To the Portuguese belongs the distinction of politicizing the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. With the development of navigation instruments, such as astrolabes borrowed from the Arabs, guns mounted on military vessels, and better-designed ships, Portuguese mariners were able to found fortified factories in India at Cochin and Goa. Because European merchants could “short-circuit” Arab middlemen, Portuguese spice imports and profits rose dramatically. The Sultan of Gujarat, however, resisted Portuguese incursions and sought help from the Mamluks of Egypt, former allies and trading partners. In 1509, however, a huge Egyptian-Indian armada was destroyed by Almeida, a Portuguese naval captain.
Another notable figure in the struggle of the Portuguese for control over the lucrative ports of Gujarat was Malik Gopi, a Hindu nobleman who served the Gujarat Sultanate as minister over the city of Surat. A Brahmin and friend of the Portuguese, he rose to great wealth and political position in the fifteenth century. His success in business and ostentatious display of wealth attracted other merchants to Surat, and its prosperity continued to increase from that time. When Gopi personally was affected by the unquestionable maritime superiority of the Portuguese, he surrendered himself to them as a vassal.
“He understood the futility of the continued attempts of Malik Ayez and the Egyptians to oust the Portuguese from the Indian Ocean. The monopolistic trade of the Portuguese compelled him to join hands with them.” Unfortunately, Gopi viewed himself as above the law and used his considerable power to oppress people, particularly Muslims traders. In 1515, he was slain by Muzaffar Shah II for ill-treatment of Muslims and collusion with the Portuguese. Ironically, the title of Malik had been earlier conferred on him by the same Sultan at Gopinath.
During the continuing conflict between the Sultan of Gujarat and the Portuguese for possession of the seaport of Diu (1510–37), acts of vengeance were committed upon defenseless coastal towns of Gujarat and Kathiawar. The terrible cruelties and injustices committed by various Portuguese governors were later regarded by Portuguese historians as one of the principal factors leading to the loss of Portugal’s Indian Empire. Yet Portuguese historians also note the courageous defense by a small Portuguese garrison for a prolonged period against overwhelming odds. Maintaining their hold during two great sieges by Turks and Gujaratis in 1538 and 1546, they achieved Albuquerque’s objective of maintaining harbors and refuges on land secure under Portuguese command.
Dom Joao de Castro describes the Portuguese policy of ruthless terrorism in 1546. They captured ships trading with the enemy, intercepted 60 vessels carrying provisions, killed Muslims, mangled bodies, and set them afloat at the mouths of rivers so the current would carry them inland. Manuel de Lima returned from his mission with 60 Muslims hanging from the yardarms. Houses were set afire and towns burned at the mouths of the Tapti and Narmada rivers. “The cruelty outwent the destruction, for many Bramenish (Brahmin) young ladies, exempted from crime by their sex, from the sword by their faces, in colour and beauty not inferior to those of Europe, were not spared in the victory.” As is usually the case, unfortunate citizens suffered for the arrogance and stubbornness of their rulers.
In order to further prove to the Sultan that the Portuguese desire for revenge had not been satisfied by the victory, the mainland town of Ghoghla was pillaged and burned, natives and strangers slaughtered, the guilty and the innocent punished. Hindus were hanged in the temples of their idols; the throats of cows were cut; and temples were sprinkled with cow’s blood, “an animal which is the depository of souls they adore with abominable worship.” After the victory in 1546, six ships were sent sailing about the Gulf of Cambay to proclaim in all ports that Hindus and Muslims could return to Diu. Security was promised to persons and property; merchants began to come back in large numbers.
A century later, a French traveler, M. Dean de Thevenot (1633–67) arrived in Surat and spent 13 months in India. From his writings, we learn that the Dutch had removed their trade from Diu to Surat where a sandbar prevented loaded ships from entering the Tapti, forcing them to anchor at the mouth of the river. Travelers and merchants were searched, moreover, and their clothing removed during a 15-minute customs inspection. Two years after Shivaji’s sack of the city, the walls were in ruins, but new walls, ordered by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, were under construction. Thevenot describes Surat as a medium-sized city with a large but fluctuating population. During the fair weather, from November to April, the city was very crowded with Persian, Arab, Turk, Armenian, Dutch, and English merchants. French traders, however, did not turn up until 1668.
Thevenot notes that a Capuchin monk, Father Ambrose, apparently wielded great influence with officials and people in general, being called on to settle all disputes among Christians, some of whom were banished for irregular living. He went so far as to meet with Shivaji, who in turn spared European factories and monasteries in his pillaging of Surat. In that city were traded goods from Europe and China, including “porcelain ware, cabinets and coffers ornamented with turquoises, agates, carnelians, ivory,” as well as “diamonds, rubies, pearls and all the other varieties of precious stones to be found in India.” Other commodities included musk, amber, myrrh, incense, manna, sal ammonia, quicksilver, lac, indigo, and the root roenas for red dye.
Thevenot also visited Ahmedabad and described the Bhadra Citadel, built by Sultan Ahmed I, as a royal headquarters with a palace, two towers, and military equipment. He remarks that it was named for Bhadra, the Hindu capital of North Gujarat at Patan for many centuries, with its temple dedicated to Bhadra Kali, the auspicious form of the goddess, known also to Jains as Chintimani. The principal commodities bought and sold at Ahmedabad included satins, velvets, taffetas, and “wondrous tapestries of gold and silken threads with woolen grounds.” Exports from the local region consisted of indigo, dried and preserved ginger, sugar, cumin, and honey. The Dutch also bought chintz (painted cloths), although these were said to be “not as fine as those on the East Coast.”
Although he traveled to Cambay, Thevenot noted that in 1666 the sea no longer came up to the town and was a mile and a half away, resulting in reduced trade complicated by swift tides in the Bay. Malabar pirates, moreover, were known to prey on almadies, small brigantines used by the Portuguese for coastal trade. At Cambay, the trade consisted largely of agates, rings of precious metals, and ivory bracelets. The Frenchman also described Rajput Garasias, chieftains who controlled all villages from Cambay to Broach and were responsible for the travelers within their jurisdiction. Indeed, if property was taken by bandits, the Garasias made every effort to assure its return. Thevenot took strong interest in the Charans, criminal tribes who could be engaged for protection and who threatened to kill themselves if robbers harmed whomever they were guarding. For them, death was preferable to dishonor. People feared ruin brought upon one who spilled a Charan’s blood. In fact, Bahuchara, ghost of a female Charan suicide, was considered the worst dreaded but most worshipped deity in North Gujarat.
~~Kites Over The Mango Tree: Restoring Harmony between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat -by- Janet M. Powers
No comments:
Post a Comment