His 1501 - the Mughal Empire

Nathan Johnson

History 1501

Primary Source Essay

Over time, religious tension and intolerance crumbled the Mughal Empire into a myriad of states and kingdoms.  The Mughal Empire developed similarly to the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires into a centralized military-fiscal state – a system in which one person, the Emperor, has the final say on all important decisions.  As such, when the empire was well off financially, winning military campaigns and its policies were proven to be successful, the Emperor was to be congratulated and praised.  However, when there were problems within the bureaucracy, military loses abroad, or civil unrest in the eyes of the people the Emperor was entirely to blame.  Because the Emperor or ruler held absolute power, policies changed drastically from ruler to ruler based on biases, personal prejudices, and religious philosophies.  The latter proved to have a huge impact on both the success as well as the eventual downfall of the Mughal Empire.  Two rulers fundamental in guiding the empire through this period were the Emperors Akbar and Aurangzeb.  Though drastically different in their philosophies and policies, they both sought to aggrandize the Mughal Empire through its maintenance as well as the conquest of additional territories.  

        In a recorded “debate” that Jahangir, the son of Akbar, has with some Hindu scholars, some degree of insight into the relationship between Muslims and Hindus during the reign of Akbar is given, as well as the relationship between Jahangir and his father the Emperor (Jahangir).    However, the source is unreliable due to its exaggerated nature as well as the fact that it is told from the point of view from Jahangir himself.  This further increases the likelihood of distortion through embellishment and self-praise.  The information that it represents is also somewhat irrelevant because it discusses the opinion of neither Akbar nor Aurangzeb, but rather that of a son of Akbar.   While it does offer the perspective of a devout Muslim’s view of the Hindus in the Mughal Empire at this time, I felt it was the least relevant of the sources presented.  

          From a letter written by Father Antonio Monserrat, a Spanish priest, we have a rather descriptive examination of Akbar physically as a person as well as a ruler.  Akbar is described as someone who physically looks like a king, and Monserrat takes careful note of every distinctive feature.  This could be because he was sizing Akbar up, or perhaps he was inspecting him for flaws because that seemed to be a trend among visiting Europeans.  Father Monserrat goes on to describe Akbar as a very liberal Muslim who showed exceptional religious tolerance toward Hindus and other religious minorities, even giving them positions of great power in the palace.  He also notes his surprise that Akbar had not been assassinated because of his refusal to conform to orthodox Islamic beliefs, observing that “He [Akbar] has a very acute insight, both in avoiding dangers and in seizing favorable opportunities for carrying out his designs” (Monserrat).  One of the few things for which Father Monserrat seems to praise Akbar for was making himself accessible to all of his subjects, and in speaking with them “endeavoring to make himself seem pleasant spoken and affable, rather than severe” (Monserrat).  Overall his description of Akbar is meticulous and he seems to esteem Akbar to be a benevolent leader, but speaks in condescending tones.  Throughout the passage Monserrat is clearly critical of Islam, calling their prophet Mohammed “worthless” (Monserrat).  He states that in essence all of Akbar’s good qualities are in vain because “the True Faith was lacking” (Monserrat).  This is a good source because it gives an outsider’s perspective of the Mughal Empire and of Akbar.  Seeing as Father Monserrat did not officially represent the Spanish government or any of the neighboring empires in his visit to the Mughal Empire, it could be concluded that his account would perhaps be more informational and less politically biased than that of an envoy or diplomat, since he was reporting to the Church on his findings (although the Catholic church was also a powerful entity at the time).