• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CHAPTER 6 AURANGZEB AND THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE MUGHAL STYLE Shah Jahan's third surviving son and successor, Aurangzeb, is generally con- sidered the last effective Mughal ruler. Under his successors the Mughal domain diminished. Even in Aurangzeb's reign, persistent warfare in the Deccan and increased factionalism among the nobility had an impact on the empire's stability. Most believe that a lack of vitality in artistic production paralleled this military and political instability. As a result, the architecture of Aurangzeb and the later Mughals has largely been ignored. It should not be. All the same, under Aurangzeb and his successors the framework of earlier architectural patronage was changed. That is, under the earlier Mughals the emperor was the model patron. The nobility generally regarded the type of structures he built and the styles he favored as the ideal to emulate. Under Aurangzeb, and especially under his successors, that changed. There was no dynamic imperial patron, so the nobility and other classes built independently of strong central direction, often employing styles and motifs that still echoed those established in Shah Jahan's reign. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS DURING AURANGZEB'S REIGN When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, most believed that he would not survive. This sparked a war of succession among the imperial princes with Aurangzeb emerging as victor. He first celebrated his coronation in Delhi's Shalimar garden in 1658 and again the same year in the palace of Shahjahanabad, then adding to his name the title cAlamgir (World Seizer). Although Shah Jahan recovered and lived until 1666, he remained a prisoner in the Agra fort for the rest of his life. Aurangzeb's brothers, including the former heir apparent Dara Shukoh, were executed, murdered or, in the case of Shah Shujac, pursued until death. Until 1681, Aurangzeb maintained his residence in Delhi. Among his most pressing problems were on-going troubles with the rebel Maratha Shivaji which finally ended in victory for the Maratha. Shivaji's death in 1680 did not terminate the Maratha threat to Mughal authority, for his son Shambuji was no less a warrior than his father. It was in pursuit of him that Aurangzeb perma- nently left Delhi for the Deccan. The second half of Aurangzeb's reign was spent in the Deccan where Shambuji and his Maratha successors continued to plague Mughal forces until Aurangzeb's death in 1707. As a result north India 252 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Australian Catholic University, on 08 Oct 2017 at 20:31:31, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521267281.007 Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 AURANGZEB'S PATRONAGE received less imperial attention than previously, changing the nature of architectural patronage there. By the end of Aurangzeb's fifty-year reign, the Mughal empire covered nearly the entire subcontinent. The only area not under Mughal control was the southernmost tip of India and a small area controlled by Afghans in the north- west. This is comparable to the situation at the end of Akbar's almost equally long reign, when the Mughal empire stretched into the Deccan. However, despite these seeming similarities, the differences were much deeper. Akbar bequeathed to his successors the foundations of a stable empire, unshakable until the early eighteenth century. By the time of Aurangzeb's death, the fabric of the empire had been weakened considerably by continuous warfare in the Deccan, by Sikh uprisings as well as by rebellion of the various houses of Rajasthan. Financially the empire was in dire straits. Aurangzeb also failed to maintain balance in the Mughal administrative system, most notably in the matters of rank (mansabdari) and landholdings. Factionalism among the nobility thus increased. Moreover, Aurangzeb's progressive inability to assimilate local elite chieftains (zamindars) into the Mughal government estranged yet another influential group. The alienation of these groups under- mined a critical feature of the Mughal state. That is, Aurangzeb's predecessors had viewed themselves as fathers to their people and made their presence felt through close contact with the highest-ranking nobility, who, in turn, main- tained close contact with lesser nobles, petty princes and local landholders. Aurangzeb failed to maintain this system effectively, thus essentially pro- moting factionalism and, by extension, rival patronage systems. AURANGZEB'S PATRONAGE Attitude toward Hindu construction Condemned by some as a religious zealot and praised by others as an upholder of Islam, Aurangzeb and his religious policies are among the most misunder- stood of all Mughal history. There is no doubt that Aurangzeb was a devout Sunni Muslim. Highly educated, he spent his leisure reading the Quran and in prayer. Aurangzeb's court also assumed an increasingly orthodox atmosphere. For example, the practice of jharoka, the daily presentation of the emperor to his subjects, was abandoned since it was derived from the Hindu notion of darshan. Court dancing girls and musicians were released, but only ostensibly for religious reasons. Aurangzeb did not have the resources to maintain them. More controversial than the increasing austerity of the court and its ritual is Aurangzeb's attitude toward Hindu construction, especially temples. Com- mon belief holds that he destroyed massive numbers of Hindu temples and banned the construction of new ones. True, he did not encourage the 253 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Australian Catholic University, on 08 Oct 2017 at 20:31:31, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521267281.007 Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 AURANGZEB construction of new temples, continuing a policy already in practice under his father, Shah Jahan. But when Aurangzeb did destroy temples, he did so not out of bigotry but as a political response when his authority was challenged. For example, the Keshava Deva temple in Mathura, built by the Mughal amir Raja Bir Singh and supported by imperial grants, was destroyed to retaliate for seriously disruptive Jat uprisings in the Mathura area in 1669—70.' Mughal losses were heavy. cAbd al-Nabi Khan, the commandant of Mathura (faujdar) and the patron of that city's Jamic mosque (Plate 177), was among the Mughals killed.2 Temples in Cooch Behar were destroyed in 1661 after the local rajas there had defied Mughal authority.3 Those Hindus who remained loyal were rewarded, indicating that temple destruction in Cooch Behar was politically motivated, not simply an aggressive act against Hindus. The demolition of temples as Udaipur, Jodhpur and other places in Rajasthan in 1679 and 1680, too, was a response to long-term recalcitrance on the part of the ranas there.4 Similarly the destruction of Raja Man Singh's famous Vishvanath temple in Benares was largely to punish Hindus, especially those related to the temple's patron, who were suspected of supporting the Maratha Shivaji.5 Many of these temples desecrated by Aurangzeb, including the largest and most notable among them, had been built by Mughal amirs. In each case, Aurangzeb reacted to the violation of a long-established allegiance system binding emperor and nobility by destroying property maintained previously with Mughal support. Thus in a sense Aurangzeb destroyed state-endowed property, not private works. Some of Aurangzeb's alleged destruction is more legendary than real. He is commonly accused of destroying the caves at Ellora and other sites in modern Maharashtra, but these assertions are made in considerably later sources.6 They are not mentioned in any contemporary Persian chronicle, where such destruc- tion is generally reported in terms of glorious holy war (jihad). Rather, Aurangzeb's own writings praise the beauty of Ellora. Aurangzeb himself says the caves must be the work of Almighty God,7 indicating that he had an aesthetic sensitivity that many assume he lacked, in fact, a sensitivity not 1 For imperial grants supporting the temple, see Mukherjee and Habib, "Akbar and the Temples of Mathura," 424. 2 Saqi Mustcad Khan, Maasir-i 'Alamgiri, tr, J. Sarkar (Calcutta, 1947), pp. 57-61. Henceforth cited as Saqi Mustcad Khan. 3 Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of'Alamgir, tr. S. M. Haq (Karachi, 1975), pp. 154, 157. 4 Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i 'Alamgiri, tr. T. Ahmad (Delhi, 1978), pp. 130, 157 note 7; Saqi Must'ad Khan, p. 130; Khafi Khan, History, pp. 266-67. 5 S. N. Sinha, Subah of Allahabad under the Great Mughals (New Delhi, 1974), pp. 65-68. 6 For example Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb, 5 vols. (Calcutta, 1925-30), in: 285, cites a late source and suggests that the failure to ruin other sites was due to the intervention of a deity or to poisonous snakes and insects. 7 cInayat Allah Khan Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat, ed. and tr. S. M. A. Husain (Delhi, 1982), p. 27 of English text and 13 of Persian text. Also, see Saqi Mustcad Khan, p. 145. 254 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Australian Catholic University, on 08 Oct 2017 at 20:31:31, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521267281.007 Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 AURANGZEB S PATRONAGE limited to Islamic patronized structures. Moreover, decrees (farman) testify that imperial support was provided for temples throughout Aurangzeb's reign.8 These orders were issued either to protect the rights of Hindu subjects or to reward service rendered by Hindus. Imperial mosques Contemporary histories relate that Aurangzeb repaired numerous older mosques.9 The frequent mention of his repair and construction of mosques suggests that this was the architectural enterprise he most highly valued.

Load more

  40

Copy Link