ABSTRACT
In the previous several chapters we have seen evidence of a disposition on the part of rulers, ministers and the literati to accept the reality of social difference, and to endorse policies that were designed to bring the people of the subcontinent closer together. It is tempting to describe these inclinations and policies as gestures of ‘toleration’. However, it is questionable whether this principled modern term, grounded in the concept that all men and women are equal (and should be treated as such) is totally applicable to the world of the pre-modern. A subtle (but important) distinction needs to be drawn between policies and actions undertaken to render society more humane, and those designed to reduce the potential for social unrest. Similarly, we need to separate intentionality from contingency. As we saw in earlier chapters, Hindu culture arguably provided a framework congenial to acceptance of difference; notably, the proliferation, over the first millennium AD, of sects all claiming the sanction of orthodoxy made it hard to draw boundaries around notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’. And the demands of governance had a similar consequence. Hindu rulers found it politically advantageous to spread their patronage around; so (more surprisingly, given the Qur’an’s stance on idolatry) did their Muslim counterparts later on. As noted in Chapter 5, the Islamicate found it useful to treat Hindus, Jains and other non-Muslims as dhimmīs, deserving of protection. None of these features, though, derived from a coherent philosophy of toleration.
