The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c20: Chapter XVI. The Protected People (Zimmi)

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c20

Language: English

Chapter XVI. The Protected People (Zimmi)

c20.2

That religion contributed little to the motive force of the Shansabani conquest is scarcely an arguable point. Muizzuddin’s first adversary on Indian soil was not an ‘infidel’ but a monarch with an equally orthodox adherence to Islamic law as himself¹. While he destroyed the Muslim ruler of Lahore he tolerated the continuance of Hindu rule in Ajmer, Gwalior and Delhi; his lieutenant was prepared to allow the Chandella king to hold his dominions. Muizzuddin, according to a later account, even entered into alliance with the Hindu ruler of Jammu against Khusrau Malik². Numerous Hindu princes retained power and internal autonomy. To suggest that the Muslim Turks commenced their rule by an indiscriminate destruction of life, property and religion³, is to exhibit a gross misreading of their history. Such references as are found in the contemporary accounts to the destruction of temples must be examined not only against the background of war operations but also against the chronicler’s habit of exaggeration. Hasan Nizami, for example, speaks in righteous satisfaction, of the destruction of all the temples in Kalinjar⁴, but, as a matter of fact, most of the pre-Muslim temples there or at Mahoba and Khajuraho are still in tact⁵. Similar statements are also to be found in the accounts of the conquest of Benares, Kalpi, Delhi and Ajmer¹; Minhaj also mentions the destruction of the Mahakal temple of Ujjain by Iltutmish and his conversion of Vigrahapala’s college at Ajmer into a mosque². The Quwwatul Islam mosque at Delhi was admittedly built out of materials of Hindu temples³; so was also Iltutmish’s mosque at Budaun⁴.

c20.3

¹ He, with his brother, belonged to the Kiramiah sect of the Shafei while the Ghaznawides were followers of Abu Hanifa; Minhaj, p. 77.

c20.4

² Rajdarashani, f. 45b.

c20.5

³ Cf. Titus: *Indian Islam*, pp. 15-35.

c20.6

⁴ *Tajul Maasir*, f. 175b.

c20.7

⁵ Cunningham: *Reports*, XXI, pp. 25, 58-69, and 71-79.

c20.8

¹ Tajul Maasir, ff. 69b, 123a, 126b; Fakhre Mudir: Tarikh, p. 24.

c20.9

² P. 176.

c20.10

³ See the inscription, EIM, 1911-12, p. 13.

c20.11

⁴ Cunningham: Reports, XI, p. 1.

c20.12

For the most part, such damage resulted from military operations; where it did not, the motive is to be sought, not in the conqueror’s religious zeal, but in his greed for precious metals. For, it is well known that a Hindu temple in those day and even now, contained fabulous amount of precious metals; in its inviolable sanctuary was deposited the treasure both of the people and the princes. India was a fabled country of gold; in point of fact, her export trade in manufactured goods enabled her to receive more of this metal than she sent out. The financial success of Mahmud’s campaigns rested, it was believed, on his systematic spoliation of the temples, and the story of the bejewelled idol of Somnath and the gold contained in its hollow, had passed into a universally believed tradition. And material wealth, not so much an enthusiasm for religion, which in any case sat lightly on him, irresistibly attracted the Turk, the child of the desolate central Asian steppe. It is not without significance that after the overthrow of the Gahdvala king, Muizzudin’s army marched to occupy, not the capital Kanouj, but Benares and Asni where the fallen king’s treasure was known to have been deposited. It was by the amount of wealth rather than his success in glorifying Islam that Muizzuddin’s achievements were estimated by the chronicler¹.

c20.13

¹ Minhaj, p. 124-25.

c20.14

In the chronicler’s exultant descriptions there was more than mere religious zeal. To talk exaggeratingly of the destruction of “temples and the establishment of the abode of God” had a definite propaganda value; it facilitated recruitment in central Asia and held out prospects both of religious glory and of worldly riches. The pompously phrased *Fathnamah*, prepared more with an eye to effect than accuracy, served a similar purpose and, when broadcast among the potential adventurers, brought in an uninterrupted flow of fighting personnel.

c20.15

The conquered non-Muslim was, in fact, never disarmed and the invaders’ limited number made any attempt at extending their religious ideals a highly hazardous task. Even peaceful settlement of the Muslim in the interior required armed aid. We have no account of this Muslim penetration into the countryside, but local traditions seem to have preserved the outline of this process. The following story current round the village of Newal, near Kanouj, is perhaps typical of the attitude of majority of the Hindus in the early years of the conquest. “Syed Alauddin came from Kanouj to Newal and wished to settle at Bangarmau, (modern name of the village). But the raja, named Nal, ordered him to go away and sent his servant to drive him out. On this, the saint Alauddin cursed him and the place immidiately turned upside down.” Alauddin then took up his residence at the place where he died in 1302 as is recorded in the inscription on his tomb². Ghiyasuddin Tughluq bestowed some land on a certain person but the grantee was helpless against the Hindus who refused to let him settle there and had to resort to strategem to take possession.¹ Private individuals, at great risks and often unaided by the state, colonised the rural areas and had to overcome stiff Hindu opposition².

c20.16

² Cunningham: *Reports*, XI, p. 94: Elliot: *Chronicles of Unao*, p. 88.

c20.17

¹ Bahraich Gazetteer, p. 120-21.

c20.18

² See Elliot: Chronicles of Unao, pp. 94-95.

c20.19

Bulk of the conquered people still lived under their own rulers and in full enjoyment of religious liberty. Only the demand for tribute reminded them of the Muslim conquest and it is extremely doubtful if they were or could be effectively called upon to pay, in addition to the land-revenue compounded as tribute, the capitation tax as well. Even in the directly administered area, as mentioned above, important exemptions were, as a rule, granted in the incidence of the jaziah. Despite the rulers' professions for suppressing shirk, the native's religion and ways of life were never normally meant to be interfered with. Nor was it a practicable proposition. Even the militant Islamists had to admit the impossiblity of eradicating idolatory and heresy from India³, Barani put it in the mouth of Balban that a complete extirpation of idol-worship must remain only an unattainable ideal⁴.

c20.20

³ See Barani, p. 41 for a speech by Syed Mubarak Ghaznawi, a leading divine in Iltutmish's court, on what he considered to be the duties of a Muslim King.

c20.21

⁴ Ibid, p. 72 and 74-75.

c20.22

As a rule, non-Muslims enjoyed a large measure of liberty of worship and their temples retained their former sanctity. In a town, on the road from Bareilly to Mathura, Cunningham noticed an old temple, built not latter than 1000 A.D. with dated records of pilgrimage, and for the years 1241-1290 he found not less than fifteen such inscriptions⁵. In Multan, the famous temple of Aditya was re-erected after its destruction by the Qaramitah rulers and was kept in a flourishing condition to as late as the 17th century¹. That town, it is to be remembered, was not only an important provincial capital but, because of its association with renowned *sufis* and for its predominantly Muslim population, was also known as the *Qubbatul Islam* (dome of Islam). Liberty of religious worship even was extended to the building of new temples. A fragmentary inscription found in the *Purana Qila* of Delhi and written in Persian and Sanskrit, records the endowment of twelve *bighas* of land to a temple erected and dedicated to Sri Krishna². More conclusive is the evidence furnished by Firoz Tughluq of the erection of new temples in the neighbourhood of Delhi during his predecessors' rule. "The Hindus and idol worshippers . . . had erected new temples in the city and environs". "In the village of Maliah there is a tank where they had built idol-temples, and on certain days the Hindus were accustomed to proceed on horseback, wearing arms . . . They assembled in thousands and performed idol-worship. This abuse had been so overlooked that the bazaar people took out all sorts of provisions, set up stalls and sold their goods"³. Firoz admits that similar idol-houses had been erected and regularly worshipped in the villages of Salihpur and Kohana⁴. In Etah have been discovered three images of the Jaina sect with dated records of their installation in the year V.S. 1335/1278 A.D.⁵. The following admission by Firoz Khalji would clearly prove the religious freedom the Hindus enjoyed even in the capital. “Every day the Hindus . . . pass below my palace beating cymbals and blowing conch-shells to perform idol-worship on the banks of the Jumna . . . While my name is being read in the *khutba* as the defender of Islam, these enemies of God and His prophet, under my very eyes, are proudly displaying their riches and live ostentatiously among the Muslims of my capital. They beat their drums and other musical instruments and parpetuate their pagan practices”¹.

c20.23

⁵ Reports, I, p. 206.

c20.24

¹ It was visited and described in 1666 by the French traveller Thevenot. Cunningham: *Reports*, V, pp. 114-119.

c20.25

² *ASI*, 1909-10, p. 131.

c20.26

³ *Futuhat-i-Firozshahi*, f. 302b; Elliot, III, p. 380-81.

c20.27

⁴ *Futuhat*, f. 302b.

c20.28

⁵ *ASI*, 1923-24, p. 92.

c20.29

¹ Barani, p. 217.

c20.30

It would of course be an overstatement to suggest that the Memeluke king maintained a perfectly impartial attitude towards Hinduism; the state’s indifference to the people’s religion is a principle that even in the twentieth century is not universally practised. But the Turk was a materialist; he served his religion only to the extent upto which his material interest carried him. Alauddin Khalji’s famous reply to *qazi* Mughisuddin that he judged his actions solely by the critirion of expediency, typifies also the Memeluke king’s attitude. It was a matter of policy for Balban to talk of exterminating the enemies of the religion of Muhammad, for in actual practice, as Barani tells, us, he looked only to the state’s interest².

c20.31

² *Ibid*, pp. 41-42.

c20.32

Guided solely by this political interest the Turk commenced his rule by a judicious compromise with the ‘infidel’ and his habits. The Memeluke coinage is perhaps the best illustration of this compromise. The reproduction of the figure of the goddess in Muizzuddin’s gold issue indicates the extent to which the conquerors were prepared to compromise their religious ideas with the demands of state. In agrarian practice the conquest meant no sharp cleavage with the past and the services of the ancient village officers were retained and utilised. The Brahmin still enjoyed sanctity and was, as has been noticed above, allowed to retain his privileged position and exemptions in the matter of payment of the poll-tax. The Hindu's social practices, even when they were repugnant to the laws of humanity, were permitted. The amount of civil liberty enjoyed by him is indicated by Ibn Battuta's account of the widow-burning, a practice which the state merely tried to regulate by requiring the party to obtain a written permit from the local executive officer who sent his men to ensure that no force was employed on the woman¹.

c20.33

¹ *Rahlah*, II, p. 16.

c20.34

Proselytization seems to have little interested the rulers. They were preoccupied with great problems of security and large scale conversions effected by official force would have resulted in an unwelcome falling off of the revenues. Even in the propagandist writings of the early chroniclers who exultingly describe the great number of "infidels sent to hell and "the purgation of idolatory," not a single reference is found to forced conversions². Ferishta mentions the conversion of the Khokar tribe brought about by Muizzuddin's promise of preferential treatment; but this cannot be substantiated, for the tribe is invariably described by the contemporary writers as "infidels" to even as late as 1246³. Firoz Tughluq stands almost alone in utilising the state's authority for the propagation of orthodox Islam, for the spread of the faith has a different story and did not always receive state co-operation. It is the story of the missionary saints who relied on their own efforts and scorned the king's sanction in presenting Islam to the *zimmi* in its most acceptable form¹. They worked single-handed and against stiff opposition from the Brahmins and other higher classes of the Hindu society; even when they lived in Muslim administered areas they commanded little of the state's sanction. In Narnaul, in the Patiala state, a missionary named Muhammad was murdered by the local Hindus who rose in a body and massacred all the Mussalmans of the place². Of the method of these preachers Amir Hasan's anecdotes relating to Nizamuddin Budauni seems to give us an idea. A Mussulman one day brought a certain Hindu to the saint and introduced him as his brother. On being asked whether the Hindu was inclined towards Islam, the Mussalman replied that he hoped the august look of the saint might have the desired effect on him. Nizamuddin remarked "this people will hardly yield to force or persuasion; only a sympathetic intercourse might incline them to Islam"³.

c20.35

² See for example *Tajul Maasir*, ff. 126, 162, 175, the conquest of Kol. and the raid into Anhilwara, where "fifty thousand infidels were put to the sword"; in Kalinjar "fifty thousand came into the collar of slavery". *Cf.* on this last incident, Ferishta, I, p. 63 who states that they were all converted to Islam; but Hasan Nizami is explicit in stating that they were allowed to evacute the fortress and go free; f. 174b.

c20.36

³ See for example Fakhre Mudir: *Tarikh*, p. 28; Minhaj speaks of operations against them in 1204 as a holy war; p. 124. In 1246, they are again referred to as infidels; p. 290 On this point *cf.* Arnold: *Preaching of Islam*, p. 258 and Vaidya: *Downfall of Hindu India*, III, p. 130. See also App. C.

c20.37

¹ On the missionary activities of the saints, see Arnold: *Preaching of Islam*, pp. 280-82. Fariduddin Shakrgunj is said to have converted quite a number of tribes in the Punjab. A saint named Sakhi Sarwar is universally venerated in Jullundur and Hoshiarpur districts; his tomb is at Dera Ghazi Khan; see *Jhang District Settlement Report*, 1874, p. 33; *Montgomery District Settlement Report*, 1878, pp. 44, 46. *Hoshiarpur Settlement Report*, 1879, pp. 31-32; *Jullundur Settlement Report*, 1892, p. 30. See also *Akhbarul Akhiar*, pp. 22-24, for the account of Muinuddin Sanjari's activities in Ajmer; his conversions before the conquest are recounted in Or. 1756, ff. 66-67, and 69a,. See also Or. 1746, f. 29a, for his conversion of the first batch of Hindus in Delhi. For the account of Jalaluddin Tabrezi in Bengal see *Siarul Arefin*, f. 193. He died in 1245 and his tomb at Maldah has since become a universally venerated shrine. See also the interesting Sanskrit work called *Sheka-subhodaya*, Eng. introduction. The saint is described as visiting Lakshmana Sena's court who, impressed by his character, gave him some lands; one of the king's courtiers accepted Islam.

c20.38

² *Akhbarul Akhiar*, p. 47.

c20.39

³ *Fawadul Fawaid*, f. 94b.

c20.40

Of the economic and social status of the *zimmi* who lived in Muslim towns the quotation from Firoz Khalji's speech will have given a fair idea. There is little supporting evidence for the statement recently made that Hindu pilgrimage was sought to be banned by the imposition of a tax¹, or that public worship of idols was, as a rule, forbidden. In only one sphere the *zimmi*'s freedom, it may be reasonably assumed, was affected; he was not allowed to make converts from among the Muslims for, in Islam, the law of apostacy is severe. But this would be only a theoretical restriction, for except in the case of lower class converts who, in any case, tend to drift back to their original religious habits, Brahminical Hinduism is not a proselytising religion. Of the Hindu's economic affluence we have testimony in writings of Barani himself. During the gay reign of Kaiqubad the Hindu wine brewers of Kol and Meerut plied a lucrative trade in the city. The Multani money-lenders who held almost every Muslim noble as his debtor enjoyed great social prestige². Barani complained that in the city of Delhi the Hindus lived in palaces and displayed rich dress and fine horses; they even employed "Mussalman servants to runs in front of their mounts; even Muslims beg at their doors, and within the city, the capital of the Muslim Sultanate, the infidels are addressed in such honourable terms as *rai*, *ranah*, *thakur*, *shah*, *mehta* and *pundit*"³. Referring possibly to Muhammud b. Tughluq's reign in which the Hindus were specially patronised by the king, Barani further complains of "the idolaters and *mushriks*, called *kharaji* and *zimmi*, who are given rich dresses, horses, and flags and are raised to high offices of state"⁴.

c20.41

¹ Sharma: Religious policy of the Mughal Emperors, pp 26.

c20.42

² Barani, pp. 120, 157.

c20.43

³ Fatawa-i Jahandari, f. 120a.

c20.44

⁴ Ibid, 120b.

c20.45

Economic position of the zimmi.

c20.46

Of the Hindus being appointed to such offices in the 13th century contemporary writings afford not many instances, but such as have escaped the chroniclers are sufficiently revealing. That Hindu mercenaries formed part of the army perhaps needs little proof. In an inscription written in Sanskrit found in Batiagarh, Central Provinces, reference is found to the employment, under the Muslim governor "Jallal Khoja" of the Chedi country on behalf of the king of Joginipura, of the "Kharpara" army, identifiable with a local Hindu militia mentioned in earlier Hindu inscriptions of the locality¹. Under this Jallal Khoja are mentioned Hindu officers, and the inscription, which is dated in 1328, records the construction, by these local officers, of a garden, gomatha and a well for local needs. An auditor sent by the revenue ministry of Alauddin Khalji to check the accounts of the governor of Manikpur, complains, in a letter to the mustaufi, of the disobedient manners of a high Hindu official named Buchand who, in conspiracy with the governor, had tampered with the local accounts and misappropriated the surplus revenue². The exclusive racialism which actuated the Mamelukes to reserve the governmental posts for the Turks would allow, it is true, not much scope to the Hindu for appointment in the administration, but nevertheless we come across such names as that of Rajani, Hathiya, and Birnathan in the annals of the later Mamelukes, holding not insignificant posts in the capital; the last named was the kotwal, possibly of Delhi, early in Firoz Khalji's reign³.

c20.47

¹ EI, XII, p. 44; JRAS, 1897, p. 893.

c20.48

² Ijaz-i-Khusravi, ff. 107b-110a.

c20.49

³ TM, p. 57; Barani, p. 210.

c20.50

Evidences suggest that the Hindu, at least in the capital and its neighbourhood, suffered from no great disability; His wealth would indeed give him high social prestige. Matrimonial relations apart¹, the Muslim eventually was bound to get over his exclusiveness and the latter half of the century saw him adopting some of the Hindu's ways. Among the city population the social intercourse must have been fairly close. Amir Khusrau, perhaps, illustrates the new Muslim attitude when he takes pride in his being a born Hindui and declares in no ambiguous terms the superiority of India over all other countries². We hear of Hindu jogis and Muslim mystics freely mixing to discuss religious and social problems; Amir Hasan has preserved for us an account of one such discussion in which Faridduddin Shakargunj took part³. The incident, recorded of Firoz Tughluq's reign, of Muslim men and women visiting the house of a certain Hindu of Delhi who initiated them into pagan religious practices, implies a social intercourse that must have had its beginning in the later part of the 13th century⁴. This contact was, as is generally conceded, the basic factor in the evolution of the Urdu language whose earliest poetic specimens are to be found in the writings of Amir Khusrau⁵. A similar mixing of the two people produced the Indo-Muslim architecture whose initial phase is represented by the buildings erected by the Memeluke Sultans.

c20.51

¹ An early instance is the marriage of Mangbarni with the Khokar princess; Juwaini, II, p. 145.

c20.52

² See Mirza: *Life and Works of Amir Khusrau*, pp. 182-85.

c20.53

³ *Fawadul Fawaid*, f. 125a.

c20.54

⁴ Afif, p. 370.

c20.55

⁵ See Muhammad Husain Azad: *Ab-i-Hayat*, pp. 70-77, for some of his Hindi writings; See also, Mirza; op. cit. page 227-28; also *Khusrau Ka Hindi Kavita*. Indication of the mutual borrowings in language is furnished by Minhaj using the Indian month of *Asar*; p. 252. The Persian terms of *Pil* and *Dibin* seem to have been used by the Hindus; see JDL, XVI, p. 35.

c20.56

The best evidence on the zimmi's position should however be his own writings. These are almost non-existent except the records of his hostile military contact. What he thought of his own position under the new regime we can only guess. Initially for a conquered people it is only natural, as al-Beruni found early in the 11th century¹, to have a feeling of inveterate enmity towards those whose process of conquest had unavoidably to be attended with a certain measure of destruction of life and property, and above all, social values. That the innate exclusiveness of Hinduism would only aggravate this feeling and that the Hindu would, in proud isolation, retire within his caste retrictions, is understandable; to consider the conqueror as an unclean, fearsome mleccha is the only manner in which a beaten people could retaliate. But the measure of the conqueror's success lies in the extent to which he is able to assuage this bitterness and ultimately to win the native's sympathy and support. Of this, unfortunately, we have not many dependable records, records of the ordinary native's estimate of the Muslim ruler and his administration, as we have of latter periods and of other provincial kingdoms. The ruling class at any rate did their best not to create any further bitterness but the protracted nature of the conquest could have hardly made for success in this attempt. To a modern citizen, the jazia would be undoubtedly an insufferable humiliation but argument is possible as to whether this was so to the people of the early middle ages². The Brahmins' protest to Firoz Tughluq was based more on its financial burden than on its implied insult³. A remarkable inscription of Balban’s reign, put up in Sanskrit by a Hindu individual, however, depicts the Muslim king in a pleasing light. Although allowance should be made for the conventional phraseology of a Sanskrit panegyrist composing a dedicatory inscription in a Muslim dominion, yet the sentiments have an unmistakable sincerity and genuine respect. In the Palam inscription, which is dated in 1280-1, the king of Joginipura is compared, in the goodness of his administration, with Vishnu who “has retired from the care of the world (entrusting it to the king) and gone to sleep in the ocean of milk”; the king “has ensured peace and security to all and throughout his contented realm....everywhere the earth bears the beauty of sylvan spring””. In another inscription, dated in the reign of Alauddin Khalji, at Jodhpur, the Hindu author pays tribute to the king’s just and efficient government through whose god like valour the earth was rid of all tyranny and impurities². A literary work of a slightly later period, that of the famous poet Vidyapati, speaks appreciatively of the Turushka king’s generosity and sense of justice³.

c20.57

¹ Alberuni's India, tr. by E. Sachau, I, p. 22.

c20.58

² If the Turushkadanda is interpreted as meaning a poll tax on the Turks living in the Gahdvala kingdom the tax must have been familier to the Indians. Some kind of poll-tax was realised in the Byzantine empire also.

c20.59

³ Afif, pp. 38-83.

c20.60

¹ EIM, 1913-14, pp. 35-45.

c20.61

² EI, XII, p. 23.

c20.62

³ Purusha Pariksha, Grierson’s introduction, cited in Qureshi, op. cit. p. 213.

c20.63

It appears necessary, in connection with the position of the non-Muslims, to dispel the impression that a superficial reading of some of the early chronicles is apt to create. Reference has been made to the writers’ habit of straining after effect. Hasan Nizami is merely poetic; so is also Amir Khusrau. But Barani deliberately inflicts his own fanaticism on the reigns he describes. He wrote his account, it should be remembered, from the reactionary point of view of the 14th century, when under Firoz, militant, narrow Islamism, for the first time found state support. It is mostly his personal opinion representing a very small but articulate section of Muslims that he puts forth as the views of Balban and Iltutmish. While he tries to persuade his readers that Balban was intensely orthodox and a great legalist, he cannot help admitting that in matters of state the Sultan never cared for the dictates of the Shariah. In his *Fatawa-i-Jahandari*, Barani formulates his own views on government and these are remarkably similar to those which Balban and Iltutmish are stated to have held; in almost identical language he pleads for the extermination of the idolatrous Hindus and Muslim heretics which, from his *Tarikh*, would appear as accomplished facts¹. How intolerant was his outlook will be seen from the manner in which he urges the complete annihilation of the Muslim philosophers and free-thinkers with the same fervour and zeal as expended in the case of the ‘infidels’ and *mushriks*: “How can piety and righteousness be established when philosophers, and hereties (*bad-mazhaban*), who prefer Greek rationalism to tradition and the Shariah, and who disbelieve the physical existence of heaven and hell, are allowed to openly spread their doctrines? How can the religion of God triumph when these people, the enemies of God and His prophet, live in the capital with dignity and ostentation and are not afraid to express their views”². It is a singular misfortune from which the history of Islam has suffered in all ages and in many countries, that the historians almost always belonged to the small reactionary group of men who, being the only lettered class, were in a position to inflict their own prejudices on posterity³.

Linked texts (5)

Tāj al-maʾāthir — Ḥasan Niẓāmī, Persian
Somnatha Temple
Mahakala Temple
Khazāʾin al-futūḥ — Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf