Mainstream WeeklyIntroduction
“My message is that you have to study history in depth and in detail and look at particularities” stated William Dalrymple in an interview with Vrinda Gopinath last year [1]. The interview has been doing the rounds lately again. In this light, are you also among those who associate Sufism with just Raqs (dance) and Sama (music) and the peripatetic Darveshis (wandering Sufis) aloof from this world busy in finding solace in the remembrance (zikr) of God? If so, then you may need to reconsider all that you have heard or learnt of Sufism. It is in this quest for a holistic view of Sufism that we write about the complexities involved in Sufism, often described in monolithic terms only. The study of Sufism in India has often been thought about in terms of a spiritual movement immersed in tasawwuf [2] searching for the path that leads to the Almighty operating in complete seclusion from polity. However, does this present us with a true picture of Sufism? Can any movement, cultural or socio-religious exist in a vacuum isolated from the polity of the time? The answer is in the negative. It was an exception and not a norm for the Sufi Silsilas (orders) to stay clear of political power. Only the Chishti Silsila was able to maintain an arms length from the state for most part of its pre-colonial functioning.
In this light we shall look at the rise and fall of the Mahadwi Silsila in order to accentuate the complex nature and varied interplay involved in Sufism in India. We shall also look at one of the understudied legacies of Sufi traditions which continue to this date in the Indian sub-continent.
Sufi Silsilas had an Ebb and Flow like Kingdoms
The fourteenth century in Indian history saw an expansion and contraction of Delhi Sultanate and its institutions, norms and tastes. Among the many factors leading to this expansion was the presence of a Sufi Sheikh who belonged to one or another spiritual order in nearly every provincial centre of the Sultanate. (Richard Eaton, India in the Persianate Age, 2019, pp.73-74) This was largely due to the fact that prominent Sufis in Delhi would send their leading disciples to various provinces where they would be patronised by the governors of those provinces. Among this practice of sending their disciples to various provinces, two types of Sufi migrations can be noted- a) Those among the Sufi Silsilas dependent on state patronage sending their disciples to provinces where Delhi’s sovereignty was accepted, b) Those among the Sufi Silsilas like Chishtis who were not in alliance with the state sending their disciples independently.
Also to be noted is the fact that many times, it was not just expansion of a Silsila which made its reach possible to farther regions but some of the Silsilas sprung up in regions suitable for their growth on their own.
Mahadwi Silsila: A Suitable Case in Point
It is well established in the Islamic tradition that at the end of the time in every epoch, a man from the family of the Prophet will appear who will strengthen the religion and justice will prevail under him. The Muslims will follow him and he will dominate over the realm. He will be called the Mahdi. After him Jesus will appear and together with him, Mahdi would kill the anti-christ.
The term Mahdi assumed particular significance, somewhere around 656 which marked the end to the cycle of military activity in Hejaz. This political situation took a drastic turn with the breaking out of wars between the followers of the Prophet. These wars wasted the energies of the people to such a level that they become expectant of a deliverer and restorer. This can be seen with the declaration of Muhammad al Hanafiya as the Mahdi against the background of Karbala. In such a political, social and economic situation following the years to come, the adventurous souls and those who claimed to be activated by some mystic feelings, the temptation to declare themselves Mahdi, proved irresistible. (S A A Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in North India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century p.72)
Consequently a number of Mahdis have appeared from time to time in the history of Islam who tried to turn the situation through their efforts, to their advantage. This can be seen through relying upon those traditions which suited the purpose of claimants of being a Mahdi and discarding the rest which opposed them. Traditions in this way become a plot of different sects on purely selfish grounds.
Mahdi means the divinely guided one but its use is now restricted to only the one who will appear, according to popular belief, at the end of the world and will fill the Earth with equity and justice.
In the Indian sub-continent, a man named Rukn al Din, a resident of Delhi, was the first to claim himself to be the Mahdi during the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1351-1388). He claimed that he had not received education or instruction from any one but later the ulemas declared him to be a Kafir and worthy of execution and thus he was mercilessly put to death by the order of Firoz Shah Tughlaq clearly mentioned in Badauni’s and Muhammad Ashraf Jahangir’s account ( Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi, p.379 and Lataif i- Ashrafi). Since the tradition of Mahdi is well established in the religion, it could not evade criticism. In fact, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) was the first among medieval historians to present a systematic and critical interpretation of this tradition. To him, clan patriotism and social solidarity were the soul factors leading to the establishment of the supreme power in the state.
The Mahadwi movement was spearheaded by Syed Mohammad Jaunpuri (b. 1443) whose reputation as an aalim had earned him the title of Isrul Ulama at a comparatively young age. He had an able disciple in the form of Shaikh Daniyal Chishti. Sayyid Muhammad was born, according to Mahdawi sources, on Monday 10 September, 1443. No contemporary source, however, mentions either the day or the date of his birth. It is most likely in order to make his birthday in accordance with the tradition of naming the day of birth similar to the day of the birth of the Prophet. That he was a pious man with a deep intellectual knowledge is unequivocally accepted in all contemporary accounts. However, as his fame grew, the state tried to appropriate him in order to establish its own legitimacy. Certain myths started appearing about him in popular perception, a manifestation of which is displayed by a later account of Maulana Abu Zafar mehdvi who tried to depict him as the Ghazi Sufi. He states that Tirhut’s zamindar was not paying Kharaj to Hussain Shah Sharqi so Hussain Shah waged a war on him in which Syed Mohammad took an active part. This certainly looks like a later interpolation about Syed Mohammed’s life which may also be a systematic myth production on the part of the state trying to establish its legitimacy in opposition to the Delhi Sultanate.
Richard Eaton has clearly busted this myth by stating that, “in sum, the more contemporary evidence of Sufis on Bengal’s political frontier portrays men who had entered the delta not as holy warriors but as pious mystics or freebooting settlers operating under the authority of charismatic leaders. No contemporary source endows them with the ideology of holy war; nor is there contemporary evidence that they slew non-Muslims or destroyed non-Muslim monuments.” [3] This myth is also refuted by the fact that Abu Zafar Mahadwi mentions that, “it was believed that Syed Mohammed had 1500 non-Muslims in a service as attendance.” The plausible reason for such exaggerated accounts of Sufis appears to be “that biographers and hagiographers of the sixteenth century consciously (or perhaps unconsciously) projected backward in time an ideology of conquest and conversion that had become prevalent in their own day.” [4] One of the factors might also be their efforts at gaining legitimacy among the ruled community. Though Jahangir did not get influenced by Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564-1625), the Islamic sphere of the seventeenth century got heavily influenced by the doctrine of the “Mujaddid alf-i sani”, evident from the fact that Sheikh Jamaluddin (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s ancestor), known for his teaching of Hadith, defended Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi at Jahangir’s court. [5] Concomitantly, the hardening effect spilling over in the Sufi domain cannot be ruled out.
Syed Muhammad remaining in a state of trance for 12 years on seeing an idol being worshipped, is another such exaggeration added later to buttress his adherence to the purest form of Islam. [6] His extensive travels—from Bihar and Champaner to the Deccan, then to Mecca (1495), Khambat, Ahmedabad, Patan, Sindh (Thatta), and finally Khurasan—shaped the movement. In Ahmednagar, he gained early followers through spiritual blessings; in Ahmedabad and Patan he boldly declared his Mahdi status and sent letters to rulers. He died in Farah on 23 April 1504. Badauni praised him as one of the greatest saints (Ustam Auliya-i Kabar).
Core characteristics of Mahadwism include firm belief in Syed Muhammad as the promised Mahdi and a unique division of religious duties (Farz). Nabuwat Farz are the standard Shariat obligations followed by the Prophet, while Vilayat Farz (specific to Mahdawis) emphasize: renunciation of materialism, company of the truthful, solitude (Azlat-ul khalq), trust in God (Tawakkul), longing to see God (Talb-i Deedar-i Khuda), abundant Zikr, migration (Hijrat), and the ten (Ashr).
The movement faced strong opposition due to its ascetic and insular practices. It encountered ideological criticism from Shaikh Ali Makki and political hostility from Makhdum-ul-Mulk and rulers like Islam Shah Suri (who executed Shaikh Alai). Initially concentrated in Gujarat, Khandesh, and Ahmednagar, Mahadwism later spread to the Deccan, where it gained influence under commanders like Jamal Khan Mahadwi. Sultan Ismail Nizam Shah briefly adopted it before Shi’ism became dominant in Ahmednagar.
Mahadwi followers were known for bravery and loyalty as soldiers, serving in armies of Aurangzeb (as prince), Tipu Sultan, and in Hyderabad under Chandulal. However, their erratic nature sometimes caused issues. In 1822, a debate in Hyderabad led to violence, resulting in deaths on both sides and eventual expulsion of Mahadwis from the territory with British help. Despite periodic ebbs under persecution, the movement showed remarkable resilience and periodic flows of influence across centuries in different regions of India
The Difficulty in ascribing one particular view of Sufism
While a lot of people have held Sufism in one particular light or the other, it is not feasible to ascribe a particular role or character to Sufism in India. Denuding Sufism of politics or treating it in isolation from politics leaves out its nuances. H.A.R. Gibb at an Oxford Union association stated that “there were many attempts to conchallenge the Islamic culture but the Sufi thought always came to its rescue providing it more strength.” [7] While it might look to be true on the surface, the statement is bereft of historical nuances since it treats Sufism as a monolith. Various Silsilas at various times blew hot and cold in their relationship with the state. Both the state and the rival Sufi orders held Silsilas like Raushanai and Mahadwi to be a threat to the very Islam, Gibb states ought to have gained strength from them. This created further in-fighting and a rivalry for state patronage among the Sufi orders.
Nizami quotes Altaf Hussain Hali (1837-1914) on the influence of various Sufi orders in Delhi-
Shaaz o Nadir Tha Tasawwuf mein koi Tera Nazeer
Aab-o Gul Tere The Goya Tasawuff Se Khameer
Tere Khandaro mein pade Sote Hain Vo Mehr-o Muneer
Tha Kabhi Anwaar Se Jin Ke Zamana Mustaneer [8]
While in general, the statement may hold true but seeing our case in point, Mahadwis never held such great influence in Delhi. We thus find that one fit all solution does not work while dealing with the history of Sufism in India.
Abhishek Kaicker paints a truer image of the Sufi orders through Kamgar Khan’s account, “which reveals that the Sufi gatherings of the 18th century were just as much a site of political interchange as the salon, the coffee-house or the square.” [9] This was actually the case when it came to Sufism and therefore, we argue to look at Sufism in its entirety without subtracting politics from it. This intermingling of Sufism and politics is a legacy that continued in the Colonial period as well and in fact played a pivotal role in mobilizing the masses for and against the Muslim League. Pirs (spiritual guides) and Sajjadanashins (those heading a shrine) were actively pressed into service in Sindh and Punjab by the Muslim League. Ian Talbot has discussed the solidarity of biradari in Punjab which through the network of Pirs and Sajjadanashins consolidated the Muslims to rally around the demand for Pakistan. [10]
Sara Ansari has also documented how there was a rebellion by the Hurs (Sufis of Sindh) against the British at the close of the nineteenth century. [11] Despite this, these very Sufis were cultivated by the British until a rupture took place with the onset of the Khilafat Movement (1920-22) . Thereafter, Sibgatullah Pir Pagaro (1910-1943) showed active participation in the anti-imperial struggle. On the question of the Manzilgah dispute (1939), the Sufis were once again looked upon by the Muslim League to mobilise the public in their favour. The Muslim League was not let down and with each passing year, support for the Muslim League turned into an acceptance of partition. Similarly in UP, Mueenuddin Ahmad Faridi, the Sajjadanasheen of the shrine of Baba Faridi Sabri in Rajabpur (Moradabad) wrote to Jinnah on 10th November 1945 that a lot of parties have sprung up among the Muslims which are deterrent to the cause of Islam so is it not possible for Jinnah to buy-off these parties like enemies do? [12]
Conclusion
This very clearly demonstrates that Sufis were not a segregated group of religious men living in isolation from the polity of the day but very much part of it. While many of them played their part in promoting the syncretic ethos, none of them could hold aloof from politics for a very long time.
(Authors: Khizra Abidi and Bhavuk (Research Scholars, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University)