Click HERE for part 1 of this post
This constant emphasis for the proprietary rights of the heirs, addressed to the provincial officials indicates some uneasiness with this issue. Whether Shantidas was afraid of some kind of competitive claims over his property or existing norms of the time could have led to some ‘unofficial’ action by the provincial officials, is not clear. In this regard, evidence from a different context is worth mentioning. When Muldas, the grandfather of Banarsidas, died, his employer the Mughal official forcibly confiscated Muldas’s possessions, seizing his house and sealing it with his personal seal.58 This confiscation of property made Kharagsen and his mother destitute and dependent on their relatives. Francois Bernier has narrated an event of Shahjahan’s reign pertaining to the custom of the king’s constituting himself sole heir of the property of those who died in his service. After the death of a wealthy baniya who was employed in the king’s service, his widow refused to give anything to her extravagant son. The son complained to the emperor, who in turn called that baniya widow to the court and ordered her to immediately submit 100,000 rupees to him and another 50,000 rupees to her son. The widow could escape this command only by her wit.59
The farman of Shahjahan along with the nishan of Prince Dara Shikoh, issued in 1644 CE ordered to Muiz-ul-Mulk, the Governor of Ahmedabad, to the effect that as ‘the anniversary of royal accession was approaching and precious jewels had to be presented to His Majesty’, Muiz-ul-Mulk should procure jewels worth presenting from the jewellers specially from Shantidas Jauhari and forward the same. This was treated as special order for which ‘strenuous efforts’ had to be made. One person called Sheikh Chand was specially deputed to bring special jewels. The same order also enquired that whether the haveli of Haji Ikhlas which was sold by the officers for 6,000 rupees and a little more to Shantidas could actually be of this much worth only as one govern ment official Mulla Dana had represented to the Diwan’s office that the haveli could have fetched a higher price. It was also ordered that if anyone made a better offer than the amount paid by Shantidas, then the haveli could be resold to that person. But very interestingly, the royal order had one negotiable line ‘if Shantidas sends for us good jewels, we would remit the difference of price in his favour’. The remarks endorsed by Muiz-ul-Mulk on the reverse of the farman explained that on the personal visit of Muiz-ul-Mulk it was found that, aside from higher prices, no one in Ahmedabad was prepared to buy it for the price equivalent to what was paid by Shantidas. Thus, the haveli was allowed to remain in his possession.60
The language of the official orders and the subject matter of these farmans, indi cates the complexities of governance in the Mughal state. The data contained in such diverse sources points out to the extent of involvement in the local affairs on the part of the Mughal state. The attention focused on matters relating to the affairs of Shantidas speaks for itself. The Mughal government was taking care of his havelis, shops and gardens as well as rent due from those possessions, situated not in the imperial cities of Delhi and Agra but in the capital of the suba of Gujarat. These favours were granted ‘just because he is a merchant and a loyal jeweller of the court’. The Emperor’s con cern about the safety of Shantidas’s servants visiting royal courts for procuring pre cious jewels and other articles is also evident in the above mentioned farmans. Quite strangely so much concern about the material well-being of Shantidas could not stop the same imperial authority from arm-twisting him on appropriate occasions. Shantidas could ensure the possession of the haveli of Haji Ikhlas at the paid price only if he ‘sends for us good jewels, we would remit the difference of price in his favour’. Thus the state was very explicit in maintaining its control and conscious in delegating its favours. It knew how to reciprocate the favours vis-à-vis its subjects. For this purpose, the subjects were made to realise their subordination even if they were the affluent ones like that of Shantidas.
Shantidas’s influence in his community and the Mughal state’s approach towards social developments could also be gauged by one issue described in one farman of Shahjahan issued in 1644 CE. In Ahmedabad mahajans were the entrepreneurial organisations of different communities. As per the farman, a mahajan of the Lumpaka sect (Lonka gaccha) had submitted a complaint to the court that ‘the Mahajans of Satidas, Surdas and others did not take their meals with them and did not form any relationship with them’. It was appealed that state intervention was necessary to end the boycott of Lonka sect by Shantidas and his following. But the imperial response not just shows the policy of non-interference in the religious affairs by the Mughals but also indicates indirect support for Shantidas. The reaction of the emperor symbolises a thoughtful policy of maintaining equidistance over the issues of sectarian differences. As per the order:
…since in the excellent religious laws and noble religion, to form matrimonial alliances with another, an inter dining, depends on the pleasure and desire of the two parties, they (the offi cers) should settle that, if people are willing and desirous they may form relationship and connection (by marriage) and take meals with one another; otherwise no one should trouble another on account of this, and they (the officers) should not find fault with anyone in this respect. If at times, on account of this, some disturbance takes place, such an event should be decided and settled according to the holy religious rules and they should not go against and disobey this order.61
This approach of non-interference in the community issues was similar to the earlier attitudes of Akbar and Jahangir. Akbar had obliged both the Tapa gaccha and Khartar gaccha sects of Jains by granting religious concessions to them. Jahangir, during his stay at Mandu, avoided any interference in the succession issues of Tapa gaccha though desired by the rival Jain pontiffs. The controversy about Dharamsagar’s book Sarvajana Shatak which had been proscribed by Hiravijay Suri, was brought to the emperor Jahangir by Nemisagar Upadhyaya but the emperor advised both the parties to reach a compromise.62 Going by the instance of imperial move in the case of Haji Ikhlas’s haveli one can very well make out that Shantidas would not have been able to manoeuvre the imperial order in his mahajan’s favour as suggested by some historians. Rather, this order would have been one more instance of a coherent approach by the Mughals on such matters.
This approach was not just applicable for the intra-community matters of the Jains, but on occasions the imperial authority could also take a stand against their own pro vincial authorities even if they happened to be the Mughal princes themselves, espe cially, if they dared to go against the imperial policy of religious non-interference. There is one more incident which shows sensibilities of the time. Sheth Shantidas had built a magnificent temple in Ahmedabad described by foreign traveller, Mandelso, in 1638 as ‘without dispute one of the noblest structures that could be seen’.63 In 1645 CE, Aurangzeb as Subedar of Gujarat had converted the Chintamani Parsvsnath temple built by Shantidas at Saraspur in Ahmedabad into a Masjid known as Quwat-ul-Islam.64 In 1648 CE Dara Shikoh as the Viceroy of Gujarat deputed Baqir Beg (Ghairat Khan) to work as his Deputy in the province. Citing one earlier farman of Shahjahan issued to Shaista Khan as Viceroy of Gujarat during 1646–48 CE about the temple of the leading person of the time (zubdat-al-akran) ‘Satidas Jawahari’:
Shahzada Sultan Aurangzeb Bahadur having constructed in that place some mihrabs (prayer arches) had given it the name of a mosque according to the inviolable Islamic law; a world obyed order, therefore, obtained the honour of being ensued that this building is the property of Satidas, and that because of the mihrab which the famous Prince had made in that place the above mentioned person should not be harassed, and that the mihrab should be removed and the aforesaid building should be handed over to him.65
This farman issued to Ghairat Khan had modified implications probably to take care of the sensibilities of both the involved religions:
…now, at this time, the world-obeyed and illustrious order has been issued that the mihrab which the victorious and exalted Prince has constructed may be retained, and a wall be built near the same as a screen between the temple and the mihrab. Hence it is ordained that, since his exalted Majesty has, as an act of favour, granted the aforesaid temple to Satidas, he should be in possession of it as before, and he may worship there according to his creed in any way he likes, and no one should obstruct or trouble him; and also some of the Faqirs (beggars) who have made their abode in that place should be turned out, and Satidas should be relieved from the troubles and quarrels on their account. And since it has been represented to His Majesty that some of the Bohras have removed and carried away the materials of that temple, in the event of this being so, those materials should be got back from them and should be restored to the person referred to above (Satidas) and if the aforesaid materials have been used up, their price should be recovered from them and should be paid to Satidas.66
A farman of 1647 CE issued by Shahjahan reminded that an inam assignment of thirty bighas of land together with a well at the mauza of Asarva in the pargana haveli at Ahmedabad was originally assigned to ‘Barduwan’ and Panju and Satidas and Sundardas and their children for the upkeep of a garden. Now the farman noted that after the death of Barduwan and Panju it was represented to his Majesty that land was in possession and charge of Satidas and others, thus the plot be assigned and continued to Shantidas and his family and to their children without any taxation and keeping them free ‘from all kinds of trouble and molestation’.67 The landed interests of Shantidas bring his status close to that of a ‘portfolio capitalist’. In the seventeenth century, the presence of what has been termed ‘portfolio capitalists’, whose diverse interests included revenue farming, internal and external trade, banking and money lending, control over mines, and military functions, show an orientation towards profits and power that both demonstrated and facilitated the progress of the economy in directions that were fairly irresistible.68 His varied engagements like commercial trade, landed ownership, banking, financing and money lending show that Shantidas had large stakes in the available economic opportunities of the seventeenth century.69
It is quite interesting that out of the two powerful members of the Jain community (that is, Karamchandra Bacchawat and Shantidas Jauhari) Karamchandra Bacchawat of Bikaner was appreciated and eulogised by the Jain sources for his philanthropy and contributions to the community, state and religion. But his achievements could not draw attention of the Persian sources or the Mughal state to an extent comparable to that of Shantidas Jauhari. The latter in turn largely remained eclipsed in the Jain sources. This disparity in the two different types of narratives would have been the outcome of two strong possibilities. First, the Persian narratives do not bring out the social interaction of the Mughal royalty to the extent that one gets to know from the Mughal farmans or the vernacular literature particularly those of Jains who were among the most literate communities of the time. Thus Jains themselves in general, and Karamchandra Bacchawat in particular, remained on the fringe of the court centric mega Persian narratives. The second possibility could be the change in the perceptions of the Jain narratives due to antagonistic relations Shantidas had with the mainstream Jain sects particularly due to his dissent against Tapa gaccha sect. One has to remember that most of the Jain narratives of the relevant period have been dominated by Tapa gaccha and Khartar gaccha writings. Shantidas had emerged as a dissident when he patronised his friend Rajsagar Suri and provoked him to establish the Sagar gaccha when he failed to manoeuvre the Tapa gaccha according to his wishes. Moreover, Shantidas’s proximity to the royal court and his status as Muti-ul-Islam (submitted to the authority of state) could have on one hand be given so much attention through farmans but on the other hand eclipsed him in the Jain narratives. Moreover, the paradigm shift, that is, change from spiritual relationship to the materialistic transactions between the Jain community and the Mughal state would have certainly affected the nature of the narration, as the main concern of the Jain tradition was its inclination towards spirituality.
The Dynastic War of Succession and the Jauhari
Just prior to the war of succession, the attitude of the central authorities towards Shantidas became covetous. In a farman of Shahjahan with the nishan and seal of prince Dara Shikoh dated year 1655 CE, the royal voice emerges in a critical manner against the most excellent man (zubdat-ul-amsal) Shantidas that all the grace and indulgence of the royal favours towards him was well known to the people of the world. Hence in lieu of all the royal favours it was befitting for him to reciprocate by ‘sending presents and rare things’. He was reprimanded ‘For a considerable period no good service has been rendered by him and he has not sent a gift fit for our approval. Moreover, it is heard that he has sent good things to other places’. In spite of this offending tone the farman was gracious enough to ask for another favour from Shantidas in the form of a round chapar [sic] diamond weighing 44 surkhs, so that he could ‘make up for all his past negligence by sending it’.70 Delay in the delivery of the desired diamond could lead to reporting of the matter to the king ensuring his summoning to the court along with reference for further action to provincial governor Murad Baksh.
It is significant that in February 1656 CE another farman was issued by the emperor but with the nishan of prince Aurangzeb instead of the usual endorsement by Dara Shikoh. This letter has all praise, that is, ‘sincere and most excellent merchant (Zubdat ul-tujjar), obedient to Islam’ for Shantidas. Even then the critical voice was very much reflected. This time Shantidas had sent the vessels decorated with jewels through his agent (gumastah) and the courtiers had inspected them. Though the items were not befitting to the status of the king, but just not to dishearten Shantidas some of the arti cles were purchased and the remaining were returned back. The farman carried some guidelines for the future as well, that henceforth ‘he should send to the court vessels decorated with jewels as also excellent jewels for being approved, and these should be rare things’ and such action should be considered by him as ‘cause of acquiring royal favour’. Even then the royalty was generous enough to confer a rich robe of honour on him as a mark of patronage.71
Within just six months of issuance of this farman Shantidas was called to the royal court through another farman of Shahjahan with the nishan and seal of Dara Shikoh. The cause for the call was not explained though the royalty was conscious enough to mention that ‘The rainy season is also approaching its end. After celebrating the dussera festival there he should, without any delay, proceed to the exalted court’.72 The sensibilities of the Mughals were clearly aware of the fact that a Jain is not supposed to travel during chaturmas, that is, the rainy season to avoid loss of life. Moreover, he was also allowed to celebrate the ‘dussera’ festival in his own city as being an eminent personality his presence would have been necessary in Ahmedabad.
A farman issued with the nishan and seal of Murad Baksh, governor of Gujarat, reconfirmed grant of a village Shankheshwar73 in the pargana of Munjpur as a ijara to zubdat-ul-amasal wal akran (cream of peers and companions) Shantidas for the sum of 1,050 rupees. Jagirdars of the place were ordered that the lease continued in accordance with the practice and no change or alteration in the rule should be made. Apart from paying the necessary dues to the jagirdars, Shantidas was also instructed to make strenuous efforts in promoting the prosperity and flourishing condition of this village and the welfare of the inhabitants. The image of Parshwanath in the village temple carried an inscription which shows its date as VS 1666/1609–10 CE. The cells and walls of the temple carried numerous short inscriptions belonging to 1596–1630 CE. Probably this temple was erected in the time of Shantidas.74 Another farman of Emperor Shahjahan with the nishan of prince Dara Shikoh reconfirmed the contents of the earlier farman in favour of ‘Satidas’ with a condition that he should pay the necessary dues for that mauza to the jagirdar.75 Prior to the war of succession, Prince Murad Baksh as Governor of Gujarat borrowed rupees 5,50,000 from Manekchand and his brothers, the sons of Shantidas. On 22 June 1658 CE Murad Baksh with the title ‘Badshah-i- Ghazi’ issued a farman on ‘1st of Shawwal in the 1st year of the accession’, that is, 22 June 1658 CE, to his trusted eunuch Mutamad Khan, his deputy in Gujarat that loan due to Manekchand and his brothers from the Sarkar and taken at Ahmedabad ‘should be paid back from the revenues of the kharif season Yunt El derived from the parganas mentioned’.76 Murad Baksh as emperor addressed another farman to Haji Mohammad Quli (probably a provincial officer) ordering him to expedite the process of clearing off this loan from the Gujarat revenue.77
We know that Murad’s ambition could not materialise and he became a victim of Aurangzeb’s diplomatic shrewdness leading to his imprisonment and ultimately capi tal punishment in 1661 CE in the fort of Gwalior. Yet it is amazing that Aurangzeb who became emperor at the cost of his father and brothers should keep and hold the words of his brother Murad. Very soon Emperor Aurangzeb issued a farman just within months of his accession to the throne favouring Shantidas. This farman of 10 August 1658 CE acknowledged the presence of Shantidas in the royal court and the permission granted to him to return to his native place Ahmedabad. The farman directed to Rahmat Khan, Diwan of Gujarat, also pointed out that through the mediators Shantidas had brought to the notice of the emperor his anxiety about the loan taken by Prince Murad Baksh at Ahmedabad. This loan of rupees 5,50,000 belonged to three different persons of ‘which amount four lakhs and sixty two thousand rupees were from Manekchand the son and from Rabidas the partner of the servant (Satidas) and eighty thousand from one of the relations of this humble person’ therefore ‘on account of our kindness and generosity, we grant the sum of one lakh of rupees from the royal treasury to the said person’.78 Due to the prevailing political situation, it has been argued that, ‘Aurangzeb was anxious to befriend and conciliate so powerful a subject and financier as Shantidas and to attach him to his cause’.79 Yet two points of the farman, already issued before the emergence of any potential danger from Gujarat are quite crucial. This farman does not talk about the repayment of the rest of the amount and it also cautions the provincial authority that only, ‘after satisfying yourself about this loan of four lakhs and sixty-two thousand rupees made by his son and his partner, you should, with the concurrence of the above-mentioned Khan [Shah Nawaz Khan, Subedar of Gujarat], give one lakh of rupees to the said person’. Thus the source of money given as loan was also to be authenticated. In fact, Aurangzeb’s action of returning the loan of his competitor brother was gracious enough yet the fact that the new emperor was not try ing to appease and conciliate with anyone comes very well out of this example. Instead of interpreting the grant of the loan by Shantidas to Murad as an act of a ‘collaborator’ working with the anti-Aurangzeb forces, the new emperor was gracious enough to accommodate Shantidas within the new imperial apparatus. Yet this issue of repayment had to be dealt with through the proper channel of the provincial authorities only. The language of the farmans issued by Aurangzeb in favour of Shantidas clearly indicates his act of establishing general peace leaving behind the baggage of destruction that ensued during the war of succession. In fact, repayment of 1,00,000 rupees should not be seen as an attempt to conciliate, rather Aurangzeb wanted to send a message that henceforth all matters of the Mughal royalty, including the financial liabilities, had to be dealt with by the new regime. ‘The cause of anxiety’ of Shantidas had to be partly satiated to send a message of the benevolence of the new emperor. This should not be seen as a matter involving Aurangzeb and Shantidas. Rather it was the ‘anxiety’ on the part of the new emperor to gain legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects. Moreover, Aurangzeb wanted that as an influential person Shantidas should spread the imperial message to establish stability in the empire:
He has been commanded that after his arrival there he should announce to all the business men and the Mahajans and to all the inhabitants of that land our desire for just administration and our regard for the subjects, which (qualities) are the cause of the order of the universe and of the regulation of the affairs of mankind, so that all, having settled in their places and set tings, may pursue, with composure of mind and satisfaction of heart, their respective occupa tions and professions, and may pray for the permanence of the State granted by God (daulat i-khudadad).80
Certainly after becoming the emperor out of controversial circumstances it would have been the earnest desire of Aurangzeb to give an assurance of ‘normalcy’ and peace to his subjects. As we understand no authority could sustain itself on the basis of day to day use of force rather it is the belief of the subjects in the legitimate authority of the rule which ensures ‘permanence of the state’ for eternal duration. Moreover, we know from the accounts of Banarsidas81 in the context of the deaths of Akbar and Jahangir that the change of regime in the Mughal Empire used to be a matter of turmoil and tense moment for the masses as well. Thus, this assurance acquires significance. Here like his forefathers, Aurangzeb also wanted to establish a chord between his kingship and his subjects for the permanence of daulat-i-khudadad.
One of the last farmans issued by Aurangzeb on 30 January 1659 CE regarding the family of Shantidas perhaps tries to address his concerns:
Lakshmichand, the son of Satidas Jawahari, has recently submitted, through those who stand at the foot of the throne of the Khilafat, to the noblest, holiest and most exalted Majesty, that he has sums due from his gumashtas (agents) and from several inhabitants of the said Subah, and that they bring forward false excuses as regards the payment of the same. He hopes that from the court of sovereignty the exalted order may be issued that they (i.e., the officers) should help him in the recovery of the amounts due to him.
The world-ruling order, which is obeyed by the universe, is now issued that, provided the truth of his complaint is proved, they should help and assist him in the recovery of whatever is necessary as due to the applicant from those persons according to the documents and accounts, and they should so act that the money of the applicant should not be withheld by any one contrary to his accounts. They should consider this as urgent.82
One could correlate this farman with the farman dated 10 August 1658 CE which talked about repayment of rupees 1,00,000. Here one may wonder whether the family of Shantidas was facing difficulties in the recovery of rupees 1,00,000 from the pro vincial governor or whether it was an indirect humble request on the part of the Jauhari family to remind the all mighty government about their dues.
The last farman dated 12 March 1660 CE issued to Shantidas was quite in line with the older farmans of the empire. It negotiated with the religious communities through their established leadership. The farman issued in favour of, ‘Satidas Jawahari, son of Sahasbhai of the shrawak community’ recognised his services as he, ‘greatly helped the army during its march with provisions’. Thus the emperor not only confirmed in his favour possession of the hill and temples of Shatrunjaya at Palitana but also granted him the sacred hill of Girnar near Junagarh and the hills of Abuji under the Raja of Sirohi. Interestingly, the farman further cautions the officers and the Rajas that, ‘they should not demand a new sanad every year, and if anybody makes any claim about that village and the three hills which we have given to him, he will be liable to the censure and curses of the people as well as of God’.83 Thus, the grant recognises the control of the Jain community over these possessions rather than of any individuals. Certainly the gesture of constant interaction with Shantidas should not just be seen as recognition by the state to his individual materialistic wealth rather his status as the leader of Jain community and the head of the mahajan institution of Ahmedabad are more significant to further the argument of state’s interaction with the communities in Mughal India. Shantidas had to face hurdles and the wrath of the local authorities from time to time but whosoever was at the helm of affairs at the center could neither ignore him nor his status as the head of the Jain community and the city mahajan of Ahmedabad. One could argue that Shantidas Jauhari was an important node between the Jain community and the Mughal state at that juncture of time. A parallel engagement with the communi ties apart from the usual administrative hold over the provinces seems to be a continu ous strategy, though the personal interests of the emperors could change the nature of the engagement from time to time. Aurangzeb who victimized Shantidas in the role of a provincial Governor patronized him in his capacity as the emperor.
It was not so that Aurangzeb’s regime was following a policy of largesse just to keep the Jain affluents in good humor. As per the Jain tradition, in the fifth reignal year of Aurangzeb, that is, 1662 CE, the renowned Tapa gaccha scholar of logic and jurispru dence Yashovijay Gani was publicly recognised by the Mughal authorities for his knowledge and skill. In Ahmedabad, Yashovijay performed eighteen forms of avadhan (the cognitive process of concentration selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things) in the presence of ‘Mahobat Khan’, the gov ernor of Gujarat.84 Being impressed by his erudition, the Mughal official facilitated the conferment of the epithet of Upadhyaya on him. In fact it was only after getting recognition from the Mughal authorities that Yashovijay was suitably awarded by the Tapa gaccha.85
To conclude in the political scenario of Mughal India financial superiority did not entail political decision-making. Thus, in spite of enjoying certain local and personal autonomy in their actions which sometimes had wider implications, the Jain mercantile magnets could have never imagined sharing the power of Mughal royalty or influencing its decisions in the larger context; unlike merchants in contemporary England. The basis of sectarian polarization was always shown to be ideological, but in reality there was an inherent current of personality and ego clashes. At the same time monarchy had an incessant eagerness for social engagement or negotiation with these communities. The Mughal emperors were personally eager to expand their social foundations, but at the same time they were cautious enough to take a balanced approach in the sectarian conflicts. Whenever they intervened, interventions were in favour of reconciliation, accommodation and assimilation. Giving importance to Jain laity and Jain piety also signifies a parallel strand of the Mughal emperors to establish contact with the masses. This process of contact was very essential given the time and space of Rajputana, the home land of indigenous ruling class, a potential danger looming large over the empire in spite of all the benevolence shown by the Mughals towards the Rajputs. The Rathore rebellion during the reign of Aurangzeb establishes the hypothesis that Rajputs were always a potential danger. Thus the Mughal rule did not just require the support of the indigenous ruling class; it also acquired the goodwill of the indigenous masses. Mughal authority went beyond the world of ruling class and had its roots among the masses of India. Yet, as already established here and elsewhere, one has to be con scious of the broader potentials of the vernacular literature beyond the materialistic syncretism of piety, laity and royalty. The nuances and tensions of the medieval world are too complex to be just analyzed on the basis of events of ‘favours’ and ‘patronage’ granted for the sake of exigencies of governance. Medieval individuals, localities and communities certainly had everyday living experiences to be explored out of hitherto untapped sources away from the realm of elite networks.
Acknowledgements
An earlier draft of the paper received valuable comments and suggestions from Prof. S.Z.H. Jafri, Prof. B.P. Sahu and Justin Mathew.
References
Ali Mohammad Khan. Mirat-i Ahmadi, Supplement: With Explanatory Notes and Appendices, trans. and ed. Syed Nawab Ali and Charles Norman Sedon, Baroda, 1928. Ali, M. Athar. The Apparatus of Empire: Awards of Ranks, Offices and Titles to the Mughal Nobility, 1574–1685, Delhi, 1985.
Banarsidas. Ardhakathanak (1641) Text, translated, introduced and annotated by Mukund Lath, Ardhakathanak: Half a Tale, Jaipur, 1981.
Bernier, Francois. Travels in the Mogul Empire, 1656–1668, Translated on the basis of Irving Brock’s version and annotated by Archibald Constable (1891), 2nd edn, Revised by Vincent A. Smith, Reprint, Delhi, 2005.
Bühler, G. ‘The Jaina Inscriptions from Shatrunjaya’, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II, 1894. Burgess, James and Henry Cousens, Architectural Antiquities of Northern Gujarat More Especially of the Districts Included in the Baroda State, Vol. IX of The Archaeological Survey of Western India, London, 1903.
Commissariat, M.S. Studies in the History of Gujarat, 1935.
. A History of Gujarat with a Survey of its Monuments and Inscriptions, Vol. II, The Mughal Period: From 1573 To 1758, Bombay, 1957.
‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, The Journal of the University of Bombay, Vol. IX(1), July 1940.
Darshanavijaya. Vijayatilaka Suri Rasa (1622–1640), ed. Vidya Vijay, Aitihasika Rasa Sangrah, Part IV, SYJG, Bhavnagar, 1920.
Desai, Mohanlal Dalichand. Sheth Shri Shantidas Tatha Mahamuniona Raas: Jain Aitihasik Raasmala, Part 1, Srimad Budhisagarji Granthmala, No. 24, Mumbai, 1912. Diwanji, Rao Bahadur Prahladsi. ‘Three Gujarati Legal Documents of the Mughal Period’, Journal of the Gujarat Research Society, Vol. 4 (1), January 1942, pp. 20–26. Farman of Emperor Nuruddin Jahangir ordering his officials throughout the empire to ban slaughter of animals during the twelve days of the Jain Paryushan festival (1610 CE), Sri Kailash Sagar Suri Gyan Mandir/Samrat Samprati Museum, Sri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra, Koba, Gujarat.
Farman of Emperor Shahjahan issued to the Jain Sangha of Bikaner (?) on Urdibihisht, Tenth Reignal Year of Shahjahan (1638 CE), Sri Kailash Sagar Suri Gyan Mandir/Samrat Samprati Museum, Sri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra, Koba, Gujarat.
Gani, Yashovijay. Jaina Tarkabhāsā, eds Sukhlalji Sanghvi, Mahendra Kumar & Dalsukh Malvania, Singhi Jain Series, No. 8, Calcutta, 1938.
Jahangir. Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, trans. Alexander Rogers, ed. Henry Beveridge, 2 Vols, Reprint, Delhi, 1968.
Jain, Muni Uttam Kamal. Jain Sects and its Schools, Delhi, 1975.
Mendalso, J. Albert de. Mandelso’s Travel in Western India, 1638–40 A.D., ed. M.S. Commissariat, Bombay, 1931.
Muni Jinvijay ed., Prachin Jain Lekh Sangrah, Vol. II, Shri Kanti Vijay Jain Itihaas Mala, No. VI, Bhavnagar, 1921.
ed., Jain Aitihasik Gurjar Kavya Sanchay, Shri Jain Aatmanand Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1926.
Muniraj Vidyavijaya. Surishwar aur Samrat Akbar, trans. Krishnalal Verma, Agra, 1923. Nahar, Puran Chand. Jaina Inscriptions (Containing Index of Places, Glossary of Names of Shravak Castes and Gotras of Gacchas and Acharyas with dates), Vol. II, Calcutta, 1927. Nahta, Agarchand and Bhanwarlal Nahta, eds, Yug Pradhan Jinchandra Suri, Shree Abhay Jain Granthmala, Vol. 7, Calcutta, 1935.
———. ed., Aitihasik Jain Kavya Sangrah, Shree Abhay Jain Granthmala, No. 8, Calcutta, 1937.
Prasad, Pushpa. ‘Jahangir And Jains: Study Based on Jain Historical Sources and Inscriptions’, Islamic Culture, Vol. LVI(1), January 1982, pp. 37–42.
Saqi Mustaid Khan. Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri (A History of the Emperor Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir, 1658–1707 A.D.), trans. Jadu Nath Sarkar, Reprint edition, Calcutta, 1990. Sastri, Hiranand. Ancient Vijnaptipatras, Sri Pratapsimha Maharaja Rajyabhisheka Granthmala, Memoir No. 1, Baroda, 1942.
Shah Nawaz Khan. Ma’asir al-Umara Being Biographies of The Muhammadan and Hindu Officers of The Timurid Sovereigns of India From 1500 To about 1780 A.D., Vol. 2, English trans., H. Beveridge and Baini Prashad, Calcutta, The Asiatic Society, 1952.
Shastri, Hariprasad Gangadhar. Historical Inscriptions of Gujarat (The Mughal Period), Vol. V, Mumbai, 1981.
Siddhichandra Upadhyaya. Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam (1613), ed. Shri Mohanlal Dalichand Desai, SJS, No. 15, Calcutta, 1941.
Somani, R.V. Jain Inscriptions of Rajasthan, Jaipur, 1982.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay and C.A. Bayly. ‘Portfolio Capitalists and the Political Economy of Early Modern India’, in Sanjay Subrahmanyam ed., Merchants, Markets and the State in Early Modern India, Delhi, 1990, pp. 242–65.
Tavernier, Jean-Baptiste. Travels in India, 2 Vols, trans. and ed. by V. Ball, 2nd edn by William Crooke, Reprint, Delhi, 2000.
The English Factories in India, 1618–1669: A Calendar of Documents in the India Office, British Museum and Public Record Office, 13 Vols (1618–1669), (EFI) ed. William Foster, Oxford, 1906–1927.
Tilaksagar. Sri Rajsagar Suri Nirvana Raas, VS 1723, Gujarati Manuscript, Accession No. 13771, Sri Kailashsagar Suri Gyan Mandir, Sri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra, Koba, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
Tirmizi, S.A.I. Mughal Documents (1526–1627), Delhi, 1989.
———. Mughal Documents (AD 1628–59), Vol. II, Delhi, 1995.
Notes
1 Rao Rai Singh of Bikaner after coming to power in 1573 appointed Jain follower Karamchandra (son of Sangram Bachhawat, the minister of Rao Kalyan Singh) as his diwan. For the Jain Shwetamber community of Rajasthan, particularly for the Khartar gaccha sect, the name of Mantri Karamchandra Bacchawat is cel ebrated as the fulfilment of the political ambitions of the Jain community.
2 Prasad, ‘Jahangir and Jains’, p. 39.
3 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, Vol. I, p. 437.
4 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, p. 62.
5 The Mughal Princes were authorised to issue nishans, not farmans.
6 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, Appendix II, pp. 83–84; Vidyavijayji, Surishwar aur Samrat Akbar, p. 382, Appendix I (B).
7 Siddhichandra, Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, Canto 4, Verse 182, p. 39.
8 Tirmizi, Mughal Documents (1526–1627), p. 82.
9 The Paryushan festival falls in the month of Bhadrapada (August–September) beginning from the twelfth day of the dark fortnight of the month. This festival was celebrated by Shwetambars for eight days while Digambars marked it for ten days. During this festival every Jain layman (shravak) was required to ask for kshama yachna (seeking forgiveness) and to visit the Jain temple to confess his sins, and pay his debts.
10 Farman of Emperor Nuruddin Jahangir ordering his officials throughout the empire to ban slaughter of animals during twelve days of Jain Paryushan festival, on 26th of Farvardin in the Tenth reignal year (1610 CE), Sri Kailash Sagar Suri Gyan Mandir/Samrat Samprati Museum, Sri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra, Koba, Gujarat; Vigyaptipatra of Ustaad Salivahan, V.S. 1667, Kartik Shudi 2 (1610 C.E.), Display, Muni Punyavijayaji Gallery, Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Museum, L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad; Hirananda Sastri, Ancient Vijnaptipatras, pp. 24–26.
11 Harshnandan ‘Aachar Dinkar Prashasti’, V.S. 1669, in Nahta and Nahta, Yugpradhan Jinchandra Suri, pp. 142–45; Dharamkirti, ‘Jinsagar Suri Raas’ in Nahta and Nahta eds, Aitihasika Jain Kavya Sanghra, Verse 13, p. 179; Jinvijay ed., Prachin Jain Lekh Sangrha, Vol. 2, Inscription no. 17, p. 25; even the Tapa gaccha narratives whose ascetic was charged of misconduct mentions this incident: Darshan Vijay, ‘Vijaytilak Suri Raas’ in Aitihasik Raas Sangrah, Vol. 4, ed., Vidya Vijay, Verse 435–436, p. 33:
Ehvai prithvipati jahangir, doshi bachne lago veerII 435 II
Veshdhari upar kopiyo, mutkalnai desoto diyo I
Mleccha na jaanai the vichar, aachari mokal angaar II 436 II
Naasrandu padio bahu desi, bhala hunta tene rakhya vesh I
12 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Verses 110–113, p. 232; Bipada udai bhai is beech, purhakim nauwab Qilich.
13 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, Vol. I, p. 301.
14 The farman specially mentioned that no trouble should be given to Chandu Sanghvi and other Jains and no official demand was to be made for any kind of dues. Thus, the land was tax free from all official duties with a special instruction that the order should not be infringed in perpetuity and all should consider this as their duty due to the government; Upadhyaya, Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, pp. 86–87; Vidyavijaya,
Surishwar ane Samrat Akbar, p. 393.
15 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, pp. 26–29.
16 Gunvijay, ‘Vijaysingh Suri Vijaya Prakash Rasa’, in Nahta and Nahta, Aitihasika Jain Kavya Samghra, p. 354; Somani, Jain Inscriptions of Rajasthan, p. 197.
17 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, Vol. I, p. 331.
18 Sagar gaccha was a sub-sect of Tapa gaccha and was started by Rajsagar Suri in 1557, see Muni Uttam Kamal Jain, Jain Sects and Schools, pp. 61, 69.
19 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, p. 61.
20 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, p. 21.
21 Ibid., p. 61.
22 Ibid., p. 62; Darshanvijaya, Vijaytilaksuri Raas, Verses 1340–1344, p. 112.
23 Gunvijay, ‘Vijay Singh Suri Vijaya Prakash Rasa’, in Nahta and Nahta, Atihasika Jain Kavya Samghra, p. 355.
24 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, pp. 20–21.
25 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, p. 63; though one Jain text Vijaytilak Suri Rasa, composed by Darshanvijay in 1622 had tried to impress upon its readers that in the same meeting the emperor criticised Vijayadev Suri and at the proposal of Bhanuchandra accepted Vijaytilak Suri as the true head of the Tapa gaccha, historicity of this narrative is doubtful.
26 Commissariat, A History of Gujarat, Vol. II, p. 261.
27 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, Vol. I, pp. 437–38; Prasad, ‘Jahangir and Jains’, p. 39; Commissariat, A History of Gujarat, Vol. II, p. 265.
28 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Vol. I, pp. 437–38.
29 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Verses 462–64, p. 258.
30 Jahangir, Tuzuk-i- Jehangiri, Vol. I, p. 438.
31 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Verses 461–73, pp. 258–59.
32 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Appendix II, p. 91; Vidyavijayja, Surishwar aur Samrat Akbar, pp. 390–91. 33 Desai, ‘Introduction’, in Shri Bhanuchandragani Charitam, p. 18.
34 Nahar, Jaina Inscriptions Vol. II, Inscription Nos 1578–1584, pp. 231–34.
35 G. Bühler, ‘The Jaina Inscriptions from Shatrunjaya’, Inscriptions Nos XV, XVII–XX, XXIII, XXIV, pp. 60–64, 67.
36 Shastri, Historical Inscriptions of Gujarat (The Mughal Period), Vol. V, Inscription No. 44, pp. 71–75. 37 Chintamani Prashasti cited in M.S. Commissariat, A History of Gujarat, pp. 140–41. 38 Tilaksagar, ‘Sri Rajsagar Suri Nirvanrasa’, in Jinvijay, Jain Aitihasik Gurjar Kavya Sanchay, Verses 4–7, p. 50.
39 Shastri, Historical Inscriptions of Gujarat, Idol Inscription No. 48, p. 81.
40 Commissariat, Studies in the History of Gujarat, p. 61.
41 Farman of Emperor Shahjahan (1638 CE), Sri Kailash Sagar Suri Gyan Mandir/Samrat Samprati Museum, Sri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra, Koba, Gujarat. The copy of this farman was discovered by the author, but the translation of the farman is owed to Mr Zakir Husain, Archivist (Oriental Records), National Archives of India. This is the first published reference of this particular farman.
42 Tavernier, Travels in India, Vol. I, p. 110.
43 Commissariat, A History of Gujarat, Vol. II, p. 141.
44 The English Factories in India, (henceforth EFI) 1624–1629, Vol. III, p. 189; 1634–1636, Vol. V, pp. 196, 259; 1637–1641, Vol. VI, p. 100.
45 EFI, 1624–1629, Vol. III, pp. 215, 221; 1634–1636, Vol. V, p. 314; 1637–1641, Vol. VI, p. 225. 46 EFI, 1624–1629, Vol. III, p. 215.
47 EFI, 1624–1629, Vol. III, pp. 215, 221.
48 Diwanji, ‘Three Gujarati Legal Documents of the Mughal Period’, pp. 20–26.
49 EFI, 1618–1621, Vol. I, p. 34; 1622–1623, Vol. II, pp. 28, 72–73, 125–26, 245, 328; 1624–1629, Vol. III, pp. 86, 114, 190; 1630–1633, Vol. IV, pp. 57, 62–63, 76, 154, 209, 220, 278; 1634–1636, Vol. V, pp. 37, 76, 114, 169, 180, 188, 272, 292, 293, 321; 1655–1660, Vol. X, pp. 75, 163; 1661–1664, Vol. XI, p. 111.
50 EFI, 1634–1636, Vol. V, p. 314; 1637–1641, Vol. VI, p. 35.
51 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 31.
52 EFI, 1624–1629, Vol. III, pp. 188–89.
53 Commissariat fixes the date of this farman either in 1612 or prior to that, as in his perception there were two Asaf Khans in the Mughal nobility though neither bore the name of Nizamuddin mentioned in the far man. The first was Mirza Qiwam-ud-din Jafar Beg Asaf Khan of Qazvin who died in 1612 in the seventh year of the reign of Jahangir after serving him as the Vakil of the empire for three years. The second was Mirza Abul Hasan Asaf Khan, the brother of Empress Nur Jahan who served as the Vakil of the empire for a short period in 1626 and for fourteen years in the reign of Shahjahan (Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 30); but if one checks Athar Ali, The Apparatus of Empire, p. 75, this Asaf Khan could have been the diwan of suba Gujarat who served there in 1619–1620 CE.
54 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 30.
55 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 31.
56 Ibid., p. 32.
57 Ibid., p. 33.
58 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Verses 22–23, p. 225.
59 Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656–1668, pp. 164–65.
60 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 35.
59 Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656–1668, pp. 164–65.
60 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 35.
64 Ibid., pp. 23–24, 101–102.
65 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’. p. 40.
66 Ibid., pp. 40–41.
67 Ibid.
68 Subrahmanyam and Bayly, ‘Portfolio Capitalists and the Political Economy’, pp. 242–65. 69 As far as his status as a portfolio capitalist is concerned, one will have to establish link between Irfan Habib’s capitalist potentialities and Sanjay Subrahmanyam’s portfolio capitalist to show the limitations of these potential portfolio capitalists as their functioning was guided by the constraints of the autocratic medi eval polity. The huge money transactions particularly in the coastal region had all the potentials but were marred by the autocratic functioning governing Gangetic heartlands.
70 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 42.
71 Ibid., p. 47.
72 Ibid., p. 44.
73 This village Shankheshwar situated in Radhanpur near the Gulf of Kutch had some temples held sacred by the Jains and was a place of pilgrimage for them.
74 Burgess and Cousens, Architectural Antiquities of Northern Gujarat, pp. 93–95. 75 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 47.
76 Ibid., p. 48.
77 Ibid., p. 50; Tirmizi, Mughal Documents (A.D. 1628–59), Vol. II, p.138. As per Mirat-i Ahmadi, Murad desired that the revenue of the following territorial units or parganas should be used to repay the amount of the loan:
Surat 150, 000
Khambayat 100, 000
Pargana Petlad 100, 000
Pargana Dholka 75,000
Pargana Bharuch 50,000
Pargana Viramgam 45,000
Pargana Namaksar 30,000
Total 550,000
78 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 51.
79 Commissariat, A History of Gujarat, Vol. II, p. 147; this comment certainly refers to the political events taking place in Gujarat in 1658. Shah Nawaz Khan Safavi, father-in-law to both Aurangzeb and Murad Baksh was appointed Governor of Gujarat with rank of 6,000 zat and 6,000 sawar immediately after acces sion of Aurangzeb. But as the new Governor of Gujarat, Shah Nawaz Khan Safavi gave a grave set-back to Aurangzeb when he joined hands with Dara Shikoh when he came to Gujarat via Sindh. Shah Nawaz Khan Safavi not only obliged military and financial support for Dara Shikoh but also fought along with him before getting killed fighting along with Dara Shikoh in the battle of Deorai near Ajmer in April 1659. But the above mentioned farman was issued in favour of Shantidas Jauhari before the provincial governor joined hands with Dara Shikoh, see Shah Nawaz Khan, Ma’asir al-Umara, Vol. 2, pp. 769–71.
80 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 52.
81 Banarsidas, Ardhakathanak, Verses 246–60, 615–17, pp. 242–43, 271.
82 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, p. 53.
83 Commissariat, ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, pp. 54–55.
84 He was Mahabat Khan Mirza Lahrasp, who was appointed the Governor of Gujarat in August 1662 in place of Raja Jaswant Singh. He continued to hold this position till 1668 with Mansab rank of 6,000 Jat with 5,000 Sawar of which 3,000 were du-aspa (two horse) and sih-aspa (three horse), see Shah Nawaz Khan, Ma’asir al-Umara, Vol. 2, p. 30; Saqi Mustaid Khan, Maasir-i- ‘Alamgiri, p. 25.
85 Sukhlalji Sanghavi, ‘Introduction’ in Yashovijay Gani, Jaina Tarkabhāsā, pp. 1–2.
Click HERE for part 1 of this post
Post a Comment