Some little time ago, in one of my recent letters to you, I compared Europe with Asia. We saw that Asia was far more cultured and civilized than Europe at the time. And yet in India there was not much of creative work being done, and creation, I said, is the sign of life. This Gothic architecture coming out of semi-civilized Europe shows us that there was life enough there. In spite of the difficulties which disorder and a backward state of civilization present, this life breaks out and seeks methods of manifesting itself. The Gothic buildings were one of these manifestations. Later we shall see it coming out in painting and sculpture and the love of adventure.
You have seen some of these Gothic cathedrals. I wonder if you remember them. You visited the beautiful cathedral at Cologne in Germany. At Milan in Italy there is a very fine Gothic cathedral; so also at Chartres in France. But I cannot name all these places. These cathedrals are spread out over Germany, France, England and northern Italy. It is strange that in Rome itself there is no Gothic building of note.
During this great building period of the eleventh and twelfth centuries non-Gothic churches were also put up, like the great cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, and probably St. Mark’s in Venice. St. Mark’s, which you have seen, is an example of Byzantine work and has beautiful mosaics.
The age of faith declined, and with it the building of churches and cathedrals. Men’s thoughts turned in other directions, to their business and trade, to their civic life. Instead of cathedrals, city halls began to be built. So we find from the beginning of the fifteenth century beautiful Gothic town-halls or guild-halls scattered over northern and western Europe. In London the Houses of Parliament are Gothic, but I do not know when they were built. I have an idea that the original Gothic building was burnt down and another one, also Gothic in style, was then built.
These great Gothic cathedrals that rose up in the eleventh and twelfth centuries were situated in the towns and cities. The old cities were waking up, and new towns were growing. There was a change all over Europe, and everywhere town life was increasing. In the old days of the Roman Empire there were, of course, great towns all round the Mediterranean coast. But with the fall of Rome and Graeco-Roman civilization, these towns also decayed. Except for Constantinople there was hardly a big city in Europe, apart from Spain, where the Arabs were. In Asia—in India, China and the Arabian world—great cities flourished at this time. But Europe did not have them. Cities and culture and civilization seem to go together, and Europe had none of these for a long time after the collapse of the Roman order.
But now again there was a revival of city life. In Italy especially these cities grew. They were a thorn in the side of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, for they would not agree to the suppression of certain liberties they had. These cities in Italy and elsewhere represent the growth of the merchant classes and the bourgeoisie or middle classes.
Venice, lording it over the Adriatic Sea, had become a free republic. Beautiful as it is today, as the sea goes in and out through its winding canals, it is said that it was marshy land before the city was built. When Attila the Hun came down with fire and sword into Aquileia, some fugitives managed to escape to the marshes of Venice. They built themselves the city of Venice there and, situated as they were between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western, they managed to remain free. Trade came to Venice from India and the East and brought her riches, and she built up a navy and became a power on the sea. It was a republic of rich men with a president who was called a Doge. This republic lasted till Napoleon entered Venice as a conqueror in 1797. It is said that the Doge, who was a very old man, dropped down dead on that day. He was the last Doge of Venice.
On the other side of Italy was Genoa, also a great trading city of seafaring folk, a rival of Venice. In between was the university town of Bologna, and Pisa, and Verona and Florence, which was to produce soon so many great artists, and which was going to shine brilliantly under the rule of the famous Medici family. Milan, also in northern Italy, was already an important manufacturing centre; and, in the south, Naples was growing.
In France, Paris, which Hugh Capet had made his capital, was growing with the growth of France. Always Paris has been the nerve-centre and heart of France. There have been other capitals of other countries, but none of them, during the last 1000 years, has dominated the country so much as Paris has dominated France. Other towns in France which become important are Lyons and Marseilles (which was a very old port), Orleans, Bordeaux and Boulogne, In Germany, as in Italy, the growth of the free cities is most notable, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Their population grows, and as their power and wealth increase, they grow bolder, and fight the nobles. The Emperor sometimes encouraged them, as he wanted to subdue the big nobles. These cities formed big commercial leagues and associations for defending themselves. Sometimes these associations or confederacies, as they were called, actually made war on counter associations of nobles. Hamburg, Bremen, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Danzig, Nuremberg and Breslau were some of these growing cities.
In the Netherlands (known as Holland and Belgium now) there were the cities of Antwerp, Bruges and Ghent, commercial cities with an ever-growing business. In England, of course, there was London, but it could not then compete with the important cities of the Continent in size or wealth or trade. The two universities of Oxford and Cambridge were growing in importance as centres of learning. In the east of Europe there was the city of Vienna, one of the oldest in Europe; and in Russia there were Moscow and Kiev and Novgorod.
These new cities, or most of them, must be distinguished from the old-style imperial cities. The importance of the rising cities of Europe was not due to any emperor or king, but to the trade that they controlled. Their strength lay therefore not in the nobles, but in the merchant classes. They were merchant cities. The rise of the cities therefore means the rise of the bourgeoisie. This bourgeoisie, we shall see later, went on increasing in power, till it successfully challenged king and noble and seized power from them. But this was to happen long after the period we are considering.
Cities and civilization often go together, I have just said. With the growth of cities learning also grows and the spirit of freedom. Men living in rural areas are scattered and are often very superstitious. They seem to be at the mercy of the elements. They have to work hard and have little leisure, and they dare not disobey their lords. In cities large numbers live together; they have the opportunity of living a more civilized life, of learning, of discussing and criticizing, and of thinking.
So the spirit of freedom grows both against political authority as represented by the feudal nobles, and against the spiritual authority as represented by the Church. The age of faith declines and doubt begins. The authority of the Pope and of the Church is not always blindly obeyed. We saw how the Emperor Frederick II treated the Pope. We shall see this spirit of defiance growing.
There was also a revival of learning from the twelfth century onwards. Latin was the common language of the learned in Europe, and men in quest of knowledge travelled from one university to another. Dante Alighieri, the great Italian poet, was born in 1265. Petrarch, another great poet of Italy, was born in 1304. A little later, Chaucer, the earliest of the great English poets, flourished in England.
But even more interesting than the revival of learning were the faint beginnings of the scientific spirit, which was to grow so much in after-years in Europe. You will remember my telling you that the Arabs had this spirit and worked according to it to some extent. It was difficult for such a spirit of inquiry with an open mind and of experiment to exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church would not tolerate it. But in spite of the Church it begins to be visible. One of the first persons who had this scientific spirit at this time in Europe was an Englishman, Roger Bacon. He lived at Oxford in the thirteenth century.
65
The Afghans Invade India
June 23, 1932
My letter to you was interrupted yesterday. As I sat down
to write, I forgot the gaol and my surroundings here and travelled, with the speed of thought, back to the world of the Middle Ages. But I was brought back, with even greater speed, to the present, and was made rather painfully conscious of the gaol. I was told that orders had come from above forbidding interviews with Mummie and Diddaji1 for a month. Why? I was not told. Why should a prisoner be told? They have been here in Dehra Dun for ten days now waiting for the next interview day, and now their waiting has been to no purpose, and they must go back. Such is the courtesy extended to us. Well, well, we must not mind. It is all in the day’s work, and prison is prison, and we had better not forget it.
It was not possible for me to leave the present for the past after this rude awakening. But I feel a little better today, after a night’s rest. So I begin afresh.
We shall come back to India now. We have been away long enough. What was happening here while Europe was trying to struggle out of the darkness of the Middle Ages; when the people there were crushed under the weight of the feudal system and the general disorder and misgovernment that prevailed; when Pope and Emperor struggled against each other, and the countries of Europe took shape; when Christianity and Islam struggled for mastery during the Crusades?
Already we have had a glimpse of India during the early Middle Ages. We have also seen Sultan Mahmud swoop down from Ghazni in the north-west to the rich plains of northern India and plunder and destroy. Mahmud’s raids, terrible as they were, produced no great or lasting change in India. They gave a great shock to the country, especially the north, and numerous fine monuments and buildings were destroyed by him. But only Sindh and a part of the Punjab remained in the Empire of Ghazni. The rest of the north recovered soon enough; the south was not even touched, nor was Bengal. For another 150 years or more after Mahmud, neither Muslim conquest nor Islam made much progress in India.
It was towards the end of the twelfth century (about 1186 AC) that a fresh wave of invasion came from the north-west. An Afghan chief had arisen in Afghanistan, who captured Ghazni and put an end to the Ghaznavite Empire. He is called Shahab-ud-din Ghuri (Ghur being some little town in Afghanistan). He came down to Lahore, took possession of it, and then marched to Delhi. The King of Delhi was Prithvi Raj Chauhan, and under his leadership many other chiefs of northern India fought against the invader and defeated him utterly. But only for a while. Shahab-ud-din returned next year with a great force, and this time he defeated and killed Prithvi Raj.
Prithvi Raj is still a popular hero, and there are many legends and songs about him. The most famous of these is about his eloping with the daughter of Raja Jaichandra of Kanauj. But the elopement cost him dear. It cost him the lives of his bravest followers and the enmity of a powerful king. It sowed the seeds of dissension and mutual conflict, and thus made it easy for the invader to win.
Thus in 1192 AC was won the first great victory by Shahab-ud-din, which resulted in the establishment of Muslim rule in India. Slowly the invaders spread, east and south. In another 150 years (by 1340) Muslim rule extended over a great part of the south. Then it began to shrink in the south. New States arose, some Muslim, some Hindu, notably the Hindu empire of Vijayanagar. For 200 years Islam lost ground to some extent, and it was only when the great Akbar came, in the middle of the sixteenth century, that it spread again across nearly the whole of India.
The coming of the Muslim invaders into India produced many reactions. Remember that these invaders were Afghans, and not Arabs or Persians or the cultured and highly civilized Muslims of western Asia. From the point of view of civilization these Afghans were backward as compared to Indians; but they were full of energy and far more alive than India was at the time. India was too much in a rut. It was becoming unchanging and unprogressive. It stuck to the old ways and made no attempt to better them. Even with regard to methods of warfare India was backward, and the Afghans were far better organized. So, in spite of courage and sacrifice, the old India went down before the Muslim invader.
These Muslims were fierce and cruel enough to begin with. They came from a hard country where “softness” was not much appreciated. Added to this was the fact that they were in a newly conquered country, surrounded by enemies, who might revolt at any moment. Fear of rebellion must have been ever present, and fear often produces cruelty and frightfulness. So there were massacres to cow down the people. It was not a question of a Muslim killing a Hindu because of his religion; but a question of an alien conqueror trying to break the spirit of the conquered. Religion is almost always brought in to explain these acts of cruelty, but this is not correct. Sometimes religion was used as a pretext. But the real causes were political or social. The people from Central Asia, who invaded India, were fierce and merciless even in their homelands and long before they were converted to Islam. Having conquered a new country, they knew only one way of keeping it under control—the way of terror.
Gradually, however, we find India toning down these fierce warriors and civilizing them. They begin to feel as if they were Indians, and not foreign invaders. They marry women of the country, and the distinction between invader and the invaded slowly lessens.
It will interest you to know that Mahmud of Ghazni, who was the greatest destroyer that northern India had known, and who is said to have been a champion of Islam against the “idolaters”, had a Hindu army corps under a Hindu general, named Tilak. He took Tilak and his army to Ghazni and used him to put down rebellious Muslims. So you will see that for Mahmud the object was conquest. In India he was prepared to kill “idolaters” with the help of his Muslim soldiers; in Central Asia he was equally prepared to kill Muslims with the help of his Hindu soldiers.
Islam shook up India. It introduced vitality and an impulse for progress in a society which was becoming wholly unprogressive. Hindu art, which had become decadent and morbid, and heavy with repetition and detail, undergoes a change in the north. A new art grows up, which might be called Indo-Muslim, full of energy and vitality. The old Indian master-builders draw inspiration from the new ideas brought by the Muslims. The very simplicity of the Muslim creed and outlook on life influenced the architecture of the day, and brought back to it simple and noble design.
The first effect of the Muslim invasion was an exodus of people to the south. After Mahmud’s raids and massacres, Islam was associated in northern India with barbarous cruelty and destruction. So when the new invasion came and could not be checked, crowds of skilled craftsmen and learned men went to southern India. This gave a great impetus to Aryan culture in the south.
I have told you already something of the south. How the Chalukyas were the dominant power in the west and centre (the Maharashtra country) from the middle of the sixth century onwards for 200 years. Hiuen Tsang visited Pulakesin II, who was the ruler then. Then came the Rashtrakutas, who defeated the Chalukyas and dominated the south for another 200 years, from the eighth to nearly the end of the tenth century. These Rashtrakutas were on the best of terms with the Arab rulers of Sindh, and many Arab traders and travellers visited them. One such traveller has left an account of his visit. He tells us that the ruler of the Rashtrakutas of the time (ninth century) was one of the four great monarchs of the world. The other three great monarchs were, in his opinion, the Caliph of Baghdad, the Emperor of China, and the Emperor of Rum (that is, Constantinople). This is interesting as showing what the prevalent opinion in Asia must have been at the time. For an Arab travelled to compare the kingdom of the Rashtrakutas with the Caliph’s Empire, when Baghdad was at the height of its glory and power, means that this kingdom of Maharashtra must have been very strong and powerful.
These Rashtrakutas gave place again to the Chalukyas in the tenth century (973 AC), and these remained in power again for over 200 years (up to 1190 AC). There is a long poem about one of these Chalukyan kings, and in this it is stated that he was chosen by his wife at a public swayamvar.2 It is interesting to find this old Aryan custom surviving for so long.
Farther south and east in India lay the Tamil coun
try. Here from the third century to the ninth, for about 600 years, the Pallavas ruled; and for 200 years, beginning from the middle of the sixth century, they dominated the south. You will remember that it was these Pallavas who sent out colonizing expeditions to Malaysia and the eastern islands. The capital of the Pallava state was Kanchi or Conjeevaram, a beautiful city then, and even now remarkable for its wise town-planning.
The Pallavas give place to the aggressive Cholas early in the tenth century. I have told you something of the Chola Empire of Rajaraja and Rajendra, who built great fleets and went conquering to Ceylon, Burma and Bengal. More interesting is the information we have of the elective village panchayat system they had. This system was built up from below, village unions electing many committees to look after various kinds of work, and also electing district unions. Several districts formed a province. I have often, in these letters, laid stress on this village panchayat system, as this was the backbone of the old Aryan polity.
About the time of the Afghan invasions in northern India, the Cholas were dominant in southern India. Soon, however, they began to decline, and a little kingdom, which was subordinate to them, became independent and grew in power. This was the Pandya kingdom, with Madura for its capital and Kayal as its port. A famous traveller from Venice, Marco Polo, about whom I shall have something more to say later, visited Kayal, the port, twice, in 1288 and in 1293. He describes the town as “a great and noble city”, full of ships from Arabia and China, and humming with business. Marco himself came by ship from China.
Marco Polo also tells us that the finest muslins, which “look like tissue of spider’s web”, were made on the east coast of India. Marco mentions that a lady—Rudramani Devi—was the queen in the Telugu country—that is, the east coast north of Madras. This lady ruled for forty years, and she is highly praised by Marco.
Glimpses of World History Page 31