Battle of Badr (624 A.D /2 A.H.)

Battle of Badr:

                             Battle of Badr are as follows,

Causes: 

            (1)   The frustration of the leader of the hypocrites, Abdulllah Bin Ubbay in Madina. Disappointed by

Abdullah's failure in Madina, the Quraish began to stimulate the inmates of the land lying between Makkah

and Madina against Muslims.

               

             (2)   At the meadows of Madina Kurz Bin Jabir attacked and looted some animals.

           

             (3) Murder of Amr bin hazrami; The Holy Prophet (PBUH) sent a group of 10 to keep an eye on

enemy. Both parties met and murder of Amir bin Hazarami, a Quraish leader, took place mistakably.  The

Holy Prophet (PBUH) paid the blood money too.

           

            (4) Permission and obligation of Jihad in first year of Hijra.

            (5)  The Muslims intended to attack the wealthy caravan of Abu Safyan carrying merchandise but failed. Abu Jahl came with army to save his caravan and consequently the Muslims and Army of Makkah gathered at Badr to fight. 

EVENT: 

                   Muslim Army 313. Infidels Army 1000, Muslims got martyrdom 14, No. of  Army of Makkans killed 70, Unbelievers arrested 70.

Result:

               Victory of Muslims.

Aurangzeb; Religious policy

Aurangzeb; Religious policy, The Ideas:

 

Introduction:

                  Muhi-ud-din Muhammad Auranzeb was born on 3rd November, 1618(N.S) at Dohad near Ujjain.1 At early age he became a good scholar of Arabic and Persian, and learned Turki and Hindi as well. While he did not care for painting, music and other fine arts. At the end of 1634A.D, he was appointed mansabdar of 10,000Zat and 4,000Sawar. Then he was given charge of Bundela expedition against Jujhar Singh of Orchha, which was his first experience of war and diplomacy. So, from the very early age he acquired reputation as a good soldier, administrator and diplomat.

                 Aurangzeb was staunch Muslim who could not go against the law of Islam.5 This orthodoxy misinterpreted by historians, i.e he was intolerant to other religions. While in his own book (Waqi-i-Alamgiri) he stated, "No person shall in unlawful way interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and the other Hindus resident in their places."

                 The "Ideas" of Aurangzeb can be judged from his personality. His personality can be studied from two dimensions; as a religious man and as a statesman. As a religious man he was staunch Muslim and careful and conciliatory to non-Muslims.
                As a statesman Aurangzeb attended in person every detail of state’s administration. Due to his long term, campaigns and reduction of taxes, financially he became weak. Toward rebels and his opponents he was conciliatory in a limit while he was more conciliatory and merciful toward his allies.

Aurangzeb’s Religious policy:

Facts:

Aurangzeb’s Farman:

                   Aurangzeb addressed Abul-Hassan, the governor of Benares, which clearly shows that the Emperor was tolerant to Hindus. He stated that, “Since… all our upright intentions are engaged in promoting the public welfare and bettering the conditions of all classes, high and low; therefore accordance with our Holy law, we have decided that ancient temples shall not be overthrown, but the new one shall not be built… no person shall in unlawful way interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and other Hindu residents in the places, so that they may as before, remain in their occupation and continue with peace of mind to offer prayer for the continuance of our God-given Empire.” (J.A.S.B. and Waqi-i-Alamgiri).

Appointment of non-Muslim on high ranks offices:

                  A Farman addressed by Aurangzeb that there should be one hindu and one muslim on each of the civil and military departments of the state.There were a good number of Hindus who occupied the key posts in the civil and military department of the state during his reign. Jaswant singh who caused untold trouble and suffering to the Mughals and who went against the emperor in the war of succession and in the battle of KHAJWA. He not only pardoned him for his treacherous conduct and honored him with position of power and trust. Many Rajputs princes for Aurangzeb against the Hindus as his soldiers and generals. Such as jai singh who sent by aurangzaib to punish shiva je (1665).
Responsibility of Aurangzeb’s religious policy towards the decline of mughal empire in the view of historians:

Religious intolerance:

In the view of historians Aurangzeb was intolerant towards non-Muslims. In issuing ordinance, Aurangzeb was not favoring Hindus, but only enforcing Islamic law. He would destroy new temples and would not allow old temples to be repaired, but he would not permit old temples to be demolished. While on the other place the writer said that these restrictions did not apply on rajputs, not presumably to the other Hindu material communities whose services Aurangzeb needed. This shows two opposite interpretations of the writer.
             One writer gave the reference of Manucci that the higher of the court who were Hindus should not longer hold their charges. While in contrast he written that in the second half of the Aurangzeb’s reign the percentage of Hindu officers was higher than ever before under the Mughals___ in the rank of commander of 5,000 and above, it was 32.9% under Aurangzeb as against 14% under Akbar’s reign; among all officers of the rank of 500 and above, it was 31.6% under Aurangzeb as against 22.5% under Akbar’s reign.
         Orthodox personality of Aurangzeb is described by historians as anti-Hindu. That during the reign of Aurangzeb’s predecessor’s large number of Hindus was made Mansabdar. But Aurangzeb, however, avoided this practice. Thus total number of Hidus Mansabdar fell.18  While some historians accepted that the number of Hindus, holding high position in the Mughal service under Aurangzeb was greater than any of his predecessor.
The historian tried to prove that the religious policy of Auaranzeb caused the opposition of Hindus which caused the decline of Mughal Empire. It is said that Auarangzeb bigotry was responsible for the Hindu revivalist movement. There is little doubt that even if there had been no Aurangzeb the Hindu revivalist movement would have come.

The Ideas of Aurangzeb:

              The Ideas of a person can be judged from his actions. Aurangzeb ruled almost 50 years, which shows that he had sage political Ideas. On the other hand the historians considered him staunch Muslim and were conciliatory toward non-Muslims which show that he had responsible personality.

Aurangzeb as a statesman and historians:

              As a ruler, Aurangzeb attended in person to every detail of the state administration. He was past master in diplomacy. He could not be beaten in any kind of intrigue or secret manipulation. He was a master of pen and sword. On the other hand some historians considered him a fail administrator. One writer stated that his excessive distrust of officials and constant interference in the business of different department kept the local officials in a state of uncertainty and destroyed their initiative and efficiency. This led to administrative degeneration. If his direct interference in state business was degenerated his administration system then how was it possible that he ruled almost 50 years with success.

Aurangzeb policies:

              The policies of Aurangzeb were of different kinds; his financial policy, his imperialistic policy, his military policy and his diplomatic policy.

Financial policy:

          When Aurangzeb sat on the throne, in the economic sphere he showed a determined opposition to all illegal exactions (abwab) and all the taxes which not authorized by Islamic law. On the other hand his imperialistic design became a burden on treasury of the state. It shows that Aurangzeb no bright idea about economy.

Imperialistic policy:

        During the long reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached to its maximum extent. Imperialistic idea of Aurangzeb can be judged through his expansionist policy. As an imperial authority he is considered on the front on Mughal’s dynasty.

Military policy:

           Aurangzeb was following the same military system as his predecessors were adopted i.e. Mansabdari system. The vast empire and his successful campaigns indicated that he was a great general and had healthy and strong military system.

Diplomatic policy:

           Aurangzeb was a past master in diplomacy. In his diplomatic field he was the man of conciliatory approach. Some historians criticized him that he reversed the Rajput policy of Akbar. In fact, he rejected the matrimonial alliances with Rajputs, he adopted the conciliatory approach to Rajputs, on the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh Aurangzeb ordered the two widows of Maharaja Jaswant Singh to be detained at the Mughal court along with their sons. Aurangzeb was not willing to subjugate Rajputs but he wanted to protect the successors of Maharaja from other chiefs who were in the lust of power.
            An emperor can’t bear rebellious activity in his empire so, when Marathas started rebellious activities against the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb was compelled to pressurize them. Till the death of Aurangzeb were able to start rebellious activities against the emperor.
              Aurangzeb has been criticized on the eve of crushing Sikh community. No doubt he did this, not because of an anti- non-Muslims policy but because of the political activities of Sikhs; such as Guru Govind Singh organized the Khalsa into military organization which compelled him to suppress them.
              Aurangzeb was a staunch Muslim but it did not mean that he was against non-Muslims. As a statesman he was just a ruler and not a religious man because he started his first campaign against the people of North West Frontier who were Muslims and next campaign was against Golcunda and Bijapur whose rulers were also Muslims.

Critical analysis/Conclusion:

                                      Aurangzeb has been criticized by historians on the eve of his religious policy and administration. In the regime of Aurangzeb Hindus had not an energetic opportunity to stand against Aurangzeb, because the sources of communication among the states were strengthen and among Hindu rajas or chiefs were weak and this situation became opposite in Aurangzeb’s successor’s regime.
In Aurangzeb’s regime Hindus were in the process of development and in the reign of his successors they had achieved a bit development, like their communication became stronger. There was no direct relation between villages in Aurangzeb’s reign. Being a strong and effective ruler his central government was effective and controlled the remote areas effectively. The successors of Auangzeb were not as much effective to control remote states through central government and Subadars and Jagirdars enjoyed virtual autonomy.
The provincial chiefs wanted to strengthen themselves against central government and Hindu rajas being unable to overthrown the provincial chiefs, made alliances with chiefs and shared power with them, which empowered the governors and the Hindu community and some provincial chiefs declared their states independent.
The fall of the Mughal power has been, by some, regarded in term of Muslims decline and Hindu revival, a view which has been challenged by such scholars as Dr. Tara Chand and Dr. Percival Spear. According to former, the Hindus and Muslims culture were both in this period static and stagnant as compared with new outlook on life of the European people under the Intellectual revolution of the age of reason or Enightenment which posed intricate economic, political and social problems or worldwide significance.
The death of Aurangzeb on March 3, 1707 A.C. is generally regarded as marking the beginning of the end of the Mughal Empire. If implication is to hold Aurangzeb responsible for creating situation which brought about the disintegration of the empire then such an inference is neither nor fair, that Alamgir battled with internal and external enemies of empire courageously, no one would deny. For nearly half a century he maintained the power and prestige of Mughal Empire, sustained the unity of the country. So dear to him and kept the ship of the state on an even keel. These were his great administrative malaise of empire was so deep-rooted that no one could have permanently cured it.In short it can be said that Aurangzeb can not be directed for the decline of the Mughal Empire because Aurangzeb is the least understood of Indian monarchs.

Golden Age of Islam

Islamic Golden Age

                                                                         

The Abbasid dynasty rose to power in 750, consolidating the gains of the earlier Caliphates. Initially, they conquered Mediterranean islands including the Balearics and Sicily. The ruling party had come to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the Ummayads, cultivated by the Abbasid revolutionary Abu Muslim. Under the Abbasids Islamic civilization flourished. Most notable was the development of Arabic prose and poetry, termed by The Cambridge History of Islam as its "golden age". Commerce and industry (considered a Muslim Agricultural Revolution) and the arts and sciences (considered a Muslim Scientific Revolution) also prospered under Abbasid caliphs al-Mansur (ruled 754 — 775), Harun al-Rashid (ruled 786 — 809), al-Ma'mun (ruled 809 — 813) and their immediate successors.

Universal Golden period

Eastern hemisphere's States and Empires (820) Abbasid Caliphate
Aghlabids
Idrisid dynasty Multan
Sultans of Sindh
Iberian Umayyads

Decentralized territory
Umayyads (Córdoba)
Idrisids (Berbers)
Rustamid (Ibādiyya of Tahirid)
Aghlabids (Emirate of Ifriqiya)
Tulunids/Irshkids
Qarmatians (Carmathians) Buyjids (Tahirids)
Alijds (Ziyarids)
Hamdanid (Marwanid/Uqaylid)
Samanids (Greater Khorasan)
Saffrids (Baloch)
Sajids (Shirvanshah)

Regions are approximate, consult particular article for details.


The capital was moved from Damascus to Baghdad, due to the importance placed by the Abbasids upon eastern affairs in Persia and Transoxania. At this time the caliphate showed signs of fracture amid the rise of regional dynasties. Although the Ummayad family had been killed by the revolting Abbasids, one family member, Abd ar-Rahman I, escaped to Spain and established an independent caliphate there in 756. In the Maghreb, Harun al-Rashid appointed the Arab Aghlabids as virtually autonomous rulers, although they continued to recognise central authority. Aghlabid rule was short-lived, and they were deposed by the Shiite Fatimid dynasty in 909. By around 960, the Fatimids had conquered Abbasid Egypt, building a capital there in 973 called "al-Qahirah" (meaning "the planet of victory", known today as Cairo). In Persia the Turkic Ghaznavids snatched power from the Abbasids. Abbasid influence had been consumed by the Great Seljuq Empire (a Muslim Turkish clan which had migrated into mainland Persia) by 1055.

The sayings of Hazrat Umar (R.A).

The sayings of Hazrat Umar

Hazrat Umar said that: 

       

 "Remember all ye people: I have been given the rule over you on the assumption of being the best qualified and strongest among you and the ablest of you to conduct your general affairs. O God, I am harsh, soften me; I am weak, strengthen me; I am stingy, render me generous."

THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY PROPHET (PBUH)

THE CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY PROPHET (PBUH) 

                 A character analysis and personality estimation of the Holy Prophet (PBHU) ranks him highest in the world. He was certainly a man of many parts. He was a successful general, an able administrator a wise law-given, a skillful military organiser, a brave soldier, a trusted friend a faithful husband, and above all an embodiment of all the virtues that could possibly be found in all human beings. Throughout Makkan period, He showed extreme restraint and never let His enemies raise finger at His character. He was called Sadiq (truthful) and Amin. All aspects of his personality are so illuminating that we can get guidance from them.

What is Mulism Modernism

Muslim Modernism

Introduction

Muslim Modernism is a movement that has been described as "the first Muslim ideological response" to the cultural challenges which attempts to reconcile Islamic faith with modern values regarding nationalism, democracy, civil rights, rationality, equality and progress. It featured a "critical reexamination of the classical conceptions and methods of jurisprudence" and a new approach to Islamic theology and Quranic exegesis.
Characteristics of the Muslim Modernism
Response to threats from European colonialism in late 19th, early 20th centuries Consisted of legal, educational and social reforms aimed at rescuing Muslim societies from their decline and demonstrating the compatibility of Islam with modern Western thoughts and values Used by Muslim governments to justify unpopular and misunderstood reform measures Reactions to this “Westernizing” of Islam led to the formation of modern Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood Catalyst for modern Islamic reform: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani - traveled throughout the Muslim world calling for internal reform to defend, strengthen Islam and drive out the West - Muslims required to reclaim reason, science and technology to reassert Islamic identity and solidarity Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida: Great synthesizers of modern Islam, built on Afghani’s effort - Religion, reason and science are complementary; Islam’s decline due to un-Islamic religious practices spread of Sufi passivity and fatalism, rigid views of scholars - Regulations governing worship are immutable, but regulations on social affairs are open to change - True Islamic governments are required to implement Islamic law, pan-Islamic unity needed to restore the caliphate - shifted position of the Salafiyya movement to more critical of the West: its secular nationalism and capitalist exploitation are political and religious threats.

Muhammad Iqbal:

Muslims must return to the past for principles and values that can be used to construct a modern Islamic society. Nationalism is a tool used by the colonialists to dismember the Islamic world; the trans-national Muslim community needs pan-Islamism tempered by political realism to unify against such threats.
Fazlur Rahman
He was professor of Islamic thought at the University of Chicago and McGill University, and an expert in Islamic philosophy. Not as widely known as his scholar-activist contemporary Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, he is nonetheless considered an important figure for Islam in the 20th century. He argued that the basis of Islamic revival was the return to the intellectual dynamism that was the hallmark of the Islamic scholarly tradition (these ideas are outlined in Revival and Reform in Islam: A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism and his magnum opus, Islam). He sought to give philosophy free rein, and was keen on Muslims appreciating how the modern nation-state understood law, as opposed to ethics; his view being that the shari'ah was a mixture of both ethics and law. He was critical of historical Muslim theologies and philosophies for failing to create a moral and ethical worldview based on the values derived from the Qur'an: 'moral values', unlike socioeconomic values, 'are not exhausted at any point in history' but require constant interpretation. Rahman was driven to exile from his homeland, Pakistan, where he was part of a committee which sought to interpret Islam for the fledging modern state. Some of his ideas from English (which he claimed were from the Islamic tradition) were reprinted in Urdu and caused outrage among conservative Muslim scholars in Pakistan. These were quickly exploited by opponents of his political paymaster, General Ayyub Khan, and led to his eventual exile in the United States.
Muhammad Iqbal
He sought an Islamic revival based on social justice ideals and emphasized traditional rules, e.g. against usury. He argued strongly that dogma, territorial nationalism and outright racism, all of which were profoundly rejected in early Islam and especially by Muhammad himself, were splitting Muslims into warring factions, encouraging materialism and nihilism. His thought was influential in the emergence of a movement for independence of Pakistan, where he was revered as the national poet. Indirectly this strain of Islam also influenced Malcolm X and other figures who sought a global ethic through the Five Pillars of Islam. Iqbal can be credited with at least trying to reconstruct Islamic thought from the base, though some of his philosophical and scientific ideas would appear dated to us now. His basic ideas concentrated on free-will, which would allow Muslims to become active agents in their own history. His interest in Nietzsche (who he called 'the Wise Man of Europe') has led later Muslim scholars to criticise him for advocating dangerous ideals that, according to them, have eventually formed in certain strains of pan-Islamism. Some claim that the Four Pillars of the Green Party honor Iqbal and Islamic traditions.

Muhammad Hamid Ullah

Muhammad Hamid Ullah (9 February 1908 - 17 December 2002) belonged to a family of scholars, jurists, writers and sufis. He was a world-renowned scholar of Islam and International Law from India, who was known for contributions to the research of the history of Hadith, translations of the Qur'an, the advancement of Islamic learning, and to the dissemination of Islamic teachings in the Western world.

Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr

He was an Iraqi Shi'a cleric, a philosopher, and ideological founder of Islamic Dawa Party born in al-Kazimiya, Iraq. Mohammad Baqir Al-Sadr's political philosophy, known as Wilayat Al-Umma (Governance of the people), set out his view of a modern day Islamic state. His most famous philosophical works include: Falsafatuna (Our Philosophy) in which he refutes modern philosophical schools and asserts an Islamic view, and Al-Usus al-Mantiqiyyah lil-Istiqra' (The Logical Basis of Induction) in which he develops a theory which allows one to reach certainty through inductive methods.

Morteza Motahhari

He was a lecturer at Tehran University. Motahhari is considered important for developing the ideologies of the Islamic Republic. He wrote on exegesis of the Qur'an, philosophy, ethics, sociology, history and many other subjects. In all his writings the real object he had in view was to give replies to the objections raised by others against Islam, to prove the shortcomings of other schools of thought and to manifest the greatness of Islam. He believed that in order to prove the falsity of Marxism and other ideologies like it, it was necessary not only to comment on them in a scholarly manner but also to present the real image of Islam.

Ali Shariati

He was a sociologist and a professor of Mashhad University. He was one of the most influential figures in the Islamic world in the 20th century. He attempted to explain and provide solutions for the problems faced by Muslim societies through traditional Islamic principles interwoven with and understood from the point of view of modern sociology and philosophy. Shariati was also deeply influenced by Mowlana and Muhammad Iqbal.

Musa al-Sadr

He was a prominent Muslim intellectual and one of the most influential Muslim philosophers of 20th century. He is most famous for his political role, but he was also a philosopher who had been trained by Allameh Tabatabaei. As Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr said: "his great political influence and fame was enough for people to not consider his philosophical attitude, although he was a well-trained follower of long living intellectual tradition of Islamic Philosophy". One of his famous writings is a long introduction for the Arabic translation of Henry Corbin's History of Islamic Philosophy.

Syed Zafarul Hasan

He was a prominent twentieth-century Muslim philosopher. From 1924 to 1945 he was professor of philosophy at the Muslim University, Aligarh - where he also served as Chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Dean of the Faculty of Arts. There, in 1939, he put forward the 'Aligarh Scheme'. From 1945 until the partition of the sub-continent, Dr Hasan was Emeritus Professor at Aligarh. Dr. Zafarul Hasan was born on February 14, 1885. He died on June 19, 1949.
Ismail al-Faruqi
He looked more closely at the ethics and sociology of knowledge, concluding that no scientific method or philosophy could exist that was wholly ignorant of a theory of conduct or the consequences a given path of inquiry and technology. His "Islamization of knowledge" program sought to converge early Muslim philosophy with modern sciences, resulting in, for example, Islamic economics and Islamic sociology.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr
He a political ecologist, argues that khalifa in Islam is fundamentally compatible with ideals of the ecology movement and peace movement, more so than conventional interpretations of Islam. He argues for an ecology-based ecumenism that would seek unity among the faiths by concentrating on their common respect for life as a Creation, i.e. the Earth's biosphere, Gaia, or whatever name. Pope John Paul II has made similar suggestions that "mankind must be reconciled to the Creation", and there is a Parliament of World Religions seeking a "global ethic" on similar grounds.
M. A. Muqtedar Khan
He is a Professor of Islam and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a prominent Muslim intellectual and philosopher and commentator on Islamic Thought and Global Politics. He organized the first contemporary Islamic Philosophers conference at Georgetown University in 1998. His work is on the subject of the philosophy of identity and rationality, Ijtihad, Islam and democracy and Islamic reform.

Akbar S. Ahmed

He is an anthropologist, filmmaker and an outstanding scholar on Islam, International Relations/Politics and Contemporary Islamic philosophy from Pakistan. He is Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington DC and was the High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK. He has advised Prince Charles and met with President George W. Bush on Islam. His numerous books, films and documentaries have won awards. His books have been translated into many languages including Chinese and Indonesian. Ahmed is “the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam” according to the BBC.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

He is a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educator. A former member of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who extended the work of his tutor, Amin Ahsan Islahi. He is frequently labeled a modernist for his insistence on the historical contextualization of Muhammad's revelation in order to grasp its true moral import.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

He is a well-known proponent of cultural reconciliation between the Muslim World and the West, basing his views on Classical Islamic governance's similarity to Western governance models in terms of religious freedoms and democratic inclination. Abdul Rauf is a highly-visible American-Egyptian Imam at New York's Masjid al-Farah in addition to being Founder and Chairman of Cordoba Initiative, a non-profit organization seeking to bridge the divide between the Muslim world and the West.

Mohammad Azadpur

He is an associate professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University. He teaches courses on Islamic philosophy, mysticism, and political philosophy. His research focuses on Alfarabi and Avicenna, and he does comparative work between Islamic and Heideggerian thought as well.

AURANGZEB; RELIGIOUS POLICY

Aurangzeb; Religious policy, The Ideas:

 

Introduction:

                  Muhi-ud-din Muhammad Auranzeb was born on 3rd November, 1618(N.S) at Dohad near Ujjain.1 At early age he became a good scholar of Arabic and Persian, and learned Turki and Hindi as well. While he did not care for painting, music and other fine arts. At the end of 1634A.D, he was appointed mansabdar of 10,000Zat and 4,000Sawar. Then he was given charge of Bundela expedition against Jujhar Singh of Orchha, which was his first experience of war and diplomacy. So, from the very early age he acquired reputation as a good soldier, administrator and diplomat.

                 Aurangzeb was staunch Muslim who could not go against the law of Islam.5 This orthodoxy misinterpreted by historians, i.e he was intolerant to other religions. While in his own book (Waqi-i-Alamgiri) he stated, "No person shall in unlawful way interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and the other Hindus resident in their places."

                 The "Ideas" of Aurangzeb can be judged from his personality. His personality can be studied from two dimensions; as a religious man and as a statesman. As a religious man he was staunch Muslim and careful and conciliatory to non-Muslims.
                As a statesman Aurangzeb attended in person every detail of state’s administration. Due to his long term, campaigns and reduction of taxes, financially he became weak. Toward rebels and his opponents he was conciliatory in a limit while he was more conciliatory and merciful toward his allies.

Aurangzeb’s Religious policy:

Facts:

Aurangzeb’s Farman:

                   Aurangzeb addressed Abul-Hassan, the governor of Benares, which clearly shows that the Emperor was tolerant to Hindus. He stated that, “Since… all our upright intentions are engaged in promoting the public welfare and bettering the conditions of all classes, high and low; therefore accordance with our Holy law, we have decided that ancient temples shall not be overthrown, but the new one shall not be built… no person shall in unlawful way interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and other Hindu residents in the places, so that they may as before, remain in their occupation and continue with peace of mind to offer prayer for the continuance of our God-given Empire.” (J.A.S.B. and Waqi-i-Alamgiri).

Appointment of non-Muslim on high ranks offices:

                  A Farman addressed by Aurangzeb that there should be one hindu and one muslim on each of the civil and military departments of the state.There were a good number of Hindus who occupied the key posts in the civil and military department of the state during his reign. Jaswant singh who caused untold trouble and suffering to the Mughals and who went against the emperor in the war of succession and in the battle of KHAJWA. He not only pardoned him for his treacherous conduct and honored him with position of power and trust. Many Rajputs princes for Aurangzeb against the Hindus as his soldiers and generals. Such as jai singh who sent by aurangzaib to punish shiva je (1665).
Responsibility of Aurangzeb’s religious policy towards the decline of mughal empire in the view of historians:

Religious intolerance:

In the view of historians Aurangzeb was intolerant towards non-Muslims. In issuing ordinance, Aurangzeb was not favoring Hindus, but only enforcing Islamic law. He would destroy new temples and would not allow old temples to be repaired, but he would not permit old temples to be demolished. While on the other place the writer said that these restrictions did not apply on rajputs, not presumably to the other Hindu material communities whose services Aurangzeb needed. This shows two opposite interpretations of the writer.
             One writer gave the reference of Manucci that the higher of the court who were Hindus should not longer hold their charges. While in contrast he written that in the second half of the Aurangzeb’s reign the percentage of Hindu officers was higher than ever before under the Mughals___ in the rank of commander of 5,000 and above, it was 32.9% under Aurangzeb as against 14% under Akbar’s reign; among all officers of the rank of 500 and above, it was 31.6% under Aurangzeb as against 22.5% under Akbar’s reign.
         Orthodox personality of Aurangzeb is described by historians as anti-Hindu. That during the reign of Aurangzeb’s predecessor’s large number of Hindus was made Mansabdar. But Aurangzeb, however, avoided this practice. Thus total number of Hidus Mansabdar fell.18  While some historians accepted that the number of Hindus, holding high position in the Mughal service under Aurangzeb was greater than any of his predecessor.
The historian tried to prove that the religious policy of Auaranzeb caused the opposition of Hindus which caused the decline of Mughal Empire. It is said that Auarangzeb bigotry was responsible for the Hindu revivalist movement. There is little doubt that even if there had been no Aurangzeb the Hindu revivalist movement would have come.

The Ideas of Aurangzeb:

              The Ideas of a person can be judged from his actions. Aurangzeb ruled almost 50 years, which shows that he had sage political Ideas. On the other hand the historians considered him staunch Muslim and were conciliatory toward non-Muslims which show that he had responsible personality.

Aurangzeb as a statesman and historians:

              As a ruler, Aurangzeb attended in person to every detail of the state administration. He was past master in diplomacy. He could not be beaten in any kind of intrigue or secret manipulation. He was a master of pen and sword. On the other hand some historians considered him a fail administrator. One writer stated that his excessive distrust of officials and constant interference in the business of different department kept the local officials in a state of uncertainty and destroyed their initiative and efficiency. This led to administrative degeneration. If his direct interference in state business was degenerated his administration system then how was it possible that he ruled almost 50 years with success.

Aurangzeb policies:

              The policies of Aurangzeb were of different kinds; his financial policy, his imperialistic policy, his military policy and his diplomatic policy.

Financial policy:

          When Aurangzeb sat on the throne, in the economic sphere he showed a determined opposition to all illegal exactions (abwab) and all the taxes which not authorized by Islamic law. On the other hand his imperialistic design became a burden on treasury of the state. It shows that Aurangzeb no bright idea about economy.

Imperialistic policy:

        During the long reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached to its maximum extent. Imperialistic idea of Aurangzeb can be judged through his expansionist policy. As an imperial authority he is considered on the front on Mughal’s dynasty.

Military policy:

           Aurangzeb was following the same military system as his predecessors were adopted i.e. Mansabdari system. The vast empire and his successful campaigns indicated that he was a great general and had healthy and strong military system.

Diplomatic policy:

           Aurangzeb was a past master in diplomacy. In his diplomatic field he was the man of conciliatory approach. Some historians criticized him that he reversed the Rajput policy of Akbar. In fact, he rejected the matrimonial alliances with Rajputs, he adopted the conciliatory approach to Rajputs, on the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh Aurangzeb ordered the two widows of Maharaja Jaswant Singh to be detained at the Mughal court along with their sons. Aurangzeb was not willing to subjugate Rajputs but he wanted to protect the successors of Maharaja from other chiefs who were in the lust of power.
            An emperor can’t bear rebellious activity in his empire so, when Marathas started rebellious activities against the Mughal Empire, Aurangzeb was compelled to pressurize them. Till the death of Aurangzeb were able to start rebellious activities against the emperor.
              Aurangzeb has been criticized on the eve of crushing Sikh community. No doubt he did this, not because of an anti- non-Muslims policy but because of the political activities of Sikhs; such as Guru Govind Singh organized the Khalsa into military organization which compelled him to suppress them.
              Aurangzeb was a staunch Muslim but it did not mean that he was against non-Muslims. As a statesman he was just a ruler and not a religious man because he started his first campaign against the people of North West Frontier who were Muslims and next campaign was against Golcunda and Bijapur whose rulers were also Muslims.

Critical analysis/Conclusion:

                                      Aurangzeb has been criticized by historians on the eve of his religious policy and administration. In the regime of Aurangzeb Hindus had not an energetic opportunity to stand against Aurangzeb, because the sources of communication among the states were strengthen and among Hindu rajas or chiefs were weak and this situation became opposite in Aurangzeb’s successor’s regime.
In Aurangzeb’s regime Hindus were in the process of development and in the reign of his successors they had achieved a bit development, like their communication became stronger. There was no direct relation between villages in Aurangzeb’s reign. Being a strong and effective ruler his central government was effective and controlled the remote areas effectively. The successors of Auangzeb were not as much effective to control remote states through central government and Subadars and Jagirdars enjoyed virtual autonomy.
The provincial chiefs wanted to strengthen themselves against central government and Hindu rajas being unable to overthrown the provincial chiefs, made alliances with chiefs and shared power with them, which empowered the governors and the Hindu community and some provincial chiefs declared their states independent.
The fall of the Mughal power has been, by some, regarded in term of Muslims decline and Hindu revival, a view which has been challenged by such scholars as Dr. Tara Chand and Dr. Percival Spear. According to former, the Hindus and Muslims culture were both in this period static and stagnant as compared with new outlook on life of the European people under the Intellectual revolution of the age of reason or Enightenment which posed intricate economic, political and social problems or worldwide significance.
The death of Aurangzeb on March 3, 1707 A.C. is generally regarded as marking the beginning of the end of the Mughal Empire. If implication is to hold Aurangzeb responsible for creating situation which brought about the disintegration of the empire then such an inference is neither nor fair, that Alamgir battled with internal and external enemies of empire courageously, no one would deny. For nearly half a century he maintained the power and prestige of Mughal Empire, sustained the unity of the country. So dear to him and kept the ship of the state on an even keel. These were his great administrative malaise of empire was so deep-rooted that no one could have permanently cured it.In short it can be said that Aurangzeb can not be directed for the decline of the Mughal Empire because Aurangzeb is the least understood of Indian monarchs.




      

BOOK REVIEW of The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559B

Book Review”

Title: The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559
Author: Rice Eugene F. Jr., Anthony Grafton
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company New York,
London
Year of Publication: 1994
Edition: 2nd Edition
Pages: 209
Price: 195
ISBN: 0-393-96304-7 Paperback

The book The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559 by Rice Eugene F. Jr., Anthony Grafton is published by W. W. Norton & Company New York, London Feb, 1994. This book covers the entire revised curriculum for the history of The Foundations of Early Modern Europe. This classic History of the European People is a work of a great thoroughness and insight which contains much to satisfy general readers as well as scholars. The authoritative study of the Europeans speaking people is the great source of information on Europe History unrolling one of the richest and most instructive view in History.

Eugene F. Rice, Jr., is William R. Sheppard Professor of History at Columbia University. His most recent book is Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. And Anthony Grafton is Dodge Professor of History at Princeton University. His recent books include Defenders of the text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science and New Worlds, Ancient Texts: The Power of Tradition and The Shock of Discovery.

The chief strength of this book is its coverage of economic, military and political history. Of course in this period (basically the Renaissance and Reformation) most of us focus on the artistic, religious, philosophical and scientific developments, so we can use this background information very well. This was my situation, and I found this little book (just 209 pages) perfectly illuminating. In fact, it's the most well-organized, concise, informative text on this period that I know of. Has there been a more eventful century than that between the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and Charles V's abdication 1556. These are the years, after all, which saw the high water mark of the Renaissance in art and literature; the continent-wide crisis of faith in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation; and in politics, the apex (peak) and downfall of the north Italian city-states - not to mention the voyages (journeys) of discovery and commercial adventure overseas and burgeoning of capitalist enterprise which set Europe on the path to world domination. Given its position at the fulcrum of the modern world, survey histories of this period are badly needed.

Unfortunately, despite intense scholarly interest in the early modern period, they are also in short supply. The present effort by Eugene Rice (Columbia) and Anthony Grafton (Princeton) provides a useful and needed remedy. Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, the first volume in the History of Modern Europe series from Norton, succeeds in summarizing the important issues. Unfortunately it also suffers from shortcomings of interpretation and omission.

It's not a great mystery why few general works are available on 15th-16th century history. It's an incredibly complicated and controversial period. Rice and Grafton tackle the subject with a thematic approach, and the book successfully conveys the essential facts. The great names

Appear in due course: Columbus and Cortes; Petrarch and Erasmus; Brunelleschi and Leonardo; Luther and Loyola. The reader gets succinct and capable accounts of the spread of the printed word, advances in technology and warfare, and the reinterpretation of the Classics by the great humanists.

The book is particularly successful on the political front. The authors succeed in reducing the potentially bewildering array of French dynasties, Habsburg marriages, Italian dukes and German princes to a clear schematic of Renaissance power dynamics. A coherent picture of the pivotal rivalries between Habsburgs, French and Turks, and the federalist struggle in Germany, emerges - if one painted with a necessarily broad brush. In its final third, the book also provides a good summary history of the Reformation. So much for the good; now for the not so good. Perhaps it's unfair to criticize a sin of omission when our authors have to deal with such a vast subject in only 209 pages. However, there is one item I'm compelled to note. The great Thomas More figures prominently in the discussion of humanism, and the book's last pages provide a nice summary of the English Reformation. Would it be too much to ask, then, that Mores’ execution for refusal to take the oath to Parliament find even a single word of mention,

But this is a quibble, as is that the dates in the book's subtitle seem to have been chosen at random. The book's most serious flaw occurs at the narrative's most critical point: the discussion of capitalism. It could be argued that the development of capitalism is the key to the early modern period, so it's critical to get this part right. Our authors fail miserably, and I fear that an ideological bias has a lot to do with that failure. We can all agree that this period saw (in general) a transition from the medieval guild-based economic model to a capitalist model. I will refrain from referring to these models as "modes of production", as our authors do, because that is a technical term drawn from Marxist economic theory.

But the author's usage is a good signpost for what's to come. The gist of the authors' account is that craftsmen, who had previously enjoyed independence as guildsmen, lost that independence to the capitalist. As capitalism advanced, the typical industry became "controlled by a merchant who had reduced the master craftsmen in his employ to varying degrees of economic dependence." I think this means that the capitalist hired workmen on different pay scales, but there is no clear explanation in the text so we can't be sure. The point is that previously, the guilds protected the craftsman. Now he was on his own, and therefore ripe for exploitation by the capitalist. This is lamented as a loss of independence and pride: for the guildsmen, "Their pride was their independence." The villainous capitalist robbed them of both. How, may I ask, was the guildsman more independent than the craftsman free to sell his labor and abilities to the highest bidder? Simply put, he wasn't. The guilds were protectionist. Their function was regulatory and restrictive - so it's strange to read that "The craft guild had been a flexible institution." (The same paragraph goes on to contradict itself by detailing the restrictions a guild placed on its members.) In a medieval world the guilds had their place. But by the late 15th century the groundswell of creative energy was too great to be contained by the old restrictions. Unfortunately the class-conflict theory of capitalism permits no such insights. The authors speculate that capitalism operated on a smaller scale in this time Period relative to (for example) state-organized defense projects because "only the state had. The coercive power necessary to recruit and control the great numbers of workers them required." in the authors' world, if a man is working, he must have been "coerced" into doing so. The prospect of getting paid could have nothing to do with it. Further, in their discussion of developments in banking, the authors remark that the international expansion of the silk trade "opened the industry to control by the merchant bankers".

Perhaps they fail to consider that merchant banking was itself the innovation which made the growth of this industry possible. But that would be to admit a non-pernicious influence. Our authors seem not to recognize the critical psychological fact of the Renaissance: the new appetite for risk of all kinds - artistic, exploratory, and yes, financial. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that their perspective is informed less by social-scientific rigor than by allegiance to scientific socialism.

SHER SHAH RULE

Administration under Sher Shah Sur

In the process evolution of the Mughal administrative machinery, Sur rule (1540-1555 A.D) was significant. Sher Shah took interest to rule generally, his experiment in the formation of a bureaucracy under a cerilralised despotism had taken place. We have little information about the working of central administration under Sher Shah. But he was an autocrat and kept everything under his direct control and supervision. Sher Shah Sur introduced an order and through provincial administrative machinery as well central administration, made historical preparation for Akbar’s government, which followed nearly same pattern.

The Administration of Sher Shah Sur’s Mamlakat

Central Authority

Sher Shah assumed the title of Sultan-i-Adil, Shah and Kholifa-al Zaman. The former sultans of Delhi like Iltutmish and Muhammad bin Taghluq had assumed the title of Sultan-i-Adil. (P. 21,134 H. Nelson)
Sher Shah also adopted the title of “Shah” under the impact of Persian influence which had permeated the sultanate of Delhi. (P. 265 Sher Shah Sur)

Sher Shah Bureaucracy

 Commensurate with his royal titles and idea of government, Sher Shah created bureaucracy which was filled by his umara who had received adequate training from him for their onerous duties. He trained up the nobility and raised them to high position, appointing each of them magistrate under his authority. (P. 274 Sher Shah Sur) The hierarchy of Sher Shah Sur’s bureaucracy appears to be in the following order:  

Wazir

The Wazirs held the charge of all civil and military affairs and took an active part in the field. The wazir bore the title of Amir-al- Umara. Another hand, the Hajjabdar was also served under Sher Shah and he performed the duties of Mir Tuzuk. (Tarikhi Daud, p.142). His structure was equivalent to the wazir, he also introduced visitors to the king.

Sadr or Sodr-i-Jahan

Sadr or Sodr-i-jahan was incharge of the religious affairs and charitable endoursents. He was to prepare the draft tarmans for the grant of pargana to aima and mukhodim and present that to Sher Shah. He was also “to keep the management of treasure on his hands. (P. 275 Sher Shah Sur)
Dabir-i- Dault, Kuthiwala, and Khasa Khail
Dabir-i- Dault was the head of the Diwan-i-Irsha. All the correspondence, formal or confidential, between the sovereign and the rulers of other states or his own tributaries and officials passed through his department. The kothiwala held the charge of the royal private funds, manufactories, armoury, weighing of gold, gems and other valuable articles. And, the Khasa Khail was the affa in chief of the sultan’s own Cavalry regiments.

Darogha-I Dak Chauki

 The Darogha-I Dak Chauki was the head of the dak chauki and the espionage system. A large number of news writers and news carriers were placed under him in order to supply Sher Shah Sur with the important news of the distant parts of his Mamlakat and to carry the royal dak as well. (P. 276, Sher Shah Suri
Sher Shah is the great ruler of Afghan history. He showed in every field what the Afghans might have achieved if more than one at a time had possessed the capacity to rule and to organize as well as to fight and raid. In the avert, Sher Shah’s Afghan empire collapsed almost as quickly as it arose. For eight years his son Islam Shah struggled against increasing opposition, and the empire then dissolved into warring factions. Humayun was reappeared in India. With the help of the Persian Shah Ismail, Humayun recovered Kandahar from his brother Kamran, and Kabul a little later. Then Humayun re-occupied Delhi and Agra, but within six months he died. At this time the Mughal position was as insecure as Babar’s had been on his occupation of Agra thirty years before. Several opposing forces were in being; there was the rivalry of different aristocratic groups separated only partially by differences of class and race. The field was thus an open one and there was unusual scope for the exercise of leadership. The leadership appeared at the precise moment in the Mughal camp, when Akbar son of Humayun was placed for crown. (P. 28, 29 A History of India)
It was the period that the Mughal Empire became a political fact over half of India and a factor in the life of India. Akbar had placed the Rajput opposition to allow them certain high posts in his court. Thus in effect the Rajputs became partners in the Empire and near whole of the Hindu community came to accept the Mughal government. Akbar’s sanother achievement was the organization of a bureaucratic administration and an imperial service. Akbar had divided the Empire into twelve subahs or provinces, which later grew to eighteen provinces, were subdivided into surkars, and further into pargans.
The basic objective of the Mughal administrative setup was to exercise control over the different part of the empire. From the Subah downwards there were two sets of officers, the magisterial and the revenue. The armed forces were responsible for law and order, while the latter collected revenue and were responsible for the land assessment. The Divan or revenue officer …… his collection to Delhi which in turn supplied the Subodar with cash for his followers. (P. 42 A History of India)
The government appeared to the people in the countryside mainly as a revenue collecting agency. The cultivated land was recorded in every field, “the government thus had a network of authority spread, as it were, over the surface of Indo-Muslim society, a wiring system of political electricity”. (P. 43 A History of India)
The Mughal nobility was an official aristocracy which was hereditary as a class but not as individuals, which was landholding but not feudal. This class was spread over the country to worse the administrative machine. As mentioned above, the cultivated land was recorded.
The revenue dues were collected directly by government officers called arils or by deputies such as the mansobdars, jagirdars, or local chiefs. There was no elaborate system of judicial courts, governments courts only existed at the district headquarters. Criminal cases in the towns were dealt with by government appointed Muslim Qazis or law officers administering the Muslim code. Order was maintained in the villages largely by the village elders themselves. By the end of Akbar’s reign, establishment of elaborate offices were assigned.

Central Administration

The Emperor:

The ancient Indian traditions had always supported a strong ruler. The Muslim jurists and writers also held the same view. With such popular perception of the ruler. It is obvious that all officers in Mughal administration owed their position and power to the Emperor. Their appointment, promotion, demotion and termination were subject to the ruler’s personal preference and …..
 “The Mughal Empire was the jure as well as the facto an independent state”. (P. 172 I.H. Qurishi). The emperor was vested supreme political authority and his could be challenged or questiontioned only through rebellion. The emperor, padshah, was recognized as caliph. If emperor was guilty in sinful activities, his action could be questioned in a court of law. (P.172 I.H. Qurishi) But, there were several communities different from eachotheras well regiously. In addition, there were heterodous group amonung Muslim as well.
The Mughal emperor realized the necessity of regulating their lives in accordance with public needs as well for the …. Of his rule. In order to redress the grievances of the subject, they gave frequent public audience. Akbar appeared at sharoka and gave darshan to his people. Aurangzeb discontinued this practice and held a full Derbar in the Diwani-ikhas O’ am where appointments and grants were made. This practice was continued also into the reign of later Mughals.
Besides this, the Mughal Emperors enjoyed immense power. He was the head of administration both civil and military. At the same time, he was also the commander of the state forces, the fountain of the justice and the chief legislature. The Emperor was assisted by a council of various ministers who could advice but their advice was not binding on the Emperor. In the code of Akbar, there was elaborate difference, he formulate his own theory to rule over Hindustan.
According to Abu-l-Fadl, “Silly and shortsighted men can’t distinguish a true king from a selfish ruler”. (Abu-l-Fadl, P. 58) His duty is to remove oppression and provide everything which to good. The emperor was providing security, health, justice, polite manners, faithfulness, truth etc.
Therefore, the emperor had vested superior authority in the Mughal Empire. It rebellions were raised, on the order of king it had suppressed and law and order was establish. “The organization of the Mughal central government was essentially on the same lines as that of the sultanate. The principal officers of the central government having ranks similar to the ministers were four: (1) Diwan, (2) Mir Bakhsi, (3) Mir Samon, and (4) Sadr”. (P. 580, S.M Ikram)

Wakil and Wazir:

The institution of wizarat can be traced …. To Abbasid Caliphs. Under the Delhi Sultanate, the wazir enjoyed both civil and military powers but under Bulban his power were reduced. As for Sher Shah, this office remained almost in obeyence under the Afghan. The position of wazir revived under the early Mughals. Babur’s wazir, Nizamudin Muhammad khalifa enjoyed both civil and military powers. Humayun’s wazir Hindu Beg also virtually enjoyed great powers.
Wizarat was considered as a first dignity, was mainly concerned with the revenue and financial administration. But, the work of other departments also came under his supervision due to all matters involving expenditure. Imperial orders were first recorded in his office before being issued. Although, the provincial governors, district faujdars, and leaders of expedition come to him for instructions. Each of earning department had under his direct control. (P. 580, S.M Ikram)
The wazir also called diwan-i-kul or diwan-i-a’la, was the head of the fiscal administration of the empire. He had to be strict with the highest officers in their financial dealing with the state. If the king had desired orderly fiscal affairs, he had to gave the wazir support, the wazir, had to be tactful in his dealings with the officials. He was not removed until …… guilty in high treason based on evidence. When the wazir was in-difficulty to manage the affairs, another expert was associated with him with the consort of the Emperor. The wazir had extensive power; he was expected to send financial statement to the wakil, was not his subordinate. He was consulted by the monarch in all important matters. in addition, he was consulted in all important appointments; though, all fiscal posts were under his patronage. (P. 180, I.H Qureshi)
The period of Bairam khan’s regency (1556-1560) saw the rise of the wakil-wazir with unlimited powers under Bairam khan. Akbar took away the financial powers at the wakil and entrusted it into the hands of the diwan kul (financial minister). Separation of finance reduced wakil’s power. However, the wakil continued to enjoy the highest place in the Mughal bureaucratic hierarchy.
Moreover, at the centre the wazir was assisted by three high officials; they had direct access to the monarch and were present in the diwan-i-am as well as in the diwan-i-khas. These officials were called the diwan-i-khalisah, the diwan-i-ton, and the Mastavti during Akbar reign. (P. 180, 181 I.H Qureshi)
Mir Bakhshi:
The mir’arz of Delhi Sultanate changed its nomenclature to mir bakhshi under the Mughals. According to Abu l Fadl, the subordinate to the wakil the mir bakhshi is the most important. He was on at the most powerful officials of the state under the Mughals. His subordination to the wakil was only nominal. “The word bakhshi probably comes from the Sanskrit word bhik-shu, a word used for the Buddhist monks who had no worldly belonging and lived upon charity”. (P. 181 I.H Qureshi)
He was himself a highly placed mansabdar and was responsible for the smooth working of the mansabdari system. For new appointments, the candidates had to pass the bakhshi’s scrutiny. Though the Mir Bakhshi was the minister in-charge of the military establishment. (P. 182 I.H Qureshi) He had power to enforce the royal regulation in the army.
In addition, the Mir Bakhshi performed duties which were the responsibilities of the Arid-i-Mumalik during the earlier period. Some foreign travelers have called him the lieutenant-General. Regarding salaries, on the basis of his verification, the amount of the salary was certified. Mir Bakhshi placed all matters pertaining to the military department before the Emperor. He accompanied the Emperor on tours, pleasures trips, hunting expeditions, battle field etc. his duty was to check whether proper places were allotted to the ranks at the court. He was assisted by other bakhshi’s at central level.
Diwan:
The chief diwan was made responsible for revenue and finances. Primary duty was to supervise the imperial treasury and check all accounts. He inspected all transactions and payments in all departments.
“The most famous diwan under Akbar was Raja Todar Mal, who far a time acted as the chief minister of the realm, but the contribution of Khwajah Mansur and Mir Fathullah Shirazi to the building up at Akbar’s revenue administration was perhaps equally great. Under Jahangir, …. Timad al- Daulah, the father of Nur Jahan, who was a Diwan even before the king’s marriage with his daughter, remained the chief wazir and diwan till his death. He was succeeded by his son Asaf khan, who became the wakil just before the death of Jahangir.
…. In the next reign, Asat khan maintained his position until his death, but his successors were selected on the basis of their scholarship and technical efficiency. Allami Afdal khan remained Shah Jahan’s Diwan for ten years.” (P. 581, S.M Ikram)
The diwan was also exercised general supervision over the administration as well, had under him two principal officers, and called Diwan-i Tan and Diwan-I khalisah. Who were in-charge of salaries and state lands. In the reign of Shah Jahan, Diwan-i khalisah were Hindus and seven heads of Diwan-i Tan were also belonged to the same community. (P. 581, S.M Ikram)
Although, his seal and signatures were necessary for the validation of all official papers involving revenue. The entire revenue collection was under his charge, no fresh order of appointment or promotion could be affected without his seal. The Diwan was bind to submit the report on state finance daily.
Mir Saman:
The Mir Somen, later called Khan-i Saman, was minister for suoolies and industries. He was responsible for the supply of requirements of the imperial establishment. It was became very important and influencial department under the later Mughal.
Moreover, the mir saman was the officer in-charge of the royal karkhanas. He was directly under the Emperor but for section of money and auditing of account he was to contact the diwan. Under the mir saman there were several officers, including the diwan-i buyutat and tahvildar (cash keeper).

Sudr-us Sudur:

In the earlier period, sadr was the head of the religious department, charities and endowrnments. (P. 580, S.M Ikram)
On the other hand, he was the head of judicial department, he supervised the appointment of qazis and muftis. Before Shah Jahan’s reign, the post of the chief qazi and sadr-us sudur were combined and the same person held the charge of both department.
However, under Aurangzeb it got separation and the sadr was supervised assignment of allowances and looked after the charity grants. Also, he looked towards whether the grants were given to the right person and utilized property.

Qazi-ul Quzzat:

The Qazi-ul-Quzzat was the chief judicial functionary in the state. He was also known as Qazi. His principal duty was to administer the Shariat law both in civil and criminal cases. He was assisted by two officials the Mufti and the Mir’Adl.
Moreover, he looked into the appointment of the Qazis in the Suba, Sarkar, Pargana and town level. There was also separate Qazi for army.
Under his supervision, the mufti expounded the law and the Qazi delivered the verdict and the Mir’Adl was to execute the order of the court. The Muhtasibs (censor of public morals) was to ensure the general observance of the rulers of morality. His job was vto keep in check forbidden practices- wine drinking, use of bhang and other intoxicants, gambling etc. In addition, he also performed some other duties- examining weights and measuring, enforcing fair prices etc.




Provincial Administration
Provincial Administration was improved by Akbar. In 1580, Akbar divided the Empire into twelve Subas, later six were added in it. Each Suba was divided into Porganas and Mahala. The boundaries of the provincial units were fixed the provincial administration was strengthening, and each province had provided a numbers of officials to serve there. “By the introduction of an all-India cadre of Mansabdars, liable to be transferred anywhere at the behest of the central government, and by introduction of other checks, the control of the centre over provinces was made more effective.”
Provincial Governor:
The Governor of provinces was directly appointed by the Emperor. It was a principal officer of province, who was called Sipah-salar under Akbar and Nazim under his successors, but was popularly known as Subahdar and later only as Subah. Usually the tenure of a Subadar was around three years. Amoung the duties of the Subadar, the most important one were to look after the welfare of the people and the army. He was responsible for the general law and order in the province. Besides this, his duty was also to encourage agriculture, trade and commerce.
Faujdar and Kotwal:
The Faujdar and the Kotwal were the two other important officials. Faujdar was the administrative head of the Sarkar. He had appointed by the Emperor. But it was under the supervision and guidance of the governor. (P. 585, S.M Ikram) He was not only appointed at the sarkar level, but sometimes with in a sarkar a number of Faujdars existed. His primary duty was to safeguard the life and property of the resident of the area under his jurisdiction. Moreover, he was to ensure passage to traders within his jurisdiction. In special circumstances, he was to help the amalguzar in matter of revenue collection.
Besides that, another officer was Kotwal. Basically, he was not provincial officer, but was appointed by the central government in the province capitals and other important cities. He performed a number of executive and ministerial duties. “The appropriate person for Kotwal office should be vigorous, experienced, active, deliberate, patient, astute, and humane. Through his watchfulness and night patrolling the citizens should enjoy the response of security, and the evil-disposed lie in the slough of non-existence.” (P.573 Ibn I Fadl). The kotwal had kept record of the houses, and frequented roads etc.

MUGHAL RULE

MUGHAL RULE 1526-1707 A.D

I t is said that Chingiz Khan (1162-1227), the Mongol ruler, in his last days called his sons and gave them permission to convert to any religion of their choice. On his advice, some of them became Buddhist while others converted to Islam. The Mughal emperors were proud of this relationship and from time to time adhered to Tora-i-Chingizi, i.e. laws of Chingiz Khan. Perhaps, they inherited their religious tolerance from their maternal ancestors.
This tolerance is clearly evident in Babur’s case through several incidents. For example, when Babur sought the help of Shah Ismail Safavi of Iran to conquer Samarqand, the capital of Amir Timur, he was asked to convert to Shia faith. Babur, without any hesitation, accepted the offer.
However, his bad luck was that the inhabitants of Samarqand were not as tolerant as he was in matter of religion. The result was that as soon as the Imam recited the shia khutba in the Friday prayer, the masses revolted against Babur and he had to fly for his life. That was Babur’s last attempt to secure the city of his dreams, which he lost because of his liberal attitude regarding religion.
We find the same trait in the character of Humayun. When he was defeated by Sher Shah Suri, he also went to Iran and asked for military help to get his throne back. Shah Tahmasp, successor to Shah Ismail, also asked him to accept the Shia faith in exchange for help. Humayun accepted and he was luckier than Babur in that he did not face any opposition due to this act.
The Mughal emperors followed this policy throughout their long rule. When Babur decided to stay in India, he followed the policy of religious tolerance. In his last will and testament he advised Hymayun not to demolish any temple or to convert people, or slaughter cows. Humayun’s reign was short as he died after getting his throne back. However, this policy was observed by Akbar, who, following sulh-i-kul or peace with all, treated his subjects, irrespective of religion, on the basis of equality.
He was in search of divine truth and invited scholars of all faiths to come and discuss with him the teachings of their religions. The concept of House of Worship was a novel idea of Akbar. It provided him the opportunity to understand different religions.
When the Christian missions came to the court, he showed full respect to the Old Testament and kissed it in reverence. He allowed the Christian Fathers to worship freely. The religious discussions were open and freedom of expression was permitted to them, which, unfortunately, they sometimes misused. Such a liberal attitude was rare in the medieval period.
Aurangzeb deviated from this policy and used religion to fulfil political ends. After him, nearly all Mughal emperors were liberal in matters of religion.
Moreover, it was the policy of the Mughals not to convert people. They did not support any mission to change the religion of Indians. Jahangir issued a farman that only the state had the right to convert. The policy of conversion was that political prisoners were generally asked either to become Muslim or choose death. Therefore, according to Harbans Mukhia, conversion was a punishment and not a favour.
Marriages with Rajput ladies further changed the atmosphere of the Mughal court. The Hindu festivals of divali, holi, etc., were celebrated with pomp and grandeur. This led to the creation of a common culture and thus Mughal emperors became the symbol of Indian unity.

Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution 1973

Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution 1973

This is the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan ACT, April 2010. The Eighteenth Amendment passed in April 2010 was billed as the most compressive reform package after the passage of the 1973 Constitution.
The 18th Amendment made almost 100 changes, including;
Abolishing the concurrent list in principle, transferring the residuary powers to provinces.
Restoring parliamentary sovereignty, by repealing Article 58 (2) (B);
Restoring the jurisdiction of the Political Parties Act to FATA, thereby encouraging political parties to field there candidates from that region in future elections;
Making the CCI a more substantive body;
Restricting the space for issuing presidential ordnances;
Providing for the Chief Election Commissioner's appointment on the basis of agreement between the government and the opposition;
Establishing a Judicial Commission comprising 7 members, including 4 judges, the law minister, the attorney general and a representative of the Supreme Court Bar Association;
Re-naming NWFP as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

BOOK REVIEW of Pakistan political and Constitutional Dilemmas

Book Review”

Title: Pakistan political and Constitutional Dilemmas
Author: Kamal Azfar
Publisher: Pakistan chowk Karachi
Year of
Publication: 1987
Edition: First Edition
Pages: 163
Price: 125



This book Pakistan political and Constitutional Dilemmas by Kamal Azfar is published by Pakistan chowk Karachi, in 1987. This book covers the entire political and Constitutional Dilemmas of the Constitutions of Pakistan. Six decades ago the state of Pakistan was created; it has yet to become a nation. In this process of statehood to nationhood the people and government of Pakistan have to resolve several painful constitutional and political Dilemmas.

Mr. Kamal Azfar, currently a senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of Pakistan graduated in Philosophy Politics and Economics from Balliol College Oxford and is a Barrister-at-Law from the Inner Temple. He has been a Senator and a Provincial Minister for Finance Planning and Development in Sind. Mr. Azfar has represented Pakistan in many international Forums notably as Pakistan’s representative at the Harvard International seminar in 1969 and to the conference of heads of government organized by the Club of Tome in Salzburg in 1975. Mr Afzal was associated as a Research Assistant with Nobel Prize, Winner gunaar myrdal in his magnumopus “Asian Drama”. Mr Azfar has continued as interest in research and writing. He is the author of a boor “Pakistan Odyssey” and of numerous articles. He was founder member and Secretary of the Principal Committee and is currently the Secretary of the Central Committee if the National People’s Party.
In this book the author deals with Pakistan’s dilemmas during its evolution as a nation. The most important of these are the role of the army in the stage, the relationship of religion to politics and the centrifugal and centripetal forces impeding the solution of the problems of provincial autonomy. These daimyos are in tern inter related with the combination of the mula and the man on horseback at one end of the spectrum and separatism bordering upon succession at the other end of the pole.
Pakistan has a rich constitutional history. All constitutional problems in Pakistan steam from the role of the army in the stage. The growing strength of the army and the weakening of political parties have made the army the prime political force in the country. It can be said half Pakistan as it was of bismarks, Prussia that it is a state within the army and not an army within the state. The struggle for power between the beruecratic millitary power elite and the feudal political elite summarizes the history of the state.
The first constitutional crises in the history of the country arouse with imposition of the martial law in Lahore in March in 1953 following disturbances arising out half a moment. Spare added by a religious elements to declare the “Ahmadi” sect who do not accept Prophet Muhammad PBUH as the last profit, minority. This crisis eventually resulted in the dissolution of the provincial government which enjoyed majority in the assembly.
This second crisis arouse at the time of dismissal of Khwaja Nizam-ud-din in April 1953, soon after the dissolution of the Punjab provincial government. Khwaja nizam ud din has his prime minister enjoyed the overwhelming majority in the parliament. This dissolution resulted in the third Constitutional crisis in the history of Pakistan. Maulvi tamizuddin, the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court which was granted and the dissolution declared illegal. However, the Government filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed, not on merits, but in the technical ground that the writ could not be issued as the Governor-General has not given his consent to the amendments to the Government of India Act 1935 which permitted issuance of such writs. A reference was made to the Federal Court to overcome this crisis and on its advice a Constituent Assembly was convened. This Constituent Assembly produced the Constituent of 1956.
The Constituent of 1956 followed the pattern of the Government of India Act 1935. It provided for detention without adjudication, declaration of emergency and dismissal of Provincial Governments. Nominally the Constituent of 1956 was a Federal Constriction of Parliamentary type but in fact powers were concentrated in the Central Government. The basic defect in the Constitution was that the legislature had no power to vote on administrative expenses. Financial control over the administration is the only effective check which legislature exercises over the executive.
The fourth crisis came in 1958 when the Constitution of 1956 was abrogated by the Proclamation of Martial Law throughout the country. The Proclamation of Martial Law on October 1958 paved the way for the Constitution of 1962. The Constitution of 1962 was a imposition by the mandate of Martial Law.
Following the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1973 a Constitution was framed by consensus by the rump Parliament elected in 1970 but on July 5, 1977 Martial Law was imposed again. This was the next crisis but this time the Constitution was kept in abeyance and not abrogated. The last crisis has come with the Revival of the Constitution Order, 1985, when the Constitution was amended by the Chief Martial Law Administrator. Under the Referendum of 1984 General Zia Ul Haq got himself elected as president for five years in a manner contrary to the Constitution of 1973.


END

Nisar Khan Kakar

BOOK REVIEW: The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559

Book Review”



Title: The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559
Author: Rice Eugene F. Jr., Anthony Grafton
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company New York,
London
Year of Publication: 1994
Edition: 2nd Edition
Pages: 209
Price: 195
ISBN: 0-393-96304-7 Paperback

The book The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559 by Rice Eugene F. Jr., Anthony Grafton is published by W. W. Norton & Company New York, London Feb, 1994. This book covers the entire revised curriculum for the history of The Foundations of Early Modern Europe. This classic History of the European People is a work of a great thoroughness and insight which contains much to satisfy general readers as well as scholars. The authoritative study of the Europeans speaking people is the great source of information on Europe History unrolling one of the richest and most instructive view in History.
Eugene F. Rice, Jr., is William R. Sheppard Professor of History at Columbia University. His most recent book is Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. And Anthony Grafton is Dodge Professor of History at Princeton University. His recent books include Defenders of the text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science and New Worlds, Ancient Texts: The Power of Tradition and The Shock of Discovery.
The chief strength of this book is its coverage of economic, military and political history. Of course in this period (basically the Renaissance and Reformation) most of us focus on the artistic, religious, philosophical and scientific developments, so we can use this background information very well. This was my situation, and I found this little book (just 209 pages) perfectly illuminating. In fact, it's the most well-organized, concise, informative text on this period that I know of. Has there been a more eventful century than that between the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and Charles V's abdication 1556. These are the years, after all, which saw the high water mark of the Renaissance in art and literature; the continent-wide crisis of faith in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation; and in politics, the apex (peak) and downfall of the north Italian city-states - not to mention the voyages (journeys) of discovery and commercial adventure overseas and burgeoning of capitalist enterprise which set Europe on the path to world domination. Given its position at the fulcrum of the modern world, survey histories of this period are badly needed.
Unfortunately, despite intense scholarly interest in the early modern period, they are also in short supply. The present effort by Eugene Rice (Columbia) and Anthony Grafton (Princeton) provides a useful and needed remedy. Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, the first volume in the History of Modern Europe series from Norton, succeeds in summarizing the important issues. Unfortunately it also suffers from shortcomings of interpretation and omission.
It's not a great mystery why few general works are available on 15th-16th century history. It's an incredibly complicated and controversial period. Rice and Grafton tackle the subject with a thematic approach, and the book successfully conveys the essential facts. The great names
Appear in due course: Columbus and Cortes; Petrarch and Erasmus; Brunelleschi and Leonardo; Luther and Loyola. The reader gets succinct and capable accounts of the spread of the printed word, advances in technology and warfare, and the reinterpretation of the Classics by the great humanists.
The book is particularly successful on the political front. The authors succeed in reducing the potentially bewildering array of French dynasties, Habsburg marriages, Italian dukes and German princes to a clear schematic of Renaissance power dynamics. A coherent picture of the pivotal rivalries between Habsburgs, French and Turks, and the federalist struggle in Germany, emerges - if one painted with a necessarily broad brush. In its final third, the book also provides a good summary history of the Reformation. So much for the good; now for the not so good. Perhaps it's unfair to criticize a sin of omission when our authors have to deal with such a vast subject in only 209 pages. However, there is one item I'm compelled to note. The great Thomas More figures prominently in the discussion of humanism, and the book's last pages provide a nice summary of the English Reformation. Would it be too much to ask, then, that Mores’ execution for refusal to take the oath to Parliament find even a single word of mention,
But this is a quibble, as is that the dates in the book's subtitle seem to have been chosen at random. The book's most serious flaw occurs at the narrative's most critical point: the discussion of capitalism. It could be argued that the development of capitalism is the key to the early modern period, so it's critical to get this part right. Our authors fail miserably, and I fear that an ideological bias has a lot to do with that failure. We can all agree that this period saw (in general) a transition from the medieval guild-based economic model to a capitalist model. I will refrain from referring to these models as "modes of production", as our authors do, because that is a technical term drawn from Marxist economic theory.
But the author's usage is a good signpost for what's to come. The gist of the authors' account is that craftsmen, who had previously enjoyed independence as guildsmen, lost that independence to the capitalist. As capitalism advanced, the typical industry became "controlled by a merchant who had reduced the master craftsmen in his employ to varying degrees of economic dependence." I think this means that the capitalist hired workmen on different pay scales, but there is no clear explanation in the text so we can't be sure. The point is that previously, the guilds protected the craftsman. Now he was on his own, and therefore ripe for exploitation by the capitalist. This is lamented as a loss of independence and pride: for the guildsmen, "Their pride was their independence." The villainous capitalist robbed them of both. How, may I ask, was the guildsman more independent than the craftsman free to sell his labor and abilities to the highest bidder? Simply put, he wasn't. The guilds were protectionist. Their function was regulatory and restrictive - so it's strange to read that "The craft guild had been a flexible institution." (The same paragraph goes on to contradict itself by detailing the restrictions a guild placed on its members.) In a medieval world the guilds had their place. But by the late 15th century the groundswell of creative energy was too great to be contained by the old restrictions. Unfortunately the class-conflict theory of capitalism permits no such insights. The authors speculate that capitalism operated on a smaller scale in this time Period relative to (for example) state-organized defense projects because "only the state had. The coercive power necessary to recruit and control the great numbers of workers them required." in the authors' world, if a man is working, he must have been "coerced" into doing so. The prospect of getting paid could have nothing to do with it. Further, in their discussion of developments in banking, the authors remark that the international expansion of the silk trade "opened the industry to control by the merchant bankers".
Perhaps they fail to consider that merchant banking was itself the innovation which made the growth of this industry possible. But that would be to admit a non-pernicious influence. Our authors seem not to recognize the critical psychological fact of the Renaissance: the new appetite for risk of all kinds - artistic, exploratory, and yes, financial. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that their perspective is informed less by social-scientific rigor than by allegiance to scientific socialism.

Mughal Empire

Mughal Empire


Humayun's Tomb in Delhi, India.
Main article: Mughal Empire

The Mughal Empire was a product of various Central Asian invasions into the Indian subcontinent. It was founded by the Timurid prince Babur in 1526 with the destruction of the Delhi sultanate, placing its capital in Agra. Babur's death some years later and the indecisive rule of his son, Humayun, brought instability to Mughal rule. The resistance of the Afghani Sher Shah, who administered a string of defeats to Humayun, weakened the empire. A year before his death, however, Humayun managed to recover much of the lost territories, leaving a substantial legacy for his son, the 13 year old Akbar (later known as Akbar the Great), in 1556. Under Akbar, consolidation of the Mughal Empire occurred through both expansion and administrative reforms. After Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan came to power. Subsequently, Aurangazeb ruled vast areas including Afghanisthan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

The empire ruled most of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan for several centuries. Its decline in the early 18th century allowed India to be divided into smaller kingdoms and states. The Mughal dynasty was dissolved by the British Empire after the Indian rebellion of 1857. It left a lasting legacy on Indian culture and architecture. Famous buildings built by the Mughals, include: the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, the Badshahi Mosque, the Lahore Fort, the Shalimar Gardens and the Agra Fort. During the empire's reign, Muslim communities flourished all over India, in Gujarat, Bengal and Hyderabad. Various Sufi orders from Afghanistan and Persia were active throughout the region. More than a quarter of the population converted to Islam.