( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 148    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

INTERROGATING SIYASA AND THE YASA INFLUENCES AND INSINUATIONS IN SIXTEENTH CENTURY MUGHAL POLITY AND STATECRAFT

    1 Author(s):  DR. GULRUKH KHAN

Vol -  10, Issue- 11 ,         Page(s) : 203 - 219  (2019 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

The structure of Mughal polity has attracted scholarly attention from various perspectives. The existing body of knowledge reveal the longe duree of a political structure under the Mughals from economic, political and military angles that consciously or semi-conscious draws parallels between Islamic Siyasa (Polity) as it developed in seventh century, and/or Central Asian Yasa (Laws/Canons) of the twelfth-thirteenth century. The paradigms and methodology involved, however, have been bilinear, both converging and overlapping with each other. Therefore, existing body of work on the structure of Mughal polity suffers from the incessant and inexorable efforts either to trace it back to Central Asia, the region from where they traced their lineage, or to Islamic system of governance, which crept into and intermingled with the Central Asian form as early as fourteenth century, if not before

  Some recent and earlier works on Mughal polity discusses the role of Central Asian and Islamic polity, mainly yasa and shariat to explain the lack of centralisation and absolutism observed during the reign of first two Mughal emperors. See Khan, "The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship;" Tripathi, "The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship."
  Such conclusions have been repeatedly drawn. See, for example, I.A Khan, "The Nobility of Akbar and Development of His Religious Policy, 1560-1580."
  For details, see Muhammad Shaban, The Abbasid Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
  J.H. Krammers & H.A.R Gibb, ed., Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1965, Vol.9, p.693.
  Fauji M. Najjar has sketched in detail the evolution of Islamic political thought. See for instance, Fauji M. Najjar, “On Political Science, Canonical Jurisprudence and Dialectical Theology”, Islamic Culture, Vol. 34, 1960.
  Cited from Fauzi M Najjar, "Siyasa in Islamic Political Philosophy," in Islamic Theology and Philosophy, ed. M.E. Marmura, Albany: New York Press, 1984; For more extensive work, see Richard Walzer, Al-Farabi on the Perfect State:  Mabadi ara ahl al-madina al-fadila Abu Nasr al-Farabi,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
  J.H. Krammers & H.A.R Gibb, ed., Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.9, p.693.
  For details, see Muhammad ibn Muhammad Farabi, Kitab al-Siyasah al-Madaniyah, Bayrut: al-Matbaah al-Kathulikiyah, 1964.
  See Walzer, Al-Farabi on the Perfect State; Also see Richard Netton, Al-Farabi and His School, London: Routledge, 1992.
  See Serajul Haque, Imam ibn Taimiya and his Project of Reforms, Dhaka: Islamic Foundation Bangladesh, 1982;  Zakaria bin Mat, The Criteria of Islamic Civilisation: A Study of the Concept of (Bid’A)  Innovation- a Case Study of Ibn Taimiya (1263M-1328M), Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 1987; Abdul Hakim al-Matraudi, The Hanbali School of Law and Ibn Taimiyyah: Conflict or Conciliation, London: Routledge, 2006.
  See Abdul Hakim al-Matraudi, The Hanbali School of Law and Ibn Taimiyyah.
  During Ibn Taimiya’s time there was much conflict between the shariat and the Islamic practices, like the one practiced by the Sufis. See Qamaruddin Khan, The Political Thought of Ibn Taymiyah, Muhammad B. ‘Abd-Al-Wahhab (1703MN-1791M), Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation, 1983.
  See S.M. Imamuddin, A Political History of the Muslims, Dacca: Najmah, 1967-73, vol. 1&2.
  See Zuber Usman, Ali bin Abu Talib, Melaka: Abbas Bandong, 1974; Also see, Muhammad Shibli Numani, Umar ed. Jamil Qureshi based on the tr. by Zafar Khan, London: Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, I.B. Tauris, 2004.
  See Muhammad Shaban, The Abbasid Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979; Jacob Lassner, The shaping of Abbasid Rule, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. As a primary source we have also consulted, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir Tabari, The Early Abbasid Empire, tr. John Alden Williams, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.
  See Muhammad Abul Quasem, The Ethics of Al-Ghazali: A Composite Ethics in Islam, New York: Caravan Books, 1978; Leonard Binder, Al-Ghazali’s Theory of Islamic Government, 2003.
  See The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968-1991, 4, p.1091.
  Yuan Chao Pi Shii, The Secret History of Mongol Dynasty, Kwei Wei Sun tr. Aligarh: Department of History, 1957, p.12.
According to the testimony of Meng Hu the word ‘Mongol’ was an official term only known to the common people.  Thus, there is no other way than to conclude ‘Dada’ to be identified with the ‘Mong-gu’ or ‘Mongols’ of Chinese words.
  Togen Isenbike, Flexibility and Limitations in Steppe Formation: The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan,  Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1988, p.124.
  Ibid., p.127.
  Rene Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, tr. Naomi Walford, London: Rutgers University Press, 1999, pp.198-99.
  E.D Phillips, The Mongols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1969, p.26.
 Togen Isenbike, Flexibility and Limitations in Steppe Formation: The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan, p.27. 
  E.D Phillips, The Mongols, p.26.
  Cited in Rene Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, p.193.
  Ibid; p.194.
  Ibid; p.195.
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha, 1, p.21.
   D.O Morgan, The Mongols,  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986,  pp.59-60; V.V. Barthold, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, V.T. Minorsky tr., 3 vols.,  Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1956, 1, p.32; E.D. Phillips, The Mongols, p.27.
  Temuchin got separated from Jamuqa due to negative interpretation by his chief wife Bortei of Jamuqa’s phrase. For further details see Togen Isenbike. For some scholars the difference of opinion brought their separation. Bortei seems to dislike Jamuqa according to Secret History. 
  Boris I Vladimirtsov, The Life of Genghis Khan, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930, p.33.
  The Secret History of the Mongols, tr. Francis Woodman Cleaves, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982, pp.54-55 & 81-82.
  D.O Morgan, The Mongols, p.40.
 J.F Fletcher, "Turco-Mongolian Monarchic Traditions in the Ottoman Empire," Harvard Ukranian Studies, 3-4 (1979-80), pp.236-251.
  To take revenge of his father’s death (for which tartars were responsible), he joined hands with    Keraits.  The basis of this alliance was ‘andaship’ (a relation which existed between Toghril- Kerait leader and his father Yesugai) as already discussed.  In due course, Chinggis virtually exterminated the Tatars. However, we get instances of individual Tatars in his service, for e.g. ‘Shigi Qutuqu’, who was adopted by Chinggis Khan’s mother as her son when his tribe was destroyed.
  Minhaj-i Siraj Juzyani, Tabaqat-i Nasiri, Major H.G Raverty tr., New Delhi: 1970,2, p.937.
  Yuan Chao Pi Shii, The Secret History of the Mongol Dynasty, p.88.
  Cited from David Ayalon, "The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan: A Re-examination (Part A)," Studia Islamica 33 (1971).

  See William Popper tr. History of Egypt, 1382-1469 from Arabic Annals of Abdul Mahasin ibn Taghribirdi, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954.
  Cited from David Ayalon, “The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan: A Reexamination (Part C2),”Studia Islamica, vol.38, 1973, pp.107-108.
  Cited from David Ayalon, “The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan: A Reexamination (Part C2),”Studia Islamica, vol.38, 1973, pp.107-108.
  Ibid.
  Rashiduddin Fazlullah refers to Chinggis Khan’s code as yasak. However, a close study of the details clearly indicates that the reference is about re-establishing of ancient laws with new ones.
  See Ayalon, "The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan: A Re-examination (Part A)."
  D.O Morgan, The Mongols, pp.98-99.
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha,1, p. 25.
  D. O. Morgan, "The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan and Mongol Law in the Il-Khanate," Bulletin of School of Oriental and African studies, 49 (1986), pp.163-76.
  See, Rene Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia; Patricia Crone writes that when a new steppe empire is inaugurated, the conqueror will usually mark the foundation of his polity by the promulgation of laws (Slave on Horses, p.20).
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha,1, pp.23-34; Kei Wei Sun tr. The Secret History of the Mongol Dynasty, pp.22-23.                                                                                                                                                                               
  D.O Morgan, The Mongols, p.97.
  F.W.Cleaves, "The Fifteen Palace Poems," Historical Journal of AsiaticSociety, 20, (1957).
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha,1, p.40. Juvaini further complicates the issue by saying that Chaghtai was chosen by his father to administer and enforce yasa wa-siyasat.
  He referred to Chinggis Khan’s prohibition of telling lies, committing adultery, washing hands in  running water and so forth.
  Juzyani, Tabaqat-i Nasiri, 2, p. 1108.
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha, 1, p. 189.
  Ibid., 1, p.196.
  Ibid., p.256.
  Peter Jackson, "The Dissolution of the Mongol Empire," Central Asiatic Journal, 22,1978, p. 197.
  Rashid al-Din, The Successor of Genghis Khan, pp.32-33.
  D. O. Morgan, The Mongols,  p. 99.
  Ata Mulk Juvaini, Tarikh-i Jahan Gusha, 2, p.549.
  Ibid, 1, pp. 26-27; Spuler Bertold, The History of the Mongols, Translated by Helga and Stuart Drummond, Berkely: California University Press, 1972, p. 40.
  Mansura Haider, “The Sovereign in the Timurid State,” Turcica, vol.8, no.2, 1976, p.77.
   Rashid al-Din, The Successor of Genghis  Khan. pp.120, 180 and 201.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details