Abul Fazl and Badaoni

T Q: Critically evaluate the contribution of Abu’l Fazl and Badauni to Mughal Historiography Historiography Akbar’s reign (1556-1605) was prolific in historical literature, which was a reflection o his interest in historical writings. he !erso-"sla#ic an$ %ongol tra$itions o historiograph& were pre'alent $uring this perio$ the or#er bein being g pre' pre'al alen entt sinc since e the the ti#e ti#e o the the elh elhii *ult *ultan anss an$ an$ the the latt latter er bein being g intro$uce$ with the co#ing o the %ughals in "n$ia. hr hree i#po i#port rtan antt chr chronic onicle less were ere writ writtten in this this peri perio$ o$ + Abul Abul al’ al’ss Akbarna#ah, Ab$ul a$ir /a$auni’s %untakhab-ut-awarikh an$ the abaati Akbari o ia#-u$-$in Ah#a$. 2hile the abaat-i Akbari is a #un$ane recounting o e'ents i co#pare$ with the other two chronicles, the works o Abul Abul al an$ an$ /a$au /a$auni ni are are #uch #uch #or #ore co#p co#ple le3, 3, inte intere rest stin ing g an$ an$ #ark #ark a $efinite a$'ance#ent in #e$ie'al historiographical tra$itions. /oth pro'i$e contrar& 'iewpoints to Akbar an$ his policies. 2hile, al a$opts a #ore posi positi ti'e 'e outl outloo ook k towa towarr$s the the e#pe e#pero rorr an$ an$ his his acti action onss an$ an$ the the %ong %ongol ol tra$ition o histor& writing, so #uch so that it can be ter#e$ as a glorification o Akbar, /a$auni goes to the e3tent o portra&ing Akbar as a $estro&er o "sla# in "n$ia an$ looks upon all o his policies criticall&. criticall&. he reason or such a stark stark contr contrast ast in their their opinio opinions ns can be attrib attribute ute$ $ to their their person personal al li'e li'es, s, e$ucation an$ conception o histor&. An$ thus, beore anal&ing the work o an& chronicler it is i#portant to look at the social, political, intellectual an$ religious #ilieu o the ti#e. 4ne #ust also consi$er the writers’ ps&cholog&, the the obe obect cti' i'es es an$ an$ #oti #oti'a 'ati tion onss o thei theirr appro approac ach h an$ an$ i$eo i$eolo log&, g&, an$ an$ thei theirr #etho$s, #etho$s, or#s o e3pression e3pression an$ concept o histor& histor& in or$er or$er to un$erstan$ un$erstan$ what presu#ptions an$ biases #ust be taken into account while anal&ing their works. /a$auni was born in 150 in an ortho$o3 *unni a#il&, which was re#otel& connecte$ with the lower la$$er o the i#perial nobilit&. 7e was well-'erse$ in both tra$itional an$ rational sciences. Although, he was associate$ with *haikh %ubarak’s liberal en'iron#ent ree o anaticis# or nearl& 0 &ears, he consi$ere$ his e$ucation an$ subseuent leanings to be ortho$o3. "t is this inclination, which shape$ his resentul attitu$e against Akbar an$ his policies. /a$auni gaine$ pro#inence in the %ughal court because o his literar& abilit& an$ his success in argu#ents against the ula#a in the "ba$at 8hana at a ti#e when Akbar was tr&ing to un$er#ine the ula#a. At that ti#e he $i$ not know

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.







that he was striking at the 'er& root o the or$er he woul$ tr& to $een$ at a later stage. 4nce the ule#a ha$ been successull& $eeate$ with the signing o the %ahar Akbar no longer reuire$ his ser'ice an$ he hi#sel was eeling $isi $isill llus usio ione ne$ $ with with the the e3is e3isti ting ng situ situat atio ion n at the the cour court, t, whic which h ca#e ca#e to be $o#inate$ b& a large nu#ber o 9liberals: an$ non-%usli#s. his couple$ with with the the $rast $rastic ic rise rise o Abu’ Abu’ll al al in Akba Akbar’ r’ss a'o a'our ur a$$e$ a$$e$ to /a$a /a$aun uni’ i’ss $iscontent#ent as he belie'e$ al to be a $ishonest an$ h&pocritical #an not worth& worth& o the status he was recei'ing in court at that ti#e. "t is pertinent here to look at /a$auni’s attitu$e towar$s "sla#, which in itsel was respon esponsi sibl ble e or or /a$au /a$auni ni’s ’s incr increa easi sing ng $isi $isill llus usio ion# n#en entt an$ an$ grow growin ing g resent#ent, which was reflecte$ in his writings as well. or /a$auni, "sla# was na;<'e 'e an$ personal. 7e was o'er-confi$ent in the correctness o his own notion o what "sla# stoo$ or an$ so he reecte$ those with a $ierent conc concept eptio ion n as #isg #isgui ui$e $e$ $ here hereti tics cs an$ an$ infi infi$e $els. ls. 7e crit critic ici ie$ e$ the the ula# ula#a, a, accusing the# o creating $oubt in people’s #in$s regar$ing the !rophet an$ i#a#s at the sa#e ti#e, he also hate$ Abul al an$ aii. 7e also hel$ *ufis# in utter conte#pt an$ hate$ the *hias an$ 7in$us. Accor$ing to 7arbans %ukhia, /a$auni share$ great scorn or the =le#a an$ with the =le#a he share$ the hatre$ or Abul al. 7e saw the sharia as the final criterion o u$g#ent an$ oppose$ all those who $e'iate$ ro# it. urther, he $i$ not want to a$apt it to the le'el o the state. "nstea$, he wante$ the creation o a strong central go'ern#ent, hea$e$ b& a #onarc #onarch h o uni#pe uni#peach achabl able e *unni *unni ortho$ ortho$o3 o3& &, energe energetic tic in his atte#pt atte#ptss to suppress the *hias, heretics an$ 7in$us an$ who woul$ neutralie the ol$ ortho$o3 thinking an$ the new scholars who were hell bent on ra$icaliing an$ liber liberali aliin ing g "sla#. "sla#. which which woul$ woul$ suppr suppress ess hereti heretics cs an$ infi$e infi$els. ls. his his conception was totall& $ierent ro# that o Akbar’s an$ with the e3isting con$itions, which were #arke$ b& a shit towar$s a new fle3ibilit& an$ #ore liberal thinking. /a$auni, gra$uall& realie$ that his intense eal or aith an$ the conseuent a$option o rigi$ an$ ortho$o3 attitu$es were a co#plete #is#atch in the e#erging setup. hus, while outwar$l&, b& carr&ing out the e#peror’s or$ers- like participating in the translation o 7in$u an$ secular te3ts into !ersian- it #a& appear that he trie$ to co#pro#ise with the new







/a$auni’s 'ersatile talent is atteste$ b& the long list o his works on a 'ariet& o subects. 4n Akbar’s or$ers he un$ertook the translation o a nu#ber o e3isting works such as the >a#a&ana, %ahabharata, Athar'a ?e$a ?e$a etc. 7is first original work was 9!itab"ul"Ahadis 9 !itab"ul"Ahadis:: which spoke about the a$'antages o waging hol& wars an$ archer&. othing #uch, howe'er, is known about it. he #a$at"ul"%ashid, a socio-ethical treatise intersperse$ with seco secon$ n$ was the the #a$at"ul"%ashid, anec anec$o $ottes an$ an$ $isc $iscu ussio ssions ns.. "n it, it, he bol$ bol$ll& e3pr 3presse esse$ $ his his 'iew 'iewss an$ an$ theoreticall& $iscusse$ the proble#s o Akbar’s reign, without na#ing the @#peror @#peror or an& o his supporters. supporters. his was a $isguise$ $isguise$ atte#pt to attack an$ con$e#n Akbar’s un-"sla#ic’ practices. he book ser'es as an a$unct to /a$a /a$aun uni’ i’ss thir thir$ $ an$ an$ #ain #ain work, ork, the the Munta&hab"ut"Ta'ari&h 2hile e the the Munta&hab"ut"Ta'ari&h.. 2hil aat-ul->ashi$ reiterate$ the principles on which ortho$o3 *unnis# coul$ be re'i'e$, the %untakhab was an atte#pt to $estro& the aith o the *unnis in Akbar. Akbar. hus these two works supple#ent an$ co#ple#ent each other. other. /a$auni tells us that he $i$ not write to secure the a'ours o an& i#portant person. he %untakhab-ut-awarikh (*elections ro# 7istories’) was written in secret. /a$auni hi#sel sa&s that his $isgust with the changes taking place $uring $uring Akbar Akbar’s ’s reign reign,, agains againstt which which he coul$ coul$ openl openl& & regist register er onl& onl& li#it li#ite$ e$ protest, co#pelle$ hi# to resort to the writing o this book secretl& to recor$ the 9true: 'ersion o the e'ents o the ti#e. istresse$ b& what he thought was an organie$ un$er#ining o "sla# b& Akbar, he wrote the %untakhab as an alternati'e to the conte#porar& histories. At another place, howe'er, /a$auni states that he wrote the %untakhab as a penance or the translation o the 9infi$els’ works: which he ha$ been co#pelle$ to un$ertake. he he work work is $i'i $i'i$e $e$ $ into into thre three e 'olu 'olu#e #es. s. he he firs firstt 'olu 'olu#e #e $eals $eals with with the the narr narrat ati' i'e e hist histor or& & o the the %usl %usli# i#ss rule rulers rs up to 7u#a 7u#a&u &un, n, whic which h pro pro'i$es 'i$es neither a backgroun$ nor a contrast to Akbar’s perio$. he selection o e'ents, though #ostl& in a chronological or$er, is ran$o# an$ haphaar$. Also, he #akes no or#al assess#ent o the reign o a *ultan or a $&nast& as a whole. 7owe'er, in$i'i$ual e'ents, acts or persons are reuentl& the subect o his succinct an$ crisp re#arks. "n act, the 'alue o this work lies in his pri'ate co##ents, as well as the epigra#s an$ chronogra#s written b& hi#, so#e o which were e'en nast&. or instance, on the $eath o %uha##a$ bin ughla







#a$e use o the pro#inent source #aterial $ating back to the earl& #e$ie'al perio$. he secon$ 'olu#e o the %untakhab $eals with the reign o Akbar an$ is the #ost i#portant work o /a$auni. "t is an annual chronicle where e'ents ha'e been narrate$ un$er the hea$ o the &ear o their occurrence. 7owe'er, he recor$e$ onl& 9e'ents o a general i#portance: an$ o#itte$ 9the #inor ones.: %ukhia %ukhia suggests suggests that this was because because while while /a$auni wishe$ to gi'e a 9true: 9true: account o Akbar’s reign, his response to the conte#porar& circu#stances was 9negati'e:, i.e., he con$e#ne$ Akbar’s 9heresies:, but $oes not suggest an& alternati'e, not e'en a return to the past. his obect also $eter#ine$ his use o the the sour source cess an$ an$ his his atti attitu tu$e $e tow towar$s ar$s the# the#.. As such such,, or or his his acco accoun unt, t, particularl& in the secon$ 'olu#e o the %untakhab, /a$auni $epen$s #ore on his person personal al testi testi#on #on& & than than on an& an& $ocu#e $ocu#enta ntar& r& resear research. ch. /a$auni /a$auni’s ’s originalit& in this work lies in the wa& in which he e'aluates the personalities o the ti#e. 7e also oten intertwines biographical notes with the narrati'e o e'ents, or e3a#ple, when he #entions the capture o agarkot, he gi'es a short account o /irbal’s lie. he thir$ 'olu#e is in or# o a akira in which he gi'es biographies sketches o the #ashaikh an$ ula#a o Akbar’s age, as well as the ph&sicians an$ poets o Akbar’s court. 7owe'er, /a$auni e3clu$es ro# this list o 9allen #en: like 9obscure #usli#s: an$ 9accurse$: 7in$us. urther, /a$auni passes u$g#ent on the lie, art, 'iews, #orals, piet& an$ nature o his subects. /ut as he hi#sel a$#its, this u$g#ent is base$ on their attitu$e or influence on "sla#. he %untakhab-ut-awarikh is ob'iousl& intensel& subecti'e. ot being an oficial chronicle, /a$auni is ree to write what he wants an$ as %uha##a$ %ueeb puts it, 97e wears no $isguise an$ writes as a s he eels:. eels:. /a$auni’s st&le is naturall& inor#al an$ unaecte$. 7e writes in a clear an$ si#ple language, interspersing his narrati'e with nu#erous anec$otes, couplets an$ elegies, at ti#es #isplace$. 7is chronogra#s are 'aluable both or i$enti&ing the $ates o the occurrence o e'ents as well as or ascertaining his u$g#ent regar$ing persons an$ e'ents. or aesthetic e3pression, /a$auni uses poetr&. 7arbans %ukhia is o the opinion that his 'erses were a #ere or#alit&. 7owe'er,







7istor& or /a$auni is 9a lot& science:, a 'aluable branch o knowle$ge an$ a refine$ art or those who ha'e intelligence an$ insight. At the 'er& outset, /a$auni /a$auni places places i#port i#portant ant li#ita li#itatio tions ns on the concep conceptio tion n an$ treat treat#en #entt o histor& belie'ing that onl& those historians, whose belie in the *hariat is strongl& roote$ shoul$ be taken seriousl&, while, the others are 9shortsighte$: or 9#isgui$e$:. he significance o the %untakhab-ut-awarikh as a source o historical stu$& is i##ense. "t pro'i$es a 'ast a#ount o inor#ation or the perio$, ro# a $ierent point o 'iew to others. Apart ro# inor#ation on wars, rebellions, conue conuests sts etc., etc., /a$aun /a$aunii gi'es gi'es $etail $etaile$ e$ inor# inor#ati ation on on the a$#ini a$#inistr strati ati'e 'e organiat organiation ion o Akbar’s Akbar’s e#pire. e#pire. 7e $eals, or e3a#ple, e3a#ple, with the intro$uction, intro$uction, working an$ subseuent ailure o the karori s&ste#. "n a$$ition, he gi'es his own 'ersion o how the concerne$ interests were aecte$, albeit with the ai# o #aligning Akbar’s i#age. "t is, howe'er, /a$auni’s $igressions into the 9b&lanes: o histor& an$ other inci$ental $etails that pro'i$e his #ost interesting contribution to historical inor#ation. or e3a#ple, he wrote o a#ines an$ earthuakes ga'e $etails o the auhar co##itte$ b& the >aputs at Bhittor an$ the archi archite tectu cture re o cities cities like like atehpu atehpurr *ikri. *ikri. ia#i ia#i co##en co##ents ts that that /a$auni /a$auni e3ten$e$ e3ten$e$ the scope scope o histo histor& r& b& inclu inclu$in $ing g his own own accoun accounts ts o liter literar& ar&,, relig religiou iouss an$ social social acti' acti'iti ities es o the people people belong belonging ing to $ier $ierent ent walks o lie, such as poets, scholars an$ *ufi saints.

his is especiall& true with regar$ to Akbar’s religious policies, or which /a$a /a$aun uni’ i’ss crit criti iue ue is cruc crucia ial. l. or inst instan ance ce,, it is /a$a /a$aun unii alon alone, e, a#on a#ong g conte#porar& authors, who $iscusses in $etail the circu#stances that ha$ prece prece$e$ $e$ the procl procla#a a#atio tion n o the %ahar %ahar (15CD) (15CD),, sugges suggestin ting g that that Akbar Akbar wante$ to ree hi#sel ro# $epen$ence on the ula#a. 7e gi'es its ull te3t, unlike Abul al, who ignores it $espite the act that it was his ather (*haikh %ubarak) who apparentl& initiate$ it. Again, on the $iscussions in Akbar’s "ba$at 8hana, /a$auni is our chie conte#porar& source o inor#ation, apart ro# the Eesuit accounts. 7e was hi#sel a participant in the $iscussions, although that is not suficient to pro'e the authenticit& o the $etails. /ut without hi#, the $etails woul$ ha'e been ewer. or e3a#ple, /a$auni tells us







7owe'er, $espite the 'ast inor#ation that this account #a& pro'i$e an$ or its historical historical accurac& as ar as acts acts are concerne$ concerne$ it shoul$ shoul$ be re#e#bere$ re#e#bere$ that /a$auni was ne'er writing an oficial histor&. histor&. 7is intention behin$ writing this account was to recor$ his own reactions about the policies o Akbar an$ the con$uct o other people close to hi#. 7ence, his account is so#ewhat biase$ as it $oes not confir# to his own personal belies. As a result, #an& conte# conte#por porar& ar& schola scholars rs ha'e ha'e re#ar re#arke$ ke$ that that /a$auni /a$auni was was o'erl o'erl& & criti critical cal o Akba Akbarr an$ an$ has has reuse euse$ $ to gi'e gi'e hi# hi# cre$i cre$itt at ti#e ti#ess when when he $ese $eser' r'e$ e$ it. %oreo'er, he has anal&se$ #ost thing with the intention o pro'ing their ailure. or instance, the #ansab$ari s&ste# is seen b& hi# as a co#plete ailure, in which lowl& groups like tra$es#en, wea'ers, cotton cleaners an$ carpenters, carpenters, inclu$ing inclu$ing 7in$us 7in$us without without an& $istinguis $istinguishe$ he$ abilities, abilities, recei' recei'e$ e$ #ans #ansab abs. s. /a$a /a$aun unii also also sai$ sai$ that that the the $agh $agh s&st s&ste# e# brok broke e the the neck neck o the the sol$iers, an$ it is in the conte3t o these #easures that he sees the rebellions in /engal an$ /ihar. /a$auni also gi'es $etaile$ accounts o the karori s&ste#. 7e writes that the oficers were highl& highl& corrupt corrupt an$ selfish. selfish. Accor$ing Accor$ing to hi#, #an& culti'ators were ruine$ an$ the e3peri#ent en$e$ in a $isaster. 7e corroborates corroborates such inor#ation b& accounts o a#ines an$ earthuakes $uring the reign o Akbar. Accor ccor$i $ing ng to 7arb 7arban anss %ukh %ukhia ia,, /a$a /a$aun uni’ i’ss host hostil ilit it& & to Akba Akbar’ r’ss reign eign is e#otional an$ he #akes no atte#pt to rationalie it. Although he writes that Akbar ha$ go'erne$ the e#pire well an$ was liberal an$ kin$, he sa&s that the cons consta tant nt uar uarre rels ls o the the ula# ula#a a pu pule le$ $ Akba Akbarr an$ an$ he lost lost ait aith h in "sla "sla#. #. Fra$u Fra$uall all& &, his belie belie was was trans transo or#e r#e$ $ as he ca#e ca#e un$er un$er the influe influence nce o /u$$hi /u$$hists sts,, brah# brah#ana anass an$ Goroast Goroastria rians. ns. hus, hus, he argues argues that that Akbar Akbar ha$ co#pletel& $estro&e$ "sla# in "n$ia an$ encourage$ onl& that thought which was $erogator& to "sla#. 7owe'er 7owe'er,, as state$ abo'e his conception o "sla# was highl& personal an$ notice$ the un$er#ining o "sla# in ter#s o his own personal e3per perience. hus, this concept ept ha$ pre'ent ente$ hi# ro# un$erstan$ing the historical $e'elop#ent o "sla# an$ the nee$ or "sla# to a$apt itsel to the e3isting nor#s o societ& or its sur'i'al. /eing an ortho$o3 #an, /a$auni $i$ not en$orse #an& o Akbar’s liberal policies an$ was se'erel& critical o #an& o his actions. 7e wrote that Akbar









seclu$e$ place so that it coul$ be pro'e$ that e'er&one is born in a state o nature’. /a$auni is critical o #ost o Akbar’s inno'ations or /i$at, such as allo allowi wing ng wine wine-$ -$ri rink nkin ing, g, proh prohib ibit itio ion n o bee bee-e -eat atin ing, g, esta establ blis ish# h#en entt o *haitanpura (a cit& o prostitutes), $iscourage#ent o %usli# na#es etc. 7e was also o the 'iew that Akbar was a heretic, who ha$ establishe$ a new religion. 7e note$ a clear $istinction between the principles o in-i-"lahi an$ those in the aat-ur->ashi$, which strengthene$ this belie. 7e urther a$$s that Akbar replace$ the 7ira era with the arikh-i-"lahi or i'ine @ra. /a$auni was also $isturbe$ b& the intro$uction o "ranian culture at the court through celebration o esti'als like auro, since he saw this as a 'iolation o "sla# an$ encourage#ent to *hi’is# an$ Goroastrianis#. Accor$ing to *.A.A. >i'i, this kin$ o an outlook, howe'er, blin$s /a$auni ro# un$erstan$ing Akbar’s actions in an unbiase$ light, an$ he is unable to un$erstan$ the significance o such policies in their totalit&. he intro$uction o the arikh-i-"lahi was $one in or$er to ser'e the nee$s o the culti'ator an$ #eet #eet $e#a $e#an$ n$ss o re' re'enue enue a$#i a$#ini nist strratio ation. n. *i#i *i#ila larl rl& &, or /a$a /a$aun uni, i, the the pro#otio pro#otion n o rational rational sciences, sciences, instea$ instea$ o being a practical practical #easure, #easure, appears to be an un$er#ining o tra$itional sciences. 7e is also unable to see that $iscourage#ent o "sla#ic na#es was $one b& Akbar out o respect to the !rophet an$ saints. his blinkere$ un$erstan$ing is a serious li#itation o /a$auni. 7. %ukhia, !eter 7ar$& an$ *.A.A. >i'i also portra& hi# as a tra$itional theolo theologia gian n whose whose was was oppose oppose$ $ to the change change,, an$ hence hence oppose oppose$ $ Akbar Akbar.. ia#i belie'es that /a$auni was 9the 'oice o ortho$o3& against Akbar an$ Abu’l al:.







was this general resent#ent against ortho$o3 teachings which was reflecte$ in his works works as well, well, which which e3hibit e3hibite$ e$ a cos#opolita cos#opolitan n an$ tolerant tolerant attitu$e attitu$e in all religious #atters. Eust like /a$auni, al’s ser'ices were reuire$ b& the e#peror in his struggle against the ule#a. hrough his constant attacks on the ule#a, al along with /a$auni, was able to orchestrate the $ownall o the ule#a. 7owe'er, unlike his conte#porar& Abu’l al continue$ to rise in the %ughal Bourt thereater $ue $ue to his his #or #ore sec secul ular ar’’ outl outloo ook, k, whic which h was in con conor or#i #it& t& with with that that o Akbar’s. As a result, gra$uall& al beca#e one o the closest confi$antes o the king an$ his work beca#e one o the 8ing’s #ost e3tra'agant in$ulgences, as the talente$ Abul al was able to pierce through Akbar’s soul an$ gi'e it e3pression or others to re#e#ber ore'er. " an& conte#porar& knew Akbar ull&, in all his #oo$s, e#otions, a#bitions, aspirations, i$eals an$ $esires, it was Abul al. Apart ro# the Akbar a#a, which is his #ost #e#orable legac& an$ or a long ti#e re#aine$ a #o$el or subseuent historians, there are a nu#ber o other works that are cre$ite$ to hi#. he ()nsha"i"Abul Fazl* that consists o letters an$ fir#ans written on behal o Akbar b& al to nobles his own letters an$ petitions to Akbar an$ nobles an$ collection o his co##ents on the preaces an$ conclusion to books on a nu#ber o subects. his work gi'es a 'aluable insight into the nature o or$ers an$ $ecisions taken b& the ruler as well the relationship between al an$ the e#peror an$ other nobles. 7e also wrote 9Muna$at"i"Abul 9Muna$at"i"Abul Fazl*, azl*, which was an in'ocation to go$. 7e $enounces #ere or#al worship o go$ an$ religious $og#a an$ e#phasies the eficac& o personal $e'otion to go$. his along with his 'iews on the uestion o







#eant to be the Ain-i-Akbari’. 7owe'er, the author was able to finish onl& the first J 'olu#es o the narrati'e narrati'e part co'ering the first 6 &ears o Akbar’s reign an$ the Ain-i-Akbari. he narrati'e part o the Akbar a#a starts ro# A$a# an$ continues till the 6th &ear o Akbar’s reign. he $i'ision o this part is regnal i.e. each separate reign or#s a unit an$ within that e'ents are treate$ as in$i'i$ual entities. /& the ti#e he reaches Akbar’s reign the narrati'e assu#es the nature o an annual annual chroni chronicle cle.. A prope properr chrono chronolog logica icall or$er or$er is a$here a$here$ $ to in or$er or$er to $escribe the e'ents that are e3tensi'el& researche$. 7owe'er, al ten$s to brea break k the the ele# ele#en ents ts o cont contin inui uit& t& o an e'en e'entt in or$e or$err to #ain #ainta tain in this this chronolog&. his, howe'er, $oes not alter the un$a#ental treat#ent o the e'ent as it is 'er& eas& to pick up the narration ro# where it was stoppe$. he Akbar Akbar a#a, a#a, contai contains ns e3te e3tensi nsi'e 'e inor# inor#ati ation on on a 'arie 'ariet& t& o subec subects ts within the li#itations o the narrati'e o political e'ents. he inor#ation, which is e3tensi'el& researche$ an$ corroborate$ through a 'ariet& o sources, s ources, is relate$ to the fiel$s o battle, tactics e#plo&e$ therein, persons in co##an$ o orces etc. At ti#es there are brie sketches o histories o other countries an$ regions an$ genealogical $ata o persons concerne$ with the e'ent. At ti#es he also $escribes the topograph& o an area or elephants use$ in the battle. he he Ain, Ain, whic which h is co#p co#plet letel el& & $i $ier erent ent in natu nature re an$ an$ char charac acte terr ro# ro# the the narrati'e part, pro'i$es a 'ariet& o inor#ation o the %ughal state un$er Akba Akbarr. "t $esc $escri ribe bess in $eta $etail il the the 'ario arious us $epa $epart rt#e #ent ntss o the the i#pe i#peri rial al hous househo ehol$, l$, pric prices es o oo$ oo$ stu stus s an$ an$ othe otherr ite# ite#s, s, pre' pre'al alen entt wages, ages, art art o calligraph& an$ painting, the institution o the ar#& an$ the $i'ision therein,







reign an$ an& reerence outsi$e the pur'iew o this ra#ework is coinci$ental. As a result, he ails to anal&se Akbar’s reign within a broa$er historical conte3t an$ pro'i$es a 'er& isolate$ picture o the sa#e. s a#e. he use o sources an$ the a#ount o research which went into the writing o his works, especiall& the Akbar a#a #arks a clear a$'ance o'er that o the historians o the sultanate. All the rele'ant inor#ation was first collecte$ in the or# o oficial $ocu#ents as well as #e#oirs o persons in'ol'e$ in, or witness to, the e'ents. @ach piece o e'i$ence was then ull& in'estigate$ an$ collate$ with others beore being incorporate$ into the Akbar a#a. 7owe'er 7owe'er,, $espite such a #etho$ical approach there was a ten$enc& a#ong al to ta#per with certain wor$s wor$s or phrases while citing ro# the oficial oficial source to suit his own purpose thereb& changing the nature o the inor#ation to a certain e3tent. or instance, he $oesn’t inclu$e a cop& o the %ahar an$ #erel& gi'es a su##ar& o the sa#e in his own language. A clause in the %ahar e#powers Akbar to issue an& new or$ers pro'i$e$ that such or$ers $o not contra$ict the uran. al $oesn’t e'en #ake a reerence to this clause because at the ti#e o writing he probabl& elt that Akbar’s authorit& shoul$ not be li#ite$ b& an& $ocu#ent such as the %ahar. %oreo'er, the act that in case o an& $ispute$ source Akbar was the final arbiter an$ ha$ to gi'e the final appro'al to the final $rat this work beca#e an oficial $ocu#ent in e'er& sense o the wor$. 7owe'er, the #ost significant criticis# against al’s work is eulogical nature o his works. %an& conte#porar& scholars like 7arbans %ukhia belie'e that al glorifie$ Akbar in all his work in or$er to repa& his gratitu$e to hi#. or instance, b& tracing back the $escent o Akbar to A$a#, he was tr&ing to show







#oul$, Abul al not not onl& rose abo'e abo'e the $istinction between ought an$ is but #a$e Akbar #o'e on the stage o histor& as an e#peror-prophet. 7e belie'e$ "t cannot be sai$ with ut#ost certaint& whether Abul al genuinel& belie'e$ in Akbar’s spiritual #agnificence or he was ust tr&ing to co#pl& with the wishes o his #aster. "n his eal to glori& an$ usti& Akbar’s rule, Abul al oten ignores the $ictat $ictates es o reason reason or a$opts a$opts #&sti #&stical cal reason reasoning ing.. or instan instance, ce, in or$er or$er to usti& Akbar’s political inaction $uring the first our &ears o his reign he clai#s that Akbar ha$ a$opte$ a 'eil an$ was u$ging people ro# behin$ its securit&. 7e also clai#e$ that Akbar’s actions all be&on$ the pale o or$inar& hu#an reason. his acte$ as a #eans to usti& Akbar’s #is$ee$s an$ to #aintain the i#age o an i$eal person. %oreo'er, in the first chapter o the Akbarna#a which $eals with the birth o Akbar, he gi'es a la'ish account o the hol& #aniestations prece$ing his birth, creating a cr&ptic aura o awe an$ $i'init&, bor$ering on a superstitious ee$ to or$inar& #in$s. "t is strange that Abul al, who was critical o religious superstition an$ lashe$ out against the =le#a or their irrational approach, hi#sel in$ulge$ in such irrationalities an$ abrications o spiritual gran$eur. gran$eur. he he supe supers rsti titi tiou ouss cons constr truc ucti tion onss per'a per'a$e $e all all thro throug ugh h his his work work an$ an$ the the e3ag e3agger gerat atio ion n is #ore #ore ot ot than than not, not, unpa unpalat latab able le an$ an$ logi logica call ll& & absu absur$ r$.. An e3a# e3a#pl ple e o this this gros grosss e3ag e3agger gerat atio ion n is Abul Abul al’ al’ss ree reere renc nce e to Akba Akbar’ r’ss pro$igious #e#or&, that coul$ recollect e'er& occurrence in $etail ro# the ti#e he was a &ear ol$. "t shoul$ be kept in #in$ that such e3aggeration pertaine$ #ostl& to Akbar’s lie an$ achie'e#ents alone. inall&, inall&, al treats histor& as a collection o in$i'i$ual e'ents an$ tries to $raw









hus, to conclu$e one can see that neither /a$auni nor Abu’l al taken in isolation can pro'i$e a correct or accurate picture o Akbar or his reign. /oth were #oti'ate$ b& euall& strong an$ contrasting e#otions, which coloure$ their their narra narratio tion. n. 2hile, 2hile, al portr portra& a&e$ e$ Akbar Akbar as a perec perectt #an, #an, /a$auni /a$auni’s ’s ortho$ ortho$o3 o3 leanin leanings gs pre' pre'ent ente$ e$ hi# ro# ro# gi'in gi'ing g Akbar Akbar’s ’s relig religiou iouss an$ other other liberal policies their $ue cre$it. 7owe'er, the historical significance o these historians lies in the act that the& pro'i$e 'ast inor#ation about $ierent aspects o Akbar’s reign which is essential to reconstruct the histor& o this perio$ perio$.. %oreo %oreo'e 'err, their their work workss act as corre correcti cti'e 'e #easur #easures es or or each each other’ other’ss writings enabling a conte#porar& historian to fill a nu#ber o gaps, which helps in pro$ucing p ro$ucing a #ore balance$ picture o Akbar. Akbar.

Abul Fazl and Badaoni

Recommend Documents