasir i Alamgiri is:
"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"
In other words, in 1669, Aurangzeb issued orders to all provinces to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus and to put down the teaching and public practice of the religion of Hindus. Yet Audrey Truschke omits mentioning this consequential fact.
Her 'contextualization' follows:
"Generations of Mughal kings had attempted to curb certain religious behaviours, especially of errant Brahmins who, in Mughal eyes, took advantage of the less sophisticated. For example, Akbar took Brahmins to task for misrepresenting Hindu texts to lower castes and hoped that translating Sanskrit texts into Persian would prompt these (in his opinion) arrogant leaders to reform their ways. Aurangzeb similarly evinced concern with elite Brahmins deceiving common Hindus about their own religion and was perhaps especially alarmed that Muslims were falling prey to charlatans. Brahmins may even have profited financially from such ventures.The French traveller Jean de Thevenot opined that Brahmins were numerous in Benares and 'find their Profit' in lavish festivals that drew large crowds. In such cases Mughal royal obligations demanded strong intervention to prevent their subjects from being hoodwinked. For most temples in Benares and elsewhere, Aurangzeb ordered Mughal officials to investigate alleged dubious practices. But in the case of certain institutions, including the Vishvanatha and Keshava Deva Temples, he deemed demolition appropriate."
Audrey Truschke maintains that the Maasir i Alamgiri, the source of this quote, "must be cited with extreme caution" with regard to the number of temples demolished by Aurangzeb. She also writes it "presented Aurangzeb's reign through the lens of Islamic conquest, sometimes changing facts to suit the author's tastes". (p 108)
But apparently the author of Maasir i Alamgiri should definitely be trusted to provide factual basis of her conclusions above. Namely, that Brahmins were being 'deviant' in their established schools in three major Hindu religious centers, and were teaching 'depraved' knowledge. She concludes also without basis that they were hoodwinking common Hindus and Muslims in doing so. Further, she implies that Brahmins had no legitimate right to find financial support or profit in their endeavors, even in the religious city of Benares where Hindus congregate to carry out their religious observances and duties. In conclusion, it was not religious bigotry but a honorable royal obligation of Aurangzeb towards his kingdom and Hindus to put an end to Brahmins' depraved teaching and errant 'religious behavior'.
(Brahmins are bad, as every American student of Hinduism is probably taught).
Her explanation doesn't work because she leaves out the meat of the paragraph- that Aurangzeb issued orders to all provinces to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus and to put down the teaching and public practice of the religion of Hindus all over the realm.
Her omission frees her from the need to "contextualize" the consequential fact that in 1669, Aurangzeb issued orders to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus in all provinces because of reports that Brahmins were spreading their religious teachings out of their established schools in Thatta, Multan and Benares. Any casual reader would wonder why her omission if it was after all Aurangzeb's noble royal obligation as she writes.
My flight of fancy is that she would argue that while the beginning of the paragraph absolutely positively certifies the deviancy and crookedness of Brahmins and Aurangzeb's noble aims with respect to Hindus and keeping Hinduism clean, the end of the paragraph implying he ordered everything demolished should be "cited with extreme caution". Why? No reason except if you don't, she might say you are a Hindutva bigot.
Her explanation doesn't work, also given another context. After imposition of jizya, it was recorded that many of the ulama involved in jizya collection exploited the system, harassed the Hindus and amassed wealth for themselves. "However, the clerical elements took advantage of the situation for large scale exactions and oppressions, and the amassing of private fortunes. The Imperial news-reporter wrote from Mertah that the qazi there had extorted large sums from the Hindus by way of jizyah. Manucci goes further and asserts that the amins of jizyah keep back half or even three-fourths of the proceeds for themselves. (Satish Chandra, reference in Part 2).
Did Aurangzeb as the celebrated dispenser of justice and order, for whom the ideals of akhlaq and adab were important, feel a royal obligation to stem the oppression by and financial greed of the qazis? We are left hanging about whether he did.
The most plausible reason for Aurangzeb's actions in this instance was that in common with his contemporaries, he saw Hindu philosophical teachings and the Hindu practice of idol worship as deviancy and something undesirable (he beheaded his brother Dara Shikoh on pretext of the sin of heresy for dabbling in Hindu philosophical teachings). That, as a devout Muslim, for religious reasons, Aurangzeb wanted to shut down Hindu religious practice, teaching and worship which were observed as being practiced with vigor by large numbers of people. If such acts brought him political benefits, then that was also consistent with his religious beliefs.
Again, no medieval or premodern iconoclast has ever claimed the desire to reform Hinduism. Only if you are fundamentally anti-Hindu, would you in the modern era argue that an iconoclast devout Sunni Muslim Emperor in preventing Brahmins from teaching Hinduism in established schools intended noble-minded Hindu religious reform. Ms. Truschke would never have used this argument had these been Christian or Jewish places of religious teaching.
In summary, despite drawing from many sources and giving the reader a more than one dimensional view of Aurangzeb, Audrey Truschke fails to make her case that Aurangzeb never acted with religious bigotry towards his Hindu subjects. She leaves out too much that is hard to contextualize away. Many portions of her contextualization do not absolve Aurangzeb through incomplete facts or plain bad argument.
Aurangzeb's religious tolerance was often pragmatic and political. His religious intolerance was religious and often political (as his religion allowed). His politics of religious intolerance only served to weaken his empire as even a Mughal Emperor could not afford to have a vast number of unhappy subjects.
Aurangzeb was a man of his time but modern day justifications of his acts of religious persecution and discrimination such as presented in this book, dangerously create permission for similar acts (by Muslims or Hindus) in the modern day. Historians need to call out Muslim bigotry in the past as vigorously as they call out Hindu bigotry in the present.
(end)
No comments:
Post a Comment