11.

1 INTRODUCTION
Sheikh Abu'L-Fa}i (1551-1602) was historian, officer, chief secretary, and
confidant of the Mughal emperor Akbar. He was born on 14 January 1551 and
was the second son of Shaikh Mob rak, a teacher and scholar who had migrated
to Agra in 1543 from Nagaur, Rajastan. Fazal was an eminent historian of
Medieval India along with Barani.
Fazal occupies a place of distinction. This is mainly because of the predominance
of intellectual elements in his writings, his unfailing appeal to reason against
religious and cultural traditions, broader view of history and a new methodology
which he sought to apply to his task. His interpretation of history was integrally
linked to the political, social, economic and religious realities of that period and
strove to address the plurality and diversity of Indian society at large that Akbar
wished to rule in the best possible manner.
 12.2 INTRODUCTION

Many distinguished historians contributed to the study ofMedieval India, and Abul
Fazal (15S1-1602) is one of the most well-known. There are several reasons for this,
including the prominence ofintellectual themes in his wriings, his persistence in appealing
to reason in "the face ofreligious and cultural norms, and a novel approach to his
goal"', It was impossible for him to maintain his "'historical outlook without being
deeply entangled with the political, social, economic, and religious realities of the time
period under consideration",
Even though Fazal has not left a treatise on political theory in the traditional
sense, it is not difficult to evaluate him as a political thinker. We must first enlighten
ourselves oftheprejudices that his ornate style has fostered in some of his critics'
minds to arive at an accurate assessment ofhis contribution to political philosophy. If
we take a closer look at Fazal's Akbar-Nama and Ain-i-Akbari, the only two works
that provide us with direct knowledge ofthe subject, we will discover that he is not
always so rhetorical in all ofhis writings. In the Ain-i-Akbari, in particular, it is matter
offact and straight forward for the most part, though not occasionally as dry as dust as
a gazetteer. No matter how significant Fazal's influence on Akbar's political theory
and policies may have been, we would be well not to exaggerate the extent of that
influence. In addition to Akbar's own character, several other variables shaped his
government and gave shape to his state. Those who recall the events of that day will
remember that Fazal entered the arena after his patron and friend and leftit before the
emperor died. Political concepts in Islam originate from a variety ofsources. Historically,
some of it may be traced back to pre-Islamic sources, and a significant portion of it
was founded on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. The division of India into
numerous smaller kingdoms at the start of the Mughal Empire resulted in asignificant
deal ofpolitical instability regularly. Finally, after a long battle, the Mongol king Babar

defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the final monarchof the Delhi Sultanate, and took control of
the region.
Abul Fazal approached history froma logical and secular perspective. Anovel
methodology for collecting facts and marshalling them based on critical examination
was also implemented by him². With chapters on "administrative norms, methods, and
topographical accounts of various historical research and writing provinces, he
substantially extended the area".

12.3 FAZAL'S ROYALTY FOR THE STATE

There is no higher dignity in God's eyes than that ofroyalty, and those who are wise
drink from the fountain of its auspiciousness. For those who seek further evidence, the
fact that royalty is both aremedy for the spirit ofrebellionand the reason why subjects
obey is ample proof of the point made. It can even be seen in the meaning ofthe name
Padshah', in which Pad represents stability and possession, and Shah denotes origin
and lordship. Thus, a king is the source of all strength and possession in a society. If
monarchy did not exist, the whirlwind ofstrife would never subside, and grecdy ambition
would never be able to restrain themselves. Under the weight of"the world, this immense
marketplace, would lose its affluence, and the entire planet would become a barren
wasteland"". However, in the light of imperial justice, some choose the route of
obedience with joy, while others abstain from violence out of dread of punishment,
and some are forced to choose the path of righteousness out of need. Shah is also a
name given to someone who outperforms his peers, as evidenced by words such as
Shah-swar and Shah-rah"; it is also a term applied to a bridegroom, in which case
the world, in the role of the bride, betrothed herself to the king and became his
worshipper. Shah is also a name given to someone who outperforms his peers, as
evidenced by words such as Shah-swar and Shah-rah.
 Men who are foolish and short-sighted are unable to distinguish between a true
king and a greedy tyrant. This is also not surprising, given that both have a vast treasury,
alarge army, cunning servants, obedient people, an abundance of wise men, many
skilled workers, and abunch of means of enjoyment in common. Men with greater
insight, on the other hand, see a distinction'". The items that have just been listed are
long-lasting in the fommer, but they are oflimited duration in the latter 's case. Moreover,
the former does not identify with these things because his goal is to alleviate oppression
and provide for everything good in the world. The last is restrained by the external
manifestations of royal power, pride, the slavishness of men, and the desire for pleasure:
as a result, instability, unsettledness, strife, oppression, faithlessness, and robbery can
be found in every corner of the world!".
Fazal views royalty as "a divine light or perhaps the reason behind the art of
perfection for the Sultan"!3, This is referred to as Farr--Izidi" (the divine light) in
modern language, while it is refered to as Kiyan Khura' in ancient language. In its
presence, men bow their heads in adoration and place their foreheads on the ground
as if they were submitting to God. However, ifthe Badshah discriminated against
"people based on their caste, religion, or social class, he could not be considered a
decent ruler. According to him, the monarch had been endowed with magical powers,
and it was impossible to stand against him or share his authority with anyone else. As
a result, everyone is required to obey his orders"e, In Abul Fazal's opinion, Akbar
was the idcal king, which is why he referred to Akbar as "a complete man who could
never make a mistake"!,
The agent of God was not permitted to discriminate between the numerous
religious beliefs represented in the society. The development ofa theory to support a
tolerant religious policy was urgently required at this time. No specific religion was
granted sovereignty; this was not the case. It took on an all-encompassin --tre.

They believed that "Religions were fundamentally the same, with different paths. Abul
Fazal used logic in Islam"" and the Shariar". While Barani was doing so, he could
not come up with an explanation for their authority over others. He argued that the
principle of monarchicalsovereignty was more applicable ina multi-religious society
such as India. Because the monarch was supreme above all religions, sovereignty was
not associated with any religion in this context. The excellent ideals of diferent faiths
were advocated by him, and as a result, he brought together people of other faiths to
work for world peace. He needed to maintain such characteristics by establishing a
religious affiliation that was right for him. He brought relief to himselfand his people by
releasing them from the shackles of their own thinking. From Abul Fazal, we can
deduce that a sovereign must be tolerant of current ideologies. He should recognise
his people's old methods as necessary and complimentary to modern life. Abul Fazal
explaincd Akbar's views on social refom by portaying him as having alogical approach
to the issue. Fazal claimed that he did so because he wished to build a"Hindustan"
that would stand out more confidently in the international community.

12.4 FAZAL'S S0CIETAL DIVISION

To put it another way, he described sovereignty and the state in terms of society.
Following this, he divided "the population into four groups: warriors, craftsmen, and
merchants; learned; and others. The learning class, according to him, was the third
most significant. He degraded this class based on the socioeconomic reality of his
period"". Based on the Greek tradition, he also divided human beings into three
categories: noble, base, and intermediate, according to their characteristics. Nobles
were individuals who possessed superior intelligence, sagacity, administrative ability
orcomposition ofeloquence,and personal courage to cary out military duties. Various
occupations were represented in the base and intermediate portions. These were the
characteristics of self-centered people who carried out their activities primarily for
their own benefit rather than the benefit ofothers.
 The views ofAbul Fazal on human beings, particularly the lower classes, whom
he referred to as "base" or "ignorable," echoed in significant part the prejudices of the
contemporaneous upper classes, according to Satish Chandra. According to this
interpretation, individuals belonging to aristocratic families and the upper castes should
not aspire to a portion of state authority". ThOse in charge of running the state should
be reserved for noble families and the upper castes. As a result ofthe predominance of
wicked sectors in society, royal tyranny was justified because onlya monarch who
possessed the required traits could maintain control over these sections of society.
Second, for Fazal, it was "the most significant element for any Sultan who had been
indulged with the sacrosanct features of Far-j-lzidi which help to bring the societal
stability by not allowing any personal struggles"", It was also his responsibility to
"restore balance and contribute to the world's flourishing by combining individual talent
with respect for others"*, Asa result, maintaining one's proper station in life required
stability and even dignity">. Akbar is recorded as saying that the Daroghas should
keep a close eye on their flock to ensure that no one out of covetousness abandons
their own trade or occupation. In another place, we are told that Akbar admired
Shah Tahmasp's"% assertion that-When atedious takes to learning, he does it at the
price ofhis erands27".
The divinity ofsovereignty defied all attempts to limit the power and authority of
the sovereign in the most obvious way. Abul Fazal divides one ofhis many cassifications
ofhuman beings into three types based on their behavior in various contexts: People
whose loyalty to the king, Akbar, is unwavering and undemanding are the noblest of
souls, and this is a virtue in and ofitself. Akbaris the noblest ofsouls, These individuals,
who have built a business out oftheir service and have demonstrated their commitment
in exchange for tangible benefits, are placed below them on the hierarchy ofimportance.
The worst of"the worst show no signs ofloyalty. Defcating rebels becomes a cleansing
procedure for the ruling elite in mediaeval court literature" It was not only those who

defied imperial authority which constituted the rebellious, according to Abul Fazal;
"even those who snubbed to capitulation to the Mughal glorious rule", constituted
rebels becauIse "they were defying the divine destiny manifested in history's teleology",

12.5 FAZAL'S IDEAL SULTAN-AKBAR

Fazal stated in his most renowned Akbar Nama that Akbar was consistently brilliant
in his decisions about the welfare of hispeople. He possessed ahigh degree of tolerance
and open-mindedness, as well as astrong sense ofjustice. He brought stability to "the
state and promoted excellent govemance to ensure and empower the economic growth,
peace, and the safety of his people", He confirmed that everyone could practice
their religion freely. His political beliefs were unambiguous, and they were geared
toward the expansion of the state's borders. As a result, Abul Fazal used moral
arguments to defend his imperialist policies. In the words ofHarbans Mukhia, Abul
Fazal sees "the sovereign principally as a patriarchal figure who bestows absolute
power to his illegitimate children". Everything that the ruler does, all presents Mansabs
or awards granted to his nobles, princes, or peasants, are all considered favours; no
one gains anything by their own merits or efforts. Abul Fazal's, on the other hand,
binds the king to provide paternal care to his citizens as part ofhis authority. It appears
that Abul Fazal's favourite term for the monarch is "subjects have been committed to
the king by God,*" which he uses in conjunction with the metaphors of shepherd,
gardener, and physician. Buddhism, Greco-Roman, ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, and
biblical philosophy are a few ofthe cultures and streams of thought included in this
concept. Obviously, enumeration ofthe necessary characteristics of aruler has been a
fundamental issue in mediaeval political thinking. In Barani's words, a fierce ambition
to conquer and rule virtuallydepleted all ofthese traits. For Babur, successful govemance
meant that the town walls were strong, the subjects were prosperous, provisions were
on hand, and the treasury was fully stocked. Although there are several discussions of
 kingship "in Abul Fazal's writings, the common thread is the blend of paternal love
towards his subjects and the observance of absolute peace without discernment; the
other conditions vary depending on the context, and at times they are out of step with
one another"s, There is a more excellent vision to Abul Fazal's view of"sovereignty
than simply listing the characteristics ofa king. The True King must grasp the spirit of
the age,*" says Abul Fazal.

12.6 DISCOURSE OF JUSTICE

It was also the king's responsibility "to provide justice to his subjects, always punish
those who wronged them, and guarantee thatjustice was used to benefit the innocent",
He believes that "a king should be kind and harnonic during administering justice and
regard his subjects as his children and himselfas their father", He should remember
that he was sent to earth by God to bring about peace and justice for all. He serves as
"a conduit for their well-being. Therefore, he should always maintain his neutrality and
ensure that no one is harmed because of his actions. His judgements should be
transparent, and he should make every effort to establish a civilised society during his
reign". People's fundamental necessities should be taken care of by him. When it
comes time for the monarch to pass judgement, he should strive to put himselfin the
shoes of theculprit. He should consider every part of thecircumstances surrounding
the crime and make his judgement only afer doing so. According to tradition, if"he
Sultan desired to expand the goodness ofhis realm, he should always praise good
people and punish offenders for promoting the good action in future bythem
According to Abul Fazal's fundamental concept, the king should not be reliant
on any religious figure Inetead, a high moral standard should be maintained, and he

shouia be aware of the moral and spiritual aspects. win ne help of lranian traditions,
he attempted to demonstrate this concept of state and sovereignty. The idea of justice
for all, he believes, should be free ofany bias in a holy religious society and should
apply to all people, regardless of theirreligious affiliation. Therefore, he advocated for
the eradication ofJiyah". He persuaded us thatAkbar's conquests were not motivated
byspiritual or religious diferences but rather by the need for justice because Indian
politics was founded on faimess and tolerance, which he referred to as Dar-ul-Sulhe
(the Way of the Sulh).
Humayun did not have the opportunity to update the previous administration.
By understanding the Delhi Sultanate, Akbar amendedthe constitution and instituteda
system of government and administration for the kingdom".At the district and sub
district levels, he did not make any modifications to the administrative structure. His
land revenue system was nearly identical to that of his predecessor. What distinctive
or novel enabled the Mughal Empire to become more potent than the Delhi Sultanate
is essential. So, what were those innovative policies that allowedAkbar to rule such a
significant and stable political and administrative framework fora long time? To provide
excellentgovemance, it is necessary to have a robust and well-planned administrative
organisation. The absence of fear ofa viciouS assault is also vital for the state's well
being and stability. All of this would not have been feasible in Akbar's empire if the
state had not been supported by clever and devoted officers and soldiers, as the state
could only beat the enemy with their assistance#, Despite popular belief, the Mughal
government did not represent a continuous continuation of the Delhi Sultanate. He
modified the official designations of the individuals involved. His construction ofa
provincial administration, which was modelled after the centralsystem ofgovemment,
was his most significant achievement. To ensure better control, explicit norms and
regulations were developed. Abul Fazal believed that advocates held the highest
position among all ofthe officers in his administration. According to him, advocates
should possess characteristics that enable them to simultancously resolve the king's
private and social concerns.
 Following the division of the state into numerous levels, as depicted in "Kautilya's
Arthashashtra, cach group had avariety of oflicers. They were all personally responsible
for the state's operation and liable to the king"S,As a result, they were always working
to improve the general public's lives. The Ain-i-Akbari contains the same notion as
the Ain-i-Akbari. Akbar split his empire into three divisions: the Subas, the Sarkars,
and the Mahall's. He appointed achain of officers at various levels, all of whom were
under the jurisdiction ofministers at the top of the hierarchy. Because the officers'
religious beliefs were not allowed to interfere with their administrative duties under this
arrangement, it was adopted by his successors and him. Because Akbar desired a
sovereign rule, he placed ahigh value on it. Therefore, he organised and centralised
the administration of his company. Under the king's rule, there were petty landowners
known as Zamindars or Jagirdars, who were responsible for their respective lands.
Other chieftains were frequently restraincd by the monarch and his army (landlords).
Aclass is known as Bhumia also received some land from the Jagirdars as a reward.
The Bhumia were the legal owners of the property, and as such, they were exempt
from paying any taxes on it. However, his domain was always considered inferior to
that of the Jagirdari". The monarch also had direct sovereignty of"apart from the rest
of the kingdom. The majority of this property would be near the capital. During the
Sultanate, this system thrived#, The Mughals did not interfere with it since the
landowners (chieftains) retained control of the lands by keeping them in possession of
individuals aligned with the rulers ofDelhi:*9.
Throughout the Mughal Empire, there was a comprehensive and centralised
patrimonial system. They gave many kinds of ranks and hierarchies in this system,
which was based on the Mansabdari system of Persia. These levels were divided
into two categories: Zat and sawar. Each Mansabdar was vested with certain powers
(Zat) and commandeda mounted force of horses (Sawar)". The ruler granted him
the ability to withstand his opponents. Sixty-six ranks are mentioned in the Ain-i
Akbari. Those who were deserving received presents from the system at the time.All

the Mansabdars were directly responsible to the ruler. They were also in charge of
collecting revenue on the king's behalf andwere paid in cash,
Abul Fazal divided the Mansabdars based on the availability of their numbers
and strength". Through this arrangement, acommunity with many classes between the
people and the ruler came into being, and a hierarchical system was established. To
summarise, Indian civilisation during the Middle Ages had acomplex structure of rank
and position based on military strength. The Military might be elevated to the level of
astatus symbol, and the entire framework was built around it", The Mughals followed
this patterm to maintain peace in their kingdom, and they made no attempt to change
things.
Abul Fazal was a firm believer in the importance ofhierarchy, but he was more
concermed with the nced for talent in the kingdom. He was unconcemed by a person's
social background, even if they were exceptionally gifted. He claimed that Akbar was
moved by the spirit ofthe time because he recognised and rewarded genius in people
ofall social classes"%, Itis important to note that "the Mughals did not inhibit with the
Indian caste structure and did not attempt to disrupt the fundamental outline of ndian
civilisation. They also did not inhibit with the administration ofjustice, cconomy, and
finances"7

12.7 ARMY AND LAND REVENUE SYSTEM

Akbar's administration and his land revenue system were continuations of the Delhi
Sultanate's administration. The provinces of Akbar were divided into two groups: the
Sarkars and the Parganas. In cach Sarkar, several Parganas were subdivided. There
was a Shiqdar in charge of general administration and an Amil in land assessment and
 income collection.There were avariety ofother positions available, such as treasurer,
Qanungo, and others. During the harvest time, "there was a great army assigned to
look after the matters of production". The land revenue system served as the
foundation for the state's financial infrastructure.
The income policy ofAkbar was based on the dahsala system®, which was a
ten-year scheme. It was "a logical progression from the method of measurement
introduced by Sher Shah-the region between modem-day Lahore and Allahabad,
until the 19th century"l,As aresult of this arrangement, state demand was expressed
as acash rate based on locally produced goods and locally priced goods. The Dahsala
referred to average production and prices during the previous ten years, not aten
year settlement. It was calculated from scratch, then averaged in cash using new data
from the last decade. Clearly, the greatest demand was for land revenue. As a result,
the peasants were stressed. This was the most pressing condition that where the
peasants were obliged to meet under menace ofsevere implications, including eviction
and loss oflife, ifthey did not meet the demand,
It was introduced in several regions, including "Lahore, Allahabad, Gujarat,
Malwa, Bihar, and Multan, and was based on the extent way, Crop sharing was the
second approach employed. Finally, the collection ofrevenue could be accomplished
bya variety of alternativemeans in other domains. It took many intelligent inspectors
to check all these ways, and they all failed.
Abul Fazal relates that during Akbar's reign, the emperor instituted asystemof
collecting taxes on an individual basis. This arrangement permitted the farmer to pay
their tax based on the amount of produce they had harvested. Thus, in exchange for
whatever produce he obtained, he merely had to pay the tax. This system differed
from the previous one, which was used in the Mughal Empire, where an entire village
was required to pay the tax as a sinele unit of navment. In this arrangement, every

farmer was required to pay the tax regardless of whether he produced aproductive
crop. This was because the tax was to be shared evenly among all farmers.
Consequently, when Akbar became emperor, he modified the system, taking
steps to improve the living conditions of farmers in the process. For example, a famer
might pay his tax based on the amount of produce he produces or his financial situation.
However, "the tax collection authority rested with the zamindars or landlords and the
ameer. They exploited farmers by making them pay the tax even when a drought,
flood, or other natural disaster was imminent. The zamindars and landlords ignored
Akbar's orders not to collect tax during natural calamities. Akbar took several
preventative actions to ensure that farmners were not exploited in the future. He kept an
eye on the zamindars to see who was taking advantage of the situation and who was
not. As a result, he*"successfully reimbursed some of the money to the farmers who
had been forced to pay the tax"s; however, he was unable to maintain control over his
entire kingdom, and this type of exploitation ofthe peasantry became popular among
the landlords as a result. During Akbar's reign, this practice was still practisedin many
parts of India.
Akbar possessed a big and powerful army, which he used to ensure the smooth
operation ofgovemment and administration. The Mughal army was made up ofcavalry,
infantry, artillery, elephants, and camels, among other things"*. However, there was
no straight forward method of determining the size ofAkbar's army. The Mansabdars
were responsible for maintaining troops by their commitments, which were represented
by their sawar rank. It was written in 1581 by Montserrat that there were 45 thousand
cavalries, five thousand elephants, and many thousands of infantry, all of whom were
paid directly from the royal treasury.
 115 SECULARISM OF DIN-E-ILAHI
In a pure modernist tradition that can be clearly seen in the West, Abul-Fa|l also
anted to divorce religion from politics altogether. This is the basis of his secular
ethos which was epitomized in the philosophy of Din-e-llahi.
11.5.1 Decree of Mazhar
Akbar was interested in establishing the authority of the ruler over all other
elements of the state. In 1579, through a decree named mazhar, Akbar gained a
great deal of authority to interpret law.
11.5.2 Din e-Ilahi
However, Akbar was not satisfied with this limited power. He wanted a wider
concept of religion. He sought for a new justification of religious thoughts and
Abul Fazal provided this to him. Abul Fazal told him the new meaning of
sovereignty as a divine light. Later on, Akbar portrayed himself as an agent of
god who worked on his behalf.
In the new approach, Fazal elevated allegiance to Akbar above the constraints of
any single religious community, and in effect creating a cult of loyalty around the
personality of the emperor. The cult of tawhid-e el hi or din-e el hi seems to
have been modeled primarily on the Sufi pir-morid relationship in which the
disciple pledges absolute obedience and devotion to his master. It was Abu'l
Fa~l's intention to endow the office of emperor with an ideology that would
replace the Sunni aar+a as the sole principle by which the state was run.
11.5.3 Critique of Traditionalists
Abul Fazal criticizes that the good effort of some "recluses" (tajarrud - gazinan)
to appear as "breakers of old customs" (khariq-i ' adat), and remedy the troubled
state of affairs was unsuccessful because of lack of support from "exalted
Sultans." This is obviously a dig on prophets trying to be sovereigns on the basis
of their creeds, especially keeping in mind the Islamic experience. He was very
critical of such traditionalists and found them an impediment to progress and
stability of the state.
 11.6 THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BADSHAH/
KING: DIVINE THEORY OF MONARCHICAL
AUTHORITY
According to Abul Fazl, the term Padshahat (Badshahat) meant "an established
owner where Pad stands for stability and shah stands for owner. Padshah
therefore, means powerful, established owner who cannot be eliminated by
anyone. The Badshah had a superior place in the Mughal Empire. He was the

ultimate authority on all social, economic, political and judicial powers. This
theory of Badshahat was a combination of Mongol, Turkish, Iranian, Islamic and
Indian political traditions. According to Abul Fazl, 'Badshahat is the light
derived from God which has been sent by God himself. God throws his kindness
on Badshah; who works as the agent of god'.
11.6.1 Sovereignty in Badshahat
The king established his sovereignty by considering himself an agent of god and
used his absolute powers according to the rule of controller, guide and state. Abul
Fazl considered Badshah as the father of his people so it was the duty of people
to respect him and obey his orders. But if the Badshah discriminated on the basis
of caste, religion and class, then he could not be considered a good king. He
differentiated between the Just and the Unjust Ruler
11.6.2 Just and Unjust Ruler
While the rule of the king is egitimate in the divine light, but it does not mean
that it absolves the ruler from his duties. He goes on to make an important
distinction between the just and the unjust ruler. It is only "a just ruler (kar
giya)" who is able "to convert, like a salt- bed, the impure into pure, the bad into
good. The just ruler was characterized by tolerance , respect for reason and a
fatherly love to all the subjects regardless of their religion or creed.

11.6.3 Supreme Authority of the Just Ruler

During the Delhi Sultanate, the king was the final authority in governance,
udministration, agriculture, education and in other fields, but he had no say if
they were related to religious matters. But when Akbar acquired kingship, he
made himself the final authority even in religious disputes vis-à-vis the Imam-e
Adil because he followed the order of God and he could not be wrong. Therefore
people must follow his order. It is clear that Akbar was the ideal king for Abul
Fazl and that's why he looked at Akbar as a 'complete mun who could never be
wrong'.
11.7 DIVINE TOLERANCE AND SULH-E-KUL
Sulh-e-kul - known as universal peace pervades all of Abu'-Fa|l's political and
religious theory. It was in the spirit of universal peace, for example, that Akbar's
government integruted diverse cultural groups into a stable administrauti ve and
military system. Insofar as the same principle has provided an antecedent for the
secular ideology of independent India, it remains Abu'-Fa2l's most far-reaching
legacy.
Divine Tolerance: The agent of God could not practice discrimination among
the various faiths present in society. A doctrine for justifying the lolerant
religious policy was now the need of the hour. Sovereignty was not restricted to
bey helieved all religions were., in
any particular faith. It became overurching. They
essence, the same but only the paths varied. Abul Fazl believed that in a poly
religious country like India, the theory of monarchical sovereignty was more

relevant. Here, sovereignty was not to be related with any particular religion as
the monarch was above all the religions. He promoted the good values of
different religions and thus, assembled different faiths for maintaining peace
everywhere. He had to sustain those qualities by adopting an appropriate
religious status.
After evaluating Abul Fazl, we can conclude that a sovereign must have the
quality of tolerance for the existing beliefs and he should not reject the traditional
ways of his people which were necessary and complementary. Abul Fazl justified
the views of Akbar by promoting him as having a rationalist approach to social
reforms. Fazl argued that he did so, as he wanted to construct a "Hindustan' that
could stand out in the world with greater confidence

11.8 AKBAR AS AN IDEAL KING AND SPIRIT OF

AGE
Abul Fazl mentioned in Akbar Nama that Akbar always worked wisely for the
welfare of his people. He had tolerance, broad mindedness and a strong sense of
justice. He provided stability to the state and gave good governance to ensure
economic prosperity, peace and safety of his people. He provided religious
freedom to all. His political views were clear and were intended for the
expansion of the state boundaries.
According to some scholars, Abul Fazl envisions the sovereign essentially as
paterfamilias (father figure) , and bestows absolute power to them. Everything
that the ruler does, all gifts Mansubs or rewards bestowed by him upon his
nobles, princes or subjects are favours; nothing is gained by anyone as a matter of
right. On the other hand, Abul Fazl's binds the ruler with bestowing paternal care
to his subjects. The running thread in Abul Fazl's several discussions of kingship
is the composition of a paternal love towards his subjects, the priceless jewel of
justice and fair play, and observance of absolute peace, Sulh-i-Kul, without
discrimination.

Spirit of Age and use of Reason: Other conditions may vary with the context,
but an ldeal King is required to understand and look through the need of the hour.
The true King must understand the 'spirit of the age' and exercise reason and
favor talent instead of primordial identities like religion
To understand the Spirit of the age (need of the hour) and shape his conduct
accordingly was the positive aim of the ldeal King.
 11.11 ABUL FAZL'S VIEWS ONADMINISTRATION
AND POPULAR WELL BEING: REFORMS
Humayun did not have the time to revise the old administration. It was Akbar
who revised it and gave it a structure of government and administration based on

his knowledge of the Delhi Sultanate. He did not make any changes in
administration at the district and sub-district levels. His land revenue system was
almost the same.

An important question arises here as to what was different or new that made the
Mughal Empire stronger than the Delhi Sultanate? What were those new policies
by which Akbar could govern such a large, stable, long-lasting political and
administrative structure? As we know a strong and well planned administrative
structure is a sound link of great governance. It is also necessary for welfare and
peace of the state that people should not fear an enemy's attack.
11.11.1 Departure from Delhi Sultanate
In reality, Mughal polity was not a complete continuation of the Delhi Sultanate.
He changed the designation of the officials. His important contribution was the
development of a provincial administration, pattermed on the central system of
government. Detailed rules and regulations were made for better control. In his
administrative views Abul Fazl gave supreme place to advocates among all the
officers. According to him, advocates should have those qualities which could
solve both private and social problems of the king.
As we see in Kautilya's Arthashashtra, we can find the same concept of state
being divided into many levels with many officers at each level in the Ain-i
Akbari. Akbar divided his empire into Subas, Sarkars and Mahalls. He appointed
a chain of officers at various levels who were controlled by ministers at the
centre. this system, the religion of the officers could not interfere in their
administrative work, so this system was also followed by his successors. Akbar
wanted a sovereign rule so he gave importance to it. He systematized and
centralized his administration.

The Mughal state had a vast centralized patrimonial system. In this system, they
bestowed various kinds of ranks and hierarchies borrowed from the Mansabdari
system of Persia (In Persian (Mansab means rank)
This system gave rise to a community with various grades between the people
and the ruler and a hierarchical system came into existence. Summing up, in
medieval times, Indian society had a complicated system of rank and status on
the basis of military power. The military power became a status symbol and the
whole framework was designed around it. The Mughals also followed this pattern
for peace in their kingdom and they did not try to change it.
11.11.2 Importance to Talent
Abul Fazl had a strong belief in hierarchy, but he was more concerned about the
need of talent for the kingdom. He did not bother about the social background of
a talented person. It is for this reason that he stated that Akbar was moved by the
spirit of the age, for he knew the values of talent, honoured people of various
classes with appointments in the rank of army and raised them from the position
of a common solider to the dignity of a grandee.

11.11.3 Changes in Tax system

Abul Fazl narrates that Akbar during his reign started a system of collecting tax
on an individual basis. This system allowed the farmer to pay his tax based on his
individual harvest. He only had to pay the tax on whatever produce he got. This
system was different from the previous one found in the Mughal Empire, where a
whole village had to pay the tax collectively. In this system, every farmer had to
pay the tax whether he had a good produce or not because everyone had to share
the tax equally. So, when Akbar became the ruler, he changed this system, taking
a step to reform the condition of farmers.
Major Political Reforms: Akbar Abolished the Jaziya (paid by non -muslims)
and stopped collecting the pilgrimage tax from non -muslims.
Major political reforms included regulation of Prices and wages, control of
Liquor, fixing of minimum wages , prohibition of forced conversion, prohibition
of slaughter of cows, prohibition of enforced Sati,
11,12 CRITICISM
Abul Fazal is usually criticized for the following:
Criticized for not being a true Muslim and for being a kafir. Fazl did not think
that Islam was superior to all religions while Barani and other thinkers regarded it
as supreme. This was the reason that many people called Abul Fazl a rebel, a
Kafir, Hindu or Agnipujak etc. He was too skeptical of tradition and those hostile
to him record that he had brusquely brushed aside Ghazali's criticisms of the
scientists with the short remark that Ghazali "had spoken nonsense.
His cosmopolitan philosophy and Din e ilahi could only be partially successful in
India. Policies like Sulh-kul and Din-i-llahi gave strength to his governance and
administration, but these new experiments were not as successful as Akbar
hoped.
Inconsistency in the theory of social contract and in his theory of divine origin of
sovereignty since the two theories are not logically compatible with each othe.
Indeed, he may be said to have tried to combine the two, but certain logical
inconsistencies remained.
12.8 CONCLUSION

Abul Fazal, on the other hand, was Akbar's valued courtier, and he had a genuin
admiration and awe for the emperor. During his carly years, he and his family wer

subjected to the most severe form of persecution at the hands ofthe orthodox Ulama,
which shaped his solid beliefin religious tolerance. This proved to be the foundation of
along-lasting friendship with Akbar, which continues to this day. Few could deny that
Akbar possessed the finest and noblest characteristics of mindand heart, which were
unquestionable. It is no surprise that Abul Fazal recognised in Akbar the attributes of
a ruler, philosopher, and hero. To defend, justify, and exalt Akbar and his acts, Abul
Fazal was compclled to do so by his official position as well as his personal beliefs
about religion and politics.
Akbar and Ashoka were forced to engage in a series ofbattles at the beginning
of their reign to solidify their positions and expand the scope oftheir empires. However,
once they had attained stability, they proposed notions of peace, religion, and
brotherhood"w". Several questions arise in this context: Why did Akbar require the
services ofSulh-kul during his reign as king? Wasnt he able to manage his ad1ministration
promptly? Was it essential for him to introduce Deen-i-llahi? Were you under the
impression that he was influential in keeping peace and order throughout his vast empire?
It is possible that he invented the concepts of Sulh-Kul and Deen-i-llahi to make his
subjects happy and inspire confidence in other groups like the Rajputs and Marathas
to do so.

However, even though Abul Fazal rarely mentions Akbar's mistakes or "the
inadequacies of his policies, he was undeniablyone of the greatest intellects and theorists
that the nation has ever shaped", As a result, his concept of the social compact and
his notion of divine origin of sovereignty are flawed. In fact, he is said to have combined
"Hobbes and James I's perspectives in his writings (and he went much beyond James
lin his claim for the sovereign)", However, the fundamental rationality that underpins
Abul Fazal's ideas ought to be respected, if not admired. It is safe to say that "no one
else in India has ever lectured sovereignty in the same way" as he did.