By Tahir Kamran
Scantily researched and rarely mentioned these days is a significant figure of the medieval history, Allami Abul Fazal, the author of Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari. Our academia’s general indifference to such personalities as Abul Fazal may be attributed to a receding interest in Persian language and literature. Our utilitarian approach to knowledge, and in the process ignoring our history and heritage, has cost us dearly.
Recently, the head of the Translation Bureau of Iran, Dr Nasiri, a historian by training, visited the GC University Lahore’s Persian department on the invitation of Professor Iqbal Shahid. We talked about Ain-i-Akbari and the second part of Akbarnama, which deals with history as a form of knowledge, and about how rarely medieval historical narrative transcends the general practice of chronicling events of certain time period in sequential order. We agreed that Abul Fazal formulated a theory of history, which is yet to be analysed and deliberated on by historians, particularly those interested in the philosophical undercurrents of the subject.
I found the conversation to be illuminating. It motivated me to write this week’s column on Abul Fazal, which I dedicate to Prof. Iqbal Shahid, a scholar in Persian literature of extraordinary stature. It was because of him that I could meet Dr Nasiri.
Born in January 1551 to Shiekh Mubarak in Agra, Abul Fazal inherited from his father and grandfather the tradition of ‘mysticism and toleration, of universal learning and cosmopolitanism’. His was a Hejazi family that had migrated to India from Iran and had settled in Nagaur near Ajmer. He was privileged to be a son of such a celebrated scholar as Sheikh Mubarak. Also, he was the younger brother of Abul Faizi, a renowned Persian poet of his age.
At a young age of 20, Abul Fazal had earned the reputation of an erudite scholar, with a wide range of scholarly pursuits, coupled with profound thinking. His brother Faizi presented him to Akbar in the 19th year of the emperor’s reign in 1574, and very soon he became the Akbar’s alter ego, even more powerful than the prime minister. He obtained a high rank of 4000 horses and distinguished himself as a soldier and a civilian.
Besides being a writer and a scholar, Abul Fazal was ‘a man of affairs’ with a profound understanding of the behaviour of states and the course of history.
He acquired unusual dexterity as a prose writer, which was matched by none of his contemporaries. Thus his works are important, for they are a great source of medieval history and are literary masterpieces. Apart from Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari, Abul Fazal wrote a collection of letters, called ‘Makatib-i-Allami’, ‘Insha-i-Abul Fazal’ or ‘Makatib-i-Abul Fazal’. The collection of letters is divided into four Daftars. These letters were written to kings and amirs on behalf of Akbar. A collection of his private letters has also been compiled; title Rukiat-i-Abul Fazal, which too is of great importance as a primary source of history.
As a prose writer, Abul Fazal was a laureate of great merit. Shah Nawaz Khan, the author of Ma’asir ul-Umara, praised his work and wrote, “As a writer Abul Fazal stands unrivalled. His style is grand and is free from the technicalities and flimsy pettiness of other munshis (scribes) and the force of his words, the structure of his sentences and the suitableness of his compounds and the elegance of his periods are such that it would be difficult for anyone to imitate him.”
Abdullah Khan Uzbek used to say that he was more afraid of the pen of Fazal Khan (Abul Fazal) than the sword of Akbar.
Abul Fazal began writing Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari in 1595 after Mughal Emperor Akbar directed him to “write with the pen of sincerity the account of the glorious events and of our dominion increasing victories”. E. Sreedharan is of the view that “Few histories could have been written from a wider background of education and experience, few prepared more diligently, elaborately and conscientiously than the Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari”. He finished writing it in seven years and presented it to the king in 1602.
A detailed analysis of these works requires another column. This week however I will focus on a few minor aspects of his personality: He is known in history as a glutton who could consume 30 pounds of food everyday. He had four wives; one of them was a Hindu. The power and pelf that he enjoyed earned him several enemies; Prince Saleem, the crown prince, one of them.
Saleem ordered Bir Singh to murder Abul Fazal in 1602, the year he completed his magnum opus. His death came as a big shock to Akbar.
Obviously Abul Fazal produced some of the greatest works of history sponsored by kings and financed by the state.
In Abul Fazal’s Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari, Indian historiography saw a visible departure from the previous methods employed during the Sultanate period. In this regard, three aspects of Abul Fazal’s works of history are worth our appreciation.
First, he used a rationalist approach to history, which was unique in that day and age. One can say that he pioneered rationalism in the local-medieval epistemology. For him, reason has central importance to realise the Truth: “Realisation of Truth, which is the goal of human life, can be achieved only by the light of reason, and reason is nourished by a study of the past.” Thus, he seems to have necessitated rationality as a perennial attribute of history. He considered history, “a unique pearl of science which quiets perturbations, physical and spiritual, and gives light to the darkness external and internal.”
Abul Fazal’s emphasis on rationality as a guiding principle for human life goes on to contradict the long-held view of ‘reason’ having its origin in the West. According to that assertion, it was by way of Colonialism only that India came to adopt rationality, and there were no traces of rationality in the socio-cultural tradition of the subcontinent. That is one big reason why Colonialism is considered benevolence in disguise for Indian people, who otherwise could not have ventured out of medievality.
It is unfortunate that many among our literati consider medieval age essentially irrational, implying that those were the dark ages. One may argue here that it is through Abul Fazal’s works that we can lay claim to rationality stemming from local epistemic tradition. That can help us know alternative traditions of knowledge which have indigenous moorings. One historian contends that “among medieval historians Abul Fazal alone can lay claim to a rational, secular and liberal approach to history”.
The second aspect that is of considerable significance is Abul Fazal’s attention to details. He took incredible pain to ascertain the veracity of the fact before including it into the narrative. Therefore, we can consider him a precursor of Leopold Von Ranke — a Prussian historian of 18th century who enjoys an elevated status of ‘the father of modern history-writing’ — in some sense. Abul Fazal made extensive use of the collection of original sources; their critical scrutiny was the most advanced and novel attempt so far made in Indian history-writing. The well-organised Imperial record office established in 1574-75 was at his disposal, including the considerable material already collected for the Tarikh-i-Alfi.
Besides, Abul Fazal’s extreme fastidiousness can be gauged by the fact that he revised the original draft of Akbar-Nama five times before submitting it to Akbar. He procured copies of the orders earlier issued to provincial governors and other eminent officers. Dignitaries of state and other well-informed persons were called upon to write down their reminiscences and dispatch them to the Court. He made persistent enquiries from old servants and attendants of the Court and discussed events with officers involved. He indeed had all those privileges of access to the original sources and the ears of everybody of some consequence in the Imperial Court, which must have made things quite convenient for him.
Having said that, one cannot deny the talent and diligence Abul Fazal was endowed with. It will not at all be easy to refute Sreedharan’s conclusion about him, which goes on to state, “No historian in India so far had been so insistent on the need for historical methodology and none brought it to such perfection as Abul Fazal”.
The third characteristic of Abul Fazal’s history writing is his broadening of Indian history’s scope. I have no qualms in stating that after Abu Rehan Al Beruini, Abul Fazal was the only historian who made close and meticulous study of Indian social classes his subject of study. He left an account not only of the political institutions and administrative arrangements of north India in the sixteenth century, but a description of the country and the manners, customs and popular beliefs of the local masses.
He did not confine himself to Muslim Kings and nobility (Ashraf) as his focus of historical enquiry. Hindus and Jains were the pre-eminent part of his study, a fact that accords Abul Fazal a unique status among the historians of Medieval India. Through his historical narrative, he tried his best to bridge the gap and the religio-cultural differences between the Hindus and Muslims. He categorically refuted the claims of the ulema that Hindus were kafirs or mushrik. He went on to establish Hindus as believers in One God.
All said and done, it was for the first time that the governed classes found a representation of sorts through the works of Abul Fazal. N.A. Siddiqi writes, “He refused to agree with the view held by his predecessors that Indian history essentially constituted a record of the struggles between the forces of Islam and Hinduism.
For Abul Fazal the conflict was between the Mughal Empire and the Indian princes, Hindu and the Muslim alike.” Athar Abbas Rizvi considers both of Abul Fazal’s works of history as extraordinary pieces of Persian prose. Undoubtedly, his inimitable grand style is much admired by the orientalist scholars for the force of words, the structure of sentences and stylistic elegance.
It is obvious that Abul Fazal wrote these monumental works at the behest of the Emperor. So expecting objectivity the way it is perceived in the era of modernity amounts to asking a bit too much from a medieval historian. In eulogising his master, he at times bade farewell to reason and tended to associate miraculous powers and attributes to Akbar. He is also being said to be the main architect of Din-Illahi along with his father Sheikh Mubarak and brother Abul Faizi, but that is a subject of study that needs a separate series of columns.
Some baffling decisions of the SC
By Manini Chatterjee
Of the three pillars of the state, the judiciary has always evoked much greater respect from ordinary citizens than either the legislature or the executive. Since the legislature comprises elected representatives of the people, we — the people who elect them — feel justly entitled to criticize them at will. The executive, similarly, is more often pilloried than praised when it fails to deliver on its many promises.
The judiciary, on the other hand, has usually been treated as a hallowed institution. Judges, unlike politicians, are seen not only as wise but also possessed of thinner skins. The fear of being hauled up for contempt of court (what construes contempt remains a mystery to most of us) acts as a deterrent to commenting on the judiciary.
But that silence was broken last year. And not by an irreverent media or crusading activists or outspoken lawmakers. It was members of the highest judiciary who dealt the blow, coming out with home truths whose reverberations have yet to subside.
On January 12, 2018, the then four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court — J. Chelameswar, RanjanGogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press conference in the capital. In the course of the press conference, they revealed the letters they had written to the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, questioning his style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases to difference benches of the court. Expressing dismay at the CJI’s refusal to address their grievances, they said, “Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, democracy won’t survive in the country.”
That press conference, which alluded to government interference in the workings of the court, was not a one-off affair. Soon after, in separate letters to the CJI, J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph expressed concerns about the judiciary’s independence in face of the executive’s encroachment.
But what made waves in circles well beyond the judiciary was RanjanGogoi’s speech on July 12 to a packed auditorium in Delhi.Delivering the RamnathGoenka memorial lecture, Gogoi spoke at length on the “Vision of Justice” and the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional ideals.
In the course of the lecture, he quoted an article from the Economist which said, “…independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence.” Gogoi went on to say, “I agree but will only suggest a slight modification in today’s context — not only independent judges and noisy journalists, but even independent journalists and sometimes noisy judges.” Those words made headlines then and have been quoted frequently since.
Pointing out that the judiciary had been endowed with great societal trust, he said, “This very fact gives it its credibility and this very credibility gives it its legitimacy… I will only say that if it wishes to preserve its moral and institutional leverage, it must remain uncontaminated. And, independent. And, fierce. And, at all times. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So is an institution.”
Gogoi’s speech was remarkable because he was in line to be the next Chief Justice. In fact, many feared that he had risked his career with that speech and the government might not elevate him to the post of the CJI after Dipak Misra retired.
Those fears were belied. Gogoi became the Chief Justice of India in early October. But, truth be told, hopes that a feisty judiciary would force more transparency on opaque and questionable executive decisions have also remained unfulfilled.
Some of the Supreme Court’s decisions, such as in the case relating to the removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation chief, has left even retired judges puzzled.
On October 23, the government conducted a midnight raid on the headquarters of the CBI and seized a whole lot of material related to pending investigations. It then summarily removed the CBI chief, AlokVerma, from his post. Since Verma had been appointed by a three-member selection committee (comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest Opposition party and the CJI), he contended that only that committee could remove him — and not the central vigilance commissioner. Verma moved the Supreme Court with alacrity against his arbitrary removal.
The apex court chose not to adjudicate on the removal. Instead, it appointed a retired Supreme Court judge, A.K. Patnaik, to supervise a CVC probe into the allegations of corruption levelled against Verma by his bête noire, the then CBI special director, Rakesh Asthana. It directed the probe be completed within two weeks. The three-judge bench of Gogoi, Sanjay KishanKaul, and K.M. Joseph passed no strictures against the manner in which the raids were conducted by the government nor asked why and what materials had been seized.
Although the probe was completed in two weeks and the report presented to the court, it was not till January 8 that the judges delivered their verdict. On the face of it, the verdict was a victory for Verma. It said that only the three-member selection committee could transfer or divest Verma of his powers, and not the CVC or the Centre.
Again, puzzlingly, it passed no strictures against the government for removing him in the manner it did. Instead, it asked the selection committee to go through the contents of the CVC probe report and decide in a week whether Verma should be exonerated or indicted.
The government convened a meeting the very next day and less than 48 hours after he was reinstated as CBI chief, Verma was once again given marching orders. The CJI had recused himself from the panel, and appointed the judge, A.K. Sikri in his stead. Sikri and the prime minister, Narendra Modi, voted to remove Verma while MallikarjunKharge dissented.
What followed has been extremely unflattering for the apex court. A.K. Patnaik, the judge who had supervised the CVC probe, told The Indian Express that “[t]here was no evidence against Verma regarding corruption”, that the decision to remove him was “very very hasty”, and that the committee “should have applied their mind thoroughly, especially as a Supreme Court judge was there.”
Speaking to The Telegraph, two highly respected former Chief Justices of India also expressed misgivings on the way the committee took the decision without giving Verma a chance to present his side of the case. Former CJI, T.S. Thakur, underlined that if a decision was being taken on the basis of an adverse report against an individual, that individual must be given an opportunity to present his point of view. “If that process has not been followed… then any decision based on such adverse findings will be contrary to the principles of natural justice.”
Another former CJI, R.M. Lodha, said much the same thing: “He (Verma) needs to be heard. Ordinarily, he should be heard. Principles of natural justice deserved to be followed.”
In other words, the Supreme Court’s failure to explicitly state that Verma should be given a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
Similarly, a CJI-headed bench’s verdict on the Rafale deal has also raised eyebrows. While the government, understandably, has hailed the verdict as a “clean chit”, the detailed review petition filed by ArunShourie, Yashwant Sinha and Prashant Bhushan points out how the “the government has blatantly misled the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on false averments in the note not even supported by an affidavit.” In layman’s language, it questions the touching faith the apex court placed in the assertions of the government in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to appoint two judges to the apex court after retracting an earlier selection of two other judges is the latest controversy to hit the judiciary.
The CJI, reportedly, is “very upset” over the “media leaks” on the collegium’s functioning. Last week, he also advised the advocate, Prashant Bhushan — who wanted the government to disclose the names shortlisted by the search committee for the post of Lokpal — not to “look at things from a negative point of view” and to “be positive” instead.
That is fine advice from a spiritual guru. But advocating such a course in today’s India can also be construed as unquestioning faith in a majoritarian government’s intents and actions. The apex court has baffled us on many counts in the last few months. But that someone who spoke in praise of noisy judges and independent journalists should now worry about adverse media reports and negative attitudes to the government is, perhaps, the most bewildering of them all…
Growing menace of corruption
By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir
“One who listens to truth is not less than one who utters the truth”
With glued memories of my infantile period, hardly I could retrieve the surroundings and the events happening around, Brought up in a very small village “Goripora” in Sopore town of Kashmir, a village with meticulous presence, conscious, a mixture of intellect and a think tank of its own, whenever I revert my memory lane through times, I find myself in the nap of my grandfather, an image of an old man enveloped in “chadar” yet young by mind, he was the then head of village, people of all ages enjoyed his presence, igniting the debate pertaining to different issues, being the head of the village, so mostly revenue matters were discussed and the consistent content of all debates used to be “corruption” the word that recurrently vibrated my neurons and propelled me as to what is this corruption all about, initial understanding was like this, “to get your work down, have a chicken to please” and sometimes “the person inflated the pocket to get the work down” in common Kashmiri language, you might have encountered the word most frequently “channel, like the person has channel,designated to corruption. As being in rural area, the incentives for corruption used to be” chicken “an apple box” sometimes red beans “probably due to lack of money as people used to exchange their daily needs rather than money. As I grew up, exposed myself to the environment, what I found was interesting, now an updated version of corruption :every now, people discussing the scourge of corruption, as like a curse, preferably in revenue department, to have an income certificate, an amount of 2 to 3 hundred rupees was a prerequisite, with the time I found people paying huge amounts to get their land acquisitions settled, even to get a driving licence, driving skill hardly mattered, as the time passed by, now the word “corruption” was a constant encrypted into the minds of people, a peculiar picture of engulfing in corruption was most obvious from electricity department, then it was not digitalized, the new house holder enjoyed the bless even without registration by simply paying a meagre amount to officials in the department. “Not a single institution is prone to corruption” but it’s deleterious effects on education and recruitment system “has perturb and monstrous consequences. As I observed during the years, it was evident during the board exams, every one among us might have witnessed the special privilege being offered to some students in the examination Hall, a corruption of intimate level, eventually with the enlightenment of newspapers, social media, the youth Began to lay their repercussions on corruption pertaining to selection process whether it be for further education or selection of job process, like the ‘x’ person got selected because the said person had paid a huge amount for it, it swept the general consensus of youth, dredging them to denial resorting to premature statements that “now this education is futile as you won’t get any things unless you don’t have enough money, there is no place for poor fellows, we can’t continue with this” and the consequence was such that many talented ones dredged in drug dependency, heralding their further education.
Here I am talking about corruption on the local level, attached to the ground where I am the self-observant of this scourge, many a times I have been a part of discussions locally regarding this remorse, but in an alienated elite.
Social networking sites are filled with tons of data regarding corruption, gallons of ink have been spent on news papers to reflect this horror, while everyone apparently and seemingly attacking the subsequent political discourse and the concerned administrative systems,
“I have a virtual opinion, I believe, “every human being has encoded traits, and has a natural tendency to express these traits, both positive and negative as like in all other animals, but the best thing about humans is to differentiate between right and wrong and the ability to direct their energies toward humanity, that’s why called humans, but one’s the person is exacerbated by materialistic influence, the person tends to express the negative trait to fulfil the Ill designed desires, and simply the person who endorses or resorts to such mischievous act of corruption, the person is engulfed my this wild trait “
Now what astonishes me the most,” while everyone seemingly denigrates this scourge, then who supports it, I mean everyone is raising in objection to it, then who constitutes to the corruption.
I would like to prove my content with objective analysis, suppose I am the person, and I am asked to give some amount to secure a place in any govt. department, despite irrelevant educational qualifications and out of any fearful selection procedure, now it’s all about me, would I agree or not, so surely the moment I am in such a position, I will surely opt for it, likewise I believe every single person on the planet not only in the valley, will opt the same, I jus made an analogy and it almost pertains to every aspect. So literally, I mean to say that corruption is from within, not a system is corrupted, in fact the people with this thinking make the system corrupt and that’s how it seems that the whole system is overwhelmed with corruption, it is engrained in the minds of people, “the humans have rbcs, wbcs, and platelets in blood, but I suspect we have one more” corruption cell “in our blood and we have genes encoded with it dominantly.
” We have to deter this menace from within, the moment we object to this greed, it needs to be abolished from within, sanitising the systems won’t yield any results, because it’s already ingrained in the minds of people, so we have to interpret and analyse and suppress this wild trait only then we will get rid of this wild menace infesting our spirituality, ethos”
(The writer is pursuing graduation in Nursing at G M C, Srinagar and can be reached at: [email protected])
Why the JNU story won’t die
By Rakesh Batabyal
Not too long ago in the history of the Republic — 1974 to be precise — a large body of students entered the lobby, and later the room of Vice-Chancellor G Parthasarathy, the founding head of Jawaharlal Nehru University, a man charged with the setting up of a world-class university, and announced that they were gheraoing him. They wanted the barriers of gender separating the girls’ and boys’ hostels to be done away with, as it smacked of a feudal society based on patriarchy. They were expressing the most progressive ideas agitating the young mind — the gendered barricades encompassing society. Parthasarathy, who had interacted with the most powerful people in the world, found this group of students, many of whom did not even speak English (the language of the diplomatic elite that he was familiar with), more powerful than all who had come before — they were students, yet their demands were not for their own interests, nor even for something euphemistically called national interest. They were protesting for something which in their minds they thought would make society better all-in-all. He did not ask for the police, did not chide them, neither was he demurred — he talked to them about social, bureaucratic and other miscellaneous issues that would not permit such a great idea to be immediately pursued in a traditional society; it would in fact be harmed through the vicious constrictions of traditional society. Its time would come, though, one fine day, and then the society would remember the pioneers — those JNU students. Such was the spirit embodied in the foundation of the university that is JNU. There are many other instances that reinforced these values and established the spirit of dissent and dialogue that became the signature of this great institution.
In the mid-1980s, a Dean of Students introduced a register for women students/ guests entering the men’s hostel, where the purpose of visit was to be recorded. Many uncharitable remarks made the administration understand its own lack of practical wisdom, and this rule was never strictly enforced.
Then, in the late 1980s, an ever-watchful body of students discovered that a senior official was drawing salary from two sources. In the pre-RTI age, they made efforts to get at the source. The Vice-Chancellor, a stickler for rules, had to disown the officer; at no point was a student either issued a show-cause notice or shown the door.
In the early 1990s, students wanted to strike against the administration and they were sitting on a hunger strike when the Vice-Chancellor himself joined them in the strike, saying this was his cause too. Professor Yoginder K Alagh, the Vice-Chancellor, was no mean scholar and knew that the students were not demanding something out of the world.
Thus, through such acts, the young were indicating the new and emerging mores, which led to the university not being ossified. Teachers had their individual political and intellectual predilections and students too had their own, but one saw the campus, like the nation, carry on with the variety and colour of these differences.
There were shouts and slogans to drown the other, but they were more a demonstration of intellectual prowess than threats to physically eliminate the other. When the State imposed Emergency in 1975, JNU students became part of street agitations. Their refusal to allow then prime minister Indira Gandhi into the campus is the stuff of legends.
The story of an institution is a story of shared memories and shared ideals. JNU, as it has grown in the last 50 years, is one such great story. Within this story lay millions of small lives and their careers as they have woven the narrative of this country in the last half century.
A university reflects the character of a nation: its moral self, its confidence and its resolve to face the world. When we sat at the table in our hostel mess, when we all talked about our larger vision and smaller plans — about fighting the capital and its sway, our resolve to finish off shades of Apartheid or the discriminating caste hierarchies — we were speaking of the society and for a future society. The shared memories of those talks, of the politics that gave us the language to express those visions and plans, are small stories in the big world.
As the University celebrates its 50th anniversary, it is these shared memories of the collective self that will keep the beauty of the institution intact. All that is beautiful needs to be cherished and the memories are those beautiful things that direct us towards a great future. It is unfortunate that those who do not cherish the memory and what JNU stands for, are at the helm of affairs today. But memories fortunately cannot be killed, only repressed in some circles.