I see people engage in debates (blame games) on internet forums, social media sites about which caste converted to Islam in more numbers, percentage or ease.

There is no way to quantitatively judge today, on what percentage of which caste converted during which period of medieval era. Since this record would not settle forever, due to lack of facts. I never venture in the area. All you would do is form subjective opinions and pick bias knowingly or unknowingly.

Yet the debate and bickering goes on over the internet, with same subjective opinions and bias. Hence few words…

Crux of my argument is that upper castes were subject to far more and consistent pressure for conversion, because of the very reason – that

they were ‘upper’ caste.

Let us expand on why it would happen so. Islamic invaders of India were incapable of replace administrative layers of this large nation with themselves completely and at once.

They obviously needed to re-use existing layers. To strengthen their hold they focused on conversion of these layers with twice the intensity.

To them there was more value & feasibility in converting these layers (less in number but high in importance), than going after large masses of commoners everywhere in the country. That also was a goal but to be achieved slowly in the long run by other means.

Upper caste concentrations were found in urban areas due to the administrative nature of their work and requirement of resources.

As a matter of fact the Islamic invaders writ also, was best run around urban areas only. Because they mostly lived in urban areas. Country side was visited for long duration only due to reasons like military/political campaigns.

In northwest India, the constant pressure on country masses was of taxes, plunder etc not conversion.

Because firstly, the ruler ship of many areas kept flipping between Islamic and Hindu kind. The consistent and intense influence you need to convert in a dense country like India, cannot be obtained by a rule that doesn’t run un-toppled, unchallenged for a very long time. It also can’t happen when rule is applied via the agency of a Hindu king. Percentage of Hindus in NW India after 1000 years bigotry is a testimony to that.

Second, the Islamic states didn’t have the resources to keep the pressure up throughout the countryside all the time. When a campaign ends, the pressure of conversion on ground masses in various nooks and corners loosens as well. Even among those from lower castes who converted, there are plenty of instances of reverting to own faith.

The situation with unconverted upper castes was however different.

It was natural for Islamic rulers to go after upper castes co-habiting with them, with max effort. Occupational hazard ?

At the end of the day, Islamic rulers of the long run did not need an “Islamic nation”; as much as they needed “Islamic rule” of the nation.

That objective was to be met by going with focus after upper castes, not the millions of masses.

Peculiarity about upper caste conversions though, is that there are barely any enmasse conversions in upper castes. Individuals for personal gains or small surviving groups post battle are common examples.

Tribes like Gakkhars however (after fighting gallantly) did convert enmasse. Medieval Punjab saw conversions in huge numbers for two reasons:

1) They were at the doors of India, so became the first and foremost victims to bear the brunt of Islam.

2) Their upper castes and martial sections i.e. local leadership did not have clannish organization. So any de-centralized resistance after reversals could not happen, as it did in Rajputana successfully.

In all fairness I must state an exception – Ajmer. Here the ruling Rajput clan dispersed after facing reversals against Turks. That gradually led to large number of conversions among dispersed Chauhans and allowed an Islamic wound to fester within Rajputana.

Clan system among Rajputs (though blamed for infighting) was a bulwark against conversion. Converts were socially boycotted and their clan identity was no longer recognized. This prevented enmasse conversion, though dripping conversions at individual levels were still seen.

Upper castes conversion becomes a talking point for one more reason. It is their conversion that had more media value for medieval history’s records; than an unknown commoner’s. Then precisely those records are what people read today and form opinions from.

History is full of numerous occasions where rulers like Aurangzeb insisted on conversion of kings, princes, chiefs; even after vassalage and tributes were submitted.

Which brings us to the third reason for Islamists going after upper castes.

It was the theory – convert the head and advertise, body shall follow.

It was to set an example for Hindu masses, that their leader had converted and so they should too.

Instead of running with a stick after every rabbit in the bush tirelessly, this was deemed to be a more feasible & efficient approach.

So today, instead of generalising on individual castes and pointing fingers. Hindus would do better in diagnosing the root causes of conversions and tackling them. Because the root causes clearly don’t single any caste out. Thus the solution also, doesn’t exist in retrospectively pontificating on a caste basis.