2 The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship* Ram Prasad Tripathi The Chaghtai conqueror Babar came to India with ideas that were not quite similar to those of either the early Turkish rulers of Delhi or the Afghans. Claiming the blood of Changlz Khan and Timi in his veins Babar could also claim a system of ideas which reflected the Mughal, the Turkish and the Islamic cultures, By geographical situation, family alliances and political relations the house of Babar could not but imbibe= consciously or unconsciously the traditions and beliefs of all those peoples. The Turks, the Iranians and the Mongols all considered the position of a sovereign as something higher than simply a leader. The story of the birth of the ancestor of Changiz Khan clearly indicates the element of supematural origin of his personality. He was, according to the legend, the Son of Light. Such a belief was quite in keeping with the star worship that had continued to prevail among the Mughals down to the fourteenth century if not later. The semi-divine origin of the family of Changiz coupled with the enormous prestige of his success and career had made his house an object of inspiration and awe, and had Preserved sovereignty in his family up to the sixteenth century. Sovereignty was regarded as their birthright not on the strength of some vague Uadilions as was the case with Balban's house, but on actual facts of centuries of history. Such was the spell of the house of Changiz. Khan that even Timbr could not venture to break it, and thought it “Chapter 9 of Part I of R.P. Tripathi, Sonre Aspects of Muslim Administration (first published, Allahabad. 1936).ee The Mughal State 1526-1 750 116 The Mughal State, 1526-1 750 advisable to exercise full Power in the name of a descendant of Changiz and feel contented with the humble tile of Amir or Beg. The Mughal Khan—the Great Khan—was different fram the Khalifa of Islamic theory. The Great Khan was purely a political and military and not a religious leader. It was no Part of his duty to enforce a well-defined and HfRulatte tae of divine or quasi-divine system of taw as was the case with the Khalifa, While the Islamic conception of the sovereign hedged the Khalifa round by the Shari‘at Law the Mughal Sovercign had na such limitations. He was a Political sovereign pure and simple. It is true that there was a sort of election even among the Mughals in determining the Great Khan but the choice was very narrow and had nothing to do with any spiritual of religious connotations. Another important feature of the Mughal polity was that of dividing the empire among the princes not on a territorial but tribal basis. The tribes were assigned to them and they were established in the territory inhabited by them. These Princes exercised almost full powers of government within their jurisdiction and were Practically independent. Thearetically, however, they recognized the suzerainty of the Great Khan who ruled in Mughilistin—the homeland of the Mughals. The theory had gained teality from the traditions and conventions prevailing among the Mughals. These were some of the leading ideas that were mixed up with the Islamic theories and practices in the course of time. Although the Buthenticity and antiquity of the Malfuzdt-i Timfri is not beyond ques- tion, they might reasonably be taken to embody the ideas which were believed to be prevailing in the time of Timir(They unmistakably show the fusion of the Mughal and Islamic ideas that must have taken place by the time of Timay . The central point in Timbr's conception of sovereignty was his belief that the various offices in an earthly empire are symbols of those in the Empire of God.' This idea was imparted to him by, or at Teast had the sanction of, Qutb ul-Agtib Zainuddin Abu Bakr, his spiritual guide. Timir believed that ‘since God is one and hath no partner, there: fore, the viceregent (King) over the land of the Lord must be one’. "Malfu2it, Institutes, Political and Military, written originally in the MogulTurko-Mongal Theary of Kingship 117 Accordingly he lays down that the King must make the people feel that he is not under the influence of anybody.” [1 does not, however, mean that he inculcated the unrestrained use of power. He himself showed considerable regard for his nobles and officials and has emphasized the importance of consulting the wise just as Balban and others had done. Bul the final decision lay with the sovereign who might or might not follow such counscls.* Timor was not satisfied with being a purely military and political leader, He was brought up in Islamic traditions, hence he had religious view of kingly office. With supressed exultation but obvious satisfaction he gives a full copy of the letter (makrab) of the great scholar Mir Sayyid Sharif conferring on him the title of the promoter and renovator (Murawwaj wa mujaddid) of the religion of Muhammad. He was the eighth of the line of such promoters. In each century there was one. The previous seven in the order of time were Umar ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, Mimun, Mugtadir Billah, Azaduddaula, Sultan Sanjar, Ghazin Khan and Aljaitu Khan? 11 is significant that the last wo Mughal sovereigns and Timir have been linked in the same chain at one end of which appear the names of the Umayyad and Abbasid Khalifas. It is alsa said that both Timfr and Shahrukh Mirza read the Khutba in their own ames in the mosque like some previous Khalifas. ‘Under the Timurids the old Mongol custom of dividing tribes among the princes wax transformed into a territorial division of the empire. Tuniie himself divided his empire among his sons and his practice later on was followed by his successors, Nevertheless the occupant of the throne of Samarkand had some glamour which others lacked but there does no! appear to be any reality in it, In one respect the grandfather of Babar, Aby Sa‘id Mirza, intro- duced a great change in the policy of Timfr. Although in practice the Timurids enjoyed full powers and were sovereign in their awn juris- diction, yet in theory they had left the fiction of the ultimate sovereignty Of the Great Mughal Khan undisturbed, Abu S‘ald, however, gave a 2nd, 220.1, “Tid 9.11, 15 ‘ni, 178-96 “Abd-ul-Qadir Badauni, Muntathab-ut-Tawirith, ed. Ahmad Ali, Kabir- td-Din Ahmad and W.N, Lees in 3 vols, Calcutta 1864-9, English tr. GS.A. Ranking (vol. 1), WAH, Lowe (vol. 2) and T. Wolseley Haig (vol. 3) reprint. Delhi, 1973, 268, Nizim-ud-Din Ahmad. Tabagat-i Akbarl, ed. Barun De. 3 vols (rol. 3 revised by M, Hidayat Hosain) Calcutta, 1913. 1927, 1931 and 1935; English, by B. De, Caleutta, 1936-7.