The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11: Chapter I. Dynastic History of Sind
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11
- Language
- English
Contents
- v1.c11.39 — 5 parts
- v1.c11.58 — 4 parts
- v1.c11.86 — 5 parts
- v1.c11.110 — 4 parts
- v1.c11.127 — 5 parts
- v1.c11.161 — 4 parts
- v1.c11.173 — 5 parts
- v1.c11.209 — 4 parts
- v1.c11.221 — 4 parts
- v1.c11.s1 Dynastic Table of Sind — 43 parts
- v1.c11.s2 Bibliography — 27 parts
Chapter I. Dynastic History of Sind
v1.c11.2
The area indicated by the word *Sind* has varied from age to age. The Hindu geographers probably included the lower Indus valley in the term *Sindhu-Sauvīra*.¹ When Yuan Chwang visited Sind, the whole region from Shikarpur down to the sea was politically subject to Sind, but of this area *Sin-tu* (Sind) appears to have formed only a small portion.² To the Arab writers however *as-Sind* meant a much bigger area. Thus Balādhurī (9th century A.D.) describes al-Kīkān (modern Kelat³ in Baluchistan) as 'part of the land of *as-Sind* where it borders on Khurāsān.'⁴ Mukaddasī (10th century A.D.) praises 'al-Lahūm,' a city in Bāmiyān as 'the trade port of Khurāsān and the treasure house of Sind.'⁵ This passage probably refers to the proximity of the frontiers of Bāmiyān, Khurāsān, and Sind. Multan, which was outside Sind in the time of Yuan Chwang, was also included in *as-Sind* by the Arab historians. The boundaries of Sind in the east cannot be precisely indicated.
v1.c11.3
¹ *AGI*, pp. 285 ff. and 690; *CIC*, map facing p. 1; EI, Vol. VIII, p. 44 (line 11 of the inscription).
v1.c11.4
² *YC*, Vol. II, pp. 252 ff.
v1.c11.5
³ *LEC*, p. 332; NA, p. 566; Elliot, pp. 381-93.
v1.c11.6
⁴ *KFB*, Vol. II, p. 210.
v1.c11.7
⁵ *LEC*, p. 418.
v1.c11.8
It was probably limited on this side by the Thar or the Indian Desert; on the south it was bounded by the sea, while on the south-west it included a considerable portion of Baluchistan and the Mukrān coast. Balādhuri,¹ describes the route of Muḥammad ibn Qāsim from Shiraz (the capital of Fars) *via* Mukrān to the cities of Qannazbur (Fannazbūr; mod. Panj-gūr²), Armā’il (Armabil), Qanīl (Qanbalī) and Daibul, all of which apparently belonged to *as-Sind*. It is also possible that the province known as Mukrān to the Arabs originally belonged to *as-Sind*. In the accounts of the earlier raids of the Arabs towards this portion of India, we find officers appointed ‘over the frontier of al-Hind.’ It was only after a series of raids and conquests on this frontier that Mukrān is mentioned as one of the conquests of Sinan ibn Salāmah about the year 48 A.H.³ It was after Ibn al-Harī al-Bāhilī had finally conquered the country ‘after a fierce and successful campaign’ (*circa* 61 A.H.) that Sa‘īd was for the first time appointed by Ḥajjāj over Mukrān (*circa* 79 A.H.).⁴ It is therefore very likely that this province was carved out of the territory which was politically and geographically known to them as *as-Sind*. Thus it appears that the Arabs understood by *as-Sind*, the whole of the lower Indus valley from Multan down to the sea, including nearly the whole of modern Baluchistan.⁵
v1.c11.9
¹ *KFB*, pp. 216 ff.
v1.c11.10
² *LEC*, p. 329.
v1.c11.11
³ *KFB*, Vol. II, pp. 210-12.
v1.c11.12
⁴ *Ibid*, pp. 213 and 215. See also *NA*, pp. 567 ff.
v1.c11.13
⁵ *LEC*, p. 331, fn. 1. According to Mas‘ūdī, the king of Kanauj is one of the kings of Sind, and Kashmir forms part of Sind. See *Elliot*, I, pp. 22-23. He may have been misinformed: But it is possible that Mas‘ūdī's remarks are based on the fact that during certain periods, the kings of Kanauj and Kashmir were rulers of portions of Greater Sind, which may have vaguely extended towards the north to the frontier of Kashmir. See fn. 3, p. 4. It is also possible that like *Hidu* of Darius I and *India* of Herodotus *Sind* may have sometimes meant the whole valley of the Sindhu and the adjacent region. For the map and boundary of Sind by Ibn Hauqal, see *Elliot*, I, pp. 32-38.
v1.c11.14
The history of this region from the 7th century, or even earlier, down to the 16th century, when it was finally incorporated in the empire of Akbar, is extremely obscure. The Hindus have little or no records for the reconstruction of the history of this period, while the Muslim historians are generally exceedingly careless about the infidel inhabitants of the land; yet it is from these writers that we can get some faint idea of the political events of this region. Yuan Chwang, who visited India in the middle of the seventh century A.D., has left us some account of the country. He tells us that the reigning king 'was of the Śūdra (Shu-to-lo) caste,......a sincere man and a believer in Buddhism.'¹ But he does not even mention the name of the reigning sovereign. The only work which supplies us with some details of the princes of Sind from the 7th century down to its conquest by the Arabs in 713 A.D. is the late historical romance, variously known as the *Chach-nāma*, *Ta'rīkh-i Hind-wa Sind* or *Fatḥ-nāma*, a Persian work composed in the time of and dedicated to Nāṣir ud-Dīn Qabācha (613 A.H.=A.D. 1216).² From this work we come to know that the dynasty of the Brahman Chach, to which Dāhir, the contemporary of Muḥammad ibn Qāsim belonged, was preceded by the 'Rāī Dynasty.' Three princes of this line who immediately preceded Dāhir, are mentioned, *viz.*, Rāī Dīwājī, his son Rāī Sihras, and his son Rāī Sāhasī. This list is also found in *Ta'rīkh-i-Mā'ṣūmī*³ but the *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām* (A.H. 1181) mentions two additional names after Rāī Sāhasī, *viz.*, Rāī Sihras II (son of Rāī Sāhasī), and his son Rāī Sāhasī II.⁴ Their capital city was 'ar-Rūr'⁵ (mod. Rohri), while their kingdom extended to Kashmir in the east, to Mukrān on the west to the shores of the ocean on the south, and to Kaikānān in the north. In the *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām*, the boundaries are further extended in the east to Kanauj, in the north to Kandahar, Sistan, the hills of Sulaiman and Kaikānān,¹ and in the south to the confines of the port of Surat.² It also assigns a period of 137 years to the five rulers mentioned above.³ According to all these accounts Rāī Sāhasī⁴ was succeeded by his Brahman minister Chach, who married his widow and established a separate dynasty. Chach, we are told, was a vigorous ruler. The frontiers of his dominions also touched Kashmir, and included Mukrān and Siwistan (*Sijistān?*); he defeated and killed a king named Mahrat (*Mahāratha?*) (a relation of Sāhasī) who is variously described as the chief of Jaipur, Jodhpur or Chitor in 'about the first year of the Hijra' (A.D. 622).¹ Chach ruled for 40 years and was succeeded by his brother Chandar who ruled for 8 years and was in his turn succeeded by Dāhir, his nephew, the son of Chach, who was defeated and killed by Muḥammad ibn Qāsim in 93 A.H. (712 A.D.) after a reign of 33 years, the whole dynasty having lasted 92 years.² It is, however, to be noticed that the total reign period of the rulers is only 81. It is difficult to find out how far this account is historical, for the *Chach-nāma*, on which this account is mainly based, is more fanciful and romantic than historical in its treatment of events. It is generally assumed that when Yuan Chwang visited Sind about the middle of the 7th century A.D., one of the princes of the Rāī dynasty was still ruling at Alor.³ Of course this goes against the chronological arrangements of *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām*, according to which the Rāī dynasty ruled from *circa* 485 to 622. A.D.⁴ But as it is supposed that Yuan Chwang could not have committed so palpable a mistake as to describe a Brahman as a Śūdra, the period of the rule of the Rāī dynasty is extended till the middle of the 7th century A.D.⁵
v1.c11.15
¹ *YC*, Vol. II, p. 252; *Elliot*, I, pp. 410-11.
v1.c11.16
² Translated by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, Karachi, 1900. *Elliot*, I, pp. 131-211. All subsequent histories of Sind, like the *TM* (A.D. 1600) appears to have copied this account from the *Chach-nāma*. See *Elliot*, I, pp. 405; pp. 213 ff.
v1.c11.17
³ Also known as *Ta'rīkh-i-Sind*. See *Elliot*, I.
v1.c11.18
⁴ Translated by Lieut. Postands in *JASB*, Vol. XIV, 1845, Part I, pp. 78-79.
v1.c11.19
⁵ For a different form of the name see *Elliot*, I, p. 363.
v1.c11.20
¹ *Elliot*, I, p. 189.
v1.c11.21
² Surat has been taken by Elliot (Vol. I, p. 405) to be Saurāṣṭra, *i.e.*, the Kathiawar peninsula. But the text distinctly says "port of Surat," and as our text belongs to the early 18th century, the author probably had the port of Surat in his mind.
v1.c11.22
³ *JASB*, Vol. XIV, 1845, Part I, pp. 78 and 80. In the original Kanauj is spelt (قنوج). It has been asserted by some scholars that 'Kinnauj is not Kanauj' but only 'a dependency of Multan.' Rāī Harchandar, son of Jahtal Rāī, the contemporary of Muḥammad Qāsim is of course otherwise unknown to history (*Elliot*, I, p. 208). But as Multan was one of the parts of *as-Sind*, in this period, and as it is asserted that the limits of the latter extended up to Kashmir and Kanauj, it is more likely that the chronicler was referring in a vague way to the boundaries of the empire of Kanauj, which spread over a large portion of Northern India in the 7th century A.D. At that period the western limits of this kingdom were not beyond the reach of possible raids from Multan. Possibly Muḥammad raided some of these western provinces which once belonged to the famous empire of Kanauj. The confusion of the scholars mentioned above must have been caused by the statement of Mas‘ūdī that the king of Kanauj was one of the kings of Sind. Mas‘ūdī should not, however, be taken here to refer to the modern boundaries of Sind, for in another place he includes Kashmir also in Sind. It should be noted that Mas‘ūdī never says that the city of Kanauj was a dependency of Multan or that it is on the banks of one of the Punjab rivers. The city which is thus located by him was called Ba‘ūrah (بؤورة Pratihāra?) after the title of the kings of Kanauj. This city originally belonged to Kanauj, but was apparently conquered by the Amīrs of Multan and formed a part of their principality. A careful analysis of Mas‘ūdī leaves us in no doubt that by his Ba‘ūrah (بؤوره) of Kanauj (قنوج) he is referring to the Gurjara-Pratīhāra kings of that city. History does not know of a second Kanauj, near about Multan during this period. See *Elliot*, I, 405; *NA*, p. 566; *EHI*, 4th Edition, p. 359, fn. 1; *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 7.
v1.c11.23
⁴ According to *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām*, it is Sāhasī II, see above.
v1.c11.24
¹ *Elliot*, I, p. 140, fn. 1; *JASB*, Vol. XIV, 1845, Part I, p. 81. It is quite likely that this prince was a Maurya king. According to Rajput tradition the Moris (Mauryas) held sway over this tract before the rise of the Guhilots. See *AR*, Vol. I, p. 265. For the dates of the early Guhilot princes see *IA*, 1910, pp. 188-89; *EI*, Vol. IV, p. 31. There are a number of inscriptions of the early 8th century A.D. where Guhilot princes are found as vassals of the Mauryas; see *ASI, W. Circle*, 1906, p. 60; *EI*, XII, pp. 11-12. In the *Chach-nāma* (Mirza Kalichbeg's Trans., p. 21) Mahrat is described as the brother of Sāhasī.
v1.c11.25
² *JASB*, 1845, XIV, Part I, p. 96; *Elliot*, I, 412.
v1.c11.26
³ See V. Smith's *EHI* (4th Edition), p. 369; Vaidya's *Mediæval Hindu India*, Vol. I, p. 19.
v1.c11.27
⁴ *JASB*, 1845, Vol. XIV, Part I, pp. 80-81: "The period occupied by the rule of the five preceding Rajahs is 137 years, and then it descended to the Brahmins." Chach's victory over 'Rana Mihrut,' soon after his accession to the throne, is said to have 'occurred about the first year of the Hijera.' (622 A.D.) Prof. Dowson places the accession of Chach in A.H. 10. For his discussion of these dates see *Elliot*, I, pp. 406-07 and 412-14. Thus he places the accession of Dīwāji in 495 A.D. taking 137 years as not an improbable period of duration of 5 reigns. Also *Elliot*, I, pp. 410-11.
v1.c11.28
⁵ Yuan Chwang described Kumāra (Bhāskaravarman) of Kāmarūpa as a Brahman. But his inscription describes him as the descendant of Naraka and Bhagadatta, who do not appear to have been Brahmans. See *EI*, XII, pp. 71-72. It is, however, pointed out by Dr. Raychaudhuri that the claim to Brahmanhood may have been based upon descent from Nārāyaṇa Deva (possibly to be identified with Viṣṇu, son of the *ṛṣi* Kaśyapa) (*YC*, II, p. 186). Nārāyaṇa, it is well known, was the father of Naraka according to Purāṇic legends.
v1.c11.29
It is however by no means certain that the Rāīs were Śūdras, for they claimed relation with prince Mahrat (*Mahāratha?*) who possibly belonged to the Mori or the Maurya tribe which claimed to belong to the Paramāra branch of the Rajputs. The Morya or Maurya sub-clan of the Paramāras still exists.¹
v1.c11.30
¹ See above, fn. 1 on p. 5; *Census Report, Rajputana*, 1911, I, 255; *AR*, p. 265, fn. 3. See also *Elliot*, I, pp. 410-11.
v1.c11.31
The conquest of Sind by the Arabs in 712 A.D. was the final act of a drama which began as early as the Caliphate of ‘Umar in the year 15 A.H. (A.D. 636), with the Arab naval attack on Tānaḥ (mod. Thana near Bombay) and Barwaṣ (Broach).² The Arab fleet appeared in the gulf of ‘ad-Daibul’ and from this time onward kept on raiding this frontier both by land and sea. But the task was not an easy one. For as a report to Caliph “‘Uthmān” describes it: “the water supply is scanty, the dates are inferior; a small army would be lost there, and a large army would starve.”³ But the conquering energy of the Arabs recognised no barriers, and they continued to hammer at the frontier-gates in spite of these difficulties and the stubborn nature of the resistance. In the year 39 A.H. (659 A.D.) al-Ḥārith raided this frontier but was killed after some initial success in ‘al-Kīkān’ in A.H. 42 (A.D. 662). In
v1.c11.32
² *KFB*, Part II, p. 209.
v1.c11.33
³ *Ibid*, p. 210. The following verse quoted by Balādhuri gives an idea of these difficulties:
v1.c11.34
“And thou art going to Mukrān
How far the destination from the starting place!
I have no use for Mukrān,
Either to fight there or to trade.
I was told about it; I did not go there;
And I always dislike to hear about it.
Most people there are hungry
And the rest of them are depraved.” P. 212.
v1.c11.35
the year 44 A.H. (A.D. 664) al-Muhallab is reported to have passed through al-Kīkān and reached the towns of Bannah and al-Ahwār (Lahore) between Multan and Kabul.¹ In the reign of Mu'āwiyah 'Abdullah was killed in a raid on this frontier. In the reign of this very Caliph Sinan ibn Salāmah is reported to have "conquered Mukrān by force." But soon after Rashid ibn 'Amr was killed while raiding the Mīd in this region.² Al-Mundhir also died on this frontier, and it was only when Zīyād, the governor of 'Irāq appointed Ibn-al-Ḥarrī al-Bāhillī that he succeeded in conquering Mukrān 'after a fierce and successful campaign.' The episode of the robbery of the Mīds on a ship sent to Ḥajjāj by 'the king of the Island of Rubies' (Ceylon), if true, was probably only a pretext used by Ḥajjāj for securing support from the Caliph for his vigorous forward policy on this frontier, which finally resulted in the conquest of the powerful kingdom of Sind in A. H. 92-94 (A. D. 710-13), but not before Budail ibn Ṭahfah had been killed before the walls of Daibul in an earlier attempt.³
v1.c11.36
¹ *Ibid*, p. 210; *Elliot*, I, p. 116.
v1.c11.37
² *KFB*, Part II, pp. 211-12.
v1.c11.38
³ *Ibid*, Part II, p. 216. For the advances of the Arabs towards W. Sind and the details of its conquest see also *Elliot*, I, pp. 414 ff.
v1.c11.39.1
With the conquest of Multan in 713 A.D. the whole of Sind was brought under Arab military control, that is to say, the big cities like Multan, Alor, Bahmanābād, Daibul,⁴ and other strategic centres were held by Arab garrisons, while the country remained under the rule of Hindu rulers.
v1.c11.39.2
One such chief was Ḥullīshāh, a son of Dāhir.⁵ It appears from the account of Balādhuri that this prince continued to hold considerable power round about Bahmanābād.¹ It seems likely that soon after Muḥammad ibn Qāsim was removed from the governorship of Sind and fell a prey to the vengeful Ṣāliḥ in about 715 A.D.² there was a revival of Hindu power in Sind, for we are told by Balādhuri that about this time, when Ḥabīb ibn al-Muhallab was ‘appointed to wage the *as-Sind* campaign, the kings of al-Hind came back to their kingdoms and Ḥullishāh came back to Bahmanābād and took up a position on the Mihrān.’ We are further told that ‘the people of ar-Rūr (Alor) submitted to him.’³ Mīr Ma‘ṣūm goes so far as to say that two years after the death of Muḥammad ibn Qāsim “the people of India rebelled, and threw off their yoke, and the country from Debalpur to the Salt Sea only remained under the dominions of the Khalifa.”⁴ According to Balādhuri, Ḥullishāh and all the rulers of Sind accepted Islam and Arabic names, in the reign of Caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz who succeeded Sulaymān in 717 A.D.⁵ But the Caliphs continued to send governors over Sind,⁶ and the degree of authority which they exercised must have varied according to the personality and ability of these officers. There is evidence to show that some of these governors tried to extend their power from their posts in Sind.
v1.c11.39.3
Ḥajjāj had ordered Muḥammad ibn Qāsim not to rest satisfied with Sind but to penetrate to China, thus emulating the victories of Qutayba in Transoxania, and he is generally credited by al-Bīrūnī, the *Chach-nāma*, and the Persian authorities with having penetrated to Kanauj.¹ It is difficult to ascertain how far this is historical, but there are reasons to believe that Junayd, who was Governor of Sind under Caliph Hishām (724-43) not only undertook a vigorous policy for the consolidation of Arab power in Sind but actually made raids on many parts of India. Balādhurī tells us that he defeated and killed Dāhir's son Ḥallīshāh who had apostatized and opposed his advance after a naval battle. He is also reported to have raided Uzain, Bahrī-mad, al-Mālibah, al-Kīraj, Mirmad, al-Mandal, Dahnāj, and Barwaṣ, and conquered al-Bailamān and al-Jurz.² It is probably one of these raids which is recorded in the Nausari grant (A.D. 738-39) of the Lāṭa Cālukya prince Pulakeśin Avani Janāśraya.
v1.c11.39.4
It is recorded in this inscription that Pulakeśin defeated a *Tājika* (Arab) army which had afflicted the kingdoms of Sindhu, Cutch, Saurāṣṭra, Cāvoṭaka, Maurya, and Gurjara, and had apparently advanced on Navasāri, where this prince was ruling at this time.³ The route of advance of this Arab invasion was through the Baroda Gap, which easily communicates with Sind, through the low-lying plain near the Runn of Cutch.⁴ Another such raid appears to be noticed in the Gwalior inscription of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra king Bhoja I, which tells us that Nāgabhaṭa, the founder of the family, who probably ruled in Avanti in about *c.* 725 A.D., defeated the army of a powerful *Mleccha* ruler which had apparently invaded his dominions.¹ According to al-Bīrūnī and a number of Jain writers the famous capital city and port of Valabhī was destroyed as a result of a series of Arab raids.² Balādhurī mentions the temporary occupation of Sindān (in Cutch) by the Arabs from Sind.³ But the success of the Arabs appears to have been very limited.
v1.c11.39.5
Among other reasons which prevented the Arab armies from meeting with the same degree of success, which they met with elsewhere, was probably the steady opposition of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Western Hindusthān, who in the 9th century came to hold the whole of Northern India from the Karnal District in the Punjab to the Vindhyas and from North Bengal to the Kathiawar peninsula.⁴ As the dominions of these kings of "Jurz" (Gurjara) touched upon the Arab sphere of influence in Sind and as they had to bear the brunt of the Arab attacks they soon came to be regarded as "unfriendly to the Arabs," while their enemies the Balharās (Rāṣṭrakūṭa king of Mānyakheṭa), soon developed a partiality for the Arabs.⁵ The roots of this policy of forming alliances with infidels for the purpose of political conquests, as opposed to holy war, must be traced to the first conqueror of Sind, who ceased to interfere with the temples and religious life of the friendly Indians and placed the *budd* of the Hindus in the same status as the "churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews and the fire temples of the Magians."¹
v1.c11.40
⁴ Alor has been generally identified with modern Rohri on the Indus. Bahmanābād was situated not far from modern Hyderabad, while Daibul is generally placed by most scholars near the modern port of Karachi, and others place it near modern Tatta, on the left bank of the main Indus channel.
v1.c11.41
⁵ Probably to be identified with the Jaisīya (Jayasiṁha) of the *Chach-nāma*. See *Elliot*, I, p. 201. If Jaisīya was written like جيسيه then there is some chance of its being confused with حليشه According to this work Jaisīya was a 'monk' and retired to Kassa (Cutch) in the dominions of Balharā after the capture of Alor, pp. 200-201. Balādhuri mentions Ṣiṣah as another son of Dāhir; see *KFB*, Vol. II, p. 226.
v1.c11.42
¹ *KFB*, Part II, p. 225.
v1.c11.43
² Ibid, p. 224. I prefer the matter-of-fact account of Balādhuri (9th century A.D.) to the romantic story of 'Alī ibn Ḥamīd al-Kūfī, which appears to be a later fabrication. See *Elliot*, I, 437; also *Caliphate*, pp. 362-63.
v1.c11.44
³ Ibid, p. 225.
v1.c11.45
⁴ *Elliot*, I, p. 438.
v1.c11.46
⁵ *KFB*, Part II, p. 225.
v1.c11.47
⁶ For the list of governors see the end of this chapter; also Zambaur's *Manuel de Généalogie et de Chronologie pour L'Histoire de L'Islam*, p. 279.
v1.c11.48
¹ *Elliot*, I, p. 434. *Kitābul-Hind*, of al-Birūnī; Trans. by Sachau, Vol. I, p. 21.
v1.c11.49
² *KFB*, Part II, pp. 226-27. Another son of Dāhir, Śiṣah was also treacherously killed by Junayd. Many of these places are not yet definitely identified. Jurz is probably the Gurjara State of Western India. Elliot identified Kīraj with Cutch and Mandal with Okā-Mandal in Gujarat; see *Elliot*, I, pp. 126, fn. 2, 390-91, 441-42. Recently Dr. R. C. Majumdar had identified Mirmad (Marmad of *Elliot*, I, p. 126) with the Maru-Māra referred to in a Ghatiyala inscription which includes Jaisalmer and parts of Jodhpur State. Mandal, according to him, is probably Mandor, while al-Bailamān probably refers to the circle of states mentioned in another Ghatiyala inscription as Vallamaṇḍala. Al-Malībah is taken by Murgotten as Malabar, by Elliot as Malwa or Malabar, while according to Dr. Majumdar it evidently means "eastern and western Malwa." See *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, pp. 21-22. Dr. Barnett suggests can Bailamān (بیلمان) be Bhilmāl, (بهيلمال), now Bhinmāl.
v1.c11.50
³ *Transactions of the Vienna Oriental Congress, Oriental Section*, p. 231; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 109; Part II, pp. 187-88 and 310.
v1.c11.51
⁴ *JL*, 1927, Vol. XIV, pp. 13-15.
v1.c11.52
¹ *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 102 and 107; see also *IA*, 1911, p. 240.
v1.c11.53
² *KH*, Trans. by Sachau (Trübner), Vol. I, pp. 192-93; *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 94-96, also p. 525. The city was probably destroyed as a result of a series of raids extending from *c.* 750 to 829 A.D.
v1.c11.54
³ *Ibid*, p. 232. The occupation took place in *c.* 813-33 A.D.
v1.c11.55
⁴ See *EI*, I, p. 186; Vol. IX, p. 1 ff.; *Rājataranginī*, V, 151; *MASB*, Vol. V, No. 3, pp. 63-64; *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, pp. 55-58; *ASI*, 1925-26, p. 141.
v1.c11.56
⁵ *Silsilatu-l-Tawārīkh* of merchant Sulaymān (237 A.H. = 851 A.D.) and *Murūju-l-dhahb*, of al-Mas'ūdī (343 A.H. = 956, A.D.). See *Elliot*, I, pp. 4-5, 21 and 23; *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, p. 54 and footnote on the same.
v1.c11.57
¹ *KFB*, Part II, p. 221; *Caliphate*, p. 363; *PI*, 1913, p. 272. The *budd* should not be taken as always meaning a Buddhist temple for Balādhurī appears to mean by "the *budd* of al-Multan," the famous sun-temple of that city; *ibid*, p. 222.
v1.c11.58.1
But, as I have said, in spite of these occasional raids and alliances² the Arab power did not prosper in Sind. Tamīm, the successor of Junayd, though famous for his generosity, was not apparently fitted to carry on the vigorous policy of his predecessors. Balādhurī tells us that in the time of al-Ḥakam ibn 'Awānah, who came to Sind, not long after Tamīm, 'the people of al-Hind apostatized with the exception of the inhabitants of Qaṣṣah.'...... 'A place of refuge,' we are told, 'to which the Moslems might flee was not to be found, so he built on the further side of the lake, where it borders on al-Hind, a city which he named al-Maḥfūẓah (the guarded), establishing it as a place of refuge for them, where they should be secure, and making it a capital.'³ Another city that was built at this time was al-Manṣūrah (the victorious; near modern Hyderabad).⁴ Alor was probably the first viceregal seat of the Arab governors of Sind,⁵ but in the time of Balādhurī (*circa* 892-93) the governors resided at al-Manṣūrah,⁶ in Lower Sind. From Balādhurī's description it seems clear that the cities were not far from each other, both being built on the sides of an unknown lake; and it is therefore likely that other portions of Sind were practically lost to the Arabs. But al-Ḥakam, we are told, "won back from the hands of the enemy all that they had conquered from him.
v1.c11.58.2
He was killed there later and afterwards the governors kept fighting the enemy and seizing whatever came into their hands, and subduing the neighbourhood whose inhabitants rebelled.’¹ This passage graphically describes the state of affairs in Sind during this period. The only other governor who is credited with a vigorous policy and successful invasions is Hishām ibn ‘Amr, appointed by the Abbasid Caliph al-Manṣūr (754-775). He is said to have ‘conquered what was left unsubdued,’ sent a fleet to Nārind, ‘conquered Kashmir, obtaining many prisoners and slaves,’ and reconquered Multan. He is further stated to have made an attack on ‘al-Qunduhar’ and cleared a faction of Arabs from Qandābīl.² During this period the power of the Caliphs over their governors in Sind appears to have been somewhat disturbed by the rebellions of their own officers and that of the conquered.³ But a more dangerous thing was the nomination of ‘Imrān ibn Mūsa by his father when the latter died as governor in A. H. 221 (A.D. 836).⁴ ‘Imrān, it is true, carried on a vigorous policy, fighting with the Zuṭṭs of Kīkān and the Mēds of Cutch.
v1.c11.58.3
But it has very appropriately been remarked that ‘when provincial governments in the east begin to become hereditary they are in a fair way to becoming kingdoms.’⁵ Moreover the power of the Abbasid Caliphs was also beginning to decline rapidly and dynasties rose all over the empire.⁶ They could no longer adequately support their distant viceroys with men and money.⁷ The effect of all these was a weakening of Arab control over Sind, which is illustrated by their expulsion from Sindān in Cutch in the reign of the Caliph al-Mu‘taṣim (833-42 A.D.).¹ The Caliphs appear to have lost all effective control over Sind from about the year A.H. 257 (870-71 A.D.) when Ya‘qūb ibn Layth established on the ruins of the Tahirids an independent dynasty. In that year the helpless Caliph formally conferred upon Ya‘qūb the government of Sind, Balkh, and Tukhāristān, in addition to Sijistān and Kirman, with which he had already been invested.² The Ṣaffārid dynasty thus founded was soon replaced in about the year 288 A.H. (900-901 A.D.) by the Sāmānids of Transoxania³ who finally reduced Sijistān to submission in A.H. 300.⁴ But there are no facts to prove, nor reasons to believe, that either the Ṣaffārids or the Sāmānids exerted any effective control over so remote a province as Sind.
v1.c11.58.4
Sind, thus neglected by the imperial government and its successors in the eastern provinces, appears to have been divided among several petty princes who though they transmitted no revenue and rendered no political allegiance to the Caliph, continued to acknowledge his spiritual supremacy, flattering him by occasional presents or gifts.⁵
v1.c11.59
² For other friendly Arab powers see *Silsilatu-l-Tawārīkh*, *Elliot*, I, pp. 4-5. For the evil effects of Junayd's policy see *Caliphate*, p. 401.
v1.c11.60
³ *KFB*, II, pp. 228-29; Qaṣṣah is probably Cutch.
v1.c11.61
⁴ *Ibid*, p. 229. See on this point *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 95; also *Elliot*, I, p. 372, note 1, p. 412. According to al-Bīrūnī al-Manṣūrah is identical with Bahmanura (Bahmanābād). See Sachau, Trans., Vol. I, p. 21.
v1.c11.62
⁵ *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 8.
v1.c11.63
⁶ *KFB*, Part II, p. 229.
v1.c11.64
¹ *Ibid*, p. 229.
v1.c11.65
² *Ibid*, pp. 230-31; on the word "Nārind" which has not been properly identified, see *Elliot*, I, p. 444, note 1. He reads the word as ‘Barada’ and locates it on the coast of Gujarat; ‘it stretches along the south-western shore of the peninsula of Gujarat, between the divisions of Hālār and ‘Sorath,’ on ‘Qundahar,’ see *ibid*, p. 445; it is identified with Kandahār in the peninsula of Kathiawar "one of the objects of our attack in 1809." But some place it in Afghanistan.
v1.c11.66
³ *KFB*, Part II, pp. 231, 232; *Elliot* I, pp. 479-80.
v1.c11.67
⁴ *Ibid*.
v1.c11.68
⁵ *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 9.
v1.c11.69
⁶ *KFB*, Part II, p. 232.
v1.c11.70
⁷ See *Caliphate*, pp. 508 ff.; *Elliot*, I, pp. 452 ff.
v1.c11.71
¹ *Ibid*, p. 233. ‘Sindān is probably Abrāsa, in the southern district of Cuchh.’ *PI*, 1913, p. 272 and fn. 4 on that page.
v1.c11.72
² *Elliot*, I; Gustav Weil, *Geschichte der Califen*, 1848, Vol. II, pp. 437 ff.; *TN*, Vol. I, pp. 16 ff.; *Caliphate*, pp. 543-44.
v1.c11.73
³ *TN*, p. 25.
v1.c11.74
⁴ *Ibid*, p. 34.
v1.c11.75
⁵ *Elliot*, I, pp. 453-54; see also pp. 479 ff, for causes which in the opinion of Elliot accelerated the downfall of the Caliph's dominion in Sind.
v1.c11.76
Silver and copper coins have been discovered in Sind which from palaeographic and other considerations are supposed to belong to the Arab governors. The following is a complete list of these coins. The numbers on the right refer to those given in the table at the end of this chapter.
v1.c11.77
| *Names.* | *Description of the Coins.* | *Remarks.* |
| 1. ‘Alī and al-Naṣar | Silver; weight about 8-10 grains. | |
| 2. ‘Ali and Muḥammad | " | |
| 3. ‘Umar and al-Naṣar | " | |
| 4. ‘al-Faraz | " | |
| 5. ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān and Naṣar | " | |
| 6. Naṣar | | (6) Probably No. 10 of the Abbasid list. |
| 7. Abd-al-Raḥmān | " | (7) Probably No. 1 of the Abbasid list. |
| 8. ‘Abd-allah | " | (8) May be No. 4 of the Umayyad list. |
v1.c11.78
The history of Sind approximately for the next hundred and fifty years (*circa* 879-1025 A.D.) which extends from the death of Yaʻqūb ibn Layth to the conquest of Sind by Sulṭān Maḥmūd, is largely the history of these smaller principalities. But our knowledge about them is very limited. We can only glean some facts from the stray notes of Ibn Khurdādbih (*circa* 300 A.H. = 912 A.D.),¹ Masʻūdī (*circa* 332 A.H. = 943 A.D.),² Iṣṭakhrī (*circa* 340 A.H. = 951 A.D.)³ and Ibn Ḥauqal (*circa* 366 A.H. = 976 A.D.).⁴ Masʻūdī who visited the Indus valley in the year 303-04 A.H. (A.D. 915-16), mainly notices two independent Arab principalities with Multan and Manṣūrah as their capitals. Multan is described by him as ‘one of the strongest frontier places of the Mussalmans, around which there are one hundred and twenty thousand towns, and villages.’ The king of Multan was a Quraisite, and the children of Usāmah ibn Lawī ibn Ghālib. ‘The crown,’ we are told, ‘has been hereditary in this family since ancient times, from the beginning of Islam.’⁵ The last passage probably indicates that Multan came into the possession of this Arab family a
v1.c11.79
¹ For the text and translation of his work *Kitāb ul-Masālik Wa'l-Mamālik*, see *JA*, 1865, Vol. VI. Extracts translated in *Elliot*, I, pp. 12-17.
v1.c11.80
² Extract from his *Murūj ul-Dhahb*, trans. in *Elliot*, I, pp. 18-25.
v1.c11.81
³ Extract from his *Kitāb ul-Akālīm*, in *Elliot*, I, pp. 26-30.
v1.c11.82
⁴ Extract from his *Ashkāl ul-Bilād* (or *Kitāb al-Masālik Wa'l-Mamālik*), *Elliot*, I, pp. 31-40.
v1.c11.83
⁵ *Elliot*, I, pp. 23 ff.; also p. 454, where Elliot takes "from the beginning of Islam" to mean "probably its introduction into Sind."
v1.c11.84
| *Names.* | *Description of the Coins.* | *Remarks.* |
| 9. Muḥammad (and) Naṣar | Silver; weight about 8·10 grains | (9) May be No. 10 of the Abbasid list. |
| 10. Muḥammad | ,, | (10) Probably No. 6 of the Umayyad list. |
| 11. Banū ‘Amr | ,, | |
| 12. Aḥmad | ,, | |
| 13. ‘Amru Nasar | Copper about 35 grains | |
| 14. Manṣūr | ,, ,, | (14) Probably last governor of the Umayyads No. 15. |
| 15. ‘Abd-ul-Rahmān | ,, 33 grains | (15) Probably No. 1 of the Abbasid list. |
| 16. Muḥammad | ,, 44 ,, | (16) Probably No. 6 of the Umayyad list. |
v1.c11.85
See *EIA*, pp. 119-24; *RGD*, pp. 56-64; and consult British Museum Coin Cabinet. I am indebted to Mr. John Allan for kindly showing me the coins in the British Museum.
v1.c11.86.1
considerable time before the visit of Mas‘ūdī. An interesting fact noticed by this traveller is about the famous idol of the city ‘known by the name of Multan.’¹ ‘The inhabitants of Sind and India,’ he tells us, ‘perform pilgrimages to it from the most distant places ; they carry money, precious stones, aloe-wood and all sorts of perfumes there to fulfil their vows. The great part of the revenue of the king of Multan is derived from the rich presents brought to the idol of the pure aloe-wood of Kumār, which is of the finest quality, and one *man* of which is worth 200 dīnārs.’ Financial necessity was therefore one of the important reasons why this idol was allowed to flourish in a city which was probably predominantly Moslem.² But there was another reason. Mas‘ūdī says that ‘when the unbelievers march against Multan, and the faithful do not feel themselves strong enough to oppose them, they threaten to break their idol, and their enemies immediately withdraw.’ Al-Mas‘ūdī leaves us in no doubt that amongst these unbelieving enemies of Islam the Ba’ūrah (Pratīhāra?) king of Kanauj was the foremost.
v1.c11.86.2
The kings of the Gurjaras (Jurz) we have already seen were unfriendly to the Arabs even as early as the first quarter of the 8th century A.D.³ When the merchant Sulaymān visited India in the middle of the 9th century A.D., they were regarded as the greatest foes of the Muḥammadan faith in India.⁴ Their power had by the last quarter of the 9th century spread over a large portion of Northern India, including portions of the eastern Punjab.⁵ But the policy of hostility to the Arabs handed down by earlier rulers was apparently continued by their successors and at the time of Mas'ūdī, their 'army of the North' waged incessant war 'against the Arab prince of Multan, and with the Musulmans, his subjects on the frontier.'¹ In this struggle, the temple of Multan appears to have played an important part. It is conceivable that but for this advantage the Arab principality of Multan would have fallen a victim to the mighty army of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras. In the middle of the 10th century however the Amirs of Multan appear to have secured some success over their enemies, for we are told by Mas'ūdī that a city which was called Ba'ūrah (Pratīhāra?) after the designation of the princes of Kanauj was at his time 'in the territories of Islam,' and 'was one of the dependencies of Multan.' It is difficult to locate this town;
v1.c11.86.3
but we are told by Mas'ūdī that 'through this town passes one of the (five) rivers which form together the river Mihrān (Indus) in Sind.'² The success of the Arabs of Multan was probably due in a large measure to the decline of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire in the first quarter of the 10th century.³ Al-Iṣṭakhrī, who visited India a few years after Mas'ūdī, tells us that 'Multan was a city of about half the size of Manṣūrah.' He also repeats the story of its idol, and the pilgrimages undertaken to it by the people from the most distant parts. But his account contains some interesting details about this temple. According to him the vast sums of money which these pilgrimages brought to the god, were "spent upon the temple and on those who lead there a life of devotion."⁴ "The temple of the idol," we are told, "is a strong edifice, situated in the most populous parts of the city, in the market of Multan, between the bazar of the ivory-dealers and the shops of the copper-smiths. The idol is placed under a cupola in the midst of the building, and the ministers of the idol and those devoted to its service dwell around the cupola. In Multan there are no men either of Hind or Sind who worship idols except those who worship this idol and in this temple. The idol has a human shape and is seated with its legs bent in a quadrangular posture on a throne made of brick and mortar. Its whole body is covered with a red skin like morocco leather, and nothing but its eyes are visible.
v1.c11.86.4
Some believe that the body is made of wood, some deny this; but the body is not allowed to be uncovered to decide the point. The eyes of the idol are precious gems, and its head is covered with a crown of gold.¹ It sits in a quadrangular position on the throne, its hands resting upon its knee, with the fingers closed, so that only four can be counted." This account differs from that of Mas‘ūdī on one important point. According to the latter the offering to the idol formed one of the important sources of revenue of the Arab State of Multan; but according to Iṣṭakhrī, they were spent on the temple and its devotees. Iṣṭakhrī adds another interesting detail to the story of the utilisation of the idol in wars against the Indians. He tells us that but for this ruse the Indians "would destroy Multan." This statement not only supports our contention about the wars between the Arabs of Multan and the Gurjara-Pratīhāras but also indicates that the Arabs had also by this time lost all their early conquering vigour and enthusiasm, being reduced more or less to a moribund condition. Iṣṭakhrī further tells us that "the Mālik is of a tribe of Quraish, and is not subject to the ruler of Manṣūrah but reads the Khuṭba in the name of the Khalifa." The chief, we are told, lived in a large cantonment outside the city, and never entered Multan except on Fridays, when he went to the city on the back of an elephant, in order to join in the prayers of that day.
v1.c11.86.5
Ibn Ḥauqal, who visited India about the same time, but finished his work in about 976 A. D. confirms most of the statements of Iṣṭakhrī. He also notices the decadent condition of the Arab State of Multan which was only saved from destruction by the Indians by the latter's fear of desecration of the idol of that city. But he adds the interesting information that the sums collected from the offerings of the pilgrims at the shrine were first taken by the Amir of Multan, who then distributed them amongst the servants of the temple. Multan, in his days was strongly fortified. Prices were low, but Manṣūrah was much more fertile and populous. His chronicle makes it clear that the chief of Multan still belonged to the same family which ruled in the time of Mas‘ūdī. He owed no allegiance to the chief of Manṣūrah, but still read the Khuṭba in the name of the Khalīfa.
v1.c11.87
¹ This idol is apparently referred to as “the *budd* of al-Multan by Balādhurī in connection with the conquest of that city by Muḥammad ibn Qāsim. According to al-Bīrūnī Muḥammad ibn Qāsim spared the idol but hung a piece of cow’s flesh on its neck by way of mockery. See *Kitāb ul-Hind* Trans. by Sachau, Vol. I, p. 116.
v1.c11.88
² See al-Idrīsī in *Elliot*, I, p. 83.
v1.c11.89
³ *EI*, Vol. XVIII, pp. 102 and 107.
v1.c11.90
⁴ *Elliot*, I, p. 4.
v1.c11.91
⁵ See footnote no. 4 on p. 10.
v1.c11.92
¹ *Ibid*, pp. 23-24.
v1.c11.93
² Elliot, I, p. 22; Elliot has apparently fallen into an error by stating that Kanauj was a province of Multan. *Ibid*, p. 454; see also *ante* my fn. no. 2 on p. 4.
v1.c11.94
³ *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, pp. 58 ff.
v1.c11.95
⁴ *Elliot*, I, pp. 27-28.
v1.c11.96
¹ Compare al-Bīrūnī's account, *KH*, Trans. by Sachau, Vol. I, p. 116.
v1.c11.97
According to Mas‘ūdī Manṣūrah was 75 Sindian parasangs (1 parasang=8 miles) from Multan. Towards the north it extended as far as al-Rūr which was included within its boundary. ‘The estates and villages dependent on Manṣūrah,’ says he, ‘amounted to 300,000.¹ The whole country is well cultivated and covered with trees and fields. It is constantly at war with a nation called the Meds, who are a race of Sind, and also with other races on the frontiers of Sind.’² Its king was a Quraishite, descended from Habbār ibn al-Aswad. He had eighty war-elephants every one of which was supported by five hundred infantry in battle, and ‘opposed thousands of horses.’ The ‘Meds’ with whom the king of Manṣūrah was at war appear to have been the same sea-robbers who infested the ports of Sind and Surāṣṭra in the 8th century and whose depredations were one of the immediate causes of the attack on Dāhir by Muḥammad ibn Qāsim. We know from Balādhurī that soon after his conquest of Sind Muḥammad was compelled to make peace with these sea-dogs.¹ It is interesting to note that they remained a source of trouble to the Arabs even in the 10th century. In Iṣṭakhrī's time Manṣūrah was about ‘a mile long, and a mile broad,’ and was ‘surrounded by a branch of the Mihrān.’ The inhabitants were Musalmans and the dress of the people was like the people of ‘Irāq, but the dress of their kings resembled that of the Indian kings in respect of hair and the tunic.’² This last point is extremely interesting, showing the tendency of these Arab States to become Indian in character. Al-Rūr, according to this traveller, approached Multan in size. It was protected by two walls and was situated ‘on the borders of Manṣūrah.’ In the time of Ibn Ḥauqal the limits of Manṣūrah, in the west appear to have touched the borders of Mukrān, for he places the village of Rahūk (or Dahūk) a dependency of Manṣūrah, on the borders of that land.³ Ibn Ḥauqal further noticed that the Mālik of the country still belonged to the Quraish tribe, claiming descent from Hubād ibn Aswad, doubtless the same family which ruled in the time of Mas‘ūdī. This prince still acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Caliph by reading the Khuṭba in his name.
v1.c11.98
¹ This figure is regarded by Elliot as ‘ridiculous exaggeration.’—*Elliot*, I, p. 455.
v1.c11.99
² Probably Mas‘ūdī is mistaken when he asserts that ‘Manṣūra has its name from Manṣūr ibn Jambūr, governor of the ‘Ummayids,’ *Elliot*, I, p. 24. See *ante*, p. 11 and fn. no. 4 on the same.
v1.c11.100
¹ *KFB*, II, p. 223.
v1.c11.101
² *Elliot*, I, p. 27.
v1.c11.102
³ *Ibid*, pp. 38 and 456. Ibn Ḥauqal appears to use the word *Amir* and *Mālik* in the same signification, fn. 1, on p. 445.
v1.c11.103
The Arab traveller also agrees with his predecessor in the statement that the city of Manṣūrah was surrounded by a branch of the Indus so that it looked like an island. The inhabitants were Musalmans, and the current coin was stamped at Kandahar, each piece being equivalent to five dirhams. The Tātarī coin was also current, each being in weight equal to a dirham and a third.⁴ He confirms Iṣṭakhrī by his statement that ‘the dress of the sovereigns of the country resembled in the trousers and tunic that worn by the kings of Hind.’ But it is significant that in his time the Moslems in certain parts had already begun to 'wear the same dresses and let their beards grow in the same fashion as the infidels.' This was another step in the formation of an Indian Moslem community as distinct from the conquerors from Arabia.¹
v1.c11.104
⁴ *Elliot*, I, p. 35.
v1.c11.105
¹ *Elliot*, I, p. 39.
v1.c11.106
Besides these two principal states in the Indus Valley, there appears to have been other smaller principalities. On the west, Ibn Ḥauqal, tells us of the city of Qaṣdār (Kuzdār) 'with dependent towns and villages.' The governor was Muʻīn ibn Aḥmad, but the Khuṭba was read in the name of the Khalīfa only, and his place of residence was at the city of Kabākānān (Kīzkānān).² Tūrān, not far from this State³ "was under the authority of a native of Basra, named Abu'l-Qassām tax-gatherer, administrator, judge, and general, who could not distinguish three and ten." Mukrān also formed another principality under ʻIsa ibn Maʻdān, who established his residence in the city of Kīz (Lat. 26°, Long. 63°—approximately).⁴
v1.c11.107
² *Elliot*, I, pp. 38-39. Kīzkānān (also called Kīkān) is mod. Kelat. See *LEC*, p. 333.
v1.c11.108
³ *LEC*, pp. 331-32; *Elliot*, I, p. 456.
v1.c11.109
⁴ *Elliot*, p. 456.
v1.c11.110.1
The above is a bare outline of the political condition of Sind from the time when it became virtually free from effective control by the Caliphs to the advance of the conquering Turks from the North. I have already noticed how the Arabs in Sind, by placing the Hindu temples in the same category as the places of worship of the Jews, Christians and the Persians, helped to establish new lines of Islamic policy.⁵ I have also tried to indicate the tendency of the Arabs to adopt gradually Indian dress and customs, which, in course of time led to the formation of an Indian Moslem community as distinct from the early Arab conquerors. This tendency was no doubt hastened by the fact that the early Arab settlers in Sind brought no women with them. The result was, as Elliot has already observed that there was ‘ among the descendants of the Scindian colonists, less infusion of the real blood of Arabs than in any other province subjected to their dominion.’¹ Mas‘ūdī noticed that the language of Sind was ‘ different from the rest of India ;’ but it was not Arabic, for Iṣṭakhrī tells us that the speech of the people of Multan and Manṣūrah was Persian and Sindi. As to the administration of the country, the rule of the Arabs appears to have been throughout more or less of a military character. The land was held by Arab garrisons supported by grants of land.
v1.c11.110.2
They were probably mainly concentrated in the important cities and were possibly assisted by levies of Sindian troops, but details about this organisation are wanting.² The internal administration of the country was necessarily left largely in the hands of the Hindu landlords paying the land tax (*Kharāj*) and the capitation tax (*Jizya*).³ It is difficult to estimate the annual revenue of the whole of Sind during this period, but in the days of the Caliphs Sind paid to the Imperial exchequer a sum of 11,500,000 dirhams and 150 pounds of aloe wood.⁴ There is evidence that commerce flourished. ‘ Caravans were often passing and repassing between that country (Sind) and Khurāsān, most commonly by the route of Kabul and Bāmiān.’⁵ I have already referred to the statement of Muqaddasī about the city of al-Lahūm, in Bāmiān, ‘as the trade port of Khurāsān and the treasure-house of Sind.’ Mas‘ūdī tells us that the caravans of Khurāsān used to assemble at Multan.⁶ ‘ The Arab merchants at this period formed the commercial communication between Sind and the neighbouring countries of India. They brought the produce of China and Ceylon to the seaports of Sind and from there conveyed them by way of Multan to Turkistan and Khurasan.'¹ As to religion, it appears that the tenets of Islam continued to spread.
v1.c11.110.3
From the very beginning the conquerors adopted a policy of toleration, dictated by political wisdom, and not only did they allow the existing temples to stand, but sometimes, as at Bahmanābād, Brahmans were permitted to rebuild demolished temples. Harsh measures against priests and temples of the Hindus were only taken, as in Daibul, in case of violent resistance to the armies of Islam. Towards the end of our period, we find the Arabs so far removed from their original iconoclastic outlook that they did not hesitate to thrive on the income of idols and utilise them for gaining political ends. The success of Islam in Sind was probably largely due to their policy of moderation.² But towards the middle of the 10th century Islam in Sind appears to have been influenced by a wave of Qarmaṭian heresy from Egypt and ‘Irāq. It was probably after the period A. H. 326 to A. H. 375 (A. D. 938 to 985), during which they met with ignominious defeats in Egypt and ‘Irāq, that they sought new settlements in the East, and taking advantage of the petty local governments, soon spread over the whole of Sind.³ In the beginning of the 11th century, Maḥmūd of Ghazni found both Multan and Manṣūrah in the occupation of this Isma‘īlī sect.⁴ Al-Bīrūnī tells us that when the Qarmaṭians occupied Multan, Jalam ibn Shaibān, the usurper broke the idol of *Āditya* to pieces and killed its priests.
v1.c11.110.4
The temple which was built of brick on an elevated place, was converted into a mosque and the old mosque was ordered to be shut "from hatred against anything that had been done under the dynasty of the Caliphs of the house of ‘Umayya. When afterwards the blessed prince Maḥmud swept away their rule from those countries, he made again the old mosque the place of the Friday worship.”¹
v1.c11.111
⁵ *Caliphate*, p. 363; *PI*, 1913, p. 272.
v1.c11.112
¹ *Elliot*, I, pp. 463-64.
v1.c11.113
² *Elliot*, I, pp. 461 and 446 ff.
v1.c11.114
³ The *Chach-nāma* mentions the *bāj* and the ‘*Usharī* or ‘*asharī* amongst other taxes paid by the Sindian cultivator—*Elliot*, I, p. 475. For the rates of land tax and *Jizya* see *ibid*, pp. 474-77. Also *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, Vol. II, pp. 902-03.
v1.c11.115
⁴ *Elliot*, I, pp. 460 and 471. Elliot calculates the value of ‘one million of dirhams, at five pence halfpenny each,’ as ‘equivalent to about £23,000.’
v1.c11.116
⁵ *Elliot*, I, p. 467.
v1.c11.117
⁶ *Ibid*, p. 21.
v1.c11.118
¹ *PI*, 1913, p. 273; Mas‘ūdī, Vol. I, p. 207; *Elliot*, I, pp. 467-68.
v1.c11.119
² See *MG*, 1927, pp. 81-82, for the possible effects of a policy of plunder and oppression on Hinduism.
v1.c11.120
³ *Elliot*, I, p. 459; *MG*, p. 23.
v1.c11.121
⁴ For the Qarmaṭians, see *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, Vol. II, pp. 767-772 and the bibliography on p. 772.
v1.c11.122
¹ *KH*, Trans. by Sachau, pp. 116-17.
v1.c11.123
The Arab conquest of Sind has been described as ‘a mere episode in the history of India which affected only a fringe of that vast country.’² As a political force or from the point of view of Arab missionary enterprise the Arab conquest of Sind certainly played an inferior part. But trade was active during the period; and with the interchange of commodities there appears to have been also an exchange of ideas. Arab Sind formed a link in a vast empire and the Arabs soon became the carriers of the seed of Indian culture and mediums of exchange of eastern and western thoughts.³ Astronomy in Arab civilization seems to have come chiefly from India. The study of Mathematics learned from Greece and India, was developed by Arab writers, who in their turn became the teachers of Europe in the 16th century. Al-Bīrūnī tells us that the numeral signs which the Arabs used were ‘derived from the finest forms of the Hindu signs.’ In this connection Amir Khusrau, the Persian poet (died 1325 A.D.) in one of his *mathnavīs* entitled the *Nuh sipihr* (nine skies) gives us some interesting information. According to him the word *Hindsa* (هندسه) means the mathematical system of the Indian professor *Āsa*. He tells us that the Arab astronomer Abū Ma‘shar went to Benares and studied this system for ten years, and we are informed that whatever he has written is derived from the Hindus. This Abū Ma'shar is probably to be identified with Abū Ma'shar of Balkh, who died in 885 A.D.¹ In the field of medicine, folklore, and religion also the contact was not less fruitful. Al-Bīrūnī has already noticed the Arab translation of the work of Caraka and the stories of the *Pañcatantra*, known in his time as the book of Kalīla and Dimna. In religion, in the opinion of competent authorities, the monastic strain and other features in Ṣūfism such as the use of the rosaries, the doctrine of fanā (*Nirvāṇa*?), and the system of 'stations' (*maqāmāt*) on the road thereto were borrowed from Buddhism and other schools of Indian thought. Writing on Ṣūfism Prof. Nicholson observes: "It looks as though the legend of Ibrāhīm ibn Adham, a prince of Balkh, who one day suddenly cast off his royal robes and became a wandering Ṣūfī, were based on the story of Buddha."
First 136 of 338 passages. Read on
Linked texts (9)
- Rājataraṅgiṇī — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit
- Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
- كليلة ودمنة — ʿAbd Allāh Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, Arabic
- Epigraphia Indica
- Pañcatantra — Viṣṇuśarman, Sanskrit
- Caraka — Sanskrit
- Nuh sipihr — Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī
- Chachnāma — ʿAlī b. Ḥāmid al-Kūfī
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf