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

In material gains, artisans and traders were the main beneficiaries of the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, for there was a sharp revival of urban prosperity during this period, and that led to the resuscitation of the commercial economy which had been comatose in India for several centuries. Some of the low castes in Indian society, particularly the outcastes, also benefited from the establishment of the Turko-Afghan rule, for Muslims generally ignored caste distinctions, and treated the outcastes in the same manner as they treated the other members of Indian society. Indeed, some of the outcaste communities became Muslims en-masse, thereby instantly transforming their social status from that of the underclass to that of the upper-class.

THE ETHOS AND structure of Muslim society was entirely different from that of Hindu society. Muslim society was a brotherhood, and had no caste-like hereditary social divisions in it. There were functional and status divisions in it, but these were based on an individual’s ability and accomplishments, not on his birth. Anyone could rise to any position that he merited by his abilities.

This was the Islamic ideal. The reality of Muslim society did not quite match this egalitarian, merit-oriented ideal. There were social divisions in Muslim society based on race and clan and sect, and these played a key role in determining a person’s social status. For instance, Sayyids, persons of Prophet Muhammad’s lineage, enjoyed a birth-determined, caste-like high social status everywhere in the Muslim world, irrespective of their personal merit. Further, people of foreign origin (Persians, Arabs, Turks and Afghans) generally formed the upper class of the Muslim society in India, followed by converts from the Hindu upper castes. Persians in particular enjoyed a high social status in India, and they looked down on Turks; and Turks in turn looked down on Afghans and Mongols; and all looked down on low caste Hindu converts.

Foreign Muslims ‘alone are capable of virtue, kindness, generosity, valour, good deeds, good works, truthfulness, keeping of promises … loyalty, clarity of vision, justice, equity, recognition of rights, gratitude for favours, and fear of god,’ states Barani, reflecting the stark social prejudice of upper class Muslims in medieval India. ‘They are, consequently, said to be noble, free born, virtuous, religious, of high pedigree and pure birth. These groups alone are worthy of offices and posts in the government …’

Even among the Muslims of foreign origin, the early migrants and their children were held in lower esteem than the later migrants. According to Francois Bernier, a late-seventeenth-century French physician in India, the ‘children of the third and fourth generation, who have brown complexion … are held in much less respect than newcomers, and are seldom invested with official positions: they consider themselves happy, if permitted to serve as private soldiers in the infantry or cavalry.’

Converts from Hindu low castes and outcastes formed the bottom rung of Muslim society in India. The vast majority of Indian Muslims were in fact converts from low castes, and they mostly served as common soldiers, artisans and menials. These class distinctions were particularly important in arranging marriages. But inter-dining was not a taboo among Muslims, as it was among Hindus, though low-class menials were usually segregated.

These social divisions in the Muslim society in India were, however, porous, and over time there came about some amount of social coalescing among the various Muslim communities in India. The status of Indian converts to Islam began to improve from the late thirteenth century on, and in time a number of them rose to high positions in government. The classic case of this was the career of Malik Kafur — a Gujarati eunuch-slave, he rose to be the top general under Ala-ud-din Khalji, and even became, for a few months during the last phase of the life of the ailing sultan, the virtual ruler of the empire.

In time, a number of inter-community marriages took place at all levels of the Muslim society in India, and this led to a good amount of social levelling among Muslims in India. In a parallel development, Indian Muslims in high positions now took to fabricating elaborate genealogies to claim patrician foreign family backgrounds.

In addition to the social status divisions among Muslims in India, there were also some functional divisions in Muslim society, such as between those of military profession and those of civilian profession. The civilian professionals in turn were divided into those of administrative vocation and those of religious vocation. Religious leaders played a major role in Muslim polity, especially in the formulation of policies and laws, to ensure that these conformed to religious prescriptions. Unlike in Christianity, there were no ordained priests in Islam, no bishops, no pope. But there were religious leaders (imams) in Islam, who led the congregational prayers in mosques and at other gatherings of Muslims. Some of these religious leaders were highly influential, and the sultans could ignore their advice or ill-treat them only at their own peril.

THE MUSLIM ARISTOCRACY in medieval India mainly consisted of men in government service, whose status depended on the post they held. And the post they held depended on the will and pleasure of the sultan. Inevitably most of the royal officers lived in a state of perpetual anxiety about their future, and this was one of the determinants of their lifestyle, which was characterised by incredible extravagance, without any thought for the future — because they could not be certain that they, or their families, had a future.

Muslim nobles lived in palatial mansions, opulently furnished with tapestries and carpets imported from Central Asia, and provided with gold and silver tableware, as well as fine chinaware. They were usually deep in debt, living far beyond even their fabulous means — it was indeed considered prestigious for one to be heavily in debt, as proof of his profligacy. There was in any case no point in they saving anything for the future, for they could not bequeath their saved wealth to their progeny. This was because their wealth was derived from the estate assigned to them by the state to meet their official and personal expenses, so whatever wealth they saved from their estate after meeting these expenses belonged to the state.

Not only did the nobles pamper themselves opulently, but they were also equally extravagant in their charity, and in the gifts they gave to those who pleased them in any way. Says Abdullah, a late medieval chronicler, about Asad Khan, a high officer of Sikandar Lodi: ‘Whenever the cloth was spread before him at meal-times, he first filled large china plates with food, on which he placed great quantities of bread and pickles of every description, and on them a betel leaf, and on that a gold mohur, all of which he gave to beggars, and [only] then he began to eat.’ Once he gave to a needy relative a heap of gold pieces amounting to 70,000 tankas. Likewise, on several occasions he filled cups and bowls with gold and gave them away to whoever pleased him at the moment.

These were laudable benevolent acts. But what characterised the lifestyle of most nobles was their extravagant self-indulgence. Thus Dilawar Khan, another noble of Sikandar Lodi, everyday purchased 500 tankas worth of roses for his harem. According to Varthema, an early sixteenth century Italian traveller in India, many of the officers of the sultan of Bijapur ‘wear on the insteps of their shoes rubies and diamonds and other jewels; so you may imagine how many are worn on the fingers of the hand and on the ears.’

MEDIEVAL INDIAN SOCIETY, like medieval societies everywhere in the world, was characterised by shocking social and economic disparities, with the nobles living in incredible luxury and the common people living in abject poverty. This was true of Hindu as well as Muslim society. ‘The land is overstocked with people, but those in the country are very miserable, whilst the nobles are extremely opulent and delight in luxury,’ observes Nikitin. ‘They are wont to be carried on their silver beds, preceded by some twenty chargers caparisoned in gold, and followed by 300 men on horseback and 500 on foot, and by horn-men, ten torchbearers and ten musicians.’