CHAGHTAYID TRADITIONS

~Adrita Buragohain

The Indian political thought as well as the Persian and Turko-Mongol traditions has
attached much importance to the institution of sovereignty for preserving order and stability
of society and for eradicating anarchy and lawlessness. The nature of the state and
complexion of the administrative structure of an Empire were determined largely by the
theory of sovereignty and the policies propounded and pursued by the king himself. The
general administrative structure and the policies of the Mughals in India, therefore, appear
to be a conglomeration of Indo-Islamic trends. The remnants of the Chingizi and Timuri
polity are often noticed in the Mughal structure in India.

Ram Prasad Tripathi in his pioneer work'Some Aspects of Muslim Administration’1 has
analyzed some details of the Timurid kingship before 1526. He mentions that the
Chaghatai conqueror Babur came to India with ideas that were not quite similar to those of
either the early Turkish rulers of Delhi or the Afghans. Claiming the blood of Chingiz
Khan and Timur in his veins, Babur could also claim a system of ideas which reflected the
Turkish and Islam cultures. These features according to him left their mark on the
evolution of kingship under Akbar. The Turks, the Iranians and the Mongols all
considered the position of a sovereign as something higher than simple a leader. He points
out that in Mongol tradition, which is recognized as the most significant influence shaping
the Timurid polity; the ruler 'was a political sovereign pure and simple'. The story of the
birth of the ancestor Chingiz Khan indicates the element of supernatural origin of his
personality. According to legend, he was the Son of Light. The semi-divine origin of the
family of Chingiz coupled with the enormous prestige of his success and career had made
his house an object of inspiration and awe, and had preserved sovereignty in his family up
to the sixteenth century.

Timur followed the concept of absolute sovereignty. Despite his assertions, a controversy
has existed among the historians about the tradition of absolute monarchy entertained by
Timur who had accepted the nominal over-lordship of a descendant of Chingiz Khan.
Support from the Chaghatai nobles then he proclaimed himself sovereign in 1370 with the
title of sahib-i qiran (a title given to a ruler who had ruled for forty years). The coronation
ceremony was held with all royal grandeur for Timur alone. Timur never rendered
honours to the Khans in the presence of the troops and in solemn surroundings. Honour
due to the monarch was always personally received by Timur. Being a firm believer in
absolutism, Timur never attached undue importance to the consultative assembly
(qurultai). Besides, he considered himself to be the temporal as well as the spiritual leader.
Concept of sovereignty was stretched by him to its logical end. He announced that he
“received direct revelations from the Almighty”, thus, giving divine sanctions to his
enterprise. An important feature of the Mughal polity was that of dividing the empire
among the princes, not on a territorial basis but tribal basis. The prince's exercised almost
1
R.R.Tripathi, “Some Aspects of Muslim Administration”, first published Allahabad, 1936.
full powers of government within their jurisdiction and were practically independent. The
Malfuzat-i Timuri2, on which Tripathi relied on though he doubted its authenticity, might
reasonably embody the ideas believed to be prevailing in the time of Timur, showing the
fusion of the Mughal and Islamic ideas. The central point in Timur's conception of
sovereignty was his belief that the various offices in an earthly empire are symbols of those
in the Empire of God. This was imparted to him by Qutb ul-Aqtab Zainuddin Abu Bakr,
his spiritual guide. Timur believed that 'since God is one hath no partner, therefore, the
vicegerent over the land of the Lord must be one'. Accordingly, he lays down that the King
must make the people feel that he is not under the influence of anybody, he himself,
showed considerable regard for his nobles and officials.

As to the women, they exercised enormous powers in the state and there were cases when
during a period of interregnum or of the minority or absence of the sovereign they
exercised the powers of regency3. However, the Mughals while permitting great influence
normally to women did not recognize her title to hold sovereignty. Timurids did not
consider minority a disqualification for attaining sovereignty. Babur was himself a minor
when he got the throne.

Babur was related to Chingiz (on mother’s side) and Timur (on father’s side).
Notwithstanding Babur’s occasional outbursts against the Mongols, he held Chingiz Khan
and his family in high esteem. Akbar’s attitude towards his “ancestors” is appropriately
reflected in the comments of Abul Fazl who called Chingiz a “great man”. By thus elevating
and glorifying the Mongols, the Mughals in India were adding prestige to their own dynasty.
Extending their hereditary claims over the Indian territories by virtue of having the blood
of Chingiz and Timur in their veins was, therefore logical and expedient. Babur’s dynasty
in India was variously called ‘Chaghatai’, ‘Mughal’ and ‘Qarawanah’, disregarding the
genealogical differences and their relationship to Chingiz through females.

Iqtidar Alam Khan 4 mentions how Tripathi endorses Rushbrook Williams' view that
Babur was 'the very embodiment of absolute kingship' based on divine sanction. The
assumption behind such an understanding would be that the Timurid political structure
was essentially oriented towards a highly centralized state capable of holding together a vast
Empire and that in this respect it was far superior to the structure of the Afghan power
which had reduced the Sultanate into a confederacy of tribes holding different regions.
Babur's own outlook was more practical and political than religious. Although he had

2
Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship”, Article, p. 10, Malfuzat-i Timuri – this work was
compiled by a Persian scholar 1637-38 for presentation to Shahjahan. It was claimed by the complier, Abul Talib,
that the book was based on the Turkish version preserved in the library of Jafar Pasha, the Ottoman governor of
Yemen.
3
R. P. Triapathi, “The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship, in The Mughal State, 1989, p 118.
4
Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship”, Article, p 9.
unbounded faith in the will of God and had versified the Islamic law for the guidance of his
second son, his memoirs do not show any superstitions and morbid regard either for the
school or the details of the law. The ease with which he could adjust to the wishes of Shah
Isma'il Safa I is a good example of his general outlook. As one of the proud of his ancestry
and believing in the inherent right of the Timurids to rule, Babur was a believer in the
hereditary right to sovereignty. In his letter to Sultan Sa'id regarding the succession to the
authority of Badakhshan he laid emphasis on the 'hereditary rights' of the heir. Babur was
social and mixed freely with his officials. In his letter to Humayun written in 1529, almost
at the end of his career, he summed up his final opinions regarding sovereignty: “ No
bondage equals with that of sovereignty; retirement matches not with rule”. He advised him
to “take counsel and settle every word and act in agreement with well-wishers”.

The theory of sovereignty propounded by Abu’l Fazl on behalf of Akbar and reflected in
his mahzar and “Ai’n-i rahnamuni” seems to be as close to the Central Asian and Perso-
Islamic concepts as to the Chingizi traditions of sovereignty. In the Akbar-nama, especially
in its most famous component, the Ain-I Akbari, Abu'l Fazl explains the social and political
order which the court rituals represented. As S. A. A. Rizvi states Abu'l Fazl combines the
Timuri model of kingship and the Sufi doctrine or illuminationism. Abu'l Fazl writes in the
preface of the Ain5: "Kingship is a refulgence from the Incomparable Distributor of
justice… and a ray from the sun, the illuminator of the universe and the receptacle of all
virtues. The contemporary calls it farr-i izidi (the divine effulgence) and the tongue of
antiquity calls it kiyan khura (the sublime halo). It is communicated by God to the holy face
(the king) without the intermediate assistance of anyone; and men, in its presence, bend the
forehead of praise towards the ground of submission. Again, many excellent qualities flow
from the possession of this light".

Abu'l Fazl's version of the story of Alan-qu'a appears early in the Akbarnama6. He makes
clear that others saw the ray of light penetrate the tent so there could be no less exalted
explanation of her pregnancy. Although Chingiz Khan was not a paternal ancestor of
Akbar, Abu'l Fazl includes a notice of him in his genealogy because 'as he was a ray of the
divine light of Alan-qu'a, a brief amount of him is indispensable'. Alan-qu'a forms a decisive
break in the genealogy of Akbar, which Abu'l Fazl extends from Adam to Ju'ina Bahadur
(Alan-qu'a father) and from her son Buzanjar Qaan to Timur. Of the descendants of
Timur, only Babur and Humayun receive special notice. Abu’l Fazl describes Babur as the
‘career of illuminating light’ and states that Humayun ‘was illuminating the world with the
power of his Divine light, which through so many cycles and epochs had been concealed
under various grabs, and time of apparition was now at hand’.

5
Douglas Streusand, “Abu'l Fazl Doctrine of Sovereignty and Society”, Article, p 130
6
Douglas Streusand, “Abu'l Fazl Doctrine of Sovereignty and Society”, Article, p 130-31. Abu,l Fazl explains how one
night the divinely radiant one was reposting on her bed when suddenly a glorious light cast a ray into the tent and
entered the mouth and throat of that fount of spiritual knowledge and chastity. The cupola of chastity became
pregnant with that light in the same way, as did Hazrat Miryam, the daughter of 'Imran.
Of his own master Abu’l Fazl writes: the same light which took shape, without human
instrumentality or a father’s lions, in the pure womb of Her Majesty Alan-qu'a, after having,
I order to arrive at perfection, occupied during several ages the bodily wrapping of other
holy witnesses, is manifesting itself at the present day, in the pure entity of this unique God-
knower and God-worshipper.” The light came to Alan-qu'a in order to cause Akbar's
eventual advent; the exploits of Chingiz Khan and Timur were mere wayside in the
ventures in the journey of the light of sovereignty. As the pure and perfect expression of
sovereignty, Akbar has the attribution of the 'Perfect or Universal Man7' as conceived by
another Sufi thinker, Muhiyy Al-Din Ibn al-'Arabi, 1165(560) - 1240(638). Ibn al-'Arabi
uses the phrase al-haqiqat al-mubamma-diyyah (the Reality of Muhammad) for the Perfect
Man, and cites the Prophet as the realization of the idea. Abu'l Fazl blends the Perfect Man
with al-Farabi's Platonic conception of a perfect ruler and finds the actualization of his ideal
in Akbar. This status distinguishes Akbar from ordinary Muslim rulers. As Fayzi wrote of
Akbar: " Although kings are the shadow of God on earth, he is the emanation of God's light
".

In Abu'l Fazl's eyes, the maturation of the light of sovereignty in the form of Akbar begins a
new age in history or the world, coinciding with the second millennium of Islam. However,
Badauni mentions (and condemns) the belief that Akbar was the Lord of the Age ( sahib-i
zaman)8, who would remove all the differences of opinion among the seventy-two sects of
Hindus and Muslims. Calling Akbar, the sahib-i zaman did not mean he claimed to be
Mahdi, but showed the type of status and expectations he claimed and inspired. His claim
to mark the advent of a new age led Akbar to promulgate a new solar calendar, known as
the Illahi era, which remained in official use into Aurangzeb's reign. In connection with the
introduction of a new calendar, Akbar ordered composition of a chronicle, the Tarikh-i
Alfi (loosely the Thousand Year History). As the quintessence of sovereignty, Akbar had
special qualities: wisdom, patience with the folly and imperfection of others, and justice.
Another list of Akbar's unique quality includes a paternal love for his subjects, a large heart,
increasing love of God, and prayer and devotion. The paternal love of the ruler prevents
secretariat differences from disturbing his subjects. His goals separate him from ordinary
monarchs.

Like any other writers of kingship, Abu'l Fazl propounds a view of society with his theory of
sovereignty. Connecting each class of men with one the Aristotelian elements, he writes of
warriors, who have the nature of fire and may burn the rubbish of rebellion or light the
7
Douglas Streusand, “Abu'l Fazl Doctrine of Sovereignty and Society”, Article, p 132, The Perfect Man is a
microcosm of the universe, an assemblage if all the Platonic ideas from which reality emanates, an embodiment of
the wisdom of man.
8
Douglas Streusand, “Abu'l Fazl Doctrine of Sovereignty and Society”, Article, p 132, The term sahib-i zaman
designated the leading qutb saint of the time. It has another meaning as well. For Ithna-'Ashari (Twelve) Shi'is, it
designated the Twelfth Imam, who is currently in occultation, but will return soon.
lamp of disturbance. Artisans and merchants are air, the breeze which nourishes the trees
of life. The learned are water, irrigating the world with knowledge. Husbandmen and
labourers are earth, nourishing the grain of life. Irfan Habib mentions how Abu’l Fazl
writes9: "It is therefore obligatory for a king to put each of these in its proper place, and by
uniting personal ability with due respect for others, to cause the world to flourish ". It is
"only a just ruler (kar-giya)" who is able to "convert like a salt-bed, the impure into pure, the
bad into good; but he can only do by gathering loyal helpers, a large wherewithal for
grandeur and a large treasury". Soldiers were particularly necessary. Accordingly, "the wages
of protection" (dast-musd-i pasbani) have to be paid to the sovereign for protecting the four
'essences' (property, life, honour, religion). For such task no wages or taxes are too high,
'but sovereign do take more than what suffices for their task and do not soil their hands by
desiring more'. Akbar's personal religious ritual similar to that of the Hindus, involved
worship of the sun at dawn, noon, dusk and midnight. Abu'l Fazl quotes Akbar as saying
that “a special proceeds from the sun, the exalted, in favour of kings, and for this reason
they pray and consider it worship of the Almighty.” Fazl justifies his master's custom by
saying every flame is derived from divine light and "the fire of the sun in the touch of God's
sovereignty" .

Iqtidar Alam Khan10 suggested that the administration and military difficulties of Babur and
Humayun partly stemmed from the Mongol characteristics of the Timurid polity. While
the task of hiding together vast territories in Hindustan required a highly centralized
administration, there was little scope of building such a state on the basis of Timurid
traditions of kingship. But the gradual elimination of the senior Chaghtai nobles and
corresponding erosion or the Chaghtai features of the Timurid polity, in due course,
resolved the crisis and facilitated the transformation or the Mughal Empire into a
sophisticated absolutism under Akbar. While rejecting Mongol heritage, the Indian
Timurids, from Humayun onwards, drew heavily in the traditions and practice evolved
under the Turkish rulers of the thirteenth and fourteen centuries.

R. P. Tripathi explains how Abu'l Fazl conception of Akbar as the complete and mature
manifestation of the light of sovereignty placed him on a different level from that of his
predecessors, even Chingiz Khan and Timur. In the language which Dickson and Woods
use in their analyses of collective sovereignty, Akbar began a new dispensation; he received
afresh the divine mandate to rule. In the context of the subcontinent of the sixteenth

9
Irfan Habib, “A Political Theory for the Mughal Empire - A study of the ideas of Abu'l Fazl in Proceedings of the
Indian History”, article, p 332.
10
Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Turko-Mongol Theory of kingship”, article, p 18.
century, this new claim gave Akbar and his dynasty a higher and more durable legitimacy, a
lasting prestige, which no Delhi Sultan ever achieved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Tripathi, Ram Prasad, The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship in “The Mughal
State”, edited by Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subramanyam, 1998, Oxford
University Press, Delhi.
2. Khan, Iqtidar Alam, The Turko-Mongol Theory of kingship, in “Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress”, Vol 31 (1969), pp 8-18 (12 pages), published by Indian
History Congress.
3. Streusand, Douglas, Abu'l Fazl Doctrine of Sovereignty and Society in “The
Formation of Mughal Empire”, 1989, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
4. Habib, Irfan, A Political Theory for the Mughal Empire - A study of the ideas of
Abu'l Fazl in “Proceedings of the Indian History”, Vol 59, 1998, pp 329-340 (12
pages), published by: Indian History Congress.