Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c7.s4: Manners

Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c7.s4

Language
English

Contents

Manners

c7.s4.1

The analysis of the manners of a people or an age is an extremely difficult task. Very few generalizations are so misleading as those which relate to national characteristics, for the obvious reason that they do not take account of social and individual variability. In Indian society, as we have so often pointed out, these variations from one class to another, and even from one individual to another, were very wide. However, in comparison with the modern complex of society and social manners, the age with which we deal was simpler and more uniform, more compact and homogeneous. *Dharma*—a Hindu term of very wide and comprehensive meaning and very difficult to render in English, purports to assign the respective duties of various classes and castes towards each other. Stripped of its spiritual character, the term is an attempt to fix the moral attitudes of a social group. Its existence similarly reflects a very developed form of group behaviour and moral attitudes.

c7.s4.2

It cannot be denied that people as a whole led a very prosaic life and did not succeed in developing more than a few physical and moral capacities and very limited forms of human relationships. Thus the virtues and vices of the age as a whole were very few. But on the other hand these characteristics were well developed and deep-rooted. Custom and religion, which fostered these manners in many respects, were strongr forces than the intellectual and ethical convictions of the present age. On the whole, they led to social solidarity and well being. When it was realized that the forefathers had behaved in a particular manner in a certain situation, the direction for the living descendant was clear and the force of this sanction was absolute.

c7.s4.3

*I. Virtues.*—Let us begin first with an examination of the virtues of the age. We must make it clear at the start that except for a certain amount of freshness and vigour, the Muslims as a class were not substantially very different from their Hindu countrymen. The former, in some places, emphasized certain points in which they differed from the latter. But, as it would appear from the discussion, the underlying outlook of both communities was similar.

c7.s4.4

To put it in two words, we may describe the strong points of Hindu character as *Loyalty* and *Charity* in their widest sense. Abu'l Fazl has given for our guidance a longer catalogue of Hindu virtues which may however be resolved into these two basic categories.¹ The list of conventional Muslim virtues of an early date recommends the cultivation of a number of pious virtues which, however, are not different from this estimate in any substantial degree.² As a rule the Muslims overemphasize loyalty to the State, treating it as one of the cardinal virtues, but the reasons for this are obvious. In any case, this emphasis does not change the character of the quality which is sought to be inculcated.¹ Loyalty and charity may thus be taken as the characteristic national virtues of the Indians of our period. We shall take up the discussion of loyalty first, as it appears to have been the ethical religion of Hindustan throughout the ages. For the sake of convenience, we shall discuss it in three different aspects in relation to the objects for which it was brought into play, namely loyalty to a master or superior, loyalty to a friend or an equal, and loyalty to a form of conduct (or chivalry). The relations with a person of inferior status may better be discussed under ‘Charity’.

c7.s4.5

¹ Compare A.A., II, 4-5 for an analysis of Abu'l Fazl.

c7.s4.6

² Compare J.H., 490 for Muslim virtues. The writer expects every good Muslim to cultivate the following : devotion to God, kindness to fellow beings, loyalty to friends, respect for the wise and forbearance for fools, respect and service for superiors, affection and regard for inferiors, obedience to the Sultan, and finally, opposition to all forms of resistance towards the State.

c7.s4.7

¹ Compare the observations of Amir Khusrau. In *Qiranu’-s-Sa’dain*, 79, he emphasizes the point that the slave (i.e. the subject of the Sultan) was committing a grievous sin if he ever thought of evil against the Sultan. In another place he asks his son to be grateful to the Sultan. For, says Khusrau, let alone human beings, even a dog knows how to watch the property of his master; and it would be a perfect shame if human beings degraded themselves flower than animals in this respect. *Vide* K.K., 678; also 123.

c7.s4.8

A. *Loyalty to a Master or Superior.*—One of the paths to spiritual salvation recommended by Hindu religious philosophy and ethics was that of *Bhakti-marga* or the Path of Devotion. We are not concerned here with the connection of this doctrine with the far-reaching religious revolution that took place during our time in Northern India. We only want to emphasize that this essentially spiritual term of an ancient date was employed to give to the political relations between the ruler and the ruled a certain spiritual basis in Hindu society, when the status of an earthly and despotic ruler was raised to that of a spiritual Guru.² It was universally believed that the service of a master in every case required a complete and unqualified surrender of personality and will on the part of a person called upon to serve. The examination of the qualifications of the master and the principles for which he stood, were foreign to this essentially spiritual view of life.³

c7.s4.9

² Compare P.P., 120 for exposition and illustrations.

c7.s4.10

³ Compare P. (hin), 236, how a person who dies in the service of a master goes straight to paradise. Compare Yule, II, 339 for an interesting example from the South. Marco Polo tells us that a Raja of the Deccan had some nobles who were sworn companions and had great immunities and privileges in his kingdom. If the Raja predeceased them, these nobles used to burn themselves with him alive. The nobles were quite satisfied with their conduct, for they considered it fair to keep their master company in the next world as well as in this. Compare the numerous statements of Gora and Badal, the two loyal adherents of Ratan Sen in the story of Padumavat.

c7.s4.11

The Muslim term for this sentiment of loyalty is *Namak-halali* or the obligation of service and devotion in return for ‘salt’.¹ This view of life is more realistic than spiritual, as it emphasizes the mundane aspect of the relationship, namely the material gains in the bargain. The sentiment, however which this relationship fostered, was essentially Indian and of a deeply spiritual character. The history of our period is rich in examples of supreme sacrifices in the service of a master.²

c7.s4.12

¹ Compare M.A., III on the virtues of ‘*Namak-halali*’.

c7.s4.13

² Compare a few illustrations of this ‘obligation of salt’. Barani tells us that when one Malik Chajju and his associates rebelled against Jalal-ud-din Khalji and were captured, the monarch for gave and even honoured the rebels for being ‘true to the salt’. Since they had drawn swords in the cause of the fallen house of Balban they were pardoned. *Vide* B., 184. Compare Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji’s treatment of his ‘turn-coat’ supporters and his enemies, the faithful adherents of Jalal-ud-din. When he was established on the throne, he punished his supporters, who had deserted their old masters, and spared the lives of his enemies. (*Vide* B. 250-1 for details.) In one instance, the Sultan went even further. According to the account of Haji Dabir, he gave a decent burial to the erstwhile rebel general Muhammad Shah who had remained faithful to his Hindu master Hamira Deva until the last breath of his life. The details of the story are well known. On his death, the Sultan buried him with honours, explaining that ‘loyalty is to be praised, even in an enemy’. (*Vide* Z.W., II, 810 for details.) Sultan Muhammad Tughluq in his Memoirs (B.M. MS., 316b) claims that his primary motive in turning against Khusrau Khan the usurper was to avenge himself for the insults and humiliations to which the usurper had subjected the family of their common master, Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji. Similarly, Firuz Tughluq considers it an act of piety to repair the mausoleum of Malik Kafur on the sole ground that the latter had been reputed to be true to the salt’ of his master and was considered to have been loyal to the throne. (Compare F., 13.) Compare the praise of Barani for a noble of Firuz Tughluq who had been uniformly faithful to the throne. *Vide* B., 584.

c7.s4.14

Two stories are worth narrating in greater details to illustrate the point. It is related that Sher Khan (afterwards Sher Shah) was once overtaken by the Mughal army at night with a few supporters. One of his officers named Saif Khan offered to obstruct the progress of Humayun to allow the escape of Sher Khan. He assembled his brothers at day-break and began to explain to them the great virtue of self-sacrifice. ‘Do not hesitate to give your life’ said the warrior, ‘for death is inevitable in any case and no mortal can escape from it. Your master who maintains you in time of peace and accords a number of immunities expects from you in return to serve him with your life when occasion demands it. If, therefore, you are true to the name of a soldier, do not hesitate; rather, hasten to acquire the glory of the two worlds by a prompt offering of your life’. Before Saif Khan had concluded his exhortations, his brothers reminded him that men of action do not waste their breath on words. They proceeded to engage the enemy and perished to a man. (*Vide* T.S.S., 41b).

c7.s4.15

The other story is about the devoted officers and adherents of Humayun. It is related that once Kamran took possession of the fortress of Kabul by surprise when Humayun and his adherents were out of town. When they besieged the fortress on their return, Kamran, who held the families of the besiegers in his custody, threatened to take their lives. Qaracha Khan, It was on account of this deep appreciation of the ancient Hindu tradition that he Mughal Emperor Humayun, even in the extremities of exile and poverty, trusted his life more readily in the hands of the forty Indian guards, who followed him in all his misfortunes, than in those of his blood relations.¹

c7.s4.16

¹ Compare T.W., 64.

c7.s4.17

B. Loyalty to an equal or friend.—Loyalty to an equal, irrespective of considerations of rank and status or the obligation of ‘salt’—or in other words the spirit of friendship and comradeship, is more charming for obvious reasons. This does not necessarily exclude friendly relationships that may exist between persons of quite different social status, even between a king and his subjects or between a commander and soldiers under his command.² Friendship and comradeship were usually termed Yari (companionship, comradeship) and implied a somewhat romantic conception of the relationship. For instance Friendship was considered to be undying and eternal. It was the complete and unqualified dedication of a person to his friend for life-long devotion and service. It appears that people used to choose their friends or companions for their strong and manly qualities. Weak-minded, spineless associates, though sweet and amiable, had no charms from them, and no place in their emotional life. Friendship, under the peculiar conditions of the age, was a kind of social insurance against dangers and misfortunes. A proper friend, as Amir Khusrau describes him, is one who serves as a sword of fine steel in case of attack and as a coat-of-mail for defence.³ Similarly, Guru Nanak warns everybody against choosing ther friends from among the petty shop-keepers, the class that had acquired a reputation for selfishness and meanness. The Sikh teacher explains his meaning further by saying that the foundations of friendship in a case like

c7.s4.18

² Compare A.N., I, 186 for an instance in which the Mughal Emperor Humayun takes oath of whole-hearted devotion with his soldiers on equal terms.

c7.s4.19

³ Compare M.A., 107-8.

c7.s4.20

one of the officers of Humayun, went near the battlements and shouted over to Kamran. ‘Let it be known to you that we live only to serve our master and the death or ruin of our families is of no consequence to us. We will live and die in the service of Humayun, and if we are ready to offer our own lives, kith and kin are of secondary importance.’ This did not stop Kamran from cruelty or the adherents of Humayun from unflinching devotion. *Vide* A.N., I, 264-5 for details.

c7.s4.21

this are weak.¹

c7.s4.22

¹ Compare Macauliffe, I, 122.

c7.s4.23

Innumerable examples of friendship may be cited both from Hindu and Muslim social history. We shall confine ourselves to relating two of them. Students of Mughal history are familiar with the name of Prince Kamran and his repeated rebellions against the Mughal Emperor Humayun, his own brother. Few have appreciated that beneath his somewhat rough and brutal exterior, the Prince carried a very loving heart and an extraordinary capacity for making and retaining friends. When Kamran was finally captured and blinded, he was exiled to Mecca by Humayun. It is related that when the blinded prince was starting for exile, the Emperor asked Koka, a common friend, if he would accompany the exile in his miserable loneliness or rather choose to stay with him (the Emperor) amidst the usual comforts and share his favours. Without the slightest hesitation Koka chose to follow the blind exile and explained to the Emperor that if ever friendship and personal devotion were put to test, this was the opportunity for serving an old friend. Accordingly, Koka went into a self-imposed exile.²

c7.s4.24

² Compare A.N., I, 331.

c7.s4.25

Another famous example of comradeship is the friendship between two Mughal nobles, the famous Bairam Khan and Abu'l Qasim. It is related that after the defeat of the Mughals at the hands of Sher Shah, the Mughal nobles were scattered and were seeking for the safety of their lives as best as they could. Bairam Khan, as a prominent organizer of the Mughal forces, and the confidant of Humayun, was sought for by the Afghans, who had made elaborate preparations to secure him. Bairam Khan and his friend Abu'l Qasim were both flying to save their lives and were about to escape into the independent and distant territory of Gujarat when they chanced to fall into the hands of an Afghan envoy who was returning from there. The Afghan envoy suspected that one of the prisoners was Bairam Khan but was not sure which of them was Bairam Khan. With calm dignity and courage Bairam Khan told him that he was the person who was wanted. Before he had finished his conversation and the envoy had made up his mind, Abu'l Qasim, who was the more prepossessing of the two, interrupted him and began to address the Afghan envoy. He told him that he (Bairam Khan) was one of his old and devoted slaves; and when he was offering himself for arrest and surrender, he was only doing what was expected of a devoted slave. But in fairness to him and to his slave, he thought it was no longer desirable to conceal his identity, for he was the real Bairam Khan. The envoy was easily persuaded to believe the frank statement of Abu'l Qasim. He released Bairam Khan and took the former to Sher Shah, where he shared the fate which was reserved for his companion. He was executed by Sher Shah in impotent rage at the disclosure of all fact of the case.¹

c7.s4.26

¹ Compare A.N., I, 302.

c7.s4.27

C. *Loyalty to a certain conduct (chivalry).*—Yet another and in some respects nobler form of virtue, was the spirit of loyalty to a particular line of conduct or behaviour. Tradition was a most sacred and binding heritage in those days, to an extent that can hardly be overemphasized. In any case, it was almost the only creed sacred in the eyes of martial people, especially the clans of the Rajputs. It was a common and well-known rule of Rajput society to extend their protection and shelter to a refugee who sought to escape from the fury and revenge of the powerful Sultan of Delhi. It was equally clear that the chief who ventured to shelter an enemy of the Sultanate, was courting a war against himself and the almost certain ruin and extermination of his family. Martial tradition, however, scorned to calculate the consequences of a course of action which honour bade them follow. We shall take a few examples to illustrate this sentiment of chivalry and honour. The history of Rajput warriors is natural lyour main source for illustrations.

c7.s4.28

It is reported that when Qutlugh Khan revolted against Sultan Nasir-ud-din and was routed, he was looking for some place of shelter. He sought refugee with Rana Ran Pal of Santur the ruler of a very small principality. The valiant Hindu chief readily fell in with the proposal. By doing this, as the Muslim chronicler explains, he was carrying on the old tradition of his house—the protection of ‘those who sought shelter with them’.² The case of Hamira Deva of Ranthambhor is famous in the annals of Rajasthan. It is related that when the Mongols unsuccessfully rebelled against the generals of Ala-ud-din Khalji in Gujarat, the rebel chief Muhammad Shah solicited the protection of Hamira Deva and surrendered his person to him. The proud Rajput told the Mongol chief that now that he had committed himself to him, not even Yama, the god of death, could harm him, much less the Muslim Sultan. This provoked the rage of ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji who exterminated the dynasty of Hamira Deva and devastated his territory. The details of the rest of the story are familiar to the students of history and no true Rajput but is proud of the rash but noble action of the famous hero.¹

c7.s4.29

² Compare Raverty, 839.

c7.s4.30

¹ Compare the accounts of the chronicles, especially of Haji Dabir; also P.P., 10.

c7.s4.31

Another story illustrate this sentiment still more clearly. We all know of the attack of Sher Shah against Marwar. One of the Rajput chiefs who brought his band of warriors to support Maldeva against the Afghan invader was Kanhayya. The Afghan monarch employed the common trick of Muslim invaders and succeeded in arousing suspicion between two brave Rajput allies whose combined strength would have overcome any Afghan or foreign aggression. Kanhayya discovered too late that the Afghan had succeeded in his craftiness. When he failed to assure his ally of his devotion and co-operation, he did what was expected of a Rajput to vindicate this position. He fought against the enemy with his band of warriors, and as was obvious, perished against superior numbers. This exhibition of Rajput valour was, however, sufficient to scare the victorious Afghans into a precipitate withdrawal from Rajputana.²

c7.s4.32

² Compare T.F., I, 427.

c7.s4.33

D. Charity.—The relations between a person of superior social status and one of a comparatively inferior position can better be explained by applying the general term of charity. When for instance, a monarch made a gift to a noble, or the latter in his turn made a smaller gift to the needy and poor, the attitude was essentially the same, though very different terms were applied in the two cases. In the former case, it was considered to be the noble virtue of generosity whi'e in the latter case it was a simple act of charity (*khairat*). Our period, as we pointed out earlier, is very conspicuous for its lavish gifts and a general and wide display of generosity. In fact, ordinary frugality was identified with meanness of heart. By examining the ethical attitudes of the people, one easily gathers the impression that prodigality and extravagance, instead of being considered social evils, were encouraged as the highest acts of piety which were sure to be rewarded in both worlds.¹ Frugality on the other hand, was a grievous sin and a social wrong. A religious belief soon began to prevail among the people, that every gift of charity in this world is rewarded ten times its value in the next.² We have already referred to the general denunciation and the social stigma that attached to the petty shop-keeper mentality, not unlike the unsavoury reputation of Jewish m anness in mediaeval Europe.

c7.s4.34

¹ Compare T., 17b. Compare an early formulation of the ideals of a monarch in two sentences. He despoils in war and distributes the spoils as gifts in peace; his army is constantly over-running the land of an enemy and crowds are ever looking up to him for favours. Vide T.F.M., 51.

c7.s4.35

² Compare P. (hin), 300. Compare some amusing examples given by Vidyapati Thakur in P.P., 23.

c7.s4.36

The reasons for these ethical and moral developments are not very far to seek. They are to be found in the economic basis of the social classes. There are a superfluity of wealth among the upper classes and a chronic poverty and need among the lower.³ We have illustrated the case in greater detail elsewhere. Here we have only to add that this relative economic position of the various classes was a social menace. The extreme poverty of the vast masses created a psychology of fear and nervousness among the rich. Generosity thus came to their aid as an insurance policy.⁴ There was no organized protection for private property or security through legal machinery as in modern States. There was no sense of the sacredness of private property. Wealth and fortune smiled on any fortunate adventurer who gathered the necessary force to be master of a situation. In such circumstances, as Amir Khusrau explains, it is much better to give away your wealth in generous gifts, than find yourself forcibly robbed of it. Generosity was the only alternative to expropriation or the destruction of property in some other form.⁵

c7.s4.37

³ Compare for instance the observations of Amir Khusrau, K.K., 371.

c7.s4.38

⁴ Compare the common Hindu belief that a certain percentage of the principal sum insures the remainder against loss and destruction, if invested in charitable gifts. Vide P. (hin), 177, 323.

c7.s4.39

⁵ Compare the observations of Khusrau in M.A., 112, 122-3. ‘Afif

c7.s4.40

Cases of individual charity are numerous and very interesting. It is reported that a famous Afghan nobleman named Khavas Khan used to go out at daybreak every morning with a few retainers and large quantities of sweets and rice. He used to awaken every beggar on the road and after giving him some rice and sweets and a coin of silver, he went on to seek another.¹ Similarly Asad Khan, another Afghan nobleman, used not only to give a similar gift of sweets and rice, but also a variety of pickles, relishes and betel-leaves and instead of a silver coin, made a gift of gold.² We have already referred to the instance of the Kotwal of Balban who used to provide a thousand dowries for poor maidens every year. Similarly he is reported never to have slept on the same bedstead and mattress twice or worn the same dress again, all being given away in charity.³

c7.s4.41

¹ Compare the account of Tarikh-i-Daudi, 100-102.

c7.s4.42

² Ibid., 48.

c7.s4.43

³ B., 117.

c7.s4.44

More important, however, were the organized establishments for charity. The Hindu gift to the poor or ascetics (dan) is a familiar sight even to-day. A fixed ration of flour, butter rice and other ingredients of a meal were supplied to everybody who begged for them.⁴ Hospitality was an outstanding virtue of Indian and particularly of Muslim aristocracy. We have already made a few references in another connection to the expenditure of the nobility on lavish gifts and entertainments.

c7.s4.45

⁴ Compare for dan p. (hin), 177, 323. Compare a few illustrations to form an idea of Muslim establishments. In the Khanqah of Sidi Maula in Delhi, 2,000 maunds of fine flour, 500 maund of ordinary flour, 300 maunds of unrefined, and 20 maunds of fine sugar were consumed every day. (Vide B., 208-9); also T.F., I, 161. The above-mentioned Afghan noble Khvas Khan maintained an establishment for the poor which contained 2,500 separate apartments for their housing. For every person, irrespective of considerations of age or need, two seers of corn was fixed as the daily allowance. Besides this permanent establishment, he had other tents pitched to house the poor and widows wherever he moved about in the country. Here also rations, clothes, and bedding were supplied. We have already spoken of the charity establishments sometimes attached to the mausoleums of the Sultans.

c7.s4.46

explains in one place the surest way of acquiring greatness. He tells us that there was nothing marvellous about the great Faridun. He was neither born as an angel, nor made of amber or camphor in place of ordinary human flesh; he was simply lavish in his gifts. So, if thou takest to generous gifts, thou too shalt become the Faridun of thy age. (Vide A., 298). In one place, Khusrau borrows a metaphor to illustrate the point. If somebody is anxious to shine like a luminary on earth, let him cultivate the virtue of giving away his wealth, as the luminaries do their light. Vide A.S., 41.

c7.s4.47

In some cases, the number of private guests was absolutely phenomenal.¹

c7.s4.48

¹ Compare .T.D., 100-102 for Khvas Khan entertaining 40,000 horsemen to meals without notice. On another occasion 400 maunds of sugar alone were consumed in a feast.

c7.s4.49

Mention may be made in this connection of the State department for the entertainment and care of official guests. Ibn Batuta has described in detail the arrangements for State guests in the kingdom of Delhi; we may quite believe that similar arrangements existed in provincial kingdoms and in the Deccan.² When the State guests arrived to the frontier of the kingdom, he was received by a distinguished official. A regular staff of cooks and domestics then attended him during his journey to Delhi and catered for his needs on the way. We shall not go into the details of arrangements, but they were on a very lavish scale. At every halting place, the visitor was provided with the choicest food, fruits, dessert and drinks. Not even the smallest detail of entertainment was neglected. When he arrived at the capital, he was presented with a handsome purse. A list of his servants and retainers was taken from him; all of them were classified according to their position and social status, and they also were rewarded handsomely. A daily allowance of flour, mutton, sugar, butter, betel-leaves and other requisites was fixed for him and his establishment on a very liberal scale.³

c7.s4.50

² Compare the account of ‘Abdur Razzaq in Major for Vijayanagar.

c7.s4.51

³ Ibn Batuta was offered a purse of 2,000 Tankas on arrival at Delhi. His servants and retainers were rewarded from 200 to 65 Tankas each; so that 4,000 Tankas wer distributed among the forty adherents of the Moorish traveller. Compare K.R., II, 73-4 for details.

c7.s4.52

II. Vices.—Their vices like their virtues were few and deep-rooted. They may be almost summed up in two words—wine and woman. In other words, excessive indulgence in physical pleasures of a great variety stands out very prominently as the besetting sin of the age. Young and old, Hindu and Muslim, rich and poor freely indulged in these vices, indifferent to consequences and religious prohibitions, as far as their means and health permitted them.⁴ Needless to say, the vast masses of peasants and workmen were forced to lead a clean and sober life.

c7.s4.53

⁴ Compare I.K., V, 88 for an illustration; also D.R., 309.

c7.s4.54

A. Drinking.—Drinking is forbidden by the Qur'an very strongly but was recommended by the Persian tradition in equally unequivocal terms.¹ In the latter cases, the recommendation to drink was more agreeable since it persuaded people in a most reasonable manner. ‘Wine is the best restorative for health’, so runs a precept ‘if taken in moderate quantity. An immoderate measure of drink will do you harm, as much as any other beneficial drug, even elixir’.² Outside India, where the religious influence of Islam was greater, Muslims usually resorted to the common practice of explaining away the provisions³ of the Holy Book. In Hindustan, where the general outlook on life was frankly secular, hardly any apologies were ever offered to justify the habit of drinking. On the other hand, people were quite enthusiastic in defending it, and even took an unholy pride in over-riding the provisions of Islam. In fact, a Hindu religious reformer found no better term to describe the kingdom of Bengal than ‘the land of the wine-bibbing Muslim king’.⁴

c7.s4.55

¹ Holy Qur'an, 5, 90.

c7.s4.56

² Compare J.H., 28 for the Persian tradition.

c7.s4.57

³ Compare some instances from the contemporary world of Islam. Marco Polo tells us that the subtle Persians had a way of their own in dealing with the question. They boiled the wine until it changed its flavour and became sweet in taste, but retained its intoxication. Now, according to them, it was no longer a forbidden drink within the definition of the Muslim law; ‘the name being changed with the change of flavour’. Vide Yule, I, 84. The Hanafite liberalism opened a way for many abuses. For instance Sultan Uzbeg, according to Ibn Batuta, used to drink abiz (fermented date juice), which was lawful, in sufficient quantities to make him drunk. His daughters, sisters, nobles, other ladies and the chief queen, all successively offered a drink to his health, in which, of course, he had to join every time. The piety of the Sultan was, however, not open to question, since he never failed to attend the prayers on Fridays (vide K.R., II, 208-9). Muslims of Hormuz resorted to similar devices. Vide Barbosa, I, 96.

c7.s4.58

⁴ Sircar 192. We have referred to the observation of Hasan Nizami earlier (vide T.M., II, 64) that drinking is permitted to everybody except fools who are obsessed with shari‘at. Compare also Khusrau’s explanation (Q.S., 131) that the use of salt (i.e. spiced relishes) makes wine lawful, being a pun on the word ‘salt’. Compare B., 62 for an interesting instance of a bribe of spirits to administrative officials.

c7.s4.59

It is difficult to mention any social group in Muslim society which did not drink. Women were known to drink and lead an otherwise free life; tutors of children indulged in drinking; the religious classes, though with many exceptions, did resort to drinking in secret; and the soldiers and military men were addicted to it openly and almost with a passion.⁵ Forms and ceremonies of drinking parties were slowly developed. The ceremony of proposing the health of a chief was especially elaborated. Healths were drunk ceremonially in company. The friends and visitors all sat in a row with their wine cups before them. They began by pouring a few drops of wine on the floor ‘as the share of the earth’. Then all of them raised their cups; the leader of the party pronounced the prayer for health; the party looked towards the host or the guest of honour whose health was proposed and all of them solemnly drank from their cups or drinking vessels.¹ Victory over the enemy was a popular occasion for organizing a drinking party.² Festivals and public functions, as we have pointed out, were other occasions for mass drinking. A melancholy person sometimes drowned his sorrows ‘in the flowing bowl’. ³ As a rule, wine was taken in company with friends. Spiced victuals were also taken for relish with drinks. Common people consumed cheap beers and spirits which were easily available.⁴

c7.s4.60

⁵ Compare for drinking among women : M.A., 194; also concealed

c7.s4.61

¹ Compare Q.S., 133.

c7.s4.62

² Compare, ibid., 51-2 for a description of a drinking party after a victory.

c7.s4.63

³ Compare ibid., 34, 163 for an illustration.

c7.s4.64

⁴ Compare the observations of Khusrau. A. S., 22 and M.A., 78.

c7.s4.65

The State looked upon the evil of drinking with indifference. In one case, as we have pointed out before, wine and drinks were even supplied free in a public function organized by the State. ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji was the only monarch who tried to

c7.s4.66

drinking among Muslim women in the South in modern times. Crooke, Herklot’s Islam, 47. Compare A., 505 for an illustration of a tutor where drinking leads to murder. Compare also an interesting discussion in F.F., 141 which reveals that in some cases people divorced their wives while in a state of drunkenness and watned to revoke afterwards in a state of sobriety. This led to complications, since in certain cases a divorce becomes irrevocable and absolute under Hanafite law. Interesting examples are on record about drinking among members of the religious classes. Compare Raverty, 754 for a perfect teetotaler, which being exceptional, was worthy of mention. Compare the bitter exposition of Amir Khusrau, who denounces the ‘Ulama for pouring liquor ‘in the same bosom in which the Qur’an is treasured.’ (Vide M.A., 58). Compare the case of a Muazzin (a reciter of the call to prayer) appearing in the mosque smelling of liquor. (I.K., IV, 175). Compare M.A., 85 for the secret drinking of a recluse in the company of the Sultan and his state of intoxication. Compare T.S.S., 33 for the story of a famous Afghan noble named Miyan Bayazid who was killed in a battle against the Mughals in a state of perfect stupefaction; also A.N., I, 131, how a few Mughals under the exhilarating influence of drink, scattered an enormous host of Gujaratis. Compare Temple, 226; P. (hin), 146; Shah, 163 for drinking among Hindus who sometimes lost ‘the poor wits’ they had into the bargain.

c7.s4.67

suppress drinking for a time. He had no objection to drinking as such, but was persuaded to suppress the evil for administrative reasons. For a while he instituted every vigorous espionage and cruel punishments to stop the sale and manufacture of drinks. In reply to these prohibitive measures people resorted to the familiar devices of ‘bootlegging’. They began to smuggle spirits concealed in water-skins, under loads of hay and firewood and through a thousand other means. Finally, the Sultan was compelled to modify his measures. A new regulation was therefore introduced which did not prohibit the manufacture and sale of drinks but only made its public distribution and the organization of big drinking parties illegal. The law did not interfere with a citizen who manufactured his own drinks and consumed it in private.¹ We know his gay successor too well to believe that Mubarak Shah maintained these modified restrictions in operation.

c7.s4.68

¹ For details see B., 284-6.

c7.s4.69

The Mughal Emperor Akbar wanted to go very far in regulating the use of drinks. He personally believed that moderate drinking was positively good, provided a person consulted a physician and took due care of his health; further, that such drinking did not lead to the commission of a public nuisance. The Emperor therefore ordered public bars to be opened under official supervision. There was a fixed rate of charges and a register of the particulars of sale to satisfy the State that proper regard was being paid to the health of the people and their public behaviour. Other bars were opened for common drunkards where probably fewer restrictions were enforced. This was the measure of a statesman and administrator, and as such, was naturally misunderstood by narrow-minded theologians.²

c7.s4.70

² Compare the account of Buda’uni. M.T., II, 301-2. The fanatical historian, not knowing what a drink was like, even suspects that spirits were also composed of the essence of pork, although ‘Allah knoweth better’.

c7.s4.71

Mention may be made in this connection of drugging, which, however, prevailed on a smaller scale. Opium was taken by many people. Some took it as a stimulant,³ others for pleasure. In some cases opium was resorted to remove a dangerous person.⁴

c7.s4.72

³ Compare the account of Purush-Pariksha, 123.

c7.s4.73

⁴ Ibid. for the suicide of miserable women through opium. Amir Khusrau ascribes the death of Malik Kafur to opium. Vide D.R., 265-6.

c7.s4.74

The opium-eating of the Emperor Humayun is very well known. The Rajputs have acquired a well-deserved fame for opium-eating. They are still notorious for this weakness. Opium-eating is still prevalent among common people, though the recent restrictions of the League of Nations will go a long way to restrict its production and consumption.¹ The favourite drug of the Hindu religious orders was *bhang* (or leaves of hemp) and numerous references are made to it in religious literature. It will be interesting to know in this connection that the Sikh tradition credits the Mughal Emperor Babur with offering *bhang* to their Guru Nanak, as the pious gift of one darwish to another.² The smoking of tobacco was introduced after the period under review and so does not concern us directly. Poison was taken in exceptional cases to counteract the effect of poison. This habit was naturally limited to the princes who were always exposed to the danger of being poisoned. The Hindu folklore is familiar with the ‘poison maid’. Mahmud Shah and Muzaffar Shah of Gujarat are both well-known instances of extreme poisoning.³

c7.s4.75

¹ Compare I.G.I., VIII, 308-9 for the use of opium. Compare Crooke’s, Herklot’s, etc., 325 for the consumption of opium among Indian Muslims in modern times. Compare numerous references to Rajput opium-eating in Tod (for instance, II, 749). According to Watt’s Dictionary, the Arabs were chiefly concerned in disseminating in the East the knowledge of the poppy plant.

c7.s4.76

² Compare Macauliffe, I, 120, 125. Compare I.G.I., XX, 293 for an instance of modern use.

c7.s4.77

³ Compare P.P., 82 for reference in folk-lore. Compare Barbosa, I, 122 for the details of poison-eating by Muzaffar Shah.

c7.s4.78

2. Prostitution.—In some ways, prostitution was known in India from ancient times. We are now becoming familiar with the institution of *Deva-dasis* in the Deccan. During our period, this tradition of offering girls to the sacred temples was quite strong. Ancient Hindu literature is familiar with public prostitutes who seem to be very popular and respectable in many cases. Treatises on sexual science, especially the *kama-sutra* which is supposed to be the best exposition on the science of erotics, were written long before the Muslims arrived on the scene.⁴ We have already described the *harams* of the Sultan and the nobility and the vast numbers of inmates that were sometimes found there.

c7.s4.79

⁴ Compare J.D.L., 1921, 116-7 where it is asserted that *Kama-sutra* was composed as early as the third century A.D. in western India.

c7.s4.80

The Muslim attitude towards sex in general would be better illustrated by a characteristic anecdote which comes from the reign of Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji. It is related by the *Tarikh-i-Firishta* that a courtier once complained to the Khalji monarch that although he had organized the sale of all popular and important articles of consumption at a uniform and satisfactory rate, he had utterly neglected regulating the use of the most popular commodity in the market. The Sultan was somewhat surprised to realize that the courtesans and public women ‘whose houses had become the most favourite haunts of all soldiers and the ruin of so many youths’ had been entirely left out. With a smile of approval, the monarch fixed the tariff of wages for public women and circulated an order among them whereby they were severely prohibited from raising their charges above the scheduled rates.¹ The works of poetry and mysticism are quite often full of terms of physical and carnal love which reflect the general sexual reactions of the contemporary society. Hardly any evidence is required in such case to prove the fact of prostitution or its prevalance on a wide scale.² Under Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji, the number of prostitutes in Delhi appears to have given cause for official anxiety; so that some of the public prostitutes were conferred in marriage, relieving the profession of too much congestions.³

c7.s4.81

¹ Compare T.F., I, 199.

c7.s4.82

² Compare Amir Khusrau’s description of a lustful wench in I.K., 88-9; compare P.P., 146, how harlots were ‘the highest treasures of passion in the eyes of cunning husbands’. Compare Malik Muhammad Jaisi’s description of the mart of public women of Simhala who sat in the balconies ‘to bewitch the people by their various accomplishments’. Vide P., 57. For the South, compare the account of Nicolo Conti who finds every street of a town full of courtesans who enticed men ‘with perfumes and soft annointments and tender age’. Vide Frampton, 137-8.

c7.s4.83

³ Compare the observation of Amir Khusrau in K.F., 9.

c7.s4.84

The attitude of the State towards public prostitution was never influenced by moral or religious considerations. No attempt was ever made to abolish or prohibit prostitution on ethical grounds. On the other hand, as we have just described, the administration helped in regulating the profession, which was also a source of revenue. The public prostitutes were further closely associated with music and dancing which occupied a very important place in the scheme of social pleasures. The Mughal Emperor Akbar wanted to go a step further in this case, as in the case of drinking. Outside the city of Delhi he constructed a separate quarter for the residence of public women, calling it by the humorous name of *Shaitanpura* (The Devil's Quarter). All the public women were ordered to reside there. Special State officials were appointed to supervise the affairs of this quarter. A system of registration was instituted whereby persons who passed a night with a public woman were made to ente- necessary particulars. A special permit had to be obtained from the Emperor if a government official or a public servant wanted to deflower a virgin. All breaches of the provisions were dealt with severely.¹

c7.s4.85

¹ Compare M.T., II, 301-2.

c7.s4.86

Our treatment of this subject would not be complete without referring to unhealthy sexual practices and perversions for which ample evidence exists. The love of male sweetheart which figures so prominently in contemporary Persian poetry and literature, does show an unhealthy sex-complex, even though it may imply nothing more. Due probably to the prevalence of slavery and Purdah, and to the segregation of a part of the population in military camps away from the operation of normal family influences, the handsome appearance of a youth had become an object of undue admiration, if not of carnal desire². Outside India, the Persians, the Turks, and the Moors in general were familiar with the ‘abominable sinne’ of sodomy.³ The same influence was strongly felt in Hindustan, only Hindu society was comparatively free from this evil.⁴ The public morals were degraded to an extraordinary degree, in this respect. The relations of Mu‘izz-ud-din Kaiqubad with his male ‘sweethearts’, of Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji with Malik Kafur and of his son and successor Mubarak Shah with Khusrau Khan are too well known to need any amplification. Curiously enough, these open perversities do not call for any comment from historians or religious saints on moral or religious grounds, although the same persons were not slow to cast slurs on Raziyya Sultana for no greater crime than that of throwing the veil and of raising talented Abyssinian to the office formerly reserved for Turks. In fact, a book on royal manners definitely recommends sodomy to a nobleman.¹ We have even one reference to unnatural sexual relations with women, but it is not borne out by other evidence. The existence of the evil is by no means improbable.² Some pasaages of Amir Khusrau in particular reflect the extremely low manners prevalent in this particular respect.³

c7.s4.87

² M.D., I, 232 for the interesting story of the Jam Sanjar who was offered free service by many persons because of his handsome appearance.

c7.s4.88

³ Compare the observations of Barbosa, I, 91, 96.

c7.s4.89

⁴ Compare Frampton, 138; Major, 23.

c7.s4.90

¹ Compare Qubus-Nama (B.M., MS. 47-48); this particular passage has been deleted from the Bombay edition. B., 391.

c7.s4.91

² Compare T., 27b.

c7.s4.92

³ Compare I.K., V, 106-113.

c7.s4.93

To complete the catalogue of prominent social vices, mention may be made of gambling. We have already referred to gambling in our treatment of amusements and festivals. We have further pointed out that gambling is an old and respected tradition of the ancient Kshatriyas and that gambling is still resorted to on certain festivals with some sort of religious sanction as it was during the period under review. It only remains for us to add that the vice of gambling was by no means limited to Hindus or to the Mughal Sultans. Amir Khusrau describes a Muslim gambler as a familiar figure in society.⁴

c7.s4.94

⁴ Compare K.K., 313; M.A., 151, where Khusrau gives a pen-picture of a Muslim gambler. His wife and children go about famished and ill clad,and, according to the poet,he would not even scruple to sell his daughter. He wonders why he was tolerated by Muslim society. Compare Macauliffe, I, 160, for a reference to gambling.

Other Manners

c7.s4.t1.1

A. Public appearance and behaviour.—We have already said something about the Sultan and the distinctions and honours of the nobility. The rest of the people were guided by the behaviour and manners of the higher classes. The adage, that gravity and appearance maketh a man, was widely popular. It was commonly believed that the inaccessibility of a monarch was his most useful asset. People honoured him because they could view him only from a respectable distance.⁵ We have already said that when noblemen went out they were conveyed in rich palanquins and were usually preceded by chargers with costly trappings and were surrounded by a crowd of retainers, composed of horsemen, footmen, horn-blowers, torch-bearers, musicians, and servants. In special cases, the nobles had the further right of having drums beaten in their procession when they were moving about outside the capital city.¹

c7.s4.t1.2

⁵ Compare M.A., 106.

c7.s4.t1.3

¹ Compare the description of a gentleman in public, in Raverty, 660; Major, 14; the privilege of drum-beating, A., 443.

c7.s4.t1.4

These ideas of public behaviour reacted on personal manners. Dignity and pride were the outstanding features of the contemporary nobility. Duels, as we have mentioned, were fought, and challenges were freely given and accepted. Not a few wars were carried on in pursuance of these notions of personal honour. It is related that when the Raja of Warangal handed over all his hoards and treasures to Khusrau Khan, the General of Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji, the latter still suspected that the former had not carried out his agreement faithfully. When these accusations were conveyed to the Raja, he realized his utter helplessness against the General of the Sultan, but this did not stop him from sending a dignified refusal to give any more explanations. The Raja proudly told him that he had too good an opinion of himself to care for the threats and favours of the Khan.² It is unnecessary to recount similar instances from Rajput or even from Muslim history. Amir Khusrau correctly interpreted the aristocratic feeling when he said that the ‘silent heights of a mountain peak safeguard its dignity and grandeur’.³

c7.s4.t1.5

² Compare the account of Amir Khusrau in *Kulliyat*, 696; also J.H., 86, for classical examples of Hindu honesty.

c7.s4.t1.6

³ M.A., 113.

c7.s4.t1.7

This, however, did not prevent people from being extremely courteous and amiable. We have already referred to the courtesy which was usually shown to the fair sex. Similarly, when a visitor called on a nobleman, the latter greeted him by rising from his seat and advancing a few steps to receive the visitor. On conducting him to the drawing-room he first insisted that the visitor should occupy a seat, which was probably more comfortable and elevated than his own, and in any case, compelled the visitor to sit beside him. Some fresh fruits of the season were immediately put before him for refreshment. If the visitor came with an offering (*bhaint*) the host returned the compliment with a gift of greater value on their parting. In fact, this custom became universal and was known as ‘the parting gift’ (dasturi-i-raftan).¹ We have already spoken of the royal custom in this respect.

c7.s4.t1.8

¹ Compare the account of Ibn Batuta in K.R., II, 8; also I.K., II, 265-6, Raverty, 722-3. The custom of Bhaint is still prevalent in the United Provinces, especially among the village-folk. ² Compare A., 237, for an illustration. ³ Compare for rules of conversation M.A., 113-117, 66, 68; K.R., II, 104. ⁴ Compare the view of Tuhfa-i-Nasa'ih, 15b. ⁵ Compare an amusing instance in K.K., 463. A Sayyid was offended at some remarks of Amir Khusrau. In his apology, the poet called on the most sacred objects to vouch for his innocence, namely, God, the Prophets of God, Muhammad, his ten associates and his descendants, the Imams and the saints of Islam, finally (and this was very delicate and more sacred) the prayer-carpet of his Pir or spiritual preceptor.

c7.s4.t1.9

If a nobleman paid a ceremonial visit to another nobleman, he usually went on a fine charger. His host came some distance to receive him. On approaching each other, they alighted from their horses, and after removing their parasols or other distinguishing encumbrances, they advanced towards each other. The situation ended in their meeting half way in a warm and hearty embrace. Then they rode back together to the house of the host, where the guest was surrounded with every comfort and invited to partake of the choicest food.²

c7.s4.t1.10

B. Conversation.—In a formal gathering, one was not supposed to begin a conversation with someone else unless spoken to. Even when the difficulty had been overcome, the conversation did not progress beyond certain well-defined limits. It was brief and pleasant. The speaker refrained from making any references to his own achievements or generosity. The conversation was carried on in a soft and sweet tone. Scrupulous care was taken to avoid offensive remarks, for as their popular saying warned them ‘an indiscreet word often leads to very awkward complications’. No indelicate language was used in any circumstances. Vulgar jokes or rude remarks were not replied to and loud laughter was avoided. In a word, short and refreshing were the watchwords of conversation.³

c7.s4.t1.11

The question of oaths is somewhat difficult to answer. The orthodox, as a rule, did not permit swearing, under any condition whatever.⁴ But if the solemnity of an occasion demanded, careful selection was made from among holy objects for taking oaths.⁵ The soldier had a weakness for swearing. A refined military general confined himself to the use of ‘Haqqa’ (‘by God’).¹ The sanctity of a word in certain cases was permitted to be vouched for by such oaths as those of Allah, the Prophet, the Shari‘at, the Imam, the Qur’an, the ‘sword’, and the ‘salt’.² The profuse oaths of common people and their way of swearing do not bear repetition. The Hindus usually took an oath by the Ganges to add force and authority to their statement.³ Among Rajputs the throne of the ruler and Satis were sacred.

First 105 of 137 passages. Read on

Linked texts (6)