Social Scientist
Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance: A Critique of Recent Historiography Author(s): Iqtidar Alam Khan Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 37, No. 5/6 (May-June 2009), pp. 45-54 Published by: Social Scientist Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25655998 Accessed: 26-02-2020 07:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms
Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance: A Critique of Recent Historiography _Q CL PJ 1 >
The formation of India's composite culture seen by Rabindranath 3 7\ Tagore as the central theme of Indian history1 undoubtedly became zr more noticeable with the rise of the heavily centralized Mughal Empire D under Akbar (1556-1605). As is well known, this imperial system was supported by a nobility among whom, besides Sunni Central Asians and Indian Muslims, there were also present, in the highest echelons (of mansab 1000 and above), Shi'ite Iranis and Hindu chieftains in sizeable numbers, the last-mentioned two groups representing about a third of the total strength in fairly equal shares.2 Side by side, there was developed a new theory of kingship which tended to dilute the impact of the orthodox sharia on the working of the Mughal imperial order. As articulated in Abu'l Fazl's writings, this theory assigns to sovereign a semi-divine supra-religious status. As J.F.R. Richards aptly puts it: This new imperial doctrine was the result of a brilliant partnership in which Akbar's own intuitive sense of political need, his desire for broad political support and what seems to have been a mystical sense of his own mission found a direct response in the mind of Abu'l Fazl who characterized sovereignty as divine light (farr-i izadi).3 The concept of sovereignty as divine light was evidently rooted in the illuminationist (ishraqi) doctrines of Shihab al-Din Maqtul (d.l 191) and was a radical departure from the post-Abbasid Islamic notion of the sultan being the shadow of God (zill-i Ilahi) on earth.4 As Faizi hints in one of his couplets, the attribute farr-i izadi was contingent upon the king being a master of sciences, a philosopher and guide in the divine path, and so it is not correct to read in him a (negative) quality like shadow.5 Such a king, according to Abu'l Fazl, is called upon to "inaugurate universal reconciliation (sulh-ikul) and if he does not regard all classes of men and all sects of religion with a single eye of favour, he will not be fit for the exalted office."6 It is, therefore, his function to ensure that religious differences among people do not lead to mutual antipathy; and this postulate, as Irfan Habib infers, "draws not on any philosophical or religious tradition but on a simple assertion of the sovereign's absolute power, and the obligation that such
* Paper presented at the sixty-ninth session of the Indian History Congress, 2008. 45
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Social Scientist
on o absoluteness imposed on him to keep all his subjects contented."7 It was a new o concept of sovereignty directly linked to Akbar's religious policy, aimed, 0) c according to the author of Dabistan-i Mazahib, at holding together various ZD i ' elements including Hindu chieftains, without allowing any faction to become too Z powerful.8 The response of not only Hindu chieftains but also of ordinary Hindus to this novel concept of sovereignty and accompanying religious policy O can be gauged from the manner in which "a large number of them made the OlA Mughal Emperor's rite of Jharoka darshany unknown to any previous Hindu o z monarchy or ritual", a part of their daily religious routine.9 Another significant aspect of Abu'l Fazl's ideas in the Ain-iAkbari pertains m to his viewing the emergence of state power in terms of a social contract between ~o > the ruler and the ruled. His passage under the subhead riwai-i rozi carries an unmistakable echo of Ibn Khaldun's view that kingship was evolved "to exercise a restraining influence on the animal nature of man", a postulate, evidently, rooted in the writings of Plato and Epicurus.10 In this passage Abul Fazl refers to taxes paid to the king by his subjects as 'wages of protection' (dastmuzd-i pasbani),11 a characterization very similar to the idea of king receiving wages (vetari), from people for maintaining law and order found in some of the Sanskrit texts of Ancient India.12
II The unfolding of this new theory of kingship and a corresponding religious policy roughly from 1579 onwards led not only to the final abolition of the discriminatory tax, jizya (1580), but also to a situation where non-Muslims were not only allowed freedom to erect their places of worship but also received state patronage in the form of revenue-free grants for many of these shrines on an unprecedented scale.13 Again the Shiites, who under previous regimes were persecuted on suspicions of heresy, came to be recognized as an Islamic sect having the right to perform namaz in ordinary mosques.14 A majority of the orthodox Muslims, including many of those like 'Abdul Haq Muhaddis, who did not approve of Akbar's pantheistic Tauhid-i Ilahi apparently had no particular complaint about this aspect of state policy.15 However, a section represented by the Naqshbandi sufi, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, were greatly provoked.16 They held Abu'l Fazl and his elder brother Faizi responsible for the change that had come about. This sentiment has found a sympathetic endorsement in a part of the Muslim discourse of the twentieth century. K.A. Nizami writing in 1953 condemns Abu'l Fazl as one who "spent his time in insulting and ridiculing the Islamic way of life". The Pakistani historian Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi tried to explain Abu'l Fazl's alleged anti-Islamic attitude in the light of the persecution his family had suffered at the hands of orthodox 46 'ulama.17 It is further held by these modern denigrators of Abu'l Fazl that the
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance
_Q tolerant state policies initiated by Akbar were revised by Jahangir, who eventually r+ had come under the influence of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi.18 CL The nature of the Mughal state and theory of kingship defining its working > during the seventeenth century, not only under Jahangir (1605- 1627), but also during Shahjahan's reign (1627-1658), as well as, in the first twenty years of 3 Aurangzeb's rule (1659-78), remained, by and large, the same as evolved by zr Akbar. Aurangzeb's letter to Rana Raj Singh of 1658 is indicative of the fact that D the principles of state defined by Abu'l Fazl continued to be respected by the Mughal ruling family and their high nobles down to the end of Shahjahan's reign, orthodox leanings of that monarch notwithstanding.19 Aurangzeb's attempt to reverse this orientation, apparently, was not fully successful. Jai Singh Sawai's and Girdhar Bahadur's argument (1723) that Muhammad Shah, being the emperor of both the Hindus and Muslims, was not expected to reimpose a discriminatory tax like jizya, is suggestive of this situation. The Hindu chiefs serving the Mughal Empire as nobles or bound to it in some other way were generally assured down to 1739 that the empire's basic character was still the same as handed down by Akbar to his successors. They were perhaps confident that by taking a stand in defence of the supra-religious character of the empire they would not be offending the religious sentiments of any section of the nobility. A similar impression is created by a surviving letter of Shivaji to Aurangzeb (1679), where he goes out of his way in praising Akbar for abolishing the jizya. Shivaji also hints in this letter that the Mughals' difficulties in dealing with Marathas were an outcome of Aurangzeb's deviation from his predecessors' policy of not discriminating against any section of subjects of the Empire. The timing and language of this letter suggests that Shivaji was shrewdly appealing to the prevailing sentiment among Mughal nobles many of whom are known to have disapproved of the reimposition of jizya.20
Ill In 1975, S.A.A. Rizvi suggested in his pathbreaking book, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar s Reign, that Abu'l Fazl had formulated his postulates about sovereignty by synthesizing ideas borrowed from a wide range of early Islamic theorists (Farabi, Avicenna and Turtushi) and mystics (Ibn al-Arabi and Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi Maqtul). Among the Islamic theorists, Rizvi makes particular mention of Abu Bakr Muhammad Turtushi (d.l 127) for his filling "an important gap" in the range of theory available to Akbar's court circle, "due to his (Turtushi's) access to the works of the sages of Iran, Byzantine, China, Hind and Sind", which were otherwise a closed book to "scholars drawing mainly upon Arabic sources". Rizvi hints that some of the Hindu notions incorporated in Abu'l Fazl's scheme could have come from Turtushi's Sirdjul Mulok. Although Abu'l Fazl does not mention this 47
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Social Scientist
ON o source, yet his political thinking, according to A.A. Rizvi, also carried an imprint o rN of Mongol tradition assigning a "divine origin" to the Mughal "imperial CP c power."21 This evidently reinforced the impact of Shihab al-Din Maqtul's ZD illuminationist ideas on the theory of kingship worked out by Abu'l Fazl for z Akbar.22 NO In his survey of intellectual influences shaping Abu'l Fazl's theory of o I LO kingship, A.A. Rizvi has also mentioned the akhldq texts of NaoeSr al-Dcm Tusi O 00 (1201-1274) and Jalal al-Din Dauwani (1427-1521). Characterizing these two as O z "the Platonizing authors", he points out that like them Abu'l Fazl "likens the body politic to the animal constitution", leading to his division of humanity into m four classes.23 Amongst these two texts, it appears, the Akhlaq-i Jalali of > Dauwani, became influencial at Akbar's court with the rise of Shaikh Mubarak to prominence in early seventies. The author Jalal al-Din Dauwani is known to have been influenced by the ishraqi doctrines of which Shaikh Mubarak was an exponent. Dauwani had written a commentary on Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi's Hayakil al-Nur. According to A.A. Rizvi, Shaikh Mubarak had learnt ishraqi doctrines from a disciple of Jalal al-Din Dauwani.24 As is known, Dauwani also recognizes al-Ghazali (1058-1111) as an authority on Islam.25 This was possibly the reason why, Abu'l Fazl, who is believed to have reservations about Ghazali's approach,26 does on fewer occasions than he does to Nasir al-Din Tusi. Taking a rather misplaced cue from Rizvi's remarks acknowledging Abu'l Fazl's occasional reliance on some of Nasir al-Din Tusi's "Platonising" postulates in the Akhlaq-i Nasiri, Muzaffar Alam tends to project the "Nasirean ethics" as the most important intellectual influence at Akbar's court, not only defining Akbar's theory of kingship but also shaping the culture of governance in the Mughal Empire after its departure from the orthodox shari'a, and this even during Aurangzeb's reign.27 This view, it goes without saying, not only ignores the decisive role of Akbar's vision and its bold articulation by Abu'l Fazl, but also fails to appreciate the seriousness of Aurangzeb's intent to undo the impact of Akbar's religious policy. Moreover, an implicit proposition running through Muzaffar Alam's recent writings on Mughal history appears to be that "Nasirean akhlaq" was influencial in the Timurid polity from quite an early stage. He suggests that already by Sultan Husain Baiqara's time (1470-1506), the sharia as defined in Nasirean ethics was more influencial in the Timurid polity than the Mongol tradition.28 These propositions obviously remain to be fully substantiated. In the following pages an attempt is made to examine them in the light of available evidence as also its interpretation in the modern works that Muzaffar Alam cites. It is important to remember that while implicitly conceding some kind of resemblance between Abu'l Fazl's theorizations regarding the Mughal state and 48 those of Nasir al-Din Tusi pertaining to a "virtuous" state, headed by an imam,
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance
_Q A.A. Rizvi also notes significant divergences between the two. For example, he r+ notes that unlike the imam of Nasir al-Din Tusi's scheme, Abu'l Fazl's concept of CL Akbar as a "Perfect Man" {insan-i kamil) was worked out by blending the > political philosophy of Farabi with the mystic ideologies of Ibn al-'Arabi and Abd al-Karim Jill. In his role as insan-i kamil, Akbar was bound to implement 3 7\ zr the sharia only to the extent that it would not "prejudice the welfare and pj happiness of his subjects". In this respect, according to Rizvi, Abu'l Fazl does not Z3 entirely follow Farabi either. Although Akbar resembled the philosopher king of Farabi's prescription, yet, unlike Farabi, Abu'l Fazl does not restrict the benefactions of Akbar's rule to Muslims only.29 In other words, while Abu'l Fazl does borrow concepts and ideas from Tusi and more frequently from Farabi, in the end, the thesis which he works out is entirely novel suiting the spirit of Akbar's vision of a polity in which, along with Sunni and Shia Muslims of diverse cultural backgrounds, Rajputs and other Hindu groups could also be accommodated as equal partners. Muzaffar Alam seeks to bolster his thesis about Nasirean akhlaq being a major influence behind the shaping of the Mughal polity during Akbar's reign by pointing out that in Akhlaq-i Nasiri, Islamic sharia is not percieved in its "narrow legalistic sense" but as a sharia requiring the king "to ensure the well being of all the diverse groups in his kingdom, and not just the Muslims". According to Alam, "Notions of kufr,- zimma and discrimination on such grounds" find no place in "the akhlaq treatises" (the allusion is obviously to Nasir al-Din's work and other texts modelled after it).30 But, here, one needs to remember that Nasir al-Din Tusi's extant text is a recast version of the original one, that had been written while he was serving an Ismaili prince. This new version was circulated after the establishment of Mongol rule in Iran and Iraq. The new rulers were not only non-Muslims but were considered "heathens" by all the different sects of the Muslims. They were responsible for overthrowing the caliphate and massacring a large part of the Muslim population of the territories conquered by them. Only some of the Shiite communities hostile to the Abbasid caliphate, which had cooperated with the Mongols, had been spared. Nasir al-Din Tusi himself had succeeded in obtaining a high position in Helagu's service by joining the Mongol camp at a time when the process of conquest was still on. He is reported to have assured the Mongol commander that there was no substance in an astrologer's prediction of natural disasters following the removal of the caliph.31 It is, therefore, understandable that, in the given situation, he should reveal his commitment to the Shiite version of sharia in vague language. Sharia is in fact referred to by him as namos-i ilahi, an expression borrowed from earlier Arabic translations of Greek philosophical treatises. But he makes it very clear that it means the sharia established under Prophet Muhammad.32 Again, the 49
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Social Scientist
ON o circumstances in which his book was recast made any reference to 'kufr and o fNl zimma redundant; at the time, in Iran, Muslims themselves were in the position CD c of a subjugated people. To interpret the absence of an overtly Islamic jargon Z5 (kufr and zimma) by a kind of compulsion from Nasir al-Din's akhlaq as an z indication of his preaching something similar in spirit to Akbar's sulh-i kul, is vO certainly quite misleading. o LO That Abu'l Fazl's discourse on "topics like justice, politics, reason, religion, o CO etc., particularly in the A'in-i Akbart\ is similar to that of Nasir al-Din Tusi in O Z Akhlaq-i Nasiri, is again not wholly tenable.33 It is no doubt true that on some of these themes Abu'l Fazl's views are similar to those of Nasir al-Din. For example, no like Nasir al-Din, he also advises caution in inflicting capital punishment. But, on > the other hand, in certain more vital matters, Abu'l Fazl's views are diametrically opposed to those of Nasir al-Din. Without going into too many details one may point out that Abu'l Fazl goes out of his way in expressing his disagreement with the view that the task of protecting "the property, lives, honour and religion of people" could be "supernaturally accomplished". The expression used is ha dast awez-i khariq-i 'adat ('with the help of something contrary to custom') which obviously refers to Nasir al-Din's concept of namus-i Ildhi. According to Abu'l Fazl "a well-ordered administration has never been effected without the aid of a sovereign monarch" and he characterizes sovereignty as "divine light" {farr-i izadi)\u a concept nowhere found in Tusi. To support his thesis of the deep impact of akhlaq literature on the working of Mughal Empire during Akbar's reign, Muzaffar Alam has given an English translation of a passage from the dastur ul-'aml drafted by Abu'l Fazl, which he claims has hitherto remained unnoticed. According to Muzaffar Alam this document is "clearly inspired by akhlaq texts", its "language and style" supposedly testify to this inspiration.35 The document far from being neglected has been much cited in Indian historical writings.*6 Regarding its language and style, one is constrained to point out that it carries a distinct stamp of Abu'l Fazl's incisive prose, which, unlike that of akhlaq texts, does not rely on Arabic vocabulary and quotations. Moreover, in his eagerness to read an impact of akhlaq on this text, Muzaffar Alam tends to ignore significant nuances of Abu'l Fazl's prose. For example, he translates the part of the text where officials are advised "not to interfere with religion and faith (kaish wa din) of men" as "not to interfere with any one's religion (din-o mazhab)" thus missing the fine distinction that Abu'l Fazl makes here and as well as in subsequent lines, between kaish (sect) or mazhab (doctrine), on the one hand, and din (faith), on the other. According to Abu'l Fazl, differences in religious creeds (kaish-o-mazhab) are possible and these could even be articulated. But in matters "relating to faith (din) which is eternal", the officials "should not become 50 deliberately prejudiced". This amounts to saying that while the officials were free to
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance
_Q propagate Akbar's Tawhid-i Ilahi, which was yet another kaish, they were not r+ CL expected to make hostile remarks about other sects and particularly the din (the PJ basic faith) which is eternal and common to all religions. > Summarising the argument in this section one may thus reiterate that PJ though Abu'l Fazl some times tends to agree with Nasir al-Din Tusi's 3 7\ zr formulations on statecraft, his overall politico-religious thought goes much pj beyond the philosophy of akhlaq texts. Here one can see that his commitment to Z5 sulh-i kulleads him to perceive din (faith) as something which is eternal and also transcends conventional religions, including Islam. One must not thus confuse Nasir al-Din Tusi's idea of namus-i-Ilahi with Abu'l Fazl's din.
IV That the Nasirean akhlaq was introduced and became influential in the Timurid polity much before Akbar's coming to the throne, as already noticed, is sought to be projected by Muzaffar Alam with reference to Qazi Ikhtiyar al-Din Hasan's Akhlaq-i Humayuni (original title Dastur al-Wazarat) written in Khurasan some time during Abu Sa'id Mirza's reign (1459-1469). The book was presented by the author to Babur when he made Kabul his seat in 1504. According to Ikhtiyar al-Din Hasan the title Akhlaqi Humayuni, was suggested by Babur himself. There is no doubt that this text is largely based on Nasir al-Din Tusi's Akhlaq-i Nasiri.37 But, apart from the author's own claim, there is hardly any evidence indicating that much significance was attached to the book at the Mughal court. Some of Humayun's court rituals and measures aimed at reorganizing the central government during 1530-1540, indicate that there was an attempt, though not very successful, to change the style of governance at the highest level. But the ideas or notions informing these measures were certainly not rooted in the akhlaq literature. The court ritual called jalwa-i quds38 and the seating arrangement of bisat-i nishat,39 where the monarch was perceived as occupying a position similar to that of the sun in the universe, were, of course, reminiscent of ishraqi doctrines, but these had nothing in common with the norms of Nasirean akhlaq reproduced in Akhlaq-i Humayuni. There is a suggestion in Muzaffar Alam's dilations on the role of'Nasirean akhlaq in shaping the 'Mughal Political Culture' during the seventeenth century that it continued to be influencial even during Aurangzeb's reign. According to him, the influence of Nasirean akhlaq "reinforced by the impact of Persian poetry and sufic thought" was so great on Mughal "governance" that the sharia had become "synonymous with the namus-i Ilahi (divine law), the most important task of which was to ensure a balance of conflicting interests".40 In his view, Aurangzeb was so much influenced by this concept that even his "decision to reimpose jizya was not in reference to the demands of holy law",41 a statement quite at variance with Aurangzeb's own explicit declarations. Not only is Alam's 51
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Social Scientist
ON o assertion here not in accordance with the direct clear evidence, but tends to put a o rN gloss on Aurangzeb's clear sectarian motives in reversing the tolerant policies CD c initiated by Akbar. Z5 In general, one should surely guard against the desire to attribute Z exaggerated intellectual influence to one text, and locate in it the source of policies vO and practices in totally different circumstances and contexts. Such an attitude o not only tends to exclude other sources of inspirtion but also overlooks what o CO was truly innovative or bold in a given historical situation. O Z m ~o > Iqtidar Alam Khan, formerly professor of history at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Notes r. Rabindra Nath Tagore, cited by Shireen Moosvi, '"Open Door" in Indian Historiography, Presidential Address, Historiography section, Andhra Pradesh History Congress, 21st session, 18-19 January 1997, Gollala Mamidada, p.5.
2. Cf. Iqtidar A. Khan, 'The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of his Religious Policy, 1560-80', lournal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1968.
3. J.F. Richards, 'The Formation of Imperial Authority under Akbar and Jahangir' in The Mughal State, 1526-1750, ed. M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam, Delhi, 1998, pp.139-40.
4. That the idea of the monarch being the shadow of God on earth was highlighted by Ghazali in his treatise Kimya-i Sa'adatand for Balban's styling himself zilallah see Yusuf Husain, Indo-Muslim Polity (Turko-Afghan Period), Simla, 1971, pp.40, 87.
5. Cited by J.F. Richards in The Mughal State, op.cit, p. 141.
6. Abu'l Fazl, Akbarnama, ed. Agha Ahmad Ali and Abdur Rahim, Vol.11, Calcutta, 1873-87, p.285; tr. Henry Beveridge, II, p.421.
7. Irfan Habib, Medieval India: The Study of a Civilization, New Delhi, 2007, p. 186.
8. Cf. Irfan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India, Bombay, 1963, p.318 n.5.
9. Cf. Athar Ali, 'Religion and Medieval Indian Polities', xerox, Simla, 1969, pp.5-6 and Irfan Habib, Medieval India; The Study of a Civilization, New Delhi, 2007, p.117.
10. Cf. Ain-i Akbari, vol.1, Lucknow, 1892, pp.202-203, and English tr. by Jarrett, pp.54-55; Irfan Habib, 'Reason and Science in Medieval India' in Society and Ideology in India: Essays in Honour of Professor R.S. Sharma, ed. D.N. Jha, New Delhi, 1996, p. 169, and The Muqaddimah, tr. F.R Rosenthal, Vol.1, p.92. See also Harold Laski on 'Social Contract' in Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vols.XIII 52 and XIV, 1932, p. 127.
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance
_Q 11. Ain-i Akbari, Vol.1, Lucknow, 1892, p.203. r+ CL 12. Cf. U.N. Ghoshal in The Classical Age, ed. R.C. Majumdar, pp.345-46. 13. For a comment on the nature of grants created for the support of non-Muslim > priests or deities from the very beginning of Akbar's reign see Iqtidar Alam, Khan, 'State Patronage in Medieval India', Chapter 6, in The State and Society in 3 Medieval India, ed. J.S. Grewal, New Delhi, 2005, pp.90-91. zr pj D 14. For Jahangir's well known comment see Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, ed. Sayyid Ahmad, Ghazipur and Aligarh, 1863-64, p.28. Irfan Habib's interpretation of this passage and other relevant evidence can be read in Medieval India: The Study of a Civilization, pp. 185-86.
15. Cf. Tarikh-i Hakki, in Elliot's History of India, Vol.VI, reprint, Allahabad, 1964, p. 181, where is quoted the line, "May it be the will of God that through the aid of this Omnipotent Emperor of Emperor's (i.e. Akbar), the Muhammadan Law (shari'a-i Muhammadi) and religion may be established for ever and ever". 16. Cf. Irfan Habib, 'The Political Role of Shaikh Ahmadi Sirhindi and Shah Walliullah', Proceedings of Indian History Congress, Aligarh, 1960, pp.219-222.
17. Cf. K.A. Nizami, Hayat-i Shaikh 'Abdul Haq Muhaddis, Delhi, 1953, p.76, and I.H. Qureshi, The Administration of the Mughal Empire, reprint, Patna, p.30.
18. Muhammad Ikram, Rud-i Kausar, pp.228-3, cited in Irfan Habib, 'Political Role of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah', Proceeding of Indian History Congress, 1960. Also see K.A. Nizami, Akbar and Religion, Delhi, 1982, p.317, who dilates on Jahangir's "attitude" of "calculated disassociation with Akbar's religious views and policies."
19. Athar Ali, 'Towards on Interpretation of the Mughal Empire', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, no.l, 1978, p.41.
20. Cf. Iqtidar Alam Khan, 'State in Mughal India: Re-examining the Myths of a Countervision', Social Scientist, Vol.30, no. 1-2, January-February 2001, pp. 19 23.
21. S.A.A. Rizvi, Religions and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign with Special Reference to Abu I Fazl, New Delhi, 1975, pp.11, 15, 17, 353-57.
22. J.F. Richards in The Mughal State, op.cit., p. 147.
23. S.A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar s Reign, p.366.
24. For Jalal al-Din Dauwani's translating an ishraqi text see Seyyed Hossein Nasr in History of Muslim Philosophy, ed. M.M. Sharif, reprint, Delhi, 1961, pp.396-97. On Shaikh Mubarak being an exponent of ishraqi doctrines see Akbarnama, Vol.11, p.387. See also A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of Muslims in Akbar's Reign,p.S0.
25. Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, Vol.1, under 'Akhlaq', p.329.
26. For Abu'l Fazl's reservations about Ghazali's approach see A.A. Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in North India, Lucknow, 1965, p.206 n.2. 53
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Social Scientist
0 o 27. Cf. Muzaffar Alam, The Language of Political Islam, New Delhi, 2004, p. 77, and o 'Akhlaqi Norms and Mughal Governance' in The Making of Indo-Persian Culture,
29. A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of Muslims in Akbar's Reign, p.358.
30. Muzaffar Alam, The Language of Political Islam, pp.12, 61, 65, 77. 31. Cf. A.K.S. Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, Oxford, 1981, p.324. A. Bausani in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol.4, ed. J.A. Boyle, 1968, Chapter 7, p.539, 32. Cf. Akhlaq-i Nasiri, Lucknow, 1924, p:168. 'wa az injahat sharia ra namus ilahi khwanand* ('and for that reason they call the sharia namus-i ilahi).
33. Cf. Muzaffar Alam in The Making of Indo-Persian Culture, p.84. 34. See AHn-i Akbari, Vol.1, Nawal Kishore, Lucknow, 1892, p.202 (under Riwa-i Rozi).
35. Muzaffar Alam, The Language of Political Islam, pp.61-65.
36. The document has been used, for example, by Irfan Habib (Agrarian System of Mughal India, Bombay, 1963, p.251) and A.A. Rizvi (Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar s Reign, 1975, p. 198).
37. Cf. The Language of Political Islam, pp.51-54, 56. It may, however, be noted that Muzaffar Alam's reading of the text is not always very accurate. For example, he attributes to Ikhtiyar al-Din Hasan a statement that a "man of faulty politics" treats "the raaya as his slaves, nay, even as women", which sounds curious. On checking with Aligarh MS one can see that the confusion arises from a misreading of the word sutordt meaning cattle, as mastordt meaning the veiled ones or women. 38. Cf. Rafiuddin Ibrahim Shirazi, Tazkirat ul-Muluk, MS. British Library, Add. 23 883, f.l58a&b. For establishing this practice Humayun was criticized in one of Shah Tahmasp's letters to Sultan Salim of Turkey. See Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in Indian Environment, Oxford, 1964, p.25.
39. Cf. Khwandamir, Qanun-i Humayuni, ed. M. Hidayat Husain, Calcutta, 1940, pp.12, 22. 40. The Language of Political Islam, p.78. 54 41. Ibid., p.13.
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:04:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms