Some preliminary thoughts on Why Indian Culture sustained Islamic Conversion and Invasion But Africans Mostly Converted:
First let us go over the quick note on the different kinds of Jihads and related terms, to which I will return at the end. Jihad bi al-nafs: is the greater against one’s sinful inclinations.
Jihad bi al-sayf: Jihad of the sword
Jihad al-qawl: Preaching of the tongue
Bilad sa iba: Ungoverned land, where Muslims live under non-Muslims rule, such Muslims should be summoned to pay homage or bay a to a lawful emir and if they refuse a Jihad can be waged against them.
Mujahaddid: Reformer who appears at the beginning of each century.
While almost all indigenous cultures have been destroyed via conversion and iconoclasts, the ancient systems (Hinduism, confluence of Vedic and non Vedic cultures, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, which I will refer to as Dharma for the rest of this article) survived in India has been a matter of discussion and debate for a while now. Specially with what is known as Hinduism, the question has been asked why did it survive? This question has been posited as contrary to those the present state in Egypt, Mesopotemia, Persia, and most of Africa. It has been posed with regards to how Christianity has converted most of the South and Central American nations with indigenous population and cultures. This means that the ancient cultures are no longer the dominant cultures of these places. This is a hugely complex issue and needs thorough analysis and research. It is not possible to discuss all of the complexities in this small post, I will discuss only a small portion of this issue and try to drawn probably conclusions. My claim here is not to give any kind of profound answer, but to suggest some hypothesis that will answer the question why Dharma sustained despite several attempts aimed at cultural destruction via conversion, expansionist policies, and iconoclasts. Also, due to the complexity of the issue, I will restrict myself only to Islamic conversion in Africa vis a vis the Indian sub continent and see what the similarities and the difference are, from which we will draw a probabilistic conclusion about the survival of the Dharmic culture.
First, let us talk about some similarities between the modes of production and the cultural superstructures of both the African continent as well as the Indian sub continent. Both in the Indian sub continent as well as in the African continent, prior to the modern era or industrial revolution, land was not a commodity, that is could not be bought and sold. The “first settlers” were stewards or protectors of the land and it was passed down through the family but could not be exchanged in the market. The laws of inheritance guided this passage. Second, both in the Indian sub-continent as well as the African continent, there as a strong tradition of ancestor worship and these traditions were kept by the chief or the king. This was a central part of their religion in both places. These helped the indigenous cultures in both places to survive by holding onto the land via passing it down, and also passing down the cultural heritage of the ancestors, because both were sacred traditions and sustained the culture. Third, there is a similarity in the way people related to their faith identities. According to Azumah,
“African languages have no equivalent for the western word “religion” or indeed “ritual” so to consider the religions of Christianity and Islam, they have to start using an alien and imported word. Similarly, the practitioners of African traditional religions do not look upon their beliefs and practices as a distinct set of activities separated from economic or other ones, nor are the defined as the religions of Yoruba, Zulu or Kamba people as if the were national churches. An old traditionalist on being asked his religion would reply, “I am a Zulu” or whatever.” (Azumah, p, 48).
The above is true of people in the Indian sub continent, when asked they would say, “I am Hindu”, which stands for both a faith as well as ethnic and national identity, a carrier of the faith of ancestors and a preserver of the cultural heritage. “Religion” is not a set of codified law, but exists via performances. As Azumah says, “If you live want a definition of water, do not asked a fish”; it is through performance and actions, puja, rituals that they express their Hindu-ness or zulu -ness.
Despite the above similarities, there are several differences. First, the first people who carried Islam to the African continent were traders and some Pirs or preachers. They lived in separate communities or zongas. Nonetheless, there were, of course, mingling. Most of them mingled for trade. The Pirs or saints become popular because they provided the art of healing. Another reason why a lot of traders were hired in the Court of the indigenous Kings were because they knew the art of writing, which was used to document things in the Court of these people.
Now, let us look at the differences between the African continent and its encounter with Islam and the Indian sub continent. There are both metaphysical as well as economic reasons for that. First of all, there was a huge number of people, who already were inhabiting in the Indian sub continent and it was impossible to convert all of them. Second, there was nothing metaphysically that Islam could bring in that was not already there to satisfy the spiritual life of people. According to Sinha and Dasgupta, “The invaders (Islamic) could not present an advanced stage or system of human development to the Hindu psyche of Indian. It was no civilizational synthesizing, it was the martial aspect that let the Turks-Afghans ascend to the political paramountcy and to subsume a part of Hindu society.” Moreover, an art of healing, the Arthavaveda, was already in existence. So, while some people probably did go to the Pirs, not all did, as they already had an science and art of healing. Furthermore, Islam did not bring in writing with them, it was already in existence. Sanskrit was the Court language in Kashmir, which almost reached perfection.
Now let us turn to some economic reasons as to why the culture survived: As Sinha and Dasgupta points out, “… Hindus remained dominant in the affairs of trade and commerce, management of land and land revenue and local self-governance. Zamindars, local chieftains were predominantly Hindus. Apart from this, power Hindu kingdom existed peripheral to the Muslim sultanates since 13th to the 18th centuries till the coming of the British East India Co and then upto the period of 1947. This was the basic temporal reason why Islam could not convert more than15% of the total Indian people in about 650 years (1193-1857).” Most of the Turks Afghan rulers that came invading India and as fortune seekers, had little experience for land and land revenue management, nor had they trading affinity and experience. Mostly army personnel and mercenaries Turk-Afghan rulers settled in Delhi could not lay hold of the Indian economic that remained in the hands of the Hindus thought its growth was seriously stifled because of the existence of repressive pillaging alien Sultanate rule.” (Sinha and Dasgupta, p 11).
I would counter the last point made by Sinah and Dasgupta. For Africa too had powerful ruler from the indigenous community. According to Azumah, “One ruler, Nafata (1794-1801) literally imposed a ban on Hausa conversion to Islam, or rather a particular version of Islam as espoused by the preacher turned jihadist Uthman Dan Fodio (d 1817), and asked all male converts to revert to the traditions of their fathers. Nafata viewed the wearing of turbans and veils (“Fulani nomadic dresses in this context) as a challenge to the system he represented, and banned their use. These measure, taken to safeguard the traditional Hausa life, were in turn seen by Dan Fodio as religious intolerance and persecution of the Muslim religion, leading to confrontation and Jihad.” (Azumah, p, 50).
One point should be noted here that is similar in the indigenous community of the African sub continent and the Indian sub continent, that is the nature of inclusivity of both cultures. As said before, the understanding of “religion” as non-institutionalized and a non-codified system of beliefs and practices is that people could appropriate religious arts, rituals and other services without necessarily being “members” of or having to “convert” to the particular traditional In other words, there is an implicit openness and inclusiveness in traditional religiosity, as in the dharmas of the sub continent, which permits the appropriation and exchange of ideas and rituals at the individual and communal level without having to change one’s “religion”. When this happens, then one lives in ambiguous identities. This is when, in Africa the Jihad Al qwal had to be turned into Jihad bi al-sayf (see above). In other words, from the Jihad of the tongue to Jihad of the sword, as with Uthman Don Fodio, the Mujahaddin, (see above for the definition) in Nigeria. Of course, the theory behind this is that the Muslim cannot stay in ungoverned land (Bilad sa iba )and the ultimate aim is to establish global Islam under the Caliphate and bring the entire world under this rule.
