THE STRUCTURE OF MUGHAL POLITY c: 1526-1575 A.D ABSTRACT^ OF THE —"^]^S^ THESIS /'~*^ SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF ©octor of ^I)ilasopI)P //' -^^#\^^\\ M HISTORYHIC^TORY ^ ^^1 I) ll II BY GULRUKH KHAN Under the Supervision of PROF. AFZAL HUSAIN CENTRE OF ADVANCED STUDY DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVbRSlTY ALIGARH (INDIA) 2008 ^ -"^-^ -. l\ >.v>.' ABSTRACT The present research work is a modest attempt to understand the evolution and nature of the Mughal political structure from 1526 to 1575, by the time most of its administrative and political structure had evolved. While on the one hand our work focuses on the impact of Central Asian institutions on Mughal politics and administration, it also on the other hand explores the role ofyasa on the Central Asian political structure. Siyasa the Persian key word and terminology equivalent to the English 'Politics' was used to understand the evolution of the political structure both in Central Asia and later on under the Mughals. Therefore, the term siyasa needs to be given attention and is focused upon before drawing parallels between the political structure of the Mongol and Islam. The term siyasa in its early usage was not a technical term but a common word used for 'governance' and 'statecraft' a usage, which was not in conflict with Jiqh. Most often it concentrated on the issues of Islamic governance and its legitimacy, its conflict or harmonisation with fiqh and shariat. From the mere and simplified meaning of 'management' it acquired new definitions and further additions were incorporated to it with the change in Islamic political structure. Siyasa by the thirteenth century, and even before that, concerned itself with three issues: legitimacy of the ruler or ruling house, the purpose of rule and the means to attain that purpose. The issue of legitimacy apparently formed the core of the politics {siyasa) during the medieval period; especially when in Islamic system there was no known fixed law of succession. The theorists were attempting to re­ define the siyasa to harmonize it not only with the fast changing poltical situations but also with shariat. The meaning and practical application of siyasa kept on evolving as the Islamic system itself evolved, as had been discussed in the introduction of the thesis. From the mere and simplified meaning of 'management' it acquired new definitions and further additions were incorporated to it with the change in Islamic political structure. It explores the processes through which Mughal political structure gradually evolved, securing a foothold in their South Asian dominions by 1575. The thesis also notes the influences in the evolutionary process, be it Islamic, Central Asian or Hindustani, and also revisits some of the essential concepts within the theoretical framework of political structure and its application and utility in sixteenth century Mughal South Asia. The Political Structure of Mughals has attracted scholarly attention from various perspectives, i.e., economic, political and military. The conscious attempts were made to trace the political structure under the Mughals of South Asia to the Central Asian structure of polity from where the Mughals traced their ancestry, both biological as well as imagined. The Central Asian constitutional system allegedly developed and implemented by Chinggis Khan known as yasa is even traced in the Mughal polity, surprisingly without noticing the evolution not only of yasa but also of the Mughal political structure itself which is also compared with that of Islam as it developed during the second half of the seventh century. Some scholars are of the view that Mughal political system lacked strong centralization and that was due to Turko- Mongol Tribal Structure basically guided by traditional rules and regulations particularly Yasa-i Chinggisi or the laws of Chinggis Khan, which could hardly permit the rise of an absolute and despotic monarchy. However, scholarship has also tended to explore limitations of yasa and the growing importance of shariat (Islamic Laws) among the Central Asians especially after the death of Ching^;is Khan and the advent of Islam. But then, this tendency to converge and overlap paradigms had some obvious shortcomings, for both the tribal system and Islamic laws complimented each other in many aspects. In the Islamic society the highest political authority evolved in the office oiKhalifa and in the Mongol to that of Khaqan. Yet there is continuing evidence, at least in contemporary works that both offices did not quite lose their rigor under the Mughals. Yet another important shortcoming in the study of Mughal political structure was to relate it to Central Asia, (whether to Chinggis Khan or to Timur's political system) without critical analyzing some of the terminologies and concepts used in those political systems.. Thus, the dispute among historians over some of the basic concepts such as Yasa, Qurultai, Amir, Sultan, Padishah, apart from the very word Mughal used for the dynasty of Babur in South Asia appears a misnomer. Naturally, studies done on Mughal polity without the kind of critique mentioned above achieve only teleological explanation of the Mughal political structure. While it is clear from various researches that the structure of Mughal polity definitely acquired prominent features as well as impetus from 1560 onwards, but it took at leas two full decades to fiilly develop. Having already discussed the definitions, implications and evolution of the term and concept of siyasa with in Islamic political structure. Chapter One immediately concerns itself with the Central Asian constitutional system, popularly known as the yasa of Chinggis Khan, and its overlapping with the Islamic siyasa. Naturally then quite a bit of Mongolian polivical history also gets incorporated there, which eventually strengthen our argument further. An attempt is made in this section to sketch in somewhat broad strokes an important aspect of the Mongolian political or constitutional system based on and referred to as the 'Great >'asa'. The two intervals of regency, i.e. after the death of Chinggis Khan and Ogedei saw a steep rise in the powers of the nobility and also witnessed rise in thv^ power of the priestly class. A precedent was thus set in motion, which only entities every surviving member of the deceased 'sovereign' for sovereignty, but even a member of the ruling elites could also manufacture it. The principle of'legitimacy' to rule acquired new meanings after the death of Chinggis Khan in the siyasa. It became a necessary obligation for a claimant to prove his 'legitimacy'. This was easier for a surviving male off-springs for they claimed their 'legitimacy' on the basis of 'royal blood' but it was not difficult either for any military genius, like Timur who could get the 'legitimacy' manufactured, as will be discussed in detail in the Chapter Two. This Chapter deals with the continuity of the Chinggisid traditions and modifications made by him according to the political development whereby issues like 'legitimacy' and 'justice' becomes prominent in medieval concept of siyasa. An attempt will be made in this chapter to explore this particular issue of 'legitimacy' vis-^-vis legacy, its conflict as well as harmonisation in defining the structure of medieval siyasa after the death of Chinggis Khan and also during the time of Timur. Throughout his career, Timur used and emphasized the 'legitimacy' of the ChaghtaiJ house and his followers too continued this tradition to identify themselves as upholder of Chinggisid order. At this time shariat became an important tool for legitimizing the rule of a ruler, and also for obtaining the vital support of the religious class, one might wonder what had become of that position of the legacy of Chinggis Khan that previously provided legitimacy to rule. Interestingly, we find Xhatyasa was not totally in vogue. Our sources fortunately points towards a number of examples to prove that Chinggisid customs, including yasa were instrumental in providing 'legitimacy', in fi-aming laws and in governance too. Chapter Three confines itself to the reign of the first Mughal emperor Babur and his position in Central Asia. This chapter also notes the subtle changes in the process of division of territories as assignments, the treaties with different rulers, and more importantly his firmness started to at least guide the 'Mughal concept of sovereignty' and shaped its political structure as well. His attempts to not only reform his administrative machinery but also to strengthen the position of the king was evident from various innovative methods he devised to claim a divine status, and division of nobility into three classes. By putting himself and his family in the first grade, Humayun appears to have sent the message across to his Central Asian nobility that he was much higher in status to all others including his relations. Through other metaphoric acts, like placing of veil on his phase, Humayun attempted to distance himself from the nobles who thought that the emperor was one amongst them. Humayun also claimed that the king was the shadow of God on the earth. Khwandmir calls him a personification of the spiritual and temporal sovereignty (Jamai Sultanati Haqiqi wa Majazi), and His Majesty the King, the Shadow of God (Hazrat-i Padshah Zill-i-Ilahi). Abul Fazl used the term 'Insan-i Kamil', or the Perfect Man for him who used to receive inspiration from God. As a matter of fact his It has been argued that all his innovations were a well-crafted strategy to make the position of the sovereign absolute, rather than meaningless innovations. In fifth chapter we have discussed the position of the foster or the milk relatives of Emperor Akbar who remained largely unnoticed in the modem studies, because they treated almost as blood relatives. The politics of the time was clearly steered by the legitimacy paradigm instead of Central Asian notions of sovereignty.