The Rashtrakutas and their Times c20.s2.33

c20.s2.33

It is very often asserted that the gospels of Ahimsā and Sanyāsa, that were popularised by Jainism and Buddhism, have ultimately resulted in the enslavement of India for the last 1,000 years. Some events, that have happened in our period, seem to support this view. When Bajhra, the nephew of Dahir, was preparing to defend the fort of Swistan against Mahmud Kasim, all the Samanis (i. e. Buddhists) assembled and said to him:—'Our religion is one of peace and quiet and fighting and slaying is prohibited as well as all kinds of shedding of blood. You are secure in a lofty place, while we are open to the invasions of the enemy and liable to be slain and plundered as your subjects. We know that Mahmud Kasim holds a firman from Hajjaj to grant protection to all those who demand it. We trust, therefore, that you deem it fit and reasonable that we make terms with him, for the Arabs are faithful and keep their engagements.' (190) It would be, however, a mistake to suppose that the Buddhists of Sindh were emasculated by their religion. They no doubt said that their religion forbade them from slaughter and shedding of the blood, but that was merely for cloaking their cowardice. The rapid successes of Mahmud Kasim and the brutality with which he butchered all those who opposed him had unnerved the population of Sindh. The Buddhists of Swistan were using the tenets of their religion only as a convenient excuse in order to avoid the prospect of being butchered or enslaved by the conqueror. It should be noted that the Hindus of Brahmānābād were equally meek and submissive, and the Brahmanas among them played the mean game of winning over the population to the side of the conqueror, (191) thereby bringing disgrace to the memory of their ancestors, who had incited the population against Alexander the Great and paid the extreme penalty for the glorious offence of patriotism.