Click here for free access
The Religious Policies of the Mughal Empire (1556–1707)
By Animekh Pandey | Part 1/2
Introduction
History of the Mughal Empire has always been weighed on scales by using modern eyes. The ideas of secularism, diversity, pluralism and tolerance, much preached by the West in our contemporary world, are the parameters they set for weighing different ages or rulers. One of the focuses of this paper would be to weigh the Mughal Empire on the basis of the conditions present at that time around the world.
I have used religion as an element to measure the same because religion was a crucial factor in determining the lives of people for centuries. Religion governed commerce, taxation, security and various other benefits necessary for people of that age and that’s the reason that the main focus of this article is on the religious policies of the Mughals.
To compare the Mughal policy with their contemporary European counterparts we must shed some light on the conditions of Medieval Europe. The series of war fought in Europe in the 16th and 17th century were religion centric.
We see Catholics persecuting Protestants, prosecution of minorities (like King Henry the fourth’s order of expelling the Jewish population) and a state focused on the idea that the religion of the Emperor must be the religion of the populous. When we weigh in this context we will find the Mughals more liberal and secular.
The second thought that might come would be as to the period that I have chosen. The reason was that the early Mughals did not get ample time to display their worth on this issue as stated by M. L. Roy Choudhury during proceedings of the Indian History Congress in 1946
Humayun was essentially a mystic and there is no instance of destruction of temple or interference with the worship of the Dhimmis under his rule. But his reign did not mark any perceptible departure from the traditional line either for better or for worse, so far as religion was concerned. Moreover, I have provided myself with constraints as it is demanded by the scope of my syllabus.
The main policy shift or even presence of a religious policy starts with the reign of Akbar, flows into the reign of Jahangir and Shah Jahan and severely modifies up in the reign of Aurangzeb. To weigh the standard of these religious policies, as stated earlier, I would balance them with the events of Medieval Europe.
The main benefits enjoyed by a majority religion in a European nation in the medieval ages were security; freedom to profess their religion; employment in aristocratic institutions and benefits given by the Church. Medieval Europe was fragmented on the lines of religion. Various factions of Christianity were competing for survival and trying to annihilate the other. We see that during the Affair of Placard where the entire city of Paris was filled up with anti-Catholic posters which lead to the expulsion of many Protestant thinkers from the city.
The Indian Context: The Mughals
For the entire period specified, let’s examine the rights of the non-Muslim population in India and let’s access it on the bases of different factors. The Mughals had a highly centralized form of government. With absolute power in his hands, the Mughal ruler had to depend on the support of a linguistically, religiously, and ethnically diverse nobility for the success of their policies.
Iqtidar Alam Khan paper in the journal ‘Social Scientist’ informs us that,
This is seen in the secular nature of the Justice system and Tolerant policies that were not designed to prefer any one religion. Moreover, we see the appointment of various non-Muslims in the Imperial administration. I would focus on the former issue first. Iqtidar Alam Khan informs us that,
In practice, many of the zawabit framed by Muslim rulers in India tended to dilute the impact of Islamic Shariat on the state. The zawabit (a prohibiting cow slaughter framed by Zainul Abidin of Kashmir during the 15th century and enforced all over the Mughal empire not only during the reign of Akbar but in those of Jahangir and Shah Jahan as well can be cited as an interesting example of this type of zawabit. The author informs us about a letter by Aurangzeb to one of his officials regarding the application of Sharia. It states,
In another letter he declares,
Examples like these inform us about the secular nature of the State.
We infer that all, irrespective of their religions, were protected. Moreover, they were treated as legal citizens as stated by Sajida S. Alvi in the journal ‘Studia Islamica’,
These policies indicate that they respected and also took responsibility for all their subjects. This policy was absent in Europe, where decrees were issued to seize lands belonging to the Protestant population in Prague by the Holy Roman Emperor.
The concept was to preserve the religion of the King and this was not done in the Mughal Empire. They followed the policy of tolerance. This might have been adopted due to two reasons. A major Indian influence on the life of Mughal rulers and the second could be the influence of the Persian rulers who practised the Mongolian principles of tolerance.
We see the Mughals adapting to the practice of the Mongolian Empire when they allow open practice of religion in return that they pray for the well-being of the Empire as well.
Akbar The Great
We see in the reign of Akbar that he had formally abolished the pilgrim-tax while he was scarcely twenty during his stay at Mathura. He removed the restrictions on the building of places of public worship and immediately afterwards numerous such places of worship were constructed.
Christians built their churches at Agra, Thatta Lahore and Cambay. Jain temples were built at Satrunjaya and Ujjain. Man Singh constructed at a cost of 5 lakhs of rupees a very beautiful temple at Brindaban, which has been very highly extolled by Abdul Latif in his Travels.
Regarding fairs, and festivals, the ideas of Akbar were cosmopolitan. Many festivals were permitted to be celebrated in the Empire by Akbar, for example, Shivaratri, Dashara, Holi, Basant.
Now, these developments show us the practical nature of Akbar and his concern for the non-Muslim population. The reasoning behind this would be that the stability of the state was only possible from content subjects and the recognition of non-Muslims as subjects in itself was revolutionary for the time.
We see that even in the form of matrimonial alliances he had with the Rajputs. Akbar acknowledged the fact that he could not ignore the majority population. His acts also were the reason that many Rajput principalities became a part of the Mughal Empire. We see this policy continuing owing to its success in Akbar’s reign.
Jahangir
Jahangir continued his father’s practice of permitting non-Muslims to build places of worship. Benares, the city of temples, added three scores and ten temples during Jahangir’s reign.
Bir Singh Bundela built a magnificent temple at Mathura, Christians were permitted to build churches at Ahmedabad and Hooghly, and burial grounds were set up at Lahore. We are also informed that,
Manrique in his Account of Missions and Travels also informs us of a litigation about a peacock belonging to a Hindu by a Muslim. He writes,
“The Muslim pleaded that he could not be accused of killing an animal which is sanctioned by Islam”
But the Shiqdar in charge retorted,
This spirit of liberalism in a subordinate officer in the matter of personal rights of the non-Muslim subjects must have radiated from the centre. The rights of existence of the non-Muslims in the land of the Muslims in India were an automatic and spontaneous matter sanctioned by usage and not always a matter of individual caprice and concession of a particular monarch.
Shah Jahan
We are informed the same about Shah Jahan,
“Shah Jahan inherited from his father and grandfather a high sense of justice and personally meted out justice irrespective of caste and creed. He spent 4 hours every day dispensing justice,” as Abdul Hamid Lahori says.
The reign of Shah Jahan was influenced a lot by Dara Shikoh, who is said to personally present a stone railing to the temple of Keshav Rai at Muttra. Jai Singh was given full control of Man Singh’s temple at Brindaban in 1619; Hindu temples of Gujarat were restored to the Hindus after 1646.
Aurangzeb, destroyer of the legacy?
We see that this influence might even have had a more harmonious ending had he been the ruler in place of Aurangzeb. The state of religious policy during Aurangzeb can be determined by the words of M. L. Roy Choudhury,
This indicates a major change in the policy of tolerance but Aurangzeb was not the initiator of this policy. But after the reign of Akbar, we see that the successions were never swift. They were accompanied with revolts and fragmentation of the nobility. This always led to the Emperor taking desperate steps to appease the orthodox Muslim population.
Domination, Religious or Political?
A close look at the central administration of the Mughals shows that the advisory councils were not restricted to the ministers, and high ranking nobles irrespective of their race and religion were instrumental in making and implementing them.
In the reign of Jahangir, we find a little affinity for orthodoxy practices. This can be thought so because Jahangir needed support during the early part of his reign. There were two reasons for the same. The first was his revolt in the later days of Akbar’s reign which had decreased his affinity with the Mughal court. The second was the revolt of Khusro. That is why we see,
These moves were rather taken to appease the Muslim nobility and to consolidate the position of Jahangir. He also took politically calculated moves in order to maintain his affinity towards his non-Muslim subjects as well. For example,
Now what we see here is the emperor desperately trying to consolidate his powers. The most easy lot, thus, is the one with the most influencing power.
Read the next part of the story:
This story was written by Animekh Pandey, Second Semester, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.), Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow. You can learn more about him here:
