Islam, India & Identity 🧵:
Were Muslims essentially a single homogenous community having a shared sense of identity throughout the history of subcontinent?
No.
1/
Were Muslims essentially a single homogenous community having a shared sense of identity throughout the history of subcontinent?
No.
1/
And because such starkly defined religious identity did not exist (except in periphery), the notion to divide the people along such lines is erroneous and disastrous.
This has many reasons. Reasons I will cover in this thread.
2/
This has many reasons. Reasons I will cover in this thread.
2/
The Quran was never word to word translated to the vernacular languages of India until 1600s. This allowed for creativity and assimilation of Islam into the countless indigenous cultures of India.
This also led to the flexibility and organic development of religious identity.
3/
This also led to the flexibility and organic development of religious identity.
3/
This is also the reason the Islamic traditions of India are filled with Hindu literary genres.
Example: Muhammad(s) is indigenised to the local Bengali culture and even its tropical monsoon. Islam is also connected to the chain of indigenous pre-Islamic religions and myths.
4/
Example: Muhammad(s) is indigenised to the local Bengali culture and even its tropical monsoon. Islam is also connected to the chain of indigenous pre-Islamic religions and myths.
4/
In precolonial India, identities of the locals were flexible, communal & linguistic based.
The central domain of the identity was the regions in which they lived. Religion was always periphery. This is the reason that at no point did a sultan of Delhi rallied Muslims of S India.
The central domain of the identity was the regions in which they lived. Religion was always periphery. This is the reason that at no point did a sultan of Delhi rallied Muslims of S India.
Muslims of South India were dissimilar and unconnected to the Muslims of North India. Their langauges, cultures, heritage, architecture & among many others are completely different.
1. Mosque in S India
2. Mosque in N India (following the Timurid tradition of architecture)
6/
1. Mosque in S India
2. Mosque in N India (following the Timurid tradition of architecture)
6/
The neat and stark identification of people of subcontinent as Muslim-Hindu was started by the British. The Muslim League and its leaders who were western educated just swallowed up the idea that Muslims & Hindus are separate homogenous entities and cannot live together.
7/
7/
But as the evidence shows, there never has been this dichotomy. Infact, even Sanskirt chroniclers described the Muslim empires not as "Islamic" but "Turushka" meaning Turkish.
8/
8/
Let's look at few examples.
In 1276, a well was built by a Hindu priest in Palam near Delhi, without the supervision of Sultan Balban.
The inscriptions on the well shows how the Turkic rulers were naturalised into the Sanskrit world of political legitimacy.
9/
In 1276, a well was built by a Hindu priest in Palam near Delhi, without the supervision of Sultan Balban.
The inscriptions on the well shows how the Turkic rulers were naturalised into the Sanskrit world of political legitimacy.
9/
There were times that Muslims were considered as the Other. But this was 1) during interse wars 2) they were not otherized on the basis of Islam. But on the basis of the attack on the Brahmic order. 3) only ethnic labels were used to signify Otherization.
Read the passages.
10/
Read the passages.
10/
The two nation theory today is now used by Hindutva and Pakistani nationalists. Without understanding that using such terminologies is just perpetuating the colonial divide which was aimed to weaken the local people of subcontinent.
11/
11/
The Orientalist rewriting of Indian history divided it into 3 categories: Ancient(Indic), Medieval(Islamic), and Modern(British). Exactly the way they divide the history of Europe as Greeco-Roman, then Middle Ages, then Enlightenment.
12/
12/
However Muslim persian & Turkic scholars (Zia-ud-din Barani) did draw the lines on the basis religion. This is due to 2 reasons:
1. They were fleeing their homelands due to the onslaught of Mongols.
2 Their sense of identity only depended on the religion as they were refugees
13
1. They were fleeing their homelands due to the onslaught of Mongols.
2 Their sense of identity only depended on the religion as they were refugees
13
In fact, Zia-ud-din Barani notes during his time how Hindus esp. the elites were enjoying positions of power and privelge more often than Muslims.
14/
14/
During the Age of Delhi Sultanate (12-16 cent), Muslim sultans submitted to the local laws, customary practices, governance and political legitimacy.
During the Ghurids, the coins minted were in Sanskirt bearing Hindu symbols in India. While in Khorasan coin had Islamic symbols.
During the Ghurids, the coins minted were in Sanskirt bearing Hindu symbols in India. While in Khorasan coin had Islamic symbols.
@_Ysigh I have tried to give a brief sketch on the topic.
Loading suggestions...