Abraham Eraly - The Age of Wrath - A History of the Delhi Sultanate

Migrants continued to pour into India during the medieval period; indeed, the Delhi sultans eagerly sought fresh migrants from Central Asia, to swell the Muslim population in India, so that Muslims in India would not get totally submersed in the vast sea of native Indians. The sultans also needed migrants to strengthen their army and administration with fresh recruits. And Central Asians on their part were eager to migrate to India, because of the legends about its fabulous wealth, and the grand career opportunities offered to them by Indian rulers. They also saw India as a safe haven for them to escape to, from the Mongol flood that was at this time raging through their homeland.

Hindu society, because of its polymorphic nature, was generally quite tolerant of the beliefs and practices of other religions, just as it was tolerant of the beliefs and practices of the diverse sects and castes within its own society. But the tolerance of Hindu society was tolerance by segregation; it was in fact a form of intolerance. Any community was free to live in any way it liked, but none was allowed to intrude into the life of other communities. This meant that Hindu society, despite its broad attitude of tolerance, was a highly discriminatory, inequitable and intolerant society, which sharply and unalterably segregated people by religion, sect and caste, and treated each group differently.

However, the Hindu caste segregation involved no overt oppression, as it was birth determined, and was not the result of any deliberate social action by any group. Though segregation itself was an oppressive practice, the underclasses did not generally feel oppressed, but passively accepted the circumstances of their life, as the natural and inevitable outcome of the transmigratory process, the conditions of their life being foreordained by their acts in their previous lives. Besides, the pervasive fatalistic attitude of the Indians of that age made them limply accept the conditions of their life, whatever those conditions were, and not struggle against them, as they believed that those conditions were inexorably fated. The social ethos of medieval India was thus a peculiar mixture of tolerance and intolerance. This was evident as much in the relationship of Hinduism with other religions, as in the relationship between the various sects and castes within Hindu society.

Because of these factors, the traditional Indian society had been, for very many centuries before the Turkish invasion, an exceptionally peaceful and harmonious society, despite its numerous caste divisions and harshly exploitative character. Though there were occasionally some social conflicts here and there in the subcontinent, they were usually minor and transient. There are no records of any serious and enduring inter-caste rivalries or clashes in pre-modern India. Nor were there any major inter-sectarian, inter-religious or inter-racial conflicts in India during this entire period. In all this, India was like no other country in the world.

And, paradoxical though it might seem, Hindu India’s social diversity was the basis of its social cohesion and efficiency, for the divergent groups and castes in India, though they were rigidly segregated from each other socially, were tightly integrated with each other in their functions, with each caste, from the highest to the lowest, including the outcastes, providing a distinct and indispensable service in society. All the castes belonged together as the integral organs of one social entity, each caste occupying a specific social niche and performing a specific socio-economic function, like the different organs and limbs of a living being. And this enabled the caste society, despite its diversity and appalling inequity, to function efficiently and peacefully for very many centuries. The caste society was a cooperative society, not a competitive society. The diverse castes in it were not adversaries, but co-operators. And together they all constituted one cohesive society.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE CASTE system had a serious negative aspect to it, which nullified most of its benefits — it was a singularly unjust system, and was dreadfully wasteful of human resources, for its division of labour was not based on the merit of individuals, but on their birth, so that men of low ability often had to perform high functions, while men of high ability often had to perform low functions. Moreover, the caste system kept society sedated, in a state of coma, precluding mutation and progress in Indian civilisation. Though all human societies all over the world, and all through history, had functional and hierarchic divisions, Indian society was unique in that its divisions were unalterably hereditary. An individual’s social function and status were solely dependent on his birth — not on his aptitude or ability — and they remained the same for his family from generation to generation over the centuries. Though there were a few minor deviations from this rule in history, the caste system on the whole remained virtually the same for very many centuries, well into the twentieth century.

One would have thought that this iniquitous system would weaken over time and disintegrate, and that there would be revolts against the system by the underclasses. But it was the opposite of this that happened. Instead of weakening, the caste system became more rigid over time, and the social distance between the castes widened. This was largely because India had slid into the Dark Ages in the late classical period, consequent of the decline of its urban prosperity and the general ruralisation of Indian culture. The caste system was the ideal social system for the Dark Ages.

In that setting, the social dominance of Brahmins became absolutely unassailable. But their status was not based on wealth or power, but on their birth determined ritual ranking. But ritual ranking in Hindu society meant social ranking, so very many social privileges and material benefits went with the Brahmin rank.

Some of the privileges enjoyed by Brahmins were conceded to them even by Muslim rulers. Brahmins, for instance, usually paid little or no tax, even in Muslim kingdoms. And if any king or chieftain sought to impose dues on a Brahmin, he, according to Kosambi, ‘would threaten to spill his own blood, kill a child, burn alive some old woman of his family, or fast to death, the sin of which would fall on the head of the feudal lord.’ Brahmins were exempted even from jizya by most Delhi sultans, and when Firuz Tughluq imposed it on them, the Brahmins of Delhi and its environs took to mass fasting in protest and threatened to burn themselves to death at the walls of the royal palace. They withdrew their protest only when the amount of jizya demanded from them was reduced by the sultan, and the other Hindu castes offered to pay the tax on their behalf — Brahmins evidently had no objection to jizya being imposed on them, as long as Hindus of other castes would pay the tax on their behalf!

The social status of Brahmins was based on their ritual status and function. But with the passage of time, and the growth in Brahmin population, many Brahmins spread out into other fields of activity. Many of them took to providing financial services, as bankers and tax-farmers, or served as scribes or accountants, under Hindu as well Muslim rulers. Some even served as military commanders, mostly in the Vijayanagar army.

There were similar changes in the profession of some other Hindu communities also. And, even though these changes did not lead to any significant alteration in the status hierarchy of the caste society, they did alter the material conditions of the life of some castes, with some castes gaining and some losing advantages. The main losers were Kshatriyas, the elite Hindu politico-military caste, many of whom lost their power and privileges to Turks. Though some Kshatriyas salvaged their material privileges by serving as the subordinates of sultans or their provincial governors, such service itself was considered an appalling degradation by orthodox Hindus. But what the Kshatriyas lost was power and wealth, not their social status within the caste society, which remained the same as before.