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
page 1
|| page 2
|