Notification texts go here Contact Us Buy Now!

Mughal ideas on kingship were designed to legitimise a dynastic rule

Paper - State in Medieval India I(M31406) 

Submitting to - Prof. Najaf Haider 

Submitted by - Ravish Raj (MA 1st Year) 

Date - 18/10/2019 

In the machinery characterised by monopoly over surplus extraction, the king is ensconced in the  paramount position. Kingship thus becomes a powerful concept, the efficacy of its design  determining the extent to which the extraction relationship is lopsided in favour of the king.  Kingship can be asserted through coercion as well as hegemony, the two often working in  synchrony with each other. That the Mughal ideas on kingship were potent tools of exploitation  is attested by the extended longevity of the Mughal Imperial system, the constituents of which  are visible in the states that succeeded the empire. JF Richards1 argues that the comprehensive  restructuring brought about by the empire survived in subsequent agrarian, monetary, taxation,  military and administrative systems. In addition to that, the standards of arts, aesthetic and public  behaviour were also moulded by the Mughal tradition. The Mughal way was embedded so deep  in the consuetude of the subcontinent that the East India Company, in the initial phase of  colonisation, used the imperial myth of authority for its consolidation. 

The absence of the law of succession has been a critical lacuna in the political system of Islamic  states. Hence, succession, more often than not, has been mired in violence and bloodshed. This  lack also led to the development of multiple political theories seeking to legitimise a specific  way of securing and sustaining kingship. The institution of Caliph may be regarded as the first in  this long list of ideas on kingship, from where a departure is witnessed in the thirteenth century  when several legitimate Islamic states emerge, the distinctive feature being the shift from  mandatory acknowledgement by the Caliph in the form of investiture. The association of an  inheritable divine mandate with Chingis Khan was an attempt to convert kingship into a  hereditary institution. The works of scholars like Nasiruddin Tusi and Jalal al-Din Davani further  extended the theoretical compendium by adding the usurpation of power, imparting of justice  and championing the cause of Islam as legitimising factors. The founding of personal myths not   only legitimised one's own rule but also validated the claims of one's descendants, as evident in  the case of the Timurid myth.

This essay is restricted to the evaluation of the ideas of kingship of two prominent Mughal kings  and whether these ideas were designed to legitimise a dynastic rule. 

Akbar 

Initially, Akbar had to conform to the accepted norms of kingship, which included the  appeasement of the ulema. He promoted high priests of orthodoxy to essential offices, accepted  their religious authority and even bore the title of ghazi for the expansion of Islam. Akbar had  resorted to various strategies to solidify his authority. His expansionist policy led to the  enlargement and diversification of the nobility, thus creating a dynamic balance. Mansab system  and the allurement of it both created new identities and ensured that ambitious people sought the  status of 'slave' warrior-administrator. So that they should seek it voluntarily, Akbar repositioned  the sense of honour from sectarian to imperial pride, from bardic glory to chronicled fame. He  did so by carefully constructing the emperor's person and using that as the personification of the  empire. In addition to that, he capitalised on his Timurid descent and subordinated the elites via  an elaborate code of behaviour and rituals. 

Richards3 throws light on Akbar's public image. The emperor's person, according to him, was  shaped by two factors: (i) his accessibility, and (ii) symbolic acts of asserting sovereignty. 

Harbans Mukhia4 sees the accessibility of the emperor as a marker of the relative flexibility in  the conduct of courtly rituals. Akbar was an active, energetic and curious man who would go out  of character5 several times, the political motive being the dilution of the claim of the nobility to  the proximity of the king. He also entertained diverse religious thoughts and was ready to engage  in discussions, open to criticism of his own ideas. We also have, on the other hand, instances of  Akbar inflicting punishments on nobles for breaching the norms of codified behaviour. Hence  the rituals of etiquette mandatory for nobles were no more mandatory for the king, and kingship  was not legitimised by such principles anymore. 

As for symbolic acts, shifting of capital ensured that a particular place was no more a  legitimising factor for kingship. A bunch of armoured men could not usurp the throne by merely  occupying the Imperial palace or winning the support of public, as kingship stayed and moved  with the emperor. Fatehpur Sikri was erected as the symbol of a new political setup, where  chambers were designed to restrict entry to subjects, whereas the emperor could move freely.  The choice of Sikri in itself was shaped by the mystical attachments of the king, and its sacred  complex accommodating both the mosque and the dargah, its seculars complex characterised by  buildings like Ibaadat Khana, hint at Akbar's intent to break the dominance of orthodox elements  by giving ample space to Sufism and other religious thoughts. The abrupt desertion of Sikri and  the subsequent mobile capital, with camp-mint as a legitimate production site, further  strengthened the fact that the king and empire were essentially the same. 

The shift in Akbar's idea of sovereignty became conspicuous in the late 1570s after he realised  that theological principles were inefficacious in managing a largely non-Muslim population. In  1579, prominent theologians were compelled to sign a mahzar drafted by Abul Fazl's father  Shaikh Mubarak, which conferred upon Akbar the right to decide on contested points of the law.  This marked a change in the earlier notions of kingship, as religious authority was now being  appropriated by the emperor's person. A catalyst to this change was his ideological counsellor  and friend Abul Fazl, who quickly rose to prominence in Akbar's court. John F Richards credits  Abul Fazl with the feat of successfully weaving together several elements into a dynastic  ideology. 

The ideas of kingship, which effloresced at the cost of orthodoxy, have been elaborated in Abul  Fazl's works. One can also corroborate this with Badauni's Muntakhabu't Tawarikh, which is a  bitter criticism of the rising decadent and heretical trends during Akbar's reign. Abul Fazl's  depiction of Akbar is based on influential works of Islamic scholars, the few prominent ones  among which are:  

● Ibn 'Arabi's concepts of (i) wahdat-i wujud and (ii) insan-i kamil. Wahdat-i wujud talks  about the unity of existence. Abul Fazl develops from it a world view, emphasising the  false duality of din and duniya. With this, he frees temporal sovereignty from religious  shackles.6 Arabi describes Insan-i kamil as the perfect man, the spirit of Muhammad, who 

is identical to Adam and is blessed with all divine perfections. For him, the dispensation  of justice is the best form of obedience to God. Abul Fazl ascribes many attributes of  Insan-i kamil to Akbar, however, deleting the association with the spirit of Muhammad. 

● Graeco-Islamic scientific tradition of the social contract. As Abul Fazl disempowers  theologians by portraying religion as illusory, he shifts focus to aql by discussing the  traditions of filasafa and hukama. He talks about a form of social contract, where qahar-i  wahadat was necessary to bring order in a tumultuous world. A theocracy could not  provide the remedy as religion was already teeming with tricksters. Hence, there was the  need for a kar-giya, who, with the aid of his loyal soldiers, in return for the wages of  protection, would safeguard his subjects' property, life, honour and religion. The kar giya, different from an unjust ruler, would be conferred the title of padshah. 

● Shihabuddin Maqtul's Ishraq theory. In this theory, the sun represents farr-i Izidi,  originating from God and illuminating the objects, i.e., giving existence to all kinds of  reality, through a sequence of angels, according to their place in the natural hierarchy.  This theory talks about longitudinal and feminine order of angels on one hand and  latitudinal and masculine order of angels on the other. Akbar possesses both the loving  and the commanding characteristics of angels, and the nurturing and punishing roles  work together in unison to ensure sulh-i kul. Abul Fazl adds to this the origin myth of  Mongol where Alanqua is impregnated by the divine light. He traces the genealogy of  Akbar from Adam, highlighting that the divine refulgence passed through fifty-two  generations before illuminating the emperor in full glory. 

Abul Fazl leaves no stone unturned in portraying Akbar as the being of the highest order, next  only to God. Peter Hardy7 throws light on numerous ostentatious epithets given to Akbar by him,  and how these epithets exalt his status to an untraversed altitude. Akbar is shown as the lord of  esoteric as well as exoteric realities. He also is khuda-i majazi, thus able to lead both the wilayat  and the sultanat. As a crowned Sufi, Akbar is supposed to maintain justice by maintaining the  social order, i.e., looking over the four stations or classes of the society. He is also a rahnamuni who hesitates in accepting disciples while thousands line up to seek his guidance. Akbar is a  mahdi, as regarded by Shaikh Taj al-Din, who would guide humankind to salvation before the day of judgement. The list of ornate designations can go on. What is relevant here is that woven  in a highfalutin style is an attempt to portray Akbar as a unique Padshah without any apparent  parallels. Timur had many descendants, but Akbar was beyond just a descendant of Timur. He  was the reflector of the dazzling radiance of God himself, and thus could not be compared to  other lowly emperors. 

Akbar’s empire was built upon a baffling diversity; hence, it needed what A Afzar Moin8 calls a  lord of conjunction, who would be a ruler with messianic aura. Akbar ensured that his ideas of  sacred kingship were preserved in a court-commissioned hagiographic composition. Many  subsequent rulers emulated the imperial model constructed by him. 

Jahangir 

A Afzar Moin9 contends that Jahangir's transition from a prince to an emperor can be followed in  relation to Akbar as a transition from opposition to mimesis. Jesuit sources point to Jahangir's  sudden shift to the orthodox elements in order to counter powerful Gentile. Jahangir's memoir  also begins with the lunar calendar instead of Akbar's Ilahi calendar. He renamed himself as the  light of religion, Nur-al Din, which was a drastic departure from Akbar's disassociation with  orthodoxy. These diverse political behaviours of the father-son pair reflect the strategies  employed in the game of Mughal religiopolitical field, which was shaped by the expectations of  ambitious godmen manifested in omens and blessings. Once seated in place of Akbar, Jahangir  realised that no conventional religion or order could accommodate multiple, contradictory beliefs  and hence, none was a universal political tool. Jahangir thus resorted to his own institution of  imperial discipleship. Like his father, he presided over debates between Muslim theologians and  Christian priests. In Abdus Sattar's Majalis-i Jahangiri, which was written in the style of  malfuzat, Jahangir is referred to as a guide, spiritual leader and performer of miracles. Jahangir,  according to the source, referred to himself as the ‘universal manifestation’ and went to the  extent of allowing conversions. 

One finds an entirely different version of Jahangir in Jahangirnama, dictated by the ethics of self referential works. In memoirs, one had to embellish others with praise while reserving extreme  modesty for oneself. In Jahangirnama, Jahangir is a common man, with unextraordinary fortune  and fancies. In accordance with the concept of inner and outer circles in the institution of  sainthood, Jahangir too demarcated his surat and zahiri world from the realm of his mani and  batin self. Jahangirnama was for a broader public, and hence, coated with humility. This  distinction was also recognized in his courtly circle. 

The question that follows is how Jahangir expressed his spiritual self to the world. For this  purpose, Jahangir utilised the medium of images by assimilating various icons from distant  cultures. Scholars like Heike Franke, Robert Skelton and Ebba Koch have tried to examine the  imperial symbolism in those images. 

Franke10 looks at the visual representation of Jahangir's ideas on kingship. As Jahangir had  inherited from his father a fully-operational system of sacred kingship, his painters made great  efforts to depict him as the king of two worlds. He is presented as the new Adam in one of the  paintings, with verses to elucidate further the underlying message. Another famous double-page  painting, created by Bichitr, shows Muinuddin Chisti entrusting to Jahangir the key of spiritual  world, thus making him the king of two worlds. Bichitr continued to explore other ways of  depicting Jahangir's sovereignty, and in an unusual painting, he shows Jahangir seated on an  hourglass, facing Shaikh Husayn Ajmeri, Bayezid I, James I, and Bichitr. Several putti are flying  in the top corners with broken weapons. Franke interprets this image as to mean that the Padshah  has risen above the world, hence laws of time do not apply to him, nor does he need weapons. 

Skelton11 examines a few imperial paintings from Jahangir's reign. An image showing Jahangir's  dream of meeting Shah Abbas I of Iran also depicts symbolic animals mentioned in Virgil's The  Pastoral Poems. This shows the influence of European works, ideas and symbols on Jahangir's  mind, and how the representation of the idea of kingship appropriated utopian concepts of  foreign lands. The painting showing Jahangir shooting at the severed head of Malik Amber is not  merely a representation of the fulfilment of a desire, but also a representation of the victory of  light, represented by Jahangir, over darkness, represented by the owl, Amber. Koch12, based on  her study of various foreign cultural figures depicted in Jahangir's muraqqa, concludes that  Solomon on account of his power of justice, Majnu of love, and Orpheus of music, could be seen  as representing the emperor. 

What cannot be denied is that despite the Akbari style of Mughal painting stood on its own, it  was Jahangir who made the optimum utilisation of this medium to project his ideas of kingship  more effectively. Through the paintings, he assumed a number of characters: thaumaturge,  renewer, seer, and the millennial being.13 In the final form, depicted by Bichitr, Jahangir has  conquered both temporal and spiritual realms and is gifting a book to a mystic leader, who is  accepting it with a shawl in his hands. 

Conclusion 

Mughal ideas on kingship evolved from preceding developments in Islamic political theory. The  first significant consolidation of the theory of kingship occurred during the reign of Akbar, in the  last phase of the 1570s, when he took decisive steps towards sacred sovereignty. Jahangir did  inherit this system; however, he chose a different medium to asseverate his supremacy, and so  did Shah Jahan through monumental architectural masterpieces. The core idea of kingship,  however, remained the same, i.e., a mystical king who was the master of both material and  spiritual worlds. 

I disagree with the statement that Mughal ideas on kingship were designed to legitimise a  dynastic rule. The emphasis was always on the deification of the reigning emperor, who usually  had to rebel for the throne and pacify the old nobility. He then went on to exalt his status by  wresting control of the sacred sphere from the ulema, primarily with the view to efficiently manage a diverse state. His successors did follow the basic idea but used their own media and  methods.

Bibliography 

1.       Franke, Heike. "Emperors of Ṣūrat and Maʿnī: Jahangir and Shah Jahan as Temporal and  Spiritual Rulers." Muqarnas Online 31.1 (2014) 

2.       Habib, Irfan. "A POLITICAL THEORY FOR THE MUGHAL EMPIRE—A Study Of  The Ideas Of Abu'l Fazl." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 59. Indian  History Congress, 1998. 

3.       Hardy, Peter. "Abul Fazl’s Portrait of the Perfect Padshah: A Political Philosophy for  Mughal India—or a Personal Puff for a Pal." Islam in India, studies and commentaries 2 (1985) 

4.       Koch, Ebba. "The Mughal Emperor As Solomon, Majnun, And Orpheus, Or The Album  As A Think Tankfor Allegory." Muqarnas, Volume 27. Brill, 2011 

5.       Moin, A. Azfar. The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam.  CUP, New York. 2012. 

6.       Mukhia, Harbans. The Mughals of India. Vol. 5. John Wiley & Sons, 2008  • Richards, John F. "The formulation of imperial authority under Akbar and Jahangir."  Kingship and Authority in South Asia (1998) 

7.       Skelton, Robert. "Imperial symbolism in Mughal painting." Content and context of visual  arts in the Islamic world (1988)

Notes

1.       Richards, John F. "The formulation of imperial authority under Akbar and Jahangir." Kingship and  Authority in South Asia (1998): 285-326.

2.       Franke, Heike. "Emperors of Ṣūrat and Maʿnī: Jahangir and Shah Jahan as Temporal and Spiritual  Rulers." Muqarnas Online 31.1 (2014): 123-149. 

3.       Richards, John F. 1998. 

4.       Mukhia, Harbans. The Mughals of India. Vol. 5. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. 

5.       i.e., not maintaining the supposed distance from activities, places and people of low status and value.  However, by shedding the traditional character, Akbar was building a more popular persona, which is  testified by Banarasidas' unparalleled grief at the news of Akbar's demise.

6.       Habib, Irfan. "A POLITICAL THEORY FOR THE MUGHAL EMPIRE—A Study Of The Ideas Of Abu'l  Fazl." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 59. Indian History Congress, 1998.

7.       Hardy, Peter. "Abul Fazl’s Portrait of the Perfect Padshah: A Political Philosophy for Mughal India—or a  Personal Puff for a Pal." Islam in India, studies and commentaries 2 (1985): 114-37.

8.       Moin, A. Azfar. The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam. CUP, New York.  2012.

9.       Ibid. 

10.     Franke, Heike. 2014.

11.     Skelton, Robert. "Imperial symbolism in Mughal painting." Content and context of visual arts in the  Islamic world (1988): 177-191. 

12.     Koch, Ebba. "The Mughal Emperor As Solomon, Majnun, And Orpheus, Or The Album As A Think  Tankfor Allegory." Muqarnas, Volume 27. Brill, 2011. 277-312. 

13.     Moin, A Afzar. 2012.


Post a Comment

Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.
NextGen Digital Welcome to WhatsApp chat
Howdy! How can we help you today?
Type here...