The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c6.s2: Contribution of Western scholars
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c6.s2
- Language
- English
Contribution of Western scholars
c6.s2.1
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 rulers were sunk in sloth and debauchery and parasites and eunuchs revelled in the spoil of plundered provinces.¹⁵ 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.¹⁶
c6.s2.2
Any other writers denunciation of the medieval chroniclers or Muslim rulers would have gone unnoticed, 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 Lanepoole 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 annalists.¹⁷ Lanepoole, Pringle Kennedy,¹⁸ 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 Lanepoole, to whom I must gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.¹⁹
c6.s2.3
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, Lowe 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.
c6.s2.4
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.