Sikhism, was founded by Guru Nanak at the close of the fifteenth century. Nanak, son of a village accountant, was born in 1469, probably at Talwandi, a village on the Ravi near Lahore. He was of the Khattri caste, the Hindu mercantile community of Punjab to which Todar Mal also belonged. Nanak began his career as a lowly government servant, a store-keeper in the employ of the Lodi governor of Punjab, but he gave up the job, being inclined to mysticism from his childhood! and set out on an extended interreligious pilgrimage through India and the neighboring countries, which took him as far south as Sri Lanka, eastward into Assam, and westward possibly into Mecca and Baghdad. He travelled on foot, observing, learning and formulating his ideas. His energy was prodigious, his wit scintillating. The story is told that in Mecca, when he was rebuked by a Muslim for sleeping with his feet towards the Kaba, Nanak said, "Turn my feet in the direction where all-pervading God is not present."Such ready and good-natured wit won Nanak friends and admirers wherever he went. Eclectic and non-sectarian, he reached out to both Hindus and Muslims, sang Hindu bhajans as well as the praise of Allah, and even adopted for himself a hybrid dress, combining Hindu and Muslim ascetic styles. He thought of god as infinite and formless, beyond time and space, eternally the same, but ineffable. His god did not have a name. Though on occasion Nanak addressed god as Allah, Rama, Hari, and so on, to suit the occasion or his mood, he preferred such gender and creed neutral phrases as Sat Nam (True Name), Sat Kartar (True Creator) or Sat Sri Akal (True Timeless One), and often referred to god by divine attributes, as "the True, the Immortal, the Self-existent, the Invisible, the Pure." The name did not matter.
Nanak did not have a name for his religion either, but simply called it Gurumat, guru's wisdom, but his followers called themselves Sikhs, a term derived from the Sanskrit word sishya, meaning disciple. The guru occupies the central position in Sikhism, similar to that of prophets in other religions. Total surrender to the guru and strict adherence to his precepts were required of the Sikhs. But the guru was only a divinely inspired guide, not a divine personage; he, like the prophets, was revered but not worshipped.
Though Sikhism was considered a Hindu sect in the seventeenth century, it was really a new religion, in which diverse concepts taken from Hinduism and Islam were, synthesized with Nanak's own unique insights. Nanak in fact repudiated the conventional beliefs and rites of Hinduism as useless, and paid no regard to Hindu mythology; he eschewed fasts, pilgrimages and penances, and abhorred idol worship. Nor did Nanak give himself to the seduction of metaphysical speculation, much fancied in Hinduism. He emphasized good deeds, not grand ideas. He sang: Words do not the saint or sinner make, Action alone is written in the book of fate, As we sow, so shall we reap ...
Sikhism sought to manage life, not escape from it. It was a religion of practical wisdom, which dealt with life in society sensibly, responsibly, even as it strove for the life beyond. Nanak emphasized good conduct, and sought to achieve spiritual liberation through humility, prayer, discipline and devotion to the nameless One God. Unlike Islam and Hinduism, Sikhism had no renunciatory proclivity, and Nanak maintained that the householder was equal to the ascetic in the eyes of god. He felt so strongly about this that he rejected the claims of his son Srichand to succeed him, on the ground that he (Srichand) held the temporal world to be illusory. (Srichand then went on to found a renunciatory sect called Udasis.)
In his social creed, Nanak was entirely egalitarian; he recognized no caste distinctions, made interdining mandatory among his followers, and accorded equal status to women, in society as well as in religion. He denounced sati, scorned purdah. "How can they (women) be called inferior when they give birth to great men?" he asked. "Women as well as men share in the grace of God and are equally responsible for their actions to Him." In all this, Sikhism was like a breath of fresh air in the staid world of old faiths. Unfortunately, Nanak's influence was confined to Punjab. He preached only in Punjabi.
Nanak died in 1539, after nominating his favourite disciple Guru Angad as his successor. The custom of choosing a successor by merit was followed by Angad also, but his successor, Guru Amar Das, the third guru, appointed his son-in-law, Ram Das, to succeed him, and thereafter the pontificate, like kingship, became hereditary, with even young boys being recognized as the spiritual head, till the office was abolished by the tenth guru, Govind Singh.
Guru Ram Das was succeeded by his youngest son, Arjun. Arjun, who held office from 1581 to 1606,. was just eighteen when he took over the leadership of the community, but he was a youth of exceptional leadership qualities, with temporal ambitions to match. He took on the role of a potentate, and introduced the custom of levying a regular tax from Sikhs (in the place of the voluntary offerings to the guru), which was collected by his agents stationed throughout north India, from Kabul to Dacca. He also took to trade in a big way.
Guru Arjun deliberately adopted a lavish lifestyle-in order to emphasize the grandeur of Sikhism, he maintained. He lived in a lofty mansion, wore fine clothes, rode fine horses, even elephants, and surrounded himself with numerous retainers, thus fusing the temporal and spiritual roles of the guru, a unique feature of the Sikh pontificate. In his spiritual role, Arjun integrated Sikhism into an organized religion, by codifying its precepts and practices, and by compiling the Adi Granth, the sacred book of the Sikhs. With the compilation of the Adi Granth-made up of the hymns and discourses of Nanak and his successors, along with the sayings of several Hindu and Muslim sagesSikhism assumed the full status of a new religion with its own scripture, not just another Hindu sect. Guru Arjun also built in Amritsar, on land gifted to him by Akbar, a temple (later the Golden Temple) to enshrine the Adi Granth.
The number of converts to Sikhism rose phenomenally under Arjun, but he got into trouble for seeming to support Khusrav's rebellion, and was executed by Jahangir. The Sikh tradition speaks of a dramatic confrontation between Jahangir and Guru Arjun, with the emperor ordering him to pay a fine, and the guru refusing, saying, "Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a kauri (shell), for fine is imposed on wicked, worldly persons, and not on priests and anchorites." And when he was asked to alter the offensive passages in the Adi Granth, the guru refused, saying that there was nothing in it against either Islam or Hinduism. The guru was then tortured, which he suffered stoically, saying, "It is all according to God's will; wherefore this torture only affordeth me pleasure," and eventually died at the hands of his tormentors.
At the other end of the Muslim religious spectrum from the Mahdawis were the Sufis, an ecstatic, mystical sect. While the Mahdawi movement appealed generally to under-class Muslims, Sufism was an elitist, intellectual movement. The term Sufi was derived from the Arabic word suI, meaning wool, which came to be applied to the members of the sect because of the rough woolen garments they originally preferred. Sufis sought to induce religious ecstasy and rouse the latent spiritual powers of man through mystic practices like meditation, religious music and dance, and occasionally self-mortification. Like all mystics, they considered themselves free from social and religious conventions, and did not feel obliged to observe orthodox religious practices of prayers and fasting. "Demand from thyself whatever thou wishest: for thou art everything," they advised.
The Sufi movement, which originated in the early years of Islam, first came to India in the wake of Mahmud Ghazni's invasion in the eleventh century. In the course of time the movement branched into several orders, of which the most prominent in India was the Chishtiyya order, which received the patronage of the Mughals. Originally founded in Central Asia, this order was introduced into India early in the thirteenth century by Khwaja Muinuddin, to whom is attributed the typical Sufi saying: "For years I used to go around the Kaba; now the Kaba goes around me."
In India, Sufis came under the influence of Hindu mystical sects and adopted the yogic practice of controlled breathing as a means of spiritual elevation. Some Sufis even called themselves rishis in the fashion of Hindu sages, and many took to singing Vaihnavite hymns to induce ecstasy. Sufism declined in the late seventeenth century, in consequence of the general decline of intellectual life in India.
Another group of Muslim ascetics, but quite different from Sufis, were Qalandars, wandering dervishes, who did not respect the shariah but had a great reputation as miracle-workers. They shaved off all the hair on their heads and faces, including eyebrows, took marijuana and other psychotropic drugs, and practiced terrible austerities-some of them passed iron rods crossways through their genitals to make intercourse impossible.
Sufis and Qalandars, however unorthodox their ways, were movements within Islam, but there were also at this time, especially during the reign of Akbar, quite a few Muslim radicals who openly questioned the authority of the Koran, denied the possibility of an undying, unchanging individual soul, and argued that reward and punishment could operate only through transmigration. These rebels, says Badauni, "tempted mankind by suggesting the forgery of the Koran, and by going out of the way to show the impossibility of inspiration, and by throwing doubts on the authority of prophets and Imams, and utterly denying the existence of demons and angels, and mysteries and signs and miracles."
Against these diverse pressures of heresy and reform, the middle ground of Islam was defended by such sages as Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi of the Naqshbandiyya order. The Sheikh was a contemporary of Akbar, and was appalled by the rationalist and philosophical trends at the imperial court. He wrote several tracts defending orthodox Islam, desired jizya to be reimposed, cow-slaughter resumed, and wanted Muslims to "avoid infidels as they did dogs". For his pains, the Sheikh was imprisoned by Jahangir for a while, but he continued to preach strongly against reformist movements, as well as against Shiahs. The movement became so strident in its fundamentalism that even Aurangzeb was obliged to ban its teachings. The order however remained a source of inspiration to Sunni fundamentalists for a long time.
The Hindu world, already dark, darkened further in Mughal times. The only vital element in Hinduism at this time was the Bhakti movement, and even that was nearly a thousand years old, and had begun to wither, its last great exponent being Tulsidas in the reign of Akbar. The movement however continued to have some strong regional expressions, and, despite its great age, it substantially retained its original radical religious spirit, as its devotional path to salvation was, in contrast to the rigidly hierarchic Hindu social organization, open to all, irrespective of caste or sex.
"Your sex or caste does not count" in the pursuit of salvation, maintained Eknath, a Maharashtrian Vaishnavite sage of the 16th century. Eknath found a virtue even in the wickedness of the prevailing Age of Wrath (Kali Yuga), in that it enabled all castes to gain salvation "just by singing the glory of Hari!" The Bhaktas usually disregarded caste distinctions and venerated such sages a~ hunter Kanakadas, cobbler Raidas, barber Sena, butcher Sadhana, and even Laldas, who belonged to a robber tribe in Rajasthan. It was thus that Tukaram, an early-seventeenth-century Vaishnavite sage of Maharashtra, could sing exultantly: Born a Sudra, free of all pride, I hail thee as my father-mother, Lord of Pandhari!
The egalitarian thrust of the Bhakti movement was opposed by conservative brahmins, who had a vested interest in preserving the old Hindu order, of which they were the unchallenged and exclusive leaders. Not surprisingly, the only response of orthodox Hinduism to challenges--of reformers from within, and of Islam from outside-was to curl defensively tighter into itself, denying even kshatriyas and vaisyas their status in society, claiming that they had, by neglecting their caste duties, become sudras. That left Brahmins as the sole high caste Hindu community.
Significantly, the Brahmins who served at the courts of the few surviving Hindu principalities of the time did not denigrate kshatriyasindeed Gaga Bhat, a renowned religious authority of the age, even raised Shivaji, a sudra by birth, to the status of a kshatriya and performed his coronation. For all its orthodoxy, Hinduism had a considerable internal pliabjIity to adjust itself to ground realities.
Such compromises did not mean reform. On the contrary, the compromises were a means to "'prevent reform, by accommodating and neutralizing potential challengers. Thus Shivaji, his aspirations for kshatriya legitimacy satisfied, became a vigorous champion of orthodoxy. As A. Basham points out, Shivaji was more "a restorer of the old than . . . a builder of the new . . . The Marathas did not encourage reforms in Hindu society, and the India of the eighteenth century was if anything more conservative than it had been in the days of the first Muslim invasions."
But it was not the reformers but the traditionalists who triumphed in Hindu society at the time. The hatches that some Bhakti sages had opened to let sunshine and fresh air into the musty Hindu society were slammed shut by the Brahmin Nibandhakaras, the keepers of tradition, who swore by the Dharmasastras, ancient Hindu law books, and emphasized the need to preserve the ways of the old society. Even some of the Bhakti sages themselves opposed any relaxation of caste rules; Tulsidas, for instance, was rigidly orthodox and scorned lower caste men who took to religious vocations.
The Bhakti movement was in any case primarily escapist in spirit, and sought to transcend rather than combat social inequity. It did not lead to any social revolution. Besides, the socio-economic environment in Mughal India was not conducive to social reform, as it had no powerful group-like the commercial and political classes that favored the rise of Buddhism in ancient India-to support reform. The only successful revolt against the Hindu social order in Mughal times was of Sikhism, but that movement was confined to Punjab, and had no allIndia impact.
Intense devotion to a chosen deity, and hymn singing to induce fervor, were the distinctive characteristics of the Bhakti movement. Sang Eknath in the sixteenth century: "Even the happiness of mukti (salvation) sinks into insignificance before the ecstasy of kirtana (hymn singing)."
The stress on devotion to one deity in the Bhakti movement did not negate Hindu polytheism, but merely provided it a particular focus. Every region, indeed every caste and village and every family, had its own special deities and practices in Hinduism, and every devout Hindu had his own favourite deity, which could be anyone of the hundreds of gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon, or even a deity of his personal conception, after his own heart. All these deities were however in some way or .other related to, or derived from, the two primary gods worshipped by Hindus, Vishnu and Shiva, around whom developed the Bhakti cults of Vaishnavism and Shaivism. Of these two, Vaishnavism was in the ascendant in Mughal times.
Shaivism, occult in its practices and militant in its temperament, did not suit the submissive disposition of Hindus under Muslim rule, and it thrived only in the outlying provinces of the Mughal empire or outside its frontiers, mainly in Bengal and South India. The simpler, escapist romanticism of Vaishnavism accorded better with the mood of the times. "Viznu is the most famous of the Indian false gods," observes Monserrate.
Vishnu with his many incarnations-Shiva had none-to please very human predilection was closer to the common man, and had a strong nostalgia-tinged appeal, for people to sigh over the golden (though mythical) age when Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu, ruled the fair land. Even more popular than Rama in Mughal times was Krishna, another incarnation of Vishnu, who was cunning and valorous enough to get the better of any situation, apart from being a great lover and the beau ideal of all women. Sang Mirabai, one of the most romantic figures in the religious history of medieval India: My beloved dwells in my heart . . . Mira's lord is Hari, the indestructible. Lord, I've taken refuge in Thee, Thy slave.
Curiously, it was not in Hindustan, the theatre of activity of Rama and Krishna, but in far away South India that Vaishnavism (as well as Shaivism) arose. The origin of the cult can be traced back to the hymns of Tamil sages of the seventh century, but it remained a localized movement for about 500 years. Then, around the time of the Muslim invasion of Hindustan, began the great surge of Vaishnavism, receiving its stimulus from the teachings of Ramanuja, a twelfth century Tamil sage. Thereafter the movement spread rapidly through the subcontinent, and in a short time became the dominant Hindu cult.
As the Vaishnava movement spread in North India, it became supercharged with emotion, as a release for Hindus from the frustrations of living under Muslim rule. In the process, the ethos of the cult also changed subtly, with Radha (the first among the innumerable lady- loves of Krishna) gaining prominence as the hladini sakthi, the source of infinite bliss. The "sweet speech of Radha [is] dearer than salvation itself," professed sage Vithalanatha. But the popularity of Radha and Krishna was transient; Rama would eventually displace them as the leading Hindu deity, largely because of the influence of the Hindi poet Tulsidas, whose rendering of the story of Rama became the preeminent religious text of Hindus. "
As Vaishnavism advanced, Shaivism retreated, especially its occult Tantric and Sakthi cults, which practiced ritual feasting and coitus. In Mughal times the core area of these cults shifted from north-western to north-eastern India, where cultic human sacrifices continued to be performed. Elsewhere in India, the adherents of these cults were confined to a small number of scattered centres. Around this time there was also an effort to sanitize Tantric practices by reinterpreting its panchamakara (Five Ms) rite symbolically, to view the drinking of madya (wine) as the imbibing of the nectar that flows from the union of Shiva and Sakthi in the head, the eating of mamsa (meat) as the annihilation of the animal of karma with the sword of wisdom, the eating of matsya (fish) as the control of the flux of the senses, and maithuna (coitus) as the experience of the bliss of the union of the male and female principles.
While otherwise tolerant, in a sort of cultural apartheid, orthodox Hindus condemned the intermixing of communities, but maintained that for each caste and each religion its own faith and practices were legitimate. Said a Hindu pundit to Bernier: "We pretend not that our law is of universal application. God intended it only for us, and this is the reason why we cannot receive a foreigner into our religion. We do not even say that yours is a false religion: it may be adapted to your wants and circumstances, God having no doubt appointed many different ways of going to heaven."
It was primarily because of this tolerance and adaptability of Hindus that communal harmony generally prevailed in Mughal India. Occasionally however there were conflicts between Hindus and Muslims, as well as between sects within these two communities, such as ShiahSunni clashes in Islam, and Vaishnavite-Shaivite clashes in Hinduism. According to a late-sixteenth-eentury Jesuit report, once in Chidambaram, "the mother Citie of their Superstitions", when a local chieftain, Krishnappa Naik of Gingee, installed a Vaishnavite standard in a Shiva temple, a number of brahmins threw themselves from the temple tower.
The only fruitful discussions that Bernier had with the pundits were on idol worship and divine incarnations. The incarnations, Bernier was told, had "a mystic sense" and were "intended to explain the various attributes of God, but not to be taken literally." And about idol worship, the pundits said: "We do not believe that these statues are themselves Brahma or Bechen (Vishnu), but merely their images and representations. We show them deference only for the sake of the deity whom they represent, and when we pray it is not to the statue, but to that deity. Images are admitted in our temples, because we conceive that prayers are offered up with more devotion where there is something before the eyes that fixes the mind; but in fact we acknowledge that God alone is absolute, that He only is the omnipotent Lord." Pelsaert thought that "almost all Heathens follow the sect and teaching of Pythagoras," in their belief in transmigration and the immortality of the soul.
A detailed account of the state of Hinduism in Mughal India is given by Abul Fazl. He examines Hindu philosophical systems and political theories, explains the beliefs of Jainism and Buddhism, describes Hindu deities, places of pilgrimage, ceremonies of death, and social customs. But these are mostly data he had culled from books, not reports on the prevalent practices. As for foreign travellers in Mughal India, they merely report on curiosities. But taken together, the accounts of Abul Fazl and foreign travellers present a picture of Hinduism not much different from what it was in early modern times. European travellers had of course no affinity for Hinduism, the precepts and practices of which were totally alien to their own culture. But their reports are virtually the only descriptions we have of Hindu festivals and rites in Mughal times, and are valuable, though the picture they draw is fragmentary, their judgement warped, and their language offensive.
Bernier, for instance, offers a vivid description of the rituals performed at the Yamuna in Agra during the solar eclipse of 1666. The rich, he notes, pitched their tents on the river bank with screens fixed in the river for the privacy of their women. "No sooner did these idolaters perceive that the obscuration of the sun was begun than they all raised a loud cry, and plunged the whole body under water several times in quick succession; after which they stood in the river, lifted their eyes and hands toward the sun, muttered and prayed with seeming devotion, filling their hands from time to time with water, which they threw in the direction of the sun, bowing their heads low, and moving and turning their arms and hands, sometimes one way, sometimes another. The deluded people continued to plunge, mutter, pray, and perform their silly tricks until the end of the eclipse. On retiring they threw pieces of silver at a great distance into the Gemna, and gave alms to Brahmens, who failed not to be present at this absurd ceremony. I remarked that every indiv4iual on coming out of the water put on new clothes placed on the sand, for that purpose, and that several of the most devout left their old garments as presents for the Brahmens."
Bernier was in Puri during the great car festival of the temple of Jagannath. "The first day on which this idol is formally exhibited in the temple, the crowd is so immense, and the press so violent, that some of the pilgrims, fatigued and worn out in consequence of their long journey, are squeezed to death: the surrounding throng give them a thousand benedictions, and consider them highly favored to die on such a holy occasion after travelling so great a distance," writes Bernier. "And while the chariot of hellish triumph pursues its solemn march, persons are found . . . so blindly credulous and so full of wild notions as to throw themselves upon the ground in the way of its ponderous wheels, which pass over and crush to atoms the bodies of the wretched fanatics without exciting the horror or surprise of the spectators."
Tirupati, the most renowned temple in modem India, had an equal repute in Mughal times, and is described by Manucci as the "famous and ancient temple called Tripiti". He writes: "The temple is on a rather high hill, the ascent of which occupies two hours. There are various shelters in which there are many hermits, and hollows occupied by Brahman priests . . . Impelled by their barbarous religion, all the devout go there, and every year there is a festival for fifteen days ... On this pilgrimage people must shave their heads and faces in order to be cleaned of their sins ... Many also do penance by climbing the hill on all fours, or on their knees, others at full length, rolling their body over and over. Others carry up water to wash the temple, et cetera ... I have seen Hindus who, on festival days, through religious fervour, climbed up a mast where there was a wheel bearing two iron hooks, and fixing these into their loins at the back, hung down, and praising the idol, swung around three times, making various gestures with their hands and feet. Such persons are held by Hindus in great esteem ... Here assemble many people from all parts of India. The shrine is very wealthy from the large and frequent offerings presented, and owing to the large revenue derived from it." Ovington noticed devotees swinging from hooks being carried about in towns, drawn "on an Engine with four Wheels". In Bengal, according to Tavernier, people hung from hooks suspended from trees.
The curious institution of Devadasis (maids of god) predictably caught the attention of foreigners. Parents, Manucci notes, sometimes offered to the temple the virginity of a daughter, as a propitiatory act. "Many of those dedicated to the idol bear its mark on their arms and head, pricked in by a thorn and filled in with ink, becoming thus set apart, and these must live their whole life along in the service of the temples. The Brahmans profit by the money they earn ... In addition to the above, there are public women, dancers, who are required to appear several times a week to sing and dance before the idol. For this purpose they have some allowance, for which they are under obligation not to be absent."
"In front of the chariot, and even in the ... temples, public women during festival days dance and throw their bodies into a variety of indecent and preposterous attitudes, which the Brahmens deem quite consistent with the religion of the country," writes Bernier about the Devadasis of Puri "I have known females celebrated for beauty, and who were remarkably reserved in their general deportment, refuse valuable presents from Mahometans, Christians, and even Gentile foreigners, because they considered themselves dedicated to the ministry and to the ministers of the Deura (devalayam: temple), to the Brahmens, and to those Fakirs who are commonly seated on ashes all round the temple."
A peculiar custom that both Manucci and Bernier noted was the Hindu veneration for long-armed men, who were considered as the living replicas of Hanuman, the monkey god. "In San Thome [near Madras] there was a Portuguese called Joao Carvalho, who had been endowed by Nature with such length of arm that his hands reached below his knees," says Manucci. "Owing to this gift of Nature, Hindus when they met him prostrated themselves, worshipping him as they do their idols." Manucci tells an even more incredible story about another long-armed Portuguese who enjoyed the hospitality of a Hindu temple in Puri for some years-"he led a joyous life, regaling himself with delicate dishes and requisitioning young girls whenever he pleased" and in the end decamped with the temple jewels.
Such charlatans abounded in Mughal India, but there were also many genuine Hindu sages and ascetics. The best known of them was Chid Rup who lived in a tiny cave on the outskirts of Ujjain and was revered by Akbar and Jahangir. "God Almighty has granted him an unusual grace, a lofty understanding, an exalted nature, and sharp intellectual powers, with a God-given knowledge and a heart free from the attachments of the world, so that, putting behind his back the world and all that is in it, he sits content in the comer of solitude without wants," says Jahangir of Chid Rup. "He has chosen of worldly goods half a gaz (about half a yard) of old cotton like a woman's veil, and a piece of earthenware from which to drink water, and in winter and summer and the rainy season lives naked and with his head and feet bare. He has a hole in which he can turn round with a hundred difficulties and tortures, with a passage such that a suckling could hardly be put through it." Chid Rup reminded Jahangir of a Muslim sage who, when people jeered at his tiny dwelling, said, "Ample for him who has to die."
"He has thoroughly mastered the science of Vedanta, which is the science of Sufism," notes Jahangir after visiting the sage in the eleventh year of his reign. "I conversed with him for six gharis (about two and a half hours); he spoke well, so much so as to make a great impression on me." Three days later Jahangir went to see the sage again, "and for six gharis enjoyed myself in his company." Two years later, on his way to Agra from Gujarat, Jahangir twice called on Chid Rup, and again a couple of times the following year, when Chid Rup shifted from Ujjain to Mathura to live on the banks of the Yamuna. "As I valued his society, I hastened to wait on him, and for a long time enjoyed his company without the presence of any stranger ... In truth, his existence is a great gain to me."
Chid Rup was a hermit, but ordinary Hindu monks lived in society, and lived off it rather well. Bernier describes them as barefooted and bareheaded, well-washed, clean, wearing a piece of cloth around their waist reaching up to their knees, and an upper garment of a white cloth "which passes under the right arm and goes over the left shoulder in the form of a mantle, but they are without any undergarment." The monks usually moved about in pairs, and were of "modest demeanour, holding in one hand a small and fair three-footed earthen pot with two handles." They did not beg, but were received with ceremony into homes, their visits being considered a blessing. "Heaven defend him who accuses them of any offence, although everybody knows what takes place between the sanctified visitors and the women of the house: this, however, is considered the custom of the country, and their sanctity is not the less on that account."
The most exotic of the men of religion in India were the yogis, who, says Bernier, follow "rules for the binding up of their senses by slow degrees". The yogi, notes Bernier, would fast for many days upon bread and water, and sitting alone in a sequestered spot, fix his eyes steadily skyward, then "lower them gradually, and ... point them both in such a manner that they shall look at one and the same time upon the tip of the nose, both sides of that feature being equally seen; and in this posture the saint must continue firm, the two sides of the nose in even proportions remaining constantly within sight until the bright luminary makes its appearance."
"No Fury in the infernal regions can be conceived more horrible than the Jauguis," continues Bernier, "with their naked and black skin, long hair, spindle arms, long twisted nails ... " Some stood immobile, covered with ash, holding up one or both hands; some had their "hair hanging down to the calf of the leg, twisted and tangled into knots, like the coat of our shaggy dogs . . . I have seen them shamelessly walk, stark naked, through a large town, men, women, and girls looking at them without any more emotion than may be created when a hermit passes through our streets. Females would bring them alms with much devotion." Sometime they went on long pilgrimages, "not only naked, but laden with heavy iron chains, such as are put about the legs of elephants".
The yogis were crude, ignorant men, says Bernier. "Sometime I should have been disposed to consider the Fakirs as remnants, if not as the founders, of the ancient and infamous sect of Cynics, could I have discovered anything in them but brutality and ignorance, and if they had not appeared to me vegetative rather than rational beings ... How can it be believed that men submit to a life of so much misery for the sake of a second state of existence, as short and uncertain as the first. " ? I am not to be so easily deceived, said I to them; either you are egregious fools, or you are actuated by some sinister views which you carefully hide from the world."
Bernier was skeptical about the claims of yogis that they had mystic visions of god "who appears as a light ineffably white and vivid, and that they experience transports of holy joy", but he surmised that it was "possible that the imagination, distempered by continued fasts and uninterrupted solitude, may be brought into these illusions." Even more bizarre than the yogis were the siddhis, miracle-workers.
They could "tell any person his thoughts, cause the branch of a tree to blossom and to bear fruit within an hour, hatch an egg in their bosom in less than fifteen minutes, producing whatever bird may be demanded, and make it fly about the room, and execute many other prodigies" so Bernier had been told, but he himself had not seen any such marvels, even though he was willing to pay well for the privilege of being shown some miracle. "Notwithstanding my diligence to pry into everything, I have never been so fortunate as to witness any marvellous performance . . . it was generally my misfortune to examine and to question until I ascertained that the cause lay in some cheat or sleight of hand."
In Mughal times there was still a visible presence of Buddhists in India, but "its adherents are 'despised and hated, censured as irreligious and atheistical, and lead a life ,peculiar to themselves," says Bernier. Nagarkot in the north-west Himalayas, according to Tavernier, was ruled by Buddhist kings who ''believe neither in God nor devil". In Gujarat, Jains were prominent. "In Cambia they will kill nothing, nor have any thing killed; in the towne they have hospitals to keepe lame dogs and cats, and for birds," says Fitch. Visiting one of these hospitals, Pietro Della Valle writes, "The most curious thing I saw in this place were certain little mice, who, being found orphans ... were put into this hospital, and a venerable old man with a white beard, keeping them in a box amongst cotton, very diligently tended them . . . giving them milk ... with a bird's feather, they were so little that as yet they could eat nothing else."
The above mentioned Guru Arjun's martyrdom in June 1606 was a turning point in the history of the Sikhs. Arjun's son and successor Har Govind took the next logical step in asserting the temporal sway of the guru by enlisting an army. "My seli (rosary) shall be a sword-belt and I shall wear my turban with a royal aigrette," said Har Govind. "I wear two swords as the emblems of spiritual and temporal authority ... In the guru's house religion and worldly enjoyment hall be combined." Har Govind saw no conflict between spiritual and material pursuits. "Saintliness is within; sovereignty is external," he maintained.
Har Govind was overreaching himself. For all his proud ambitions, he was hardly in a position to defy the Mughal emperor, and had to suffer the humiliation of being imprisoned by Jahangir for some years, to force him to pay the balance of the fine imposed on his father. On his release, the guru took care to maintain good relations with Jahangir, but he later clashed with Shah Jahan over a trivial matter, by encroaching into the royal hunting ground while Shah Jahan was hawking near Amritsar, and then scrapping with the emperor's servants over a bird. That audacity, and his subsequent victory over a Mughal contingent sent to chastise him, greatly enhanced Har Govind's reputation and won him many followers. But the guru's triumph was short-lived: though he won some engagements against local Mughal officers, he was eventually forced to take refuge in the Kashmir hills, where he died in 1645.
Har Govind was succeeded by his grandson Har Rai, whose pontificate was uneventful. On his death in 1661, his younger son Har Kishan, a boy, was raised as the guru, but he died four years later. There followed a period of turmoil, when twenty-two pretenders staked their claims to guruhood and forcibly collected offerings. Out of this chaos emerged Tegh Bahadur, the youngest son of Har Govind, to assume the leadership of the Sikh community. Initially, Tegh Bahadur was inclined to collaborate with the Mughals, and he even accompanied, as a mercenary commander, the imperial army sent into Assam by Aurangzeb. But later, when Aurangzeb began to tighten the theocratic screws on non-Muslims, he openly defied the emperor, and was consequently arrested, taken to Delhi, tortured for five days, then beheaded. II Aurangzeb ordered the temples of the Sikhs to be destroyed and the guru's agents for collecting the tithes and presents of the faithful to be expelled from the cities," says Khafi Khan.
Guru Govind Singh, the tenth and last guru, then took up the sword of vendetta and turned the Sikhs into a military fraternity, declaring that "he would convert jackals into tigers and sparrows into hawks." He worshipped the sword, maintaining, "God subdues enemies, so does the sword; therefore the sword is God, and God is the sword." He fought In the name of the Lord of the Sword and the Axe The Lord of the Arrow, the Spear and the Shield. In the name of Him who"is the God of warriors, And of horses swift as the wind . . to seek redress by truth and sincerity.
Inspired by Hindu myths, Govind Singh saw himself as a saviour of his people, and he gave the Sikhs a unique new identity as the Khalsa, The Pure, by prescribing for them a distinctive dress-they had to wear kesh (long hair), kangha (comb), kripan (sword), kachha (underwear) and kara (iron bangle)-and by requiring them to be baptized, by drinking water sweetened with sugar stirred in with a dagger. Every Sikh had to bear the community surname, Singh: lion.
Govind Singh's ambition was to overthrow the Mughals and establish a Sikh state. "1 shall make men of all four castes lions and destroy the Mughals," he proclaimed. He lived like a prince, decked in jewels, guarded by soldiers bearing gold-tipped arrows, and surrounded by sycophants and poets; he travelled with the accompaniment of the kettledrum. But it proved calamitous for him to tangle with the Mughals. Though he made some gains against the petty chieftains in the hills north of Punjab and even defeated some of the Mughal provincial forces sent against him, he was eventually hounded from place to place by the Mughals, lost all his four sons in the fight, and himself barely managed to escape capture.Govind Singh could breathe easy only on the death of Aurangzeb. Shah Alam, Aurangzeb's successor, conciliated him, and the guru accompanied the emperor to the Deccan in the battle against Kam Bakhsh. There, on the banks of the Godavari River, he was assassinated by an Afghan follower in 1708. And with him ended the line of Sikh gurus, for Govind Singh abolished the pontificate on his deathbed. A period of anarchy followed the death of the guru, as the Sikh community disintegrated into several armed bands indulging in vicious brigandage. But phoenix-like the Sikhs would rise again a few decades later, under the leadership of Ranjit Singh, to build a dominion of their own out of the shattered Mughal empire.
Yet another religion that was active in India during that period, was Christianity.There is evidence of a flourishing Christian community in Kerala from about the third Century, known as Syrian Christians. Presumably made up of migrant Semitic traders and some local converts, they conducted their church services in Syriac, and their women dressed in a distinctive manner, but otherwise became so well integrated into the local society over the centuries that the Portuguese, when they arrived in India in the late fifteenth century, sought to convert these quaint Christians to 'true Christianity'. That led to a schism in the Syrian church, one group accepting the authority of the Pope and the other continuing to acknowledge the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Antioch as their head.
The Syrian Christians were not a proselytizing community; they were confined to Kerala, and had no religious impact whatever on the rest of India. Christianity began to penetrate into the interior of India only during Mughal times, through the activities of European missionaries, mainly Jesuits, who established a toe-hold in the Mughal court and even dreamed of converting Akbar to Christianity.
There were several men of outstanding merit among the Christian missionaries in Mughal India, but there were also many cheats and charlatans among them, and Bernier and Manucci, both Catholics, speak in different voices about Catholic missionary activity in India. The Jesuit and Capuchin missionaries on the whole seem to have done good work; they were, according to Bernier, good Christians, "affectionate and charitable". On the other hand Manucci notes that Goa, the missionary centre of the Portuguese in India, was "dominated by some disquieting planet, or by demons who throw it into confusion, filling it with murder, disunion, and oppression." And in San Thome, another Portuguese centre, the priests, says Manucci, lived "scandalous lives ... they were all licentious ... each one keeping a mistress in his house."
In a class apart from such 'men of god' was Roberto de Nobili, the most remarkable of the Jesuit missionaries in India in Mughal times. A Florentine aristocrat, he joined the Jesuit order at the age of twenty, and began his mission on the Coromandel coast nine years later, in 1606. A lean, handsome man, with large, pensive eyes, a sweeping brow and aristocratic features, Roberto was an arresting-figure. In India he mastered Sanskrit, studied the Hindu scriptures, put on the habit of a brahmin ascetic, and lived in every respect like a brahmin, observing all the taboos of the priestly caste, eating only the food permitted to brahmins, keeping only brahmin servants, and interacting almost exclusively with brahmins. In 1656, after some fifty years of toil in India, Roberto died in Madras, aged nearly eighty.
Early Jesuits like Roberto were highly respected in India, and were called Roman Brahmin- "They dress like them so exactly that they are taken to be Brahmans, and as such revered by all," says Manucci. But the syncretic tendencies and the high caste orientation-which ran counter to the Christian concept that all men are equal in the eyes of god-of these Jesuits angered the Catholic church, which issued a decree in January 1704 prohibiting Indian Christians from adopting names other than those in the Roman martyrology, requiring that the thali (wedding pendant) worn by women should have a cross or the image of Christ on it, forbidding the rite of smashing coconuts as a propitiatory act, and even ordering that "bathing ... must be confined to physical cleanliness, and such baths taken at times different from the Hindu usage ... " In egalitarian indignation the church also ordered that "no one must be excluded from the church or the confessional, not even women when in a state of impurity; no public feast on a girl's arrival at puberty to be tolerated; the pariahs to be treated as on an equality with everyone else-they must be visited during illness, and no differences should be made in the administration of extreme unction."
Christian missionaries seem to have had some success in South India-"Of the poor men and Hindus in the kingdom of Tanjor (Thanjavur) alone they have converted about twenty to thirty thousand since they commenced," says Manucci-but they made hardly any headway in the north, and even the few conversions they made there were of a token nature. "The truth is they have spilt the water of baptisme upon some faces, working on the necessities of poore men, who for want of means, which they give them, are content to weare crucifixes, but for want of instruction are only in name Christians ... I also desired to put my hand to this holy worke, but found it difficult," writes Terry, himself a Christian priest, though not a Catholic. "I cannot find by good search that there is one Christian really and orderly converted, nor makes the profeSSion, except some few that have been baptized for money," says Roe.
Withington records that in many cases conversion "was for money's sake, for the Jesuite give them 3d. a daye. And when the Jesuites ... were debarred of theire paye from the Kinge, having noe moneye to paye theire newe Christians withall, they dayley came and offered the Jesuits theire beads agayne, tellinge them they had been longe without theire paye and therefore they would bee no longer Christians." Equally ludicrous were the conversions that Monserrate made in Lahore during a famine in the reign of Akbar-he concentrated on saving the souls of the dying, for the dying offered no resistance to being saved. Manucci too played the farce-"When I became a physician, I baptized in eight years more than fifteen thousand, besides those I found on the roadsides moribund, and whom I baptized/" he says.
Conversion of Muslims to Christianity was even more difficult than that of Hindus. Says Bernier, "Whatever progress may be made among Gentiles by the instruction and alms of the missionaries, you will be disappointed if you suppose that in ten years one Mahometan will be converted to Christianity." Three Mughal princes, nephews of Jahangir, were once handed over to the Jesuits by the emperor for conversion to Christianity, but they reverted to Islam after a while. And so did Muqarrab Khan, the Mughal governor of Surat, the only Mughal noble known to have accepted Christianity. The Khan took the name John/ sported European dress, and professed Christianity for a while, but only to pester the Jesuits to get him a couple of European maidens. He promised to treat the women honourably, but the Jesuits were not convinced. They found him II an imperfect Christian".
Hinduism and Islam being long established and . sophisticated religions, it was difficult for Christianity to make any headway against them, and the cynical opinion among missionaries, as expressed by lithe padre Busee" and quoted with approval by Manucci, was that lithe way to preach in Hindustan, whether to Mahomedans or to the Hindus, was with a well-sharpened sword." So it would be only with the establishment of British political sway over India in the nineteenth century that Christianity would make any significant gain in India.
The sources of quotations are given in the text.