The chronicles of Shah Jahan (reg. 1628-1658)

The projected study "The chronicles of Shah Jahan (reg. 1628-1658): Historiography and the dynamics of the Mughal state" will analyse systematically Mughal court historiography under Shah Jahan regarding the development of the state under him as depicted in the Persian sources. Contemporary European travelogues will be consulted to provide a context for the court chroniclers and assess them critically. To reach this aim, special attention will be paid to the historical discourse of each of the chroniclers. Historiography in Islamicate India was written in order to demonstrate good governance; however, the objectives of the chroniclers must not be overlooked. Shah Jahan controlled and corrected his chroniclers personally, so that we can be sure that the discourses in the chronicles are those that he himself wanted to be recorded. Still, there is one inconsistency which we can utilize: Shah Jahan employed QAZVINI as his official court chronicler for his first decade of his reign, but then decided to introduce Islam as state religion and abolish his grandfather Akbar`s state ideology of "universal peace" and. He therefore dismissed QAZVINI and ordered his history to be rewritten along Islamic tenets. For this task, he employed LAHAURI and ordered him to rewrite the chronicle to reflect the new policy right from the start of Shah Jahan`s reign. We therefore have two versions of Shah Jahan`s first decade. Therefore, the projected study will principally be concerned with the extensive chronicle of QAZVINI and with LAHAURI`S Padshahnama (3 vols.), to elaborate the development of the self-portrayal of Shah Jahan`s state in the sources. Moreover, the history of KANBO will be used for Shah Jahan`s last year, the war of succession and his deposition, which the others lack. The forth, less extensive Shahjahannama of TABATABAI will be consulted when necessary. Likewise, the travelogues of the Europeans Manrique, Tavernier, Manucci, and Bernier will be used to throw light on the court chronicles from a non-courtly viewpoint. A translation of QAZVINI`s chronicle will be an important product of the study, in addition to an analytical monograph. The discourse analysis of the sources will be conducted with regard to the impact of Shah Jahan`s state reorganisation, to the consequences of his wars, to the processes of administration and the discourse of power, and to the condition of the state when his son Aurangzeb seized it. It will investigate in what way the sources tell us about how Shah Jahan`s claim to power was received at the lower levels of the state, such as the small zamindars, and how this discourse was seen from there. The study will also aim at understanding how the sources suppose administration to be represented at court. Here, the project can tie in with Ebba KOCH`S studies on court ceremonial as connected to palace architecture, which show that ceremonial was a form of decision-making. The task of this study is therefore to describe an empire at its height from its sources, an empire in stability but not in stagnation. Former historians of the Mughal Empire have tended to confound both and to leave out the central period of Shah Jahan`s reign. Nevertheless, it is crucial for a critical history of the Mughal Empire to describe the transition from the consolidating phase under Akbar to the increasing instability under Aurangzeb. This study will be an important step towards closing this gap.

The project explores Mughal court historiography in Persian language under Shah Jahan (1592- 666, r. 1628-58). Its principle aim was to gain a better understanding of the interaction between the development of the Mughal state and the writing of official history. The Empire of the Great Mughals, a Muslim dynasty of Central Asian origin (descendants of Timur), dominated much of South Asia from the 16th to the 18th centuries. The first half of the 17th century, however, is for a variety of reasons much less well researched than the earlier and later periods of Mughal domination. The period under study in particular, the youth and reign of Shah Jahan, is still one of the least studied areas of Mughal history. Historians have seen the reign of Shah Jahan as a static and thus less interesting transitory period which preserved the status quo established by Akbar. Art historians and cultural historians on the other hand have paid more attention to Shah Jahan, the patron of the Taj Mahal. The present project adds significant new evidence to the picture emerging from recent art and cultural historical studies of Shah Jahans rule as a highly dynamic phase where an increasing centralization in the administration goes hand in hand with a formalization of court ceremonial, architecture and the arts as a persuasive statement of his ideal and universal kingship. One of the reasons for this imbalanced perception of the Mughal Empire under Shah Jahan is that major historical texts regarding Shah Jahan are still un-edited and un-translated and, consequently, the interpretation of this period in modern historiography is based on insufficient knowledge and awareness of the available narrative sources. This is where the project sets in. Through a systematic analysis of the rhetoric and narrative techniques of court chronicles, especially still unpublished Padshahnama by Muhammad Amin Qazvini, the project explores the constant mutual interdependence of historiographical representation and historical change in the chronicles. The results of the project so far support and substantiate the working hypothesis that the court chronicles reflect a process of centralization of the pluricentric Mughal state and society in the person of the ruler. This process carried with it an increasing routinization of governance and administration. The ruler as an individual as he is represented in the historiography of Shah Jahans predecessors is overshadowed by the ruler as a political person. The rhetoric and narrative of the chronicles, strictly controlled by the ruler himself, reflect thus the changing character of the Mughal state. This approach is of general relevance for the study of pre-modern Islamicate historiography, not only in South Asia, which has mainly focused on strategies of legitimization or rulership in pre-modern historiography.