Hinduism in medieval times was a very different religion from what it was in Vedic times, having metamorphosed twice over a period of two thousand years, first into Upanishadic Hinduism around the middle of the first millennium BCE, a thousand years after Aryans brought the religion with them into India, and then into Puranic Hinduism yet another thousand years later, around the middle of the first millennium CE. These transformations of Hinduism however were not due to any external influence, but due to its own evolutionary process, as in the case of Upanishadic Hinduism, or due to its assimilation of numerous tribal cults over the centuries, as in the case of Puranic Hinduism.1
These evolutionary processes in Hinduism ended well before the Turkish invasion of India, and there were no radical, transformative new developments in the religion during the medieval period. The late classical period was the age of mystics in Hinduism, around whom several new cults had formed, many of which endured well into the medieval period. A few new mystic cults also appeared in Hinduism in medieval times. But far more fascinating than all this was the appearance of a few syncretic religious cults in India at this time, some of which had significant insights into the human predicament. But they all remained peripheral movements, and did not bring about any notable or enduring changes in Hindu religion or society.
An important development in Hinduism in the late classical period was the formation of monasteries, mathas, evidently in simulation of Buddhist monasteries. In time some of these monasteries grew enormously in wealth, power and influence, and their chiefs took to surrounding themselves with quasi-royal paraphernalia, holding court under ceremonial umbrellas, and touring around on elephants, accompanied by drummers and followed by large entourages.
But these were superficial changes, changes in appearance, not in substance, and they involved only a tiny fraction of the Hindu population, and had virtually no effect on the religious culture of the common people, which remained the same as it had been for several centuries. The approach of the common people to religion in Hindu society was rather casual, unlike the fervent earnestness of the devotees of monotheistic religions, like Christianity and Islam. Hindus, notes al-Biruni, are ‘so little pious, that, when speaking of these things (religious matters), they do not even abstain from silly and unbecoming language.’
Hindus were devout in religion, but not fanatical. The main reason for this was the presence of countless gods in Hinduism, unlike in all the other major religions of the world. This multiplicity of gods in turn led to the existence of a great diversity of sects, rituals and beliefs in Hinduism. And this sectarian diversity in turn led to the practice of broad religious tolerance by Hindus. Though there were a few instances of clashes between rival Hindu sects, they by and large coexisted companionably. Nor was it uncommon for the devotees of one Hindu deity to also offer devotions to other Hindu deities, or even to the deities of other religions. Hindus, unlike Christians and Muslims, were not monomaniacal about their faith. Hinduism has no heresies, as any deviant belief and practice could be accommodated and legitimised in it.
Despite all this diversity there were a few universally held beliefs among Hindus. One such belief was in metempsychosis. This was noted by several medieval chroniclers. ‘Metempsychosis is the shibboleth of the Hindu religion,’ comments al-Biruni. This faith ‘is rooted in their hearts, and about which they have not the slightest doubt,’ adds Abu Zaid, a tenth century Iraqi chronicler. Life, Hindus held, does not begin with birth. Or end with death. Birth and death are only transformative phases of the eternal cycle of life that a being goes through, in which one could be reborn in any socio-cultural environment, or even as any creature, depending on one’s karma.
FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE INFORMATION about medieval Hinduism is scanty, though there are some interesting sidelights on it in the reports of foreign travellers and scholars. The religious beliefs of medieval Hindus, according to al-Biruni, were similar to those of ancient Greeks: ‘The heathen Greeks, before the rise of Christianity, held much the same opinions as Hindus; their educated classes thought much the same as those of Hindus; their common people held the same idolatrous views as those of Hindus.’
Belief in omens was universal in medieval India, and was often trivial and absurd in its expressions. In Kerala, according to Barbosa, ‘if a cat crosses in front of any person who is about to do any business, he does it not; or if on going from the house for any purpose they see a crow carrying a stick, they turn back; or if while saying farewell to other persons with whom they have been, one of them sneezes, he who was going sits down and does not leave soon.’
For Hindus, as for the followers of all medieval religions, going on pilgrimages was a major goal of life, to secure a good afterlife. There were seven major holy sites in India for Hindus to visit, from Badrinath in the far north to Rameswaram in the far south. Major rivers, particularly Ganga, were considered sacred by Hindus, and bathing in them was a rite for them. ‘The Hindu infidels worship Ganga, and once every year they come on pilgrimage to this place (Haridwar) which they consider the source of the river, to bathe and have their heads and beards shaved,’ notes Timur in his autobiography. ‘They believe these acts to be the means of obtaining salvation and securing future reward. They dispense large sums in charity among those who wear the Brahminical thread, and they throw money into the river. When infidels die in distant parts, their bodies are burned, and the ashes brought to this river and are thrown into it. This they look upon as a means of sanctification.’
According to Khondamir, an early sixteenth century chronicler, the reason why Hindus consider Ganga to be sacred is that they ‘believe that the water of this river springs from the fountain of paradise.’ Battuta also makes the same point. And so does al-Utbi. Hindus, he writes, regard Ganga ‘as of exceeding sanctity, and consider that its source is in paradise . . . Devotees come to it from a distance, and drown themselves in it, in the hope of obtaining eternal salvation.’ Adds Yazdi, an early fifteenth century chronicler: up in the Himalayas, there is ‘a stone in the form of a cow, and the water of the river [Ganga] flows out of the mouth of that cow. The infidels of India worship this cow, and come hither from all quarters, from distances even of a year’s journey . . . They throw gold and silver into the river, and they go down into the river, wash their feet, sprinkle water on their heads, and have their heads and beards shaved. This they consider to be an act of devotion, just as Muslims consider pilgrimage to Mecca a pious act.’
Medieval chroniclers also record the universal Hindu reverence for cows. ‘Hindus call the bull father and the cow mother,’ writes Nikitin, a mid-fifteenth century Russian traveller in India. ‘With their excrements [as fuel] they bake bread and boil food, and with their ashes they mark the symbols of these animals on their own faces, foreheads and whole bodies.’ Serpents were also venerated by Hindus. Notes Varthema, an early sixteenth-century Italian traveller, ‘Those who kill serpents receive capital punishment [in Hindu kingdoms]: the king would immediately put him to death. In like manner, if anyone kills a cow, he would also put that person to death. They say that these serpents are the spirits of god, and that if they were not his spirits, god would not have given them such power as to immediately kill a person with just a small bite.’
NICOLO CONTI, AN early fifteenth-century Venetian traveller in India, has left us some vivid descriptions of the Hindu festivals he witnessed. ‘At a certain time of the year their idol is carried through the city, placed between two chariots, in which are young women, richly adorned, who sing hymns to the god. The chariots are accompanied by a great concourse of people. Many of them, carried away by the fervour of their faith, cast themselves on the ground before the wheels [of the chariot], in order that they may be crushed to death—a mode of death which they say is very acceptable to their god. Others, making an incision on their side, and inserting a rope thus through their body, hang themselves from the chariot by way of ornaments, and thus suspended and half dead accompany their idol . . .
‘Thrice in the year they keep festivals of especial solemnity. On one of these occasions the males and females of all ages having bathed in the rivers or the sea, clothe themselves in new garments, and spend three entire days singing, dancing, and feasting. On another of these festivals they fix up within their temples, and on the outside on the roofs, an innumerable number of oil lamps . . ., which are kept burning day and night. On the third [festival], which lasts nine days, they set up on all the highways large beams, like the masts of small ships, to the upper part of which are attached pieces of very beautiful cloth of various kinds, interwoven with gold. On the summit of each of these beams is each day placed a man of pious aspect, dedicated to religion, capable of enduring all things with equanimity, who is to pray for the favour of god. These men are assailed by the people, who pelt them with oranges, lemons, and other odoriferous fruits, all of which they bear most patiently. There are also three other festival days, during which they sprinkle all passers-by, even the king and queen, with saffron water, placed for that purpose by the wayside. This is received by all with much laughter.’
Barbosa reports that during a temple festival in Kerala, when the idol is taken out in procession, ‘in front of the idol walk many Nairs with bare swords, slashing themselves wheresoever they can, and foaming at the mouth, and shouting so that they seem possessed of devils.’ Friar Odoric, an early fourteenth century Italian missionary-traveller, also reported on several Hindu festivals and temple rites. ‘When any man offers to die in the service of his . . . god, his parents, and all his friends assemble themselves together with a consort of musicians, making him a great and solemn feast. Which feast being ended, they hang five sharp knives around his neck and carry him to the idol. As soon as he reaches there, he taketh one of his knives crying with a loud voice, “For the worship of my god do I cut [off] this my flesh”, and then he casteth the morsel which is cut at the face of his idol. At the very last wound wherewith he murdereth himself, he uttereth these words: “Now do I yield myself to death in behalf of my god.” And being dead, his body is burned, and [he] is esteemed by all men to be holy.’
Human sacrifices at temples were prevalent but rare in medieval India, but animal sacrifices were quite common. Barbosa reports about a peculiar rite at a Shiva temple in Vijayanagar, in which a virgin with ‘a sharp-pointed stick’ deflowers herself before the idol and sprinkles it with the oozing blood.
Temples played a prominent role in all facets of life of medieval Indians. Rajas were keen patrons of temples, and they gifted vast treasures to them, so as to root their power firmly in the local socio-cultural soil, and also, more importantly, to win divine favour, which was considered indispensible for success in any venture. Temples also played a notable role in the local economy, by providing finance for agriculture, trade and industry. Major temples were the nuclei around which towns formed, and were significant factors in the revival of urban economy and culture in medieval India.
‘THERE ARE IN all eighty-four creeds,’ states Nikitin about Hindu sects. Quite probably there were very many more Hindu sects than that. There were also several different ascetic orders in Hindu society, commonly called yogis. Battuta once witnessed the performance of feats by yogis at the court of Muhammad Tughluq, and reported on it.
‘The men of this class do some marvellous things,’ reports Battuta. ‘One of them will spend months without eating or drinking, and many of them have pits dug for them in the earth, which are then covered up on top of them, leaving only a space for air to enter. They stay in these for months, and I heard them tell of one who remained thus for a year. People say that they make pills, one of which they take for a given number of days or months, and during that time they require no food or drink. They can tell what is happening at a distance. The sultan [Muhammad Tughluq] holds them in esteem and admits them to his company . . . The majority [of them] eat no meat. It is obvious that they have so disciplined themselves in ascetic practices that they have no need for any of the goods or vanities of this world.
‘There are amongst them some who merely look at a man and he falls dead on the spot. The common people say that if the breast of a man killed in this way is cut open, it is found to contain no heart, and they assert his heart has been eaten. This is commonest in the case of women, and a woman who acts thus is called a kaftar. During the famine in Delhi they brought one of these women to me, saying that she had eaten the heart of a boy. I ordered them to take her to the sultan’s lieutenant, who commanded that she should be put to test. They filled four jars with water, tied them to her hands and feet and threw her into the river Yamuna. As she did not sink she was known to be a kaftar . . . He ordered her then to be burned . . . Her ashes were collected by the men and women of the town, for they believe that anyone who fumigates himself with them is safe against a kaftar’s enchantments during that year.’
Some of the Hindu ascetic sects in medieval India were like the warrior monks of medieval Europe, and there are some graphic accounts of their activities during the Mughal period. Following the collapse of the Mughal Empire, these ascetic gangs—known as Nagas, their generic name—came to play a notable role in the politics of the late medieval and early modern India, serving under various rajas and sultans—these Hindu warrior ascetics had no compunction to serve under Muslim rulers.
The Nagas were quite bizarre in their appearance as well as their mode of fighting. Colonel Malleson, a British officer in India in the mid-eighteenth century, describes a band of them he saw in the army of the nawab of Oudh as ‘all perfectly naked and covered with paint and ashes.’ Battle was a rite for them, and they, as modern historian W. G. Orr describes them, went into battle in ‘a kind of whirling dance, during which they became wrought up to a pitch of uncontrollable excitement. Then, with ear-piercing yells, they rushed upon the enemy.’
The Nagas belonged to the extreme periphery of Hindu religion, and had virtually no role in the everyday life of Hindus. The most notable of the mainstream medieval Hindu religious movements were the Bhakti cults, which came to prominence in the centuries immediately preceding the Turkish invasion of India.2 These supercharged devotional cults originated in South India around the sixth century, and gradually, over the next few centuries, spread all over the subcontinent. The Bhakti sages held that only total and unswerving bhakti (devotion to god) can save man from the pitfalls of life and earn him salvation. And for this one does not have to go to temples or perform rituals, for god is latent in every man, and this god within can be awakened through loving devotion.
The defining characteristic of the Bhakti sages was that they lived totally immersed in the sea of devotional ecstasy. Quite appropriately, the Tamil Vaishnavite Bhakti sages were known as Alvars, meaning the immersed. These sages ignored all class and caste distinctions, preached in vernacular languages, using simple maxims and parables, so their teachings were accessible to all right across the social spectrum, to the literate as well as to the illiterate. The movement had no intellectual pretensions, but had strong emotional fervour, which appealed to rustics and to urban underclasses. Orthodox Hindus, particularly Brahmins, initially disapproved the movement, as it was disruptive of the established social order and religious practices. But eventually the movement gained wide acceptance among all Hindu castes. In the process, however, it lost some of its radical features—it no longer opposed the caste system or idol worship—but fitted itself into a niche in the orthodox Hindu socio-religious structure.
ISLAM, UNLIKE HINDUISM, did not ever go through any transformative evolutionary processes. Its beliefs and practices were defined in detail by Prophet Muhammad, and these have remained unchanged since then. And, although several sects had appeared in Islam over the centuries, these differed only in organisational matters and social practices, not in religious faith. Similarly, authorities often differed in their interpretations of Koranic prescriptions, but the prescriptions themselves were never questioned.
The rigour of the enforcement of Koranic prescriptions however varied from sultanate to sultanate, and from sultan to sultan. The primary concern of sultans, even of the most orthodox of them, was with the preservation and expansion of their power, not with the enforcement of religious directives. Thus Balban, despite his strict personal observance of orthodox religious prescriptions, was, in matters of administration, guided primarily by the needs of the state, not by Islamic law. Ala-ud-din Khalji followed the same policy. ‘When he became sultan he came to the conclusion that polity and government are one thing, and the rules and decrees of Islamic law are another,’ observes Barani. ‘Royal commands belong to the sultan, Islamic legal decrees rest upon the judgment of the qazis and muftis.’
Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is a monotheistic religion. This is stated in the Kalimah, the Islamic confession of faith: La Ilaha Illa-Allah; Muhammadur Rasul-ullah: there is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Sharia, the holy laws of Islam—based on the prescriptions of Koran, the sayings and conventions of prophet Muhammad (hadith), and the rulings of Islamic scholars (fatwas)—regulate every aspect of Islamic society, economy and government, as well as the totality of the life of individual Muslims. Islam makes no distinction between religious and secular laws. Every law has a religious base, and the violation of any law is a crime as well as a sin.
There are, however, a few purely religious duties for Muslims to perform. All Muslims, for instance, are required to pray five times a day at home or office, and to gather in a mosque for congregational prayers on Fridays. They are also required, if they can afford it, to go on Hajj, pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in their lifetime.
Islam abhors idol worship, and maintains austerity and high decorum in its religious ceremonies. While temple worship in Hinduism is often accompanied by music and dance, Islam sternly prohibits them in mosques. Religious festivities in Islam are solemn acts of submission to god, unlike in Hinduism in which they are carnivals in celebration of deities. In fact, Islam, unlike most other religions, has no religious rituals at all, and therefore no ordained priests or bishops, no supreme religious authority like pope.
There are however religious leaders in Islam, termed Imams, men of piety and scholarship, who lead the prayer in mosques. The other prominent socio-religious functionaries in Islamic society are Mullahs (religious scholars), Pirs (spiritual guides), Sheikhs (tribal patriarchs), and above them all the Caliph (the supreme authority over all Muslims of his sect everywhere in the world, in temporal as well as spiritual matters). But all these functionaries, even the Caliph, hold their posts by their personal merit recognised by their community, not by ordination. The role of the Caliph was similar to the role of the sultan, except that the sultan’s power was confined to his kingdom, while the Caliph had, in theory at least, authority over all Muslims of his sect everywhere in the world, though often he was just a figurehead.
ISLAM, LIKE ANY other religion, has a number of sects, the most prominent of which are Sunnis, Shias and Sufis. The difference between Sunnis and Shias is primarily in organisational matters. These two sects initially emerged out of their difference over the mode of succession to the Caliphate—while Shias preferred hereditary succession to the office through the descendants of Ali, prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Sunnis wanted succession to be decided by the consensus of the Muslim community. Later other differences also arose between the two sects, and the gap between them widened. The Sunni is the predominant sect in the Muslim world, including the Indian subcontinent, while Shias are mostly in Iran.
Shia and Sunni, despite their differences, are both orthodox sects. Sufis are on another religious plane altogether; they are mystics and are regarded as heretics by many orthodox Muslims. Even al-Biruni, though he was generally quite broadminded, was censorious about Sufism, and condemned it for its flighty mysticism and lack of intellectual rigour and sophistication. Sultan Ghiyas-u-din Tughluq also disapproved of Sufis. A rigidly orthodox Muslim, he once summoned Nizamuddin Auliya, the great Sufi sage of medieval India, to the court to appear before a jury of orthodox theologians, and forced him to acknowledge, at least outwardly, the error of his ways.
Sufis hold that god realisation cannot be achieved through conventional religious practices, but only though obsessive, passionate devotion to god, and by awakening one’s intuitive faculties through intense meditation. Such meditation, Sufis believe, would enable the devotee to gain insights into the true nature of god, and that this knowledge would liberate him from all worldly bonds, so that he becomes one with god. Typically, Khwaja Moinuddin, the founder of the Chishti sect in India, claimed: ‘For years I used to go around the Kaaba, now the Kaaba goes around me.’
Many of the peculiar beliefs and practices of Sufis arose out of their conviction that doomsday, the end of the world—the day of final divine judgement and the arrival of Mahdi, the redeemer—was at hand, and that man should prepare himself earnestly for that day by ridding himself of all his temporal concerns, and thus transcend the human condition. Sufis therefore detached themselves from society, lived in seclusion, practised self-mortification, and indulged in dervish practices like rapturous singing and dancing, to induce in themselves spiritual ecstasy and to fall into a trance, and thus disengage themselves totally from the mundane world. Often they spoke in a cryptic language, not so much to say anything, as to create an otherworldly ambiance.
The beliefs and practices of Sufis were in many ways similar to those of the Bhakti cults of Hinduism, but while the Bhakti sages usually functioned within society, Sufis usually functioned outside society. In that they were rather like yogis. And yogis evidently did have some influence on some Sufi sects in India, whose members took to performing yogic exercises, particularly controlled breathing. Some Indian Sufi leaders even called themselves rishis, as the Hindu sages did. And some of them took Hindus as disciples.
Sufis in medieval India were divided into three major orders: Chishti (popular in Delhi and the Doab, and had poet Amir Khusrav as one of its distinguished followers), Suhrawardi (of Sind), and Firdausi (of Bihar). The best known Sufi sage of the early medieval period was Nizamuddin Auliya of the Chishti order, who had a large number of followers among the ruling class in Delhi. But the followers of Sufism, compared to the general Muslim population in India, were quite small even at the height of the movement’s short-lived popularity, because the renunciatory and asocial character of the sect was not suited for the common people.
SOME OF THE Muslim mystic sects were quite weird in their practices, like some of the Hindu mystic sects. The oddest of them was the Qalandar sect, a loosely organized group of antinomian wandering dervishes. Their early history is obscure, but they probably originated in Iran or Central Asia, from where they entered India around the twelfth or thirteenth century. Qalandars were contemptuous of all social and religious conventions, habitually used psychedelic drugs, and considered themselves above all laws, including the Sharia laws. Unlike most Sufis, they shaved their head and face, even their eyebrows, wore iron rings on their ears and fingers, and went about clad in coarse, hip-length woollen blankets. Some members of this sect fitted a short iron rod transversely into their penis, to prevent any possibility of sexual intercourse by them.
Ibn Battuta once saw a performance by Qalandars at Amroha in Uttar Pradesh. ‘Their chief,’ he reports, ‘asked me to supply him with firewood so that they might light it for their dance, so I charged the governor of that district . . . to furnish it. He sent about ten loads of it, and after the night prayer they kindled it, and at length, when it was a mass of glowing coals, they began their music recital and went into that fire, dancing and rolling about in it. Their chief asked me for a shirt and I gave him one of the finest texture; he put it on and began to roll about in the fire with it on and beat the fire with his sleeves until it was extinguished . . . He then brought me the shirt showing not a single trace of burning on it, at which I was greatly astonished.’ In Maldives too Battuta once saw the dervishes perform this fire rite; they, he reports, went into a fire, ‘treading it with their [bare] feet, and some of them ate it (the embers) as one eats sweetmeats.’
The early medieval period was the age of bizarre religious movements in India, in Hinduism as well as in Islam. Firuz Tughluq in his autobiography describes some of these sects, and the action he took to suppress them. One such heretic leader of the age was Rukn-ud-din, who claimed to be the Mahdi; Firuz set the rabble on him and had him killed—‘the people rushing in tore him to pieces and broke his bones into fragments,’ he writes with approbation. Firuz also mentions a heretic in Gujarat who ‘used to say “Ana-l-Hakk” (I am god), and instructed his disciples that when he said these words they should say, “Thou art, thou art!” . . . He was put in chains and brought before me . . . I condemned him to punishment . . .’
ISLAM WAS AN aggressively proselytising religion, but there is no evidence of any extensive use of violence by Muslim rulers in India to force conversions. Though there were many instances of sultans converting Hindus into Islam by force, most of them were incidental to military campaigns. The sultans did not actively seek conversions, for their object in conquering India was to gain power and wealth, not to spread religion, though religion did subserve their other goals.
The greatest number of Hindu coverts to Islam came from the under-classes, who sought to gain socio-economic emancipation through conversion, by freeing themselves from the bondage of the Hindu caste system. As Muslims, their careers were no longer confined to their old degrading caste functions, so they could rise to whatever position they merited by their aptitudes and skills. And, more than anything else, conversion radically transformed their social status, from that of the underclass to that of the upper class.
‘The heathens of these parts daily become Moors to gain the favour of their rulers,’ writes Barbosa about what he observed in Bengal. Sometimes there were mass conversions, following clan or tribal decision. This was fairly common in north-east and north-west India, the predominantly tribal regions of the subcontinent. But most of the individual conversions were in urban areas—in rural areas there was very little for Hindus to gain by becoming Muslims, while in urban areas conversion opened up a whole new world for them, for economic as well as social advancement.
There were a few conversions to Islam from the Hindu upper castes also, of men who sought to advance their careers by becoming Muslims. Even some rajas and chieftains became Muslims, so as to retain their power. Conversion also freed Hindus from the obligation to pay jizya, though this does not seem to have been a major factor. Sufis too played a role, though only a small role, in attracting Hindus to Islam. In several cases, Hindu converts to Islam continued to observe their old sectarian socio-religious practices. Thus it was reported that Hindu converts to Islam in Punjab continued to worship their old village deities even after their conversion. Such practices were fairly common in other regions of India also.
Most Muslims in medieval India were in the regions under Muslim rule, but there were a good number of them even in Hindu kingdoms. These were mostly migrants from Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, though there were also some local converts there. Battuta in the fourteenth century found numerous mosques in Kerala, evidently built by Muslim traders from the Middle East who had peacefully settled there and prospered. According to Barbosa, even a Kerala king became a convert to Islam.