Pakistan as Aurangzeb’s Mughal state

Munis Faruqui has written a book on Aurangzeb “Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir and the Mughal Empire: A History Retold”.  He has based the book on surviving documents available from Aurangzeb’s time, largely those called the akhbarat, the regular and voluminous communications that the Mughal emperor maintained with his correspondents in different parts of his vast realm. 

It is a very informative book and I would recommend it despite the fact that the author chooses to rationalize or even deny Aurangzeb’s many documented iconoclastic actions.

Mr. Faruqui has written a very detailed narration of a regime in the mid 17th century to early 18th century (Aurangzeb lived 1618-1707) and yet I often felt I am reading about modern day Pakistan. There appear to be so many commonalities between a pre-modern Muslim emperor’s theory of state and the modern Pakistani theory of state, particularly under military rule. 

Pakistan may actually aspire to be a successor state to the Mughal Empire. Ayaz Amir, columnist in Dawn, wrote in 2004 What, if anything, was Partition about?

In a crucial sense, then, the Pakistan movement signalled a retreat from the heartland of empire to its outer edges, the final evacuation from Delhi and Agra to new centres of power in Punjab and Bengal. But even then it was for the new state, Pakistan, to create a historical justification for itself by emulating and rivalling, in achievement and glory, even if on a reduced scale, the success of its historical model, the Mughal Empire (in a 20th Century setting, it goes without saying)

… 

The principal strengths of Muslim rule in the subcontinent were war, the consolidation of conquest, politics and administration. In all these fields Pakistan has not distinguished itself. 

Whether Pakistan succeeds in attaining ‘achievement and glory’, as a Mughal successor state very much depends on how Pakistan defines those terms.

Despite Ayaz Amir style handwaving, it is difficult to quantify what precisely it is about the Mughal state that Pakistan wants to emulate. This blog aims to point out some curious, and perhaps unintended or intended commonalities. 

However, before doing that, one big difference between Mughal rule and present day Pakistan must be mentioned. 

The Mughal Empire in its early and peak periods ( Babur to Aurangzeb, 1526 - 1707 with a 5 year interruption 1540-1545 by Sheh Shah Suri) had a ruling class which was very opulent and extremely rich. Aurangzeb was said to be the richest man in the world in his time. 

This was in contrast to the struggling peasant and artisan class, though the Mughal imposition of peace on conquered regions often encouraged growth of commerce. In certain other cases, rich merchants ( such as in Surat) were looted and murdered by the emperor, which forced their collective move to European enclaves. 

Pakistan, too, has an eye-poppingly rich ruling class alongside a struggling general population. 

However, in contrast to Pakistan, the Mughal potentates’ sources of wealth were entirely internal. 

Apart from seizing treasuries, precious jewelry/gems and cash hoards of conquered kings and territories, the Mughals derived their riches from internal revenue, by extracting agricultural revenue (30-35% of the crop on average, 14%-50% depending on circumstances) and also,  by taxing goods production and internal trade.  

In contrast, Pakistan has a perpetual fiscal deficit between government revenues and expenditure.  It has a very narrow direct taxpayer base of salaried employees, for example and 80% of government  revenues ( from direct taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, petroleum sales) go into debt servicing and defence. 

Leaving aside the informal or off the books economy and significant foreign remittances from overseas workers, Pakistan’s economy sustains itself with a succession of foreign loans. 

At their peak, the Mughals had fiscal surpluses to play with, and would send huge amounts of money as gifts to the Saudi Arabian peninsula (Mecca, Medina), Safavid Persia, Uzbeks and the Ottomans. 

In contrast, Pakistan receives grants and loans from multilateral institutions, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations. 

In summary, as to finances, Pakistan and the Mughals do not resemble each other.  What ways that they do resemble each other are listed below.

1. Autocratic leaders

Aurangzeb was a highly autocratic head of state. It would be so in any 17th century kingdom or empire. 

Pakistan too has autocratic leaders, which is incongruous in the 21st century. Pakistanis are not Mughal subjects. They are equal citizens and the imposition of autocracy or restrictions on their political, economic and cultural choices, as is being done,  cannot be justified by any principle of modern citizenship.

2. Military embedded in basic structure of the state

Aurangzeb like his Mughal predecessors had a trusted band of militarily capable mansabdars or military chiefs. They were granted territory or other revenue sources by the emperor to maintain themselves, their underlings and their soldiers. 

Additionally, the emperor appointed governors of provinces who held similar or larger powers. The goal was to keep strong military and economic control over conquered territory, to subdue rebellions, to extract revenue from the land and subjects( farmers, tradesmen, tolls, trading posts). 

The revenue collectors would use the revenue to pay the emperor’s share, to sustain their households and maintain their military contingents. They would also undertake military attacks on neighboring territories for the continuous expansion of the empire.  

Pakistan’s military rewards its top brass with land grants. It is also engaged in fighting political dissidents in all its provinces. 

Since independence in 1947, repeatedly, peaceful political movements including regular political parties that rival the military’s power have been suppressed as rebels by arrests, imprisonment or legal restrictions, including exile. The civil administrative service and civilian police are often made subservient to military priorities. 

The Mughal emperor had his loyalists who carried out targeted violence on his foes at his command. Pakistan’s military has multiple secret services which abduct, coerce or assassinate those they designate as enemies. It also trains and funds its own religious militias to attack designated enemies or to carry out its political agendas. 

Pakistan’s military takes up a lion’s share of the state’s revenues available after debt servicing. Additionally, it owns vast lands and lucrative commercial enterprises including goods manufacturing and real estate development. The military in Pakistan is particularly active in continuing acquisition of land and in occupying high positions in state enterprises at the cost of civilians. 

In other words, the tenor of the Pakistan military’s engagement in matters in the civilian sphere is for purposes of political subjugation and for revenue extraction. A very Mughal attitude. 

3. Subject status of Mughal subjects vs citizens of Pakistan

Mughal subjects who paid revenue in the Mughal Empire had standing only as sources of revenue. The mansabdars, jagirdars ( people granted power to levy revenue), governors and the emperor cared very much about efficient revenue extraction. 

Mughal administrators would draw up detailed evaluations of how much revenue various territories and regions could yield and would hold revenue extractors accountable if the amounts fell short. In turn, pressure was applied on subjects to pay up. 

However, there were cases of entire villages of people who would relocate to a different kingdom when Mughal revenue extraction got unsustainable. Depopulation of farm lands caused loss of revenue to the Mughal empire and to that end, Mughal administrators sometimes made efforts to avoid peasant distress and to reverse such depopulation. 

Even so there are reports from contemporary observers that the extent of revenue extraction by the Mughal administration caused people to sell their children, starve to death or themselves be forced to be sold as slaves to make up the shortfalls.

In summary, the Mughal empire valued the Mughal subject as a revenue source or taxable producer of goods with no other intrinsic standing. 

In 21st century Pakistan,  it appears citizens have no intrinsic standing with respect to their needs or wants, even as revenue sources. They are just pre-existing elements of the state. 

One will rarely hear Pakistan’s autocratic leaders, civilian or military discuss substantively at length ( other than paying lip service), the need to grow the Pakistan economy, create jobs, increase trade, create environments for foreign investments, boost manufacturing, improve education/population up-skilling, or develop science and technology.

Approximately, 40% of Pakistan’s elementary age children are out of school. No military or civilian leader will mention this. In 2002-2007, Pervez Musharraf turned funding needs for Pakistan’s school education into a much ballyhooed international cause only for purposes of grifting American money.  

Any human or economic development in Pakistan happens outside the peripheral vision of the autocratic leader and the all powerful military. The main focus of the military and ruling elite is on maximizing their own standing /extractive/ rentier power in domestic and international affairs. 

As elections are rigged, and the elected parliament is toothless, there is no existing mechanism to force the military or the political elite to view the Pakistan citizen in any different light than as a Mughal subject.

4. Harsh treatment of rival power centers

The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was very harsh towards his rival sources of power, whether his own siblings, religious leaders/institutions, militarily successful but insufficiently loyal subordinates, or rebellious vassal states. 

The emperor acted pragmatically when he could to co-opt his challengers and make them submit to his authority. But otherwise,  the emperor would get people threatening his authority brutally killed, tortured or imprisoned. 

Such were the constraints of maintaining kingship anywhere in the 17th century.  Kill or be killed. Exhibit brutality.

Meanwhile while claiming to be a Republic, Pakistani leaders used these tactics in the 20th and 21st century. Prime Ministers whether elected or otherwise have been hanged, assassinated, jailed and exiled almost without exception. Journalists and political dissidents have fled to other countries under threat of being killed. 

To disagree on any aspect of public affairs with the reigning military autocrat or his co-opted allied ruling elites is to invite violent retribution. 

This is a supposedly free country with no effective political rights to advocate or freely associate or aspire to gain office without first accepting subjugation to its unaccountable ruling elites. 

Very Mughal political situation.

5. Mantle of Islam

Aurangzeb and his Mughal predecessors used the mantle of Islam to grant themselves legitimacy in their rule. Some of Aurangzeb’s siblings associated themselves with Sufi religious figures (pirs). And, for example, his sister Jahanara was buried by her own wish next to her Sufi spiritual master. 

Aurangzeb styled himself as a zinda pir or living religious mystic. His aura of religious mysticism greatly enhanced his influence in his time and ever since.  

His authority or his actions cannot be questioned even in the present day without offending religious sensibilities of modern day adherents to his lingering religious charisma. These include admirers of his actions to advance the cause of Islam, which include iconoclasm and subjugation of Hindu and other religious figures. 

Pakistan’s leaders often associate themselves with religious figures. Many members of the ruling elite are living pirs themselves. Imran Khan married a woman Sufi pirni as a necessary mystical step to attain Prime Ministership. There is an aura of religion that is constantly invoked in discussions of Pakistan’s affairs. 

Now take the Pakistan Army and its frequent invocation of its authority under Islam and its appropriation of Allah’s will.  Just recently, the ISPR spokesman invoked the Quran’s verses to fault the Afghan Taliban for seeking cooperation with the “infidels” of India. 

Without such invocations of Islam and Allah, the Pakistan Army would be nothing more than a Latin American military which would be thrown out of power after many years of dictatorial misrule. This has been attempted multiple times in Pakistan but the military always manages to regain not just supremacy but its legitimacy as overlord. 

Citing its authority as defender of the Islamic faithful grants the Pakistan Army unlimited years of unlimited power over the living and an unlimited license to kill millions of its own and other countries’ (Afghanistan, India) citizens on any pretext. Aurangzeb too had such unlimited license in his realm. 

Conclusion

In summary, the Pakistani state is run like a Mughal imperial state by its military and allied ruling elite. 

Other than making nice with the military, falling out of favor and fleeing or spending their lives in prison (these were exactly Mughal dissenters’ choices), there is no other out for Pakistani citizens from autocracy either on moral/ religious basis or even apparently, on basis of their constitution. They are as trapped in their fates as Mughal subjects were. 

The theory of the Pakistan state is morphing into the theory of the Mughal state. Ayaz Amir may consider his glass half full. 

On history writing (again)- 1, Erasure

On Indian history writing ( again)- 1, Hindu Erasure

I want to comment on the issues of negationism ( denial of Islamic religious violence in India’s medieval and pre-modern past) and Hindu erasure ( modern day denial of existence of a substantial Hindu history, of a commonwealth of faith traditions constituting Hinduism, of a denial of any community such as Hindus either in the modern day or in the past). These issues keep cropping up in politics, and in public conversations, so cannot be ignored.

My leftist sympathies

I am not a historian. Also, I grew up in leftist Kerala and sympathize with the leftist emphasis on grassroots upliftment as I have seen its widespread good effects. However, I also see the downsides, including that the uplifted grassroots is forced migrate out of the state en masse for work. Leftists may love education and empowerment but they also hate commercial enterprise as a vehicle for empowerment. Regardless, as a believer in pluralism and secularism, for the longest time, I was on the leftists’ side on matters of religious neutrality or objectivity in Indian historiography and in public affairs.

So when in recent years, leftists have been shown to be dishonest and deceptive with regard to upholding pluralism, it has been a betrayal. I am forced like many other Indians to find my own path to pursuing objectivity and truth. Only dealing in the truth allows for the possibility of shared truths with others and only shared truths offer a sound basis for pluralism.

Erasure, an example

First, on Hindu erasure. During the Ramjanmabhoomi Babri Masjid movement, I was solidly with the leftists. It was wrong to hurt a community’s sentiments, violate their religious rights and grab their religious place to build a temple. I watched Anand Patwardhan’s documentary ‘Ram Ke Naam’ and agreed with it. When the Babri mosque was demolished, it felt like I was watching a rape. I saw the changed demeanors of my Muslim associates, felt terrible about it and understood how they felt. The riots and violence of the 1990s were all seen as horrible and the Hindutva movement lost ground for many years.

Competing faith traditions

The issue of mosque vs temple seemed on surface to be a property dispute. However, at its core, the Hindus asserted that a centuries if not millennia old religious tradition of Ram’s birthplace was associated with the spot where the mosque stood. For centuries Hindus would gather and worship at the spot on Ram Navami, even after the mosque was built. The Muslims asserted that once a mosque had been built, it was Allah’s sacred ground and Hindus could have absolutely no claim to any part of it. It appeared that to uphold pluralism and secularism one must agree with the Muslim position. One must accept that the religious tradition of worshipping at Ram’s birthplace had been destroyed for eternity by Babur ( or whoever built the mosque ) and that it was lost to Hindus for ever.

So I thought. It was not precisely so. Firstly, chroniclers, historians and archeologists from the late 1700s-1980s attested to the centuries old tradition of Hindus worshipping at Ram’s birthplace around and inside the mosque. Moreover, there was more than two centuries of documented history of shared worship as well as disputes between Hindus and Muslims at or near the site. For instance, disputes and worship had to be mediated during Wajid Ali Shah’s reign over Awadh in the early 19th century and later during the British colonial era. 

The dispute and birthplace worship tradition were not modern Hindutva creations by any means. From the writings of Koenraad Elst and others, I learned that in the 1980s, a number of the religious Muslim parties to the dispute, being well acquainted with the importance of Rama to millions of Hindus, had actually become willing to accommodate Hindu sentiments about the site. For instance, Elst wrote that Syed Shahabuddin of the Babri Masjid Action Committee had stated that if it was found that the mosque was built over a religious structure, he would be willing for Muslims to hand over the site.  

The Leftists’ maximalist positions

So what happened? Why wasn’t a mutually respectful compromise ever reached on Babri Masjid before or after its demolition? Elst and others point out that apart from other factors, leftist historians entered the picture. They decided that the only moral secular position was to deny any Hindu claims with respect to the site, deny religious traditions, deny archeologist findings and most importantly to dismiss Hindu religious sentiments as irrelevant. 

If leftist historians had conceded that the tradition of Ram’s birthplace and Ram Navami worship was historically attested but the 400 year old mosque and Muslim claims to it should be respected too, I would agree wholeheartedly.  

But no. The leftists chose all the maximalist positions- Babur was a paragon of religious tolerance so there was no temple previously at the site, no significant worship tradition commemorating Rama’s birth existed, no significant tradition of Rama worship itself ever existed, Rama was not a major deity in Hinduism, Hinduism is not a coherent or significant collection of faith/worship traditions anyway. 

All that is just not true. It is easy to dismiss the Hindu parties’ claims of Rama’s historicity. There is no evidentiary basis for claims of Rama’s historicity. But the existence of religious faith traditions associated with Rama is historically testified not just at the birthplace spot but in the other Rama and Hanuman temples in Ayodhya. There was the Treta ke Thakur temple, the Swarg Dwar temple, the Hanuman Garhi, the Sita Ki Rasoi (lost to the demolition), all of which date back several centuries, at least to the Ramananda sect in the 10th or 11th century. 

A few of these temples were demolished under orders from Aurangzeb and then rebuilt later. Clearly, these temples for Rama’s worship were significant enough to Hindus for iconoclast Muslim rulers to demolish them. The area surrounding the mosque site had been known as Ram Kot, Ram Durg or Rama’s castle. Abul Fazal, the historian of Mughal Emperor Akbar mentions Ayodhya as the birthplace of Rama in Ain I Akbari. The mosque was referred to as Masjid e Janamsthan in British era documents. 

There were more historical references of worship at the site, which did not precede Babur, but certainly post-date the construction of the mosque. But no, the leftists wouldn’t concede any historicity of Rama faith traditions much less a Ram Janmabhoomi tradition. 

Archeological digs

In 2003, archeologists dug trenches at the Masjid site under the observation of the same leftists and found remnants of  structures from different periods dating back to 1000 BC including the Shunga period(2nd century BC) and a many pillared structure covering a 30mx50m area from the 12th century. Hindu religious structures such as a makara pranala (crocodile-mouth shaped drainage spout) and figurines were also found. Previously,  a pit in the vicinity filled with many numbers of the temple topping ‘kalash’ had been found by a group of archeologists. The leftists however insisted that no structures related to Hindus had been found under or near the mosque.

Cruelty and irresponsibility of leftist lies

The leftists still publish their assertions that nothing religious had ever been found under the mosque structure. Leftists have gone from being avowed secularists to being evil (I can find no other explanation for their lies) psychopaths practicing psychological manipulation of entire populations. Their deceptions cause immeasurable distress to Muslims who believe their lies and feel cheated by the Supreme Court judgment handing over the site to Hindus. Muslims do not deserve this. Muslim leaders had been open to compromise, being humane and principled, unlike the sociopathic ideological left.

Taking the Babri Masjid issue as one example, it is clear that Leftists have essentially declared that the price of pluralism is wholesale Hindu erasure, nothing less. 

Hindu erasure is unworkable for pluralism

Even if leftists argue hypothetically, that the only way to counter Hindutva or Hindu supremacism politics is to demonize everything Hindu, this is unworkable and unsustainable.  Hindus exist and follow their living religious traditions of recent, middling or ancient vintage without seeking approval from Hindutva politicians or cabals of disdainful tenured academics. Hindus have their own strands of history from a few millennia before the CE to the present. Hindu history is either entwined with or entirely distinct from Muslim rulership, depending on geography or the era in question. The distinct history of Hindu existence and religious traditions cannot be erased or hidden under overwrought narrations of Muslim rulership. 

The Hindu backlash to the left’s severe terms of Hindu erasure only causes conflict and ultimately hurts Muslims.  It was the leftist secularists’ task by definition to find ways for a pluralist society to live in peace with shared truths as basis and to resolve competing claims fairly and justly. Instead, by insisting on Hindu erasure, they are pursuing a path of conflict.

Epilogue 

In the early 2000s, there was an exhibition in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, titled ‘Meeting God, Elements of Hindu devotion’. A New York Times review of the exhibition is linked:

New York Times Review quoted in Hinduism Today

Anand Patwardhan wanted to screen his documentaries ‘Ram Ke Naam’ (mentioned above) and ‘We are Not Your Monkeys’ at the exhibition. After pressure from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and phoned in threats (condemnable), the documentary screenings were shifted elsewhere. I attended the exhibition which was a beautiful documentation of the various modes of Hindu devotion. The photographer/author’s book is linked:

Meeting God: Elements of Hindu devotion

Why would Anand Patwardhan want to screen these documentaries at this particular exhibition? The exhibition displayed Hindu devotional practices in their beautiful color and diversity. Mr. Patwardhan did not want the positivity associated with apolitical Hindu worship traditions as displayed in the exhibition to go unchallenged. He wanted the politics and violence of the anti Masjid agitation to hang over it, though the two were not really relevant to each other. 

I had liked his movie and maybe will still like it if I viewed it again,  in the context of the Masjid dispute. But many years later I now understood that the filmmaker sees demonization/politicization of apolitical Hindu religious practice as a worthy goal. He and other leftists would never insist on showing a documentary on episodes of Muslim violence at an exhibition about Muslim devotion and worship nor would they insist on showing a documentary on Christian violence at an exhibition about Christian devotion and worship. His and other leftists’ ire is reserved for Hindu religious traditions.