Did Shivaji Write a Letter to Aurangzeb Suggesting him to Collect Jizya from Rana Raj Singh?

A viral social media post claims that when Aurangzeb demanded Jizya from Chhatrapati Shivaji, he responded by saying that they would pay only if Aurangzeb dared to demand it from Maharana Raj Singh, the grandson of Maharana Pratap. The post further asserts that Mewar was a dominant power at the time but alleges that the RSS conspired against the Rajputs to diminish their historical significance. It also claims that Shivaji regarded the Rajputs as his ideal and considered them the most powerful warriors.

The Instagram handle Rajput Revolution shared this graphic image with the caption: “During Shivaji’s time, Rajput Maharaj Raj Singh of Mewar was the most powerful ruler.”

Paramveer Rathore stated, ‘Maratha vs Kshatriya debate is going on on Twitter, which was started by Maratha brothers, till a few years ago any propaganda against Kshatriya society would be successful but now a strong team of Kshatriya intellectual youth is constantly fighting back and silencing the opponents.’

Raghvendra Singh Rathore claimed, ‘When you read the real history, you will know that during the time of Aurangzeb, the biggest Hindu king in India was Raj Singh of Mewar, this was said by Shivaji Maharaj himself… During the time of Raj Singh, many Brahmins, saints and priests of Mathura-Vrindavan, troubled by Aurangzeb, had taken refuge in Mewar!’

Also Read: Not Ambedkar, But Shridhar Ketkar Stated That Caste System Would Become a Global Issue if Hindus Migrate to Other Countries

Fact Check

We noticed that the viral image being shared on social media mentioned page 290 of the book History of Aurangzeb. Using this clue, we began our fact-checking process by reviewing the book, which was written by Shri Jadunath Sarkar in 1928. We examined an excerpt from pages 286 to 290, titled ‘Shivaji’s Letter on Jizya‘. The book states that Shivaji strongly opposed the imposition of Jizya and wrote a letter to Aurangzeb expressing his disapproval.

In the letter, Shivaji highlighted the secular rule of Emperor Akbar, who governed for 52 years and followed an admirable policy of religious harmony. He noted that Jahangir, who ruled for 22 years, and Shah Jahan, who ruled for 32 years, also maintained policies of tolerance, ensuring prosperity during their reigns. Shivaji emphasized that although these rulers had the power to impose Jizya, they refrained from doing so, believing in the equality of all people created by God.

However, Shivaji criticized Aurangzeb’s rule, stating that many forts and provinces had already slipped from his control, poverty was widespread, and peasants were suffering. He condemned Aurangzeb’s decision to impose Jizya, attributing it to bigotry rather than governance.

On page 289, the book records Shivaji’s challenge to Aurangzeb:

“If you consider piety to consist in oppressing the people and terrorizing the Hindus, you should first levy Jizya from Rana Raj Singh, who is the head of the Hindus. Then, collecting it from me will not be so difficult, as I am at your service. But oppressing ants and flies is far from displaying valor and spirit.”

In conclusion, historian Jadunath Sarkar attributed this letter to Shivaji, emphasizing its reference to Jizya and the suggestion to first collect it from Rana Raj Singh, a descendant of Maharana Pratap. Sarkar also noted that different sources attribute the letter to various historical figures:

• Shivaji: According to the Royal Asiatic Society, London (Manuscript 71)
• Sambhaji: As per the Asiatic Society of Bengal Manuscript
• Jaswant Singh: According to Orme’s Fragment (p. 252)
• Maharana Raj Singh: As recorded in Tod’s Annals (Vol I, Chapter 13)

Despite the conflicting attributions, Sarkar ultimately concluded that the letter was drafted by Nila Prabhu Munshi, Shivaji’s Persian secretary, under Shivaji’s orders.

But is this really true, or is there more to the story?

To deepen our research, we examined the book “The History of India“ published in 1874 by Scottish statesman and historian Mountstuart Elphinstone, who was associated with the British Indian government.

On page 638 and beyond, Elphinstone discusses the reimposition of the Jizya and its impact. He describes how Aurangzeb persecuted and plundered Hindus, stating:

“During Aurangzeb’s reign, he reintroduced the Jizya tax on non-Muslims, which led to widespread discontent, especially among Hindus. People in Delhi protested, blocking Aurangzeb’s way to the mosque, but he ordered his forces to trample upon the protesters with horses and elephants, causing injuries and deaths.”

This oppression eroded Hindu trust in the Mughals. Tensions rose further when Raja Jaswant Singh died, leaving behind his widow and children. Aurangzeb attempted to take control of the children, but the Rajputs secretly smuggled them to safety in their homeland. This act, combined with the Jizya tax, angered the Rajputs.

In the footnote section on the same page, Elphinstone mentions the protest letter against the Jizya to Aurangzeb. He argues that Jaswant Singh could not have written this letter, as it was clearly from an open enemy whose territory was about to be invaded. At the time of the Jizya imposition, Jaswant Singh was serving against the Afghans until his death. The letter likely originated in a later period, when the decline of the empire became evident.

The footnote also states that the letter has been attributed to Raj Singh, Rana of Udaipur, Raja Subah Singh, and Shivaji. Elphinstone suggests that the letter may have been written by a private Hindu politician rather than a well-known historical figure, casting further doubt on its true authorship.

We also reviewed Zaheeruddin Faruqqii’s book, “Aurangzeb and His Times,” published in 1935. On page 158, under the title “Shivaji and The Jizhya,” the author argues that the letter attributed to Shivaji in Jadunath Sarkar’s book is likely inauthentic.

Faruqqii states that the authenticity of the letter should not be taken too seriously, as it is filled with harsh criticism and extreme language. He states that someone making a dignified protest would not adopt such an aggressive tone. Furthermore, the fact that different sources attribute the letter to various individuals adds to the doubt.

The author firmly asserts that Shivaji could not have written the letter. It is merely assumed that Shivaji was asked to pay Jizya, leading to the presumed protest letter. However, there are timeline inconsistencies:

• Jizya was imposed in April 1679, the same month Mughal commander Diler Khan captured Shivaji’s fort Bhupalgarh.
• There was no peace between Shivaji and Aurangzeb before or after this period, making it unlikely that Aurangzeb would have demanded Jizya from Shivaji at that time.

The letter in question states:

“If you think oppressing Hindus is piety, first take jizyah from Rana Raj Singh, the head of Hindus, then collect it from me.”

However, historical records indicate that Rana Raj Singh had been asked to pay Jizya, after that Aurangzeb returned to Delhi which contradicts the claim made in the letter.

Tod’s version of the letter mentions Raja Ram Singh instead of Rana Raj Singh, further casting doubt on its authenticity.

Additionally, he notes that Muhammad Adil Shah of Bijapur had already implemented the Jizya tax, yet there is no record of Shivaji protesting against it earlier. Another doubt arises regarding the logistics of delivering the letter, given that India had no postal system at the time.

Ultimately, Faruqqii concludes that the letter is likely a fabrication, possibly authored by a Hindu politician as a form of criticism against the Mughal government.

Lastly, we examined the book Shivaji: His Life and Times by Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale, published in 2012 after 30 years of extensive research. From pages 1170 to 1178, the author discusses the letter opposing the jizya tax.

Mehendale highlights the contradictions between Jadunath Sarkar’s version of the letter and other available versions.

Jadunath Sarkar’s Version: “If you imagine piety in oppressing the people… levy the jizya from Rana Raj Singh, the head of Hindus, then it will not be difficult to collect from me as I am at your service.”

Mehendale points out that Raj Singh was the Rana of Mewar. Sarkar’s translation refers to him as “Rana Raj Singh, the head of the Hindus.” However, the Royal Asiatic Society’s copy only mentions “Raj Singh,” without the titles “Rana” or “the head of the Hindus.”

In contrast, Orme’s translation states: “Ram Singh, who is esteemed the principal amongst the Hindus,” instead of Raj Singh.

Sarkar’s version also states: “It will not be difficult to collect it (jizya) from me as I am at your service.”

However, the Royal Asiatic Society’s version says: “When I hear of it, then it would not be difficult that this well-wisher would present himself to render service.”

Orme’s version presents a different interpretation: “Then let your well-wisher be called upon, with whom you will have less difficulty to encounter.”

The intended meaning appears to be “called upon to pay the jizya.” Sarkar’s translation, specifically stating “Then it will not be so very difficult to collect it [Jizya] from me, as I am at your service,” does not align with the original Persian text.

Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale notes that while there is a contradiction regarding the authorship of the letter in different translations, he believes that the letter was written by Mohammad Akbar, the son of Aurangzeb. He supports his argument with the following reasoning:

1. At the beginning of the letter, the author mentions leaving Aurangzeb without informing him. This statement could not refer to Shivaji’s escape from Agra in 1666, as it implies that this was the first letter the author wrote to Aurangzeb after departing. Shivaji had already sent petitions to Aurangzeb and his officials following his escape, and the Emperor had even bestowed the title of “Raja” upon him. Therefore, it would not make sense for Shivaji to bring up the issue of leaving without permission 13 years later. In contrast, this could very well have been the first letter that Mohammad Akbar wrote to his father after deserting him.
2. The letter in question praises the Mughal emperors Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan, which would be natural if written by Muhammad Akbar, Aurangzeb’s son. In another letter found in Khutut-i Shivaji, Mohammad Akbar reminded his father, Aurangzeb, of the great achievements of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan.
3. Muhammad Akbar saw the Mughal Empire as his rightful heritage and was concerned about its future, unlike Shivaji, who aimed to weaken it. The imposition of the jizya tax was harmful to the Empire, so it would not make sense for Shivaji to advise Aurangzeb about it. However, since Muhammad Akbar had taken refuge with the Rajputs, he had a valid reason to protest against the tax.
4. It is unusual that copies of this letter have been found in Rajasthan and Maharashtra, attributed to five different people—Shivaji, Sambhaji, Raj Singh, Jaswant Singh, and Raja Soubah Singh.  When Muhammad Akbar fled from Rajasthan to the Deccan and sought refuge with Maratha King Sambhaji, it is likely that scribes (munshis) working for Sambhaji and Rajput Rajas copied the letter for their collections of model letters, explaining why copies exist in both regions.

Note: Such misattribution were common. For example, another letter in Khutut-i Shivaji was wrongly credited to Dilir Khan, when it was more likely written by Khan Jahan Bahadur Zafar Jang Kokaltash.

Many scholars doubt the authenticity of the letter. Zaheeruddin Faruqqii called it “transparently spurious,” while Elphinstone suggested it was created by a Hindu politician as a form of anti-Mughal propaganda. The fact that so many copies exist in different places, attributed to different people, makes it likely that the letter was fictional.

In Conclusion:

1. Shivaji did not write or order this letter.

2. It is most likely a fictional piece.

3.If it is real, it was probably written by Aurangzeb’s son, Muhammad Akbar.

Conclusion:

The evidence gathered from various historical sources, including the works of historians like Zaheeruddin Faruqqii, Mountstuart Elphinstone, and Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale, strongly suggests that the letter opposing the Jizya tax was not written by Shivaji. Contradictions in the letter’s content, discrepancies in different translations, and the fact that it has been attributed to multiple historical figures cast significant doubt on its authenticity.

One of the major discrepancies involves the mention of Rana Raj Singh. Jadunath Sarkar’s version of the letter refers to him as “Rana Raj Singh, the head of the Hindus,” while other versions either omit the title or mention different figures like Ram Singh. Historical records indicate that Rana Raj Singh had already been asked to pay the jizya, contradicting the letter’s claim that he was not. The letter is more likely a fictional piece or possibly written by Muhammad Akbar, Aurangzeb’s son, who had legitimate reasons to oppose the tax. It can also be written by a local Hindu politician as anti-Mughal propaganda.

Also Read: Alamgir mosque was not built by Hindu Pandit to honour Aurangzeb, the claim is fake