AURANGZEB RELIGIOUS POLICY- ARPIT MAURYA ‘ADVAIT’

1. INTRODUCTION
“His Majesty, in his heart, desired to establish Islam. Therefore, he prohibited Hindu
practices, destroyed temples, and enforced the jizya, so that the infidels may know their
place.”
— Translation from Khafi Khan’s Muntakhab-al-Lubab
The reign of Aurangzeb, from 1658 to 1707, was one of the most contentious periods in
Mughal history. Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached its territorial apex, but it
also came to an end. When Aurangzeb took power, the chief Qazi denied the crown to
him since his father was still alive. In the end, he had to appeal to Qazi Abdul Wahab of
Gujrat (who was rewarded with the position of chief Qazi), who ruled that because Shah
Jahan was too weak and weak to carry out his royal duties, so Aurangzeb's coronation is
legal. This is one of the earliest examples of Aurangzeb using religion to justify political
actions.
Regarding the religious measures, Aurangzeb stopped practicing Jharoka Darshan
or showing himself to the public from the balcony, as he considered it a superstitious
practice against Islam. Likewise, he forbade the ceremonial weighing of gold, silver and
other items of the emperor on his birthday, known as Tuladan. In 1675, he also forbade
astrologers to prepare diaries. In 1679, the practice of the emperor placing a tika on the
forehead of a new raja was stopped.
Even the official story-writing department was abolished as a cost-saving measure.
Clearly, financial and political problems have led to most of these measures, and even
if they are justified on religious grounds. In this respect, Aurangzeb has not deviated
from the policy of his predecessors, but to an extent he was radical compared to earlier
rulers.
2. THE REIMPOSITION OF JIZYA
The most important measure of Aurangzeb's religious policy was the re-establishment
of Jizya on April 2, 1679, with the official objective of "controlling the infidels and
distinguishing a believer's land from the of the infidels". However, the fact that it was
imposed after so many years shows that religion is not the only reason to reposition it.
The motives behind the reimposition of Jizya are debated. Jadunath Sarkar says that it
was a part of Aurangzeb’s biggoted policies. S R Sharma argued that it was a ploy of
Aurangzeb to introduce mass Islamization, since the poor Hindu peasants would now
convert to Islam to avoid paying jizyah.
Satish Chandra argues that the decision to impose jizya was both ideological and
political. It rallied the clergy on his side and it unified Muslims against Aurangzeb’s
Maratha and Rajput rivals. Ishwaradas emphasized on the role of the ulama and the
Muslim theologians in the move. Contemporary forieign accounts of Manucci and
Thomas Roll state that the move was to replenish the treasury as well as force mass
conversion among the poor.
A point to note is that Jizya was only reimposed many years after Aurangzeb became
Emperor. So, if he wished to convert the masses, why didn’t he start Jizya at the start of
his reign. Scholars argue that the policy was driven by economic concerns. Both Irfan
Habib and Satish Chandra note that there was an economic crisis during the reign of
Aurangzeb (although they disagree on the cause of it: Habib says that there were
structural weaknesses in the Jagirdari system while Chandra says the wars of expansion
were draining the treasury). According to Faruki and A Aziz, Aurangzeb was forced to
reinstate jizyah since he had abolished too many taxes in the beginning of his career,
leading to a revenue deficit.
Satish Chandra counters this view by noting that the income from jizya was put in a
separate treasury (khazana-i-jaziya) which was for needy Muslims. Thus, it hardly
relieved the general treasury. Another important factor to note is that this policy seems
to have not caused any mass conversion to occur. Aurangzeb’s jizya is best seen as a way
to consolidate his orthodox and Islamic support base after the sudden rebellions of non-
Muslim groups like the Jats, Sikhs, the Rajputs and the Marathas. Thus more of a
political move.
3. THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES
“In this month of Ramzan, the temple of Vishwanath at Banaras was demolished by
order of His Majesty, and a mosque was erected on its site.”
— Maasir-i-Alamgiri
Aurangzeb’s policy of destroying temples has been a point of contention for many. His
policy on temples was based on Sharia which stated that while temples were to be
preserved, no new temples should be built. As Governor of Gujarat, he had ordered a
number of new temples in Gujarat to be destroyed including the Somnath temple.
Mustaid Khan (Aurangzeb’s biographer) asserts that the motive to destroy temples was
to “establish Islam” in India.
According to Richard Eaton, since religion and politics were intertwined, the
destruction of temples after a victory was symbolically removing the old regime. Thus,
temples were also destroyed by Hindu rulers as well. It is in this context we must view
the actions of Aurangzeb.
Satish Chandra analyzed it in relation to larger political trends of the time. Most of the
temples destroyed during Aurangzeb’s reign were those of groups like the Rathores, Jats
and Marathas treated as rebels first and Hindus later. For instance, Aurangzeb ordered
the destruction of Vishvanath Temple at Varanasi, which was established by Raja Man
Singh. The temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura built by Bir Singh Deo Bundela during
the reign of Jahangir were destroyed and a mosque; erected in their place. Mosques of
rebels were also destroyed as we see by the destruction of the Jama Masjid at
Golconda after the ruler tried to hide revenue.
Satish Chandra also provides that Aurangzeb looked upon temples as the centers of
spreading rebellious ideas, i.e. ideas which were not acceptable to the orthodox
elements. Therefore, in 1669, he took strict action especially when he learnt that in
some of the temples in Thatta, Multan and especially at Banaras, both Hindus and
Muslims used to come from great distances to learn from the Brahmans.
Eaton argues that the evidence of Aurangzeb giving personal orders to destroy temples
is almost fragmentary and no more than a dozen temples were desecrated at this time.
Truschke goes so far as to say that Aurangzeb was “The Protector of Temples” who
continued the Mughal tradition of looking after Hindu temples. Chandra and Truschke
note several firmans in Aurangzeb's name, supporting temples, maths, chishti shrines,
and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, a gurudwara at
Dehradun, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples. However,
the general trend was of fewer grants and a more restrictive policy towards non-
Muslims compared to his more moderate predecessors.
4. MUSIC
“Music, which had been practised in the court for generations, was banned as being
against the tenets of Islam. But His Majesty occasionally listened to the naubat and
instrumental tunes.”
— Maasir-i-Alamgiri
Aurangzeb is also held responsible for allegedly repressing the cultural and musical
traditions which precipitated the final decline of the empire. By 1669, court music was
banned, but the naubat (royal band) and instrumental music was allowed to continue.
To highlight the fact that Aurangzeb was neither an orthodox hardliner nor hateful
towards music, historians like KB Brown highlighted his personal skill in the veena
and Hindustani music. K.B. Brown and S Chandra both argue that the financial crisis
was more responsible for such changes to reduce court expenses.
Katherine Butler Brown inspects this notion and rejects it by examining the sources
used by the historians to construct the argument and analysing the nature of the ban.
She points out that such similar constructions are a result of over reliance on two
contemporary sources: - Manucci’s Storia do Mogor (1699) and Khafi Khan’s
Muntakhab al Lubab (1718); both having internal as well external contradictions and
conflicting evidence.
Both of these accounts assert on the totality and complete enforcement for the rest of
Aurangzeb’s reign. However, Brown argues, given the case, if the ban was so rigid, the
musical life would have undergone catastrophic changes and would not have resumed
smoothly after the emperor’s death as stated in the records. Hence, it is problematic to
arbitrarily reconcile to these two accounts alone.
The official Mughal chronicler recorded the presence of male and female musicians,
dancers in the celebrations of Aurangzeb's coronation. Brown also questions the nature
of the ban if there was one at all. The reports of other European travellers in India in this
period elaborates upon descriptions of festivals, funerals, weddings with active
participation of musicians and dancers. Hence, Brown argues that even if accounts of
Manucci and Khafi Khan are accepted, it can only be objectively argued that the ban was
specific to certain types of music; poorly enforced; short-lived or widely flouted.
5. PHASES OF AURANGZEB RELIGIOUS POLICY
Satish Chandra argues that Aurangzeb was an orthodox Sunni Muslim, he was a
learned person in Islamic jurisprudence, but despite this we don’t see Aurangzeb
advocating bigotry, orthodoxy and rigidity, in fact like his predecessors he doesn’t give
any significant position to Ulemas. He divides Aurangzeb’s reign is divided into 2
phases:
(I) up to the conquest of Bijapur & Golkonda in 1687
(II) from 1687 up to Aurangzeb death in 1707.
The initial stage of his reign can be characterised as reformist, as by 1658 the empire
was facing financial crisis due to forming gap between Hasil & Jama, therefore certain
reforms were made as he was trying to control the expenditure of the state like he
discontinued the inscribing of Kalam on coins, discontinued the celebration,
stopped the Jharokha Darshana & Tuladan. In fact the emperor’s birthday &
coronation was never celebrated. He was making a lot of cuts in the expenditure.
During the first phase, Aurangzeb was at first apparently inclined to believe that he
could drive a wedge between Marathas & Deccan by appealing to the religious
sentiments of the former. Between 1681 & 1685 he expectedly wrote to the Deccan
rulers to forsake the infidel Sambhaji and to join hands with the emperor who honours
none but the people of true faith. It was during this phase that in order to underline that
Aurangzeb was the true defender of the true faith. However Aurangzeb soon found out
that the appeal to religion was a little avail.
With the extensive control extending up to Jinji, populated by hostile Hindus & backed
up by Rajas & zamindars, Simultaneously he had to deal with the marathas. This new
situation called for a modification in Aurangzeb’s religious policy.
6. CONCLUSION
After such detailed analysis of various controversial facets of Aurangzeb’s reign which
paints him as a bigoted despot; it can be concluded that these popular stereotypes and
narratives are historically futile and arise largely due to face value readings of biased,
incoherent and inconsistent sources without taking into consideration the motivations
of the author and its context. Moreover, agenda of the colonial masters and the Hindu
Nationalists also drags image of Aurangzeb in a disadvantageous, infamous position due
to his alleged “communal actions”. Thus, it can be stated that more analytical work
needs to be done on such facets to prevent it from being overshadowed by
oversimplified political agendas and narratives, which often suit contemporary political
contexts and marginalisation policies.

***
 RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF DARA SHIKOH
1. INTRODUCTION
Dara Shukoh (1615–1659), the eldest son of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and Mumtaz
Mahal, remains one of the most captivating and debated figures in early modern Indian
history. A mystic, philosopher, prince, and translator, Dara Shikoh endeavored to create a
bridge between two major religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent—Islam and
Hinduism. His religious legacy is defined by a unique attempt to reconcile Islamic
Sufism with Hindu Vedanta. In an age of rising orthodoxy and dynastic conflict, Dara
envisioned an inclusive religiosity at the heart of the Mughal empire.
2. SUFI FOUNDATIONS AND EARLY MYSTICISM
Dara Shikoh’s religious journey began within the Islamic tradition, particularly its
mystical branch—Sufism. He was profoundly influenced by the Qadiri Sufi order. His
spiritual mentors included Miyan Mir, the renowned Sufi of Lahore, and Mulla Shah
Badakhshi, under whom Dara became a disciple. His early commitment to Sufi ideals is
evident in his biographical work Sakinat al-Awliya (1642), which recounts the lives of
saints in the Qadiri tradition. Here, he emphasized spiritual realization (ma‘rifat) over
ritualistic performance and rejected miracles and asceticism as prerequisites for divine
closeness.
In this phase, Dara projected himself not merely as a seeker but as “divinely chosen”, as
noted by Munis D. Faruqui in his essay Dara Shukoh, Vedanta and Imperial Succession in
Mughal India. Dara claimed to have received visions and special spiritual insights—
aligning with the Sufi idea of the insan-i kamil (Perfect Man). Faruqui further argues that
this self-image was a way for Dara to present himself as spiritually and politically
legitimate, especially in the context of imperial succession.
Importantly, Dara’s mystical orientation never led him away from Islam. In his writings,
including Hasanat al-‘Arifin, he cited the Quran and Hadith, affirming the oneness of
Allah and expressing that his engagement with other traditions was part of uncovering
the many faces of divine unity (tawhid). As Supriya Gandhi explains, Dara viewed his
spiritual and political lives as intertwined. He envisioned a model of rulership grounded
in ethical wisdom, spiritual enlightenment, and interreligious dialogue—echoing the
Sufi-king ideal present in Indo-Islamic political thought.
3. RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM: ISLAM AND VEDANTA
The defining phase of Dara Shikoh’s religious career came with his sustained
engagement with Hindu Vedanta. From the late 1640s onward, he broadened his
inquiry beyond Sufi Islam to explore metaphysical and mystical traditions in Hinduism.
He believed that Hindu monotheists (whom he called muwahhidan-i Hind) shared the
same essential beliefs as Sufis.
His most famous comparative work, Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn (The Confluence of the Two
Oceans, 1655–56), articulates this idea. Dara argued that Sufi Islam and Advaita
Vedanta converge on the ultimate truth of non-duality—the unity of existence. He
emphasized that distinctions between religions were semantic rather than
substantive. For instance, the concepts of atman and ruh (soul), or brahman and haqq
(Ultimate Reality), refer to the same metaphysical truth.
Jonardon Ganeri, in his essay Dārā Shukoh and the Transmission of the Upaniṣads to
Islam, notes that Dara did not treat Hindu texts as alien or inferior but considered them
a legitimate path to divine knowledge. Dara’s claim that both traditions reveal the same
spiritual truths reflects a universalist hermeneutic—where scripture is understood
through other scriptures, and truth is not the monopoly of one religion.
This intellectual exploration culminated in his most controversial work, Sirr-i Akbar
(The Great Secret, 1657), a Persian translation of 52 Upanishads. Dara declared that
the Upanishads were the “hidden scriptures” (kutub al-maknuna) referenced in the
Quran, thus claiming scriptural equivalence between Islamic and Hindu texts. This
radical assertion drew sharp criticism from orthodox clerics. Yet, as Carl Ernst
highlights, Dara’s approach was deeply respectful and methodical. He even included
Sanskrit-Persian glossaries, used commentaries by Adi Shankara, and translated terms
through Sufi vocabulary (e.g., brahma-loka became sadrat al-muntaha).
This was not eclecticism for its own sake. It was part of a larger vision—one where the
divine could be approached through many names, languages, and symbols, without
forsaking the core monotheistic ethos.
4. ENGAGEMENT WITH HINDU SAINTS AND BABA LAL
Beyond texts, Dara Shikoh also engaged in personal dialogues with Hindu saints,
which further shaped his syncretic outlook. One of the most important figures in this
context was Baba Lal Das, a Vaishnavite ascetic from Punjab. Dara held deep
conversations with Baba Lal, recorded in Persian prose as part of what Supriya Gandhi
calls the “dialogue genre” of Mughal-Indic literature.
These dialogues explored the path of devotion (bhakti), renunciation (vairagya), and
self-realization (moksha), showing a remarkable openness to Hindu theological
frameworks. Dara respected Baba Lal’s spiritual authority and considered his insights
on the divine comparable to those of Muslim mystics. Their conversations became part
of a Mughal tradition of interreligious discourse, where Indic and Persianate forms of
knowledge met.
Through figures like Baba Lal, Dara personalized the religious synthesis he sought in
texts like Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn. These relationships reflected his belief that spiritual
wisdom was not confined to any one religious community.
5. MOTIVATIONS: POLITICAL, SPIRITUAL, OR BOTH?
Scholars have long debated whether Dara’s religious syncretism had political
motivations. Satish Chandra argues that Dara’s inquiries were primarily spiritual and
lacked political calculation. However, Faruqui contends that Dara subtly used spiritual
authority to strengthen his imperial claims. In Sirr-i Akbar, while there are no overt
political statements, Dara’s self-portrait as a wise, just, spiritually enlightened prince
implies that he possessed the moral qualifications to rule.
This mirrors earlier Mughal traditions, particularly Emperor Akbar, who used religious
pluralism as a tool for consolidating rule. But whereas Akbar institutionalized his
religious experiments (e.g., Din-i Ilahi), Dara’s pluralism was philosophical and
mystical, not bureaucratic.
Thus, Dara’s religious ideas should be understood as both spiritual convictions and
political gestures—not in a cynical sense, but as part of an integrated vision of a just
and pluralistic empire.
6. CONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL RECEPTIONS
Dara Shikoh’s religious ideas met fierce opposition during his lifetime. Orthodox ulema,
particularly those aligned with Aurangzeb, declared him a heretic. The Alamgirnama
and other court chronicles accused him of apostasy, and during his trial, Dara’s
engraved ring—bearing “Allah” on one side and “Prabhu” on the other—was used as
proof of his supposed betrayal of Islam.
In contrast, modern nationalist and secular historians have celebrated Dara as a
martyr for religious harmony. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad saw him as a mystical
visionary who transcended narrow dogma. Kalika Ranjan Qanungo, in his 1935
biography Dara Shukoh, wrote that Dara’s legacy is essential for solving India’s religious
conflicts. Similarly, Bikrama Jit Hasrat, in Dara Shikuh: Life and Works, highlighted the
intellectual richness of his contributions.
However, Rajeev Kinra provides a more balanced view, arguing that Dara was also
criticized for personal arrogance and political naivety, not just for his religious ideas.
Some elites and nobles may have found him unsuited to rule because of his idealism and
detachment from military and administrative affairs.
7. CONCLUSION
Dara Shikoh’s religious ideas represent a rare and courageous intellectual effort to
create harmony in a culturally diverse empire. Through his works—Sakinat al-Awliya,
Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn, Sirr-i Akbar, and others—he constructed a theology that
embraced Sufism, respected Vedanta, and sought to reveal the essential unity beneath
religious diversity. Rather than a failed liberal or heretical prince, Dara Shikoh should be
remembered as a sincere seeker of truth—one who lived and died for the conviction
that God could be known by many names, but was ultimately One.

***