The tolerance of Hindu religion - 5

....The rise of Islam cut off the trade between India and Europe. Europe depended on India to provide spices and clothes. A large portion of gold of Roman Empire flowed to India through trade. The Roman Empire was not in existence when the new invaders came to India. However the trade was continued. The rise of Islam brought a stop to that. Europe was the main source of income through trade. After rise of Islam the Arab traders monopolized the trade between India and Europe. They paid minimum to Indian sellers and charged maximum to European buyers. This had an adverse effect both on India and Europe. The prosperity of both declined. The cities and urban centers in India declined during this period. Some part of this wealth of Arab traders might have gone to finance the Islamic wars and expansion of Ottoman Empire. This extremely high cost for Indian goods ultimately forced Europeans to find a sea route to India indicating the vital importance of trade both for India and Europe. The Arab traders monopolized this trade for about seven hundred years during which Islam spread and enjoyed its golden period. Its golden period incidentally came to an end with the discovery of sea route to India.

The trade through Arabs reduced the margins on trade and thus taxes revenue of the Indian kings.

Another source of raising revenue was agriculture. By the time Muslims came to India the India had had inherited a tradition of wealthy and land owning temples, which were power centers in themselves. The new kings had continuously patronized the Brahmans and temples to raise their social status and attain the status of a caste divinely ordained to rule; in other words to acquire divine right to rule over everybody except Brahmans and temples. The land grants and donations by kings and Vaisyas made these temples so rich that many of them were richer than the richest Vaisyas. The Brahmans who were knower of Vedas did not have to pay tax on their land. Other Brahmanas were taxed at a lower rate. There was a large scale of transfer of wealth to Brahmans and temples. The temple wealth also indicated a devotion of Vaisyas to dharma. The life was not worth living if it was not for dharma. This automatically meant a paucity of resources with the dharmic kings. And no king could think of attacking temples to loot their wealth because that could have been adharmic and could have robbed him of divine right to rule. Large amount of wealth and socially powerful Brahmans were outside the control of kings. The temples enjoyed the wealth but did not provide army to kings in case of need. The Brahmanas, individually and through temples, had cornered a considerable chunk of wealth. This was going to be proved fatal to India but nobody learned the lessons. The importance of land grants to Brahmans and temples can be seen in the fact that the kings who did not do so offered better resistance to Muslim rulers; the Rajputs of Rajasthan...