05-14-2007, 02:16 AM
From another forum
You mean how they inter-weave Jati-Caste-Class-Race! and the codification of caste starting with the census, resulting in a change, in the nature of how caste worked in India, culminating all the way to Mandal?
The British understanding was deeply affected by British concepts of their own past, and by British notions of race and the importance of race in relation to the human condition. Further, the intellectual framework, such as that provided by anthropology and phrenology, that was used to help create the ideas surrounding the concept of race, was foreign to the intellectual traditions of India. These concepts endured well into the 20th century and affected the analysis of the censuses throughout this period.
Risley, for example, used anthropometric measurements, which were directly descended from anthropological and phrenological methodology, in his ordering of castes following the census of 1901. These same notions led to a classification of intelligence and abilities based on physical attributes, and this in turn led to employment opportunities being limited to certain caste groupings that displayed the appropriate attributes.
Indians attempted to incorporate themselves into this evolving system by organizing caste sabhas with the purpose of attaining improved status within the system. This ran contrary to traditional views of the purpose of the caste system and imposed an economic basis.
With this, the relevance and importance of the spiritual, non material rational for caste was degraded and caste took on a far more material meaning. In this way, caste began to intrude more pervasively into daily life and status became even more coveted and rigid.
In a sense, caste became politicized as decisions regarding rank increasingly fell into the political rather than the spiritual sphere of influence. With this politicization, caste moved closer to class in connotation. The actions of the Indian people that contributed to this process were not so an much acquiescence to the British construction as they were pragmatic reactions to the necessities of material life.
In expropriating the knowledge base of Indian society, the British had forced Indian society and the caste system to execute adjustments in order to prosper within the rubric of the British regime.
Second, You mean Maculay and groupâs utter scorn for all that had been written or developed in India leading to a complete dismantling of everything Indian in the then education system. Do you seriously mean to say that this scorn was to only do with the lack of technology in Indian education and had nothing to do with one culture sitting in judgment of the other?
I will save the board of trying to recount the details of what Maculayâs new system of education did to the Indian ethos.
The cumulative effects of just these two not to mention the economic and social exploitation should be enough to conclude that the British did observe facts but with, colored eyes. A casualty of such actions was that highly evolved temporal systems such as Advaita and simple concepts practiced in the land along with some superstitions were all lumped in one heap and <b>garbaged</b>.
Nehruvian views of history seeked to white wash the history of an entire nation â through the suppression of truths and the acceptance of theories â with no strong basis in facts. It came from a lack of respect and lack of knowledge of Indian traditions.
For a person, who speaks about the hard unvarnished truth and then in the same paragraph labels epithets such as xenophobic on folks such as Swarup and Goel, displays ignorance on the works of these folks. Where have these authors portrayed an utopian view of Hindu Society, can you point to it please? If you would have said, they are sympathetic to hindu views of society, you would have been far closer to the truth. You obviously have not read Shri Swarupâs, Reviews and Reflections on Hinduism â as per me, one of the most accurate critiques of Hindu society.
So, no the authors of Voice of India are not portraying a sanitized version of anything. They are doing the following:
- Showing that the official views of our history is wrong
- Showing a more accurate picture of Islamic rule and Islamic theology
- Showing that there are dangers to the Indian nation and state from the combination of Marxists, Islamists and the pseudo-secularists
My feeling is you have not read these authors in any detailed manner and hence resort to such labeling â consistently. The debate is not so much over the facts but on what they mean, their interpretations, the motivations, the context, etc.
See, right there you have equated the structures of Islam with those of Hinduism to suggest an equal-equal rot. </b>
I am appalled for a person, who understands Advaita so well to have asked such a question. As if, India was governed by some type of an over arching religious arch during the Hindu era. None of the 'Hindu' scriptures have projected themselves as commandment-giving authorities demanding unconditional obedience from all those claiming to be Hindus.
Surely, you know that in Hindu society Manusmriti (and other shastric texts) have as much or as little authority for Hindus as a contemporary book on hindu philosophy.
The British consistently promoted the myth that Hindus were governed by their codified versions of shastric injunctions.,
You cannot ask a 19th century question and seek to apply it a 1000 years before that time. There were certain weaknesses in Hindu society, which allowed the invasions to happen but the caste system or Hindu practices were not among the major reasons.
Understand the diversity and the non â uniformity of systems prevalent in pre Islamic and early India. Any reforms have to be viewed from a then contemporary context. The Hindu system is not a monolithic system as you understand it so well. I think you are quick to judge the end results without adequately understanding the root cuases.
None of the examples below is to deny that hindu society did de-generate especially post Gupta and continued to do so with the march of Islam. The examples below is to find the diversities in systems prevalent in early India, in contrast to as understood by the British and to suggest that India did not NEED the rape by the British (OK, call it gentle rape, if you like), in order to reform itself.
Examples are:
* It is also worth noting that the classical four varna division of Hindu society (as described in the Manusmriti) does not appear to have had much practical significance if one were to go by the accounts of the Greek chronicler, Megasthenes. In his accounts of Mauryan India. Megasthenes appears to list a seven fold social order in which he differentiates between the priest and the philosopher (who he ranked much above the priest, and who could have been a Brahmin, Jain or Buddhist) and also gives special attention to court bureaucrats such as record keepers, tax collectors and judicial officials. He also ascribed to the peasantry a higher status than might be inferred from the Manusmriti and noted with amazement how the peasantry was left unharmed during battles.
*According to Megasthenes, philosophers - whether Brahmins or Jain/Buddhist monks also had obligations in terms of offering advice to the ruler in matters of public policy, agriculture, health and culture. Repeated failure to provide sound counsel could lead to a loss of privileges - even exile or death. Thus, although many Brahmins may have held on to their privileges by being shameless sycophants - others made significant contributions in the realm of science, philosophy and culture. Social mobility was possible since learning was not an exclusive preserve of the Brahmins and both the Buddhist and Jain sanghas admitted people from different social backgrounds and also admitted women. (Jyotsna Kamat points to a Karnataka inscription from 1187 A.D. that suggests that Jain nuns enjoyed the same amount of freedom as their male counterparts.) The more advanced sanghas enforced a separate quorum for women to ensure that a largely male gathering may not take decisions that did not meet with the approval of the women members of the sangha.
*Early Gupta period records indicate the existence of rural consultative councils that mediated between the rulers and the artisans and peasants
*. It also appears that the greatest incidence of the practice of untouchability occurs in conjunction with the growth in the power and authority of the Brahmins in such villages.But these developments took time to spread elsewhere in India, first spreading to Bengal and eastern UP, and very gradually elsewhere in India. However, this pattern was not necessarily replicated in identical form throughout India and some parts of India virtually escaped this trend. In agrahara villages in other parts of India, Brahmins did take on the role of local administrators and tax collectors, but the status of the small peasantry was not always as miserable as in Bihar. The degree of exploitation and oppression appears to be related to the extent of alienation from land-ownership.
* evidence for Brahmin domination in Kalikatti, Southern Karnataka emerges after the 13th C.
*, in Orissa, the ossification of the bureaucracy and its conversion into a group of privileged and exclusive castes appears to take place after the 14th-15th C. when we begin to see a general decline in its overseas trade due to the silting up of its rivers. At the same time, we see the growth of Brahminical hegemony in the realm of religion and military defeats at the hands of the Mughal armies led by Raja Man Singh of Jaipur. All these factors may have played a role in destroying the vibrancy of Oriya society and encouraging caste conservatism.
* Chach-nama and writings of al-Biruni, though written in the 13th and 11th centuries, claim their sources from other contemporary writings. It appears as though the systematic classification was not rigid in the 8th century after all. Shudra as well as Brahmin kings were ruling and not all royalty belonged to the Kshatriya class.
* Although Brahminization was an important factor in leading to caste ossification, it was not necessarily the sole or even the most important factor in the mix. The impact of the Islamic invasions, colonization by the British and ecological changes played an equally crucial if not decisive role in many instances.
Indian society was very diverse in its practice and unlike Islam did not have a central over arching social amd political framework. To suggest that such a society would be immune to change â given the necessary social and political space is not what the evidence proves.
There is further evidence, which suggests that Indian society started to change after the death of Aurangzeb.
Asking for an overall perspective is the only honest way to gauge what was the true picture. A selective emphasis is a biased and motivated exercise in white washing.
If you think the obvious ones as you referred to are really that obvious to the general population, you of all would not be trying to make the arguments you are making.
On conversions, the political hoop la apart, the incidence of conversions have no material impact anymore on demographics. Conversions have been replaced by a differential in birth rates and immigration. Does not help to count every so called conversion by EJâs and shuddhi ceremonies by the VHP, in this context.
What we do see is the effects of the codification of castes, started by the British and continued by the GoI.
You either completely misunderstand Islam and its practices in India or are deliberately misrepresenting it. The practice of Islam was largely in compliance with its theology.
The phrase âLa ikraha fi deenâ means there is no compulsion in religion. It was phrased in the context of Islam and not âconversionâ. That is to mean there is no compulsion in religion in Islam. None of the theologians have any confusion in this area and the injunctions to convert by force remain supreme. Either ways âLa ikraha fi deenâ itself was superceded by later ayats. I hope you do know that in the Quran later ayats supercede earlier ones. So, the practice of Islamists is consistent with the theological doctrines of Islam.
Jiziyah: In the Indian context, it was not just a tax but consistent with the injunctions of the Quran Hindus were non-citizens of the muslim state (except between 1564-1679) allowed to live in Dar-ul-Islam, under certain disabilities. Jiziyah is meant for the humiliation of non-muslims. The hindu was to pay this tax with meekness, humility and utmost respect.
Quzi Mughisuddin of the 14th century, Mulla Ahmed, Sirhindi and Shah Walliullah in the later centuries were all consistent in their definitions of what Jiziyah was in the Indian context. Not just a tax but a tool for humiliation and degradation.
Jiziyah was applied on muslim territories from the day MBQ set foot in Brahmanabad. The rates for Jiziyah differed from era to era. Usually in three grades. Except between 1564 and 1679, starting with the reigns of Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jahan, Jiziyah was collected from the Hindu population â ruthlessly. The known rates are 40, 20, 10 for the Rich, middle and poor in whatever measure of currency available.
The poor and many Dalits were among those who, converted to escape these grinding taxes and not as popularly known to escape the discriminations of the caste system.
Zakat, applied on muslims was a tax of 2.5% on âapparent propertyâ in excess of ânisabâ, i.e: after meeting expenses of food, clothing, shelter, animals, vehicles and craft tools for a whole calendar year. So, in essence a wealth tax of 2.5%. Further, it could not be extracted by force, since compulsion would vitiate its character.
In the muslim state, Zakatâs primary purposes were charitable and religious â for the muslims. While the expenses of the state were met by a combination of Khams, Kharaj and Jiziyah coupled with double customs duties (tamgha) for hindus as opposed to muslims.
Alauddin Khaljis grinding taxes and imposts labeled as âreformsâ were a grinding mix to subdue the hindu population leading to conversions, sale of the self and abandonment of fertile lands â unprecedented in the annals of Indian history.
So, the analogy of Jiziya = Zakat is fallacious, in all respects.
You talk about the difference between the theory and practice of the muslim state in India, why not read Lalâs book on the very subject to understand it and learn from it.
Again, Read Lalâs â Indian muslims, who are they? You will know the reasons why large numbers of the high castes and some professional guilds converted.
This is my last post on the issue, if all we get in return is a superficial understanding of the issues and labels being used without any basis in fact.
Quote:
But I do not believe that Hindu society is portrayed in any manner grossly inconsistent with observed facts.
You mean how they inter-weave Jati-Caste-Class-Race! and the codification of caste starting with the census, resulting in a change, in the nature of how caste worked in India, culminating all the way to Mandal?
The British understanding was deeply affected by British concepts of their own past, and by British notions of race and the importance of race in relation to the human condition. Further, the intellectual framework, such as that provided by anthropology and phrenology, that was used to help create the ideas surrounding the concept of race, was foreign to the intellectual traditions of India. These concepts endured well into the 20th century and affected the analysis of the censuses throughout this period.
Risley, for example, used anthropometric measurements, which were directly descended from anthropological and phrenological methodology, in his ordering of castes following the census of 1901. These same notions led to a classification of intelligence and abilities based on physical attributes, and this in turn led to employment opportunities being limited to certain caste groupings that displayed the appropriate attributes.
Indians attempted to incorporate themselves into this evolving system by organizing caste sabhas with the purpose of attaining improved status within the system. This ran contrary to traditional views of the purpose of the caste system and imposed an economic basis.
With this, the relevance and importance of the spiritual, non material rational for caste was degraded and caste took on a far more material meaning. In this way, caste began to intrude more pervasively into daily life and status became even more coveted and rigid.
In a sense, caste became politicized as decisions regarding rank increasingly fell into the political rather than the spiritual sphere of influence. With this politicization, caste moved closer to class in connotation. The actions of the Indian people that contributed to this process were not so an much acquiescence to the British construction as they were pragmatic reactions to the necessities of material life.
In expropriating the knowledge base of Indian society, the British had forced Indian society and the caste system to execute adjustments in order to prosper within the rubric of the British regime.
Second, You mean Maculay and groupâs utter scorn for all that had been written or developed in India leading to a complete dismantling of everything Indian in the then education system. Do you seriously mean to say that this scorn was to only do with the lack of technology in Indian education and had nothing to do with one culture sitting in judgment of the other?
I will save the board of trying to recount the details of what Maculayâs new system of education did to the Indian ethos.
The cumulative effects of just these two not to mention the economic and social exploitation should be enough to conclude that the British did observe facts but with, colored eyes. A casualty of such actions was that highly evolved temporal systems such as Advaita and simple concepts practiced in the land along with some superstitions were all lumped in one heap and <b>garbaged</b>.
Quote: Read Irfan Habib and then read Lal. Then compare the difference. Then read Nehru and then read Goel and Ram Swarup and then see, who do you believe and who represents the âofficialâ views in India.
There are different narratives, and different perspectives.
Nehruvian views of history was a bury-the-past-and-look-ahead perspective, and a sanitised narrative aimed at ending the acrimony of pre-partition days, and building a secular India.
Obviously, that didn't work.
The Goel-Lal-Swarup views of history is the other extreme,- the overzealous xenophobic perspective, mixed with a vainglorious sanitised, utopian portrayal of Hindu society.
Neither represents the honest Hindu narrative.
A new narrative needs to be created, which takes the elements of truth from both sides into account.
It is not a quest for 'common/middle ground', but the hard, unvarnished truths gleaned from the facts still available.
Nehruvian views of history seeked to white wash the history of an entire nation â through the suppression of truths and the acceptance of theories â with no strong basis in facts. It came from a lack of respect and lack of knowledge of Indian traditions.
For a person, who speaks about the hard unvarnished truth and then in the same paragraph labels epithets such as xenophobic on folks such as Swarup and Goel, displays ignorance on the works of these folks. Where have these authors portrayed an utopian view of Hindu Society, can you point to it please? If you would have said, they are sympathetic to hindu views of society, you would have been far closer to the truth. You obviously have not read Shri Swarupâs, Reviews and Reflections on Hinduism â as per me, one of the most accurate critiques of Hindu society.
So, no the authors of Voice of India are not portraying a sanitized version of anything. They are doing the following:
- Showing that the official views of our history is wrong
- Showing a more accurate picture of Islamic rule and Islamic theology
- Showing that there are dangers to the Indian nation and state from the combination of Marxists, Islamists and the pseudo-secularists
My feeling is you have not read these authors in any detailed manner and hence resort to such labeling â consistently. The debate is not so much over the facts but on what they mean, their interpretations, the motivations, the context, etc.
Quote: The issue is not about one or two things that were positive but the overall picture â which remains overwhelmingly negative. So, why do you choose to rub it in and credit the British with these reforms as if â Hindu society was doomed without themFar from me twisting it, I think, first, you need to come up with a perspective and present the case. All you have done so far is picked a page from a book without reading the whole script.
See how you twist the perspective to suit your needs.
Quote: I had pointed out that a major impetus of reform came from the British.<b>
To those that claimed that Hindus would have reformed on their own, I asked them to find examples of such reform during the pre-Islamic or pre-British era.
It is clear that the Hindu society had stagnated with ideas of ritual purity and codified degeneration morass, from which it was unable to extricate itself.
It was slowly rotting from within, <b>just like</b> the mullah society is rotting from within, and needs that push from external stakeholders.
The British - with help of bright minds and British-educated liberal elite - did what was until then a Herculean task,- JUMPSTART the process of reform, which - thankfully - continues.
See, right there you have equated the structures of Islam with those of Hinduism to suggest an equal-equal rot. </b>
I am appalled for a person, who understands Advaita so well to have asked such a question. As if, India was governed by some type of an over arching religious arch during the Hindu era. None of the 'Hindu' scriptures have projected themselves as commandment-giving authorities demanding unconditional obedience from all those claiming to be Hindus.
Surely, you know that in Hindu society Manusmriti (and other shastric texts) have as much or as little authority for Hindus as a contemporary book on hindu philosophy.
The British consistently promoted the myth that Hindus were governed by their codified versions of shastric injunctions.,
You cannot ask a 19th century question and seek to apply it a 1000 years before that time. There were certain weaknesses in Hindu society, which allowed the invasions to happen but the caste system or Hindu practices were not among the major reasons.
Understand the diversity and the non â uniformity of systems prevalent in pre Islamic and early India. Any reforms have to be viewed from a then contemporary context. The Hindu system is not a monolithic system as you understand it so well. I think you are quick to judge the end results without adequately understanding the root cuases.
None of the examples below is to deny that hindu society did de-generate especially post Gupta and continued to do so with the march of Islam. The examples below is to find the diversities in systems prevalent in early India, in contrast to as understood by the British and to suggest that India did not NEED the rape by the British (OK, call it gentle rape, if you like), in order to reform itself.
Examples are:
* It is also worth noting that the classical four varna division of Hindu society (as described in the Manusmriti) does not appear to have had much practical significance if one were to go by the accounts of the Greek chronicler, Megasthenes. In his accounts of Mauryan India. Megasthenes appears to list a seven fold social order in which he differentiates between the priest and the philosopher (who he ranked much above the priest, and who could have been a Brahmin, Jain or Buddhist) and also gives special attention to court bureaucrats such as record keepers, tax collectors and judicial officials. He also ascribed to the peasantry a higher status than might be inferred from the Manusmriti and noted with amazement how the peasantry was left unharmed during battles.
*According to Megasthenes, philosophers - whether Brahmins or Jain/Buddhist monks also had obligations in terms of offering advice to the ruler in matters of public policy, agriculture, health and culture. Repeated failure to provide sound counsel could lead to a loss of privileges - even exile or death. Thus, although many Brahmins may have held on to their privileges by being shameless sycophants - others made significant contributions in the realm of science, philosophy and culture. Social mobility was possible since learning was not an exclusive preserve of the Brahmins and both the Buddhist and Jain sanghas admitted people from different social backgrounds and also admitted women. (Jyotsna Kamat points to a Karnataka inscription from 1187 A.D. that suggests that Jain nuns enjoyed the same amount of freedom as their male counterparts.) The more advanced sanghas enforced a separate quorum for women to ensure that a largely male gathering may not take decisions that did not meet with the approval of the women members of the sangha.
*Early Gupta period records indicate the existence of rural consultative councils that mediated between the rulers and the artisans and peasants
*. It also appears that the greatest incidence of the practice of untouchability occurs in conjunction with the growth in the power and authority of the Brahmins in such villages.But these developments took time to spread elsewhere in India, first spreading to Bengal and eastern UP, and very gradually elsewhere in India. However, this pattern was not necessarily replicated in identical form throughout India and some parts of India virtually escaped this trend. In agrahara villages in other parts of India, Brahmins did take on the role of local administrators and tax collectors, but the status of the small peasantry was not always as miserable as in Bihar. The degree of exploitation and oppression appears to be related to the extent of alienation from land-ownership.
* evidence for Brahmin domination in Kalikatti, Southern Karnataka emerges after the 13th C.
*, in Orissa, the ossification of the bureaucracy and its conversion into a group of privileged and exclusive castes appears to take place after the 14th-15th C. when we begin to see a general decline in its overseas trade due to the silting up of its rivers. At the same time, we see the growth of Brahminical hegemony in the realm of religion and military defeats at the hands of the Mughal armies led by Raja Man Singh of Jaipur. All these factors may have played a role in destroying the vibrancy of Oriya society and encouraging caste conservatism.
* Chach-nama and writings of al-Biruni, though written in the 13th and 11th centuries, claim their sources from other contemporary writings. It appears as though the systematic classification was not rigid in the 8th century after all. Shudra as well as Brahmin kings were ruling and not all royalty belonged to the Kshatriya class.
* Although Brahminization was an important factor in leading to caste ossification, it was not necessarily the sole or even the most important factor in the mix. The impact of the Islamic invasions, colonization by the British and ecological changes played an equally crucial if not decisive role in many instances.
Indian society was very diverse in its practice and unlike Islam did not have a central over arching social amd political framework. To suggest that such a society would be immune to change â given the necessary social and political space is not what the evidence proves.
There is further evidence, which suggests that Indian society started to change after the death of Aurangzeb.
Quote: As it actually was and honesty â These comments need to have an overall perspective and not a selective emphasis.
You are coming down to equal-equal arguments.
The differing emphasis is because of differing needs.
Why emphasise the obvious ones, and drag down the importance of the critical ones ?
Asking for an overall perspective is the only honest way to gauge what was the true picture. A selective emphasis is a biased and motivated exercise in white washing.
If you think the obvious ones as you referred to are really that obvious to the general population, you of all would not be trying to make the arguments you are making.
Quote:[quote]And you do not see the word obfuscation, you are indulging in?[/quoteStudy deeper. Understand, who, is pronouncing that it was degraded beyond repair. Understand their motivations, their actions. Understand root causes. You are not displaying any of the characteristics of a learned fellow in these matters.
No, I do not.
I have a choice before me,- to remain in a state of degradation( no hope of change ), or to convert and be free of the degradation ( that is what I am told, that is what I believe ).
What do I do ?
Quote: The statement that the they took the step, suggesting a voluntary decision, is highly debatable and unproven. In fact, evidence points to the other way. That is the Dalits of India were as staunch or weak defenders of their faith as the upper castes were.First, Ambedkar is, shall we say a motivated, if not a false god of the Dalits. Gandhi probably did as much for the Dalits as Ambedkar, but everyone is quick to foreget that for long periods in the 30âs it was Gandhi, who had almost left the freedom struggle and was fighting for the cause of the Dalits. It was Ambedkar, who seeked to divide Hindu society, until Gandhi forced the issue and saved from another division of Hindu society. Ambedkarâs political choices, sometimes, in conflict with the freedom movement is well known.
We see that evidence in the Dalits of today, no ?
Let's start with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
And let's proceed to the periodic mass conversions.
Why aren't these folks defending their faith now ?
On conversions, the political hoop la apart, the incidence of conversions have no material impact anymore on demographics. Conversions have been replaced by a differential in birth rates and immigration. Does not help to count every so called conversion by EJâs and shuddhi ceremonies by the VHP, in this context.
What we do see is the effects of the codification of castes, started by the British and continued by the GoI.
Quote:
Evidence again points to the other way. Jizyah was applied to all except Brahmins, slaves, women and children under 14. The rates were different â but they were applied to all â rich and poor. Read Lal on the economics of the muslim state in India.
You must know there is a difference in theory and practice.
In theory, caste system is an ideal division of society.
And in theory "La ikraha fi deen" is the Islamic injunction against conversion by force.
None of that holds in practice.
You either completely misunderstand Islam and its practices in India or are deliberately misrepresenting it. The practice of Islam was largely in compliance with its theology.
The phrase âLa ikraha fi deenâ means there is no compulsion in religion. It was phrased in the context of Islam and not âconversionâ. That is to mean there is no compulsion in religion in Islam. None of the theologians have any confusion in this area and the injunctions to convert by force remain supreme. Either ways âLa ikraha fi deenâ itself was superceded by later ayats. I hope you do know that in the Quran later ayats supercede earlier ones. So, the practice of Islamists is consistent with the theological doctrines of Islam.
Quote:
Not worth the trouble! It was one of the primary and sustainable means to convert the population by keeping them under pressure.
Once again, in theory.
In practice, jizya was used more as a means of bolstering revenue, and economically/militarily debilitating the "alien" subjects, so as to keep the ruled lands in submission.
If some of the caste Hindus converted, good enough. They would pay zakat, and they would swell the ranks of the Muslim administrative cadre, and prove good examples for others to follow [ In fact, this is what happened in the Punjab, as more and more Muslim villages slowly absorbed the remaining Hindus through peer pressure .
If not, they would be always on their toes paying the high tax bills, and at least they wouldn't have the time or luxury to plan or execute a revolt.
The dalits were menial labours, and they were anyway marginal to society. It was not worth the administration's limited constabulary to keep chasing them for a few kauris.
Jiziyah: In the Indian context, it was not just a tax but consistent with the injunctions of the Quran Hindus were non-citizens of the muslim state (except between 1564-1679) allowed to live in Dar-ul-Islam, under certain disabilities. Jiziyah is meant for the humiliation of non-muslims. The hindu was to pay this tax with meekness, humility and utmost respect.
Quzi Mughisuddin of the 14th century, Mulla Ahmed, Sirhindi and Shah Walliullah in the later centuries were all consistent in their definitions of what Jiziyah was in the Indian context. Not just a tax but a tool for humiliation and degradation.
Jiziyah was applied on muslim territories from the day MBQ set foot in Brahmanabad. The rates for Jiziyah differed from era to era. Usually in three grades. Except between 1564 and 1679, starting with the reigns of Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jahan, Jiziyah was collected from the Hindu population â ruthlessly. The known rates are 40, 20, 10 for the Rich, middle and poor in whatever measure of currency available.
The poor and many Dalits were among those who, converted to escape these grinding taxes and not as popularly known to escape the discriminations of the caste system.
Zakat, applied on muslims was a tax of 2.5% on âapparent propertyâ in excess of ânisabâ, i.e: after meeting expenses of food, clothing, shelter, animals, vehicles and craft tools for a whole calendar year. So, in essence a wealth tax of 2.5%. Further, it could not be extracted by force, since compulsion would vitiate its character.
In the muslim state, Zakatâs primary purposes were charitable and religious â for the muslims. While the expenses of the state were met by a combination of Khams, Kharaj and Jiziyah coupled with double customs duties (tamgha) for hindus as opposed to muslims.
Alauddin Khaljis grinding taxes and imposts labeled as âreformsâ were a grinding mix to subdue the hindu population leading to conversions, sale of the self and abandonment of fertile lands â unprecedented in the annals of Indian history.
So, the analogy of Jiziya = Zakat is fallacious, in all respects.
You talk about the difference between the theory and practice of the muslim state in India, why not read Lalâs book on the very subject to understand it and learn from it.
Again, Read Lalâs â Indian muslims, who are they? You will know the reasons why large numbers of the high castes and some professional guilds converted.
This is my last post on the issue, if all we get in return is a superficial understanding of the issues and labels being used without any basis in fact.