T Q: Critically evaluate the contribution of Abul Fazl and Badauni to

Mughal Historiography.

Akbars reign (1556-1605) was prolific in historical literature, which was a

reflection of his interest in historical writings. The Perso-Islamic and Mongol
traditions of historiography were prevalent during this period; the former
being prevalent since the time of the Delhi Sultans and the latter being
introduced with the coming of the Mughals in India.

Three important chronicles were written in this period Abul Fazls

Akbarnamah, Abdul Qadir Badaunis Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh and the Tabaqat-
i Akbari of Nizam-ud-din Ahmad. While the Tabaqat-i Akbari is a mundane
recounting of events if compared with the other two chronicles, the works of
Abul Fazl and Badauni are much more complex, interesting and mark a
definite advancement in medieval historiographical traditions. Both provide
contrary viewpoints to Akbar and his policies. While, Fazl adopts a more
positive outlook towards the emperor and his actions and the Mongol
tradition of history writing, so much so that it can be termed as a glorification
of Akbar, Badauni goes to the extent of portraying Akbar as a destroyer of
Islam in India and looks upon all of his policies critically. The reason for such a
stark contrast in their opinions can be attributed to their personal lives,
education and conception of history. And thus, before analyzing the work of
any chronicler it is important to look at the social, political, intellectual and
religious milieu of the time. One must also consider the writers psychology,
the objectives and motivations of their approach and ideology, and their
methods, forms of expression and concept of history in order to understand
what presumptions and biases must be taken into account while analyzing
their works.

Badauni was born in 1540 in an orthodox Sunni family, which was remotely
connected with the lower ladder of the imperial nobility. He was well-versed
in both traditional and rational sciences. Although, he was associated with
Shaikh Mubaraks liberal environment free of fanaticism for nearly 40 years,
he considered his education and subsequent leanings to be orthodox. It is this
inclination, which shaped his resentful attitude against Akbar and his policies.

Badauni gained prominence in the Mughal court because of his literary ability
and his success in arguments against the ulama in the Ibadat Khana at a time
when Akbar was trying to undermine the ulama. At that time he did not know
that he was striking at the very root of the order he would try to defend at a
later stage. Once the ulema had been successfully defeated with the signing of
the Mazhar Akbar no longer required his service and he himself was feeling
disillusioned with the existing situation at the court, which came to be
dominated by a large number of liberals and non-Muslims. This coupled
with the drastic rise of Abul Fazl in Akbars favour added to Badaunis
discontentment as he believed Fazl to be a dishonest and hypocritical man not
worthy of the status he was receiving in court at that time.

It is pertinent here to look at Badaunis attitude towards Islam, which in itself

was responsible for Badaunis increasing disillusionment and growing
resentment, which was reflected in his writings as well. For Badauni, Islam
was nave and personal. He was over-confident in the correctness of his own
notion of what Islam stood for and so he rejected those with a different
conception as misguided heretics and infidels. He criticized the ulama,
accusing them of creating doubt in peoples minds regarding the Prophet and
imams; at the same time, he also hated Abul Fazl and Faizi. He also held Sufism
in utter contempt and hated the Shias and Hindus. According to Harbans
Mukhia, Badauni shared great scorn for the Ulema; and with the Ulema he
shared the hatred for Abul Fazl.

He saw the sharia as the final criterion of judgment and opposed all those who
deviated from it. Further, he did not want to adapt it to the level of the state.
Instead, he wanted the creation of a strong central government, headed by a
monarch of unimpeachable Sunni orthodoxy, energetic in his attempts to
suppress the Shias, heretics and Hindus and who would neutralize the old
orthodox thinking and the new scholars who were hell bent on radicalizing
and liberalizing Islam. which would suppress heretics and infidels. This
conception was totally different from that of Akbars and with the existing
conditions, which were marked by a shift towards a new flexibility and more
liberal thinking. Badauni, gradually realized that his intense zeal for faith and
the consequent adoption of rigid and orthodox attitudes were a complete
mismatch in the emerging setup. Thus, while outwardly, by carrying out the
emperors orders- like participating in the translation of Hindu and secular
texts into Persian- it may appear that he tried to compromise with the new
situation, but according to Harbans Mukhia in the inner recesses of his heart
he refused to compromise.
Badaunis versatile talent is attested by the long list of his works on a variety
of subjects. On Akbars orders he undertook the translation of a number of
existing works such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Atharva Veda etc. His first
original work was Kitab-ul-Ahadis which spoke about the advantages of
waging holy wars and archery. Nothing much, however, is known about it. The
second was the Najat-ul-Rashid, a socio-ethical treatise interspersed with
anecdotes and discussions. In it, he boldly expressed his views and
theoretically discussed the problems of Akbars reign, without naming the
Emperor or any of his supporters. This was a disguised attempt to attack and
condemn Akbars un-Islamic practices. The book serves as an adjunct to
Badaunis third and main work, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. While the
Najat-ul-Rashid reiterated the principles on which orthodox Sunnism could be
revived, the Muntakhab was an attempt to destroy the faith of the Sunnis in
Akbar. Thus these two works supplement and complement each other.

Badauni tells us that he did not write to secure the favours of any important
person. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh (Selections from Histories) was written
in secret. Badauni himself says that his disgust with the changes taking place
during Akbars reign, against which he could openly register only limited
protest, compelled him to resort to the writing of this book secretly to record
the true version of the events of the time. Distressed by what he thought was
an organized undermining of Islam by Akbar, he wrote the Muntakhab as an
alternative to the contemporary histories. At another place, however, Badauni
states that he wrote the Muntakhab as a penance for the translation of the
infidels works which he had been compelled to undertake.

The work is divided into three volumes. The first volume deals with the
narrative history of the Muslims rulers up to Humayun, which provides
neither a background nor a contrast to Akbars period. The selection of events,
though mostly in a chronological order, is random and haphazard. Also, he
makes no formal assessment of the reign of a Sultan or a dynasty as a whole.
However, individual events, acts or persons are frequently the subject of his
succinct and crisp remarks. In fact, the value of this work lies in his private
comments, as well as the epigrams and chronograms written by him, some of
which were even nasty. For instance, on the death of Muhammad bin Tughlaq
he writes that The Sultan was relieved of the people and the people were
relieved of the Sultan. Although, Badauni himself may not have acknowledged
all his sources it is quite evident that this volume is well researched and he
made use of the prominent source material dating back to the early medieval
period.

The second volume of the Muntakhab deals with the reign of Akbar and is the
most important work of Badauni. It is an annual chronicle where events have
been narrated under the head of the year of their occurrence. However, he
recorded only events of a general importance and omitted the minor ones.
Mukhia suggests that this was because while Badauni wished to give a true
account of Akbars reign, his response to the contemporary circumstances was
negative, i.e., he condemned Akbars heresies, but does not suggest any
alternative, not even a return to the past. This object also determined his use
of the sources and his attitude towards them. As such, for his account,
particularly in the second volume of the Muntakhab, Badauni depends more
on his personal testimony than on any documentary research. Badaunis
originality in this work lies in the way in which he evaluates the personalities
of the time. He also often intertwines biographical notes with the narrative of
events, for example, when he mentions the capture of Nagarkot, he gives a
short account of Birbals life.

The third volume is in form of a Tazkira in which he gives biographies sketches

of the mashaikh and ulama of Akbars age, as well as the physicians and poets
of Akbars court. However, Badauni excludes from this list of fallen men like
obscure muslims and accursed Hindus. Further, Badauni passes judgment
on the life, art, views, morals, piety and nature of his subjects. But as he
himself admits, this judgment is based on their attitude or influence on Islam.

The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh is obviously intensely subjective. Not being an

official chronicle, Badauni is free to write what he wants and as Muhammad
Mujeeb puts it, He wears no disguise and writes as he feels. Badaunis style is
naturally informal and unaffected. He writes in a clear and simple language,
interspersing his narrative with numerous anecdotes, couplets and elegies, at
times misplaced. His chronograms are valuable both for identifying the dates
of the occurrence of events as well as for ascertaining his judgment regarding
persons and events. For aesthetic expression, Badauni uses poetry. Harbans
Mukhia is of the opinion that his verses were a mere formality. However,
through them we can get an insight into his character.

The basic form of Badaunis history is similar to that of Abul Fazls work
(excepting the Ain-i-Akbari), although the treatment of history is different.
History for Badauni is a lofty science, a valuable branch of knowledge and a
refined art for those who have intelligence and insight. At the very outset,
Badauni places important limitations on the conception and treatment of
history believing that only those historians, whose belief in the Shariat is
strongly rooted should be taken seriously, while, the others are shortsighted
or misguided.

The significance of the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh as a source of historical study

is immense. It provides a vast amount of information for the period, from a
different point of view to others. Apart from information on wars, rebellions,
conquests etc., Badauni gives detailed information on the administrative
organization of Akbars empire. He deals, for example, with the introduction,
working and subsequent failure of the karori system. In addition, he gives his
own version of how the concerned interests were affected, albeit with the aim
of maligning Akbars image. It is, however, Badaunis digressions into the by-
lanes of history and other incidental details that provide his most interesting
contribution to historical information. For example, he wrote of famines and
earthquakes; gave details of the jauhar committed by the Rajputs at Chittor;
and the architecture of cities like Fatehpur Sikri. Nizami comments that
Badauni extended the scope of history by including his own accounts of
literary, religious and social activities of the people belonging to different
walks of life, such as poets, scholars and Sufi saints.

This is especially true with regard to Akbars religious policies, for which
Badaunis critique is crucial. For instance, it is Badauni alone, among
contemporary authors, who discusses in detail the circumstances that had
preceded the proclamation of the Mahzar (1579), suggesting that Akbar
wanted to free himself from dependence on the ulama. He gives its full text,
unlike Abul Fazl, who ignores it despite the fact that it was his father (Shaikh
Mubarak) who apparently initiated it. Again, on the discussions in Akbars
Ibadat Khana, Badauni is our chief contemporary source of information, apart
from the Jesuit accounts. He was himself a participant in the discussions,
although that is not sufficient to prove the authenticity of the details. But
without him, the details would have been fewer. For example, Badauni tells us
that the discussions were often fraught with tensions, and the Sufi doctrine of
Wahdat-ul-Wujud was not universally accepted.
However, despite the vast information that this account may provide and for
its historical accuracy as far as facts are concerned it should be remembered
that Badauni was never writing an official history. His intention behind writing
this account was to record his own reactions about the policies of Akbar and
the conduct of other people close to him. Hence, his account is somewhat
biased as it does not confirm to his own personal beliefs. As a result, many
contemporary scholars have remarked that Badauni was overly critical of
Akbar and has refused to give him credit at times when he deserved it.
Moreover, he has analysed most thing with the intention of proving their
failure. For instance, the mansabdari system is seen by him as a complete
failure, in which lowly groups like tradesmen, weavers, cotton cleaners and
carpenters, including Hindus without any distinguished abilities, received
mansabs. Badauni also said that the dagh system broke the neck of the
soldiers, and it is in the context of these measures that he sees the rebellions
in Bengal and Bihar. Badauni also gives detailed accounts of the karori system.
He writes that the officers were highly corrupt and selfish. According to him,
many cultivators were ruined and the experiment ended in a disaster. He
corroborates such information by accounts of famines and earthquakes during
the reign of Akbar.

According to Harbans Mukhia, Badaunis hostility to Akbars reign is

emotional and he makes no attempt to rationalize it. Although he writes that
Akbar had governed the empire well and was liberal and kind, he says that the
constant quarrels of the ulama puzzled Akbar and he lost faith in Islam.
Gradually, his belief was transformed as he came under the influence of
Buddhists, brahmanas and Zoroastrians. Thus, he argues that Akbar had
completely destroyed Islam in India and encouraged only that thought which
was derogatory to Islam. However, as stated above his conception of Islam was
highly personal and noticed the undermining of Islam in terms of his own
personal experience. Thus, this concept had prevented him from
understanding the historical development of Islam and the need for Islam to
adapt itself to the existing norms of society for its survival.

Being an orthodox man, Badauni did not endorse many of Akbars liberal
policies and was severely critical of many of his actions. He wrote that Akbar
could not tolerate opposition from any mulla and would banish anyone whom
he was dissatisfied with and replace him with more compliant people.
Badauni also portrays him in a negative light by referring to Akbars
experiments such as the one in which he left twenty infants to be raised in a
secluded place so that it could be proved that everyone is born in a state of
nature. Badauni is critical of most of Akbars innovations or Bidat, such as
allowing wine-drinking, prohibition of beef-eating, establishment of
Shaitanpura (a city of prostitutes), discouragement of Muslim names etc. He
was also of the view that Akbar was a heretic, who had established a new
religion. He noted a clear distinction between the principles of Din-i-Ilahi and
those in the Najat-ur-Rashid, which strengthened this belief. He further adds
that Akbar replaced the Hijra era with the Tarikh-i-Ilahi or Divine Era. Badauni
was also disturbed by the introduction of Iranian culture at the court through
celebration of festivals like Nauroz, since he saw this as a violation of Islam
and encouragement to Shiism and Zoroastrianism.

According to S.A.A. Rizvi, this kind of an outlook, however, blinds Badauni

from understanding Akbars actions in an unbiased light, and he is unable to
understand the significance of such policies in their totality. The introduction
of the Tarikh-i-Ilahi was done in order to serve the needs of the cultivator and
meet demands of revenue administration. Similarly, for Badauni, the
promotion of rational sciences, instead of being a practical measure, appears
to be an undermining of traditional sciences. He is also unable to see that
discouragement of Islamic names was done by Akbar out of respect to the
Prophet and saints. This blinkered understanding is a serious limitation of
Badauni.

H. Mukhia, Peter Hardy and S.A.A. Rizvi also portray him as a traditional
theologian whose was opposed to the change, and hence opposed Akbar.
Nizami believes that Badauni was the voice of orthodoxy against Akbar and
Abul Fazl.

Thus, it can be seen that Badauni despite be a well versed historian, whose
account provides a plethora of information can not be relied upon completely
given the inherent biases present in his book. In light of this it is essential to
compare and corroborate his work with that of Abul Fazl.

Abul Fazl was endowed with great intelligence and a scholarly heritage. The
teachings of his father, Shaikh Mubrak and his involvement with a number of
religious movements had a great impact on his religious outlook as well.
Despite a traditional education he was well acquainted with diverse branches
of knowledge. He claims to have always been critical of the traditionalists and
formalists and considered the orthodox education to be highly restrictive. It
was this general resentment against orthodox teachings which was reflected
in his works as well, which exhibited a cosmopolitan and tolerant attitude in
all religious matters.

Just like Badauni, Fazls services were required by the emperor in his struggle
against the ulema. Through his constant attacks on the ulema, Fazl along with
Badauni, was able to orchestrate the downfall of the ulema. However, unlike
his contemporary Abul Fazl continued to rise in the Mughal Court thereafter
due to his more secular outlook, which was in conformity with that of
Akbars. As a result, gradually Fazl became one of the closest confidantes of
the king and his work became one of the Kings most extravagant indulgences,
as the talented Abul Fazl was able to pierce through Akbars soul and give it
expression for others to remember forever. If any contemporary knew Akbar
fully, in all his moods, emotions, ambitions, aspirations, ideals and desires, it
was Abul Fazl.

Apart from the Akbar Nama, which is his most memorable legacy and for a
long time remained a model for subsequent historians, there are a number of
other works that are credited to him. The Insha-i-Abul Fazl that consists of
letters and firmans written on behalf of Akbar by Fazl to nobles; his own
letters and petitions to Akbar and nobles; and collection of his comments on
the prefaces and conclusion to books on a number of subjects. This work gives
a valuable insight into the nature of orders and decisions taken by the ruler as
well the relationship between Fazl and the emperor and other nobles. He also
wrote Munajat-i-Abul Fazl, which was an invocation to god. He denounces
mere formal worship of god and religious dogma and emphasizes the efficacy
of personal devotion to god. This along with his views on the question of
metaphysics raised in this work, have an indirect bearing on religious disputes
in Akbars assemblies. Apart from this a number of translations, commentaries
and prefaces of/to existing works are attributed to him as well.

The Akbar Nama was commissioned by Akbar to have the history of his reign
compiled. Motivated by the indulgent desire to enable the work on his life to
find a place among the great historical literature of the Mongol and Timurid
tradition, Akbar placed no restrictions on his style at all. Fazl originally
conceived the Akbar Nama to consist of 5 volumes; the first four constituting
the narrative part, each covering 30 years of Akbars reign. Thus, the authors
assumption that Akbar would live for 120 years clearly shows the high
pedestal on which he placed Akbar. The 5th volume of the Akbar Nama was
meant to be the Ain-i-Akbari. However, the author was able to finish only the
first 2 volumes of the narrative part covering the first 46 years of Akbars reign
and the Ain-i-Akbari.

The narrative part of the Akbar Nama starts from Adam and continues till the
46th year of Akbars reign. The division of this part is regnal i.e. each separate
reign forms a unit and within that events are treated as individual entities. By
the time he reaches Akbars reign the narrative assumes the nature of an
annual chronicle. A proper chronological order is adhered to in order to
describe the events that are extensively researched. However, Fazl tends to
break the elements of continuity of an event in order to maintain this
chronology. This, however, does not alter the fundamental treatment of the
event as it is very easy to pick up the narration from where it was stopped.
The Akbar Nama, contains extensive information on a variety of subjects
within the limitations of the narrative of political events. The information,
which is extensively researched and corroborated through a variety of sources,
is related to the fields of battle, tactics employed therein, persons in command
of forces etc. At times there are brief sketches of histories of other countries
and regions and genealogical data of persons concerned with the event. At
times he also describes the topography of an area or elephants used in the
battle.

The Ain, which is completely different in nature and character from the
narrative part, provides a variety of information of the Mughal state under
Akbar. It describes in detail the various departments of the imperial
household, prices of food stuffs and other items, prevalent wages, art of
calligraphy and painting, the institution of the army and the division therein,
regulations regarding marriage, payment and land grants and a list of
mansabdars, poets, scholars etc of the time. In addition to this the Ain also
describes the job profiles and qualities required of various officials like a
kotwal, qazi, faujdar etc and also certain practices prevalent among the Hindus
of that time. He concludes the work with his own biographical sketch and with
some of the wise sayings of Akbar.

Fazls work is a vast source of information due to his position as the official
court chronicler. However, due to the same reason his work has certain
problems. Abul Fazl viewed everything within the narrow framework of
Akbars reign. Thus, despite his chronologically sound depiction of events, he
has written only of events which have a direct or indirect relevance to Akbars
reign and any reference outside the purview of this framework is coincidental.
As a result, he fails to analyse Akbars reign within a broader historical context
and provides a very isolated picture of the same.

The use of sources and the amount of research which went into the writing of
his works, especially the Akbar Nama marks a clear advance over that of the
historians of the sultanate. All the relevant information was first collected in
the form of official documents as well as memoirs of persons involved in, or
witness to, the events. Each piece of evidence was then fully investigated and
collated with others before being incorporated into the Akbar Nama. However,
despite such a methodical approach there was a tendency among Fazl to
tamper with certain words or phrases while citing from the official source to
suit his own purpose thereby changing the nature of the information to a
certain extent. For instance, he doesnt include a copy of the Mahzar and
merely gives a summary of the same in his own language. A clause in the
Mahzar empowers Akbar to issue any new orders provided that such orders
do not contradict the Quran. Fazl doesnt even make a reference to this clause
because at the time of writing he probably felt that Akbars authority should
not be limited by any document such as the Mahzar. Moreover, the fact that in
case of any disputed source Akbar was the final arbiter and had to give the
final approval to the final draft this work became an official document in every
sense of the word.

However, the most significant criticism against Fazls work is eulogical nature
of his works. Many contemporary scholars like Harbans Mukhia believe that
Fazl glorified Akbar in all his work in order to repay his gratitude to him. For
instance, by tracing back the descent of Akbar to Adam, he was trying to show
that the emperor stood at the pinnacle of progress of humankind. Moreover,
by setting his reign against a distorted historical background he tried to show
the superiority of Akbars reign. Through his writings he presented an
idealized picture of Akbar as insaan-i-kamil and of his policies and the
society and polity under his reign.

Abul Fazl had to supply soul and substance to many simple incidents and
attitudes of Akbars life. His political wisdom had to be traced to divine
revelations. According to Mukhia, Fazl believed that Akbar is a semi-divine
personality. His political authority was likened with spiritual leadership and
the dichotomy between religion and politics would resolve itself before the
Great King. Nizami writes, by casting the history of Akbar s reign in that
mould, Abul Fazl not only rose above the distinction between ought and is but
made Akbar move on the stage of history as an emperor-prophet. He believed
It cannot be said with utmost certainty whether Abul Fazl genuinely believed
in Akbars spiritual magnificence or he was just trying to comply with the
wishes of his master.

In his zeal to glorify and justify Akbars rule, Abul Fazl often ignores the
dictates of reason or adopts mystical reasoning. For instance, in order to
justify Akbars political inaction during the first four years of his reign he
claims that Akbar had adopted a veil and was judging people from behind its
security. He also claimed that Akbars actions fall beyond the pale of ordinary
human reason. This acted as a means to justify Akbars misdeeds and to
maintain the image of an ideal person. Moreover, in the first chapter of the
Akbarnama which deals with the birth of Akbar, he gives a lavish account of
the holy manifestations preceding his birth, creating a cryptic aura of awe and
divinity, bordering on a superstitious feed to ordinary minds. It is strange that
Abul Fazl, who was critical of religious superstition and lashed out against the
Ulema for their irrational approach, himself indulged in such irrationalities
and fabrications of spiritual grandeur.
The superstitious constructions pervade all through his work and the
exaggeration is more oft than not, unpalatable and logically absurd. An
example of this gross exaggeration is Abul Fazls reference to Akbars
prodigious memory, that could recollect every occurrence in detail from the
time he was a year old. It should be kept in mind that such exaggeration
pertained mostly to Akbars life and achievements alone.

Finally, Fazl treats history as a collection of individual events and tries to draw
generalizations from these individual events in order to explain the causation
of historical events. However, these individual events are not comprehensive
enough to explain total causation or causal relationship between two or more
events. Moreover, he always describes an event in relation to a moral
priniciple- using the principle either as a prefix or a suffix. This method
besides being characterized by overgeneralisations and betraying a proper
historical writing was also used by Fazl to justify a number of things. He knew
the event he was going to describe and makes generalizations on the basis of
his knowledge of that particular event. For instance by glorifying the need and
importance of the spiritual leadership of a king, he was trying to create a
platform to justify the Din-i-elahi. However, it is not clear whether he would
have accepted this notion for any other ruler or not.
Thus, to conclude one can see that neither Badauni nor Abul Fazl taken in
isolation can provide a correct or accurate picture of Akbar or his reign. Both
were motivated by equally strong and contrasting emotions, which coloured
their narration. While, Fazl portrayed Akbar as a perfect man, Badaunis
orthodox leanings prevented him from giving Akbars religious and other
liberal policies their due credit. However, the historical significance of these
historians lies in the fact that they provide vast information about different
aspects of Akbars reign which is essential to reconstruct the history of this
period. Moreover, their works act as corrective measures for each others
writings enabling a contemporary historian to fill a number of gaps, which
helps in producing a more balanced picture of Akbar.