Medieval Indian History

The most important dynasty to rise out of the southern India was that of the Cholas. Unlike most of the other dynasties (the Chalukyas, the Pallavas, the Pandyas or the Rashtrakutas), their origins are not traced from outside, but very much from the south itself.

The Deccan region was at this time in much turmoil. To begin with, the Cholas had managed almost immediately to reduce the Pallavas to the status of minor feudatories.
The Rashtrakutas were in decline now, but their place was taken by a resurgent branch of the Chalukya family (imaginatively called the later Chalukyas by historians) who were gaining strength in the region of western Deccan. The power equation in the Deccan now involved the later Chalukyas, the Yadavas of Devagiri (northern Deccan; region around Aurangabad), the Kakatiyas of Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) and the Hoysalas of Dorasamudra (Mysore). Much sorting out had to be done before the Cholas finally emerged as unchallenged authorities in the south. This they managed with sheer tenacity over a period of 300 years from 900-1100 AD – and even then for a short while only.

Chola's Contribution To South Indian History

However, the Chola contribution to south Indian history is far more wide-ranging than just political. This period saw the final settling down and consolidation of Tamil culture. In whatever sphere – whether of social institutions, religion, fine arts, music, dance, jewellery – the standards that were set during this period came to be regarded as classical, and dominate, in a modified form, much of the living patterns of south Indians even today. This period also saw the spread of this culture overseas to Southeast Asia, regions with whom the Cholas had strong political and economic relations.

The Cholas came to power rather suddenly when one of family conquered Tanjore (in the middle of Tamil Nadu) and declared himself a king in the middle of the 9^th century AD.

The first important ruler to emerge from the dynasty was Rajaraja Chola I (985-1014AD) and his son and successor Rajendra Chola (1014-1035AD). Both father and son put their heads down and campaigned in almost every direction. Rajaraja started with annexing large areas of the Deccan, defeating a powerful alliance between the Cheras (of Kerala region), the Pandyas and the rulers of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). This effectively broke the monopoly that these kingdoms had over the trade routes to Southeast Asia.

The Cholas had an effective navy and Rajaraja, with a view to control this trade route completely, led an attack to the Maldive Islands too.

Rajendra I ruled together with father for two years before going solo in 1014AD. He aggressively continued his father's imperialist policies with the annexation of the region around modern Hyderabad which was controlled by the Chalukyas at that time. He also turned his attention northwards where he reached right upto the Ganges valley, Orissa and west Bengal areas.

However, these were not areas that Rajendra held, or even seriously expected to hold, for long. What were really ambitious were Rajendra Chola's offshore expeditions, involving both the army and the navy against andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Malay Islands and Sumatra.
However, these were not colonizing forays, for he never tried to seriously consolidate or move in on his gains in these regions; they were in main campaigns to protect his trade routes with the Southeast Asian nations.

Rajendra Chola I was killed in 1052AD, in battle against his old foes the Chalukyas. The successors of Rajendra I were far too occupied with their problems within the peninsula to worry about overseas expansion. Almost throughout they remained at loggerheads with the Chalukyas, with both carrying attacks and revenge raids against each other.

However, by the middle of the 12^th century Chola power was already deep into decline. The south was simply far too divided and no one kingdom stood out as a clear leader. The scene was again rapidly shifting to the north where much liveliness had occurred by this time.

Islamic 'hordes' Made Their First Appearance

This is the time which saw the emergence of Delhi from the mists of obscurity that it had sunk into since it was first inhabited as Indraprastha.
It was what the historians call the 'early medieval' period of India – about the 11-12^th century AD – when the much travelled Rajputs were floating restlessly around looking for a home before finally finding shelter in the Rajputana area.

Here the strategic location of Delhi came to play – it was the doorway to both the fertile Punjab, the fabled land of the fiver rivers, and the fertile Ganges valley.

But first, just who were these Rajputs? We come across the word 'Rajput' for the first time in the 7th century AD. There is no previous record or reference of it and it is certainly not a Sanskrit word. There are as many theories as there are historians about the origin of the Rajputs, including an opinion that they were descended from foreigners, from one of the Indo-Parthian, Indo-Bactrian, Indo-Scythian, Saka, Kushana or Hun strains that were already present in India for quite some centuries.

This might just be true, considering the elaborate genealogies that the Brahmans (the priest of the Indian varna or caste system) created to accord them the Kshatriya (warrior) caste. This was a status they always insisted upon, and still do, with surprising and almost undue vehemence. The Rajputs traced their lineage from a mythical fire atop Mount Abu, a mountain in Rajasthan, (Agni Kula or the Fire Family), the sun (Suryavanshi or the Sun Family) and the moon (Chandravanshi or the Moon Family).

The time between the fading away of Harsha Vardhana (606-646AD) and with it the Vardhana might and the rise of Islamic power in India was occupied with the ascent of Rajput power. This, however, was a very short-lived period, mainly due to the in-fighting among the fiercely divided Rajputs.

As can be imagined, India under the Rajputs was not exactly what one could call a single and completely unified unit. Delhi and Ajmer, under the Chauhans, were the most powerful states of this period. However, the first Rajputs to hit Delhi were the Tomaras. In fact, the second city of Delhi, Lal Kot (the Red Fortress) was built in 1060A.D. by Raja Anang Pal, one of the earliest Tomara rulers to settle in Delhi. Their rule was pretty short-lived, though, and soon the Chauhan Rajputs under the generalship of Prithviraj Chauhan seized control of Lal Kot in the 12^th century.
There were other states where Rajputs were gaining prominence. Like Kanauj (in present Uttar Pradesh) where in this period ruled Jaichand, a Rathore (another Rajput family) ruler, who was a bitter rival of Prithviraj Chauhan. In Bundelkhand (in Madhya Pradesh), the chandravansi (of the moon family) Chandelas were ruling. Malwa and Gujrat were were under the Paramaras (the most important ruler was king Bhoj) and Chaulukyas (who are supposed to descendants of the Chalukyas) respectively.

This was a very troubled time in Indian history. There was no clear central authority in sight and each petty ruler was daring to dream the mad dream of ruling all over the country – which at that point in time meant basically the Gangetic plains and the Deccan. This is the main reason why no ruler was able to hold Delhi long enough to establish a kingdom here, and also the principle reason why the Arabs and Turks didn't exactly have to sweat to the bone to stamp their authority all over them.

And then it happened. In 1000BC, as if on cue, the crescent appeared for the first time over the Indian horizons.

In 1000AD, Mahmud of Ghazni (Afghanistan) encroached upon Indian territories for the first time and then made these invasions almost an annual feature. What with no strong central power, looting the wealth of India to replenish the coffers of Ghazni must have been as easy as finding it.

In all, Mahmud invaded India eleven times and the wealth he looted from here went into funding his campaigns in central Asia and mosques, libraries and museums in Ghazni.

Strangely enough, no confederacy appeared to ward off his invasions. After Mahmud's death in 1030AD, any chances of such a mutual consensus being reached among the rulers fizzled out since the significance of his raids as forerunners for others to follow was never quite grasped.

Rajput Hero- Prithviraj

The Rajput clans remained almost constantly and thoroughly at war among themselves in the 11^th and 12^th centuries. It had become a matter of pride to use every supposed slight as an excuse for war, and the prevailing chivalric code allowed no place for either long-sightedness, clear thinking or strategy.

This was around the time that Prithviraj had married the daughter of the king of Kanauj Jaichand – in true Lochinvar style, by carrying her away in the middle of her wedding. The pride of the Kanauj had been stung and had to be avenged.

It so happened that an Afghan ruler Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Ghuri or Mohammad of Ghur (between Ghazni and Herat) was gathering his forces at the frontiers of India, this time in preparation for forcing his way through to Delhi. Even before his forces had rallied around him, the Afghan was surprised by an invitation from Jaichand who offered his help in any way possible to rub out Prithviraj Chauhan from the face of the earth.

However, the Rathore ruler had made one of the grossest miscalculations of his life – in supposing that Ghuri was just another invader looking for dipping into India's bottomless pit of wealth, he erred badly.

Ghuri wanted to establish a kingdom here, and in 1185AD he sent the Rajputs abuzz by taking Lahore. The rulers of north India then half-heartedly threw in their lot with the ruler of Delhi Prithviraj and were able to defeat Ghuri in the Battle of Tarain in 1191AD.
Unfortunately, here is where the foolhardiness of the Rajput code of honour came into play. Prithviraj had Ghuri captured and, when the latter appealed to his better nature, made the grand gesture of actually setting him free. If he had thought that Ghuri would go out and sin no more, he must have been much disappointed for the Afghan simply sent for reinforcements and launched another attack the very next year.

The battle of 1192 was fought at Tarain too; this time Ghuri crushed the Rajputs with one of those clinical and sound defeats that only the Central Asians knew best how to inflict. and when he had Prithviraj he didn't do any such fool thing as letting him go.

This difference in the psychological approach to war, more than anything else, was the undoing of the Indian rulers.

The Afghans and Turks regarded war as a serious business, a matter of life and death.
But for the Indian princes war seemed to have been a form sport, with its own rules of gallantry and chivalry, to show off their bravery and skill. Man to man, no doubt, the Rajputs were better warriors than the Afghans but, when it came to using their resources, the latter were superb at making each man count. The Rajputs failed to understand the crucial distinction between a battle and a war; strategic retreat, which was the strength of the Afghans and Turks, would have been scorned by them. On the other hand the Afghans were a more patient lot, and were willing to lose a battle to win the war.

The conquest of Delhi by Muhammad Ghuri would change the future of Indian history radically. A word here about the much-maligned 'Islamic hordes' who conquered India and 'stamped out' the so-called 'Hindu' culture.

With the coming of Ghuri came the long rule of Islamic rulers in the country, and for the first time India saw a succession of proper dynastic rule which it had not really seen up till now.

There were no more gaps in rule anymore. No more hundred years of no central authority, and certainly no chaos like the one India had just witnessed before the Islamic conquest of India – until deep into the 18^th century AD, for a very brief period before the British took over.

Even at their weakest, the Islamic rulers were able to provide India with a strongly centralized government. This was largely due to the fact that the Turks stuck together, at first within themselves, and later reluctantly also with the Afghans. Even when the king was weak the Turks saw it as their duty to maintain a strong face and keep the show going.

Of course there were bad times, especially when the ruler suddenly decided to go more Islamic than thou and break temples (which were remodeled as mosques) built by the Hindus, a term which started being used around this time. However, this needs to be put in perspective. Muslims saw idol worship as a blasphemy against Allah and were shocked that the Hindus would think differently. Religious tolerance, especially under the Mughals, was practiced quite actively and even under the infamous Aurangzeb who had lots of political compulsions forcing him to act the way he did.

Also the 'long rule of oppression' under the Muslims for the Hindus is largely a myth. First and foremost the Turks and Afghans were shrewd rulers and even shrewder politicians; they were not really much bothered with God and godliness when it came to ruling. This is evinced by a proclamation from Ala-ud-din Khalji, one of the most powerful rulers of the Delhi Sultanate. He had decreed the state (i.e., himself) to be above the priesthood, and when the latter claimed this as un-Islamic and against the Sharia laws, he said, "I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful; whatever I think to be for the good of or suitable for the state, that I decree; and as for what may happen to me on the Day of Judgement that I do not know." Clearly he was not losing much sleep over displeasing Allah.

If Qutub-ud-din Aibak and Altamash broke temples to use them in their own buildings, it was largely because they were rather short of both time and building material. Also, these rulers urged their troops on to fighting by raising the banner of jehad (Holy War); just like the kings of the Middle Ages urged on their armies to loot the treasures of the Byzantine empire under the cloak of the Crusades. So they had to give their troops some evidence and justification for raising the cry of a Holy War.

At least no mass destruction of books, wisdom and ancient treasures (as occurred in Constantinople, Egypt, the Americas and elsewhere) happened in India – the Arabs, Afghans and Turks, who were quite a scholarly and well-read lot themselves, knew when to stop. The destruction of temples stopped as soon as the Delhi Sultanate settled down and the sultans had more time and money in their hands, which in turn let them free to follow styles which suited their own tastes better.

Anyhow, Delhi and Ajmer passed on to Muhammad of Ghur, who then returned to his own country after leaving Qutubddin Aibak as his viceroy in Delhi. In 1206, when Muhammad was assassinated, Aibak crowned himself Sultan of Delhi, thus laying the foundation for the so-called Slave dynasty of Delhi (the founder having once been a slave), or the Delhi Sultanate.

For the first some years the Sultanate was largely individual-driven, and given the rather communal tribal nature of the Afghan-Turk polity dynastic rule took its time to take hold. The first to begin the consolidation work the dynasty was Altamash (1211-1236AD), who was the son-in-law and successor of Qutub-ud-din Aibak. The Slave Dynasty is also famous for having given India its first woman king, Raziya Sultan (1237-1240AD), the daughter and successor of Altamash. She was followed by a very tough customer, Ghiyas-ud-din Balban (1266-1286AD) who gave the Delhi Sultanate its character and finished the consolidation work.

Balban left a strong base for his successors to build upon, and thankfully, the times got the right rulers. Now the Sultanate saw the rise of the Khaljis, together with Jala-ud-din Khalji (1290-1296AD) and Ala-ud-din Khalji (1296-1316AD), who were its first real dynasty. They were followed by the Tughlaqs who produced three strong rulers – Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq (1320-1414AD), Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq (1325-1351AD) and Feroze Shah Tughlaq (1350-1388AD).

After Feroze Shah’s death, the luck of the Delhi Sultanate ran out and it was sacked thoroughly and absolutely by Timur the Lame, the famous Persian ruler. This was however not the first time that India had been invaded since the Delhi Sultanate took charge. Almost throughout its history, the Sultanate was troubled by repeated invasions from the persistent Mongols (see History of Delhi for more on Mongol invasions). Although the sultans were able to successfully repel all Mongol advances, these invasions took their toll especially since entire armies had to raised and defense budgets allocated for frontier security. To raise the money to fund these, the sultans had to be almost continuously in battle with other areas of India.

The Last Dynasty of Delhi- Lodis

The ruler in Delhi was Ibrahim Lodi (1517-1526AD), who was a very unpopular king. Not only was he not in with the people of Delhi, who often had a mind of their own about who should rule them and did not shy away from expressing it, he actually fell out very badly with the Maliks (nobles).

Ibrahim believed in keeping his nobles firmly in their place – which was, according to him, much beneath the royal throne. In fact, so horrific were his dealings with those that displeased him in any way, real or imagined, that in the end his governor in Punjab, Dilawer Khan, appealed to the latest runaway from Samarkand who was camping in Kabul at that time for help.

The latter heeded this SOS with an alacrity that showed that such a campaign had been very much on his mind too. The voice of Dilawar Khan was strengthened by those of the Rajputs, especially Rana Sanga, the Rathore ruler of Mewar, who decided to use this new invader to get rid of the autocratic Ibrahim Lodi.

Arrival of Mughals

Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur (1526-1530AD), who had the blood of the great central Asian families of Chingez Khan from his mother's side and that of Timur from his father's, had been hunting for a home to call his own since he was a teenager. He had been driven out of Samarkand, his home, and forced to set up a kingdom elsewhere by his cousins and uncles. Babur looked at Kabul in Afghanistan to start afresh. It was while he was here, building a kingdom for himself, that the Indian princes got in touch with him to help him rid of Ibrahim Lodi.
Much to his delight of course, for the ink was, so to speak, still wet on the pen with which he had written in his autobiography, Tuzuk-i-Baburi, "From the time I conquered the land of Kabul till now, I had always been bent on subduing Hindustan." That very year, in 1526, he crossed over the Indus to reach Panipat, where he defeated Ibrahim Lodi in one of the most significant battles of Indian history.

It was curtains now for the Delhi Sultanate. The Mughals had arrived.

Babur was a military general of formidable credentials and his troops would follow him everywhere, and indeed did for thoroughly battle-scarred his tenure. The first person he defeated was Rana Sanga who was perhaps appalled at Babur's obvious intentions of getting comfortable and staying on in Delhi. After taking Mewar, Babur moved on other battlefields, defeating many kingdoms with a speed which was astonishing.

By the end of it all, Babur had managed to firmly establish the Mughals as the new order to salute in India. He died in controversial circumstances. Some say he was poisoned. There is a more romantic version – apparently, his son and successor Humayun had taken ill, and Babur appealed to God that He should spare the son and take his life instead.

Humayun's troubled life, in which he was constantly at pains to reconcile his erudite scholarly nature with the demands of kingship (a struggle which in the end resulted in a severe opium addiction), in the end seemed to justify a couplet which he liked quote:

"Oh Lord, of thine infinite goodness make me a part;
Make me a partner of the knowledge of thy attributes;
I am broken-hearted from cares and sorrows of life;
O calls to thee thy poor madman and lover;
Grant me my release."

Akbar, The Great

With the passing away of Humayun, came to end the teething problems of the imperial Mughal dynasty for his son was undoubtedly one of the greatest rulers India ever produced. Soon after ascending the throne as a mere kid of 14, Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (1556-1605AD) started to prove why he earned the epithet of Akbar, the Great. When Akbar came to throne all his father had left behind were poor fragments of military conquests for him to make sense out of. While Humayun would have given up, Akbar thrived; challenge became him, whether physical or metaphysical.

Every ruler in India at that time knew that Humayun had just barely managed to take his kingdom back and all eyes were on young Akbar – Sikander Sur, Sher Shah Suri's grandson was still around trying to get the kingdom back; the powerful Rajputs from behind their invincible fortresses, the states of Gujrat and Malwa; even the southern kingdoms – they were waiting for his next move.

If the first battle of Panipat signalled the arrival of the Mughals, the second was of greater importance. All the pretensions to sovereignty which the Afghans had clung on to since the days of Sher Shah Suri were finally crushed under the advancing Mughal heels.

With this victory Akbar sent a clear signal all over India – he was undoubtedly the Mughal king and intended to be, and was taken seriously. Akbar fought battles all over India, and at the end of it all had an empire that stretched down to the present Karnataka in the south, touching right upto the Hindukush range in the north, all of Rajasthan in the west and after taking in Kashmir and Bihar going on to Bengal in the east.

Akbar ruled the greatest empire that India saw before the British and ruled it with far more authority. One man sitting in his Red Fort in Agra ruled this entire empire with an iron hand.

Diplomacy apart, Akbar was a great visionary in many other fields – like art (painters of his court studied styles from far and wide), philosophy and religion (in 1581 he started a national religion which was an amalgam of Hindu, Islamic and Zoroastrian tenets called the Din-i-Illahi or the religion of God), music, literature and so on. Akbar also held deliberations in religion and philosophy with Buddhists, Jains and Christians, in particular the Jesuits. His court was famous for its nauratan (nine gems) or nine experts chosen over the years from various artistic fields, like Abul Fazl the historian, Raja Birbal the wit, Mia Tansen the legendary singer and so on. There are many stories about Akbar and his nine gems; the ones involving Raja Birbal and him are still popular all over India.

In October 1605 Akbar fell ill and in November that same year that small boy who had stared so many years ago at the battlefield where his grandfather had won such a famous victory, died as king-emperor, the greatest king to have ever ruled India.

Jahangir was crowned emperor by his father when the latter had been on his deathbed in 1605. He had to face the usual share of revolts and rebellions. The very first one being from prince Khusro, in which he was in good company – for Khusro revolted when Jahangir's son, Shah Jahan, came to the throne as well. The single most important person in Jahangir's life was his wife, the enigmatic Nur Jahan, whom he married in 1611.

However, Nur Jahan was not without failings and her biggest was ambition, not only for herself but for her child – a daughter from earlier marriage. She tried her best to keep the king and the rightful heir Shah Jahan separated and to make her daughter's husband the king. However, this was one project that Nur Jahan could not complete with success.

Jahangir was not a mere figurehead in his kingdom. He led his armies into battle a number of times and extended the frontiers of his empire further down in the Deccan, although he lost Kandhar. This loss, however, was not his fault but that of the bitter in-fighting between Shah Jahan and his stepmother. Nur Jahan ordered Shah Jahan to move in battle against a rebellion there, but the prince, suspicious of her motives, refused and revolted against Jahangir instead. The emperor got so occupied with his family affairs that he simply forgot about winning Kandhar back, even though it would have been a matter of just a few days siege.

Things became so bad that Jahangir had to resort to the extreme measure of kidnapping his own grandchildren away to Kashmir with him to stop his son. Depsite all this, however Shah Jahan, being a huge favorite with the nobility, safely ascended the throne in 1627, when Jahangir died.

The reign of Shah Jahan has been widely acclaimed as the golden period of the Mughal dynasty. There are many reasons for this. Thanks to the firm base left by his grandfather and father, Shah Jahan's reign was relatively peaceful and hence prosperous.

Except for one drought in 1630 in the areas of Deccan, Gujrat and Khandesh, the kingdom was secure and free from poverty. The coffers of the state were brimming with the right stuff. So it's no wonder that Shah Jahan was the greatest and most assiduous builder of the Mughal dynasty.

In 1639, he decided to shift his capital to Delhi and construct a new city there on the banks of the Yamuna, near Ferozabad. It was to be called Shahjahanabad and the famously spectacular peacock throne (the one that Nadir Shah took away) was transferred from Agra to the Red Fort, the new seat of the Mughal rulers, on April 8, 1648.

Military and building genius apart, Shah Jahan's capacity for hard work was legendary. Within a year of his taking reins, the revenue of the state had went up in leaps and bounds.

However, his greatest and most memorable of achievements of course was the breathtaking Taj Mahal, which he built in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died in child birth.

There were downsides too. He was a bigoted Muslim and a confirmed nepotist. He provided for the imperial princes before anyone else in the matter of administrative and judicial postings regardless of age, capability and talent. He also started the practise of conferring the cream of the offices on each prince; like Dara Shikoh was made the governor of Punjab and Multan, Aurangzeb was appointed governor of all the four provinces of the Deccan and so on. This might have been just a clever way to keep them occupied, but that was not how the nobility viewed it. The nobles saw this, and rightfully so, as an obstacle in the path of their promotions.

However, the end of Shah Jahan's reign did not live up to the beginning; it saw one of the messiest battles of succession that Indian history ever witnessed. In September 1657, Shah Jahan fell ill. The prognosis was so unoptimistic that the rumors had it that the emperor was dead. This was enough to spark off intense intrigue in the court. All the four claimants to Shah Jahan's throne were the children of the same mother – although one would never have guessed that from their temperaments and their determination to make it to the throne.

In 1657, Dara Shikoh was 43, Shah Shuja 41, Aurangzeb 39 and Murad 33. All of them were governors of various provinces: Dara was the governor of Punjab, Murad of Gujrat, Aurangzeb of the Deccan and Shah Shuja of Bengal. Two of them emerged clear frontrunners in the battle for the throne quite early: Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb was with doubt the ablest of Shah Jahan's sons and a clear favorite for the throne. His credentials both in battle and administration were legendary. He was also an orthodox Muslim of the oldest school possible, which made him a hot favorite with the clergy.

As stated earlier, the actual events which unfolded around Shah Jahan's illness were confused. Aiding and abetting the confusion with every word and gesture, for his own aims and purposes, was the favorite son Dara Shikoh. Aurangzeb did not waste much time. Acting on Dara Shikoh's behalf, Aurangzeb along with Murad met the Mughal armies twice in battle, and beat them each time while moving on relentlessly towards Agra, where Shah Jahan was convalescing.

When Shah Jahan heard of Aurangzeb's advance, he expressed a wish to meet Aurangzeb and talk to him. It was the emperor's belief that upon seeing him alive, his son would turn on his heels and go back. Clearly the old king had been ailing only in body and not in mind, for certainly the appearance of Shah Jahan himself would have laid to rest the whole issue of succession. Even the most ardent of Aurangzeb's supporters would have had second thoughts about defying the great Mughal's authority openly.

However, Dara Shikoh lacked the potentate's easy confidence in his son. He was not so convinced that Aurangzeb would meekly go back to where he had come from once he had been reassured by the king. In panic he also gave out that he was the heir-apparent.

So with suspicion and rumours ruling the day and power having the last laugh, Aurangzeb was the most amused of them all. Within a year he had all his brothers out of the way, father permanently in custody in the Agra Fort (where he hung on for eight years before dying in 1666) and was firmly entrenched on the Mughal throne.

If Shah Jahan has been over-romanticised by scholars, his son and successor Aurangzeb has been unduly denigrated. Aurangzeb, it seems, could do nothing right. Later writers were to contrast his bigotry with Akbar's tolerance, his failure against the Marathas rebels with Akbar's successes against the Rajputs; in fact he has been set up as the polar opposite of everything that earned one the Akbarian medal of genius. One writer has said about him, rather tongue-in-cheek, "His life would have been a blameless one, if he had no father to depose, no brothers to murder and no Hindu subjects to oppress."

Aurangzeb's rise to the throne has been criticized as being ruthless. However, he was no more cruel than others of his family. He succeeded not because he was crueler but because he was more efficient and more skilled in the game of statecraft with its background of dissimulation; and if it's any consolation, he never shed unnecessary blood. Once established he showed himself a firm and capable administrator who retained his grip of power until his death at the age of 88. True, he lacked the magnetism of his father and great-grandfather, but commanded an awe of his own. In private life he was simple and even austere, in sharp contrast to the rest of the great Mughals. He was an orthodox Sunni Muslim who thought himself a model Muslim ruler.

Aurangzeb's Reign Divides To Two Portions.

The first twenty-three years were largely a continuation of Shah Jahan's administration with an added footnote of austerity. The emperor sat in pomp in Delhi or progressed in state to Kashmir for the summer.

From 1681 he virtually transferred his capital to the Deccan where he spent the rest of his life in camp, superintending the overthrow of the two remaining Deccan kingdoms in 1686-7 and trying fruitlessly to crush the Maratha rebellion. The assured administrator of the first period became the embattled, embittered old man of the second.

Along with the change of occupation came a dramatic metamorphosis of character. The scheming and subtle politician became an ascetic; spending long hours in prayer, fasting and copying the Quran, and pouring out his soul in tortured letters. It was in the second or the Deccan phase of his career that Aurangzeb began to drift towards complete intolerance of Hindus.

Earlier his devotion towards Islam had very rarely taken the form of any religious bigotry. Now all that changed – the very king who had ordered in February 1659 that "It has been decided according to our cannon law that long standing temples should not be demolished… our Royal Command is that you should direct that in future no person shall in unlawful ways interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and other Hindu residents in those places" became a total fanatic.

In this zealousness to promote the cause of Islam, Aurangzeb made many fatal blunders and needless enemies. He alienated the Rajputs, whose valuable and trusted loyalty had been so hard won by his predecessors, so totally that they revolted against him. Eventually he managed to make peace with them, but he could never be easy in his mind about Rajputana again, a fact that hampered his Deccan conquest severely.

Then, he made bitter enemies in the Sikhs and the Marathas. Things came to such a head that Guru Teg Bahadur, the 9^th Guru of the Sikhs was at first tortured and then executed by Aurangzeb for not accepting Islam; a martyrdom which is mourned to this day by the Sikh community. The 10^th Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Govind Singh then raised an open banner of revolt against Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb ended his lonely embittered life in Aurangabad in 1707. Perhaps with relief, but surely with much grief too for surely he knew that with him set the glorious sun that was the Mughal dynasty.

The gallery of the great Mughals is completed by Aurangzeb's son Bahadur Shah, commonly neglected because his reign lasted barely five years. He was an old man (by contemporary standards) of sixty-three when he acceded, yet his achievements in time would have done credit to most men in their prime. He made settlements with the implacable Marathas, tranquillized the Rajputs, decisively defeated the Sikhs in the Punjab, and took their last Guru into his services. He was traveling throughout his reign and only came to rest in Lahore in the last few months of his life.

From here on, the Mughal dynasty begins to disintegrate, and with surprising speed. Many directly blame Aurangzeb and his destructive policies which eroded the faith of the subjects in the Mughals for this. However, this is by far an overstatement. Whatever might have been Aurangzeb's policies, he remained very much the emperor till his dying breath in 1707. True, his policies did lead to resentment; even at the end of Shah Jahan's reign the rot had set in. Aurangzeb in fact tried to stop it and did a good band-aid job for a little while, but then things just went haywire with his persistent Deccan devil.

Deccan wrung Aurangzeb the man, the king, the father and the believer out of all softer emotions and decorum. He simply lost all sense of balance. He alienated a sizeable portion of his subjects along with allies and employees and made completely unnecessary enemies which cost his successors dearly. He tried during his lifetime to put down rebellions all over his empire (the Marathas, the Sikhs, the Satnamis and the Rajputs) by one hand while trying to take Deccan with the other. However, it was like trying to put out a wild fire. Ultimately, it was these alternative power blocs which were cropping up all over the country that sped up the fall of the Mughals. Not to mention the foreign powers who were already among those present: the British stretching their legs in Calcutta, the Portuguese in Goa and the French testing waters in the South.

of course, it did not help matters that the successors of the great Mughals were weak and unworthy of their forefathers. But that was bound to happen some time or the other, wasn't it? So, from the late-18^th century the field was wide open for any new power that wanted to try to set up shop in India.

This was the time when a certain East India Company suddenly realized that they had stumbled upon a gold mine.