Why was Islam unable to supress Hinduism in S. Asia?

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
#11
Take for example, the Kerala state in India. The place was never conquered and ruled by outsiders until the British rule. The rulers were Hindus before. Only 55% of the state is Hindu, rest are Christians and Muslims. Conversions from Hinduism all happened as a result of missionaries, proselytizing, and trade, almost all while under the Hindu rule.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Jari
Apr 2019
12
Vancouver
#12
Take for example, the Kerala state in India. The place was never conquered and ruled by outsiders until the British rule. The rulers were Hindus before. Only 55% of the state is Hindu, rest are Christians and Muslims. Conversions from Hinduism all happened as a result of missionaries, proselytizing, and trade, almost all while under the Hindu rule.
A large number of conversions to Islam in Kerala took place when northern Kerala was under Tipu Sultan's rule. He was incensed at the polyandry and scant female clothing (women had their upper body uncovered, except for Brahmin women).
 
Likes: Futurist

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
#13
A large number of conversions to Islam in Kerala took place when northern Kerala was under Tipu Sultan's rule. He was incensed at the polyandry and scant female clothing (women had their upper body uncovered, except for Brahmin women).
Untrue about conversions, just exaggerations. The whole Mysore Tippu/Hyder invasions lasted only a couple of decades. Tipu was driven out.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
#14
A large number of conversions to Islam in Kerala took place when northern Kerala was under Tipu Sultan's rule. He was incensed at the polyandry and scant female clothing (women had their upper body uncovered, except for Brahmin women).
Considering Tipu hadn't converted his own kingdom - Mysore, into a Muslim one, how believable is the claim for Kerala?
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
#15
Considering Tipu hadn't converted his own kingdom - Mysore, into a Muslim one, how believable is the claim for Kerala?
Forced conversions to Islam took place during the time of the Kerala invasions itself, but Tipu never really got a chance to rule, before he got killed. Those converted could easily convert back. That was what happened also with the forced conversions that took place during the infamous Muslim rebellion in Northern Kerala about 100 years ago. But there are all kinds of stories about Muslims increasing in numbers because of Tipu, even contemporary ones. There is only one district in Kerala with Muslim majority. That was most likely the case even before Tipu.
 
Oct 2012
3,315
Des Moines, Iowa
#17
No Islamic regime ever had the institutional strength to "suppress" Hinduism. Wherever Islam spread in the subcontinent, it was not because some Islamic ruler overpowered all Hindu resistance and converted all Hindus, but because Hinduism and its associated social structures were poorly established (or virtually non-existent) to begin with. This seems to be especially true in the case of East Bengal, which saw the largest mass conversion to Islam, but which was also a peripheral region that was quite far away from the seat of Muslim power in the Ganga-Yamuna doab. The fact that East Bengal saw far more Islamization than areas like Haryana and Oudh (which still retain a large Hindu majority) that were located right next to Muslim power centers suggest that there was no direct correlation between Islamic state authority and Islamization.

Basically, every Islamic regime in India had to choose between one of two poles:

1) Exclude Hindu aristocrats from power. This would result in a weak state with a narrow support base whose authority doesn't extend much beyond garrison towns where Muslims were stationed, but would ensure the preservation of a strong Islamic group identity (due to segregation from Hindus) and shore up the Islamic credentials of the state, which could be important for purposes of legitimacy and mobilizing support from the Muslim elites as a whole. Keep in mind that Islamic elites in India were themselves divided into many factions based on ethnic, sectarian, ideological, and other factors, so it was important to emphasize Islamic group identity to maintain some degree of cohesion.

2) Broaden the political elite to include upper-class Hindus (e.g. Rajput nobles). This could result in a stronger state with more influence over Hindu society as a whole, but at the cost of diminishing the Islamic credentials of the kingdom, and potentially weakening the collective group identity of Muslim elites (since all group identities are predicated on an "us vs. them" dynamic, and opening the political elite to non-Muslims would necessitate the relaxing of such a dynamic).

Aurangzeb is a notable case of an Islamic ruler who tried to have his cake and eat it too, and it didn't work out too well for him. On the one hand, he greatly expanded the Mughal state, which involved incorporating many new Hindu elites (by the late 17th century, over a quarter of Mughal mansabdars were Marathas or other Deccani Hindus). On the other hand, he tried to further strengthen the specifically Islamic nature of the Mughal empire, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this was contradictory to his policy of state expansion. The result was that the Mughal empire effectively ceased to exist within a couple decades of Aurangzeb's death.

The reality of the time was that a strong, stable empire could only exist in India if it rested on more universal foundations. Muslim regimes were never strong enough to completely eliminate or disarm all of the native Hindu zamindars/rajas in North India (complete pacification was achieved only by the British in the 19th century), but at the same time, no Hindu zamindars/rajas were strong enough to dislodge Muslims from their core territories or completely destroy their states. Thus, both Muslim and Hindu rulers co-existed in continuous tension with each other, with neither one able to decisively destroy the other. At best, Hindu rulers in North India could hope to preserve their sovereignty in their own localities or regions, as Mewar (for example) was able to do during the period of Mughal dominance. But no Hindu ruler possessed enough strength to actually drive Muslims out of the rich Gangetic plains altogether.
 
Apr 2019
406
India
#18
kicking out buddhism, a lot of monumnts were dedicated to the triumph of hinduism over buddhism for instance the konark monument of a lion crushing an elephant was dedicated to the victory of hinduism.




probably with eastern bengal which had dominant buddhist population, my theory is, the weakening of buddhism due to hindu revivalism, it created a vacuum and space for a foreign religion, that was not the case with the indian core.



it had evolved into a very intricate philosophy, so much so that even sati, and caste system was practiced

an important role in keeping the hindu culture intact. It should also be mentioned that hinduism is not very much different culturally from islam, a prominent aspect of hinduism is also monotheism,

Women after getting married practiced ghonghat which is indian purdah,

regards
Please show some honesty. Ganga dynasty built that temple to celebrate their victory over foreign invaders. How did Buddhism come into the picture?
Since when lion became symbol of Hinduism?
Why did the Ganga dynasty king have the title of 'Gajapati'?
Why did the temple not portray Islamic symbol being crushed by 'Hindu' symbol(since they were their enemy)?
Isn't elephant equally auspicious for Hindu?


I think best way to fill that religious vaccum(if that existed) was to convert(which they didn't even need) to Hinduism not to an alien religion. They didn't even need to change their affiliation to Buddha if they had converted to "Hinduism'. My theory is that Buddhists easily gave up on their religion out of fear of persecution but Hindu's didn't. That's why Buddhism dominated areas have largest Muslim converts. You can also see example of SE Asia where Buddhists easily abondoned their faith for Islam.

Which school of Hindus has such philosophy? Which Hindu school of philosophy established social ills of 'caste descrimination' and 'sati'? Please tell me the name.

No Hinduisms is democracy and Islam is autocracy. Hinduism is old world religion which considers all kind of faiths real.


In India all of regions(barring Rajasthan because of Thar) which were free from Islamic dominance did not practice 'purdah'. Even in muslim dominant regions villages did not veil their women.
In pre-islamic India only royal women used veil for ritualistic purpose.
Not only this women were also travelling on their own and attending gurukulam for education.
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,765
United States
#19
Please show some honesty. Ganga dynasty built that temple to celebrate their victory over foreign invaders. How did Buddhism come into the picture?
Since when lion became symbol of Hinduism?
Why did the Ganga dynasty king have the title of 'Gajapati'?
Why did the temple not portray Islamic symbol being crushed by 'Hindu' symbol(since they were their enemy)?
Isn't elephant equally auspicious for Hindu?


I think best way to fill that religious vaccum(if that existed) was to convert(which they didn't even need) to Hinduism not to an alien religion. They didn't even need to change their affiliation to Buddha if they had converted to "Hinduism'. My theory is that Buddhists easily gave up on their religion out of fear of persecution but Hindu's didn't. That's why Buddhism dominated areas have largest Muslim converts. You can also see example of SE Asia where Buddhists easily abondoned their faith for Islam.

Which school of Hindus has such philosophy? Which Hindu school of philosophy established social ills of 'caste descrimination' and 'sati'? Please tell me the name.

No Hinduisms is democracy and Islam is autocracy. Hinduism is old world religion which considers all kind of faiths real.


In India all of regions(barring Rajasthan because of Thar) which were free from Islamic dominance did not practice 'purdah'. Even in muslim dominant regions villages did not veil their women.
In pre-islamic India only royal women used veil for ritualistic purpose.
Not only this women were also travelling on their own and attending gurukulam for education.
Hinduism's (and really any paganism's) tolerance is because the gods and goddesses are the personification of various metaphysical and physical forces that are very real (not necessarily as conscious entities though). Substantively many religions worshiped the same gods just under different names, rituals, and associations. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

In Hinduism all the gods and goddesses are understood to be manifestations (avatars) of Brahman which only exist because we perceive them to (if I understand correctly). Other religions merely perceive different manifestations of Brahman. For instance Jesus and Krishna could easily be substantively one and the same.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,690
India
#20
May be because the ruling class was not Arabs? Area comprising modern Pakistan was ruled by Arabs, and it became Muslim just like other places you mentioned. Whereas, area comprising Republic of India was ruled by Afghans/Turkics all along.

There must be some correlation there.
Arabs managed to convert Sindh only, West Punjab was converted during the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion several centuries later.
 

Similar History Discussions