In his tenth year Shah Jahan discovered that his orders had not completely stopped this source of conversion to Hinduism. Dalpat, a Hindu of Sirhind,… - Sri Ram Sharma

It is wrong to say that Sher Shah did not destroy a temple or break an image. His conquest and occupation of Jodhpur was followed by the conversion of the Hindu temple in the fort into a mosque. The Thrlkh-i-DnUdl ascribes his attack on Maldev, Raja of Jodhpur, partly to his religious bigotry and a desire to convert the temples of the Hindus into mosques. His treachery towards Puran Mall was not, as Qanungo tries to assert, the result of a fanatic religious leader forcing his opinions upon an unwilling king. It had been planned by Sher Shah beforehand, discussed by him with his officers and was deliberately done to earn religious merit by exterminating this arch-infidel. Sher Shah said prayers of thanks after this ‘religious’ deed. No amount of mere rhetoric can enable us to get over the accounts of the expedition, especially when we find Sher Shah, who got ill on the eve of the battle, inviting his officers and confiding to them that ever since his accession he had been anxious, in the cause of his religion, to defeat Puran Mall. All accounts give this expedition a religious significance which no argument can destroy. Sher Shah was only a product of his own age as far as his religious policy was concerned. Like Feroz Shah before him, he combined administrative zeal with religious intolerance. His place in history does not depend upon his initiating a policy of religious toleration or neutrality. He had no more to do with founding a united nation in India, which is yet in the making, than any other successful ruler before him.

This was not an isolated instance of popular feelings. The spirit of the age sanctioned such and even worse practices. Mubarak, a scholar of no mean repute, was persecuted even though he was a Muslim, for holding rather unorthodox views. Mir Habshi was executed for the offence of being a Shi'a. Khizar Khan met his death on a charge of blasphemy there were others as well who shared a similar fate. As BadayunI tells us, it was customary 'to search out and kill heretics’, let alone non-Muslims.’ The popular attitude towards heretics and non-Muslims can be well understood by several incidents of Akbar’s reign itself. In 1569-70 (977 a.h.) Mirza Muqlm and Mir Ya'qub were executed for their religious opinions. Hemu’s father, when captured, was offered his life if he turned Muslim, Even in 1588 when the murderer of a Shi'a was executed, the people of Lahore showed their religious sentiments by desecrating the tomb of his victim. Feelings towards the Hindus could not be restrained — ‘Abdun Nabi executed a Brahman for blasphemy on the complaint of a Qazl. Husain Khan, the governor of Lahore who died in 1575-76 (983 a.h.), made his government famous by ordering that the Hindus should stick patches of different colours on their shoulders, or at the edge of their sleeves, so that no Muslim might be put to the indignity of showing them honour by mistake. Nor did he allow Hindus to saddle their horses but insisted that they use packsaddles when riding. The Akbar Nama, the An-i-Akbarl and Badayuni are all agreed that prior to 1593, some Hindus had been converted to Islam forcibly. When Todar Mai was appointed Finance Minister, Akbar had to defend this appointment of a Hindu to such a high office by reminding his Muslim critics that they were all utilizing the services of Hindu accountants in their own households.

Aurangzeb seemed to have followed a threefold policy with regard to the high Hindu mansabdars. There was a general reduction in the number of Hindus holding high mansabs. Hindus were not appointed to high executive office, nor called upon to discharge responsible military duties. Usually the heads of various hereditary houses were not given the same status as had been held by their predecessors. The petty officials could expect to fare no better. Various orders were passed to break the monopoly of the Hindus in the routine jobs in the revenue department and in the clerical establishment. There is a general order in the Kalimat-i-Ta'yyibat forbidding the employment of the Hindus, Then there is the order preserved in the Maasir-i-'Alamgiri and Muntakhih-id-Luhah forbidding the employment of the Hindus in the revenue department and as personal assistants to various executive heads. An attempt was made to enforce these orders.