Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh
The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh literally means ‘history written with a vengeance.’ It
is the only work which was written during the time of Akbar but not for Akbar In
the book, Badauni has criticized Akbar on ideological grounds, but he was his
ardent supporter in political matters. So long as religion and politics move
separately, Badauni had all respect and admiration for Akbar, but the moment the
Emperor crossed the Rubicon and started interfering in religious matters, Badauni
took up his cudgels against him.
He represented the voice of orthodoxy against Akbar’s religious experiments and
innovations. But in spite of his exclusive and fanatical thinking, the Muntakhab-ut-
Tawarikh had a charm of its own. The second volume of the text is the most
important of the three volumes. It discusses the events of the first forty years of
Akbar’s reign, set in the form of an annual chronicle. The events have been
generally narrated under the head of the year of their occurrence. Within the
framework of the annual chronicle, the order of precedence of events has been
maintained.
An interesting feature of the book is the intertwining of biographical notes with the
narrative of events. In fact, in a number of cases, Badauni interrupts the narration
of events to give personal notes on the men involved in it. Thus, while mentioning
the capture of Nagarkot, he gives a short account of Birbal’s life that was given
charge of the fort. Moreover, his account of Abul Fazl’s life, when he joined the
imperial court, is a classic in literary abuse.
The events described in the text had necessarily to be selective. Therefore, he
recorded only “events of general importance” and omitted the “minor ones.”
According to Harbans Mukhia, unlike the Akbarnama and the Tabaqat-i-Akbari,
the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh does not proceed as a straight, continuous narration.
History, for Badauni, had many bylanes and fortunately he strayed into them quite
frequently. The formal tenor of the text being that of political history, information
on accessions, rebellions of nobles, wars, conquests, battle arrays, etc are
abounding. Badauni also gives considerable information on the administrative
organization of Akbar’s empire.
Badauni’s Muntakhab is the chief contemporary source of information on the
discussions in Akbar’s Ibadat Khana. He was himself a participant in the
discussions and therefore he narrates a firsthand account. From Badauni we know
that ordeal by fire was put forward as a means of establishing the truth or otherwise
of a religion. It is in the Muntakhab, that the universality of the Wahdat-ul-Wujud
is questioned. He clearly mentions that the Sufi doctrine was not accepted
universally. It is of importance to note that Badauni was not an ardent supporter of
the Sufi tradition himself, mainly because this tradition celebrated inclusiveness,
and Badauni’s orthodoxy was extremely exclusive in nature.It is Badauni alone
who discussed the circumstances that led to the phenomena of the Mahzarnama.
Abul Fazl furnishes only a cursory account and gives only a summary of the
document, while Nizam-ud-din Ahmed’s narration of the proceedings is
inadequate and very often incorrect. It is significant to note that Badauni’s
orthodoxy is not directed only against the religious reforms of Akbar, but is all
pervading. He opposed not only the social reforms promulgated by the Emperor,
but also criticized his most important administrative measures, for example, the
branding of the horses and the Mansabdari system.
There were nine measures of Akbar, which are fully elaborated in Badauni’s
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. For example, the policy of sulh-e-kul is discussed by
Abul Fazl, whereas the Mahzarnama is completely ignored. The Mahzar, however,
finds special mention in the Muntakhab-ut- Tawarikh. Similarly, the re-imposition
of the jaziya is completely ignored by Abul Fazl, but discussed by Badauni. What
has, however, decimated the value of his work is a feeling of jealousy and vendetta
that runs throughout against those who had gone higher in the estimation of the
Emperor, and these included his own colleagues or school fellows.
Notwithstanding his fanatical views, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, according to
Nizami, is invaluable for a study of the religious and intellectual history of
medieval India. The Najat-ur-Rashid is an important text for reconstructing the
ideas of Badauni. The author’s reputation as a scholar and historian rested on his
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. Its portraiture of Akbar and his policies, particularly his
religious views, has provoked hostile comments and criticism.
However, for an objective assessment of Badauni’s personality, basic patterns of
his thought and his contributions, it is necessary that his views be not confirmed to
the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh alone. Moreover, it will also help in understanding
many of the postulates of Badauni given in the Muntakhab, for it not only
supplements the information therein but also provides a theoretical background for
understanding Badauni’s stand on Akbar’s religious policies. Two reasons can be
ascribed to this book not getting enough attention by historians: firstly, the Najat-
ur-Rashid like the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh might have been kept a secret and
secondly, it might have had a selective and restricted circulation. Scarcity of
manuscripts is a clear indicator of this possibility. Modern scholars too have not
given adequate attention to this important work. Peter Hardy describes it as a
“work on Sufism, ethics and the Mahdavi movement of Badauni’s days.
S.A.A. Rizvi has defined it as a “theological mystical work.” However, in another
reference to the book, Rizvi elaborates that “the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh is meant
to destroy the faith of the Sunnis in Akbar; the Najat- ur-Rashid seeks to reiterate
the principles on which orthodox Sunnism can be revived, thus both the works
complement and supplement each other.”
Ishtiaq Ahmad Zilli, however, has rebuffed this view postulated by Rizvi in his
analytical work on Badauni’s text. Blochmann has described it as a “polemical
work”. The Najat-ur-Rashid was compiled in 1591, whereas the last date
mentioned in the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh in 1595. The former contains a reference
to the latter, which might suggest that the latter was complete by the time the
former was being compiled or at least it was being compiled simultaneously.
Badauni states in the very beginning that the purpose of writing the Najat-ur-
Rashid was to elaborates upon the ‘vices of the soul’ and sins, both mortal and
venal. The text helps us in understanding the acceptable and non-acceptable forms
of behaviour. It is clear, therefore, that the book neither deals with Sufism nor
ethics. From a brief survey of the contents of the text, it is clear that the book is
basically a theological treatise which deals with sins, crimes, offences, and
misdemeanors that Islam forbids.
The various issues covered in the book have been discussed in the light of the
Quran, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. For the purpose of elaboration, stories
and anecdotes from history and Sufi literature are employed. However, occasional
references to Sufism do not mean that the text is a Sufi doctrine.
The most detailed discussion in the Najat-ur-Rashidis on heresy. Different kinds of
heresies that appeared at various points in the history of Islam have been discussed.
Unlike in his Muntakhab, Badauni in the Najat-ur- Rashid holds disrespect against
the king as an unacceptable and vicious crime. The Najat-ur- Rashid is a strong
censure of Akbar’s policies though he has not been mentioned anywhere by name.
However, the few indirect references to him are invariably respectful. He is
referred to as Khalifa-i-zaman and Sahib-i-zaman. Moreover, Badauni has included
topics like ‘rebellion against the king’ and ‘cursing the king’ in the category of
heinous sins. Thus, a reading of the Najat-ur-Rashid helps Badauni as an impartial
historian.
There is a possibility that a shift in Badauni’s views on the state developed over a
period of time, and that most of his orthodox ideas came into being after the
composition of the Najat-ur-Rashid. It is evident from this text that Badauni was
not such an orthodox theologian as he is made out to be, and as is evident from the
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. A gradual shift in his attitude might have been a result of
his personal ambitions; it might have also been a result of the changing times in the
imperial court.
