What do you think?
Rate this book
India in the Persianate Age, 1000–1765
Protected by vast mountains and seas, the Indian subcontinent might seem a nearly complete and self-contained world with its own religions, philosophies, and social systems. And yet this ancient land and its varied societies experienced prolonged and intense interaction with the peoples and cultures of East and Southeast Asia, Europe, Africa, and especially Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
Richard M. Eaton tells this extraordinary story with relish and originality, as he traces the rise of Persianate culture, a many-faceted transregional world connected by ever-widening networks across much of Asia. Introduced to India in the eleventh century by dynasties based in eastern Afghanistan, this culture would become progressively indigenized in the time of the great Mughals (sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries). Eaton brilliantly elaborates the complex encounter between India's Sanskrit culture—an equally rich and transregional complex that continued to flourish and grow throughout this period—and Persian culture, which helped shape the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughal Empire, and a host of regional states. This long-term process of cultural interaction is profoundly reflected in the languages, literatures, cuisines, attires, religions, styles of rulership and warfare, science, art, music, and architecture—and more—of South Asia.
Richard M. Eaton tells this extraordinary story with relish and originality, as he traces the rise of Persianate culture, a many-faceted transregional world connected by ever-widening networks across much of Asia. Introduced to India in the eleventh century by dynasties based in eastern Afghanistan, this culture would become progressively indigenized in the time of the great Mughals (sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries). Eaton brilliantly elaborates the complex encounter between India's Sanskrit culture—an equally rich and transregional complex that continued to flourish and grow throughout this period—and Persian culture, which helped shape the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughal Empire, and a host of regional states. This long-term process of cultural interaction is profoundly reflected in the languages, literatures, cuisines, attires, religions, styles of rulership and warfare, science, art, music, and architecture—and more—of South Asia.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2019
222 people are currently reading
3508 people want to read
About the author
Richard M. Eaton
13 books89 followersRichard Maxwell Eaton is a Professor of History at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA, where he has taught since 1972. His research interests focus on the social and cultural history of pre-modern India (1000-1800), and especially on the range of historical interactions between Iran and India, and on Islam in South Asia.
Professor Eaton has authored several significant monographs that have contributed substantially to the field. These include studies on the social roles of Sufis in the Indian sultanate of Bijapur (1300-1700), the growth of Islam in Bengal (1204-1760), the social history of the Deccan from 1300 to 1761, and the interplay between memory and art in the Deccan plateau between 1300 and 1600. His scholarly work encompasses a range of analytical approaches, including Weberian social thought, Annales School methodology, biography, and architectural history.
His most recent major publication is the second volume of the new Penguin history of India, titled "India in the Persianate Age, 1000-1765". This work explores the long-term interaction between the Persianate and Sanskritic worlds, the Iranian Plateau and South Asia, and the relationship between Islam and Indian religious traditions.
In addition to his work on Indian history, Professor Eaton is actively engaged in the fields of world history and comparative history. His teaching portfolio includes courses on the History of Medieval India, the History of Modern India and Pakistan, Comparative History, and World History.
Professor Eaton has authored several significant monographs that have contributed substantially to the field. These include studies on the social roles of Sufis in the Indian sultanate of Bijapur (1300-1700), the growth of Islam in Bengal (1204-1760), the social history of the Deccan from 1300 to 1761, and the interplay between memory and art in the Deccan plateau between 1300 and 1600. His scholarly work encompasses a range of analytical approaches, including Weberian social thought, Annales School methodology, biography, and architectural history.
His most recent major publication is the second volume of the new Penguin history of India, titled "India in the Persianate Age, 1000-1765". This work explores the long-term interaction between the Persianate and Sanskritic worlds, the Iranian Plateau and South Asia, and the relationship between Islam and Indian religious traditions.
In addition to his work on Indian history, Professor Eaton is actively engaged in the fields of world history and comparative history. His teaching portfolio includes courses on the History of Medieval India, the History of Modern India and Pakistan, Comparative History, and World History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
September 6, 2020
You could summarize this book as essentially a historical broadside against modern religious nationalism. The prevailing interpretation of South Asian history that is now reflected in the militarized borders of India and Pakistan is one of two separate peoples divided by religion. Not only the present but the long and tangled past of the subcontinent has been retroactively interpreted with this view in mind. This idea sits uncomfortably with lived experience but benefits from the force of contemporary politics. Like most modern things religious nationalism had its origins in Europe. An analysis of Indian history on its own terms shows something different though: a world that was bound together into overlapping spheres of Persian and Sanskrit culture and that encompassed followers of both Islam and Hinduism in equal measure. This is what this book is about.
Before the era of Anglophone and Francophone empire, Persian was perhaps the world’s greatest language of globalization. Persian-speaking Muslims from Central Asia first came to India through a mix of trade and conquest. But unlike European colonialists, they decided to settle down in the country and Indianize themselves rather than remaining permanently aloof. Even notoriously aggressive leaders like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Alauddin Khilji took pains to try and portray themselves as fundamentally Indian rulers, issuing their coin in Sanskrit and calling upon Braminical ideas of legitimate kingship to legitimize their rule in the eyes of Indians. As the centuries progressed Persian-speaking rulers from Kashmir to the Deccan took to actively promoting the translation of Sanskrit knowledge, art and spirituality for reasons that went beyond pragmatism and towards knowledge for its own sake. This process reached its apex during the Mughal Empire, by which time the traditional Sanskrit idea of rulership by a charismatic divine had become firmly entrenched in Muslims. They knew how to position their rule as legitimately Indian, personally believed in it on those terms, and were recognized by fellow Indians of all religions including Islam on such a basis as well.
Throughout these long centuries time Persian language and culture began to permeate Indian society. It was the culture of globalization, power and high-culture and as such exerted an effortless influence over people, something like what American culture does today. Indians were not merely passive recipients of this culture but brought their own Sanskrit worldviews with them. The result was the creation of a hybrid that melded together both Persian speakers and those of India's many dialects, Muslims, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, all into one vast and mutually intelligible cultural terrain. The book has remarkable stories of mosques built with Sanskrit and Persian inscriptions, the latter giving a traditionally Islamic interpretation of the buildings purpose and the former explaining it in terms similar to a Hindu or Jain temple, where the deity “Allah” was worshipped and giving praise to the Prophet Muhammad as a bodhaka or enlightened one who had revealed its existence. The worship at shared holy sites, particularly the shrines of saints, cut across religion and still does today.
History tends to be a record of great and terrible events like conquests and invasions. India has no shortage of this, including the Central Asian invasions that helped bring Persian culture to the subcontinent. Those invasions are today depicted by Hindu nationalists as part of a long religious war waged against them by foreign Muslims, a depiction that is useful for present politics and had sometimes supported by the invaders own hagiographic court chroniclers. The reality of how these rulers governed or how these initial invasions were viewed at the time does not fit our contemporary ideas however. The Muslims were seldom described not on religious terms in Indian records but as “Turks” and their assaults were viewed as part of the general danger of steppe invasions that existed throughout the Mongol period. Their primary concern was assaults by rival Indian kings and these Turkish invasions were not seen as a radical break with events. A standard practice of war in medieval India was for rulers to establish temples as signs of their temporal political power. Hindu rulers at war as well as Muslims would try to ensure that they ruined the holy sites of rival rulers as a means of destroying their political power as well. All this was seen as part of the ebb and flow of medieval war rather than as a sectarian issue as we would view it today, our perspectives conditioned by modern ideas of religious identitarianism.
Over the centuries, Muslims would employ Hindus as generals to wage wars against rival Muslim dynasties. Hindus would similarly have Muslim generals in their employ, or in some cases hire tens of thousands of Turks and Afghans as mercenaries to form their own armies. Some of these armies were used to defend temples, which the rulers later commemorated by building large inscriptions showing the service of their former Muslim defenders. To give another example during the Mughal period, Rajput Hindus not only became elite allies of the empire but they served to “Rajputize” it by bringing their own cultural norms to the Mughal court and bureaucracy – norms which themselves had originally been formulated under prior Muslim influence. Even the Marathas came to see Mughal rulers as defenders of India against Iranian and later European aggression, supporting the dynasty that they had once rebelled against on its peripheries.
Examples such as this are seemingly endless. The ultimate point is that Indian history and culture is a ball of string tied so tightly that it can only truly be untangled by being destroyed. Muslims were deeply influenced by Sanskrit philosophy, while Hindus became masters of Persian language and culture. The influence was so pervasive on both sides, the sediments of history so deep, that they could never be removed no matter how many modern sectarian nation-states are created. This book articulates that well. I wouldn’t say it’s for everyone. The writing is dense and does not bother to string you into a narrative before beating you over the head with detailed lists of facts and chronologies of events. You have to really care about this subject to be appealed to by this book. But it’s a necessary and welcome corrective to the present myopias of identity and history sweeping across India and the world. It was also useful to me as someone learning Persian to see how deeply Persianate culture had already shaped Hindi and Urdu, both dialects of a Persian-inspired Hindavi language that was once extant and considered the natural tongue of countless millions.
Before the era of Anglophone and Francophone empire, Persian was perhaps the world’s greatest language of globalization. Persian-speaking Muslims from Central Asia first came to India through a mix of trade and conquest. But unlike European colonialists, they decided to settle down in the country and Indianize themselves rather than remaining permanently aloof. Even notoriously aggressive leaders like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Alauddin Khilji took pains to try and portray themselves as fundamentally Indian rulers, issuing their coin in Sanskrit and calling upon Braminical ideas of legitimate kingship to legitimize their rule in the eyes of Indians. As the centuries progressed Persian-speaking rulers from Kashmir to the Deccan took to actively promoting the translation of Sanskrit knowledge, art and spirituality for reasons that went beyond pragmatism and towards knowledge for its own sake. This process reached its apex during the Mughal Empire, by which time the traditional Sanskrit idea of rulership by a charismatic divine had become firmly entrenched in Muslims. They knew how to position their rule as legitimately Indian, personally believed in it on those terms, and were recognized by fellow Indians of all religions including Islam on such a basis as well.
Throughout these long centuries time Persian language and culture began to permeate Indian society. It was the culture of globalization, power and high-culture and as such exerted an effortless influence over people, something like what American culture does today. Indians were not merely passive recipients of this culture but brought their own Sanskrit worldviews with them. The result was the creation of a hybrid that melded together both Persian speakers and those of India's many dialects, Muslims, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, all into one vast and mutually intelligible cultural terrain. The book has remarkable stories of mosques built with Sanskrit and Persian inscriptions, the latter giving a traditionally Islamic interpretation of the buildings purpose and the former explaining it in terms similar to a Hindu or Jain temple, where the deity “Allah” was worshipped and giving praise to the Prophet Muhammad as a bodhaka or enlightened one who had revealed its existence. The worship at shared holy sites, particularly the shrines of saints, cut across religion and still does today.
History tends to be a record of great and terrible events like conquests and invasions. India has no shortage of this, including the Central Asian invasions that helped bring Persian culture to the subcontinent. Those invasions are today depicted by Hindu nationalists as part of a long religious war waged against them by foreign Muslims, a depiction that is useful for present politics and had sometimes supported by the invaders own hagiographic court chroniclers. The reality of how these rulers governed or how these initial invasions were viewed at the time does not fit our contemporary ideas however. The Muslims were seldom described not on religious terms in Indian records but as “Turks” and their assaults were viewed as part of the general danger of steppe invasions that existed throughout the Mongol period. Their primary concern was assaults by rival Indian kings and these Turkish invasions were not seen as a radical break with events. A standard practice of war in medieval India was for rulers to establish temples as signs of their temporal political power. Hindu rulers at war as well as Muslims would try to ensure that they ruined the holy sites of rival rulers as a means of destroying their political power as well. All this was seen as part of the ebb and flow of medieval war rather than as a sectarian issue as we would view it today, our perspectives conditioned by modern ideas of religious identitarianism.
Over the centuries, Muslims would employ Hindus as generals to wage wars against rival Muslim dynasties. Hindus would similarly have Muslim generals in their employ, or in some cases hire tens of thousands of Turks and Afghans as mercenaries to form their own armies. Some of these armies were used to defend temples, which the rulers later commemorated by building large inscriptions showing the service of their former Muslim defenders. To give another example during the Mughal period, Rajput Hindus not only became elite allies of the empire but they served to “Rajputize” it by bringing their own cultural norms to the Mughal court and bureaucracy – norms which themselves had originally been formulated under prior Muslim influence. Even the Marathas came to see Mughal rulers as defenders of India against Iranian and later European aggression, supporting the dynasty that they had once rebelled against on its peripheries.
Examples such as this are seemingly endless. The ultimate point is that Indian history and culture is a ball of string tied so tightly that it can only truly be untangled by being destroyed. Muslims were deeply influenced by Sanskrit philosophy, while Hindus became masters of Persian language and culture. The influence was so pervasive on both sides, the sediments of history so deep, that they could never be removed no matter how many modern sectarian nation-states are created. This book articulates that well. I wouldn’t say it’s for everyone. The writing is dense and does not bother to string you into a narrative before beating you over the head with detailed lists of facts and chronologies of events. You have to really care about this subject to be appealed to by this book. But it’s a necessary and welcome corrective to the present myopias of identity and history sweeping across India and the world. It was also useful to me as someone learning Persian to see how deeply Persianate culture had already shaped Hindi and Urdu, both dialects of a Persian-inspired Hindavi language that was once extant and considered the natural tongue of countless millions.
October 27, 2019
A must read for everybody interested in a scholarly, yet accessible history of medieval India. Comprehensively busts the communalized Hindu-Muslim narrative used to describe the period by presenting a fascinating analysis of the complex interplay of Sanskrit and Persianate cultures that in reality shaped the course of history in this period. Highly recommended!
August 31, 2021
India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765, by Richard M. Eaton, is a fascinating history of India in the age of Persian influence, from about the year 1000 to the advent of British Imperial control in 1765. This period of history is vast and saw numerous changes to Indian politics, culture, religion, and so forth, and also brought India heavily into the geopolitical reality of first the Middle East, and then Europe, after a fairly insular period due to the geopolitical isolation of India past the Khyber Pass. This book looks at the history of Turko-Afghani and Persian invasions in the 11th century, with first the Gazhanids, and then Ghurids invading Northern India from Afghanistan. These groups first sought loot and would invade with large armies to take away loot, rather than by conquest. However, due to the changing nature of steppe politics, these groups began to settle down in larger and larger numbers in Northern India, eventually founding the Delhi Sultanate. This polity would dominate Indian history for a few centuries after its founding in the early 13th century. Eaton notes that far from the traditional (ie. British Colonial) histories of India written over the past few hundred years, the advent of Islamic culture into India was not a "dark period" akin to the "dark ages" of European history. Much of India's political culture would change in this time, moving away from the Mandala-influenced spheres of control that traditional Indian Kingdoms would set up, toward a polity that revolved around the personal rule, with turbulent succession, and semi-frequent regime changes. These changes would ensure a large amount of political innovation in Indian, as Islamic rulers with Persian traditions and cultural influences would interact with a largely Hindu population.
The effect of these changes to political and cultural norms was profound and affected almost every corner of the Indian subcontinent. Delhi spread far south into the Deccan and would go on to visualize much of southern India. It also invaded far into Bengal, bringing this distinct and diverse region into the greater Indian orbit. Although Delhi struggled to control these regions for long periods of time, due to internal political issues, the influence it would have on the politics of these regions lasted far into the future. The successor state of the Deccan - the Bahmani Sultanate, used many of the trappings on Delhi's former ruling structures far after Delhi had retreated back North, and subsequently crumbled. In Bengal, the area continued to be ruled by an offshoot of the former Governors of Bengal from Delhi, who had always operated as semi-independent vassals anyway. Farther south, the Vijayanagara state would emerge, using a Persianized ruling system, promoting Persian culture, and utilizing massive armies of Afghani-Turks, while also maintaining a distinct Hindu aesthetic and culture. Repeated raids from the Timurids, including a brief but influential occupation of Northern India, followed.
Over time, these regions would splinter, coalesce around new states, like Bihar, Gondwana, Manipur, and so forth. In Northern India, continued invasions from Afghanistan were the norm, and in the 16th century, Babur, former ruler of Samarkand, would flee the Uzbek hordes into Northern India, and found the lasting Mughal Empire. He carved out a state that, for a long period of time, united Northern India with Afghanistan, and brought into the fold the distinct regions of Sindh, Gujrat, Bengal, and the Deccan. Eventually, Mughal control would stretch over almost the entirety of the Indian subcontinent. Eaton discusses the cultural changes of this time, with the advent of an Islamic Empire, that nonetheless closely utilized its Rajput vassals as military leaders and governors. Babur's grandson, Akbar, was famous for his House of Wisdom, where different religious leaders, Hindus, Jains, Sufis, Christians, and so forth, would debate religion and philosophy endlessly. This was an era of much philosophical and religious change in India, where Sikhism would rise in Punjab, the Maratha's gained prominence in south/central India, and Islamic culture and religion would mix with Hinduism and Buddhism to create a cultural milieu.
Eaton describes these events in much greater detail throughout the book. I found the discussions on the intermixing of religions and philosophies to be enlightening; especially when much English history of India is focused on colonialism and the British. Far from being a "dark age", this was an age of intense and long-lasting cultural fusion, which changed the very make-up of the Indian subcontinent. The Mughal's especially was a fascinating polity that brought much innovation, while also engaging with the ideas and innovations brought forward from the ever-changing Hindu religion and cultural sphere. This book discredits racist and colonial histories, instead of bringing to light the vast complexities of this region during this time period, and looking to bring a fresh perspective to Indian history that goes beyond either British nostalgia, or Indian/Pakistani nationalism. A thorough text through and through, on a fascinating time-period and place.
The effect of these changes to political and cultural norms was profound and affected almost every corner of the Indian subcontinent. Delhi spread far south into the Deccan and would go on to visualize much of southern India. It also invaded far into Bengal, bringing this distinct and diverse region into the greater Indian orbit. Although Delhi struggled to control these regions for long periods of time, due to internal political issues, the influence it would have on the politics of these regions lasted far into the future. The successor state of the Deccan - the Bahmani Sultanate, used many of the trappings on Delhi's former ruling structures far after Delhi had retreated back North, and subsequently crumbled. In Bengal, the area continued to be ruled by an offshoot of the former Governors of Bengal from Delhi, who had always operated as semi-independent vassals anyway. Farther south, the Vijayanagara state would emerge, using a Persianized ruling system, promoting Persian culture, and utilizing massive armies of Afghani-Turks, while also maintaining a distinct Hindu aesthetic and culture. Repeated raids from the Timurids, including a brief but influential occupation of Northern India, followed.
Over time, these regions would splinter, coalesce around new states, like Bihar, Gondwana, Manipur, and so forth. In Northern India, continued invasions from Afghanistan were the norm, and in the 16th century, Babur, former ruler of Samarkand, would flee the Uzbek hordes into Northern India, and found the lasting Mughal Empire. He carved out a state that, for a long period of time, united Northern India with Afghanistan, and brought into the fold the distinct regions of Sindh, Gujrat, Bengal, and the Deccan. Eventually, Mughal control would stretch over almost the entirety of the Indian subcontinent. Eaton discusses the cultural changes of this time, with the advent of an Islamic Empire, that nonetheless closely utilized its Rajput vassals as military leaders and governors. Babur's grandson, Akbar, was famous for his House of Wisdom, where different religious leaders, Hindus, Jains, Sufis, Christians, and so forth, would debate religion and philosophy endlessly. This was an era of much philosophical and religious change in India, where Sikhism would rise in Punjab, the Maratha's gained prominence in south/central India, and Islamic culture and religion would mix with Hinduism and Buddhism to create a cultural milieu.
Eaton describes these events in much greater detail throughout the book. I found the discussions on the intermixing of religions and philosophies to be enlightening; especially when much English history of India is focused on colonialism and the British. Far from being a "dark age", this was an age of intense and long-lasting cultural fusion, which changed the very make-up of the Indian subcontinent. The Mughal's especially was a fascinating polity that brought much innovation, while also engaging with the ideas and innovations brought forward from the ever-changing Hindu religion and cultural sphere. This book discredits racist and colonial histories, instead of bringing to light the vast complexities of this region during this time period, and looking to bring a fresh perspective to Indian history that goes beyond either British nostalgia, or Indian/Pakistani nationalism. A thorough text through and through, on a fascinating time-period and place.
September 6, 2024
"India has never been isolated. Jutting into the heart of the Indian Ocean- the world's oldest maritime zone- and connected to the Iranian plateau by several strategic mountain passes, the Indo-Gangetic plain and the great peninsula to its south have long been a major crossroads of transregional movement and exchange. Pathways leading to and across the subcontinent have carried a wide range of global flows, while migrating populations brought or took away diverse cultural traditions embracing statecraft, architecture, warfare, cuisine, religion and much more. Although some of these flows had very deep roots in time, they all moved with a quickening pace between the eleventh and eighteenth centuries, the period of this book's concern."
An amazing book that somehow manages to fit in almost a millennium of history, spanning the entire Indian subcontinent, into just 398 pages. Along the way, Eaton regales the reader with immense detail, staggering amounts of research, and a fascinating array of characters and events. I learned a lot .
The India of this period was a diverse, dynamic, and volatile world. Quasi-millenarian revolts; religious syncretism; the emergence of banking houses; the Vijayanagara Empire; an Ethiopian slave named Malik Ambar who ends up running the Ahmadnagar Sultanate; Shah Jahan's self-image as the "Second Lord of the Conjunction"; the emergence of new identities like the Sikhs, Rajputs and Marathas; and Akbar taking a brief ride on a boat once he reaches Gujarat because he may well be the first in his direct line of ancestors to have ever seen the ocean, are all parts of the story here.
This is largely a political and cultural history, though, not a narrative one. Much of the book is devoted to analyzing institutions, the fluid development and evolution of culture, elements of economic and military history, intra-elite struggles, etc. At the same time, it also allows the personal element some importance. For example, the Mughal Emperors (from Babur to Aurangzeb) are all looked at in some detail; their ideas, reforms, personalities. The "military labour markets", which in Eaton's analysis formed one of the driving forces of Indian politics, are also quite fascinating. At their most eclectic they included Afghans, Iranians, Uzbeks, Portuguese mercenaries, Indian villagers, Rajputs, and Marathas.
This is an impressive work which makes good use of both the voluminous historical literature as well as primary sources from the period. With the latter, these are never taken merely at face value but are interrogated and contextualized. However, this book does focus for the most part on the elites of society- there's little sense of what was going on in villages or towns, except for some noteworthy exceptions. That might be a limitation of the sources available. Regardless, I don't hold it against the work, even if I am really curious to see what kind of work exists on life for the 'subaltern' classes in this period.
Best of all, this book debunks readings of Indian history that are tinged with religious bigotry or nationalist biases. The tensions of the 20th century and the present have often been projected backwards into history, but such narratives distort much more than they reveal.
The reality is more complex and far more interesting. Muslims and Hindus could be seen going to the same temples, political alliances were fluid and seemingly had little to do with religion, the Mughals and the Sultanates before them adopted Indian traditions and ways of life, and India in turn was transformed by the influx of Persianate culture from Central Asia. There were not two communities, neatly defined in religious terms, opposed to one another. There was a complex intermingling of Sanskrit and Persianate worlds in what was ultimately a deeply enriching experience- culturally, intellectually, politically, linguistically- for the subcontinent. Books like this are not just incredibly fascinating; they're also timely.
An amazing book that somehow manages to fit in almost a millennium of history, spanning the entire Indian subcontinent, into just 398 pages. Along the way, Eaton regales the reader with immense detail, staggering amounts of research, and a fascinating array of characters and events. I learned a lot .
The India of this period was a diverse, dynamic, and volatile world. Quasi-millenarian revolts; religious syncretism; the emergence of banking houses; the Vijayanagara Empire; an Ethiopian slave named Malik Ambar who ends up running the Ahmadnagar Sultanate; Shah Jahan's self-image as the "Second Lord of the Conjunction"; the emergence of new identities like the Sikhs, Rajputs and Marathas; and Akbar taking a brief ride on a boat once he reaches Gujarat because he may well be the first in his direct line of ancestors to have ever seen the ocean, are all parts of the story here.
This is largely a political and cultural history, though, not a narrative one. Much of the book is devoted to analyzing institutions, the fluid development and evolution of culture, elements of economic and military history, intra-elite struggles, etc. At the same time, it also allows the personal element some importance. For example, the Mughal Emperors (from Babur to Aurangzeb) are all looked at in some detail; their ideas, reforms, personalities. The "military labour markets", which in Eaton's analysis formed one of the driving forces of Indian politics, are also quite fascinating. At their most eclectic they included Afghans, Iranians, Uzbeks, Portuguese mercenaries, Indian villagers, Rajputs, and Marathas.
This is an impressive work which makes good use of both the voluminous historical literature as well as primary sources from the period. With the latter, these are never taken merely at face value but are interrogated and contextualized. However, this book does focus for the most part on the elites of society- there's little sense of what was going on in villages or towns, except for some noteworthy exceptions. That might be a limitation of the sources available. Regardless, I don't hold it against the work, even if I am really curious to see what kind of work exists on life for the 'subaltern' classes in this period.
Best of all, this book debunks readings of Indian history that are tinged with religious bigotry or nationalist biases. The tensions of the 20th century and the present have often been projected backwards into history, but such narratives distort much more than they reveal.
The reality is more complex and far more interesting. Muslims and Hindus could be seen going to the same temples, political alliances were fluid and seemingly had little to do with religion, the Mughals and the Sultanates before them adopted Indian traditions and ways of life, and India in turn was transformed by the influx of Persianate culture from Central Asia. There were not two communities, neatly defined in religious terms, opposed to one another. There was a complex intermingling of Sanskrit and Persianate worlds in what was ultimately a deeply enriching experience- culturally, intellectually, politically, linguistically- for the subcontinent. Books like this are not just incredibly fascinating; they're also timely.
October 4, 2019
A very interesting and eye opening book. The author gets into a lot of detail showing how India steadily got Persianised between 1000-1800AD. So many myths about “1000 years of slavery,” the so-called “Oriental Despotism” of the Mughal Empire and the famous cruelty and fundamentalism of Aurangzeb get busted here. It’s really sad how little we know of our own history and how our history is held hostage to the bigoted communal blinkers of the present day. What’s ironic is that this fundamental misunderstanding of our history has its roots in the British times, as the colonial masters felt we would be easier to control if we hated each other. Well, they got their wish!
January 22, 2024
In the early 11th century CE, Mahmud of Ghazni, the Turkish ruler of a kingdom in southeastern Afghanistan, launched a series of military expeditions into the Indian subcontinent. Though not the first Muslim ruler to do so, by the time of his death he had established an empire that extended into the Punjab, marking a considerable expansion of the territory in the region controlled by Islamic rulers. While the Ghaznavid empire Mahmud left behind collapsed in the late 12th century, its successor, the Ghurids, expanded their dominion eastward to encompass Bengal, forming the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate that would eventually dominate much of the Indian subcontinent until its replacement by the Mughal empire in the 16th century.
All this constitutes an era commonly referred to as the “Muslim period” in India’s history. As Richard Eaton argues in his introduction, however, such a label is a misnomer that inappropriately projects modern-day claims of identity and influence into the past. Lost in the process is the far more significant influence of Persian culture, which interacted with the predominant Sanskrit civilization of the subcontinent in ways that transformed permanently the languages, practices, and architecture of the region. His book offers a chronological account of this change, showing how the scope and motivations of this influence changed over time as various Turkish dynasties dominated the politics of the subcontinent over a period that lasted for nearly eight centuries.
Eaton begins his analysis by describing the political cultures of the two civilizations at the start of the era. As he details, these were far from uniform or coherent, as the Persianized Turks brought with them to India competing concepts of legitimate authority grounded in both the Sufi faith and a courtly discourse that drew upon pre-Islamic Persian traditions. These contrasted with Sanskritic strategic concepts of the mandala, a theory that defined political space in terms of concentric circles of allies, enemies, and “enemies of enemies.” Though the Ghaznavids had embraced fully cosmopolitan Persian culture, their Ghurid successors were only recent converts to Islam and had not fully imbibed the practices that the Ghaznavids ad introduced. This gave Sanskrit concepts of legitimacy and rule an opportunity to assert themselves amongst the Persianized Turks in northern India, beginning a process of synthesis that would unfold over the course of the next several centuries.
These ideas were diffused throughout the subcontinent with the expansion and subsequent decline of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th-15th centuries. To detail this, Eaton moves away from the northern India focus so prevalent among histories of the subcontinent to describe the many states in the south and how they adapted to the Persianate ideas introduced to their region. Though local identities reasserted themselves forcefully in the wake of Timur’s conquest of the north in the 15th century, the persistence of Sanskrit and Persian in their literary cultures is noted by the author as just one example of the endurance of this influence even after local elites reasserted their control over their regions. Another was the prevalence of sultanate institutions, which Eaton sees as embodying the synthesis of Sanskrit and Persian concepts of authority and governance over the previous centuries and which were adopted by the local rulers when they established their own states in the wake of the Delhi recessional.
Thus, when Babur arrived in northern India in 1526 he encountered a region that was already shaped extensively by the ideas and culture of the world from which he came. Eaton’s account of the Mughal era takes up over half of the book, as he details the succession of emperors (padishahs) that extended gradually their control over the subcontinent. Though this amounted generally to a reaffirmation of the synthesized Persian-Sanskritic political culture, he notes in particular the effort of Aurangzeb to establish a different model of sovereignty, one rooted not in inherited Timurid concepts of sacral monarchy but in what can be seen as a more modern practice of the rule of law. Its failure saw the more traditional Persian-Sanskritic concepts reassert themselves, which would remain dominant until the decline of Mughal rule and the intruding forces of globalization represented by the increasing British presence introduced new influences that would dislodge the practices of the Persianate era.
By focusing on the interaction between Persian and Sanskritic cultures and their impact upon the Indian subcontinent, Eaton offers his readers a refreshingly different understanding of a pivotal era in its history. It is revisionist history of the best sort, one that challenges traditional views in ways that improve dramatically our understanding of the past. Though replete with detail, it is largely presented in an accessible manner that makes few assumptions about his reader’s prior knowledge of the subject. Where it falls short is in the relative narrowness of Eaton’s focus, which excludes any consideration of the impact of the political and cultural transformations he describes on Indian society. Yet this is perhaps an understandable exclusion given the already considerable scope of Eaton’s work, which provides an impressively coherent overview of the period and one that will hopefully inspire further scholarship that will expand on his persuasive arguments.
All this constitutes an era commonly referred to as the “Muslim period” in India’s history. As Richard Eaton argues in his introduction, however, such a label is a misnomer that inappropriately projects modern-day claims of identity and influence into the past. Lost in the process is the far more significant influence of Persian culture, which interacted with the predominant Sanskrit civilization of the subcontinent in ways that transformed permanently the languages, practices, and architecture of the region. His book offers a chronological account of this change, showing how the scope and motivations of this influence changed over time as various Turkish dynasties dominated the politics of the subcontinent over a period that lasted for nearly eight centuries.
Eaton begins his analysis by describing the political cultures of the two civilizations at the start of the era. As he details, these were far from uniform or coherent, as the Persianized Turks brought with them to India competing concepts of legitimate authority grounded in both the Sufi faith and a courtly discourse that drew upon pre-Islamic Persian traditions. These contrasted with Sanskritic strategic concepts of the mandala, a theory that defined political space in terms of concentric circles of allies, enemies, and “enemies of enemies.” Though the Ghaznavids had embraced fully cosmopolitan Persian culture, their Ghurid successors were only recent converts to Islam and had not fully imbibed the practices that the Ghaznavids ad introduced. This gave Sanskrit concepts of legitimacy and rule an opportunity to assert themselves amongst the Persianized Turks in northern India, beginning a process of synthesis that would unfold over the course of the next several centuries.
These ideas were diffused throughout the subcontinent with the expansion and subsequent decline of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th-15th centuries. To detail this, Eaton moves away from the northern India focus so prevalent among histories of the subcontinent to describe the many states in the south and how they adapted to the Persianate ideas introduced to their region. Though local identities reasserted themselves forcefully in the wake of Timur’s conquest of the north in the 15th century, the persistence of Sanskrit and Persian in their literary cultures is noted by the author as just one example of the endurance of this influence even after local elites reasserted their control over their regions. Another was the prevalence of sultanate institutions, which Eaton sees as embodying the synthesis of Sanskrit and Persian concepts of authority and governance over the previous centuries and which were adopted by the local rulers when they established their own states in the wake of the Delhi recessional.
Thus, when Babur arrived in northern India in 1526 he encountered a region that was already shaped extensively by the ideas and culture of the world from which he came. Eaton’s account of the Mughal era takes up over half of the book, as he details the succession of emperors (padishahs) that extended gradually their control over the subcontinent. Though this amounted generally to a reaffirmation of the synthesized Persian-Sanskritic political culture, he notes in particular the effort of Aurangzeb to establish a different model of sovereignty, one rooted not in inherited Timurid concepts of sacral monarchy but in what can be seen as a more modern practice of the rule of law. Its failure saw the more traditional Persian-Sanskritic concepts reassert themselves, which would remain dominant until the decline of Mughal rule and the intruding forces of globalization represented by the increasing British presence introduced new influences that would dislodge the practices of the Persianate era.
By focusing on the interaction between Persian and Sanskritic cultures and their impact upon the Indian subcontinent, Eaton offers his readers a refreshingly different understanding of a pivotal era in its history. It is revisionist history of the best sort, one that challenges traditional views in ways that improve dramatically our understanding of the past. Though replete with detail, it is largely presented in an accessible manner that makes few assumptions about his reader’s prior knowledge of the subject. Where it falls short is in the relative narrowness of Eaton’s focus, which excludes any consideration of the impact of the political and cultural transformations he describes on Indian society. Yet this is perhaps an understandable exclusion given the already considerable scope of Eaton’s work, which provides an impressively coherent overview of the period and one that will hopefully inspire further scholarship that will expand on his persuasive arguments.
September 11, 2024
Easily the best book I've read all year. I highly recommend it.
India in the Persianate Age is a magisterial account of the rich and endlessly fascinating interaction between two transregional cultures, the Sanskrit and the Persianate, through a large chunk of the second millennium.
My favorite part was his discussion of 15th century India, what has often been described, rather dismally, as the 'long fifteenth century.' Eaton describes a wonderfully vibrant time of regional dynasties and cultural movements, in Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Kashmir in the north, and the Vijayanagara empire and the Bahmani sultanate in the south. Through this time, new identities developed in each of these regions, and local courts patronized artists to create architecture and written works that synthesized traditional styles with the Persian influence.
Eaton persuasively argues that colonial constructs of imagining this period in India are hopelessly narrow. Chapter by chapter he provides insightful examples and evidence for an India in constant churn, not split on modern notions of identity; rather constantly synthesizing new and old influences, led both by grassroots movements and by rulers of all shades.
What is also illuminating is his discussion of the economy during this time. It is well known that India was an economic behemoth, largely self sufficient, and later saw an incredible inflow of silver as demand for its products ballooned.
But I also found the contrast between the coercive mercantilist economy of the British and the prevailing Indian system to be very insightful.
I could go on -- and I will on my blog -- but let me end by saying that it's about time people from South Asia tapped into the incredible array of well-researched histories written by recent scholars and academics. It is essential so that we throw off hearsay destructive narratives wantonly thrown about everywhere.
Personal notes: should have read the book in January 2020 but left it in Delhi, spending more than a year in New York in the pandemic.
India in the Persianate Age is a magisterial account of the rich and endlessly fascinating interaction between two transregional cultures, the Sanskrit and the Persianate, through a large chunk of the second millennium.
Fundamentally -- and this is the underlying theme of this book -- much of India's history between 1000 and 1800 can be understood in terms of the prolonged and multifaceted interaction between the Sanskrit and Persianate worlds.
My favorite part was his discussion of 15th century India, what has often been described, rather dismally, as the 'long fifteenth century.' Eaton describes a wonderfully vibrant time of regional dynasties and cultural movements, in Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Kashmir in the north, and the Vijayanagara empire and the Bahmani sultanate in the south. Through this time, new identities developed in each of these regions, and local courts patronized artists to create architecture and written works that synthesized traditional styles with the Persian influence.
Eaton persuasively argues that colonial constructs of imagining this period in India are hopelessly narrow. Chapter by chapter he provides insightful examples and evidence for an India in constant churn, not split on modern notions of identity; rather constantly synthesizing new and old influences, led both by grassroots movements and by rulers of all shades.
What is also illuminating is his discussion of the economy during this time. It is well known that India was an economic behemoth, largely self sufficient, and later saw an incredible inflow of silver as demand for its products ballooned.
'India is rich in silver,' noted the English merchant William Hawkins in 1613, 'for all nations bring coyne and carry away commodities for the same.'
But I also found the contrast between the coercive mercantilist economy of the British and the prevailing Indian system to be very insightful.
Passed in 1563 and remaining on the books until 1813, the Statute of Artificers stipulated, among other things, that English workers could not leave an employer until after at least one year's labour for him, that workers seeking new employment required a termination certificate from a former employer, and that workers' wages would be set by government officials. Measures of this nature aligned with prevailing mercantilist thought that obliged the state to take any necessary steps to keep domestic manufactures competitive at home and abroad...
By contrast, neither the Mughals nor other Indian states with which the English company dealt claimed the right, or ever wished, to intervene directly in the production process. For officials of the Mughal empire and those of the English East India Company occupied very different moral universes. In 1778, for example, officers of the English company asked the nawab of Arcot in the Tamil country to round up and forcibly return weavers who had fled from a company-controlled manufacturing centre. Astonished at the request, the nawab replied that such a thing was 'contrary to custom and it was never done before.' Even taxation had its limits. Since the supply of arable land in pre-colonial India surpassed that of labour, villagers always had the option of simply abandoning their fields and establishing new settlements elsewhere if their taxes became too onerous. Aware of this, states sought non-coercive means to keep villagers productive. Emperor 'Alamgir, for example, ordered that if any cultivator abandoned his fields, local revenue officers 'should ascertain the cause and work very hard to induce him to return to his former place.'
I could go on -- and I will on my blog -- but let me end by saying that it's about time people from South Asia tapped into the incredible array of well-researched histories written by recent scholars and academics. It is essential so that we throw off hearsay destructive narratives wantonly thrown about everywhere.
Personal notes: should have read the book in January 2020 but left it in Delhi, spending more than a year in New York in the pandemic.
December 10, 2019
This is an incredible read, and got me questioning my own biases about Indian history, and also made me realise the breadth and complexity of the Persianate age.
More detailed review to follow, but this is an absolute MUST READ for anyone interested in the so-called "medieval" age of India.
More detailed review to follow, but this is an absolute MUST READ for anyone interested in the so-called "medieval" age of India.
August 17, 2019
Absolutely top notch history. I have a MA in South Asian history but learned so much from this sweeping tale.
Not a clash of civilisations but rather a steady and gradual mutual accommodation of Two great cultural systems. His basic point is the Sanskritic culture does not equate to a strict Hindu culture. Similarly, Persianate culture does not mean pure Islamic culture.
Instead, the way to understand these two systems is to recall the Hellenic world in which a huge number of diverse people, religions and histories across a huge geographic space spine Greek and saw the world through Greek cultural perspectives.
In this sort of world ones personal or communal faith was but one of many attributes and certainly not THE supreme or most important identity.
Fantastic reading for people with an interest in South Asia or the history of ideas.
Not a clash of civilisations but rather a steady and gradual mutual accommodation of Two great cultural systems. His basic point is the Sanskritic culture does not equate to a strict Hindu culture. Similarly, Persianate culture does not mean pure Islamic culture.
Instead, the way to understand these two systems is to recall the Hellenic world in which a huge number of diverse people, religions and histories across a huge geographic space spine Greek and saw the world through Greek cultural perspectives.
In this sort of world ones personal or communal faith was but one of many attributes and certainly not THE supreme or most important identity.
Fantastic reading for people with an interest in South Asia or the history of ideas.
February 24, 2025
really enjoyed this and also i learned way more than i expected. good to be humbled ig 🙂↕️
February 24, 2022
He manages to take a fascinating subject and make it incredibly dry and boring.
October 6, 2020
India in Persianate Age covers the history of Indian subcontinent from 1000 CE till 1765 with focus on the Persianate rulers. Close to 500 pages long, it has pretty exhaustive coverage for a layman reader.
The book mainly deals with the influence of Persian culture on the existing culture of the subcontinent and its two-way cultural exchange. Along the narrative, it covers some interesting facts such as the evolution of Rajput clan (and how a Turkic warrior probably had a major role in defining the Rajput culture), the emergence and fall of Vijayanagara kingdom, the jump of east Bengal and west Punjab directly from a pre-Hindu culture to an Islamic one and so on. The good aspects of the book is well captured by other reviewers. In this review, I am focussing on few of the issues that I found with the book.
The prevailing socio-political scene of the era with multiple groups such as Turkic, Iranian, Aghans, Rajputs, Marathas etc. collaborating, colluding and conspiring against each other is well captured with some degree of objectivity but still one gets the feeling that the 21st century socio-political situation of the subcontinent is lingering behind the pages of the book. The rewriting of the history by right-wingers has somewhat pushed the book in other direction to downplay the role of religion in the Persianate era.
The book starts with two contemporary invasions of North India; one by the Chola King Rajendra 1 in 1022 CE and the other by Mahmud Ghazni 1025 CE and making a comparison of the two. While the comparison make sense to show that religion may not a major factor in invasions and plunders in pre-modern times but that doesn't necessarily mean that religion is not at all a factor. The two invasions are not fully equivalent as one invader "destroyed" idols and temples to strengthen his image as an iconoclast whereas the other invader "took away" the idols to his kingdom to show his superiority in protecting the gods.
Another example in the book is that of execution of Guru Arjan by Jahangir as the guru showed loyalty towards the rebel son Khusrau. The book rightly pointed the political motive being the primary reason behind it but it refrain from evaluating the subtlety if religion too acted as a catalyst resulting in a harsher punishment. Had it been a sufi saint insted of Guru Arjan, would the emperor had given such a harsh punishment? The book itself later on cannot avoid mentioning the religious friction between later mughals and sikhs.
The subcontinent has always been a melting pot with invaders/migrants pouring into it for thousands of years. Before the Persianate age, they would assimilate into the culture. May be not exactly dissolving but mostly forming a colloid by adjusting to the Jati system. By the time of Persianate age, it was slightly different as the Islamic tribes with a strong sense of pastoralist bloodline and a centralized well established religion. Though they adopted and adapted their new home as time passed by, still they maintained their distinct ethnicity to a large extent. The book, by downplaying the religion, has missed an opportunity to appraise this new socio-political dynamics of the subcontinent during that era.
Another issue I have with the book is that I found it to be somewhat too patronizing of Aurangzeb (again maybe pushed by his extreme portrayal by right-wingers). The chapter about Aurangzeb starts with an anecdotal story about his bravery which sounds too fantastical and is a typical panegyric that influential rulers get written for themselves. The chapter always try to establish Aurangzeb's superiority to this rival brothers. The book talks about 4 failed attempts by Shah Jahan (lead by his sons) to expand empire's western front. The failures one each by Murad and Dara Sukoh are attributed to their lack of courage and skills while the two failure by Aurangzeb are blamed on bad weather and his incompetent artillery men. The chapter consistently associates Dara Sukoh with adjectives such as "jealousy", "arrogance", "immature behaviour" etc. whereas Aurangzeb is associated with adjectives like "courageous", "prudent", "ablest" etc. Even the intellectual endeavours of Dara Sukoh are mostly mentioned in the context of the fight for the throne.
The book mainly deals with the influence of Persian culture on the existing culture of the subcontinent and its two-way cultural exchange. Along the narrative, it covers some interesting facts such as the evolution of Rajput clan (and how a Turkic warrior probably had a major role in defining the Rajput culture), the emergence and fall of Vijayanagara kingdom, the jump of east Bengal and west Punjab directly from a pre-Hindu culture to an Islamic one and so on. The good aspects of the book is well captured by other reviewers. In this review, I am focussing on few of the issues that I found with the book.
The prevailing socio-political scene of the era with multiple groups such as Turkic, Iranian, Aghans, Rajputs, Marathas etc. collaborating, colluding and conspiring against each other is well captured with some degree of objectivity but still one gets the feeling that the 21st century socio-political situation of the subcontinent is lingering behind the pages of the book. The rewriting of the history by right-wingers has somewhat pushed the book in other direction to downplay the role of religion in the Persianate era.
The book starts with two contemporary invasions of North India; one by the Chola King Rajendra 1 in 1022 CE and the other by Mahmud Ghazni 1025 CE and making a comparison of the two. While the comparison make sense to show that religion may not a major factor in invasions and plunders in pre-modern times but that doesn't necessarily mean that religion is not at all a factor. The two invasions are not fully equivalent as one invader "destroyed" idols and temples to strengthen his image as an iconoclast whereas the other invader "took away" the idols to his kingdom to show his superiority in protecting the gods.
Another example in the book is that of execution of Guru Arjan by Jahangir as the guru showed loyalty towards the rebel son Khusrau. The book rightly pointed the political motive being the primary reason behind it but it refrain from evaluating the subtlety if religion too acted as a catalyst resulting in a harsher punishment. Had it been a sufi saint insted of Guru Arjan, would the emperor had given such a harsh punishment? The book itself later on cannot avoid mentioning the religious friction between later mughals and sikhs.
The subcontinent has always been a melting pot with invaders/migrants pouring into it for thousands of years. Before the Persianate age, they would assimilate into the culture. May be not exactly dissolving but mostly forming a colloid by adjusting to the Jati system. By the time of Persianate age, it was slightly different as the Islamic tribes with a strong sense of pastoralist bloodline and a centralized well established religion. Though they adopted and adapted their new home as time passed by, still they maintained their distinct ethnicity to a large extent. The book, by downplaying the religion, has missed an opportunity to appraise this new socio-political dynamics of the subcontinent during that era.
Another issue I have with the book is that I found it to be somewhat too patronizing of Aurangzeb (again maybe pushed by his extreme portrayal by right-wingers). The chapter about Aurangzeb starts with an anecdotal story about his bravery which sounds too fantastical and is a typical panegyric that influential rulers get written for themselves. The chapter always try to establish Aurangzeb's superiority to this rival brothers. The book talks about 4 failed attempts by Shah Jahan (lead by his sons) to expand empire's western front. The failures one each by Murad and Dara Sukoh are attributed to their lack of courage and skills while the two failure by Aurangzeb are blamed on bad weather and his incompetent artillery men. The chapter consistently associates Dara Sukoh with adjectives such as "jealousy", "arrogance", "immature behaviour" etc. whereas Aurangzeb is associated with adjectives like "courageous", "prudent", "ablest" etc. Even the intellectual endeavours of Dara Sukoh are mostly mentioned in the context of the fight for the throne.
April 26, 2022
The author's anti-hindu biases are well known- so I will not belabor that and instead focus on factual errors. He has relied on mistranslations (presumably being illiterate in sanskrit) to claim, for example: "Someśvara III \(r. 1127–39\), an emperor of the Deccan plateau’s Chalukya dynasty, bluntly made the case for such action (temple destruction by Hindu kings)". However, this relies on a mistranslation by P Arundhati. The original Sanskrit text has no reference to a temple. The author seems to have confused by "मनुष्याणां मन्दिराणि" or "मन्दुरा".:
> यस्मिन् परे वसेच्छत्रुः सपुत्रबलवाहना।
> तत् परं राजनिलयं साट्टप्राकारतोरणम् ॥ १०७५ ॥
>
> अन्तःपुरे पुरन्ध्रीणां रमयाणि भवनानि च।
> निकेतनानि पुत्राणाम् अमात्यानां गृहाणि च ॥ १०७६ ।।
>
> सचिवानां निवासाश्च मन्त्रिणां सदनानि च।
> अन्येषां च मनुष्याणां मन्दिराणि बहूनि च ॥ १०७७ ॥
>
> मन्दुरा गजशालाश् च विविधानापणानपि ।
> भस्मसात् कुरुते यत् तु स दण्डः स्थानदाहकः ॥१०७८ ।।
> यस्मिन् परे वसेच्छत्रुः सपुत्रबलवाहना।
> तत् परं राजनिलयं साट्टप्राकारतोरणम् ॥ १०७५ ॥
>
> अन्तःपुरे पुरन्ध्रीणां रमयाणि भवनानि च।
> निकेतनानि पुत्राणाम् अमात्यानां गृहाणि च ॥ १०७६ ।।
>
> सचिवानां निवासाश्च मन्त्रिणां सदनानि च।
> अन्येषां च मनुष्याणां मन्दिराणि बहूनि च ॥ १०७७ ॥
>
> मन्दुरा गजशालाश् च विविधानापणानपि ।
> भस्मसात् कुरुते यत् तु स दण्डः स्थानदाहकः ॥१०७८ ।।
September 29, 2025
This is the best history book I have read on the history of Indian subcontinent. Michael Eaton dismantles simplistic, religiously bound narratives and replaces them with a rigorous account of how the interaction of Persianate and Sanskrit culture shaped politics, language, and society across centuries. The book shows India not as an isolated land but as part of a wider cosmopolitan world, where exchange, hybridity, and intellectual synthesis defined its history.
This should be the starting point for anyone seeking to understand the history of South Asia. It clears away nationalist distortions and grounds the story of India in a framework that is global, nuanced, and intellectually honest. In an era when religious nationalism attempts to reduce history to propaganda, this book is the antidote. It is not only scholarship of the highest order but also the need of the hour.
This should be the starting point for anyone seeking to understand the history of South Asia. It clears away nationalist distortions and grounds the story of India in a framework that is global, nuanced, and intellectually honest. In an era when religious nationalism attempts to reduce history to propaganda, this book is the antidote. It is not only scholarship of the highest order but also the need of the hour.
February 16, 2021
Political ideologies and worldviews ultimately end up projecting present ideas on past events. History, however, is often different from how it is conceived by modern ideologies. One such projection is the Hindu-Muslim "clash of civilizations" narrative, vital to the worldview of both Muslim Nationalists in Pakistan and Hindu Nationalists in India. This narrative presents the Hindu and Muslim civilizations as always having been in conflict, because only by presenting one of the two civilizations as the "demonic other" can these two nationalist ideologies sustain their claims of historical grievances.
However, as Richard Eaton shows in this remarkable work, the two civilizations were always more conciliatory than contradictory. The Muslim Persianate civilization interacted with the Hindu Sanskritic one for hundreds of years, with the end result that both civilizations came to borrow values, traditions, knowledge, art, architecture, and literature from each other. "India In The Persianate Age" shows that people living in pre-colonial South Asia certainly didn't see the two civilizations as being locked in an eternal clash. Rather, Muslim Persianate dynasties patronized the production of Sanksrit literary texts and borrowed extensively from local Hindu customs, while local Hindu dynasties learned Persian to take part in the wider Persianate world and increasingly adopted Persian court mannerisms.
In the last chapters of this book, the author also does a good job of dispelling the common colonial and orientalist myths that are commonly believed about South Asia. South Asian society is shown to be dynamic, complex, and ever-evolving; rather than static and stagnant, as colonial writers portrayed it as. The book shows how proto-industrialization and the development of finance and banking had already begun before the colonization of South Asia started, contrary to the claim of colonial apologists. Finally, it also shows how the combination and interaction of different social, political, and economic forces led to modern communities such as Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs, Bengali Muslims, and Punjabi Muslims.
"India In The Persianate Age" is doubtless one of the best history books I've ever read, and I will be sure to recommend it to anyone interested in South Asian history.
However, as Richard Eaton shows in this remarkable work, the two civilizations were always more conciliatory than contradictory. The Muslim Persianate civilization interacted with the Hindu Sanskritic one for hundreds of years, with the end result that both civilizations came to borrow values, traditions, knowledge, art, architecture, and literature from each other. "India In The Persianate Age" shows that people living in pre-colonial South Asia certainly didn't see the two civilizations as being locked in an eternal clash. Rather, Muslim Persianate dynasties patronized the production of Sanksrit literary texts and borrowed extensively from local Hindu customs, while local Hindu dynasties learned Persian to take part in the wider Persianate world and increasingly adopted Persian court mannerisms.
In the last chapters of this book, the author also does a good job of dispelling the common colonial and orientalist myths that are commonly believed about South Asia. South Asian society is shown to be dynamic, complex, and ever-evolving; rather than static and stagnant, as colonial writers portrayed it as. The book shows how proto-industrialization and the development of finance and banking had already begun before the colonization of South Asia started, contrary to the claim of colonial apologists. Finally, it also shows how the combination and interaction of different social, political, and economic forces led to modern communities such as Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs, Bengali Muslims, and Punjabi Muslims.
"India In The Persianate Age" is doubtless one of the best history books I've ever read, and I will be sure to recommend it to anyone interested in South Asian history.
April 7, 2020
Stunning book - all 400 odd pages of it! Having grown up in India, I thought I knew Indian history, but this changes all that. This is a great attempt at assimilation of modern historical research that challenges the colonial subversion of India's history. It questions the idea and the periodisation of India's modernity, tracing it back to an earlier period of late sixteenth / seventeenth century, approximately at the same time as Europe. The book presents India in the context of the connected Indian Ocean maritime world, overlapping with Central Asian / Silk Road networks, a cosmopolitan populace from the ancient times. It also beautifully presents the interactions of Sanskrit and Persian cultural spheres, explaining the idea of India as a 'palimpset' and challenging the colonial representation of Hindu country taken over by Muslims. Engagingly written, I shall recommend this to anyone interested in India.
January 7, 2020
“I argue that there is such a handle[some new conceptual handle or idea that might confer meaning in the term medieval other than that of a religiously defined Muslim era]. As it happens, the period of India’s history conventionally labelled ‘medieval’ coincides with the eastward diffusion of Persionate culture across almost all the Indian subcontinent and its interaction with its Sanskrit counterpart, the story of this interaction - the encounter between the Persian and Sanskrit worlds - is both rich and complex. It is the subject of this book.”
Richard M. Eaton does not think much of breaking the history of India into Hindu, Muslim and British periods or along an ancient-medieval (read: tyrannical)-modern scheme. Rather, he describes how in the period 1000-1765 India was included into an expanding Persionate world.
Starting with Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni’s 1025 descent into the Indus Calley, Eaton describes how the event was recorded by both Persian chronicles and local Sanskrit inscriptions (or not), as well as how the event was later re-remembered following Britain’s First Afghan War.
Although it can make for confusing reading at times, Eaton continues this interrogation of sources across the Ghaznavids (characterised as a regional, North Indian state) and the Ghurids, the Khalajis and the Tughluq empire (which saw the Delhi sultanate expand and contract in the 14th century, with successions happening in different regions), Timur’s sacking of Delhi (1398-9), and finally the growth and collapse of the Mughal Empire.
Throughout, Eaton describes a growing Persian influence (literature, language, architecture, conceptions of ruling, science, etc) while pointing to where legitimacy was gained through connection to the Sanskrit world. He highlights in particular how identities were created, blurred and changed.
I would have liked to have seen more on the peasant revolts (1614 and 1672 are both mention), African slaves like Malik Amber, and the structure of society. Near the end of the book Eaton says that “Since the supply of arable land in pre-colonial India surpassed that of labour, villagers always had the option of simply abandoning their fields and establishing new settlements elsewhere if their taxes became too onerous.” However, having this type of information earlier would have been useful in understanding what legitimacy meant or even just thinking about what the society looked like.
Richard M. Eaton does not think much of breaking the history of India into Hindu, Muslim and British periods or along an ancient-medieval (read: tyrannical)-modern scheme. Rather, he describes how in the period 1000-1765 India was included into an expanding Persionate world.
Starting with Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni’s 1025 descent into the Indus Calley, Eaton describes how the event was recorded by both Persian chronicles and local Sanskrit inscriptions (or not), as well as how the event was later re-remembered following Britain’s First Afghan War.
Although it can make for confusing reading at times, Eaton continues this interrogation of sources across the Ghaznavids (characterised as a regional, North Indian state) and the Ghurids, the Khalajis and the Tughluq empire (which saw the Delhi sultanate expand and contract in the 14th century, with successions happening in different regions), Timur’s sacking of Delhi (1398-9), and finally the growth and collapse of the Mughal Empire.
Throughout, Eaton describes a growing Persian influence (literature, language, architecture, conceptions of ruling, science, etc) while pointing to where legitimacy was gained through connection to the Sanskrit world. He highlights in particular how identities were created, blurred and changed.
I would have liked to have seen more on the peasant revolts (1614 and 1672 are both mention), African slaves like Malik Amber, and the structure of society. Near the end of the book Eaton says that “Since the supply of arable land in pre-colonial India surpassed that of labour, villagers always had the option of simply abandoning their fields and establishing new settlements elsewhere if their taxes became too onerous.” However, having this type of information earlier would have been useful in understanding what legitimacy meant or even just thinking about what the society looked like.
August 5, 2023
A truly impressive read. The book makes the argument that Indian medieval history and its consequences are best understood across cultural divides (Indian/Persianate) as opposed to religious divides (Hindu/Muslim) and the book does this exceptionally well.
The coverage is bespoke, a direct and measured response to India's worsening social conversation around communal categories of belonging and, more broadly, the revisionism of Indian history in the service of consolidation of a unified national identity.
The content is incredibly well-researched, dripping with historiographical mana. Each argument is a cavalcade of illustrative examples ranging from records of appointments, conspicuous absences from royal inscriptions, revenue collection statistics, comparative survey of poetry translations, first-person accounts of merchants, presence of religious leaders in courts, architectural choices, land allotment records, known slavery trade routes and much, much more.
The style is even more impressive. The content could have easily made for a very dry read but Richard Eaton manages to never lose the story so that the reader is on a continuous train of thought spanning 400 pages, all of it ensconced in the human drama of shifting courts, petty officials, eager artists and homesick emperors. The writing is never indulgent, never verbose, a feat that I see few serious non-fiction authors aspire to, much less accomplish.
Finally, as someone who grew up in India, in a household that internalized this ingroup-outgroup bias, during a period when the tensions culminated in wholesale slaughter on the streets, I think I saw inbetween the pages an additional dimension of quiet rejoinders to commonly heard bigoted accusations (behind closed doors, ofcourse!) -- these were peppered across the book and may evade the less suspecting reader but will enrich those who are still recuperating from a century of communal trauma.
The coverage is bespoke, a direct and measured response to India's worsening social conversation around communal categories of belonging and, more broadly, the revisionism of Indian history in the service of consolidation of a unified national identity.
The content is incredibly well-researched, dripping with historiographical mana. Each argument is a cavalcade of illustrative examples ranging from records of appointments, conspicuous absences from royal inscriptions, revenue collection statistics, comparative survey of poetry translations, first-person accounts of merchants, presence of religious leaders in courts, architectural choices, land allotment records, known slavery trade routes and much, much more.
The style is even more impressive. The content could have easily made for a very dry read but Richard Eaton manages to never lose the story so that the reader is on a continuous train of thought spanning 400 pages, all of it ensconced in the human drama of shifting courts, petty officials, eager artists and homesick emperors. The writing is never indulgent, never verbose, a feat that I see few serious non-fiction authors aspire to, much less accomplish.
Finally, as someone who grew up in India, in a household that internalized this ingroup-outgroup bias, during a period when the tensions culminated in wholesale slaughter on the streets, I think I saw inbetween the pages an additional dimension of quiet rejoinders to commonly heard bigoted accusations (behind closed doors, ofcourse!) -- these were peppered across the book and may evade the less suspecting reader but will enrich those who are still recuperating from a century of communal trauma.
April 13, 2024
When I picked up "India in The Persianate Age" by Richard Eaton, I was unsure what to expect. Books like this are difficult to review because they are so good.
Unlike many authors who focus on North India or the Mughals, he covers North, East, and South India. It starts with Mahmud of Ghazni and busts the Somnath myth. Then, he covered a wide sweep of history until the British. We may have become a Persian-speaking country if the Mughals had not imploded. My father studied Persian, apart from Punjabi and English, not Hindi.
Books like this cover great ground and are tough stories to write. Many themes weave together, each strand and node affecting the other. It can become confusing for the reader.
To Richard Eaton's eternal credit, he created a fascinating, engaging, eye-opening, and comprehensible book.
I believe this is a book every Indian, especially today, must read.
Unlike many authors who focus on North India or the Mughals, he covers North, East, and South India. It starts with Mahmud of Ghazni and busts the Somnath myth. Then, he covered a wide sweep of history until the British. We may have become a Persian-speaking country if the Mughals had not imploded. My father studied Persian, apart from Punjabi and English, not Hindi.
Books like this cover great ground and are tough stories to write. Many themes weave together, each strand and node affecting the other. It can become confusing for the reader.
To Richard Eaton's eternal credit, he created a fascinating, engaging, eye-opening, and comprehensible book.
I believe this is a book every Indian, especially today, must read.
May 25, 2025
Eaton traces the development of a proto-secular Persianiate culture that arose in 9th century Central Asia and came in multiple forms of the Indian subcontinent to hybridize with local traditions both from Turkic dynasties like the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals as well as having elements of it become integrated into more indigenous polities like Vijayanagar and the Marathas. Perhaps most interestingly, the case is made that the infamous Auraungzeb, while still responsible for the decline of the Mughals, did not cause it through puritan fanatacism so much as an over-reliance in faith regarding institutions and the powers of endless war. In this way he comes across as a kind of establishment 21rst Century North American politician, a kind of Clintonesque figure where the state appears in his time at the height of its power but the long term trend towards disaster is already setting in and becoming a calcified essence of the state and its managers.
June 23, 2025
I will fall short of words if I try to articulate what it meant to read this book in the far-right leaning politics of India right now. No matter what political propaganda and Islamophobia says, it is so important to pause and look at what 700 years of Central Asia influence meant for a country like India.
The book has 3 very beautiful things that I seek in a historical book:
- Each claim is backed by evidence, thorough notes and referencing (for me to be able to cross check when and if needed) (yes, it's tough to filter misinformation in a country full of propaganda)
- The author repeated important facts and information multiple times weaving information through chronology, significance, and impact. This meant that a lot of connecting-the-dots was done for me which was helpful
- Lastly, and the most obvious one, it was an unbiased book focused more evidence, potential theories when blanks were present
The book has 3 very beautiful things that I seek in a historical book:
- Each claim is backed by evidence, thorough notes and referencing (for me to be able to cross check when and if needed) (yes, it's tough to filter misinformation in a country full of propaganda)
- The author repeated important facts and information multiple times weaving information through chronology, significance, and impact. This meant that a lot of connecting-the-dots was done for me which was helpful
- Lastly, and the most obvious one, it was an unbiased book focused more evidence, potential theories when blanks were present
October 10, 2019
A measured and engaging overview of India's 'Persianate' period. I generally agree with the thesis - that Sanskrit and Persian cultures mixed to a greater extent than previous accounts suggest. Although headed by Persianate kings in this period, the only effective way to gain and maintain power was to work primarily within, and pay respects to, the established Sanskrit social order.
I found two things particularly fascinating: the accounts of the astonishingly vicious struggles for succession in the Mughal era, and the discussion of the geographical shift of the Ganges which created the social environment for Islam to be commonly practiced. Previously forested areas were uncovered and used for rice cultivation, which meant previously non-Hindu Indigenous peoples converted directly to Islam.
As an economist, I'm interested more by the evolution of daily life than long accounts of succession (which is what this felt like at times), but on the whole it was a really satisfying read.
I found two things particularly fascinating: the accounts of the astonishingly vicious struggles for succession in the Mughal era, and the discussion of the geographical shift of the Ganges which created the social environment for Islam to be commonly practiced. Previously forested areas were uncovered and used for rice cultivation, which meant previously non-Hindu Indigenous peoples converted directly to Islam.
As an economist, I'm interested more by the evolution of daily life than long accounts of succession (which is what this felt like at times), but on the whole it was a really satisfying read.
December 14, 2022
I would have given negative rating, but the 1 star for Richard Eaton's India in the Persianate age is for its originality in the idea of dividing India's history into neat binaries of Sanskritic and Persianate ages as it aptly elucidates the cultural contrast between both the worlds
There is nothing much to review. Richard Eaton used very few primary sources or none actually for his interpretation of the so called Persianate age in India. Borrowing heavily from the works of self proclaimed leftist writers makes it an interpretation based on an interpretation. I don't know what to call it, but definitely not a historical work
To cut short, it is just another attempt to whitewash the history of Bharat by the trusted PR team of the Peaceful Invaders-the left ideologues.
There is nothing much to review. Richard Eaton used very few primary sources or none actually for his interpretation of the so called Persianate age in India. Borrowing heavily from the works of self proclaimed leftist writers makes it an interpretation based on an interpretation. I don't know what to call it, but definitely not a historical work
To cut short, it is just another attempt to whitewash the history of Bharat by the trusted PR team of the Peaceful Invaders-the left ideologues.
December 23, 2020
An excellent history of India under Persianate-Turkic rule from the Delhi sultanate to the Mughals. Engagingly written that makes history accessible. Approached with a historical sensibility that’s necessary to counter current trends in India that paints Islamic rule in a negative light. Part of this includes a reassessment of Aurangzeb and examines his rule in a more balanced way. Shows how united, multicultural and secular India was under the Mughals - with special focus on their relations with Hindu and Sikh elites, their non-Muslim subjects and religion in general. An important history of medieval India.
January 24, 2021
This is an amazing and ambitious book. Eaton works hard to draw together a history of India from 1000 to 1765 which encompasses the entire sub-continent. He argues this is not a history of Muslim domination but of India being brought into the Persian sphere of cultural influence. It is also possible to see how groups like the Mughals became Indianised.
In a way that is unusual for a book about this time period, this book has an important purpose now. It is a welcome antidote to the revisionist Hindu narratives of Islamic domination that are prevalent in the modern Indian historical discourse. Whether many will listen to Eaton's meticulously researched work is another story but it is reassuring knowing this book exists. It joins others lik eThe Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity and India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy which seek to counter the false narratives of Hindutva.
It is interesting how he works through biography of many figures. While in many histories this would be inappropriate the book does not set out to be a comprehensive description of India at one time but a broad look at how the concept of India developed and the Persian influence on this. Alongside the biographies he also traces the development of many of the identities significant in understanding the history, such as Rajput and Marathi.
I enjoyed the book, but at times found it a bit dense for a history so general. I would recommend it as a good read for anyone looking to get a grasp on Indian history in this time period. It also has a wonderful chapter sub-heading on Early Modern Globalisation that should be read by absolutely anyone who is interested in how the globalised European empires came about.
In a way that is unusual for a book about this time period, this book has an important purpose now. It is a welcome antidote to the revisionist Hindu narratives of Islamic domination that are prevalent in the modern Indian historical discourse. Whether many will listen to Eaton's meticulously researched work is another story but it is reassuring knowing this book exists. It joins others lik eThe Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity and India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy which seek to counter the false narratives of Hindutva.
It is interesting how he works through biography of many figures. While in many histories this would be inappropriate the book does not set out to be a comprehensive description of India at one time but a broad look at how the concept of India developed and the Persian influence on this. Alongside the biographies he also traces the development of many of the identities significant in understanding the history, such as Rajput and Marathi.
I enjoyed the book, but at times found it a bit dense for a history so general. I would recommend it as a good read for anyone looking to get a grasp on Indian history in this time period. It also has a wonderful chapter sub-heading on Early Modern Globalisation that should be read by absolutely anyone who is interested in how the globalised European empires came about.
July 13, 2023
India’s history is as deep as the Ganges and as high as the Himalayas! Each book brings us a bit closer to understanding how this magnificent country came to be, and yet we will always remain far from knowing the whole truth. If you are on a quest like me to learn more and more about the past of India, then this book by Richard Eaton should be a definite addition to your collection. It explores the period from 1000 to 1765, before the British influence grew rapidly, and digs deeper into the various kingdoms that came and went throughout India during that period but especially the ones who ruled the Delhi sultanate and dreamed of spreading their reign throughout the Indian lands. A good section of the book understandably gets dedicated to the Mughal Empire that came to the throne in early 16th century and at its peak was the most dominant and populous kingdom in the world. The narration by Eaton carries with it intriguing stories and characters that make the journey of reading this book truly exciting. He tries to build the personalities of the different kings through their actions and words which breathes lives into them and transports the readers to the eras of the past. The pacing is also perfect, sharing enough stories to help us learn of the period but never turning this into a historical journal. Read this book at your own pace, would be my advice, for it is meant to be savoured, relished, relived and remembered…
April 11, 2021
A moving elegy to a world that was as much written over by political expediency as by collective amnesia. Eaton explores the roots of the Delhi Sultanate, Afghan inter-regnums, the Mughal Empire and the fledgling European powers. Persian was as much a staple at the court, the language of administration, of poetry and culture, of accounting and of art; and quite unmoored from religious connotations. Up until Iran re-affirmed Persian for nationalistic reasons, the entire South Asian continent could have been described as a fluid admixture under Persianate influences. While Turkic, Afghan and Uzbek-Timurud dynasties have all come to this fertile land beyond the Ganges, it was the "high culture" of Ferdowsi and Rumi that really held much sway in the literary, architectural, dietary and administrative ethos of a sub-continent in continuous flux. In fact, at the time, India produced about 9x the volume of Persian literature as all that was produced in Iran itself, making India the veritable seat of its evolution. And this book by Eaton beautifully strings together all the elements of that mixing of culture, very well indeed.
September 26, 2021
This should be in school syllabus in India!!
August 2, 2023
A must-read!
June 11, 2025
Highlighter? Out of ink. Tabs? Finished. I am forever changed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews