AKBAR’s RELIGIOUS POLICY

Throughout his reign Akbar adopted a number of measures in the religious

sphere that have been termed as liberal. It was the crystallization of these
measures that ultimately resulted in the adoption of a new state policy known
as “Sulh-i-kul” or universal peace between all religions in the last 25 years of
his reign. It was these measures and especially the new state policy that
became a major controversial factor with Akbar’s critics accusing him of being
a heretic. However, one needs to have a better understanding of these
measures and the motivating factors behind their adoption before drawing
conclusions about their nature.

It is important to state at the outset that it is difficult to speak of a “religious

policy” of Akbar, as he did not conceive of it using that term and so it cannot
be called his “policy” per se. Instead, it should be seen as a process of
evolution and can be studied as the changing outlook of the Mughal state
towards religious matters under Akbar. Thus, the evolution of the Sulh-i-Kuhl
(Universal Peace), which was to become the state religious policy in the final
25 years of Akbar’s reign was not a sudden policy but the culmination of a
process that had started many years ago at the time of Akbar’s accession to
the throne. K.A. Nizami sees the change as nothing more than a changing
attitude towards the ulama, while S.A.A. Rizvi and Athar Ali see it as
representing a much wider change in Akbar’s perspective on religion and the
development of his religious ideas. I.A. Khan links the changes that were
introduced in the organisation of the Mughal government and religious policy
to the structure, composition and changes of the nobility under Akbar.

Before we go on to study this process and the various measures adopted by

Akbar it would be important to understand the context and environment
under which Akbar’s religious outlook was shaped. Akbar’s state policy in the
field of religion was determined by his Turko-Mughal traditions; the
movement of Hindu-Muslim rapprochement, spearheaded by the Bhakti saints
and liberal Sufis; Akbar;s own inquisitive nature and his abiding interest in
Sufism.

His liberal outlook can be traced back to his Turko-Mongol background, which
did not involve a rigid religious tradition. Chengiz Khan, for instance, followed
the policy of yesa-i-chegaliz, i.e., the ruler treated all religions with the same
respect and saw them as more or less representing the same truth. So did
Timur, so that in his dominions and in the dominions of his successors, there
was no persecution of Shias and even Christians and Heathens found place in
his government and armed forces. Early Mughals also followed such a liberal
policy. In the recently discovered Khat-i-Baburi, the will of Babur, Babur
advises Humayun to recognize the diversity of Indian society and respect all
local norms and traditions. Humayun also did not follow orthodox religion,
and he patronized Shias as well. In fact, Humanyun, while in exile took refuge
at the court of the ruler of Iran and appointed a shia as the tutor for Akbar.

It was these tutors, who were to play an important role in shaping Akbar’s
outlook as well. Latif Qaznavi and Bairam Khan were Shi’as, while, Mun’im
Khan was a Sunni Turani. However, all of them were above sectarian
prejudices. It was this spirit of religious tolerance that was inculcated in
Akbar’s mind at a very early age by these thinkers.

Akbar himself had a restless and inquisitive mind and a general interest in
religious and spiritual matters since a very young age. It was this
inquisitiveness, which was clearly reflected in his desire to establish the
Ibadat Khana. His exposure philosophical discourses further fed his
inquisitive mind and encouraged him to initiate the process of reexamination
of the important aspects of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which were
the main topics of discussions in the early part of the Ibadat Khana.

Finally, it was the socio-cultural environment of that period, which had a

profound impact on Akbar. The Bhakti saints like Kabir and Nanak had laid
emphasis on the one true god, who could be apprehended within their hearts
by constantly dwelling on Him and repeating His name. Like the Sufis, they
also opened their doors to people belonging to all faiths. It was, however,
Akbar’s contacts with Sufi saints like Shaikh Ghaus Gawalyari and his liking
for the masnavis of the liberal sufi thinkers like Rumi and Fiafiz provided him
with an opportunity to become familiar with pantheistic doctrines of fana and
wahdat u’l-wujud that were to shape his policies in the future. It was the latter
philosophy preached by Ibn al-‘Arabi, which taught that all that is not part of
divine reality is an illusion, which in turn led Akbar to believe that either all
religions were equal or all were equally illusionary.

In the first few years of Akbar’s reign the Mughal court was dominated by the
Orthodox Ulama and it wielded a great deal of control over the Emperor. Thus,
in his private conduct Akbar behaved like an orthodox muslim. He religiously
observed his daily prayers, cleaned the mosque with his own hands and even
sent delegations to haj. Satish Chandra has argued that his deference towards
the leading orthodox Sunni personalities prevented any overt breach with the
ulama and he gave them full and independent control over religious affairs. In
this period Akbar was deeply devoted to Makhdumul Mulk Abdullah
Sultanpuri and Sudur Shaikh Abdun Nabi. During this period as Akbar was
busy consolidating his hold over the Empire and his own position, the ulama
dominated affairs. Shaikh Abdun Nabi was appointed the sadr and according
to Badauni no other sadr as ever been as powerful as Abdun Nabi was during
this period. People belonging to other sects like Shi’ite, Mahdawi etc were
persecuted for their belief and orthodox elements were promoted at the
Mughal court.

However, it would be wrong to assume that Akbar was completely under their
influence and was unable to bring about any significant changes in the
traditional orthodox Sunni set up. For instance, Akbar abolished the practice
of enslaving families of prisoners’ of war. Abul Fazl states that this enabled
Akbar to make the wildest and most rebellious factions in the farthest places
of India submit to his rule. In 1562, he abolished the pilgrim tax imposed on
Hindus when they undertook pilgrimages to their sacred and holy spots like
Mathura, claiming it to be a mark of discrimination against non-muslims as a
similar tax was not imposed on the Muslims. Moreover, he also married Raja
Bhar Mal’s daughter Bai Haraka. Although, this tradition of muslim rulers
marrying the daughters of Hindu chiefs had been in existence for some time,
this marriage was the first of its kind as it had not been forced upon the
Rajputs but had been willingly proposed by Raja Bharmal. Moreover, Akbar
allowed his Rajput wives to continue with their religious beliefs and practices
even within the Royal palace.

However, the most important measure adopted by Akbar during this period
was the abolishment of the Jizyah or poll tax amidst strong resentment from
his muslim dignitaries. According to Aziz Ahmad, Akbar’s abolition of jizya
was in conformity with his general policy of liberalism and of legal equality of
all citizens. I.A. Khan sees it in the context of the political challenges and
rebellions faced by Akbar from the side of his Turani nobility. Thus Akbar had
to search for new support groups and he turned to Rajputs as possible allies.
Jaziya, a tax on non-Muslims, was thus abolished, to win them over. Abu’l Fazl
had asserted that the removal of the Jizyah was Akbar’s way of repaying the
Hindus for the loyalty that they had shown him during the early years of his
reign.

However, despite his liberal policy towards the Rajputs, none except the
Kachchwahas of Amber joined the Mughal court. There were instances of
Akbar going back on his tolerant and liberal attitude towards the Hindus. One
such instance was the Chittor campaign that was undertaken in 1567.
Following this, Satish Chandra writes that Akbar, exasperated by the
resistances, ordered a general massacre in the course of which about 30, 000
people were killed. In a fathnama issued after the victory, the battle was seen
as the subjugation of infidels and presented as a ‘jihad’ and all those who died
in the battle as ‘ghazi’. At the same time, in 1569, a farman was issued to Qazi
Abdul Samad, the Muhtasib of Bilgram, to prevent idol-worship by Hindus in
the region. It is also held that jaziya was re-imposed in 1575. However, I.A.
Khan has explained this aggressive attitude as an attempt to appease the
Muslim orthodoxy – the Turani nobles, the Persians, the Shaikhzadas – and to
win their support. Regarding the fathnama, he argues that too much
significance should not be attributed to it. It should be kept in mind that its
language was similar to that of numerous such documents of the medieval
period. Moreover, the war was not a religious one as can be seen from the fact
that the Kachchwahas fought on the side of the Mughals. The farman was an
isolated case and cannot be held as representative of an entire policy. The
Chittor campaign had a political and military reason behind it and should be
seen within the context of the time period during which it was undertaken.
This was the period in which the Mughals were trying to consolidate and
expand their empire and Akbar was willing to adopt military means and force
to bring potential threats to the empire under his control.

Thus, the initial years of Akbar’s reign were characterized by a certain degree
of caution when it came to adopting religious measures. This was largely due
to the presence and dominance of the orthodox sunni ulama, which continued
to hold sway over the affairs of the empire and prevented Akbar from bringing
about revolutionary changes. However, some of the measures that were
adopted by him were indicative enough of his liberal attitude and the
realization of the need to conciliate and win over the non-Muslims.
A change can be seen in Akbar’s religious beliefs around 1573 onwards. This
was a phase of intense discussions and introspection on the part of Akbar
which led to a radical change in his religious views, and deeply affected future
state politics. This according to Badauni was due to the fact that during this
period that Akbar having consolidated his position in India had more time on
his hand to devote to discussions and introspection on issues such as the
Quran and the words of the prophet. He argues that questions of Sufism,
scientific inquiries into philosophy and law had become the orders of the day.
Moreover, Akbar’s growing awareness of the repercussions of the traditional
orthodox Sunni dominance over his administration compelled him to an active
search for new solutions. He therefore encouraged the emergence of a new
elite group, whose spokesman was Abul Fazl. Also, from his early childhood
Akbar had held a special interest in spiritual matters and had felt that the
orthodox view of Islam was not giving him the needed answers. He also had
more time to come into closer contact with ascetics and he slowly started
getting influenced by jogis, qalandars and sanyasis. This was probably due to
their disregard of established norms of religion, a theme that can be noticed
throughout Akbar’s religious thought. K.A.Nizami calls this phase of Akbar’s
reign as being one of general apathy to Islam.

It was this attitude and realization that forms the background to the
establishment of the Ibadat Khana or the Hall of Prayers at Fatehpur Sikri in
1575. The opening up of such a hall for religious purposes was by no means a
no or revolutionary step. The Muslims, like Jews and Christians, had always
indulged in public arguments on points of theology to satisfy intellect
curiosity and to prove the superiority of their faith over other religions. This
was a practice that was encouraged by the Delhi Sultans as well, who had
convened assemblies consisting of scholars of varied opinions to settle
disputed matters. Akbar too, having a keen interest in religious and
intellectual discussion, hoped to educate himself and satisy his soul through
these discussions.

At first, the Ibadat Khana debates were open only to Muslims. Only Sufi saints,
ulama, learned men and a few of the Emperor’s companions and attendants
were admitted. The participants were divided into four groups: nobles;
saiyids; sufis; and ulama and learned men. The Emperor went from group to
group and conversed with each of the groups. However, the most lively
discussion was in the group of theologians. The discussions that took place in
the Ibadat Khana were by no means original or startling and had been
discussed since the beginning of Islam. Till the time the Sunni orthodoxy
dominated the court the discussions centered around dominant Islamic topics
like Muhammad’s night journey to heaven, miracles of the prophets, truth
regarding the demons, angels and other supernatural beings and the verses of
the Quran and their possible interpretations. The Ulama adopted a very rigid
line during these discussions and did not go beyond quoting Ghazali. On most
occasions, however, the discussions would be reduced to bickering and fault-
finding among the ulama with main issue of discussion being relegated to the
background.

By 1577, the continued bickering and quarrellings of the ulama disillusioned

the Emperor and exposed the duplicity of the orthodoxy. While Akbar had
stated again and again that his sole objective through this assembly was “to
ascertain the truth and discover the reality”, the ulama had other intentions.
They wanted to establish their superiority over the others, and tried to
compel their opponents into submission. Most of times this would create a
situation wherein the ulama would lose it completely and be on the verge of
getting violent with each other. This forced Baduni to call it an ‘Iyatdat Khana’,
meaning a place of worthless people. Slowly, special efforts were made to
increase the presence of distinguished Sufis with the activities of the Ibadat
Khana. Before long the debates were opened to Shias as well. This widened
the scope of discussions within the assembly. However, the uncompromising
attitude of the shi’ites convinced the Emperor that they were as
narrowminded and fanatical as their Sunni counterparts.

It was a mystical experience in 1578 that changed the nature of the Ibadat
Khana discussions. The religious discussions were now opened to Hindus of
all sects, Jains, Christians and Zorastrians. This further widened the scope of
discussion and exposed Akbar to new beliefs and customs. For instance, the
presence of Parsi priests stimulated his interest in the fire worship of the
ancient Iranian Emperors and he was soon convinced that fire was one of the
signs of the Almighty. The entry of so many different factions, however
apparently led to further confusion. A modern historian, R.P. Tripathi, says,
"Instead of bringing credit, the Ibadat Khana brought growing discredit."
Akbar himself became convinced of the futility of these debates, and closed
finally the Ibadat Khana in 1582.
Thus, while people like Badauni may have called the Ibadat Khana experiment
to be a failure the discussions had important consequences. The first phase of
the discussion exposed the ignorance of the ulama. The results of the
discussion were disastrous for those who continued to cling on to the
antiquated interpretations of Islamic theology. The second round of
discussions produced a more positive result. It convinced Akbar, according to
Badauni, of the fact that all religions had elements of truth and that all of them
led to the same supreme reality. The discussions in the Ibadat Khana
revolutionized Akbar’s thinking. This played an important role in the
development of Akbar’s own religious ideas and led to the evolution of the
concept of sulh-i-kul or peace between all religions. The debates convinced
him that “not a single step should be taken without strong reason.” The only
profitable creed was the one that wisdom approved. Thus, these discussions
helped in paving the way for the rise of a new liberal, tolerant state.

Inspite of the exposure of their bigotry, factionalism and narrow-mindness

during the Ibadat Khana discussions the ulama did not see the need to
abandon their personal rivalries and traditional orthodox thinking. It was this
attitude, which had led to their eventual downfall and the introduction of the
Mazharnama. The immediate background to the Mahzar was a division among
the ulama caused due to the nature of punishment to be given, according to
the shariya to a Brahman from Mathura, who had abused the Prophet and
Islam. Akbar had left the decision to Shaikh Abdun Nabi thinking that he
would make the right decision. However, he ordered the execution of the
Brahman, which completely shocked the Emperor. Moreover, it was also
discovered that Shaikh Abdun Nabi had ordered the execution of a number of
Afghans and Shi’ite on the basis of their different belief systems. These
incidents and other charges of corruption and hoarding of wealth against the
ulama made Akbar realize the need for certain measures to control the ulama.
Moreover, he realized that in a country where men of varied sects and
religious groups lived a working administrative machinery could not be
achieved without making the religious laws flexible and their interpretation
liberal. At this time Shaikh Mubarak told Akbar to make a claim to the ijtihad
and demand from the orthodoxy a mahzar.

Thus, in 1579 the Mazharnama was issued and signed by the leading
theologians of the time; some of them. Badauni tells us that, except for Shaikh
Mubarak, all the members of the ulama had to be coerced into signed it. The
word ‘Mahzar’ indicates a document that is publicly attested. According to this
document, which was in the form of a petition, the ulama gave Akbar the right
to adopt any position in case of a conflict among the orthodoxy, and that
position would be held as superior.
In the mahzar it was declared, that Akbar was “the sultan of Islam” and other
attributes of the khalifa were bestowed upon the Emperor. Secondly,citing
Quran and some Hadis that a just and wise ruler like Akbar not only had the
right to claim the allegiance of everyone, but that his position was higher than
a mujtahid (interpreter of holy laws) in the eyes of God. Shaikh Mubarak calls
him the inam-i-adil or the inam of the age. It was also written that Akbar
himself could issue any degree which did not go against the nas i.e. explicit
decree of Quran, and the hadis and is “calculated to benefit humanity at large.”
Any opposition to such a degree passed by His Majesty would “involve divine
displeasures in this world and the next.”

It is worth noting that the Mahzar has been reproduced by Badauni and not by
Abul Fazl, probably since it had little in common with the concept of universal
kingship propounded by Abul Fazl. In the Mahzar, the king’s title as head of all
orthodox Muslims (Amir-ul-Munim and Badshah-i-Islam) depends on the
sanction of the ulema. However, according to Abul Fazl’s theory, kingship is
recognized as a divine attribute, commutated by God to kings without the
assistance of anyone. He refers to Akbar as insane-i-kamil, or the perfect man,
above all religious and sectarian differences. .

There has been a great deal of debate over the implications and meaning of
the Mahzar. V.A. Smith translated the Mahzar as an “infallibility decree”,
influenced by the Papacy. This also established his control over the ulema,
since he had a final say in choosing among the various opinions. However, the
document is in the form of a prayer/petition, not a command. Also, Akbar did
not claim to be a khalifa, who could interpret laws. In fact it is clear that his
was a role where he could choose between different interpretations, or
between rulings given by earlier law givers, bearing in mind political
exigencies and needs of government. S.M. Ikram and S.A. Rashid, two Pakistani
historians say that “...studied carefully and dispassionately, it appears to be a
major constructive effort, fully in conformity with the Islamic Law and
providing a basis for the adjustment of temporal government and the Shariat."
However, the authors go on to say. "But the limitations laid down in the
Declaration of 1579 were not observed by Akbar, and in practice it became an
excuse for the exercise of unrestrained autocracy.”

According to some scholars like Smith, Akbar was trying to free himself of
allegiance to the Ottoman Khalifa by presenting himself as the Khalifa to
whom the Indian Muslims should owe allegiance. But Satish Chandra
contradicts this, saying that the Ottoman Khalifa had never demanded their
allegiance in the first place. Smith further says that Akbar was placing himself
in the context of the 3 important states in Central Asia and wanted to show
himself as superior to these. This has been critiqued by Buckler and M.N.
Raychaudhuri. Both have analyzed the Mahzar in the international context.
They argue that Akbar was trying to fix his position in the Muslim world and
free himself from the political and judicial control the Shias of Iran. This is
based on the interpretation of the terms ‘mujtahid’ and ‘nawab’. The former is
seen as referring to Shia scholars, while the latter is taken to mean the deputy,
perhaps of the Safavid ruler of Persia. Thus, by calling himself inam-i-adil, he
was freeing himself from the control of Persia. However, there is no concrete
evidence of the Mughal state being under any kind of control of Persia. The
word ‘nawab’ had a different meaning in the Persian tradition and was a high-
sounding title to refer to the Mughal rulers.

I.H. Qureshi is critical of Akbar and his ideological outlook, blaming him for
starting the decline of the Mughals. He calls the Mahzar a dishonest document.
He further argues that Akbar was not qualified enough to decide which
opinion ought to prevail as he was illiterate. He said the purpose of the
Mahzar was to instigate the differences among the ulama and then posing as
the arbitrator to help his own cause. He goes on to say that eventually it
resulted in the decline of Islam since the orthodoxy lost its dominant position.
However, there have been criticisms of this point as well. It has been widely
accepted that the ulema were already a divided class and hence the Mazhar
could not have been intended to achieve this final division. Also the Mahzar
was not absolute and did not curtail the legitimate powers of the ulama but
only stopped the indiscriminate use of authority by them. Finally, the question
of the Emperor’s interference only arose when there was serious dispute on
controversial issues when there was a need to get an authoritative opinion
from the mujtahids. Thus, it could not have led to an unnecessary increase in
the power of the Emperor.

I.A. Khan says that the full significance of the Mahzar can be appreciated only
if it is viewed against the background of Akbar’s general attitude of promoting
and befriending the Indian Muslims. It coincides with a series of other
measures by which Akbar strove to show that he respected religions other
than Islam as well and wasn’t willing to accept the orthodox interpretation of
the sharia, unless it appealed to reason. S.R. Sharma and A.L. Srivastava argue
that the Mahzar was aimed at replacing the sharia. However, this cannot be
accepted. It is a simplistic view that overlooks the complexities of the
situation.

Nurul Hasan discusses the significance of the Mahzar at 3 levels. Firstly, at the
international level, Hasan says that the document was important keeping in
mind that all the medieval political traditions. While the Uzbeks and the
Ottomans took up the Sunni cause, the Persians identified with the Shia faith.
But by the Mahzar, Akbar was freeing the Mughal state from being identified
with anyone specific ideology. Secondly, at a political level, it was important in
dealing with the orthodoxy and checking the influence of the powerful groups
in the nobility. It placed the state above the ulema. Also helped control
corruption in the madad-i-maash grants. And finally, Its imperial significance
lay in the fact that at a time when a composite state was evolving, it allowed
the state to take decisions not according to the orthodoxy but the political
demands of the time. It relieved Akbar from the responsibility of consulting
the state before taking a political decision. This attempt to delink from Islamic
orthodoxy was important at a time when the state was pursuing an alliance
with the Rajputs.

The real significance of the Mahzar, it seems, was that “it was the first effective
declaration of the principles (of sulh kul) which he (Akbar) had decided to
implement firmly”, according to Rizvi. He further goes on to say that the
Mahzar was designed to bring all matters affecting the life and wellbeing of his
subjects, both Hindus and Muslims, directly under the Emperor’s name. This
sought to remove the possibility of playing with the interests of the people in
the name of orthodoxy or Islam. Even Jahangir asserted that it was during the
reign of his father that people belonging to different sects and religions had
freedom in the Mughal dominions to practice their religion and this was
something that didn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Moreover, the Mazhar
reiterated the importance of justice and that it was the foremost political
virtue and necessity. It stated that the orders passed by the Emperor should
be based on Quranic injunctions and calculated to do good to the people. It
was meant to remind the ulama that the state machinery was meant to do
good to people. Finally, the mazhar succeeded in curbing the power of the
orthodox ulama. After this, there is decline in their position and they cease to
play an important role in the court. Peter Hardy states that the mazhar in the
long run was not very significant but it was the environment that it had
created, which was far more important. It had put an end to the bigots and
orthodox elements in the Mughal ruling elite, thereby, allowing the free
development of the generous spirit which Akbar wished to encourage.

Once the mazhar had been signed it was evident that Akbar would chart his
own course and a final breach between the ulama and Akbar seemed
inevitable. Moreover, by 1579 the two leading figures Abdullah Sultanpuri and
Shaikh Abdun Nabi were permanently banished to the Mecca. In 1580, there
was a major rebellion by the Turanis. Scholars like Smith believe that it was a
reaction against the religious policies of Akbar. However, Rizvi believes that
the rebellion was because of dissatisfaction brewing over strict enforcement
of laws about branding of horses by mansabdars, reduction of their
allowances and the revenue reforms, and not because of any religious factors.
The factor that compelled the ulama to spearhead the rebellion was not
because of the mazhar or the banishment of the leading ulama but the
reduction of their own madad-I ma’ash grants. It was infact the participation
of the ulama in this rebellion, which gave the Emperor an excuse to
permanently crush the disloyal section of the ulama. The break with the ulama
also needs to be seen in terms of the broadening of the base of the political
structure where indigenous elements were increasingly becoming a vital part
of the state machinery. In such a situation, the Mughal state could no longer
afford to follow orthodox policies.
According to Rizvi, it was the crystallization of Akbar’s ideological beliefs and
the culmination of the measures taken by him in the past 20 years of his reign
that resulted in a new state policy in the last 25 years of his reign. The defeat
of the ulama as seen above was one such factor that helped Akbar in adopting
these principles. The central feature of this policy was the strong commitment
to the principles of Sulh-i-Kul or universal peace and harmony between all
religions. This was the key message that he wished to communicate.
According to Athar Ali, Akbar not only tolerated men of all faiths but Shi’as as
well and prohibited Shia-Sunni conflict, which he argues was the chief feature
of the last 25 years of his reign. It is during this period that many scholars
have alleged that Akbar evolved his own religion called Din-i-Ilahi or Tauhid-i-
Ilahi, which was meant to absorb all religions.

However, the character of Tauhid-i-Ilahi has been debated; whether it was a

religion or not. Badauni and others have accused Akbar of starting his own
religion in which he himself was the leader. Once again, some modern scholars
see the elaborate initiation rituals as reflective of his desire to set up a new
religion. However, this could not have been possible because a religion is a set
of beliefs, which develop over time in an organized manner and among a
number of people. Akbar’s new “religion”, on the other hand, had no formal
structure. Moreover, the Tauhid-i-Ilahi did not have any priesthood, rituals or
beliefs, and no books. In fact, there is no clear date about when it was
established. Prof. S.R. Sharma also states that Akbar himself did not aim at
establishing any new religion. It seems thus that this was merely Akbar’s
personal faith, which he welcomed people to join in.

At this point it would be important to understand the personal faith and belief
of Akbar, which shaped his new “religion”. The crux of Akbar's religious
beliefs was his faith in uncompromising monotheism or Tauhid-i-Ilahi, based
largely on the Islamic philosopher, Ibn-i-Arabi. ‘Tauhid’ in this case can mean
‘unity of God’ and the idea may be interpreted as divine monotheism. Apart
from the belief in monotheism, Akbar also adopted a different approach to the
worship of god that was independent of orthodox Hinduism or Islam. He was
inspired by Sufism that stated that God was formless and could n be grasped
in any form except by the greatest efforts of the mind i.e. meditation. Thus, he
rejected the idol worship of Hindus and the prayer rituals of the Muslims.
Moreover, he believed that man was responsible to god for his every act and
thus for him as an emperor the dispensing of justice and administering the
world was the real mode of worship. Abu’l Fazl also states that Akbar’s belief
in god was heavily influenced by pantheism and it is for this reason that he
gave respect to light (nur), which led to spiritual elevation on the one hand
and was reflected in the sun and fire. Finally, he condemned taqlid or
imitation, arguing that if taqlid was desirable then all prophets would have
merely followed old customs and not brought about new laws. Thus, Akbar
believed in aql or reason as opposed to naql or imitation. He subject even
Islam to rational thinking. It is for this reason that after 1580 Islam in Akbar’s
court came to be divided into- the taqlidi by the orthodox and the ijtihadi
(based on truth or reasoning) followed by the unorthodox. However, this was
not restricted only to Islam. He believed that all religions of that time were
based on taqlid and this was obscuring people from realizing the basic truth,
which according to him existed in every religion. Moreover, he believed that it
was this suppression of reasoning and the complete dependence on taqlid that
was preventing the spirit of Sulh-I Kul from emerging in India up to now. It is
for this reason that he did not identify himself with any one religion though he
tried to show respect for all of them.

A number of reasons have been put forth for the evolution of this ‘religion’.
Abul Fazl links the concept of Tauhid-i-Ilahi with the concept of Akbar being
the spiritual guide of the people. According to him, the purpose of Tauhid-i-
Ilahi was to find a common ground between din (religion) and duniya (worldly
affairs)- the two things that people turn to. According to Fazl whenever
anyone mustered the courage to express their worldly thoughts it could lead
to a major backlash and it was to prevent such a situation that there was a
need for a spiritual leader. The fact that Akbar was the best versed in the
affairs of the state made him the best man to be head or a spiritual guide.
Nizami suggests that Akbar wanted to use religion for his political advantage.
As the empire expanded, it now included people of different faiths. So Akbar
thought it necessary to broaden the base of the empire. To achieve this, he
tried to establish a composite governing class and a state that would not
discriminate on the basis of religion. Rizvi and Richards also see it as an
effective means to assimilate a heterogeneous nobility, especially the Rajputs.

One of the chief features of Din-i-Ilahi were the four degrees of faith, which are
often confused with Din-i-Ilahi itself. This was first discussed by Badauni.
These degrees consisted in the readiness to sacrifice to the Emperor property,
life, honour and religion. Whoever had sacrificed these things possessed the
four degrees. Fazl tells us that Akbar believed that the Rajputs, on account of
their loyalty and bravery, already possessed these four degrees as did the
Hindu women due to their practice of Sati. However, it seems that Akbar was
very selective in choosing those who qualified for the four degrees of
devotion. Thus, Blochman, who has translated the Ain into English has
compiled a list of only 18 nobles who qualified for these degrees and were
thus incorporated into the divine faith. Contrary to popular belief these
degrees did not have a religious significance but were motivated by political
fators. Rizvi states that there was a growing scarcity of officials of high
integrity and uprightness who could effectively handle the political and
military needs of the expanding empire. In this situation, the four degrees of
Faith provided the ideological force, which sought to unify the new Mughal
elite around the Mughal throne.

Another feature of this new policy was the practice of enrolling disciples. Abu’l
Fazl describes the initiation ceremony. The novice was expected to place his
head at the feet of the Emperor, which was symbolic of the fact that the novice
had cast aside conceit and selfishness. It is interesting to note that Akbar
started this policy only after the rebellion of 1581. According to Satish
Chandra, it was in a situation like this that Akbar wanted the absence of
sectarian and religious strife in the country and complete loyalty towards him
on the part of the nobility. J.F. Richards has argued that discipleship was the
most effective way to assimilate a heterogeneous body of nobles and bind
them to the throne.

After from the discipleship the practice of Jharokha Darshan was also
introduced. He stood on the balcony at sunrise and presented himself to the
ordinary people. This was done to present the king as semi-divine. The
practical implication of this measure was immense as it made the Mughal
throne an object of both love and adoration. Thus, it can be seen that these
features of Din-i Ilahi were motivated by political factors and did not have
much religious significance.

The character of Din-i-Ilahi has raised questions about the impact that Akbar
had on Islam because of his new state policy. A number of contemporary and
modern scholars have, on the basis of Din-i-Ilahi, suggested that Akbar
deviated from the path of Islam. Badauni due to his inherent biases has
presented Akbar as a heretic who abandoned Islam, suppressed Islamic rituals
and persecuted the ulema. He argued that Akbar rejected inspiration,
prophethood, the miracles of the prophet and of the saints and even the Sharia
and due to this in course of time “not a trace of Islam was left in his mind”.
Jesuit missionaries at Akbar’s court too appear confused about his Sulh-i-Kul
policy. Monserrate asserts that it was not clear what religion he follows and
his actions made it clear that he was not a practicing Muslim. Another muslim
theologian of Jahangir’s time wrote that it was only with Jahangir’s accession
to the throne that Islam was revived in India as under Akbar the Muslim
prayer was heard by no one and the mosques, madrassas and khanqas had
been abodes of beasts and birds. Similarly, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi asserts that
while other religions were allowed to practice their rights muslims were
prevented from doing so.

Some modern scholars like Qureshi also believe that this period was “the
darkest hour” for Islam, as it opened the doors for entry of all kinds of
extraneous elements, thereby, endangering the basic muslim identity. Thus,
while Qureshi believes that Akbar did not ask his subjects to abjure from
Islam but only its orthodox form and nor did he abandon Islam himself, the
Islam being followed by him was a parody of its original form and this lead to
the demoralization of the people. This view has been echoed even by
S.M.Ikram and S.A.Rashid. They argue that while Akbar may not have aspired
to start a new religion that he could head, Islam lost its prominence and many
of Akbar’s practices and regulations differed widely from the normal Muslim
practices. Thus, they believe that on the basis of these arguments it would be
no surprise if the people of that time thought that Akbar had gone outside the
pale of Islam.

However, a number of modern historians have rejected these view points.

Athar Ali writes that the accusations were all from the bitter ulema, who were
complaining against the curbs put on their revenue grants and political
ambitions rather than because of any “anti-Islamic” policies. However it
cannot be denied that he moved away from the orthodox form of the religion.
Central to this were the policies of sulh-i-kul and wahdat-ul-wajud, which in
essence denoted his break from the ulama. However, at the same time Athar
Ali states that there were instances of Mosque construction even in the later
years of Akbar’s reign, no evidence of persecution of people who preached
their religion openly and even the cow slaughter did not amount to
suppression of any Islamic ritual. It was just meant to respect the sentiments
of the majority community of India. Thus, it seemed unlikely that Akbar
completely abjured from Islam. According to Rizvi, Din-i-Ilahi was neither a
religious nor a mystical order. It was just an attempt made by the Emperor to
prevent the Sunni orthodoxy from using the state to serve their own interests
at the cost of other communities. It is only for this reason that he deviated
from the earlier practices of Islam that had become symbolic of orthodoxy. He
goes on to say that the Sunnis were aggrieved not because the Hindus were
tolerated but because they had been elevated from a status of being “obedient
to Islam” to equal partners in the kingdom. It was this that prompted them to
denounce Akbar’s measures and call him a heretic. Satish Chandra also agrees
with this view point and believes that it the ulama was agitating not because
of the loss of an Islamic identity but Islam’s primacy and with that their own
position of primacy in the state. I.A.Khan argues that Akbar’s desire to apply
the principles of Sulh-I Kul may have forced him to part company with the
rigid and orthodox elements of Islam that continued to be a hindrance to his
vision.

In conclusion it would be correct to say that Akbar’s religious measures

including Din-i-Ilahi were influenced by his own liberal attitude as well as by
the existing political situation in the country. It is for this reason that many
modern scholars prefer to look upon these measures as political devices since
Akbar never tried to force his own personal religious beliefs on anyone. It was
the need to integrate the variant and divergent interests existing in the
Empire that compelled Akbar to adopt a number of liberal measures and
eventually evolve a set of mutually consistent religious ideas derived from a
multiplicity of sources but processed by a considerable reason and his own
personal beliefs. The set of ideas that evolved in the latter half of his reign is
known as Sulh-i-Kul and it was the application of these principles that lead to
incorporation of various faiths, sects and ideas into a once Muslim
predominated polity. It was the emergence of this integrated ruling class
based on the principles of liberalism, justice and equal treatment to all faiths
that was the biggest success of his measures and which were completely
misunderstood by the orthodox elements of that time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 S.A.Rizvi- Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims

 Satish Chandra- Medieval India; Volume II

 Irfan Habib(Ed.)- Akbar and His Age: Chapter 7, Akbar’s Personality

Traits and World Outlook- I.A.Khan

 I.A.Khan- The Nobility Under Akbar and the Development of His

Religious Policy, 1560-80

 M. Athar Ali- Sulh-I Kul and the Religious Ideas of Akbar

 S. Nurul Hasan- The “Mahzar” of Akbar’s Reign

 S.A.Rizvi- Dimensions of Sulh-I Kul in Akbar’s Reign and the Sufi theory
of Perfect Man

 Aziz Ahmad- Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment