Tizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century Author(s): Satish Chandra Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep. 1969), pp. 322-340 Published by: Brill Stable URL: https://www jstor.org/stable/3596130 Accessed: 20-09-2018 13:47 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover. use, and build upon a wide range of content ina trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to ineresse productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship, For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor org. Your use of the JSTOR archive Indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor-org/terms iF Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the ir Economic and Social History of the Orient iS A This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Thy 20 Sep 2018 1347.20 UTC ‘se subject o hpsabout stor ogitennsJIZYAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA DURING THE 1771 CENTURY BY SATISH CHANDRA (University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) ‘The reimposition of jigyah by Aurangzeb in 1679 is generally regarded as a turning point in the history of the Mughal Empire in India, and as marking the culmination of the spirit of religious bigotry which, in turn, led to the alienation of the Rajputs, the Marathas and the Hindus generally, and hastened the disintegration of the Empire *). On the other hand, some writers have represented the step as a con- sequence of the growing spirit of opposition to the Empire among the Hindus, leaving Aurangzeb no option but to appeal to the loyalty of the Muslims by reverting to a more specifically Muslim state). In both cases, discord and hostility between the Hindus and the Mus- lims, and the growth of a spirit of particularism are regarded as the main factors in the reimposition of jizyab. However, in order to under- stand the measure, itis also necessary to take into account the political and economic developments in the empire, the religious trends at the Court, and, in particular, thc controversy regarding the nature of the state which had continued with some changes of form and approach since the establishment of Muslim rule in India. ‘The explanations advanced by a number of contemporary and near contemporary observers for the reimposition of jizyab by Aurangzeb may be examined first. Muhammad Sagi Musta‘id Khan, who wrote on the basis of official papers and may almost be regarded as the official historian of Aurangzeb’s reign, says: 1) Sarkar, Aurangzeb, ili pp. 264-5, 274, 5: 2) Pacuki, Aurangzeb und Tis Times, pp. 148-1913 1. He Queeshi, The Muslin Community in the Indo-Pakittan Sub-Continent, p. 161-3. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogtermsJ2XAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 323 “As All the aims of the religious Emperor were directed to the spread- ing of the law of Islam and the overthrow of the practice of the infidels, he issued orders to the high diwant officers that from Wednesday, the and April, 1679/1st Rabi‘ I 1090, in obedience to the Quranic injunction ‘till they pay commutation money (izga#) with the hand in humility’ and in agreement with the canonical traditions, jixyab should be collected from the infidels (gimmis) of the capital and the provinces’ #), - Isardis (Ishwardas) and ‘Ali Muhammad Khin are in broad agree- ment with Sagi Musta‘id Khan, but emphasize the role of the "ulema in the matter. Isardas, says, ‘,.. the theologians, the learned men and the traditionalists, in view of the regard of the Emperor, the shadow of God, for the (true) faith, represented to him that the levying of jixyah was necessary and compulsory according to shari‘a¥). ‘Ali Muhammad Khan says ‘Since His Majesty was inclined to promote the faith and to give currency to the laws of the sharia, rejecting all things contrary to shari‘a in the fixing of expenses, and in all matters of state as well as in all revenue and administrative matters, at this auspicious moment, the learned men, the theologians and the saintly persons, in view of his regard for the faith, represented to the Emperor, that the levying of jigyah upon the opponents of the (true) faith was compulsory according to shari'a, and urged him to reimpose it in the provinces of the Empire’ +), These statements, which run on parallel lines, may be taken to represent the official point of view. In official pronouncements, em- phasis would naturally be placed on the Emperor’s regard for the true faith and his deference to the suggestions of the theologians, the learned men, etc. as the reason for the te-imposition of jib. But this does not explain why it should have taken Aurangzeb, who was himself well-versed in the shari'a, twenty-two years from his accession to the throne to arrive at the orthodox position regarding jizyah, 1) Ma‘ésirs--Alamgri, Bib, Ind., p. 174. 2) Tsardis, Fusibiti-‘Hlamgirt, B.M. Add. 25, 884, £ 74a. 3) Mirat-Abmadi, Bib. Ind, i 296. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogterms324 SATISH CHANDRA which was sufficiently clear and which had been repeatedly expounded by the orthodox ’alama.%) ‘The contemporary European travellers and the agents of trading companies posted in India suggest a somewhat different explanation for the measure. Thomas Roll, the president of the English factory at Surat, wrote in 1679 that jizyah was being collected with great severity with the object not only of replenishing Ausangzeb’s exhausted treasury, but also of forcing the poorer sections of the population to become Mohammedans*), Manucci, writing about a quarter of a century later, emphasised the same factors, remarking, “The death of Jaswant Singh was used by Aurangzeb as an opening to oppress the Hindus still more, since they had no longer any valiant or powerful sajah who could defend them. He imposed upon the Hindus a poll-tax, which everyone was forced to pay, more or less... Aurangzeb did this for two reasons: first, because by this time his treasuries had begun to shrink owing to expenditure on his campaigns; secondly to force Hindus to become Mohammedans” *). ‘The argument that by imposing jizyah, Aurangzeb wanted to force the non-Muslims to accept Islam may have been sincerely believed by many of his contemporaries but is hardly tenable in the light of historical scrutiny. In particular, the Hindus had stubbornly clung to their faith despite the prevalence of Muslim rule in large parts of the country for over four hundred years‘). During most of this period, they were required to pay jigyah5). Aurangzeb could hardly 1) Only the followers of Abi Hanifa gave choice between Islam, or death, ‘or payment of jizyah. According to the followers of all the other orthodox schools, the only choice was between Islam and death. (Encyclopaedia of Islan, 2) The English Factories in India. ed, Fawcett, New Series, ili, 241. ‘The deputy- Governor at Bombay ascribed the measure to “this king’s treasury being much exhausted by his long and chargeable wars with Sevagee, the Pattans and his Rash- boots”. (O.C, Vol. 42, No. 4705, d. 18(?) August 1680). 3) Manueci N., Storia de Mogor, te. W. Tevine, i 233-4 ii, 288 4) For the atachment of the Hindus to ther faith, and the difficulty of converting them, see the remarks of Shaikh Nizimuddin Avliya, Favs?id-w!-Firad, pp. 65, 150 597. 1) Ics not posible to cater here into the controversy whether igeh was distinct feorn Kiara dting this period and whether the Hindus were sequired to pay both This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogtermsJ2XAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 325 have been sanguine enough to expect a different result from his re- imposition of the jizyab, Though this was a regressive tax, and bore more heavily on the poor than on the rich, there is no proof of any large-scale conversions during his reign on account of this measure. Had any such developments taken place, they would have been recorded with glee by the Emperor’s eulogists as a triumph of his policy), ‘As far as the purely economic motive is concerned, it is true that when Aurangzeb reviewed his finances in the thirteenth year of his reign, he found that expenses had exceeded income during the preceding twelve years. Consequently, a number of economics were effected, including ‘the retrenchment of many items in the expenditure of the Emperor, the princes and the Begums’#). It may also be presumed that continuous wars in the Deccan, particularly after 1676, frontier wars in the north-east, intermittent fighting with the Afghan tribesmen, and later the breach with the Rathors and Sishodias—none of which secured any large tertitorial gains or monetary compensation—must have strained the royal treasury. During his reign, Aurangzeb issued a number of orders forbidding a large number of customary cesses *), Similar orders had been issued by earlier rulers also. We ate told baraj and jizyeb, Tt has been suggested that jigyab was not distinguishable from araj in medieval India (P. Hardy, S. V. Djizyah, Encyclopaedia of Islam). Although, Hburj and jizyab were sometimes treated as synonyms, a number of fourteenth century theological tracts treat them as separate imposts. (Thus, see Fawaid--Fireg ‘Shibi, Bankipore, xiv, No. 1225, f. 2984-300a; Figh--Firtz Shabi, LO, NO. 2987, H. 41tb-g1ga.) K. A. Nizami (Some Aspects of Religion and Politics n India daring the 1th Century, Aligath 1961, p. 315.) is of the view that jigyab was merged in the Bbarij and teeated as part of the total incidence of taxation, but is silent about the situation in the towns. Under Aurangzeb (infra f.n) at the outset jizgab was realised along with Aberdj in the rural areas, but was assessed as a separate tax in the towns. ‘The situation may have been similar during the Sultanate period. 2) For the problem of coaversion ta Tslam in medieval Tada, see S. Nurul Hasan, Chishti and Surawardi Siilabs in India during the 130b and 14th centuries, Unpublished thesis Oxford University; S. A. A. Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the 16th and 17th centuries, Agra, 1965, pp. 15-21. 2) Matétr-i-*Alangir, p. 100. 3) ‘Alamgir Name, ii 392, 432-38, A umber of orders issued by Auringzeb at various periods are mentioned in Mir'a-i-Abmadi i pp. 259, 264, 286, 288. According to Aira, by the abolition of these cesses a loss of twenty-five lakhs was suffered in the Bbdliza lands alone (Afir°é i 249). This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogterms326 SATISH. CHANDRA that, despite these orders, the revenue department continued to include the income from the forbidden cesses in the jama‘démi (valuation) of the /agirs). It was apparently expected that the jdgirdars would make these remissions out of their sactioned income. But only a few nobles, such as Raja Jaswant Singh, offered to do so. Others demanded ‘compensation in lieu of the income they were required to surrender *), and since there was not enough money available to pay this, the re- mission remained a dead letter in the jdgirs. Thus, there is little basis for the argument that since Aurangzeb had abolished the cesses not sanc- tioned by Islam, he was justified in levying the jigyab—one of the taxes specifically sanctioned by Islamic law*). We do not possess any figures from the reign of Aurangzeb for the yield of jigah in the Mughal Empire. According to an eighteenth century writer, Shivd’s Lakhnawi‘), the realisation (hail) from ‘fisgah in all the provinces of the empire was 4o m. rupees. This figure, although it is given in the context of the (ce) abolition of jizyah at the instance of Raja Jai Singh following the defeat of the Saiyid brothers in 1720, may be taken to apply to the empire as a whole after the annexation of Bijapur and Golconda. According to Jagjiwandis, the Aasil of the Empire around 1708-9 was a little over 260 m.*) From these figures, income from jizyab may be reckoned at about 15 per cent of the total income. However, it may be doubted if the full amount of the jizgab could be realised every year. According to the Nigarndma-i- Munshi, another eighteenth century work, at the outset, jizg) was reckoned at rupees one hundred upon 1,00,000 dams (of the jama*) ive, at the flat rate of 4 per cent in the Ahdlisa and jégir mabdls, the officials of the Abdlisa and the jagi-holders being left free to realise the amount from the peasants in the manner they 1) Khafi Khan, Muntabhaba-Labab, ii, 88-89, 2) Miras i 288-91. 3) CE. Aziz Ahmad, Ilamie Calture inthe Indian Environment, Oxford, 1964, p. 148. 4) Shiv Das Lakhoawi, Shiinimai- Munavvar Kalam, B.M. Ot. 26, 6. 646-632. 5) Jagjiwan Das, quoted by I. Habib, Agrarian Sytem of Mughal’ India, Asi, 1963, P 409. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogtermsJIZYAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 327 considered fit). Exemption from jizjab could be asked for in the case of crop failure, and such exemptions seem to have been made fairly regularly. ‘The towns were apparently assessed separately. It is difficult to form even a rough estimate of the income from them. According to KhafiKhin, Mir Abdul Karim, the amin-i-jizyah, reported in 1092/1681 that he had realised Rs. 26,000—-as jizyah from the city of Burhdnpur during the previous year, and that in three months he had fixed Rs. 1,08,000/-as the amount payable by half of the wards (pur-jdt) of Burhinpus*), From a document pertaining to the town and pargana of Badshihpur, we find that out of a total assessment of Rs. 2950/-, the share of the town was Rs, 2140-10-0 or roughly 72 per cent’). While it is difficult to generalise on the basis of such scanty evidence, it may not be wrong to draw the inference that the income from the towns was quite considerable. ‘This may explain why opposition to jizyab manifested itself so often in the towns, and the leading role in it was often played by traders and mer- chants. An additional duty of 14 per cent was levied in liew of jigyah 1) Nigar Nama-i-Munshi, Or. 17338. Rach; Minati- Ahmadi, i 298; Iefan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India, p. 245 1. Habib thinks that the officials, jagirdars, after paying jizgah at the flat rate of 4 per cent, were to collect jizyab at authorised rates from the peasants. Later, detailed registers were maintained of the assessment, realisations and disbursements from jizjab (bimir-iizyab, mujmal, jama'-kbarch, rognimcbab, dverjab) and the chandbris and the gamngos were required to countersign, them. (Khuligat 39a-b). The realisations were apparently made through the normal revenue machinery, with the help of zamindars, and under the supervision of amils appointed for the purpose, Fora sample of timar-jizgab for the town and pargana of Badshihpur, see Kbulat- asSipag, sob-41-b. 8. R. Sharma, Religious Policy, 2nd ed., pp. 163-4 also quotes such documents from Maharashtra. Similar documents are found in the Rajasthan State Archives also. 2) KK. 279, Ma‘diiral-Umard IIT, 609-610. 3) Khulatat-usSiag €. 396-4. It is doubtful if the categories in which the villagers have been divided in the document can be a sufficient basis for a classification of rural society. The document refers not to a single village, but to muasdza (villages) in the pargana of Badshihpur. ‘The suspiciously low number of the assessees—only 280 out of whom 18} were taxed—suggests that the figures are either ficittious or the villages included large numbers of Muslims who were not liable for the tax. (ef. I. Habib Agrarian System, pp. 119-120). This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogterms328 SATISH_ CHANDRA on all goods imported by the Christian traders, ie. the English, French, Portuguese and other European Companies trading with India), Thus, the yield from jigyah was not a negligible sum. It should be noted, however, that the proceeds were to be lodged in a separate treasury, called the Khagdnab-ijizgab, and were earmarked for charitable purposes). That being so, jizjab can be regarded as a device for relieving the pressure on the general treasury only to the extent that it can be shown that the state found it possible to economise on the amounts being disbursed out of the general treasury for paying the janmiyddars ox cash stipend-holdets *). Te follows from the above that the purely financial motive can hardly be regarded as a major factor in the reimposition of the izyah, The measure cannot be understood without taking into account the character, position and role of the large number of stipend-holders who were dependent on the state, and the political and ideological controversies of the period regarding the nature of the state, the position of the Hindus, and the extent to which the ‘wama should determine the basic policies of the State. The army of stipend-holders, which included theologians, recluses, widows and orphans, a section of the literati and a large number of nondescript hangers-on, was always a problem for the medieval Sultans. That the state should provide some sustenance for all able- bodied Muslims, particularly those who possessed some learning in the Holy Law, was a part of the vague egalitarian and humanitarian 1) Bombay L.5., No. 9 at. June 3, 1680 (To Surat); Surat Diary L.S. 91 dt. 1 Dec. 1682 (to Hoogly), dt. 30 Nov. 1682 (to England) et. seq. ‘The English entered into negotiations with the Governor, Ranmasat Khio, and in 1683 senta wati/to Aurang- zeb's court, but his efforts as well as the efforts of the Company failed to get the increase removed. Both Roll and Child commented on the loss of Indian esteem for Europeans, partly entailed by theit “timely submitting to this imposition”. (English Factores, ed. Foster, 1678-1684, p. x3ix). 2) J.R. Waga-i*Papers dt. 29 Sbathan yr. 24]14 Sept., 1680. See also Mira ii 30-51. 3) Te has been argued that by providing separate funds for charitable purposes, jigyah did relieve the pressure on the treasury by allowing the amounts hitherto spent on chatty to be diverted to other purposes. Dut it is dificult to say to what extent this could be done in practice. (cf. Faruki, oc. cif. pp. 158-161). This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogtermsJIZYAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 329 legacy of early Islam. As early as the time of Balban, steps had to be taken to curtail the grants and privileges of these sections. But in general the responsibility of providing for this miscellaneous mass—one of the important ways in which the state carried out welfare work— was not denied by any ruler, Akbar tried to organise it on a new basis, setting aside villages for grant to the a’immaddrs. But with the passage of time, the problem again became serious and had to be tackled afresh by Aurangzeb). The theologians formed a considerable group among the stipend- holders. They had a virtual monopoly of education, and exercised considerable patronage on behalf of the rulers. Their services were utilised by a number of monarchs in administration also. Though their arrogance was distasteful to many rulers, and the venality of many of the gazis brought the ‘ama into disrepute, they could scarcely be ignored by the rulers, since Islam was felt to be the only bond of unity among the diverse groups and sections of the Muslims in India. While the ‘x/ama were by no means a united body, the rigidity of the shariva, which had been developed in West Asia where conditions were vastly different from those obtaining in medieval India created many political difficulties for the rulers. The extent to which a Sultan in India could rule in accordance with the shari‘a was anxiously debated. Generally speaking, it was agreed that the state in India could not be Islamic in the true sense of the word®), and that many un-Islamic features, such as the appropriation of the bait-ul-mdl by the Sultan for his personal use, the maintenance of great pomp and show by the Sultan, the shedding of Muslim blood, etc. must be tolerated. Never- theless, the ‘wlama expected the Sultans to act as the champions of Islam 1) Fora faller discussion, see I. Habib, Agrarian System, 298-316. Under Aurang- zeb, the position of the grantees was strengthened, and their hereditary rights in the lands held by them were recognised subject to some control by the state This is another example of the considerable influence enjoyed by this section in medieval times. 2) Thus, see Barani, Térikb-i-Firie Shabi, Bib. Ind. pp. 41-443 excerpts from Falta i Jebindari by M. Habib in Tbe Politica! Theory of te Delt Sultanate (Kitab Mahal originally published in Medieval India Quarterly, Aligath Vol. III, pp. 137-38) Jasuo, XI » ‘This contee downloaded from 210.212.1291 on Tha, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC Alls subject fo iis:/aboutjstororgterms330 SATISH CHANDRA by suppressing bid‘at and the open practice of things forbidden by the sharia. They also expected them to wage a constant ibid against the Hindus, to degrade and humiliate them, and not permit them to make an open display of idolatrous practices *). Most of the theolo- gians considered that the payment of jizyah was necessary and that it ‘was meant to humiliate the Hindus. Some of the ‘ama went to tidicul- ous lengths in their advocacy of the humiliations that should be heaped upon the Hindus by the collectors of jizyah*). For the theologians the imposition of jigyab was thus a badge of the inferior and dependent status of the Hindus, and a means of asserting the position of the Mus- lims as the ruling class, and thereby asserting also the superior status of the ‘wlama, the upholders of the true faith, in the state, ‘As political realists, the Sultans and their leading nobles were not prepared to pursue policies which might create unnecessary political difficulties. The divergence between the interests of the ‘uama and the sections exercising political power must be regarded as a characteristic feature of Muslim society in medieval India. As might be expected, neither the ‘wama nor the political elements formed a united body ‘The debate between the two trends, the orthodox and the liberal, one of which advocated the policy of treating the Hindus as perpetual enemies, humiliating them and excluding them from all share in political power, and the other, which favoured a policy of ieniency to the Hindus once they had submitted, and of trying to win over the Hindu Rajas to a position of active alliance by various concessions, remained a feature of intellectual and political life in the country till the 18th century. ‘The orthodox trend could call to its assistance the powerful forces of dogmatism, taking a rigid stand on the letter of the Law, which took little account of the situation prevailing inside India), The ‘liberal’ trend appealed to political expediency. Doctrinal differences, 2) Ibid 2) Thus, see advice of Qazi Mughis-ud-Din to ‘Aliuddin Khalji, Barani, p. 290. See also Sh. Ahmad Sithindi, Maksibat-i-Imam-i-Rabbéni, Vol. 1, Letter No. 163. 3) K. M. Ashraf, Life and Condition of the People of Hindustan, reprinted from JRAS.B., Letter, Vole, 1935, Pp. 185-84. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogtermsJIZYAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 331 such as the controversy between the advocates of Wabadat-al-Wajid and those of Wabdat-al-shubid also divided them. The break-up of the Delhi Sultanat and the setting up of a number of provincial kingdoms resulted in the establishment of closer relations between the Muslim rulers and the indigenous Hindu ‘nobility’ in these areas. The settlement of Afghins in large numbers in rural areas had the same effect. The trend towards the association of Hindu amindars in the service of the state at various levels was given a powerful fillip by the Lodi and Sur rulers"), and was adopted as a matter of policy by Akbar. These developments implied the virtual breakdown of the theory of the state painfully evolved during the Sultanate period. A further breach was made by Akbar’s decision to abolish the jigyah in 1564, According to Abi'l Fazl, the Emperor had to override “The dis- approval of statesmen’ and ‘much chatter on the part of the ignorant’ | The opposition of the ‘vlama, ‘the stif-necked ones of the age’, seems to have been particularly vehement, but it was of no avail. The basic arguments advanced by Abi'l Fazl in justification of the abolition of ‘the jizyab were political and ideological, though the economic aspect was not overlooked. He argued that jizyah was formerly levied on account of ‘the opposition of the Hindus and the greed of the rulers’. However, due to ‘the abundant goodwill and graciousness of the lord of the age’, people of different religions had ‘like those of one mind, bound up the waist of devotion and service, and exert themselves for the advancement of the dominion’, and for this reason, a distinction had to be made between them and that old section which 1) Thus, Rai Saladin was granted a few parganas in igfa* in Chanderi by Mian Hussin (Farmall) during the time of Ibrahim Lodi; Jagat Singh Kachwahi was also granted an igfa* there. In the time of Sikandar Lodi, Rai Ganesh was assigned an ‘gta, comprising the parganas of Patiali, Shamstbid, Kamopil and Bhogaon (Wagisit-- ‘Muzhtaqi, Aligath Univ. rotograph, f. 63b; Tabagati-Akbari, Bib. Ind. 3523 Tarikbi- Khin Jabani, i, 173) (lam grateful to Mr. Igtedar Siddiqi, Department of History, ‘Aligath University, for calling my attention to these refrences.). See also A. B. Pande, First Afghan Empire, p. 140 (Raj Singh Kachwaha appointed commander of Narwar fort) and II. N. Siaha, Development of Indian Polity, 1963, PP. 356-62. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogterms332 SATISH CHANDRA cherished mortal enmity. Moreover, he argues, formerly jizyah was levied because of the neediness of the rulers and their assistants, but thanks to his abaundant treasures the Emperor had no need of it at that time, He therefore concluded that while the benefits of jizyah were ‘imaginary’, its imposition tended to ‘promote dissensions among the subjects’) and was, therefore, politically harmful. By arguing that the Hindus were as loyal to the state as the Muslims, Abi’ Fazl sought to remove the chief prop of the theological argument in favour of izyah). He also stressed that the levying of jigyab under these conditions was against political expediency and natural justice. ‘The concept that no distinction could be made between the subjects on the ground of their loyalty, combined with the underlying concept of sulp-i-kul, that all religions were roads to the one God, clearly tended to put the state as an institution above any particular religion (though not opposed to religion as such). ‘Thus Akbar’s concept of the state was strikingly modern and secularist, and cut at the root of clerical privileges. For this reason, if no other, it was unacceptable to orthodox opinion, It is not necessary for our purposes to attempt a detailed analysis of the conflict between the forces of orthodoxy and liberalism during the seventeenth century. The orthodox elements found a mentor in Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, and rallied under the slogan of wahdat-al-shubid. The exact political and intellectual influence of Shaikh Ahmad Sithindi during the seventeenth century must not be over-estimated. Never theless, there seems little doubt about the existence of a fairly powerful trend of orthodox opinion, both among the nobility and the ‘lama, ‘A group in the nobility resented the breach in their monopoly of power in the state, looking upon the monarchy as ja racist and religious institution), They resented the logic of Akbat’s policy of bringing 1) AbD’ Fazl, Abbarnima, Beveridge ii, pp. 316-17. 2) For a further discussion, see S.A. 'A. Rizvi, Maslin Revvalist Movements in Northern India, 1965, pp. 258-60. 5) CE. the remarks of Badayi Pros. LHC. XXIIL, 1961, p. 233. 339, Sce also Aziz Koka’s letter to Jehingis, ‘This contee downloaded from 210.212.1291 on Tha, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC Alls subject fo iis:/aboutjstororgtermsJIZYAH AND THE STATE IN INDIA 333 in ever wider groups of the indigenous ruling-classes into the nobility in order to strengthen the empire. In the early years of Shah Jahan’s reign, the Marathas who held ranks of 000 and above already out- numbered the Rajputs). An extension of this policy was bound to adversely affect the older group in the nobility. ‘The opposition of the orthodox ‘ulama to Akbar’s concept of the state was no less un- relenting, as has been already noted. The fundamental political problem before the Mughal emperors was to allay the opposition of the orthodox glements without, however, abandoning Akbar’s basic policy of allying with the Rajputs and other elements of the indigenous ruling class. This in turn presupposed a policy of broad religious toleration, Jahangir avoided giving open offence to the orthodox elements, but on the whole effected little change in the situation. Shih Jahn tried to assert the fundamentally Islamic character of the state by formally proclaiming himself a defender of the faith, ordering the destruction of newly erected temples, and putting down heretical practices, such as mixed marriages of Hindus and Muslims in Bhimbar®), At the same time, he firmly denied the ‘alama a say in determining policies, and extended state patronage and support to all sections of the ‘ulama, including the wwjidis as well as the shubidis, Shah Jahin’s concept of the state was a retrogression from the concept of Akbar as expounded by Abi@l Fazl. But taking into account the entrenched power of Muslim orthodoxy, it was perhaps the only compromise possible in seventeenth century India *), Like all compromises, it rested on no clear principle save political expediency and was, therefore, unstable. Once the fundamentally Islamic character of the state was granted even in theory, the arguments for basing it on the shari‘a became over whelmingly strong. These ideological arguments were reinforced by the 1) Lahauri, Badsbabndma, T, a. 328. 2) See Saksena, Shab Jahan, 1958, pp. 293.94. During the campaign against the Deccani States, Shih Jahin proclaimed it his duty to suppress heresy, and warned the rler of Golconda against the Shiva Abufba (Lahaurt, Vol. I, Pt. If, 130-53). 3) See Rizvi, Revivalist Movements, pp. 407-09. This content downloaded fm 210.212.129.125 on Th, 20 Sep 2018 13:47:20 UTC ‘luce subject fo hips:about sor ogterms