THIS is apropos of Dr Mubarak Ali’s article ‘Past present: Mughal rule’ (Sunday Magazine, March 13), tracing the roots of ‘religious tolerance’ of the Mughals. But the account he has given to prove the case needs further analysis.

Moreover, his conclusion that the tolerance of the Mughals of other religionists in India was inherited from Chengiz Khan (1162-1227), their maternal ancestor, who, according to Dr Ali, “in his last days accorded permission to join any religion; thus, some of his sons were converted to Buddhism as well as to Islam” is factually flawed.

Chengiz Khan had four sons — Jochi, Chagdai, Ogedi and Tolui — but none of them were advised by their father to choose a religion of their choice and none was ever converted to Islam. It was the Mongols of Il-Khanate who were converted to Islam as late as 1295 when Ghazan (1271-1304), a direct descendant of Chengiz Khan through Argun Khan, converted and proclaimed himself as Mohammad Ghazan. He was considered to be the most prominent of the Ilkhans for making the conversion, a turning point for Islam as the dominant religion of Mongols in Central Asia.

His first wife was a Mongol princess sent by Kublai Khan and escorted from the Mongol capital to the Ilkhanate by the renowned traveller, Marco Polo.

I agree with Dr Ali that the Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time.

To avoid strife, Chengiz Khan had set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a Shamanist.

Under his administration, all religious leaders were exempt from taxation and from public service and he even organised competitions of religious debates among clerics with a large audience.

The policy of coexistence was not only the hallmark of the Mughals but even of the earlier Sultanate period. Most of the Delhi Sultans were tolerant of other religionists, prominent amongst them Sultan Altimash and his daughter Razia Sultan. The Muslim rulers of India, representing a minority, had to be forbearing with the majority so as to run the state affairs effectively.

They, however, did not stomach any resistance to their rule even if it came from their own flesh and blood.

Moreover, when Emperor Babur adopted the Shia faith, it was nothing but a strategy to persuade Shah Ismail for helping him against the powerful Uzbek warrior, Sheebani Khan, his adversary.

Similarly, Emperor Humayun’s accepting the Shia faith was also a tactical move to seek assistance of Shah Tehmasp to recover the lost kingdom from Sher Shah Suri.

It is for this reason that both recanted the adopted faith as soon as their purpose was achieved.

MANZOOR H. KURESHI Karachi