Treatment of ‘Others’ in Muntakhab- ul-Tawarikh of Abdul Qadir Badauni
“I am not concerned with those who are not bound by the Sharia and who disown it in principal and in detail’
[1]. And while referring to Abul Fazal he opines, a ‘flatterer beyond all bound’
[2] ‘he is the man who set world in flames’ and several other open remarks about court life made this man orthodox Sunni who was hurt with the conciliatory approach of the emperor and his ideologue Abul Fazal among the modern his historians. Right from beginning, people like Vincent Smith and other took Badauni as their source of history of Akbar’s reign. And to prove the emperor as absolute who wished not only to be political head but also religious head like Pope in western world, on the other hand, nationalist historiographers who mostly relied on Abul Fazal for their source as against Badauni to create a ‘National King’ as it was need of the hour, took Badauni as an ‘Orthodox who rallied for imposition of sharia and hated Akbar and Abul Fazal and their ‘Din-I-Ilahi’. Both the group, whereas, somehow attested the image of Akbar as very ‘liberal’, ‘infallible king’. And Badauni a great ‘Orthodox’ Mullah sticking to the ‘Sacred law’ who was against any kind of relaxation to the ‘Hindus’ and ‘Shias’.
But later on Badauni as a historian was appreciated and it was considered that ‘though Abul Fazal and Badauni may not be complimentary to each other, but without doubt, they supplement each others information
[3] and its importance was seen in its being ‘the only historical work written during the reign of Akbar but not for Akbar.’
[4] But Badauni’s personality somehow remained unchanged with little alteration, he was how being considered fighting for the Shariat, and anyone who got hurt was the enemy: Akbar, Faizi, Abul Fazal, all intellectuals all infidels, all accursed Shias, all fanatical Sunnis, all imposters
[5] and “he seems to appreciate more violent means of overcoming his opponents”
[6]. So this kind of his image created hindrance in objective study of his works, and most important thing is that his work on period of Akbar is widely studied in isolation to his other works, giving very less importance to Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh vol-I & Najat-ul-Rashid. And his exaggeration of his cry during the reign of Akbar is overheard. Though the Emperor also had expectation in him of being counter to the orthodox Ulema, whose pride certainly resembles that of Pharao
[7]. And Badauni’s remarks about Abdul Nabi the Chief Sadr regarding regularisation of Aima Land
[8] and causing harassment to the man of learning he says, “when after mid-day prayer he sat down on his throne of pride and washed his hands and feet, he took care to spirt the water, which he had used on the head and face and garments of the great Amirs and Courtiers of high degree, who were there and made no exception.”
[9] And the famous tales about Makhdum-ul-Mulk are enough proof which can shed some light on his being, having different opinion in the matter of Sharia and religious belief in it self.
Recently, Badauni has been heard properly by people like Fauzia Zareen Abbas, in totality of his work. But Fauzia also having some pre-occupied notions in her mind could not judge him properly. Recently an article by Ali Anooshahr published in IESHR has analysed some of the facts and compelled to think of Badauni in different light. He argues that Badauni’s Muntakhabu-t- Tawarikh vol-II can only be studied in the light of its history before Akbar’s reign. In short, both Nizam-al Din and more, strongly Badauni exhibited a kind of proprietary identification with
India and its past, its kings and its populations.
[10]
In his opinion choosing Nizam-al Din’s history as his source, Badauni did show his concern for history of Islam in
India as against established notion of Islamic world history. And Badauni, while describing heroes’ of Islam, he is more precautious than Nizam-al Din as he did not explain anything of excesses such as enslavement of local masses and he also do not like mentioning destruction caused by the ‘holy war’. He goes on edit all these excesses of ‘heroes of Islam’. Badauni do not like destruction of ‘idol houses’, human trafficking and hence he edit all this.
[11]
Badauni was also in hesitation of implementing Sharia, where severing the hand of thieves is allowed, thus he wrote in Najat-al Rashid “the boundary of theft is stipulated in the Hanafi School of jurisprudence to wit that the value of that stolen goods be over 10 legal
dirhams, that it be stolen from a protected place and other conditions and stipulations ………The purpose of this school of law is not the cutting of the folks hands”.
[12]
In the light of the above, now we can come to our theme of treatment of ‘others’ as it is better if we are acquainted with the concept of ‘otherness’. The boundary of ‘otherness’ ‘relates to both history and culture to how the end and beginning of periods of history were to be considered and how cultural lines could be prevented from overlapping.
[13] But now the question arises that historical ‘otherness’ as well as ‘cultural otherness’, of whose prospective we are talking about? Is it state with its overall ruling nobility treating people having different historical and cultural background as ‘other’ as in the case of Sultanate period and at many other histories where frequent use of word
‘kafir’ is used to denote ‘other’. Whether they are from same religion/sectarian background? The field of my discussion is Akbar’s period, and by this time
MughalState had well consolidated its position and the state policy was to accommodate all ex-ruling classes in it as a part of this huge machinery. Certainly, at some point state may have been treated by some people like Sisodias as ‘others’ but this notion seems unfit if we apply on
MughalState. What I mean here, is our author’s perception, to whom he is treating as ‘other’ as against his ideological notion or his state (of course
MughalState).
IDENTIFYING ‘OTHERS’:
Though, Abdul Qadir Badauni, was borned in reign of a very ‘just king’ Sher Shah and his maternal grand father as having accompanied Farid Taran Panj Hazari on an expedition to Bajwara during the reign of Islam Shah Sur
[14]. But Badauni while writing his account, is aware of his being a part of Mughal State and though, being very much critical of Akbar and his religious policies and his social reforms which was certainly a part of his imperial cult ‘Tauhid-I-Ilahi’, but, he was, in no way against Mughal state. Naturally, all those who are against Mughal state, are his opponents. So Afghans from whom the Mughal succeeded their empire and were engaged regularly in struggle of power and their continuous change in loyalty at one point of time, people of ex-regime entered in service of the Mughals at the other, returned to the struggling Afghan powers and also sometime they sided with rival Rajput magnets. This frequent change in loyalty as in case of Khan-I-Zaman, Badauni disapproves of. He describes Khan-I-Zaman and his brother, “Khan Zaman with a small body of men brought destruction on the fortune of the Afghans, slaying many and taking many prisnors……. And such was his kingly good fortune that he and his brother with his own troop, obtained such a series of victories on the eastern side of
Hindustan……. And, had they not shown the stain of rebellion upon the forehead of loyalty, these two brothers would have been on the path to royal distinction.”
“For fifty years one may maintain a name
But one base act will cover it with same”
[15]
At another place Badauni talks of Mulla Mujdi of Sirhind, who had formerly been warrant-writer to Islam Shah, was made Receiver-General of revenues and another Afghan Shamshir Khan the
Khawaja Sara, was made superintendent of the Exchequer, who, ‘through vileness of their birth, which necessarily produces vileness of character ;………….. were loyal neither to God nor their Emperor.
[16] Though, Badauni at one place in his volum-III of Muntakhabu-t-tawarikh, while referring to a poet, Niyazi, who was an Afghan, says ‘but he comes of a base stock.’
[17]
However, Yusufzais, in
north west and Khan-I-Zaman and Daud of Eastern Hindustan were more troublesome, for the empire but they were not called
‘Kafir’ or heretics. Badauni disgust all the “rebels” but esp. Afghans as an opponent to the Mughal Empire were not ‘
Kafirs’. At some place valour and handsomeness of Afghan leaders is, though, praised but after all they who were enemy were ‘enemy’ for him, mere political enemy. But when an Afghan origin soldier had made himself a religious teacher, with the name of Roshanai…… and made many fools his disciples and set up an heretical ‘sect’…….. the Emperor ‘with a view to repressing this rustic band of Roshanais (who are in very truth utter darkness, and hereafter with find their interpretation in darkness) appointed Man Singh
[18] at
Kabul. So, wherever matter turns itself to religious or sectarian belief, which does not match to his idea of Islam, he turns bitter.
As far as religions ‘otherness’ , where historical as well as cultural boundary certainly do not overlap, as in the case of Rajputs, is concerned, Badauni has very different attitude. For Badauni Hindus are ‘
Kafir’ or infidel. But the question needs to be studied minutely, as though Raja Todar Mal, Raja Bhagwant Das and Raja Birbar are ‘infidels’ and they are going to ‘hell’. But at the same place Raja Man Singh is assessed in a chronogram as ‘A Hindu wields the sword of Islam’. At no place Raja Man Singh is called ‘infidel’ or
Kafir. But it has been a fashion to identify word Hindu with infidel or ‘
Kafir’ among modern historians. And this mistake is also made by Harbans Mukhiya while describing the expedition against Rana Kika (Parlap), he says “The leader of this expedition happened to be an infidel, Raja Man Singh; But our author was ingenious enough to circumvent the dilemma – first, Man Singh was leading the armies to a Darul Harb”
[19]. But this statement, somehow fails to explain Badauni’s point of view. The situation explained in Muntakhabu-t-twarikh is that when our author wishes to participate in a ‘holy war’ against Rana Kika and to get permission from the Emperor, sought intervention of Naqib Khan and Naqib Khan objected him saying, “If a Hindu had not been the leader of this army, I should myself have been the first to have asked permission to join it.” And Badauni says that it is intention that matters and he was ready to fight under able leadership of true servant of the Emperor.
[20] But it didn’t mean that Badauni does not call a Hindu ‘
Kafir’. Hindu political opponent of Mughul Empire is
‘Kafir’ as well as many of Mughal nobles were also ‘infidels’. Badauni was rewarded for fighting against ‘infidels’ in battle with Rana Kika. And associates of Mughal Empire like: Raja Bhagwant Das, Raja Todar Mal both were ‘infidels’. And at many times Badauni literary abuses both of them, Todar Mal was bad mouthed a lot but less than Raja Birbar, who has been greater target of our author’s curses. Badauni though, avoids excesses committed by Islamic ‘heroes’ on defeating powers.
[21] Only to curse Birbar as he was appointed to the ex-jagir of Jai Mal and Imperial forces had to fight a battle to reduce those people of Jai Mal, he describes “while the arrows and bullets were continually falling like drops of rain, through their zeal and excessive hatred of idolatry they filled their shoes full of blood and threw it on the doors and walls of the temple. So many Brahamans, Sojourns in the temple were killed that both friends and strangers heap a thousands of curses on the head of Birbar.
[22]’
Badauni not only find Hindus accursed but he also damned religious, practices and their holy book. In his opinion, these ‘Hindu lies’ do had some influence on ‘His Majesty’s’ mind. But, while executing translations job for the emperor, he found some of the holy books worthy where many truths of Islam such as ‘la-illaha’ and Hindu too burry their dead and other practice such as eating of cow flesh at some occasion was mentioned.
[23] Badauni also at sometime leave the truthfulness of these books at God. Being a true ‘orthodox’ sunni, he is expected of all these in the matter of religion. But his translations were worthy, without any alteration, though, the emperor had inflicted with doubt on his translation of Khirad-I-Afza (Mahabharata) but, with intervention of Abul Fazal Allami, he was able to clarify himself. So Badauni, at every instance where his ideological position got hurt from anybody, he feels injured otherwise, he do not have any problem with anybody. He praises ‘mountain like Rajputs’ valour’ and appreciate their willingness of serving the emperor. But concept of martyrdom is reserved only for loyal ‘Muslim’. He describes death of loyal Hindu according to his personal assessment to the particular person, though this is applicable to all whether Hindu or Muslim that doesn’t matter. Accordingly, Raja Todar Mal, Raja Bhagwant Das and Raja Birbar’s death is described in these words, ‘..and they went to hell.’ But a son of Raja Bhagwant Das, ‘Bhunpat met with his death.’
[24]
The above two categories of Afghans and Hindus having cultural and religio-cultural boundaries well defined, is identified and their treatment is discussed, now we will see how another category having a gray area in both religio-cultural pattern is treated such as shias and people among sunni faith.
Badauni, no doubt, looked shias as the ‘other’ and he calls them ‘heretic’ and has many stories about them. He curses shias for saying bad and false stories about the companions of the prophet. He also praises Faulad for murdering Hakim Ahmad of Thatta on account of saying abusive words to the ‘sahaba’
[25] and even our author sees ‘hog’ in Mullah Ahmad’s face after death. The author blames Hakim Abul Fath of Gilan alongwith Abul Fazal for turning ‘the Emperor from Islam’. Whereas Mullah Muhammed Yazdi is blamed for trying the emperor to make him a convert to Shia faith
[26] and Yazdi ‘attaching himself to the Emperor commenced openly to revile the sahaba.
[27] While describing murder of Mullah Ahmad of Thatta, he describes a custom which is unknown to him in the following words, “The shias at the time of washing the corpse, are said to have, according to the rules of their sect, put a nail into his anus, and plunged him several times into the river”.
[28] The above said custom’s description shows alienation from the sect. Such remarks, certainly makes one feel what the author felt about the shias.
But at the same time Badauni doesn’t criticize every shia, he may be not convinced with the faith of Shiaism, but he do admire shias of great knowledge and saintly people. Also in administrative matter, he is an admirer of Khan-I-Khanan Bairam Khan at whose time ‘
Hindustan was like a bride.’
[29] While describing the incident of exhumation of Mir Murtaza Sharif Shirazi’s body from neighbourhood of Amir Khusro on account of his being a shia, Badauni call him ‘paragon of the age Mir Murtaza’
[30] and his exhumation ‘was a great act of injustice to both of them’
[31]and the chronogram which is Badauni’s assessment as a whole, is given ‘knowledge has deserted the knowing’ and another one is ‘The paragon has left the world.
[32] Whereas about Qazi Nurullah of Shustr, he says, ‘Although he is by religion a shia, he is distinguished for his impartiality, justice, virtue, modesty, piety, continence.’
[33] So, Badauni doesn’t have problem in appointment of a shia as Qazi though the Qazi should be well versed with four jurisprudence of Sunni law; that is why Qazi Nurullah’s appointment of Qazi of Lahor is not under his protest.
[34] Though he had discussions with the Qazi in matter of faith where Qazi argued according to his sect, and Badauni’s opinion naturally, differed from him. But, in spite of this, strangely enough, Badauni has no complaint at all. In the matter of religion Bairam Khan too had good impression on Badauni’s mind.
[35]
Badauni not only has his complaint only for shias or Hindus, he too has reservations for many people from among sunni faith. Shaikh Abdun Nabi, the chief sadr, a bigoted sunni is great target of him, in spite of his being good terms with the sadr
[36], he related too many ‘infamous’ act of the sadr. Abdullah Sultanpuri is another target of him; about whom Badauni has a lot of tells to tell. Sheikh Mubarak of Naghor, though, is a ‘worldly sheikh’ enjoys much respect from him. Abul fazal being prime target in his account is cursed a lot and he was the person who ‘invented’ things for the emperor. Badauni not only curses him for his ‘innovations’ in Islam but he blames him for not being ‘loyal’ even to ‘His Majesty’. Badauni has doubt on Abul Fazal’s literary ability, and he doubt that ‘Tafsir-I-Akbari’, the commentary on
Ayat-ul-qursi, which was admired by the Emperor was actually written by his father, Sheikh Mubarak. Faizi, brother of Abul Fazal, who did many fovours to our author is another great target of his wrath. Badauni has given as many as seventeen chronograms for his death, which are very abusive. But, Badauni doesn’t forget to mention his co-operations alongwith his excuse for cursing him and he explain in the following words:
“If any should ask me what rules of humanity and faithfulness I observe in so harshly reviling one who had so much goodwill for me and so much sincere friendship, and especially how it is that I, forgetful of the command, ‘Mention not your dead but in connection with good’ have thus written of a man after his death……I reply, ‘All this is true, but what could I do? The claims of the faith and safeguarding of one’s compact with God are above all other claims.”
[37]
Badauni though, has respect for individual Sufis but in matter of sufi doctrine, he is not in a good taste for this. Badauni about doctrine of ‘Unity of Being’ thus explains: “….and His Majesty listened the whole night to his sufic obscenities and follies. The Sheikh (Sheikh Tajuddin), since he did not in any great degree feels himself bound by the injunctions of the law, introduced arguments concerning the Unity of Existence, such as idle Sufis discuss, and which eventually lead to license and open heresy.”
[38] But the strange matter is that not at even a single instance, I found name of Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, who was opponent of the doctrine of ‘Wahdat-ul-wujud’ and instead propounded doctrine of ‘Wahdat-ul-shahud’ and made great hue and cry at the time of Akbar.
So, Badauni not only make distance from people who belongs to particular religion or sect or for that matter any religion that doesn’t belong to him but he distant himself from everybody who is not of his thinking. But, at the same time one has to see his personal interest too. As in the matter of Abul Fazal and Faizi, who came to the court at the same time, but they managed to get promotion. And our author left very far behind on the same rank and mere thousand
bighas of land as
madad-I-mash, which was also scrapped later.
Badauni treats everybody as ‘other’ who supports Akbar’s religious policy. Whoever were partners in culmination of emperor’s idea of Tauhid-I-ilahi. Whether people like Mullah Muhammed Yazdi who wanted him a convert to shiaism or Sheikh Tajuddin, whose teachings of doctrine of ‘Wahdat-ul-wujood’ played an important role in formation of the Imperial Cult. Abul Fazal, with open ‘flattery’ suggesting many heretical ideas to the emperor, had special mention in Badauni’s enemy. Even people like Sheikh Mubarak who was held in high esteem in Badauni’s thought, was also a supporter of all these ‘court heresies.’ Raja Birbar who was, perhaps, the most ‘accursed’ person among Hindus was actually ‘motivator’ to the emperor to adopt many Hindu practices like worship of sun, and he also discovered many names of sun, which was chanted by ‘His Majesty’ at noon. Raja Bhagwant Das, who accepted the ‘faith of His Majesty’ by saying: “I would willingly believe that Hindus and Musalmans have each a bad religion, but only tell us what the new sect is, and what opinion they hold, so that I may believe.”
[39] Though, Raja Todar Mal is an exception he was cursed not for being supporter of ‘His Majesty’s religion’ but Badauni being a general critic of people from finance. He criticizes Raja Todar Mal and Muzaffar Khan, another Finance Minister as ‘oppressor’ and many abusive words he uses. Sheikh Gadai Kamboi (ex-Sadrus Sudur) of
Delhi is also cursed for being a financier.
[40] Though, Badauni doesn’t mention a single wrong comment on him in his volume-3 of Muntakhab, where he is discussed in detail. So, Badauni has cursed all those who supported Akbar’s religious policy. Raja Man Singh who was son of Raja Bhagwant Das, not at a single place termed as ‘
kafir’. Badauni praises his valour and even called ‘wielder of sword of Islam’. This is also, perhaps, because of his denial to accept Tauhid-I-ilahi. Raja Man Singh on offer of the emperor, replied in this manner:
“If Discipleship means willingness to sacrifice one’s life I have already carried my life in my hand: what need is there of further proof? If, however, the term has another meaning and refers to faith, I certainly am a Hindu. If you order me to do so, I will become a Mussalman, but I know not of the existence of any other religion than these two.”
[41]
Badauni, apart from his clash of personal interests, only objects to the people or ideologies, which helped or accepted ‘Emperor’s faith’. Otherwise Badauni doesn’t have any problem with anybody whether Hindu, Shia or sufi, Ulema—who certainly convinced the emperor that all Imams and Ulema of earlier times were like them and this ‘turned the emperor from Islam’. Since Badauni had no problem with the
MughulState and the emperor, whom he, thought had the right to rule over
Hindustan; had only problem with his religious policy. And Badauni never criticizes Akbar as a ruler and at a time when after
Mahzar people were standing in rebellion and Yazdi having given fatwa of Jehad against the emperor and proclaimed Mirza Mohammed Hakim, ruler of
Hindustan. Badauni did not join the rebellion neither he has written a single word in their support in his secret account, Muntakhabu-t-twarikh. When it comes to status of ‘
Imam-I-Adil’ or Akbar’s position above
mujtahids, he doesn’t agree with the emperor. He neither considers him ‘infallible’ person nor he believes in any ‘Devine Light’ theory of kingship. Badauni even doesn’t want to call a ‘mere worldly king’ a
‘shahanshah’ which is no one else, but God. ‘This opposition to Royal absolutism lies at the basis of Badauni’s antagonism towards Akbar. However, while the author’s sunni beliefs played a crucial role in defining his political stance, it would be misguided to dismiss him as a bigoted orthodox reactionary.’
[42] What Badauni thinks, there should be political supremacy of Islam over all, so he even prefers to reduce all those kingdom first who are not Muslims’. So, if one wish to find what Badauni has to say about his opponents and to whom, considers ‘other’, it is necessary to evaluate him as a person, his personality needs to be studied. Ali Anooshahr has rightly pointed out in his article ‘Mughal historians and the memory of the Islamic conquest of
India’ that if one wishes to understand his history for the reign of Akbar, s/he will have to understand his first volume of work alongwith Najat-al Rashid. For him what Fatwa-I-Jahandari is to Twarikh-I-Firozshahi, Najat-al Rashid is for Muntakhabu-t-twarikh. And without studying Najat-al Rashid one cannot understand political view of Badauni and his attitude towards
MughalState and the emperor. And without understanding his political view, his view of categorizing ‘other’ is not possible. Because, this question needs to be studied in totality of his work.
(this article is written raw hand and needs editing)
(This article is submitted to Department of History, University of Delhi for requirment of Course work)
The writer is Project Associate at Centre for Jawahar Lal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Motiur Rahman Khan
M.Phil
Dept. of History
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007
[1] Badauni, Muntakhabu-t-twarikh ed. Lees (
Calcutta,1865), vol. I p 3
[2] Badauni, Muntakhab ed. Lowe (
Patna, 1973)Vol-2, page no.202
[3] Abbas, F.Z., Abdul Qadir Badauni—as a Man and Histriographer (
Delhi), p 131
[5] Muhammed Mujeeb, ‘Badauni’ published as a booklet, p 2
[6] Harbans Mukhia, Historiography During the Reign of Akbar, p 106)
[7] Badauni, Muntakhab vol.2 p 201
[10] Ali Anooshahr, IESHR,43, 3(2006), ‘Mughal historians and the memory of the Islamic conquest of
India’ p 277
[12] cited Nast Rashid from Ali Anooshahar, p 286
[13] Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, Representing the other?, p 151
[14] Badauni, Muntakhab, vol –1 p 385 cited from H. Mukhiya, Historiography During the Reign of Akbar
[15] Badauni, vol.2, p 18-19
[18] Badauni, vol.2, p 360-361
[19] Mukhiya Harbans, Histriography During the Reign of Akbar, p 99
[20] Badauni vol.2, p 233
[21] Ali Anooshahr, p 284
[22] Badauni vol.2, p 165
[23] Badayuni, vol-2, p216
[25] Companions of the prophet
[29] Badauni, vol-3, p 55
[37] Badauni, vol-3, p 421
[38] ibid, Vol-2, p 265-266
[40] Badauni, vol-2, p 124
[41] Badauni vol.2, p 375
[42] Ali Anooshahr, IESHR,43, 3(2006), ‘Mughal historians and the memory of the Islamic conquest of
India’ p 295
