SHIKHA SHARMA
Q: Critically analyze the Akbarnama and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh as sources for the study of Akbar’s rule.
Introduction
The ‘Age of Akbar’ was an age of political stability, cultural efflorescence and intellectual ferment. These trends found expression in the historical literature of the period. No period in Indian history can match with the reign of Akbar so far as the production of historical literature is concerned. Each historian of the period needs to be understood and interpreted in the background of his own milieu and in the light of his own motivations, predilections and ideals.
“Among
the branches of knowledge, history is a noble science and an instructive art.
The ‘Age of Akbar’ was not only prolific in historical literature; it also
registered a definite advance in medieval historiographical traditions. It
studied the historical landscape from different angles and reflected diverse
points of view- imperial, sectarian and feminine. It also represented the
Persian language in its various forms of prose and verse.
The
historical literature of this time also sought to weave medieval Indian history
in the broad pattern of Indian history and tried to look upon Indian culture in
totality. It tried to analyse Muslim contribution to cultural life as part and
parcel of this historical legacy. Histories written during Akbar’s reign also made
new experiments in chronology by adopting the death of the Prophet (rihlat) as
the new beginning in the Islamic calendar, in preference to the
well-established hijri era.
It
sought to extend the historical perspective by taking into account the role and
contribution of mystics, poets and others. It was under this tradition of
history writing that for the first time in Asian history statistical data
became a part of Historical study. Finally, due to the influx of scholars from
Iran and Central Asia an opportunity was created for the intermingling of
different historical traditions
The
focus of this paper would be to analyze two works of one of the most important
historians of Akbar’s time- Mulla Abdul Qadir Badauni. The works being taken up
for analysis are his most famous work- the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh and his
lesser-known work- the Najat-ur- Rashid. It is important to discern the
importance of these rich historical treatises written by Badauni.
In
any discussion on the ideological orientation of Badauni, it becomes extremely
important to discuss his educational background .He received his education at
the hands of people like Mirza hakim of Sambhal who were men of goodwill and
free from any fanatic influences. He also studied under Sheikh Mubarak of Nagaur,
the father of Faizi and Abul Fazl and a supporter of the Mahdavis. Thus, there
was nothing inherent in his education which made him adopt a conservative
approach. They able to meet the ulema on their own ground and emerge
victorious. In fact, he found favour with Akbar because of his literary ability
and his success in arguments against the ulema of the court. It was indeed
recognition of his accomplishments and versatility that the Emperor associated
him with the project of translation of Indian classics into Persian and he
played the most significant role in the activities of the Maktab Khana
(translation bureau set up by Akbar).
His
hostility to every prevalent opinion may have enhanced his value for Akbar. An
important ideological conflict in Badauni’s thinking is apparent from the fact
that he helped Akbar undermine the orthodox Sunni opinion in the court- the
opinion to which his own thinking could broadly be assigned. The orthodox
ideology of Badauni dictated that he should ridicule all those people who stood
in the way of Islam. He, therefore, portrayed himself as a ‘Champion of the
Faith.’
He criticized Akbar on the grounds that he had contracted certain rigid notions in his mind and was not willing to listen to anything except what was derogatory to Islam. It is unfortunate that to Badauni’s mind ordinary human courtesy and loyalty to the Faith were mutually exclusive phenomena in which he naively preferred one to the other. Some scholars are also of the opinion that his criticism for Akbar stem from his personal jealousy towards his rival Abul Fazl. In fact, many argue that Badauni criticized Akbar’s policy just for the sake of criticism and to pose a challenge to Abul Fazl and the praises the latter bestowed on the Emperor. This might be true considering the fact that Badauni criticized all those policies of the Emperor which Abul Fazl so proudly extolled.
MUNTAKHAB-UT-TAWARIKH
The
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh literally means ‘history written with a vengeance.’ It is
the only work which was written during the time of Akbar but not for Akbar In
the book, Badauni has criticized Akbar on ideological grounds, but he was his
ardent supporter in political matters. So long as religion and politics move
separately, Badauni had all respect and admiration for Akbar, but the moment
the Emperor crossed the Rubicon and started interfering in religious matters,
Badauni took up his cudgels against him.
He
represented the voice of orthodoxy against Akbar’s religious experiments and
innovations. But in spite of his exclusive and fanatical thinking, the
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh had a charm of its own. The second volume of the text is
the most important of the three volumes. It discusses the events of the first
forty years of Akbar’s reign, set in the form of an annual chronicle. The
events have been generally narrated under the head of the year of their
occurrence. Within the framework of the annual chronicle, the order of
precedence of events has been maintained.
An
interesting feature of the book is the intertwining of biographical notes with
the narrative of events. In fact, in a number of cases, Badauni interrupts the
narration of events to give personal notes on the men involved in it. Thus,
while mentioning the capture of Nagarkot, he gives a short account of Birbal’s life
that was given charge of the fort. Moreover, his account of Abul Fazl’s life,
when he joined the imperial court, is a classic in literary abuse.
The
events described in the text had necessarily to be selective. Therefore, he
recorded only “events of general importance” and omitted the “minor ones.”
According to Harbans Mukhia, unlike the Akbarnama and the Tabaqat-i-Akbari, the
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh does not proceed as a straight, continuous narration.
History, for Badauni, had many bylanes and fortunately he strayed into them
quite frequently. The formal tenor of the text being that of political history,
information on accessions, rebellions of nobles, wars, conquests, battle
arrays, etc are abounding. Badauni also gives considerable information on the administrative
organization of Akbar’s empire.
Badauni’s
Muntakhab is the chief contemporary source of information on the discussions in
Akbar’s Ibadat Khana. He was himself a participant in the discussions and
therefore he narrates a firsthand account. From Badauni we know that ordeal by
fire was put forward as a means of establishing the truth or otherwise of a
religion. It is in the Muntakhab, that the universality of the Wahdat-ul-Wujud
is questioned. He clearly mentions that the Sufi doctrine was not accepted
universally. It is of importance to note that Badauni was not an ardent
supporter of the Sufi tradition himself, mainly because this tradition
celebrated inclusiveness, and Badauni’s orthodoxy was extremely exclusive in
nature.It is Badauni alone who discussed the circumstances that led to the
phenomena of the Mahzarnama. Abul Fazl furnishes only a cursory account and
gives only a summary of the document, while Nizam-ud-din Ahmed’s narration of
the proceedings is inadequate and very often incorrect. It is significant to
note that Badauni’s orthodoxy is not directed only against the religious
reforms of Akbar, but is all pervading. He opposed not only the social reforms
promulgated by the Emperor, but also criticized his most important
administrative measures, for example, the branding of the horses and the
Mansabdari system.
There
were nine measures of Akbar, which are fully elaborated in Badauni’s
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. For example, the policy of sulh-e-kul is discussed by
Abul Fazl, whereas the Mahzarnama is completely ignored. The Mahzar, however,
finds special mention in the Muntakhab-ut- Tawarikh. Similarly, the
re-imposition of the jaziya is completely ignored by Abul Fazl, but discussed
by Badauni. What has, however, decimated the value of his work is a feeling of
jealousy and vendetta that runs throughout against those who had gone higher in
the estimation of the Emperor, and these included his own colleagues or school
fellows.
Notwithstanding his fanatical views, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh,
according to Nizami, is invaluable for a study of the religious and
intellectual history of medieval India. The Najat-ur-Rashid is an important
text for reconstructing the ideas of Badauni. The author’s reputation as a
scholar and historian rested on his Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. Its portraiture of
Akbar and his policies, particularly his religious views, has provoked hostile
comments and criticism.
However,
for an objective assessment of Badauni’s personality, basic patterns of his thought
and his contributions, it is necessary that his views be not confirmed to the
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh alone. Moreover, it will also help in understanding many
of the postulates of Badauni given in the Muntakhab, for it not only
supplements the information therein but also provides a theoretical background
for understanding Badauni’s stand on Akbar’s religious policies. Two reasons
can be ascribed to this book not getting enough attention by historians:
firstly, the Najat-ur-Rashid like the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh might have been
kept a secret and secondly, it might have had a selective and restricted
circulation. Scarcity of manuscripts is a clear indicator of this possibility.
Modern scholars too have not given adequate attention to this important work. Peter
Hardy describes it as a “work on Sufism, ethics and the Mahdavi movement of
Badauni’s days.
S.A.A.
Rizvi has defined it as a “theological mystical work.” However, in another
reference to the book, Rizvi elaborates that “the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh is meant
to destroy the faith of the Sunnis in Akbar; the Najat- ur-Rashid seeks to
reiterate the principles on which orthodox Sunnism can be revived, thus both
the works complement and supplement each other.”
Ishtiaq Ahmad Zilli, however, has rebuffed
this view postulated by Rizvi in his analytical work on Badauni’s text.
Blochmann has described it as a “polemical work”. The Najat-ur-Rashid was
compiled in 1591, whereas the last date mentioned in the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh
in 1595. The former contains a reference to the latter, which might suggest
that the latter was complete by the time the former was being compiled or at
least it was being compiled simultaneously.
Badauni
states in the very beginning that the purpose of writing the Najat-ur-Rashid
was to elaborates upon the ‘vices of the soul’ and sins, both mortal and venal.
The text helps us in understanding the acceptable and non-acceptable forms of
behaviour. It is clear, therefore, that the book neither deals with Sufism nor
ethics. From a brief survey of the contents of the text, it is clear that the
book is basically a theological treatise which deals with sins, crimes,
offences, and misdemeanors that Islam forbids.
The
various issues covered in the book have been discussed in the light of the
Quran, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. For the purpose of elaboration,
stories and anecdotes from history and Sufi literature are employed. However,
occasional references to Sufism do not mean that the text is a Sufi doctrine.
The
most detailed discussion in the Najat-ur-Rashidis on heresy. Different kinds of
heresies that appeared at various points in the history of Islam have been
discussed. Unlike in his Muntakhab, Badauni in the Najat-ur- Rashid holds
disrespect against the king as an unacceptable and vicious crime. The Najat-ur-
Rashid is a strong censure of Akbar’s policies though he has not been mentioned
anywhere by name. However, the few indirect references to him are invariably
respectful. He is referred to as Khalifa-i-zaman and Sahib-i-zaman. Moreover,
Badauni has included topics like ‘rebellion against the king’ and ‘cursing the
king’ in the category of heinous sins. Thus, a reading of the Najat-ur-Rashid
helps Badauni as an impartial historian.
There is a possibility that a shift in Badauni’s views on the state developed over a period of time, and that most of his orthodox ideas came into being after the composition of the Najat-ur-Rashid. It is evident from this text that Badauni was not such an orthodox theologian as he is made out to be, and as is evident from the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. A gradual shift in his attitude might have been a result of his personal ambitions; it might have also been a result of the changing times in the imperial court.
AKBARNAMA
Abul
fazl’s work “AKBARNAMA” and “AIN-I-AKBARI” are both part of a large body of
literature. Abul fazl was commissioned to write Akbarnama in 1590 and
continuing to work on it till his death in 1602. To enhance the effect and
impact of the work, several hundred miniature paintings illustrated in it. The
Akbarnama apart from the Ain contains extensive information on a variety of
subjects within the limitation of narrative of political events.
The
Akbarnama also pioneered the use of Rajput chronicles and oral traditions
collected from resident Hindus. The work (Akbarnama) was submitted during its
progress to Akbar, who corrected and supplemented it from his personal
recollections. In fact, the Akbarnama was revised 5 times before it was finally
approved and presented to Akbar on 21 March, 1595. In the closing years of the
sixteenth century in India, there was an unexpected burst of portraits of
medieval Indian men drawn from life that appeared in illustrated manuscripts,
patronized by the third Mughal emperor Akbar (1556–1605).
Akbar
had established a record office which kept a record of all events. All the
information from this office was available to Abul Fazl. Information from such
records provides the Akbarnama with the kind of detail, especially in the
matters concerning the revenue system that is lacking in works by other
indo-Persian historians who did not enjoy the same degree of archival access.
Abul Fazl says that he himself interviewed old servants and elderly members of
the royal family. Abul fazl calls him paziranda-i-farr-i-izadi, a recipient of
divine light, possessor of illumined wisdom, and the reflector of light.
Fazl
in his Akbarnama projects Akbar as the emperor who maintained harmony among the
four classes of mankind:
1. Ahl-i-qalam
(“men of pen” or the learned)
2. Ahl-i-saif
(“men of sword” or warriors)
3. Men
of negotiation- merchants, traders, tax-collectors
4. Men of husbandry- farmers, agricultural labourers
Conclusion
The
picture of perfection painted by Abul Fazl for Akbar is an incomplete one and
Badauni’s work is extremely valuable as an alternate perspective in this
regard. Being free from official pressures, Badauni’s work serves to provide a
critical, albeit a slightly prejudices account of Akbar’s reign and his
policies.
Although
it might not be appropriate to term Badauni’s work as a corrective to Abul Fazl
since he suffers from many limitations too. Thus we see that neither Abul Fazl
nor Badauni can give us a whole picture of Akbar’s reign, since both were
motivated equally strong and contrasting emotions, which colored their
narratives. Yet the subjective element apart, both the historians supply the
same data and thus complement each other.
Abul
fazl had portrayed Akbar as Isaan-i-Kaamil (perfect man) and Farr-i-Izadi
(divine effulgence). He does not emphasize on Mahzanama because it ties Akbar
to Islam which goes against the image of Akbar as ‘Insaan-i-Kamil’. However,
Badauni gives its full text as well as an account of its preparation in the
second and third volumes of the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh.
We
know from the notings which Badauni had made in volume 3 that he completed the
book in 1596. But the work could come out only in 1616. For about twenty years
after its completion, the book was not released for its circulation. We may
assume that it was not in circulaton till 1614, at least on the basis of the
fact that in the list of different sources available, say that of Abdul Baqi
Nahawandi, name of Muntakhab-ut-Twarikh is missing- a significant negative
piece of evidence pointing towards the fact that till 1614- 1616 was not in
circulation. 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. An
internal examination of the book reveals that Badauni derived information from
two sources: the Tarikh I Mubarakshahi and the Tabaqat I Akbari.
The
second volume of the Muntakhab deals with the history of Akbar’s reign down to
the 40th reign year (1595). The third volume comprises a number of biographies
of the mashaik, ulema, physicians and poets: he gives biographic details of 38
important mashaikh, 49 leading ulema, 15 renowned physicians and 167 well known
poets of his own time. For this he borrowed much material from the Tazkirahs of
the poets that were compiled by Alauddaulaah Qazwini as part of his Nafais ul
Ma’asir. We find that at most places in volume 3 and in certain places in
volume 2 – Badauni refers to Akbar with great respect. He calls him Khalifat uz
zaman. But then on the other hand, in the major part of volume 2, from 1575
onwards, he seems to be so annoyed with Akbar that he does not refer to him
with name.
He charges Akbar of prohibiting namaz of the Muslims- a charge which on face appears to be unsubstantial. He also accusses Akbar of forcing ulema to shave their beards, of enslaving ulema and mashaik in large numbers and 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 disrespect attitude towards Akbar.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak, Akbarnama (Primary Source).
· A Critical Study on the History Writing During the Early Mughal Period.
· ʽAbd al-Qadir Badayuni, ”Muntakhab-i-Tawarikh”.
Post a Comment