Did Aurangzeb really ban music in his Empire?

The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb was a complicated man, even though his actions earned him a lifetime of hate. From religious bigotry to heralding the downfall of the glorious Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb had been accused of many things. And while we have much evidence pointing against him, there is one case in which we might want to consider shifting our stance –his policy towards music. For this, we have to revisit the popular question – “Did Aurangzeb ban music in his Empire?”

A portrait of Aurangzeb. Source: Firstpost

One of the reasons why we do not call history a pure science is because the narratives of history are subjected to change. What may be right at one point may appear entirely wrong over a period of time in light of new evidence or interpretations. It is in this context that we bring forward the contradicting narratives of scholars regarding the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb’s attitude towards music.

The Venetian traveler, Niccolao Manucci’s famous accounts bear the testimony of Aurangzeb’s intolerance for music. Manucci wrote that Aurangzeb banned music in 1668-69 and stated that Aurangzeb strictly ordered the Muhtasib (public inspector) to stop anyone from engaging in any kind of musical activity. In his accounts, Manucci also claimed that Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of all musical instruments.

Manucci also reveals the possible reason for the emperor’s aversion to music in his work.

Apparently, Aurangzeb vowed to abstain from both liquor and wine after he lost Hirai Bai, who was the emperor’s beloved consort and also a trained musician.

Manucci’s accounts are quite plausible when compared to the overall personality and actions of Aurangzeb. After all, the ruler who imprisoned his father and killed his own brothers could have been capable of doing anything. Analyzing Manucci’s account, several historians argued that Aurangzeb’s policy of music was yet another indicator of the repressive nature of his regime.

But was it though?

Manucci’s account and the interpretation of the same by the early historians have ensured that Aurangzeb was nothing more than a twisted, villainous figure, and the evil ruler whose level of intolerance knew no bounds.

But let’s look at some other facts.

Niccolao Manucci was a partisan of Dara Shikoh, the man who was murdered brutally by his own brother, Aurangzeb. Manucci was highly loyal to Dara and referred to him as the “compassionate, liberal martyr, symbolized by his support of music”. The problem of tracing history through the narrative of a single person is that such accounts are often biased and exaggerated, and Manucci’s accounts were no exception. His hatred towards Aurangzeb was unmasked in his accounts, thus arousing the possibility that his accounts have been tampered with by his own subjectivity.

As this realization came to light, several historians began to shift their focus from Manucci and tried to look into the issue from a different perspective.

On such scholar, Khafi Khan, in his account, argued that Aurangzeb’s ban on music was not universal and only restricted to the top classical musicians in the imperial court.

Moreover, he argued, there are no other accounts that support Manucci’s claims that Aurangzeb ordered the invasion of private spaces and destruction of musical instruments.

Katherine Butler Brown in her essay analyzed both Manucci and Khafi Khan’s accounts and concluded that Aurangzeb’s attitude against music was far from negative. Sure, he felt it necessary to abstain from music in his personal life after 1668 AD. As Manucci himself stated, Aurangzeb became averse to music after losing Hirai Bai. However, how does this confirm that he forcibly tried to make everyone in his empire refrain from engaging in music?

Katherine Brown interestingly pointed out that Aurangzeb believed that the practice of singing qawwals was ‘good and valuable’. In fact, Khushal Khan Kalawant, a leading music composer, devoted three pages of his musical treatise to Aurangzeb and regarded him as a great patron of music.

Moreover, it is widely known that Aurangzeb was a trained Veena player and excelled at it.

This makes it quite possible that the emperor’s personal abstinence from music after 1668, was misinterpreted by Manucci and other contemporaries.

These recent interpretations reveal that Aurangzeb’s attitude towards music was not as intolerant and repressive as argued by Manucci and other scholars of the past.