Indian Historical Review 2013 40: 67
Shalin Jain
Assistant Professor, Department of History,
S.G.T.B. Khalsa College, University of Delhi, India
Click HERE for part 2 of this post
This article explores the ‘community–state relationship’ during post-Akbar Mughal rule, a largely marginalized arena in the existing historiography. Contrary to Akbar’s religious–spiritual discourse with Jain ascetics, the second phase of Jain–Mughal engagement under Jahangir and Shahjahan saw a materialistic engagement with the Jain merchants who were slowly gaining eminence as the representatives of their community in their interaction with Mughal royalty. However, Mughal policies of social negotiations with the Jains more or less continued amidst minor hiccups, that is, two banishment orders issued by Jahangir against the Jains. The situational context and content of various farmans issued by Shahjahan, Murad Baksh and Aurangzeb as well as imperial actions argue in favor of a basic continuation in the policies of the Mughal state to negotiate social harmony and to expand its own social base. The ideological underpinning of the Mughal emperors into their relations with the Jains reflects the subtleties of the making of Mughal India necessary to understand the complexities of the period under review. In the larger context, this fusion symbol ises the ethos of a composite culture as a routine matter of the medieval society even under an autocratic rule.
Keywords
Mughals, Jains, community, ascetics, gacchas, Jauhari, farman
Introduction
In this article an attempt has been made to understand the existence of a religious minority in a given plural society ruled by a monarchical dynasty belonging to another religious group. To be more precise, how multi-cultural complexities of medieval India were dealt with by the society and rulers as such is the main issue. An analysis of the ideological underpinnings of the Mughal emperors into their relations with the Jains would reflect the subtleties of the making of Mughal India. The relationship between the merchant communities and the state should be taken beyond the technicalities of economic considerations. Intentions of the monarchs and the state certainly had much value for the material considerations. At the same time, socio-economic realities and cultural considerations also had their share in evolving inter-community relationships in Mughal India. This was the reason that in the first half of the seventeenth century, particularly under Jahangir, the Mughal attitude towards the Jains remained more or less the same as under Akbar. The close connections of Jains with the ruling chiefs in Rajasthan and vital influence of trading communities in Gujarat facilitated the quick and smooth integration of the Jains in the Mughal administrative apparatus after these chiefs entered in the service of the Mughals.
In case of the Jain community, in spite of all the usual tantrums of a monarchical state, Jahangir also followed the policy of his father but for his defiant personality and his disillusion with the Jain pontiffs. By the last years of his reign, his engage ment with the Jain community was limited to the Jain merchants only. Jahangir’s son and his successor Shahjahan brought a materialistic change in the world view of the Mughal royalty. Instead of Jain ascetics, the Jain community was now being mainly represented by merchants. Now the Mughal interaction with the Jains was character ised by commercial engagements and interactions. The state engaged with the Jain merchants and traders like Sheth Shantidas Jauhari and Virji Vora. An important con tinuity in these relations remained in the form of the Mughal emperor’s intervention in the sectarian disputes of the Jain community where the Mughals took a liberal neu tral stand. In the case of Aurangzeb, repayments of loan taken by his brother Murad from Jain Sheth Shantidas Jauhari and the reconfirmation of the rights of the Jain community over its pilgrimage centres immediately after his accession clearly indi cates that, like his forefathers, Aurangzeb was also keen to establish direct relation between his kingship and his subjects for the permanence of daulat-i-khudadad. In fact, Jain merchants and traders were fully equipped with financial resources and held commercial supremacy in the economic affairs of Mughal India. It was the peculiar ity of the age that we find that, on the one hand, Aurangzeb was anxious to befriend and conciliate so powerful a subject and a financer as Sheth Shantidas Jauhari and to attach him to his cause disregarding the fact that the latter had extended financial assistance to his adversary Prince Murad, while on the other hand, empowered Jains like Sheth Shantidas Jauhari and Virji Vora could be harassed by local administra tion. The political ambitions of Karamchand Bacchawat1 forced him to live in exile from his desh and politics of the time forced Munhot Nainsi to commit suicide. The attitude of the medieval ruling class towards its subjects or certain groups of subjects was such that even mighty business magnates like Shantidas Jauhari or Virji Vora could obtain redressal of their grievances only through great efforts and courtesy of the emperors. In spite of all the social benevolence and indigenousness of power, the very hierarchical nature of the polity and the society pre-decided the pace of economic growth.
Jain Ascetics and Merchants under Jahangir
It has been established that Akbar’s son and successor Jahangir retained much of his father’s policy with regard to the Jains. Jain monks remained present in his court, along with the devotees of other religious traditions, and some of them like Bhanuchandra and Siddhichandra were granted special favour. Jahangir was favourably inclined towards the Jain community. However, there are instances yet to be fully explored when there were departures. First in 1612 CE and again in February 1618 CE he had ordered the banishment of sewras from his territories, though these orders were with drawn immediately.2 In spite of Jahangir’s intermittent ambivalent relations with the Jains, it is certain that he had intensive engagement with this community. Jahangir was also aware of the sectarian differences among the Jains. To quote him, ‘there are two sects of Sewras, one called Pata (Tapa) and the other Kanthal (Khartar). Man Singh was the head of the latter and Bal Chand (Bhanu Chandra) the head of the Patas (Tapa)’.3 Jahangir, who in his childhood was taught by Jain monks, along with his brother Daniyal, engaged monks like Bhanuchandra to give religious instruction to his own son Shahriyar.4 Even as a prince Jahangir shared close proximity with the Jain ascetics present in the Mughal court.
The earliest farman available in his name is in the name of Abul Muzaffar Sultan Salim Ghazi which shows that it was issued by him even before he assumed his formal imperial title of Nuruddin Muhammad Jahangir Bahadur Ghazi. The farman’s date is not legible but the issuing of farmans by the rebel Mughal princes was an usual occur rence.5 In 1605 CE, this farman was issued before Akbar’s death, by Prince Salim, con firming the farman of Akbar prohibiting the slaughter of animals for nearly six months out of the year and making the Jain port at Una tax free, as per the ‘old custom’. The farman was addressed to the officials, particularly of the sarkar of Sorath (Swarashtra) to the effect that:
Be it known to those issuing orders relating to important affairs, those executing those orders, their clerks and the present and future mutasiddis…and others and particularly those of Sorath Sarkar, having received and further expecting royal favour, that where as Bhanuchandra Yati and Siddhichandra Yati—the holder of the title Khushfaham, made a humble presentation to us that ‘the jizyah, the toll, the slaughter of animals, viz. cows, she-buffaloes, he buffaloes and bullocks, killing of animals on specified days of each month, confiscation of the property of the dead, taking people as captives, and the poll- tax on the pilgrims visiting Mountain Shatrunjaya exacted in Sorath sarkar—all these had been abolished and prohibited by A’la Hadrat (Emperor Akbar). And as we are perfectly kind to all people, we have also prohibited (slaughter of animals) as per below written list after adding to it one more month at the end whereof our birth took place, they (the officers) should carry out this our best order and should not deviate from or go against it. And Vijaysen Suri and Vijaydev Suri who are there (in Gujarat) should be properly looked after, and whatever thing they may represent to be done, should be done perfectly, so that they may remain occupied in praying for the permanency of the victorious kingdom with happy mind.6
When Akbar died, Jain monk Bhanuchandra and his disciple Siddhichandra were present in the Agra fort. On the accession of Jahnagir, both Bhanuchandra and Sidhichandra, who had been continuously in residence at Akbar’s court for a period of twenty years sought and received royal permission to return to their native province, Gujarat.7
In 1608 CE another farman was issued by Emperor Jahangir in favour of the Jain community led by Vijaysen Suri, Vijaydev Suri and Nandi Vijay allowing new work in Jain temples and resting places, allowing them to visit their Shatrunjaya tirtha with out paying any tax and prohibiting animal slaughter on certain days. The farman also instructed the governors, officials and jagirdars of suba Gujarat not to interfere in the temples, dharamshalas and houses of the disciples of the Jain ascetics.8 As we know from the vigyaptipatra sent by the Jain sangha of Agra on Kartik Shudi 2, V.S. 1667 (8 October 1610 CE) to Tapa gaccha acharya Vijaysen Suri, that in the same year Jahangir issued another farman to a Jain deputation led by Udayaharsha who was introduced to the emperor by Raja Ramdas. The farman ordered the officials that none should be allowed to slaughter animals during the Paryushan9 festival and the defaulter should be dealt with strongly. This occasion of grant of farman was depicted in the vigyaptipatra made by the royal painter Ustad Shalivahan.10
The much-known and talked-about first banishment order for Jains issued in 1612 CE by Jahangir finds no mention in the Persian sources. Jain sources, particularly Khartar gaccha references point out that the loose character of a Jain ascetic, prob ably of Tapa gaccha lineage, provoked the anger of the emperor and it was Jinchandra Suri, the Khartar gaccha leader who pacified the emperor with his influence leading to the withdrawal of the banishment order.11 The first banishment orders against the Jains issued by Jahangir in 1612 CE were implemented when Banarasidas, author of Ardhakathanaka, was a young boy. His father Kharagsen was also a victim of administrative repression at Jaunpur, whose time corresponds with the issuance of the banishment degree:
Jaunpur was rocked by a number of dire and tragic events. Nawab Qilij Khan, who was then the governor of the city, brought his terrible wrath to bear upon every single jeweler and dealer in precious stones who lived in the town. He put them all into prison and demanded of them something so beyond their reach that the jewelers were quite unable to meet the demand. He felt affronted, and early one morning in a frenzy of rage he stood each one of them in a row, bound and chained them like a pack of thieves, and began to whip them with a spiked lash till they nearly died of their agonizing wounds.12
But this action of Chin Qilij Khan, the jagirdar of Jaunpur, had no royal sanction and seems to be a personal vendetta of the local officials. Jahangir in his Tuzuk informs us that one brother of Chin Qilij Khan named Lahori and acting as his deputy was of a very wicked disposition. Jahangir mentions that, ‘the servants of God (people) were greatly oppressed by his conduct. I sent an ahadi to bring him (Lahori) from Jaunpur’.13
This royal enormity towards the Jains was not visible in 1613 CE when during his stay at Ajmer, Jahangir again issued two farmans in favour of the Jains. A Jain merchant Chandu Sanghvi (probably Sanghpati Chandrapara of Agra) offered a precious gift to the emperor and requested that ‘ten bighas of land may be granted to him in village Akbarpur for building a temple and a garden in the memory of Tapa gaccha pontiff Vijaysen Suri’. Thereafter ‘a farman was issued in favour of Chandu Sanghvi allotting him a plot of agricultural land measuring ten bighas at Akbarpur, in Chaurasi pargana near Cambay as a madad-i-mash grant’.14
In July 1616 CE Jahangir issued a farman in favour of the Jain community which proclaimed that Vivek Harsha and Jayananda, the disciples of Vijaydev Suri, had presented themselves before the emperor and begged for an urgent farman favouring the Jain monks who were virtuous and whose sole function was the adoration of God. The farman was issued to all the jagirdars and administrative officers throughout the empire ordering that they should allow these monks to attend their worship and devotion in perfect peace of mind, so that they may remain occupied in praying for the permanency of the victorious kingdom with a happy mind.15
The ongoing sectarian differences within the Jain community reached a new height when as per Jain sources a major controversy within the Tapa gaccha of Shwetambar Jains erupted during the reign of Jahangir inviting his intervention. This sectarian con troversy was apparently ideological but it seems that personality clashes were also play ing their role. Acharya Bhanuchandra, the disciple of Hiravijay Suri was appointed by his pontiff to represent the community’s interest in the royal court and he was enjoying a great rapport with the Mughal authorities. But before his death in 1595 CE, Hiravijay Suri had already nominated Vijayasen Suri as his successor. Vijayasen Suri was also invited by Akbar in the royal court in 1593 CE. He was succeeded by Vijayadev Suri in 1614 CE.16 The course of events, which erupted after the death of Hiravijay Suri indicates towards presence and clash of two parallel authorities within the Tapa gaccha namely, Bhanuchandra and his disciple Siddhichandra and another group led by Vijayasen Suri and his disciple Vijayadev Suri. The bone of contention was the issue of succession to the legacy of Hirvijay Suri. Emperor Jahangir appointed Muqarrab Khan as governor of Gujarat (in the 11th reignal year 1616 CE), in place of Abdullah Khan Bahadur Firuz Jang, fulfilling a long awaited desire of the noble.17 Muqarrab Khan proceeded to Ahmedabad and met Bhanuchandra in Jalor where the saint was spending his chaturmasa (period of four rainy months). In their meeting, the saint accused that the Jain sadhus belonging to a shakha of Tapa gaccha, Sagar gaccha18 were not follow
ing the teachings of the late pontiff Hiravijay Suri and the new head of the Tapa gaccha Vijayasen Suri was improperly supporting their activities. Bhanuchandra’s disciple Siddhichandra accompanied Muqarrab Khan in his journey towards Gujarat to solve the issue.19 This was certainly an attempt to secure external and that too bureaucratic support to solve the ideological dispute within the religious sect.
In fact the seeds of the whole issue were rooted in an old ideological dispute within the Tapa gaccha. Dharamsagar Upadhyaya, a distinguished Tapa gaccha ascetic, through his works Pravachana Pariksha and Sarvajna Shataka tried to establish the centrality and uniqueness of the Tapa gaccha in the mid-sixteenth century. His writings were relentless exposure of what he saw as flaws in both the lives and doctrinal stand points of other Jain teachers and the lineages which sprung from Tapa gaccha. Indeed, there is evidence of attempts even within the Tapa gaccha to suppress some of his writings because of their excessively aggressive tone. These writings were condemned and proscribed by Hiravijaya Suri and his successor Vijayasen Suri.20 After reaching Gujarat, Siddhichandra’s deliberations with other Jain ascetics could not resolve this dispute. Ultimately in 1617 CE Bhanuchandra, Siddhichandra, Dharmvijay, Somvijay and many other leaders from various centres chose a learned ascetic Ramvijay, gave him the title of Vijaytilak Suri and proclaimed him the acharya or supreme head of the Tapa gaccha, thus displacing Vijayadev Suri from the position. This event was fully supported by the Mughal governor of Gujarat Muqarrab Khan.21 But the matter did not die here. During the chaturmas of the same year, there was a great quarrel between the two Tapa gacchas shakhas, Sagar gaccha and Vijay gaccha. On the request of Bhanuchandra, Emperor Jahangir had to ensure the intervention of Prince Khurram to restore peace.22
Jahangir, during his stay at Mandu in October 1617 CE, invited Vijayadev Suri and after a discussion over religious issues, was so much impressed that he bestowed upon the Suri the title of Maha Tapa.23 The grant of the title mentioned above is proved by the fact that it is engraved in various consecration inscriptions bearing his name.24 Here Jahangir invited both the rival groups of the Tapa gaccha to reconcile the differences between them. He also invited acharya Vijaytilak Suri and Bhanuchandra to Mandu, where Siddhichandra and Nandi Vijay were also present. Here a debate was held to discuss the matter in dispute. In this meeting Nemisagar Upadhyaya of Sagar gaccha shakha levelled charges against Bhanuchandra and his group of disrespecting Vijaydev Suri. Bhanuchandra counter charged that Vijayadev Suri was himself acting against the wishes of Purva acharyas (previous acharyas) by supporting the heresy works of Dharamsagar. Vijayadev Suri and Nemisagar argued that the said work was totally in accordance with the Jain scriptures.25 Here M.S. Commissariat’s view that the emperor was wise enough not to force a decision on either party, seems to be more logical and acceptable.26
Though one does not know the further course of events pertaining to the issue, within four months after the meeting at Mandu some suggestive events happened almost simultaneously. Jahangir’s order calling Khartar gaccha head Man Singh to the capital, Man Singh’s death at Medta and Jahangir’s famous comment in his Tuzuk expressing satisfaction at his death and his criticism about the character and moral of Jain monks and his second banishment order against the Jains which came in February 1618,27 were not much separated in time from each other. Jahangir records in his Memoirs, the death of Man Simha (Jinsimha Suri), the head of the Khartar gaccha with the great satisfaction that ‘Man Singh Sewra had surrendered his soul to the lords of hell’. Jahangir described his annoyance with Man Singh alias Jinsimha Suri in the context of the rebellion of Prince Khusrau:
Ray Singh Bhurtiya, zamindar of Bikanir, who had been made an Amir by Akbar’s kindness, asked Man Singh what would be the duration of my reign and the chances of my success. The black-tongued fellow, who pretended to be skilled in astrology and the extraction of judg ments, said to him that my reign would, at most, last for two years. The doting old idiot (Ray Singh) relied upon this, and went off without leave to his home. Afterwards, when the glori ous God chose out this suppliant and I returned victorious to the capital, he came, ashamed and downcast to Court. What happened to him in the end has been told in its proper place. In fine, Man Singh, in the course of three or four months, was struck with leprosy (juzam), and his limbs fell off him till he was in such a state that death was by many degrees preferable to life. He was living at Bikanir, and now I remembered him and sent for him. On the road he, out of excessive fear, took poison, and surrendered his soul to the lords of hell. So long as the intentions of this suppliant at God’s courts are just and right, it is sure that whoever devises evil against me will receive retribution according to his merits.28
Whether Jahangir was disillusioned with the internal conflicts of Jain munis at Mandu just like his great father Akbar’s disillusionment with the ulemas at Ibadat Khana? Whether the second banishment order and the criticism of Jains had some con nection with and influence of personalised sectarian controversy which Jahangir had seen among the Jain ascetics at Mandu? Whether the ongoing debate on Dharmasagar’s textual discourse coinciding with the death of Jinsimha Suri of Khartar gaccha gave an immediate cause to the emperor to express his anguish against such controversies? Though Tuzuk is completely silent on this issue, Jahangir’s attitude certainly indicates that his approach towards Jain ascetics was more an issue of personal preferences and royal interests. Collaborative evidence of Jahangir’s second banishment orders against the sewras or Jains is again found in Banarasidas’s narrative as a victim of this order:
Then, suddenly, calamity descended again; this time in form of Agha Noor. The emperor called this dreaded amir to him, honoured him with a siropao and dispatched him on a hateful mission towards our region. Terror spread with the news of his coming. People began fleeing their homes. Narrotam and I were out of Jaunpur. We rushed back, concealed our families as best as we could and fled, taking the road to the north. We traveled on foot, carrying strong sticks in our hands.29
Jahangir was furious against sewras and he viewed that ‘the Banyans regard them as their pirs and teachers and even worship them’. In fact, Jahangir true to his unpre dictable nature vents his anger against Man Singh–Jinsimha Suri of Khartar gaccha towards the whole Jain community in general:
The sect of the Sewras exists in most of the cities of India, but is especially numerous in Gujarat. As the Banyans are the chief traders there, consequently the Sewras also are plenti ful. Besides making idol-temples for them, they have built houses for them to dwell in and to worship in. In fact, these houses are the headquarters of sedition. The Banyans sent their wives and daughters to the Sewras, who have no shame or modesty. All kinds of strife and audacity are perpetrated by them. I therefore ordered that the Sewras should be expelled, and I circulated farmans to the effect that wherever there were Sewras in my empire they should be turned out.30
We receive indirect collaboration of this order from Jain merchant Banarsidas who describes persecution of merchants and tradesmen in 1618 CE in Banaras and Jaunpur by noble Agha Noor:
Vindictively, he vent his wrath on merchants and tradesmen, many of whom were beaten to death or near death by his orders. Countless tradesmen: ornament makers, money-lenders (kothiwal), bankers (hundiwal), gold and silver smiths, jewelers and brokers, had been arbi trarily put into prison by him; he never cared to stop and think whether they deserved such harsh treatment. He had them all chained and cruelly whipped, throwing many into dark dungeons. None escaped unhurt from his hands.31
But this was not the end of Jain–Mughal relations. The effectiveness of the second banishment order did not stand for long. Jahangir continued to patronise the legiti mate line of succession of the Tapa gaccha. In August 1618 CE, during his stay at Ahmedabad, Jahangir sent a letter of greetings to Vijayadev Suri which assured Suri that he ‘will remain free from anxiety from us and will be engaged in praying for the permanence of our kingdom by worshipping those who are worthy to be worshipped’. It was a friendly greeting, in which Jahangir appreciated the good behaviour and the intellect of Dayakushal Pannyasa, who was the disciple of Vijaydev Suri. Jahangir requested the Jain acharya to ask for some favour with the assurance about the fulfilment of his wishes, if the acharya brought any matter to the emperor’s notice.32 During Jahangir’s remaining reign, a number of Jain idols continued to be installed in temples, including some with the inscription ‘Patasaha Jahangira’.33 As per Jain legends, the emperor was ill-informed that his name was being engraved on the foot of the idols. To pacify him, his name was engraved on the heads of the idols in VS 1671/1614 CE.34 But very few such inscriptions from a particular region could have been either personal adventure or appeasement of the emperor as well.
The Jain–Mughal relationship in this phase could be gauged from examples from Shatrunjaya Mountain in Gujarat, the most celebrated and sacred pilgrimage centre for all Jains irrespective of the sectarian divisions. During the pre-Mughal period, par ticularly under the Sultanate rule, Shatrunjaya was a symbol of ‘atrocities’ bestowed upon the Jain community. Certain cases of idol desecration at Shatrunjaya during the victory campaigns of Sultanate forces provided an opportunity to the Jain affluents to acquire the status of the patrons and re-builders of temples at Shatrunjaya. Contrary to such precedents, under the Mughal rule particularly under Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb, the Jain laity could never get a chance of enhancing their image and earn
ing good deeds by engaging in ‘counter reconstruction’ as the Mughals allowed unhin dered religious activities at Shatrunjaya. That Jahangir continued to carry a harmonious image among the common Jain laity is also evident from Shatrunjaya. Jahangir is men tioned as Surtan Nuradi(n) Jehangir Savai in seven inscriptions dated VS 1675/1618 CE as well as in another of VS 1683/1626 CE. Four inscriptions of VS 1675/1618 CE also mention prince Shahijada Suratana Shosadu/Shosru, that is, the imprisoned Prince Khusrau and the Sobai (governor) of Rajnagar (Ahmedabad). Prince Khurram is represented as Sahiyana surtana shurame.35 Another inscription from Shatrunjaya, inscribed by the Anchal gaccha followers during the reign of Jahangir in VS 1683/1626 CE, salutes Patisahi Jihangir Shri Salemsah Bhumandalakhandal Vijayrajye.36 There are many more such inscriptions paying respect to the king.
Jahangir’s consent for Jain religious endeavours even after 1618 CE is evident from Chintamani Prashasti, a Jain Sanskrit verse poem composed in praise of the temple of Chintamani Parshvanath in VS 1697/1640 CE by Vidyasaubhagya, a disciple of Jain pontiff Satyasaubhagya. This poem, while celebrating the construction of Chintamani Parshvanath temple in the Bibipur/Saraspur suburb of Ahmedabad, mentions that the construction of the temple began in 1621 CE during the reign of emperor Jahangir by Shantidas Jauhari and his elder brother Vardhman. The temple was completed in 1625 CE with the consecration by the formal installing of the image of Tirthakar Parshvanath.37 As per Rajsagar Suri Raas, a Jain literary source, Shantidas maintained cordial relations with Sah Jihangir Patshah and gifted him with elephants, horses and tributes from time to time.38 Thus, the Emperor, like his father Akbar, held the respect of the Jain community without any major deviation.
Shahjahan and the Jains
By the time of Shahjahan, a substantive change in the relations between the Jains and the Mughals came into play. Instead of Jain ascetics, the Jain community was now being represented by the merchants. However, an important continuity in these rela tions remained in the form of the Mughal emperor’s positive yet neutral intervention in the sectarian disputes of the Jain community. In spite of their close interaction with the different sections of the Jain community, the Mughals maintained neutrality in their intra-community relations. Most of the temples and idols at Shatrunjaya remains Shwetambar yet in the beginning of reign of Shahjahan itself, one Digambar inscrip tion of VS 1686/1629 CE clearly mentions that Bhattarak Padmanandi (1626–45) of Balatkargana installed Sri Jin idol during Patsaha Sri Shahjyahan Vijayrajye for one Digambar Sanghapati Ratansi of Hummad caste from Ahmedabad.39 In the second year of his coronation, that is, 1629–30 CE while issuing a farman in favour of Jain temples and poshalas Shahjahan pointed out that the sewras ‘are enjoined not to fight among themselves but to engage themselves in prayers for the continuation of the state’.40
Another farman of Shahjahan which has been known but is being referred and trans lated for the first time here only clearly indicates Shahjahan’s preference for a con structive engagement with the Jain community leadership without interfering in their affairs. The farman issued in the tenth reignal year of Shahjahan, that is, 1638 CE in all probability to the Jain sangha of Bikaner for the knowledge of ‘Jog Jin, Jinsangh and Bhattarak’ on the request of one person, shakro [sic?], enquires about the most influen tial person in the community without ‘whose consent even the spiritual leader cannot write’.41 This farman again shows a continuous Mughal preference to remain engaged with the influential leadership of the Jain community.
As Akbar had granted religious concessions to Hiravijay Suri, Jinchandra Suri and Karamchandra; Shahjahan and his sons made similar grants in favour of Sheth Shantidas Jauhari, the secular representative of the material power of the Jain com munity. The most known figure in the commercial world of Ahmedabad during the first half of the seventeenth century was this Shwetambar Jain named Sheth Shantidas Jauhari. Shantidas Jauhari of Ahmedabad being the royal jeweller of the Mughal court was well favoured by Shahjahan. The Mughal practice of engaging Baniya jewellers in the royal service has been testified by Tavernier, who while describing the Mughal royalty’s system of procurement of jewels mentions that, ‘the Banian, called Nihal Chand, has to see whether the stones are false and if they have any flaw’,42 probably this Nihal Chand was appointed to this position after the death of Shantidas Jauhari of Ahmedabad. Sheth Shantidas was follower of the Sagar gaccha sect of Jainism. Throughout the reign of Shahjahan the central authority engaged and obliged Shantidas Jauhari not just for commercial transactions, but as the minute details show he was again being pampered as an unofficial balancing factor in the locality of Ahmedabad and the province of Gujarat just like Karamchandra Bacchawat of Bikaner. To describe the character of Shantidas Jauhari the sources at our disposal are some Mughal farmans, Jain texts like Chintamani Prashasti and Rajsagar Suri Raas and some English Factory Records. Chintamani Prashasti, a poem in Sanskrit verse while prais ing Shantidas also mentions contemporary Mughal governor as well; ‘Victory to Azam Khan, the righteous lord of Gujarat, at the mention of whose name the bodies of his enemies tremble with fear, their eyes roll up, and their hearts fail’.43
In the English Factory Records, Shantidas was mentioned as the ‘chief Banian’ and ‘very powerful at Court’ as a jeweller to Jahangir and Shahjahan.44 He acted as the chief broker of the Governor of the city and the province and had amassed great wealth. He often lent money to the English merchants and the East India Company at the rate of more than 12 per cent per annum and banking seems to have been one of his many activities.45 Shantidas Jauhari was equally dangerous in his trading manoeu
vres. At times the Company Factors had to borrow from him as well. In January 1628 CE, Nathaniel Muntney at Ahmedabad reported to the President and Council in Surat about the borrowing of 10,000 rupees at the rate of 1 per cent interest per month from Shantidas. This emergency borrowing had to be done partly to pay some creditors who were clamouring daily for their money, and partly to forestall the Dutch in their invest
ment in saltpetre, of which there was but a small quantity available.46 But within one week the Company was obliged to return 7,000 rupees borrowed from Shantidas.47 A document from Ahmedabad related to mortgage of a haveli (mansion) situated in the locality of Jhaverivada narrates Shantidas’s role in the urban life of Ahmedabad. The contract was materialised by two mortgagees, Sah Shantidas bin Sahasrakiran and Sah Waghji Shripal bin Amar Si belonging to the Vriddha Shakha of the ‘Osavamsya’ (Oswal) community with the mortgager Sah Badaridas bin Ratansi bin Krishna of the Maheshwari Aggarwal baniya caste on Tuesday the second day of the dark half of the lunar month Bhadrapad of VS 1689, 21 August 1632 CE. The mortgage was brought in lieu of payment of 6,001 rupees of the Ahmedabad mint, each weighing 11/4 Mashas by the mortgagees to the mortgager. The precondition for the reclamation of the prop erty was that the mortgager or his heirs had to pay fresh 6,001 rupees (taza sikke) of the Ahmedabad mint in lump-sum to the mortgagees or their heirs. The preamble of this mortgage deed mentions the ruling sovereigns and the officials of the province of Gujarat and Ahmedabad city.48 This document establishes Shantidas as a banker on whom non-Jain individuals could also depend for the finances. But at the same time, it remained unexplained why two mortgagees were required for this deed. Shantidas was financially sound enough to pay out this much of an amount and the second mortgagee could have been the guarantor for the mortgagor. It is difficult to precisely estimate the capital accumulated by Shantidas but it may well have run into ‘several millions of rupees’.49
The career of Shantidas with the Mughals is again full of manoeuvres and incon sistencies which also reflect upon the nature of engagements between merchants and state. The gift-diplomacy was a significant instrument to attain favours from the Mughal court. His status as broker and a banker was well established. The English Factory Records also refer him as a big sarraf [sic].50 His stakes in the real estate of Ahmedabad and his immoveable assets were protected by the royal decrees.51 After the death of each emperor, uncertainty about succession affected the general subjects, affluent and commoners alike. After the death of Jahangir in 1627 CE, Prince Khurram (Shahjahan) as the claimant to the throne started mobilisation of his forces and required money to finance his campaign. Nathanial Mountney, an English Factor at Ahmedabad, described the situation as:
The governor Naer Chawn and Mirza Makki, Mansabdar exacted great somes of money from this cittie, whether by prince’s order or noe is not knowne. Itt caused here gnerall forsaking both of house and cittie, the rich as not being willing to paye and the poore not able, what they weare taxed … Santidas, the deceased King’s jeweler, is arrived, but fearing to bee known hath privatelie retired himselfe.52
The various farmans issued from time to time in favour of Shantidas deal with a variety of subjects. The undated farman issued by Emperor Jahangir, places ‘Satidas’ Jauhari under the protection of Nizam-ud-din-Asaf Khan53 so that ‘Satidas’ ‘should offer gifts and presents and every kind of jewelry which he may procure, to that pillar of the exalted empire’.54
Another farman issued by emperor Shahjahan on the 2nd of Shahrewar in the eighth reignal year, that is, 1635–1636 CE was in response to the representation of ‘Satidas’ the Jauhari that he possessed havelis, shops and gardens in the suba of Ahmedabad, and administrators of the suba should be ordered to pass prohibitory orders to defend his possessions so that ‘none should alight in the above-mentioned havelis and no one should trouble him in the matter of his receiving the rent of the shops, and no one should unlawfully enter the gardens that he may possess by virtue of the exalted and happy order’ since he was merchant and loyal jeweller of the court. Thus Emperor Shahjahan issued a farman that ‘none of the Governors of the above-mentioned Subah should molest him, and, without any proper or lawful cause, extend the hand of pos session towards his property and effects, and those of his children’s, so that he and his children may peacefully prosper in their native land, and be engaged in offering prayers for the perpetuity of the eternal Government, and the officers should not go against this order and neglect it’.55
In another farman issued in 1642 CE by Emperor Shahjahan, it was ordered that officials should give every assistance to the agents of Shantidas and ‘after his death they (officers) should allow his property and building go to his sons and heirs and they should not interfere with them’. Apart from the landed property, through the intervention of the Emperor Shahjahan Shantidas ensured that his commercial interests should also be protected by the imperial orders. To facilitate Shantidas’s servants’ visit to the royal ports to purchase jewels and other articles, it was ordered that ‘at the time of such visits, the officers, functionaries and Mutasaddis, of the present and future affairs, of these ports should not interfere with the servants of the above mentioned person and they should give them a safe conduct in the territories within their charge’.56 Another farman issued in the same year endorsed the earlier orders in favour of ‘Satidas’ but significantly here Shantidas has been called Muti-ul-Islam (submitted to the authority of the state). In this farman also, proprietary rights of the heirs of Shantidas have been recognised in case of his death.57
Click HERE for part 2 of this post
Post a Comment