Buddhism in India

The Defeat of Buddhism in India 179

of untouchables, as we known them today, began to make their

appearance, serving as leather-workers, butchers, and field labour-

ers. The proud status of farmer-householders as gahapatisvanished;

now the leading landholders of the village sought to depict them-

selves as Kshatriyas or else were condemned to the inferior position

of Shudras. While trade linkages with the outside world continued,

they were now largely (except for eastern India) controlled by

merchants of non-Indian communities, Arabs and others. India

became ingrown.

Muslim Conversion

The large majority of Muslims found in the Indian subcontinent by

the British were not descendents of immigrants, whether Turks or

Mongols or Arabs by origin, but descendents of converted Indians.

Why the conversion took place has been a matter of intense inter-

est, to Indians themselves as well as to scholars.

In his recent study of Islam in Bengal, Richard Eaton describes

‘four conventional theories’ which he calls: (1) the ‘Religion of

the Sword’ thesis (forcible conversion), (2) the ‘Royal Patronage’

thesis (self-interested conversion for the benefits of being Muslim

under a Muslim king); the ‘Religion of Social Liberation’ thesis

(Islam being an equalitarian religion attracted low-caste converts

fleeing the oppressions of Brahmanic varnasrama society); and

(4) the immigrant thesis. The first two he rejects on the grounds

that the mass of poorer Muslims are found not at the centers of

Muslim rule, where both force and patronage would have been of

greater significance, but in the northeast and northwest, at the

peripheries. However, he also rejects the Social Liberation thesis,

arguing that most of the mass converts had never really been

Hindus. They were basically hunting, fishing, gathering peoples

who went directly from a tribal culture to that of Islam. Most of

these tribes such as the Rajbansi, Pod, Candal, Kuch and other

indigenous groups had been only lightly exposed to Brahmanic

culture. Eaton argues instead that in Bengal the converts came

mainly from the eastern areas which had not been settled into

cultivation or ‘Hinduised’. Islam in Bengal was thus identified

with the expansion of cultivation (Eaton 1997: 118). And he adds,

rather sarcastically, that the Social Liberation thesis attributes

guardians of Brahmanic orthodoxy, but they were landlocked, with
their capital centered at Kanauj and therefore were unable to achieve
true hegemony (Wink 1990: 276–92).
The Rashtrakutas who controlled Maharashtra, Gujarat and
Madhya Pradesh, from the late 8th to the 10th century, were
described by the Arabs as the true paramount rulers of India. Their
greatest ruler Krishnaraja I (CE 738–773) was the builder of the
fabulous rock-cut Kailasha temple, a monument that symbolised a
takeover of the cave-temple heritage of the Buddhists and Jains.
They gained power due to the favourable position of Gujarat in the
maritime trade with the Islamic world, and their rise paralleled the
expansion of this trade (ibid.: 303–09).
Finally, the Cholas of Tamil Nadu became dominant through-
out India, in the late 10th and 11th centuries. They based their
power on brahman-occupied villages and, again, on huge temple
complexes symbolising royal divinity, such as the Rajeshwari
temple (ibid.: 231). Bhakti movements, both of Shaivism and
Vaishnavism, spread during their time, fighting and replacing to a
large degree the ‘heretic’ religions of Buddhism and Jainism. The
rise of the Cholas was linked to the economic advance of China in
the Sung era and the tremendous expansion of trade it involved.
The Cholas also expanded into southeast Asia, where Brahman-
dominated courts similarly emerged, though there most of the
population retained a loyalty to Buddhism. They were an exception
to the general exclusion of Indians from active role in seafaring and
trade (ibid.: 311–34).
‘Round and round the mandala’ is how John Keay has described
the power shifts and rather meaningless conquests of the era (Keay
2000: 167). The common features of these kingdoms were decen-
tralised and ‘feudalised’ administration, shifting hierarchies of all-
India control, the sponsorship of elaborate and magnificent temple
complexes proclaiming the glories of both kings and Brahmans,
and access to outside trade as a major source of power and surplus.
At the village level, with the spread of agriculture, there was an
increasing proliferation of artisan and service jatis (castes), in con-
trast to the earlier guilds, and whole villages of carpenters, weavers
and such like depicted in the Jatakas. Numerous village temples
featured local gods and goddesses now identified with Vishnu,
Shiva or other ‘Great Tradition’ deities. Their worship and wealth
were controlled by priests who were largely Brahmans. The castes

178 Buddhism in India