The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 2

The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 2

What may be said about Aurangzeb as a person? Aurangzeb, as an individual, was deeply religious but it must be said that he also comes across as someone who was quite smart and, at the same time, grounded in reality. Also, a cruel, cruel man. (Yes, he was also an exceedingly cruel person, and that has come down in history as his reputation, but more on that in a later post.) In terms of public policy, it is perhaps accurate to say that he was misunderstood. Aurangzeb's public policy, as evidenced by a nishan sent to Rana Raj Singh of Mewar, emphasized tolerance (in principle - not arguing that it was actually practiced) and condemned intolerance that could lead to conflict and harm to the people. Despite ideological portrayals, the struggle for succession was not about religious orthodoxy versus liberalism but rather a question of political power—who would ascend the Mughal throne, Dara or Aurangzeb?

The Emperor Alamgir on Horseback - The Cleveland Museum of Art

The debate surrounding Aurangzeb's intentions—establishing dar-ul-Islam, rigid adherence to shari’a, or triumphing Muslim theology—remains contested. However, his commitment to territorial expansion and consolidation, evident in the increase in Rajput mansabdars in his administration and the prominence of figures like Raghunath Ray Kayastha, challenges simplistic narratives. The very idea that statist power should be used to simply create a larger empire ought to be challenged by liberals and libertarians alike; however, in the current political milieu, it is only the libertarians who remain to challenge the idea that emperors should even be forgiven their abuses of power. Almost every historian, including Audrey Truschke, has conveniently forgotten that the aim of statist power is to advance the interests of the people, and that such interests can never be protected as long as it is under the control of monarchs. Thus, it is only libertarians who, today, consistently and cogently make the case against the abuses of power of such monarchs as Auangzeb.

Aurangzeb's patronage of Hindu religious institutions, including temples and maths, suggests a nuanced approach to governance. Land grants were renewed, gifts offered, and Madad-i ma’ash grants continued, indicating a policy of religious inclusivity. However, the attack on certain temples, like the Vishwanath temple at Kashi and the Keshav Dev temple at Mathura, raises questions.

These attacks were not mere acts of iconoclasm but responses to rebellion or political misconduct. For instance, the destruction of the Vishwanath temple followed suspicions of aiding Shivaji's escape, while the attack on the Keshav Dev temple in Mathura was linked to a Jat rebellion and the killing of a patron of the local mosque.

Similarly, temples in Marwar and Mewar were targeted in response to rebellion and alliances contrary to Mughal interests. The Rathor rebellion, for instance, prompted attacks on temples patronized by rebel chieftains and supporters of Dara Shukoh, illustrating Aurangzeb's use of force to maintain political control.

In conclusion, the Aurangzeb-Dara Shikoh conflict reflects broader debates on governance and orthodoxy in Mughal India. While Aurangzeb's policies displayed elements of religious tolerance and inclusivity, his actions against rebellious factions underscored the authoritarian nature of Mughal rule. The dichotomy between political pragmatism and religious orthodoxy complicates interpretations of Aurangzeb's reign, highlighting the complexities of governance in an era of competing ideologies and power struggles. Ultimately, the fault in the policy of the Mughals was that they quite totally underestimated the importance of innovations. Where they should have encouraged the growth of education and the development of innovation, they instead encouraged the development of ... monuments.