Dr. Faraz Anjum
Assistant Professor,
Department of History, University of the Punjab, Lahore
Email: faraz@history.pu.edu.pk
This research paper
examines the notion of ‘Oriental Despotism’ which was initially propounded by
the European travellers of the seventeenth century and later during the
colonial period developed into a fundamental theoretical framework to
understand or rather criticise the governments of the East. It also seeks to
examine, in a comparative perspective, the Mughal concept of kingship which was
put forward by the Indian writers, particularly by the Mughal theorist and
ideologue, Abul Fazl.
Introduction
The notion of ‘despotism’ dates back to ancient period[1] and Thomas Metcalf has pointed out that “from the time of Aristotle, ‘despotism’ had existed as a description of a style of governance in which legitimate royal power was nearly the same as that of a master over a slave.”[2] However, it was French Philosopher Montesquieu who popularized the notion of Oriental despotism in the West in the Seventeenth and early Eighteenth centuries. Montesquieu was greatly influenced by travel accounts of seventeenth century, particularly of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier and John Chardin.[3]
Though a majority of European writers propounded this idea in one form or the other, it was Francois Bernier who, in quite unequivocal terms, categorised the Mughal Emperor as an ‘Oriental Despot’. The other Europeans, though not so explicit, also delineated its concomitant ideas: Emperor as absolute master of his subjects’ life and deaths, his being a proprietor of all their lands, his being a foreigner and outsider, his artificiality and hollowness, and his fondness for tyranny and oppression. All these ideas provided inspiration to Montesquieu for developing a conceptual framework for Oriental despotism and contrasting it from two other forms of governments, namely, Republicanism and Monarchy. According to the philosopher, in a monarchy, the King ruled by following fixed often written laws and principles while in despotism, the King was bound by no laws and ruled arbitrarily. Montesquieu, thus, believed that in the Orient, the King enjoyed absolute powers on the life and death of his subjects ruled by terror and had no regard for the people.[4]
The first part of this
paper presents the ideas of the Europeans about the Mughal emperor[5]
and his relations with his subjects and the second part focuses on the
indigenous writers’ description of Mughal imperial ideals and a critique of
European representations.
Mughal Emperor as Oriental Despot
One of the dominant
representations of European was the arbitrariness and fickle-mindedness of the
Mughal Emperor and whimsical nature of his government. According to them, he
ruled by a particular style of government, where he was the master and all his
subjects were his absolute slaves. He owned all the property and wealth of his
nobles. No man in India had the right to own any thing. His rule was totally arbitrary and based on his own sweet will.
De Laet emphasised that point when he wrote:
The Emperor of India is an
absolute monarch: there are no written laws; the will of the Emperor is held to
be law . . . the government is purely tyrannical. For the king is the sole master
of the whole kingdom, and gives estates at his will to his subjects, or takes
them away again.[6]
Edward Terry believed that
the Emperor “makes his will his guide” and his government was “arbitrary,
illimited, tyrannical.”[7]
William Hawkins contended that the Mughal Emperor was “barbaric,” “cruel” and
“headstrong” who had the right to deprive any one of his landed property. He
did not allow anyone to keep it for more than six months. The emperor entrusted
it to someone else before long or confiscated it if it happened to be valuable
thus robbing him of whatever he possessed. According to Hawkins, “by this means
he racketh the poore to get from them what he can, who still thinketh every
houre to be put out of his place.”[8]
According to Ovington, “the whole kingdom of Indostan is intirely in the
possession of the Mogul’s, who appoints himself heir to all his subjects . . .
His will likewise is the law, and his word incontestably decides all
controversies among them.”[9]
Bernier contended that “actuated by a blind and wicked ambition to be more
absolute than that is warranted by the laws of God and of nature, the kings of
Asia grasp at every thing, until at length they lose every thing.”[10]
Thomas Roe also conceded that “they have no written law. The King by his owne
word ruleth.”[11] Tavernier emphasised that “all the Kingdoms which he
possesses are his domain, he being absolute master of all the country.”[12] Bernier has
elaborated on the theme when he wrote:
They
[the Princes] appear on the stage of life as if they came from another world,
or emerged for the first time, from a subterraneous cavern, astonished like
simpletons, at all around them. Either, like children, they are credulous in
every thing, and in dread of everything; or with the obstinacy and heedlessness
of folly, they are deaf to every sage counsel and rash in every stupid
enterprise. According to their minds, such Princes, on succeeding to a crown,
affect to be dignified and grave, though it be easy to discern that gravity and
dignity form no part of their character that the appearance of those qualities
is the effect of some ill-studied lesson, and that they are in fact only other
names for savageness and vanity; or else they affect a childish politeness in
their demeanour, childish because unnatural and constrained. . . . It is indeed
a rare exception when the Sovereign is not profoundly ignorant of the
domestic and political condition of his empire. The reins of government are
often committed to the hands of some Vizier, who . . . considers it an
essential part of his plan to encourage his master in all his low pursuits, and
divert him, from every avenue of knowledge. If the sceptre be not firmly
grasped by the first minister, then the country is governed by the King’s
mother, originally a wretched slave, and by a set of eunuchs, persons who
possess no enlarged and liberal views of policy, and who employ their time in
barbarous intrigues; banishing, imprisoning, and strangling each other, and
frequently the Grandees and Vizier himself. Indeed under their
disgraceful domination, no man of any property is sure of his life for a single
day.[13]
The
absolute rule of the Mughal Emperor, according to European travellers,
naturally resulted in lamentable conditions of other sections of society,
particularly of umara who were at the beck and call of their master.
Pelsaert deplored the condition of the umara
who, though themselves were wont to oppress the common people, were inhumanly
treated by the Emperor. He employed the metaphor of meanest animals and their
bondage to impress his point. He wrote about the Mughal umara that:
these poor wretches, who,
in their submissive bondage, may be compared to poor, contemptible earthworms,
or to little fishes, which, however closely they may conceal themselves, are
swallowed up by the great monsters of a wild sea. . . .
in the palaces of these lords dwells all the wealth there is, wealth
which glitters indeed, but is borrowed, wrung from the sweat of the poor.
Consequently their position is as unstable as the wind, resting on no firm
foundation, but rather on pillars of glass, resplendent in the eyes of the
world, but collapsing under the stress of even a slight storm. . . . while the
servants of the lords may justly be described as a generation of iniquity,
greed and oppression, for, like their masters, they make hay while the sum
shines. Sometimes while they [the nobles] think they are exalted to a seat in
heaven, an envious report to the King may cast them down to the depths of woe.[14]
Thomas Roe also remarked
that “if they [Emperor Jahangir and Prince Khurram] are pleased, the crie of a
million of subjects would not bee heard.”[15]
Geleynssen
de Jongh, the Dutch factor in India, also endorsed this view when he recorded
that the umara possessed no security of their positions or even of their
lives, as they could be accused of anything at anytime.[16]
A
corollary to the concept of oriental despotism was the assumption that
the Emperor owned
all land in India and the inhabitants
of India, including the nobility, did not enjoy any proprietary rights. Bernier
vehemently testified that:
The
Great Mogol constitutes himself heir of all the Omrahs, or lords,
and likewise of the Mansebdars, or inferior lords, who are in his pay;
and what is of the utmost importance, that he is proprietor of every acre of
land in the kingdom, excepting, perhaps, some houses and gardens which he
sometimes permits his subjects to buy, sell and otherwise dispose of, among
themselves.[17]
Edward Terry reported that
“no subject in his Empire had land of inheritance, nor can have other title but
by the King’s will.”[18]
De Laet observed that “the King is the sole master of the whole kingdom and
gives estates at his will to his subjects or takes them away again.”[19]
J. Xavier, a Portuguese missionary to Mughal court, also attested to the same
view when he wrote that “the King is absolute Lord of all his kingdoms; and
great and small have only as much land and property as he wishes to give them.”
He believed that “when he gets angry, he deprives them of the lands and gives
them to others.” He informed his readers that some of the land was reserved by
the Emperor who “farms them out to the highest bidder, and the lessees, in
order to extract from them what they promised to pay and derive profit, rob the
labourers and oppress them in a hundred ways.”[20]
The principle of escheat introduced by
Emperor Akbar and continued with minor variations by the later Mughal rulers
also came under strong criticism from European travellers. This principle
envisaged that on the death of a mansabdar, his property would
immediately be appropriated by the Emperor. Hawkins wrote that “the custome of
this Mogoll Emperour is to take possession of his noblemens treasure when they
dye, and to bestow on his [their] children what he pleaseth.” Though he
reported that generally the Mughal Emperor dealt with the family of the
deceased noble quite compassionately and returned to them much of the wealth
and the titles, [21]
the other European travellers of the period did not present the scheme in such
a positive colour. Pelsaert provided a detailed graphic picture of such an
episode. One can conveniently discern the dramatic elements in his description:
Immediately on the death
of a lord who has enjoyed the King’s jagir,
be he great or small, without any exception—even before the breath is out of
his body—the King’s officers are ready on the spot, and make an inventory of
the entire estate, recording everything down to the value of a single piece,
even to the dresses and jewels of the ladies, provided they have not concealed
them. The King takes back the whole estate absolutely for himself, except in a
case where the deceased has done good service in his lifetime, when the women
and children are given enough to live on, but no more. It might be supposed
that wife, or children, or friends, could conceal during his [the lord’s]
lifetime enough for the family to live on, but this would be very difficult. As
a rule all the possessions of the lords, and their transactions, are not
secret, but perfectly well-known, for each has his diwan [steward], through whose hands everything passes; he has many
subordinates, and for work that could be done by one man they have ten here;
and each of them has some definite charge, for which he must account. [When the
lord dies,] all these subordinates are arrested, and compelled to show from
their books and papers where all the cash or property is deposited, and how
their master’s income has been disposed of; and if there is any suspicion about
their disclosures, they are tortured until they tell the truth.[22]
Bernier
called the Mughal practice as “barbarous” and listed the disastrous
consequences on the family. According to him, “the widows of so many great Omrahs
are plunged suddenly into a state of wretchedness and destitution, compelled to
solicit the Monarch for a scanty pittance, while their sons are driven to the
necessity of enlisting as private soldiers under the command of some Omrah.”
He then related the anecdote of a Mughal noble, Naiknam Khan, who, at the time
of his death, distributed all his treasures amongst the needy and filled his
treasure-chests with old iron, bones, worn-out shoes and tattered clothes. When
afterwards, these chests, without being opened, were sent to Mughal Emperor
Shah Jehan, who in anticipation of the great treasures, opened them in the full
view of the court and it caused a great embarrassment to him.[23]
It was natural that the
European travellers, while attributing unlimited and arbitrary powers, should
have generally presented Mughal Emperors as cruel and fond of tyranny. Hawkins has recalled an eyewitness
account of Jahangir’s court. He reported that the Emperor was fond of watching
elephant fights and during the time of their fighting, “either coming or going
out, many times men are killed or dangerously hurt by these elephants. But if
any be grievously hurt which might very well escape, yet neverthelesse that man
is cast into the river,” because the King believed that “as long as he liveth
he will doe nothing else but curse me, and therefore it is better that he dye
presently.” His overall judgement was that “hee [Jahangir] delighteth to see
men executed himselfe and torne in peeces with elephants.”[24]
Hawkins’ companion, William Finch, has described Jahangir’s manner of hunting
which included not just beasts but also men. According to him, the King with
the help of his men used to first cordon of an area
and whatsoever is taken in
this inclosure is called the Kings sikar [Hind. Shikar] or game, whether men or beasts; and whosoever lets ought
escape without the Kings mercy must loose his life. The beasts taken, if mans
meat, are sold and the money given to the poore; if men, they remaine the Kings
slaves, which he yearly sends to Cabull to barter for horse and dogs; these
being poore, miserable, thievish people that live in woods and desarts, little
differing from beast.[25]
The
European travellers of the period have also termed the Mughal Emperor as a foreigner, both literally as well as
figuratively. Bernier underscored this alienation of the Mughals when he wrote:
the
Great Mogol is a foreigner in Hindoustan, a descendant of Tamerlan,
. . . [who] overrun and conquered the Indies. Consequently, he finds
himself in an hostile country, or nearly so; a country containing hundreds of Gentiles
to one Mogol, or even to one Mahometan. To maintain himself in
such a country, in the midst of domestic and powerful enemies, and to be always
prepared against any hostile movement on the side of Persian or Usbec,
he is under the necessity of keeping up numerous armies, even in the time of
peace. These armies are composed either of natives, such as Ragipous and
Patans, or of genuine Mogols and people who, though less
esteemed, are called Mogols because white men, foreigners, and Mahometans.
The court itself does not now consist, as originally, of real Mogols;
but it is a medley of Usbecs, Persians, Arabs, and Turks, or
descendants from all these people; known, as I said before, by the general
appellation of Mogols. It should be added, however, that children of the
third, and fourth generation, who have the brown complexion, and the languid
manner of this country of their nativity, are held in much less respect than
new comers, and are seldom invested with official situations; they consider
themselves happy, if permitted to serve as private soldiers in the infantry or
cavalry.[26]
Tavernier highlighted the
foreign origin of the Mughals by emphasising that the latter were white in
complexion while the native Indians were brown or olive coloured.[27]
The
European travellers generally depicted Mughal Emperor in negative colours. For Careri, Emperor Aurangzeb was a “great
Dissembler and Hypocrite, and never did as he said.”[28] Coryat wrote this
incredible story that “Ecbar Shaugh had learned all kind of Sorcery, who beeing
once in a strange humour to Shew a spectacle to his Nobles, brought forth his
chiefest Queene, with a Sword cut off her head, and after the same perceiving
the heaviness and sorrow of them, for the death of her (as they thought) caused
the head, by vertue of his Exocismes and Conjunctions, to be set on againe, no
signe ap pearing of any stroke with his Sword.”[29]
Thomas Metcalf has
explained that the notion of ‘Oriental
despotism’ had “enduring implications for the emerging Raj in India,” as it
carried with it the connotation that Asian countries had no laws or property,
and hence its peoples no rights. Everything, in this view, derived solely from
the will of the despotic ruler, who could take back what he had granted.[30] Some of the prominent
colonial writers considered despotism as the bane of Indian society. Alexander
Dow wrote in his History of Hindostan that India was simultaneously “the
seat of the greatest empires,” and “the nurse of the most abject slaves.”[31] According to Charles
Grant, “Despotism destroys the liberty of the individual soul and so eliminates
the source of virtue because the man who is dependent on the will of another .
. . thinks and acts as a degraded being and fear necessarily becomes his grand
principle of action.”[32]
James Mill, in his History, attributed
the ills of Muslim Indian history to the despotic form of Indo-Muslim
government which, in his considered view, was “more inimical to progress than
anarchy itself.”[33]
Mughal Emperor and His Relations with the Subjects:
Indigenous Perspectives
This depiction of Mughal
Emperor as the arbiter of life and death of his subjects was based on a
misconception of the nature of the Mughal kingship and its relationship with
its subjects. The Mughal theory of kingship, which was inspired by the dual
models of Perso-Islamic and Turco-Mongol ideologies, was put forward by Abul
Fazl.[34]
In an important passage of Ain-i Akbari, he justified kingship and its
attributes with reference to a social contract between the ruler and the ruled.
He wrote under the title, riwa-i rozi (the maintenance of livelihood):
Since there is infinite diversity in the nature of men and distractions internal and external daily increase, and heavy-footed greed travels post haste, and light- headed rage breaks its reins, where friendship in this demon-haunted waste of dishonour is rare, and justice lost to view, there is in sooth, no remedy for such a world of confusion but in autocracy and this panacea in administration is attainable only in the majesty of just monarchs. If a house or a quarter cannot be administered without the sanctions of hope and fear of a sagacious ruler, how can the tumult of this world-nest of hornets be silenced save by the authority of a vice-regent of Almighty power. How in such a case can the property, lives, honour and religion of people be protected, notwithstanding that some recluses have imagined that this can be supernaturally accomplished, but a well-ordered administration has never been effected without the aid of sovereign monarch.
He further proceeds to
formulate that "The dues of sovereignty (paranj-i jahanbani) have
thus been set forth. The circulation of the means of sustenance, thus, is seen
to rest on the justice of prudent monarchs and the integrity of conscientious
dependent.”[35]
Abul Fazl also emphasised that “subjects are a trust from God.” For him, the
kingship was the composite of “a paternal love towards his subjects,” “the
priceless jewel of justice” and fair play, and observance of sulh kul,
“absolute peace,” without discrimination.[36]
While listing the qualities of a monarch to govern successfully, he included
trust in God, prayer and devotion, a large heart, and first and most important,
a paternal love for the people—the ideal ruler governs as a father.[37]According
to Muhammad Baqir, who wrote an important political treatise for the guidance
of Emperor Jahangir, “the position of an empire is that of beauty and elegance.
The more lovers of a charming beloved there are, the more increased splendour
there is in her presence.”[38]
Emperor Aurangzeb in his will to his heir recorded that “It is proper for the
ruler of the kingdom (i.e., my heir) to treat kindly the helpless servants . .
. Even if any manifest fault is committed by them, give them in return for it
gracious forgiveness and benign overlooking [of the fault].”[39]
Even Tavernier and John Francis Careri had to reluctantly concede that Shah
Jehan “reign[ed] less an Emperor over his subjects than as a father of a family
over his house and children.”[40]
Mughal Emperors, though
posed as absolute monarch and “kept almost all the threads of the
administration in their own hands,”[41]
yet there were clear cut constraints under which they worked. The code of
Islamic laws, known as shariah, though disregarded at times by the
Emperor, was the supreme law of the land and it worked as a great check on his
arbitrary powers.[42] M.
Athar Ali, while referring to qazis’ independent powers to decide cases
according to sharia and thus to frame and interpret laws, maintained
that “however absolute, the state lacked the power to legislate. The Tudor
monarchy, with its control over Parliament and its legislation, was thus surely
far more absolute or despotic than any Great Mughal.”[43]
M.N. Pearson has conceded that “in no Muslim state was a ruler required or
encouraged by the shariah . . . to
interfere extensively or intensively in the lives of his subjects.”[44]
Notwithstanding the fact that the Emperor at times found ways and means to
disregard the Islamic law, there were also some practical difficulties in
enforcing his arbitrary decrees. Ashin Das Gupta has aptly pointed out that
“the tragedy of the oriental despot was that he could be despotic if he chose,
but he was never a very effective ruler. . . Indian society functioned at
different levels and it was impossible to control matters from a still centre.”[45]
M. N. Pearson in his study of Gujarat has maintained that there were serious
challenges to the authority of a medieval monarch. One was the “difficult,
laborious, and dangerous nature of travel in India”. It was considered a great
achievement of Emperor Akbar when he took only eleven days to cover 600 miles
to reach Ahmedabad from Fatehpur Sikri. Thus, “poor roads, periodic local
disorder, reliance on animals for transportation, and the difficult terrain of
much of Gujarat simply made close control from the center over much of the
state a physical impossibility.”[46]
The Mughals also did not interfere in the village organization which, from the
ancient days, functioned as autonomous unit without any disturbance from the
centralized agencies. And such villages comprised of over seventy per cent of
the population.[47]
Even records of the European companies contradict the assertions of foreign
travellers. The correspondence between the company officials is filled with
complaints of local Mughal officers who often felt no qualms in ignoring the
express orders of the Emperor.[48]
It cannot be denied that
some times Jahangir and other Mughal Emperors indulged in cruel practices.
However, it would not be fair to draw generalizations from a few selective
incidents,[49]
which were everywhere the bane of personal rule. And it would also not be fair
to single out Emperor Jahangir in this regard. Even Emperor Akbar who was
generally considered to be an enlightened monarch by the Europeans themselves
was not immune from such outburst of passion.[50]
If one could ignore a few incidents of such nature, there was no doubt that
“the Mughul Empire built up a prestige for itself which was the outcome of its
respect for the needs and welfare of the people; if it had not followed an
enlightened policy of keeping the people contented and happy, it would have
succumbed earlier to its inner tensions.”[51]
That was the reason that some scholars considered the Mughal Emperor’s overall
relation with its subjects as paternalistic.[52]
Even Tavernier and John Francis Careri had to reluctantly concede that Shah
Jehan “reign[ed] less an Emperor over his subjects than as a father of a family
over his house and children.”[53]
Thus European travellers’ assertion that Mughal Emperors only looked up to
their own pleasures with no interest in public welfare was generally wide of
the mark. Their own description of caravanserais spread throughout
Mughal India, particularly in the North, negated their claims.[54]
In a recent study of Emperor Jahangir, who was generally considered most fond
of pageantry and pleasure amongst Mughal Emperors, Lisa Balabanlilar pointed
out that he was the most mobile Emperor of his family who “maintained a
remarkably itinerant royal court which traversed the empire for over half of
his reign.”[55] Even a
cursory glance at the daily routine of the Emperor, which every Mughal Emperor
from Akbar to Aurangzeb tenaciously maintained, reveals that this charge cannot
fairly be leveled against them.[56] The Indigenous sources
also provide ample evidence that sometimes the Emperor looked to even the minor
cares of his subjects. When Shah Jahan, with his court, travelled from Agra to
Lahore, the chronicler reported that
His Majesty’s sense of justice and consideration for his subjects induced him to order that the Bakhshi of the ahadis with his archers should take charge of one side of the road, and the Mir-atish with his matchlock-men should guard the other, so that the growing crops should not be trampled under foot by the followers of the royal train. As, however, damage might be caused, daroghas, mushrifs and amins were appointed to examine and report on the extent of the mischief, so that raiyats and jagirdars under 1000, might be compensated for the individual loss they had sustained.[57]
Though sometimes, the
monarchs asserted the right of divine kingship and claimed sacerdotal and
spiritual powers to them,[58]
it was also a fact that in practice, the Emperor was dependent on the powerful
classes for maintaining his rule. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi has rightly pointed
out that “the Mughul emperors were dependent for the success of their policies
upon the cooperation of the politically active classes. In turn, these classes
could not be isolated from the opinions and feelings of the people in general,
in so far as they were articulate.”[59]
In fact, the Mughal administrative system was based on a “complex matrix of
ties of loyalty and interest between the amirs and the emperor.”[60]
In this way, the scope for monarch’s absolute or arbitrary powers was fairly
limited.
The
European travellers imported this notion of foreignness of Mughal emperors from
the West, though it was totally alien to the ambience of seventeenth century
Mughal India where “conquest constituted its own legitimation.” And this was
not restricted to India alone as it was “characteristic of much of the ancient
and medieval world, until the arrival of nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries
colonialism.”[61]
Another important fact was that the Mughals who came from Central Asia, in
course of time, became assimilated in the Indian milieu. When Babur first
conquered India, he bitterly complained of the Indian climate, lack of
beautiful gardens and fruits,[62] but four generations later
when Shahjahan sent Prince Murad, alongwith high officials of the court, to
conquer Balkh, the Indian army returned after some times. In the words of Abdul
Hamid Lahori, “Many of amirs and mansabdars who were with the prince
concurred in this unreasonable desire [to return]. Natural love of home, a
preference for the ways and customs of Hindustan, a dislike of the people and
the manners of Balkh, and the rigours of the climate, all conduced to this
desire.”[63]
Inayat Khan, another court historian, related that when the Emperor demanded to
know the reason of his son’s return, the Prince replied that he could not
bear the cold; he and his nobles “were dreading the hardship of passing a
winter in that clime.”[64]
The European travellers
misconceived the concept of private property in India. As they were “accustomed
to a feudal structure of society, they could not but think in terms of that
organisation. Since all land in their own countries was held by the king, they
regarded the Mughal Emperor as the proprietor of every acre of land.”[65]
This contention is not borne out by the evidence preserved in the primary
sources. Abul Fazl, while describing the events surrounding Humayun’s siege of
Kabul, contrasted the behaviour of Humayun and Kamran and emphasised on the
unlawful seizure of property by the latter.[66]
In Ain, he related that “in all cultivated areas, the possessors of
property are numerous, and they hold their lands by ancestral descent.” He then
went on to justify the levying of tax on this land by stating that “just
monarchs exact not more than is necessary to effect their purpose and stain not
their hands with avarice.”[67]
When Jahangir came to the throne, he promulgated twelve decrees and one of
which clearly stated that “When any one dies in the realm, be he infidel or
Muslim, his property was to be turned over to the heirs, and no one was to
interfere therein. If there was no heir, an overseer and bailiff would be
appointed separately to record and dispose of the property so that the value
might be spent on licit expenditures. . .” [68]
In the similar vein, when Shah Jahan came to know that the land near Agra where
he planned to build the Taj Mahal belonged to Raja Jai Singh, the Rajput ally
of the Mughals, he did not even agree to accept it as a present from the Raja.
The court historian, Inayat Khan, related: “His majesty, with that
scrupulousness so requisite in worldly transactions, conferred on him in
exchange a splendid mansion out of imperial properties.”[69]
Most of the later
historians have dismissed this claim of European travellers that the Emperor
owned the entire landed property of India as having no validity. I. H. Qureshi
referred to Islamic law and the customary practices of the times to disprove
the European travellers’ thesis. He believed that land revenue was merely a tax
and not a rent; and land could be bought, sold, mortgaged or inherited, like
any other movable property.[70]
However, some other historians believed that the concept of property in India
was different and far more complex than that of Europe. Irfan Habib pointed out
that “there was no exclusive right of property vesting in anyone; instead the
system contained a network of transferable rights and obligations, with
different claimants (the king or his assignee; the zamindar; and,
finally the peasant) to differently defined shares in the produce from the same
land.”[71]
However, whether the nature of property was fixed or fluid, it would be totally
erroneous to claim that the Emperor was the exclusive proprietor of all land in
India.
Conclusion
One may point out that
this notion of ‘Oriental Despot’ being the master of his subjects’ life and
property, so zealously and perhaps purposefully popularised by European
travellers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was in fact “an outcome of their attitudes towards their
own countries rather than the real practices of the Orient.” It rather
fulfilled their psychological need because “they needed the East as a negative
model.” However, this stereotype of
‘Oriental despotism’ “influenced European thought so profoundly that some
scholars regard it as the very core of the Oriental state.”[72] Thomas Metcalf shared this
view when he referred to the utility of this concept for the Europeans:
The model of ‘despotism’ thus helped Europeans define themselves in European terms by making clear what they were not, or rather were not meant to be. . . . Part of the cost of European liberty was to be a distorted imagining of the nature of non-European societies.[73]
The fact of the matter was
that neither the political theory nor the practical realities nor the political
considerations of the time empowered the oriental monarch to become the
absolute master of his subjects’ life.
Thus, it may be pointed that though conceding that European travellers often provided important information on political matters thereby filling significant gaps left in indigenous sources, this paper argues that the problems arise when they attempt to frame this information, which is not always correct, into some kind of judgements. This leads to generalized inappropriate and inapt conclusions about the nature of Mughal government. In these judgmental remarks, their portrayals have largely been influenced by their own peculiar view of kingship as it evolved in the contemporary Europe. This research article contends that these travellers generally failed to comprehend the idea of Mughal kingship and the Emperor’s relationship with his subjects.
* An earlier draft of this article was presented in 22nd International Pakistan History Conference
at Bahauddin Zikriya University, Multan on 17-18 March 2010. The author is
indebted to the conference participants for their critical remarks on the paper.
[1] For the use of the term, despotism, by the ancients
and its subsequent translation and modification by the early modern writers and
political thinkers, see, R.
Koebner, “Despot and Despotism: Vicissitudes of a Political Term,” Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 14 (1951): 275-302.
[2] Thomas Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, III. 4: The New Cambridge
History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (Paperback ed.)
2001), 6.
[3] David Young. “Montesquieu’s View of
Despotism and His Use of Travel Literature,” The Review of Politics, 40 (July 1978): 392-405.
[4] See for details, Inge E. Boer, “Despotism
from under the Veil: Masculine and Feminine Readings of the Despot and the
Harem,” Cultural Critique, 32 (Winter, 1995-1996): 45-48.
[5] The term, Mughal Emperor, here signifies,
not a particular individual, but an institutional head, and therefore, the
singular, instead of the plural, appellation has been used.
[6] De Laet, The Empire of the Great Mogoll, a
translation of De Laet’s Description of India and Fragment of Indian History by
J. S. Hoyland and S.N. Banerjee (1927; reprint, Delhi, 1975), 92-94.
[7] Edward Terry, A Voyage to East-India, Wherein Some Things are Taken Notice of, In our
Passage Thither, But Many More in Our Abode There, Within that Rich and Most
Spacious Empire of the Great Mogul, Mixt with Some Parallel Observations and
Inferences upon the Story, to Profit as well as Delight the Reader (London:
J. Wilkie, 1777[1655]), 370.
[8] Account of William Hawkins, in William
Foster, (ed.), Early Travels in India
1583-1619 (New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, First Indian
Edition, 1985), 114
[9] J. Ovington, A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689,
ed. H. G. Rawlinson (London: Oxford University Press & Humphrey Milford,
1929; reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1994), 197.
[10] Francois Bernier, Travels in the Mogul
Empire, A.D.1656-1668, ed. and tr. Archibald Constable (London: Archibald
Constable and Company,1791; reprint, Karachi: Indus Publications, n.d.), 231
[11] Thomas
Roe, The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe
to India, 1615-19 as Narrated in his Journal and Correspondence, ed.
William Foster (Jalandhar: Asian Publishers, 1993 [1926]), 89.
[12] Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, trans. from the French
by V. Ball and ed. by William Crooke, Second ed. 2 vols. (London: Oxford
University Press & Humphrey Milford, 1925; reprint, New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services, 2001), I: 260.
[13] Bernier, Travels, 144-46. Chardin’s portrayal
of Persian Emperor matches this depiction even in minutest details, “There is surely no sovereign on earth as
absolute as the King of Persia; for whatever he utters is carried out
precisely, with no regard either for funds, or for the circumstances of the
case, even though it be plain as day that there is usually no justice in his
orders, and sometimes (as when the Shah is drunk) no common sense.” Chardin, Voyages, I:
219-20 cited in James D. Tracy,
“Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen from the Dutch East India Company
Factory in Surat,” Journal of Early
Modern History, 3 No. 3 (August 1999): 258 n.
[14] Francisco Pelsaert, Jahangir’s
India: The Remonstrantie of Francisco Pelsaert, tr. W.H. Moreland
and P.Geyl (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1925), 64
[15] William Foster, ed., English Factories in India, 1618-1669, 13
Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906-27), 17.
[16] W. Caland, ed. De Remonstrantie van W.
Geleynssen de Jongh, Linschoten Vereeniging, vol. 31 (The Hague, 1929), 18,
written ca. 1624, cited in James D. Tracy, “Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen from the Dutch East
India Company Factory in Surat,” Journal
of Early Modern History, 3 No. 3 (August 1999): 267. Peter Mundy related an
incident about Asaf Khan, who was the father-in-law of Emperor Shahjahan and
the most powerful amir at the Mughal court. He described that on a minor
offence, “put to open disgrace, beinge made to ride through the Cittie in
weomens attyre.” Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and
Asia, 1608-1667, ed. Richard Carnac Temple, 3 Vols. (Cambridge: The Hakluyt
Society, 1907-1914),
II: 203-04. It may be mentioned that this incident finds no mention in
indigenous sources.
[17] Bernier, Travels, 204.
[18] Terry, Voyage
to East-India, 326.
[19] De Laet, Empire of the Great Mogoll, 94.
[20] Xavier’s Letter dated 14th
September 1609, H. Hosten (ed. & trans.), “Eulogy of Fr. J. Xavier, S.J. a
Missionary in Mogor” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,
XXIII (1927): 120-21
[21] Account of William Hawkins, in Foster, Early Travels, 104-05.
[22] Pelsaert, Jahangir’s India, 54-55.
[23] Bernier, Travels, 163-64. Bernier
has quoted a letter of Emperor Aurangzeb to his father Shah Jahan, who was
prisoner at that time, in which Aurangzeb spoke against this principle,
referring to its obvious ‘injustice and cruelty’. He cited the episode of
Naiknam Khan to prove his point. See for the letter, Travels, 167.
[24] Account of William Hawkins, in Foster, Early Travels, 108; see 109-111 for
other such incidents. Also see, Letters of Thomas Coryat, in Hakluytus
Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes, Contayning a History of the World in Sea
Voyages and Lande Travells by Englishmen and Others, 20 Vols. (Glasgow: James MacLehose and
Sons, 1905), IV:
475 [Hereafter cited as Purchas, His Pilgrims]; Mundy, Travels, 127.
[25] Account of William Finch, in William
Foster, (ed.), Early Travels in India
1583-1619 (New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, First Indian
Edition, 1985), 154.
[26] Bernier, Travels, 209.
[27] Tavernier, Travels in India, I:
258.
[28] Thevenot and Careri, Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri: Being the Third Part of the
Travels of M. De Thevenot into the Levant and the Third Part of a Voyage Round
the World by Dr. John Francis Gemeli Careri, ed. Surendranath Sen (New
Delhi: National Archives of India, 1949), 217.
[29] “Observation of Thomas Coryat,” in Purchas,
His Pilgrims, IV: 5.
[30] Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj,
7. There is sufficient
evidence to prove that Bernier’s ideas inspired Karl Marx to put forward the
concept of an “Asiatic mode of production.” Tracy, “Asian Despotism,”259. Also see, Iqtidar Alam Khan, “Marx's Assessment of
the Islamic Tradition,” Social Scientist, 11 (May 1983): 8-9.
[31] Alexander Dow, The History of Hindostan,
Translated from the Persian, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, mdccxcii), I:
iii; III: 421-22.
[32] Cited in Ainslie Thomas Embree, Charles
Grant and British Rule in India (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1962),
73
[33] James Mill, The History of British India, 10 vols.
(London: Routledge/Thoemess, 1997, reprint of 1858 ed.), II: 325.
[34] For a general discussion of classical
Perso-Islamic political theory and its adoption by medieval Muslims Empires,
see, A.K.S. Lambton, “Quis custodiet custodies: Some Reflections on the Persian
Theory of Government,” Studia Islamica, 5 & 6 (1956): 125-146 &
125-148. For
Persian influence on the politics and culture of Mughal India, see, Said Amir
Arjomand, “ The Salience Of Political Ethic in the Spread of Persianate Islam,”
Presidential Address To Third Biennial Convention on Iranian Studies, The
Association for the Study of Persianate
Societies, Tbilisi, Georgia 8-10 June 2007: 21-46. For a detailed study of Turco-Mongol legacy and its profound influence on
Mughal practices, see, Lisa Balabanlilar, “Lords of the Auspicious Conjunction:
Turco-Mongol Imperial Identity on the Subcontinent” Journal of World
History, 18, no. 1 (2007): 1-39; and Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Turko-Mongol
Theory of Kingship,” Medieval India: A Miscellany (Bombay: Asia
Publishing House, 1972), II: 8-18.
[35] Iqtidar Alam Khan has emphasised this
point and provided the translation of this passage in his “Medieval Indian
Notions of Secular Statecraft in Retrospect,” Social Scientist, 14
(Jan., 1986): 8. This translation is quite different from Jarrett's
translation. Cf. Ain-i Akbari, trans. H. Blochmann & H.S. Jarret, 3
vols. bound in 2 ( reprint, Delhi: Low Price Publications, 2006 [1927]),
II: 54-55, 58-59. Athar Ali aptly remarks that the words in which Abul Fazl
describes riwa- i rozi recalls to one's mind Hobbes theory of social
contract. Athar Ali, “Theories of Sovereignty in Islamic Thought in India”,
published in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1982, cited in
Ibid.
[36] Abul Fazl wrote in relation to Kamran’s
occupation of Kabul: “His Majesty Jahanbani’s [Humayun’s] heart was troubled, .
. . by sympathy for the citizens and subjects, who are a trust from the
Creator, and who should be tended not less carefully than the children.” Abul
Fazl, Akbar Nama, trans. H.
Beveridge, 3 vols bound in 1 (reprint, Delhi: Low Price Publications, 2002
[1902-1939] ), I: 499.
[37] Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, I: 3. Also
see, Stephen P. Blake,
“The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic
Empire of the Mughals,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 39 (Nov., 1979): 82.
[38] Muhammad Baqir Najm-i-Sani, Mau’izah-i
Jahangiri, tr. as Advice on the Art of Governance: Mau’izah-i
Jahangiri of Muhammad Baqir Najm-i Sani, An Indo-Islamic Mirror for Princes,
ed. & tr. Sajida Sultana Alvi (Albany: State University of New York, 1989),
Persian Text, 174, Translation, 69. Harbans Mukhia has translated it
thus: “the empire is like a beloved, beautiful and elegant, and has to be won
over and nurtured like a bride, with love.” The Mughals of India (Malden,
Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing, 2004 (First Indian Reprint, 2005)), 56.
[39] Hamid-ud-Din
Khan Bahadur, Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, tr. J.N. Sarkar as Anecdotes of
Aurangzeb, (
[40] Tavernier, Travels in India, I: 260; Careri, Indian Travels, 222.
[41] I. H. Qureshi, The Administration of the Mughul
Empire (Karachi: University of Karachi, 1966), 70.
[42] Ibn Hasan asserted that the Mughal judicial system had
been organized strictly on the lines envisaged by the traditional Muslim
political thinkers and was based on the Islamic code or shariah. He
further wrote that “there is no scope for entertaining the ridiculous assertion
of Terry that there was no written law, or supporting the irresponsible remark
of Bernier that the cane of the governor or the caprice of the monarch ruled
the millions. The law bound the qazi, the magistrate and the king alike. The
scope for a king’s caprice remained only in the method of punishment. Written
plaints were presented, written documents submitted, witnesses produced and
cross-examined.” The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire and its
Practical Working up to the Year 1657 (New Delhi: Radha Publications, 2001
[1936/]), Ch. X: The Judicial System, 341.
[43] Athar Ali, “Political Structures of the
Islamic Orient in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Medieval India
I: Researches in the History of India, 1200-1750, ed. Irfan Habib (Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 130.
[44] M. N. Pearson, Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat: The Response to the Portuguese in the
Sixteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 150-151.
At another place, the same author wrote that “None of the many normative lists
of the duties of a ruler, whether caliph or sultan, require him to interfere in
the everyday lives and occupations of his subjects.” M. N. Pearson, “Pre-modern
Muslim Political Systems,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102
(Jan. - Mar., 1982): 56.
[45] Ashin Das Gupta. The World of the
Indian Ocean Merchant 1500-1800: Collected Essays of Ashin Das Gupta. Comp.
Uma Das Gupta (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 283.
[46] Pearson. Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat, 150-151. For details on the mode
and method of travel, see Khursheed Mustafa, “Travel in Mughal India,” Medieval India Quarterly, III (January
& April, 1958): 270-284.
[47] Hasan, Central Structure of the Mughal
Empire, 309.
[48] Tracy, “Asian Despotism,”268-69. Hawkins, though
vehemently projected the Mughal Emperor as absolute master of his subjects,
himself recorded that he was deprived of his goods by the Governor of Surat and
despite the explicit orders of the Emperor, he was unable to get them back. Hawkins’ Account in Foster, Early Travels, 87-88.
[49] Prasad while evaluating the evidence
provided by Hawkins commented that “in his enumeration of the various cruel
deeds of that monarch [Jahangir] he does not evince any objectivity, nor is his
description of Jahangir’s character a reasonably fair-minded treatment.” Ram
Chandra Prasad, Early English Travellers
in India: A Study in the Travel Literature of the Elizabethan and Jacobean
Periods with Particular Reference to India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsi Dass,
1965), 120-21.
[50] Asad Beg, an indigenous writer, records that one
evening Emperor Akbar became
so enraged at delay in lightening of lamps at his court that he ordered the
lamplighter to be thrown from the tower. Wikaya-I Asad Beg, in Elliot and Dowson, VI:
164-65. It would be interesting to note that a historian of Aurangzeb’s reign
mentions it in particular that the Emperor never issues orders of death under the dictates of
anger and passion. Muhammad
Bakhtawar Khan, Mirat al-Alam: Tarikh-i-Aurangzeb, ed. Sajida S. Alvi
(Lahore: Research Society of Pakistan, 1979), I: 386.
[51] Qureshi, Administration of the Mughul Empire,
251.
[52] Stephen P. Blake in one of his important
articles, has termed the Mughal Empire as ‘Patrimonial Bureaucratic Empire.”
See, idem, “The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire of the Mughals,” The Journal
of Asian Studies, 39 (Nov., 1979): 77-94. According to the author, Emperor
Akbar “gave the patrimonial-bureaucratic empire in India its most systematic,
fully developed, and clearly articulated form” (82).
[53] Tavernier, Travels
in India, I: 260; Careri, Indian Travels,
222.
[54] In 1615, two Englishmen, Steel and Crowther, while making their way
from Agra to Lahore wrote that “Every
six coss, there are serais built by the king or some great man, which add
greatly to the beauty of the road, are very convenient for the accommodation of
travellers, and serve to perpetuate the memory of their founders.” Steel and
Crowther, ‘Journey,’ 208, cited in Stephen F. Dale, Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600-1750 (Cambridge Studies
in Islamic Civilization; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 35-36.
For description of caravanserais, see, Pietro Della Valle, The
Travels of Pietro Della Valle in India, trans. from Italian by G. Havers,
ed. Edward Grey, 2 Vols. (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1892; Reprint, New
Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1991), I: 95, 101; Tavernier, Travels in
India, I: 72, 123; Terry’s Account in Early Travellers, 311.
[55] Lisa Balabanlilar, “The Emperor Jahangir and the
Pursuit of Pleasure,” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 19 (2009): 173.
For the Mughal mobility and its uses, see, Jos Gommans, Mughal Warfare:
Indian Frontiers and High Roads to Empire,1500-1700 (London: Routledge,
2002), 99-111.
[56] For the daily routine of the Emperor, see, Intikhab-I Jahangir-Shahi, in Elliot and Dowson, VI:
449-50. Also see, Abul Fazl, Ain, 162-65.
[57] Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshah- Namah, ed. Mawlawi
Kabir al-Din Ahmad and Abd al-Rahim 2 Vols. (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of
Bengal, (Bibliotheca Indica Series) 1867-68), I: Part II, 4-5. Also see, for a
similar occurrence, Inayat Khan, Shah Jahan-Nama, in Elliot and Dowson,
VII: 96.
[58] Abul Fazl wrote that “royalty is a light
emanating from God and a ray from the sun.” Ain, I: iii. And “Kingship is a gift of God, and is not
bestowed till many thousand good qualities have been gathered together in an
individual.” Akbar Nama, II: 285. In connection with Prince Khusrau’s
revolt and his partisans, Jahangir wrote that “They were unaware of the fact
that the rule of empire is not something that can be carried out by a couple of
weak-minded individuals. Whom does the All-Giving Creator consider worthy of
this magnificent office? And upon whose capable shoulders has He draped this
robe of office?” Nur-ud-Din Jahangir, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir,
Emperor of India, tr., ed. & ann. Wheeler M. Thackston (Washington, D.
C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1999), 48.
[59] Qureshi, Administration of the Mughul Empire,
36. A recent study also concluded that “the local socio-political institutions
were integrated with imperial sovereignty, working as necessary adjuncts to the
system of rule. Consequently, the powers of the Mughal state were limited in
spatial and functional terms by ‘the internal resistance of its own circuits.’
” Farhat Hasan, State and Locality in Mughal India: Power Relations in
Western India, c. 1572-1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004),
126.
[60] J. F. Richards, “The Formation of Imperial
Authority under Akbar and Jahangir,” in Kingship and Authority in South Asia,
ed. J. F. Richards (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), 288. This concept
that the Emperor should develop intimate relationship with his imperial retinue
in order to tie them to the throne could be traced back to Babur’s advice to
his descendants. See, Stephen Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the
Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483–1530) (Leiden:
Brill, 2004), 182.
[61] Harbans Mukhia contrasted it with later
day colonialism and wrote: “Modern
colonialism has altered the very meaning of conquest, with governance of land
and its people, now on behalf of, and primarily for the economic benefit of a
community of people inhabiting a far-off land. It stands in contrast with
conquest in the medieval world when the victor either returned home taking such
plunder with him as he could gather after a battle or two, or settled down in
the vanquished land, submerging his and his group’ identity in it to become
inseparable from it. There are very few inhabited patches of land on our earth
devoid of such merger between the ‘conqueror’ and the ‘conquered’ through
history.” The Mughals of India (Malden, Oxford, Victoria:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004 (First Indian Reprint, 2005)), 2.
[62] For the description and comments on India,
see Zaheer-ud-Din Muhammad Babur, Babur-Nama:
Memoirs of Babur, tran. A.S.
Beveridge, 2 vols. bound in 1 (1921; reprint, Delhi: Low Price Publications,
2003), 480-519.
[63] Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshah- Nama, II: 490.
Such notable umara as Ali Mardan Khan, Shaikh Farid, Zulfiqar Khan and
many others had accompanied the prince. See for details, Ibid., 482-90.
[64] Inayat Khan, Shah Jahan Nama, 356.
[65] Y. Krishan, “European Travellers in Mughal
India: An Appreciation,” Islamic Culture,
XXI No. 3 (July 1947): 218.
[66] Abul Fazl, Akbarnama, I: 502.
According to Stephen F. Dale, Abul Fazl’s description laid down the “normative
conduct for Islamic rulers regarding private property.” Indian
Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600-1750 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic
Civilization) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 34.
[67] Abul Fazl,
Ain-i-Akbari, II: 55-56.
[68] Jahangir, Nur-ud-Din, The Jahangirnama:
Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India, tr., ed. & ann. Wheeler M.
Thackston (Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1999), 26.
[69] W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, eds., The Shah Jahan Nama of ‘Inayat Khan
(Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990), 73-74. Also see, R. Nath, “Mughul
Farmans on the Land of the Taj Mahal,” Journal of the Pakistan Historical
Society, 37 (April, 1989), 99-114.
[70] For a detailed discussion, see Qureshi, Administration
of the Mughul Empire, Appendix B: The Ownership of Agricultural Holdings,
281-294.
[71] Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of
Mughal India, 1556-1707 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2nd revised
ed. 1999[1963] (Oxford India Paperbacks, Sixth impression, 2006)), 134-35. For
a detailed discussion on the issue, see Chap. IV, Part I: Agrarian Property;
the Peasant and the Land, 123-134.
[72] Eugenia Vanina, Ideas and Society in India from the
Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1996), 20.
[73] Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, 7.
Post a Comment