Indian History Introduction

HISTORY Purpose today two fold Large Patterns Overview to ca. 1500 For Large Patterns Indian History:  A Chronological Overview Making of “Classical” India 2500BCE -700 CE (3200 years) Making of Diversity 600 1800 CE (1200 years) There are TWO main areas of HISTORY I would like to address  POLITICAL-ECONOMIC and SOCIAL/CULTURAL as you will see, the two are related A theme running through all of these is DIVERSITY, how central it has been to the make up of India Also, CHALLENGES to the establishment Political Centralization followed by DE-CENTRALIZATION or Regionalism Orthodoxy Challenged by Heterodoxy Hierarchy Challenged by Calls for Social Justice

Overview “CLASSICAL PATTERN” What does that phrase mean? The “classical” of South Asia must include developments relating to: POLITICAL: Kingship State formation, Empires SOCIAL : formations, Varna / Caste CHALLENGES : Upanishads, Buddhism, Jainism etc Migrations and Absorption KEY to this tradition is DIVERSITY and PLURALISM Long Term Pattern of CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION REGIONAL and CULTURAL DIVERSITY Regional Kingdoms and Languages (700-1200 BCE) Islam 700 CE onwards: makes a new contribution, radical egalitarianism & refusal of Varna Delhi Sultanates 1200-1500 Mughals 1526-1857

“CLASSICAL TRADITIONS”: POLITICAL 2500-200 BCE Earliest INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION, ca 2500 BCE, advanced urban CIVILIZATION. Replaced around 1500 BCE with nomadic one. Don’t know quite HOW that transformation occurs.   Nomads, calls themselves ARYA, speak a language called SANSKRIT POLITICAL: As society more complex, they had to be organized into STATES, into governments.  Kingship Emerges out of lineage assemblies that used to make decisions STATES, fight over RESOURCES, or try to GET more resources. EMPIRES, by 230 BCE all India  LAND main resource, but people already ON land, or in forests. Displacing occurs

“CLASSICAL TRADITIONS”: SOCIAL 2500-700 CE Social divisions justified by ideology. For power. Nomads called themselves ARYA, defeated folks DASA An ideology of distinction was called VARNA. As nomads settle to agriculturalists and then towns, the 2-fold division changed to the 4-fold division we today call “The Caste System” [why all three words are wrong!] BRAHMIN, KSHATRIYA, VAISYA-VIS, SHUDRA. AND OUTCASTE The reason the idea spread, was 1. that it was good way for the powerful people to LEGITIMIZE and JUSTIFY their power. 2. Also, fairly flexible, A good way to INCORPORATE other groups. Between 1500 BCE and 700 CE, 2000 years, many groups enter Indian subcontinent, GREEKS, HUNS, CHINESE, MONGOL etc. Most INCORPORATED, by accepting their LEADERS as warrior and others according to status. New rulers claim they were KSHATRIYA, pay Brahmins to fabricate lineages. So POWER legitimized. Nice little nexus between the priests and warriors, mutual backscratching! More about this when you have questions, we will return to this later in the course

CHALLENGES TO THE “CLASSICAL” MODEL The same period that saw emergence of classical pattern also saw CHALLENGES to these ideas of Brahman superiority, BUDDHA, MAHAVIRA (founder of JAINISM) came from KSHATRIYA background, repudiate caste, Brahmin superiority  UPANISHADS ca. 1000 BCE even earlier Period from circa 250 BCE to almost 700 CE (a millennium!!) is one where different empires rise and fall. Also a period when distinct geographical cultural regions emerge  This is CRITICAL, because reflects a trend of CENTRALIZATION and DECENTRALIZATION.  Nationalists say decentralization is bad, but, really regional efflorescence. Language, cultures, political kingdoms. Only from POV of MODERN STATE, whether colonial or national, is this a bad thing.

Islam “Foreign-ness” and Diversity Throughout, from about 1st century CE at least, people coming in from NW and absorbed. Huns, Scythians, etc. Rajputs. 10-11th century saw the first group who could not be absorbed into "Hindu“ Varna system These were Muslims, own distinct ideas of religion Central to this was idea of equality of all believers  Islam, name of religion, Muslims = followers of Islam  Sometimes termed “foreign”to India, but Islam is significantly older than Protestantism in Europe, or any form of Christianity in the Americas British INTERPRETATION of History (justifying their own rule over India) gives us this idea Islam adds another layer of diversity on an already diverse subcontinent

The era of regional diversity, 600-1200 CE 600 - 1200 CE. Rajput lineages control the north and Cholas the south. Earliest Muslim-rules kingdom in SIND ca. 700 C.E. Raids by central Asian Muslim invaders begin ca. 1000. Muslim RAIDERS like Mahmud of Ghazni, c. 900-1000 C.E. 1206 to 1526 Era of the Delhi Sultanate. Muslim ruling dynasties establish their home base in the Indian subcontinent and make the city of Delhi their capital.  SULTANS of Delhi are Muslim rulers BASED in the subcontinent unlike, e,g., Mahmud Ghazni In structure their kingdoms are very similar to those of regional kingdoms preceding them. Last of them defeated by BABUR in 1526. Muslim rulers of India were not religious bigots, could not AFFORD to be (why do we have to say this?)  Conversion to Islam connected with AGRICULTURE and with RELIGIOUS work of SUFI mystics (very similar to “Hindu” Bhakti ideas) and state patronage End of Sultanate, once again FRAGMENTATION and DECENTRALIZATION. Very similar to say, maps around 600-700 CE!

MUGHALS 1526 to 1857 Mughal India. Babur defeats the last of the Delhi Sultans in 1526 to found the Mughal dynasty. Mughal political authority declines at the expense of regional powers after 1707, with the death of emperor Aurangzeb. A titular Mughal emperor survives till 1857.  Mughals first MODERN state, new forms of revenue collection (taxes), systematic, organized bureaucracy, state tried to reach down to various levels. This is why RICH, (Mogul-MUGHAL), and POWERFUL,  ALSO a Period of Indo-Islamic synthesis in music, art, language, literature, and architecture, even RELIGION under AKBAR. Amongst others much of what the west knows of “India”-- e.g. the TAJ MAHAL, Indian food, or even much of the music, comes from this era.  Mughal rule based, as before on collection of LAND REVENUE. New system JAGIRDARI/MANSABDARI  Expansion, INCORPORATE, but work till no RESISTANCE  By 18th C, resistance!

Decline of Mughals and Successor States Aurangzeb meet RESISTANCE.  BRITISH view = decline of Mughals because of Aurangzeb’s BIGOTRY, actually not really so. PIOUS but not bigot  Aurangzeb faced challenges from NEW emerging social groups: Challenges that he ignored while expanding SOUTHWARD JAT, and also MARATHAS given lots of PRIVILEGES under Aurangzeb. e.g. Shivaji and his family. Led to greater demands.  Rulers after Aurangzeb not able to maintain the system, FAULT LINES open up 1. ZAMINDARS who or what are they? Independent landholder holders not owners ran “little kingdoms” 2. PRINCES Mughal ruler = Shahenshah, Prince of Princes 3. GOVERNORS Mughal Administrators, e.g. Hyderabad, Bengal, Awadh  WHERE ELSE did the challenges come from? 1. SIKHS/ JATS north India 2. MARATHAS western India 3. INVADERS = Nadir Shah, 1739; Abdali 1748, 1757 4. Own governors  BY MIDDLE OF 18th CENTURY a VARIETY OF “SUCCESSOR STATES” IN PLACE Mughal Authority only titular, not real

Successor States and the European Traders OUDH, BENGAL, MARATHAS, HYDERABAD and MYSORE among the most important successor states Each hoping to replace the Mughals as the new “centralizing” power But new players in the picture in the form of European trading Companies, Dutch, French and English. Portuguese a declining presence over 17th Century IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EUROS EEIC IN PARTICULAR TOOK OVER FROM THE SUCCESSOR STATES, NOT THE MUGHALS, WHO WERE A SPENT FORCE BY THE THIRD QUARTER OF 18th CENTURY, 1770s OR SO