T Q: Critically evaluate the contribution of Abu’l Fazl and Badauni to Mughal Historiography.

Akbar’s 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 Fazl’s Akbarnamah, Abdul Qadir Badauni’s 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
Mubarak’s 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 Abu’l Fazl in Akbar’s favour added to Badauni’s 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 Badauni’s attitude towards Islam, which in itself was responsible for Badauni’s increasing
disillusionment and growing resentment, which was reflected in his writings as well. For Badauni, Islam was naïve 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
people’s 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 Akbar’s 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 emperor’s 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”.

Badauni’s versatile talent is attested by the long list of his works on a variety of subjects. On Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s reign, without
naming the Emperor or any of his supporters. This was a disguised attempt to attack and condemn Akbar’s ‘un-Islamic’
practices. The book serves as an adjunct to Badauni’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s reign, his response to the contemporary circumstances was “negative”, i.e., he
condemned Akbar’s “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.
Badauni’s 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 Birbal’s life.

The third volume is in form of a Tazkira in which he gives biographies sketches of the mashaikh and ulama of Akbar’s age,
as well as the physicians and poets of Akbar’s 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”. Badauni’s 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 Badauni’s history is similar to that of Abul Fazl’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s image. It is, however, Badauni’s 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 Akbar’s religious policies, for which Badauni’s 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 Akbar’s 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, Badauni’s hostility to Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Shi’ism and Zoroastrianism.

According to S.A.A. Rizvi, this kind of an outlook, however, blinds Badauni from understanding Akbar’s 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 Abu’l 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 Abu’l Fazl.

Abu’l 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, Fazl’s 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 Abu’l Fazl continued to rise in the Mughal Court thereafter due to his more ‘secular’ outlook, which was in
conformity with that of Akbar’s. As a result, gradually Fazl became one of the closest confidantes of the king and his work
became one of the King’s most extravagant indulgences, as the talented Abul Fazl was able to pierce through Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s reign. Thus, the author’s assumption that Akbar
would live for 120 years clearly shows the high pedestal on which he placed Akbar. The 5 th 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 Akbar’s reign and the Ain-i-Akbari.

The narrative part of the Akbar Nama starts from Adam and continues till the 46 th year of Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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.

Fazl’s 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. Abu’l Fazl viewed everything within the narrow framework of Akbar’s reign. Thus,
despite his chronologically sound depiction of events, he has written only of events which have a direct or indirect
relevance to Akbar’s reign and any reference outside the purview of this framework is coincidental. As a result, he fails to
analyse Akbar’s 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
doesn’t 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 doesn’t even make
a reference to this clause because at the time of writing he probably felt that Akbar’s 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 Fazl’s 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
Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s spiritual magnificence or
he was just trying to comply with the wishes of his master.

In his zeal to glorify and justify Akbar’s rule, Abul Fazl often ignores the dictates of reason or adopts mystical reasoning.
For instance, in order to justify Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s actions fall beyond the pale
of ordinary human reason. This acted as a means to justify Akbar’s 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 Fazl’s reference to Akbar’s 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 Akbar’s 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 Abu’l 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, Badauni’s orthodox leanings prevented him from giving Akbar’s
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 Akbar’s reign which is essential to reconstruct the history of
this period. Moreover, their works act as corrective measures for each other’s writings enabling a contemporary historian
to fill a number of gaps, which helps in producing a more balanced picture of Akbar.