The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c10.s2.5

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