Our Turkic Connection
Nazar Khan July 4, 2005
#66 Posted by Netizen on July 5, 2005 11:16:17 am
NHK:
thanks for the article. It opens up the forum to discuss/learn/debate new areas.
urdu means camp in turkish because thats where interaction b/t the armies and the merchants used to take place.
Turks as an ethnic group are spread far and wide. Few weeks back I was heard on NPR about a author who has recently written a book on it. Even central asian republics are turkish in ethnicity.
Turks grew in power because of the organisational/military strength of their earlier leaders. i guess Suleiman was the last of them. after him the rot set in.
It was the survival of the fittest, where brother would kill brother and become the sultan, so that in the end the empire would not be divided. Turks were the first to have the marching military band which would instill fear among its opponents. There were many in the army and administration who were ethnically not turks (e.g. Ibrahim Pasha) but were greeks, slavs who converted and were loyal to the sultan. Even suleiman was half-slavic and his son (salim, the sot from Oksana) was 2/3 slavic still they waged wars against the slavs (similar to the mugals vs rajputs).
The importance of Janissaries cannot be neglected, who were christian children converted to islam and made to fight for the sultan. they were the stromtroppers for the ottomans.
Even though the ottomans extended their territory far and wide they were quite tolerant towards other religions and ethnicities (except armenians). Hence many jews took shelter in istanbul after reconquest od spain by spainiards. That did help the ottomans to retain intellect and capital. It is said that the person incharge of the cannon during the raid of Constantinople was from hungary. Once a western diplomat told a turkish diplomat that he was not a turkish ethnically, its just that he and his father/grandfather spoke turkish for a few centuries.
Well turkey at last became ``the sick man of europe`` because it could not maintain its superiority in weapons/military strength. Mostly because of its conservatism and lack of innovation. If it wasn`t for the French and the British, Imperial Russia would have annexed Istanbul long time back.
thanks for the article. It opens up the forum to discuss/learn/debate new areas.
urdu means camp in turkish because thats where interaction b/t the armies and the merchants used to take place.
Turks as an ethnic group are spread far and wide. Few weeks back I was heard on NPR about a author who has recently written a book on it. Even central asian republics are turkish in ethnicity.
Turks grew in power because of the organisational/military strength of their earlier leaders. i guess Suleiman was the last of them. after him the rot set in.
It was the survival of the fittest, where brother would kill brother and become the sultan, so that in the end the empire would not be divided. Turks were the first to have the marching military band which would instill fear among its opponents. There were many in the army and administration who were ethnically not turks (e.g. Ibrahim Pasha) but were greeks, slavs who converted and were loyal to the sultan. Even suleiman was half-slavic and his son (salim, the sot from Oksana) was 2/3 slavic still they waged wars against the slavs (similar to the mugals vs rajputs).
The importance of Janissaries cannot be neglected, who were christian children converted to islam and made to fight for the sultan. they were the stromtroppers for the ottomans.
Even though the ottomans extended their territory far and wide they were quite tolerant towards other religions and ethnicities (except armenians). Hence many jews took shelter in istanbul after reconquest od spain by spainiards. That did help the ottomans to retain intellect and capital. It is said that the person incharge of the cannon during the raid of Constantinople was from hungary. Once a western diplomat told a turkish diplomat that he was not a turkish ethnically, its just that he and his father/grandfather spoke turkish for a few centuries.
Well turkey at last became ``the sick man of europe`` because it could not maintain its superiority in weapons/military strength. Mostly because of its conservatism and lack of innovation. If it wasn`t for the French and the British, Imperial Russia would have annexed Istanbul long time back.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#65 Posted by Ranjit on July 5, 2005 11:08:36 am
Romair,
Hindus are more than willing to forget historical grudges. The presence of a highly secular polity is evidence of that. Even ``communal`` leaders like Advani have made peace overtures. Hindus want the the present status quo in the subcontinent to get universal acceptance with peaceful relations between the two communities.
The problem is that muslims have not reconciled to the status quo and are determined to disturb it forcibly in their favor. In spite of all the peace moves in Kashmir, people are regularly being killed there by militants with active support from across the border. People in the United Jehad Council and Syed Salahuddin from Hizbul regularly give interviews on PTV. Hafeez Sayeed from LeT routinely gives inflammatory speeches resulting today in a vicious attack on Ayodhya, the epicenter of hinduism. If hindu terrorists had attacked Mecca, can you imagine the outrage in the muslim world? Pakistan would have been loading the nuclear missiles by now. As a contrast, you see muted sentiments from Indians who do not want the issue to turn communal. That shows the maturity of hindus.
If hindus are angry and willing to dig up the past, it is because the muslims keep reminding them of it with their actions.
Hindus are more than willing to forget historical grudges. The presence of a highly secular polity is evidence of that. Even ``communal`` leaders like Advani have made peace overtures. Hindus want the the present status quo in the subcontinent to get universal acceptance with peaceful relations between the two communities.
The problem is that muslims have not reconciled to the status quo and are determined to disturb it forcibly in their favor. In spite of all the peace moves in Kashmir, people are regularly being killed there by militants with active support from across the border. People in the United Jehad Council and Syed Salahuddin from Hizbul regularly give interviews on PTV. Hafeez Sayeed from LeT routinely gives inflammatory speeches resulting today in a vicious attack on Ayodhya, the epicenter of hinduism. If hindu terrorists had attacked Mecca, can you imagine the outrage in the muslim world? Pakistan would have been loading the nuclear missiles by now. As a contrast, you see muted sentiments from Indians who do not want the issue to turn communal. That shows the maturity of hindus.
If hindus are angry and willing to dig up the past, it is because the muslims keep reminding them of it with their actions.
#63 Posted by Romair on July 5, 2005 10:24:27 am
I think it is very dangerous, and couterproductive (specifically for Indians) to look at all Muslims as invaders and all Hindus as the invadees. Amongst other things, it is not factual. And it can lead to communalism, in the present-day context.
India, Pakistan and the whole sub-continent, cannot be looked as one country, or one (or two or three) civilization. It never was one. Even today, it isn`t one. It may end up as a couple of civilizations, if the borders of the present day hold for a few centuries. But historically, India was never invaded. Because it never existed..........
For India (and Pakistan) to have existed, in present-day form, someone would have had to invade it first and bring it under one kingdom. In fact, if someone opposes invasions, then they cannot support the idea of the unification of the gigantic area, to begin with, because it could not be unified, without massive invasions. It is the chicken and egg scenario. The only reason India (and Pakistan) exist as countries is because the British invaded the area and united it...........
Various civilizations, all within the borders of the Sub-Continent were invaded, by other civilizations. In fact, not even by civilizations. But by powerful royal families, trying to extend their empires. This sequence started long before Mohd. Bin Qasim. Long before even Islam was born.
Yet we only hear of Muslim invaders, on this site. What about the Greek invaders, and the Turkish invaders and the Bhuddhist invaders and the Hindu invaders, and the Christian invaders. The largest and fastest invaders of the Sub-Continent were actually Hindus and Bhuddhists. Followed by Christians. Then Muslims.
Yet this phase of pre-Muslim invasions, which went all the up to Afghanistan, is complely ignored. In many cases, it is refered to, incorrectly, as the unification of India. When in fact, it was, like all invasions, an extension of a personal empire.........
It is, thus, completely incorrect to even look at the invaders and invadees, within religious boundaries. Hindu and Bhuddhist invaders killed Hindus and Bhuddhists. In fact, for a long portion of Sub-Continental history, it was simply Hindus killing Hindus. Muslim invaders killed Muslims, also.
As an example, historically Punjabis have been killed by Hindus, Zorastarians, Bhuddhists, Christians, Mulsims and Sikhs. They have been killed by Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, Turks, Biharis, Bengalis, Afghans, and other Punjabis. Everyone and their grandmother seems to have killed them.
Thus, to just narrow in on Muslim invaders, invading an India, of present day boundaries, makes no sense. It also makes no sense to glorify invaders, based on their religion of Hinduism or Islam, either. Alexander and Ashoka were as much the invaders of Punjab as Ghaznavi and Abdali..........
One should not apply centuries old history to present day civics and geography. The city I currently am from was invaded by Hindus, amongst others. I don`t hate present day Hindus for it. What did they have to do with it? If they invaded it today, I would hate them for it. But not because some Hindu invaded it 2000 years ago.
Neither should out Indian colleagues hold such hatred towards Muslims. That will only lead to local communalism, since so many Muslims live in India..........
India, Pakistan and the whole sub-continent, cannot be looked as one country, or one (or two or three) civilization. It never was one. Even today, it isn`t one. It may end up as a couple of civilizations, if the borders of the present day hold for a few centuries. But historically, India was never invaded. Because it never existed..........
For India (and Pakistan) to have existed, in present-day form, someone would have had to invade it first and bring it under one kingdom. In fact, if someone opposes invasions, then they cannot support the idea of the unification of the gigantic area, to begin with, because it could not be unified, without massive invasions. It is the chicken and egg scenario. The only reason India (and Pakistan) exist as countries is because the British invaded the area and united it...........
Various civilizations, all within the borders of the Sub-Continent were invaded, by other civilizations. In fact, not even by civilizations. But by powerful royal families, trying to extend their empires. This sequence started long before Mohd. Bin Qasim. Long before even Islam was born.
Yet we only hear of Muslim invaders, on this site. What about the Greek invaders, and the Turkish invaders and the Bhuddhist invaders and the Hindu invaders, and the Christian invaders. The largest and fastest invaders of the Sub-Continent were actually Hindus and Bhuddhists. Followed by Christians. Then Muslims.
Yet this phase of pre-Muslim invasions, which went all the up to Afghanistan, is complely ignored. In many cases, it is refered to, incorrectly, as the unification of India. When in fact, it was, like all invasions, an extension of a personal empire.........
It is, thus, completely incorrect to even look at the invaders and invadees, within religious boundaries. Hindu and Bhuddhist invaders killed Hindus and Bhuddhists. In fact, for a long portion of Sub-Continental history, it was simply Hindus killing Hindus. Muslim invaders killed Muslims, also.
As an example, historically Punjabis have been killed by Hindus, Zorastarians, Bhuddhists, Christians, Mulsims and Sikhs. They have been killed by Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, Turks, Biharis, Bengalis, Afghans, and other Punjabis. Everyone and their grandmother seems to have killed them.
Thus, to just narrow in on Muslim invaders, invading an India, of present day boundaries, makes no sense. It also makes no sense to glorify invaders, based on their religion of Hinduism or Islam, either. Alexander and Ashoka were as much the invaders of Punjab as Ghaznavi and Abdali..........
One should not apply centuries old history to present day civics and geography. The city I currently am from was invaded by Hindus, amongst others. I don`t hate present day Hindus for it. What did they have to do with it? If they invaded it today, I would hate them for it. But not because some Hindu invaded it 2000 years ago.
Neither should out Indian colleagues hold such hatred towards Muslims. That will only lead to local communalism, since so many Muslims live in India..........
#60 Posted by delhiwala on July 5, 2005 9:29:18 am
Arrey Nazar Khan,
I just saw that someone said you fly airplanes.
Are you IFR rated or VFR?
I just saw that someone said you fly airplanes.
Are you IFR rated or VFR?
#59 Posted by ijaz_gul on July 5, 2005 9:02:29 am
Hello Nazar! Nice to see you writing after a break.
Well, a nice article that provokes thought and discussion. Turkic connection is very much in the veins and blood of Central Asia even today. For hundreds of years the Persian and Turkic influence have competed in the region and present is no exception. Huighers as they are called carried out their last migration from Afghanistan via Hunza to Turkey in the 80s.
As for the Turkish influence on architecture in India and Pakistan, let me add that it also carries a very strong influence of the artisans of the deserts of the sub continent. This aspect is writ large on the many forts, mosques and gardens built by the invaders.
Cheerios
Well, a nice article that provokes thought and discussion. Turkic connection is very much in the veins and blood of Central Asia even today. For hundreds of years the Persian and Turkic influence have competed in the region and present is no exception. Huighers as they are called carried out their last migration from Afghanistan via Hunza to Turkey in the 80s.
As for the Turkish influence on architecture in India and Pakistan, let me add that it also carries a very strong influence of the artisans of the deserts of the sub continent. This aspect is writ large on the many forts, mosques and gardens built by the invaders.
Cheerios
#58 Posted by kaurasach on July 5, 2005 8:48:27 am
Foreigners (muslim, Central Asian, etc) are refered to as ``Turks`` by many indians authors.
It is the same as calling ALL Europeans - ``Angrej or Vilayati``.....and ALL South Indians as ``Madrasi``.
Instead of building a WALL, Hindus should build CHARACTER. Rajpoots invited these foreigners to screw their own brothers. It is impossible to attack and win otherwise.
ALL these theories about Turks and their origins etc. have many holes like the Aryan invasion theory.
It is the same as calling ALL Europeans - ``Angrej or Vilayati``.....and ALL South Indians as ``Madrasi``.
Instead of building a WALL, Hindus should build CHARACTER. Rajpoots invited these foreigners to screw their own brothers. It is impossible to attack and win otherwise.
ALL these theories about Turks and their origins etc. have many holes like the Aryan invasion theory.
#57 Posted by aquaris on July 5, 2005 6:58:43 am
Let me too cut paste from another site.....
Complete article can be read at...
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/Sindh.html
the selective Cut paste from that site is..
``Before lmaduddin Mohammad Bin Qasim`s arrival here, Rajputs were the ruling race in Sind and in the rest of northern India. The last Rajput ruler of Sind was Raja Sahasi II whose dominions extended up to Kashmir. He was a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad and professed Buddhism as did his father Siharus. The rule of Raja Sahasi II ended in 632 A.D. the year Prophet Mohammad died. He was succeeded by his Brahmin chamberlain, Chach, who had become a favourite of Sahasi`s wife. Chach ruled over Sind for about 68 years from 632-700 A.D. His son Dahir was the ruler when Mohammad Bin Qasim arrived here in 711 A.D.
The line of rulership before Islam runs thus: Siharus, Sahasi II, Chach, Dahir. The first two were Buddhist Rajputs and the last two Hindu Brahmins. The new Brahmin rulers were extremely hostile towards the Buddhists who were in substantial numbers in Sind at that time and they had ruthlessly suppressed the Jats and Meds who formed the bulk of the peasantry. Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights. ``When Chach, the Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed.``7 It was because of this background that Mohammad Bin Qasim received cooperation from the Buddhists as well as the Jats and Meds during his campaign in Sind. Among others who did not oppose Mohammad Bin Qasim`s advance and made peace with him was the Bhutto tribe.8 In fact he was hailed as deliverer by several sections of local population. The humble position of the Buddhists in Sind seeking support from outside can be read in the Chach Nama.
Several reasons are ascribed to the Arab desire to conquer Makran 17 and Sind. Firstly, Sindhi Rajas had helped the Persians in their wars against the Arabs. Sindhi forces participated in the battles of Nehawand, ‘Salasal’, Qadisia and Makran and fought against the Arabs. Secondly, when after the conquest of Persia by the Arabs some of their rebel chiefs began to seek refuge in Sind, its Raja refused to surrender them to the Caliphs inspite of repeated requests. Thirdly, since Arab traders were being constantly harassed by pirates from the Makran and Sind coasts, a foot-hold in these areas considered necessary to safeguard Arab maritime interests.
The first naval expedition undertaken by the Arabs in this ocean was during Hazrat Omar`s caliphate in 636 A.D. - 15 A.H. under the command of Osman bin Abi`Aas, the Governor of Bahrain and Oman. He attacked Thana, a port near modern Bombay. A little later he sent another naval expedition to Debal in Sind under the command of his brother Mughira. Raja Chach was the ruler of Sind at that time and his kingdom was well defended. Mughira was defeated by the Raja`s forces and killed in action.
During Hazrat Omar`s caliphate the Governor of Iraq also sent an expedition by land to Makran under the command of Rabi Bin Ziad Haris. Though Makran was conquered but the victory was short-lived, as the locals recaptured the country. Makran was, however, permanently conquered during the last days of Hazrat Omar`s caliphate in 642 AD - 43 AH. under the command of Hakam Taglabi. Hazrat Osman, the third Caliph had sent Hakim bin Jabala to Sind in 650 A.D. to collect information. Before him Sahar-al-Abdi had visited Sind for the same purpose in 643 A.D. during Hazrat Omar`s last days.18 The next Arab general to enter Pakistan by land was Muhlib bin Sufra who came through the Khyber Pass in 665 A.D. -65 A.H.
The real story, however, begins with Hajjaj Bin Yusuf who was Governor of Iraq. The story of Arab merchants returning from Ceylon to Basra having been looted by Sindhi pirates is well-known. It is related that some of the women who were being carried away by the pirates implored Hajjaj to rescue them.
Hajjaj took serious notice of the incident and wrote to Dahir, the ruler of Sind, for the release of captives as well as the goods which were being sent to the caliphate as presents by the ruler of Ceylon. Not receiving a favourable reply, Hajjaj, with the permission of Caliph Walid, sent a force to Debal under the command of Abdulla bin Nabhan. This force was annihilated by Dahir`s army and its commander killed in battle. (According to Dr. Daud Pota the tomb of Abdullah Shah at Clifton in Karachi is of this General, Abdulla bin Nabhan).l9 Again, Hajjaj sent a bigger expedition to Debal, to oppose which Dahir sent his son Jaisia with a fairly large contingent. For the second time Arabs were defeated and their commander Badil bin Tuhfa killed in action at Debal. (According to the British historian Eliot, Karachi and the island of Manora constituted the city of Debal).
Hajjaj was infuriated and perturbed at the developments. Having realised that the ruler of Sind was a powerful monarch, he started making large-scale preparations and took personal interest in the matter since the issue had now become one of prestige. The selection of a commander for this expeditionary force had also to be made with due care keeping in view all the aspects of the problem. Hajjaj`s choice fell on the young 20 year old (according to some 17) Mohammad Bin Qasim. The army and its Commander were given rigorous training for over one year in the desert of southern Iran which had similar climatic conditions to those of Sind. Through intelligence reports, all the strong and weak points of the enemy and details of their weapons and defences were collected, studied, and the Arab army equipped accordingly. Hajjaj bin Yusuf went through through the minutest details and after thorough study of the maps of Sind, guided Mohammad Bin Qasim on the strategy to be followed. Not content with this, Hajjaj made arrangements to convey his messages and orders to Mohammad Bin Qasim from Basra to any point in Sind within a week. Orders were that Mohammad Bin Qasim should not attack any city or fort or engage his forces in any large-scale battle with the enemy without getting orders from Basra. Even instructions concerning the day and time of attack and weapons to be used in a particular place or battle were sent by Hajjaj.
This time Arab armies triumphed and the triumph proved permanent. I shall not go into details which are available in all histories and mention only a few points which have not been high-lighted.
As mentioned elsewhere, Sind had a large Buddhist population at this time but the ruler, Dahir, was a Brahmin. It is said that the Buddhists been receiving constant information from their co-religionists in Afghanistan and Turkistan about the extremely liberal treatment meted out to them by the Arab conquerors of those regions. In view of these reports, the Buddhist population of Sind decided to extend full cooperation to Mohammad Bin Qasim and even acclaimed him as liberator from Brahmin tyranny. Several principalities in Sind were ruled by Buddhist Rajas. The Buddhist ruler of Nerun (Hyderabad) had secret correspondence with Mohammad Bin Qasim. Similarly, Bajhra and Kaka Kolak, Buddhist Rajas of Sewastan, allied themselves with Mohammad Bin Qasim.20 On similar grounds, Jats also joined the Arabs against Dahir.
Secondly, it is generally believed that Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered areas only up to Multan. No, he conquered almost the entire Pakistan which then formed part of the Kingdom of Sind. According to Chach Nama, after conquering Aror (near Rohri), Mohammad Bin Qasim advanced towards Bhatia, an old fort on Beas which was under the command of Chach`s nephew. After conquering Bhatia the Arabs laid siege to Iskandla on river Ravi and took it. Chach Nama further states that Mohammad Bin Qasim proceeded to the boundary of Kashmir called Panj Mahiyat, at the upper course of Jhelum just after it debouches into the plains.21 ``With a force of 6,000 Mohainmad Bin Qasim, a youth of 20, conquered and reorganised the whole of the country from the mouth of Indus to the borders of Kashmir, a distance of 800 miles in three years 712-15 A.D.22
It is recognised by all historians that Mohammad Bin Qasim`s rule was most liberal and his treatment of non-Muslims extremely just and fair. He not only appointed Hindus to senior administrative posts but left small Hindu principalities undisturbed. Brahmins had become so loyal to him that they used to go from village to village and urge people to support the Arab regime. When Mohammad Bin Qasim was recalled from Sind by the Caliph in very unhappy circumstances, the Hindus and Buddhist of Sind wept over his departure; and when he died they erected a statue in his memory and worshipped it for a long time. Mohammad Bin Qasim’s two sons had a distinguished career. Arnroo became Governor of Sind and Qasim was Governor of Basra for fifteen years.25
The Arab rulers of Sind-Multan were extremely liberal, spoke Sindhi and treated their subjects well. They never encroached upon the religious liberties of the Hindus and Buddhists and appointed them to positions of responsibility. Mohammad Bin Qasim had appointed Sisakar, the Prime Minister of Raja Dahir, his own Prime Minister, and Kiska, another Hindu, his Revenue Minister. The entire history of Sind under the Arabs is replete with instances of Hindus holding positions of great responsibility and honour. Three per cent of the country`s revenues were given to Brahmins as stipends. When some of the district administrators informed the Government that they were experiencing shortage of cows and bulls which were needed for agricuiture and transport, Government prohibited cow slaughter.
REFERENCES:
1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham
2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky
3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi.
4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly
5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin
6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957 7. Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur.
8. Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi.
9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta
10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross
11. Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi;
12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi.
13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1
14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee.
15. Ibid.
16. Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick.
17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later.
18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1 19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi.
20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi 21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi
22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali.
23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai.
24. Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25. Ibid.
26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb.
27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi.
28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold
29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister.
30. Ibid. 31. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi
32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut.
33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi.
34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky.
35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.
the important thing to note ...
1- the presence of Bhuddism-brahimmin Split with Brahmins being ruthlesslessly hostile to the Bhuddist population.
2- Mohammed Bin Qasim retaining the Prime Minister and Revene Minister of Raja Dahir after the conquest..
#61 Posted by delhiwala on July 5, 2005 9:34:36 am
Re: # 57
Interesting, I did not know this version of history.
Though I have hard time believing Budhists trusting Muslims over Hindus. Look at what happened to Bamiyan Budhas.
Interesting, I did not know this version of history.
Though I have hard time believing Budhists trusting Muslims over Hindus. Look at what happened to Bamiyan Budhas.
#64 Posted by Netizen on July 5, 2005 10:53:18 am
Re: # 61
It is a common refrain among muslims (even indian muslims) that hindus made Buddhism extinct in india. It is just as a justification for muslims destroying/killing hindus. The truth is far different. THere are many reasons for the extinction of the faith from the land of its origin. Sometime back we had discussed it in another thread. The invasion of the White huns (probably turkic origins) did a lot of damage to buddhists, especially the destruction of Taxila, one of its learning centre. Muslims believe that hindus killed/wiped out buddhists in india. But have no answers for its extinction from areas attacked by islamic ghazis e.g. afghanistan, central asia. Probably they believe that since islam is far superior to any religion the buddhists must have ``voluntarily`` submitted to islam.
It is a common refrain among muslims (even indian muslims) that hindus made Buddhism extinct in india. It is just as a justification for muslims destroying/killing hindus. The truth is far different. THere are many reasons for the extinction of the faith from the land of its origin. Sometime back we had discussed it in another thread. The invasion of the White huns (probably turkic origins) did a lot of damage to buddhists, especially the destruction of Taxila, one of its learning centre. Muslims believe that hindus killed/wiped out buddhists in india. But have no answers for its extinction from areas attacked by islamic ghazis e.g. afghanistan, central asia. Probably they believe that since islam is far superior to any religion the buddhists must have ``voluntarily`` submitted to islam.
#62 Posted by aquaris on July 5, 2005 9:55:21 am
Re: # 61
that was before Mongols destroyed Bhagdad.
things have changes after that...
that was before Mongols destroyed Bhagdad.
things have changes after that...
#55 Posted by drlokraj on July 5, 2005 6:24:22 am
Sorry for cut and paste,but I thought this may be of some relevance on this board.
The Legacy of Jihad in India
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4616
July 2nd, 2005
The phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism has forged an inchoate strategic
alliance between the Israeli and Indian governments, while heightening the
awareness of a common threat-the institution of jihad-among the civilian
populations of these nations.
Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal
jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared
by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian
subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a
subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its
own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and
India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and
created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies
have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent
historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of
Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The
implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.
Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been
turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by
human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake`s
graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a
garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of
orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being
extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have
been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to
go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the
living history. [1]
Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and
imposition of the Shari`a in historical Palestine. The current essay
provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on
the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.
A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent
The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by
Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in
636-637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under
Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major
epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu
resisters on the Western coast of India from 636-713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and
Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during
636-870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870
C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of
Ghazni (from 1000- 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri`s conquest
of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]
This summary chronology necessarily overlooks the very determined and
successful resistance that was offered by the Hindus to both the Arab (in
particular) and Turkish invaders, for almost four centuries. For example,
despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni`s conquests-spurred by
shock-tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic jihad-his successors,
for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain beyond the Punjab
frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526),
and the later Mughal Empire (1526-1707), Muslim rulers failed to Islamize
large swaths of Indian territory, and most of the populace. [3] The first
Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483-1530), made these relevant observations upon
establishing his rule in India: [4]
[Hindustan] is a different world.once the water of Sindh is crossed,
everything is in the Hindustan way- land, water, tree, rock, people, and
horde, opinion and custom.Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
they call a pagan a Hindu.
Buddhist civilization within India, in stark contrast, proved far less
resilient. Vincent Smith has described the devastating impact of the late
12th century jihad razzias against the Buddhist communities of northern
India, centered around Bihar, based on Muslim sources, exclusively: [5]
The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolators,
states that the majority of the inhabitants were ``clean shaven Brahmans``,
who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was
informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college,
which the name Bihar signifies. A great library was scattered. When the
victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining
their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was burnt. The
multitude of images used in Medieval Buddhist worship always inflamed the
fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the
idolators. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares
still bear witness to the rage of the image breakers. Many noble monuments
of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the
course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the
existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its
strength resided chiefly in Bihar and certain adjoining territories. The
monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and
the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint
and obscure.
Three major waves of jihad campaigns (exclusive of the jihad conquest of
Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately, in establishing a permanent Muslim
dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi Sultanate, are summarized in the
following discussion. The imposition of dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu
populations is also characterized, in brief.
The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi
(in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall
nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These
narratives, and the processes they describe, make clear that the Arab
invaders intended from the outset to Islamize Sindh by conquest,
colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri, for example, records that
following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the
city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four
thousand colonists there. [7] The conquest of Debal had been a brutal
affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar. [8]
Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates
after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he
had no orders ( i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to
spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate
slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and ``700
beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured``. The
capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]
Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their
followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken
prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood,
were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can
now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was
followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves
in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is
found in the Chachnama.
Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying
out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law [10] and the wishes of al-Hajjaj
[11] by massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed
upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya and associated restrictive regulations
of dhimmitude. As a result, the Chachnama records, ``some [Hindus] resolved
to live in their native land, but others took flight in order to maintain
the faith of their ancestors, and their horses, domestics, and other
property`` [12] Thus a lasting pattern was set that would persist, as noted
by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb`s
reign (in 1707), [13]
.of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something
no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more
liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the
framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental principle of
Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme
authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being
infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full rights of citizens. At
the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an insulting title which
connoted political inferiority.The Islamic State regarded all non-Muslims as
enemies, to curb whose growth in power was conceived to be its main
interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to exterminate them
totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative
laid down in the Qur`an [ i.e., Q9:29] which calls upon Muslims to fight the
unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due humility. This was the tax the
Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a
Muslim ruler.
Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the British historian Sir Henry Elliot,
launched some seventeen jihad campaigns into India between 1000 and his
death in 1030 C.E. [14] Utbi, Mahmud`s court historian, viewed these
expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry.
[15] K.S. Lal illustrates this religious zeal to Islamize by force, as
manifested during a 23 year period between 1000 and 1023 C.E.: [16]
In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his
own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind
(Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya
King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom
like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except
those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions
took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa
Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at
Multan) were ``witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.`` In his
campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud ``converted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.``
In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions
took place. While describing ``the conquest of Kanauj,`` Utbi sums up the
situation thus: ``The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort. and the
inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.`` In
short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran
(Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During
his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were
attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his
example.
These continuous jihad campaigns were accompanied by great destruction and
acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi describes the slaughter which transpired during
the attacks on Thanesar and Sirsawa:
The chief of Thanesar was.obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah,
so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors for the purpose
of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of
the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people
were unable to drink it. Praise be to Allah. for the honour he bestows upon
Islam and Musalmans. [17]
[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his
followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels
were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the
Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with
the slaughter of the infidels. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of
the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty [18]
Mahmud`s final well-known expedition in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E.,
was similarly brutal, and destructive:
Mahmud captured the place [Somanath] without much difficulty and ordered a
general slaughter in which more than 50,000 persons are said to have
perished. The idol of Somanath was broken to pieces which were sent to
Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets and the staircases of chief
mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going there for their prayers [19]
Over 900 years apart, remarkably concordant assessments of Mahmud`s
devastating exploits have been written by the renowned 11th century Muslim
scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud), and the contemporary Indian
historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni, from about 1030 C.E.: [20]
Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country.by which the Hindus
became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of
old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course
the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why
Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to
Kashmir, Benares, and other places.
Srivastava in 1950, wrote: [21]
To the Indian world of his day Mahmud was a veritable devil incarnate- a
daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer, and wanton destroyer of Art. He
plundered many dozens of.flourishing cities; he razed to the ground great
temples which were wonderful works of art; he carried thousands of innocent
women and children into slavery; he indulged in wanton massacre practically
everywhere he went; and.he forcibly converted hundred of.unwilling people to
Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate towns and villages and dead
bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered by posterity by any
other title.
K.S. Lal believes that by the late 12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was
consummately prepared for the conquest and rule of India. Well-elaborated
theological justifications for jihad, and comprehensive writings on India`s
geography and sociopolitical culture were readily available to him,
complementing his powerful army of Turks, Persians, and Afghans.
He now possessed Alberuni`s India and Burhanuddin`s Hidayah, works which
were not available to his predecessor invader. Alberuni`s enecyclopedic work
provided to the Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was
militarily advantageous to know about India. Equally important was the
Hidayah, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh
Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century. These and similar works, and the
military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris
and their successors better equipped for the conquest and governance of
non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that such works were made
available, meticulously studied and constantly referred to by scholars
attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and kings. [22]
Muhammad Ghauri launched his first expeditions against Multan and Gujarat
(in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively). By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri`s
defeat of a Rajput confederation under Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj
Chauhan`s death),
Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi were captured in quick succession with
ruthless slaughter and a general destruction of temples, and their
replacement by mosques. The Sultan then proceeded to Ajmer which too
witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at
Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din Aibak who was to act as
Ghauri`s lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak became the first Sultan of
Delhi [23]
Qutub-ud-din Aibak`s accession in 1206 (consistent with Muhammad Ghauri`s
desires and plans), marks the founding of the Delhi Sultanate.
Finally, the imposition of Islamic law upon the Hindu populations of India,
i.e., their relegation to dhimmi status, beginning with the advent of Muslim
rule in 8th century Sindh, had predictable consequences during both the
Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526 C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707
C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights these germane features of Hindu status
during the Delhi Sultanate: [24]
Throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi, Islam was the religion of
the State. It was considered to be the duty of the Sultan and his government
to defend and uphold the principles of this religion and to propagate them
among the masses.even the most enlightened among them [the Sultans], like
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles of their faith and refused
permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples.Thus even during the reign
of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus had no permission to
build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout the period, they were
known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee, and the guarantee
was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following their religion if
they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate their religious rites
openly.and never to do any propaganda on behalf of their religion. A number
of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters of State employment and
enjoyment of civic rights.It was a practice with the Sultans to destroy the
Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tughlaq and Sikander Lodi prohibited
Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank steps for ritual bathers] in
the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in every possible way to embrace the
Muslim religion. The converts were exempted from the jizya and given posts
in the State service and even granted rewards in cash, or by grant of land.
In short, there was not only no real freedom for the Hindus to follow their
religion, but the state followed a policy of intolerance and persecution.
The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound in detailed descriptions of
desecration of images and destruction of temples and of the conversion of
hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu] religious buildings and places
bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of the Sultans and their followers.
One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura, Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities
to see the half broken temples and images of those times with their heads,
faces, hands and feet defaced and demolished.
Majumdar sees a continuum between the Delhi Sultanate and the subsequent
Mughal Empire, regarding the status of the Hindus: [25]
So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in
their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims.
With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by
removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all
other Mughal Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim
law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus.and
thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as
compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughal Emperors (and other
Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was displayed by their predecessors, the
Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzeb, who
deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples
and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since.
Majumdar also makes this interesting juxtaposition of Hindu cultural
advancement under the lengthy period of Muslim colonial rule, compared to
the much shorter interval of British colonial rule: [26]
Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu
learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu
culture during their rule.pales into insignificance when compared with the
achievements of the British rule.It is only by instituting such comparison
that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under
Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.
Andrew Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the
forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus Books (2005).
Notes
[1] Jadunath Sarkar ``The Condition of Hindus under Muslim Rule``, The
Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta, Puja Annual (Deepavali special) 1950.
[2] A.L. Srivastava. ``A Survey of India`s Resistance to Medieval Invaders
from the North-West: Causes of Eventual Hindu Defeat``, Journal of Indian
History, 1965, pp. 349-350.
[3] A.L. Srivastava., The Sultanate of Delhi (711-1526 A.D.) , Agra, 1950,
p.127; R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, Bombay, 1960, p.xxiii, states, for example,
with regard to the Delhi Sultanate:
The popular notion that after the conquest of Muhammad Ghauri, India
formed a Muslim Empire under various dynasties, is hardly borne out by
facts.barring the two very short lived empires under the Khaljis and
Muhammad bin Tughlaq which lasted respectively, for less than twenty and ten
years, there was no Turkish empire of India. The Delhi Sultanate, as the
symbol of this empire, continued in name throughout the period under review
[ i.e., 1206-1526] but, gradually shorn of power and prestige, it was
reduced to a phantom by the invasion of Timur at the end of the fourteenth
century A.D.
For discussions of the limits of the Mughal Empire, see: A.L.
Srivastava.,The History of India (1000 A.D- 1707 A.D.), Agra, 1964, pp.
674-676; and K.S. Lal. Indian Muslims-Who Are They? , New Delhi, 1990, pp.
122-123, 127, 136-137.
[4] Baburnama. Translated by A.S. Beveridge, Lahore, Sangmeel Publications
(reprint), 1976, pp. 484,518.
[5] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1928, p. 221.
[6] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan).
Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924,
pp. 217-224; Al-Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and
J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan
Period, 1867-1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211.
[7] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State, Part II , p. 218.
[8] R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 3, The Classical Age, Bombay, 1954, p. 458.
[9] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 458-459.
[10] From a translation of Ziauddin Barani`s Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa,
1358-9 C.E., in Mohammad Habib. The political theory of the Delhi
sultanate., Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1961, pp. 46-47.
[11] Chachnama, Elliot and Dowson, pp. 173-174.
[12] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 460.
[13] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 461-462.
[14] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, Appendix Note D, pp. 434-484.
[15] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 52.
[16] K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India , New Delhi, Aditya
Prakashan, 1992, pp. 96-97
[17] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 40-41.
[18] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 49.
[19] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 59.
[20] Alberuni. Alberuni`s India- An Account of the Religion, Philosophy,
Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology
of India (about 1030 C.E), Edited by E.C. Sachau, 1888 (reprinted New Delhi,
1993), p. 22.
[21] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 61-62.
[22] K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, New Delhi,
Aditya Prakashan, 1999, pp.20-21.
[23] Lal. Muslim State in India , p. 21
[24] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, pp. 304-305.
[25] R.C. Majumdar (editor) The Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974, p. xi.
[26] Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 623
Andrew G. Bostom
The Legacy of Jihad in India
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4616
July 2nd, 2005
The phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism has forged an inchoate strategic
alliance between the Israeli and Indian governments, while heightening the
awareness of a common threat-the institution of jihad-among the civilian
populations of these nations.
Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal
jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared
by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian
subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a
subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its
own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and
India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and
created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies
have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent
historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of
Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The
implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.
Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been
turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by
human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake`s
graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a
garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of
orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being
extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have
been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to
go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the
living history. [1]
Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and
imposition of the Shari`a in historical Palestine. The current essay
provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on
the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.
A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent
The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by
Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in
636-637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under
Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major
epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu
resisters on the Western coast of India from 636-713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and
Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during
636-870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870
C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of
Ghazni (from 1000- 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri`s conquest
of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]
This summary chronology necessarily overlooks the very determined and
successful resistance that was offered by the Hindus to both the Arab (in
particular) and Turkish invaders, for almost four centuries. For example,
despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni`s conquests-spurred by
shock-tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic jihad-his successors,
for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain beyond the Punjab
frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526),
and the later Mughal Empire (1526-1707), Muslim rulers failed to Islamize
large swaths of Indian territory, and most of the populace. [3] The first
Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483-1530), made these relevant observations upon
establishing his rule in India: [4]
[Hindustan] is a different world.once the water of Sindh is crossed,
everything is in the Hindustan way- land, water, tree, rock, people, and
horde, opinion and custom.Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
they call a pagan a Hindu.
Buddhist civilization within India, in stark contrast, proved far less
resilient. Vincent Smith has described the devastating impact of the late
12th century jihad razzias against the Buddhist communities of northern
India, centered around Bihar, based on Muslim sources, exclusively: [5]
The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolators,
states that the majority of the inhabitants were ``clean shaven Brahmans``,
who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was
informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college,
which the name Bihar signifies. A great library was scattered. When the
victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining
their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was burnt. The
multitude of images used in Medieval Buddhist worship always inflamed the
fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the
idolators. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares
still bear witness to the rage of the image breakers. Many noble monuments
of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the
course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the
existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its
strength resided chiefly in Bihar and certain adjoining territories. The
monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and
the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint
and obscure.
Three major waves of jihad campaigns (exclusive of the jihad conquest of
Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately, in establishing a permanent Muslim
dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi Sultanate, are summarized in the
following discussion. The imposition of dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu
populations is also characterized, in brief.
The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi
(in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall
nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These
narratives, and the processes they describe, make clear that the Arab
invaders intended from the outset to Islamize Sindh by conquest,
colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri, for example, records that
following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the
city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four
thousand colonists there. [7] The conquest of Debal had been a brutal
affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar. [8]
Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates
after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he
had no orders ( i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to
spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate
slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and ``700
beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured``. The
capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]
Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their
followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken
prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood,
were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can
now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was
followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves
in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is
found in the Chachnama.
Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying
out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law [10] and the wishes of al-Hajjaj
[11] by massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed
upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya and associated restrictive regulations
of dhimmitude. As a result, the Chachnama records, ``some [Hindus] resolved
to live in their native land, but others took flight in order to maintain
the faith of their ancestors, and their horses, domestics, and other
property`` [12] Thus a lasting pattern was set that would persist, as noted
by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb`s
reign (in 1707), [13]
.of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something
no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more
liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the
framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental principle of
Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme
authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being
infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full rights of citizens. At
the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an insulting title which
connoted political inferiority.The Islamic State regarded all non-Muslims as
enemies, to curb whose growth in power was conceived to be its main
interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to exterminate them
totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative
laid down in the Qur`an [ i.e., Q9:29] which calls upon Muslims to fight the
unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due humility. This was the tax the
Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a
Muslim ruler.
Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the British historian Sir Henry Elliot,
launched some seventeen jihad campaigns into India between 1000 and his
death in 1030 C.E. [14] Utbi, Mahmud`s court historian, viewed these
expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry.
[15] K.S. Lal illustrates this religious zeal to Islamize by force, as
manifested during a 23 year period between 1000 and 1023 C.E.: [16]
In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his
own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind
(Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya
King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom
like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except
those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions
took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa
Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at
Multan) were ``witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.`` In his
campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud ``converted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.``
In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions
took place. While describing ``the conquest of Kanauj,`` Utbi sums up the
situation thus: ``The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort. and the
inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.`` In
short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran
(Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During
his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were
attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his
example.
These continuous jihad campaigns were accompanied by great destruction and
acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi describes the slaughter which transpired during
the attacks on Thanesar and Sirsawa:
The chief of Thanesar was.obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah,
so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors for the purpose
of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of
the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people
were unable to drink it. Praise be to Allah. for the honour he bestows upon
Islam and Musalmans. [17]
[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his
followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels
were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the
Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with
the slaughter of the infidels. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of
the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty [18]
Mahmud`s final well-known expedition in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E.,
was similarly brutal, and destructive:
Mahmud captured the place [Somanath] without much difficulty and ordered a
general slaughter in which more than 50,000 persons are said to have
perished. The idol of Somanath was broken to pieces which were sent to
Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets and the staircases of chief
mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going there for their prayers [19]
Over 900 years apart, remarkably concordant assessments of Mahmud`s
devastating exploits have been written by the renowned 11th century Muslim
scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud), and the contemporary Indian
historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni, from about 1030 C.E.: [20]
Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country.by which the Hindus
became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of
old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course
the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why
Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to
Kashmir, Benares, and other places.
Srivastava in 1950, wrote: [21]
To the Indian world of his day Mahmud was a veritable devil incarnate- a
daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer, and wanton destroyer of Art. He
plundered many dozens of.flourishing cities; he razed to the ground great
temples which were wonderful works of art; he carried thousands of innocent
women and children into slavery; he indulged in wanton massacre practically
everywhere he went; and.he forcibly converted hundred of.unwilling people to
Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate towns and villages and dead
bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered by posterity by any
other title.
K.S. Lal believes that by the late 12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was
consummately prepared for the conquest and rule of India. Well-elaborated
theological justifications for jihad, and comprehensive writings on India`s
geography and sociopolitical culture were readily available to him,
complementing his powerful army of Turks, Persians, and Afghans.
He now possessed Alberuni`s India and Burhanuddin`s Hidayah, works which
were not available to his predecessor invader. Alberuni`s enecyclopedic work
provided to the Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was
militarily advantageous to know about India. Equally important was the
Hidayah, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh
Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century. These and similar works, and the
military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris
and their successors better equipped for the conquest and governance of
non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that such works were made
available, meticulously studied and constantly referred to by scholars
attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and kings. [22]
Muhammad Ghauri launched his first expeditions against Multan and Gujarat
(in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively). By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri`s
defeat of a Rajput confederation under Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj
Chauhan`s death),
Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi were captured in quick succession with
ruthless slaughter and a general destruction of temples, and their
replacement by mosques. The Sultan then proceeded to Ajmer which too
witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at
Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din Aibak who was to act as
Ghauri`s lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak became the first Sultan of
Delhi [23]
Qutub-ud-din Aibak`s accession in 1206 (consistent with Muhammad Ghauri`s
desires and plans), marks the founding of the Delhi Sultanate.
Finally, the imposition of Islamic law upon the Hindu populations of India,
i.e., their relegation to dhimmi status, beginning with the advent of Muslim
rule in 8th century Sindh, had predictable consequences during both the
Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526 C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707
C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights these germane features of Hindu status
during the Delhi Sultanate: [24]
Throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi, Islam was the religion of
the State. It was considered to be the duty of the Sultan and his government
to defend and uphold the principles of this religion and to propagate them
among the masses.even the most enlightened among them [the Sultans], like
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles of their faith and refused
permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples.Thus even during the reign
of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus had no permission to
build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout the period, they were
known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee, and the guarantee
was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following their religion if
they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate their religious rites
openly.and never to do any propaganda on behalf of their religion. A number
of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters of State employment and
enjoyment of civic rights.It was a practice with the Sultans to destroy the
Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tughlaq and Sikander Lodi prohibited
Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank steps for ritual bathers] in
the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in every possible way to embrace the
Muslim religion. The converts were exempted from the jizya and given posts
in the State service and even granted rewards in cash, or by grant of land.
In short, there was not only no real freedom for the Hindus to follow their
religion, but the state followed a policy of intolerance and persecution.
The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound in detailed descriptions of
desecration of images and destruction of temples and of the conversion of
hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu] religious buildings and places
bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of the Sultans and their followers.
One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura, Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities
to see the half broken temples and images of those times with their heads,
faces, hands and feet defaced and demolished.
Majumdar sees a continuum between the Delhi Sultanate and the subsequent
Mughal Empire, regarding the status of the Hindus: [25]
So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in
their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims.
With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by
removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all
other Mughal Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim
law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus.and
thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as
compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughal Emperors (and other
Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was displayed by their predecessors, the
Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzeb, who
deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples
and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since.
Majumdar also makes this interesting juxtaposition of Hindu cultural
advancement under the lengthy period of Muslim colonial rule, compared to
the much shorter interval of British colonial rule: [26]
Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu
learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu
culture during their rule.pales into insignificance when compared with the
achievements of the British rule.It is only by instituting such comparison
that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under
Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.
Andrew Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the
forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus Books (2005).
Notes
[1] Jadunath Sarkar ``The Condition of Hindus under Muslim Rule``, The
Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta, Puja Annual (Deepavali special) 1950.
[2] A.L. Srivastava. ``A Survey of India`s Resistance to Medieval Invaders
from the North-West: Causes of Eventual Hindu Defeat``, Journal of Indian
History, 1965, pp. 349-350.
[3] A.L. Srivastava., The Sultanate of Delhi (711-1526 A.D.) , Agra, 1950,
p.127; R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, Bombay, 1960, p.xxiii, states, for example,
with regard to the Delhi Sultanate:
The popular notion that after the conquest of Muhammad Ghauri, India
formed a Muslim Empire under various dynasties, is hardly borne out by
facts.barring the two very short lived empires under the Khaljis and
Muhammad bin Tughlaq which lasted respectively, for less than twenty and ten
years, there was no Turkish empire of India. The Delhi Sultanate, as the
symbol of this empire, continued in name throughout the period under review
[ i.e., 1206-1526] but, gradually shorn of power and prestige, it was
reduced to a phantom by the invasion of Timur at the end of the fourteenth
century A.D.
For discussions of the limits of the Mughal Empire, see: A.L.
Srivastava.,The History of India (1000 A.D- 1707 A.D.), Agra, 1964, pp.
674-676; and K.S. Lal. Indian Muslims-Who Are They? , New Delhi, 1990, pp.
122-123, 127, 136-137.
[4] Baburnama. Translated by A.S. Beveridge, Lahore, Sangmeel Publications
(reprint), 1976, pp. 484,518.
[5] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1928, p. 221.
[6] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan).
Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924,
pp. 217-224; Al-Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and
J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan
Period, 1867-1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211.
[7] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State, Part II , p. 218.
[8] R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 3, The Classical Age, Bombay, 1954, p. 458.
[9] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 458-459.
[10] From a translation of Ziauddin Barani`s Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa,
1358-9 C.E., in Mohammad Habib. The political theory of the Delhi
sultanate., Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1961, pp. 46-47.
[11] Chachnama, Elliot and Dowson, pp. 173-174.
[12] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 460.
[13] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 461-462.
[14] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, Appendix Note D, pp. 434-484.
[15] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 52.
[16] K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India , New Delhi, Aditya
Prakashan, 1992, pp. 96-97
[17] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 40-41.
[18] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 49.
[19] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 59.
[20] Alberuni. Alberuni`s India- An Account of the Religion, Philosophy,
Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology
of India (about 1030 C.E), Edited by E.C. Sachau, 1888 (reprinted New Delhi,
1993), p. 22.
[21] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 61-62.
[22] K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, New Delhi,
Aditya Prakashan, 1999, pp.20-21.
[23] Lal. Muslim State in India , p. 21
[24] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, pp. 304-305.
[25] R.C. Majumdar (editor) The Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974, p. xi.
[26] Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 623
Andrew G. Bostom
#52 Posted by TheoVanGogh on July 5, 2005 4:40:59 am
Romair
Dont be so modest. I always crack up with laughter at your half-witted remedial postings and the Jihadi squeals of pain from atif2 and other bufoons of the Pakistani kind. Wait, you mean you guys are serious when you bend over and speak your anal warblings? Now thats real comedy ;-)
Dont be so modest. I always crack up with laughter at your half-witted remedial postings and the Jihadi squeals of pain from atif2 and other bufoons of the Pakistani kind. Wait, you mean you guys are serious when you bend over and speak your anal warblings? Now thats real comedy ;-)
#53 Posted by Kamath on July 5, 2005 6:01:39 am
Re: # 52
Are you the ghost of ` TheoVanGogh ` who was a film director who got killed by a young deranged religious fanatic in Holland ?. Why are you, here man, barging into readers` serious exchange of ideas?
Are you the ghost of ` TheoVanGogh ` who was a film director who got killed by a young deranged religious fanatic in Holland ?. Why are you, here man, barging into readers` serious exchange of ideas?
#51 Posted by cayenne on July 5, 2005 3:10:29 am
All this has no relevance , except curiosity , to those south asians from the konkan and southern indian regions.If the turkeys gave us pulao, which i believe morphed into Lucknowi and Hyderabadi biryani(the indian hyderabadi, please),then i am indeed grateful for their contribution to Indian culture.In my opinion , Paks are nothing but bastard sons and daughters of the invading iranians and turks.The kashmiris are iranian versions.North indians too, to a certain degree.I use the term ``bastard`` strictly, in the dictionary sense, based on historical perspective.Who cares?.India has more beautiful people as a result of all these cross polinations.Jai Hind.
#49 Posted by Ranjit on July 5, 2005 1:20:34 am
Re:googenschlaugen
Salim, if only all Pakistanis were like you, we would have utopia in the subcontinent :-).
Yaar, my bitterness comes from the non-stop violence and killing going on in Kashmir and the never ending peace talks with Pakistan that do not lead to anything concrete. If we had normal relations, we can close the chapter on communal issues once and for all and move on in life.
Salim, if only all Pakistanis were like you, we would have utopia in the subcontinent :-).
Yaar, my bitterness comes from the non-stop violence and killing going on in Kashmir and the never ending peace talks with Pakistan that do not lead to anything concrete. If we had normal relations, we can close the chapter on communal issues once and for all and move on in life.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- hamidm2: Re: # 129 tahmed mian, ....... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- Zeena: Re #186 tahmed32 I am... Terrorism Unveiled
- Pardesi: Now poor Durrani is... Terrorism Unveiled
- Dinaric: #1 Posted by nkg... The Palestinian Puzzle
- Dinaric: Gaza is the last... The Palestinian Puzzle
- tahmed32: HP/Zeena/Romair and other aziz... Terrorism Unveiled
- tahmed32: #128 hamidm: where am... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- drlokraj: This also points to... The Palestinian Puzzle
