Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 39, No. 2 (2019), pp. 533-542

Comparison of Religious Policies of Jalal-ud-Din Muhammad and Elizabeth I

Muhammad Yasir Ali Khan Lecturer, Department of History and Civilization Studies, Bahauddin Zakariya Univeristy, Multan

Abstract: This article comparatively describes and analyses the religious policies of Jalal ad Din Akbar and Elizabeth I. It details the religio-political reflections of both monarchs against the religious questions and challenges of sixteenth century England and . English experience appears as an essentialist solution by giving birth to well-defined Anglican Church. Indian case witnesses the non-essentialist experiment of Akbar based on the concept of Universal Toleration. The comparatives study of different religio-political steps of two monarchs reveals that Elizabeth I’s model finds place in the historical developments in Europe which are culminated in modernity. Akbar’s model, although being superior, vast and accommodative reflects resistance in the future historical development in the political history of India. Author, on the basis of findings stresses the needs of revisiting Akbar’s position in a pursuit to address the present day religio- political issues being faced by Pakistani state and society.

Keywords: Act of Uniformity, Din e Ilahi, Prayer Book, Mahzar, Universal Toleration, Sultan e Adil.

I. Introduction John Tosh (2015) writes, “All societies have a collective memory, a storehouse of experience that is drawn on for a sense of identity and a sense of direction”.(p.1) The time period of current research paper dates back to sixteenth century but the impulse is highly contextualized in the contemporary debate. It is, as described by Tosh, an urge to comprehend identity and to make sense of a direction which are till now confused in a cluster of ideologies and mechanisms. It is an effort to revisit the history and revise certain conclusions regarding religion and politics. Current discourse problematizes the existing structures of nexus of religion and politics. Historically, the relation between religion and politics is of significant importance. For a student of history, revisiting the past is a common practice but as narrated above this revisit requires some contemporary urge. It intends to revisit the flow of history in a comparative account and analysis of religious policies of Jala-ud-din Muhammad Akbar and Elizabeth I. It argues that the understanding of prevalent historical lineage of western secularism and on the other end Islamic modernity needs thorough revision. (Ibid,p. 245) The current historical estimates advocate the historical supremacy of western world by claiming the superior models of modernity and secularization. The rest of the world is expected to follow the footprints of Western nations to achieve civility. The western historical events are perceived as model representation of human development. (Mubarak Ali, 2004, p. 118) It is believed that modernity, after passing through the annals of renaissance and reformation and enlightenment, is the ultimate end, which, at first, has no equation in the rest of world and 534 Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 39, No. 2 on the other hand is the only destination which ensures and maintains civility. Mubarak Ali (2004) mentions this trend and writes,

“Those who believe that the process of Renaissance can change the course of history in the Islamic societies as it changed in the Europe fail to understand that every society has its own traditions, values and norms which require different approaches to change and restructure them.”

Present research revisits this understanding by arguing that, in a way, subcontinent is ahead of the West. Religion and politics, for example, have more moderate and enlightened historicity in India as compare to the Western civilization. Religio-political experience in India encompassed diverse traditions and created various models of co-existence in medieval period. It was the time when Europe was struggling hard to avoid religious determinism in politics. This religious determinism in politics was resulting in the division of European society. At the same time Indian political tradition was absorbing various colors to create a combination. This research paper intends to open a sample period of sixteenth century and choices two contemporary monarchs from India and England to have an idea of religio-political relations of that time and their historical worth over a period of time. The comparative study of religious policies of Akbar and Elizabeth I will be helpful to understand the religio-political experiences and to understand the significance of historicity in the course of conceptual development of religious and political development. This study will enhance the level of understanding in the contemporary discourses and will try to revisit the current scripts. It is comprised of two parts. First part describes the socio-political context of Akbar and Elizabeth I by exploring social discourses and context in which both monarchs acted. Second part gives a comparative account of the religious policies of Akbar and Elizabeth I. The paper ends with a conclusive analysis of the comparison.

II. Socio-Political Context As, it has been described earlier, that both monarchs were representing different environments. They belonged to different civilizations. Elizabeth was born in European civilization on the other hand Akbar was born in India. Elizabeth was the daughter of British soil while Akbar and his family were new comers in India. Akbar’ ancestors belonged to central Asia from where his grandfather, Babur, was expelled by the Uzbeks. He had to abandon his ancestral throne and turned his attention to the throne of Hindustan. This implies that Akbar enjoyed more diversity, even from the beginning, than Elizabeth.

English society was dominantly a Christian society. It cherished the religious uniformity. Christianity was facing division on the basis of different opinions about the operational structure and vision. Christians were mainly divided into two major sects i.e. Catholics and protestants. These two sects were further divided into sub-sects. This diversity came in the European religious environment in the wake of the revivalist movements like renaissance and reformation. Ethnically, majority of population of England was comprised of the English stock. So Elizabeth was connected with the society where she born in both religious and ethnic spheres. The master and the subjects cherished the same religion and culture. Akbar had to face diversity from the time of his birth. He was a Muslim and descendant of Mongols. His ethnic and religious positions were alien to the local Indian culture. The country he governed was mostly inhabited by Muhammad Yasir Ali Khan 535 the non-Muslims especially Hindus. Jains, Buddhists and Muslims had also significant strength in the population of India. Again these major religions were divided into sects and sub-sects. Indian subcontinent was also divided on ethnic basis. Ethnic and religious diversity was the main feature of India.

Elizabeth was the descendant of Henry VIII, whose family, Tudors, was ruling England from the fifteenth century. As a Queen of England and according to the spirit of Anglicanism she was the supreme governor in both spiritual and temporal spheres of life of her subjects (Gardiner, 1902, p. 429). Apparently she was possessing absolute powers and authority but actually she had no absolute authority in all spheres. Political course was accommodating some other institutions as well. Growing strength of the parliament and presence of representatives of different schools of thought was alarming for the absolute powers of the monarch (Major, 1966, p. 106). Involvement of parliament in the political matters was a long standing practice in England but it remained silent in the religious matters for most of the time in past due the hegemony of Pope and Roman church. In the parts religion was the monopoly of the Pope and Roman church. Authority of church was challenged by Henry VIII who broke his ties with the church and established Anglican Church (Ibid, p. 222). This practice was followed by the Edward but the situation was reversed in the reign of Queen Mary. Mary re-established the relationship between her country and the Roman church (Gardiner, 1902, p. 421). Elizabeth again abandoned her relationship with the church and revived the Anglican Church that in its operational and ideological spheres differed from the both Henrican and Edwardian models. The act of Supremacy that was passed by the Henry VIII assigned him the status of spiritual and temporal head of the state. Same act, in the period of Elizabeth when brought to the parliament was criticised on large scale on the basis of woman being the head of religious matters. The matter was resolved by the change of title and by replacing the word supreme head by supreme governor. It was not only a substitution of the title but it was also at the same time a surrender of power on the behalf of Queen. Now onwards parliament had to share his religious authorities. Power of further legislation on the act and the rule of amendment in the prayer book with the prior consent of the parliament added to the prestige of the institution (Ibid, p. 429). So, now onward, Queen had no absolute powers both in the political and religious spheres.

On the other hand the political situation of India was totally different from the England. Muslims were ruling here for the last three centuries. Political institutions in India under Muslim rule had gone through different experiences. With the exceptions of some Salatin, monarch was not an absolute institution. In most the cases he was regarded as first among the equals. Monarchs of the sultanate period depended on the powerful nobility that was mostly comprised of the people of their own clan. So he was also bound to follow their advice in the political matters. In the early phase sultanate was also connected with the Caliphate (Qureshi, 1958, p. 53). So they were not only bound in the political matters but also they had no authority in the religious matters that was the monopoly of the religious scholars. The parallel theory that replaced this traditional theory was the theory of Divine Right of Kingship that freed the monarch from both the external and internal stakeholders. Initially Akbar adopted the theory Divine Right of Kingship (Ibn Hasan, 1967, p. 59). With the passage of time, he went further and aspired to become Sultan-e-Adil and even broke the monopoly of religious divines in the religious matters. So he enjoyed absolute powers without sharing any of his authority with any institution in the political structure of the state (Ibid). 536 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 39, No. 2 III. Comparison of Major Steps in Religious Policies Akbar and Elizabeth not only differed in their conception of kingship and in their religious ideologies but the same difference were also exhibited in their religious policies. Although they are different in the spirits of the policies yet their study can be conducted in combining the apparent analogical steps. This analogy was sustained in the structures constructed around the binaries of religion and politics. Following are the major categories for the comparatives discussion on the religious policies of Akbar and Elizabeth I.

A. Act of Supremacy and Concept of Sultan-e-Adil Both, the concept of supremacy by Elizabeth and concept of a Just Ruler by Akbar, were meant for highest position of a king in the both spiritual and temporal matters of their subjects. Both these concepts strived for the same purpose that was to raise the status of a king both as political and religious head of the state. But as far as the nature and spirit of the act of supremacy and concept of just ruler is concerned, they seemed to be different altogether.

The act of supremacy, as described earlier was first introduced by Henry VIII, when he broke himself off from the Roman Church. It conferred upon him the supreme authority both in political and religious issues of the empire. Elizabeth I faced challenges in this regard. Her status was questioned in 1559 when she tried to have the consent of parliament on the same act for herself, she was opposed and criticised by on gender basis and it was alleged that a woman could not become the supreme head in the religious affairs. So owing to the criticism and by obliging the reformists, the title of supreme head was abandoned. It was substituted with the supreme governor (Feiling, 1970, p. 390). It was not only a change of title but it implied different concept of authorities and status of king in the religious domain. Her powers in this domain were not only sanctioned by the parliament but at the same time were curtailed by it by the legislative nature of the bill and by the power of amendment in the Prayer book (Elton, 1971, p. 274). Her intention behind her desire to become the supreme head in religious matters was not only to accommodate and facilitate the reformist ideals but at the same time it was also due to the political reasons that she desired so. In her regime supreme governor meant the governor of only state sponsored religious views without accepting the contradictory ideas. The Act of Uniformity further explained the matter by implementing the state sponsored religion without the accommodation of other sects.

On the other hand the concept of Sultan-e-Adil cherished a liberal outlook and character during sixteenth century. The title owes its existence to Islam but its orientation was different from its traditional interpretation. Apparently its jurisdiction seems to be limited to the Muslim community but inherently it was meant for the whole humanity irrespective of the religious, sectarian and ethnic affiliations (Alhaq, 1996, p. 751). Traditionally, the concept of a Just Ruler in the Muslim community meant the upholder of faith, defender of Shariah, and commander in chief of the Muslims but Akbar’s ideal was broader in its nature. Akbar rejected the traditional view on the basis that justice did not mean for the Muslims alone. Muslim and non-muslim subjects of the state deserve the provision of justice on equal basis. Same passion was accommodated in the Abul Fazl’s theory of kingship that a just ruler should be above the religious and sectarian differences of his subjects (Ibn Hasan, p.61). So Akbar’s concept of a Just ruler implied that his all subjects were equal before him without any consideration of faith and creed. It Muhammad Yasir Ali Khan 537 was not limited just within Muslim community or a specific sect like Elizabeth but it was meant to provide justice to whole subjects. The concept of Just Ruler bore political importance and was based on the Chishti Sufi ideological foundations which accommodated people irrespective of their religion. (Alhaq, 1996, p. 752) Justice in a multi ethnic and religious society demands the same spirit as provided by Akbar. His position was absolute in this regard. He was not bound by any other institution in the state in the religious matters. He was not under the authority of the religious divines as Just Ruler, according to his understanding, was more authorised than a mujtahid. (Ibn Hasan, 62)

B. Act of Uniformity and Din-e-Ilahi Act of supremacy was supported by the Act of Uniformity. Both acts were passed by the parliament in the same year. (Elton, 274-76)) Act of Uniformity enforced the spirit of Act of Supremacy. It stressed the observance of the Anglicanism. (Ibid) All the university graduates, public servants, and clergy were obliged to take oath of its observance. Refusal to take oath resulted in punishments. (Ibid) It left no space for the subjects for a free choice. Public will was reduced to the acceptance of act of uniformity in the name of political necessity. A similar step was taken by Akbar but with different orientation. Akbar introduced a religious code of conduct that was combining the main postulates and practices of different religions. This code that was known as Tawhid-e- Ilahi or Din-e-Ilahi was based on the concept of Sulh-e-kul. It was not mere a result of a political necessity but it involved Akbar’s own religious inclinations and desires. (Malik, 2012, p. 159-63) It was mostly borrowed from Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Akbar wanted to unite the whole subjects in a unified religious bond without leaving their mother religion as it is described by M.P Srivastav (1978, p. 90), ‘it was socio-religious order or brotherhood, designed to cement diverse communities in the land’. It had no punitive consequences as it had not cherished any public status. Its nature was discretionary rather than a compulsion.

So there are different levels of the difference between the Act of Uniformity. Act of Uniformity was a political necessity and was not supported by any ideological approach prevalent in Christian world at that time. On the other hand Tawhid-e-Ilahi was based on a spiritual concept of universal toleration. This concept was popular in the Sufi circles long before the time Akbar. The main practices and behaviour of the Chishtia silsilah in subcontinent in Sultanate period were the practical expression of this idea. (Malik, 2012) Act of Uniformity was based on the enforcement of the practices of Anglican Church that claimed to be Christian. It was confined to only one religion. Din- e-Ilahi was universal in nature because it was not restricted just to Islam but it enjoined the spirit of different religion, mostly of the Indian religions. So where the Act of Uniformity is narrow at its base, Din-e-Ilahi is broad due to its multi-religious composition. The Act of Supremacy made Anglicanism an obligation on the English people whose refusal might result in the shape of physical punishment or loss of office in the case of office bearers. (Elton)

C. Prayer Book and Mahzar Similar steps were taken by both contemporaries in the matters of religious practices and the issue of their validity. Elizabeth I tried to enforce state sponsored belief structure by the enforcement of Acts of Supremacy and uniformity. It was justified on the desire of a unified religious faith of the English people. State also tried to enforce a 538 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 39, No. 2 common set of practices and common style of worship in the shape of prayer book. (Ibid, p. 273) This code of practices of worship, prayer book, was also passed by the parliament and the same institution was delegated with the powers of amendments in the prayer book. It was an effort to harmonise the religious practices to create sense of unity in the English people. It was designed to unite divergent views of religious practices of Catholicism and Protestantism.

Similar step was taken by the Akbar in the shape of Mahzar, a document that ensured the supreme position of king in matter of religious decrees. (Lane-Poole, 1903, p. 279) This historical document was signed by the leading Muslim muftis of the age. It empowered Akbar with the authority in the final selection of religious decrees. This was the duty of a just ruler to facilitate his subjects in both temporal and spiritual affairs. So, Akbar, by gaining the power of final decision in the wake of contradictory religious views on same matter tried to create harmony and a unified religious code of conduct. His theory of kingship and his status of being a just ruler enabled him to do so because according to this theory he was more powerful and responsible for religious affairs of the empire than a mujtahid.

Both the Prayer Book and Mahzar had nearly same spirit behind them. No matter the purpose was similar behind the both documents and apparently they seem to be twins but there was a marked difference between the both. In England the adoption of prayer book and articles and the power of amendment in these lied with the parliament that was purely a political institution. On the other hand Mahzar was sanctioned by the leading religious scholars of the age in Hindustan in the favour of a Just Ruler. The concept of Just Ruler and its status of being final authority in the religious affairs were not external to Islam. This concept was enshrined in the office of caliphate and the same practice of the final sanction of religious decrees was common in the Islamic history especially in the Caliphate period. So the spirit behind both documents was same but their orientation was different. In England religious issues were being decided by the political institution but in India Akbar did not invented new institutions and practices but just tried to revive the traditional Islamic institution with the spirit that was provided by the Sufism.

IV. Comparative Nature of Religious Policies The discussion in the above section on the comparative analysis of analogical religio-political structures provides certain trends which can be explained further to have a general outlook of the policies of Akbar and Elizabeth I. This general outlook will help further to come back to the questions set forth in the introductory part of the paper. It will be discussed that whether the study can be justified in the context of current discourses on religion and politics besides its operational strength in the establishment of some new discursivity on the religio-political orientation of contemporary Pakistani state. At first instance the religious policies of Akbar and Elizabeth were representing different trends of contemporary responses to different set of traditional conditions. Broadly speaking they were not feeling comfortable with the existing religious structures and were trying to evolve new structure which could both help them to meet the political necessities but also help them to nourish their religio-political visions. Elizabeth I discarded the pure Catholic traditions in the religio-political structure and established a reformed structure which bestowed upon her the status of leader of the people in both temporal and spiritual spheres of life. Akbar also reacted against the traditional religio-political structure and Muhammad Yasir Ali Khan 539 tried to redesign it according to a theory that was virtually diminished from the religio- political arena of the Muslim world.

Elizabeth’s religious policies were leading away from the spiritual basis of the religion by accommodating the human reason instead of intuition. The process of change involved the participation of human and political institutions. The religious vision of Elizabeth was leaning towards the reformatory ideas by preferring the use of human tools of investigation in the religious matters. On the other hand the response of Akbar was different because it was mostly relying on the intuitional means of investigation than the mere reliability on the reason as Shuja Alhaq (1996) describes,

‘However, gradually, the rarest of aspiration arose within him, which was to put him on a path hitherto not traversed by any Indo-Muslim ruler: the quest to find the religious truth within himself’. (740)

Elizabeth I tried to justify her model of the religious policies on the basis of need of the creation of a sense of unity in the empire. Her policies were accepted by most of the orthodox circles in the name of national interest in the wake of internal and external threats (Hayes, Baldwin, Cole, 31). She was of the view that the new shape of religio-political structure in the shape of Anglicanism will help her to promote a strong national feeling in the British minds. As per its title ‘Anglicanism’ the model describes its limitations itself. Anglican means specific for the English stock. This ethnic tendency of the model speaks of its narrowness

Akbar was also desirous of a strong national character for his empire. He was inspired by the national character of his neighbouring empires (Qureshi, p. 166). The task was very much difficult owing to the presence of diversity of lingual, racial, and religious groups. He was striving on the political end by following the policy of accommodation of the non-muslim and indigenous people in the political and administrative arena. The concept of Universal Toleration further supported his desire. He felt it to be more strong ground for the creation of national spirit in the people of his empire. So his religious policy was constructed on broad basis by the combination of different religious colours. It means its character was not communal but it was of a national character. Shuja Alhaq (1996) has rightly observed,

‘Akbar’s policy of broadening the socio-religious bases of his empire was, then, as much motivated by his own personal liberal convictions which accompanied the gradual maturation of his intellectual powers, as by purely political considerations’. (739)

Same is the feeling of M.P. Srivastava (1978), who describes his religious vision in the following words,

Akbar’s highest political object was the fusion of Hinduism and Islam and the establishment of cultural as well as political unity in the empire. The innovation was the outcome of his policy of universal toleration and a brilliant testimony to his national idealism. (95)

Elizabeth’s religious policy was coercive in its nature because it was going to make people oblige to religious pattern of state sponsored faith and practices. The non- 540 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 39, No. 2 following of other models were considered treason. (Elton, 289) Akbar’s religious model was accommodating and flexible. His policies favoured the independent investigation of the faith. He himself facilitated the process of religious enquiry and the involvement of other religions in the process. Stanley Lane-Poole (1903) describes,

‘The truth is that Akbar was singularly sensitive to religious impressions of every kind, and that his new religion, the Din-e-Ilahi, ‘divine faith’, an eclectic pantheism, contained elements taken from very diverse faiths’. (280)

So, where the Act of Uniformity was limiting the choice of the people at the same time the concept of Universal Toleration was providing an atmosphere of free inquiry to investigate the Ultimate Truth.

Elizabeth was abstracting the status of the leader of both temporal and spiritual affairs of the subjects from the primitive concept of kingship. In primitive times there was a concept of priest king who was a religio-political head of the state. Guizot (1883) writes, ‘…royalty now declared itself absolute and superior to all laws, even to those which it declared willing to respect…’ (270). Guizot also records that Tudors were claiming primitive independent sovereignty. So it is analysed that they were justifying their claim of the headship of both temporal and spiritual spheres of the state on the basis of primitive position of the monarch whose position was above all the laws and institutions of the state.

Akbar’s concept of a Just Ruler was based on the historical evidence of the caliphate and his religious policy was designed on the foundations that were provided by the liberal ideas of Sufism. The concept of Imam-e-Adil was not only abstracted from the spirit of caliphate but it was also justified on the interpretation of the verse of Holy Quran that binds the Muslim to obey the Aulil Amr as he obey God and just like the obedience of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H). (Shrivastav, 1957) The term, Aulil Amr, has been defined as the Just Muslim Ruler by a specific group of scholars. The same idea was also present in the shiaism, where Imam cherishes both the temporal and spiritual powers. (Alhaq) So he had a lot of references from the Muslim history and the opinions of different schools of thought in the Muslim Jurisprudence that were sufficient for the validity of his claim. His liberal attitude can be easily traced from his frequent relationships with the sufis and the regularity of his visits that he paid to the shrines of sufis of Chishtia order. Shuja Alhaq (1996) analyses the situation as,

‘The first pilgrimage, then, to Ajmer to the shrine of Muin ad-Din Chishti commenced in 1562. This early association with Muin ad-Din Chishti, it is important to remember, is significant not only for the fact that it indicates his early liberal world view but also in the formation of his later religious policy.’ (741)

So the basic idea working behind the religious vision and policies of the Akbar and Elizabeth differed from each other. Elizabeth tried to inherit the religio-political status of the primitive monarchs and Akbar was trying to implement an ideology that was running parallel to the traditional Islamic political views but was not politically implemented yet.

Muhammad Yasir Ali Khan 541 V. Conclusion Muslims, in the current discourse of religion in state or religion in politics, emerged as a major contender of modernity and secularism. The foundations of Political Islam were laid by Syed Qutb, Allam Moudodi and Khomeni. They tried to counter modernity and secularism by consciously or unconsciously following the footprints of modernity. Islamic Caliphatic and monarchial polity got translated in language of modern state. This trend succeeded in Iran besides leaving gross impacts on and South Asian politics. Pakistan also came under these currents and major proponent of this ideology in the country was Jamat e Islami. Interestingly, the successful Iranian revolution based on Shiite concept of political Islam left the sunni majority of middle East and Pakistan unsatisfied with this model. The other choice left was secular state, in the wake of post- colonial political currents. At time, it seemed that dominant sunni Islam will be aligning itself with the Western Modernity but it got other opportunities as well. Al Qaida’s Jihad and ISIS’s caliphate shake the basis of Mulim social and political polity which provided the Western world, particularly USA and her allies to continuously attack the Muslim countries. They invaded Iraq twice. Afghanistan also was attacked in the wake of war against terror. Islam and modernity appeared as rival forces. Western world championed the cause of civility and blamed the Muslim societies and states as terrorist or uncivilized. The discursive trends, meanwhile spoke for the Western historical, cultural and ideological supremacy on the other hand Muslim traditions appeared as ahistorical and based on the cultural and ideological ignorance and brutality. This paper as described in the introductory part is an effort to not only establish historical evidence for the “Muslim past” but also to mention some enlightened phases of this history. After going through the whole discussion and comparative analysis of religious policies of contemporary monarchs, it can be find that Muslims in South Asia have a peaceful historicity but that peace and calm is silenced in the current debate. It is partly because of the dimensions of the current discourse besides being ignored by the muslims themselves. Majority of today’s muslims own the tradition of by marginalizing the Akbar due to his heretic behavior towards traditional Islam. This study recommends that Akbar and his vision needs a proper revision. What Akbar did in political affairs, Sufis did in the spirituality. This enabled him to establish a vast and liberal base of government with an increased rate of “secular” tendency without straying religion. This model can help to resolve today’s political and constitutional issues regarding the accommodation of multi- ethnic, multi-religious and sectarian tendencies.

References A.L, Srivastava. (1952), The Mughal Empire (1526-1803), Agra: Lal Agar wala and Company Alhaq,Shuja. (1996) A Forgotten Vision, : Vanguard Ali, Mubarak. (2004), A Page from History: Essays on History, Politics and Culture, Lahore:Fiction House Elton, G.R. (1971) England under the Tudors, London: Methuen & Co., 1971 Feiling, Keith. (1970) A History of England from the coming of the English to 1918, London: Book Club Associates Gardiner, S.R. (1902) History of England, London: BiblioBazaar Guizot, M. (1883) General History of Civilization in Europe, New York: D. Appleton and Company Hasan, Ibn. (1967) The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire, : Oxford University Press 542 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 39, No. 2 Hayes, Baldwin, Cole. (1967) History of Western Civilization,London: The Macmillan Company Hibbert, Christopher. (1990) The Virgin Queen, London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks Major, J.R. (1966) The Western World; Renaissance to the Present, New York: J.B. Lippincott Company Malik, Jamal. (2012) Islam in South Asia: A Short History, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan Qureshi, I.H. (1958) The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, Karachi: Maaref Qureshi, I.H. (1978) Akbar the Architect of the Mughal Empire, Karachi: Maaref Robinson, Francis. (2003) Islam and Muslim History in South Asia, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003) Srivastava, M.P. (1978), Policies of the Great Mughals, Allahabad: Chugh Publications Stanley, Lane-Poole. (1903) Mediaeval India under Mohammedan Rule, London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903 Tosh, John. (2015) The Pursuit of History: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history, New York: Routledge