Muslim society in the subcontinent comprised mainly three influential elements; the rulers, the ulema or religious scholars, and Sufi saints. The three maintained different points of view regarding state law, religion and the local Hindu population.

When the Muslim rulers consolidated their political power in India, they formulated their state policy based on practicality. Realising that they could not rule the Hindu majority by coercive means, they decided to adopt a policy of reconciliation. At this juncture, there was a conflict between Sharia and politics but religion was kept apart from state law.

The rulers were basically conquerors and only focused on extending their empire with little or no interest in preaching religion to people, or in converting them to Islam. They wanted to extract as much wealth as possible and to enjoy their power. For the establishment of their rule, they crushed rebellions led by the Muslims or Hindus alike. Their wars against Hindu rulers were not fought over religion but purely for political motives.

As they did not observe religious practice in their daily life, their interest was not to implement religious law. In order to adopt a policy which would help consolidate their power, they would go to the extent of violating religion. After succeeding to the throne, the rulers issued their own rules and regulations.

The views of the ulema and the jurists differed from those of the rulers. They wanted the rulers to follow the Sharia and abolish all rules and regulations that were contradictory to religion. They were hostile towards the Hindus and considered them infidels and enemies of Islam. They were not in favour of any conciliatory policy towards non-Muslims. The ulema wanted to be a part of government, assert their authority and have a share in the power of the state so that they could implement their religious agenda. The rulers respected the ulema but never allowed any interference from them in state affairs.

The Sufi saints represented the third point of view. There is a general misconception that the Sufis promoted peace and harmony among people of all religions. Some of them were the jihadis or holy warrior Sufis who prayed for the victory of Muslim rulers against the Hindus. However, the majority of the Sufis remained aloof from politics. People of all religions would visit their khanqah to seek solutions to their problems. The Sufi saints remained within the domain of Islam and did not deviate from its basic teachings. They tolerated the Hindus and after their death, their shrines would become a centre of peace for people of all religions.

Besides the Sufis, the Bhagti movement also created harmony among the believers of different religions and helped alleviate prejudice. Both the Sufis and the Bhagti leaders prevented any friction between the Muslim rulers and the Hindus by inculcating in the latter a sense of loyalty, obedience and passivity.

Once the Muslim population settled in the subcontinent, they gradually adopted the existing Hindu culture and tradition. The Hindus who were converted to Islam retained their cultural practices and integrated these into the Muslim society despite the ulema’s condemnation of Hindu customs. When the Mughals invaded India, the Hindus and Muslims were united and regarded the Mughals as aggressors. Together they fought the battles of Panipat (1526) and Khanwa (1527) against the Mughals. In the earlier period of their rule, the Mughal rulers mistrusted the Hindus and excluded them from powerful appointments. Later, when Akbar introduced new policies, the inclusion of Hindus in his administration consolidated the Mughal Empire.

But the fact remains that throughout the rule of the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals, the ulema were not allowed to interfere in state matters by keeping religion and state separate. Both the Muslims and Hindus were equally treated as subjects by the Muslim rulers and no special concessions or privileges were extended to the Muslims.

Updated Jul 28, 2013 10:00am

More From This Section

The wing of a lost bird

Where should I begin? Because everything said and to be said after tomorrow is not ended by an embrace, nor by

Comments (8) (Closed)


ANAND
Jul 28, 2013 02:52pm

Great insight into the affairs of days gone by. Good read.

aslam minhas
Jul 28, 2013 08:12pm

It is true that subcontinent under Mughals remained what we now describe as secular. Mughals were not particularly religious-they took the faith lightly and Akbar even invented a new religion to spread harmony in the hindu-muslim communities. Philosopher like Socrates knew the reality of religions but said it was a necessity to maintain law and order in the society. It is only when the religion is mixed into the state affairs the trouble starts. For us it started with Zia and it has only aggravated since then.

Rachit
Jul 29, 2013 09:36am

Bhakti movement to be correct, not Bhagti

BISWAJIT ROY
Jul 29, 2013 09:31pm

Too generalized article. Aurangzeb can not be compared with Akbar because Aurangzeb actively make sure he destroyed thousands of hindu temples and millions of hindus during his rule, though Akbar also killed thousands of hindus but that was not for religious motives but for political motives.

naveed
Jul 30, 2013 01:41am

its clear now that states always use religion, Ethnicity, Nationality and other tools to play with the emotions of general public to protect their own interests.

BISWAJIT ROY
Jul 30, 2013 06:30pm

@naveed: those nations which believe their subjects are sheep and to be guided by ruling elites are doomed to consider as failed or failing nations. on the other hand some nations believe in empowering its citizens to the extent citizens can challenge any shady business of government and get away with it without persecutions, these nations are progressive and have an open society e.g. USA and Europe.

khan
Jul 30, 2013 06:38pm

Bhagti comes from Bhagat, such as One of the leaders was Bhagat Kavira

Plal
Jul 30, 2013 07:41pm

Did not mentioned about Jazia tax imposed on non-Muslims.