Indian Political Thought Answers

Q. Elaborate the theory of kingship as described by Buddha in Digha Nikaya? State in Digha
Nikaya?(State here is interchangeably used with Kinghship)

A. Buddhist theory of origin of state/kingship is contained in Aggañña Sutta, 27th of 34 Sutta

(formulation) under Digha Nikaya (Long Discourse). It is a kind of semi-contractual theory, which was
theorised as social contract theory in much expanded form by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in
modern era. As per the Aggañña Sutta, in the state of nature, human being lived in bliss following
Dhamma as natural law. This was the life without private property and family life. With the advent of
private property and family life, vices such as vanity (empty pride), ego, lust, greed, theft, desire,
crime, punishment etc made life miserable, as there was no supreme power with force to punish the
wicked and protect the weak. Tired of anarchy, people chose amongst themselves the best and most
able person to maintain order by punishing the wicked and protect the virtuous. In return for this
service, people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’- Mahasammata. Thus, as per
Buddhist thought State/Kingship arose as a punitive institution having monopoly of coercion to end
anarchy, maintain peace & order. State/kingship was created by human for specific purpose, there
was nothing divine about it. This was a major deviation from Brahmanical Hindu political thought.

The Buddhist legends regarding the origin of Kingship are rooted in a primitive social contract.The
legend is narrated in the Dīgha Nikāya, [3-Pathika-vagga, 27 (4) Agancca-Sutta], where Buddha
himself, is in conversation with Brāhmaṇas Vaśiṣṭha and Bhāradvāja staying with the Bhikkhus for
joining the life of mendicancy, tells the story of the śriṣṭi after the pralaya.

Cosmic theory of Origin of Life and evolution of State

At one stage in the formation of the universe, beings with life came hither from the Abhassarakaya.
These luminous aerial (akasacari) creatures lived long on happiness alone. With the formation of the
crust of the earth they associated themselves with the earth and enjoyed its flavour and became
desirous of it. Their luminescence disappeared. The sun and the moon appeared. Time became
divided as night and day, and so this universe evolved.

With the bodies of living creatures becoming coarse as a result of feeding on the flavour of the.
earth, colour and beauty differences appeared. Consequently pride and arrogance followed. The
flavours of the earth disappeared. Later a kind of mushroom appeared. Living creatures fed on them.
Further colour differences and coarseness developed. Later even these mushrooms disappeared.
Next a kind of creeper grew upon the earth. Living creatures fed on these for a very long time. With
the resultant changes in colour, pride and arrogance increased.

Subsequently, grains - a variety of dryland paddy grew on the earth. These were self-propagating.
Then living creatures fed on this grain for a great period of time. Together they flocked in the
morning and evening to gather the grain. With this developed physical and mental differences.
Sexual differences became, prominent. Sexual relationships became common and attractions for
opposite sex compelled them to have family life in secluded hut. Consequently domestic life came
into being.

At this time a certain lazy living creature procured sufficient grain for the morning and evening in
one trip. Another living creature who observed this collected sufficient grain to last him for a week in
one trip. Thus living creatures began to store grain privately. Later the self-propagating grain became
extinct. Then the living creatures cultivated grain. They shared it privately. This was followed by
marking of land, on an individual basis. Thus began the institution of private property.
At this stage a certain greedy creature stole another's property. The rest warned the thief many
times to no avail, and so finally they were even obliged to beat the thief in order to restrain him.
Thus, four evils came into existence, namely theft; censure; lying and violence and it became
prevalent among men.

Emergence of king due to social contract- Later, men tired from this anarchy gathered to discuss
this situation and decided to choose amongst themselves the best and the most able(most
handsome, attractive, strong and capable) person to enforce justice mete out punishment and
maintain order.

In return for this service, people promised to give 1/6th of their ‘Rice’ to the great ‘elect’-
Mahasammata. Thus, tax was a kind of compensation for King’s services to the people.
State/Kingship arose as a punitive institution monopoly of coercion to end anarchy, maintain peace
& order by using combined force of the society. Thus, the state/kingship had monopoly of using
force/coercion. Later he came to be called 'Ksatriya' as he was the "Lord of the fields" (lands). This
was the second appellation. Still later, as he brought happiness to men with the Dhama(rule of law)
he was called 'Raja' .This was the third appellation used.

Nature of the contract: The contract to form state/kingship was Semi-Contractual, Not Divine. The
contract was only between the people & Government/King, for limited purpose. There was no
contract among the people themselves ( as in modern social contract theory) to establish a
sovereign political community. There was reciprocal obligation between king and people- King to
command & protect, maintain order, people to obey, pay tax. Thus, the state/kingship was
necessary human arrangement, there was nothing divine about it.

Changing conception of state/kingship in Buddhist political thought: gradually, role & status of
King/state expanded, first King became lord of fields (Khattiya from kheta-field), then Raja (one who
‘ranj’ or pleases his people), and finally universal benevolent monarch (Cakkavatti), who also became
spiritual guide to people, protector and promoter of Dhamma. Thus, State developed as an ethical
institution drawing its authority from the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life in this world
and attain salvation (Nibbana) in other world. 3 phases of progressively wider conception of
Kingship/state denote evolution of Buddhist conception of State, how it adjusted itself with social
order and real-politic of those times

Dilemma of separation of realms of spirituality and politics: In Buddhist political thought there is an
attempt to separate the 2 realms of spirituality- ‘Dhamma’- and Politics/statecraft- ‘Ana’. But
gradually with expansion of role of state/kingship both the realms got merged into state ruled by
Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja (Chakravarti Samrat who is protector and promoter of Dhamma)

Nature of the state:

Mostly monarchical. Kingship synonymous with state. This is enigmatic as Buddha himself came
from ‘Shakya’, a republican State. However, ‘Sangha’- Buddhist monasteries, were following
republican ethos and governed on democratic principle. State was absolutely necessary to maintain
the institution of private property & family, for peace & order is not possible without state. The
terms commonly used for the state are Rattha (country), Rajja (kingdom) or Vijita (subjugated
territory). The state is a sovereign entity and its sovereignty is expressed by a variety of terms such
as Ana, Adhipacca, Issariya, Vasa and Siri ;Ānā means order or command and implies ability to give
orders to all. Ādhipacca signifies overlordship, the quality of imposing superiority over others.
Issariya, which is also called vasa, is the quality of exercising overwhelming influence or control, the
capacity to impose sovereignty. Siri is splendor, beauty, glory, majesty and prosperity and is based
on material possessions. Sovereignty connotes total authority, an ability to reward and punish,
capacity to give orders to all and receive orders from none.

An ideal State is described as the territory which is without thorns (akantaka) and untroubled and in
which people live in peace, happiness, harmony, and without fear. Ideal state is rational, ensure
social equality and social justice, balanced, progressive, altruistic, and moralistic.

Elements of State

 Not as clearly explained as ‘Saptang’ theory of Hinduism.

 7 elements
1) The King
2) The Territory (rattha); Territorial organizations have sub-divisions: (a) Villages (gaama) (b)
Market towns (nigama) (c) Countryside (janaopada) (d) City (naga ra) (e) The Frontier
(paccanta) (existed only sometimes)
3) Ministers and bureaucracy (Amacca and paarisajja)
4) The Armed Forces (balam)
5) The Treasury (kosakotthagara)
6) Allies (Anuyutta khattiya)
7) The People (manussa); to have four different assemblies (parisas),- one each for (a)
Khattiyas (b) Brahmans (c) Householders (gahapati) (d) Ascetics (samana)
 (Fort/ Durg not included in the list, as was done by Kautilya)

Qualities, Function and the Duties of the ruler

 The ‘anointed warrior Raja, as described earlier, is not a dynastic or a divine king but a popularly
chosen ruler.
 According to Sri Lankan Scholar Sita Arunthavanathan wrote: “A ruler was expected to have ten
personal qualities such as generosity, liberality, virtue and so on. Four cardinal principles a king
had to possess were generosity (dana), pleasant words (piya vacana), welfare of the subjects
(atta cariya) and equal treatment of all (Samanatmata)
 He was also to have the following five qualities: 1) Understanding things with a clear vision
(attannu), 2) Knowing that which is righteous (dhammannu), 3) Having a clear idea of limit and
measure with regard to punishment, fines and taxes, 4) Knowing the right time for action
(Kalannu) and 5) Knowing the assemblages of men (parisannu).
 The Buddhist state as depicted in Dīgha Nikaya is basically a punitive institution, which inflicts
punishment on bandits and malefactors through a contractual ruler, to deter others from wrong
doing. In doing so, the ruler 'should lean on the norm, the “Dhamma" (the law of truth and
righteousness)'.This implies that the ruler should be truthful and righteous in governance.
 The sacred duty of the king was to observe Dhamma. The ruler must use his discretion of
analysing the crime reasonably and award punishment righteously in accordance with the crime.
The government's other important obligation towards people is their protection from external as
well as internal forces. The wrongdoers must be punished and no wrong doing should prevail in
the territory.
 Another important duty of king is to provide wealth to poor, as poverty may lead to anarchy.
Kautilya's rājādharma of Rakshana-Palana and yogakshema meaning security protection and
well-being of the people seems to be bearing the Buddhist influence.
 Buddha said that the qualities of the subjects of a kingdom depend largely on the behaviour of
the kingdom's ruler. He then outlined 10 qualities–Dasa-Rājā-Dhamma ('ten virtues of the ruler'
to guide rulers and produce virtuous subjects:
1) Dana: liberality, generosity or charity. The giving away of alms to the needy. It is the duty of
the king (government) to look after the welfare of his needy subjects. The ideal ruler should
give away wealth and property wisely without giving in-to craving and attachment. In other
words he should not try to be rich making use of his position.
2) Sila: morality - a high moral character. He must observe at least the Five Precepts, and
conduct himself both in private and in public life as to be a shining example to his subjects.
This virtue is very important, because, if the ruler adheres to it, strictly, then bribery and
corruption, violence and indiscipline would be automatically wiped out in the country.
3) Pariccaga: Making sacrifices if they are for the good of the people - personal name and
fame; even the life if need be. By the grant of gifts etc. the ruler spurs the subjects on to
more efficient and more loyal service.
4) Ajjava: Honesty and integrity. He must be absolutely straightforward and must never take
recourse to any crooked or doubtful means to achieve his ends. He must be free from fear or
favor in the discharge of his duties. If a person maintains justice without being subjected to
favoritism, hatred, fear or ignorance, his popularity grows.
5) Maddava: Kindness or gentleness. A ruler’s uprightness may sometimes require firmness.
But this should be tempered with kindness and gentleness. In other words a ruler should not
be over harsh or cruel
6) Tapa: Restraint of senses and austerity in habits. Shunning indulgence in sensual pleasures,
an ideal monarch keeps his five senses under control. Some rulers may, using their position,
flout moral conduct - this is not becoming of a good monarch.
7) Akkodha: Non-hatred. The ruler should bear no grudge against anybody. Without harboring
grievances, he must act with forbearance and love
8) Avihimsa: non-violence. Not only should he refrain from harming anybody but he should
also try to promote peace and prevent war, when necessary. He must practice non-violence
to the highest possible extent so long as it does not interfere with the firmness expected of
an ideal ruler.
9) Khanti: Patience and tolerance. Without losing his temper, the ruler should be able to bear
up hardships and insults. In any occasion he should be able to conduct himself without giving
in-to emotions. He should be able to receive both bouquets and brickbats in the same spirit
and with equanimity.
10) Avirodha: Non-opposition and non-enmity. The ruler should not oppose the will of the
people. He must cultivate the spirit of amity among his subjects. In other words he should
rule in harmony with his people
 A Dhamma Rājā, the righteous ruler, relies just on Dhamma saying (to his subjects), 'Follow such
practice in deed, not that other; follow such practice in word, not that other; follow such
practice in thought, not that other; follow such livelihood, not that other'. Thus, the ruler, apart
from maintaining the order by punishing the wrongdoer, protecting the people and ensuring
their wellbeing, also performs the role of a teacher of the people teaching them to practice the
principles of Dhamma, the righteous life in deeds, words and thoughts.
 “A king had to rule with justice and equity ensuring security from within and without. Here it
must be stressed that moral responsibility lay not only with the ruler but also with the ruled.
Each person in the society had a share of responsibility so that the community could present a
united front. According to Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta a king's duty could be summarized as
protection of the state, elimination of crime, effecting economic stability and ruling in
consultation with the clergy (samana - brahmana). The Pali term 'dhammikam rakkhavaranam
guttim' mean watch, ward and protection righteously.
Conclusion: Buddha was perhaps first to give contractual theory of origin of state/kingship more
than two thousand years before western social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
were propounded. It was a humanist approach to State/kingship State/Kingship were human
arrangements, created to solve problems of human life, and there was nothing divine about them.
Pre-state social life became miserable as human fell from their blissful life without private property
and family life. All were master of their own act. No supreme power was to punish the wicked and
protect the virtuous. People selected best among themselves, gave him the authority to use force on
behalf of them to restore peace and order. For this service, they agreed to pay 1/6th of their
rice/produce as tax to the king. However, role and functions of state grew with changing political
situation. First the king became Ádhipati’or Kahttiya ( lords of the filed), then Rajan (one who pleases
his people), and finally Cakkavatti Dhammiko Dhammaraja, Chakravarti Samrat who is protector and
promoter of Dhamma. In the final phase State developed as an ethical institution drawing its
authority from the Dhamma, guiding people to live virtuous life and attain salvation (Nibbana). Both
temporal and spiritual sovereignty was vested in the King, who became spiritual guide to his people.
Thus, Buddhism adjusted with changing political realities to drift way from an elected king with
limited role to all powerful and all-encompassing state/kingship.

Q. Buddha’s Dhamma was alternative to Dharma of Brahminical Political Order; give your Views?
In what ways Buddhist ‘Dhamma’ is different from Brahmanical 'Dharma’? Explain.

A. Introduction- The dilemma of separation of the realms of spirituality and politics has been
common to both Brahmanical and Buddhist political thought. Buddhist Dhamma is Pali word for
Dharma in Sanskrit. Both represent spirituality. Both Dhamma and Dharma have multiple
connotations (meaning), they may mean righteousness, moral obligation, duty, and code of conduct
for a virtuous moral and ethical life. Both Dhamma and Dharma help individual attain salvation.

In both Buddhism and Brahmanical political order Dhamma and Dharma have very exalted status.
Dhamma/Dharma are sovereign, even the kingship or politics is subordinated to them. The king
himself is supposed to follow his Dharma, that is the Raja-Dharma. Only slight difference between
Dhamma and Dharma in political order of both the traditions was extent of separation between
Dharma and politics. In Buddhism, Dhamma was somewhat separate from ‘Ana’(command/politics),
whereas politics or Dandaniti was mere adjunct to Dharma in Brahmanical political order. ‘Danda’
was merely means to achieve the Dharma, which was considered as end or goal. Conception of State
evolved with time in Buddhist political thought. From merely a punitive institution, the State came to
seen as an ethical institution which ensure virtuous life in this world and salivation in other world.
Similarly, from a very limited role to maintain peace & order, kingship evolved. Cakkavatti Dhammiko
Dhammaraja was vested with both spiritual and temporal sovereignty. Hence, the separation of Ana
and Dhamma was at best very thin even in Buddhism. Hence, we can see that Brahminical Dhamma
was an alternative to Dharma of Brahminical Political Order.

But the conception of Buddhist Dhamma is different in many other ways then Dharma of
Brahminical tradition. Dhamma is more like cosmic force or natural law holding together the
universe including human society but unlike Hindu Dharma, Dhamma is not divine command, neither
it except the existence of soul and God. Another major difference is that Brahminical Dharma cannot
be subjected to test of reason, rationality, and logic unlike Buddhist Dhamma which can be. In fact,
Buddhist Dhamma are those natural laws which is innately (naturally) known to human by their
sense of reasoning. Hence, we can see that it in political order Buddha's Dhamma is very much like
an alternative to Brahminical Dharma but spiritually Dhamma is more humanistic and secular
concept then Brahminical Dharma which is more theological and divine concept.
Similarity between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical Dhamma:

• Both denote righteousness, sense of duty, supreme moral obligation, purity of thought, speech,
actions, natural laws, and code of conduct for virtuous life.

• Both help achieve salivation, Moksha in Hinduism and Nibbana in Buddhism.

• Both denote nature or form (essence) of being- Dharma of water, tree, snake, etc.

• In context of socio-political arrangements, both denote duty and moral obligation of each one
according to his/her role/position.

• Rajadharma and Rajadhamma denote duties and moral obligation of King.

• Both Dharma and Dhamma are considered superior than Kings and are guiding and regulating
force for the Kingship/state.

• Both are more like way of life than Religion.

Differences between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical Dharma:

• Buddhist Dhamma, unlike Hindu Dharma is agnostic (non-believer) to existence of God, Soul, and
divinity.

• Dhamma is like cosmic force which maintain the order in the nature, nothing divine in it.

• Dhamma, unlike Hindu Dharma, does not denote maintenance of Varna system ( Varna Ashram
Dharma)

• Hindu Dharma is considered divine command, breaking which will be punished by God, whereas
Buddhist Dhamma is supreme moral command based on law of nature which is known to humans
innately from their sense of reason.

• Unlike Buddhist Dhamma, Hindu Dharma is not subjected to test of rationality, reason, logic.

• Hence, Hindu Dharma is more religious or theological- like God’s command than the Buddhist
Dhamma which is more like natural laws understood by human through sense of reason

But Politically, both have the same position, role and functions in their respective political orders:

• Both Dharma and Dhamma have a Dialectical (contradictory, having tension) relationship with
Politics or statecraft’.

• Both Buddhism and Hinduism attempted to separate the realms of Spirituality, represented by
Dharma/Dhamma and Politics/statecraft, represented by ‘Dandaniti’ in Hinduism and ‘Ana’ in
Buddhism.

• Both Dharma and Dhamma are considered autonomous and sovereign from the kingship.

• Kingship in both Buddhist and Hindu political thought is subordinate to Dhamma/Dharma. Both are
guiding and regulating force for the Kingship/state.

• Kings are themselves are bound by their Dharma/Dhamma, that is the Raja-Dharma.

• In both Buddhism and Hinduism, it is assumed that unless the kings follow their Dharma, no one,
not even the nature follow their Dharma in those state/kingdoms.
Hence, almost in all respect Brahminical Dharma was an alternative to Dhamma of Brahminical
Political Order. Both have similar meaning, position, and roles in political orders of the two
traditions.

Conclusion: Spiritually, there may be some differences between Buddhist Dhamma and Brahminical
Dharma but in political thought both have similar status, meaning, roles and functions. In both
Brahminical and Buddhist political order Dharma or Dhamma get status higher than politics or
statecraft. Both were autonomous and sovereign to which even the kings are subordinate. Kings
themselves were supposed to follow their Dharma, that is the Raja Dharma. Dharma or Dhamma
had a dialectical relationship with politics. Both the traditions struggled to separate the two realms
of Dharma and politics. Buddhism became more successful in this endeavour but with changing time
and political situation it also accepted the merger of both the realms in the kingship where both the
spiritual and temporal sovereignty was vested in Kingship, who becomes the spiritual guide to his
people. Hence, in almost all respect Buddhist Dhamma was an alternative to Brahminical Dharma in
the political order of these traditions.

Q. Discuss the nature and functions of King as emphasized by Ziauddin Barani? Examine Barani’s
concept of ideal state/sultanate?

A.  Introduction

Zia Barani (1283-1359) was the most important political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate, particularly
during the reigns of Allaudin Khilji, Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and Firoz Tughlaq. He has been regarded
as one of the most important historian and political theorist of Medieval India. His writings are
invaluable source for acquiring the knowledge of nearly hundred years of the Delhi Sultanate. His
importance lies not only in composing the history of this period but also in writing on the nature of
kingship, its rationale, duties and obligations. 

 He represented the idea of political expediency in the Islamic history. His Fatawa-i-Jahandari (AD
1357), written as ‘nasihat’ (advices) for the Muslim kings, is a classic work on statecraft which can be
compared with Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Machiavelli’s Prince. For his 2 ideas i.e idea of justice
and idea of moderation he is even remembered today.

He was against science and reason and mainly, and mainly emphasised on religion as a way to
govern the state. He had written another book Tarikh-i- Firoz Shahi in order to please, the then
Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq. According to scholars. Fatawa-I Jahandari is written after Tarikh-i-Firoz
Shahi. He is also famous for his ideas of Ideal Sultan and Ideal Polity.

Ideal Sultan

 Zia Barani believed in Divine Right theory of King(Sultan). The King(Padshah- taken from Sassanid
empire) was one of the most wonderful creations of God. The Sultan was considered as (Zil-i-
Ilahi) .i.e. the shadow of God(Allah). He is shadow of god on earth, his vice-regent, the
representative of god. Such exalted and divine position of King was conveyed through Mahmud
of Ghazni in ‘Fatwa-i-Jahandari’, and Balban in ‘Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi’. However, according to
Barani, Sultan does not possess absolute sovereignty, thus Barani acknowledged the supremacy
of the Caliph and Ulema(Priest) above him. According to Barani god creates both good and bad
things ad hence a king can be either good or bad. He says that there is no inherent goodness in
Kingship and everything depends on the personal virtue, thought and actions of the King. Barani
contradicts his own views and references Jalal-ud-in Khilji’s view on kingship, that the divine
features associated to a King are more like false pretences and a necessary lie maintain the state
and the aura of the King.
 Barani made a clear cut distinction between the personal life of the Sultan and his political role
(Advice II). In both aspects, however, he envisaged in him(The Sultan) an ideal person—noble
born, preferably belonging to the family of the monarch, having an innate sense of justice, wise
enough to understand the deception and conspiracies of the wicked (Advice XXIV),
understanding the importance of his time and dividing it judiciously between his personal needs
and political requirement.
 The Sultan should ideally follow the path of the Shariat, which laid down that he was an agent of
god on earth to do the ‘welfare’ of the people. The Sultan was expected to reflect supplication,
helplessness, poverty and humility (Advice XXIV) to compensate for the existence of monarchy
which was contradictory to the principles of Islam.
 As far as following the Shariat was concerned, Barani conceded that in the personal realm the
Sultan may choose to be lax but he opposed the idea of laxity in the political sphere as it might
lead to disease in the administration, for the ideal polity and the political avatar of the Sultan
were intertwined.
 However, in cases where Sharia law is not applicable in the public sphere, he recommends that
the Sultan can create and use Zawabit laws(State laws). This was to be done only  where, in the
changed circumstances, the Shariat was unable to serve the purpose of the state. Though he
cautioned the formulators to be guided by the Shariat’s intention, it was more verbiage than
anything else.
 He advises the Sultan to achieve the objectives of Islam and possess the attributes of terror,
prestige, pride, high status, domination and superiority. Anyone’s ascendancy over him meant
the loss of his superiority (Advice XX).
 According to Barani; Sultan should have the courage to react to any idea or anyone’s wishes at
the appropriate time because it was the essential ingredient of his political existence.
 According to him the Sultan must desist from five mean qualities such as falsehood,
changeability, deception, wrathfulness and injustice.
 Similarly, differentiation between the determination in the enterprises of the government and
tyranny/despotism (Advice IV) was necessary to command faith, fear and prestige among his
friends and foes. High resolve, lofty ideals, fair administration, distinctiveness from other
monarchs, obligation over people, etc (Advice XV) were the other required characteristics to
influence people to lend their ears or be warned.
 As people were influenced by the character and actions of the monarch, it was necessary for him
to maintain all the regalities associated with kingship. Counsellors, and army and intelligence
officers were indispensable parts of these royal functions. Their selection, gradation, etc. were
obviously the duty of the Sultan and required careful attention.
 It was on the basis of their advice and reporting, either on policy matters or about conspiracies,
corruption, the condition of people, etc. that the administration could function harmoniously.
 It was the king’s responsibility to protect the old political families, to check their possible
usurpation of power and to ensure they are not left to live in material deprivation, because their
poverty and deprivation can lead to rebellions against the Sultanate.
 According to him, the supremacy of the Sultan and the safety of his Sultanate, however, couldn’t
have been secured without delivering justice to the subjects. If subjects are not given justice,,
then it would lead to discontentment, which will finally result in armed rebellion, which is in not
favourable to the interests of the Sultanate.
 Accordingly, the first act had to be the appointment and gradation of judges, with the king
himself being the highest court of appeal.
 Justice should ensure, ‘protection of money, property, women and children of the weak, the
obedient, the helpless, the young, the submissive and the friendless.’
 While delivering justice, ‘however, the king should know … the appropriate occasions for both
forgiveness and punishment ’ (Advice XII). Punishment to the rebellious, cruel, mischievous, etc.
had to be combined with mercy and forgiveness for those who accepted their sins and were
repentant (Advice XIII).

Nobility

 The nobility was the second component of the monarchy. The nobles were the chosen
individuals whom the Sultan assigned ‘the right to levy the revenue in particular
territories’ which was known as ‘Iqta”. It was the basic unit of landed property whose holders
formed the main class of landed proprietors.
 The iqtas were frequently transferred from one person to another, which made them non-
hereditary. The revenue resources created from the appropriation of the surplus produced by
the peasant were distributed among the ruling classes of which the iqtadars were the principal
component.
 Nobles were also part of the royal consultative council which advised the king on policy matters.
 Since the basic function of the Sultanate was revenue collection, for which the entire
paraphernalia of administration existed, and which could not have been performed by the king
alone, a set of people existed to collect the revenue and advice or formulate administrative
policies for it. The selection of such people by the Sultan, therefore, was of crucial nature for
which Baran set up two-fold criteria; first, the people to be selected should be noble-born with
loyalty, both personal and political, towards the Sultan; and second, they must possess the
quality of sound political judgement and render advise to the monarch while taking into account
the prospects and contradictions of the impact of the policies to be undertaken (Advice XIX)
 While the first was explicit, he prescribed nine conditions (Advice III) for the second to test the
political quality of the counsellors. From fear of god, knowledge of history, lack of greed to
practical knowledge of state affairs, all must be present in the advisers.
 Barani suggested an additional seven conditions to be provided to the advisers once they were
selected. Some of these conditions were the security of their lives and tenure, environment for
free expression of opinion, etc. Finally, he suggested the grading of nobility as per their birth and
merit.
 Further, he prescribed eleven criteria (Advice III) to judge a policy, which the monarchy planned
to undertake, in order to formulate the right one.

Ideal Polity
Laws

 Barani categorized laws into two kinds, the Shariat and the Zawabit.
 While the Shariat meant the teachings and practices of the Prophet and of the pious Caliphs;
 The Zawabit were the state laws formulated by the monarch in consultation with the nobility in
the changed circumstances to cater to the new requirements which the Shariat was unable to
fulfil.
 He advised the king, nobility and the personnel of administration to follow the Shariat, both in
personal domain and in public policies. The state laws, however, were also to be formulated in
case of the inability to follow/apply the Shariat.
 While formulating the Zawabit he advices the lawmakers to take into account the practices of
the past and contemporary socio-political conditions while formulating the laws. 
 he Zawabit, he said, must be in the spirit of the Shariat and enumerated four conditions (Advice
XIV) for its formulation as guidelines-
o First, the Zawabit should not negate the Shariat;
o Secondly, it must increase the loyalty and hope among the nobles and common people
towards the Sultan;
o Thirdly, its source and inspiration should be the Shariat and the pious Caliphs; and
o Finally, if at all it had to negate the Shariat, it must follow charities and compensation in lieu
of that negation.
 Thus what he envisaged in the Zawabit was an ideal law which could cater to the needs of the
state without offending any section of the nobility in particular and the masses in general

Army

 Barani believed that out of the three main pillars of the administration, the army was the
preeminent one which was organized on the decimal system and based on the Turkish-Mongol
model. It ensured, security, sustainability and expansion of State. He presented a description
about the organisation of the army. It was divided into four parts-

a) Infantry- foot soldiers or payaks.

b) Cavalry- horsemen. The cavalry was further divided into three wings

o Mumattab- Soldier in the cavalry wing without a horse.

o Sawar- a soldier with a single horse.
o Do-aspah-  a soldier with two horses

c) Elephantry- War-elephants

d) Auxiliary- boats, engineers, transporters, scouts, spies, etc.

 The rank and file such as khan, malik, amir, sipahsalar etc. (Advice VII) which were composed of
Turks, Tartars, Rajputs and others were paid either in cash or were assigned the revenues of
different villages as per their grades.
 As the Sultanate ultimately rested on the power of the army, whose basic functions were the
security and expansion of the state, Barani advised the king to take greater care in its efficiency,
checking corruption and conspiracies within it and so on. The monarch also maintained personal
troops called ‘qalb’ for his safety and ultimate reliability in case of rebellion occurring from
within the nobility. He should spend largely on the military for maintenance and recruitment.
 Barani appeals the sultan to fulfil all the worldly requirements of thee soldiers so that they
concentrate on expedition.
 The Sultan should appoint commanders with ten qualities such as fear of god, loyalty to the
state and sultan, balanced temperament, well experienced in art of war, truthfulness etc.

Bureaucracy

 The bureaucracy was another necessary component of the Sultanate whose basic function was
to measure the land and fix and collect the taxes for its disbursement among its beneficiaries;
and in its absence the very existence of the ruling class would have become redundant and
neither would have the army sustained itself.
 It operated at three levels, viz., centre, province and village. At the centre the Diwan-i Wazarat
headed by a wazir (the head of revenue and finance, also known as the prime minister) and
assisted by a Naib, Musharif-i-Mamalik, Mustawfi-i-Mamalik and Dabirs, was at the apex of the
revenue department.
 Corresponding to it at the provincial level, the administration was headed by Muqtis or Walls.
Below him was the Diwan (ministry of revenue) provincial wazir, counterpart of the central
wazir, but more or less with independent charge, who was accountable to the central wazir.
 At the local (sarkar, pargana, village) level were the Muqaddam (the headman of the village),
Chaudhari, etc., who were in charge of the collection and fixation of revenue with the patwari as
the village accountant and keeper of records.
 The revenue was collected on the basis of the estimate prepared for each locality, based on their
revenue-paying capacity; and the salary of the staff was paid from this revenue as per their
status.
 Almost throughout the Sultanate, the revenue amount collected was half of the produce of the
peasants which was levied separately on their land holdings. The tax was fixed and collected on
each unit of the area irrespective of the produce of the current year’s harvest. It was paid both
in cash and in kind.
 ‘Besides the land revenue, other burdens were also imposed upon the peasants; in particular,
the tax on cattle or grazing tax.’ Thus, overall the tax burden was heavy, particularly, for the
lower strata (balahar, the village menial) upon whom the upper strata (khot, the large village
landholder) passed on their own burden as well.
 Barani’s passage in this context on forsaking severe taxation(Advice XVI), checking corruption,
recognising the rights of people (Advice XIII), etc., acquires clear meaning when he discussed
dispensing of justice to subjects or advised kings to protect weak against strong.

Justice

Barani considered justice as the 4 th pillar of Ideal Polity. For Barani the idea of Justice has four
dimensions-

1) Remission of taxes- At least during calamities, Barani suggested, the king should remit or reduce
taxes and extend monetary help from the treasury till the time it was possible and necessary. Failure
of crops, with consequent increase in prices coupled with the continuation of revenue collection in
the same proportion as during normal harvest seasons might have created discontentment among
the populace.

2) Supply of commodities to buyers at production cost - he advised the king to ‘settle before his
own throne the prices of all things according to the principle of production cost’ (Advice IX) and
suggested that the Diwan-i-Riyasat, the controller general of the market, the Shahana-i-Mandi, the
superintendent of the grain market, and other officials should control irregularities in the market
such as checking the weight and measures, deliberate hike in prices, hoarding etc.

According to Barani inflation and price hikes in the market will result in discontentment among the
general populace and the members of the army and as a result it might result in a rebellion and thus
affect the stability of the Sultanate. Thus such measures are necessary to ensure stability.

3) Dispensing Civil and Criminal Justice- It is the duty of the Sultan to appoint judges and other
Judicial officers being the apex court himself. To dispense justice the courts were divided into civil
and criminal categories and they operated at central and provincial levels.
 The Quazi-ul-Quzat (Chief Judge) and Amir-i-Dad-Bek-i-Hazrat (Central Judicial Officers) were to
be appointed at the central level. The Sadr-us-Sadur or Sadr-ul-Mulk (Provincial Judge) and Qazj,
Amir-i-Dad (Judicial officers at provincial level) were to be apponted at the provincial level and
Muhtasibs (municipal officers and moral censors) at municipal level.
 The king in dealing with the religious cases was assisted by the mufti and the Sadr-us-Sadur while
in secular cases he was assisted by Qazi-ul-Quzat.
 While delivering justice, ‘however, the king should know … the appropriate occasions for both
forgiveness and punishment ’ (Advice XII). Punishment to the rebellious, cruel, mischievous, etc.
had to be combined with mercy and forgiveness for those who accepted their sins and were
repentant (Advice XIII).

4) Barani’s Justice also included granting monetary help to the needy- In other words Barani’s ideal
polity was not based on separation of powers and enumerated the concept of police state as well as
welfare state.

Conclusion

Barani’s eminence lies in his theory of history and its constant application in different aspects of
society of his time resulting in his theory of statecraft which made him unique and enigmatic. In fact
it won’t be wrong to say that he marshaled all his knowledge and experiences from the past and the
events of his time to serve the interests of the Sultanate. The prominent elements of his theory were
his belief in the hereditary status of the nobility, espousal of political expediency on the part of
monarchy and nobility, and contempt for the downtrodden. While the last element was the corollary
of the first, the second element was intended to serve the purpose of consolidation and expansion
of the Sultanate and consequently of the ruling class. To this end all means, such as religion,
despotism, benevolence, annihilation of the Hindus etc. were to be employed. He was not against
the Hindus per se as it has been alleged but against the Hindu elite from whom he feared potential
threat to the Sultanate. Conversion or annihilation of the Zimmis essentially meant the
conversion/annihilation of the elite among them. He knew that the conversion or annihilation at
mass level might lead to uncontrolled conflagration. Zawabit rather than the Shariat therefore finds
more prominence in his theory. Moreover, Shariat was only the tool to be used for the benefit of the
Sultanate; and for the same purpose he suggested judicious mixing of benevolence and despotism in
order to enhance the power prestige and wealth of the Sultanate. Justice likewise was intended to
serve the pecuniary interests of the state rather than to fulfil the politico-economic needs of the
masses. It was meant to expand the social base of political obligation towards the monarchy.

He consistently upheld the interests and values of the traditional Muslim (Turk) aristocracy who he
thought were intrinsically superior to any other section of society. It acquired such prominence that
purity of birth became the parameter of judgement for every appointment of personnel in the
organs of government. They were to be judged on the basis of an appointee’s hereditary status.
Further, his status was to be hierarchical and graded. His contempt for lowborn was so strong that
even those who moved into the realm of nobility were looked down upon. He went as far as to
suggest the banning of education among the lower classes in order to check their individual mobility;
for education acted as catalyst in providing opportunity to individuals in their vocations. The
changing composition of the ruling nobility which consisted mostly of former plebians incensed him.
Even the changes that he suggested, for example, for formulating the Zawabit, which emanated
from new necessities, was essentially geared to serve the overall interests of the Sultanate.

Thus the entire theory of Barani had a definite interest. On the surface, his Fatawa or Tarikh may
look like a bundle of contradictions, but beneath it lies the consistency of his interest—the
protection, consolidation and expansion of the Sultanate, the methods applied to achieve these aims
notwithstanding. Essentially a conservative aristocrat in his outlook, he craved for stability 29 but was
surpassed by the changing circumstances of his time, and side-lined by the class whom he desired to
represent.

Q.How did Barani’s association with Sultanate shaped his political views?(Found this in typed notes
most likely it is never going to come still do read it.)

Introduction:

Ziauddin Barani (1283–1359) was most important political thinker during Delhi Sultanate period. His
political views are mainly contained in his seminal creation Fatwa-i-Jahandari (percepts or theory of
Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari).

Barni was not pure academician. He was rather a practitioner of real politic. His Association with
Delhi sultanate was long, close, and intrigued. His father, uncle, grandfather all held important
position in Delhi Sultanate. He himself was the servant of the court and companion or Nadeem of
Muhammad Bin Tughlaq for 17 years. Thus, he would have seen the working of Delhi Sultanate from
inside. Two of his most important Creations- Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi and Fatwa-i-Jahandari- were
realized when he lived an isolated and discredited life after falling out of favour from Sultan Firoz
Shah Tughlaq. Frustration and indignation arising from isolation and being pushed aside from the
position of importance might have affected his political views in the ‘Fatwa’. His hatred towards low-
born, ignoble, up starters and baser people might have arisen because preference given to such
people by Sultans in his nobility and administration. He could have seen the rise of such ignoble and
fall of people of repute and noble birth like him. He might have closely observed the way sultans
think and act. He would have compared Sultan’s actual thought and actions with demands of Shari’a
and principles of classical Islam. This might have underpinned (formed base) his conception of an
ideal state/Sultanate. This also would have influenced formulation of his Advices or Hidayats.
Therefore, both reason for writing ‘Fatwa’ and content of it might have been deeply influenced by
his close association and subsequent falling out of favour with the Delhi sultanate.

Some of the most important political thoughts of Barni and how they would have been influenced by
his close association with the Delhi Sultanate are explained below:

The ideal king must uphold the faith, maintain exalted position of shari’a, dispense justice as per
shari’a but he also rule by secular state laws- Zawabit :

He might have observed the tension between demands of Shari’a on one hand and requirements of
governance and politics on the other hand. This was his solution. An attempt to reconcile the
contradiction. It is another matter that his advice itself became contradictory.

No inherent goodness in kingship; depends upon the personal virtues, thought, and actions of the
King : This was his own view based on his insider information of the actual working of the Delhi
Sultanate. This is Despite getting ‘Mahmud’ to pronounce in ‘Fatwa’ that King (Padshah) is one of the
most wonderful creations of God, He is shadow of God on earth, his vice-regent, representative of
God, the heart of King is the object of the sight of God, etc. In a way, divinity of the Sultan is
conveyed through Mahmud in ‘Fatwa’. But his own view on nature of Kingship/Sultanate is based on
his personal experience of close association with Delhi Sultanate. To him, such divine features were
more like false pretentions, to keep the subject and adversaries in awe, gain political obligation, and
help maintain the state. There is no inherent goodness or Godliness in the Kingship. Sultans can be
both good and bad. It depends upon the personal virtues, thought, and actions of the Sultan.
The Sultan should follow the Shari’a in personal and political domain; flexibility allowed in
personal domain but not in public : Why he thought so? He might have seen that in personal life the
Sultans are hardly following the traditions of classical Islam. But to create false pretentions in the
subject he should seem to follow them in public life.

To maintain and strengthen the state king may adopt any means: Because he knew by his
experience that political requirements to maintain the state cannot be met by following moral laws
of the faith and Shari’a. This is very similar to Machiavelli’s view which also informed by his close
association with real politic of Florentine state in Italy.

Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity; closing entry of low born, mean,
up-starters to nobility: He might have seen rise of such baser people and falling aside people like
him. Hence, he might have developed such hatred for low-born and baser people. He also would
have experienced the cycle of violence by conflict between the nobility/ruling elites of past and
present regime. This was his solution to break this cycle of frequent changes of dynasties/regime
and resultant violence.

The sultan should protect old, noble and ruling families and treat them carefully after the
conquest of any new territory: Same as above; his personal experience might have influenced this
view. His way to make the ruling dispensation stable.

Conclusion: Political views of Barani where deeply influenced by his close association with Delhi
Sultanate. His family held high positions in Sultanate administration. He himself held a significant
position during the later years of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq. Hence, he had first-hand information and
experience of actual working of the Delhi sultanate. He also had access to personal accounts of his
family and friends who might have given many hidden facts of actual working of the Delhi sultanate
to him. Both, the experiences his own and as narrated to him by his close friends & relatives,
influenced his political views which he reflected in his ‘Fatwa’. Contradictions we notice in his
political thought might also have been the result of the way he experienced the actual working of
the Delhi sultanate which itself would have been full of contradictions. This was because of the
peculiar political situation of his time- a Muslim rule in the lands of non-Muslim.

Q. Examine Barani’s Hidayat (advices) to his ideal King?(This question is more or less the same as
ideal king, again it is found in notes highly unlikely to come, but do read for knowledge) ?

A. Introduction:

Barni’s Fatwa- i- Jahandari is written in the style of mirror to the kings genre like ‘Prince’ by
Machiavelli and ‘Siyasat Nama’ by Nizam al- Mulk Tusi. In ‘Fatwa’, advices to kings are conveyed
through Mahmud of Ghazni as sermons to his fictitious sons. In all, he gave 24 advices to his ideal
Sultan. The advices cover broad range of virtues in the king, duties, role and functions of the king
and art of governance. some of the key Advises were to follow Sahri’a both in private and public
domain, stabilize the ruling Elite class by adopting the hereditary principles, closing the doors of
nobility to low born, ignoble and infidels, protect the old nobility of previous regime, dispense justice
following the principles of equality, ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of
the subjects, and adopt any means to maintain his state.

From his Advises his conservatism and pragmatism both are evident. On one hand he hates non-
Muslims, especially high class Hindus, but on the other hand he accepts Hindu nobility in Mahmud’s
regime; he advises following shari’a in all walks of life but also recommend Zawabit at practical and
secular state law; he advises the Sultan to avoid falsehood, changeability, deception, wrathfulness
and injustice but also advises him to adopt any means to maintain and protect his state. He follows
the ideals of ancient Sassanid Iranian empire but feels uncomfortable with its pomp and show,
regality, and hierarchical status conscious socio-political order of Sassanid rule.

Such contradiction in the political thoughts of Barani might have been the result of changing
situation of political Islam, that is Islamic rule in in foreign lands such as India where the ruler and
nobility were Muslims but vast majority of subjects were non- Muslims. Barni’s Advices to the king is
an attempt to reconcile the dilemma of meeting the demands of Shari’a with challenges of political
requirements and governance of a non-Muslim population. In the next section of the answer I will
list out the most important of his 24 advices or Hidayats. I will also attempt to discuss the
contradiction in his advises, their impact on the Delhi Sultans, and their relevance

Barni’s Hidayat (advices) to his ideal Sultan: Following are some of the most important of his 24
advices or Hidayats:

• Follow the Shari’a in personal and political domain; flexibility allowed in personal domain but not
in public.

• Dispense justice on the principle of equality. There should be balance between punishment and
forgiveness.

• To maintain and strengthen the state king may adopt any means.

• Ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare of the subjects.

• Maintain stability of ruling class by adopting principle of heredity; closing entry of low born, mean,
up-starters, and infidels to nobility.

• Check and suppress Ignobles (low born), Hindu Priestly class, Philosophers/rationalists.

• Maintain price stability- fixing price, checking weights & measures, hoarding, malpractices, state
procurement, etc.

• Keeping strong, satisfied and loyal Army by taking care of all needs of the soldier- their arms,
equipment, salary, housing, family.

• Formulate Practical state laws, policies rules & regulations- Zawabit, for cases/situations not
covered in Shari’a.

• keep himself fully informed about the happenings in the state through strong network of
intelligence, and espionage system.

• Suppress the rebellious elite, both Hindus and Muslims, ban education to the under-privileged, low
born and nondescript people including Muslims.

• Protect old, noble and ruling families and treat them carefully after the conquest of any new
territory.

• Should have firm resolve/determination based on high lofty ideals.

• Should keep the subject in fear and awe with pomp and splendour but should not become
despotic/tyrannical- shouldn’t be hated.

• Frame good policies, rules and regulations to establish the strong & efficient administration.

• Carefully select high officials, judges, counsellors, companions.

• Should consult scholars, experts, intellectuals, Consultative Assembly , and his companions.

• Remain loyal and obedient to God especially in later years of his rule. Because of his breaking many
Islamic principles to maintain his state, he should pray for forgiveness and blessings of God/Allah.

Contradictions in his advices/Hidayats:

• King to uphold faith & Shari’a but may follow un-Islamic policies & practices to maintain his state.

• Denying nobility to low born, ignoble, infidels, up-starters, and baser people but accepting such
practices by Mahmud of Ghazni and Delhi Sultans.

• King should follow the ideals of Khalifa as pious and poor king but allowed pomp and show,
regality to keep the subjects in awe.

Effect of his advice on Delhi Sultans: In the real politic of Delhi Sultanate Barni’s Fatwa merely
represent one point of view. perhaps his imagination was of ideal Muslim state, but while doing so
he also prescribed many such contradictory principles which logically made his own advises
impossible to implement. Example of such contradictory advices are his advice on Justice- based on
equality but differential, Practical Law Zawabit but should conform to Shari’a, Political Obligation
based on force but also on justice, King to maintain trust with his people but should treat many
sections harshly, leniency and benevolence towards needy, poor, indigent, emergency measures but
same time hatred for low born, ignoble to the extent of denying education to them. Hence, his
advices seem to have little effect on real politic of Delhi Sultanate. Views and actions of some of
Delhi sultans prove ineffectiveness of Barni’s advice on Delhi Sultans:

• Alauddin Khalji: Followed in practice policies which best served the interest of his power and the
state

• Muhammad Bin Tughlaq: accorded high positions to Hindus.

• Firuz Tughlaq: showed interest in Hindu traditions and monuments.

Conclusion: Ziauddin Barani political thoughts are contained in his seminal work called Fatwa-i-
Jahandari (theory of Governance, world-keeping- Duniyadari). ‘Fatwa’ is written in the style of
‘Mirror to the King’ genre in which the political thinker advices how a King should conduct himself to
maintain his state. Barni gave twenty-four advices to his ideal Sultan. His advices covered entire
range of statecraft and arts of governance. His most important advices were to uphold the dignity of
Shari’a in all walks of life, stabilize nobility by adopting hereditary principles, closing doors of nobility
to low born and ignoble, protecting old nobility of earlier regime, dispense justice on principle of
equality, maintain price stability, and ensure peace, truth, justice, economic well-being and welfare
of the subjects.

But his advices had seemed to have little impact on real politic of Delhi Sultans, who found many of
his advices or Hidayats impossible to implement, One such advice was to wage all round war against
the infidels such as Hindu priestly class. Also, his hatred for low born and ignoble was generally not
shared by the Delhi Sultans. Despite this, his advices are valuable for range of the political ideas of
Kingship/statecraft. Also, his advice of practical state law-Zawabit- is his unique contribution in
separating the two realms- spirituality and politics. Hence, Barni is an enigmatic political thinker of
Muslim India.

Q. Write an essay on Abul Fazal’s theory of Kingship?

A. Medieval India had many eminent historians and among them Sheikh Abul Fazl (1551–1602)
occupies a place of distinction. This is mainly because of the predominance of intellectual elements
in his writings, his unfailing appeal to reason against religious and cultural traditions, broader view of
history and a new methodology which he sought to apply to his task. His interpretation of history
was integrally linked to the political, social, economic and religious realities of that period.

He was friend and philosopher to Akbar and was his secretary and companion; was one of the nine
jewels in Akbar’s court. His political thoughts are spread across in ‘Ain-i-Akbari’ the 3rd volume of
Akbar Nama, his most remarkable work.

Akbar Nama and the Ain-i-Akbari together constitute a single book. The first part of the Akbar
Nama contains an account of Akbar’s ancestors, including that of his father Humayun. The second
part gives the most complete account of Akbar’s reign up to the 46th year, in a chronological order.
The work was undertaken in 1595 and, after five revisions, completed in 1602

The Ain-i-Akbari is the third part of the book. It is a unique compilation of the system of
administration and control over the various departments of government in a great empire. It
faithfully and minutely records, to the minutest detail, a wide array of facts illustrating its extent,
resources, condition, population, industry and wealth as the abundant material supplied from official
sources could furnish. It also contains an account of the religious and philosophical systems of the
Hindus, as described in their ancient books, and of their social customs and practices. Thus, Abul Fazl
widened the range and scope of history as no medieval historian before him had done and his work
is considered the most comprehensive account of Mughal administration and state structure.

Theory of Kingship

 Aims and Nature of Kingship- Abul Fazl describes the positive aims of kingship very clearly. He
wrote-
o “In his wisdom King will understand the spirit of the age and shape his conduct accordingly.
o He will regard all conditions of humanity and sects of religion with single eye of favour, and
not be mother to some and step-mother to others.
o He is expected to have a paternal love towards subjects, a large heart, trust in God, etc.
o He must see that no injustice is done within his realm.
 Dual Theory- Abul Fazal believed in both a Social contract as well as Divine theory of Kingship.
 Social Contract theory:
o Abul Fazal believed that differences and inequality is natural among humans; some will
be strong, other weak; some virtuous/good, other wicked/bad.
o According to him, in the state of nature, desire, lust, anger, competition led to constant
disturbance and anarchy in society.
o There was constant conflict, but no supreme power to punish the guilty, no one to
establish Justice
o Kingship arose as a punitive institution having monopoly of force/coercion for punishing
the trouble makers, the bad one, the wicked and to protect the weak, the virtuous.
o Just force/terror of King is like lifesaving medicine to end anarchy and maintain peace,
order
o Thus, the King protects the four essences of his subjects-life, property, honour and faith,
and in return demands political obligation and a share of resources(taxes).Thus, tax acts
as wages for protection
o According to him Royalty is a remedy for the spirit of rebellion, the reason why subjects
obey.
o In his words a king is “the origin of stability and possession. If royalty did not exist, the
storm of strife never subsides, nor selfish ambition disappear and the whole earth
becomes a barren waste.”
 Divine Theory of Padshahat (Badshahat) and the Concept of Royalty
o According to Abul Fazl, the term Padshahat (Badshahat) meant ‘an established owner’
where ‘Pad’ stands for stability and ‘shah’ stands for owner. Padshah therefore, means
powerful, established owner who cannot be eliminated by anyone. The Badshah had a
superior place in the Mughal Empire. He was the ultimate authority on all social,
economic, political and judicial powers. This theory of Badshahat was a combination of
Mongol, Turkish, Iranian, Islamic and Indian political traditions.
o Based on Ishraq theory: theory of divine light emanating from Sun was developed by
12th century Sufi philosopher Shihabuddin Suhrawardi.
o Basic tenets (beliefs) of the theory can be traced from ideas of Plato- Sun as light of
absolute goodness, from which all receives light and, and goodness derives its virtue.
o According to this theory temporal Sovereignty/kingship as the highest station in the
hierarchy of objects that are receiving light emanating from God (farr-i izadi ). Hence,
King is possessor of illuminated wisdom, and reflector of the Godly light to all others in
his Kingdom.
o Thus, royalty is light emanating from God, a ray from the sun, essence of the books of
perfection, and assemblage of excellence.
o According to Abul Fazl, ‘Badshahat is the light derived from God which has been sent by
God himself. God throws his kindness on Badshah; who works as the agent of god.
o God directly transfers this divine light to kings, without any intermediary. This implied
that for interpreting holy laws King does not need the help of theologians. He may be
the final arbiter of Interpreting the Shari’a.
o According to Abul Fazl, sovereignty was in nature, a divine light (farr-i-izadi) and with
this statement he seems to dismiss as inadequate the traditional reference to the king as
the shadow of God (zill-i-Ilahi)
o The king was, therefore, deemed to be divinely appointed, divinely guided and divinely
protected. He was not product of any religion but having authority of God.
o The ray of divine wisdom banishes from his heart everything that is conflicting, guide
him to be just like Sun, like rain, maintain harmony raising above mean
conflicts/differences, makes him ‘perfect man’ ( Insan-i- Kâmil ) and spiritual guide to
the nation.

Monarchy being a light emanating from God and communicated by him directly, has manyinherent
qualities which automatically enter into the possessor of this light. According to Abul Fazl, a
monarch, because of the Divine light in him, possesses besides others, the following qualities.

1. A paternal love towards his subjects : Thousands find rest in the love of the king: and
sectarian differences do not rise the dust of strife. In his wisdom the king will understand the
spirit of the age and shape his plans accordingly

2. A large heart :The sight of anything disagreeable does not impact him. His divine firmness
gives him the power of requital, nor does the high position of an offender interfere with it.
The wishes of the great and small are attended to and their claims met with no delay at his
hands. Akbar himself is said to have expressed that "We by virtue of our being the shadow of
God, receive little and give much. Our forgiveness has no relish for vengeance.

3. Daily increasing trust in God: When he performs an action, he considers God as the real
doer of it, so that a conflict of motives can produce no disturbance.

4. Prayer and devotion: The success of his plans will not lead him to neglect; nor will
adversity cause him to forget God and madly trust in man.

Conclusion: In sum, Abul Fazal’s theory of kingship broke the duality between the contractual and
divine theory of origin of kinship. Traces of both can be found in his theory of kingship. On the one
hand he describes kingship as a human arrangement for ending anarchy and restoring peace, order
and protect the four essence of human life; people pay taxes as compensation for the service of
protection received from the king. But on the other hand, he gives an exalted and divine status to
the kingship by describing him as highest station receiving divine light directly from God. In this view
the king is not merely a shadow of God rather he becomes a part of the God- receiver of divine light
and reflecting that light to illuminate all others in his state. Breaking the duality in political ideas was
the essential feature of Abul Fazal political thought. He also breached the duality of spirituality
versus politics by vesting both spiritual and temporal sovereignty in the kingship. But he also created
duality of Just versus unjust sovereignty. For him, only the just sovereignty receives the divine light
directly from God and only the state ruled by just sovereignty is long lasting, virtuous and ethical.
Overall, his theory of kingship unifies the dichotomy between contractual and divine theory. It was
an interesting attempt by a medieval political thinker who seems to have been much ahead of his
time.

Q. Analyse the element of sovereignty in Abul Fazal's Ain-e-Akbari. To what extent it supports
divine theory of 'Badshahat’/Kingship? Elaborate your response.

A. Sovereignty in Badshahat
Absolute Sovereignty

 Abul Fazal suggested absolute, undivided, sovereignty to the King.

 According to him, the king had been given miraculous powers, it was impossible to challenge
him and nobody could share his power and it was the responsibility of the citizens to obey him.

Quasi divine idea of sovereignty

The king established his

sovereignty by
considering himself an
agent of
god and used his absolute
powers according to the
rule of controller,
guide and state
 The king established his sovereignty by considering himself an agent of god and used his
absolute powers according to the rule of controller, guide and state.
 Sovereignty according to Fazal is contractual in nature and is not a product of any religion but
due to divine light theory, it has the authority of God. Thus, sovereignty here is Quasi-divine in
nature.
 Fazal believed that the Sovereign to be illuminated by Godly virtues, he cannot cause any
disharmony or disunity; and cannot differentiate among subjects.

Both Spiritual and Temporal Sovereignty

 Abul Fazal says that the King is vested with both Spiritual and Temporal sovereignty.
 During the Delhi Sultanate, the king was the final authority in governance, administration,
agriculture, education and in other fields but he had no say if they were related to religious
matters18 but when Akbar acquired kingship, he made himself the final authority even in
religious disputes vis-à-vis the Imam-e-Adil. because he followed the order of God and He could
not be wrong.
 The sovereign was not bound by dictate of religious laws (Shari’a), theological doctrine, or duties
to promote any particular faith/sect.
 The role of the sovereign is to act as spiritual guide to people.
 The sovereign was not bound by dictate of religious laws (Shari’a), theological doctrine, or duties
to promote any particular faith/sect.
 Religious Tolerance, Sulh-i-kul (social harmony, universal peace), important aspect of Mughal
Sovereignty.
 Abul Fazl’s theory of Sovereignty is close to the central Asian and Persian Islamic traditions of
sovereignty- absolute, undivided in which both temporal & spiritual sovereignty were vested.

Basis of Sovereignty

 He locates the basis of sovereignty in the needs for social order in the temporal realms – based
on reason & logic, not theology.
 In  Ain-i-Akbari, Abul Fazal he says- “In all circumstances, in such a place of turmoil, relief is not
possible except for through the punitive power of a single man.”

Distinction Between True and Selfish Sovereigns(Kings)

 Abul Fazal was against tyranny and misrule. Abu al-Fazl divides sovereigns(Kings) into two
categories: true and selfish. Both types of kings possess the same ruling institutions: treasury,
army, servants and subjects. But they distinguish themselves by their attitudes and behaviour.
 The object of the true king is to remove oppression and to provide for everything which is good
and therefore, he does not attach himself to the material things that are usual of monarchy. He
uses them, but only as means and not as an end. As a result of this attitude of the True King,
security, health chastity, justice, polite manners, faithfulness and truth pervade the social order.
 The selfish ruler, on the other hand is kept in bonds by the external forms of royal power, by
vanity, the slavishness of men and the desire of enjoyment; hence everywhere there is
insecurity, disturbance, strife, opposition, treachery and robbery.
 Thus we find Abul Fazl wanted to say that the complexion of the age depended on the nature of
the monarch ie. the character of society assumed the shape according to as the king happened
to be a True King or a False King.

Conclusion: We can see that the idea of sovereignty in Abul Fazal’s political thought is very
interesting and unique. It was a synthesis of both the social contract as well as divine theory of
kingship/sovereignty. Basis of sovereignty was need for social order and protection by a supreme
authority having Monopoly of force/coercion. But at the same time the sovereignty acquires a divine
status by directly receiving God's light. Sovereignty is therefore above any specific faith or religion.
Sovereign, who is the recipient of illuminated wisdom of God, does not see any disunity or
disharmony; for him there is no difference between his subjects on the basis of faith, religion,
language, culture, etc. This is the idea of just sovereignty of Abul Fazl. Religious tolerance and social
harmony are the prime duty of the just sovereign. His idea of sovereignty also absolves the king from
the responsibility of maintaining the dignity of Shari’a in all walks of life. Such a secular idea of
sovereignty was much ahead of its time. Modern conception of a liberal, secular and responsive
sovereignty has its roots in in ideas and elements of sovereignty put forward by medieval political
thinkers like Abul Fazl.

Q. Explain the conception of ideal king in Abul Fazl’s thought.

A. Abul Fazal visualisation of an ideal king is closely linked to his idea of kingship and sovereignty. For
him, the ideal king is just sovereign who honour the social contract to maintain peace, order and
protect his subject with just force. His ideal king is the recipient of divine light and illuminated
wisdom which banishes from his heart disunity and disharmony. In a nutshell, his ideal King is like
mighty and pure Padshah (Badshah) of ancient Sassanid empire of Iran.

He is just sovereign in which spiritual sovereignty is also vested. Hence, he is also the spiritual guide
of his people who offer him Political Obligation not due to fear but out of trust and respect. His ideal
Badshah is representative of God, in fact part of God as he directly receives divine light. His ideal
King is divinely appointed, divinely guided and divinely protected- not product of any religion but
having authority of God. In the next section of the answer I will try to further elaborate on Abul
Fazl’s idea of an ideal King or Badshah.

Abul Fazl’s Ideal King:

• His ideal king is just and sovereign monarch, receiving divine light directly from God.

• By virtue of the divine light, the ideal king acquires divinity, is like representative of God, part of
God.
• Divine light burns disunity and disharmony from his heart. Hence, his ideal King is free from any
conflict, disunity, and dis-harmony. He is able to see harmony in seemingly disharmonious
things/situation.

• He has the Godly vision to see truth and act justly without any discrimination between his subject,
for which he is the spiritual guide.

• Ideal Kingship is based on the principle of Universal peace, religious tolerance and social harmony.
Policy of Sulh-i-kul represent these ideals.

• Ideal king is able to honour the social contract with just force and divine guidance.

• The ideal king has Strong will, does God worship, is wise, not wrathful, considerate, believe in
science & reason, and provide quick relief to poor, needy, justice seeker.

• Rule of the ideal king is long lasting, just, and peaceful; Justice is the highest virtue of the ideal
ruler. • Both spiritual and temporal sovereignty are vested in his ideal Badshah.

• Thus, Abul fazl’s ideal king is divinely inspired perfect man(Insan-i- Kâmil), who has supreme
sovereignty- both temporal & spiritual-over his people and complete control over his enemies.

Conclusion: The statement in the question ‘Abul Fazl’s ideal king is representative of God’ is only one
aspect of his idea of an ideal King or Badshah which is multi-dimensional. We have seen that his ideal
Badshah is a just sovereign who honour social contract to protect, maintain peace and order. By
virtue of receiving divine light he also becomes part of the divinity. He receives illuminated wisdom
from God which burns disunity and disharmony from his heart. Hence, his ideal Badshah maintain
social harmony, religious tolerance and does not discriminate among his subjects. Both temporal
and spiritual sovereignty is vested in his ideal Badshah. Hence, his ideal king is also the spiritual
guide of his nation. Both his theory of kingship based on social contract and divine light underpin his
conception of an ideal Badshah. The concept is also closely linked to his idea of just sovereignty.
Thus, his idea of an ideal King is multidimensional

Q. Abul Fazal on division of Society?

A. • Abul Fazal classified society on 4 classes

o 1.The warriors 2. the learned men 3. husbandmen & labourers 4. artificers &
merchants.
• Very similar to Plato's 3 fold division into protector/warrior, philosopher/ruler, producers
• Further Fazl compares his 4 elements of society to- Fire, Air, Water, Earth
• Fazal gave a similar 4 fold classification of the Royalty/state1
o 1. Nobility 2. Assistants of victory 3. companions of the King 4.Servants

• Basis of this - personal aptitude and abilities and due respect for others
• Welfare of the society and state/body politic depends upon equilibrium and proper
functioning of this 4 fold division
• King's duty to put in place and maintain such social and political order
• For stability & happiness of the state prime job is to maintain absolute peace, and social
harmony, every class of people contribute their best to the society/state and have virtuous
and fulfilled life
• Other elements of statecraft- Army, economy, administration, etc are properly achieved only after
harmonious balance of such 4 fold division

•Thus, moral & political aim of state are combined; state becomes a moral, spiritual entity; King its
spiritual guide

Q. Justice According to Fazal?

A. It was also the duty of the king to provide justice to his people and always punish the wrongdoers
and ensure that justice helped the innocent people. According to him, a king should be kind and
harmonious while dispensing justice and treat his people as his children and himself as their father.
He should keep it in his mind that he was sent by God on earth to ensure peace and justice for all. He
is a medium for their welfare. He should always remain indifferent and take care that nobody was
hurt by him. His decisions should be transparent and he should always try to make his reign a
civilized society. He should take care of the basic needs of people. The king should try to place
himself in the criminal’s shoes at the time of judgment. He should consider every aspect of those
circumstances in which crime had occurred and give his decision only after that. If the king wanted
to increase goodness of his state, he should always give rewards to good people and punish the
wrongdoers to inspire them to do good work.

Abul Fazl’s basic premise was that the ruler should not depend on any religious person. His moral
level should be high and should know the moral and spiritual qualities. He tried to show this concept
of state and sovereignty in terms of Iranian traditions. According to him in a poly religious state the
concept of justice for all should be free from any bias irrespective of birth. He favoured abolition
of Juzyah. He convinced us that Akbar’s conquests were not based on spiritual or religious
differences but they were necessary for justice as Indian politics was based on justice and tolerance
and he called it Dar-ul-Sulh.

Q. Abul Fazal On Administration?

A. Humayun did not have the time to revise the old administration. It was Akbar who revised it and
gave it a structure of government and administration based on his knowledge of the Delhi Sultanate.
He did not make any changes in administration at the district and sub-district levels. His land
revenue system was almost the same.

As we know a strong and well planned administrative structure is a sound link of great governance. It
is also necessary for welfare and peace of the state that people should not fear an enemy’s attack.
All this could not have been possible in Akbar’s empire if intelligent, and loyal officers and army were
not present, as the state could defeat the enemy with their help only. In reality Mughal polity was
not a complete continuation of the Delhi Sultanate. He changed the designation of the officials. His
important contribution was the development of a provincial administration, patterned on the central
system of government. Detailed rules and regulations were made for better control.

In his administrative views Abul Fazl gave supreme place to advocates among all the officers.
According to him advocates should have those qualities which could solve both private and social
problems of the king.

Akbar divided his empire into Subas, Sarkars and Mahalls. He appointed a chain of officers at various
levels who were controlled by ministers at the centre. In this system, the religion of the officers
could not interfere in their administrative work, so this system was also followed by his successors.
Akbar wanted a sovereign rule so he gave importance to it. He systematized and centralized his
administration. There were small landlords under the king who were known as Zamindars or
Jagirdars. The king often used their forces to curb other chieftains (landlords). There was also a class
called Bhumia which got some land from the Jagirdars. The Bhumia were the owners of the land and
did not have to pay duty for it. But his land was always inferior to that of the Jagirdari land. There
also existed a Khalsa land which was under the direct control of the king. This land would be mostly
in the vicinity of the capital. This system had flourished even during the Sultanate and the Mughals
did not disturb it as the landlords (chieftains) kept the lands with those who were allied with the king
of Delhi.

The Mughal state had a vast centralized patrimonial system. In this system they bestowed various
kinds of ranks and hierarchies borrowed from the Mansabdari system of Persia (In
Persian Mansab means rank). These ranks had two parts comprising zat and sawar.
Each Mansabdar had some rights (zat) and a force of horses to command (Sawar). The ruler
provided him the grant of his strength. The Ain-i-Akbari mentions sixty-six ranks. At that time, the
system granted gifts to the deserving. All the Mansabdars reported directly to the ruler. They also
collected revenue on the behalf of the king and received salaries in cash.

Abul Fazl gave three classifications for the Mansabdars: first, those who had 500 and above
Mansabs, second, those who had 400 to 200 Mansabs and third, those who had 150 to 10 Mansabs.
This system gave rise to a community with various grades between the people and the ruler and a
hierarchical system came into existence. Summing up, in medieval times, Indian society had a
complicated system of rank and status on the basis of military power. The military power became a
status symbol and the whole framework was designed around it. The Mughals also followed this
pattern for peace in their kingdom and they did not try to change it.

Abul Fazl had a strong belief in hierarchy but he was more concerned about the need of talent for
the kingdom. He did not bother about the social background of a talented person. It is for this
reason that he stated that Akbar was moved by the spirit of the age, for he knew the values of
talent, honoured people of various classes with appointments in the rank of army and raised them
from the position of a common solider to the dignity of a grandee. Mughals did not interfere in the
Indian caste system and also did not try to change the basic frame work of Indian society.

Abul Fazl wanted the Hindus and Muslims co-exist peacefully. But according to him the Hindus
wrapped themselves up in their own cocoon. He wrote this on the basis that very few matters of the
Hindus came up in courts. The matters were settled by panchayats or by caste courts.42 The
Mughals did not interfere in the existing framework of society. The panchayat and caste courts
existed and therefore the Zamindars were loved like parental figures. The land belonged to the
family and was transferred from father to son. So the theory that the land belongs to king was only
rational. All land belonged to the peasant families, the Zamindar and the king. This communal
ownership prepared a ground for the development of canals, common grazing grounds and so on. It
also helped in developing trade and commerce in village and society.

Q. Land Revenue and Army Structure?

A. Akbar’s administration was a continuation of the Delhi Sultanate, and so was his land revenue
system. Akbar’s provinces were divided into Sarkars and Parganas. Each Sarkar was divided into a
number of Parganas. For general administration there was a Shiqdar and an Amil for assessment and
collection of land revenue. There were many other posts as well like a treasurer, a Qanungo and so
on. There was a large army of people who were appointed to look after the matters of production
i.e. the produce at the time of harvest and demanding the state’s share of it. The land revenue
system was the basis of the financial system of the state.
Dahsala or a ten year system was the basis of Akbar’s revenue policy. It was the logical evolution of
the system of measurement adopted by Sher Shah which continued to operate in Hindustan. On the
basis of this system, state demand was expressed as a cash rate based on local produce and local
prices. The Dahsala did not mean a ten years settlement but was an average of the production and
prices of the last ten years. The productivity and local prices during the past ten years were worked
out afresh on the basis of information, and then averaged in cash. On the basis of this evaluation it is
clear that the land revenue demand was undoubtedly the heaviest demand. It put a lot of pressure
on the peasants. This was the heaviest demand which the peasants had to meet under threat of
severe action, including ejection and loss of life, if he failed to meet it.

The Dahsala system which was based on measurement or Zabtwas introduced in many places like

Lahore, Allahabad, Gujarat, Malwa, Bihar and Multan. The second method was crop sharing. There
were many other methods in different areas for collection of revenue. All these methods needed a
large number of intelligent inspectors to check them.

Abul Fazl narrates that Akbar during his reign started a system of collecting tax on individual basis.
This system allowed the farmer to pay his tax based on his individual harvest. He only had to pay the
tax on whatever produce he got. This system was different from the previous one found in the
Mughal Empire, where a whole village had to pay the tax collectively. In this system, every farmer
had to pay the tax whether he had a good produce or not because everyone had to share the tax
equally. So, when Akbar became ruler, he changed this system, taking a step to reform the condition
of farmers. But this system, in which a farmer could pay his tax according to what he produced or
according to his financial condition did not prove to be beneficial for the farmers, as the authority of
collecting the tax was in the hands of the zamindars or landlords and the ameer. They exploited the
farmers and compelled them to pay the tax in conditions of droughts, floods or other natural
calamities. Although Akbar had directed them not to collect tax during natural calamities the
zamindars and landlords did not heed his advice. Akbar took some preventive measures to stop this
exploitation of farmers. He kept a watch on the zamindars to know who exploited and who did not.,
As a result of which he succeeded, to some extent, in returning the money to the farmers who had
paid the tax under force but despite all this, he was not able to keep a watch over his whole
kingdom, and this exploitation of the peasantry became common among the landlords. This practice
continued in many parts of India in Akbar’s reign.

Akbar had a large and strong army for the smooth working of governance and administration. The
Mughal army consisted of cavalry, infantry, artillery, elephants and camels. There was no easy way
to assess the strength of Akbar’s army. Troops were maintained by the Mansabdars according to
their obligations denoted by their sawar rank. According to Montserrat writing in 1581, ‘There were
forty-five thousand cavalry, five thousand elephants and many thousands infantry, paid directly from
the royal treasury’

Q. Abul Fazal on religious harmony and religious views?

A. Abul Fazl was not a blind supporter of Islam. This was the reason that he respected the Hindu
religion and supported the participation of Hindus in governance and administration. It can also be
said that Abul Fazl was influenced by composite culture of his time. He argued that Hindus also
believed in the theory of monotheism (one god) like Muslims but most Muslims get them wrong
because they do not read their religious scriptures and so their criticism springs from ignorance. In
fact Fazl did not think that Islam was superior to all religions while Barani and other thinkers
regarded it as supreme. This was the reason that many people called Abul Fazl a rebel, a Kafir, Hindu
or Agnipujak etc.
His religious thoughts were based on secularism which considered all religions equal and believed in
religious fraternity and Sulh-i-Kul (peace everywhere). He was considered an intellectual, a thinker
who believed in the goodness of all religions. He liked rationality and innovations in every field. He
did not like orthodox, traditional and customary values. He said if traditions were sufficient for all
the times then why the Prophet brought new thoughts. He argued that change in law and religion
must be initiated with the passage of time.51 His modernity and religious rationality were reflected
in the thoughts of Akbar who also declined to be a traditionalist himself and started innovative
policies and customs in his reign. We can find its glimpse in Sulh-i-kul and Deen-i-Ilahi.

Sulh-i-kul

According to Abu'l-Fazl, the emperor was a universal agent of god, and so his sovereignty was not
bound to any single faith. The emperor is further prohibited from discriminating between the
different religions of the realm and if the ruler did discriminate, then they were not fit for the role as
agent of god.

The policy of Sulh-i-kul (absolute peace) was considered as the cornerstone of enlightened rule. The
Mughals pursued this policy in order to establish peace and accommodate various ethnic and
religious communities in the Empire. Abu'l-Fazl saw the religious views of Akbar as a rational
decision toward maintaining harmony between the various faiths of the empire

Features

 Principle of Universal peace, religious tolerance and social harmony

 Derived from the theory of mystic truth and unity of existence by Ibn Arabi, perhaps greatest of
all Muslim philosophers of 12-13th Century
 Higher form is Mohabbat-i-Kul (Universal Love)-when one can see the unity & oneness of whole
mankind
 Method (for individual) : from speech to Silence(avoid arguments), keep company of good men
from all faith, making peace with the bad; for King/state it meant tolerance of all faith/religion,
no discrimination
 The just sovereign, is a recipient of divine light and does not see any conflict in different
faith/religion, hence he aspire for universal Good, peace & harmony
 In Suih-i Kul all religions and schools of thought had freedom of expression but on condition that
they did not undermine the authority of the state or fight among themselves
 The ideal of Sulh-i Kul was implemented through state policies, through which Akbar's
government integrated diverse cultural groups into a stable administrative and military system
 Through this policy, the temporal sovereignty was released from the duties of protecting one
faith(Islam) and religious laws(Shari'a)
 It also freed the King from doctrine of theologians(Ulema)
 In a sense, Sulh-i Kul became the base for modern secular state based on tolerance &
Multiculturalism.

Din-e-Ilahi

Din-e-Ilahi was a novel experiment in both spiritual and political domain by Akbar, the greatest of
the Mughal King. Abul Fazal, the friend, philosopher and companion of Akbar, attempted to vest
both temporal as well as spiritual sovereignty in the Mughal King. The process started in 1579 when
Akbar was given the right to interpret the Sharia law. Thus, the king and not the theologians (Ulma)
became the final authority to interpret Sharia, the holy law. Abul Fazl and Akbar did not stop there.
Akbar held religious discourses in ‘Ibadat khana’( hall of prayer) established for this purpose.
Scholars of all major faiths, religion, thoughts and philosophies such as Hindu Pandits, Muslim
Ulmas, Zoroastrian, Christian, Jain, and Buddhist scholars, Sufi saints etc gathered in Ibadat khana
and engaged into a series of dialogues & discourses on what could be the best religion to solve the
problem of religious and social disharmony.

The outcome of these efforts was Din-e-Ilahi (religion of God), a syncretic religion promulgated by
Akbar in 1582 by mixing or synthesizing the elements taken from multiple religion and belief system.
Din-e Ilahi emphasized morality, piety ( devotion) and kindness. Just like Sufism, it regarded the
yearning (desire & love ) for God as a key feature of spirituality; it took celibacy to be a virtue and
condemned the killing of animals. As for its rituals, it made fire and the sun objects of divine
worship. The new religion had no scriptures, no priests, no Prophet, or any specific God.

Thus, Din-e-Ilahi was culmination of Idea to vest spiritual sovereignty in the temporal sovereign.
Naturally, in this scheme of things, the king becomes the spiritual guide to the nation and is
supposed to lead them to a virtuous and spiritual path. Combined with the duty to maintain social
harmony and religious tolerance, the king as spiritual guide is supposed to promote secular spiritual
path separate from any specific sect, faith, or religion. Din-e-Ilahi was that secular religion, if we can
say so. By following Din-e-Ilahi the king rose above any specific faith or religion despite having the
authority of God to maintain peace, order and social harmony.

It was natural for the conservatives to oppose the attempt by Akbar and Abul Fazl to promote a
religious order separate from Islam. It was also difficult for people to adopt a new religion which had
no God, Prophet, Holy scripture, and fixed rules or rituals. Din-e-Ilahi therefore, was seen more as a
political device than any serious spiritual novelty. Even during the Akbar's lifetime only a handful of
people adopted the new religion. After his death the successive Mughal kings, especially Aurangzeb,
went back to the traditions of classic Islamic religion and followed sharia. Thus, the experiment of
floating a spiritual order had little impact on socioreligious life of Indian people and was vanished
from the scene with the death of Akbar. Despite this, the non-Muslim majority population of
mediaeval India cherished the idea of such a liberal and secular religious order promoted by a
Muslim King. For this, Akbar is still remembered as the most liberal, tolerant and the greatest
Mughal king.

Q.MANSABDARI SYSTEM?

A. Mansabdari system was an administrative novelty of Mughal regime. It was given a definite shape
during the Akbar’s regime and continued by later Mughals. In essence Mansabdari was a system of
combined administrative and military rank, position and associated duties and responsibilities.
Mansabdars where like higher bureaucracy in Mughal regime but the bureaucrats, that is the
mansabdar, were also assigned military duties. This was indicated by 2 numbers denoting the civil
and military rank and status of the Mansabdar. The first number was called ZAT number, which
denoted a personal rank, which ranged from 10 to 10000, the numbers higher than 5000 were
assigned only to the Mughal Princes and very few of governors and regional rulers under the
Mughals; the second number was the Sawar number, a cavalry rank, which indicated the numbers of
horses a mansabdar is supposed to maintain for the service of the Mughal King at the time of War.

Mansabdari was modified and upgraded form of Iqtadari system of administrative mechanism during
the Delhi sultanate. The Iqtadars were administrative offices who were assigned the right of revenue
collection of a territory called Iqta. In lieu of that they were expected to do to military services to the
Delhi Sultan. Similarly, the mansabdar, for their services, were either paid in cash or given a territory
from which they were entitled to collect revenue and keep a part that in lieu of their salary and
upkeep of forces under them. Territory assigned to mansabdars was called a Jagir and therefore
mansabdars were also called Jagirdars.

During later Mughals, the mansabdari system became very complicated. ZAT ranks of more than
10000 became numerous. Lots of record keeping, coordination, reconciliation, and monitoring were
required to maintain the list of Mansabdars, their Zat and Sawar ranks, monitoring of their duties,
number of horses they kept, revenue they collected from their Jagir etc. But the system was so
robust that it endured the British rule and continued in one or other form at the time when India got
independence. Still in rural India the popular usage of terms Jagirdars and zamindars underline the
popularity and robustness of the mansabdari system of Mughals.

Q. Comparison of Abul Fazal and Barani?(If asked to make a difference between the two, make
points from notes to show how fazal is liberal and barani is theocratic)

A.

Political Thoughts Barani Fazal

Ideal King Barani made a distinction between the For Fazal, king should work for
personal life of the king and his the welfare of the people,
political role. According to him King should have tolerance, strong
should be noble born, ideal person, sense of justice, provide
belonging to a family of monarchs with stability, and ensure economic
innate sense of Justice. prosperity.
Duties of Kingship/ stability of ruling class, elimination of Justice, religious tolerance
State cycle of violence, maintaining dignity of (Sulh-i-kul), social harmony,
shari’a in all walks of life, protecting promoting
the true faith(Islam), suppressing rationalism/science/logic
infidels
Religion Barani is conservative and Fazal is more liberal, does not
fundamentalist and insists superiority consider Islam superior and
of Islam and suggest enforcing of suggests equality of all and
Sharia and suppression of infidels . secularism. He says king
should not depend on religion
as society poly religious. Gives
us Principles of Sulh-i-kul and
Din-e-Ilahi
Sovereignty Force as basis for sovereignty and Social contract, need for social
political obligation. order, divine illuminated
wisdom of God- Basis of
sovereignty
Temporal vs spiritual Temporal sovereignty of King Both temporal & spiritual
sovereignty subordinate to Religion/faith and sovereignty vested in the King
religious laws (Shari’a) who is above any particular
faith & its dictates
Justice Barani says that Justice should be Justice according to Fazal is the
based on Shariat laws and in certain foremost responsibility of a
cases the zabawit laws. His Justice King. He was sent by God on
comprise of- 1) Remmision of Taxes, 2) earth to ensure peace and
Supply of commodities to buyers at justice for all. He should
production cost, 3) Dispensing of both always remain indifferent and
civil and Criminal Justice, 4) granting take care that nobody was
money to the needy. hurt by him. His decisions
should be transparent and he
should always try to make his
reign a civilized society. The
king should try to place himself
in the criminal’s shoes at the
time of judgment. He should
consider every aspect of those
circumstances in which crime
had occurred and give his
decision only after that. The
king for the betterment of
society should reward the
good and punish the wrong
doers.
Realism More Realistic- king can adopt any Idealistic, mysticism, utopic-
means for political King as perfect man, spiritual
expediency( requirements); Force as guide, Sulh-i-kul
basis of sovereignty & political
obligation
Q. Write an Essay on syncretism?

A. Syncretism is the combining of different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism
involves the merging or assimilation of several mythologies or religions, thus asserting an underlying
unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Religious syncretism exhibits the
blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation of beliefs
from unrelated traditions into a religious tradition. It is contrasted by the idea of multiple religious
belonging and polytheism, respectively.

This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where
multiple religious traditions exist in proximity to each other and actively function in the culture, or it
can occur when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them,
but they do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, the old practices.

As a tradition of assimilation, syncretism characterizes the underlying unison among the plurality of
religious and cultural life of people in India. It has acted as the common philosophical thread that
runs across all the faiths, convictions and beliefs in the country. Amidst the apparent diversity in
intrinsic value premises and their overt functional articulation, syncretism seeks to provide such
common grounds upon which the people could forge some kind of working relations, if not deep
love, among themselves and live a peaceful and mutually supportive life.

Origin and Evolution- Roots of syncretic tradition in India may be located in the accommodative
ethos of Indian culture which provides space for all the people who come to inhabit here in the
course of time. This culture which later came to be known in the name of Hinduism contains the
element of anthropomorphism' which constitutes the base of eternal syncretism of Hindu religion
and eventually of Indian society. Conceptually, anthropomorphism means a tendency to ascribe
human qualities, attributes and any forms of exclusively human-related elements to something
which is not human. It provides 2 critical inputs in the evolution in the country. First, by ascribing
human qualities in everything which is not human, Hinduism extended the reach of loftier human
virtues to almost everything existing on earth in different forms and spaces. In other words,
Hinduism seeks to orient the human outlook towards everything in this world in a pious and
generous fashion so that there does not exist any discordant or antagonistic attitude towards that.

That way, Hindus become ardent worshippers of nature including the flora and fauna existing on the
earth. Deriving from the first characteristics emerges the second one which shapes the orientation
of Hinduism towards the other people in the world. Taking the entire world as one extended family
in the classical universalistic Vedic dictum-vasudhaiva kutumbakam-Hinduism believes in the general
well- being and happiness of all and underlines that such an orientation needs to be the foundation
of peace in this world.

Thus, the intellectual roots of syncretic traditions in India are ancient and enmeshed in the broader
worldview of Hinduism. Since such a worldview encompasses both living and non-living aspects of
nature, and seeks to ingrain a positive and supplementary orientation towards every human being,
there does not appear to be place for exclusivity, chauvinism, superiority complex and expansive
tendencies in Hinduism. This presumably provided the perfect landscape in which the people of all
faith and beliefs could seek a broader understanding on the aspects and values of life despite
following different paths in their journey towards having unison with God.

Syncretism in Hinduism and Islam

Historically, India has long and cherished traditions of syncretism right from the ancient times even
when religions like Islam and Christianity had not arrived in the country. The diversified and locally
divergent nature of Hinduism had ordained such a mosaic of deities and gods within its fold that
without the tradition of syncretism, many of the followers of different sects within Hinduism would
have turned hostile to each other. Moreover, in the course of time, the advent of other indigenous
religions, such as Buddhism and Jainism, further complicated the socio-religious complexion of India,
the best way to deal with which was none other than the tradition of syncretism. Above all, the faith
system of Indian masses in different parts of the country had been so variegated that a single faith
system could never be their fait accomli. For instance, while worship of nature and natural objects,
such as rivers, mountains, trees, animals, seasons and likewise are omnipresent, there existed a lot
of differences on issues like animal sacrifices, prevalence of Tantric or Shaivaite traditions and
acceptance of a reigning deity for the village, area or the region. This amazing heterogeneity
perplexed the minds of the seers and pioneers who sought to unify the religious affinities of the
masses through means of certain common markers of reverence and identity.

However, due to such amorphous and accommodative nature of Hinduism, some people question it
to be a religion in the sense Islam and Christianity are. For example, Rasheeduddin Khan observes
that instead of being a closed and rigid order, Hinduism is a kind of umbrella system which allows
the followers of all faiths and beliefs to exist and prosper in its name. Such a liberal and open-ended
nature of Hinduism gives it the required flexibility and resilience and a tradition base wide enough to
cover the syndrome of Indian culture. That is why sometimes the revival of Hinduism takes the form
of revivalism of Indian culture, symbols, values, idioms and traditional pattern of living. It does not
take the particular form of revival of a faith because there is no such ordained, integral and defined
faith to be revived.

But the real syncretic tradition in Hinduism was introduced by the proponents of Bhakti tradition
Consolidating the tradition of Sants,' the Bhakti movement sought to promote eclectic faiths and
loosen religious orthodoxy amongst the followers of Hinduism. Significantly the Saints stressed the
fulfilment of essential social obligations such as the need to support ones family through personal
effort... Although socially involved, the Saints advocated an inner detachment from worldly ties.
Seeking a true guru, keeping the company of likeminded seekers, and dedicating themselves to the
incessant remembrance of God, they abandoned traditional rituals and rejected caste and religious
barriers. Their creed of love embraced humanity as well as the abstract being.

The syncretism of Bhakti movement proved to be the most formidable bridge between Hinduism
and Islam by harmonizing the orthogenetic and heterogenetic elements of the distinct faith systems
of the two religions. Their espousal of an uncharacteristic philosophy of life rooted in social ethics
and worldly worries of the masses helped them become so attractive to the plebeians that they
tended to break loosen their traditional religious bonds and embrace a faith that would address to
their daily chores of life.

The Sants like Kabir tried to ridicule the orthodoxies of both Hinduism and Islam in most crisp and
intelligible manner. They articulated the complexities of mundane life in such a simple and touching
vein that the masses flocked to their faith system effortlessly breaking loose of their rigid religious
customs and traditions. Although many of such people retained their broad religious affiliation they
nevertheless, became staunch followers of these Saints cutting across their religions. In the long run,
the coming together of people of heterogeneous religious background to the fold of the Saints
created a syncretic space where the exclusivity of a particular religion had become more or less,
irrelevant.

Interestingly, the descent of Islamic mysticism in the form of Sufism tended to offer an alternative
perspective of life and its relationship to God in contrast to the perspectives of more orthodox
elements in Islam represented by the Ulema. Bringing out the subtle differences between the two,
scholars point out that the Ulema stressed the realization of the true spirit of Islam through
submission to the way (sharia) God had ordained for his true followers and faith in the example and
sayings of Muhammad. On the contrary, the Sufis evolved their own way (tariqa) of realizing God-
through love and intermediary role of saints. Thus, while the original tradition emphasized living in
faith through the material world, the Sufi quest was essentially spiritual. 'If knowledge strikes the
heart, the Sufis taught, it is welcome: if it strikes the body it is a burden' . Thereby, the Sufis
appeared to be echoing the same philosophical moorings for Islam that pervaded Hinduism for ages
through Upanishad.

Syncretism in Other Religions

Apart from Hinduism and Islam, the mystic and syncretic traditions are also prevalent in the other
prominent religions of India like Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. Insofar as Buddhism is concerned, it
emerged as a distinct religion in clear departure from the rituals and orthodoxy of Hinduism.
Gradually, its spread in other parts of the world brought it in close proximity with the established
norms, practices values and customs of people of particular places. This induced the element of
syncretism in it in order to make it acceptable to the masses and deep-root its preaching and
teaching in the psyche of the people.

Similarly, Buddhism has its own glorious mystic traditions both in India and abroad. In India, though
Buddhism fell out of favour of the masses by the 8th century, many of its ideas and ideals appeared
to be incorporated in the broader fold of Hinduism so that a person remained a Hindu despite
following the basic belief system of Buddhism

Of all religions, Sikhism may arguably be reckoned as the most syncretic religion in India. Highlighting
the context of such a high degree of syncretism in it, Madan writes succinctly about Sikhism and its
founder Guru Nanak, Born a clean-caste Hindu, deeply influenced by the Sant tradition as well as by
Upanishadic metaphysics, and clearly aware of the teachings of Islam and the practice of the Nath
Yogis, Nanak revolted against ritualism and caste rigidities, particularly the former. He also sought to
combine element from the various religious traditions of India and transcend them. Worship of and
submission to the will of God, honest labour, and collective sharing of the fruits of labour are
believed to be the principles of his teaching.

In fact, the holy book of Sikhs--the Guru Granth Sahib--consists of the couplets and creations of the
people belonging to different religions. Even in their behaviour, the Sikhs share a large of number of
styles, symbols, customs and ideals found in various faiths, confirming the syncretic nature of their
religion.

As regards Jainism, despite its foundation as a distinct religious order different from Hinduism, it
remained deeply embedded in the long-held ideals and virtues of Hinduism. The philosophical
stipulations of Jainism appear to be nothing more than a revisit of the loftier ideals enshrined in the
Hindu scriptures. Hence, when it comes to the practical aspects of Jainism, there seems to be very
little divergence between Hinduism and Jainism. Thus, on the whole, the traditions of mysticism and
syncretism have become inalienable ingredients of socio-religious life of people in India. Given the
predominance of Hinduism and Islam in the life of the masses, what has turned out to be the
defining syncretic tradition is in the form of Bhaktas and Sufis who have found a number of parallels
between them to secure a life of unity and peaceful coexistence for the people.

Q. Examine Kabir’s views on prevailing inequalities in his contemporary society. Define syncretism.
In what ways Kabir contributed in strengthening syncretic traditions in India? In what ways do you
think Kabir’s philosophical tenets represent the ideas ‘Syncretism’? Discuss?

A. Kabir on Inequalities

Introduction-In addition to being one the greatest Bhakti saint, Kabir was also a radical social
reformer. He rejected caste system for its rigid hierarchical doctrine, which was inegalitarian
(inequal). To him, each one is equal as integral part of God’s creation. God is creator as well as
creation. Hence, part of God exists in each being. Hence, everyone is equal. Humans have taken birth
in same manner, live with same faculty, with same issues, and die in same manner. Hence,
difference if any, of wealth, power, status, etc, are transitory and meaningless. Thus, king and
destitute (poor) are equal, both have same fate.

Kabir also advocated equality in spiritual domain. To him, individuals are autonomous and
independent of any group/community/religion for connecting with God and attaining salvation. Each
one can realize his true self, which is part of God itself, and attain salvation by having pure heart,
intense love, devotion, meditation, and guidance of virtuous teacher/preceptor. Thus, spiritually
each individual is sovereign and therefore equal to others. To him, hierarchy is essential feature of
institutionalized religion and community life. Hence, he proposed interior (inward looking)
spirituality which makes individual sovereign in spiritual domain. In fact, in Kabir’s thought both
temporal & spiritual Sovereignty are vested in the people, not in any King/monarch. This was indeed
a very radical egalitarian concept.

1. Criticism of inequalities as a result of Caste System

As a social and ethical reformer, Kabir claims the attention of modern radicals as he denounced the
folly of social inequity and injustice perpetrated in the name of caste. He ridiculed the orthodoxy of
both Hindus and Muslims and challenged them like any later scientific rationalist to justify their
sham and hypocrisy. Challenging the superiority of Brāhmans based on their birth, he lashed out at
them that if they were superior by birth why did they enter the world like others? Why were not
they born differently.

Kabir was a bitter critic of all kinds of sectarian and narrow creeds and outlooks. According to him,
Neither the Brāhmana is high-caste, nor is the Sudra low. Why hate one another? Hatred is folly. To
Kabir eternal rituals are meaningless. Besmearing the body with ashes, taking a ritual bath three
times a day, keeping fasts and going on pilgrimage, flaunting rosaries, repeating God's name loudly
and indulging in physical mortification are a butt of great ridicule for Kabir.

Kabir was a firm believer in the unity of mankind and brotherhood. To him, Allah and Rāma, Karim
and Keshab, Hari and Hazrat were the various names of the one and the same God. We need to look
inside us to realize him The words of Kabir touched the human heart. He preached the messages of
love and unity. If God created all men, He did not certainly desire difference between man and man.
To Kabir, division of men into different religions was unnecessary and unnatural. He declared 'Hindu
and Turk were pots of same clay, Allah and Rāma were but different names. For real believers, there
could be no caste. Kabir says that caste of saints is irrelevant. What matters is their knowledge, the
same way for eg. it is the quality of the sword that really matters and not the sheath that matters.
He forbids people to visit the village where not virtue and knowledge but caste matters. Thus, we
can see that Kabir was rejecting the caste system forcefully

2. On economic inequalities and exploitative practices

• During Kabir's period the division of wealth was very unequal. The gold and silvers were gathered
to the vassals and the rich, and the ordinary people had very little money and resources. Generally,
the condition of the lower classes, especially the condition of the Hindu Sudras, was very pathetic.
People were overwhelmed by tax? The Hindus were suffering from “Jizya tax, and they were taxed
on agriculture, trade or any other income and they had to send the goods of the produced to the
royal treasury at the proportionate rate. It was that there was both movable and immovable
property, but over the land the Sultanate had the right. The slaves were counted as movable
property and they were also bought and sold. The king's exploitation and nature's wrath broke the
waist of the people. The money collected from the people for the fulfilment of the royal treasury
was used for pleasure of the king

• Most of the people in the society were poor and used to earn their bread as farmers and
labourers. Most of the farmers, who used to farm, used to run their families in some way, despite
day and night of hard work. In proportion to the yield of cultivable land, the government levy was so
high that it was difficult to spend the entire year for them. Apart from the farmers and the working
classes, there was also a business class, who used to run their livelihood through trading. The
market-hat was the main means of their livelihood. In addition to all this, there were communities
like beggars and nomadic monks as well as slaves, who were bought and sold; despite being human
they were deprived from respect of humans. The sultans, kings, government officials and employees
and big traders were living in luxurious accommodations in high-rise palaces. They used to wear
precious clothes and jewellery and enjoyed their life in pleasure. The ruling classes had immense
wealth that was accumulated by the exploitation of the general public.

• Kabir condemned the inequality of the then society in which the wealthy was the respected person
of society and poor people were despised. There was no respect of poor people in the society and
Kabir said how devotees of Rama living in a broken hut are better than the rich ones. The high
temples should be burnt, where there is no devotion and love Rama. There was no Sympathy from
the wealthy towards the poor in society. They were exploiting the poor by paying money at the
interest rate.

• As a result Kabir says that we should be more focused on gaining spiritual wealth than material
wealth as the former will bring the person emancipation, while the latter will only bring the person,
worries and miseries and taken on our heads after our death.

• Kabir, in one of his ‘Doha’ says that his heart tremble by seeing the gross inequality where few are
living in grand palace and majorities are in thatched roof mud house from which rain and sunlight
comes inside.

• In another Doha, he underlines the importance of seemingly insignificant poor people, which he
compares with dry grass straw which otherwise remains on ground but gives lots of pain if it enters
into eye by flying in air. Here he seems to be warning the rich and powerful not to treat the poor as
meaningless and insignificant. The poor can inflict great damage to rich and powerful when their
time comes.

• In other Doha, he laments the transitory nature of richness and material resources. After death the
rich will lie in grave on top of which grass will grow; hence, the poor should not get dejected by high
rise house of the rich today.

• Thus, from all these sayings of Kabir, we can infer his complete rejection and ridicule of caste
system and unequal hierarchical social order. Indeed, he was a radical social reformer and champion
of equality in all walks of life- temporal as well as spiritual

Kabir’s thoughts on gender equality:

Since Kabir believed innate(natural) equality of all beings as creation in which part of God reside,
hence, to him equality of gender was obvious. Thus, in spiritual domain female are as sovereign as
the male. Both can realize their true self, God, and attain salvation by following same process.

Conclusion

First and foremost, Kabir was a radical social reformer. He not only rejected all notions of inequality
and social injustice but also lamented and ridiculed them. To him, each individual was sovereign in
both temporal and spiritual domain and hence equal. He also supported such absolute equality on
biological, scientific, and spiritual ground. All beings are creation of supreme God, who exist in all his
creation. Hence, each one has God’s part in him/her and hence essentially equal. Money, power,
status all are external and ephemeral (transitory) phase. In birth and in death, in life processes, and
in trial & tribulations of life, all human beings are equal. Thus, Kabir was one the greatest champion
of social equality in medieval India.

Kabir’s Syncretism

The dictionary meaning of syncretism means it is an attempt to unify or reconcile differing schools
of thought. Here, it can definitely be said that the synthesis of different and contradictory ideologies
is the base of syncretism. From this point of view, Kabir tried his best to bridge the gap between the
king and subject, rich and poor, higher and lower castes and the Hindus and the Muslims in medieval
India. Kabir has given the message to maintain equality, love, affection and cooperation in place of
enmity, jealousy, egotism, disparity and has shown the way to the human beings to live for one
another. Thus, Kabir's apparently simple Dohas contains the essence of the great philosophical ideas
of syncretism which have immense significance in the contemporary times.
Kabir didn’t write anything himself, all his ‘sayings’ or ‘advises’ were orally transmitted by his
disciples/common people. Later on, perhaps during 17th century, they were written and compiled in
3 different traditions- by Sikhs in ‘Adi Granth’, by Dadu Dayal Panth in Rajasthan in form ‘Kabir
Granthawali’ and ‘Panchvani’, and By Kabirpanth in Eastern Indian form of ‘Bijak’.

Syncretism of Kabir can be seen at multiple level and ways. His life itself was symbol of syncretism.
He was believed to have born as Brahmin, brought up by Muslim parents, had a Hindu Bhakti Saint
as his ‘Guru’(preceptor), known as one of the greatest Bhakti saints, his legacy is claimed by both
Hindus and Muslims. It is interesting to note that Kabir didn’t try to synthesize the two traditions,
rather he rejected negative aspects- rigidity, hollow ritualism, irrationality, pretentions- of both the
religions. Despite this he is considered as greatest symbol of syncretic tradition because through his
ideas, practices and preaching he made individuals autonomous in spiritual domain, independent of
mainstream religion. He drew elements as well as followers from multiple religious traditions. He
became above any religion/faith, still very much rooted to traditions of mainstream religions.
Therefore, he became the symbol of syncretic culture of medieval India.

1. Criticize the caste system: In his crusade against everything that was meaningless and unreal,
Kabir naturally uttered strong denunciatory words against the caste system. It has been
acknowledged unanimously that the strongest indication of Islamic Influence on Indian thought is
the rejection of caste system by some Indian mystics, such as Namdev, Ramananda, Nanak, Appar,
Basava and Kabir. But unlike some bhaktas, Kabir rejected the caste system for social reasons. It is in
this sense that Kabir is regarded as the revolutionary of medieval Indian society. Kabir simply could
not tolerate the division and distinction between man and man. He urges us to forget our sense of
distinctions between man and man and become humble like an ant. In one of his Dohas he urges to
treat each other equally, not enquire about things like caste and value the other person for their
knowledge and who they are. To support this he says that while buying a sword it’s the quality of the
sword that counts and not the beauty of its sheath. Thus he fearlessly preaches social equality.

2. Concept of universal humanism:

a. Equality of all men: Following on his view of one God, Kabir preached equality of all men.
Egalitarianism is the second great principle of Islam which Kabir accepted under the influence of
Sufism. When the low-caste weaver Kabir began preaching to men of high caste, the principle of
equality of all men, he was reproached for his daringness.
b. Unity of human beings: Kabir took great pains for articulating his views about the unity of human
beings. According to him, while the religious differences are only fortuitous, the
essential humanity is always the same. In Kabir's word all have come from the same country, that is,
it was all one human, thus one nation, but the evil influences of this world have divided us into
innumerable sects. His conception of the oneness of human beings is in uniformity with that of the
Qur'an.
c. One Human race: In accordance with his concept of one human race, Kabir forcefully and with
reason argued to denounce the Hindu caste system. In his efforts to convince the Hindus about the
reality of humanity, Kabir traced the beginning of human race to Adam and argued that Adam didn’t
know from where Eve came. At that point of time there was no Hindu or no Muslim. Everyone
descended from the same race and go didn’t create any castes or race and that it is us who created
these differences.

3. Monotheism:
a. Emphasis on the unity of God: According to Kabir, the supreme reality is one, although it has been
called by different names, such as Sahab, Allah, Khuda, Rāma, Rahim or Brahma. Wisdom consists in
getting at the basic unity underlying the multiplicity of names. After his spiritual awakening, one of
the fundamental ideas which Kabir expressed in clear terms is his concept of God. It is generally held
that under the influence of Sufism, Kabir denounced idolatry, image worship and polytheism, and
adopted the strong monotheism of Islam.

Kabir believed in the oneness of God, irrespective of the names by which the human beings
addressed Him. Having given a simple description of the oneness of God, Kabir tells us that the
different appellations of God are only experiences of one and the same truth. According to him, it
matters little by what name we call Him.

b. Hindus and Muslims, both are the children of One God: The entry of Kabir into the fold of the
Bhakti movement proved most fruitful in bringing about reconciliation between the Hindus and the
Muslims. Kabir addressed mixed gatherings, consisting of Hindus and Muslims and made disciples
from both. Kabir's idea of one God and one humanity is truly Islamic. As a matter of fact, this is the
key conception of Kabir according to which he refused to find any distinction between Hindus and
Muslims and on the basis of this unity in principle and substance he tried to find a modus vivendi
between the two communities. By using terms employed by both systems, Kabir tells us that it is
only the difference in names. Finally, in the Upanishadic style Kabir tells us that the Hindus and the
Muslims are only different manifestations of the same substance. Therefore, they are the children of
one God.

c. God is omnipresent: Sant Kabir elaborates the theme of God's omnipresence and condemns the
narrow-mindedness of the two communities, that is, the Hindus and the Muslims-who try to keep
God confined to their respective places, and asserts that God is universal and is present everywhere
especially in the human heart. He in one of his Dohas says that If god is in the mosque only then
whom does the rest of the country belong? If God be inside the mosque and Rāma within the image,
then what lies outside? If Hari is in the south and Allah is in the west and look within your heart for
there you will find both Allah and Rama.

4. Transcended religious differences: There is no reason to doubt that he transcended religious

differences as he never showed any preference for either of the two religions. But his use of
different names for God, mostly Hindu names, and his mention of some Hindu deities and narrations
of stories connected with them simply indicate his acquaintance with both the religions. Having
transcended religious differences, and in his intense desire to see all religions united, Kabir did not
make any distinction between the two faiths, and thus accepted all gurus and pirs. In doing so, he
kept himself completely free from sectarian outlook and dogmatic mentality.

5. Bhakti or devotion should be emotional and unalloyed(Unreserved, unrestricted): According to

Kabir, the ultimate reality is formless and yet the master of this universe. His consort maya has
distracted everybody. A loving devotion to him will bring deliverance from maya by his grace. In view
of that, the basis of bhakti can be obtained by the fusion of all the men and women of the world
who are the living forms with the formless, that is, God. The Bhakti or devotion should be emotional
and unalloyed. The repetition of his name need not be done with the help of an objective rosary, but
it should be an internal and intermittent affair. The search for the divine should be conducted not
outside but inside one's own self. Consequently, worshipping a stone idol or shouting in the mosque
is meaningless. Ritualism, pilgrimage to holy places and hajj are all useless. What is needed is the
purity of emotion, fear of the Lord, moral conduct and an attitude of fraternal affection for all and
not violence and bloodshed in the name of religion.

6. Laid/stress on religious toleration: Kabir was one of the most outstanding Bhakti reformers who
did his best to bring the Hindus and the Muslims close to each other in all walks of life. Kabir laid
stress on religious toleration and taught a lesson of brotherhood to the Hindus and the Muslims.in In
one of his Dohas he suggested that people should speak in a palatable manner avoiding any kind of
friction and disharmony. In one of his couplets, Kabir says that the individual should not blame
others and indulge in mud-slinging act but should clean one's own self.

7. Opposed to economic inequalities: The disparity of economic distribution was fully reflecting in
the utterings of the Mahatma Kabir. The state's exploitation, the tendency of luxurious life, undue
tax, natural calamities, lack of equal opportunities, slave system, etc., can be counted as causes of
economic disparity. Kabir saw these situations minutely. His aim was to reform the so-called society
which was not possible without the prevention of disparity. Kabir himself was poverty stricken who
listened to the pains and the sufferings of the exploited people and prepared to solve it before the
society by his own utterings.

Kabir points out that the humble and small man should not be disparaged because of his humble and
low position; he should be given due respect and honour as any other man. In his couplets. Kabir
cautions not to oppress the weak as his sigh of sorrow is capable of causing ample harm to the
oppressor elsewhere.

8. Criticism of ritualism- In many of his Doha he ridiculed external pomp, show , and ritualism in
both Hinduism and Islam. In another Doha he ridiculed ritualism of purity by taking holy bath by
citing example of fish whose smell does not vanish by living in water permanently. Same way dirt of
heart does not go away by taking ritual bath.

Q. Premnagar or Begumpura: Kabir’s Ideal State?

A.

• Kabir called stateless, casteless, property less, hierarchy less ideal society as Premnagar or
Amarpura; sant raidas called it Begumpura

• Begum-pura, the kingdom of god, was an ideal village society without any sorrow, private
property, taxes, monarchy or social hierarchy

• It was a land of virtuous people without any fear, greed, anger, competition, discrimination, crime
and scarcity

• No organized Government, collective participation of people in decision making

• Temporal and spiritual sovereignty is vested in people- individuals

• Love, compassion, social harmony, and religious tolerance was essence of the social order

• Bhakts( virtuous people following ideals of love & devotion) were vanguard of the utopic society

• Ideas of stateless, class less society 400 years before Marx !