Did the majority of these rulers simply impose the jizya in order to "show who's boss" or did they actually rely on these taxes to help run the state?
.
For example, Aurangzeb, last of the Great Mughals, is known for bringing back the jizya, but I can't even imagine the state actually enforcing it.
It's hard enough in the 21st century traveling to the village in India, imagine trying to collect wealth from reluctant villagers from thousands of remote 17th century villages and then transporting it back to the main city.
Naturally it varies from region to region, but of course the Jizya was collected.
In addition to being a potentially significant revenue stream for rulers with a lot of non-Muslim subjects, it also acts as a way to funnel their minority subjects towards Islam which was often the goal of the Jizya.
The Jizya was proportional to wealth and the old and the poor were exempt from the tax. So in regards to Aurangzeb, a few of those extremely remote subsistence based villages would have had virtually nobody paying Jizya.
Imagine trying to collect wealth from reluctant villagers from thousands of remote 17th century villages and then transporting it back to the main city.
Tax collecting always has been a colossal undertaking for empires of the past, so why would the Jizya be any different?