• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 39, No. 2 (2019), pp. 533-542 Comparison of Religious Policies of Jalal-ud-Din Muhammad Akbar 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 India. 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 Pakistan 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.

Load more

  10

Copy Link