Akbar\'s religious policy PDF

Preview

Summary

an essay note on akbars religious policy...

Description

Q. Discuss the religious ideas of Akbar. How far did they determine the religious and political elite of the period? Ans. The religious ideas of Akbar evolved during the course of his reign. They were shaped by changes in the political and administrative scenario, and changes in his own personality. The primary focus of this essay will be to examine the nature of Akbar’s religious ideas and their relation with the changing political reality of the time. Before we analyse the religious policy of Akbar, it is helpful to look at the primary contemporary sources and how they influence our perception of Akbar. The works of Abul Fazl, Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari are the two primary accounts giving what can essentially be seen as the official position on various affairs. Being the court chronicler, Abul Fazl gives an uncritical and exaggerated account of Akbar and attempts to construct a State ideology around Akbar. In sharp contrast, we have Muntakhab-uttawarikh by Abdul Qadir Badauni. Badauni was also in Akbar’s court and his views represent the viewpoint of the marginalised bureaucracy. He is overly critical of Akbar’s policies. Other sources that one relies on are Nizamuddin Ahmad’s Tabaqat-i-akbari and the accounts of the Jesuit missionaries at Akbar’s court. Their accounts however are restricted due to their lack of local knowledge. Also, they held a grudge against Akbar who never promoted Christianity the way they would have expected him to. Hence, they too look upon his policies with a prejudiced eye. We need to study these sources in conjunction in order to arrive at a more or less accurate picture of the time. It is important to state at the outset that it is difficult to speak of a “religious policy” of Akbar, as none of the sources mention it as a separate section using that term and so it cannot be called his “policy” per se. Instead, it should be seen as a process of evolution and can be studied as the changing outlook of the Mughal state towards religious matters under Akbar. Akbar was born in 1542 in Umarkot in Sind, symbolically the first Mughal emperor to be born in the India. Akbar is said to have had a restless spirit. He had to face struggle and conflict at an early age and this influenced his mental build-up. Though, he lacked formal knowledge, but was always interested in religious and spiritual matters since young age. He was well

versed in the mystic works of Hafiz, Rumi, Saadi etc. Abu'l Fazl calls him divinely guided; Badauni says his beliefs were heretical. His liberal outlook can be traced back to his Turko-Mongol background, which did not involve a rigid religious tradition. Chengez Khan, for instance, followed the policy of yesa-i-chegaliz, i.e., the ruler treated all religions with the same respect and saw them as more or less representing the same truth. So did Timur. These were figures of inspiration for Akbar. Early Mughals also followed liberal policy. In the recently discovered Khat-i-Baburi, the will of Babur, Babur advises Humayun to recognize the diversity of Indian society and respect all local norms and traditions. Humayun also did not follow orthodox religion, and he patronized Shias as well. Liberal scholars like Abdul Latif Qazvini and later Shaikh Mubarak and Abul Fazl were significant influences on Akbar. Even Jesuits visited his court and interacted with him. The 15 th and 16th centuries were also marked by the emergence and proliferation of pantheistic cults such as the Nanakpanthis and Kabirpanthis. They too believed in oneness of reality and a formless God. K.A. Nizami divides Akbar's reign in the context of his religious ideas into 3 phases – the first from 1556-74, the second from 1574-80 and the third from 1580-1605. The 3 phases seem to be framed keeping in mind the degree of accommodation and liberalism that can be found in Akbar’s policies. It must be kept in mind, however, that almost all of Akbar’s policies seem to be determined by political and not religious considerations. PHASE I: Diffidence to the Ulema According to Nizami, the first phase was marked by vulnerability and diffidence to the Ulema. Akbar seems to be coming to terms with the Islamic orthodoxy, and we find a certain ambiguity in his ideas, as if groping or a curiosity to know more. There is also tentativeness in the manner in which he dealt with different groups. In the first twenty years of his reign, Akbar made serious departures from the traditional Sunni system of government. In 1562, the pilgrimage tax on Hindus was abolished. Akbar also abolished the practice of enslaving families of prisoners’ of war. Abul Fazl dates the abolishment of the jiziya to 1564. S.A.A. Rizvi terms this as one of the greatest achievements of Akbar, which created a common citizenship for all his subjects, Hindus and

Muslims alike. Despite these measures in favour of the Hindus, in the early phase of his reign Akbar remained largely Islamic. The nobility in this part was dominated by Muslims. Satish Chandra has argued that in the early part of his reign, Akbar was the orthodox Muslim of his youth. His deference towards the leading orthodox Sunni personalities prevented any overt breach with the ulama and he gave them full and independent control over religious affairs. The court was also dominated by the orthodoxy. For example, Alims like Abdullah Sultanpuri, who was honoured with the title Makhdum- ul-Mulk and Shaikh Abdul Nabi who was made the Sadr. The conquest of Godwana, the suppression of the Afghans of the Eastern provinces, the conquest of Chittor and Ranthambhor, of Gujarat, Bihar, and Bengal; together with revenue, military and other reforms, kept Akbar increasingly busy from 1564 to 1574. During this period, the ulema dominated affairs and Akbar’s concessions never satisfied them. Under these orthodox elements deviant sects like the Mahdawis were persecuted. Iqtidar Alam Khan sees Akbar’s liberal measures in the context of the political challenges and rebellions faced by Akbar from the side of his Turani nobility. Five major rebellions occoured between 1562-67, all staged by Turani nobles. He also faced the dangerous threat of the Afghans. Thus Akbar had to search for new support groups and he turned to Rajputs as possible allies. According to Iqtidar Alam Khan, measures like abolition of Jizyah and pilgrimage tax were dictated by the compulsions of State policy rather than religious tolerance. The extension of state patronage in the form of Madad-i-Maasih grants was one in a series of steps of a similar nature to win the cooperation of the Shaikhzadas, the Muslim socio-religious elite. However, despite his liberal policy towards the Rajputs, none except the Kachchwahas of Amber joined the Mughal court. Thus, in 1567, Akbar changed stance and took some vigorous measures against the Rajputs. In 1567, Chittor was attacked. Following this, Satish Chandra writes that Akbar, exasperated by the resistances, ordered a general massacre in the course of which about 30, 000 people were killed. In a fathnama issued after the victory, the battle was seen as the subjugation of infidels and presented as a ‘jihad’ and all those who died in the battle as ‘ghazi’. At the same time, in 1569, a farman was issued to Qazi Abdul Samad, the Muhtasib of Bilgram, to prevent idolworship by Hindus in the region. It is also held that jaziya was re-imposed in 1575. However, Iqtidar Alam Khan has explained this aggressive

attitude as an attempt to appease the Muslim orthodoxy – the Turani nobles, the Persians, the Shaikhzadas – and to win their support, which was extremely crucial after the Uzbek rebellion. Regarding the fathnama, he argues that too much significance should not be attributed to it. It should be kept in mind that its language was similar to that of numerous such documents of the medieval period. Moreover, the war was not a religious one as can be seen from the fact that the Kachchwahas fought on the side of the Mughals. The farman was an isolated case and cannot be held as representative of an entire policy. The Chittor campaign had a political and military reason behind it. After his victory at Chittor, Akbar made a thanksgiving pilgrimage to the Dargah of Khwaja Muin-ud-din Chishti at Ajmer. He was extremely close to Shaikh Salim Chishti a saint of the Chisti silsila. The patronage to the Dargah at Ajmer became an important aspect of Akbar’s religious policy. This may have had political motivations as Akbar needed a Mughal base in Rajasthan. Ajmer became the seat for the Mughal governor in Rajasthan. The Jizyah was re-imposed in1575. Despite this, most of the Rajputs entered into an alliance with Akbar after the fall of Chittor, clearly indicating that they too were guided by political considerations rather than Akbar’s attitude towards non-Muslims. PHASE II: Discussions/Apathy to Islam A change can be seen in Akbar’s religious beliefs around 1573 onwards. This was a phase of intense discussions and introspection on the part of Akbar, which led to a radical change in his religious views, and deeply affected future state politics. Akbar’s growing awareness of the repercussions of the traditional orthodox Sunni dominance over his administration compelled him to an active search for new solutions. He therefore encouraged the emergence of a new elite group, whose spokesman was Abul Fazl. Also, from his early childhood Akbar had held a special interest in spiritual matters and had felt that the orthodox view of Islam was not giving him the needed answers. He slowly started getting influenced by jogis, qalandars and sanyasis. This was probably due to their disregard of established norms of religion, a theme that can be noticed throughout Akbar’s religious thought. Nizami, in fact, calls the second phase as a period of apathy to Islam.

This period is characterized by the discussions at the Ibadat Khana. It was established in 1575 at Fatehpur Sikri, after Akbar’s Gujarat campaign. The word was wrongly translated by Vincent Smith as the ‘House of Worship’. It was initially meant to resolve Muslim religious disputes through discussion. Later, it was opened to representatives of other religions and faiths. In the Ibadat Khana, the Muslims often indulged in public arguments on points of theology both to satisfy intellectual curiosity and to prove the superiority of their faith over other religions. Akbar too, having a keen interest in religious and intellectual discussion, hoped to educate himself through these discussions. These polemics were not, however conducted by the participants in the right spirit of enquiry and research but rather with a view to obtaining favours and promotions at the court. Badauni calls it an ‘Iyatdat Khana’, meaning a place of worthless people. Abul Fazl, however, calls the discussions useful, which guided people from darkness to light and enlightened them. Slowly, special efforts were made to associate distinguished Sufis with the activities of the Ibadat Khana. Before long the debates were opened to Shias as well. It seems that Hindus started to be admitted to Akbar’s favour in the Ibadat Khana between 1576 and 1577. In 1578, after a mystic experience, Akbar opened the Ibadat Khana to Hindus, Jains, and Zoroastrians etc. Simultaneously, in this period, an alliance with the Rajputs was being developed. Soon, Jesuit missionaries also began to come to the court of Akbar. Jainism was also apparently a considerable influence at the Ibadat Khana and on Akbar’s own mind. According to some scholars, the Ibadat Khana was established to satisfy Akbar’s curiosity on religious and spiritual matters. However, scholars like I.A.Khan and Nizami attribute political motives to the establishment of the Ibadat Khana, as a means of exposing the duplicity of the orthodoxy. According to Abul Fazl, the discussions at the Ibadat Khana had important consequences. They convinced Akbar that all religions had elements of truth and led to the same supreme reality. This formed the basis for the development of his religious ideas and led to the evolution of Sulh-i-Kul. The debates, especially those on Zakat and marriage, exposed the duplicity of the orthodoxy. Their hostility to the emperor further worsened matters. There was also a realisation on the part of Akbar that for the extension of

the Mughal-Rajput alliance to an ideological level, it was imperative that the influence of the Ulema be curbed. In 1579, Akbar decided to read the Khutba himself and led the Friday prayers, thus claiming over both spiritual and temporal spheres. In this period, we see Akbar clearly breaking away from the orthodoxy. In 1579, he started reading the khutbah himself. This attitude is most clearly symbolized with the promulgation of the Mahzarnama in September 1579. The word ‘Mahzar’ indicates a document that is publicly attested. Akbar’ statement while issuing the Mahzarnama: “Surely the man who is dearest to God on the Day of Judgement is the just Imam (leader,king). Whoever obeys the amir, obeys you and whoever rebels against him, rebels against you”…. “The learned have given a decision that the status of a just king is greater before God than the status of an interpreter of the law.” According to this document, which was in the form of a petition, the ulema gave Akbar the right to adopt any position in case of a conflict among the orthodoxy, and that position would be held as superior. Badauni tells us that, except for Shaikh Mubarak, all the members of the ulama had to be coerced into signed it. In the mahzar it was argued, citing Quran and some Hadis that a just and wise ruler like Akbar not only had the right to claim the allegiance of everyone, but that his position was higher than a mujtahid (interpreter of holy laws) in the eyes of God. Shaikh Mubarak calls him the imam-i-adil or the imam of the age. It was also written that Akbar himself could issue any degree which did not go against the nas i.e. explicit decree of Quran, and the hadis and is “calculated to benefit humanity at large.” Any opposition to such a degree passed by His Majesty would “involve divine displeasures in this world and the next.” The immediate background to the Mahzar was a division among the ulama caused due to the nature of punishment to be given, according to the shariya to a Brahman from Mathura, who had abused the Prophet and Islam. The controversy became prolonged, and the ladies of the imperial harem also came to be involved. Eventually Shaikh Abdun Nabi without the emperor’s permission independently ordered the execution of the Brahman. This incident made Akbar realize the need for certain measures to control the ulama. At this time Shaikh Mubarak told Akbar to make a claim to the ijtihad and demand from the orthodoxy a mahzar. It is worth noting that the Mahzar has been reproduced by Badauni and not by Abul

Fazl, probably since it had little in common with the concept of universal kingship propounded by Abul Fazl. In the Mahzar, the king’s title as head of all orthodox Muslims (Amir-ul-Munim and Badshah-i-Islam) depends on the sanction of the ulema. However, according to Abul Fazl’s theory, kingship is recognized as a divine attribute, commutated by God to kings without the assistance of anyone. He refers to Akbar as insan-i-kamil, or the perfect man, above all religious and sectarian differences. There has been a great deal of debate over the implications and meaning of the Mahzar. V.A. Smith translated the Mahzar as an “infallibility decree”, influenced by the Papacy. K.S. Lal also holds a similar view, arguing that Akbar was influenced by the Jesuit priests. This also established his control over the ulema, since he had a final say in choosing among the various opinions. However, the document is in the form of a prayer/petition, not a command. Also, Akbar did not claim to be a khalifa, who could interpret laws. In fact it is clear that his was a role where he could choose between different interpretations, or between rulings given by earlier law givers, bearing in mind political exigencies and needs of government. S.M. Ikram and S.A. Rashid, two Pakistani historians say that “...studied carefully and dispassionately, it appears to be a major constructive effort, fully in conformity with the Islamic Law and providing a basis for the adjustment of temporal government and the Shariat." However, the authors go on to say. "But the limitations laid down in the Declaration of 1579 were not observed by Akbar, and in practice it became an excuse for the exercise of unrestrained autocracy.” According to some scholars like Smith, Akbar was trying to free himself of allegiance to the Ottoman Khalifa by presenting himself as the Khalifa to whom the Indian Muslims should owe allegiance. But Satish Chandra contradicts this, saying that the Ottoman Khalifa had never demanded their allegiance in the first place. Smith further says that Akbar was placing himself in the context of the 3 important states in Central Asia and wanted to show himself as superior to these. This has been critiqued by Buckler and M.N. Raychaudhuri. Both have analyzed the Mahzar in the international context. They argue that Akbar was trying to fix his position in the Muslim world and free himself from the political and judicial control the Shias of Iran. This is based on the interpretation of the terms ‘mujtahid’ and ‘nawab’. The former is seen as referring to Shia scholars, while the latter is taken to mean the deputy, perhaps of the Safavid ruler of Persia. Thus, by calling himself inam-i-adil, he was freeing himself from the control of Persia. However, there is no concrete evidence of the Mughal state being under any kind of control of Persia. The word

‘nawab’ had a different meaning in the Persian tradition and was a highsounding title to refer to the Mughal rulers. I.H. Qureshi is critical of Akbar and his ideological outlook, blaming him for starting the decline of the Mughals. He calls the Mahzar a dishonest document. He further argues that Akbar was not qualified enough to decide which opinion ought to prevail. He said the purpose of the Mahzar was to instigate the nobility and that eventually it resulted in the decline of Islam since the orthodoxy lost its dominant position. Again, some other scholars say that the purpose of the Mahzar was to divide the ulema, but it has been widely accepted that the ulema were already a divided class. Also the Mahzar was not absolute and did not curtail the legitimate powers of the ulama but only stopped the indiscriminate use of authority by them. I.A. Khan says that the full significance of the Mahzar can be appreciated only if it is viewed against the background of Akbar’s general attitude of promoting and befriending the Indian Muslims. It coincides with a series of other measures by which Akbar strove to show that he respected religions other than Islam as well and wasn’t willing to accept the orthodox interpretation of the sharia, unless it appealed to reason (aql). S.R. Sharma and A.L. Srivastava argue that the Mahzar was aimed at replacing the sharia. However, this cannot be accepted. It is a simplistic view that overlooks the complexities of the situation. Nurul Hasan discusses the significance of the Mahzar at 3 levels. Firstly, at the international level, Hasan says that the document was important keeping in mind that all the medieval political traditions. While the Uzbeks and the Ottomans took up the Sunni cause, the Persians identified with the Shia faith. But by the Mahzar, Akbar was freeing the Mughal state from being identified with any 1 specific ideology. Secondly, at a political level, it was important in dealing with the orthodoxy and checking the influence of the powerful groups in the nobility. It placed the state above the ulema. Also helped control corruption in the madad-i-maash grants.Thirdly its imperial significance lay in the fact that at a time when a composite state was evolving, it allowed the state to take decisions not according to the orthodoxy but the political demands of the time. It relieved Akbar from the responsibility of consulting the state before taking a political decision. This attempt to delink from Islamic orthodoxy was important at a time when the state was pursuing an alliance with the Rajputs.

S.A.A. Rizvi believes that the real significance of the Mahzar, was that ...