Akbar, one of the most prominent rulers of the Mughal Empire, presided over a period of remarkable cultural, administrative, and religious synthesis in Indian history. His reign (1556-1605) is frequently characterized by a spirit of religious tolerance and pluralism, leading many historians to label him a ‘secular’ ruler. However, the term “secular” itself requires careful definition when applied to a 16th-century monarch, as it carries connotations distinct from its modern Western usage. Modern secularism typically implies a strict separation of church and state, governmental neutrality towards religion, and the protection of individual religious freedom. In the context of pre-modern polities, where rulers often derived legitimacy from religious authority, ‘secularism’ generally refers to policies promoting religious harmony, non-discrimination based on faith, and a state approach that transcends narrow sectarian interests.
Akbar’s policies, particularly those enacted in the latter half of his reign, marked a significant departure from the more orthodox Sunni Islamic rule prevalent in many contemporary Islamic empires. His approach was not merely one of passive tolerance but an active engagement with diverse religious traditions, seeking common ground and fostering an environment of mutual respect among his subjects. This proactive stance, aimed at integrating a multi-religious populace into a cohesive empire, forms the core of the argument for his ‘secular’ credentials, understood within the historical and cultural framework of his time.
Akbar's Policies Justifying the "Secular" Label
Akbar’s claim to being a ‘secular’ ruler rests on a series of ground-breaking administrative, social, and religious policies that fostered an unprecedented degree of religious tolerance and inclusivity in his empire. These policies aimed to create a stable and unified state by integrating various religious communities, rather than promoting the dominance of one faith over others.
One of the most significant steps taken by Akbar was the abolition of the Jizya tax in 1564. The Jizya was a poll tax levied on non-Muslim subjects (Dhimmis) in Islamic states, traditionally viewed as a sign of their subordinate status. Its abolition was a revolutionary move, signaling Akbar’s intention to treat all his subjects equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. This act removed a major source of resentment and discrimination against the Hindu majority and other non-Muslim communities, effectively putting them on par with Muslims in terms of civic rights and responsibilities. Preceding this, in 1563, Akbar had also abolished the pilgrim tax levied on Hindus visiting their holy places, further demonstrating his commitment to easing religious burdens and fostering goodwill among his non-Muslim subjects. These fiscal reforms were not merely economic measures but powerful symbolic gestures of religious equity.
Akbar’s intellectual curiosity and his quest for universal truth led to the establishment of the Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) in 1575 at Fatehpur Sikri. Initially, this was a forum for theological discussions among Muslim scholars and clerics. However, disillusionment with the dogmatism and sectarian squabbles of the orthodox ulema (Islamic theologians) prompted Akbar to open the Ibadat Khana to representatives of all religions by 1578. Brahmins, Jains, Zoroastrians (Parsis), Sufis, Christian Jesuits, and even Charvaka atheists participated in these debates. This initiative was unprecedented in its scope and intent. Akbar personally engaged with the scholars, listening intently to their arguments, questioning their beliefs, and seeking to understand the core tenets of various faiths. The Ibadat Khana served as a crucible for Akbar’s evolving religious philosophy, exposing him to the commonalities and differences among religions and reinforcing his belief in the unity of God beyond sectarian boundaries. It highlighted his open-mindedness and his desire to move beyond narrow religious orthodoxy.
The intellectual ferment of the Ibadat Khana, coupled with his personal spiritual journey, culminated in the promulgation of the Mahzar (Infallibility Decree) in 1579. This document, signed by leading ulema, declared Akbar to be the ultimate arbiter in matters of religious law when there was a disagreement among religious scholars. It granted him the authority to issue decrees that would be binding on all subjects, effectively asserting the state’s supremacy over the orthodox religious establishment. While often misinterpreted as declaring Akbar infallible in a papal sense, its true significance lay in its assertion of the emperor’s right to interpret Islamic law in a way that served the best interests of the state and its diverse population, thereby curbing the power of conservative ulema who often obstructed his pluralistic policies. This was a crucial step towards creating a more inclusive state not bound by the dictates of a single religious interpretation.
Building upon these foundations, Akbar formulated his unique philosophical and administrative principle known as Sulh-i Kul (Universal Peace or Absolute Peace). This principle became the cornerstone of his religious policy, advocating for peace, harmony, and mutual respect among all religious communities. Influenced by Sufi mystical traditions, particularly those emphasizing the unity of existence and the transcendence of God beyond specific religious forms, Sulh-i Kul transcended religious differences and sought to find a common moral and ethical ground. It promoted tolerance, non-discrimination, and universal benevolence. This philosophy was not merely theoretical; it was actively implemented in governance. Akbar’s court was a melting pot of cultures and religions. He appointed Hindus, Persians, and other non-Muslims to high positions in his administration and army, purely on merit, rather than religious affiliation. Raja Man Singh, Raja Todar Mal, and Birbal are prime examples of Hindu nobles holding significant power and trust within the Mughal administration. This policy of meritocracy and inclusivity ensured the loyalty of diverse sections of the population and contributed immensely to the stability and prosperity of the empire.
Akbar’s personal spiritual quest also led to the introduction of Din-i Ilahi (Divine Faith) around 1582. Often misunderstood as a new religion, Din-i Ilahi was more of a syncretic spiritual path or an ethical code for a select group of his close courtiers and associates. It was not intended for mass conversion and had very few adherents. It drew elements from various religions – sun worship from Zoroastrianism, vegetarianism and non-violence from Jainism, devotion to the monarch (seen as a manifestation of divine light) from various traditions, and emphasis on reason and universal truth. Its tenets included virtues like kindness, charity, justice, and the rejection of fanaticism and bigotry. While not a successful proselytizing religion, Din-i Ilahi symbolized Akbar’s personal commitment to finding a universal spiritual truth beyond sectarian dogma and reinforced his policy of Sulh-i Kul. It was a clear manifestation of his conviction that all religions shared a fundamental core of truth and moral principles.
Furthermore, Akbar demonstrated his patronage and respect for non-Islamic institutions and practices. He granted lands and financial aid to Hindu temples and Jain holy places. He invited Jain scholars like Hiravijaya Suri and Jinchandra Suri to his court, held discussions with them, and was influenced by their emphasis on non-violence, even adopting vegetarianism for parts of the year. He showed similar respect to Christian missionaries, allowing them to build churches in Agra and Lahore. He actively participated in Hindu festivals like Diwali, Rakhi, and Shivratri, and celebrated Persian New Year (Nowruz). His policy of allowing Rajput queens to practice their religion freely within the palace premises set a precedent for inter-religious harmony at the highest level.
To foster a deeper understanding and integration of cultures, Akbar established a translation bureau. Under his patronage, significant Sanskrit texts, including the Mahabharata (translated as Razmnama), Ramayana, Atharvaveda, and the Lilavati, were translated into Persian. This initiative was crucial for bridging the intellectual and cultural divide between the Hindu and Muslim scholarly traditions, making the knowledge and narratives of various communities accessible across the empire. It reflected Akbar’s belief that mutual understanding could lead to greater harmony and unity.
Nuances and Counter-Arguments to the "Secular" Label
While the arguments for Akbar’s ‘secularism’ (in the sense of religious tolerance and pluralism) are strong, it is also important to consider certain nuances and counter-arguments to provide a balanced perspective. Applying a modern Western concept of secularism strictly to a 16th-century Eastern monarch can be anachronistic.
Firstly, Akbar’s policies, while religiously enlightened, also had a significant element of political pragmatism. The Mughal Empire was a vast multi-religious entity, with a Hindu majority. Consolidating power and ensuring the loyalty of diverse populations, particularly the powerful Rajput chieftains, required a policy of accommodation rather than confrontation. Abolishing the Jizya, appointing Hindus to high offices, and promoting religious harmony were astute political moves that broadened his support base and weakened potential opposition. His challenge to the orthodox ulema’s authority through the Mahzar was also a way of centralizing religious power in the monarch’s hands, reducing their ability to incite dissent or challenge state policies. This is not to diminish the genuineness of his spiritual quest or his belief in Sulh-i Kul, but rather to acknowledge that statecraft and enlightened philosophy often converged in his actions.
Secondly, Akbar never formally renounced Islam, nor did he establish a truly ‘secular’ state in the modern sense where religion is completely separated from governance. The Mughal state, like most pre-modern states, still derived its legitimacy from a divine source, albeit interpreted in a more universal and inclusive manner. Akbar continued to act as a patron of Islamic institutions and learning, even if he challenged the rigid interpretations of the ulema. The Din-i Ilahi, as mentioned, was a spiritual order for a select few, not a replacement for Islam for the masses, nor was it forced upon anyone. His actions were more about reinterpreting the role of the monarch in a multi-religious society and fostering an inclusive spiritual path rather than dismantling the religious fabric of the state.
Thirdly, the term “infallibility decree” for the Mahzar of 1579 can be misleading. It did not declare Akbar infallible in a theological sense, but rather asserted his right as the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator of religious law when the ulema were divided. It granted him the final say in matters affecting the state’s welfare, even if they touched upon religious precepts. This was more an assertion of royal authority over the religious establishment than a declaration of personal divinity, though some orthodox detractors certainly framed it as such.
Finally, Akbar’s policies faced considerable opposition from orthodox sections of Muslim society, particularly the ulema. Figures like Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi vehemently condemned Akbar’s syncretic policies, viewing them as a deviation from true Islam and an assault on Islamic identity. This strong opposition indicates that Akbar’s approach was indeed revolutionary and challenging to the established religious order, further underscoring how far he moved from conventional religious governance. The very fact that he garnered such strong opposition from orthodox elements demonstrates the radical nature of his ‘secularizing’ reforms for his time.
Akbar’s reign represents a watershed moment in Indian history for its unparalleled commitment to religious tolerance and inclusivity. While the term “secular” needs to be understood within the historical context of the 16th century, Akbar’s policies unequivocally demonstrated a radical departure from religious discrimination and persecution. He consciously moved away from a religiously exclusive state model towards one that embraced and integrated its diverse religious communities.
His abolition of discriminatory taxes like Jizya and pilgrim tax, coupled with his innovative approach to religious dialogue through the Ibadat Khana, laid the groundwork for an inclusive state. The principle of Sulh-i Kul, advocating universal peace and non-discrimination, became the ethical and political blueprint for his empire, manifesting in policies such as merit-based appointments regardless of faith and patronage for various religious institutions. Akbar’s personal spiritual journey, culminating in concepts like Din-i Ilahi, symbolized his quest for a universal truth that transcended sectarian boundaries, even if it did not become a popular religious movement.
Ultimately, Akbar was not secular in the sense of establishing a strict separation of religion and state, as understood in modern liberal democracies. His was a state that drew upon divine legitimacy but interpreted it in a universal and inclusive manner, emphasizing harmony rather than religious conformity. He fostered an environment where different faiths could not only coexist but also contribute to the richness of the empire, creating a pluralistic society that was centuries ahead of its time. His legacy stands as a powerful testament to enlightened governance, demonstrating that religious diversity could be a source of strength and unity rather than division.