The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c5.s1.5

c5.s1.5

In the *Siyasat Nama*, Nizm-ul-Mulk Tusi stressed that since the kings were divinely appointed, they must always keep the subjects in such a position that they know their stations and never remove the ring of servitude from their ears.¹ Alberuni, Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Amir Khusrau, Ziyauddin Barani and Shams Siraj Afif repeat the same idea.² As Fakhr-i-Mudabbir puts it, if there were no kings, men would devour one another.³ Even the liberal Allama Abul Fazl could not think beyond this: If royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside, nor selfish ambition disappear. Mankind (is) under the burden of lawlessness and lust⁴ The glitter of gems and gold in the Taj Mahal or the Peacock Throne, writes Jadunath Sarkar, ought not to blind us to the fact that in Mughal India, man was considered vile;-the mass of the people had no economic liberty, no indefeasible right to justice or personal freedom, when their oppressor was a noble or high official or landowner; political rights were not dreamt of The Government was in effect despotism tempered by revolution or fear of revolution.⁵ Consequently, medieval Muslim political opinion could recommend only repression of man and glorification of king.