Muslim conquest of Sindh

Unlike the coasts of Malabar, the northwestern coasts were not as receptive to the Middle Eastern arrivals. Hindu merchants in Sindh and Gujarat perceived the Arab merchants to be competitors. The Umayyads came into conflict with Sindh's Hindu rulers over piracy in the maritime trade routes. The rulers of Sindh had failed to control this piracy (or maybe they had benefited from it).^[44] When in 711 the locals seized a ship that was travelling to the Umayyad dynasty, an expedition was sent out by the Umayyads to conquer Sindh.^[44][45] The expedition, led by the young Muhammad Bin Qasim, was made up of both an overland and naval army.^[45] The conquest might have been assisted by Mahayana Buddhists struggling against Brahmins for political reasons.^[44]

The Arab conquerors, contrary to popular beliefs about Muslims, did not have an interest in converting the local populations.^[45] Local Sindhi Hindus and Buddhists were accorded dhimmi status.^[45][44] This was the first instance of this status being conferred upon peoples not mentioned in the Quran.^[44] Although a few select temples were destroyed initially, religious life continued as it had done before.^[46] Eventually, most Sindhis became Muslim.^[47] While Sindh had been ruled by a Brahmin in the early 700s the local population had then also comprised Jains, Buddhists and followers of various cults, contrary to the perception that South Asian Muslims were largely converts from Hinduism.^[45] Evidence about Sindhi conversions during the early period of Arab rule indicates that converts originated from the higher, rather than lower, echelons of local society, choosing to incorporate themselves into the Muslim ruling class by virtue of a common religious identity.^[47]

Ghaznavid Sultanate

With the weakening of the Abbasid Caliphate, Mamluks declared themselves independent sultanates.^[48][44] Muslim scholars propounded, especially after the end of the Abbasid Caliphate, that each sultan should assume the role of caliph in their own area, a proposition known to some as the "pious sultan" theory.^[49] Mahmud who ruled the sultanate of Ghazna expanded his rule into Punjab, transforming Lahore into both a border cantonment and vital center for Islamic scholarship.^[44] Mahmud's court was both urbane and sophisticated. He provided patron to works on poetry, science and Sufism. The first Persian Sufi text in South Asia, Kashf al-Mahjub, was composed in Ghaznavid Lahore by Shaykh Abul Hasan 'Ali Hujwiri, whose shrine is one of the most important in South Asia. His work was to become a crucial source for early Sufi philosophy.^[47]

Sufi groups entered the Sultanate as Sunni missionaries; Suhrawardi Sufis actively opposed Ismailis. These included Bahauddin Zakariya, centered in Multan, Sayyid Jalal Bukhari of Uch and Ali Hujwiri of Lahore.^[50] Mahmud also took part in religiopolitical issues. He opposed the Fatimid presence in Sindh and invaded Sindh.^[44] He carried out raids deep in the Gangetic plains and political accounts claim that his policy was to loot Hindu temples.^[51] There is a dispute among historians if religion was a motive for the looting and what the extent of these activities was. There is a consensus, however, that the loot acquired funded campaigns to the west of the Sultanate.^[50]

Delhi Sultanates

Under Muhammad of Ghor's leadership a fresh current of Persianized Turks initiated conquests of Ghaznavid principalities in Punjab. They took Delhi by 1192, and Ajmer and Kanauj afterwards. Quality horses and horsemanship characterized their war arsenal.^[48] Qutubuddin Aibek assumed control over Delhi upon Ghori's demise.^[48] His dynasty came to be referred to as the "Slave dynasty". In Bengal, during the establishment of Qutb al-Din Aibak's general Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, the Islamic missionaries of India achieved their greatest success in terms of dawah and number of converts to Islam.^[53][54] The Khiljis dynasty extended Delhi's authority into the Deccan and were succeeded by the Tughluq dynasty which fell victim to Timur's raids who moved into Delhi in 1398.^[48] Most of the sultanates' populace continued to live as they did before but important developments took place under the reign of the sultans. These included the development of networks all over South Asia and with Central Asia and the cultivation of Arab and Persian traditions.^[55]

Their military prowess accorded protection to South Asia from upheavals caused by Mongols in the thirteenth-century.^[55] Scholars and others fleeing Mongol despoliation found sanctuary in South Asia.^[55][50] In this period conversions began of Punjab and Bengal's newly settled agriculturists.^[55] The sultans posited that their rule provided stability which allowed Islamic life to prosper.^[55] Their Islamic rhetoric meant the political supremacy of the Afghan and Sunni Turkic elite. Despite such rhetoric, growing South Asian Muslim communities outside the sultanate were recruited into the armies of Hindu kings who were warring against the Turkic sultans. Similarly, the sultanate also included Hindu soldiers in their militaries.^[50]

The Delhi Sultanate favoured the Shafi'i law, although most subcontinental Muslims followed Hanafi jurisprudence. The administration's official structure included authoritative Islamic scholars who guided qadis, or Islamic judges.^[50][55] While the Delhi Sultanate was formally Islamic and appointed Islamic scholars to high offices, their state policy was not based on Islamic law. Their government was based on the pragmatisms surrounding the maintenance of minority rule over a vast populace. The fourteenth century figure Ziya al-Din Barani criticised both Ala al-Din Khalji and Muhammad Tughlug for their lack of concern with Islamic law.^[56] To one Islamic scholar, Ala al-Din asserted that his policies were based on state interest, rather than Islamic injunctions.^[57]

Iltumish delineated the role of sharia in shaping the politics of the predominantly non-Muslim territory. Some scholars had requested that he apply Islamic law to compel Hindus to convert or else be killed. But the vizier called it unrealistic because of the low Muslim population. Iltumish ignored Islamic law by selecting his daughter as his heir. He declared, through his refusal to shelter Khwarem Shah from Genghis Khan, that Delhi's Turkish authority would not participate in the political struggles in eastern Islamic countries. He also legitimised his goals by acquiring a letter of appointment from the caliph in Baghdad. His declaration that Indian law would not be built fully upon Islamic law was apparently supported by the nobility. Eventually, Turkish authority came to be characterised by the careful balance of the sharia with contemporary needs.^[58] Muslim scholars outside India had already effectively accepted the limitation of religious law to family and proprietary matters as long as the rulers did not formally reject the authority of sharia over all aspects of life.^[49]

Regional empires of the 15th century

Regional states emerged in the 1400s and early 1500s, providing for a cultural flowering. While sultans still ruled Delhi, their territorial authority was restricted.^[59] As the Delhi Sultanate weakened, governors in many regions declared independence.^[50] In 1406 Malwa, south of Delhi, became independent. Under the Sharqi dynasty Jaunpur overtook Delhi in importance. Bengal became independent during Firoz Shah Tughluq's rule. These kingdoms all became intellectual centers and housed important Sufis.^[59] The regional dynasties provided patronage to Sufi leaders to justify their independence from Delhi.^[50]

By the middle of the 1300s, the Deccan's Bahmanid dynasty became independent of Delhi. By the beginning of the 1500s this kingdom split further into five smaller kingdoms which continued to exist during the Mughal rule. The development of Dakhni Urdu was a major cultural milestone in this time.^[60] These regional kingdoms often fought each other and also fought against, and sometimes with, the Hindu-ruled Vijayanagara empire. They also interacted and came into conflict with the Portuguese, who were on the coasts.^[61] The "long fifteenth century" ended with Muhammad Zahiruddin Babur, later considered the founder of the Mughal empire, defeating the last Lodhi sultan in 1526.^[62]

Mughal Empire

Babur's rule lasted only four years and both him and his successor, Humayun, did little more than to establish frontier garrisons. The Surs, resurgent Afghans who ruled until Humayun retook power in his life's final year, laid the foundation for road infrastructure and agricultural surveys. The Mughal dynasty was to be established as an empire under Humayun's heir, Akbar, who expanded Mughal frontiers.^[64] Akbar sought to build the empire upon an inclusive elite. He initiated his dynasty's custom of taking Rajput brides without converting them to Islam. The Mughal elite also included Shia Persians, some local and Arab Muslims, Rajputs, Brahmins and Marathas. The state's unifying ideology was based on loyalty to the ruler instead of tribal affinities or Islamic identity. The ideology incorporated the mainly non-Muslim lower officials.^[65]

Akbar's teachings, known as din-i-ilahi, drawn from Islam, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism,^[66] were a pivot for a few court members who took Akbar to be their spiritual, in addition to royal, head.^[67] The inner circle included a few Hindus including Birbal and Todal Mal. Opposition came from the court ulama, most famously from Abdul Qadir Badayuni, due to whom Akbar was remembered for apostasy. Akbar supported translating the Sanskrit texts of Mahabharata and the Ramayana into Persian and he abolished the jizya, which was taxed from non-Muslims.^[68]

A major issue concerned assimilation and syncretism. The Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire both generally safeguarded and commissioned Hindus. This tendency was epitomized by the policies of Akbar. A difficult issue was that Hindus who converted to Islam often kept to much of their old beliefs. Even worse, Sufi and Hindu mystics developed proximity. Closer contacts between Sufis and Hindus were encouraged by the influence of Chaitanya, Kabir and Nanak.^[69] These things worried pious Muslims, particularly in the midst of political turbulence. They wrote against mystics and to educate the converts. Syncretism was opposed by Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi,^[70] a popular Naqshbandi leader.^[71] His followers also denounced the mixing of Sufi and Upanishadic philosophies.^[66]

Akbar's religious predispositions continued under Jahangir who was devoted to both the Qadiri saint, Miyan Mir, and the Vaishnava yogi, Gosain Jadrupp.^[68] Initially, Jahangir also enjoyed cordial relations with the Sufi Naqshbandis, who were stricter than the Chishtis. But he could not tolerate criticism from Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi who criticized the government for failing to follow Islamic sharia law.^[71]

One of the reasons for Akbar's success had been his administrative reforms.^[72] Aurangzeb is often blamed for destroying the empire's administrative efficiency and pluralism. He had competed with his brother Dara Shikoh for the throne and the two have been considered ideological adversaries.^[73] Dara Shikoh followed Akbar's tradition and searched for common religious truths from all religions.^[74] Among his works were the translation of the Sanskrit Upanishads and Majmua'u'l-Bahrain, a treatise connecting Sufi and Upanishadic philosophies. Aurangzeb charged Dara Shikoh with apostasy.^[75]

Aurangzeb created an image of himself as a pious Muslim ruler to disguise his violation of the sharia when he incarcerated his father.^[76] To strengthen his rule Aurangzeb quickly applied a different kind of Islam. This was not easy because his imprisonment of his father had contravened both the sharia and the people's sensibilities. Aurangzeb granted large gifts to the Meccan authorities to improve his image and counter such criticism.^[77] While Aurangzeb did shift the empire's religious policy he did not seriously change it. Aurangzeb supported the ulama and had Islamic judicial opinions compiled in the Fatawa Alamgiri.^[75]

His personal piety led to the court's lifestyle becoming more austere. He banned court music and the use of gold in male clothing. Painting also declined.^[76] He had many mosques constructed, such as the Badshahi mosque which is still the largest in South Asia, and a mosque inside Shah Jahan's fort at Delhi. Aurangzeb also initiated a simpler architectural tradition for tombs.^[78] Aurangzeb imposed jizya, required by sharia, on the non-Muslim population, which drew disdain from the non-Muslim population.^[79] The Islamic orthodoxy played a role in alienating the Rajputs upon whom the dynasty had depended since its beginning.^[77]

Eighteenth century onwards

Muslim power quickly vaporized in the eighteenth century and was replaced with successor Hindu, Sikh and Muslim states competing for power with the British East India Company.^[86] The loss of Muslim power to non-Muslims such as the Marathas and Sikhs strengthened calls for a "purist Islam."^[87] Shah Wali Allah, a notable eighteenth century Islamic revivalist,^[87] criticized the way religion was popularly practiced in India at the shrines and emphasized the importance of jihad against infidels. His instruction had minimal impact while he was alive – even drawing poetic satire for his attempt to view the Afghan invader, Ahmad Shah Abdali, as a liberator of Islam in the subcontinent – but they provided an inspiration for Sunni Muslim scholars.^[88]

Despite the defeat at the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali, at the Battle of Panipat in 1761, the Marathas continued to dominate the subcontinent's western regions until they were finally conquered in 1818 by the British.^[89] After defeating the Marathas the British became the dominant power.^[86] The effect of British rule was different for the various classes of the Muslim population.^[90] For the elite it meant the loss of their culture.^[91] The institution of feudalism had the same impact on Muslim peasants and landlords as it did on non-Muslims. But there were more Muslim peasants in Bengal to be affected. Similarly, most weavers in Dacca were Muslim, so Muslims suffered more even though Hindus weavers had also been affected by the Lancashire competition.^[92]

Islamic scholars reacted slowly to the British rule.^[92] Shah Abdul Aziz, a leading scholar from Delhi, had a good relationship with the British.^[93] He issued an academic ruling that Indian territories governed by the British were dar al-harb, to ease the minds of those who had to live under non-Muslim administration^[91] and to give practical guidance in issues which incur different rulings in a dar ul-harb setting; i.e. interest rates.^[94] Even though anti-colonial nationalists interpreted this fatwa to support jihad against British rule, Shah Abdul Aziz believed that rebellion against the British authority was unlawful because the British had given Muslims religious freedom.^[94] Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Bareilly actively encouraged the defence of Islamic culture, but also refrained from actively resisting the East India Company.^[95]

Saiyid Ahmad's ideas won significant support in northern India and thousands joined his Sufi order.^[96] In 1826 he and his followers departed on a three thousand mile journey, though Rajputana, Sindh, Baluchistan and Afghanistan, and arrived in Charsadda, where he declared jihad against the Sikhs who were ruling Punjab. Nearby Pathan chiefs, including Peshawar's sardars, joined Saiyid Ahmad,^[97] who established a state.^[96] He was declared imam in January 1827 and was given bai'a. However, Saiyid Ahmad's mujahideen were defeated in March after one sardar from Peshawar, Yar Muhammad Khan, betrayed them. Yar Muhammad Khan was later defeated by Saiyid Ahmed who established himself at Peshawar. The Pathans disliked foreign rule, even if it was in Islam's name, and revolted, driving Saiyid Ahmad out and killing many of his tax collectors.^[97] The Sikhs killed Saiyid Ahmad, Shah Ismail and approximately six hundred followers at the Battle of Balakot in 1831.^[96][97] With the Sikhs' own defeat in 1849 by the East India Company, all of the subcontinent was under Company rule.^[94]

1857 and its aftermath

In less than a decade British control was disrupted by an army mutiny and civil unrest in northern and central parts of India. There were many factors feeding the rebellion such as taxes, army conditions and random dismissals of princes. Soldiers rallied around the Mughal emperor Bahaur Shah Zafar, taking him as a symbolic leader. Hindu soldiers were initially dominant and the strongest rebels included Hindu Marathas. Some ulama also supported the revolt but their role was minor. Yet the British reprisals targeted Muslims in particular;^[98] Delhi and Lucknow were treated savagely.^[99]

Many, especially younger, British administrators suspected a Muslim hand behind the uprising. But Hindus had also been prominent.^[99] The first mutinies were caused by Hindus concerned for their caste and honour, civil uprisings were usually led by Hindus and most rebellious taluqdars in Awadh were Hindus.^[100] Furthermore, prominent Muslims such as Sayyid Ahmad Khan were loyal to the British.^[99] There was no support for the revolt from Bengali Muslims and Punjabi Muslims joined the British troops as reinforcements.^[99][101]

The rebellion, rather than being a Muslim revolt, was mainly by those who had felt aggrieved under the British rule.^[99] After the uprising, the British distrusted Muslims. This British position changed by the late nineteenth century when the Muslims sought British protection for their interests from the Hindu population.^[102] Sir Syed Ahmed Khan led the process of Muslim engagement with the British^[103] and in large part cultivated the new image of Muslims as loyalists of the British.^[102]

Colonial rule and freedom movement

British Bengal was divided for administrative reasons.^[104] The new province contained a Muslim majority.^[105] Dismayed Bengali Hindus agitated against this move, political terrorism characterizing their agitation.^[104] The Muslim leadership, disturbed by Hindu behavior, sought security in the new province.^[106] The formation of the Muslim League was the most significant outcome of the partition.^[107] It was founded by the Muslim elite in Dhaka in 1906 to safeguard Muslim interests.^[108] The League sent a deputation to Lord Minto in 1906 to ask for parliamentary representation for Muslims reflecting their political importance.^[109] The Minto–Morley Reforms in 1909 introduced the separate electorates system which reserved seats for Muslims.^[110]

In 1919, prominent ulama campaigned to defend the Ottoman caliphate in what became known as the Khilafat Movement.^[111] They were backed by Gandhi, partially out of principle and partially to block the reuse of Muslims to support British authority.^[112] By the time Gandhi was released from imprisonment in 1924 Hindu Muslim relations had deteriorated.^[113] Jinnah, once ambassador of Hindu–Muslim unity and member of both the Congress and Muslim League felt isolated and was unwanted by the Congress.^[114] While in London he encountered and rejected Rahmat Ali's proposal of a Muslim state called Pakistan.^[115]

He returned to India^[116] and in the 1936 elections the Muslim League won only a quarter of the Muslim vote, the Congress 6 percent while the remaining 69 percent was won by regional parties in the Muslim majority provinces.^[117] The results demonstrated that neither the League nor the Congress represented Muslims, whose politics were provincially oriented.^[118] Jinnah turned his attention to the Muslim majority provinces^[117] and proposed a separate Muslim state at a Muslim League session in Lahore in 1940.^[119]

In the ensuing years of the Lahore resolution Jinnah and the League's power gradually consolidated.^[120] By the end of World War II the League was a mass movement^[121] and went into the 1945–1946 elections solely over its Pakistan campaign.^[122] It was victorious and won most provincial and all central Muslim seats; winning the majority of Muslim seats in Bengal and the Muslim minority provinces and a plurality in Punjab.^[123] Many middle class Muslims had voted for the League to escape Hindu competition while others had voted for ambitions about Islamic law and moral authority.^[124] Some ulama, including Deobandi, also backed the Pakistan demand to live under the law of Islam.^[124]

After the election victory Jinnah had gained a strong hand to negotiate with the Congress and the British. The British Cabinet Mission proposed a three-tiered form of government for the Indian Union.^[125] Effectively, the League would have two large semi-autonomous territories inside a loose federation.^[126] Both the League and Congress accepted the plan^[125] but on 10 July Nehru spurned the notion of provincial groupings which comprised the plan.^[127] To break the impasse British Prime Minister sent the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. Frustrated with sharing power with the League in the interim government the Congress agreed to a partition of Punjab and Bengal.^[128] Mountbatten presented the partition plan on 2 June 1947 to the Indian leadership. For Jinnah it was a bitter pill and a disappointment for the League leaders who were embittered with the British and Congress for not granting them six whole provinces.^[129]

After Independence

The partition displaced between 10 and 20 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions.^{[130][131][132][133]} There was large-scale violence, with estimates of the loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.^{[lower-alpha 1]} The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that affects their relationship to this day.