The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c10.s2: Hindu Dissent
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c10.s2
- Language
- English
Hindu Dissent
c10.s2.1
As compared with the Muslims, the problems of the Hindus were many and varied. They were unfairly taxed, their traders used to be harassed, their temples were broken and they were very often forcibly converted to Islam. There were so many disabilities that they could not take all the inequities lying down. They protested and resisted. Their dissent was often effective because it was made in the non-violent Hindu fashion.
c10.s2.2
Sultan Firoz Tughlaq (1351-1388), 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 und*). They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers gave it as their opinion 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 burn themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words (*kalimat-i-pur naghmat*) were reported to the Sultan, he 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. In Delhi, the *Jiziyah* was of three kinds: Ist class, forty *tankahs*; 2nd class, twenty *tankahs*; 3rd class, ten *tankahs*. When the Brahmans found their case was hopeless, they went to the Sultan and begged him in his mercy to reduce the amount they would have to pay, and he accordingly assessed it at ten *tankahs* and fifty *jitals* for each individual.³⁹
c10.s2.3
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. One day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, 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 emperors equippage was brought to a stand-still. 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*.⁴⁰ 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.⁴¹ There were organized protests 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 disturbances and resistance.⁴² Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694 it was ordered that except for Rajputs and Marathas, no Hindus were to be allowed to ride an Iraqi or Turani horse or an elephant, nor were they to use a palanquin, many Hindus defied it like in Multan and Ahmadnagar.⁴³ Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped.⁴⁴
c10.s2.4
These cases of open disapprobation of royal orders were the work mainly of the Hindu artisan and business classes. In spite of their modesty and humility they possessed the middle class temperament. As is well-known Indian manufactures were of excellent quality, often better than European,⁴⁵ but this does not signify any social advancement of the manufacturers. Indeed, according to Bernier, they were either wretchedly poor, or who, if rich assume appearance of poverty a people whose grandees pay for a work of art considerably under its value and according to their own caprice, and who do not hesitate to punish an importunate artist or a tradesman with the *Korrah*, that long and terrible whip hanging at every Omrahs gate ⁴⁶ Bernier adds that the artisans could not venture to indulge in good fare or to dress in fine apparel even if they could afford to.⁴⁷ Manucci says that traders and merchants were sometimes wanting in courage and they could not claim any high status.⁴⁸ And yet these very people used to defy the rulers orders. Their strength was known to the regime, that is why most kings used to treat them harshly. Ziyauddin declares them to be the most unscrupulous among the seventy-two classes, (believed to be inhabiting the world) and Alauddin Khalji visited them with dire punishments.⁴⁹ Even a mild king like Firoz Tughlaq did not treat them any better. Shams Siraj Afif writes that when Firoz Tughlaq was building the fort-city of Firozabad, he ordered that every trader who brought goods (grain, salt, sugar, cotton etc.) to Delhi, was to transport free of charge bricks and stones on his pack-animals from the old Delhi (Mehrauli) to the construction site at Firozabad. If the trader refused, government officials used to carry off his pack animals and clamp him in jail. But the traders were not to be cowed down and they more often than not refused to do *begar* (work without wages).⁵⁰ Such protests and resistance against governments injustice continued throughout the medieval period. Tavernier writes similar things about Shahjahan. All waggons which come to Surat from Agra or other places in the Empire and return to Agra and Jahanabad (Shahjahanabad) are compelled to carry (the kings) lime which comes from Broach It is a great source of profit to the Emperor (whose monopoly it was and) who sends it where he pleases.⁵¹ Similarly, when Aurangzeb wanted more money and ordained that the rupees or coined money of silver, not worth more than fourteen sols (sous) of France, or thereabouts, should pass as worth twenty-eight sols the *sarrafs*, who are the money changers, resisted the royal orders, giving various excuses At last the king in anger sent for the money-changers in the city of Delhi, and when he found that they could not be brought round to his view he ordered one of the aged *sarrafs* to be thrown, down the battlements. This terrified the *sarrafs* and they obeyed.⁵²
c10.s2.5
It was only the terror created by the autocratic regime that suppressed these people. Else, they on their own, never failed to register their protests or go on *hartal*. Such demonstrations and protests, typical of the middle classes, were not confined to the capital city of Delhi alone. People fought for their rights all over the country. Let us take the case of Gujarat. Persecution forced a large number of Hindu merchants of Surat, led by Bhimji Parekh, in September 1669, to withdraw from Surat. An English communication of November 21 of that year is worth quoting at some length: You have been formerly advised what un-sufferable tyranny the *banias* endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors on account of their religion The Qazi and other Mughal officers derived large incomes from the Banias to redeem their places of idolatarous worship from being defaced and their persons from their malice and that the general body of the *banias* began to groan under their affliction and to take up resolves of fleeing the country. Bhimji led a deputation of five other *banias* (*panch*?) to Gerald Aungier, who later became the maker of Bombay, to ask for asylum in Bombay. Aungier played it safe He advised them to proceed to Ahmadabad instead and from there make their general humble requests to the King. Then on September 23rd and 24th all the heads of the *bania* families, of what condition whatsoever, departed the town, to the number of 8,000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothers, or next of kin. The Qazi was enraged at this and called upon the governor to turn the *banias* back. The Governor was inclined to side with the *banias* as he understood the important economic role they played in the life of the city and replied that they were free to go wherever they like. The *banias* then proceeded to Broach with the result that the people in Surat suffered great want, from the *banias* having bound themselves under severe penalties not to open any of their shops without order from their Mahager (*Mahajana*), or General Council, there was not any provision to be got; the *tanksal* (i.e.mint) and custom house shut; no money to be procured, so much as for house expenses, much less for trade which was wholly at a stand. The boycott lasted until December 20, 1669 when the *banias* returned to Surat on being assured by Aurangzeb of safety of their religion. This incident clearly shows how Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution had made his officers more zealous than the king himself. It also shows the organizational capabilities of resistance of the *banias* and the leading role played by Bhimji in this affair.⁵³ Earlier in 1666, the merchants of Cambay complained to Aurangzeb against the oppressive local officials and threatened to flee if their grievances remained unredressed. The Emperor thereupon ordered that there would be only two qanungos and two Chaudharis in place of the many reported, and they should treat the merchants well.⁵⁴
c10.s2.6
Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution of Hindus, in particular his destruction of temples, evoked universal Hindu discontent. It was an old practice, commencing from Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sind,⁵⁵ to destroy temples during wars and in times of peace and convert them into mosques, and was continued throughout the medieval period. Aurangzeb also did the same in course of his wars in Bihar, Kuch Bihar etc. But when he started destroying temples in peace time on an unprecedented scale, he started a wave of general resentment and opposition. The history of resistance to such cases of temple destruction pertains to the whole country, but primarily to Gujarat, Mathura, Delhi, Banaras and many places in Rajasthan. Soon after the order (about demolishing temples) was issued, reports of the destruction of temples from all over the empire began to arrive.⁵⁶ To make sure that his orders were faithfully carried out Aurangzeb instructed that reports of destruction of temples by *faujdars* and other officials, were to be sent to the court under the seal of the Qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.⁵⁷
c10.s2.7
In August, 1669, the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras was demolished.⁵⁸ The presiding priest of the temple was just in time to remove the idols and throw them into a neighbouring well which thus became a centre of interest ever after. The temple of Gopi Nath in Banaras was also destroyed about the same time. He (Aurangzeb) is alleged to have tried to demolish the Shiva temple of Jangamwadi in Banaras,⁵⁹ but could not succeed because of opposition.
c10.s2.8
Next came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of thirty-three lacs of rupees by Raja Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor.⁶⁰ No wonder that this created consternation in the Hindu mind. Priests and protesters from Brindaban fled the place with the idol of Lord Krishna and housed it in a temple at Kankroli in Udaipur state. A little later the priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by Vallabhachaya fled with the idols by night. After an adventurous journey they reached Jodhpur, but its Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. Therefore, Damodar Lal, the head of the priesthood incharge of the temple, sent one Gopi Nath to Maharaja Raj Singh at Udaipur who himself received the fugitives on the frontiers of the state and decided to house the god at Sihar on 10 March, 1672.⁶¹ In course of time the tiny village of Sihar became famous as Nathdwar after the name of its god, and Mewar of Mira Bai became a great centre of Vaishnavism in India.
c10.s2.9
The resistance gained in strength. In March 1671, a Muslim officer who had been sent to demolish temples in and around Ujjain was killed with many of his followers in the riot that followed his attempt at destroying the temples there. Aurangzebs religious policy had created a division in the Indian society. Communal antagonisms resulted in communal riots at Banaras, Narnaul (1672) and Gujarat (1681) where Hindus, in retaliation, destroyed mosques.⁶² Temples were destroyed in Marwar after 1678 and in 1680-81, 235 temples were destroyed in Udaipur. Prince Bhim of Udaipur retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and demolishing many mosques, big and small, there.⁶³ Similarly, there was opposition to destruction of temples in the Amber territory, which was friendly to the Mughals. Here religious fairs continued to be held and idols publicly worshipped even after the temples had been demolished.⁶⁴ In the Deccan the same policy was pursued with the same reaction. In April 1694, the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.⁶⁵ Aurangzeb destroyed temples throughout the country. He destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hardwar) and Ayodhya, but all of them are thronged with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.⁶⁶ Sometimes he was content with only closing down those temples that were built in the midst of entirely Hindu population, and his officers allowed the Hindus to take back their temples on payment of large sums of money. In the South, where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing in the Deccan where the suppression of rebellion was not an easy matter But the discontent occasioned by his orders could not be thus brought to an end.⁶⁷ Hindu resistance to such vandalism year after year and decade after decade throughout the length and breadth of the country can rather be imagined than described.