Markandey Katju: What is India?

[KS]

Agree with Ashoka, leave aside the rest. They were all petty monarchs with no vision. At least Akbar had a vision for the future of India. He was not successful with his vision but that is more the fault of his incompetent successors than himself.

Frankly Akbar had bull.

There was no vision of India as a modern political entity until 1857 or there-after when political nationalism started taking roots.. And the first glimpse of Hindu cultural nationalism rose after Shivaji.

Everyone before that (1857) were the same - on the ground- they were kings wanting to expand their kingdom, protecting its borders and improving its administration.

Dont attribute to Akbar or anyone something they never had. I daresay even Sher shah was a better ruler than any of these freak mughals.Infact Akbar the "not-so-great" had his entire administration based on the 5-6 years of good work done by Sher Shah. But no one gives SSS the credit he deserves.

 

[civfanatic]

Quite a few things actually- he for one was actually educated, his experiments with coinage and fractionalisation are well documented; he attempted novel administrative measures that were far ahead of their time. Of course he was a religious zealot and perhaps far less pragmatic than Akbar, which explains the ill thought decision to shift the capital to Devgiri and the loss of his kingdom.

He did not have the foresight to find water for his new capital let alone unify the subcontinent.

My point was that Akbar was no less petty than the kings you denounced as petty and shortsighted. He was perhaps far more sneaky about it. His successors were bigots with misplaced delusions of grandeur (Jahangir, Shah Jahan) or religious fanaticism (Aurangzeb).

No one can deny that Akbar had considerable foresight when it came to geopolitics and political administration. His alliance with the powerful Hindu families, his abolition of the jaziya, his abolition of slavery, his organization of the empire using the suba system for revenue collection, his religious tolerance and debate through the Ibadat Khana, his promulgation of Din-i-Ilahi as a unifying state-sponsored ideology - all of these were part of his vision of consolidating the subcontinent. Moreover, such actions are indicative of a ruler who is considerably immersed in Indian civilization, as no random barbarian invader could implement such policies. Babur could have never championed the same causes that Akbar did. His reign was so effective in establishing a groundwork for the empire that it took over 100 years of abuse by his successors before it showed signs of collapse.

 

[civfanatic]

Frankly Akbar had bull.

There was no vision of India as a modern political entity until 1857 or there-after when political nationalism started taking roots.. And the first glimpse of Hindu cultural nationalism rose after Shivaji.

Who is talking about India as a modern political entity? The nation-state is a European concept and quite frankly is inapplicable to India. Even today we do not classify as a nation-state, so let us not criticize our historical leaders because they did not follow the same path that the Europeans did. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize them.

Everyone before that (1857) were the same - on the ground- they were kings wanting to expand their kingdom, protecting its borders and improving its administration.

Compare the Edicts of Ashoka with Samudragupta's pillar inscription at Allahabad.

Do they both detail individual kings and their desires? Yes.

But it should also be obvious which king had a greater vision for the future, and which one represented a higher stage of civilization.

Dont attribute to Akbar or anyone something they never had. I daresay even Sher shah was a better ruler than any of these freak mughals.Infact Akbar the "not-so-great" had his entire administration based on the 5-6 years of good work done by Sher Shah. But no one gives SSS the credit he deserves.

Now you are making some interesting claims.

Undoubtedly Sher Shah Suri was a good administrator but to disregard four decades of rule by Akbar as simply based off of Suri's reign is the height of ignorance. Akbar greatly expanded all dimensions of the empire, whether it be in political administration, military capability, or legal/religious matters.

 

[Vyom]

yeah its time to rewrite our history books for the following blunders.

What about the Vijaynagar empire?

As far as Akbar was concerned, he did brought about some major reforms in the way the Mughal's used to ruled themselves, but to call him the greatest person along with Nehru to have influenced the course of India is height of ignorance.

 

[mayfair]

He did not have the foresight to find water for his new capital let alone unify the subcontinent.

Hence the use of the word ill thought.

No one can deny that Akbar had considerable foresight when it came to geopolitics and political administration. His alliance with the powerful Hindu families, his abolition of the jaziya, his abolition of slavery, his organization of the empire using the suba system for revenue collection, his religious tolerance and debate through the Ibadat Khana, his promulgation of Din-i-Ilahi as a unifying state-sponsored ideology - all of these were part of his vision of consolidating the subcontinent. Moreover, such actions are indicative of a ruler who is considerably immersed in Indian civilization, as no random barbarian invader could implement such policies. Babur could have never championed the same causes that Akbar did. His reign was so effective in establishing a groundwork for the empire that it took over 100 years of abuse by his successors before it showed signs of collapse.

Hence, the use of the word sneaky. His "consolidation" of the sub-continent involved unprecedented massacres of kaafirs during the siege of Chittor. His "deeds" of religious tolerance are interspersed with no less documented acts of bigotry against Hindus. The city of Prayag, one of the holiest sites of Hinduism, was plundered and christened Allahabad- so much for tolerance. His so-called administrative acumen has been questioned and dissected by many historians.

Akbar may have done some good deeds, but to borrow shamelessly from Commodore Norrington, these do not absolve him of a lifetime of wickedness. Perhaps, this may have been how the times were like then, but to project him as a virtuous noble king and eschewing any reference to the more unpalatable bits of history, does one no favours.

 

[KS]

What about the Vijaynagar empire?

As far as Akbar was concerned, he did brought about some major reforms in the way the Mughal's used to ruled themselves, but to call him the greatest person along with Nehru to have influenced the course of India is height of ignorance.

The so called Akbar's civil administration was nothing but a continuation of Sher Shah's Suri's model. Akbar did not do anything from scratch. If credit for that administative model should go to someone it is Sher Shah.

 

[KS]

Who is talking about India as a modern political entity? The nation-state is a European concept and quite frankly is inapplicable to India. Even today we do not classify as a nation-state, so let us not criticize our historical leaders because they did not follow the same path that the Europeans did. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize them.

So what did you mean by "vision for India"..if is neither political nor cultural, what else..can you elaborate ?

Compare the Edicts of Ashoka with Samudragupta's pillar inscription at Allahabad.

Do they both detail individual kings and their desires? Yes.

But it should also be obvious which king had a greater vision for the future, and which one represented a higher stage of civilization.

So now we are comparing Samudragupta with Ashoka !. Great. Werent we speaking about another person called Akbar and how he fared in comparison with others and not the former ?

Now you are making some interesting claims.

Undoubtedly Sher Shah Suri was a good administrator but to disregard four decades of rule by Akbar as simply based off of Suri's reign is the height of ignorance. Akbar greatly expanded all dimensions of the empire, whether it be in political administration, military capability, or legal/religious matters.

Military capability he expanded. Agreed. Any emperor worth his salt would do that.
Legal/religious matter - Mayfair already explained. I concur with his views.
That leaves the political administration part - which is nothing but following the model of Sher Shah.very few he built from scratch for him to be credited.

Akbar is just another emperor, hardly deserving the "great' epithet considering that by doing so, he will be placed in the company of Ashoka. Sachin Tendulkar and Saeed Anwar.

 

[civfanatic]

Hence, the use of the word sneaky. His "consolidation" of the sub-continent involved unprecedented massacres of kaafirs during the siege of Chittor.

That was part of the military expansion that was needed to consolidate the empire; the fall of Chittoor demoralized the other Rajput clans and encouraged them to seek alliances with Akbar, thus strengthening Akbar's own authority in the region (this was further exacerbated by the fall of Ranthambore the following year). How do you think the Mauryas built their empire? Handing out sweets and flowers? It was built on the harsh political realism of the Arthashashtra, and it was because of that political realism that Ashoka could later afford to be an idealist and a 'Beloved of the Gods'.

A ruler who is not "sneaky" (as you put it) is an incompetent ruler. What were the Ashokan Edicts if not the world's first large-scale PR campaign?

His "deeds" of religious tolerance are interspersed with no less documented acts of bigotry against Hindus.

Please detail these acts of bigotry so we can understand exactly what the issue is.

Most sources tend to state that Akbar was intolerant when he was young and constantly at war, and became considerably more tolerant later in his reign as he began to consolidate the empire.

The city of Prayag, one of the holiest sites of Hinduism, was plundered and christened Allahabad- so much for tolerance.

Please provide a source and detailed account of the "plundering" of Prayag/Allahabad.

His so-called administrative acumen has been questioned and dissected by many historians.

Which historians?

Akbar may have done some good deeds, but to borrow shamelessly from Commodore Norrington, these do not absolve him of a lifetime of wickedness. Perhaps, this may have been how the times were like then, but to project him as a virtuous noble king and eschewing any reference to the more unpalatable bits of history, does one no favours.

To understand the significance of Akbar one must look at his reign as a dynamic whole rather than selectively focus on the "unpalatable bits".

History may not have yet fully absolved Akbar, because the social conflict which he sought to end continues even today. But someday, even his most fiercest critics will come to appreciate his reign.

 

[civfanatic]

So what did you mean by "vision for India"..if is neither political nor cultural, what else..can you elaborate ?

They attempted to further the progress of Indian civilization by promoting ideological unity among its diverse inhabitants. Ashoka's dhamma was similar to Akbar's Din-iIlahi in its nature and purpose. Both were measures meant to conciliate and unify.

So now we are comparing Samudragupta with Ashoka !. Great. Werent we speaking about another person called Akbar and how he fared in comparison with others and not the former ?

I was replying to your claim that all Indian kings were only concerned with expanding their own kingdom, by highlighting Ashoka's exceptionalism in this regard (through a comparison with Samudragupta). But that is another discussion for another time.

That leaves the political administration part - which is nothing but following the model of Sher Shah.very few he built from scratch for him to be credited.

Pure fabrication. The subedari system did not exist during Sher Shah's reign, neither did the mansabdari system. Both were political innovations of Akbar. During his reign a civil revenue officer (diwan) was appointed to every subah/province; he reported directly to the emperor, and was given a military title, thus making him completely dependent on the central government just as a military officer was. This allowed the central government to efficiently collect revenue from its provinces without having to go through local intermediaries/landlords, as was the custom before. The result was that the Mughal imperial government had the world's largest gross income in 1600. Furthermore, Akbar reorganized the newswriter system so that the central government had greater "eyes-and-ears" in its provinces; again, this was done in part to limit the power of local leaders.

The fact is that imperial government under Akbar was far more centralized and efficient than it was as Sher Shah had left it, and this was largely due to Akbar's own administrative skill and innovations.

Akbar is just another emperor, hardly deserving the "great' epithet considering that by doing so, he will be placed in the company of Ashoka. Sachin Tendulkar and Saeed Anwar.

The "great" epithet already exists in Akbar's name itself. You are calling him "great" everytime you use his name

 

[KS]

They attempted to further the progress of Indian civilization by promoting ideological unity among its diverse inhabitants. Ashoka's dhamma was similar to Akbar's Din-iIlahi in its nature and purpose. Both were measures meant to conciliate and unify.

Now you are swinging wildly by bringing in some vague,subjective notions of progress of Indian civilization through idealogical unity. Din-I-Ilahi never had solid philosophical backing behind it. It only had Akbar's intention of producing a swift cocktail of all available religions (at that time) and deservedly withered away with his death.

I was replying to your claim that all Indian kings were only concerned with expanding their own kingdom, by highlighting Ashoka's exceptionalism in this regard (through a comparison with Samudragupta). But that is another discussion for another time.

I disagree. But ok, another discussion, another time.

Pure fabrication. The subedari system did not exist during Sher Shah's reign, neither did the mansabdari system. Both were political innovations of Akbar. During his reign a civil revenue officer (diwan) was appointed to every subah/province; he reported directly to the emperor, and was given a military title, thus making him completely dependent on the central government just as a military officer was. This allowed the central government to efficiently collect revenue from its provinces without having to go through local intermediaries/landlords, as was the custom before. The result was that the Mughal imperial government had the world's largest gross income in 1600. Furthermore, Akbar reorganized the newswriter system so that the central government had greater "eyes-and-ears" in its provinces; again, this was done in part to limit the power of local leaders.

The fact is that imperial government under Akbar was far more centralized and efficient than it was as Sher Shah had left it, and this was largely due to Akbar's own administrative skill and innovations.

Read my words carefully - I never denied that Akbar improvised on an already existing solid foundation laid by SSS. My claim Akbar did not innovate much from scratch.

Nevertheless Sher Shah's most brilliant achievements were in administrative reforms. He carried out extensive agrarian and administrative restructuring laying the foundation for the administration which helped Akbar and the rest of the Mughals to rule for the next 300 years. For convenience of administration, the whole Empire was divided into forty-seven units each of which was again divided into several sununits.The subunit had one Ami , one Shiqdar, one treasurer, one Hindi writer and one Persian writer to keep accounts.

To check undue influence of the officers in their respective jurisdictions, the Sher Shah devised the plan of transferring them every two or three years, which, however, could not be long-enduring owing to the brief span of his rule. Every branch of the administration was subject to Sher Shah's personal supervision. Sher Shah's land revenue reforms, based on wise and humane principles, have unique importance in the administrative history of Indo-Pakistan. Remissions of rents were made, and probably loans were advanced to the tenants in case of damage to crops caused by the encampment of soldiers, or the insufficiency of rain. These revenue reformsincreased the resources of the State and at the same time conduced to the interest of the people. Sher Shah Suri also introduced the idea of a unified currency and tariffs to improve the General Economic Condition of the poor.Sher Shah also instituted the Subcontinent's first effective law and order force. It is said about his rule that "a woman could travel with all her jewelry in his empire without being afraid of getting looted."

Sher Shah Suri - Chowk: India Pakistan Ideas Identities.com

The "great" epithet already exists in Akbar's name itself. You are calling him "great" everytime you use his name

Just because you have Ram in your name you do not attain the virtue of Ram. Name is just the name.

 

[civfanatic]

Now you are swinging wildly by bringing in some vague,subjective notions of progress of Indian civilization through idealogical unity.

What is wild about it? In a country as large and diverse as India ideological unity is essential since we lack cultural homogeneity, and this ideology must be tied invariably to the concept of India as a civilizational entity. Even today the unity of India is maintained because of the unifying ideology of democratic secularism and liberal pluralism, which is enshrined in the Constitution. Without this unifying ideology there would be no Republic of India as we know it. Akbar's reign provides an early glimpse of the modern secular/liberal ideology and its capacity to maintain unity in a diverse land.

Din-I-Ilahi never had solid philosophical backing behind it. It only had Akbar's intention of producing a swift cocktail of all available religions (at that time) and deservedly withered away with his death.

Like Buddhism, Din-i-Ilahi was a very simple doctrine that was designed to appeal to the masses. In this sense it had plenty of potential, but it did not have enough time to mature into a full-fledged system of philosophy. What killed it was the opposition of the ulema and the disinterest of Akbar's successors in promoting ideological unity.

Read my words carefully - I never denied that Akbar improvised on an already existing solid foundation laid by SSS. My claim Akbar did not innovate much from scratch.

Akbar both innovated from scratch where he had to and adopted/modified existing systems where it was appropriate. Even Sher Shah adopted/modified many systems (wasn't it Chandragupta Maurya who first established the Grand Trunk Road, almost 2000 years before?). Now read my words carefully, I consider this comparison between Sher Shah and Akbar to be futile simply because the accomplishments of Akbar's reign dwarf that of Sher Shah in every possible way. The main factor behind this is the duration of their respective reigns. Sher Shah ruled for five years, Akbar ruled for half a century. India under Akbar reached heights that Sher Shah could only imagine.