To anybody interested in South Asian history and anthropology, the observation that Islam came to predominate in the northwestern and northeastern peripheries is striking. It is particularly surprising in the case of the northeast (and by that I mean eastern Bengal aka Bangladesh) since Islamic invaders have been known to reach India overland from the Northwest. Here I offer a brief (and partial) synopsis of a scholarly book "The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760" by Richard M. Eaton (that is actually available online in its entirety for the curious reader here !), and append some of my own highly speculative suggestions.
Caveat : The historiography of South Asia particularly when it has to do with religion or race, especially questions pertaining to the Hindu-Muslim or Aryan-Dravidian divide (the latter is not a racial divide according to our modern understanding, but can certainly be seen as a ethno-linguistic dividing line), is politically charged and likely to arouse passions, in the light of recent historical developments, the most significant of which has been the religion-based Partition of the Indian subcontinent. Objectivity and lack of prejudice would be hard to find in such matters. The only good rule of the thumb is to take everything anyone says with a pinch of salt, a lump of salt actually when it comes to the religious right.
The Islamization of Bengal is a complex social phenomenon and must have had a complex combination of factors at work behind it. Indeed the book discusses four major plausible scenarios, and points out that each has its own shortcomings, and none can on its own provide a complete explanation.
a) Immigration: i.e. people of West Asian stock invaded/immigrated into this region displacing/killing off/peacefully coexisting with the indigenous population. This theory is probably the least credible in the light of anthropometric and genetic studies, which points to the indigenous origin of most Bengali Muslims. Also only a small fraction of them identify themselves as ashrafs, i.e. immigrants of middle-eastern origin, and are usually to be found in the more urban aristocratic classes, whereas the majority of ethnically Bengali Muslims were agriculturists settled in the more remote parts of the Gangetic delta.
b) Conversion by the sword : This theory has substantial precedent as it is common knowledge that the early phase of Islamic expansion happened through warfare and conquest (classic example : Persia). But if forced conversion was the major factor, one would have expected greater concentrations of Muslim populations nearer the major centers of Islamic power in India, which were always in the north and the west. Also it wouldn't explain how the majority of India managed to remain Hindu while the margins turned overwhelmingly Muslim. Understandably this is what today's Hindu right would like to subscribe to.
c) Conversion by Patronage : this is conversion by persuasion rather than by coercion and works through kings or aristocrats offering material or political incentives to convert, like better positions at the court, etc. Also expected to be stronger near the centers of Muslim power, mainly various urban principalities in the upper Gangetic plain, and fails for the same reason as b).
c) Conversion through Social Liberation : This is the most commonly heard theory, and was in fact appropriated by the Muslim League to find justification for the carving out of East Pakistan. This suggests that most Bengali Muslims come from the lower strata of the Hindu caste system and enthusiastically converted when presented with a more socially egalitarian religion like Islam. Detractors of this theory would say that Islam really didn't help their case as caste and class structures were preserved even within Islam and also point to the fact that substantial sections of east Bengal's indigenous lower caste populations i.e. Namashudras (aka chandals), Kaibartyas and Rajbongshis still remained Hindu at the time of Partition. Moreover caste strictures were stronger in upper India and western Bengal which however chose to remain Hindu.
The book emphasizes the point that Eastern Bengal has traditionally also been outside the core sphere of influence of Brahmanical Hinduism. Vedic texts do not include Bengal within the pale of Aryavarta, the ancient Aryan homeland in northern India. "Vanga", the kingdom roughly corresponding to most of Eastern Bengal, gets only peripheral mention. Interestingly enough this region also enthusiastically adopted Buddhism (something that the book does not discuss) and the earliest known texts in the Bengali script were actually composed by Buddhist monks. So this region always had a loose and remote relationship with Vedic Hinduism which no doubt might have helped the case of Islamic advent.
Caveat : The historiography of South Asia particularly when it has to do with religion or race, especially questions pertaining to the Hindu-Muslim or Aryan-Dravidian divide (the latter is not a racial divide according to our modern understanding, but can certainly be seen as a ethno-linguistic dividing line), is politically charged and likely to arouse passions, in the light of recent historical developments, the most significant of which has been the religion-based Partition of the Indian subcontinent. Objectivity and lack of prejudice would be hard to find in such matters. The only good rule of the thumb is to take everything anyone says with a pinch of salt, a lump of salt actually when it comes to the religious right.
The Islamization of Bengal is a complex social phenomenon and must have had a complex combination of factors at work behind it. Indeed the book discusses four major plausible scenarios, and points out that each has its own shortcomings, and none can on its own provide a complete explanation.
a) Immigration: i.e. people of West Asian stock invaded/immigrated into this region displacing/killing off/peacefully coexisting with the indigenous population. This theory is probably the least credible in the light of anthropometric and genetic studies, which points to the indigenous origin of most Bengali Muslims. Also only a small fraction of them identify themselves as ashrafs, i.e. immigrants of middle-eastern origin, and are usually to be found in the more urban aristocratic classes, whereas the majority of ethnically Bengali Muslims were agriculturists settled in the more remote parts of the Gangetic delta.
b) Conversion by the sword : This theory has substantial precedent as it is common knowledge that the early phase of Islamic expansion happened through warfare and conquest (classic example : Persia). But if forced conversion was the major factor, one would have expected greater concentrations of Muslim populations nearer the major centers of Islamic power in India, which were always in the north and the west. Also it wouldn't explain how the majority of India managed to remain Hindu while the margins turned overwhelmingly Muslim. Understandably this is what today's Hindu right would like to subscribe to.
c) Conversion by Patronage : this is conversion by persuasion rather than by coercion and works through kings or aristocrats offering material or political incentives to convert, like better positions at the court, etc. Also expected to be stronger near the centers of Muslim power, mainly various urban principalities in the upper Gangetic plain, and fails for the same reason as b).
c) Conversion through Social Liberation : This is the most commonly heard theory, and was in fact appropriated by the Muslim League to find justification for the carving out of East Pakistan. This suggests that most Bengali Muslims come from the lower strata of the Hindu caste system and enthusiastically converted when presented with a more socially egalitarian religion like Islam. Detractors of this theory would say that Islam really didn't help their case as caste and class structures were preserved even within Islam and also point to the fact that substantial sections of east Bengal's indigenous lower caste populations i.e. Namashudras (aka chandals), Kaibartyas and Rajbongshis still remained Hindu at the time of Partition. Moreover caste strictures were stronger in upper India and western Bengal which however chose to remain Hindu.
The book emphasizes the point that Eastern Bengal has traditionally also been outside the core sphere of influence of Brahmanical Hinduism. Vedic texts do not include Bengal within the pale of Aryavarta, the ancient Aryan homeland in northern India. "Vanga", the kingdom roughly corresponding to most of Eastern Bengal, gets only peripheral mention. Interestingly enough this region also enthusiastically adopted Buddhism (something that the book does not discuss) and the earliest known texts in the Bengali script were actually composed by Buddhist monks. So this region always had a loose and remote relationship with Vedic Hinduism which no doubt might have helped the case of Islamic advent.
There is historical evidence indicating waves of Islamic conversion in Bengal, the largest of which happened during Akbar's rule (the first time Bengal came under centralized Islamic rule integrated with the rest of northern India) and might have largely been effected by Sufi pirs. Caste rebellion, laxity of Hindu structure , all might have played their roles. It might be interesting to look at two other related issues. a) history of the indigenous "lower caste" communities of E. Bengal who formed the bulk of E.Bengali Hindu population at the time of Partition. Why would they resist conversion if the caste rebellion/ laxity of Hindu system theories would hold true?, and b) comparison with Malaya or Indonesia. this would suggest that Islam might have spread extensively through maritime routes, and would certainly explain in a geographically cogent sense why E. Bengal became a hotspot as compared to the upper Gangetic plains.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment