As the list of the sources for the Akbarnama shows, our informants wrote their accounts under the following genres: tarikh, a word referring to annals, history, or chronological narrative; tazkira, written in the form of biographies and memoirs; namah, included biographies and exemplary accounts, aside from histories, epistles, and accounts of exemplary deeds; qanun, written in the mode of normative accounts or legal texts; and waqi‘at meaning a narrative of happenings, events, and occurrences. Interestingly, the genre title that Gulbadan chose was different from all of these: it was Ahwal, a word meaning conditions, state, circumstances, or situations.

Let us begin with the question: what are the records that make up the accepted archive for early Mughal India? For Babur and his period, his autobiography, the Baburnama, and the Tarikh-i Rashidi composed in 1545-46 by his cousin, Mirza Muhammad Haydar Dughlat, remain the most popular texts for scholars. Muhammad Haydar Dughlat spent most of his career in Kabul. He was in close contact with Babur during this period, and his work is valuable as it highlights the political-cultural intricacies of those parts of central Asia and Afghanistan that Babur was dealing with at the time.

Let us first begin with Baburnama. Also known as Waqā’i‘ or Tuzuk-i Baburi, it was initially compiled as a diary by Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur in Chaghtai Turki from where it was translated in Persian by ‘Abdur Rahim Khan-i Khanan during the reign of Akbar.

The Chaghtai Turki text has been edited by A.S Beveridge in 1905and then by Eiji Mano (Kyoto) in 1995. Mano collated four Turki texts, and his edition is one of the most accurate editions. The Persian text (Khan-i Khanan’s tr.) has been edited from Bombay in 1890.

The Chaghtai Turkish was spoken in Central Asia which at that time was dominated by the Chagtai Mongols. It is designated as Chaghtai Turkish to differentiate it from the Turkish spoken in Anatolia which is known as Ottoman Turkish. The Chaghtai Turkish was written down to the middle of the 15^th C. in Uighur script while the Ottoman Turkish was written in the Arabic script.

By the time Babur came on the scene, the Chaghtai Turkish also came to be increasingly written in Arabic script. It was in this script that Babur penned his memoirs. A result of the change in script from Uighur to Arabic, an inclusion of Persian and Arabic vocabulary took place in the Chagtai Turki.

Babur’s style in Baburnama is simple and lucid: it is not influenced by the ornate style of the prose writing which was in vogue in the contemporary Persian literature writing. It was more in line with the direct and simple style introduced by the Mongols / Mughals in Central Asia.

Basically divided into two parts – the first section deals with Central Asia, Samarqand, Bukhara, etc.; the second is devoted to India. Babur describes the fauna, flora, cities, topography etc. Babur’s comments are quite candid. He praises the things which attract him and criticises those which are not to his liking.

There are a number of gaps in the Baburnama which create serious problems for a person studying the period. Two of these major gaps are for the period from 914 – 25 AH / 1508 – 19; then again from 926 – 32 / 1520 – 25. For these long periods we have no account. Apart from this there are a number of other minor gaps ranging from a few weeks and days to a few months.

In spite of these insufficiencies Baburmama has remained a very important document for the regions which he controlled: Central Asia, Kabul, Qandhar and North India. This is the most sought after chronicle throughout the period from the very beginning. It was translated into Persian during his own lifetime and then later on translated from Persian into Russian, Italian, French and English.

The earliest attempt at preparing a recension (summary) of Baburnama in Persian was made by Babur’s sadr us sudur Shaikh Zain Khawafi, who in fact re-produced in Persian the information which is provided in Babur’s memoirs of the emperor’s battle with Ibrahim Lodi in Panipat down to the battle of Khanwa. This is known as Tabaqat-i Baburi.

The prose style of Shaikh Zain Khwafi in Tabaqat-i Baburi is rather rhetorical. It actually comprises two documents that were composed by Shaikh Zain himself for Babur:

(1) Babur’s farman of 1527, renouncing drinking of any kind of intoxicant and also proclaiming the abolition of some of the taxes. This farman was issued by Babur on the eve of the Battle of Kanwa to win over the sympathy of the people in general as also for creating enthusiasm amongst his officials who were rather diffident in engaging the Rajputs.

(2) The other document which was composed by Shaikh Zain in Persian and included in his Tabaqat was the Fathnama issued after Babur’s victory in the Battle of Kanwa in 1527. The fathnama is a longish account written in an ornate and rhetoric style. It appears that both these documents in their original form were included by Babur in his memoir. In the fathnama the political situation is characterized by Shaikh Zain some what communally vitiated. Basing on these documents the historians tend to paint the battle between Rana Sanga and Babur as one between Islam and Hinduism and Babur as a crusader and Sanga as the hero who wanted to throw out Islam from India: the fight was seen as a Jihad and Babur as Ghazi!

Another two attempts were made during the reign of Akbar to translate the memoirs of Babur. The first translation on Akbar’s orders was the one that was completed by Painda Hasan in 1583. The Ms of this translation entitled Waqi’at-i Baburi is preserved in the Bodleian collection in Oxford University. This translation is actually a summary translation of the Baburnama. Sometimes it tends to give the impression that it is an adaptation in the form of a new chronicle and not a translation. It is rather fragmentary and doesn’t help us to grasp the nature of information given by Babur.

The next attempt was made by ‘Abdur Rahim Khan-i Khanan who again prepared a new translation into Persian in 1589 on the orders of Akbar. This is a literal translation and is very close sentence by sentence. It is very important as in many cases a number of technical terms in Turkish with which we are not familiar are interpreted in Persian on his own knowledge.

This translation by Khan-i Khanan is a very useful translation – more so as it had a very great impact on the study of history of Babur’s period and the socio-economic history of the regions. For a long time it was the only version of Baburnama which was Available: a large number of its mss survive from the beginning of 17^th C onwards. The Turkish text became untraceable to a large extent.

The Latin translation of the Baburnama contains a letter written to Mirza Kamran which was present in the Russian translation which based on a Turkish text which is now extinct.

Contents and Structure

Now let us come to the information contained in the Baburnama. As pointed out earlier it is a memoir-cum-diary. If it is accepted as a memoir, then the information contained therein will have one kind of significance. If it is a diary, it will have another kind of significance.

What is the structure of this book?

We find the account covering the period from 1494 – 1526 is by and large in the nature of a memoir which is presented by Babur in the form of a diary. The second part of the Baburnama is an independent Treatise on Hindustan in general. There is no attempt to give it the form of a diary. It is a description of Hindustan as witnessed and understood by Babur after he established his control over Agra. The third part is actually that part which was not written by Babur and not in Chagtai Turki but written in Persian by Shaikh Zain (the two documents mentioned earlier). Lastly is the account covering the period of Babur’s stay in Hindustan from 1526 down to September 1529, i.e 3½ yrs which is certainly in the form of a diary: a day to day account.

Thus Baburnama is a collection of 4 types of work of which 3 are by Babur and one by Shaikh Zain. One part is in the nature of a diary par excellence, the others written in the form of diary but actually a memoir after his victory over Rana Sanga.

This division is borne out by examples and subsequent developments found in the text of Baburnama. For example referring to Mirza Haidar Dughlat in the account of AH 899 / 1493-94, Babur says this man ‘was with me, but later on in 1512 he went to Kashghar…’

Similarly in the account of AH 910 / 1505-04 he mentions:

‘In winter, however, people ford the Sind water at [Hāru] above its junction with Kabul River, and ford this also. In most of my expeditions into Hidustan, I crossed those fords, but the last time [i.e. 1525-26] when I came and defeated Sultan Ibrahim and conquered the country, I crossed by boat at Nilab…’

The significance is that it was in 1505 he is writing of something which happened in 1525-26. Thus this portion which he wrote in the form of diary for 1505 was actually written in 1525-26.

Again in AH 910 he writes about the laying out of gardens in AH 914.

Similalarly in an account of the same year (1505-04) while referring to Sultan Mahmud Ghazni’s tomb, he says: ‘There is hope that it may become of use again by means of the money which was sent in Khwaja Kalan’s hands…’ We know Khwaja Kalan was sent with funds by Babur sometime in March 1527. This portion was thus written after 1527 and not in 1504-5!  Thus this earlier account is in the form of a memoir and not a diary.

Now about the second portion it would suffice to say that Babur simply wrote it in the form of a narrative and treatise. It is the description of Hindustan. He describes the geographical features of the country, the forms of the society, the social conditions, buildings, houses etc. Thus at one place he mentions that the towns and country of Hindustan are greatly wanting in charm and its towns and lands are of one sort.

We come to know from Babur’s account the Persian Wheel was very much in vogue in Rajasthan but not beyond Delhi and Agra where Babur introduced it and was taken as an innovation of his. Describing the use of Persian wheel Babur writes:

‘In Lahore, Dipalpur and those parts, people lift water by means of a wheel. They make two circles of ropes; long enough to suite the depth of the well, fix strips of wood between them and on these fasten pitchers…

As distinct is the third part of the Baburnama. It comprises the two documents of Shaikh Zain which depict Babur as Ghazi. A thorough study of these documents reveals a different kind of information. For example Rushbrooke Williams says that the struggle between Rana Sanga and Babur was a fight against Islam. He suggests this basing on Shaikh Zain’s observation that 10 confederations were made by the Kafir chiefs. But such deduction by Rushbrooke is rather uncritical reading of the sources. The list of these ten chiefs is given by Babur as well and amongst them we find the name of Hasan Khan Mewat and his troops as well as one of the Lodi princes commanding the Afghan troops with Rana Sanga.

The author of Wāqi’āt-i Mushtāqi clearly says that the initiative to oppose Babur was taken by Hasan Khan Mewati and not Rana Sanga. Thus it cannot be said the the engagement between the Mughal and the Rana was a jihad par excellence. The language of the two documents of Shaikh Zain verbatim incorporated in the Baburnama and the term ghazi was merely to glorify Babur in the eyes of his reluctant officers who were feeling homesick.

The fourth part of the Baburnama, i.e. from 1526 to October 1529 is diary par excellence. Here we have passages like: [26^th May] ‘I crossed water on early morning’ or for e.g. on 28^th the Saturday ‘Today Kohi is joining Baqi’ etc.

The Gaps and Mutilated Portions:

The next problem is of the gaps in the Baburnama. Some of these are gaps of few weeks or days. But two major breaks are encountered in the first part, i.e. the memoirs:

There is a gap for the period 914 – 25 AH / 1508 – 19. This is when Babur after the defeat at the hands of Uzbeks had to seek help from Shah Ismail of Persia. It was a period when Babur had to suffer hardships after being expelled from Samarqand. Some Persian accounts tell us that in order to seek help from Shah Ismail, Babur had promised to be converted to Shi’ism. All this period finds no mention in the Baburnama. The details of this period are found in the Persian sources and in the words of Khwandamir as well as Mirza Haider Dughlat’s Tarikh-i Rashidi.

The second phase when a major gap occurs is from 926 – 39 AH / 1520 – 25. This is the period when Babur was concentrating on establishing his foothold in NW India for over-running the Delhi Empire. Babar has made some references in subsequent parts about the moves he made during this period. For example he makes a reference to his expedition in Punjab in the first half of 1525 as well as the fact that he received Rana Sanga’s envoys at Kabul inviting him to invade Hindustan and the Rana’s assurance of co-operation. He makes these references in the account of July 1526 while complaining against the Rana’s attitude. But we don’t have any account of the actual period to know what Babur felt at that particular time.

Now the question which arises: what is the nature of these breaks? Were they originally there in the original or were they a result of damage later on after the completion of the book?

According to Beveridge the gaps were very much there when Babur completed the book. Erskine and Dawson on the other hand hold that this doesn’t seem to be plausible.

We find not only these two gaps but the account is so manipulated in places that it is difficult to believe that Babur left it as such. In Beveridge’s edition one finds a half finished sentence on p.182. This kind of break is inexplicable.

It also looks odd that the Baburnama begins without any formal introductory remarks. It suddenly begins: ‘In the month of Ramazan in the year 899 [June 1494], in the province of Ferghana, in my twelfth year I became King’.

It ends also in an abrupt manner on 7 Sept. 1529-30 with the information that two nobles were sent to Gwalior.  This gives the impression that it is not a proper end.

Abul Fazl in his Akbarnama says that Babur was engaged in writing his memoir till the time of his death: ‘He also wrote his waqi’at from the beginning of his reign to the time of departure (inteqal) faithfully, in a lucid and elegant style.’

But in the surviving Baburnama we find the end on 7^th September 1529 and for the rest of the 14 months of Babur’s life we have no account. What happened to this part? This remains unanswered. But then on the other side there are strong evidences.

Firstly all those mutilations and breaks which are there in the Khan-i Khanan’s Persian translation, according to Beveridge are there in the autographed Turki text. This means that the copy of the Turki text now preserved in the Royal Library as early as 1587 had same kind of mutilation as we have today.

Secondly according to Abdul Hamid Lahori’s Badshahnama, the history of Shahjahan’s period written on official orders, the copy of the Baburnama that he consulted was an autographed copy. The Mss in the Royal Library appears to be the same autographed copy as it contains all the autographs from Babur to Shahjahan. And as pointed out it has all the mutilations.

One might suggest that Babur may have completed but towards the close of his reign it was damaged beyond repair or he had no time to repair it.

In this connection one interesting passage is to be seen which suggests that in the last years there did take place an accident which might be held responsible.

‘This same evening after taravih, it was the fifth ghari of the first watch when the monsoon clouds appeared, and within an instant such a storm brewed and fierce wind arose that few were the tents that did not blow down. I was in my audience tent writing. There was no time to gather my papers and notebooks. The wind brought down the tent and its peshgah (porch) on my head. The smoke vent broke into pieces. God kept me safe, and no harm was done, but my books and papers (juz wa kitab) were drenched. We gathered them together with difficulty, wrapped them up in a woollen bedspread, and put them under the cot and spread kilims on top. After two gharis the wind died down. We had the toshakkhana tent erected, lit a candle, and with great difficulty got a fire going and then got busy drying out the papers and notebooks until dawn with no sleep.’

English Translations:

The history of the English translation is again quite interesting. The first attempt at English translation was made in 1811 at a time when the Turkish text was still untraceable or un-accessible. This translation was by John Leyden, but unfortunately it could not be completed and could never be published. It is preserved in the British Museum.

According to Ansaritdin Ibragimov’s monograph “Baburname – is the Great Work”, he wrote that the translator William Erskine, who lived between 1773 – 1856, started to translate “Baburname” into the English language and finished it in 1810. However, William Erskine did not hurry to publish his own translation and waited for John Leyden’s tranlation version. The reason was that he wanted to compare with his work who began simultaneously Babuname’s translation and he knew that Leyden was interpreting “Baburname” from original Turkic language. John Leyden was unable to complete his translation due to his untimely death.

William Erskine succeeded in finding John Leyden’s translation of “Baburname” and clarified, after that he published in 1826, under the title “Memoirs Of Zheir-Ed-Din Muhammed Baber: Emperor of Hindustan and John Leyden”.

William Erskine undertook the translation of the text of Khan-i Khanan’s Persian translation. Erskine’s translation was undertaken in 1826 and he had to confine himself only to the Persian text: the Turkish text was non-accessible. Thus from 1826 onwards for the English reading public, the standard version was this translation of the Persian text by Erskine.

In 1909 F.G.Talbot also published the English translation of the “Baburname”. There are number of publications have been published based on this translation. In 1845 R.Caldicot published a shortened version of the John Leyden and William Erskine’s translated book. In 1879, the Orientalist, scientist F.Talbot published the second version of this adapted edition.

In 1921, Lucas King published another translation of “Baburname” completed with the important scientific facts. His publication restored the events of “Baburname”, interrupted years in it from other sources.

But in 1899 Mrs. A.S. Beveridge discovered the Turkish Mss in a private collection at Hyderabad and started translating it into English. This translation was completed in 1920 and published by Royal Asiatic Society in 1921.

According to professor N.Otajonov’s point of view the English translators were the keen to preserve the calorie and originality of the work. He also wrote about the language of translations: “In Leyden- Erskine’s interpretaion, the translation method seems to have been deliberately chosen by the English reader. On the contrary S.Beveridge’s translation is written in a very simple way more than scientific style.

“According to Wh.Thackston’s point of view, S.Beveridge’s translation is the equivalent of students’ work, all the words of “Baburname” are closely the same in dictionary, she tried to match Turkish (Uzbek) and English words in it. Professor Wh.Thackston published “Baburname”’s English translation in 1996. It was the third completed variant of the work, however this publication enriched the investigations of life, creativity and times of Babur. Though, his attempts was successful to achieve the adequacy of translation of “Baburname”, but some proverbs contradicted to the original content. Translator lost the meaning of some proverbs, focusing on original style and tone of the proverb in it.

On many points of details as well as the interpretation of text and technical terms, there is a difference between the two translations: the tr. of Beveridge is good but one would fall in fault if we depend on her interpretation of the technical terms which are better in the Erskine translation as it depends on the Persian text of Khan-i Khanan.

The most recent translation of the Baburnama into English is by Wheeler Thackston in 1996. Some find that Wheeler Thackston was able to translate the work both in terms of content and in its artistic aesthetics and national cultural identity. In my considered opinion the translation done by Beveridge is still the best and dependable.

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Muslim settlements in and around the city of Ayodhya would appear to have begun with the Ghorian occupation, c. 1200 A.D. When Minhaj Siraj says ( Tabaqat-i Nasiri , I, p. 45 3) that before Prince Nasiruddin Mahmud defeated and slew “the accursed Batua” in 1226-27, the latter had killed “one hundred and twenty-odd thousand Muslims” in the vicinity of Awadh, he is doubtless indulging in inexcusably gross exaggeration about events that happened only thirty years or so before he was writing (A.D. 1260). Yet the rhetoric does suggest that a large civilian Muslim population had now appeared in the region, and the city of Awadh or Ayodhya, as the headquarters, must naturally have contained a sizeable part of this population.

That the institutions of Muslim religious life, with theologians, mosques, and graveyards, were also simultaneously established at Ayodhya is attested by references in contemporary texts. Qazi Jalaluddin Kashani, “the Qazi (Muslim Judge) of Awadh”, attained such status that he was first sent as the Sultan’s representative to Bengal in A.H. 641/ A.D. 1243 {Tabaqat-i Nasiri, I, p.470), and, then, in A.H. 647/A.D. 1249, was summoned from Awadh to Delhi to occupy there the high office of the Imperial Qazi ( Qazi-i Mamalik) (ibid., I, p. 483).

The significance of Awadh as a Muslim centre is shown by the fact that when Qamruddin Tamar Khan Qairan, the Governor who had usurped power in Bengal, died in Lakhnauti in Bengal in or a little after AH 644 (1246-47), his wife, the daughter of an important noble under Iltutmish, took care to take his body to Awadh. to be buried there ( Tabaqat-i Nasiri, text, II, p. 18). Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya in a conversation on 6 Ramazan 710/27 January 1311 recollected hearing a story from Shaikh Rafi’uddin, whom he calls “the Shaikhu’l Islam of Awadh” (Hasan Sijzi, Fawa ‘idul Fu ‘ ad , ed. M. Latif Malik, Lahore, 1966, p. 99). Shaikhu’l Islam (‘Leader of Islam’) was a very high theological title conferred by the Sultan and borne at any one time only by a single scholar at Delhi or Multan within the Delhi Sultanate. That this title was also borne by a scholar at Ayodhya suggests that in royal eyes Ayodhya or Awadh was now a town at par with even Delhi and Multan with regard to the presence of Muslim populations and scholarly classes. Shaikh Nasiru’ddin, a major disciple of Nizamuddin Auliya, was himself born and brought up at Awadh. In or about 1354 he recalled a story told of Maulana Daud Pahili, a sufi, born in Ridauli but a regular visitor to Awadh; during such visits Shaikh Nasiruddin had himself seen Maulana Daud. Daud was a disciple of Shaikh Farid of Ajodhan (d.1265) and so must have lived no later than the latter part of the thirteenth century ( Khairu’l Majalis , pp. 11 8- 19). By the early fourteenth century, there was also a market among the Muslim devout for mystical works. On 15 Muharram 710/14 June 1310, a person reported in Shaikh Nizamu’ddin’s presence that he had seen in Awadh a book which was represented to be a book written by Shaikh Nizamuddin, though the Shaikh himself affirmed that he had not written any book at all ( Fawa’idu’l Fu’ ad, pp. 75-76).

Shaikh Nasiru’ddin’s recollections recorded by Hamid Qalandar in 1354 in the Khairu’l Majalis indicate how religious and ethical life was led at Ayodhya, with the mosque as the centre. Shaikh Nasiruddin told anecdotes of Khwajagi Khujandi, a merchant of Awadh, who was a contemporary of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (d.1324) (Khairu’l Majalis , p. 184). Shaikh Nasiru’ddin recalled that he and Khwajagi Khujandi used to sit in the same enclosure ( halqa ) at the Congregation Mosque of Ayodhya ( Masjid-i Juma’-i Awadh) ( Khairu’l Majalis , pp.183, 184). Whenever Khwajagi Khujandi came out of his house to offer (Friday) prayers, he used to carry a purse in one sleeve and sesame seeds and sugar in the other. Out of the purse he gave money to the beggars, and out of the other sleeve he scattered the seeds and sugar over the anthills ( Khairu’l Majalis , p.l 84).

In or about 1355 Shaikh Naisru’ddin also recalled graves and mango-groves of his youth at Awadh. He and a friend of his, Khwaja Mahmud used to go to the graves to pray for the salvation of the dead buried there and to spend their day amidst the graves reciting the call to prayers at the prescribed time, whereat a dozen people used to assemble to pray with them. At the time Shaikh Nasiru’ddin was recalling those early days in 1354, he thought that the groves with their graves existed no more, having been presumably engulfed by the expanding city ( Khairu’l Majalis , pp. 170-71).

But Muslims continued to die and be buried at Ayodhya. A Fuhrer in his record of monuments and antiquities at Ayodhya has this to say in his Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh , Allahabad, 1891, p.298:-

“Between Maniparbat and Kuberparbat there is a small Musalman enclosure 64 feet long from east to west and 47 feet broad, containing two brick dargahs which are attributed to Sis [Shis] Paighambar and Ayub Paighambar, or the ‘Prophets Seth and Job’; the first is 17 feet long and the other 12 feet.”

The importance of these tombs lies in the fact that they were represented as those of the two prophets already in the sixteenth century. Emperor Akbar’s minister Abu’l Fazl’s Ain- i Akbari , written in 1595, contains the following passage in its notice of Awadh or Ayodhya:

“Near this city two large graves have been made, six and seven yards (gaz) in length. The common people believe them to be the resting places of the prophets Shis (Seth) and Ayyub (Job) and legendary tales are related (about them).” ( A’in-i Akbari , Nawal Kishor ed., 1893, II, p. 78).

For such legends as this to develop normally takes much time, and these graves must therefore have already existed long before Abu’l Fazl wrote in 1595. Fuhrer, op.cit., p. 298, notes also that the mounds of Maniparbat and Kuberparbat “are surrounded by Musalman tombs”. Many of these could also well have belonged to pre-Mughal times, when the “tombs” of prophets Shis and Ayyub were so identified and laid up with masonry.

Given the information on medieval Ayodhya or Awadh we have set out above it is clear that though a great Hindu pilgrim centre, it had large populations of both religious communities. Until the rise of Jaunpur in late fourteenth century, Awadh was an important provincial capital of the Sultanate and thereafter too it remained the centre of a large district ( sarkar ) to which under Sikandar Lodi the district of Bahraich also got attached. From 1580 it was once again to become the capital of a Mughal suba or province named after itself. This was partly the reason why Awadh retained a significant size as a city, to be counted among “the large cities of India” by Abu’l Fazl in the A’in-i Akbari (Naval Kishor ed., Lucknow, 1893, Vol.11, p.78). Calculating on the basis of taxation, Moosvi sets its size inc. 1595 at nearly half of Lahore and Delhi, though far smaller than Agra or Ahmadabad (Shireen Moosvi, The Economy of the Mughal Empire , c.1595 – A Statistical Study, Delhi, 1987, pp.312-14).

Its size as a city was. perhaps, not exclusively owing to its holy repute and administrative position. We have met the merchant Khwajagi Khujandi before in these pages. We are told that he had a large amount of capital (mal), which he employed in taking pat a variety of coarse cloth from Awadh (and so evidently woven there) to sell at Delhi. He could have taken finer cloth instead, but he said that he bought pat and not any fine cloth at Awadh, because the fine cloth was worn at Delhi by “Turks and soldiers” only, while the pat that he traded in was taken by “the poor and the dervishes.” He used to travel with his goods
by the land route, crossing the Jamuna at Delhi by ferry (Khairu’l Majalis p. 182-83). The cloth market at Ayodhya is not described, but Shaikh Nasiru’ddin speaks of a bazaz, or dealer in cloth, who calculated that a fourth of his commercial effects amounted to 500 to 600 tankas .

This sum indicated a capital of 2000 tankas or more, which was a considerable amount for those days (Khairu’l Majalis , pp.1 18-19)
In another anecdote {ibid., pp. 226- more mundane aspect of the bazaar: seller of cooked-meat, out of whose c customer was picking out hot pieces of lamb by hand to eat.

Passages from: Irfan Habib, “MEDIEVAL AYODHYA (AWADH), DOWN TO THE MUGHAL OCCUPATION“, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 67 (2006-2007), pp. 378-81

• Professor Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

From a versified account of a 17th Century bureaucrat who was a contemporary of Shahjahan, Surat Singh, known variously as Tazkira-i Shaikhul Khadam, or Tazkira i Pīr Hassu Taili, which survives in form of two manuscripts, both at Aligarh, it becomes apparent that Gurū Nānak’s religious status was widely accepted in 17^th century Punjab; and he was popular among both Hindus and Muslims. From the Tazkira references to Guru Nanak and the power and popularity of his verses, it is clear that Sūrat Singh held him to be a great teacher and a master of “Hindi verses” (f. 142b). He writes that at a time when his brother was removed from the post of revenue collector (‘āmil) at Jahangirpur, his mother took him to the “village of Bābā Nānak” where they visited him “mari” (marhī, funeral shrine). A translation of this portion, Aligarh MS, ff. 122b-123a, is offered below. From this it becomes clear that at least till 1647 a shrine and a tomb of the Guru was extant on the banks of the River Ravi at Kartarpur. The popular Sikh legend that both these monuments were washed away providentially so as to avoid idolatrous worship of the Guru’s last resting-place, may be correct; but the event would seem to have taken place after 1647, for had the shrine disappeared by the time Sūrat Singh was composing his work, he would probably have referred to the fact.

According to the Sikh traditions, Gurū Nānak did not leave behind two bodies, as related to Sūrat Singh by the shrine’s attendants. Rather, when the time for Guru Nanak’s parting from this world arrived, and the Muslims wanted to bury him and the Hindus to cremate him, Guru Nanak told them: “Let the Hindus place flowers on my right and the Musalmans on my left. They whose flowers are found fresh in the morning (after my death), may have the disposal of my body”. The Guru then drew a sheet over himself and departed from this world. When the sheet was removed the next morning it was found that the Guru’s body had miraculously disappeared and the flowers placed on both sides were in bloom. The blooms were then divided and partly cremated and partly buried. (See Macauliffe, Sikh Religion, I, pp.190-91).

At most of the places in his Tazkira Sūrat Singh generally refers to Gurū Nānak as ‘Baba Nanak’. It is only at one place (f.142b) that he refers to him as “Guru Nanak”.

            Sūrat Singh’s work is an important historical document for understanding how the message of Guru Nanak was looked at by the mystically inclined in the Punjab. It is one of the first statements in Persian on the Sikh message, it belongs to just about the time the author of the famous account in the Dabistān-i Mazāhib was collecting his material on Sikhism. For this reason it should surely be of interest to students of Sikh history.

Translation of the account of the author’s visit to Gurū Nānak’s shrine (Tazkira, Aligarh MS, ff. 122b-123a).

“My mother took hold of my hand and started the journey; we went to the village (deh) of Baba Nanak.

“The attendants of the Blessed Shrine (harīm) gave the intelligence about him that beneficent one came by one [the true] path and never came by another.

“When we bowed our heads for pilgrimage to [the shrine of] the Baba, [we saw that] there was a marī [marhī, funeral shrine], and by the side of the marī, was his tomb (mazār).

“Who can come between the pure body (jism-i pāk) and its frame (man) (lit. house) of dust? For the life of those whose hearts have life, an arrow turns into a mere thorn!

“They become bodies of air when they are reduced to dust [if they are buried on death] and acquire the form of water, if they are thrown into fire [i.e. are cremated].”

Account of the Death of Baba Nanak

“How from the house do you take the warp? [It is] from the shrine of the spiritually-sighted ones, [that] the collyrium for the eyes [comes].

“From their presence, the dust becomes collyrium, and they leave in poor state, who draw their skirt through that dust like wind or smoke.

“I sought from those serving the marī, the mystery of the shrine of the Baba. A narrator of the tradition gave me an account of it.

“That when he [Gurū Nānak] died, leaving this for another abode, Hindus and Muslims gathered around the Bābā’s head.

“The Hindus said that he was a Hindu, and thus he ought to be cremated. The assemblage of Muslims desired to make a grave for him.

“Two bodies of his thereupon came to view: One they took and cremated; and the other was put in front for the [Muslim] funeral prayer.

“[But] he left both his bodies and went across to the other side of River Ravi. There an Afghan disciple (murīd) had the privilege of a sight of him.

“He [Nānak] laid out before him a floor-cloth containing a variety of eatables. The Afghan ate his fill from that laid-out meal.

“As is the convention of old, he [the Afghan] spoke and cried out about the ordeal of his journey. In soldierly talk that night.

“When that traveller crossed over to this side of the river, he saw the grave and the flames of cremation.

“He asked, “Why are these people making all this noise”? [Someone] replied: “Nānak has passed away from the world!”.

“The amazing thing is,” [he was told,] “that after his death, there came to be two bodies. One is being buried and the other is being cremated”.

“[The Afghan] said that both [Muslims and Hindus] have done wrong: “I have seen him well settled on the other side of the river”.

“I have eaten food and fruits and have talked with him and I have seen him well settled on the other side of the river”.

“I have eaten food and fruits and have talked with him and I have come to side after taking leave from him”.

“All became astonished on hearing this and the report of his [Nānak’s] moving himself to another place became well known.

“Having taken the benefit from the dust of his pure tomb, whose name is shukr (thanksgiving), we returned contented to our home.”

• Professor Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Extracts based on my notice “A Visit to the Tomb of Guru Nanak From Surat Singh Tazkira-i Pir Hassu Taili”, in Irfan Habib & JS Grewal (ed), Sikh History From Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, Tulika, 2001, pp. 85-89

Raja Rammohan Roy is one of the most outstanding personalities of the 19^th Century India who is known for his religious, social, literary, educational and political activism which was backed by a robust intellect and a high degree of rationalism. His endeavours backed by reason included a crusade against multiplicity of gods and image worship in the field of religion; a movement against social evils like sati, child-marriage and man’s ill-treatment of women; an advocacy for introduction of ‘modern’ learning in place of classical subjects, as well as a strong plea for liberty for the entire humankind. Much has been written on his thought; many have analysed him as a social and religious reformer. He has also been analysed as a political activist who stood for the freedom of the press and improvement of the system of trial by Jury. My object, however, is to analyse the source which might have gone to shape his early views and thinking.

Rammohan Roy’s first major work, Tuhfatu ‘ul Muwahhidin (Gift of Monotheists), written in Persian around 1804, brings out the central themes of his developing thought.[1] In this work, which addresses both Hindus and Muslims, he tried to argue that Hinduism in its pristine form does not allow image-worship. In its rejection of image worship and its case for proximity between monotheistic Hindus and Muslims, this book clearly drew upon a tradition, to which Akbar, Abu’l Fazl and Dara Shukoh had already greatly contributed.

 Thus at one place he writes:

“…some people having a firm belief in the sayings of their leaders, think some stones and vegetables or animals to be the real objects of their worship; and in opposing those who may attempt to destroy those objects of their worship or to insult them, they think shedding the blood of others or sacrificing their own lives, an object of pride in this world, and a cause of salvation in the next. It is more strange that the mujtahids or religious expounders of them also after the examples of their leaders of other religions, putting aside justice and honesty, try to invent passages in the form of reasonable arguments in support of these articles of faith, which are evidently nonsensical and absurd, and thereby try to give strength to the faith of the common people, who are deprived of insight and discretion.”[2]

Rammohan Roy tried to argue the centrality of the concepts of tauhid (monotheism) and ‘aql (reason / rationalism). In the Introduction to his pamphlet he says:

“I travelled in the remotest parts of the world, in plains as well as in hilly lands, and found the inhabitants thereof agreeing generally in believing in the personality of One Being Who is the source of all that exists and its governor, and disagreeing in giving peculiar attributes to that Being and in holding different creeds consisting of doctrines of religion and precepts of haram (forbidden) and halal (lawful). From this Induction it has been known to me that turning generally towards One Eternal Being, is like a natural tendency in human beings and is common to all individuals of mankind equally. And the inclination of each sect of mankind to a particular God or Gods, holding certain especial attributes, and to some peculiar forms of worship or devotion, is an excrescent quality grown (in mankind) by habit and training.”[3]

It was the blind following (taqlid) in the precepts of the crafty ‘leaders’, the mujtahids or religious expounders, which led the followers (muqallids) astray:

“…a mujtahid or religious expounder girds up his loins to invent traditional and rational arguments in order to give strength to the doctrines of his faith. The muqallids [or common people following that religion by blind imitation] who are always anxious at heart to give preference to their faith to other religions according to the proverb that “A ‘Hoo’ is sufficient for (exciting) a mad fellow”, making those invented and gilded arguments the grounds of their dissensions pride in their own faith, and decry the faith of others.”[4]

Rammohan Roy asserted that ‘aql (reason) should be the instrument to reach the truth and a safeguard against fallacy:

“O God! Notwithstanding implicit faith in the orders of the mujtahids or the doctors of religion, there is always such an innate faculty existing in the nature of mankind that in case any person of sound mind, before or after assuming the doctrines of any religion, makes an impartial and just enquiry into the nature of the principles of religious doctrines, of different nations, there is a strong hope that he will be able to distinguish the truth from untruth and true propositions from fallacious ones, and also he, becoming free from the useless restraints of religion, which sometimes become sources of prejudice of one against another and causes of physical and mental troubles, will turn to One Being who is the fountain of the harmonious organization of the universe, and will pay attention to the good of society.”[5]

He argued that both Hinduism and Islam as practiced were false:

“…it may not be improper if it be said that all of them are either right or wrong. In the former case, two contradictories come together [ijma’ al naqizain] (which is logically inadmissible). In the latter case, it may not be improper if it be said that either falsehood is to be attributed to some religions particularly or commonly to all; in the first case tarjih bila murajjeh, i.e. giving preference without there being any reason for it (which is logically inadmissible) follows. Hence falsehood is common to all religions without distinction.”[6]

Yet again there is a long passage in which Rammohan Roy argues the falsehood of all the religions. While contesting the view that one religion supersedes the other in the same fashion as one government replaces the other, he gives the examples of the contradictory position of the Hindus and Muslims and then concludes:

“Now, are these contradictory precepts or orders consistent with the wisdom and mercy of the great, generous and disinterested Creator or are these the fabrications of the followers of religion? I think a sound mind will not hesitate to prefer the latter alternative.”[7]

However, he argued that both Hinduism and Islam interact as both had a core of tauhid and their practitioners were muwahhids (monotheists):

“…belief only in one Almighty God is the fundamental principle of every religion.”[8]

The position of Raja Rammohan Roy as far as the concept of muwahhids is concerned appears to have been from non Sufistic traditions. It appears to be similar to the one which we find reflected in the khatima of Akhbar ul Akhyar where Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlavi (a divine of Akbar’s period) mentions that as a child when he enquired from his grandfather regarding Kabir’s faith, whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim, he was informed he was a muwahhid. When Abdul Haqq further enquired what it meant, he was answered that he was too young to grasp the meaning. Incidentally the same thought is reflected in one of the famous couplets of the 19^th Century Urdu poet, Mirza Ghalib:

“Ham muwahhid hain hamara kesh hai tark-i rusum

Millatein jab mit gaeen, ajza-i iman ho gaeen!”

The emphasis on rationalism, rejection of taqlid and an attempt to address both Hinduism and Islam seems to have started during the 16^th and 17^th Century. With Akbar (1556-1605), the great Mughal emperor, the perception of India as home to different traditions interacting and adjusting with each other, had received a fresh reinforcement, notably under the dual impetus of pantheism and a revived rationalism. The officially organised translations of Sanskrit works into Persian were followed by a detailed account of the society and culture of India (inclusive of its Muslim component) in Abu’l Fazl’s official record of Akbar’s empire, the A’in-i Akbari. Akbar’s attitude towards this cultural heritage is not, however, one of uncritical sympathy. He could not accept the inequities that he felt were built into the traditions of Hinduism and Islam, notably in the treatment of women (child marriage, sati, unequal inheritance) and slaves (especially, slave trade). Moreover, the influence of tradition (taqlid) was too strong, and this he thoroughly disapproved of. He therefore even tried to frame a secular and scientific syllabus for education in both Persian and Sanskrit. Such groping towards a combination of patriotism with reform seems to anticipate strikingly the core of the 19th- century Renaissance that was to spread out from Bengal with the writngs of Raja Rammohan Roy.

It appears that by 16^th Century the ishraqi (Illuminationistic) philosophy of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi was knocking at the doors of India. Its basic premise was that knowledge is available to man not through ratiocination alone but also, and above all, through illumination resulting from the purification of one’s inner being. Suhrawardi founded a school of philosophy which some have called theosophy in its original sense, that is, mystical philosophy through and through but without being against logic or the use of reason. He criticized Aristotle and the Muslim Peripatetics on logical grounds before setting about expounding the doctrine of ishraq.^[9] This doctrine was based not on the refutation of logic, but of transcending its categories through an illuminationist knowledge based on immediacy and presence, or what Suhrawardi himself called ‘knowledge by presence’ (al-‘ilm al-huzuri), in contrast to conceptual knowledge (al-‘ilm al-husuli) which is the ordinary method of knowing based on concepts.^[10]

Abul Fazl and his father, Shaikh Mubarak had both come under the influence of this ishraqi philosophy. They had also imbibed the pantheistic thought of ibn ‘Arabi,[11] who was primarily a mystic who believed that he possessed superior divinely-bestowed knowledge. He held that whereas the divine Essence is absolutely unknowable, the cosmos as a whole is the locus of manifestation of all God’s attributes. Moreover, since these attributes require the creation for their expression, the One is continually driven to transform itself into Many. The goal of spiritual realization is therefore to penetrate beyond the exterior multiplicity of phenomena to a consciousness of what subsequent writers have termed the ‘unity of existence’. This entails the abolition of the ego or ‘passing away from self’ (fana‘) in which one becomes aware of absolute unity, followed by ‘perpetuation’ (baqa’) in which one sees the world as at once One and Many, and one is able to see God in the creature and the creature in God.

Support for Reason in Akbar and Abul Fazl was from a pantheistic position. It followed that Religious and other differences are illusory and so must be tolerated. It further meant that Reason must be tolerated and indeed placed on a high position.

Describing Akbar’s spiritual views, Abul Fazl writes:

“When world-ornamenting wisdom-giving God desires that the essence (gauhar) of humankind should come into existence, and from that diversity in the degree of (spiritual) capacity, the cloud of Duality (do-rangi) rises and fashions Religion (din) and World (dunya), every creature begins to have a distinct leader (kargiya), and these become engaged in mutual denunciation. As lack of vision and unwisdom become the touchstone, the knowledge of (true) worth and acquisition of love become scarce. Otherwise, what is religion, what is world?”[12]

This passage, according to Irfan Habib marks the starting point of Abul Fazl’s thought where he invokes reason (‘aql) and both religion and secular sphere are placed at par.[13] As a result we come across the policy of sulh-i kul, the tolerance of all diversity. From 1578-79 onwards as a result of this policy Akbar opened a discourse with leading men of all religions and appointed men of different faiths to high offices.[14] It is interesting to note that Fr.Monserrate, the Jesuite missionary to the court of Akbar in 1581 disgustingly remarked that Akbar “cared little that in allowing everyone to follow his own religion, he was in reality violating all religions.”[15]

Emphasizing Reason Abul Fazl at one place writes that the true, the just sovereign ‘shall not seek popular acclaim through opposing reason (‘aql).’[16] In fact Abul Fazl quotes a ‘happy saying’ of Akbar that:

“The case for pursuing reason and rejection of traditionalism (taqlid) is so clear that it does not need any argument from me. If tradition is to be held excellent, all prophets would have just followed their ancestral customes.”[17]

In fact Abul Fazl anticipates Raja Rammohan Roy in the spirited condemnation of blind following (taqlid) when he writes why Indian beliefs and culture had not been more closely studied by Muslims:

“The fifth [reason], the blowing of the heavy wind of taqlid, and the dimming of the lamp of khirad (reason, wisdom). Of old, the door of ‘how and why’ has been closed; and questioning and enquiry have been deemed fruitless and the act of a pagan (kufr). Whatever one received from one’s father, teacher, kinsman, friend and neighbour was considered the wherewithal of Divine favour; and the holder of a contrary opinion was accused of heresy and impiety. Though some of the enlightened have tried to pursue a different path, yet they have followed the path of (correct) conduct no more than half-way.”[18]

While the name of Akbar and Dara Shukoh are often linked together in discussions of religious policies of the Mughal court, however, there are certain important distinctions to be made. Akbar and his circle were unaware of Shankaracharya and his version of the Vedanta; Abu’l Fazl’s detailed account of Hinduism in the A’in-i Akbari has no reference to that seer. But when Jahangir met Jadrup (Chitrupa), a yogic follower of Shankaracharya, he propounded a crucial equation, identifying Vedanta with Sufism. The equation could only be valid if Sufism was interpreted in the light of Ibn Arabi’s philosophy of Unity of Existence, and Shankararacharya’s pantheism.

Dara Shukoh’s major achievement was to underline and prove this equation. Unlike Akbar, he was deeply mystical and had little or no interest in nationalism. It was the mystic path that led him to Majmu ‘al Bahrain, seeking an identity between Sufic and Brahmanical concepts. This was followed by his translation of over 100 Upanishads, the Sirr-i Akbar, completed in 1657. Here we suddenly find a meeting ground between not Akbar and Rammohan Roy, but between Dara and Rammohan Roy, for the latter followed Dara in translating Upanishads and underlining their importance. While this convergence between the two is important, it is equally important to remember that Rammohan Roy went to Upanishads seeking essentially monotheism while Dara, submerged in mysticism, was seeking pantheism. It is, however, impossible to believe that Rammohan Roy had not read, or at least heard of, Dara Shukoh’s great Persian translation.

The social reforms espoused by Raja Rammohan Roy also appear to have been anticipated under the Mughals. The social evils like sati, child-marriage, man’s ill-treatment of women and slave trade seem to have troubled Akbar’s conscience during the 16^th Century as they did Rammohan Roy during the 19^th Century. Abu’l Fazl records the views of Akbar on Sati when he writes that Akbar once scornfully remarked that:

One marvels at the magnanimity of men who seek their own salvation through the instrumentality (i.e. self-sacrifice) of the women.[19]

As early as 1578, we find Akbar mildly censuring the husbands who contrived to get their women immolating themselves by spreading false reports of their own death.[20] At least till 1580 the ritual of Sati appears to have been tolerated.[21] However in 1583 we find the emperor personally going to stop such a ceremony. Abu’l Fazl says that the hapless widow was rescued and the “misguided ones” were imprisoned on the imperial orders.[22] Abu’l Fazl then goes on to inform that the emperor ordered the appointment of ‘truthful observers’ in every town to ensure that no forcible Sati took place.[23] An injunction to the kotwal to the same effect is recorded in the Ai’n-i Akbari.[24] Badauni also mentions the prohibition of Sati in the case of “Hindu child-widows who had not enjoyed conjugal relations”.[25]

Akbar did not leave the matters only at suppressing the ritual of Sati. In 1587 he took the step of permitting widows to remarry “in the manner that the people of India do not prohibit”.[26]

Akbar also appears to have been for monogamy. Badauni mentions that in 1587 Akbar in fact issued a decree that no one should marry more than one wife, unless she was barren, on the principle of “one God, one wife”.[27]

A discussion in the Ibadatkhana on 3 October 1578, reported in the first version of the Akbarnama reveals that Akbar during the discussions had himself touched upon the principle of monogamy:

“Under the principle of attachment to one another, which is the foundation of the arrangement of the universe it would be eminently preferable that one should not marry more than one wife in a lifetime…”[28]

The reason given by Akbar as a justification for monogamy was purely based on the concept of mutual devotion between man and woman, an early index of his later tendency to stress the necessity of protecting women against men’s unjust treatment of them.

Another step in the same direction was the rejection of child-marriages. It appears that by 1582 Akbar in response to a petition had passed a law against a marriage between girls and boys of less than twelve years of age.[29] Badauni referring to this order gives the minimum age as 16 years for boys and 14 years for girls.[30] Akbar also believed that marriages were best made between those who were not related, or atleast, closely related.[31]

Abu’l Fazl also records Akbar’s dissatisfaction over the share of women’s inheritance. He felt that the Muslim law in allowing a smaller share to the daughter in inheritance lacked justification since “the weakness of the woman calls for a larger share.”[32] He objected to yet another aspect of the Muslim law of inheritance: if a person died leaving only daughters, his nephew would get the larger individual shares in place of sons.[33] Both these objections show an anxiety to protect and enlarge women’s rights.

Akbar also seems to have been dis-inclined towards slavery. As early as 1562-63, he passed orders prohibiting the imperial soldiers from “making captive the women, children and kinsmen” of the opposing soldiery, and then selling them or keeping them as slaves.[34] In 1582 he liberated his own slaves and ordained that they be now styled as chelas (disciples) who would be free to go anywhere then want.[35] Badauni, however, appears to be sceptic and says that this was nothing but a mere change of nomenclature.[36] Even if we accept Badauni, this view of slavery as an unjust institution is however explicit in this act of the emperor.

Thus we see that almost all the issues which were to be taken up by Raja Rammohan Roy were taken into consideration by Akbar. It is beyond doubt that if there was a single founder of Modern India, it could only be Rammohan Roy. But some of his building blocks had been shaped in an earlier epoch, since many of the questions that troubled him had also troubled others. As I have shown, there are many points in which Akbar and Abu’l Fazl can be treated as Rammohan Roy’s precursors; and in Dara Shukoh he had an earlier admirer and translator of the Upanishads. These convergences could not all have been accidental; for when Rammohan Roy wrote his first work Tuhfatu’l Muwahhidin he shows himself immersed in Persian and Arabic learning; and he had, of course, a family background of Mughal bureaucratic tradition. The connection between Mughal court tradition and Rammohan Roy’s ideas is, therefore, a fertile field one needs to explore.

• Professor Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Bibliography:

Abul Fazl, Ain-i Akbari, ed.H.Blochmann, Bib.Ind., Calcutta, 1867-77 (in two volumes)

Abul Fazl, Akbarnama, ed.Agha Ahmad Ali and Abdur Rahim, Bib.Ind., Calcutta, 1837-87 (in three volumes)

Badauni, ‘Abdul Qadir, Muntakhab ut Tawarikh, ed. Ahmad Ali & Lees, Bib.Ind.,Calcutta, 1864-69 (in three volumes)

Cooper, John, “al-Shihab al-din Yahya al-Suhrawardi”, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed.  Edward Craig  & O.Leaman, 1998, vol.9; For online version visit http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H031.htm;

Habib, Irfan, “A Political Theory for the Mughal Empire: A Study of the ideas of Abul Fazl”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Patiala, 1998

Habib, Irfan, “Akbar and Social Inequities- A Study of the Evolution of his Ideas”, PIHC, Warangal, 1993

Jogendra Chander Ghose (ed.), The English Works of Raja Rammohan Roy, Delhi, 1906 (in four volumes)

Monserrate,   Commentary of Father Monserrate, ed. and trans. SN Banerjee and JS Hoyland, Cuttack, 1922

Nasr, S.Hosein, “Mystical Philosophy of Islam”, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed.  Edward Craig  & O.Leaman, 1998, vol.6, pp.616-20; For online version visit http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H004.htm 

Rezavi, Syed Ali Nadeem,“The philosophy of Mulla Sadra and its Influence in India”, in Religion in Indian History, ed. Irfan Habib, Tulika, New Delhi, 2007

Yazdi, Muhammad Ha’iri, The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy – Knowledge by Presence, Albany, NY, 1992.

Notes:

[1]  For an English translation of the text see Jogendra Chander Ghose (ed.), The English Works of Raja Rammohan Roy, Delhi, 1906, vol.IV, pp.941-58.

---

[2]  Ibid. p.946.

[3]  Ibid. p.943

[4]  Ibid. p.946

[5]  Ibid. p.947.

[6]  Ibid.

[7]  Ibid. pp.954-55

[8]  Ibid. p.957.

[9]  S.Hosein Nasr, “Mystical Philosophy of Islam”, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed.  Edward Craig  & O.Leaman, 1998, vol.6, pp.616-20; For online version visit http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H004.htm 

[10] Muhammad Ha’iri Yazdi, The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy – Knowledge by Presence, Albany, NY, 1992. For Suhrawardi and his philosophy see John Cooper, “al-Shihab al-din Yahya al-Suhrawardi”, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, op.cit, vol.9, pp219-224; For online version visit http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H031.htm; For a detailed discussion of these views see my paper “The philosophy of Mulla Sadra and its Influence in India”, Religion in Indian History, ed. Irfan Habib, Tulika, New Delhi, 2007

[11]  Abul Fazl, Ain-i Akbari, ed.H.Blochmann, Bib.Ind., Calcutta, 1867-77, II,pp260,276.

[12]  Ibid., I, p.158.

[13]  Irfan Habib, “A Political Theory for the Mughal Empire: A Study of the ideas of Abul Fazl”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Patiala, 1998, p.331

[14] Akbarnama, ed.Agha Ahmad Ali and Abdur Rahim, Bib.Ind., Calcutta, 1837-87, III, pp271-73.

[15]  Commentary of Father Monserrate, ed. and trans. SN Banerjee and JS Hoyland, Cuttack, 1922, p.142.

[16]  Ain-i akbari, I, p.3.

[17]  Ibid. II, p.229

[18]  Ibid., II, p.3

[19]  Ain-i Akbari, op.cit., II, p.243

[20]  Akbarnama, op.cit., III, p.256

[21]  Fr.Monserrate informs that in this particular year Akbar personally witnessed such a ceremony. See, Commentary, op.cit., p.61

[22]  Akbarnama, op.cit.,III, pp.402-3

[23]  Ibid., p.402; see also Badauni, Muntakhab ut Tawarikh, ed. Ahmad Ali & Lees, Bib.Ind.,Calcutta, 1864-69, II, p.376

[24]  Ain-i Akbari, op.cit., I, p.284

[25]  Badauni, op.cit., II, p355

[26]  Ibid., II, p.356

[27]  Ibid.

[28]  Akbarnama, Add.26,247,f.296 (a) cf. Irfan Habib, “Akbar and Social Inequities- A Study of the Evolution of his Ideas”, PIHC, Warangal, 1993, pp.300-10

[29]  Akbarnama, op.cit, III, p.380

[30]  Badauni, op.cit., II, pp.306, 338

[31]  Ain-i Akbari, op.cit., p.242; Badauni, II, p.306

[32]  Ain-i Akbari, II, p.235

[33]  Ibid, II, p.240

[34]  Akbarnama, op.cit., II, p.159

[35]  Ibid.,III, pp.379-80

[36] Badauni, op.cit., II, p.325

• Professor Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

It is written by Muhammad Hashim whose title was Khafi Khan. It is a very important source of Aurangzeb’s period and covers aspects not found in other works easily. It can be compared to Barani and Abul Fazl.

Khafi Khan was born in 1664. For some time he was also connected with a Qutbshahi noble, Abdul Razzaq Lari. He served in the Mughal Empire down to the reign of Muhammad Shah (1719-48), and died sometime in 1731-32.

It is a history of India from its Muslim conquest down to 1731-32, i.e. 14 RY of Muhammad Shah. The work is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the Muslim rule from the beginning till the end of the Lodi dynasty. The second part gives the account of the rulers of Timurid dynasty down to 14 RY of Mohd. Shah. The third section is related to the local dynasties of India.

We are concerned only with the part dealing with the reign of Aurangzeb. Khafi Khan claims and actually appears to be an eye witness to most of the events. He also says that he himself recorded the events as well as consulted other eye witnesses and checked the records of the imperial office and contemporary chronicles. Referring to his sources he mentions the Alamgirnama and the Ma’asir-i Alamgiri apart from other sources from the earlier period. Khafi Khan says that he spent 16-17 years on its compilation.
He was an eye witness to many events which he recorded and he claims that he based his narration on the privately maintained account of the events of Aurangzeb’s reign, as well as on personal observations and verbal account of men who had been witness to these events.

He was a writer who was conscious of the duties of a historian. He says that a historian should be faithful, having no hope or fear. He should show no partiality or enmity and should not differentiate between a friend and foe while giving the facts. He followed this belief of his to a great extent. He praises Aurangzeb for his religious zeal, piety, concern for the public good and the concern for discipline. Yet at the same time he records the truth about Aurangzeb’s attitude towards Shahjahan, Dara Shukah, Prince Murad Bakhsh, Shaikhul Islam Qazi Abdullah, Prince Muazzam and his wife, with all regards and respect to Aurangzeb. He could not conceal his disapproval to these actions of Aurangzeb. He account is on the whole objective and reliable. He also presents a balanced picture of the conflict between Aurangzeb and Dara.

Muntakhabul Lubab is a complete, connected and a very detailed account of Aurangzeb’s period. Unlike Ma’asir-i Alamgiri or Nuskha-i Dilkusha, which mention just the grant of mansabs, promotions, appointments, transfers or despatch of nobles on expeditions and their military operation, Khafi Khan gives us a total and complete picture of the entire reign, providing us a sequence of events, interaction of political and economic developments, thereby giving us a correct and comprehensive understanding of this crucial period of Indian history. He gives very valuable details in much greater measure than Ma’asir or Dilkusha about the imperial policy towards the Marathas and the Deccani rulers. About the military operations there, actual condition of the two fighting parties (the Deccan & Imperialists) and their camps during prolonged campaigns of Aurangzeb is also discussed by him. He is perhaps the only historian who describes the influx of the Deccani nobles and its effects on the Mughal nobility, the mansabdari and jagirdari system which in time seriously affected the position and strength of the Mughal rule in India.

He also gives valuable comments on the character and functioning of some important officials and makes observations not only on the functioning of the government and administration in the second half of Aurangzeb’s reign but also on the agrarian and economic crisis of the period. His comments on the honesty and efficiency of the officials and nobles are objective and invaluable. He also mentions the mutual jealousies of the various princes and nobles: e.g. between Muazzam and Azam and between Asad khan and Inayatullah Khan etc. he also discusses the effects of these jealousies on the administration as a whole.

Khafi Khan is said to have been a Shi’i and thus prejudiced in favour of the Iranis. It may be correct but he did not refrain even from criticizing the Iranis and the Shia nobles. Again in spite of being a Shia, he was a great admirer of Aurangzeb. He did not in any way attempt to bring discredit to Aurangzeb.
Muntakhab ul Lubab is therefore an extremely valuable account for the history of Aurangzeb and its importance is much enhanced because of the fact that as regards to contents, the scheme of narration, nature of facts and analysis, no other source, contemporary or semi-contemporary comes near it.

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Mulla Abdul Qadir Badauni’s work is a history of the Muslim rule in India from the Ghorian invasion down to the end of Akbar’s reign written from a religious bias. Thus in this work, the history of Akbar’s reign is written from the orthodox Sunni point of view. Naturally it tends to become a critic of Akbar’s policies based on principles of Sulh i kul. This kind of version with such bias is important and useful in our study of the political history of the reign as it serves as a balancing narrative to the account furnished by Abul Fazl in the Akbarnama, which as we know, is an account written with a bias to justify Akbar’s policies that were framed in the light of the policy of Sulh i kul. It is also written from the point of view of projecting Akbar as an insan-i kamil whose mission was to establish peace amongst people, unity of purpose in the state, and extend state patronage to a large group of people.
This view forwarded by Abul Fazl stands corrected by the sharp criticism which Badauni offers for the policies of Akbar.
We know from the notings which Badauni had made in volume III that he completed the book in 1004 AH / 1596. But the work could come out in the public only around 1616. For about twenty years after its completion, the book was not released for circulation. It is understandable why Badauni was hesitant to have it circulated during his lifetime. He knew if the book went into circulation, it would attract hostility of the Mughal authorities. We may assume, it was not in circulation till 1614, at least on the basis of the fact that in the list of different sources available, say that of Abdul Baqi Nahawandi (Ma’asir-i Rahimi), the name of Muntakhab ut Tawarikh is missing – a significant negative piece of evidence pointing towards the fact that till 1614-16 this was not in circulation. Subsequently, when the book did come in circulation, Jahangir made enquiries about the hostile remarks against his father.
Thus it was not for the perusal of the King. His style as a result, is not constrained by any fear of punishment or reprisal.
So far as the structure of the book is concerned, it is divided into three volumes. The first volume deals with the history of the Muslim rule in North India from the Ghorian invasion down to the end of Humayun’s reign, i.e., 1556.
An internal examination of the book reveals that Badauni derived information from two sources: the Tarikh-i Mubarakshahi (Yahya bin Ahmad Sirhindi) and the Tabaqat-i Akbar. For the later Sur period, Badauni bases on personal information and partly on information available to him through other sources.
Badauni’s account of the Sur Empire, for the period between 1553-56 is very significant and original. This is the only detailed account we have which gives the political developments under Adil Shah Sur and others who put forward their claims to the Sur throne.
The second volume of the Muntakhab deals with the history of Akbar’s reign down to the 40th RY (1595). The last event which Badauni records in this volume is Faizi’s death which took place in 1595. He adds a cruel note to this event.
The third volume comprises a large number of biographies of the mashaikh, ulema, physicians and poets: he gives biographic details of 38 important mashaikh, 49 leading ulema, 15 reknowned physicians and 167 well known poets of his own time. For this he borrowed much material from the Tazkiras of the poets that were compiled by Alauddaulah Qazwini as part of his Nafais ul Ma’asir.
Badauni, as against what his name suggests, did not hail from Badaun: he hailed from Kota Bhim in Rajasthan, which at that time was included in the Kachhwaha principality of Amber. He was born in 1541. His father, Muluk Shah, shifted to Agra in early 1550’s and stayed there down to 1561. It was after 1561 that the family shifted to Badaun and settled there.
Abdul Qadir Badauni received his early education at Agra under Shaikh Mubarak, who was at that time, known for his learnings towards Mahdavism. For some time, he also studied with Miya Hatim Sambhali, an orthodox teacher of early ‘60’s.
Badauni had become accomplished in a number of arts and sciences. In a letter written by Faizi to Akbar regarding Badauni, it is stated that he was proficient in history, astronomy, art of qir’at, music – especially Indian music and was a player of bīn. He also had expertise in chess. So Badauni was not only an ālim but otherwise also he was an accomplished person. Badauni himself does not refer to his proficiency in chess and music while writing his book.
So far as the history of his service career is concerned, he took up service under Husain Khan Tukriya in 1564, in which he continued down to 1574. In 1574 Badauni entered the Imperial service as the imam of the army for one of the days of the week. He was appointed to this minor position simultaneously with the appointment of Abul Fazl who took up the same position.
In fact Badauni laments that while Abul Fazl used flattery and readiness to agree with superiors to rise to the position of a high noble – a position which Badauni did not, as he did not worry about worldly gains. His bitterness is obvious in this statement. It is obvious even in vol. III when he writes about Abul Fazl and Faizi.
So far as the significance of the Muntakhab ut Tawarikh as a source is concerned, the problem has been discussed in at least three modern writings:
a. Elliot’s Introduction on Badauni with his translation.
b. Prof Muhammad Mujib’s paper in the edited work of Prof Muhibbul Hasan published from Jamia.
c. Discussion of Badauni’s approach to interpret history of Akbar’s reign by S Athar Abbas Rizvi in two of his works, viz., Muslim Revivalist Movements and the Intellectual Life under Akbar.
Still, here one would like to highlight some aspects of Badauni’s approach in interpreting Akbar’s reign missed in the above mentioned works.
A serious contradiction seems to have run through the entire narrative of Badauni in volume II & III of his work. This contradiction is that he gives conflicting assessments of Akbar as well as his policies and the role played by persons close to Akbar. Such contradictions are found within different parts of volume II itself as well.
We find that while at most places in volume III – and in certain places in volume II – Badauni refers to Akbar with great respect. He calls him khalifat uz zamān. But then on the other hand, in the major part of volume II, from 1575 onwards, he seems to be so annoyed with Akbar that he does not refer to him with name. He is found levelling charges in this part and he seems to have forgotten his respectful attitude depicted elsewhere. He charges Akbar of prohibiting namaz of the Muslims – a charge which on face appears to be unsubstantiated. He also accuses Akbar of forcing ulema to shave their beards; of enslaving ulema and mashaikh in large numbers nd exchanging them with horses and donkeys in the markets of Qandahar and Bhakkar. He also alleges that Akbar tried to impose ban on the learning of Arabic language. In general, in this part, he shows his disrespectful attitude towards Akbar. So one can very well see that the author had described the same person as a khalifat uz Zaman and, as a heretic.
Then there are other specific cases of contradiction: for example, the manner in which he assesses the role of Shaikh Salim Chishti in volume II and then in volume III. In volume III, when he gives a biographical sketch of the Chishti saint, Badauni gives a positive assessment of Salim Chishti’s character from the Islamic point of view.
But then in volume II, Badauni says:
And such was the disposition of that paragon of excellence, His Grace, the Shaikh, that he allowed the emperor entry to all his most private apartments, and however much his sons and nephews kept saying ‘Our wives are becoming estranged from us’, the Shaikh would answer, ‘There is no dearth of women in this world, since I have made you Amirs, seek other wives, what does it matter?’
(verse) Either make no friendship with an elephant driver,
Or make a house fit for an elephant.
The assessment of Shaikh Mubarak and his beliefs is given in volume III and II.
In volume II Badauni says that at one occasion Shaikh Mubarak told Birbal:
‘Just as there are interpolations in your Holy Books, so there are in ours. Hence it is impossible to trust either’.
Could this be said even by a ‘bad’ Muslim?
But then in volume III, Badauni contrarily noted:
He (Sh. Mubarak) was one of the great sages of the age and was distinguished amongst men of his time for his piety, devotion and trust in God. In early life he observed many austerities and strove much in the way of holiness and was zealous in enforcing commands and prohibitions of the Holy Law that if any body present was wearing a gold ring, or silk clothing, or red hose or red or yellow garments, he at once made him remove them, and if anyone appeared with long breeches, descending below the hell, he immediately had them torn to proper length.
Badauni accuses him of joining heretics, but does not charge him of being an apostate. Thus he says:
…and the pity is that his love of the world with its pomps, concealed under the garment of hiding poverty, left no room for the love of faith of Islam. [III, 120]
Similar contradictions are there about Shaikh Faizi: In volume III he has abuses reserved for him. At one place he acknowledges that favours were done to him by Faizi by giving him letters favouring him and introducing him. But then at other places, he makes fantastic accusations against Faizi: says Faizi’s poetry was not appreciated by contemporaries and his books were not considered as worthy by literary people.
Lastly, let us quote one observation about Faizi which he made while giving the biography of Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhadis Dehlavi and his great affection for Faizi:
Glory be to God! Shaikh Faizi has passed away and become a by-word; and as far these, the mention of whom is still among us for a few days, or rather for a few hours, who are they that we waste time in addressing them where preparation is even now being made for our departure hence? All that remains to them is the wind of speech. How long shall we waste our time in measuring it?
From these examples, it becomes evident that (1) Badauni had more unbalanced views and assessments of contemporaries when writing volume II. (2) The nature of criticism in volume III is sometimes qualitatively different from the kind of accusations in volume II. (3) In the volume II the views are more balanced.
This goes to suggest that most probably Badauni compiled volume III at a time when he had not yet developed that kind of imbalanced view of the situation reflected in volume II.
At the end of volume III, treated by us as the final volume, Badauni says, it was compled in 1595. In the light of inferences drawn from the internal evidence, we would be justified in making the bold suggestion that the volume treated as volume II was compiled by Badauni after 1595 (that is, after volume III).
It is significant to note that at the end of volume I, Badauni actually has given an epilogue in which he states clearly that it was his plan to write the next volume comprising the biographies of contemporary poets:
Should this inconsistent and transitory life give (the author) a few days respite, and should the days in opposition to the usual habit afford assistance and should fate give its help, he (i.e., Badauni, the author) will make mention of poets of former times and of the contemporary poets of Hindustan, especially of those whom he had seen or heard or appreciated in his own lifetime together with extracts from their poems included in the tazkiras.
What, through these internal evidences we are trying to suggest and establish is that most probably, the volume which is now considered as volume II, containing the history of Akbar’s reign, was written sometime after the completion of History of Muslim Rule from earliest time in Humayun’s reign, and also after the penning of the biographical sketches of the contemporaries in volume III.
Perhaps Badauni compiled this second volume at a time when his assessment of the situation had undergone a considerable shift since the time he had completed the other two volumes.
This is borne out by the contradictory assessments that he gives of Akbar’s policies, Akbar’s character and the role of contemporaries in the two places ~ the second volume and the first and third volumes. It seems that by the time he started finalising vol II, his views had become rather extremist. By that he had come to the conclusion that the position of Islam in India had become untenable due to many factors including Akbar’s policy, and he was trying to put it straight by apportioning the blame of the catastrophe.
But then, in vol II as well, we find that in the first portion, he is not having an alarmist position which he has in the second half. In the portion relating to the post 1574-75 period, his views are most extremist.
In the first part of Vol II, he is calling Akbar as Khalifat al zaman, while in the second half, he charges him of heresy. This gives an impression that the account presented in Vol II is based on some journal which he maintained reflecting his changing assessment of the situation when he is becoming extremely critical.
His unbalanced attitude and state of mind is reflected in vol III also when he tries to revise and appends additional paras in individual biographies. To give an example: in the biography of Shaikh Mubarak, when he is beginning, he is praising and is not critical, as in the last paragraph which seems to have been added afterwards when his views had radically changed.
Then he also gives a number of chronograms giving dates of important events.
Thus in 1562, Pir Muhammad Khan Sherwani died during a campaign in Malwa by drowing in Narbada. Badauni writes: “ba rāh-i āb ba jahannum raft”
When Muzaffar Kahn Turbati (a Khurasani) was appointed as the wakil in 971 AH, the fact is given by Badauni by the chronogram “zālim” (971) [oppressor]. Similarly on the death of Shaikh Gadai Kanboh, the sadr: murda khūk-i kalān [You are dead you great hog!]
When in 971 Ah, a certain Qazi of Baran was given capital punishment, Badauni found the chronogram of this event as “qāzi lāl”. And when Shaikh Ibrahim Chishti of Fathpur Sikri died in 999 AH, Badauni wrote that “since he was noted and notorious for avarice and vice, and was accursed”, his chronogram found was ‘Shaikh laīm’ [ “Base of disposition” or “Vile Shaikh”].
On the death of Urfi Shirazi, the famous poet the same year, he uses the term dushman-i Khuda.
Similarly on the execution of Ali Quli Khan Uzbek Khan-i Zaman and Bahadur Khan, after their rebellion in 1567 (974 AH), one of the chronograms found was “qatl-i du namak harām be dīn”
Incidentally all these persons were Shias.
One can see that all these chronograms have a common quality of being cruel, pungent and in bad taste. Badauni doesn’t say that they were compiled by him but it is obvious that they are of him only, having the dame pungent effect as in his prose. Probably he composed them when he was preparing the journal which ultimately was used to draft vol II.
An additional indication of this journal being maintained by Badauni is supported by other evidences as well.
He is becoming more and more hysterical in denouncing Akbar. If he would have been such in the earlier period as well, it would have reflected in the earlier period as well.
It is true that Badauni was very orthodox, but what he had to say regarding the role played by the Mahdavi leaders during Islam Khan’s reign, shows that he not only had very great respect and admiration for them, but he also shared the harsh cricism which Mahdavi leaders were making of the orthodox Ulema. So far as his admiration for Mahdavi saints is concerned, it is borne out by the chronogram he gives of Shaikh Alai’s death in 978 AH: zikr Allah.
Regarding Shaikh Alai, he says:
“Shaikh Alai who was the most orthodox of the sons of Shaikh Hasan, the tablet of whose forehead was from early boyhood distinguished by marks of nobility and uprightness and evidences of a youth to be spent in the worship of God and in following the ordinances of the Prophet of God.”
Badauni also praises Shaikh Alai’s piety, his indifference to worldliness and goes on to reproduce with much gusto and glee the denunciation of Makhdum ul Mulk Abdullah Sultanpuri by Sh. Alai at Islam Shah’s court. He puts the following words in Sh. Alai’s mouth in his vol I:
“You are one of the learned men of the world, a thief of religion, and you are engaged in so many illegal practices that you have put yourself outside the pale of equity so that even to this time the sound of pipe (nafiri: music) and tambur may be plainly heard issueing from your house, and in accordance with the true traditions of the Prophet, Upon Whom Be Peace and Blessing, a fly which settles upon filth is by degrees better than learned men who have made kings and emperors the object of their ambition and go from door to door.
Verse: Learning which exists for the sake of palace & garden
Is like a lamp to the loving thief.
This point is important from two angles: Badauni is not that sort of an orthodox as is generally conceived. He is espousing the cause of an Islamic sect regarded as heretic by majority ulema. This also helps us to see as to what was the source which influenced him in forming a very hotile and critical view of the contemporary ulema reflected in vol II where he says for the decline of Islam during his time, hypocrisy of orthodox ulema was as much responsible as the heretical views of Akbar and his advisors. In vol III he denounces ulema for the persecution of Mahdavis and writes about all types of discrepancies of the ulema.
It is much propagated that Badauni was a very intolerant person. At the same time, it is significant that when it comes to relating the role of Kachhwahas – Bhar Mal, Man Singh etc, he never uses that kind of hostile language which he employs for other nobles. He never uses an obscene language towards them. He also goes out of his way in condoning many of Akbar’s actions giving concessions to non-Muslims, especially those in which these actions and concessions are meted out to the Kachhwahas.
In 1576, when Man Singh was appointed as the commander of the expedition which was proceeding against Rana Pratap, Badauni decided to join it to fulfil obligations of jihad. Before he set out for Ajmer, one friend raised a question: ‘If you are really going from a purely religious angle, then how can you justify fighting under the command of a Hindu?’ Badauni was puzzled. Then he said that he had been appointed by a Muslim king, so it would remain a jihad! Shoot whatever side you want, all are non-Muslims.
Regarding Salim’s marriage to the daughter of Bhagwandas, he reports that the marriage ceremony was solemnised twice, first through Muslim, and then the Hindu rites: but he never makes any adverse comment, which is significant. Reason lies in the fact that Badauni had great respect for both Bhagwandas and Man Singh due to the fact that they refused to compromise their religion and accept the new creed that Akbar was trying to project. This is borne out by the approving manner in which he quotes two conversations, one between Akbar and Bhagwandas, and the other between Akbar and Man Singh.
When Akbar proposed to Bhagwandas to enrol as a member of Tauhid-i Ilahi, Badauni reports that Bhagwandas retorted:
‘I would willingly believe that Hindus and Muslims each have a bad religion. But only tell us what this new sect is and what opinion they (its members) hold, so that I may believe!’
Badauni then goes on to add: ‘His Majesty reflected a little and ceased to urge the raja!’
According to Badauni, the real culprits were those who sided with Akbar’s new religion based on principles of Sulh-i Kul, who were compromising their religion.
From this it is clear, his grouse was against those who thus compromised their faith and became a threat for the existence of Islam in India. He appreciated any one who was not impressed by the principles of the new belief.

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi