Can Aurangzeb be blamed for end of Mughal Empire?

Question

I studied about Mughal empire in which I came across this
question. And could not get the correct answer.

Answer 1

Probably. He was a religious fanatic, in contrast to his predecessors, who had always been very tolerant when it came to religion.

"He remains one of the most controversial figures in the history of the subcontinent. His religious policies continue to inspire conflict between religious and political groups in India, Pakistan and elsewhere. He is generally regarded as the last great Mughal ruler. His successors, the 'Later Mughals', lacked his strong hand and the Hindu Maratha Empire mostly replaced Mughal rule during the rest of the 18th century."

"The Mughals had for the most part been tolerant of non-Muslims, allowing them to practice their customs and religion without too much interference. Though certain Muslim laws had been in place (e.g., prohibitions against building new Hindu temples), the poll tax on non-Muslims (the Jizyah) was repealed by Emperor Akbar in 1562. Akbar also encouraged political tolerance toward the non-Muslim majority."

"Aurangzeb abandoned many of the more liberal viewpoints of his predecessors. He espoused a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and a behavior based on the Sharia (Islamic law), which he set about codifying through edicts and policies. His Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, is a 33 volume compilation of these edicts."

"The conversion of non-Muslims to Islam was a policy objective under Aurangzeb's rule."

" "Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversion was a sure way to the emperor's favor." (Richards, John F. (1995). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130,177.) "

"In economic and political terms, Aurangzeb's rule significantly favored Muslims over non-Muslims:"In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over their rivals. Pargana headmen and quangos or recordkeepers were to convert. The message was very clear for all concerned. Shared political community must also be shared religious belief." (Richards 1995:177 ) "

"Impact of Aurangzeb's reign"

"This is again a disputed issue. Mainstream historians, such as marxist Irfan Habib (who refers to a severe agrarian crisis), Athar Ali (who blames the never-ending Deccan wars), believe that the real crisis was in the political and economic policies. Some, like Satish Chandra believe in addition that the Mughal empire was already weakened (a jagirdari crisis) before Aurangzeb came to the throne, so it was only his steadfast commitment to strong rule and expansion that kept it from falling apart during his reign itself. In fact Athar Ali holds that the Islamicist propaganda of his reign was just that, propaganda to cover up the dubious methods he had used to come to power, and then the failed military expansions."

"Legacy"

"Aurangzeb's influence continues through the centuries. He was the first ruler to attempt to impose Sharia law on a non-Muslim country. His critics, principally Hindu, decry this as intolerance, while his mostly Muslim supporters applaud him, some calling him a Pir or Caliph. He engaged in nearly perpetual war, justifying the ensuing death and destruction on moral and religious grounds. He eventually succeeded in the imposition of Islamic Sharia in his realm, but alienated many constituencies, not only non-Muslims, but also native Shi'ites. This led to increased militancy by the Marathas, the Sikhs, and Rajputs, who along with other territories broke from the empire after his death; it also led to disputes among Indian Muslims. The destruction of Hindu temples remains a dark stain on Muslim/Hindu relations to this day."

"After Aurangzeb's death, his son Bahadur Shah I took the throne. The Mughal Empire, due both to Aurangzeb's over-extension and cruelty and to Bahadur's weak military and leadership qualities, entered a long decline. Immediately after Bahadur Shah occupied the throne, the Maratha Empire — which had been held at bay by Aurangzeb, albeit at a high human and monetary cost — consolidated and launched effective invasions of Mughal territory, seizing power from the weak emperor. Within 100 years of Aurangzeb's death, the Mughal Emperor was to become a puppet of the Maratha Empire and then the British East India Company, with little power beyond Delhi and ignored by most Indian princes."

"Aurangzeb" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

"Under him the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent, although his policies helped lead to its dissolution."

"Aurangzeb's reign falls into two almost equal parts. In the first, which lasted until about 1680, he was a capable Muslim monarch of a mixed Hindu-Muslim empire and as such was generally disliked for his ruthlessness but feared and respected for his vigour and skill."

"After about 1680, Aurangzeb's reign underwent a change of both attitude and policy. The pious ruler of an Islamic state replaced the seasoned statesman of a mixed kingdom; Hindus became subordinates, not colleagues, and the Marathas, like the southern Muslim kingdoms, were marked for annexation rather than containment. The first overt sign of change was the reimposition of the jizya, or poll tax, on non-Muslims in 1679 (a tax that had been abolished by Akbar). This in turn was followed by a Rajput revolt in 1680-81, supported by Aurangzeb's third son, Akbar. Hindus still served the empire, but no longer with enthusiasm. The Deccan kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda were conquered in 1686-87, but the insecurity that followed precipitated a long-incipient economic crisis, which in turn was deepened by the Maratha war. Shivaji's son Sambhaji was captured and executed in 1689 and his kingdom broken up. The Marathas, however, then adopted guerrilla tactics, spreading all over South India amid a sympathetic population. The rest of Aurangzeb's life was spent in laborious and fruitless sieges of forts in the Maratha hill country."

"In 1675 Aurangzeb arrested and executed the Sikh guru (spiritual leader) Tegh Bahadur, who had refused to embrace Islam; and the succeeding guru was in open rebellion for the rest of the reign. This was the real beginning of the still-existing Sikh-Muslim feud. Other agrarian revolts, such as those of the Jats, were largely secular."

"In general, Aurangzeb ruled as a militant orthodox Sunnite Muslim, who put through increasingly puritanical ordinances that were vigorously enforced by muhtasibs, or censors of morals. The Muslim confession of faith, for instance, was removed from all coins lest it be defiled by unbelievers; courtiers were forbidden to salute in the Hindu fashion. In addition, Hindu idols, temples, and shrines were often destroyed."

"Aurangzeb maintained the empire for nearly half a century and in fact extended it in the south as far as Tanjore (Thanjavur) and Trichinopoly (Tiruchchirappalli). Behind this imposing facade, however, were serious weaknesses. The Maratha campaign continually drained the imperial resources. The militancy of the Sikhs and the Jats boded ill for the empire in the north. The new Islamic policy alienated Hindu sentiment and undermined Rajput support. The financial pressure on the land strained the whole administrative framework. When Aurangzeb died, after a reign of nearly 49 years, he left an empire not moribund but confronted with a number of menacing problems. The failure of his son's successors to cope with them led to the collapse of the empire in the mid-18th century."

"Aurangzeb", Encyclopædia Britannica CD 2000

Answer 2

Well.........I don't actually think so 'cus in history class, I studied that Aurangzeb was a powerful king. May be the Mughal dynasty ended because of the ease-loving and careless attitude of his next generation.

Answer 3

His constant policies of war, however, left the empire dangerously overextended, isolated from its strong Rajput allies, and with a population that (except for the Muslim minority) expressed resentment, if not outright rebellion, to his reign.