Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn and Dhār

As the history of Dhār's leading Sufi shrine is virtually uncharted, we begin with a digest of known events. Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn was born in the year 636 (1238–1239 CE), a grandson of the celebrated Farīd al-Dīn Ganj-i Shakar, popularly known as Bābā Farīd (d. 1266 CE).Footnote ² Kamāl al-Dīn studied in Delhi, where he was among the close disciples of the celebrated Shaykh Niẓām al-Dīn Chishtī (1238–1325 CE).Footnote ³ Initially entrusted with washing utensils in the kitchen of his master, Kamāl al-Dīn acquired a reputation for his generosity in distributing bread (nān) to the poor and abstaining from delicacies wherever he went.Footnote ⁴ Mīr Khurd recounts that, when Kamāl al-Dīn and his brother ‘Azīz al-Dīn approached their master with the wish to travel somewhere, Shaykh Niẓām al-Dīn handed them one jalālī coin each, despatching Kamāl al-Dīn to Mālwā and ‘Azīz al-Dīn to the territory (vilāyat) of Deogīr.Footnote ⁵ Further details of the saint's life are supplied by Muḥammad Ghawthī's Gulzār-i Abrār (circa 1613 CE)—a voluminous compilation of biographical notices of learned men and mystics that was completed in the early seventeenth century and dedicated to Jahāngīr.Footnote ⁶ According to this account, Kamāl al-Dīn was sent by Shaykh Niẓām al-Dīn for the spiritual guidance of the people of Mālwā and arrived in the town of Dhār in around the year 690 (1291 CE), when Rāi Pūranmal was the governor of the Mālwā region. These details highlight the fact that the pious activities of the Chishtī lineage preceded the political annexation of the region. It was only in 704 (1304–1305 CE) that Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Dīn Khaljī (reg. 1296–1316 CE) sought to extend the territories of the Delhi Sultanate southward and ordered Malik ‘Ayn al-Mulk Mūltānī to proceed to Mālwā with the task of securing the region as a staging post to the Deccan.Footnote ⁷ ‘Ayn al-Mulk successfully dismantled the crumbling Paramāra kingdom and served as the regional governor until he was eventually transferred to the Deccan, taking command of Deogīr-Daulatābād in 716 (1316–1317 CE).Footnote ⁸ Meanwhile, Kamāl al-Dīn remained at Dhār, with his passing (visāl) reportedly taking place on 4 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 731 (16 September 1331 CE).Footnote ⁹

As noted earlier in the pages of this Journal, the tomb of Kamāl al-Dīn stands at a key location in the centre of the circular city of Dhār, which had served as an important seat of the Paramāra kingdom (circa 972–1305 CE) and the Sultanates of Delhi and Mandu (1305–1565 CE) (Figure 1).Footnote ¹⁰ The building was renovated in the latter part of the twentieth century but an old photograph that was taken in 1912 at the time of Viceroy Lord Hardinge's visit to Dhār preserves its earlier appearance (Figure 2). As can be seen from this illustration, the shrine consists of two domed structures attached to each other, with that on the right (i.e. east) containing Kamāl al-Dīn's grave. This unusual architectural configuration is discussed below. The complex is surrounded by a wall with an elegant domed gatehouse (Figure 3). This was built in the fifteenth century, when the shrine was enlarged by the order of Sultan Maḥmūd Khaljī to accommodate poor and needy pilgrims and pious men, as recorded in a Persian inscription over the door dated AH 861 (1456–1457 CE).Footnote ¹¹ After the 1400s, there is a considerable hiatus in historical records that pertain to the dargāh, with the earliest ones—on paper rather than stone—dating to the seventeenth century. The shift in medium puts the documents in a different class in terms of content and purpose: no longer public and poetic declarations of royal and spiritual achievement, they are concerned with land and revenue. The earliest complete document in this series, dating to 1695 CE, is the focus of the present article. It merits special attention because it sheds light on the history of the dargāh's custodians and the tax-free properties granted to them to support their religious and charitable activities.

Figure 1.

Dhār (Madhya Pradesh). Schematic plan of the old city showing key historical features.

Source: M. Willis.

Figure 2.

Dhār (Madhya Pradesh). Dargāh of Kamāl al-Dīn Chishtī, as photographed in 1912 by Vernon & Company (Bombay) at the time of Viceroy Lord Hardinge's visit to Dhār. Source: Wikimedia.

Figure 3.

Dhār (Madhya Pradesh). Gatehouse to the dargāh precinct, built in 1456–1457, as documented in 2010. Source: M. Willis.

Document

The document, illustrated in Figure 4, is the certification (taṣdīq) of a Mughal princely order (nishān) conferring financial aid upon the shrine custodian, who was a direct descendant of Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn Mālwī at Dhār.Footnote ¹² It is dated in the 39th regnal year of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, 1106 hijrī equivalent to 1695 CE. Written on paper in a vertical format that measures approximately 63 × 18 centimetres, it has 12 lines of Persian text in Nasta‘līq script authenticated by seals of eight officials and witnesses on the recto. The verso carries an inspection notice dated 1904 in the current calendar. As per usual practice, the document was kept folded, the horizontal seams of which are visible across the paper.

Figure 4.

Confirmation (taṣdīq) of a grant-in-aid (madad-i ma‘āsh) to Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn Chishtī, dated in the 39th regnal year of Aurangzeb, 1106 hijrī (1695 CE). Source: Nizamuddin Chishti, Dhār.

The certificate is held by descent by the current incumbent of the dargāh, Nizamuddin Chishti, who graciously gave permission for it to be digitised along with other material in his possession. The starting point of our work on this collection can be pinpointed to the time of the ‘Urs celebration in 2018, when Dr Saarthak Singh first noticed the document and transcribed and translated it, sharing images with the other authors of the present article. Our awareness of the documents led us to apply for a grant from the Endangered Archives Programme at the British Library to digitise and catalogue the collection, which is now available via open access.Footnote ¹³ A number of these Mughal- and Maratha-era documents survive in the Qazi family collection in Bhopāl and as old facsimiles in the library of Mukhtar Ahmad Khān in Indore, which are essential to the history of the dargāh. The Principal Investigators in India were Dr Muntazir Ali and Dr Saarthak Singh, while the project as a whole was administered by Dr Michael Willis at the Royal Asiatic Society (RAS) in collaboration with the Institut français de Pondichéry (IFP).Footnote ¹⁴ As part of the capacity building, K. Rameshkumar from the IFP led training sessions in digitisation at Nagpur, hosted there by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).Footnote ¹⁵ In addition to technical staff at the ASI, Muzaffar Ansari and Ismail Ansari took part in the training, with the digitisation across the project carried out by the latter.

The document is described at the outset as a ‘certificate’ (taṣdīq) that was issued in the name of Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn, the hereditary shrine custodian (khādim) who was serving at the tomb (maqbarah) of Begum Ṣāhab that was located within the shrine complex (rawz̤ah) of Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn Mālwī in the town of Dhār, in the Mandū district of the Mālwā province. Reference is then made to a ‘princely order’ (nishān-i ālīshān) that was issued earlier in the name of the previous incumbent Shaykh Kāley, upon whom the imperial court bestowed 300 bīghā land as financial aid for the dependants of the original grantee and 200 rupees for expenses of the attendants. This grant, though hereditary, was conditional upon service at the shrine during the incumbent's lifetime, and required the landlords and officials of the county to demarcate the boundaries of the land that was endowed (chakbandī). The narrative then refers to the death of Shaykh Kāley and the assumption of office by his son and successor Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn, who continued services at the tomb (lighting, sweeping, and providing water), maintaining everything physically and spiritually as was first intended. Being bound by his duties and without the expenses to appear before the imperial court, Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn appealed for confirmation of the previous princely order in his name that authorised him to receive the revenues, either as a salary (tankhwāh) or in daily allowances (wajh-i-yawmīyah), from the land at Mālīwārah that was situated in the same town (qaṣbah) and connected with the tomb (maqbarah). The document confirms this request and has seals and endorsements of the officials who witnessed the statements made therein. On the lower left is a notation that records the date of writing as being in the 39th regnal year of Aurangzeb (AH 1106)—the day corresponding to 27 July 1695 CE.Footnote ¹⁶

The wording of the document and the individuals named in the seals provide some insights into the state procedures for confirming grants-in-aid (madad-i ma‘āsh) to religious institutions.Footnote ¹⁷ As can be seen from the text below, the new shrine attendant was required to make an official representation for the grant that was held by his predecessor to be conferred in his name. For this purpose, the incumbent Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn was unable to attend the ‘royal camp’ (urdū-yi muʻallā) and to present himself to the ‘lord of the overflowing bounty’ (ḥuz̤ūr-i faiz̤ ganjūr)—a formula that was used for His Majesty, the emperor himself, or an imperial prince.Footnote ¹⁸ As one might reasonably expect, the emperor or prince was constantly on tour during the course of his duties and following the royal camp in anticipation of an appointment was a costly undertaking in terms of the travel, tribute (naẕrāna), and offerings (peshkash) that were required. Previously, Shaykh Kāley had received a nishān—the order of a prince from the imperial household.Footnote ¹⁹ The prince's name is not given but the seals show that a taṣdīq of this nishān was validated by several of the emperor's devoted servants, two of whom can be identified as high-ranking revenue officials who were appointed by Aurangzeb.Footnote ²⁰ At the top is ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, who held the dīwānī of Mālwā province, while Ināyatullāh, whose seal appears lower down, held the imperial office of dīwān-i tan (salaries) and dīwān-i ṣarf-i khāṣṣ (crown lands).Footnote ²¹

Text

Translation

Seals and notations

The readings of the seals and notations that validate the document are given below, with further comments in those cases in which information is available. The seals appear online in our seals database, obviating the need for illustration here; the relevant links in each case are given in the notes.

Commentary

The document presented here is important for a number of reasons—institutional, architectural, and social. In the first place, due to the want of documents or inscriptions, we have but few names for the incumbents of the shrine after Kamāl al-Dīn, except for those recorded in genealogical charts that were prepared in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.Footnote ⁴² From the Gulzār-i Abrār, we only learn that, by 1613, some of the Shaykh's descendants were deceased while others were engaged in service at the shrines of their forefathers, supported by grants of property (maḥal), offerings (nuẕūrat), and living expenses (nafaqāt).Footnote ⁴³ The first directly documented individual is Shaykh Kāley, otherwise known as Shaykh Daulat,Footnote ⁴⁴ whose presence is attested by a land deed of 1664 CE that mentions a change in the properties that were assigned to him as financial aid.Footnote ⁴⁵ If his grant was being changed in 1664 CE, then it is obvious that he was already the incumbent and had been assigned land before that date. The earlier documents either have not been traced or have not survived. After 1664 CE, the wording of the document under study shows that Shaykh Kāley had died some time before the princely order was issued to him, which was validated in 1695 CE after his son Nūr al-Dīn was unable to approach the royal court. The dates on the seals proper do not indicate the date of validation, as the seals of individuals were not necessarily recut and redated year-on-year, but only when there was a change in the owner's honorific (laqab), rank (manṣab), or office (daftar). In any event, Shaykh Kāley was followed by his son Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn, who lived to circa 1703 CE, at which time a part of the property passed to his two daughters, Nūrullāh and Jūhī.Footnote ⁴⁶

The second point of historical interest is the granted land in the village (mawz̤aʻ) of Mālīwārah. The toponym is represented by Mālibāṛā on the western side of Dhār (see Figure 1) where today there is a large tank known as Mālibāṛā tālāb (located at 22°34’51”N 75°16’52”E). A number of records from the eighteenth century that were documented during the course of our project show that the 300 bīghā in the village of Mālīwārah attached to the shrine of Kamāl al-Dīn were an important asset for the livelihood and religious activities of Chishtīs.Footnote ⁴⁷ It is not possible, however, to have a precise idea of the scale of the financial aid that was offered in the present case, much as we would have liked. This is because the document under review lacks vital details, as it is a certification (taṣdīq) of a Mughal princely order (nishān) and not the original order itself. Moreover, the bīghā is known to vary across regions and significantly different bīghā measures are known to have existed side by side.Footnote ⁴⁸ Often, it was purely a matter of administrative fiat. In a part of Mālwā during the early seventeenth century in the Mughal period (in a parganah in the former princely state of Indore), the local chief decided upon the height of the gate of his fort at the basic measure:Footnote ⁴⁹

This notwithstanding, we can be reasonably sure that the area of the bīghā in our case was based on the Akbarī bīghā, following the work of Irfan Habib: ‘From the time of its introduction during Akbar's reign, the gaz-i ilāhī seems to have been uniformly used to measure the bighas of the [madad-i ma‘āsh] grants.’Footnote ⁵⁰ Based on that, the bīghā was about ‘0.60 acre (or 0.24 hectare)’,Footnote ⁵¹ so that 300 bīghā should have equalled about 72 hectares.

The uncertainty about the precise scale of the financial aid arises not out of the size of the bīghā, but on account of many other variables in Mughal grants-in-aid. First, the land could have been held under the grantee's direct cultivation (khud kāshtah) and/or could have comprised peasant holdings (ra‘iyatī land).Footnote ⁵² We are told that ‘generally one-half of the grant consisted of waste or uncultivated land and the other half of land was already under cultivation’, but also that it was not an invariable practice;Footnote ⁵³ on account of this important factor that the grant included self-cultivated land, it is probably better to render madad-i ma‘āsh as ‘grant-in-aid’ rather than as ‘revenue grant’. There was also a tendency for the grantees to increase the land under their direct cultivation at the cost of the peasant—a tendency that is repeatedly disapproved of in the Mughal records.Footnote ⁵⁴ An eighteenth-century record that was studied by us states that the 300 bīghā first granted to Shaykh Kāley was divided subsequently and that only 150 bīghā remained in Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghanī's hands.Footnote ⁵⁵ We also know, from a collective attestation of 19 farm-tenants as given in another eighteenth-century document, that they were then paying rents to Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghanī for the use of land at Mālīwārah.Footnote ⁵⁶ It is not clear, however, whether they accounted for the entirety of the 150 bīghā and whether a part of it was being farmed directly by the grantee. The system that prevailed with the other half of the original grant remains entirely unknown of course, and there is no way of knowing whether the peasant share of the granted land had been greater earlier.

Next, we need to take into account the multiple corrupt practices of the age. The abuse of the system prevailed even during the strong rule of Akbar. It could work either way: ‘The grantees could sometimes fraudulently obtain lands in two or more places on the strength of the same grant; on the other hand, the holder of a petty grant in an ordinary village was liable to oppression from officials of the jagirdars and the khalisa.’Footnote ⁵⁷ A qāz̤ī was able to convert his original grant-in-aid of 750 bīghā into 5,375 bīghā.Footnote ⁵⁸ In our case, the two eighteenth-century documents assure that the grantee had been able to preserve the grant at the original size. We may also perhaps assume that the grant of the 300 bīghā came, as per general practice, without any obligation, unlike the type of grants-in-aid that came with certain obligations, such as when Badā’ūnī was granted one on the condition of maintaining a small cavalry contingent.Footnote ⁵⁹ But the income depended on the produce, productivity, and location of the land that was granted as much as on the size of it. As Abū al-Faz̤l explained: ‘The income […] from each bīgha [under suyūrghāl] is different in each locality (qaṣba); but does not fall below one rupee.’Footnote ⁶⁰ The grant of 300 bīghā would have thus fetched an income of at least 300 rupees, but the question about the share that reached the grantee remains.

Last but not least is the important factor of the toll on the grantee's income by the exactions and perquisites of the various authorities on the spot. If the revenues in the area were realised through the agency of the village notable or headman (muqaddam or paṭel), then there would have been deductions on account of their customary perquisites, such as khurāk, or ‘board’.Footnote ⁶¹ In general, the extortions of the officials (mutaṣaddī) from the hapless subjects were notorious and the state was careful not to entrust them with more responsibility than was absolutely necessary—‘for it is unwise to set up the thief as the watchman’, to quote a mid-eighteenth-century source.Footnote ⁶² Then there was the zamindar with his own claims to the produce, which the grantees had to pay, unless they themselves happened to be zamindars of the territory.Footnote ⁶³ In our case, the great discretionary powers of the authorities on the spot—the zamīndārs and the mutaṣaddīs—and the corresponding helplessness of the grantee seem evident from the provision in our document about the frequency of payment to him. Instead of invoking anything from the original grant or customary practice, the grantee leaves it to the sweet will of the authorities in question as to whether he receives his income as ‘salary’ (tankhwāh) or as ‘daily allowances’ (wajh-i-yawmīyah).

Moving away from matters of property and its management, we come to the final issues that we wish to address in this article, namely the charitable and religious activities at the dargāh. The most important of these centres on the identification of Begum Ṣāhab—the individual at the heart of our document, as noted above. Further information about this notable woman is not forthcoming from the Dhār corpus—indeed, Begum Ṣāhab is mentioned anywhere in the extant documents of the shrine's collection as it survives today and was available to us for study. However, given that our attestation states that her tomb is ‘in the midst’ (dar miyān) of the tomb complex of Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn, and that its main concern was the long-held grant of 300 bīghā, there is little doubt that we are concerned here with activities that took place in and around the tomb of Kamāl-al Dīn. What is surprising is that Begum Ṣāhab had overtaken Kamāl al-Dīn in the late seventeenth century, and that the attention on sweeping, providing water and lights, as well as providing for needy children was being conducted in her name.

The spatial configuration of the shrine complex is striking in the history of Indian Islamic architecture, as it comprises two mausolea that are attached to each other and linked by an arched doorway. Both have a square plan, measuring about 3 by 3 metres, with the thick ashlar walls of each carrying a dome on squinches. The eastern dome was restored by the ‘Urs Committee in the latter part of the twentieth century, based on the model of the Pawar Dynasty memorials (chattrīs) on the banks of Munj Sāgar at Dhār. The original structure, as seen in the old photograph given in Figure 2, shows an octagonal zone of transition punctuated by a band of merlons and a circular dome crowned by a pot-finial—iconic features of Sultanate architecture as exemplified by the tomb of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq (reg. 1351–1388) in Delhi.Footnote ⁶⁴ In addition, the eastern dome is distinguished by a glazed tile medallion with square Kufic calligraphy, which is placed over the main door of the dargāh and is said to be the saint's seal (muhr).Footnote ⁶⁵

Within the eastern dome are two graves lying side by side; the one closer to the north gate, outside of which women gather to pay homage, is attributed to the wife (bībī) of Kamāl al-Dīn. She can be identified as the Begum Ṣāhab mentioned in our document.Footnote ⁶⁶ The western dome is simpler in design and has a large, 12-line naskh inscription with Qur’ānic prayers built into an arch in the north wall, before which are six low graves that are identified as those of the Shaykh's family and disciples.Footnote ⁶⁷ The original core of the conjoined domes was embellished in 1456–1457 during the reign of Sultān Maḥmūd Shāh Khaljī, as recorded in a dedicatory inscription in the main entrance porch.Footnote ⁶⁸ This royal inscription is remarkable for several reasons, not least for the exquisite quality of its calligraphy, rendered in muhaqqaq by an Iranian master and Sufi disciple named Ḥabīb al-Ḥāfiz al-Shirāzī al-Murshidī.Footnote ⁶⁹ The Persian verses that were composed by Mahmūd b. Rukn extol the architectural features of the shrine of Shaykh Kamāl, describing it as a sanctuary of paradise (rawz̤ah-i riz̤wān) and a dome full of the saint's light (qubba-yi pur-nūr). Being overcrowded by the footfall of poor and homeless pilgrims, the courtyard (ṣaḥn), the porch (riwāq), and the dome (gunbad) were furnished with stone slabs (parde-ye sang), with chambers (khāne), a well (āb-i ẕulāl), a raised platform (ṣuffa), a hospice (khānaqāh), a vestibule (dahlīz) with a hall (kushk), and merlons (kangūre) for the benefit of pilgrims, devotees, and Sufis. These components can still be observed in the shrine complex today, from the domed entrance porch and the battlemented boundary wall to the paved platform and storied ‘well of wisdom’ (aql kā kūāñ) that is visible in Figure 2.Footnote ⁷⁰ The khānaqāh mentioned here is a dark, vaulted hall that was built abutting the double-domed shrine along the northern side, appropriately withdrawn from the rest of the complex as a space of seclusion and spiritual exercises. While the architectural history of the shrine complex and its facilities merits detailed analysis, the walled enclosure as it stands today is largely a product of fifteenth-century renovation to accommodate a growing clientele and its diverse requirements, from charity, devotion, and dwelling to burial, healing, and spiritual guidance. The subsequent accumulation of graves within and beyond the shrine complex, as well as the local traditions that are attributed to them, further emphasise the primacy of the cenotaphs of Shaykh Kamāl and his wife under the main dome and their early followers in the adjoining dome.

The presence of the Shaykh and Begum Ṣāhab under a single dome as the focus of veneration is strikingly unusual considering the strict celibacy that was practised by leading Chishtī Shaykhs, Niẓām al-Dīn, and his successors Naṣīr al-Dīn Chirāgh-i Dihlī and Burhān al-Dīn Gharīb, who held wives and families to be obstacles to spiritual progress. Yet, despite the persistent male prejudice of this discourse, biographies of women as Sufis, disciples, miracle workers, and managers of shrines have been brought to light in recent scholarship.Footnote ⁷¹ Expanding this corpus of Sufi women, the presence of Begum Ṣāhab at Dhār, documented here for the first time, is only the most prominent among the graves of other women mystics that are still venerated in the city. That women were also involved in managing shine property is revealed by a document, mentioned above—a Qismatnāmah of the early eighteenth century.Footnote ⁷² This deed of partition records how the grants-in-aid that were held by ladies (musammāt) Nūrullāh and Jūhī were passed on to Shaykh ‘Abd al Qādir, Shaykh Fatḥullah, Shaykh Muḥammad Raushan, and Shaykh Fayz̤ullah. What is notable in this transaction is that, after the land was divided four ways, it was agreed that this was done on the condition that Shaykh Fatḥullah, Shaykh Muḥammad Raushan, and Shaykh Fayz̤ullah would bear all the expenses of the ‘Urs of the dargāh under the supervision of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir.

In addition to maintaining the dargāh and its charitable work, the financial aid that is recorded in the Dhār documents also supported the annual ‘Urs celebration. A leading event in the religious calendar of Dhār, the festival falls on the day that Kamāl al-Dīn is said to have passed way: 4 Dhū al-Ḥijjah. This is a moment of celebration rather than sadness and mourning. Following a variety of statements in the Qur’ān—but most especially Qur’ān 2: 156, ‘We belong to God, and to Him we return’—death is not feared, but welcomed as the moment at which the departed goes to a state of felicity. Accordingly, the ‘Urs is a wedding—the literal meaning of the word—the point being that the union of the individual soul with God is akin to a marriage. While ‘Urs of Shaykh Kamāl al-Dīn is not mentioned regularly in the Dhār documents, the reference found in the Qismatnāmah shows that the organisation of this annual festivity required substantial expenditure and supervision. Following the Chishtī tradition of death anniversary observances, the ‘Urs of Kamāl al-Dīn is marked by five-time prayers (namāz) in the adjacent mosque, the distribution of blessed food (tabarruq) from the free kitchens (langar), the performance of devotional songs (qawwālī), as well as the offering of sandalwood and roses.Footnote ⁷³ How exactly the annual ‘Urs celebrations were organised on an institutional and urban scale—the infrastructure required and industry drawn to cater for a diverse clientele—awaits scholarly attention. The more famous Chishtī shrines in Delhi and Ajmer provide a point of departure for any such work.Footnote ⁷⁴ Khuldābād in the Deccan provides a closer comparison in historical terms through the dargāh of Shaykh Burhān al-Dīn Gharīb (d. 1337)—a disciple of Niẓām al-Dīn, who, like Kamāl al-Dīn, was deputed to the ‘frontier’ to serve in the vanguard of Delhi's expansion in the fourteenth century.Footnote ⁷⁵ Aside from early documentation and the epigraphic corpus—which is richer than in Dhār—useful insights and a frame of reference for future research have been provided by Nile Green.Footnote ⁷⁶

While documents from Dhār and practices at comparable shrines indicate that the celebration of the death anniversary of Kamāl al-Dīn Chishtī is a centuries-old tradition, its present form, spanning three days, dates only to 1935 CE.Footnote ⁷⁷ This coincided with rising sectarian tensions following claims that the Jāmi‘ Masjid adjoining the dargāh was in fact a Hindu building—something that was bolstered by the setting-up of a signboard to the ‘Bhojaśālā’ outside the mosque in 1935 by the dīwān of Dhār State and the opening of a local branch of the Hindu Mahāsabhā in 1939.Footnote ⁷⁸ Further, in the 1960s, the festival period was extended to four days and the dates were shifted from the saint's passing in the lunar month of Dhū al-Ḥijjah and fixed in the Gregorian month of December, which coincides with the annual cattle fair that is held at this time.Footnote ⁷⁹ In addition to the impetus for trade, the ‘Urs is also an occasion for building solidarity among Muslims and non-Muslims and, with the simmering tensions at Dhār over the past century, a number of booklets have been published in rebuttal of Hindutva narratives and for the awareness of the Muslim community.Footnote ⁸⁰

Against the backdrop of legal and political wrangles that were playing out at historic places of worship, our analysis of a previously unnoticed document from the Sufi shrine at Dhār highlights the importance of local archives in reconstructing the social, economic, and institutional fabric through which such monuments acquired enduring public appeal. The new primary source put forth here is a confirmation of financial aid to the hereditary custodian of the dargāh that was granted by a princely order during the reign of Aurangzeb in 1695 CE. The scale of the grant—300 bīghā or 72 hectares of fertile land and 200 rupees in cash—that was approved for the custodian brought substantial power and prestige to the establishment. At an institutional level, the attestation, with its seals and notations, showcases the workings of the Mughal state apparatus in the central Indian province of Mālwā, as the periodic approval of a hereditary grant-in-aid to the Sufi shrine required the new incumbent to petition the provincial governor as well as the involvement of local landlords and revenue officials. The portrayal of the custodian as being engaged in providing charitable services and praying for the empire points to an intertwining of public and political piety at the heart of the endowment. Finally, at a sociological level, the document attests to the rising reputation of Begum Ṣāhab alongside Shaykh Kamāl, as well as the prominence of women in the shrine complex, as revealed by the involvement of female descendants in legal transactions over the inheritance. The examination of such documentary sources from a variety of historical perspectives can thus yield new insights while opening fresh avenues for approaching the social complexity of religious institutions.