CHAPTER

Abu! Fazl: Views on Governance

and Administration
Sumit Mukerji

CHAPTER OUTLINE

• Introduction
The Life Sketch
• Conception of State
Kingship, Sovereignty and Ideal Ruler
• Administration and Governance
Religion and Religious Fyncretism
Conclusion
Summary
Points for Discussion

Man's nature does not always receive wisdom. An independent counsellor is required who
without consideration of his own interest, will represent in private chambers what is proper
for the time without any mixture of flattery.

—Abul Fazl (Akbarnama, Vol. Ill, p. 450)

Reader's Guide
he purpose of this chapter is to familiarize a reader with the works and sociopolitical
ideas of Abul Fazl who occupies a prominent place in the history Of medieval Indian politic
 193 SUMIT MUKERJI
thought. This chapter would also provide a comprehensive account ofMughal administradon
state structure.
and Administration 193
Introduction
In the history ofmedieval political thought, Abut frazl occupies an eminent place."Just as Ziauddin
Barani provided an exhaustive account of the state system, governance and administration of the Delhi
sultanate, Abul Fazi produced detailed and incisive study of the Mtlghal state and machinery of
administration. His work was more authentic and well documented than that of Barani, It was
intellectually more organized and based on a hew methodology which he sought to apply in practice, His
interpretation of history was integrally linked to the political, social, economic and religious realities of
the period. Abul Fazi was a champion of rational thinking and his appeal to reason was visualized as a
bulwark against religious and cultural traditions which threatened to stymie freedom of thought, At the
beginning of the Mughal period, India was divided into many small kingdoms which proved to be a
source of chronic instability. This ended with the victory of Babar over Ibrahim Lodi in the first Battle of
panipat in 1526. The Mughals conquered a large chunk of India and established an integrated empire
with a hierarchical administrative structure, strong monetary policies, centralized system of
governance and new methods of military organization. This created an integrated, syncretic culture
incorporating elements from both Hindu and Muslim thought derived from the legacy of Bhakti and Sufi
movements which transmitted the message that no religion is inferior to others and that God can be found
without blind and dogmatic adherence to superstitions. They further postulated the basic equality of
human beings and the gospel of unity and equality in all religions.
Abul Fazl was a courtier, historian and also a friend of Mughal emperor Akbar. His magnum opus
AkbarNama and Ain-i-Akbari together cOnstitute his most authentic work which he finished by the end
of the 16th century. It represented a significant departure from the contemporary historiography
demolishing its Islamic moorings and constructing an alternative teleology of universal history where
Akbar is the heir not of Prophet Muhammad and Caliphs but of Adam himself, the first human being and
is the ruler of all humanity. He is thus the symbol of a powerful sovereign and a centralized state structure.
The first part of the book Akbar Nama contains an account of Akbar's ancestors. The second p art gives a
detailed account of Akbar's reign up to the 46th year in chronological sequence. The work was undertaken
in 1595 and completed in 1602 after five revisions. The Ain-i-Akbari, the third part of the book, is a
compilation of the system of administration and control over the various departments Of government. It
provides a veritable mine of information on the extent, population, resources, COndition, industry and
wealth as well as an account of the religious and philosophical system of the Hindus and also their social
customs and practices. No medieval historian before him had tried to
recapture the historical developments ofhis age in such a wide canvas. Abul Fazl's work
is thus considered the most comprehensive account of the Mughal system of administration and state
structure.

Abul
Fazl adopted a rational and secular methodology which he applied not only to collect facts
but also to articulate them on the basis of critical investigation. After amassing a huge
quantum of facts, he Selected the important ones and presented them clearly and systematically.
He never took any source On trust and verified its validity by ascertaining whether it measured up to
he principles of historical enquiry formulated by him. He thus produced a new Philosophy of
History that is a definite concept Of the nature and purpose of history, principles for its interpretation
nd the critical
 Abu/ Faz/: Views on Governance
eqUipment for the collection and selection of the facts of history. Like a genuine historian, Abul Fazl
assigned Priority to original sources. He did not limit himself to a single source to ascertain a fact but

obtained as many versions of the same as possible. Thereafter, he subjected them to critical scrutiny before
acceptance. His source material consisted of accounts of events written by eye witnesses.
Reports, memoranda, imperial Farmans and other records were also duly consulted. It is
remarkable how in those distant times Abul Fazl evolved a methodology conducive to the
verification of the authenticity of conclusions. It is of enduring relevance to researchers in
present-day India who can take a leaf out of Abul Fazl's book.

Abul Fazl (1551—1603) was the second son of Shaikh Mubarak Nagauri, a reputed Islamic scholar and
the younger brother of poet Faizi. Abul Fazl was born in Agra when the Mughal Empire was yet to be
regained by Humayun who had been driven out by Sher Shah. Trained by his father, Abul Fazl could read
and write Arabic by the time he was 5 years of age and memorized all conventional learning before he
reached the age of 10. This clearly testifies that he was extraordinarily gifted and talented. To quote his
own words, 'At a little over one year I had the miraculous gift of fluent speech and at five years of age I
had acquired an unusual stock of information and could both read and write.' This clearly proves that he
was a Wonder Child. Noted for his erudition by the time he had reached 20, he developed a singular
capacity ofproviding new interpretations to old problems. Although Abul Fazl grew up in the capital
during the period when Akbar was re-establishing Mughal authority in north India, he was not initially
attracted to court service, as had been his older brother Faizi, Akbar's famous poet-laureate. Instead, he
applied himself to rigorous life of study, and by the age of 15 he had extensively read Arabic, Greek
philosophy and Sufism. His precociousness seems to have made him something of a social misfit,
however, and by the time that he was 20 he had already embarked on a life of ascetic withdrawal which
was unusual for his age.
Meanwhile, the leading members of the Mughal 'Ulema' were mounting an intense campaign
against Shaikh Mobärak, because the latter had publicly defended a member of the Mahdawi
sect. In 977/156970 Abul Fazl stirred a hornet's nest by challenging in public the opinions of one
of the leading Ulemas. The atmosphere at court became tense. Shaikh Mobärak, accused of being
a Mahdawi and a Shia himself, was driven with his family from home to home seeking refuge,
For a while he lived in Delhi. The events surrounding his father's persecution made a profound
impression on Abul Fazl; he devoted a major part of his autobiography to describing these
traumatic experiences, and he dedicated his subsequent career & exposing what he considered the
narrow-minded bigotry of the 'Ulema'. In 981/1574 Abul Fazl made his first appearance in
Akbar's court. He favourably impressed the emperor and soon thereafter entered court service.
His reputation for forming his independent judgements based on his own observations came in
for much opprobrium, particularly from his peers who were accustomed to taqlid or blind
emulation• His mindset was objective and free from bias which was conducive to dispassionate
history writing• His refusal to be browbeaten by authority prompted him to publicly refute a
powerful Alim in the Mughal court which enraged him so much that he started a vendetta
campaign against Abul Fazl and his father• Abul Fazl rose to prominence in the court of Akbar
where he was introduced in the theological debates that took place in the Ibadatkhana at Fatehpur
 195 SUMIT MUKERJI
Sikri during 1576—1578. Championing a more liberal brand of Islam he outwitted most of the
Ulemas in court. Soon the nature of the Mughal polity underwent a significant change and the
body politic was radically transformed so as to produce a redefinition Of Mughal political culture
which persisted for more than a century. Akbar abolished the Jizyah tax much to the chagrin of
the Ulemas and soon promulgated the doctrine of Suhl-i-Kul to emancipate himself from the
control of the Ulemas. This is largely attributed to the influence of Abul Fazl. Abul Fazl
translated the Bible and also the Panchatantra in Persian and wrote an introduction to the persian
'i
and Administration 195
translation of Mahäbhärata. Because of his intimacy With Akbar he was in the bad books of his son
Salim who had assassinated him in 1603 apprehending that he Was inciting hatred in the mind of Akbar.
Moreover, Abul Fazl had opposed Salimjs accession,

Conception of State
Abul Fazl defined the state in the context of the needs of society, He categorized human beings into
warriors, artificers and merchants, the learned that is the religious classes like the Brähmavs and
Ulemas and finally the labourers and husbandmen. He relegated this class to the third position, thereby
striking at the root of their self-opinionated pretensions. Jalaluddin Dawwani, who influenced Abul
Fazl, placed the learned ahead of the merchants but below the warriors. He classified human beings into
noble, base and intermediate. The nobles possessed intellect, sagacity, administrative capacity,
eloquence and courage for military duty. The other two classes were self-centred. Abul Fazl's view of
the base or ignoble classes reflected the prejudices of the contemporary upper classes. It implied that
those belonging to the lower order of society should not aspire for a share in state power and
administration should be the exclusive preserve of those belonging to the noble families and upper
castes. Prevalence of evil sections justified royal despotism, for only a king who possessed the
necessary qualities could control these sections. He had to ensure social stability by preventing
sectarian strife and he was also duty bound to put each section in its proper place. Stability and even
dignity meant the maintenance of one's due station in life. Akbar was of the opinion that when a menial
takes to learning, it is at the expense of one's duty. Here one can clearly hear reverberations of Plato and
Bradley who were of the opinion that each person should specialize in his allotted station of life.
According to Abul Fazl, the noblest souls are those pledging absolute, unquestioning loyalty to
Emperor Akbar. Just beloW them are those whose loyalty is commensurate with tangible gain. The
worst are those who are disloyal and rebellious.
Abul Fazl compares the body politic to a living organism. Just as the equilibrium in any animal
constitution depends on the balance between the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, similarly
equilibrium in the body politic is maintained by a judicious division of ranks; each rank contributing to
the prosperity of the whole. If any rank transgresses its functions, the equilibrium is upset. At the apex
Ofthe administrative hierarchy, there is the nuwinan-i-dawlat who comprises the highest nobility
whose devotion illuminates the battlefield. They resemble the element of fire. Next comes the auliya-i-
nusrat that is the revenue officials who resembles the wind enabling the administration to breathe. This
is followed by ashab-i-suhhat or advisors of the king who represent water. Perceptive, experienced and
well versed about human nature, they irrigate the body politic with their moderate views contributing
to world prosperity. Conversely, they inundate the world with deluge and calamity. In the fourth
category are the personal attendants of the king resembling earth. If they are free from dross, they can
 Abu/ Faz/: Views on Governance
be like elixir but otherwise they can be like dust in the face of success. To Abul Fåzl, the efficiency of
administration depended upon the coordination of the four elements (Fazl 1897a, 9).

Kingship, Sovereign and Ideal Ruler

Abul Fazl was categorical on the point that the term Badshahat signified a powerful, established owner
whom none can eliminate• The Badshah was the supreme superior in the empire, the complete
reP0sitory of social, economic, political and juridical powers. In the words of 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' (Fazl 1897b, 255), This signified a continuation of the legacy of
the Delhi Sultanate where rulers like Balban projected them as representatives of God on earth.
Abul Fazl was of the decided view that a Badshäh must consider himself the father of his subjects
whom he should treat as his children. It was thus his effort to make every effort to ensure the
welfare of his subjects and take care of every aspect of their life—economtcj social' religious,
political and so on, He should treat his people equally to ensure peace and harmony in the empire
(ibid., 255). It is known from Abul Fazl that Akbar made it a point to establish the overriding
authority of the Badshah over all other elements of the state. In 1579, he promulgated a decree
called Mazhar which conferred on him the authority to interpret law. However, he was not satisfied
with this and lost interest in the position of King of Islam, Abul Fazl impressed on him the idea of
the king being an agent, of God who worked on his behalf. Sovereignty was a divine light (farr-i-
izidi) which replaced the traditional concept of King as the shadow of God (Zill_i_ Ilahi) (Athar
2006, 125). The Sultanate theory of Kingship viewed the ruler as an intermediate authority between
the Rasul Allah (messenger of God) and Khilafatal-Rasul (deputy of the Prophet that is the Caliph)
on the one hand and the Umrah on the other. The Sultan's authority was conditional upon his
satisfactory performance as the amir al-mominin that is leader of the faithful in defence and
promotion of his faith. Allegiance is thus not automatic and is retractable. Abul Fazl, however, was
categorical on the point that a ruler endowed withfarr-i-izidi does not need the intermediate
assistance of anyone and men in his presence, bend in submission (Fazl 1897b, 255). At the same
time, while the Badshah wielded absolute power and the people were duty bound to obey his
orders, yet Abul Fazl was of the opinion that if the Emperor discriminated on the basis of caste,
religion, class, etc., he could not be considered a good king. All rulers are not necessarily endowed
with farr-i-izidi by the mere fact of their holding authority. Political power is characterized by a
large treasury, a considerable military force, wise counsellors, loyal followers and skilful workmen.
Selfish rulers enjoy control over these temporarily while the rightful ones enjoy them all through.
They consecrate themselves to the mission of suppressing cruelty and promoting the well-being of
the people (ibid., 255). The selfish ones, in contrast, are obsessed with the external forms of power
that feed their vanity. This leads to insecurity, strife and oppression. Providing a rationale for royal
Omni competence, Abul Fazl says that

No dignity is higher in the eyes of God than royalty and those who are wise, drink from its auspicious
fountain. Royalty is a remedy for the spirit of rebellion and the reason why the subjects obey. If
royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside nor selfish ambitions disappear.
Mankind, being under the burden of lawlessness and lust, would sink into the pit of destruction; this
 197 SUMIT MUKERJI
world this great market place would lose its prosperity, and the whole world becomes a barren waste.
(Embree 1992, 425)

Abul Fazl uses the analogy of bride for the world and bridegroom for the ruler and says that the
world becomes the worshipper of the king. In this way he elevates the king to the highest pedestal.
He, however' adds perceptively that silly and short-sighted men cannot distinguish between a true
king from a selfish one as both have in common, a large treasury, a numerous army, an abundance
of wise men, a multitude of skilful workmen and a superfluity of means of enjoyment. However,
men with deeper insight, note the difference. In the case of the former, the aforesaid advantages are
lasting but in the case of the latter they are transitory. This is because the former is detached from
these things and his objective is to remove oppression and ensure common good. The latter is a
prisoner of the external forms of royal power' vanity, slavishness of man, etc. Royalty is a light
emanating from God just like a ray from the the illuminator of the universe, the receptacle of all
virtues. This divine light is communicated by God to
 Abu/ Fazl: Views on Governance and Administration
1 97

kings without the intermediate assistance of anyone. The qualities which flow from it are first, a paternal
love towards the subjects. With his ripened wisdom the king can judge the spirit of the age and shape his
plans accordingly. Second, the king is large-hearted, The sight of anything disagreeable does not unsettle
him. His divine firmness gives him the power Of requital The wishes of great and small are attended to
and their claims are met without delay. Third, he has an everlasting trust in God and when he performs
an action, he considers God as the doer and himself as his medium. Finally, he is committed to prayer
and devotion. The success of his plans will not make him complacent and adversity will not make him
forget God and repose his trust in man. He puts his desires in the reins of reason and never permits
himself to be trodden down by restlessness. He makes wrath the tyrant pay homage to wisdom, so that
blind rage does not overpower him. He sits on the eminence of propriety, so that those who have gone
astray have a chance to return without their evil deeds being exposed in public. He endeavours to
promote the happiness ofall creatures in obedience to the will ofGod but never seeks to please anyone in
contradiction to reason. He is essentially a truth seeker (ibid. 1992, 426—427). It is clear from this that
the ideal king to Abul Fazl is a truly enlightened man comparable in some respect to Plato's Philosopher
King who with his ripened wisdom is best fitted to rule the society. In making his case for the ideal ruler
who works only for the highest perfection of happiness, Abul Fazl followed the footsteps of Al-Farabi,
but unlike him, he did not speak ofthe happiness of Sunni Muslims alone and instead included all people
regardless of their sect. In his opinion, the ideal ruler is not merely one who adheres to the Shariht to be
on the right path but he is rather an Insan al-Kamin or Perfect Man capable of observing the connection
between spiritual and temporal things and preserving both of these high matters in their proper place. He
does not totally ignore the Shari'at but is at liberty to disregard it if it jeopardizes the welfare and
happiness of his subjects (Rizvi 1975, 356). This was not only a radical but almost revolutionary
proposition. Abul Fazl was of the decided view that kingship was a gift of God. Neither lineage nor
access to resources or support of the people makes a sovereign. The ideal ruler must possess qualities
like magnanimity, benevolence, endurance, exalted understanding, innate graciousness, natural courage,
rectitude, justice, proper conduct, thoughtfulness, willingness to overlook the trivial, etc. If the monarch
is not sufficiently wise to overpower desires, he is not fit for his lofty office (Fazl 1897b, 289). It may be
noted here that the aforesaid view of good kingship largely resembles the Buddhist view of exalted
kingship. Here, we can discern a continuity and convergence of ancient and medieval thought.
En
unciating the concept of Jahanbani or world rule, Abul Fazl says that this in the nature of
ardi
W anship on behalf of the creator who bestows that sovereign authority whom the ideal ruler
worships by preserving or restoring peace and stability. A true ruler always prevails over any force that
challenges the peace and stability of the empire. A great fire cannot be extinguished by a little water
and evil doers and mischief makers are undone by their own evil deeds, According to Abul Fazl,
military action and expansion are inevitable for uprooting all dissension and obstreperous elements.
This is like a cleansing operation comparable to clearing of weeds in a garden (ibid., 122). Abul Fazl
also focuses on the COncept of Justice which he does not define in terms of Islam. Following the
paradigm of Akhlaq-iNasiri' he advocates -the notion of universal justice. To him, foresight, reason and
forbearance were the essential attributes of broad-based justice. Rulers rich in these qualities could
never be motivated by narrow Personal considerations and would never distinguish between friends
and strangers in matters of justice Abul Fazl took the irrevocable stand that a sovereign who did not
uphold the gospel of universal Peace and did not regard all sects in the same light was not worthy of the
exalted dignity of kingship (Rizvi 1975' 364). While advocating equality of treatment for all, Abul Fazl
 199 SUMIT MUKERJI
did not make the naive aSSUmption that all people were alike. He classified subjects of the Emperor
into five heads. First, there were the commendable men who did only what was proper and necessary
and was most suitable for consultation in state affairs. Second, there were the men of good intentions
who were themselves of good conduct but were less reliable in advising What was right conduct for the
other people. Third, there were those who were neither good nor evil who should be encouraged to do
good, Fourth, there were inconsiderate men who were themselves evil but did not harm others. They
should be subjected to good counselling and severe rebuke. Finally, there were the vicious ones whose
evil spread like contagion who should be isolated from the rest. If that does not he should be banished
from his house, If even that does not pay off, then he should be blinded or have his limbs amputated as
a deterrent rather than retribution. Thus, Justice was corrective and not retributive, Just as the gardener
extirpates bad trees and chops off some branches, in the same way just and far sighted kings light the
lamp of wisdom by regulating and instructing their servants (Fazl 1897b, 323).
In the era of the Sultanate, the king was the final authority in governance, administration,
agriculture, education and other fields but he had no say in the sphere of religion. Akbar, however,
arrogated to himself the power to arbitrate in religious disputes vis-a-vis Imam-I-Adil because he
followed the order of God and was thus infallible. Abul Fazl eulogized Akbar as the ideal king who
could do no wrong. In Akbarnama, Abul Fazl mentioned that Akbar always worked for the welfare of
the people. He was imbued with tolerance, broadmindedness and a sense of justice. He ensured both
stability and good governance to the Mughal state along with economic prosperity, peace and 'safety.
He also provided a moral justification for Akbar's policy of imperialist expansionism.

Administration and Governa ce

Abul Fazl was born at a time when the Mughal Empire was yet to be re-established by Humayun.
Humayun did not have the time to revise the old administration and it was Akbar who gave it a
structure of government and administration more or less along lines of the Delhi Sultanate. The
question is what was innovative which made the Mughal Empire stronger? A strong and well-planned
administrative structure is the key to good governance as well as welfare and peace and is also the
surest guarantee against attack by an enemy. This would have been impossible to achieve without loyal
and intelligent officers and an efficient army. The Mughal polity was not a continuation of the legacy of
the Delhi Sultanate as Akbar changed the designation of the officers and developed a provincial
administration patterned on the central system of government. Elaborate rules and regulations were
framed for better control. Abul Fazl in his views on administration, assigned priority to advocates who
he said, should possess qualities necessary to solve the problems of the king, both public and private.
Just as in the Artha'ästra, the state was divided into many levels and each level had officers of various
kinds. All Of them were responsible for the administration of the state and directly answerable to the
ruler and were thus compulsively committed to the betterment of the condition of the people. Akbar
divided his empire into Sarkars and Mahalls. He established a chain of ministers at various levels who
were controlled by ministers at the centre. The system was thoroughly secular, and the religion of the
officers could not interfere with administrative work. Akbar left no stone unturned to centralize and
systematize his administration. There were small landlords under the king who were called Zamindars
or Jagirdars• The King often used their forces to curb other chieftains. There was also a class called
Bhumia who got some land from the Jagirdars. They were owners of Idhdand did not have to pay any
 Abul Fazl.' Views on Governance and Administration
duty for it, but his land was inferior to that ofJagirdars. There
was also Khalsal and in the vicinity of the capital which was under
1 99

the direct control of the king. The Mughals did not disturb this
system which prevailed from the days of the sultanate because the landlords kept the lands with those
who were allied with the king of Delhi

The Mughal state was based on a centralized patrimonial system where ranks and hierarchies
borrowed from the Mansabdari system of Persia were bestowed, Each rank had two parts, zat and
sawar. The former meant rights and the latter meant a force ofhorses to command, Sixty-six ranks were
enlisted by Abul Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari. Gifts were granted to the deserving and each Mansabdar reported
directly to the ruler. They collected revenue on behalf of the ruler and received salary in cash. Abul Fazl
has referred to three Mansabs who had 500 and above, 400-200 and 150-10 Mansabs. It created a
military hierarchy which was like a status symbol (Fazl 1897a, 250). Akbar had a strong army which
was maintained by Mansabdars. Monsterat testified in 1581 that there were 45,000 cavalries, 5,000
elephants and many thousands of infantries all paid directly from the royal treasury (Chandra 2007,
162-165). while Abul Fazl was a believer in hierarchy, he was also concerned about the need for talent
irrespective ofsocial background. Akbar was acutely conscious of this and promoted common soldiers
to the dignity ofGrandee on the basis oftalent. The Mughals did not interfere with the caste system and
left unchanged, the basic franåework of the Indian society. Abul Fazl wanted Hindus and Muslims to
co-exist peacefully but found that the Hindus remained isolated and very few of their matters came up
in court. The Panchayat and caste courts were there and the Zamindar enjoyed a paternal image.

As regards Land Revenue system, Akbar divided all provinces into Sarkars and Parganas. Each
Sarkar was divided into a number of Parganas. There was a Shiqdar and Amil for the collection of
revenue and there were posts of treasurer, Qanungo, etc. A large group of people was entrusted with
looking after production that is the produce at the time of harvest and the state's share in it. Dashsala or
a 10-year system was the basis of Akbar's revenue policy which was the logical culmination of the
system introduced by Sher Shah. The productivity and local prices during the last 10 years were
averaged in cash on the basis of information. Land revenue was the heaviest demand on peasants, and
they were under constant threat of penal action. Unlike collection of tax on collective basis, Akbar
collected tax from the farmer based on his individual harvest. Earlier the farmer had to pay the tax
irrespective of whether

he had a good harvest. The system of Akbar did not however redound to the benefit of the farmer
because they were exploited by the collecting authorities like landlords who did not spare them even
during natural calamities in violation of Akbar's directive. Akbar thus took preventive measures against
this exploitation of farmers. He kept a watch on the landlords to identify the exploiters. He was able to
return the money to the farmers who had been forced to pay the tax. However, it was not possible for
him to monitor the system entirely and exploitation remained (ibid., 147, 157).
 201 SUMIT MUKERJI
Religion and Religious Syncretism
Abul Fazl was never a blind supporter of Islam. He was in favour of participation of the Hindus in
governance and administration. He was a votary of composite culture and contended that the Hindus
like Muslims, subscribed to the doctrine of monotheism but Muslims because of their ignorance of
Scriptures, misunderstood them. Unlike Barani, Abul Fazl never believed in the superiority of Islam
over Other religions. Thus, he was maligned as Kafir, Hindu and Agnipujak (Hassan 1983, 129). His
outlook was secular espousing the equality and fraternity of all religions and based on the doctrine of
Suhl-i-Kul or universal peace. He was an intellectual with catholicity of outlook who was a sworn
enemy of dogmatic orthodoxy. His counterpoint Was that •if traditions were sacrosanct then why
Prophet Muhammed of all persons went for new thoughts. To him, changeS in law and religion must
be initiated attuned to the requirements of the age, His refreshingly modern outlook was reflected in
Akbar's doctrine of Din-e Ilähi. Abul Fazl assiduously adhered to the doctrine of Suhl-i-Kul believing
from the core of his heart that the king who was the agent of God could not discriminate between
various faiths. A doctrine justifying tolerance was the desideratum. Sovereignty was not limited to any
particular faith as all religions were same in essence, only their paths diverged, Abul Fazl thus did not
subscribe to Barani's plea for the overarching sovereignty of Islam. He was of the decided view that in
a poly religious country like India, monarchical sovereignty Was more relevant. Thus, he supported
Akbar who with his rationalist attitude, wanted to create a Hindustan which could stand out in the
world with greater confidence. In his quest for a more inclusive order, Akbar needed to end the
monopoly of the incumbent Muslim elite without transgressing the limits of the Islamic, order. Abul
Fazl provided the theoretical foundation for this mission.
Abul Fazl addressed the seminal question as to what constituted the Islamic order. He contended
that while the benchmark of the former, was the enforcement of the laws of Islam, yet there was no rigid
consensus on Islamic law. The Qur'an was open to multiple interpretations and there was no monolithic
Shari'at which had to be upheld everywhere. Laws were meant to regulate human behaviour in such a
manner that man remained on the Sirat al-Mustaqim that is the straight path leading to God. Whether an
order was Islamic or not, depended not on the enforcement of any individual law but the criteria were its
conformity to the essence of Islam. Abul Fazl's understanding of the Islamic order emanated from the
transcendentalist theory of Wahdat al- Wujud Or unity of being developed in the 12th century by the
Andalusian philosopher Ibn al-Arabi. According to it, the Khaliq or the Creator and Khalq or creation,
were not distinct entities but the divine element pervades all creation and there is no being who is not a
part of the higher being. Accordingto Abul Fazl, Khair-i-Mahaz or pure good was the essence of divine
majesty and absolute goodness permeates his entire creation. To him, a good life did not simply consist
of prayer and invocation but demanded an attitude of service to the whole of mankind rising above
sectarian differences (Chatterjee 2016, 96).
Abul Fazl justified Akbar's abolition of the hated Jizyah tax saying that the Hindus were equally
loyal having bound up the waist of devotion and service and exerted themselves for the advancement of
the dominion. This action was motivated to strike at the root of the aspiration of Ulemas for
predominance (Chandra 2007, 168). Commenting on the religious debates which took place in Akbar's
Ibadatkhana' Abul Fazl says that it served one purpose, that is to publicly demonstrate the bigotry of the
Ulemas (ibid" 177). Abul Fazl related Akbar's Din-e Ilähi with the concept of the Emperor as the
spiritual guide Of the people. He identified two tendencies of man, one class inclined towards Din that is
religion and the Other to worldly thoughts that is duniya. It is necessary to find a common ground
between the two taking into account the all-encompassing nature of God. It was necessary to check
 Abul Fazl.' Views on Governance and Administration
blood thirsty fanatics who superficially resembled human beings. If anyone mustered courage to openly
proclaim his enlightened thoughts, these elements would immediately think of heresy and atheism and
contemplate his murder• Faced with this menace, the people would naturally look to the king on account
of his high position and accept him as their spiritual leader as well. Abul Fazl quotes two sayings of
Akbar in this connection• 'by guidance is not meant indication of the road, not the gathering together of
disciples'. 'To make a disciple is to instruct him in the service of God, not to make him a personal
attendant' (ibid., 180). Akbar's liberal outlook incurred scornful reaction from orthodox people like
Badauni who even went to the extent of alleging that because of such abuses of Islam, many Muslims
were leaving the country in disgust In the 201

face of such virulent diatribe, Abul Fazl steadfastly defended Akbar by projecting him as a benevolent
ruler whose instruments of control were favour and affection. He was a righteous ruler who had ruled for
decades through the aid of heaven. Thus, while steering clear of religious dogmatism, Abul Fazl used
religion to glorify and fortify the ideological foundations of the Mughal state under Akbar by
representing him as a recipient of divine benediction. In this sense, his secular outlook was not
irreligious but was free from all traces of religious narrowness. Perhaps there was an incipient
Machiavellian element here becaUSe like Machiavelli who separated the domain of the politics from that
of religion, advocated that religion could be used to augment the power of the state, Abul Fazl too deified
Akbar using the idea of divine sanction.

Conclusion
The political thought of Abul Fazl championed the integration of Hindus and Muslims in the empire of
Akbar. In articulating the imperial ideology, Abul Fazl refused to step into the shoes of his predecessors.
He did not emphasize on the sacrosanctity of the Shari'at but at the same time did not compromise on the
basic principles of the Islamic order. He provided an Islamic rationale for equal treatment ofMuslims and
non-Muslims in the polity thereby laying the foundation of a political dispensation where religious
affdiation was secondary to the political allegiance of the subject. This new political culture
characterized by catholicity of outlook, endured almost till the modern period. While the principle of
equality was not always honoured by the Mughal state, yet Abul Fazl delineated the contours of a
political ideology where discrimination on the basis of sectarian identity was absent. One main reason
behind his affinity to Akbar was his freedom from religious bias which suited Akbar's own inclination.
Abul Fazl was essentially a secular rationalist as apparent from his conviction that 'He is a man who
makes justice the guide of the path of inquiry and takes from every sect, what is consonant to reason.'
Benoy Sarkar has stated that Abul Fazl was the precursor of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and sought to remove
strife and animosity among diverse races. He was a bridge builder and peacemaker. His logic was
unchallengeable in theory and fruitful in practice. Perhaps no one from Megasthenes to Nivedita has
flattered the Hindus in so dignified a manner. He was truly speaking one of the first creative specimens
of Hindu-Muslim cultural fusion. It was he who tried to emancipate the Muslim mind through the
enfranchisement of the intelligence consummated in the Christian mind by the Renaissance which was to
attack the Hindu mind two centuries later in and through Ram Mohan (Sarkar 1935).
 203 SUMIT MUKERJI
Abul Fazl has been rightly criticized for his lack of objectivity as his sole purpose was to glorify
Akbar. His Single-minded aim was to extol and justify all the activities ofAkbar. He has rarely referred to
Akbar's Sh0rtcomings and yet the essential bedrock of his thought was rationality which commands
respect. In a way he was the forerunner of the sage Sri Ramakrishna who discovered some truth in all
religions and said that there are as many paths as there are viewpoints. He refused to step into the shoes
of Barani who was Vehemently anti-Hindu and instead emphasized on communal amity. He ruthlessly
pulverized the Bigots who represented fanaticism at its worst, and it is here that Abul Fazl most
resplendently reflected the spirit Of broadmindedness, which was the quintessence of the Indian culture.
This is of enduring relevance even today as it is the surest guarantee against sectarian and religious
conflict and recrimination in modern India where the threat of ignition of communal conflagration still
hangs over the head like the sword of Damocles.
Abul Fazl was one of the trusted confidantes of Emperor Åkbar and his works contain a Veritable
repository of information on the life and work of Åkbar, particularly his policy in social, economic,
administrative, religious and political matters, Abul Fazl accumulated vast quantum of data and
subjected them to searching analysis on the basis of an objective methodology. He was much more
broadminded than Zia Barani and epitomized the spirit of liberal piuralism which Akbar incarnated.
This was a departure from the culture of the Delhi Sultanate where despite occasional moves by the
Sultans to empower the Hindus, there was no concerted attempt at integration at the religious and
philosophical level. The gestures towards the Hindus were actuated by political motives but Abul Fazl
in contrast, visualized integration at a deeper, philosophical level. His own persecution, in the hands of
Bigots and zealots, was instrumental for this catholicity of outlook. His depiction of Akbar as the ideal
ruler amounted to almost an eulogy and has been criticized by scholars, but despite lack of objectivity
here, Abul Fazl was the exponent of a legacy of tolerance and amity which is relevant even today as
India grapples with the communal challenge.

Points for Discuss on

1. Explain Abul Fazl's concept of state and sovereignty.
2. How did Abul Fazl challenge the predominance of Ulemas in administration?
3. To what extent did Abul Fazl's political thought mark a departure from that of the Delhi Sultanate?
4. Explicate Abul Fazl's view of Ideal Ruler. How did he portray Akbar as the Ideal Emperor?
5. How did Abul Fazl describe the socio-economic and religious life of Medieval India?

GlospyyåJ
Agnipujak: One who worships fire.
Alim: All-knowing.
Badshah: Emperor.
Bigot: Dogmatist.
Farman: Order.
Ibadatkhana: House of worship.
 Abul Fazl.' Views on Governance and Administration
Jizya: A per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects.
Kafir: Infidel, an Arabic term (from the root K-F-R 'to cover') meaning 'one who covers the truth'. The term
alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God according to the teachings of the Islamic prophet
Muhammad• Mazhar: Phenomenon.
Monotheism: Worship of single deity. Suhl-i-Kul:
Universal peace.
 Abul Fazl: Views on Governance and
Administration 203
syncretism: A union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures or philosophies.
Ulema.. A body of Muslim scholars who are recognized as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and

theology.

References
Athar, M. Ali. 2006. Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chandra, Satish. 2007. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals, Mughal Empire, Part 2. New Delhi: Har Anand
Publication.
Chatterjee, Kingshuk. 2016. 'Abul Fazl and the Politics of Wahdat al Wujud (1551-1603).' In Indian Political Thought
and Its Contemporary Relevance, edited by Sengupta Lopamudra, 96. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.
Embree, T. Ainslee, ed. 1992. Sources ofIndian Tradition. India: Penguin Books.
Fazl, Abul. 1897a. Aini-Akbari, Vol. 1, translated by H. Blochmann. Calcutta: Calcutta Royal Asiatic Society.
Fazl, Abul. 1897b. Akbarnama, translated by H. Beveridge. Calcutta: Calcutta Royal Asiatic Society.
Hassan, Mohibbul. (1983). Historians ofMedieval India. New Delhi: Meenakshi Publications.
Mehta, V. R. 1996. Foundations ofIndian Political Thought. New Delhi: Manohar.
Rizvi, S. A. 1975. Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers.
Sarkar, Benoy Kumar. 1935. The Ain -I-Akbari as a Semi Moslem and Semi Hindu Arthashastra. Kolkata: Calcutta
University Press.

Burn, Richard. 1937. The Cambridge History ofIndia, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mukhia, Harbans. 2005. The Mughals ofIndia. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nizami, K. A. 2002. Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.