Author: Andrew G. Bostom
Publication: American Thinker
Date: July 2, 2005
URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4616
The phenomenon of modern Islamic
terrorism has forged an inchoate strategic alliance between the Israeli
and Indian governments, while heightening the awareness of a common threat-the
institution of jihad-among the civilian populations of these nations.
Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged,
however, is the history of brutal jihad conquest, Muslim colonization,
and the imposition of dhimmitude shared by the Jews of historical Palestine,
and the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations
also have in common, a subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial
legacy, which despite its own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude
(permanently for Israel and India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary
Muslim neighboring states), and created the nascent institutions upon which
thriving democratic societies have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar
(d. 1958), the preeminent historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration
in 1950 of what the Jews of Palestine had accomplished once liberated from
the yoke of dhimmitude. The implication was clear that he harbored similar
hopes for his own people.
Palestine, the holy land of the
Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been turned into a desert haunted by
ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by human beings, as the result
of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake's graphic description).
Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a garden, miles of sandy
waste have been turned into smiling orchards of orange and citron, the
chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being extracted and sold, and all
the amenities of the modern civilised life have been made available in
this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to go there from the
countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the living history.
[1]
Earlier, I reviewed at length the
legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and imposition of the Shari'a in historical
Palestine. The current essay provides a schematic overview of the same
phenomena in India, focusing on the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization,
and rule.
A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude
on the Indian Subcontinent
The 570 year period between the
initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on
the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636-637 C.E., and the establishment
of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier),
can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab
invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India
from 636-713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against
the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636-870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish
efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted
by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000- 1030 C.E.);
and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri's conquest of northwestern India and the
Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]
This summary chronology necessarily
overlooks the very determined and successful resistance that was offered
by the Hindus to both the Arab (in particular) and Turkish invaders, for
almost four centuries. For example, despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni's
conquests-spurred by shock-tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic
jihad-his successors, for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain
beyond the Punjab frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi
Sultanate (1206-1526), and the later Mughal Empire (1526-1707), Muslim
rulers failed to Islamize large swaths of Indian territory, and most of
the populace. [3] The first Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483-1530), made these
relevant observations upon establishing his rule in India: [4]
[Hindustan] is a different world.once
the water of Sindh is crossed, everything is in the Hindustan way- land,
water, tree, rock, people, and horde, opinion and custom.Most of the inhabitants
of Hindustan are pagans; they call a pagan a Hindu.
Buddhist civilization within India,
in stark contrast, proved far less resilient. Vincent Smith has described
the devastating impact of the late 12th century jihad razzias against the
Buddhist communities of northern India, centered around Bihar, based on
Muslim sources, exclusively: [5]
The Muhammadan historian, indifferent
to distinctions among idolators, states that the majority of the inhabitants
were "clean shaven Brahmans", who were all put to the sword. He evidently
means Buddhist monks, as he was informed that the whole city and fortress
were considered to be a college, which the name Bihar signifies. A great
library was scattered. When the victors desired to know what the books
might be no man capable of explaining their contents had been left alive.
No doubt everything was burnt. The multitude of images used in Medieval
Buddhist worship always inflamed the fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such
fury that no quarter was given to the idolators. The ashes of the Buddhist
sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares still bear witness to the rage of the
image breakers. Many noble monuments of the ancient civilization of India
were irretrievably wrecked in the course of the early Muhammadan invasions.
Those invasions were fatal to the existence of Buddhism as an organized
religion in northern India, where its strength resided chiefly in Bihar
and certain adjoining territories. The monks who escaped massacre fled,
and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and the south. After A.D. 1200 the
traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint and obscure.
Three major waves of jihad campaigns
(exclusive of the jihad conquest of Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately,
in establishing a permanent Muslim dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi
Sultanate, are summarized in the following discussion. The imposition of
dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu populations is also characterized,
in brief.
The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri
(in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough
isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh
by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These narratives, and the processes
they describe, make clear that the Arab invaders intended from the outset
to Islamize Sindh by conquest, colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri,
for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim
earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a
mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. [7] The conquest
of Debal had been a brutal affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources
by Majumdar. [8]
Despite appeals for mercy from the
besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort
walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his
superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and
thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In
the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and "700 beautiful females
who had sought for shelter there, were all captured". The capture of Raor
was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]
Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting
men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as
well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves,
including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with
the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the
capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar
ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves),
the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama.
Practical, expedient considerations
lead Muhammad to desist from carrying out the strict injunctions of Islamic
Law [10] and the wishes of al-Hajjaj [11] by massacring the (pagan) infidel
Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya
and associated restrictive regulations of dhimmitude. As a result, the
Chachnama records, "some [Hindus] resolved to live in their native land,
but others took flight in order to maintain the faith of their ancestors,
and their horses, domestics, and other property" [12] Thus a lasting pattern
was set that would persist, as noted by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire
collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb's reign (in 1707), [13]
.of Muslim policy towards the subject
Hindus in subsequent ages. Something no doubt depended upon individual
rulers; some of them adopted a more liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant
attitude. But on the whole the framework remained intact, for it was based
on the fundamental principle of Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one
faith, one people, and one supreme authority, acting as the head of a religious
trust. The Hindus, being infidels or non-believers, could not claim the
full rights of citizens. At the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis,
an insulting title which connoted political inferiority.The Islamic State
regarded all non-Muslims as enemies, to curb whose growth in power was
conceived to be its main interest. The ideal preached by even high officials
was to exterminate them totally, but in actual practice they seem to have
followed an alternative laid down in the Qur'an [i.e., Q9:29] which calls
upon Muslims to fight the unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due
humility. This was the tax the Hindus had to pay for permission to live
in their ancestral homes under a Muslim ruler.
Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the
British historian Sir Henry Elliot, launched some seventeen jihad campaigns
into India between 1000 and his death in 1030 C.E. [14] Utbi, Mahmud's
court historian, viewed these expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate
Islam and extirpate idolatry. [15] K.S. Lal illustrates this religious
zeal to Islamize by force, as manifested during a 23 year period between
1000 and 1023 C.E.: [16]
In his first attack of frontier
towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his own governors and converted some
inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported
to have captured the Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal
chiefs and relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At
Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to
the sword. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers, for writing
about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that
this and the previous victory (at Multan) were "witnesses to his exalted
state of proselytism." In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud
"converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that
country, returned to Ghazni." In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and
Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing "the conquest
of Kanauj," Utbi sums up the situation thus: "The Sultan levelled to the
ground every fort. and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or
took up arms against him." In short, those who submitted were also converted
to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including
the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot
and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people
followed his example.
These continuous jihad campaigns
were accompanied by great destruction and acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi
describes the slaughter which transpired during the attacks on Thanesar
and Sirsawa:
The chief of Thanesar was.obstinate
in his infidelity and denial of Allah, so the Sultan marched against him
with his valiant warriors for the purpose of planting the standards of
Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously
that the stream was discoloured, and people were unable to drink it. Praise
be to Allah. for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musalmans. [17]
[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned
the most religiously disposed of his followers, and ordered them to attack
the enemy immediately. Many infidels were consequently slain or taken prisoners
in this sudden attack, and the Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till
they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels. The friends
of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three whole days, in order
to obtain booty [18]
Mahmud's final well-known expedition
in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E., was similarly brutal, and destructive:
Mahmud captured the place [Somanath]
without much difficulty and ordered a general slaughter in which more than
50,000 persons are said to have perished. The idol of Somanath was broken
to pieces which were sent to Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets
and the staircases of chief mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going
there for their prayers [19]
Over 900 years apart, remarkably
concordant assessments of Mahmud's devastating exploits have been written
by the renowned 11th century Muslim scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud),
and the contemporary Indian historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni,
from about 1030 C.E.: [20]
Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity
of the country.by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered
in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their
scattered remains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards
all Muslims. This is the reason too why Hindu sciences have retired far
away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to
places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other
places.
Srivastava in 1950, wrote: [21]
To the Indian world of his day Mahmud
was a veritable devil incarnate- a daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer,
and wanton destroyer of Art. He plundered many dozens of.flourishing cities;
he razed to the ground great temples which were wonderful works of art;
he carried thousands of innocent women and children into slavery; he indulged
in wanton massacre practically everywhere he went; and.he forcibly converted
hundred of.unwilling people to Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate
towns and villages and dead bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered
by posterity by any other title.
K.S. Lal believes that by the late
12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was consummately prepared for the conquest
and rule of India. Well-elaborated theological justifications for jihad,
and comprehensive writings on India's geography and sociopolitical culture
were readily available to him, complementing his powerful army of Turks,
Persians, and Afghans.
He now possessed Alberuni's India
and Burhanuddin's Hidayah, works which were not available to his predecessor
invader. Alberuni's enecyclopedic work provided to the Islamic world in
the eleventh century all that was militarily advantageous to know about
India. Equally important was the Hidayah, the most authentic work on the
laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century.
These and similar works, and the military manuals like the Siyasat Nama
and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris and their successors better equipped
for the conquest and governance of non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt
that such works were made available, meticulously studied and constantly
referred to by scholars attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and
kings. [22]
Muhammad Ghauri launched his first
expeditions against Multan and Gujarat (in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively).
By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri's defeat of a Rajput confederation under
Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj Chauhan's death),
Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi
were captured in quick succession with ruthless slaughter and a general
destruction of temples, and their replacement by mosques. The Sultan then
proceeded to Ajmer which too witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army
of occupation was stationed at Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din
Aibak who was to act as Ghauri's lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak
became the first Sultan of Delhi [23]
Qutub-ud-din Aibak's accession in
1206 (consistent with Muhammad Ghauri's desires and plans), marks the founding
of the Delhi Sultanate.
Finally, the imposition of Islamic
law upon the Hindu populations of India, i.e., their relegation to dhimmi
status, beginning with the advent of Muslim rule in 8th century Sindh,
had predictable consequences during both the Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526
C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707 C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights
these germane features of Hindu status during the Delhi Sultanate: [24]
Throughout the period of the Sultanate
of Delhi, Islam was the religion of the State. It was considered to be
the duty of the Sultan and his government to defend and uphold the principles
of this religion and to propagate them among the masses.even the most enlightened
among them [the Sultans], like Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles
of their faith and refused permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples.Thus
even during the reign of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus
had no permission to build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout
the period, they were known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee,
and the guarantee was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following
their religion if they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate
their religious rites openly.and never to do any propaganda on behalf of
their religion. A number of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters
of State employment and enjoyment of civic rights.It was a practice with
the Sultans to destroy the Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tughlaq
and Sikander Lodi prohibited Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank
steps for ritual bathers] in the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in
every possible way to embrace the Muslim religion. The converts were exempted
from the jizya and given posts in the State service and even granted rewards
in cash, or by grant of land. In short, there was not only no real freedom
for the Hindus to follow their religion, but the state followed a policy
of intolerance and persecution. The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound
in detailed descriptions of desecration of images and destruction of temples
and of the conversion of hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu]
religious buildings and places bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of
the Sultans and their followers. One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura,
Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities to see the half broken temples and
images of those times with their heads, faces, hands and feet defaced and
demolished.
Majumdar sees a continuum between
the Delhi Sultanate and the subsequent Mughal Empire, regarding the status
of the Hindus: [25]
So far as the Hindus were concerned,
there was no improvement either in their material and moral conditions
or in their relations with the Muslims. With the sole exception of Akbar,
who sought to conciliate the Hindus by removing some of the glaring evils
to which they were subjected, almost all other Mughal Emperors were notorious
for their religious bigotry. The Muslim law which imposed many disabilities
and indignities upon the Hindus.and thereby definitely gave them an inferior
social and political status, as compared to the Muslims, was followed by
these Mughal Emperors (and other Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was
displayed by their predecessors, the Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached
during the reign of Aurangzeb, who deliberately pursued the policy of destroying
and desecrating Hindu temples and idols with a thoroughness unknown before
or since.
Majumdar also makes this interesting
juxtaposition of Hindu cultural advancement under the lengthy period of
Muslim colonial rule, compared to the much shorter interval of British
colonial rule: [26]
Judged by a similar standard, the
patronage and cultivation of Hindu learning by the Muslims, or their contribution
to the development of Hindu culture during their rule.pales into insignificance
when compared with the achievements of the British rule.It is only by instituting
such comparison that we can make an objective study of the condition of
the Hindus under Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.
Andrew Bostom is an Associate Professor
of Medicine, and the author of the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus
Books (2005).
Notes
[1] Jadunath Sarkar "The Condition
of Hindus under Muslim Rule", The Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta,
Puja Annual (Deepavali special) 1950.
[2] A.L. Srivastava. "A Survey
of India's Resistance to Medieval Invaders from the North-West: Causes
of Eventual Hindu Defeat", Journal of Indian History, 1965, pp. 349-350.
[3] A.L. Srivastava., The Sultanate
of Delhi (711-1526 A.D.) , Agra, 1950, p.127; R.C. Majumdar (editor). The
History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi,
Bombay, 1960, p.xxiii, states, for example, with regard to the Delhi Sultanate:
The popular notion that after the
conquest of Muhammad Ghauri, India formed a Muslim Empire under various
dynasties, is hardly borne out by facts.barring the two very short lived
empires under the Khaljis and Muhammad bin Tughlaq which lasted respectively,
for less than twenty and ten years, there was no Turkish empire of India.
The Delhi Sultanate, as the symbol of this empire, continued in name throughout
the period under review [i.e., 1206-1526] but, gradually shorn of power
and prestige, it was reduced to a phantom by the invasion of Timur at the
end of the fourteenth century A.D.
For discussions of the limits of
the Mughal Empire, see: A.L. Srivastava.,The History of India (1000 A.D-
1707 A.D.), Agra, 1964, pp. 674-676; and K.S. Lal. Indian Muslims-Who Are
They? , New Delhi, 1990, pp. 122-123, 127, 136-137.
[4] Baburnama. Translated by A.S.
Beveridge, Lahore, Sangmeel Publications (reprint), 1976, pp. 484,518.
[5] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History
of India, Oxford, 1928, p. 221.
[6] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of
the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan). Part II, Translated by F.C.
Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924, pp. 217-224; Al-Kufi. The
Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson. A History
of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan Period, 1867-1877
(reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211.
[7] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of
the Islamic State, Part II, p. 218.
[8] R.C. Majumdar (editor). The
History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. 3, The Classical Age, Bombay,
1954, p. 458.
[9] Majumdar, The Classical Age,
pp. 458-459.
[10] From a translation of Ziauddin
Barani's Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa, 1358-9 C.E., in Mohammad Habib. The
political theory of the Delhi sultanate., Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1961,
pp. 46-47.
[11] Chachnama, Elliot and Dowson,
pp. 173-174.
[12] Majumdar, The Classical Age,
pp. 460.
[13] Majumdar, The Classical Age,
pp. 461-462.
[14] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II,
Appendix Note D, pp. 434-484.
[15] Srivastava. The Sultanate
of Delhi, p. 52.
[16] K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim
Rule in India, New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan, 1992, pp. 96-97
[17] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II,
40-41.
[18] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II,
49.
[19] Srivastava. The Sultanate
of Delhi, p. 59.
[20] Alberuni. Alberuni's India-
An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology,
Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology of India (about 1030 C.E), Edited
by E.C. Sachau, 1888 (reprinted New Delhi, 1993), p. 22.
[21] Srivastava. The Sultanate
of Delhi, p. 61-62.
[22] K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice
of Muslim State in India, New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan, 1999, pp.20-21.
[23] Lal. Muslim State in India,
p. 21
[24] Srivastava. The Sultanate
of Delhi, pp. 304-305.
[25] R.C. Majumdar (editor) The
Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974, p. xi.
[26] Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate
of Delhi, p. 623