Jain Perceptions Of Islam In Early Modern Period

This text, "Jain Perceptions of Islam in the Early Modern Period" by Paul Dundas, critically examines the historical narrative of Hindu-Muslim relations in South Asia, arguing that recent scholarship, often influenced by nationalist agendas, has oversimplified this complex interaction by focusing solely on confrontation. Dundas highlights the crucial oversight of Jain sources in this discourse, arguing that their inclusion offers a more nuanced understanding.

The paper begins by addressing the prevailing scholarly tendency to view Hindu-Muslim relationships as exclusively confrontational, a perspective often rooted in British colonial historiography. Dundas points to scholars like Barbara D. Metcalf and Cynthia Talbot, who have demonstrated that historical interactions were marked by ideological accommodation and integration alongside hostility, depending on specific political and military circumstances.

Dundas then introduces Sheldon Pollock's influential argument that the Ramayana narrative and the subsequent cult of Rama contributed to the "demonization" of Muslims as modern-day raksasas (demons). To corroborate this, Dundas cites the Jain poet Devavimala Ganin, who, in his commentary on the Hirasubhagya, describes the Mughal minister Abu'l Fazl as the "Sukra of the world" (guru of earthly demons), confirming the vernacular use of "demons" for Muslims. However, Dundas immediately counters this generalization by referencing another Jain biography of Hiravijaya Suri, the Jagadgurukary by Padmasagara, where Hindus opposing the Mughal forces are themselves described in demonic terms. This highlights the varied and context-dependent nature of such demonizing rhetoric.

The core of Dundas's argument then shifts to the importance of understanding Islam as a religious tradition, not just its adherents. He notes the relative lack of evidence for Indian knowledge of Islam's soteriological pathways and theological assumptions in Sanskrit texts until the late sixteenth century. The exception is the Buddhist Kalacakra Tantra, which offers information about Islam, likely to frame an apocalyptic prophecy.

Dundas identifies the Hirasubhagya (a biography of the Jain monk Hiravijaya Suri) as a key text for understanding Jain perceptions of Islam. Hiravijaya Suri, who famously influenced Emperor Akbar to practice ahimsa (non-violence), is presented in Jain literature as a figure of charisma and influence. Dundas suggests that the Jain community's engagement with the Mughal court, as depicted in texts like the Hirasubhagya and Jagadgurukary, may have been partly motivated by a desire to secure economic interests through political patronage.

The paper then delves into the specific content of the Hirasubhagya, focusing on a debate between Hiravijaya Suri and a Muslim scholar (likely Abu'l Fazl) in Agra. The Muslim scholar presents Islam's core tenets, including the concept of a creator God, divine judgment, heaven, and hell. Hiravijaya Suri, in response, refutes the idea of a creator god overseeing assemblies and dispensing reward or punishment, emphasizing instead the principle of karma as the determinant of destiny. He questions the logic of a creator god who creates and then destroys, arguing that true destiny is shaped by one's own karma.

Dundas notes that while this debate might reflect a historical encounter, the Hirasubhagya is also a work of hagiography and court epic (mahakavya). He suggests that Devavimala's portrayal of the debate is filtered through the conventions of existing literary traditions, drawing parallels to the Naisadhacarita, where Vedic gods defend orthodox Hinduism against heresy.

The author also highlights the use of the term "khuda" (Persian for God) by Padmasagara in comparing Hiravijaya Suri to "srimatkhuda," suggesting an adaptation of hagiographical similes to changed circumstances. He also points out the conspicuous omission in recent scholarship of how Islam itself was understood as a religious tradition, a gap he aims to fill.

Dundas concludes by touching upon later Jain interactions and perceptions, mentioning a passage from the Moksamargaprakasaka that critiques both Hinduism and Islam for their reliance on violence and their perceived decline in religious adherence in the "age of Kali" (current degenerate age), suggesting a growing Jain self-perception of distinction and perhaps superiority. He notes the irony of Todar Mal, a critic of both religions, being executed amidst sectarian unrest.

In essence, Dundas's paper argues for a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of Jain-Muslim interactions in early modern India, moving beyond simplistic narratives of conflict and emphasizing the influence of literary conventions, political contexts, and the specific theological and philosophical frameworks of both communities.