Que. Discuss the attitude of Chishti saints towards the state. How were the Suhrawardi saints different in their attitude towards the government?
राज्य के प्रति चिश्ती संतों के रुख (ऐटिट्यूड) की विवेचना कीजिए। सरकार के प्रति अपने रवैये में सुहरावर्दी संत कैसे भिन्न थे?
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Briefly introduce the contrasting attitudes of “Chishti” and “Suhrawardi saints” towards the state, highlighting key differences.
(ii) Main body: Discuss the “Chishti saints’ approach” and the “Suhrawardi saints’ approach” to the state and the comparative aspects under separate headings.
(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the distinct approaches of both the “Chishti and Suhrawardi” saints towards the state and political power.
Introduction
The “Chishti saints” avoided involvement with the state, focusing on spiritual devotion and humility. In contrast, the “Suhrawardi saints” actively engaged with the state, viewing it as a means to influence governance and uphold Islamic principles.
Chishti Saints’ Attitude towards the State
(i) Non-involvement in Political Matters: The “Chishti saints” avoided all political and administrative matters, stressing the need to maintain “spiritual purity” by staying detached from worldly power and influence.
(ii) Rejection of Royal Patronage: They rejected gifts and patronage from rulers, including land grants, to ensure they remained free from “material entanglements” and focused on spiritual upliftment.
(iii) Emphasis on Serving the Poor: Their focus was on serving the “marginalized” rather than associating with the powerful, promoting humility and devotion to the downtrodden as part of their “spiritual mission.”
(iv) Pacifism and Non-interference: Chishti saints maintained a stance of “non-violence” and did not interfere in state matters, ensuring their religious authority was seen as non-threatening to political rulers.
(v) Independence from Rulers: Their refusal to participate in governance enhanced their “independence” and credibility as spiritual leaders who remained loyal to their moral and ethical principles.
Suhrawardi Saints’ Attitude towards the State
(i) Political Interaction as a Duty: Unlike the Chishtis, the “Suhrawardi saints” believed that engaging with the state was part of their duty to ensure rulers upheld “Islamic values” and governed justly.
(ii) Acceptance of State Endowments: Suhrawardi saints accepted “wealth and gifts” from rulers, using them to establish religious institutions, schools, and welfare organizations to benefit the community.
(iii) Advisors to Rulers: They served as advisors to rulers, seeing their role as intermediaries between the “spiritual” and “temporal” realms, believing their influence could guide governance towards ethical rule.
(iv) Integration into Administrative Roles: Many Suhrawardi saints, like “Shaikh Bahauddin Zakariya,” accepted positions in state administration, believing that religious figures could contribute positively to governance without compromising their “spiritual integrity.”
(v) Consolidation of Religious Authority: By aligning themselves with rulers, Suhrawardi saints sought to consolidate religious authority and ensure “Islamic principles” were reflected in state policies and governance.
Comparative Analysis of Attitudes Towards the State
(i) Spiritual vs Political Engagement: “Chishti saints” rejected political engagement, while “Suhrawardi saints” believed in directly influencing governance to ensure ethical statecraft, marking a key difference in their approaches.
(ii) Approach to Material Wealth: Chishtis rejected material patronage, emphasizing “poverty” and humility as virtues, while Suhrawardis accepted wealth for religious and community-building purposes, reflecting their pragmatic view.
(iii) State as a Spiritual Ally or Foe: For Suhrawardis, the state could be an ally in promoting “Islamic governance,” while Chishtis viewed the state as a potential corrupting force for spiritual life.
(iv) Social Engagement Models: The Chishtis’ focus was on the “common masses,” while the Suhrawardis sought influence through elite circles, reflecting their differing social engagement models.
(v) Legacy and Impact: The Chishti legacy is one of “grassroots spiritual leadership” and mass appeal, while the Suhrawardis’ legacy includes shaping political power and governance, reflecting their distinct legacies in Islamic history.
Conclusion
The “Chishti saints” emphasized spiritual independence from the state, whereas the “Suhrawardi saints” accepted material and political engagement to influence governance. Their contrasting approaches shaped the relationship between “Sufism” and “political power” in medieval India.
