The wonder that was india

224

and the half-caste pirates who had established themselves at Chittagong and had raided the coasts of Bengal and Arakan. Round about 1665 the Mughal governor swept the Portuguese out of Bengal.

Dutch traders entered Gujarat in 1601 and two years later appeared on the Coromandel coast. They opened a factory at Masulipatam, the principal seaport for Golkonda, in 1606. Four years later they established a factory at Pulicat, twenty miles north of Madras, where the weavers specialized in the type of clothes worn in the Spice Islands. In Gujarat the Surat factory, which had not been a success, improved rapidly between 1620 and 1629 under the management of Pieter van der Brocke. Thus the period between 1624 and 1660 saw a sharp rise in Dutch commercial success.

In 1600 Queen Elizabeth of England chartered the English East India Company to undertake trade with all countries, as well as with the Cape of Good Hope and India. Captain William Hawkins travelled to Agra in 1608, but the Jesuit missionaries in Jahangir's court frustrated his plans. Three years later Captain Middleton was permitted by the Mughal governor to trade from Swally near Surat. The Portuguese failure to defeat the English Captain Best led to the founding of an English factory at Surat in 1611. By 1616 the English had established factories at Ahmadabad, Burhanpur, Ajmir, and Agra.

Sir Thomas Roe, the ambassador from King James I to the Mughal court from 1615 to 1619, obtained farmans from the Emperor Jahangir and his son Prince Khurram, granting the English favourable terms. In 1616 the English established a factory at Masulipatam, and ten years later in Amrgaon, some distance north of Pulicat. Six years after that the English joined the Iranians in a successful attack on the Portuguese port of Hurmuz, and its trade was diverted to the port of Gombroo, called Bandar 'Abbas. The growing Mughal—Iranian conflict prompted both the English and Gujarati merchants to make Basra the trade centre for the region from the mid-seventeenth century. After 1623 the Dutch were also given a share in the Gulf trade. The English merchants made Thatta another centre for their trade, exporting goods from its port, Lahri Bandar, to the Persian Gulf and southwards along the coast to Gujarat and Goa. However, the Bengal trade was more profitable. In 1630 both the Dutch and English began trading from Pipli and Balasore.

As well as establishing new direct trade routes between India and Western Europe, Dutch and English merchants successfully modified aspects of the old-fashioned Indian commerce with other parts of Asia and the east coast of Africa. For example, the export of

225

silk to Japan was accelerated from 1653. From the Coromandel ports, the Dutch sent to Batavia a large variety of goods, such as iron and steel, sacks, leather, salt, and even roofing tiles, which were not readily obtainable in Java. They also bought slaves in Pulicat and Arakan for their families who had settled in the Spice Islands. Food grain also began to be exported from India, and the export of saltpetre was a new feature in Indian commerce; it was an essential constituent of the gunpowder of that period. This trade was initiated by the Dutch shortly after settling down on the Coromandel coast; a little later, Gujarat, Agra, the Konkan ports, and Patna also exported saltpetre. In 1646 Prince Aurangzib, then viceroy of Gujarat, stopped the export of saltpetre on the grounds that the Europeans would use their gunpowder against Turkey.44 After his transfer from Gujarat, however, the export was resumed. Because the Mughal artillery also used vast quantities of gunpowder, the export of saltpetre naturally declined.

The development of a European demand for Indian cloth goods, particularly Indian calico, increased with remarkable rapidity from 1619. Gujarat was unable to meet the orders, and the English factors began to buy calico in bulk from Patan, Avadh, Agra, and Samana. In 1640 some English merchants opened a factory in Lucknow to buy calico from Daryabad, east of Lucknow, and Khayrabad in the north, The export of yarn for European weavers also commenced. The European beet-sugar industry had not yet come into existence, and the principal sources of cane sugar were China and India in the East and Brazil and the Caribbean islands in the West.

These increased exports were paid for almost entirely in gold and silver. The only new feature — the import of copper from Japan into northern India — appears to represent not an increase in copper consumption but an attempt to make good the failure of some local sources.

European novelties, described by the English merchants as 'toys', were very popular with the Mughal aristocracy. European drinking glasses, platters for dainty sweets, a variety of looking-glasses, and paintings were much in demand.45 The aristocracy took little interest in European mechanical inventions because of their aesthetic deficiencies. However, most interesting was the request by the East India Company's broker, Bhimji Parik, for a printing press, possibly to print his bills in order to save on the enormous quantity of 'papers and quills' that traditional commercial practices consumed. A printer was sent by the East India Company in 1671. Despite the considerable expense borne by Bhimji and the printer's efforts, they were nevertheless unsuccessful

226

'in contriving ways to cast the Banian (Gujarati) characters in the English manner'. The Surat council blamed the printer's lack of experience in casting, and it was suggested that a type-caster should be sent out at Bhimji's expense.46 The plan seems to have petered out, for no further information on Parik's pioneering efforts at printing in India are available.

Western clocks could easily have been made in India, but since other means of knowing the time such as sun dials were easily available little interest was displayed in either using or manufacturing them. Western labour-saving devices were also considered irrelevant in a country with an abundant population.47

COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

Even in the thirteenth century the Hindu merchants in Gujarat impressed the Muslims with their fair dealing. They quoted correct prices and did not bargain. The Lahore merchants, possibly Muslims, quoted double the correct price. This practice was so abhorrent to the Gujarati merchants that, according to Shaykh Nizamu'd-Din Awliya', they questioned how a city with such commercial practices could survive. Shortly afterwards, says the Shaykh, Lahore was devastated by the Mongols. To the Shaykh, the Lahore merchants' malpractices were responsible for their town's destruction.48

The ruler's dependence on the merchants for the import of overseas goods, particularly horses and slaves, had forced the Delhi sultans to allow them to act independently and in their own interests. For example, Lahore was invaded by the Mongols in 1241. It was inhabited by many merchants and traders who travelled to Khurasan and Turkistan in connection with their business. Because they had obtained passes from the Mongols they refused to help defend the city, and the Mongol invaders seized Lahore. When the city was liberated, no action was taken against these merchants because of their influence.49

No organized Muslim merchant guilds or groups appear to have existed, but the leading business men were known as the maliku't-tujjar (merchant princes) and they exercised some influence over the rulers. According to Shaykh Nasru'd-Din Chiragh-i Dihli, the maliku't-tujjar Qazi Himidu'd-Din was Sultan 'Ala'u'd-Din's favourite and could enter the Sultan's private apartments without notice.50 It is not unlikely that Sultan 'Ala'u'd-Din Khalji discussed his price control system with the maliku't-tujjar, but the belief

228

that the Sultan introduced this control for philanthropic reasons is naive. The leader of the Muslim merchants continued to be called the maliku 't-tujjar until Mughal rule ended. For example, Hajji Zahid was the maliku't-tujjar until his death some time after 1664.

Even the Hindu merchants enjoyed considerable autonomy under the Delhi sultans and Mughal rule. The Hindu bankers and money-lenders called mulidnis and sahs (title indicating a privileged status) and mahajans freely indulged in usury. The sarraf moneychangers (Anglicized version: sharoff) monopolized all monetary transactions. Tavernier observes: 'In India a village must be very small if it has not a money-changer, whom they call sharoff, who acts as banker to make remittances of money and issues letters of exchange'.51 They issued bills of exchange called hundis and organized the insurance (bima) of goods. Muslim merchants do not seem to have become involved in usury and frequently made interest-free loans to the sufis, who did not receive their futuh (unsolicited gifts on which they depended for their livelihood) regularly.52 The bankers, on the other hand, made no exceptions, even for the Emperor Aurangzib. A news report in 1702 from Aurangzib's court shows that the Emperor requested the bankers of the imperial camp to advance him half a million rupees as an interest-free loan (qarz-i hasana). The bankers refused, declaring that if reports of such a loan reached the provinces the governors would also start demanding interest-free loans, and they would be ruined.53

The European factory records give the exact amount of loan repayments and the interest charged by the bankers. English merchants generally financed their trade with loans raised in India. In 1646 the English had received 80,000 rupees in loans from Agra. By 1670 the English Company's debt in Surat was 200,000 rupees. The Dutch Company also took Indian loans, which amounted in 1639 to 800,000 rupees at the rate of 11/4 and 11/2 per cent per month.

Some Indian business men were very rich and influential. Virji Vohra, who frequently made loans to the English, was a Jain merchant who lent money to promote his 'commercial interest. He was a very well-known and powerful man, and in 1639 Shahjahan invited him to court to explain the Surat merchants' grievances against their governor. The English also recognized his unique position and requested the governor of Surat to issue passes for maritime trade only to those who were known to Virji Vohra in order to prevent the passes falling into pirate hands.

When Shahjahan's son Prince Murad rebelled in Gujarat after his father became sick, he asked the Surat merchants to lend him 10

228

million rupees. Virji Vohra and Hajji Zahid paid the amount as an interest-free loan on behalf of the Surat merchants and obtained a written bond from the mutsaddi (administrator) guaranteeing repayment.55

When Shivaji invaded Surat in January 1664 he initially invited the Surat mutsaddi, Virji Vohra, Hajji Zahid, and Hajji Qasim to negotiate terms with him. When the merchants refused to pay the ransom for the town, Shivajl set it on fire and killed its inhabitants. He seized pearls, valuable jewels, rubies, emeralds, and an incredible amount of money, from Virji Vohra's house. Hajji Zahid's house was likewise ransacked.56

In 1671 the sons of Virji Vohra and Hajji Zahid laid the Surat merchants' complaints about the administrator's extortions before Aurangzib's court. When they heard of the Emperor's proclamation inviting people to file any complaints they had against him, the sons of Virji and Hajji Zahid also petitioned the Emperor to repay the loan previously advanced to Prince Murad Bakhsh. The Emperor told them to prove their case. When they asked whether they should use the civil (diwdni) or shari'a procedures, the Emperor replied that both were admissible for redressing grievances. They proved their claim on the basis of a ruling from the Fatdwa al-'Almglriyya, which had recently been compiled. The imperial treasurer then reported that the sealed chest of money, which had been borrowed by the Prince, lay still unopened in the treasury. Before the Emperor could order its return, Hajji Zahid's son told him that they were interested only in proving their case and not in receiving any money. The chest and its contents were a humble gift to the Emperor from them. The Emperor was pleased, gave them robes of honour, and recalled the Surat mutsaddi.51 The story demonstrates both the wealth of the merchants and their influence at court.

Shantidas Jawhari, the leading Jain jeweller and banker in Ahmadabad, also had great influence at the Mughal court. He was a very devout Jain, and in 1629 Shahjahan granted land to the poshdlas (places for a Jain to stay when fulfilling a vow) built by Shantidas. He also built a very beautiful Jain temple near Ahmadabad. In 1654, however, Aurangzlb, who was then governor of Gujarat, converted it into a mosque by building a mihrab (niche) for prayer in it. Shantidas complained to Shahjahan. Mulla 'Abdu'l-Hakim, the great scholar and philosopher, declared that Aurangzlb had flagrantly violated the shari'a in usurping Shantldas's property. Consequently the mosque had no sanctity. Shahjahan ordered that a screen be erected in front of the mihrdb and the temple be restored to Shantidas. The imperial farman also commanded that any

229

material taken from the temple be restored and compensation paid for any material lost.

In November 1656 Prince Murad Bakhsh, who was then governor of Gujarat, granted the village Palitana to Shantidas for the use of Jain pilgrims. Shahjahan confirmed the grant. Before leaving Ahmadabad, Murad borrowed 550,000 rupees from Shantidas and his family. On 30 January 1658 Murad reconfirmed the Palitana grant to Shantidas, who had followed him to his camp at Mathura. Two days later Murad issued another farman ordering the repayment of the loan from the Gujarat revenue. Aurangzib imprisoned Murad on 1 July. However, after his coronation in Delhi, Aurangzib issued two farmans dated August 1658. The first confirmed Murad's arrangements for repaying the loan; the second ordered Shantidas 'to conciliate all the merchants, mahajans and common inhabitants and general residents of the Ahmadabad region to his rule' and to urge them to carry on peacefully with their normal daily activities. He also ordered the regional officers to help Shantidas in his business. Aurangzib issued another farman in 1659 in favour of Shantidas's son, ordering the government officers in Gujarat to help him realize his outstanding debts. On 22 March 1660 the Emperor issued yet another farman acknowledging Shantldas's help in providing the army with provisions for its march during the war of succession. He also confirmed the grant of Palitana.58

Brokers arranged for the supply of goods as middlemen between customers and small-scale producers. They also acted as clearing agents for their clients, paid customs duty, transported merchants' goods to warehouses, and arranged their sale. They obtained samples of cloth and other manufactured goods for their clients, paid advances to the manufacturers, and were helpful in many other ways. They controlled prices and the sale and purchase of commodities, exacting commission from both buyers and sellers. Barani called them profiteers and considered them responsible for rising prices. Sultan 'Ala'u'd-Din effectively stopped their profiteering and seems to have obtained their co-operation in fixing prices in relation to production costs. Sultan Firuz abolished the tax which brokers were required to pay. In Akbar's reign the kotwals appointed and supervised the broker for each occupational group.

During the seventeenth century the brokers proved indispensable to the European merchants, who knew neither the language nor the local craftsmen and constantly demanded loans from the local bankers. According to Pelsaert, the Hindus were very clever brokers and were employed throughout the country, 'except for the

230

sale of horses, oxen, camels, elephants, or any living creatures, which they will not handle as the Moslems do'.59 Tavernier says, 'The members of this caste are so subtle and skilful in trade that, as I have elsewhere said, they could give lessons to the most cunning Jews.'60 Although there were Muslim and Parsi brokers, the Hindu brokers of the Vaishia class were preferred even by Muslin-merchants.

231

VI RELIGION

PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENTS

Islamic religious movements generally arose out of controversies about Allah's attributes and decrees and their impact on the universe. Such movements did not emphasize the dichotomy between the secular and religious or temporal and spiritual. Muhammad, unlike Christ, did not urge his followers to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's'. Islamic religious and spiritual movements consequently have major political implications and repercussions. The founders of various religious movements sought state support to strengthen their ideologies, but this often recoiled upon the leaders' own heads.

It was in the wake of the battle of Siffin in June-July 657, between 'Ali and Mu'awiya, that a new movement, the 'ilm al-kalam (the science of defending orthodoxy by rational arguments), crystallized. One of the most important controversies within this movement concerned free will. One section, Jabriyya, denied man's freedom and claimed that human actions were subordinate to divine compulsion. Conversely another section, the Qadariyya, rejected predestination and believed that man produced his own actions; the word 'created' was never used. Their position was modified by the Mu'tazila, who founded the speculative dogmatics of Islam. According to them men are endowed with free will and are therefore rewarded for good deeds and punished for evil ones. God is aware of evil actions but He does not create them. He is just, neither desiring evil or ordaining it. His will and His commands are identical. The Mu'tazila recognize the divine attributes of knowledge, power, and speech but assert that they are not distinct from God's essence. They do not believe that there is an uncreated Word within God. 'Word of God' signifies that God gave the power of language to contingent beings so that He could communicate His law to man. The Quar'an, as the 'Word of God', according to the Mu'tazila refers to what God wants man to know.

The Mu'tazila were a pro-'Abbasid group but they were rejected by the 'Abbasid Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847-61). Several leading

232

Mu'tazila, who left the movement and founded their own schools, became pioneers of the defence of Sunni orthodoxy. The most prominent among them was Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari (873-936), who attracted a large number of disciples. He opposed the Mu'tazila by asserting that God knows, sees, and speaks by His knowledge, sight, and speech, and that Qur'anic expressions such as 'God's hand and face' do not refer to corporeal attributes but denote His 'grace' and 'essence'. According to the Ash'arites, the Qur'an is the word of God, eternal and uncreated. Whereas the Mu'tazila rejected belief in the possibility of a human vision of God, because this implied that He is corporeal and limited, al-Ash'ari preached the reality of the beatific vision after death, although its nature cannot be explained. The Ash'arites believe that the same matter assumes different forms and that the world consists of atoms which are united, disconnected, and reunited again. Al-Ash'ari's contemporary, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, also fostered the development of orthodox Sunnism although he differed from the Asha'rites on many significant points. To the Maturidis predestination and free will stand side by side. Both systems flourished in India and provided the basis for orthodox Sunni intellectuals and kalam.

The 'Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-33) set up an institution called the Baytu'l-hikma (House of Wisdom) where Greek scientific and philosophical literature of the late Hellenistic schools was translated into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. Some of the translators brought their conclusions into line with Islamic doctrines. Al-Kindi (c. 800-70), known as Faylsufu'l-'Arab (Philosopher of the Arabs), pioneered this strategy. Ar-Razi, known in Europe as Rhazes (d. 932) of Rayy (near Tehran), made original contributions to both philosophy and medicine. Al-Farabi (875-950), known as 'the second teacher' (Aristotle was the first), improved on al-Kindi's interpretations. His philosophy combined Aristotle and Plato's Republic and Laws with Neoplatonism. In the centre of Farabi's philosophy is the First Being or Absolute One, identified with Allah. Following Plato, Farabi identifies God with Absolute Good, while thinking and thought coincide in Being. Ibn Miskawayh's (d. 1030) Tahdhib al-akhlaq added a new dimension of deep ethical sensitivity to the understanding of Being. It was, however, Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037) who suggested that the entire knowledge of the physical world is subordinate to the knowledge of Being. He advocated an ontological distinction between essence (mahiya) or nature, and existence (wujud) or experience on the one hand, and a division between the necessary (wajib), the possible (mumkin), and the impossible (mumtani') on the other. Unity and existence are only accidents which may or may

233

not be added to essence for contingent humanity; but in the Necessary Being (Wajibu'l-Wujud) or God, essence and existence are inseparably united. The orthodox Islamic kalam preached that the world began at some point in time. They rejected the Greek system of the eternal heavens or any other order of reality which violated the notion of the transcendence of God. They believed that the entire creation is dependent upon the transcendence of the divine principle. Consequently the orthodox did not approve of the cosmological doctrines of Farabi and Avicenna, asserting that creation is the manifestation (ta'aqqul) by God of His own Essence. Ghazali (1058-1111) took both Farabi and Avicenna to task for advocating the eternity of the world and denying a specific act of creation. He contended that to state that earlier philosophers had believed that God was the maker or agent who created the world was to distort their philosophical writings. In fact, he claimed, according to the philosophers, God has no will or attributes, and whatever proceeds from Him is a necessary consequence of His nature. About a century later, Fakhru'd-Din RazI (1149-1209) carved out a new defence of Sunni Ash' arite: doctrine. He neither totally rejected Greek philosophy nor, like Avicenna's peripatetic followers, adhered strictly to it. He wrote critical commentaries on Avicenna's best-known works, such as al-Isharat wa'l-tanbihat and the Qanun. Razi completely rejected the Muslim philosophers' theory that only unity can follow from unity, claiming that multiplicity is also possible.

The influence of Ghazall and Razi provided a firm basis for the SunnI intellectual system, but the generation following Razi depended mainly on the state for the defence of Sunni orthodoxy. The Sunnis expected the state to annihilate their opponents, particularly the philosophers. For example, Sayyid Nuru'd-Din Mubarak Ghazanawi (d. 1234-5), who was a highly respected scholar in Delhi, claimed that kings could not obtain salvation unless they banished philosophers and stopped the teaching of philosophy.1 According to Barani, if Avicenna, who had revived Greek philosophy and was the philosophical leader in Muslim countries, had fallen into the hands of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, his contemporary, the Sultan would have ordered him to be cut into pieces and his flesh given to vultures.2 However, to Barani's utter disappointment, it proved impossible either to stop the study of philosophy or to bring about the expulsion of philosophers from India. The Qanun (Canon of Medicine) and the Kitab al-Shifa' (Book of Healing) by Avicenna were indispensable for physicians, whose numbers were rapidly increasing. The Kitdb al-Shifa' fascinated the Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq who was a great patron of philosophy.

234

According to Barani, it was the study of philosophy that had made Sultan Muhammad ruthless, stone-hearted, cruel, and irreligious; that study ought therefore to be taboo for rulers and their noblemen.3

In the fifteenth century Gujarat became the centre for Muslim intellectuals, the most prominent among whom was Abu'l-Fazl Gaziruni. Shaykh Abu'l-Fazl's father, Shaykh Mubarak, was Gaziruni's disciple and had studied the Kitdb al-Shifa' and al-Isharat wa'l-tanbihat under him. From Sultan Sikandar Lodi's reign the study of Avicenna's philosophy grew increasingly popular in Delhi. The pioneers in Delhi were Shaykh 'Abu'llah Tulambi (d. 1516) and Shaykh 'Azizu'llah Tulambi of Multan. When Shaykh Mubarak arrived in Agra in 1543 the study of philosophy and kalam was further increased. Abu'l-Fazl's mastery of philosophy and kalam enabled him to defeat the orthodox 'ulama' in the religious discussions at Akbar's court. The interest in philosophy and science was accelerated in northern India by Mir Fathu'llah Shirazi, who moved from 'Adil Shah's court in Bijapur to Akbar's court in 1582. Fathu'llah Shirazi remained at court until he died in 1589 while accompanying Akbar on his tour to Kashmir.