07-08-2007, 10:48 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 5 2007, 11:13 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 5 2007, 11:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->India- Mughals, Sikhs and Europeans
A history of Medieval India
AND
India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam
[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The following is from the article India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agriculture on the big estates remained inefficient, and a large part of the rest of agriculture in Hindu society was subsistence farming - farming without trade. There was no beef industry that was supplementing the diet of people as in Europe. In India the veneration of cattle was inimical to this kind of meat industry.
Enough surplus was produced by the great estates that some trade with foreigners flourished. Indians continued to export rice, other cereals, coconuts, spices, sugar, woods, dyes and precious stones, while importing perfumes, finished cloth including silk, wax, precious stones, gold, medicinal herbs, ceramics and metal wares. But much of this trade was handled by foreign merchants - mainly Muslims. Brahmins were much like the Confucians in their opposition to trade, the Brahmins making involvement in foreign trade, as well as farming and overseas travel, forbidden to their class. Generally, religious contemplation was esteemed while people with power had little interest in improving conditions for the merchant or in improving technology.
There was, however, an improvement in the making of cotton. Muslims introduced India to a new method of working cotton - the Carter's bow - an improvement over beating the cotton with switches. The spinning wheel also appeared and increased cotton production.
By the 13th century, many trade guilds were disappearing, and many trade connections were coming to a close. Trade within India had diminished as wealth was hoarded rather than invested - hoarded either by wealthy individuals or by religious establishments. And, with diminished trade, roads deteriorated. In towns were merchants with a spirit of enterprise. There was bustle and hard work, but in India a centralized government was not benefiting the middle class. Big landowners, princes and potentates, would remain most influential - a conservative influence as in Spain, Russia and eastern Europe in general. The landed wealthy in India would wield a conservative authoritarianism. India would remain as conservatively religious as Spain and eastern Europe, with taboos inhibiting modernization. Brahmin priests encouraged obscurantism among India's elite. Rodents and insects could not be killed and vast amount of foodstuffs were lost. Rules about handling refuse and excreta contributed to disease. The caste system choked initiative. And rather than send investments and soldiers abroad, India would be receiving them.
[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above explanations seem very simplistic. There is no evidence to suggest that merchant guilds were on decline. In fact even in this age we still find merchant guilds giving donations to temples and having their names prominently mentioned in inscriptions for e.g. the Ainuruvar (the 500) of Badami.
What does the article wish to convey, that since Indians did not eat beef they were malnourished???
"Trade being handled by mainly foreign merchants. And because Brahmins were Confucians???" Firstly Brahmins by this age were not necessarily only into priestly activities. Brahmins were bureaucrats, soldiers, farmers, even generals in army. Krishnadevaraya's Amuktamalyada gives a definite advice in favour of having Brahmins as your durganayakas or commanders of fort because they were not allied to any kinsmen and had no ethnic axe to grind. So also for many other communities. In 10th or 11th century we hear of a general of Kaivarta caste in Bengal. Chach, whose son Dahir succumbed to the Arabs in Sind had supplnated a Sudra dynasty in Sind. By the way Chach was a Brahmin. Though caste had become hereditary there was nothing definite against picking up your profession irrespective of caste.
Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya. All these great philosphers and saints gave lot of hope and faith to the masses through the way of Devotion, this despite "Brahmin" obscurantism. And men like Dnaneshwar, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya were Brahmins. While there is large hue and cry when Muslims are branded terrorists, becasue of the actions of few of their co-religionists, I dont understand why the same courtesy cannot be extended to the Brahmins.
About the ruling class not supporting trade, during this entire period (9th-13th c AD) there was a rapid acceleration in the setting up of temple towns in continuance with a startegy to build economy that had been continuing since 5th-6th c AD. During this period the Hoysalas and Kakatiyas who had succeeded the Chalukyas in Karnataka and Telengana respectively built the economy of these places by tank irrigations and setting up of temple towns. The town dedicated to Pampadevi that we know today as Hampi was set up by Hoysalas on the banks of Tungabhadra. The ruling class gave donations of areas to temples who developed those areas through tank irrigation and the revenues thus accrued helped in setting up a bustling temple town, which generated revenues for the kingdom through taxes and custom duties for trading. The very idea that the ruling class did nothing to develop trade is preposterous.
A history of Medieval India
AND
India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam
[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The following is from the article India from 500 to 1200-Dawn of Islam
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agriculture on the big estates remained inefficient, and a large part of the rest of agriculture in Hindu society was subsistence farming - farming without trade. There was no beef industry that was supplementing the diet of people as in Europe. In India the veneration of cattle was inimical to this kind of meat industry.
Enough surplus was produced by the great estates that some trade with foreigners flourished. Indians continued to export rice, other cereals, coconuts, spices, sugar, woods, dyes and precious stones, while importing perfumes, finished cloth including silk, wax, precious stones, gold, medicinal herbs, ceramics and metal wares. But much of this trade was handled by foreign merchants - mainly Muslims. Brahmins were much like the Confucians in their opposition to trade, the Brahmins making involvement in foreign trade, as well as farming and overseas travel, forbidden to their class. Generally, religious contemplation was esteemed while people with power had little interest in improving conditions for the merchant or in improving technology.
There was, however, an improvement in the making of cotton. Muslims introduced India to a new method of working cotton - the Carter's bow - an improvement over beating the cotton with switches. The spinning wheel also appeared and increased cotton production.
By the 13th century, many trade guilds were disappearing, and many trade connections were coming to a close. Trade within India had diminished as wealth was hoarded rather than invested - hoarded either by wealthy individuals or by religious establishments. And, with diminished trade, roads deteriorated. In towns were merchants with a spirit of enterprise. There was bustle and hard work, but in India a centralized government was not benefiting the middle class. Big landowners, princes and potentates, would remain most influential - a conservative influence as in Spain, Russia and eastern Europe in general. The landed wealthy in India would wield a conservative authoritarianism. India would remain as conservatively religious as Spain and eastern Europe, with taboos inhibiting modernization. Brahmin priests encouraged obscurantism among India's elite. Rodents and insects could not be killed and vast amount of foodstuffs were lost. Rules about handling refuse and excreta contributed to disease. The caste system choked initiative. And rather than send investments and soldiers abroad, India would be receiving them.
[right][snapback]70846[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above explanations seem very simplistic. There is no evidence to suggest that merchant guilds were on decline. In fact even in this age we still find merchant guilds giving donations to temples and having their names prominently mentioned in inscriptions for e.g. the Ainuruvar (the 500) of Badami.
What does the article wish to convey, that since Indians did not eat beef they were malnourished???
"Trade being handled by mainly foreign merchants. And because Brahmins were Confucians???" Firstly Brahmins by this age were not necessarily only into priestly activities. Brahmins were bureaucrats, soldiers, farmers, even generals in army. Krishnadevaraya's Amuktamalyada gives a definite advice in favour of having Brahmins as your durganayakas or commanders of fort because they were not allied to any kinsmen and had no ethnic axe to grind. So also for many other communities. In 10th or 11th century we hear of a general of Kaivarta caste in Bengal. Chach, whose son Dahir succumbed to the Arabs in Sind had supplnated a Sudra dynasty in Sind. By the way Chach was a Brahmin. Though caste had become hereditary there was nothing definite against picking up your profession irrespective of caste.
Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya. All these great philosphers and saints gave lot of hope and faith to the masses through the way of Devotion, this despite "Brahmin" obscurantism. And men like Dnaneshwar, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya were Brahmins. While there is large hue and cry when Muslims are branded terrorists, becasue of the actions of few of their co-religionists, I dont understand why the same courtesy cannot be extended to the Brahmins.
About the ruling class not supporting trade, during this entire period (9th-13th c AD) there was a rapid acceleration in the setting up of temple towns in continuance with a startegy to build economy that had been continuing since 5th-6th c AD. During this period the Hoysalas and Kakatiyas who had succeeded the Chalukyas in Karnataka and Telengana respectively built the economy of these places by tank irrigations and setting up of temple towns. The town dedicated to Pampadevi that we know today as Hampi was set up by Hoysalas on the banks of Tungabhadra. The ruling class gave donations of areas to temples who developed those areas through tank irrigation and the revenues thus accrued helped in setting up a bustling temple town, which generated revenues for the kingdom through taxes and custom duties for trading. The very idea that the ruling class did nothing to develop trade is preposterous.