The tolerance of Hindu religion - 3

...the intolerance of Hindus moves inward and tolerance moves outward. It is all relative. The Brahmans were more pliant than all the others. They simply disowned the idol worship to avoid the Jaziya tax imposed by Muslim rulers on Hindus. The Jaziya tax was not to be imposed on people of book like Koran and Bible. The Brahmans disowned the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh and the temples and rest of the Hindus and claimed that their sole allegiance was to their books; the four Vedas which made them the people of book – ahle-e-kitab. The people of book were not liable to be taxed under Jaziy tax. Thus they avoided the Jaziya tax. It is a classic example of their flexibility and of not having any answerability toward other Hindus who are lower then them. They disowned the Hindus and their gods and nobody thought to question them. It was a complete lack of indignation at betrayal.

The emergence of tolerance seems to be the result of the relative lack of might of Hindu religion against Muslims. Showing intolerance and opposing Muslims and their mosques might have resulted in a quick and brutal show of might of state. Muslims were the rulers. The fear of reprisals helped the development of Hindu tolerance.

One of the reasons among several others for the Hindus losing out to Muslims was the finely divided and graded society along bloodlines and purity. Such a fine, scientific and divine division labor produced a society where people could not link to each other because the bloodlines separated them with in caste. A demilitarized society of thousands jatis could not produce a homogeneous group of warring people large enough in numbers to tackle the militarized society of Islam where people were linked to each other in the name of Islam – the worshipiing is secondary in Hindu society not the stratification. The linking of society in India was provided by the caste not by the religion. The new religion of Islam promised equality to its followers and a share in loot to soldiers. The Islamic soldiers did not most probably understand the concept of equality but they fully understood the importance of a share of loot that prompted them to join Islam and Islamic army and a promise to go to heaven and live there with the Hoors if they were martyred in the cause of Islam. And there was no concept of dying for a cause in India. Therefore there is no equivalent to word “martyr” in Indian languages. There was no cause worth fighting for except political cause. There was indeed concept of killing and mutilating Shudras and untouchables for dharma. But there was no concept of giving up one’s own life for dharma. The absence of such a concept was also the contributory reason for outward tolerance of Hindu religion and absence of crusades in Sanatana dharma. Some castes were wiling to die for their honor but not for a cause. Nobody was willing to die so everybody got subjugated. Why die for a cause or for others? Absolutely there was no point. Willingness to die for their religion separated Muslims from Hindus. The Hindus fought for money, the valiant but purely mercenary soldiers.

In the presence of such situation, one alternative to avoid defeat was to have a large army of mercenary Hindu soldiers though finely divided into different non-inter dining jatis. The sheer size could have compensated for the weakness created by the irrevocable divisions in the Hindu society. The army that was big enough to repel the attacks was the need of the honor. The people who could not eat together could not fight together on sustainable basis though they could fight together on a temporary basis until some real danger presented itself. The only motive to fight was to provide sustenance to oneself. These people deserted the army whenever defeat looked...