Lessons In Governance From Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb is widely reviled today under the right-wing regime. However, as is often the case, the truth is far removed from their version. Like any historical figure, Aurangzeb had certain flaws바카라”though not necessarily the ones exaggerated by the regime바카라™s propagandists바카라”but also many virtues that are completely overshadowed in today바카라™s toxic discourse.

Engaging with history should not be about seeking vengeance for perceived past wrongs but about drawing lessons바카라”understanding how to leverage its positives and mitigate its negatives. From this perspective, one of the starkest lessons Aurangzeb바카라™s story offers is in public morality바카라”specifically, how rulers should conduct themselves as trustees of the state entrusted to them by the people.

Aurangzeb was an emperor, not a democratically elected leader, yet he governed with a profound sense of responsibility toward his subjects.

A Glimpse Of The Mughal Emperor

Aurangzeb Alamgir, the sixth Mughal emperor of India, remains one of the most enigmatic figures in Indian history. Born on November 3, 1618, in Dahod, Gujarat, he was the third son of Emperor Shah Jahan and Empress Mumtaz Mahal. From an early age, Aurangzeb demonstrated remarkable discipline, intelligence, and a strong will, qualities that would shape both his personal and political life. His personal life, deeply intertwined with his religious convictions, reflected his austere and determined personality.

Despite his widely publicised religiosity, Aurangzeb built a strong political state where political considerations took precedence over religious or communal factors. His administration and military included numerous high-ranking Hindu officials, reflecting his pragmatic approach to governance. Historian Parvati Sharma notes that while Akbar had 14 Hindu mansabdars, Aurangzeb had 148. The proportion of Hindu nobles and mansabdars increased from 24.5% under Shah Jahan to over 30% during Aurangzeb바카라™s rule, underscoring a merit-based system rather than religious exclusivity.

Hindus held key positions in his administration바카라”Raja Jaswant Singh of Marwar and Raja Jai Singh of Amer controlled the state treasury, while many others shaped policy. In fact, Aurangzeb바카라™s governance largely relied on Hindu officials, reflecting the broader Mughal strategy of maintaining a diverse nobility comprising Central Asians, Iranians, Afghans, Indian Muslims, and Rajputs. This deliberate balance prevented any single group from monopolising power and reinforced the pragmatic foundations of Mughal rule.

Aurangzeb바카라™s policies toward Hindu festivals and temples were shaped more by administrative priorities and political challenges than personal religious beliefs. The claim that he indiscriminately destroyed Hindu temples is unsubstantiated. The much-publicised demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, for instance, is explained by historians like Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande (Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan) and Babu Nagendranath Banerjee. Their research suggests that the action was taken after a queen in Aurangzeb바카라™s retinue was allegedly abducted and dishonoured within the temple premises, enraging the emperor.

Far from being uniformly hostile to Hindu religious institutions, Aurangzeb issued firmans granting land and resources to temples, including the Balaji temple in Chitrakoot and the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain. Records also show that he donated estates for temple upkeep in Banaras, Kashmir, and other regions. He patronised temples such as Someshwar Nath Mahadev in Allahabad and the Vitthal temple in Pandharpur, while sanctioning large grants to Deccan temples to secure alliances and consolidate Mughal authority in newly acquired territories. These actions highlight that his decisions were driven by statecraft rather than an overarching communal agenda.

Another criticism is about Aurangzeb바카라™s the reimposition of the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679, in the 25th year of his rule. The jizya tax, rooted in Islamic law, was a levy on non-Muslims (dhimmis) in exchange for protection and exemption from military service. It was levied only on the able-bodied non-Muslim youth who did not volunteer for military service. The main reason behind it was financial, as the Mughal Empire during Aurangazeb바카라™s rule faced significant economic strain from prolonged military campaigns, declining agricultural productivity, and disruptions in trade. The tax levied on the wider base of population of non-Muslims provided a much-needed boost to state revenues.

Politically, the jizya served to consolidate Aurangzeb's authority amid challenges, including revolts by the Rajputs, the rise of the Marathas under Shivaji, dissent within the nobility, and external threats from the Safavids and Central Asia. By aligning himself with orthodox Sunni Muslim factions, Aurangzeb sought to reinforce his legitimacy and maintain support among conservative elements of his empire.

The policy did alienate non-Muslims, especially Hindus and Jains, who were the primary taxpayers, and strained relations with erstwhile allies like the Rajputs. This exacerbated communal tensions and contributed to growing discontent, leaving a legacy of division that his successors struggled to manage.

High Moral Conduct

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb eschewed the grandeur and indulgence that had come to define the Mughal court. He lived a frugal life, even as an emperor of one of the wealthiest and most powerful empires of his time. He reportedly stitched his own caps, earned a modest income by selling copies of the Qur'an that he had written in his own hand, and avoided extravagant displays of wealth. His disdain for luxury and his simple lifestyle stood in stark contrast to the opulence of his father Shah Jahan바카라™s court, symbolised by the construction of the Taj Mahal.

Aurangzeb바카라™s personal values were deeply rooted in his religious beliefs. He sought to align his personal conduct with his interpretation of Islamic principles, abstaining from alcohol and promoting a simple, virtuous life. However, his strict adherence to religion also made him a controversial figure, as his policies sometimes likely alienated non-Muslim communities. 

Aurangzeb's final years were marked by solitude and reflection. After decades of expansionist campaigns and administrative reforms, he became increasingly isolated. His letters from this period reveal a sense of disillusionment and a profound awareness of the transience of power and life. In one of his most famous letters to his son, he expressed regret and a sense of futility, stating that his kingdom had brought him no peace.

Aurangzeb died on March 3, 1707, at the age of 88. True to his frugal nature, he instructed that his burial be simple and that the cost be covered by the modest income he had earned. He was buried in an unadorned grave at Khuldabad, near Aurangabad, a stark departure from the grand tombs of his ancestors.

Aurangzeb바카라™s personal life was a reflection of his austere and determined nature. He was a man of contradictions바카라”a ruler who expanded an empire but left it weakened, a devout individual whose faith often clashed with the pluralistic ethos of his empire, and a father whose personal relationships were shaped by the same ambition and strife that defined his reign. His life, both personal and political, continues to evoke debate and reflection, embodying the complexities of leadership, faith, and human nature.

Zenith Of Economic Prosperity 

Contrary to the claims of the right wing, India reached zenith of economic prosperity during the Mughal times, which peaked during Aurangzeb바카라™s rule. It was largely due to the introduction of advanced feudal system of Central Asian and Persian administrative traditions, which had several key features that set it apart from pre-Mughal times:

1. Mansabdari System (Centralised Bureaucratic Feudalism)

Unlike the loosely structured feudal arrangements of earlier Indian kingdoms, the Mughals introduced the mansabdari system, which integrated military and administrative ranks into a structured hierarchy. Nobles and officials (mansabdars) were assigned ranks (mansabs) based on their military and administrative capabilities, ensuring loyalty and accountability to the emperor rather than local feudal lords. This system prevented hereditary feudalism, as mansabs were not automatically passed down to heirs. 

2. Jagirdari System (Revenue Assignment with Rotation)

Unlike the earlier feudal land grants (such as the Bhakti-era Brahmadeya and Rajput-era feudal tenures), the Mughal jagirdari system made land assignments temporary and non-hereditary. Jagirdars were responsible for tax collection but did not own the land, preventing the rise of powerful, independent feudal lords. The rotation of jagirs ensured that no single official could consolidate power in one region, strengthening the central authority.

3. Efficient Land Revenue Administration

Under Akbar바카라™s revenue reforms (developed by Raja Todar Mal), the empire introduced the Zabt system, which standardised tax collection based on land productivity. Unlike earlier methods that relied on local feudal lords or temple institutions for tax collection, the Mughals established a direct relationship between the state and the peasantry. Revenue assessments were rationalised through surveys and records, reducing arbitrary taxation and exploitation by local elites.

4. Urbanisation And Monetisation Of Economy

The Mughals promoted market towns (qasbas), which fostered trade and commercial activity, reducing the economy바카라™s dependence on purely agrarian feudalism. Unlike earlier agrarian societies, where land revenue was largely collected in kind, the Mughals encouraged monetisation, with taxes and salaries often paid in cash, boosting trade and commerce. The widespread use of silver rupiya (coin) and banking institutions (hundi system) enhanced economic transactions, integrating India into global trade networks.

5. Public Infrastructure And Trade Networks

The Mughal state invested in roads, bridges, and caravanserais, facilitating long-distance trade and improving connectivity. Unlike earlier rulers who left infrastructure largely to local feudal lords or temple authorities, the Mughal public works system was centrally managed. Ports like Surat, Masulipatnam, and Hooghly became the hubs of international trade, linking India to markets in Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and Europe.

6. Tolerance And Inclusion In Administration

Unlike some earlier feudal structures that were dominated by particular castes or clans, the Mughal administration integrated Persians, Afghans, Rajputs, and indigenous groups into governance, making the system more inclusive and efficient. This diversity helped sustain economic stability, as different groups contributed specialised skills in administration, military, and commerce.

Thus, the Mughals transformed Indian feudalism into a more centralised, bureaucratic, and monetised system that maximised state revenue while preventing the unchecked power of local landlords. This system contributed to the economic prosperity of the Mughal Empire, making it one of the richest economies of its time. During Aurangzeb바카라™s reign, the Mughal empire experienced a period of immense wealth and power, with India's share of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reaching a historical high. Economist Angus Maddison's estimates suggest that by the late 17th century, the empire, which controlled a vast portion of the Indian subcontinent, emerged as a major economic and manufacturing powerhouse, contributing nearly a quarter of the world's GDP.

In 1700, India's share of global GDP peaked at around 27%, surpassing Europe's 23.3%. The Mughal economy was heavily agrarian, with Bengal being one of its most prosperous and productive regions. The empire also invested in extensive infrastructure, including a well-maintained road network that connected villages and cities, facilitating commerce and administration.

Our Elected 바카라˜Emperors바카라™

The British, who succeeded the Mughals, drained India바카라™s wealth, reducing its share of global GDP to just 3% by 1950. To justify their rule, they vilified the Mughals, particularly Aurangzeb, portraying him as a tyrannical despot. Colonial historians like Alexander Dow (The History of Hindostan, 1772) and Elliot & Dowson (The History of India) depicted Islam and Mughal rule as inherently oppressive, reinforcing the British 바카라˜divide and rule바카라™ strategy.

Post-independence, India adopted parliamentary democracy, marking the first time sovereignty was vested in the people. However, a new ruling class바카라”emerging from traditional elites바카라”quickly turned representation into a coveted status, achieved through vast financial investments, manipulation, and electoral malpractice. Over time, the system degenerated, trapping citizens as helpless pawns within an increasingly unaccountable political structure.

Inequality, deeply embedded in India바카라™s caste hierarchy, also shaped its political landscape. The post-colonial state largely retained the colonial apparatus of control, replacing British rulers with Indian elites. While early policy measures helped reduce disparities, systemic contradictions culminated in adoption of neoliberal reforms that legitimised private wealth fuelling the extravagant lifestyles of politicians.

Many Indian politicians amass fortunes far exceeding their official earnings, raising concerns about corruption and misuse of power. Reports frequently expose hidden wealth바카라”luxury mansions, offshore accounts, and benami properties. They built a nexus between police, bureaucrats, and even judiciary which protects its members unless someone falls apart. This growing divide between rulers and citizens starkly contradicts the ideals of democracy.

Lavish security arrangements for VIP/VVIPs further highlight this disconnect. Z-plus security for top politicians costs the public crores, even as ordinary citizens face rising crime and communal violence. Public funds are often misused for personal comfort바카라”subsidised housing, luxury travel, extravagant rallies, and vanity projects바카라”while essential services remain underfunded.

Election campaigns, notorious for exorbitant spending, frequently violate expenditure limits, relying on unaccounted cash for vote-buying. This entrenched nexus between politics, business, and crime shields politicians from accountability, making meaningful reform difficult. The entire process is reduced to a farce people do not how to stop it. 

Public-Minded Governance

In their pursuit of power and wealth, modern rulers brazenly resort to religious polarisation, openly defying the constitutional principles of secularism. While Aurangzeb may not be called a secular ruler in any formal sense, he pragmatically supported multiple religions rather than imposing his own. If he had sought forced conversions, as alleged by the right wingers, he had the power to make India a Muslim-majority country바카라”yet, by the end of his reign, Muslims comprised only about a quarter of the population.

Aurangzeb바카라™s rule offers a lesson for today바카라™s leaders: despite being a devout Muslim, he did not impose his faith on others or view his subjects through a purely religious lens. Instead, he focused his intellect and energy on governance and public infrastructure, even breaking with certain extravagant traditions of his predecessors. Personally, he led an ascetic life, funding his own expenses바카라”including food바카라”through his modest personal earnings. Though he was the emperor of one of the wealthiest states in the world, he treated the empire as a public trust rather than personal property.