Why an exhibition on Aurangzeb, some may ask ?

Why an exhibition on Aurangzeb, some may ask ? Firstly, I have been a close
student of Indian history and one of its most controversial figures has been
Aurangzeb (1658-1707). It is true that under him the Moghol Empire reached
its zenith, but Aurangzeb was a very cruel ruler ' some might even say
monstrous. What are the facts? Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated
mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them
the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had
mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred
places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on
them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath
temple on the coast of Gujurat,  the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir
mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya.
The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5
figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also
wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an
interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded
because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. FACT, the Trust which I head, is doing an exhibition on 'Aurangzeb as he was
according to Moghol documents' . Thus we thought we should go at the root of the matter. History (like
journalism) is about documentation and first hand experience. We decided to
show Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible
number of farhans, of original edicts of Aurangzeb, hand-written in Persian
in India's museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives.
It was not always easy to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes
downright hostility and we had to go once to the CM to get permissions.
Indeed the director of Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years, we were
the first ones asking for these farhans dealing with Aurangzeb destructive
deeds. Then we asked painters from Rajasthan to reproduce in the ancient
Moghol style some of the edicts : the destruction of the Somnath temple, or
the trampling of Hindus protesting jizya tax by Aurangzeb's elephants, or
the order from Aurangzeb prohibiting Hindus to ride horses and palanquins,
or the beheading of Teg Bahadur and Dara Shikoh.
People might say: 'ok, this is all true, Aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but
why rake the past, when we have tensions between Muslims and Hindus today' ?
There are two reasons to this exhibition. The first one is that no nation
can move forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their
own history, the good and the bad, the evil and the pure.  The French for
instance have many dark periods of their history, more recently some of the
deeds they did during colonization in North Africa or how they collaborated
with the Nazis during the 2d world war and handed over French Jews who died
in concentration camps (French people are only coming to terms with it
now).The argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against
the other does not hold either: French Catholics and Protestants, who share
a very similar religion, fought bitterly each other. Catholics brutally
murdered thousands of Protestants in the 18th century; yet today they lived
peacefully next to each other. France fought three wars with Germany in the
last 150 years, yet they are great friends today.
Let then Hindus and Muslims come to terms with what happened under
Aurangzeb, because Muslims suffered as much as Hindus. It was not only Shah
Jahan or Dara Shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's
Indian Muslims who have been converted at 90%. Aurangzeb was the Hitler, the
Asura of Medieval India. No street is named after Hitler in the West, yet in
Delhi we have the Aurangzeb road, a constant reminder of the horrors
Aurangzeb perpetrated against Indians, including against his own people.
Finally, Aurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that Sunni
Islam was the purest form of his religion and he sought to impose it with
ruthless efficiency - even against those of his own faith, such as his
brother. Aurangzeb clamped  down on the more syncretic, more tolerant Islam,
of the Sufi kind, which then existed in India.But he did not fully succeed.
Four centuries later, is he going to have the last word ? I remember, when I
started covering Kashmir in the late seventies, that Islam had a much more
open face. The Kashmir Muslim, who is also a descendant of converted Hindus,
might have thought that Allah was the only true God, but he accepted his
Kashmir Pandit neighbor, went to his or her marriage, ate in his or her
house and the Hindu in turn went to the mosque. Women used to walk with open
faces, watch TV, films. Then the shadow of Aurangzeb fell again on Kashmir
and the hard-line Sunnis came from Pakistan and Afghanistan : cinemas were
banned, the burqua imposed, 400.000 Kashmiri Pandits were chased out of
Kashmir by violence and became refugees in their own land and the last Sufi
shrine of Srhar-e- Sharif was burnt to the ground (I was there). Today the
Shariat law has been voted in Kashmir, a state of democratic, secular
India,UP's Muslims have applauded, and the entire Indian Media, which went
up in flames when the Government wanted Vande Mataram to be sung, kept
quiet. The spirit of Aurangzeb seems to triumph.
But what we need today in India - and indeed in the world - is a Dara
Shikoh, who reintroduces an Islam which, while believing in the supremacy of
its Prophet, not only accepts other faiths, but is also able to see the good
in each religion, study them, maybe create a synthesis. Islam needs to adapt
its scriptures which were created nearly 15 centuries ago for the people and
customs of these times, but which are not necessarily relevant in some of
their injunctions today. Kabir, Dara Shikoh and some of the Sufi saints
attempted this task, but failed. Aurangzeb knew what he was doing when he
had his own brother's head cut. And we know what we are saying when we say
that this exhibition is very relevant to today's India
May the Spirit of Dara Shikoh come back to India and bring back Islam to a
more tolerant human face.
François Gautier
*Aurangzeb as he was  according to Mughal Records*
Aurangzeb, Emperor Shah Jahan's sixth son, was born on 24th October 1618 at
Dohad in Madhya Pradesh, and wrested India's crown from his father before
the end of June 1658, after defeating his brother Prince Dara Shukoh's
armies, first at Dharmat near Ujjain (15th April 1568) and the second, led
by Dara himself, at Samugarh on 29th May 1658. The War of Succession to the
richest throne in the world was practically over with this victory, and
Aurangzeb secured his position by making Murad, his brother and  accomplice
in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner, by treachery, on 25th
June. He had already made his old father Emperor Shah Jahan a prisoner in
the Agra Fort (8th June 1658).
Shah Jahan survived his confinement by nearly eight years and the
disgraceful manner of his burial (Exhibit No.5)will ever remain a stigma on
this unscrupulous son Aurangzeb's advent to the throne in his father's life
time was not welcomed by the people of India, because of the treacherous
manner it was achieved; , but public opinion became all the more hostile
towards him when Prince Dara Shukoh, the favourite son of Shah Jahan, the
translator of the Upanishads (Exhibit No.2), and a truly liberal and
enlightened Musalman, was   taken prisoner  on the Indian border,  as he was
going to Persia. Dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the
streets of Delhi on 29th August 1659. The French Doctor, Bernier, was an
eye-witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for
Dara (Exhibit No.3) which so much alarmed Aurangzeb that he contrived to
have a decree from his Clerics announcing death-sentence for his elder
brother on the charge of apostasy (Exhibit No.4).
Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not
interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off
the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power.
Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his
formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam
who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat, and with the
advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and
directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia,
Persia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all
countries, and for all times to come.
One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb's policy was to demolish Hindu
temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666)removal of the carved railing,
which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he
had observed 'In the religionof theMusalmans it is improper even to look at
a temple', and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara
Shukoh (Exhibit No.6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by
destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No.6, 7, 8,
Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).
In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general
order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and
established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public
worship (Exhibit Nos.9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava
Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No.12) and in its place a lofty
mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were
carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum
Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was
changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No.13) is thus no fancy
imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.
This was followed by Aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated
temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No.11), Keshava Rai
temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No.12 and Painting, Exhibit
No.13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No.14).To save the idol of Shri Nathji
from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana
Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that
Aurangzeb would  have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave
Rajputs, before he couldeven touch the idol (Exhibit No.15)
Aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war
conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds
of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja
Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the
Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh
of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open
support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during
which the temples built on the bank of Rana's lake were destroyed by his
orders (Exhibit No.23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three
hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No.25, Text),
including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of
the Maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs
(Exhibit Nos.20, 21).
Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous
fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of
the finest temples of Kumbha's time (Exhibit No.22). From Marwar (in Western
Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per
Aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps
of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No.19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the
Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be
tolerant towards his creed.