The Encounter between the Persian and the Sanskrit Worlds
Richard M. Eaton, in conversation with William Dalrymple
In this captivating session at the #JaipurLiteratureFestival2021, Professor Richard M. Eaton engaged in a dialogue with William Dalrymple. Together, they delved into the epoch spanning from 1000 to 1765 CE, where the interplay of Indo-Islamic interactions unfolded in the vibrant landscape of South Asia. This engaging discussion shed light on how the convergence of the Persian and Sanskrit worlds catalysed profound transformations across the social, political, and religious tapestries of the region.
Eaton began the conversation by discussing the shortcomings of colonial historiography. In the colonial period, the British rulers conceived of Indian history in a tripartite way – Hindu, Muslim, and Colonial. This division of time was a European understanding of ‘Ancient, Medieval, and Modern’ – superimposed on Indian history with a political purpose. It was necessary to demonise the immediate predecessors of the Raj, and thus, a model was proposed that until the coming of the Turks, India was a peaceful country derailed by Muslim rulers. These beliefs were baked into subsequent colonial historiography.
Eaton's book, India in the Persianate Age (1000-1765), attempts to "reconceive the entire project of understanding Indian history through the lens of religion." The author claimed that if one looks back at the 11-12th centuries in India, one finds that a term used to describe Muslims was 'Turushka' – these were people who were not fashioned as individuals posing a strong civilisation challenge but perceived as one more ethnic group, the Turks. In modern colonial historiography, a shift occurred, and "the idea that these were Muslims first and Turks second" became popular.
Dalrymple noted that it is surprising that Eaton begins his book "not with a thrust in from Central Asia but a thrust northwards from the Chola Heartlands." Eaton claimed that by doing this, he was allowed to compare and contrast what had been happening in South Asia pre-1000 and what the Turks were doing during the same period. Eaton argued that even prior to the entry of the Turks, many conflicts existed in South Asia, and there was perpetual warfare going on. "The best way to introduce the Turks was to talk about what was already there, which was a South Asia inhabited by many powers at war with each other…it was necessary for kings to create an idealised model based on circles of friends and enemies (mandalas)…these ideas were not floating around in the atmosphere but being played out in real history," claimed Eaton.
When the Turks arrived in India, they came to a region already infused with internal conflict. Eaton found it fascinating that when the Delhi Sultanate was established, another mandala was created – with defeated powers around the Sultanate who were not alienated but reduced to the status of subservient kings, and thus, the notion of the mandala was observed by the Turks themselves.
Citing another example of assimilation. Eaton claimed that "the earliest coins of Mohammad of Ghor are identical to those of the Chauhans, the very dynasty they defeated." These coins would carry the image of Goddess Lakshmi, and the writing too was in Sanskrit – this was not only to provide a sense of continuity but also done out of economic necessities for Indian merchants who would not accept money that did not look familiar to them.
During the 14th and 15th centuries, regions in North India such as Delhi, Jaunpur, and the eastern provinces of the Indo-Gangetic Doab saw the rise of stories celebrating warriors and the love they possessed for their beloved. These were premakhyans, stories primarily authored in Hindavi, Khadi Boli, and Awadhi dialects by Sufi writers. The last leg of the fascinating conversation revolved around this theme. Eaton claimed that by these centuries, the Muslims had thoroughly assimilated with the Indian fabric, and though the ideas in the story were Sufi in nature, the literature used was deeply steeped in Indian culture – "you see yogis, Jain monks, and the atmosphere is entirely North India."
Dalrymple then asked Eaton about the colonial distortion of the historiography of Vijayanagara, with the kingdom being projected as a bastion of Hindu culture, besieged by rabid Muslim armies. Eaton noted that in the North and South of the Deccan, where the Vijayanagara kings and the Bahmani Sultanate ruled, both of the kingdoms were playing a double game. They were reusing architectural units, columns, water tanks, and more, of the royal Chalukya dynasty. This was done to present the fact that they were continuing older royal traditions. At the same time, they were plugging into the Persianate world – you find Krishna Deva Raya of Vijayanagara adorning the tall Islamic hat (kulayi), and the Vijayanagara court demonstrating their presence in the Sultanate world, claiming that they too could be called Sultans.
These examples highlight how a rigid and black-and-white compartmentalisation of the past is a tool that some often become guilty of utilising. While boundaries in history provide us with the illusion of simplicity, they also result in a gross misunderstanding of a much more convoluted past.
