Climax and Disintegration of the Mughal Empire — Aurangzeb's Reign

There was no clear tradition of succession among the Timurids. The Muslim political thinkers' principle of nomination by the ruler had not been asserted during the Sultanat period. The Timurid tradition of partitioning was never applied in India. Hindu traditions were also unclear — Tulsidas, a contemporary of Akbar, said a ruler had the right of giving the tika to any one of his sons, but there were many Rajput cases where such a nomination had not been accepted by the other brothers.

Shah Jahan had four sons — Dara, Shuja, Aurangzeb, and Murad — all carefully trained for government and the art of warfare. Their character:

• Dara: Liberal in religious views, patron of learning, affable, Shah Jahan's favourite, but vain, with little actual experience of warfare, and a poor judge of human character.
• Shuja and Murad: Brave but slothful and ease-loving.
• Aurangzeb: Good organiser, able commandant, shrewd negotiator; had won over many individual nobles (both Hindu and Muslim) by paying court to them.

From the outset, the real contest was between Dara (eldest son) and Aurangzeb (third son).

---

Triggering Events

Towards the end of 1657, Shah Jahan fell ill at Delhi; his life was despaired of. Rumours spread that Shah Jahan had already died and Dara was concealing the reality. The princes, persuaded or pretending to believe these rumours, made preparations for war.

Shah Jahan, anxious to avoid conflict, nominated Dara as his successor (wali-ahd), raising his mansab from 40,000 to the unprecedented rank of 60,000 zat. But these actions convinced the other princes of Shah Jahan's partiality, strengthening their resolve.

Course of Events

• Shah Jahan sent an army east under Dara's son Sulaiman Shikoh (aided by Mirza Raja Jai Singh) against Shuja who had crowned himself in Bengal.
• Another army under Raja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur was sent to Malwa against Aurangzeb and Murad's combined forces.
• Jaswant found himself facing the combined forces of Aurangzeb and Murad. Deeming retreat dishonourable, he fought — a mistake. Battle of Dharmat (15 April 1658): Aurangzeb decisively defeated him. This emboldened Aurangzeb's supporters and dispirited Dara.
• Dara's mistake: he assigned for the eastern campaign some of his best troops (under Sulaiman Shikoh), denuding the capital-Agra.
• Sulaiman Shikoh's forces surprised and defeated Shuja near Banaras (February 1658) and then pursued him into Bihar — moving away from Agra when needed most.
• Battle of Samugarh (29 May 1658): Fought near Agra with about 50,000 to 60,000 on each side. Dara was no match for Aurangzeb in generalship. The Hada Rajputs and Saiyids of Barha — Dara's main dependables — could not compensate for the weakness of his hastily recruited army. Aurangzeb's troops were battle-hardened and well led.
• After Samugarh, Dara fled to Lahore, then to Sindh, then into Gujarat. He was invited to Ajmer by Jaswant Singh, but Jaswant had already been won over by Aurangzeb with a promise of rank of 7000 and return of parganas seized in 1654. The Rana of Udaipur was also promised religious freedom and favours equal to those of Rana Sanga — so Dara failed to win even the important Rajput rajas.
• Battle of Deorai (March 1659): Last major battle; Dara fought against Aurangzeb near Ajmer. Then Dara moved into Gujarat then Afghanistan. In the Bolan pass, a treacherous Afghan chief made him a prisoner and handed him to Aurangzeb. A panel of jurists decreed Dara could not be suffered to live "out of necessity to protect the faith and Holy law, and also for reasons of state (and) as a destroyer of the public peace." Dara was executed. Aurangzeb used religion as a cloak for his political motives — a typical pattern.
• Aurangzeb had earlier defeated Shuja at Khajwah near Allahabad (December 1658). Shuja was hounded out of India into Arakan (April 1660) where he met a dishonourable death.

Aftermath: Family Reconciliation

After being seated securely, Aurangzeb tried to mitigate the harsh Mughal custom of war to death between brothers. At the instance of Jahanara Begum, Sikhr Shikoh (Dara's son) was released from prison in 1673, given a mansab and married to a daughter of Aurangzeb. Murad's son, Izzat Bakhsh, was also released and given a mansab. In 1669, Dara's daughter, Jani Begum, was married off to Aurangzeb's third son, Muhammad Azam. In the third generation, the families of Aurangzeb and his defeated brothers became one.

---

Aurangzeb ruled for almost 50 years. During his long reign, the Mughal Empire reached its territorial climax — at its height it stretched from Kashmir in the north to Jinji in the south, and from the Hindukush in the west to Chittagong in the east.

Aurangzeb proved to be a hardworking ruler who never spared himself or his subordinates in the tasks of government. His letters show close attention to all affairs of state. He was a strict disciplinarian who did not spare his own sons. In 1686, he imprisoned prince Muazzam on a charge of intriguing with the ruler of Golconda and kept him in prison for 12 long years. Even late in his life, when Muazzam was governor of Kabul, he trembled every time he received a letter from his father.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did not like ostentation. His personal life was marked by simplicity. He had the reputation of being an orthodox, God-fearing Muslim. In course of time, he began to be regarded as a zinda pir or "a living saint."

---

Moral and Religious Regulations

At the beginning of his reign, Aurangzeb forbade the kalma being inscribed on coins and discontinued the festival of Nauroz (considered a Zoroastrian practice favoured by the Safavid rulers of Iran). He appointed muhtasibs in all provinces to ensure that people lived their lives in accordance with the shara — they were responsible for regulating houses of ill-repute, gambling dens, weights and measures, and seeing that things forbidden by the shara were, as far as possible, not flouted openly.

Secular Decrees (Zawabits)

Apart from being an orthodox Muslim, Aurangzeb was also a ruler. He could not forget the political reality that the overwhelming population of India was Hindu and deeply attached to their faith. Any policy which meant the complete alienation of the Hindus and powerful Hindu rajas and zamindars was obviously unworkable. Hence he also issued secular decrees (zawabits), collected in the work Zawabit-i-Alamgiri. In practice, zawabits often modified the shara in view of Indian conditions.

Puritanical Measures (1669)

In the eleventh year of his reign (1669), Aurangzeb took a number of measures which have been called puritanical:

• Forbade singing in court; official musicians were pensioned off. Instrumental music and naubat (royal band) were, however, continued. Singing also continued to be patronised by the ladies of the harem and by individual nobles.
• Discontinued the practice of jharoka darshan (showing himself to the public from the balcony) — considered a superstitious practice against Islam.
• Forbade the ceremony of weighing the emperor against gold and silver and other articles on his birthdays.
• Forbade astrologers to prepare almanacs (order flouted by everyone including the royal family).
• The throne room was furnished cheaply and simply; silk clothes were frowned upon; gold railings in the diwan-i-am were replaced by lapis lazuli set on gold. The official department of history-writing was discontinued as a measure of economy.

Policy Towards Temples

At the outset of his reign, Aurangzeb reiterated the position of the shara that "long standing temples should not be demolished but no new temples allowed to be built." Old places of worship could be repaired "since buildings cannot last for ever." This position was clearly spelt out in farmans he issued to the brahmanas of Banaras, Vrindavan, etc.

However, his order regarding temples was not new — it reaffirmed a position which had existed during the Sultanat period and been reiterated by Shah Jahan early in his reign. In practice, it left wide latitude to local officials. After the rise of the liberal-minded Dara, a few temples had been demolished in pursuance of his order. Aurangzeb, as governor of Gujarat, had ordered a number of temples in Gujarat to be destroyed.

At the outset of his reign, Aurangzeb found images in these temples had been restored and idol-worship had been resumed. He ordered again in 1665 that these temples be destroyed. The famous temple of Somnath was apparently one of the temples mentioned.

However, it does not seem that Aurangzeb's order regarding ban on new temples led to large-scale destruction. As Aurangzeb encountered political opposition from Marathas, Jats, etc., he seems to have adopted a new stance — in case of conflict with local elements, he now considered it legitimate to destroy even long standing Hindu temples as a measure of punishment and as a warning. Further, he began to look upon temples as centres of spreading subversive ideas (ideas not acceptable to the orthodox elements).

Thus, in 1669, he issued orders to governors of all provinces to put down such practices and destroy the temples where such practices took place. As a result, a number of famous temples — the Vishwanath temple at Banaras and the temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura (built by Bir Singh Deo Bundela in the reign of Jahangir) were destroyed and mosques erected in their place.

The destruction of the Keshava Rai temple had a political motive as well. Mustaid Khan, author of the Maasir-i-Alamgiri, says that on seeing this, "the proud rajas were stifled, and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall."

During 1679–80, when there was a state of hostility with the Rathors of Marwar and the Rana of Udaipur, many temples of old standing were destroyed at Jodhpur and its parganas and at Udaipur. Aurangzeb's zeal for destruction of temples abated after 1679 — we do not hear of any large-scale destruction of temples in the south between 1681 and his death in 1707.

Assessment: While Aurangzeb may have remained formally within the framework of the shara, his temple policy was a setback to the policy of broad toleration followed by his predecessors. The atmosphere generated was bound to create disquiet among large sections of Hindus. However, it is wrong to think that there were any orders for the general destruction of temples.

Reimposition of Jizyah (1679)

In the twenty-second year of his reign (1679), Aurangzeb finally reimposed jizyah. According to the shara, in a Muslim state the payment of jizyah was obligatory (wajib) for the non-Muslims. Akbar had abolished it.

What it was NOT:

• Not meant to be an economic pressure for forcing Hindus to convert — women, children, the disabled, the indigent (income less than means of subsistence) were exempted, as were those in government service. Nor did any significant section of Hindus change their religion due to this tax.
• Not a means of meeting a difficult financial situation — although income from jizyah was said to have been considerable, Aurangzeb sacrificed a considerable sum by giving up a large number of cesses called abwabs which were not sanctioned by the shara and were hence considered illegal.

What it WAS:

1. Both political and ideological in nature — meant to rally the Muslims for the defence of the state against the Marathas and the Rajputs who were up in arms, and possibly against the Muslim states of the Deccan (especially Golconda which was in alliance with the infidels).
2. Jizyah was to be collected by honest, God-fearing Muslims specially appointed for the purpose; its proceeds were reserved for the ulama — a big bribe for the theologians.

Impact: Bitterly resented by Hindus who considered it a mark of discrimination. Its mode of collection had special features — the payee was required to pay it personally and sometimes suffered humiliation at the hands of the theologians. In rural areas, jizyah was collected along with land revenue; only well-to-do Hindus in cities were subjected to these practices. Hindu traders observed hartal against the measure. In a number of instances, the amin or collector of jizyah was killed. Aurangzeb was unrelenting, and was reluctant to grant exemption even when remission in land revenue had to be given on account of natural calamities.

Aurangzeb's attitude on religious discrimination: On one occasion, Aurangzeb wrote on a petition in which a post was claimed on religious grounds: "what connection and what right have worldly affairs with religion? And what right have matters of religion to enter into bigotry? For you is your religion, for me is mine. If this rule (suggested by) were established it would be my duty to extirpate all (Hindu) rajas and their followers." Thus, Aurangzeb did not try to change the nature of the state, but reasserted its fundamentally Islamic character.

Assessment on Religious Policy: Aurangzeb's religious beliefs cannot be considered the basis of his political policies. While an orthodox Muslim desirous of upholding the strict letter of the law, as a ruler he was keen to strengthen and expand the empire and did not want to lose the support of Hindus to the extent possible. However, his religious ideas on one hand, and his political or public policies on the other, clashed on many occasions, and Aurangzeb was faced with difficult choices. Sometimes this led him to adopt contradictory policies which harmed the empire.

---

Jats and Satnamis

The Jats of the Agra-Delhi region (living on both sides of the river Yamuna) were mostly peasant cultivators, only a few being zamindars. With a strong sense of brotherhood and justice, the Jats had often come into conflict with the government. Since the imperial road to the Deccan and the western seaports passed through this area, the Mughal government had taken a serious view of rebellions and taken stern measures.

First Jat rebellion (1669): Under local zamindar Gokla in the Mathura region. The rebellion spread rapidly among the peasants. Jat levies swelled to 20,000. In a stiff battle, the Jats were defeated; Gokla was captured and executed. But the movement was not completely crushed.

In 1672, there was an armed conflict between the peasants and the Mughal state at Narnaul, not far from Mathura. This time the conflict was with a religious body called Satnamis — mostly peasants, artisans, and low-caste people (goldsmiths, carpenters, sweepers, tanners, and "other ignoble beings" by a contemporary writer). They did not observe distinctions of caste and rank between Hindus and Muslims and followed a strict code of conduct. Starting from a clash with a local official, it soon assumed the character of an open rebellion. The emperor had to march in person to crush it. It is interesting that many local Hindu zamindars (many of whom were Rajputs) sided with the Mughals in this conflict.

Second Jat rebellion (1685): Under the leadership of Rajaram. The Jats were better organised this time and adopted guerilla warfare, combining it with plunder. Aurangzeb approached Raja Bishan Singh, the Kachhwaha ruler, to crush the uprising. Bishan Singh was appointed faujdar of Mathura and the entire area was granted to him in zamindari. Conflict between the Jats and the Rajputs over zamindari rights complicated the issue — most of the primary zamindars (cultivating peasants who owned the land) being Jats, and the intermediary zamindars (land revenue collectors) being Rajputs.

The Jats put up stiff resistance. By 1691, Rajaram and his successor Churaman were compelled to submit. However, Jat peasant unrest continued, and their plundering activities made the Delhi-Agra road unsafe for travellers. In the 18th century, taking advantage of Mughal civil wars and weakness, Churaman was able to carve out a separate Jat principality in the area.

Nature of Jat movement: What started as a peasants' uprising was diverted from its character and culminated in a state in which Jat chiefs formed the ruling class.

The Afghans

Conflict with hardy Afghan tribesmen living in the mountain region between Punjab and Kabul was not new. The Afghans had little means of livelihood in the rugged mountains and little option but to prey on caravans or enrol in the Mughal armies. Their fierce love of freedom made service in the Mughal armies difficult. The Mughals generally kept them happy by paying subsidies, but growth of population or the rise of an ambitious leader could lead to a breach.

First Afghan uprising (1667): Under Bhagu, leader of the Yusufzai tribe, who proclaimed as king a person named Muhammad Shah (claiming descent from ancient royal lineage, proclaimed himself his wazir). A religious revivalist movement called the Raushanai had provided the intellectual and moral background. Bhagu's followers started ravaging the Hazara, Attock, and Peshawar districts and brought traffic in the Khyber to a standstill. Aurangzeb deputed Chief Bakhshi, Amir Khan. In 1671, Maharaja Jaswant Singh was appointed as thanedar of Jamrud to watch over them.

Second Afghan uprising (1672): The leader was the Afridi leader, Akmal Khan, who proclaimed himself king, struck khutba and sikka in his name, declared war against the Mughals, and summoned all the Afghans to join him. With a following "more numerous than ants and locusts", they closed the Khyber Pass. Moving forward, Amin Khan advanced too far and suffered a disastrous defeat in the narrow defile — 10,000 men perished and cash and goods worth two crores were looted. This brought other tribesmen including Khushhal Khan Khattak (a sworn enemy of Aurangzeb from whose hands he had suffered imprisonment) into the fray.

In 1674, another Mughal noble Shujaat Khan suffered a disastrous rout in the Khyber but was rescued by a heroic band of Rathors sent by Jaswant Singh. In mid-1674, Aurangzeb himself went to Peshawar and remained in the neighbourhood till end of 1675. Slowly, by force and diplomacy, the Afghan united front was broken and peace was slowly restored.

The Afghan uprising showed that sentiments of resistance to Mughal rule and the urge for regional freedom were not confined to sections of Hindus. The Afghan uprising also helped to relax Mughal pressure on Shivaji during a crucial period, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Mughals to follow a forward policy in the Deccan till 1676 when Shivaji had crowned himself.

The Sikhs

The Sikhs were the last to come into military conflict with Aurangzeb. There was conflict with Sikh Gurus during the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, but the reasons were political and personal rather than religious.

The Gurus had started living in style, with an armed following, and assumed the title of sachcha padshah ("the true sovereign"). There was no conflict between the Guru and Aurangzeb till 1675 when Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested with five of his followers, brought to Delhi, and executed. The causes are not clear. According to some Persian accounts, the Guru had joined hands with a Pathan, Hafiz Adam, and created disturbances in Punjab. According to Sikh tradition, the execution was due to intrigues against the Guru by some members of his family who disputed his succession and who had joined others. There is also the reason that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism and raised a protest against religious persecution in Kashmir by the local governor. Sikhism had gradually spread to many Jat peasants and low-caste artisans who were attracted by its simple, egalitarian approach. The economic discontent of these sections may have been reflected by the Guru.

The execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur forced the Sikhs to go back to the Punjab hills. It also led to the Sikh movement gradually turning into a military brotherhood. A major contribution in this sphere was made by Guru Govind Singh. He showed considerable organisational ability and founded the military brotherhood — the khalsa — in 1699. Before this, Guru Govind Singh had made his headquarters at Makhowal or Anandpur in the Punjab foothills.

The organisation of the khalsa further strengthened the hands of the Guru. However, an open breach between the Guru and the hill rajas took place only in 1704 when the combined forces of a number of hill rajas attacked the Guru at Anandpur. The rajas had again to retreat and pressed the Mughal government to intervene. Mughal forces assaulted Anandpur but the Sikhs fought bravely and beat off all assaults. When starvation began inside the fort, the Guru was forced to open the gate apparently on a promise of safe conduct by Wazir Khan. But when the forces of the Guru were crossing a swollen stream, Wazir Khan's forces suddenly attacked. Two of the Guru's sons were captured and, on their refusal to embrace Islam, were beheaded at Sirhind. The Guru lost two of his remaining sons in another battle. After this, the Guru retired to Talwandi and was generally not disturbed.

Aurangzeb and Guru Govind Singh: It is doubtful whether the dastardly actions of Wazir Khan against the sons of the Guru were carried out at the instance of Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb, it seems, was not keen to destroy the Guru and wrote to the governor of Lahore "to conciliate the Guru". When the Guru wrote to Aurangzeb in the Deccan apprising him of the events, Aurangzeb invited him to meet him. Towards the end of 1706, the Guru set out for the Deccan and was on the way when Aurangzeb died. According to some, he had hoped to persuade Aurangzeb to restore Anandpur to him.

Although Guru Govind Singh was not able to withstand Mughal might for long, or to establish a separate Sikh state, he created a tradition and also forged a weapon for its realisation later on. It also showed how an egalitarian religious movement could, under certain circumstances, turn into a political and militaristic movement, and subtly move towards regional independence.

Relations with Rajputs — Breach with Marwar and Mewar

The Rajput Alliance Before Aurangzeb

Jahangir settled the long drawn out conflict with Mewar in 1613. Jahangir and Shah Jahan maintained the alliance with the Rajputs — Rajput contingents served in the Deccan, Balkh, and Qandhar. However, no Rajput raja was appointed governor of a province, and no further matrimonial relations were made with the leading Rajput rajas (though Shah Jahan himself was the son of a Rathor princess). Both Raja Jaswant Singh and Jai Singh held the ranks of 7000/7000 at the time of Aurangzeb's accession.

Breach with Marwar

Aurangzeb raised Jaswant Singh's mansab from 5000/5000 to 6000/6000 and appointed him to important commands including governorship of Gujarat. Jai Singh remained a close friend and confidant of Aurangzeb till his death in 1667.

Jaswant Singh, who had been deputed to look after the affairs of the Afghans in the north-west, died towards the end of 1678. He had no surviving male issue. Hence, the question of succession to the gaddi immediately arose.

Mughal tradition on disputed succession: In case of a disputed succession, the state was brought under Mughal administration (khalisa) to ensure law and order, and then handed over to the chosen successor. Thus in 1650, when there was a dispute about succession in Jaisalmer, Shah Jahan first took the state under khalisa and then sent Jaswant Singh at the head of an army to instal the candidate chosen by the emperor.

There was another reason for bringing Marwar under khalisa — the maharaja had large sums of money due to the state which he had not been able to pay back. Many Rajputs, whose territories had been granted to him as jagir by the emperor, were eager to use the absence of a ruler on the gaddi to create disturbances.

Aurangzeb's handling: Two parganas in Marwar were allotted for the maintenance of the family and supporters of Jaswant Singh. Aurangzeb assembled a strong army and marched to Ajmer to enforce his orders. Rani Hadi, the chief queen of Jaswant Singh, who had been objecting to handing over charge of Jodhpur, had no option but to submit. Mughal officials were posted all over Marwar and orders were issued that "new" temples should be demolished or at least closed down.

Two sons had been born at Lahore to two ranis of Jaswant Singh after his death. Their claim to the gaddi was strongly canvassed. Aurangzeb decided to award the tika of Jodhpur to Inder Singh, the grandson of Jaswant Singh's elder brother Amar Singh, in return for a succession fee of thirty-six lakhs of rupees. He may also have wanted to avoid a minority administration in Marwar.

According to some modern historians, Aurangzeb offered Jodhpur to Ajit Singh, the son of Jaswant Singh, on condition of his becoming a Muslim. There is no such suggestion in contemporary sources. According to a contemporary Rajasthani work, Hukumat-ri-Bahi, Aurangzeb offered a mansab to Ajit Singh when he was presented at the court in Agra and declared that the two parganas in Marwar, Sojat and Jaitaran, would continue as his jagir. Thus, Aurangzeb was virtually contemplating a partition of the state of Marwar between two branches of the family.

The Rathor sardars rejected this compromise. Angered, Aurangzeb ordered that the princes and their mothers be put in confinement at the fort of Nurgarh. This alarmed the Rathor sardars who made their escape from Agra along with one of the princes and crowned him as Ajit Singh at Jodhpur amidst great rejoicing. Aurangzeb marched to Ajmer; the Rathor resistance was crushed and Jodhpur was occupied.

Mewar Enters the War

At this stage, Mewar entered the war on the side of Ajit Singh. Rana Raj Singh — at one stage had supported Aurangzeb but had been gradually alienated. He had sent a force of 5000 men under one of his leading men to Jodhpur to back up the claim of Rani Hadi. He was deeply opposed to Mughal interference in the internal affairs of the Rajputs, such as questions of succession. He also nursed a grievance at Mughal efforts to detach from Mewar the states to its south and west (Dungarpur, Banswara, etc. which had at one time been tribute-paying dependent rulers).

In November 1679, Aurangzeb attacked Mewar. A strong Mughal detachment reached Udaipur and even raided the camp of the Rana who had retreated deep into the hills to conduct a harassing warfare. The war became highly unpopular and reached a stalemate. Aurangzeb's eldest son, prince Akbar, tried to take advantage of this situation by turning his arms against his father. In alliance with Rathor chief Durgadas, he marched on Ajmer (January 1681) where Aurangzeb was helpless. But prince Akbar delayed and Aurangzeb was able to stir up dissensions in his camp by false letters. Prince Akbar fled to Maharashtra and Aurangzeb heaved a sigh of relief.

The campaign of Mewar now became secondary for Aurangzeb. He patched up a treaty with Rana Jagat Singh (who had succeeded Rana Raj Singh): the new Rana was forced to surrender some of his parganas in lieu of jizyah and was granted a mansab of 5000 on a promise of loyalty and of not supporting Ajit Singh. Regarding Ajit Singh, all that Aurangzeb would promise was that mansab and raj would be given to him when he came of age.

This agreement satisfied none of the Rajputs. The Mughals kept their control on Marwar and desultory warfare continued till 1698 when at last Ajit Singh was recognised as the ruler of Marwar. But the Mughals refused to relax their hold on the capital, Jodhpur. The Rana of Mewar too remained dissatisfied. There was no change in this situation till Aurangzeb died in 1707.

Assessment: Aurangzeb's policy towards Marwar and Mewar was clumsy and blundering and brought no advantage. The breach with Marwar and Mewar weakened the Mughal alliance with the Rajputs at a crucial period, above all it created doubts about the firmness of Mughal support to old and trusted allies and the ulterior motive of Aurangzeb.

---

It has sometimes been argued that all these movements (excluding the Afghan one) represented a Hindu reaction against Aurangzeb's narrow religious policies. This is too simplistic. In a country where the overwhelming section of the people consisted of Hindus, any movement which came into conflict with the predominantly Muslim central government could be dubbed a challenge to Islam. Likewise, the leaders of these "rebel" movements could use religious slogans or symbols to broaden their appeal.

However, we must be careful in analysing the real nature of these movements:

• Jats: Peasant-agrarian background — a conflict between cultivating peasants (Jats) and intermediary zamindars (Rajputs) over zamindari rights.
• Satnamis: Low-caste social revolt; Hindu zamindars/Rajputs sided with Mughals against them.
• Sikhs: Religion played a role but economic discontent of Jat peasants was also a factor; ultimately a movement towards regional independence.
• Afghans: Tribal character; urge for regional freedom; resistance not confined to Hindus.
• Marathas: Question of local independence.
• Rajputs: Basically a problem of succession and interference in internal affairs.

The only movement in which religion played a primary role was the Sikh movement. The Jat and Sikh movements culminated in attempts to set up independent regional states. The struggle of the Afghans was tribal in character, but there also the sentiment of setting up a separate Afghan state was at work. Economic and social factors, as well as the sentiment of regional independence, were major factors in shaping these movements.

---

• GS Paper I — Medieval History: The war of succession, Aurangzeb's religious policy, and the revolts are among the most frequently tested topics — directly linked to questions on Mughal decline.
• Continuity vs Change: Aurangzeb's temple policy (ban on new temples) was NOT new — it reaffirmed a position from the Sultanat period and reiterated by Shah Jahan. The novelty was its politicisation and use as punishment.
• Agrarian History: The Jat revolts illustrate the conflict between cultivating zamindars (Jats) and revenue-collecting zamindars (Rajputs) — a structural tension in the Mughal agrarian system.
• Religious Integration: Aurangzeb's jizyah and temple policies represent the limits of the Mughal syncretic tradition — directly relevant to questions on communal relations and their political consequences.
• Nationalism: The Afghan, Jat, Sikh, and Maratha movements prefigure the regional identities and power centres that would replace the Mughal Empire in the 18th century.
• Interlinks: War of Succession ↔ Mansabdari instability ↔ Mughal Decline | Jat Revolt ↔ Agrarian tensions | Sikh Movement ↔ Religious reform ↔ Regional state formation | Rajput breach ↔ Loss of Mughal alliances

---

1. Battle of Dharmat vs Samugarh: Dharmat (15 April 1658) = Aurangzeb defeated Jaswant Singh. Samugarh (29 May 1658) = Aurangzeb decisively defeated Dara near Agra. Deorai (March 1659) = last major battle; Dara defeated near Ajmer. Do NOT confuse these three battles.
2. Dara's wali-ahd rank: Shah Jahan raised Dara's mansab to 60,000 zat — unprecedented. Do not confuse with 40,000 (that was the original rank).
3. Jizyah reimposition: In the 22nd year of Aurangzeb's reign = 1679 (not earlier, not later). Aurangzeb had contemplated it earlier but did not do so for fear of political opposition.
4. Nauroz: Aurangzeb discontinued it as it was considered a Zoroastrian practice — NOT because he disliked the Persian new year per se. Jharoka darshan was discontinued as superstitious, not as a Hindu practice.
5. Temple policy — NOT general destruction: There were NO orders for the general destruction of temples. Destruction was context-specific — as punishment during conflict, or when temples were seen as centres of subversive ideas. The zeal for destruction abated after 1679.
6. Guru Tegh Bahadur — executed by Aurangzeb in 1675: The causes are disputed (Sikh tradition vs. Persian accounts). The execution — NOT a general anti-Sikh policy — led to the Sikh movement becoming militarised.
7. Khalsa founded in 1699 — by Guru Govind Singh (the 10th Guru), NOT by Guru Tegh Bahadur or Guru Nanak.
8. Wazir Khan and Guru's sons: The beheading of Guru Govind Singh's sons at Sirhind was by Wazir Khan. It is DOUBTFUL whether this was at Aurangzeb's instance — Aurangzeb seems to have written letters to conciliate the Guru.
9. Marwar succession — Aurangzeb's offer: Contemporary sources (Rajasthani work Hukumat-ri-Bahi) do NOT support the claim that Aurangzeb offered Jodhpur to Ajit Singh only on condition of conversion to Islam. He offered a and the two as jagir.

---

• War of succession 1657–59; key battles: Dharmat (April 1658), Samugarh (May 1658), Deorai (March 1659)
• Dara: wali-ahd with 60,000 mansab; executed by Aurangzeb using religious cover
• Murad: treacherously imprisoned by Aurangzeb; killed at Gwalior two years later
• Shuja: defeated at Khajwah (December 1658); hounded out to Arakan (April 1660)
• Aurangzeb's reign: ~50 years; territorial climax from Kashmir to Jinji, Hindukush to Chittagong
• Zinda pir = "living saint" = how Aurangzeb came to be regarded
• Nauroz discontinued; jharoka darshan discontinued; muhtasibs appointed in all provinces
• Jizyah reimposed in 1679 (22nd year of reign) — political and ideological, not for conversion or revenue
• Temple policy: NOT general destruction; ban on new temples was old policy; destruction as punishment post-1665/1669; abated after 1679
• Vishwanath temple (Banaras) and Keshava Rai temple (Mathura, built by Bir Singh Deo in Jahangir's reign) destroyed 1669
• Jat revolts: 1669 (Gokla, defeated), 1685 (Rajaram, guerilla warfare), 1691 (Churaman submitted); Churaman carved Jat principality in 18th century
• Satnamis (1672, Narnaul): low-caste religious body; Hindu zamindars sided with Mughals against them
• Afghan uprisings: 1667 (Bhagu/Yusufzai), 1672 (Akmal Khan/Afridi); Khyber blocked; Aurangzeb went to Peshawar in 1674–75
• Khushhal Khan Khattak: Pathan poet-warrior; sworn enemy of Aurangzeb; joined Afghan uprising
• Guru Tegh Bahadur (10th — WRONG, he was 9th Guru): arrested 1675; executed Delhi
• Guru Govind Singh: founded Khalsa in 1699; sons beheaded at Sirhind by Wazir Khan
• Rajput breach: Jaswant Singh died 1678; Marwar dispute; Aurangzeb gave tika to Inder Singh for 36 lakh rupees; Ajit Singh crowned by Rathors; Mewar (Rana Raj Singh) entered war
• Prince Akbar's rebellion (January 1681): Aurangzeb's son; allied with Durgadas; fled to Maharashtra
• Rana Jagat Singh: treaty with Aurangzeb; surrendered parganas in lieu of jizyah; mansab of 5000
• Ajit Singh recognised as Marwar ruler only in 1698; Jodhpur capital retained by Mughals till Aurangzeb's death
• Only movement in which religion played a PRIMARY role = Sikh movement