Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c4.s1.t2: The Period Under Review (1200-1550 A.D.)
Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c4.s1.t2
- Language
- English
The Period Under Review (1200-1550 A.D.)
c4.s1.t2.1
The period under review is equally important for a study of social developments in Hindustan, and, to a certain degree, for the whole of India. Opinions do not agree as to the division of the various periods—ancient, mediæval, and modern—of Indian history. Some historians choose to close the mediæval period of Indian history with the battle of Panipat in 1526 A.D.; others with the coming of Akbar; and still others with the establishment of British rule. A similar want of agreement is shown in fixing the limits of the ancient period. We have no desire to dispute any opinion, still less to accept a particular division. In most cases these divisions lack a basis for differentiation and appear purely arbitrary. An application of these terms to a social system which has not undergone any substantial material change for thousands of years, is more likely to confuse than to clear the historical perspective. It is not quite safe to borrow them from European history, which finds a clear line of demarcation in the industrial Revolution, which revolutionised the whole basis of European society. The periods of Indian social development on the other hand—by whatever name we choose to call them—have a more or less uniform character, as far as historical records can help us to judge.
c4.s1.t2.2
INTRODUCTION
c4.s1.t2.3
Even at the present day, when the bases of society have undergone a radical change, the old order survives to a considerable degree.
c4.s1.t2.4
Under Muslim rule, therefore, we do not enter upon a new era in Indian history, but only on a stage in the great social development which has been going on since the first dawn of Indian history and still remains to be completed. This, however, does not detract from the importance of the period or the value of its contribution to the stock of Indian culture. No remarks are required to show that the Hindu social system is one of the strongest and most endurable in the world. It happened by a strange chance that the first power with which Hindus were brought into permanent contact was one which differed from them as widely as possible in almost everything, and if we might say so, was a complete antithesis of their whole system. As a result of the Muslim impact, the ancient Hindu order was almost completely destroyed. Political and social divisions were levelled; caste was modified; religious tendencies took a new direction and force; and finally, the conception of India as a whole was made possible. It is in the light of these developments that Muslim rule becomes, if very imperfectly, intelligible.¹ A study of the early Muslim period becomes particularly important in view of the fact that these formative forces of Indian culture came into play at that time. And though they operated somewhat rudely and imperfectly, they succeeded in laying foundations which proved strong enough for the later Mughals in raising their glorious edifice. By the time of Akbar, as the following pages will endeavour to trace in outline, the ground-work was completed, and the Emperor Akbar as well as his successors followed the pattern their Turkish and Afghan predecessors had shaped for them. This period, in view of these considerations, becomes especially important for a correct appreciation of the Mughal contribution to Indian society, as well as for a proper estimate of the present social developments.
c4.s1.t2.5
¹ Compare F. W. Thomas, 23.
c4.s1.t2.6
A word may be added here as to the nature and value of a study such as the present one. It may be freely admitted that after the Industrial Revolution the life of the western people has become very rich in certain ways. It exhibits everywhere a new urge to strive, to change, to go forward, all of which makes a study of Modern European society so instructive and stimulating. The life of people in India, on the other hand, is still governed, to a considerable degree, by conditions not unlike those of Europe in mediaeval times. This has led some observers to believe that since the people of India show no development, they have no history; apparently they are the same—yesterday, today, and for ever¹. This observation gains additional force from the fact that the Indian chronicles and histories deal almost exclusively with kings and battles. Let us examine these important observations. The fact that people do not change in the East is only true with certain reservations. It should not be forgotten that in comparison with an industrial system, the rate of progress in an agricultural society is necessarily slow. The course of development of an agricultural civilization spreads over centuries and though its advancement is almost imperceptible, it is by no means uncertain. It becomes quicker by the impact of a new social force. At a certain stage, when civilization attains maturity, it exhausts the possibilities of development within the social framework and then begins to stagnate and to decay, or else enters on a new stage of progress. But meanwhile, it has elaborated all the social institutions as far as such elaboration is possible within the frame work of a social structure; in any case, it has carried the people to an advanced stage of culture. In India, an apparent want of change does not signify the poverty of Indian culture but only an advanced stage of maturity, and is worth a careful study on that account. During the period under review the Indian culture was pushed forward by just such a force as quickens the pace of an agricultural society. The other reflection, however, is of a very different import. Until lately history has suffered, at the hands of historians, old and new, both in Asia and Europe, from a rather isolated and narrow conception of its scope. The old eastern court chroniclers, in particular, confined themselves to kings and their battles, and thus turned history into ‘a mere record of butchery of men by their fellow men.’ But these barriers which restricted historical investigation are being slowly broken down. It is now coming to be universally recognised that nothing is ‘beneath the dignity’ of history's notice or outside the scope of its ken, and that all the doings and sufferings of mankind in every walk of life are proper subjects for a historian to investigate. Nay more; it is being asserted that unless historians do, as a matter of fact, take this extended and all comprehensive view of their functions, they are bound to present a distorted picture of whatever age they may profess to portray. ‘In short,’ observes Hearnshaw, ‘it is perceived that history is not an isolated subject of study, but is one of a group of kindred studies which together make up the general science of society.’¹ We can be indulgent to a court chronicler of an earlier date, who made his living by singing the praise of his patron, for not living up to the expectations of the science in the twentieth century.
c4.s1.t2.7
¹ Lane-Poole Int., V.
c4.s1.t2.8
¹ Art : ‘Science of History’, Outline of Modern Knowledge, 809.
c4.s1.t2.9
Before dealing, however, with the sources of the present study, I may state here the limitation I have set to the scope and treatment of this subject. I have used mainly, almost exclusively, the evidence from literature, and very little, if any, from inscriptions or from epigraphical, numismatic or architectural data. My use of the Sanskrit texts is limited to the available translations into English; and I claim no responsibility for examining the originals. With such exceptions my material, though not exhaustive, is copious enough to warrant a study of the culture of Hindustan during this period. The following pages are a sketch rather than a definitive treatise of social life under the early Sultans of Delhi. They exclude all references to the civil administration, the system of land revenue, the army, the system of transport, the ideas on education, and the development of literature, or even to the religious life of the people. It is not possible to deal within the limits of this work with any but a very few aspects of social life. The treatment within these limits is further subject to the qualification that the account of these few aspects in these pages can only claim to be true in outline and may be falsified by local and provincial details which varied infinitely from place to place.