FOREIGN MUSLIM SULTANS DESTROYED TEMPLES CAPTURED AND RAPED ALL CASTES HINDU WOMEN MADE MALE FEMALE CHILDREN SLAVES , AND SOLD THEM AND DID FORCEFULL CONVERSION
FOREIGN MUSLIM SULTANS CAPTURED ALL
CASTES HINDU WOMEN MADE THEM SEX SLAVES
DESTROYED TEMPLES ,KILLED CIVILIAN HINDUS, AND MADE HINDU CHILDREN
SLAVES AND SOLD HINDU SLAVES IN DIFFERENT MUSLIM MARKETS AND DID FORCEFULL CONVERSION
You will find some numbers in this
article actually that is references which detail is in the end of book
ISLAM IDEOLOGY WHICH COMMANDS TO
BREAK IDOLS AND CAPTURING KAFIR GIRLS AND MAKING SLAVES
P ROFIT MOHAMMAD HAD
HIMSELF DESTROYED TEMPLE AND IDOLS
LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S
Lal page 78
In Surah (Chapter) 2, ayat
(injunction) 193, the Quran says, Fight against them (the mushriks) until
idolatry is no more, and Allahs religion reigns supreme. The command is
repeated in Surah 8, ayat 39. In Surah 69, ayats 3037 it is ordained: Lay hold
of him and bind him. Bum him in the fire of hell. And again: When you meet the
unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid
them low, bind your captives firmly (47.14-15). Cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads,
maim them in every limb (8:12). Such commands, exhortations and injunctions
are repeatedly mentioned in Islamic scriptures. The main medium through which
these injunctions were to be carried out was the holy Jihad. The Jihad or holy war is a
multi-dimensional concept. It means fighting for the sake of Allah, for the
cause of Islam, for converting people to the true faith and for destroying
their temples. Iconoclasm and razing other peoples temples is central to
Islam; it derives its justification from the Quranic revelations and the Prophets
Sunnah or practice. MUHAMMAD HAD HIMSELF
DESTROYED TEMPLES IN ARABIA AND SO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR HIS FOLLOWERS. In
return the mujahid (or fighter of Jihad) is promised handsome reward in this
world as well as in the world to come. Without Jihad there is no Islam. Jihad
is a religious duty of every Muslim. It
inspired Muslim invaders and rulers to do deeds of valour, of horror and of
terror. Their chroniclers wrote about the achievements of the heroes of
Islam with zeal and glee, often in the very language they had learnt from their
scriptures
MOHAMMAD BIN KASIM
Legacy of
muslim rule in india by ks lal Page 79
When
Muhammad began the invasion of Debal, Raja Dahir was staying in his capital
Alor about 500 kms. away. Dabal was in the charge of a governor with a garrison
of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few thousand Brahmans, and
therefore Raja Dahir did not march to its defence immediately. All this while,
the young invader was keeping in close contact with Hajjaj, soliciting the
latters advice even on the smallest matters. So efficient was the communication
system that letters were written every three days and replies were received in
seven days,12 so that the campaign was virtually directed by the veteran Hajjaj
himselfWhen the siege of Debal had continued for some time a defector informed
Muhammad about how the temple could be captured. Thereupon the Arabs, planting
their ladders stormed the citadel-temple and swarmed over the walls. As per
Islamic injunctions, the inhabitants were invited to accept Islam, and on their
refusal all adult males were put to the sword and their wives and children were enslaved. The carnage lasted for three
days. The temple was razed and a mosque built. Muhammad laid out a Muslim
quarter, and placed a garrison of 4,000 in the town. The legal fifth of the
spoil including seventyfive damsels was sent to Hajjaj, and the rest of the
plunder was divided among the soldiers.14 As this was the pattern of all future
sieges and victories of Muhammad bin Qasim - as indeed of all future Muslim invaders
of Hindustan - it may be repeated. Inhabitants of a captured fort or town were
invited to accept Islam. Those who converted were spared. Those who refused
were massacred. Their women and children
were enslaved and converted. Temples were broken and on their sites and with
their materials were constructed mosques, khanqahs, sarais and tombs
DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLE AND MURDERING OF I LAX CIVILIAN HINDU POPULATION IN AJMER BY GAURI
LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S
Lal Page 46
Hasan Nizami, author of
Taj-ul-Maasir, thus wrote about the conquest of Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri in
1192:The victorious army on the right and on the left
departed towards Ajmer When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white
shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch
was flowing impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue The army of Islam was completely
victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly departed to the
fire of hell He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and foundations of the idol
temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of
Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.2
MAASIVE CIVILIAN KILLING BY AKBAR AND
JAHAGIR AND PROTEST BY HINDU FARMERS
LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S
Lal Page 241 to 245
But as the
people put up a continual resistance, the Muslim government suppressed them
ruthlessly. In this exercise the Mughal
emperors were no better than the pre-Mughal sultans. We have often referred to
the atrocities of the Delhi sultans and their provincial governors. Abul Fazl,
Bernier and Manucci provide detailed accounts of the exertion of the Mughals.
Its summing up by Jahangir is the most telling. In his Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi he
writes: I am compelled to observe, with whatever regret, that
notwithstanding the frequent and sanguinary executions which have been dealt
among the people of Hindustan, the number of the turbulent and disaffected
never seems to diminish; for what with the examples made during the reign of my
father, and subsequently of my own, there is scarcely a province in the empire
in which, either in battle or by the sword of the executioner, five or six
hundred thousand human beings have not, at various periods, fallen victims to
this fatal disposition to discontent and turbulence. Ever and anon, in one
quarter or another, will some accursed miscreant spring up to unfurl the
standard of rebellion; so that in Hindustan never has there existed a period of
complete repose.72In such a society, observes Kolf, the millions of armed men,
cultivators and otherwise, were its (governments) rivals rather than its
subjects.73 This attitude was the consequence of the Mughal governments policy
of repression. As an example, the
exploits of one of Jahangirs commanders, Abdullah Khan Uzbeg Firoz Jung, can
provide an idea of the excessive cruelty perpetrated by the government. Peter
Mundy, who travelled from Agra to Patna in 1632 saw, during his four days
journey, 200 minars (pillars) on which a total of about 7000 heads were fixed
with mortar. On his way back four months later, he noticed that meanwhile
another 60 minars with between 2000 and 2400 heads had been added and that the
erection of new ones had not yet stopped.74 Abdullah Khans force of 12,000
horse and 20,000 foot destroyed, in the Kalpi-Kanauj area, all towns, took all
their goods, their wives and children as slaves and beheaded and immortered the
chiefest of their men.75 Why, even
Akbars name stands besmeared with wanton killings. In his siege of Chittor
(October 1567) the regular garrison of 8000 Rajputs was vigorously helped by
40,000 armed peasants who had shown great zeal and activity. This infuriated
the emperor to massacre 30,000 of them.76 In short, the Indian peasant was
clear in his mind about meeting the onslaughts of nature and man. Attached to
his land as he was, he resisted the oppression of the rulers as far as his
resources, strength and stamina permitted. If conditions went beyond his
control, he left his land and established himself in some other place. Indeed,
migration or flight was the peasants first answer to famine or mans oppression.
Baburs description of this process may be quoted in his own words: In
Hindustan, says he, hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set
up in a moment. If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years even,
flee from it, they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains
in a day or a day and a half. On the other hand, if they fix their eyes on a
place in which to settle, they make a tank or dig a well; they need not build
houses or set up walls, khas-grass abounds, wood is unlimited, huts are made
and straightaway there is a village or a town.77 Similar is the testimony of
Col. Wilks about South India. On the approach of a hostile army, the
inhabitants of India bury underground their most cumbrous effects, and issue
from their beloved homes and take the direction sometimes of a strong fortress,
but more generally of the most unfrequented hills and woods. According to Amir
Khusrau, wherever the army marched, every inhabited spot was desolated When the
army arrived there (Warangal, Deccan), the Hindu inhabitants concealed
themselves in hills and jungles.78 This process of flight seems to have
continued throughout the Mughal period, both in the North and the South.
Writing ofthe days of Shahjahan, Bernier says that many of the peasantry,
driven to despair by so execrable a tyranny, abandon the country and sometimes
fly to the territories of a Raja because they find less oppression and are
allowed a greater degree of comfort
detruction of temple by Mahmud and capturing hindu women killing
civilian hindu population and and forcefully conversion of hindus including
kings and killing of nawasa khan when he reconverted to hindu fold so that no one new convert can dare to become
hindu again
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 86 t0 92
Let us very
briefly recapitulate the achievements of Sultan Mahmud in the usual fields of
Islamic expansionism, conversions of non-Muslims to Islam, destruction of
temples and acquisition of wealth in order to appreciate the encomiums bestowed
upon him as being one of the greatest Muslim conquerors of medieval India. 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.36 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. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, Islam spread in this part of the country
by the consent of the people and the influence of force. According to all
contemporary and later chroniclers like Qazwini, Utbi, Farishtah etc.,
conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objectives of Mahmud. Wherever he went, he insisted on the people
to convert to Islam. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the
vanquished Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even without
giving a battle. The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai
was that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be made a
Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpals uncles and relations, when they demanded
quarter in their distress.37 Mahmud
broke temples and desecrated idols wherever he went. The number of temples
destroyed by him during his campaigns is so large that a detailed list is
neither possible nor necessary. However, he concentrated more on razing
renowned temples to bring glory to Islam rather than waste time on small ones.
Some famous temples destroyed by him may be noted here. At Thaneshwar, the
temple of Chakraswamin was sacked and its bronze image of Vishnu was taken to
Ghazni to be thrown into the hippodrome of the city. Similarly, the magnificent
central temple of Mathura was destroyed and its idols broken. At Mathura there
was no armed resistance; the people had fled, and Mahmud had been greatly
impressed with the beauty and grandeur of the shrines.38 And yet the temples in
the city were thoroughly sacked. Kanauj had a large number of temples (Utbis
ten thousand merely signifies a large number), some of great antiquity. Their
destruction was made easy by the flight of those who were not prepared either
to die or embrace Islam. Somnath shared the fate of Chakraswamin. 39 The sack
of Somnath in particular came to be considered a specially pious exploit
because of its analogy with the destruction of idol of Al Manat in Arabia by
the Prophet. This explains the idolization of Mahmud by Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi,40
and the ideal treatment he has received from early Sufi poets like Sanai and
Attar, not to mention such collectors of anecdotes as Awfi.41 It is indeed
noticeable that after the Somnath expedition (417H./ 1026 C.E.), a deed which
had fired the imagination of the Islamic world, Caliph al-Qadir Billah himself
celebrated the victory with great eclat. He sent Mahmud a very complimentary
letter giving him the title of Kahf-uddaula wa al-Islam, and formally
recognizing him as the ruler of Hindustan.42 It is also significant that Mahmud
for the first time issued his coins from Lahore only after his second
commendation from the Caliph. Mahmud Ghaznavi collected lot of wealth from
regions of his visitations. A few facts and figures may be given as
illustrations. In his war against Jayapal (1001-02 C.E.) the latter had to pay
a ransom of 2,50,000 dinars for securing release from captivity. Even the
necklace of which he was relieved was estimated at 2,00,000 dinars (gold coin)
and twice that value was obtained from the necks of those of his relatives who
were taken prisoners or slain43 A couple of years later, all the wealth of
Bhera, which was as wealthy as imagination can conceive, was captured by the conqueror
(1004- 05 C.E.). In 1005-06 the people of Multan were forced to pay an
indemnity of the value of 20,000,000 (royal) dirhams (silver coin). When Nawasa
Shah, who had reconverted to Hinduism, was ousted (1007-08), the Sultan took
possession of his treasures amounting to 400,000 dirhams. Shortly after, from
the fort of Bhimnagar in Kangra, Mahmud seized coins of the value of 70,000,000
(Hindu Shahiya) dirhams, and gold and silver ingots weighing some hundred
maunds, jewellery and precious stones. There was also a collapsible house of
silver, thirty yards in length and fifteen yards in breadth, and a canopy
(mandapika) supported by two golden and two silver poles.44 Such was the wealth
obtained that it could not be shifted immediately, and Mahmud had to leave two
of his most confidential chamberlains, Altuntash and Asightin, to look after
its gradual transportation.45 In the succeeding expeditions (1015-20) more and
more wealth was drained out of the Punjab and other parts of India. Besides the
treasures collected by Mahmud, his soldiers also looted independently. From
Baran Mahmud obtained, 1,000,000 dirhams and from Mahaban a large booty. In the
sack of Mathura five idols alone yielded 98,300 misqals (about 10 maunds) of
gold.46 The idols of silver numbered two hundred. Kanauj, Munj, Asni, Sharva
and some other places yielded another 3,000,000 dirhams. We may skip over many
other details and only mention that at Somnath his gains amounted to 20,000,000
dinars. 47 These figures are more or less authentic as Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi,
who mentions them, was the Secretary to Sultan Mahmud, so that he enjoyed
excellent opportunities of becoming fully conversant with the operations and
gains of the conqueror. He clearly notes the amount when collected in Hindu Shahiya
coinage or in some other currency, and also gives the value of all acquisitions
in the royal (Mahmuds) coins. A little error here or there does in no way
minimise the colossal loss suffered by north India in general and the Punjab in
particular during Mahmuds invasions. The extent of this loss can be gauged from
the fact that no coins (dramma) of Jayapal, Anandpal or Trilochanpal have been
found.48 The economic effects of the loss of precious metals to India had a
number of facets. The flow of bullion outside India resulted in stablizing
Ghaznavid currency49 and in the same proportion debasing Indian. Consequently,
the gold content of north Indian coins in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
went down from 120 to 60 grams.50 Similarly, the weight and content of the
silver coin was also reduced. Because of debasement of coinage Indian merchants
lost their credit with foreign merchants.51
PUNISHMENT OF BRAHMAN FOR WORSHOPING HIND GOD AND BURNING HIM BY MUSLIM SULTAN
LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S
LalPage 20
A report was brought to the Sultan
(Firoz Tughlaq 1351-88) that there was in Delhi an old Brahman (Zunar dar) who
persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that the people of the city,
both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol.
This Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet (muhrak), which was covered within
and without with paintings of demons and other objects. On days appointed, the
infidels went to his house and worshipped the idol, without the fact becoming
known to the public officers. The Sultan was informed that this Brahman had
perverted Muhammadan women, and had led them to become infidels. (These women
were surely newly converted and had not been able to completely cut themselves
off from their original faith). An order was accordingly given that the
Brahman, with his tablet, should be brought in the presence of the Sultan at
Firozabad. The judges, doctors, and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the
case of the Brahman was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the
provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahman must either become a Musalman or
be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahman, and the right course
pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile
of faggots before the door of the darbar. The
Brahman was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on the
top and the pile was lighted. The
writer of this book (Shams Siraj Afif) was present at the darbar and witnessed
the execution the wood was dry, and the fire first reached his feet, and drew
from him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him.
Behold the Sultans strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not
deviate in the least from its decrees.39
OTHER INSTANCES OF BRAHMAN KILLING
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 21
During the reign of Firoz himself the
Hindu governor of Uchch was killed. He was falsely accused of expressing
affirmation in Islam and then recanting.40 In the time of Sikandar Lodi
(1489-1517) a Brahman of Kaner in Sambhal was similarly punished with death for
committing the crime of declaring as much as that Islam was true, but his own
religion was also true.41
MURDUR OF RAJPUTS AND BRAHMANS WHEN THEY CAME AGAIN IN
HINDU FAITH
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lalpage 21
During the
reign of Firoz himself the Hindu governor of Uchch was killed. He was falsely
accused of expressing affirmation in Islam and then recanting.40 In the time of
Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) a Brahman of Kaner in Sambhal was similarly punished
with death for committing the crime of declaring as much as that Islam was
true, but his own religion was also true.41
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal page 46
As an example, the language of some
contemporary chroniclers may be quoted as samples. Nawasa Shah was a scion of
the Hindu Shahiya dynasty and was converted to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni. Such
conversions were common. But return to ones original religion was considered
apostasy punishable with death. Al Utbi, the author of Tarikh-i-Yamini, writes
how Sultan Mahmud punished Nawasa Shah: Satan had got the better of Nawasa
Shah, for he was again apostatizing towards the pit of plural worship, and had
thrown off the slough of Islam, and held conversation with the chiefs of
idolatry respecting the casting off the firm rope of religion from his neck. So
the Sultan went swifter than the wind in that direction, and made the sword
reek with the blood of his enemies. He turned Nawasa Shah out of his
government, took possession of all the treasures which he had accumulated,
re-assumed the government, and then cut down the harvest of idolatry with the sickle
of his sword and spear. After God had granted him this and the previous
victory, which were tried witnesses as to his exalted state and proselytism, he
returned without difficulty to Ghazna
Temple were destructed for religious
zeal not for money
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page
64 and 65
One thing
that arouses unnecessary controversy is about the destruction and desecration
of temples and construction of mosques in their stead. Muslim chroniclers
repeatedly make mention of success of conquerors and rulers in this sphere. The chroniclers with first hand knowledge
wrote that their patrons did so with the avowed object of spreading Islam and
degrading infidelity in Hindustan. So Hajjaj instructed Muhammad bin Qasim. So
Mahmud of Ghazni promised the Khalifa. Amir Timur (Tamerlane) also proclaimed
the same intention. Still it is asserted by some writers that temples were
attacked for obtaining their wealth and not because of religious fervour.
Mahmud
gazanvi broke idol and rejected money offered by priest of somnath
temple to spare idol and laid idols in gate of gazni so that muslim can trample
idsols on their feet
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page
64 and 65
The declaration of Mahmud of Ghazni in this
regard is conclusive. It is related that when Mahmud was breaking the idol of
Somnath, the Brahmans offered him immense wealth if he spared the idol which
was revered by millions; but the champion of Islam replied with disdain that he
did not want his name to go down to posterity as Mahmud the idol-seller (but
farosh) instead of Mahmud the breaker-of-idols (but shikan).43 All appeals for
pity, all offers of wealth, fell on deaf ears. He smashed the sacred lingam
into pieces and as an act of piety sent two of its pieces to be thrown at the
steps of the Jama Masjid at Ghazni and two others to Mecca and Medina to be
trampled upon on their main streets.44 Alberuni, the contemporary witness
writes: The image was destroyed by Prince Mahmud in 416 H. (1026 C.E.). He
ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his
residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels and
embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the
town, together with the Cakraswamin, an idol of bronze that had been brought
from Thaneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of
the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt
and wet.45 So, the consideration was desecration, primarily. Mahmud had come to
spread Islam and for this undertaking was bestowed the title of Yamin-uddaula
(Right hand of the Caliph) and Amir-ul-Millat (Chief of the Muslim Community)
by the Khalifa al Qadir Billah.46 No wonder, in the estimation of his Muslim
contemporaries - historians, poets, and writers - the exploits of Mahmud as a
hero of Islam in India were simply marvellous and their encomiums endless.47 Of
course, invaders like Mahmud also collected lot of loot from wherever they
could get, including the precious metals of which idols were made or the
jewellery with which they were adorned. The Rasmala narrates that after the
destruction of Somnath, Mahmud acquired possession of diamonds, rubies and
pearls of incalculable value.48 But spoliation of temple was not the sole or
principal aim. If acquisition of wealth was the motive for attacking a temple,
where was the need to raze it to the ground, dig its very foundations,
desecrate and break the idols, carry the idols hundreds of miles on carts or
camels, and to throw them at the stairs of the mosques for the faithful to
trample upon, or to distribute their pieces to butchers as meat-weights.
Temples were destructed on peace time
also as see example of aurangjeb
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page
64 and 65
For this is exactly what was done not only by
invaders but even by rulers, not only during wars but also in times of peace,
throughout the medieval period from Mahmud of Ghazni to Aurangzeb.49 We have
seen what Mahmud of Ghazni did to the idols of Chakraswamin and Somnath. Let us
see what Aurangzeb did to the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost
of rupees thirty-three lakhs by Raja Bir Singh Bundela. The author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri writes : In this month of Ramzan
(January 1670), the religious-minded Emperor ordered the demolition of the
temple at Mathura. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the
destruction of this great centre of infidelity was accomplished A grand mosque
was built on its site at a vast expenditure The idols, large and small, set
with costly jewels which had been set up in the temple were brought to Agra and
buried under the steps of the mosque of Begum Sahib (Jahanaras mosque) in order
to be continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad50
In brief, temples were destroyed not for their hoarded wealth as some
historians propagate, but for humiliating and persecuting the non-Muslims.
Destruction of religious shrines of the vanquished formed part of a larger
policy of persecution practised in lands under Muslim occupation in and outside
India. This policy of oppression was meant to keep down the people, disarm them
culturally and spiritually, destroy their self-respect and remind them that
they were Zimmis, an inferior breed. Thousands of pilgrims who visit Mathura or
walk past the site of Vishvanath temple and Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi
everyday, are reminded of Mughal vandalism and disregard for Hindu
sensitivities by Muslim rulers.
LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 206 TO 208
Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution of Hindus, in particular his destruction of temples, evoked universal Hindu discontent. It was an old practice, commencing from Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sind,55 to destroy temples during wars and in times of peace and convert them into mosques, and was continued throughout the medieval period. Aurangzeb also did the same in course of his wars in Bihar, Kuch Bihar etc. But when he started destroying temples in peace time on an unprecedented scale, he started a wave of general resentment and opposition. The history of resistance to such cases of temple destruction pertains to the whole country, but primarily to Gujarat, Mathura, Delhi, Banaras and many places in Rajasthan. Soon after the order (about demolishing temples) was issued, reports of the destruction of temples from all over the empire began to arrive.56 To make sure that his orders were faithfully carried out Aurangzeb instructed that reports of destruction of temples by faujdars and other officials, were to be sent to the court under the seal of the Qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.57 In August, 1669, the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras was demolished.58 The presiding priest of the temple was just in time to remove the idols and throw them into a neighbouring well which thus became a centre of interest ever after. The temple of Gopi Nath in Banaras was also destroyed about the same time. He (Aurangzeb) is alleged to have tried to demolish the Shiva temple of Jangamwadi in Banaras,59 but could not succeed because of opposition. Next came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of thirty-three lacs of rupees by Raja Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor. 60 No wonder that this created consternation in the Hindu mind. Priests and protesters from Brindaban fled the place with the idol of Lord Krishna and housed it in a temple at Kankroli in Udaipur state. A little later the priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by Vallabhachaya fled with the idols by night. After an adventurous journey they reached Jodhpur, but its Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. Therefore, Damodar Lal, the head of the priesthood incharge of the temple, sent one Gopi Nath to Maharaja Raj Singh at Udaipur who himself received the fugitives on the frontiers of the state and decided to house the god at Sihar on 10 March, 1672.61 In course of time the tiny village of Sihar became famous as Nathdwar after the name of its god, and Mewar of Mira Bai became a great centre of Vaishnavism in India. The resistance gained in strength. In March 1671, a Muslim officer who had been sent to demolish temples in and around Ujjain was killed with many of his followers in the riot that followed his attempt at destroying the temples there. Aurangzebs religious policy had created a division in the Indian society. Communal antagonisms resulted in communal riots at Banaras, Narnaul (1672) and Gujarat (1681) where Hindus, in retaliation, destroyed mosques.62 Temples were destroyed in Marwar after 1678 and in 1680-81, 235 temples were destroyed in Udaipur. Prince Bhim of Udaipur retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and demolishing many mosques, big and small, there.63 Similarly, there was opposition to destruction of temples in the Amber territory, which was friendly to the Mughals. Here religious fairs continued to be held and idols publicly worshipped even after the temples had been demolished.64 In the Deccan the same policy was pursued with the same reaction. In April 1694, the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.65 Aurangzeb destroyed temples throughout the country. He destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hardwar) and Ayodhya, but all of them are thronged with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.66 Sometimes he was content with only closing down those temples that were built in the midst of entirely Hindu population, and his officers allowed the Hindus to take back their temples on payment of large sums of money. In the South, where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing in the Deccan where the suppression of rebellion was not an easy matter But the discontent occasioned by his orders could not be thus brought to an end.67 Hindu resistance to such vandalism year after year and decade after decade throughout the length and breadth of the country can rather be imagined than described.
Jauhar performed in fort of rewar and
destruction of temple and capturing woman by Muhammad bin kasim and proof that
population of sindh was mainly baudh
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page
80
Muhammad bin
Qasim next advanced towards Nirun, situated near modern Hyderabad. The people
of Nirun purchased their peace. Notwithstanding its voluntary surrender,
Muhammad destroyed the temple of Budh at Nirun. He built a mosque at its site
and appointed an Imam.15 After placing a garrison at the disposal of the Muslim
governor, he marched to Sehwan (Siwistan), about 130 kilometres to the
north-west. This town too was populated
chiefly by Buddhists and traders. They too surrendered to the invader on
condition of their remaining loyal and paying jiziyah. Niruns surrender alarmed
Raja Dahir and he and his men decided to meet the invader at Aror or Rawar.
Qasim was bound for Brahmanabad but stopped short to engage Dahir first. In the
vast plain of Rawar the Arabs encountered an imposing array of war elephants
and a large army under the command of Dahir
and his Rajput chiefs ready to give battle to the Muslims. Al Biladuri writes
that after the battle lines were drawn, a dreadful conflict ensued such as had
never been seen before, and the author of the Chachnama gives details of the
valiant fight which Raja Dahir gave mounted on his white elephant. A naptha
arrow struck Dahirs howdah and set it ablaze. Dahir dismounted and fought
desperately, but was killed towards the evening, when the idolaters fled, and
the Musulmans glutted themselves with massacre. Raja Dahirs queen Rani Bai and
her son betook themselves into the fortress of Rawar, which had a garrison of
15 thousand. The soldiers fought valiantly, but the Arabs proved stronger. When the Rani saw her doom inevitable, she
assembled all the women in the fort and addressed them thus: God forbid that we
should owe our liberty to those outcaste cow-eaters. Our honour would be lost.
Our respite is at an end, and there is nowhere any hope of escape; let us
collect wood, cotton and oil, for I think we should burn ourselves and go to
meet our husbands. If any wish to save herself, she may. 16 They entered into a
house where they burnt themselves in the fire of jauhar thereby vindicating the
honour of their race. Muhammad occupied
the fort, massacred the 6,000 men he found there and seized all the wealth and
treasures that belonged to Dahir.
Muhammad now marched to Brahmanabad.17 On
the way a number of garrisons in forts challenged his army, delaying his
arrival in Brahmanabad. The civil population, as usual, longed for peace and
let the Muslims enter the city. Consequently, it was spared, but Qasim sat on
the seat of cruelty and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said
that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others
sixteen thousand were killed.
MAKING MALE and female Slaves by all
muslim rulers capturing many laxs hindu
women raping and distributing them in SOLDIERS
and selling male and CHILDREN
female hindus in different muslim markets
This article is extract from
Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S
Lal chapter slaves page number 249 to 258
You will find some number in article which is basically refrences of
book that you can see in foot note
LEGACY OF
MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page
249 to 258
The forest-village-dwellers, whether
escapees or resisters, suffered untold privations. Still they had the
satisfaction of being able to preserve their freedom, their religion and their
culture. But all victims of aggression were not so lucky. Many vulnerable
groups and individuals could not extricate themselves from the clutches of the
invaders and tyranny of the rulers; they used to be captured, enslaved and even
sold, not only in India but also outside the country. It was not only Jahangir, a comparatively kind hearted emperor,
who used to capture poor people during his hunting expeditions and send them to
Kabul in exchange for dogs and horses, all Muslim invaders and rulers collected
slaves and exploited them as they pleased. When Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind, he took
captives wherever he went and sent many prisoners, especially women prisoners,
to his homeland. Parimal Devi and Suraj Devi, the two daughters of Raja Dahir,
who were sent to Hajjaj to adorn the harem of the Caliph, were part of a large
bunch of maidens remitted as one-fifth share of the state (Khums) from the
booty of war (Ghanaim). The Chachnama gives the details. After the capture of the fort of
Rawar, Muhammad bin Qasim halted there for three day, during which time
he masscered 6,000 men. Their followers and dependents, as well as their women
and children were taken prisoner. When the (total) number of prisoners was calculated,
it was found to amount to thirty thousand persons (Kalichbeg has sixty
thousand), amongst whom thirty were the daughters of the chiefs. They were sent
to Hajjaj. The head
of Dahir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the Black
Slave Kaab, son of Mubarak Rasti.96 In Sind itself female slaves captured after
every campaign of the marching army, were married to Arab soldiers who settled
down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj
to Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their
throats, and take the women and children as captives. In the final stages of
the conquest of Sind, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before
Qasim one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were
counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they belonged to high
families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the
soldiers.97 Obviously, a few lakhs of women were
enslaved and distributed among the elite and the soldiers. In the words of the Andre Wink, From
the seventh century onwards, and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasims
campaigns in 712-13, a considerable number of Jats [and also
others] was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as
slaves. Some Jat freemen became famous in the
Islamic world, as for instance Abu Hanifa (699-767?), the founder of the
Hanafite school of law. [98 Wink, Al-Hind, I, p. 161]
Hindu
Slaves women and men became so plentiful
that city of gazani was filled with Indian male female and children slaves and were sold in 10 dirham every
shopkeeper of gazani and every soldier
had hindu slaves girl all muslim rulers
made hindu slave captured hindu women of all castes
[Legacy of muslim rule in india by K
S Lal chapter slaves]
Page 250 to 254
So from the days of Muhammad bin Qasim in the
eighth century to those of Ahmad Shah Abdali in the eighteenth, enslavement,
distribution and sale of captives was systematically practised by Muslim
invaders. A few instances are necessary to have a clear idea of the monstrous
practice of taking captives. When Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked
Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as
captive. This figure of Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary
and chronicler of Mahmud, is so mind-boggling that Elliot reduces it to 5000.99
The point to note is that taking of slaves was a matter of routine in every
expedition. Only when the numbers were exceptionally large did they receive the
notice of the chroniclers. So that in Mahmuds attack on Ninduna
in the Salt Range (1014), Utbi says that slaves were so plentiful that they
became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land (India) were
degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni).100 His statement finds confirmation
in Nizamuddin Ahmads Tabqat-i-Akbari which states that Mahmud obtained great
spoils and a large number of slaves. Next year from Thanesar, according to Farishtah, the Muhammadan army
brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like an Indian
city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls.101 Thereafter slaves were taken in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj, Asni
etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to
consist (besides huge wealth) of 53,000 captives according to Nizamuddin. But
Utbi is more detailed. He says that the number of prisoners may be conceived
from the fact, that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These
were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants came from different cities
to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan
were filled with them. The
Tarikh-iAlfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves,
therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.102 This was the practice throughout the
medieval period. Furthermore, it was also a matter of policy with the Muslim
rulers and their army commanders to capture and convert, destroy or sell the
male population, and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-ul-Asir says
that Qutbuddin Aibak made war against the provinces of Hind He killed many,
and returned home with prisoners and booty. 103 In Banaras, according to the same authority, Muhammad Ghauris
slaughter of the Hindus was immense. None was spared except women and
children."104 No wonder that slaves began to fill the households of every
Turk from the very beginning of Muslim rule in India. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir informs
us that as a result of the Muslim achievements under Muhammad Ghauri and
Qutbuddin Aibak, even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a
single slave before became the owner of numerous slaves of all description
(jauq jauq ghulam har jins) 105 In 1231 Sultan
Iltutmish attacked Gwalior, and captured a large number of slave.106
Minhaj Siraj Jurjani writes that
Sultan Balbans taking captives, and his capture of the dependents of
the great Ranas cannot be recounted.107 Talking of his war in Avadh against
Trailokyavarman of the Chandela dynasty (Dalaki wa Malaki of Minhaj), the chronicler says that all the
infidel wives, sons and dependents and children fell into the hands of the
victors.108 In 1253, in
his campaign against Ranthambhor also Balban appears to have captured many
prisoners. In 1259, in an attack on Haryana
(the Shiwalik Hills), many women and children were enslaved.109 Twice Balban led expeditions against Kampil, Patiali, and Bhojpur, and in the
process captured a large number of women and children. In Katehar he ordered a general massacre of
the male population of above eight years of age and carried away the women and
children.110 The process of enslavement during war went on under the
Khaljis and the Tughlaqs (1290-1414 C.E.). Of
Alauddin Khaljis 50,000 slaves111 some were mere boys,112 and surely mainly
captured during war. Firoz
Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the captives
should be sorted out and the best ones should be forwarded to the court. His
acquisition of slaves was accomplished through various ways - capture in war,
in lieu of revenue and as present from nobles.113 Soon he was enabled to
collect 180,000 slaves. Ziyauddin Baranis description of the Slave Market in Delhi, (such
markets were there in other places also), during the reign of Alauddin Khalji,
shows that fresh batches of captives were constantly replenishing them.114
[Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S Lal chapter slaves page 254]
fixing of price of hindu girls
for selling them in muslim markets
[Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S
Lal chapter slaves page 254]
the practice of selling slaves was well established and widely known.
Amir Khusrau in the fourteenth century writes that the Turks, whenever they
please, can seize, buy, or sell any Hindu.115 He is corroborated by Vidyapati
in the next century. The latter writes that the Muslim
army commanders take into custody all the women of the enemys city, and
wherever they happened to pass, in that very place the ladies of the
Rajas house began to be sold in the market.116 Alauddin Khalji
fixed the prices of such slaves in the market, as he did for all other items of
common use like wheat and rice, horse and cattle. The sale price of boys was
fixed from 20 to 30 tankahs; the ill-favoured could be obtained for 7 or 8. The
slave boys were classified according to their looks and working capacity. The
standard price of a working girl was fixed from 5 to 12 tankahs, that of a good
looking girl from 20 to 40, and a beauty of high family even from 1 thousand to
2 thousand tankahs. 117 Under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, as
per the information of Shihabuddin al Umri, a domestic maid in Delhi could be
had for 8 tankahs and one deemed fit to be a concubine sold for about 15
tankahs. In other cities, says he, prices are still lower. 118 Muhammad bin
Tughlaq became notorious for enslaving captives, and his reputation in this
regard spread far and wide so that Umri writes about him thus: The Sultan never ceases to show the
greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels Everyday thousands of slaves are
sold at very low price, so great is the number of prisoners.119 Ibn Battutas eye-witness account of the
Sultans arranging marriages of enslaved girls with Muslims on a large
scale on the two Ids confirms the statement of Al Umri. First of all, writes
he, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year,
come, sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important
foreigners. After this the daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing the Sultan
gives them to his brothers, relatives sons of Maliks etc. On the sixth day male
and female slaves are married.120 It was a general practice for Hindu girls of
good families to learn the art of dancing. It was a sort of religious rite.
They used to dance during weddings, festivals and Pujas at home and in temples.
This art was turned ravenous under their Muslim captors or buyers. In short, female slaves were captured or obtained in droves throughout
the year. Such was their influx that Ibn Battuta appears having got bored of
them when he wrote: At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel
captives, ten of whom the Wazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who
had brought them to me, but he was not
satisfied. My companion took three
young girls, and I do not know what happened to the rest.121 Thousands (chandin hazar) of non-Muslim women (aurat va masturat) were
captured during the yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq and under him the
Id celebrations were held on lines similar to those of his predecessor. 122
Their sale outside, especially
during the Hajj season, brought profits to the state and Muslim merchants. Their possession within, inflated the
harems of Muslim kings and nobles beyond belief.123 Some feeble attempts were
sometimes made by some kings to put a stop to this inhuman practice. The Mughal
emperor Akbar, for example, abolished the custom of enslaving helpless women
and
children in
times of war. without permission intermarry with the people of the pargana in
which he might be125 for abduction and forced marriages were common enough. But
there was never an abjuration of the policy of enslavement as mainly it was not
the Mughal emperors but the Mughal nobility who must have taken the lions share
of the states enslavement, deportation and sale. To make the long and
painful story short, it may just be mentioned that after the Third Battle of
Panipat (1761), the plunder of the (Maratha) camp was prodigious, and
women and children who survived were driven off as slaves - twentytwo thousand
(women), of the highest rank in the land, says the Siyar-ulMutakhkhirin. 126
The above study points to some hard facts about enslavement of Hindus under
Muslim rule. It is
not pertinent here to make a detailed study of the Muslim slave system which
was an institution as peculiar as it was unique. Examples of men like Iltutmish
and Balban are cited to show how well the slaves fared in the Islamic state and
society, how well they were brought up and how easily they could rise to the
highest positions in life. Iltutmish received nourishment like a son in the
house of his master. 127 Firoz Tughlaq and his nobles too treated their slaves
in a similar fashion. 128 But it is the captured and enslaved victims who felt
the pinch of slavery. Here only their sufferings may be briefly recapitulated
under three separate sections-the fate of men, of women and of children. Of the men captives, the Muslim regime did
not have much use. Male prisoners were usually put to the sword, especially the
old, the overbearing and those bearing arms, as had happened during Muhammad
bin Qasims invasion, Ghauris attack on Banaras, Balbans expedition to Katehar,
Timurs campaign in Hindustan or Akbars massacre at Chittor. [129 Barani, p.
59] Of the captured men, those who could fetch good price were sold in India
and outside. A lucrative trade in Indian slaves flourished in the West Asian
countries. Many chroniclers aver that an important export item of commerce
abroad comprised of Indian slaves who were exchanged for horses. If the trade
in slaves was as brisk as the horse-trade, then many thousands of people must
have been deported from India each year.
For example, over the years from the eleventh to the early
years of the nineteenth century, three quarters of the population of Bukhara
was of mainly Indian slave extraction. The Hindu-Kush
(Hindu-killer) mountain ranges are so called because thousands of Indian
captives yoked together used to die while negotiating them. Ibn Battuta
himself saw Indian slaves being taken out of the country. 130 Many of the slaves who were not sold by
their captors, served as domestic servants, as artisans in the royal Karkhanas
and as Paiks in the army. The Paiks cleared the jungles and prepared roads for
the army on march. They were also sometimes used as human shields in battle.131
But others, especially professional soldiers captured in war and willing to
serve the Muslim army, joined the permanent cadre of the infantry, and were
known for their loyalty. 132 Alauddin Khalji, Mubarak Khalji, and Firoz Tughlaq
were saved by Paiks when attempts were made on their lives.133 Child captives were preferred to grown up
men. It may be recollected that in
his campaigns in Katehar, Balban massacred mercilessly, sparing only boys of
eight or nine.134 The age factor is material. As these boys grew in years, they gradually forgot their parents and
even their native places and developed loyalty only to the king. They could
thus be reared as Janessaries were brought up in the Ottoman Empire.
why rajput women did jauhar with
their small children
Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S
Lal chapter slaves page 255]
The price-schedule of Sultan Alauddin
Khalji is evidence of the importance attached to boy-slaves. In his time, while
the price of a handsome slave was twenty to 30 tankahs and that of a slave-servant
ten to 15 tankahs, the price of a child slave (ghulam bachchgan naukari) was
fixed at 70 to 80 tankahs. 135 Therefore
during a campaign it was aimed at capturing lots of children. But no Hindus wished their children to become slaves, and in the face
of an impending defeat Hindu mothers used to burn their little children in the
fire of Jauhar136
rather than let them fall into the hands of the enemy to lead the life of
perpetual bondage and sometimes meet a most detestable death.137 The
Womn captive were made as sex object
[Legacy of muslim rule in
india by K S Lal chapter slaves page 255]
The women captives in Muslim hands were
treated as objects of sex or for making money through sale. Al Umri writes that in spite of low prices of slaves, 200,000 tankahs
and even more, are paid for young Indian girls. I inquired the reason and was
told that these young girls are remarkable for their beauty, and the grace of
their manners.138 This was the position from the very beginning. It has been mentioned before that
Muhammad bin Qasim sent to Hajjaj some thirty thousand captives many among whom
were daughters of chiefs of Sind. Hajjaj forwarded the prisoners to Caliph
Walid I (C.E. 705-15). The latter sold some of those daughters of the
chiefs, and some he granted as rewards. When he saw the daughter of Rai Dahirs
sister, he was much struck with her beauty and charms and wished to keep her
for himself. But as his nephew Abdullah bin Abbas desired to take her, Walid
bestowed her on him saying that it is better that you should take her to be the
mother of your children. Centuries
later, in the time of Jahangir, Abdullah Khan Firoz Jung expressed similar
views when he declared that I made prisoners of five lacs of men and women and
sold them. They all became Muhammadans. From their progeny there will be crores
by the day of judgement.[139 Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, pp. 153-54;
Shah Nawaz Khan, Maasirul-Umara, I, p. 105.]
Even akbar massacred 30
thousannds civilian population in
chittugad in 1568 and captured all caste of hindu women women rajput women did jauhar with their small
children
[Legacy of muslim rule in
india by K S Lal chapter slaves page 255]
The motive of having progeny from captured
women and thereby increasing Muslim population was at the back of all
marriages, abductions and enslavements throughout the medieval period. One recognised way of
escape from sex exploitation in the medieval period was Jauhar or group-self-immolation.
Jauhar also was naturally resorted to because the motives
and actions of the victors were never in doubt. For example, before Qasim could
attack the Fort of Rawar many of the royal ladies themselves voluntarily
immolated themselves. The description of the holocaust in the Chachnama is like
this: Bai, the sister of Dahir, assembled all her women and said God forbid
that we should own our liberty to these outcast cow-eaters. Our honour would be
lost there is nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil
and bum ourselves. If any wish to save herself she may. So they went into a
house, set it on fire and burnt themselves.140 It is those of the lesser mettle who used to save
themselves and used to be captured. The repeated Jauhars
at one place, Chittor, during the attacks of Alauddin Khalji, Bahadur Shah of
Gujarat and Emperor Akbar have become memorable for the spirit shown by the
Rajputnis. Captured and enslaved
women often had to lead a life of misery and dishonour as happened with Deval
Devi, daughter of Raja Karan Baghela of Gujarat.141 As the legacy of this scenario,
Indian girls are still being sold to West Asian nationals as wives, concubines
and slave girls. For example, all the leading Indian newspapers like The Indian
Express, The Hindustan Times and The Times of India of 4 August 1991, flashed
the news of a sixty year old toothless Arab national Yahiya H.M. Al Sagish
marrying a 10-11 year old Ameena of Hyderabad after paying her father Rs. 6000,
and attempting to take her out of the country. Al Sagish has been taken into
police custody and the case is in the law-court now. Mr. I.U. Khan has pointed
out that no offence could be made out against his client as he had acted in
accordance with the Shariat laws. He said that since this case related to the
Muslim personal law which permitted marriage with girls who had attained
Puberty (described as over 9 years of age), Al Sagish could not be tried under
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Besides Ameenas parents had not complained. (Times
of India, 14 August 1991). But this is not an isolated case. I was in Hyderabad
for about four years, 1979-1983. There I learnt that such marriages are common.
There are regular agents and touts who arrange them. Poor parents of girls are
handsomely paid by foreign Muslims for such arrangements. Every time that I
happened to go to the Hyderabad Airlines office or the Airport (which was about
at least once a month), I found bunches of old bridegrooms in Arab attire
accompanied by young girls, often little girl brides. A rough estimate
indicated that as many as 8000 such marriages were solemnised during the past
one decade in Hyderabad alone. (Indian Express Magazine, 18 August 1991). In
short, the sex slave-trade is still flourishing not only in Hyderabad but in
many other cities of India after the medieval tradition.
Foot note
93 Alberuni,
I, pp. 101-102. 94 Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p. 598. 95 Smith, Akbar the
Great Mogul, p. 108; C.H.I., IV, pp. 115-16. 96 Chachnama, E and D, I, pp.
172-73; trs. Kalichbeg, p. 154. 97 Ibid., E and D, I, pp. 173, 181, 211. 98
Wink, Al-Hind, I, p. 161. 99 Tarikh-i-Yamini, E and D, II, p. 26; Elliots
Appendix, p. 438; Farishtah, I, p.24. 100 Utbi, E and D, II, p. 39. 101
Farishtah, I, p.28. 102 Lal, Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, pp.
211-13. Also Utbi, E and D, II, p. 50 and n. 1. 103 Kamil-ut-Tawarikh, E and D,
II, p. 250. 104 Ibid., p. 251. 105 Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, p. 20. 106
Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Persian Text, p. 175. Also Farishtah, I, p. 66. 107 Minhaj, E
and D, II, p. 348. 108 Ibid., p. 367; Farishtah, I, p. 71. 109 Minhaj, pp. 371,
380-81. 110 Barani, p. 59. 111 Afif, p. 272. 112 Barani, p. 318; Lal, History
of the Khaljis, pp. 214-15. 113 Afif, p. 267-73. 114 Barani, pp. 314-15. 115 Amir
Khusrau, Nuh Sipehr, E and D, III, p. 561. 116 Vidyapati, Kirtilata, pp. 72-74.
117 Barani, pp. 313-15. 118 Masalik-ul-Absar, E and D, III, p. 580. 119 Loc.
cit. 120 Ibn Battuta, p. 63, Hindi version by S.A.A. Rizvi in Tughlaq Kalin
Bharat, Part I, Aligarh, p. 189. 121 Ibid., p. 123. 122 Afif, p. 265. Also pp.
119-20. 123 Ibid., p. 144. Also Lal, K.S., The Mughal Harem, pp. 19-38, 167-69,
170 and Growth of Muslim Population, p. 116. 124 Akbar Nama, II, p. 246; Du
Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, pp. 152-59. Also pp. 28, 30, 70, 92. 125
Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p. 9. 126 Rawlinson, H.G., in C.H.I., IV, p. 424 and n.
127 Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, Political History and Institutions of the Early
Turkish Empire of Delhi, pp. 147-48, 159. 128 Afif, pp. 272-73. 129 Barani, p.
59; Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, p. 92; Malfuzat-i-Timuri, E and D, III, p. 436;
Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, p. 255; Farishtah, I, p. 77; Akbar Nama,
II, p. 475. 130 Ibn Battuta, p. 71; Jahangir, Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi, p. 165;
Burnes, Travels into Bokhara, I, p. 276; 11, p. 61. 131 Al-Qalqashindi,
Subh-ul-Asha, p. 76. 132 Barbosa, The Book of Duarte Barbosa, I, p. 181;
Barani, Fatawa-iJahandari, p. 25. 133 Barani, pp. 273, 376, 377. 134 Ibid., pp.
58-59. 135 Ibid., p. 314. 136 Sharma, C.N., Mewar and the Moghul Emperors, pp.
56, 76-77. Also Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 64. 137 After his (Firoz
Tughlaqs) death, the heads of these his favoured slaves were cut off without
mercy, and were made into heaps in front of the darbar (Afif, p. 273). 138 Masalik-ul-Absar,
E and D, III, pp. 580-81. 139 Chachnama, trs. Kalichbeg, pp. 153-54; Shah Nawaz
Khan, Maasirul-Umara, I, p. 105. 140 Ibid., trs. Kalichbeg, p. 155. 141 She was
captured by Malik Kafur and brought to Delhi. She was first married to Khizr
Khan, then Mubarak Khalji married her forcibly. She was later on taken by
Khusrau Shah - too much for a Hindu maiden (Lal, History of the Khaljis, pp.
234-36, 298-99). 142 Nikitin in Major, India in the Fifteenth Century, p. 14.
143 Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 267-8 and n. 144 Ibid., p. 269.
145 Pelsaert, p. 60. 146 Ibid., pp. 60-61. 147 Bernier, p. 228. 148 Ibid., pp.
256, 288. 149 Ain, I, pp. 148-49, 139, 235; also Moreland, pp. 190-91 n. 150
Bernier, p. 229. 151 Pelsaert, pp. 61-62. 152 Ibid., p. 62-63. 153 Barani, p.
316. 154 Ibn Battuta, p. 151. 155 Passage in Tarikh-i-Daudi as trs. by N.B. Roy
in Niamatulahs History of the Afghans, p. 134. 156 Ahmad Yadgar,
Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, p. 24 and n, also p. 33. 157 Ibid., 45. 158 A
Sikandari silver tankah was equal to 30 copper Bahlolis (Thomas, Chronicles of
the Pathan kings of Delhi, p. 336). 159 Tarikh-i-Daudi, Allahabad University
Ms., fols. 137-38. 160 Afif, p. 136. 161 Lal, History of the Khaljis, pp.
167-77. 162 Pelsaert, p. 62. 163 Review of Dr. G.N. Sharma, Social Life in
Medieval Rajasthan (1500-1800) by Mohammad Habib, Medieval India, A Miscellany,
Vol. II, Aligarh, 1972, pp. 342-43. 164 Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar,
pp. 192-93. 165 Foster, Early Travels, pp. 113,114; Tavernier, I, p. 38. 166
Bernier, p. 228; Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p. 187. 167 Pelsaert,
p. 60. 168 Barani, p. 316. 169 Firoz Shah, Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, Aligarh,
1954, p. 2. 170 Afif, pp. 446-50.
Comments
Post a Comment