
Indians ruled Gulf through Hormuz. They paid to ban public cow slaughter, built temples
The shockwave rippled through the Western Indian Ocean; the decades after saw the end of Hormuz's prominence, the development of Iran's first maritime policy, and the immigration of tens of thousands of Indian traders and investors into the Gulf and Iran. This is the story of how Hormuz shaped the history of India and the world.
Since at least 1300 CE, Hormuz has been the hinge of Eurasian trade, where thousands of Indians, Arabs, Iranians, Mongols, and Turks made their fortunes. Goods poured through Hormuz, to and fro the Mediterranean, West and Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, and China. But in the 16 th century, the Portuguese adventurer Alfonso da Albuquerque took control of the port.
Though an uneasy ceasefire between Israel and Iran continues, just two days ago, on 24 June, the Iranian parliament threatened the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But this was not the first time that Hormuz, situated at the narrowest point of the Persian Gulf, has turned into a flashpoint between Iran and the West.
Understanding the Gulf
Just as the Gulf's geography offered opportunities throughout time, it also created challenges. Its character was utterly unique, nothing like our world of monolithic nation-states. Sam Dalrymple, historian and author of Shattered Lands: The Five Partitions of India, described Gulf towns to me as 'trading islands/oasis towns wedged between the sand sea and the salt sea. They make less sense as states and more as oases filled with traders.' Their population was never consistent: it waxed and waned with the trading seasons, which in turn depended on the monsoon.
Outside these ports, weather conditions were extreme: storms, unseasonal winds, scorching heat and humidity. The Gulf's northern edge, shielded from the Iranian Plateau by a mountain range, allowed little room for coastal states to grow. On the south, the vast Arabian desert was home to small tribes that occasionally preyed on sea traffic.
Hormuz rose to prominence because it was able to offer safe ground for international trade, without the risk of piracy. This wasn't what one would expect from looking at it. Barely a few kilometres across, sweltering Hormuz was encrusted in salt, with only one freshwater source. Its rulers solved this problem by importing water on barges from the shore. Markets were kept open all night to avoid the daytime heat.
In The Persian Gulf: A Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities, historian Willem Floor further explains that the rulers of Hormuz imposed an embargo on timber, oars, coir, iron and steel, which prevented their rivals from building ships. They then took control of nearby ports, establishing a chokehold on the Gulf.
Also read: What is Strait of Hormuz & why its closure by Iran could disrupt global energy trade
The struggle over Hormuz
Though Hormuz's rulers were Muslim, the island made no segregations on ethnic or religious lines. The second-largest ethnic group on the island were Indians, who conducted a roaring trade in horses in the 13th century CE. In 'India's Sea Trade with Iran in Medieval Times', historian Shireen Moosvi discusses the Somanatha-Veraval inscription, recording the construction of a mosque in Somnath in 1264 by the Hormuz merchant Nuruddin Firoz.
The Sanskrit portion of the inscription describes the mosque as a dharma-sthanam, and mentions the direct involvement of Gujarat's ruling Chaulukya king and his officials in the grant. If this Hormuz merchant had such influence, writes Moosvi, 'Hormuz merchants must surely have formed an elite group of some importance… in the Chaulukya kingdom of Gujarat.'
For the next century, Hormuz continued to flourish. According to Moosvi, Hormuz's networks extended as far as Uzbekistan and Turkey. Goods shipped from Hormuz reached, in relays, all the way to China. The Chinese admiral Zheng He brought his vast armada there multiple times in the 15th century, where he exchanged ceramics and silks for the luxuries of Western Eurasia.
Strategic resources such as horses were shipped to India from Hormuz; in return, India provided necessities such as rice to the Gulf ports, as well as cloth, metals, woods, and spices. In his edited volume India and the Indian Ocean, 1500-1800, MN Pearson notes that exchanges overwhelmingly favoured India. Vast quantities of silver and salt were required to balance the trade.
In the early 1500s, the Portuguese erupted into the Indian Ocean. From their galleons—artillery platforms designed for deep-sea and coastal voyaging—they attempted to take control of trade gateways in the Indian Ocean, including Hormuz. They stationed a permanent garrison on the island in 1515, but immediately ran into problems.
At the same time, the Mughal Empire of the Indian subcontinent consolidated its reach into Afghanistan. Conquering Kandahar, the Mughals stabilised overland routes from India to Central Asia, further weakening the appeal of Hormuz.
According to Floor, the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Iraq, attempted to get rid of the Portuguese in 1552 but failed. It would be an Iranian power which finally expelled them and restored some normalcy to the Gulf trade. But Hormuz would never again be independent.
Also read: Crude oil prices to freight rates: How Iran's chokehold on Strait of Hormuz impacts India
Iranians and banias
Up to this point, riven by internal strife, the Safavid dynasty of Iran had paid little attention to events in Hormuz—though they were technically its overlords. However, Shah Abbas I (r. 1587–1629), a contemporary of the Mughal emperor Jahangir, eventually consolidated power. He was alarmed by the loss of both Kandahar and Hormuz, crucial to Iran's trade with the steppe and the ocean.
In 'The Gulf in the Seventeenth Century', historian Abdul Aziz M Awad describes how, in 1622, Abbas I used a mixture of threats and promises to convince the English East India Company to attack Hormuz on his behalf. This was successful, and the Portuguese stranglehold was broken. Simultaneously, Abbas recaptured Kandahar from the Mughals, reestablishing Iran as a major economic player.
Abbas had learned from the mistakes of earlier Gulf rulers: Allowing foreign control over the Hormuz Island would make it impossible to challenge European sea power in the strait. And so, Abbas routed Gulf trade into a tiny mainland port called Gombroon, renamed Bandar Abbas (Abbas Port). He also encouraged the immigration of Indian merchants throughout Iran, in unprecedented numbers.
According to Floor (Persian Gulf), about a third of all homes in Bandar Abbas belonged to Indians. There was a large temple, and Hindu processions were allowed; the Banias also paid the Persian authorities to ban public cow slaughter. Historian Scott Levi, in his paper 'The Indian Merchant Diaspora in Early Modern Central Asia and Iran', writes that 12,000 Indian merchants resided in Isfahan, the capital of Safavid Iran.
These merchants traded primarily in cloth and luxury commodities, but used the proceeds for investments and moneylending. As such, they were favoured by Iranian authorities: they 'provided a considerable source of income for the treasury, facilitated taxation by extending a monetised economy into the countryside, and provided village craftsmen and farmers with an important source of investment capital and credit services.'
This didn't automatically imply good relations between Safavid Iran and Mughal India. Trade in Hormuz fluctuated as both states competed, occasionally banning trade or rerouting it to other ports. By this point, in the 1600s, both these superpowers had something approaching a modern maritime policy, in which ports like Surat and Hormuz featured front and centre. At the beginning of this column, we saw how Gulf ports, especially Hormuz, had conducted their own business in the 1300s; by the 1600s, they had become chess pieces wielded by gunpowder empires.
Yet, some patterns were deeper than the transient politics of states. Indian immigration to the Gulf continued. As the East India Company, and then the British Raj, expanded through the Gulf, their officials noted again and again the ubiquity of Indians.
English government official Thomas Herbert, writing in 1627–30, claimed that they 'swarm throughout the Orient… pursuing trade in infinite numbers.' Indians in general, not just Banias, worked as shopkeepers, brokers, bankers, accountants, translators and secretaries. Indian craftsmen and labourers made up a huge proportion of the economy of Oman. Indian soldiers travelled via the Gulf to fight British battles in World War I.
And, as Sam Dalrymple writes, it was possible in the early 20th century that Gulf states could have joined an Independent India. Even after the partitioning of the Indian Ocean world into nation-states, Indians continue to work and live in all echelons of Gulf society.
The Strait of Hormuz once made Indian fortunes, both before and after the era of powerful states that looked to the sea. What will happen if tensions rise again, and it is closed?
'About 20 per cent of oil and natural gas consumed across the world flows through the Strait of Hormuz… Even if ships heading to India aren't blocked, a major disruption in Hormuz will likely cause energy prices to spike up and make it hard to insure vessels. In a time of economic uncertainty, the last thing India wants is an oil shock,' Aditya Ramanathan, Research Fellow at the Takshashila Institution, told me.
The Gulf and the Indian seaboard are not, perhaps, as close as they once were. But they will always be interlocked.
Anirudh Kanisetti is a public historian. He is the author of 'Lords of Earth and Sea: A History of the Chola Empire' and the award-winning 'Lords of the Deccan'. He hosts the Echoes of India and Yuddha podcasts. He tweets @AKanisetti and is on Instagram @anirbuddha.
This article is a part of the 'Thinking Medieval' series that takes a deep dive into India's medieval culture, politics, and history.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
This 'F' word is pushing India backword, can't defeat China due to..., why is 6400000000000 scaring India
This 'F' word is pushing India backword, can't defeat China due to…, why is 6400000000000 scaring India Indian states are going to increase their spending on social welfare schemes. It is estimated that these states will spend about 2 percent of their Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), or Rs 6.4 lakh crore in 2025, much more than the previous year's spending. Several states have introduced schemes such as monthly income for women and free travel in government-run buses. These welfare schemes have increased the expenses of the states. This has raised concerns as this level of spending is expected to impact India in many ways. Will India Be Able to Beat China Economically? Notably, to beat China economically, India will have to take visionary steps beyond just spending on social welfare. According to a report by rating agency Crisil, spending huge amounts on welfare schemes has reduced states' ability to spend on infrastructure development and other development works. Crisil analysed the budget of 18 major states which account for nearly 90precent of the total GSDP. The central government, on the other hand, also spends huge amount on several welfare schemes such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), Jal Jeevan Mission, PM Kisan, PM Awas Yojana and PM Poshan. The central government has allocated Rs 86,000 crore for MNREGA that too only for this year. What Kind Of Warning Is This? Crisil has warned that increased state spending on welfare programs, particularly those targeting women, children, and marginalised groups, will widen their revenue deficits. This surge in spending, consistent with previous years at 1.4 to1.6 percent of GSDP between FY19 and FY24 will likely curtail states capacity for capital investment. The rise in expenditure is attributed to pre-election initiatives, including income support schemes and free public transportation for women. What Is Needed To Defeat China? To overtake China economically, India has to take concrete and far-sighted steps rather just spending on social welfare schemes. Focus on productive investments India should focus on creation of world-class infrastructure like roads, railways, ports, power, digital connectivity. These developments will reduce logistics costs and boosts industries. Investments in education, healthcare, and skills development is also needed to create a skilled and healthy workforce. India has to work on increasing public and private investment in research and development. This will promote innovation. Notably, China has invested big in this. Development of the manufacturing sector China's robust manufacturing sector significantly contributes to its economic growth. India's economic progress requires bolstering initiatives like 'Make in India' by streamlining manufacturing establishment, offering tax benefits, and enhancing global supply chain integration. Emphasis on exports China has an export-oriented economy. India also needs to expand its export base in high value-added goods and services. Policy stability A stable policy environment is essential to attract investors. Improving the ease of doing business will automatically reduce red tape. Financial discipline Both the states and the Centre must keep the fiscal deficit under control. This will reduce debt and increase revenue.


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Manhattan's progressive man
In a stunning political upset that has caught the eye of political observers and could potentially upend the Democratic Party in the U.S., a new progressive star has emerged: Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the presumptive winner of the New York City mayoral primary. For an Indian progressive uninitiated in American politics, the name Zohran Kwame Mamdani will invoke references to two familiar figures. The 33-year-old is the son of noted postcolonial theorist and academic Mahmood Mamdani, who has written extensively on the legacy of colonialism in Africa, and acclaimed film director Mira Nair. His middle name is, of course, a reference to Kwame Nkrumah, the Ghanaian Pan-Africanist revolutionary leader. But now the younger Mamdani has become a name to be reckoned with on his own accord. By defeating a formidable establishment figure — former Governor Andrew Cuomo — in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary race, Mr. Mamdani has catalysed sharp discourse within the fractured and soul-searching Democratic Party, still reeling from stinging defeats in the presidential and Congressional races in 2024 that heralded the Trump 2.0 era. New York is largely a Democratic stronghold, and the winner of the primary typically goes on to win the mayoral race. In the November Mayoral election, Mr. Mamdani will take on the incumbent, the unpopular Eric Adams, who is expected to run as an independent. Mr. Mamdani's political career is relatively short — he was first elected to the New York State Assembly in 2020. In the State capital of Albany, he joined a small group of lawmakers affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a progressive and socialist organisation that was formed in 1982 but truly took flight during Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in 2016. Since then, it has emerged as a major leftist pressure group operating both within and outside the Democratic Party. Mr. Mamdani's victory is reminiscent of a similar triumph in New York when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (fondly known as AOC) won a Congressional election in the city's 14th district in 2018. While Mr. Mamdani's legislative record is relatively modest in terms of Bills passed, his colleagues acknowledge that his work helped shift the Assembly's ideological emphasis to the left. If elected, Mr. Mamdani would be the city's youngest Mayor since 1917 and the first Muslim to hold the post. Mr. Mamdani's victory was no mean feat. He had to overcome the challenge posed by a candidate with extensive political experience — former two-term New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mr. Cuomo has deep establishment ties and was endorsed by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, among others. He was also backed by a super Political Action Committee that raised $25 million to bankroll his candidacy. The fact that Mr. Cuomo had resigned from his gubernatorial duties a few years ago after being embroiled in sexual harassment cases did not deter him from attempting to obscure this record while running a conventional campaign that featured attack ads targeting Mr. Mamdani's identity and views. Grassroots mobilisation Mr. Mamdani overcame these challenges by relying on massive grassroots mobilisation — reportedly 50,000 volunteers organised by the DSA's New York Chapter conducted a door-to-door campaign that reached an astounding 1.5 million doors. Focusing on one key issue — 'affordability' in New York's high-cost economy — Mr. Mamdani pledged to address this through a series of concrete measures. These included freezing rents for nearly a million New Yorkers in rent-stabilised apartments, providing free city buses (based on a pilot programme he had helped start as a lawmaker), creating city-owned grocery stores that would keep food costs low by buying wholesale and operating on city land, and providing childcare for infants and toddlers. The focus on livelihood-based 'bread-and-butter economic issues' helped his campaign build a broad coalition of support, including in neighbourhoods that were won by Donald Trump in the 2024 elections. Notably, Mr. Mamdani's message was tailored to redirect working-class frustration away from the Right's targets — immigrants and marginalised groups — toward a different culprit: billionaires. The endorsements by the doyen of the American democratic Left, Bernie Sanders, and its key public figure, AOC, also bolstered his candidacy. Interestingly, Mr. Mamdani managed to register a strong win while unapologetically taking a pro-Palestine position, accusing Israel of committing 'apartheid and genocide in Gaza', supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and openly embracing his Muslim identity. This stood in sharp contrast to the Democratic Presidential campaign in 2024, where candidate Kamala Harris tacked to the right of centre, refused to halt arms sales to Israel, and did not allow a Palestinian voice to speak at the Democratic Convention. In many ways, Mr. Mamdani's campaign — focused on welfare issues while celebrating his identity as the son of immigrant parents and a practising Muslim — represented everything the Trump administration has demonised during its current tenure. Seen in this light, Mr. Mamdani's victory could possibly be the biggest win for the democratic socialist movement that has taken root in U.S. cities since Mr. Sanders's national campaign. It offers a boost to a demoralised American Left caught between the right-wing populism of Mr. Trump (which has attracted segments of the traditional working class) and what critics see as the vapid centrism of the Democratic Party establishment that refuses to change course, particularly on foreign policy. Inevitably, the question arises: Is Mr. Mamdani's win a blueprint for future success for the beleaguered Democratic Party? His campaign — combining modern social media tools with traditional door-to-door campaigning — managed to generate broad support across a sprawling urban metropolis, offering lessons for other Democratic mobilisations in similar environments across the U.S. A freewheeling, accessible style is clearly a more effective approach than the carefully scripted strategy that cost Democrats in 2024. Road ahead Yet, challenges remain. Republicans are already working to brand Mr. Mamdani as the radical face of the Democratic Party, while the media establishment that supports the GOP has sought to use his identity to tarnish his record, with one Republican Congress representative's fundraising appeal branding him as a 'Hamas Terrorist sympathiser'. His brand of democratic socialism may indeed prove a difficult sell in the small towns and red bastions of middle America. Ultimately, Mr. Mamdani's victory may be less a simple blueprint to be copied and more a mirror held up to the Democratic Party. It has forced a reckoning, proving that a campaign centred on economic justice and unapologetic principles can generate a powerful movement. The question for party leadership is not whether they can perfectly replicate a New York City race, but whether they are willing to embrace the grassroots energy, class-based populism, and bold vision that this stunning victory represents. The future of the party may well depend on their answer.


The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
BJP bringing up Katchatheevu issue to divert attention from Centre's failure to secure T.N. fishermen's rights: TNCC chief
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) president K. Selvaperunthagai on Saturday said the BJP was raking up the 50-year-old Katchatheevu issue to divert attention away from the Union government's failure to ensure Tamil fishermen don't face violence and harrassment from the Sri Lankan Navy. In a statement, Mr. Selvaperunthagai said External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar was trying to cover-up the actions of the Sri Lankan Navy against Tamil Nadu fishermen over the last 11 years of BJP rule at the Centre. He also clarified that Katchatheevu was not ceded to Sri Lanka during Emergency. 'The External Affairs Minister has made factually incorrect statements. Emergency was not in effect when the agreement [to cede the island] was signed on June 26, 1974. On July 23, 1974, the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh tabled a report in the Lok Sabha and addressed Parliament. All political parties, including the BJP, participated and voiced their opinions,' he said. 'After the Congress government, did Prime Minister Vajpayee, during his six-year tenure, or Prime Minister Modi, during his 11-year rule, ever hold talks with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister about reclaiming Katchatheevu? If Katchatheevu was truly the root cause of the fishermen's problems, the Indian government should have raised this with Sri Lanka,' Mr. Selvaperunthagai added. He said: 'Tamil Nadu fishermen are not arrested near Katchatheevu. Instead, they are arrested when they unintentionally cross the maritime boundary into Sri Lankan waters, especially during nighttime fishing. Therefore, the BJP government must hold talks with Sri Lanka to secure fishing rights in those waters based on the livelihoods of Tamil Nadu's fishermen.'