The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c8.s4.19

c8.s4.19

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 himself 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.¹⁷⁴ 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.¹⁷⁵ 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.¹⁷⁶ 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.¹⁷⁷ The Rajputs could be put to manage all these by turns, or those other fellow Rajput Rajas who showed reluctance in making submission. Late 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.¹⁷⁸ 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 unsuspiciously 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 sufficiently proved when attempts have been made to deal treacherously with a Raja.¹⁷⁹ His statement reminds one of the successful flight of Shivaji from Mughal captivity to Maharashtra and of Durga Das with Ajit Singh to Marwar.