Why the Moghol?

[Tanc49]

The Moghol came when there wasn't a big hegemony on the subcontinent. Vijayanagar was in decline, city states were bullied by the Portuguese, China was withdrawn...

At that time, the Ottomans advance in the Indian Ocean specifically as a counter to Portuguese influence.

What about the Moghol? Were they just another power that got lucky?
Or should we see them as part of a trend with the rise of the Ottomans, also former steppe riders? Did they construct themselves against the Portuguese or was the timing incidental?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Why do you mention China? China has never exerted any form of political influence in the subcontinent.

Vijaynagar wasn’t really in much a terminal decline at all, and in any case had minimal effect on the political situation in the north.

City states weren’t really a thing in this period in India. Babur had no idea about the Portuguese and wouldn’t have cared anyway. The land he was to conquer in Hindustan had no coasts and he never saw the sea.

While yes, they were steppe raiders, this doesn’t make them any different from the Turco-Afghan elite of Hindustan that preceded them and much of their rise was just pure luck. They had much better artillery than that of Hindustan, though so did the Deccan sultanates.

 

[Tanc49]

Why do you mention China? China has never exerted any form of political influence in the subcontinent.

It was more general commentary on the lack of an hegemon at a global level

City states weren’t really a thing in this period in India. Babur had no idea about the Portuguese and wouldn’t have cared anyway. The land he was to conquer in Hindustan had no coasts and he never saw the sea.

How would you qualify the likes of Calicut or Cochin then? We're they not city states?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Why do you mention China? China has never exerted any form of political influence in the subcontinent.

Vijaynagar wasn’t really in much a terminal decline at all, and in any case had minimal effect on the political situation in the north.

City states weren’t really a thing in this period in India. Babur had no idea about the Portuguese and wouldn’t have cared anyway. The land he was to conquer in Hindustan had no coasts and he never saw the sea.

While yes, they were steppe raiders, this doesn’t make them any different from the Turco-Afghan elite of Hindustan that preceded them and much of their rise was just pure luck. They had much better artillery than that of Hindustan, though so did the Deccan sultanates.

There was a difference in how the Mughals viewed themselves than the Perso-Turkic states of Hindustan. Mughal elite and imperial ideology centered upon its claim of descent from Timur and likewise Timur's legitimacy as General successor of the the Mongol Empire, at least the Chagatayids. The Ghaznavids, Ghurids and their successors, the Delhi sultanate (and its breakaway states) were all technically vassals of the Abbasid caliphate. They were given their authority by them and minted coins in their names. Further, they were explicitly tasked with jihad upon the Hindu region and beyond for the sake of the Abbasid. These Turkic rulers even whence capturing items in war, if there was no reason to leave it at the time, would send Hindu or Buddhist religious items to Baghdad where the Abbasid authorities could crush the items in public triumphs (reminiscent of Assyrian era triumphs). These Turkic states also were part of a greater Islamic trade of slaves wherein peoples captured in wars, were sent to the Islamic heartlands.

Mughals were nothing of the sort. They were a regime that was Muslim in its religion and claims, but ultimately according to Abbasid era politick, was not Islamic in the same sense s the Delhi Sultanates (despite Timur's assertion of their idolatry for not destroying every idol they could find).

 

[Tanc49]

Mughals were nothing of the sort. They were a regime that was Muslim in its religion and claims, but ultimately according to Abbasid era politick, was not Islamic in the same sense s the Delhi Sultanates (despite Timur's assertion of their idolatry for not destroying every idol they could find).

So if I understand right, while the Mughals were a state whose rulers were Muslim, it was not a Muslim State in the same sense as, say the Gujarati sultanat ?
As in they were not motivated by religion, or by claim to jihad?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

So if I understand right, while the Mughals were a state whose rulers were Muslim, it was not a Muslim State in the same sense as, say the Gujarati sultanat ?
As in they were not motivated by religion, or by claim to jihad?

I would say so. they also were not technical vassals of the Caliphate as the Delhi sultanate was (the Gujurat sultanate was a breakaway state from the Delhi Sultanate, which was a vassal of the Ghurids until the Ghurids disintegrated after the rise of the Saljuqs). As vassals of the Caliphate, their duty was to wage jihad and expand the Islamic world at the expense of others. The Mughal empire, was in its foremost manner, a secular state in terms of its relation to Islamic foundations. If it had a religion, it was the religion of Mongolism with an Islamic gloss.

 

[Tanc49]

I would say so. they also were not technical vassals of the Caliphate as the Delhi sultanate was (the Gujurat sultanate was a breakaway state from the Delhi Sultanate, which was a vassal of the Ghurids until the Ghurids disintegrated after the rise of the Saljuqs). As vassals of the Caliphate, their duty was to wage jihad and expand the Islamic world at the expense of others. The Mughal empire, was in its foremost manner, a secular state in terms of its relation to Islamic foundations. If it had a religion, it was the religion of Mongolism with an Islamic gloss.

Extremely interesting. The bit about the gloss as well as I'm reading about the influence game between the Mughals and the Ottomans and one of the big markers was having the name of the sultan read in the Friday prayer

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

How would you qualify the likes of Calicut or Cochin then?

Small coastal kingdoms comprising of multiple urban areas, with the capital city being the most important but not important enough to call the kingdom a city state.

(and its breakaway states)

It’s a little disingenuous to call them breakaway states- that’s like calling the history of France a regional history of a breakaway state of the Carolingian empire and ignores the difference in politics between the different states. While of course, the first generation of Indian sultanates drew on the abbasids for legitimacy, states founded by Indian converts and states founded after the sack of Baghdad in no way saw themselves as theoretical vassals of the caliph, and were no more inclined to jihad against the infidel than the mughal. In some cases, they were more secular than the Mughal state (cough cough raja Ganesh in the Bengal sultanate)

Even the Delhi sultanate rarely sought legitimacy from the caliph and mainly had their own names on coins. It was only when the current leadership was in crisis that the caliphs support was sought. Quite a few Delhi sultans established their own caliphates as well. This changed more with time and the revelation that abassid authority was non existent than due to the Mughals timurid genealogy.

None of the Deccan sultans of the Mughal era (who had none of the timurid genealogy to fall back on for legitimacy) gave any credence to the abbasids, and went so far in establishing their independence that they converted to Shiism.

On the other hand, Islam was an incredibly important source of legitimacy for the Mughal state, at least as important as their timurid legacy (though id say more) and it penetrated almost all parts of the state organisation. The entire reason they valued their timurid genealogy more than their chingisid ancestry was that Timur was suitably Islamic, and fit the dynasty’s self identification as ghazis. Of course they didn’t see themselves as vassals to the Abbasid caliphate, they saw themselves as the caliphate. Reference to Mongolic legitimacy was essentially a non-factor in mughal ideology, although it was referred to on occasion if the situation demanded it. In fact, when Muhammad Shaybani Khan conquered Samarkand, he claimed that he was restoring Genghis Khans yasa after centuries of timurid over dependence on the sharia.

All Mughal capitals were built in close proximity to Sufi shrines. In the list of 41 qualities that Chandar Bhan Brahman assigns to Shah Jahan- essentially a list of what gives him the right to rule only one makes reference to anything mongol (uses the term khaqan), one is a reference to Timur (second lord of the celestial conjunction, Timur was the first) three make outright references to non Sufi Islam (caliph, witness to splendour of Allah, the shadow of God), 18 make reference to Sufi terms and concepts (the perfect murshid, seeker of truth) and three make reference to his political power (protector of the world, king of kings, subduer of heavens). Of course, Sufi terms were far more common as many of these terms and concepts were in common with the Vedanta of the Hindus and thus assured legitimacy for both groups, but they are still fundamentally part of the Islamic tradition.

The akhlaq literary genre on how to live your life, whose main canons were all written outside India, were incredibly widespread under the Mughals and were suffused with Quranic injunctions and examples. While of course, the Mughals were more tolerant and more inclined to Sufi poetry that saw the equality of all religions (despite all formal religion being beneath true spirituality), this does not make them any less Muslim, it’s just that they took inspiration from different parts of the Islamic tradition. The qâżi and the ṣadr, like in all other Islamic states, had high politicoreligious positions; the Muslim divines, among others, had land or cash grants to pray for the stability of the empire and to maintain and keep aloft the symbols of Islam (sha’âyer-e eslâmi) throughout their territory. The periodic dispatch of rich donations for the holy cities, Mecca and Medina, with the delegates of hâjj continued. One of the chief accomplishments of the reign of Jahangir in his view was the full integration of the sharia into the law of the land. The Mughals definitely saw themselves as waging jihad to establish the supremacy of Sunni Islam, especially in the Deccan campaigns.

In short- if anything the Mongolian influence was superficial, and there was no Islamic gloss. The Mughal empire was self consciously founded and operated on Islamic principles, and went to great lengths to glorify Islam as they understood it and as it was understood by Indian Muslims.

 

[Tanc49]

Small coastal kingdoms comprising of multiple urban areas, with the capital city being the most important but not important enough to call the kingdom a city state.

I guess it's a difference in degree then, similar to the Terrafirma of Venice or the cities under Genoa's control.
It's mostly semantic, but if an area is entirely dominated by one metropolis and there's an hinterland directed toward supplying it, I'd call this a city state rather than a kingdom, which would have several centers.
For example, in the conquest of Goa by the Portuguese, no big land campaign was necessary once the city was subdued, and administration was separated between the City and the Hinterland (which was given to Timoji).
It's also close to the classification used by Sanjay Subrahmanyam, who distinguishes between actual land powers like the Khmer and the Mughals, and city states like Calicut, Cochin and Malacca (or the Swahili states).

The Mughals definitely saw themselves as waging jihad to establish the supremacy of Sunni Islam, especially in the Deccan campaigns.

What about the other religions? Was there a tax on those, like in Andalusia?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I guess it's a difference in degree

Oh yeah definitely, that’s fair enough. Touché.

What about the other religions? Was there a tax on those, like in Andalusia?

It... varied. Indian sultanates had always had commitment issues to the Jizya- Firoz Shah Tughlaq exempted Brahmans from it, Zainulabidin of Kashmir abolished it, but it was under the Mughals that the commitment wavered the most strongly. Akbar abolished it altogether, but then Aurangzeb brought it back for thirty years give it take and then the Sayyid Brothers re abolished it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Madhav Deval

Certainly, I would most definitely term each successive Capet or French dynastic period as Carloginian breakaways. I have no trepidation in saying such. Likewise, I have no issue in recognizing the independent kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia comprised breakaway states of the Akkadian empire and in many cases, succeeded in recreating the universal empire spoken of in annals of the time. In turn, the Akkadian empire was a child borne from the Kingdom of Kish. The fact remains; the origin of the Delhi sultanates and the states who broke from them, found a common chain-link lineage to the Abbasid imperial complex-mission. Whilst the Mughals did not.

In the case of the Delhi Sultanates, a question: was there a concept of a Delhi Sultanate prior to the mandate of jihad gifted to the Perso-Turkic muhjahideen by the Abbasid caliphate? Or was it thus, a creation of the wider Abbasid civilizational complex and thus Islamic in its origins?

My opinion is that it was established directly by this Islamic civilizational complex. Meanwhile, like its predecessor in the Timurid period and the prior Chagatayid period, the ‘Mughals’ found an origin within that sphere that is Not-Islamic by law or custom. The argument is not that the Mughals practiced Islam and claimed grandiose titles related to such or that the population understood Islam as existing. This is rather a character of the Mongolic regimes of the Islamic world, not something that is unique to the Mughals.

It is similar to this; Timur was a Muslim and seems to have taken his religion seriously. Yet, I would still take the position that his monarchy was founded upon a non-Islamic basis, in both custom and legal terms. The same is the case for the Mughals.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

@John7755 يوحنا

I think terming the French states as carolingian breakaway states ignores the vastly different sociopolitical contexts that each state arose in. Moreover, it ignores the changing character of the state as they used different means to justify their rule. I think the difference in our opinion here is caused by our differing views on what characterises a state- for you it is the ideology that the state, or its predecessors was founded on, and for me it is the way that a state views itself and the ideology it uses to constantly regenerate legitimacy. Moreover, by characterising breakaway states of the Delhi sultanate as vassals of the Abbasids despite some of them having never acknowledged the Abbasids, you go further- it is as if you are saying the Madagascar is more roman than America because it is a breakaway state of a state that was once theoretically a Carolingian vassal.

While in the first century of Islamic rule in India, they took legitimacy by acknowledging the Abbasid caliphate as their theoretical superiors, they ceased to be technical vassals of the Abbasid state the moment they stopped acknowledging Abbasid authority. In the earliest days of Islamic rule in Bengal, they had no mention of the caliph on coins or in the khutba, so the Bengal sultanate was formed prior to its theoretical subjugation to Abbasid religious authority when they sought caliphal legitimacy by adding the caliphs name to coins. By 1342, no Indo-Islamic regime acknowledged any sort of caliphal authority, and they characterised their rule as justified in Islam either due to the blessings of Sufis, the fact their ancestors were rulers, or the fact that they themselves were the caliphate. By the time period in question, the late 15th and early 16th century, no Islamic state in India paid any sort of nominal allegiance to the Abbasid caliphate, and neither was any remnant of a former Abbasid mandate a component of state ideology, or the means the state used to legitimise itself. Further, states such as the Gujarat sultanate and the Kashmir Sultanate had been founded by local converts after the political culture of Islam in India had ceased to recognise Abbasid authority and both saw the origins of their rule as due to the actions of Sufi saints, just like the Mughals. And thats not to mention the Shia states of the Deccan.

In the period in question, the Mughal state was just as much as an Islamic state as any of the others on the subcontinent, as motivated by jihad to expand the area under Islam. Earlier, you say that the Mughals weren't as Islamic as the Delhi Sultanate by the yardstick of Abbasid era Islamic politick, and to that I respond that neither were the Tughlaq, Sayyid or Lodi dynasties of the Delhi sultanate and neither were the Gujarat Sultanate, the Bengal sultanate or the Kashmir Sultanate, as quite frankly Abbasid era politick was irrelevant to Islam in India by this point. I fail to see how the Abbasid mandate given to Ghurid mujahideen means that a state founded 200 years later by a local convert was founded as a vassal of the Abbasids.