Reacting to the criticism by economists, scientists, and financial experts on the current economic crisis, a political leader commented, “Our present economic crisis is due to Mughal rule and British rule.” Mughal rule and British rule were very different. The British ruled India from Great Britain; but the Mughals were rulers of India spending, all their wealth for the people of India. The Mughals brought their fortunes to India from Persia, Arabia, and Turkey for construction of word famous structures, including the Taj Mahal while the British exploited India and took Indian resources to Britain. All of these are historical facts.
Lala Lajpat Rai writes, “Throughout the Mohammedan dominance, large parts of India remained under Hindu rule and the historians are agreed that in the territories of the Hindu Princes general prosperity prevailed. Some of them are said to have attained a pitch of power and splendor which had not been surpassed by their ancestors.” (England’s Debt to India, p. 11)
From the above statement of Lala Lajpat Rai, it is clear that the view of the political leader, regarding the economic conditions prevailing in India at the time of Mughal rule, is paradoxical and history reveals that Indian Rajput rulers reached the height of their glory during the Muslim rule.
R.C. Majumdar and others write, “We learn from Abul Fazil and some other writers, that the prices of articles, especially those of common consumption like rice, vegetables, spices, meat, livestock, and milk, were very low. Edward Terry observes there were ample provisions throughout the country and everyone had more than enough food to eat. Smith writes that ‘the hired landless laborers at the time of Akbar and Jahangir probably had more to eat than they have now’. (An Advanced History of India, p. 567)
The philanthropy of Mughals
History reveals that after the rule of Aurangzeb Alamgir (C.E. 1707), the economic condition of the country deteriorated. The British and other European forces like the Dutch and Portuguese took over the administration of India from Muslim rulers and began a reign of loot and exploitation. The East India Company of the British took Indian wealth to Britain following the decline of the Mughals. However, the Muslim rulers spent all the wealth for the welfare of Indian people.
Lala Lajpat Rai writes: “The first Mohammedan dynasty began its rule at Delhi in 1206 C.E. and from that time on, the Mohammedan rulers of India spent whatever they acquired from India within the country itself. (England’s Debt to India, p. 8)
In the history book authored by R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychandhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, we find, “Prosperity and plenty prevailed in the chief cities of India in the age of the great Mughals.”
Writing in C.E. 1585, Fitch observed: “Agra and Fatepore are two very great cities, either of them much greater than London and very populous.”
Similar praise about Mughal rulers can be found regarding the cities they established in other books of history. Even during the time of famines, Mughal rulers did their best to overcome the situation and tried to relieve the distress of the people.
Influence of personality
The personality of a ruler is reflected in his/her administrative policies. Writing under the title “Babur’s unshakable faith in divinity,” K.S. Ram says: ‘The founder of the Mughal dynasty did not write his memoirs for self-glorification. His spirituality derived from the first-hand experience is not for a happy hereafter, but holistic kingship here.” (The Times of India, February 10, 2007)
K.S. Ram cities Babur’s stand against injustice. Babur commented on the injustice of his uncle Sultan Mahmud Mirza, the ruler of Samarkand, in these words: “When you have done evil, be not secure from calamity for retribution is the law of nature.”
Again, Babur states: “Entrust to fate who does you evil, for fate is an avenging servant for you.” He continues: “The driving force for Babur was his strong faith in God.” No injustice happens from such a person. Though Emperor Shah Jahan was lavish and led a life of luxury, he cared for the welfare of the people. Moreover, Aurangzeb Alamgir lived like a saint, earned a living out of copying the Holy Qur’an and stitching caps.
French traveller Tavernier and another visitor Bernier spoke about the prosperous economic conditions of the country as well as the charitable nature of Shah Jahan. Historians write that Babur spent all his wealth for the welfare of the poor, and his son Humayun inherited a financial deficit because of his father’s benevolence. Unlike modern democratic politicians who lie, do injustice, kill and rape, the monarchs of yore were very generous and worked for the welfare of the people, despite their luxurious life.
THE MUGHAL OPULENCE
A historian is of opinion that Sadullah Khan, Prime Minister during the time of Shah Jahan, is the best minister ever known in India. Murshid Kuli Khan did much to bring about the economic recovery of the Deccan by introducing the Todarmal’s system of land revenue. Dow speaks of the clemency of Shah Jahan’s rule and his subjects. (King’s History of Medieval India, p. 89)
Lala Lajpat Rai writes: “Even Mooreland, who is otherwise critical of the view that the average Indian in Shah Jahan’s and Jahangir’s time was better off than British period, admits that “Butter (Ghee) and seeds furnishing edible oil were relative to grain, distinctly cheaper than now.”
He continues: “Till the death of Aurangzeb in C.E 1707, India was economically better off than she was later under the British rule.” (England’s Debt to India, p. XIV)
K.R.N. Swamy writing under the title “How Rich were the Mughals” reveals: “The word ‘Mughal’ has become a synonym for wealth and opulence. As such, it is interesting to consider exactly how rich the Mughal emperors of India were, in modern money terms or purchasing power of the rupee in 2002. Based on the Bank of England records, historians have found that the purchasing power of a Shah Jahani Rupee in C.E. 1640 was 500 times that of rupee in 2002. Shah Jahan’s wealth was said to be greater than that of his nearest rivals, the Emperors of Persia and France both put together. The annual income of the Emperor in C.E. 1648, during the reign of Shah Jahan, was Rs. 210 million – equivalent to Rs. 10500 billion today. The Emperor, who had a very prosperous reign had also spent lavishly. Still, it is known that at the time of his deposition from Rule in 1658, the treasury contained more wealth than that he had when he began his rule.” (Gulf Times, December 1, 2002)
IMPACT OF CASTE SYSTEM ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The economy of a nation can be divided in three categories: (1) National economy; (2) Economic position of different social or religious groups; and (3) Per capita income. During the Muslim rule in India, the non-Brahminical Hindus were directly under the control of the Brahmanical caste structure. They were not allowed to acquire education or knowledge, and consequently, they were reduced to poverty. This situation was created due to the direct involvement of Rajput or Kshatriya rulers.
Historians say: “Internal administration was completely in the hands of Brahmins.” Social status of non- Brahmanical Hindu groups affected their per- capita income also. Brahmins and Kshatriyas had a high per capita income, whereas, on-Brahminical groups who formed the majority were pulled down to a low per-capita income. Despite the adverse effect of the caste system in India, all citizens had the opportunity to enjoy better resources the Muslim rulers provided for them. Historical writings are a testimony to this assertion. No kind of persecution to Hindu communities was evident during the time of Muslim rulers. Nevertheless, there was internecine warfare between various rulers who happened to be Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
After the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim, the Governor of Iraq Hajjaj bin Yusuf issued the following order: “Permission is given to Hindus to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like. Build temples, traffic with Mohammedans, live without any fear and strive to better yourselves in every way possible” was the law in Abul Qasim’s days and later periods.
There cannot be a better example of tolerance than that which the Arabs showed to the Hindus of Sindh.” (Vision of India, p. 223)
The economy of a nation is a gift of Almighty God. It is up to us for managing that gift in the best possible manner. Let us find the right solutions to our failing economy and avoid blaming past rulers who did a lot for the welfare of the people of India.