Through ‘Millennial Sovereignty’
“(Let us) not only compare from within our boxes but spend some time and effort to transcend them, not by comparison alone but by seeking out the at times fragile threads that connected the globe, even as the globe came to be defined as such”[1]; is a plea often repeated by Sanjay Subrahmanyam for ‘connected history’. A history that seeks to surpass regional divisions politically demarcated, to instead focus on movements, circulations, influences, interactions, and continuities, in short, connections, in a global history that is contextual; by going beyond, to use some of Subrahmanyam’s terms, local rootedness of sources, local patriotism, and methodological fragmentation.
Hence, connected history by definition being the history of global interaction, its most obvious contribution to the latter is elucidation of these connections; conventionally removed from their transnational context by treating political and cultural boundaries as impervious. Its goal then is not to merely study regions ‘left out’ by generalized universal histories or ‘fitted in’ by area studies sans relations, instead to establish a true dialectical engagement between the regional specificities and universal generalizations to comprehend connections that helped them evolve. Again, not through comparative history which might study relations between regions but outside the contextual systems which gives them meaning. Rather through a connected history that shall demolish traditional compartmentalization to highlight modes of interaction “between the local and regional level on the one hand (what we could call the micro) and a supra-regional level that can sometimes be global on the other hand (what we could call the macro).”[2]
To rephrase, it does not merely seek to synthesize a collection of regional histories still compartmentalized within conventional political borders in a ‘world history’. But rather an integration in a truly ‘global history’, studying not just global interactions but also studying through these global interactions i.e. making interaction not just a subject of history but a methodological approach to comprehend a more contextual history.
Less obvious, but no less significant, is the role of connected history in freeing the discipline from its European ethnocentric shackles by being global in wider sense of approach, not merely as a subject with inherent euro-centric gaze. In Early Modern context, this has been demonstrated by Subrahmanyam in delinking the ‘modernity’, that it laid roots of, from its conventional European biases that arbitrarily chose certain ‘Great Historical Processes’ to represent it. In other words, disassociating modernity from the question – “who succeeded and who failed on the long road to modern industrial capitalism?”[3]
To, instead perceive it as a global shift manifesting in varied ways, having different routes across regions and cultures. This is to say that Renaissance and Enlightenment are not the sole factors capable of developing ‘modernity’, or even this very notion of ‘modernity’ need not be classified based on its European characteristics and trajectory, rather could have taken different forms. In short, European idea of ‘modernity’ cannot be an ‘ideal’[4] merely one amongst several such models.
Overemphasis on such ‘ideals’ of Euro-centric vocabulary and subsequent use of rhetoric of ‘otherness’ then, exaggerates cultural differences to argue that societies are impervious to influences and acculturations, which connected history contradicts. It thus seeks to move beyond this notion of ‘rise of the West and Westernization of the rest’[5]
In one such approach, Subrahmanyam investigates conventionally European presuppositions of certain unifying factors that were characteristic of the age. For instance, the structural conflict –between agriculture, urban societies and nomadic groups, heightening during the period– need not be perceived as a conflict between non-European societies (having achieved equilibrium due to ‘stagnation’) and expanding European ones (that could not owing to their ‘modernity’); but rather as a product of broader universal conflict due to prevailing changes in life style and modes of resource use. Similarly, the explorations and evolution of travel culture, more-often-than-not solely attributed to European voyages, need to be acknowledged as a transnational and cross-cultural phenomenon. Evidence of which are aplenty in travel literature recording such exploits as of Zheng He’s Indian Ocean voyages.
The need then, overtly spelled, is to move beyond the narrative that all external interaction were limited to Europe[6]. Connected history facilitates just that, establishing non-European cultures not just as subjects interacting with Europe but as active agents interacting in a truly global interaction. An interaction not limited to commercial networks and bullion circulation or even to transfer of mercenaries and military equipment, but comprising in large part ‘elite circulation’ of bureaucrats, diplomats, ambassadors, artisans, religious specialists, learned men and along with them also culture, ideas and other mental constructs.
A common example for both comes from 1581 interaction of Akbar with Portuguese Jesuit Antonio Monserrate around the millennium myth. Reflecting not only conspicuous presence of Jesuits in Mughal court, but also interaction of millenarian idea shared in vocabularies of both religions; as well as by other older traditions[7]. Essentially, “a pattern of belief… (that) promised the possibility of a final world in which there would be ‘cosmos without chaos’…ruled by an unchallenged god”[8]; the ‘millenarian conjecture’ as operating over entire Mediterranean has been studied by Cornell Fleischer[9] to show that the idea was not uniformly apocalyptic but also had connotations of renewal of the age at the hands of ‘Mujaddid’ or ‘Imam Mahdi’. A rhetoric utilized by Ottoman Sultans Selim and Suleyman[10] to consolidate sovereign legitimacy. A discussion elaborated by Subrahmanyam as he extends application of millenarian myth from ‘Tagus to Ganges’ in tracing the tradition across three incidents occurring in distinct temporal and spatial frames[11].
First, in 1513, the notion appears in celestial signs appearing to Portuguese governor Afonso de Albuquerque for allying with legendary Ethiopian ruler Prester John and destroying Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In 1540, it makes appearance in observation of Venetian envoy Michele Membre, visiting Safavid court of Shah Tahmasp, that the emperor’s sister remained unmarried in wait of the ‘Mahdi’. The last reference, already mentioned, comes from Mughal court under Akbar. Thereby ‘millenarianism’ proves to be not only an apt example of ideological circulations within connected history, but because of its cultural, social and political ramifications, also a methodological tool for pursual of the same. Especially in latter two contexts of Safavid and Mughal court, these ‘messianistic’ pretensions and millenarian motifs took a life of their own; casting a new mode of sacred kingship wherein the sultan as the prophesied saviour embodied within himself both spiritual guide and material lord.
For instance, in relation Shah Isma’il, traveller Francesco Romano writes, “Some say that he is god, others he is a prophet. All of them, in particular his soldiers, say he will not die…”, while Giovanni Morosini refers to him as “neither king nor prince, but saint and prophet”– an allusion to his status as hereditary leader of Safavid Sufi order. However, these messianic assertions waned as ties with Qizilbash loosened upon Shah’s death. Instead millenarian design was employed to defy, not aid, legitimacy of the kingship by supporting rival claimants as Isma’il reborn. The conflict would only intensify with accession of Shah ‘Abbas and subsequent discord with Nuqtavi Sufis (who aspired to replace the Shah, claiming him to have lost legitimacy to rule). But even at peak friction, master disciple relations did not entirely disintegrate as a refuge, ‘Tawhid Khana’ was constructed for Qizilbash. Nevertheless, when the court astrologer too supported Nuqtavi claim of ruling sovereign dying on Muharram, Abbas chose one to enthrone for the duration of the conjunction. Thereafter, he, along with rest of the order, was executed and the prophecy held to be nominally fulfilled.
Subrahmanyam makes use of this example to illustrate that millenarianism was not simply a cultural construct, but ‘a building block of empire, ‘fuel for ambition’ and “a resource that a monarchy with centralizing tendencies of no mean dimensions could make use of creatively.”[12]
Meanwhile, Nuqtavis fleeing prosecution along with other Iranian officials, found refuge in Akbar’s Mughal court. What followed was an evolution of relationship of protection and patronage between Mughal court and Iranian ghulat movement build upon ‘shared adoration of pre-Islamic Persianate symbols’[13]. This would prove conducive for similar deployment of millenarian tool as Safavids in India, exemplified under Akbar, who owing to territorial vastness of empire and heterogeneous makeup of his court sought a heterodox ideology to maintain cohesion. With the millennium of the Hegiran calendar approaching, millenarianism proved a suitable candidate. As he commissioned ‘Tarikh-i Alfi’ to trace history of Islam, the emperor was situated as ‘Sahib-i Zaman’ and ‘Mujaddid-i Alf-i Thani’.
Although, Subrahmanyam writes, Akbar having realized unsuitability of the medium for long term dynastic ideology abandoned it in favour of new illuminationist philosophy; Azfar Moin develops the argument chronologically further to demonstrate how Akbar did not retreat but re-morphed his position as supreme spiritual guide of the realm. His assertion of sacred kingship was now maintained through ‘muridi’ or discipleship of the imperial cult of Din-i Ilahi with its seals, talismans and utterances; as chronicled in ‘Akbarnama’ which lists regulations for providing guidance. Further, Akbar’s synthesis of sovereignty and spirituality was not limited to discipleship but was “built up from elements of religious traditions he had experienced, arranged in new combinations and permutations.”[14]
Therefore, though parallel in some aspects, Mughal and Safavid formulations were marked by cultural peculiarities often sidelined in generalized universal approaches. Conversely, area studies overemphasize on unique developments perceived independently in India or Iran. And though comparative history highlights differences, it overlooks their role in evolution. Not until connected history thus, could they be understood or examined in totality and still in relation to one another and to larger context. Moin has made one such effort in ‘Millennial Sovereign’, applying the methodology formulated by Subrahmanyam. Here, Safavid and Mughal notion of sacred kingship are explained as a result of shared history drawing on same material resources, patronage and cultural symbols. For, Humayun and Babur had sought refuge at the Safavid court creating a direct possibility of learning from each other’s modes and methods.
Such transnational global interactions only, central to political and cultural formulations, are the subject and tool of connected history, because “Pre-modern kingship had strong performative element that cannot be recovered from just prescriptive text”[15]. Instead since kingship evolved via constant circulation through realm in an ongoing interaction with social ideas and popular myths, the need is to study these interactions. Similarly, histories of ‘localities’ and their inhabitants often marginalized from ‘centre’ and thus from literary traditions of the time, can be accessed through such networks of interactions which they partook in.
As such, such connections are not limited to macro level interactions across geographical space. For the very conception of sacred sovereignty necessitates micro interactions between sacred spiritual sphere and material monarchy. Sufis and sultans were intertwined in matrimonial and patronage links. Sultans received education from saints, saints accepted imperial offices from sultans and both patronized each other[16]. This was witnessed in close ties maintained by Humayun with the Shattari order responsible for garnering local allies. An example of seeking Sufi legitimacy, it was a continuance of tradition followed by Babur and even prior by their Timurid ancestors who maintained a symbiotic relations with Naqshbandis. Another such link of continuity between Babur and Humayun was observed in their shared allure to ‘magical’ alchemical and astrological philosophy[17]. A tradition also shared with, and probably derived from, Safavid Iran.
Another instance of such interregional interaction within the millenarian idea is in its cross-cultural conception which draws from and marks continuities with cosmological knowledge of pre-Islamic traditions of India, Iran, and Greece and even Sumer and Akkad –such as its cyclical notion of time or transmigration of soul.[18] Connected history thereby widens the study of global interactions through cutting across not only regional but also disciplinary boundaries. Overcoming historiographical fragmentation, it focuses on often marginalized cultural and religious practises as well as symbolic and ideological constructs underlying more conventional political or economic aspects of history.
Subsequently, new sources are sought to satisfy academic needs of these new themes and disciplines not adequately explored in conventional literature. Hence connected history also surpasses conventional archives to instead rediscover history of interactions and circulation in popular myths[19] or art forms. And studying them not only for their sake but to apply the knowledge so gathered to even traditional subjects, like political history of empires or economic history of trade. Once again demonstrated by millennial myth, as also by the sacred kingship so formed; encapsulated in court rituals, paintings and architecture- Jahangiri paintings (See: Jahangiri Painting: An interpretation of visually embedded Mughal imperial ideology) proclaiming him a political and spiritual lord as also situating him in contemporary context of Shah Abbas, being an excellent example.
The ‘Millennial Sovereignty’ thus proves to be an apt case study for understanding the subject of connected history, as well as for applying it as a method to study a truly global history; bridging not only spatial frames but also thematic ones. As also continuities with older traditions without dismissing their regional or cultural peculiarities, wherein lies perhaps its greatest contribution to global interactions- contextualizing without generalizing. Correcting the often parochial area studies by establishing external connections, and context and universal histories by evading homogeneity in acknowledging local manifestations of prevailing trends; connected history seeks to identify continuities, interactions, or connections by not only studying global interactions but also ‘situating’ them. Ergo, it is more than adopting a broader scale; it is ‘stepping laterally’ altogether to get a new vantage point allowing perception of connections that had been hitherto indiscernible.
Notes
[1] (Subrahmanyam, Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia 1997) [2] Ibid. [3] (Subrahmanyam 1997) [4] To undercut this ‘ideal’ of modern Europe, Subrahmanyam utilizes the ‘paradox of enlightenment’ i.e. the parallel existence of intensification of hierarchy, domination and disunity with contradictory notions of universalism and humanism which apparently characterized modern age. [5] Jack Goody, The Theft of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) [6] Evidence contradicting it includes, Arakan ruler Thirithudhamma’s Persian correspondence boasting source of his power not only amongst ‘firangis’ but also ‘Telangas’; and Rabi’s ‘Safina-yi Sulaimani’ that alludes to Persian influence in Ayutthaya through commercial network of Bay of Bengal (Subrahmanyam 1997) [7] Namely, Franciscan apocalyptical though that drove Columbus to his American voyage or the indigenous beliefs of American population so encountered by Spaniards [8] Jonathan Spence quoted in (Subrahmanyam, Turning the stones over: Sixteenth-century millenarianism from the Tagus to the Ganges 2003) [9] In his book ‘A Mediterranean Apocalypse’ draws upon primary sources from Ottoman empire and links them with secondary sources like Carlo Ginzburg’s ‘Miller’ discussing millennialism in court of Philip II of Spain to present a unity across Mediterranean in not just geography and climate but in culture and symbols employed too. [10] Sultan Selim is referred to as ‘mujaddid’ and ‘last messiah of the age’ in ‘tawarikh-i Al-i Osman Selim’ (ibid.) [11] Ibid. [12] Conversely, Millennialism was also utilized by dissenting voices to undercut established hierarchy. Like its use by Ottomans in relation to Shah Isma’il to present him as the antichrist who attacked land of the Albanians. In India, it was witnessed in rise of a powerful chiliastic movement by the name of Mahdawis under Sayyid Muhammad Jaunpuri; and later by Ahmad Sirhindi of Naqshbandi Sufis against Mughals by proclaiming himself the ‘renewer’. [13]Like ritual veneration of the sun and transmigration of soul (AzfarMoin 2012) [14] (AzfarMoin 2012) This involved pursual of Sufi patronage from the Chisthi order, chanting 1001 Sanskrit names of Sun, donning Zoroastrian sacred cord, venerating the Bible, and planning his diet according to tantric principles [15] (AzfarMoin 2012) [16] In Iran, it was evident in matrimonial relations maintained by Safavids with Sufi and Sayyid lineages like Nimatullahis, who in turn occupied important religious and political posts in the empire. [17] This manifested in Humayun’s everyday rituals like colour-coordinating clothes in accordance with planetary movements or the notorious ‘carpet of mirth’. [18] (Subrahmanyam, Turning the stones over: Sixteenth-century millenarianism from the Tagus to the Ganges 2003)Such interactions can be traced through myths. One instance of which is provides in an incident recounted by Zakhirat al-Khawanin of Baakkari wherein Qilij Muhammad Khan whilst overseeing a construction project at Jaunpur, unearthed a dome where sat a man in jogi like asan posture facing qibla in meditation. What followed was an interesting interrogation by the man regarding whether Ram Chandra, Krishna and Hazrat Muhammad had been birthed on earth yet (integrating the three in a unifying tradition). [19] One such incident of circulation of myth is provided by Subrahmanyam through Alexanderian myth, accompanying messianic pretensions in popularity, initially raised to classical form in Nizami Ganjawi’s Sikandar Nama but later reinterpreted by Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain in Malay edition to integrate it with myth of Sultan Iskandar Muda; and later by Sayyid Alaol in Bengali version of Sikandar Nama produced to assimilate within Alexander author’s patron Shah Shuja. (Subrahmanyam, Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconguration of Early Modern Eurasia 1997)
Bibliography
AzfarMoin, A. The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. "Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia." Modern Asian Studies 31, no. 3 (July 1997): 735-762.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. "Turning the stones over: Sixteenth-century millenarianism from the Tagus to the Ganges." The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 2003: 129-161.
Comments