Scan barcode
markk's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
In the early 11th century CE, Mahmud of Ghazni, the Turkish ruler of an empire based in southeastern Afghanistan, launched a series of military expeditions into the Indian subcontinent. Though not the first Muslim ruler to do so, by the time of his death he had established an empire that extended into the Punjab, marking a considerable expansion of the territory in the region controlled by Islamic rulers. While the Ghaznavid empire Mahmud left behind collapsed in the late 12th century, its successor, the Ghurids, expanded their dominion eastward to encompass Bengal, forming the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate that would eventually dominate much of the Indian subcontinent until its replacement by the Mughal empire in the 16th century.
All this constitutes an era commonly referred to as the “Muslim period” in India’s history. As Richard Eaton argues in his introduction, however, such a label is a misnomer that inappropriately projects modern-day claims of identity and influence into the past. Lost in the process is the far more significant influence of Persian culture, which interacted with the predominant Sanskrit civilization of the subcontinent in ways that transformed permanently the languages, practices, and architecture of the region. His book offers a chronological account of this change, showing how the scope and motivations of this influence changed over time as various Turkish dynasties dominated the politics of the subcontinent over a period that lasted for nearly eight centuries.
Eaton begins his analysis by describing the political cultures of the two civilizations at the start of the era. As he details, these were far from uniform or coherent, as the Persianized Turks brought with them to India competing concepts of legitimate authority grounded in both the Sufi faith and a courtly discourse that drew upon pre-Islamic Persian traditions. These contrasted with Sanskritic strategic concepts of the mandala, a theory that defined political space in terms of concentric circles of allies, enemies, and “enemies of enemies.” Though the Ghaznavids had embraced fully cosmopolitan Persian culture, their Ghurid successors were only recent converts to Islam and had not fully imbibed the practices that the Ghaznavids ad introduced. This gave Sanskrit concepts of legitimacy and rule an opportunity to assert themselves amongst the Persianized Turks in northern India, beginning a process of synthesis that would unfold over the course of the next several centuries.
These ideas were diffused throughout the subcontinent with the expansion and subsequent decline of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th-15th centuries. To detail this, Eaton moves away from the northern India focus so prevalent among histories of the subcontinent to describe the many states in the south and how they adapted to the Persianate ideas introduced to their region. Though local identities reasserted themselves forcefully in the wake of Timur’s conquest of the north in the 15th century, the persistence of Sanskrit and Persian in their literary cultures is noted by the author as just one example of the endurance of this influence even after local elites reasserted their control over their regions. Another was the prevalence of sultanate institutions, which Eaton sees as embodying the synthesis of Sanskrit and Persian concepts of authority and governance over the previous centuries and which were adopted by the local rulers when they established their own states in the wake of the Delhi recessional.
Thus, when Babur arrived in northern India in 1526 he encountered a region that was already shaped extensively by the ideas and culture of the world from which he came. Eaton’s account of the Mughal era takes up over half of the book, as he details the succession of emperors (padishahs) that extended gradually their control over the subcontinent. Though this amounted generally to a reaffirmation of the synthesized Persian-Sanskritic political culture, he notes in particular the effort of Aurangzeb to establish a different model of sovereignty, one rooted not in inherited Timurid concepts of sacral monarchy but in what can be seen as a more modern practice of the rule of law. Its failure saw the more traditional Persian-Sanskritic concepts reassert themselves, which would remain dominant until the decline of Mughal rule and the intruding forces of globalization represented by the increasing British presence introduced new influences that would dislodge the practices of the Persianate era.
By focusing on the interaction between Persian and Sanskritic cultures and their impact upon the Indian subcontinent, Eaton offers his readers a refreshingly different understanding of a pivotal era in its history. It is revisionist history of the best sort, one that challenges traditional views in ways that improve dramatically our understanding of the past. Though replete with detail, it is largely presented in an accessible manner that makes few assumptions about his reader’s prior knowledge of the subject. Where it falls short is in the relative narrowness of Eaton’s focus, which excludes any consideration of the impact of the political and cultural transformations he describes on Indian society. Yet this is perhaps an understandable exclusion given the already considerable scope of Eaton’s work, which provides an impressively coherent overview of the period and one that will hopefully inspire further scholarship that will expand on his persuasive arguments.
girlfrombookland's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
5.0
haaris's review against another edition
5.0
Easily the best book I've read all year. I highly recommend it.
India in the Persianate Age is a magisterial account of the rich and endlessly fascinating interaction between two transregional cultures, the Sanskrit and the Persianate, through a large chunk of the second millennium.
Eaton persuasively argues that colonial constructs of imagining this period in India are hopelessly narrow. Chapter by chapter he provides insightful examples and evidence for an India in constant churn, not split on modern notions of identity; rather constantly synthesizing new and old influences, led both by grassroots movements and by rulers of all shades.
What is also illuminating is his discussion of the economy during this time. It is well known that India was an economic behemoth, largely self sufficient, and later saw an incredible inflow of silver as demand for its products ballooned.
Personal notes: should have read the book in January 2020 but left it in Delhi, spending more than a year in New York in the pandemic.
India in the Persianate Age is a magisterial account of the rich and endlessly fascinating interaction between two transregional cultures, the Sanskrit and the Persianate, through a large chunk of the second millennium.
Fundamentally -- and this is the underlying theme of this book -- much of India's history between 1000 and 1800 can be understood in terms of the prolonged and multifaceted interaction between the Sanskrit and Persianate worlds.My favorite part was his discussion of 15th century India, what has often been described, rather dismally, as the 'long fifteenth century.' Eaton describes a wonderfully vibrant time of regional dynasties and cultural movements, in Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Kashmir in the north, and the Vijayanagara empire and the Bahmani sultanate in the south. Through this time, new identities developed in each of these regions, and local courts patronized artists to create architecture and written works that synthesized traditional styles with the Persian influence.
Eaton persuasively argues that colonial constructs of imagining this period in India are hopelessly narrow. Chapter by chapter he provides insightful examples and evidence for an India in constant churn, not split on modern notions of identity; rather constantly synthesizing new and old influences, led both by grassroots movements and by rulers of all shades.
What is also illuminating is his discussion of the economy during this time. It is well known that India was an economic behemoth, largely self sufficient, and later saw an incredible inflow of silver as demand for its products ballooned.
'India is rich in silver,' noted the English merchant William Hawkins in 1613, 'for all nations bring coyne and carry away commodities for the same.'But I also found the contrast between the coercive mercantilist economy of the British and the prevailing Indian system to be very insightful.
Passed in 1563 and remaining on the books until 1813, the Statute of Artificers stipulated, among other things, that English workers could not leave an employer until after at least one year's labour for him, that workers seeking new employment required a termination certificate from a former employer, and that workers' wages would be set by government officials. Measures of this nature aligned with prevailing mercantilist thought that obliged the state to take any necessary steps to keep domestic manufactures competitive at home and abroad...I could go on -- and I will on my blog -- but let me end by saying that it's about time people from South Asia tapped into the incredible array of well-researched histories written by recent scholars and academics. It is essential so that we throw off hearsay destructive narratives wantonly thrown about everywhere.
By contrast, neither the Mughals nor other Indian states with which the English company dealt claimed the right, or ever wished, to intervene directly in the production process. For officials of the Mughal empire and those of the English East India Company occupied very different moral universes. In 1778, for example, officers of the English company asked the nawab of Arcot in the Tamil country to round up and forcibly return weavers who had fled from a company-controlled manufacturing centre. Astonished at the request, the nawab replied that such a thing was 'contrary to custom and it was never done before.' Even taxation had its limits. Since the supply of arable land in pre-colonial India surpassed that of labour, villagers always had the option of simply abandoning their fields and establishing new settlements elsewhere if their taxes became too onerous. Aware of this, states sought non-coercive means to keep villagers productive. Emperor 'Alamgir, for example, ordered that if any cultivator abandoned his fields, local revenue officers 'should ascertain the cause and work very hard to induce him to return to his former place.'
Personal notes: should have read the book in January 2020 but left it in Delhi, spending more than a year in New York in the pandemic.
torvosaur's review against another edition
5.0
This is an incredible read, and got me questioning my own biases about Indian history, and also made me realise the breadth and complexity of the Persianate age.
More detailed review to follow, but this is an absolute MUST READ for anyone interested in the so-called "medieval" age of India.
More detailed review to follow, but this is an absolute MUST READ for anyone interested in the so-called "medieval" age of India.
rhys_thomas_sparey's review
informative
slow-paced
5.0
This took me a lifetime to read, not because it is written poorly by any means, but because I mistook it for a work of popular non-fiction, when it is in truth an academic tome. But what an impressive tome. 'India in the Persianate Age, 1000-1765' is tremendous in scope, microscopically detailing the epic clash of two great civilizations that would culminate in Contemporary India: Persian and Sanskrit.
Two historians pose small but useful criticisms worth remembering when reading it: Katherine Schofield notes that the Persianate Age continued way past 1765 and Karen Ruffle fears that a focus on language as a vehicle of cultural diffusion in characterising India's troublesome Middle Period sidelines religion, which was also hugely influential in determining the prevailing worldviews of the time.
Despite the five-star rating, I share these concerns. Nevertheless, it remains my favourite history of Mughal India yet. It is vivid and immense, improving greatly on deeply racist accounts of the Mughal Emperors as instigators and overseers of an Islamic dark age. In contrast, Eaton evidences how religious diversity thrived and advances made in the second millenium resulted in the sub-continent's global pre-eminence and catalysed its modernity.
Perhaps, this book can form the basis of a narrative of the religious intersubjectivity that no doubt inheres in the interpercolation of the Sanskritic and Persianate worlds and further highlights the absurd and tragic irony of Hindu Nationalism that suppresses Muslim culture in India today.
Two historians pose small but useful criticisms worth remembering when reading it: Katherine Schofield notes that the Persianate Age continued way past 1765 and Karen Ruffle fears that a focus on language as a vehicle of cultural diffusion in characterising India's troublesome Middle Period sidelines religion, which was also hugely influential in determining the prevailing worldviews of the time.
Despite the five-star rating, I share these concerns. Nevertheless, it remains my favourite history of Mughal India yet. It is vivid and immense, improving greatly on deeply racist accounts of the Mughal Emperors as instigators and overseers of an Islamic dark age. In contrast, Eaton evidences how religious diversity thrived and advances made in the second millenium resulted in the sub-continent's global pre-eminence and catalysed its modernity.
Perhaps, this book can form the basis of a narrative of the religious intersubjectivity that no doubt inheres in the interpercolation of the Sanskritic and Persianate worlds and further highlights the absurd and tragic irony of Hindu Nationalism that suppresses Muslim culture in India today.
mihrchand's review against another edition
5.0
A fact most easily forgotten in recent times is the sheer vastness of the Persianate world that stretched from Istanbul right up to the Bay of Bengal. Rather, a tendency has been to treat regions of this vast swathe of land in terms of modern nation-states.
Eaton, in his characteristic style manages to pick out the region of South Asia for the purposes of his research but does not treat it as a region isolated from the vastness of the world. Rather, the author goes against the grain of nationalist scholarship that endorses a “pure” Indian culture, “corrupted” by foreign influences. From the Delhi Sultanate up until the rise of the East India Company, Eaton collates a narrative that is not solely limited to the Hindavi speaking heartland. The Deccan, Gujarat, Bengal as well as several other regions of the subcontinent are given due attention. Further, Eaton sets himself apart by using a variety of visual sources often eschewed by traditional historiography. An interesting hypothesis of the confluence of Persianate and Sanskritic styles of kingship thread throughout the book, although I personally do not agree with the definition of the monolithic nature and dichotomy of cultures. Certainly, worth a close read with up to date research at the time of publishing.
Eaton, in his characteristic style manages to pick out the region of South Asia for the purposes of his research but does not treat it as a region isolated from the vastness of the world. Rather, the author goes against the grain of nationalist scholarship that endorses a “pure” Indian culture, “corrupted” by foreign influences. From the Delhi Sultanate up until the rise of the East India Company, Eaton collates a narrative that is not solely limited to the Hindavi speaking heartland. The Deccan, Gujarat, Bengal as well as several other regions of the subcontinent are given due attention. Further, Eaton sets himself apart by using a variety of visual sources often eschewed by traditional historiography. An interesting hypothesis of the confluence of Persianate and Sanskritic styles of kingship thread throughout the book, although I personally do not agree with the definition of the monolithic nature and dichotomy of cultures. Certainly, worth a close read with up to date research at the time of publishing.