History Paper

I decided to just post the papers that were assigned in class rather than write basically the same material twice, so here is my first assignment for my Intro to India class.

Here's the question:
'Drawing on your knowledge of the ancient, medieval, and modern period, explain some of the ways in which Indian elites have constructed the symbols of legitimate rule. In what ways have such conceptions of sovereignty changed (and stayed the same) over the course of these periods of time?'

And here's my response:
Sovereigns from all places and times have found various ways to legitimize their rule. The idea that “might is right” is projected by many conquerors. This is not neccesarily inaccurate; a ruler ought to be strong enough to protect his subjects. But ruling through force or fear just because it is possible tends to lead to rebellion if not supplemented by some other reasoning as is shown by the British rule in India. Some rulers convince their subjects of their legitimacy through divne right or by serving the interests of a religeon. Others serve the interests of an elite who put them in power and keep them there. Many attempt to practice good government, by haveing a certain understanding of what was best for their subjects economically, culturally, and politically, and by maintaining this standard. In India, a common element in government is tolerance and inclusiveness because India is so diverse.

The Mauryan Empire, founded by Chandragupta in 322 B.C.E., was the first Indian empire. It reached its height under Ashoka (~269-233 B.C.E.) whose conquests early in life provided the farflung empire that he maintained and improved through the statesmanship he developed later in life. At first he legitimized his rule by controlling a powerful military. After he became Buddhist, however, he became “deeply concerned about morality and, more especially, the question of imperial legitimacy” (Bose and Jalal, 13). Ashoka’s answer to this question was to be very tolerant of the diversity of his state and to promote dhamma. This literally means 'religion' or 'duty', but the various edicts that Ashoka had carved onto rocks, pillars, and cave walls throughout his realm show that it was meant to be a basic moral code common to various religions and an ideology for State conduct. These edicts promoted such things as charity, obedience, tolerance, and non-violence. Ashoka even created officers of Dhamma who were “busy in all sects, establishing Dhamma, increasing the interest in Dhamma, and attending to the happiness and welfare of those who are devoted to Dhamma” (5th Major Rock Edict). Dhamma is the symbol of Ashoka’s rule and his personal claim to legitimacy, but he also was an excellent emperor in practice as well as in theory, as shown by the 2nd Major Rock Edict; “Everywhere in the empire…the two medical services of the Beloved of the Gods (Ashoka)…have been provided…Along the roads wells have been planted for the use of men and beasts.” This is a very concrete example of how Ashoka improved day-to-day life for his subjects. His competence is also shown because “not long after Ashoka’s death, the great Maurya empire underwent a process of decentralization” (Bose and Jalal, 13). Ashoka, the greatest of the Mauryan emperors, legitimized his rule through right of conquest, tolerance and the promotion of dhamma, and through practices of good government.

“The politically secure and economically prosperous Gupta centre (which) presided over a great literary, scientific, and cultural efflorescence,” existed in North India from ~ 320 B.C.E-55 C.E. (Bose and Jalal, 14). It was primarily a land-based, military empire. As military leaders, personal strength and skill with arms was a huge legitimizing factor for these emperors. Samudragrupa I was described on a stone pillar inscription as a warrior "whose most charming body was covered over with all the beauty of the marks of a hundred confused wounds." But the Gupta emperors were also religious, cultured, and patrons of the arts, science, and philosophy as well as being politically and economically strong rulers. Samudragupta I was also described on the stone pillar as a man “whose mind busied itself with the support…of the miserable, the poor, the helpless, and the afflicted…who was the glorified personification of kindness to mankind…and who put to shame (Kashyapi)… and Tumuru, and Narada, and others by his sharp and polished intellect and choral skill and musical accomplishment.” And while Bose and Jalal point out that “the legitimating glory of the Gupta empire, which was the symbol of their power, was unquestionably Brahmanical in nature” (14) and it was during this era that Hindu Temples began being built in earnest and certain Vedic rituals such as the horse sacrifice were revivified. Bose and Jalal add that “the greatest strength of the Gupta age…was a measure of political, social, and religious flexibility, despite the resurgence of Brahmanical orthodoxy in certain spheres” (14). Like Ashoka, the Guptas legitimized their rule through personal and military strength, through practical tolerance, and through the practice of good government. But they also served the interests of an elite, namely the high-caste Brahmins.

The Chola Empire was a South Indian, sea-based, trading empire from 848-1279 C.E. that also “made military forays into the north (to) cast their political, economic, and cultural influence over South East Asia” (Bose and Jalal, 15). “Yet Rajendra, an aspirant to universal kingship, desired legitimacy as much as wealth” (Bose and Jalal, 16). Like the Guptas, the Cholas turned to religion for a symbol of legitimacy and presented themselves as protectors of Hinduism, although they focused on the worship of Shiva rather than Vishnu. These emperors presented themselves as some sort of intermediary between their subjects and the gods. The greatest temple built in their time was the equivalent of a 16-story building and is known as Rajarajeshvara Temple. It was not called "Shiva's Temple", but the "Temple for the god of the king of kings". Also, most everyday affairs of state were taken care of at the local level by the temples, so the temples represented the power of the king in conjunction with the gods.

The Mughal empire (1526-1757) “is beginning to be viewed as a complex, nuanced, and loose form of hegemony over a diverse, differentiated, and dynamic economy and society” (Bose and Jalal, 30). The greatest of the Mughal emperors was undoubtedly Akbar, made head of a shaky empire at the young age of fourteen, who ruled from 1556-1605. As the head of a military state Akbar was portrayed as man of action, a decisive man, a man who led armies into battle himself from a very young age. Like his predecessors in the Mauryan, Gupta, and Chola empires, Akbar needed to prevent discontent in a widely diverse realm so he promoted tolerance and inclusiveness like they did. Tolerance was especially important during the Mughal Empire because 70-75% of those being governed were Hindu, unlike the Muslim rulers. “Akbar, who gave initial shape and form to the Mughal state, was acutely aware of this demographic fact and devised his policies accordingly,” (Bose and Jalal, 30). He personally turned from orthodox Islam to Sufism, a popular, esoteric, mystical branch of Islam and then from Sufism to what he called Din-e-Ilahi, the Divine Faith, which drew elements from the mystical traditions of both Islam and Hinduism. He abolished the pilgrimage tax on Hindus in 1563 and the Jizya, the poll-tax on non-Muslims, in 1579. He also “showed a pragmatic streak and a determination to adapt to the Indian environment by replacing the Muslim lunar calendar with the solar calendar, which he thought made more sense in an agricultural country like India” (Bose and Jalal, 30-31). Akbar developed good relationships with his nobles, had reasonable taxation policies that promoted economic growth. Culture and the arts, especially architecture, flourished under him and his heirs. He could not, like the Guptas and the Cholas, fall back on religion to legitimize his rule, but he was a strong ruler who understood what his people needed and was capable enough to give it to them. The symbols of his rule are military and personal strength, tolerance, and practicality. The Mughal Empire began to fall apart under Akbar’s autocratic great-grandson, Aurangzeb, who returned to orthodox Islam and reversed many of the inclusive policies Akbar had established, thereby losing the support and approval of many of his subjects.

The typical image of the rule of the British East India Company over large parts of India shows that rivalry with the French created a motive and the failing Mughal Empire provided a means to transform an “organization originally created to accumulate profits from oceanic trade (to one drawing) its basic sustenance from land revenues” (Bose and Jalal, 53). This transformation was brought about through military power in the form of Indian Sepoy mercenaries and a triangle of Naval blockades in Calcutta, Madras, and Mumbai. In the beginning, the Company founded its rule on preexisting Indian norms and this became the symbol of their legitimacy to rule. They modeled their government after Indian successor states, inserted themselves into the Mughal social order by paying tribute and lip-service to the Mughal Emperor, and adopted many cultural forms as well, such as dress and smoking the hookah. Some even married Indian women. After time, however, “it (became) preposterous to suggest, as one or two historians have done, that the company’s empire was more Indian than British” (Bose and Jalal, 54). The Company quickly expanded in the early nineteenth century until it controlled all of India. After the Company’s arrogance and failure to understand their subjects caused the rebellion in 1857, the British Crown took over their government. While the Company had legitimized their rule by adopting Indian norms, the Crown claimed to have rather arrogant hopes of somehow bettering or improving the Indians and this became their symbol for legitimacy. Syed Ahmed Khan suggests in The Causes of the Indian Revolt that “the ignorance of the government of the state of the country and their subject” and “the passing of such laws…as were inconsistent with the established customs and practices of Hindustan” were instrumental. The arrogant confidence the British had in their own military might was proved to be as ineffective as their desire to “civilize” their Indian subjects by the success of the Indian independence.

There were many varying opinions among the Nationalists, but one voice that is often heard above others is that of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi promoted ideas that are unique in Indian history. He claims that swaraj is the key to legitimate rule. Swaraj has a twofold meaning; it is both the right to rule others and the ability to rule oneself. In his book, Hind Swaraj, he claimed that when a person had attained swaraj, when he “(led) a moral life, (did) not cheat anyone, (did) not forsake the truth and (did) his duty,” then he could bring swaraj, or a legitimate rule, to India. The two meanings are tied together; the one must follow the other, or the latter is not possible. Gandhi also taught principles of Satyagraha, passive resistance or soul force, to his followers, saying that “sacrifice of the self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others” (Hind Swaraj). In a nutshell, Gandhi claimed that true legitimacy comes from swaraj, self-control, that the way to gain self-rule was through Satyagraha, and that in order to exert this force of passive resistance, rejection of all things European was necessary.

Some claims to legitimate rule have changed greatly over time while others have remained remarkably close to their original form. Military strength was used by every government except the ideal one Gandhi hoped for. Religious and cultural tolerance and inclusiveness were also part of every empire with the exception of the British. Serving the interests of Hinduism and the Brahmanical elite were the Chola’s and Gupta’s claims to legitimacy. And every state except the British, who had only self-interest at heart, attempted to practice good government by bringing economic prosperity, political stability, and cultural development. Although, with the exception of the British period, “Indian society, economy, and politics (has), from ancient times…displayed a great deal of dynamism…it was the ability to accommodate, if not assimilate, an immense diversity within a very broadly and loosely defined framework of unity which has given Indian cultural tradition its durability and appearance of… continuity” (Bose and Jalal, 16).


Bibliography:

Bose and Jalal, Modern South Asia, 2nd ed.,
New York Taylor & Francis, 2004.

Handouts and notes from Dr. Dodson’s lecture