India’s first interactions with Islam happened in two ways, which would continue to divide Indian Muslims (or opinions on Indian Muslims) till today. On the one hand, especially on the southern shores of India, the message of Islam arrived peacefully. The other interaction, however, in the north of India, was not so peaceful. It started with the Arab conquest of Sindh in 712 A.D., and continued for centuries thereafter.
Let’s start our story by understanding these two contrasting civilisations — one self-contained and decentralised, the other not — before we come to the question of their contact.
Islam viewed itself as the final path of human salvation. It recognised no territorial boundaries, the religious community, the ummah, being the central part of being Muslim. In India, by contrast, an intense identification with the land could be traced at least as far back as the Prithvi Sukta, found in the Vedas. Identity in India evolved, not along religious, but caste and regional lines.
Unlike Islam which advocated a monolithic uniformity, India over the centuries had developed a civilisation which gave legitimacy to all paths of worship. There was no final (or any one in particular) Book or Prophet. Nor were congregational worship and set rituals constituents of the Indian matrix. The innumerable sectarian paths, or panths, that fell within the ambit of Hinduism, further prevented the evolution of an overarching religious identity.
On the other hand, one would find a much stronger sense of community in Islam. It was nurtured by certain distinctive societal and cultural practices. These included the strict social segregation of women, the use of the Arabic script for writing whatever local languages Muslims used, the typically Islamic decorative patterns, and the classical devotional literature and legal texts. As Marshall Hodgson noted, “Everywhere Islam went, there was a continuous pressure towards persuading all Muslims to like standards.” That does not mean the native culture did not influence the customs of Islam as they were previously practised.
India was, in many ways, a polar opposite. So, let’s come back to our previous question. That is, what happened when these two opposite civilisations came in contact?
Islam in the Indian subcontinent exhibited an intense preoccupation with Hindus and Hinduism. Besides the concern for retaining its doctrinal purity amidst polytheistic setting, it debated continually on an acceptable modus vivendi with the infidels and their faith. Classical Islamic law, concerned primarily with Jews and Christians in the central lands of Islam, offered no guidance on the matter. The precarious nature of Muslim rule in India, coupled with the numerical strength of the non Muslim populations, demanded that the Hindus be treated as ahl al-dhimma whereby, on acceptance of certain discriminatory Sharia regulations, they be entitled to limited religious freedom.
However, the issue was too fraught with implications to be thus resolved and continued to agitate Muslims through the centuries. Significant sections of the intellectual and religious class remained unconvinced of the need for compromise and pressed for a tough stance.
What did the intelligentsia tell Indian Muslims?
Amir Khusrau, court poet to seven successive Sultans and himself probably the son of a Hindu, described Hindus as “pharaohs of infidelity”. He wrote, “The land has been saturated with the water of the sword, and the vapours of infidelity have been dispersed… Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law granted exemption from death by the payment of poll-tax, the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.”
Leading Sultanate historian, Ziauddin Barni, dismayed at the attitude of the Sultans of Delhi, wrote in his work Fatawa-i-Jahandari, “how will infidelity and infidels, polytheism and polytheists be overthrown — the purpose of the mission of 124,000 prophets and the domination of sultans of Islam since Islam appeared?”
In the Tairkh-i-Firuzshahi, Barni advised, “If the Sultans cannot wholly extirpate polytheism and infidelity because they have taken root and (exterminate) the infidels and polytheists because of their large numbers, it will not be less meritorious if, for the sake of Islam and affording refuge to the true faith, they use their efforts to insult and humiliate and to cause grief to, and bring ridicule and shame upon, the polytheistic and idolatrous Hindus.”
Sultan Jalauddin Khalji expressed his helplessness at the situation to Malik Ahmed Chap, “Do you not see daily the Hindus, who are the bitterest of enemies of God and of the religion of the Prophet, pass under the walls of my palace, beating their drums and blowing their trumpets, and proceeding to the Jumna, where they worship idols and perform acts of polytheism and kufr, while we, who are shameless pimps calling ourselves Muslim and Kings of Muslims, look on?”
Prominent Sufi, Abdul Quddus Gangohi, similarly perturbed, advised the Mughal emperor, Babur, on the restrictions to impose on infidels in his realm. He recommended that, “In a Muslim administration and an Islamic polity no kafir should enjoy a governmental post or an assignment of revenue. In the Sharia the subordination of kafirs is enjoined; and in accordance with it they should be humbled, subordinated and made to pay tax… Kafirs should be forbidden to dress like Muslims to conceal their unbelief and they should be prohibited from practising heathen observances ostentatiously and publicly.”
Subsequently, the Naqshbandi Sufi, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, argued that, “Shariat can be fostered through the sword.” In a communication to Shaikh Farid Bukhari he stated, “The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs, dishonours the Muslims.” Sirhindi viewed Akbar’s reign as detrimental to Islam, and hoped that things would improve under his successor, Emperor Jahangir. That did not happen either. He also objected to the observance of certain Hindu customs by Muslim women. For instance, some Muslim women used to celebrate Diwali in their own way, which Sirhindi found utterly disappointing.
A last impression of Sirhindi’s legacy was his rejection of the doctrine of Wahdat al-wujud, attributed to the Hispanic-Arab Sufi, Ibn al-Arabi. The doctrine, which held that all beings were manifestations of the divine, bore a similarity to Vedantic philosophy and its acceptance could possibly have lessened tensions between the two faiths. Critics of Wahdat ul-wujud in India, however, feared that it would result in the disintegration of Islam and its eventual absorption into Hinduism.
Indian Muslims: A life of conflict
Unfortunately, it’s not the Akbar’s version of Islam, but Aurangzeb’s, that prevailed among the Indian Muslims in the subsequent centuries. In 1889, the College Debating Society at Aligarh College organised a debate on the topic “that this house is of the opinion that the fall of the Mughal Empire was due more to Akbar’s than to Aurangzeb’s policy.” When the motion was put to vote, there were just 36 votes endorsing Akbar’s policies compared to 119 favouring Aurangzeb’s political ventures. Muhammad Iqbal also viewed Sirhindi as worthy of praise rather than Akbar.
The execution of Prince Dara, in 1659, on charges of heresy, attests that well before the British advent, the consensus in the Muslim community had rejected the path of Akbar and Dara. Scholars in Pakistan endorse this reasoning, suggesting, “His views were eclectic and his close association with yogis and pandits had made him extremely partial to the Hindus. It was clear that he would prove worse than Akbar if he came to the throne. The orthodox party which had recovered its position at the court and in Muslim society since its eclipse in the time of Akbar did not like him.”
As mentioned before, the Muslim intelligentsia at Aligarh College was sympathetic to Aurangzeb. Iqbal said, “The history of preceding Muslim dynasties had taught Aurangzeb that the strength of Islam in India did not depend, as ancestor Akbar had thought, so much on the goodwill of the people of this land as on the strength of the ruling race.”
This narrative, of course, did not help Indian Muslims many of whom were now going to live in a democratic country with a majority non-Muslim population.
Reference books
Parallel Pathways: Essays On Hindu-Muslim Relations (1707-1857)
Kalampedia 