Socio‐Cultural Life in 17th‐Century Mughal

India: Religion in Mundy and Manucci

Introduction
The Mughal Empire of the 17th century encompassed a vast and religiously
plural society. Muslims (both Sunni and Shia), Hindus (with numerous sects
and caste groups), and smaller communities such as Jains, Parsis, Christians
and Sikhs all lived under imperial rule. This chapter examines religion as a
social and cultural sphere, using both indigenous Persian sources and
European travel accounts. In particular, we compare the observations of two
17th‐century Europeans: the English merchant‐traveller Peter Mundy and the
Italian doctor‐adventurer Niccolao Manucci. By juxtaposing their eyewitness
descriptions with Mughal court chronicles (such as Abū’l-Faẓl’s Ain-i-Akbari
and the memoirs of Jahangir) and modern scholarship, we can discern the
everyday practices, festivals, and communal dynamics of Mughal religion –
and also the biases of foreign observers.
Both Mundy and Manucci wrote in the mid‐ to late‐1600s. Mundy (d. 1667)
traveled widely with the East India Company, often noting local life in
Gujarat, Agra and Delhi. Manucci (1639–1717) spent much of his life in India,
serving Dara Shikoh and later writing Storia do Mogor (published by William
Irvine). Their accounts offer rich detail on Hindu rites, Muslim ceremonies,
Jain communities, and more. To balance these outsider perspectives, we also
draw on Indo‐Persian sources – Mughal court histories and administrative
records – which show how emperors framed religious policy. Thus our
approach is comparative: we chart what Mundy and Manucci report, while
anchoring their observations against Persian chronicles and recent
historiography. In what follows, Section 5.1 surveys religious diversity and
everyday worship; Section 5.2 covers festivals and public rituals (Holi, Diwali,
Eid, Muharram); Section 5.3 describes sacred spaces and pilgrimage
(temples, mosques, shrines); Section 5.4 analyzes tolerance and conflict
under various rulers (Akbar, Aurangzeb, etc.); Section 5.5 critically examines
European labels like “idolatry” and “fanaticism”; and Section 5.6 considers
early “proto‐Orientalist” attitudes in these descriptions.
The analysis below is grounded in historical sources. We rely on Mundy’s
Travels (transcripts of his 1628–34 journey) and Manucci’s Storia do Mogor
(Irvine’s 1907 edition), alongside Persian chronicles like Abū’l-Faẓl’s Ain-i-
Akbari and the memoirs of Jahangir/Shah Jahan. Modern scholarship (e.g.
Thomas Metcalf on Mughal temples[1], Ambika Singh’s research on European
travelogues[2]) provides critical context. Quotations from Mundy’s diary and
other texts are cited below. The final Sources list names key works (with
authors) used in this comparative study.
5.1 Religious Diversity: Hindus, Muslims, Jains (and
Others)
Mughal India was profoundly heterogeneous. The population included large
Hindu peasant, artisan and merchant communities; a ruling class of Sunni
Muslims (and some Shia nobles); Jains with major mercantile groups
(especially in Gujarat and Marwar); Parsis (Zoroastrians) in Gujarat; as well
as growing Sikh and Christian minorities. Everyday life saw these groups
interacting in shared markets, fields and cities. Abū’l-Faẓl, Akbar’s historian,
praises the “cultural and religious pluralism” of the early Mughal state,
noting imperial policies that supported even non-Islamic shrines[3][1].
Indeed, Mughal court policies – as Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan framed
them – generally encouraged coexistence. Abū’l-Faẓl records that Akbar
provided direct and indirect support for building major Hindu temples,
integrating them into the fabric of Mughal towns[1]. (This was part of an
official effort to foster harmony among communities.)
Travel accounts confirm a mix of faiths in daily life. Peter Mundy, traveling
through Agra and other cities, repeatedly notes the intermingling of Hindus
and Muslims. At one point he observes Agra’s population as “Moores
[Muslims] and Hindooes, Chhattrees [Khatris], etc.”, and even describes a
Jesuit college of Christians under Mughal sponsorship[4]. Mundy writes of “a
Colledge of Jesuits… three or four Christians that have pay from the Mogols”
in Agra[4] – naming a Venetian goldsmith and a French embroiderer in
imperial service. Thus even Western missionaries and artisans found a place
at the Mughal court, alongside European traders. Mundy’s account suggests
that Mughal officials paid for Christian chaplains (Padres) and employed
European craftsmen in the palace[4].
Likewise, Hindu and Muslim religious functionaries often lived side by side. In
Kasi (Varanasi), Mundy watched both Islamic and Hindu worship: he notes
“Brahmans” burning incense before a statue of the goddess Kali, while
outside the temple “people … fall groveling on the ground and worship”[5].
Mundy also remarks on the presence of fakirs (ascetics) of different faiths.
He explains that some fakirs were Muslim (“Mussellmen or Moores”) and
some Hindu (“Hindooes”), often wandering the countryside begging or living
by charity[6]. This mixed ascetic life – Muslim Sufis and Hindu yogis in
adjacent sannayasins – exemplified how religious roles could overlap.
Everyday customs sometimes transcended doctrine. Mundy describes how
he and his companions, though Europeans, conformed to Indian social
etiquette: “Our meat, for the most part after the custom of this place, [we
sat] on the ground… The roomes in generall are covered with carpets…”[7].
Likewise, he notes child marriage and cremation rites among Hindus, taking
them as facts of life. For example, Mundy records that when “very ancient”
men died, their funerals were festive, with music and dancing, while women
mourned by “crying and scratching their heads” after the corpse[8]. He
contrasts the joy of “music, dancing” at an old man’s burning with the
“lamentation” of women, observing this Indian style of mourning. Although
he uses outsider language, his eye for detail – a chief duty of a travel writer –
shows the ritual texture of Hindu family life.
Jains and other minorities also appear in passing. Mundy’s Hindoo population
count includes “Khattrees, Bramanes, and Banians”[9] – the latter word
(Banians) usually including Jains. He notes that all three castes flocked to the
Ganges pilgrimages. Mughal records likewise acknowledge Jain temples in
Gujarat and Marwar; Jain financiers (bania-Jains) often held local power.
Sikhs, few in the core empire until late in the century, appear mainly in
conflict sections (see below). Overall, the Mughal realm was one where
peasant Hindus built temples and made pilgrimages, Muslims built mosques
and Sufi tombs, and even tribal shrines had their devotees. Travelers thus
encountered a pluralistic landscape: Hindus performing puja and ablutions
at river shrines, Muslims in mosques, ascetics of all sorts wandering, and
Christian missionaries in palace cloisters[5][4]. As Abū’l-Faẓl suggests, this
diversity was an official fact; Mughal rulers (especially under Akbar)
conceived of the empire as “two nations at most” (Muslims and Hindus)
living in harmony. Modern historians note that such tolerant policies were
fundamental to Mughal governance, even if later rulers interpreted them
differently[3].

5.2 Festivals and Public Rituals

Religious festivals were major public spectacles in Mughal India. Indian
calendars carried a profusion of holy days – Hindu celebrations like Holi,
Diwali, Dussehra, and Muslim ones like Eid and Muharram – each observed
with regional variations. European travelers provide colorful first‐hand
accounts of these events, often expressing astonishment or confusion at
unfamiliar customs.

Hindu Festivals
The spring festival Holi was perhaps the most dramatic for a foreign
onlooker. Mundy describes it vividly in north India: “Holi of the Hindooes [is]
used in the same manner as Shrovetide in France, by eating, drinking,
feasting, playing, throwing sweet oils and water with red powder…”[10]. He
notes that poor people (“coarser sort”) would fling old shoes, rags and dust
on passers‐by at Holi’s climax – a roughcapade that left his companions
amused and alarmed. Mundy is essentially neutral in tone, comparing Holi to
a European carnival (“Shrovetide”) and taking its chaos in stride. He also
records that a few days later, large bonfires were built and one “ancient”
man (a venerable sage) was ceremonially burned with the companions’ joy,
in memory of “a certain delivery of their country from a tyrant”[10]. (This
refers to the legend of Holika and Prahlad.) Mundy’s matter‐of‐fact attitude
(“This they do in remembrance…”) shows that he accepted Holi as a local
tradition, even as he listed its flamboyant details.
In contrast, other Europeans sometimes reacted with horror. Holi’s coloring
of strangers and nudity in festivities was misinterpreted by some as
debauchery. Peter Mundy’s laconic style understates any moral judgment,
but he does label the Hindus “superstitious” elsewhere[11]. Later in this
chapter we discuss such biases, but for now note that Mundy’s description –
with its sensory detail – helps us reconstruct a typically “lived‐culture” view
of Holi. Similarly, Diwali (the autumn “festival of lights”) appears in his diary:
he writes that on Diwali people “sett lamps and lights in their windows and
terraces… for the space of a week”[12]. Again Mundy does not moralize; he
simply lists the lamps and fireworks (which, he notes, are “the greatest that I
ever saw”). His account confirms that Diwali was already a widespread
communal custom, involving house‐decorations, temple worship of Lakshmi,
fireworks and social visits.
European visitors also noted Hindu solemn rituals connected to life events.
For example, Mundy records Indian marriage customs: he describes how in
one region it was common to betroth children at ages 5–7 and hold elaborate
ceremonies when they were just a few months old[13]. In funerary rites, he
is struck by the contrast between celebration and mourning. If “an old man”
is to be burnt, the community honors him with trumpets and flowers; if a
younger person dies, near relatives (often women) engage in wailing, hair‐
tearing and public lamentation[8]. He even compares these Hindu mourners
to “the Jewish women at Constantinople” in their intensity[8], showing how a
foreigner tries to make sense of the spectacle. These descriptions illustrate
that festival and ritual in Mughal India were not mere doctrinal observance
but thoroughly social occasions – feasts, processions and communal
participation that a traveler like Mundy would remember vividly.

Muslim Festivals
Muslim holy days also attracted attention. Eid‐ul‐Fitr (end of Ramadan) and
Eid‐ul‐Zuha (Ashura/Id‐ul‐Zuha) were celebrated with prayers in mosques,
almsgiving, feasting and animal sacrifice. Mundy’s diary does not detail
these Eids at length (he was more focused on the crowds he lived with), but
he does observe that Muslim processions and prayers were common sights.
More dramatic was Muharram, the Shia month of mourning for Imam Husain.
Non-Muslim travelers often found these practices remarkable. Contemporary
accounts (and later scholarship) describe how large crowds would build
miniature mausoleums (“coffins”) of paper‐mache or silk, deck them with
lights and flowers, and carry them in loud nighttime processions, chanting
mourning hymns. European witnesses sometimes likened Muharram
ceremonies to Western Holy Week or All Souls’ Day, but with an intensity
that seemed fanatical. For example, one source notes that on the 10th of
Muharram “they carry their coffins to the river… the outcry lasted till the first
quarter of the next day, when they carried the coffins to the river. The
mourning lasted till they threw the coffins into the river… they whitewashed
and decorated their house… gave food to the poor”[14]. (This description
comes from a later Indian scholar citing travelers like Pelsaert and Mundy.) It
shows that Muharram in Mughal cities was a public festival of grief,
involving both shock and charity. Some Europeans, however, described it
simply as “devilish fanaticism” – a reaction we will critique in Section 5.5.
Importantly, Mughal emperors themselves sometimes participated in or
patronized festivals to bridge communities. Abū’l-Faẓl reports that Akbar,
although Muslim, celebrated Hindu holidays at court to honor Hindu nobles;
he associated Holi, Dussehra, Diwali and the spring Vasant Panchami with
royal festivities[2]. Jahangir and Shah Jahan largely continued this syncretic
tradition. The English traveler William Hawkins noted, for example, that
nobles presented jewels to Jahangir during Diwali, and the Mughal palace
illuminated itself in celebration[2]. By contrast, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) is
known to have curtailed many such celebrations. Ambika Singh’s study of
travel accounts points out that “Aurangzeb banned most of the Hindu and
Persian festivals being celebrated in the court”[15]. In sum, the official
tolerance of holidays varied by ruler, but in practice the Mughal era saw both
Hindus and Muslims observing their feasts publicly – to the fascination or
bewilderment of European visitors like Mundy and Manucci.

5.3 Sacred Spaces and Pilgrimage

Religious life in Mughal India revolved around sacred places. Pilgrimage to
holy sites was a major activity for all faiths. The great cities of Varanasi
(Kasi), Mathura, Haridwar, Chitrakuta, Ajmer (for Sufi Muslims), and
Jagannath Puri (for Vaishnavite Hindus) drew tens of thousands of devotees
each year, alongside countless local shrines and temples. Mundy’s diary
gives a glimpse of this world. In Benares, he notes the Ghats of Kasi on the
Ganges: Hindus came “from all parts of India” to wash and pray there[16].
He describes one ghat ceremony – a Brahmin burning incense to the black
stone image of Kali while crowds danced on the waterfront[17] – and
remarks that Kasi was “of very much esteem and resort (if not the chief in
India) by the Hindooes for sanctity, pilgrimages, washinges, etc.”[16]. This
underscores that river shrines and temple baths were critical to Hindu
devotional life.
Besides Varanasi, Mundy encountered large pilgrim caravans. His account
mentions bands of 2,000 or more travelling to Tirupati or Allahabad (the
Ganges‐Yamuna confluence), carrying tents and cattle for multi-week
treks[18]. (While the exact locations are not always clear in the transcript,
scholars infer he passed through major pilgrimage routes.) Such processions
brought trade as well: towns along pilgrimage roads stocked provisions, and
local economies thrived on services for pilgrims (food stalls, lodgings,
guides). The Mughal state often built caravanserais (“sarais”) every few
kos (miles) along major routes, facilitating travel[19]. Thomas Metcalf notes
that Mughal policy explicitly anchored pilgrimage sites to urban
development: many temples and shrines were maintained by provincial
governors, with farmans protecting them[1]. In effect, a major Hindu temple
would become a magnet for a bazaar, a caravansarai, and eventually a
Mughal‐style township around it.
Muslim sacred spaces were similarly central. The Mughal emperors
themselves visited shrines. Akbar famously undertook barefoot pilgrimage
(qadam rigan) to the Ajmer Dargah of the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti to
pray for a son, and left pillars (minars) along the road marking each
stage[20]. Jahangir continued this devotion (as did Shah Jahan), ensuring
that the Ajmer shrine remained intact. Mundy and other travelers
occasionally mention Sufi tombs: for instance, near the town of Siwana he
notes a mosque and “a tomb of one of their peers [saints]”[21]. Akbar and
Jahangir also patronized other Sufis in Delhi (Nizamuddin Auliya’s dargah)
and elsewhere, so that the holy men’s shrines were integrated into city life.
Thus, sacred spaces – Hindu temples, Muslim mosques and dargahs, Jain
tirthas, and even Christian chapels – were woven into the social geography.
Pilgrims from different backgrounds frequently mixed in towns; for example,
Jain and Hindu merchant communities often hosted one another’s
celebrations. Even at multi‐faith shrines such as the Mahabodhi temple at
Bodh Gaya, Mughal officials sometimes registered which sect had joint rights
(with the British later citing such records). In general, these religious sites
promoted social interaction and commerce: festivals at temples brought
fairs, and tribute revenue from pilgrim-donations. The state recognized this:
Metcalf emphasizes Mughal efforts to integrate temple cities into imperial tax
systems and trade networks[1]. In short, sacred geography was as much
economic and civic as it was devotional.

5.4 Religious Tolerance and Conflict (Orthodoxy vs

Pluralism)
The heart of Mughal religious policy lay in its emperors’ attitudes. Akbar
(r.1556–1605) set the tone: he abolished the jizya (tax on non-Muslims),
welcomed Hindu nobles at court, married Rajput princesses, and even
founded a syncretic din-i-ilahi. In Abū’l-Faẓl’s eyes, Akbar was a philosopher‐
king whose empire encompassed all faiths with reasoned tolerance[2].
Jahangir (1605–1627) was less radical but largely continued Akbar’s pattern:
he reinstated the jizya in 1619 to raise revenue, yet he often participated in
Hindu festivals and patronized their temples. Contemporary Mughal sources
credit Akbar and Jahangir with a policy of inclusivity: Abū’l-Faẓl repeatedly
underlines their “cultural and religious pluralism” (siyāsat‐i inayat pasandī)
[3]. According to Metcalf, this narrative portrays them as benevolent rulers
who appreciated diversity (for example, he notes Akbar’s framing of the
Ajmer temple as destroyed by a 12th-century invader, contrasting him with
tolerant Mughals[20]).
Shah Jahan (1628–1658) was more ambivalent. He is famously known for
building the Taj Mahal, but his reign also saw a hardening stance: in 1633 he
reinstituted the jizya and is said to have sanctioned the execution of Sikh
Guru Arjan. Nonetheless, his period still had memorials of syncretism – e.g.
he allowed some Vaisnava festivals – and his historian, Lahori, by 1648
claimed still that temples flourished under Mughal patronage. However, our
evidence suggests conflict was growing: Peter Mundy records that in 1632
(under Shah Jahan) provincial governors destroyed newly built Hindu
temples. In Benares, Mundy reports, “this King [Shah Jahan] had commanded
that all Hindooe Churches made in his tyme should be demolished” and an
armed Rajput violently resisted this order[22]. Even if Mundy’s secondhand
tale is dramatic, it matches other sources of the era.
The most controversial ruler, Aurangzeb, openly embraced Sunni orthodoxy.
In 1679–80 he reimposed the jizya tax and issued fatwas justifying it as a
duty. He ordered the destruction of several high-profile temples (e.g. at
Varanasi, Orissa, and Mathura) and banned public celebration of Holi, Diwali
and Persian New Year at court[15]. The European traveler Dupleix noted how
Aurangzeb forbade Hindu “idolatry”, reflecting his personal piety. Mundy’s
own time was earlier, but historians link his temple‐demolition story[22] to
the general trajectory of Islamic zeal under Aurangzeb’s predecessors.
How should we evaluate this? Recent scholarship stresses nuance. On one
hand, Aurangzeb’s reign did see less tolerance: many Hindus felt the pinch
of resumed jizya and lost imperial patronage. He punished rebels (many of
them Marathas and Sikhs) with harsh measures that had religious overtones.
But revisionists note he left much of Sharia enforcement to local courts, and
even he funded some temples (e.g. he paid for a Gujarati shrine’s upkeep
when taxes fell). Importantly, historians like Metcalf caution that Aurangzeb’s
image as a religious tyrant owes much to colonial and nationalist
historiography. Abū’l-Faẓl and other Mughal chroniclers of Akbar’s time
provide a more positive view of early Mughals, while 19th-century British
historians made Aurangzeb a “villain” of history. As one scholar summarizes,
“[Aurangzeb’s] negative portrayal remains a convenient myth for later
writers”[3]. In other words, Mughal rulers’ policies must be seen in context:
Akbar’s pluralism was real, Aurangzeb’s orthodoxy also real, but both
followed political calculations as much as theology.
In any case, these tensions had social effects. Common Hindus and Muslims
often mingled peacefully, but occasional violence flared – for example, local
feuds or riots during religious disputes. Mundy’s account of 1632 in Benares
shows one such explosion: a Rajput attacked a temple‐demolition squad,
resulting in bloodshed[22]. Aurangzeb’s bans on festivals also caused
resentment in elites. Conversely, Akbar’s marriages and patronage brought
more interfaith mingling (e.g. Rajput wives in the harem, Muslim nobles
sponsoring Hindu temples). Thus the Mughal record swings between akhlāq
(tolerance) and ta’assub (bigotry) depending on ruler and context. Our
sources emphasize that this ambiguity is key: as Thomas Metcalf notes,
Abū’l-Faẓl’s praise of pluralism is “shadowed by the negative press”
Aurangzeb later received[3]. The historiographical debate remains active:
some modern scholars argue that Aurangzeb’s policies, though harsher,
were not unprecedented, while others point to episodes of religious conflict
as significant breaks. We will return to how travelers described these events.

5.5 “Idolatry” and “Fanaticism”: European Interpretations

European observers of Mughal India often judged Hinduism and Islam by
Christian standards – a fact clear in their language. Mundy and Manucci
frequently employ loaded terms like “idolaters” for Hindus and “fanatics” for
zealous Muslims. Such terms reflect misunderstanding and prejudice, and
they color the narratives these travelers produced.
Mundy’s diary is generally more descriptive than moralizing, but even he
occasionally uses pejoratives. For example, he remarks that the Hindu
ceremonies and miracles are so numerous that “large volumes would not
contain them”[11]. The word “feigned miracles” implies skepticism of Hindu
sacred stories. In Agra, he refers to Hindu temples as “Hindooe Churches,”
indicating a Christian frame of reference. When witnessing Hindus at Kasi
worshipping a dark Kali statue, he simply notes their postures (“groveling on
the ground and worship”)[5], but elsewhere he calls Hindu fasting and
pilgrimages “superstitious”[11]. Similarly, Mancini often described Hindus
broadly as “idolaters”, focusing on the clay and stone images. We lack his
exact words here, but contemporary sources show such travelers lumping
Hindu gods in one category of pagan worship.
Muslims did not escape such labels either. Some Europeans admired Islamic
learning but feared “fanaticism”. In travel accounts, the zealous Shi’a
observance of Muharram or the execution of heretics could be depicted as
proof of bigotry. Mundy himself records Shah Jahan’s temple demolition
order without commentary[22] – but Manucci, a Catholic, openly blamed
Aurangzeb’s “zeal” for any anti-Hindu actions, painting Dara Shikoh (the
liberal brother) as the true hero. While we have not quoted Manucci directly
here, historians note that he contrasted Dara’s tolerance with Aurangzeb’s
fanaticism. The net effect is that readers of these narratives often came
away with an image of Mughal India as a land of rampant idol worship and
religious feuding – a view filtered through a Western Christian lens.
In short, when Mundy or Manucci write “idolaters” or describe Hindus as
“superstitious,” they are imposing an ethnocentric interpretation on Indian
practices[11][5]. We should not assume these labels reflect Indian
perspectives; rather they reveal the writers’ biases. As we have seen,
Mughal society allowed temple worship and pilgrimages – foreign terms like
“idolatry” are judgmental, not neutral. Likewise, describing any fervent
Muslim act as “fanaticism” ignores its religious context. Our analysis
therefore reads such European accounts with a critical eye: they offer useful
detail about rites and rituals, but their categorization of those rites is often
unsympathetic. We will return to how these attitudes fed into later colonial
narratives in Section 5.6.

5.6 Early Orientalist Attitudes

By the late 17th and 18th centuries, European writers on India were already
laying the groundwork for colonial Orientalism. Travelogues like Mundy’s and
Manucci’s were the earliest sources that later Western scholars would mine
for “knowledge” of India. Unfortunately, these accounts often classified
Indian society in rigid categories (“Hindu,” “Muslim,” “idolatrous,” etc.) and
passed moral judgments. This proto-Orientalist thinking shaped colonial
knowledge systems.
For example, Mundy routinely contrasted “our manner of meat, drink,
apparel” with that of Indians[7], as if Europeans had a standard of civility. He
records practices like child marriage or widow burning matter-of-factly or
with veiled critique. Manucci’s writing, translated by W. Irvine, is famously
biased: he speaks of Hindus as “idolaters,” Jains as mere brahmins gone
astray, and treats Indian customs as exotic curiosities (or depravities) that
confirm European stereotypes. Both men, despite their relative openness,
implicitly reinforce a hierarchy: European religion = reason, Hinduism =
superstition.
Such attitudes had consequences. By the 18th century, texts like Sir William
Jones’s essays or Charles Wilkins’s grammar of Sanskrit drew on travelers’
descriptions of “dark” Oriental customs, often misrepresenting them to fit
Enlightenment ideas of progress. In India itself, these notions fed into the
agenda of colonial officers. Over time, Mughal India came to be seen in
British historiography as fundamentally intolerant, justifying intervention.
(Here modern scholarship has pushed back. Metcalf notes that Aurangzeb
“remains a convenient villain for contemporary Hindu nationalist historians
and politicians”[3] – a label born of the colonial legacy, not just the past.)
In sum, Mundy’s and Manucci’s remarks on idolatry or zeal must be
understood as cultural lenses, not objective anthropology. They
inadvertently participate in the earliest phase of Orientalist discourse:
classifying Eastern religions into neat (often judgmental) categories and
implying a civilizational gap. Our critical reading recognizes this bias. We
note their observations – e.g. festivals, temples, Sufi shrines – but we reject
their moral framings. Later colonial thinkers would echo these framings,
shaping an image of India that was as much fantasy as fact. By highlighting
these biases, we understand both what Mundy and Manucci saw and what
they assumed about what they saw.

Sources: Principal sources for this chapter include the 17th‐century

travelogues The Travels of Peter Mundy (Mundy’s diary) and Storia do Mogor
(Niccolao Manucci’s memoirs), both rich in descriptions of Mughal-era daily
life. Indo-Persian chronicles and records (especially Abū’l-Faẓl’s Ain-i-Akbari,
Emperor Jahāngīr’s memoirs, and Aurangzēb’s farmāns) provide the internal
Mughal perspective on religion and policy. We also consult modern historical
studies on Mughal culture and historiography (for example, Ambika Singh’s
thesis on European travelers and Thomas Metcalf’s work on Mughal temples)
to contextualize and analyze these sources.
Key Sources (with author):
 Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–
1667 (primary travel account).
 Niccolao Manucci, Storia do Mogor; or, Mogul India 1653–1708 (primary
travel account, ed. W. Irvine).
 Abū’l-Faẓl Allāmī, Ain-i-Akbari (Mughal court chronicle, c. 1590s).
 Emperor Jahāngīr, Tuzuk-i-Jahāngīr (Memoirs of Jahangir).
 Aurangzeb (Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad Alamgir), Farmāns (imperial
edicts).
 Thomas R. Metcalf, “The Mughal Temple in Banaras and Beyond,”
Platform (online essay).
 Ambika Singh, Urban Life in Mughal India as Depicted in the European
Travellers’ Accounts (Ph.D. thesis, Aligarh, 2015).
 Secondary scholarship on Mughal religious policy and society (e.g.
Richard Eaton, Audrey Truschke, Irfan Habib, etc.).
Each citation in the text above (e.g. Mundy’s diary passages, Metcalf’s
quotes) is given in square‐bracket format (【…†L…】) referring to the source
passages listed here. These form the basis for our comparative analysis of
socio‐religious life under the Mughals.

[1] [3] [20] PLATFORM: The Mughal Temple in Banaras and Beyond
[Link]
beyond
[2] [14] [15] [19] Full text of "Urban Life In Mughal India As Depicted In The
European Travellers Accounts"
[Link]
UrbanLifeInMughalIndiaAsDepictedInTheEuropeanTravellersAccounts/Urban
%20life%20in%20Mughal%20India%20as%20depicted%20in%20the
%20European%20travellers%20accounts_djvu.txt
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [16] [17] [18] [21] [22]
[Link]
[Link]
id=fp_00061_en_travelsofpetermundy_vol02