Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 April 2018
This article argues for a re-evaluation of the ‘Islamist’ policies of the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir (r. 1658–1707), many of which were arguably harsher towards Shi‘i and millenarian groups than towards Hindus. By charting Aurangzeb's trials of millenarian leaders throughout his long reign, it suggests that the emperor's desire to introduce a more standardised legal system was at odds with the ‘millennial’ nature of his own kingship. The article further suggests we should look more closely at the influence of regional politics on Mughal policy-making. The fact that Sunni Gujarati clerics acquired a remarkable intimacy with Aurangzeb, both as prince and emperor, demonstrates how Gujarat's sectarian disputes and political economy could play out in the imperial court. Finally, the article calls for a realistic reappraisal of the long shadows cast by Aurangzeb's Islamist legalism.
*In the preparation of this article, I have benefited from the comments of a number of scholars including the editors of this special issue. I wish to express my gratitude to all of them, as well as to Mohammed Meerzaei for his translation of a passage from Arabic.
1 For a recent argument for Akbar's ‘secularity’, see Bhargava, Rajeev, “Forms of Secularity before Secularism: The Political Morality of Ashoka and Akbar”, in Worlds of Difference, (eds.) Reis, Elisa Pereira and Arjomand, Saïd Amir (London, 2013), pp. 95, 112–116Google Scholar.
2 The most recent of these interventions is Truschke, Audrey’s even-handed Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth (New Delhi, 2017)Google Scholar, which cites an earlier version of this article.
3 Brown, Katherine Butler, “Did Aurangzeb ban music? Questions for the historiography of his reign”, Modern Asian Studies, 41, 1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Chandra, Satish, “Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 12, 3 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Eaton, Richard M., “Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 11, 3 (2000), pp. 307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Eaton does not explain (nor even mention) Aurangzeb's order for the destruction of the Chintaman Jain temple in Ahmedabad in 1645, nor his orders to pull down the Somanath temple in 1659, the year of his accession. On the Chintaman temple, see Khān, ‘Alī Muḥammad and Kāyasth, Mīṭhālāl, Mirāt-i Aḥmadī (Baroda, 1926-30), 1, p. 220Google Scholar. Romila Thapar mentions Aurangzeb's two orders (in 1659 and 1706) to have the Somanath temple pulled down and concludes that the second order suggests that the first was never carried out. Thapar, Romila, Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History (New Delhi, 2004), p. 68Google Scholar.
6 Goswamy, B. N. and Grewal, J. S., The Mughals and the Jogis of Jakhbar: Some Madad-i-maʻāsh and Other Documents (Simla, 1967)Google Scholar.
7 Eaton, “Desecration”; Chandra, Jnan, “Aurangzib and Hindu Temples”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, 5 (1957)Google Scholar; “Alamgir's patronage of Hindu temples”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, 6 (1959).
8 “[Awrangzīb's] “religious policies” were probably not intended as a far-reaching abnegation of the religiously inclusive and tolerant imperial policies of previous Mughal rulers”. Munis Faruqi, “Awrangzīb”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three (Brill Online, 2014), p. 69.
9 Amin, Shahid, “On Retelling the Muslim Conquest”, in History and the Present, (eds.) Chatterjee, Partha and Ghosh, Anjan (New Delhi, 2002), p. 30Google Scholar.
10 Comparative exploration is outside the scope of this article, but the rise of Shi‘i clericalism in the Safavid empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and clerical anti-messianism (as demonstrated, for instance in the case of Sabbatai Sevi) in the Ottoman empire may be seen as contemporary instances of anti-cosmopolitan Islamic early modernities. Gujarat was particularly exposed to developments in the two neighbouring empires, as well as in the Arabian peninsula, by virtue of its position, scholarly contacts and trade links.
11 Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Turning the Stones Over: Sixteenth-Century Millenarianism from the Tagus to the Ganges”, Indian Economic & Social History Review, 40, 2 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I will use “millennialism” and “millenarianism” interchangeably here, following the Encyclopedia of Religion. “Millenarianism, known also as millennialism, is the belief that the end of this world is at hand and that in its wake will appear a New World, inexhaustibly fertile, harmonious, sanctified, and just”. Schwartz, Hillel, “Millenarianism: An Overview”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, (ed.) Jones, Lindsay (Detroit, 2005), p. 6028Google Scholar.
12 Subrahmanyam, “Turning the Stones Over”, pp. 133-134.
13 Moin, A. Azfar, The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam (New York, 2012), pp. 132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Akbar began the observance of the millennium a decade early, in 1582.
14 As with the Mahdavis, see below. See also Moin, The Millennial Sovereign, pp. 155-161 and Chapter 5, passim; and MacLean, Derryl N., “Real Men and False Men at the Court of Akbar: The Majalis of Shaykh Mustafa Gujarati”, in Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, (eds.) Gilmartin, David and Lawrence, Bruce B. (Gainesville, 2000)Google Scholar.
15 Owen Cornwall, “An Early Modern Conjunction of Persian and Sanskrit Astrology”, unpublished paper, Annual South Asia Conference, Madison, 2015.
16 Brown, “Did Aurangzeb ban music?”
17 Moin, The Millennial Sovereign, pp. 233-239.
18 One of Aurangzeb's teachers and closest advisers, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qavi became ṣadr al-ṣudūr (minister in charge of religious grants and judicial appointments) after Aurangzeb's coronation, receiving the title of I‘timad Khan. Remembered for his role in the trial of the Sufi Sarmad in 1660-61, he was murdered in 1667. See Kinra, Rajeev, “Infantilizing Bābā Dārā: The Cultural Memory of Dārā Shekuh and the Mughal Public Sphere”, Journal of Persianate Studies, 2 (2009), pp. 188–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to Taley Mohammad Khan, ‘Abd al-Qavi had a Gujarat connection, having previously held the position of muftī of Palanpur and moving to Ahmedabad when Aurangzeb was appointed governor of Gujarat in 1645. Khan, Taley Mohammad, History of the Palanpur State (Baroda, 1913), p. 80Google Scholar.
19 Khan, History of the Palanpur State, pp. 79-81. Although ‘Abd al-Qavi was at Aurangzeb's side in 1646, I have not found a contemporary mention of Qazi ‘Abd al-Wahhab, about whom more below, in other accounts of the incident.
20 Khān, ‘Alī Muḥammad, Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, translated by M. F. Lokhandwala (Baroda, 1965), pp. 194–195Google Scholar; Khān, ʿAlī Muḥammad and Kāyasth, Mīṭhālāl, Mirāt-i Aḥmadī: Supplement, translated by Syed Nawab Ali and C. N. Seddon (Baroda, 1928), pp. 62–63Google Scholar.
21 MacLean, , “The Sociology of Political Engagement”, in India's Islamic Traditions, 711-1750, (ed.) Eaton, Richard M. (New Delhi, 2003), p. 153Google Scholar.
22 Ibid., p. 159; Subrahmanyam, “Turning the Stones Over”, pp. 147-148.
23 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī Supplement, translation, p. 62.
24 MacLean, “Real Men and False Men at the Court of Akbar”, p. 202.
25 Ibid., p. 199. Shaykh Mustafa accused the ‘ulama of effeminacy, of being “false men”. “The Mahdavi charge is against false Muslims who do not take Islam seriously, and their solution is a radical millennial space on Indian earth. . .”, p. 209.
26 Ibid., pp. 203, 213, n. 20. Akbar's millennialism was forged with the help of Abu'l Fazl, a critical source of Mahdavi ideas courtesy of his father. Says MacLean, “Common elements in Mahdavi and Akbari millennialism include the attack on taqlid, the concern with the eschatological properties of the year 1000, the emphasis on authoritative vilayat, and the use of elusive experimental poetry as expressive of that vilayat”.
27 MacLean, “The Sociology of Political Engagement”, p. 160. Shaykh Mustafa Gujarati tried to convince Akbar of a Mahdavi legitimation for the Mughals but was ultimately unsuccessful. MacLean, “Real Men and False Men at the Court of Akbar”, p. 213.
28 MacLean, “The Sociology of Political Engagement”, p. 162.
29 Khān, Shāh Nawāz and al-Ḥayy, ‘Abd, Maʾāsir al-umarā ʾ (Calcutta, 1888), 1, p. 235Google Scholar.
30 See Khān, Shāh Nawāz and al-Ḥayy, ‘Abd, Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translated by Henry Beveridge and Baini Prasad, 1 (Calcutta, 1911; reprinted, 1979), pp. 113-116Google Scholar, for an account of Jamal Khan and Abu'l Fath Khan Dakkani, Mahdavis active in Ahmadnagar in the early seventeenth century.
31 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī Supplement, translation, p. 62.
32 Ibid., p. 62. According to Taley Mohammad Khan, the clerics wrote a fatwā advising the prince to have Sayyid Raju expelled from the city. The order was delivered to Raju at the home of one of his Panni Afghan disciples the following day. Khan, History of the Palanpur State, pp. 80-81.
33 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī Supplement, translation, p. 63.
34 Taley Mohammad Khan relates that Shah Beg the kotwāl was joined by Bahadur Khan Chela, Isma‘il Beg, and the ruler of Navanagar, Jam Ranmal. A Davezai Pathan named Diler Khan delivered the death blow to Sayyid Raju as he sat at prayer. Khan, History of the Palanpur State pp. 81-82.
35 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, translation, p. 194.
36 MacLean, “The Sociology of Political Engagement”, pp.162-163, citing the Mubāḥathah-yi ‘Ālamgīrī of Abū al-Qāsim, n.d., p. 9.
37 MacLean, “The Sociology of Political Engagement”, p. 163.
38 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1, p. 218, 220; translation, pp. 192-194. The author of the Mirāt says that Sayyid Jalal's manṣab rank was raised to 6000 zāt and 1500 savār in 1645. Lahauri states that this rank had already been awarded by Shah Jahan in 1642. Lāhaurī, ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, Badshāhnāma, (eds.) Kabiruddin, and Rahim, Abdur (Calcutta, 1867-68), 2, p. 718Google Scholar.
39 Sayyidī Ḥasan-jī Bādshāh b. Sayyidī Shams Khān, “Kitab al-tadhkirah”, MS in the Tayyibi Dawoodi Bohra Library of Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, Mumbai (ca. 1646/1056 ah), folio 5. I am grateful for permission to cite this important text. Translated from the Arabic by Mohammed Meerzaei.
40 Misra, Satish C., Muslim Communities of Gujarat: Preliminary studies in their history and social organization (New York, 1964), p. 31Google Scholar. Misra gives no citation but his sources appear to be the following community histories: Jīvābhāi, Muḥammad ‘Alī b., Mausam-i-bahār (Bombay, 1882)Google Scholar and Badripresswala, Ismā‘īljī Ḥasanalī, Akhbār al-da‘wat al-akarmīn (Rajkot, 1937)Google Scholar.
41 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī Supplement, translation, p. 110.
42 The Bohras used (and continue to use) the Fatimid ‘Miṣrī’ calendrical system, a variant of the lunar calendar in which months are assigned a predetermined number of days. As month lengths were calculated arithmetically rather than by astronomical observance, the Bohras did not regard sighting of the moon as the end of the Ramadan fast. While I am not aware of Bohras adopting a ‘Hindu’ calendrical system, the accusation may have come about because other Isma‘ilis in Gujarat, such as certain Satpanthi groups, used Indic calendars and observed certain Indic festivals.
43 Sayyidī Ḥasan-jī Bādshāh, “Kitab al-tadhkirah”, f. 11
44 Tahera Qutbuddin, “The 32nd Dai Al-Mutlaq Syedna Qutub-Khan Qutbuddin RA”, Fatemi Dawat Biography Series http://www.fatemidawat.com/assets/images/Published%20Works/Dawat%20History%20and%20Biography/32%20Syedna%20Qutbuddin%20Shaheed%20tarikh%20author.pdf, pp. 4-5 (accessed 1 January 2018).
45 Sayyidī Ḥasan-jī Bādshāh, “Kitab al-tadhkirah”, f. 14, Misra, Muslim Communities, p. 32. According to Tahera Qutbuddin, “Due to the hundreds of martyrs buried in her soil, Ahmadabad is known in Bohra parlance as “Little Karbalāʾ” (chhoťī Karbalā)”. Qutbuddin, Tahera, “Bohras”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, (eds.) Krämer, Gudrun et al. (Brill Online, 2013)Google Scholar.
46 This was an attempt to inculcate in him the appropriate ethos of Mughal discipleship and reverence—an example of a millennial tradition that Aurangzeb preserved.
47 Misra, Muslim Communities, p. 35. It is not clear whether Dara knew about his deputy's actions, but this incident may dent his reputation for religious open-mindedness.
48 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1, pp. 352-353; Sarkar, Jadunath, History of Aurangzib mainly based on Persian Sources (Calcutta, 1912), 3, p. 320Google Scholar.
49 Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, 1, pp. 433-434.
50 His name is not mentioned in the Bohra accounts but Mukhtar Khan was governor of Gujarat in 1682. Misra, Muslim Communities, p. 39. The dā‘ī remained in Jamnagar and Khambhalia until his death in 1699. After this time, trouble started between the dā‘ī and the exiled ruler of Jamnagar, Lakhaji (r. 1690-1709), resulting in the imprisonment of the dā‘ī’s son who was released only after the payment of 10 lakh (1 million) Mahmudis.
51 Misra, Muslim Communities, p. 37; Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1, pp. 356-359.
52 Ibid., p. 358.
53 Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, 1, p. 81.
54 The goodwill felt by many Gujaratis for Dara may be related to his period as governor shortly after Aurangzeb. While one of Aurangzeb's first acts after taking office as governor of Gujarat in 1645 was to have the Jain temple built by prominent Ahmedabad trader Shantidas Jawahari destroyed and replaced by a mosque, in Dara's tenure (from 1658–62, during which time his deputy Ghairat Khan functioned in Dara's place), Shah Jahan issued a farmān restoring the Jain temple destroyed by Aurangzeb to Shantidas Jawahari. (3 July) The farmān bears the seal of Dara Shukoh. Although the Jains considered the temple property desecrated and abandoned it, the gesture may have resonated among non-Muslims more widely. M. S. Commissariat, A History of Gujarat (Bombay, New York, 1938), 2, p. 130.
55 See Sheikh, Samira, “Alliance, Genealogy and Political Power: The Cūḍāsamās of Junagadh and the Sultans of Gujarat”, Medieval History Journal, 11, 1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 C. Davis, “Dara Shukuh and Aurangzib: Issues of Religion and Politics and their Impact on Indo-Muslim Society”, PhD thesis (Indiana University, 2002), p. 237.
57 Kinra, “Infantilizing Bābā Dārā”, pp. 184–192.
58 Kinra, “Infantilizing Bābā Dārā”, p. 187.
59 Khān, Muḥammad Sāqī Musta‘idd, Ma’āṣir-i ‘Alamgīrī: A History of the Emperor Aurangzib ‘Alamgir (r. 1658-1707 A.D.), translated by Jadunath Sarkar (Calcutta, 1947), pp. 71–72Google Scholar.
60 Khān, Muḥammad Hāshim Khāfī, Muntakhab al-lubāb, in Elliot, H. M. and Dowson, John, History of India (Allahabad, 1969), 7, p. 143Google Scholar.
61 On Prannath and the Pranamis see Khan, Dominique-Sila, “The Mahdi of Panna: A Short History of the Pranamis, Part 1”, Indian Journal of Secularism, 6 (2003)Google Scholar and “The Mahdi of Panna: A Short History of the Pranamis, Part 2”, Indian Journal of Secularism, 7, 1 (2003); articles by Mukharya, P. S., Das Gupta, Bhagwan, and Ali, Hafiz Muhammad Tahir in Medieval Bhakti Movements in India, Sri Caitanya Quincentenary Commemoration Volume, (ed.) Bhattacharyya, N. N. (Delhi, 1989)Google Scholar; and Brendan P. LaRocque, “Trade, State and Religion in Early Modern India: Devotionalism and the Market Economy in the Mughal Empire”, PhD thesis (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004).
62 The following summary of Prannath's movement is taken from LaRocque, “Trade, State and Religion in Early Modern India”, pp. 205-213, and Sandhya Sharma, “Society and Culture in Northern India as Reflected in the Reeti Poetry During the Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century”, PhD thesis (Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2000), Chapter 5, both of whom quote modern, late twentieth-century editions of a seventeenth-century hagiography of Prannath by a disciple named Lal Das (see for example, Lāldāsa, Bītaka, (eds.) Māniklāl Dhāmi and Vimalā Mehtā [New Delhi, 1991]).
63 The hagiography dates Prannath's visit to Delhi to VS 1735 (1678-9). Jizya was imposed in 1679.
64 Amir Aqil Khan should probably be identified with ‘Āqil Khan Mīr Askarī who became a bakhshī-i tan (superintendent of grants) in 1679 and two years later, the governor of Delhi, a post he held until his death in 1695. He had a long and close acquaintance with Aurangzeb, consoling him with a verse of his own composition when the prince's beloved companion Hira Bai Zainabadi died in 1654. Ma'āṣir al-umarā’, translation, pp. 73-74.
65 Sidi Faulad Khan was kotwāl of Shahjahanabad under Aurangzeb and his successor Muhammad Shah.
66 Sharma, “Society and Culture in Northern India”, p. 234, citing Bītak, sections 40, 41, 44.
67 A full study of the rebellion will appear in Samira Sheikh, “The Matiya Rebellion and Religious Categories in Early Modern Gujarat” (forthcoming).
68 On the rebellion, see Aniruddha Ray, “François Martin's Account of the Matiya Uprising in 1684”, (paper presented at the Indian History Congress, 31st session, Benares, 1969). On the Satpanthis of Pirana, see Khan, D.-S. and Moir, Zawahir, “Coexistence and Communalism: The Shrine of Pirana in Gujarat”, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 22 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Ma’āṣir-i ‘Alamgīrī, translation, p. 74.
70 Ibid., p. 174.
71 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, p. 236.
72 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, translation, p. 220.
73 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 1, p. 75.
74 For more details about the split, see Misra, Muslim Communities, pp. 19-22.
75 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 1, p. 74.
76 According to Dockrat, this episode was prompted by the appointment of ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan-i Khanan, a Shi‘a, as governor of Gujarat in 1573-76. Muhammad Ashraf Ebrahim Dockrat, “Between Orthodoxy and Mysticism: The Life and Works of Muḥammad Ibn Ṭāhir Al-Fattanī (914/1508-986/1578)” (University of South Africa, 2002), p. 66.
77 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 1, p. 235. According to S. C. Misra, based on Bohra records, the assassin was an Isma‘ili Bohra. Misra, Muslim Communities, p. 24, fn.26. Other accounts say he was assassinated by a Mahdavi, perhaps helped by Akbar's chronicler and close associate Abu'l Fazl, whose father was a Mahdavi. Dockrat, “Between Orthodoxy and Mysticism”, p. 68.
78 Manucci, Niccolao, Storia do Mogor, or Mogul India, 1653-1708, translated by William Irvine, (London, 1907), 2, p. 4, fn.86Google Scholar, cited in Brown, “Did Aurangzeb ban music? Questions for the historiography of his reign”, p. 96.
79 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 1, p. 239.
80 Ibid., p. 240.
81 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī Supplement, translation, pp. 13, 155.
82 According to his employee Ishwardas Nagar, a fellow resident of Patan and author of the Futūḥāt-i ‘Alamgīrī, Shaykh al-Islam resisted the appointment. His Majesty replied, “In view of your acquisition of knowledge and character (halat), I ordered you to undertake the task of a qazi, which is incumbent on all men, and authorised you to perform the works of the world and the ascertainment of the truth in it, which too is among the great acts of devotion”. At last the Shaikh in consideration of the Emperor's extreme kindness and grace, accepted the post, and adorned the woolsack of the (court of) Holy Law”. Īshwardās Nāgar, Futūḥāt-i ‘Ālamgīrī, (eds.) Raghubir Sinh and Quazi Karamtullah, translated by M. F. Lokhandwala and Jadunath Sarkar (Vadodara, 1995). p.44.
83 See Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, p. 239. Satish Chandra, basing himself on Abū’l Faẓl Ma‘mūrī’s text, gives the wrong date for this event. Chandra, “Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century”, p. 336, fn.1. For a detailed note on accounts of this event see Bilgrami, Rafat, “Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his family under ‘Alamgīr”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, 31, 2 (1983), p. 110, n.1Google Scholar.
84 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1, p. 359.
85 According to the Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, Sayyid Jalal held the position of chief judge, qāẓī al-quẓāt. Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1 pp. 217–219. According to Shah Nawaz Khan, he “accepted the ṣadārat of India” (became ṣadr al-ṣudūr) in 1642 and held the position until his death in 1647. Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 3, pp. 447-451. Intriguingly, Shah Nawaz Khan reported that Sayyid Jalal and his ancestors were said to belong to the Imāmiya (Shi‘i) religion. (p. 448) In light of Aurangzeb's views, it would be curious if his son, Raẓavī Khan, professed Shi‘i beliefs or practices.
86 Maʾāṣir al-umarāʾ, translation, 2, pp. 307-309.
87 Mirāt-i Aḥmadī, 1, p. 310.
88 Ashin Das Gupta conjectures that Mulla ‘Abd al-Ghafūr was an Ismā'īlī but there is no doubt that he was a Sunni Bohra. Gupta, Ashin Das, The World of the Indian Ocean Merchant, 1500–1800. Collected Essays of Ashin Das Gupta (New Delhi, 2004), p. 336Google Scholar, n. 7. See also Prakash, Om, “The Indian maritime merchant, 1500–1800”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 47, 3 (2004), pp. 441, 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to Ashin Das Gupta, he came to Surat around 1678. Om Prakash suggests he came to Surat in the 1660s, which would have been while ‘Abd al-Wahhab was still alive.
89 Mehta, Makrand, Indian Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Historical Perspective: With special reference to the shroffs of Gujarat, 17th to 19th centuries (New Delhi, 1991), p. 35Google Scholar.
90 For a description of the trial of Sarmad see Kinra, “Infantilizing Bābā Dārā”, pp. 188-189.
91 Allāmī, Abu'l Faẓl, The Aín i Akbari (Calcutta, 1873-94), 1, p. 258Google Scholar.
92 Husain, Wahed, Administration of Justice During the Muslim Rule in India (Calcutta, 1934), p. 51Google Scholar, citing Mirāt al-‘alam.
93 Sarkar, Jadunath, Mughal Administration (Calcutta, 1920), p. 37Google Scholar, citing an early eighteenth-century Mughal administrative manual: “Be just, be honest, be impartial. Hold trials in the presence of the parties and at the court-house and the seat of government (muhakuma). . .Do not accept presents from the people of the place where you serve, nor attend entertainments given by anybody and everybody. . . Know poverty (faqr) to be your glory (fakhr)”, (pp. 41-42).
94 Guenther, Alan, “Hanafi Fiqh in Mughal India: The Fatāwá-i ‘Ālamgīrī”’, in India's Islamic Traditions, 711-1750, (ed.) Eaton, Richard M. (New Delhi, 2003), pp. 213–214Google Scholar.
95 Khalfaoui, Mouez, “al-Fatāwā l-ʿĀlamgīriyya”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three (ed.) Fleet, Kate et al. (Brill Online, 2015)Google Scholar.
96 Aurangzeb's Shari‘a-based reforms departed significantly from Akbar's legal and political systematisation of the previous century as encoded in the Ain-i Akbari and other texts. It would be interesting to compare conceptions of the imperial subject in these two texts and regimes.
97 Sheikh, Samira, Forging a Region: Sultans, traders, and pilgrims in Gujarat, 1200-1500 (New Delhi, 2010), Chapter 5Google Scholar.
98 See, for instance, the controversy that erupted in 1710-11 over Aurangzeb's successor Bahadur Shah's proclamation that caused opponents to allege Shi‘i leanings. A. Kaicker, “Unquiet City: Making and Unmaking Politics in Mughal Delhi, 1707-39”, Ph.D. thesis (Columbia University, 2014), pp. 389-416. Kaicker reads Bahadur Shah's proclamation as a “maximalist” position which aimed to integrate Sunni and Shi‘i claims to the state (p. 401), which would be a marked divergence from Aurangzeb's stance.
99 The resistance, from the late nineteenth century onwards, to the messianic claims of Ghulam Ahmad and his followers are another prominent example. See Friedmann, Y., “The Messianic Claim of Ghulām Aḥmad”, in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, (eds.) Schäfer, P. and Cohen, M. R. (Leiden, Boston, Koln, 1998), pp. 299–310Google Scholar.
