Religious Policy of Aurangzeb

Summary

The paper “Religious Policy of Aurangzeb” surveys the long reign of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and argues that his religious programme was shaped by a combination of personal piety, Sunni orthodoxy and political pragmatism. The author begins by analysing the changes in court ceremonies that accompanied Aurangzeb’s accession. He replaced the solar Ilahi calendar with the lunar Hijra year, ended celebrations of the solar new year and gradually discontinued music and the practice of presenting himself daily at the jharokha‑darshan balconyfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf#:~:text=216%20Religious%20Policy%20of%20Aurangzeb,on%20the%20coins%20being%20defiled. Even the custom of weighing the emperor against gold and silver was abolished, as was the stamping of the Kalima on coinsfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf#:~:text=In%20the%20twelfth%20year%20weighing,were%20used%20for%20%E0%AA%B9%20population. These reforms were intended to remove practices the emperor considered Hindu or extravagant without completely alienating Hindu nobles or the administrative apparatus. The article then turns to moral regulations aimed at disciplining the court and bureaucracy. Aurangzeb dismissed royal astrologers and prohibited the making of almanacsfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf#:~:text=practice%20altogether%20in%201679%20probably,in%20the%20nature%20of%20his. Royal workshops stopped manufacturing cloth of gold and elaborate scent burners; lavish displays at court were discouragedfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf#:~:text=In%201114%20%281702,slavers%2C%20Mannfacture%20and%20use%20of. He also restricted the Kalima’s presence on coins to avoid it being defiled by non‑Muslim hands. These measures reflected his desire to minimise what he saw as un‑Islamic superstitions while upholding Islamic legal norms. A substantial portion of the paper examines punitive regulations against Hindus. Aurangzeb re‑imposed the pilgrimage tax and restricted Hindu festivals such as Holi and Dipavali. Orders forbade Hindus (except certain Rajputs and Marathas) from riding Turani horses or elephants and from carrying arms; other edicts regulated dress and imposed higher customs duties on Hindu merchantsfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf. The purpose of these edicts, the author argues, was to mark a clear distinction between Muslims and non‑Muslims in public life. Nonetheless, the emperor retained Rajput allies and continued to honour Hindu nobles at court, illustrating the pragmatic limits of his religious policy. The final sections discuss the jizya, a poll tax levied on adult Hindu males. The article details the collection of the tax and the numerous petitions for remission when local protests or administrative difficulties occurredfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_2.pdf#:~:text=olways%20%E2%80%98deaf%2010%20the%20pleadings,DilkAushe%2C%20MS.%2C%201275. Aurangzeb exempted women, minors, the blind, slaves and beggars, but insisted that able‑bodied Hindus either pay or convert to Islam. While the emperor refused blanket remissions, he occasionally cancelled the tax in particular regions to pacify rebellions or curry favour with local elites. In conclusion, the paper argues that Aurangzeb’s religious policy cannot be reduced to simple bigotry. It was a consistent attempt to govern according to Islamic law, moderated by political expediency. The emperor’s reforms eliminated some syncretic Mughal practices yet he never entirely abandoned collaboration with Hindu nobles. The article thus presents Aurangzeb as a complex ruler whose piety and pragmatism jointly shaped Mughal statecraft.