Buddhism in India

The Defeat of Buddhism in India 175

other religions and races, often ghettoising them and occasionally,

depending on the economic–political situation, used violence

against them. Notions of ‘jihad’, the ‘just war’, the subjugation of

the mlecchaand various other ways of vanquishing ‘evil’ ideology

and people from the opponent, groups have pervaded all religions,

Buddhism perhaps less than others. Rulers of all religions, simi-

larly, have allowed people of other religions to live within their ter-

ritories, particularly if these have some social and economic

strength. The degree of rights (more accurately, privileges) versus

ghettoisation and discrimination has normally depended on non-

religious factors.

Islam in these respects has been little different from other major

religions. Had Buddhism been sufficiently strong both economi-

cally and socially at the time of conquest, Buddhists would have

been treated much as ‘Hindus’ were treated. On the whole, Islam’s

record of tolerance in premodern times, in regard to Christian,

Jewish and ‘Hindu’ inhabitants of territories ruled by Muslims has

been as good as other religions. In this sense, Ambedkar as well as

distinguished historians like Basham fell into a Hindutva concep-

tual trap in blaming Islam.

However, some religious and ideological factors were involved

that helped make ‘the sword of Islam’ if not the ‘greatest disaster’, a

major blow for Buddhism in India. Buddhism and Islam were com-

petitors at a level very different from the relations between Islam and

Brahmanism. Both were universal religions, drawing their adherents

from all ethnic groups and all countries. Both were missionary

religions, not confining themselves to a geographic territory, sending

out their teachers and preachers to win over all men and women to

the true doctrine. Both were connected with commerce and trade—

the Muslim trading network in fact superseded the Buddhist trading

network that linked India with Rome, Persia, Greece and Africa to

the west and through central Asia to China in the east. In the west,

the confrontation between Islam and Christianity led to bitter wars.

Buddhism discouraged militarism more than either Islam or

Christianity, yet the confrontation was no less profound, not because

of their difference, but because of their similarities.

Brahmanism did not offer the same kind of challenge to Islam. It

did not seek converts. Brahmans also were probably not too con-

cerned if significant numbers of low caste or frontier people turned

to Islam as long as their heartland areas were not challenged; and

of the danda, the ability to punish, as central to the concept of
rulership, the attraction of Brahmanism for kings will be clear.
Buddhist kings were expected to behave morally in their own lives
and to be just and generous towards their subjects. Kings accepting
Brahmanism were only expected to enforce the caste system. This
would ensure that their use of power could be confirmed, just as the
rich could be confirmed in their accumulation of riches, without
any need to limit this by ethical considerations.
At the organisational level, Buddhism tended to draw its monks
away from direct social and political involvement, including
involvement in the service of kings. While the Sangha in many soci-
eties (Thailand, Sri Lanka and even China) did provide ideological
and material support to rulers,^6 its autonomy and potentiality for
providing a base of opposition in comparison to the very diffuseness
of Brahmanism marked it as a threat. Thus, ideologically, socially
and organisationally Brahmanism in a narrow self-interested
sense, proved more useful to Indian kings, than Buddhism. That it
militated against a stronger political consolidation at an all-India
level, and politically weakened Indian society in crucial ways, is a
different matter.

The Role of Islam

Almost all historians see the invasion of the Turks, signifying the
advent of Islam as a ruling power in India, as dealing the final blow
to Buddhism in India. The reality, as we have seen, was much more
complex. To view ‘Muslims’ uniquely as destroyers and looters of
monasteries and temples in contrast to people of other religions
(e.g. ‘Hindus’) is an erroneous concept, a product of the Hindutva
ideology that began to take shape in 19th century India.
Conquerors, of every religion and race, have always tended to loot
and destroy; and the symbols of the culture, wealth and power of
the conquered have always been a major object of such destruction.
Pre-modern rulers, whatever be their religion or race, have nor-
mally discriminated to some degree or another against people of

174 Buddhism in India

(^6) Whalen Lai’s survey of Buddhism in China indicates that at certain periods even
monks played a crucial role as advisors in war time (Lai 1995: 284–89).