JAZIA IN MUSLIM RULE AND OPPOSITION BY HINDUS IN INDIA

JIZYA IN MUSLIM RULE

This article is chiefly based on legacy of muslim rule in india by one of the  most respected historian of India    K S LAL

Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S Lal Page 47

HINDU SHOULD BE HUMILATED DURING GIVING JAJIA MUSLIM SHOULD SPIT IN THEIR MOUTH DURING COLLECTING OF JIZYA AND IMPOSTION JAZIA BY MOHAMMAD KISIM

And here is Maulana Ziyauddin Barani. He writes: What is our defence of the faith, cried Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji, that we suffer these Hindus, who are the greatest enemies of God and of the religion of Mustafa, to live in comfort and do not flow streams of their blood.3 And again, Qazi Mughisuddin explained the legal status of the Zimmis (non-Muslims) in an Islamic state to Sultan Alauddin: The Hindu should pay the taxes with meekness and humility coupled with the utmost respect and free from all reluctance. Should the collector choose to spit in his mouth, he should open the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it The purport of this extreme meekness and humility on his part is to show the extreme submissiveness incumbent upon the Zimmis. God Almighty Himself (in the Quran) commands their complete degradation4 in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true prophet: Mustafa has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith, or else be slain or imprisoned, and have all their wealth and property confiscated.5

Rate of  jajiya

 LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S LalPage 198

In contrast to the Muslim bourgeoisie, the life of the Hindu middle classes was different in many ways. They lived under the Muslim theocratic regime and paid the poll tax Jiziyah incumbent upon the non-Muslims. There were three rates of Jiziyah, 40, 20 and 10 tankahs imposed on three classes or income groups - the high, the middle and the low. 21 This in itself is a proof of the existence of a middle class among the Hindus. If Akbar abolished this tax, Aurangzeb reimposed it and the Hindu middle class paid the Jaziyah at the middle rate, or probably the high, for all through the medieval period they possess almost exclusively the trade and the wealth of the country. 22 Pelsaerts description of the Hindu middle class is apt and elaborate. He writes: First there are the leading merchants and jewellers, and they are most able and expert in their business. Next there are the workmen, for practically all work is done by Hindus, the Moslems practising scarcely any crafts but dyeing and weaving Thirdly there are the clerks and brokers: all the business of the lords palaces and of the Muslim merchants is done by Hindus - book-keeping, buying and selling. They are particularly clever brokers, and are consequently generally employed as such throughout all these countries.23

PROTEST OF BRAHMANS RAJPUTS AND BANIYA  AGAINST JAZIYA

 HARSH TREATMENT OF MUSLIM SULTANS TO CRAFTMANS ARTISANS THEY ORDRERDV THEM TO  WORK WITHOUT WAGES

 LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY KS LALPage 203 to 206

Sultan Firoz Tughlaq (1351-1388), writes Shams Siraj Afif, convened a meeting of the learned Ulama and renowned Mashaikh and suggested to them that an error had been committed: the Jiziyah had never been levied from Brahmans: they had been held excused, in former reigns. The Brahmans were the very keys of the chamber of idolatry, and the infidels were dependent on them (kalid-i-hujra-i-kufr und va kafiran bar ishan muataqid und). They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers gave it as their opinion that the Brahmans ought to be taxed. The Brahmans then assembled and went to the Sultan and represented that they had never before been called upon to pay the Jiziyah, and they wanted to know why they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were determined to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words (kalimat-i-pur naghmat) were reported to the Sultan, he replied that they might burn and destroy themselves at once for they would not escape from the payment. The Brahmans remained fasting for several days at the palace until they were on the point of death. The Hindus of the city then assembled and told the Brahmans that it was not right to kill themselves on account of the Jiziyah, and that they would undertake to pay it for them. In Delhi, the Jiziyah was of three kinds: Ist class, forty tankahs; 2nd class, twenty tankahs; 3rd class, ten tankahs. When the Brahmans found their case was hopeless, they went to the Sultan and begged him in his mercy to reduce the amount they would have to pay, and he accordingly assessed it at ten tankahs and fifty jitals for each individual.39 The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions from the King. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus (shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf. But Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. On the publication of this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679, writes Khafi Khan, the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the jharokha of the Emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the recall of the edict But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints. One day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, a vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to thmosque, with the object of seeking relief. Money changers and drapers, all kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu bazar mechanics, and workmen of all kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way Every moment the crowd increased, and the emperors equippage was brought to a standstill. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah. 40 Abul Fazl Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition.41 There were organized protests in many other places like Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement, and there was not a district where the people and Muqaddams did not make disturbances and resistance.42 Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694 it was ordered that except for Rajputs and Marathas, no Hindus were to be allowed to ride an Iraqi or Turani horse or an elephant, nor were they to use a palanquin, many Hindus defied it like in Multan and Ahmadnagar. 43 Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped.44 These cases of open disapprobation of royal orders were the work mainly of the Hindu artisan and business classes. In spite of their modesty and humility they possessed the middle class temperament. As is well-known Indian manufactures were of excellent quality, often better than European,45 but this does not signify any social advancement of the manufacturers. Indeed, according to Bernier, they were either wretchedly poor, or who, if rich assume appearance of poverty a people whose grandees pay for a work of art considerably under its value and according to their own caprice, and who do not hesitate to punish an importunate artist or a tradesman with the Korrah, that long and terrible whip hanging at every Omrahs gate 46 Bernier adds that the artisans could not venture to indulge in good fare or to dress in fine apparel even if they could afford to.47 Manucci says that traders and merchants were sometimes wanting in courage and they couldnot claim any high status.48 And yet these very people used to defy the rulers orders. Their strength was known to the regime, that is why most kings used to treat them harshly. Ziyauddin declares them to be the most unscrupulous among the seventy-two classes, (believed to be inhabiting the world) and Alauddin Khalji visited them with dire punishments.49 Even a mild king like Firoz Tughlaq did not treat them any better. Shams Siraj Afif writes that when Firoz Tughlaq was building the fort-city of Firozabad, he ordered that every trader who brought goods (grain, salt, sugar, cotton etc.) to Delhi, was to transport free of charge bricks and stones on his packanimals from the old Delhi (Mehrauli) to the construction site at Firozabad. If the trader refused, government officials used to carry off his pack animals and clamp him in jail. But the traders were not to be cowed down and they more often than not refused to do begar (work without wages).50 Such protests and resistance against governments injustice continued throughout the medieval period. Tavernier writes similar things about Shahjahan. All waggons which come to Surat from Agra or other places in the Empire and return to Agra and Jahanabad (Shahjahanabad) are compelled to carry (the kings) lime which comes from Broach It is a great source of profit to the Emperor (whose monopoly it was and) who sends it where he pleases.51 Similarly, when Aurangzeb wanted more money and ordained that the rupees or coined money of silver, not worth more than fourteen sols (sous) of France, or thereabouts, should pass as worth twentyeight sols the sarrafs, who are the money changers, resisted the royal orders, giving various excuses At last the king in anger sent for the moneychangers in the city of Delhi, and when he found that they could not be brought round to his view he ordered one of the aged sarrafs to be thrown, down the battlements. This terrified the sarrafs and they obeyed.52 It was only the terror created by the autocratic regime that suppressed these people. Else, they on their own, never failed to register their protests or go on hartal. Such demonstrations and protests, typical of the middle classes, were not confined to the capital city of Delhi alone. People fought for their rights all over the country. Let us take the case of Gujarat. Persecution forced a large number of Hindu merchants of Surat, led by Bhimji Parekh, in September 1669, to withdraw from Surat. An English communication of November 21 of that year is worth quoting at some length: You have been formerly advised what un-sufferable tyranny thebanias endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors on account of their religion The Qazi and other Mughal officers derived large incomes from the Banias to redeem their places of idolatarous worship from being defaced and their persons from their malice and that the general body of the banias began to groan under their affliction and to take up resolves of fleeing the country. Bhimji led a deputation of five other banias (panch?) to Gerald Aungier, who later became the maker of Bombay, to ask for asylum in Bombay. Aungier played it safe He advised them to proceed to Ahmadabad instead and from there make their general humble requests to the King. Then on September 23rd and 24th all the heads of the bania families, of what condition whatsoever, departed the town, to the number of 8,000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothers, or next of kin. The Qazi was enraged at this and called upon the governor to turn the banias back. The Governor was inclined to side with the banias as he understood the important economic role they played in the life of the city and replied that they were free to go wherever they like. The banias then proceeded to Broach with the result that the people in Surat suffered great want, from the banias having bound themselves under severe penalties not to open any of their shops without order from their Mahager (Mahajana), or General Council, there was not any provision to be got; the tanksal (i.e.mint) and custom house shut; no money to be procured, so much as for house expenses, much less for trade which was wholly at a stand. The boycott lasted until December 20, 1669 when the banias returned to Surat on being assured by Aurangzeb of safety of their religion. This incident clearly shows how Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution had made his officers more zealous than the king himself. It also shows the organizational capabilities of resistance of the banias and the leading role played by Bhimji in this affair. 53 Earlier in 1666, the merchants of Cambay complained to Aurangzeb against the oppressive local officials and threatened to flee if their grievances remained unredressed. The Emperor thereupon ordered that there would be only two qanungos and two Chaudharis in place of the many reported, and they should treat the merchants well.54

PROMOTING  MUSLIMS  AND OPRRESING HINDUS AND  DOING FORCEFULL CONVERSION

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S LalPage Page  82

Muhammad KASIM now marched to Brahmanabad.17 On the way a number of garrisons in forts challenged his army, delaying his arrival in Brahmanabad. The civil population, as usual, longed for peace and let the Muslims enter the city. Consequently, it was spared, but Qasim sat on the seat of cruelty and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand were killed.18 Continuing his ravaging march northward, he proceeded to Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus with its famous Temple of Sun. Multan was ravaged and its treasures rifled. During his campaigns Muhammad bin Qasim concentrated on collecting the maximum wealth possible as he had to honour the promise he and his patron Hajjaj had made to the Caliph to reimburse to the latter the expenses incurred on the expedition. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, freedom of worship to the Hindus could bring wealth in the form of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. Hence, the temple of Brahmanabad was permitted to be rebuilt and old customs of worship allowed.19 In Multan also temple worship more or less went on as before. The expenses of the campaign had come to 60 thousand silver dirhams. Hajjaj paid to the Caliph double the amount - 120 thousand dirhams. 20 Muhammad bin Qasim set about organising the administration of the conquered lands like this. The principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.21

Imposition of jajiya and difficulties SO removal for some time

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S LalPage Page 109 to 112

here are countless examples of prejudicial treatment meted out to nonMuslims under the theocratic government. Only a few may be mentioned here as an illustration. Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalauddin Khalji (1290-96), after a battle, whatever live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants. The Musalman captives had their lives spared.26 Similarly, Malik Kafur, the famous general of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316), while on his expeditions in South India, spared the lives of Muslims fighting on the side of the Hindu Rai as they deserted to his army. 27 Rizqullah Mushtaqi is all praise for Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) because under him the Muslims dominated and the Hindus were suppressed (musalman china dast va hinduan ram).28 It was not only so in the medieval period. Such discrimination is observed in theocratic states even today. When, in 1910, Boutros Pasha was murdered by an Egyptian Muhammadan for no personal provocation but for the political reason that he had presided over the court that sentenced the Denshawai villagers, and the guilt of the murderer was conclusively proved by evidence, the Chief Qazi of Egypt pronounced the judgement that according to Islam it is no crime for a Muslim to slay an unbeliever. This is the opinion held by the highest exponent of Islamic law in a modern civilized country. 29 And here is a case of the year 1990. Sunil Vadhera was employed with M/s. Archirodo Construction (Overseas) Co., Riyadh. He died in an accident caused by a Creek national of M/s. Saboo. The defender deposited 1,00,000 Saudi riyals or Rs. 4.65 lakh with the Saudi government as compensation for death. But the Shariat Saudi court has ruled that as the deceased was a Hindu, as per Shariat law he was entitled to Saudi riyals 6,666.66 only or Rs.30,000. This is just about one-fifteenth of the compensation that the parents would have got if their son was a Muslim.30 The disabilities the Hindus suffered under this Islamic or Shariat law are clearly mentioned in the Quran, the Hadis and the Hidaya. It would be the best to go through these works as suggested in Chapter 2. However, these are also summarised in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, 31 T.P. Hughess Dictionary of Islam, 32 N.P. Aghnidess Muhammadan Theories of Finance, 33 Blochmanns translation of the Ain-i-Akbari, 34 Ziyauddin Baranis Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi35 and a host of other Persian chronicles, and there is no need to repeat here zimmi, kharajguzar, jiziyah syndrome. The fact to be noted is that Shariat law continued to prevail throughout the medieval period. The Shariat law was so brazenly prejudicial to the interests of the vast majority of the non-Muslims (and hence the wishful thinking that it did not prevail and that the medieval state was secular), that even the medieval thinkers and rulers found it impracticable to enforce it in full. When the nobles and Ulama of the Sultanate pressed Shamsuddin Iltutmish to enforce the Shara, and give the Hindus a choice between Islam and death, the latter asked for time.36 Equally helpless (or shrewd) were Balban and Jalaluddin Khalji.37 It was probably the experience of such rulers that prompted Ziyauddin Barani to advocate that if the enforcement of the Shariat was impossible or impracticable, new laws should be enacted 7by rulers. It is the duty of a king, says he, to enforce, if he can, those royal laws which have become proverbial owing to their principles of justice and mercy. But if owing to change of time and circumstances he is unable to enforce the laws of the ancients (i.e. ancient Muslim rulers), he should, with the counsel of wise men frame laws suited to his time and circumstances and proceed to enforce them. Much reflection is necessary in order that laws, suited to his reign, are properly framed.38 So that they in no way contravene the tenets of Islam. These laws Barani calls Zawabits. Barani wrote in the fourteenth century. Perhaps he had in mind the rules of Alauddin Khalji about Market Control or his revenue regulations. Else, right up to the first half of the sixteenth century no king made any laws of the kind. No chronicler has made mention of any such laws. It was late in the sixteenth century that Akbar promulgated a number of regulations for the real benefit of people. There were some tolerant monarchs in medieval India, and yet none except Akbar ever thought of enacting any laws which would have removed to some extent the disabilities imposed on the majority of the population. Between 1562 and 1564 he abolished the pilgrim tax, the jiziyah and the practice of enslaving prisoners of war. Restrictions were imposed on the manufacture and sale of liquor in 1582 and the same year child marriage was discouraged by fixing the marriage age at 14 for girls and 16 for boys. In 1587 Akbar legalized widow remarriage and prohibited Sati for Bal Vidhvas in 1590-91. In 1601 he took the revolutionary step of permitting individuals to choose their religion and those who had been forcibly converted to Islam could go back to their former faith. But even Akbar did not codify any laws as such for his successors to follow. His beneficial and equitable regulations remained, as they could remain, only for his empire and during his life-time. tinued to It is significant to note that even in the few reforms that Akbar ordered, many nobles and Ulama saw a danger to Islam. So what Barani calls Zawabits were few and far between, and the Shara cone the supreme law prevalent in the Turkish and Mughal times. No wonder, contemporary chroniclers always eulogized the Indian Muslim kings as defenders of the Islamic faith. This tickled their vanity and prompted them to be strict in the enforcement of the law. It encouraged them to be iconoclasts, it made them patronize the Muslim minority and resort to all kinds of methods to obtain conversions, besides, of course, at the same time treating the non-Muslims unfairly to exhibit their love for their own faith. Secondly, the Ulama always tried to keep the kings straight. They considered it their sacred duty to see that the kings not only did not stray away from the path of religion and law, but also enforced it on the people. Such indeed was their influence that even strong monarchs did not dare suppress them. Others, of course, tried to walk on the path shown by this bigoted scholastic class. The third and the most important reason was that protestation of championship for Islam buttressed the claim of the king for the crown, for a ruler was not safe on the throne if he did not enforce the Shara. At the close of the Khalji regime, Ghiyasuddin declared himself as a champion of the faith, because the Ulama had been dissatisfied with Alauddins policies and Ghiyasuddin with the activities of Nasiruddin Khusrau. The slogan of Islam in danger so common yet so effective in the history of the Muslims, was started.39 And this to a great degree won Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq the throne. The Ulama were equally dissatisfied with Muhammad bin Tughlaq. On his demise, Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh obtained from Firoz a promise that he would rule according to the tenets of justice and law. Firoz Shah Tughlaq proved true to his word and made religion the basis of his government.40 A little later Amir Timur openly claimed to have attacked Hindustan with the avowed object of destroying idolatry and infidelity in the country. 41 Akbars tolerance had exasperated the Muslim divines, and a promise was obtained from his successor, Jahangir, that he would defend the Muslim religion. Immediately after Akbars death Mulla Shah Ahmad, one of the greatest religious leaders of the age, wrote to various court dignitaries exhorting them to get this state of things altered in the very beginning of (Jahangirs) reign because otherwise it would be difficult to accomplish anything later on.42 Aurangzeb openly claimed to have fought the apostate Dara to re-establish the law of Islam. Thus, whether we consider the influence of the Muslim religious class (the Ulama), the application of the law of Islam (Shara), or the activities of the kings, it is clear beyond doubt that the medieval state was a theocratic state. No wonder that many contemporary and later Muslim writers praise the deeds of Aurangzeb with great gusto. The name of Akbar is obliterated: it does not find mention by a single Muslim chronicler after his death. Why is then there a desire to escape from this fact? In modern times values of life have changed. Today, in an age of science and secularism, ideas of religious disabilities and persecution appear to be so out of tune with .human behaviour, that we are made to believe that such disabilities were never there even in the past. Modern Indian government is based on the ideals of secularism. It tries to eschew religious controversies. It is felt that such was the position through the ages without realising that even now disabilities of non-Muslims are existing in many Islamic countries.