Remarkably, Anquetil’s writings take aim at a widespread conception of his time—that “Orientals” could only produce despotic systems of rule.32 He argues that one should not impute Aurangzeb’s zeal to the rest of the Mughal rulers. He adds that the nawabs and subadars of India were all very tolerant.33 Anquetil also advances the point that the Mughals took an interest in Indian religions. Were it not for Akbar and Dara, he concludes, “we would have no translation of Indian books.”34
Like Dara, Anquetil thought the Upanishads to be a font of truth. Though his introductory remarks to the translation subtly privilege Christianity, he emphasizes the common origins of all sacred texts.35 He sees the “Solomonic books” [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticle of Canticles], the “Chinese Kims” [Shu Jing or “The Classic of History”], the “Zend-avesta” [Zand-Avesta] of the Persians, and the “Beids” [Vedas] of the Indians as all sharing “the same dogma, the same universal parent, and the same spiritual beginning.”36
Anquetil’s Oupnek’hat would soon lose its relevance as a means of accessing the Upanishads, as European orientalists, such as English Sanskritist Henry Thomas Colebrooke (d. 1837) came to gain direct access to the Sanskrit works. Anquetil’s translation itself, a mammoth project of over seventeen hundred pages, replete with digressions and commentaries, was ridiculed in its earliest reception as a bizarre disfiguration of the original text.37 Yet, as an inspired work of translation blended with theology, the Oupnek’hat played a significant role in framing the “wisdom of India” as part of a universal history of monotheism. Its profound influence on the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (d. 1860) is a well-known aspect of its European reception.38 Others, too, like Schopenhauer’s contemporary, the orientalist and scholar of religion Friedrich Majer (d. 1818), came to see the Upanishads as a primeval source for all religions.39
Dara Shukoh with pandits, in Sirr-i akbar manuscript.
Back in Hindustan, Dara Shukoh’s writings continued to spark engagements between different languages and interpretive communities. The prince’s works left a pervading influence on the idiom of various Persian writings on mysticism and Hindu religious topics. For instance, in 1767, a Hindu Kayasth named Sita Ram penned a commentary on the Jnanasara composed by Dara’s pandit interlocutor Kavindracharya. Sita Ram interspersed his explanations of its couplets with lines from Persian mystical poetry as well as Arabic verses from the Quran and sayings of the prophet Muhammad. His stated intention here was, in fact, to continue Dara Shukoh’s work in the Majma-ul-bahrain. The Majma, he felt, was too succinct and had left many problems unresolved. Sita Ram wanted to show that all paths, “Muslim, Jew, Christian, Magian, Hindu, seek God, the Glorious and Exalted.” Unfortunately, after the scholar Tara Chand described this manuscript in 1944, it has since been lost.40
One way in which Indo-Persian authors forged connections to Dara is by citing the same verses that he did or by using similar vocabulary to convey the secrets of divine unity. The couplet with which the Majma-ul-bahrain opens proved popular: “In the name of the One who has no name / by whatever name you call Him, He raises His head.”41 This evocation of a nameless divine being features in the Khulasat-ul-khulasa. It also appears in a prose work called Nazuk khayalat (Subtle Imaginings), purporting to be a translation of the eighth-century philosopher Shankara’s Atma Vilasa on the essence of the Vedas and Puranas. This latter work is attributed to Chandarbhan Brahman, but its internal contents and date (circa 1710) reveal that the actual author was one Chaturman Kayasth.42
Banwalidas, the prince’s erstwhile secretary who stayed on in Kashmir as a disciple of Mulla Shah, translated the allegorical play Prabodhachandrodaya into Persian. It was originally composed in Sanskrit in the twelfth century, with several Hindavi translations appearing later. Banwalidas called it Gulzar-i hal (Rose Garden of Ecstatic States). It was exactly the kind of project that would have delighted Dara Shukoh, though it cautiously avoids mention of either the late prince or the reigning Emperor Alamgir. The story, hinging on a realization of oneness, is framed in the Sufi terms used to portray the ultimate goals of the spiritual path. Banwalidas adds to the text lashings of Persian poetry, both his own verses and those composed by other canonical poets of India and Iran. Their inclusion serves to imply a mutual equivalence between Indic and Persianate or Muslim vocabularies of non-dualism. Indeed, through the repetitive, universalizing tenor of Banwalidas’s poetry on unity, he invokes the interpretive moves that Dara Shukoh had made only a few years earlier in his Majma-ul-bahrain.
Dara Shukoh’s name was also frequently attached to books that he probably never wrote. These works tend not to have the introductions with which he prefaced his writings. They also do not circulate in as many copies as his other, more famous works. The Tariqat-ul-haqiqat (Path of Spiritual Reality), is one such example. Here, through a series of guided steps, thirty in all, the seeker is led along the path of liberation. These stages detail such topics as purifying the heart and the mystical state of the adept.43 Another example is Rumuz-i tasawwuf (Mysteries of Mysticism), which compiles several aphoristic riddles relating to the concepts of divine law, the Sufi lineage, spiritual reality, and divine gnosis.44 A certain Mirza Nek Akhtar Timur Dihlavi composed a Persian translation of what was purportedly an Arabic work by Dara Shukoh called Sirat-i Wahdat (Path of Divine Unity).45 Another curious work attributed to the prince is Ima-ul-muhaqqiqin (Allusions of the Truth-Seekers). This presents itself as the prince’s renderings of the poetry of Mulla Shah and Miyan Mir. This slim text brings together Hindavi and Persian poetry, which it intersperses with Quranic verses.46
Later on, in the age of print, as colonial rule sunk its grip deeper into the subcontinent, Dara Shukoh’s writings acquired an expanded audience. Hindus who sought to recover a tradition of their own found in his later writings a way to access key sacred texts. Persian continued to be an important literary language across religious lines in Punjab, Bengal, and other parts of northern India. The pioneering Hindu reformer, Rammohun Roy (d. 1833), who espoused a strict monotheism, composed his initial works in Persian and must have been exposed to the prince’s writings.47 Like Dara Shukoh, he set great store by the Upanishads, even translating five of them into Bengali and English.48
Another nineteenth-century reformer, Kanhaiyalal Alakhdhari, indefatigably published several editions of Dara Shukoh’s Jog Basisht and Upanishad translations, rendered in Urdu. Alakhdhari wished for Hindus to draw on the Sirr-i akbar for a monotheistic scripture of their own. Divested of its inscrutable Sanskrit garb, it was now accessible to the masses. Alakhdhari, who helped pave the way for the Arya Samaj’s spread in the Punjab, could be bitterly critical of Muslims. Dara Shukoh, for him, was an exception who “laid out the tablespread of universal peace for the sake of commoners and the elites.”49 A twentieth-century publisher, Hira Lal of Jaipur, used his press to print the Sirr-i akbar. Here, Dara’s equivalence between Om and Allah mentioned in the Sirr-i akbar’s glossary adopts a striking visual form. The calligraphy resembles Om in the Nagari script if viewed vertically, and when turned horizontally, it echoes Allah written in the Arabic script. In a seemingly incongruous twist of fate, the religious wanderings of a seventeenth-century Muslim prince fed currents that would eventually shape modern Hinduism.
Om / Allah, opening to early twentieth-century lithograph edition of Dara Shukoh, Sirr-i akbar.
A popular thought experiment in the subcontinent today involves asking what might have happened if Dara Shukoh had actually managed to become emperor. How would he have ruled? Would South Asian history have taken a markedly different turn? Would its population have suffered the same interreligious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims that we see today? Would Pakistan ever have been created?
There are many ways of writing this alternate history. But encoded in this very question is the modern assumption that Alamgir’s bigotry was somehow responsible for the empire’s decline. Who could predict in the mid-1600s that half a century later, weak princes would tumble on
e after the other, so that twelve years after Alamgir’s death, six rulers had already sat on Shah Jahan’s bejeweled throne? Or foresee the groaning repercussions of Alamgir’s costly Deccan expansion? The causes of the Mughal empire’s decentralization and of British colonialism’s swift inroads into the subcontinent are much debated and beyond the scope of this book. But they were far more complex than an explanation based on Alamgir’s religious policies allows.
We do not have to go far to wonder what kind of emperor Dara Shukoh would have been. We do not need to speculate, because in his father’s court, he was already a ruler. For a handful of years in the 1650s, the two governed in tandem. They hosted scholars, prosecuted a war, managed allies, and subdued threats. If Dara had come to power, he too would have had to reproduce the very fratricidal violence that had brought his father to the throne. Aurangzeb would not necessarily have been turned into an unbeliever. He would, though, have become the rebel prince, who excited sedition and deserved to have his worldly existence effaced.
DRAMATIS PERSONAE
Mughal Imperial Family
Asaf Khan (d. 1641): Father of Arjumand Bano, brother of Nur Jahan, served Jahangir and Shah Jahan.
Arjumand Bano / Mumtaz Mahal (1593–1631): An Iranian noblewoman and Shah Jahan’s second wife, confidante, and advisor. Mother of fourteen children, seven of whom survived her.
Aurangzeb (1618–1707): The third son of Shah Jahan and an experienced administrator and general in the Deccan who led an unsuccessful campaign to Qandahar in 1652.
Dara Shukoh (1615–1659): Shah Jahan’s eldest son and heir, a Qadiri Sufi, who drew on earlier Mughal traditions to fashion himself as a philosopher-king.
Dawar Bakhsh (d. 1628): Son of Khusrau, a hapless puppet emperor installed for a brief period to keep the throne for Shah Jahan.
Khurram / Shah Jahan (1592–1666): Jahangir’s third son, who succeeded him to the throne.
Khusrau Mirza (1587–1622): Jahangir’s eldest son, and competitor for the throne, who was eventually blinded by his father and murdered at his brother’s behest.
Jahanara (1614–1681): Shah Jahan’s eldest daughter, author of Sufi works, patron of architecture, and family mediator.
Jahangir (1569–1628): The fourth Mughal emperor of Hindustan, a memoirist, and a patron of art.
Muhammad Sultan (1639–1676): Aurangzeb’s eldest son by his second wife, Nawab Bai, who supported his uncle and father-in-law Shuja in the war of succession.
Murad Bakhsh (1624–1661): The fourth son of Shah Jahan, a governor of Gujarat, who led an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to Central Asia.
Nadira Bano (1618–1659): Dara Shukoh’s wife, whom he called his “most intimate companion and sharer of secrets.”
Nur Jahan (1577–1645): The Iranian-born former Mihr-un-Nisa, Jahangir’s consort and co-ruler.
Shah Shuja (1616–1661): The second son of Shah Jahan, a governor of Bengal, a patron, and an aesthete.
Sipihr Shukoh (1644–1708): Dara Shukoh’s younger son who later married Aurangzeb’s daughter.
Sulaiman Shukoh (1635–1662): Dara Shukoh’s eldest son who served as governor of Kabul and led the campaign against Shuja in the war of succession.
Scholars, Sufis, and Sages
Abd-ul-Hakim Siyalkoti (d. 1656): A scholar and philosopher in Shah Jahan’s service.
Abd-ul-Haqq Dihlawi (d. 1642): A scholar, Qadiri Sufi, and prolific author of works on prophetic traditions, saints’ biographies, and theology.
Abd-ur-Rahman Chishti (d. 1683): A Sabiri Chishti Sufi and prolific author who creatively engaged with Indic religious thought in some of his writings.
Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624): An influential Naqshbandi Sufi whose followers controversially anointed him as “the Renewer” of the second Islamic millennium.
Baba Lal (fl. 1653): A Hindu ascetic who held a series of conversations with Dara Shukoh.
Chandarbhan Brahman (d. circa 1670): Persian poet and author in the employ of the Mughal court, he was Dara Shukoh’s master of works in the 1650s.
Chidrup (d. circa 1637): A Hindu ascetic who enjoyed good relations with Akbar and Jahangir.
Kavindracharya Saraswati (fl. 1650s): A renowned scholar and poet from Benares sponsored by Shah Jahan’s court.
Miyan Mir (d. 1635): A prominent Sufi teacher of the Qadiri order, based in Lahore.
Muhibb-ullah Ilahabadi (d. 1648): A Chishti Sufi and noted interpreter of the dense works authored by the Andalusian mystic Ibn Arabi (d. 1240), he also corresponded with Dara Shukoh.
Mulla Shah (d. 1661): A Qadiri Sufi and disciple of Miyan Mir, as well as a spiritual teacher of Dara Shukoh and Jahanara, who became increasingly close to the imperial family, including Shah Jahan, in the 1640s and 1650s.
Sarmad (d. 1661): An Armenian Jewish merchant who journeyed to Shahjahanabad via Sindh and the Deccan with his lover Abhai Chand. He converted to Islam, composed Persian mystical poetry, and reportedly shunned clothing. Aurangzeb executed him after gaining the throne.
Nobles and Imperial Servants
Hakim Daud (d. circa 1662): Iranian physician at the Mughal court who came from a family of Safavid physicians.
Jai Singh (d. 1667) Mughal general and ruler of Amer, reluctant supporter of the imperial army during the war of succession.
Jaswant Singh (d. 1678): Ruler of Marwar and author of several religious works in Brajbhasha. Defeated by Aurangzeb at Dharmat during the struggle for succession in 1658, he subsequently held back from supporting Dara Shukoh’s bid for victory.
Mir Askari / Aqil Khan Razi (d. 1696): Aurangzeb’s equerry in the Deccan, disciple of the Chishti-Shattari Sufi Burhan-ud-Din Raz-i Ilahi (d. 1673), and skilled Persian litterateur.
Raj Singh (d. 1680): Ruler of Mewar and grandson of Shah Jahan’s ally Karan Singh. Both Aurangzeb and Dara Shukoh courted him before the war of succession.
Chroniclers and Poets
Abd-ul-Hamid Lahori (d. 1654): The official historian of over two decades of Shah Jahan’s rule.
‘Bihishti, Shirazi (fl. 1658): A Persian poet from Iran in Murad’s employ, who wrote a versified account of the war of succession.
Inayat Khan (fl. 1658): Son of Zafar Khan, governor of Kashmir, he produced an abridgment of the Padshah-nama of Lahori and Waris.
Jalaluddin Tabatabai (fl. 1630s): An Iranian émigré to Shah Jahan’s court, and early chronicler of his reign.
‘Kalim’ Kashani (d. 1651): A Persian poet who initially migrated from Iran to the Deccan and eventually served as Shah Jahan’s poet laureate.
Mirza Nathan (Shitab Khan) (fl. 1620s): An imperial servant of Jahangir, who came into contact with Shah Jahan during the latter’s rebellion. Wrote a sprawling history of Mughal involvement in Bengal and neighboring regions.
Muhammad Amin Qazwini (fl. 1630–1645): The official chronicler of the first decade of Shah Jahan’s reign.
Muhammad Masum (fl. 1660): Shuja’s retainer, who chronicled the war of succession using a mixture of reports and his own eyewitness observations. One of his informants was his brother-in-law, a servant of Sipihr Shukoh who later defected to work for Aurangzeb’s son, Muhammad Sultan.
Muhammad Salih Kamboh (d. circa 1675): A court chronicler late in Shah Jahan’s reign, he oversaw the tumultuous transition to Aurangzeb’s enthronement.
Muhammad Waris (fl. 1650s): The official court chronicler and author of the last part of the Padshah-nama, who took over from Lahori after the latter’s death in 1654.
Mutamad Khan (Muhammad Sharif) (d. circa 1639): Paymaster of the imperial cavalry and chronicler of Jahangir’s reign.
Rashid Khan (Muhammad Badi) (fl. 1650s): Servant of the second Mahabat Khan, he wrote a detailed account of Dara Shukoh’s 1653 Qandahar expedition.
‘Saib’ Tabrizi (1592–1676): A not
ed Persian poet from Iran who spent seven years in India serving the Mughal nobleman Zafar Khan and later returned to Iran, attaching himself to the Safavid court.
Tawakkul Beg (fl. 1630s–1660s): A disciple of Mulla Shah, he later joined imperial service under Dara Shukoh. He wrote an account of Mulla Shah’s life and relationship with the imperial family.
‘Qudsi’ Mashhadi (1582–1646): A renowned Persian poet from Iran who spent his advanced years at Shah Jahan’s court and became poet laureate.
European Writers on India
Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron (d. 1805): French orientalist, who rendered Dara Shukoh’s translation of the Upanishads into French and Latin.
Thomas Coryate (d. 1617): An English adventurer who traveled by land to the Mughal court.
Francisco Pelsaert (d. 1630): A merchant in the employ of the Dutch East Indies Company.
Niccolò Manucci (d. circa 1720): A Venetian adventurer and artilleryman in Dara Shukoh’s employ.
Peter Mundy (d. 1667): An author in the employ of the East India Company.
Thomas Roe (d. 1644): Ambassador of King James to Jahangir’s court.
Heinrich Roth (d. 1668): Jesuit missionary as well as scholar of Sanskrit and Indian philosophy.
NOTES
Introduction
1. According to the play, this scene occurs on August 27. Tanya Ronder and Shahid Nadeem, Dara (London: Bloomsbury, 2017). Ronder mentions that she added the trial scene for dramatic effect. My use of these examples from the play is not intended in any way to disparage Nadeem and Ronder’s work. Rather, it aims to illustrate the modern memory of Dara Shukoh.
The Emperor Who Never Was Page 34
