Latest revision as of 22:28, 11 July 2017

[edit] India Early Muslim Chroniclers

March 26, 2006

REVIEWS: What you see is what you get

Reviewed by Sabih Mohsin

Dawn

India Early Muslim Chroniclers

BEFORE the arrival of Muslims, the tradition of writing history was almost non-existent in India. The principal sources of information about that period are the accounts of foreign visitors like Megasthenese, the Greek ambassador to the court of the Mauryan King Chandra Gupta in 302BC and the Chinese traveller Fahian who came to India in 400AD for a pilgrimage to the Buddhist shrines. Historical information, though lacking much in detail and continuity, is also obtained from literary texts, numismatics, monuments, edicts and other inscriptions.

On the contrary, Muslims, like other civilised societies, were quite particular about maintaining written accounts of past and present events. So, when they came to India, they not only recorded contemporary events and those that happened within living memory but also tried to dig out the past and studied the religious beliefs, traditions, customs and the social structure of the local population, comprising mostly Hindus. Such accounts were written by travellers, courtiers, professional scribes and even monarchs. The book under review presents extracts from such Muslim chroniclers belonging to the mediaeval era.

The author of the book, Syed Osman Sher, clarifies in the preface that his book is not a conventional history of India in the sense that it neither gives accounts of the battles and reigns of the ruling dynasties nor does it discuss the administrative policies and political measures taken by the rulers from time to time. He has kept the scope of his book limited to the study of the land and the people of India, as described by Muslim writers of that period. They include Mughal emperors such as Babar, travellers like Ibne Battuta, courtiers such as Abul Fazl and unofficial chroniclers like Khafi Khan.

Extracts from some European chroniclers of the 17th century have also been included as appendices. These writers include Sir Thomas Roe, Travernier, Bernier and Manucci. While comparing the accounts of these two sets of writers, the author has made a significant remark in the preface with regard to their approach. He writes that though the accounts are quite comparable, “the softness and passion which the Muslims have expressed for the land and its people are somewhat lacking in the accounts of the Europeans.”

The author also observes that though the Muslim scribes belonged to the faith of the conquerors and that theirs was neither an age of enlightenment nor were they under any pressure like those of public opinion, yet they have not made any effort to misrepresent the vanquished people. Instead of looking at them with contempt, they sometimes admire them. It is only in the accounts of battles that the chroniclers use derogatory terms like infidels for the Hindus. But in that case, they are referring to an enemy and not to an inhabitant of India. On the contrary, British historians never refrained from painting an inglorious picture of their predecessors, the Muslim rulers. And this effort was not only confined to their own writings but they also tried to achieve this objective through manipulation while translating the works of Muslim chroniclers of the past. Elliot and Dawson’s The History of India as Told by its Own Historians is an example of such intellectual dishonesty. That book contains only short extracts from original works and these extracts deal mostly with intrigues and brutalities, ignoring passages describing good administrative measures taken by Muslim rulers. Present day historians agree that, “Elliot was trying to create a negative impression of Muslim rule in India, so that British rule would seem all the more enlightened by contrast.”

Muslim chroniclers have discussed not only battles and matters of kingship but also the physical features, the flora and fauna, cities and animals of the country as well as the customs and beliefs of its people. The book focuses on the latter and brings forth some interesting information. Babar writes in his memoirs that Hindustanis call every thing outside of Hindustan “Khurasan”, just as Arabs call all things foreign as “Ajam”. According to Alberuni, if a Hinudstani has two children, he would give preference to the younger because they believe that the first-born owes his birth to predominant lust while the younger is the outcome of a more mature reflection. He also informs us that they write the title of a book at its end and not at the beginning.

Farishta says that the Hindus do not consider a raja to be fit to continue as a ruler if he is defeated twice by a Muslim or has been in the custody of the Muslims twice. To give an example, he relates the pathetic story of Jaipal who was twice defeated by Mahmud of Ghazni. The poor Raja handed over the throne to his son Anandpal and let himself be consumed by fire so as to be “purified”.

The author also maintains that “not much has changed since then”. He rightly observes that a prolonged interaction of the Hindus with Muslims and Europeans has been able to influence the outlook of only the elite class while the vast majority remains unchanged. One manifestation of this is the abominable caste system which has caused a large segment of the Hindu society to live under inhuman conditions even in the 21st century. Despite efforts of reformers including Gandhi, the lower castes and the “untouchables”, who form around 25 per cent of the population of India, remain deprived of the most basic human rights because of the firmly-rooted caste system. To this end, this book serves as food for thought and is worth a read.

India as Seen by Early Muslim Chroniclers By Syed Osman Sher Regency Publications, 29/30-G, Old Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. India Tel: 91-11-55462898 Fax: 91-11-25884571 Email: regency@satyam.net.in ISBN 81-89233-12-2 311pp. Price not listed April 7, 2006