Akbar and the Politics of Inclusion: Revisiting a Mughal Legacy in the Age of Historical Polemics

Akbar and the Politics of Inclusion: In recent years, the figure of the Mughal emperor Akbar has become a battleground in contemporary debates over Indian history. A growing body of popular writing and commentary, particularly from proponents of Hindutva historiography, seeks to portray the Mughal period as one of unrelieved religious oppression and cultural alienation. In this narrative, Akbar appears either as a cynical politician whose gestures of tolerance masked imperial ambitions, or as a lone exception whose policies supposedly confirm the alleged intolerance of all other Muslim rulers. More recently, commentators such as Vikram Sampath have revived arguments questioning the depth and sincerity of Akbar’s inclusivism.

Drawing on a long tradition of sceptical scholarship, Sampath and others suggest that Akbar’s policies were primarily instruments of political expediency rather than expressions of a broader vision of governance, a perspective that has gained considerable traction in public discourse, particularly following his interviews on platforms like NDTV.

Such interpretations, however, tend to flatten a far more complex historical reality. No serious historian would deny that Akbar was an empire builder or that his policies were shaped by political calculations. Yet the same may be said of virtually every successful ruler in history. The question is not whether Akbar’s policies were political, but what kind of politics they embodied. A careful examination of the evidence suggests that Akbar consciously sought to construct a polity that transcended narrow sectarian identities, and that his vision represented one of the most remarkable experiments in inclusive governance in the early modern world.

The Mahzar of 1579: An Assertion of State Authority
The clearest indication of this vision is the famous Mahzar of 1579. Often misunderstood as a declaration of personal infallibility or a step toward founding a new religion, the document was actually a more nuanced political intervention. The Mahzar, a legal attestation signed by leading Muslim scholars, did not proclaim Akbar a prophet. Rather, it acknowledged him as an Imam-i ‘Adil (Just Ruler) and granted him the authority to choose between competing juridical opinions when leading scholars disagreed. As the scholar F. W. Buckler argued in a classic reinterpretation, the document was a diplomatic victory that allowed Akbar to rise above the squabbling factions of the ulama.

The context is crucial. Akbar was confronting a situation in which rival groups of religious scholars frequently advanced contradictory and self-serving interpretations of Islamic law. The Mahzar was therefore an attempt to subordinate sectarian legal disputes to the ultimate authority of the state. In effect, Akbar was asserting that political sovereignty should not be held hostage by clerical rivalries.

The Ibadat Khana: A Forum for Intellectual Engagement
The institutional expression of this approach was the Ibadat Khana, or House of Worship, at Fatehpur Sikri. Established initially as a venue for discussions among Muslim scholars, it soon expanded to include representatives of a remarkable range of traditions. Sunni and Shia scholars debated alongside Sufis, Jains, Brahmins, Zoroastrians, and even Jesuit priests from Portuguese Goa. The Jesuits were received with courtesy and were encouraged to present Christian doctrines before the emperor. Akbar’s objective was not theological conversion but intellectual engagement. He believed that truth could not emerge from dogmatic isolation.

As the essay argues, these disputations were not mere courtly entertainment. They formed part of a deliberate project to elevate reason (‘aql) over blind adherence to tradition (taqlid). The Ibadat Khana became a space where competing claims to truth could be tested through dialogue rather than asserted through authority.

A Social Contract for the Sixteenth Century
What made Akbar’s vision truly radical was the theory of kingship that he and his official chronicler Abu’l Fazl articulated. At a time when rulers across the world claimed divine right or inherited privilege, they advanced a theory of governance based on the social contract. In this framework, the ruler’s legitimacy derived not from unchecked authority but from safeguarding the welfare of all subjects, regardless of faith.

This philosophy translated into concrete policies: the abolition of punitive taxes on non-Muslims, the protection of temples and churches, and the incorporation of diverse elites into the highest levels of imperial administration.
Sulh-i Kul and the Philosophy of Inclusion

Underpinning this political theory was the concept of Farr-e Izadi, the divine light or royal radiance, drawn from the Ishraqi or Illuminationist tradition. Unlike exclusivist notions of divine favour, Akbar understood this light as illuminating all creation equally. Muslim and Hindu, noble and commoner, Persian and Rajput — all stood under the same divine radiance.

This became the philosophical basis of sulh-i kul — universal peace. The doctrine held that the state should transcend sectarian divisions and treat all subjects with equal concern. Historians such as M. Athar Ali, Irfan Habib, Shireen Moosvi, B. L. Bhadani, and Savitri Chandra have consistently shown that sulh-i kul shaped recruitment, administration, and imperial ideology under Akbar.
Akbar in a World Torn by Religious Conflict

The significance of Akbar’s experiment becomes clearer in global context. The sixteenth century witnessed intense religious conflict across Eurasia. Europe was convulsed by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The French Wars of Religion, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Dutch Revolt all reflected deep sectarian violence. Meanwhile, the Safavid Empire enforced Shia orthodoxy, while the Ottoman Empire promoted Sunni dominance.

At precisely this moment, Akbar moved in the opposite direction. Rather than enforcing orthodoxy, he invited competing traditions into conversation. While European monarchs burned heretics, the Mughal emperor sponsored comparative religious dialogue. The contrast remains historically striking.

Abolishing Jizya and Pilgrimage Taxes
Akbar’s practical policies reflected the same outlook. He abolished the pilgrimage tax in 1563 and the jizya in 1564, removing fiscal burdens that disproportionately affected non-Muslims. Critics often dismiss these measures as political expediency aimed at securing Rajput support. Yet, as the essay notes, rulers reveal their priorities through the policies they choose to pursue. Akbar could easily have retained discriminatory taxes, as many rulers elsewhere did. Instead, he abolished them.

Akbar as Vishnu: The Brahminical Embrace
Research by B. L. Bhadani suggests that Akbar was even hailed by some Brahmins as an avatar of Vishnu. Contemporary accounts describe Brahmins gathering below Akbar’s jharokha to glimpse the emperor before breaking their fast, echoing the Hindu practice of darshan. This was more than courtly flattery; it reflected the perception that Akbar’s rule embodied righteous governance transcending religious identity.

Political Pragmatism and Historical Legacy
Critics such as Vikram Sampath are right to note that Akbar was not a secular democrat in the modern sense. He remained an early modern Muslim monarch, and his policies undoubtedly served imperial consolidation. Yet reducing his project to mere opportunism misses the larger point. Successful states always involve political calculation; what matters is whether those calculations promote exclusion or inclusion.

Akbar recognised that a diverse subcontinent could not be governed through sectarian domination. Stability required accommodation, and legitimacy required inclusion. The durability of his policies — continued largely under Jahangir and Shah Jahan — suggests they were more than tactical manoeuvres. Even Aurangzeb, who reversed many of these measures by reinstating the jizya, struggled to sustain an empire originally built on Akbar’s inclusive framework.
Inclusion Versus Exclusion

The essay ultimately argues that Akbar’s enduring significance lies not merely in administrative reform or military conquest, but in the political imagination he offered. At a time when much of the world embraced exclusion and sectarian violence, Akbar articulated a model in which political community could transcend differences of faith.

In an age once again tempted by exclusionary visions of identity and history, Akbar’s experiment remains deeply relevant. His reign reminds us that durable political orders are built not on uniformity, but on the recognition that societies contain many faiths, communities, and ways of life. He chose inclusion over exclusion, dialogue over dogma, and peace over perpetual conflict. That, perhaps, is why Akbar continues to provoke debate even today.