The wonder that was india

149

Bahadur Shah's army. An obscure Sikh, Banda Bahadur, declared himself Guru and collected a strong force. They brutally sacked Sirhind and the neighbouring regions. Many Jat peasants converted to Sikhism to receive a share in the plunder, as did many Muslims to preserve their lives. The Emperor was busy subduing the Rajputs and delayed taking immediate action. The imperial army, however, succeeded in bringing Banda Bahadur back to Mukhlisgarh in the Panjab hills. Later he fled to some unknown destination. Bahadur Shah died on 27 February 1712. During his succcessors' reigns the Mughal emperors lost supreme control of the administration. From 1712 to 1739, when the Iranian adventurer Nadir Shah invaded Delhi, many ambitious Muslims from differing racial and religious groups scrambled to monopolize the highest civil and military posts. The Mughal wazir's main concern was to dominate the military administration in order to appoint his own kinsmen to the governorship of important provinces and grant high mansabs to his favourites. Racial and religious considerations played .some role in achieving group solidarity, but the struggle was not directed solely by the proverbial Irani-Turani, Sunni-Shi'i, or Hindu-Muslim considerations. Personal and selfish motives played the decisive role in the formation of these alliances and factions.

The period also saw the consolidation of Jat power in the Agra region. The Kacchwaha Rajput bid to check the expansion of the Jats westwards to Amber prevented them devoting whole-hearted attention to imperial interests. The Marathas penetrated the north', undermining the strength of all the north Indian powers, Mughals, Rajputs, and Jats alike. Lastly, the rapid decline of the Mughal economy destroyed its political strength.

After Bahadur Shah's death, the war of succession among his four sons was won by Jahandar Shah (1712-13). The repeated interference of his mistress, Lal Kunwar, rapidly dislocated the administrative machinery, however, and he ruled for only one year. He was overthrown and killed by his nephew, Farrukhsiyar, with the help of the Sayyid brothers, Husayn 'All and 'Abdu'llah of Barha, in Muzaffarnagar (western Uttar Pradesh). Farrukhsiyar's most striking achievement was the elimination of Sikh power from the Panjab and the execution of the Sikh leader, Banda Bahadur. The Sayyid brothers were good soldiers but were not competent to act either as waztr or as Bakkshiu'l-mamdlik, the principal civil and military offices they appropriated. Their financial adviser, Lala Ratan Chand, was incapable of preventing administrative and economic disintegration, and the financial crisis accelerated the spread of the revenue farming system. The revenue farmers, who rented land for short periods, were concerned only to make the

150

maximum profit. Naturally the system ruined both agriculture and the law-abiding zamindars. The over-assessment of revenue prompted the peasants either to migrate to areas owned by the rebellious zamindars or to abandon farming and join the local chiefs who thrived on plunder.

Farrukhsiyar was able neither to appease the Sayyid brothers nor to neutralize the factionalism at court. His intrigues exasperated the brothers, and they dethroned, blinded, and imprisoned him. He was strangled in April 1719. The Sayyid brothers raised three kings, one after the other, in less than one and a half years. Then the dominant Turani faction came to the rescue of Roshan Akhtar, one of Bahadur Shah's grandsons, who was made king by the Sayyid brothers in September 1719. The Turani faction managed to eliminate both the brothers, and Roshan reigned as Muhammad Shah.

Nizamu'1-Mulk, the veteran Turani leader and viceroy of the Deccan, was appointed wazir by Muhammad Shah. He suggested many puritanical reforms along Aurangzib's lines but he was out of step with the dominant court groups. Most of the nobles and the Emperor considered them unrealistic. They favoured a reversion to Akbar's policies of non-discrimination. Then Nizamu'l-Mulk's ambitious deputy in the Deccan intrigued for independence, forcing him to move there. With Maratha help he crushed the rebel and settled down to consolidate his administration. The Emperor awarded him the title AsafJah. An independent Asaf Jahi dynasty was formed in 1724. The Maratha peshwas (prime ministers) virtually replaced their kings, so Nizam u'l-Mulk made a treaty with the Marathapeshwa, Baji Rao, granting him the right to collect chauth and sardeshmukhi.

Baji Rao now turned his attention to the north, sacking Gujarat, Malwa, Bundelkhand, and Rajasthan. In April 1737 his forces appeared at the gates of Delhi and plundered the capital for three days. The Emperor gave Baji Rao the governorship of Malwa and 1,300,000 rupees in cash. Nizamu'1-Mulk was alarmed by these concessions. Accompanied by the Rajputs, Bundelas, and the governor of Avadh, he marched to Malwa to crush the Marathas. Nizamu'1-Mulk was, however, incapable of uniting the heterogeneous groups under him. Near Bhopal the allied forces gave battle but could not overcome the Marathas. Nizamu'1-Mulk was forced to confirm Baji Rao's governorship of Malwa and, on behalf of the Emperor, granted the Marathas sovereign rights over the territory between the Narbada and the Chambal.64

The news of the invasions of Nadir Shah of Iran stopped the scramble for power in Delhi. The governor of Kabul had warned

151

Muhammad Shah of the impending attack, but the Mughal court ignored his letters. Nadir Shah penetrated into India, accusing Muhammad Shah of giving protection to the Afghan tribes who had earlier seized the Iranian throne. He easily overran the ill-defended cities of Ghaznl, Kabul, and Lahore. In February 1739 he routed the imperial forces at Karnal near Panipat and entered Delhi. The peace negotiations were still in progress when a false rumour of Nadir Shah's assassination prompted bands of Delhi hooligans to kill some three thousand Iranis. Filled with rage, Nadir ordered a general massacre of the citizens of Delhi in retaliation. Twenty thousand people were killed in the bloody reprisal, and enormous treasure fell into Iranian hands. After two months' orgy of plunder and devastation, Nadir Shah returned to Iran. The total value of spoils was estimated at 700 million rupees. Shahjahan's famous peacock throne was also carried away. On his journey to Khurasan, the trans-Indus province (Sind, Kabul, and the western part of the Panjab) fell to Nadir.65

Akbar's formidable frontier disappeared, and the pace of Mughal decline accelerated. Before Muhammad Shah's death in April 1748, Ahmad Shah Durrani, an Afghan adventurer who had accompanied Nadir Shah when he invaded Delhi, had become a potent threat to Indian peace. After Nadir Shah's assassination in 1747 he crowned himself king at Qandahar. He seized Ghazni, Kabul, and Peshawar and began to assert sovereignty over the Mughal provinces ceded to Nadir Shah. In January 1748 he invaded India for the first time with 12,000 troops but was defeated in March near Sirhind by a Mughal army. The aged Mughal vizier who was killed on the battlefield was replaced by the Shi'i governor of Avadh, Safdarjang, who had been the driving force behind the victory. Ahmad Shah Durrani, a seasoned warrior, however, duped the imperialists by prolonging the peace talks while systematically withdrawing his main force and all valuable military equipment. This was the last grand Mughal victory and was the only good news Muhammad Shah heard before his death. The heir apparent, Ahmad Shah, aged twenty-two, had received no literary or military education. His mother, Udham Bai, and the harem head, Jawid Khan, wasted millions of rupees on coronation festivities. The holy Sunni savant Shah WalTullah seems to have become their patron saint.

In October 1748 Ahmad Shah Durrani invaded the Panjab again, and the defeated Turani governor ceded regions west of the Indus to him. After Durrani's third invasion in December 1751 the country as far east as Sirhind surrendered. In 1752 Safdarjang made a subsidiary alliance with the Marathas to secure their help

152

against' the Durrani invasions, but Jawid Khan prevented its ratification. Jawid Khan was assassinated on 5 February 1753, and the growing dissatisfaction of the Turanis, Afghans, and Indian Sunnis against the Shi'i Safdarjang flared up openly. The Emperor dismissed Safdarjang, but he refused to step down. Instead he raised to the throne a boy of obscure origin, who was supported by Surajmal, the Jat chief. The Badakhshis, Baluchs, Marathas, and Gujars joined the imperialists, raising the cry of Sunni jihad against Shi'i domination. Sporadic battles were fought over several months. On 17 November 1753 Safdarjang retired to Avadh. He died on 5 October 1754. His son, Shuja'u'd-Dawla, who succeeded him, strengthened the independence of Avadh. The Emperor's Rohella and Baluch commanders also gained independent control of the districts near Delhi in settlement of their outstanding salaries; the remaining imperial leaders received no financial return. Pitched battles were fought in the Delhi streets by soldiers demanding their wages. On 2 June 1754 Jahandar Shah's son was made Emperor and assumed the grand title 'Alamgir II. The deposed Ahmad Shah and Udham Bai were imprisoned to meet a miserable death in the dungeons. 'Alamglr II remitted the pilgrim tax on Hindus to appease the Marathas and prohibited the Shi'i mourning ceremonies of Muharram in Delhi to mollify the Sunnis.

The Marathas extended their control from Malwa and Gujarat to Bundelkhand. Their leaders carved out many independent centres of power in the region. After 1742 they burst into Orissa and Bengal, ruled by Murshid Qul! Khan's successors. 'All Ward! (1740-56), who then ruled Bengal, was an enterprising general. He fought resolutely against both his Afghan enemies and the Marathas.

In'the Panjab, Ahmad Shah Durrani's invasions destroyed the Mughal administration, leaving the field open for the Sikhs, who had been flattened during Farrukhsiyar's reign. On 15 November 1756 Ahmad Shah left Peshawar to sack Delhi. There was no one left to resist him. In January 1757 he was acknowledged Emperor in Delhi but he was interested only in fleecing India of its wealth. Delhi was divided into sectors under Afghan leaders so that they might plunder it systematically. From there Durrani marched upon Mathura and savagely looted the Hindu; temples and rich merchants. The advent of summer made further Afghan advances impossible, and Ahmad Shah returned to his country laden with treasure from his Indian invasion.

Ahmad Shah Durrani subsequently restored 'Alamgir II to the throne. On 23 June 1757 the commander of the army of the East India Company, Clive, defeated Siraju'd-Dawla, 'Ali Wardi's

153

successor. To justify his aggression he wrote a long letter to the Emperor, who was now no more than a cipher.66 'Alamgir's prime minister, 'Imadu'1-Mulk, first forced Prince 'All Gawhar to leave and then killed his father, 'Alamglr II. The fugitive Prince fled to Bihar and crowned himself king, assuming the title Shah 'Alam II. Although 'Imadu'1-Mulk raised a puppet ruler to the throne, to all intents and purposes Delhi was controlled by the Marathas. Then Ahmad Shah Durrani marched from Qandahar for the fifth time to eliminate the Marathas, who were now virtual rulers as far as Attock.

On 14 January 1761 the Marathas sustained a crushing defeat on the battlefield of Panipat. Ahmad Shah Durrani returned to Qandahar in March of that year. He had by now lost control of the Panjab. He invaded it three more times to eliminate the Sikhs but died in October 1773 without having made much progress in consolidating the administration of the Panjab. The orthodox Sunn! hopes of a revival of their power through Durrani were shattered for ever. Sikh domination of the Panjab was also shortlived. In 1803 the English conquered Delhi, although the Mughal emperors continued to rule within the four walls of the Delhi fort until 1857. But the account of the final elimination of Mughal rule and the steady advance of the British is another story.

154

IV THE STATE

KINGSHIP

According to the Qur'an, God the Most High, Unique, and One in Himself enjoys unlimited sovereignty over His creations. Allah's undisputed power 'to give kingdom' and 'to take away kingdoms',1 according to His. will, presupposes the existence of a state whose citizens are bound to obey the divine law revealed through the Prophet Muhammad. With the Prophet's death the legislative functions which he had performed ended, and his successors, the 'rightly guided caliphs' (ar-Rashidun), inherited the Prophet's executive and judicial functions. The world-view of leadership held by the rightly guided caliphs synthesized the Arab tribal customs with those of the Meccan trading oligarchy, rejecting Iranian monarchical traditions. In subsequent centuries the image of their administrative systems was to acquire a Utopian quality and to provide a norm which in theory later Muslim rulers were to strive to follow. Their successors, the Umayyads, did not enjoy the respect that the first four rightly guided caliphs had commanded, and both the 'Abbasids, who overthrew the Umayyads, and posterity condemn their rule as mulk (kingdom) or irreligious kingship in contrast to the early caliphate. The 'Abbasid caliphs strove to capitalize on their descent from al-'Abbas bin 'Abdu'l-Muttalib, the Prophet's uncle; but what impressed the multiracial society of the 'Abbasids and left an indelible mark on posterity was the Arabic translations of the ancient Iranian Mirror for Princes and the Islamicized versions of this text written by scholars during their caliphate. This literary genre unequivocally asserted that rulers were divinely appointed monarchs who were accountable only to God. The jurists also maintained that God had made the caliphs the trustees of their people and that the happiest 'shepherd' before God on Judgement Day was he whose subjects had been content during his reign. Nevertheless the Muslim religious elite (ahl al-ra'y), while enforcing what was right and forbidding what was evil, could accuse a caliph of open violation of the shari'a and thus have him forcibly removed. This was authorized by a saying of the Prophet Muhammad: 'Do not obey a creature against the

155

Creator.'2 On the other hand, according to the authors of the Mirrors, there was no circumstance legitimizing disobedience to a ruler.

However, the completion of the Shdhnama by the great Iranian epic poet Firdawsi in 1010 gave a new direction to both rulers and political theorists and was to become the most significant watershed in the history of Islamic political thought. As well as an account of the epic glory of the ancient Iranian kings, the Shdhnama eloquently reminded rulers and nobles that monarchs were instruments in the execution of God's will and that their commands were therefore inviolate. The God of the Shdhnama was omnipotent and omniscient, the Creator of the Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, who endowed Kayumars (the founder of the ceremonial of throne and crown) with Jan, a supernatural effulgence or radiance, suggesting the mystique of true kingship. Fan symbolized the divine favour which kings possessed as long as God did not take it away from them. Thus Jamshid, one of the greatest legendary kings of ancient Iran, is said to have asserted that he was himself endowed with this divine farr. He believed he was simultaneously both king and priest, who would save potential evil-doers from taking the wrong path and guide their souls towards the light. Firdawsi related that Jamshid, by virtue of his kingly farr, was able to mould iron into helmets, chain-mail, armour, missile-proof vests, swords, and horse armour.

Fan or farrah is the khvarenah of the Avesta which held a special significance for the people of Iran. Khvarenah represented kingly glory or majesty, and the Shahanshah was not merely an emperor but the custodian of this mystical glory and charisma.

The importance of fan in relation to kingship was so significant that even the orthodox Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058— 1111) could not ignore it. In his Nasihatu'l-muluk he wrote:

It must therefore be recognized that this kingship and the divine effulgence (farr-i Izadi) have been granted to them by God, and that they must accordingly be obeyed, loved and followed. To dispute with kings is improper, and to hate them is wrong; for God on High has commanded, 'Obey God and obey the Prophet and those among you who hold authority',3 which means (in Persian) obey God and the prophets and your princes (amiran). Every religious person must therefore love and obey kings and recognize that their kingship is granted by God, and given by Him to whom He wills.'4

Ghazall also discussed the institution of the caliphate in a number of works, consistently demonstrating that the shari'a stated that the

156

appointment of a caliph was obligatory. To him the institution symbolized the collective unity of the Muslim community and its historical continuity, and he argued that the current situation made a change in the conditions prescribed for the election of a caliph permissible. However, he wrote:

An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by military force, so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and the attempt to depose him would cause unendurable civil strife, must of necessity be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him, exactly as obedience must be rendered to amirs... We consider that the caliphate is contractually assumed by that person of the 'Abbasid house who is' charged with it, and that the function of government in the various lands is carried out by means of Sultans, who owe allegiance to the Caliph. Government in these days is a consequence solely of military power, and whosoever he may be to whom the holder of military power gives his allegiance, that person is the Caliph. And whosoever exercises independent authority, so long as he shows allegiance to the Caliph in the matter of his prerogatives of the khutba5 and coinage, the same is a sultan, whose commands and judgements are valid in the several parts of the earth.6

Documents issued in the reign of the Seljuqs also used the terms jahandar (monarch) and jahandari (monarchy) and stressed the fact that the principal duty of kings was to restore prosperity in a kingdom by dispensing justice. They stressed the interdependence of kingship and religion and emphasized the point that God had entrusted subjects to the sultan's care, it being one of the latter's principal duties to ensure their protection.

A very comprehensive Arabic Mirror for Princes entitled Siraju'l-muluk was compiled in 1122 by Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-Walid al Turtushi (1059-c. 1127), who was born in Spain and visited Iran and Iraq. Here he met the Seljuq vizier Nizamu'1-Mulk Tusi (1018-92) and was greatly impressed by Tusi's scholarship and political acumen. Even the earlier Mirror for Princes had drawn upon the stories in Kalila wa Dimna, as translated from the Pahlavi (Old Persian) by Ibnu'l-Muqaffa' (d. 756). Turtushi's work also shows a definite debt to the same source, Kalila wa Dimna. He refers also to Muntakhabu'l-jawdhir (Selected Gems), composed by the Indian, Sha-naq (Chanakya), as a guide for the monarch. This text, the Kitdb Shdnaq fi al-tadbir, was in fact the celebrated Chanakya-Niti, a collection of political aphorisms in Sanskrit, not to be confused with the Arthasdstra ascribed to Kautilya or Chanakya.

Drawing on a vast range of source material available in Arabic translations, Turtushi referred to kings by such titles as muluk (rulers), umara' (princes), saldtin (kings), and wulat (lords), showing

157

that he considered them indomitable powers. He also endorsed the view that a sultan's right to rule was of divine origin and that he was God's shadow on earth, second only in rank to prophets and angels. But a ruler was also a shepherd and in Turtushi's world-view he was the Prophet's vicegerent, whose duty it was to promote the interests of his subjects. An eternal covenant between God and kings enforced the latter's duty to rule with impartiality and justice.7 Turtushi compared the benefits accruing from sultans to such natural phenomena as rain, wind, the seasons, day, and night, and described tyrants as worse than ravaging lions. However, he preferred even the latter to anarchy, maintaining that the good which emerged from a king outweighed any evil perpetrated by him. In a maxim attributed to Chanakya, Turtushi encouraged rulers to act like the sun, moon, earth, rain, wind, fire, water, and death. From some Hindu source he presented the widespread analogy of the big fish eating smaller fish and claimed that this unstable situation was averted only by a monarchy.8 In summary, Turtushi confidently asserted that the relation of a monarch to his people was identical with that of the body to the soul; if the king were virtuous his people would prosper, but if he were not, evil would prevail in his territory.

By the early thirteenth century the 'Abbasid caliphate was reduced to a mere shadow. The enterprising Turkic leaders, in order to reinforce their own positions, exhibited the caliph's sovereignty over the territories they had conquered by including his name in the khutba and on their coins. This enhanced their prestige as sultans and legalized their rule in the eyes of the orthodox. Mu'izzu'd-Din Muhammad bin Sam inscribed the caliph's names on. his coins. In 1225 IItutmish issued coins showing his close relationship with the caliph. Four years later, when this Sultan had annihilated all his rivals, the Caliph al-Mustansir (1226-42) sent his emissaries to Delhi. The occasion was celebrated with great festivity, and the Caliph's name was inscribed in Hindi on the coins in order to make the connection between the Sultan and the Caliph widely known. The name of the Caliph's successor, Must'asim (1242-58), continued to appear on Indian coins even after he had been executed and Baghdad destroyed by Hulagu. Although Balban was fully aware of the Baghdad catastrophe, we are told by Barani that Balban believed that ideally a sultan should obtain investiture from the 'Abbasid caliphs. However, like his predecessors and the later Delhi sultans, Balban also considered himself a vicegerent of God and His shadow on earth. He exhibited his awareness of the doctrine of fan when he remarked that 'the king's heart is the mirror of the divine attributes. Arlong as God does not

158

inspire the heart of kings with general decrees relating to His slaves, matters concerning them which are dependent on the heart and tongue of the rulers are not accomplished'.9 Balban, like Iltutmish before him, claimed to be the successor of Afrasiyab, the ancient Turanian monarch. According to the Shahnama, this arch enemy of the Irani Pishdadian and Kayanian dynasties was defeated by the Iranian hero Rustam. Nevertheless, Balban introduced Iranian court customs and also strongly adhered to the class and racial prejudices of ancient Iran.

Balban advocated the implementation of strict justice but only for the Sunnis. He excluded the Hindus and discriminated against the Isma'ilis and Muslim philosophers, thus slavishly imitating Nizamu'1-Mulk and Ghazali. With explicit paternalism, however, he also urged his successors to note that only such rulers deserved to be called 'king' as had not a single naked or hungry person in their territories.

Balban's grandson and successor, Mu'izzu'd-Din Kayqubad, was a rake and a drunkard; but Amir Khusraw, who wrote panegyrics for all the Delhi sultans from Balban to Ghiyasu'd-Din Tughluq, observed that Kayqubad was endowed with the fan of the Kayani dynasty." Both Amir Khusraw and his friend Amir Hasan called the Khalj! Sultan 'Ala'u'd-DIn Muhammad a khalifa (caliph). Describing the latter's victories in the Khazdinu'l-futuh, Amir Khusraw wrote: 'Through instituting justice and the insignia of his own caliphate he once again raised the 'Abbasid standards which grievous calamities had broken into fragments'.12