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

It could not have been therefore any major problem for Hindus to be accommodative towards Islam. Indeed, it was not unusual for Hindus to revere Muslim sages or to offer devotions at Muslim shrines, just as they did at the shrines of the deities of different Hindu sects. For them Allah was just another deity, who had to be propitiated, or from whom favours could be sought. A classic example of the liberal attitude of Hinduism towards Islam was the decision of the administrators of the temple of Somnath in Gujarat to donate to a Muslim trader a plot of land close to the temple to build a mosque there — this, despite the fact that the temple had been desecrated and destroyed by Mahmud Ghazni just a few centuries earlier, the memory of which would have been still fresh in the minds of the local people.

Hindu kings seem to have viewed the Turkish invasion of India as a part of the normal churning political processes of medieval India. Communal considerations were seldom major factors in the calculations that determined the policies and actions of rajas or sultans, unless it was politically and militarily expedient for them to play the communal card. Hindu kings were especially liberal in their treatment of Muslims, partly because communal and religious diversity was the norm in India — had been so for very many centuries — and also because Muslims played a vital role in their kingdoms as traders and soldiers. Many Hindu kingdoms had fairly large colonies of Muslims in their towns, and the rajas usually did not discriminate against them in any way. Indeed, they often showed special favours to Muslims in their service, such as Devaraya of Vijayanagar placing a Koran on an ornate desk in front of his throne so that his Muslim officers would feel comfortable in bowing before him. And, even though the sultans generally forbade Hindus to build new temples in their kingdoms, the rajas had no objection to their Muslim subjects building mosques in their kingdoms.

In medieval India it was common for rajas to have a good number of Muslims in their armies, particularly in critical divisions like the cavalry, musketry and artillery, and to deploy them even in their wars against Muslim rulers. But then, so did sultans employ a large number of Hindus in their armies, and deploy them even in their wars against Hindu kings. They could do so without any unease, because the wars between sultans and rajas were not usually, with rare exceptions, fought in a crusading spirit by either side, and were not in any way different from their wars against their own coreligionists. These wars were all about power and wealth and territory, not about religion.

THE ACCOMMODATIVE SPIRIT of Hindus in matters of religion was an expression of their general tendency to bend with the wind, adjust to the prevailing conditions, whatever they might be. Equally, it was an expression of the widely held view of Hindus that the beliefs and practices of each group of people were legitimate for that group, and should not be interfered with, however repugnant those beliefs and practices might be to other groups.

Muslims did not share this liberal attitude. This is epitomized in an incident reported by Shaikh Nurul Haq, a sixteenth century chronicler. According to him, Sultan Sikandar Lodi was once told that a Brahmin religious leader held the view that Hinduism and Islam were both equally true religions. The Brahmin no doubt meant well, but unfortunately for him, the sultan found it odious that Hinduism and Islam should be thus equated. So he ordered the Brahmin to become a Muslim (since being a Muslim was as good as being a Hindu), and when he refused to do that (since being a Hindu was good as being a Muslim), he was put to death.

Many such incidents of the persecution of Hindus by sultans are reported by Muslim chroniclers. But the prominence given to these incidents by them seems to be rather excessive, considering the vast range of the interaction between Hindus and Muslims in medieval India, the immense number of people involved in it, and the many centuries long coexistence of the two communities. By and large Hindus and Muslims lived together peacefully in medieval India, without any serious communal clashes. But neither religion exerted any notable influence on the other religion. Hinduism, a couple of millenniums old and rather decrepit at this time, did not have the energy and spirit to respond creatively to the challenge of Islam; as for Islam, it was far too rigid a religion to accommodate any modifications under external influence. The most that happened was that both religions spawned a few minor and transient cults that synthesised some elements from both religions.

In any case, Hinduism and Islam were far too divergent from each other in every respect to have any major influence on each other. For instance, while Hinduism was flexible in its religious beliefs and practices, it was rigid in its social organisation — the caste compartmentalisation of its society — while Islam was flexible in its social organisation, but was rigid in its religious beliefs and practices. Conforming to caste rules was for Hindus far more important than conforming to religious beliefs and practices — anyone could adopt any religious belief and practice, worship any deity or any number of deities, but none could deviate from the prescriptions and practices of his caste without serious consequences, which involved even the risk of being ostracised by the entire Hindu society. Thus Hindus would be horrified at the mere thought of allowing Muslims to enter their homes or to share a meal with them, even though they generally had no qualms about serving under Muslim rulers or even about offering devotions at Muslim shrines.

ACCORDING TO THE strict interpretation of Koranic law, all non-Muslims in Muslim ruled lands, except Jews and Christians, had to become Muslims or be exterminated. But it was not practicable to apply this prescription against Hindus, as they were far too numerous to be put to death, even if very many years were spent on it. Further, in many fields the services of Hindus were essential for the very survival of Muslim rule in India. So Muhammad Qasim, the first Muslim invader of India, was permitted by his superiors to give the people of India the status of Zimmis, protected non-Muslims — like Jews and Christians — and thus spare their lives and allow them, on the payment of jizya, to lead their traditional way of life, and practise their religion without any interference.

That was the general rule. And it was generally observed. There was nevertheless a good amount of slaughter of Hindus and destruction of their temples throughout the history of the Delhi Sultanate, particularly during its early period. Gruesome savagery was an essential part of medieval warfare everywhere in the world, for soldiers to quench their bloodthirst and to demoralise the enemy. This was more so with Turks in India, because they, a miniscule minority in India, needed to terrorise Indians to keep them submissive. As for vandalising temples, that was, in their view, an essential demonstration of the powerlessness of Hindu gods. Moreover, looting temples was a good means for collecting booty, for many of the temples were fabulously rich, with the accumulated offerings of their devotees over the centuries.

Ala-ud-din Khalji once asked his advisors about what he should do to keep Hindus submissive to his rule. And they, according to Barani, advised him that Hindus should be reduced to so abject a condition as to be unable to enjoy any luxuries and be hard-pressed even to have common comforts. Another day the sultan sought the opinion of a kazi on how to treat Hindus, and the kazi advised: ‘When the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it … To keep Hindus in abasement is a religious duty.’ Ala-ud-din smiled at this counsel, and said that he too considered Hindus to be a major source of turbulence in the state, and that it was therefore an imperative political necessity that they should be ‘reduced to the most abject obedience,’ and be deprived of ‘wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.’