The Institutes of Akbar 2.7
The Áín i Akbari (Blochmann, Jarrett) 2.7
- Language
- English
2.7.1
At another place in his ‘Memoirs’, when alluding to the murder, he says, as if an afterthought had occurred to him, that he ordered Bir Singh to kill Abul Fazl, because ‘he had been the enemy of the Prophet.’ When the news of Abul Fazl’s death reached court, no one had the courage to break it to the emperor. According to an old custom observed by Timur’s descendants, the death of a prince was not in plain words mentioned to the reigning emperor, but the prince’s vakil presented himself before the throne with a blue handkerchief round his wrist; and as no one else would come forward to inform Akbar of the death of his friend, Abul Fazl’s vakil presented himself with a blue handkerchief before the throne. Akbar bewailed Abul Fazl’s death more than that of his son; for several days he would see no one, and after enquiring into the circumstances he exclaimed, “If Salim wished to be emperor, he might have killed me and spared Abul Fazl,” and then recited the following verse— My Shaikh in his zeal hastened to meet me, He wished to kiss my feet, and gave up his life.
2.7.2
Akbar, in order to punish Bir Singh, sent a detachment under Patr Das and Raj Singh to U’ndchá. They defeated the Bundelá chief in several engagements, drove him from Bhander and shut him up in I’rich. When the siege had progressed, and a breach was made in the wall, Bir Singh escaped by one of Ráj Singh’s trenches, and withdrew to the jungles closely pursued by Patr Dás. As it seemed hopeless to catch him, Akbar called Patr Das to Court; but ordered the officers stationed about U’ndchá to kill the rebel wherever he shewed himself. In the beginning of the last year of Akbar’s reign, Bir Singh was once surprised by Rajah Raj Singh, who cut down a good number of his followers, Bir Singh himself was wounded and had a narrow escape. But the emperor’s death, which not long afterwards took place, relieved Bir Singh of all fears. He boldly presented himself at Jahángír’s Court, and received U’ndchá and a command of three thousand horse as his reward.
2.7.3
“It has often been asserted,” says the author of the Maásir ul-Umará, “that Abul Fazl was an infidel. Some say, he was a Hindú, or a fire-worshipper, or a free-thinker, and some go still further and “call him an atheist; but others pass a juster sentence, and say that he was a pantheist, and that, like other Súfís, he claimed for himself a position above the law of the Prophet. There is no doubt that he was a man of lofty character, and desired to live at peace with all men. He never said anything improper. Abuse, stoppages of wages, fines, absence on the part of his servants, did not exist in his household. If he appointed a man, whom he afterwards found to be useless, he did not remove him, but kept him on as long as he could; for he used to say that, if he dismissed him, people would accuse him of want of penetration in having appointed an unsuitable agent. On the day when the sun entered Aries, he inspected his whole household and took stock, keeping the inventory with himself, and burning last year’s books. He also gave his whole wardrobe to his servants, with the exception of his trowsers, which were burnt in his presence.
2.7.4
“He had an extraordinary appetite. It is said that, exclusive of water and fuel, he consumed daily twenty-two sers of food. His son ’Abdurrahmán used to sit at table as sufurchí (head butler); the superintendent of the kitchen, who was a Muhammadan, was also in attendance, and both watched to see whether Abul Fazl would eat twice of one and the same dish. If he did, the dish was sent up again the next day. If anything appeared tasteless, Abul Fazl gave it to his son to taste, and he to the superintendent, but no word was said about it. When Abul Fazl was in the Dak’hin, his table luxury exceeded all belief. In an immense tent (chihilráwatí) one thousand rich dishes were daily served up and distributed among the Amírs; and near it another large tent was pitched for all-comers to dine, whether rich or poor, and k’hichṛí was cooked all day and was served out to any one that applied for it.” “As a writer, Abul Fazl stands unrivalled. His style is grand and is free from the technicalities and flimsy prettiness of other Munshís; and the force of his words, the structure of his sentences, the suitableness of his compounds, and the elegance of his periods, are such that it would be difficult for any one to imitate them.”
2.7.5
It is almost useless to add to this encomium bestowed on Abul Fazl’s style. ’Abdullah, king of Bukhárá, said that he was more afraid of Abul Fazl’s pen than of Akbar’s arrow. Everywhere in India he is known as ‘the great Munshí.’ His letters are studied in all Madrasahs, and though a beginner may find them difficult and perplexing, they are perfect models. But a great familiarity, not only with the Persian language, but also with Abul Fazl’s style, is required to make the reading of any of his works a pleasure. His composition stands unique, and though everywhere studied, he cannot be, and has not been, imitated. The writers after him write in the style of the Padishahnamah, the ’Alamara-i Sikandari, or in the still more turgid manner of the ’Alamgirnamah, the Ruq’at Bedil, and other standard works on Insha. A praiseworthy feature of Abul Fazl’s works lies in the purity of their contents. Those who are acquainted with Eastern literature will know what this means. I have come across no passage where woman is lightly spoken of, or where immorality is passed over with indifference. Of his love of truth and the nobility of his sentiments I have spoken in the Preface.
2.7.6
Abul Fazl’s influence on his age was immense. It may be that he and Faizi led Akbar’s mind away from Islam and the Prophet—this charge is brought against them by every Muhammadan writer; but Abul Fazl also led his sovereign to a true appreciation of his duties, and from the moment that he entered Court, the problem of successfully ruling over mixed races, which Islam in but few other countries had to solve, was carefully considered, and the policy of toleration was the result. If Akbar felt the necessity of this new law, Abul Fazl enunciated it and fought for it with his pen, and if the Khan Khanans gained the victories, the new policy reconciled the people to the foreign rule; and whilst Akbar’s apostacy from Islam is all but forgotten, no emperor of the Mughul dynasty has come nearer to the ideal of a father of the people than he. The reversion, on the other hand, in later times to the policy of religious intoleration, whilst it has surrounded in the eyes of the Moslems the memory of Aurangzib with the halo of sanctity and still inclines the pious to utter a rahimahu-llahu (May God have mercy on him!) when his name is mentioned, was also the beginning of the breaking up of the empire.
2.7.7
Having elsewhere given numerous extracts from Badaoni to shew that Akbar’s courtiers ascribed his apostacy from Islam to Faizi and Abul Fazl, I need not quote other works, and will merely allude to a couplet by ’Urfi from one of his Odes in which he praises the Prophet— [Se rt & foe ery? who WE so 199 wht Het 5 Le? nD Gey J tle Shy 9 HjLG FT ob5 & syle sty 9 Soljoe ye Sy? & O Prophet, protect the Joseph of my soul (i. e. my soul) from the harm of the brothers; for they are ungenerous and envious, and deceive me like evil sprites and lead me wolf-like to the well (of unbelief). The commentators unanimously explain this passage as an allusion to the brothers Faizi and Abul Fazl. I may also cite the Tarikh of Abul Fazl’s death, which the Khán i A’zam Mirzá Kokah is said to have made— Sap) (ofl poo AU) gai jleFl OS The wonderful sword of God’s Prophet cut off the head of the rebel. But Abul Fazl appeared to him in a dream and said, “The date of my death lies in the words U2 91 03, ‘The slave Abul Fazl’—which likewise gives 1011 A. H. Abul Fazl’s works are the following—
2.7.8
(1) The Akbarnámah with the Ain i Akbari, its third volume. The Ain i Akbarí was completed in the 42nd year of Akbar’s reign; only a slight addition to it was made in the 43rd year on account of the conquest of Barar (1596-97, A. D.). The contents of the Akbarnámah have been detailed in the Preface. The second volume contains an account of the first forty-six years of Akbar’s reign. There exists a continuation up to the end of Akbar’s reign by ’Ináyatullah Muhibb ’Alí. Thus at least the continuator is called in two MSS. that I have seen. Elphinstone says that the name of the continuator is Muhammad Salia, which seems to be a corruption of Muhammad Salih.