Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9: Rājanīti

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9

Language
English

Contents

Rājanīti

1. Chaṇḍeśvara's Rājanītiratnākara

c14.s9.t1.1

Chaṇḍeśvara's *Rājanīti-ratnākara* (Ocean of Politics) is a virtually dated treatise. It can be confidently placed in the fourteenth century. Hence its unusual importance in the history of Hindu thought. Moreover, it is one of the first writings of the Hindus in the period of early Moslem rule. As such, the treatise should be valuable as a document of Hindu reactions to the conditions of political and social life.

c14.s9.t1.2

Chaṇḍeśvara (c. 1290 ?-1375 ?) became minister of peace and war or foreign minister to king Harisimhadeva of Mithilā (reigned 1304-14) in North Bihar about 1310 A.C. His *Smriti-ratnākara* (law book) was composed in seven sections. Section I. (*Kritya-ratnākara*) must have been written before 1314, Section II. (*Dāna-ratnākara*) subsequently. Section III. (*Vyavahāra-ratnākara*) was composed while he was judge in addition to being foreign minister. Section VI. (*Vivāda-ratnākara*) was complete while Harisimha was still king. About the date of Section VII. (*Grihastha-ratnākara*) it is not possible to surmise.¹

c14.s9.t1.3

¹ See the editor's introduction to the text (Patna 1924) pp. k, r.

c14.s9.t1.4

Chaṇḍeśvara was like Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara at once a student of law and politics. In a sense every student of *dharmaśāstra* was a student of *rājadharma*, and on the other hand, every student of *rājadharma*, *nītiśāstra*, *daṇḍanīti*, or *arthaśāstra* was also a student of *dharmaśāstra* from the earliest times. But it appears that men like Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara had produced the *rājadharma* sections of their *Smriti* works, *Kāmadhenu* and *Kalpataru*, separately. The *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* and the *Rājanīti-Kalpataru* were in this sense to be differentiated from the *rājadharma* sections in Manu, Yājnavalkya etc. This is perhaps why Chaṇḍeśvara quotes the *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* and the *Rājanīti-Kalpataru* as independent texts. It should appear that his own *Rājanīti-ratnākara* may have been inspired in form by the appearance of the political works of Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara. His *Smriti*-work had been completed in seven *ratnākaras* before he composed the *ratnākara* on *Rājanīti*.

c14.s9.t1.5

The *Rājanīti-ratnākara* does not pretend to be an original work. It is in the form of a *nibandha* or digest, the form which we have noticed in connection with the *dharma* or *smriti śāstras* from Harṣa to Hemādri. Chaṇḍeśvara takes a topic and on this topic quotes a number of authorities but apparently not in the chronological order. The original texts are given in full and along with them their authors. In connection with each text cited he offers his notes or comments. Chaṇḍeśvara's chapters thus look like a string of quotations with few explanatory words or sentences to tie them together.

c14.s9.t1.6

The readers are thus presented with a psychological or logical analysis of the subject matter. This analytical method ought by all means to be appreciated. It is questionable if we can often speak of Chaṇḍeśvara as furnishing the historical evolution of ideas. He has not cared to follow the strictly chronological order. Let us take ch. V. which discusses the *Sabhā*, Council or Court of Justice. His first authority is Hārīta, then comes Brihaspati, then Manu, Nārada, Viṣṇu, Nārada again, Lakṣmīdhara, Kātyāyana, Vyāsa, Brihaspati again, Nārada a third time, Kātyāyana again, Manu again, Nārada the fourth time. Chaṇḍeśvara's strength lies in the analysis of ideas. If to this were added the choronological or historical presentation we might get the medieval analogue of, say, a work like Cannan's *Review of Economic Theory* (London 1929).

c14.s9.t1.7

No matter, whether analytical or historical, the *Rājanīti-ratnākara* does present us with the history of Hindu political philosophy for nearly fourteen hundred years from Manu down to Chaṇḍeśvara. The author’s bibliography is rich. Regrettably enough for us moderns, he has not cared to mention Kauṭalya or Chāṇakya. But he is well read, and no modern professor of political science in the East or the West could beat him either in the perspicuous manner of presentation and lucidity of treatment or in the extent of literature covered by him within the short compass of less than 90 pages. Any Western author today who is called upon to deal with the leading ideas of European political philosophy from, say, Seneca to Bartolus (1314-1357), the prince of jurists, will know how to admire the command of subject-matter as well as the skill in handling it as displayed by our Brāhman of Mithila in the fourteenth century.

c14.s9.t1.8

Let us now analyze the contents of the *Rājanītiratnākara* with reference to the bibliography of Chaṇḍeśvara. The sixteen *taraṅgas* (waves) of his "Ocean" are indicated below along with the authorities cited in each:

c14.s9.t1.9

I. The King: Kulluka Bhaṭṭa, *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* (twice), Guru (Brihaspati or Chaṇḍeśvara's preceptor), Yājnavalkya (thrice), *Nārada-Nīti* (This seems to be a *Nītiśāstra* independent of the Smriti work by Nārada), *Māhabhūrata* (twice), Manu (four times), Yasa, *Nāradīya* (Smriti), Smriti (without name), *Nītikalpataru*, Hārīta.

c14.s9.t1.10

II. The Minister: Manu (four times), Yājnavalkya, Vyāsa, *Amarakoṣa*, *Mahābhārata*, *Nārada* (Not the *Smriti*), Hārita, Nārada (*Smriti*).

c14.s9.t1.11

III. The Family Priest: *Vyāsa*, Manu (twice), Yājnavalkya.

c14.s9.t1.12

IV. The Judge: Kātyāyana, *Smṛiti* (without name), Brihaspati, Pallavakāra, Lakṣmīdhara, Hārīta, Vyāsa, Manu, Nārada (*Smṛiti*).

c14.s9.t1.13

V. The Council (Court of Justice): Hārīta, Brihaspati (twice), Manu (twice), Viṣṇu, Nārada (*Smṛiti*, four times), Lakṣmīdhara, Kātyāyana (twice), Vyāsa.

c14.s9.t1.14

VI. Forts: Manu (twice), Yājnavalkya, *Mahābhārata*.

c14.s9.t1.15

VII. Deliberations: Manu (thrice), *Mahābhārata* (twice), Yājnavalkya, *Nīti*, *Rājanīti* (it is interesting that Chaṇḍeśvara means *Kāmandakī nīti* when he uses the term *Rājanīti*). There is a lengthy extract from Kāmandaka in the present connection.

c14.s9.t1.16

VIII. Treasure: *Nīti* (Kāmandakī) twice, Manu, *Śruti* (without name), Yājnavalkya, *Pallava*, Sāgara, *Anye* (others).

c14.s9.t1.17

IX. The Army: Manu (7 times), *Anye* (others), Guru (Brihaspati or Chaṇḍeśvara's preceptor?), Kāmandaka, *Mahābhārata* (twice), Śrīkara, Lakṣmīdhara, *Pallava*.

c14.s9.t1.18

X. The General: Manu (twice), *Mahābhārata*, *Rājanīti* (*Kāmandakī*).

c14.s9.t1.19

XI. The Ambassador and others: Manu, *Śukranīti* (apparently different from the treatise translated by the present author), Manu (twice), *Nīti* (*Kāmandakī*), Yājnavalkya (thrice), *Mahābhārata*, *Rājanīti* (*Kāmandakī*, lengthy extracts), Pallava (twice), Kāmandaka, "Vāchaspati and others."

c14.s9.t1.20

XII. The King's Functions: Manu (seven times), Yājnavalkya (five times), *Arthaśāstra* (*Kāmandakīnīti*), *Śruti*, *Gītā*, "Maya, Maitra, Viśālākṣa, Manu, Brihaspati, Śukra and others," *Nītiśāstra* (*Kāmandakī*).

c14.s9.t1.21

XIII. Punishment: Manu (thrice), Yājnavalkya (thrice), Nārada (*Smriti*), *Pallava*, *Mātākṣarā*.

c14.s9.t1.22

XIV. Giving the Kingdom Away to the Eldest Son (Abdication): Manu (four times), *Rājanīti* (not however the *Kāmandakī*, says the editor), Hārita, Nārada (*Smriti*, twice), Vyāsa, *Mahābhārata*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, Vaśiṣṭha, Brihaspati, *Kāmadhenu*, Kātyāyana.

c14.s9.t1.23

XV. Giving the Kingdom away to the Eldest Son through the Priest and others: Lakṣmīdhara, *Nārada Rājanīti* (not Smriti), Pallavakāra, *Śukranīti* (not identical with the one translated by the present analyst), Brihaspati, *Padma Purāṇa*, *Bhāgavata*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, Manu (thrice), Koṣa (Amara), Viṣṇu, Yājnavalkya, *Arthapradīpa*, Nārada (*Smriti*), Kātyāyana, *Dharmaśāstra*, *Arthaśāstra*, Vyāsa, Śukra, "Gopāla, Lakṣmīdhara, Śrīkara, and others."

c14.s9.t1.24

XVI. Coronation: *Rājanīti*, Lakṣmīdhara (twice), *Pallava*, *Rāmāyaṇa*, *Madgurupaddhati* (Chaṇḍeśvara's own preceptor), *Pallava*, Manu (twice), Koṣakāra (Amara), Gopāla, *Nīti* (*Kāmandakī*, twice), Yājnavalkya, *Mitākṣarā*, Nārada, Kātyāyana.

c14.s9.t1.25

Chaṇḍeśvara cites 48 authors or treatises.

c14.s9.t1.26

The most popular authors with Chaṇḍeśvara are Manu and Yājnavalkya. The influence of the *Mahā-* *bhārata* is great. Nārada and Kāmandaka are also two of his great authorities. The following will give an idea of the number of times he has quoted his chief sources :

c14.s9.t1.27

| Manu : 38 times | |
| Yājnavalkya : 19 times | |
| *Mahābhārata* : 14 times | |
| Nārada : 13 times | (+ *Nāradīyam* 1 Nārada *Nīti* 1 Nārada *Rājanīti* 1) |
| Kāmandaka 2 | (+ *Nīti* 5 *Rājanīti* 5) |
| Pallavakāra : 8 times | |
| Lakṣmīdhara : 7 times | |
| Kātyāyana : 6 times | |

c14.s9.t1.28

Students of politics in the technical sense (i.e. *arthaśāstra* as contrasted with *dharmaśāstra*) will have to note that in chapters V. and XV. Chaṇḍeśvara uses the category *arthaśāstra*. *Nīti* and *Nītikalpataru* as the names of a literary work are known to him. And *Rājanīti* of course is the title of his own book. *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu* is mentined by him. It appears that he knows of treatises on *rājanīti* by Nārada and Harītā. These should appear to be different from the *smriti* or *dharmaśāstra* works by the same authors. Śukra is mentioned by him once in a group, namely, Maya, Maitra, Viśālākṣa, Manu, Brihaspati and Śukra. On another occasion Śukra is referred to as an author of *Rājanīti*. Finally, the book *Śukranīti* is quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara twice. But that book is not the one used by the present author.

c14.s9.t1.29

But so far as *nītiśāstra* or pure politics is concerned we understand that the *Kāmandakīnīti* is a living force with Chaṇḍeśvara. One can almost say that in his *milieu* *Kāmandakīnīti* = political science. In the fourteenth century, and especially in Mithilā, Kauṭalya or Chāṇakya may be said to have lived in and through Kāmandaka.

c14.s9.t1.30

There is a passage where we encounter a situation such as may throw light on the interpretation to be applied to the old question of *iti Kauṭalyah* (*Supra*, pp. 218, 224, 273, 306, 355).

c14.s9.t1.31

The *nibandha* (digest) writer of the fourteenth century (c. 1370), Chaṇḍeśvara of Mithilā in his *Rājanītiratnākara* (ch. V) writes *manmate ubhayoravirodhah* (i.e. in my opinion there is no conflict between the two). He is discussing the views of ancient (*prānchāh*) and modern (*navyāh*) writers on the definition of *dharmaśāstra* and offers his own view in the first person. The use of the first person by an author, it should appear, is not unknown in Hindu tradition. Kauṭalya might have done it too, had he cared. But the reference to Kauṭalya in the third person naturally leads us to suspect that the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra* was not written by Kauṭalya.

c14.s9.t1.32

Among the persons from whose tortures the king is to protect the people are enumerated the Kāyasthas. This passage from Yājnavalkya (I. 334) is interpreted by Chaṇḍeśvara (ch. XI) as follows: "The Kāyasthas are *lekhakāh* or writers, i.e. scribes, *gaṇakāh*, book keepers or accountants. On account of their *rājavallabhatā* (favoured or privileged position with the king) and *māyāvitayā* (personal influence) they are *durnivāra* (difficult to avoid or control). This is why the people has to be protected *viśeṣatah* (specially) from the Kāyasthas."

c14.s9.t1.33

Chaṇḍeśvara knows *arthaśāstra* as a category distinct from *dharmaśāstra*. But he does not mention any text by name. In chapter V. (*Sabhya*) he is explaining the epithet *dharmaśāstrakuśala* of *Nāradasmṛiti* (III, iv. 5). First, he gives the old view which by *dharmaśāstra* understands the works of "Manu and others." Then he gives the view of the moderns (*navyāḥ*) according to which is implied "any *śāstra* composed by *munis* (sages) which teaches the duties" including the "collection of *Mīmāṃsā* and other treatises." Finally, he gives his own interpretation. "In my view" (*manmate*), says he, there is no conflict between the old and the modern interpretations. In so far as the expression "and others" has been used Chaṇḍeśvara believes that the "*dharmaśāstra* composed by Manu and others, *arthaśāstra*, *Rājanīti* and other treatises" are implied. That *arthaśāstra* also is an important authority (*nirṇayaka*, regulator) was the conviction of Lakṣmīdhara on the strength of the *Nāradasmṛiti* passage (I. 39) which refers to an eventual conflict between *dharmaśāstra* and *arthaśāstra*. Lakṣmīdhara's interpretation about the status of *arthaśāstra* is quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara with approval (*Lakṣmīdhareṇa) tatraiva vyākhyātam iti yuktam).*

c14.s9.t1.34

On the other hand, Gopāla, the author of the *Smṛiti-Kāmadhenu*, is quoted as an authority by Lakṣmīdhara in his *Smṛiti-Kalpataru* (c. 1150). Lakṣmīdhara is therefore later than Gopāla (c. 1100). But since Gopāla is unknown to the *Mitākṣarā*, he is later than 1050. Altogether Śrīkara instead of being the juniormost becomes the seniormost. Perhaps the order in which Chaṇḍeśvara (ch. XV) cites Gopāla (c. 1100), Lakṣmīdhara (c. 1150) and Śrīkara (c. 950) in connection with the doctrine of *rājadhane dīnānāthādisakalaprāṇinām aṃśitvam* indicates that Śrīkara is perhaps the juniormost. But this is hardly possible. One does not know the title of his work nor as to whether it was a commentary (*bhāṣya*) or digest (*nibandha*). But as Śrīkara is quoted by the *Mitākṣarā* he is older than 1050 A.C. and certainly older than Lakṣmīdhara by nearly a century and a half. Chaṇḍeśvara's quotation should have read like "*Śrīkara-Gopāla-Lakṣmīdhara* and others.''²

c14.s9.t1.35

² Kane: *History of Dharmasastras* (Poona 1930), Vol. I. pp. 266-268, 293-296, 317-318.

c14.s9.t1.36

The doctrine referred to, then, prevailed in the Hindu philosophical milieu for four or five centuries from, say, 950 to 1400.

c14.s9.t1.37

An interesting classification of kings from the stand-point of status is furnished by Nārada in his *Nīti* which is evidently different from his *Smṛiti*.

c14.s9.t1.38

"There are two kinds of *rājā*: (1) the *samrāṭ* and (2) the tributary and the untributary *rājā*,'' says Nārada; "The *samrāṭ* is the ruler who regularly receives taxes or tributes from all rulers. He is the *chakravarttī*. The *rājā* who pays taxes every month and every year is known as *sakara* (tributary). But the *rājā* who offers tribute voluntarily (*svechchayā*) is the *adhīśvara*.''

c14.s9.t1.39

Chaṇḍeśvara quotes this view of Nārada's in chapter I. with approval and makes the following remark: "But the *dharma* or duties of all the three are identical.''

2. Mādhava's Rājadharmaprakaraṇa of Parāśara Samhitā

c14.s9.t2.1

The *Rājadharmaprakaraṇam* of the *Parāśara Samhitā*³ is to be found in the *Āchārakaṇḍa*, chapter I. It comprises only three verses (60-62) as follows:

c14.s9.t2.2

³ The *Parāśara Dharma-Samhita* or *Parāśara Smriti* with the commentary of Sāyaṇa Mādhavāchārya, edited by V. S. Islampurkar (Bombay 1893), Vol. I. Part I.

c14.s9.t2.3

'*Avratā hyanadhīyānā yatra bhaikṣyacharā dvijāh*
*Taṁ grāmaṁ daṇḍyedrājā chorabhaktaprado hi sah* (60).
*Kṣatriyo hi prajā rakṣan śastrapāṇih pradaṇḍavān*
*Nirjitya parasainyāni kṣitim dharmeṇa pālayet* (61).
*Puṣpaṁ puṣpaṁ vichinuyān mūlachchhedaṁ na kārayet*
*Mālākāra ivārāme na yathāṁgārakārakāh* (62).

c14.s9.t2.4

"The king should punish that region where the Brāhmaṇas are first *avrata*, i.e., do not practise *vrata* (daily ceremonial and moral functions), secondly, have not discharged their functions as students, and thirdly, live by begging. A region like that is offering food to thieves (60).

c14.s9.t2.5

"The Kṣatriya, equipped with arms as well as furnished with punishment, should maintain or govern the state according to the rules by protecting the people and conquering foreign enemies (61).

c14.s9.t2.6

"He should pluck the flowers piece by piece and not destroy the roots, behaving thus like the maker of garlands in a garden and not the maker of charcoal (62)."

c14.s9.t2.7

On these three verses of Parāśara, Mādhava has a *vyākhyā* covering some thirty pages.⁴ In regard to *daṇḍa* Parāśara quotes the *Nārada Smriti*, the *Yājnavalkya Smriti*, the *Manu Samhitā*, the *Mahābhārata*. The item *prajārakṣan* is elucidated by references to Yājnavalkya, Manu, the *Śāntiparva* (of the *Mahābhārata*), the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* and the *Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa*. The different kinds of *daṇḍa* are described on the authority of Manu, Viṣṇu (*Smriti*), Brihaspati, Kātyāyana and Yama. On the subject of conquests, battle arrays, expeditions etc. Mādhava's authorities are the *Sāntiparva* and Manu. The financial policy is explained by citations from the *Śāntiparva*, Manu and the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*.

c14.s9.t2.8

⁴ See Text Vol. I. Part I. pp. 445-475.

c14.s9.t2.9

Mādhava introduces a new category *vahiramgarājadharma* as contrasted with *antaranga rājadharma*. He quotes Yājnavalkya on the *vahiramga* duties of the king. Policy and forts are the two items discussed in this connection and his quotations are derived from Yājnavalkya, Manu and the *Śāntiparva*. For some other duties of kings Mādhava quotes Manu, Yājnavalkya, the *Śāntiparva*, Uśanas, and the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, e.g., in regard to the exemption of Brāhmaṇas from taxes, the construction of works of public utility like tanks, temples, halls, *prapā*, residences for Brāhmaṇas, gifts, and so forth.

c14.s9.t2.10

Mādhava has made it a point to quote chapter and verse of most of his authorities.

c14.s9.t2.11

Mādhava's treatment of the subject leaves much to be desired. He has introduced all sorts of topics, even such as are not in the least suggested by the three verses of Parāśara. Perhaps one need not quarrel with Mādhava on this score. This enables us to see somewhat more extensively of his conception of public law or politics. But his arrangement of topics is rather perfunctory. The entire discussion (pp. 463-475) after the introduction of the category *vahiranga rājadharma* is specially marked by absence of system and coherent thinking. One should not be surprised if "Mādhavāmātya," busy minister as he was, depended on some assistant for the compilation of this portion. The extracts from Manu, the *Śāntiparva*, Yājnavalkya, Uśanas, the *Mārkaṇḍeya* etc., have been placed here in such a careless, irrelevant and unthinking manner that one should hesitate to ascribe the compilation to the alleged author, who describes himself at the commencement of the work as past master in *Mīmāmsā*.

3. Vaiśampāyana's Nītiprakāśikā

c14.s9.t3.1

Vaiśampāyana's *Nītiprakāśikā*⁵ is a small treatise in eight chapters. But it is valuable because it appears to describe the conditions of the political world under which it was composed. The origin of this work may be traced to the very practical need of carrying certain internal reforms through as well as of preparing for war against some specified enemies. The "home" as well as the "foreign" situations have been described in no equivocal or vague and platitudinous manner. We feel that some practical things are in view. The author hastens from point to point in a very businesslike way.

c14.s9.t3.2

⁵ Edited by G. Oppert, Madras 1882,

c14.s9.t3.3

The chapters are described below:

c14.s9.t3.4

I. The Duties of Kings.

c14.s9.t3.5

II. The Science of Archery: the different classes of weapons.

c14.s9.t3.6

III. The Origin of the Sword.

c14.s9.t3.7

IV. The Weapons such as can be thrown or hurled.

c14.s9.t3.8

V. The Weapons such as cannot be thrown: the terrible machines of the *kali yuga* (51-54).

c14.s9.t3.9

VI. The Army Organization.

c14.s9.t3.10

VII. The Military Division.

c14.s9.t3.11

VIII. The Activities of Kings.

c14.s9.t3.12

The political and social *mores* of the times are condemned by Vaiśampāyana as being very deplorable (chapter I, pp. 12, 15). *Dharmanyāya-vyavasthāyām kāraṇam valamerva hi.* Might alone is being treated as right in matters of duty and law, he complains. Wearing the sacred thread has become the sole claim to Brāhmanhood. The author notices some new phenomena in social life with the object, of course, of condemning them. Thus he refers to *lāvanye keśadhāraṇam* (i.e., keeping hair on the head for the sake of beauty). Apparently, he is an upholder of the old practice of wholesale shaving. Then, again, he notices that something like free love has become popular, for he condemns the practice of *svīkāra eva chodvāhe* (i.e. marriage as being accomplished only by the fact of taking a woman).

c14.s9.t3.13

The expansion of such *adharmas* or vices furnishes the *rationale* for the composition of the *Nītiprakāśikā*. We are told that everybody is behaving like the Śūdras and that the kings are no better than thieves. The situation then calls for the promulgation of political science. The story has of course been placed by the author in the hoary antiquity of King Janamejaya of Takṣaśīlā. But the incidents itemized in the treatise leave no doubt that the author is quite a modern fellow and is describing the conditions round about himself.

c14.s9.t3.14

The author of the *Nītiprakāśikā* assumes on the part of the readers the knowledge of the entire science of politics as developed up to his time. He talks glibly of all the categories known to the Hindu theorists in the course of eight verses (chapter I. 49-56) without caring to spend a minute on any of these categories in order to explain them. Besides, he has a fixed arithmetical number attached to each, which indicates how stereotyped *Nītiśāstra* had grown to be in the author's generation. The categories mentioned as well as the number indicated by the author are given below:

c14.s9.t3.15

| 1. | *Guṇas* (Military Strategy and Tactics) | : | 6 |
| 2. | *Rājaguṇas* (Qualities of the king) | : | 6 |
| 3. | *Upāyas* (Policies) | : | 7 |
| 4. | *Rājadoṣas* (Faults of the king) | : | 14 |
| 5. | *Karmāṇi* (Activities) | : | 8 |
| 6. | *Tīrthas* (Officers) | | |
| | a. Enemy's | : | 18 |
| | b. Own | : | 15 |
| 7. | *Charaka* (Spies) | | |
| | a. to watch the enemy's officers | : | 3 |
| | b. to watch one's own | : | 3 |
| 8. | *Vala* (power) | : | 3 |
| 9. | *Aṅgas* (Limbs of the Army) | : | 8 |
| 10. | *Vala* (Divisions of the Army) | : | 4 |

c14.s9.t3.16

In most treatises the *upāyas* or policies *vis-à-vis* other states are known to be four (*sāma*, *dāna*, *bheda* and *daṇḍa*). Vaiśampāyana gives the number 7. And this figure is given also by Mitra-Miśra in the *Rājanītiprakāśikā* (pp. 304-306). The additional three are *upekṣā*, *māyā* and *indrajāla*. It is to be observed, further, that Mitra-Miśra's authority for the three new *upāyas* is the *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa*. The doctrine of seven *upāyas* thus brings Vaiśampāyana chronologically somewhere in the neighbourhood of this *Purāṇa* and Mitra-Miśra.

c14.s9.t3.17

Incidentally be it observed that Oppert (p. 4) fails to understand the category, "seven *Upāyas*," and takes it in the sense of the seven *amgas* of the *saptāmga* state.

c14.s9.t3.18

The international perspectives of Vaiśampāyana are furnished by chapter V. 55-57. There the author speaks of the coming increase in the malpractices of war on account of the expansion of *adharma*, i.e., non-observance of codified duties. The *Nītiprakāśikā* enumerates a number of races through whom these violations of *dharma* are likely to be perpetrated. The list comprises the Hūṇas, Pulindas, Sabaras, Varvaras, Śakas, Mālavas, Konkanas, Āndhras, Cholas, Pāṇḍyas, Keralas, Mlechchhas, Chaṇḍālas, Svapachas, Khaśas, Mavellakas, Lalitthas, Kirātas, and Kukkuras. They are described as *gojonayah*, descended from the cow, *vijonayah* or born of improper, i.e., illicit union, *pāpa*, i.e., sinful or criminal. It is because of such races that *kūṭayuddha*, i.e., wars with improper or forbidden weapons, are going to grow from more to more in future, says Vaiśampāyana. The enumeration is rather puzzling. We are asked to look upon even the Cholas as a condemnable race and place them in the same social rank as the Hūṇas, Mlechchhas, Sabaras and others. The grouping renders them all the offsprings of questionable unions and of course low in social estimation. Besides, the implication is that all of them are used to fighting with forbidden weapons. In any case, the peril or menace of *kūṭayuddha* is a serious proposition in the author's estimation.

c14.s9.t3.19

We seem to read in these fears almost the anxieties of a Grotius facing the questionable morals or negation of morals in the international relations of his times.

c14.s9.t3.20

This perhaps is the immediate cause of promulgating *dhanurveda* or the science of archery. The special feature of the *Nītiprakāśikā* is its military chapters. No matter what be the actual races against whom military preparedness is in view, the treatise owns its origin to a period of warfare and war-mindedness. The work shows the progressiveness and adaptability of the Hindu mind to new conditions. The *Nītiprakāśikā* is a fine specimen of Hindu authors changing the form and matter of their composition when necessary and presenting something very timely and uptodate, nay, entirely new although under old titles. The object of the author is just to militarize the people, as it were, overnight. He has accordingly prepared what is nothing but a military manual. And as for the ordinary topics of *nīti-śāstras*, he has not ignored them but devoted to them just enough attention to entitle the treatise to being described as a contribution to political science.

4. Abul Fazl's Ain-i-Akbari as a Semi-Moslem and Semi-Hindu Nītiśāstra

c14.s9.t4.1

A very important document of the sixteenth century in the domain of politics is the semi-Hindu, semi-Moslem treatise in Persian entitled the *Ain-i-Akbari*¹ by Abul Fazl (1551-1602). It was composed about 1596-1597.

c14.s9.t4.2

¹ H. Blochmann: *The Ain-i-Akbari* (Calcutta 1873), Vol. I. Biography, p. xxx. See also Gladwin's translation (*Ayeen Akbari*).

c14.s9.t4.3

A glance at the table of contents of the *Ain-i-Akbari* exhibits its rough similarity in formal features with a Hindu *Nītiśāstra*. We may call it the *Akbar-nīti*, so to say. The contents are in short as follows:

c14.s9.t4.4

I. The Household. The Treasury. The Mint. The Method of separating the silver from the gold. Illuminations. The Kitchen. The Days of Abstinence. Writing and Painting. The Arsenal. Elephants. Horses. Camels. Cow-stables. Buildings, Building materials etc.

c14.s9.t4.5

II. The Army. The Civil Services. Salaries. Donations. Feasts. Regulations regarding marriages. Regulations regarding education. The Admiralty.

c14.s9.t4.6

III. The Eras (Hindu and other). Revenues. Measurements. The Executive. The Judiciary. Nineteen Years' Rates of Revenue.

c14.s9.t4.7

IV. The Twelve *Subahs* or Provinces. The Assessment of Land.

c14.s9.t4.8

V. A Description of Hindustan. The Character of the Hindus. Their Astronomy and Geography. The Nine Philosophies. The Eighteen *Vidyās*. The Eighteen *Purāṇas*. The Eighteen *Smritis*. Music. *Rājanīti* (Politics). *Vyavahāra* (Law). Marriages. Festivals etc.

c14.s9.t4.9

VI. Moral Sentences. Epigrams. Rules of Wisdom emanating from the Emperor, etc.

c14.s9.t4.10

The *Ain-i-Akbari* is generally considered to be an Imperial Gazetteer of Moghul India. But it is not quite correct to describe it as a Gazetteer in the strictest sense of the term. The descriptive and statistical data bearing on Akbar's times, especially the *Subahs* or provinces, are certainly to be found in this treatise. But the author is not all an historian or statistician. He has his interpretations, messages, and moral ideas to propagate and they do not appear to be in any way subsidiary to something else. Abul Fazl is indeed a student of ethics, spirituality, life's mission and so forth. He is a philosopher.

c14.s9.t4.11

Many passages and paragraphs, nay, chapters of the *Ain-i-Akbari* cannot be taken as contributions to objective history or records of actual facts. Even in regard to the land revenue settlements and figures relating thereto as given by Abul Fazl one is not quite clear as to whether we always and everywhere have the things actually in force or come across the general scheme of financial administration such as served as the basis for executive action. These features of Abul Fazl's treatise become apparent by the side of another great Persian work, the *Seir Mutaqherin*² (View of Modern Times), the history of India after Aurangzeb composed by Gholam Hussein of Bengal in 1780. This work of the eighteenth century is more objective as history, although no doubt it is furnished with its personal equation as every historical composition is bound to be. A comparison with such formally historical treatises enables us to feel that the *Ain-i-Akbari's* place in the history of political, economic and financial literature cannot be limited to its realistic historicity alone. The work has been conceived by the author as a much more than historical treatise. It is an account in which the messages, norms, ideals etc. play as prominent a rôle as the objective book-keeping and compilation of registers.

c14.s9.t4.12

² Eng. transl. by M. Raymond (Calcutta 1902), four volumes.

c14.s9.t4.13

The *Khatima* (supplement) to the *Mirat-i-Ahmadi*³ (History of Gujarat) in Persian by Ali Muhammad Khan, which was composed between 1750 and 1760 and is somewhat contemporaneous with the *Seir-Mutaqherin*, is likewise another work with which it should be considered generally irrelevant to compare the *Ain-i-Akbari*. The author of this *Khatima*, although influenced in scholarship by Abul Fazl, has produced nothing but a descriptive work, almost a guide-book, so to say, to the shrines of the saints, Hindu temples etc. as well as a register of the Government officials and departments, the Sarkars paying tribute, and so forth. A work like this may be drawn upon by the researchers of today as a source book for the economic, administrative and socio-religious facts and institutions of Gujarat in the eighteenth century without even a word of criticism. There is nothing else in the *Khatima* to occupy the reader's interest or intellect. The atmosphere in the *Ain-i-Akbari* is far otherwise.

c14.s9.t4.14

³ English translation by Nawab Syed Ali and C. N. Seddon (Baroda 1924).

c14.s9.t4.15

In the preface to the Book which is given over to Hindu civilisation Abul Fazl enables us to see something of his inner springs of action. The "love of his native country," Hindustan, is referred to by himself in so many words as one of the motives impelling him to write this history. He is one of the first "patriots" of modern India. We are also told that the desire to remove the strife and animosity between the diverse races of India (Hindus and Moslems) is also an urge in this literary endeavour. He wants to function as a bridge between the two great religions, to be a peace-maker. The ambition of establishing peace and unanimity is a burning passion with him.

c14.s9.t4.16

This Introduction gives us seven reasons for the origin of conflict among persons of diverse religions. In his treatment of the subject we come into contact with a brain which is not only modern in its makeup but which it is almost impossible to improve upon. He is discussing of course the problems of other religions, especially Islam *vis-à-vis* Hinduism. But in his analysis are to be found the profoundest considerations of comparative sociology with reference to the race-questions. As an essay in toleration this Introduction can be used even today anywhere on earth. His logic is unchallengeable in theory and fruitful in practice. We are reminded in this context of another great Moslem scholar, Alberuni.⁴

c14.s9.t4.17

⁴ E. C. Sachau: *Alberuni's India* (London 1910), two volumes. See the section dealing with Greater India in Moslem Asia ("From Harṣa to Hemādri", *Supra*, pp. 459-465).

c14.s9.t4.18

The comparative method is a remarkable trait of Abul Fazl's logic. This manifests itself not only in the discussion of the questions relating to the conflicts arising from the diversity of faiths but also in the manner in which he deals with the arts and sciences of the Hindus. At important points he turns to the Greeks, and this also in the manner of Alberuni, and places Hindu achievements by the side of those of the former. In astronomy he finds analogy with Ptolemy and remembers the Persian, the Egyptian and the Greek philosophers. The references to Greek culture constitute the general perspective, so to say, of his researches in "indology." As one of the modern founders of comparative methodology in world-culture this Indian Mussalman of the sixteenth century deserves his rightful place in the history of science and philosophy and is by all means a great precursor of the Hindu Rammohun Roy of the end of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century.

c14.s9.t4.19

Abul Fazl's ideals are definite and precise. It is the moral and social philosophy that concerns him the most. History, economics, statistics, biography, the personality of Akbar are to him but the pegs on which to hang his moralizings, ideals and spiritual propaganda. There is hardly any chapter of importance, especially in the first two Books, in which we do not again and again come into contact with this great key to his life. He is writing about Akbar's India or rather about Akbar himself but all the time with an eye to the illustration of his own spiritual ideals. To him Akbar should appear to be an interesting character simply because it is this monarch who happens to embody all that he considers to be great and divine in personal and public life.

c14.s9.t4.20

Throughout the *Ain-i-Akbari* we encounter but one problem. To the author it is a moral problem and a political problem in one. He is never tired of discussing it or referring to it and has therefore succeeded in imparting to the treatise a lofty tone such as is associated with the greatest political masterpieces of the world.

c14.s9.t4.21

And what is the life-blood of the ideal preached in season and out of season in the *Ain-i-Akbari*? It is the category of the "just king" (pp. viii, ix, 12). This is the doctrine that occupies the central place in Abul Fazl's political philosophy. And it is here that we see how profoundly he assimilated the eternal problem of Hindu politics, namely, the *rājarṣivrittam* (the conduct of the philosopher-king or royal sage) of our old Kauṭalyan tradition.

c14.s9.t4.22

In the first edition of the *Positive Background* the '*Ain-i-Akbari* was quoted simply as an evidence of the persistence of the Hindu political ideology in the sixteenth century. The passages are reproduced below:

c14.s9.t4.23

"The political literature of the Hindus was known to Abul Fazl, who in *Ayeen 'Akbari* has given a short synopsis of probably some of the *nīti śāstras* in his possession in the chapter on the various branches of learning cultivated by the people of Hindusthan ruled by his master, the great Akbar. Besides giving an elaborate description of Hindu law under the heading *beyhar* (*Sans.* *vyavahāra*) and referring to ‘many other sensible books upon government’ the compiler of this Moghul Gazetteer gives the following summary of *Rājneet*, ‘the art of governing a kingdom :’

c14.s9.t4.24

‘It is incumbent on a monarch to divest himself of avarice and anger, by following the counsels of wisdom. * * * * It is his indispensable duty to fear God * * * to pay particular respect to men of exalted rank and behave with kindness towards his subjects of every description. * * * He should be ambitious to extend his dominions. * * *No enemy is so insignificant as to be beneath his notice. * * *A wise prince will banish from his court all corrupt and designing men. * * *

‘The king resembles a gardener, who plucks up the thorns and briers, and throws them on one side, whereby he beautifies his garden, and at the same time raises a fence which preserves his ground from the intrusion of strangers. * * * The king detaches from the nobles their too numerous friends, and dangerous dependents. * * *

‘In affairs of moment it is not advisable to consult with many. * * * Some ancient monarchs made it a rule to consult men of a contrary description and to act diametrically opposite to their advice. * * * They found it the safest way to join with the prime-minister a few wise and experienced men and to require each to deliver his opinion in writing. A prince moreover requires a learned astrologer and a skilful physician.

‘If any monarch is more powerful than himself he continually strives to sow dissension among his troops; and if he is not able to effect this, prudently purchases his

c14.s9.t4.25

friendship. * * * The prince whose territory adjoins to his, although he may be friendly in appearance, yet ought not to be trusted; he should always be prepared to oppose any sudden attack from that quarter. With him whose country lies next beyond the one last-mentioned he should enter into alliance; but no connexion should be formed with those who are more remote. If he finds it necessary to attack his enemy, he should invade his country during the time of harvest.'

c14.s9.t4.26

"Here we have from a non-Hindu source the traditional ideas of the Hindus regarding constitution, international morality, etc. as preserved in the Hindu literature of the sixteenth century."

c14.s9.t4.27

The student of comparative politics will be justified to go farther. In so far as the general, philosophical or theoretical ideas are concerned, the *Ain-i-Akbari* is to be treated virtually as a Persianized edition, so to say, of a Sanskrit *nītiśāstra*. It is within the philosophical framework of a Hindu treatise on politics that Abul Fazl has put in the statistics and administrative details of Akbar's Empire. It not only preserves the Hindu tradition by describing Sanskrit literature and Hindu philosophical ideas in Book IV. but is a document of the most profound assimilation of Hindu culture by a philosophically minded Mussalman.

c14.s9.t4.28

Let us analyze a bit of his own philosophical synthesis. In the general preface to his *Ain-i-Akbari* Abul Fazl says about royalty as follows:

c14.s9.t4.29

"If royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside, nor selfish ambition disappear. Mankind, being under the burden of lawlessness and lust, would sink into the pit of destruction, the world, this great market place, would lose its prosperity, and the whole earth become a barren waste. But by the light of imperial justice some follow with cheerfulness the road of obedience, whilst others abstain from violence through fear of punishment; and out of necessity make choice of the path of rectitude.''

c14.s9.t4.30

In this political philosophy of Abul Fazl we have an adaptation from the Hindu doctrines of *mātsya nyāya* (logic of the fish) as well as of *daṇḍa* (punishment). He is a first class writer and stylist and he has presented the Hindu philosophical "patents" in a most polished and dignified language, which only the Persianist of course can appreciate in the original.

c14.s9.t4.31

Among the "excellent qualities" flowing from royalty as conceived by Abul Fazl we are told that the king "puts the reins of desire into the hands of reason; in the wide field of his desires he does not permit himself to be trodden by restlessness nor will he waste his precious time in seeking after that which is improper. * * * He is for ever searching after those who speak the truth and is not displeased with words that seem bitter but are in reality sweet." Here, again, we have but a paraphrase from the Hindu doctrine of *vyasanas* (vices) and *rājadoṣas* (faults or disqualifications of a king).

c14.s9.t4.32

It is exceedingly interesting that even in regard to the professional structure of the people Abul Fazl cannot think of anything but the fourfold Hindu social stratification. He says that the political constitution becomes well tempered by a "proper division of ranks." The four classes into which according to him the world may be divided are (1) warriors, (2) artificers and merchants, (3) the learned, and (4) husbandmen and labourers. We are taught also that it is obligatory for a king to put each of these in its proper place, and by uniting personal ability with respect due for others, to cause the world to flourish.''

c14.s9.t4.33

It does not take anybody acquainted even cursorily with the Hindu *artha*, *smriti* and *nītiśāstras* long to understand that Abul Fazl is reproducing the most fundamental concept of the king's functions *vis-à-vis chāturvarṇya* (the four-ordered social polity). It is curious that no modern scholar seems to have even suspected that the words, phrases and sentences of a philosophical, theoretical or general character in all these paragraphs are almost *verbatim* copies from the *Manu Samhitā* ch. VIII (*Rājadharma*).

c14.s9.t4.34

We shall now point to one or two other Sanskritisings or Hinduizings of the Persian text. In *Ain* 13 which discusses the origin of metals, Abul Fazl speaks of the ''seven bodies'' within quotation marks. According to some manuscripts the Hindus are referred to as giving the opinion that the metal called *ricac* is a ''silver in the state of leprosy.'' One wonders if Abul Fazl is not dealing in this chapter with the Hindu doctrine of seven metals. And one may not be surprised if *zinc*, the seventh metal, which began to be recognized by the fourteenth century Hindu writers on medicine like Madanapāla, is Abul Fazl's ''silver in the state of leprosy,'' for some of the Sanskrit names for zinc, namely, *rasaka*, *rūpyabhrātā* etc. connect it with silver.

c14.s9.t4.35

In *'Ain* 41 which deals with the imperial elephant stables the four kinds of elephants (namely, *bhaddar*, *mand*, *mirg* and *mir*) and their three dispositions (namely, *sat*, *raj*, and *tam*) are derived from the Sanskrit treatises on elephants. Abul Fazl names also the eight *diggajas* or elephants as guardians of the quarters or points of the earth in the Hindu manner and gives likewise another Hindu classification of elephants. The entire chapter (pp. 117-124) points to a fine assimilation of Sanskrit *gajaśāstras* by Moslems in regard to other items as well. Abul Fazl quotes neither Varāhamihira's *Brihat Samhitā* nor Bhoja's *Yuktikalpataru* nor any treatise like the *Śukranīti*. He is, however, not a plagiarist as he says explicitly that these ideas about elephants are Hindu.

c14.s9.t4.36

Ain 72 describes the "manner in which His Majesty spends his time" (pp. 153-156). In such expressions as the "care with which His Majesty guards over his motives and watches over his emotions," "he listens to great and small," "he does not allow his desires or his wrath to renounce allegiance to wisdom," "his august nature cares but little for the pleasures of the world," etc. one may read the echoes or reminiscences of the "qualifications" and "vices" of kings with which the Hindu *artha* and *nītiśāstras* deal as a matter of course. Some of these virtues are of course but generalities and platitudes found in every treatise on ideal polity from Plato and Kauṭalya to Al-Farabi (c. 950), the great Arab encyclopaedist who based his *Al-Madinat-al-Fadila* (*Model City*) on Plato. Abul Fazl does not therefore have to copy such maxims from any specifically Hindu sources.

c14.s9.t4.37

Such moralizings or ascriptions of moral qualities to a *Padshah* may also be expected of Abul Fazl quite independently. It should still be observed however that he is writing in a Hindu atmosphere about a monarch who is pro-Hindu with vengeance, nay, who is condemned as *Kafer* by orthodox Mussalmans.⁵ Further, Abul Fazl is actually using Hindi words at every turn and referring to Hindu customs in the most familiar way. One may perhaps suggest, therefore, that the author of *Ain-i-Akbari* is not uninfluenced by the traditional (Kauṭalyan) Hindu conception of the *rājarṣi*, the philosopher-king, while describing Akbar's daily routine, meals and other habits, as well as temperament etc. in *Ains 72-75* (pp. 153-160). The characteristic Muslim salutations (*taslim* and *kornish*) are, however, not included in these remarks. But Abul Fazl's dicta that "royalty is an emblem of the power of God and a light-shedding ray from this Sun of the Absolute" (p. 159) or that "even spiritual progress would be impossible unless emanating from the king in whom the light of God dwells" (p. 158) point perhaps to the fact that Abul Fazl is here making propaganda about his hero for a people that is used to the language of the *Manu Samhitā*. Not the least *tenden-ciös* item in all these statements is the one, as told by Abul Fazl, that "His Majesty abstains much from flesh so that whole months pass away without his touching any animal food." The author makes it a point to observe in this connection that the animal food, "though prized by most, is nothing thought of by the sage." This can be easily interpreted as an attempt on the part of Abul Fazl at "speaking to the gallery." But the fact that these statements about Akbar are truths and not mere propaganda furnishes all the more ground for believing that the emperor, his court, as well as Abul Fazl were Hinduized in thought and form.

c14.s9.t4.38

⁵ For the pro-Hindu habits and laws of Akbar as described and condemned by Badaoni, see Blochmann, vol. I. pp. 176-184, 193, 205.

c14.s9.t4.39

These suggestions about Abul Fazl's Hinduization of the *Ain-i-Akbari* will derive fresh strength from what is known about his personal character.

c14.s9.t4.40

According to the *Maasir-ul-Umará* quoted in Blochmann's *Ain-i-Akbari* (pp. xxvii-xxviii), Abul Fazl is reported to have been "an infidel." "Some say, he was a Hindu, 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 Sufis he claimed for himself a position above the law of the prophet." All these descriptions, repugnant naturally as they are to an orthodox Mussalman, are however quite in keeping with an academically high placed or philosophically-minded Hindu or Hinduized scholar. And since Prince Salim in his *Memoirs* describes Abul Fazl as a "Hindusthani Shaikh by birth, who was well known for his learning and wisdom"⁶ we may not be far from the truth when we surmise that this Indian-born Shaikh was well up in the Hindu *smriti* and *nīti śāśtras* and at any rate had grown up by assimilating the contributions of the Hindu cultural tradition.

c14.s9.t4.41

⁶ Blochmann, vol. I, (1873), Biography p. xxvi. For the translations from Sanskrit works into Arabic from 750 to 850 A.C. See E. C. Sachau: *Alberuni's India* (London 1910), vol. I. pp. xxviii-xxxv. Alberuni's own translations or adaptations from Sanskrit may be seen *Ibid.*, pp. xxxvi-xl.

c14.s9.t4.42

It is interesting to have to observe that even as a profound student of Arabic literature Abul Fazl must have been introduced to the Hindu *vidyās*, because, as is well known, a considerable portion of Arabic texts was made up of translations of or adaptations from Sanskrit treatises in the eighth and ninth centuries. The amount of original researches in Hindu culture embodied in the work on India by Alberuni (973-1048) the great Arab mathematician and philosopher was immense.

c14.s9.t4.43

Had we known less than we actually do about Akbar's socio-religious pro-Hindu propaganda and the ultraliberal intellectual activities of Abul Fazl, his elder brother Faizi, and their father we might perhaps have been led to suspect that part of the idealism in Abul Fazl's work,—the general preface as well as the text—is to be ascribed to an acquaintance with Al-Farabi's treatise on the *Model City* (c. 950). As a learned scholar Abul Fazl may certainly have studied the Arabic treatise on governmental statutes (*El Akham es Soulthaniyah*) by Mawerdi (972-1058), chief justice of Bagdad, or derived profit from the Persian *Siassat Namah* (Treatise on Government) by Nazamoul Mulk (c. 1063-1092). And of course the greatest philosophico-historical work of the "Middle Ages," namely, the *Mokaddemah* in Arabic by Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), the Egyptian judge, could not have failed to furnish this "Hindusthani Shaikh" with literary norms.⁷

c14.s9.t4.44

⁷ For Al Farabi see the German translation (*Die Muster-Stadt*) by F. Dietrici, Leyden 1895, and Carra de Vaux: *Avicenne*, Paris 1900. The *El-Akham es Soulthaniyah* is available in French as *Les Status Gouvernementaux* by Fagnan, Paris 1915. The *Siasset Nameha* is available in French as *Traité du Gouvernement* by Schefer, Paris 1893. The *Mokaddemah* is available in French as *Prolegomènes Historiques* by de Slane, Paris 1862-68. See also T. Husein: *La Philosophie Sociale d'Ibn Khaldhoun*, Paris 1917. A study as to the nature of Abul Fazl's contacts with these and other Arabic and Persian "old masters" in politics, economics, history and sociology etc. ought to be very interesting for an investigation into the achievements of Indo-Saracenic Renaissance.

c14.s9.t4.45

But the borrowings, assimilations, reminiscences or adaptations from the Sanskrit texts are too direct and palpable as well as pronounced. The surroundings of Abul Fazl's daily life and the literary activities in which he took part while preparing the *Ain-i-Akbari* should appear to be Muslim only in name. The Hindu-Moslem camaraderies of his Padshah as well as of himself and his group are enough to explain that forces nearer home were responsible for the kind of idealism and political philosophy which found expression in the *Akbar-nīti*.

c14.s9.t4.46

The translations from "Hindi" (Sanskrit)⁸ into Persian of works like the *Mahābhārata*, the *Rāmāyaṇa*, the *Atharva Veda*, the *Harivamśa*, the *Nala Damayantī* etc. such as are described in the *Ain* 34 indicate the Hindu atmosphere which could not fail to leave its impress upon the contributions of Abul Fazl. It is not quite clear, however, whether the translations were made direct from Sanskrit or from Hindi translations. But it is important to notice that he himself had a hand in the translation of the *Mahābhārata*, just as Faizi in that of *Nal Daman*.

c14.s9.t4.47

⁸ Blochmann Vol. I. (1873) pp. Biography, xvii, 104, 199-200. For the translations of Sanskrit works under Moslem auspices see also D. C. Sen: *History of Bengali Literature* (Calcutta 1911); N. N. Law: *Promotion of Learning in India During Muhammadan Rule (By Muhammadans)* (London 1916); B. K. Sarkar: *Folk-Element in Hindu Culture* (London 1917); M. Z. Siddiqi: "Services of Muslims to Sanskrit Literature" (*Calcutta Review*, February 1932).

c14.s9.t4.48

In the special preface to the sections dealing with Hindu culture we learn from his own statements that his studies in Hindu culture were commenced early. But he felt that his knowledge was not sufficient. So he renewed his former studies with the help of those who could guide him. He speaks of the painful researches undertaken in order to arrive at the truth about the Hindus, their sciences, philosophies, and religions. This explains naturally the almost *verbatim* extracts from Hindu treatises on law and politics in this Muslim work.

c14.s9.t4.49

It is interesting that at the very threshold of his study on Hindu culture, even in the introduction Abul Fazl makes the readers acquainted with his fundamental conclusion, namely, that the Hindus are not polytheists but are worshippers of God and only one God. And this conclusion he poses against the popular tradition of his times to the effect that the Hindus are polytheists. He repeats his conclusion at the commencement of the lengthy section and remarks that the Hindus are no mere idolators, "as the ignorant suppose." The Hindu explanation of image worship is reproduced by himself as his own conviction, namely, that the images are designed simply to prevent the thoughts of the people from wandering while at prayer. Abul Fazl should here appear to be a twin to Alberuni who preceded him by over five hundred years.

First 119 of 373 passages. Read on

Linked texts (56)