The Greatest Hindu King - A Translation and Analysis of Maratha Fury and Shivaji

Pakistanis have the luxury of being able to hail Aurangzeb as a great leader and a good Muslim. Indians do not, even if they are Muslims.

This has nothing to do with ``saffronization of education`` or anything else- when I was in school education was a pale pink at best, not saffron, thanks to Chacha Nehru`s commie/secular twin tendencies.

Hell, we **still** thought Shivaji kicked some serious butt. Afzal Khan`s tale is something we roared in the class to. I vividly recall Shivaji entering his chambers in a basket of mangoes and then chasing him out of the balcony- we had these illustrated History textbooks that had us in splits with the image of a bald, bearded Afzal leaping out of a balcony petrified with our own bearded hero hot on his heels!

Aurangzeb will always be a baddie in India. Akbar will always be a nice guy. In the modern context, I suppose one could view them as the Taliban-types and the liberal Muslim respectively. We all have friends like Akbar don`t we? And neighbours like Aurangzeb.

Which explains a lot.

#53, Bong,
I think that you are right. Even the Jats did not help the Marhrattas in that battle.

Some information about Marri tribe among Baluchis. Very interesting.

Descendants of Maratha prisoners of war
Though it is a historical fact that a large number of prisoners around the scene of the battle were taken as slaves to Afghanistan, it is only fair to presume that many could have died from the extreme climatic conditions of Afghanistan to which they were unaccustomed. Despite this, today a large number of people in Maharashtra feel that some of them could have survived. Even after 244 years, some probable descendants of these prisoners of war can be found, at least in Balochistan and in the Bugti and Marri tribal areas.

According to them, the Maratha Bugtis and Marri in Balochistan are an interesting case of what may be a caste forming even under Islamic rule. Theirs is a clan claiming descent from Marathas captives of war brought back by members of the Bugti tribe, who served the armies of Ahmad Shah Durrani (Abdali) after the fateful battle of Panipat. In time they underwent forceful `Bugti-ization` and became Muslims although they were once considered as bonded labour. They could not own or buy land. Until a generation ago they could be `bought` for twenty or thirty rupees.

The Maratha and Marri Bugtis took jobs as unskilled labourers, which their tribal overlords disdained. Over the years some of them have come to occupy higher positions. However, they continue to be victims of discrimination. It is interesting to note that this caste-like phenomenon has endured for more than two centuries, even in a region largely devoid of Hindus.

The fate of the descendants of other groups of Maratha prisoners taken to Afghanistan remains a mystery. Maharashtra as a nation and Maratha leadership has failed to recognise the existence of such descendants as a distinct group. There are some who feel that more investigation into these matters needs to be done, and that there is a case for repatriating these descendants, if they can be identified and are willing.

#48

I doubt the quality of the source you are refering to. In all I have read/seen (there was a popular TV series on it) about Panipat-3, I have never heard of Sikh`s participating in the battle (on any side).

Salim,

Yes. Tatya (ghatis do not call Tantya) Tope was marathi. So was Zhansi Ki Rani
(ghatis call here Zashi chi RaNi), Laxmi Newalkar (formerly Laxmi Tambe).

Hope you are staying safe from Bird Flu in Turkey.

#50, No, rajputs do NOT consider marrahtas to be ferrners - just some badly-behaved miscreants bent upon looting, murder, and pillage. Not too different from Pathans and Afghans like Ghaznavi and Ghori. :)

Of course, by the time of 1857, Nana Sahib was more of an Indian fighting British rule than an old Marhatta bandit who was too far up north. I think he managed to get lost in Nepal. Well, there has to be at least one good Marhatta in history. :)
BTW, was Tantya Tope a Mahratta - I always admired that brave man.

salim, so do rajputs or your biradari folks consider marathas to be ferners? i visited a village where nana peshva spent his last days..its prolly 40 miles out of kanpur a dusty village calle bithoor, and the locals pointed me to ferner ``dakhani desh`` log for a dose of history and a boat ride on ganges for a few ruppes. it was a fun ride ..but now i forget what the guys said..i recall thinking that its all bull..

re. maratha looting..

it was common practice among maratha chieftains to go for tax-collection in ``other lands`` (i.e. those not in their own domain). in that sense they were the robber-barrons. dalitistan site in its special way has some interesting things to say..

``Thus, taking Mewar as the benchmark, half of the population of Rajastan was exterminated by the Maratha invaders. These two races were separated by race (the Marathas are Indo-Aryans, the Rajputs Indo-Scyths) and religion (the Rajputs are Solar Cultists, or Sauras, the Marathas Vaishnavas & Ganapatiyas). This contributed to the hatred, and the names of Maratha leaders still evokes memories of suffering & hatred in Rajastan.``

marathas carved out many principalities among previous rajput and bundela domains, especially the fertile bread-basket ones in Malwa region. this was clearly a big loss to rajputs.

it will be interesting to compare how the citizens of the newer maratha states of gaekwads, holkars and scindias fared compared to older states of rajputana.

#43, bongdong {``You are right Maratha`s remembered in Bengal for their loot and pillage, does the same exist in Rajput ``stories`` as well? ``}

Bong,
Yes, in the battle of Panipat in Januray 1761, Abdali did fight a combined force of Mahrattas and Sikhs.


{``Forthe fifth time, Ahmad Shah invaded India, October 1756 A.D., recapturing Punjab. He fought Mahrattas in many areas. His most famous and courageous battle was noted at Panipat, January 14, 1761 A.D./I 174 A.H., where Mahratta, Hindu and Sikh forces were destroyed. Again Delhi was conquered at the traditional Pampat Battleground by the hands of Ahmad Shah Durrani. Historians believe this serious Afghan victory in Panipat opened the door for Britain!s future occupation of India.``}

#43, bongdong {``You are right Maratha`s remembered in Bengal for their loot and pillage, does the same exist in Rajput ``stories`` as well? ``}

Bong,
Yes - that is what I have noticed, at least in Jaipur and other places in Rajasthan. I thought that the Sikhs did participate, how willingly I can`t say, on the Mahratta side.

Stuka...

``Why should Hindus be ashamed of Hindutva``

Don`t be ashamed of Hindutva... the problem is with those like Sadna, Amansandhu etc who believe intensely in Hindutva but still claim some sort of moral upper hand on Pakistani Islamists...

I have no problem with any cultural notions as long as a person`s right to religious freedom and equality of citizenship is guaranteed... be it India or Pakistan.

Question from perplexed Indian Muslim:

Why do Hindus identify with Shivaji as a fellow Indian, but not Aurangazeb?


Answer from Indian Hindu:

Check out the following

…..
A Grinding Tax Structure
The Sultanate of Delhi had completed about a hundred years when Alauddin Khalji ascended the throne. His problems were many. Most parts of the country were independent. Hindu Rajas were powerful and unsubdued. Muslim nobles were rebellious. The Mongols were knocking at the gates of Hindustan time and again. Alauddin Khalji needed a large army to deal with these problems. To maintain a large army he needed money and so this Sultan raised the land tax (Kharaj) to fifty per cent. Under his predecessors, it does not seem to have been above one-third of the produce. Furthermore, under Alauddin`s system all the land occupied by the rich and the poor ``was brought under assessment at the uniform rate of fifty per cent``. This measure automatically reduced the chiefs practically to the position of peasants. Since his aim was to strike at the major source of power, the wealth, of the Hindus,108 he also levied many other taxes like house-tax and grazing tax. According to the contemporary chronicler Ziyauddin Barani, all milk-producing animals like cows and goats were taxed. According to Farishtah, animals up to two pairs of oxen, a pair of buffaloes and some cows and goats were exempted.109 This concession was based on the principle of nisab, namely, of leaving some minimum capital to enable one to carry on with one`s work.110 But it was hardly any relief, for trustworthy persons informed the chronicler Shams Siraj Afif that in former reigns (obviously a reference to Alauddin`s days) if an Amil left one cow with the peasant (raiyyat), another used to take possession of that also.111 The payment of Kharaj, however, did not entitle the Hindu peasant to protection of the state. For protection and safety he had to pay an extra tax, Jiziyah, as we have seen before. So besides Kharaj, there were taxes like kari, (derived from Hindi word kar), charai and Jiziyah. Poll tax, tax on cattle etc. defy classification because they are entirely arbitrary.
Muslim jurists knew that if the collectors were not satisfactorily paid they would resort to corrupt practices. Therefore Islamic scriptures made a provision for a fair payment to them. As per the Hadis an Amil (collector) could obtain from the bait-ul-mal (treasury) expenses of one wife, one servant if he did not have one of his own and a house (if he did not already possess one). Besides this if he took anything more ``it is theft, embezzlement.``112 But the Amils in Hindustan collected much more than was actually due. The land revenue system was exceedingly complex. There was no uniformity either in the period for which the tax was assessed or in the basis of assessment. The basis of assessment in some cases was the ``total assets`` of an estate; in others, it was the economic rent, the net produce etc. The local official was allowed considerable discretion. The rent was always enhanced. It was common for jagir owners to exact miscellaneous payments and services from the peasants.
In short, a substantial portion of the produce was taken away by the government as taxes and the people were left with the bare minimum for sustenance. For the Sultan had ``directed that only so much should be left to his subjects (raiyyat) as would maintain them from year to year... without admitting of their storing up or having articles in excess``. It is from this point of time that the Indian peasant was made to maintain himself and his family from one harvest to the next. In the coming years and centuries, there is repeated mention in the chronicles about the rulers` directives to protect the peasant from undue exactions which seems to have become the common practice. Sultan Alauddin`s rigorous measures were taken note of by contemporary writers both in India and abroad. In India contemporary writers like Barani, Isami and Amir Khusrau were inclined to believe him to be a persecutor of the Hindus. Foreigners also gathered the same impression. Maulana Shamsuddin Turk, a divine from Egypt, was happy to learn that Alauddin had made the wretchedness and misery of the Hindus so great and had reduced them to such a despicable condition ``that the Hindu women and children went out begging at the doors of the Musalmans.``113 The same impression is betrayed in the writings of Isami and Wassaf.114 While summing up the achievements of Alauddin Khalji, the contemporary chronicler Barani mentions, with due emphasis, that by the last decade of his reign the submission and obedience of the Hindus had become an established fact. Such a submission on the part of the Hindus ``has neither been seen before nor will be witnessed hereafter``. In brief, not only the Hindu Zamindars, who had been accustomed to a life of comfort and dignity, were reduced to a deplorable position, but the Hindus in general were impoverished to such an extent that there was no sign of gold or silver left in their houses, and the wives of Khuts and Muqaddams (Zamindars) used to seek sundry jobs in the houses of the Musalmans, work there and receive wages.115 The poor peasants (balahars) suffered the most. The fundamentalist Maulana Ziyauddin Barani feels jubilant at the suppression of the Hindus, and writes at length about the utter helplessness to which the peasantry had been reduced because the Sultan had left to them bare sustenance and had taken away every thing else in Kharaj (land revenue) and other taxes.116
But there was much greater oppression implicit in this measure. it was difficult to collect in full so many and such heavy taxes. ``One of the standing evils in the revenue collection consisted of defective realization which usually left large balances,``117 and unrealised balances used to become inevitable. Besides, lower revenue officials were corrupt and extortionate. To overcome these problems, Sultan Alauddin created a new Ministry called the Diwan-i-Mustakhraj. The Mustakhraj was entrusted with the work of inquiring into the revenue arrears, and realizing them.118 We shall discuss about the tyranny of this department a little later; suffice it here to say that in Alauddin`s time, besides being oppressed by such a grinding tax-structure, the peasant was compelled to sell every maund of his surplus grain at government controlled rates for replenishing royal grain stores which the Sultan had ordered to be built in connection with his Market Control.119
The contemporary chronicler Ziyauddin Barani writes that Alauddin Khalji was an ill-tempered and tyrannical king. He had no learning and he did not associate with the ulema. Sultan Balban respected the ulema and used to consult them often. After returning from Bengal he went to their houses personally and informed them of his success.120 Firoz Tughlaq also used to visit them in their houses. But Alauddin Khalji did not associate with the clerics. 121 When necessary, he consulted with his nobles but not with the ulema.122 Barani wrote in old age. Though his memory remained unimpaired, a little confusion with regard to chronology in his narrative was natural in advanced age. Alauddin`s three most trusted nobles and counsellers, namely, Nusrat Khan, Zafar Khan and Ulugh Khan had died by 1301, while his draconian measures, euphemistically called ``reforms`` were brought into operation mainly between the siege of Ranthambhor and expedition to Chittor (1301-1303).123 Therefore, he surely deliberated with the ulema in matters of law. A few scholars like Qazi Ziyauddin of Bayana, Maulana Zahir Lang and Maulana Mushayyad Kuhrami were nominated to be present at dinner time. Qazi Mughisuddin of Bayana also used to come occasionally.
During the days when taxes were being assessed and collected with great strictness. Alauddin once inquired of Qazi Mughisuddin about the status of the Hindus in a Muslim state, whether they were Kharaj-guzar of Kharaj-deh, payers or givers of Kharaj. The Qazi expositioned their legal status thus: ``By the ecclesiastical law the term Kharajguzar is applicable to a Hindu only, who as soon as the revenue collector demands the sum due from him, pays the same with meekness and humility, coupled with the utmost respect... and should the collector choose to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it. The purpose of this extreme humility on his part and the collector`s spitting into his mouth, is to show the extreme subservience incumbent on this class, the glory of Islam and the orthodox Faith, and the degradation of the false religion.124 God Almighty himself (in the Quran) expressly commands their complete degradation, in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true Prophet. Mustafa, on whom be peace, has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering, and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith, or else be slain or imprisoned and have all their wealth and property confiscated. With the exception of the Imam-i-Azam (Abu Hanifa)... we have no other great divine authority for accepting the poll tax (Jiziyah) from a Hindu; for the opinion of the other learned men is based on the hadis `Either death or Islam`.``
Kharaj was originally applied to a land tax or tribute realised from non-Muslim tribes.125 After the defeat of Jews at Khaibar (628 CE) they became ``the first Zimmis, or members of a subject caste, whose lives were to be guaranteed, but whose earnings were to support the Believers.``126 These Jews were the first Kharajguzars in Islam. Later on Kharajguzars were found in whatever countries the arms of Islam conquered. The Kharajguzars were Zimmis who had submitted to absolute obedience to the Islamic state. As non-Muslims they were Kafirs who could not be accorded any rights. But as Kharajguzars they were/are granted some minimal rights solely in view of their accepting and submitting themselves to the suzerainty of Islam. Thus Qazi Mughisuddin described the status of Kharajguzars fairly correctly.``127
This exposition of the Quranic injunctions happened to square so much with the steps which the Sultan had already taken, albeit totally in ignorance of the law, that he burst out into a laughter of approval of the Qazi`s views and informed him with great gusto that ``I have established laws... so that under the fears of my command they would all escape into a mouse hole; and now you tell me that it is inculcated in the Divine law that the Hindus should be made obedient and submissive in the extreme... Rest assured, that the Hindu will never be submissive and obedient to the Musalmans until he becomes destitute and impoverished...`` So, as mentioned before, the Sultan made them destitute. Destitute to the extent that the peasants sometimes paid Kharaj by selling their wives and children.128 It is one thing to raise taxes and be happy. But to gloat over the impoverishment of the Hindus, both by the kings and chroniclers, is because of the ideology which advocates degradation of non-Muslims. Barani is the first and probably the only Muslim chronicler in the fourteenth century to mention the sale of families for defraying land tax. As we shall see, in later centuries foreign travellers were so shocked at this inhuman cruelty that they mention the fact repeatedly. The sale of peasants meant that they were reduced to the position of bonded labourers as slaves for life. When they we`re free (whatever the extent of their freedom), the government got 50 to 75 per cent of their produce. When they became bonded labourers the sultan got cent per cent of the produce earned by their exertions. Of course some coarse grain was given to them to keep them alive to continue to work in the fields.
After Alauddin`s death (CE 1316) most of his measures seem to have fallen into disuse, but the peasants got no relief, because Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq who came to the throne four years later (CE 1320) continued the atrocious practice of Alauddin. He also ordered that ``there should be left only so much to the Hindus that neither, on the one hand, they should become arrogant on account of their wealth, nor, on the other, desert their lands in despair``.129 In the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq even this latter fear turned out to be true. The Sultan`s enhancement of taxation went even beyond the lower limits of ``bare subsistence``. For the people left their fields and fled. This enraged the Sultan and he hunted them down like wild beasts.130 Still conditions did not become unbearable all at once.
The reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq started off well so far as the collection of Kharaj was concerned. The contemporary chronicler writes with satisfaction that Kharaj of far-flung regions like Gujarat, Malwa, Devagiri, Telang, Kampila, Dwarsamudra, Malabar, Tirhut, Lakhnauti, Satgaon, Sunargaon was collected with as much ease as that of Doab and brought (after deduction) to the treasury located in Hazar Situn in Delhi. The walls, iqtadars and administrators were kept under strict watch so that they collected the Kharaj from Rais and Raigans in full. The officers and retainers of the latter were treated with rigour and not a kouri or dirham was condoned. In three or four years, however, the situation changed because of the dislike of the people for the Sultan so that except Devagiri and Gujarat no other region remained under full control. Kharaj could not be realised in full. There was rebellion everywhere. This was due mainly to the enhancement of Kharaj in the Doab to ten or twenty times, which obviously means 10 or 20 per cent. Production and realisation went down. The rich became recalcitrant and the poor became destitute. People of other regions, fearing the fate of Doab people, fled and hid themselves in the jungles.131
It is difficult to surmise if the condition of the peasants was better or worse when the ruler at the centre was strong or weak. Under strong kings like Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the people of course suffered. But their condition was no better, say, under the weak Saiyyads (C. 1400-1450) when revenue was regularly or irregularly collected through military expeditions.132

Jiziyah in India
Jiziyah was imposed in India from the day the Muslims set foot in the country. After capturing Brahmanabad, Muhammad bin Qasim levied Jiziyah on the population according to three grades. The first was to pay silver equal to 48 dirhams, the second 24 dirhams and the lowest 12 dirhams.69 According to Farishtah the Hindu Shahiya king Jayapala, when defeated by Subuktigin, offered to pay Jiziyah and Kharaj to him. It was levied under the so-called Slave Kings, ``but there seem good reasons to believe that the term Jiziyah was not used exclusively in the sense of a capitation tax,`` says Habibullah.70
Curiously enough, Barani himself on two occasions calls land revenue as Jiziyah.71 The earliest imposition of the tax in its true sense was by Firoz Shah Khalji (1290-96).72 In the time of Alauddin Khalji the conversation between Qazi Mughisuddin and the Sultan has been given above and is well-known. The Qazi emphasised that the Hindu is a Kharaji, that his degradation is necessary, that except for Abu Hanifa all other jurists say that the choice to be given to such idolaters is Islam or death. So far as Alauddin is concerned, independently of what Qazi Mughisuddin or Ziyauddin Barani advocated, he suppressed the Hindus to the utmost by collecting all legal (and some illegal) taxes from the Hindus, and earned the approbation of a visiting Maulana - Shamsuddin Turk. Jiziyah continued to be collected throughout the Sultanate period. In the reign of Firoz Tughlaq those who paid the Jiziyah were divided into three classes. The first had to pay 40 tankahs, the second 20 and the third 10. In his reign for the first time Jiziyah was imposed on the Brahmans also. The Brahmans represented that its incidence weighed heavily upon them. The Sultan lowered the rate for them, and they were assessed at ten tankahs and fifty jitals for each individual.73 K.R. Qanungo and R.P. Tripathi write on the authority of Abbas Sarwani that Sher Shah collected the Jiziyah and the pilgrim tax. The collection seems to have been continued by Babur and Humayun. Writing about the abolition of Jiziyah by Akbar, Abul Fazl says that in spite of its unpopularity it was imposed by Akbar`s predecessors who ``were girded up for the contempt and destruction of the opposite factions``. Akbar considered Jiziyah as the greatest hurdle in the way of Hindu-Muslim integration and so abolished it in 1564. This was done ``in spite of disapproval of the statesmen and of the (loss of) great revenue, and of much chatter on the part of the ignorant.``74 Jahangir and Shahjahan continued the policy of Akbar. Akbar gave a common citizenship to all his subjects, Hindus and Muslims alike. For a hundred years after this step was taken, the Hindus felt that the Mughal empire was their own, but after about one century this feeling was once again shattered. Aurangzeb reimposed Jiziyah in 1679. His Fatawa-i-Alamgiri recognizes two systems of collection of this tax: (i) Lump sum payment of an agreed upon amount by the ruler of a territory or the people thereof and (ii) Payment by individual tax-payers of amounts individually assessed in territories directly under Muslim rulers, governors etc. Sri Ram Sharma reproduces Aurangzeb`s order about the imposition and collection of Jiziyah dated 26th July, 1696. It says that ``Jiziyah lapses on death and on acceptance of Islam``. During the course of the year some people used to die and some used to convert, but the amount of Jiziyah for the place remained unaltered. In view of this the first type of payment was disadvantageous to Hindus. The last paragraph of the order reads: ``The nonMuslim should himself bring the Jiziyah; if he sends it through his deputy it should not be accepted. At the time of payment the non-Muslim should keep standing, while the chief should keep sitting. The hand of the non-Muslim should be below and that of the chief above it and he should say. `Make payment of Jiziyah, O! non-Muslim` and should not say, `O! infidel`.`` Aurangzeb thus imposed it in the true spirit and letter of the tax.
Resentment against Jiziyah
Such a hateful tax in which insult was added to economic injury, was resented by the Hindus more than any other imposition. Originally, Jiziyah applied to non-Muslim scriptuaries like Jews and Christians. The bigoted and fanatically inclined jurists hold that the idolaters do not come within the purview of Jiziyah, and the only alternatives open for them are either conversion to Islam or death.75 However, the Sunni jurists Abu Hanifa and his disciple Abu Yusuf permit its imposition on the non-Muslims even if they be idolaters.76 India was inhabited by idolaters primarily. Application of Jiziyah to them was, in a way, a matter of kind concession, from the Muslim point of view. But the Hindus resented it throughout. They knew that it was meant to humble and humiliate them. When Firoz Tughlaq (1351-1388 CE) levied Jiziyah on the Brahmans, they represented to the Sultan that they had never before been asked to pay it land to put up with the indignity attached to it. The Sultan, writes Shams Siraj Afif, ``convened a meeting of the learned Ulama and renowned Mashaikh and suggested to them that an error had been committed: the Jiziyah had never been levied from Brahmans; they had been held excused, in former reigns. The Brahmans were the very keys of the chamber of idolatry, and the infidels were dependent on them (kalid-i-hujra-i-kufr und va kafiran bar ishan muataqid una). They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers opined that the Brahmans ought to be taxed. The Brahmans then assembled and went to the Sultan and represented that they had never before been called upon to pay the Jiziyah, and they wanted to know why they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were determined to collect wood and to bum themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. The Sultan replied that they might burn and destroy themselves at once for they would not escape from the payment. The Brahmans remained fasting for several days at the palace until they were on the point of death. The Hindus of the city then assembled and told the Brahmans that it was not right to kill themselves on account of the Jiziyah, and that they would undertake to pay it for them.``77
The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions from the king. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus (shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf. But Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. ``On the publication of this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679,`` writes Khafi Khan, ``the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the jharokha of the emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the recall of the edict... But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints.`` Thereupon the Hindus resorted to Satyagrah as it were. One Friday, when Aurangzeb went to public prayer in the great mosque, a vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to the mosque, with the object of seeking relief. ``Money changers and drapers, all kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu Bazar, mechanics, and workmen of all kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way... Every moment the crowd increased, and the emperor`s equippage was brought to a standstill. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah.`` Abul Fazl Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition. People`s resentments against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped .78 There were organized protests against Jiziyah in many other places like Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement ``and there was not a district where the people... and Muqaddams did not make disturbance and resistance.``79
People`s demonstrations apart, protests came from higher quarters as well. During the reign of the stern Sultan Alauddin Khalji, the Hindu chiefs and landlords often did not care for the summons of the Diwan and did not call at his office. They were in no way inclined to show an attitude of servility. They evaded to pay any of the prevalent taxes including the Jiziyah.80 In Aurangzeb`s time, this odious tax is said to have evoked a protest from Shivaji in his famous letter to Aurangzeb.81 In this letter Shivaji urged the impolity of the impost and appealed to Aurangzeb to think of the common Father of mankind and the equality of all human beings. A similar letter is said to have been written by Rana Raj Singh as well. These Rajas dealt with the emperor on their own level. Aurangzeb, on his part, became more stiff and made the collection obligatory. All this led to many awkward situations. On one occasion a Mansabdar killed the amin who had gone to collect Jiziyah. The only punishment that was meted out to the Mansabdar was that he was degraded. On another, in a rather comic incident, the beard and hair of an amin were pulled by the people who sent him back empty-handed.``82
A tax which created so much agitation in the empire, was bound to create controversy and flutter in the court circles. References to the times of Khaljis and Tughlaqs point to an active role of the ulema in persuading the sultans to impose Jiziyah on the non-Muslims. For the reign of Aurangzeb the Mirat-i-Ahmadi suggests that the theologians as usual took the initiative in the matter. They represented to Aurangzeb the anomaly of the non-believers being exempted from the payment of the Jiziyah under a king of Aurangzeb`s piety.83 But the ulema had a say during the reigns of weak kings; Alauddin and Aurangzeb were not weak monarchs. The fact was that Jiziyah was a regular Islamic (Jihadic) tax. Its importance in a Muslim state was well-known. The problem was that the Hindus were in such a great majority in India that here some thought was necessary before insistence on its imposition. That is why there were many in the court and palace who thought preservation of peace to be better than the enforcement of an explosive religious regulation which hurt the feelings of the majority of the population. Niccalao Manucci writes``84 that some highly placed and important persons at court opposed the imposition of Jiziyah. Jahanara Begum Sahib, the elder sister of Aurangzeb, opposed it. There was an earthquake some time after and some of the courtiers are said to have once again urged the emperor to retrace his step. ``All the high-placed and important men at the court opposed themselves to this measure. They besought the king most humbly to refrain...``85 But to the imperial bigot Jiziyah was all important. Besides earning religious grace, he could also spread Islam through economic pressure.
Jiziyah as a Means of Spreading Islam
It was Aurangzeb`s intention to use Jiziyah for spreading Muslim religion among his subjects. Many writers on medieval Indian history find in the conversion of many low caste Hindus to Islam a hand of the oppression of Hindu upper castes, or the Hindu caste system itself, and the attraction of the ``democratic spirit of Islamic brotherhood and equality``. The fact is that the Hindus shunned conversion. But many among the poor classes turned to Islam in order to escape the Jiziyah. It was imposed on all non-Muslims - rich as well as poor - and collected in a humiliating manner. The poor sections of Hindus who mostly came from low castes and who could not afford to pay became Musalmans to escape both the economic burden and insults of the collectors. This is borne out by the delight expressed by Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq who writes in his Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi: ``I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet. I proclaimed that every one who repeated the creed and became Musalman should be exempted from the Jiziyah. A great number of Hindus presented themselves day by day from every quarter and adopting the faith were exonerated from the Jiziyah.``86 Similar was the achievement of many other Muslim rulers. Equally happy was Aurangzeb in his success in this area. As the contemporary European courtier Manucci observed, ``Many Hindus who were unable to pay (Jiziyah) turned Muhammadan to obtain relief from the insults of the collectors... Aurangzeb rejoices.``
Jiziyah was not a good or bad `gesture` on the part of Aurangzeb. It was a regular and important Islamic tax. The problem was that the Hindus had enjoyed relief from it for more than a hundred years and were not willing to live with this oppressive imposition once again. The contention of M. Mujeeb that it was levied for economic reasons does not make Jiziyah a secular tax. And the question arises: What were the economic difficulties of Muhammad bin Qasim in Sindh? To sum up: There is a tendency to plead that people voluntarily converted to Islam without any resort to force. It would be rewarding to estimate the numbers who converted only to escape from the payment of Jiziyah. With Aurangzeb the Mughal empire started on a course of decline and fall. it would be interesting to make a critical study of how far Jiziyah was responsible for the fall of the Mughal empire.
Revenue from Jiziyah
As mentioned in the beginning, Jiziyah in India was meant to be applied to the Hindus only. it was imposed on the Hindus from the beginning of the Muslim rule. Their numbers were so large that the income from Jiziyah was substantial. But beyond this no further information is available about the rates applied to various sections of the people and the amount of revenue collected. Shams Siraj Afif tells us that the rates during the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq were forty, twenty, and ten tankahs from the rich, middle and poor persons respectively.87 Under Aurangzeb, the assessees were roughly divided into three classes according as their property was estimated at not more than 200 dirhams (``the poor``) between 200 and ten thousand dirhams (``the middle class``) and above ten thousand (``the rich``).88 Shroffs, jewellers, money-changers, clothiers, land-owners, merchants, and physicians were placed in the high class. Tailors, dyers, cobblers, shoemakers and artisans in a hundred other crafts were counted as poor. Other sections and vocational groups formed the middle class. Women, children below fourteen, and slaves were exempted. Blind men, cripples and lunatics paid only when they were wealthy. But what was the total amount collected is not known.
What is known, and that in a general way, is that it brought good amount of revenue into the royal exchequer. Abul Fazl, writing about its abolition in the reign of Akbar, says that crores of rupees were lost, although he gives no exact figures. The quantum of Jiziyah according to Jadunath Sarkar was 4.42 per cent of the provincial revenues. The Mirat-i-Ahmadi suggests that it was 4 per cent in the province of Gujarat. Surely, its incidence on the people was not inconsiderable. ``In violation of modem canons of taxation the Jiziyah hit the poorest portion of the population hardest, and annually took away from the poor man the full value of one year`s food... as the price of religious indulgence. The tax yielded a very large sum. In the province of Gujarat, for instance, it was 5 lakhs of Rupees a year...``.89 It has, however, to be admitted that we do not get satisfactory figures indicating the total amount of income from this source. Stray references that Gujarat yielded 500,000 rupees and Burhanpur about 850,000 rupees, do not provide sufficient data to warrant any definite conclusions, except that whenever it was collected it brought in handsome revenue. It was a good source of income to the Muslim state in India. However, the imposition of Jiziyah has not to be judged by the money it brought in. It is an indication of the nature of Muslim rule in India and an indictment of the apologists who claim that it was not only secular but also popular






For the references (where there is a number at the end of a word or sentence) , see the following link.

#38

Also, this reference has great details on Pajnipat - 3

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1470

#38 (about panipat)

There are a few things I remember (off the top of my head) about Panipat-3 which are in opposition to your post.

- It took place in 1761
- The Nizam was not involved, but some Maratha soldiers were recruited from the Andhra region including the famous ``Gardi`` muslim soldiers.
- The Maratha`s nominally represented the Mughal ``Emperor`` in Delhi.
- The Sikh`s did not ally with the Maratha`s.

You are right Maratha`s remembered in Bengal for their loot and pillage, does the same exist in Rajput ``stories`` as well?

ahmedmadani #8

`` We can do as Shivaji done and capture kashmir. Indepedent kashmir can kill us. As then they will start useing water for their use and detrimental to Pakistan. Still is time to attack india before it consolidates into big giant monolith and dangerous to us. As most our our people have become whiners and do not want to pay extra taxes for war in Kasmir and army is always avoiding confrontation with india, shivaji way is right to defeat india and snatch and Kashmir. As people number is increasing rapidly they need to expand east and southward as historically. In long term delhi will have pakistani governer. South India can be left as maraths acan give trouble and drain on money as Alamgir times. Little enclave can be sikhshahi and they can act as pakistani gurakhas to control north india as a junior partner. Even China can bear on India, provide then some land in Kashmir. Army should be emboldent o think of Northern india coquest as will provide all food fiber and water needed for expanding population. 1000 cuts is good policy no good will come from talking, talking we lost east pakistan. Soon 80s f-16 will join fleet which can eat indian old aged migs and varients and before they are proficient with use of SU-30. India is still dependent on railway not like pakistan. Some destruction of 15 junctions of rails canbring india to standstill also same with few west coast harbors put out of commision with atomic attacks by Gurrillas ( so India can not retaliate) also with americans in country India can not do. Time is short or enemy will be getting stronger and not favourable to us. Jehidi war against india is only way to Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. Talk is opium, vajpai was ready to give Kashmir but kargil spoiled game and take over dashed hopes. ``

Rules of warfare have changed in 200 years. I hope one would notice.

If Vajpai was willing to give Kashmir why would Mushy launch Kargil ? He does stupid things. But he is not that stupid.

Do Pakistanis have the money to pay more taxes ? If that was true they would be no need to shake the begging bowls in front of Uncle Sam ?

Fact for an idiot like you. Pakistani Air Force has mounted one long range attack on Indian soil. It was pre-emptive strike on Agra air force base in 1971. We know how that war went.

``Hazrat Aurangzeb Alamgir was one of the few Muslim rulers after the first 4 caliphs who was both King and Saint``

Naqshbandi

Does the Islamic tradition of sainthood consist of imprisoning fathers and killing brothers?

``Hazrat Aurangzeb Alamgir was one of the few Muslim rulers after the first 4 caliphs who was both King and Saint``

Naqshbandi

Does the Islamic tradition of sainthood consist of imprisoning fathers and killing brothers?

Whyb should Hindus be ashamed of Hinduvta?

ranjit #32 {``The events after that resulted in the third battle of Panipat in 1757 where the Marathas lost to Ahmed Shah Abdali in a disasterous manner, which resulted in the complete eclipse of Maratha power from India`s political stage. Interestingly, the Rajputs and Sikhs did not cooperate with the Marathas against Abdali. In fact, the relations between Rajputs and Marathas were always strained (our Salim bhai is still mad at them :-) )``}

Ranjit Bhai,
If I am not mistaken, this battle of Panipat took place in 1762. The opposing forces were remnants of Mughal Empire, Nizam of Hyderabad, and Abdali on one side and Mahrattas, Sikhs, and some Rajputs on the other. The use of the gun ``Zamzama`` (``Kipling`s`` gun in Lahore) by Abdali and the stamina of the Pathans resulted in a horrific slaughter of the Marhattas. Upon receiving news of the defeat the Peshwa in Pune succumbed to what probably was a heart attack. I think that the reason why Abdali left was that anything worth looting had already been done earlier in 1739 when the other brigand, Nadir Shah, attacked and sacked Delhi. Abdali was one of Nadir Shah``s proteges. I think the reason many Rajputs detested the Mahrattas was the latter`s ``hit and run`` tactics that many Rajputs considered cowardly - today we call it terrorism. I am sure that caste had a lot to do with it. Furthermore, the behavior of the conquering Mahrattas in Rajasthan, Gujarat, MP, and southern UP after the retreat of the Mughal Empire has a lot to do with Rajput hatred for Mahrattas. The term is synonymous with looting, raping, burning, and general vandalism. Anyway, all that is in the past.

Ranjit #33 {``Salim bhai,
Believe me, Indians have always accepted the Mughals. There was only 1 coordinated attempt to preserve the Mughal empire from the brits. And guess what? It was the hindus who led that effort in 1857. The muslims participated in 1857 too, but interestingly enough, muslims never united behind the mughals to fight off the british. The punjabi, pathan and sindhi muslims in Pakistan didnt even participate in 1857.

Now we may like several of the Mughals or hate a few of them but they are all ours.

Ranjit Bhai,
You said it all with your sentence stating ``...but they are all ours.`` That is all I have been seeking and you said it. History is there for us to record accomplishments, compare approaches, learn from mistakes, and have an understanding of how we got to the present. Any family`s history, whether written or oral, is laden with great feats, misfortunes, and betrayals bey ``cousins and uncles.`` Why shouldn`t Indian history have its share of sibling rivalry, calamities, heroism, and betrayal?

You are right about 1857 and the lack of support from what is now Pakistan. In fact, the Sikhs and loyal Punjabi sepoys from Punjab and soldiers from Bombay and Madras were critical in the fall of Delhi and the relief of Lucknow for the British.

#31 if there was any true ``intermarriage`` things would indeed have been different. there were no intermarriages..only donations from rajput princly families to harems for political consideration. if mughals (and other invaders) had seeked marriages in good faith for their daughters, the case could be made. to akbars credit, the princes out of these alliances were legitimate heirs.

#34 i have a novel about 18-th century deccan by an american author which discusses pindharis as a mob of hindu and muslim brigands without a specific power-seat, but a real challenge to authorities.

Can`t we guys start taking up issues which concern the Present and the future instead of raking up the past and reviving past glories-Its kind of pathetic.
Look at europe ,France and Germany fought the bloodiest wars,WW2 caused so much death and destruction.The people have learnt to forget the past and work towards a better future- AN ECONOMICALLY UNITED EUROPE.

Lets learn from them ,and try to improve the standards of living of our people.For a region is one of the poorest regions of the world.

Enough of this .

Why do people take u literally? i don`t know.
If Shivaji was the symbol and guardian of hinduism to hindus Aurangzeb was dear to muslims despite carrying hindu blood in his veins.The real genius of Shivaji was the uniting of Maharashtran peasentry into a fighting force.
Someone mentioned about Pak Army in the wars, well sir! they are as brave and courageous as anyone can be for his country.Their valour is acknowledged by indian Generals and this fact is on military records.During WW II, Brits used to mock Americans of just chewing bubblegums and escorting WACOS.But D-DAY shut all the mouths and pointing fingers after witnessing the yanki dash in the face of the sudden death.Can anyone produce another example of such heroism and professionalism other than ``The charge of the light Brigade``.
Same was the case with marathhas that the farmers of yore became fighters of their time under Shivaji`s command.
Can someone throw some light on ``Pindaris`` also.

Re:Salim_Chauhan#31

Salim bhai,

Believe me, Indians have always accepted the Mughals. There was only 1 coordinated attempt to preserve the Mughal empire from the brits. And guess what? It was the hindus who led that effort in 1857. The muslims participated in 1857 too, but interestingly enough, muslims never united behind the mughals to fight off the british. The punjabi, pathan and sindhi muslims in Pakistan didnt even participate in 1857.

Now we may like several of the Mughals or hate a few of them but they are all ours. We have preserved Mughal culture and architecture with a lot of care. The most famous is of course the Taj Mahal, which is a great icon for India. There are also many more forts, mosques, buildings, gardens etc left behind by Mughals which are viewed as our heritage and taken good care of. Our independence day celebrations take place from the Red Fort, which was built by the Mughals.

And finally, we are the country which produced the film Mughal-e-Azam, a fitting tribute to the Mughals. Can you imagine Pakistan producing a movie of that caliber? Only India can do something like that ;-).

Re:sishapa #24

Yeah..thats right. Most of the invaders were Turks or Central Asians who had conquered Afghanistan. Ghaznavi was a Turk, Ghauri was a Tajik, the Khiljis/Tughlaks/Lodis etc were Afghans. Ahmed Shah Abdali was a Pushtoon, if I am not mistaken. When Maratha power was at its peak, the North Indian muslims became panicky since the Mughals were in no position to defend Delhi. They sent pleas to Ahmed Shah Abdali to step in and save Islam in India.

The events after that resulted in the third battle of Panipat in 1757 where the Marathas lost to Ahmed Shah Abdali in a disasterous manner, which resulted in the complete eclipse of Maratha power from India`s political stage. Interestingly, the Rajputs and Sikhs did not cooperate with the Marathas against Abdali. In fact, the relations between Rajputs and Marathas were always strained (our Salim bhai is still mad at them :-) ). In any case, the real winner of the third battle of Panipat were the British, who basically stepped into the vaccum created by the eclipse of Mughal and Maratha power. For some strange reason Abdali didnt stay back in Delhi and reestablish an Afghan sultanate in 1757, which was quite unusual given past history of Afghan conquests.

Ranjit #22 {``Comparing Mughal Empire with Pakistan is like comparing a prized stallion with a lame mule. As my friend Salim Chauhan says rightly, Mughals were Indians. We Indians accept with pride the strength, vitality, the majestic glory and the cultural accomplishments of the Mughals. They intermarried with Rajputs and took the best of Indian and Central Asian culture to create a majestic empire.``}

Ranjit Bhai,
Now you are talking. Mughals were Indians. Had they conquered India and taken its riches to Kabul or Ferghana, I would join everyone in declaring them to be ``foreign`` invaders like Qasim, Ghaznavi, Ghori, Nadir Shar, and Abdali. Mughals called the country they ruled ``Hindustan`` with pride and loyalty. Yes, the Sultanate was theirs but they regarded its Hindu citizens and its Muslims citizens as their subjects - to be taxed and protected. A Hindu citizen of Mughal Empire was closer to Mughals than an Iranian citizen of Safavid Empire. While not a nation state, as present-day India, the Mughal Sultanate of Hindustan had borders and population that is roughly equivalent with almost all of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and BD today. Thank you for your appreciation for the accomplishments of the Mughals. Pakistan has not had a single ruler who comes close to any of the early six in statutre or accomplishments. I think that Pakistan may have much in common with the later Mughals - Farrukhsiyaar, Muhammad Sha, Ahmed Shah Rangeela, Shah Alam, and Bahadur Shah II. Good or bad, effective of ineffective, successful or failures, all the Mughals after Babur were Indians and belong to its rich and colorful legacy of becoming a permanent home for all kinds of people from Central Asia. If the Huns from Central Asia can become Rajputs and Indians, why can`t the Mongols of Central Asia become Indians, especially if they intermarried with the once-foreign Rajputs? :)