This article explores Abul Fazl’s contributions to statecraft, kingship philosophy and communal harmony in the Mughal Empire. Being the visionary scholar behind Mughal governance, he laid philosophical underpinnings and administrative frameworks in Akbar’s court.
Born in Agra in 1551 A.D., Abul Fazl grew up under the affectionate guidance of his father, Sheikh Mubarak, and later became an important figure in Akbar’s court. The ancestors of Abul Fazl were originally from Nagaur and had migrated to Agra before his birth. The notable works of Abul Fazl include *Ain-i Akbari* and *Akbarnama*. In 1602, Abul Fazl was assassinated and thus became a victim of court intrigue. He endorsed the doctrine of divine inspiration in relation to kingship, believing that ‘royalty’ is a divine illumination. He suggested that, without a mediator, it manifests as a sacred entity to those in authority, prompting all to bow in reverence and respect.
Abul Fazl asserts that a king attains the traits necessary for governance through prayer and devotion, characterized by magnanimity and paternal affection for the populace. An exemplary sovereign is likened to a paternal figure who must complete his duty and contribute to the collective good. The king is not constrained by any human legislation but solely by divine law. He is also considered a spiritual mentor to the populace. This implied, though not overtly articulated, that subjects possess no authority or power to challenge the king.
Abul Fazl’s writings exhibit a disdain for authoritarianism, which Zia-ud-din Barni deemed evil; prioritizing the common good was consistently viewed as superior to self-interest. While there exists a disdain for tyranny, there is also a pronounced belief that a centralized monarchical authority, superseding customary law, is optimal. Fazl contended that effective governance necessitates the distribution of state authority and the appointment of several officials to oversee distinct facets of the state, as the capabilities of a single individual are inadequate. Nonetheless, there are no explicit constraints on monarchical authority, nor are there specific legal institutions referenced, as in previous Indian philosophy, thereby reinforcing the perception that Eastern populations are predominantly subservient. While moral constraints existed, the king was ideologically exempt from any legal or political doctrines.
The administrative framework presented in *Ain-i Akbari* resembles that of an empire and aligns effectively with older administrative texts, such as Kautilya’s *Arthashastra*. The entire state was segmented into multiple tiers, each staffed by different types of officials. The most prominent aspect is the king’s personal interest in state issues. All mansabdars reported directly to the sovereign. A hierarchical system existed, comprising nazims and subedars, parganas and sub-divisional officers, jagirdars, and individuals entitled to contact the ruler directly. The emperor adopted a highly personal approach by organizing bazaars and feasts to gauge the sentiments of the populace and actively engage in the private lives of his officers. In accordance with Hindu philosophy, Abul Fazl categorized society into four divisions.
While Hindu philosophy prioritizes men of knowledge, Fazl elevates warriors and kings to the foremost position, relegating scholars, astronomers, philosophers, and others to a secondary status. He was particularly eloquent in his references to the role of the educated, stating: “From their pen and wisdom, a river emerges in the world’s drought; and the garden of creation receives a distinctive freshness from their irrigating power.” The artists and merchants were awarded third place. These individuals render God’s gifts global. The final position was allocated to the husbandmen and labourers, whom he likened to the land, believing that their efforts yield enjoyment and vigour for each individual.
One can immediately observe parallels between the caste system and Plato’s ideal state, which inspired Abul Fazl. The design comprises not four classes, but rather four distinct components of a hierarchy characterized by the dominance of rule and subordination. Nobles hold the paramount position as they belong to the foremost group. The concept of justice superseding the king’s authority was seen as detrimental to the preservation of this system. Fazl stated, “When God grants sovereignty to a select individual, He endows him with profound insight, extensive patience, and the invaluable treasures of justice, enabling him to weigh both familiar allies and strangers equally.” The ideas of justice were fundamentally rooted in customary law, reflecting the established practices of the Indian community. However, the ultimate interpretation of these ideas was entrusted to the emperor, with the primary objective being to protect peace and order. However, there is no discourse regarding the consequences when a ruler devolves into tyranny.
Abul Fazl’s concepts constituted not a synthesis but a philosophy advocating the coexistence of Hindus and Muslims. Hindus had already enveloped themselves in their own isolation, evidenced by the minimal number of cases brought before the courts. They were predominantly governed by panchayats and caste tribunals that exercised significant authority. Consequently, we observe that Abul Fazl’s advocacy for coexistence was ultimately fated to disintegrate over time.
With the emergence of a centralized patrimonial authority, a system of community relations akin to European feudalism also developed during this period. A succinct overview of the basic principles underpinning this system is warranted. It is imperative to do so because its repercussions persist, despite a frequent inclination to misinterpret its true significance with regard to its origins. The feudal system was complex, denoting a range of relational patterns between the monarch and his subordinates that emerged throughout this era. Firstly, it preserved the significant concept of ‘chakravartin’ from ancient India. The chakravartin system was a collection of relatively autonomous chieftains who pledged loyalty to the suzerain authority primarily for military support. This arrangement persisted throughout the ancient world. The identity of the chieftains, whether noble or self-made, was inconsequential as long as they exercised governance. In many instances, these chieftains were sovereigns in their own right. Their history extends into prehistoric times, with several individuals asserting their lineage from the Sun and the Moon. They possessed traditional privileges, their own coat of arms, military forces, and customary duties. Provided they met their commitment to assist the suzerain power during emergencies, they wielded nearly unfettered authority within their own realms.
Below them existed a comprehensive hierarchy of lesser landlords, landowners, or chieftains, referred to as zamindars or jagirdars, whom the monarch frequently had to subdue with force. The majority of these zamindars were related to the king by familial connections, as exemplified in the Rajputana states. Here, alongside jagirdars, the bhumiari system emerged, characterized by direct land ownership held by the bhumia. The bhumia was exempt from obligation for the investiture; his awards required no renewal, and the ownership of the majority of their properties was established by right of prescription. Nonetheless, the ownership of such land was consistently subordinate to that of jagirdari land.
A third sort of land, termed khalisa, was directly governed by the king and predominantly located near the city. Nonetheless, the authority within this system emanated from land ownership, which was sustained by the cultivation of military virtues. This arrangement persisted in other regions of the kingdom, and the Muslim authority did not interfere as long as the chieftains were loyal to the rulers in Delhi.
The writer is a postgraduate in Political Science from the University of Kashmir
By Yawar Yousuf Ganie
ya***********@***il.com