Politics, The Muslim
community and Hindu-
Muslim relations
reconsidered: North India in
Early 13th century مرحبا
By: Sunil Kumar
The use of Modern terminologies
● The use of modern English terminologies for the translations of
Turkish and Persian texts leads to confusion, loss of actual meaning
and interferes with comprehension of the text as mentioned by W.H.
Moreland.
● it needs mention that sometimes historians are forced to use modern
day words to identify meaning of past but historians should be more
active and rework their terminologies that portray the real meaning
of the historical texts.
Glorification of the migration
• The Persian chroniclers expressed the migrations of Muslims into the Indian
subcontinent as how a monolithic community overcame the challenges of living in an
alien world, some even calling it the “epic of the conquest” which lead to counter
resistance in the form of Rajput valor. A distinguished scholar A.B.M. Habibullah said
that- socio- religious wars were bound to occur in a region which had an unbroken
tradition of Hindu rule, which absorbed into it all the cultures which came into contact
with it but the Muslims maintained their own identity.
• After the communal violence of 1990’s historians became cautious in their methodology
used. Peter Jackson’s work is noteworthy for its diligent reading of Persian material-
pointing out biases and exaggerations but the terms used in the work like Muslim ruler,
Muslim state etc. points out that it is an uncritical edition. The concluding lines of the
work state- The paramount distinction for the great Delhi sultanate was not Hindu-
Muslim but between peaceful people and supporter of government on one hand and the
troublemaker on the other.
Conflicts and the Muslim community
• The work of Kumar focusses on the ganga- Jamuna region and the period in which the Sultanate was
widely expanding leading to conflicts with many Hindu Chieftains.
• The episode of conflict was narrated by Nizam al-din Awliya on 8th December 1315.
• He talks about the conflict between Sufi Shaykh Jalal Al-Din Tabrizi and Shaykh Al-Islam of Delhi,
Najm Al-Din Sughra. Tabrizi fled to Badaun and returned only after he thought the Shaykh Al- Islam
was dead- the reason for the skirmish might have been the disapproval of Sughra by Tabrizi.
• Sughra was involved in another set of expulsion- that of Qutb Al-Din Bakhtiyar kaki which is
mentioned in the biographical encyclopedia- siyar al- Awliya. But as the other sources say Kaki was
there in Delhi in his last years and thus did not suffer expulsion.
• Expulsion from Dehli meant dishonor and removal from the muslim community.
• Both the episodes were narrated a century after the actual event in the Chishti and Suhrawardy
(Siyar al-Arifin) texts, both of them were hostile in Sughra conduct. He is portrayed as a jealous
man who takes action against the Shaykhs of Delhi.
These events were considered as a classic example of conflict between mystic minded and
scripturalist traditions of Islam, one accepting liberal reading of the holy law and the other one text
oriented. It was a fight between mystic Sufis like Tabrizi and kaki and exoteric practices of Sughra.
Reasons for
conflict
● Some might have considered that this opposition was because of differences between
the Sufis and the Ulama but this was not so. We find references of Ulama like Minhaj-
al din Siraj who were inclined towards mystical path and also Sufis like Baha al- Din
Zakariya whose conduct was like a Ulama. But this was not a universal phenomenon
as not all Sufi’s were liked. Sughra was not an Ulama himself in teachings as he was a
student of great Shaykh Najm al- Din Kubra but still harassed other Sufis.
● Another reason that could have led to this rivalry might have been over the spiritual
domain that is called Wilayat and according to sources these were fierce.
Kasf al- mahjub a 11th century Ghaznavid source gives us info that Sufis identified
specific regions as their domain and were hospitable to other Sufis who came there but
didn’t allow them to set up a competing fraternity. There is possibility that this moved
into the Delhi sultanate as well.
● We find references of exclusive Sufi domain in the conversation (malfuz) of Nizam al-
Din Awliya but it states nothing about big established mystical fraternities as he talks
about Baba Farid’s hospice in Ajudhan (Punjab) and Zakariya’s assembly in Multan.
Political and social context of the time
• The incident discussed happened in the time of Iltutmish (1210-1236) either in 20’s or
early 30’s. the text Fawa’id al- Fu’ad mentions no date but it is almost confirmed that
both Tabrizi and Kaki were in Delhi during the reign of Iltutmish. The time also saw the
Mongol invasions.
• Delhi was established as a military outpost by Ghori and gained balance under the slave
of Qutbuddin Aibak i.e. Iltutmish. The region saw flood of immigrants from Iran, Iraq,
Khurasan and Afghanistan due to the Mongol attacks thus making the composition of
the people more complex.
• The sultanate had supreme control in the Urban regions around the capital but they had
meager control in the big vast hinterlands. The Delhi Sultans used specially bought Turkish
slaves to work in the military and were trusted with various important responsibilities.
• Persian was the dominant language during the time because of its elite history but Turkish
started to gain grounds due to the present political context.
• Marshal Hodgson states that the 1 st face of Islam comprises of
Sharia minded people accepting socially cognizable behavior in
accord with the Ulama. The other face was the mystic minded,
concerned with the personal life of individuals accepted by the
Sufi pirs. Most of the Muslims respected both the faces but few
Role of discarded mysticisms as not good.
Shaykh Al- • The function of the Shaykh al- Islam was to guide the conduct of
Islam Muslims and interact with the pious to scrutinize their writings.
We have episodes from past that suggest that the hatred of
Shaykh al- Islam against the mystics were based on personal
reasons and religious beliefs.
Barani in his book Tarikh- I- Firoz shahi talked about the Shaykh al-Islam Sayyid Nur al-Din
Mubarak Ghaznavi who advised Iltutmish over various court proceedings.
Najm al- Din Sughra possessed authority but were not slaves/ servants of the Sultan.
● Sughra was disturbed by the conduct of Tabrizi and Kaki and were thus expelled calling the Sufis
as fraud and attracting people with miraculous powers which endangered Islam and the Sharia.
• Delhi emerged as the centre or the axis of Islam Hindu-Muslim
and being looked upon as a place where people could Find Relations Reconsidered
sanctuary during difficult times as in the case of Mongol
Invasion.
• The Persian chroniclers were able to strike a perfect balance and
thus were able to keep Religion and Politics apart. For many it was
not an ideal world but it helped Religion and society to flourish in a
protected environment.
• The Main reason for rebellion was considered to be the inability of
the King to fulfil people’s need
• The group responsible for the rebellion were called as Shia heretics,
rationalist philosophers and Hindu Infidels.
● The Hindus were turned to a dependent/ subject population and brough under the Jizya tax to
bring peace in the state. A Muslim ruler was considered a great one only if he chastened Hindus
and harmed their religious sentiments.
● The Mongols and Hindus were seen as the biggest threat to Islam and both were talked about in
the same fashion. According to Juzjani these outsiders played an important role in making the
Muslim community more cohesive and pious.
Sunil Kumar basis his interpretation of the Hindu Muslim relations in the post 1992 times where
there were debates and discussions regarding the History of conflicts between the two.
Most of the research regarding the muslim culture has been done by scholars working through 18 th
and 20th century linking questions of identity and community with modernity and colonialism.
Thank you
