Author: A. D. KHAN

Publisher: K.K. Publications

Published: 2021-08-04

Total Pages: 206

ISBN-13:

Volume 2nd Abbreviations viii Preface ix I. Introductory 1 II. Akbar 21 III. Jahangir 90 IV. Shah Jahan 108 IV. Aurangzeb 120 V. Conclusion 150 Bibliography 154 Bibliography of Volume i 162 Index 174 Index of Volume I 176 Book Summary Foreword The administrative machinery of the Delhi Sultanate was run mainly by three ministries—the Diwan-i-Wizarat, the Diwan-i-’Arz and the Diwan-i-Risalat. While some work has been done on the first two, an in-depth study of the Diwan-i-Risalat–which dealt with religious matters, stipends and pious foundations—has largely remained a desideratum. Mr. A. D. Khan’s work goes a long way in filling this gap in our historical literature. With his extensive knowledge of the contemporary and modern literature, he has tried to put the institution of sadarat in its proper historical perspective. His contribution deserves approbation by all those interested in medieval Indian history and culture. Discussing the origin of the office of sadr, Khwandmir observes in his Nama-i-Nami that Malik Shah Seljuqi had established this office as he was desirous of having a learned man at the court to represent the cases of Syeds and ‘ulama' and to manage pensions, stipends and endowments. In course of time the office of sadr became the chief authority dealing with all religious matters and provided institutional liaison between State and Religion. Mr. Khan has very ably traced the evolution of sadarat in medieval India and has shown how the scope and conspectus of its work differed from period to period. The Diwan-i-Riyasat was headed by two important officers, the Qazi-ul-Quzat and the Sadr-us-Sudur. During the Sultanate period these two offices were entrusted to the same person who thus came to exercise great authority in judicial matters while his patronage to scholars, religious men and the indigent people enhanced his prestige. The muhtasib (Censor of public morals), who functioned under the aegis of this department, enjoyed some economic powers also pertaining to the market. Thus the institution of sadarat became a very influential wing of the administrative machinery and both the pulpit and the chair came to be controlled by the sadr. Notwithstanding all this authority, it would be wrong to think that the sadarat or the ‘ulama' bound to the state chariot regulated or influenced the policies of the State. Beyond creating a lashkar-i-du’a and providing state help to khanqahs and madrasahs, the sadarat had no say in administrative matters as such. It enjoyed religious prestige but wielded no political power. The Sultans were guided by exigencies of the political situation and formulated zawabit (state laws which had nothing to do with shari’at laws) to administer the country. The advice of Syed Nuruddin Mubarak Ghaznavi, Qazi Mughis and others was never heeded by the Sultans. Barani’s political realism made him appreciate that in matters of government the Sultans looked to the precepts of the legendary heroes of Iran rather than the religious precepts and principles of the jurists. The Delhi Sultanate maintained the Diwan-i-Sadarat with all enthusiasm and extended all patronage to its functionaries but the strings of administration were entirely in the hands of secular authorities. The function of the institution of ihtasab was to check immoral behaviour at public places. Under rulers who were themselves sunk in debauchery—like Kaiqubad, Mubarak Khalji and others—the muhtasib had to watch helplessly rapid deterioration in public morality. Under ‘Alauddin Khalji the institution of ihtasab gained unprecedented prestige. The Sultan’s strong measures against drinking, prostitution etc. strengthened the functioning of the Department. Maulana Ziauddin Sunnami’s Nisab al-Ihtasab gives a very good idea of the matters dealt with by the Department during this time. His book became popular in Muslim lands also. Mr. Khan’s work will be read with interest as it does not merely deal with the theoretical aspect of the institution of sadarat but gives a very lively account of the actual role of individuals involved in its functioning at different levels. He attempts an analysis of the different approaches of the ‘ulama and sufis of the period and traces its interaction in the broader framework of medieval history. It is hoped that Mr. Khan’s work will be read with keen interest by all students and scholars of the history of medieval India. K. A. Nizami (Nizami Villa, Aligarh)