ks lal raw material

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

[ This artivcle is based on book legacy of muslim rule in india written by famous historian K S Lal book is very lengthy so some extracts of the book is given in article ]

You will find some numbers in this article actually that is references which detail is in the end of book

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

MURDER OF RAJPUTS AND BRAHMANS WHEN THEY CAME AGAIN IN HINDU FAITH

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lalpage 21

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

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.

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.

HINDU RESISTANCE AGAINST MUSLIM TYRANNY

AURANGJEB ORFDER FOR DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLE

MAHARAJA RAJSINGH OF MEWAR GAVE SHELTER TO MATHURA TEMPLE IDOL WITHOUT FEAR OF AURAGJEB

ILTUTMISH THREATENED HINDU ACCEPT ISLAM OR DIE

PROTEST OF HINDUS PARTICULARLY RAJPUTS AGAINST TEMPLE DESTRUCTIONS

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 becamefamous 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

WHEN AURANJEB ORDERED NO HINDU CAN RIDE HORSE BUT DUE TO SEVERE PROTEST OF RAJPUTS AND MARATHA AURANJEB WAS FORCED TO GIVE ORDER THAT RAJPUT AND MARATHA CAN RIDE HORSE BUT NO ANY OTHER CASTE CAN RIDE IT

AURANJEB TRAMPLED HINDUS WHO PROTESTED JAZIA ON FOOT OF ELEPHANT

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 203 to 204

The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions from the King. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus (shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf. But Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. On the publication of this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679, writes Khafi Khan, the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the jharokha of the Emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the recall of the edict But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints. One day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, a vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to the mosque, with the object of seeking relief. Money changers and drapers, all kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu bazar mechanics, and workmen of all kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way Every moment the crowd increased, and the emperors equippage was brought to a standstill. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah. 40 Abul Fazl Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition.41 There were organized protests in many other places like Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement, and there was not a district where the people and Muqaddams did not make disturbances and resistance.42 Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694 IT WAS ORDERED THAT EXCEPT FOR RAJPUTS AND MARATHAS, NO HINDUS WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO RIDE AN IRAQI OR TURANI HORSE OR AN ELEPHANT, NOR WERE THEY TO USE A PALANQUIN, MANY HINDUS DEFIED IT LIKE IN MULTAN AND AHMADNAGAR. 43 Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped.44

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

HINDU FARMERS AND RAJA AND THEIR FAMILY FLED TO JUNGLE TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM ONSLAUGHT OF MUSLIM ARMY AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FORCEFULL CONVERSION AND THEY ATTACKED MUSLIMS FROM JUNGLE BY GURILLA TACTICS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal page 241 to 245

In 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

HINDU FARMERS AND RAJA AND THEIR FAMILY FLEED TO JUNGLE TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM ONSLAUGHT OF MUSLIM ARMY AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FORCEFULL CONVERSION

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal page 241 to 245

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.79 To flee was a good idea, when it is realized that this was perhaps the only way to escape from the cruel revenue demand and rapacious officials. Some angry rulers like Balban and Muhammad bin Tughlaq hunted down these escapists in the jungles, others clamped them in jails, but, by and large, the peasants did survive in the process. For, it was not only cultivators alone who fled into the forests, but often even vanquished Rajas and zealous Zamindars. There they and people at large organized themselves to defend against the onslaughts of the regime. For it was not only because cultivation was uneconomic and peasants left the fields; it was also a question of saving Hindu religion and Hindu culture. Under Muslim rule the two principal Muslim practices of iconoclasm and proselytization were carried on unabated. During the Arab invasion of Sind and the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, defeated rulers, garrisons of captured forts, and civilian population were often forced to accept Islam. The terror-tactics of such invaders was the same everywhere and their atrocities are understandable. BUT EVEN WHEN MUSLIM RULE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN INDIA, IT WAS A MATTER OF POLICY WITH MUSLIM RULERS TO CAPTURE AND CONVERT OR DISPERSE AND DESTROY THE MALE POPULATION AND CARRY INTO SLAVERY THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Minhaj Siraj writes that Sultan Balbans taking of captives, and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted.80 In Katehar he ordered a general massacre of the male population above eight years of age and carried away women and children.81 MUHAMMAD TUGHLAQ, FIROZ TUGHLAQ, SIKANDAR LODI, SIKANDAR BUTSHIKAN OF KASHMIR, MAHMUD BEGHARA OF GUJARAT AND EMPEROR AURANGZEB WERE MORE ENTHUSIASTIC, SOME OTHERS WERE LUKEWARM, BUT IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS DUTY OF A MUSLIM MONARCH TO CAPTURE PEOPLE AND CONVERT THEM TO ISLAM. In these circumstances the defeated Rajas and helpless agriculturists all sought refuge in the forests. Forests in medieval India abounded. Ibn Battuta says that very thick forests existed right from Bengal to Allahabad. In his time rhinoceroses (gender) were to be found in the very centre of the Sultanate, in the jungles near Allahabad. There were jungles throughout the country. Even the environs of Delhi abounded in forests so that during the time of Balban, harassed Mewatis retaliated by issuing forth from the jungles in the immediate vicinity of the south-west of Delhi, attack the city and keep the king on tenter-hooks.82 When Timur invaded Hindustan at the end of the fourteenth century, he had learnt about this resistance and was quite scared of it. In his Malfuzat he notes that there were many strong defences in India like the large rivers, the elephants etc. The second defence, writes he, consists of woods and forests and trees, which interweaving stem with stem and branch with branch, render it very difficult to penetrate the country. The third defence is the soldiery, and landlords and princes, and Rajas of that country, who inhabit fastnesses in those forests, and live there like wild beasts.83 Growth of dense forests was a cause and effect of heavy rains. Forests precipitated rainfall and rains helped in the growth of forests. Therefore, like forests, rains also helped the freedom loving wild-beasts living in the jungles in maintains their independence and culture. It is truly said that in India it does not rain, it pours. The rainfall in the north and the northeastern India - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal, including eastern Bengal (now Bangla Desh) and parts of Assam (the Hindustan of medieval times) - is in the following order: The average annual rainfall in U.P., Bihar and Bengal is 100 to 200 cms. (40 to 80 inches), in eastern Bengal and Assam it is 200 to 400 cms. and in some parts above 400 cms. (80 to 160 and above 160 inches). In all probability a similar average obtained in the medieval period also. Medieval chroniclers do not speak in quantitative terms: in their language rivulets used to turn into rivers and rivers into seas during the rainy season. The situation is best depicted by the sixteenth century conqueror Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur himself in his memoirs Tuzuk-iBaburi or Babur Nama. He writes about Hindustan: Sometimes it rains 10, 15, or 20 times a day, torrents pour down all at once and rivers flow where no water had been.84 Such intensity of rainfall had rendered precarious the grip of Turkish rulers in many parts. For example, the government at Delhi could not always maintain its hold on Bengal effectively. There were very few roads and hardly any bridges over rivers in those days, and the almost primitive medieval communication system used to break down during the rainy season. Local governors of the eastern region - Bihar and Bengal - did not fail to take advantage of this situation and used to declareindependence. Governor Tughril Beg of Bengal depended on the climate and waterlogged soil of the province to wear out the Delhi forces, for three years (1278-81).85 Bengal almost remained independent till the middle of the sixteenth century.

HOW SOME BRAVE FARMERS BECAME TODAYS SC ST OBC

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal page 241 to 245

In short, heavy rains and thick forests affected the mobility of the governments army, leaving the refugees safe in their jungle hide-outs and repulse any intrusion. Ibn Battuta describes how people used to fight behind barricades of bushes and bamboo trees. They collect rain water and tend their animals and fields, and remain so strongly entrenched that but for a strong army they cannot be suppressed.86 Babur confirms this: Under the monsoon rains the banks of some of its rivers and torrents are worn into deep channels, difficult and troublesome to pass through anywhere. In many parts of the plains (because of rains) thorny jungle grows, behind the good defence of which the people become stubbornly rebellious and pay no taxes.87 It was because of this that Muslim conquest could not penetrate the Indian countryside nor Muslim rule affect it. If there was any fear of attack, the villagers just fled and re-established themselves elsewhere, or returned after the storm was over. SC, ST AND OBC THOSE WHO TOOK TO THE JUNGLE, STAYED THERE, EATING WILD FRUITS, TREE-ROOTS, AND THE COARSEST GRAIN IF AND WHEN AVAILABLE,88 BUT SURELY PRESERVING THEIR FREEDOM. BUT WITH THE PASSING OF TIME, A PEASANT BECAME A TRIBAL AND FROM TRIBAL A BEAST. William Finch, writing at Agra about 1610 C.E., describes how Jahangir and his nobles treated them - during Shikar. A favourite form of sport in Mughal India was the Kamargha, which consisted in enclosing a tract of country by a line of guards, and then gradually contracting the enclosure until a large quantity of game was encircled in a space of convenient size. Whatever is taken in this enclosure (Kamargha or human circle), writes Finch, is called the kings shikar or game, whether men or beasts The beasts taken, if mans meat, are sold if men they remain the Kings slaves, which he sends yearly to Kabul to barter for horses and dogs: these being poor, miserable, thievish people, that live in woods and deserts, little differing from beasts.89 W.H. Moreland adds: Other writer (also) tell it besides Finch.90 Even Babur, always a keen observer, had not failed to notice that peasants in India were often reduced to the position of tribals. In our countries, writes he in his Memoirs, dwellers in the wilds (i.e. nomads) get tribal names; here (i.e. Hindustan) the settled people of the cultivated lands and villages get tribal names.91 In short, the avalanche of Turco- Mughal invaders, and the policy of their Government turned many settled agriculturists into tribals of the jungles. Many defeated Rajas and harassed Zamindars also repaired to forest and remote fortresses for security. They had been defeated in war and due to the policy of making them nest-o-nabud (destroy root and branch), had been reduced to the position of Scheduled Castes / Tribes / Backward Classes. For example, many Parihars and Parmars, once upon a time belonging to the proud Rajput castes, are now included in lower castes. So are the Rajputs counted in Backward Classes in South India. Two examples, one from the early years of Muslim rule and the other from its closing years, would suffice to illustrate the point. In the early years of Muslim conquest, Jats had helped Muhammad bin Qasim in Sind; later on they turned against him. Khokhars had helped Muhammad Ghauri but turned hostile to him and ultimately killed him. This made the Turkish Sultanate ill-disposed towards them, and in course of time many of these Jats and Khokhars were pushed into belonging to low castes of to-day. For the later times is the example of the Satnamis. This sect was an offshoot of the Raidasis. Their stronghold in the seventeenth century was Narnaul, situated about 100 kms. south-west of Delhi. The contemporary chronicler Khafi Khan credits them with a good character. They followed the professions of agriculture and trade on a small scale. They dressed simply, like faqirs. They shaved their heads and so were called mundiyas also. They came into conflict with imperial forces. It began as a minor trouble, but developed into a war of Hindu liberation from the persecution of Aurangzeb. Soon some five thousand Satnamis were in arms. They routed the faujdar of Narnaul, plundered the town, demolished its mosques, and established their own administration. At last Aurangzeb crushed them by sending 10,000 troops (March, 1672) and facing a most obstinate battle in which two thousand Satnamis fell on the field and many more were slain during the pursuit. Those who escaped spread out into small units so that today there are about 15 million Satnami Harijans found in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar PradeshThus were swelled the numbers of what are today called Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (SC / ST / OBC). The eleventh century savant Alberuni who came to India in the train of Mahmud of Ghazni, speaks of eight castes / sections of Antajya (untouchable?), or workers in low professions in Hindustan such as fuller, shoemaker, juggler, fisherman, hunter of wild animals and birds. They are occupied with dirty work, like the cleaning of the villages and other services.93 In his time their number was obviously not large. Today the SC / ST alone comprise 23 percent of the population or about 156 million, according to 1981 census. Add to this the Other Backward Classes and they all count to more than fifty percent. This staggeringly high figure has been reached because of historical forces operating in the medieval times primarily. Muslim rule spread all over the country. Resistance to it too remained widespread. Jungles abounded through out the vast land from Gujarat to Bengal and Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and flight into them was the safest safeguard for the weak and vulnerable. That is how SC / ST people are found in every state in large numbers. During the medieval period, in the years and centuries of oppression, they lived almost like wild beasts in improvised huts in forest villages, segregated and isolated, suffering and struggling. But by settling in forest villages, they were enabled to preserve their freedom, their religion and their culture. Their martial arts, preserved in their Akharas, are even now practised in different forms in many states. SUCH A PHENOMENON WAS NOT WITNESSED IN WEST ASIAN COUNTRIES. THERE, IN THE VAST OPEN DESERTS, THE PEOPLE COULD NOT SAVE THEMSELVES FROM FORCED CONVERSIONS AGAINST ADVANCING MUSLIM ARMIES. THERE WERE NO FORESTS INTO WHICH THEY COULD FLEE, HIDE THEMSELVES AND ORGANIZE RESISTANCE. HENCE THEY ALL BECAME MUSLIM. In the Indian forest villages these primitive Hindus continued to maintain themselves by engaging in agriculture and simple cottage industries. They also kept contact with the outside world for, since they had remained Hindu, they were freely employed by Rajas and Zamindars. They provided firewood and served as boatmen and watchmen. The Hindu elite engaged them for guard duty in their houses, and as palki-bearers when they travelled. Travelling in the hot climate of India was mostly done at night, and these people provided guard to bullock carts and other conveyances carrying passengers and goods. There are descriptions of how these people ran in front and rear of the carts with lighted torches or lanterns in one hand and a lathi in the other. They also fought for those Hindu leaders who organized resistance from remote villages and jungle hide-outs. The exaspertated and starving peasantry sometimes took to highway robbery as the only means of living. Raiding bands were also locally formed. Their main occupation, however, remained menial work, including scavenging and leather tanning. But with all that, their spirit of resistance had made them good fighters. Fighting kept their health replenished, compensating for the non-availability of good food in the jungles. Their fighting spirit made the British think of them as thugs, robbers and bandits. But the British as well as other Europeans also embarked upon anthropological and sociological study of these poor forest people. In trying to find a name for these groups, the British census officials labelled them, in successive censuses, as Aboriginals (1881), Animists (1891-1911) and as Adherents of Tribal Religions (1921-1931). These days a lot of noise is being made about helping the SC / ST and OBCs by reserving their quotas in government jobs. It is argued that these people have been oppressed by high caste Hindus in thepast and they should now be helped and compensated by them. But that is only an assumption. IT IS THEY WHO HAVE HELPED SAVE THE HINDU RELIGION BY SHUNNING ALL COMFORTS AND TAKING TO THE LIFE OF THE JUNGLE. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE REMAINED HINDU. IF THEY HAD BEEN HARASSED AND OPPRESSED BY HIGH-CASTE HINDUS, THEY COULD HAVE EASILY CHOSEN TO OPT FOR MUSLIM creed ever so keen on effecting proselytization. But they preferred to hide in the forests rather than do so. There is another question. Was that the time for the Upper Caste Hindus, fighting tenaciously to save their land, religion and culture, to oppress the lower strata of Hindus whose help they desperately needed in their struggle? The mindset of upper-caste / backward-caste conflict syndrome needs reviewing as it is neither based on historical evidence nor supported by compulsions of the situation. The present day isolated conflicts may be a rural politician / plebian problem of no great antiquity. Another relic of the remote past is the objection to the entry of men of lower class people into temples. In Islam slaves were not permitted to bestow alms or visit places of pilgrimages.94 In India, according to Megasthenes, there were no slaves. But slavery (dasta) probably did exist in one form or the other. Were the dasas also debarred from entering temples and the practice has continued; or, was it that every caste and section had its own shrines and did not enter those of others? The picture is very blurred and origins of this practice are difficult to locate. Above all, there is the question: Would the SC / ST by themselves accept to change their way of life and accept the assistance? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. An example may help understand the position. In June 1576 Maharana Pratap of Chittor had to face Akbars armies in the famous battle of Haldighati. Rana Pratap fought with exemplary courage and of his soldiers only a little more than half could leave the field alive. In the darkness of the evening, the wounded Rana left the field on his favourite horse Chetak.95 A little later, in October, Akbar himself marched in person in pursuit of the Rana, but the latter remained untraced and unsubdued. Later on he recovered all Mewar except Mandalgarh and Chittor. His nearest associates, the Bhil and Lohia tribals, had taken a vow that until their motherland was not freed, they would not eat in metal plates, but only on leaves; they would not sleep on bedsteads, but only on the ground; and they would renounce all comforts. The bravest among them even left Chittor, to return to it only when Mewar had regained independence. That day was not destined to come in their life-time. It was not to come for decades, for generations, for centuries. During these hundreds of years they lived as tribals and nomads, moving from city to city. On India regaining independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who knew about these peoples poignant history, decided to rehabilitate them in Chittor. In March 1955 an impressive function was arranged there and Pandit Nehru led the descendants of these valiant warriors back to their homes in independent Chittor in independent India. But most of them did not care to return. They live as nomads even today. The SC / ST and OBCs too may find their way of life too dear to relinquish for the modern urban civilised ways. Many welfare officers working in their areas actually find it to be so.

JIZYA IN MUSLIM RULE

Legacy of muslim rule in india by K S Lal Page 47

HINDU SHOULD BE HUMILATED DURING GIVING JAJIA MUSLIM SHOULD SPIT IN THEIR MOUTH DURING COLLECTING OF JIZYA AND IMPOSTION JAZIA BY MOHAMMAD KISIM

And here is Maulana Ziyauddin Barani. He writes: What is our defence of the faith, cried Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji, that we suffer these Hindus, who are the greatest enemies of God and of the religion of Mustafa, to live in comfort and do not flow streams of their blood.3 And again, Qazi Mughisuddin explained the legal status of the Zimmis (non-Muslims) in an Islamic state to Sultan Alauddin: The Hindu should pay the taxes with meekness and humility coupled with the utmost respect and free from all reluctance. Should the collector choose to spit in his mouth, he should open the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it The purport of this extreme meekness and humility on his part is to show the extreme submissiveness incumbent upon the Zimmis. God Almighty Himself (in the Quran) commands their complete degradation4 in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true prophet: Mustafa has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith, or else be slain or imprisoned, and have all their wealth and property confiscated.5

Rate of jajiya

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 198

In contrast to the Muslim bourgeoisie, the life of the Hindu middle classes was different in many ways. They lived under the Muslim theocratic regime and paid the poll tax Jiziyah incumbent upon the non-Muslims. There were three rates of Jiziyah, 40, 20 and 10 tankahs imposed on three classes or income groups - the high, the middle and the low. 21 This in itself is a proof of the existence of a middle class among the Hindus. If Akbar abolished this tax, Aurangzeb reimposed it and the Hindu middle class paid the Jaziyah at the middle rate, or probably the high, for all through the medieval period they possess almost exclusively the trade and the wealth of the country. 22 Pelsaerts description of the Hindu middle class is apt and elaborate. He writes: First there are the leading merchants and jewellers, and they are most able and expert in their business. Next there are the workmen, for practically all work is done by Hindus, the Moslems practising scarcely any crafts but dyeing and weaving Thirdly there are the clerks and brokers: all the business of the lords palaces and of the Muslim merchants is done by Hindus - book-keeping, buying and selling. They are particularly clever brokers, and are consequently generally employed as such throughout all these countries.23

PROTEST OF BRAHMANS RAJPUTS AND BANIYA AGAINST JAZIYA

HARSH TREATMENT OF MUSLIM SULTANS TO CRAFTMANS ARTISANS THEY ORDRERDV THEM TO WORK WITHOUT WAGES

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY KS LALPage 203 to 206

Sultan Firoz Tughlaq (1351-1388), writes Shams Siraj Afif, convened a meeting of the learned Ulama and renowned Mashaikh and suggested to them that an error had been committed: the Jiziyah had never been levied from Brahmans: they had been held excused, in former reigns. The Brahmans were the very keys of the chamber of idolatry, and the infidels were dependent on them (kalid-i-hujra-i-kufr und va kafiran bar ishan muataqid und). They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers gave it as their opinion that the Brahmans ought to be taxed. The Brahmans then assembled and went to the Sultan and represented that they had never before been called upon to pay the Jiziyah, and they wanted to know why they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were determined to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words (kalimat-i-pur naghmat) were reported to the Sultan, he replied that they might burn and destroy themselves at once for they would not escape from the payment. The Brahmans remained fasting for several days at the palace until they were on the point of death. The Hindus of the city then assembled and told the Brahmans that it was not right to kill themselves on account of the Jiziyah, and that they would undertake to pay it for them. In Delhi, the Jiziyah was of three kinds: Ist class, forty tankahs; 2nd class, twenty tankahs; 3rd class, ten tankahs. When the Brahmans found their case was hopeless, they went to the Sultan and begged him in his mercy to reduce the amount they would have to pay, and he accordingly assessed it at ten tankahs and fifty jitals for each individual.39 The protest of the Brahmans did succeed in getting some concessions from the King. He fixed their Jiziyah at a low rate although in status they belonged to the upper class. Secondly, he permitted other Hindus (shopkeepers and traders) to pay the tax on their behalf. But Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was more adamant because he himself knew the law well. His imposition of the Jiziyah provoked repeated protests. On the publication of this order (reimposing the Jiziyah) by Aurangzeb in 1679, writes Khafi Khan, the Hindus all round Delhi assembled in vast numbers under the jharokha of the Emperor to represent their inability to pay and pray for the recall of the edict But the Emperor would not listen to their complaints. One day, when he went to public prayer in the great mosque on the sabbath, a vast multitude of the Hindus thronged the road from the palace to thmosque, with the object of seeking relief. Money changers and drapers, all kinds of shopkeepers from the Urdu bazar mechanics, and workmen of all kinds, left off work and business and pressed into the way Every moment the crowd increased, and the emperors equippage was brought to a standstill. At length an order was given to bring out the elephants and direct them against the mob. Many fell trodden to death under the feet of elephants and horses. For some days the Hindus continued to assemble, in great numbers and complain, but at length they submitted to pay the Jiziyah. 40 Abul Fazl Mamuri, who himself witnessed the scene, says that the protest continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition.41 There were organized protests in many other places like Malwa and Burhanpur. In fact it was a countrywide movement, and there was not a district where the people and Muqaddams did not make disturbances and resistance.42 Even Shivaji sent a strong remonstrance and translated into practice the threat of armed resistance he had posed. Similar objection was registered against pilgrim tax in Rajasthan, and when in 1694 it was ordered that except for Rajputs and Marathas, no Hindus were to be allowed to ride an Iraqi or Turani horse or an elephant, nor were they to use a palanquin, many Hindus defied it like in Multan and Ahmadnagar. 43 Peoples resentment against Aurangzeb was also expressed in incidents in which sticks were twice hurled at him and once he was attacked with bricks but escaped.44 These cases of open disapprobation of royal orders were the work mainly of the Hindu artisan and business classes. In spite of their modesty and humility they possessed the middle class temperament. As is well-known Indian manufactures were of excellent quality, often better than European,45 but this does not signify any social advancement of the manufacturers. Indeed, according to Bernier, they were either wretchedly poor, or who, if rich assume appearance of poverty a people whose grandees pay for a work of art considerably under its value and according to their own caprice, and who do not hesitate to punish an importunate artist or a tradesman with the Korrah, that long and terrible whip hanging at every Omrahs gate 46 Bernier adds that the artisans could not venture to indulge in good fare or to dress in fine apparel even if they could afford to.47 Manucci says that traders and merchants were sometimes wanting in courage and they couldnot claim any high status.48 And yet these very people used to defy the rulers orders. Their strength was known to the regime, that is why most kings used to treat them harshly. Ziyauddin declares them to be the most unscrupulous among the seventy-two classes, (believed to be inhabiting the world) and Alauddin Khalji visited them with dire punishments.49 Even a mild king like Firoz Tughlaq did not treat them any better. Shams Siraj Afif writes that when Firoz Tughlaq was building the fort-city of Firozabad, he ordered that every trader who brought goods (grain, salt, sugar, cotton etc.) to Delhi, was to transport free of charge bricks and stones on his packanimals from the old Delhi (Mehrauli) to the construction site at Firozabad. If the trader refused, government officials used to carry off his pack animals and clamp him in jail. But the traders were not to be cowed down and they more often than not refused to do begar (work without wages).50 Such protests and resistance against governments injustice continued throughout the medieval period. Tavernier writes similar things about Shahjahan. All waggons which come to Surat from Agra or other places in the Empire and return to Agra and Jahanabad (Shahjahanabad) are compelled to carry (the kings) lime which comes from Broach It is a great source of profit to the Emperor (whose monopoly it was and) who sends it where he pleases.51 Similarly, when Aurangzeb wanted more money and ordained that the rupees or coined money of silver, not worth more than fourteen sols (sous) of France, or thereabouts, should pass as worth twentyeight sols the sarrafs, who are the money changers, resisted the royal orders, giving various excuses At last the king in anger sent for the moneychangers in the city of Delhi, and when he found that they could not be brought round to his view he ordered one of the aged sarrafs to be thrown, down the battlements. This terrified the sarrafs and they obeyed.52 It was only the terror created by the autocratic regime that suppressed these people. Else, they on their own, never failed to register their protests or go on hartal. Such demonstrations and protests, typical of the middle classes, were not confined to the capital city of Delhi alone. People fought for their rights all over the country. Let us take the case of Gujarat. Persecution forced a large number of Hindu merchants of Surat, led by Bhimji Parekh, in September 1669, to withdraw from Surat. An English communication of November 21 of that year is worth quoting at some length: You have been formerly advised what un-sufferable tyranny thebanias endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors on account of their religion The Qazi and other Mughal officers derived large incomes from the Banias to redeem their places of idolatarous worship from being defaced and their persons from their malice and that the general body of the banias began to groan under their affliction and to take up resolves of fleeing the country. Bhimji led a deputation of five other banias (panch?) to Gerald Aungier, who later became the maker of Bombay, to ask for asylum in Bombay. Aungier played it safe He advised them to proceed to Ahmadabad instead and from there make their general humble requests to the King. Then on September 23rd and 24th all the heads of the bania families, of what condition whatsoever, departed the town, to the number of 8,000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothers, or next of kin. The Qazi was enraged at this and called upon the governor to turn the banias back. The Governor was inclined to side with the banias as he understood the important economic role they played in the life of the city and replied that they were free to go wherever they like. The banias then proceeded to Broach with the result that the people in Surat suffered great want, from the banias having bound themselves under severe penalties not to open any of their shops without order from their Mahager (Mahajana), or General Council, there was not any provision to be got; the tanksal (i.e.mint) and custom house shut; no money to be procured, so much as for house expenses, much less for trade which was wholly at a stand. The boycott lasted until December 20, 1669 when the banias returned to Surat on being assured by Aurangzeb of safety of their religion. This incident clearly shows how Aurangzebs policy of religious persecution had made his officers more zealous than the king himself. It also shows the organizational capabilities of resistance of the banias and the leading role played by Bhimji in this affair. 53 Earlier in 1666, the merchants of Cambay complained to Aurangzeb against the oppressive local officials and threatened to flee if their grievances remained unredressed. The Emperor thereupon ordered that there would be only two qanungos and two Chaudharis in place of the many reported, and they should treat the merchants well.54

PROMOTING MUSLIMS AND OPRRESING HINDUS AND DOING FORCEFULL CONVERSION

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage Page 82

Muhammad KASIM 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.18 Continuing his ravaging march northward, he proceeded to Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus with its famous Temple of Sun. Multan was ravaged and its treasures rifled. During his campaigns Muhammad bin Qasim concentrated on collecting the maximum wealth possible as he had to honour the promise he and his patron Hajjaj had made to the Caliph to reimburse to the latter the expenses incurred on the expedition. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, freedom of worship to the Hindus could bring wealth in the form of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. Hence, the temple of Brahmanabad was permitted to be rebuilt and old customs of worship allowed.19 In Multan also temple worship more or less went on as before. The expenses of the campaign had come to 60 thousand silver dirhams. Hajjaj paid to the Caliph double the amount - 120 thousand dirhams. 20 Muhammad bin Qasim set about organising the administration of the conquered lands like this. The principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.21

Imposition of jajiya and difficulties SO removal for some time

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage Page 109 to 112

here are countless examples of prejudicial treatment meted out to nonMuslims under the theocratic government. Only a few may be mentioned here as an illustration. Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalauddin Khalji (1290-96), after a battle, whatever live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants. The Musalman captives had their lives spared.26 Similarly, Malik Kafur, the famous general of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316), while on his expeditions in South India, spared the lives of Muslims fighting on the side of the Hindu Rai as they deserted to his army. 27 Rizqullah Mushtaqi is all praise for Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) because under him the Muslims dominated and the Hindus were suppressed (musalman china dast va hinduan ram).28 It was not only so in the medieval period. Such discrimination is observed in theocratic states even today. When, in 1910, Boutros Pasha was murdered by an Egyptian Muhammadan for no personal provocation but for the political reason that he had presided over the court that sentenced the Denshawai villagers, and the guilt of the murderer was conclusively proved by evidence, the Chief Qazi of Egypt pronounced the judgement that according to Islam it is no crime for a Muslim to slay an unbeliever. This is the opinion held by the highest exponent of Islamic law in a modern civilized country. 29 And here is a case of the year 1990. Sunil Vadhera was employed with M/s. Archirodo Construction (Overseas) Co., Riyadh. He died in an accident caused by a Creek national of M/s. Saboo. The defender deposited 1,00,000 Saudi riyals or Rs. 4.65 lakh with the Saudi government as compensation for death. But the Shariat Saudi court has ruled that as the deceased was a Hindu, as per Shariat law he was entitled to Saudi riyals 6,666.66 only or Rs.30,000. This is just about one-fifteenth of the compensation that the parents would have got if their son was a Muslim.30 The disabilities the Hindus suffered under this Islamic or Shariat law are clearly mentioned in the Quran, the Hadis and the Hidaya. It would be the best to go through these works as suggested in Chapter 2. However, these are also summarised in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, 31 T.P. Hughess Dictionary of Islam, 32 N.P. Aghnidess Muhammadan Theories of Finance, 33 Blochmanns translation of the Ain-i-Akbari, 34 Ziyauddin Baranis Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi35 and a host of other Persian chronicles, and there is no need to repeat here zimmi, kharajguzar, jiziyah syndrome. The fact to be noted is that Shariat law continued to prevail throughout the medieval period. The Shariat law was so brazenly prejudicial to the interests of the vast majority of the non-Muslims (and hence the wishful thinking that it did not prevail and that the medieval state was secular), that even the medieval thinkers and rulers found it impracticable to enforce it in full. When the nobles and Ulama of the Sultanate pressed Shamsuddin Iltutmish to enforce the Shara, and give the Hindus a choice between Islam and death, the latter asked for time.36 Equally helpless (or shrewd) were Balban and Jalaluddin Khalji.37 It was probably the experience of such rulers that prompted Ziyauddin Barani to advocate that if the enforcement of the Shariat was impossible or impracticable, new laws should be enacted 7by rulers. It is the duty of a king, says he, to enforce, if he can, those royal laws which have become proverbial owing to their principles of justice and mercy. But if owing to change of time and circumstances he is unable to enforce the laws of the ancients (i.e. ancient Muslim rulers), he should, with the counsel of wise men frame laws suited to his time and circumstances and proceed to enforce them. Much reflection is necessary in order that laws, suited to his reign, are properly framed.38 So that they in no way contravene the tenets of Islam. These laws Barani calls Zawabits. Barani wrote in the fourteenth century. Perhaps he had in mind the rules of Alauddin Khalji about Market Control or his revenue regulations. Else, right up to the first half of the sixteenth century no king made any laws of the kind. No chronicler has made mention of any such laws. It was late in the sixteenth century that Akbar promulgated a number of regulations for the real benefit of people. There were some tolerant monarchs in medieval India, and yet none except Akbar ever thought of enacting any laws which would have removed to some extent the disabilities imposed on the majority of the population. Between 1562 and 1564 he abolished the pilgrim tax, the jiziyah and the practice of enslaving prisoners of war. Restrictions were imposed on the manufacture and sale of liquor in 1582 and the same year child marriage was discouraged by fixing the marriage age at 14 for girls and 16 for boys. In 1587 Akbar legalized widow remarriage and prohibited Sati for Bal Vidhvas in 1590-91. In 1601 he took the revolutionary step of permitting individuals to choose their religion and those who had been forcibly converted to Islam could go back to their former faith. But even Akbar did not codify any laws as such for his successors to follow. His beneficial and equitable regulations remained, as they could remain, only for his empire and during his life-time. tinued to It is significant to note that even in the few reforms that Akbar ordered, many nobles and Ulama saw a danger to Islam. So what Barani calls Zawabits were few and far between, and the Shara cone the supreme law prevalent in the Turkish and Mughal times. No wonder, contemporary chroniclers always eulogized the Indian Muslim kings as defenders of the Islamic faith. This tickled their vanity and prompted them to be strict in the enforcement of the law. It encouraged them to be iconoclasts, it made them patronize the Muslim minority and resort to all kinds of methods to obtain conversions, besides, of course, at the same time treating the non-Muslims unfairly to exhibit their love for their own faith. Secondly, the Ulama always tried to keep the kings straight. They considered it their sacred duty to see that the kings not only did not stray away from the path of religion and law, but also enforced it on the people. Such indeed was their influence that even strong monarchs did not dare suppress them. Others, of course, tried to walk on the path shown by this bigoted scholastic class. The third and the most important reason was that protestation of championship for Islam buttressed the claim of the king for the crown, for a ruler was not safe on the throne if he did not enforce the Shara. At the close of the Khalji regime, Ghiyasuddin declared himself as a champion of the faith, because the Ulama had been dissatisfied with Alauddins policies and Ghiyasuddin with the activities of Nasiruddin Khusrau. The slogan of Islam in danger so common yet so effective in the history of the Muslims, was started.39 And this to a great degree won Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq the throne. The Ulama were equally dissatisfied with Muhammad bin Tughlaq. On his demise, Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh obtained from Firoz a promise that he would rule according to the tenets of justice and law. Firoz Shah Tughlaq proved true to his word and made religion the basis of his government.40 A little later Amir Timur openly claimed to have attacked Hindustan with the avowed object of destroying idolatry and infidelity in the country. 41 Akbars tolerance had exasperated the Muslim divines, and a promise was obtained from his successor, Jahangir, that he would defend the Muslim religion. Immediately after Akbars death Mulla Shah Ahmad, one of the greatest religious leaders of the age, wrote to various court dignitaries exhorting them to get this state of things altered in the very beginning of (Jahangirs) reign because otherwise it would be difficult to accomplish anything later on.42 Aurangzeb openly claimed to have fought the apostate Dara to re-establish the law of Islam. Thus, whether we consider the influence of the Muslim religious class (the Ulama), the application of the law of Islam (Shara), or the activities of the kings, it is clear beyond doubt that the medieval state was a theocratic state. No wonder that many contemporary and later Muslim writers praise the deeds of Aurangzeb with great gusto. The name of Akbar is obliterated: it does not find mention by a single Muslim chronicler after his death. Why is then there a desire to escape from this fact? In modern times values of life have changed. Today, in an age of science and secularism, ideas of religious disabilities and persecution appear to be so out of tune with .human behaviour, that we are made to believe that such disabilities were never there even in the past. Modern Indian government is based on the ideals of secularism. It tries to eschew religious controversies. It is felt that such was the position through the ages without realising that even now disabilities of non-Muslims are existing in many Islamic countries.

others

PUNISHMENT OF BRAHMAN FOR WORSHOPING HIND GOD AND AND BURNING HIM

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 20

OTHER INSTANCES OF BRAHMAN KILLING

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 21

MURDER OF RAJPUTS AND BRAHMANS WHEN THEY CAME AGAIN IN HINDU FAITH

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lalpage 21

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lalpage 46

Others

MUSLIM LEARNT SCIENCE AND ASTROLOGY FROM HINDUS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 28

In the early years of Islam the Muslims concentrated mainly on translating and adopting Creek scholarship. Aristotle was their favourite philosopher. Scientific and mathematical knowledge they adopted from the Greeks and Hindus. This was the period when the Arabs imbibed as much knowledge from the West and the East as possible. In the West they learnt from Plato and Aristotle and in India Arab scholars sat at the feet of Buddhist monks and Brahman Pandits to learn philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, chemistry and other subjects. Caliph Mansurs (754- 76) zeal for learning attracted many Hindu scholars to the Abbasid court. A deputation of Sindhi representatives in 771 C.E. presented many treatises to the Caliph and the Brahma Siddhanta of Brahmagupta and his KhandaKhadyaka, works on the science of astronomy, were translated by Ibrahim al-Fazari into Arabic with the help of Indian scholars in Baghdad. The Barmak (originally Buddhist Pramukh) family of ministers who had been converted to Islam and served under the Khilafat of Harun-ur-Rashid (786- 808 C.E.) sent Muslim scholars to India and welcomed Hindu scholars to Baghdad. Once when Caliph Harun-ur-Rashid suffered from a serious disease which baffled his physicians, he called for an Indian physician, Manka (Manikya), who cured him. Manka settled at Baghdad, was attached to the hospital of the Barmaks, and translated several books from Sanskrit into Persian and Arabic. Many Indian physicians like Ibn Dhan and Salih, reputed to be descendants of Dhanapti and Bhola respectively, were superintendents of hospitals at Baghdad. Indian medical works of Charak, Sushruta, the Ashtangahrdaya, the Nidana, the Siddhayoga, and other works on diseases of women, poisons and their antidotes, drugs, intoxicants, nervous diseases etc. were translated into Pahlavi and Arabic during the Abbasid Caliphate. Such works helped the Muslims in extending their knowledge about numerals and medicine.78 Havell goes even as far as to say that it was India, not Greece, that taught Islam in the impressionable years of its youth, formed its philosophy and esoteric religious ideals, and inspired its most characteristic expression in literature, art and architecture.79 Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was a Persian Muslim who lived in the early eleventh century and is known for his great canon of medicine. Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the jurist, physician and philosopher was a Spanish Muslim who lived in the twelfth Century. Al Khwarizmi (ninth century) developed the Hindu nine numbers and the zero (hindisa). Al Kindi (ninth century) wrote on physics, meteorology and optics. Al Hazen (Al Hatim C. 965-1039) wrote extensively on optics and the manner in which the human eye is able to perceive objects. Their best known geographers were Al Masudi, a globe-trotter who finished his works in 956 and the renowned Al Idrisi (1101-1154). Although there is little that is peculiarly Islamic in the contributions which Occidental and Oriental Muslims have made to European culture,80 even this endeavour had ceased by the time Muslim rule was established in India. In the words of Easton, when the barbarous Turks entered into the Muslim heritage, after it had been in decay for centuries, did Islam destroy more than it created or preserved.81 For instance, Ibn Sina had died in Hamadan in 1037 and in 1150 the Caliph at Baghdad was committing to the flames a philosophical library, and among its contents the writings of Ibn Sina himself. In days such as these the Latins of the East were hardly likely to become scholars of the Muhammadans nor were they stimulated by the novelty of their surroundings to any original production.82

BURNING OF LIBRARY BY MUSLIM RULERS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 29

In the words of Easton, when the barbarous Turks entered into the Muslim heritage, after it had been in decay for centuries, did Islam destroy more than it created or preserved.81 For instance, Ibn Sina had died in Hamadan in 1037 and in 1150 the Caliph at Baghdad was committing to the flames a philosophical library, and among its contents the writings of Ibn Sina himself. In days such as these the Latins of the East were hardly likely to become scholars of the Muhammadans nor were they stimulated by the novelty of their surroundings to any original production.82 Similar was the record of the Turks in India. No universities were established by Muslims in medieval India. They only destroyed the existing ones at Sarnath, Vaishali, Odantapuri, Nalanda, Vikramshila etc. to which thousands of scholars from all over India and Asia used to seek admission. Thus, with the coming of Muslims, India ceased to be a centre of higher Hindu and Buddhist learning for Asians. The Muslims did not set up even Muslim institutions of higher learning. Their maktabs and madrasas catered just for repetitive, conservative and orthodox schooling. There was little original thinking, little growth of knowledge as such. Education in Muslim India remained a private affair. Writers and scholars, teachers and artists generally remained under the direct employment of kings and nobles. There is little that can be called popular literature, folk-literature, epic etc. in contemporary Muslim writings. The life of the vast majority of common people was stereotyped and unrefined and represented a very low state of mental culture.8

There is no doubt that whatever Hindu historical literature was extant, was systematically destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers. It is well known that pre-Islamic literature was destroyed by the Arabs in their homeland as they considered it belonging to the Jahiliya. It is not surprising therefore that many Muslim heroes in their hour of victory just set libraries to flames. They razed shrines to the ground, burnt books housed in them and killed Brahman, Jain and Buddhist monks who could read them. The narrative of Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khaljis campaigns in Bihar is full of such exploits. Only one instance may be cited on the destruction of the works of the enemy. Kabiruddin was the court historian of Sultan Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) and wrote a history of the latters reign in several volumes. But his work entitled the Fatehnama is not traceable now and a very important source of Alauddins reign has been lost. It is believed that the Fatehnama contained many critical and uncomplimentary comments on the Mongol invaders whom the Sultan repeatedly defeated, so that when the Mughal dynasty was established in India, this work was destroyed.24 Similarly, only one instance may be given to show how the Indians tried to protect their books from marauding armies. In the Jinabhadra-Sureshwar temple located in the Jaisalmer Fort in Rajasthan, I saw a library of Jain manuscripts called Jain Cyan Bhandar located in a basement, 5 storeys deep down, each storey negotiated with the help of a staircase, and in each floor manuscripts are stacked. The top of the cell is covered with a large stone slab indistinguishable from other slabs of the flooring to delude the invader. Such basement libraries set up for security against vandalism are also found in other places in Rajasthan.

FOUL LANGUAGE USED BY MUSLIMS FOR HINDUS EVEN FOR TODARMAL AND BHAGWANT DAS WHO WAS SERVING IN AKBAR COURT AND BHAGWANT DAS AND DESCRIBING ABOUT CAPTURING OF HINDU WOMEN BY MUSLIM SOLDIERS AND SULTANS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 49

It is sometimes argued that in the early years of Muslim rule Muslim chroniclers did not know much about the Hindus. Unlike the later historians like Abul Fazl, Badaoni and Khafi Khan, who tried to understand the social and cultural milieu of the country, chroniclers like Hasan Nizami and Ziyauddin Barani do not refer to the vast majority of the Hindus at all. Only rarely do they speak about them but then only in derogatory terms, which also shows their ignorance. But that is not always true. Even when times had changed in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, the attitude and language of the chroniclers did not change. For instance, Badaoni writes that His Majesty (Akbar), on hearing how much the people of the country prized their institutions, commenced to look upon them with affection.9 Similarly, he respected Brahmans who surpass other learned men in their treatises on morals.10 Then, The Hindus are, of course, indispensable; to them belongs half the army and half the land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims) nor the Mughals can point to such grand lords as the Hindus have among themselves.11 So also said Abul Fazl when he wrote that the king, in his wisdom, understood the spirit of the age, and shaped his plans accordingly. 12 And yet this very Badaoni sought an interview with Akbar, when the Kings troops started marching against Rana Pratap, begging the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu, infidel blood. Akbar was so pleased at this expression of allegiance to his person and to the Islamic idea of Jihad that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on Badaoni as a token of his pleasure.13 This was in 1576. Akbar became more and more rational and tolerant as years passed by. His so-called infallibility decree was passed in 1579, his Din-i-Ilahi promulgated in 1582. And yet the language of the chroniclers about the non-Muslims did not change. For, in 1589, Badaoni thus wrote about the two greatest personalities of the Mughal Empire: In the year 998 (H./1589 C.E.) Raja Todarmal and Raja Bhagwandas who had remained behind at Lahore hastened to the abode of hell and torment (that is, died) and in the lowest pit became food of serpents and scorpions. May Allah scorch them both.14 Abdul Qadir Badaoni is not an exception. This style of writing, born out of the ingrained prejudice against non-Muslims, is found in all medieval chronicles in various shades of intensity. They denounce non-Muslims. They write with jubilation about the destruction of their temples, massacre of men, raising towers of skulls and such other achievements. They also write about the enslavement of women and children, and the licentious life of their captors, their polygamy and concubinage. There is a saying that no man is condemned save by his own mouth. By painting their heroes as cruel and atrocious destroyers of infidelity, Muslim chroniclers themselves have brought odium on the kings and conquerors of their own race and religion, all the while thinking that they were bringing a good name to them.

Falsifying history

Manipulated History

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 62

History, to be above evasion or dispute, says Lord Acton, must stand on documents, not opinions.41 But history written by people like Qureshi and Jaffar suited the Nehruvian establishment for achieving what it described as national integration. Towards that end many pseudo-secularist and Marxist historians joined the cadre of such writers. And funny though it may sound it was decided to falsify history to please the Muslims and draw them into the national mainstream. Guidelines for rewriting history were prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and a summary of the same appeared in Indian Express datelined New Delhi, 17 January 1982. The idea was to weed out undesirable textbooks (in History and languages) and remove matter which is prejudicial to national integration and unity and which does not promote social cohesion Twenty states and three Union Territories have started the work of evaluation according to guidelines, prepared by NCERT. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued a notification dated 28 April 1989 addressed to schools and publishers suggesting some corrections in the teaching and writing of Muslim rule in India - like the real objective of Mahmud Ghaznavis attack on Somnath, Aurangzebs policy towards the Hindus, and so on. These guidelines specifically say: Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned. One instruction in the West Bengal circular is that schools and publishers have been asked to ignore and delete mention of forcible conversions to Islam. The notification, says the Statesman of 21 May 1989, was objected to in many quarters. A row has been kicked up by some academicians who feel that the corrections are unjustified and politically motivated Another group feels that the corrections are justified. This experiment with untruth was being attempted since the 30s-40s by Muslim and Communist historians. After Independence, they gradually gained strength in university departments. By its policy the Nehruvian state just permitted itself to be hijacked by the so-called progressive, secular and Marxist historians. Communism never struck roots in India, a land of great and deep philosophy. But some Communists, always suspect in the eyes of the majority of the Indian people, did help in the division of the country. After partition they were joined by those communal elements which could never be nationalist, but they also did not want to be dubbed as communalist, and so became communist. The impressive slogan of secularism came handy to them and in place of educating the divisionists, they read repeated lectures to Hindus on secularism. Armed with money and instructions from the Ministry of Education, the National Council of Educational Research, University Grants Commission, Indian Council of Historical Research, secular and Stalinist historians began to produce manipulated and often manifestly false school and college text-books of history and social studies in the Union Territories and States of India. This has gone on for years

MUSLIM HISTORIANS HIMSELF DESCRIBED THAT THEY BROKE TEMPLE DUE TO RELIGION BUT OUR HISTORIAN REFUSES

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 63 to 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. 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. 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. And yet some writers delude themselves with the mistaken belief that they can change their countrys history by distorting it, or brain-wash generations of young students, or humour fundamentalist politicians through such unethical exercise. To judge what happened in the past in the context of today's cultural milieu and consciously hide the truth, is playing politics with history. Let history be accepted as a matter of fact without putting it to any subjective interpretations. Yesterdays villains cannot be made todays heroes, or, inversely, yesterdays Islamic heroes cannot be made into robbers ransacking temples just for treasures. Nor can the medieval monuments be declared as national monuments as suggested in some naive secularist quarters. They represent vandalism. No true Indian can be proud of such desecrated and indecorous evidence of composite culture. History, says Froude, does teach that right and wrong are real distinctions. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of humanity. 51 It is nobodys business to change this moral law and prove the wrongs of the medieval period to be right today by having recourse to misrepresentation of history. Manipulation in the writing of medieval Indian history by some modern writers is the worst legacy of Muslim rule in India.

JAT AND MED IN MOHAMMAD BIN KASIM ARMY

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 79

Inspired by such belligerent injunctions, Muhammad bin Qasim (and later on other invaders) started on the Indian expedition with a large force. On the way the governor of Makran, Muhammad Harun, supplied reinforcements and five catapults. His artillery which included a great ballista known as the Bride, and was worked by five hundred men, had been sent by sea to meet him at Debal.7 Situated on the sea-coast the city of Debal was so called because of its Deval or temple. It contained a citadeltemple with stone walls as high as forty yards and a dome of equal height. Qasim arrived at Debal in late 711 or early 712 C.E. with an army of at least twenty thousand horse and footmen.8 Add to this the Jat and Med mercenaries he enlisted under his banner in India.9

POPULATION OF SINDH WAS MAINLY BAUDH THAT MEANS MUSLIM DESTROYED EVEN PEACEFUL BAUDH WORSHIP HOUSES AND TEMPLE OF BAUDHA

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 79

A glance at the demographic composition of Sind at this time would help in appraising the response of the Sindhians to Muhammads invasion. At the lower rung of the social order were Jats and Meds. Physically strong and thoroughly uneducated they flocked under the standard of the foreigner in large numbers in the hope of material gain. They also supplied Muhammad with information of the countryside he had come to invade.10 The majority of the Sindhi population was Buddhist (Samanis of chronicles), totally averse to fighting. Their religion taught them to avoid bloodshed and they were inclined to make submission to the invader even without a show of resistance. Then there were tribal people, like Sammas, to whom any king was as good as any other. They welcomed Muhammad Qasim with frolicks and merriment.11 Thus the bulk of population was more or less indifferent to the invasion. In such a situation it were only Raja Dahir of Sind, his Kshatriya soldiers and Brahman priests of the temples who were called upon to defend their cities and shrines, citadels and the countryside. This is the Muslim version and has to be accepted with caution. 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 himself.13 When the siege of Debal had continued for some time a defector informed Muhammad about how the temple could be captured

HINDU SAINIK WERE EMPLOYED IN MUSLIM ARMY AND HISTORY OF TILAK JAT

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S LalPage 91

Mahmud was present with Subuktigin when the latter received the letter of Jayapal, cited above, emphasising the impetuosity of the Hindu soldiers and their indifference to death, and the Ghaznavids were convinced of their bravery and spirit of sacrifice. Years later Hasan Nizami, the author of Tajul-Maasir wrote about them like this: The Hindus in the rapidity of their movements exceeded the wild ass and the deer, you might say they were demons in human form.61 Mahmud Ghaznavi therefore employed Hindu soldiers and sent them, along with Turks, Khaljis, Afghans and Ghaznavids against Ilak Khan when the latter intruded into his dominions.62 We learn from Baihaqis Tarikh-i-Subuktigin and from other histories that even only fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son dispatched Sewand Rai, a Hindu chief, with a numerous body of Hindu cavalry, in pursuit of the nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. In a few days a conflict took place, in which Sewand Rai, and the greatest part of his troops were killed; but not till after they had inflicted a heavy loss upon their opponents. Five years afterwards we read of Tilak, son of Jai Sen, commander of all the Indian troops in the service of the Ghaznavid monarch, being employed to attack the rebel chief, Ahmad Niyaltigin. He pursued the enemy so closely that many thousands fell into his hands. Ahmad himself was slain while attempting to escape across a river, by a force of Hindu Jats, whom Tilak had raised against him. This is the same Tilak whose name is written in the Tabqat-i-Akbari, as Malik bin Jai Sen, which if correct, would convey the opinion of the author of that work, that this chief was a Hindu convert. Five years after that event we find that Masud, unable to withstand the power of the Seljuq Turkomans, retreated to India, and remained there for the purpose of raising a body of troops sufficient to make another effort to retrieve his affairs. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the greater part of these troops consisted of Hindus. Bijai Rai, a general of the Hindus had done much service even in the time of Mahmud.63 Thus, employment of Hindu contingents in Muslim armies, was a heritage acquired by the Muslim rulers in India. Another inheritance was acquisition of wealth from Indian towns and cities whenever it suited the convenience or needs of Muslim conquerors, raiders or rulers. It happened, writes Utbi, that 20,000 men from Mawaraun nahr and its neighbourhood, who were with the Sultan (Mahmud), were anxious to be employed on some holy expedition in which they might obtain martyrdom. The Sultan determined to march with them to Kanauj64 In other words, the Ghazis, to whom the loot from India had become an irresistible temptation, insisted on Mahmud to lead them to India for fresh adventures in plunder and spoliation. Even when Muslim Sultanate had been established, Muhammad Ghauri determined on prosecuting a holy war in Hind in 602 H. (1205 C.E.), in order to repair the fortunes of his servants and armies; for within the last few years, Khurasan, on account of the disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished, and his armies renewed.65

HINDU MALE AND FEMALE SLAVES WHO WERE CAPTURED AND SOLD BY DIFFERENT MUSLIM SULTANS ARE CALLED GYPSIE THEY ARE STILL PRESENT IN MILLION NUMBERS IN ALL OVER WORLD

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 97 TO 98

It was the practice of the invaders to capture defenceless people and make them slaves for service and sale. We shall deal with this phenomenon by Muslim conquerors and rulers in some detail later on. Here we shall confine to the taking of captives in the early years of Muslim invasions and how it led to rather strange occurrences. Many captives taken by conquerors like Mahmud of Ghazni were sold as slaves in Transoxiana, and the Arab Empire. BUT MANY PEOPLE ALSO FLED THE COUNTRY TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM ENSLAVEMENT AND CONVERSION. CENTURIES LATER THEY ARE TODAY KNOWN AS ROMANIES OR GYPSIES AND ARE FOUND IN ALMOST ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES LIKE TURKEY, YUGOSLAVIA, HUNGARY, ITALY, AUSTRIA, GERMANY, SPAIN AND BRITAIN AND EVEN IN AMERICA. In spite of being treated as aliens in Europe, in spite of persistent persecution (as for example in Germany under Hitler), they are today around 6 millions.81 Their nomenclature is derived from roma or man. They also call themselves Roma chave or sons of Rama, the Indian God. Gypsy legends identifying India as their land of origin, Baro Than (the Great Land), are numerous and carefully preserved.82 RESEARCHES BASED ON THEIR LANGUAGE, CUSTOMS, RITUALS AND PHYSIOGONOMY AFFIRM THAT IT IS HINDUS FROM INDIA WHO FORM THE BULK OF THESE PEOPLE IN EUROPE. They are remarkable for their yellow brown, or rather olive colour, of their skin; the jet-black of their hair and eyes, the extreme whiteness of their teeth, and generally for the symmetry of their limbs.83 It is believed that the first exodus of the Roma out of India took place in the seventh century which coincides with the Arab invasion of Sind. In about 700 C.E. they are found serving as musicians of the Persian court.84 Mahmud Ghazni took them away in every campaign. Their biggest group, according to Jan Kochanowski, left the country and set off across Afghanistan to Europe in the twelfth-thirteenth century after the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghauri.85 EVEN TODAY A VISIT TO THE NEW COMMUNITY OF ROMANIES (GYPSIES) IN SKOJPE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF YUGOSLAVIA IS LIKE ENTERING A VILLAGE IN RAJASTHAN.86 With regard to their language, a large number of the words in different dialects are of Indian origin as their persons and customs show much of the Hindu character. 87 They are freedom loving and prefer tent life. THEIR MARRIAGES ARE SIMPLE, INDIAN TYPE. There is no courtship before marriage. TAKING PARIKRAMA (ROUNDS) AROUND THE FIRE IS WHOLLY BINDING, JUST AS IN INDIA. Originally they were vegetarians. HOLI AND OTHER HINDU FESTIVALS ARE CELEBRATED IN SERBIA AND SPAIN. MOST OF THEM HAVE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY BUT MAINTAIN SHIVAS TRISULA (trident) - symbol of Gods three powers of desire, action and wisdom. Gypsies are divided into caste groups who live in separate areas or mohallas. There are 149 sub-castes among the Bulgarian gypsies. Their professions comprise working in wood and iron, making domestic utensils, mats and baskets and practising astrology, telling fortunes and sometimes indulging in tricks. Their talent for music is remarkable.88 Their dance and music is voluptuous, of the Indian domdomni type. A CLASSIC EXAMPLE IS THE GYPSY WOMENS SNAKE DANCE, WHICH IS STILL PERFORMED IN RAJASTHAN. THEIR LANGUAGE HAS MANY INDIAN WORDS. THEY HAVE MANUSH FOR MAN, ZOTT FOR JAT, YAK, DUI, TRIN FOR EK, DO, TIN. THEY HAVE LOVARI FOR LOHARI (SMITH), SINTI FOR SINDHI, SUI FOR NEEDLE, SACHCHI FOR TRUE AND DUUR JA FOR GO AWAY. We may close with the old Gypsy saying: Our caravan is our family, and the world is our family which is a direct adaptation of the Sanskrit saying Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. 89 The Romanies or Gypsies left India or were taken away from here centuries ago. Their history comes down to our own times and is extremely absorbing. But their transplantation cannot now be counted as a legacy of Muslim conquest or rule in India. However, there are other activities of Muslim conquerors and rulers like converting people to Islam or breaking idols and temples which are still continuing and which therefore form part of Muslim heritage. We shall now turn to these.

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

QUALITY OF RAJPUT SAINIK

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

Muslim army description and their quality of capturing women

AKBAR WAZIR AND SENAPATI WERE MOSTLY FOREIGNER MUSLIM ONLY 15 PERCENT WERE HINDU AND HISTORY CHANDRA BHAN BRAHMAN

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 136 137

The administration of the Sultanate and Mughal Empire was bureaucratic throughout. Over long periods this administrative system was dominated by immigrants from abroad, mainly West Asia and North Africa and this gave it much of the character of foreign and Islamic rule. Commenting on the list of mansabdars in the Ain-i-Akbari, Moreland says that while about 70 percent of the nobles were foreigners belonging to families which had either come to India with Humayun or had arrived at the court after the accession of Akbar, of the remaining 30 percent of the appointments which were held by Indians, rather more than half were Moslems and rather less than half Hindus.176 This high proportion of Muslim mansabdars belonging to families from foreign lands continued under Akbars successors. Thus Bernier described the nobility under Aurangzeb as a medley of foreign elements like Uzbegs, Persians, Arabs, Turks and indigenous Rajputs. A medley, so that by playing the one against another, one group could be controlled and dealt with by the other - Irani by Turani, Shia by Sunni and so on.177 The Rajputs could be put to manage all these by turns, or those other fellow Rajput Rajas who showed reluctance in making submission. Late in the seventeenth century, with the advance of the Mughal power in the Deccan, there was an influx of the Deccanis - Bijapuris, Hyderabadis. An interesting description of this composite Mughal nobility is given by Chandrabhan Brahman, who wrote during the last years of Shahjahans reign.178 And yet the regime remained exotic in nature. There was little trust existing between the various sections of the nobility and the Mughal King. Bernier did not fail to note that the Great Mogol, though a Mahometan, and as such an enemy of the Gentiles (Hindus), always keeps in his service a large retinue of Rajas appointing them to important commands in his armies. And still about the Rajputs, Bernier makes a startling statement. It debunks the generally held belief that the Mughal emperors trusted the Rajput mansabdars wholly, or the latter were always unsuspiciouly loyal to the regime. He says that the Rajput Rajas never mount (guard) within a (Mughal) fortress, but invariably without the walls, under their own tents and always refusing to enter any fortress unless well attended, and by men determined to sacrifice their livefor their leaders. This self devotion has been sufficiently proved when attempts have been made to deal treacherously with a Raja.179 His statement reminds one of the successful flight of Shivaji from Mughal captivity to Maharashtra and of Durga Das with Ajit Singh to Marwar. According to Bernier, the Mughals maintained a large army for the purpose of keeping people in subjection No adequate idea can be conveyed of the sufferings of the people. The cudgel and the whip compel them to incessant labour their revolt or their flight is only prevented by the presence of a military force.180 There is no need to wonder why cudgel and whip were used to compel people to incessant labour and prevent flight of peasants from the villages. One function of the army of course was to conquer new regions and crush internal rebellions. Another was meant to coerce the recalcitrant land-holders (zor talab) and keep the poor peasants in subjection. For this second purpose there was a separate set of soldiery who could be called to service from regions and districts when so required. In the time of Akbar the number of such soldiers comes to a little more than forty-four lacs.181 This force was organised on the quota system, each Zamindar or autonomous ruler being expected to produce on demand a fixed number of troops. Ordinarily they received no stipends from the imperial government and were, therefore, not required to submit to military regulations which governed the regular army. 182 It was mainly this cadre which kept the common people under subjection. In Indias climatic conditions, vagaries of monsoon, and resistance of freedom-loving though poor people183 to oppressive foreign rule, made collection of revenue a perennial problem in medieval times. Right from the beginning of Muslim rule, regular military expeditions had to be sent yearly or half-yearly for realization of land-tax or revenue.184 Under Afghan rulers like Sher Shah (who adopted the Sultanate model in general and Alauddin Khalji model in particular) the Shiqdars with armed contingents helped in the collection of revenue. The Mughals followed suit and troops were pressed into service for the collection of revenue. This constabulary carried long sticks mounted with pikes and was unscrupulous and tyrannical as a rule. Its oppressions inpired terror among the poor villagers. Bernier rightly observes that the government of the Mughals was an army rule even in the time of peace.185 The rural fear of the darogha saheb and his men originated neither in ancient nor in modern times.

Mughal ruled as foreniers

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 138

Conclusion It may be summarized in conclusion that the nature of the Turco-Mughal state in India was theocratic and military. The scope of the state activity was narrow and limited. Generally speaking it discharged two main functions - the maintenance of law and order according to Islamic norms, and the collection of revenue. In the medieval period both these functions meant suppression of the people. Consequently, throughout the medieval period the administration was army-oriented. It was not a secular state, nor was it a welfare state except for some vested Muslim interests. No attempt was made to build up a national state in the name of a broad-based system working as a protective umbrella for all sections of the people. It is a hypothetical belief that foreign Muslims who came as invaders and conquerors but stayed on in India, made India their home and merged with the local people. They did not prove different from those conquerors (like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Timur or Nadir Shah) who did not stay on and went back. For, instead of integrating themselves with the mainstream of Indian national tradition, it was their endeavour to keep a separate identity. To quote from Beni Prasad: By the fifteenth century the age of systematic persecution was past but the policy of toleration was the outcome of sheer necessity; it was the sine qua non of the very existence of the government.186 Else the Semitic conception of the state is that of a theocracy. 187

Death of birbal

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 153

These nobles were in attendance on the king in the capital or in camp, and in outstations held civil and military assignments, as governors of provinces or commanders of the army. Indeed they were expected to cultivate versatility, there being no distinction between civil and military appointments and duties. Raja Birbal, after many years as court wit, met his death fighting Yusafzais as commander of troops on the frontier while Abul Fazl, the most eminent literary figure of the time, distinguished himself in military operations in the Deccan.

Slaves of mughals queen

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 156

The nobles ladies were numerous and spendthrift. Pelsaert says that as a rule they have three or four wives All live together surrounded by high walls called the mahal, having tanks and gardens inside. Each wife has separate apartments for herself and her slaves, of whom there may be 10, or 20, or 100, according to her fortune. Each has a monthly allowance for her (expenditure). Jewels and clothes are provided by the husband according to the extent of his affection24 Their Mahals were adorned with superfluous pomp and ornamental dainties. The ladies made extensive use of gold and silver, for ornaments and jewellery, as well for their utensils and table service.25 Even their bedsteads were lavishly ornamented with gold and silver. 26 During the earlier period, there is also mention of gold bath-tubs and gold horse-shoes.27

Halala of sultan wife

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 181

The Shaikhs used to marry in high families and possessed a clout which sometimes became a problem for Sultans. A sixteenth century Suhrawardi writer says148 that Shaikh Sadruddin Arif had married a divorced wife of Prince Muhammad, the eldest son of Balban. The circumstances of this marriage are given as follows: The prince divorced his wife, whom he passionately loved, in a fit of fury. When he recovered his normal state of mind, he felt deeply pained for what he had done. Legally he could not take her back into his harem unless she was married to someone else and then divorced by him. A man of genuine piety was searched to restore the broken relationship. Shaikh Arif, the most outstanding saint of the town, promised to marry the princess and divorce her the next day. But, after the marriage, he refused to divorce her on the ground that the princess herself was not prepared to be divorced. This incident led to bitterness between the saint and the prince. The latter even thought of taking action against the Shaikh, but a Mongol invasion cut short the thread of his life. Shaikh Salim Chishti had great influence with emperor Akbar, much more than Sadruddin Arif had in the time of Balban. And both Badaoni and Father Monserrate make unflattering comments about Shaikh Salim.149 The Sufi Mashaikh lived a full-fledged life, different from saints of other religions. But among Indian Muslims their memory has always been cherished with utmost reverence.

DUE TO SEVERE PROTEST AURANJEB WAS FORCED TO GIVE ORDER THAT RAJPUT AND MARATHA CAN RIDE HORSE BUT NO ANY OTHER CASTE CAN RIDE IT

AURANJEB TRAMPLED HINDUS WHO PROTESTED JAZIA ON FOOT OF ELEPHANT

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 203 to 204

FORCEFULL CONVERSION IN ISLAM BY VARIOS MUSLIM SULTANS SPECIALLY IN BENGAL, KASHMIR AND SINDH AND ALSO IN REST OF INDIA

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 210 to 212

Punjab was always the first to bear the brunt of Muslim invasions directed against India, and Muslim invaders were keenly interested in making converts. In the first half of the fifteenth century the successors of Timur were holding parts of Punjab to ransom. Under the Mongol invaders too conversions used to take place on a large scale.70 Rebellions of Muslim adventurers were also creating anarchical conditions.71 During this period and after, therefore, the Muslim population of the Punjab swelled considerably mainly due to proselytization. Added to this were the large number of Afghans whom the Saiyyads and Lodis had called from across the Indus with a view to consolidating their position. Like in Punjab, in Sind also the rule of the Turkish Sultans and the pressure of the Mongols had combined to Islamise the northern parts. In southern Sind the Summas became Muslims and Hindus by turns, but ultimately they seem to have adopted Islam, and propagated the religion in their dominions.72 in Sind compulsory conversions to Mahometanism were not infrequent, the helpless Hindu being forcibly subjected to circumcision on slight or misconstructed profession, or the false testimony of abandoned Mahometans73 When Humayun took refuge in Sind (1541),74 Muslim population in its cities had grown considerably. There were Muslim kings in the Kashmir Valley from the middle of the fourteenth century. However, it was during the reign of Sikandar Butshikan (1394-1417) that the wind of Muslim proselytization blew the hardest. His bigotry prompted him to destroy all the most famous temples in Kashmir and offer the Kashmiris the usual choice between Islam and death. It is said that the fierce intolerance of Sikandar had left in Kashmir no more than eleven families of Brahmans.75 His contemporary, the Raja of Jammu, had been converted to Islam by Timur, by hopes, fears and threats.76 The kingdom of Gujarat was founded by Wajih-ul-Mulk, a converted Rajput in 1396. One of its famous rulers, Ahmad Shah (1411-1442) was responsible for many conversions. In 1414 he introduced the Jiziyah, and collected it with such strictness, that it brought a number of converts to Islam.77 Mahmud Begharas exertions (1458-1511) in the field of proselytization were more impressive.78 In Malwa there were large number of Muslims since the days of Khalji and Tughlaq sultans.79 These numbers went on growing during the rule of the independent Muslim rulers of Malwa, the Ghauris and Khaljis (1401-1562). The pattern of growth of Muslim population in Malwa was similar to that in the other regions but their harems were notoriously large, filled as they were with Hindu inmates.80 About the conversions in Bengal three statements, one each from Wolseley Haig, Dr. Wise and Duarte Barbosa, should suffice to assess the situation. Haig writes that it is evident, from the numerical superiority inEastern Bengal of the Muslims that at some period an immense wave of proselytization must have swept over the country and it is most probable that the period was THE PERIOD OF JALALUDDIN MUHAMMAD (CONVERTED SON OF HINDU RAJA GANESH) DURING WHOSE REIGN OF SEVENTEEN YEARS (1414-1431) HOSTS OF HINDUS ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM.81 WITH REGARD TO THESE CONVERSIONS, DR. WISE WRITES THAT THE ONLY CONDITION HE OFFERED WERE THE KORAN OR DEATH MANY HINDUS FLED TO KAMRUP AND THE JUNGLES OF ASSAM, but it is nevertheless probable that more Muhammadans were added to Islam during these seventeen years (1414-31) than in the next three hundred years.82 And Barbosa writes that It is obviously an advantage in the sixteenth century Bengal to be a Moor, in as much as the Hindus daily become Moors to gain the favour of their rulers.83 The militant Mashaikh also found in Bengal a soil fertile for conversion, and worked hard to raise Muslim numbers.84 We may linger awhile in Bengal to have a clear picture of the spread of Islam through methods in which medieval Muslims took pleasure and pride while modern Muslims maintain a studied silence.85 The details of the conversion of Raja Ganesh bring out the importance of the role of force, of persuasion and of the Ulama and Sufis in proselytization. In 1409 Ra a Ganesh occupied the throne of Bengal and sought to establish his authority by getting rid of the prominent ulama and Sufis. 86 Qutb-ul-Alam Shaikh Nurul Haqq wrote to Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi to come and save the Muslims of Bengal. Ibrahim Sharqi responded to the call, and Raja Ganesh, finding himself too weak to face the challenge, appealed to Shaikh Nurul Haqq for help. The latter promised to intercede on his behalf if he became a Musalman. The helpless Raja was willing, but his wife refused to agree. Ultimately a compromise was made by the Raja offering to retire from the world and permitting his son, Jadu, to be converted and ascend his throne. On Jadu being converted and enthroned as Jalaluddin Shah, Shaikh Nurul Haqq induced Sultan Ibrahim to withdraw his armies.87 If a Raja of the stature of Ganesh could not face up to the Ulama and the Sufis, other Rajas and Zamindars were still worse placed. Petty Rajas and Zamindars were converted to Islam, with their wives and children, if they could not pay land revenue or tribute in time. Such practice appears to be common throughout the whole country as instances of it are found from Gujarat88 to Bengal.89

PROTEST OF BRAHMANS AGAINST MUSLIM TYRANNY AND SUFIS LETTER TO MUSLIM SULTANS TO DESTROY TEMPLE

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 213 to 214

Who could save the Hindus from extinction in such a scenario? Obviously, leaders of the society, the Brahmans. What the Brahmans as protectors of their culture achieved in those days, writes Wilhelm von Pochhammer, has never been properly recorded, probably because a considerable number of people belonging precisely to this class had been slaughtered. If success was achieved in preserving Hindu culture in the hell of the first few centuries, the credit undoubtedly goes to the Brahmans. They saw to it that not too many chose the cowardly way of getting converted and that the masses remained true to the holy traditions on which culture rested92 Muslim kings knew this and treated the Brahmans sternly, restricting their sphere of activity. 93 The Muslim Mashaikh were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to Sultan Sikandar Lodi,94 Babur95 and Humayun96 to re-invigorate the Shariat and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and Jiziyah. 97 To Babur he wrote, Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam. Posts of Amirs and Amils should be barred to them. Furthermore, in confirmity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. The non-Muslims should be made to pay Jiziyah, and Zakat on goods be levied as prescribed by the law. They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely They should not be allowed to consider themselves equal to the Muslims. He went from Shahabad to Nakhna where Sultan Sikandar was encamping. His mission was to personally remind the Sultan of the kingly duties and exert his influence over him and his nobles. He also wrote letters to Mir Muhammad, Mir Tardi, Ibrahim Khan Sherwani, Said Khan Sherwani, Khawas Khan and Dilawar Khan, making frantic appeals to them to live up to the ideals of Islam, to zealously uphold and strictly enforce the Shariat and extend patronage to the Ulama and the Mashaikh.98 Such communications and advices did not go in vain. Contemporary and later chroniclers relate how Sikandar Lodi destroyed idols of Hindu gods and goddesses, and gave their pieces to Muslim butchers for use as meat-weights. Even as a prince he had expressed a desire to put an end to the Hindu bathing festival at Kurukshetra (Thanesar). Subsequently, he ordered that the Hindus, who had assembled there on the occasion of the solar eclipse be massacred in cold blood, but later on stayed his hand. In Mathura and other places he turned temples into mosques, and established Muslim sarais, colleges and bazars in the Hindu places of worship. The list of his atrocities is endless.99 Babur inherited his religious policy from the Lodis. Sikandar Lodis fanaticism must have been still remembered by some of the officials who continued to serve under Babur (who) was content to govern India in the orthodox fashion.10

MUSLIM SULTANS IMPOSED FIFTY PERCENT TAX OF TOTAL INCOME TO HINDUS SO CONDITION OF ZAMIDARS AND KISANS BECAME DEPLORABLE RESULTING MANY CONVERTED DUE TO POVERTY AND HUNGER

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 231 to 234

We shall discuss about the tyranny of this department a little later; suffice it here to say that in Alauddins time, besides being oppressed by such a grinding taxstructure, the peasant was compelled to sell every maund of his surplus grain at government controlled rates for replenishing royal grain stores which the Sultan had ordered to be built in order to sustain his Market Control.22 After Alauddins death (C.E. 1316) most of his measures seem to have fallen into disuse, but the peasants got no relief, because Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq who came to the throne four years later (C.E. 1320) continued the atrocious practice of Alauddin. He also ordered that there should be left only so much to the Hindus that neither, on the one hand, they should become arrogant on account of their wealth, nor, on the other, desert their lands in despair. 23 In the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq even this latter fear turned out to be true. The Sultans enhancement of taxation went even beyond the lower limits of bare subsistence. For the people left their fields and fled. This enraged the Sultan and he hunted them down like wild beasts.24 Still conditions did not become unbearable all at once. Natures bounty to some extent compensated for the cruelty of the king. If the regime was extortionist, heavy rains sometimes helped in bumper production. Babur noted that Indias crops are all rain grown. Shams Siraj Afif writes that when, during the monsoon season, there were spells of heavy rains, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq appointed officers to examine the banks of all the water courses and report how far the inundations had extended. If he was informed that large tracts had been made fertile by the spread of waters, he was overwhelmed with joy. But if any village went to ruin (on account of floods), he treated its officials with great severity. 28 But the basic policy of impoverishing the people, resulted in crippling of agricultural economy. By the Mughal period the condition of the peasantry became miserable; if there was any progress it was in the enhancement of taxation. According to W.H. Moreland, who has made a special study of the agrarian system of Mughal India, the basic object of the Mughal administration was to obtain the revenue on an ever-ascending scale. The share that could be taken out of the peasant's produce without destroying his chances of survival was probably a matter of common knowledge in eachlocality. In Akbars time, in Kashmir, the state demand was one-third, but in reality it came to two-thirds.29 The Jagirdars in Thatta (Sindh) did not take more than half. In Gujarat, according to Geleynsen who wrote in 1629, the peasant was made to part with three-quarters of his harvest. Similar is the testimony of De Laet, Fryer and Van Twist.30 During Akbars reign, says Abul Fazl, evil hearted officers because of sheer greed, used to proceed to villages and mahals and sack them.31 Conditions became intolerable by the time of Shahjahan when, according to Manucci, peasants were compelled to sell their women and children to meet the revenue demand.32 Manrique writes that the peasants were carried off to various markets and fairs, (to be sold) with their poor unhappy wives behind them carrying their small children all crying and lamenting33 Bernier too affirms that the unfortunate peasants who were incapable of discharging the demands of their rapacious lords, were bereft of their children, who were carried away as slaves.34 Here was also confirmation, if not actually the beginning, of the practice of bonded labour in India. In these circumstances the peasant had little interest in cultivating the land. Bernier observes that as the ground is seldom tilled otherwise than by compulsion the whole country is badly cultivated, and a great part rendered unproductive The peasant cannot avoid asking himself this question: Why should I toil for a tyrant who may come tomorrow and lay his rapacious hands upon all I possess and value without leaving me the means (even) to drag my own miserable existence? - The Timariots (Timurids), Governors and Revenue contractors, on their part reason in this manner: Why should the neglected state of this land create uneasiness in our minds, and why should we expend our own money and time to render it fruitful? We may be deprived of it in a single moment Let us draw from the soil all the money we can, though the peasant should starve or abscond35 The situation made the tax-gatherer callous and exploitative on the one hand and the peasant fatalistic and disinterested on the other. The result, in Berniers own words, was that most towns in Hindustan are made up of earth, mud, and other wretched material; that there is no city or town (that) does not bear evident marks of approaching decay. 36 Wherever Muslim despots ruled, ruin followed, so that, writes he, similar is the present condition of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Palestine, the once wonderful plain of Antiochand so many other regions anciently well cultivated, fertile and populous, but now desolate Egypt also exhibits a sad picture 37 To revert to the Mughal empire. An important order in the reign of Aurangzeb describes the Jagirdars as demanding in theory only half but in practice actually more than the total yield.38 Describing the conditions of the latter part of the seventeenth century Mughal empire, Dr. Tara Chand writes: The desire of the State was to extract the economic rent, so that nothing but bare subsistence. remained for the peasant. Aurangzebs instructions were that there shall be left for everyone who cultivates his land as much as he requires for his own support till the next crop be reaped and that of his family and for seed. This much shall be left to him, what remains is land tax, and shall go to the public treasury. 39

TAX MAFI AND REWARDTO RAJAS AND KISANS WHO CONVERTED IN ISLAM

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA BY K S Lal Page 235 to 236

Collection of Arrears We have earlier referred to the problem of collection of arrears. When agriculture was almost entirely dependent on rainfall and land tax was uniformally high, it was not possible for the peasants to pay their revenue regularly and keep their accounts ever straight with the government. The revenue used to fall into arrears. From the study of contemporary sources it is almost certain that there were hardly any remissions - even against conversion to Islam. MUSLIM RULERS WERE VERY KEEN ON PROSELYTIZATION. SULTAN FIROZ TUGHLAQ RESCINDED JIZIYAH FOR THOSE WHO BECAME MUHAMMADAN.41 Sometimes he also instructed his revenue collectors to accept conversions in lieu of Kharaj. 42 RAJAS AND ZAMINDARS WHO COULD NOT DEPOSIT LAND REVENUE OR TRIBUTE IN TIME HAD TO CONVERT TO ISLAM.43 Bengal and Gujarat provide specific instances which go to show that SUCH RULES PREVAILED THROUGHOUT THE MUSLIM-RULED REGIONS.44 But remissions of Kharaj were not allowed. On the other hand arrears went on accumulating and the kings tried to collect them with the utmost rigour. In the Sultanate period there was a full-fledged department by the name of the Diwan-iMustakharaj. The work of this department was to inquire into the arrears lying in the names of collectors (Amils and Karkuns) and force them to realize the balances in full.45 Such was the strictness in the Sultanate period. Under the Mughals arrears were collected with equal harshness. The system then existing shows that the peasants were probably never relieved of the burden of arrears. In practice it could hardly have been possible always to collect the entire amounts and the balance was generally put forward to be collected along with the demand of the next year. A bad year, therefore, might leave an intolerable burden for the peasants in the shape of such arrears. These had a natural tendency to grow It also seems to have been a common practice to demand the arrears, owed by peasants who had fled or died, from their neighbour. And peasants who could not pay revenue or arrears frequently became predial slaves.46 In short, between the thirteenth century when armies had to march to collect the revenue,47 and the seventeenth century when peasants were running away from the land because of the extortions of the state, no satisfactory principle of assessment or collection except extortion could be discovered. The situation became definitely worse in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as attested to by contemporary historians Jean Law and Ghulam Hussain. It is this general and continued stringency that was the legacy of the Mughal empire and the Indian Muslim states which continued under the British Raj.

Protest of kisan and jamindar massive killing by sultans and even akbar killed 30000 civilian sultan ruined surat kisan escaping raja and kisan to jungle to save dharma muslim sultan order to kill male and capture women and who are sc st obc

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.

Page 282 to 286

Medieval Monuments

But if music unites, many monuments of the medieval period revive bitter memories in the Hindu mind. These are found almost in every city, every town and even in many villages either in a dilapidated state or under preservation by the Archaeological Survey of India. Many of these have been converted from Hindu temples and now are extant in the shape of mosques, Idgahs, Dargahs, Ziarats (shrines) Sarais and Mazars (tombs) Madrasas and Maktabs. Throughout the Muslim rule destruction of Hindu shrines and construction of mosques and other building from their materials and at their very sites went on as a normal practice. From the Quwwal-ul[1]Islam mosque in Delhi built out of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples in the twelfth century to the Taj-ul-Masajid built from hundreds of Hindu and Jain temples at Bhopal in the eighteenth century, the story is the same everywhere. For temples were not broken only during war, but in times of peace too. Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq writes: I destroyed their idol temples, and instead thereof raised mosques where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols, Musalmans now, by Gods mercy, perform their devotion to the true God.9 And so said and did Sikandar Lodi, Shahjahan,10 Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. Shams Siraj Afif writes that some sovereigns like Muhammad Tughlaq and Firoz Tughlaq were specially chosen by the Al-mighty from among the faithful, and in the whole course of their reigns, whenever they took an idol temple, they broke and destroyed it.11 Why did Muslim conquerors and rulers break temples? They destroyed temples because it is enjoined by their scriptures. In the history of Islam, iconoclasm and razing other peoples temples are central to the faith. They derive their justification and validity from the Quranic Revelation and theProphets Sunna or practice. Shrines and idols of unbelievers began to be destroyed during the Prophets own time and, indeed at his behest. Sirat-un[1]Nabi, the first pious biography of the Prophet, tells us how during the earliest days of Islam, young men at Medina influenced by Islamic teachings used to break idols. However, desecration and destruction began in earnest when Mecca was conquered. Umar was chosen for destroying the pictures on the walls of the shrine at Kabah.Tarikh-i-Tabari tells us that raiding parties were sent in all directions to destroy the images of deities held in special veneration by different tribes including the images of al[1]Manat, al-Lat and al-Uzza.12 Because of early successes at home, Islam developed a full-fledged theory of iconoclasm.13 India too suffered terribly. Thousands of Hindu shrines and edifices disappeared in northern India by the time of Sikandar Lodi and Babur. Since the wreckage of Hindu temples became scarcer and scarcer to obtain, from the time of Akbar onwards many Muslim buildings began to be constructed, not from the debris of Hindu temples, but from materials specially prepared for them like pillars, screens etc. Alauddin Khaljis Alai Darwaza at Delhi, Akbars Buland Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri and Adil Shahs Gol Gumbaz at Bijapur are marvels of massive elegance, while Humayuns tomb at Delhi and Taj Mahal at Agra are beauteous monuments in stone and marble. Any people would be proud of such monuments, and the Indians are too. But for an if. If there was no reckless vandalism in breaking temples and utilizing their materials in constructing Muslim buildings which lie scattered throught the country, Hindu psyche would not be hurt. Will Durant rightly laments in Story of Civilization that We can never know from looking at India to-day, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Thus in the field of architecture, the legacy is a mix of pride and dejection. With impressive Muslim monuments, there is a large sprinkling of converted monuments which are an eye-sore to the vast majority of the population. Conversions and Tabligh Similar is the hurt felt about forcible conversions to Islam, another legacy of Muslim conquest and rule in Hindustan. Impatient of delay, Muslim invaders, conquerors and kings openly and unscrupulously converted people to Islam by force. Muhammad bin Qasiminvaded Sind in C.E. 712. Whatever place he captured like Alor, Nirun, Debal, Sawandari, Kiraj, and Multan, therein he forcibly converted people to Islam. Mahmud Ghaznavi invaded Hindustan seventeen times, and every time he came he converted people from Peshawar to Mathura and Kashmir to Somnath. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the vanquished Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even without giving a battle.14 Al Qazwini writes in his Asar-ul-Bilad that when Mahmud went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans.15 The exploits of Mahmud Ghaznavi in the field of forced proselytization were cherished for long. His example was presented as the model before all good Muslim rulers, as early as the fourteenth century by Ziyauddin Barani in his Fatawa-i-Jahandari and as late as the close of the eighteenth century by Muhammad Aslam in his Farhat-un-Nazirin. 16 There were forcible conversion both during the war and in peace. Sikandar Butshikan in Kashmir to Tipu Sultan in Mysore, Mahmud Beghara in Gujarat to Jalaluddin Muhammad in Bengal, all Muslim rulers carried on large-scale forcible conversions through jihad. This jihad never ceased in India and forcible conversions continued to take place, not only in the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi, Timur or Aurangzeb, but throughout the medieval period. It is argued that the aim of Muhammadans is to spread Islam, and it is nowhere laid down that it should be propagated only through peaceful means. Others point out that a choice was always there-Islam or death. Some others, seeking civilizational modes, assert that conversions were effected in peaceful ways by Sufi Mashaikh. Many others say that Sufis were not interested in proselytization. Whatever the means employed, Islam being a proselytizing religion, Muslim conquerors, rulers, nobles, Sufis, Maulvis, traders and soldiers all worked as its missionaries in one way or the other. But the most abundant, extensive and overwhelming evidence in contemporary Persian chronicles is about forced conversions.17 During the medieval period, forcible and hurried conversions to Islam left most of the neo-Muslims half-Hindus. With his conversion to Islam the average Muslim did not change his old Hindu environment and tenor of life. The neo-Muslims love of Hinduism was because of their attachment to theirold faith and culture.18 High class converted Hindus sometimes went back to Hinduism and their old privileges.19 At others the various classes of which the new Muslim community was composed began to live in separate quarters in the same city as described by Mukundram in the case of Bengal. Their isolation gave them some sort of security against external interference. On the other hand Indian Islam slowly began to assimilate the broad features of Hinduism.20 Such a scenario obtained throughout the country. A few examples would suffice to bring out the picture dearly. In the northwest part of the country the Ismaili Khojas of the Panjbhai community were followers of the Agha Khan. They paid zakat to the Agha Khan, but regarded Ali as the tenth incarnation of Vishnu. Instead of the Quran, they read a manual prepared by one of their Pirs, Sadr-ud-din. Their prayers contained a mixture of Hindu and Islamic terms. The Zikris and Dais of Makran in Baluchistan, read the Quran, but regarded the commands of Muhammad to have been superseded by those of the Mahdi, whom they followed. They set up their Kaba at Koh-i-Murad, and went there on pilgrimage at the same time as the orthodox Muslims went to Mecca.21 In Gujarat, where Islam appeared early in the medieval period, besides Khojas and Mahdawis, there were a number of tribal or sectarian groups like Sidis, Molislams, Kasbatis, Rathors, Ghanchis, Husaini Brahmans, Shaikhs and Kamaliyas whose beliefs and practices could not be fitted into any Islamic pattern. The Sidis were descendants of Africans imported as slaves mainly from Somaliland. The Molislams, Rathors and Kasbatis were segments of converted Rajput tribes, who did not give up worshipping their Hindu gods or observing their Hindu festivals. The Rathors claimed to be Sunnis but did not perform the daily prayers or read the Quran. The Ghanchis found mainly around Godhra were believed to abhor all other Muslims and to be well inclined towards Hindus.22 Near Ahmedabad, the Shaikhs and Shaikhzadas of Gujarat adopted both Hindu and Muslim rituals in marriage, employing the services of a Faqir and a Brahman. The half[1]converted Sunni Rathors of Gujarat intermarried with Hindus and Muslims, which was characteristic of Kasbatis also. In Gujarat, north of Ahmedabad, tribals like Kolis, Bhils, Sindhis, though converted to Islam, remained aboriginals in customs and habits.23

Page 119 to 120

Administrative Apparatus

This aim of the Muslim state could be achieved through its administrative set up and military might. Actually the theocratic nature of the state and fealty to the Caliph formed the moral bases of the regimes authority; administration and army its material strength. All these components were alien and exotic and were implanted from abroad. In its core the administration was Islamic and was based on Quran and Hadis, though Persia also contributed much to its development and application in India. The administrative system of Islam had evolved gradually. In Arabia, in its earliest stages, the problem was to provide the new converts made by Muhammad with subsistence. They were indigent and poor, and to help them, poor tax (zakat), voluntary contributions, and war-booty (ghanaim) formed the revenue of the state at the start. Muhammad was followed (632 C.E.) by a succession of Caliphs at Medina.77 According to Mawardi (who wrote in the fifth century of Islam), the Imamate, or Caliphate, was divinely ordained and the Khalifa inherited all the powers and privileges of the Prophet.78 The four Schools of Islamic jurisprudence also made the Khalifa ecclesiastical as well as secular head of the Muslim world. The title of Amir-ul-Mauminin indicated and emphasised the secular, that of Imam the religious leadership of the Caliph.79 His name had a hallow and a charm, and the institutions which developed under his rule became models of governance in the world of Islam. The Caliph Muawiyah (66189 C.E.) transformed the republican Caliphate into a monarchy and created a governing class of leading Arab tribes.80 These two institutions - kingship and nobility became an integral part of Islamic polity. After the Umayyad came the Abbasid Caliphs. They established their capital in the newly built city of Baghdad situated on the borders of Persia. The Abbasids were more religious and devoted to the mission of Islam, but they came under the irresistible influence of superior Persian culture and Persian institutions. The Abbasid dynasty lasted for full five centuries (752-1258 C.E.), and under it different branches of administrative machinery were greatly elaborated and new departments and offices created. If the Quran contained almost nothing that may be called civic or state legislation, Persian theories and practices filled the lacuna. Persian court etiquette, Persian army organisation,81 administrative system, postal service, conferment of robes of honour, and many similar institutions were all adopted and developed under the Abbasids. The Turks brought these institutions into India, adding some more offices and institutions while keeping the core intact. Ziyauddin Barani openly asserts: Consequently, it became necessary for the rulers of Islam (the Caliphs) to follow the policy of Iranian Emperors in order to ensure the greatness of True Word, the supremacy of the Muslim religion overthrow of the enemies of the Faith and maintenance of their own authority. 82 Therefore, when Fakhr-i-Mudabbir or Ziyauddin Barani83 recommend the Sassanian pattern of governance to the Sultans of Delhi,84 they neither saw anything new nor un-Islamic in their advice. The four schools (mazahib) of Islamic jurisprudence also arose during the period of the Abbasids. Even in the compilations of Hadis the contribution of Persia was great. Of the Traditionists, only Imams Malik and Hanbal belonged to the Arab race; the rest were from Ajam, who sojourned in Arabia for years together collecting and compiling the Hidaya. In matters of law where the Quran and Hadis were silent, the jurisconsults resorted to qiyas or analogy, that is, the extension of an acknowledged principle to similar cases. Where qiyas was not possible, they appealed to reason85 or judgement, known in Arabia as ray. Ray has become a technical term in Arabic jurisprudence. Consensus of opinion of the learned was known as ijma. The principle of istihasan (or regarding as better) was developed by Abu Yusuf, disciple of Abu Hanifa which gave him great freedom of interpretation and allowed him to adopt local customs and prejudices as part of the general laws of Islam.86 Mawardi felt himself compelled to admit that the acts of administration were valid in view of the circumstances of the time.87 In the case of any doubt about interpretation of rules, administrative manuals like Abul Hasan Al-Mawardis Ahkam-usSultaniya, Abu Ali Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusis Siyasat Nama, Jurji Zaydans Attamadun-i-Islami or Fakhr-i-Mudabbirs Adabul-Harb (also known as Adab-ul-Muluk) were readily available for consultation and guidance. In brief, Muslim administration had evolved in Muslim lands through centuries and was highly developed before it was brought to India by the Turkish Sultans. At the head was the monarch or Sultan. He appointed and was assisted by a number of ministers. A brief list of ministers and officers will give an idea of the framework of the central administration. At the top were four important ministers (and ministries) which formed the four pillars of the State.88 These were Wazir (Diwan-i-Wazarat), Ariz-i-Mumalik (Diwan-i-Arz), Diwan-i-Insha and Diwan-i-Rasalat. The Wazir was the Prime Minister who looked after revenue administration. Ariz-i-Mumalik or Diwan-i-Arz was head of the army. He was known as Mir Bakhshi under the Mughals and was the inspector-general and paymaster-general of the army. Diwan-i-Insha was incharge of royal correspondence, and Diwan-iRasalat of foreign affairs and pious foundations. Mushrif-i-Mamalik was the accountant-general and Mustaufi the auditor-general. Sadr-i-Jahan, also called Sadr-us-Sudur, was the Chief Qazi. Under him served several Qazis and Miradls. Barid-i-Mumalik was minister in charge of reporting and espionage. There were officers of the royal household like Vakil-i-Dar (Chief Secretary), Amir-i-Hajib (Master of Ceremonies) and Barbak, the tongue of the sultan, whose duty it was to present petitions of the people to the king. There were dozens of other officers and hundreds of subordinates both in the Central administration and in the Subahs or provinces. However, here only a few top ministers and officers may receive detailed attention to enable us to appraise the working and spirit of the government. The Central government was formed on the Persian model. As seen above, the Prime Minister was called Wazir and his ministry Diwan-iWazarat

Search This Blog

Test

ks lal raw material

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

rajput victory on mugal राजपूतो की मुस्लिमो पर जीत 1

a dalit lady Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan ( who opposed ambedkars separate electorate demand and termed is antinational like muslim leage

reservation is not right any govt is free to not give sc st obc or any type of reservation