Dr. Ohi Uddin Ahmed
The spread of Islam in the Indian Subcontinent was one of the significant aspects of Indian History, but it received very little attention from historians and scholars at large. The consequent outcome of the absence of critical analysis formed a notable knowledge gap and perpetuated stereotypes as a result of some inappropriate conventional theories prevalent in academic discourse. The Muslims of the Indian sub-continent are the largest Muslim community, while the Bengali Muslims constitute the second largest Muslim ethnic group in the world. However, the origin of such a vast mass of population remained limited, mired in undue debate and discussion, which only caused further confusion and misunderstanding. The outcome of this resulted in the strengthening of the claim of right-wing Hindutwa activists that ‘Hindus’ were forcibly converted during the Muslim regime.
Several conventional theories attempt to explain the spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. One is the immigration theory, according to this, Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are the descendants of those Muslims who came here during different periods of history, over the sea from regions like Arabia, Turkey, and Persia. This theory was first proposed by Khandakar Fuzle Rabbi, in his book Haqiqate Musalman-i-Banglah (The Origin of Musalmans of Bengal) published in the year 1895. This theory is applicable only in the cases of those insignificant numbers of Muslims who migrated to India from foreign lands, particularly during the Muslim regime, and it only explains the origin of foreign Muslims and disapproves of the vast majority of indigenous converts.
Another theory claims that the Hindus embraced Islam during the Muslim regime to receive land grants and higher services or economic benefits from the rulers. During the centuries of Muslim rule in India, such conversion did take place. But their numbers may be counted with the finger of a single hand and hence could not be associated with the conversion of millions of Muslims.
A section of scholars, particularly right-wing Hindus, claim that conversion to Islam in India took place as a result of force, and is known as the theory of ‘blood and sword’. As per this theory, the Muslim invaders and rulers forcefully converted the Hindus to Islam. There has been a popular saying: the Muslims came to India to convert the Indians to Islam with ‘Qur’an’ in one hand and a sword in the other. Therefore, the indigenous people embraced Islam in the face of brute force for their survival. India has been invaded by Muslims several times and ruled by Muslim rulers for centuries. A few such incidents of conversion could not be ignored.
Another notable theory of conversion to Islam is the Holyman theory, according to which the hundreds of Sufis who came to India propagated Islam among the masses. Therefore, the indigenous Indians, mostly hailed from the lower order of society, embraced Islam, inspired by the Islamic message of social equality and universal brotherhood. They lived among the depressed people and dedicated themselves to their services. Their shrines became centers of attraction for the masses, irrespective of caste and creed. Therefore, millions of people embraced Islam. It is claimed that ninety lakhs of people embraced Islam under the influence of Khwaja Moin-ud-din Chisty of Ajmeer alone.
The most popular theory, mostly propounded by the Muslim scholars in particular, was the social liberation theory. According to this theory, the Hindus and especially the lower castes and untouchables embraced Islam with the hope of getting rid of social inequality and Brahmminical oppression. This thesis presents Islam as being an egalitarian religion with its principle of social equality, while Hinduism is associated with its rigid caste system and social oppression for the lower castes and untouchables. Therefore, they embraced Islam in large numbers to get rid of Brahmminical oppression. This idea seems to be plausible enough in the academic discourses in the context of Indian society and hence widely accepted.
But all the above theories have several limitations and cannot be accepted as appropriate to examine conversion to Islam in India due to several reasons. None of the theories match the geography of the Muslim population in India. The highest conversion in the continent took place in West Punjab and East Bengal, and neither in the aryan heartland characterized by the presence of a rigid caste system nor in the centre of Muslim rule, i,e, North India. The Muslim population in these regions is still very much limited compared to East Bengal and West Punjab, which experienced the highest numbers of conversions to Islam. Muslim rulers penetrated East Bengal rather late, and this region experienced a shorter span of Muslim rule, but it recruited vast numbers of converts as compared to mainland India. The Muslim population in central India during the time of Aurangzeb was 4% followed by Rajasthan 9%, Uttar Pradesh 10%, Delhi 10%, and Bihar and Orissa combined 14%. Hyderabad was the largest Muslim state, and its Muslim population was hardly 10%, yet the majority of them were of foreign descent.
In light of the above, the conventional theories are found to be inappropriate to examine the conversion to Islam in India. The Sufi activity was a pan-India phenomenon, but conversion remained limited. The sporadic incidence of forced conversion and conversion by political and economic gains was sometimes narrated by Muslim scholars themselves, lacked historical realism, and formed exaggeration intended for eulogies by court authors.
Social liberation theory was considered appropriate in history for decades by readers due to its social context. A rigid caste system was prevalent in India for centuries, with its inhuman form of social inequality and dehumanization of Dalits and untouchables, while Islam appeared as a divine illumination with its message of social equality and respect for mankind, with its universal ethos. Therefore, it attracted millions of low caste Hindu-Buddhist-aborigines degraded by the Brahmminical caste system. But such arguments are not backed by the geography of the Muslim population in India. A rigorous caste system was prevalent in North India, but conversion to Islam remained very much limited there. Conversely, large-scale conversion took place in East Bengal, where Aryan culture as well as Muslim invaders penetrated rather late. The land of Bengal was lightly exposed to Brahminical culture due to the presence of a more liberal tribal culture. The Buddhist rulers in Bengal did not promote Brahminical culture. If the social liberation theory is taken as being correct, more conversions could have been there in North India than in East Bengal. But conversely, more conversions took place in Bengal.
The American scholar Richard Maxwell Eaton examined the conventional theories of conversion to Islam in India in the context of East Bengal, which experienced en masse conversion to Islam. His monumental work, ‘The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier (1206-1776)’ surfaced in 1994 in the academic arena and dismissed all earlier theories.
Eaton propounded his famous frontier theory in the context of East Bengal. He specified Bengal’s frontiers- political, cultural, and economic. When the Turko-Afghan rulers penetrated the interior of Bengal during the 16th century, a major ecological transformation had taken place due to the shifting of the river course, resulting in the formation of vast, uncultivated, fertile lands. The Turko-Afghan rulers, after their conquest of Bengal, ushered in an era of massive economic expansion and the introduction of agriculture in the hitherto uncultivated forested land in search of state revenue. Therefore, they appointed pioneering men or landlords to introduce agriculture in the forested hinterland; they, in turn, recruited people of diverse origins to the fold of agriculture. In this process, agrarian village communities emerged capable of paying state revenue.
The medieval Muslim state also granted land for religious establishments such as Khanqahs, mosques, shrines, temples, etc, and lavishly patronized them. These religious institutions transformed the religious orientation of the farmers as they came under the influence of Islamic institutions; they embraced Islam in large numbers. Therefore, the farmers embraced Islam as a religion of plough rather than an emancipating ideology through the process of gradual Islamization.
In this process, the economic frontier expanded from forest farmland, the religious frontier expanded from Islam to non-Islam territory, while the political frontier expanded from Mughal to non-Mughal regions. In this whole process, two important objectives were served- first, the creation of an agrarian community capable of paying revenue, and second, a rural community loyal to the state. Consequently, East Bengal experienced en masse conversion to Islam, and Bengali Muslims became the second-largest ethnic Muslim group in the world today. No sword or use of force had played any role in this conversion, but rather through peaceful persuasion. A similar conversion to Islam in the context of tribal Rajasthan was studied by Inayet Zaidi and Sunita Zaidi.
Right-wing Hindutwavadi scholars uphold the forceful conversion theory, but there is opposing evidence for this claim. Islam Khan, the Mughal general in Bengal, suspended one of his subordinate officers for converting the son of a defeated Hindu landlord to Islam in the Bogura district of East Bengal.
The first census conducted in 1871 was surprising; it showed vast numbers of indigenous people had embraced Islam, which was hardly imagined by the colonial administrator. Such a massive conversion was not experienced anywhere in the subcontinent except in West Punjab.
Despite the idea of social liberation, there was limited conversion to Islam in the heartland of North India, characterized by the rigid caste system. Islam failed to attract the lower castes and Dalits to its fold as a means of social liberation. Its inherent factor lies in the new Muslim social organization- the emergence of similar caste and social discrimination among Muslims. The neophytes were simply accepted by their co-religionists but not treated according to the principles of Islam. They were treated as per their pre-converted status, while foreign ashraf Muslims claimed superior social status. They had to face severe discrimination by the Muslim ruling class. Hence, Islam ceases to exist as a means of social liberation for the vast majority of the oppressed. This factor extremely limited the pace of conversion to Islam in India. Historically, during the initial phase of Islam, complete Islamization was accomplished, where Muslim armies invaded any country. But it did not happen in China and India. Caste and social discrimination were mainly responsible for this.
~~~
Dr. Ohi Uddin Ahmed is a teacher, social researcher, and Pasmanda activist from Silchar, Assam. He hails from a marginalized Muslim caste named Mahimal. He obtained his PhD degree from Assam University, working on caste and social stratification among Muslims in the Barak Valley of Southern Assam.
