How Bible influenced and shaped the Civil Service in India

 

It is true that East India Company which started to take up the reins of administration in India after winning the Battle of Plassey in 1757, gradually nibbled at India incorporating more and more area and princely states, until at last it was able to gobble up the Mughal Empire and the whole of India in one form or the other. India became a colony of the British, the sole rationale of her existence was to serve Britain, by exporting her raw materials to Britain, by providing job opportunities to the Europeans and the British; serving as soldiers and non-commissioned officers to win their wars in distant lands and so on. Within 50 years of the Battle of Plassey, wealth got drained from Indian States. By 1857, India tried to heave a last attempt to free herself from the stronghold of the foreign rule of the British, which was strangulating her. But the attempt failed and the rule of India passed on to the hands of the British Crown from that of the Company. Not that things improved under the direct rule of the Queen of England. The exploitative nature of the governance remained and imperialism had even stronger hold on India. By the time India got her independence from British rule in 1947, after years of struggle which gathered momentum since the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 in Amritsar, India which was rich in natural resources and was exporting to the world her textiles and spices and gems had become a net importer and a poor underdeveloped country. The British sucked the blood out of India and left her emaciated.    

How could the Christian England have done such a disservice to our nation or to any nation for that matter? Then, in what way we can say that Bible influenced and shaped the Civil Service in India? Will it not be a misnomer, an oxymoron? For this we need to know the lasting influence of the British Empire in India. It is definitely not just England’s fault that she was able to conquer India or fleece her. India was divided and politically weak, with the Mughal Empire tottering at the brink of collapse and the British who were watching the political scene with keen interest, stepped into the vacuum and grabbed the rule of Indian. None of the Indian rulers or the Empires was powerful enough to stand against them, neither the Mughals nor the Marathas nor any princely state. The major difference between the Mughal rule, who also came as conquerors and captured the rule in India in 16^th century and the British conquest in 18^th century is that the Mughals settled down in India and the wealth they made stayed in Indian soil. But the British emptied Indian wealth and carried it all to their country, Britain. It was an economic exploitation of almost two hundred years and it changes the course of Indian history. They sucked the wealth out of India and left her dry and a poor country. It is only now after 74 years of Independence we are lifting our head as the third largest economy in the world. But the British, to their credit, left us some good institutions. We became a democracy, with rule of law, before which all are considered equal, institutions like Reserve bank of India, Supreme Court of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India and so on; also a Civil Service which connected the length and breadth of the country giving India a ‘steel frame’ to build herself upon. To this we will turn now.

The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is nothing but a continuation of the civil service of the British Raj known as the Indian Civil Service (ICS). As in the other fields in IAS also the conduct rules, recruitment rules, examination rules and the training methods reflected the deep influence of the ICS traditions. Though the political set up siphoned off the riches of India, the administrators at the rural levels and in the villages had compassion for the people of India, and administered justice in a fair manner. People of India especially the lower castes and the Dalits, who are the outcastes under the Hindu Caste system, had suffered ill treatment for millennia under the heavy hands of Brahmin and generally all the upper castes under the tyranny of Brahminical Hinduism, received much better treatment. The ICS showed compassion for such downtrodden people in the rural areas and villages. They were given justice under the British Law and were treated the same for education and employment under the State. 

Perception of Corruption:

One important area where British ICS excelled was in ethical sphere. There was very less corruption among ICS members and those who were corrupt were punished immediately and the system remained ‘incorruptible.’ This was the scenario even when I joined the Service in 1974. By the 80s, this has started to crumble, for corruption had found its way increasingly within the successor of the incorruptible civil service, the IAS. In my thesis published as a book in 2011, “Values and Influence of Religion in Public Administration,” I analyze the ‘why’ of corruption rather than the ‘how’ of the corruption that was and is still plaguing the country. It will be seen that in India, since ancient times, corruption was considered a way of life and no one thought it was wrong. It was considered natural for a government official to be corrupt, for if honey is placed in the tongue of someone, he will lick it up. It was the British who showed that corruption was morally wrong and took strict measures to see that the British ICS which originated as a corrupt and immoral service was brought under control and the Service turned out to be an ‘incorruptible’ Service.’ ICS laid emphasis to integrity, honesty and neutrality in administration. Any misconduct of these men in authority was questioned and debated in British Parliament and appropriate measures were taken. Clive who laid the foundation of British Empire was hauled up in British Parliament for the money he swindled from Indian rulers and though absolved of criminal punishment, it led to his taking his own life. Dyer who ordered shooting of unarmed civilians who had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh was enquired into and was relieved of his official charges and banned from any future employment under the Crown in India. They took action. What made them so?

Keeping aside the exploitative nature of their rule, we need to see the influences that operated in their ruling an alien country to trace the origins of such ethical conduct. This in my book I have shown was due to the influence of Christian and secular moral thought that prevailed in Britain in the 17^th century and up until the last quarter of 19^th century greatly influenced the ICS. These values were based on biblical teachings, starting from Ten Commandments and Christ’s teachings and his life. Corruption is strongly condemned in the Bible. The civil service was expected to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and keep up an officer like conduct, and these could be traced directly to the Puritan influence in England. Using the position of an officer to influence in government contracts or secure employment for a member of one’s family was frowned upon. Patronage system had plagued English civil administration in the early 18^th century but they put it down with iron hand. They extended that to ICS too. Members of the IAS are not to raise funds or contributions using their official influence from the public for any cause of personal interest. Excepting flowers or fruits the officers are not to accept any gift from the people, the so called phal-phool rule! No free transport, free boarding, free lodging or any service of pecuniary advantage was to be accepted by the civil servant from the public or interested parties. It was also included that no officer will accept or demand dowry, something that plagues Indian social melee. Civil servants are not to incur debts or obtain loans or be under such obligation to anyone, but manage within their salaries. Another rule forbids bigamy or consumption of liquor or engaging in proselytizing activities. All these stem from the ICS conduct rules. Similarly work-ethics is emphasized in the Bible. All these have become the cornerstones of the ethical conduct rules of the ICS and have been passed on to the IAS. 

Equality before Law:

Bible stresses on equality before God, for all are created equal in the eyes of God. Bible says God created the humans in His image and therefore they are precious in His eyes and are all the same before Him. Unfortunately Hinduism has created a Caste system which divides the population hierarchically with the upper castes who by fortunes of birth, control and subdue the lower castes and the outcastes. This unequal social system has been prescribed in all the religious and secular literature of Hinduism such as Upanishads, Epic poems of Mahabharata and Ramayana, Bhagavat Gita, Arthasastra and Manusmriti, as I have established in my research. It was only during the British rule education was opened up to the lower castes and outcastes and employment under government was made through merit and not based on caste. The majority of the population of India consisting of these lower strata of the society were able to raise their heads mainly because of British rule in spite of their atrocities in India. Education and upliftment of the lower castes was a huge contribution by British Raj, which was influenced by Bible.

Compassion:

Compassion for the poor, needy and the downtrodden was lacking in Hinduism due to Karma theory which insisted that people are born in their present status either in upper caste or lower caste due to the accumulated karmas or deeds, they had done in previous lives, and hence it is self-made and they have to go through the sufferings as a penance so that they can be born in the next life in a better status. This faith in repeated births and deaths, the samskara, the cycle of life and death which are determined by the supposed accumulated deeds of the previous lives is so strongly rooted among Hindus, that they will not lift their little finger to make the life of a lower caste person better. After all are they not suffering due to bad deeds in the past lives? Though there is no proof for such an accumulation of karma, the Hindu religious system has drilled that into their minds for millennia.  It is the British civil servants, the Deputy Commissioners/Collectors who worked with the people at the grass root level, who saw the need of the poor to be catered too and their lives uplifted through education and employment, especially at the village level. They provided medical help to such people. Sati and female infanticide were abolished, by the British, again showing this compassion for lives. All the schemes of the Indian government after independence to uplift the poor and the downtrodden reflect this attitude of the British which was the direct result of teachings of the Bible.

British rule was a rude but necessary awakening that India much needed to awake her from feudalism to modernity and the influence of Bible on ICS and the successor IAS is undisputable.   

 

 

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

 

The centenary of Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 was in the year 2019. I am writing this blog two years later. Still the importance of the event and its relevance to the free and democratic India are huge. We need to remind ourselves of what we had gone through as a country to get our freedom from the British rule and cherish that freedom whatever be the cost. We need to ingrain such truths in our minds through the generations, may be like the holocaust suffered by the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War II, when around six million Jews were killed or the Armenians Genocide during the First World War at the hands of Ottoman Turks, when 1.5 million Christian Armenians were killed and exterminated. What descended on the people of Amritsar in Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April 1919 might not have been so enormous, but it was a significant event that led to the strengthened fight for freedom and finally to the massacre of some two million people during the partition of India, even as we got our independence. It was almost a foretaste of what was to come. V. N. Datta has written a well researched book “Jallianwala Bagh: A ground breaking history of the 1919 massacre” in 1969, which has been edited by his daughter Monica Datta and published this year. The author narrates the events that led to this terrible massacre. A movement called Ghadr founded in San Francisco in 1913 involving Sikh immigrants in USA and Canada, aiming to secure India’s freedom by force was active in Punjab in 1915; there were disturbances, raids, killing of policemen, derailment of trains, etc., in Amritsar, Lahore and Delhi. But Ghadr party was completely put down by the Government of India by the year end.

Meanwhile forced and compulsory army recruitments were made in India to support the war effects of British Empire in the First World War. The main drive was in Punjab, because of their earlier reputation, especially since the 1857 Revolt, that a Punjabi soldier was tough, courageous, had physical strength and showed absolute loyalty to the British Indian government. Punjab contributed to 5,00,000 men of all ranks to serve in the army during the First World War, which was half of the total number raised in India. But the recruiting civil agencies, throughout the period of the war, 1915-1918, applied coercion and compelled such enlistment. Families, men, women and old men were subjected to thorn, bush and bramble tortures to agree to let their youth to be enlisted, and young men were forcibly removed. Indian officials were worse in forcing the recruitment in this fashion. Punjab was exhausted by these measures and there was deep resentment among the local populace. Rioting occurred and police firing was resorted to. Thousands of these men perished in the Great War, fighting for the British Empire in far flung areas. When the war was over on 11 November 1918, the demobilized soldiers returned to their villages mainly in Punjab with no work or employment.

There was a severe famine in 1918 and prices of food grains went sky high and the local population suffered. There were food riots in Calicut, Madras, Mysore, Karnal and Pathankot.  Amidst all these sufferings, the British Indian Government increased tax in 1918 and squeezed people and many became paupers and joined the ranks of the poor. Government of India raised money from the population in this manner and contributed to almost 30 million pounds annually towards war expenses of Britain. For all these sacrifices, India was promised that post-war reforms towards local administration by the people will be brought in.  On 20 August 1917 Montagu, Secretary of State for India and Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, declared ‘increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions,’ treating India as an integral part of the British Empire. But once the war was over all these promises were forgotten and the leaders and people all over India felt betrayed and were bitter. Moderates and extremists, Hindus, Muslims, all united and demanded for self-government. There was tense political atmosphere in the country.

To control the situation, Government passed controversial laws, the Rowlett Laws in March 1919. Instead of rewards, people of India got these tough sedition laws, where they can have no appeal, and the police was empowered to curtail the liberty of the people, arrest or search without warrants. Country was ripe for action against the government; but G. K. Gokale had died in 1915; Dadabahai Navoroji in 1917; Tilak’s extremism did not work and he had gone to England in 1918; there were no leaders and Gandhi, newly returned from South Africa, stepped into this quagmire. He brought in Satyagraha, the non-violent warfare that he had experimented and succeeded in South Africa. Gandhi called for a hartal, a mass protest against the Rowlett rules on 6 April 1919. It was to be a total shutdown in the country and stoppage of all activities by the people, and they were to observe a fast. Almost the entire country observed hartal on 6 April 1919, a great political achievement for the leaders, and the people. It went on mostly peacefully and orderly. Still it was an open challenge to the Government. Leaders were arrested, Gandhi on 9 April 1919, near Delhi when he was on his way to Punjab to mobilize people there. In Punjab the hartal was observed more widely.

Sir O’Dwyer, ICS officer governed Punjab as Lt. Governor from 1912 on. From 1914 to 1918 he debarred eight newspapers in Punjab from publishing under Press Act. He was highly repressive. In Amritsar, Dr. Kitchlew, a lawyer and Satyapal, ex-Lt. in Indian Medical Service, together had organized many political meetings and a protest march on 10^th April 1919 against Rowlett act. RamNavami fell on 9^th April. People were crowding to celebrate and also to visit the cattle fair held in Amritsar. The Deputy Commissioner of the district Miles Irving was worried that things may go out of hand. In the morning of 10^th he got Kitchlew and Satyapal arrested and deported. A crowd of 50,000 people had gathered for a peaceful protest with no arms. When they learnt their leaders had been arrested, the crowd wanted to go and meet the district administration to lodge their complaints, but the police stopped them. They pushed the police, threw stones at them, and rushed to the offices. The police fired. Many people fell dead (twelve).  The crowd went berserk. They lynched five European officials, burnt the post office, looted a bank, and wounded a white missionary woman and left her for dead (she was immediately sheltered by a Hindu family and lived). These instances shook the administration and the civilian authorities handed over the charge to Col. R.E.H. Dyer, newly posted to as commandant Jalandar, to bring the situation under control.

Dyer took charge on 11 April 1919. Though the city Amritsar was quiet on 11^th and 12^th, Dyer planned to teach a lesson to the natives, who dared to kill five Europeans and molest an English woman. He wanted to leave a moral lesson with not only Amritsar city, but the whole of Punjab and India even, that such a thing will not go unpunished. O’Dwyer moved the Governor General to proclaim Martial Law on 13^th, which was formally proclaimed in Amritsar and Lahore only on 15^th April. Dyer issued his own proclamation that more than four persons should not assemble for any reason. But in defiance some local leaders organized a public meeting on 13^th at Jallianwala Bagh at 4 pm. There was a narrow approach road of entrance into the Bagh which was almost of the shape of an irregular squire. People assembled, not knowing what. Many were lying on the ground, relaxing. Some boys were playing; some were listening to the speeches. May be some 15,000 men and boys were there. This was not the crowd that went berserk on 10^th April. Dyer arrived in a car at the Bagh at 5 pm followed by armoured cars and a police car. He got out, took 25 Gorkhas soldiers with rifles and 25 Baluchis soldiers and entered the Bagh and ordered shooting. He kept the shooting on for a full 10 minutes. He directed the shooting to groups of men who were trying to escape. He fired 1650 rounds of ammunition and some 700 people died. Once it was over he turned around and walked out with his men. He did not allow water or medical aid to be given to the wounded and the dying. It was a terrible carnage and a cruel bloodbath. He was rightly named the Butcher of Amritsar.

Hunter Committee indicted Dyer for having used excessive force on unarmed people without warning. Later he inflicted punishments like crawling on the street where the molested missionary woman worked; confiscation, public flogging and salaaming to humiliate Indians. He was relieved of his duties and retired on 22 March 1920, as unsuitable for public office, with a condition that no further employment will be given to him in India. But he was a hero in the eyes of the British, especially women who hailed him as a savior. He died a few years later in 1927 due to arteriosclerosis and cerebral hemorrhage. In 1940 Udham Singh, an activist from Punjab shot dead O’Dwyer in London, settling scores with a man who presided over the massacre.

This event was a turning point in India’s fight for freedom. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle. Masses were awakened to the brutality of the British and the need for freedom. Freedom movement acquired a national character. The blood of the martyrs shed in Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 had not gone waste. Though it would take another 28 years to win freedom from British rule, the tide had turned. British had lost India in 1919. How do we safeguard such a freedom won by our forefathers at the cost of their lives? We chose democracy and federalism. Are these being strengthened or weakened? We need to think and take appropriate action to ensure the freedom such martyrs won for us remains robust. God bless our country.

The Fall of an Empire

 

I had always been intrigued by the fall of the mighty communist regime, USSR, the only other superpower to counterbalance the capitalist USA and the country on which India had depended heavily in the early years of her independence, copying the model of planned development of economy and for starting many heavy industries like steel. Even today we heavily lean on Russia for the requirements of our defense equipment. How did it suddenly disintegrate into its constituent states, creating tiny small republics that dot central Asia today?

Recently when I happen to get a book by Mikhail Gorbachev, “Perestroika,” my interest in the topic got rekindled and I greedily read it and followed it up by reading “The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union,” by Serhii Plokhy. I have shored up “Memoirs” by Gorbachev to round it all up. The drama that unfolded in front of me in these pages was amazing and I thought I must share with you if not the process, the major reasons that led to this fall and disintegration.

To give a background, USSR was formed on 30 December 1922 with 12 smaller autonomous states annexed to Russia. This was preceded by the Russian Revolution of 1917 where Bolshevik party under Vladimir Lenin abolished monarchy and established the communist Socialist State on the ruins of the former Russian Empire. Russian Empire had exited from 1721 to 1917, and in 1917 Bolsheviks pressurised the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia to abdicate and later in 1918 assassinated the whole family of five daughters and a boy along with the Tsar and Tsarina in 1918, wiping out traces of monarchical rule from Russia. Lenin’s communist rule developed into a highly centralized country.

Russia, the main nation has a population consisting of 84% of Russians, the people of Rus, who belong to the ethnic group of Slavs. Other Slavic tribes native to Eastern Europe, like Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Poles, Czechs, Moravians are also present in USSR with varying degrees among the Russian population. Ukraine, a big Slavic state has 73% of Ukrainian Slavs and 15% Russians living mainly in Crimea, and south east of Ukraine. You would remember recently in 2014 the present Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea. Belarus is another big Slavic state with 80% of Belarusians. These three Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are important Slavic nations with a minority of others living with them.

Then come the small Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with minority of Russians living with them. In 1940 the Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were militarily occupied and incorporated into USSR based on the 1939 Moltov-Ribbentrop pact, which was basically a non-war pact between Nazi Germany and USSR. But this pact was broken the very next year by Nazi regime who captured these states. USSR recaptured them in 1944.

That leaves another eight republics or states, of which five are Central Asian republics Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan with Muslim majority. All of Central Asia, which was under Persian Empire and conquered by Islamic caliphates in the 9^th century and become Islamized, was gradually incorporated into the Russian Empire during the 19^th century. By default they were passed on to USSR in the Bolshevik take over in 1922.

The other four republics are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. Azerbaijan and Armenia, the Trans-Caucasian regions were annexed by Soviet in 1922 after the First World War. Soviet created an autonomous region of Nagorna-Karabakh with majority of Armenian population but incorporated it in Azerbaijan, in a divide and rule policy. To add to the problems Armenia, has a majority Christian population and Azerbaijan majority Muslim population. Nagora-Karabakh voted to join Armenia in 1980s which led to a major war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1994, reverberations of which are heard even today, when in December 2020 this flared up. Georgia was the third Trans-Caucasian area that was annexed by Soviet in 1922. Moldova has a difficult history. It belonged to Romania which ceded it to Russian Empire in 1878 as per a pact. In World War I Romania was able to wrestle back Moldova. But in 1940 USSR took her back and it became a part of USSR in 1947 during World War II.

Though these fifteen states had on paper the right to secede and form independent states, in practice under USSR it was not possible and they were not allowed to. Now that we have seen the background history of all the fifteen republics or states that belonged to USSR, let’s see how and why these blocs separated from USSR and became independent countries. This has been our original quest too.

The main reason for the disintegration of USSR was that the communist economy was faring badly, especially when compared to the economy of the capitalist USA. Those Soviets who visited USA and its supermarkets were amazed to see the overflowing goods on the counters and that too so many different varieties of one particular item, being imported from various corners of the world. This affluence was sadly missing from the life of the Soviet Union. Wanting to bring in that type of prosperity to Soviet was the dream of the Communist leaders, especially Mikhail Gorbachev who was elected the General Secretary of the Political bureau in 1985.

The way forward as designed by Gorbachev was to liberalize the economy and introduce market economy as in the West. Like his ancestor Tsar Peter the Great in 1689s who looked to the Western Europe to reform and modernize Russia, bringing in wearing of Western clothes and trimming of bears, Gorbachev also looked to the West. To restructure the economy, he brought in Perestroika that is, restructuring economy by opening it up and introducing market economy and restructuring the society itself. He introduced elections to the municipalities and states; he liberalized media by his famous policy of Glasnost, that is, openness and removed state control over them. Politically it was a new way of thinking and it brought sudden and swift changes and a break from the controlled life under communism to democracy and the call for independence started. Once he opened up the flood gates of these reforms he could not contain them. Like Robespierre of French Revolution, who encouraged killing of thousands by the killing machine guillotine, becoming a victim of it himself, Gorbachev became the victim of his own reforms.

The fame for having extinguished the life of the Soviet Union would go also go to Yeltsin, the democratically elected President of the nation Russia, who came to power after the failed coup to displace Gorbachev in 1991. With the new found strength of democracy and the people, he gradually and surely ousted the then President and General Secretary Gorbachev from his office, by outlawing Communism in Russia, and abolishing the party posts. In his eagerness to step into the shoes of the party President, and be the boss of all the independent republics of the former Soviet Union, he became autocratic and abusive. Gorbachev had no role to play in the new system and was relegated to not even be a rubber stamp! There was no party post of General Secretary! He was forced to resign on 25^th December 1991. And that was the end of USSR, the mighty superpower of the world.

A crucial role will be played by Ukraine’s President Kravchuk, a major Slavish republic with abundant natural resources. Realizing Yeltsin’s game and not wanting to be under the rule of Russian conglomeration, he quickly declared independence of Ukraine and announced that Ukraine will secede from USSR and be independent. Once this was ratified in his parliament on 1 December 1991, things moved fast. The other Slavic republic Belarus soon followed suit and declared independence. Yeltsin now has to be satisfied only with Russia. He tried to pass orders taking over all the central offices and resources in Moscow. Gorbachev could do nothing to stop him!

With the three Slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus declaring independence, and forming a Commonwealth, the five central Asian Muslim majority republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan also joined the bandwagon, separating themselves from USSR. The three Baltic republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia had already become independent following elections in 1990 and as encouraged by President Bush of USA (the senior Bush) and agreed by Gorbachev they became separate sovereign nations in September 1991. Soviet troops were withdrawn from these countries. Thus by December 1991, almost all the republics of the communist USSR declared independence and walked away with it. The President of USSR was left with nothing and he resigned and handed over whatever he held to Yeltsin who stepped into his shoes, but shorn of 14 republics, loosely wound around Commonwealth. American President was keener on the nuclear weapons’ activating code which was with Gorbachev. This was handed over to Yeltsin, with an assurance that whatever international treaties agreed between Bush and Gorbachev will be honored by Yeltsin.

That the great communist country USSR which stood as the other superpower to counter the power of capitalist country USA disintegrated without violence and bloodshed was a major achievement and the credit would go to Gorbachev. Though he knew that he was losing power and position, he did not try really to unleash the army or KEB on the leaders or the people. After the coup in August 1991, when Gorbachev was confined to his house in Crimea, he lost the game to Yeltsin. The army or KEB would not even listen to him, even if he had wanted them to support him and continue in position. Bush, President of America, though tried to keep him in power as long as possible and wanted Yeltsin to offer an honorable and respectful retirement to Gorbachev, when the game was over, he sided the new powerful Yeltsin and even prided announcing that he had won the cold war and overcome the Soviet competition.

Gorbachev would not have dreamt that his own policies of perestroika and glasnost, restructuring and openness, would dismantle USSR and also evict him from the position of power. His actions were crucial in ending the cold war in the world after the Second World War and bringing down the terror of igniting a nuclear war. He had served his calling and had to quit, almost like the British public who voted out Churchill, the war time hero, who was instrumental in winning the Second World War for England as the Prime Minister.

So are the Empires on earth; they come and go; they are all built on bloodshed and death of thousands of innocent people. Doesn’t that create a desire in our hearts to look for an everlasting kingdom, Kingdom of God, which will not only last forever but will be ruled in righteousness and justice? Let His kingdom come. Amen.

Crusade: An analysis and the consequences

 

Having gone in some detail the nine Crusades spanning over two centuries it is time now to assess the cause and origin of these Crusades, reasons for success or failure, and achievements in real terms. What did they really achieve? What were the repercussions to the world in its aftermath, especially to Europe and to the Near East in particular? Was there any good meaningful outcome from all these endeavors or was it all a sheer waste of human lives, labor and resources? That is what we will try and analyze in this blog.

The Crusades were solidly built up on people’s religious fervor, characteristic of the Middle Ages. God was seen to have a hand in everything and there was fear whether one is doing the right thing or the wrong and whether one will miss heavens and fall into hell. The clergy played on these fears through confessions by imposing penalties and penances to wash away the guilt or sins. Fear of excommunication always hung on their heads like a Damocles’ sword. Even Emperors or Kings or knights were not exempt from it for Pope could excommunicate them, as was in the case of King of Germany and the Holy Roman Emperor excommunicated by the then Pope, Gregory IX in the Sixth Crusade. The incentive given to the people to leave their homes and travel to an unknown place far away in Asia was that their sins would be forgiven if they participated in these wars and did their duty to the church and Christ. On death they would go straight to heaven was the promise.  People thronged. In all these, the Pope and the people forgot that salvation is a free gift from God and that one doesn’t have to work for it, for Christ has done everything needed for the salvation of humankind on the cross. The clergy, in its own interest, would not as usual reveal the complete truth to the people.

In the very beginning the idea of supporting a Christian nation, the Byzantine Empire against a common enemy, the Muslims, was played up by the Pope and his preachers. The picture painted was that Christianity in the East was in danger and their brothers in the West must take up arms to support them. This served as a great motivator, starting with the First Crusade. In addition, recapture of the Holy City of Jerusalem from Muslims formed a strong motivator throughout the Crusades. Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims not prior to the Crusades, but long time back in 7^th century itself, in 637 to be precise, during the second wave of Islamic expansion. Still when the clergy preached picturing the release of the Holy City from enemy’s hands as a priority, Christians in the West responded.

The Eastern Byzantine Christians were the Greek Orthodox who split from Western Catholic Romans in July 1054. When they were in danger of being swamped by the Seljuk Turks, they sent urgent appeals in 1093 on to the Western Christians in spite of the doctrinal differences. May be the hope was that the two divisions could reunite and be under one catholic church in the true sense. This hope spurred the Popes to action. But that was not to be. However, having appealed for help the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios did everything within his power to make food and provisions available for the Crusaders, and arranged for guides and officers to bring them safely over to his realm and also directed the first few battles. This local support could have been the main factor in helping the First Crusade to win victories over Muslims, since they were well provided for and properly guided in the difficult and new terrain.  

The piety shown, the humility with which fasts were observed and penance performed for sins before embarking on the Crusade and even during it when they were beaten back during the Crusades were exemplary. The immediate cause of any defeat was presumed to be their sins and they undertook fast and penance to seek forgiveness from God. Though it was considered a miracle that the First Crusade won a victory against all odds, the real reasons may be the disunity and weakness among Muslims and the unity and determination due to the religious fervor of the first Crusaders. At the point of defeat when the Relic of the Cross was discovered, it redoubled their energies and they won against all odds.

What could be the reasons for the failure of all the other Crusades?

The long and arduous journey across Europe to Asia Minor and then to Levant was an excruciating experience and many died on the way itself. Finding food and water for the soldiers, horses and pack-animals became increasingly difficult as there was no support from the local rulers. The support organized by the Eastern Emperor for the First Crusade was not forth coming during the other Crusades, since these were undertaken not at the request of the Eastern Christians, but on appeals by the Frankish Christians, the French who had established Crusader States all along the border of Palestine or Levant after victory in the First Crusade. Byzantine Emperors were scared about the ambitions of these counts and knights who desired to carve out kingdoms and regimes for themselves. Without local support they floundered. Disease, hunger and thirst took thousands of lives.

The ambitions of the leaders among the Crusaders created plenty of problems. They were trying to prove their valor and claim either name and fame or carve out a regime for themselves. Coordination was a problem, for many leaders were involved and in the Third and Fifth Crusades Kings and Emperors from the Western Europe participated. Though the model of war council by the First Crusade was followed, there was no unity in purpose or in the strategy of waging the war. King Richard the Lionhearted had to turn back twice after having come close to Jerusalem because of pressure from the other leaders. His plan to attack Egypt first was not agreed to, though all the succeeding Crusades followed this plan realizing its strategic importance.  More than once, the Lords and Counts rushed into the battle by themselves, as it happened in the Third and again in the Fifth Crusade, which brought ruin to the whole endeavor. The nobles and counts and knights came from the West to help save their Christian counterparts in the Eastern Roman Empire from the onslaught of Muslims, but stayed back to establish their own Crusader States and ruled these lands. Edessa was the first Crusader State, then Antioch and Tripoli and finally Jerusalem itself, which became the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Having established Crusader States, these rulers and kings failed to create and keep a standing army to withstand the assaults of the neighboring Muslims, for whom also Jerusalem was a Holy City and they were waging a Holy War, or Jihad to recapture it. Instead, the Crusader State rulers repeatedly appealed to the Western Christians to come and help them, all of which ended in failure due to the distance and geographical problems. It was around 2000 miles from Europe to Levant. It wouldn’t have been easy for Kings from the Western Europe to leave their territories and come to war in Palestine absenting themselves from their regimes for a few years. This fact put additional pressure on the Crusaders.

The disunited Muslims became united under Ayyubid dynasty and Sultan Saladin determined to show himself a true Muslim and to unite all Muslims under his umbrella projected himself as the leader the Jihad against the infidels, the Christians, and this united the Muslims. Odds were against the Christians who were clinging to the coastal small areas of their Crusader States. Moreover Muslims were fighting from their home grounds and were able to mobilize men and material easily to fight the wars. The Latin Christians were fighting far away from their homes in an unknown territory.

Not that the Crusaders really cared for the Christians. In the Fourth Crusade they turned on Constantinople and sacked it, as if it was an enemy land. They massacred the Eastern Christians. Jews faced worse treatment in the hands of Crusaders. In the First Crusade when Jerusalem was conquered, Jews in that city were massacred. Even as they were marching towards Constantinople the People’s Crusade of the First Crusade fell on the Jewish populations on its way and killed thousands of them as enemies of Christ. Part of King Louis’ plan to raise funds for his Crusade, the Seventh one, was by throwing out all the Jews in France and confiscating their properties.

Today Jerusalem is with the Jews, the newly created State of Israel in 1948. May be that was the plan of God all along, for it was His promise to Israel that they will be restored to the city of Zion, Jerusalem. May be God did not look with favour the conduct of Christian Crusaders turning on the other Christians and the Jews, people of God? That, in my opinion, may be was one real reason for the Franks not being able to take and keep Jerusalem with them in spite of nine Crusades.  

What are the other observations?

It is interesting to learn about the Middle Age warfare, siege engines with terraces and hide covers to reach the top of the forts; catapults throwing stones and boulders on the walls of the forts and castles as if they were missiles to weaken the walls; bow and arrows, lances and spears, knights in their shining armor and so on.

The other very striking fact is people died so young! The average age seems to be only 30 or even less. Kings died, princes died due to just a few days’ fever or dysentery or malarial attack or queens in childbirth. With the ruling king or the count gone, their children being so young, may be 3 years and 5 years old, there were constant civil wars to capture the throne, which weakened the rulers even more. Compare that with the rule and age of our present British Monarch, Queen Elizabeth! She might rule till she is in her 100s and even more and her son may never get a chance to even become a king! That is how longevity has changed over centuries.

What was the legacy of the Crusades? What were the repercussions to the Near East and the world?

Jerusalem as mentioned earlier remained in Muslim hands till the end of First World War. With the fall of Ottoman Empire it became the British mandate. Commerce continued even after 1291 between Europe and Muslim Near East. Cyprus remained under Frankish rule until late 16^th century. Mainland Levant continued to be a zone of Holy Wars for a long time to come. Templers were disbanded in 1312. Hospitallers and Teutonic orders survived through the Middle Ages. Crusades led to Muslims powers uniting under jihad and it led to the rise of Mamluks as powerful rulers in Egypt.  

Trade, in its volume and importance was revolutionized in the course of 12^th and 13^th centuries due to the presence of Latin settlements in Levant. Land routes and sea routes grew as trade grew between Europe and the Frankish settlements in Levant. The power of Italian merchant cities of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa grew enormously. Europe adopted Arabic numerals around 1200, could be because of growing trade connections with the Muslims around Levant. Crusades opened a door to the Orient. In Europe itself whole kinship groups and sections of nobility disappeared and this absence of ruling class caused instability. Military Orders that were created during Crusades would survive and play a formidable role in the centuries to come.

Coming of the Reformation in 1517, followed by Renaissance and Enlightenment had changed the thinking of the Western Europe with regard to religion. The religious fervor and fanaticism had almost disappeared in the West, especially so after the secular and religious matters were separated in the modern democracies starting with America. Unfortunately this medieval religious fanaticism is still prevalent among the Islamic countries. Hence the fundamentalism in the Muslims states in the world today and the unfortunate development of terrorism.  

I hope you have enjoyed reading about the Crusades in the last few blogs. I enjoyed writing about them. God be praised who is in the throne, then and now. He is in control and He directs the history judiciously as per His will. Glory be to Him alone.  

The Sixth to the Ninth Crusade, the Final One

 

In the previous blog we read from the Second Crusade till the Fifth Crusade and saw that Jerusalem was in the hands of Muslims since 1187 and the successive Crusades were notable to recapture it. In this bog we will check on the Sixth Crusade on until the final Crusade the Ninth one and see the further developments.

Sixth Crusade: 1228-1229

This crusade with the objective of recapturing Jerusalem commenced seven years after the failure of the Fifth Crusade. Gregory IX was the Pope and the king of Germans Frederick II who had earlier promised to take the cross, but couldn’t accompany the Fifth Crusade, for he was involved in a power struggle with the Pope who refused to crown him the Holy Roman Emperor. Finally he was crowned the Emperor in 1220 by the Pope. Thereafter the King tried to take up the cross, but again delayed it and the impatient Pope excommunicated him! Frederick by that time got married to Isabella II, the heiress to the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The King went ahead with the voyage despite the excommunication and set by way of sea with an army of 10,000 infantry and 4000 knights in June 1228. He reached Acre in September 1228.

Surprisingly no fighting took place, but Frederick got Jerusalem back! The Islamic Sultan of Egypt Al-Kamal, son of Saladin, was occupied with siege in Damascus, Syria by his own brother and thereafter by his nephew. Hence he was agreeable to the peace proposal of Frederick and ceded the possession of Jerusalem to the Franks, along with a narrow corridor to the sea coast. The King also received Nazareth, Sidon, Jaffa, Bethlehem and Nazareth. Muslims retained their control over the Temple Mount, Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. Sultan also got a ten year no-war truce from Frederick. This treaty was signed at Jaffa in February 1229.

Frederick entered Jerusalem in March 1229; by that time, in May 1228 Isabella had died in child birth leaving the infant child Conrad. This did not prevent the King from crowning himself as the King of Jerusalem, which was disliked by the local lords and nobles and thereafter he returned to Europe in May 1229. That was the only Crusade to succeed without military intervention and papal support. It is called Frederick’s Crusade in honour of the king who accomplished this feat.

Seventh Crusade: 1248-1254

 In August 1244 Jerusalem was retaken by Khorezmians, allies of Ayyubid Dynasty, consisting of cruel nomadic tribes; they brutally murdered the Frankish Christians and desecrated the sacred sites. In October 1244 Ayyubid Muslims defeated the Franks in the battle near Gaza. Ayyubid dynasty was being ruled by al- Salih, the second son of al-Kamil, and grandson of Sultan Saladin. Except for the coastal strip of Levant, the Muslims controlled Egypt, Aleppo, Damascus, and half of Arabia.

The Latin East, the Crusader States in Levant appealed to the West for armed help. Pope Innocent IV responded and called for the Seventh Crusade. Church went preaching the crusade and many nobles, counts and knights responded; most of all King Louis of France took up the cross and led the army to the Holy Land. In a flurry to raise funds for the Crusade, tax hikes were imposed, churches contributed, Jews in France expelled, and their properties confiscated. The army left from the port of Genoa and food and provisions were stockpiled in Cyprus. Knights of Templar and Hospitaller and Teutonic knights joined them. They all added up to 18,000 men including 2500 knights and 5000 crossbowmen. The plan was to capture Damietta, then march to Cairo and having taken Egypt, thereafter to attack the Muslims in Levant and free Jerusalem.

The Egyptians had by now fortified Damietta well. Sultan Salih had the support of Mamluk regiment in Egypt, who belonging to Kipchak Turks and were kidnapped as boys from Russian steppe, and raised as warriors with strict military training and loyalty to the Sultan. Crusaders landed near Damietta and captured it easily in June 1249. If they had immediately attacked Mansourah and thereafter Cairo, they could have made it. But King Louis waited for his brother to join with his forces and it was only by November 1249, they moved against Mansourah, giving the Muslims adequate time to get prepared. The whole army with horses and provisions and tents moved slowly south and camped. An advanced party went to scout but it mounted full attack on the enemy before the other knights could join them. Further they pursued the fleeing enemy and went into the city of Mansourah where in the narrow streets and gullies they got stuck without knowing the terrain and the Muslims regrouped and attacked them and decimated them.

Louis retreated; his army was reduced greatly by disease, starvation and the attacks from the enemy and reached Damietta. There the army surrendered to the Sultan and the King himself was captured. He was ransomed at a heavy price of 400,000 livres tournoi, six times the annual income of the King of France in those days. Still the King, after his release stayed in Levant for four more years, spending the time refortifying Acre and other strongholds of Sidon, Jaffe and Caesarea. The Seventh Crusade was a great flop.

Eighth Crusade: 1270

The then international scene changed rapidly. Mongols were in the ascendency and had captured Baghdad, the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258. They had taken Aleppo and Damascus from the Ayyubid dynasty. But they were defeated by the Mamluks under the leadership of Baybars in 1260 in Egypt. The Mamluks captured Caesarea, Arsuf and Antioch by 1268. The Latin East was at the point of obliteration and appealed to the West.

King Louis of France took up the cross again in 1267 and Pope Clement IV backed him up. A general call was made for the nobles and knights in Europe to join and help the Christians in Levant. Preachers went around preaching the crusade message and collected money for the cause. Ships were hired from Marseille and Genoa and in 1969 they boarded. The plan was to attack Egypt from North Africa and then proceed to liberate Jerusalem and the other Crusader States. Crusaders landed in Tunis in July 1270 and set camp at Carthage, but disease and lack of clean water and inadequate provisions ravaged the camp. Unfortunately for them King Louis himself died of dysentery in August 1270; so also his son John Tristan. His demoralized army returned to Europe. King Louis was made a Saint in 1297 for his religious fervo
r and leading two Crusades to free Jerusalem.

Ninth Crusade: 1271-1272

This was but an extension of the Eighth Crusade and the main actor was Lord Edward of England who took the cross in 1268. He and his army left Dover by ship in 1270. He arrived at Tunis in November 1270 with 1000 crusaders and 225 knights. There he learnt that king Louis had died and that his army had returned to Europe. However Edward opted to continue and reach the Holy Land. He arrived at Acre in May 1271. His presence made the Muslim forces to temporarily retreat. Edward made a truce with Muslims in May 1272 that they should protect the Christian held States. By that time he received news that his father, King in England had died and also his young son; so he returned immediately to England and was crowned the King of England in August 1274.

This was the last Crusade. In 1291 Acre, the last of the Crusader States, fell to Muslims and the Latin East or the Crusader States effectively came to an end. What was established as Crusader States in Levant by the European counts and nobles, mostly from France in 1095 came to an end in 1291. It can be described as the end of a major historical event with huge repercussions. Jerusalem will remain in the hands of Muslims till the Ottoman Empire disintegrated after the First World War, 1919. Mandate of Jerusalem was given to Britain and in 1948 under pressure from Zionist, and the Nation of Israel was formed as the homeland for the war-ravaged Jews. Effects of that event are still reverberating in the Middle East. 

We will see the repercussions of these Nine Crusades in the next blog.

Till then Good bye and God keep you blessed.

Pandemic of the 21st Century

 

The second wave of the pandemic that is sweeping through India, causing untold suffering to the people makes one to wonder what this pandemic is after all. Is it a once in a century event? Or is it new, peculiar only to our 21^st century? What do we do when it strikes us? How do we manage it? These questions and more drove me to read some material on it, especially two books, “The Age of Pandemics 1817-1920” by Chinmay Tumbe and “The Great Influenza,” by John Barry. Both the books touch another horrible pandemic that swept the globe much like our present pandemic, popularly known as “Spanish flu,” though it had nothing to do with Spain.

So what is a pandemic? When a disease, say for example, malaria suddenly affects many members of a community at the same time, it is called an epidemic. When that happens periodically and is localized it is considered endemic to that region. But when such an epidemic spreads across a wide geographical area, involving countries and continents, it becomes a pandemic. In north India it is called mahamaari, maari commonly referring to an epidemic; maha being big one.

In the ancient world and the middle ages, there had been at least two great outbreaks of pandemics. The plague! It ravaged at least some parts of the world once in 6^th century and again in the 14^th century. The first plague pandemic occurred during the reign of Justinian 1, the Roman Emperor of Byzantine around 540-550 AD. It originated in Egypt and spread through Alexandria to Palestine and to Constantinople, Byzantium. Then it travelled to Italy, Spain and up to British Isles. It was transmitted through rats-rat flea-human beings via flea bites. Only in 1894 it was discovered that plague was caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. People died literally like fleas, thousands of people dying on a single day. This depopulation and economic devastation so weakened the Empire it was not able to stand up to Persian invasion that followed soon. The pandemic is learnt to have killed around 10 percent of the world population, the figures being higher in Europe to around 25 to 50 percent even. Its impact on Asia was marginal.

The second plague returned with a vengeance in the fourteenth century, between 1346 and 1353 AD and it devastated whole populations in Europe, Northern Africa, Western Asia, popularly known as the “Black Death.” Again mortality rates were high in Europe, where whole population was wiped off. It originated in Crimea in 1346 and reached Constantinople, then via Mediterranean reached Spain, France, British Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia. It came in waves, and reached Russia in 1353. It is said to have killed up to 50 million people, with 35 to 60 % in Europe and the Mediterranean world and 10 to 20 % of the world population that time. Though Europe was devastated, the healthy population soon rose and Renaissance, Protestant Reformation as well as anti-Semitism, all followed soon and sanitation improved in those countries.

Small Pox was introduced into the New World from Europe, the Americas after 1492, decimating the local populations like Incas, Mexicans and native Americans. Edward Jenner perfected the smallpox vaccine in 1790s and the disease was controlled and finally eradicated from the world. It is of interest to know that Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses V died of smallpox! Cholera outbreak, a water-borne disease, started from 1817, having originated from India and moved over to the other parts of the world, Western Europe, Americas, Russia and Egypt. Charles Dickens’s son died out of this plague around 1850s in London. Around 20 million people died worldwide by 1920. Discovery of ORT-Oral Dehydration Therapy brought down its severity. Improved sanitation and availability of pure and uncontaminated drinking water reduced the mortality considerably. An influenza plague started in China in 1894 arrived in Bombay in 1896 via ships and killed almost 13 million people in the world, 12 million in India alone, which tapered off around 1920.  

In 1918 the world saw influenza pandemic that was much more global than the above pandemics. It lasted only for 2 years but wiped out over 40 million people. In India alone 20 million people died of this flu pandemic. Over 2% of world’s population was wiped off. It was the deadliest of all the pandemics so far. It originated in Kansas, American Midwest in 1918 and coincided with the movements of large number of soldiers recruited to fight in the World War I, which America joined towards the end. From the soldiers in the cantonment area it passed on to the civilian population. In contrast to today’s Corona virus flu the American flu killed adults aged between 20 and 40, but very young and the elderly were not touched. Within two months it will finish off in one American city and then move on to the next. From May 1918 to October 1919, it killed some 8,00,000 people in America.

Spreading outward, it killed 2 million people in Iran; spread to India, Kenya, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Mexico, Philippians, Russia, Portugal, and Spain. Though death rate was not high in Spain, because it was a neutral country during the WW I and without censorship, press openly wrote about it that it got the name Spanish flu. In India it affected mostly the rural areas where not much medical facility was available. It killed Maharaja of Bagelkhand, Venkat Raman Singh. A severe drought in 1918 had already left the people of India malnourished and the flu caused great suffering and death among them. In Europe the flu claimed the life of German sociologist Max Webber in 1920 in Munich. Crown prince of Siam died of flu in June 1920. Another notable person to die of flu was Frederick Trump, paternal grandfather of Ex-President of America, Trump. The then President of America Woodrow Wilson contracted the flu in April 1920 in Paris in the midst of negotiating peace terms at the end of WW I. He was paralyzed later and died in 1930.

The 1918 flu affected the upper respiratory tract of the lungs, killing a person within 4-5 days, sometimes within a day; it spread through the population like fire; hospitals had no adequate beds to accommodate the sick; doctors and nurses who served the patients started to die; drugs were in short supply; the dead were piled up in the morgues and corridors of the hospitals; then in the houses, as there was no other place to store them; trucks picked the bodies and as even digging individual burial places became a strain, the bodies were buried in mass graves. As importance was given to the war, the news about the flu pandemic was suppressed and not given out. During this flu pandemic, scientists thought that a bacterium caused the influenza. But decades later it will be learnt that it was caused by a virus and it was separated only in 1930. Thereafter the scientists were able to develop a vaccine by 1945 to counter the virus. It took years, almost two decades and more to develop the vaccine.

Hundred years later we encountered another viral influenza pandemic. Covid-19, the China flu, which originated in Wuhan in China, was a repeat of the 1918 flu. On 30^th December 2019 a young doctor in Wuhan Dr. Li Wenliang warned about the serious nature of this flu which resembled SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). He was silenced by the authorities and he died as a victim of the same disease on 7 February 2020. WHO named the flu as COVID-19, or corona virus disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. On 11 March 2020 WHO termed it as a pandemic. By that time it was too late and it had spread all over the world. The rest is history. Though in China itself it was stamped out by rigorous quarantine and lockdowns, in the West it ravaged. This was only the first wave. This time it affected mainly the elderly and not the youth or the young children. Then by October/December, 2020 it came as the second wave in Europe, America and England, more virulent than the first wave. The virus has mutated and had become more virulent strains in UK, South Africa and Brazil and continued to spread.

The first wave came to India by March 2020 and in the start itself the government unnecessarily shut the whole country in lockdown for 21 days, ruining the economy and making millions of migrant workers from the less developed states like Bihar and Utter Pradesh jobless and homeless; thousands started to walk home 1000s of kilometres away, as the lockdown was sudden with no arrangements for them to return home. Many died on the way. Economy shrank by 23%. The second wave came to India by February middle via England and caught us napping. By April it has caused havoc among Indians, especially in Maharashtra, Delhi, and UP and Karnataka in the south. The leaders of the country prematurely congratulated themselves that India has overcome the virus, and went ahead with election rallies and Kumbmela, when the virus incubated and burst the seams April 20^th onwards. As the government lulled the people into believing that the worst was over, people also relaxed without using mask and congregating for all sorts of purposes. The political leaders and officials relaxed and made no effort to improve the health infrastructure to face the onslaught when it would come. And today people are dying without oxygen, without drugs and even without hospital beds for the sick. Though a vaccine has been invented and India has the capacity to produce large quantities of this vaccine, being the so-called ‘factory of the world’ in pharmaceuticals, the country is facing shortage of vaccines to vaccinate her people. She was not prepared to face the emergency.   

The second wave in India was really a man-made disaster. It could have been handled efficiently if only the leaders had some humility and forethought. Had they cared about the people and not so much of winning the elections and pandering to the religious sentiments of some of the communities, it would not have boiled up to this state now.

When this pandemic hit the world, people had no memory of the 1918 flu pandemic. Science had not developed much then. So they struggled. People died. But in the 21^st century with the development of science and technology we need not have suffered so much. Vaccine was developed within a year; it took more than 25 years to develop the vaccine for the Spanish flu. The death rate and the absolute numbers are much less compared to the Spanish flu; still it could have been managed better if only the political leaders led their countries in the right path. That was not to be.

Why does the Lord permit such pandemics at all? Is it to remind humankind of our own limitations and instil in us humility and fear of God? Many had returned to the Lord during this pandemic confessing their sins, due to fear of death and fear of going to hell. Or is it that the end of the world – apocalyptic way of interpreting such events? But this is not the first time a pandemic has come, nor will it be the last time. It came in 5^th century, then in 14^th century, then in 19^th and 20^th centuries; now again in 21^st century. How do we face such emergent situations? The fear of God induced by a pandemic, won’t it disappear once the pandemic goes away? Then what is the point? Isn’t it like a sizzling cracker without fire!

We need to be god-fearing in our everyday life and lead a life as if, either our Lord Jesus Christ is returning to earth immediately or we may die before that. Either way we need to live as if it is tomorrow. Then we will be prepared when the actual ending of the world as per the time designated by God the Father happens. Till such time let’s live in the joy of the Lord, being confident that He is still on the throne.

 

The Second Crusade up to the Fifth Crusade

 

We read about the First Crusade and how the Latin Christians from the Western Europe wrestled control of the Holy City from the Muslims and established four Crusader states, Antioch and Edessa in Syria, Tripoli and Jerusalem in Palestine by 1099. This miraculous victory of the crusaders might have fuelled the subsequent crusades spanned over the next two centuries; they could have reasoned that by God’s mercy a spectacular and miraculous victory was always possible. Most of the Crusaders from the first episode returned to Europe in 1099 and only some 300 knights and 2000 infantry men were left with King Godfrey to defend Jerusalem. By July 1100 Godfrey died of food poisoning, a foul play or an accident. His brother Baldwin of Boulogne took up the reign. Baldwin, to be appointed as king, required anointing by the Pope or the Patriarch who would pour over the holy oil on the ruler’s head. This would set the ruler apart from other men, endowed with power of divine sanction! This ritual was carried in December 1100 by the Patriarch. There were internal rivalries within these four states and civil wars between them weakened their strength.

By 1119 two religious military orders came to be organized out of the knights, combining both the ideals of knighthood and monasticism, taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. One, composed of French knights known as the Order of the Temple of Solomon or the Templers and the second, the Hospital of St. John, or the Hospitallers, dedicated to John the Baptist, in whose name a hospital was being run in the Holy Land with the support of the Italian merchants. These two orders were to take care of the pilgrims to the Holy Land, but would become increasingly involved in the crusades over for the next two centuries.   

The Second Crusade: 1147-1150

In 1144 Muslims under Zengi, leader of Seljuk Turks recaptured Edessa in Syria and on the request of the Frankish Crusader States Pope Eugene III in Europe announced a crusade in 1145 which was preached by Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux. The protection of the Eastern Christians in Levant was the objective and the assurance of the remission of sins of those who take part in the Crusade or die in the process was promised by the Pope and the families and properties left behind were to be protected and safeguarded by the church. Some 60,000 crusaders assembled, led by King Conrad III of Germany and King Louis VII of France. This is the first time kings would lead the Crusades.  As they reached Constantinople in 1147 troubles began due to mutual suspicion between Eastern Byzantine Christians and the Western Latin Christians, though the Byzantine Emperor Manuel had made all arrangements of provisions for the Crusaders and provided guides to navigate the troops through the difficult terrain. But the Latin armies proceeded separately without following the advice of the Emperor and were decimated by the Muslim forces of Zengi. Germans retreated to Constantinople and King Conrad returned to Europe in 1147; so also the French in 1148.

The Crusaders who came from England by sea in a fleet of 200 vessels in 1147 landed in the Iberian Peninsula and helped the King of Portugal to recapture their city Lisbon from the Muslims and also helped the King of Spain to push the Muslim conquerors to a large extent. That was the only successful outcome of the Second Crusade, which was fought on multiple fronts. Muslims in Levant had become stronger in the last 40-50 years, united under strong leaders and they had captured Damascus in 1154 and Egypt in 1168 and had become much more powerful and resourceful with Egypt serving as their bread basket.

The Third Crusade: 1187-1192

Muslims had become stronger under Sultan Saladin of Ayyubid dynasty, who had taken Jerusalem from the Franks in 1187 in the battle of Hattin, which was a major debacle for the Crusader king. They lost the Holy City and the Holy Cross to the Muslims. Sultan also took control of cities like Acre, Tiberius, Caesarea, Nazareth and Jaffa. Saladin had won Damascus in 1174 and Aleppo in 1183 and had become a formidable enemy. Third Crusade was called in response to the loss of the Holy City. The call was given by Pope Gregory VIII in 1187. Three monarchs responded this time; Frederick I Barbarossa, King of Germany and the Holy Roman Emperor; Philip II of France and Richard I the Lionhearted, the King of England.

On the way King Barbarossa accidentally fell into a river while crossing it on horseback near Cilicia and drowned in 1190. The German army decimated by dysentery and the loss of their king returned to Germany. King Philip and King Richard arrived by sea. Richard the Lionhearted was an experienced warrior and known for his personal courage and was wise in his decisions. On his way to Sicily to bring some 60,000 horses he took 100 ships and in the process took possession of Sicily. He conquered Cyprus by 1191, which will remain in Crusaders’ hands till the end and was of great support to them in the subsequent Crusades. Philip also joined Richard with his own troops. They attacked Acre and wrestled it from the hands of Muslims in July 1191. Philip returned to Europe after this due to some emergencies in his kingdom in Europe.

Now the mantle of leadership fell solely on Richard. They besieged and won the battle of Arsuf in September 1191. Richard suggested that they should attack and take Egypt first, then with that strength retake Jerusalem. But others were not agreeable. Hence they marched to Jerusalem but turned back after coming quite close to Jerusalem. Again they came close to Jerusalem, having fortified the forts in between, but due to differences of opinion they turned back. If only they had attacked they could have easily captured Jerusalem. But Richard was not entirely in favor of it, for he reasoned that it would involve loss of many lives and even after recovery, the Franks in the kingdom of Jerusalem were not in a position to protect it from the assaults by the Muslims. 

The Third Crusade ended in failure for Jerusalem was not taken, but Richard negotiated and made a peace agreement; Acre and Tyre were kept by the Franks; Ascalon was given up to the Muslims; safety of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem was ensured. In spite of all the amazing stories woven around Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin the Sultan, little was achieved and it is surprising to learn that both never met, either in war or in peace negotiations.

Fourth Crusade: 1202-1204

This Crusade was called by Pope Innocent III with the objective of getting back Jerusalem from Muslim’s hands, where was lost in 1187. Indulgences were announced, sins forgiven not only for the participants of the Crusade but also for those who contributed money to the Crusade. Here are sown seeds that would grow into a huge scandal of the Catholic Church, which drove Martin Luther to nail his 95 theses to the church door of Wittenberg, Germany in 1527 initiating Reformation. Saladin had died in 1193 and Richard the Lionhearted in 1199.

Many nobles responded to the call and the armies set sail from Venice to Egypt, now that the idea sowed by Richard that the Ayyubid’s dynasty should first be attacked at Egypt and from there to capture Jerusalem. However, troubles beset the Crusade as the rapacious traders of Venice insisted that the armies pay for the fleet before they embarked - silver marks of 85,000 for 240 ships. This amount was double the income of the French kingdom at that time! When the Crusaders could not pay this amount, as the number of promised crusaders did not turn up at Venice, the Venetians made a deal with them, suggesting that they capture first the city of Zara on the Dalmatian coast for the Italians, so that Venetians could rule the waters, overtaking their competitors from Pisa and Genoa, the other Italian cities. The Crusaders sacked the Christian city of Zara in November 1202. Pope summarily excommunicated both the Crusaders and the Venetians for this sacrilegious act of attacking Christians.  

Venice merchants also wanted to depose the ruling Emperor of Byzantine Empire and install someone who was more favorable to them and grant special privileges in trade within the Empire and to get ahead of Pisa and Genoa. The Crusaders ignominiously turned on Constantinople, may be due the desire for money and loot or due to the goading of the Venetian merchants, or to take revenge for the unhelpful attitude of the Emperors to the previous crusades. They attacked the city in June 1203, with 4500 knights 14000 infantry and 25,000 Venetians. Emperor Alexios III fled the city and Constantinople fell in April 1204. What his great grandfather Alexios of the First Crusade feared had come true.

The Crusaders installed the Latin count Baldwin of Flanders as the Emperor, the first Latin Emperor of Constantinople. They slaughtered the 4,00,000 inhabitants of the city, raped, massacred, torched buildings, desecrated churches, stole religious relics, melted the gold and carried it all as war booty to Europe. That much for the Crusaders’ avowed goal of supporting the Christians in the East from their enemies Muslims! In reality they became their enemy and sacked the city mercilessly. Christians turned against Christians; so much for Holy Wars and their religious fervor. 

After fifty years the Byzantines took back their kingdom, but it was a shadow of its former glory.  

Fifth Crusade: 1217-1221

Call for this Crusade was given in 1208 by Pope Innocent III and his successor Pope Honorius III to avenge the Christians in Levant and to free Jerusalem which was still in the hands of Muslims. A crusading army led by King Andrew II of Hungary and Duke Leopold II of Austria in 1208 came to nothing. In 1218 a German army led by Oliver of Paderborn and a mixed army led by Count William I of Holland took up the arms. Their plan was also to attack Cairo, the capital of Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and then march to free Jerusalem. On landing in Egypt they first attacked and occupied the port of Damietta on the mouth of the river Nile. Then they marched towards Cairo in July 1221 and laid siege to Al-Mansoura, a town en route. When a section of the knights in the vanguard charged forth without orders from the leaders; they were annihilated by the Muslims and the entire force was forced to retreat to Damietta, where they sued for peace and signed truce for eight years with Kamil, son of Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, Syria and Palestine. This Crusade also ended in utter failure.

Let’s see the fate of the other four crusades in the next blog. In all these the fate of Jerusalem, the Holy City of the Christians hung in balance and still in the hands of Muslims.