Author: nadeemrezavi

Copyright: Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

In the first ten years of Aurangzeb’s reign, there was a scarcity of food grains although there is no direct evidence for that. This being not complementary to the emperor, the official history of Aurangzeb, Alamgirnama, is silent over this fact. Kazim Shirazi, in other words, conceals this fact. But at the same time, he says, Aurangzeb ordered langars to be opened:

“The Emperor in his gracious kindness an bounty directed the officials of Burhanpur, Ahmadabad and the country of Surat to establish soup kitchens, or alms-houses, such as are called langar in the language of Hindustan for the benefit of the poor and destitute.”

         The question is why this if there was no scarcity? This piece of evidence and certain other measures which were taken by the emperor conclusively prove that there was scarcity of food grain in the first decade OF Aurangzeb’s reign. Now what was the reason or the cause of this scarcity? Was there an economic crisis and what were the reasons for it?

         One would recall that in the war of succession which continued for about 2 yrs and in which more than half of the empire became involved area-wise, as first battle fought at Dharmat (Malwa), then at Samugarh (Agra), Khajua (Allahabad), and then Ajmer. Shah Shuja was pursued till Munghyre so Bihar involved too. Of course Bengal and Gujarat were also involved as Shah Shuja and Murad came from there. So this war caused damage to the standing crops which were destroyed due to the movement of large number of troops.

         Secondly there was a double realization of revenue in certain parts of the empire. For example in Gujarat, Bengal and Bihar, revenues were realized by Murad and Shah Shuja and then the area was taxed again by Aurangzeb. So no surplus was left with the peasants and their backbone was broken. The peasants were not in a position to invest in agricultural operation which came to a standstill due to the tyranny of the officials. The result was the flight of peasants from the villages.

         Thirdly, the rains failed and where it rained, it rained so heavily that there were floods. The cumulative effect of all these was scarcity of food grains but still not a famine condition. It was a result of the realization of this fact by Aurangzeb himself that he abolished rahdari or road tolls.

The innocent people thought it to be a philanthropic move for the welfare of the people, the khalqullah. As a matter of fact what he wanted was a flow of grain to the area of need without official hindrance. This fact points out that in certain areas there was a scarcity of food grains.

Aurangzeb also abolished other cesses which were levied on the peasants.

As usual every crisis was to be placed in a theoretical framework and had to be theorized. Thus Francois Bernier put up a theory. The simple fact of scarcity was theorized by Bernier to explain the scarcity of the food grains and make an attempt to explain the agrarian decline in the Mughal Empire.

According to Bernier’s theory of Agrarian Decline, as the Jagirdari System was transferable and not hereditary or permanent, the jagirdar was not interested in the development of the area assigned to him in jagir, because he was convinced that neither he nor  his descendants would be benefited by the investment of money or labour in the development of the area. This was so, as according to Bernier, the Jagirdars argued that they could be transferred the next year. Thus there was no guarantee of them or their descendants getting benefited from the labour or investment in the area. So they tended to exploit peasants to the maximum without putting a single pie. Result was the ruination of the peasants.

In the theory spelled out by Bernier on the pre-colonial state, he takes the Oriental Monarchies, i.e., the Mughal Empire and Turkey in to account. According to him these eastern states were different from their European counterparts in two major particulars: A) The king here was the owner of the soil, in other words, the exactor of rent; and B) as we have seen, those who actually collected the tax-rent, unlike the hereditary European lords, held only temporary tenures, as holders of jagirs or timars. The temporary tenures, which were a necessary reflex of state ownership of land, led to over-exploitation of the peasantry, and therefore, a progressive decline of the economy and polity.

This was in contrast to Western Europe, where the limitation of state right of sovereignty and the dominance of private property over the land, under its protection, were the surest means to progress and prosperity. Thus in this theory we see an emphasis towards a contrast between the Oriental Despotic state and the Occidental laissez-fare state.

The theory as propounded by Bernier does look attractive. Bernier was heavily obsessed and prejudiced by the sanctity of the right of private property and he was examining the Indian situation through the European glasses and was unnecessarily bracketing European feudalism with the Mughal Jagirdari system.

It will be a mistake to call the jagirdari system as a feudal system. It was not. At the most, the Mughal Jagirdari system can be defined as a bureaucratic feudalism: to be a jagirdar one had to be a mansabdar while a European feudal lord had to be a hereditary lord. Here until someone did not prove his worth, he could not be a mansabdar. If not a mansabdar, he could never be a jagirdar.

Abul Fazl says that as the transplantation of the plant is good for the health of the plant, the transfer of jagirs was absolutely necessary for the health of the administrative system. Abul Fazl is right as it was this system of transfer which ensured cohesion of the empire for about 200 years. The jagirdar should never think the jagir to be his own. This was the beauty of the system. Bernier could never visualise it.

So Bernier is not scientific in analysing the causes of agrarian decline and is unconsciously prejudiced. This was as he examined the Indian situation through European experience.

It is conceded that the jagirs were transferable. And again it may be conceded for the sake of argument that the jagirdars tended to exploit the peasants to the maximum limit and were blind enough to kill the goose which lay the golden eggs (the peasants). How the emperor could tolerate the situation? Obviously there were administrative checks on jagirdars practicing over-realization and exploitation. We have the evidence that whenever excess realization was resorted to, the jagirdars were punished or their jagirs were resumed. So checks and balances were there as far as the jagirdari system is concerned.the system functioned reasonably well so long as the emperor remained powerful and had the will and resources to impose rules , which on all accounts Aurangzeb was when he left in 1681 for the Deccan.

The theory advanced by Bernier for the agrarian decline doesn’t stand to be historically correct. Jagirdari system was the cardinal system of the Mughal Empire as Abul Fazl says and it was not responsible for the agrarian decline at least in the first 10 years of Aurangzeb’s reign.

Copyright: Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

The reign of Aurangzeb witnessed a number of revolts which occurred due to the agrarian crisis which was enveloping the Mughal empire during this period. There had been revolts and rebellions during the earlier reigns as well, but they had been all of nobles or princes. Aurangzeb’s reign was the first when revolts having origins in peasant or zamindar class and due to agrarian causes occurred. Let us deal with those led by the Jats, Satnamis and Sikh peasants.

The Jats

The Jats in Mathura region in the 17^th Century constituted majority of the population and they were agriculturists par excellence. Gokla, the leader of the Jat community, was a zamindar of 11 villages in this region and this was the period when the pressure of the Jagirdars as Jagirdars was increasing on the zamindars as zamindars, which the zamindars resented.

The first shot was fired when Gokla revolted in 1669. He was the zamindar of Tilpat. As was the tradition amongst the Mughals, the zamindaris were created on caste basis. So when Gokla revolted, the entire Jat community, because of the cast ties, and that of the traditional feudal ties, followed him in his rebellion. Thus the lead was taken by Gokla, the peasants followed and that created a serious problem for the Mughal administration.

Hasan Ali Khan, the faujdar of Mathura, attacked the Jats who were about 20,000 in number and a fierce battle was fought in which Hasan Ali Khan succeeded in defeating the Jats after great difficulty. About 4000 Mughal soldiers and 5000 Jats died. 7000 Jats, along with Gokla and his family members were arrested and ultimately Gokla was executed.

Because of the effective use of the artillery by Hasan Ali Khan, his strong measures and the superiority of the Mughal soldiers, the Jats were defeated and the rebellion was suppressed.

What was the nature of this rebellion?

Some of the historians, especially Irfan Habib have argued that the Jat Rebellion was a peasant uprising because the peasants resented their exploitation by the Mughal administrative machinery. Jat rebellion was a peasant revolt. M. Athar Ali on the other hand analysed the nature of the rebellion and opined that the origin of the rebellion lay in exercising pressure by jagirdar as jagirdar on zamindar as zamindar. Gokla was a zamindar, and he revolted. The peasants followed due to caste ties and feudal ties. To him it was not a peasant revolt; Athar Ali’s logic was: a zamindar could defy, how could a peasant defy?

The Satnamis:

The Satnamis were a religious sect in the Punjab and they were concentrated in sarkar Narnaul. They were a religious community which believed in the brotherhood of Mankind; they used to shave their hairs, so were also called ‘Mundiyas’. They had a strong sense of brotherhood and there were no untouchables in their sect. It was a compact community prepared to help each other. They were basically agriculturists, petty merchants and traders who were very honest in their dealings. But if any one attempted to pressurize them, they reacted violently. They were opposed to oppression and exploitation. It was the community which had immense self confidence.

In 1672 these Satnamis revolted. It was essentially a peasant uprising and the uprising of the landless labourers. Saqi Musta’id Khan in Ma’asir-i Alamgiri had given a vivid description of their rebellion. In a very beautiful passage he says that shop-keepers, iron smiths, peasants etc assembled at one place and fought the Imperial army. According to him the Satnamis were ordinary menials, labourers, peasants, etc who started the rebellion. The Satnami rebellion was a peasant rebellion and an uprising of the landless labourers.

The dispute started when a piyada (foot soldier) who was guarding the field attacked a Satnami with a stick and injured him. A number of Satnamis came and killed the piyada. The faujdar of Narnaul sent a force to suppress the Satnamis who were beaten back, but soon they collected in large numbers and the faujdar was killed. This emboldened the Satnamis; their number increased and as their prestige was enhanced due to their victory over the forces of the faujdar, now they advanced towards Delhi. Rumours spread that the Satnamis had supernatural powers and if one satnami soldier was killed, 10 were born in place of him. The Mughal nobles were also superstitious and were not ready to fight such an army in which 10 were born if one was killed! So the nobles were hesitant and the Satnamis kept on advancing towards Delhi. Thus just to boost the morale of the Mughal commanders, Aurangzeb issued a tawiz (talisman) and asked the military commanders to tie it to their banner and then fight. It was only then that Murtuza Khan Baraha and others readied to fight the Satnamis. It was after greatest difficulty that the Imperial forces succeeded in defeating the Satnamis. Saqi Musta’id Khan says that though ill armed, they created the scenes of Mahabharat, i.e., they fought very bravely. The Satnami rebellion could be suppressed after great hardship.

The Sikhs:

In the first half of the sixteenth century, a new sect in the Punjab came into existence that was known as the Sikhs. Like the Satnamis, they also believed in brother hood of their community. There was no concept of untouchability in this sect as well. There was the concept of equality, helping and loving each other. Sikhism is basically and actually a religion of peasants because in the Guru Granth Sahib, the terminology which has been used was the terminology of the peasants and that of the revenue officials. It is different from Hinduism as well as Islam, but some of the sayings of Shaikh Farid Ganj-i Shakar have been incorporated in the religious scriptures of the Sikhs.

For the first time the Sikh community came into conflict with the Mughals during the reign of Jahangir. But during that time, there was no enmity between the Mughals on the one hand and the Sikhs on the other. The treatment meted out to Guru Arjun was an isolated incident.

During the reign of Aurangzeb, Guru Tegh Bahadur encouraged the people against Aurangzeb as he was totally opposed to the attempt which was being made by certain officials of Aurangzeb in Kashmir: forcing non-Muslims to accept Islam. Guru Tegh Bahadur acted against those who were involved in these forcible acts and came out openly in rebellion against Aurangzeb. In retaliation, Tegh Bahadur was arrested and ultimately executed in 1675. the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur without doubt had religious overtones to the extent that the guru was against the policy of forcible conversion.

Copyright: Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

As pleaded by Khan-i Jahan Kokaltash and other nobles, and not withstanding the niceties of law and tradition which were evoked, the issue of the accession to the gaddi of Jodhpur was not dealt with sympathetically by Aurangzeb. It ultimately resulted in the rebellion of the Rathores and also a continuous struggle throughout the reign of Aurangzeb, i.e., from 1679 till his death with the Rajputs asking that Ajit Singh be declared to the gaddi. War continued for about 20 – 25 years with the result that Aurangzeb was deprived of the services of the Rathore soldiers, especially in the Deccan wars: the Rathores were familiar in fighting in the mountainous regions, a tactic needed in the Deccan of which thus the Mughals were deprived of. This rebellion also resulted in much confusion between Aurangzeb and the Rajputs. The feeling that Aurangzeb was against the Rajputs still prevails.

The Rathore rebellion in continuing for 25 years in one form or the other, contributed in the confusion that Aurangzeb was not only anti-Rajput but also anti-Hindus. The whole issue had started on technicalities – zābita in ast wa zābita in nīst. But the personality of Aurangzeb was hurt because of it.

Another important consequence was that to some extent, the flight of Prince Akbar from Jodhpur and his shelter in the court of Sambhaji, directly involved Aurangzeb in the affairs of the Deccan. Aurangzeb resisted involvement in the Deccan for 22 years and was opposed, as emperor, in the Forward policy being followed in the Deccan. But the flight of Akbar and his shelter in the court of Sambhaji, placed Aurangzeb in a dilemma: it was because of this dilemma that Aurangzeb had to leave north for the Deccan in 1681.

Once the policy was adopted, it had to be accomplished to its logical end and the policy of annexing of the whole of the Deccan involved immense military commitment on the part of the Mughals on the one hand and the dangerous consequences of this process on the other. It will not be safe to argue that the involvement of Aurangzeb in the Deccan was solely because of the flight of Prince Akbar. But it certainly compelled Aurangzeb to get involved. Once this policy was adopted, fully knowing the consequences of the involvement, neither Deccan nor the Mughal Empire would have been the same again. Whether one agrees or not with Sarkar that Spanish Ulcer ruined Napoleon, Deccan Ulcer ruined Aurangzeb. Fact remains that involvement after 1681 had serious repercussions in the functioning of the empire and the apparatus of the empire.

Perhaps if not completely avoided, the process of involvement would have been delayed if Prince Akbar had not fled. Flight of Akbar was a direct result of the Rathore rebellion. But it will be incorrect to assert that as a result of the Rathore rebellion, Aurangzeb became anti-Rajput. The Rajputs continued to serve Aurangzeb till the last days of the empire. And in the last 10 years [1698 – 1707], when Aurangzeb died, there were only 3 generals conducting military operations with their full contingents, against the Marathas: Ram Singh Hada, Dalpat Bundela and Jai Singh Sawai. These three nobles were the only persons who were serving the emperor with their full contingents, as they had a separate income from their watan jagirs.

When the doli of Princess Nadira Begum, the wife of Prince Azam, was surrounded by the Marathas while going from Islampuri (where Aurangzeb was at that time situated) to Gilgit, and no re-inforcements could reach to rescue her, Ram Singh Hada was with the princess with 750 of his soldiers. The surrounding Marathas were around 10,000 in number and wanted to kidnap the princes to dictate terms to Aurangzeb. Since the princess was travelling on a doli, the Hada contingent had to follow on foot. So there was no horse available either. The Marathas surrounded the doli. The contingent of the Hadas was at a distance as the princess observed purdah.

When the doli was surrounded, Nadira Begum sent word to Ram Singh, summoned him and told him that: “asmat-i Rajputiya wa Chaghtaiya yak ast”, i.e., ‘the honor of the Chaghtais is identical with that of the Rajputs.’ “agar īn roz asmat-i Chaghtai raft, ba māra be asmat-i Rajputiya raft!” Ram Singh could understand Persian but could not speak it. So in a broken Persian he replied, ‘the malichhas (the unclean, i.e., the Marathas) will not be permitted even to look at the dola and there is no question of their even coming near it!’

Throughout the 17th Century such stiff resistance was never given to the Marathas as was offered by Ram Singh and his Hada contingents in spite of the heavy odds. Ram Singh Hada ultimately succeeded; around 300 Rajputs and 3-4 sons of Ram Singh Hada lost their lives and true to his words, the malichhas were not even permitted to have a look at the dola of Nadira Begum. This was the confidence between the Rajputs and the Mughals: a Mughal princess at a critical hour could appeal to a Rajput as to a Mughal!

This took place in 1699. So it would be incorrect to say that Aurangzeb lost the Rajputs because of the Rathore rebellion. But it is a fact that he was deprived of good soldiers who could have been of immense use to him in the Deccan.

Apart from the matrimonial alliances and sentimental attachments, the natural interest between the two was also identical. So long as the Mughals expanded or continued to expand, the Rajput states flourished and remained prosperous. When the Mughal Empire declined, as it did in the 18th Century, the grand houses of Rajputana were plundered by the Marathas. So practically throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries the Mughals and the Rajputs swam together and sank together.

Copyright: Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Muhammad Akbar (11 September 1657 – 31 March 1706) was the youngest son of Aurangzeb and Dilras Banu Begum. Prince Akbar led a rebellion against his father and fled the Deccan after the failure of that venture.

At the time when Rathore Rebellion broke out in 1679-80, Aurangzeb took prompt action by deputing Prince Azam to check the advance of the Sisodias so that no re-enforcements should reach the Rathores while Prince Akbar was assigned to suppress the Rathore rebellion. Aurangzeb himself remained at Ajmer. The Sisodias withdrew from the plain area and pressed the Mughal army in to the mountainous regions and adopted the guerrilla techniques to harass them.

From the Waqa’i Sarkar Ajmer we come to know that the Mughal army was rendered motionless due to the fear of the Sisodias in the mountainous region. Yet, we are informed, the entire country was over run by the Mughals and captured except the hilly regions where the Sisodias operated.

But on the Rathore front, a new situation developed. Prince Akbar was misled by the Rathores to believe that Aurangzeb was bent upon to destroy the Rathores and as such weaken the Mughal Empire. Prince Akbar was also persuaded by the Rathores, especially by Durgadas in to believing that in order to save the empire it was essential that Aurangzeb should be dethroned and he, that is Prince Akbar, be declared the emperor.
At this time Prince Akbar was accompanied by 70,000 best troops of the Mughal Empire; and now 30,000 Rathores joined him. He thus was now leading a formidable army of one lakh soldiers. Aurangzeb was at Ajmer with an army of only 3000 or 4000, personal guards and servants included.

Another thing which added to the seriousness of the situation was the fact that no re-enforcements could reach Aurangzeb before the rebels: the nearest Mughal army which could reach him was that of Prince Akbar. This created a serious crisis for Aurangzeb.

To justify his rebellion, Prince Akbar wrote a detailed and sarcastic letter to his father, Aurangzeb, which is important from the point of view of the Mughal-Rajput relations. A copy of this letter is preserved in the British Museum.

In this letter, Prince Akbar says that in reality Dara Shukoh was hostile to the Rajputs and faced the consequences for this act. If he had befriended the Rajputs from the very beginning, the situation would have taken another turn. It was because of the support extended to emperor Akbar, that he had consolidated the whole of India under him and it was with the support of the Rajputs that Mahabat Khan was able to restrict the movements of Jahangir and it was the support ‘to you’ by the Rajputs, ‘that you ascended the throne. You doubt the loyalty of the Rajputs in spite the fact that they are laying down their life for a suckling child [Ajit Singh]. During your reign the ministers have no power [wuzara be ikhtiyar and]’, i.e., suspicious of Aurangzeb, ‘nobles cannot be relied upon [nawisanda bekar and], merchants [ tujjar] have nothing, peasants are ruined. Especially in the Deccan, which is a vast area, is being constantly attacked by Marathas. All the people of noble birth are being ignored.’ Many of the advisers of the emperor consist of new people, i.e., they are either julaha, bāfinda (i.e. rafugar), sabun farosh (soap sellers), jaroop farosh (jharoo/ mop sellers) etc. that is ruffians or men of low birth are the main advisors of the emperor and the people who are hypocrites to the Muslim law, having memorized a few sayings and by repeating them to show off their knowledge; such persons are the advisors.’

Thus Prince Akbar points out the chaotic situation which was being faced by the Mughal Empire. Petty officials purchased appointments and then sell them at higher prices. In short they indulge in corruption.

Conclusively two facts emerge from these statements of Prince Akbar in this letter:

(a) that during the War of Succession, the Rajputs were the firm supporters of Aurangzeb as against Dara according to Prince Akbar; and

(b) Prince Akbar felt justified in revolting against Aurangzeb as continuation of Aurangzeb was thought to be detrimental to the Mughal Empire.

Prince Akbar advanced from Jodhpur to Ajmer very leisurely as if he was already the emperor. Aurangzeb was extremely worried about the situation but at the same time he was a man of steel-frame. He ordered that canons should be fixed at Deori and immediate orders were sent to all the nobles in different parts of the empire to come to the help of the emperor.

Aurangzeb was sure that no re-enforcements could reach him in time. But Prince Akbar proceeded just like a king at a leisurely pace. In the meantime an order was sent and Shahabuddin Khan in 3 days covered the distance which could have been covered normally in 10 days. He reached along with 16,000 troops. With their arrival a possibility of resistance increased. Nest day Prince Azam came along with 40,000 troops. Thus now the strength of the troops along with Aurangzeb was around 60,000 and the emperor now felt confident. He now resorted to a tactics he was quite adept at: He wrote a letter to Prince Akbar commending him and congratulating him that he had brought 30,000 Rathore soldiers along with him. He advised him to place the Rathore troops under Durgadas in the vanguard of his army so that from the rear ‘you could attack and from my side I, so that the Rathores would be no more’.

He gave this letter to a messenger to stroll near the camp of Durgadas Rathore. The scouts of the Rathore intercepted the messenger, discovered the letter of Aurangzeb to Prince Akbar. When it was read, Durgadas thought that he was caught in a treachery and fled. This sudden misunderstanding between two allies, caused confusion in the camp of Prince Akbar who too was constrained to flee in the face of the desertion of the Rathores. His Mughal soldiers joined Aurangzeb. The rebellion collapsed within no time. Akbar fled to the Deccan and took shelter with Shambha Ji.

The flight of Prince Akbar to the court of Shambha Ji in the Deccan created a serious problem for the Mughal administration in the Deccan as a Mughal puppet prince with Shambhaji, supported by Golcunda and Bijapur could have created very serious repercussions for the Mughals. Only a prince could fight a prince. So a sufficient army to tail Shambhaji and fight Golcunda and Bijapur must comprise a large force to fight on three fronts in the front; and now must be headed by a prince of the royal blood. And what was the guarantee that that Prince would not rebel?

So the flight of Prince Akbar and his taking shelter in the Deccan created a situation which forced Aurangzeb to revive the temptation to annex and follow a forward policy in the Deccan. Now if the prestige of the Mughal Administration in the Deccan was to be maintained, the Emperor himself had to go there; there was no way out. And Aurangzeb left Ajmer in 1681 for the Deccan never to return again. Once this forward policy was undertaken, neither the Deccan nor the Mughal Empire could be the same!

Copyright: Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

In December 1678, Maharaja Jaswant Singh, the Rathore ruler of Jodhpur died at Jamrup in Afghanistan. At the time of his death, Maharaja Jaswant Singh had no son. But it was reported to Aurangzeb that two ranis of Jaswant Singh were expectant. At the time of his death, Jaswant Singh was indebted to the State. So Aurangzeb ordered that efforts should be made to realize the amount from the property of the deceased Raja, as was the customary law. But pending any final decision regarding the conferring of tika on any one, Aurangzeb waited for the birth of the child. Under the Mughals, the conferring of the tika had a political and administrative significance; it meant recognition of a particular person as a raja of a particular place by the emperor. The tika was applied on the fore head of the raja by the emperor himself.

After the death of Jaswant Singh, Rani Hadi, the chief queen of the late Raja, was pleading that the tika should be conferred on her. But according to the law of succession followed by the Mughals in respect of conferring the tika, it could not be conferred on a widow (who had no status in the Hindu law).

So the weakness in the Rajput case was that they had no candidate on whom the tika could be conferred.

In the meantime, one of the Ranis gave birth to a son who was named Ajit Singh. After the birth of Ajit, the situation slightly changed because now the Rajputs had a candidate for the gaddi of Jodhpur. Initially, Aurangzeb had not doubted the genuineness of Ajit Singh, which is evident from the fact that the fort of Pokhran which had been assigned to Askaran by Aurangzeb, was cancelled on the plea that a son had been born to Jaswant Singh.

But again, the weakness in the Rajput case was that the tika could not be conferred on an infant. At this stage, Aurangzeb ordered that Jodhpur be included in the khalisa.

A question which can be raised here is: why did Aurangzeb wait for 4 or 5 months after the death of Jaswant Singh for passing an order of inclusion of Jodhpur into the khalisa? Answer to this is that as it was reported to Aurangzeb that the two Ranis of the late Raja were expecting, Aurangzeb wanted that if they turned out to be daughters, the task would have been comparatively easy. However, even if they turned out to be sons, it would hardly make a difference as the tika could not be conferred on a child.

The Rathores resented the inclusion of Jodhpur into the khalisa. Durgadas fled with Ajit Singh to Jodhpur. Rani Hadi, the chief queen of the late Jaswant Singh protested against the order of the inclusion on the ground that no bhumiya (zamindar) had ever been dispossessed from their watan (native land). Why were Rathores who had done so much distinguished service, being humiliated and asked to leave Jodhpur at a time when ceremonies of the deceased Raja were being held? Durgadas and Sona Bhati spear-headed the cause of the Rathores and pleaded that the order for inclusion of Jodhpur into khalisa be revoked and the tika be conferred on Ajit Singh.

The resentment of the Rathores was genuine, but the difficulty with the Mughals was also genuine. The tika could not be conferred on a widow or a child. Sir Jadunath Sarkar has made an attempt to explain the causes of the Rathore Rebellion in the usual framework of the so-called hostility of Aurangzeb towards Hindus and the Rajputs. Sarkar, being a ‘scientific historian’, however concedes that there was a difficulty in conferring a tika on the widow – a technical hitch, and again, on conferring a tika on a child.

So the fact that the tika could not be conferred on either is conceded by Sarkar. But, he says, it could have been conferred on Inder Singh, who was the grandson of Amar Singh, the elder brother of Jaswant Singh, that is, a very near blood relation of Jaswant Singh.

Sarkar further argued that Inder Singh was a very seasoned commander and an accomplished general serving in the Deccan as a mansabdar of 1500/1000. So if Aurangzeb was honest enough to confer the tika on a suitable candidate, then he should have been given; but the territory was instead included in to the khalisa because, Sarkar argues, Aurangzeb wanted to deprive the Hindu community from a powerful centre against his anti-Hindu policies.

Because of the protests of the Rathores, and due to the indignation amongst the Rathores against the inclusion of Jodhpur into the khalisa, Aurangzeb changed his mind. At this stage, he doubted the genuineness of Ajit Singh being the legitimate heir to Jaswant. He doubted him to be the son of a milk woman or a maid-servant and as such, no significance was to be attached to him.

Fortunately for us, all despatches of the waqi’a nigar of Ajmer, which were sent to the emperor, are preserved and are a part of a two volume manuscript in the Asafiya Library, Hyderabad. A transcript of this ms. is present in our library as well. These despatches provide a first hand information regarding events which took place in 1679-80 and a correct appraisal of the situation as the waqi’a nigar is writing for the exclusive eyes of the emperor. To be fair to Sir Jadunath, these despatches were not discovered in his time. They provide extremely useful information regarding the Rathore rebellion.

The information contained by the waqa’i Ajmer have been used by M.Athar Ali in his article on the causes of the Rathore Rebellion which was published in the PIHC, Delhi, 1961.

Thus having in view the reaction of the Rathores against the inclusion of Jodhpur territory in the khalisa Aurangzeb cancelled the order of inclusion and conferred the tika on Inder Singh for a consideration of 36 lakhs of rupees. Another claimant was Karan Singh, who was not so closely connected but offered 45 lakhs. His offer and claim was rejected by the emperor. So the money motive is to be ruled out.

After the appointment of Inder Singh as the Raj of Jodhpur, the Rathores went to the extremes, sharply reacting to his appointment. Rani Hadi made a petition to Aurangzeb that if you want the destruction of the temples, we are ready for that and would do so willingly, but that the appointment of Inder Singh should be revoked. The inclusion of the territory to khalisa was better than the appointment of Inder Singh.

Had Aurangzeb been in spreading Islam or in destruction of the temples, he would have accepted and welcomed the petition and the proposal of Rani Hadi. But the plea of the Rani was rejected. Rani Hadi now took the extreme step of filing a suite in the court of Qazi Hamid praying to know what the legal position in Shariat was. He however boycotted the petition.

Two questions arise at this stage. Why was Inder Singh not acceptable to the Rathores at all? Reason was that Inder Singh was the grandson of Amar Singh, the elder brother of Jaswant Singh, who had been deprived and humiliated by Jaswant Singh and his family. Durgadas and the other Rathore leaders, and the widows of the late Jaswant feared that if he was appointed and allowed to come from Bikaner where he was presently residing, he might take revenge on behalf of his grandfather and other family members.

These internal tensions, strains and stresses were known to Aurangzeb, while Sir Jadunath seems to be either unaware or forgetful of them. When the appointment of Inder Singh was not cancelled, the Rathores made it clear that they would not let him enter.

So the cause of the Rathore Rebellion was the appointment of Inder Singh as the new ruler and not the inclusion of Jodhpur to the khalisa.

Let us now come to the fallacies of Sarkar. If his argument is to be accepted at the face value, that Aurangzeb wanted to deprive the people of a Hindu centre against the anti-Hindu policies of Aurangzeb, that objective could have been achieved easily by appointing Ajit Singh as the Raja of Jodhpur, even if his patrimony in the eyes of Aurangzeb was doubtful, as for about 20 years, he would have been incapable of ruling. Rathores would have been satisfied and Aurangzeb could have named an administrator to administer the territory till Ajit Singh was a child. This could have been the easiest way to weaken Jodhpur. Aurangzeb did not do that as Aurangzeb wanted Jodhpur to flourish as (a) it should flourish so that a continuous supply of soldiers be continued from the rank of the Rathores, who were excellent soldiers; and (b) the law and order be maintained as Jodhpur was situated on the highway of the trade route from Agra to Gujarat.

Sarkar committed a mistake while giving the reasons for the rebellion. The depth of the bitterness of the Rathores – Durgdas, Sonar Bhati and Rani Hadi – was against Inder Singh. And when the order was not withdrawn by Aurangzeb, the Rathores asked the qile’dar of Jodhpur, Iftekhar Khan, to leave the place as they were starting a rebellion.

The traditions of mourning Imām Husain during the ten days of Muharram has a very long history.

Before going further, let me first explain some of the terms: the term majlis stands for the congregational assembly or gathering where the memory of the martyrs of Karbala are invoked. It comprises basically of three parts: a typical majlis starts with soz khwāni, recital of dirges while sitting. It usually starts with salām (salutations: verses eulogising the Ahlulbayt) and ends with certain bayts (verses) of Marsiya (elegies). This is followed by the oratory (zakiri/ majlis) “recited” by a zākir” orator: Though seldom “read” but delivered in the form of a speech it is “recited” as initially there used to be a recital of a book written during the 17th Century in Safavid Iran which was known as Rauzat ush Shuhada. It was a versified account of Karbala by Waez Kashifi. Later this job was taken over from the reciters by orators, zākerīn.

The zikr or main oratory has two parts: fazāil (praise, appreciation) and masāeb (travails). In the first part the orator tells about the life, message and parables from the experiences of the Ahlulbayt as well as discusses any theme or topic he may want, from meaning of Islam to the acts of terrorism today, the message of the Prophet to the social ills prevalent in the community. The end 10 to 15 minutes are necessarily devoted to the masaib: an account of the tragedy which befell on Imām Husain and his followers at Karbala.

The last part of the majlis is mātam, beating of chest as a sign of lamentation along with a recital (in fact singing) of nauha (dirges). The crescendo in the mātam is reserved for the last. The programme ends with a ziarat (salutations) and distribution of tabarruk (offerings) of whatever the host can manage: sweets or biscuits or whatever eatable on can manage. The distribution is amongst all who were present.

As such majlis (plural, Majālis) are held for all the ten days, it is known as “Ashra” ( ashr being 10).

It is said that if you want to experience the real spirit of Muharram, go to a qasba (a mufassil town) or a qarya (village).

My ancestral place is Haswa, once a qasba (during the Mughal rule and Colonial period) but now a village (grām) in the district of Fatehpur in eastern UP. It derives it’s name from a certain legendary Raja Hans, who was allegedly a contemporary of Pandavas. It was after him that the place came to be known as “Hanswa”, and later “Haswa”. It’s antiquity is attested to by a large number of Kushan period bricks found in the big pond near our house, ancient sculptures and stone carvings embedded within our ancestral homes and a Greek inscription found from a nearby temple a a couple of decades back.

During medieval times the place had two forts, a mud fort and another with stone ramparts attested to as late as the account of an 18th century traveller and Jesuit, Josef Tieffanthaler. According to Abul Fazl the revenues of Haswa were more than that of Fatehpur.

Today in Haswa, Muharram is commemorated only in our Muhalla, known as Muhalla Chaudhrana which has around 22-25 houses, all belonging to one family, ours. Like every other traditional ancestral family, ours too is divided into a number of branches (at least three in our case). All three branches have their own focal points, and are an example of living together separately.

Each house in our Muhalla is now basically an Imāmbada: a large Hall with shahnashīn (platform) a large courtyard and some dālāns and rooms, as the occupants come here only during Muharram to hold majālis (mourning ceremonies). Apart from all these, there is a separate Imāmbada and a Hātha, a former males quarters.

From early morning to late nights the whole neighbourhood and it’s occupants do only one thing: commemorate Husain! Every day there are community kitchens and “Hāzri” for all men and women, day and night.

Even the non-Shi’a neighbourhoods in Haswa start getting crowded with all type of people returning back home to commemorate Muharram: by first of Muharram the whole qasba is abuzz with people eager to receive Imām Husain amongst their midst. Among those who come are a group of of tabalchis – those who beat drums, dhols and tāshas and produce music. Since the sighting of moon the “Muharrami bāja” as they are called, are on the round through out the inhabited areas, passing from muhalla to muhalla announcing the mourning of Husain.

Special preparations start weeks before with every house being coated afresh, some residents even time building new structures to be completed by the dawn of first Muharram. The houses are well stocked to receive incoming guests; generators for electricity are installed and arrangements for proper water supply are made. White washing of the “Karbala” situated outside the village, beyond the lake, which also comprises the family graveyard is done.

From 1st of Muharram to 10th of Muharram there is nothing but sounds of lamentation and cries of “Yā Husain” emanating. Two days however are more elaborately hallowed: the 7th Muharram and the 10th Muharram which are marked by daylong processions of Alams (standard/banner/flag), tābūt (replica of biers) and tazias.

The “ashrā” of Majālis start from early morning of the first: at 7 O’clock the first majlis commences in the House (Imāmbada) of Iqbal Chacha. Followed by a majlis in our own Imāmbada. In fact in our Imāmbada two majalis take place: one in the morning and another at 4:00pm. All over the day around 8 ashras are held and they end late in the night, with people hopping from one majlis to another. When I started visiting my village 20 years back, there were only a few orators (zākirs) all from the family, I being one of them. Now since a number of years around half a dozen professional orators are “imported” from Lucknow and elsewhere. Since two years or so a Maulana from Faizabad, who practices law is given the mimber.

For a period of ten days, the entire locality bustles with people. But suddenly on 11th the Muhalla starts getting vacated. If there were a thousand individuals a day before, by the noon of 11th half are gone. The other half who remain are usually gone in the next two days or so with only a couple of people remaining in the entire neighbourhood waiting for others to return the next Muharram.

The first Ashra of majālis to start at Haswa was in our azākhāna [mourning chamber: a place decorated with alam (flags & emblems), tazia (paper and wood replicas of the shrines) zarī (metal replicas of the same) etc. and a hall to assemble]. The second majlis of the day is held in our house, which was initially started by my late father, Allama Saiyid Sibtul Hasan in 1930’s or so. Later my uncle late Munirul Hasan continued the tradition even after my father left the village to settle in Aligarh in 1954. Later one of our uncles also started a second Ashra in our azākhana. So today, a majlis is held daily at 10:00 am and another at 4:30 pm. Before independence, till 1953 my father Allama Saiyid Sibtul Hasan, Fāzil-i Hanswi used to address the gatherings. These days, our Ashras is addressed by a Maulana who is called; the other is recited by my second cousin’s son, Husain. Till a few years back, I too would recite a number of majālis in my house.

Any typical Muharram day at Haswa however starts with an Ashra scheduled for 7:30 am in the house of late Iqbāl chacha. Usually a zākir from Lucknow is invited there.

The third daily majlis of the day is held in the azākhāna of Nihāl Bhai, who unfortunately expired much before I started going to Haswa myself. Since the last decade and a half I found Nihāl Bhai’s younger brother late Chānd Miyān organising this majlis. Since his passing away, Nihāl Bhai’s son has taken over. They also now invite a zākir, usually from Fatehpur to come for the daily majālis.

At around noon, or a little later, is held an Ashra in the house of Abrar Chacha. This majlis is still followed by a mātam accompanied with drums and tāsha, the mātami bāja. Unfortunately some individuals are trying to do away with this practice. And sadly, they appear to be succeeding: a Shia version of wahhabiyat where every second thing is “harām” or “biddat” is also gradually seeping in!

In the evening a majlis is held in the house of Hassu Bhai. Here generally the zākir is called to recite the majlis.

After the evening prayers a majlis is held in Hātha, a place which was a common mardānkhāna of the entire clan, but now held by a family. It is technically not an Ashra as majālis are held only till 8th Muharram and with a gap on 7th due to a procession. It used to be the largest majlis of the entire day and was till recently attended by people from far and wide. Usually a zākir from Lucknow is there. I remember that till a decade or so back, late Razi Bhai was the one who held the sway there. During that period, a number of poets too present their kalām from the mimber (pulpit) and a number of nauha khwān (dirges reciters) cued up vying with each other to get a chance!

The day ends with the last majlis of the day: the majlis in the Imāmbada of Bunyād Ali, one of our grandfathers. Here too, technically it’s not an ashra as only six majālis are held like in Hātha.

Then there are many individual majalis organised by even Sunnis are held. One of them is held on 7th Muharram.

No account of Muharram at Haswa can end without the mention of two of its residents: Qaisar and Hasan Fatehpuri.

Qaisar has a very restricted vision but remarkably remembers all the nauhas and even soz! He single handedly takes up this duty in every azākhāna! And in every procession. His memory keeps us amazed.

Hasan Chacha is our own proud bard: we actually look forward for his new kalām every year! He not only is an accomplished poet, but is a possessor of a good throat and voice. Unfortunately since a few years he has been unable to come. Replacing him today are two others who come from Mumbai: Pappu and Kausar Rizvi. Kausar Bhai himself is an accomplished poet and composes his own nauhas which are quite popular and liked.

As far as the julūs-i azā (mourning processions) in Haswa are concerned, they too, like in any other Shi’a basti in North India, are many.

However I will single out only two or three of them here. Haswa since before independence is known for 7th Muharram. On 7th a massive procession is taken out around noon from the Imāmbada of Bunyād Ali.

The procession commences with the recital of a certain dirge which is recited by a number of persons who stand holding the pulpit.

Accompanied with Alams (flags of Imām Husain and his flagbearer, alamdār, Hazrat Abbas and biers in the form of cots draped in green symbolising the bier of Hazrat Qasim, martyred son of Imām Hasan) first slowly marches towards Hāthā where Razi Bhai for ages used to recites a majlis. Now whoever is invited for the Hātha majlis does so. The procession then heads towards the bazār, where people from even neighbouring villages have assembled. Here the procession is almost taken over by the Sunnis who perform zanjīr ka mātam (inflicting the backs of their torsos with small knives hanging from iron chains). By evening the procession proceeds back to from where it had commenced.

The second important procession is in the early morning of 10th Muharram. Soon after morning azān when it is still dark women assemble in our azākhāna and my aunt used to read a long versified dirge. As it finishes in great lamentations, the two tābūts (replica of biers) along with an Alam is taken out and handed to the menfolk standing outside the house. Slowly the biers are taken out and all march towards the Hāthā situated at the other end of the muhalla (ours being the last house on this side.) As we proceed from each house enroute a bier and an Alam joins. By the time the procession reaches Hātha, more than two dozen tābūts and a number of alams are there. It is in fact one of the most grand scene: dozens of tābūts on the shoulders of silent mourners moving under the shadow of the flags of Husain!

Of course the culmination is in the form of the main procession of tenth Muharram. It has the same route as the one on 7th. The only difference is that it is accompanied by two main ( and many subsidiary) tazias.

It is remarkable that the tazias of Haswa are different from the usual ones: they are in the form of rath (chariots) associated with Shri Krishna! They have a pyramidal shikhara style roof with a shade for the maharathi (charioteer) extending in the front! On the top is the wooden “kalasha”.

These paper and bamboo structures were traditionally constructed by one of the family members himself: I remember my cousin Hadi Bhai would start making them soon after Baqr Eid! Now they are made by the professionals from whom we buy them.

Further, in Haswa we have a colour coding as well. The taziya of Hāthā, (the azākhāna of the Old Mardākhāna of our family, now in possession of one branch of the family) is compulsorily green in colour: the colour of Imām Hasan (he was poisoned to death by Amīr Muawiya: thus green, the colour of poison). On the other hand, the tāziya of ‘Imāmbada (of the family, but now controlled by another “branch”) is red, the colour of Imām Husain, who was martyred by sword.

This colour code was followed even in the tāziya kept in individual family azākhānās as well: thus in our house used to usually have the green tāziya, for we belong to that particular branch of family. But now slowly this distinction is being lost. This year the tazia kept in our house is red.

Another tradition is that the Red Tāziya would be the first to be kept on the Imām Chowk. After it has been kept, only then the Green one would be brought out.

It is happy to note that each year the scale of Azadāri in our village, like elsewhere in the country, is growing. The Azadari of Haswa, is spite of changes over the decades, still exudes the old world charm.

Revised: 7th Muharram 1447 / 3rd July 2025

Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi