Twilight of the Sultanate c17.s10: Towards One Nation

Twilight of the Sultanate c17.s10

Language: English

Towards One Nation

c17.s10.1

Even a cursory study of the life of the people of medieval Hindustan would show that the food and clothes, customs and manners and even hopes and aspirations of the people were alike. And yet in India the "Hindu-Muslim problem" arose from the very inception of the Turkish rule, and there were a number of things which kept the two apart. The establishment of Muslim rule in northern India was through a very long process of conquest. Throughout the course of medieval history one or the other of the regions in the country was always defying the authority of the Sultanate. In this state of continual warfare atrocities and their bitter memories lingered long. As late as the fourteenth century Ziyauddīn Baranī wrote that "if they (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 and property, they fail in their allegiance, refuse payment of revenue, and excite a hundred tumults and revolts".¹⁸⁶ Obviously the Hindus were suppressed and the Muslims remained aggressive and dominating.¹⁸⁷ A generation later Ibn Battūta found the same situation.¹⁸⁸ Years later Vidyapātī also wrote about the insulting attitude of the Muslims,¹⁸⁹ and the defiance of the Hindus. Such was the position in the fourteenth century on the political and military front. On the social front also the Hindus did not show any signs of degeneration. Shaikh Nizāmuddīn Auliyā admits that the Hindus were not prepared to renounce their faith under any circumstance.¹⁹⁰ The resistance of the Hindus was a cause and an effect of Muslim atrocities, and kept the two communities away from each other.

c17.s10.2

¹⁸⁶ T.F.S. (B), 268.

c17.s10.3

¹⁸⁷ Amīr Khusru, *Deval Rānī*, 50.

c17.s10.4

¹⁸⁸ "The Muslims dominate the infidels," writes he, "but the latter fortify themselves in mountains, in rocky, uneven and rugged places as well as in bamboo groves ... which serve them as ramparts. Hence they cannot be subdued except by means of powerful armies." I.B., 124. Even while he was going as the Sultan's ambassador to China, Ibn Battūta was attacked by Hindus as near Delhi as Kol ('Alīgarh), and his privations for more than a week show the hostility of the Hindus against the ruling race. *Ibid.*, 153-8.

c17.s10.5

¹⁸⁹ *Kīrtilatā*, 42-44, 70-72.

c17.s10.6

¹⁹⁰ *Favaidul Fuād*. Cited in my article *Political Condition of the Hindus under the Khaljīs*. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Patna Session, 1946, 232-37.

c17.s10.7

Moreover, even after two centuries of governance the Muslim ruling class was nothing more than a handful as against the vast Hindu majority. A minority is generally united and aggressive for sheer survival if for nothing else. And when it belongs to the ruling class, it is not prepared for any compromise. Thus whether of foreign extraction or of Indian, the Muslims looked down upon the "infidel" Hindus.

c17.s10.8

The inferior status accorded to the non-Muslims under Islamic law also kept the Hindus and the Muslims apart. "The Muslim state was a theocracy." Under Islamic law a non-Muslim could not be accorded full status of citizenship in the State. Only against payment of *Jeziyā*, could he receive "protection of life and exemption from military service.¹⁹² Jeziyā also seems to have been an instrument of humiliation for the non-Muslims.¹⁹³ Besides the payment of Jeziyā the Zimmīs also had to suffer certain other disabilities with regard to their mode of worship and payment of cesses and duties and because of certain sumptuary laws.¹⁹⁴ The State rested upon the support of the military class which consisted largely of the followers of the faith. They were treated as the favoured children of the State while various kinds of disabilities were imposed upon the non-Muslims. In these circumstances there is little wonder that Hindus had hardly any place in the higher offices of administration or in the formulation of its policy. It is interesting to note that even foreign adventurers were preferred just because they were Muslims to hold offices of importance and dignity which were denied to the Hindus.

c17.s10.9

¹⁹² Aghnides, *Muhammadan Theories of Finance*, 399, 528.

c17.s10.10

¹⁹³ Al Mawardi, *Ahkāmus-Sultaniyā*, 235; Tritton, *Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects*, 21; Hitti, *History of the Arabs*, 119, 171, 228-245. Also Tripathi, *op. cit.*, 340.

c17.s10.11

¹⁹⁴ *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, I, 958. Abu Yūsuf, *Kitābul Kharāj*, French Translation, cited in Tripathi, *op. cit.*, 340; Also T.F.S., (B), 216-17, 291.

c17.s10.12

But by the beginning of the fifteenth century the picture had considerably changed. The decade of decline after Fīrōz Tughlaq's death, followed by Tīmūr's invasion, had sapped the vitality of the Sultanate. During Tīmūr's invasion both the Hindus and the Muslims had fought shoulder to shoulder against the foreign foe; adversity had forged bonds of unity between them. After Tīmūr's invasion the Sultanate had grown weak; the Hindus had gathered strength and could not be suppressed. The rigours of Islamic law, unfavourable to the Hindus, were felt only during the time of strong kings. During the fifteenth century it could not be vigorously enforced with a view to suppressing the non-Muslims. On the other hand Muslim rulers sought the support of Hindu rulers and vice versa. The kings of Jaunpur sought the help of the Hindu ruler of Gwalior and chiefs and zamindars in the east, while there were Rajas like Rai Pratap of Bhongaon and Rai Bhīm of Jammu whose advice and support the Sultans of Delhi sought. Important Hindu families in Delhi, like the Gangu Khattīs, played an important role in the politics of the capital. In the latter half of the fifteenth century the Muslim ruler of Jaunpur sought and received the aid of the Baghela and Tomar Rajputs against Delhi; while some disgruntled Muslim nobles with their large forces joined hands with Rana Sāngā. Thus throughout the fifteenth century the power of the Hindus was rehabilitated in the Sultanate. It is not surprising, therefore, that during this period there is no mention of any forced matrimonial alliances nor of the Jeziyā, and collections from the Hindu rulers are just called *Māl* or *Mahsūl* or *Khidmati*.¹⁹⁵ On the other hand lands were bestowed on "large bodies of loyal Hindus and all kinds of people lived in utmost peace and tranquillity.¹⁹⁶

c17.s10.13

¹⁹¹ Tripathi, *op. cit.*, 2. This view is shared by a number of eminent historians like J.N. Sarkar (*History of Aurangzib*, III, 296-97), Ishwari Prasad (*Mediæval India*, 509), T.P. Hughes (*Dictionary of Islam*, 711), *Encyclopædia of Islam*, I, 959. I. H. Qureshi (*Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi*, 42), however, does not subscribe to this view.

c17.s10.14

¹⁹⁵ T.M.S., 169, 173, 184, 185, 186, 188, 192, 200, 203, 206, 209, 212, 213 and corresponding passages in the other chronicles.

c17.s10.15

¹⁹⁶ T.D. as translated in N.B. Roy's *Makhzan-i-Afghānī*, 111.

c17.s10.16

In the social sphere also the Hindus and the Muslims were coming close to each other from the beginning of the fifteenth century. The very fact that the Hindus had to live under Muslim rule made them forget the angularities of an alien law. Whether in times of war or in peace, it was the rebel, the defiant and the recalcitrant who suffered whether he was a non-Muslim or a Muslim. There does not seem to have been any interference with the day-to-day life of the common man. Thus iconoclasm and conversions were being accepted as a matter of course and the people had learnt to accept Muslim rule with all its merits and faults. Conversions, too, in a way were helping to bring the Hindus and the Muslims together. The converted Muslims always remained half-Hindus as they carried with them the legacies of their former faith. They always had some old Hindu friends and relatives with whom they could not break their connections.

c17.s10.17

Commoners of both the communities enjoyed and participated in the festivals of one another. Chroniclers of the century do not give details of Hindu festivals, but Chandreshwar Thakur in *Kritya Ratnākar* gives names of many festivals.¹⁹⁷ Important ones like Holī, Dasherā and Dīwālī certainly were enjoyed by all. Similarly there were many Muslim festivals which all sections of the people enjoyed. Shab-i-Bārāt which was probably copied from Shiva Rātrī, as fireworks were common in both,¹⁹⁸ was enjoyed by both Hindus and Muslims.¹⁹⁹ Similarly the idea of Taziās in Muharram was borrowed from the Jagannath Rath Yātrā, Krishna Līlā and Mahānadī festival of south India.²⁰⁰ The celebrations in the capital city in the wake of a successful campaign were an occasion of joy for all.²⁰¹ Thus the things common between the two communities out-weighed those of differences of religion. Even in the religious sphere Sūfī saints, Hindu Yogīs and particularly the socio-religious reformers of the fifteenth century, about whom we shall study in the next chapter, helped to bring the people to understand one another, and contributed greatly towards the evolution of Indian national life. There were even reconversions of converted Muslims to Hinduism.²⁰² This was certainly not the India which Alberunī or Ibn Battūta had seen or visualised.