Qualitative analysis reveals feminist perspectives on jahanara begum's agency in historiography, highlighting contrasts in narratives.
This paper investigates how Mughal princess Jahanara Begum is portrayed in two contrasting historical narratives: Banarsi Prasad Saksena’s History of Shahjahan of Dihli and Ira Mukhoty’s Daughters of the Sun. The study explores how differing historiographical approaches, specifically traditional and feminist frameworks, influence the representation of Jahanara’s agency, status, and contributions. It adopts a qualitative, comparative textual analysis informed by feminist historiography, drawing upon the frameworks of Gerda Lerner and Joan W. Scott to examine how patriarchal structures and gendered assumptions shape historical writing. Particular attention is given to how each author presents Jahanara’s political, economic, spiritual, and cultural roles within the Mughal court. The analysis reveals that Saksena’s account marginalizes Jahanara, portraying her primarily within domestic and familial confines while largely overlooking her influence in public affairs. In contrast, Mukhoty reinterprets Jahanara as a multifaceted historical figure, including her roles as a political advisor, Sufi intellectual, economic entrepreneur, and patron of architecture and learning. This interpretation is based on a wide range of textual, visual, and material sources. By foregrounding Jahanara’s lived experience, Mukhoty challenges male-dominated historiographical conventions and restores the complexity of elite women’s roles in Mughal India. This study offers a theory-driven comparison that brings together conventional and feminist historiography to reevaluate a pivotal woman in South Asian history. It underscores the importance of feminist historical approaches in recovering women’s voices, addressing historical silences, and reframing dominant narratives. The research ultimately contributes to more inclusive and gender-conscious approaches to writing Mughal history and highlights the value of methodological diversity in historical scholarship. Paper type: Research paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanil et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: