Syncretic philosophy and eclecticism in the religious views of Dara Shikoh
Chandni Sengupta
Research
Scholar, Department of History, School of Social Sciences
Indira
Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi
IJMSS Vol.03 Issue-02, (February, 2015) ISSN: 2321-1784 International Journal in Management and Social Science (Impact Factor- 3.25)
͞Heƌe
is the seĐƌet of uŶitLJ ;tawhid), O friend, understand it;
Nowhere
exists anything but God.
All
that you see or know other than Him,
VeƌilLJ
is sepaƌate iŶ Ŷaŵe, ďut iŶ esseŶĐe oŶe ǁith God.͟
-Dara
Shikoh, Risala-i-Haqnuma
Islam in the subcontinent displayed two distinct trends- the inclusive, mystical trend and the exclusive, prophetic trend. Throughout history, there was a tussle between these two trends in which there was no clear victor. Different historical phases were marked by distinct epochal changes that varied swung from liberalism to catholicity and from rigidity to fluidity. These trends were in existence from the very ďegiŶŶiŶg aŶd ďeĐaŵe ŵoƌe eǀideŶt iŶ the ĐoŶfliĐt ďetǁeeŶ Akďaƌ͛s ideals of Sulh-e-kul and the reactionary ideals of the Naqshbandiyya order at the beginning of the 17th century.1 This conflict later aggravated and took the shape of a blood bath during the War of Succession between Aurangzeb and his brother Dara Shikoh. It was not a clash of personalities; it was a clash of ideas, and as scholars in the past have interpreted, it was a contest between religious bigotry and religious harmony, fanaticism and eclecticism.
When
the Mughals came to power in 1526 they took over many of the religious
organizations established under the
previous Turkish and Afghan dynasties, which had ruled northern India from the turn of the millennium onwards, when Mahmud of
Ghazni invaded the northwest of the subcontinent. DuƌiŶg Baďuƌ͛s shoƌt ƌeigŶ little tiŵe
ƌeŵaiŶed foƌ a ĐhaŶge iŶ the ƌeligious offiĐes aŶd his soŶ HuŵaLJuŶ largely followed the inherited practices.
During the Sur interregnum the role of the leading religious digŶitaƌies ƌeŵaiŶed the saŵe aŶd afteƌ
HuŵaLJuŶ͛s ƌetuƌŶ fƌoŵ IƌaŶ aŶd ďefoƌe his suddeŶ death iŶ 1556, there was little time left for the
Emperor to tackle the religious problems of his empire. Religious institutions, therefore, remained largely
untouched in the early years of Mughal rule. Significant changes occurred
during the reign of Emperor Akbar who established new religio-political
institutions that helped him in
strengthening his rule in India. In the post-Akbar period, status quo was maintained
as far as religious policies were
concerned and Jahangir and Shah Jahan largely maintained a neutral policy, though they were seen to be more orthodox
than Akbar. The ƌeigŶ oŶ Akďaƌ͛s suĐĐessoƌs is Ŷot ǀieǁed as an era of experimentation in terms of
socio-religious institutions but rather as a period of dispassionate policy making as far as
religion was concerned.
Muhammad Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal, exhibited signs of a mystic at a very early age. He dabbled in mystical discourses and believed in the essential oneness of all religions. Although he was condemned to be a heretic by the theologians of his time, Dara never considered himself to be an apostate of Islam. In his writings he quoted the Quran and Hadith as the final proofs aŶd tƌeated the ǁoƌd ͚Allah͛ to ďe the ďest Ŷaŵe aŵoŶg the Ŷaŵes of God.2 However, Dara like Akbar had realized that without understanding the mind and heart of India - including its people, their religion, customs, rituals, and traditions – one could not rule the country, which was so diverse in terms of cultural and religious orientations. He was of the opinion that no one could become a just Emperor without respecting the manners and ways of both the Hindus and the Muslims in the country. Therefore, he tried to understand the texts of all the major religions in depth and interpreted them in his own original way so that they could be useful to the existing society. He, in fact, tried to go deeper than the verbal (lafzi) layers of the text.
The
great dream of his life - a dream shattered by his untimely death - was the
brotherhood of all faiths and the unity
of mankind. The Safinat ul-Auliya was the first work written by Dara Shikoh. In
his first work itself he has proclaimed
his respect and regard for the Sufis and religious divines. Dara recorded the lives of almost 411 divines of Islam
including that of the Prophet and his wives. In his second work, the Sakinat ul-Auliya, he recorded the life
of Miyan Mir, the spiritual guide of his pir and murshid Mullah Shah. This work is replete with various
discussion on the Sufi path. In the Risala i-Haknuma, the third text written by the mystic Prince, the
emphasis again is on the various stages of spiritual development and spiritual perfection. Therefore, the
first three texts written by Dara dealt with Sufism. Very clearly, then, it can
be argued that Dara had a penchant for everything spiritual. His Sufi leanings
were, theƌefoƌe, ĐleaƌlLJ pƌoŶouŶĐed iŶ
the tedžts Đoŵposed ďLJ hiŵ eaƌlLJ iŶ his daLJs of LJouth. That the ͚otheƌ ǁoƌldlLJ͛
ŵatteƌs appealed ŵoƌe to hiŵ ďeĐaŵe appaƌeŶt aŶd ŵaŶifested itself iŶ the ǁaLJ
iŶ ǁhiĐh he projected himself—he was not
meant to wield the sword, he was a man of letters.
In
his subsequent works, Dara argued that in the Quran it has been stated that no
land has been left without prophetic or
scriptural guidance, so this land (Hindustan) also has similar true and
divinely ordained scriptures in the form
of the Vedas and Upanishads. With this point in mind, he argued in the introduction to the Sirr-i-Akbar (translation
of the Upanishads done by Dara Shikoh) that the mysteries which have been left unexplained in the Quran
can be unfolded by studying the Upanishads in depth. With the help of the yogis and sanyasis of
BeŶaƌas he tƌied to ĐoŵpƌeheŶd the ĐoŶĐept of ͚uŶitLJ of ďeiŶg͛ ;wahadat-ul-wujud) in the Upanishads
and simultaneously tried to unfold some of the concepts of mysticism, which had been left unexplained
in the Quran.
Dara
Shikoh held religious, intellectual discourses not only with Muslim mystics
like Miyan Mir, Mulla “hah, Muhiďullah
Allahaďadi, “hah Dilƌuďa, “a͛id “aƌŵad ďut also ǁith HiŶdu asĐetiĐs like Baďa
Lal Das, Jagannath Mishra and various
other pundits of Benaras. Initially his concept of wahadat-ul-wujud was based on Ibn-al-Aƌaďi͛s ideas ďut lateƌ
ďeĐause of his ĐoŶtaĐt ǁith HiŶdu sanyasis this concept became wider and he tried to assimilate the
principle ideas of Hinduism to make it more broad-based. In one of his works, Hasanat-ul-Arifin, ŵeaŶiŶg
͚ƌaǀiŶgs of “ufi saiŶts duƌiŶg spiƌitual eĐstasLJ,͛ he wrote that the statements of Mansur Hallaj like Anal Haq
should not be berated and considered to be blasphemous. Instead, an effort should be made to
understand the implicit meaning of the statement, rather than just clinging
onto the statement as an independent entity. In 1657, Dara wrote
Majma-ul-Bahrain (The mingling of the
two oceans) in which he argued that there was no basic difference between the
essential nature of Hinduism and Islam.
This was the first attempt of its kind to reconcile the two apparently divergent religions.
The
Majma ul-Bahrain contains twenty sections with themes such as the elements,
senses, religious exercises, attributes,
wind, the four worlds, fire, light, beholding of God, names of God, apostleship
and prophetship, the barhmand, the
directions, the skies, the earths, the divisions of the earth, the
barzakh, the great resurrection, the
mukt, and the night and day. From a deeper analysis of the contents of
this text, it becomes apparent that the
mystic Prince through the pages of this work tried to establish the similarities between the two divergent
religions by using these themes through which he established the synthesis between Hinduism and Islam.
Texts
written by Dara Shikoh not only establish his intellectual and literary
brilliance but also provide sigŶifiĐaŶt
iŶfoƌŵatioŶ aďout iŶflueŶĐes ǁhiĐh ŵaƌked Daƌa͛s life. The faĐt that Daƌa ǁƌote
so eƌuditelLJ about spiritual development
and the link between the two religions which were considered to diametrically opposite to each other goes on
to suggest that Dara was inspired by a zeal to bring about a middle path or a mid-way wherein a religious
synthesis would be possible. The initial texts dealt primarily with Sufism and the later texts
written by Dara dealt essentially with syncretism. The Majma ul-Bahrain was one such text which not only
tried to establish a synthesis between the two religious oƌdeƌs ďut also ƌeǀealed Daƌa͛s deepeƌ
uŶdeƌstaŶdiŶg of ďoth HiŶdu aŶd IslaŵiĐ philosophLJ.
Being
the favourite and the eldest son of the Emperor, Dara claimed himself to be the
heir apparent. He prematurely
anticipated his brilliant future. However, Shah Jahan had made no formal declaration
in favour of Dara. This created natural
jealousy among his other sons and Shah Jahan, busy safeguarding the fortunes of the empire, could not exert
much influence on his sons. As was probably destined, Dara was executed in the year 1659 AD. Contemporary
European travelers like Manucci and Bernier opine that it was because of his work
Majma-ul-Bahrain that the Prince had to meet such a sad fate. His ďƌotheƌ,
AuƌaŶgzeď pƌoĐuƌed a deĐƌee fƌoŵ the legal adǀiseƌs that Daƌa “hikoh had
͞apostatized fƌoŵ the laǁ aŶd haǀiŶg
ǀilified the ƌeligioŶ of God, had allied hiŵself ǁith heƌesLJ aŶd
iŶfidelitLJ.͟
The
religious views of Dara Shikoh have been studied by many scholars and most of
them have concluded that the prince was
indeed a mystic in the true sense of the word, showing interest in religious
syncretism and forwarding the cause of eclecticism. The religious views of Dara
Shikoh have been studied conventionally
in the context of Aurangzeb and the War of Succession between the sons of Shah
Jahan in which Aurangzeb and Dara were the main contenders. This approach is
more political in nature and discusses
the power struggle in-depth, focusing less on the religious demeanour of
the Prince. However, Dara Shikoh, his
life, his many literary works and his views on religion have also been studied independently by some scholars.
AĐĐoƌdiŶg to sĐholaƌ ‘eŶuka Nath ͞the eldest soŶ of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan was a liberal minded
man. He had an inquisitive mind and critical insight from the early days. Lives of great saints
and miracles done by them always attracted him. He was an ardent champion of Hindu-Muslim unity and
honoured Hindu yogis and pundits as freely as he did the Musliŵ ŵLJstiĐ aŶd sĐholaƌs.͟3
The
influence of Dara Shikoh on the religious policies of Shah Jahan have also been
studied by scholars ǁho haǀe estaďlished
a liŶk ďetǁeeŶ the eĐleĐtiĐ tƌeŶd uŶdeƌ the Eŵpeƌoƌ͛s ƌule aŶd the iŶflueŶĐe of
his son. Many gaps, however, remain as
far as a complete analysis of Dara and his religious views are concerned. This is also because the Prince is
seen more as a religious aberration in the Islamic scheme of thiŶgs, ǁhiĐh AuƌaŶgzeď ǁaŶted to iŵpleŵeŶt.
AŶotheƌ ƌeasoŶ Đould also ďe that Daƌa “hikoh͛s
character was such that not much attention was paid to him considering
that he was defeated and came to ďe
ƌeŵeŵďeƌed iŶ histoƌLJ oŶlLJ as “hah JahaŶ͛s soŶ aŶd AuƌaŶgzeď͛s ďƌotheƌ ǁhoŵ the
latteƌ beheaded. The historiography on
the religious views of the ill-fated Prince can be categorized on the basis of the influence he exercised on the
religious policy of the Mughal Empire under Shah Jahan and Dara Shikoh and his religious views as an
independent subject of study.
To
begin with the first categorization, some scholars have also elaborated upon the
religious views of Daƌa iŶ the ĐoŶtedžt
of his iŶflueŶĐe oǀeƌ his fatheƌ͛s ;“hah JahaŶͿ ƌeligious poliĐLJ. According to
I.H. Qureshi Shah Jahan was orthodox in
his leanings as well as his beliefs and he took some measures to shoǁ that oƌthododžLJ ǁas ďaĐk iŶ poǁeƌ. “ƌi
‘aŵ “haƌŵa iŶ his ǁoƌk ͚The ‘eligious PoliĐLJ of the Mughal Eŵpeƌoƌs͛ has edžplaiŶed the iŶflueŶĐe of
PƌiŶĐe Daƌa oŶ the ƌeligious ǀieǁs of his fatheƌ “hah JahaŶ ǁho was more orthodox in comparison to his father
and grandfather. According to Sharma, Shah Jahan changed the spirit of religious toleration
that had characterized the Mughal government till the reign of Jahangir.4 Some new temples were destroyed by
Shah Jahan, however, the Emperor under the influence of his favourite son and the heir apparent
Dara, reversed some of his policies.
Shah
Jahan himself had no leanings towards Sufism but under the influence of Dara he
did patronize some Sufis of his time. He
also patronized some Hindu poets. According to “haƌŵa, ͞As Daƌa͛s iŶflueŶĐe iŶ the Đouƌt iŶĐƌeased, “hah JahaŶ͛s aƌdouƌ
as a gƌeat pƌoselLJtiziŶg kiŶg Đooled doǁŶ ǁheŶ he discovered in the heir-apparent, and his
deputy in many state affairs, a religious toleration equaling that of his grandfather Akbar.͟5 Renuka Nath in
her article on the interaction between Dara Shikoh and the gƌeat HiŶdu GŶostiĐ saiŶt Baďa Lal ĐoŶteŶds
that the ŵLJstiĐ pƌiŶĐe͛s ͞continuous search for the truth, took a steep turn when he met Baba Lal, who
was a Hindu gnostic. His discourses with Baba Lal demonstrated his gƌoǁiŶg iŶteƌest iŶ
Đoŵpaƌatiǀe ƌeligioŶ.͟6 She concludes that Dara was a gentle and pious Sufi intellectual and a true
representative of Indian cultural synthesis.
M.
Athaƌ Ali iŶ his ǁoƌk ͚Mughal IŶdia: “tudies iŶ PolitLJ, Ideas, “oĐietLJ, aŶd
Cultuƌe͛ has giǀeŶ a ǀiǀid description
of the religious environment under Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. According to him,
much of the belief that Shah Jahan
reversed or modified the religious policy of his grandfather rests on his
order of the sixth regnal year
(1633-34), in which he is said to have ordered the destruction of temples
whose construction had not been
completed. Beyond this, however, the period of Shah Jahan was quite similar to the time of his grandfather and there were
remarkable attempts made to bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims. The most celebrated
spokesman of this trend was Prince Dara Shikoh.7
Most
scholars, therefore, agree that the religious ideology of Dara did leave an
impression on statecraft during the time
of Shah Jahan. To what extent the influence of mystic ideas helped in
promulgating poliĐies is a ŵatteƌ of
deďate. Hoǁeǀeƌ, it is Đleaƌ fƌoŵ a ƌeadiŶg of ĐoŶteŵpoƌaƌLJ souƌĐes that Daƌa͛s religious views did have an impact on Shah
Jahan and the Mughal realm governed by him.
HaǀiŶg
disĐussed the histoƌiogƌaphLJ of Daƌa͛s ƌeligious ǀieǁs iŶ the ĐoŶtedžt of theiƌ
iŶflueŶĐe oŶ Shah Jahan, it is now
imperative to discuss the views of scholars on the syncretic approach of Dara
Shikoh as an independeŶt field of studLJ.
NiĐĐolo MaŶuĐĐi Đlaiŵed that ͞Daƌa “hikoh had Ŷo fidžed ƌeligioŶ aŶd praised every religion in the presence of its
followers. When with Mohamedans he praised the tenets of Muhammad; when with Jews, the Jewish
religion; in the same way, when with Hindus, he praised HiŶdusiŵ.͟
An article published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal tried to explain the religious disposition of Dara Shikoh. According to this article, Dara was not an atheist as was claimed by Aurangzeb, neither did he renounce his religion of birth. He had a firm belief that Islam stands on the same level as all other religions and, therefore, there should be no religious discrimination. Dara never really renounced Islam. He visited the dargahs of all important Muslim saints and provided valuable historical details of his visits.8 According to S.P. Dubey in his monumental work on Dara, ͞NaŶak aŶd Kabir preached, positively and negatively, virtually the same as Dara professed. But they were not executed, as they did not have any political designs. However, Dara had the fate of Mansoor Al Hallaj (AD 922) who, in his ecstasy, used to utter Anal Haq ;I aŵ GodͿ aŶd ǁas edžeĐuted.͟9
Dubey
has categorized the spirito-academic life of Dara into two phases. The first phase
was up to 1647 when he edited
Risala-i-Haqnuma for the elites and selective people of the two communities.
Till 1647, he was busy propagating
pantheism as per the Sufi tradition. In the Risala he records the disclosure
of the ͚Path of God͛ aŶd ͚‘ealizatioŶ.͛
He pƌoĐlaiŵs to ďe a paŶtheist aŶd Đlaiŵs that diǀiŶe kŶoǁledge has been especially bestowed upon him. He was,
till then, confident that pantheism was the only beneficial doctrine for the Hindus and the Muslims of
India in general.
The
second stage of his spiritual life covers the period of about a decade from
1647-57 when he became engrossed in
studying the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism. During this
period he tried to find out the unity of
all religions and their harmony with Islam.10 Dara claimed himself to be a
Qadir, a Hanif, and an Arif Kamil (one
having knowledge of God head). Being a complete man, the Arif he considered himself to be beyond the
prescriptions and prohibitions, hence, having no inclination to pray as prescribed by Islamic law. He, according
to S.P. Dubey, abjured outward Islam and dispensed with Namaaz and Roza. He also wanted to save Islam
from the mullahs and maulavis and can, therefore, be compared with Martin Luther who registered
his protest against papal orthodoxy. According to Dubey, Dara was an extremely good student of
comparative religion; he had a mission and a vision. His mission, however, could not succeed in the War of
Succession.
The suspicion that Dara aroused in the eyes of the piety-minded ulema also needs some detailed enquiry. Beginning in 1641, Dara Shikoh, following the Quranic injunction that no land has been left without prophetic guidance, became convinced that the Vedas and the Upanishads constitute the concealed scriptures mentioned in the Quran. He began to regard the Upanishads as the ultimate source of all monotheism, including Islam. Using techniques of lexical similarity Dara posited that the cosmologies and mystical practices of Muslim sufis and those of the Upanishads correspond. For example, the ruh or soul in Islam corresponded with the atman in Vedic Hinduism.11 John F. Richards in his ǁoƌk ͚The Mughal Eŵpiƌe͛ saLJs that this appƌoaĐh of Daƌa ĐoŶǀiŶĐed ŵost IŶdiaŶ Musliŵs, particularly the class of theologians, that Dara was an apostate of Islam who did not even observe the obligatory prayers and other rituals of Islam. Extended discussions with and patronage of three Jesuit priests who formed part of his household confirmed this impression. This made Dara vulnerable to attacks by the ulema.
The
mystical dimensions of Islam and Hinduism inspired Dara to find a common
denominator for both the religions.
However, the Prince, in his efforts, encountered a lot of opposition not only
from the oƌthododž theologiaŶs ďut also
fƌoŵ soŵe HiŶdu sages. AŶŶeŵaƌie “Đhiŵŵel iŶ heƌ ǁoƌk ͚MLJstiĐal DiŵeŶsioŶs of Islaŵ͛ Đites oŶe suĐh
difficulty which Dara encountered with the Hindu sage Baba Lal Das in his attempt to solve the problem of a
common mystical language between Hinduism and Islam. “Đhiŵŵel ĐoŶteŶds that ͞Daƌa despised the
ƌepƌeseŶtatiǀes of Musliŵ oƌthododžLJ iŶ the saŵe ǁaLJ as ŵaŶLJ eaƌlLJ PeƌsiaŶ poets had.͟12 He oŶĐe
ǁƌote ͞Paƌadise is theƌe ǁheƌe theƌe is Ŷo mullah. Where there is no noise and disturbance from the
mullah!͟ Daƌa “hikoh͛s sLJŶĐƌetisŵ ǁas Ŷot a ŵoǀeŵeŶt away from Islam towards Hinduism; it was a
sincere effort to underline what he believed to be common between them. He wanted his syncretism to
find favour with the Hindus as much as with the Muslims. M. Athaƌ Ali opiŶes that ͞UŶlike Akďaƌ, Daƌa
fouŶd Ŷo haƌŵ iŶ eǀeŶ iŵage ǁoƌship.͟ He said that uŶdeƌ every image, faith lies hidden.
Dara had transformed the Mughal court into an arena for inter-religious debate (much like his great grandfather). The religious associations of Dara with people of different faiths not only spelt doom for the Mystic Prince but also for people with whom he was associated closely, for, example Sarmad, the Naked Fakir, of whom Dara was a student. Sarmad was beheaded by Aurangzeb, not only because of his ͚stƌaŶge ǁaLJs͛ ďut also ďeĐause of his Đlose assoĐiatioŶ ǁith Daƌa “hikoh. IŶ his ǁoƌk oŶ “a͛id “aƌŵad, NathaŶ Katz opiŶes that ͞As AuƌaŶgzeď ǁas agaiŶst Daƌa “hikoh, autoŵatiĐallLJ Hazƌat “aƌŵad Đaŵe uŶdeƌ suspiĐioŶ.͟13 Zahiruddin Faruki, hoǁeǀeƌ, is of the opiŶioŶ that the ŵuƌdeƌ of “a͛id “aƌŵad ǁas not an unusual event. Whenever a Sufi or any other religious person became too powerful and went out of bounds, he was executed, for example the execution of Mansur bin Hallaj by the Abbasids.
Daƌa
“hikoh͛s eĐleĐtiĐ ǀieǁs, as edžpƌessed ďLJ hiŵ iŶ his liteƌaƌLJ ǁoƌks aŶd as
Ƌuoted ďLJ ĐoŶteŵpoƌaƌLJ scholars and
travelers, played a role in establishing a syncretic religious environment in
the country during the 17th-18th
century. Whether or not this became the dominant discourse of the time is
a matter of debate but the fact that it
did have an impact is evident by the way in which people associated ǁith these ideas ǁeƌe ostƌaĐized aŶd
peƌseĐuted. The poteŶtial of Daƌa͛s eĐleĐtiĐ ǀieǁs ǁas iŵŵeŶse and it trickled
down through literary works that were preserved. Dara can be considered as a
champion of Hindu-Muslim unity who as
early as the 17th century began to espouse syncretic views and helped in initiating a cultural synthesis which brought
about a fusion between Hinduism and Islam.
REFERENCES
1.
Annemarie Schimmel, Mystic Dimensions of Islam, The University of North
Carolina Press, 1975, USA
2.
Annemarie Schimmel, Religious Policies of the Great Mughals, in Zeenut Ziad ed.
The Magnificent Mughals, Oxford
University Press
3.
Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence, Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in
South Asia and Beyond, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002
4.
Douglas Streusand, The Formation of the Mughal Empire, Oxford University Press,
1999 5. E.J. Brill, Encyclopedia of
Islam, Vol.1-5
6.
Farhat Hasan, State and Locality in Mughal India: Power Relations in Western
India, 1572-1730, Cambridge University
Press, 2004
7.
Harbans Mukhia, The Mughals of India, Blackwell Publishing, 2004
8.
I.H. Qureshi, A History of Freedom Movement, Karachi
9.
Jean Filliozat, Religion, Philosophy, Yoga: A Selection of Articles, Motilal
Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi, 1991
10.
John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1995 11. Jonathan P.A. Sell (ed.), Metaphor and
Diaspora in Contemporary Writing, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012
12.
Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Naqshbandi Influence on Mughal Rulersand Politics, Islamic
Culture, vol. XXXIX, 1965
13.
M. Athar Ali, Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society, and Culture,
Oxford University Press, 2008
14.
M.G. Gupta, Sarmad the Saint (Life and Works), M.G. Publishers, Agra, 1991 15. Maulana Shibli, Aurangzeb Alamgir Per Ek
Nazar, Aligarh, 1922
16.
Michael Herbert Fisher, Visions of Mughal India: An Anthology of European
Travel Writing, I.B. Tauris and Co. Ltd,
2007
17.
Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed), The Mughal State 1526-1750, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1998
18.
Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam, 1200-1800, C. Hurst and Co.
(Publishers) Pvt. Ltd, 2004
19.
Nathan Katz, The IdeŶtity of a MystiĐ: The Case of Sa’id Sarŵad, a
Jewish-Yogi-Sufi Courtier of the
Mughals, Numen, Vol. 47, No.2, 2000, pp. 150
20.
Niccolo Manucci, Storia Do Magor, translated by William Irvine, 1907
21.
Nile Green, Indian Sufism since the Seventeenth Century: Saints, Books and
Empires in the Muslim Deccan, Routledge,
2006
22.
R.C. Zaehner, Hindu and Muslim Mysticism, University of London/Athlone Press,
1960 23. Raziuddin Aquil, Sufism and
Society in Medieval India, Oxford University Press, 2010 24. Renuka Nath, Prince Dara Shikoh: a
representative of Indian cultural synthesis, Anusandhanika, Vol. IX, No. I, January 2011, pp. 29-32
25.
Richard Maxwell Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760,
University of California Press,
1993
26.
S. Nurul Hasan, Religion, State and Society in Medieval India, Oxford
University Press, 2008 27. S.A.A. Rizvi,
A History of Sufism in India, 2 vols, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1978 and
1983 28. S.A.A. Rizvi, Religious aŶd
IŶtelleĐtual History of the Musliŵs iŶ Akďar’s ReigŶ with SpeĐial Reference to Abul Fazl, 1556-1605, Munshiram
Manoharlal, Delhi, 1975
29.
S.P. Dubey, Dara Shikoh and Comparative Study of Religion, in Hamid Naseem
Rafiabadi, World Religions and Islam: a
critical study, Part I, Sarup and Sons, New Delhi, 2003 30. S.R. Sharma, Mughal Empire in India,
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1999
31. Saiyid Zaheer Hussain Jafri and Helmut Reifeld, The Islamic Path:
Sufism, Politics and Society in India,
Rainbow Publishers, 2006
32.
Satish Chandra, Medieval India: from Sultanate to the Mughals, Har-Anand
Publications Pvt Ltd, 1999
33.
Satish Chandra, Mughal Religious Policies, the Rajputs and the Deccan, Vikas
Publishing, Delhi, 1993
34.
Sir Jadunath Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, Orient Blackswan, 2009 35. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Rise and Fall of the
Mughal Empire, Orient Longman, 1992 36.
Sri Ram Sharma, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperor, Book Enclave,
Jaipur, 2001 37. Stephen P. Blake,
Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739, Cambridge University Press, 1991
38.
Steven T. Katz, Language, Epistemology and Mysticism, in Katz ed., Mysticism
and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1978
39.
Vinay Dharwadker, The Myth of the Good Prince: Dara Shikoh, 1615-1659, The
Hudson Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1986, pp.
620-622
40. W.M. Theodore de Bary (ed), Sources of Indian Tradition, Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1963 41. Yusuf Hussain Khan, Glimpses of Medieval India Culture, Asia Publishing House, 1959 42. Zahiruddin Faruki, Aurangzeb and His Times, Idarah-i-Adabiyat-i- Dilli, 1972
Foot
Notes
1AŶŶeŵaƌie
“Đhiŵŵel, ͚‘eligious PoliĐies of the Gƌeat Mughals,͛ iŶ )eeŶut )iad ed., The
Magnificent Mughals, Oxford University
Press, 2002, p. 61
2“.P.
DuďeLJ, ͚Daƌa “hikoh aŶd Coŵpaƌatiǀe “tudLJ of ‘eligioŶ,͛ iŶ Haŵid Naseeŵ
‘afiaďadi, World Religions and Islam: a
critical study, Part I, Sarup and Sons, New Delhi, 2003, p. 52
3‘eŶuka Nath, ͚PƌiŶĐe Daƌa “hikoh: a ƌepƌeseŶtatiǀe of IŶdiaŶ Đultuƌal sLJŶthesis,͛ Anusandhanika, Vol. IX, No. I, January 2011, pp. 29-32
4
Sri Ram Sharma, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Book Enclave,
Jaipur, 2001, p. 104 5 Ibid, p. 114
6‘eŶuka
Nath, ͚PƌiŶĐe Daƌa “hikoh: a ƌepƌeseŶtatiǀe of IŶdiaŶ Đultuƌal sLJŶthesis,͛
Anusandhanika, Vol. IX, No. I, January
2011, pp. 29-32
7
M. Athar Ali, Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture,
Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 202
8Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 39, Part I, p. 274
9“.P.
DuďeLJ, ͚Daƌa “hikoh aŶds Coŵpaƌatiǀe “tudLJ of ‘eligioŶ͛, iŶ Haŵid Naseeŵ
‘afiaďadi, World Religions and Islam: a
critical study, Part I, Sarup and Sons, New Delhi, 2003, p. 55
10
Ibid. p. 57
11 John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1995, p. 152
12
Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, The University of North
Carolina Press, USA, 1975, p. 364 13
NathaŶ Katz, ͚The IdeŶtitLJ of a MLJstiĐ: The Case of “a͛id “aƌŵad, a
Jeǁish-Yogi-“ufi Couƌtieƌ of the Mughals,͛
Numen, Vol. 47, No.2, 2000, p. 150
Post a Comment