History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c45.s6: §7. Formation of a nation impossible in a theocracy.
History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c45.s6
- Language
- English
§7. Formation of a nation impossible in a theocracy.
v3.c45.s6.1
When public offices are distributed in consideration of race or creed and not of merit, when birth and not efficiency is the qualification demanded in those who are to serve the State, public posts rightly come to be regarded as the spoils of war; the official system becomes a hereditary form of military pension and not a machinery for doing certain necessary services to the community at a minimum cost and maximum efficiency. The non-Muslim populations are, therefore, driven to conclude that they have no lot or part in such a State; it is alien to them, and its fall would mean no injury to the community but only a personal loss to a body of self-seekers. The Islamic theocracy when set up over a composite population has the worst vices of oligarchy and of alien rule combined.
v3.c45.s6.2
In Mughal India it was, in addition, the dominion of a small minority. And this minority differed from the politically depressed majority not in race or culture, but in creed only. Centuries of intermarriage had left no Muhammadan in India—not even of the blood royal—who could claim absolute purity of foreign descent; they were all Hindustan-born, Hindu blood flowed in their veins, they had the same language, manners and dress as their Hindu subjects. The minority, therefore, could not justify its monopoly of power and office, its political privileges and social hauteur, by any pretended superiority of racial qualities, physical or mental. Religion was the only line dividing the two classes. Thus the subjects' attitude to the State was naturally vitiated by the odium which theological differences excite all the world over. It was rightly felt by all persons outside the fold of the dominant creed that the power and resources of the community, entrusted to the Government for the public good, were being misused by being applied to the propaganda of a Church which aimed at their extinction. Such a State had no right to be called national; it did not rest on the love and devotion of the people.
v3.c45.s6.3
§8. Toleration under Islam exceptional and contrary to Quranic law.
v3.c45.s6.4
Such was the ideal of the State as conceived by orthodox Islam, and such were its results when carried out to the full extent of its theory. It was the accepted political end, not of the ignorant peasantry or rude soldiery, but of kings and ministers, scholars and saints. No doubt, common sense often triumphed over logic and statesmanship over theology; or the weakness of human nature made it impossible for every king and every officer to enforce the intolerant system everywhere or in its entirety. Thus it happened that under Muslim rule there were periods when the Hindus enjoyed toleration and security of property, or when an enlightened and liberal king encouraged them to make progress in literature and art, wealth and public service, and his State grew in strength and material resources.
v3.c45.s6.5
But such indulgence of infidelity was by its very nature precarious and exceptional. The Muslim world regarded it as a deplorable falling off from the orthodox ideal, and a wicked neglect of royal duty. The liberal king would be publicly reprimanded by some pious scholar for having bartered his soul away for gold; he would be called upon to return to the pure and unadulterated law of Islam. Quotations from the Holy Book would support the demand of the bigot and would find a ready response in the hearts of the Muslim soldiery on whose sword depends the king's power,—for, in Islamic theory, he does not occupy the throne by hereditary succession or divine right; he is merely the elected captain of the militant body of Islam (*amir-ul-muminin*), the responsible first servant of the community (*jamait*). For the stability of his own position he must throw political wisdom to the winds, and "chastise the infidels" according to the letter of the Law.
v3.c45.s6.6
Therefore, the growth and progress of non-Muslims, even their continued existence, is incompatible with the basic principles of a Muslim State. The political community is in a condition of unstable equilibrium, till either the dissenters are wiped out or the sceptre passes out of Muslim hands. The literal interpretation of the Quranic Law sets up a chronic antagonism between the rulers and the ruled, which has, in the end, broken up every Islamic State with a composite population. And the reign of Aurangzib was to illustrate this truth in a form clear to the meanest intellect.