See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366465090

Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in
South Asia

Article · December 2022

DOI: 10.22452/JAT.vol17no2.12

CITATIONS READS

0 637

4 authors, including:

Shakirullah Dawar Hamayun Khan

Higher Education Commission Islamabad Pakistan University of Vienna
13 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abda Khalid
COMSATS University Islamabad
9 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post Crises Development View project

Community-Based Policing and Post-Conflict Police Reform: Apr 2015 – Jun 2020 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shakirullah Dawar on 21 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
https://doi.org/10.22452/JAT.vol17no2.12

Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia

Asmat Wazir,* Shakirullah Dawar,** Hamayun Khan*** & Abda Khalid****

Abstract

Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis on 27 May 1332, into an Arab family of the Hadramaut which had first
migrated to Spain, then to Morocco, and finally settled in Tunisia. He received a thorough education in
theology and philosophy at the University (madrasa) of Tunis. At the age of twenty, he entered upon
his chequered career, beginning as a secretary to the Sultan of Tunis. He served in various capacities
and thus gained a versatile experience that helped him widen his understanding of human nature and
political systems. Indeed, he was a prolific writer and scholar by leaving rich treatises on sociology,
economics, history, politics, philosophy, and other disciplines. He propounded the theory of Asabiyyah:
stemming out from blood lineage, common interests, common geography, and religion as a binding
force and an ultimate factor of causing upswing and tumble to a dynasty or a state and thus he provided
solid foundations to understand systematically the phenomenon of the rise and fall of dynasties and
establishment of states and the factors which bring an ultimate decline to it. An attempt has been made
in this article whilst applying this theory of Asabiyyah on the rise and fall of Mughals in South Asia.
Founded by Babur in 1526, the Mughal Empire in India is divided into five periods as per the stages of
Ibn Khaldun’s theory of Asabiyyah and each period is presented analytically particularly in terms of
the Asabiyyah. Thus, this article presented the Khaldun’s cycle of the dynasty on the Mughal Empire
who fulfilled its five stages on the soil of India.

Keywords: Asabiyyah, the Mughals, Rise of Empire, Fall of Empire, South Asia

Introduction

Abdur Rehman Ibn Khaldun was born in 1332, in Tunis (Africa). Due to his brilliant and deep insight,
the ruler of Tunis, Abu Ishaq took him into his service when Khaldun was only twenty. Ibn Khaldun
also served with Muhammad Ibn Yusaf, Sultan of Granada, and headed several missions to the court of
King Castile. In this way, he acquired vast experience. He then retired to the Fort of ibn Salaman in the
Africa desert where he completed his well-known work Prolegomena in 1377.1 However, Muqaddimah
is the most famous work of Khaldun in which he stipulates different ideas about social change and
development. Ibn Khaldun argues that the key factor behind the rise and fall of a civilization is
asabiyyah.2

Virtually everyone who has written on Ibn Khaldun has presented their own interpretations of the term
asabiyyah. To some, it is ‘patriotism’, ‘national feelings’, ‘group cohesion,3 whereas for others it is
‘group feelings’, generated by common beliefs, common culture, common language, common
economic interests, a common enemy, or common sufferings. “Asabiyyah is not just group solidarity;
it is the combination of group solidarity with a political will to power and organized leadership. Group
awareness with a desire to defend oneself and to press one’s claim produces asabiyyah.”4 Thus,
according to Khaldun the factor of asabiyyah plays an important role in the affairs of human life.5
Nevertheless, asabiyyah is usually expressed in warlike activities.6

*
Asmat Wazir (MPhil), Provincial Management Services (PMS) Officer at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Email: asmatwazirov@gmail.com.
**
Shakirullah Dawar (corresponding author) (PhD), Research Associate, Department of Development Studies, COMSATS University
Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Pakistan. Email: shakirdawar@cuiatd.edu.pk.
***
Hamayun Khan, Lecturer, Department of Development Studies, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Pakistan. Email:
hamayun@cuiatd.edu.pk.
****
Abda Khalid (PhD), Assistant Professor, Department of Development Studies, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus,
Pakistan. Email: abda@cuiatd.edu.pk.
1
E. I. J. Rosenthal (1988), Political Thought in Medieval Islam: An Introductory Outline, London: Cambridge, pp. 260-261.
2
Fida Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change: A Comparison with Hegel, Marx and Durkheim,” The American Journal
of Islamic Social Sciences, Vol. 15, p. 36.
3
Martin Hughes-Warrington (2000), Fifty Key Thinkers on History, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 175-176.
4
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 37.
5
Fuad Baali (1978), Heinrich Simon: Ibn Khaldun’s Science of Human Culture, Lahore: Ashraf Printing Press, p. 67.
6
Hughes-Warrington (2000), Fifty Key Thinkers on History, p. 176.
Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
Like Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun believes that man is social by nature. His nature and disposition compel
him to live with his fellow being. Mutual help is essential to satisfy man’s variegated needs for food,
clothing, and housing. Therefore, man unites with many others like-minded to assure his protection and
defense. As a result, various groups emerge. Many individuals in a certain geographical unit identify
themselves as a single group; bonded together by common familial ties.7 When people start living
together, mutual conflicts and rivalries arise among different groups. Each group will extend its hands
for whatever it needs to take. The others in turn will try to prevent them from grabbing it. This long-
drawn struggle for increasing one’s own estate will cause dissension, hostilities, bloodshed, and loss of
life. Thus, people cannot persist without a ruler and in a state of anarchy. They raise a ruler to keep
them apart and order their life. The sanctioned power behind the authority of the ruler is the group
feelings (asabiyyah) which is very essential for the ruler for the meaningful exercise of his authority.8

Here the ruler, who is first among the equals, plays a very dynamic role. He not only settles the mutual
dispute within the group rather strives to revitalize their asabiyyah. Once he established his authority
over his own people then he tries to exercise the same over the others outside groups. This leads to wars
between different groups and states, and a ruler who commands a stronger asabiyyah always subdue
the others with weak asabiyyah. In this way, a ruler of stronger asabiyyah establishes a vast empire by
annexing the neighboring areas of communities with weak group feelings. Ibn Khaldun believes that a
community with stronger asabiyyah cannot be overpowered.9

Khaldun then elaborates on the stages of asabiyyah through which it undergoes. Each stage has its own
characteristics. In the early stages of tribal set-up, where asabiyyah is derived directly from blood
relationship is the most resistible due to its austere nature.10 When a group with stronger asabiyyah
conquers various contiguous regions then the empire naturally expands. They came into contact with
larger groups of different origins. They are acquainted with a variety of luxuries. They become ease-
loving and always seek comforts and sensual gratification. They forget the old customs of bravery,
eagerness to work, to bear the hardships, and more importantly the feelings (asabiyyah) which had
enabled them to establish authority over such a larger part of the land.11 Eventually, they start to depend
upon other helpers, militia, and partisans who were groups not related to the ruling dynasty. In this way,
the senility of the dynasty sets in.12

Furthermore, Ibn Khaldun mentions the underlying factors that create asabiyyah. Khaldun opined that
the greatness of a community is often judged by the discipline and organization of its power structure
and the ability of the power holders to galvanize the incoherent and scattered group feelings into an
action-oriented cohesive unit.13 Leadership is the second most pivotal factor in the formation of
asabiyyah. The prudence with which a leader leads its people and the trust and confidence that he
inspires among them will determine the scope of asabiyyah that a group possesses.14

Religion is the third factor that strengthens the asabiyyah but Khaldun states very clearly that dynasties
and states do not depend upon religion. Religion is not primarily the force that unites mankind. 15 Yet,
religion helps individuals to resolve some of the insoluble mysteries of life but also acts as an extremely
powerful factor in socializing and facilitates unity of thought and action among its followers.16

Similarly, some factors are considered detrimental for the enervation and final collapse of asabiyyah.
Among others, wealth and corruption quickly erode the very roots on which the asabiyyah has been
established. The exposition towards pleasure and indulgence has deleterious effects on the people of
simple tribes. Naturally, cities are equipped with all kinds of luxuries. Once they come into contact with

7
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 37.
8
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, Franz Rosenthal (trans.), N. J. Dawood (ed.), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Publishers, pp.
151-152.
9
Rosenthal (1988), Political Thought in Medieval Islam, pp. 85-88.
10
Baali (1978), Heinrich Simon, p. 74.
11
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 135.
12
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 136.
13
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” pp. 38-39.
14
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 39.
15
Baali (1978), Heinrich Simon, p. 82.
16
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 39.
160
 Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia
such luxuries then they lose their fighting spirit and become ease-loving whilst most of them are
unwilling to die for their country.17

Secondly, the misuse of power is one of the major factors that sabotage the asabiyyah. Abuse of power
produces resentment and frustration among the members of a group. The members lose faith in the
objectives of the group when they are disenchanted with the leadership. The perpetuity of support that
they extend to the leader makes no sense to them because the unwritten and simply understandable
contract between the leader and group members is no more honored. Therefore, they withhold their
support to the leader and in due course, centrifugal tendencies gradually get roots in society.18

The Rise and Fall of Mughals in India in terms of the Theory of Asabiyyah

In the paper, an attempt is made to analyze the rise and fall of Mughals in India in the light of Ibn
Khaldun’s profound theory of asabiyyah. Ibn Khaldun gave the theory of asabiyyah while keeping in
mind the Sub-Saharan tribes of South Africa, the people with different climates, geography, and social
and political systems. Yet, some of the elements of the theory can be applied to the rise and fall of the
Mughals in India.

Before the Mughal invasion of 1526, India was ruled by the Lodi family. Babur, the fugitive ruler of
Fergana valley was staying in Kabul. Since he had been ousted from his kingdom of Farghana by
Shaibani Khan; therefore, Babur was planning to make eastward expansion.19 He got interested in India.
Therefore, he was observing the situation within India with keen eyes and whenever saw a chance of
success he invaded India. Consequently, he made some five attacks on India since 1505, but could not
succeed in the first three attacks because the Lodi dynasty was strong enough to repulse foreign
invasions.20 It was only when the indigenous polity of India divided into different poles; a vacuum was
created for the foreigners to invade. Sultan Ibrahim Lodi’s discontented cousin Daulat Khan, the
governor of Punjab went to the length of inviting Babur from Kabul to invade India. Alam Khan, the
Sultan’s uncle, and pretender of the Delhi throne claimed the seat of power, but after failing to secure
the same, he also formally invited the Babur to invade India.21 By the time the asabiyyah of the Lodhi
dynasty had evaporated. It had become a victim of disunity. Ibrahim’s own men were conspiring against
him let alone dying for him. In this way, their decline was on the horizon.

An interesting thing is that Babur proclaimed that he was waging a Holy war (Jihad) against Indian
rulers. On the contrary, a Muslim government existed there in India. Nevertheless, religion has always
been beyond the understanding of the common man and for them, religious slogans matter more than
delving into the rationale of it. Anyway, in addition to his group cohesion, Babur skillfully utilized
religious propaganda for achieving victory over the Indians. By giving a religious color to his campaign,
he successfully washed away the mutual differences among his soldiers. According to Khaldun, the
numerical strength of a dynasty hardly matters in terms of warfare but the unity of command and
purpose of union. Those who possess larger manpower yet play at cross-purposes are quickly
overpowered and wiped out by the small group.22 Much the same happened in the battlefield of Panipat
on 21 April 1526, when Ibrahim Lodi approached with 100,000 men and nearly 1000 war-elephants to
meet the arithmetically inferior force of Babur, comprising of some 12,000 men with a larger park of
artillery.23 Intense fighting took place. However, in the end, the Afghan army perished. Their leader
Ibrahim lay dead on the battlefield and Babur became the ruler of Delhi.24 In course of time, Babur
further expanded his empire by routing Rajput leader Rana Sanga of Mewar in the Battle of Khanua or
Kanwa in 1527. At the battlefield of Chanderi on 29 January 1528, Medini Rao had provided the final
move against the Rajputs.25 Muhammad Lodi, who has challenged Babur in 1529, faced humiliating
defeat on the banks of Ghagara. Thus, Babur had subdued most of his enemies by the time he was dying
on the 26th of December 1530, at Agra at the age of forty-seven or forty-eight.26

17
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 40.
18
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 42.
19
Sir Richard Burn (ed.) (1987), The Cambridge History of India: The Mughal Empire, Vol. IV, New Delhi: S. Chand & Company, pp. 5-6.
20
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 10.
21
R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta (1992), An Advance History of India, Lahore: Famous Books, p. 426.
22
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 126.
23
Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta (1992), An Advance History of India, p. 427.
24
B. V. Rao (1984), World History, Karnataka: Sterling Publishers, p. 183.
25
Fakhar Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, 1574-1707, Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Publishing, p. 12.
26
Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta (1992), An Advance History of India, p. 430.
161
Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
Hamayun bequeathed a rich empire from his father, but he was to take further essential steps for
strengthening his hold. As per Ibn Khaldun’s stages of asabiyyah, Babur and Hamayun period of the
rule might be placed in the first stage of the establishment of royal authority. No doubt Babur established
Mughal rule in India, yet it needed strenuous labor for consolidation. Meanwhile, Hamayun committed
some glaring blunders which caused severe setbacks to the embryonic foundations of the Mughal
Empire in India. Despite the others, he divided the empire among his brothers27 and shared his authority
with them: Kamran, Hindal, and Askari, which was the most gruesome blunder on his part. Not only
this, but his own brothers also often revolted against him.28 Since his empire was founded among groups
of various backgrounds; therefore, the need of the hour was to unite them under a single authority and
a single leader. In Muqaddimah, Khaldun stipulates that the leader himself should take all the charge
and should exercise his authority over the rest. Moreover, politics require that only one person exercise
control because various persons are liable to differ among each other and the destruction of the whole
can result.29 Whereas in the case of Hamayun, the situation was altogether reversed. He had scattered
the royal authority in different hands.

Hamayun’s cousins Muhammad Sultan and Muhammad Zaman were also a claimant to the throne.30
Taking the advantage of Hamayun’s plight and all-around confusion in the empire, Sher Shah Suri
launched determined efforts to oust Hamayun from the Indian empire. A series of skirmishes took place
between Sher Shah Suri and Hamayun and finally after numerous skillful, strategic, and diplomatic
manipulations, Sher Shah defeated Hamayun in the battle of Bengal and the latter reached Agra, but
there was no chance of taking a stand. He evacuated Agra and, after a halt at Delhi, rushed onto Lahore,
followed in close pursuit by the Afghans. Lahore was abandoned. Humayun turned towards Sind, where
he had no success. Ultimately, he reached ‘Umarkot, where the ruler sheltered him. It was here that
Akbar was born in 1542.31 Humayun could not stay long at ‘Umarkot and decided to go to Qandahar.
‘Askari, who was the governor of Qandahar on behalf of Kamran, did not let him enter. Humayun
entered Persia as a refugee. Hamayun spent the next fifteen years in exile in Afghanistan, Persia, and
Sindh.32

Eventually, Farid Khan succeeded in throwing Hamayun out of India on 17 May 1540, and proclaimed
himself sultan, with the title of Sher Shah. Suri established his rule over India and introduced very
innovative reforms which not only earned him good fame at home and cheering appreciation abroad
but also set a marvelous precedent for the coming generations to follow.33 Nevertheless, his unexpected
death in 154534 bereaved the Indians of a high stature statesman. Since the Indian empire and the state
system was a reflector of the emperor’s credential. If the person in the center was sound, things were
going well and vice-versa. Suri left behind weak successors. Therefore, the fall of the pyramid of his
reforms seemed quite imminent. His son Jalal khan under the title of Islam shah assumed powers on 26
May 1545, only after four days of his father’s death.35 Very soon rivalries broke out between Islam
Shah and his brother Adil Suri. For securing his powers, Islam Shah committed phenomenally invidious
atrocities against the nobles and the members of his own family. His extreme measures provoked the
Niyiazi tribe to revolt against him.36 Ibn Khaldun believes that the bonds of unity among different
elements of the population are wrecked due to the cut-throat competition among various contenders to
power.37 Islam Shah’s suspicion of his nobles and the treatment he extended to them caused the loss of
confidence and trust of his people in him. Thus, the group feeling of the Sur dynasty evaporated which
paved the way for Hamayun to make fresh inroads to India. Since his exile Hamayun was in search of
such a situation. Eventually, he regained the lost empire after the battle of Sirhind on 22 June 1555.38

27
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 21.
28
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 41.
29
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 132.
30
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 13.
31
P. M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis (eds.) (1970), The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 2A, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, p. 39.
32
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 13.
33
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, pp. 55-56.
34
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 14.
35
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 58.
36
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 59.
37
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 42.
38
William Erskin (1994), History of India under Humayun, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, p. 124.
162
 Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia
The Second Stage of Asabiyyah

Hamayun’s second time stay in India was too short to formulate a definite policy or any significant
strategy of governance to bring under discussion here. After a few months in India, he died of falling
from the stairs of his library. His son Akbar was crowned emperor at Kalanaur on 14 February 1556.39
With the enthronement of Akbar, the asabiyyah of Mughals in India entered the second phase. The
second stage is the one in which the ruler claims royal authority for himself, excludes them, gains
complete control over his people, and prevents claimants from trying to have a share in it. He deserves
all the glory for himself and takes much care to keep his people at distance and subdue them. 40
Interestingly, almost similar developments took place during Akbar’s rule. In the initial days of Akbar,
Bairam Khan was at the helm of affairs. Bairam Khan wielded his powers and influence for nearly four
years. Akbar skillfully managed to get rid of possessive Bairam Khan by sending him on voluntary
exile.41

Furthermore, he expanded the empire to a greater extent by annexing Gujrat in 1573, Bengal in 1580,
Kabul in 1589, Kashmir in 1589, and Sindh in 1591.42 Mughal Empire in India witnessed the zenith of
territorial expansion. Akbar said, “a monarch should ever intent on conquest, otherwise his neighbors
rise in arms against him.”43 Machiavelli had analogous views about the territorial expansion of state by
saying, “the state should either expand or expire.”44

Since the second stage of asabiyyah is marked by the erection of different institutions and substitution
of group feelings by paid army and bureaucracy to carry out the ruler’s wishes.45 Thus, in the first place,
Akbar continued the impressive reforms of Sher Shah Suri. Moreover, he introduced a series of other
reforms which strengthened his hold over the empire. He divided the administration of the empire into
two categories; the Central and Provincial.46 He also founded a highly unified and systematized
bureaucratic structure which is known as the mansabdari system. The most remarkable aspect of the
system was the mansab (rank). The mansab indicated one’s rank, payment, military position, status,
and other obligations.47 An efficient army was raised by bringing into use the meticulous techniques of
Jalaluddin Khilji.

Interestingly, the imperial harem emerged as an institution in the Mughals state system. Earlier in Babur
and Humayun regimes, both the emperors and their chroniclers seem to have been content with having
few wives and a couple of concubines as the figures were modest, nowhere running into hundreds and
thousands. On the contrary, the number of women in the imperial harem turns mind-boggling during
the times of Akbar. For making political alliances, Fr. Monserrate gave 300 wives to Akbar in temporary
marriages. However, Abul Fazl mentions the astonishing figure of 5,000 women in the harem of
Akbar.48 The number of women in one’s harem was perceived as one of the main symbols of the state’s
grandeur and power.49

After the death of Akbar, the empire passed on to his son Salim, succeeded to the throne on 3 November
1605, and assumed the title Nur-ud-Din Muhammad Jahangir Padshah Ghazi. The developments of the
second stage of the asabiyyah maintained the same pace under the Jahangir. Though fond of pleasures,
he was not devoid of military ambitions and therefore, unflinchingly continued his father’s policy of
conquest and annexation. One of the most fruitful achievements of Jahangir’s reign was the
consolidation of Mughal rule in Bengal.50 Furthermore, Mewar, Kangra, Ahmadnagar, and Bijapur all
submitted to his authority. He promulgated twelve edicts, which were ordered to be observed as a rule
of conduct in his kingdom. Among others, prohibition of cesses (zakat), regulation about highway
robbery and theft, prohibition of forcible seizure of property, general confirmation of mansabs and

39
Erskin (1994), History of India under Humayun, p. 182.
40
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 141.
41
Rao (1984), World History, p. 184.
42
I. H. Qureshi (1978), Akbar: The Architect of the Mughal Empire, Karachi: Ma’areef Limited, pp. 88-91.
43
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 154.
44
Fazli Wahid (2001), Political Philosophies, Peshawar: Taj Kutab Khana, p. 188.
45
Wahid (2001), Political Philosophies, p. 187.
46
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 22.
47
M. Akhtar Ali (1985), The Apparatus of Empire, Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 1.
48
Harbans Mukhia (2004), The Mughals of India, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, p. 113.
49
Mukhia (2004), The Mughals of India, p. 114.
50
Sheikh Mohamad Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, 711-1858 A.C., Lahore: Star Book Depot, p. 313.
163
Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
jagirs, prohibition of seizure of houses and cutting off the nose and ears of the criminals, building of
hospitals and appointment of physicians to attend the sick, confirmation of aima land, etc. were some
of the significant edicts which particularly helped to regulate the subjects lives and fortifying the
political system.51 Jahangir tells us that his mansab, rank in the state’s military-cum-bureaucratic
hierarchy, was raised from 1000/200 to 3000/2000, a very impressive rise.52 Moreover, being a painter
he possessed fine aesthetic taste and was a patron of art and literature. He was a great admirer of justice
and practically implemented it in Indian Empire with the deliverance of fullest compensation to the
aggrieved.53 These measures coupled with his religious tolerance consolidated his power and
strengthened Mughal rule over India considerably.

The Third Stage of Asabiyyah

The reign of Shah Jahan is rightly considered the splendor of the Great Mughals who formally ascended
the throne on 6 February 1628. Dr. Saksena described his reign as an epoch itself. It was his reign where
the power and wealth of Mughal India reached their zenith, and his reign is generally referred to as “the
most glorious epoch in the medieval period.”54 The empire enjoyed a great amount of internal peace
and the ruler had abundant leisure to satisfy his taste for the cultural pursuit.55 The most ambitious
military campaigns were undertaken in his time and the most gorgeous buildings were erected. In
Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun says that the third stage is one of tranquility and leisure in which the fruit
of royal authority is enjoyed: the things that human nature desires, such as, fame, the creation of lasting
monuments, and acquisition of property. It is marked by big constructions, erecting large buildings, and
spacious cities, presenting gifts to nobles from foreign nations, dispensing bounty to his-own people
and tribal dignitaries.56 The ruler builds up his strength and shows the way for those after him. The age
of Shah Jahan is considered by some historians as the golden age in Mughal history on account of
unprecedented territorial expansion and marvelous construction. Mughal architecture and art reached
the height of their glory during his time.57

As far as the territorial expansion of the Empire is concerned, Shah Jahan took stern action against the
Golkonda and Bijapur which were always creating problems for the Mughals. Both Golkonda and
Bijapur sued for peace, which was granted on the acceptance of the demands to pay an annual tribute,
clearly recognize Mughal sovereignty, and cede the territories that had belonged to Ahmadnagar.58
Furthermore, the Portuguese were involved in the obnoxious practice of kidnapping the children and
selling them to slavery. Hugli in Bengal was their established operational zone where they carried out
the activities with the help of natives and converts. In 1639 an expedition was sent which freed many
slaves and forced the Portuguese to pay indemnity and evacuate the settlement.59

Qandahar was restored to the Mughal Empire in 1638. Shah Jahan sent an expedition under the
command of his son Murad Bakhsh who was later replaced by Aurangzeb, to recover their ancestral
territories in Transoxania. Murad Bakhsh occupied Balkh and the Ozbegs were defeated. However, in
1648 Shah ‘Abbas II intervened and demanded the evacuation of Qandahar and the restoration of Balkh
to the Ozbegs. Thus, the Central Asian adventure came to a disastrous end.60

Shah Jahan’s artistic and architectural taste is a byword in the history of the Mughals. He had developed
a special interest in the plans and designs of buildings and personally revised them. He had taken a large
store of precious stones and gold from his treasury on his accession and ordered the construction of a
peacock throne with a canopy, adorned with enamel and jewels. The throne remained one of the glories
of the Mughal dynasty for a century until Nadir Shah sacked Delhi whilst taking it away.61 He also tried
to refurbish and rebuild the existing apartments and palaces in the fort at Agra. The most attractive
erection was the Taj Mehal at Agra to contain the tomb of his wife, of which he was the founder and

51
Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta (1992), An Advance History of India, p. 463.
52
Mukhia (2004), The Mughals of India, pp. 30-31.
53
Mukhia (2004), The Mughals of India, pp. 469-472.
54
Banarsi Prasad Saksena (1932), History of Shahjahan of Delhi, Lahore: Book Traders, p. 31.
55
Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, p. 319.
56
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, pp. 141-142.
57
Saksena (1932), History of Shahjahan of Delhi, p. 237.
58
Holt, Lambton and Lewis (1970), The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 48.
59
Holt, Lambton and Lewis (1970), The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 49.
60
Holt, Lambton and Lewis (1970), The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 50.
61
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 219.
164
 Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia
the first to be begun in 1632.62 The Pearl Mosque constructed in 1646-53 in the fort at Delhi, delights
the eyes by its majestic simplicity. Much has been written of the splendors of the fort at Delhi and the
new city founded there in 1639.63 Other huge buildings were constructed such as Diwan-i-Khas, the
hall of private audience, Diwan-i-Am, the hall of a public audience. The halls both in Delhi and Agra
were constructed in Shah Jahan’s reign. The emperor used to appear in Diwan-i-Am at 7:40 am with
which the business began and general aspects of the administration of the empire were discussed such
as petitions, promotions, passing of orders, considering cases of destitution, etc. From Diwan-i-Am the
Emperor went to Diwan-i-Khas-the hall of private audience. Here the ruler spent two hours and
transacted such business that could not be done publicly for political or administrative reasons. From
Diwan--Khas the Emperor went to Shah Burj-royal where a strictly secret council was held. Princes
with the exception of four other officers none were allowed to enter. In Shah Burj secret decisions were
taken and confidential orders were drafted.64 Shish Mahal-the hall of mirrors, Shalimar Garden, Shah
Jahan’s paradise, was one of the first and the greatest of the Mughal gardens, the forerunners of many
of the formal gardens in Europe.65 The point over here we want to make is that Shah Jahan’s reign was
the era of relative peace, an abundance of wealth, and huge constructions. Will Durant who is far from
partial to the Muslim rulers of India, remarked that “his thirty years of government marked the zenith
of India’s prosperity and prestige. The lordly Shah Jahan was a capable ruler.”66 On the contrary, Dr.
Saksena maintains that “underneath his glittering array of pomp and magnificence, signs of decline are
also noticeable, and the source of a large number of disastrous tendencies which culminated in a crash
after the death of Aurangzeb, may with justice be traced to the reign of Shahjahan.”67

The Fourth Stage of Asabiyyah

Shah Jahan fell seriously ill in 1658 and was not able to govern the system of his empire anymore. Shah
Jahan had four sons and Darah Shukoh was the eldest among them and the apparent heir to the throne
as towards the end, his father left the administration of the state largely to him. Everyone pressed his
claim to the throne; resultantly hectic warfare for succession took place among the brothers.68
Interestingly, Aurangzeb and Darah Shukoh both sought the help of Marathas and other outside
communities to overpower each other. In short, Aurangzeb emerged victorious in the wars of
successions.69 Here Ibn Khaldun’s assumption comes very apt about the weakening of group feelings.
Khaldun maintains that in the beginning, a ruler achieves power only with the help of his own people.
With the passage of time, these feelings become feeble to the level that a ruler starts relying on friends
against his own men. He deploys them to keep away and prevent his kin from seizing power.70 Such
incidents of mutual rivalries and conflicts are self-evident during the last days of Shah Jahan and
afterward.

Moreover, Khaldun argues that the selfish execution of authority and power destroys the strength of
asabiyyah, and society loses its confidence in its leader with the passage of time. The environment of
trust which is created by asabiyyah is no longer there if the decision-making chambers become
dominated by intrigue-ridden cliques.71 The ruler is good if he serves the interests of the common. He
is bad if he is unjust and imposes severe punishment on them. If the ruler is lenient and overlooks the
bad sides of his people, they will trust him and will take refuge with him. They love him and they are
willing to die for him in the battle against his enemies.72 Since India was a land with heterogonous
social strata and a variety of religious cults. Keeping in view the diverse background of the Indian
polity, Akbar the Great was wise enough to introduce a religious toleration policy through which he
succeeded in enlisting the support of various groups.73 On the contrary, Aurangzeb enraged the different
communities by following a harsh religious policy. He started a series of expeditions to suppress the

62
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p. 220.
63
Burn (1987), The Cambridge History of India, p.223.
64
Saksena (1932), History of Shahjahan of Delhi, pp. 241-242.
65
Mathew Wilson (2003), the Land of War Elephants: Travels beyond the Pale Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, United States: Nomad Press,
pp. 45-46.
66
Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, p. 328.
67
Saksena (1932), History of Shahjahan of Delhi, p. xxx.
68
Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, pp. 326-327.
69
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 48.
70
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 146.
71
Muhammad (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change,” p. 43.
72
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 153.
73
Rao (1984), World History, p. 185.
165
Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
revolting tribes. His engagement in such campaigns against the people of his own empire caused a
severe setback by diverting his attention from the state administration.74

The Fifth Stage of Asabiyyah

The fifth of the Mughals asabiyyah starts with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. As usual, Aurangzeb’s
death was followed by a war of succession, in which his eldest surviving son Muazzam (Shah Alam)
appeared successful and ruled till 1712.75 Naturally, his concentration was focused on the preservation
of his power and retention of his seat. Therefore, he paid lip services to the state administration or
averting the ensuing decline of the Mughals dynasty. After his death, a similar war broke out among his
sons. In 1713 Farrukhsiyar ascended the throne, but he found himself surrounded by the Sayyid
brothers, who received the highest offices in the realm. Sayyid Hasan Ali became the wazir and
accumulated all the powers in his hands.76 Thus, Farrukhsiyar was dependent upon his courtiers. This
sheer dependency and helplessness in the face of his cronies manifested into all-around confusion and
his reign was marked by an eternal power struggle. His son, Muhammad Shah (Rangila) succeeded him.
Though Muhammad Shah was only in his seventeenth year at the time of accession77, however, he
skillfully managed to get rid of the tightfisted Sayyid brothers but could not shun his excessive
inclination to wine and women. Interestingly, he wore a female dress and surrounded himself with
women, catamites, buffoons, and singers.78 He ruled for almost thirty years, till 1748 but was interrupted
by foreign invasions of Nadir Shah. By the time Mughals had lost the aptitude to repulse foreign
invasions. Their internal division and character degeneration had reached the level to dispose of.
Consequently, onward 1748, Ahmad Shah Abdali made frequent raids on India which reduced the
Mughal empire in India to a vessel state. The combined invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah
sucked the economy of India and worsened the elusive peace. The indigenous subject lost their faith in
the ruling dynasty. Encouraged by the prevalent confusion, the European companies accelerated their
heinous activities against the interest of the state. Finally, the East India Company got a heavy hand
over India after defeating Shuja-ud-Daulah in the battle of Buxur in 1764.79

The fifth stage is of squandering and waste. The ruler wastes pleasure and amusement in this stage. The
ruler often entrusts the authority to unscrupulous persons who are not qualified to handle the authority.
He loses many soldiers by spending their incentives and allowances on pleasures instead of paying
them. He abandons supervising his military and subordinates. Thus, he tears down the foundations his
ancestors had laid and ruins what they had built. In this stage, the dynasty is seized by senility and the
chronic disease from which it can hardly ever rid itself, eventually, it is destroyed.80

Interestingly, most of the above shortcomings rather evils, which have been mentioned in Muqaddimah,
were present in the conundrums of later Mughals. They were not regularly paying to the soldiers. The
rulers spent most of their time in herems. They lavishly spent money on merry making. State affairs
were conducted by the mighty nobles. Most ruinous was the common tug of war among the nobles and
in turn, they poisoned the ears of the despot against each other which detracted his attention from the
much-needed assignments.

Furthermore, Ibn Khaldun believes that a dynasty rarely establishes itself in a land with so many
different tribes and groups. This is because of differences in opinions and desires. At any time, therefore,
there is much opposition to a dynasty and rebellion against it, because each group feeling under the
control of the ruling dynasty thinks that it has in itself enough strength and power.81 Every party looks
for a favorable opportunity to pursue their self-interests in contrast to the ruling elite’s superstructure.
The fact is that they have not wholeheartedly accepted their mastery over them, yet they have been
subdued by dint of force. However, in the later years of Mughals in India, this show of force was missing
with which they established this vast empire. In the course of history, we see that the Marathas, Sikhs,
Rajputs, Jats, Afghans, and others often revolted against the Mughals in India and shattered their power

74
Bilal (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, p. 49.
75
Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, p. 371.
76
Ikram (1966), Muslim Rule in India and Pakistan, p. 375.
77
Sh. Abdur Rashid (1978), History of the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent, 1707-1806, Lahore: Research Society of Pakistan, p. 72.
78
Rashid (1978), History of the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent, p. 88.
79
Rashid (1978), History of the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent, pp. 326-327.
80
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 142.
81
Ibn Khaldun (1967), The Muqaddimah, p. 130.
166
 Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia
and weakened it to the level that at the end the British took India easily by not only finding the natives
hesitant to rescue Mughals rather the British rallied the natives against the Mughals.

Conclusion

Although most of today’s scholars consider Khaldun’s theory of asabiyyah as irrelevant and
inapplicable as it dealt only with the nomadic tribal and dynastic systems of medieval times if seen
critically it still plays a vital role in creating social cohesion among individuals, tribes, groups, cultures,
and nations. Moreover, the hallmarks of astute leadership and the guiding principles he propounded for
a ruling hierarchy are commendable. He has also cautioned the leader of some common evils that disrupt
his authority such as misuse of power, violation of sacred trust, accumulation of wealth, hurting of
religious sentiments of people, and upsetting the unity bonds. Likewise, religion as described by
Khaldun is still an overlapping factor and a binding force for creating unity among the people. The best
suitable example for religious asabiyyah can be quoted from Asian and Middle Eastern countries. The
theory and its stages may not sound relevant in the present time but if one sees it in the context of that
time, it provided golden and guiding principles for the growth of civilizations.

In a nutshell, Khaldun’s theory of asabiyyah has a profound compatibility factor in understanding the
phenomenon of the rise and fall of civilizations. The theory he propounded during the medieval time
had greater relevance in the times. Therefore, it applied in its whole to the Arab World and in parts to
other places and dynastic changes. Consequently, Khaldun’s theory when applied to the Mughals in
India, their rise and fall were better understood, and the stages of their rule were more convincing when
seen through the spectrum of the theory of asabiyyah. Moreover, the geneses of the Mughal Empire, its
growth and development, and its ultimate decline likewise stunningly validate Khaldun’s asabiyyah.
The common and overall finding is that whenever a group loses its feelings of common bondage,
common interests, or becomes a victim of disunity among themselves; it often undergoes the above
course of events till its eventual decline. The Mughals thus experienced the same processes and finally
faced disintegration by losing the Indian Empire to the British.

Fragments

Principalities that lived under their own laws before they were annexed
There are three courses for those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to
living under their own laws and in freedom and who wish to hold them. Firstly, to ruin them, second is
to reside there in person, thirdly, to permit them to live together according to their own laws, drawing
a tribute, and establishing within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to them. Because such a
government knows that it cannot stand without the prince’s friendship and interest and does its utmost
struggle to support him. Therefore, he who would keep a city with prevailing freedom will keep it more
easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.82

“A wise man ought always to follow the paths followed earlier by great men, and act to imitate those
who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savor of it.”83

On Mercenary Soldiers
Good laws and good arms are the major foundations of all states and if a state is not well armed, it
indicates that there are not good laws devised and implemented, and vice versa. We shall speak of the
arms and would leave the laws out of the discussion. For instance, the arms with which a prince defends
his state are either the mercenaries, or his own, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are
dangerous and useless; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither safe nor
firm; for they are ambitious, disunited, and indiscipline, unfaithful, cowardly before both friends and
enemies; they have neither the fear of fidelity to men nor God, and destruction is deferred only so long
as the attack is; for in war, they are robbed by the enemy and in peace by these mercenaries and
auxiliaries. The fact is, they fight in the field for a trifle of stipend wherein they have no other reason
or attraction for keeping the field, and that stipend is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you.

82
W. K. Marriott (trans.) (2001), The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli, Pennsylvania State University: Electronic Classics Series, p. 27
83
Marriott (2001), The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli, p. 28.
167
Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169
They are ready enough to be your soldiers during peacetime but take themselves off or run from the foe
if war comes.84

Concerning the Secretaries of Princes

To a prince, the choice of servants is of little importance, and they are good or not according to the
discrimination of the prince. The first opinion which one forms of a prince and his understanding is by
observing the men he has around him; and when they are faithful and capable, he may always be
considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But
when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made
was in choosing them.85

References

Ali, M. Akhtar (1985), The Apparatus of Empire, Awards of ranks, offices and titles to the Mughal
nobility (1574-1658), Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Baali, Fuad (1978), Heinrich Simon: Ibn Khaldun’s Science of Human Culture, Lahore: Ashraf Printing
Press.

Bilal, Fakhar (2010), Mansabdari System under the Mughals, 1574-1707, Saarbrücken, Germany:
VDM Publishing.

Burn, Sir Richard (ed.) (1987), The Cambridge History of India: The Mughal Empire, Vol. IV, Ran
Nagar, New Delhi: S. Chand & Company.

Erskin, William (2000), History of India under Humayun, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.

Hughes-Warrington, Martin (2000), Fifty Key Thinkers on History, London and New York: Routledge.

Muhammad, Fida (1998), “Ibn Khaldun Theory of Social Change: A Comparison with Hegel, Marx
and Durkheim,” The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (Institute Kajian Dasar, Malaysia),
Vol. 15, 25-45.

Khaldun, Ibn (1967), The Muqaddimah, Franz Rosenthal (trans.), N. J. Dawood (ed.), London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Publishers.

Majumdar, R. C., Raychaudhuri, H. C. and Datta, Kalikinkar (1992), An Advanced History of India,
Lahore: Famous Books.

Marriott, W. K. Trans (2001), The Prince of Nicolo Machiavelli, Pennsylvania State University:
Electronic Classics Series.

Mukhia, Harbans (2004), The Mughals of India, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Qureshi, I. H (1978), Akbar: The Architect of the Mughal Empire, Karachi: Ma’areef Limited.

Rao, B. V. (1984), World History, Karnataka: Sterling Publishers.

Rashid, Sh. Abdur (1978), History of the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent, 1707-1806, Lahore:
Research Society of Pakistan.

Rosenthal, E. I. J. (1962), Political Thought in Medieval Islam: An Introductory 0utline, Cambridge:

University Press.

Saksena, Banarsi Prasad (1932), History of Shahjahan of Delhi, Lahore: Book Traders.

84
Marriott (2001), The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli, p. 51.
85
Marriott (2001), The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli, p. 89.
168
 Ibn Khaldun Theory of Asabiyyah and the Rise and Fall of the Mughals in South Asia
Wahid, Dr. Fazli (2001), Political Philosophies, Peshawar: Taj Kutab Khana.

Wilson, Mathew (2003), The Land of War Elephants: Travels beyond the Pale Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and India, United States: Nomad Press.

169
 Journal of Al-Tamaddun, Vol. 17 (2), 2022, 159-169

170

View publication stats