Question

Mughal chronicles viewed the emperors as supreme sovereign because _______.

• A. Nobility wanted him to be one
• B. Vision of empire viewed the emperor as the sole ruler
• C. Chronicles were a rich source of history
• D. Imperial administration was weak

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Mughal chronicles portrayed the emperors as supreme sovereigns primarily because the imperial ideology (or vision of empire) positioned the emperor as the pivotal, divinely-sanctioned ruler whose authority was absolute and unchallenged.

Divine Kingship (Farr-i-Izadi):

• Mughal emperors (e.g., Akbar, Jahangir) were depicted as "Shadow of God on Earth" (Zill-e-Ilahi), legitimizing their power as God-given.
• Chroniclers like Abul Fazl (Akbar’s court historian) framed the emperor as a universal ruler (insān-i kāmil) in the Ain-i-Akbari and Akbarnama.

Centralized Authority:

• The emperor was the sole lawmaker, military commander, and administrative head—symbolized by titles like Padshah (supreme king).
• All governance (land revenue, justice, patronage) flowed from him, as seen in Jahangir’s Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri or Shah Jahan’s court chronicles.

Patronage & Symbolism:

• Court rituals (darbar), art, and architecture (e.g., Peacock Throne, Taj Mahal) reinforced the emperor’s supremacy.
• Chroniclers (like Badauni or Khafi Khan) highlighted the emperor’s role as the protector of Islam (or in Akbar’s case, all religions).

Contrast with Regional Rulers:

• While zamindars, nobles, and regional kings existed, chronicles framed them as subordinate to the emperor’s universal sovereignty.

Answer 2

The Mughal state’s self-image—crafted by court historians—was that of a centralized, indivisible empire where the emperor alone embodied sovereignty. This ideological projection, rather than ground realities (e.g., rebellions, noble factions), dominated chronicles.

Example:

Abul Fazl’s Akbarnama erases dissent, portraying Akbar as the sole architect of empire—a deliberate political narrative.

Thus, the chronicles’ portrayal reflected the imperial vision, not necessarily the fragmented political realities of the time.