Contrasting civilizations can have similar worldview concerning the political powers. Although Montesquieu and Jahangir were people of opposing origins and upbringing, their ideas were similar in their core: they both cared for their people. However, the ideas of how to apply the care were different for each philosopher. While Montesquieu pleaded in favor of constitutional system of government, Jahangir wanted a monarchy with the pursuit of pleasure at its core.
The main pursuit of Jahangir was in pleasures, which is why he appeared as a weak ruler. He sought alcohol, developed arts, invested in religion, and overall dreamt of conquest. Although his father was a great ruler to the lands, Jahangir did not grow to become similar. Instead, he was referred to as ‘weak’ by other people. However, he tried to benefit his country from the diplomatic missions. Moreover, he had some success in the warfare, ending some of the hardest battles in the history of his country.
On the contrast, Montesquieu, a man less noble than Jahangir, was more interested in politics. In particular, his main idea revolved around the concept of separation of powers. Moreover, he wanted to present civil liberties, law, and end slavery, which was shocking for the people of his time. In his work The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu defines particular political systems such as republican, monarchial, and despotic. Furthermore, he wished to achieve liberty for the people, which was a revolutionary idea for the time, where people owned slaves and considered it normal. He wanted to create proper criminal laws to protect the citizens of his country as well.
The concept of ending slavery would have been weird for someone like Jahangir. Within his worldview, owning a slave is a usual, rather mundane happening. In the Muslim culture it was normal to have harems as long as the person is capable of financing the women there. Furthermore, females end up in harems not by their free will: some of them are sold on the black market, some are stolen from the conquered lands, some are sold by their parents (Gommans, 2020). Therefore, the girls and women within the harem are slaves, since the actions performed with them are not consensual. Moreover, Jahangir owned servants, who often were not paid enough or not paid at all (Gommans, 2020). On the other hand, the Montesquieu’s opinion on slavery was drastically different. He wanted them to become free people and get them the ability to work for money.
Montesquieu’s opinion on division of powers was also a revolutionary concept. He argued that the executive, legislative, and judicial functions must be divided and assigned to different people. Therefore, as his argument followed, if one of the branches acts abnormal, the others would restrain it and preserve harmony within the system. On the other hand, Jahangir’s opinion on the topic was similar to his father’s: he was against the presented system of the law’s scholar. Instead, he wanted pure monarchy, where a single person is ahead of the government, making all the important decisions. Monarchy as a system, especially when the one person is at the top, proved to be faulty, since there are lots of monarchial governments, which failed because one person cannot be good at every decision that could be taken.
Furthermore, the idea of civil liberties, although new to Europe, is completely unknown to India. Montesquieu argued that every human being should be granted the freedom of speech, thought, and assembly. However, the opinion of Jahangir was the opposite to the philosophy of Montesquieu. In other words, Jahangir did not believe in the freedom of speech, thought, and assembly. The great example of this is the time when his son started a rebellion, which was suffocated with cruelty. Therefore, the freedom of assembly could be perceived as a personal threat by the Indian ruler. Moreover, when people could freely think and discuss the rule of Jahangir, he would have to deal with several other rebellions. However, despite all that, Jahangir believed in the religious freedom, since he allowed Hindu religion on the territory of his country despite him openly admitting to being a Muslim.
The one thing within both philosophies is the fascination in culture. Montesquieu and Jahangir both thought that it is a great idea to invest the attention and finances of the country into developing this essential branch. The core of Jahangir’s philosophy was seeking pleasures, which is why he invested finances into developing culture and which is why he did not forbid any opposing religion within India. Montesquieu also thought that the culture is an essential part of every country, since it defined the politics and the public opinion. Therefore, the philosophies of the two are similar in the field of pleasures and culture, although Montesquieu was less invested in this theme, whether the philosophy of Jahangir revolved around its concept.
To conclude, the opinions of Montesquieu and Jahangir differed in lots of questions, especially concerning the liberty of their people. When Montesquieu was more progressive and thought that all people should be granted freedom, even slaves, Jahangir did not agree and thought that slaves should stay slaves. Moreover, the ruler of India emphasized that the freedoms of speech and thought can occur dangerous to him and his rule. Furthermore, when Montesquieu wished about the division of powers within the government, Jahangir wanted to be a sole ruler of the country without any divisions, just like his father and the rest of the Europe at the time.
References
Gommans, J. (2020). The Mughal Empire from Jahangir to Shah Jahan: Art, Architecture, Politics, Law and Literature, edited by Ebba Koch and Ali Anooshahr, Journal of Early Modern History, 24(1), 106-109.