The-History-of-IndiaVol-VI.doc

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period
Sir H. M. Elliot
Edited by John Dowson
Volume I: Introduction
Volume II: To the Year A.D. 1260
Volume III: To the Year A.D. 1398
Volume IV: To the Year A.D. 1450
Volume V: End of the Afghan Dynasty and the First Thirty-Eight Years of the Reign of Akbar
Volume VI: Akbar and Jahangir
Volume VII: From Shah-Jahan to the Early Years of the Reign of Muhammad Shah
Volume VIII: To End of the Muhammadan Empire in India
London
Trubner Company
1867–1877

CONTENTS OF VOL. VI.
PAGE
Preface v
Addendum to Vol. IV vii>
Errata in Vol. VI vii
XLII Akbar-náma, of Shaikh Abú-l Fazl 1
XLIII Takmíla-i Akbar-náma, of ‘Ináyatu-lla 103
XLIV Akbar-náma, of Shaikh Illáhdád Faizí Sirhindí 116
XLV Wáki’át, of Shaikh Faizí 147
XLVI Wikáya, of Asad Beg 150
XLVII Táríkh-i Hakkí, of Shaikh ‘Abdul Hakk 175
XLVIII Zubdatu-t Tawáríkh, of Shaikh Núru-l Hakk 182
XLIX Rauzatu-t Táhirín, of Táhir Muhammad 195
L Muntakhabu-t Tawáríkh; or, Ahsanu-t Tawáríkh, of Hasan bin Muhammad 201
LI Táríkh-i Firishta, of Muhammad Kásim Hindú Sháh Firishta 207
LII Ma-ásir-i Rahímí, of Muhammad ‘Abdu-l Bákí 237
LIII Anfa’u-l Akhbár, of Muhammad Amín 244
Memoirs of Jahángír—Preliminary Note by Editor 251
LIV Táríkh-i Salím Sháhí; Túzak-i Jahángírí, of the Emperor Jahángír 256
LV Dwázda-Sála-i Jahángírí; Wáki’át Jahángírí, of the Emperor Jahángír 276
LVI Tatimma-i Wáki’át-i Jahángírí, of Muhammad Hádí 392
LVII Ikbál-náma-i Jahángírí, of Mu’tamad Khán 400
LVIII Ma-ásir-i Jahángírí, of Kámgár Khán 439
LIX Intikháb-i Jahángírí-Sháhí 446
LX Subh-i Sádik, of Sádik Isfahání 453
APPENDIX.
A On the Early Use of Gunpowder in India 455
B Extracts from a Biographical Work of ‘Abdu-l Hakk Dehlawí 483
C Comments on the Institutes of Jahángír 493
D Translations from Shash Fat’h-i Kángrá 517
E Translation of the Introduction to Firishta’s History 532
F Bibliographical Notices of Works of the Period 570

Next Contents of The History of India
Next Previous Contents

PREFACE.
THE reign of Akbar, which the Fifth Volume left un­finished, is in this volume brought to a close. Copious Extracts have been drawn from the great Akbar-náma of Abú-l Fazl, a work as yet but little known to the European reader except by vague reputation. Some Extracts relating to the closing years of Akbar’s reign have also been taken from the continuation of the Akbar-náma by ‘Ináyatu-lla. Another and smaller Akbar-náma by Shaikh Illáhdád, otherwise called Faizí Sirhindí, has also been laid under contribution; but it does not fulfil the expectations which had been formed of it, as it proves to be little more than a compilation from the Tabakát-i Akbarí and the greater work of Abú-l Fazl. Some curious and interesting personal details have been derived from the Memoirs of Asad Beg, an officer in Akbar’s service. His statements place the Imperial government in an unfavourable light, and are far from exalting the personal character of the monarch. The original writers upon the life and times of Akbar may now be considered as exhausted, for their writings have all been diligently searched, and there cannot remain much to be yet gleaned.
A considerable portion of the volume is occupied with notices published by Sir H. Elliot in his original Volume I., and all the contents of that publication have now been re-printed.
The history of the reign of Jahángír depends almost entirely on the Memoirs written by himself or under his direction; for although there are other professed historians of the reign, they mainly draw their in­formation from the Memoirs, and rarely venture upon an independent statement. It has long been known that there were different works, claiming to be Auto­biographies of Jahángír. The copious Extracts which are given in this volume leave little room for doubt as to which must have been the more approved and authentic version.
The Note in the Appendix, on the Early Use of Gun­powder in India, is a reprint, with some alterations and additions by Sir H. Elliot himself. The Comments on the Institutes of Jahángír are entirely his own work. Two other Notes were prepared under his direction and superintendence. Sir H. Elliot’s notice of Firishta’s great history appears in this volume, and the Editor has taken the opportunity of supplying an oft-expressed want, by giving a complete translation of the Introduc­tion to that voluminous work.
The following is a list of the articles in this volume with the names of the respective writers:—
XLII.—Akbar-náma of Abú-l Fazl—Editor.
XLIII.—Takmíla-i Akbar-náma—“Lieutenant” Chalmers.
XLIV.—Akbar-náma of Faizí Sirhindí—Editor and “Ensign”
F. Mackenzie.
XLV.—Wáki’át-i Shaikh Faizí—“Lieutenant” Prichard.
XLVI.—Wikáya of Asad Beg—B. W. Chapman, Esq., B.C.S.
XLVII.—Táríkh-i Hakkí—Reprint from old volume.
XLVIII.—Zubdatu-t Tawáríkh—Reprint from old volume.
XLIX.—Rauzatu-t Táhirín—Reprint from old volume.
L.—Muntakhabu-t Tawáríkh—Reprint from old volume.
LI.—Táríkh-i Firishta—Reprint from old volume.
LII.—Ma-ásir-i Rahímí—Reprint from old volume.
LIII.—Anfa’u-l Akhbár—Reprint from old volume.
LIV.—Táríkh-i Salím Sháhí or Túzak-i Jahángírí—Major Price.
LV.—Wáki’át-i Jahángírí—Sir H. M. Elliot, Editor, and others.
LVI.—Tatimma-i Wáki’át-i Jahángírí—Editor.
LVII.—Ikbál-náma—Editor.
LVIII.—Ma-ásir-i Jahángírí—Sir H. M. Elliot and Editor.
LIX.—Intikháb-i Jahángír Sháhí—Sir H. M. Elliot and a munshí.
LX.—Subh-i Sádik—Sir H. M. Elliot.

APPENDIX.
A.—Early Use of Gunpowder in India—Reprint from old volume.
B.—Extracts from a work of ‘Abdu-l Hakk Dehlawí—Major
A. R. Fuller.
C.—Comments on the Institutes of Jahángír—Sir H. M. Elliot.
D.—Translations from Shash Fat’h-i Kángrá—A munshí and Sir
H. M. Elliot.
E.—Translation of the Introduction to Firishta’s History—Editor.
F.—Bibliographical Notices—Reprint from old volume.

Next Previous Contents
Next Previous Contents

ADDENDUM TO VOL. IV.
The following paragraph ought to have been inserted in page 228 at the end of Sir H. M. Elliot’s notice of the Memoirs of Bábar. But in arranging the fragmen­tary copy of the article, part of which was MS. and part print, the passage was accidentally omitted—
“Almost all the above remarks have been taken from Elphinstone’s India, vol. ii. pp. 119, 122, and the Edinburgh Review, No. xci. Article 2.”

Next Previous Contents
Next Previous Contents

ERRATA IN VOL. VI.
Page 8, six lines from bottom, for “translation,” read “translations.”
Page 181. Note at foot, read: “Some Extracts from another work,” and see p. 483.

Next Previous Contents
Next Previous Contents

XLII.
AKBAR-NÁMA
OF
SHAIKH ABÚ-L FAZL.
[ABÚ-L FAZL ‘ALLÁMÍ was the son of Shaikh Mubárak, son of Shaikh Khizr, who emigrated from Sind to Hindústán. Shaikh Mubárak was born at Nágor, and at an early age gave evidence of great intellectual powers. He became one of the most learned men of the time, and was conspicuous during the reign of Akbar for his great erudition and his liberal opinions on religious matters. He had several sons, two of whom rose to the greatest eminence and celebrity. The eldest, Shaikh Abú-l Faiz, better known as Faizí, was the most popular poet of the time. He was a great favourite and the constant companion of Akbar, who gave him the title of “Prince of Poets.” His com­positions are still held in very high estimation, as second only to those of Amír Khusrú, the acknowledged chief of Indian poets.
Abú-l Fazl was the second son, and was born on the 14th January, 1551. He was educated under his father’s care, and was a devoted student. His range of reading was extensive, and before the age of twenty he had obtained the reputa­tion of being a deep and critical scholar. His attainments afterwards gained for him the high-sounding title of ‘Allámí. Faizí’s poems early attracted the attention of the Emperor, who invited the young poet to his Court while he was engaged in the siege of Chítor, in the twelfth year of the reign. Faizí soon became an established favourite, and enjoyed great influence. By his means Abú-l Fazl was introduced at Court in his seven­teenth year. His abilities were immediately recognized, and every year he grew in favour and in power, until he rose to the office of Prime Minister, and became a mansabdár of 4000. In the position of courtier and minister he enjoyed the unbounded confidence of the Emperor, and he discharged his duties, both as a civilian and a soldier, with distinguished ability and success. In the following pages some passages will be found relating to his services in the Dakhin, and an incident connected with the siege of Ásír deserves to be here recorded to his honour. Bahádur Khán, the holder of this fortress, was desirous of gaining the favour of Abú-l Fazl, hoping by his influence to avert the Emperor’s displeasure. He therefore sent him some rich presents. Abú-l Fazl returned the presents with the fol­lowing statement: “I have made a vow not to accept presents till four conditions are fulfilled. 1. Friendship. 2. That I should not value the gift too highly. 3. That I should not have been anxious to get a present. 4. Necessity to accept it. Now, supposing that the first three are satisfied in the present case, the favour of the Emperor has extinguished every desire in me of accepting gifts from others.”

Next Previous Contents Next Previous Contents

Both Faizí and Abú-l Fazl imbibed the liberal opinions of their father, and carried them to greater extremes. They were reviled by the faithful as heterodox, as apostates, as heretics, as free-thinkers, as perverters of the truth and deceivers of the faithful. Akbar’s tolerance, his early doubts, and his inquiries into the principles of other religions, had shown themselves before the brothers were introduced at Court. But if they did not kindle the fire, they fanned it and kept it alive. In them the Emperor found congenial minds, with feelings and opinions similar to but more decided than his own. With them he held frequent converse, and indulged his partiality for theological discussion. The result was that he and they, mutually in­fluencing each other, progressed through various phases of scepticism and credulity, until they finally arrived at the re­jection of Islám, and the establishment of the “Divine Faith,” described as “Divine Monotheism.” At the head of this new religion stood Akbar himself; next after him came Abú-l Fazl and Faizí.
Prince Salím, afterwards the Emperor Jahángír, had a great dislike of Abú-l Fazl. The minister served his master too faithfully, and thwarted the ambitious views of the heir so successfully, as to make himself an object of hatred. “He was no friend of mine,” wrote Jahángír in his Memoirs, and he took an opportunity to remove the man he feared and hated. The Prince had more than once shown signs of rebellion, and of an intention to assume independence. In the forty-seventh year of his father’s reign his ambitious designs displayed them­selves more distinctly, and excited much distrust in the mind of the Emperor. At this time Abú-l Fazl was in command in the Dakhin, and Akbar, desiring the support and counsel of his trusty minister, sent him an urgent recall. Abú-l Fazl obeyed the summons immediately, and set out for Ágra with only a slender escort. This afforded the opportunity for making an end of him. A Bundela Rájá, named Bír Singh, was incited by the Prince to waylay the minister, and kill him. Abú-l Fazl had warning of his danger, but refused to turn aside. On Friday, the 4th Rabí’u-l awwal (12th August, 1602), he was attacked by the Bundela, about six kos from Narwar, and after a short but gallant resistance he fell dead, and his head was sent as an ac­ceptable offering to the Prince. Early in the reign of Jahángír, the murderer received high promotion, and Jahángír in his Memoirs avows and justifies his having procured the murder by promise of reward. Akbar’s grief at the death of his minister was unbounded, and he took active measures to bring Bír Singh to punishment. The murderer was hunted from place to place, and had several hair-breadth escapes; but the death of the Emperor put an end to his danger, and opened the road to reward and honour.
The author of the Ma-ásiru-l Umará writes as follows in his Memoirs:
“It has often been asserted that Abú-l 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 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 trousers, which were burnt in his presence.

Next Previous Contents
Next Previous Contents

“He had an extraordinary appetite. It is said that, exclusive of water and soup, he consumed daily twenty-two sírs of food. His son ‘Abdu-r Rahmán used to sit at table as safarchí (head butler); the superintendent of the kitchen, who was a Muham­madan, was also in attendance, and both watched to see if Abú-l 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, Abú-l Fazl gave it to his son to taste, and he to the superintendent, but no word was said about it. When Abú-l Fazl was in the Dakhin, his table luxury exceeded all belief. In an immense tent, 1000 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 khichrí was cooked all day, and was served out to any one that applied for it.
“As a writer, Abú-l 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 him.”
Other native writers have expressed similar opinions, and Mr. Blochmann, to whom the above translation is owing, says, “It would be almost useless to add to this encomium on Abú-l Fazl’s style.