Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c38: Chapter XXVIII. Moral and Religious Regulations

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c38

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXVIII. Moral and Religious Regulations

§1. Abolition of duties on grain and of abwabs.

v3.c38.s1.1

Immediately after his second enthronement, Aurangzib took two measures which had become pressing necessities. During the War of Succession the civil administration had broken down in most parts of the empire. Everywhere the strong were oppressing the weak and filling the country with disorder and tumult; the cultivators lost the fruits of their labour through robbery by the powerful or the ravages of war. In short, the economic ruin of many parts of Northern India was complete, and grain was selling at famine prices. The evil was aggravated by the inland transit duties; at every ford, ferry, hill pass or provincial boundary, toll of one-tenth of the value of the goods was taken on the passing merchandise as wages for guarding the roads. This system opened a wide door to oppression and unauthorized exaction, so that in popular speech a road-guard (*rahdar*) came to be called a road-brigand (*rahzan*). In the larger towns, like Agra, Delhi, Lahor and Burhanpur, a duty (called *pandari*) was levied on all articles of food and drink brought from outside for sale. In the crownlands alone the road-police tax (*rahdari*) yielded 25 lakhs of Rupees a year, and if we add to this the collection made in the tracts under the jagirdars and zamindars, and the perquisites of the office underlings, we shall not be far wrong in putting the total loss of the merchants under this head at a crore of Rupees, or one-twentyfifth of the gross land revenue of the State.

v3.c38.s1.2

Aurangzib abolished both the *rahdari* and the *pandari* in his demesne lands and requested the jagirdars and zamindars to do the same in their estates. This was done, at least for a time, and there was a free flow of corn to every place affected by scarcity, and the price of grain fell appreciably. This relief to the people came at a most opportune time. The devastation caused by the war did, no doubt, cease in 1660, but for a succession of years afterwards there was scanty rainfall and harvest failure in one province or another. Thanks, however, to the remission of the transit duty on grain, the dearth of one place was easily removed by the surplus produce of another.*

v3.c38.s1.3

∗ Remission of tax, *A. N.* 436-438; *K. K.* ii. 87-89, 212; *Storia*, ii. 171, 175 (oppression by customs officers); *Fathiyah-i-ibriyah*, Continuation, 128a-129b; *Mirat-i-Ahmadi* 262 & 265, merely copies *A. N.*; the *farman* of 1659 is given in *Bahar-i-sakhun*; another *farman* remitting *abwabs*, 29 April, 1673, is given in *Mirat*, 302. *Maraqat-i-Hasan*, 203, mentions the first *farman* without giving its

v3.c38.s1.4

A revenue officers' Guide-book written about the 33rd year of his reign mentions a large number of cesses, many of them trivial and vexatious—as abolished by Aurangzib, up to 1673. (*Zawabit-i-Alamgiri, f. 135a.*)

v3.c38.s1.5

Several of these had been abolished by Firuz Tughlaq as early as the 14th century and by Akbar about a hundred years before Aurangzib; but they had evidently been reimposed by later rulers, or had crept in through the illegal greed of the revenue underlings and local officials and landlords. Khafi Khan (ii. 88) says that nearly eighty cesses were abolished by Aurangzib, though he mentions only fourteen of these by name. He admits however, that they were continued by faujdars and zamindars in the far-off provinces in secret defiance of the Emperor's orders, and that only the *pandari* or ground-rent for the stalls in the open bazars at the capital and other large towns was really given up. The octroi duty on tobacco was abolished about 1666,* as it was an article of universal consumption and the tax was a

v3.c38.s1.6

schedule. Wilson's *Glossary*, 396, has *pandharapatti* for *pandari*. Strict order to enforce the remission, I. O. L. MS. 3301, *f.* 37a. The *abwabs* are fully treated in my *Mughal Administration*, ch. v.

v3.c38.s1.7

∗ The date is given by Manucci (ii. 175) who also gives an example of the oppression practised by the tax-gatherers. M.A. 530, in saying that they insulted the 'honour' (i.e., women) of the people, evidently refers to the incident narrated by Manucci.

v3.c38.s1.8

hardship on even the poorest and deprived him of his only solace after work, while the search for contraband tobacco by an army of excisemen led to great oppression, vexatious interference with the people and in many cases violation of the modesty of women.

§2. Emperor's Islamic ordinances.

v3.c38.s2.1

Aurangzib had claimed the throne as the champion of pure Islam against the heretical practices and principles of Dara Shukoh. Now that he was undisputed master of the country, he had to carry out the promises made in his manifesto at the commencement of the war. Soon after his second coronation (June, 1659) he issued the following ordinances* to restore the rules of orthodox Islam in the administration and to bring the lives of the people into closer accord with the teaching of the Quran. Every departure from the canonical practices was an innovation (bidat) and a mark of heresy, and therefore the special object of his condemnation.

v3.c38.s2.2

(1) The Mughal emperors before him used to stamp the Muhammadan confession of faith (kalima) on their coins. Aurangzib forbade it, lest the holy words should be spitefully trampled under foot or defiled by unbelievers.

v3.c38.s2.3

∗ Coronation ordinances.—A. N. 366, 390-392 (Censor); Mirat-i-Ahmadi, 260 (bhang cultivation), 263-264 (Censor); Storia, ii. 5-7 (Censor); Aqil Khan, 88-89; K. K. ii. 79 and Ruqat No. 2 (nauroz). Muraqat-i-Hasan, 196 (Censor). Compare Firuz Shah Tughlaq's ordinances in Afif, 373.

v3.c38.s2.4

(2) The ancient kings of Persia, and following them the Muslim rulers of that country as well as the Mughal sovereigns of India, used to observe the day when the Sun enters the Aries as a time of rejoicing, because it was the New Year's Day of the Zoroastrian calendar (1st of Farwardin) and the traditional date of the accession of the mythical king Naushirwan. A sort of carnival was held on the occasion at Court and throughout the empire. But the common people looked upon the day as one of special sanctity and religious significance, like the two Ids of the Muslim calendar. This was an innovation on the orthodox practice of Islam, and Aurangzib therefore forbade the keeping of the day and transferred the customary Nauroz rejoicings of the Court to the coronation festivity in the month of Ramzan.

v3.c38.s2.5

(3) A Censor of Morals (muhtasib) was appointed to regulate the lives of the people in strict accordance with the Holy Law. "The innovators, atheists, heretics who had deviated from the straight path of Islam, infidels, hypocrites and the spiritually indifferent who had spread over India,—were chastised and forced to give up their wicked courses, obey the theologians and observe the fasts and prayers regularly." (Aqil Khan, 89.)

v3.c38.s2.6

The duty of the Censor was to enforce the Prophet's laws and put down the practices forbidden by him, such as drinking distilled spirits or fermented beer, *bhang* and other liquid intoxicants, gambling, and the illicit commerce of the sexes. Opium and *ganja*, however, were not interdicted. The punishment of heretical opinions blasphemy and omission of prayer and fast by Muslims also lay within the province of this Inquisition. Mulla Auz Wajih, the most noted Turani theologian in India, was appointed Censor with the rank of a Commander of One Thousand Horse. A party of *mansabdars* and *ahadis* was posted under him to enforce his orders and put down the bold sinners who would show fight. The provincial governors were ordered to assist the work of moral reform within their own jurisdictions on pain of imperial displeasure. To the end of his reign Aurangzib continued to urge them to enforce the canonical rules about *amr* and *nahi* (things to be done and things to be avoided).

v3.c38.s2.7

(4) An imperial circular, dated 13th May 1659, was sent to all the provinces, forbidding the cultivation of *bhang* in any part of the empire and directing the revenue collectors to induce the peasants to follow this order and to punish them if they disregarded it.

v3.c38.s2.8

(5) All the old mosques and monasteries, many of which had become mere ruins through the lapse of time and the neglect of former sovereigns,—were repaired by order of Aurangzib and "made as new.

v3.c38.s2.9

Imams, muazzins, khatibs and attendants were appointed in them with regular salaries, and students were granted daily allowances according to their progress in knowledge, that they might engage in the study of theology with composure of mind." This was done in and around old Delhi, with special reference to the many edifices raised by the pious zeal of the orthodox Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq and Bahlol Lodi. We read that in the ninth year of Aurangzib's reign it cost the State one lakh of Rupees every year to maintain the 600 mosques at Delhi. (*Akhbarat*, 9-22.) Many of them were small or situated in deserted out-of-the-way places and, therefore, could not have afforded religious accommodation to any people in return for the public money spent on them.

v3.c38.s2.10

§3. Puritanical and anti-Hindu regulations.

v3.c38.s2.11

The measures that Aurangzib took against the Hindus will be described in a subsequent chapter. His puritanical rigour grew with his age. We may conveniently study here his measures for enforcing his own ideas of the morose seriousness of life and punctilious orthodoxy.

v3.c38.s2.12

(6) At the commencement of the 11th year of his reign, he forbade the Court musicians to perform before him, "as he had no liking for pleasure, and his application to business left him no time for amusement. Gradually music was totally forbidden at Court" and the State musicians and singers, who had hitherto enjoyed honour and noble rank, were pensioned off. The royal band (*naubat*) was, however, retained.

v3.c38.s2.13

Music was banished from the Court, but it cannot be banished from the human soul. The sons of the Muses took their revenge by turning the public laughter against their crowned foe. "About one thousand [of the musicians of Delhi] assembled on a Friday when Aurangzib was going to the mosque. They came out with over twenty highly ornamented biers, as is the custom of the country, crying aloud with great grief. From afar Aurangzib saw this multitude and heard their great weeping and lamentation, and, wondering, sent to know the cause of so much sorrow. The musicians replied with sobs that the king's orders had killed Music, therefore they were bearing her to the grave. The king calmly remarked that they should see that she was thoroughly well buried! In spite of this, the nobles did not cease to listen to songs in secret. This strictness was enforced in the principal cities" only.* (*Storia*, ii. 8.)

v3.c38.s2.14

(7) At the same time the ceremony of weighing the Emperor against gold and silver on his two birthdays (according to the lunar and solar calendars) was stopped. Later in life, he allowed it in the case of his sons, on their recovery from illness, in the belief that as the money was given away in charity, the prayers of the poor would do good to the princes.*

v3.c38.s2.15

(8) In the same year, 1668, the two stone elephants placed by Jahangir on the two side-pillars of the Hatipul gate of Agra fort, were removed by the Emperor "in order to carry out the rules of Canon Law and to abolish innovations."†

v3.c38.s2.16

(9) About March or April 1670, the courtiers were ordered to give up the Hindu practice of saluting each other by raising the hand to the head and to confine themselves to the cry 'Peace be on you!' (*salam alekum.*) We read of two courtiers being censured for violation of this rule in March 1686. Another regulation, but one intended merely for preserving royal dignity, was issued on 16th April, 1670. By it the courtiers were forbidden even to say *salam alekum* to each other in the imperial presence, as it showed lack of respect for the Crown.‡

v3.c38.s2.17

(10) In October 1675 the astrologers all over the empire were bound down and made to furnish securities that they would not draw up almanacs [giving forecasts of events] next year.§ But belief in astral influence was too deeply rooted in the hearts of the Indians,—Hindus and Muslims alike,—to be destroyed by one stroke of the imperial pen, and the stars continued to be studied for various affairs of life, even by the members of the royal family, in spite of the prohibition.

v3.c38.s2.18

∗ M. A. 75, 81; Ruqat, No. 78. † M. A. 77; Storia, ii. 11. ‡ M. A. 98, 272; Akhbarat, 13/22. § M. A.

v3.c38.s2.19

¹⁴⁶ Bernier (161-162) refers to a different incident. The reason for the order could not have been Dara's "craze of

v3.c38.s2.20

(11) In March 1670 he forbade the festivities which used to be held on his birthday; henceforth the royal band was to play for three hours only instead of the whole day. Early in the 21st year of his reign (November, 1677) the customary rejoicings on the anniversary of his coronation were abolished. "Betel leaves and scents were distributed among those present at Court," but the throne-room was henceforth furnished and upholstered in a cheap and simple style; the clerks were to use porcelain ink-pots instead of silver ones, the money for largesses was to be brought in on shields instead of silver trays; and the grandees were forbidden to make the customary presents to the Emperor. As in Muslim

v3.c38.s2.21

putting faith in astrologers" mentioned by Manucci (i. 224). The printed text of M.A. has 'next year'; but the prohibition was evidently permanent, and we can get this sense by merely inserting the word 'from' before 'next year,' (az sal-i-nau.) A restriction for a single year can be explained only by supposing that the astrologers had been predicting that the next year portended disasters to the country. A similar prophecy upset the public mind on the eve of the Sepoy Mutiny.

v3.c38.s2.22

Holy Law nobody except a warrior in the time of battle is permitted to wear a dress of pure silk, but all must put on either woollen clothing or a mixed stuff (*mashru*) of silk thread crossed by yarn of some other material, the latter dress was now made compulsory on the courtiers. "In the department of robes of honour (*khilat*) cloth of gold embroidery was ordered to be used in the place of *butadar* ornamented with silver filigree." The railings of gold and silver in the Hall of Public Audience were pronounced uncanonical and replaced by railings of lapis lazuli set on gold! The planting of rose-beds in any imperial garden, except the two at Agharabad and Nurbari, was forbidden.*

v3.c38.s2.23

(12) It had formerly been the practice of the emperors to apply a spot of paint (*tika*) with their own fingers to the forehead of great Rajahs when investing them. Early in Aurangzib's reign, the prime minister was ordered to do it for his master, but in May 1679 the ceremony was altogether abolished as savouring of Hinduism; the newly created Rajahs had only to make their bow (*taslim*) to the Emperor who returned the salute. (*M.A.* 176.)

v3.c38.s2.24

(13) In Kashmir there were many actors or mummers who used to go out of the chief town dressed in their trappings and playing on instruments, to welcome princes and other high persons on the way. Towards the close of his life Aurangzib ordered the local viceroy to put this practice down and take away all their musical instruments wherever found, quoting at the end of his letter the sacred text, "For the sake of God it is binding on us all to order lawful acts and prohibit uncanonical ones." (K.T. 77a.)

v3.c38.s2.25

∗ *M. A.* 98, 162; *Dilkasha*, 62 (says that the celebrations were prohibited at the end of the eighth year; incorrect). Muslims and silk dress,—Hamilton's *Hedaya* ed. 1870, p. 597.

v3.c38.s2.26

(14) All his predecessors on the throne, and he himself up to the eleventh year of his reign, used to appear every morning at a balcony on the wall of the palace and receive the salute of the people assembled on the ground outside. The ceremony was called *darshan* and was akin to the Hindu practice of having a look at one's tutelary idol before beginning the day's work. A class of servile Hindus, popularly called *darshanias*, like the guilds of Augustales of the early Roman empire, regarded their ruler as their earthly divinity, and did not break their fast before having the beatific vision of His Majesty at the *darshan* window. Aurangzib gave up the practice of publicly showing himself there as un-Islamic. (K.K. ii. 213.)

v3.c38.s2.27

(15) He forbade the roofing over of buildings containing tombs, the lime-washing of sepulchres, and the pilgrimage of women to the graveyards of saints,* as opposed to Quranic Law. (K.T. 55b, 148a.)

v3.c38.s2.28

§4. Aurangzib's attempts at moral reform.

v3.c38.s2.29

Life at the capital must have been intolerable for some time after Aurangzib's accession. But the inevitable result soon followed; the attempt to elevate mankind by one leap failed, and the administration made itself ridiculous by violently enforcing for a time, then relaxing, and finally abandoning a code of puritanical morals opposed to the feelings of the entire population, without first trying to educate them to a higher level of thought. As Manucci noticed, "It was so common to drink spirits when Aurangzib ascended the throne, that one day he said in a passion that in all Hindustan no more than two men could be found who did not drink, namely himself and the Chief Qazi....He directed the kotwal to search out Muhammadans and Hindus who sold spirits, every one of whom was to lose one hand and one foot.... This penal order was in force for a time; whenever the kotwal suspected that spirits were made in any house, he sent his soldiers to plunder everything in it. The regulations were strict at first, but little by little they were relaxed,... there being few who do not drink secretly."

v3.c38.s2.30

∗ Firuz Tughlaq's reasons for the prohibition (in Elliot, iii. 380); immorality promoted by these visits (in Storia, iv. 205.)

v3.c38.s2.31

Again, with regard to *bhang*, "Not a day passed that on rising in the morning we did not hear the breaking by blows and strokes of the pots and pans in which these beverages are prepared. But, seeing that the ministers themselves also drank and loved to get drunk, the rigour of prohibition was lightened by degrees." So, too, in the case of the order against music: "If in any house or elsewhere he (*i.e.*, the Censor) heard the sound of singing and instruments, he should forthwith hasten there and arrest as many as he could, breaking the instruments. Thus was caused a great destruction of musical instruments.... In spite of this, the nobles did not cease to listen to songs in secret." (*Storia*, ii. 5-8.)

v3.c38.s2.32

Some, however, of Aurangzib's regulations were intended to promote general morality without any special reference to Islam. Such, for instance, was his alleged order mentioned by Manucci alone, that the public women and dancing-girls must marry or leave the realm (ii. 9). But the same writer gives an indication elsewhere (ii. 186) that the rule was a dead letter. Notorious instances of gambling were punished by the Emperor. Effeminacy in dress received a summary and practical rebuke when he cut off some inches of cloth from a courtier's cloak which fell below his ankles. The prohibition of holi celebration in the streets, when obscene songs were sung and faggot was extorted from all people for bonfires, was clearly a police regulation. So also was the order putting a stop to Muharram processions in future in all the provinces, after a deadly fight between rival processions had taken place at Burhanpur in January 1669.*

v3.c38.s2.33

We have it on the authority of Manucci (ii. 97) that Aurangzib on his return from Kashmir (December 1663) "issued an order that in all lands under Mughal control never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt. This order endures to this day." This humanitarian rule, though not noticed in the formal histories, is mentioned in the official manuals of the reign. (Dastur-ul-aml, 103a.) But the evidence of contemporary European travellers in India shows that the royal prohibition was seldom observed.

v3.c38.s2.34

The Emperor was very attentive to decorum of manners and took care not to violate any social convention. In the light of his general conduct, I cannot accept the story current at the time that when Dara's severed head was brought to him for inspection he struck it with his sword. Manucci (ii. 359) and the even more credulous English traveller J.

v3.c38.s2.35

∗ Gambling, Ruqat No. 27; dress, ibid. No. 147; holi festivities, Mirat, 276; Muharram procession, K. K. ii. 214. Castration, M. A. 75; K. T. 44a; Muraqat, 76.

v3.c38.s2.36

Cambell mention it. But Bernier who was at Delhi at the time and frequently talked with the imperial secretary Danishmand Khan, says (p. 103) that the Emperor turned his face away from "the shocking sight." Shuja's historian Masum (145b) says that Aurangzib refused to look at the head as that of an infidel. On 5th September, 1669, learning that Dara's tomb was out of repair and had no cloth covering, he ordered some attendants to be constantly kept there and a sheet to be placed over the tomb. The Court news-letters mention his visits to the Taj Mahal, when he made his salam to his parents' graves and gave away alms.*

v3.c38.s2.37

Early in his reign he ordered his governor of Kashmir to compel the people of that valley to put on drawers and cover their nakedness (K.T. 48b), which they were evidently too poor or too primitive to do. He censures his eldest son for going to church in a waistcoat (nim-astin) instead of being properly dressed for a serious work like prayer. [Adab, 181b.]

v3.c38.s2.38

In the 11th year of his reign he issued orders for the suppression of the practice of castrating children with a view to sell them as slaves.

v3.c38.s2.39

∗ For Dara's tomb, Akhbarat, 1/3 (contradicts Storia, ii. 195). Aurangzib at his father's grave, Akhbarat, 1/4, 13/27; M. A. 93.

§5. Persecution of Dara's favourite theologians.

v3.c38.s3.1

The enforcement of Islamic orthodoxy gave Aurangzib an opportunity of punishing those liberal holy men of his creed whom Dara had favoured. His infidelity must have been encouraged by them; at all events he had gained popularity and prestige by his close association with such widely respected devotees. Now was their time of reckoning.

v3.c38.s3.2

A mulla and teacher (akhund) named Shah Muhammad, whose disciples loved to call him "The Man drowned in the Ocean of Communion with God,"—was a native of Badakhshan, and early in life showed his skill in composing sacred verses. After travelling much, he became the disciple of Mian Mir, the saint of Lahor, and finally settled in Kashmir. The fame of his sanctity spread far and wide. Dara Shukoh and Jahanara greatly honoured him, made him large gifts of money and built for him a stone monastery and residence. Nobles, scholars and Shaikhs visited him frequently. He composed a hundred thousand couplets of mystic poetry unfolding his knowledge of God and spiritual truths. Wit sweetened his speech, and many apt repartees of him were long remembered. When Aurangzib came to the throne, Dara's enemies had him summoned to the imperial presence. He went very reluctantly to Lahor and lived there in great distress and fear till his death, but all the while thanked God that his life was ending, as it had begun, in poverty. Here he died in 1661 and was buried close to the tomb of his master, Mian Mir.*

§6. Sarmad the mystic.

v3.c38.s4.1

A heavier punishment fell on the renowned Sufi ascetic best known by his poetical pen-name of SARMAD† (or Chief). This man was born of Jewish stock at Kashan in Persia and made himself a scholar (rabbi) by the study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he embraced Islam and, taking the name of Muhammad Said, cultivated Islamic philosophy under two renowned professors in Persia. Coming over to India, like so many other Persians, as a trader, he met at Tatta a Hindu lad named Abhay Chand, with whom he was so infatuated that he gave up his business, became a naked faqir, and induced Abhay Chand to be his disciple. The youth was carefully instructed by him in the Pentateuch and the Psalms, and even translated the first few chapters of the Book of Moses into Persian. Then Sarmad went to Haidarabad in the Deccan (about 1647); but as the wazir Shaikh Muhammad Khan did not help him to have audience of Qutb Shah, he came back in disappointment to Delhi, where Dara Shukoh made much of him and introduced him to the favour of Shah Jahan. The prince used to pay frequent visits to the naked *faqir* and listen to his teaching of Sufism.

v3.c38.s4.2

∗ Tarikh-i-Kashmiri by Azam, 121a—122a. The saint had offered adoration to the rising sun by sending to Aurangzib a laudatory quatrain containing the date of his coronation. (K.K. ii. 78.) But he could not escape so easily.

v3.c38.s4.3

† The fullest account of Sarmad is given in Dabistan 194-196, which should be supplemented by selections from his poetry as given in Madhodas's Bustan-i-marafat, Indian Antiquary, 1910, 121-122, and (a few) Aqil Kh. 89-90. His life and execution, Aqil Khan, 89-90; Storia, i. 223 (as Dara's favourite 'atheist'), 384; anecdotes recorded in Ind. Antiq. as cited; Bernier, 317 (beheaded for "his obstinate refusal to put on wearing apparel"); M.U. i. 226-227 (useful). J. A. S. B. 1924, pp. 111-122. He was buried north-east of the Jama Masjid, Delhi.

v3.c38.s4.4

Sarmad was a pantheist, and his smooth-flowing verses breathe not only the mystic fervour of the Sufi, but also a lofty spirit of catholicity which rises above the wrangle of sects and adores the truth inherent in all creeds. As he taught his pupil Abhay Chand to sing,

v3.c38.s4.5

"I am a follower of the Furqan—a priest, and an anchorite;
I am a Rabbi of the Jews, an idolator and a Muslim!"
And again,
"In the Kaba and temples alike they preserve
only His stone and His wood.
At the one place *He* takes the form of the 'black stone'
[ adored at the Kaba ]
and at the other *He* becomes the idol of the Hindu."

v3.c38.s4.6

His attitude to Muhammad was one of deep respect. He extolled the Arabian Prophet as a latterday Joseph, a more weighty Sun; "Muhammad is to Joseph what the red rose is to the yellow; he is to the Sun what a heavy thing is to a light one." But, on several points of Muslim theology and tradition, his opinions were unorthodox. For instance, he taught that the Old Testament denies the prophetship of Christ, and that the words in the books of the Prophets which the Christians take as referring to the coming Messiah are either applied by Daniel and Isaiah to their own selves, or bear a palpably different interpretation from that put by the Christians. And, again, he held that the advent of Muhammad as a messenger of God is not foreshadowed in the Talmud, but that the Jews are there warned against accepting his faith or joining his followers; that Muhammad was the Scourge of God prophesied in the Pentateuch as coming in future to chastise the sinning children of Israel; and that circumcision was an exclusively Jewish sacrament to which the Muslims had no right.

v3.c38.s4.7

Others of his opinions were equally novel. "God," he held, "is a *material* substance according to the Jews, and His materiality is symbolized by a human figure and body. At times He diffuses Himself like the separate rays of the Sun....The reward of good deeds and the punishment of sins take place in *this* world. A man's soul is born again after a period of sleep exactly as long as his last life; life in the world and repose in the grave alternate exactly like day and night....Every element that exists in the universe, is present in the human body....There ought to be, according to the Jewish religion, a living Prophet always present in the world to give currency to the Law of Moses.''

v3.c38.s4.8

Sarmad used to go about stark naked. As an uncompromising Monist, he denied the existence of Matter, and felt no shame about anything pertaining to his body. He justified his imitation of the state of innocence in respect of dress in the very words of his contemporary, John Milton :

v3.c38.s4.9

``He who invested thee with the king's crown,
Clad me all in the garb of distress.
He put dresses on all whom He saw sinful ;
On the sinless He conferred the robe of nakedness !''*

v3.c38.s4.10

In support of his conduct he appealed to a Talmudic tradition that the Jews before the time of Moses wore no clothing and that the Prophet Isaiah himself in his old age used to walk naked.

v3.c38.s4.11

A bench of Muslim theologians sat in judgment over Sarmad and doomed him to death ``on account of his nakedness,'' as Aurangzib's servant Aqil Khan Razi says, or because frequently words opposed to the Holy Law were uttered by him,"* as a Hindu writer 80 years afterwards affirmed. But Sarmad's refusal to cover his lower limbs could hardly have been the ground for passing the death sentence on him, because we read of no Hindu Naga *sannyasi* or Jain Digambar monk being beheaded by order of Aurangzib for the same offence. The real reason was political; as even a modern apologist of Aurangzib† admits, "His friendship for Dara Shukoh, whose accession to the empire he is said to have foretold, made him politically a suspect."

v3.c38.s4.12

∗ *Cf. Paradise Lost*, iv. 313—316. ``——Dishonest shame of Nature's work, honour dishonourable, Sin-bred, how have ye troubled all mankind With shows instead !''

v3.c38.s4.13

† Maulvi Abdul Wali, who defends Aurangzib's religious policy and asserts that "the stupendous fabric of the mighty empire of the Mughals fell rapidly into pieces, after his death, not because of Aurangzib's intolerance, but because of his sons' and grandsons'

v3.c38.s4.14

Sarmad mounted the scaffold singing extempore verses in a lofty strain of Sufism, and laid his head down on the block rejoicing that the body, which had so long hindered the union of his soul with the Beloved, was at last being removed by the friendly agency of the sword! With his last breath he sang,

v3.c38.s4.15

"My friend, the naked sword, has come! I know Thee, in whatever guise Thou comest!"

v3.c38.s4.16

Some years afterwards another execution for religion is recorded. On 3rd November, 1672 a Shia named Muhammad Tahir, an officer of long standing, then acting as *diwan* of Hasan Ali Khan, was beheaded, because he had cursed the first three Khalifs, and the Censor had demanded his death in accordance with Canon Law. [*M.A.* 120.]

v3.c38.s4.17

∗ Anand Ram Mukhlis, tr. by Irvine in *Indian Magazine*, 1903, p. 120.

v3.c38.s4.18

In 1667, a Portuguese friar who had embraced Islam and then reverted to his old faith, was put to death at Aurangabad for apostacy. [*Storia*, ii. 159.]

v3.c38.s4.19

The Bohra sect have a tradition that their spiritual guide, Sayyid Qutb-ud-din of Ahmadabad, was killed with 700 of his followers, by order of Aurangzib.* We know from the Persian histories that there was a bloody feud between the Shia and Sunni sections of the Bohras, and also that the influence of the governors of Gujrat used to be directed to the repression of the Shia Bohras, who enjoyed toleration only when the subahdar happened to be a Persian or Shia himself. Aurangzib would naturally have supported the policy of persecuting these heretics (*rafizi*).

v3.c38.s4.20

impotency and inability to support it." (*Ind. Antiq.*, 1910, p. 120). The author of the *Masir-ul-umara* also holds, "In truth the chief reason of his execution was his companionship of Dara Shukoh. Otherwise, [why did not the Emperor punish] the naked fanatics and foolish babblers like him who wander in every lane and bazar?" (*i*. 227).

v3.c38.s4.21

∗ *M. U.* i. 241; *Mirat-i-Ahmadi*, 377; *Bom. Gaz.* i. pt. 1, 288.

Linked texts (2)