Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:58:58.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire of the Mughals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Stephen P. Blake
Get access

Abstract

An earlier generation of Mughal scholars used the British-Indian Empire of the late Imperial period (c. 1875–1914) as its model for interpreting the Mughal state. The highly structured military, judicial, and administrative systems of the British Raj provided the perspective from which they viewed the material on the Mughal state contained in the Persian sources. Unfortunately, the assumptions implicit in this approach caused both a misreading of the Persian texts and a misunderstanding of the Mughal state. This essay argues that the patrimonial bureaucratic empire, a model developed by Max Weber, better captures the true character of the Mughal polity. A close analysis of the major Persian text on Mughal government, the A'in-i Akbari of Abu al-Fazl, demonstrates the superiority and appropriateness of the patrimonial-bureaucratic empire as a model for understanding the Mughal state.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , November 1979 , pp. 77 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Compare the treatment of the Mughal Empire in the following: Eisenstadt, S. N., The Political Systems of Empires (New York: The Free Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Toynbee, Arnold, A Study of History, 12 vols. (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1935–1964), 7Google Scholar, pt. 4; Hodgson, Marshall G. S., The Venture of Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farmer, Edward L. et al. , A Comparative History of Civilizations in Asia, 2 vols. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977), 1Google Scholar; and Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus, 3 vols. (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 3.Google Scholar

2 M. Athar Ali exhibits the clearest perception of this failure in his presidential address to the 1972 meeting of the Indian History Congress, Proceedings of the 33rd Session of the Indian History Congress (Muzaffarpur: Indian History Congress, 1972), pp. 175–88.Google Scholar In the last chapter of his recent work, Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1976)Google Scholar, Michael Pearson offers a model of the political system in Gujarat. This model certainly has implications for the organization of the empire at large, but Pearson does not spell them out in any detail. He restricts his analysis for the most part to western India and Gujarat.

3 Examples of this approach occur most frequently in the work of an earlier generation of scholars whose writings were responsible for the standard introductions to the Mughal state. See, for example, Irvine, William, The Army of the Indian Mughuls: Its Organization and Administration (1903; rpt. New Delhi: Eurasian Publishing House Private Ltd., 1962)Google Scholar; Hasan, Ibn, The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire (1936; rpt. Karachi: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husain, The Administration of the Mughul Empire (Karachi: Univ. of Karachi, 1966)Google Scholar; Srivastava, A. L., Akbar the Great, 2 vols. (Agra, U.P.: Shiva Lai Agarwala and Company, 1962–1967), 2Google Scholar; Saran, P., The Provincial Government of the Mughals (Allahabad, U.P.: Kitabistan, 1941)Google Scholar. The younger historians, on the other hand, having narrowed their interests and limited their topics, have not yet begun to re-examine the larger question. While none of what I stress here is unknown to them, these scholars have not, because of their more circumscribed purview, reflected on the implications of these aspects of Mughal government for the established interpretation. They have not seen the contradiction between the patrimonial aspects of the Mughal state and the conventional description of it in the standard works. See Ali, M. Athar, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1968Google Scholar; paperback ed., 1970); and Chandra, Satish, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 2d. ed. (New Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1972)Google Scholar. Both authors have put together detailed studies that break important new ground, but neither has looked into the impact of his work on the conventional model of the Mughal state. Two careful, imaginative Western historians of Mughal India, John F. Richards and Michael N. Pearson, are pertinent also. Pearson's closely argued study focuses almost exclusively on western India. Richards's painstaking examination of Mughal administration in the South Indian state of Golconda, a revealing look at an often-ignored area, discusses both the patrimonial and bureaucratic aspects of the Mughal state without touching the larger issue. See Mughal Administration in Golconda (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 75–78Google Scholar. Finally, a look at the new historical atlas of South Asia reveals that the older view is tar from dead. The table portraying the administrative organization of the Mughal Empire is a perfect rendering of the standard interpretation. See Joseph Schwartzberg, ed., A Historical Atlas of South Asia (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1978), plate VI.A.2, p. 45Google Scholar.

4 The most complete discussion of the patrimonial state and its variants is Weber, Economy and Society, 1: 229–57, 263–64; 3: 966–72, 100669, 1086–92. Weber's remarks on the patrimonial-bureaucratic empire are scattered and fragmentary, and so not easy to integrate and interpret. His style is to construct pure types—the patrimonial state and the modern bureaucratic state—and contrast them. No historical state, as Weber himself points out, exactly matches either type. All present and past state systems are combinations of elements from several types; the patrimonial-bureaucratic empire is a mixture of the modern bureaucratic and patrimonial states. Actual historical examples of the model differ as they approach closer to one or the other pure type.

5 This is, as far as I know, the first serious attempt to analyze the Mughal empire in terms of the patrimonial-bureaucratic model. Both Pearson, Merchants and Rulers, p. 62, and Hardy, Peter, The Muslims of British India (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), pp. 12–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar mention Weber's work. Neither, however, writes at any length on the application of the model to Mughal India.

6 I do not have the space here to present the evidence. The details of the argument are worked out in a manuscript I am preparing on the history of Shahjahanabad, the capital of the Mughal Empire from 1648–1858.

7 al-Din, Rash id, Jami al-Tavarikh, ed. Karimi, B., 2 vols. (Tehran: n.p., 1959), 2: 688Google Scholar. I am indebted to Thomas Allsen for the reference and the information about the Mongols.

8 Abual-Fazl, , The A'in-i Akbari, ed. Blochmann, H., 2 vols. (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1872–1877), 1: 7Google Scholar; al-Fazl, Abu, The A'in-i Akbari, trans. Blochmann, H. and Jarrett, H. S., corrected and annotated by Jadunath Sarkar, 2d ed., 3 vols. (1927–1949; rpt. New Delhi: New Imperial Book Depot, 1965), 1: 9Google Scholar. I follow the system of transliteration in F. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. In all footnotes to the A'in, I include references to both the Persian and English editions of the text, so that interested readers may discover Blochmann's errors by comparing his translation with the original work. All translations in this paper are, of course, my own.

9 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 2; A'in, trans. Bloch-mann, 1: 3. For a similar statement see A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 158 and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 172.

10 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1:3.

11 For a discussion of the term see The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d. ed., s.v. “al-insanal-kamil.” Hodgson, Venture of Islam, 3: 75–80; and Srivastava, Akbar, 2:309 both argue that Abu al-Fazl presented Akbar in such a light throughout his writings. A'in 77 provides perhaps the best example of Abu al-Fazl'sapproach. See A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 158–60; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 170–76.

12 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 158; A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 170.

13 This issue has generated a good deal of controversy. For the arguments in favor of a newreligion, see A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 176–223. For the opposing and, it seems to me, more plausible view, see Srivastava, Akbar, 1: 303–13, 2: 311–16; and Ikram, S. M., Muslim Civilization in India, ed. Embree, Ainslie T. (New York and London: Columbia Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 156–65Google Scholar. For a comprehensive and reliable discussion of the entire issue, see Rizvi, S. A. A., Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1975), pp. 374–417Google Scholar.

14 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 160; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 175.

15 In The Agrarian System of Mughal India: 1556–1739 (Bombay, India: Asia Publishing House, 1963), p. 272Google Scholar, Irfan Habib estimates Akbar's private lands to have yielded about 25 percent of total land revenues. For the salaries of servants and others, see A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 9; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 12. The figure for total state revenues can be found in A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1:386; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 129.

16 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 179; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 248. For another example of Akbar's penchant for making quick decisions on mansabdāri candidates see A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 191; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 265.

17 A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 248–50.

18 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 187; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 259–60.

19 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 175, 187–88; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 241, 260–61.

20 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 188–90; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 261–64.

21 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 192; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 267–68.

22 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 197–99; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 276–80.

23 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 200— 201; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 286–87.

24 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 201–2; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 287–89.

25 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 204–22; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 292–320.

26 See, for example, Srivastava, Akbar, 2: 218; and Qureshi, Mughal Administration, p. 102.

27 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 280–83; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 37–41.

28 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 283; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 41–42.

29 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 283; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 42–43.

30 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 284–85; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 43–45.

31 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 285–88; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 46–50.

32 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 288; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 50–52.

33 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 289; and trans. Blochmann, 2: 52–53.

34 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 303–47; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 75–93.

35 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 347–86; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 94–122.

36 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 289; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2:53.

37 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1:4; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1:4–5.

38 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 4–5; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 6–7.

39 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 265; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 2: 1.

40 Weber, Economy and Society, 3: 1042–44.

41 See A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 192–93; A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 268–69 about news-writers at court. A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 5, and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 7 discuss the need for spies. For such people in the provinces, see Noman i: Siddiqi, Ahmad, Land Revenue Administration unde the Mughals: 1700–50 (Bombay: Aligarh Muslim University, 1970), p. 113Google Scholar.

42 “Dastur al-'Amal,” Persian Manuscript Collection, Oriental 1690, British Museum, folios and 98a–99b, 1453–49b.

43 Asiastick Miscellany (Calcutta: n.p., 1785), 1: 491.

44 For the daftar, see A'in, trans. Blochmann, xxi, plate iv; for the treasuries, see Harawi, Nizam al-Din Ahmad, Tabaqat-i Akbari, ed. De, B. and Husain, Muhammad Hidayat, 3 vols. (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1913–1940), 2: 284Google Scholar; and for the mint, see A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 27; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: 16–18.

45 A'in, trans. Blochmann, i: xxii, plates iv, xi.

46 A'in, ed. Blochmann, 1: 42; and A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1:48–49.

47 A'in, trans. Blochmann, 1: xxii, plate iv, p. 48.

48 See, for example, Gupta, Parmeshwari, “A Study of the Mint Towns of Akbar,” in Essays Presented to Sir Jadunath Sarker, ed. Gupta, Hari Ram, 2 vols. (Hoshiapur, India: Punjab University, 1958), 2: 147Google Scholar; Thakur, Upendra, Mints and Minting in India (Varanasi, U.P.: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1972), pp. 140–41Google Scholar; and Irvine, Army of the Indian Mughals, p. 190.

49 Gupta, “A Study of the Mint Towns of Akbar,” 2: 157; Poole, Stanley Lane, The Coins of the Mughal Emperors in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1892), pp. 24, 51Google Scholar; and Rode, V. P., Catalogue of the Coins in the Central Museum Nagpur: Coins of the Mughal Emperors (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1969), pp. 23Google Scholar, 38, 39. 42.

50 The epithets for Akbar's capitals illustratethe point. For Agra, see Harawi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, 1: 331; 2: 145, 168, 202, 227, 249, 284, 298; and al-Fazl, Abu, Akbar Namah, ed. Ali, Agha Ahmad and Rahim, Maulavi Abd al, 3 vols. (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1873–1886), 2Google Scholar: 14, 45, 60,76, 78; 3: 4, 9, 19, 2i, 23, 29; for Fathpur Sikri, see Harawi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, 2: 253, 256, 284,324, 331, 362; and Abu al-Fazl, Akbar Namah, 2: 344, 364, 370; 3: 52, 66, 74; and for Lahore, see Harawi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, 2: 402, 424, 646.

51 Khan, Hamid al-Din, Ahkam-i 'Alamgiri, Persian text with an English translation by Sarkar, Jadunath (Calcutta: M. C. Sarkar and Sons, 1912), p. 14Google Scholar.

52 Ibid, p. 49.

53 My manuscript on Shahjahanabad discusses these points and those in the following paragraph in considerable detail.