Invaders or Migrants

Our formal history books as well as WhatsApp University frequently mention about “Muslim” invaders and “Muslim” rule in India. A little reflection suggests a certain absurdity if not down-right bias in any such classification. 

First, the so called “Muslim” invaders such as the Arabs, Persian, Turks, Mughals etc, were of different ethnicities, had different languages, and culture. Clubbing all of them under a monolithic “Muslim” identity is strange, considering that none of the other migrant groups, and there have been many - Greeks, Scythians, Huns, Europeans, Chinese etc. – are labelled (even remotely) by their religious identities.

Second, the bilateral exchange of people and ideas between India and other peoples, especially from Arab and Persian countries, started much before any of these people adopted the Islamic religion and has been in place for at least 3000 years. Such interaction, largely due to trade, naturally included elements of social, cultural, and intellectual exchanges. Archaeological excavations in Bahrain from their ancient Dilmun civilization have revealed that weights & measures found there are identical to those found in Indus Valley civilization sites. Time and again we have reports of caches of Roman gold coins found in various part of India including our sacred temples. There is no way that they could have come on their own. They accumulated through trade which was intermediated largely by the Arabs.

There is much evidence of exchange of ideas and concepts in the region of mathematics, science, medicine, and literature. For example, elements of trigonometry are thought to have been first developed by the Greeks, refined to its present form by the Indians, then borrowed by the Arabs, before reaching Europe, and in the process the Sanskrit jaya and cojaya got converted to the Latin sine and cosine! The Arabs still call their number systems as Indian numerals. We also know that games such as chess and snakes and ladders, stories from Indian languages, medical practices etc. enriched both the migrating populations and culture. The exchange of peoples and ideas was never one way – into India – but there was emigration too.

Incidentally, there is a direct and strong Indian connection with the Arabic words Muhannad (Sword) and Muhanndis (Engineer). Both words are derived from the exact same Arabic root letters: M-H-N-D, which historically trace back to the word for India (Al-Hind), or rather from the phrase min-al-Hind meaning "from India".  As is well known, in ancient times, India was world-renowned for its exceptionally high-quality steel and superior sword-making craftsmanship. The literal meaning of the word Muhannad is "Made of Indian steel" or "An Indian sword." It is also a popular Arabic male given to boys. Since these “Indian swords” (Saif Hindi) were so prized, Arab poets used the word Muhannad in classical poetry to symbolize ultimate sharpness, strength, valor, and cutting-edge reliability.

The word Muhandis literally means "One who works with geometry, measurements, or precise design." It is the modern Arabic word for Engineer or Architect. Because Indian sword-making and architecture required highly precise calculations, geometry, and craftsmanship, the Persian language borrowed the root to describe a geometrician or builder which was later Arabized as Muhandis. Today, in Arabic it applies to all fields of engineering.

Therefore, while Muhannad refers specifically to the legendary sharp sword made from Indian steel, Muhandis refers to the person who uses precise calculations and engineering. They are linguistic cousins born from the ancient Arab admiration for Indian craftsmanship.

Third, these migrants had their distinct ethnic identities and also came from geographically dispersed place and adopted Islam at different times. Their Islamic religious practices also differ in various crucial aspects (think celebration of Basant in Pakistan).  Even more so, there is little love lost between most of these ethnic groups, especially the Arabs, Persians, and Turks, who have been in virtual continuous violent interaction with each other for centuries – both before they adopted Islam and after.

Fourth, what explains the pre-ponderance of Muslim artisans in many of our traditional industries – think Banarasi sarees, Dhaka muslins, Mirzapur carpets, Moradabad & Bidar metal work, Saharanpur carpentry, Ferozabad glass bangles, or Hyderabad lac bangles. Move around India, many of our modern-day skilled technicians - car, motor, AC, or tailors – are from the Muslim community.  In fact, the common Indian word for tailor, darzi, is pure Arabic. I have not been able to find an Indian equivalent. Did the so called “invaders” come to loot or to find employment in industries where there were gaps in technical skills in the Indian sub-continent which they came to plug as economic migrants? Similar to the way, Indian software developers and engineers are preponderant in present day Western nations? Which in turn has prompted political calls of “Indian” invasion, with the growing incidence of temples, community participation in festivals, Indian stores etc. Considering this, would development of a full-fledged mythology of “Indian” armed invasion of the US and Europe be far behind!

Fifth, there is little reason for invaders coming to loot to get coins struck with local motifs. We have evidence of silver coins minted by the Mughals depicting Ram-Sita. Even the much-reviled Mahmud Ghazni (infamous for his repeated attacks and destruction of the great temple at Somnath in AD 1024) had got bilingual coins (in Arabic and Sanskrit) struck in 419 AH (AD 1028) at Lahore (which was then known as Mahmudpur). An interesting aspect of this coin is that the Sanskrit translation is the declaration that the Prophet Muhammad is a manifestation (avatar) of God – not a messenger, which from an orthodox Islamic viewpoint, is a heretical statement!

Migration which involves moving away from all that is familiar is always a difficult decision and the initial cohort are primarily males. This leads to the problem by such migrants of finding women to set up families and naturally turn to local women. This aspect is widely indicated in our mythology where many of our mythological characters had local wives. Arjun’s wives included the Naga Ulupi, and the Manipuri Chitrangada. Bhima had Hidimbi, a Rakshah woman as wife. One of Krishna’s principal wives was Rukmini from Vidarbha and not from his native Vrindavan. The Mughals were famous for their local Hindu wives. Incidentally, recent advances in genetics supports the view that our Indian Muslim population largely consists of progeny of foreign men marrying Indian women and their descendants. This aspect is most prominent in our Moplah population, the community with the longest and oldest continual association with the Arabs. Would this have happened if the migrants were principally invaders rather than economic migrants?

It would, therefore be fair to assume that there was slow and steady migration into India due to economic circumstances and the fight started only after the migrant population had got fairly well established in India – politically, economically, and culturally. Just like the British came to rule India, and not because of invasion.

Research in this area is what modern day Indian historians may consider focussing on.