difference between rajput and muslim soldiers while raput were brave respected women but muslim captured women

 

QUALITY OF RAJPUT SAINIK

This article is chiefly based on legacy of muslim rule in india by one of the  most respected historian of India    K S LAL

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 132

What did the Muslim army look like? There are excellent pen-pictures by Fakhr-i-Mudabbir in his Adab-ul-Harb and Amir Khusrau in his Khazainul-Futuh, besides of course many others. Similarly, there are descriptions of the Rajput army. Padmanabh, in his Kanhadade-Prabandh (written about the middle of the fifteenth century) has this to say about the Rajput warriors: They bathed the horses in the sacred water of Ganga. Then they offered them Kamal Puja. On their backs they put with sandal the impressions of their hands They put over them five types of armour, namely, war armour, saddles acting as armour, armour in the form of plates, steel armour, and armour woven out of cotton. Now what was the type of Kshatriyas who rode these horses? Those, who were above twenty-five and less than fifty in age, shot arrows with speed and were the most heroic. (Their) moustaches went up to their ears, and beards reached the navel. They were liberal and warlike. THEIR THOUGHTS WERE GOOD THEY REGARDED WIVES OF OTHERS AS THEIR SISTERS. They stood firm in battle, and struck after first challenging the enemy. They died after having killed first. They donned and used (all the) sixty-six weapons. If any one (of the enemy ranks) fell down THEY REGARDED THE FALLEN PERSON AS A CORPSE AND SALUTED IT. Similar descriptions are found in the Pachanika of Achaldas and other books.154

ARMY OF MUSLIM SULTANS WAS  FILLED WITH VOLUNTEER GAZIS, ALL MUSLIM SOLDIERS  WERE ALLOWED TO CAPTURE HINDU GIRLS YOUNG MALE  SLAVES AFTER GROWING UP  WERE RECRUITED IN ARMY AND SAILORY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THEM SO MUSLIM ARMY WAS VERY HUGE MORE THAN 5 LAX VERY GREATER THAN RAJPUT KINGS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 127 to 129

THE ARMY LIKE ADMINISTRATION THE CORE OF THE ARMY OF THE SULTANATE AND THE MUGHAL EMPIRE TOO WAS FOREIGN. The establishment, expansion and continuance of Muslim political power and religion in India was due to its army. 117 A very important source of strength of this army was the constant inflow of foreign soldiers from Muslim homelands beyond the Indus. These may be called, for the sake of brevity, by the generic terms Turks and Afghans. The Turks came as invaders and became rulers, army commanders and soldiers. The warlike character of the Afghans attracted the notice of the conquerors of India who freely enrolled them in their armies. Mahmud Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghauri brought thousands of Afghan horsemen with them.118 Indian sultans continued the tradition. They had a preference for homeland troops, or Muslim warriors from the trans-Indus region. In the time of Iltutmish, Jalaluddin of Khawarism, fleeing before Chingiz Khan, brought contingents of Afghan soldiers with him. In course of time, many of them took service under Iltutmish.119 Balban employed three thousand Afghan horse and foot in his campaigns against the Mewatis, and appointed thousands of Afghan officers and men for garrisoning forts like Gopalgir, Kampil, Patiali, Bhojpur and Jalali. In the royal processions of Balban hundreds of Sistani, Ghauri, Samarqandi and Arab soldiers with drawn swords used to march by his side. The Afghans had got accustomed to the adventure of soldiering in India. They joined in large numbers the armies of Mongol invaders as well as of Amir Timur when the latter marched into India. Like the Afghans, the Mongol (ethnically a generic term, again) soldiers too were there in the army of the Sultanate in large numbers. Abyssinian slave-soldiers and officers became prominent under Sultan Raziya. The immigration of foreign troops continued without break in the time of the Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Saiyyads and Lodis. Under the Saiyyad and Lodi rulers, they flocked into India like ants and locusts. As conquerors, officers and soldiers these foreigners were all in pretty nearly the same stage of civilization. The Khurasanis or Persians were, for instance, more advanced and perhaps possessed milder manners than the Turks. But considering their imperial point of view regarding Hindustan, this original difference of civilization was of little consequence. Their constant induction from Muslim lands contributed to the strength and maintenance of Muslim character of the army of the Sultanate. Indians, or Hindus, too used to be enrolled. Ziyauddin Barani was against the recruitment of non-Muslims in the army, 120 but right from the days of Mahmud of Ghazni, Hindus used to join Muslim armies,121 and lend strength to it.122 Most of the Hindus in the army belonged to the infantry wing and were called Paiks. Some of these were poor persons and joined the army for the sake of securing employment. Others were slaves and warcaptives. The Paiks cleared the jungles and were often used as cannon fodder in battle.123 But others, especially professionals, joined the permanent cadre of infantry for combat purposes. Barbosa (early sixteenth century) says this about them: They carry swords and daggers, bows and arrows. They are right good archers and their bows are long like those of England. They are mostly Hindus.124 They were a loyal lot. Alauddin Khalji, Mubarak Khalji and Firoz Tughlaq were saved by Paiks when they were attacked by rivals and adventurers,125 a phenomenon so common in Muslim history. But despite their loyalty the Paiks remained relegated to an inferior position. There were also Muslim mercenaries or volunteers enrolled on the eve of a campaign. THE VOLUNTEER ELEMENT IN THE ARMY WAS KNOWN BY THE NAME OF GHAZI. THE GHAZIS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SALARY, BUT RELIED MOSTLY ON RICH PICKINGS FROM THE INDIAN CAMPAIGNS. Prospect of loot whetted their thirst for war, the title of Ghazi spurred their ego. The victories of the Ghaznavids had attracted these plundering adventures to their standards. The tradition of enrolling Ghazi merecenaries was continued by the Turkish sultans in India.126 Right up to the Tughlaq times and beyond, merecenaries (Muslims says Afif for Firozs times) joined the army for love of plunder and concomitant gains. These enthusiasts naturally added strength to the regular army, and also to its character. SOLDIERS IN PERMANENT SERVICE, AND THE KINGS BODYGUARDS CALLED JANDARS, WERE LARGELY DRAWN FROM HIS PERSONAL SLAVES.127 Right from the days of Mahmud of Ghazni the pivot of the regular army was provided by the slave force (ghilman, mamalik).128 Young slaves were obtained as presents, as part of tribute from subordinate rulers and as captives during campaigns. They were also purchased in slave markets in India and abroad. Captured or imported, they were broken in and brainwashed at an early age, their minds moulded and their bodies trained for warfare. The practice may sound cruel but it was eminently Islamic and was universal in the Muslim lands.129 Compare, for example, the Dewshirme (collecting boys) system of the Turkish empire according to which every five years, and sometimes every year, the Ottomans enslaved all Balkan Jewish and Christian boys aged 10-15, took them to Constantinople and brought them up in Islamic ideology. They were used for the further subjugation of their own people.130 The value of the slave troops lay in their lack of roots and local connections and attachment to the master by a personal bond of fealty. The foundation of this relation was military clientship, the attachment of man to man, the loyalty of individual to individual, first by the relation of chief to his companion and, if the warrior master succeeded in conquest and setting up a dominion, by the relation of suzerain to vassal. The devotion of man to man is the basis of the slave system, of feudalism, of imperialism of the primeval type, and of the success of medieval Muslim army. Slaves were collected from all countries and nationalities. There were Turks, Persians, Buyids, Seljuqs, Oghuz (also called Irani Turkmen), Afghans, Khaljis, Hindu etc. in the army of Mahmud. The success of the Ghaznavids and Ghaurids in India was due, besides other reasons, to the staunchly loyal slave troops.131 THIS TRADITION OF OBTAINING SLAVES BY ALL METHODS AND FROM ALL REGIONS, WAS CONTINUED BY THE DELHI SULTANS. IN HIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST KATEHAR BALBAN MASSACRED ALL MALE CAPTIVES EXCEPT BOYS UP TO THE AGE OF EIGHT OR NINE.132 IT WAS THE PRACTICE WITH MOST SULTANS,133 AND MAKING SLAVES OF YOUNG HINDU BOYS BY MUSLIM VICTORS WAS COMMON. As these slave boys grew in age, they could hardly remember their parents and remained loyal only to the king. Alauddin Khalji possessed 50,000 slave boys,134 who, as they grew up, would have made his strong army stronger. Muhammad Tughlaq also obtained slaves through campaigns. Firoz Tughlaq commanded his fief-holders and officers to capture slaves whenever they were at war. He had also instructed his Amils and Jagirdars to collect slave boys in place of revenue and tribute.135 In short, the medieval Muslim slave-system was a constant supplier of loyal troops to the Muslim army, from India and abroad.

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 132

The most graphic description of the Muslim army is by a Hindu, the famous Maithli poet Vidyapati of the fourteenth century. Vidyapati was patronised by Sultans Ghiyasuddin and Nasiruddin of Bengal. Writing about Muslim soldiers, he says: Sometimes they ate only raw flesh. Their eyes were red with the intoxication of wine. They could run twenty yojanas within the span of half of a day. THEY USED TO PASS THE DAY WITH THE (BARE) LOAF UNDER THEIR ARM (THE SOLDIER) TAKES INTO CUSTODY ALL THE WOMEN OF THE ENEMYS CITY WHEREVER THEY HAPPENED TO PASS in that very place the ladies of the Rajas house began to be sold in the market. They used to set fire to the villages. THEY TURNED OUT THE WOMEN (FROM THEIR HOMES) AND KILLED THE CHILDREN. LOOT WAS THEIR (SOURCE OF) INCOME. They subsisted on that. Neither did they have pity for the weak nor did they fear the strong They had nothing to do with righteousness They never kept their promise They were neither desirous of good name, not did they fear bad name155 At another place he says: Somewhere a Musalman shows his rage and attacks (the Hindus) It appears on seeing the Turks that they would swallow up the whole lot of Hindus.156