Very capable rulers like Balban, Alauddin Khilji, Feroz Shah, Sikandar Lodi and Sher Shah imposed Jizya on Hindus. It was also imposed on Hindus in Deccan sultanates of south...... Akbar was the first Muslim ruler to abolish it. The move of reinstating Jizya itself does not stamp Aurangzeb to be an inept person but whether it was beneficial at all in that period, is debatable. As i have already mentioned, Mughal state machinery was plagued with corruption , bribery and inefficiency and some of the Hindu subjects might have been harassed by the corrupt officials over the Jizya.
Jizya itself is not a punishment of non-Muslims , not a mark of inferiority. The Jizya mentioned in Quran and early Islam was not poll-tax , it was a round sum paid by the inhabitants of a village i.e collective tribute in lieu of military service. Its a misconception that it was imposed on those who refused to accept Islam. Those non-Muslims who excused themselves from serving in the army of Muslims, agreed to pay tribute in lieu. Those Christian Arabs who fought alongside Muslims against Sassanids, were exempted from Jizya. By paying tribute of Jizya, those non-Muslim peasants also ensured that they are given the military protection from attacks and raids. In Ottoman period, those Christians were exempted from Jizya who were providing military service to them. For example in a book on Ottoman history, i read that some Albanian Christians were exempted from Jizya because they were a guarding a pass for them and were providing a military contingent to them. Interestingly Ottomans imposed Jizya on Egyptian peasants, Muslims, who were not enlisting themselves in their army. Some Umayyad rulers also imposed Jizya on newly converted Muslims of Khorasan and Central Asia. Aurangzeb exempted Rajputs (who were providing military service) and all other Hindus who were officers and servants of the state . Note that he imposed Jizya two decades after he ascended throne, in 1679, Munucci (Italian gunman in his service) says that he did so because his treasure was shrinking. And because he felt bound as his court was dominated by Maulvis and because he wanted to appear as champion of Islam , which he was not.
In defense of Aurangzeb would say he abolished certain other additional taxes on Hindus which had nothing to do with Islam. Manucci says Aurangzeb abolished a large tax on Hindu pilgrims who used to visit their sacred places. There was also tax on Hindus carrying the ashes of their dead to be thrown into Ganges. Manucci says Aurangzeb also abolished that tax (Source: Storia da Mogal, Vol-II, p-61).
I see modern day Hindus raging and boiling over this imposition of Jizya on their ancestors. Its silly. Auranzeb is a very complex character and can be not viewed in black and white.
@dsr478 @DESERT FIGHTER @xairhossi @Tesky @Kambojaric
While Aurangzeb was extending the empire in the east and south, and consolidating his position on the northwest marches, he was also concerned with the strengthening of Islam throughout the kingdom. His attempt to conduct the affairs of state according to traditional Islamic policy brought to the fore the problem that had confronted every ruler who had attempted to make Islam the guiding force: the position of the Hindu majority in relation to the government. In 1688, when he forbade music at the royal court and took other puritanical steps in conformity with strict injunctions of Muslim law, he affected both Hindus and Muslims. When jizya, abolished for nearly a century, was reimposed in 1679, it was the Hindus alone who suffered.
By now Aurangzeb had accepted the policy of regulating his government in accordance with strict Islamic law, and many orders implementing this policy were issued. A large number of taxes were abolished which had been levied in India for centuries but which were not authorized by Islamic law. Possibly it was the unfavorable effect of these remissions on the state exchequer which led to the exploration of other lawful sources of revenue. The fact that, according to the most responsible account, the reimposition of jizya was suggested by an officer of the finance department would seem to show that it was primarily a fiscal measure. The theologians, who were becoming dominant at the court, naturally endorsed the proposal, and Aurangzeb carried it out with his customary thoroughness.
Another measure which has caused adverse comment is the issue of orders at various stages regarding the destruction of Hindu temples. Originally these orders applied to a few specific cases—such as the temple at Mathura built by Abul Fazl's murderer, to which a railing had been added by Aurangzeb's rival, Dara Shukoh. More far-reaching is the claim that when it was reported to him that Hindus were teaching Muslims their "wicked science," Aurangzeb issued orders to all governors "ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally prohibiting the teaching and infidel practices of the unbelievers." That such an order was actually given is doubtful; certainly it was never carried out with any thoroughness. However, it is incontestable that at a certain stage Aurangzeb tried to enforce strict Islamic law by ordering the destruction of newly built Hindu temples. Later, the procedure was adopted of closing down rather than destroying the newly built temples in Hindu localities. It is also true that very often the orders of destruction remained a dead letter, but Aurangzeb was too deeply committed to the ordering of his government according to Islamic law to omit its implementation in so significant a matter. The fact that a total ban on the construction of new temples was adopted only by later jurists, and was a departure from the earlier Muslim practice as laid down by Muhammad ibn Qasim in Sind, was no concern of the correct, conscientious, and legal-minded Aurangzeb.
As a part of general policy of ordering the affairs of the state in accordance with the views of the ulama, certain discriminatory orders against the Hindus were issued: for example, imposition of higher customs duties, 5 percent on the goods of the Hindus as against 2 percent on those of Muslims. These were generally in accordance with the practice of the times, but they marked a departure not only from the political philosophy governing Mughal government, but also from the policy followed hitherto by most Muslim rulers in India.
Aurangzeb has often been accused of closing the doors of official employment on the Hindus, but a study of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were more Hindu officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor. Though this was primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that there was no ban on the employment of the Hindus.
That Aurangzeb's religious policy was unpopular at the time is true, but that it was an important factor, as usually charged, in the downfall of the empire, is doubtful. The Hindu uprisings of his reign seem to have had no wide religious appeal, and they were supressed with the help of Hindu leaders. Their significance comes in the following reigns, when the rulers were no longer able to meet opposition as effectively—and as ruthlessly—as had Aurangzeb. His religious policy aimed at strengthening an empire already overextended in Shah Jahan's time; that it failed in its objective is probably true, but the mistake should not be made of assuming that the attempt was a major element in the later political decay. It should be seen, rather, as part of an unsuccessful attempt to stave off disaster. Seen in this light, his religious policy is one element, but not a causal one, save in its failure to achieve its intended goal, among the many that have to be considered in seeking an understanding of Aurangzeb's difficulties.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html
