THE LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA by K.S. LAL

Peter Klevius additional title: Monotheist evil against polytheism and Atheism

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa.
 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory från 1992-94 100% correct.  

 

Table Of Contents

1. Preface

2. Abbreviations used in references.

3. The Medieval Age

4. Historio graph y of Medieval India

5. Muslims Invade India

6. Muslim Rule in India

7. Upper Classes and Luxurious Life

8. Middle Classes and Protest Movements

9. Lower Classes and Unmitigated Exploitation

10. The Legac y of Muslim Rule in India

11. Bibliography


Preface

Had India been completely converted to Muhammadanism during the
thousand years of Muslim conquest and rule, its people would have taken
pride in the victories and achievements of Islam and even organised
panislamic movements and Islamic revolutions. Conversely, had India
possessed the determination of countries like France and Spain to repulse
the Muslims for good, its people would have forgotten about Islam and its
rule. But while India could not be completely conquered or Islamized, the
Hindus did not lose their ancient religious and cultural moorings. In short,
while Muslims with all their armed might proved to be great conquerors,
rulers and proselytizers, Indians or Hindus, with all their weaknesses,
proved to be great survivors. India never became an Islamic country. Its
ethos remained Hindu while Muslims also continued to live here retaining
their distinctive religious and social system. It is against this background
that an assessment of the legacy of Muslim rule in India has been
attempted.

Source-materials on such a vast area of study are varied and scattered.
What we possess is a series of glimpses furnished by Persian chroniclers,
foreign visitors and indigenous writers who noted what appeared to them of
interest. It is not an easy task, on the basis of these sources, to reconstruct
an integrated picture of the medieval scenario spanning almost a
millennium, beginning with the establishment of Muslim rule. The task
becomes more difficult when the scenario converges on the modem age
with its pre- and post-Partition politics and slogans of the two-nation theory,
secularism, national integration and minority rights. Consequently, some
generalisations, repetitions and reiterations have inevitably crept into what
is otherwise a work of historical research. For this the author craves the
indulgence of the reader.

10 January 1992
K. L. Lai




The Medieval Age


Chapter 1

If royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside, nor selfish
ambition disappear'

- Abul Fazl

Muslim rule in India coincides with what is known as the Middle Ages in
Europe. The term Middle Ages or the Medieval Age is applied loosely to
that period in history which lies between the ancient and modern
civilizations. In Europe the period is supposed to have begun in the fifth
century when the Western Roman Empire fell and ended in the fifteenth
century with the emanation of Renaissance in Italy, Reformation in
Germany, the discovery of America by Columbus, the invention of Printing
Press by Guttenberg, and the taking of Constantinople by the Turks from
the Byzantine (or the Eastern Roman) Empire. In brief the period of Middle
Ages extends from C.E. 600 to 1500.

Curiously enough the Middle Age in Europe synchronises exactly with
what we call the medieval period in Indian history. The seventh century saw
the end of the last great Hindu kingdom of Harshvardhana, the rise of Islam
in Arabia and its introduction into India. In C. 1500 the Mughal conqueror
Babur started mounting his campaigns. And since these foreign Muslim
invaders and rulers had come not only to acquire dominions and extend
territories, but also to spread the religion of Islam, war and religion became
the two main currents of medieval Indian Muslim history.

Kingship

War is the work of kings turned conquerors or conquerors turned kings.
Therefore it was necessary for the medieval monarch to be autocratic,
religious minded and one who could conquer, rule and subserve the interest



of religion. Such was the idea about the king in medieval times, both in the
West and the East.

The beginnings of the institution of kingship are obscure. Anatole France
attempts to trace it in his Penguin Island, a readable satire on (British)
history and society. That is more or less what he writes: Early in the
beginning of civilization, the peoples primary concern was provision of
security against depredations of robbers and ravages of wild animals. So
they assembled at a place to find a remedy to this problem. They put their
heads together and arrived at a consensus. They will raise a team of security
guards who will work under the command of a superior. These will be paid
from contributions made by the people. As the assembled were still
deliberating on the issue, a strong, well-built young man stood up. He
declared he would collect the said contributions (later called taxes), and in
return provide security. Noticing his physical prowess and threatening
demeanour they all nodded their assent. Nobody dared protest. And so the
king was born.

In whatever manner and at whatever time the king was born, he was, in
the Middle Ages, personally a strong warrior, adept at horsemanship, often
without a peer in strength. He gathered a strong army, collected taxes and
contributions and was surrounded by fawning counsellors. They bestowed
upon him attributes of divinity, upon his subjects those of devilry, thus
making his presence in the world a sort of a benediction necessary for the
good of mankind. Once man was declared to be bad and the king full of
virtues, there was hardly any difficulty for political philosophy and religion
to recommend strict control of the people by the king.

There were thus monarchs both in the West and the East and in both
autocracy reigned supreme. Still in the West they could wrest a Magna
Carta from the king as early as in 1215 C.E. and produce t hink ers like
Hobbes, Eocke, Rousseau, Montesqueue and Bentham who helped change
the concept of kingship in course of time. But in the East, especially in
Islam, a rigid, narrow and limited scriptural education could, parrot-like,
repeat only one political theory-Man was nasty, brutish and short and must
be kept suppressed.



In the Siyasat Nama, Nizm-ul-Mulk Tusi stressed that since the kings
were divinely appointed, they must always keep the subjects in such a
position that they know their stations and never remove the ring of
servitude from their ears.- Alberuni, Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Amir Khusrau,
Ziyauddin Barani and Shams Siraj Afif repeat the same idea.- As Fakhr-i-
Mudabbir puts it, if there were no kings, men would devour one
another.- Even the liberal Allama Abul Fazl could not think beyond this: If
royalty did not exist, the storm of strife would never subside, nor selfish
ambition disappear. Mankind (is) under the burden of lawlessness and lust-
The glitter of gems and gold in the Taj Mahal or the Peacock Throne, writes
Jadunath Sarkar, ought not to blind us to the fact that in Mughal India, man
was considered vile;-the mass of the people had no economic liberty, no
indefeasible right to justice or personal freedom, when their oppressor was
a noble or high official or landowner; political rights were not dreamt
of The Government was in effect despotism tempered by revolution or fear
of revolution.- Consequently, medieval Muslim political opinion could
recommend only repression of man and glorification of king.

The king was divinely ordained. Abul Fazl says that No dignity is higher
in the eyes of God than royalty Royalty is a light emanating from God, and
a ray from the sun, the illuminator of the universe.-

Kingship thus became the most general and permanent of institutions of
medieval Muslim world. In theory Islam claims to stand for equality of
men, in practice it encourages slavery among Muslims and imposes an
inferior status on non-Muslim. In theory Islam does not recognize Kingship;
in practice Muslims have been the greatest empire builders. Muhammadans
themselves were impressed with the concept of power and glamour
associated with monarchy. The idea of despotism, of concentration of
power, penetrated medieval mind with facility. Obedience to the ruler was
advocated as a religious duty. The ruler was to live and also enable people
to live according to the Quranic laws.- In public life, the Muslim monarch
was enjoined to discharge a host of civil, military and religious duties. The
Sultan was enjoined to do justice, to levy taxes according to the Islamic law,
and to appoint honest and efficient officers so that the laws of the Shariat
might be enforced through them.- At times, he was to enact Zawabits
(regulations) to suit particular situations, but while doing so, he could not


transgress the Shariat nor alter the Quranie law!- His military duties were to
defend Muslim territories, and to keep his army well equipped for eonquest
and extension of the territories of Islam.— The religious duty of a Muslim
monareh eonsisted in helping the indigent and those learned in the Islamie
law. He was to prohibit what was not permitted by the Shara. The duty of
propagating Islam and earrying on Jihad mainly devolved on him.— Jihad
was at onee an individual and a general religious duty.— Aecording to a
eontemporary A/im, if the Sultan was unable to extirpate infidelity, he must
at least keep the enemies of God and His Prophet dishonoured and
humiliated.— It must be said to his eredit that the Muslim Sultan, by and
large, worked according to these injunctions, and sometimes achieved
commendable success in his exertions in all these spheres.

As said earlier, there were autocratic monarchs both in the West and the
East. Still in the West there appeared a number of liberal political
philosophers who helped to change the concept of kingship in course of
time. But Muslims could not think on such lines, so that when in England
they executed their king after a long Civil War (1641-49), in India
Shahjahan, a contemporary of Charles I ruled as an autocrat in a golden age.
Even so autocracy took time to go even in Europe and there was no check
on the powers of the king in the Middle Ages, except for the institution of
feudalism.

Feudalism

Feudalism was a very prominent institution of the Middle Ages. It was
prevalent both in Europe as well as in India, although there were many
differences between the two systems. In Europe feudalism gathered strength
on the decline of the Western Roman Empire. After Charlemagne (800-814)
in particular, there was rapid decline in the monarchical power throughout
Europe, and governments failed to perform their primary duty of protecting
their peoples. The class of people who needed protection the most was the
petty landowner. In the earliest times the lands were free whether these
were held by ordinary freeman or a noble. In the absence of strong
monarchy, the possessor of the free land, threatened or oppressed by
powerful neighbours, sought refuge in submitting to some lord, and in the
case of a lord to some more powerful lord. In the bargain he surrendered his


land. For, when he begged for protection, the lord said: I can protect (only)
my own land. The poor man was thus forced to surrender the ownership of
his land to his powerful and rich neighbour, receiving it back in fief as a
vassal. (The word feudalism itself is derived from the French feodalite
meaning faithfulness). His children were left without any claim on that
land. He was also obliged to render service to his superior lord. In return he
was promised protection in his lifetime by his lord. The origins of feudalism
are thus to be traced to the necessity of the people seeking protection, and
exploitation by those who provided it.

Conditions were not the same everywhere, but the system was based on
contract or compact between lord and tenant, determining all rights and
obligations between the two. The vassal was obliged to render military
service, take his cases only to his own lord and submit to the decisions of
the lords court, and pay certain aids to the lord in times of need, like free
gifts or benevolences, aids at the marriage of the chiefs daughter, some tax
when the chief was in trouble or as ransom to redeem his person from
prison. These aids varied according to local customs and were often
extorted unreasonably.

On the other hand, for providing security to the vassal, it became
common for a chief or lord to have a retinue of bodyguards composed of
valiant youths who were furnished by the chief with arms and provisions
and who in turn devoted themselves to his service. These companions
received no pay except their arms, horses and provisions. With these
companions or troops the lords also conquered lands, and gave certain
portions of it to their attendants to enjoy for life. These estates were called
beneficia or fiefs, because they were only lent to their possessors, to revert
after death to their grantor, who immediately gave them to another of his
servants on the same terms. As the son commonly esteemed it his duty, or
was forced by necessity, to devote his arms to the lord in whose service his
father had lived, he usually received his fathers fief, or rather he was
invested with it anew. By the usage of centuries this custom became
hereditary. A fief rendered vacant by the death of the holder was taken
possession of by his son, on the sole condition of paying homage to the
feudal superior.



In the feudal system, therefore, the vassal and the lord benefited from one
another, although the latter mueh more, at the eost of the king. Junior
vassals could become powerful and rise in hierarchy to become sub-lords or
even great lords. They could have their own subordinate vassals in sub¬
infeudation. Kingly power, as always, continued to exist, but under
feudalism it was widely diffused. The privileges the lords enjoyed often
comprised the right of coining money, raising armies and waging private
wars, exemption from public tributes and freedom from legislative
control.— Sometimes the kings had to make virtue of necessity even to the
extent of granting titles and administrative fiefs to Counts etc. to be
administered by them. But the struggle between royalty and nobility (as in
England under William the Norman), continued. Of course, and ultimately,
it ended in the power of the lords sinking before that of the king.

In India feudalism did not usher in that spirit of civil liberty which
characterised the constitutional history of medieval England. Here the king
remained supreme whether among the Turks or the Mughals, and the
assignments of conquered lands were granted by him to lords, soldiers or
commoners or his own relatives as salary or reward in consideration of
distinguished military service in the form of iqtas or jagirsl^, sometimes
even on a hereditary basis, but they were not wrested from him. This system
was bureaucratic. There was also a parallel feudalistic organisation but the
possessor of land remained subservient to the king. It was based on personal
relationship. The vassals were given jagirs and assignments primarily
because of blood and kinship. On the other hand, the practice of permitting
vanquished princes to retain their kingdoms as vassals, or making allotment
of territories to brothers and relatives of the king, or giving assignments to
particular families of nobles, learned men and theologians as reward or
pension were feudalistic in nature. Some feudatories would raise their own
army, collect taxes and customary dues, pay tributes, and rally round the
standard of their overlord or king with their military contingents when
called upon to do so. But the assignee had no right of coining money. (In
fact, coining of money was considered as a signal of rebellion.) He
maintained his own troops but he had no right of waging private war.— He
could only increase his influence by entering into matrimonial alliances
with powerful neighbours or the royal family. In the Sultanate and the
Mughal empire the feudal system was more bureaucratic than feudalistic, in


fact it was bureaucratic throughout.— Here the feudal nobility was a
military aristoeraey whieh ineidentally owned land, rather than a landed
aristoeraey whieh oeeasionally had to defend Royal lands and property by
military means but at other times lived quietly.

But there were also many points of similarity between Indian and
European feudalism. In India Nazrana was offered to the lord or king when
an estate or jagir was bestowed upon the heir of the deeeased lord (Tika),
like the feudal relief in Europe. As in Europe, here too the praetiee of
eseheat was widely prevalent. Aids, gifts or benevolenees were eommon to
both. These consisted of offerings at the ascension of the king to the throne,
his weighment ceremony, on important festivals, eash and gifts at the
marriage of the chiefs daughter or son, gifts or a tax when the chief was in
trouble. In India the king always stood at the top of the regime. Feudal
institutions are apt to flourish in a state which lacks centralised
administration. The vastness of India makes it a veritable subcontinent, and
the rulers position was naturally different in each kingdom or region
aecording to local condition found there. But there was a eentral authority
too. The idea of a strong monareh was inseparable from Muslim psyehe and
Tureo-Mongol politieal theory. In India, under Muslim rule, great
importanee was attaehed to the saerosanet nature of the kings person. The
Indian system arose from eertain soeial and moral forees rather than from
sheer political necessity as in Europe, and that is why it survived throughout
the medieval period.

Whatever its merits and demerits, Indian feudalism reeognised division
of soeiety into people great and small, strong and weak, haves and have-
nots. Nobles were not equal to nobles; there were great Khans and petty
Amirs. Men were not equal to men; some were masters, others their slaves.
Women were not equal to men; they were subservient to men and
eonsidered to be their property. Perhaps the most prominent eharaeteristie
of the Medieval Age was the belief and acceptance of the 'fact' that men are
not born equal, or at least they could not be recognised as such.

Feudalism in Europe gradually disappeared with the coming of
Renaissance and Reformation, and formation of nation-states. In India
phenomena such as these did not occur. There was nothing like a


Renaissance in medieval India. There could be no reformation either,
because i nn ovation in religious matters is taboo in Islam. Some Muslim
monarchs were disillusioned with the state of religion and the power of the
Ulama (religious scholars).— Thai is why, probably, Alauddin Khalji (C.E.
1296-1316) contemplated founding a new religion,— Muhammad Tughlaq
(1325-51) was credited with similar intentions; and Akbar (1556-1605)
actually established the Din-i-Ilahi. Muslims feared that Alauddins new
religion must be quite different from the Muhammadan faith, and that its
enforcement would entail slaughter of a large number of Musalmans.— He
was dissuaded by his loyal counsellors from pursuing his project. All the
same it is significant that Alauddin Khalji and Jalaluddin Muhammad
Akbar did think of some sort of Reformation in Islam, but the former was
scared into abandoning the idea and the latter contented himself by just
organising a sort of brotherhood of like-minded thinkers.— Such
endeavours, strictly prohibited in Islam, could hardly affect India's Muslim
feudalistic society.

Europe in the middle ages too lived under a Roman Catholic imperium.
Its unity was theological, while its divisions were feudal. After Renaissance
the unity of the theological imperium was shattered and so were the old
divisions. European societies, after centuries of theological and territorial
wars, learnt to aggregate around a new category of the nation-state. In India
Muslim theological imperium never came to an end, nor persistent
resistance to it. Hence, the idea of a secular nation-state never found a
ground here.

Among other chief agencies that overthrew the feudal system were the
rise of cities, scouring of the oceans for Commercial Revolution and the
spread of knowledge, scientific knowledge in particular. In India there was
urbanisation under Muslim rule, but it has been grossly
exaggerated.— India had large urban centres before the arrival of Muslims.
Arab geographers become rapturous when describing the greatness of
Indias cities-both in extent and in demography-on the eve of Muslim
conquest and immigration.— During his sojourn in India Ibn Battuta visited
seventy-five cities, towns and ports.— Under Muslim rule many old cities
were given Muslim names. Thus Akbarabad (Agra), Islamabad (Mathura),
Shahjahanabad (Delhi) and Hyderabad (Golkunda) were not entirely new


built cities, but old populated plaees that were given new Islamie names,
mostly after the ruling kings. Giving new names to old eities was not an
extension of urbanisation as such, although it must be conceded that
Muslims loved city life and encouraged qasba like settlements.
Urbanisation in Europe gave impetus to industry and personal property and
founded a new set of power cluster-the middle class. The rise of this new
class, with its wealth and industrial importance, contributed more than
anything else to social and political development in Europe before which
the feudal relations of society almost gradually crumbled. The rise and
spread of this class in India and its impact on society remained min imal and
rather impereeptible. Edward Terry noted that it was not safe for merehants
and tradesmen in towns and eities, so to appear, lest they should be used as
filled sponges.— Moreland on the testimony of Bernier and others, arrives
at the eonelusion that in India the number of middle elass people was small
and they found it safe to wear the garb of indigenee.— Europe broke the
shaekles of feudalism by embarking upon Commereial Revolution and took
to the seas for the same. The Mughals in India fared miserably on water.
Even the great emperor Akbar had to purehase permission of the Portuguese
for his relatives to visit plaees of Islamie pilgrimage. Throughout medieval
India there was little ehange in the field of seientifle learning and thought.

Religious Wars

Eike feudalism, inter- and intra- religious wars too were a very prominent
feature of the medieval age. There were two great Semetie religions,
Judaism and Christianity, already in existenee when Islam was bom. Most
of the world religions like Vedie Hinduism (C. 2000-1500 B.C.), Judaism
(C. 1500 B.C.), Zoroastrianism (C. 1000 B.C.), Jainism and Buddhism (C.
600 B.C.), Confueianism (C. 500 B.C.) and Christianity had already eome
into being before Islam appeared on the seene in the seventh eentury. All
these religions, espeeially Hinduism, had evolved through its various
sehools a very highly developed philosophy. Jainism and Buddhism had
said almost the last word on ethics. So that not much was left for later
religions to contribute to religious philosophy and thought. So far as rituals
and mythology are concerned, these abounded in all religions and the
mythology of neighbouring Judaic and Christian creeds was freely
incorporated by Islam in its religion, so that Moses became Musa; Jesus,


Isa; Soloman, Sulaiman; Joseph, Yusuf; Jacob, Yaqub; Abraham, Ibrahim;
Mary, Mariam; and so on. But to assert its own identity, rules were made
suiting the requirements of Muslims imitating or forbidding Jewish and
Christian practices.—

Muhammad was born in Arabia in 569 and died in 632. In 622 he had to
migrate from Mecca to Medina (called hijrat) and this year forms the first
year of the Muslim calendar {Hijri). Islam got much of its mythology and
rituals from Judaism and Christianity, but instead of coming closer to them
it confronted them. From the very beginning Islam believed in aggression
as an instrument of expansion, and so spreading with the rapidity of an
electric current from its power-house in Mecca, it flashed into Syria, it
traversed the whole breadth of north Africa; and then, leaping the Straits of
Gibraltar it ran to the Gates of the Pyrenees.— Such unparalleled feats of
success were one day bound to be challenged by the vanquished. As a result
Christians and Muslims entered into a long-drawn struggle. The immediate
cause of the conflict was the capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuq Turks in
1070 and the defeat of the Byzantine forces at Manzikart in Asia Minor in
1071. For the next two centuries (1093-1291) the Christian nations fought
wars of religion or Crusades against Muslims for whom too these wars
meant the holy Jihad.

Christianity thus found a powerful rival in Islam because the aim of both
has been to convert the world to their systems. In competition, Islam had
certain advantages. If because of its late arrival, there was any problem
about obtaining followers, it was solved by the simple method of just
forcing the people to accept it. Starting from Arabia, Islam pushed its
religious and political frontiers through armed might. The chain of its early
military successes helped establish its credentials and authority. It was also
made more attractive than Christianity by polygamy, license of concubinage
and frenzied bigotry.— It sought outward expansion but developed no true
theory of peaceful co-existence. For example, it framed unlimited rules
about the treatment to be accorded to non-Muslims in an Islamic state, but
nowhere are there norms laid down about the behaviour of Muslims if they
happen to live as a minority in a non-Muslim majority state. Its tactic of
violence also proved to be its greatest weakness. In the course of Islamic


history, Muslims have been found to be as eager to fight among themselves
as against others.

The Crusades (so called because Christian warriors wore the sign of
cross), were carried on by European nations from the end of the eleventh
century till the latter half of the thirteenth century for the conquest of
Palestine. The antagonism of the Christian and Muhammadan nations had
been intensified by the possession of Holy Land by the Turks and their
treatment of the Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. In these wars, the pious,
the adventurous, and the greedy flocked under the standards of both sides.
The first crusade was inspired by Peter the Hermit in 1093, and no less than
eight bloody wars were fought with great feats of adventure, heroism and
killings. In the last crusade the Sultan of Egypt captured Acre in 1291 and
put an end to the kingdom founded by the Crusaders. Despite their want of
success, the European nations by their joint enterprises became more
connected with each other and ultimately stamped out any Muslim
influence in Western Europe. But the most fruitful element in the crusades
was the entry of the West into the East. There was a constant conflict and
permanent contact between Christianity and Islam.

In this contact both sides lost and gained by turns, both culturally and
demographically, for both strove for expansion through arms and
proselytization. The successors of Saladin, who defeated the Christians in
the last crusade, were divided by dissensions. By the grace of those
disenssions the Latins survived. A new militant Muhammadanism arose
with the Mameluke Sultans of Egypt who seized the throne of Cairo in
1250. However, shortly afterwards there was a setback to Muslim power
when the Caliph of Baghdad was killed by the Mongols in 1258. On the
other hand, the prospect of a great mass conversion of the Mongols, which
would have linked a Christian Asia to a Christian Europe and reduced Islam
to a small faith, also dwindled and disappeared. The (Mongol) Khanates of
Persia turned to Muhammadanism in 1316; by the middle of the fourteenth
century Central Asia had gone the same way; in 1368-70 the native dynasty
of Mings was on the throne and closing China to foreigners; and the end
was a recession of Christianity and an extension of Islam which assumed all
the greater dimensions with the growth of the power of the Ottoman Turks
But a new hope dawned for the undefeated West; and this new hope was to



bring one of the greatest revolutions of history. If the land was shut, why
should Christianity not take to the sea? Why should it not navigate to the
East, take Muhammadanism in the rear, and as it were, win Jerusalem a
tergol This was the thought of the great navigators, who wore the cross on
their breasts and believed in all sincerity that they were labouring in the
cause of the recovery of the Holy Land, and if Columbus found the
Caribbean Islands instead of Cathay, at any rate we may say that
the Spaniards who entered into his labours won a continent for Christianity,
and that the West, in ways in which it had never dreamed, at last established
the balance in its favour.—

Crusades saved Western civilization in the Middle Ages. They saved it
from any self-centred localism; they gave it breadth-and a vision. On the
other hand, Muslim victories made Muslim vision narrow and myopic. So
that today Christians are larger in numbers and technologically and
militarily more advanced than Muhammadans. As these lines are being
written (August 1990), their armies and ships are spreading all over the
West Asian region beginning with Saudi Arabia.

To return to the medieval period. Religious wars between Christians and
Muhammadans alone did not account for killings on a large scale. The
Christians also fought bloody and long-drawn wars among themselves. The
Thirty Years War (1618-1648), for instance, decimated one-fifth population
of the region affected by it. Then there was the Inquisition. Inquisition was
a court or tribunal established by the Roman Catholic Church in the twelfth
century for the examination and punishment of heretics. England never
introduced it, Italy and France had only a taste of it. But in Spain it became
firmly established towards the end of the fifteenth century. It is computed
that there were in Spain above 20,000 officers of the Inquisition, called
familiars, who served as spies and informers. Imprisonment, often for life,
scourging, and the loss of property, were the punishments to which the
penitent was subjected. When sentence of death was pronounced against the
accused, burning the heretic in public was ordered as the church never
polluted herself with blood. The number of victims of the Spanish
Inquisition from 1481 to 1808 amounted to 341,021. Of these nearly 32,000
were burned at the stake.—


Islam outstripped Christianity in contributing to large-scale killings in
wars waged for religion or persecution of heretics. Each human being has
an idea or image of God in his mind. Consequently, there can be as many
Gods as there are human beings. Even according to one outstanding Sufi,
the paths by which its followers seek God are in number as the souls of
men.^ In view of this it is presumptuous to claim that there is only one God
or there are many Gods or there is no God at all. And yet in the name of
One God, and at that Merciful and Compassionate, what cruelties have not
been committed in the history of Islam? Arabia was converted during the
life-time of Muhammad. Immediately after the death of Muhammad, to
borrow the rhetoric of Edward Gibbon, in the ten years of the
administration of (Caliph) Omar (634-644) the Saracens reduced to his
obedience thirty-six thousand cities or castles, destroyed four thousand
churches or temples of the unbelievers, and edified fourteen hundred
moschs (mosques) for the exercise of the religion of Muhammad.— In these
unparalleled feats the number of the killed cannot be computed. Since many
pages in this book will be devoted to Muslim exertions in their endeavour to
spread Islam in India we may feel contented here to state that in this
scenario religion and religious wars became the very soul of thought, action
and oppression in the Middle Ages.

Censorship

Middle Ages is also known as Dark Ages. It is so called because there
were restrictions placed on the freedom of thought and any aberrations were
punished as heresy. Any idea away from the traditional was looked upon
with suspicion. New conceptions or knowledge gathered on the basis of
new experiments was taboo if it came into conflict with the Church or
contravened the Christian scriptures. This restriction on any new notions
made the period a dark age. But it required constant monitoring of peoples
thoughts and actions. The invention of printing and the rapid diffusion of
opinion by means of books, induced the governments in all western
countries to assume certain powers of supervision and regulation with
regard to printed matter. The popes were the first to institute a regular
censorship (1515) and inquisitors were required to examine all works
before they were printed. Only one example would suffice to illustrate the
position. Nicholas Copernicus was born in Poland in 1473: he taught


mathematics at Rome in 1500 and died in Germany in 1543. He researched
on the shape of the Earth, and concluded that the Sun was the centre round
which Earth and other planets revolved. In his De Orbium Celestium
Revolutionibus (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs) he even
measured the diameter and circumference of the Earth fairly accurately. But
the Church believed the Earth to be flat, and the fear of Inquisition
discouraged Copernicus from publishing his outrageous researches till
about the close of his life, for the Church could do little harm to a man
about to die. Even so, his book was forbidden to the Roman Catholics for
long. The Inquisition freely used torture to extort confession; heretics were
broken on the wheel, or burnt at stake on cross-roads on Sundays for
punishment as well as an example for others.

In the medieval India under Muslim rule there was no printing press and
no research of the type done by Copernicus. The need for censorship arose
because Islam forbade any innovation in the thought and personal
behaviour of Muslims. Beware of novel affairs, said Muhammad, for surely
all innovation is error. What was not contained in the Quran or Hadis was
considered as innovation and discouraged. That is why Muslim learning in
India remained orthodox, repetitive and stereotyped. Free thought and
research in science and technology were ruled out. Fundamentalist writers
like Khwaja Baqi Billah (1563-1603), Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564-1624)
and Shah Waliullah (1702-1763) were considered as champion thinkers.

As Muslims must live in accordance with a set of rules and a code of
conduct, there was an official Censor of Public Morals and Religion called
Muhtasib. It was his duty to see that Muslims did not absent themselves
from public prayers, that no one was found drunk in public places, that
liquors or drugs were not sold openly. He possessed arbitrary power of
intervention and could enter the houses of wrong-doers to bring them to
book. Sir Alexander Burnes relates that he saw persons publicly scourged
because they had slept during prayer-time and smoked on Friday.— I. H.
Qureshi writes. It was soon discovered that people situated as the Muslims
were in India could not be allowed to grow lax in their ethical and spiritual
conduct without endangering the very existence of the Sultanate.—
Hurriedly converted, half-trained, Indian Muslims were prone to reverting
to their original faith which was full of freedom. Therefore, all the sultans


were very striet about enforeing Islamie behaviour on Muslims through the
ageney of Muhtasibs. Balban, Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq
were known for their severity in this regard. Muhammad bin Tughlaq
regarded wilful neglect of prayers a heinous crime and inflicted severe
chastisement on transgressors.— Women too were not spared; Firoz Shah
and Sikandar Lodi in particular forbade women from going on pilgrimage
to the tombs of saints.— The Department of Censor of Public Morals was
known as hisbah.—

Non-Muslims suffered even more because of censorial regulations.
Tradition divided them into seven kinds of offenders like unbelievers,
infidels, hypocrites, polytheists etc. who are destined to go to seven kinds of
hell from the mild Jahannum to the hottest region of hell called Hawiyah, a
bottomless pit of scorching fire. A strict watch was kept on their thought
and expression. They were to dress differently from the Muslims, they
could not worship their gods in public and they could not claim that their
religion was as good as Islam. A case which culminated in the execution of
a Brahmin may be quoted in some detail as an example.

A report was brought to the Sultan (Firoz Tughlaq 1351-88) that there
was in Delhi an old Brahman {Zunar dar) who persisted in publicly
performing the worship of idols in his house; and that the people of the city,
both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol.
This Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet (muhrak), which was
covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. On
days appointed, the infidels went to his house and worshipped the idol,
without the fact becoming known to the public officers. The Sultan was
informed that this Brahman had perverted Muhammadan women, and had
led them to become infidels. (These women were surely newly converted
and had not been able to completely cut themselves off from their original
faith). An order was accordingly given that the Brahman, with his tablet,
should be brought in the presence of the Sultan at Firozabad. The judges,
doctors, and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the
Brahman was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the
provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahman must either become a
Musalman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahman, and
the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given


for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar. The Brahman was
tied hand and foot and east into it; the tablet was thrown on the top and the
pile was lighted. The writer of this book (Shams Siraj Afif) was present at
the darbar and witnessed the execution the wood was dry, and the fire first
reached his feet, and drew from him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped
his head and consumed him. Behold the Sultans strict adherence to law and
rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees.—

The above detailed description gives the idea of burning at stake under
Muslim rule. Else similar cases of executions are many. During the reign of
Firoz himself the Hindu governor of Uchch was killed. He was falsely
accused of expressing affirmation in Islam and then recanting.— In the time
of Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) a Brahman of Kaner in Sambhal was
similarly punished with death for committing the crime of declaring as
much as that Islam was true, but his own religion was also true.—

Astrology and Astronomy

Most medieval people of all creeds and countries believed in astrology.
Astrology literally means the science of the stars. The name was formerly
used as equivalent to astronomy, but later on became restricted in meaning
to the science or psuedo-science which claims to enable people to judge of
the effects and influences of the heavenly bodies on human and other
mundane affairs. Astrology was not to the medievals an unscientific
aberration. It was based on the understanding that the relationship of man to
the Universe is as the microcosm (the little world) is to the macrocosm (the
great world). Thus a knowledge of the heavens is essential for a true
understanding of man him self A knowledge of the movements of the
planets and their position in the heavens, would therefore be of the utmost
importance for man since, in the medieval phrase, superiors (in the heavens)
ruled inferiors (on earth): and not only man but all were subject to the
decrees of heavens, which themselves expressed the will of God.— Roger
Bacon (1214-1292?) considered astrology as the most practical of
sciences.—

Astrology was practised by Muslims as by all other medieval people.
Muhammad bin Qasim, the first invader of India, was despatched on his


mission only after astrologers had pronounced that the conquest of Sind
could be effected only by his hand.— Mahmud of Ghazni too believed in the
predictions of astrologers.— Timur the invader writes in his Malfuzat:
About this time there arose in my heart a desire to lead an expedition
against the infidels and become a ghazi, and felt encouraged when he
opened a fal (omen) in the Quran which said: O Prophet, make war upon
infidels and unbelievers and treat them with severity-and he launched his
attack on Hindustan.— The practice of consulting the Quran for fal was
common among medieval Muslims.— The savant Alberuni gives details of
Hindu literature on astrology and astronomy seen by him.— By and large
Muslim kings and commoners in India decided their actions on the advice
of the astrologers, soothsayers and omen mongers.

Peoples faith in astrology was reinforced for seeking solution to their
immediate problems and their curiosity to know their future. The first was
done by astrologers and palm-readers by examining the hand and face of
the applicant, turning over the leaves of the large book, and pretending to
make certain calculations and then decide upon the Sahet (saiet) or
propitious moment of commencing the business he may have in
hand.— Amulets and charms were also prescribed for warding off distress,
removing fear, obtaining success in an undertaking or victory in battle and a
hundred other similar problems.— The second was done by preparing a
horoscope. As usually practised, the whole heavens, visible and invisible,
was divided by great circles into twelve equal parts, called houses. The
houses had different names and different powers, the first being called the
house of life, the second the house of riches, the third of brethren, the sixth
of marriage, the eighth of death, and so on. To draw a persons horoscope, or
cast his nativity, was to find the position of the heavens at the instant of his
birth. The temperament of the individual was ascribed to the planet under
which he was born, as saturnine from Saturn,yovia/ from Jupiter, mercurial
from Mercury and so on. The virtues of herbs, gems, and medicines were
also supposed to be due to their ruling planets.

Kings and nobles gave large salaries to astrologers. The astrologers
prepared horoscopes of princes and the elite. Muslim kings got horoscopes
of all princes like Salim, Murad and Daniyal cast by Hindu Pandits.— Jotik
Ray, the court astrologer of emperor Jahangir used to make correct


predictions after reading the kings horoscope. He was once weighed against
gold and silver for reward.— There were men and women Rammals
(soothsayers) and clairvoyants at the court.— In short, the practice of
consulting astrologers was common with high and low. The people never
engaged even in the most trifling transaction without consulting them. They
read whatever is written in heaven; fix upon the Sahet, and solve every
doubt by opening the Koran.— No commanding officer is nominated, no
marriage takes place, and no journey is undertaken without consulting
Monsieur the Astrologer.— Naturally, the astrologers who frequented the
court of the grandees are considered by them eminent doctors, and become
wealthy.—

But there were charlatans also. They duped and exploited the poor and
the credulous. Besides some people then as now had no faith in astrology.
The French doctor Bernier was such an one. Describing the bazar held in
Delhi near the Red Fort, Francois Bernier (seventeenth century) says that
Hither, likewise, the astrologers resort, both Mahometan and Gentile. These
wise doctors remain seated in the sun, on a dusty piece of carpet, handling
some old mathematical instruments, and having open before them a large
book which represents the sign of the Zodiac. In this way they attract the
attention of the passenger by whom they are considered as so many
infallible oracles. They tell a poor person his fortune for a payssa Silly
women, wrapping themselves in a white cloth from head to foot, flock to
the astrologers, whisper to them all the transaction of their lives, and
disclose every secret with no more reserve than is practised by a penitent in
the presence of her confessor. The ignorant and infatuated people really
believe that the stars have an influence (on their lives) which the astrologers
can control.—

Astrology and astronomy are closely interlinked. In medieval times
astronomy was also considered a branch of psychology and medicine.
Astronomy has an undoubtedly high antiquity in India. The Arabs began to
make scientific astronomical observations about the middle of the eighth
century, and for 400 years they prosecuted the science of najum with
assiduity. The Muslims looked upon astronomy as the noblest and most
exalted of sciences, for the study of stars was an indispensable aid to
religious observances, determining for instance the month of Ramzan and


the hours of prayers. Halaku Khan (Buddhist) founded the great Margha
observatory at Azerbaijain. One at Jundishapur existed in Iran. In the
fifteenth century Ulugh Beg, grandson of Amir Timur (Tamerlane), built an
observatory at Samarqand. In Europe Copernicus in the fifteenth and
Galileo and Newton in the seventeenth century did valuable work in the
field of astronomy. In medieval India many Muslim chroniclers wrote about
the movements of planets and stars,— but the name of Sawai Jai Singh II of
Jaipur has become famous for his contribution to the science of astronomy.
He built observatories or Jantar-Mantars at many places in the country for
the study of the movements of stars and planets. A reputed geometer and
scholar, Sawai Jai Singh II built the Delhi Jantar-Mantar in C.E. 1710 at the
request of Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. The observatory was used
for naked-eye sighting, continuously monitoring the position of the sun,
moon and planets in relation to background stars in the belt of the Zodiac.
His aim was basically to make accurate predictions of eclipses and position
of planets. He devised instruments of his own invention - the Samrat
Yantra, the Jai Prakash, and the Ram Yantra. The Misr Yantra was added
later by Jai Singhs son Madho Singh. The Samrat Yantra is an equinoctial
dial. The Yantra measures the time of the day, correct to half a second; and
the declination of the sun and other heavenly bodies. Other Jantar-Mantars
of Jai Singh were built at Ujjain, Mathura, Banaras and Jaipur.—

Alchemy, Magic, Miracles and Superstitions

Alchemy flourished chiefly in the medieval period, although how old it
might be is difficult to say. It paved the way for the modem science of
chemistry, as astrology did for astronomy. In the medieval age alchemy was
believed to be an exact science. But its aims were not scientific. It
concerned itself solely with indefinitely prolonging human life, and of
transmuting baser metals into gold and silver. It was cultivated among the
Arabians, and by them the pursuit was introduced into Europe. Raymond
Eully, or Eullius, a famous alchemist of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, is said to have changed for king Edward I mass of 50,000 lbs. of
quicksilver into gold.— No such specific case is found in medieval India,
although there was firm belief in the magic or science of alchemy. A Sufi
politician of the thirteenth century, Sidi Maula by name, developed lot of
political clout in the time of Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji (1290-1296). He built


a large khanqah (hospice) where hundreds of people were fed by him every
day. He used to pay for what he bought by the queer way of telling the man
to take such and such amount from under such and such brick or coverlet,
and the tankahs (gold/silver coins) found there looked so bright as if they
had been brought from the min t that very moment.— He did not accept
anything from the people but spent so lavishly that they suspected him of
possessing the knowledge of Kimya va Simya (alchemy and natural
magic).—

The general solvent which at the same time was supposed to possess the
power of removing all the seeds of disease out of the human body and
renewing life, was called the philosophers stone. Naturally, there was a
keen desire to get hold of one. India was known for possessing knowledge
of herbs which prolonged life. Alberuni writes about the science of alchemy
{Rasayan) about which he so learnt in India: Its {Rasayans) principles
(certain operations, drugs and compound medicines, most of which are
taken from plants) restore the health and give back youth to fading old age
white hair becomes black again, the keenness of the senses is restored as
well as the capacity for juvenile agility, and even for co-habitation, and the
life of the people in this world is even extended to a long period.— In
Jamiul Hikayat Muhammad Ufi narrates that certain chiefs of Turkistan
sent ambassadors with letters to the kings of India on the following mission.
The chiefs said that they had been informed that in India drugs were
procurable which possessed the property of prolonging human life, by the
use of which the kings of India attained to a very great age. The Rais were
careful in the preservation of their health, and the chiefs of Turkistan
begged that some of this medicine might be sent to them, and also
information as to the method by which the Rais preserved their health so
long. The ambassadors having reached Hindustan, delivered the letters
entrusted to them. The Rai of Hind having read them, ordered the
ambassadors to be taken to the top of an excessively lofty mountain
(Himalayas?) to obtain it. In the same book a story refers to a chief of
Jalandhar, who had attained to the age of 250 years. In a note Elliot
comments that this was a favourite persuasion of the Orientals.— But
Alberunis conclusion is crisp and correct. He writes: The Hindus do not pay
particular attention to alchemy, but no nation is entirely free from it, and
one nation has more bias for it than another, which must not be construed as


proving intelligence or ignorance; for we find that many intelligent people
are entirely given to alchemy, whilst ignorant people ridicule the art and its
adepts.—

Belief in magic too was a universal weakness of the middle ages. The
invocation of spirits is an important part of Musalman magic, and this
{dawat) is used for the following purposes: to command the presence of the
Jinn and demons who, when it is required of them, cause anything to take
place; to establish friendship or enmity between two persons; to cause the
death of an enemy; to increase wealth or salary; to gain income gratuitously
or mysteriously; to secure the accomplishment of wishes, temporal or
spiritual.— So, magic was practised both for good purposes and evil
intentions, for finding lucky days for travelling, catching thieves and
removing diseases as well as inflicting diseases on others. The first was
called spiritual {Ilm-i-Ruhani) and the latter Shaitani Jadu. Although Islam
directs Musalmans to believe not in magic— yet the belief was
universal.— It involved visit to tombs, use of collyrium or pan (betel), and
all kinds of antics and ceremonials for desiring death for others and success
for self There were trained magicians (Sayana).— They fleeced the fools,
both rich and poor, to their hearts content. A highly popular book on magic
among the Muslims in the medieval period was Jawahir-i-Khamsa by
Muhammad Ghaus Gauleri.—

Belief in magic and sorcery and worship of saints living and dead was
linked with belief in miracles and superstition. The argument was that the
elders and saints helped when they were alive, they could still help when
dead and so their graves were worshipped. There was belief in miracles for
the same reason. An evil eye could inflict disease and there was fear of
witchcraft. A blessing could cure it and so there was faith in the miraculous
powers of saints. In medieval times physicians were few, charlatans many,
and even witch doctors flourished. Amir Khusrau mentions some of the
powers of sorcery and enchantment possessed by the inhabitants of India.
First of all they can bring a dead man to life. If a man has been bitten by a
snake and is rendered speechless, they can resuscitate him even after six
months.—


There is nothing surprising about the belief in miracles by medieval
Muslims, in particular about their Sufi Mashaikfi. In theory Islam
disapproved of miracles. In practice it became a criterion by which Sufi
Shaikhs were Judged and the common reason why people reposed faith in
them. Many Sufi Shaikhs and Faqirs were considered to be Wali who could
perform karamat or miracles and even istidraj or magic and
hypnotism.— Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya held that it was improper for a
Sufi to show his karamat even if he possessed supernatural powers.— But
belief in alchemy and miracles was common even among Sufi Mashaikh—
and there are dozens of hagiological works and biographies of Sufi saints
containing stories of such miracles including Favaid-al-Fuad, Siyar-ul-
Auliya and Khair-ul-Majalis which are considered by many Muslims to be
pretty authentic. There are unbelievable stories, hardly worth reproducing.
It is difficult to say when the stories of the karamat of the Sufi saints began
to be told. But they helped the Sufis take Islam to the masses. It is believed
that impressed by these stories or actual performance of miracles, many
Hindus became their disciples and ultimately converted to Islam.

Belief in ghosts of both sexes was widespread. Nights were frightfully
dark. Right upto the time of Babur there were no candles, no torches, not a
candle-stick.— Even in the Mughal palace utmost economy was practised in
the use of oil for lighting purposes.— The common man lived in utter
darkness after nightfall. And ghosts, goblins and imaginary figures used to
haunt him. Sorcerers and witch doctors tried to help men and particularly
women who were supposed to have been possessed by ghosts.

Education

Belief in astrology and alchemy, magic and witchcraft, miracles and
superstition was there both in the West and the East in the middle ages.
Europe released itself from mental darkness sooner because of spread of
education and early establishment of a number of universities. Oxford was
set up in the twelfth century, Cambridge in 1209. Paris University came into
being in the twelfth. Angers in the thirteenth and Orleans in 1231. In Italy,
Salerno was founded in the tenth century, Arezzo in 1215, Padua
1222, Naples 1224, Siena 1246, Piacenza 1248, Rome 1303, and Pisa 1343.
Such was the situation throughout Europe.— The emergence of universities


in such large numbers, with still larger number of sehools whose seleeted
pupils went to the universities, led to a spurt in learning whieh may explain
the birth and flowering of Renaissance in Italy and Reformation in
Germany. Martin Luther, who created a revolution in religion, was a student
at the University of Erfurt founded in 1343.

In the early years of Islam the Muslims eoneentrated mainly on
translating and adopting Creek seholarship. Aristotle was their favourite
philosopher. Scientific and mathematical knowledge they adopted from the
Greeks and Hindus. This was the period when the Arabs imbibed as much
knowledge from the West and the East as possible. In the West they learnt
from Plato and Aristotle and in India Arab scholars sat at the feet of
Buddhist monks and Brahman Pandits to learn philosophy, astronomy,
mathematies, medicine, chemistry and other subjects. Caliph Mansurs (754-
76) zeal for learning attracted many Hindu scholars to the Abbasid court. A
deputation of Sindhi representatives in 771 C.E. presented many treatises to
the Caliph and the Brahma Siddhanta of Brahmagupta and his Khanda-
Khadyaka, works on the seienee of astronomy, were translated by Ibrahim
al-Fazari into Arabie with the help of Indian seholars in Baghdad. The
Barmak (originally Buddhist Pramukh) family of ministers who had been
eonverted to Islam and served under the Khilafat of Harun-ur-Rashid (786-
808 C.E.) sent Muslim seholars to India and weleomed Hindu seholars to
Baghdad. Onee when Caliph Harun-ur-Rashid suffered from a serious
disease which baffled his physicians, he called for an Indian physician,
Manka (Manikya), who cured him. Manka settled at Baghdad, was attached
to the hospital of the Barmaks, and translated several books from Sanskrit
into Persian and Arabic. Many Indian physicians like Ibn Dhan and Salih,
reputed to be descendants of Dhanapti and Bhola respectively, were
superintendents of hospitals at Baghdad. Indian medical works of Charak,
Sushruta, the Ashtangahrdaya, the Nidana, the Siddhayoga, and other
works on diseases of women, poisons and their antidotes, drugs,
intoxieants, nervous diseases ete. were translated into Pahlavi and Arabie
during the Abbasid Caliphate. Sueh works helped the Muslims in extending
their knowledge about numerals and medieine.— Havell goes even as far as
to say that it was India, not Greeee, that taught Islam in the impressionable
years of its youth, formed its philosophy and esoterie religious ideals, and
inspired its most eharaeteristie expression in literature, art and


architecture.— Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was a Persian Muslim who lived in the
early eleventh century and is known for his great canon of medicine.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the jurist, physician and philosopher was a Spanish
Muslim who lived in the twelfth Century. A1 Khwarizmi (ninth century)
developed the Hindu nine numbers and the zero (hindisa). A1 Kindi (ninth
century) wrote on physics, meteorology and optics. A1 Hazen (A1 Hatim C.
965-1039) wrote extensively on optics and the manner in which the human
eye is able to perceive objects. Their best known geographers were A1
Masudi, a globe-trotter who finished his works in 956 and the renowned A1
Idrisi (1101-1154). Although there is little that is peculiarly Islamic in the
contributions which Occidental and Oriental Muslims have made to
European culture,— even this endeavour had ceased by the time Muslim
rule was established in India. In the words of Easton, when the barbarous
Turks entered into the Muslim heritage, after it had been in decay for
centuries, did Islam destroy more than it created or preserved.— For
instance, Ibn Sina had died in Hamadan in 1037 and in 1150 the Caliph at
Baghdad was committing to the flames a philosophical library, and among
its contents the writings of Ibn Sina him self In days such as these the
Eatins of the East were hardly likely to become scholars of the
Muhammadans nor were they stimulated by the novelty of their
surroundings to any original production.—

Similar was the record of the Turks in India. No universities were
established by Muslims in medieval India. They only destroyed the existing
ones at Sarnath, Vaishali, Odantapuri, Nalanda, Vikramshila etc. to which
thousands of scholars from all over India and Asia used to seek admission.
Thus, with the coming of Muslims, India ceased to be a centre of higher
Hindu and Buddhist learning for Asians. The Muslims did not set up even
Muslim institutions of higher learning. Their maktabs and madrasas catered
just for repetitive, conservative and orthodox schooling. There was little
original thinking, little growth of knowledge as such. Education in Muslim
India remained a private affair. Writers and scholars, teachers and artists
generally remained under the direct employment of kings and nobles. There
is little that can be called popular literature, folk-literature, epic etc. in
contemporary Muslim writings. The life of the vast majority of common
people was stereotyped and unrefined and represented a very low state of
mental culture.—


Tenor of Life


The chief amusement of the nobles of the ruling class was warfare. In
this they took delight that was never altogether assuaged. If they could not
indulge in this, then, in later ages, they made mock fights called jousts or
tournaments. If they could not always fight men, they hunted a nim als.
Every noble learned to hunt, not for food-though this was important too-but
for pleasure. They developed the art of hunting birds as well as taming and
flying birds.— Some nobles were learned, humble, polite and courteous-
hut such were exceptions rather than the rule. Since there was little
academic activity, most of the elite passed their time in field sports,
swordsmanship and military exercises. Their coat of mail was heavy and
cumbersome; a fall from horse was very painful and sometimes even fatal.
Such a situation was common both in Europe and India. But in Europe the
medieval age was an age of chivalry. It tended to raise the ideal of
womanhood if not the status of women. Chivalrous duels and combats were
generally not to be seen among Muslims in India. Such artificial
sentimentality has nothing in common with (their) warrior creed.—

The medieval age, by and large, conjures up vision of times in which
everything was backward. Eife was nasty, brutish and short. The ruler and
the ruling classes were unduly cruel. Take the case of hunting animals and
birds. In the process fields with standing crops were crushed and destroyed,
often wantonly. The common man suffered. Man wallowed in ignorance.
Man was dirty, there was no soap, no safety razor. Potable water was
provided by rivers, else it was well-water or rainwater collected in tanks,
ponds and ditches. Political and religious tyranny, the institution of slavery,
polygamy and inquisition or hisbah rendered life unpalatable. Men had few
rights, women fewer. Wife was a possession; parda was a denial of the
dignity of woman as woman. Medicine was limited, treatment a private
affair, medicare was no concern of the state. Police was nowhere to be seen
for seeming redressal of grievances while sorcery and magic, and ghosts
and goblins were ever present to frighten and harm. Means of transport and
communication were primitive. Most people hardly ever moved out of their
villages or towns. Society was closed as was the mind.


But there was no scarcity of daily necessities of life. True, in medieval
India there was no tea, no bed-tea. Coffee came late. It is mentioned by
Jahangir in his memoirs.— Tomato or potato did not arrive before the
sixteenth century. Still, there was no dearth of palatable dishes for the
medieval people to eat. Wheat and rice were common staples.— Rice is said
to be of as many kinds as twenty-one.— Paratha, halwa and harisa, were
commonly eaten by the rich,— Khichri and Sattu by the poor.— Muslims
were generally meat-eaters and mostly ate the flesh of cow and goat though
they have many sheep, because they have become accustomed to
it.— Fowls, pigeons and other birds were sold very cheap.— Vegetables
mentioned in medieval works are pumpkin, brinjal, cucumber, jackfruit
{kathal), bitter gourd (karela), turnip, carrot, asparagus, various kinds of
leafy vegetables, ginger, garden beet, onion, garlic, fennal and thyme.— Dal
and vegetables were cooked in ghee, tamarind was commonly used, and
pickles prepared from green mangoes as well as ginger and chillies were
favourites.— There were fresh fruits, dry fruits and sweets. Apples, grapes,
pears and pomegranates— were for important people. Melons, green and
yellow {kharbuza and tarbuz), were grown in abundance.— Orange, citron
{utrurj), lemon {limun), lime (lim), jamun, khirni, dates and figs were in
common use as also the plantains.— Sugar-cane was grown in abundance
and Ziyauddin Barani, writing in Persian, gives its Hindustani name ponder.
Mango, then as now, was the most favourite fruit of India.— Sweet-meats
were of many kinds, as many as sixty five.— Some names like reori, sugar-
candy, halwa and samosa are familiar to this day. Ibn Battutas description of
the preparation of samosa would make ones mouth water even
today: Minced meat cooked with almond, walnut, pistachios, onion and
spices placed inside a thin bread and fried in ghee.— Wine and other
intoxicants like hemp and opium, though prohibited in Islam, were freely
taken by those who had a liking for it.— Betel (then known by its Sanskrit
name tambul) was an after dinner delicacy.—

Muslim elite were very fond of eating rich and fatty food, both in quality
and quantity. Their gluttony was whipped up as much by the love of
sumptous dishes as by their habit of hospitality. It also received stimulus
from the use of drinks and drugs and was best exhibited during excursions,
picnics and arranged dinners. According to Sir Thomas Roe, twenty dishes


at a time were served at the tables of the nobles, but sometimes the number
went even beyond fifty. But for the extremely poor, people in general
enjoyed magnificent meals with sweetmeats and dry and fresh fruit
added.— All this was possible because food grains were extremely cheap
throughout the medieval period as vouched by Barani for the thirteenth,
Afif for the fourteenth, Abdullah for the fifteenth and Abul Fazl for the
sixteenth centuries.— The poor benefited by the situation but the benefit
was probably offset by the force and coercion used in keeping prices low as
asserted by Barani and Abdullah, the author of Tarikh-i-Daudi.

In matters of clothing also, India was better placed than many other
countries in the middle ages. The textile industry of India was world-
famous. The Sultan, the nobles and all the rich dressed exceedingly well.—
The costly royal robes, the gilded and studded swords and daggers, the
parasols {chhatra) of various colours were all typically Indian paraphernalia
of royal pomp and splendour. The use of rings, necklaces, ear-rings and
other ornaments by men was also due to Indian wealth and opulence. The
dress of the Sultan and the elite consisted of kulah or head-dress, a tunic
worked in brocade and long drawers. The habit of dyeing the beard was
common. It added in the old a zest for life as did the slanting of cap in the
young. The Hindu aristocracy dressed like the Muslim
aristocracy,— except that in place of kulah they used a turban, and in place
of long drawers they wore dhoti trimmed with gold lace. The Muslims
dressed heavily but the Hindus were scantily dressed. They cannot wear
more clothing on account of the great heat, says Nicolo Conti.— The
orthodox Muslims wore clothes made of simple material like linen. The
dress worn by scholars at the Firoz Shahi Madrasa consisted of the Syrian
jubbah and the Egyptian dastar.^ But there was no special uniform for
any one, not even for soldiers. In the villages the poor put on only a loin¬
cloth {langota) which Babur takes pains to describe in detail.—

Muslim women dressed elaborately and elegantly. The inmates of the
harems of the kings and nobles, indeed even their maids and servants
dressed in good quality clothes.— Lehanga, angia and dupatta were the
common set for women as seen in medieval miniatures. They wore shoes
made of leather and silk, often ornamented with gold thread and studded
with precious stones. Besides women all over the country wore all kinds of


ornaments, the rich of gold and silver, pearls and precious stones, the poor
of silver and beads. Care of the teeth, painting the eyes, use of antimony,
lampblack, henna, perfumed powders, sandal-wood, aloes-wood, otto of
roses and wearing of flowers added elegance to personality and beauty to
life.—

Cities in medieval India were few, but they were large and impressive.
Foreign visitors like Athnasius Nikitin and Barbosa give a favourable
comparison of Indian cities with those of Europe. Cities and towns
generally were built on the pattern of the metropolis of Delhi. Shihabuddin
Ahmad, the author of Masalik-ul-Absar (fourteenth century), writes: The
houses of Delhi are built of stone and brick The houses are not built more
than two storeys high, and often are made of only one.— Besides, there
must have been hut-like houses of the poor huddled together in congested
localities. In the Delhi of the medieval period there was the fort and palace
of the Sultan, cantonment area of the troops, quarters for the ministers, the
secretaries, the Qazis, Shaikhs and faqirs. In every quarter there were to be
found public baths, flour mills, ovens and workmen of all professions.— In
the villages, the peasants lived in penury. But if there was little to spare,
there was enough to live by.— There were indoor and outdoor games for all
to play-chess,— backgammon, pachisi, chausar, dice, cards, kite-flying,
pigeon-flying, polo, athletics; cock, quail and partridge fighting; and
childrens games.— Public entertainments, as on the occasion of marriage in
the royal family, comprised triumphal arches, dancing, singing, music,
illuminations, rope-dancing and jugglery. The juggler swallowed a sword
like water, drinking it as a thirsty man would sherbet. He also thrust a kni fe
up his nostril. He mounted little wooden horses and rode upon the air Those
who changed their own appearance practised all kinds of deceit. Sometimes
they transformed themselves into angels, sometimes into demons.—

Conclusion

There were certain characteristics of the medieval age which have
survived to this day among the Muslims. These give an impression that
Muslims are still living in medieval times. Therefore, the legacy of the
medieval age is medievalism, especially among the Muslims. The days of
autocracy, feudalism and religious wars are over, but not so in many Islamic


countries. While Christians in the West are beeoming modem and seeular,
the same eannot be said about Muhammadans. In the field of edueation, the
Printing Press in Europe became a potential medium of developing and
spreading knowledge. Medieval Indian Muslims were not interested in this
development, but even now the teaehing in maktabs and madrasas is no
different from what it used to be in the medieval period. In religious matters
freedom of expression and critieal analysis is still suppressed as was done
in the medieval age. As for example, the translator of the Japanese edition
of Salman Rushdies controversial novel. The Satanic Verses, Professor
Hitoshi Igarashi, was found murdered in his University Campus on 12 July
1991. Mr. Gianni Palma, the Italian publisher of its translation, was attaeked
by an angry Muslim during a news eonferenee in February 1990. And
Salman Rushdie himself lives in hiding in perpetual seare of assassination
beeause of the Fatwa. The Islamie Government of Pakistan has deeided to
make death by hanging mandatory for anyone who defames Prophet
Muhammad. Previously, a person eonvieted of blasphemy had a ehoiee of
hanging or life imprisonment.— No wonder a Muslim like Raflq Zakaria
eould write about Muhammad in the only way he did though many ehapters
of this book fail to earry eonvietion beeause they are too defensive and
apologetie.— On the other hand many innoeuous books eoneerning
medieval studies or Islam have been banned in India in deferenee to the
wishes of Muslim fundamentalists. Even now Muslim festivals and
auspieious days are declared so, as was done in medieval times, after
aetually sighting the new moon, despite the strides made in the field of
Astronomy which tell years in advance when the new moon would appear.
In the soeial sphere, Muslim women are still made to live in parda, and
polygamy is practised as a matter of personal law if not as a matter of
religious duty. In the political field, Muslim rule in medieval India was
based on the doetrines of Islam in which discrimination against non-
Muslims was central to the faith. Even today Hindu shrines are broken not
only in Pakistan and Bangladesh but even in Kashmir as a routine matter.

It would normally be expected that historical writing on Muslim rule in
medieval India would tell the tale of this discrimination and the sufferings
of the people, their foreed conversions, destruction of their temples,
enslavement of their women and ehildren, eandidly and repeatedly
mentioned by medieval Muslim ehronielers themselves. But euriously


enough, in place of bringing such facts to light there is a tendency to gloss
over them or even suppress them. Countries which in the middle ages
completely converted to Islam and lost links with their original religion and
culture, write with a sense of pride about their history as viewed by their
Islamic conquerors. But India's is a different story. India could not be
Islamized and it did not lose its past cultural anchorage. Naturally, it does
not share the sense of glory felt by medieval Muslim chroniclers. But some
modern secularist writers do praise Muslim rule in glowing terms. All
historians are not so brazen or such distortionists. Hence the history of
Muslim rule in India is seen through many coloured glasses. It is necessary,
therefore, to take a look at the schools or groups of modem historians
writing on the history of medieval India so that a balanced appraisal of the
legacy of Muslim mle in India may be made.


Footnotes:

- Cited in Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 49.

- Albemni II, p. 161. Also Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari.

- Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, p. 13.
-Ain, I, p. 2.

- Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, p.464.

-Ain, I, pp. 2-3, 6.

- Barani, pp. 293-94.

- Barani, p. 64.

- Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 73. Also Tripathi, Some Aspects of
Muslim Administration, p. 5.

- Adab-ul-Harb, fols. 132b-133a.


— Ibid, fols.56b; Barani, p.73;Adab-ul-Harb, fols.8b-10c.

— Hasan Nizami, Tajul Maasir, trs.by S.H. Askari, Patna University
Journal (Arts), Vol.18, No.3 (1963),p. 58. Also Ruben Levy, Social
Structure of Islam, p. 252.

— Barani, p. 72. See also Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 40.

— Hallam, The Middle Ages, I, pp.227-28.

— Barani, p.62

— P. Saran, Studies in Medieval Indian History, P. 10.

— Moreland, W.H., The Agrarian System of Muslim India, p.221; Also
Easton, Stewart C., The Heritage of the Past, pp. 285, 290, 291.

— Ain, I, pp.xxxii-xxxiii.

— Barani, pp.262-66.

— Lai, History of the Khaljis, p.74 n.3; Barani, pp. 262-64.

— Akbars Din-i-Ilahi in Lai, K.S., Studies in Medieval Indian History,
pp.233-47.

— Naqvi, Hamida Khatoon, Urbanisation and Urban Centres under the
Great Mughals, Simla, 1971.

— Alberuni, Introduction, p.xxiii, I, pp. 199,202; A1 Idrisi, Nuzhat-ul-
Mushtaq, E and D, I, p.77. Also R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri and
K.K.Datta, An Advanced History of India, Macmillan & Co.

(London, 1958). pp.l86.

— S.A.A.Rizvi, Hindi trs. of Rehla in Tughlaq Kalin Bharat (Aligarh,
1956) pp. jklm. Lor detailed references see Lai, K.S., Growth of Muslim
Population, pp. 36, 46, 55-63.


— Terry, Edward, A Voyage to East India (London, 1655), p. 112.

— Moreland, India at the Death ofAkbar, p.264.

— Margoliouth, DS, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, pp. 107,125-26,
145-46,250.

— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, p. 42.

— William Muir, Calcutta Review, 1845.

— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, pp. 16-11.

— The Modern Cyclopaedia, under Inquisition.

— Rizvi, History of Sufism, I, p. 20.

— Gibbon, Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, II, p. 713.

^ Burnes, Sir Alexander, Travels in Bokhara, I, p.313; Hughes,
Dictionary of Islam, p.418.

— Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husain, Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi,

p.166.

— Barani, pp.35, 41, 72, 285; Ibn Battuta, Def and Sang., II, 34,52.

— Lai, Twilight of the Sultanate, p.269.

— It has its modem counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Iran. In Iran it is
known as Komiteh, or Committee, in Saudi Arabia Mutawar. The Saudi
religious police is called the Committee for commendation of virtue and
prevention of vice. They enforce strict adherence to Islamic code of
conduct. In Iran, while the regular police are charged with enforcement of
laws dealing with common crimes such as burglary or assault, the armed
officers of the Komiteh walk the streets in their olive green fatigues, making
sure that the strict moral standards of Islam are upheld. It is their job to
make certain that unmarried men and women do not hold hands or walk


together on the sidewalk, that storekeepers display large, glossy
photographs of the nations senior Islamic clerics in their shops, that liquor
is not served at private parties, and that women keep their hair, arms, and
feet covered, preferably in the black robes called chadors.

— Afif, p.388; trs. in E and D, III, p.365.

— Farishtah, II, pp.4I7-I8.

— Nizamuddin Ahmad Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, p.323; Farishtah, I,p.I82;
Niamatullah trs. by Dorn, Makhzan-i-Afghana, pp.65-66. Also Fal, Twilight
of the Sultanate, p.l91.

— Easton, Stewart C., The Heritage of the past, p.399.

^/Z)iJ.,p.403.

— Elliots Appendix, E and D, I, p.432. He cites Chachnama and Tuhfutul
Kiram for source; Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, pp. 44-45, 190.

— Farishtah, I, pp 32,33,37. Also M.Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin,
p.56.

— Timur, Mulfuzat-i-Timuri, E and D, III, pp.394-95.

^ Amir Khurd, Siyar-ul-Auliya, trs. Quddusi, p.657; Sijzi, Favaid-ul-
Fvad trs. Ghulam Ahmad, pp. 157-58.

— Alberuni, I, pp. 152-159.

— Bernier, p.244.

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, trs. by G.A. Herklots, pp.247-63.

— Abul Fazl, Akbar Nama, trs. Beveridge, II, pp.346-47, 354-55 and 543
respectively.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, II, pp. 160, 203, 215, 235.


— Ibid., p.235.

— Bernier, p.245, also pp. 161-163.

^ Ibid,^.2A5.

— Bernier, pp.243-44.

— e.g. Barani, p.l67; Ain, I,p.50.

— In Ujjain (Ozene of Ptolemys geography) there was an astronomieal
laboratory in aneient times on the meridian of whieh town the world
summit-originally an Indian conception-was supposed to lie (Arnold, The
Legacy of Islam, p.93).

— The Modern Cyclopaedia under Alehemy.

— Barani, p.209. Also Badaoni, Ranking, I, p.233.

— Amir Khurd, Siyar-ul-Auliya, trs. Quddusi, pp.246-47.

— Alberuni, I, pp. 188-89. Also Khusrau, Nuh Sipehr, E and D, III, p.563.

— E and D, II, pp. 173-74 and note. Muhammad Ufi had oeeasion to live
in India during the reign of Sultan Iltutmish (1210-1236 C.E.). He is
something better than a mere story-teller (E and D, II, p. 156).

— Alberuni, I, p. 187.

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, p.218.

— Quran, II, 96.

— Amir Khusrau, Nuh Sipehr, E and D,III, p.563; Amir Khurd, Siyar-ul-
Auliya, trs.Quddusi, pp.338, 650; Sijzi, Favaid-ul-Fvad, trs. Ghulam
Ahmad, p.292.


— Jafar Sharif, op.cit., pp.218-246, 274-77.

Ibid., p.219.

— Amir Khusrau, Nuh Sipehr, E and D, III, p.563.

— Amir Khurd, Siyar-ul-Auliya, Muhibb-i-Hind Press (Delhi 1309 H.,
C.E. 1891)pp.351-52.

— Ibid., p.354.

— Amir Khusrau, Afzal-ul-Favaid, Urdu trs. in Silsila-i-Tasawwuf No.

81, Kashmiri Bazar Eahore, p.95; Ibn Battuta, pp. 164-66.

— Babur Nama, II, p.518.

— Ain, I, p.50; Eal, K.S. The Mughal Harem, pp. 182-84.

— Stewart C.Easton, The Heritage of the Past (New York, 1957), map on
the end leaf showing University Centres and dates of their establishment.

— Alberuni, Introduction, p.xxxi; Singhal, India and World Civilization,
I,p.l49.

— Havell, E.B., History of Aryan Rule in India, p.256.

— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, Preface, p. v.

— Easton, The Heritage of the Past, p.242.

— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, pp. 55-56.

— Ashraf, K.M., Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, p.329.

— A1 Qalqashindi, Subh-ul-Asha, trs. Otto Spies, p. 68; Barani, p. 318.

^ Ibn Battuta, p.l3; Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, Persian
text, p.42.


— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, p. 185.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, p.l55.

— Ahmad Yadgar, op. cit., p.52; Amir Hasan Sijzi, Favaid-ul-Fvad,
Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow, Urdu trs. p. 174.

— A1 Qalqashindi, Subh-ul-Asha, pp. 48, 49. Also Ain, I, pp.65, 66.

— Barani, pp.316-19.

— Ibn Battuta, pp.38,49; Babur Nama, II, pp.517-18.

— A1 Qalqashindi, op.cit., p.56. For various kinds of meat preparations
see Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, pp.315-324.

— Barani, p. 315. Also Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p.583.

— Ahmad Yadgar, op.cit., p.59; Ibn Battuta, p.I7.

— Ibn Battuta, p.l6; A1 Oalqashindi p.50. Also K.M.Ashraf, Life and
Conditions of the People of Hindustan, pp.28'2-83.

— Ahmad Yadgar, op. cit., pp.50-52; Barani, p.569; Afif, pp.295-96.

— Afif, pp.295-96; Ibn Battuta,p.I7.In the time of Balban one man of
kharbuza was sold for 2 jitals {Siyar-ul-Auliya, Urdu trs. Quddusi, p.205).

Barani, pp.568-70; J.R.A.S., 1895,p.531.

— Ahmad Yadgar, op. cit., pp.51, 90.

— A1 Qalqashindi, p.50; Barani, p.318.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 15.

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, pp.325-30.


— Barani, p.l82; Amir Khusrau, Deval Rani, p.60; Abdur Razzaq in
Major, India in the Fifteenth Century, p.32. Also Ibn Battuta.

— Ain., I, pp.59-78; Ashraf, op.cit., pp.282-84; Lai, Mughal Harem, pp.
125,189.

— Barani, p.305; Afif 293-98; Abdullah, Tarikh-i-Daudi, Bankipore Ms.,
pp.223-24; Abul Fazl, Ain, I, pp.65-78.

— Jafar Sharif, Qanun-i-Islami, p.304.

i^J.R.A.S., 1895, p.88.

— Nicolo Conti in Major, India in the Fifteenth Century, p.33.

— Diwan-i-Mutahhar quoted in K.A.Nizami, Studies in Medieval Indian
History, Aligarh, 1956, p.90.

— Babur Nama, II, p.519.

— Lai, K.S., The Mughal Harem, pp.120-123,169.

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, pp.301-313.

— Masalik-ul-Absar, trs. E and D, III, p.576.

— loc. cit.

— Lai, K.S., Twilight of the Sultanate, pp.259-60.

— Chess is so eharaeteristie a produet of the legaey of Islam that it
deserves more than a passing mention. Modern European chess is the direct
descendant of an ancient Indian game, adopted by the Persians, handed on
by them to the Muslim world, and finally borrowed from Islam by Christian
Europe (Arnold, Legacy of Islam, p.32, citing H.J.R. Murrary, A History of
Chess, Oxford, 1913).

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, pp.331-338.


— Amir Khusrau, Ashiqa, trs. E and D, III, p. 553.

— Reported in The Statesman, New Delhi, 4 August, 1991.

— Review by G.H. Jansen of Rafiq Zakarias Muhammed and the Quran,
Penguin Books, U.K., in The Times of India, 11 August, 1991.


Historiography of Medieval India

Chapter 2

History to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not
opinions.

- Lord Acton

There is no dearth of Muslim historical works on medieval India.
Muslims have been prolifie writers of history. Pre-Islamie traditions of
writings were in the form of Qasidas or odes and geneologies. When Islam
appeared on the scene, historieal eonseiousness beeame inherent in the
faith. The interpretation of the Quran rendered historieal knowledge
indispensable. The military aehievements of the new creed needed to be
maintained in ehronologieal order. The retaining of records of treaties
between early Islamie states and eonquered people implied composition of
historical works. Thus, instructive and glorious events and facts beneficial
to the community were colleeted and history writing beeame a passionate
pursuit with the Muslims. The historical literature produeed under Arabie
inspiration or Persian tradition was replete with religious fervour, and
Islamie historiography has remained elerical in nature. The life and
teaehings of Muhammad, the expansion of Islam under the Caliphs and
later aehievements of Islam remained the prineipal contents of Sirah
(biographies), Ansab (geneologies), Tabaqat (sketches), Malfuzat
(memoirs), Maktubats (letters) and Maghazi (narratives of war and
eonquest). A seeular turn was tried to be given to Islamie history by Ibn
Khaldun. But books written by Muslims on world history, Islamie history,
general history, dynastie history, or histories of eountries and regions, aimed
only at delineating the aehievements of Islam. History of Islamie conquests
is an unfoldment of the divine plan aecording to Muslim historian Barani.


Contemporary Chronicles



No wonder, a continuous chronological record of the major events of
Islamic history in India is available in a series of works ranging from the
seventh to the nineteenth century, and covering both dynasties and regions.
There are a number of authentic historical works on the conquest of Sind by
Muhammad bin Qasim and on the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni and
Muhammad Ghauri. With the establishment of Muslim rule in India official
and non-official chroniclers produced works covering all the dynasties of
the Central Sultanate of Delhi (C. 1200-1526) as well as the dynasties of the
various Muslim kingdoms that arose on the ashes of the Sultanate. Some of
the writers, though religious bigots like Ziyauddin Barani and Abdul Qadir
Badaoni, were geniuses in their own way. Baranis contemporary Amir
Khusrau too wrote historical works doing credit to his versatility.
Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire in India
(1526), wrote his own memoirs. His daughter Gulbadan Begum followed in
his footsteps and produced an autobiographical sketch entitled Humayun
Nama. Before them Amir Timur wrote his Mulfuzat-i-Timuri and after them
emperor Jahangir (1605-1627) wrote his memoirs under the title of Tuzuk-i-
Jahangiri. Nowhere else in the history of the world can a ruling dynasty
boast of having four royal autobiographers as the Mughals of India. Of
regular historical works, of course, there is no dearth. Scholars like Abul
Fazl, Abdul Hamid Lahori and Khafi Khan wrote in a style and with the
comprehension of Edward Gibbon, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Theodore
Mommsen and Thomas Carlyle. Abdul Hamid Lahoris Badshah Nama and
Khafi Khans Muntakhab-ul-Lubab were followed by works of Sujan Rai
Bhandari, Ishwar Das Nagar, Bhim Sen, Ghulam Husain Salim and Ghulam
Husain Tabatabai. These later writers, instead of merely chronicling events
also sometimes showed concern for their causation. These are just a few
names. There are scores and scores of contemporary Muslim chroniclers of
medieval Muslim history. The information provided by them is
supplemented by inscriptions carved on the Muslim monuments, both
original or converted from Hindu shrines.

This historical material has certain peculiarities. Firstly, medieval
Muslim chroniclers wrote with a strong religious bias. To some belief in the
superiority of the Islamic faith was an obsession, to others it appeared as a
patent fact. Therefore, whenever they referred to non-Muslims, they did not
fail to use the most uncomplimentary epithets against them. It is sometimes



argued that theirs was just a style of writing and no serious notice should be
taken of their choice of words. But the manner of their writing surely
reflects their psyche.

Secondly, Persian chroniclers, by and large, wrote at the command of
kings and nobles. As panegyrists, they naturally extolled their patrons and
the burden of their theme was that medieval monarchs left no stone
unturned to destroy infidelity and establish the power of the people of the
Islamic faith. Thus, almost all Persian writers have exaggerated the
achievements of their contemporary rulers, especially in the spheres of
conquest and crushing of infidelity. Even their acts of cruelty and atrocity
have been painted as virtuous deeds.

Thirdly, even those who wrote independently suffered from racial pride
and prejudice. While they write little about the life of the common people,
their economic problems and social behaviour, they do not tire of portraying
their rulers as champions of Islam and destroyers of disbelief Their words
of hate have left a trail of bitter memories which it is difficult to erase. As
an example, the language of some contemporary chroniclers may be quoted
as samples. Nawasa Shah was a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty and
was converted to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni. Such conversions were
common. But return to ones original religion was considered apostasy
punishable with death. A1 Utbi, the author of Tarikh-i-Yamini, writes how
Sultan Mahmud punished Nawasa Shah:

Satan had got the better of Nawasa Shah, for he was again apostatizing
towards the pit of plural worship, and had thrown off the slough of Islam,
and held conversation with the chiefs of idolatry respecting the casting off
the firm rope of religion from his neck. So the Sultan went swifter than the
wind in that direction, and made the sword reek with the blood of his
enemies. He turned Nawasa Shah out of his government, took possession of
all the treasures which he had accumulated, re-assumed the government,
and then cut down the harvest of idolatry with the sickle of his sword and
spear. After God had granted him this and the previous victory, which were
tried witnesses as to his exalted state and proselytism, he returned without
difficulty to Ghazna.-


Hasan Nizami, author of Taj-ul-Maasir, thus wrote about the eonquest of
Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri in 1192:

The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer
When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs
of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing
impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue The army of Islam was
completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly
departed to the fire of hell He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and
foundations of the idol temples, and built in their stead mosques and
colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were
divulged and established.-

And here is Maulana Ziyauddin Barani. He writes: What is our defence
of the faith, cried Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji, that we suffer these Hindus, who
are the greatest enemies of God and of the religion of Mustafa, to live in
comfort and do not flow streams of their blood.-

And again, Qazi Mughisuddin explained the legal status of the Zimmis
(non-Muslims) in an Islamic state to Sultan Alauddin:

The Hindu should pay the taxes with meekness and humility coupled
with the utmost respect and free from all reluctance. Should the collector
choose to spit in his mouth, he should open the same without hesitation, so
that the official may spit into it The purport of this extreme meekness and
humility on his part is to show the extreme submissiveness incumbent upon
the Zimmis. God Almighty Himself (in the Quran) commands their
complete degradation- in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of
the true prophet: Mustafa has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering
and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true
faith, or else be slain or imprisoned, and have all their wealth and property
confiscated.-

Even after his conversion to Islam, the Hindu remained an object of
abhorrence. In his Fatawa-i-Jahandari, Barani writes: Teachers are to be
sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones (scriptures) down the throats of
dogs (converts). To shopkeepers and the low born they are to teach nothing


more than the rules about prayer, fasting, religious eharity and the Hajj
pilgrimage along with some ehapters of the Quran They are to be instrueted
in nothing more The low born are eapable of only viees- Barani is so
malieiously vituperative against Hindus that even many modem Muslim
scholars feel embarrassed at his language and find it difficult to defend
him.- It must, however, be remembered that Barani belonged to the
common run of Muslim theologians and chroniclers. He was a personal
friend of men like Amir Khusrau and Ala Hasan Sijzi and was a disciple of
no less a Sufi than Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya. He possessed charming
manners and was known for his wit and humour.- But in the case of Hindus,
his wit turned into rage. He is copiously quoted by future chroniclers like
Nizamuddin Ahmad, Badaoni and Farishtah, who all praise him highly.
Most of medieval Muslim chroniclers wrote in the idiom of Barani; only he
excelled them all. All medieval chroniclers were scholars of Islamic
scriptures and law. They often quote from these to defend or justify the
actions of their kings in relation to their non-Muslim subjects.

It is sometimes argued that in the early years of Muslim rule Muslim
chroniclers did not know much about the Hindus. Unlike the later historians
like Abul Fazl, Badaoni and Khafi Khan, who tried to understand the social
and cultural milieu of the country, chroniclers like Hasan Nizami and
Ziyauddin Barani do not refer to the vast majority of the Hindus at all. Only
rarely do they speak about them but then only in derogatory terms, which
also shows their ignorance. But that is not always true. Even when times
had changed in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, the attitude and language
of the chroniclers did not change. For instance, Badaoni writes that His
Majesty (Akbar), on hearing how much the people of the country prized
their institutions, commenced to look upon them with affection.- Similarly,
he respected Brahmans who surpass other learned men in their treatises on
morals.— Then, The Hindus are, of course, indispensable; to them belongs
half the army and half the land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims)
nor the Mughals can point to such grand lords as the Hindus have among
themselves.— So also said Abul Fazl when he wrote that the king, in his
wisdom, understood the spirit of the age, and shaped his plans
accordingly.— And yet this very Badaoni sought an interview with Akbar,
when the Kings troops started marching against Rana Pratap, begging the
privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu, infidel


blood. Akbar was so pleased at this expression of allegiance to his person
and to the Islamic idea of Jihad that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on
Badaoni as a token of his pleasure.— This was in 1576. Akbar became more
and more rational and tolerant as years passed by. His so-called infallibility
decree was passed in 1579, his Din-i-Ilahi promulgated in 1582. And yet
the language of the chroniclers about the non-Muslims did not change. For,
in 1589, Badaoni thus wrote about the two greatest personalities of the
Mughal Empire: In the year 998 (H./I589 C.E.) Raja Todarmal and Raja
Bhagwandas who had remained behind at Eahore hastened to the abode of
hell and torment (that is, died) and in the lowest pit became food of serpents
and scorpions. May Allah scorch them both.—

Abdul Qadir Badaoni is not an exception. This style of writing, bom out
of the ingrained prejudice against non-Muslims, is found in all medieval
chronicles in various shades of intensity. They denounce non-Muslims.
They write with jubilation about the destmction of their temples, massacre
of men, raising towers of skulls and such other achievements. They also
write about the enslavement of women and children, and the licentious life
of their captors, their polygamy and concubinage. There is a saying that no
man is condemned save by his own mouth. By painting their heroes as cmel
and atrocious destroyers of infidelity, Muslim chroniclers themselves have
brought odium on the kings and conquerors of their own race and religion,
all the while thinking that they were bringing a good name to them.

Contribution of Western scholars

Working on the writings of these chroniclers for almost his whole
lifetime. Sir Henry Elliot rightly arrived at the conclusion that medieval
histories were recorded by writers who seem to sympathise with no virtues
and to abhor no vices, and that medieval mlers were sunk in sloth and
debauchery and parasites and eunuchs revelled in the spoil of plundered
provinces.— And with the white mans burden on his shoulders he even felt
encouraged to hope that these chronicles will make our native subjects more
sensible to the immense advantages accruing to them under the mildness
and equity of our rule.—


Any other writers denuneiation of the medieval ehronielers or Muslim
rulers would have gone unnotieed, for similar statements appear in the
writings of many British historians on medieval Indian history but are not
taken quite seriously. But no research worker on medieval Indian history
could help reading and rereading Elliots works, so that whether one liked it
or not, one could not do without Elliot. Indeed Eanepoole opined: To realize
Medieval India there is no better way than to dive into the eight volumes of
the priceless History of India as Told by its Own Historians a revelation of
Indian life as seen through the eyes of the Persian court a nn alists.—
Eanepoole, Pringle Kennedy,— and Ishwari Prasad depended primarily on
Elliot and Dowsons eight volumes. Dr. Ishwari Prasad went to the extent of
saying: In preparing this volume {Medieval India) I am not so
presumptuous as to think that I have improved upon Elphinstone and
Eanepoole, to whom I must gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.—

Now, it is a recognised fact that the contribution of European scholars in
general and of British historians in particular to the study of Muslim
literature and history is invaluable. In the early phase, their main task was to
translate medieval historical works from Arabic and Persian into English
and other European languages. For example. Majors H.R. Raverty and
George S.A. Ranking, two army officers, translated from Persian into
English the Tabqat-i-Nasiri of Minhaj Siraj (1881) and Muntakhab-ut-
Tawarikh of Abdul Qadir Badaoni (1889), respectively. Their painstaking
diligence and honesty compel our admiration. Similarly, Blochmann, Jarret,
Eowe and the Beveridge couple are but a few names from among those who
have done stupendous work in this sphere. Elliot and Dowsons great work,
in spite of a chorus of disparagement by some modem Indian historians,
still holds the field even now for more than a hundred years, against any
translations in Urdu or Hindi. Scholars are still learning from and working
on Elliot's meritorious volumes. S.H. Hodivala wrote a critical commentary
on this work entitled Studies in Indo-Muslim History (Bombay, 1939) and
added a supplement to it in 1957. K.A. Nizami has added some fresh
information on the first two volumes of Elliot in addition to Hodivalas
commentary in his On History and Historians of Medieval India
(Delhi, 1983). Elliots original work is still going through repeated reprints.
This in itself is indicative of its importance.


Assisted by the translations of Muslim chroniclers by the first generation
scholars, foreign and Indian historians embarked on writing on medieval
Indian history. Some Indian scholars worked under British historians in
England. Many others worked in India utilizing research techniques
provided by the West. Indian historians owe a lot to the pioneering
researches of British historians, whatever may be said about their merits
and shortcomings. The first comprehensive history of India entitled History
of British India (1818), was attempted by James Mill. He believed in the
superiority of the British people over the Indians. But there were other
scholars thinking on different lines. The work of Sir William Jones and
other European scholars unearthed a volume of evidence on Indias glorious
past. However, despite the European discovery of Indias past greatness and
well-developed civilization, the British, having become the paramount
power in India, remained generally convinced of their own superiority over
Indians, and continued to feed themselves on Mill and Macaulay. They held
Indians and their literature in low esteem, insisting on accepting the
degenerate conditions of the eighteenth century Muslim India as its normal
condition. Seeley declared that nothing as great was ever done by
Englishmen as the conquest of India, which was not in the ordinary sense a
conquest at all, and which he put on par with the Creek conquest of the
East, pointing out that the British who had a higher and more vigorous
civilization than the native races founded the Indian Empire partly out of a
philanthropic desire to put an end to enormous evils of the robber-states of
India. There is no need to get ruffled about such assertions. Most of the
conclusions of British historians about Muslim history do find confirmation
in the description of cruelties perpetrated by the Muslims in their own
chronicles as well as their reiteration in indigenous source materials in
Hindi, Sanskrit, Rajasthani and Marathi. Hindu source materials are few.
They are also not as informative as the Muslim chronicles. But curiously
enough the meagre Hindu and the voluminous Muslim source-materials
corroborate and supplement rather than contradict each other about the
behaviour of the Muslim regime.

Paucity of Hindu Source-materials

Professor D.P.Singhal asserts that, contrary to the general belief, Indians
in ancient times did not neglect the important discipline of historiography.



On the contrary, they were good writers of history. He states: Ancient India
did not produce a Thucydides, but there is considerable evidence to suggest
that every important Hindu court maintained archives and geneologies of its
rulers. And Kalhanas Rajatarangini, written in twelfth century Kashmir, is
a remarkable piece of historical literature. Despite his lapses into myths and
legends, Kalhana had an unbiased approach to historical facts and history
writing. He held that a true historian, while recounting the events of the
past, must discard love (raga) and hatred (dvesha). Indeed, his well-
developed concept of history and the technique of historical investigation
have given rise to some speculation that there existed at the time a powerful
tradition of historiography in which Kalhana must have received his
training.—

If that was so, why is there hopeless deficiency of Hindu historical
writings during the medieval period? In this regard, James Tod, the famous
author of the monumental classic Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, has
this to say: 1. that ardent Hindus were good historiographers; 2. that
medieval times were not propitious for them for writing history; and 3. that
much of the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist literature was destroyed by Muslim
invaders and rulers. He needs to be quoted at length. Those who expect,
writes he, from a people like the Hindus a species of composition of
precisely the same character as the historical works of Greece and Rome
commit the very gregarious error of overlooking the peculiarities which
distinguish the natives of India from all other races, and which strongly
discriminate their intellectual productions of every kind from those of the
West. Their philosophy, their poetry, their architecture, are marked with
traits of originality; and the same may be expected to pervade their history,
which, like the arts enumerated, took a character from its intimate
association with the religion of the people. It must be recollected, moreover,
that the chronicles of all the polished nations of Europe, were, at a much
more recent date, as crude, as wild, and as barren, as those of the early
Rajputs. He adds. My own animadversions upon the defective condition of
the annals of Rajwarra have more than once been checked by a very just
remark: When our princes were in exile, driven from hold to hold, and
compelled to dwell in the clefts of the mountains, often doubtful whether
they would not be forced to abandon the very meal preparing for them, was
that a time to think of historical records? — If we consider the political


changes and convulsions which have happened in Hindustan since
Mahmoods invasion, and the intolerant bigotry of many of his successors,
we shall be able to account for the paucity of its national works on history,
without being driven to the improbable conclusion, that the Hindus were
ignorant of an art which has been cultivated in other countries from almost
the earliest ages. Is it to be imagined that a nation so highly civilized as the
Hindus, amongst whom the exact sciences flourished in perfection, by
whom the fine arts, architecture, sculpture, poetry, music, were not only
cultivated, but taught and defined by the nicest and most elaborate rules,
were totally unacquainted with the simple art of recording the events of
their history, the character of their princes and the acts of their reigns? The
fact appears to be that After eight centuries of galling subjection to
conquerors totally ignorant of the classical language of the Hindus; after
every capital city had been repeatedly stormed and sacked by barbarous,
bigoted, and exasperated foes; it is too much to expect that the literature of
the country should not have sustained, in common with other interests,
irretrievable losses.—

Indians as a whole today exhibit keen interest in history. This interest has
not sprung all of a sudden. It has always been there. To the uneducated
common man it has come down in legends, stories, mythologies and
anecdotes. There is no dearth of professional historians. The works
produced by Jadunath Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai, G.H. Ojha, Tara Chand,
Mohammad Habib and R.C. Majumdar apart, the sustained assiduity shown
by hundreds of other writers of history in modern times is proof enough of
the fact that the Indian mind is not devoid but indeed keenly concerned with
its history and culture. If it did not produce historical works in medieval
times to the extent expected, the reasons are obvious; it is not necessary to
repeat what has been said above. But a few words from Jadunath Sarkar
may be reproduced. He says that when a class of men is publicly depressed
and harassed (as under Muslim rule) it merely contents itself with dragging
on an animal existence. The Hindus could not be expected to produce the
utmost of what they were capable Amidst such social conditions, the human
hand and the human mind cannot achieve their best; the human soul cannot
soar to its highest pitch.— The barrenness of the Hindu intellect is just one
more bestowal of inheritance of Muslim rule in India.


There is no doubt that whatever Hindu historical literature was extant,
was systematically destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers. It is well
known that pre-Islamic literature was destroyed by the Arabs in their
homeland as they considered it belonging to the Jahiliya. It is not surprising
therefore that many Muslim heroes in their hour of victory just set libraries
to flames. They razed shrines to the ground, burnt books housed in them
and killed Brahman, Jain and Buddhist monks who could read them. The
narrative of Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khaljis campaigns in Bihar is full of
such exploits. Only one instance may be cited on the destruction of the
works of the enemy. Kabiruddin was the court historian of Sultan Alauddin
Khalji (1296-1316) and wrote a history of the latters reign in several
volumes. But his work entitled the Fatehnama is not traceable now and a
very important source of Alauddins reign has been lost. It is believed that
the Fatehnama contained many critical and uncomplimentary comments on
the Mongol invaders whom the Sultan repeatedly defeated, so that when the
Mughal dynasty was established in India, this work was destroyed.—
Similarly, only one instance may be given to show how the Indians tried to
protect their books from marauding armies. In the Jinabhadra-Sureshwar
temple located in the Jaisalmer Fort in Rajasthan, I saw a library of Jain
manuscripts called Jain Cyan Bhandar located in a basement, 5 storeys deep
down, each storey negotiated with the help of a staircase, and in each floor
manuscripts are stacked. The top of the cell is covered with a large stone
slab indistinguishable from other slabs of the flooring to delude the invader.
Such basement libraries set up for security against vandalism are also found
in other places in Rajasthan.

Bards and Charans were the historians of the Rajputs. They indulged in
gross exaggeration while praising their patrons. But the beauty of their
work lies in the fact that these chroniclers also dared utter truths, sometimes
most unpalatable to their masters. Only a few of their works have survived
and have been rescued from princely states which were generally friendly to
the Mughals and therefore escaped repeated sackings. From Chand Bardais
Prithviraj Raso to the accounts by the Brahmans of the endowments of the
temples, from the disputations of the Jains to Kalpadruma, a diary kept by
Raja Jai Singh of Datia in which he noted every event. Tod was able to get
lot of historical material. Padmanabhs Kanhadde-Prabandh, Bhandu Vyas
Hammirayan, Nainsis Khyat, Vidyapatis Purush Pariksha and Kirtilata and


Kaviraj Shymaldas Vir Vinod, are regular and not so regular historieal
works of Hindus through the eenturies.— When the Marathas mounted
national resistanee against the Mughal empire there was so mueh to write
about, and they wrote exeellent histories. And all these works eorroborate
Muslim ehronieles. Persian writers boast of the achievements of their
conquerors secured through brute force. The Indians confirm the facts and
denounce their atrocities.—

Modern Indian Historiography

On the basis of chronicles available in Persian, Arabic and Hindi, but
mainly in Persian, European and Indian writers set about reconstructing the
history of medieval India. The study of medieval Indian history in modem
times may be said to have begun about a century ago when, in the eighteen-
sixties, and under the patronage of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, the Indo-
Persian chronicles of the medieval period began to be printed in the
Bibliotheca Indica Series, and in 1867-77 appeared Elliot and Dowsons
History of India as Told by its Own Historians. Elliots work contained in
eight fairly bulky volumes translations of extracts from most of the then
known Persian chronicles, and soon became indispensable for the
researcher on medieval history. The original Persian works were so
eulogistic of the cruelties of Muslim conquerors and rulers that the great
painstaking scholar Elliot and his followers were perforce constrained to be
critical of medieval Indian rulers, and this school held the ground for quite
some time.

Soon other writers, who would not agree with this criticism, or who were
determined to refute it, appeared on the scene, and the situation so created
divided the modem Indian writers on medieval history into objective and
pro-Muslim or apologist historians.

In the beginning, medieval historiography remained confined to political
history or biography writing. Then, gradually, the non-political features of
medieval India like the cultural influence of Muslim mle, Islam as a
civilisation, literature and art, social and economic life, began to attract the
attention of scholars. That history is not to be merely a narrative of kings
and wars, but has to be a story of the people as well, has now become well


recognized. But this concept has taken time to grow. There is now the
conviction that history is a form of critical inquiry into the past and not
merely a repetition of testimony and authority. The modern historiographer
of Medieval History tries to probe into the ideas behind human actions
performed in the past. These motives they find, unlike the medieval
historiographer, not only in religious, but in political, economic, social and
other causes and try to discover a relationship between them. And lastly,
modern historiography applies the critical apparatus of footnotes,
appendices, bibliography, and sometimes maps also.

However, when medieval Indian historiography was making good
headway, India was partitioned into two. Partition of the country has been
tragic in many ways, but no branch of study has been perhaps so much
directly and vitally affected by it as the historiography on medieval India.
Many distinguished scholars conversant with classical Persian went over to
Pakistan and history has suffered from their migration. This can be easily
seen in the number of students offering Medieval History in colleges and
universities and in articles published in the historical journals of the country
or papers read at various conferences - as compared with the Ardent or the
Modem periods of Indian history. At the Trivandrum session of the Indian
History Congress (1958) a seminar was held to probe into the causes of this
decline and suggest means of checking it, but nothing much seems to have
been done to improve the position. On the other hand, once in a while one
even comes across the puerile argument: Where is the necessity of
continuing with medieval historical studies in India after the creation of
Pakistan?

But the worst effect of partition has been that 1947 has tended to produce
two historiographies based on territorial differentiation. Comparing the
works of Ahmad Ali entitled Culture of Pakistan with Richard Symonds
The Making of Pakistan (London, 1950) on the one hand and Humayun
Kabirs Indian Heritage and Abid Hussains National Culture of India on the
other, W. Cantwell Smith says that the Pakistani historian flees from Indian-
ness, and would extra-territorialize even Mohenjodaro (linking the Indus-
valley civilisation with Sumer and Elam) as well as the Taj (yet though left
in India, the monuments and buildings of Agra and Delhi are entirely
outside the Indian tradition and are an essential heritage and part of



Pakistani culture, - p.205), and omits from consideration altogether quite
major matters less easily disposed of (such as Asokas reign, and the whole
of East Pakistan) The Indians on the other hand seek for the meaning of
Muslim culture within the complex of Indian unity in diversity as an
integral component.^ So, after 1947, besides the objective and apologist.
Secular and Communal versions, there are the Pakistani and Indian versions
of medieval Indian history.—

Today, besides individual workers in many places, some universities in
particular, like the Aligarh Muslim University, are specially devoted to
medieval Indian historiography. Aligarh has funds, facilities and
professoriate for medieval history, and all these have given her advantage
over other universities in devoting itself mainly to medieval Indian
historical studies. The Medieval India Quarterly, the various texts and
books edited and published under Aligarh Historical Series and the studies
on Sufi saints may be recounted with a feeling of satisfaction.

However, the revised edition of the second volume of Elliot and
Dowsons History of India as Told by its Own Historians published from
Aligarh contains a long introduction on dialectical materialism and the
materialistic interpretation of history by Mohammed Habib. The idea has
caught on and there is a clear Marxist influence on the Aligarh school
which has prompted Peter Hardy to say that the significant feature of
Professor Habibs Marxist interpretation of medieval Indian history is not
that Marxism has absorbed Islam but that Islam has absorbed Marxism—

Marxist History

Today, Marxist historians and writers are well entrenched in academic
and media sectors. Their rise has been encouraged by the Indian
government. After Partition, Pakistan declared itself a theocratic state as is
natural with Muslim nations. India opted to remain a secular country. This
situation was very convenient to the special brand of Indian secularists; they
could not become nationalist, so they turned Marxist.

What are the salient features of Marxist history in India? To understand
this we have to consult Marx himself Between 1853 and 1857, Marx wrote


twenty-three artieles on India, and Engels eight, bearing on British rule in
India. Marx took the Europe-eentred view of Indias past. He shared all his
assumptions on India with British rulers. Britain was to lay the foundations
of the material progress in India on the annihilation of the traditional Indian
soeiety. He wrote in 1853;

Indian soeiety has no history at all, at least no known history. What we
call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded
their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging
society. The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to
conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by
the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton. England had
to fulfill a double mission in India: One destructive, and the other
regenerating - the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying of the
material foundations of Western society in Asia. Arabs, Turks, Tartars,
Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hinduised, the
barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, themselves
conquered by the superior civilization of their subjects. According to him
the British were the first conquerors who were superior, and therefore
inaccessible to Hindu civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the
native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all
that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their
rule in India, report hardly anything beyond that destruction. The work of
regeneration hardly transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless, it has
begun.— Indian Marxists accept this thesis and fully subscribe to it.

Harold Easki could write in 1927 that the effort to read the problem of
India in the set terms of Marxism is rather an exercise in ingenuity than a
serious intellectual contribution to socialist advance.— In the early stages
there was no concerted effort by Indian historians to interpret Indian history
in Marxist terms. M.N. Roy attempted to give a Marxist interpretation of
the Indian National Movement,— but it was not until 1940 that a serious
Marxist history was produced by R.Palme Dutt entitled India Today. D.D.
Kosambis An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (1956), is regarded
as a substantial Marxist interpretation of Indian history from the earliest
times to the rise of British power in India. During the post-independence
period, there has been a tremendous proliferation of Marxism in Indian


universities. It appeared to be a fashionable ereed, as eompared with
Gandhism whieh appeared to be traditional and somewhat unmodern.

Where the Marxist, Imperialist, Seeularist and Muslim eommunalist
historians eoneur is in their attitude towards Hindu eulture. Marxists, as did
Marx himself, regard eulture as bourgeois and anti-revolutionary. Culture,
therefore, had to be denouneed, ineluding religion, God and morals, as an
obstacle to proletarian change. Culture in the Indian context meant mainly
Hindu religion and heritage. Hindu culture had, therefore, to be derided and
held as the cause of Indias predicament. The Muslim communalists, who
openly believed in religious distinctions and were naturally convinced of
their own cultural superiority over that of the others, looked upon Hindu
culture with disfavour. While the Marxists denounce in unmistakable terms
imperial rule and imperialist historians, they join hands with them to
demolish nationalist historians whose nationalism carried with it pride in
their cultural past. They also denounce objective historians who, unlike the
Marxists, do not seek to employ history as an instrument of change. Marxist
attacks on culture also aim at hitting at the roots and source of inspiration of
nationalism.

Marxist history also lays claim to be counted as objective history. The
phrase objective history is very attractive, but sometimes under this
appellation, all shadows are removed and medieval times are painted in
such bright colours by Marxist historians as to shame even the modern age.
At others, modern ideas of class-conflict, labour-exploitation and all that
goes with it, and many other modern phenomena and problems are
projected backwards to fit in the medieval social structure. The word
religion is tried to be eschewed because it is thought to be associated with
bitter memories. If the medieval chronicler cries out Jihad, it is just not
heard: but if he cries aloud persistently, it is claimed that he never meant it.
The Marxists or leftists read into history what they think history should be.
All this makes the content of Marxist history dubious, needing it to be
buttressed by brochures, statements and booklets under a number of
signatures. Often, Marxist writers work in groups, mutually admiring each
others discoveries. The need for this also arises from the fact that Muslim
rule in India remained Islamic basically, with firm belief in the superiority
and propagation of Islam as an article of faith.— Atrocities committed by its


followers in the name of Islam are often very graphieally deseribed by
Muslim ehronielers as aets of piety and graee. This aspeet has produeed an
unfortunate character in the Muslim civilization as a whole. It is in the
combination of the spiritual and temporal powers, in the confusion of moral
and physical authority, that the tyranny which seems inherent in this
civilization originated. Its history is soaked in blood of the supposed
enemies of Islam. But all this is denied by Marxists who always try to cover
up the black spots of Muslim rule with thick coats of whitewash.
Sometimes, this tryanny is sought to be condoned by fundamentalists on the
plea that the ruler was only performing his duty, or denied by declaring
that Muslim polity was not religion-oriented. But condonation or denial has
not saved the Muslim regime from the harm its nature has brought to bear
upon the reputation of the community and the history of the country.—

With regard to medieval Indian history the Marxist historians unwillingly
tow the line of British writers of whom they are otherwise critical. The
main interest of the British was to write a history which justified their
conquest of India. They claimed that their rule in India was nothing new
and that they were legitimate successors of former conquerors like Arabs,
Turks and Mughals. The Mughals were represented as empire builders, who
united India and gave it law and order, peace and stability. Similar was the
mission of the British, they said. Facts, sometimes, compelled the British
historians to speak of the atrocities and vandalism of Muslim rule but this
did not deter them from upholding its authority. Thus British historians,
while trying to legitimise their own rule, also gave legitimacy to their
Muslim predecessors. But in the larger national consciousness both were
considered as foreign impositions and constantly resisted. This resistance
the British historians presented as revolts and rebellions against the
legitimate Imperial authority. Marxist and communal historians apply these
epithets in the case of Muslim rule, as also did the medieval chroniclers.
Like the latter, the protestations of Marxist historians about Muslim rule in
India are lofty, but their conclusions are grotesque. Such dichotomy is not
new. Even a fourteenth century medieval historian Ziyauddin Barani
suffered from such contradiction. He becomes lyrical when describing the
benefits derived from the study of history,— but turns a die-hard
fundamentalist when he actually writes it.—


On the basis of the study of medieval chronieles, seholars like Ishwari
Prasad and A.L. Srivastava arrived at the eonclusion that the medieval age
was a period of unmitigated suffering for the Hindus; to others like I.H.
Qureshi and S.M. Jaffar it was an age of all-round progress and prosperity.
Writing about the Sultanate period, Ishwari Prasad says: There was
persecution, partly religious and partly political, and a stubborn resistance
was offered by the Hindus The state imposed great disabilities upon the
non-Muslims Instances are not rare in which the non-Muslims were treated
with great severity The practice of their religious rites even with the
slightest publicity was not allowed, and cases are on record of men who lost
their lives for doing so.— According to A.L. Srivastava the Sultanate of
Delhi was an Islamic State, pure and simple, and gave no religious
toleration to the Hindus and indulged in stifling persecution.— About the
Mughal times his conclusion is that barring the one short generation under
Akbar when the moral and material condition of the people was on the
whole good, the vast majority of our population during 1526-1803 led a
miserable life.— On the other hand, I.H. Qureshi had the mendacity to
declare that The Hindu population was better off under the Muslims than
under the Hindu tributaries or independent rulers. Their financial burden
was lighter than it had been for some centuries in pre-Muslim days Nor was
the Hindu despised socially. The Muslims, generally speaking, have always
been remarkably free from religious prejudice.—

Manipulated History

History, to be above evasion or dispute, says Lord Acton, must stand on
documents, not opinions.— But history written by people like Qureshi and
Jaffar suited the Nehruvian establishment for achieving what it described as
national integration. Towards that end many pseudo-secularist and Marxist
historians joined the cadre of such writers.

And funny though it may sound it was decided to falsify history to please
the Muslims and draw them into the national mainstream. Guidelines for
rewriting history were prepared by the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT), and a summary of the same appeared in
Indian Express datelined New Delhi, 17 January 1982. The idea was to
weed out undesirable textbooks (in History and languages) and remove


matter which is prejudicial to national integration and unity and which does
not promote social cohesion Twenty states and three Union Territories have
started the work of evaluation according to guidelines, prepared by NCERT.

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued a notification
dated 28 April 1989 addressed to schools and publishers suggesting some
corrections in the teaching and writing of Muslim rule in India - like the
real objective of Mahmud Ghaznavis attack on Somnath, Aurangzebs
policy towards the Hindus, and so on. These guidelines specifically say:
Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by
Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned. One instruction in the
West Bengal circular is that schools and publishers have been asked to
ignore and delete mention of forcible conversions to Islam. The
notification, says the Statesman of 21 May 1989, was objected to in many
quarters. A row has been kicked up by some academicians who feel that the
corrections are unjustified and politically motivated Another group feels
that the corrections are justified.

This experiment with untruth was being attempted since the 30s-40s by
Muslim and Communist historians. After Independence, they gradually
gained strength in university departments. By its policy the Nehruvian state
just permitted itself to be hijacked by the so-called progressive, secular and
Marxist historians. Communism never struck roots in India, a land of great
and deep philosophy. But some Communists, always suspect in the eyes of
the majority of the Indian people, did help in the division of the country.
After partition they were joined by those communal elements which could
never be nationalist, but they also did not want to be dubbed as
communalist, and so became communist. The impressive slogan of
secularism came handy to them and in place of educating the divisionists,
they read repeated lectures to Hindus on secularism. Armed with money
and instructions from the Ministry of Education, the National Council of
Educational Research, University Grants Commission, Indian Council of
Historical Research, secular and Stalinist historians began to produce
manipulated and often manifestly false school and college text-books of
history and social studies in the Union Territories and States of India. This
has gone on for years.



But the exercise has proved counter-productive. In place of encouraging
national integration, distorted history has only helped increase
communalism. For one thing, it has provided a welcome opportunity to the
vested interests to assert that no temples were broken, no mosques raised on
their sites and no forcible conversions to Islam were made. If people are
truthfully educated about the circumstances of their conversion,— they
would not behave as they are prone to at present. On the one hand, the
government through the Department of Archaeology preserves monuments
the originals of which were destroyed by Islamic vandalism, and on the
other, history text-books are directed to say that no shrines were destroyed.
Students are taught one thing in the class rooms through their text-books,
while they see something else when they go on excursions to historical
monuments. At places like Qutb Minar and Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque they
see that the construction is all Hindu and destruction all Muslim. History
books are not written only in India; these are written in neighbouring
countries also, and what is tried to be concealed here for the sake of
national integration, is mentioned with pride in the neighbouring Muslim
countries. Scholars in Europe are also working on Indian history and
untruths uttered by Indias secular and progressive historians are easily
countered.

One thing that arouses unnecessary controversy is about the destruction
and desecration of temples and construction of mosques in their stead.
Muslim chroniclers repeatedly make mention of success of conquerors and
rulers in this sphere. The chroniclers with first hand knowledge wrote that
their patrons did so with the avowed object of spreading Islam and
degrading infidelity in Hindustan. So Hajjaj instructed Muhammad bin
Qasim. So Mahmud of Ghazni promised the Khalifa. Amir Timur
(Tamerlane) also proclaimed the same intention. Still it is asserted by some
writers that temples were attacked for obtaining their wealth and not
because of religious fervour. The declaration of Mahmud of Ghazni in this
regard is conclusive. It is related that when Mahmud was breaking the idol
of Somnath, the Brahmans offered him immense wealth if he spared the
idol which was revered by millions; but the champion of Islam replied with
disdain that he did not want his name to go down to posterity as Mahmud
the idol-seller {but farosh) instead of Mahmud the breaker-of-idols {but
shikan).— All appeals for pity, all offers of wealth, fell on deaf ears. He


smashed the saered lingam into pieees and as an aet of piety sent two of its
pieees to be thrown at the steps of the Jama Masjid at Ghazni and two
others to Meeea and Medina to be trampled upon on their main streets.—
Alberuni, the eontemporary witness writes: The image was destroyed by
Prince Mahmud in 416 H. (1026 C.E.). He ordered the upper part to be
broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with
all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels and embroidered garments.
Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with
the Cakraswamin, an idol of bronze that had been brought from
Thaneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of
the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from
dirt and wet.—

So, the consideration was desecration, primarily. Mahmud had come to
spread Islam and for this undertaking was bestowed the title of Yamin-ud-
daula (Right hand of the Caliph) and Amir-ul-Millat (Chief of the Muslim
Community) by the Khalifa al Qadir Billah.— No wonder, in the estimation
of his Muslim contemporaries - historians, poets, and writers - the exploits
of Mahmud as a hero of Islam in India were simply marvellous and their
encomiums endless.— Of course, invaders like Mahmud also collected lot
of loot from wherever they could get, including the precious metals of
which idols were made or the jewellery with which they were adorned. The
Rasmala narrates that after the destruction of Somnath, Mahmud acquired
possession of diamonds, rubies and pearls of incalculable value.— But
spoliation of temple was not the sole or principal aim. If acquisition of
wealth was the motive for attacking a temple, where was the need to raze it
to the ground, dig its very foundations, desecrate and break the idols, carry
the idols hundreds of miles on carts or camels, and to throw them at the
stairs of the mosques for the faithful to trample upon, or to distribute their
pieces to butchers as meat-weights. For this is exactly what was done not
only by invaders but even by rulers, not only during wars but also in times
of peace, throughout the medieval period from Mahmud of Ghazni to
Aurangzeb.— We have seen what Mahmud of Ghazni did to the idols of
Chakraswamin and Somnath. Let us see what Aurangzeb did to the temple
of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of rupees thirty-three lakhs by Raja
Bir Singh Bundela. The author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri writes : In this month
of Ramzan (January 1670), the religious-minded Emperor ordered the


demolition of the temple at Mathura. In a short time by the great exertions
of his officers the destruction of this great centre of infidelity was
accomplished A grand mosque was built on its site at a vast
expenditure The idols, large and small, set with costly jewels which had
been set up in the temple were brought to Agra and buried under the steps
of the mosque of Begum Sahib (Jahanaras mosque) in order to be
continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to
Islamabad—

In brief, temples were destroyed not for their hoarded wealth as some
historians propagate, but for humiliating and persecuting the non-Muslims.
Destruction of religious shrines of the vanquished formed part of a larger
policy of persecution practised in lands under Muslim occupation in and
outside India. This policy of oppression was meant to keep down the
people, disarm them culturally and spiritually, destroy their self-respect and
remind them that they were Zimmis, an inferior breed. Thousands of
pilgrims who visit Mathura or walk past the site of Vishvanath temple and
Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi everyday, are reminded of Mughal vandalism
and disregard for Hindu sensitivities by Muslim rulers.

And yet some writers delude themselves with the mistaken belief that
they can change their countrys history by distorting it, or brain-wash
generations of young students, or humour fundamentalist politicians
through such unethical exercise. To judge what happened in the past in the
context of today's cultural milieu and consciously hide the truth, is playing
politics with history. Let history be accepted as a matter of fact without
putting it to any subjective interpretations. Yesterdays villains cannot be
made todays heroes, or, inversely, yesterdays Islamic heroes cannot be
made into robbers ransacking temples just for treasures. Nor can the
medieval monuments be declared as national monuments as suggested in
some naive secularist quarters. They represent vandalism. No true Indian
can be proud of such desecrated and indecorous evidence of composite
culture. History, says Froude, does teach that right and wrong are real
distinctions. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the
moral law is written on the tablets of humanity.— It is nobodys business to
change this moral law and prove the wrongs of the medieval period to be
right today by having recourse to misrepresentation of history.


Manipulation in the writing of medieval Indian history by some modern
writers is the worst legaey of Muslim rule in India.

Islamic Scriptures as Source-materials

The best way to understand the eontent and spirit of Muslim rule in India
and to assess the hollowness of manipulated history is by going through
Muslim seriptures besides of eourse faithfully perusing Muslim historieal
literature in Arabie and Persian. All medieval ehronielers and historians
were seholars of Islamie literature and law. Many of these Ulama were even
advisers of kings in matters religious and politieal. In their writings they
often quote from the Quran and Hadis to vindieate the aetions of their
conquerors and kings. Very often they quote from or use the very idiom of
Islamic religious texts in their chronicles. Muslim invaders, conquerors and
rulers also repeatedly assert that they worked according to the dictates of
the Shara and Sunna to suberve the interests of Islam. Therefore to
understand the true nature of Muslim rule and history it is necessary to have
at least an elementary knowledge of the religion and scriptures of Islam.

The religion and theology of Islam are based on four great works - (1)
The Quran, (2) the Hadis, (3) the Siratun-Nabi or the Biography of
Muhammad, and (4) the Shariat or Islamic law as elaborated in the Hidaya.
The word Quran literally means recitation, lecture or discourse. Muslims
consider it to be the word of God conveyed to his prophet Muhammad
through the angel Gabriel. The first, final and only canonized version of the
Koran was collected nineteen years after the death of Muhammad (from
ribs of palm-leaves and tablets of white stone and from the breasts of men)
when it was seen that the memorizers of the Koran were becoming extinct
through the battles that were decimating the ranks of the believers— The
religion of Quran comes nearer to Judaism of the Old Testament as well as
the Christianity of the New Testament.— The Quran, the Book of Allah, is
treated with unbound reverence by the Muslims. Its 6,239 verses, its 77,934
words, even its 323,621 letters have since been painstakingly
counted.— The book is not only heart of a religion, but it is still considered
by one-eighth of mankind as the embodiment of all science, wisdom and
theology.— Because of the dearth of efficacious writing material, written


copies of Quran would have taken time to make, but it does seem to have
been available by the middle of the eighth century.—

Every Muslim chronicler of medieval India had mastered the Quran. For
din Alim and a Maulana it was the first must among the works he studied. It
is not surprising therefore that its surahs (chapters) and ayats (verses) are
sometimes quoted in historical works and its phraseology freely used. A
study of the Quran by a scholar of medieval Indian history will be helpful to
him in appraising the achievements and spirit of Muslim rule in
India. There are many good translations of the Quran in English; a summary
translation is also available in T.P. Hughess Dictonary of Islam.—

The study of Quran and the necessity of expounding it gave rise to that
most characteristically Muslim literary activity, the books of tradition or
Hadis, literally meaning narrative. It is a compendium of doings, sayings,
revelations and judgements of Muhammad. Muslim theologians make no
distinction between Quran and Hadis. To them both are works of revelation
or inspiration. In the Quran, Allah speaks through Muhammad; in the
Sunnah He acts through him No wonder that the Muslim theologians regard
the Quran and the Hadis as being supplementary or even interchangeable.—
Within three hundred years of the death of Muhammad, the Hadis acquired
substantially the form in which it is known today. Imam Bukhari (d. C.E.
870) compiled authentic traditions from a plethora of voluminous traditions.
Next in importance are the collections of Imam Muslim (d. 875) and Imam
Tirmizi (d. 892).

Equally important guide for the Muslims in the performance of their
duties is the life-story of Muhammad. Apart from several maghazi books
dealing with the prophet's campaigns, his first authentic biography too was
ready in the eighth century. Its author Ibn Ishaq was born at Medina in 85
H. and died in Baghdad in 151 H. (704-768 C.E.). He wrote the Sirat Rasul
Allah.— Other biographers of note who succeeded him were al-Waqidi, Ibn
Hisham, and At-Tabari. Muslims try to mould their lives after the model of
Muhammad. No one regarded by any section of human race as perfect man
has been imitated so minutely.—


The Quran and the Hadis provided the foundation upon which theology
and law of Islam were raised. Law in Islam is more intimately related to
religion than to jurisprudence as modern lawyers understand it.— Named
after their founders Abu Hanifa (C. 699-767), Abu Abdullah Muhammad
bin Idris (C. 767-820), Ahmad bin Hanbal (C. 780-855) and Malik bin Anas
(C. 715-795) - the four mazahib or schools of Islamic law named Hanafi,
Shafai, Hanbali and Malaki respectively, too had come into being in the
eighth-ninth century. Their compilation is called Hidaya. If at all anything
was wanting with regard to Muslim law, it was provided by Hidaya or
Guidance.— The Hidaya is a voluminous treatise based on Sunni law
composed by Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali who was born at Marghinan in
Transoxiana about 530 H. and died in 593 H. (1135-1196).—

Muslim law in its ultimate form was thus available to the conquerors and
Sultans who established their rule in India in the thirteenth century. True,
there were no printed editions of these works. But beautiful hand written
copies were always available at least to distinguished conquerors and kings
and their counsellors. Muslim law is definite, clear and universal. This law
was the actual sovereign in Muslim lands: no one was above it and all were
ruled by it.— Such is the reverence paid to these religio-legal treatises that
they have remained the model of prose in literary works. The rhymed prose
of the Quran has set the standard which almost every conservative Arabic
writer consciously strives to imitate. The diction, the idiom, the very
phrases of these religio-legal works were adopted by Muslim chroniclers in
writing the history of Islamic achievements in India.— There are two sorts
of Muslim historians, the dry annalist, and the pompous and flowery orator.
But both use the language of their scriptures - a style more natural to their
ideas and sentiments. It is necessary therefore to read these scriptures. It is
necessary to know Islam in order to understand the ethos and legacy of
Muslim rule in India.


Footnotes:

- E and D, II, p.33.

- E and D, II, pp.2I4-I5.


— Barani, pp.216-17.

— The Qazi quoted from the Quran, Yan yad vaham saghrun, Sales trs. p.
152. See dXsoAin, I, p.237, n.l.

— Barani, pp.290-291.

— Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, pp.49, 98.

— Nizami, K.A., Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth
Century, p.317; M. Habib, Introduetion to Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. v.

— Amir Khurd, Siyar-ul-Auliya, Urdu trs. Quddusi, pp.472-73.

— Badaoni, II, p.258.

^ Ibid, p.257.

— Ibid., p.258.

— Ain, I, p.2.

— Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p.I08; Badaoni, II, p.383; C.H.I., IV,
P.II5.

— Badaoni, II, p.383.

— Elliot and Dowson, Vol.I, Preface, pp.xx-xxi.

— Ibid., p.xii.

— Medieval India under Muhammadan Rule (London, 1903), Preface,
p.v-vi.

— A History of the Great Mughals (Calcutta, 1905,1911).

— History of Medieval India (Allahabad, 1925),p.ii.


— Singhal, D.R Battle for the Past in Problems of Indian Historiography,
Proeeedings of the Indian History and Culture Soeiety, Ed. Devahuti, D.K.
Publishers, Delhi 1979.

— James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Routledge and Kegan
Paul (London,1829,1957), 2 vols., I, Introduetion, pp. xiv-xv.

— Ibid., p.xiv. For stray references to works destroyed and Hindus
forgetting how to read their ancient scripts, see Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, I,
p.552; Aflf, p.333; Thomas, Edward, Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of
Delhi, pp.292-93 and Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains
of Delhi, pp. 130,137-38.

— Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, p. 153.

— Eal, History of the Khaljis, p.355.

— See Bibliography, Sanskrit and Hindi Works, in K.S. Eal, History of
the Khaljis, pp.374-75.

— For example, see the comparable account of terror-tactics of the
Muslim army as described by Persian chroniclers and Vidyapati in Kirtilata
in K.S.Eal, Striking power of the Army of the Sultanate in the Journal of
Indian History, Trivandrum. Vol.EV, Pt.III, December 1977, pp.85-110.

— Philips, Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, pp.322-23.

— As an illustration see Arvind Sharma, The Arab invasion of Sind: a
study in divergent perspectives in Historical and Political Perspectives
(India and Pakistan) ed. Devahuti, Indian History and Culture Society,
Books & Books, New Delhi, 1982, pp. 193-200.

— Peter Hardy in Philips, Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon,
p.309.

— Karl Marx, The Future Results of British Rule in India, vide The
NewyorkDaily Tribune, 22 July 1853, cited by D.R Singhal in his


Presidential Address to the Indian History and Culture Society, 1981,
Proceedings, P.155.

— H. Laski, Communism (London, 1927), p.l94.

— In his India in Transition, 1922.

— T.W. Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, p.viii.

— Cf K.S. Lai., Early Muslims in India (New Delhi,1984), pp.92-93.

— Barani, Tarikh, pp.10-13.

^Ibid.,Qg. pp.216, 290-91.

— History of Medieval India (Allahabad, 1940 Edition), pp.509-513.

— The Mughal Empire (Agra, 1964), p.568.

^Ibid.,^.51\.

— The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, pp.207-13.

— Acton, The Study of History, Macmillan & Co. (London, 1905), p.45.

— For example, see Lai, K.S, Indian Muslims : Who Are They (New
Delhi, 1990).

— Farishtah, I, p.33.

— he. cit.

— Alberuni, II, p.I03. Also I, p.ll7 for Cakraswamin.

— Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, p.5.

— For detailed references see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p.50. For
praise of Mahmud by modern writers, M. Nazim, The Life and Times of


Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna and M. Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin.


— Forbes, Rasmala, I, p.77.

— Hasan Nizami, Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.2I9; Abdulla, Tarikh-i-
Daudi, p.39; Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, p.47; Rizqullah,
Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi, fol. 31b; Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, II, pp. 185-86, 223; Lahori,
I, p.452, II, p. 58; Kamboh, Amal-i-Salih, I, p.522, II, p.41; Khafi Khan, I,
p. 472.

— Saqi Mustaad Khan, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, pp.95-96; p-175 for idols from
temples of Jodhpur. Also Manucci, II, p.ll6. Mirat-i-Ahmadi gives detailed
account of temple destruction by Aurangzeb.

— Inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, 1869, cited in Acton, The Study of
History, p.45.

— P.K. Hitti, The Arabs (London, 1948), pp.32-33.

— Ibid., pp.24,33.

^/Z)it/.,p.33.

— Ibid., p.31.

— Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the
Islamic World, Cambridge University Press, 1977, paperback, 1980, p.3,
also P.159.

^pp.483-531.

— Ram Swamp, Understanding Islam through Hadis, New Delhi,

Reprint, 1983, pp.vii, xi.

— Trs. by A. Guillaume under the title The Life of Muhammad (Oxford,
1958).

— Hitti, op. cit., p.29.


— Ibid., p.78.

— Trs. by Charles Hamilton, 4 vols. (London, 1791).

— Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p.l74; D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed
and the Rise of Islam, pp. xix-xx.

— A. Khuda Bakhsh, Essays, Indian and Islamic (London 1927), p-5L

— An impressive Bibliography has been provided by Hughes, op. cit.,
pp.405, 406.









Muslims Invade India


Chapter 3

My principal object in coming to Hindustan has been to accomplish two
things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the
Mohammadan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim
to reward in the life to come. The other was that the army of Islam might
gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels:
plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers milk to Musalmans who war for
their faith.

- Amir Timur

While studying the legacy of Muslim rule in India, it has to be constantly
borne in mind that the objectives of all Muslim invaders and rulers were the
same as those mentioned above. Timur or Tamerlane him self defines them
candidly and bluntly while others do so through their chroniclers.

After its birth in Arabia, Islam spread as a conquering creed both in west
and east with amazing rapidity. In the north and west of Arabia Muslim
conquest was swift. The Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria were
conquered by the newly converted Arabs after a campaign of six months in
C.E. 636-37. Next came the turn of the Sassanid empire of Persia which
included Iraq, Iran and Khurasan. The Persians were defeated decisively in
637 and their empire was so overrun in the next few years that by 643 the
boundaries of the Caliphate touched the frontiers of India. In the west the
Byzantine province of Egypt had fallen in 640-641. and territories of Inner
Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand and Samarqand were annexed by 650. The
Arab armies marched over North Africa and crossed into Spain in C.E. 709.
Thus within a span of about seventy years (637-709) the Arabs achieved
astounding success in their conquests. Still more astounding was the fact
that the people of these conquered lands were quickly converted to Islam
and their language and culture Arabicised.



Naturally India, known to early Arabs as Hind va Sind, too could not
escape Muslim expansionist designs, and they sent their armies into India
both by land and sea. They proceeded along the then known (trade) routes -
1. from Kufa and Baghadad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India's west
coast; 2. from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sind; and 3.
through the land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian. But
progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was slow, very slow. For, the
declarations of objectives of Muslim invaders had not taken into account
the potentialities of Indians stiff and latent resistance. Caliph Umar (634-44
C.E.) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage Thana on the coast of
Maharashtra during the reign of the great Hindu monarch Pulakesin II. This
was followed by expeditions to Bharuch (Broach) in Gujarat and the gulf of
Debal in Sind. These were repulsed and Mughairah, the leader of the latter
expedition, was defeated and killed. Umar thought of sending another army
by land against Makran which at that time was part of the kingdom of Sind
but was dissuaded by the governor of Iraq from doing so. The next Caliph
Usman (644-656) too followed the same advice and refrained from
embarking on any venture on Sind. The fourth Caliph, Ali, sent an
expedition by land in 660 but the leader of the expedition and most of his
troops were slain in the hilly terrain of Kikanan (42 H./662 C.E.). Thus the
four pious Caliphs of Islam died without hearing of the conquest of Sind
and Hind.

The reason why the Arabs were keen on penetrating into Sind and always
bracketed it with Hind, was that Sind was then a big country - as big as
Hind in their eyes. According to the authors of Chachnama and Tuhfatul
Kiram, the dominion of Sind extended on the east to the boundary of
Kashmir and Kanauj, on the west to Makran, on the south to the coast of the
sea and Debal, and on the north to Kandhar, Seistan and the mountains of
Kuzdan and Kikanan.^ It thus included Punjab and Baluchistan, parts of
North-West Frontier Province and parts of Rajasthan. Muawiyah, the
succeeding Caliph (661-80), sent as many as six expeditions by land to
Sind. All of them were repulsed with great slaughter except the last one
which succeeded in occupying Makran in 680. Thereafter, for twenty-eight
years, the Arabs did not dare to send another army against Sind. Even
Makran remained independent with varying degrees of freedom
commensurate with the intensity of resistance so that as late as 1290 Marco


Polo speaks of the eastern part of Makran as part of Hind, and as the last
Kingdom of India as you go towards the west and northwest.- The stubborn
and successful opposition of Makran to the invaders was simply
remarkable.

Meanwhile the Arabs had started attacking Hind from the north-west.
Emboldened by their success in annexing Khurasan in 643 C.E., the first
Arab army penetrated deep into Zabul by way of Seistan which at that time
was part of India, territorially as well as culturally. After a prolonged and
grim struggle the invader was defeated and driven out. But in a subsequent
attack, the Arab general Abdul Rahman was able to conquer Zabul and levy
tribute from Kabul (653 C.E.). Kabul paid the tribute but reluctantly and
irregularly. To ensure its regular payment another Arab general Yazid bin
Ziyad attempted retribution in 683. But he was killed and his army put to
flight with great slaughter. The war against Kabul was renewed in 695, but
as it became prolonged it bore no fruitful results. Some attempts to force the
Hindu king of Kabul into submission were made in the reign of Caliph Al-
Mansur (745-775 C.E.), but they met only with partial success and the
Ghaznavid Turks found the Hindus ruling over Kabul in 986 C.E.

The First Invasion

In the south, attempts to subjugate Sind continued through land and sea.
And in 712 a full-fledged invasion was launched after prolonged
negotiations. The genesis of war was this. The king of Ceylon had sent to
Hajjaj bin Yusuf Sakifi, the governor of the eastern provinces of the
Caliphate, eight vessels filled with presents, Abyssinian slaves, pilgrims,
and the orphan daughters of some Muslim merchants who had died in his
dominions. These ships were attacked and plundered by pirates off the coast
of Sind. Hajjaj demanded reparations from Dahir, the king of Sind, but the
latter expressed his inability to control the pirates or punish them. At this
Hajjaj sent two expeditions against Debal (708 C.E.), the first under
Ubaidulla and the other under Budail. Both were repulsed, their armies
were routed and commanders killed. Deeply affected by these failures,
Hajjaj fitted out a third and grandiose expedition. Astrological prediction
and close relationship prompted him to confer the command of the


campaign on his seventeen year old nephew and son-in-law Imaduddin
Muhammad bin Qasim.

It was the heyday of Arab power. Wherever Muslim armies went they
earned success and collected spoils. The conquest of Sind took place at the
very time in which, at the opposite extremes of the known world, the
Muhammadan armies were subjugating Spain, and pressing on the southern
frontier of France, while they were adding Khwarizm to their already
mighty empire. -

Under the auspices of Hajjaj, who, though nominally governor only of
Iraq, was in fact ruler over all the countries which constituted the former
Persian empire, the spirit of more extended conquest arose. By his orders,
one army under Kutaiba penetrated to Kashgar, at which place Chinese
ambassadors entered into a compact with the invaders. Another army
operated against the king of Kabul, and a third (under Muhammad bin
Qasim) advanced towards the lower course of the Indus through
Mekran.- The reigning Ummayad Caliph Walid I (86-96 H./705-715 C.E.)
was a powerful prince under whom the Khilafat attained the greatest extent
of dominion to which it ever reached. But because of earlier failures of
Ubaidulla and Budail, he was skeptical about the outcome of the venture.
He dreaded the distance, the cost, and the loss of Muhammadan lives.- But
when Hajjaj, an imperialist to the core, promised to repay the Caliph the
expenses of the enterprise, he obtained permission for the campaign. That is
how Muhammad bin Qasim came to invade Sind. The aims of the campaign
were three: 1. Spreading the religion of Islam in Sind, 2. Conquest of Sind
and extension of the territory of Islam, and 3. Acquisition of maximum
wealth for use by Hajjaj and payment to the Caliph.-

The knowledge of Hajjaj and Muhammad bin Qasim about Sind and
Hind was naturally not extensive. It was confined to what the sea-and-land
traders had told about the people and wealth of what was known to them as
.Kabul va Zabul and Hind va Sind. About Indias history, its hoary
civilisation, its high philosophy, its deep and abiding faith in spiritualism
and non-violence, they knew but little. One thing they knew was that it was
inhabited by infidels and idol-worshippers. And they knew their religious
duty towards such unbelievers. Instruction and inspiration about this duty


came to them from three sourees - The Quran, the Hadis and the personal
exploits of the Prophet. Every Muslim, whether edueated or illiterate knew
something about the Quran and the Hadis. The learned or the Ulama
amongst them usually learnt the Quran by heart and informed their
eonquerors and kings about its teaehings and injunctions. The Prophets
deeds, even the most trivial ones, too were constantly narrated with
reverence. The one supreme duty the Quran taught them was to fight the
infidels with all their strength, convert them to Islam and spread the faith by
destroying their idols and shrines.

In Surah (Chapter) 2, ay at (injunction) 193, the Quran says. Fight against
them (the mushriks) until idolatry is no more, and Allahs religion reigns
supreme. The command is repeated in Surah 8, ayat 39. In Surah 69, ayats
3037 it is ordained: Lay hold of him and bind him. Bum him in the fire of
hell. And again: When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off
their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly
(47.14-15). Cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads,
maim them in every limb (8:12). Such commands, exhortations and
injunctions are repeatedly mentioned in Islamie scriptures. The main
medium through which these injunetions were to be earried out was the
holy Jihad. The Jihad or holy war is a multi-dimensional concept. It means
fighting for the sake of Allah, for the eause of Islam, for converting people
to the true faith and for destroying their temples. Iconoclasm and razing
other peoples temples is eentral to Islam; it derives its justification from the
Quranie revelations and the Prophets Sunnah or praetiee. Muhammad had
himself destroyed temples in Arabia and so set an example for his
followers. In return the mujahid (or fighter of Jihad) is promised handsome
reward in this world as well as in the world to eome. Without Jihad there is
no Islam. Jihad is a religious duty of every Muslim. It inspired Muslim
invaders and rulers to do deeds of valour, of horror and of terror. Their
ehronielers wrote about the aehievements of the heroes of Islam with zeal
and glee, often in the very language they had learnt from their scriptures.

Inspired by sueh belligerent injunctions, Muhammad bin Qasim (and
later on other invaders) started on the Indian expedition with a large foree.
On the way the governor of Makran, Muhammad Harun, supplied
reinforcements and five catapults. His artillery whieh included a great



ballista known as the Bride, and was worked by five hundred men, had been
sent by sea to meet him at Debal.- Situated on the sea-coast the city of
Debal was so called because of its Deval or temple. It contained a citadel-
temple with stone walls as high as forty yards and a dome of equal height.
Qasim arrived at Debal in late 711 or early 712 C.E. with an army of at least
twenty thousand horse and footmen.- Add to this the Jat and Med
mercenaries he enlisted under his banner in India.-

A glance at the demographic composition of Sind at this time would help
in appraising the response of the Sindhians to Muhammads invasion. At the
lower rung of the social order were Jats and Meds. Physically strong and
thoroughly uneducated they flocked under the standard of the foreigner in
large numbers in the hope of material gain. They also supplied Muhammad
with information of the countryside he had come to invade.— The majority
of the Sindhi population was Buddhist (Samanis of chronicles), totally
averse to fighting. Their religion taught them to avoid bloodshed and they
were inclined to make submission to the invader even without a show of
resistance. Then there were tribal people, like Sammas, to whom any king
was as good as any other. They welcomed Muhammad Qasim with frolicks
and merriment.— Thus the bulk of population was more or less indifferent
to the invasion. In such a situation it were only Raja Dahir of Sind, his
Kshatriya soldiers and Brahman priests of the temples who were called
upon to defend their cities and shrines, citadels and the countryside. This is
the Muslim version and has to be accepted with caution.

When Muhammad began the invasion of Debal, Raja Dahir was staying
in his capital Alor about 500 kms. away. Dabal was in the charge of a
governor with a garrison of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few
thousand Brahmans, and therefore Raja Dahir did not march to its defence
immediately. All this while, the young invader was keeping in close contact
with Hajjaj, soliciting the latters advice even on the smallest matters. So
efficient was the communication system that letters were written every three
days and replies were received in seven days,— so that the campaign was
virtually directed by the veteran Hajjaj himself — When the siege of Debal
had continued for some time a defector informed Muhammad about how
the temple could be captured. Thereupon the Arabs, planting their ladders
stormed the citadel-temple and swarmed over the walls. As per Islamic


injunctions, the inhabitants were invited to aeeept Islam, and on their
refusal all adult males were put to the sword and their wives and ehildren
were enslaved. The earnage lasted for three days. The temple was razed and
a mosque built. Muhammad laid out a Muslim quarter, and placed a
garrison of 4,000 in the town. The legal fifth of the spoil including seventy-
five damsels was sent to Hajjaj, and the rest of the plunder was divided
among the soldiers.— As this was the pattern of all future sieges and
victories of Muhammad bin Qasim - as indeed of all future Muslim
invaders of Hindustan - it may be repeated. Inhabitants of a captured fort or
town were invited to accept Islam. Those who converted were spared.
Those who refused were massacred. Their women and children were
enslaved and converted. Temples were broken and on their sites and with
their materials were construeted mosques, khanqahs, sarais and tombs.

Muhammad bin Qasim next advanced towards Nirun, situated near
modern Hyderabad. The people of Nirun purchased their peace.
Notwithstanding its voluntary surrender, Muhammad destroyed the temple
of Budh at Nirun. He built a mosque at its site and appointed an Imam.—
After placing a garrison at the disposal of the Muslim governor, he marched
to Sehwan (Siwistan), about 130 kilometres to the north-west. This town
too was populated ehiefly by Buddhists and traders. They too surrendered
to the invader on eondition of their remaining loyal and Y>^ymgjiziyah.

Niruns surrender alarmed Raja Dahir and he and his men decided to meet
the invader at Aror or Rawar. Qasim was bound for Brahmanabad but
stopped short to engage Dahir first. In the vast plain of Rawar the Arabs
encountered an imposing array of war elephants and a large army under the
eommand of Dahir and his Rajput chiefs ready to give battle to the
Muslims. A1 Biladuri writes that after the battle lines were drawn, a
dreadful conflict ensued sueh as had never been seen before, and the author
of the Chachnama gives details of the valiant fight whieh Raja Dahir gave
mounted on his white elephant. A naptha arrow struck Dahirs howdah and
set it ablaze. Dahir dismounted and fought desperately, but was killed
towards the evening, when the idolaters fled, and the Musulmans glutted
themselves with massacre. Raja Dahirs queen Rani Bai and her son betook
themselves into the fortress of Rawar, which had a garrison of 15 thousand.
The soldiers fought valiantly, but the Arabs proved stronger. When the Rani


saw her doom inevitable, she assembled all the women in the fort and
addressed them thus: God forbid that we should owe our liberty to those
outcaste cow-eaters. Our honour would be lost. Our respite is at an end, and
there is nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil, for
I think we should bum ourselves and go to meet our husbands. If any wish
to save herself, she may.— They entered into a house where they burnt
themselves in the fire of jauhar thereby vindicating the honour of their race.
Muhammad occupied the fort, massacred the 6,000 men he found there and
seized all the wealth and treasures that belonged to Dahir.

Muhammad now marched to Brahmanabad.— On the way a number of
garrisons in forts challenged his army, delaying his arrival in Brahmanabad.
The civil population, as usual, longed for peace and let the Muslims enter
the city. Consequently, it was spared, but Qasim sat on the seat of cmelty
and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six
thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand
were killed.— Continuing his ravaging march northward, he proceeded to
Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus with its famous Temple of Sun.
Multan was ravaged and its treasures rifled. During his campaigns
Muhammad bin Qasim concentrated on collecting the maximum wealth
possible as he had to honour the promise he and his patron Hajjaj had made
to the Caliph to reimburse to the latter the expenses incurred on the
expedition. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the
Sindhi King, freedom of worship to the Hindus could bring wealth in the
form of pilgrim tSLX,jiziyah and other similar cesses. Hence, the temple of
Brahmanabad was permitted to be rebuilt and old customs of worship
allowed.— In Multan also temple worship more or less went on as before.
The expenses of the campaign had come to 60 thousand silver dirhams.
Hajjaj paid to the Caliph double the amount - 120 thousand dirhams?^

Muhammad bin Qasim set about organising the administration of the
conquered lands like this. The principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah
and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the
cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was
considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted
with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult. The native
population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and


had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim
historians.—

Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little over three
years.— Then he was suddenly recalled and summarily executed, probably
by being sewn in an animals hide, on the charge of violating two Sindhi
princesses meant for the harem of the Caliph. Such barbaric punishments to
successful commanders by their jealous masters were not uncommon in
Islamic history.— However, the recall of Qasim was a God-sent relief to the
Sindhis. After his departure the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly. Most
of the neo-converts returned to their former faith. The Hindus had bowed
before the onrush of the Muslim invasion; but they re-asserted their position
once the storm had blown over.— Denison Ross also says that after the
recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslims retained some foothold on the
west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small number that they
gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of
Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism.—

But Muslims or Islam did not disappear from Sind. A dent had been
made in India's social fabric, and its wealth looted. Muslims who continued
to retain the new faith remained confined mostly to cities, particularly
Multan,— and Multan according to A1 Masudi (writing about C.E. 942)
remained one of the strongest frontier places of the Musulmans.— Ibn
Hauqal, who finished his work in C.E. 976, also calls Multan a city with a
strong fort, but Mansura is more fertile and prosperous. He also says that
Debal is a large mart and a port not only of this but neighbouring regions. It
would thus appear that by the tenth century the Muslim population had
stabilized and integrated with the people of Sind. Ibn Hauqal writes: The
Muslims and infidels of this tract wear the same dresses, and let their beards
grow in the same fashion. They use fine muslin garments on account of the
extreme heat. The men of Multan dress in the same way. The language of
Mansura, Multan and those parts is Arabic and Sindian— This, in brief, was
the social change brought about in Sind after the introduction of Islam
there.

Before closing the discussion on the Arab invasion of Sind, a few aspects
of the campaign may be evaluated. As Andre Wink points out. In contrast to


Persia there is no indieation that Buddhists eonverted more eagerly than
brahmans. The theory that Muslim Arabs were invited to Sind by Buddhist
traitors who aimed to undercut the brahmans power has nothing to
recommend itself with. If Buddhists collaborated with the invaders, the
brahmans did so no less There was in short, no clear-cut religious
antagonism that the Arabs could exploit. At the same time, points out
Gidumal, It is extremely doubtful if Sind could have been conquered at all,
had these (Sindhi) chiefs remained true to their king, and, curious as it may
seem, it was ostensibly astrology that made traitors of them. For they said:
Our wise men have predicted that Sind will come under the sway of Islam.
Why then should we battle against fate? And lastly, the misleading belief in
the tolerance and kindness of Muhmamad bin Qasim stands cancelled on a
study of the campaign in depth. The statement of Mohammad Habib that
Alone among the Muslim invaders of India Muhammad Qasim is a
character of whom a concentious Musalman need not be ashamed, and
similar conclusions do not hold ground if his massacres, conversions and
iconoclasm detailed in the Chachnama alone are any indicator.—

Second Invasion

A more terrifying wave of Islamic invasion came with Mahmud of
Ghazni, three hundred years after the Arab invasion of Sind. During this
period Islam was spreading in various regions outside India with varying
degrees of success. Furthermore, the newly converted Turks, the slave
protectors of the pious Caliphs, had carved out their own kingdoms at the
expense of the Caliphs empire. But to ensure their legitimacy as rulers they
kept up a relationship of formal loyalty towards the Caliph. Such were the
slave rulers Alaptigin and Subuktigin.

Amir Subuktigin (977-997 C.E.) made frequent expeditions into
Hindustan, or more precisely into the Hindu Shahiya Brahman kingdom of
Punjab which extended up to Kabul, in the prosecution of holy wars, and
there he conquered forts upon lofty hills, in order to seize the treasures they
contained. When Jayapal, the ruling prince of the dynasty, had ascertained
from reports of travellers about the activities of Subuktigin, he hastened
with a large army and huge elephants to wreak vengeance upon Subuktigin,
by treading the field of Islam under his feet.— After he had passed


Lamghan, Subuktigin advanced from Ghazni with his son Mahmud. The
armies fought successively against one another. Jayapal, with soldiers as
impetuous as a torrent, was difficult to defeat, and so Subuktigin threw
animal flesh (beef?) into the fountain which supplied water to the Hindu
army.^ In consequence, Jayapal sued for peace. But for greater gains,
Subuktigin delayed negotiations, and Jayapals envoys were sent back.
Jayapal again requested for cessation of hostilities and sent ambassadors,
observing: You have seen the impetuosity of the Hindus and their
indifference to death, whenever any calamity befalls them, as at this
moment. If, therefore, you refuse to grant peace in the hope of obtaining
plunder, tribute, elephants and prisoners, then there is no alternative for us
but to mount the horse of stern determination, destroy our property, take out
the eyes of our elephants, cast our children into the fire, and rush on each
other with sword and spear, so that all that will be left to you, is stones and
dirt, dead bodies, and scattered bones.—

Jayapals spirited declaration convinced Subuktigin that religion and the
views of the faithful would be best consulted by peace. He fixed a tribute of
cash and elephants on the Shahiya king and nominated officers to collect
them. But Jayapal, having reflected on the ruse played by the adversaries in
contaminating the water-supply leading to his discomfiture, refused to pay
anything, and imprisoned the Amirs officers. At this Subuktigin marched
out towards Lamghan and conquered it. He set fire to the places in its
vicinity, demolished idol temples, marched and captured other cities and
established Islam in them. At last Jayapal decided to fight once more, and
satisfy his revenge. He collected troops to the number of more than one
hundred thousand, which resembled scattered ants and locusts. Subuktigin
on his part made bodies of five hundred attack the enemy with their maces
in hand, and relieve each other when one party became tired, so that fresh
men and horses were constantly engaged The dust which arose prevented
the eyes from seeing It was only when the dust was allayed that it was
found that Jayapal had been defeated and his troops had fled leaving behind
them their property, utensils, arms, provisions, elephants, and horses.—
Subuktigin levied tribute and obtained immense booty, besides two hundred
elephants of war. He also increased his army by enrolling those Afghans
and Khaljis who submitted to him and thereafter expended their lives in his


service.


Subuktigins son Mahmud ascended the throne at Ghazni in C.E. 998 and
in 1000 he delivered his first attack against India in continuation of the
work of his ancestor. During the three hundred years between Muhammad
bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi, Islamic Shariat had got a definite and
permanent shape in the four well-defined schools of Muslim jurisprudence-
Hanafi, Shafli, Hanbali and Malaki. The Quran and the six orthodox
collections of Hadis were also now widely known. Mahmud himself was
well-versed in the Quran and was considered its eminent interpreter.— He
drew around himself, by means of lavish generosity, a galaxy of eminent
theologians, scholars, and divines so that on his investiture, when he vowed
to the Caliph of Baghdad to undertake every year a campaign against the
idolaters of India, he knew that jihad was central to Islam and that one
eampaign at least must be undertaken against the unbelievers every year.
Mahmud could launch forth seventeen expeditions during the course of the
next thirty years and thereby fulfilled his promise to the Caliph both in
letter and in spirit of Islamic theology. For this he has been eulogized sky-
high by Muslim poets and Muslim historians. He on his part was always
eareful to inelude the Caliphs name on his coins, depict himself in his
Fateh-namas as a warrior for the faith, and to send to Baghdad presents
from the plunder of his Indian eampaign.— The Caliph Al-Qadir Billah in
turn praised the talents and exploits of Mahmud, eonferred upon him the
titles of Amin-ul-millah and Yamin-ud-daula (the Right hand) after which
his house is known as Yamini Dynasty.

Let us very briefly reeapitulate the achievements of Sultan Mahmud in
the usual fields of Islamic expansionism, eonversions of non-Muslims to
Islam, destruction of temples and acquisition of wealth in order to
appreciate the encomiums bestowed upon him as being one of the greatest
Muslim conquerors of medieval India. In his first attack of frontier towns in
C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his own governors and converted some
inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is
reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his
principal chiefs and relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made
Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam,
were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions took place in large
numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted
Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous vietory (at Multan) were


witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.— In his eampaign in the
Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud eonverted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that eountry, returned to
Ghazni. In the later eampaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many
eonversions took plaee. While deseribing the eonquest of Kanauj, Utbi
sums up the situation thus: The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort and
the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.
In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran
(Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja.
During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore
were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people
followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, Islam spread in
this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of
force. According to all contemporary and later chroniclers like Qazwini,
Utbi, Farishtah etc., conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the
objectives of Mahmud. Wherever he went, he insisted on the people to
convert to Islam. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the
vanquished Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even
without giving a battle. The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight
of Chand Rai was that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and
thus be made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpals uncles and
relations, when they demanded quarter in their distress.—

Mahmud broke temples and desecrated idols wherever he went. The
number of temples destroyed by him during his campaigns is so large that a
detailed list is neither possible nor necessary. However, he concentrated
more on razing renowned temples to bring glory to Islam rather than waste
time on small ones. Some famous temples destroyed by him may be noted
here. At Thaneshwar, the temple of Chakraswamin was sacked and its
bronze image of Vishnu was taken to Ghazni to be thrown into the
hippodrome of the city. Similarly, the magnificent central temple of
Mathura was destroyed and its idols broken. At Mathura there was no
armed resistance; the people had fled, and Mahmud had been greatly
impressed with the beauty and grandeur of the shrines.— And yet the
temples in the city were thoroughly sacked. Kanauj had a large number of
temples (Utbis ten thousand merely signifies a large number), some of great
antiquity. Their destruction was made easy by the flight of those who were


not prepared either to die or embrace Islam. Somnath shared the fate of
Chakraswamin

The sack of Somnath in particular came to be considered a specially
pious exploit because of its analogy with the destruction of idol of A1 Manat
in Arabia by the Prophet. This explains the idolization of Mahmud by
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi,— and the ideal treatment he has received from early
Sufi poets like Sanai and Attar, not to mention such collectors of anecdotes
as Awfi.— It is indeed noticeable that after the Somnath expedition (417H./
1026 C.E.), a deed which had fired the imagination of the Islamic world,
Caliph al-Qadir Billah himself celebrated the victory with great eclat. He
sent Mahmud a very complimentary letter giving him the title of Kahf-ud-
daula wa al-Islam, and formally recognizing him as the ruler of
Hindustan.— It is also significant that Mahmud for the first time issued his
coins from Lahore only after his second commendation from the Caliph.

Mahmud Ghaznavi collected lot of wealth from regions of his visitations.
A few facts and figures may be given as illustrations. In his war against
Jayapal (1001-02 C.E.) the latter had to pay a ransom of 2,50,000 dinars for
securing release from captivity. Even the necklace of which he was relieved
was estimated at 2,00,000 dinars (gold coin) and twice that value was
obtained from the necks of those of his relatives who were taken prisoners
or slain^ A couple of years later, all the wealth of Bhera, which was as
wealthy as imagination can conceive, was captured by the conqueror (1004-
05 C.E.). In 1005-06 the people of Multan were forced to pay an indemnity
of the value of 20,000,000 (royal) dirhams (silver coin). When Nawasa
Shah, who had reconverted to Hinduism, was ousted (1007-08), the Sultan
took possession of his treasures amounting to 400,000 dirhams. Shortly
after, from the fort of Bhimnagar in Kangra, Mahmud seized coins of the
value of 70,000,000 (Hindu Shahiya) dirhams, and gold and silver ingots
weighing some hundred maunds, jewellery and precious stones. There was
also a collapsible house of silver, thirty yards in length and fifteen yards in
breadth, and a canopy (mandapika) supported by two golden and two silver
poles.— Such was the wealth obtained that it could not be shifted
immediately, and Mahmud had to leave two of his most confidential
chamberlains, Altuntash and Asightin, to look after its gradual
transportation.— In the succeeding expeditions (1015-20) more and more


wealth was drained out of the Punjab and other parts of India. Besides the
treasures eolleeted by Mahmud, his soldiers also looted
independently. From Baran Mahmud obtained, 1,000,000 dirhams and from
Mahaban a large booty. In the sack of Mathura five idols alone yielded
98,300 misqals (about 10 maunds) of gold.— The idols of silver numbered
two hundred. Kanauj, Munj, Asni, Sharva and some other places yielded
another 3,000,000 dirhams. We may skip over many other details and only
mention that at Somnath his gains amounted to 20,000,000 dinars.— These
figures are more or less authentic as Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, who
mentions them, was the Secretary to Sultan Mahmud, so that he enjoyed
excellent opportunities of becoming fully conversant with the operations
and gains of the conqueror. He clearly notes the amount when collected in
Hindu Shahiya coinage or in some other currency, and also gives the value
of all acquisitions in the royal (Mahmuds) coins. A little error here or there
does in no way mi nim ise the colossal loss suffered by north India in general
and the Punjab in particular during Mahmuds invasions.

The extent of this loss can be gauged from the fact that no coins
{drammd) of Jayapal, Anandpal or Trilochanpal have been found.— The
economic effects of the loss of precious metals to India had a number of
facets. The flow of bullion outside India resulted in stablizing Ghaznavid
currency— and in the same proportion debasing Indian. Consequently, the
gold content of north Indian coins in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
went down from 120 to 60 grams.— Similarly, the weight and content of the
silver coin was also reduced. Because of debasement of coinage Indian
merchants lost their credit with foreign merchants.—

Outflow of bullion adversely affected Indias balance of trade in another
way. India had always been a seller of raw and finished goods against
precious metals. She had swallowed up precious metals, both from the
mineral resources of Tibet and Central Asia and from trade with the Islamic
world— Now this favourable position was lost. Indian merchants were even
unable to ply their trade because of disturbed political conditions. One
reason which had prompted Anandpal to send an embassy to Mahmud at
Ghazni with favourable terms to the Sultan (C. 1012) was to try to
normalize trade facilities, and after an agreement caravans (again) travelled


in full security between Khurasan and Hind.— But the balance of trade for
many years went on tilting in favour of the lands west of the Indus.

Besides, the Ghaznavids collected in loot and tribute valuable articles of
trade like indigo, fine muslins, embroidered silk, and cotton stuffs, and
things prepared from the famous Indian steel, which have received praise at
the hands of Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Alberuni and many others. For example,
one valuable commodity taken from India was indigo. From Baihaqi, who
writes the correct Indian word nil for the dyestuff, it appears that 20,000
mans (about 500 maunds) of indigo was taken to Ghazna every
year. According to Baihaqi, Sultan Masud once sent 25,000 mans (about
600 maunds) of indigo to the Caliph at Baghdad, for the Sultans often
reserved part of this (valuable commodity) for their own usage, and often
sent it as part of presents for the Caliph or for other rulers.—

Mahmuds jihad, or the jihad of any invader or ruler for that matter, was
accompanied by extreme cruelty. The description of the attack on Thanesar
(Kurukshetra) is detailed. The chief of Thanesar was obstinate in his
infidelity and denial of Allah, so the Sultan marched against him with his
valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and
extirpating idolatry The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously that the
stream was discoloured, and people were unable to drink it Praise be to
Allah for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musalmans.— Similarly, in
the slaughter at Sirsawa near Saharanpur, The Sultan summoned the most
religiously disposed of his followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy
immediately. Many infidels were consequently slain or taken prisoners in
this sudden attack, and the Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they
had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels The friends of
Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three whole days, in order to
obtain booty— With such achievements to his credit, there is little wonder
that Mahmud of Ghazni has remained the ideal, the model, of Muslims-
medieval and modern.

Mahmud Ghaznavi had destroyed the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Punjab.
Alberuni, who witnessed its extinction says about its kings that in all their
grandeur, they never slackened in their ardent desire of doing that which is
right, they were men of noble sentiments and noble bearing— On the other


hand, the Ghaznavid rule in the Punjab was essentially militarist and
imperialist in eharaeter, whose sole business was to wage war against the
Thakurs and Rajas (whereby) Mahmud sought to make the plunder of
Hindustan a permanent affair.— The suseeptibilities of the Indians were
naturally wounded by an inopportune display of religious bigotry, and
indulgenee in women and wine.— In sueh a situation, "Hindu seienees
retired away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and fled to
Kashmir, Benaras and other places.—

Sultan Mahmuds acts of Islamic piety like iconoclasm and
proselytization were continued by future Muslim invaders and rulers and
became a legacy of Muslim rule in India.

Mahmud was present with Subuktigin when the latter received the letter
of Jayapal, cited above, emphasising the impetuosity of the Hindu soldiers
and their indifference to death, and the Ghaznavids were convinced of their
bravery and spirit of sacrifice. Years later Hasan Nizami, the author of Taj-
ul-Maasir wrote about them like this: The Hindus in the rapidity of their
movements exceeded the wild ass and the deer, you might say they were
demons in human form.— Mahmud Ghaznavi therefore employed Hindu
soldiers and sent them, along with Turks, Khaljis, Afghans and Ghaznavids
against Ilak Khan when the latter intruded into his dominions.— We learn
from Baihaqis Tarikh-i-Subuktigin and from other histories that even only
fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son dispatched Sewand Rai, a
Hindu chief, with a numerous body of Hindu cavalry, in pursuit of the
nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. In a few days a conflict
took place, in which Sewand Rai, and the greatest part of his troops were
killed; but not till after they had inflicted a heavy loss upon their opponents.
Five years afterwards we read of Tilak, son of Jai Sen, commander of all the
Indian troops in the service of the Ghaznavid monarch, being employed to
attack the rebel chief, Ahmad Niyaltigin. He pursued the enemy so closely
that many thousands fell into his hands. Ahmad him self was slain while
attempting to escape across a river, by a force of Hindu Jats, whom Tilak
had raised against him. This is the same Tilak whose name is written in the
Tabqat-i-Akbari, as Malik bin Jai Sen, which if correct, would convey the
opinion of the author of that work, that this chief was a Hindu convert. Five
years after that event we find that Masud, unable to withstand the power of


the Seljuq Turkomans, retreated to India, and remained there for the
purpose of raising a body of troops suffieient to make another effort to
retrieve his affairs. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the greater part
of these troops consisted of Hindus. Bijai Rai, a general of the Hindus had
done much service even in the time of Mahmud.— Thus, employment of
Hindu contingents in Muslim armies, was a heritage acquired by the
Muslim rulers in India.

Another inheritance was acquisition of wealth from Indian towns and
cities whenever it suited the convenience or needs of Muslim conquerors,
raiders or rulers. It happened, writes Utbi, that 20,000 men from Mawaraun
nahr and its neighbourhood, who were with the Sultan (Mahmud), were
anxious to be employed on some holy expedition in which they might
obtain martyrdom. The Sultan determined to march with them to Kanauj—
In other words, the Ghazis, to whom the loot from India had become an
irresistible temptation, insisted on Mahmud to lead them to India for fresh
adventures in plunder and spoliation. Even when Muslim Sultanate had
been established, Muhammad Ghauri determined on prosecuting a holy war
in Hind in 602 H. (1205 C.E.), in order to repair the fortunes of his servants
and armies; for within the last few years, Khurasan, on account of the
disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived
in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished,
and his armies renewed.—

In brief, Mahmud was a religious and political imperialist through and
through.— It took him more than twenty years to extend his dominions into
Punjab. But he was keenly interested in acquiring territory in India,— and
he succeeded in his aim. It is another matter that the peace and prosperity of
Punjab was gone as suggested by Alberunis encomiums of the Hindu
Shahiya kings,— and it was superseded by despotism and
exploitation.— Eater chroniclers write with a tinge of pride that fourteen
Ghaznavids ruled at Eahore and its environs for nearly two hundred years.—
But there was progressive deterioration in their administration. However,
the importance of his occupation of most part of the Punjab lies in the fact
that Muslims had come to stay in India. And these Muslims helped in the
third wave of Muslim onrush which swept northern India under Muhammad
Ghauri.


Third Invasion


Muhammad Ghauris invasion was mounted 150 years after the death of
Mahmud Ghaznavi. How the Ghauris rose on the ashes of the Ghaznavids
may be reeapitulated very briefly. Sultan Mahmud died in Ghazni on 20
April 1030 at the age of sixty, leaving immense treasures and a vast empire.
After his death his two sons Muhammad and Masud contested for the
throne in which the latter was successful. Masud recalled Ariyaruk, the
oppressive governor of Punjab, and in his place appointed Ahmad
Niyaltigin. Niyaltigin marched to Benaras to which no Muslim army had
gone before. The markets of the drapers, perfumers and jewellers were
plundered and an immese booty in gold, silver, and jewels was seized. This
success aroused the covetousness of Masud who decided to march to
Hindustan in person for a holy war. He set out for India by way of Kabul in
November 1037. Hansi was stormed and sacked in February the next year,
but the Sultan on return realised that the campaign had been
counterproductive. During his absence Tughril Beg, the Seljuq, had sacked
a portion of Ghazni town and seized Nishapur in 1037. Khurasan was
rapidly falling into the hands of the Seljuqs and western Persia was
throwing off the yoke of Ghazni. On the Indian side an army of 80,000
Hindus under Mahipal seized Lahore in 1043, but hastily withdrew on the
approach of forces from Ghazni. But curiously enough it was neither the
Seljuq danger nor the threat from the Indian side that uprooted the
Ghaznavids. The Seljuqs were not interested in the hilly terrain of what is
now called Afghanistan, and were spreading westward to Damascus and the
Mediterranean. The power that actually ousted the Ghaznavids comprised
the almost insignificant tribesmen of the rugged hills of Ghaur lying
between Ghazni and Herat, with their castle of Firoz Koh (Hill of Victory).
They had submitted to Mahmud in 1010 C.E. and had joined his army on
his Indian campaigns. But when the power of the Ghaznavids declined they
raised their head. To take revenge of the death of two brothers at the hands
of the Ghazni ruler, a third, Alauddin Husain, carried fire and sword
throughout the kingdom. The new Ghazni which had been built by Sultan
Mahmud at the cost of seven million gold coins was burnt down by Husain
(1151), which earned him the title of Jahan-soz (world burner). The very
graves of the hated dynasty were dug up and scattered, but even Afghan
vengeance spared the tomb of Mahmud, the idol of Muslim soldiers. Near



the modern town of Ghazni that tomb and two minarets (on one of whieh
may still be read the lofty titles of the idol-breaker) alone stand to show
where, but not what, the old Ghazni was.

Alauddin, the world-burner died in 1161, and his son two years later,
whereupon his nephew, Ghiyasuddin bin Sam, beeame the ehief of Ghaur.
He brought order to Ghazni and established his younger brother Muizuddin
on the ruined throne of Mahmud (1173-74). Ghiyasuddin ruled at Firoz Koh
and Muizuddin at Ghazni. The latter is known by three names as Muizuddin
bin Sam, Shihabuddin Ghauri and Muhammad Ghauri. Muhammad Ghauri
entered upon a career of conquest of India from this city.

Muhammad Ghauri was not as valiant and dashing as Mahmud, but his
knowledge about India and about Islam was much better. He now possessed
Alberunis India and Burhanuddins Hidaya, works which were not available
to his predecessor invaders. Alberunis encyclopaedic work provided to
Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was advantageous to know on
India.— It provided information on Hindu religion, Hindu philosophy, and
sources of civil and religious law. Hindu sciences of astronomy, astrology,
knowledge of distance of planets, and solar and lunar eclipses, physics and
metaphysics are all discussed by him. Ideas on matrimony and human
biology are not ignored. Hindu customs and ceremonies, their cities,
kingdoms, rivers and oceans are all described. But such a treatise, written
with sympathetic understanding, evoked little kindness for the Indian
people in the Muslim mind, for to them equally important was the Hidaya,
the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh
Burhanud-din Ali in the twelfth century. The Shaikh claims to have studied
all earlier commentaries on the Quran and the Hadis belonging to the
schools of Malik, Shafi and Hanbal besides that of Hanifa.— These and
similar works and the military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and the Adab-
ul-Harb made the Ghauris and their successors better equipped for the
conquest and governance of non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that
such works were made available, meticulously studied and constantly
referred to by scholars attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and
kings.


Muhammad Ghauri led his first expedition to Multan and Gujarat in
1175. Three years later he again marehed by way of Multan, Ueheh and the
waterless Thar desert toward Anhilwara Patan in Gujarat, but the Rajput
Bhim gave him erushing defeat (1178-79).— The debaele did not diseourage
Muhammads dogged tenacity. It only spurred him to wrest Punjab from the
Ghaznavid, and make it a base of operations for further penetration into
Indian territory. He annexed Peshawar in 1180 and marched to Lahore the
next year. He led two more expeditions,— in 1184 and 1186-87, before
Lahore was captured. By false promise Khusrau Malik, a prince of the
Ghaznavid dynasty, was induced to come out of the fortress, was taken
prisoner and sent to Ghazni. He was murdered in 1201. Not a single
member of the house of Mahmud Ghaznavi was allowed to survive and the
dynasty was annihilated.

With Punjab in hand, Muhammad Ghauri began to plan his attack on the
Ajmer-Delhi Kingdom. Muhammad bin Qasim had fought against the
Buddhist-Brahmin rulers of Sind, and Mahmud of Ghazni against the
Brahman Hindu Shahiyas of the Punjab. But now fighting had to be done
with the Rajputs who had by now risen everywhere to defend their
motherland against the repeated invasions of foreign freebooters.
Muhammad Ghauri had already tasted defeat at the hands of Solanki
Rajputs in Gujarat. Therefore, he made elaborate preparations before
marching towards the Punjab in 587 H./1191 C.E. He captured Bhatinda,
which had been retaken by the Rajputs from the possession of its
Ghaznavid governor, and placed it in charge of Qazi Ziyauddin Talaki with
a contingent of 1200 horse. He was about to return to Ghazni when he
learnt that Prithviraj Chauhan, the Rajput ruler of Ajmer-Delhi, was coming
with a large force to attack him. He turned to meet him and encountered
him at Tarain or Taraori, about ten kilometers north of Karnal. The Rajput
army comprised hundreds of elephants and a few thousand horse. The
Muslims were overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers and their left and
right wings were broken. In the centre, Muhammad Ghauri charged at
Govind Rai, the brother of Prithviraj, and shattered his teeth with his lance.
But Govind Rai drove his javelin through the Sultans arm, and had not a
Khalji Turk come to his immediate assistance, Muhammad would have lost
his life.— His rescue and recovery helped save his army which continued its


retreat in good order. Prithviraj besieged Bhatinda but the gallant Ziyauddin
held out for thirteen months before he eapitulated.

At Ghazni, Muhammad severely punished the Ghauri, Khalji and
Khurasani amirs,— whom he held responsible for his defeat. Wallets full of
oats were tied to their neeks and in this plight they were paraded through
the eity. The Sultan himself was overeome with sueh shame that he would
neither eat nor drink nor ehange garments till he had avenged himself Next
year he again started from Ghazni towards Hindustan with full preparations
and with a foree of one hundred and two thousand Turks, Persians and
Afghans. On reaching Lahore, he sent an ambassador to Ajmer and invited
Prithviraj to make his submission and accept Islam. The arrogant message
met with a befitting retort, and the armies of the two once more encamped
opposite each other on the banks of Saraswati at Tarain, 588 H./1192 C.E.
The Rajput army was far superior in numbers. Prithviraj had succeeded in
enlisting the support of about one hundred Rajput princes who rallied round
his banner with their elephants, cavalry and infantry. To counter such a vast
number Muhammad Ghauri adopted a tactic which bewildered the
Rajputs. Of the five divisions of his army, four composed of mountain
archers, were instructed to attack (by turns) the flanks and, if possible, the
rear of the Hindus, but to avoid hand to hand conflicts and, if closely
pressed, to feign flight.— He delivered a dawn attack when the Indians were
busy in the morning ablutions; the Hindus had to fight the invaders on
empty stomach. Explaining the reason for the empty stomach Dr. Jadunath
Sarkar writes: It was the Hindu practice to prepare for the pitched battle by
waking at 3 Oclock in the morning, performing the morning wash and
worship, eating the cooked food (pakwan) kept ready before hand, putting
on arms and marching out to their appointed places in the line of battle
before sunrise But in the second battle of Naraina (also called Tarain,
Taraori) the Rajputs could take no breakfast; they had to snatch up their
arms and form their lines as best as they could in a hurry In vain did they
try to pursue the Turko-Afghan army from 9 oclock in the morning to 3
oclock in the afternoon at the end of which the Hindus were utterly
exhausted from the fighting, hunger and thirst.—

When Muhammad found that the Rajput army was sufficiently wearied,
he charged their centre with 12,000 of the flower of his cavalry. The


Rajputs were eompletely routed. Govind Rai was killed. Prithviraj was
eaptured— in the neighbourhood of the river Saraswati and put to death.
Enormous spoils fell into the hands of the Muslim army.

With the defeat and death of Prithviraj Chauhan, the task of the invader
beeame easy. Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram and Hansi were eaptured in quiek
sueeession with ruthless slaughter and a general destruetion of temples and
building of mosques. The Sultan then proeeeded to Ajmer whieh too
witnessed similar seenes. Through a diplomatie move, Ajmer was made
over to a son of Prithviraj on promise of punctual payment of tribute. In
Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at Indraprastha under the
command of Qutbuddin Aibak who was to act as Ghauris lieutenant in
Hindustan.—

Further extension of territory was in the logic of conquest. After
Prithviraj, the power of Jayachandra, the Gahadvala chief, was challenged.
Jayachandra had not come to the aid of Prithviraj hoping, perhaps, that after
the defeat of the Chauhan ruler he himself would become the sole master of
Hindustan. He was old and experienced, his capital was Kanauj, his
dominion extended as far as Varanasi in the east, and he was reputed to be a
very powerful prince of the time.

The Sultan him self marched from Ghazni in 1193 at the head of fifty
thousand horse and gave a crushing defeat to Jayachandra on the Jamuna
between Chandwar and Etah, and Kanauj and Varanasi became part of
Muhammad Ghauris dominions. The usual vandalism and acts of
destruction at Varanasi struck terror into the hearts of the people about the
cruelty of the Turushkas.

Incidental Fallout

The three waves of invasions under Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of
Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghaur, took about five Hundred years to
establish Muslim rule in India. For another five hundred years Muslim
sultans and emperors ruled over the country. Invaders are cruel and
unscrupulous by nature and profession, and there is nothing surprising
about the behaviour of these Muslim invaders. But what is unusual is that
these invaders left almost a permanent legacy of political and social turmoil


in India because their aims and methods were continued by Muslims even
after they had become rulers.

It was the practice of the invaders to capture defenceless people and
make them slaves for service and sale. We shall deal with this phenomenon
by Muslim conquerors and rulers in some detail later on. Here we shall
confine to the taking of captives in the early years of Muslim invasions and
how it led to rather strange occurrences. Many captives taken by conquerors
like Mahmud of Ghazni were sold as slaves in Transoxiana, and the Arab
Empire. But many people also fled the country to save themselves from
enslavement and conversion. Centuries later they are today known as
Romanies or Gypsies and are found in almost all European countries
like Turkey, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Germany, Spain and
Britain and even in America. In spite of being treated as aliens in Europe, in
spite of persistent persecution (as for example in Germany under Hitler),
they are today around 6 millions.—

Their nomenclature is derived from roma or man. They also call
themselves Roma chave or sons of Rama, the Indian God. Gypsy legends
identifying India as their land of origin, Baro Than (the Great Eand), are
numerous and carefully preserved.— Researches based on their language,
customs, rituals and physiogonomy affirm that it is Hindus from India who
form the bulk of these people in Europe. They are remarkable for their
yellow brown, or rather olive colour, of their skin; the jet-black of their hair
and eyes, the extreme whiteness of their teeth, and generally for the
symmetry of their limbs.—

It is believed that the first exodus of the Roma out of India took place in
the seventh century which coincides with the Arab invasion of Sind. In
about 700 C.E. they are found serving as musicians of the Persian
court.— Mahmud Ghazni took them away in every campaign. Their biggest
group, according to Jan Kochanowski, left the country and set off across
Afghanistan to Europe in the twelfth-thirteenth century after the defeat of
Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghauri.— Even today a visit
to the new community of Romanies (Gypsies) in Skojpe in the southeastern
part of Yugoslavia is like entering a village in Rajasthan.—


With regard to their language, a large number of the words in different
dialeets are of Indian origin as their persons and eustoms show mueh of the
Hindu eharaeter.— They are freedom loving and prefer tent life. Their
marriages are simple, Indian type. There is no eourtship before marriage.
Taking parikrama (rounds) around the fire is wholly binding, just as in
India. Originally they were vegetarians. Holi and other Hindu festivals are
celebrated in Serbia and Spain. Most of them have converted to Christianity
but maintain Shivas Trisula (trident) - symbol of Gods three powers of
desire, action and wisdom. Gypsies are divided into caste groups who live
in separate areas or mohallas. There are 149 sub-castes among the
Bulgarian gypsies. Their professions comprise working in wood and iron,
making domestic utensils, mats and baskets and practising astrology, telling
fortunes and sometimes indulging in tricks. Their talent for music is
remarkable.— Their dance and music is voluptuous, of the Indian dom-
domni type. A classic example is the Gypsy womens snake dance, which is
still performed in Rajasthan. Their language has many Indian words. They
have manush for man, zott for Jat, Yak, dui, trin for ek, do, tin. They have
lovari for lohari (smith), Sinti for Sindhi, sui for needle, sachchi for true
and duur ja for go away. We may close with the old Gypsy saying: Our
caravan is our family, and the world is our family which is a direct
adaptation of the Sanskrit saying Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.—

The Romanies or Gypsies left India or were taken away from here
centuries ago. Their history comes down to our own times and is extremely
absorbing. But their transplantation cannot now be counted as a legacy of
Muslim conquest or rule in India. However, there are other activities of
Muslim conquerors and rulers like converting people to Islam or breaking
idols and temples which are still continuing and which therefore form part
of Muslim heritage. We shall now turn to these.


Footnotes:

- Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, p. 11 and n.

- Yule, Ser Marco Polo, II, pp.334-36,359; Alberuni, I, p.208; Biladuri, E
and D, I, p.456.


- Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah Farishtah, a seventeenth century
historian, basing his researches (Khama-i-Tahqiq) on the works of
Khulasat-ul-Hikayat, Hajjaj Nama and the history of Haji Muhammad
Qandhari says that before the advent of Islam Indian Brahmans used to
travel to and fro by sea to the temples of Kaaba to administer worship of the
idols there, and there was constant movement of people between Ceylon,
India and the countries of what is now called West Asia (Farishtah, II,
p.311); Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan, E and D, I, pp. 118-119; Elliots
Appendix, E and D, I, pp.414-484, citing Chachnama, p.432.

- Elliots Appendix, pp.428-29.

-Ibid., p.431 citing Abul Fida, Chachnama and Tuhfat-ul-Kiram.

- A1 Biladuri, p.l23; Chachnama, p.206.

^ A1 Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan trs. E and D, I, pp. 119-120.

- For details see Eal, K.S., Early Muslims in India, p. 14.

- A1 Biladuri, p. 119. Also E and D, I, Appendix, p.434.

- Elliot, Appendix, E and D, I, p.435.

- Chachnama, p.l91.

- A1 Biladuri, p.ll9; Elliots Appendix, p.436.

- Chachnama, E & D, I, pp.l88, 1819.

^W. Haig, C.H.I.,III,p.3.

^ A1 Biladuri, p.l21; Chachnama, pp.157-58; Elliots Appendix, E and
D, I, p.432. See Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, pp.85,113,128 for forcible
conversions; pp.83,87,155,161,173-74 for massacres; pp. 190,196 for
enslavement; pp.92, 99, 100, 190 for destruction of temples and
construction of mosques at their sites.


— Chachnama, pp. 122,172.

— Elliots note on Brahmanabad is worthy of perusal (Appendix, E and D,
I, pp.369-74).

— Mohammad Habib, The Arab Conquest of Sind in Politics and Society
During the Early Medieval Period being the collected works of M. Habib,
Ed. K.A. Nizami, II, pp.1-35. A1 Biladuri, p.l22 has 8,000 or 26,000.

— Chachnama, pp. 185-86.

— Chachnama, p.206. A1 Biladuri, however, has 60 million and 120
million respectively (E and D, I, p.l23). See also Elliots Appendix, I, p. 470
and n.

— Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (1940 ed.), p.63.

— Chachnama, pp. 185-86.

— Exactly at this very point of time a similar story of success and
punishment was being enacted at the other end of the then known world.
Musa, the governor of North Africa, sent his commander Tariq with 7,000
men to march into the Iberian peninsula. Tariq landed at Gibraltar and
utterly routed the armies of Visigothic King Roderick in July 711. He then
headed towards Toledo, the capital, and attacked Cordova. Jealous of the
unexpected success of his lieutenant, Musa himself with 10,000 troops
rushed to Spain in June 712. It was in or near Toledo that Musa met Tariq.
Here he whipped his subordinate and put him in chains for refusing to obey
orders to halt in the early stage of the campaign. Musa nevertheless
continued with the conquest him self Ironically enough, in the autumn of
the same year the Caliph Al-Walid in distant Damuscus recalled Musa.
Musa entered Damuscus in February 715. Al-Walid was dead by then, and
his brother and successor Sulaiman humiliated Musa, made him stand in the
sun until exhausted, and confiscated his property. The last we bear of the
aged conqueror of Africa and Spain (he affected to disguise his age by
colouring with a red powder the whiteness of his beard), is as a beggar in a


remote village near Meeea (Hitti, op. cit., pp.62-67; Gibbon, op. cit., II,
pp.769-779).

— A1 Biladuri, p. 126. Also ef. Idrisi, p.89.

— Denison Ross, Islam, p.l8. Also Lai, K.S., Indian Muslims: Who are
They (New Delhi, 1990), pp.3-4.

— Lai, K.S., Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (Delhi
1973), P.99.

— Muruj-ul-Zuhab, p.20. Also Idrisi, Nuzhat-ul-Mushtaq, p.82.

— Ashkalal-ul Bilad, pp.36, 37.

— Andre Wink, Al-Hind, I, p.l51, and reference. Dayaram Gidumals
Introduction to Chachanamas trs. by Kalichbeg, p.vii; M. Habib, Collected
Works, ed. K.A. Nizami, II, pp. 1-35, esp. p. 32; Lai, Early Muslims in
India, pp. 21-25.

— Utbi, Tarikh-i-Yamini, E and D, II, pp.20-2I.

— Ibid., p.20; Ufi, JamiulHikayat, p.I8I. Elliots Appendix, on the
authority of Abul Fazl, specifically mentions animals flesh, p.439. The trick
was common. The Fort of Sevana was captured by Alauddin Khalji by
contaminating the forts water supply by throwing a cows head into the tank.
See Eal, Khaljis, p.ll5.

— Utbi, op. cit., p.21.

— Utbi, op. cit., pp.22-23.

— Bosworth, C.E., The Ghaznavids (Edinburgh, 1963) p.l29; Utbi,
Kitab-i-Yamini, trs. by James Reynolds (Eondon, 1885): pp.438-39 and n.

— Hodivala. S.H., Studies in Indo-Muslim History (Bombay,1939).


— For conversions at various places under Mahmud see Utbi, Kitab-i-
Yamini, Eng. trs. Reynolds, pp.451-52, 455, 460, 462-63 and Utbi, Tarikh-
i-Yamini, E and D, II, pp.27, 30, 33, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49. Also Appendix in E
and D, II, pp.434-78.

— Utbi, p.44; Farishtah, I, p.29 for temples at Mathura.

— Alberuni, II, p.I03.

— SiyasatNama (ed. Shefer), pp.77-80,138-156.

— Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment
(Oxford, I%4), p.79.

Shah Waliullah considered Mahmud as the greatest ruler after Khilafat-i-
Khass. He argues that in reference to Mahmud historians failed to recognize
that his horoscope had been identical to the Prophets and that this fact had
abled him to obtain significant victories in wars to propagate Islam (Rizvi,
History of Sufism, II, p.382 citing from Shah Waliullah, Qurrat al-aynain fi
tafil al-shaykhayan, Delhi, 1893, p.324).

— Farishtah, I, pp.30, 35.

— Utbi, Reynolds, p.282.

— The house was quite large, covering an area of about a thousand square
feet. Hodivala also says that the canopy must have been what the old
annalists of Gujarat call a Mandapika. It was a folding pavilion for being
used in royal journeys, and not a throne (Hodivala, op. cit. p.l43).

— On return to Ghazni Mahmud ordered this impressive treasure to be
displayed in the court-yard of his palace. Ambassadors from foreign
countries including the envoy from Taghan Khan, king of Turkistin,
assembled to seethe wealth which had never been accumulated by kings of
Persia or of Rum (Utbi, Reynolds, pp.342-43; E and D, II, p.35).

— Utbi, E and D., II, p.45, Reynolds, pp.455-57.1 have elsewhere
calculated that 70 misqals were equal to one seer of 24 tolas in the Sultanate


period. See my History of the Khaljis (2nd ed. Bombay, 1967), pp. 199-200.
On the basis of the above calculation the weight of five gold idols comes to
10.5 maunds, each idol being of about 2 maunds.

— Bosworth, op. cit., P.78.

— A. Cunningham, Coins of Medieval India (London, 1894), Reprint by
Indological Book House (Varanasi, 1967), p. 65.

^J.R.A.S. 1848, pp.289, 307, 311; J.R.A.S., 1860,p.l56; Bosworth,
pp.78-79.


— A.S. Altekar in Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, II, p.2.

— Muhammad Ufi, Jami-ul Hikayat, E and D, II, p. 188; Thomas in
J.R.A.S.XVII,p.l81.

— Bosworth, op. cit., pp.79, 149-52. Also Khurdadba, E and D, I, p.l4,
and Jami-ul-Hikayat, E and D, II, p. 68.

— Utbi, op. cit., Reynolds, 362; E and D, II, 36.

— Bosworth, op. cit., pp.76,120,126; Hodivala, op. cit., pp. 139-40,176;
Alberuni, pp. I, p.61; Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Adab-ul-Harb, trs. in Rizvi, Adi
Turk Kalin Bharat (Aligarh 1965), p.258; Utbi, op. cit., p.33; Taj-ul-Maasir,
E and D, II, p.227.

— Utbi, E and D, II, pp.40-41.

— Ibid., pp.49-50.

— Alberuni, II, p.l3.

— M. Habib, Mahmud of Ghaznin, p.95.

^ C.H.I., III, p.28.

— Alberuni, I, p.22.


^Eand D, II, 208.

— Utbi, op. cit., p.32.

^Eand D, II, p.60.

— Utbi, E and D, II, p. 41; Reynolds, p.450.

— Juwaini, Tarikh-i-Jahan Kusha, E and D, II, p.389.

— Hasan Nizami, Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, pp.2I5-I7.

— Utbi, Reynolds, p.xxv.

— Albemni, II, p.I3.

— Bosworth, op. cit., p. 59; M. Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, p.95.

— Badaoni, Muntakkab-ut-Tawarikh, Bib. Ind. Text (Calcutta, 1868-69),
I, p.8; Farishtah, I, p.21.

— Hazard, Atlas of Islamic History, p.42.

— It was translated into English by Charles Hamilton of the East India
Company and published in England in 1791. It is easily available in a recent
reprint.

— Mivd\a],x>A\6', Indian Antiquary, 1877, pp. 186-189.

— Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, p.57.

— Minhaj, p.ll8; Farishtah, I, p.57.

— Habibullah, op. cit., pp.60-61.

— C.H.I., III, p.40; Farishtah, I, p.58.


— Hindustan Standard, 14 March 1954, later reproduced in Jadunath
Sarkar, Military History of India.

— Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, p.l20.

— Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarakshak, p.23; Farishtah,
p.58. Hasan Nizamis account in Taj-ul-Maasir is detailed.

— Singhal, D.R, India and the World Civilization, 2 vols. (Delhi, 1972) I,
p.234.

— Ibid., p.246

— Modern Cyclopaedia, IV, p.319.

— Hinduism Today, Malaysia Edition, August 1990, p.l7.

— Cited in Singhal, op. cit., p. 241.

— Rakesh Mathur in Hinduism Today, op. cit., August, 1990, p. I.

— Modern Cyclopaedia, p.319.

— Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, p. 17.

— D.R Singhal, op. cit.. Chapter on Romanies: Lords of the Open
Country, pp.234-266, esp. pp.249, 255, 266; Rakesh Mathur, Hindu Origins
of Romani Nomads m. Hinduism Today, op. cit., August and September,
1990.


Muslim Rule in India


Chapter 4

The Great Mogol is a foreigner in Hindoustan. To maintain himself in
such a country he is under the necessity of keeping up numerous armies,
even in the time of peace.

- Francois Bernier

Theocratic State

The State that these Muslim invaders and rulers set up in India was a
theoeracy. This is the conclusion arrived at by Jadunath Sarkar,- R.R
Tripathi,- K.M.Ashraf,- T.R Hughes,- the Encyclopaedia of Islam- and
many others. All the institutions that the Muslims either evolved or adopted
were intended to subserve the law,- observes Tripathi. On the other hand,
I.H. Qureshi says that the supremacy of the Shara (Islamic law) has misled
some into thinking that the Sultanate was a theoeraey.- Qureshis eontention
may not be taken seriously, beeause he tries to eulogize every aspect of
Muslim rule in India.- But even Mohammad Habib declares that it (Muslim
state in India) was not a theocratic state in any sense of the word and that its
foundation was, non-religious and seeular.-

Before analysing these two poles-apart views, let us first be clear about
what theocracy means. According to the Oxford Dictionary the word
theoeraey is derived from the Creek theos, meaning God; and a state is
theoeratic when governed by God direetly or through a sacerdotal
class. Theocracy envisages direct intervention and authorship of God
through revelation in government of society.— The Chambers Twentieth
Century Dictionary defines theocracy as that constitution of a state in which
the Almighty is regarded as the sole soverign, and the laws of the realm as
divine commands rather than human ordinances, the priesthood necessarily
becoming the officers of the invisible ruler.—


The above premise makes three elements essential in a theocracy: (1)
prevalence of the law of God, (2) authority of the soverign or ruler who
promulgates this law, and (3) presence of a sacerdotal class or priesthood
through which this law is disseminated. Let us examine to what extent these
elements were present in the Muslim state in medieval India. We need not
discuss the first two elements for, according to Dr. Qureshi himself, the
Shara is based on the Quran which is believed by every Muslim to be the
word of God revealed to His prophet Muhammad on these two rocks - the
Quran and Hadis (the prophets interpretations, traditions) is built the
structure of Muslim Law This Law was the actual sovereign in Muslim
lands.—

So far as the third element is concerned, it is true that there was no
ordained or hereditary Muslim priesthood in medieval India. But there was
a scholastic class called the Ulama, who wielded great influence with the
Sultan. About their education and orthodoxy. Dr. Yusuf Husain has this to
say: The institutions of higher learning called Madrasa, had developed into
centres of learning with a distinct religious bias. They were essentially
schools of theology These Madrasas were the strongholds of orthodoxy and
were subsidized by the state.— From amongst the products of these schools
of theology were appointed jurists, advisers of Sultans and kings, and
interpreters of the Shara (Islamic law). The protection of Shariat, writes Ibn
Hasan, has two aspects: The propagation of the knowledge of Shara and its
enforcement as law within the state. The one implies the maintenance of a
class of scholars devoted to the study, the teaching and the propagation of
that knowledge, and the other the appointment of one from those scholars as
an adviser to the king in all his acts of state. The scholars devoted to that
knowledge are called Ulama and the one selected from among them is
termed Shaikh-ul-Islam.— The Shaikh-ul-Islam was the representative of
the Ulama and it was his duty to bring to the notice of the King what he
thought detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of his religion, and the king
had little option in acting upon such an advice.— Henry Blochmann
elaborates the position still further. Islam has no state clergy, says he, but
we find a counterpart to our hierarchical bodies in the Ulemas about the
court from whom the Sadrs of the provinces, the Mir Adis, Muftis and
Qazis were appointed. At Delhi and Agra, the body of the learned had
always consisted of staunch Sunnis, who believed it their duty to keep the


kings straight. How great their influenee was, may be seen from the fact
that of all Muhammadan emperors only Akbar, and perhaps Alauddin
Khalji, succeeded in putting down this haughty sect.— No amount of
arguments can obliterate the fact of the great influence of the priestly class
(Ulama and Mashaikh) in the Muslim state.

Thus the law which obtained in medieval India was the Shara which was
based on divine revelation. It was not a secular law. Muslim state could not
be a secular state. In fact Islam and secularism are mutually exclusive. One
has only to read the Quran and a few Persian chronicles of medieval times
to realise the extent to which the Muslim state in India was theocratic both
in spirit and in action.

The fundamental basis of the Islamic polity is the attainment of complete
religious uniformity, to root out heresy and to extirpate infidelity -
populations everywhere were to be converted into true believers.— The
Quranic injuction is: And when the sacred months {Ramzan) are passed, kill
those who join other deities with God, wherever you shall find them. But if
they shall convert then let them go their way.— The prophet of Islam who
had accorded some sort of religious toleration to the Jews of Medina,
expelled them afterward to bring about a complete religious uniformity in
that city, while Caliph Omar I (C.E. 634-644) expelled the Jews and
Christians from the whole of Arabia.—

In India the decision of Muhammad bin Qasim to accord to the Hindus
the status of Zimmis (protected people against payment of jiziyah) paved the
way for subsequent Muslim rulers to follow the same precedent; else
Hindus as idolaters could not be given this concession reserved for Ahl-i-
Kitab (or the People of the Book) Christians and Jews - and could only be
given a choice between conversion and death. In all their discussions the
Ulama and Sufis never conceded the status of Zimmis to the Hindus. In this
regard the declaration of the secular Alim and Sufi, Amir Khusrau, may be
taken as final: Happy Hindustan, the splendour of Religion, where the Law
finds perfect honour and security. The whole country, by means of the
sword of our holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of its thorns
by fire Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the Law granted
exemption from death by the payment of poll-tax, the very name of Hind,


root and branch, would have been extinguished.— If the sultans treated
Hindus as Zimmis, it was beeause of the eompulsions of the Indian
situation.

Even so, the Hindus, as Zimmis, beeame seeond elass eitizens in their
own homeland and were suffered to live under eertain disabilities. One of
them was that eaeh adult must pay a poll-tax ealled jiziyah. Moreover, the
main objeet in levying the tax is the subjeetion of infidels to
humiliation— and during the proeess of payment, the Zimmi is seized by the
eollar and vigorously shaken and pulled about in order to show him his
degradation.— The Zimmis also had to suffer in respeet of their mode of
worship, payment of taxes, and on aeeount of eertain sumptuary
laws.— Death awaited them at every eorner, beeause, being idolaters they
eould be given a ehoiee only between Islam and death.— The State rested
upon the support of the military elass whieh eonsisted largely of the
followers of the faith. They were treated as the favoured ehildren of the
state while various kinds of disabilities were imposed upon the non-
Muslim It is interesting to note that even (illiterate and unserupulous)
foreign adventurers were preferred just because they were Muslims to hold
offiees of importanee and dignity whieh were denied to the Hindus.—

There are eountless examples of prejudieial treatment meted out to non-
Muslims under the theoeratie government. Only a few may be mentioned
here as an illustration. Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalauddin Khalji
(1290-96), after a battle, whatever live Hindu fell into the hands of the
victorious king was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants. The
Musalman eaptives had their lives spared.— Similarly, Malik Kafur, the
famous general of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316), while on his expeditions in
South India, spared the lives of Muslims fighting on the side of the Hindu
Rai as they deserted to his army.— Rizqullah Mushtaqi is all praise for
Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) because under him the Muslims
dominated and the Hindus were suppressed {musalman china dast va
hinduan ram).— It was not only so in the medieval period. Such
discrimination is observed in theoeratie states even today.

When, in 1910, Boutros Pasha was murdered by an Egyptian
Muhammadan for no personal provocation but for the political reason that


he had presided over the eourt that senteneed the Denshawai villagers, and
the guilt of the murderer was eonelusively proved by evidenee, the Chief
Qazi of Egypt pronounced the judgement that according to Islam it is no
crime for a Muslim to slay an unbeliever. This is the opinion held by the
highest exponent of Islamic law in a modern civilized country.—

And here is a case of the year 1990. Sunil Vadhera was employed with
M/s. Archirodo Construction (Overseas) Co., Riyadh. He died in an
accident caused by a Creek national of M/s. Saboo. The defender deposited
1,00,000 Saudi riyals or Rs. 4.65 lakh with the Saudi government as
compensation for death. But the Shariat Saudi court has ruled that as the
deceased was a Hindu, as per Shariat law he was entitled to Saudi riyals
6,666.66 only or Rs.30,000. This is just about one-fifteenth of the
compensation that the parents would have got if their son was a Muslim.—

The disabilities the Hindus suffered under this Islamic or Shariat law are
clearly mentioned in the Quran, the Hadis and the Hidaya. It would be the
best to go through these works as suggested in Chapter 2. However, these
are also summarised in the Encyclopaedia of Islam,— T.R Hughess
Dictionary of Islam,— N.R Aghnidess Muhammadan Theories of
Finance,— Blochmanns translation of the Ain-i-Akbari,— Ziyauddin Baranis
Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi— and a host of other Rersian chronicles, and there is no
need to repeat here zimmi, kharajguzar, jiziyah syndrome. The fact to be
noted is that Shariat law continued to prevail throughout the medieval
period.

The Shariat law was so brazenly prejudicial to the interests of the vast
majority of the non-Muslims (and hence the wishful thinking that it did not
prevail and that the medieval state was secular), that even the medieval
thinkers and rulers found it impracticable to enforce it in full. When the
nobles and Ulama of the Sultanate pressed Shamsuddin Iltutmish to enforce
the Shara, and give the Hindus a choice between Islam and death, the latter
asked for time.— Equally helpless (or shrewd) were Balkan and Jalaluddin
Khalji.— It was probably the experience of such rulers that prompted
Ziyauddin Barani to advocate that if the enforcement of the Shariat was
impossible or impracticable, new laws should be enacted by rulers. It is the
duty of a king, says he, to enforce, if he can, those royal laws which have


become proverbial owing to their principles of justice and mercy. But if
owing to change of time and circumstances he is unable to enforce the laws
of the ancients (i.e. ancient Muslim rulers), he should, with the counsel of
wise men frame laws suited to his time and circumstances and proceed to
enforce them. Much reflection is necessary in order that laws, suited to his
reign, are properly framed.— So that they in no way contravene the tenets of
Islam. These laws Barani calls Zawabits.

Barani wrote in the fourteenth century. Perhaps he had in mind the rules
of Alauddin Khalji about Market Control or his revenue regulations. Else,
right up to the first half of the sixteenth century no king made any laws of
the kind. No chronicler has made mention of any such laws. It was late in
the sixteenth century that Akbar promulgated a number of regulations for
the real benefit of people. There were some tolerant monarchs in medieval
India, and yet none except Akbar ever thought of enacting any laws which
would have removed to some extent the disabilities imposed on the majority
of the population. Between 1562 and 1564 he abolished the pilgrim tax, the
jiziyah and the practice of enslaving prisoners of war. Restrictions were
imposed on the manufacture and sale of liquor in 1582 and the same year
child marriage was discouraged by fixing the marriage age at 14 for girls
and 16 for boys. In 1587 Akbar legalized widow remarriage and prohibited
Sati for Bal Vidhvas in 1590-91. In 1601 he took the revolutionary step of
permitting individuals to choose their religion and those who had been
forcibly converted to Islam could go back to their former faith. But even
Akbar did not codify any laws as such for his successors to follow. His
beneficial and equitable regulations remained, as they could remain, only
for his empire and during his life-time. It is significant to note that even in
the few reforms that Akbar ordered, many nobles and Ulama saw a danger
to Islam.

So what Barani calls Zawabits were few and far between, and the Shara
continued to be the supreme law prevalent in the Turkish and Mughal times.
No wonder, contemporary chroniclers always eulogized the Indian Muslim
kings as defenders of the Islamic faith. This tickled their vanity and
prompted them to be strict in the enforcement of the law. It encouraged
them to be iconoclasts, it made them patronize the Muslim minority and
resort to all kinds of methods to obtain conversions, besides, of course, at


the same time treating the non-Muslims unfairly to exhibit their love for
their own faith. Seeondly, the Ulama always tried to keep the kings straight.
They eonsidered it their saered duty to see that the kings not only did not
stray away from the path of religion and law, but also enforced it on the
people. Such indeed was their influence that even strong monarchs did not
dare suppress them. Others, of course, tried to walk on the path shown by
this bigoted scholastic class. The third and the most important reason was
that protestation of championship for Islam buttressed the claim of the king
for the crown, for a ruler was not safe on the throne if he did not enforce the
Shara. At the close of the Khalji regime, Ghiyasuddin declared himself as a
champion of the faith, because the Ulama had been dissatisfied with
Alauddins policies and Ghiyasuddin with the activities of Nasiruddin
Khusrau. The slogan of Islam in danger so common yet so effective in the
history of the Muslims, was started.— And this to a great degree won
Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq the throne. The Ulama were equally dissatisfied with
Muhammad bin Tughlaq. On his demise. Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh
obtained from Firoz a promise that he would rule according to the tenets of
justice and law. Firoz Shah Tughlaq proved true to his word and made
religion the basis of his government.— A little later Amir Timur openly
claimed to have attacked Hindustan with the avowed object of destroying
idolatry and infidelity in the country.— Akbars tolerance had exasperated
the Muslim divines, and a promise was obtained from his successor,
Jahangir, that he would defend the Muslim religion. Immediately after
Akbars death Mulla Shah Ahmad, one of the greatest religious leaders of
the age, wrote to various court dignitaries exhorting them to get this state of
things altered in the very beginning of (Jahangirs) reign because otherwise
it would be difficult to accomplish anything later on.— Aurangzeb openly
claimed to have fought the apostate Dara to re-establish the law of Islam.
Thus, whether we consider the influence of the Muslim religious class (the
Ulama), the application of the law of Islam {Shard), or the activities of the
kings, it is clear beyond doubt that the medieval state was a theocratic state.
No wonder that many contemporary and later Muslim writers praise the
deeds of Aurangzeb with great gusto. The name of Akbar is obliterated: it
does not find mention by a single Muslim chronicler after his death.

Why is then there a desire to escape from this fact? In modern times
values of life have changed. Today, in an age of science and secularism.


ideas of religious disabilities and perseeution appear to be so out of tune
with .human behaviour, that we are made to believe that sueh disabilities
were never there even in the past. Modern Indian government is based on
the ideals of secularism. It tries to eschew religious controversies. It is felt
that such was the position through the ages without realising that even now
disabilities of non-Muslims are existing in many Islamic countries.

Fealty to Caliph

To maintain the Islamic character of the state, and to stabilize their own
position as Muslim rulers, the Sultans of Delhi professed to be subservient
to the Caliph. Just as the Prophet is the viceregent of God and the Caliph is
the viceregent of the Prophet, says T.W. Arnold, the monarch is viceregent
of the Caliph No king of the east and the west can hold the title of Sultan
unless there be a covenant between him and the Caliph.—

The Muslim Sultanate in Hindustan was carved out and maintained by
the sword, but it derived sustenance also from some moral bases of political
power. These consisted of the governments unqualified propagation of the
Islamic religion, adherence to the Shariat law, regard for the Ulama and
Sufis, and recognition of the supremacy of the Caliph. The sultans feigned
to have trumped-up geneologies and on that basis claimed respect for the
regime. The Ghaznavids and Ghaurids were plebians but to acquire
legitimacy they sought high pedigrees, took grandiose titles, claimed divine
origin for their kingship, and connected themselves with the old ruling
families of Iran and Turan.— Balban sought his descent from Afrasiyab, the
legendary hero of Persia, and gave to his sorts and grandsons names of old
Persian princes. Every sultan took high-sounding titles, and the Ulama
made him and the people believe that he was the shadow of God on earth.
Fictitious geneologies counted in politics, high titles created awe, and
divine right and religious fervour earned the respect of high and low.

Withal a very important moral basis for Muslim political power in
Hindustan was the recognition the Indian sultan received from the Caliph,
the respected head of the medieval Muslim world. The first four Caliphs
were directly related to the Prophet. Muawiyah, the founder of the
Ummayad Caliphate, was a cousin and Abbas, the founder of the Abbasid


Caliphate, an uncle of Muhammad. There was therefore very great
reverence for the Caliphs in the world of Islam. The Abbasids had built up a
large empire with capital at Baghdad.— It is true that the Abbasid Caliphs
did not enjoy any authority in the west. But the Muslim countries
possessing an Islamic government and an Islamic civilization, were
connected by such strong ties of common religion and common culture that
their inhabitants felt themselves citizens of a vast empire of which Mecca
was the religious, and Baghdad the cultural and political center— Its
provinces were administered by their Turkish slave governors and Turkish
mercenary troops. As the Caliphal empire disintegrated, in the third century
of Islam, its provincial governors became independent.— But officially
these were only slaves and their tenure of power was based on force and
chance. They, therefore, thought it politic not to snap their connections with
the Khalifa completely, to go on paying him tribute and seek from him
recognition of their sovereignity. The Caliphs too were eager to secure such
wealth as could be obtained from these self-manumitted, self-appointed
rulers by granting investitures which cost the Caliphs nothing. Thus came
into being a sort of an Islamic commonwealth under the aegis of the
Khalifa.

The contacts of Muslim rulers of India with the Caliphs were of old. The
Arab governors of Sind used to read the khutba in the name of the
Ummayad Caliphs. Even in the distribution of the booty taken by the early
Arab invaders, one-fifth was reserved for the Khalifa.— Under the
jurisdiction of Saffah Abul Abbas, the first Abbasid Caliph, there were
twelve provinces including Sind.— Even when Sind had reverted to a period
of Hindu domination, the khutba continued to be read in mosques in the
name of the Abbasid Caliph,^ which boosted the morale of the few
Muslims living there.

Mahmud Ghaznavis campaigns in India had Caliphal blessings.— The
introduction of Muslim rule in India was accordingly directly obliged to the
Khalifa. Eike the Ghaznavids, the Ghaurids were also alive to the
importance of obtaining the confirmation of their sovereignty from the
Caliphs of Baghdad. The earliest Muslim rulers of Hindustan were
originally slaves, and it was recognised in all quarters that their position as
rulers would be buttressed if they could receive caliphal recognition.


Tajuddin Yilduz, the ruler of Ghazni, obtained the Caliphs sanetion for his
authority. After Yilduz and Qubaeha had been destroyed by Iltutmish, the
latter received the investiture from the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustansir Billah
as a legal sanction of his monarchy.— It is not known if Iltutmish had
requested the Khalifa for it and if so how much wealth and presents he had
sent. However, he was overwhelmed with happiness and religiously bound
himself to the rules of obedience and submission. Iltutmish inscribed the
Caliphs name on his coins and called him self Nasir-i-Amirul-Mauminin
(helper of the Islamic Caliph).— This fact fastened the fiction of Khalafat
on the Sultanate of Delhi, and involved legally the recognition of the final
sovereignty of the Khalifa, an authority outside the geographical limits of
India, but inside the vague yet none the less real brotherhood of Islam
(1229).— However, the interesting point is that the Caliph at the same time
conferred a patent of investiture also on Ghiyasuddin of Bengal. What were
his considerations for simultaneously recongnising two sultans in
Hindustan, is not known. Perhaps whosoever sent presents and treasures
was conferred with an investiture. But Iltutmish defeated Ghiyas and forced
him to recognise him (Iltutmish) as a superior (Sultan-i-Azam).—

Such was the moral support derived from the Caliphs recognition that
even after the murder of the Baghdad Caliph Al-Mustasim by the Mongols
in 1258, his name continued to appear on the coins of Indian sultans like
Ghiyasuddin Balkan, Muizuddin Kaiqubad and Jalaluddin Khalji.
Jalaluddin even called himself Yaminul Khilafat (Right hand of the
Caliphate), reminiscent of Al-Qadirs title to Mahmud Ghaznavi. The
Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad was no more, but the association of his name
was of such great import that it was not given up by the Delhi rulers.

Alauddin Khalji (C.E. 1296-1316) made a departure from the practice
probably because he had built up a strong empire and also, because he had
come to learn about the demise of the Abbasid Caliph. His son and
successor Qutbuddin Mubarak Khalji went a step further. He himself
assumed the title of Caliph. He had inherited a strong empire built up by
Alauddin Khalji, and he was young. He might not have cared to pay
homage to a dead Caliph, or even might have thought that if there could be
Caliphs in Madinah, Dimishq (Damascus), Baghdad and Qurtubah
(Cordova), and later on in Qahirah (Cairo) why not in India, which was, if


Amir Khusraus Nuh Sipehr at all reflects Qutbuddins views, superior to all
countries. But these are only conjectures; the real reasons for his
assumption of Caliphal titles are not known. He appropriated to himself
titles like Amir-ul-Mauminin and Imam-i-Azam, as well as the pseudo-
Abbasid ruling name of Wasiq.— But this was an isolated case of
assumption of Caliphal titles by an Indian sultan, and at that a profligate.
Though not without some interest, it is hardly of any significance in the
history of the Sultanate.

Nasiruddin Khusrau and Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq continued with the old
pattern of loyalty to a universal Caliphate, while Muhammad Tughlaq did
not rest content until he had made the discovery of the presence of the
Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustakfl in exile at Cairo, and applied to him for
investiture. His obvious motive was to strengthen his waning authority
reflected in the recurrent rebellions in all parts of the country.— In such a
situation he did not try to seek support in India from his (non-Muslim)
people, but he attached such great importance to Caliphal recognition that
he declared that all the sultans who had not applied for or received Caliphal
investiture as usurpers {Mutaghallib). In 1343 he received the Caliphal edict
and the robe of honour. His religious devotion to the Caliph and emotional
behaviour towards the Caliphs envoys were so ludicurous as to call forth a
contemptuous comment from the contemporary chronicler Ziyauddin
Barani. So great was the faith of the Sultan in the Abbasid Khalifas, says
he, that he would have sent all his treasures in Delhi to Egypt, had it not
been for the fear of robbers.— But the Sultan must have sent a substantial
amount, because when Ghiyasuddin, who was only a descendant of the
extinct Caliphal house of Baghdad, visited India, Muhammads bounty knew
no bounds. He gave him a million tankahs (400,000 dinars), the fief of
Kanauj, and the fort of Siri, besides such valuable articles as gold and silver
wares, pages and slave girls. Withal one thousand dinars were given for
head-wash, a bath-tub of gold, and three robes on which in place of knots or
buttons there were pearls as large as big hazel nuts.— If this was given to a
scion of a house which had become defunct, how much more was sent to
the living Caliph at Cairo can only be surmised. No wonder that because of
the generosity of the Sultan, in his time the Caliphal investitures were
received more than once.— Muhammad Tughlaq included the names of
Abbasid Al-Mustakfl and his successors Al-Wasiq I and Al-Hakim in his


khutba, and inscribed on his coins their names to the exclusion of his
own.—


Such an attitude of subservience combined with munificence encouraged
the Caliph to send to Muhammads successor Firoz Tughlaq, a patent of
investiture, entrusting to him the territories of Hind.— Although the honour
was unsolicited, yet Firoz felt extremely happy as he confesses in his
Futuhat-i-Firoz Shahi that the greatest and best of honours that I obtained
through Gods mercy was, that by my obedience and piety, and friendliness
and submission to the Khalifa, the representative of the holy Prophet, my
authority was confirmed; for it is by his (Caliphs) sanction that the power of
the kings is assured, and no king is secure until he has submitted himself to
the Khalifa, and has received a confirmation from the sacred throne.— Firoz
Tughlaqs successors continued to inscribe the name of Al-Mutawakkil on
their coins.

With the fall of the Tughlaq dynasty the name of the Caliph was dropped
from Delhi coins. To the Saiyyad rulers, Timur and his successors were the
real Caliphs. More than once, robe of honour and flag came from (Shah
Rukh) to Delhi for Khizr Khan and Mubarak Khan. In return annual tribute
was sent to Shah Rukh.^ Sultan Muhammad Saiyyad also remained loyal
to him.— Henceforward it was Timur who provided source of inspiration to
the Indian Muslim regime. Muslim regime in India depended for sustenance
and strength not on the Indian people but on foreign Muslim Caliphs and
potentates. For, while the Saiyyad Sultans were obliged to Amir Timur for
installing them on the Delhi throne, the Mughal emperors descended
directly from him. Timur or Tamerlane had carried fire and sword into
Hindustan (1398-99) and his name revived horrendous memories among the
Indian people, but to the Mughal emperors his name provided as good an
inspiration for their Islamic rule in India as that of the Caliphs for the Delhi
Sultans. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur as a eonqueror and a descendant of
Amir Timur, assumed the title of Ghazi. But so also did Jahangir, although a
true Indian,^ adopt the lofty title of Nuruddin Mohammad Jahangir
Padshah Ghazi.— Shahjahan, who was more Indian than even Jahangir, took
the title of Abul Muzaffar Shihabuddin Muhammad Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani
(or Timur the Second).— Right up to the end of the Mughal empire in India,
the Mughal kings took pride in calling themselves descendants of Amir


Timur and in belonging to the Chaghtai Turk elan of the Mongols. The last
Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar asked Mirza Ghalib to write a history
of the Taimuria dynasty on a payment of rupees six hundred annually as
noted by the poet in his Dastanbuy. Furthermore, after the collapse of
Mughal power early in the nineteenth century, the name of the Sultan of
Turkey began to be mentioned in khutba in Indian mosques.

While the Mughal kings sought inspiration from the name of Timur and
the Turkish Sultan, the people of India considered them as foreigners for
that very reason. Bernier did not fail to notice that the Great Mogol is a
foreigner in Hindustan, a descendant of Tamerlane, chief of those Mogols
from Tartary who, about the year 1401, overran and conquered the Indies,
consequently he finds himself in a hostile country, or nearly So— In short,
except for the confusion created by Indian-ness or foreignness of emperor
Akbar,— the state remained basically foreign in character throughout the
medieval period. The aim of the Caliphs in inspiring the Sultans of Delhi
and that of Timur in invading India was the same, to spread Islam in
idolatrous Hindustan.—

Before closing the discussion on the Caliphs status in the eyes of the
Delhi Sultans, an often-asked question may be attempted to be answered.
Did the Caliphal recognition make the Sultanate of Delhi subservient to the
Caliphs? Although it would be difficult to subscribe to the view that by
receiving a formal Caliphal investiture, Iltutmish had made the Delhi
Sultanate a direct vassal of the Caliphate,— yet as Firoz Tughlaq admitted,
the Indian sultans were convinced that it is by the Caliphs sanction that the
power of the kings is assured; and no king is secure until he has submitted
himself to the Khalifa. No wonder none of the sultans who ruled between
Iltutmish and the later Tughlaqs repudiated this legal vassalage with the
inexplicable exception of Mubarak Khalji. They all claimed to be the
lieutenants of the Caliph, the supreme head of the world of Islam.
Allegiance to the Caliph by Indias Muslim kings gave the Khalifa prestige
and wealth. It gave the Indian Sultans, many of whom were originally
slaves, a status of honour in the Muslim world and satisfied the formalities
of Muslim law.— Moreover, inclusion of the Caliphs name in the khutba,
endeared the sultan to his Muslim subjects.— Besides, the way in which
Caliphal envoys and investitures were received, indicates that this was not


just lip subservience, and the extra-territorial allegiance to the Caliph
provided a very strong moral and legal basis of political power to the
Muslim regime in India. Timurs name and Institutes provided similar
legitimacy and strength to Mughal emperors.

So that, in the Islamic state, Delhi was not the capital of the empire; it
was Quwwat-ul-Islam. The king was not the ruler of the people; he was
Amir-ul-Mauminin, the conqueror of infidels and shelterer of Islam. The
army was not the royal army; it was Lashkar-i-Islam. The soldier was not a
cavalry man or infantry man; he was Ahl-i-Jihad. The law of the state was
not any secular or humanitarian law; it was Shariat, the law of Islam. The
state was not an end in itself, like the Creek state, but a means of sub¬
serving the interests of Islam. Conquests were made, shrines were broken,
captives were taken, converts were made - all in the name of Islam. The
raison detre of the regime was to disseminate the Islamic faith.—

Administrative Apparatus

This aim of the Muslim state could be achieved through its administrative
set up and military might. Actually the theocratic nature of the state and
fealty to the Caliph formed the moral bases of the regimes authority;
administration and army its material strength. All these components were
alien and exotic and were implanted from abroad. In its core the
administration was Islamic and was based on Quran and Hadis, though
Persia also contributed much to its development and application in India.

The administrative system of Islam had evolved gradually. In Arabia, in
its earliest stages, the problem was to provide the new converts made by
Muhammad with subsistence. They were indigent and poor, and to help
them, poor tax (zakat), voluntary contributions, and war-booty (ghanaim)
formed the revenue of the state at the start. Muhammad was followed (632
C.E.) by a succession of Caliphs at Medina.— According to Mawardi (who
wrote in the fifth century of Islam), the Imamate, or Caliphate, was divinely
ordained and the Khalifa inherited all the powers and privileges of the
Prophet.— The four Schools of Islamic jurisprudence also made the Khalifa
ecclesiastical as well as secular head of the Muslim world. The title of
Amir-ul-Mauminin indicated and emphasised the secular, that of Imam the


religious leadership of the Caliph.— His name had a hallow and a eharm,
and the institutions whieh developed under his rule beeame models of
governanee in the world of Islam. The Caliph Muawiyah (66189 C.E.)
transformed the republiean Caliphate into a monarehy and ereated a
governing elass of leading Arab tribes.— These two institutions - kingship
and nobility beeame an integral part of Islamie polity. After the Umayyad
eame the Abbasid Caliphs. They established their capital in the newly built
city of Baghdad situated on the borders of Persia. The Abbasids were more
religious and devoted to the mission of Islam, but they came under the
irresistible influence of superior Persian culture and Persian institutions.
The Abbasid dynasty lasted for full five centuries (752-1258 C.E.), and
under it different branches of administrative machinery were greatly
elaborated and new departments and offices created. If the Quran contained
almost nothing that may be called civic or state legislation, Persian theories
and practices filled the lacuna. Persian court etiquette, Persian army
organisation,— administrative system, postal service, conferment of robes of
honour, and many similar institutions were all adopted and developed under
the Abbasids.

The Turks brought these institutions into India, adding some more offices
and institutions while keeping the core intact. Ziyauddin Barani openly
asserts: Consequently, it became necessary for the rulers of Islam (the
Caliphs) to follow the policy of Iranian Emperors in order to ensure the
greatness of True Word, the supremacy of the Muslim religion overthrow of
the enemies of the Faith and maintenance of their own
authority.— Therefore, when Fakhr-i-Mudabbir or Ziyauddin
Barani— recommend the Sassanian pattern of governance to the Sultans of
Delhi,— they neither saw anything new nor un-Islamic in their advice.

The four schools (mazahib) of Islamic jurisprudence also arose during
the period of the Abbasids. Even in the compilations of Hadis the
contribution of Persia was great. Of the Traditionists, only Imams Malik
and Hanbal belonged to the Arab race; the rest were from Ajam, who
sojourned in Arabia for years together collecting and compiling the Hidaya.
In matters of law where the Quran and Hadis were silent, the jurisconsults
resorted to qiyas or analogy, that is, the extension of an acknowledged
principle to similar cases. Where qiyas was not possible, they appealed to


reason— or judgement, known in Arabia as ray. Ray has beeome a
teehnieal term in Arabie jurispmdenee. Consensus of opinion of the learned
was known as ijma. The prineiple of istihasan (or regarding as better) was
developed by Abu Yusuf, diseiple of Abu Hanifa whieh gave him great
freedom of interpretation and allowed him to adopt local customs and
prejudices as part of the general laws of Islam.— Mawardi felt himself
compelled to admit that the acts of administration were valid in view of the
circumstances of the time.— In the case of any doubt about interpretation of
rules, administrative manuals like Abul Hasan Al-Mawardis Ahkam-us-
Sultaniya, Abu Ali Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusis Siyasat Nama, Jurji Zaydans
Attamadun-i-Islami or Fakhr-i-Mudabbirs Adabul-Harb (also known as
Adab-ul-Muluk) were readily available for consultation and guidance.

In brief, Muslim administration had evolved in Muslim lands through
centuries and was highly developed before it was brought to India by the
Turkish Sultans. At the head was the monarch or Sultan. He appointed and
was assisted by a number of ministers. A brief list of ministers and officers
will give an idea of the framework of the central administration. At the top
were four important ministers (and ministries) which formed the four pillars
of the State.— These were Wazir (Diwan-i-Wazarat), Ariz-i-Mumalik
(Diwan-i-Arz), Diwan-i-Insha and Diwan-i-Rasalat. The Wazir was the
Prime Minister who looked after revenue administration. Ariz-i-Mumalik or
Diwan-i-Arz was head of the army. He was known as Mir Bakhshi under
the Mughals and was the inspector-general and paymaster-general of the
army. Diwan-i-Insha was incharge of royal correspondence, and Diwan-i-
Rasalat of foreign affairs and pious foundations. Mushrif-i-Mamalik was
the accountant-general and Mustaufi the auditor-general. Sadr-i-Jahan, also
called Sadr-us-Sudur, was the Chief Qazi. Under him served several Qazis
and Miradls. Barid-i-Mumalik was minister in charge of reporting and
espionage. There were officers of the royal household like Vakil-i-Dar
(Chief Secretary), Amir-i-Hajib (Master of Ceremonies) and Barbak, the
tongue of the sultan, whose duty it was to present petitions of the people to
the king. There were dozens of other officers and hundreds of subordinates
both in the Central administration and in the Subahs or provinces. However,
here only a few top ministers and officers may receive detailed attention to
enable us to appraise the working and spirit of the government.


The Central government was formed on the Persian model. As seen
above, the Prime Minister was ealled Wazir and his ministry Diwan-i-
Wazarat. All Muslim political thinkers attached great importance to this
office. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir says that, as the body cannot exist without life so
also no regime can sustain without the Wazir.^ Ziyauddin Barani declares
that, without a wise Wazir, kingship is vain a king without a wise Wazir is
like a palace without foundations. If the Wazir is wise the folly of the king
does not lead to the ruin and the destruction of the kingdom.— The main
business of the Wazir was finance, the Wazirs ministry or the Diwan-i-
Wazarat cannoted the Revenue Department. Other duties and obligations of
the Wazir included all the constructive functions of the state in a broad
sense. He was to recommend promotions of officers, enlist and inspect the
army and take steps to make the people prosperous, happy and contended. It
was his duty also to look after men of piety and learning and protect the
weak and the indigent, the widows and the orphans. In short. Agriculture,
Building, Charitable institutions. Intelligence Department, the Karkhanas
and the Mint were all directly or indirectly under the Diwan-i-Wazarat.— It
was his duty to organise the offices and make them efficient in their work.
The Wazir in a word was the head of the entire machinery of the
governments.— The Diwan-i-Arz or the Ariz-i-Mumalik was the controller-
general of the military department.— The Ariz-i-Mumalik (Mir Bakhshi of
the Mughals) had his provincial assistants and their duties comprised
enlisting recruits, fixing their pay, inspecting the army and disbursing
salaries to the troops.— The Diwan-i-Insha dealt with the correspondence
between the sultan and the local governments, including all correspondence
of a confidential nature. Since there was no typing, cyclostyling or printing
in those days, dozens of hand-written copies of kings orders and farmans
had to be prepared in this office for despatch to iqtas and subahs. The
Diwan-i-Rasalat, as the term indicates,— looked after diplomatic
correspondence, and as such this ministry was a counterpart of the present-
day foreign office.

The Diwan which dealt with religious charities was presided over by the
Sadr-us-Sudur. The Diwan-i-Qaza, or the department of justice, was
presided over by the Chief Qazi, and the two offices of the Chief Qazi and
the Chief Sadr were generally held by one and the same
person. Administration of justice— was given a place of importance in


Islamic polity, and there were elaborate rules about administering justiee to
eivil and military men.— Similarly there were detailed rules about the
funetioning of the poliee departments— and awarding of punishments.—
One department of eonsiderable importanee was that of the Barid-i-
Mumalik, who was the head of the State Information Bureau. Through this
department the eentre was kept informed of all that was happening all over
the empire. A net-work of news agents or intelligeneers was spread out in
all loealities. They acted both as secret information agents as well as open
news-reporters. There were also a large number of spies in every place and
chiefly in the houses of the nobles to report their affairs to the Sultan.

The kings court, palace and household had an elaborate administrative set
up of its own. The Vakil-i-Dar, or keeper of the keys of the palaee gate was
the most important.— The Amir-i-Hajib, also called Barbak — (or Lord
Chamberlain) made arrangements for functions and ceremonies and
enforced court etiquette. Other offieers were Amir-i-Akhur (Master of the
Horse), Shahna-i-Pilan, (Superintendent of the Elephants), the Amir-i-
Shikar (Superintendent of the Royal Hunt), Sharabdar (Incharge of the
Sultans Drinks), Sar Chashnigir (Incharge of the Royal Kitchen), Sar
Silahdar (Keeper of the Royal Weapons), Muhardar (Keeper of the Royal
Seals), Sarjandar (Commander of the Kings Bodyguards who were called
Jandars),— and a host of others with specifie duties and functions. Such an
elaborate administrative system strengthened the position of the Sultan and
roots of the Sultanate in India.

The provineial government was a miniature model of the central. The
governors were called Walls and Muqtis. An expert in accounts called
Sahib-i-Diwan was appointed in each province. He kept the local revenue
reeords and submitted them to the Wazir. The army maintained by the
governors and garrison eommanders was subjeet to eontrol and inspeetion
by the provineial Ariz, who was responsible to the eentral government.
Similary, administrative arrangement of parganas, shiqqs and later sarkars
was also elearly laid down. During the Mughal period, some new offiees
were ereated while nomenelatures of some others were ehanged.— The
administrative system also got the stamping of the Chingezi Yassa and the
Institutes of Timur.— But the eore of administration remained Islamie.


The Sultanate of Delhi, and more particularly the Mughal empire,
possessed a highly unified and systematized bureaucratic apparatus the
central point of which was the mansab or numerical rank. Mansab
(introduced by emperor Akbar in 1573) defined the status and income of the
holder, although titles of nobles in Persian, Turkish and Arabic sometimes
make it difficult for us to form an idea of the exact grading. An elaborate
bureaucratic administrative set up tends to be top-heavy and slow-moving.
But the Turkish and Mughal administrative system was not so. Decision
making was quick and so was action. It did not mean that the administration
was all good. For example, if the theory of taxation was clear there were
just four ido^QS-Kharaj, Jiziyah, Khums and Zakat-dind collection rates and
procedures clearly defined.— But the taxes actually levied far exceeded
these. Many abwabs (cesses) were cropping up from time to time so that, in
spite of the measures taken by Alauddin Khalji, Firoz Tughlaq, Sher Shah
and Akbar to increase and also keep control over the income of the state, no
system of assessment and collection could be discovered that was
satisfactory both to the cultivator and the state.—

Just as the administrative system implanted in India had evolved in Iran
and adjoining Islamic countries, important administrators also came from
these regions to run it. With the establishment of Muslim rule, batches of
Muslims began to arrive in Hindustan from Central Asia, Persia, African
Muslim countries and what is now called Afghanistan. India was rich and
fertile as compared with their own lands and with the extension of Muslim
political power in India, many emigrants - soldiers and administrators -
attracted by the abundance of wealth in cash and kind - began to flock to
Hindustan. Minhaj Siraj says that people from Persia (and adjoining
countries) came to India in various capacities.— Fakhr-ul-Mulk Isami, who
had been Wazir at Baghdad for thirty years, but then had suffered some
disappointment, arrived in India and was appointed Wazir by Sultan
Shamsuddin Iltutmish.— Qazi Hamiduddin Nagori had also come from
abroad. Thus from Wazir downwards the foreign Muslim elite filled all
important offices in administration. Because of the Mongol upheaval
twenty-five princes with their retinues from Iraq, Khurassan and Mawaraun
Nahr arrived at the court of Iltutmish. During the reign of Sultan Balkan
fifteen more refugee princes came from Turkistan, Mawaraun Nahr,
Khurasan, Iran, Azarbaijan, Rum and Sham.— From among these hundreds


of officials must have been appointed to administrative positions in the
Sultanate of Delhi. The Abbasid tradition thus gained a firm footing in the
administration of the Sultanate of Delhi.—

Balban had a weakness for things Persian. He introduced the Persian
eeremonial in his eourt; his royal proeessions were organised on the Iranian
pattern. His sons and grandsons were given Persian names of Kaimurs, Kai-
Khusrau and Kaiqubad.— Thus under the Ilbari Sultans many Persian and
Persian-knowing nobles and offieers served as administrators and
offieers.— The Khaljis and Tughlaqs employed them too. Muhammad
Tughlaq seeured the serviees of many foreign nobles and patronised, among
them, Khorasanis and Arabs.— In the medieval period, heredity and
lineage were taken into aceount in the seleetion of offieers and nobles, and
as far as possible low-bom Indian Muslims were not appointed to high
offices. Foreign Muslims were generally preferred, not only in the Sultanate
of Delhi or the Mughal Empire, but also in the independent kingdoms of
Gujarat and Malwa and the Adil Shahi and Qutbshahi kingdoms of the
Deccan.

With the eoming of the Mughals, Persian element in administration
became

more prominent. Both Babur and Humayun depended upon Persia for
help at one time or the other.— In their days of distress, they were served
by Persian nobles with loyalty and distinetion. In all his trials and
tribulations of exile, Bairam Khan proved a valued guide to Humayun.—
Bairam Khans serviees in the reestablishment of the Mughal empire, and
management of the affairs of the government in the early years of Akbars
reign, are praiseworthy. The flow of immigration of Persian nobles and
officers remained continuous under all the great Mughals - Akbar, Jahangir,
Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. In Jahangirs reign Persian influence increased
mueh more because of the powerful queen Nur Jahan. Her father and
brother, Itmad-ud-Daulah and Asaf Khan, rose to dizzy heights. Three of
Shahjahans chief nobles-Asaf Khan, Ali Mardan Khan and Mir Jumla-were
Persian. Their meritorious services added to the glory of the Mughal
Empire. Jadunath Sarkar sums up the situation thus: The Persians were
most highly valued for their polished manners, literary ability and capacity


for managing the finance and accounts. There was always a keen desire on
the part of the Mughal emperors to seduce to their service the higher
officers of the Shah of Persia For such officers, when they fell into disgrace
in their homeland a flight to India opened a road to honour, power and
wealth.

Persians alone did not monopolise high offices in the Mughal empire.
Young Akbar, insecure on his throne, made overtures to the Ottoman
Sultan, Sulaiman the Magnificent, for friendship so as not to remain
dependent entirely on Persian goodwill. Qandhar was a bone of contention
between the Persian Shah and the Mughal Emperor. Many Persian nobles
while serving the Mughals, secretly sympathised with the Safavids. Because
of suspicion, Mughal Emperors Shahjahan and the more orthodox Sunni
Aurangzeb, began to favour Turani nobles, and a struggle between Irani and
Turani nobility hastened the decline if not the fall of the Mughal Empire.
With this background, it needs no reitreration that, by and large, Muslim
administration drew neither on Indias native tradition nor on native
manpower and the development of Muslim administrative system and its
implementation and execution in India owed much to foreign elements.

In the Sultanate of Delhi; in the independent Muslims kingdoms of
Gujarat, Malwa, Bengal and the Bahmani kingdom; and in the Mughal
empire, that is almost in the whole country Muslim administration based on
Muslim law prevailed for five hundred years, at the minimum from the end
of the thirteenth to the end of the eighteenth century. Therefore, it did not
fail to leave its impress on the administrative system of contemporary or
later Indian states. The Rajput, the Maratha and the Sikh kingdoms in
particular adopted many institutions and offices of Muslim administration.
The British administration in India was partially influenced by Muslim
administration. Persian administrative terms were in common use in Indian
executive and judiciary right up to the middle of the twentieth century.
Therefore, the importance of the legacy of Muslim administration in India
has to be assigned its proper place.

The Army

Eike administration the core of the army of the Sultanate and the Mughal
empire too was foreign. The establishment, expansion and continuance of


Muslim political power and religion in India was due to its army.— A very
important souree of strength of this army was the eonstant inflow of foreign
soldiers from Muslim homelands beyond the Indus. These may be ealled,
for the sake of brevity, by the generie terms Turks and Afghans. The Turks
came as invaders and became rulers, army commanders and soldiers. The
warlike character of the Afghans attracted the notice of the conquerors of
India who freely enrolled them in their armies. Mahmud Ghaznavi and
Muhammad Ghauri brought thousands of Afghan horsemen with them.—
Indian sultans continued the tradition. They had a preference for homeland
troops, or Muslim warriors from the trans-Indus region. In the time of
Iltutmish, Jalaluddin of Khawarism, fleeing before Chingiz Khan, brought
contingents of Afghan soldiers with him. In course of time, many of them
took service under Iltutmish.— Balkan employed three thousand Afghan
horse and foot in his eampaigns against the Mewatis, and appointed
thousands of Afghan officers and men for garrisoning forts like Gopalgir,
Kampil, Patiali, Bhojpur and Jalali. In the royal proeessions of Balkan
hundreds of Sistani, Ghauri, Samarqandi and Arab soldiers with drawn
swords used to mareh by his side. The Afghans had got aeeustomed to the
adventure of soldiering in India. They joined in large numbers the armies of
Mongol invaders as well as of Amir Timur when the latter marehed into
India. Like the Afghans, the Mongol (ethnieally a generie term, again)
soldiers too were there in the army of the Sultanate in large numbers.
Abyssinian slave-soldiers and offieers beeame prominent under Sultan
Raziya. The immigration of foreign troops eontinued without break in the
time of the Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Saiyyads and Lodis. Under the Saiyyad and
Lodi rulers, they flocked into India like ants and loeusts. As conquerors,
officers and soldiers these foreigners were all in pretty nearly the same
stage of civilization. The Khurasanis or Persians were, for instance, more
advaneed and perhaps possessed milder manners than the Turks. But
considering their imperial point of view regarding Hindustan, this original
difference of civilization was of little consequence. Their constant induction
from Muslim lands contributed to the strength and maintenance of Muslim
eharaeter of the army of the Sultanate.

Indians, or Hindus, too used to be enrolled. Ziyauddin Barani was against
the recruitment of non-Muslims in the army,— but right from the days of
Mahmud of Ghazni, Hindus used to join Muslim armies,— and lend


strength to it.— Most of the Hindus in the army belonged to the infantry
wing and were ealled Paiks. Some of these were poor persons and joined
the army for the sake of seeuring employment. Others were slaves and war-
eaptives. The Paiks eleared the jungles and were often used as eannon
fodder in battle.— But others, espeeially professionals, joined the
permanent eadre of infantry for eombat purposes. Barbosa (early sixteenth
eentury) says this about them: They carry swords and daggers, bows and
arrows. They are right good archers and their bows are long like those of
England. They are mostly Hindus.— They were a loyal lot. Alauddin
Khalji, Mubarak Khalji and Firoz Tughlaq were saved by Paiks when they
were attacked by rivals and adventurers,— a phenomenon so common in
Muslim history. But despite their loyalty the Paiks remained relegated to an
inferior position.

There were also Muslim mercenaries or volunteers enrolled on the eve of
a campaign. The volunteer element in the army was known by the name of
Ghazi. The Ghazis were not entitled to any salary, but relied mostly on rich
pickings from the Indian campaigns. Prospect of loot whetted their thirst for
war, the title of Ghazi spurred their ego. The victories of the Ghaznavids
had attracted these plundering adventures to their standards. The tradition of
enrolling Ghazi merecenaries was continued by the Turkish sultans in
India.— Right up to the Tughlaq times and beyond, merecenaries (Muslims
says Aflf for Firozs times) joined the army for love of plunder and
concomitant gains. These enthusiasts naturally added strength to the regular
army, and also to its character.

Soldiers in permanent service, and the kings bodyguards called Jandars,
were largely drawn from his personal slaves.— Right from the days of
Mahmud of Ghazni the pivot of the regular army was provided by the slave
force {ghilman, mamalik).— Young slaves were obtained as presents, as
part of tribute from subordinate rulers and as captives during campaigns.
They were also purchased in slave markets in India and abroad. Captured or
imported, they were broken in and brainwashed at an early age, their minds
moulded and their bodies trained for warfare. The practice may sound cruel
but it was eminently Islamic and was universal in the Muslim
lands.— Compare, for example, the Dewshirme (collecting boys) system of
the Turkish empire according to which every five years, and sometimes


every year, the Ottomans enslaved all Balkan Jewish and Christian boys
aged 10-15, took them to Constantinople and brought them up in Islamie
ideology. They were used for the further subjugation of their own people.—
The value of the slave troops lay in their laek of roots and loeal connections
and attachment to the master by a personal bond of fealty. The foundation
of this relation was military clientship, the attachment of man to man, the
loyalty of individual to individual, first by the relation of chief to his
companion and, if the warrior master succeeded in conquest and setting up
a dominion, by the relation of suzerain to vassal. The devotion of man to
man is the basis of the slave system, of feudalism, of imperialism of the
primeval type, and of the success of medieval Muslim army. Slaves were
collected from all countries and nationalities. There were Turks, Persians,
Buyids, Seljuqs, Oghuz (also called Irani Turkmen), Afghans, Khaljis,
Hindu etc. in the army of Mahmud. The success of the Ghaznavids and
Ghaurids in India was due, besides other reasons, to the staunchly loyal
slave troops.— This tradition of obtaining slaves by all methods and from
all regions, was continued by the Delhi Sultans. In his campaign against
Katehar Balkan massacred all male captives except boys up to the age of
eight or nine.— It was the practice with most sultans,— and making slaves
of young boys by Muslim victors was common. As these slave boys grew in
age, they could hardly remember their parents and remained loyal only to
the king. Alauddin Khalji possessed 50,000 slave boys,— who, as they
grew up, would have made his strong army stronger. Muhammad Tughlaq
also obtained slaves through campaigns. Firoz Tughlaq commanded his
fief-holders and officers to capture slaves whenever they were at war. He
had also instructed his Amils and Jagirdars to collect slave boys in place of
revenue and tribute.— In short, the medieval Muslim slave-system was a
constant supplier of loyal troops to the Muslim army, from India and
abroad.

Enrolment in the regular cadre depended on a number of considerations
like personal prowess, skill in weaponry and family background. The times
believed in the theory of martial class. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir advises that those
whose ancestors had not been soldiers should not be made officers, Sawars
or Sarkhails.— Ziyauddin Barani also expresses similar views.— In
practice recruitment of troops was based on merit which was determined
after a severe test.—


Like the procedure of recruitment, the schedule of training too was
strenuous. If the Samanid traditions had not been given up in India, the
training of a slave-soldier described in Nizamul-Mulks Siyasat Nama
should have turned him into a veteran warrior in the course of a few years.
In the first year after his purchase, the ghulam was trained as a foot-soldier,
and was never permitted, under penalties, to mount a horse. In the second
year, he was given a horse with plain saddle. After another years training he
received an ornamental belt, and so on. By the seventh year alone was he
fully trained and fit to become a tent-commander.— The training of a boy-
slave recruit in the Sultanate might have been more or less similar. Details
about such training are not available in medieval Indian chronicles, but
Barani does hint at it when he speaks about Balkans trained soldiers
{tarbiyat-yafta lashkar).— For experienced soldiers constant campaigns,
tournaments, sports, shikar and regular reviews were enough to keep them
fit and alert.—

The Sultanates army comprised both cavalry and infantry. It had an
elephant corps. Camels and ponies and other animals were also used for
commissariat service. But the most important wing of the army was the
cavalry. Cavalry comprises the man and his mount. In India, only in some
places of eastern Punjab like the Shiwaliks, Samana, Sunnam, Tabarhind,
Thanesar and the Country of the Khokhars, good quality horses were found
in sufficient numbers.— But these horses were inferior to the horses of
West-Asia breed, and importation of war-horses from abroad became an
imperative necessity for the Sultans of Delhi.— Medieval chroniclers speak
of Yamani, Shami, Bahri and Qipchaqi horses as being in use by soldiers in
India, and there was large-scale importation of horses into India from
Arabia.— According to Ziyauddin Barani, Alauddin Khalji is said to have
had 70,000 horses in his paigahs (stables) in Delhi.— The Arab geographer
Ahmad Abbas Al-Umari states that Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq distributed
to his retinue 10,000 Arab horses and countless others. Even Firoz Tughlaq,
who is said to have neglected the army, maintained extensive
paigahs.— Horses were a perishable commodity and deaths and even
epidemics among them were common.— Therefore, foreign breed war
horses were constantly imported in India at great cost to keep the paigahs
well stocked.


Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) had under his command 475,000
horsemen,— and Muhammad Tughlaqs cavalry is said to have consisted of
900,000 soldiers.— Of course, the size of the army varied from time to
time. The Saiyyads were weak and Lodis not so strong. But even in the
newly created kingdoms of the fifteenth century like Gujarat, Malwa,
Jaunpur etc. Muslim cavalry generally had an edge over the armies of the
neighbouring Rajas. Under Alauddin Khalji the custom of branding horses
and keeping a pen-picture of the soldier (dagh-wa-chehra) was strictly
followed.—

As against the cavalry of the Sultans, the Indian rulers depended for
military strength primarily on elephants. But even in this sphere the Sultans
excelled them in a short time. The Sultans obtained for their pilkhanas
elephants from all possible sources, as plunder, as tribute from subordinate
rulers or provincial governors, by purchase from the outside Muslim ruled
territories, or by trapping them directly from the forest regions. There is,
and will always be, a controversy about the real efficacy of the elephant in
medieval warfare. Still, the elephant occupied an important place in warfare
throughout the medieval period. Heavily armoured, it could be used as a
living battering ram for pulling down the gates of a fortress. Many of the
strongest fortresses in India have elephant spikes upon their doors to hinder
such form of assault. The elephant could also serve as a pack animal
carrying a very large load. Its gigantic size created a feeling of terror in the
enemy ranks.— War elephants could kill and destroy systematically.—
And they looked awe-inspiring and majestic.

Weapons, equipments, engines etc. for waging war are mentioned in the
Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi, and some other works. There are manuals in the Persian
language written right from the tenth century onwards dealing elaborately
with the art of warfare. These would have provided guidance to the Indian
Sultans on military matters. The Qabus Nama, for instance, written by
Kaikaus in the year 475 H. (108283 C.E.) has three chapters- On Buying
Horses; On Giving Battle to the Enemy and On the Art of Controlling An
Armed Force. Similarly, Nizam-ul-Mulks Siyasat Nama written in 485 H.
(1092-93 C.E.) contains two short chapters On Having Troops of Various
Races and On Preparing Arms and Equipment for War and Expeditions.—
In India Fakhr-i-Mudabbir and Ziyauddin Barani wrote on the theme.


What did the Muslim army look like? There are excellent pen-pictures by
Fakhr-i-Mudabbir in his Adab-ul-Harb and Amir Khusrau in his Khazain-
ul-Futuh, besides of course many others. Similarly, there are descriptions of
the Rajput army. Padmanabh, in his Kanhadade-Prabandh (written about
the middle of the fifteenth century) has this to say about the Rajput
warriors: They bathed the horses in the sacred water of Ganga. Then they
offered them Kamal Puja. On their backs they put with sandal the
impressions of their hands They put over them five types of armour,
namely, war armour, saddles acting as armour, armour in the form of plates,
steel armour, and armour woven out of cotton. Now what was the type of
Kshatriyas who rode these horses? Those, who were above twenty-five and
less than fifty in age, shot arrows with speed and were the most heroic.
(Their) moustaches went up to their ears, and beards reached the navel.
They were liberal and warlike. Their thoughts were good They regarded
wives of others as their sisters. They stood firm in battle, and struck after
first challenging the enemy. They died after having killed first. They
donned and used (all the) sixty-six weapons. If any one (of the enemy
ranks) fell down they regarded the fallen person as a corpse and saluted it.
Similar descriptions are found in the Pachanika of Achaldas and other
books.—

The most graphic description of the Muslim army is by a Hindu, the
famous Maithli poet Vidyapati of the fourteenth century. Vidyapati was
patronised by Sultans Ghiyasuddin and Nasiruddin of Bengal. Writing
about Muslim soldiers, he says: Sometimes they ate only raw flesh. Their
eyes were red with the intoxication of wine. They could run twenty yojanas
within the span of half of a day. They used to pass the day with the (bare)
loaf under their arm (The soldier) takes into custody all the women of the
enemys city Wherever they happened to pass in that very place the ladies of
the Rajas house began to be sold in the market. They used to set fire to the
villages. They turned out the women (from their homes) and killed the
children. Loot was their (source of) income. They subsisted on that. Neither
did they have pity for the weak nor did they fear the strong They had
nothing to do with righteousness They never kept their promise They were
neither desirous of good name, not did they fear bad name— At another
place he says: Somewhere a Musalman shows his rage and attacks (the



Hindus) It appears on seeing the Turks that they would swallow up the
whole lot of Hindus.—

A eomparison of the two armies at onee shows why the Muslim army
was one up. It was, in one word, beeause of its strategy and taetie of terror,
and it was beeause of this that Muslim state in India was like a poliee state.

The deseription of Vidyapati elearly shows how impressive and awe¬
inspiring the army of the Sultanate looked. The soldiers had exeellent
horses, magnifieent armour, and fine eostumes.— A soldier usually earried
two swords.— Besides he had bows and arrows, maees and battle axes. The
Muslim soldier was an enthusiastie fighter. Psyehologieally, he was a
soldier of Allah. The word Jihad had a magie appeal for him. His
enthusiasm for war was whetted by the promises of rewards, prospeets of
plunder and religious slogans.— Consequently, he exhibited great zeal and
praetised extreme ruthlessness and eruelty.— This eruelty gave the army of
the Sultanate superiority over indigenous forees beeause it inspired terror
wherever it went. The Turushka had beeome a bogey and everywhere
inspired a paralysing fear.— As Ruben Levy points out, the Turks have
always been amongst the most aetive of Muslim peoples, and if they are not
greatly given to pious exereise they are bigoted believers in this faith and
exeellent fighters in its eause.— The Afghans were equally feroeious.
These and other Central and West Asian soldiers of Allah, the Mereiful, the
Compassionate were neither mereiful nor eompassionate and ereated
eonsternation whenever they launehed an attaek. Balkan in the thirteenth
eentury held the eonvietion that no king eould sueeeed against the army of
Delhi, be he a Hindu Raja or a Rana {Midanam he pesh lashkar-i-dihli hech
badshahi dast astad natawaned hard fikef ray an wa rajgan-i-hinduan).—

But that is not entirely true. Loeal resistanee against Muslim armies
eontinued throughout, and hundreds of Hindu inseriptions elaim vietories
for their kings. Battles between Muslim invaders from Delhi on the one
hand and Rajput defenders on the other were always very hotly
contested. For the Muslim army the going was tough from the very
beginning; otherwise Fakhr-i-Mudabbir would not have declared that peace
is better than war, ^ and as far as possible war should be avoided because
it is bitter fa. re.— Such statements from one who, while describing five


types of warfare and considering war with the kafirs as the most
righteous,— are not without significance.

In fact the army of the Sultanate suffered from a number of weaknesses.
One was its heterogeneous character. Troops of the various racial groups,
foreign and Indian, could not always pull together well nor were they all
equally loyal to the regime.— Slaves, for instance, made good soldiers but
they are of one group and one mind and there can be no permanent security
against their reVolt.— The Afghans had been freely employed by
Muhammad Ghauri, and Turkish Sultans of Delhi, but under the Saiyyads
and Lodis the whole complexion of the army was changed from Turk to
Afghan. The Afghans were brave, sometimes even reckless. But traditional
devotion to their own clan leaders was not conducive to discipline in the
army.

Another weakness was that soldiers were habituated to plundering even
in peace times. In war loot for the Musulmans was justified,— but when
there was no war the soldiers were enjoined to behave with the civilians and
not to loot or destroy their property.— But exceptions apart, rowdyism and
extortion had become the norms of their behaviour.— The massacre of the
people of Delhi by Amir Timur was a direct consequence of his soldiers
misbehaviour with the market people.— The phenomenon repeated itself
during Nadir Shahs invasion. As a result, sometimes the rough and
disorderly behaviour of the armymen, especially of the temporary troopers,
brought discredit to the regime. Again, keeping a large army on a
permanent basis had to be ruled out for reasons of finance, security and
convenience, and a large portion of the army of the Sultanate remained
temporary with loot as its only source of sustenance. Often it was a string of
military camps more interested in campaigns and booty-gathering than in
administration. Alauddins keeping an army of about five hundred thousand
made him resort to collecting fifty percent of the produce as land revenue
even when the imperial resources were large and gains and tribute from his
conquests were immense. Other rulers were not financially so sound. The
army, besides, could not all be stationed at Delhi; it was distributed all over
the Sultanate under provisional governors and garrison commanders.—
And they could make use of it against the regime itself if they chose to
revolt.


Thus the weaknesses in the army of the Sultanate were many. But sinee it
won most of the battles and oeeupied the whole of northern India in the
thirteenth century and penetrated into the South in the fourteenth, its
superiority must be acknowledged. This superiority consisted first in the
slave system. The system provided the Sultanates army with loyal soldiers.
The strict process of recruitment and hard training was another factor.
Another reason for its having an edge over that of the local rulers was the
constant and unbroken arrival of foreign troops from Turk and Afghan
homelands. Rajputs could not replenish their manpower from a similar
source. That is why if and when the contact of the Delhi Sultans with
Muslim homelands was partially or wholly snapped (as for example
because of the Mongol upheaval in Central Asia) the Rajput princes could
contain Turkish expansion in India as the history of the Sultanate shows.
The Ghazi element was peculiar to the Muslim army. While its cupidity
resulted in too much cruelty in warfare, it added a very zealous element to
the fighting forces. Islam gave them a unity of thought, interest and action.
Man to man the Rajput was not inferior to the Turk, but on the basis of the
evidence available, the armymen of the Sultanate, on the whole, had an
upper hand over the indigeneous warriors. Their highly caparisoned cavalry
was an additional strong point. Good quality horses in India were scarce
and had to be imported by Hindu Rajas both in the South and the North.
This placed Indian rulers at a disadvantage. The Turkish army had many
engines of war. An elaborate army administrative system, constant
inspection and reviews of troops too increased the striking power of the
army of the Sultanate.

The discussion on the Muslim army of the Sultanate period (C. 1200-
1526 C.E.) has been elaborate, deliberately. For the Muslim rule in India
remained army rule and the army of the Mughal emperors (1526-1707-
1857) was a continuation the Sultanates with its merits and weaknesses.
Francois Bernier says: the Great Mogol is a foreigner in Hindustan
Consequently he finds him self in a hostile country, or nearly so; a country
containing hundreds of Gentiles to one Mogol or even to one
Mahometan. To maintain himself in such a country he is under the necessity
of keeping up numerous armies, even in the time of peace.— Babur was a
foreigner and so were Humayun and even Akbar. With Akbars accession, it
is generally believed, that an era of government for the people had


started.— But this view stands challenged by Berniers statement. He wrote
at a time when the Mughal Empire had reached the pinnacle of glory and
when, it is believed, syncretism in society had become the order of the day.
And yet he found the Mughal King a foreigner and his army an apparatus of
oppression. The administration of the Sultanate and Mughal Empire was
bureaucratic throughout. Over long periods this administrative system was
dominated by immigrants from abroad, mainly West Asia and North Africa
and this gave it much of the character of foreign and Islamic rule.
Commenting on the list of mansabdars in the Ain-i-Akbari, Moreland says
that while about 70 percent of the nobles were foreigners belonging to
families which had either come to India with Humayun or had arrived at the
court after the accession of Akbar, of the remaining 30 percent of the
appointments which were held by Indians, rather more than half were
Moslems and rather less than half Hindus.— This high proportion of
Muslim mansabdars belonging to families from foreign lands continued
under Akbars successors. Thus Bernier described the nobility under
Aurangzeb as a medley of foreign elements like Uzbegs, Persians, Arabs,
Turks and indigenous Rajputs. A medley, so that by playing the one against
another, one group could be controlled and dealt with by the other - Irani by
Turani, Shia by Sunni and so on.— The Rajputs could be put to manage all
these by turns, or those other fellow Rajput Rajas who showed reluctance in
making submission. Eate in the seventeenth century, with the advance of the
Mughal power in the Deccan, there was an influx of the Deccanis -
Bijapuris, Hyderabadis. An interesting description of this composite
Mughal nobility is given by Chandrabhan Brahman, who wrote during the
last years of Shahjahans reign.— And yet the regime remained exotic in
nature. There was little trust existing between the various sections of the
nobility and the Mughal King. Bernier did not fail to note that the Great
Mogol, though a Mahometan, and as such an enemy of the Gentiles
(Hindus), always keeps in his service a large retinue of Rajas appointing
them to important commands in his armies. And still about the Rajputs,
Bernier makes a startling statement. It debunks the generally held belief that
the Mughal emperors trusted the Rajput mansabdars wholly, or the latter
were always unsuspiciouly loyal to the regime. He says that the Rajput
Rajas never mount (guard) within a (Mughal) fortress, but invariably
without the walls, under their own tents and always refusing to enter any
fortress unless well attended, and by men determined to sacrifice their lives


for their leaders. This self devotion has been suffleiently proved when
attempts have been made to deal treaeherously with a Raja.— His
statement reminds one of the sueeessful flight of Shivaji from Mughal
eaptivity to Maharashtra and of Durga Das with Ajit Singh to Marwar.

Aeeording to Bernier, the Mughals maintained a large army for the
purpose of keeping people in subjeetion No adequate idea ean be eonveyed
of the sufferings of the people. The eudgel and the whip eompel them to
ineessant labour their revolt or their flight is only prevented by the presenee
of a military foree.— There is no need to wonder why eudgel and whip
were used to eompel people to ineessant labour and prevent flight of
peasants from the villages. One function of the army of course was to
conquer new regions and crush internal rebellions. Another was meant to
coerce the recalcitrant land-holders (zor talab) and keep the poor peasants in
subjection. For this second purpose there was a separate set of soldiery who
could be called to service from regions and districts when so required. In
the time of Akbar the number of such soldiers comes to a little more than
forty-four lacs.— This force was organised on the quota system, each
Zamindar or autonomous ruler being expected to produce on demand a
fixed number of troops. Ordinarily they received no stipends from the
imperial government and were, therefore, not required to submit to military
regulations which governed the regular army.— It was mainly this cadre
which kept the common people under subjection. In Indias climatic
conditions, vagaries of monsoon, and resistance of freedom-loving though
poor people— to oppressive foreign rule, made collection of revenue a
perennial problem in medieval times. Right from the beginning of Muslim
rule, regular military expeditions had to be sent yearly or half-yearly for
realization of land-tax or revenue.— Under Afghan rulers like Sher Shah
(who adopted the Sultanate model in general and Alauddin Khalji model in
particular) the Shiqdars with armed contingents helped in the collection of
revenue. The Mughals followed suit and troops were pressed into service
for the collection of revenue. This constabulary carried long sticks mounted
with pikes and was unscrupulous and tyrannical as a rule. Its oppressions
inpired terror among the poor villagers. Bernier rightly observes that the
government of the Mughals was an army rule even in the time of peace.—
The rural fear of the darogha saheb and his men originated neither in
ancient nor in modern times. It is a legacy of the medieval period.



Conclusion


It may be summarized in eonelusion that the nature of the Tureo-Mughal
state in India was theoeratie and military. The seope of the state aetivity was
narrow and limited. Generally speaking it diseharged two main funetions -
the maintenanee of law and order aeeording to Islamie norms, and the
eolleetion of revenue. In the medieval period both these funetions meant
suppression of the people. Consequently, throughout the medieval period
the administration was army-oriented. It was not a seeular state, nor was it a
welfare state exeept for some vested Muslim interests. No attempt was
made to build up a national state in the name of a broad-based system
working as a protective umbrella for all sections of the people. It is a
hypothetical belief that foreign Muslims who came as invaders and
conquerors but stayed on in India, made India their home and merged with
the local people. They did not prove different from those conquerors (like
Mahmud Ghaznavi, Timur or Nadir Shah) who did not stay on and went
back. For, instead of integrating themselves with the mainstream of Indian
national tradition, it was their endeavour to keep a separate identity. To
quote from Beni Prasad: By the fifteenth century the age of systematic
persecution was past but the policy of toleration was the outcome of sheer
necessity; it was the sine qua non of the very existence of the
government.— Else the Semitic conception of the state is that of a
theocracy.—


Footnotes:

-History of Aurangzeb, III, pp.269-97.

- Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, p.2.

-Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, pp. 138-42.

- Dictionary of Islam, p.711.

- Luzac & Co. (London, 1913-34), I, p.959.


— Tripathi, op. cit., p 2.

— The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, p.41.

— Cf. Peter Hardy in Philips, Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon,
p.302.

— Introduction to the English trs. of Ziyauddin Baranis Fatawa-i-
Jahandari, p.vi.

— Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 1271.

— 1950 Edition, p.l005

— Qureshi, op. cit., p.41.

— Yusuf Husain, Glimpses of Medieval Indian Culture, p.69.

— Ibn Hasan, The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire, pp.255-56.

— Ibid., p.258.

— Ain, I, pp.xxxii-xxxiii.

— Quran VIII, 39-40; English trs. by George Sale, p.l72; Jadunath
Sarkar, Aurangzeb (3rd Ed.), Ill, p.249.

— Quran IX, 5, 6; Sale, p.l79.

— P.K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, pp. 177, 179.

— Ashiqa, trs. E and D, III, pp.545-46.

— Encyclopaedia of Islam, I, p. 959; Tritton, Caliphs and their non-
Muslim Subjects, p. 21; Hitti, History of the Arabs, pp.II9, 171, 228-45;
R.P. Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, p.340.

— Aghnides, Muhammadan Theories of Finance, pp.399-528.


— Barani, pp.216-17; Encyclopaedia of Islam, I, pp. 958-59.

— Tripathi, op. cit., p.340 citing Fagnans French trs. of Abu Yusufs
Kitab-ul-Kharaj; Barani, p.291.

— Lai, Twilight of the Sultanate, p.288.

— Miftah-ul-Futuh (Aligarh text, 1954), p. 22{za hindu harche amad
zinda dar dast/bazere pae pilan khurd ba shikast/musalmanan-i-bandi
gushta ra baz/ baj an bakhshi chu is a gasht damsaz).

— Lai, Khaljis, p. 250.

— Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi, fol. 40 a.

— Jadunath Sarkar, Aurangzeb, III, p. 151 note.

— Times of India, 6.8.1990, under the caption: Little value for his life.

^Vol.l,pp.958-59.

^pp. 248,711.

— (New York, 1917), pp. 399, 528.

— Introduction.

— Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi (Calcutta, 1862), p. 290.

— Sana-i-Muhammadi (Rampur Ms.) cited in Medieval India Quarterly,
Vol.l, Pt. Ill, pp. 100-105; K.A. Nizami, Religion and Politics in India in the
Thirteenth Century, pp.3I5-I6.

— Barani, pp.70-79, 151,216.

— Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p.64.

— Tripathi, op. cit., p.56


^Afif,p.29.

— Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, p.I5.

— V.A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p.233. Smith writes on the
authority of Du Jarrie, III, p.I33.

— Sri Ram Sharma, The Religions Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p.6I.

— Arnold, The Caliphate, pp.l73, 73, 101, 102; Qureshi, op. cit., pp. 24,
25; Aziz Ahmad, Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment, p.ll.

— Eg. Minhaj-us-Siraj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Persian Text, Bib. Ind., Caleutta,
pp.l6 ff

— Ruben Levy, The Baghdad Chronicle, p. 13.

— J.H. Kramers in Sir Thomas Arnold, The Legacy of Islam, pp.79-80.

— Ruben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p.282.

— Murray Titus, Islam in India and Pakistan, p.55; Al-Biladuri, E and D,
I, p.201. Also E and D, I, Appendix, p.462.

— Khuda Bakhsh, Orient Under the Caliphs, p.218.

— A1 Istakhri, E and D, I, p.28.

— Bosworth, C.E., The Ghaznavids, pp. 53, 54.

— Minhaj, Raverty, I, p. 616 and n. 4; Thomas, Edward, Chronicles of the
Pathan Kings of Delhi, pp.46, 52. The patent of investiture was called
Manshur, and the robe of honour such as turban, swords, ensigns and other
gifts were called Karamat.

— Thomas, Chronicles, pp.l68, 173. Also Amir Khusrau, Aijaz-i-
Khusravi (Lucknow, 1876), p.l4.


— Tripathi, R.R, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, p.26.

— Minhaj, Raverty, I, pp.610, 774 and n.

— Thomas, Chronicles, pp. 179-83.

— Clearly seen in Ain-ul-Mulk Multani, Qasaid-i-Badr Chach (Kanpur,
n.d.), pp.13,17, eited in Abdul Aziz, op. cit., p.9. and trs. in E and D, III,
p,569. Mahdi Husain lists 22 revolts during his reign {Tughlaq Dynasty,
p.195).

— Barani, p.493.

— Ibn Battuta, p.73.

— Ishwari Prasad, A History of the Qaraunah Turks, I, p, 182 and n. 125.

— Thomas, Chronicles, pp. 207-16, 246-53, 259-60.

— Barani, p.598; Afif, pp.274-76; Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak
Shahi, Bib. Ind. Text, p.l26.

— Translated in E and D, III, P.387.

— Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, p.218; Eal, Twilight of the
Sultanate, pp.71, 93 and n. 50.

— Muhammad Bihamad Khani, Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, Eng. trs. by
Muhammad Zaki (Aligarh, 1972), p.95.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Eng. trs. Rogers and Beveridge, preface, p.x.

— Beni Prasad, A History of Jahangir, P. 113.

— Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan of Dihli, p.63.

— Bernier, p.209.


— Vincent Smith says: Akbar was a foreigner in India. He had not a drop
of Indian blood in his veins {Akbar the Great Mogul, p.7).

— Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, pp.29, 30.

— Habibullah, A.B.M., The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India p.233.

— Tripath, op. cit., p.26.

— It were not only the sultans of Delhi, but also of Jaunpur and Bengal
who ealled themselves vieeregents of the Abbasid Caliphs (Thomas,
Chronieles, pp. 194,197, 321-322). The Caliph Al-Mustanjid Billah sent to
Sultan Mahmud Khalji of Malwa robes of honour and a letter patent.
Mahmud aeeepted the gifts of the Khalifa with due honour and gave in
return to the envoy tashrifat, and a large amount of gold and silver. Even
some rebels of the Delhi Sultanate reeeived the Caliphal investure (Aziz
Ahmad, op. cit., p.lO).

— Lai, K.S., Early Muslim in India, p.90.

— But as the Muslim empire expanded, Muawiyah founded the line of
Umayyad Caliphs at Damascus (661 C.E.). The Abbasids who succeeded
them, beeame Caliphs at Baghdad (750 C.E.) and Samarra (836 C.E.).
Another line of Umayyad Caliphs ruled at Cordova or Qurtuba (756 C.E.).
The Fatamid Caliphs were rulers in Cairo upto 1751 and the Ayyubids up to
1836.

— Ruben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p.284.

— Arnold, The Caliphate, p.33.

— M. Habib, Introduetion to Elliot and Dowsons History of India as told
by its Own Historians (Aligarh reprint, 1952), II, p.6.

— Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p.39.

^ Ibid, pp.30-40.


— Arnold, The Caliphate, p.202.

— Habib, Introduction to E and D, II, pp.23-24.

— Ruben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 168.

^ Ibid., ^25%.

— Barani, p.I53.

— Adab-ul-Harb, Br. Museum Ms. fol. 52(a).

— Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p. 10.

— Lai, K.S., History of the Khaljis, 2nd Ed., p. 157.

— Adab-ul-Harb, op. eit., fol. 52(a), 56(a). Shams Siraj Afif goes even as
far as to say: If one wants to describe the work of the Diwan-i-Wazarat, one
has to write a separate book Afif, (pp.420-2I).

— For qualities of Ariz see Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p.24.

— Barani, pp. 65, 319.

— Steingass, Persian English Dictionary, p. 574.

— Wahed Hussain, Administration of Justice During the Muslim Rule in
India (Calcutta, 1934), p.22.

— M. Bashir Ahmad, Administration of Justice in Medieval India
(Aligarh, 1941),p.ll7.

— Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p.30.

— Barani, p.313; Hasan Sijzi, Favaid-ul-Fvad, Lucknow text, pp.53-54.

— About the importance of and the risks involed in the office see
Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Reverty, I, p.694. Also Yahiya, Tarikh-i-Mubark


Shahi, p.72.

— Barani, pp.34, 46, 61.

— Ibid., p.30.

— Ain, I, pp.5-6.

— Tripathi, R.R, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, pp. 105-124.

— N.P. Aghnides, Muhammedan Theories of Finance, pp.207, 399.

— Mujeeb, Indian Muslims, p.43.

— Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Bib. Ind. (Calcutta, 1864), p.l38.

— Farishtah, I, p.67. Also Isami, Futuh-us-Salatin, Agra (1938), p.l22.

— Farishtah, I, p.75. Also A.B.M. Habibullah, The Foundation of
Muslim Rule in India, p.272.

— Qureshi, op. cit., p.4.

— Barani, pp. 27-29, 30-32, 127-28.

— Nigam, S.B.P., Nobility under the Sultans of Delhi, pp. 106-107.

— Barani, pp.462, 487-88.

— At times there were tragieally comic occasions in this situation. Sher
Shah Suri sent an embassy to Shah Tahmasp requesting the extradition of
Humayun, but the Suri envoys ears and nose were out off by the order of
the Shah and as a reprisal several Persians were mutilated in India (Aziz
Ahmad, Studies, p.26, quoting Riazul Islam, The Relations between the
Mughal Emperors of India and the Safavid Shahs of Iran, Ph.D.
dissertation, Cambridge, 1957).


— Cited in Sukumar Ray, Humayun in Persia, The Royal Asiatie Soeiety
of Bengal, Monograph Series, Vol. VI (Caleutta,1948), p.40.

— Mughal Administration, Orient Longmans Edition, 1972, p.l20.

— I have made a detailed study of this army in my article The Striking
power of the Army of the Sultanate in the Journal of Indian History
(Trivandrum), Vol. LV, Part III, December 1977.

— Makhzan-i-Afghana, N.B. Roys trs. entitled Niamatullahs History of
the Afghans (Santiniketan, 1958), p.II; Sir Olaf Caroe, The Pathans,
Macmillan & Co. (London,1958),p.l35; Tabqat-i-Nasiri, p. 315; Barani,
pp.57-58.


— Jauhar, Tazkirat-al-Waqiat trs. C. Stewart, Indian Reprint, 1972, p.7.

— Fatawa-i-Jahandari, pp.25-26.

— Utbi, Kitab-i-Yamini trs. by Reynolds, p.335-336. Also Shihabuddin
al-Umri, Masdik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p.576; Farishtah, I, p.I8.

— Bosworth, op. cit., p.I07.

— The infantrymen were so placed as to bear the first brunt of the
enemys attack. Consequently, the temptation to flee was great. But they
could not leave their posts, for on the field of battle horses are on their right
and left and behind (them) the elephants so that not one of them can run
away (Al-Qalqashindi, Subh-al-Asha, trs. Otto Spies, p.76).

— Barbosa, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, I, p. 181. It may be noted that
when Alauddin Khalji, as Prince, marched against Devagiri, he had with
him about 2,000 Paiks (Barani, Tarikh, pp.222).

^ Barani, pp.273, 376, 377.

— e. g. Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, text, p.3I7; Barani, p.80; Afif, p.289;
Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Adab-ul-Harb un Shujaat, Hindi trs. from photograph


copy of the British Museum Ms. by S.A.A Rizvi inAdi Turk Kalin Bharat
(Aligarh, 1956), fol.109 b. Also Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule
in India, pp.262, 265.

— Minhaj, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, trs. by Raverty, I,p.l80.

— C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p.98.

— Ira Marvin Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages, Harvard
University Press (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), pp. 6, 44.

— Encyclopaedia of Islam (1913-38), II, pp.952-53.

— Lai, K.S., The Ghaznavids in India, in Benqal Past and Present, Sir
Jadunath Sarkar Birth Centenary Number, July-December 1970,pp. 131-152.

— Barani, pp.58-59; Farishtah, I, p. 77.

— For detailed reference from Persian sources see Lai, Indian Muslims,
pp.23-26.

^Afif,p. 272.

— Ibid., pp. 267-72.

— Adab-ul-Harb, fol. 49a.

— Barani, Fatazm-i-Jahandari, p. 2.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 14. Also Barani, p.l02.

— Ruben Levy, Social Structure of Islam, p. 74.

— Barani, pp. 51, 52.

— Minhaj, p.225; Al-Qalqashindi, p.75; Afif, pp. 317, 322.

— Barani, p. 53.


— Lai, The Ghaznavids in India, op. cit., pp.131-152, esp.157; Barani,
pp. 57-58.

— Simon Digby, War Horse and Elephant in the Delhi Sultanate, Orient
Monographs (Oxford, 1971), pp.34-36; Barani, pp. 461-62; Lai, Twilight,
pp.131-32.

— Barani, p.262.

^Afif,pp.339-340.

— Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, pp.59-79.

— Farishtah, 1, p.200

— Ahmad Abbas, Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p.576; Al-
Qalqashindi, Subh-ul-Asha, p.66.

— Barani, p.l45.

— Priee, Major David, Memoirs of the Principal Events of
Muhammadan History (London 1921), III, p. 252. Also Yazdi, Zafar Nama,
II, pp.I02ff

— Barbosa, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, I, p. 118; Barani, p.53.

— Thomas, Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, pp.78-79; A Study
of the Rare Ms. Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi by 5.M. Askari, Journal of Indian
History, Wo\. LII, April, 1974, Pt. I, pp. 127-146, esp. p. 139; M.S. Khan,
The Life and Works of Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Islamic Culture, April, 1977, pp.
138-40.

— Dashrath Sharma, Presidential Address, Rajasthan History Congress,
Udaipur Session, 1969, Proceedings, pp. 10-11. For detailed description also
see Kanhadade-Prabandh, translated, introduced and annotated by V.S.
Bhatnagar, pp. 21-22.

— Vidyapati, Kirtilata (Indian Press, Allahabad, 1923), pp. 70-72.


^/Z)/^/.,pp. 42-44.

— Masalik, E and D, III, p.567.

— H.A.R. Gibb, Ibn Battutah, p.216; Ibn Battuta, trs. Mahdi Hussain
P.108.

^Afif,p.201.

— Adab-ul Harb, 115 a, 158 b. After the massacre in Bengal, even
Sultan Firoz Tughlaq had begun to weep (Afif, p. 121). But such
kindhearted Sultans were rare.

— Habibullah, op. cit., pp. 72-73.

— Social Structure of Islam, p. 25.

— Barani, p. 52.

— Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Adab-ut Harb wa Shujaat, fol. 111a,

— Ibid., fols. 66 a-b.

^ Ibid, fo\s. 131a-132a.

— Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, pp.31-32.

— Barani, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, pp.25-26.

— Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Adab-ul-Harb, fol. 154 a-b.

^ Ibid, fo\. 117a.

— Amir Khusrau, Khazain-ul Futuh, Habib trs., pp. 58-59.

— Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafar Nama, Bib. Ind., II, p. 186; Hajiuddabir,
Zafarul Wali, III, p. 907.


— Al-Qalqashindi, pp. 66-67. Also Ibn Battuta, p.26.

— Bernier, p.209.

— Beni Prasad, History of Jahangir, Chapter on Mughal Government
(pp.67-110), pp.74-75.

— Moreland, India at the Death ofAkbar, pp.69-70

— Bernier, pp.209-211.

— Guldasta, Aligarh University Library, Sir Sulaiman Collection, Ms.
No.666/44, fol. 4b-5a.

^ Bernier, pp.40, 210.

^/Z)/^/.,p.230.

— Report of the Indian Historical Records Commission, Vol. V, 1923,
pp.58ff; Elphinstone, Mountstuart, History of India, p.304; Saran,
Parmatma, Provincial Government of the Mughals, pp.258-68; Tripathi,
R.P., Rise and Fall of the Mughal Empire (Allahabad, 1960), p.234.

— Tripathi, loc.cit.

— See infra chapter 7.

— For repeated references for the fifteenth century see Lai, Twilight of
the Sultanate, especially the chapter entitled Revenue through Bayonet, pp.
73-83.

— Also Moreland, The Agrarian System of Moslem Indiap, 221.

— Beni Prasad, op. cit., p.75.

^Ibid.,^.ll>.


Upper Classes and Luxurious Life

Chapter 5

All the surplus produce was swept into the coffers of the Mughal nobility
and pampered them in a degree of luxury not dreamt of even by kings in
Persia and Central Asia.

- Jadunath Sarkar

Nobles and courtiers, army commanders and provincial governors, in fact
all high officials of the Muslim government formed the upper classes. In
civilian upper classes could be counted the Ulama and the Mashaikh,
scholars and historians, and some very rich Muslim merchants. A study of
the high classes under two major categories - nobles, and Ulama and
Mashaikh - would suffice to give a general idea of the life of Muslim upper
classes, their composition, their corruption, their licence, their hopes and
fears, and their high style of living.

The Nobles

The nobles constituted the ruling bureaucracy. In the early years of
Muslim rule (1206-1399) foreign adventurers and warriors monopolised
appointments to high offices. In the beginning the Turks formed the bulk of
the ruling elite. Besides, Persians, Abyssinians, Egyptians, Afghans and
converted Mongols also continued to obtain high positions. Under the Lodi
sultans (1451-1526), Afghan adventurers of various tribes and clans flocked
to India like ants and locusts. Even in the Mughal times (1526-1707-1857)
the imperial service remained predominantly foreign with Iranis and
Turanis forming the core of the cadre. The Turanis hailed from Central Asia
where the Turkish language was spoken. Iranis comprised the Persian
speaking people and belonged to the region presently extending from Iraq
and Iran to Afghanistan.



The Mughal nobles were also known as Mansabdars. The Mansabdars
were not only government officers, but also the richest class in the empire.
They formed a closed aristocracy; entrance into this class was not usually
possible for the common people, whatever their merits. Naturally, therefore,
the most important factor which was taken into account when nobles were
appointed was heredity. The Khanazads, the scions of royalty and sons and
descendants of Mansabdars, had the best claim to such appointments.

The Indian Muslim nobles, who were local converts, also rose to be
officers in the upper cadres, but foreigners were always preferred. The
fourteenth century Persian chronicler Ziyauddin Barani, who was born in
India but traced his ancestry to a Turki Noble, credits the foreigner Turks
with all possible virtues and the Indian Muslims with all kinds of
imperfections.- The invectives he hurls on the converted Sultan Nasiruddin
Khusrau Shah (C.E. 1320), are too well known to need repetition.-
Muhammad Tughlaq always preferred foreign Muslims to Indians for
appointment as officers. The rebellion of Ain-ul-mulk Multani (1339)
during his reign was a symptom of the resentment felt by the India-born
nobles against this policy of prejudice. In turn Khan-i-Jahan, a Telingana
Brahmin convert, dominated the court of Sultan Firoz Tughlaq. The career
of Mahmud Gawan, the minister of the Bahmani Sultan Muhammad III
(1463-1482), illustrates both the reasons for which preference was given to
foreigners and the jealousy it engendered. Foreign nobles looked down
upon Indian Muslim nobles, and considered them as lowborn, although not
all foreign Muslims were of high lineage.

Right through the Muslim rule, low origin foreigners used to come as
individuals and in groups to seek employment in India. Writing about the
foreign element in the Mughal nobility in seventeenth century Bernier says
that the Omarahs mostly consist of adventurers from different nations who
entice one another to the court; and are generally persons of low descent,
some having been originally slaves, and the majority being destitute of
education. The Mogol raises them to dignities, or degrades them to
obscurity; according to his own pleasure and caprice.- W.H. Moreland,
however, does not consider all foreign immigrants as of low descent. He
says that in Mughal India there were huge prizes to be won and one need
not wonder that the service should have attracted to the court the ablest and


most enterprising men from a large portion of Western Asia.- High and low,
foreign and Indian, the Muslim nobles after all belonged to one and the
same eadre, and they tried to eome eloser together.- On the one hand,
foreign Muslims used to beeome loeals after the lapse of a few generations.
Bernier writes that the ehildren of the third and fourth generation (of
Uzbegs, Persians, Arabs and Turks) are held in mueh less respeet than the
new eorners.- On the other hand, the low-born Indian Muslim beeame elitist
with rise in economie status. There was a saying: Last year I was a julaha,
this year a shaykh; and the next year, if the harvest be good, I shall be a
saiyyad.- Belonging to Islam was a great eementing foree, and, whatever
the colour of the skin, all Muslim nobles tried to feel as one, as belonging to
the ruling elite, as searching for exotic roots. It was aristocratic on the part
of the orthodox Muslim to feel that he was in India, but not of it. He durst
not strike his roots deep into the native soil. He must import traditions,
language and culture. His civil and criminal law must be derived from the
writings of jurists and the decisions of judges in Baghdad and Cairo. The
Muslim in India was an intellectual exotic; he considered it infra dig to
adapt himself to his environment.-

Besides the competition between Indian and foreign Muslim nobles,
there was also constant contest between Muslim and Hindu nobles. With the
permanent establishment of Muslim rule, the policy of the sultans was
generally to keep the Hindus excluded and appoint only Muslims. But the
Hindus possessed native intelligence and experience, sons of the soil as
they were, and many of the best Hindus had to be employed, especially
during the Mughal period. The Hindus in a way were indispensable. To
them belonged, according to Badaoni, half the army and half the
land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims) nor the Moghuls can point
to such grand lords as the Hindus have among themselves. Bernier too did
not fail to notice this.-

These nobles were in attendance on the king in the capital or in camp,
and in outstations held civil and military assignments, as governors of
provinces or commanders of the army. Indeed they were expected to
cultivate versatility, there being no distinction between civil and military
appointments and duties. Raja Birbal, after many years as court wit, met his
death fighting Yusafzais as commander of troops on the frontier while Abul


Fazl, the most eminent literary figure of the time, distinguished him self in
military operations in the Deeean.

The nobles were ealled Umara and were graded as Khans, Maliks, Amirs
and Sipehsalars in the Sultanate period, and as Mansabdars under the
Mughals. Aeeording to Barani a Sarkhail eommanded ten horsemen; a
Sipehsalar ten Sarkhails; an Amir ten Sipahsalars; a Malik ten Amirs; and a
Khan, ten Maliks.— Aeeording to the author of Masalik-ul-Absar, a Khan
eommanded more or less 100,000 troops, an Amir 10,000, a Malik a
thousand, and so on.— The term Amir was normally used in a generie sense
to denote a high offieer. In Akbars time and after, all the great men of the
Mughal Empire were graded and appointed to a mansab (rank) in the
imperial service. From the lowest rank, that of the commander of ten, up to
the rank of 400 an officer was known as Mansabdar. From 500 onwards a
noble was known as Amir, or Khan, or Khan-i-Azam. They were all
generally spoken of as Umara.

The Umara were highly paid. Their remuneration was paid sometimes in
the form of a cash salary, at others by the grant of a revenue assignment or
iqta. The iqta was basically a salary collected at source. According to the
chroniclers of the Sultanate period every Khan received two lakh tankahs,
every Malik from 50 to 60 thousand tankahs, every Amir from 40 to 50
thousand tankahs, and so on.— The salaries during the Mughal period were
equally high. It has been computed by expert opinion that a commander of
5000 could count on at least Rs. 18,000 a month under Akbar and his
successor. He could even improve upon this amount if he practised
judicious economy in his military expenditure and had the good fortune of
securing a profitable jagir. A commander of 1000 could similarly count on
receiving Rs.5000 a month (equal to from rupees 25,000 to 30,000 in 1914),
while a commander of 500 would have received the equivalent of Rs.5000
to 6000 at the same rate. While therefore the precise figures are uncertain, it
appears to be reasonable to conclude that the higher ranks of the Imperial
Service were remunerated on a scale far more liberal than that which now
prevails in India (C. 1914), or for that matter in any portion of the world.—


Luxurious Life


Their high salaries and emoluments introduced into the lives of the
Umara all the uses and abuses of luxury. They lived with such ostentation
that it was not to be seen elsewhere in the world, and the most sumptuous of
European courts cannot compare in richness and magnificence with the
lustre beheld in Indian courts.— Their splendid life-style may be studied in
its two aspects - private inside the harem and public outside of it. They
lived in magnificent mansions some costing four to six thousand gold
tankahs (dinars) and provided with all amenities.— By the seventeenth
century the Mahals of the nobles had gained in architectural excellence and
constructional designs. At Agra, on the banks of the Jumna, many persons
have erected buildings of three or four storeys, writes emperor
Jahangir— Asaf Khans palace had a fair Diwan Khana which was flanked
by diverse lodgings for his women neatly contrived with galleries and
walks.— Asaf Khans palace was exceedingly handsome and costly,— but
the others were equally elegant.— The basic pattern of the mansions of the
nobles was the same. One portion of the building was the Diwan Khana or
the mens quarters but the greater portion was occupied by their ladies and
was called Zenan Khana.— In the houses of the nobles the womens
apartments are in the centre, and it is generally necessary to traverse two or
three large courts and a garden or two before reaching there.— Berniers
observations about the houses of nobles of Delhi are similar to those of
Pelsaert at Agra. They were spacious and along with courtyards, gardens,
trees, basins of water, small jets deau in the hall or at the entrance, and
handsome subterraneous apartments which are furnished with large
fans.— While encamping, their tents were made equally magnificient. All
the arcades and galleries were covered from top to bottom with brocade,
and (even) the pavement with rich carpets.—

The nobles ladies were numerous and spendthrift. Pelsaert says that as a
rule they have three or four wives All live together surrounded by high
walls called the mahal, having tanks and gardens inside. Each wife has
separate apartments for herself and her slaves, of whom there may be 10, or
20, or 100, according to her fortune. Each has a monthly allowance for her
(expenditure). Jewels and clothes are provided by the husband according to
the extent of his affection— Their Mahals were adorned with superfluous
pomp and ornamental dainties. The ladies made extensive use of gold and


silver, for ornaments and jewellery, as well for their utensils and table
serviee.— Even their bedsteads were lavishly ornamented with gold and
silver.— During the earlier period, there is also mention of gold bath-tubs
and gold horse-shoes.—

For the seeurity and supervision of these hundreds of ladies, dozens and
dozens of maids and eunuehs were required. The harem paraphernalia eost
tons of money. Furthermore, it was a fashion for the Umara to visit the
houses of daneing girls, take them or eall them to their own mansions and
pay them handsomely.— Throughout the medieval times the nobility
indulged in the expensive hobbies of women, wine, song and drugs. Chess
and chausar they played at home; big game shooting, taming and flying
birds, playing ehaugan and praetieing with swords were their outdoor
reereations. Dozens of faleoners, pigeon-boys and attendants were
employed to keep their birds and horses in trim.— The nobles, their ladies,
and even their slave-girls dressed in the best of eotton fineries and riehest
embroidered silks. Their food was rieh and full of delieaeies.— Their boon
eompanions partook of it freely.— Most of the nobles were soaked in wine
and sunk in debaueh but they were also patrons of art and poetry. Sinee I
have made a eomprehensive study of the luxurious life of the medieval
Muslim nobility in my monograph entitled The Mughal Harem, I shall
refrain from repeating here what I have already stated therein in detail
except reproducing one paragraph from the book. The large establishment
of wives and servants rendered the nobles immobile. No Indian scholars,
engineers or travellers went abroad to learn the skills the Europeans were
developing in their countries. While people from Europe were frequently
coming to Hindustan, no Indian nobleman could go to the West because he
could not live without his harem and he could not take with him his
cumbersome harem to countries situated so far away. Europe at this time
was forging ahead in science and technology through its Industrial
Revolution, but the Mughal elites kept themselves insulated from this great
stride because of inertia. Consequently, the country was pulled back from
marching with progress, a deficiency which has not been able to be made
up until now.—

Outside their mansions the Umara were extra ostentatious. Since they
attained to highest honours at court, in the provinces, and in the armies; and


who are, as they eall themselves, the Pillars of the Empire, they maintain
the splendour of the eourt, and are never seen out-of-doors but in the most
superb apparel; mounted sometimes on an elephant, sometimes on
horseback, and not unfrequently in a paleky attended by many of their
cavalry, and by a large body of servants on foot - not only to clear the way,
but to flap the flies and brush off the dust with tails of peacocks; to carry the
spitoon, water to allay the Omrahs thirst.—

Over and above the expenses on their large establishment of wives,
servants, camels and horses, the nobles were expected to present valuable
gifts to the king on birthday anniversaries. Ids, Nauroz and other festivals,
according to their pay and status. Some of them, indeed take that
opportunity of presenting gifts of extraordinary magnificence, sometimes
for the sake of ostentatious display, sometimes to divert the king from
instituting an inquiry into their excessive exactions, and sometimes to gain
the favour of the king, and by that means obtain an increase of salary. Some
present fine pearls, diamonds, emeralds and rubies; others offer vessels of
gold set with precious stones; others again give gold coins— The king also
gave some gift in exchange, but the presents of the nobles were much
costlier and often extracted by the king. During a festival of this kind
Aurangzeb, having paid a visit to Jafar Khan, the Wazir made a present to
the king of gold coins to the amount of one hundred thousand crowns, some
handsome pearls and a ruby about the value of which prevailed great
confusion among the principal jewellers, and it might have cost five
hundred thousand crowns.— Thus the king sometimes took the initiative in
contriving to extract costly presents and gathered huge amounts, for says
Pelsaert, from the least to the greatest right up to the King him self everyone
is infected with insatiable greed.— Money spent on bribes and presents
often proved profitable investment,— for, without presents the nobles could
hardly expect timely response to his petition.— Not only were gifts
presented to the king, means had to be found for making valuable presents,
every year, to a Wazir, an eunuch or a lady of the seraglio, or to any other
person whose influence at court the nobleman considered indispensable.—


Bribery and Corruption


Such high expenses of building spacious mansions, exchanging costly
presents, maintaining a large harem of wives and concubines -in short,
living in style at home and indulging in pompous display outside, could not
be met by the aristocracy from their salaries alone. Therefore, the nobles
augmented their income by other means. There were many sources from
which extra amounts of money could come to their coffers, like enjoying a
large military command, a profitable political appointment and a lucrative
revenue assignment, and these were all inter-connected, all providing
opportunities of corruption and exploitation.

Every nobleman or Mansabdar was alloted a quota of troops which he
was expected to maintain. From the very beginning of Turkish rule the
conquered land used to be distributed by the king among army officers,
nobles, government officials and even soldiers as gifts, grants and rewards
and also in lieu of personal salary, and for paying their soldiers. These
grants were not hereditary, and were given as pay for military service. But
in eourse of time the land-holders eontinued in possession of their land
without rendering any military service. On inquiry it was found by Sultan
Balkan that about 2,000 cavalry officers had received villages in the Doab
alone by way of pay during the time of Iltutmish, but for the next forty
years or more many of the grantees had become old and infirm, or had died.
But their sons and even slaves eontinued to live off the lands as if they were
an inheritanee. Many of them were clever enough to get the assignments
recorded in their own names in the books of the Ariz-i-Mumalik obviously
by bribing the officials according to their means by wine, goats, chicken,
pigeon, butter and food-stuffs from their villages to the Deputy Muster-
Master and his officials.—

Sultan Balkan tried to improve matters and so did many other rulers but
eorruption remained entrenched.

The salary of the soldiers and expenditure on their horses usually formed
part of the pay of the Umara or Mansabdars who were expected to spend it
on them. But this system gave the nobleman an opportunity to retain some
money from every mans pay and prepare false returns of the horses he was
supposed to provide. Many of the lords who hold the rank of 5000 horse, do
not keep even 1000 in their employ.— This praetice was universal


throughout the medieval period. It rendered the Amirs income very
considerable, particularly when he was so fortunate as to have some good
jagirs or suitable lands assigned to him. For some of the officers received
double, and even more than that, in excess of the estimated value of their
grants.— There was thus the practice which prevails too much at all times of
purchasing governorships against hard cash. Sometimes the king assigned a
governorship to the highest bidder. The governor or farmer of revenue so
appointed had to compensate himself by mercilessly fleecing the merchants
and peasants of the province.— In this way many people without the
smallest patrimony, some even originally wretched slaves, involved in debt,
became great and opulent lords overnight. Bernier even complains that the
Great Mogol did not select for his service gentlemen of opulent and ancient
families; sons of his citizens, merchants and manufacturers affectionately
attached to their sovereign and willing to maintain themselves by means of
their own patrimony Instead he is surrounded by parasites raised by the
dregs of society. That is how the misery of this ill-fated country is
increased.—

For many an Umara just looted both the government and the people all at
once. In this regard certain misconceptions may be removed at the outset. It
is generally believed that corruption flourishes in a democracy or a soft
state where no one can be punished until proved guilty, and that despotic
rulers would not brook it. Another idea repeatedly put forward is that it is
poverty and low salaries that breed corruption, and that it is bound to be
reduced in proportion to the rise in emoluments and standard of living.

However, on a study of the records of medieval times, when autocracy
was the order of the day, we find that corruption was quite well-grounded,
and people and the government were unabashedly cheated. Cheating of the
people and the government are almost synonymous. In the fourteenth
century too, those who cheated the people could not rest at that, and they
took every opportunity of defrauding the government whenever an
opportunity presented itself One such opportunity came when Muhammad
bin Tughlaq introduced his famous token currency. Another, when he struck
upon the novel (now commonly practised) idea of having large-scale farm
cultivation. An area of about 45 miles square (30 krohs) was set aside for
intensive farming in which not a patch was to be left uncultivated at any


time by changing crops constantly. A hundred shiqdars were appointed to
supervise the project. They promised to cultivate thousands of bighas of
land and also to reclaim waste land. Each one of them received fifty
thousand tankahs in cash as advance {sondhar) from the State. But they
turned out to be greedy and dishonest persons. They cheated the
government, squandered the money on personal needs and did not care to
cultivate the allotted area. In this way the State lost not less then 70,00,000
tankahs in all. Of the advance not even a hundredth or a thousandth part
could be recovered and the avaricious shiqdars embezzled the whole
amount.— And all this callousness was there about a measure which had
been undertaken to ameliorate famine conditions.

A few more instances of corruption from the Sultanate period may be
mentioned to appreciate the depth and extensivity of the malady. During the
reign of Firoz Shah the profession of soldiers was made hereditary. Also old
men were not retired on compassionate ground and efficiency of the army
naturally suffered. Over and above this, corruption was galore in the
Diwan-i-Arz. Horses of little value were brought to the Diwan and were
passed as serviceable, obviously by greasing the palms of the clerks. In this
reference a story narrated by Shams Siraj Aflf is worth citing. Once the
Sultan overheard a soldier complaining to a friend that because he did not
have the necessary money to pay as bribe, he had not been able to get a
fitness certificate for his horse at the Diwan-i-Arz. The Sultan inquired how
much was needed, and the soldier said that if he had a gold tankah he could
get a certificate for his horse. The Sultan ordered his purse-bearer to give a
tankah to the soldier. The trooper went to the Diwan-i-Arz with the ashrafi
and paying it to the clerk concerned got the certificate.— He then returned
and thanked the Sultan. Encouragement to corruption from the head of the
State was a matter of concern. But what else could Afif say but that Firoz
Shah was a very kind-hearted and affectionate Sultan!

These cases of bribery, corruption and embezzlement concern
government officials of not so high a status among the upper classes. But
the highest nobles of the State indulged in them. The story of the deception
of Kajar Shah, the Master of Mint, speaks for itself. It is so interesting that
its incidents may be given in some detail. Firoz Tughlaq had issued several
varieties of new coins and shashgani (or six-yifaZ-piece) was one of them.


As the coin went into circulation, it was reported to the Sultan by two
courtiers that there was a deficiency of one grain of silver in the shashgani,
and they prayed for an investigation. If what they had said was proved to be
true, they pleaded, the officials responsible for debasement of the coin must
take the consequences. The Sultan immediately directed the Wazir, Khan-i-
Jahan Maqbul, to investigate the matter. Khan-i-Jahan was equally keen
about the enquiry. Indeed he observed that the coinage of kings was like an
unmarried daughter, whom no one would seek after, however beautiful and
charming she might be, if any aspersion had, rightly or wrongly, been cast
upon her character. So also was the case with the royal coins; if any one
honestly or falsely alleged a debasement of the currency, the insinuation
would spread, the coinage would earn a bad name, and no one would take
it.


The affair was as scandalous as it was unique. To hold an open inquest
was ruled out because the bona Tides of the government itself were in
question. Therefore the Wazir decided on a secret investigation, and sent for
Kajar Shah, the Master of Mint, and asked him if his officials had been
covetous. Kajar Shah knew that his game was up and he thought it best to
make a clean breast of it to the Wazir. Khan-i-Jahan could not displease the
Sultan, who had insisted that the intrinsic value of the coin should be tested
in his presence. But he also could not allow the government to get into
disrepute, and now that he had known the truth, he thought it best to hush
up the case. Therefore, he recommended to Kajar Shah to arrange the
matter over with the goldsmiths that they so manage their performance
before the king that the process of debasement of the shashgani may not be
detected. The goldsmiths, charcoal dealers and stove (angusht) managers
were all tutored and everything was given a fool-proof finish. Firoz Shah
was requested to watch the operation sitting in a private apartment with
Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul. Kajar Shah and his accusers were called in. The
goldsmiths were also brought in. The charcoal dealers brought the stoves
and placed them before the goldsmiths. Several shashgani pieces were
placed in the crucible, which the goldsmiths put upon the fire. The Sultan
meanwhile entered into a conversation with his minister, and while he was
so engaged, the workmen adroitly picked up the required pieces of silver
and surreptitiously threw them into the melting pot. After a while the
crucible was taken off the fire and the contents were weighed; the



shashgani was proved to be of full standard value. Kajar Shah was
presented with a robe of honour and other favours. He was seated on an
elephant and taken round the city so that people might understand that the
shashgani was of full value. The honest accusers were thus proved false and
banished.—

Another instance. An important nobleman, Shamsuddin Abu Rija, the
Auditor General (Mustaufi), had earned wide notoriety as a professional
bribe-taker, embezzler and at that a tyrant. Shams Siraj Afif, historian
contemporary of Firoz Shah, devotes thirty-five pages to record the crimes
of Abu Rija.— The three years during which he held the office of the
Auditor General, his hand of greed extended to all officers, Zamindars and
Amils. Those who gave him bribes, were permitted to go scot-free; others
who did not, were implicated by him on one charge or another and
punished. Nobody dared to raise a voice against his criminal breach of trust
or his atrocities, because he was a hot favourite of the Sultan. Even before
he was made the Mustaufi, he, as the deputy governor of Gujarat, had
borrowed 90 thousand tankahs from the Provincial Treasury for his own
use, but had not refunded the amount. To hide his improper gains he had
built a new mansion in Delhi and had buried underground thousands of gold
Ashrafis. At last the Sultan could not keep his eyes closed to Shamsuddins
black deeds because a number of nobles, including the Khan-i-Jahan, son of
Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, insisted that he should be brought to book.
Shamsuddins mansion was searched and his reserves of gold dug out. He
was imprisoned and tortured so severely that he could never ride a horse
again.— Strangely enough when Firozs son Muhammad ascended the
throne, he recalled Shamsuddin Abu Rija and reinstated him with all
honours.—

But the one man who amassed probably the largest amount of wealth in
the Sultanate period, escaped scot-free. This man was Bashir, a slave of
Firoz Shah. He had originally come as a part of the dower of Firozs mother.
In course of time, and through the favour of Sultan Firoz, he rose into
prominence and got the title of Imadul Mulk. His one passion was
acquisition of wealth. Related to the sultan as he was, he soon accumulated
crores of tankahs. Gunny bags required for storing the coin alone were
estimated to cost 2,500 tankahs, the price of each bag being four jitals\—


but Imadul Mulk objected to this extravagant outlay for bags and directed
that pits should be dug in the ground and the money placed therein like as
corn is stored. He had amassed thirteen crore tankahs but he was greedy
about acquiring more.—

Just imagine thirteen crore tankahs. The total revenue of a year during
Firozs reign was six crore and seventy-five lac tankahs',— and one
individual slave of the Sultan (Bashir-i-Sultani) had acquired wealth
amounting to two years total revenue of the country. Could corruption go
further? There were many rich Khans and Maliks in the time of Firoz Shah,
writes Afif, but no one was so rich as he; indeed there never had been one
so rich in any reign or in any kingdom. Still the officers of the Revenue
Department could not call him to account; they were indeed afraid of him,
for he was a favourite of the Sultan. To please the Sultan, Imadul Mulk once
presented him with a crore of tankahs. But twelve crores still remained with
him. At his death, the Sultan ordered nine crores to be deposited in the State
exchequer on the plea that Bashir is my property (as his slave), and so his
property is mine. Three crores were left with Imadul Mulks son Ishaq who
also got the title of his father. Afif adds that Ishaq himself was an extremely
rich man and did not stand in need of his fathers wealth.

The chronicler philosophises by saying: These nobles accumulated so
much wealth by lawful and unlawful means {vajeh na vajeh), and then
leaving it undertook the last journey where they were to account for all this
wealth.— But such ill-gotten gains at least created havoc in this world,
because, according to Afif himself, much of the trouble that came about in
the time of Sultan Muhammad (son of Firoz) was due to the accumulation
of such wealth in the hands of a few nobles.—

Thus there was corruption in the army, in civil administration and in the
royal mint. Hoarding, black-marketing and bribery were commonly
practised. Even the judiciary was not free from corruption, and that too
during the reign of a strong and stern monarch like Alauddin. Talking of
Qazi Hamiduddin Multani, Ziyauddin Barani cryptically remarks, it would
not be proper to write about his qualities in history. He also says that not the
godfearing and abstemious but corruptible, greedy and mundane people
were appointed as judges.— His one complaint was that judges used to


stretch the meaning of the Quranic texts to carry out the wishes of the
Sultans.— The indictment by Maulana Shamsuddin Turk of the judiciary of
the day is also worth citing. The Maulana who hailed from Egypt,
addressed a letter to Alauddin saying that ill-fated wiseacres of black faces
sat in mosques with abominable law books and made money by cheating
both the accuser and the accused, and the Qazis did not bring these facts to
the notice of the king.^ It is said that Shamsuddin Turk was opposed to
Qazi Hamiduddin, and therefore wrote in such a way, but in Mutla-i-Anwar,
Amir Khusrau also observes that the Qazis were ignorant of the principles
of law. The appointment of Ibn Battuta, who did not know a word of law, as
the Qazi of the capital by Muhammad bin Tughlaq, came to him as the
greatest surprise.

Having studied some prominent cases of bribery, corruption and
hoarding, of the nobles, and the rich upper class people in the Sultanate
times, let us analyse their genesis and their prominent aspects. It is clear
that corruption had nothing much to do with poverty or a low standard of
living. During Balkans rule the nobility and armymen, who could not or
would not perform their duties for which lands had been granted to them,
were not poor. But they wanted their privileges to continue; about
performing their duties they were not concerned. Fakhruddin, the Kotwal,
who pleaded their case with the king was moved as much by compassion as
by self-interest. He was him self old and in course of time stood to lose all
privileges if the orders of Balkan were not amended. The people who
minted counterfeit coins found in the token currency of Muhammad bin
Tughlaq a challenge to their intelligence and ingenuity, and took advantage
of the golden opportunity provided by it to get rich. The officials of the
Diwan-i-Arz who took a gold tankah for issuing the fitness certificate to the
cavalryman in the days of Firoz were not poor; they were habitual bribe¬
takers. The shiqdars or officers who embezzled the money advanced to
them for cultivation by Muhammad bin Tughlaq again, were not poor. The
people who minted debased currency, the wholesalers and retailers who
indulged in hoarding and black-marketing, men like Kajar Shah and Bashir-
i-Sultani, did not do what they did because they were poor, but because they
were greedy and opportunists. The object of the opportunists was to get
rich, of the rich to get richer. Their luxurious life, their women and wine
and their ambition to amass wealth, kept the torch of corruption burning.


Individual cases of corruption and embezzlement apart, the sure and
perennial sources of extra income of the nobles were two-what they could
save on their troops and what they could collect in addition to the nominal
value of their assignments - and able and unscrupulous men made as much
extra wealth as possible from both these. In the words of Shihabuddin
Ahmad, The khans, maliks, amirs, and isfah-salars receive the revenues of
the places assigned to them by the treasury Generally speaking they bring in
much more than their estimated value Some of the officers receive double,
and even more than that, in excess of the estimated value of their
grants.— What this practice meant to the poor peasant would be discussed
later.— The irony of the matter was that everyone knew about it, including
the king him self The king was even a party to the system for he allotted
good lands to his favourites nobles. Even Sher Shah Suri, who is regarded
as a friend of the agriculturists, changed his amils (revenue collectors)
every year, or second year, and sent new ones, for he said that there is no
such income and advantage in other employments as in the government of a
district. Therefore I (Sher Shah) send my good old loyal experienced
servants to take charge of districts, that the salaries, profits, and advantages,
may accrue to them in preference to others; and after two years I change
them, and send other servants like to them, that they also may prosper—

In the Mughal period the same trends continued. Things might have
improved under the able and shrewd Akbar, but only might. He too was part
of the system. He too was surrounded by the same sort of people who were
ready of speech and expert at intrigue. Corruption in the Mughal times was
so widespread - in the army, in civil administration and even in judiciary -
that narration of individual cases cannot just be done. Exceptions apart, the
more important the Amir, the larger his expenses, and the greater his
attempt at grabbing more and more wealth. The biographical notices
collected by Blochmann afford instances of the possibilities which Akbars
service offered. Hakim Ali, for instance, came from Persia to India poor and
destitute, but won Akbars favour, and being his personal servant rose to the
rank of 2000. Peshrau Khan again was a slave who was given to Humayun
as a present; he rendered service in many different capacities and died a
commander of 2000, leaving a fortune of 15 lakhs (equivalent to nearly a
crore of rupees at modem values).— No one was immune from this
temptation. Shaikh Ibrahim Chishti of Jaunpur died at Fatehpur, bidding


farwell to mountains of gold, 25 crores in cash taken into the treasury; the
rest in the words of Badaoni, fell to the share of his enemies - his sons and
representatives.— Under Akbars successor things were certainly bad.
Jahangir believed in frequent transfers, and the certainty of a speedy change
meant increased aetivity in exploitation— Under Shahjahan and Aurangzeb
the peasant was systematieally fleeced.

The exaetion of official perquisites or gratuities was the universal and
admitted practiee. Official corruption was, however, admitted in society to
be immoral, and there were many officers above eorruption. But the
receiving and even demanding of presents by men in power was the
universal rule and publicly acknowledged. Nur Jahans father, when prime
minister under Jahangir, was shameless in demanding presents. So also was
Jafar Khan, one of the early Wazirs of Aurangzeb. Jai Singh offered a purse
of Rs.30,000 to the Wazir for inducing the emperor to retain him in the
Deccan command. Bhimsen expresses his disgust at having to pay
everybody at Court in order to get or retain a petty civil office. The qazis
grew enormously rich by taking bribes, the most notorious of them being
Abdul Wahab. So also did many sadars. Even the emperor was not exempt
from it. Aurangzeb asked an aspirant to a title. Your father gave to
Shahjahan one lakh of rupees for adding alif to his title and making him
Amir Khan. How much will you pay me for the title I am giving you?—
Qabil Khan in two-and-a-half years of personal attendance on Aurangzeb
amassed 12 lakhs of rupees in cash, besides articles of value and a new
house for selling to suppliants his good offices. As Jadunath Sarkar says,
this pressure was passed from the emperor downwards; each social grade
trying to sqeeze out of the elass below itself what it had to pay as present to
the rank above it, the cultivator of the soil and the trader being the victims
in the last resort.—

Escheat

In short, the upper classes in the employment of the state were, by and
large, ever busy in amassing wealth from all possible sources and enjoying
it to their hearts eontent. But only during their life-time. At the death of a
noble, all his property, movable and immovable, was reelaimed by the
government.— Immediately on the death of the lord, writes Pelsaert, who


has enjoyed the kings jagir, be he great or small, without any exeeption -
even before the breath is out of his body - the kings offleers are ready on the
spot, and make an inventory of the entire estate, recording everything to the
value of a single pice, even to the dresses and jewels of the ladies, provided
they have not concealed them. Concealing was very difficult. As a rule all
the possessions of a noble, and his transactions were managed by his diwan
and many other subordinates and accountants. Hence they could not be kept
secret. When the noble died all his subordinates were detained, ordered to
show all books and papers to the kings officers, and if there was any
suspicion about their disclosure, they were tortured till they told the
truth. The king takes back the whole estate except in a case where the
deceased has done good service in his lifetime, when the women and
children are given enough to live on, but no more, while most of the
servants were left on the street with a tom coat and a pinched face.—

On the face of it, forfeiture of the property of a deceased noble looks
unjust, but in reality it was not. Under the escheat system the king saved the
corrupt Amir and himself the bother of instituting an enquiry and presenting
a charge-sheet. He let the grandee undisturbed to enjoy his ill-gotten wealth
as long as he lived, but after his death acquired it in full. In his discretion
the king sometimes left part of the wealth as pension to the widow and
heirs, but generally the sons of an Amir had to start life anew. It was a bull¬
dozer law, and applied to both the innocent and the guilty. But there were
hardly any innocent grandees. They knew very well about the law, and
therefore spent so lavishly while in office, that in addition to their great
income, most of them took huge amounts as loan from the State Treasury
and the king was justified in recovering the loan from their property.

And after all, as per the convention, the king was the heir of the Umara.
The Mughal emperors seem to have followed the Delhi Sultans in making a
claim upon their nobles as if they were their slaves. We have seen how a
high officer of the title of Imadul Mulk, was declared by Firoz Tughlaq as
Bashir is my property (as a slave) and so his property is mine. The Mughal
claim to such succession is not elaborated in the Ain-i-Akbari, but is noticed
by a number of European travellers from the time of Akbar onwards.— It
was not declared in so many words but the Mughal nobles in status were
not much better off than slaves. The grandees were prohibited from


contracting marriage alliances without the emperors permission. The noble
was obliged, whatever be his rank, to fall prostrate on the ground in
obeisance to his master. Although the price paid in human dignity was
terrible, yet he paid it as his position, his promotion, indeed his very
existence depended on the pleasure of the king. Manucci, writing about the
last years of Aurangzeb says: To get the hazari or pay of one thousand, it is
necessary to wait a long time and work hard.—

This is one side of the coin. The other is that whether foreign or Indian,
the nobles maintained a measure of individual independence. The pleasure
of enjoying oneself with vigour and liberty amidst the chances of war and
of life; the delights of activity without degrading labour; and the taste of an
adventurous career full of uncertainty, inequality and peril, instilled in them
a passionate desire of personal independence. There was a degree of
brutality and an apathy for the weak and the poor. Nevertheless, at the
bottom of this mixture of brutality, materialism and selfishness, lay the love
of independence. It drew its strength from the moral nature of man, from a
desire to developed ones own personality which the upper class elites loved
and cherished in medieval India as is found to be the case in all ages. Their
status might have been that of a servant of the ruling power, but they
themselves felt as mini-rulers in their own assignments, and carried their
swords like whipping sticks. Pelsaert noticed that the houses of the nobles
at Agra were hidden away in alleys and corners, and Bernier found that the
dwellings of the Umara at Delhi were scattered in every direction. Manucci
also observed that in Delhi many nobles are very pleased to have their
dwellings far from the royal palace. The reason was that these people
enjoyed the pleasures of idleness and womens company away from mutual
suspicion and court intrigues, and had it not been for official and court
duties, the grandees would never have bothered to leave their houses at all,
in order to enjoy uninterrupted intimacy of their female beauties.—

The private and public life of the nobles, the system of seraglios, the
widespread corruption, the custom of escheat, and so many other
conventionalities of the upper classes, all left a legacy which is visible in
many spheres of Muslim social life even now. Obviously, these cannot be
discussed in any detail in a work of this size. A few observations, however,
would indicate areas where such remnants of the legacy of Muslim rule


could be found. For instance, because of escheat, writes Pelsaert, everything
in the (Mughal) kingdom is uncertain. Wealth, position, love, friendship,
confidence, everything hangs by a thread The nobles build (mansions) with
so many hundreds of thousands, and yet (because of escheat) keep them in
repair only so long as the owners live Once the builder is dead, no one will
care for the buildings one cannot contemplate without pity or distress their
ruined state.— Many old Muslim havelis, which have survived and are still
inhabited bear out Pelsaerts statement.

Mughal corruption was of two kinds-polite custom, and outright bribery
and embezzlement. In the first, a person did not meet his senior or superior
empty-handed; he presented some gift. This practice was not harmful. But
the high corruption, bribery embezzlement, widely prevalent under Muslim
rule, as averred by contemporary chroniclers and foreign visitors has never
left the Indian scene, and the roots of the present day corruption may be
traced to earlier times. Similarly, the sophistication associated with the
Mughal court etiquette and the luxurious life of the harem is still to be seen
in the graceful and refined behaviour of upper class Muslims, especially of
their women. In the words of Jadunath Sarkar, the general type of
Muhammadan population are more refined and accustomed to a costiler
mode of life, while Hindus of the corresponding classes, even when rich,
are grosser and less cultured. The lower classes of Hindus, however, are
distinctly cleaner and more intellectual than Muslims of the same grade of
life.— But let us here keep confined to upper classes.

Ulama and Mashaikh

Muslim scholars and Sufi Shaikhs, though not all rich, also belonged to
the upper classes because of the respect they enjoyed in society. Most of
them were patronised by kings and nobles, many were actually in their
employ. Some of them were very well-off.

The Ulama

Ulama (plural of alim or learned) used to be well-versed in the Muslim
law. As such they assisted Muslim monarchs in administering their
dominions according to the Shariat. That way they also helped the Muslims
in organizing their lives according to the Shariat which comprehends not


only beliefs and praetiees, publie and personal law, and rules of behaviour
but even ineludes dress and personal appearanee. Aequiring knowledge for
the sake of earning money was looked down upon;— henee tradition
elassified the Ulama into two eategories, Ulama-i-Akhirat (the pious) and
Ulama-i-su (the worldly). Knowledge was an extremely valuable ornament
in an age when the educated were few and the Ulama were respected for
their learning and ability.

Naturally, there was hardly any secular approach to education. Great
emphasis was laid on theological education (manqulat). The most important
subjects taught were Hadis, Fiqh (jurisprudence) and Tafsir (exegesis). The
institutions of higher learning, called madrasas, were essentially schools of
theology, with auxiliaries of grammar, literature and logic. These madrasas
were the strongholds of orthodoxy and were subsidised by the state.— A
high value is placed on Muslim orthodoxy everywhere, because it is
claimed that it maintains the identity of the community as against other
communities. In actual practice it has served as a force against an integrated
living, even coexistence, with other communities.

In a word, the Ulama were an orthodox lot. Those who were denied the
life of affluence usually took to teaching (as mutawalli) in some mosque or
under the thatched roof of their own mud houses.— Some other Ulama or
danishmands became pious preachers and scholars. Very often they too had
to work under indigent circumstances.— Some outstanding scholars were
appointed as teachers in madrasas established by the Sultans. It was the
ambition of the Ulama to join government service. There were many offices
which the establishment could offer to a scholar. In official hierarchy of
such appointments the post of the Sadr-i-Jahan came at the top, then
followed Qazis (judges). Muftis (interpreters of law) Muhtasibs (censors of
public morals). Imams (who led prayers) and Khatibs (reciters of the
Quran). The Sadr-i-Jahan was the chief of the judicial department. He
served as the Qazi-i-Mumalik (chief judge) and recommended to the king
about the appointment of junior Qazis. The Shaikh-ul-Islam was in charge
of the ecclesiastical affairs of the empire. All those saints, faqirs and
indigent scholars who enjoyed state patronage were looked after by him.
Normally, only well-read scholars were appointed as Khatibs and Imams.


So also was the case with Muftis and Muhtasibs. Muslim public opinion did
not approve of the appointment of less qualified persons to these posts.

The Ulama received salaries pertaining to the offices they held. Most of
the Ulama dabbled in politics. They wielded influence with the kings and
nobles as interpreters of Muslim law. Their presence was indispensable to a
ruler who was generally uneducated. During the protracted struggle
between the crown and the nobility which raged throughout the Sultanate
period, they aligned themselves with one or the other of political groups.
They always remained on the right side of the regime and forgot the
community whom they were expected to help in times of economic distress
and political oppression. In this way they encouraged political oppression
on the one hand and on the other they preached the necessity of obedience
and submission by the people even to an oppressor, taking shelter under the
Quranic injunction: Obey God and obey the Prophet, and those in authority
among you.— Naturally, an unholy alliance with them smoothed the path of
kings depotism.— They themselves did not lag behind in obsequiousness.
Their collaboration with and integration into the state apparatus made them
subservient to the regime, so much so that when Iltutmish nominated
Raziya as his successor, there was not a single theologian in the Delhi
Empire who could protest against this nomination on the grounds of
Shariat.^ The way they encouraged Sultans like Ruknuddin Firoz and
Muizuddin Kaiqubad not to offer prayers or keep fasts during the month of
Ramzan,^ and live licentious lives, shows how servile they had become
and how they were wallowing in the dirty welters of politics. Of course the
Ulama were openly critical of one another and, for this they have been
criticised by their contemporary writers like Amir Khusrau, Zia Barani,
Abdul Haq Muhaddis and Abdul Qadir Badaoni.— Kings like Iltutumish
and Balkan and prince Bughra Khan are also critical of them.—

But in one thing they did not fail. They kept the rulers and the ruling
class on the path of Islam and virtue by informing them correctly about
their duty towards the non-Muslims. Some modem secularist historians
blame the Ulama for making Muslim mlers intolerant through their
orthodox advice. Such writers fail to realise that it was not safe for the
Ulama to cheat the Sultans by giving wrong interpretation of their holy
scriptures vis-a-vis the treatment of non-Muslims. I have not come across


any instance where the Ulama deliberately gave a distorted version of their
scriptures in this eontext. And why should they have done so? They were
as much interested in seeing the Muslim state being run according to the
Shariat as the Sultans. In short, they always interpreted their scriptures
correctly and honestly when it came to the Hindus. So that a foreign visitor
like Maulana Shamsuddin Turk, who is very critical of the Qazis of the day,
condoned their faults for the reason that because of their right advice their
king was prone to treating the Hindus terribly.— The lifestyle of the Ulama
did not come in the way of serving Islam. Like other Muslims of the higher
classes, it was normal for the Ulama to keep harems, live luxuriously and
drink wine.—

Despite a few faults and a little criticism, therefore, the Ulama as a class
were indispensable to the regime. They were advisers of the king and ran
the establishment. It was from the Ulama class that the various officers of
the government as well as religious institutions were chosen. It was through
these people that the regime systematized the religious and social life of the
Muslim community just as it organized the extension and administration of
Muslim dominions in India through the nobility.

The Mashaikh

Equally influential, if not more, were the Sufi Mashaikh. In the early
years of Muslim immigration, and more so with the establishment of
Muslim rule in India, many Muslim faqirs, scholars and Sufi Mashaikh
arrived in India. They entered Hindustan on their own or came with the
invading armies. Later on, the disturbed conditions in Central Asia,
consequent upon the Mongol upheaval also encouraged them to leave their
homes in search of security. Many came to settle in India where peace and
plenty and the proteetive arm of Muslim rule promised them all they
wished.

Sufism may be defined as Islamic mysticism. In its early years in Central
and West Asia, it was deeply influenced by Neo-Platonism, the monastic
tradition of Buddhism and Christianity and the Vedantist and Yogic
philosophy of Hinduism. All these were Islamized by the Sufis in such a
way as to make them virtually unidentifiable. Nawbahar was a great


Buddhist monastry in Balkh. The name of the eity of Bokhara itself is
derived from Vihar. Some Khurasan Sufis lived in eaves like Buddhists.
They were known as Shikafatiyah from the word Shikafat (cave). When
Hindu and Buddhist thinkers and saints converted to Islam in Central and
West Asia during the eighth to eleventh centuries they carried their thought
and philosophy to Sufism. Ibn al-Arabi (1165-1241) wrote in his Diwan that
idol-worship, Chritian ways and Kaaba were all acceptable to him as he
believed in the religion of love.—

The Sufism that came to India in the twelfth century with the Muslim
Mashaikh did not, by and large, envisage direct communion with God
without the intermedium of Islam. Just as the soul and body are one, in
Islamic sufism Tariqah and Shariah are so interrelated. Some Sufis believed
in the doctrine of Wahadat-ul-Wajud, or the Unity of Being which means
There is nothing but God, nothing in existence other than He. This theory,
propounded by Shaikh Ibn al-Arabi and akin to Hindu Vedantism, was
developed later on in order to harmonise the doctrine of mysticism with the
teachings of orthodox Islam.

There were a number of Sufi orders or silsila as they are called. Abul
Fazl mentions as many as fourteen. But four orders-Chishti, Suhrawardi,
Qadiri and Naqshabandi-became prominent in India. Of these only the first
two became more popular, for the latter two were extremely orthodox and
legalistic in their strictness. By the thirteenth century, northern India saw
the flowering of two Sufi orders, Chishti and Suhrawardi, and we will
concern ourselves with the Mashaikh of only these two orders. The founder
of the Suhrawardi order was Shaikh Bahauddin Zakariya. He was born near
Multan in Sind in 578 H. (1182-83 C.E.). He and his disciples played a
leading part in the north-west and symbolically asked the Chishtis not to
dispute possession (of the region) with them.— Shaikh Bahauddin Zakariya
(and his successors) mixed freely with the Sultans, took part in political
affairs, amassed wealth and accepted government honours.—

The Chishtis established themselves at Ajmer in Rajasthan, some parts of
the Punjab, Delhi, U.P. and Bihar and further east. They were probably the
largest in number and represented what seems to be the most typical in the
Sufi way of life. The first great Chishti Shaikh was Khwaja Muinuddin


Chishti. He was born in Sijistan in eastern Persia in C.E. 1141. He came to
India a little before or after the battle of Taraori or Tarain (1192) and settled
down at Ajmer.— There also he lies buried after his death in 1236. His
mausoleum is a great centre of pilgrimage. He is known as Gharib Nawaz
or Friend of the Poor and Nabi-ul-Hind or Prophet of India.— Shaikh
Saiyyad Muhammad Gesu Daraz (he of the long locks) said that if people
were unable to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, a visit once in their lives to
the mausoleum of Muinuddin Chishti would convey the same merit.—

Shaikh Muinuddin is very famous today. But he was not known as such
to his contemporaries. The three contemporary chronicler-Hasan Nizami,
Fakhr-i-Mudabbir and Minhaj do not refer to him at all. Early mystic
records, the Favaid-ul-Fuad and Khair-ul-Majalis do not give any
information about him. Barani makes no reference to him. Isami tells us
only this much that Muhammad bin Tughlaq had once visited his grave.—
In all probability his fame spread from the time of emperor Akbar (1556-
1605 C.E.) who held his memory in great reverence and often paid visit to
his dargah in Ajmer. However, the legend and fame of Muinuddin rests, as
of all other Shaikhs, on the magic-like miracles (karamah) he is supposed to
have performed.— It is difficult to say when the stories of the miracles of
Sufis be an to be told but once this process had begun, it could not be
stopped. It became a criterion by which Sufis were judged, and the common
reason why people believed in them.— They credited them with
supernatural powers and feared and respected them. PM. Currie quotes
Mohammad Habib to say that most of the mystic records and Diwans are
forgeries, but regard for public opinion has prevented them (Indian
scholars) from making a public declaration that these are
forgeries.— However, stories of miracles apart, he (Muinuddin Chishti) was
Saiyid by descent. He did not depart in any way from Sunna, the Ulama
could not fault him, and he performed the hajj.—

Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti had a number of disciples two of whom.
Shaikh Hamid and Qutbuddin, had earned reverence of great and small.
Shaikh Hamiduddin Nagauri lived with his wife as a villager. Shaikh
Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki came to Delhi in the reign of Iltutmish and lived
in a khanqah outside the city. He was very fond of sama (devotional music).
Once he was so overtaken by wajd (ecstasy) that he collapsed and breathed


his last.— One of his principal disciples was Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj-i-
Shakar (1175-1265) popularly called Shaikh Farid.

Shaikh Farid lived in extreme poverty bordering on starvation.— He
trained a large number of disciples, established many khanqahs and raised
the prestige of the Chishti order. The greatest disciple of Shaikh Farid was
Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya (1236-1325). He was born at Badaun. In 1258
he settled at Ghayaspur near Delhi where his shrine exists and a railway
station is named after him. The Shaikh had a large circle of disciples who
hailed from all sections of society, rich and poor, noble and plebian.— In his
life of almost a century, Nizamuddin Auliya witnessed the reigns of seven
Sultans, but he did not attend the darbar of any one of them. He was
popularly known as Mahbub-i-Ilahi (Beloved of God). His popularity was
due to his saintly virtues and service to humanity. His disciples included
Amir Khusrau, Ziyauddin Barani and the renowned Shaikh Nasiruddin
Chiragh-i-Delhi whom he appointed as his successor (Khalifa). Professor
Mohammad Habib rightly calls Nasiruddin the last great saint of the Chishti
Silsilah to have enjoyed an all India status.— This was the best period in
India for Sufism in general and the Chishti Silsilah in particular. To this
famous line of Sufis belongs Shaikh Salim Chishti, a contemporary of
emperor Akbar, for whom the latter built a mausoleum in Fatehpur Sikri.

Many of the Sufi Mashaikh lived in poverty. Shaikh Hamiduddin (d.
1276 C.E.) lived in a small mud house in the city of Nagaur in Rajasthan.
He eked out his meagre subsistence by cultivating a single bigha of
land.— His wife spent her time in cooking and spinning like a peasant
woman. He was a strict vegetarian. He refused to accept government gift of
land and money from the muqta of Nagaur and Sultan of Delhi.— Shaikh
Muinuddin and Shaikh Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar never owned houses of their
own. Shaikh Farid Ganj-i-Shakar built a small kachcha house only when his
family had considerably increased For many years during his early life
Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya had to wander from one quarter of the city to
another in search of a house Generally starvation conditions prevailed in the
houses of the Chishti saints very often these saints did not possess sufficient
clothes to cover their bodies.—


This is one side of the eoin. The other is that Shaikh Muinuddins sons
owned land, which may have been granted to them directly or accepted by
the Shaikh for their sake.— Shaikh Fariduddin was destitute to the end of
his days, but gifts were received and distributed at his khanqah.— The
khanqah of Nizamuddin Auliya, probably after he received money from
Sultan Nasiruddin Khusrau, became an institution in which money, food
and goods circulated freely.— However, the Shaikhs who lived in affluence
were deemed to possess no less merit than those who elected to remain
destitute.—

The Sufi Mashaikh are also reported to have shunned the company of the
nobles and nearness to the court. But that too was not always so. On the
contrary, the attractions of staying near the throne were compulsive. Sidi
Maula was a disciple of Shaikh Farid at Ajodhan.— He aspired for name
and fame and shifted to Delhi. Once in the capital, Sidi Maula hurled
himself headlong in the politics of the court and, after many vicissitudes
paid with his life.— But Sidi was not alone in this pursuit. As K.A. Nizami
has pointed out. Even Chisht the cradle-land of the silsilah looked to Delhi
for guidance in spiritual matters.— The Mashaikh mostly lived in cities and
towns where they were popular with kings and people and enjoyed the
respectability of upper class elite. Shaikh Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki was
much admired by the people of Delhi headed by Sultan Iltutmish himself
Muinuddin Chishti was very much liked by the Muslims of Ajmer but he
was suspected of dabbling in politics which prompted Prithviraj III to ask
Ramdeva to expel him from Ajmer.— Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya used to
hold his own darbar which was often more awe-inspiring than even the
court of kings. The Shaikh was so popular with the people that Sultan
Alauddin Khalji began to entertain suspicions about his influence and
authority in Muslim society. With a view to ascertain the real intentions of
the Shaikh, and to find out to what extent he was interested in seeking
political power, the Sultan sent him a note seeking his advice and guidance
on certain political problems. The Shaikh immediately surmised Alauddins
motives in sending the letter, and replied that he had nothing to do with
politics and so could render no advice on political matters: he kept busy
with seeking Gods grace for Muslim monarchs (duagoee). Only after this


was the Sultans mind set at rest.— But to many he was popularly known as
Sultan Nizamuddin and his resting plaee as Dargah Sultanji Saheb.—

Alauddin greatly respeeted Nizamuddin Auliya for his supernatural
powers and knack for correct predictions.— But his son Sultan Qutbuddin
Mubarak Khalji disliked him because of his political leanings. He even
declared a reward of a thousand tankahs for one who would cut off
Nizamuddins head. Once when they chanced to meet, the Sultan refused to
acknowledge the salutations of the saint— and even called Shaikh
Ruknuddin from Multan to eclipse Nizamuddins popularity.— After
Qutbuddins death, Sultan Nasiruddin Khusrau ascended the throne at Delhi,
but his authority was challenged by Ghazi Tughlaq. Khusrau Shah, to gain
the support of the Shaikhs sent two or three lakhs of tankahs to each of
them and five lakh tankahs to Nizamuddin Auliya. When Ghazi Tughlaq
ascended the throne as Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (1320 C.E.) he asked
Nizamuddin to render the account of the amount he had received. The latter
sent a reply, seemingly insolent, that the money belonged to the Bait-ul-mal
(Public Treasury) and therefore he had given it to the poor. The Sultan took
umbrage at the Shaikhs answer. The relations between the two were sore
also because of the Sultans dislike of sama in which Nizamuddin freely
indulged. In this scenario, Nizamuddin Auliya began to support
Ghiyasuddins son, Muhammad Tughlaq, who aspired for the throne. When
Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq went on an expedition to Bengal, Nizamuddin Auliya
prophesied that the Sultan would never come back from there. When the
news of his return was received in Delhi, a worried Prince Muhammad
rushed to Nizamuddin with the tiding at which the Shaikh uttered the
famous words, Delhi is still far off {hanuz Delhi dur ast).— Nizamuddin
Auliya was thus immersed in Delhi court politics, at least towards the end
of his life (1320-25). But he was a Sufi. He had many disciples who were
regular visitors to his khanqah. Such an one was Amir Khusrau.

Abul Hasan, popularly known as Amir Khusrau, was the most favoured
disciple of Nizamuddin Auliya. He was a historian, a musician, a poet, a
litterateur, a Sufi Shaikh,— and a full-fledged protege of Delhi Sultans. His
first patron was Prince Muhammad, son of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balkan.
Thereafter for about forty years (1285-1325) he served a continuous
succession of monarchs-Muizuddin Kaiqubad, Jalaluddin Khalji, Alauddin


Khalji and Mubarak Shah Khalji-and his shrewdness was successful in
keeping them all pleased. The Sultan (Kaiqubad) flattered him by calling
him the seal of authors and promised to give him a big reward which would
free him from all worldly cares ever afterwards.— His genius, if not
character, helped him spend the whole of his life in spinning yarn (or
writing many untruths).— Soon after, when Kaiqubad was murdered by
Jalaluddin Khalji, he composed a new masnavi, Miftah-ul-Futuh in praise
of his new patron. Six years later Jalauddin was murdered by his nephew
and son-in-law Alauddin Khalji who marched into Delhi with the late kings
head held aloft on the point of a spear and, writes Dr. Wahid Mirza, our poet
Khusrau was one of the first to offer his congratulations to the murderer
whose hands were still red with the blood of his king, his uncle and his
benefactor The poet changed with changing time and turned with shifting
wind.— No wonder, even Ghiya-suddin Tughlaq, who was hostile to
Khusraus pir-o-murshid, Nizamuddin Auliya, receives fulsome praise in
Khusraus Tughlaq Nama.

Amir Khusrau was very shrewd. When he found the reign of Qutbuddin
Mubarak Khalji nothing to boast about, he wrote Nuh Sipehr, praising all
things Indian, including the beauty of Indian women. In Nuh Sipehr he also
wrote: They have four books in that language (Sanskrit), which they are
constantly in the habit of repeating. Their name is Bed (Vedas). They
contain stories of their gods, but little advantage can be derived from their
perusal.— This betrays the one-track mind of Muslim elite in general. This
weakness was shared by almost all Sufi Mashaikh, debunking the belief that
Sufi Mashaikh treated Hindus and Muslims on terms of equality or helped
bring the two communities nearer to one another. They were keen on
maintaining only orthodox Muslim rule and showed a general disregard for
others. Since it was believed that Muhammad bin Tughlaq was not
orthodox. Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh obtained a promise from Firoz
Tughlaq before supporting the latters claim to the throne, to the effect that
he would rule according to the Shariat.— In 1409, when Raja Ganesh
(Kans of Muslim chroniclers) obtained the throne of Bengal and sought to
establish his authority by keeping the prominent Ulama and Sufis under
control. Shaikh Nurul Haqq (Qutbul Alam) wrote to Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi
of Jaunpur to come and save the Muslims of Bengal. Sultan Ibrabim
responded to the call and Raja Ganesh, finding himself too weak to meet


the challenge, came to the Shaikh and begged for his intercession,
promising to agree to any conditions. Shaikh Nurul Haqq said he would
intercede for him if he accepted Islam. The Raja retired in favour of his son
Jadu, who ascended the throne as Sultan Jalaluddin Shah. Shaikh Nurul
Haqq induced Sultan Ibrahim, much against his will, to withdraw his
armies.— Shaikh Abdul Quddus combined spirituality with
dogmatism. His letters to Sultan Sikandar Lodi and Babur (1526-30) show
that he was as anxious to maintain Muslim rule as any wordly Muslim, that
he had no scruples in using the language of a courtier in asking the rulers to
establish the Shariah— Akbars attempt at secularizing the state had
exasperated the divines, and Mulla Shah Ahmad and Shaikh Farid Bukhari
exhorted court dignitaries to alter the state of things in the very beginning of
Jahangirs reign, otherwise it would be difficult to accomplish anything later
on.— There are many other such instance.— It is understandable if
disgruntled nobles and courtiers invited foreigners to rescue Islam, but the
Sufi Mashaikh by such actions compromised their image as Indians first
and respecters of all people as equals. They were as opposed to national
integration as any orthodox Muslim.

Similarly, many modem scholars have shown that some Sufi Mashaikh
too resorted to aggressive and violent means in fighting infidelity.— Even
Shaikh Muinuddin Chishtis picture of tolerance is replaced by a portrait of
him as a warrior for Islam.— Since I have studied this problem in detail
elsewhere,— I would not like to repeat the cases of aggressive
proselytization of Sufi Mashaikh mentioned therein. However, one
shocking instance of forcible conversion not mentioned in my book referred
to above, may be given here. Saiyyad Jalaluddin Bukhari Makhdum-i-
Jahanian of Sind (d.l384) fell very seriously ill. Nawahun, the darogha of
Uchch, called on him to enquire about his health. As a matter of courtesy
and to raise his sinking spirits, Nahawun said: May God restore your health
your holiness is the last of the saints as the Prophet Muhammad was the last
of the prophets. Sayyid Jalaluddin Bukhari even on death-bed constmed it
as an expression of faith in Islam and demanded a formal declaration of
conversion from him. Nawahun firmly declined to make any such
declaration. Thereupon he was charged with apostasy. He fled to the court
of Firoz Shah Tughlaq in search of asylum and redress. When Sayyid
Jalaluddin Bukhari expired, his younger brother Sadmddin Raju Qattal,


rushed to Delhi in order to persuade Firoz Shah to exeeute
Nawahun. Though some seholars of the capital did not agree with the
viewpoint of Raju Qattal, the latter prevailed upon Firoz Shah in obtaining
his permission for Nawahuns execution as a renegade.—

Poor or rich, the Sufi Mashaikh lived as householders. Except
Nizamuddin Auliya and Nasiruddin Chiragh, all Sufi Shaikhs married, and
had large families. Since the word saint is associated with celibacy in
peoples minds of most religions, it would be pertinent to state that marriage
is enjoined on every Muslim, and celibacy is frequently condemned by
Muhammad. It is related in the Traditions that Muhammad said: When the
servant of God marries, he perfects half his religion Consequently in Islam,
even the ascetic orders are rather married than single.—

Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti took two wives - Ummatullah and
Asmatullah, and had three sons and one daughter. He had married in his old
age only to realize that his spiritual powers had greatly suffered on that
account.— Shaikh Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki Ushi also married twice, late
in life. He divorced one of his wives, soon after marriage, as her presence
upset his programme of prayers. He had four sons.— Shaikh Farid had a
number of wives and a large family. Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh is reported
to have stated that Shaikh Farid had a number of wives {harem bisyar
bud).— He had at least four wives and eight children.Shaikh
Hamiduddin had led a very voluptuous life in his early years,— but when
he joined the circle of Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti, he adopted the life of a
mystic in all sincerity. He had a number of children. Shaikh Qutbuddin
Husain Kirmani, uncle of the author of Siyar-ul-Auliya, used to put on the
garments of the finest Chinese silks and Kamkhawab and always used to
have pan in his mouth.— Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya also relished betel.—

All this was normal life and all these were normal pleasures. But Sufi
Mashaikh, known by many names like Wali, Shah, Qalandar, Murshid,
Marabout, Shaikh, Faqir and Darwesh, indulged in all kinds of pleasures
and luxuries. The case of Sidi Maula was exceptional. He had ready at hand
brand new tankahs under every coverlet to spend. So many people dined at
his khanqah that, if Barani is to be believed, two thousand man of flour
{maida), two to three hundred man of sugar and a hundred to two hundred


man of vegetables used to be eonsumed in his kitehen every day.— But
others were equally non-poor and generous. We know that Shaikh Farid was
destitute to the end of his days, but we also know that gifts were reeeived
and distributed. It eould be said generally of every khanqah that even in the
bad days a person was sure to get some sort of a meal and, with luck, a
share of money in every khanqah ideals of austerity fought against
satisfaction of physical needs,— so that there was no dearth of money and
parasites because of the well-to-do admirers of the Shaikh.

Sama or devotional music was a common feature of the khanqah. During
sama, the Shaikhs and Qalandars placed strong insistence on the practice of
Nazar-ilal murd or gazing at good looking boys. One reason why
Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq could not see eye to eye with Nizamuddin Auliya was
the latters fondness for sama and his ecstatic fits. The Sultan was free from
unnatural lust (lawatat) and did not allow handsome beardless boys from
coming near him.— In the khanqahs were also used drugs of the hashish
family,— and even drinking was common.— Love affairs of sufis were of
common occurrence. Ahmad Yadgar mentions the case of a faqir who fell
for the newly wed bride of the son of Tatar Khan.— He relates another
story about the love of a darwesh and a woman.Love between a Hindu
girl and a darwesh created flutter and tension.—

The Shaikhs used to marry in high families and possessed a clout which
sometimes became a problem for Sultans. A sixteenth century Suhrawardi
writer says— that Shaikh Sadruddin Arif had married a divorced wife of
Prince Muhammad, the eldest son of Balban. The circumstances of this
marriage are given as follows: The prince divorced his wife, whom he
passionately loved, in a fit of fury. When he recovered his normal state of
mind, he felt deeply pained for what he had done. Legally he could not take
her back into his harem unless she was married to someone else and then
divorced by him. A man of genuine piety was searched to restore the
broken relationship. Shaikh Arif, the most outstanding saint of the town,
promised to marry the princess and divorce her the next day. But, after the
marriage, he refused to divorce her on the ground that the princess herself
was not prepared to be divorced. This incident led to bitterness between the
saint and the prince. The latter even thought of taking action against the
Shaikh, but a Mongol invasion cut short the thread of his life. Shaikh Salim


Chishti had great influence with emperor Akbar, much more than Sadruddin
Arif had in the time of Balban. And both Badaoni and Father Monserrate
make unflattering comments about Shaikh Salim.— The Sufi Mashaikh
lived a full-fledged life, different from saints of other religions. But among
Indian Muslims their memory has always been cherished with utmost
reverence.

It is said that saint-worship among Muslims is a practice unique to India.
Dargahs of Sufis, real or figurative, are found all over the country and
Muslims flock to them in. large numbers. It is a legacy of medieval times.
One reason for this can be that most Indian Muslims are converted Hindus,
who, when their places of worship were converted into {khanqahs and later)
dargahs, did not give up visiting them. For instance, at the most holy
dargah of Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti, the Sandal Khana mosque is believed
to have been built on the site of a Dev temple.— The other is that stories of
miracles of saints give a hope and a chance to people to obtain fulfilment of
their desires. Hence besides Muslims, a few Hindus also resort to such
shrines.


Footnotes:

- Fatawa-i-Jahandari, p.99.

- Lai, History of the Khaljis, p.309.

- Bernier, p.209.

- Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp.69, 71.

- But sometimes neither the passage of time nor indeed death could
remove the barriers. The remains of the Iranian Mir Murtaza Shirazi, who
was earlier buried near the Indian Amir Khusrau, were ordered by Emperor
Akbar to be removed and buried elsewhere, on the representation of
Shaikh-ul-Islam, who pleaded that the two deceased would find each others
company a torture (Ambashtya, B.R, Biographical Sketch of Badaoni in his


Reprint of Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh trs. by S.A. Ranking, Academia
Asiatica, Patna, 1973, p.99).

— Bernier, p. 209.

— Titus, Islam in India and Pakistan, p. 117.

— Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, p.469.

— Badaoni, II, p.339; trs. in Ain, I, p.214; Bernier, p.40.

— Barani, p.l45.

— Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p. 577. Also Haiiuddabir, Zafarul
Walih, p. 782.

— Al-Qalqashindi, p.71; Ibn Battuta, p.l29; Afif, pp.296-97 and 437-38.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p.68.

— Manucci, II, p.330. Also Pelsaert, pp.1-5.

— Ibn Battuta, p.l41.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p.3.

— William Finch in Foster, Early Travels in India, p. 165.

— Pelsaert, Jahangirs India, p.3.

— Ibid., p.56.

— Ibid., p.67. Also Foster, p. 56.

— Tavernier, Travels in India, I, p.393.

— Bernier, p.247.


— Ibid., p.270.

— Pelsaert, p.64. Some important ladies of royalty probably had their pay
fixed on the lines of Mansabdars. William Hawkins, writing about 1611,
says that the mother of the King, Mariyam Zamani, got an allowance of the
Mansab of 12,000 {Travels in India, Edited by William Foster, London,
1921, pp.98-99). It is computed that the Jagirs of Nur Jahan, spread all over
the country, would have conferred on her the title of a commander of
30,000 (Blochmann, Ain, I, p.574). It is doubtful if any ladies of nobles got
an allowance from the Court, but it was natural for the Umara themselves to
fix monthly stipends for their favourite wives and concubines.

— Pelsaert, p.67.

— Ibid., p.67. Also Manucci, I, p.87.

^ Ibn Battuta, pp. 69, 73.

— Peter Mundy, II, p. 218; Manucci, I, p.69.

— Barani, p.318; Al-Qalqashindi, p.68.

— Ashraf, Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, pp.282-83.

^Afif,pp. 145-46.

— The Mughal Harem, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1988, p.203.

Reacting to this statement, A. Jan Qaiser of the Aligarh Muslim
University in his harsh review of the book observes: Is Lai really ignorant
of the fact that the Indians were being increasingly exposed to a number of
European articles of technology and culture brought by the Europeans
during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century? {The Indian
Historical Review, 1991, p. 346). The poor man does not realise that he is
only confirming my assertion that the Indian nobles were being only
exposed (whatever he may mean by the word) to articles brought by
Europeans. On their own they were incapable of doing anything more.


— Bernier, pp. 213-14.

^Ibid.,p. 271.

— Ibid., p.272. Tavernier figures this ruby and also gives a full account of
the incident {Travels, II, pp.l27, 128).

— Pelsaert, Jahangirs India, pp. 57-58.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 72.

— Pelsaert, p. 58.

— Bernier, pp. 230-31.

— Barani, p. 62.

— Pelsaert, p. 54.

— Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p. 577.

— Ain, I, p. 1.

— Bernier, pp. 230-31.

— Barani, p. 499.

^Afif,p. 301.

^ Afif, pp. 346-48.

^Ibid.,^^. 457-92.

— Barani, p. 353.

^ Afif, p. 492.


— Afif, p. 439. The chronicler does not exaggerate. The wealth of Imadul
Mulk was estimated at thirteen crores of tankahs. A tankah would buy 12
bags at the average rate of 48 jitals to a tankah. 2,500 tankahs would buy
30,000 bags and each bag would contain about 4,350 coins or one maund
and 14 seers of silver in bullion.

^Afif,pp. 440-41.


— Ibid., p. 94.

^Ibid.,p. 440.

— loc. cit. For the troubles of the post-Firoz decade see Lai, Twilight of
the Sultanate, pp. 2-6.

— Barani, p. 446.

— Ibid., p. 446.

^Ibid.,v. 229.

— Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p. 577.

— See the Chapter on Lower Classes.

— Abbas Sarwani, Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, E and D, IV, p. 414.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 71.

— Ambashtya, Rankings trs. of Badaonis Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh,
Introduction.

— Moreland, op. cit., p. 71.

— Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, p. 457.

— Ibid., pp. 456-57 and note.


— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 72-73.

— Pelsaert, pp. 54-55.

— Pelsaert, pp. 54-56; Bernier, pp. 211-12; Manucci, II, p. 417; Careri, p.
241.

— Beni Prasad, History of Jahangir, pp. 72, 86; Manueei, II, p. 372.

— Pelsaert, pp. 64-65; Bernier, p. 247; Manueei, II, p. 467; Lai, The
Mughal Harem, pp. 47-48.

— Pelsaert, p. 56. Also Bernier, p. 227.

— Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, pp. 466-67.

— Amir Ala Sijzi, Favaid-ul-Fvad, p. 185.

— Yusuf Husain Khan, Glimpses of Medieval Indian Culture, p.69, also
p.74.

— Ibid., p.89. Also Hamid Qalandar, Khair-ul-Majalis, p. 107.

— Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 156.

— Quran IV, 59.

— Habibullah, A.B.M., The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, p.234.

— Nizami, op. cit., p.l72.

— Barani, p.54.

— Amir Khusrau, Mutla-i-Anwar (Lucknow, 1884), pp. 55-60; Barani, p.
317.

83


Barani, pp. 94, 154-55, 550.


^Ibid.,^. 299.

— Badaoni, Ranking, I, p. 187; Barani, p. 446; Khusrau in Mutla-i-
Anwar; Lai, Early Muslims in India, p. 129.

— Rizvi, History of Sufism, I, pp.20, 33, 83, 88,; II, p. 52; Singhal, India
and World Civilization, I, pp. 268-80; Tara Chand, Influence of Islam on
Indian Culture, pp. 70-75.

^ Amir Khurd, al-Kirmani, Siyar-ul-Auliya, p. 61.

— Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 226, also pp. 220-229.

— It is claimed that Sufi Mashaikh either accompanied or followed rather
than preceded the Muslim armies of invasion and lived under the protection
and patronage of eonquerors and kings (Titus, Islam in India and Pakistan,
pp. 124-25). For other elaims see Lai, Early Muslims in India, pp. 125, 152
n 31. Akbar was a great devotee of Muinuddin Chishti. From 1567 to 1579
he made yearly pilgrimages to the Khwajas dargah where he built a
mosque. In Akbars time, therefore, researeh about the Khawajas life must
have been done and eorreet information eolleeted. Abul Fazls statement that
the Khwaja eame to India in 1192 and shifted to Ajmer in 1195 seems most
probable {Ain, II, p. 214).

— Currie, RM., The Shrine and Cult of Muin-al-din Chishti of Ajmer,
OUR (Delhi, 1989), p. 96.

— Jafar Sharif, Islam in India, trs. Herklots, p. 210.

— K.A. Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 181.

— Currie, op.cit., pp. 30-35.

— For all kinds of miracles see Siyar-ul-Auliya, trs. Quddusi, pp. 87, 95,
102, 141, 156, 230, 251-52, 290, 298, 310, 341, 425, 533, 639-40, 649 and
Favaid-ul-Fvad trs. Ghulam Ahmad, pp. 125, 126, 141, 143, 147, 151, 192,
338.


— Currie, p. 214.

^Ibid.,p. 95.

— For an elaborate discussion on same, raqs (dance) and wajd (ecstasy)
see Siyar-ul-Auliya trs. Quddusi, pp. 729-791.

— Amir Khurd, Siyarul Auliya, Persian text, pp. 66-67.

— Barani, pp. 343-344.

— Mohammad Habib, Shaikh Nasiruddin Mahmud Chiragh-i-Delhi,
Islamic Culture, April, 1946, pp. 129-53.

— Kirmani, Siyar-ul-Auliya, pp. 156-57; Jamali, Siyar-ul-Arifm, p. 13.

— Nizami, Religion and Politics, pp. 186-87.

^Ibid., 199-201.

— Mujeeb, 0/7. c7Y.,pp. 140-41.

^Ibid.,^. 147.

^Ibid.,^. 141-42.

^Ibid.,^^. 284, 301-302.

— Badaoni, Ranking, I, pp. 233-34.

Farishtah, I, pp. 92-93; Barani, pp. 209-12.

— Religion and Politics, p. 178.

— Yusuf Husain Khan, Glimpses of Medieval Indian Culture, p. 37; P.M.
Currie, op. cil, pp. 29-30.


— Saiyyad Amir Khurd al-Kirmani, Siyar-ul-Auliya. Urdu trs. Silsila-i-
Tassavuf No. 130. Allah Wale-ki-Dukan, Kashmiri Bazar (Lahore, n.d.), pp.
118-20; Persian Text, pp. 132 ff.

— Ibid., trs. Quddusi, Introduetion, p. 12, also pp. 231-33.

— Isami, Futuh-us-Salatin, p. 277; Barani, pp. 302, 330-32; Amir
Khusrau, Deval Rani, p. 236.

— Barani, p. 396; Lai, History of the Khaljis, p. 299.

— Loc. cit.

— For detailed referenees see Ishwari Prasad, A History of the Quraunah
Turks in India, p.43.

— Barani, pp. 351, 359; Lai, History of the Khaljis, pp. 339-40, 361-63.

— Ashraf, Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, p. 114.

— Kulliyat-i-Khusrau, pp. 245 and 674 eited in ibid., p.ll4 and Dr.
Wahid Mirza, Life and Works of Amir Khusrau (Caleutta, 1935), p.l77.

— Wahid Mirza, op. cit. p.87.

— Extraet trs. in E and D, III, p. 563.

^Afif,p. 29.

— Salim, Ghulam Husain, Riyaz-us-Salatin, trs. by Maulvi Abdus
Salam, (Calcutta, 1902), p.ll2 ff.

— M. Mujeeb, op.cit., pp. 297-98, dying from the Maktubat-i-Quddusi,
pp. 44, 335-37.

— S.R. Sharma, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 61.

— Greetz Clifford, Islam Observed (Chicago 1971).


— Eaton, Richard Maxwell, Sufis of Bijapur (1300-1700), Chapter on
Sufi Warriors; Currie, RM., The Shrine and Cult of Muin-al-din Chishti of
Ajmer, pp.1-19, 66-96; Rizvi, History of sufism, II, pp.l75n, 176.

— Currie, p. 94.

— Indian Muslims: Who Are They (New Delhi, 1990), pp. 58-60, 92-95.

— Farishtah, II, pp. 417-18; Jamali, Siyar-ul-Arifin, pp. 159-60, English
trs. in Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 179n.

— Hughes, T.P., Dictionary of Islam, p. 313.

— Nizami, Religion and Politics, pp. 202-203.

— Siyar-ul-Auliya, p. 50; Sijzi, Favaid-ul-Fvad, p. 61.

— Siyar-ul-Auliya, p. 66.

— Nizamuddin Auliya, Rahat-ul-Qulub, p. 3.

— Siyar-ul-Auliya, p. 156.

— Ibid., Urdu trs., p. 188.

^Ibid.,p. 125.

— Barani, p. 209.

— Mujeeb, op. cit., p. 147.

— Barani, p. 443. For love of boys by Sufis also see Tarikh-i-Salatin-
Afghana pp.29-30; Akhbar-ul-Akhiyar, p. 187; Rizvi, History of Sufism, I,
p.l69; II, p. 297.

— Currie, op. cit., p. 7.

144


Mujeeb, op. cit., pp. 295-96, 315.


— Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, pp. 53-54. Also Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi,
19(b)-20(a).

— Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, pp. 102-10.

^Ibid.,p. 125.

— Jamali, Siyar-ul-Arifin, p. 135, cited in Nizami, p. 226.

— Badaoni, trs. Ranking, II, p. 113.

— Currie, p. 105.



Middle Classes and Protest
Movements


Chapter 6

There are very many merchants that are rich: but it is not safe for them
that are so, so to appear, lest that they should be used as filld sponges.

- Edward Terry

In the medieval period, the luxurious life of the upper elasses and the
poverty of the exploited peasants and workers attracted the attention of all
foreign and Indian writers. These two sections of society were so prominent
that the presence of the small, self-respecting, friend-of-the-people middle
class was not even noticed by some contemporary writers. Francois Bernier
is one of them. Writing in the middle of the seventeenth century, this
renowned French visitor to India, found that in Delhi there was no middle
state. A man must be of the highest rank or live miserably.- Similar is the
assertion of Tavernier about Burhanpur and Golkunda.-

Why did Bernier and Tavernier make such observations? Today most
people (except the very poor) consider it a matter of satisfaction or even of
pride to belong to the middle class. Ministers, Secretaries, Members of
Parliament and high officers of Government, counterparts of medieval
ruling class, call themselves not masters but servants of the people. Pride in
belonging to high class has been replaced by humility in belonging to the
middle class, and administrators and politicians, tradespeople and working
men, officers and clerks, are all counted among the middle class. But in the
middle Ages ideas of equality, democracy, socialism and Marxism were not
there. Consequently, it was not a fashion in medieval India to claim to
belong to the middle class. This is probably what Bernier and Tavernier
noted and also declared. In medieval India, rulers, nobles and high class
people could never think of degrading them- selves by belonging to any
class other than the highest. In that age, levelling would have been revolting


to the rich and probably embarrassing to the poor. In medieval society the
ruling class and the subject people were two well-recognised strata.

But what applied to Mughal India applied also to the Pre-Revolution,
Pre-Industrial seventeenth century France. There were there three
recognized Estates; the first comprised the Clergy, the second the Nobility,
and the third the Commoners. However, side by side with these categories
was the yeomanry and the bourgeoisie, the middle state of Bernier. Did a
corresponding middle state or middle class exist in India also, and Bernier
missed to notice it, or was there no middle class in India at all in the
medieval period?

The above cited statement of Bernier has been lifted out of context by
many scholars, prompting some to deny the existence of a middle class in
the pre-British period.- Therefore, Bernier has to be quoted at some length
to understand why he said so. He gives a detailed description of Delhi and
Agra and some other cities of Hindustan in a letter to Monsieur de la Mothe
le Vayer dated 1st July, 1663.- In his description of Delhi, he writes about
its citizens, its houses, bazars, food, fruit etc., and constantly compares
them with those of Paris. In the bazars of the capital city of Delhi, writes
he, there are shops where meat is sold roasted and dressed in a variety of
ways. But there is no trusting to their dishes, composed, for aught I know,
of the flesh of camels, horses, or perhaps oxen which have died of disease.
Indeed no food can be considered wholesome which is not dressed at home
But it would be unreasonable for me to complain I send my servant to the
kings purveyors in the Fort, who are glad to sell wholesome food, which
costs them very little, at a high price I am willing to pay.- Pigeons were
exposed for sale, capons were not, these being wanted for their seraglios
good fish may sometimes be bought, particularly two sorts, called sing-ala
and rau (Singi and Rohu). The former resembles our pike; the latter our
carp The Omrahs alone contrive to force the fishermen out at all times (to
sell) by means of the korrah, the long whip always suspended at their door
Unquestionably the great are in the enjoyment of everything; but it is by
dint of numbers in their service, by dint of the Korrah, and by dint of
money. In Delhi there is no middle state. A man must either be of the
highest rank or live miserably. My pay is considerable, nor am I sparing of
money; yet does it often happen that I have not wherewithal to satisfy the


cravings of hunger, the bazars being so ill-supplied, and frequently
containing nothing but the refuse of the grandees. Wine, that essential part
of every entertainment, can be obtained in none of the shops at Delhi,
although it might be made from the native grape, were not the use of that
liquor prohibited equally by the Gentile and Mahometan law To say the
truth, few persons in these hot climates feel a strong desire for wine-

Bernier was only experiencing what Babur had witnessed a century ago.
The latter notes in his memoirs that in Hindustan they have no good flesh,
no grapes or musk-melons, no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good
food or bread in their bazaars And every artisan there is follows the trade
that has come down to him from his forefathers.- Bernier did not get food to
his liking in the bazar, he could not get good wine, and for both these he
himself provides correct explanations. What Bernier saw everyday in the
bazars was the arbitrary ways of the nobles and their unfair use of force to
get things at low prices. A hungry Bernier felt the pinch of non-availability
of good food and heady wine in the open market, what he saw was the
Korrah of the Amirs- and the wretched condition of the poor hawkers and
fisherman. He missed to notice, at that point of time or in that mood at least,
the middle or intermediate class, the accomplished artisans, hereditary
craftsmen, rich jewellers and influential bankers or sarrafs. Most middle
class people carried on with their hereditary crafts, in printing calico,
stretching embroidery, or manufacturing jewellery. These worked mostly at
home and did not exhibit their artistic products in show-cases in shops. That
is why he wrote what he wrote in a limited context and perhaps under the
influence of an empty stomach and thirsty throat when he could only see the
rich Umara grabbing away the best fish and meat from the poor people with
the help of the Korrah. There were no standard hotels serving good food in
Delhi and Agra and other large cities where gentlemen like Bernier and
Indians of his class could have dined without any doubt about the quality of
food. But the Mughal gentry, as he himself noted, preferred to eat at home
as the meats in the cooking joints in the bazar were sometimes adulterated.
Also eating at home and not in hotels was also a matter of habit. Berniers
statement is a case of arriving at a major conclusion on the basis of a minor
inconvenience.


For, there has always been a middle elass in soeiety in every age, and
medieval India was no exeeption. Among the Muslims the rieh people who
provided artisans, weavers, embroiderers and jewellers with raw materials
to produce goods on order and paid wages, and merchants who dealt in
goods, wholesale and retail, surely belonged to the middle class. There is no
doubt that besides the two well-known sections of the rich and the poor,
there were many who, in terms of wealth and income, could be placed
between the two. There is evidence to show that in the contemporary
Muslim society of the West Asian countries there were three categories of
people - the al-khassa, al-amma (also called al-raiyya) and al-nas. There
were the people of great skill, specialists in medicine, architecture and
accounting and merchants who had at least a more than average fortune
were also al-nas^ So middle class or common people, a word so often used
by Ibn Battuta in the Indian context,— were interchangeable terms. Gustav
Grunebaum also says: The Muslim shares to a very high degree sensitivity
about rank which is so characteristic of the Middle Ages. Not only is he
rank conscious, but he is keenly concerned with expressing social
distinctions through a delicate system of etiquette. Questions of precedence
are of considerable importance. Mankind was divided into four orders by
the Barmakid Wazir A1 Fazl bin Yahiya (C. 8th century A.D.) - 1. King, 2.
Wazir, 3. Aristocracy of Wealth, 4. The middle class was connected with the
above class by their culture. The rest of the population counted for
nothing.—

In medieval times India was well advanced in manufacture, trade and
commerce. Indian textiles and other manufactured goods had a market
throughout the East and the West. India exported lot of goods and Indian
ports served as clearing stations of trade between the East and the West. In
industry and manufacture, whether it was of cloth, carpet or leather, or it
was metal, ivory or gold, India held the supreme position. There were
excellent ship-building and repairing yards (even for European ships) in
India.— Mahuan, an interpreter attached to the Chinese envoy Chang Ho
who visited Bengal in 1406, writes that The rich build ships in which they
carry on commerce with foreign nations.— Right from the thirteenth-
fourteenth centuries, indeed from ancient times, manufacturing centres of
all kinds of wares were spread all over the country.— Indias position in the


field of manufacture, industry and commerce, if not in science and
technology, remained important throughout the medieval period.

There were, consequently, big manufacturers and merchants, foreign and
Indian, living in the country. According to Yahiya Sarhindi a large number
of Khurasani merchants who lived in Delhi possessed some of the best
mansions in that prosperous city.— Barbosa says that Muslims, settled in
Calicut, had large houses and many servants and they lived very
luxuriously. About the Muslims at Rander he says, they were well-dressed,
had good houses, well-kept and furnished.— Della Valle has similar
comments to make on the freedom of life in Surat, where there was open
exhibition of riches and splendour.— Monopolists like Mir Jumla, Virji
Vohra and, at a later date, Jagat Seth were renowned for their wealth. And
they lived in the elitist fashion. The exceptional position on the coast is
probably to be explained by the privileged status of the Moslem
merchants being free to live well while the merchants of the interior (or
Hindu merchants?) were very far from being free and led the quiet and
unostentatious life required by the circumstances of their
position.— Muslim merchants were to be found at practically every seaport
in India. Jews and Armenians and Parsis were few in numbers, but
important in commercial life.— The horizons of Muslim freedom expanded
in a country where every man had a slight tincture of soldiership.

Urbanization helped in development of trade and commerce and the
growth of middle class. There was rapid growth of towns and cities in
medieval period. In the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries, India had hundreds
of cities with a population of more than 100,000 and cities like Agra,
Lahore and Cambay could boast of more than half a million people each.—
Their middle class sections comprised traders, goldsmiths, jewellers,
bankers {sarrafs), architects, scholars, merchants and many others. Small
manufacturers and merchants too possessed gold and silver and its
concomitant power. So also was the case with the other sections of middle
class Muslims like the learned, such as physicians, mathematicians,
architects, historians or chroniclers, and the Ulama. There were the Saheb-i-
Qalam va Saheb-i-Saif (masters of the pen and the sword) and people
belonging to or descended from distinguished families. Soldiers and
warriors - neither the Khans or Maliks nor the common troops - that is.


officers of the intermediate grade who, in the words of Abul Fazl,
eonsumed the straw and rubbish of strife and kindled the lamp of rest in this
world of disturbances, too belonged to this class. Other government
officials like Qazis and Imams of qasbas {as-hab-i-manasib) as well as
some sections of lesser note of Saiyyads and Sufis also comprised the
middle class.

In contrast to the Muslim bourgeoisie, the life of the Hindu middle
classes was different in many ways. They lived under the Muslim theocratic
regime and paid the poll tax Jiziyah incumbent upon the non-Muslims.
There were three rates of Jiziyah, 40, 20 and 10 tankahs imposed on three
classes or income groups - the high, the middle and the low.— This in itself
is a proof of the existence of a middle class among the Hindus. If Akbar
abolished this tax, Aurangzeb reimposed it and the Hindu middle class paid
the Jaziyah at the middle rate, or probably the high, for all through the
medieval period they possess almost exclusively the trade and the wealth of
the country.— Pelsaerts description of the Hindu middle class is apt and
elaborate. He writes: First there are the leading merchants and jewellers,
and they are most able and expert in their business. Next there are the
workmen, for praetieally all work is done by Hindus, the Moslems
praetising seareely any erafts but dyeing and weaving Thirdly there are the
elerks and brokers: all the business of the lords palaees and of the Muslim
merehants is done by Hindus - book-keeping, buying and selling. They are
partieularly elever brokers, and are eonsequently generally employed as
sueh throughout all these countries.—

The life of the Hindu middle elass was marked by moderation.
Ostentatious living was as dangerous in their ease as it was desirable in the
ease of Muslim merehants and eourtiers. Nay, the Hindu rieh men study to
appear indigent, says Bernier, and although 'the profit be ever so great, the
man by whom it has been made must still wear the garb of indigenee. Terry
wrote that there are very many private men in eities and towns, who are
merehants or tradesmen that are very rieh: but it is not safe for them that are
so, so to appear, lest that they should be used as filled sponges.— Their
traditional eaution and the eonditions of inseeurity ereated by politieal
eonfliet and the attitude of the administrators foreed them to praetiee self-
effacement. W.H. Moreland rightly observes that they help us to understand


the thrifty or even parsimonious seale of living whieh eharaeterises so many
of the eommereial elasses at the present day.— Thus apart from some great
monopolists and bankers who belonged to the upper elass, the trades-people
in general were denied due regard in soeiety and are mentioned by Muslim
ehronielers with a eontempt whieh is eonveyed in words like Dallal, Bania,
Baqqal etc. The treatment meted out to the lower class of traders and
retailers by the rulers during the medieval period shares this contempt. The
harshness with which Alauddin Khalji treated the traders, wholesalers and
retailers, and made their flesh sore, has become proverbial.— Pelsaert too
says that the condition of shopkeepers was good if they were not made
victims of bazar officials. They had gold and silver in their houses but made
exhibition of poverty lest they should be squeezed of their wealth at Wilk¬
in short, their style of living was unimpressive. This poor style of living
was also an important factor in making the middle class of the medieval
period invisible to foreign travellers like Bernier.

This unimpressive way of life was due to many other causes besides fear
of being exploited and sponged by the rich. Ibn Battuta, Nicolo Conti,
Abdur Razzaq, Athnasius Nikitin and a host of others bear testimony to the
poor standard of living of the people even if they belonged to propertied
and non-poor classes.— As late as the early nineteenth century David
Macpherson observed: Born and desiring to pass his life in the same
country where his ancestors were born and passed their lives, whose food is
rice, whose drink is water or milk, to whom wine or strong liquor is an
object of abomination whose warm climate renders clothing, beyond what
decency requires, intolerable, and whose light clothing is made by himself
and his family from the cotton produced in his own fertile fields, whose
customs and religion render utterly inadmissible many articles of enjoyment
and comfort can never have any desire to acquire the produce or
manufactures of Europe.— James Forbes even goes to the extent of
declaring that the balance of trade with Europe was in Indias favour
because of Indian peoples abstemious habits and simple life. The
commodities exported to Europe from India, says he, far exceeded in value
those imported from them thence; the natives of India, from the mildness of
climate, and fertility of their soil, want but few foreign supplies, gold and
silver have been always carried thither by European traders.—


In the process the Hindu middle classes helped in capital formation, even
though on a limited scale, which the upper classes failed to do. An
important contribution of the middle class, especially the Hindu middle
class, was capital formation in medieval India. Apart from the accidents of
war to which Muslims and Hindus were alike exposed, as witnessed during
invasions of the Mongols in the Sultanate period or of Nadir Shah and
Abdali in the Mughal times, it seems that the assets of the Hindu capitalist
were safer than the wealth of the most powerful Muslim nobleman. The
assets of Hindu elites could not be lost as a result of a court intrigue or fall
from favour. On the contrary Muslim nobles, even Muslim kings, used to
borrow large amounts from Hindu Sahukars who were known to possess
wealth. The wealth of the Hindu could pass on from father to son without
being divided up. It could not be taken away by the government under
escheat. The Muslim officers and merchants believed in good and
ostentatious living. The moment they came by some extra money, they
raised, their standard of living and set up larger establishments in proportion
to their wealth. The Hindu was by nature thrifty. Fear of sponging by the
government, kept the possessions of the Hindu capitalist concealed. It was
this that made Hindu merchants sahukars, sarrafs and bankers during
Muslim rule.

Middle Class Behaviour

In short, the poor style of living of the Hindu middle class of the
medieval period made it rather invisible. Besides, it was very small in
numbers. Traders, shopkeepers, jewellers, architects, all added up to a very
small proportion of the population. With its small numbers, its influence
was also limited. But the one chief characteristic of the middle classes was
very much present in medieval India. In behaviour, the hall-mark of the
middle classes is living with chin up, straight shoulder and chest thrown
out, whether the income is less or more and whether it is categorized as
lower, middle or upper middle class. The middle class has been found to be
the custodian of societys undefined but ever increasing rights. It was so
ever, in the medieval period. It was generally the spearhead of any protest
movement. It was respected in society, comprised the respectable Citizens
in the social milieu. One important identification of the middle classes is its



representation of the peoples rights and its readiness to fight for sueh rights.
This distinguishes them from the upper and lower elasses.

Muslim middle elasses in general and Muslim seholars in partieular lived
as a privileged community under Muslim government. It was their own
government and, by and large, they were at peace with the establishment.
But that did not always deter them from protesting injustice. The lower
middle classes like artisans, soldiers and the bazar people could remonstrate
in a more candid way. Two examples of such protests, one each from the
Sultanate and the Mughal periods, would suffice to bring home the point.
The Ilbari sultans (of the so-called Slave Dynasty) had ruled from Delhi for
almost a hundred years (1206-1290). Therefore when Jalaluddin Khalji
ousted the last Ilbari prince, the gentry, commoners and soldiers, rose in a
body, poured out of the many gates of Delhi and assembled at the Badaon
Gate to march and rescue the abducted boy-king Shamsuddin. Malik
Fakhruddin, the Kotwal of Delhi, succeeded in suppressing the tumult, but
so apprehensive became the new Khalji king of the peoples resentment that
he did not venture to enter the city of Delhi for many months and made
Kilughari the seat of his government.—

Bigger in nature was the protest lodged by the citizens of Delhi when the
vanquished Prince Dara Shukoh was humiliated and later executed by
Aurangzeb in 1658. Francois Bernier was present in Chandni Chowk and
witnessed the event. He writes that the crowd assembled upon this
disgraceful occasion was immense; and everywhere I saw the people
weeping and lamenting the fate of Dara.— In one of his letters Aurangzeb
himself writes: The fate of Dara Shukoh excited the passions of the
misguided citizens of Delhi. They wept in sympathy with him and pelted
the loyal Malik Jiwan who had brought him to justice with pots full of urine
and excreta. Royal troops went into action and according to Khafi Khan,
several persons were knocked down and killed and many were wounded If
the Kotwal had not come forward with his policemen, not one of Malik
Jiwans followers would have escaped with life.—

As a king, Muhammad bin Tughlaq was unpopular with the Ulama.
Critical of his action, some of them used to write anonymous letters
containing complaints and abuses for the Sultan. They would seal the letters


writing on the cover By the head of His Majesty none except he should read
the letter. These letters they used to throw into the council hall in the course
of the night. When he (Md. Tughlaq) tore them open, he found abuses and
scandals in the contents.— The art of drafting such letters in Persian was the
speciality of the Ulama, and the king rightly became suspicious of this
group of people. Ibn Battutas account of Muslim bloodshed— and the
executions of the Ulama under his orders is of a piece with that of Isamis in
Futuh-us-Salatin.— In short, thinkers, scholars, Ulama and Qazis,
sometimes openly, at others discreetly, did not refrain from criticising the
sultan and his policies.—

There is an equally interesting example of such an independent protest in
a seventeenth century work entitled Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana by Ahmad
Yadgar. Writing about the strict rules of the Mughals about the law of
escheat, and ruminating over the good old days of the Lodi rule, Ahmad
Yadgar says: God be praised for endowing Sultan (Sikandar Lodi) with such
a generous spirit (of permitting retention of any buried treasure discovered
by someone). In these days (that is, of Mughal emperor Jahangir), if any
one was to find even a few tankahs, our rulers would immediately pull
down his house to examine every nook and corner for more.— If a
seventeenth century chronicler could make bold to write in such a way
under the very nose of the mighty Mughals, it only shows that the Muslim
middle class did sometimes gather courage to ventilate public grievances.
But such occassions were rare. As pointed out earlier, the Muslim educated
elite, the Ulama and Mashaikh, cooperated with the Muslim regime under
which they enjoyed a privileged position.

Hindu Dissent

As compared with the Muslims, the problems of the Hindus were many
and varied. They were unfairly taxed, their traders used to be harassed, their
temples were broken and they were very often forcibly converted to Islam.
There were so many disabilities that they could not take all the inequities
lying down. They protested and resisted. Their dissent was often effective
because it was made in the non-violent Hindu fashion.


Sultan Firoz Tughlaq (1351-1388), writes Shams Siraj Afif, convened a
meeting of the learned Ulama and renowned Mashaikh and suggested to
them that an error had been committed: the Jiziyah had never been levied
from Brahmans: they had been held excused, in former reigns. The
Brahmans were the very keys of the chamber of idolatry, and the infidels
were dependent on them {kalid-i-hujra-i-kufr und va kqfiran bar ishan
muataqid und). They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers
gave it as their opinion that the Brahmans ought to be taxed. The Brahmans
then assembled and went to the Sultan and represented that they had never
before been called upon to pay the Jiziyah, and they wanted to know why
they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were
determined to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the
palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words {kalimat-i-pur
naghmat) were reported to the Sultan, he replied that they might burn and
destroy themselves at once for they would not escape from the payment.
The Brahmans remained fasting for several days at the palace until they
were on the point of death. The Hindus of the city then assembled and told
the Brahmans that it was not right to kill themselves on account of the
Jiziyah, and that they would undertake to pay it for them. In Delhi, the
Jiziyah was of three kinds: 1st class, forty tankahs] 2nd class, twenty
tankahs; 3rd class, ten tankahs. When the Brahmans found their case was
hopeless, they went to the Sultan and begged him in his mercy to reduce the
amount they would have to pay, and he accordingly assessed it at ten
tankahs and fifty jitals for each individual.—

The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions
from the King. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they
belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus
(shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf But Aurangzeb
(1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His
imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. On the publication of
this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679, writes Khafi
Khan, the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the
jharokha of the Emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the
recall of the edict But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints. One
day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, a
vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to the


mosque, with the objeet of seeking relief Money ehangers and drapers, all
kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu bazar meehanies, and workmen of all
kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way Every moment
the crowd increased, and the emperors equippage was brought to a stand¬
still. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them
against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and
horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers
and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah.— Abul Fazl
Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued
for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the
imposition.— There were organized protests in many other places like
Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement, and there
was not a district where the people and Muqaddams did not make
disturbances and resistance.— Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and
translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar
objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694
it was ordered that except for Rajputs and Marathas, no Hindus were to be
allowed to ride an Iraqi or Turani horse or an elephant, nor were they to use
a palanquin, many Hindus defied it like in Multan and
Ahmadnagar.— Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed
in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was
attacked with bricks but escaped.—

These cases of open disapprobation of royal orders were the work mainly
of the Hindu artisan and business classes. In spite of their modesty and
humility they possessed the middle class temperament. As is well-known
Indian manufactures were of excellent quality, often better than European,—
but this does not signify any social advancement of the manufacturers.
Indeed, according to Bernier, they were either wretchedly poor, or who, if
rich assume appearance of poverty a people whose grandees pay for a work
of art considerably under its value and according to their own caprice, and
who do not hesitate to punish an importunate artist or a tradesman with the
Korrah, that long and terrible whip hanging at every Omrahs gate
— Bernier adds that the artisans could not venture to indulge in good fare or
to dress in fine apparel even if they could afford to.— Manucci says that
traders and merchants were sometimes wanting in courage and they could


not claim any high status.— And yet these very people used to defy the
rulers orders. Their strength was known to the regime, that is why most
kings used to treat them harshly. Ziyauddin deelares them to be the most
unserupulous among the seventy-two elasses, (believed to be inhabiting the
world) and Alauddin Khalji visited them with dire punishments.— Even a
mild king like Firoz Tughlaq did not treat them any better. Shams Siraj Aflf
writes that when Firoz Tughlaq was building the fort-eity of Firozabad, he
ordered that every trader who brought goods (grain, salt, sugar, cotton etc.)
to Delhi, was to transport free of charge brieks and stones on his pack-
animals from the old Delhi (Mehrauli) to the construction site at
Firozabad. If the trader refused, government offieials used to carry off his
pack animals and clamp him in jail. But the traders were not to be eowed
down and they more often than not refused to do begar (work without
wages).— Such protests and resistanee against governments injustiee
continued throughout the medieval period. Tavernier writes similar things
about Shahjahan. All waggons whieh come to Surat from Agra or other
places in the Empire and return to Agra and Jahanabad (Shahjahanabad) are
eompelled to earry (the kings) lime whieh eomes from Broaeh It is a great
souree of profit to the Emperor (whose monopoly it was and) who sends it
where he pleases.— Similarly, when Aurangzeb wanted more money and
ordained that the rupees or eoined money of silver, not worth more than
fourteen sols (sous) of Franee, or thereabouts, should pass as worth twenty-
eight sols the sarrafs, who are the money ehangers, resisted the royal
orders, giving various exeuses At last the king in anger sent for the money-
ehangers in the eity of Delhi, and when he found that they eould not be
brought round to his view he ordered one of the aged sarrafs to be thrown,
down the battlements. This terrified the sarrafs and they obeyed.—

It was only the terror ereated by the autoeratie regime that suppressed
these people. Else, they on their own, never failed to register their protests
or go on hartal. Sueh demonstrations and protests, typieal of the middle
elasses, were not eonfmed to the eapital eity of Delhi alone. People fought
for their rights all over the eountry. Fet us take the ease of Gujarat.
Perseeution foreed a large number of Hindu merehants of Surat, led by
Bhimji Parekh, in September 1669, to withdraw from Surat. An English
communieation of November 21 of that year is worth quoting at some
length: You have been formerly advised what un-sufferable tyranny the


banias endured in Surat by the foree exereised by these lordly Moors on
aeeount of their religion The Qazi and other Mughal offieers derived large
incomes from the Banias to redeem their places of idolatarous worship from
being defaced and their persons from their malice and that the general body
of the banias began to groan under their affliction and to take up resolves of
fleeing the country. Bhimji led a deputation of five other banias (panchl) to
Gerald Aungier, who later became the maker of Bombay, to ask for asylum
in Bombay. Aungier played it safe He advised them to proceed to
Ahmadabad instead and from there make their general humble requests to
the King. Then on September 23rd and 24th all the heads of the bania
families, of what condition whatsoever, departed the town, to the number of
8,000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their
brothers, or next of kin. The Qazi was enraged at this and called upon the
governor to turn the banias back. The Governor was inclined to side with
the banias as he understood the important economic role they played in the
life of the city and replied that they were free to go wherever they like. The
banias then proceeded to Broach with the result that the people in Surat
suffered great want, from the banias having bound themselves under severe
penalties not to open any of their shops without order from their Mahager
(Mahajana), or General Council, there was not any provision to be got; the
tanksal (i.e.mint) and custom house shut; no money to be procured, so
much as for house expenses, much less for trade which was wholly at a
stand. The boycott lasted until December 20, 1669 when the banias
returned to Surat on being assured by Aurangzeb of safety of their
religion. This incident clearly shows how Aurangzebs policy of religious
persecution had made his officers more zealous than the king him self It
also shows the organizational capabilities of resistance of the banias and the
leading role played by Bhimji in this affair.— Earlier in 1666, the merchants
of Cambay complained to Aurangzeb against the oppressive local officials
and threatened to flee if their grievances remained unredressed. The
Emperor thereupon ordered that there would be only two qanungos and two
Chaudharis in place of the many reported, and they should treat the
merchants well.—

Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution of Hindus, in particular his
destruction of temples, evoked universal Hindu discontent. It was an old
practice, commencing from Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sind,— to


destroy temples during wars and in times of peace and convert them into
mosques, and was continued throughout the medieval period. Aurangzeb
also did the same in course of his wars in Bihar, Kuch Bihar etc. But when
he started destroying temples in peace time on an unprecedented scale, he
started a wave of general resentment and opposition. The history of
resistance to such cases of temple destruction pertains to the whole country,
but primarily to Gujarat, Mathura, Delhi, Banaras and many places in
Rajasthan. Soon after the order (about demolishing temples) was issued,
reports of the destruction of temples from all over the empire began to
arrive.— To make sure that his orders were faithfully carried out Aurangzeb
instructed that reports of destruction of temples by faujdars and other
officials, were to be sent to the court under the seal of the Qazis and attested
by pious Shaikhs.—

In August, 1669, the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras was demolished.—
The presiding priest of the temple was just in time to remove the idols and
throw them into a neighbouring well which thus became a centre of interest
ever after. The temple of Gopi Nath in Banaras was also destroyed about
the same time. He (Aurangzeb) is alleged to have tried to demolish the
Shiva temple of Jangamwadi in Banaras,— but could not succeed because of
opposition.

Next came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost
of thirty-three lacs of rupees by Raja Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of
Jahangir. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered
to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the
emperor.— No wonder that this created consternation in the Hindu mind.
Priests and protesters from Brindaban fled the place with the idol of Lord
Krishna and housed it in a temple at Kankroli in Udaipur state. A little later
the priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by Vallabhachaya fled with
the idols by night. After an adventurous journey they reached Jodhpur, but
its Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. Therefore,
Damodar Lai, the head of the priesthood incharge of the temple, sent one
Gopi Nath to Maharaja Raj Singh at Udaipur who himself received the
fugitives on the frontiers of the state and decided to house the god at Sihar
on 10 March, 1672.— In course of time the tiny village of Sihar became


famous as Nathdwar after the name of its god, and Mewar of Mira Bai
beeame a great eentre of Vaishnavism in India.

The resistanee gained in strength. In Mareh 1671, a Muslim offieer who
had been sent to demolish temples in and around Ujjain was killed with
many of his followers in the riot that followed his attempt at destroying the
temples there. Aurangzebs religious poliey had ereated a division in the
Indian society. Communal antagonisms resulted in communal riots at
Banaras, Narnaul (1672) and Gujarat (1681) where Hindus, in retaliation,
destroyed mosques.— Temples were destroyed in Marwar after 1678 and in
1680-81, 235 temples were destroyed in Udaipur. Prince Bhim of Udaipur
retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and demolishing many mosques, big
and small, there.— Similarly, there was opposition to destruction of temples
in the Amber territory, which was friendly to the Mughals. Here religious
fairs continued to be held and idols publicly worshipped even after the
temples had been demolished.— In the Deccan the same policy was pursued
with the same reaction. In April 1694, the imperial censor had tried to
prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi
priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the
Rajputs.— Aurangzeb destroyed temples throughout the country. He
destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hardwar) and Ayodhya, but all of them
are thronged with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are still
venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.— Sometimes
he was content with only closing down those temples that were built in the
midst of entirely Hindu population, and his officers allowed the Hindus to
take back their temples on payment of large sums of money. In the South,
where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was
usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing in the Deccan
where the suppression of rebellion was not an easy matter But the
discontent occasioned by his orders could not be thus brought to an end.—
Hindu resistance to such vandalism year after year and decade after decade
throughout the length and breadth of the country can rather be imagined
than described.


Bhakti Movement


The most effective Hindu protest against atrocities was registered by the
Bhakti Movement in medieval India. Bhakti means devotion to God. A
Bhakt may worship Him at home, in the temple, all by himself through
meditation, or in congregations through Bhajan and Kirtan (chorus
singing). He need not go out into the streets to organize a movement. But
this is exactly what happened at the behest of the socio-religious reformers
in the fifteenth-sixteenth century. And the movement triumphed insofar as it
succeeded in saving India from total Islamization. The Bhakta saints who
spearheaded this movement belonged to all classes, but essentially the
protest was a middle class movement and it was a strange combination of
Renaissance, Reformation and dissent.

The Hindus resented conversion of their co-religionists by invaders and
rulers by force. Many such converts used to return to their original faith at
the first opportunity as vouched by Arabic and Persian chroniclers writing
about Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sind and Mahmud of Ghaznis
campaigns in Hindustan. As early as in the time of Sultan Iltutmish (1210-
1236), soon after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206, some
Ulama suggested to him to confront the Hindus with a choice between
Islam and death. The Wazir Nizamul Mulk Junaidi replied: But at the
moment in India the Muslims are so few that they are like salt (in a large
dish). If such orders are to be enforced the Hindus might combine and the
Muslims would be too few in number to suppress(them). However, after a
few years when in the capital and in the regions and small towns, the
Muslims are well established and the troops are larger, it will be possible to
give Hindus, the choice of death or Islam.^ On the other hand, Hindu saints
used to assuage the outraged feelings of Hindus and encourage them
reconvert to Hinduism. For instance Harihar and Bukka, sons of the Raja of
Kampil ,converted to Islam by Muhammad bin Tughlaq, fled his court. At
the instance of sage Vidyaranya they reverted to Hinduism and founded the
Vijayanagar kingdom to resist the expansion of Muslim power in the South.
Like Vidyaranya, there were scores of Bhakta saints who were helping
people to resist injustice and retain their original religion. In Maharashtra,
Namdeva in the fourteenth century declared that people were blind in
insisting upon worshipping in temples and mosques, while His worship
needed neither temple nor mosque.— Such courageous denunciations were
infectious and these spread in Gujarat, Bengal, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.


Ramananda, Kabir, Nanak, Chaitanya, Raidas, Dhanna, Sain, Garibdas and
Dadu Dayal and a host of others spoke out in the same idiom openly and
repeatedly. They came from all classes of society - Raidas was a chamar.
Sain was a barber while Pipa was a Raja, Raja of Gauranggarh - but they
were all respected and listened to. Of these the three most important saints
who turned Bhakti into a movement were Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya.

Sant Kabir lived in U.R from 1425 to about 1505, Guru Nanak in Punjab
from 1469 to 1538 and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Bengal from 1486 to
1534. During this period, particularly after the invasion of Timur (1399
C.E.), northern India was broken up into a number of independent Muslim
kingdoms like Gujarat, Malwa, Jaunpur and Bengal while the Sultanate of
Delhi was ruled by the Saiyyads and Lodis. Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517)
revived the strength of the Sultanate and was the strongest and most
fanatical ruler of the dynasty. Babur conquered Hindustan from 1526 to
1530 and Akbar ascended the throne in 1556. Thus from the beginning of
the fifteenth to the middle of the sixteenth century (1400-1556), India
witnessed terrible political upheavals resulting in large-scale massacres and
conversions. The division of the country into small kingdoms rendered the
task of the Muslim rulers easy in pressurising their Hindu subjects in their
micro units into accepting Islam. The local Sultans and nobles, in order to
control and demoralize the subject people, not only demolished their
temples and imposed legal disabilities upon them but also confronted them
with the choice between Islam and death - a phenomenon which had been
going on since the days of Iltutmish in a rather haphazard manner. It is
therefore necessary to cursorily go through this scenario to be able to make
a correct appraisal of the services of these great saints, and their disciples
and followers, in saving Hindu society from succumbing to Muslim
proselytization.

Punjab was always the first to bear the brunt of Muslim invasions
directed against India, and Muslim invaders were keenly interested in
making converts. In the first half of the fifteenth century the successors of
Timur were holding parts of Punjab to ransom. Under the Mongol invaders
too conversions used to take place on a large scale.— Rebellions of Muslim
adventurers were also creating anarchical conditions.— During this period
and after, therefore, the Muslim population of the Punjab swelled


considerably mainly due to proselytization. Added to this were the large
number of Afghans whom the Saiyyads and Lodis had ealled from aeross
the Indus with a view to consolidating their position. Like in Punjab, in
Sind also the rule of the Turkish Sultans and the pressure of the Mongols
had combined to Islamise the northern parts. In southern Sind the Summas
became Muslims and Hindus by turns, but ultimately they seem to have
adopted Islam, and propagated the religion in their dominions.— in Sind
compulsory conversions to Mahometanism were not infrequent, the
helpless Hindu being forcibly subjected to circumcision on slight or
misconstructed profession, or the false testimony of abandoned
Mahometans— When Humayun took refuge in Sind (1541),— Muslim
population in its cities had grown considerably.

There were Muslim kings in the Kashmir Valley from the middle of the
fourteenth century. However, it was during the reign of Sikandar Butshikan
(1394-1417) that the wind of Muslim proselytization blew the hardest. His
bigotry prompted him to destroy all the most famous temples in Kashmir
and offer the Kashmiris the usual choice between Islam and death. It is said
that the fierce intolerance of Sikandar had left in Kashmir no more than
eleven families of Brahmans.— His contemporary, the Raja of Jammu, had
been converted to Islam by Timur, by hopes, fears and threats.— The
kingdom of Gujarat was founded by Wajih-ul-Mulk, a converted Rajput in
1396. One of its famous rulers, Ahmad Shah (1411-1442) was responsible
for many eonversions. In 1414 he introdueed the Jiziyah, and eolleeted it
with sueh strietness, that it brought a number of eonverts to
Islam.— Mahmud Begharas exertions (1458-1511) in the field of
proselytization were more impressive.— In Malwa there were large number
of Muslims since the days of Khalji and Tughlaq sultans.— These numbers
went on growing during the rule of the independent Muslim rulers of
Malwa, the Ghauris and Khaljis (1401-1562). The pattern of growth of
Muslim population in Malwa was similar to that in the other regions but
their harems were notoriously large, filled as they were with Hindu
inmates.—

About the conversions in Bengal three statements, one each from
Wolseley Haig, Dr. Wise and Duarte Barbosa, should suffice to assess the
situation. Haig writes that it is evident, from the numerieal superiority in


Eastern Bengal of the Muslims that at some period an immense wave of
proselytization must have swept over the country and it is most probable
that the period was the period of Jalaluddin Muhammad (converted son
of Hindu Raja Ganesh) during whose reign of seventeen years (1414-1431)
hosts of Hindus are said to have been forcibly converted to Islam.— With
regard to these conversions, Dr. Wise writes that the only condition he
offered were the Koran or death many Hindus fled to Kamrup and the
jungles of Assam, but it is nevertheless probable that more Muhammadans
were added to Islam during these seventeen years (1414-31) than in the next
three hundred years.— And Barbosa writes that It is obviously an advantage
in the sixteenth century Bengal to be a Moor, in as much as the Hindus
daily become Moors to gain the favour of their rulers.— The militant
Mashaikh also found in Bengal a soil fertile for conversion, and worked
hard to raise Muslim numbers.—

We may linger awhile in Bengal to have a clear picture of the spread of
Islam through methods in which medieval Muslims took pleasure and pride
while modern Muslims maintain a studied silence.— The details of the
conversion of Raja Ganesh bring out the importance of the role of force, of
persuasion and of the Ulama and Sufis in proselytization. In 1409 Ra a
Ganesh occupied the throne of Bengal and sought to establish his authority
by getting rid of the prominent ulama and Sufis.— Qutb-ul-Alam Shaikh
Nurul Haqq wrote to Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi to come and save the Muslims
of Bengal. Ibrahim Sharqi responded to the call, and Raja Ganesh, finding
himself too weak to face the challenge, appealed to Shaikh Nurul Haqq for
help. The latter promised to intercede on his behalf if he became a
Musalman. The helpless Raja was willing, but his wife refused to agree.
Ultimately a compromise was made by the Raja offering to retire from the
world and permitting his son, Jadu, to be converted and ascend his
throne. On Jadu being converted and enthroned as Jalaluddin Shah, Shaikh
Nurul Haqq induced Sultan Ibrahim to withdraw his armies.— If a Raja of
the stature of Ganesh could not face up to the Ulama and the Sufis, other
Rajas and Zamindars were still worse placed. Petty Rajas and Zamindars
were converted to Islam, with their wives and children, if they could not
pay land revenue or tribute in time. Such practice appears to be common


throughout the whole country as instances of it are found from Gujarat— to
Bengal.—

In Uttar Pradesh the region to the east and south of Delhi - Katehar,
Doab, Bayana and Mewat - had become a problem tract in the fifteenth
century, and there the Saiyyad and Lodi sultans contented themselves with
the ignoble but customary satisfaction of plundering the people, and
obtaining converts in the bargain.— Muhammad Bihamad Khani, the author
of Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, gives a clear idea of the keenness of the Muslim
sultans and their subtle methods in obtaining converts. He writes that sultan
Mahmud while fighting Rai Sumer in the vicinity of Irich concluded that if
he allowed his brave warriors to wage the war (outright), they would
undoubtedly extirpate the infidels but he deemed it fit to delay the operation
(or advance slowly) in the hope that the infidels might accept Islam.—

Who could save the Hindus from extinction in such a scenario?
Obviously, leaders of the society, the Brahmans. What the Brahmans as
protectors of their culture achieved in those days, writes Wilhelm von
Pochhammer, has never been properly recorded, probably because a
considerable number of people belonging precisely to this class had been
slaughtered. If success was achieved in preserving Hindu culture in the hell
of the first few centuries, the credit undoubtedly goes to the
Brahmans. They saw to it that not too many chose the cowardly way of
getting converted and that the masses remained true to the holy traditions
on which culture rested— Muslim kings knew this and treated the Brahmans
sternly, restricting their sphere of activity.— The Muslim Mashaikh were as
keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place
of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to
be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one
instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he
belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi
groups. He wrote letters to Sultan Sikandar Lodi,— Babur— and Humayun—
to re-invigorate the Shariat and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and
Jiziyah.— To Babur he wrote. Extend utmost patronage and protection to
theologians and mystics that they should be maintained and subsidized by
the state No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the
Diwan of Islam. Posts of Amirs and Amils should be barred to them.


Furthermore, in eonfirmity with the principles of the Shariat they should be
subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. The non-Muslims
should be made to pay Jiziyah, and Zakat on goods be levied as prescribed
by the law. They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the
Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr concealed and not to
perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely They should not be
allowed to consider themselves equal to the Muslims. He went from
Shahabad to Nakhna where Sultan Sikandar was encamping. His mission
was to personally remind the Sultan of the kingly duties and exert his
influence over him and his nobles. He also wrote letters to Mir Muhammad,
Mir Tardi, Ibrahim Khan Sherwani, Said Khan Sherwani, Khawas Khan and
Dilawar Khan, making frantic appeals to them to live up to the ideals of
Islam, to zealously uphold and strictly enforce the Shariat and extend
patronage to the Ulama and the Mashaikh.— Such communications and
advices did not go in vain. Contemporary and later chroniclers relate how
Sikandar Lodi destroyed idols of Hindu gods and goddesses, and gave their
pieces to Muslim butchers for use as meat-weights. Even as a prince he had
expressed a desire to put an end to the Hindu bathing festival at
Kurukshetra (Thanesar). Subsequently, he ordered that the Hindus, who had
assembled there on the occasion of the solar eclipse be massacred in cold
blood, but later on stayed his hand. In Mathura and other places he turned
temples into mosques, and established Muslim sarais, colleges and bazars
in the Hindu places of worship. The list of his atrocities is endless.— Babur
inherited his religious policy from the Lodis. Sikandar Lodis fanaticism
must have been still remembered by some of the officials who continued to
serve under Babur (who) was content to govern India in the orthodox
fashion.—


The task of redeeming Hindu society, besides Brahmans, devolved on the
Bhakta saints and they performed their obligation with a dedication that
evokes our admiration and reverence. Their task was by no means an easy
one. How to stop erosion in the Hindu society through. Muslim
proselytization? If the trend was allowed to continue unabated, it would
pose danger to the entire complex of the Hindu social structure. To check
the penetration of Islam, particularly in the rural areas, the Hindu saints
after Ramanand began to make Hinduism simple, straightforward and
intelligible. They showed that there was nothing superior or inferior about


one religion or the other, and there was no reason why Hindus should
embraee a religion, implanted from abroad, when their own aneestral
religion gave scope for infinite variety of worship and contained a
philosophy and a message which could satisfy their social and spiritual
needs. But their exhortations were devoid of ill-will towards any other
religion or sect.

Kabir was more than sixty years of age when Sikandar Lodi ascended the
throne and Nanak was twenty. Both saw the world around them and were
dissatisfied with the unjust social and political order in which they lived.
Not far from Nanaks home town of Talwandi, at Shahabad in the Ambala
district, resided Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh. Nanak must have heard
about him and his fundamentalism which was shared by the Lodi monarch
in equal measure, and it were the activities of Mashaikh like Abdul Quddus
and Sultans like Sikandar Lodi which provoked the Bhakta saints to stand
equal to them and confront and encounter them. Kabir openly declared: I
have come to save the devotee. I was sent because the world was in misery
The Almighty sent me to show clearly the beginning and the
end.— Similarly Guru Nanak regarded himself as (having) received from
His door-step the signs {aitan), the chapters {surahs) and the tradition
{hadis) of the prophet.— He taught that there is one God in the world and
no other, and that Nanak the Caliph (or son) of God speaks the truth.— In
language, sometimes soft and sometimes hard, they challenged the
onslaught of Islam by claiming to have received message from God
Himself Kabir was conscious of his apostolic mission and challenged the
concept that Islam was superior to Hinduism. There had been times under
Muslim rule when, if one as much as said that Hinduism was as good as
Islam, he was summarily executed.— Now Bhakta Kabir openly reiterated
that Mecca has verily become Kashi, and Ram has become Rahim.— So
also asserted Guru Nanak when he declared that There is no Hindu, there is
no Musalman.— Most Hindu saints travelled widely and so did Guru
Nanak, acquainting himself with different systems, orders and philosophies.
He freely borrowed from Hindu classics and Muslim orders. He established
the Sangat and the Langar after the way in the Muslim Khanqahs.

The Bhakta saints attempted to resist Islamism in two ways - by
removing internal weaknesses of Hindu society and resisting


proselytization. Both Kabir and Nanak denounced the caste system which
was responsible for many evils in Hindu society. Nanak declared himself to
be with those who are low-born among the lowly,— But like other Bhakta
saints Kabirs denunication of the caste system was as much an inspiration
of Muslim example as response to its pull of conversion.— When Kabir
denounced caste and ritual of the Hindus, he also denounced the
superstitions and rituals of the Muslims; or, conversely, the idea is best
expressed in the words of his disciple Naudhan Pandit (whom Sikandar
Lodi executed): Islam was true, but his own religion was also true.— This
was an open challenge to Muslim propagandism and proselytization. No
wonder that Bhakti reformers were disliked by some Sufi Mashaikh, who
looked upon them as competitors.— If a Muslim changed his religion he
was liable to be condemned to death for apostasy. But under the influence
of these saints many Muslims were converted to Bhakti Hinduism.
Namdeva,— Ramdas, Eknath, Ramanand, Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya and
several other saints had Muslim disciples, Chaitanya openly converted
Muslims to Bhakti Hinduism.— The Bhaktamala relates many instances of
conversions that Pipa effected.

They also infused in the Mughal Emperors a spirit of tolerance. Babur
appreciated the teachings of Guru Nanak,— and on learning how much the
people of the country prized their institutions, Akbar began to look upon
them with affection.— But the influence of Bhaktas on Muslim royalty and
nobility should not be overrated; the influence of Sufis like Gangoh on
them was much more. There is a tendency to seek and find influence of
Sufism on the Bhakti movement. But there is no evidence of such
impulsion. Muslim Mashaikh were as keen on the spread of Islam as the
Ulama. No Sufi could say with Kabir that Mecca has verily become Kashi
and Ram has become Rahim, or with Naudhan that Hinduism is as true as
Islam. The Bhakti movement was an entirely Hindu reformist and resistance
endeavour. All the Bhakta saints were Hindus. There is some controversy
about Kabirs parentage, but the whole background of Kabirs thought is
Hindu.— If these Bhakta saints sometimes spoke in terms of Ram-Rahim,
Krishna-Karim, Allah-Govind and Kashi-Kaba, it was to bring about
Hindu-Muslim unity and to impress upon the neo-Muslims the futility of
conversion. Else, they drew their inspiration from ancient Hindu philosophy


and scriptures instilled into them by their Gurus or gained through intuitive
eonseiousness.

Some Bhaktas eonfmed themselves to purely Hindu language and lore
with equal if not greater sueeess. Sueh an one was Tulsidas. Through his
Ramcharitmanas, he slakes the thirst of those who are weary and heavy
laden with the sorrow of the world.— Sometimes direetly and at others
symbolieally he brings into foeus eontemporary problems of Hindu soeiety,
like the exerueiating experienee of exile in the forests (seen in next
ehapter), the relentless struggle of the righteous against rakshasas, the
unflinching loyalty of the mace-warrior Hanuman (missing in contemporary
scenario), the profound love among brothers (lacking in Mughal royalty),
and above all the ultimate victory of truth over treachery (personified in
Ravan). Tulsidasas impulsion has been immense and lasting. His Ramayan
is widely read with emotion. Ram, Hanuman and Anjaneya temples are
spread all over the country and thronged with devotees.

So, from the very beginning of Muslim rule, from the thirteenth century
onwards, from Namdeva in Maharashtra to Ramanand, Kabir, Nanak,
Chaitanya and Tulsidas in North India, right upto the seventeenth century
and thereafter, a galaxy of middle class socio-religious reformers tried to
help Indian society through sermon and song. They showed the futility of
religious conflicts. They helped check excessive proselytization by
attaeking the easte system and reaehing out to their audienee in the
languages of the eommon people throughout the eountry. Early Bhakta
saints adhered to peaeeful methods, but not all their diseiples in later years.
Kabirs followers spread out throughout North India and the Deeean. Jiwan
Das was the founder of the Satnami seet whieh took up arms against the
Mughals. The Sikh diseiples of Nanaks sueeessor Gurus, for varied reasons,
fought against the Mughals and many times eonverted people by foree. So
did the Marathas.— Aeeording to Abdul Majid Khan it is beeause of
Chaitanyas influenee that large-seale eonversions to Hinduism took plaee at
the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth eentury.— Hindu
saint reformers eontinued to appear in a ehain in the sueeeeding eenturies of
medieval India, infusing eourage and eonfidenee among the people. The
present day strife for Ramjanmabhumi shrine is another legacy of Hindu


Bhakti resistance to Muslim political and religious vandalism in the
medieval age.

Conclusion

There were two major classes of society, the rulers and the ruled, the rich
and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. In between these two, there was a
middle class. The middle order in medieval India had certain peculiarities
which made it different from the middle class of today. It was small in
numbers and, therefore, sometimes it escaped notice especially of
foreigners. With its small numbers its influence was also limited. Its life¬
style also made it insignificant. But the middle class remained custodians of
public weal even in the medieval period. The middle class people
sometimes used to demonstrate and protest, at others beg or purchase, if
they did not actually wrest concessions from the ruling classes. The Bhakti
Movement in medieval India was a middle class movement with far
reaching consequences. It was an age of religious conflict and violence. The
Bhakta saints tried to mi nim ise it. Their mission was to save Hindu society
from ceaseless Muslim onslaught. How was it to live under a polity hostile
to its wellbeing? For an Akbar was a rare phenomenon while Sikandars and
Aurangzebs were many. The Girvan-Vanmanjari of Dhuniraj— written in
1702-04 during the reign of Aurangzeb, brings out this problem clearly. The
book is written in the form of a catechism between two Brahmanas
discussing the correct course of action to be adopted to put a stop to the
injustices of Aurangzeb. One of them advocates protest and resistance. The
other is of the view that such a course would still more exacerbate the
tyranny of the King, but if they cooperated with the regime, they might
obtain some relief and mi nim ise the tribulations of the Hindus under the
Mughal government. Centuries have rolled by, the country has been
partitioned on religious lines, and yet the problem remains as a legacy of
Muslim rule in India. How to live with the Muslims who cannot but
discriminate between the faithful and the infidels? Through appeasement or
confrontation? Not a happy legacy indeed.


Footnotes:


- Bernier, p. 252.

- Jean Baptist Tavernier, Travels in India trs. and ed. V. Ball, 2 vols.
(London, 1889), I, p. 152.

- Misra, B.B., The Indian Middle Classes (Oxford, 1961), pp. 1-65, esp.
164.

- Bernier, pp. 239-99.

-Ibid., p. 252.

- Bernier, pp. 246-53.

- Babur Nama, II, p. 518.

- The Korrah finds repeated mention in Bernier, eg. pp. 228, 252, 256.

- Ira Marvin Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle-Ages
(Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p. 81.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 64.

— Grunebaum, Gustav E. Von, Medieval Islam, p. 171 eited in N.B. Roy,
History of the Afghans (Santiniketan, 1958), p. 92n.

— Ibn Battuta, p. I91;Varthema, p. 152 ff; Mukerjee, R.K. A History of
Indian Shipping (Orient Langmans, 1957), 2nd ed., pp. 143-44.

^J.R.A.S. 1895, pp. 530-31.

— A1 Qalqashindi, p. 51.

— Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, pp. 107-108.

— Barbosa, Duarte, The Book of Barbosa, II, p. 73.

— Della Valle, I, p. 41.


— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 265.

23-24.

— For details see Lai, K.S., Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval
India, pp. 58-62.

^Afif,p. 383.

— Bernier, p. 225.

— Pelsaert, pp. 77-78.

— Terry, p. 391.

— Moreland, op. cit., p. 264.

— Barani, pp. 306-307.

— See the views of Barbosa, Terry and Bernier in Moreland, op. cit., pp.
264-65.

— Major, trs. Conti., p. 23, Nikitin, p. 12 and Abdur Razzaq.

— Macpherson, History of European Commerce with India (London,
1812), p. 391.

— Forbes, James, Oriental Memoirs (London, 1834), II, pp. 158-159.

— Barani, pp. 171-72.

— Bernier, pp. 98-100.

— Khafl Khan, Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, pp. 245-46.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 94.

^ Ibid, S3-93.


— Persian Text, pp. 158-60.

— Ibid., p. 227.

— Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, Persian Text, p. 36.
^Afif,pp. 382-84.

^ Khafi Khan, trs. E and D, VII, p. 296.

— Mamuri, pp. 525-26.

— Khafi Khan, Text, pp. 278-79, 339.

— S.R. Sharma, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 143,
quoting News Letter 11 Deeember, 1694 and 18 April, 1694.

— Saqi Mustaad Khan, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, trs. and annotated by Jadunath
Sarkar (Caleutta, 1947), pp. 78, 94, 95.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 155-56.

— Bernier, p. 228.

— Also Moreland, op. cit., p. 187.

— Manucci, I, pp. 143-44.

— Barani, p. 343.

^Afif,pp. 376-77.

— Tavernier, op. cit., p. 35.

— Manueei, II, pp. 61-62.

— B.G. Gokhale, The Merehant Community in 17th Century India,
Journal of Indian History, Trivandrum, Vol.LIV, April 1976, Pt.l, pp. 117-


141, esp. pp. 126-27.

— All Muhammad Khan, Mirat-i-Ahmadi, I, p. 263.

— Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, p. 190.

— Sharma, S.R., Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 133.
^Ibid.,v. 130.

— Maasir-i-Alamgiri, p. 88.

— Sharma, op. cit., p. 133.

— Maasir-i-Alamgiri, pp. 95-96.

— Ojha, Gauri Shankar, History of Udaipur, I, p. 35.

— Mirat-i-Ahmadi, I, p. 261.

— Jaipur Records, XII, 72-74 cited in Sharma, op. cit., pp. 135-36.

— Jaipur Records, XVI, p. 58.

— Sharma, op. cit., p. 137.

— Manucci, III, p. 245.

— For detailed references see Sharma, op. cit., p. 139.

— Ziyauddin Barani, Sana-i-Muhammadi in Medieval India Quarterly,
Aligarh, I, Part III, pp. 100-105.

— Parasuram Chaturvedi, Sant Kovya, p. 144.

— Mohammad Habib, Some Aspects of the Foundation of the Delhi
Sultanate, Dr. K.M. Ashraf Memorial Lecture (Delhi, 1966), p. 20.


— For details see Lai, Twilight of the Sultanate, pp. 79-100.

2^ III, p. 501.

— Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1841, p.20. Also Thornton,
Gazetteer, IV, p. 296.

^C.H.I.,III, pp. 501-502.

^/Z)/J.,p. 281.

— Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, pp. 168-69.

— Farishtah, II, pp. 184-85.

^ Farishtah, II, p. 202; C.H.I., III, pp. 305-06, 310.

— Day, U.N., Medieval Malwa (Delhi, 1967), pp. 6-7.

^Ibid.,p. 244.

^C.H.I.,III,p. 267.

— Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1894, Pt. Ill, p. 28.

— Barbosa, II, p. 148.

— Qanungo, K.R., Historical Essays, p. 151; Abdul Karim, Social
History of Muslims in Bengal, pp. 136-38, 143-46; Qureshi, I.H., The
Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakis tan Subcontinent (610-1947), Monton
& Co., S-Gravenhage, 1962, pp. 70-71, 74-75.

— In a majlis held at the Khanqah of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya, the
Shaikh averred that the Hindus are a very determined people and it is
diffieult to eonvert them through persuasion. He then narrated a story of the
time of Hazrat Umar as an illustration. The king of Iraq was defeated and
brought as a prisoner before the Caliph. Hazrat Umar gave him a ehoiee
between Islam and death. The king refused to beeome Musalman, at whieh


the Caliph summoned the exeeutioner. The king was very astute and he
begged Umar to let him queneh his thirst before he died. His request was
granted, and as he was a king, a slave brought him water in a bowl of gold.
This he did not aeeept, nor in a bowl of silver. He said that the water should
be brought in an earthen cup. When this was done, the king requested the
Caliph that until he had taken the water, he may not be killed. The plea was
conceded. The king then dashed the cup to the ground. It was broken and its
contents spilt. The king addressed the Caliph to keep his promise of not
killing him until he had drunk the water. Hazrat Umar was as perplexed as
he was impressed by the intelligence of the king. At last he handed him
over to a respectable person to bring him round to accepting Islam. In his
company, over a period of time, the kings heart was changed and he agreed
to be converted (Sijzi, Favaid-ulFvad, trs. Ghulam Ahmad Biryan, pp. 297-
98).

— M. Mujeeb, op. cit., p. 292.

— Ghulam Husain Salim, Riyaz-us-Salatin, trs. Abdus Salam, pp. 112 ff.

^ C.H.I., III, pp. 305-06.

— Satya Krishna Biswas, Banshasmriti (Bengali, Calcutta, 1926), pp.6-
10; Census of India Report, 1901, VI, Part I, Bengal, pp. 165-181.

— Lai, K.S., Indian Muslims: Who Are They, p. 46.

— Muhammad Bihamad Khani, Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, English trs. by
Muhammad Zaki, pp. 57-58.

— Indias Road to Nationhood: A Political History of the Sub-Continent
trs. by S.D.Marathe, Allied Publishers (Bombay, 1961).

— Afif, pp. 382-83; Farishtah, I, p. 182; Dorn, Makhzan-i-Afghana, I, p.
65.

— Maktubat-i-Quddusiya (Delhi, 1871), pp. 44-46.

— Ibid., pp. 335-37.


^Ibid.,p. 338.

— S.A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in
Akbars Reign, pp.

— For details see Zamiruddin Siddiqi, Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh and
the eontemporary rulers, paper read at the Indian History Congress,
December, 1969.

— Abdullah, Tarikh-i-Daudi, pp. 39, 96-99; Dorn, Niamatullahs
Makhzan-i-Afghana, pp. 65-66,166; Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari,
I, pp. 323, 331, 335-36; Farishtah, I, pp. 182, 185-86; Ahmad Yadgar,
Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, pp. 47, 62-63.

— Sharma, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 9. For atrocities
committed on the Hindus, as depicted in their literary works, see The Delhi
Sultanate, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, pp. 631-36.

— Kabir: Siddhant Dipika, Adi Mangal, cited in Tara Chand, Influence
of Islam on Indian Culture, p. 151.

— Khazan Singh, The History and Philosophy of Sikhhism, II, p. 350.

— Tara Chand, op. cit. p. 168.

^ Afif, p. 388; Farishtah, I, 182.

— Yugalanand, Kabir Sahib ki Sakhi, Madhya ka Ang.

— Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p. 586.

— Macauliffe, Max Arthur, The Sikh Religion, Its Gurus, Sacred
Writings and Authors, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1909), I, 186.

— Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment, p.

146.


— For details see Lai, Twilight, p. 191.


— S.A.A. Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements, pp. 57-58.

— M.G. Ranade, Rise of the Maratha Power, p. 75.

— D.C. Sen, Chaitanya and His Age, p. 14; Abdul Karim Social History
of the Muslims in Bengal, pp. 150-202-204.

— Indian Antiquary, III, 1874, 297-98.

— Badaoni, II, 258.

— Westcott, G.H., Kabir and the Kabir Panth, p. 118. Also Ahmad
Shah, Bijak of Kabir, p. 40.

— Tara Chand, op. cit., p. 145.

— Khafi Khan, II, pp. 115-118; Manucci, II, p. 119.

— Abdul Majid Khan, Research about Muslim Aristocracy in East
Pakistan in Social Research in East Pakistan, ed. P. Bessaignet, Asiatic
Society of Pakistan (Dacca, 1960), pp. 23-25.

— Text edited by U.P. Shah, Baroda, 1960.


Lower Classes and Unmitigated
Exploitation

Chapter 7

The Muslims dominate the infidels, but the latter fortify themselves in
mountains rugged places, as well as in bamboo groves Hence they cannot
be subdued

- Ibn Battuta

Lower classes formed the bulk of the population. They were
economically poor and socially degraded. They existed to provide food and
apparel, services and comforts, to the higher classes, and resided in towns
and villages. In urban areas these comprised all kinds of artisans from
basket and rope makers to clothprinters, embroiders, carpet makers, silk-
weavers, blacksmiths, tin workers, carpenters, oil-men, barbers, jugglers,
mountebanks, street singers, brewers, tailors, betel leaf sellers, flower
sellers, masons, stone-cutters, bullock-cart drivers, <io/i-carriers, water-
carriers, domestic servants, dhobis and workers in a hundred other skilled
and unskilled crafts.- In the villages there lived peasants and shepherds,
besides a few artisans of the vocations enumerated above, although of
inferior skill. The quality of work of the urban artisans and craftsmen used
to be good. Let us take one example, that of stone-cutters and builders of
edifices. Timur or Tamerlane, who invaded Hindustan in 1398, was highly
impressed with Indian craftsmen and builders and on his return home from
India he took with him architects, artists and skilled mechanics to build in
his mud-walled Samarqand, edifices like the Qutb Minar and the (old) Jama
Masjid of Delhi constructed by Firoz Shah Tughlaq.- Babur too was pleased
with the performance of Indian workmen and described how thousands of
stone-cutters and masons worked on his buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana,
Dholpur, Gwalior and Koil. In the same way there are numberless artisans
of every sort in Hindustan.-


Despite this they were an exploited lot, and so were all others, tillers of
the soil in the villages and workmen in towns. It is true that in the medieval
times the concept of welfare state was not widely prevalent, although it was
not entirely unknown, and many kings and nobles are known to have tried
to promote the general wellbeing of the people. On a study of contemporary
source materials, it appears that the condition of the people of India up to
the fifteenth century was not deplorable. This is borne out by the evidence
provided by Indian writers and foreign travellers from the eleventh to the
fifteenth century. But thereafter there is hardly any foreign visitor to India
in sixteenth-seventeenth century in particular, who was not struck by the
extremely miserable existence of the lower class people. Such a situation
prevailed in all parts of the country, north and south, east and west. We may
attempt a study of the economic and social condition of these lower classes
under two categories: (1) peasants and agriculturists, and (2) artisans and
labourers, for better comprehension about their exploitation by the upper
classes as well as the government of the day.

Peasants and Agriculturists

The condition of the peasantry in India, up to the fourteenth century, was
not bad. Contemporary Indian writers and foreign travellers do not
generally talk about poverty; on the contrary they give an impression of the
wellbeing of the tillers of the soil. Alberuni (eleventh century) has said
many things about the Hindus, but nowhere does he say that the people
were living in suffering or want. Minhaj Siraj, Ibn Battuta, Shihabuddin
Abbas Ahmad, the author of Masalik-ul-Absar, Al-Qalqashindi, the author
of Subh-ul-Asha, Amir Khusrau and Shams Siraj Afif (thirteenth-fourteenth
centuries), even talk of the prosperity of the people. Even Barani is
impressed with their wealth and conveys this impression when he feels
delighted at the action of contemporary Muslim rulers against rich landlords
and cultivators.- The decline of the political power of the Sultanate in the
fifteenth century, saw a general recovery of people's strength and prosperity
in good measure.

But by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries conditions are quite
different. They change to such an extent that almost all foreign and many
Indian writers are struck by the crushing poverty of the Indian peasant and


do not fail to write about it. Athanasius Nikitin, Varthema, Barbosa, Paes,
Nuniz, Linschoten, Salbank, Hawkins, Jourdain, Sir Thomas Roe, Terry and
a host of others, all talk of the grinding poverty of the Indian people. It will
serve no purpose to cite from each one of them, but one or two quotations
may be given as specimens to convey the general trend of their impressions.
Pelsaert, a Dutch visitor during Jahangirs reign, observes: The common
people (live in) poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people
can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and
the dwelling place of bitter woe their houses are built of mud with thatched
roofs. Furniture there is little or none, except some earthenware pots to hold
water and for cooking- Salbank, writing of people between Agra and
Lahore of about the same period, says that the plebian sort is so poor that
the greatest part of them go naked.- These two quotations would suffice to
show how miserable the common people in the middle of the seventeenth
century were. These and many others that follow lead one to the
inescapable conclusion that the condition of the peasantry in India during
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had considerably deteriorated.

It is pertinent to ask how the peasant during this period was reduced to
such straits. India of the medieval times was mainly agricultural, and
histories and legends of the times do not tire of singing in praise of the
wealth and glory of the Great Mughals. Then how did the peasant become
so miserably poor? Were there any ideas and actions of rulers which led to
the impoverishment of the agriculturists? Also, were there any ideas of the
peasants themselves which taught them to reconcile themselves to their lot
and did not prompt them to fight against their economic disablement?
Contemporary chronicles do betray the existence of such ideas. That these
have not yet been analysed by historians, does not mean that these ideas
were not there. An attempt is being made here to discover such ideas and
assess their effects.

To find the roots of the miserable condition of the agriculturists in the
seventeenth century, one has naturally to look back to earlier times and,
indeed, at the very nature of the Muslim conquest of India beginning with
the thirteenth century. In the history of Muslim conquest, a unique
phenomenon was witnessed in India. Contrary to what happened in Central
Asia, Persia or Afghanistan, India could not be completely conquered, nor


could its people be eonverted to the Islamie faith. On the other hand, a
eeaseless resistanee to the Muslim rule in the thirteenth, fourteenth and
fifteenth eenturies is elearly borne out by the reeords of the times. If
Muslim chroniclers gloat over unqualified victories for their Turkish kings,
there are a large number of inscriptions of Hindu kings who too lay
exaggerated claim to military successes.- One thing which is clear beyond
doubt is that throughout the Sultanate period (and also the Mughal period),
there was stiff resistance to Muslim rule, and in one region or the other of
the country, the authority of the Sultanate was being openly challenged.

Naturally, the Muslim kings gave much thought to finding some means to
suppress the recaleitrant elements. Besides other things, one idea that struck
Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) was that it was wealth which was the source
of rebellion and disaffection. It encouraged defiance and provided means of
revolt. He and his counsellors deliberated that if somehow people could be
impoverished, no one would even have time to pronounee the word
rebellion.- How was this to be done? The Ulama would not have found it
difficult to suggest a remedy. It is laid down in the Hidaya that when an
infidel country is conquered, the Imam can divide it among the Muslims.
He ean also leave it in the hands of the original inhabitants, exacting from
them a eapitation tax, and imposing a tribute on their lands. If the infidels
are to lose their lands, their entire moveable property should also be taken
away from them. In ease they are to eontinue with eultivating the land, they
should be allowed to retain sueh a portion of their moveable property as
may enable them to perform their business.- In India the eonquered land
was divided among Muslim offieers, soldiers and Ulama in lieu of pay or as
reward. Some land was kept under Khalisa or direetly under the eontrol of
the regime. But in all eases the tiller of the soil remained the original Hindu
eultivator. As an infidel he was to be taxed heavily, although a minimum of
his moveable property like oxen, eows and buffaloes {nisab) was to be left
with him.— The prineiple of the Shariah was to leave with him only as
mueh as would have helped him earry on with his eultivation, but at the
same time to keep him poor and subservient.


Bare Subsistence


According to W.H. Moreland the question really at issue was how to
break the power of the rural leaders, the ehiefs and the headmen of
parganas and villages— Sultan Alauddin therefore undertook a series of
measures to erush them by striking at their major souree of power-wealth.—
But in the proeess, leaders and followers, rieh and poor, all were affeeted.
The king started by raising the land tax (Kharaj) to fifty pereent. Under
rulers like Iltutmish and Balkan, it does not seem to have been above one-
third of the produce. Furthermore, under Alauddins system all the land
occupied by the rich and the poor was brought under assessment at the
uniform rate of fifty per cent. This measure automatically reduced the
chiefs practieally to the position of peasants. The king also levied house-tax
and grazing tax. According to the contemporary chronicler Ziyauddin
Barani, all milk-producing animals like cows and goats were taxed.
According to Farishtah, animals up to two pairs of oxen, a pair of buffaloes
and some cows and goats were exempted.— This concession was based on
the principle of nisab, namely, of leaving some minimum capital to enable
one to carry on with ones work.— But it was hardly any relief, for there
were taxes like kari, (derived from Hindi word Kar), charai and Jiziyah.
The sultans of Delhi colleeted Jiziyah at the rate of forty, twenty and ten
tankahs from the rich, the middleclass and the poor respectively.—

In short, a substantial portion of the produce was taken away by the
government as taxes and the people were left with the bare minimum for
sustenance. For the Sultan had direeted that only so much should be left to
his subjects (raiyyat) as would maintain them from year to year without
admitting of their storing up or having artieles in exeess. Sultan Alauddins
rigorous measures were taken note of by eontemporary writers both in India
and abroad. In India eontemporary writers like Barani, Isami and Amir
Khusrau were inelined to believe him to be a perseeutor of the Hindus.
Foreigners also gathered the same impression. Maulana Shamsuddin Turk,
a divine from Egypt, was happy to learn that Alauddin had made the
wretehedness and misery of the Hindus so great and had redueed them to
sueh a despieable eondition that the Hindu women and ehildren went out
begging at the doors of the Musalmans.— The same impression is eonveyed
in the writings of Isami and Wassaf — While summing up the aehievements
of Alauddin Khalji, the contemporary ehronieler Barani mentions, with due
emphasis, that by the last deeade of his reign the submission and obedienee


of the Hindus had become an established fact. Such a submission on the
part of the Hindus has neither been seen before nor will be witnessed
hereafter. In brief, not only the Hindu Zamindars, who had been
accustomed to a life of comfort and dignity, were reduced to a deplorable
position, but the Hindus in general were impoverished to such an extent that
there was no sign of gold or silver left in their houses, and the wives
of Khuts and Muqaddams used to seek sundry jobs in the houses of the
Musalmans, work there and receive wages.— The poor peasants (balahars)
suffered the most. The fundamentalist Maulana Ziyauddin Barani feels
jubilant at the suppression of the Hindus, and writes at length about the
utter helplessness to which the peasantry had been reduced because the
Sultan had left to them bare sustenance and had taken away everything else
in kharaj (land revenue) and other taxes.—

But there was much greater oppression implicit in this measure. It was
difficult to collect in full so many and such heavy taxes. One of the standing
evils in the revenue collection consisted in defective realization which
usually left large balances,— and unrealised balances used to become
inevitable. Besides, lower revenue officials were corrupt and extortionate.
To overcome these problems, Sultan Alauddin created a new ministry called
the Diwan-i-Mustakhraj. The Mustakhraj was entrusted with the work of
inquiring into the revenue arrears, and realizing them.— We shall discuss
about the tyranny of this department a little later; suffice it here to say that
in Alauddins time, besides being oppressed by such a grinding tax-
structure, the peasant was compelled to sell every maund of his surplus
grain at government controlled rates for replenishing royal grain stores
which the Sultan had ordered to be built in order to sustain his Market
Control.—

After Alauddins death (C.E. 1316) most of his measures seem to have
fallen into disuse, but the peasants got no relief, because Ghiyasuddin
Tughlaq who came to the throne four years later (C.E. 1320) continued the
atrocious practice of Alauddin. He also ordered that there should be left
only so much to the Hindus that neither, on the one hand, they should
become arrogant on account of their wealth, nor, on the other, desert their
lands in despair.— In the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq even this latter
fear turned out to be true. The Sultans enhancement of taxation went even


beyond the lower limits of bare subsistenee. For the people left their fields
and fled. This enraged the Sultan and he hunted them down like wild
beasts.—

Still eonditions did not become unbearable all at once. Natures bounty to
some extent compensated for the cruelty of the king. If the regime was
extortionist, heavy rains sometimes helped in bumper production. Babur
noted that Indias crops are all rain grown.— Farming in north India
depended upon the monsoon rains coming from the Bay of Bengal.
Artificial irrigation was there on a very limited scale, for irrigation is not at
all a necessity in cultivating crops and orchards. Autumn crops {Kharif
season) grow by the downpour of the rains themselves; and strange it is that
spring crops {Rabi season) grow even when no rain falls. Young trees are
watered during two or three years after which they need no more
(watering)— as the ground gets soaked with rain in the monsoon season. Ibn
Battuta gives a detailed description of the crops grown in India and adds:
The grains that have been described are Kharif grains. They are harvested
60 days after sowing. Thereafter Rabi grains like wheat, barley and massoor
are sown. These are sown in the very same field in which Rabi grains (are
harvested). The soil of this country is very fertile and is of excellent quality.
Rice is sown three times in the year. Production of rice is the largest in the
country. Sesame and sugar-cane are also sown with Kharif?^ Shams Siraj
Afif writes that when, during the monsoon season, there were spells of
heavy rains, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq appointed officers to examine the banks
of all the water courses and report how far the inundations had extended. If
he was informed that large tracts had been made fertile by the spread of
waters, he was overwhelmed with joy. But if any village went to ruin (on
account of floods), he treated its officials with great severity.—

But the basic policy of impoverishing the people, resulted in crippling of
agricultural economy. By the Mughal period the condition of the peasantry
became miserable; if there was any progress it was in the enhancement of
taxation. According to W.H. Moreland, who has made a special study of the
agrarian system of Mughal India, the basic object of the Mughal
administration was to obtain the revenue on an ever-ascending scale. The
share that could be taken out of the peasant's produce without destroying his
chances of survival was probably a matter of common knowledge in each


locality. In Akbars time, in Kashmir, the state demand was one-third, but in
reality it eame to two-thirds.— The Jagirdars in Thatta (Sindh) did not take
more than half. In Gujarat, aecording to Geleynsen who wrote in 1629, the
peasant was made to part with three-quarters of his harvest. Similar is the
testimony of De Laet, Fryer and Van Twist.— During Akbars reign, says
Abul Fazl, evil hearted offieers beeause of sheer greed, used to proeeed to
villages and mahals and saek them.— Conditions beeame intolerable by the
time of Shahjahan when, aecording to Manucci, peasants were eompelled to
sell their women and ehildren to meet the revenue demand.— Manrique
writes that the peasants were earned off to various markets and fairs, (to be
sold) with their poor unhappy wives behind them carrying their small
ehildren all erying and lamenting— Bernier too affirms that the unfortunate
peasants who were ineapable of discharging the demands of their rapaeious
lords, were bereft of their ehildren, who were earried away as slaves.— Here
was also confirmation, if not actually the beginning, of the practice of
bonded labour in India.

In these eireumstanees the peasant had little interest in eultivating the
land. Bernier observes that as the ground is seldom tilled otherwise than by
compulsion the whole country is badly cultivated, and a great part rendered
unproductive The peasant cannot avoid asking himself this question: Why
should I toil for a tyrant who may come tomorrow and lay his rapacious
hands upon all I possess and value without leaving me the means (even) to
drag my own miserable existence? - The Timariots (Timurids), Governors
and Revenue contractors, on their part reason in this manner: Why should
the negleeted state of this land ereate uneasiness in our minds, and why
should we expend our own money and time to render it fruitful? We may be
deprived of it in a single moment Let us draw from the soil all the money
we can, though the peasant should starve or abscond— The situation made
the tax-gatherer eallous and exploitative on the one hand and the peasant
fatalistie and disinterested on the other. The result, in Berniers own words,
was that most towns in Hindustan are made up of earth, mud, and other
wretehed material; that there is no eity or town (that) does not bear evident
marks of approaehing deeay— Wherever Muslim despots ruled, ruin
followed, so that, writes he, similar is the present eondition of
Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Palestine, the onee wonderful plain of Antioeh,


and so many other regions anciently well cultivated, fertile and populous,
but now desolate Egypt also exhibits a sad picture —

To revert to the Mughal empire. An important order in the reign of
Aurangzeb describes the Jagirdars as demanding in theory only half but in
practice actually more than the total yield.— Describing the conditions of
the latter part of the seventeenth century Mughal empire. Dr. Tara Chand
writes: The desire of the State was to extract the economic rent, so that
nothing but bare subsistence, remained for the peasant. Aurangzebs
instructions were that there shall be left for everyone who cultivates his
land as much as he requires for his own support till the next crop be reaped
and that of his family and for seed. This much shall be left to him, what
remains is land tax, and shall go to the public treasury.—

Conditions could not always have been that bad. There were steps taken
from time to time to help cultivation and ameliorate the condition of the
agriculturists. Shamsuddin Iltutmish constructed a large tank called Hauz-i-
Shamsi. Traces of Alauddin Khaljis Hauz-i-Khas and Firoz Tughlaqs
irrigation canals still exist. Similar steps taken in Mughal times are also
known. But such steps in aid of the development were taken because these
could offer better means of increasing the revenue. Some steps which
looked like helping the agriculturists, sometimes resulted in their perpetual
penury. For example, a very common administrative measure of the
medieval times was to advance loans to peasants to help them tide over
their difficulties. But the important ideal entertained by rulers can be best
summarized in the words of Sher Shahs instructions to his Amils: Be lenient
at the time of assessment, but show no mercy at the time of collection. This
was, on the face of it, a good principle. But even Sher Shah Suri, renowned
for his concern for the wellbeing of cultivators, was much more keen about
the benefits to be drawn by his Afghan clansmen from the lands they
administered. He sent his good old loyal experienced servants to districts
which yielded good profits and advantages and after two years or so
transfered them and sent other servants like them that they may also
prosper.— It was of course the peasant who paid for this prosperity.


Collection of Arrears


We have earlier referred to the problem of eolleetion of arrears. When
agrieulture was almost entirely dependent on rainfall and land tax was
uniformally high, it was not possible for the peasants to pay their revenue
regularly and keep their accounts ever straight with the government. The
revenue used to fall into arrears. From the study of contemporary sources it
is almost certain that there were hardly any remissions - even against
conversion to Islam. Muslim rulers were very keen on proselytization.
Sultan Firoz Tughlaq rescinded Jiziyah for those who became
Muhammadan.— Sometimes he also instructed his revenue collectors to
accept conversions in lieu of Kharaj.— Rajas and Zamindars who could not
deposit land revenue or tribute in time had to convert to Islam.— Bengal and
Gujarat provide specific instances which go to show that such rules
prevailed throughout the Muslim-ruled regions.— But remissions of Kharaj
were not allowed. On the other hand arrears went on accumulating and the
kings tried to collect them with the utmost rigour. In the Sultanate period
there was a full-fledged department by the name of the Diwan-i-
Mustakharaj. The work of this department was to inquire into the arrears
lying in the names of collectors (Amils and Karkuns) and force them to
realize the balances in full.— Such was the strictness in the Sultanate period.
Under the Mughals arrears were collected with equal harshness. The system
then existing shows that the peasants were probably never relieved of the
burden of arrears. In practice it could hardly have been possible always to
collect the entire amounts and the balance was generally put forward to be
collected along with the demand of the next year. A bad year, therefore,
might leave an intolerable burden for the peasants in the shape of such
arrears. These had a natural tendency to grow It also seems to have been a
common practice to demand the arrears, owed by peasants who had fled or
died, from their neighbour. And peasants who could not pay revenue or
arrears frequently became predial slaves.—

In short, between the thirteenth century when armies had to march to
collect the revenue,— and the seventeenth century when peasants were
running away from the land because of the extortions of the state, no
satisfactory principle of assessment or collection except extortion could be
discovered. The situation became definitely worse in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries as attested to by contemporary historians Jean Law and
Ghulam Hussain. It is this general and continued stringency that was the


legacy of the Mughal empire and the Indian Muslim states which continued
under the British Raj.

Another idea of the rulers of medieval India was to keep the prices of
commodities of everyday necessity low. This idea too emanated in the time
of Alauddin Khalji. It was either his own brain-child or that of his courtiers
and Ulama. His passion for incessant conquests and constant invasions of
Mongols had rendered maintenance of a large army unavoidable. Even if he
had recruited the large number of soldiers on a moderate salary, the entire
treasure of the state would have been exhausted in five or six
years.— Alauddin, therefore, decided to cut down the salary of soldiers; but
to prevent their falling victim to economic distress,— he also decided to
reduce the prices of commodities of daily use.

To the contemporary chronicler these prices were quite low and
fluctuation, not even of a dang (small copper coin), was ever allowed
whether in seasons of drought or of plenty. Indeed the low and fixed prices
in the market were considered to be one of the wonders of the age. But
when a husbandman paid half of his hard earned produce in land tax, some
portion of the remaining half in other sundry duties, and then was
compelled to sell his grain at cheap rates to the governments. 50 it does not
speak well of the general condition of the peasantry in those days.— They
could never have been happy in selling their grain cheap in the open market
nor to the government itself at fixed rates without making profit. Profit is
the greatest incentive to production, but it was completely checked by
Alauddins market regulations and the peasants seem to have lived a life of
monotony and low standard.

Without caring to understand that low prices cripple production and
impoverish the producer, many sultans after Alauddin Khalji took pride in
competing with him in keeping prices low. But their actions led not only to
the impoverishment of the peasantry but also of shopkeepers and
businessmen. Shams Siraj Afif feels jubilant at describing and listing the
low prices during the reign of Firoz Tughlaq, claiming that while Alauddin
had to make strenuous efforts to bring down the prices, in the time of Firoz
Tughlaq they remained low without resorting to any coercion.— Fike
Alauddin, Sikandar Fodi also used to keep a constant watch on the price-


level in the market.— Abdullah, the author of Tarikh-i-Daudi, says that
during the reign of Ibrahim Lodi the priees of commodities were cheaper
than in the reign of any other Sultan except in Alauddins last days, and adds
that whereas in Alauddins time the cheapness of prices was maintained
through compulsion, force and dire punishments, in Ibrahims reign prices
remained low naturally.—

So Alauddin Khalji had pioneered the idea of maintaining prices of
necessaries at cheap rates. It was followed by his successors up to the
beginning of the sixteenth century, without perhaps caring for its
implications on the condition of the peasantry. Historians of Sher Shah
affirm that he was indebted to Alauddin in laying down his agrarian policy
and Akbar adopted many measures of Sher Shah. During the Mughal period
prices by and large went up,— although as late as in the reign of Aurangzeb,
sometimes the prices reported were regarded as exceptionally cheap. But
since the land revenue accounted for by far the larger portion of the
peasants surplus produce, it is obvious that this increase must have wiped
out any possible advantage that the peasantry might have obtained through
a rise in the prices.—

Besides these handicaps, the peasant suffered because there were no clear
ideas about a regular commissariat service to maintain supply-line for the
army during a campaign. There is evidence that camp-markets were
sometimes established for the convenience of soldiers.— There are also
situations on record when the soldiers were encouraged to loot the peasants
to obtain grain.— Sher Shah took appropriate measures to see that
agriculturists were not harassed by an army on march, but Babur noted that
on the news of the arrival of an army the peasants used to leave their land,
flee for life and establish themselves elsewhere. Encouragement to soldiers
to loot was inherent in khums tax, through which the state obtained as its
share one-fifth of the booty collected by the troops, while four-fifth was left
with the soldiers.

And above all, one fact is clear in the chronicles of medieval India - any
measures against the higher classes ultimately affected the peasants,
because any loss to the former was surreptitiously transferred to the
peasants. For, as Sir Thomas Roe (1615-19) wrote, the people of Hindustan


lived as fishes do in the sea - the great ones eat up the little. For first the
farmer robs the peasant, the gentlemen robs the farmer, the greater robs the
lesser and the King robs all.— Bernier corroborates the conclusion when he
writes: In eastern countries, the weak and the injured are without any refuge
whatever; and the only law that decides all controversies is the cane and the
caprice of a governor.—

Of all the ideas, motivations and actions mentioned above leading to the
impoverishment of the peasantry, the one of leaving nothing but bare
subsistence, was the most atrocious. Writing about the times of Aurangzeb,
Dr. Tara Chand rightly observes that the policy (of leaving) bare subsistence
was suicidal for it killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. It left no
incentive for increasing the production or improving the methods of
cultivation.— Consequently, there was a progressive deterioration in the
living standards of the peasantry as decades and centuries passed. As said
earlier, Alberuni, Barani, Ibn Battuta and Shams Siraj Afif talk about the
prosperity of the people right up to the fourteenth century. R.H. Major in his
translation of the works of Nicolo Conti, Athnasius Nikitin, Santo Stefano
etc.,— only refers to the poverty of the Indian peasant in the fifteenth
century. But Babur in the sixteenth century witnessed extreme poverty; he
repeatedly talks about langoti as the only apparel and khichri as the only
food.— Witnesses for the seventeenth century are unanimous in observing
extreme poverty of the peasantry.

Resistance of the Peasantry

The idea of leaving only the bare minimum to the peasant and collecting
the rest of his hard-earned produce in land revenue and other taxes,
remained the basic policy of the rulers during the medieval times. Some
chroniclers were aware of its evil effects. Shams Siraj Afif, writing in the
days of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1351-88) says that Unwise regulations had
been made in former reigns, and the raiyyats and subjects were oppressed in
the payment of revenue. Several writers told the author of this work that it
was the practice to leave the raiyyat one cow and take away all the rest.—
Such a policy proved counter-productive. It not only harmed the
agriculturists but also the Muslim regime, for, in place of minimising
opposition, it actually encouraged resistance. In the unequal struggle


between the poor peasantry and the mighty government carried on over a
long period of time the tillers of the soil ultimately lost. But not without
stiff resistance. Hindu Zamindars as the leaders and the peasants as their
followers, both fought against the unjust demands of the king. Under
Alauddin himself the Khuts and Muqaddams (Zamindars) avoided to pay
taxes, did not care for the summons of the Diwan-i-Wazarat or Revenue
Department, ignored to call at his office and paid no heed to the revenue
officials.— And the peasants, finding continuance of cultivation
uneconomic and the treatment of the regime unbearable, left the fields and
fled into the jungle from where they organized resistances. In this
confrontation Zamindars played the role of leaders and the peasants joined
under their banner.

Ibn Battuta describes this scenario. The Muslims dominate the infidels,
writes he, but the later fortify themselves in mountains, in rocky, uneven
and rugged places as well as in bamboo groves (or jungles) which serve
them as ramparts. Hence they cannot be subdued except by powerful
armies.— The story of the resistance of the Hindus to Muslim dominance
and injustice is repeated by many contemporary writers. Ziyauddin Barani
says that if the Hindus do not find a mighty sovereign at their head nor
behold crowds of horse and foot with drawn swords and arrows threatening
their lives, they fail in their allegiance, refuse payment of revenue and incite
a hundred tumults and revolts.— Similar is the testimony of Amir Khusrau,
Ibn Battuta, Vidyapati and the Muslim chroniclers of the fifteenth
century.— In the fifteenth century, when the Sultanate of Delhi had grown
weak, the tillers of the soil evaded, more than ever, payment of land tax,
and revenue could be collected only through army sorties in regular yearly
or half-yearly expeditions.— Such resistance continued throughout, for the
Indian peasant had his own survival strategies. These comprised mainly of
two options - to fight with determination as far as possible, but, if resistance
proved of no avail, to flee and settle down elsewhere. Medieval Indian
society, both urban and agrarian, was to some extent an armed society. In
cities and towns the elite carried swords like walking sticks. In villages few
men were without at least a spear or bow and arrows, and they were skilled
in the use of these arms. In 1632, Peter Mundy actually saw in the present
day Kanpur district, labourers with their guns, swords and bucklers lying by
them while they ploughed the ground.— Similarly, Manucci described how


in Akbars days the villagers of the Mathura region defended themselves
against Mughal revenue-collecting officers: The women stood behind their
husbands with spears and arrows, when the husband had shot off his
matchlock, his wife handed him the lance, while she reloaded the
matchlock.^ The countryside was studded with little forts, some
surrounded by nothing more than mud walls, but which nevertheless
provided centres of the general tradition of rebellion and agrarian unrest.
Armed peasants provided contingents to Baheliyas, Bhadauriyas,
Bachgotis, Mandahars and Tomars in the earlier period, to Jats, Marathas
and Sikhs in the later.

But as the people put up a continual resistance, the Muslim government
suppressed them ruthlessly. In this exercise the Mughal emperors were no
better than the pre-Mughal sultans. We have often referred to the atrocities
of the Delhi sultans and their provincial governors. Abul Fazl, Bernier and
Manucci provide detailed accounts of the exertion of the Mughals. Its
summing up by Jahangir is the most telling. In his Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi he
writes:

I am compelled to observe, with whatever regret, that notwithstanding
the frequent and sanguinary executions which have been dealt among the
people of Hindustan, the number of the turbulent and disaffected never
seems to diminish; for what with the examples made during the reign of my
father, and subsequently of my own, there is scarcely a province in the
empire in which, either in battle or by the sword of the executioner, or
six hundred thousand human beings have not, at various periods, fallen
victims to this fatal disposition to discontent and turbulence. Ever and anon,
in one quarter or another, will some accursed miscreant spring up to unfurl
the standard of rebellion; so that in Hindustan never has there existed a
period of complete repose.—

In such a society, observes Kolf, the millions of armed men, cultivators
and otherwise, were its (governments) rivals rather than its subjects.— This
attitude was the consequence of the Mughal governments policy of
repression. As an example, the exploits of one of Jahangirs commanders,
Abdullah Khan Uzbeg Firoz Jung, can provide an idea of the excessive
cruelty perpetrated by the government. Peter Mundy, who travelled from


Agra to Patna in 1632 saw, during his four days journey, 200 minars
(pillars) on which a total of about 7000 heads were fixed with mortar. On
his way back four months later, he noticed that meanwhile another 60
minars with between 2000 and 2400 heads had been added and that the
erection of new ones had not yet stopped.— Abdullah Khans force of 12,000
horse and 20,000 foot destroyed, in the Kalpi-Kanauj area, all towns, took
all their goods, their wives and children as slaves and beheaded and
immortered the chiefest of their men.— Why, even Akbars name stands
besmeared with wanton killings. In his siege of Chittor (October 1567) the
regular garrison of 8000 Rajputs was vigorously helped by 40,000 armed
peasants who had shown great zeal and activity. This infuriated the emperor
to massacre 30,000 of them.—

In short, the Indian peasant was clear in his mind about meeting the
onslaughts of nature and man. Attached to his land as he was, he resisted
the oppression of the rulers as far as his resources, strength and stamina
permitted. If conditions went beyond his control, he left his land and
established himself in some other place. Indeed, migration or flight was the
peasants first answer to famine or mans oppression. Baburs description of
this process may be quoted in his own words: In Hindustan, says he,
hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set up in a
moment. If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years even, flee
from it, they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains in a
day or a day and a half On the other hand, if they fix their eyes on a place
in which to settle, they make a tank or dig a well; they need not build
houses or set up walls, khas-gvdiss abounds, wood is unlimited, huts are
made and straightaway there is a village or a town.—

Similar is the testimony of Col. Wilks about South India. On the
approach of a hostile army, the inhabitants of India bury underground their
most cumbrous effects, and issue from their beloved homes and take the
direction sometimes of a strong fortress, but more generally of the most
unfrequented hills and woods. According to Amir Khusrau, wherever the
army marched, every inhabited spot was desolated When the army arrived
there (Warangal, Deccan), the Hindu inhabitants concealed themselves in
hills and jungles.— This process of flight seems to have continued
throughout the Mughal period, both in the North and the South. Writing of


the days of Shahjahan, Bernier says that many of the peasantry, driven to
despair by so exeerable a tyranny, abandon the eountry and sometimes fly
to the territories of a Raja because they find less oppression and are allowed
a greater degree of comfort.—

To flee was a good idea, when it is realized that this was perhaps the only
way to escape from the cruel revenue demand and rapacious officials. Some
angry rulers like Balban and Muhammad bin Tughlaq hunted down these
escapists in the jungles, others clamped them in jails, but, by and large, the
peasants did survive in the process. For, it was not only cultivators alone
who fled into the forests, but often even vanquished Rajas and zealous
Zamindars. There they and people at large organized themselves to defend
against the onslaughts of the regime. For it was not only because cultivation
was uneconomic and peasants left the fields; it was also a question of
saving Hindu religion and Hindu culture. Under Muslim rule the two
principal Muslim practices of iconoclasm and proselytization were carried
on unabated. During the Arab invasion of Sind and the expeditions of
Mahmud of Ghazni, defeated rulers, garrisons of captured forts, and civilian
population were often forced to accept Islam. The terror-tactics of such
invaders was the same everywhere and their atrocities are understandable.
But even when Muslim rule had been established in India, it was a matter of
policy with Muslim rulers to capture and convert or disperse and destroy
the male population and carry into slavery their women and
children. Minhaj Siraj writes that Sultan Balkans taking of captives, and his
capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted.— In
Katehar he ordered a general massacre of the male population above eight
years of age and carried away women and children.— Muhammad Tughlaq,
Firoz Tughlaq, Sikandar Lodi, Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir, Mahmud
Beghara of Gujarat and emperor Aurangzeb were more enthusiastic, some
others were lukewarm, but it was the religious duty of a Muslim monarch to
capture people and convert them to Islam.

In these circumstances the defeated Rajas and helpless agriculturists all
sought refuge in the forests. Forests in medieval India abounded. Ibn
Battuta says that very thick forests existed right from Bengal to Allahabad.
In his time rhinoceroses {gender) were to be found in the very centre of the
Sultanate, in the jungles near Allahabad. There were jungles throughout the


country. Even the environs of Delhi abounded in forests so that during the
time of Balban, harassed Mewatis retaliated by issuing forth from the
jungles in the immediate vicinity of the south-west of Delhi, attack the city
and keep the king on tenter-hooks.— When Timur invaded Hindustan at the
end of the fourteenth century, he had learnt about this resistance and was
quite scared of it. In his Malfuzat he notes that there were many strong
defences in India like the large rivers, the elephants ete. The second
defence, writes he, consists of woods and forests and trees, which
interweaving stem with stem and branch with branch, render it very difficult
to penetrate the country. The third defence is the soldiery, and landlords and
princes, and Rajas of that country, who inhabit fastnesses in those forests,
and live there like wild beasts.—

Growth of dense forests was a cause and effect of heavy rains. Forests
precipitated rainfall and rains helped in the growth of forests. Therefore,
like forests, rains also helped the freedom loving wild-beasts living in the
jungles in maintains their independence and culture. It is truly said that in
India it does not rain, it pours. The rainfall in the north and the northeastern
India - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal, including eastern Bengal (now
Bangla Desh) and parts of Assam (the Hindustan of medieval times) - is in
the following order: The average annual rainfall in U.P., Bihar and Bengal
is 100 to 200 ems. (40 to 80 inehes), in eastern Bengal and Assam it is 200
to 400 ems. and in some parts above 400 ems. (80 to 160 and above 160
inehes). In all probability a similar average obtained in the medieval period
also. Medieval ehronielers do not speak in quantitative terms: in their
language rivulets used to turn into rivers and rivers into seas during the
rainy season. The situation is best depieted by the sixteenth eentury
conqueror Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur himself in his memoirs Tuzuk-i-
Baburi or Babur Nama. He writes about Hindustan: Sometimes it rains 10,
15, or 20 times a day, torrents pour down all at once and rivers flow where
no water had been.— Sueh intensity of rainfall had rendered precarious the
grip of Turkish rulers in many parts. For example, the government at Delhi
could not always maintain its hold on Bengal effectively. There were very
few roads and hardly any bridges over rivers in those days, and the almost
primitive medieval communication system used to break down during the
rainy season. Focal governors of the eastern region - Bihar and Bengal - did
not fail to take advantage of this situation and used to declare


independence. Governor Tughril Beg of Bengal depended on the climate
and waterlogged soil of the province to wear out the Delhi forces, for three
years (1278-81).— Bengal almost remained independent till the middle of
the sixteenth century.

In short, heavy rains and thick forests affected the mobility of the
governments army, leaving the refugees safe in their jungle hide-outs and
repulse any intrusion. Ibn Battuta describes how people used to fight behind
barricades of bushes and bamboo trees. They collect rain water and tend
their animals and fields, and remain so strongly entrenched that but for a
strong army they cannot be suppressed.— Babur confirms this: Under the
monsoon rains the banks of some of its rivers and torrents are worn into
deep channels, difficult and troublesome to pass through anywhere. In many
parts of the plains (because of rains) thorny jungle grows, behind the good
defence of which the people become stubbornly rebellious and pay no
taxes.— It was because of this that Muslim conquest could not penetrate the
Indian countryside nor Muslim rule affect it. If there was any fear of attack,
the villagers just fled and re-established themselves elsewhere, or returned
after the storm was over.

SC, ST and OBC

Those who took to the jungle, stayed there, eating wild fruits, tree-roots,
and the coarsest grain if and when available,— but surely preserving their
freedom. But with the passing of time, a peasant became a tribal and from
tribal a beast. William Finch, writing at Agra about 1610 C.E., describes
how Jahangir and his nobles treated them - during Shikar. A favourite form
of sport in Mughal India was the Kamargha, which consisted in enclosing a
tract of country by a line of guards, and then gradually contracting the
enclosure until a large quantity of game was encircled in a space of
convenient size. Whatever is taken in this enclosure {Kamargha or human
circle), writes Finch, is called the kings shikar or game, whether men or
beasts The beasts taken, if mans meat, are sold if men they remain the
Kings slaves, which he sends yearly to Kabul to barter for horses and dogs:
these being poor, miserable, thievish people, that live in woods and deserts,
little differing from beasts.— W.H. Moreland adds: Other writer (also) tell it
besides Finch.— Even Babur, always a keen observer, had not failed to


notice that peasants in India were often redueed to the position of tribals. In
our eountries, writes he in his Memoirs, dwellers in the wilds (i.e. nomads)
get tribal names; here (i.e. Hindustan) the settled people of the cultivated
lands and villages get tribal names.—

In short, the avalanehe of Tureo- Mughal invaders, and the poliey of their
Government turned many settled agrieulturists into tribals of the jungles.
Many defeated Rajas and harassed Zamindars also repaired to forest and
remote fortresses for seeurity. They had been defeated in war and due to the
policy of making them nest-o-nabud (destroy root and branch), had been
reduced to the position of Scheduled Castes / Tribes / Backward Classes.
For example, many Parihars and Parmars, once upon a time belonging to
the proud Rajput castes, are now included in lower castes. So are the
Rajputs counted in Backward Classes in South India. Two examples, one
from the early years of Muslim rule and the other from its closing years,
would suffice to illustrate the point. In the early years of Muslim conquest,
Jats had helped Muhammad bin Qasim in Sind; later on they turned against
him. Khokhars had helped Muhammad Ghauri but turned hostile to him and
ultimately killed him. This made the Turkish Sultanate ill-disposed towards
them, and in eourse of time many of these Jats and Khokhars were pushed
into belonging to low eastes of to-day. For the later times is the example of
the Satnamis. This seet was an offshoot of the Raidasis. Their stronghold in
the seventeenth eentury was Narnaul, situated about 100 kms. south-west of
Delhi. The eontemporary ehronieler Khali Khan eredits them with a good
eharaeter. They followed the professions of agrieulture and trade on a small
scale. They dressed simply, like faqirs. They shaved their heads and so were
called mundiyas also. They came into conflict with imperial forces. It began
as a minor trouble, but developed into a war of Hindu liberation from the
persecution of Aurangzeb. Soon some five thousand Satnamis were in arms.
They routed the faujdar of Narnaul, plundered the town, demolished its
mosques, and established their own administration. At last Aurangzeb
crushed them by sending 10,000 troops (March, 1672) and facing a most
obstinate battle in which two thousand Satnamis fell on the field and many
more were slain during the pursuit. Those who eseaped spread out into
small units so that today there are about 15 million Satnami Harijans found
in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.—


Thus were swelled the numbers of what are today called Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (SC / ST / OBC).
The eleventh century savant Alberuni who came to India in the train of
Mahmud of Ghazni, speaks of eight castes / sections of Antajya
(untouchable?), or workers in low professions in Hindustan such as fuller,
shoemaker, juggler, fisherman, hunter of wild animals and birds. They are
occupied with dirty work, like the cleaning of the villages and other
services.— In his time their number was obviously not large. Today the SC /
ST alone comprise 23 percent of the population or about 156 million,
according to 1981 census.

Add to this the Other Backward Classes and they all count to more than
fifty percent. This staggeringly high figure has been reached because of
historical forces operating in the medieval times primarily. Muslim rule
spread all over the country. Resistance to it too remained widespread.
Jungles abounded through out the vast land from Gujarat to Bengal and
Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and flight into them was the safest safeguard for
the weak and vulnerable. That is how SC / ST people are found in every
state in large numbers. During the medieval period, in the years and
centuries of oppression, they lived almost like wild beasts in improvised
huts in forest villages, segregated and isolated, suffering and struggling. But
by settling in forest villages, they were enabled to preserve their freedom,
their religion and their culture. Their martial arts, preserved in their
Akharas, are even now practised in different forms in many states. Such a
phenomenon was not witnessed in West Asian countries. There, in the vast
open deserts, the people could not save themselves from forced conversions
against advancing Muslim armies. There were no forests into which they
could flee, hide themselves and organize resistance. Hence they all became
Muslim.

In the Indian forest villages these primitive Hindus continued to maintain
themselves by engaging in agriculture and simple cottage industries. They
also kept contact with the outside world for, since they had remained Hindu,
they were freely employed by Rajas and Zamindars. They provided
firewood and served as boatmen and watchmen. The Hindu elite engaged
them for guard duty in their houses, and as /7«/^fbearers when they
travelled. Travelling in the hot climate of India was mostly done at night.


and these people provided guard to bullock carts and other conveyances
carrying passengers and goods. There are descriptions of how these people
ran in front and rear of the carts with lighted torches or lanterns in one hand
and a lathi in the other. They also fought for those Hindu leaders who
organized resistance from remote villages and jungle hide-outs. The
exaspertated and starving peasantry sometimes took to highway robbery as
the only means of living. Raiding bands were also locally formed. Their
main occupation, however, remained menial work, including scavenging
and leather tanning. But with all that, their spirit of resistance had made
them good fighters. Fighting kept their health replenished, compensating for
the non-availability of good food in the jungles. Their fighting spirit made
the British think of them as thugs, robbers and bandits. But the British as
well as other Europeans also embarked upon anthropological and
sociological study of these poor forest people. In trying to find a name for
these groups, the British census officials labelled them, in successive
censuses, as Aboriginals (1881), Animists (1891-1911) and as Adherents of
Tribal Religions (1921-1931).

These days a lot of noise is being made about helping the SC / ST and
OBCs by reserving their quotas in government jobs. It is argued that these
people have been oppressed by high caste Hindus in the past and they
should now be helped and compensated by them. But that is only an
assumption. It is they who have helped save the Hindu religion by shunning
all comforts and taking to the life of the jungle. That is why they have
remained Hindu. If they had been harassed and oppressed by high-caste
Hindus, they could have easily chosen to opt for Muslim creed ever so keen
on effecting proselytization. But they preferred to hide in the forests rather
than do so. There is another question. Was that the time for the Upper Caste
Hindus, fighting tenaciously to save their land, religion and culture, to
oppress the lower strata of Hindus whose help they desperately needed in
their struggle? The mindset of upper-caste / backward-caste conflict
syndrome needs reviewing as it is neither based on historical evidence nor
supported by compulsions of the situation. The present day isolated
conflicts may be a rural politician / plebian problem of no great antiquity.

Another relic of the remote past is the objection to the entry of men of
lower class people into temples. In Islam slaves were not permitted to



bestow alms or visit places of pilgrimages.— In India, according to
Megasthenes, there were no slaves. But slavery (dasta) probably did exist in
one form or the other. Were the dasas also debarred from entering temples
and the practice has continued; or, was it that every caste and section had its
own shrines and did not enter those of others? The picture is very blurred
and origins of this practice are difficult to locate.

Above all, there is the question: Would the SC / ST by themselves accept
to change their way of life and accept the assistance? Perhaps yes, perhaps
no. An example may help understand the position. In June 1576 Maharana
Pratap of Chittor had to face Akbars armies in the famous battle of
Haldighati. Rana Pratap fought with exemplary courage and of his soldiers
only a little more than half could leave the field alive. In the darkness of the
evening, the wounded Rana left the field on his favourite horse Chetak.— A
little later, in October, Akbar himself marched in person in pursuit of the
Rana, but the latter remained untraced and unsubdued. Later on he
recovered all Mewar except Mandalgarh and Chittor. His nearest associates,
the Bhil and Lohia tribals, had taken a vow that until their motherland was
not freed, they would not eat in metal plates, but only on leaves; they would
not sleep on bedsteads, but only on the ground; and they would renounce all
comforts. The bravest among them even left Chittor, to return to it only
when Mewar had regained independence. That day was not destined to
come in their life-time. It was not to come for decades, for generations, for
centuries. During these hundreds of years they lived as tribals and nomads,
moving from city to city. On India regaining independence. Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru, who knew about these peoples poignant history, decided
to rehabilitate them in Chittor. In March 1955 an impressive function was
arranged there and Pandit Nehru led the descendants of these valiant
warriors back to their homes in independent Chittor in independent India.
But most of them did not care to return. They live as nomads even today.
The SC / ST and OBCs too may find their way of life too dear to relinquish
for the modem urban civilised ways. Many welfare officers working in their
areas actually find it to be so.


Slaves


The forest-village-dwellers, whether eseapees or resisters, suffered untold
privations. Still they had the satisfaction of being able to preserve their
freedom, their religion and their culture. But all victims of aggression were
not so lucky. Many vulnerable groups and individuals could not extricate
themselves from the clutches of the invaders and tyranny of the rulers; they
used to be captured, enslaved and even sold, not only in India but also
outside the country. It was not only Jahangir, a comparatively kind hearted
emperor, who used to capture poor people during his hunting expeditions
and send them to Kabul in exchange for dogs and horses, all Muslim
invaders and rulers collected slaves and exploited them as they pleased.

When Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind, he took captives wherever he
went and sent many prisoners, especially women prisoners, to his
homeland. Parimal Devi and Suraj Devi, the two daughters of Raja Dahir,
who were sent to Hajjaj to adorn the harem of the Caliph, were part of a
large bunch of maidens remitted as one-fifth share of the state {Khums)
from the booty of war {Ghanaim). The Chachnama gives the details. After
the capture of the fort of Rawar, Muhammad bin Qasim halted there for
three day, during which time he masscered 6,000 men. Their followers and
dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. When
the (total) number of prisoners was calculated, it was found to amount to
thirty thousand persons (Kalichbeg has sixty thousand), amongst whom
thirty were the daughters of the chiefs. They were sent to Hajjaj. The head
of Dahir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the
Black Slave Kaab, son of Mubarak Rasti.— In Sind itself female slaves
captured after every campaign of the marching army, were married to Arab
soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura,
Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to
Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their
throats, and take the women and children as captives. In the final stages of
the conquest of Sind, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were
brought before Qasim one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set
aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they
belonged to high families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest
were given to the soldiers.— Obviously, a few lakhs of women were
enslaved and distributed among the elite and the soldiers.


In the words of the Andre Wink, From the seventh eentury onwards, and
with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasims eampaigns in 712-13, a
eonsiderable number of Jats [and also others] was eaptured as prisoners of
war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Some Jat freemen became
famous in the Islamic world, as for instance Abu Hanifa (699-767?), the
founder of the Hanafite school of law.—

So, from the days of Muhammad bin Qasim in the eighth century to those
of Ahmad Shah Abdali in the eighteenth, enslavement, distribution and sale
of captives was systematically practised by Muslim invaders. A few
instances are necessary to have a clear idea of the monstrous practice of
taking captives. When Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind (near
Peshawar) in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as
captive. This figure of Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and
chronicler of Mahmud, is so mind-boggling that Elliot reduces it to 5000.—
The point to note is that taking of slaves was a matter of routine in every
expedition. Only when the numbers were exceptionally large did they
receive the notice of the chroniclers. So that in Mahmuds attack on Ninduna
in the Salt Range (1014), Utbi says that slaves were so plentiful that they
became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land (India)
were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni).—
His statement finds confirmation in Nizamuddin Ahmads Tabqat-i-Akbari
which states that Mahmud obtained great spoils and a large number of
slaves. Next year from Thanesar, according to Farishtah, the Muhammadan
army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like
an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave
girls.— Thereafter slaves were taken in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj,
Asni etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was
found to consist (besides huge wealth) of 53,000 captives according to
Nizamuddin. But Utbi is more detailed. He says that the number of
prisoners may be conceived from the fact, that each was sold for from two
to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants
came from different cities to purchase them, so that the countries of
Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them. The Tarikh-i-
Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves,
therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.—


This was the practice throughout the medieval period. Furthermore, it
was also a matter of policy with the Muslim rulers and their army
commanders to capture and convert, destroy or sell the male population,
and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-ul-Asir says that Qutbuddin
Aibak made war against the provinces of Hind He killed many, and returned
home with prisoners and booty.— In Banaras, according to the same
authority, Muhammad Ghauris slaughter of the Hindus was immense. None
was spared except women and children."— No wonder that slaves began to
fill the households of every Turk from the very beginning of Muslim rule in
India. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir informs us that as a result of the Muslim
achievements under Muhammad Ghauri and Qutbuddin Aibak, even a poor
householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave before became
the owner of numerous slaves of all description (jauq jauq ghulam har
jins)—

In 1231 Sultan Iltutmish attacked Gwalior, and captured a large number
of slave.— Minhaj Siraj Jurjani writes that Sultan Balkans taking captives,
and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be
recounted.— Talking of his war in Avadh against Trailokyavarman of the
Chandela dynasty (Dalaki wa Malaki of Minhaj), the chronicler says that all
the infidel wives, sons and dependents and children fell into the hands of
the victors.— In 1253, in his campaign against Ranthambhor also Balkan
appears to have captured many prisoners. In 1259, in an attack on Haryana
(the Shiwalik Hills), many women and children were enslaved.— Twice
Balkan led expeditions against Kampil, Patiali, and Bhojpur, and in the
process captured a large number of women and children. In Katehar he
ordered a general massacre of the male population of above eight years of
age and carried away the women and children.—

The process of enslavement during war went on under the Khaljis and the
Tughlaqs (1290-1414 C.E.). Of Alauddin Khaljis 50,000 slaveslll some
were mere boys,— and surely mainly captured during war. Firoz Tughlaq
had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the captives
should be sorted out and the best ones should be forwarded to the court. His
acquisition of slaves was accomplished through various ways - capture in
war, in lieu of revenue and as present from nobles.— Soon he was enabled


to collect 180,000 slaves. Ziyauddin Baranis description of the Slave
Market in Delhi, (such markets were there in other places also), during the
reign of Alauddin Khalji, shows that fresh batches of captives were
constantly replenishing them.— The practice of selling slaves was well
established and widely known. Amir Khusrau in the fourteenth century
writes that the Turks, whenever they please, can seize, buy, or sell any
Hindu.— He is corroborated by Vidyapati in the next century. The latter
writes that the Muslim army commanders take into custody all the women
of the enemys city, and wherever they happened to pass, in that very place
the ladies of the Rajas house began to be sold in the market.— Alauddin
Khalji fixed the prices of such slaves in the market, as he did for all other
items of common use like wheat and rice, horse and cattle. The sale price of
boys was fixed from 20 to 30 tankahs; the ill-favoured could be obtained
for 7 or 8. The slave boys were classified according to their looks and
working capacity. The standard price of a working girl was fixed from 5 to
12 tankahs, that of a good looking girl from 20 to 40, and a beauty of high
family even from 1 thousand to 2 thousand tankahs.— Under Muhammad
bin Tughlaq, as per the information of Shihabuddin al Umri, a domestic
maid in Delhi could be had for 8 tankahs and one deemed fit to be a
concubine sold for about 15 tankahs. In other cities, says he, prices are still
lower.—

Muhammad bin Tughlaq became notorious for enslaving captives, and
his reputation in this regard spread far and wide so that Umri writes about
him thus: The Sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war
upon the infidels Everyday thousands of slaves are sold at very low price,
so great is the number of prisoners.— Ibn Battutas eye-witness account of
the Sultans arranging marriages of enslaved girls with Muslims on a large
scale on the two Ids confirms the statement of Al Umri. First of all, writes
he, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year,
come, sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and
important foreigners. After this the daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing
the Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives sons of Maliks etc. On the
sixth day male and female slaves are married.— It was a general practice
for Hindu girls of good families to learn the art of dancing. It was a sort of
religious rite. They used to dance during weddings, festivals and Pujas at


home and in temples. This art was turned ravenous under their Muslim
eaptors or buyers.

In short, female slaves were eaptured or obtained in droves throughout
the year. Sueh was their influx that Ibn Battuta appears having got bored of
them when he wrote: At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female
infidel eaptives, ten of whom the Wazir sent to me. I gave one of them to
the man who had brought them to me, but he was not satisfied. My
companion took three young girls, and I do not know what happened to the
rest.— Thousands {chandin hazar) of non-Muslim women {aurat va
masturat) were captured during the yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq and
under him the Id celebrations were held on lines similar to those of his
predecessor.— Their sale outside, especially during the Hajj season,
brought profits to the state and Muslim merchants. Their possession within,
inflated the harems of Muslim kings and nobles beyond
belief—


Some feeble attempts were sometimes made by some kings to put a stop
to this inhuman practice. The Mughal emperor Akbar, for example,
abolished the custom of enslaving helpless women and children in times of
war.— Jahangir ordered that a government collector or Jagirdar should not
without permission intermarry with the people of the pargana in which he
might be— for abduction and forced marriages were common enough. But
there was never an abjuration of the policy of enslavement as mainly it was
not the Mughal emperors but the Mughal nobility who must have taken the
lions share of the states enslavement, deportation and sale. To make the
long and painful story short, it may just be mentioned that after the Third
Battle of Panipat (1761), the plunder of the (Maratha) camp was prodigious,
and women and children who survived were driven off as slaves - twenty-
two thousand (women), of the highest rank in the land, says the Siyar-ul-
Mu takhkh irin . —

The above study points to some hard facts about enslavement of Hindus
under Muslim rule. It is not pertinent here to make a detailed study of the
Muslim slave system which was an institution as peculiar as it was unique.
Examples of men like Iltutmish and Balkan are cited to show how well the
slaves fared in the Islamic state and society, how well they were brought up



and how easily they could rise to the highest positions in life. Iltutmish
received nourishment like a son in the house of his master.— Firoz Tughlaq
and his nobles too treated their slaves in a similar fashion.— But it is the
captured and enslaved victims who felt the pinch of slavery. Here only their
sufferings may be briefly recapitulated under three separate sections-the
fate of men, of women and of children. Of the men captives, the Muslim
regime did not have much use. Male prisoners were usually put to the
sword, especially the old, the overbearing and those bearing arms, as had
happened during Muhammad bin Qasims invasion, Ghauris attack on
Banaras, Balkans expedition to Katehar, Timurs campaign in Hindustan or
Akbars massacre at Chittor.—

Of the captured men, those who could fetch good price were sold in India
and outside. A lucrative trade in Indian slaves flourished in the West Asian
countries. Many chroniclers aver that an important export item of
commerce abroad comprised of Indian slaves who were exchanged for
horses. If the trade in slaves was as brisk as the horse-trade, then many
thousands of people must have been deported from India each year. For
example, over the years from the eleventh to the early years of the
nineteenth century, three quarters of the population of Bukhara was of
mainly Indian slave extraction. The Hindu-Kush (Hindu-killer) mountain
ranges are so called because thousands of Indian captives yoked together
used to die while negotiating them. Ibn Battuta himself saw Indian slaves
being taken out of the country.—

Many of the slaves who were not sold by their captors, served as
domestic servants, as artisans in the royal Karkhanas and as Paiks in the
army. The Paiks cleared the jungles and prepared roads for the army on
march. They were also sometimes used as human shields in battle.— But
others, especially professional soldiers captured in war and willing to serve
the Muslim army, joined the permanent cadre of the infantry, and were
known for their loyalty.— Alauddin Khalji, Mubarak Khalji, and Firoz
Tughlaq were saved by Paiks when attempts were made on their lives.—

Child captives were preferred to grown up men. It may be recollected
that in his campaigns in Katehar, Balkan massacred mercilessly, sparing
only boys of eight or nine.— The age factor is material. As these boys grew


in years, they gradually forgot their parents and even their native plaees and
developed loyalty only to the king. They eould thus be reared as Janessaries
were brought up in the Ottoman Empire. The price-schedule of Sultan
Alauddin Khalji is evidence of the importance attached to boy-slaves. In his
time, while the price of a handsome slave was twenty to 30 tankahs and that
of a slave-servant ten to 15 tankahs, the price of a child slave {ghulam
bachchgan naukari) was fixed at 70 to 80 tankahs.— Therefore during a
campaign it was aimed at capturing lots of children. But no Hindus wished
their children to become slaves, and in the face of an impending defeat
Hindu mothers used to burn their little children in the fire of
Jauhar— rather than let them fall into the hands of the enemy to lead the
life of perpetual bondage and sometimes meet a most detestable death.—

The women captives in Muslim hands were treated as objects of sex or
for making money through sale. A1 Umri writes that in spite of low prices
of slaves, 200,000 tankahs and even more, are paid for young Indian girls. I
inquired the reason and was told that these young girls are remarkable for
their beauty, and the grace of their manners.—

This was the position from the very beginning. It has been mentioned
before that Muhammad bin Qasim sent to Hajjaj some thirty thousand
captives many among whom were daughters of chiefs of Sind. Hajjaj
forwarded the prisoners to Caliph Walid I (C.E. 705-15). The latter sold
some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted as rewards.
When he saw the daughter of Rai Dahirs sister, he was much struck with her
beauty and charms and wished to keep her for himself But as his nephew
Abdullah bin Abbas desired to take her, Walid bestowed her on him saying
that it is better that you should take her to be the mother of your children.
Centuries later, in the time of Jahangir, Abdullah Khan Firoz Jung
expressed similar views when he declared that I made prisoners of five lacs
of men and women and sold them. They all became Muhammadans. From
their progeny there will be crores by the day of judgement.— The motive
of having progeny from captured women and thereby increasing Muslim
population was at the back of all marriages, abductions and enslavements
throughout the medieval period.


One recognised way of escape from sex exploitation in the medieval
period was Jauhar or group-self-immolation. Jauhar also was naturally
resorted to because the motives and actions of the victors were never in
doubt. For example, before Qasim could attack the Fort of Rawar many of
the royal ladies themselves voluntarily immolated themselves. The
description of the holocaust in the Chachnama is like this: Bai, the sister of
Dahir, assembled all her women and said God forbid that we should own
our liberty to these outcast cow-eaters. Our honour would be lost there is
nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil and bum
ourselves. If any wish to save herself she may. So they went into a house,
set it on fire and burnt themselves.— It is those of the lesser mettle who
used to save themselves and used to be captured. The repeated Jauhars at
one place, Chittor, during the attacks of Alauddin Khalji, Bahadur Shah of
Gujarat and Emperor Akbar have become memorable for the spirit shown
by the Rajputnis. Captured and enslaved women often had to lead a life of
misery and dishonour as happened with Deval Devi, daughter of Raja
Karan Baghela of Gujarat.—

As the legacy of this scenario, Indian girls are still being sold to West
Asian nationals as wives, concubines and slave girls. For example, all the
leading Indian newspapers like The Indian Express, The Hindustan Times
and The Times of India of 4 August 1991, flashed the news of a sixty year
old toothless Arab national Yahiya H.M. A1 Sagish marrying a 10-11 year
old Ameena of Hyderabad after paying her father Rs. 6000, and attempting
to take her out of the country. A1 Sagish has been taken into police custody
and the case is in the law-court now. Mr. I.U. Khan has pointed out that no
offence could be made out against his client as he had acted in accordance
with the Shariat laws. He said that since this case related to the Muslim
personal law which permitted marriage with girls who had attained Puberty
(described as over 9 years of age), A1 Sagish could not be tried under the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). Besides Ameenas parents had not complained.
{Times of India, 14 August 1991).

But this is not an isolated case. I was in Hyderabad for about four years,
1979-1983. There I learnt that such marriages are common. There are
regular agents and touts who arrange them. Poor parents of girls are
handsomely paid by foreign Muslims for such arrangements. Every time


that I happened to go to the Hyderabad Airlines offlee or the Airport (whieh
was about at least onee a month), I found bunehes of old bridegrooms in
Arab attire accompanied by young girls, often little girl brides. A rough
estimate indicated that as many as 8000 such marriages were solemnised
during the past one decade in Hyderabad alone. {Indian Express Magazine,
18 August 1991). In short, the sex slave-trade is still flourishing not only in
Hyderabad but in many other cities of India after the medieval tradition.

Artisans and Labourers

After a brief survey of the misery and exploitation of the peasants,
backward classes and slaves, let us look at the condition of artisans and
labourers. In the medieval period, as sometimes even now, the work and
vocation of agriculturists approximated, bordered, converged and
telescoped into many other subsidiary professions. A peasant, when he was
free from his field, in terms of time and seasons, or was compelled to leave
his village, generally worked as basket-maker, weaver or water-carrier in
his village or in the town nearby temporarily or after migrating to it. With
the passage of time some of these agriculturalists became efficient and
skilled craftsmen while the majority remained engaged in unskilled jobs. In
urban setting their life-style may have improved a little - only a little in the
medieval age-hut they all remained an exploited lot. There was hardly any
contemporary foreign visitor to India who was not struck by the extremely
miserable existence of the lower class people. Such a situation obtained in
all parts of the country, north and south, east and west.

Athnasius Nikitin, who travelled in the Deccan between 1470 and 1474
says that the land is overstocked with people: but those in the country are
very miserable— Durate Barbosa (1600-1615) was horrified by the poverty
existing on the Malabar coast and says that some of the lower classes in the
region were so poor that they lived on roots and wild fruits and covered
themselves with leaves. His near contemporary Varthema (1504-06) and the
later visitor Linschoten wrote in a similar strain. Writing around the year
1624, Della Valle gives glimpses of life in Surat by pointing out that the
people were numerous, wages were low, and slaves cost practically nothing
to keep. Similar is the testimony of Pyrard.— The Portuguese writer Paes
(wrote in 1520) and Nuniz (1536-37), confirm the assertion that the mass of



the people were living in the greatest poverty and distress. In the
seventeenth eentury John De Laet (1631) summarised the information he
had collected from English, Dutch and Portuguese sources regarding the
Mughal empire as a whole. The condition of the common people in these
regions (south and west) is, says he, exceedingly miserable; wages are low;
workmen get only one regular meal a day, the houses are wretched and
practically unfurnished, and people have not got sufficient covering to keep
warm in winter.—

This about the south and west. About the east and north, Bengal and the
region between Agra and Lahore, Joseph Salbank (1609-10) writing of the
thickly populated country between Agra and Lahore observes that while the
nobles are said to be very wealthy the plebian sort, is so poor that the
greatest part of them go naked. In this regard, and for the urban scene in
particular the testimony of Pelsaert (1620-27) and Bernier (1656-68) is of
immense value. They lived and wrote mainly about Agra and Delhi
respectively. Pelsaert laments the utter subjection and poverty of the
common people-poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people
can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and
the dwelling place of bitter woe.— He continues: There are three classes of
people who are indeed nominally free, but whose status differs very little
from voluntary slavery-workmen, peons or servants and shopkeepers. Lor
the workmen there are two scourges, the first of which is low wages.
Goldsmiths, painters (of cloth or chintz), embroiderers, carpet makers,
cotton or silk weavers, black-smiths, copper-smiths, tailors, masons,
builders, stone-cutters, a hundred crafts in all-any of these working from
morning to night can earn only 5 or 6 tackas (tankahs), that is 4 or 5 strivers
in wages. The second (scourge) is (the oppression of) the Governor, the
nobles, the Diwan, the Kotwal, the Bakshi, and other royal officers. If any
of these wants a workman, the man is not asked if he is willing to come, but
is seized in the house or in the street, well beaten if he should dare to raise
any objection, and in the evening paid half his wages, or nothing at all.
Prom these facts the nature of their food can be easily inferred Lor their
monotonous daily food they have nothing but a little khichri in the day
time, they munch a little parched pulse or other grain, which they say
suffices for their lean stomachs Their houses are built of mud with thatched
roofs. Lurniture there is little or none, except some earthenware pots to hold


water and for cooking Their bedclothes are scanty, merely a sheet or
perhaps two this is sufficient in the hot weather, but the bitter cold nights
are miserable indeed, and they try to keep warm over little cowdung
fires the smoke from these fires all over the city is so great that the eyes run,
and the throat seems to be choked.— In 1648 the capital shifted from Agra
to Delhi, but the story of exploitation remained the same. Bernier writes
that grandees pay for a work of art considerably under its value, and
according to their own caprice.— When an Omrah or Mansabdar requires
the services of an artisan, he sends to the bazar for him, employing force, if
necessary, to make the poor man work; and after the task is finished, the
unfeeling lord pays, not according to the value- of the labour, but agreeably
to his own standard of fair remuneration; the artisan having reason to
congratulate himself if the Korrah has not been given in part payment.—

The artisans and craftsmen in the permanent service of the monarch and
the principal Omarahs were a little better off than the casual wage earners.
They tended to preserve the arts for they were paid more and regularly.
Akbar sanctioned the following daily wages for workers and artisans-2
dams (copper coins, 1/ 40 of Rupia) for ordinary labourers, 3 to 4 dams for
superior labourers, 3 to 7 dams for carpenters and 5 to 7 dams for builders.
According to Moreland carpenters and builders got, in Akbars days,
equivalent to about one rupee per day on the average, and they were rather
better off than the modern workmen of the United Provinces, if not Punjab
in the early years of the twentieth century. But there are many huts. It is not
certain if the workmen got full sanctioned rates. Then for the slightest
mistake they were heavily fined. If a horse lost condition, the fines came
down to the water carriers and sweepers employed in the stable. When an
elephant died through neglect, the attendants (some of whom drew less than
three rupees a month) had to pay the price of the a nim al.— During the
process of investigation and imposition of punishment some money had to
be paid to middlemen and Mughal officers. Naturally, such artisans and
workers can never become rich, and he feels it no trifling matter if he have
the means of satisfying the cravings of hunger and of covering his body
with the coarsest raiment.—

Peons or servants are exceedingly numerous in this country, writes
Pelsaert, for every one-be he mounted soldier, merchant or kings official-


keeps as many as his position and circumstances permit. Outside the house,
they serve for display, running continually before their masters horse;
inside, they do the work of the house, each knowing his duty, like the
bailwan, the farrash, the masalchi, the mahawat etc.— Edward Terry
(1616-19), Pelsaert and many others note that men stood in the market
places to be hired and many of them were paid very low wages or even paid
in kind, for most of the great lords reckon 40 days to the month, and pay
from 3 to 4 rupees for that period: while wages are often left several months
in arrears, and then paid in worn-out clothes or other things. Such fleecing
was naturally responded to by cunning and very few of them serve their
master honestly; they steal whatever they can; if they buy only a pice-worth
of food, they will take their share or dasturi (commission).—

Transporters and coolies were no better off On land, elephants, camels,
horse, bullocks and donkeys were the main means of conveyance of kings,
nobles, landlords and big merchants. Agricultural products were transported
from fields to the markets in the cities in bullock carts. Grain was also
carried and sold by roving merchants (banjaras) on mules in places which
were not easily accessible. Big merchants with their merchandise generally
moved only in large convoys— using chariots, horses, bullock carts, mules,
camels, and even buffaloes, depending on the terrain. The government
officials with treasures also travelled in convoys and under proper
escorts.—

Transport between rural and urban areas, between cities and within the
city was provided by coolies, horses, bullock carts and dola or doli. In the
days of Firoz Tughlaq, hire for a bullock cart was 4 to 6 jitals, and 12 jitals
for a horse. A dola which was carried by kahars cost half a tankah. The
dola or palanquin was the common conveyance of ladies of high rank. But
this sophisticated means of transport was also being brought into more and
more use by the old and infirm and the ease loving elite. When Qutbuddin
Mubarak Khalji (1316-20) felt miserable without the company of his
favourite Khusrau Khan, he sent orders to the latter to return from the
Deccan as quickly as possible (about C.E. 1320), and Khusrau Khan was
taken in a palanquin post haste from Devagiri to Delhi. And Sikandar Eodis
boast, if I order one of my slaves to be seated in a palanquin, the entire
body of nobility would carry him on their shoulders at my bidding,—


clearly indicates that besides ladies, the use of palanquin had also become a
fashion with men of means. In the fifteenth century Ekka and Tonga had
also come into vogue,— but for long journeys the horse was the common
conveyance.— A footmans services could be requisitioned for 5 tankahs a
month,— and a man could travel from Delhi to Agra spending only one
Bahloli, which sufficed for him, his horse and his small escort / retinue
during the journey.— A large number of people were engaged on this work,
and they plied a brisk trade.— In the Mughal times comparatively better
roads added some sort of sophistication to land travel.

Those employed by the Government on the work of transport and
communication were not ill paid. Ibn Battutas description of the same
pertains to governments communication system which facilitated smooth
running of administration. According to Barani and Ibn Battua there were
two types of news-carriers: the mounted runners (Aulaq) and the foot
runners (Dhava). The administration of the Sultanate, Sur and Mughal
governments was greatly facilitated by an efficient postal service which
connected different parts of the empire.— According to Pelsaert, postmen
carrying their masters letters could cover 25 to 30 Kos a day, but that was
also because they ate opium regularly.—

To sum up. Professor Mohammad Habib in his review of G.N. Sharmas
Social Life in Medieval Rajasthan (1500-1800) has this to say about artisans
and workers and their wages in northern India of the Mughal times: The
industries of Rajasthan were well-developed, (but) further progress was
made impossible owing to the low social position assigned to the worker,
forced labour or began and administrative oppression of all types. The
cultivator had to be satisfied with a meagre reward for the hard work of
himself and his family. The inventories of thefts committed show that a
well-to-do peasant had two dhotis and two turbans for himself, four saris
costing about Rs. 2-4 for his wife and some ten utensils costing Rs.25. The
wages recorded tell the same sad tale. The account papers (1693-1791
A.D.) of the construction of the palaces of Jaipur and Kotah show that
skilled labourers got annas 6 to 8 and a supervising architect Rs.l / 2 per
day. The wages of un-skilled labourers as mentioned in the Kotah records of
1689 A.D. vary from one a nn a to two annas. Payment was sometimes made
in grain-14 Chataks daily for skilled workers and 2 to 4 Chataks for women


workers. The Bikaner Bahis throw some light on wages-a chaukidar Rs.2
per month, grooms, sweepers and gardeners Rs.l to Rs.3 per month. From
the point of view of wages the prospects of government officials were not
very encouraging. The pay of officers of position, according to the Bikaner
Bahi (V.S.1764) varied from Rs.21 to Rs.28 per month. An accountants pay
according to the Kotah records was Rs. 135 per year. An ordinary clerk
could be engaged for Rs. 60 per year, while a senior clerks pay was about
Rs. 235 a year. A Kotwal was generally paid Rs. 15 to 20 a month. Such
low wages would only be possible with the low price of grain. According to
Dr. Sharma 10 maunds of wheat could be purchased for Rs. 14 to 16; the
same quantity of millet for Rs. 11 to 12 and of barley for Rs. 9 to 10.

The low scale of both grain prices and wages proves only one thing-the
thorough exploitation of the peasants and the workers. But this was an
Indian-and not a Rajasthani-misfortune. Tavernier, for example, could on
his journey from Surat to Agra get 50 guards at Rs.4 per month each. aThe
states and the governing classes tried to appropriate the whole surplus value
of labour. Still the condition of the workers and peasants was probably
better in Rajasthan than in, the Mughal empire.— The situation in the
Mughal empire is summed up by W.H. Moreland like this: In several
instances the lowest grades of servants were entitled to less than two rupees
monthly (65 dams for a sweeper, 60 for a camel-driver, 70 for a wrestler,
and so on), while the bulk of the menials and of the ordinary foot-soldiers
began at less than three rupees. The minimum for subsistence at the court is
probably marked by the lowest grade of slaves, who were allowed one dam
daily, equivalent to three-quarters of a rupee monthly in the currency of the
time artisans were, as a rule badly off, and they can scarcely have been able
to pay high wages to their journeymen The facts available regarding the
wages paid by travellers and merchants come almost entirely from the south
and west of India. Terry insists on the excellence of the servants obtained
for five shillings, or say two rupees a month, and he adds that they would
send half this sum home; probably this statement relates to servants hired in
Surat, but in any case it refers to this part of the country, as Terry went no
farther north than Mandu. Valle, writing of Surat about ten years later put
the rate at not more than three rupees, while De Facts informants gave him
from three to four rupees, which could be supplemented in some cases by
commission charged on purchases. A messenger between Surat and


Masulipatam was in 1641 allowed seven or eight mahmudies (say
something between three and four rupees) for the journey These instanees
appear to justify the conclusion that early in the seventeenth century
foreigners could secure capable servants for somewhere about three rupees
a month. What this represents in real wages is uncertain (But) The rates
struck Europeans as extraordinarily low, and taken with those which
prevailed in the northern capital they enable us to understand the great
development of domestic employment which characterised the life of India
at this period.— The important point to note is that servants, messengers
and escorts were in great demand. Any journey seems to have been
inconceivable without a certain number of them. William Hawkins, who
was in India in Jahangirs reign, found that almost a man cannot stir out of
doors throughout all his dominions without great forces, for they are all
become rebels. Tavernier said that, in about 1660, to travel with honour in
India, one hired 20 to 30 armed men, some with bows and arrows and
others with muskets. They cost Rs.4 a month.— The profession must have
been well organised and yet the wages were miserably low.

The economic position of artisans was no better. Bernier writing to
Colbert, said: No artisan can be expected to give his mind to his calling in
the midst of a people who are either wretchedly poor, or who, if rich,
assume an appearance of poverty, and who regard not the beauty and
excellence but the cheapness of an article; a people whose grandeess pay
for a work of art considerably under its value and according to their own
caprice For it should not be inferred that the workman is held in esteem, or
arrives at a stage of independence. Nothing but sheer necessity or blows
from a cudgel keeps him employed; he never can become rich, and he feels
it no trifling matter if he have the means of satisfying the cravings of
hunger and of covering his body with the coarsest garment. If money be
gained it does not in any measure go into his pocket, but only serves to
increase the wealth of the merchant. Berniers description is corroborated by
what Thevenot was told about the same period of the state of the arts in
Delhi.

The story of the exploitation of the poor, both rural and urban, is
unending. And the guiding principle of this pernicious practice was to leave
the people with bare subsistence. No foreign traveller fails to notice it with


disapproval if not actual disgust. It would appear that the lords and the
upper elasses in Tureo-Mughal India derived a eynieal pleasure in
oppressing the poor. The result was as expected. Artisans, workers and
labourers became lazy. Scarcely any one made an effort to climb the ladder
to better prospects,— so that for a job which one man would do in Holland,
here passes through four mens hands before it is finished.— Sueh
exploitation in the Mughal period provided droves of khidmatgars to British
officers and men when they established and ran their Raj in this country.

Poorest of the poor

Before elosing, a word may be said about the exploitation of the poorest
of the poor, the beggars and the handieapped. Muslim law deerees
mutilation as punishment for eertain erimes and a large number of healthy
people were blinded, mutilated and made physieally handieapped under
Muslim rule. The punishments of sultans like Balkan and Muhammad bin
Tughlaq were terribly severe. Alauddin Khalji had ordered that if any
shopkeeper sold any article short-weight, a quantity of flesh equal to the
deficieney in weight was to be cut off from his haunches.— Firoz Tughlaq
lists some of the punishments for common offences, which were prevalent
before his time. These comprised of cutting of hands and feet, noses and
ears, putting out eyes, pulverizing the bones with mallets, burning parts of
the body, nailing the hands and feet, hamstringing etc., etc.— As seen
earlier, many cultivators and labourers were also redueed to the position of
beggars from the Sultanate through Mughal times because of high rate and
severity of collection of Kharaj.

All such unfortunate people could only resort to begging for a living.
They were sometimes given doles and meals by kind-hearted people: free
feeding {langar) was common for the poor beggars. But sometimes even
such helpless people were exploited by the rich who extracted their pound
of flesh even from them. An Amir by the name of Saiyyad-ul-Hijab was
very close to Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq. He used to help all and sundry, but
for a eonsideration. It is narrated, says Shams Siraj Afif, that one day a
helpless faqir (beggar) approaehed him for assisting him get some help
from the Sultan. The nobleman gave him neeessary guidanee for aehieving
his purpose. The faqir did as advised, and the Sultan ordered that the


suppliant be given one tankah per day from the Zakat fund. But the help
rendered was not gratuitous. The said Amir, continues Afif, after rendering
help to the needy used to extract something by way of shukrana.— No
further comment is necessary.


Footnotes:

- Jaisi, Padmavat, pp. 154, 413; Pelsaert, p. 60; Ashraf, Life and Conditions
of the People of Hindustan, p. 193.

- Price, Major David, Memoirs of the Principal Events of Muhammadan
History (London, 1921), III (I), p. 267; Lamb, Harold, Tamerlane the Earth
Shaker (London, 1929), p. 272; Brown, Percy, Indian Architecture (Islamic
Period), p. 26; Lai, Twilight of the Sultanate, p. 40.

- Babur Nama, II, pp. 518, 520.

- Only a few examples of this prosperity by writers of the fourteenth
century may be cited. Shihabuddin says: The general food of the Indians
(Muslims) is beef and goats flesh it was a mere matter of habit, for in all the
villages of India there are sheep in thousands (E and D, III, p. 583).

Ibn Battuta says: When they have reaped the autumn harvest, they sow
spring grains in the same soil in which autumn grains had been sown, for
their country is excellent and the soil is fertile. As for rice they sow it three
times a year.. (Mahdi Husain, trs., p.l9). Shams Siraj Afif writing about the
prosperity of Orissa at the time of Firoz Tughlaqs invasion says: The
country of Jajnagar was in a very flourishing state, and the abundance of
corn and fruit supplied the wants of the army the numbers of animals of
every kind were so great that no one cared to take them Sheep were found
in such countless numbers (Afif, Persian text, pp. 165-66. Also pp. 180,

295).

For prosperity in the Deccan see Kincaid and Parasnis, A History of
Maratha People, I, p. 37; Yule, Ser Marco Polo, II, p. 323; Wassaf, Bombay
text, pp. 521-31.


About the prosperity of Vijayanagar eountryside see Abdur Razzaq in
Mutla-us-Sadain, E and D, IV, pp. 105-6.

Also Barani pp. 216-17,290-91; and Farishtah, Lueknow text, p. 120,

— Pelsaert, pp. 60-61.

— Quoted in Moreland, India at the Death ofAkbar, pp. 268-69.

— Liberally eited in A.B.M. Habibullahs The Foundation of Muslim Rule
in India, First ed., Lahore, 1945.

— Barani, pp. 283-84.

— Charles Hamiltons trs. of the Hidaya, Chapter IV.

— Aghnides, Muhammedan Theories of Finance, pp. 251-52, 253-54.

— Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India, p. 32 fn.

— Barani, pp. 216-17 and 291. Also Baranis Fatawa-i-Jahandari, pp.
46-48.

— Barani, p. 287; Farishtah, p. 109.

— Aghnides, Muhammadan Theories of Finance, pp. 251-54.

^Afif,p. 383.

— Barani, pp. 291, 297-98.

— Isami, Futuh-us-Salatin, Agra text, pp. 569-70; Tarikh-i-Wassaf
Bombay Text, Book IV, p. 448, Book V, pp. 646, 647.

— Barani, p. 288.

^Ibid.,pp. 288, 305, 307.


— R.R Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, p. 262.

— Barani, pp. 288-89, 292.

— For Alauddins Market Control see Lai, History of the Khaljis, pp. 197-
225.

— Barani, p. 430.

— Hajiuddabir, Zafar-ul-Wali; Barani, pp. 479-80. For a detailed
discussion on the Sultans measures see Ishwari Prasad, A History of the
Qaraunak Turks in India, pp. 67-74.

— Babur Nama, II, p. 487.

— Ibid., p. 486. For Indian rains also Bernier, pp. 431-34.

— Ibn Battuta, pp. 17-20.

2SAfif,pp. 130-31.

— W.H. Moreland, From Akbar to Aurangzeb, pp. 253-55.

— Moreland in Journal of Indian History, IV, pp. 78-79 and XIV, p. 64.

— Abul Fazl, Akbar Nama, Beveridge, II, pp. 159-60.

— Manucci, II, p. 451.

— Manrique II, p. 272.

— Bernier, p.205.

— Bernier, pp. 226-27.

^Ibid.,p. 227.

— Loc. cit.


— Moreland, op. cit., p. 255.

— Tara Chand, History of Freedom Movement in India, I, p. 121. Also,

Sir John Strachey, India, Its Administration and Progress (third Edition), p.
126.

— Abbas Sarwani, E and D, IV, p. 414.

— Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, English trs. E and D, III, p.
368; Hindi trs. in Rizvi, Tughlaq Kalin Bharat, II, p. 337.

— Afif, pp. 268-69; Ishwari Prasad, Qaraunah Turks, p. 331; Badaoni,
Ranking I, p. 377.

— For detailed references see Eal, Growth of Muslim Population in
Medieval India, pp. 160-161.

— Eal, Indian Muslims, pp. 50, 63-64; C.H.I., III, pp. 305-306; Census of
India Report, 1901, IV, Pt. I, Bengal, pp. 165-181.

— Barani, pp. 288-89, 292; Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim
Administration, p. 262.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 112-14 and The Agrarian
System of Moslem India, pp. 135-36, 146-47.

— Barani, p. 291; Yahiya, p. 184. For detailed references see Eal, Twilight
of the Sultanate, pp. 73-75.

— Barani, p. 303.

^Ibid.,p. 304

— Alauddin procured grain from the cultivators, and that too with great
severity, to keep Government godowns ever replenished (Barani, pp. 305,
307).


— Eal, History of the Khaljis, pp. 1 97, 290-91.


^ Afif, p. 294.

— Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, p. 338; Farishtah, I, p. 187.

— Abdullah, Tarikh-i-Daudi, Bankipore Ms., fols, 223-24.

— Abul Fazl, Ain, I, pp. 65-71.

— Moreland, From Akbar to Aurangzeb, pp. 253-57.

— Barani, pp. 328-29; Afif, p. 290; Farishtah, p. 119.

— Afif, pp. 112, 122, 289; Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafari Nama, II, pp. 87-88,
152-54, 156.

— Cited in Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 269.

— Bernier, pp. 235-36.

— Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement, I, p. 1 21.

— R.H. Major, India in the Fifteenth Century.

— Babur Nama, II, p. 519.

— Afif, trs. E and D, III, pp. 289-90.

— Barani, p. 291.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 124.

— Barani, p. 268.

— Amir Khusrau, Deval Rani, p. 50; Vidyapati, Kirtilata, pp. 42-44, 70-
72.

69


Lai, Twilight, pp. 70-106.


— Mundy, Travels, II, p. 90.

— Manucci, I, p. 134.

— Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi, trs. Price, pp 225-26.

— Kolf, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, p. 7.

— Mundy, Travels, II, pp. 90, 185, 186.

— For action in this region in the reign of Akbar see Abul Fazl, Akbar
Nama, II, pp. 195-96.

^-^Ibid.,l,p. 475.

— Babur Nama trs. by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge, pp. 487-88.

— Erskine, Baburs Memoirs (Leyden and Erskine, pp. 315 n 2) cites from
Col. Wilks, Historical Sketches, Vol.I, p. 309, note; Amir Khusrau, Nuh
Sipehr, E and D, III, p. 558.

— Berniers Travels, p. 226, also quoted in Moreland, India at the Death
of Akbar, p. 135.

— Minhaj, E and D, II, p. 348.

— Barani, p. 59; Farishtah, I, p. 77.

— Barani, p. 56.

— Malfuzai-i-Timuri, E and D, III, p. 395.

— Babur Nama, II, p. 519.

— Habibullah, A.B.M., The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, pp. 174,
185 n.44.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 124.


— Babur Nama, II, p. 487.

— Badaoni, Ranking, I, p. 377.

— Finch, William, in Foster, Early Travels, p. 154.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 27-28 n.

— Babur Nama, II, p. 518.

— Their present religious head Mata Kamna Guru has withdrawn support
from the Congress, says a press report of the Times of India datelined
Raipur 14 February, 1990.

— Alberuni, I, pp. 101-102.

— Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p. 598.

— Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 108; C.H.I., IV, pp. 115-16.

— Chachnama, E and D, I, pp. 172-73; trs. Kalichbeg, p. 154.

— Ibid., E and D, I, pp. 173, 181, 211.

— Wink, Al-Hind, I, p. 161.

— Tarikh-i-Yamini, E and D, II, p. 26; Elliots Appendix, p. 438;

Farishtah, I, p.24.

^ Utbi, E and D, II, p. 39.

— Farishtah, I, p.28.

— Eal, Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, pp. 211-13.
Also Utbi, E and D, II, p. 50 and n. 1.

— Kamil-ut-Tawarikh, E and D, II, p. 250.


^Ibid.,^. 251.

— Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, p. 20.

— Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Persian Text, p. 175. Also Farishtah, I, p. 66.

— Minhaj, E and D, II, p. 348.

— Ibid., p. 367; Farishtah, I, p. 71.

Minhaj, pp. 371,380-81.

— Barani, p. 59.

^Afif,p. 272.

— Barani, p. 318; Lai, History of the Khaljis, pp. 214-15.

Afif,p. 267-73.

— Barani, pp. 314-15.

— Amir Khusrau, Nuh Sipehr, E and D, III, p. 561.

— Vidyapati, Kirtilata, pp. 12-1 A.

— Barani, pp. 313-15.

— Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p. 580.

— Loc. cit.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 63, Hindi version by S.A.A. Rizvi in Tughlaq Kalin
Bharat, Part I, Aligarh, p. 189.

^Ibid.,^. 123.

122


Afif,p. 265. Also pp. 119-20.


— Ibid., p. 144. Also Lai, K.S., The Mughal Harem, pp. 19-38, 167-69,
170 and Growth of Muslim Population, p. 116.

— Akbar Nama, II, p. 246; Du Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, pp. 152-59.
Also pp. 28, 30, 70, 92.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p. 9.

— Rawlinson, H.G., in C.H.I., IV, p. 424 and n.

— Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, Political History and Institutions of the
Early Turkish Empire of Delhi, pp. 147-48, 159.

-^Afif,pp. 272-73.

— Barani, p. 59; Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, p. 92; Malfuzat-i-Timuri, E and
D, III, p. 436; Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, p. 255; Farishtah, I,
p. 77; Akbar Nama, II, p. 475.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 71; Jahangir, Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi, p. 165; Bumes,
Travels into Bokhara, I, p. 276; 11, p. 61.

— Al-Qalqashindi, Subh-ul-Asha, p. 76.

— Barbosa, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, I, p. 181; Barani, Fatawa-i-
Jahandari, p. 25.

^ Barani, pp. 273, 376, 377.

— Ibid., pp. 58-59.

^Ibid.,^. 314.

— Sharma, C.N., Mewar and the Moghul Emperors, pp. 56, 16-11. Also
Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 64.

— After his (Firoz Tughlaqs) death, the heads of these his favoured
slaves were eut off without merey, and were made into heaps in front of the


darbar (Afif, p. 273).

— Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, pp. 580-81.

— Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, pp. 153-54; Shah Nawaz Khan, Maasir-
ul-Umara, I, p. 105.

— Ibid., trs. Kalichbeg, p. 155.

— She was eaptured by Malik Kafur and brought to Delhi. She was first
married to Khizr Khan, then Mubarak Khalji married her foreibly. She was
later on taken by Khusrau Shah - too mueh for a Hindu maiden (Lai,
History of the Khaljis, pp. 234-36, 298-99).

— Nikitin in Major, India in the Fifteenth Century, p. 14.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 267-8 and n.

^Ibid.,^. 269.

— Pelsaert, p. 60.

^Ibid.,^^. 60-61.

— Bernier, p. 228.

^/Z)/^/.,pp. 256,288.

— Ain, I, pp. 148-49, 139, 235; also Moreland, pp. 190-91 n.

— Bernier, p. 229.

— Pelsaert, pp. 61-62.

^Ibid.,^. 62-63.

— Barani, p. 316.


— Ibn Battuta, p. 151.

— Passage in Tarikh-i-Daudi as trs. by N.B. Roy in Niamatulahs History
of the Afghans, y). 134.

— Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, p. 24 and n, also p. 33.

^ Ibid., 45.

— A Sikandari silver tankah was equal to 30 eopper Bahlolis (Thomas,
Chronicles of the Pathan kings of Delhi, p. 336).

— Tarikh-i-Daudi, Allahabad University Ms., fols. 137-38.

^Afif,p. 136.

— Lai, History of the Khaljis, pp. 167-77.

— Pelsaert, p. 62.

— Review of Dr. G.N. Sharma, Social Life in Medieval Rajasthan
(1500-1800) by Mohammad Habib, Medieval India, A Miscellany, Vol. II,
Aligarh, 1972, pp. 342-43.

— Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 192-93.

— Foster, Early Travels, pp. 113,114; Tavernier, I, p. 38.

— Bernier, p. 228; Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 187.

— Pelsaert, p. 60.

— Barani, p. 316.

— Firoz Shah, Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, Aligarh, 1954, p. 2.

^ Afif, pp. 446-50.



The Legacy of Muslim Rule in
India


Chapter 8

Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Mention of destruction of
temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned.

- Circular, Boards of Secondary Education

The end of Muslim rule in India was as spasmodie as its beginning. It
took five hundred years for its establishment (712-1206) and one hundred
and fifty years for its deeline and fall (1707-1857). The benehmarks of its
establishment are C.E. 712 when Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind,
1000 when Mahmud of Ghazni embarked upon a series of expeditions
against Hindustan, 1192-1206 when Prithviraj Chauhan lost to Muhammad
Ghauri and Qutbuddin Aibak set up the Turki Sultanate at Delhi, and 1296
when Alauddin Khalji pushed into the Deeean. The stages of its downfall
are 1707 when Aurangzeb died, 1739 when a trembling Mughal Emperor
stood as a suppliant before the Persian invader Nadir Shah, 1803 when
Delhi was captured by the British, and 1858 when the last Mughal ruler was
sent to Rangoon as a prisoner of the Raj.

For five eenturies-thirteenth to seventeenth-however, most parts of India
were under Muslim rule, though with varying degrees of effeetiveness in
different regions of the country. But at no single point of time was the
whole country ruled exelusively by the Muslims. On the other hand the five
hundred year long Muslim rule did not fail to influence Indian political and
cultural life in all its facets. Muslim rule apart, Muslim eontaet with India
ean be counted from the seventh century itself. Naturally, the interaction of
Muslim culture with the Hindu way of life, backed by the superimposition
of Muslim rule in India, gave rise to a sort of a common Indian culture. But
only a sort of, there is a superfieial veneer about it. On the faee of it the
influenee of Islam on Indian culture is to be seen in all spheres of life, in



architecture, painting, music, and literature; in social institutions like
marriage eeremonies, in eating habits, in gourmet and euisine, sartorial
fashions and so on. In aetual faet, Hindus and Muslims lead their own lives,
mostly in isolation from one anothers, exeept for personal friendships. Even
living together for a thousand years has not welded Hindus and Muslims
into one people. Why is it so?

Beeause Islam believes in dividing humanity into believers and Kafirs,
the Muslim eommunity (Ummah) is enjoined not to eooperate on the basis
of equality or peaeeful coexistenee with Kafirs. To them it offers some
altematives-eonversion to Islam, or death, or slavery. At the most it allows
survival on payment of a poll-tax, Jiziyah, and aeeeptance of a second class
status, that of Zimmi. As a matter of faet, Muhammadans invaded India to
turn it into a land of Islam and spread their eulture. Islamie eulture is carrier
eulture, borrowed from exotie streams. The main contribution of Islamic
culture is Quran and Hadis. It invaded Indian eulture not to co-exist with it
but to wipe it out. Its declared aim was Islamization through Jihad. But in
spite of repeated endeavours through invasions and centuries of Muslim
rule, India could not be turned into a Muslim country. Had India been
eompletely converted to Islam, its people, like those of Iran or Libya, would
have taken pride in organising Islamie revolutions, spearheading pan-
Islamie movements and espousing right-or-wrong Islamic causes. Or, had
Hindus the determination and the wherewithal to throw out Islam from
India as was done by the Christians in some eountries like Spain, there
would have been no Muslim problem in India today. But here Muslims stay
put, and yet a thousand years of Muslim eontaet failed to Islamize India.
India, therefore, provides a good study to evaluate the aehievements and
failures, atroeities and benefieenees, fundamentalism and seeularism of
Muslim rule and Muslim people. In the appraisement of Muslim rule,
Muslim religion also eannot eseape serutiny, for the former was guided by
the latter, the one being inseparable from the other. This makes the
assessment of the legaey of Muslim rule in India an extremely eontroversial
subjeet. Its contribution comprises of both bitterness and distrust on the one
hand and on the other a composite common culture. We shall take up the
common culture first.



So much has already been written about the development of Indo-Muslim
eomposite eulture, its give and take and its heritage, that it is neither
necessary nor possible to touch upon all its aspects. Therefore only a few
areas may be taken up-like music and architecture-in which Muslims have
made special and substantial contribution. In other branches of fine arts like
painting, the story too is familiar. Many Mughal paintings bear the touch of
Ajanta or its regional variations, while Rajput and Pahari Qalam adopted a
lot from Muslim miniature style and art of portraiture. Equally important is
the Muslim contribution in the sphere of jewellery, textiles, pottery etc. In
the fields of sport and athletics, again, Muslim participation has been both
extensive and praiseworthy.

Music

It is in the domain of music in particular that the contribution of Muslims
is the greatest. It is, however, difficult to claim that it is really Muslim.
What they have practised since medieval times is Hindu classical music
with its Guru-Shishya parampara. The gharana (school) system is the
extension of this parampara or tradition. Most of the great Muslim
musicians were and are originally Hindu and they have continued with the
tradition of singing an invocation to goddess Saraswati or other deities
before starting their performance.

Be that as it may, all Muslim rulers and nobles had musicians - singers
and players on instruments - in their courts.- They patronised the
meritorious by giving them high salaries and rich rewards. They got a
number of books on music translated from Sanskrit into Persian. Some of
them used to get so much involved in poetry and music that sometimes it
was done at the eost of state work. There are many reasons for this
phenomenon. The Indian system of notation is perhaps the oldest and most
elaborate.- There are ragas meant to be sung in winter, in summer, in rains
and in autumn. There are month-wise ragas meant to be sung during the
twelve months of the year (baramasa). There are ragas meant for singing in
the morning, early noon, afternoon and in the evenings. There are ragas, it
is elaimed, that ean light a lamp or bring about downpour of rain. Then
there are ragas and raginis designated for danee. Dance in its art form is as
elaborate as music, and is based on Hindu natya-shastra. Seulptures of


dancers and musicians carved on ancient and medieval temples, now mostly
surviving in south India, bear testimony to their excellence, popularity and
widespread praetice.

In such a situation Muslims could add little to this art from outside.
Officially music and dance are banned in Islam. Muslim ruling elasses
therefore could only patronise Hindu classical music in its original form.
Some rulers were patrons of artistes, others practised it themselves, many
others collected musicians from all over the country. That is how Mian
Tansen could earn so much renown. Amir Khusrau is also credited with
composing songs some of which are popular to this day. Under the Khaljis
there were concerts and competitions arranged between Hindustani and
Karnatak musicians.- Indian classical music flourished throughout the
medieval period, although classical Indian dancing drifted from the
aesthetic and religious sphere into the salons of courtesans and dancing
girls.

Abul Fazl writes about the Mughal emperor Akbar that His Majesty pays
much attention to music and is the patron of all who practice this
enchanting art.- About Tansen he says that a singer like him had not been in
India for the last one thousand years. Tansen was originally a Gaur
Brahman of Gwalior and he had been trained in the school established by
Raja Man Singh Tomar of Gwalior (C.E. 1486-1518). The Raja was the
author of a treatise on music entitled Man Kutuhal. He also got the
Ragadarpan translated into Persian. Similarly, during the reign of Firoz
Tughlaq (1351-88) was eomposed Ghunyat-ul-Munya by a Muslim scholar
of Gujarat. Under the patronage of Sikandar Lodi was written the Lahjat-i-
Sikandar Shahi by one Umar Yahiya. Yahiya was a scholar of Arabic,
Persian and Sanskrit and his work is based on many Sanskrit treatises like
Sangit Ratnakar,- Nritya Ratnakar, Sangit Kalpataru and the works of
Matang.-

Most Muslim rulers, nobles and elite passionately patronised Indian
classical music and dance and therefore there is no need to mention their
names or those of their musicians. But Vincent Smith aptly notes that the
fact that many of the names are Hindu, with the title Khan added, indieates
that the professional artists at a Muhammadan court often found it


convenient and profitable to conform to Islam.- There is another interesting
faet notieeable. The Indian classieal music which became national music
about the time of Akbar in Agra holds the field even to this day. Politieal or
religious barriers have failed to divide musieians and lovers of musie into
narrow or antagonistie camps, as the Hindu elassical music remains the
eommon legacy of both Hindus and Muslims. -

Medieval Monuments

But if music unites, many monuments of the medieval period revive
bitter memories in the Hindu mind. These are found almost in every eity,
every town and even in many villages either in a dilapidated state or under
preservation by the Archaeologieal Survey of India. Many of these have
been eonverted from Hindu temples and now are extant in the shape of
mosques, Idgahs, Dargahs, Ziarats (shrines) Sarais and Mazars (tombs)
Madrasas and Maktabs. Throughout the Muslim rule destruetion of Hindu
shrines and construction of mosques and other building from their materials
and at their very sites went on as a normal practiee. From the Quwwal-ul-
Islam mosque in Delhi built out of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples in
the twelfth century to the Taj-ul-Masajid built from hundreds of Hindu and
Jain temples at Bhopal in the eighteenth century, the story is the same
everywhere.

For temples were not broken only during war, but in times of peace too.
Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq writes: I destroyed their idol temples, and
instead thereof raised mosques where infidels and idolaters worshipped
idols, Musalmans now, by Gods mercy, perform their devotion to the true
God.- And so said and did Sikandar Lodi, Shahjahan,— Aurangzeb and
Tipu Sultan. Shams Siraj Afif writes that some sovereigns like Muhammad
Tughlaq and Firoz Tughlaq were specially chosen by the Al-mighty from
among the faithful, and in the whole course of their reigns, whenever they
took an idol temple, they broke and destroyed it.—

Why did Muslim conquerors and rulers break temples? They destroyed
temples beeause it is enjoined by their scriptures. In the history of Islam,
iconoclasm and razing other peoples temples are central to the faith. They
derive their justification and validity from the Quranic Revelation and the


Prophets Sunna or practice. Shrines and idols of unbelievers began to be
destroyed during the Prophets own time and, indeed at his behest. Sirat-un-
Nabi, the first pious biography of the Prophet, tells us how during the
earliest days of Islam, young men at Medina influenced by Islamic
teachings used to break idols. However, desecration and destruction began
in earnest when Mecca was conquered. Umar was chosen for destroying the
pictures on the walls of the shrine at Kahah.Tarikh-i-Tabari tells us that
raiding parties were sent in all directions to destroy the images of deities
held in special veneration by different tribes including the images of al-
Manat, al-Lat and al-Uzza.— Because of early successes at home, Islam
developed a full-fledged theory of iconoclasm.— India too suffered terribly.
Thousands of Hindu shrines and edifices disappeared in northern India by
the time of Sikandar Lodi and Babur. Since the wreckage of Hindu temples
became scarcer and scarcer to obtain, from the time of Akbar onwards
many Muslim buildings began to be constructed, not from the debris of
Hindu temples, but from materials specially prepared for them like pillars,
screens etc. Alauddin Khaljis Alai Darwaza at Delhi, Akbars Buland
Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri and Adil Shahs Gol Gumbaz at Bijapur are
marvels of massive elegance, while Humayuns tomb at Delhi and Taj Mahal
at Agra are beauteous monuments in stone and marble. Any people would
be proud of such monuments, and the Indians are too. But for an if. If there
was no reckless vandalism in breaking temples and utilizing their materials
in constructing Muslim buildings which lie scattered throught the country,
Hindu psyche would not be hurt. Will Durant rightly laments in Story of
Civilization that We can never know from looking at India to-day, what
grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Thus in the field of architecture,
the legacy is a mix of pride and dejection. With impressive Muslim
monuments, there is a large sprinkling of converted monuments which are
an eye-sore to the vast majority of the population.

Conversions and Tabligh

Similar is the hurt felt about forcible conversions to Islam, another legacy
of Muslim conquest and rule in Hindustan.

Impatient of delay, Muslim invaders, conquerors and kings openly and
unscrupulously converted people to Islam by force. Muhammad bin Qasim


invaded Sind in C.E. 712. Whatever plaee he eaptured like Alor, Nimn,
Debal, Sawandari, Kiraj, and Multan, therein he foreibly eonverted people
to Islam. Mahmud Ghaznavi invaded Hindustan seventeen times, and every
time he came he converted people from Peshawar to Mathura and Kashmir
to Somnath. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the vanquished
Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even without
giving a battle.— A1 Qazwini writes in his Asar-ul-Bilad that when Mahmud
went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture
and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then become
Muhammadans.— The exploits of Mahmud Ghaznavi in the field of forced
proselytization were cherished for long. His example was presented as the
model before all good Muslim rulers, as early as the fourteenth century by
Ziyauddin Barani in his Fatawa-i-Jahandari and as late as the close of the
eighteenth century by Muhammad Aslam in his Farhat-un-Nazirin.— There
were forcible conversion both during the war and in peace. Sikandar
Butshikan in Kashmir to Tipu Sultan in Mysore, Mahmud Beghara in
Gujarat to Jalaluddin Muhammad in Bengal, all Muslim rulers carried on
large-scale forcible conversions through jihad.

This jihad never ceased in India and forcible conversions continued to
take place, not only in the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi, Timur or Aurangzeb,
but throughout the medieval period. It is argued that the aim of
Muhammadans is to spread Islam, and it is nowhere laid down that it should
be propagated only through peaceful means. Others point out that a choice
was always there-Islam or death. Some others, seeking civilizational modes,
assert that conversions were effected in peaceful ways by Sufi Mashaikh.
Many others say that Sufis were not interested in proselytization. Whatever
the means employed, Islam being a proselytizing religion, Muslim
conquerors, rulers, nobles, Sufis, Maulvis, traders and soldiers all worked as
its missionaries in one way or the other. But the most abundant, extensive
and overwhelming evidence in contemporary Persian chronicles is about
forced conversions.—

During the medieval period, forcible and hurried conversions to Islam
left most of the neo-Muslims half-Hindus. With his conversion to Islam the
average Muslim did not change his old Hindu environment and tenor of life.
The neo-Muslims love of Hinduism was because of their attachment to their


old faith and culture.— High class converted Hindus sometimes went back
to Hinduism and their old privileges.— At others the various classes of
which the new Muslim eommunity was composed began to live in separate
quarters in the same city as described by Mukundram in the ease of
Bengal. Their isolation gave them some sort of security against external
interference. On the other hand Indian Islam slowly began to assimilate the
broad features of Hinduism.— Such a scenario obtained throughout the
eountry. A few examples would suffice to bring out the pieture dearly.

In the northwest part of the country the Ismaili Khojas of the Panjbhai
eommunity were followers of the Agha Khan. They paid zakat to the Agha
Khan, but regarded Ali as the tenth incarnation of Vishnu. Instead of the
Quran, they read a manual prepared by one of their Pirs, Sadr-ud-din. Their
prayers contained a mixture of Hindu and Islamic terms. The Zikris and
Dais of Makran in Baluchistan, read the Quran, but regarded the commands
of Muhammad to have been superseded by those of the Mahdi, whom they
followed. They set up their Kaba at Koh-i-Murad, and went there on
pilgrimage at the same time as the orthodox Muslims went to Mecca.—

In Gujarat, where Islam appeared early in the medieval period, besides
Khojas and Mahdawis, there were a number of tribal or sectarian groups
like Sidis, Molislams, Kasbatis, Rathors, Ghanchis, Husaini Brahmans,
Shaikhs and Kamaliyas whose beliefs and practices could not be fitted into
any Islamic pattern. The Sidis were descendants of Africans imported as
slaves mainly from Somaliland. The Molislams, Rathors and Kasbatis were
segments of converted Rajput tribes, who did not give up worshipping their
Hindu gods or observing their Hindu festivals. The Rathors claimed to be
Sunnis but did not perform the daily prayers or read the Quran. The
Ghanchis found mainly around Godhra were believed to abhor all other
Muslims and to be well inclined towards Hindus.— Near Ahmedabad, the
Shaikhs and Shaikhzadas of Gujarat adopted both Hindu and Muslim rituals
in marriage, employing the services of a Faqir and a Brahman. The half-
eonverted Sunni Rathors of Gujarat intermarried with Hindus and Muslims,
which was characteristic of Kasbatis also. In Gujarat, north of Ahmedabad,
tribals like Kolis, Bhils, Sindhis, though converted to Islam, remained
aboriginals in eustoms and habits.—


In the coastal towns and western Rajasthan, the Husaini Brahmans called
themselves followers of Atharvaveda and derived their names from Imam
Husain. They did not eat beef The men dressed like Muslims, but put on
tilak. They did not practice circumcision. At the same time they fasted
during Ramzan and followed other Muslim practices. They held Khwaja
Muin-ud-din Chishti of Ajmer in special reverence. The Shaikhs and
Shaikh-zadas did not practice circumcision but put on tilak mark. They did
not eat with the Muslims but buried their dead like the Muslims. The
Kamaliyas did not circumcise, and except that they buried the dead all their
ceremonies were Hindu. The Momnas of Cutch professed to belong to the
Shia sect of the Muslims but they did not eat flesh, did not practice
circumcision, did not say the daily prayers or keep the fast of Ramzan.

In Madhya Pradesh, in district Nimar, was a sect known as Pirzada. Their
supreme deity was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu. Their religious book
was compiled from the religious literature of the Hindus and Muslims. The
Pirzadas were Muslims, though for all intents and purposes they were
Hindus.— Of the Muslims living in the rural areas of what was formerly
known as the Central Provinces and Berar, and in the districts of Thana,
Ahmadnagar and Bijapur, it could be said generally that they were three-
fourths Hindu.— The Qasais of Thana, Ahmadnagar and Bijapur abhorred
beef-eating to such an extent that they would not even touch a beef-butcher,
and they avoided mixing with Muslims, though a Qazi was engaged for
marriage ceremonies and funerals. In Ahmadnagar, the butchers or Baqar
Qasabs and the Pinjaras or cotton carders still worshipped Hindu gods and
had idols in their houses.— In Bijapur, in addition to the Qasabs and
Pinjaras, the Baghbans (gardeners), Kanjars, poulterers, rope-makers and
grass-cutters, though professing to be Muslim, had such strong attachment
to their old faith, that they did not associate with other Muslims and openly
worshipped Hindu gods. This was not so only with the very low
classes. Some Deshmukhs and Deshpandes of Buldana professed the
Muslim religion, but employed Brahmans in secret to worship their old
tutelar deities.—

In Southern India, especially along the sea-coast, Islam came directly
from Arabia through Arab traders. Still the Muslims were very largely
affected by environment generally in dress and food, manners and customs.


The South does not, of course, form a homogeneous unit, the Muslims of
Mysore and Bangalore being much closer culturally to those of Hyderabad
than to the Moplahs and Navayats of Kerala, who are geographically much
nearer. But the divergence is in manners and customs, and not in belief

In Uttar Pradesh, and in the central parts of Bihar, there were fairly large
semi-converted neo-Muslim tribes. North of the Ganga in the district of
Purnea, while there were educated and orthodox Muslims also, the dividing
line between the religious beliefs and practices of the lower class Hindus
and Muslims was very thin indeed. In every village could be found a shrine
dedicated to the worship of goddess Kali and almost in every house a
Khudai Ghar, and in their prayers the names of both Allah and Kali were
invoked. A part of the Muslim marriage ceremony was performed at the
shrine of the goddess Bhagwati. The most popular deity among both Hindus
and Muslims was Devata Maharaj. In the Barasat and Bashirhat sub¬
divisions of 24-Parganas the Muslim woodcutters and fishermen venerated
Mubrah {Mubarak?) Ghazi. In the Chittagong district, Pir Badar was
venerated by Hindu as well as Muslim sailors as their guardian saint.

In western India, midway between Thatta and Mirpur Sakro in Sind was
followed the cult of Pir Jhariyon, saint of trees. In the east, in 24-Parganas,
Rakshaya Chandi (Kali) was worshipped in the form of trees which would
be smeared with vermillion.— Between the two extreme points tree worship
was common throughout the country. There was snake worship too. The
Hindus celebrated Nag Panchami, the Bengali sub-caste of Muslims living
in the Kishangunj sub-division built shrines for Baishahari, the snake-
goddess.

Back in the west, in Karnal a large number of Muslim peasants were, till
1865, worshipping their old village deities, though as Muslims they
repeated the kalima and practised circumcision.— In Bharatpur and Alwar,
Meos and Minas continued with their Hindu names or suffixed them with
Khan, and celebrated not only Diwali and Dashehra but most important
Janamashtami. Because of geohistoric traditions of proximity to Mathura
and Vrindavan, Krishna is integrated into Muslim consciousness at folk
level in the Brij and Mewat area - but not eleswhere. Few Meos and Minas
could recite the kalima, but they went on pilgrimage to the tombs of Salar


Masud Ghazi at Bahraich and Muin-ud-din Chishti at Ajmer. The Meos,
like the Hindus, did not marry within the gotra or family group having the
same surname, and their daughters were not entitled to inherit.— The Minas
worshipped Bhairon, a form of Shiva, and Hanuman. A little to the south, in
Jaora in Central India, Muslim cultivators followed Hindu customs in their
marriages, worshipped Shitla or deity of small-pox and fixed toran
(decorated band) on the door during wedding. In Central India, again,
around Indore, Muslim Patels and Mirdhas had Hindu names, dressed
exactly like Hindus and some of them recognised Bhawani and other Hindu
deities. The Nayatas of Khajrana, converted by their urban neighbours,
continued with their Hindu ways.—

This is an assortment of the religious beliefs of mainly uneducated, lower
class, rural-based Indian Muslims. But the facts have been placed in the
past tense, because conditions may have changed during the last few years
for as a religious community Indian Muslims are being continuously turned
into firm believers in pure Islam. Ordinarily there should be nothing
unusual or strange in the above picture. There are local, environmental and
traditional influences among Muslims everywhere. Even in urban areas,
even among educated Muslims, such distinctions exist, and Muslims of
Aligarh, Hyderabad and Srinagar are different from each other in many
ways. Many Christians of Eastern Europe had converted to Islam during the
period of the Ottoman empire. They have not discarded their European way
of life. In India, however, Muslims who continue to retain their old
traditions and habits are considered to be only half-converted. If left alone
they might help in religious syncretization which is traditional to India. But
persistent efforts are made by upper class educated Muslims to turn them
into pucca (confirmed) Musalmans. The process is called Tabligh. This is
due as much to the fear of these half-converts reverting to their old faith as
to the determination to turn Indian Muslims into the Arabic brand.

Only one or two cases of tablighi endeavour may be discussed in some
detail. We have spoken of the Molislams of Gujarat. Molislams or Maula-i-
Salaam are so called as they bear the Mohar or stamp of Islam. Else they
are Hindus and are known as Garasiyas. Originally Rajputs, they were
converted in the time of Sultan Mahmud Beghara (1458-1511). They are
about two lakhs in number and live mainly in Bharuch, Kheda and


Ahmedabad. Many of the Garasiyas have both Hindu and Muslim names.
They have retained their Hindu customs and traditions. In their marriages
mandap-SQttmg ceremony and garba-iy^tQ dance are prominent. Their
marriages are performed both by Maulvis and Brahmans. But recently
efforts have been made to wean them away from their Hindu ways and turn
them into confirmed Muslims.

Similarly, in Mewat, converts to Islam have ever remained half-Hindu.
Many such converts do not have even Muslim names: they have only Hindu
names like Ram Singh, Ram Din and Jai Singh. Islamic fundamentalists
fearing that some of them might revert to their original faith have organised
repeated preachings to make them into pucca Muslims. Some modem
works throw light on this activity. Shah Muhammad Ramzan (1769-1825)
was a cmsading tablighi of Haryana. He found that the converted Rajputs
and Jats (Muslim Rajputs and Maula Jats) were in no way different from
their Hindu counterparts in culture, customs and celebrations of religious
festivals. They were not only pir-parast (Gum-worshippers) and qabr-
parast (Grave-worshippers); they were also idol-worshippers. Muslim
Rajputs worshipped in Thakurdwaras. They celebrated Holi, Diwali and
other Hindu festivals with zeal and dressed in the Hindu fashion. Shah
Muhammad Ramzan used to sojourn in areas inhabited by such converted
Rajputs, dissuade them from practising Hindu rites and persuade them to
marry their cousins (real uncles daughters which converts persistently
refused to do). They equally detested eating cows flesh. To induce them to
eat beef, he introduced new festivals like Mariyam ka Roza and Rot-hot. On
this day, observed on 17 Rajjab, a pao of roasted beef placed on a fried
bread, was distributed amongst relatives and near and dear ones. Shah
Muhammad also encouraged such people to build mosques in large
numbers. Such endeavours have mled out the possibility of reconversion
and have helped in the Islamization of neo-Muslims. Curiously enough, this
tablighi was killed by his co-religionist Bohras at Mandsaur in Madhya
Pradesh.

Another tablighi, Muhammad Abdul Shakur, was more vituperative
against the prevalence of Hindu customs among the Muslims. He raved
against the barbarous (wahshiana) dress of the Hindus like dhoti, ghaghra
and angia and advocated wearing of kurta, amama, kurti, pyjama and orhni



(or long Chadar). He attacked Hindu marriage customs practised by
Muslims and warned women against participating in marriages with their
faces uncovered. He insisted on women observing parda and was shocked
to find that even after a thousand years of their conversion during the
expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, Indian Muslims were living like Hindus.
In the end he exhorted the senior Mewati Muslims thus: Oh Muslims, the
older people of Mewat, I appeal to you in a friendly way, doing my tablighi
duty, to give up all idolatrous and illegal (mushrikana) ways of the Hindus
Islam has laid down rules for all social and cultural conduct follow them.—

Such tablighis are still busy in their mission in Mewat and other regions.
Along with this, fresh conversions to Islam are also going on from Ladakh
to Gujarat and from Kerala to Assam, creating tensions in society. A report
in the Times of India datelined New Delhi 14 August 1989 says: When
Pakistan zindabad slogans were raised first time on the streets of Leh
recently, it came as a shock to the Buddhist people of Ladakh. Said Mr. P.
Stobdan, a scholar from Ladakh now working in Delhi: For centuries, the
Ladakhi Buddhists and Muslims lived together in harmony. Even inter¬
marriages were common among them. What had destroyed the secular
tradition of Ladakh was the systematic attempt at conversion of Buddhists
to Islam. But above all was the fear of the proselytizing drive which
threatened to eliminate the 84 per cent Buddhists as a religious group.
Within the framework of this new consciousness, according to Mr. Stobden,
the Ladakhis considered themselves to be patriotic citizens of India, the
land of the Buddha. However, because of the policy of appeasement of the
Centre towards the Kashmiris and the consequent neglect of Ladakhis, a
sense of disillusionment was growing among people of the region.

In Assam and other regions of the east, Bangladeshis are being brought in
large numbers to raise Muslim numbers. In Kerala and Tamilnadu, Gulf
money is being openly utilized for proselytization work. The 1980
conversions in Meenakshipuram provide a classic example.

There are stages of conversion and exploitation. First, non-Muslims are
converted to Islam through means which are neither mysterious nor
edifying. Then, after conversion, they are treated as inferior Muslims or riff¬
raff No effort is made to improve their economic condition. The sole


concentration is on increasing Muslim numbers through more and more
eonversions and unrestrieted proereation. Lastly, their leaders ineulcate in
them a spirit of alienation towards their ancestral society, culture and
religion as well as their native land.

It would be worthwhile to note that a substantial number of Muslim
students start their education in madras as attached to mosques. Most of
those in other sehools do not proceed beyond the Ilnd or Illrd class. And the
remaining drop out after matriculation. There may be various reasons for it
but primarily they are religious, for money received from abroad is spent on
building mosques and making converts rather than on secular education.
The Muslim child from the first day learns of momins and kafirs. He is
taught that the main aim of his life is devotion to Islam which obliquely
tells him of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb. In a very subtle way he learns
that to kill or convert a kafir is a kar-e-sawab, a pious act. A tempting
pieture of heaven is projeeted before his mind and he learns about the
fairies waiting for him there if he goes there as a ghazi or martyr.— Indian
Muslims do not always attempt to sort out their problems within the
eountry. They look to Pakistan for inspiration and support. Through
Pakistan they look to the whole Umma. That is what makes them aggressive
and violent even when they are in a minority. That is why they dare break
temples in Kashmir and Bangladesh even to-day. For accomplishing such
tasks petrodollars received from abroad and fundamentalism at home are
brought into full play. The tensions generated by this proeess in various
parts of the eountry is a permanent legaey of Muslim rule in India.

Muslim Fundamentalism

leonoelasm, proselytization, tabligh and Islamization in general have
been due to Muslim fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalism finds no
virtue in any non-Muslim eulture, it only believes in destroying every other
eulture and superimposing Muslim culture.

It is, therefore, neeessary to understand the meaning of the word
fundamentalism beeause it is loosely and unintelligibly applied to both
Hindu and Muslim faiths and their followers are unwittingly ealled
fundamentalists day in and day out. The Oxford Coneise Dietionary defines
fundamentalism as maintenanee, in opposition to modernism, of traditional


orthodox beliefs sueh as the inerraney of seripture and fundamental as base
or foundation, essential, primary, original. Hindus and Muslims ean both be
fanatics, but it is only Muslims (and Christians) who can be
fundamentalists. For the Muslim sticks to the traditional orthodox belief
that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet. No Muslim
can question this belief. As Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi says: The Quran is
believed by every Muslim to be the Word of God revealed to his Prophet
Muhammad.— This Word of God cannot be amended, it cannot be changed,
because Not even the Prophet could change the revelation. 3 5 There are no
local variations of the Muslim Law.— It is this which is fundamentalism.
There is nothing compared to it in Hinduism where every thing can be
questioned and all kinds of religious innovations and digressions are
accepted. This (Muslim) Law was the sovereign in Muslim lands: no one
was above it, and all were ruled by it.— Under Islamic law a non-Muslim
could not be accorded full citizenship of the state. Only against payment of
Jiziyah could he receive protection of life.— Jiziyah also seems to have
been an instrument of humiliation for the Zimmis (non-Muslims).— Muslim
rulers not only followed the Islamic law to the best of their own ability and
the knowledge of the Ulama, they kept the non-Muslims under all kinds of
disabilities and thraldom.

It is not widely known that the Turco-Mughal Muslim rule saw to it that
Muslims should not come closer to the Hindus, and that the one should
dominate the other.— Ziyauddin Barani the historian, Ibn Battuta the foreign
traveller and Vidyapati the poet did not fail to notice the insulting attitude of
the Muslims towards the Hindus.— The inferior status accorded to the non-
Muslims under Islamic law kept the Hindus and the Muslims apart. For
example, although monotheism, iconoclasm and proselytization have no
spiritual sanction or superiority, the Muslim rulers turned temples into
mosques and converted people to Islam by force. But the Hindus were not
permitted to convert Muslims to Hinduism. Such was the policy of the
Muslim rulers in this regard that even if a Hindu proclaimed or preached
that Hinduism was as good as Islam, he was awarded capital punishment.—
This was the general policy. Only Akbar was liberal insofar as he permitted
those Hindus who had been forcibly converted to Islam and wished to
return to their original faith, to go back to Hinduism. But only Akbar, not
even all his officers in his extensive empire. Jahangir did not permit people


to embrace Hinduism even of their own free Will.— Under Shahjahan,
apostasy from Islam had again become a capital crime, and so also any
critical comment on Muhammad.

Inter-communal marriages would have encouraged equality but these
were partially banned in the medieval period, partially insofar as that while
Muslims married Hindu women freely, the rulers would not permit Muslim
girls to marry Hindus. Contrary to general belief, Hindus have had no
inhibitions about marrying women of other nationalities and religions.
There is the well-known instance of Chandragupta Maurya marrying the
daughter of Seleucus Nikotor. Of course, Chandragupta was a king and
kings used to contract such alliances. But throughout the medieval period,
Hindus used to marry non-Hindus and foreigners without prejudice in
Southeast Asia or countries to which they migrated. Even today Hindus
marry in America, Britain, Germany and other countries which they visit or
to which they migrate. Similarly, they had no hesitation in marrying Muslim
women in the medieval period. As has been pointed out on many occasions
earlier, handsome women captives were kept mainly for sex. They were
known as kanchanis, kanizes and concubines. Their exchange among
Muslim nobles too was common. Even Hindu nobles were glad to take
Muslim women. According to The Delhi Sultanate, quoting Nizamuddin
Ahmad, Musalman women were taken by the Rajputs and sometimes taught
the art of dancing and singing and were made to join the akharas.— Muslim
women from the palace of Malwa Sultan entered, between 1512-1518, the
household of his nayak or captain Medini Rai. Sultan Mahmud Sharqi
(1436-58) was accused of handing over Muslim women to his kafir
captains. Similarly, the Muslim ruler of Kalpi and Chanderi, shortly after
1443, had made over Muslim women to some of his Hindu captains.
Clearly Malwa was not an exception. In Kashmir, according to Jonraj, Shah
Mir had gone to the extent of marrying his daughters to his Brahman
chiefs.44 This shared pleasure cemented the bonds of friendship.

But Muslim rulers were more strongly entrenched, and they, from the
very beginning, discouraged Hindus from taking Muslim women. Even
Sher Shah, who is considered to be a liberal king, broke his promise with
Puran Mai of Raisen because of the latters gravest of all offences against
Islam in keeping some Muslim women in his harem.— The Mughals freely


married Hindu princesses, but there is not a single instance of a Mughal
princess being married to a Rajput prince, although so many Mughal
princesses died as spinsters. Akbar discouraged all types of inter-communal
marriages.— When Jahangir learnt that the Hindus and Muslims
intermarried freely in Kashmir, and both give and take girls, (he ordered
that) taking them is good but giving them, God forbid. And any violation of
this order was to be visited with capital punishment.^ Shahjahans orders in
this regard were that the Hindus could keep their Muslim wives only if they
converted to Islam. Consequently, during his reign, 4,000 to 5,000 Hindus
converted in Bhadnor alone. 70 such cases were found in Gujarat and 400
in the Punjab.—

Sometimes Hindus took back Hindu girls forcibly married to Muslims.—
Many Hindu Rajas and elite kept Muslim women in their seraglios,
sometimes as a reprisal as it were. Hindus continued to take Muslim women
wherever they felt strong. Such were the Marathas. Khafl Khan and
Manucci both affirm that the Marathas used to capture Muslim women
because, according to them, the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu
women in (their) territories.— So did the Sikhs. But marriages are not made
this way. The dominance of the Muslims kept matrimonial engagements a
one-way traffic. There was no option for the Hindus but to scruplously
avoid marrying Muslim women. How long could they go on suffering
humiliation on this account? With all their weaknesses, the Hindus have
after all been a proud people.— Centuries of Muslim rulers policy brought
rigidity in Hindu behaviour also. He stopped marrying Muslim women and
shut his door to reentry of Muslim converts. Today it is observed that the
Hindu has a closed mind. He does not marry a Muslim woman for even if
he does so, she would not be welcome in his family. The genesis of this
situation is the result of centuries of Muslim rulers practice of prohibiting
Hindus from marrying Muslim girls.

In short, the policy of Muslim rulers was to keep the Muslim minority in
a privileged position and see to it that there was no integration between the
two communities. Muslim rulers were so allergic to the prosperity of
the Hindus that they expressed open resentment at the Hindus dressing
well,— riding horses or travelling in palanquins like Muslims.— Many
rulers of the Sultanate and Mughal time enforced regulations requiring


Hindus to wear distinguishing marks on their dresses so that they may not
be mistaken for Muslims.— Qazvini say that Shahjahan had ordered that
Hindus should not be allowed to dress like Muslims.— The Fatawa-i-
Alamgiri also recommended that the Hindus should not be allowed to look
like Muslims.— Many local officers also issued similar orders in their
Jagirs.— All these regulations were in accordance with the tenets of Islam.
The order of the Prophet was, Do the opposite of the polytheists and let
your beard grow long.—

Partition of the Country

During the eighteenth century the Mughal empire fell on bad days; in the
nineteenth it rapidly declined. But the Muslims could not forget the
privileged position they had enjoyed in the medieval period. With the
decline of the Muslim political power at the Centre and in Muslim ruled
provinces, a dilemma stared them in the face. They had to live on terms of
equality with the Hindus. Worse still, these Hindus were in a majority. They
could not think of living under the dominance of the Hindu majority. Three
examples of this attitude, one each from the eighteenth, nineteenth and
twentieth century will suffice to illustrate the point.

(1) After Aurangzebs death when Muslim power started to disintegrate,
the Sufi scholar Shah Waliullah (1703-1763) wrote to the Afghan King
Ahmad Shah Abdali, inviting him to invade India to help the Muslims. The
letter said: In short the Moslem community is in a pitiable condition. All
control of the machinery of the government is in the hands of the Hindus
because they are the only people who are capable and industrious. Wealth
and prosperity are concentrated in their hands, while the share of Moslems
is nothing but poverty and misery At this time you are the only king who is
powerful, farsighted and capable of defeating the enemy forces. Certainly it
is incumbent upon you to march to India, destroy Maratha domination and
rescue weak and old Moslems from the clutches of non-Moslems. If, Allah
forbid, domination by infidels continues, Moslems will forget Islam and
within a short time, become such a nation that there will be nothing left to
distinguish them from non-Moslems.—


(2) Nawab Wiqar-ul-Mulk (1841-1917) of the Aligarh School of Muslim
Politics who is generally regarded as one of the makers of modern Muslim
India, was Sir Syed Ahmeds loyal follower. He also became the Secretary
of the Aligarh College. According to Tazkirah-i-Wiqar the Wiqar-ul-Mulk
said: We are numerically one-fifth of the other community. If, at any time,
the British Government ceases to exist in India, we shall have to live as the
subjects of the Hindus, and our lives, our property, our self-respect and our
religion will all be in danger If there is any device by which we can escape
this it is by the continuance of the British Raj, and our interests can be
safeguarded only if we ensure the continuance of the British Government.—

(3) About half a century later, Laiqat Ali Khan voiced his demand at a
meeting with Lord Wavell on 24 January 1946 that the British resolve the
transfer of power problem by imposing a solution on the basis of Pakistan.
Wavell told him in reply that in such a case, the British would have to stay
on in India to enforce this imposed solution. According to an entry in
Wavells journal of the same date Liaqat Ali said that in any event we (the
British) would have to stop for many years yet, and that the Moslems were
not at all anxious that we should go.—

Thus highly educated and important Muslim leaders like Shah Waliullah,
Wiqar-ul-Mulk and Liaqat Ali Khan preferred to live under the rule of
foreigners like the Afghans and the British than to live as a free people with
the Hindus just because the latter happened to be in a majority. Is it
therefore any wonder that the majority of Muslims were not interested in
joining the freedom struggle for India's independence? The leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi was acceptable to them only in the context of the Khilaft
movement. Else, he was declared as a leader of the Hindus only. And what
the Ali brothers said about the Mahatma vis-a-vis an ordinary or even an
anti-social Muslim has become proverbial as indicative of the Muslim
attitude towards non-Muslims in India.— Of course, today Muslims in India
swear by democracy and secularism

The idea of Pakistan was as old as the Muslim rule in India. M.A. Jinnah
is reported to have said that the seeds of Pakistan were planted when the
first Hindu converted to Islam in India. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reiterated the
same conclusion in still clearer terms. Wrote he. The starting point of


Pakistan goes back a thousand years to when Mohammed-bin-Qasim set
foot on the soil of Sind and introduced Islam in the sub-continent The study
of Mughal and British periods will show that the seeds of Pakistan took root
in the sub-continent from the time Muslims consolidated their position in
India. The creation of two sovereign states of India and Pakistan merely
formalised this existing division.— Jinnah and Bhutto were not historians.
But Aziz Ahmad in a historical analysis in his Studies in Islamic Culture in
the Indian Environment arrives at the same conclusion. However, whatever
the point of time or the genesis of Partition, never before was India
geographically divided on religious basis in the course of its long history.
The creation of Pakistan in 1947 showed the way to other ambitious or
aggrieved identities in Kashmir, Punjab and Assam to clamour for
secession. The partition of the country may, perhaps, have been the logical
legacy of Muslim rule in India, but the cinder fuelled by the original
separatists is posing an unsurmountable problem for India's unity and
integrity.

Communal Riots

One of the immediate causes of Partition was the Direct Action or the
unleashing of widespread communal violence in the country. But there was
nothing new or unique about it. The history of communal riots is
synchronous with the advent of Muslims in India. For the next hundreds of
years invaders and rulers committed all sorts of atrocities on the people and
the atmosphere was surcharged with aggression and violence. But one day
the Hindus struck back. The opportunity came when Nasiruddin Khusrau
Shah ascended the throne of Delhi (1320). Khusrau Shah was a Hindu
convert. He belonged to the Barwari class of Gujarat and they were known
for their bravery.— Qutbuddin was very much enamoured of him. It was
customary in those days, says Ibn Battuta, that when a Hindu accepted
Islam, the sultan used to present him with a robe of honour and a gold
bangle.— Khusrau Khan pleaded with the sultan that some of his relations
wanted to embrace Islam and in this way collected about 40,000 Barwaris
in the capital.— One day they killed Qutbuddin Khalji and started rioting
and killing.— Copies of the Quran were tom to pieces and used as seats for
idols which were placed in the niches {mehrabs) of the mosques. A later but
otherwise reliable chronicler, Nizamuddin Ahmad, says that some mosques


were also broken.— The Barwaris had known the Muslims breaking temples
and destroying religious books of the Hindus. This they had done on a large
seale in Gujarat itself about twenty years ago.— In the Delhi rioting, they
paid the Muslims baek in the same eoin. Their King Khusrau Shah even
forbade eow-slaughter.— But in the end this rioting was brought under
eontrol by Gazi Malik.

It is often asserted that unlike during British rule, there were no
eommunal riots under Muslim rule. This is only partially true; firstly,
beeause the Hindus eould not always respond to Muslim violenee with
symmetrieal foree in the medieval period; and seeondly, details given by
ehronielers about eommunal eonfliets eannot be easily separated from those
of perennial politieal strife and resistanee during Muslim rule. Persian
ehronielers repeatedly aver that Muslims were dominant and domineering
during the medieval period while the Hindus were kept systematieally
suppressed.— But just beeause of this, because of the treatment accorded to
non-Muslims and sometimes their reaction to it, there were Hindu-Muslim
riots. And this situation is understandable. But why were there Shia-Sunni
riots under Muslim rule just as they have always been there.— It is for the
reason that a psyche geared to aggression and violence cannot rest in peace
without fighting. When non-Muslims are not there to fight, Sunnis and
Shias call each other Kafir and attack each other.

But ultimately the brunt of all such riots was borne by the Hindus. For
instance, this is how Pelsaert describes the situation prevalent in the time of
Jahangir (1605-27) during Muharram. The outcry (of mourning) lasts till
the first quarter of the day; the coffins (Tazias) are brought to the river, and
if the two parties meet carrying their biers (it is worse on that day), and one
will not give place to the other, then if they are evenly matched, they may
kill each other as if they were enemies at open war, for they run with naked
swords like madmen. No Hindu can venture into the streets before midday,
for even if they should escape with their life, at the least their arms and legs
would be broken to pieces—

Jafar Sharifs description of the Muharram scene for the eighteenth-
nineteenth century is still more detailed. Writes he: Whenever the
Muharram chances to coincide with Hindu festivals, such as the Ramnavmi


or the birth of Rama, the Charakhpuja, or swing festival, or the Dasahra,
serious riots have oeeurred as the proeessions meet in front of a mosque or
Hindu temple, or when an attempt is made to cut the branches of some
sacred fig-tree which impedes the passage of the cenotaphs. Such riots, for
instance occurred at Cuddapa in Madras in 1821, at Bhiwandi in the Thana
District, Bombay, in 1837. In the case of some disturbances at Hyderabad, it
is said that Hindus, who act as Muharram Faqirs (who erect them, Tazias,
themselves and become Faqirs during Muharram), sometimes take the part
of Mussulmans against their coreligionists.—

According to a contemporary Sufi, Shaikh Abdur Rahman Chishti, the
the subservience of the Hindus to Islam under Shahjahan was thorough and
complete.— However, communal riots had become common from the time
of Aurangzeb because of his religious policy. Rioting went on for days
together in Varanasi when Vishvanath and other temples were destroyed
there in 1669. Here is the description of the communal riots as narrated in a
contemporary work:

The infidels demolished a mosque, writes the author of the Ganj-i-
Arshadi, that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the
news reached Shah Yasin, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and
collecting the Muslim weavers, demolished the big temple. A Sayyid who
was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasul to build a
mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place
there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation
of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the
locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night
the walls of the mosque were found demolished. Next day the wall was
rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last
the Sayyid hid himself in a corner. With the advent of night the infidels
came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasul gave the alarm,
the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by the Rajputs. In
the meantime, the Mussulman residents of the neighbourhood arrived at the
spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded Muslims were taken
to Shah Yasin who, determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he
came to the mosque, people collected from the neighbourhood. The civil
officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint but in reality they


were afraid of the royal displeasure on aeeount of the Raja, who was a
eourtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near whieh the mosque
was under construction). Shah Yasin, however, took up the sword and
started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave
step should not be taken without the Emperors permission. Shah Yasin,
paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a
fusillade of stones The doors (of temples) were forced open and the idols
thrown down. The weavers and other Mussulmans demolished about 500
temples. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes
were barricaded, they desisted from going further.—

Temple destruction in Mathura, Ujjain, Rajasthan and many other parts of
the country was always followed by communal rioting. In March, 1671, it
was reported that a Muslim officer who had been sent to demolish Hindu
temples in and around Ujjain was killed with many of his followers in the
riot that had followed his attempts at destroying the temples there. He had
succeeded in destroying some of the temples, but in one place, a Rajput
chief had opposed this wanton destruction of his religious places. He
overpowered the Mughal forces and destroyed its leader and many of his
men. In Gujarat somewhere near Ahmedabad, Kolis seem to have taken
possession of a mosque probably built on the site of a temple and prevented
reading of Friday prayers there. Imperial orders were thereupon issued to
the provincial officers in Gujarat to secure the use of the mosque for Friday
prayers.— So, as a measure of retaliation sometimes mosques were
destroyed by Hindus and Sikhs when their shrines were desecrated and
razed. This was done as seen earlier by the Satnamis and by the Sikhs when
they rose against the fanatical policy of Aurangzeb.— Hindus had learnt to
do it in imitation of their Muslim rulers since the days of Sultan Nasiruddin
Khusrau Shah.

Attack on Hindu honour and religion were common, evoking, naturally,
violent response. Jadunath Sarkar writes: The prime ministers grandson,
Mirza Tafakhkhur used to sally forth from his mansion in Delhi with his
ruffians, plunder the shops in the bazar, kidnap Hindu women passing
through the public streets in litters or going to the river, and dishonour
them; and yet there was no judge strong enough to punish him, no police to
prevent such crimes.— Such ruffians were dealt with directly by the Hindu


public, resulting in communal rioting. The king was busy in suppression of
Hindu religion, and the Hindus in fighting for their rights. In brief, as noted
by Sharma, "The Holi ceased to be celebrated by imperial orders issued on
20 November, 1665. It was not a police order alone, promulgated for the
purpose of keeping peace and order during the Holi days as Sir Jadunath
Sarkar has suggested. Raja Bhim of Banera and Kishen Singh while serving
in south India in 1692, made arrangements for the celebration of the Holi.
The censor tried to stop the celebration (but failed). He reported the matter
to the emperor by whose orders the celebrations were stopped. In 1704, 200
soldiers were placed at the disposal of the censor for the purpose of
preventing the celebration of the Holi. Of course the emperor was not
always able to stop the celebrations as the people had learnt to fight back in
the streets. And their resistance was not always easy to crush. In the South
where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was
usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing as he was afraid
of arousing the feelings of his Hindu subjects in the Deccan where the
suppression of rebellions was not an easy matter. An idol in a niche in the
fort of Golkunda is said to have been spared by Aurangzeb. But the
discontent occasioned by his orders could not thus be brought to an end.—

From then on to this day Hindu-Muslim communal riots have gone on
and on. The occasions are the same. Coincidence of a Hindu and a Muslim
festival falling on the same day, music before mosque, chance sprinkling of
coloured-water on a Muslim even by a child, coming out of the mosque on
Friday after hearing a hot sermon, and now political sabre-rattling of direct
action. During the early years of the twentieth century communal riots were
a common feature in one or the other part of the country. Pakistan was
created as much by the ambition of the Muslim politicians as by the
violence of their Direct Action. After that there was some respite. But from
1970 onwards communal riots in India have again become an yearly
feature. The riots in 1970 in Aligarh and in 1971 in Moradabad were trend¬
setters as it were.

Every riot is followed by an Inquiry Committee, but its report is never
published. Take U.P. for instance. A report in the Times of India of
13.12.1990 from Lucknow says: At least a dozen judicial inquiry reports
into the genesis of communal riots in the state have never seen the light of


the day. They have been buried in the seeretariat-files over the past two
deeades. The failure of the sueeessive state governments to publish these
reports and initiate aetion has given eredenee to the belief that they are not
serious about checking communal violence There were other instances
when the state government instituted an inquiry and then scuttled the
commissions. In the 1982 and 1986 clashes in Meerut and in the 1986 riots
in Allahabad, the judicial inquiries were ordered only as an eye-wash
Judicial inquiries are ordered as an eye-wash because the perpetrators of
riots are known but cannot be booked. In a secular state it is neither proper
to name them nor political to punish them. Inquiry committee reports are
left to gather dust, while those who should be punished are pampered and
patronised as vote-banks in Indias democratic setup. Therefore communal
riots in India as a legacy of Muslim rule may continue to persist. If these
could help in partitioning the country, they could still help in achieving
many other goals.

In brief, Hindu-Muslim composite culture is seen in the domain of music,
film industry, sports, army life and Indian cuisine, while Muslim
iconoclasm, proselytization, fundamentalism and continuous communal
riots repeatedly remind us of the chasm that separates the two communities.
Actually it is manifested only in personal friendships and neighbourhood
loyalties. It is conspicuous by its absence in the history of Indian
philosophy. Jaisi, Rahim, Raskhan and Dara Shukoh, though no
conventional philosophers, are rare phenomenon. Recognized leading lights
of Islamic philosophy like Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah and
Shah Ismail Shahid, find no place in the histories of Indian philosophy. The
issue of composite culture was finally settled in 1947. In 1947, writes Harsh
Narain, Muslim society succeeded in extorting recognition as a separate
culture and nation and getting the country vivisected on that basis. It is
another matter that we go on harping on the theme of the truncated Indias
belonging to Hindus and Muslims alike and its cultures being a composite
culture, a culture composed of Hindu and Muslim religio-cultural
traditions.—

Medieval Legacy and Modern Politics


Whether Indian leaders aeeepted Partition willingly or not, they should
have realised the neeessity of elearly understanding the two-nation theory in
all its aspects, in all its implications, at least in post-Partition years.
Muslims were more or less clear about the policies that were to be followed
in the newly established state of Pakistan. They pushed out the Hindu
minority to the extent possible, broke most of the temples, and in course of
time Pakistan was declared an Islamic State. Bangladesh also followed suit.
But in the residual India no thought was given to the formulation of
practicable policies of the newly independent State. The old mindsets
continued. The policy of the Indian National Congress before Partition was
alright. It appeased the Muslims to somehow save the country from
division. But after the country was partitioned on Hindu-Muslim basis,
continuance of the old policy of appeasement showed bankruptcy of
political acumen and a betrayal of the implicit trust reposed by the people in
the Congress-in particular Jawaharlal Nehru. With all his knowledge of
history he could not understand Islam and its fundamentalism. It appeared
that his lifelong contact with its followers and the bitter fruit of Partition
had no lessons for him.

Pandit Nehrus family tradition, political training and social intercourse-
made him (what was jocularly called) the greatest nationalist Muslim of
India. It is said that he even felt small because of his Hindu lineage. He
himself stated that by education he was an Englishman, by views an
internationalist, by culture a Muslim; he happened to be a Hindu only by
the accident of birth. He mistook Indian nationalism as Hindu
communalism, and this confusion has come to the Indian National Congress
Party as an inheritance. For example in a public meeting in August 1947, he
declared that As long as I am at the helm of affairs India will not become a
Hindu state. If they do not subscribe to my views and are not prepared to
cooperate with me, I shall have no way except to resign from the Prime
Ministership Almost the same views were expressed in his letter to Dr.
Kailash Nath Katju on 17 November, 1953. He wrote: What real Hinduism
is may be a matter for each individual to decide, in practice the individual is
certainly intolerant and is more narrow-minded than almost any person in
any other country The Muslim outlook may be, I think, often worse, but it
does not make very much difference to the future of India.— This
assessment has proved to be incorrect.


On 30 December, 1949, addressing a meeting under the auspices of the
Secular Democratic Front at Farrukhabad, Pandit Nehru said that the talk of
Hindu culture would injure Indias interests and would mean the acceptance
of the two-nation theory which the Congress had opposed tooth and nail.
Again, addressing the students at Lucknow University on 16 September,
1951, he said that the ideology of Hindu Dharma was completely out of
tune with the present times, and if it took root in India, it would smash the
country to pieces. Nehrus pro-western, pro-Muslim leanings were very
well-known. Hindus did not protest because they loved and respected
Nehru. They had full faith in him. Hindus did not even care because they
thought they were in such vast majority. Hindus did not make a noise
because in the flush of freedom they remained, as usual, casual and
indifferent to any future Muslim plans. But every society wants some
security, some piece of land as its homeland under the sun. This law of
human existence is supereme. Every country worth the name has some core
element or force in it called the nation, which is its backbone and the source
of all strength in it. Such a force in India is the Hindu force. This force has
always been active in the day-to-day life of this nation, but has shown itself
more markedly and spectacularly and has sprung into action with redoubled
energy during the last few years. Rigmarole of language apart, India is a
Hindu nation. As Dr. Copal Krishna observes. It seems to me that for a
student of history and a man of long political experience, Nehru's
understanding of ethnic / religious plurality (of India) and its political
pressures was amazingly shallow. His outraged reaction to displays of
communal antagonism was aesthetic rather than thoughtful. To describe
persistent mass group behaviour as barbaric did not suggest any
understanding of the behaviour itself—

The Muslims who stayed on in India after Partition did not take much
time to discover that most policies of the Nehru Government were anti-
Hindu. For them it was a political windfall. Soon enough they asserted that
they were being discriminated against by the dominant Hindu majority. Pre-
Partition psychology and slogans reappeared. Hindus have a stake in India.
This is the only country which they can call their own and for which they
are prepared to make any sacrifice. Muslims have no such inhibitions. They
can and do look outside as well. There is a tendency to explain Muslim
communalism in terms of the intrigues of the British Government and


failings of the Indian National Congress, but Muslim politics is not a
passive product. It has its own aims, aspirations, ambitions and dynamism.
It dreams of a pan-Islamic state which could go on expanding. On the one
hand the Muslim minority truly professes allegiance to India and on the
other, and equally truly, even after forty years of Independence, looks to
Pakistan for directions. Pakistan on its part avows friendship with India and
at the same time strives for confederal alliance with neighbouring Muslim
States against India.— The medieval concept of Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-
Islam has never ceased to be. According to Deoband Fatwas, even free
India is 2 l Dar-ul-Harb ^

After Partition, Pakistan solved its minority problem without much ado.
But Indian leaders failed to do so. Contrary to the Benthamite doctrine of
the greatest good of the greatest number, to Gandhiji the last man was his
first concern. Even after the vivisection of the country he remained more
concerned with the difficulties of the Muslim minority than anything else.
Ram Gopal, while discussing the problem of Muslims before Partition,
summarises the Hindu attitude contained in a resolution of V.D. Savarkar
who proposed to secure the Muslim rights thus: When once the Hindu
Mahasabha not only accepts but maintains the principles of one man and
one vote and the public services go by merit alone added to the fundamental
rights and obligations to be shared by all citizen alike irrespective of any
distinction of race or religion any further mention of minority rights is on
principle not only unnecessary but self-contradictory. Because it again
introduces a consciousness of majority or minority on a communal basis.—

In brief, the Muslim minority problem has continued and will continue
also because of the fact that two theocratic states have been established in
the east and west of India. With inspiration received from these two
fundamentalist states, the Indian Muslim is prone to succumb to extra¬
territorial allurements. A Hindu cannot be a fundamentalist because there is
nothing fundamental or obligatory in his socio-religious life, but be can be a
fanatic, a greater fanatic than all, when the only country he loves and
belongs to, is broken up and is threatened to be broken up again and again.
This is Hindu backlash. And since Indian leaders have not only not been
able to solve the Muslim minority problem in India, and talk in the same


uncertain idiom in which they spoke in pre-Partition days, Hindu anger
cannot but be fanned.

In this scenario the Nehruvian Government continues to pursue the pre-
Partition policies of the Indian National Congress. Actually there is no
minority problem in India; it is Muslim problem. It is generally not realised
that whenever there is mention of words like National Integration, National
Mainstream, National Unity, Community Identity, Sectional Separatism,
Minority Rights, Minority Commission, fundamentalism, secularism etc.,
we mainly think about only one thing - the Muslim problem in India.
Minorities have been living in India from long past, minorities like Jews,
Christians and Zoroastrians for example, but they have not posed a minority
problem as such. They have always lived according to Indian cultural
traditions and within the parameters of Indian national unity. But with the
Muslims, the problem of their absorption into the Indian mainstream
continues even after Partition.

National Integration

There are ethnic, religious and linguistic groups in all large countries of
the world like America, Russia and China, and so also there are in India.
But America and Russia never talk about national integration: at least they
never make a fetish of it. As Copal Krishna in his series of articles on
Nation Building in Third World, referred to above, has said, A modem state
rests on the citizenship principle, where all the citizens, irrespective of any
specificities of birth, occupation, religion, sex, etc., constitute the political
community. Ideally there are no majorities or minorities except on
particular issues; people of course have interests, but these are pursued in
harness with the general interest. But in India the government arrogates to
itself obligations which are better left to the society itself. National
Integration is a fallacious conception. The very words imply that we are a
disintegrated people who need to be united or integrated into a nation. At
the same time it is repeatedly asserted that there is a basic Indian unity in
the midst of diversity. India undoubtedly presents a cultural peasantry of
exuberant variety with an under-layer of basic unity. This unity, however,
has its source and derives its strength not from political but from cultural
sources. Regional languages, climate, dresses and food of the people may



be different but most Indian eeremonies and festivals are associated with
religion and culture. That is how they are common and sometimes similar
throughout the country from Bengal to Kashmir and Kashmir to Kanya
Kumari. Gods and Goddesses, festivals and ceremonies sometimes have
different names in different parts of the country but they are the same and
are celebrated with equal enthusiasm everywhere. But Indian Muslims who
are mainly Hindu-converts, keep away from these. If Muslims of Indonesia
can perform the Ramayana as a national cultural festival, why Indian
Muslims cannot do it in India. It is not the Government appointed National
Integration Council but the peoples will alone that can bring about national
integration.

Similar is the case with regard to minorities. There are minorities in all
countries, but it is only in India that there is a Minorities Commission -
emphasising thereby that minorities have problems here only. This by itself
is an instigation to the minorities (read Muslims) to put forth all kinds of
demands based on trumped up grievances. Social cohesion has to be left to
the society itself for a healthy natural growth. The sooner the Government
gives up the slogans of national integration and minorityism, the better for
the country. Justice M.H. Beg, Chairman of the Minority Commission,
rightly recommended winding up of the Commission.

In Muslim countries the nature of the state is generally Islamic if not
totally theocratic. Secularism is prevalent in most advanced countries of the
world. India too is a secular country. The Indian state gives equal status to
all religions. It means that people of all faiths can practice their religious
rites with equal freedom and without interference from others or the state.
Secularism should not be a tool for demanding privileges, asserting rights,
claiming more jobs (in proportion to population, whether qualified or not)
and establishment of a minorities finance development corporation with an
initial asset of Rs. 100 crore. Some political parties encourage such
demands for gathering votes. All this makes India the only country in the
world where reservations in jobs and not merit counts, thus making small a
country otherwise great. This is one side of the coin. The other is that
secularism in India is a stick to beat the majority community with, as it is an
instrument for the appeasement of the minorities. For all practical purposes,
secularism in India is very welcome to the Muslims. With Islamic regimes



established to the east and west (Bangladesh and Pakistan), secularism
means that the Muslim minority in India can have the cake and eat it too.

In this combination of national integration, minorityism, secularism and a
common civil code, the most damaging to the Muslim interests is their
resistance to the enactment of a common civil code. On the other hand,
there is a lurking fear among many Muslims that national integration is a
ploy to submerge their religious and cultural identity by tempting them into
the national mainstream and placing them under a common civil code. That
is what makes them so keen to stick to their Personal Law. On the face of it,
it is very satisfying for Muslims to see that they have their own separate
laws; that through them they are enabled to preserve their separate identity.
In actual practice separateness makes them different from others. Difference
leads to inequality. Inequality can either make them a little superior or a
little inferior to others. Being in a minority they cannot be superior in a
democratic set up. In Muslim countries non-Muslims are generally given an
inferior status. In India Muslims on their own by insisting on preserving
their personal law make themselves lesser citizens. Once they realise that
because of their Personal Law they cannot claim equality with other
citizens, they will not come in the way of enactment of a common civil
code.

An early warning against perpetuating the minority complex was
sounded in a memorandum submitted to the Constituent Assemblys
committee on minorities by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, a leading member of
the Christian community. She said: The primary duty of the committee
appointed to look into the problem of minorities is to suggest such ways and
means as will help to eradicate the evil of separatism, rather than expedients
and palliatives which might, in the long run, only contribute to its
perpetuation. She added. Privileges and safeguards really weaken those that
demand them A distinguished member of another minority community,
Muhammad Currimbhoy Chagla, wrote in his autobiography in 1973: I
have often strongly disagreed with the government policy of constantly
harping upon minorities, minority status and minority rights. It comes in the
way of national unity, and emphasises the differences between the majority
community and minority. Of course it may serve well as a vote-catching
device to win Muslim votes, but I do not believe in sacrificing national



interests in order to get temporary party benefits. Although the Directive
Principles of the State enjoin a uniform civil code, the Government has
refused to do anything about it on the plea that the minorities will resent
any attempt at imposition. The false equation of secularism and minorityism
of the Congress is repeated in the policies of the National Front
Government.—

Politics of Minorityism

Whichever political party has been in power at the Centre during the last
forty-three years, whosoever has been the Prime Minister - Nehru or
Gandhis, Morarji Desai or V.P. Singh - the Nehruvian Congress culture has
spared no effort to woo the Muslim minority. In this attempt it was even
decided to manipulate and distort our countrys history. The justification for
rewriting Indian history, particularly medieval Indian history, from the
nationalist point of view lay in the plea that British historians have
deliberately distorted Indian history with a view to highlighting Hindu-
Muslim differences. We have already discussed this allegation earlier in
Chapter 2. The British rulers and their historians only took advantage of the
prevailing situation. For example, Monstuart Elphinstone, a Governor of
Bombay, suggested in his Minute dated 14 May 1859: Divide et Impera was
the old Roman motto, and it should be our. Given the circumstances, it
would have been foolish of any imperialist power not to follow such a
policy. But for achieving this aim there was no need for them to distort
Indian history. British historians had just to reiterate what the Muslim
chroniclers themselves had written about the glorious achievements of their
kings and conquerors. Their stories needed no proof: they stood confirmed
by the hundreds of vandalised medieval monuments. The mistake lay with
the misjudgement of our Congress-culture Government and the so-called
secularist and Stalinist historians. They chose to treat history as a handmaid
of politics to please the Muslim minority. They instructed their text-book
writers to eschew mention of unpalatable historical facts like destruction of
temples and forced conversions by Muslims in history, language and social
science. But perpetration of lies has proved counter-productive. It has
encouraged Muslims to ask for proof as to when Babur or Aurangzeb broke
this or that temple, knowing full well that such shrines were actually
vandalised and razed.


As a consequence of all this, it is now being generally realised, though
not admitted, that organisations like the National Integration Council and
Minorities Commission are all there for appeasement rather than for
grappling with the basic issues. It is now being felt that the best
qualification for becoming a member of the National Integration Council is
to be eapable of denouncing Hindus and Hinduism. If minorities were
suffering in India, Christians, Parsis, Jews too would have complained. But
in our seeular democracy not only are they feeling safe but also eontributing
their mite in development of the country. The biggest joke is that it is the
largest minority of Muslims (75 millions according to 1981 census) that
feels unsafe. To please it the Government is coerced, history is falsified and
Hindus castigated, and yet Muslims cannot be brought to join the national
mainstream. They insist on having a separate identity with separate laws.

In a democracy all citizens have equal rights. Words like majority and
minority are out of place. The moment these words are uttered in the Indian
context, they create the impression that minority is weak and helpless and
majority strong and tyrannical. Institutions like the Minorities Commission
and National Integration Council breed vested interests as they continue to
harp upon real or imaginary minority grievances. That is probably why the
late justice M.H. Beg recommended that the Minorities Commission should
be done away with, but it suited the politicians not to do so. A fear
psychosis is created vis-a-vis the Hindus, who although in majority, have
not been known for possessing cohesion. It is well known that this fear is
ereated by politicians who can go to any length to ensure their vote-banks.
No leader has bothered to find out what effeet the policy of appeasement of
Muslims has on other seetions of soeiety.

The crux of the problem is the legacy of Muslim rule in India. Directly
associated with it is the problem that the religion of the largest minority has
eertain peculiarities. It believes that there is one chosen religion and one
chosen people. In an Islamic state, no consideration is given to people of
other faiths. Non-Muslims eannot construct a Christian church or a Hindu
temple in Saudi Arabia or Iran, or say their prayers in public. During the
month of Ramzan no food is available to non-Muslims in hotels or
restaurants, although fasting is compulsory only for the Muslims. After the
conquest of Mecca, a perpetual law was enacted (by Muhammad himself)



that no unbeliever should dare to set his foot on the territory of the holy
eity.— Where Muslims rule, they may deelare the state seeular or Islamic,
they may treat the minorities with dignity or as Zimmis, follow the Islamic
laws or prohibit polygamy. No non-Muslim can demand anything from
them. They consider it entirely their own business to do what they like to do
in their own country. But elsewhere their demands know no limits.—

No wonder that in India Muslims want separate schools for their children
and claim Urdu as their language. They want their Personal Law (which
mainly means polygamy),— and resist enactment of a uniform civil code for
all. They are against family planning so that their population may grow
unchecked. In short, in countries where Muslims are in a minority and the
state is not Islamic, they insist on living an alienated, unintegrated and
superior life by agitating for concessions specified by their Islamic Shariat.
No amount of falsification of history can humour them into living with
others on terms of equality. Therefore Congress-culture politicians and
pseudo-secularists should at least inform the minority whose cause they
espouse, but to whom they never dare read a lecture, that secularism and
fundamentalism are mutually exclusive, and that in the Indian secular state
the Muslims cannot practise their fundamentalism. Furthermore, they can
also be told that history can no longer be distorted, that it cannot be made
the handmaid of politics, and that therefore they need to feel sorry if not
actually repentant about the past misdeeds of Muslims.

Sometime back the East German Ambassador to Poland publicly
apologised to the Poles for the ill-treatment meted out to them by Germans
during the last war. Two years ago, the Japanese Government officially
apologised to the Chinese Government for the atrocities committed by the
Japanese on the Chinese population in the 30s during China-Japan war.
Recently on 23 / 24 May, 1990, during a visit to South Korea, emperor
Akihito of Japan apologised to South Koreans for the same reason. Nearer
home, the Caste Hindus are doing their best to make amends for their
alleged or actual ill-treatment of backward classes through administrative,
legislative and reservation methods. But such a gesture appears to be out of
tune with Muslim culture and creed. Not that politicians of other
communities are entirely selfless: no politicians are angles. Still it is felt
that the Muslim minority community, misguided by its leaders, thinks and


works only for its own narrow interests. The interest of the eountry is not its
eoncern because it is not an Islamic country. That is why there is need to
appeal to the Muslims to join the national mainstream. Indian Muslims
were originally Hindus. As Hindus they were part of the countrys social and
political mainstream. Conversion to Islam wrenched them away from it
because Islam and Islamic theology enjoin upon Muslims to keep separated
and segregated from non-Muslims. To integrate is not their obligation. To
strive for national integration is the duty of the Government and the Hindus.
And so it has been through the centuries. It is significant that Bhakta saints
of the medieval period who preached integration were all Hindus. Even
Sant Kabir. It is they who preached that Hinduism is as good as Islam and
vice versa. No Muslim Ulama or Sufi can say such a thing. No Muslim
gives any other religion a status of equality with Islam. Such an assumption
is against the tenets of his creed.

Therefore, eversince the appearance of Muslims in India, there has been a
struggle between Muslim communalism and Hindu nationalism, to use the
modern phraseology. Today on the side of Muslim communalists are
Marxists, pseudo-secularists, progressives etc. They have chosen the safe
side because they know that it is easy to decry Hindus and Hinduism but
very unsafe to criticise Muslims or Islam. But the great pundits of
modernity and secularism have exhausted their volleys. The Hindu is now
regaining his self-respect dwarfed over centuries. His no-nonsense stance
has made the secularists and progressives panicky. They have recently
propounded a new theory. They say that while the fundamentalism of the
majority community harms only that community, the communalism of the
majority community harms the whole nation.— The Hindu does not care to
seek elaboration of such shiboleths. His watchword of Indianization,
considered in certain circles to have anti-Muslim implications, asserts a
staunch opposition to disintegration. India is on the march. It is not going
communist, nor communalist. India is steadily going Indian. It is to be
watched if Indian Muslim or Muslim Indian leadership will contribute to
this endeavour or only continue to cherish and preserve the legacy of
Muslim rule in India.


Footnotes:


- Barani, pp. 199-200.

- Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha, Madhya Kalin Bharatiya Sanskriti, pp.
193-94.

- Beale, T.W., Oriental Biographical Dictionary, p.l45. Also Amir
Khusraus Ghurrat-ul-Kamal.

-Ain, I, p. 681.

- By Sarang Deva, a eontemporary of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316).
-Islamic Culture, 1954, pp. 411, 415.

- Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 306.

- For details and reference, see Lai, History of the Khaljis, pp. 334-39;
Twilight of the Sultanate, pp. 241-44; The Mughal Harem, pp. 124 ff, 167
ff Also Smith, op. cit., pp. 306-07.

- Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, E and D, III, pp. 380-381.

- Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshah Nama, Bib. Ind. Text, I, p. 402; J.N.
Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb, III, pp. 290-291.

lJ-Afif,Eand D, III, p. 318.

- Arun Shourie et al, Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, New
Delhi, 1990, pp. 30-31.

- Margoliouth, D.S., Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, pp. 24, 377-409;
Hitti, P.K., The Arabs, p. 28; Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, II, pp. 649-660.

- Elliots trs. II, p. 49.


— Elliots trs. I, p. 98.


— Eng. trs. Elliot, VIII, p. 171.

— Those interested in detailed references may see my book Growth of
Muslim Population in Medieval India, Research Publication, New Delhi,
1973, pp. 14, 97-146, 159-164. Also my Indian Muslims: Who Are They.
For justification of force in spread of Islam, Shah Walliullah, Tafsir-i-Fath-
ur-Rahman, cited in Harsh Narain, Myths of Composite Culture, p. 57.

— Amir Khusrau, Ijaz-i-Khusravi, 5 Parts, Eucknow, 1875-76,1, p. 169.

— As the Hindu reformers discovered, the fire of Brahmanical spirit
burns in a Brahman up to six generations. See Gupta in Journal of the
Department of Letters, Calcutta University, cited in Ashraf, Life and
Conditions of the People of Hindustan, p. 194 n.

— Ashraf, op. cit., p. 191.

— Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series, Baluchistan, p. 30.

— Gazetteer of Bombay Presidency, Vol.III, Baroda (Bombay, 1899), p.
226. Also Vol. VII, Baroda, p. 72.

— Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. IX, Pt. II, pp. 64, 69.

— Central Provinces District Gazetteers, XIV, Nimar (Allahabad, 1908),
p. 63.

— M. Mujeeb, The Indian Muslims, pp. 17-18.

— Central Provinces District Gazetteers, XIII, p. 296.

— Central Provinces District Gazetteers, XVII, Seoni (Allahabad, 1907),

p. 221.

— Bengal District Gazetteers, XXXI, 24-Parganas (Calcutta, 1914), pp.
74-76.


— Mujeeb, op.cit., p. 10.


— Alwar Gazetteer, pp. 37ff., 70.

— Indore State Gazetteer (Calcutta, 1908), p. 59. For references to
Gazetteers and some additional information on observance of Hindu
manners and customs by neo-Muslims, see Mujeeb, op. cil, pp. 9-25.

— Manzur-ul-Haqq Siddiqi, Massir-ul-Jadad, published by al-Maktaba
al-Saifia, Shish Mahal Road, Lahore, 1964, pp. 94-115, esp. pp. 98, 106,
Muhammad Abdul Shakur, Aslah-i-Mewat, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, 1925, pp. 2-
3, 35-40. Also see K.C. Yadav, Urdu Sahityakaron ki Haryanvi ko den, in
Harigandha, September-October, 1989, pp. 26-28 for similar literature.

— For the traditional education of Muslim children in Madras as, see Ram
Gopal, Indian Muslims, op. cit., pp. 55-57. For their learning political
fanaticism see 5. Maqbul Ahmad, Madrasa System of Education and Indian
Muslim Society, in Indian and Contemporary Islam, ed. by S.T.
Lokhandwala, Simla, 1971, p. 32.

For conversions in Meenakshipuram, Puliangudi and other places, see
Politics of Conversion ed. by Devendra Swamp, Deendayal Research
Institute, New Delhi, 1986, pp. 7-70.

— I.H. Qureshi, Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, p. 42.

— Loc. cit.

^Ibid.,p. 43.

— Ibid., p. 42. Also Khuda Bakhsh, Essays Indian and Islamic, p. 51.

— Aghnides, N.R, Muhammadan Theories of Finance, pp. 399,528.

— Tritton, A.S., Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, p. 21. Also
Hitti, History of the Arabs, pp. 119, 171.

— Amir Khusrau, Deval Rani Khizr Khan, Persian Text, p. 50.


— Barani, p. 262; Ibn Battuta, p. 124; Vidyapati, Kirtilata, pp. 42-44, 70-
72.

— Afif, p. 388; Farishtah, I, p. 182; Dorn, pp. 65-66.

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p. 171.

— The Delhi; Sultanate, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, p. 582, quoting
Tabqat-i-Akbari, III, p. 597; Lai, Mughal Harem, p. 159; Nizamuddin,
Tabqat-i-Akbari, III, pp. 453-56; Kolf, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, p. 161.

^ C.H.I., IV, pp. 52, 57.

— The object of Akbars order was evidently to prevent a woman from
doing what she liked; for, according to the Muhammadans, women are
looked upon as naqis-ul-aql, deficient in mind (Ain, I, p. 220 and n.4).

— Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, II, p. 181.

— S.R. Sharma, Conversion and Reconversion to Hinduism, p. 12.

— Farishtah, I, p. 311.

— Khafi Khan, II, pp. 115-118; Manucci, II, P. 119.

— Alberuni, I, pp. 19-23. Also Nicolo Conti in Sewell, A Forgotten
Empire, p. 84.

— Sharma, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, pp. 5, 143, 147 for
detailed references.

— Barani, p. 219.

— Sharma, p. 5.

— Qazvini, Badshah Namah, p. 445. Shaikh Shamsuddin Yahiya wrote a
Risala (treatise) on the dress of the Zimmis. The work is no longer extant.
See Nizami, Religion and Politics, p. 318.


— Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, Nawal Kishore Press (Lucknow), III, pp. 442-45.

— Badaoni, Persian Text, II, p. 223.

— Jafar Sharif, trs. Herklots, Islam in India, p. 304. Also Hughes,
Dictionary of Islam, p. 40 citing Mishkat, XX, iv.

— Shah Waliullah ke Siyasi Maktubat, ed. by Khaliq Ahmad Nizami
reproduced in English in Khalid Bin Sayeeds Pakistan: The Formative
Phase, Pakistan Publishing House, Karachi, p. 2.

— Reproduced by A.H. Albiruni in Makers of Pakistan and Modern
Muslim India, Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, p. 109.

— Wavell, The Viceroys Journal ed. by Penderel Moon, Oxford
University Press, p. 206.

— Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote: Some Mussulman friends have been
constantly flinging at me the charge of being a Gandhi-worshipper Since I
hold Islam to be the highest gift of God, therefore, I was impelled by the
love I bear towards Mahatmaji to pray to God that he might illumine his
soul with the true light of Islam As a follower of Islam I am bound to regard
the creed of Islam as superior to that professed by the followers of any non-
Islamic religion. And in this sense, the creed of even a fallen and degraded
Mussulman is entitled to a higher place than that of any other non-Muslim
irrespective of his high character, even though the person in question be
Mahatma Gandhi himself {Young India, 10.4.1924).

Gandhijis reaction was: In my humble opinion the Maulana has proved
the purity of his heart and his faith in his own religion by expressing his
view. He merely compared two sets of religious principles and gave his
opinion as to which was better (Navajivan, 13.4.1924).

— The Great Tragedy, a pamphlet published in September, 1971 in the
wake of Bangladesh War.


— Barani, p. 379; Farishtah, I, pp. 124, 126; Ibn Battuta, Def. and Sang,
III, P. 198.

^ Ibn Battuta, op. cit.. Ill, pp. 197-98.

^C.H.I.,III, p. 123.

— Barani, p. 408.

— Tabqat-i-Akbari, Persian Text, I, p. 187.

— For details and references see Lai, History of the Khaljis, p. 70.

— Ibn Battuta, p. 47; Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, p. 87.

— Barani. pp. 216-17; 290-91. Amir Khusrau, Miftah-ul-Futuh, E and D,
III, p. 539. Also Nub Sipehr, E and D, III, p. 559, 561. Firoz Shah, Fatuhat-
i-Firoz Shahi, E and D, III, pp. 380-81; Rizquallah, Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi, fol.
40a; Dorn, Makhzan-i-Afghana, pp. 65-66; Farishtah, I, pp. 147-48; Also
Eal, Twilight of the Sultanate, p. 194, n.l76.

^ C.H.I, III, p. 59.

— Pelsaert, p. 75.

— Herklots, Islam in India, pp. 166-67.

— Rizvi, History of Sufism, II, p. 369.

— Faruki, Aurangzeb, pp. 127-28 citing from Ganj-i-Arshadi, reproduced
in Sharma, op. cit., p. 144 n.l2.

The Vishvanath temple site was never relinquished by the Hindus even
after its desecration by Aurangzeb. The present one was built by the
Maratha Rani Ahilya Bai in 1785. The Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh (d.

1839) got its shikharas covered with gold plates.


— Sharma, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, p. 134, also pp.
133-38, writing on the basis of News Letter of 27 Mareh, 1670 and Mirat-i-
Ahmadi, I, p. 261.

^C.H.I.,IV,pp. 245, 322.

— Sarkar, A Short History of Aurangzeb, p. 452.

— Sharma, op. cit., p. 139,142.

— Harsh Narain, Myths of Composite Culture and Equality of Religions,
p. 24.

— Henry Sender, The Kashmiri Pandits: A Study of Cultural Choice,
Oxford University Press, 1988. Also review of this book by Ratan Watal in
Express Magazine, 15 January, 1989.

— Indias Minorities, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting (New Delhi, 1948), pp. 1 ff.

— Gopal Krishna, Nation Building In Third World, a series of four
articles. Times of India, 26 to 29 December, 1988.

— Speech by the Pakistan Army Chief at the Staff College at Quetta on
26.10.1988.

— Fatawa-i-Deoband, Vol. II, p. 269 cited in Harsh Narain, op. cit., p. 44.

— Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political History (1858-1947), pp.
264-65.

— C.N.S. Raghavan, Secularism or Minority ism, in Statesman, 19.11.89.

— Gibbon, op. cit., II, p. 685.

— A news item in the The Statesman of Sunday, 6 August 1989, entitled
Muslims in Britain displaying militancy and datelined London, August 5,
underscores the problem. It says that Muslims in Britain are displaying


increasing militancy. The Muslim community is demanding that its way of
life be respected in Britain and instead of integration, many want separation
They are concentrating on the right to have Muslim schools and official
recognition for Islamic family laws which permit polygamy These demands
they placed before the Home Secretary Mr. Douglas Hurd while protesting
against Salman Rushdies controversial novel Satanic Verses. That turned
out to be an excuse or occasion to put claims quite unrelated to the book.
Later reports indicate that they are striving to establish a non-territorial
Muslim Kingdom in Britain.

— The reason why the Muslims do not insist upon chopping off the hands
of thieves and stoning adulterers to death is that the courts imparting justice
are not Shariat courts. The Shariat law prescribes certain qualifications for
the judges which the present judicial set-up does not fulfil (A correspondent
from Aligarh in a letter to the Editor, Times of India, 17.8.91). Of course for
contracting four marriages no permission is required from non-Shariat
Indian law-courts.

— Professor Shaharyar in a Seminar at Aligarh as reported in Qaumi
Awaz dated 23 November, 1989. And V.M. Tarkundes article Hindu
Communalism in The Times of India of 30 May, 1990.


Bibliography

Original Sources

Abdullah, Tarikh-i-Daudi, Bankipore Ms. Text, ed. by S.A. Rashid,
Aligarh.

Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshah Nama, Bib. Ind., 2 vols., Calcutta, 1898.

Abdul Haqq Dehelvi, Akhbar-ul-Akhiyar, Delhi, 1309 H.

Abdur Razzaq, Muda-us-Sadain, trs. in E and D, IV. Also see Major
under foreign Travellers Accounts.

Abul Fazl, Allami, Ain-i-Akbari, 3 vols., Vol. I trs. by H. Blochmann and
ed. by D.C. Phillot, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1939; Vol. II trs. by
H.S. Jarret and annotated by Jadunath Sarkar, A.S.B., Calcutta, 1939; Vol.
Ill, trs. by Jarret and Sarkar, Calcutta, 1948.

Abul Fazl, Allami, Akbar Nama, Bib. Ind. Text, 3 vols., English trs. by
Henry Beveridge, Calcutta, 1948.

Afif, Shams Siraj, Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1890.

Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1936.

Ain-ul Mulk Multani, Qasaid Badr Chach, Kanpur, n.d.

Alberuni, Abu Raihan Muhammad., Alberunis India, Eng. trs. by Edward
Sachau, 2 vols., Trubners Oriental Series, Kegan Paul, Eondon, 1910.

A1 Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan (written 9th cent. C.E.), trs. in E and D,

Vol. I.

A1 Istakhri, Kitab-ul-Aqalim (written C.E. 951), trs. in E and D, Vol. 1.

A1 Kufi, Chach Nama, trs. in E and D, I. Also by Mirza Kalichbeg
Fredunbeg, Karachi, 1900, Delhi reprint, 1979.

A1 Masudi, Muruj-ul-Zuhab (written C.E. 941), trs. in E and D, I.

A1 Qalqashindi, Subh-ul-Asha, trs. by Otto Spies as An Arab Account of
India in the 14th century, Aligarh, 1935.

Ali Muhammad Khan Bahadur, Mirat-i-Ahmadi, Caleutta, 1928; English
trs. by Eokhandvala, 2 vols.. Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1965.

Amin Qazvini, Bashah Nama, Ms. Raza Eibrary, Rampur.

Amir Khurd, see Kirmani.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Deval Rani, Aligarh, 1917.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Tughlaq Nama, ed. by Hashim Faridabadi,
Aurangabad, 1933.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Ghurrat-ul-Kamal, published by Yasin Ali,
Delhi.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Khazain-ul-Futuh, see Habib under Modern
Works.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Mutla-i-Anwar, Eueknow, 1884.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Aijaz-i-Khusravi, 5 parts, Eueknow, 1876.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Miftah-ul-Futuh, Aligarh Text, 1954.

Amir Khusrau, Abul Hasan, Afzal-ul-Favaid (compilations of
conversations of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya), Persian Text, Rizvi Press,
Delhi, 1305 H.; Urdu trs. in Silsila-i-TasawwufNo. 81, Allah Wale Ki
Dukan, Kashmiri Bazar, Eahore.

Babur, Zahimddin Muhammad, Babur Nama or Tuzuk-i-Baburi, trs. from
Turki by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge, 2 vols., Luzae & Co., London, 1922; trs.
from the Persian version by John Leyden and William Erskine as Memoirs
of Babur, London, 1926.

Badaoni, Abdul Qadir Ibn-i-Muluk Shah, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, ed. by
Ahmad Ali, Persian Text, Bib. Ind., 3 vols., Calcutta, 1864-67; English trs.
by George S.A Ranking, A.S.B., Calcutta, 1898.

Baihaqi, Khwaja Abul Fazl, Tarikh-i-Subuktgin (written 1089 C.E.), trs.
in E and D, 11.

Bakhtawar Khan, Mirat-i-Alam (written 1078 H / 1666 C.E.), trs. in E
and D, VIE

Barani, Ziyauddin, Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1864.

Barani, Ziyauddin, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, English trs. by Afsar Begum and
Mohammad Habib, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1960.

Barani, Ziyauddin, Sana-i-Muhammadi, trs. in Medieval India Quarterly,
Vol. I, pt. III.

Bihamad Khani, Muhammad, Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, British Museum Ms.
Rotograph copy in Allahabad University Eibrary, English trs. by
Muhammad Zaki, Aligarh, 1972.

Chandrabhan Brahman, Guldasta, Sir Sulaiman Collection Ms. No. 666 /
44, Aligarh Muslim University Eibrary.

Devalsmriti, published by Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, Poona; English
trs. by M.N. Roy in Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society,
1927.

Dhuniraj, Girvan-Vanmanjari (written 1702-04 C.E.), Text ed. by U.P.
Shah, Baroda, 1960.

Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, ed. by Sir
Denison Ross, London, 1927.

Fakbr-i-Mudabbir, Adabul Harb wa Shujaat, Photocopy British Museum,
Add. 1653; Hindi trs. in Rizvi, Adi Turk Kalin Bharat.

Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, Urdu trs., Nawal Kishore Press, 3 vols. Lucknow.

Farishtah, Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, Gulshan-i-Ibrahimi, also
known as Tarikh-i-Farishtah, Persian Text, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow,
1865.

Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, Aligarh, 1954.

Hamid Qalandar, Khair-ul-Majalis (compilation of conversations of
Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh Dihli), Text ed. by K.A. Nizami.

Hajiuddabir, Zafar-ul-Wali bi Muzaffar Wali, An Arabic History of
Gujarat, ed. by Sir Denison Ross, 3 vols., London, 1910, 1921.

Hasan Nizami, TaJ-ul-Maasir, trs. by S.H. Askari in Patna University
Journal (Arts), Vol.18, No.3, 1963. Also in E and D, 11.

Hidaya Kitab al Siyar wail Jihad, Mujtabai Press, Delhi, 2 vols., 1331,
1332

H. Also see Hamilton under Modern Works.

Ibn Battuta, The Rehla of Ibn Battuta, English trs. by Agha Mahdi
Husain, Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1953. Abridged Translation by H.R.A.
Gibb, Broadway Travellers Series, Eondon, 1929. French trs. as Ibn
Batoutahs Voyages, ed. by C. Defremery and B.R. Sanguinetti, Paris, 1857.

Ibn Hauqal, Ashkalal-ul-Bilad (written 976 C.E.), trs. in E and D, 1.

Ibn-ul-Asir, Shaikh Abul Hasan Ali, Kamil-ut-Tawrikh (written 12th
century C.E.), trs. in E and D, II.

Idrisi, Nuzhat-ul-Mushtaq (written 12th century C.E.), trs. in E and D, I.

Isami, Khwaja Abdullah Malik, Futuh-us-Salatin, ed. by Agha Mahdi
Husain, Educational Press, Agra, 1938.


Jahangir, Nuruddin Muhammad, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri or Memoirs of
Emperor Jahangir, trs. by Rogers and Beveridge, Delhi reprint, 1968. See
also Price for Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi.

Jaisi, Malik Muhammad, Padmavat, ed. by R.C. Shukla, Indian Press,
Allahabad, 1935.

Jamali, Maulana Hamid Ibn Fazlullah, Siyar-ul-Arifin, Rizvi Press, Delhi,
1311 H.

Jauhar, Tazkirat-ul-Waqiat, trs. by C. Stewart, Indian reprint, 1972.

Kalhana, Rajatarangini, trs. by M.A. Stein, Westminister, 1900.

Kamboh, Muhammad Saleh, Amil Saleh, Bib. Ind., 3 vols., Calcutta,
1923, 1927, 1939.

Kanz-ul-Mahfuz (written 1150 H.), trs. in E and D, VIII.

Khafi Khan Muhammad Hashim, Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, ed. by Kabir-ud-
din Ahmad, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1869, 1925.

Kirmani, Saiyyad Muhammad Mubarak, also known as Amir Khurd,
Siyar-ul-Auliya, Muhibbul Hind Press, Delhi, 1309 H. 11891 C.E.; Urdu trs.
by Allah Wale ki Dukan, Silsila-i-Tassawuf No.l30, Kashmiri Bazar,
Eahore, n.d.; Urdu trs. by Aijaz-ul-Haqq Quddusi, Seema Offset Press,
Jama Masjid, Delhi, 1985.

Mamuri, Abul Fazl, Tarikh-i-Aurangzeb, continuation of Sadiq Khans
Shahjahan Nama. B.M. Or. 1671.

Minhaj Siraj Jurjani, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1864; English
trs. by Major H.R. Raverty, London, 1881.

Mir Masum, Tarikh-i-Masumi also called Tarikh-i-Sind, ed. by Daudpota,
Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona, 1938.

Muhammad Aslam, Farhat-un-Nazirin (written 1770-71 C.E.), trs. in E
and D, VIII.

Muhammad Bihamad, see Bihamad

Muhammad Sharif Hanafi Mojlis-us-Salatin, trs. in E and D, VIE

Muhammad Ufi, Jami-ul-Hikayat, trs. in E and D, II.

Mustaad Khan, Saqi, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, trs. and annotated by Jadunath
Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947.

Niamatullah, Makhzan-i-Afghana, trs. by Nirodbhushan Roy as History
of the Afghans, Santiniketan, 1958. Also B. Dorns trs., 2 parts, London,
1829-36.

Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari, Bib. Ind., 3 vols., Calcutta, 1927-
35. Also trs. by B. De.

Nizamuddin Auliya, Rahat-ul-Qulub, Urdu trs., Allah Wale ki Dukan,
Lahore.

Nizamul Mulk Tusi, Siyasat Nama, ed. by Shefer, Tehran.

Nurul Haqq, Zabdul-Tarwrikh (written about dose of Akbars reign), trs.
in E and D, VI.

Padmanabh, Kanhadade Prabandh, translated and annotated by V.S.
Bhatnagar, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1991.

Price, Major David, trs. of Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi under the title of
Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangir, written by himself London, 1829; Indian
edition, Bangabasi Press, Calcutta, 1906. Also see. Price under Modem
Works.

Qazvini, see Amin.

Ranking, see Badaoni.

Razi, Amin Ahmad, Haft Aqlim, ed. by H. Hatley, Abdul Muqtadir and
M. Mahfuzul Haq, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1939.

Reynolds, see Utbi

Rizqullah Mushtaqi, Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi, Photo copy of the British
Museum Ms. Ad. 11633.

Salim, Ghulam Husain, Riyaz-us-Salatin, ed. by Abdul Haqq Abid, Bib.
Ind., Calcutta, 1890-98; English trs. by Abdus Salam, Calcutta, 190204.

Sarwani, Abbas, Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, trs. in E and D, IV.

Shah Nawaz Khan, Samsam-ud-daula, and his son Abdul Hayy, Maasir-
ul-Umara, trs. by H. Beveridge and Baini Prasad, 3 vols., Calcutta, 1911-
14.

Shihabuddin al Umri, Masalik-ul-Absar fi Mumalik-ul-Amsar (written in
middle of 14th century), trs. in E and D, III; Hindi trs. in Rizvi, Tughlaq
Kalin Bharat.

Sijzi, Amir Hasan Ala, Favaid-ul-Fvad, being conversations of Shaikh
Nizamuddin Auliya, Nawal Kishore Press, Eucknow, 1302 H., Delhi, 1856 ;

Urdu trs. by Ghulam Ahmad Khan Biryan, Manzoor Book Depot, Bulbuli
Khana, Delhi, 1984.

Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi, Anonymous, Photostat Ms. in Bankipore Library.
Extract trs. by K.K. Basu under the title of Firoz Tughlaq and His Bengal
Campaign in the Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol.
XXVII. Extract of Text and English trs. in J.R.A.S., Vol. VIII, 1942.

Sikandar bin Muhammad, Mirat-i-Sikandari, Bombay, 1308 H.

Sujan Rai, Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, ed. by Zafar Hasan, Delhi, 1918.

Timur, Amir, Malfuzat-i-Timuri, trs. in E and D, III.

Utbi, Abu Nasr Muhammad, Kitab-i-Yamini, trs. by James Reynolds,
Eondon, 1858. Also in E and D, II.

Vidyapati, Kirtilata, Indian Press, Allahabad, 1923.

Wassaf, Abdullah, Tajziat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat-ul-Asar, also called
Tarikh-i-Wassaf iy^ntlQn 1327 C.E.), Bombay, 1877.

Yahiya Sarhindi, Tatikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, Bib. Ind., Text edited by M.
Hidayat Husain, Calcutta, 1931; English trs. by K.K. Basu, Baroda, 1932.

Yazdi, Sharafuddin, Zafar Nama, 2 vols.. Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1885-88.

Zakaria al Qazvini, Asar-ul-Bilad (written 13th century C.E.), trs. in E
and D, I.

Foreign Travellers’ Accounts

Barbosa, Duarte, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society,
London, 1918-21.

Bernier, Francois, Travels in the Mogul Empire (1656-1668), revised by
V.A. Smith, Archibald Constable, Oxford, 1934.

De Laet, John, The Empire of the Great Mogol, trs. by Hoyland and
Banerjee, Bombay, 1928.

Della Valle, The Travels of Pietro Della Valle in India, trs. by Edward
Grey, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society, London, 1892.

Du Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, see Payne.

Finch, William, see Foster

Foster, William, Early Travels in India (1583-1619), contains narratives
of Fitch (pp.1-47), Mildenhall (pp.48-59), Hawkins (pp.60-121), Finch
(pp. 122-87), Withington (pp. 188-233), Coryat (pp.234-87) and Terry
(pp.288-322), London, 1927.

Foster, William, English Factories in India (1618-69), 13 vols., Oxford,
1906-27.

Hakluyt, Richard, Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and
Discoveries of the English Nation, Glasgow, 1903-05.

Heber, Reginald, Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of
India, Second ed., 3 vols., London, 1828.

Ibn Battuta, see under Original Sources

Major, R.H., India in the Fifteenth Century (contains extracts from
narratives of Nicolo Conti, Santo Stefano, etc.), Hakluyt Society, London, 1857.

Manrique, Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique, trs. by Eckford Luard, 2
vols., Hakluyt Society, London, 1927.

Manucci, Niccolao, Storia do Mogor, trs. by W. Irvine, 4 vols., John
Murray, London, 1906.

Marco Polo, see Yule

Mundy, Peter, Travels of Peter Mundy in Asia, ed. by R.C. Temple,
Hakluyt Society, London, 1914.

Payne, C.H., Akbar and the Jesuits, contains in trs. Du Jarrics account of
the Jesuit Missions to the Court of Akbar, London, 1926.

Pelsaert, Lraneiseo., Jahangirs India, trs. by W.H. Moreland and P. Geyl,
Cambridge, 1925.

Tavernier, Travels in India, trs. and ed. by V. Ball, London, 1925.

Terry, Edward, A Voyage to East India, London, 1655.

Thevenot, Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri, ed. by Surendra Nath
Sen, New Delhi, 1949.

Varthema, The Itinerary of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna, ed. by Sir
Riehard Temple, London, 1928.

Yule, Sir Henry, and H. Cordier, The Book of Ser Marco Polo, 2 vols..
New York, 1903.



Modern Works

Abdul Karim, Social History of Muslims in Bengal, Asiatic Society of
Pakistan, Dacca, 1959.

Acton, Lord, The Study of History, Macmillan & Co., London, 1905.

Aghnides, Nicholas R, Muhammadan Theories of Finance, New York,
1916.

Ahmad Shah, Bijak ofKabir, Hamirpur, 1917.

Alberuni, A.H., Makers of Pakistan and Modern Muslim Indians,
Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore.

Ambashtya, B.P, Biographical sketch of Badaoni in reprint edition of
Abdul Qadir Badaonis Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, trs. by S.A. Ranking,
reprinted by Aeademia Asiatiea, Patna, 1973.

Arnold, T.W, The Preaching of Islam, Westminister, 1896.

Arnold, T.W, The Caliphate, London, 1924.

Arnold, T.W., and Guillaume A., eds.. The Legacy of Islam, Oxford,

1931.

Ashraf, Kunwar Muhammad, Life and Conditions of the People of
Hindustan, A.S.B. journal, Calcutta, 1935.

Askari, S.M., A Study of the Rare Ms. of Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi in Journal of
Indian History, Vol. LII, April, 1974.

Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment,
Oxford, 1964.

Bashir Ahmad, M., Administration of Justice in Medieval India, Aligarh,
1941.

Beale, T.W., Oriental Biographical Dictionary, London, 1910.

Beni Prasad, A History of Jahangir, Third ed., Allahabad, 1940.

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, see Majumdar, R.C.

Bhatnagar, V.S., see Padmanabha under Original Sources.

Biswas, Satya Krishna, Banshasmriti (Bengali), Calcutta, 1926.

Bosworth, C.E., The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and
Eastern Iran, 994-1040, Edinburgh University Press, 1963.

Brown, Percy, Indian Architecture (Islamic Period), Third ed.,
Taraporevala, Bombay, n. d.

Burnes, Sir Alexander, Travels into Bokhara, together with a Narrative of
a Voyage on the Indus, 3 vols, Karachi reprint, 1973.

(The) Cambridge History of India, Cambridge University Press.

Vol. I, ed. by E. J. Rapson, Cambridge, 1922.

Vol. Ill, ed. by Wolseley Haig, Delhi reprint, 1958.

Vol. IV, ed. by Richard Burn, Cambridge 1937.

Vol. V, ed. by H.H. Dodwell, Delhi reprint, 1963.

Caroe, Sir Olaf, The Pathans, Macmillan & Co., Eondon, 1958.

Chaturvedi, Parasuram, Sant Kavya, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1952.

Crone, Patricia and Cook, Michael, Hagarism: The Making of Islamic
World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.

Crooke, William, Tribes and Castes of North Western Provinces and
Oudh, Calcutta, 1896.

Cunningham, Alexander, Coins of Medieval India, Eondon, 1894,
Varanasi reprint, 1967.

Currie, P.M., The Shrine and Cult ofMuin-d-din Chishti of Ajmer,
Oxford, Delhi, 1989.

Day, U.N., Medieval Malwa, Delhi, 1965.

Denison Ross, Islam.

Digby, Simon, War Horse and Elephant in the Delhi Sultanate, Orient
Monographs, Oxford, 1971.

Devahuti, Signifieanee of Contemporary Dharma-Shastras and
Indigenous Historieal Literature for study of Hindu-Muslim Eneounter in
Early Middle Ages in Historical and Political Perspectives, Indian History
and Culture Society, Books and Books, New Delhi, 1982.

Devendra Swamp (ed.). Politics of Conversion, Deendayal Research
Institute, New Delhi, 1986.

Dorn, Benhard, History of the Afghans, being trs. of Makhzan-i-Afghana,
Oriental Translation Fund, Eondon, 1829.

Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization, Vol. I, Our Oriental Heritage,
New York, 1972.


Easton, Stewart C., The Heritage of the Past, Rinehart and Co., New
York, 1957.

Eaton, Richard Maxwell, Sufis ofBijapur (1300-1700), Princeton, 1978.

Elliot, H.M. and Dowson, J., History of India as told by its own
Historians, 8 vols., Eondon, 1867-77; Vol. II, Aligarh reprint, 1952.

Elphinstone, Mountstuart, The History of India, 2 vols., Eondon, 1843.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Euzac & Co., 1913-38.

Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, 1949 reprint.

Faruki, Zahimddin, Aurangzeb and His Times, Delhi reprint, 1980.

Forbes, A.K., Rasmla, ed. by G.H. Rawlinson, Oxford, 1924.

Forbes, James., Orient Memoirs, 2 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1934.

Franeklin, W., A History of the Reign of Shah-Aulum, first published
1798, Allahabad, 1915.

Fuhrer and Smith, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, Calcutta, 1889.

Gazetteers, Imperial and Provincial Series.

Gazetteers ofAlwar, Trubner & Co., London, 1878.

Gibb, H.R.A., Mohammedanism: A Historical Survey, Oxford University
Press, London, 1949.

Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2 vols.,
Everymans Eibrary ed., n. d.

Gokhale, B.C., The Merchant Community in the 17th century India,
Journal of Indian History, Trivandrum, Vol. EIV, 1976.

Gopal Krishna, Nation Building in Third World, series of four articles in
The Times of India, New Delhi, 26-29 December, 1988.

Greetz, Clifford, Islam Observed (Religious Development in Morocco
and Indonesia), University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Grunebaum, Gustav E. von. Medieval Islam, Chicago, 1946.

Guillaume, A., Islam, Penguin Books, 1954.

Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, Oxford, 1958.

Guillaume, A., see also Arnold.

Habib, Mohammad, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, Delhi reprint, 1951.

Habib, Mohammad, Some Aspects of the Foundation of the Delhi
Sultanate, K.M. Ashraf Memorial Lecture, Delhi, 1966.

Habib, Mohammad, Campaigns of Alauddin Khilji, being trs. of Amir
YAmsraus Khazain-ul-Futuh, Bombay, 1933.

Habib, Mohammad, Chishti Mystic Records of the Sultanate Period, in
Medieval India Quarterly, Aligarh, Vol. I, No. 2.

Habib, Mohammad, Introduction to E and D, II, Aligarh, 1951.

Habib, Mohammad, Shaikh Nasiruddin Mahmud Chiragh-i-Dehli, in
Islamic Culture, April, 1946.

Habib, Mohammad, Review of G. N. Sharmas Social Life in Medieval
Rajasthan, in Medieval India, A Miscellany, Vol. II, Aligarh, 1972.

Habib, Mohammad, Collected Works, entitled Politics and Society
During Early Medieval Period, edited by K.A. Nizami, Vol. I, 1974; Vol. II,
1981.

Habibullah, A.B.M, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, Revised
ed., Allahabad, 1961, first published, Lahore, 1945.

Hall, D.C.E., A History of South-East Asia, Macmillan & Co., London,
1955.

Hallam, The Middle Ages, fifth ed., London, 1829.

Hamilton, Charles, trs., Hidayah, 4 vols., London, 1791.

Harsh Narain, Myths of Composite Culture and Equality of Religions,
Voice of India, New Delhi, 1991.

Havell, E.B., History of Aryan Rule in India, London, 1918.

Hazard, H.W., Atlas of Islamic History, Princeton, 1954.

Herklots, see Jafar Sharif.

Hitti, P.K., The Arabs: A Short History, Maemillan & Co., London, 1948.
Hitti, P.K., History of the Arabs, London, 1951.

Hodivala, S.H, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Bombay, 1939.

Hughes, T.P., Dictionary of Islam, W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1885.

Ibn Hasan, The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire, London, 1936.
Indian Antiquary.

Indian Historical Quarterly.

Indian History Congress Proceedings.

Indian Heritage, Vol. 1, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1955.

Indias Minorities, Publications Division, Government of India, New
Delhi, 1948.

Ira Maryin Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge,
Mass., 1967.

Ishwari Prasad, A History of the Qaraunah Turks in India, Vol. I, Indian
Press, Allahabad, 1936.

Ishwari Prasad, History of Medieval India, fourth impression, Allahabad,
1940.

Ivanow, W., Brief Survey of Evolution of Ismailism, Bombay, 1942.

Jafar Sharif, Islam in India or the Qanun-i-Islam, trs. by G.A. Herklots,
ed. by William Crooke, London, 1875, 1921.

Journal of the (Royal) Asiatic Society of Bengal.


Kane, P.V., History of Dharmashastra, 5 vols., Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, Poona, 1946-1968.

Karim, A.K. Nazmul, Muslim Social Classes in East Pakistan in
Changing Society in India and Pakistan, Universtiy of Dacca, 1956.

Kennedy, Melville T., The Chaitanya Movement, Calcutta, 1925.

Kennedy, Pringle, A History of the Great Mughals, Calcutta, 1905, 1911.

Khan, Abdul Majid, Research about Muslim Aristocracy in East Pakistan
in Pierre Bessaignet (ed.) Social Research in East Pakistan, Dacca, 1960.

Khan, M.S., The Eife and Works of Fakhre Mudabbir in Islamic Culture,
April, 1977.

Khazan Singh, The History and Philosophy of Sikhism.

Khuda Bakhsh, Essays, Indian and Islamic, Eondon, 1927.

Khuda Bakhsh, Orient under the Caliphs, Calcutta, 1921.

Kincaid, C.A. and Parasnis, D.B., A History of the Maratha People, 2
vols., Oxford, 1922.

Kolf, Dirk H.A., Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The ethnohistory of the
military labour market in Hindustan (1450-1850), Cambridge University
Press, 1990.

Each, Donald F., Asia in the Making of Europe, Vol. I, Bks I and II,
Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1965.

Lai, K.S., History of the Khaljis, New Delhi, 1980, first published 1950.

Lai, K.S., Twilight of the Sultanate, New Delhi, 1980, first published,
1963.

Lai, K.S., Studies in Medieval Indian History, Ranjit Publishers, Delhi,
1966.

Lai, K.S., Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, Research
Publications in Social Sciences, New Delhi, 1973.

Lai, K.S., Mughal Harem, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1988.

Lai, K.S., Early Muslims in India, Books & Books, New Delhi, 1984.

Lai, K.S., Indian Muslims: Who Are They, Voice of India, New Delhi,
1990.

Lai, K.S., The Ghaznavids in India, in Bengal Past and Present, Sir
Jadunath Sarkar Birth Centenary Number, July-December, 1970.

Lai, K.S., Striking Power of the Army of the Sultanate' in the Journal of
Indian History, Vol. LV, Pt. Ill, December, 1977.

Lamb, Harold, Tamerlane the Earth Shaker, Thornton, London, 1929.

Lanepoole, Stanley, Medieval India under Muhammadan Rule, T. Fisher
Unwin, London, 1926, first published, 1903.

Lapidus, see Ira Marvin.

Levy, Ruben, The Social Structure of Islam, Cambridge, 1957.

Levy, Ruben, The Baghdad Chronicle, Cambridge, 1929.

Logan, W., Malabar, Madras, 1951.

Lokhandvala, S.T. Indian and Contemporary Islam, Simla, 1971.

Macauliffe, Max Arthur, The Sikh Religion, Its Gurus, Sacred Writings
and Authors, 6 vols., Oxford, 1909.

Macpherson, History of European Commerce in India, London, 1812.

Mahdi Husain, Tughlaq Dynasty, Thacker Spink & Co. Calcutta, 1963.

Mahdi Husain, Shah Namah-i-Hind or trs. of Isamis Futuh-us-Salatin, 3
vols., Aligarh, 1976-77.

Majumdar, R.C, Raychaudhuri, H.C., and Datta, K.K., An Advanced
History of India, Macmillan & Co. London, 1958.

Majumdar, R.C. (ed.). The Classical Age, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
Bombay, 1954.

Majumdar, R.C. (ed.). Struggle for the Empire, Bombay, 1957.

Majumdar, R.C. (ed.). The Delhi Sultanate, Bombay, 1960.

Majumdar, R.C., Study of Indian History, in Journal of the Bombay
Branch of Asiatic Society, 1957.

Manzur-ul-Haqq Siddiqi, Maasir-ul-Jadad, al-Maktaba al Saifia, Shish
Mahal Road, Lahore, 1964.

Margoliouth, D.S., Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1905,
Indian reprint, 1985.

Marx, Karl, Economy, Class and Social Revolution, trs. and ed. by Z.A.
Jordan, Nelson Paperbaek, 1972.

Mathur, Rakesh, Hindu Origins of Romani Nomads, m Hinduism Today,
Malaysia edition, August, September, 1990.

Mazumdar, B.P, The Socio-Economic History of Northern India (1030-
1194 A.D.), Caleutta, 1960.

Misra, B.B., The Indian Middle Classes, Oxford, 1961.

Misra, S.C., Muslim Communities in Gujarat, Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, 1964.

Misra, S.C., The Rise of Muslim Power in Gujarat, Bombay, 1963.

Mitra, R.C., The Decline of Buddhism in India, Visvabharati, 1954.

Modern Cyclopaedia, 8 vols.

Moreland, W.H., India at the Death ofAkbar, Maemillan, London, 1920.

Moreland, W.H., From Akbar to Aurangzeb, Maemillan, London, 1923.

Moreland, W.H., The Agrarian System of Moslem India, London, 1929.

Morris-Jones, W.H., The Government and Politics of India, New Delhi,
1989.

Moses, Angelo, Cow-protection in Mughal India, in The Modern Review,
Calcutta, May, 1948.

Muhammad Abdul Shakur, Aslah-i-Mewat, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, 1925.

Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, Political History and Institutions of the Early
Turkish Empire of Delhi (1206-1290 A.D.), New Delhi, 1949,1972.

Mujeeb, M., The Indian Muslims, George Allen and Unwin, London,
1967.

Mukerjee, Radhakumud, A History of Indian Shipping, Orient Longmans,
1957.

Mukerjee, Radhakumud, Economic History of India (1600-1800), Kitab
Mahal, Allahabad, 1967.

Murray, HJ.R., A History of Chess, Oxford, 1913.

Naqvi, Hamida Khatoon, Urbanisation and Urban Centres under the
Great Mughals, 1556-1707, Simla, 1971.

Naqvi, Hamida Khatoon, Agricultural, Industrial and Urban Dynamics
under the Sultans of Delhi, New Delhi, 1986.

Nazim, M., The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna,

Cambridge, 1931.

Nigam, S.B.P., Nobility under the Sultans of Delhi, New Delhi, 1967.

Nizami, K.A., Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India during the
Thirteenth Century, Aligarh, 1961.

Nizami, K.A., Shah Waliullah he Siyasi Maktubat, reprodueed in English
translation in Khalid bin Sayeeds Pakistan : The Formative Phase, Pakistan
Publishing House, Karachi.

Ojha, Gauri Shankar Hirachand, Udaipur ka Itihas, Ajmer, 1928-32.

Ojha, Gauri Shankar Hirachand, Madhya Kalin Bharatiya Sanskriti,
Hindustani Academy, Allahabad, 1928.

Orme, Robert, A History of the Military Transactions of the British
Nation in Indostan, 3 vols.. Fourth ed., Fondon, 1803.

Phillips, C.H. (ed.). Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, Fondon,
1961.

Price, Major David, Memoirs of the Principal Events of Muhammadan
History, 3 vols., Fondon, 1921. Also see Price under Original Sources.

Pochhammer, Wilhelm von., Indias Road to Nationhood: A Political
History of the Sub-Continent, trs. by S.D. Marathe, Allied Publishers,
Bombay, 1961.

Qanungo, K.R., Historical Essays, Agra, 1968.

Qureshi, Ishtiaq Hussain, The Muslim Community in the Indo-Pakistan
Subcontinent, Monton & Co., S Gravenhage, 1962.

Qureshi, Ishtiaq Hussain, Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, Fifth
ed. New Delhi, 1971, first published, Lahore, 1942.

Rabbi, Dewan Fazle, The Origin of the Muhammdans of Bengal, Thacker
Spink & Co., Calcutta, 1895.

Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political History (1858-1947), Asia
Publishing House, Bombay, 1959.

Ram Swamp, Understanding Islam through Hadis, Indian reprint. New
Delhi, 1983.

Ramanayya, N. Venkata, The Third Dynasty of Vijayanagar, University
of Madras, 1935.

Ranade, M.C., Rise ofMaratha Power, Publications Division reprint.
New Delhi, 1961.

Rao, R.P., Portuguese Rule in Goa, Asia Publishing House, Bombay,
1963.

Raverty, H.C., Notes on Afghanistan, London, 1886. Also see Minhaj
under Original Sources.

Ray, Sukumar, Humayun in Persia, The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal,
Calcutta, 1948.

Report of the Indian Historical Records Commission, Vol. V., 1923.

Risley, H.H., The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Bengal Secretariat Press,
Calcutta, 1891.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, Muslim Revivalist Movements in North
India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Agra Universtiy, Agra,
1965.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, Religious and Intellectual History of the
Muslims in Akbars Reign, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1975.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, A History of Sufism in India, 2 vols., 1978,
1983.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, Adi Turk Kalin Bharat, Aligarh, 1965.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, Tughlaq Kalin Bharat, 2 parts, 1956, 1957.

Rizvi, Saiyyad Athar Abbas, Uttar Timur Kalin Bharat, Part II, Aligarh,
1959.


Saksena, Banarsi Prasad. History of Shahjahan of Delhi, Second
Impression, Allahabad, 1961.

Saran, Parmatma, Provincial Government of the Mughals, Kitabistan,
Allahabad, 1941.

Saran, Parmatma, Studies in Medieval Indian History, Ranjit Publishers,
Delhi, 1952.

Saran, Parmatma, Resistance of Indian Princes to Turkish Offensive, Sita
Ram Kohli Memorial Lectures, Punjabi University, Patiala, 1967.

Sarkar, Jadunath, History of Aurangzeb, 5 vols., Calcutta, 1912-25.

Sarkar, Jadunath, Fall of the Mughal Empire, 4 vols.. Third ed., Calcutta,
1964.

Sarkar, Jadunath (ed.). Later Mughals by Irvine, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1921-

22 .

Sarkar, Jadunath, History of Bengal, 2 vols., Dacca, 1948.

Sarkar, Jadunath, A Short History of Aurangzeb, Calcutta, 1930.

Sarkar, Jadunath, The Mughal Administration, Orient Longmans, 1972.



Sarkar, Jadunath, Military History of India, New Delhi, 1960.

Sen, D.C., Chaitanya and His Age, Calcutta,, 1922.

Sen, D.C., History of Bengali Language and Literature, Calcutta
University, Calcutta, 1911.

Sen, Sukumar, Bangla Sahityer Itihasa, Calcutta, 1940.

Sender, Henry, The Kashmiri Pandits: A Study of Cultural Choice,
Oxford University Press, 1988.

Sewell, Robert., A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar), Publications
Division reprint. New Delhi, 1966.

Sharma, Arvind., The Arab Invasion of Sind, A Study in Divergent
Perspectives, Indian History and Culture Society Proceedings, ed. by
Devahuti, Books & Books, New Delhi, 1982.

Sharma, Dashrath, Presidential Address, Proceedings of Rajasthan
History Congress, Udaipur session, 1969.

Sharma, G.N., Mewar and the Mughal Emperors, Agra, 1954.

Sharma, Sri Ram, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Asia
Publishing House, Bombay, 1962.

Sharma, Sri Ram, Conversion and Re-conversion to Hinduism, D.A.V.
College Historical Series, No. 2, n. d.

Sharma, S.R., The Crescent in India, Hind Kitabs Ltd., Bombay, 1954.

Sherwani, H.K. Mahmud Gawan, Kitabistan, Allahabad, 1942.

Sherwani, H.K. The Bahmanis of the Deccan, Hyderabad, n. d.

Singhal, D.P., India and World Civilization, 2 vols., Rupa & Co., Delhi,
1972.

Singhal, D.R, Battle for the Past in Problems of Indian Historiography,
ed. by Devahuti, Indian History and Culture Society, D.K. Publishers,

Delhi, 1979.

Smith, V.A., Akbar the Great Mogul, Delhi reprint, S. Chand & Co.,

1962.

Srivastava, A.L., The Mughal Empire, Agra, 1964.

Stephen Carr., Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, Calcutta,
1876.

Strachey, Sir John, India, Its Administration and Progress, Third ed.

Sykes, PM., A History of Persia, 2 vols., Macmillan & Co., London,
1915.

Tara Chand, Influence of Islam on Indian Culture, Indian Press,
Allahabad, 1946.

Thomas, Edward, Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, London,
1871.

Thornton, Edward, Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of
the East India Co. and of the Native States on the Continent of India,
Compiled by the Authority of the Court of Directors and chiefly from the
documents in their possession, 4 vols., Wm. H. Allen & Co., London,

1854.

Titus, Murray, Islam in India and Pakistan, Calcutta, 1959.

Tod, James., Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 2 vols., London, 1957.

Tripathi, R.P, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, Allahabad, 1936.

Tripathi, R.P, Rise and Fall of the Mughal Empire, Allahabad, 1960.



Tritton, A.S., Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, Oxford, 1930.


Wahed Husain, Administration of Justice during the Muslim Rule in
India, Calcutta, 1934.

Wahid Mirza, Life and Works of Amir Khusrau, Calcutta, 1935.

Wavell, The Viceroys Journal, ed. by Penderal Moon, Oxford University
Press.

Weber, Max, The Theory bf Social and Economic Organisation,
Edinburgh, 1947.

Weber, Max, Essays in Sociology, trs. and ed. by H.H. Garth and C.
Wright, Oxford University Press, New York, 1958.

Westeott, Kabir and Kabir Panth, Cawnpore, 1907.

Wink, Andre, Al-Hind, The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Vol. I,
Early Medieval India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1990.


Yugalanand, Kabir Sahib ki Sakhi, Lueknow.

Yusuf Husain Khan, Glimpses of Medieval Indian Culture, Asia
Publishing House, Bombay, 1957.


Zamiruddin Siddiqi, Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh and the
contemporary rulers. Paper read at the Indian History Congress Session,
Deeember, 1969.