Paper short abstract

This paper studies petitions to reveal how Abdullah Khan Firuz Jang (d.1636), a Central Asian immigrant to Mughal India modified the political practice of himayat championed by his ancestor Khwaja Ahrar and used his connections to the Juybari Sufi network to challenge existing visions of empire.

Paper long abstract

This paper studies the life and career of Abdullah Khan Firuz Jang (d.1636), a Central Asian immigrant to India, a military commander and governor serving the Mughal Empire, a disciple of the Bukharan Juybari Sufi master Khwaja Abd al-Rahim, and a descendant of the influential fifteenth-century Naqshbandi Sufi master Khwaja Ubayd Allah Ahrar. Placing an unstudied collection of Firuz Jang’s petitions and battlefield reports addressed to the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in conversation with other sources, most notably the hagiographies of the Juybari Sufis, this paper reveals the interaction between Central Asian Sufism, Mughal political systems, and a Mughal nostalgia for the Timurid Empire. It particularly argues that, as a descendant of Ahrar, Firuz Jang was able to practice a modified form of himayat or political and economic support, that had once been championed by his illustrious ancestor in the courts of the Mughals’ Timurid forbears. Engaging with prior scholarship on himayat in Timurid Central Asia, this paper pays critical attention to the tone and vocabulary adopted in these petitions, to demonstrate how Firuz Jang managed this older practice within the newer framework of a Mughal fiscal-military system. With this prudent phrasing in his petitions and epistles, Firuz Jang was able to find a space for himself where he could present himself as a descendant of the revered shaykh and as a “Sufi of the State” who shared a divinely bestowed sovereignty with the Emperor. He was also able to conversely present himself a “devotee” and “slave” dependent on the Emperor for favors that were accrued to Firuz Jang’s subordinate officers via himayat. This paper argues that these appeals were made possible by Shah Jahan’s strong nostalgia for the Central Asian empire of his Timurid ancestors where sovereignty was shared with Ahrar and that Firuz Jang was able to use this dynastic memory to secure his own political ambitions. It also describes some of the other ways in which Firuz Jang nurtured these ambitions in Mughal India, particularly his reliance on the transregional networks of the Juybari Sufis in Central Asia. These Sufis used their political, spiritual, and economic influence, along with their understanding of material cultures and diplomacy, to offer rare objects like walrus tusks to Mughal emperors and negotiate on Firuz Jang’s behalf. This paper thus engages with the larger discussion on varying visions of empire and frontier in the post-Timurid worlds of Central and South Asia.

Paper short abstract

This paper will focus on the Ṣafavid-Qizilbāsh entry into and seizure of the city of Herat as recounted in the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ of Zayn al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī, a work which was completed it in Tashkent and dedicated to Abū’l-Muẓaffar Hasan Sulṭān b. Kīldī Muḥammad Sulṭān in 1538-39.

Paper long abstract

This paper will focus on the Ṣafavid-Qizilbāsh entry into and seizure of the city of Herat as recounted in the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ of Zayn al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī, a work which was completed it in Tashkent and dedicated to Abū’l-Muẓaffar Hasan Sulṭān b. Kīldī Muḥammad Sulṭān in 1538-39. The Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ itself defies easy classification or categorization: While it is first and foremost a memoir, similar in many respects to the work of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur, and is thus possessed of autobiographical elements, the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ may also be considered a history written from Vāṣifī’s unique perspective. Whereas the histories of Ghiyās al-Dīn Muḥammad Khvāndamīr, Mīrzā Ḥaydar Dūghlāt, Iskandar Munshī, Ḥasan Rūmlū and others focused their attention on dynastic power struggles and members of the ruling aristocracies, the narrative of Vāṣifī recounts historical events great and small to which he may or may not have been tangentially related. Thus, while the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ does not provide an account of the battle of Marv on December 2, 1510, the death and dismemberment of Muḥammad Shībānī Khān, or the massacre that ensued thereafter, what it does provide is Vāṣifī’s narrative account of the Ṣafavid-Qizilbāsh entry into the city of Herat, the reaction and fear of the townspeople as the Qizilbāsh asserted their authority, and a glimpse of what life was like for the people of Herat during the Ṣafavid occupation. In Addition to this topic, the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ covers a range of topics and events over the course of forty-six chapters and serves as an excellent source for reconstructing the social history of Islamic Central Asia in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. This paper is based upon the author’s translation from Persian to English and analysis of relevant portions of the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ and supporting primary and secondary sources.

Paper short abstract

This paper examines continuities, adaptions and innovations in elite electoral processes in Central Asian states between the Soviet and post-Soviet period.

Paper long abstract

This paper examines continuities, adaptions and innovations in elite electoral processes in several Central Asian states (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan) between the Soviet and post-Soviet period. We argue that the authoritarian leaders of these states have utilized menus of manipulation developed during Soviet times to manage potentially challenging electoral processes, adapting these menus to changed circumstances, including the new reality of nominally pluralist political landscapes. The continuities highlighted by this analysis, particularly in the means used to manufacture implausibly high turnout figures and overwhelming vote shares for incumbents and ruling parties, illustrate patterns of autocratic governance practice in Central Asia and the continued relevance of Soviet legacies in understanding electoral processes in the region even more than 30 years after the end of the Soviet period.

These “menus of manipulation” are varied, drawing on continuities with Soviet practices but also adapted to present-day realities. The current regimes most resemble the Soviet Union with respect to their management of participation and electoral processes. Despite post-Soviet voters’ supposed choice of candidates, their ability to vote is essentially meaningless in terms of changing the government, though it is meaningful as a means to legitimize the status quo.

We find that the presence of an opposition – if only of the most nominal and ephemeral kind – has also resulted in practical adaptations when it comes to elections. The illusion of an opposition must be sustained in the contemporary period in a way that was unnecessary in Soviet times. Illusionary or weak opposition parties nonetheless still need to be managed. Central Asian regimes do this by manipulating the timing of elections, support bases and the opposition itself. These, we argue, represent new variations on an old theme.

Paper short abstract

This paper studies a Chinese-Manchu-Mongolic-Turkic quadrilingual inscription in Peking from 1760. I introduce its history with transcriptions and translations of all four versions. I analyze the texts for linguistic features and translate features. This paper is based on first hand materials.

Paper long abstract

This paper studies a Chinese-Manchu-Mongolic-Turkic quadrilingual inscription found in Peking from 1760. Its content was a poem of Emperor Qianlong that commemorating the saluting ceremony for the triumphant conquer troop returned from Central Asia at the outskirts of Peking. I introduce the history background of the establishing of this monument with transcriptions and translations of all four versions. I argue the turn of the translating was from Chinese to Manchu then to Mongolic then to Turkic, which is different from the other similar inscriptions before and after. I also argue the translators of the Turkic version were the teachers from Qomul and their Bannermen pupils. This inscription is the third of all four quadrilingual inscriptions that established after the Qing conquest of Eastern Central Asia. It is an important clue of multilingualism of Qing court related to Islamic world. I argue these inscriptions are not only important documents for history but also for historical Turkic linguistics. This paper is based on first hand materials, including rubbing, Manchu and Chinese archives, and other published historical materials.

Paper long abstract

In Qing documents produced in Manchu during the Qianlong reign (1736–95), two characteristics can be observed regarding the term ejen. The first is that it signifies the sovereign, i.e., the Qing emperor, and is very rarely used in its original sense as a common noun meaning “master” of various groups and social classes. Secondly, the word used to refer to the Qing emperor is primarily ejen, and it is used with overwhelming frequency when compared with han, hūwangdi (transcription of Chinese huangdi, or “emperor”), and dergi (originally “above,” by extension “His Majesty”), which are also used to refer to the Qing emperor. I undertake a basic inquiry into the historical circumstances and background that led to the establishment of a schema equating ejen with the Qing emperor.

At the time of the founding of the Qing dynasty in 1636, the only person using the title han within Qing territory was Hong Taiji, the emperor at that time. On the other hand, if we turn our attention to the outer periphery of Qing territory, there existed several royal families possessing the traditional title of khan (qaγan, khān) of which the Qing was aware at the time of its seizure of Beijing in 1644, such as the three khan families of the Qalqas and the Tibetan kings of the Qinghai Khoshuuds. First the Kangxi emperor (r. 1662–1722) did not regard it as a problem. However, around the time of the Qalqas’ submission to the Qing dynasty, the Kangxi emperor began to become actively involved in inheritance of the title of khan among the Qalqas. In this paper, I point out that the main reasons for this were the submission to the Qing dynasty by the three khan families of the Qalqa Mongols in the late seventeenth century and the creation of the han peerage for them. The resultant problematic situation of both the sovereign and his subjects having the same title of han led to the avoidance of the use of han to refer to the Qing emperor and reinforced the tendency to use only ejen.

During the western campaigns in the mid-eighteenth century, the Qing formed relationships with Central Asian forces such as the Kazakhs and the Khoqand khanate. The correspondence with Central Asian khans shows that the Qing court was avoiding the use of han to refer to the Qing emperor.