Indo-persian, why this definition not extended to ''Persia''?

#1
indo persian in a eurocentric way seem to only indicate that a specific culture formed in india which had persian influence and made north indian culture distinct from south india, but the western scholars seem to get night mares when reverse is suggested, why cant indo persian culture extend to both india and persia, it has been suggested that india borrowed from persia, linguistic point of view, its pretty evident and clear from patronage of the persian language more so even then its native persia, for instance akbar commissioned a big hamza nama manuscript and shahnama of persia was made into illustrated manuscript very early in india as well during dehli sultanate, but not so much on other indian cultures, but why has it been declared ''indo persian culture'' in restricted north indian sense. It is also argued that south india and north india didn't have much distinction before ''indo persian'' thingy, but aryan vs dravidian stuff has been made, the architecture difference between north and south since pre islamic era is also well defined, there is not only north and south but east and west as well, so why ''indo persian'' has been given as an excuse of distinct north indian culture which deviated from ''native'' ''south indian culture'', same excuse is given for aryan migration resulting in ''north indian languages, these eurocentric theories just tow one monotonous line.

persians and indians both seem to have been ruled by persian speaking ''turks'', but there was mutual cultural exchange as well but it seems that indo persian only implies persian culture moving east.

regards
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
3,294
Des Moines, Iowa
#2
Because historically, the cultural influence was very much one-sided. It was Persianized Muslims who ruled India, but no Indianized Muslims ever ruled Persia. Whatever similarities exist between the Safavid architecture of Persia and the Mughal architecture of North India (for example) can be attributed to a common Perso-Islamic heritage, and the differences can be attributed to local Indian influences on the latter that did not extend to the former. Thus, we can use the term "Indo-Persian" to describe the high culture of Islamic India, but not that of Persia.
 
Likes: bhattacharya
#3
Because historically, the cultural influence was very much one-sided. It was Persianized Muslims who ruled India, but no Indianized Muslims ever ruled Persia. Whatever similarities exist between the Safavid architecture of Persia and the Mughal architecture of North India (for example) can be attributed to a common Perso-Islamic heritage, and the differences can be attributed to local Indian influences on the latter that did not extend to the former. Thus, we can use the term "Indo-Persian" to describe the high culture of Islamic India, but not that of Persia.
umm, no, this is exactly a very eurocentric opinion.

my opinion is actually based on direct evidences and archaeology. for instance chess went from india to persia, without india indianizing or conquering persia, india also never conquered any indianized kingdoms whether in central asia, west asia or south east asia. scondly persia and india both were being ruled by turkic rulers, i do understand that those turks were persianized as is always propagated, but they also were indianized, so initially after the turks conquered persia, a lot of buddhist arts and culture went to persia, a prime example is hamam culture, it was essentially a buddhist culture. There are also several examples i can quote from the sassanids how the indian culture went there, the chess for instance which i already stated, and then the arabian nights what we know today were very much influenced by jatakas and the panchatantras, persians had no tradition of story telling like that, or atleast not that im aware of, the frame story of shehrzad trying to save her life by tell stories is also of indian roots. Persian painting which has been declared as ''influenced by china'' is infact the buddhist painting influence which were brought by the central asians when they occupied persia. a lot of persian element which has been propagated is without any concrete evidences, the evidences are infact in india and indianized kingdoms of central asia an west asia.

regards
 
Oct 2012
3,294
Des Moines, Iowa
#6
umm, no, this is exactly a very eurocentric opinion.

my opinion is actually based on direct evidences and archaeology. for instance chess went from india to persia, without india indianizing or conquering persia, india also never conquered any indianized kingdoms whether in central asia, west asia or south east asia. scondly persia and india both were being ruled by turkic rulers, i do understand that those turks were persianized as is always propagated, but they also were indianized, so initially after the turks conquered persia, a lot of buddhist arts and culture went to persia, a prime example is hamam culture, it was essentially a buddhist culture. There are also several examples i can quote from the sassanids how the indian culture went there, the chess for instance which i already stated, and then the arabian nights what we know today were very much influenced by jatakas and the panchatantras, persians had no tradition of story telling like that, or atleast not that im aware of, the frame story of shehrzad trying to save her life by tell stories is also of indian roots. Persian painting which has been declared as ''influenced by china'' is infact the buddhist painting influence which were brought by the central asians when they occupied persia. a lot of persian element which has been propagated is without any concrete evidences, the evidences are infact in india and indianized kingdoms of central asia an west asia.

regards
Here are the facts:

  • Muslim rulers in India adopted Persian titles like Badshah and Shahanshah. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who adopted an Indian title like maharaja or chakravartin.
  • Muslim rulers in India used Persian names like Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, and Farrukhsiyar. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who used an Indian name like Vikramaditya, Jayasimha, or Rajendra.
  • Muslim rulers in India used Persian as the court language and patronized Persian literature, to the extent that we have far more more Persian manuscripts from the medieval subcontinent than from Persia itself. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who used Sanskrit or any other Indian language as a court language, or who patronized literature written in any Indian language.
  • Muslim rulers in India adopted the nastaleeq script to write not only Persian, but also native Indian languages like Kashmiri and Hindustani/Urdu, and there is significant borrowing of Persian vocabulary by almost all North Indian languages. Even the Marathas, a Hindu power, made frequent use of Persian terms like peshwa and phadnavis. On the other hand, there was never any ruler of Persia who adopted Devanagari or any other Indian script, nor did they make use of Indian terms like mantri and amatya.
  • Muslim rulers in India built mosques, mausoleums, and other forms of architecture that consciously imitated older Persian architecture, and planned new cities with Persian models in mind. For example, the Adina mosque in Bengal consciously imitated the Sassanian Persian palaces, and the Qutb Shahis in the Deccan imported architects from Iran to plan the city of Hyderabad. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who built a mosque or mausoleum that imitated or derived inspiration from an Indian structure, nor was there any Persian ruler in recorded history who imported architects from India into Persia to build a new capital city modeled on an Indian capital.

For all of these reasons, and more, we use the term "Indo-Persian" in reference to the Muslim ruling elites of India, but not in reference to the ruling elites of Iran. The level of Indian influence on Iran is minuscule compare to the level of Persian influence on India (particularly on Indian Muslims), and this is an objective fact that has nothing to do with "Eurocentric bias" (I'm not sure what Europeans even have to do with historical relations between India and Persia). There were indeed Indianized kingdoms outside of India, such as in Southeast Asia, but not in the Islamic Persian world.
 
Likes: prashanth
#7
Here are the facts:

  • Muslim rulers in India adopted Persian titles like Badshah and Shahanshah. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who adopted an Indian title like maharaja or chakravartin.
  • Muslim rulers in India used Persian names like Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, and Farrukhsiyar. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who used an Indian name like Vikramaditya, Jayasimha, or Rajendra.
  • Muslim rulers in India used Persian as the court language and patronized Persian literature, to the extent that we have far more more Persian manuscripts from the medieval subcontinent than from Persia itself. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who used Sanskrit or any other Indian language as a court language, or who patronized literature written in any Indian language.
  • Muslim rulers in India adopted the nastaleeq script to write not only Persian, but also native Indian languages like Kashmiri and Hindustani/Urdu, and there is significant borrowing of Persian vocabulary by almost all North Indian languages. Even the Marathas, a Hindu power, made frequent use of Persian terms like peshwa and phadnavis. On the other hand, there was never any ruler of Persia who adopted Devanagari or any other Indian script, nor did they make use of Indian terms like mantri and amatya.
  • Muslim rulers in India built mosques, mausoleums, and other forms of architecture that consciously imitated older Persian architecture, and planned new cities with Persian models in mind. For example, the Adina mosque in Bengal consciously imitated the Sassanian Persian palaces, and the Qutb Shahis in the Deccan imported architects from Iran to plan the city of Hyderabad. On the other hand, there was not a single ruler of Persia who built a mosque or mausoleum that imitated or derived inspiration from an Indian structure, nor was there any Persian ruler in recorded history who imported architects from India into Persia to build a new capital city modeled on an Indian capital.

For all of these reasons, and more, we use the term "Indo-Persian" in reference to the Muslim ruling elites of India, but not in reference to the ruling elites of Iran. The level of Indian influence on Iran is minuscule compare to the level of Persian influence on India (particularly on Indian Muslims), and this is an objective fact that has nothing to do with "Eurocentric bias" (I'm not sure what Europeans even have to do with historical relations between India and Persia). There were indeed Indianized kingdoms outside of India, such as in Southeast Asia, but not in the Islamic Persian world.
persian script is pretty much arabic and only in pakistan, people use arab script but it may have predated the turk rulers in india, bengalis hardly use the arab script, rest of your first four points have already been agreed by my OP, if you had bothered to read in the first place. yes i do agree a pretty heavy presence of persian vocabulary in north indian languages and its not surprising, the turks used persian language as official language, which was their native language, bengal sultanate did adopt the indo aryan as well so the question of adopting a language can hardly justify the material culture, then you come to your last and the most important point, architecture, here is where, you lose your credibility.

please show me any sassanid tomb which looks like central asian tomb, the ''original'' persian architecture never used chartaq plans, and even the encyclopedia iranica, the persians admit that they got the chartaq floor plans from the romans and was ''not'' native to persia. sassanids in my opinion heaily borrowed indian architecture which shows in their architectural ground plans, the chartaq and cruciform ground plans of the sassanids were borrowed from india through central asia and not romans who in my opinion never utilized the cruciform ground plans only indians did. secondly the persian architecture esp sassanid is very overrated, there is no presence of muslim pointed or gothic arches there fo instance, indians do have pre islamic pointed arches.

when it comes to adina mosque, i do agree that so far i have not found the kind of vaulting which has been done in adina mosque, meaning the perpendicular arch vaults using pillar, which by the way are not persian, but roman, but from adina mosque if you step a little ahead and reach burma and observe its buddhist temples, you would be surprised to its ''islamic architecture'', i think that would be enough. since you talked about adina mosque, why not talk about bengal sultanate architecture as well and how its domes represent a pre islamic squinches which were used by the indians compared to the ''persian squinches'' which to be honest have been also observed in many buddhist structures from afghanistan, if you cant pin point that let me know ill be happy to point you.

i can name dozens of stuff which was brought to persia, as i have already stated hamams were not persian, but buddhist/indian. pointed arche were also not persian/sassanid, but brought to persia. if you compare sassanid architecture which has luckily survived, you will find it hard to compare to post islamic architecture in present day iran, there is absolutely no comparison, so persian architecture did get evolved after the sassanids, the european scholars dont have the guts to call it out.

regards
 
Last edited:

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,571
USA
#9
Except for the term being coined by some western guy, what's exactly eurocentric about this viewpoint?
Within the Indian context, the term 'Eurocentric' is used by ultra nationalist Hindus to belittle and debase everything European scholars have discovered about Indian history. It is used for agenda driven propaganda purposes and is actually a result of severe inferiority complexes. They believe only in Indocentric history, which is similar to the Afrocentric one. Any history that doesn't glorify Hindus and Hinduism is condemned as 'Eurocentric', for most part.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
88
Mumbai
#10
Because historically, the cultural influence was very much one-sided. It was Persianized Muslims who ruled India, but no Indianized Muslims ever ruled Persia. Whatever similarities exist between the Safavid architecture of Persia and the Mughal architecture of North India (for example) can be attributed to a common Perso-Islamic heritage, and the differences can be attributed to local Indian influences on the latter that did not extend to the former. Thus, we can use the term "Indo-Persian" to describe the high culture of Islamic India, but not that of Persia.
Pretty much. Cultural influences are usually pretty one sided. Arabs had a massive impact on persia whereas persia's impact of arabian culture was rather minor in comparison. Persian is filled with arabic words whereas this is not the case other way round. It's similar to persia's influence on islamic India, India's influence on south east asia and French influence on English.
 

Similar History Discussions