Fact Check - Explained Details Akbar , The Kumbh Mela and Tax , Naga Sadhus , British Period
Fact Check - Explained Details Akbar , The Kumbh Mela and Tax , Naga Sadhus , British Period
Dr. Dhananjay Chopra’s book "Bharat Me Kumbh", published by the National Book Trust in 2023, explores the historical, cultural, and spiritual dimensions of the Kumbh Mela in India.
Regarding Emperor Akbar and his connection to the Kumbh Mela, the book provides insight into a specific historical narrative that challenges some common misconceptions.
According to the book, Akbar, the Mughal emperor who ruled from 1556 to 1605, is said to have imposed a fee on attendees of the Kumbh Mela. However, Dr. Chopra clarifies that this was not a tax in the punitive sense, as some narratives suggest, but rather a contribution intended for maintenance and organizational purposes.
The funds collected were meant to support the upkeep of the event and meet logistical needs, reflecting an effort to create a structured fund for the massive gathering.
This perspective is highlighted to dispel the notion that Akbar imposed a restrictive or oppressive "tax" on the Kumbh Mela, framing it instead as a pragmatic measure.
Additionally, the book notes Akbar’s broader engagement with the festival. It mentions that in 1565, he granted the Naga Sadhus—a prominent ascetic group—the honor of leading the royal entry to the Mela, showcasing his policy of religious tolerance.
This aligns with historical accounts of Akbar’s reign, during which he sought to foster harmony among diverse religious communities, including Hindus, despite being a Muslim ruler.
Dr. Chopra’s work draws on historical records and cultural analysis to present these points, emphasizing the Kumbh Mela’s evolution under various rulers.
Akbar and the Kumbh Mela
The book situates Akbar’s involvement with the Kumbh Mela within his reign (1556–1605), a period marked by efforts to bridge religious divides in his empire.
Here’s what it highlights about him:
The Fee for Maintenance:
Dr. Chopra addresses a historical claim that Akbar imposed a fee on Kumbh Mela attendees. He argues this wasn’t a tax designed to suppress or exploit the Hindu pilgrimage, as some critical narratives might imply. Instead, it was a structured contribution—essentially a levy—to fund the event’s logistics. The Kumbh, even in the 16th century, attracted millions to sites like Prayagraj (then Allahabad), Haridwar, Ujjain, and Nashik, requiring resources for sanitation, security, and infrastructure. Chopra suggests Akbar’s administration saw this as a way to support the festival’s smooth execution, framing it as an act of patronage rather than oppression. This interpretation aligns with Akbar’s known policy of integrating with local traditions to stabilize his rule.
Recognition of Naga Sadhus:
The book cites a specific instance from 1565 when Akbar granted the Naga Sadhus—a militant ascetic order known for their nudity and martial prowess—the privilege of leading the royal procession into the Mela. This "shahi snan" (royal bath) tradition persists today as a key ritual. Chopra uses this to illustrate Akbar’s respect for Hindu practices, portraying it as a gesture of goodwill. The Naga Sadhus, often seen as guardians of Sanatan Dharma, held significant sway over the event, and Akbar’s acknowledgment of their role underscores his diplomatic outreach to Hindu communities.
Context of Religious Syncretism:
Chopra connects Akbar’s actions to his broader philosophy of Sulh-i-Kul (universal tolerance). The book notes that Akbar’s participation in the Kumbh wasn’t just administrative—he was curious about its spiritual allure. Historical accounts outside the book, like those from his court historian Abu’l-Fazl in the Akbarnama, suggest Akbar visited Prayagraj and engaged with scholars and ascetics there. While "Bharat Me Kumbh" doesn’t claim he bathed in the Ganges (a ritual unlikely for a Muslim ruler), it implies his presence elevated the event’s stature during his reign.
British Colonial Period:
The book almost certainly draws on colonial archives, which provide clearer financial data.
For example:
1870 Kumbh Mela (Prayagraj):
British records, as noted in sources like the Regional Archives, show the government collected ₹41,824. A quarter of this (around ₹10,456) came from taxes on barbers alone, with 3,000 barber enclosures taxed at ₹4 each.
Chopra might highlight this to illustrate the Mela’s economic scale and the colonial practice of monetizing pilgrim services.
1882 Kumbh:
Revenue rose to ₹49,840, with ₹10,752 from barbers, suggesting a growing financial footprint.
British Spending (19th Century):
1870 Kumbh: Of the ₹41,824 collected, ₹11,484 was spent on public works in Allahabad (now Prayagraj), including ₹3,600 for the Allahabad Museum and library, ₹3,000 for Alfred Park’s beautification, and ₹2,600 for Colvin Dispensary maintenance.
Chopra might note this as an early example of reinvesting Kumbh revenue into civic infrastructure, though pilgrims saw little direct benefit (e.g., no free services).
Post-1857:
After the rebellion, the British invested in ghats and roads to prevent stampedes (e.g., 1820 Haridwar stampede killed 485), though exact costs aren’t always specified. Chopra could frame this as a shift from pure tax collection to partial logistical support, driven by political necessity rather than devotion.
