Find latest started threads
The Jat Uprising of 1669
Paradoxical though it might appear and strange though it might seem, the Jat uprising of 1669 under Gokula occurred at a time when the Mughal government was by no means weak or imbecile. [1] In fact this period of Aurangzeb’s reign witnessed the climax of the Mughal Empire.[2], [3] during the early medieval period frequent breakdown of law and order often induced the Jats to adopt a refractory course. [4] But, with the establishment of the Mughal rule, law and order was effectively established and we do not come across any major Jat revolt during the century and a half proceeding the reign of Aurangzeb. [5]
Causes of the revolt
The underlying causes of the Jat revolt of 1669 have not been properly analyzed so far. Historians have generally ascribed the said rebellion to Aurangzab’s religious discrimination and the oppression of local officers. [6], [7]. [8] These, however seem to have been the contributory causes but neither the sole nor the dominant factors which precipitated the revolt. The real cause of the Jat rebellion of 1969 lay deeper than have been assigned to it so far. [9]
Changed nature and scope of the Mughal government
One of the main causes may be sought in the changed nature and scope of the Mughal government under Aurangzeb [10] which was detrimental to the democratic and tribal way of life of the Jat fraternity. Akbar assiduously tried to build a comprehensive state based on religious and social freedom, respect for village autonomy and willing acquiescence of the people at large. [11] The Nature of the Mugal despotism generally retained its previous character under Jahangir. [12] In Spite of Shahjahan’s intolerant attitude in the beginning, the government in his times also displayed a “sense of Justice “and kept the interests of the people in its view. [13]
But, with the accession of Aurangzeb, the comprehensive nature of the state gradually yielded to a narrow and over centralized despotic regime.[14], A despotic system rests upon the personality of the ruler, which motivates the entire administrative machinery. [15]
The over-centralized set-up accompanied by the narrow outlook of the ruler, was naturally antagonistic to the tribal and democratic outlook of the Jats. An instinctive attachment to democratic ways and a “sturdy independence “have throughout been their chief characteristics. [D. Ibbetson, The Punjab Castes, 102] They have a pronounced aversion to external interference and have been accustomed to self governance of their internal affairs. [16]
The religious fanaticism of Aurangzeb
Giving due regard to their tradition customs and laws, Akbar issued two firmans, dated 8th Ramaza, 987 A.H. and 11th Ramzan, 989 A.H. granting internal freedom to the clan councils of the Jats of the upper Doab region in religious matters and “to carry out their functions according to their ancient customs and laws” [17] Akbar’s sagacious policy seems to have been followed until the time of Shah Jahan. Jahangir sometimes showed the top Jat leaders the unique favour of calling them to his audience and giving Khilats. [18] But Aurangzeb reversed this policy. He “restricted the activities” of their customary institutions. This along with his religious fanaticism, created concern among the Jats. They discussed this issue in a meeting at Chhaprauli (1718 V.S) and decided to protest against the new laws and pleaded for the reversion of the policy of the Delhi court. [19], [20]
The courageous Jats who had reminiscences of their republican past and who still retained that spirit could hardly afford to remain quiet before in immensely centralized system based on a narrow outlook which threatened to devour their traditional tribal and democratic ways. [21]
The role of the economic factors
Probably, not less significant was the role of the economic factors in leading the Jat peasantry to rebellion. Emperor assigned a certain piece of land to the officials in lieu of their pay and also to enable them to defray the expenses over their troops on condition of their paying a sum to the Emperor out of the surplus revenue. Such grants were called Jagirs [22] Since they were mainly grants of revenue out of which the holders (Who were usually Manasabdars) maintained their quota of troops for the Empire, the tendency was to fix revenue at the highest possible rate almost equal to the surplus produce. [23] Even this high rate went on increasing with the passage of time. [24] under the circumstances the peasants were financially hit very hard. [25] They were usually left with the barest minimum needed for supporting their lives. [26], [27]
Frequent transfer of the jagirs
What added further to the hardships of the cultivators was the frequent transfer of the jagirs to different assignees. The jagirdars held their jagirs at the pleasure of the Emperor. Bhimsen remarks “Their is no hope of a jagir being left with the same officer next year.” [28], [29] This constant insecurity of the tenure of office proved unfortunate in two ways. Firstly it offered little incentive to the holders to exert for alleviating the distress of their tenantry. Instead it led them to employ all possible tactics to extort money from the Peasantry. Secondly, quite often at the time of the transfer the hard hit peasants of the same Jagir were pressurized to pay the same sum twice, first to the collectors of the outgoing jagirdar and then to those of the incoming one. Thus this system ended in a mad looting of the peasants by the rival collectors. [30], [31]
If the peasants refused to pay the revenue, very severe punishment was meted out to them. At times they were left with no other option than to sell their women, children and cattle, or to run away form their home to avoid extermination through-ill-treatment. [32], [33], [34]
In its actual operation Mughal assignment system became extremely “ruinous to the peasants and ultimately harmful to the interests of the Empire” [35] The exploitation by the collectors increased as time went on. [36]At last a stage was reached when “ excessive acts of oppression” by the officers could lead some of the peasants to shifting their hand from plough to the sword, [37] as happened in the case of the Jats following the atrocities of Abdun Nabi. We know it on the testimony of Shah Waliullah that “the cultivators of the villages between Delhi and Akbarabad were of the Jat caste. [38]
Against this background, it was quite natural for the Jats to ventilate their resentment over the prevailing assignment system as agriculture occupied the uppermost place in the there life. [39]
It is obvious that an oppressive system goes hard with the agriculturists. Its sharp reaction among the Jats, culminating into a rebellion, appears to have been because of their adventurous disposition and martial character. [40]
The Jats had been a race of warrior agriculturists. [41]
Highly disapproved of the enhanced revenue, the levying of the “harmful taxes” and “looting by government tax collectors “they were prone to opposing such thing and other oppressions even by force, if the occasion demanded this may explain better why in face of similar provocations other weak agricultural communities remained more or less inactive while the Jat peasants unsheathed their swords. [42]
Apart form it, the Jats more than any other people, are reputed to be deeply attached to personal freedom and to resenting external control. [43], [44], [45]
Auranzeb pursued a fourfold course with regard to his religious policy, namely, promotion of Islamic practices, regulations against the Hindus, conversion to Islam and destruction of temples. [46]
His supreme object was to make both Muslim and non-Muslim conform to the orthodox holy law. Hence he issued regulations aiming at suppressing the un-Islamic ceremonies and encouraging Muslim ways among the people at large. [47]
Reply With Quote
say for example good quality horse were never bred in India.
Originally Posted by psgahlaut
