Chiron wrote:
RayC ji,
The fact of the matter is that British took over the control of India from Hindus and not from Muslims. When British won at Plassey, Marathas were conquering Attock and Peshawar (that same decade). From 1700 to 1818, it was Hindus who dominated the society-politics-economics of the subcontinent and not the muslims. In spite of defeat in third battle of Panipat (1761), Marathas reconquered Delhi and Punjab by 1770. So for all practical purposes, British assumed control of most of India with surrender of Bajirao-2 in 1818. This very propaganda that Macaulisation made "Hindus" aware of their political identity is false.
The political identity of Hindus and their identification of India as their land existed for much longer time. And this was not necessarily parochial world-view. Shivaji established his "Hindavi Swarajya" with the aim of liberating all the sacred rivers of India (Sindhu and Kaveri included). The Panipat campaign of Peshwas was to protect "India" from outsiders which they controlled and commanded for over 110 years.
There was social reformation going on as well along with the political consolidation of Bhaarat by Dhaarmic forces. The caste system was seeing some high degree of motility. Few castes changed their professions. Brahmins became Kshatriyas in large numbers. Atrocities on few lower castes increased. Quite a few other lower castes were elevated to higher castes (Dhangars, Kunbis etc). The religious reconversion was politically patronized. Thousands of temples, libraries, lakes, Dharma-Shalas, roads were re-built all over India.
Hindus already had taken over power from the hands of Muslims in most of India by 1707. By 1750s, the socio-political supremacy of Islam on India was already overthrown. The Islamic ego which you referred to, was already broken by Hindus without any help from non-Indics whatsoever in most of the subcontinent. Marathas, Rajputs, Bundelas, Ahoms, Sikhs are few examples. The British became de-facto dominant power after 1802 (Second anglo-Maratha battle). This is the reason that the staunchest opposition to british rule came from Hindus and not from Muslims. Even without British rule and Macaulay, India was on the road of resurgence.
What Macaulay ensured that he reinstated this image in minds of Hindus and Muslims about vanquished and victors respectively, when the reality was opposite and far more subtle. Hindus who remember and crib about the battles of Panipat, Tarain, Talikota forget about the glorious battles of Bahraich, Raichur, Palkhed and Rajasthan. Is this emancipation? I think not...
The last power in India who was opposing British was Sikhs (Indics again). Although British conquered most of India from Hindus (marathas) they had to conquer rest of the India from Hindus again (Sikhs). So, on what basis is the dream of grandeur of victorious Muslims who lost their 1000 year rule to British, thereby emancipating Hindus, supported and tolerated not only by British, but also by our own people???
If you revisit my post, it will be evident the period in history being addressed is when the British had consolidated because I mentioned the Doctrine of Lapse and MacCauley. Such events were not in existence in the initial stage of British penetration into India.
Indeed the Muslims came as conqueror and the Hindus were vanquished. Before the Islamic hordes descended, I presume it was the Hindus who were the inhabitants.
The Mugal Empire at the height of their power around 1700, controlled most of the Indian Subcontinent — extending from present-day Bangladesh in the east to Balochistan in the west, Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri basin in the south. Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 130 million, over a territory of over 4 million km² (1.5 million mi²).
Therefore, it would be correct to assume that they were de facto rulers of India or whatever name one wants to give for the boundaries to the vast area under the Muslim rule. This fact would always play upon the mind of the Muslim (in the similar manner Hindus look back with pride on their own history that spans not only India, but the neighbourhood too including overseas) and would give the Muslims the perception that they were the once the rulers of Hindustan and that they lost this Empire with finally the British capturing their last vestiges. This ignominy would surely be a grievous blow to their pride, especially since their scriptures exhorts them to feel that they are superior to all and make them sullen make them more insular.
Indeed, there are many reasons for the decline of the Mugal Empire, but that was not the issue. I was alluding to the rationale for the Muslim psyche to keep aloof and sullen from the mainstream during the Raj.
If you read carefully my post I had written ‘The McCaulayisation of India made Hindus in certain parts of India emancipated and aware of their political identity.’ It thus indicates that it was not meant to encompass all regions of India. Further, as is universally known, the Hindus in areas of Muslim rule were compelled to pay Jezia and there were mass conversions. Obviously, had there been the robust Hindu political identity in these areas, then, such activities could not have been executed by the Muslim rulers and satraps. Indeed, one wonders how Akhbar acquired a Hindu princess to be his wife – a heresy to some!!
Indeed Macaulyism did give resurgence to the Hindu identity that was subjugated under Islamic rule. The British had become the rulers and the dominance of the Muslims faded into oblivion. Sullen and ‘disgraced’, the Muslims had become insular and did not participate in the affair of the state, leaving it to the Hindus, especially those who benefited by MacCaulayism, to take up govt post and by virtue of the same, lord it over their once rulers i.e. the Muslim.
On the Hindu caste system, I was merely stating that because inter faith unions were not allowed, there could be no common meeting ground.
I do thank you for informing that Brahmins converted to Ksatriyas.
This is the first time I learn of it. Some links would help or maybe reference to some history books would help to further my education. As far as I know, inter caste marriages were not permitted and inter faith marriages were a taboo. It is only of late that the barriers are breaking and that too most reluctantly.
Just a bit on Hinduism, if I may, just to explain why there is the chasm amongst Hindus and Muslims and its impact on Partitioning of India.
The characteristics of Islam and Hinduism as religions contribute to the mutual isolation. In Islam, unity of one God and uniformity in ways of belief and patterns of worship are fundamental. Islam advocates one God, one scripture, one seal of prophecy. In other words, singularity or unity is characteristic of Islam as a religious tradition.
Hinduism is, instead, characterised by plurality. A Hindu is deemed to be a Hindu whether he worships a number of Gods or one God and even no God. The focal point of Hinduism is not one God but to be worshipful, which is usually referred to by such a Hindu philosopher as Radhakrishnan as respect for truth- Sraddha. I believe there are 330,000,000 gods in Hinduism, and there may be as many ways of worshipping God. Hinduism, therefore, does not refer to one God, one scripture, or one prophet. Just as unity is characteristic of Islam as a religious tradition, plurality is characteristic of Hinduism as a religious tradition.
Islam and Hinduism have other distinctive differences. Islam advocates a kind of theocracy- religious law needs to be political law. The universal ideal needs to be concretised in society and in history. Human beings are vicegerents of God. The Hindu attitude is that the concrete is a stepping stone to the universal ideal but the universal can never be fully concretized in history. That is why, by and large, the Hindu ideal is a-historical or a-political. Islam believes in a final day of judgment; Hindus believe in the cycle of creation and dissolution, the cycle of birth and death. Islam is a missionary religion. For an orthodox Mohammedan, missionary zeal, military power, and political control go together. For Hinduism, the ideal is spiritual freedom, which may not be related to political freedom. Even. Sri Aurobindo changed from a fight for political freedom to a fight for spiritual freedom. The majority of Hindu monastic orders do not become directly involved in political movements.
This is my last post trying to explain the mutually exclusive religious psyche of Hindus and Muslims wherein Partition was the natural result!
