The wonder that was india

In 1317 'Ala'u'd-Din's son, Qutbu'd-Din Mubarak Shah, issued coins bearing the titles which the 'Abbasid caliphs had adopted. In fact, from the time of Balban onwards, in Indian political terminology as elsewhere, the words 'caliph' and 'sultan' were interchangeable, but the Sultan's assumption of the title al-Wasiq Bi'llah (Confiding in God) was a daring innovation.

When his rule became torn by internal rebellion and was dubbed irreligious and tyrannical by the 'ulama' and sufis, Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq resorted to a unique method of silencing his opponents. To give legality to his rule he issued coins in the name of a deceased descendant of a former Baghdad 'Abbasid caliph who had moved to Egypt. The fact that the descendant was already dead was known to the Muslim elite but the Sultan counted on the support of Muslim masses in the country. Whilst awaiting his investiture of authority from the Caliph, however, the Sultan stopped the congregational Friday and id prayers, and coins bearing the name of the dead caliph were issued only between 1342 and 1344. Finally, in 1344 Hajji Sa'id Sarsari, the envoy of the

159

'Abbasid Caliph in Egypt, brought to Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq an investiture of authority, which he received with deep humility. The reception and gifts given by the Sultan to the emissary amazed Ibn Battuta, who was present at the time. The poets wrote panegyrics for the occasion; the Indian 'ulama' and sufis remained unimpressed but powerless to do anything.13

Muhammad bin Tughluq died fighting the rebels in distant Thatta. In 1356 his successor, Sultan Firuz, also received his investiture and the title Sayyidu's-Salatm (Chief of the Sultans) from the Caliph. He also gave a warm welcome to the Caliph's envoy. The Caliph's warm patronage of the 'ulamd' and sufis had already endeared him to them, so the investiture was merely a formality.

Barani's Tdrikh-i Firuz Shdhi and the Fatawa-i jahandari rationalized both the absolutism of kings and their use of state laws (zawabit). Baranl referred unhesitatingly to the Prophet Muhammad's first four successors as jahandars (worldly rulers), noting that each strictly observed Muhammad's practices. As human beings, according to Baranl, they combined the grandeur of Jamshid with the dervishhood of mystics. After this period, caliphs and Muslim kings found themselves in the following dilemma. If they followed the practices of Muhammad, they were unable to govern; on the other hand, if they ruled vigorously and ostentatiously like pre-Islamic Iranian rulers, they were forced to violate religious law. To Baranl, spiritual life was to be attained only through humility, poverty, and self-abasement, while pride, arrogance, and self-glorification were indispensable to a king, thus rendering the coexistence of spirituality and kingship impossible. A monarch, he added, could not survive without exhibiting divinity (rububiyya), and kingship was therefore the deputyship (niydbat) and vicegeren-cy (khildfat) of God. In the interests of propagating God's word, enforcing the faith of Muhammad, annihilating the enemies of the faith, and their own self-preservation, Muslim khalifas and kings were compelled to adopt the manners and customs of the great Iranian emperors. He compared this situation with the eating of carrion, prohibited by Islam except in extreme conditions. In the same way, Muslim kings, in the interests of Islam, were allowed to display arrogance and ruthlessness. Using this example Baranl added that even such non-Islamic customs as ceremonial prostration in the style of the Iranian court, the amassing of huge amounts of treasure, and the collection of large harems could be legalized.14

Barani reaffirmed his belief that the theories on monarchy outlined in the Mirror for Primes, such as that 'the sultan is God's shadow on earth', 'religion and kingdom are twin brothers', and

160

'people follow the faith of their kings', were true. He exaggerated the importance of nobility of birth in an attempt to discourage rulers from counteracting the pressure and dominance of the aristocracy by choosing their ministers from the common people. The Hindu class and caste system strengthened the social prejudices Baram had borrowed from the Persian Mirrors. Barani agreed that as far as possible state laws should not violate the shari'a and the Sunna but on questions of expediency he recommended that this should be no obstacle. After all, expiation involved only extending gifts to the 'ulama'.15

To Barani, the ideal Muslim ruler could not satisfy his divine commission unless he deprived Hindus of all high government positions and forced the brahmans (whom he compared with the Muslim 'ulama1) into bankruptcy and social misery. Those who departed from orthodox Sunnism, notably the Isma'ilis and Muslim philosophers, were to be annihilated, so as to glorify Sunnl Islam in India and make it the leading religion. According to Baram, this validated the autocratic form of the Delhi sultans' rule and gave it a religious basis.

Modern researchers have declared that the tradition that in Cairo the 'Abbasid Caliph formally transferred the caliphate to the Ottoman Sultan Sellm (1512—20) is mythical, since jurists recognized only a Quraysh as caliph, while, like all sultans, Sellm and his successors considered themselves both caliph and sultan. Nevertheless, Sellm did obtain the sacred relics from the 'Abbasid family: the Prophet's robe, some hairs from his beard, and Caliph 'Umar's sword. With the conquest of Egypt, Sellm became the guardian of Mecca and Medina, a legitimate honour of which he was justly proud.16 Inspired by these events, the Indian king Sher Shah Sur entertained a pious wish to annihilate the Shi'I rulers of Iran, to resuscitate the bond of religious brotherhood with the Sultan of Turkey, and to share with him the privilege of serving one of the two holy places, Mecca and Medina.17

Between the reigns of Timur and Akbar two major trends in political ideology crystallized, one primarily Ghazalian and the other philosophical. The latter was reinvigorated by Khwaja Nasiru'd-DIn Tusi (1201-74), a profound commentator on the philosopher Avicenna (980-1037). Later, the Khwaja's Akhlaq-i Ndsiri was reinterpreted by the celebrated philosopher and 'dlim Jalalu'd-Din Dawwani (1427-1503) in his Akhlaq-i Jalali. A new dimension was introduced when the Ghazalian doctrines and Nasirian political philosophy were synthesized by Abu'1-Fazl 'Alla-mi (1551-1602). He was inspired by a need to rationalize the broadly based policies of peace and concord with all religious

161

communities initiated by his patron, Akbar the Great. Besides Arabic and Persian works on kingship and government, Abu'1-Fazl had access to the Persian translations of the great Hindu epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, to the Arabic translation of the Chankaya Niti, and to the Sanskrit works of ancient Indian rdjamti (polity).

Abu'1-Fazl refused to concern himself with Islamic theories legitimizing the petty military dictators who forcibly seized power and were then automatically recognized as shadows of God. To Abu'1-Fazl, the institution of kingship, rather than the individual who held the office, was endowed with farr-i izadi. The word padshah (king), he observed, was a compound word —padmeaning stability and possession, and shah denoting origin and lordship. He considered that the pddshdh was neither the sultan nor the imam of Nasiru'd-Din Tusi; nor was he the Mahdi (Sahib al-Zaman or Lord of the Age), whose prophesied appearance at the close of the first Islamic millenium (1591-2) had produced instability in the minds of many Muslims.18 Abu'l-Fazls pddshdh or shahanshah (king of kings) - another term borrowed from ancient Iranian royalty which he loved to use - was a unique personality; he was the 'perfect man' and was the real vicegerent of God on earth.

The spate of translations from Arabic and Sanskrit into Persian during Akbar's reign also included a Persian translation of the Sirdj' al-muluk by Turtushl. It served to remind Indian intellectuals that Turtushl filled an important gap in the study of political theories because he had access to the works of the sages of Persia, Byzantium, China, Hind and Sind. These were not available to his predecessors. Turtushl asserted that an infidel king who governed his kingdom according to the right principles of kingship was preferable to a Muslim ruler who was slipshod in fulfilling his responsibilities and tardy in imposing justice.19

This principle, to which some earlier sultans had paid lip-service, tended to strengthen the basis on which Akbar's government was founded.

The protagonists of the Ghazalian theory of kingship under the Mughals were Shaykh 'Abdu'l-'Haqq Muhaddis Dihlawl (1551-1642) and Mujaddid Alf-i Sham. Having learnt that Jahangir was interested in the Prophet's traditions on kingship, Shaykh 'Abdu'l-Haqq wrote a treatise, the Nuriyya-i Sultaniyya, covering all the information on this subject. Although a trained scholar of hadis he never questioned the authenticity of the spurious traditions which had become popular from the time of Ghazali, and wrote:

162

No rank is higher than that of a king, and all words of conventional praise are insufficient to return thanks to him . . .The order and arrangement of worldly affairs depends upon the king. Were every king to go into retirement, the cosmic order would be shattered. Therefore kings should so regulate their activities that their existence is not a source of disorder.20

Shaykh 'Abdu'l-Haqq's theory legitimizing the king was narrowed down to the exclusive benefit of Islam when he considered whether heretics and unbelievers had an equal right to justice. He thought that kufr (heresy) was incompatible with justice and that a kdfir (heretic) could never be known as an 'adil (just ruler). At the same-time, however, when reminded of the Sasanian king Nushirwan, a non-Muslim renowned for his fairness, the Shaykh admitted that justice was not the sole monopoly of Islam. He therefore restrained himself from carrying the argument any further, as Akbar and Jahangir dispensed even-handed justice. Returning to his favourite subject he demanded that kings act according to the laws of the shari'a as interpreted by the honest 'ulama'.21

Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindf, known as Mujaddid Alf-i Sam (1564— 1624), urged the Muslim nobles in Jahangir's court to persuade their Emperor to enforce the shari'a by state legislation, to revoke the orders prohibiting the killing of cows, and to reimpose jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims), as well as to deprive Hindus and Shi'is of all posts of responsibility and trust.22 Nowhere does he advocate rebellion.

Designing his theory of kingship to justify his own accession to the throne and to gain the support of orthodox Sunnls for his rule, Aurangzib claimed that, since all actions are determined by the will of God, his victory over his brothers was a divine gift. He stated that that man was truly great who was assisted to obtain power by God. From his prison Shahjahan accused Aurangzlb of usurpation, to which his son replied:

Perhaps Your Majesty's 'ulama' have not advised Your Majesty of the correct position (about kingship) under the shari'a. . . . The treasury and property of kings and sultans are meant to satisfy the needs of the country and community; they are not private property and not an inheritance, and therefore zakat is not levied on them. God most High selects someone from among the esteemed ones of His Court for the management of matters relating to the livelihood and destiny of mankind, under whose control He places the duties of binding and loosing, so that all sorts of people should lead their-life on the basis of equity.

163

LAW

In India many fiqh works, based on classical authorities, were written under the patronage of the rulers. Aurangzib eventually appointed a board of 'ulama' to compile authoritative passages from the standard works of Hanafiy?^ for the guidance of the qdzis. The work was completed between 1664 and 1672 and is known as the Fatawa al-'Alamglriyya.

The Indian fiqh works did not ignore the importance of local customs ('dda or 'urf). These were readily implemented in all cases where they did not violate the shari'a laws, and in many cases even where there was a divergence they were rendered acceptable through hiyal24 A very large chapter in the Fatdwa al-'Alamglriyya explains how hiyal helped to overcome orthodox legal problems.

The caliphs were also empowered to make administrative regulations within shari'a limits, and the qazis were bound to follow them. These regulations were intended to supplement the sacred law. The Turkic sultans of Iran and Central Asia codified administrative laws known as the laws of jahdnddri (worldly administration) to make their political power effective. The works of Ghazall, particularly Nasihatu'l-muluk, and Siydsat-nama by Nizamu'1-Mulk Tusi, were the main source books for subsequent scholars who wrote handbooks on the sultans' legal and administrative systems. According to Ghazall, 'necessity makes lawful what is prohibited'. Among early Indian authors Ziya' u'd-DIn BaranI, who wrote the Fatdwa-i jahdnddri (legal advice on worldly rule), stated that the welfare of the state depended on state laws (zawabit) which did not need to be formulated in consultation with the 'ulama'. Although in ordinary circumstances the zawabit should not violate the shari'a, in special circumstances when departure from it was imperative because of the vicious nature of the people, the zawabit should not be deemed as right and correct. The law-makers should generously give alms in expiation and be afraid of the sin which they had been forced to commit. The authority for the departure from the shari'a was the precept, 'Necessity makes things forbidden lawful.'25

Of all the discussions on policy matters relating to the formulation of zawabit in the Tdrikh-i Firuz. Shdhi, the most interesting is a dialogue between Qazl Mughls of Bayana and Sultan 'Ala'u'd-DIn Khalji. This dialogue may be fictitious; BaranI may have chosen the Sultan and his Qazl in order to support his own theories, but the points he wished to make cannot be overemphasized. The first question the Sultan put to Qazl Mughls related to the ordinance of the shari'a concerning the Hindu kharaj-paying class, meaning the

164

village-leaders, khuts, chawdhris, and muqaddams. The Qazi, quoting a part of a Qur'anic verse - 'Until they pay the jizya readily, being brought low'.26 - added that the Hindus should be forced to pay their revenue in abject humility and extreme submissiveness; for the Prophet Muhammad had ordained that Hindus must either follow the true faith or else be slain or imprisoned and their wealth and property confiscated. With the exception of Abu Hanifa, who had authorized the collection of jizya from the Hindus, the founders of the other schools of jurisprudence had ordered for them 'either death or Islam'. 'Ala'u'd-Din, pleading his ignorance of the laws of the shari'a as stated by the Qazi, affirmed that his ordinances were, designed to reduce the rich khuts and muqaddams to poverty by forcing them to pay kharaj, jizya, and other taxes submissively, without exploiting the poor peasants. It was by sheer chance that the Sultan's policy of impoverishing the Hindu village chiefs coincided with the Hanaf! law books.

The Qazi's views on other questions which the Sultan put to him differed widely from the shari'a laws. Qazi Mughis said that he was not aware of any rulings on punishment for embezzlement, fraudulent revenue practices, or bribery among government officials. Traditionally, only the ruler was authorized to punish them, but even then not by amputation of the hand, as the shari'a prescribed for common thieves. The Sultan answered that he had fixed salaries for his officials and had ordered that if they were still found to be committing fraud, embezzlement, or bribery the loss to the treasury would justify various kinds of torture and severe punishment.

The Sultan presented the Qazi with a list of his own harsh rules against political and criminal offences, consisting of punishments such as the imposition of a fine equivalent to three years' pay for each 'horseman who failed to stand muster; casting drunkards and liquor salesmen into wells dug especially for them; castration of the married male adulterer and slaying of the woman; and the infliction of the harshest possible punishment on those who rebelled or did riot pay their taxes. The Sultan asked the Qazi whether all his laws were against the shari'a, to. which the Qazi replied that the Prophet's ahddis and the 'ulama' fatwas did not permit the ruler to impose such harsh penalties. Filled with anger, the Sultan left the court. On his return the next day, however, he had regained his composure. Although he appreciated the Qazi's frankness, he explained, his punishments were intended to deter the rebels and the bellicose and were designed to save the lives of thousands of Muslims who were slaughtered each time a rebellion was suppressed. He was not concerned with the agreement of his laws with the shari'a, he said, nor with his own punishment on Judgement Day.

165

His main concern was the interest of the state. However, his deterrent punishments, he admitted, had so little effect on habitual criminals that mercy had become impossible.27

'Ala'u'd-Din had imagined that only the Hindus would be the leaders of insurrection and rebellion, but from the beginning of his accession Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq was faced with Muslim rebellions which spread to all parts of the country. Around 1344 the Sultan sought Barani's advice regarding capital punishment for the following seven offences: (1) apostasy; (2) wilful murder of the king's loyal subjects; (3) adultery by a married man with someone else's wife; (4) proven treason against the ruler; (5) leading rebellions and insurrections; (6) co-operation with the Sultan's enemies and supplying intelligence and weapons; (7) such acts of disobedience as were a threat to the kingdom. To another question Barani answered that, according to the traditions of the Prophet, capital punishment was applicable only to apostasy, the murder of a Muslim, and adultery by a married man. The remaining four categories of offences belonged to the province of administration and were subject to the Sultan's discretion. Disagreeing even with the Iranian penal laws, the Sultan argued that the people of ancient Iran were essentially law-abiding but that he was forced by circumstances to inflict deterrent sentences, including capital punishment, merely on suspicion of a subject's guilt. Nevertheless, he was still unable to stamp out rebellions.28 On various other occasions Barani suggested further measures, including the Sultan's abdication and retirement in peace;29 but the Sultan, determined as he was to eradicate rebellion, died in Sind, whilst in pursuit of a rebel.

The mild reign of his successor, Sultan Firuz Tughluq, saw the ostensible return to the shari'a. The Sultan had inscribed on an octagonal tower near the Firuzabad Jami' mosque the shari'a laws which replaced the earlier state laws.30

The exemption of the brahmans from jizya under former sultans was attributed by Sultan Firuz to the negligence of their officers, who had failed to apprise their rulers of the fact that the brahmans, being the leaders and promoters of infidelity, ought never to have been exempted. The new orders for the imposition of jizya on them appalled the brahmans, and they threatened to burn themselves alive before the Sultan's palace. However, finding the Sultan unrelenting, other Hindus offered to pay ji'zya on their behalf, and a concessional rate was fixed for them.3

This fusion of orthodoxy and state laws was dissolved by Akbar. Bad'uni accuses him of annulling the statutes and ordinances of Islam: a testimony accepted unquestioningly by orthodox Muslims

166

According to Ghazalian polity, Akbar, who never publicly abjured Islam, was guilty only of instituting sinful laws. According to Bada'uni, Akbar's laws were illegal for both religious and worldly reasons. In his opinion they were vexatious and the cause of rebellion and the destruction of the territories of the empire. For his part, Akbar argued that interference in the religious beliefs of his subjects was illegal and that Hindus forcibly converted to Islam would revert to their former religion. Hindu girls who had been made to marry Muslims should be restored to their families, and both Muslim and Hindu parents who had sold their children as slaves because of poverty could now buy them back.32 In terms of the shari'a, this meant that apostasy (irtidad or ridda) was no longer punishable by death. Akbar considered the problem mainly from a humanitarian point of view. Referring to the Indian custom of preventing the woman from seeing her future husband before marriage, Abu'1-Fazl says that Akbar ruled that the consent of the bride and bridegroom and the permission of the parents were absolutely necessary in marriage contracts. This was in keeping with the shari'a, but Indian custom did not require the prior consent of the bride. Akbar prohibited polygamy and allowed a second wife only in exceptional circumstances. Child marriages were forbidden on grounds of health, and the marriage of an old woman to a young husband was considered contrary to modesty. Although he appreciated that the custom was a preventive against rash divorce, Akbar nevertheless discouraged fixing heavy amounts to be met by a husband if he divorced his wife without sufficient cause (kabin). To Akbar the custom was nothing more than a farce, for the money was never paid in any case. He appointed two officers called tui-begis to supervise adherence to the law and fixed a nominal amount as their fee, which could be waived in cases of hardship.33 Akbar also prohibited the circumcision of boys below the age of twelve, making it their personal choice and not a religious obligation on the part of the parents.34 The slaughter of animals on certain days totalling about half the year was also prohibited by Akbar; Jahangir reduced the number by only a few days.

Akbar ordered a considerable change in the law of evidence. According to shari'a law, the plaintiff was required to present two male adult Muslims to testify orally to their direct knowledge of the truth of his claim. If in certain cases he took an oath confirming his claim, however, only one witness was necessary. The testimony of women was admissible, but two women took the place of one man. The witnesses had to be known for their extreme religious and moral probity ('adala), but the cross-examination of witnesses was

167

not allowed. Consequently, the only recourse for the defendant was to impugn the witnesses' characters. Akbar ordered the qazis to investigate all cases diligently and stated that they should not be content merely with witnesses' oral statements or oaths but should question them personally.35

The Mughal regulations crystallized under Akbar and became law for all government departments. They also served as the guiding principles for the different ranks of servants in military, civil, and judicial departments in their dealings with people of mixed religions and races. The laws are epitomized in the voluminous A in-i Akbari by Abu'1-Fazl, which nevertheless suffers from some serious gaps where rules and regulations are concerned. These deficiencies are remedied only by the documents known as dasturu'l-'amal and by the farmans from the reigns of Akbar and his successors. Not all the diaries of the official news reporters from the provinces have survived; the few that remain suggest that the working of the laws and regulations called for changes, which in fact were quite frequent until the reign of Shahjahan. In Aurang-zib's reign there was a reversion to the shari'a. The laws and regulations instituted by Akbar had been intended to ensure the maintenance of a tolerant, dynamic, and humane leadership over heterogeneous religious and racial groups. The fomentation of factionalism, disaffection, and disintegration in Mughal society, however, were stronger than any bonds of unity. Under Akbar and Jahangir the state laws were under constant threat from the orthodox Sunni elements. Shahjahan's calm and dignified personality engendered confidence in all classes, but like his predecessors he disposed of his deceased servants' property according to his own discretion. For example, the shari'a law grants equal shares to all the sons and half the sons' shares between all the daughters. However, when the celebrated Irani mansabdar 'All Mardan Khan died in 1657, Shahjahan transferred fifty lakhs of rupees out of his estate to the treasury in settlement of his debts to the state. Of the remaining half he gave thirty lakhs to the eldest son, Ibrahim Khan, and twenty lakhs were shared between the remaining three sons and ten daughters.36 By the eighteenth century the customary law gave no shares in their fathers' estate to daughters.