Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s1.64

Language: English

c5.s1.64.1

and true successors of the old Persian emperors. Religion and spiritual acquirements were more or less out of place in the new atmosphere.¹ On the other hand the demands of the flesh and the devil began to be cultivated with a fervour and enthusiasm worthy of a better cause.² When the Muslims established themselves in Hindustan, the rich plains and the resources of the country opened up greater opportunities of indulgence than were at the command of the Ghaznawid monarchs in their mountainous country, or elsewhere in the Muslim world. When the Muslim State developed, it incorporated many non-Islamic features apart from the powers and the nature of monarchy. For instance, the Sultanate was based purely on force ; tyranny was essential for its working ; the State treasury was the personal property of the Sultan ; extravagant and wasteful expenditure was the rule ; an indiscriminate shedding of blood irrespective of the distinction of Muslim and non-Muslim was dictated by the policy of the State.³ Even considerations of kinship had no place in the theory of monarchy ;

c5.s1.64.2

the murder and assassination of kinsmen, however, repugnant to the sense of religion or humanity, were committed without much sense of shame or fear of public opinion.⁴ In other respects, the working of the Sultanate super-imposed upon Muslim law quite novel features, hard to reconcile with the dictates of the *Shari'at*, but essential for the ‘exigencies of better government’.¹ Similarly, the Sultanate violated many well-known laws of Islam, for instance, the principle of electing a monarch, the law of inheritance defining the shares of inherited property and the principles of apportioning them, the strict distinction between what is permitted (*halal*) and what is forbidden (*haram*). In fact, as a shrewd statesman of the age observed, the Sultanate had formulated its own laws, which were on a different footing from those of Islam. The laws of the Sultanate could be summarised in one phrase—the will of the Sultan.² Any, even the loosest interpretation of political ideals of the Qur’an, could not be reconciled with this glaring and bare-faced absolutism. However, there was no power in the hands of religious people to compel the Sultanate to modify its political ideals. The division between practical politics and the religious ideals of Islam became as clear as can be imagined. There were only two courses left for religious-minded people to follow : either to leave the Sultan severely alone in his undisputed possession, or to come to terms with him.

c5.s1.64.3

The extreme *Sufis* and the ascetics adopted one course, the *Ulama* or the theologians the other. It was as unwise as it was unpractical in a country where the Muslims were surrounded by ‘infidels’ on all sides, to drag matters to extremes. The orthodox theologians had associated too long with the secular government to care for a doubtful martyrdom in a fierce civil war. The orthodox and puritanical section of the *Sufis* and the ascetics as a whole, preferred to retire from the world to devote themselves to the care of the spirit, which after all was all that mattered to them.³ We have already pointed out that, short of interference in state matters, the Sultans were willing to safeguard the honour and observances of Islam irrespective of their personal attitude towards religion. In these circumstances it was comparatively easy to come to an understanding with at least one class of religious persons, the orthodox *Ulama*. Just at the commencement of the Muslim rule in Hindustan, we find a statesman and scholar summarizing the position as follows. According to him, the religious functions of a Sultan were confined to the following specified duties ; namely, the reading of the *Khutba* for the Friday and *‘Id* prayers ; the fixing of the extent and the limits of religious prohibitions ; the collecting of taxes for charitable purposes ; the waging of wars in defence of the faith ; the adjudication of disputes when the parties were Muslim, and the hearing of complaints ;

c5.s1.64.4

the enforcement of measures for the defence of the kingdom and the extermination of rebels and disturbers of the peace ; finally, the suppression of innovations in religion and religious practices which militated against the spirit of Islam.¹ The Sultan further set apart certain funds from his treasury for religious and charitable purposes, as a matter of grace, though it was no part of his religious duties towards Islam.² At a later date Ziya-ud-din Barani relates what Sultan Iltutmish thought of the relations between Islam and the Sultanate. The monarch did not hesitate to admit the pagan extraction and the essentially secular nature of the Sultanate. He also frankly confessed that there was absolutely no room within the state for a monarch to take up the role of a ‘defender of the faith’ (*Din-panah*) except in four specific matters: first, in maintaining the purity of the Muslim creed, which implied the suppression of aggressive heathenism and a general support for the observance of Muslim doctrines ; secondly, in punishing glaring and open lapses from the approved orthodox conduct, within the limits of his kingdom ; thirdly, in appointing genuinely religious and God-fearing Muslims to the religious offices in the government ; and lastly, in administering justice to everybody without distinction.³ This statement of position does not differ in any substantial degree from the earlier exposition.

c5.s1.64.5

For practical purposes the only tangible result was as follows : the Sultan appointed a few religious-minded and influential Muslims to certain judicial posts, and thereby disarmed the opposition by snatching from them all potentially dangerous and capable leaders. He further undertook to defend Islam in a general way which, as has been pointed out, was in any case necessary to maintain the identity of the Sultans and even their existence in what one might call the vast ocean of Hindu population.