Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c27: 21. Conclusion

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c27

Language
English

Contents

21. Conclusion

Rapid over-running of Hindustan

c27.s1.1

When one looks back on the history of the conquest of our country by the Turks, one is struck by the fact that most parts of northern India were so easily over-run by the foreign hordes. It is amazing to read that Mahmud of Ghazni would repeat his annual raids, penetrate into the heart of our country, plunder our prosperous cities and wealthy temples and return to Ghazni without being effectively punished, much less checked. One would hardly believe that our political and military condition was so rotten that the invader could not be decisively beaten even once and prevented from repeating his audacious raids. Nevertheless, this is a fact of history that Mahmud was never really decisively defeated by any Hindu ruler. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Indian soldier was not in any way inferior to the Turk. In fact, in courage, in sheer bravery and disregard and contempt of death, he was superior to his Turkish adversary. Nor were our Rajput rulers, in any sense of the term, cowards or lacking in soldierly qualities. What could, then, be the cause of our country having been over-run so easily from the Indus to Banaras within a short space of thirty years by the Ghaznavide hordes ? The first and foremost cause seems to be the fact that the country having been parcelled out into numerous independent States, it was nobody’s concern to make effective arrangements for the protection of the north-western frontier and to check the progress of the invader. While the Hindushahi king of the Panjab fought to resist Mahmud within his own territory, he did not think it to be his business to prevent his march into the dominions of his neighbours. The same was the attitude of the king of Kanauj and the vicious circle went on. An effective combination of all, or most of our rulers, was an impossibility in that age, for they were not on good terms with one another. Secondly, the masses had developed an attitude of unconcern towards politics, the rise and fall of empires and coming and going of rulers. They did not care as to who their rulers were.

c27.s1.2

They went on tilling their fields without minding the great conflicts between our rulers and the invader. Political apathy, combined with lack of patriotism, territorial or emotional, created a frame of mind in the generality of the Indians of that age which made little difference between foreigners and their countrymen. But the greatest cause of our country having been over-run so easily and quickly was the employment of shock tactics by Mahmud. He pursued the policy of falling upon our prosperous towns with lightning rapidity and withdrawing himself suddenly and returning to Ghazni with equal speed. His mobile and rapid marches, sudden attacks and equally sudden withdrawals and the repetition of these tactics times out of number created great confusion and demoralisation in our ranks. Our people looked helpless like the peaceful, though brave, members of a household before a daring and callous robber. Before they could gather themselves and make improvised arrangements for protection, the invader, like a robber, was off. They felt that they were now safe; but the invader returned again with his former suddenness and swooped down upon another prosperous town and its wealthy temples and the game went on causing helplessness and alarm. In these circumstances the only thing that could save the situation was a rigid military and political organisation that could make it possible for our troops to remain eternally vigilant; but this pre-supposed one single leader of eminence for the whole country, or, at least, for the whole of northern India, was an impossibility in that age.

c27.s1.3

As the student proceeds further, he meets with another surprising phenomenon. And that is how soon our people and rulers forgot their suffering and humiliation at the hands of Mahmud, and, after he was dead and gone, they relapsed into their old lethargy. They derived no lesson from the history of his invasions and lost the opportunity of organising themselves for mutual defence and protection. The last quarter of the twelfth century found them as unprepared and disorganised as they had been in the early years of the eleventh century. When Muhammad of Ghur started on his career of conquest of northern India, he met with little resistance and, during the brief period of fifteen years, the Turks once again over-ran the entire Hindustan—this time as far as the eastern extremity of Bangal. The same causes were at work at the end of the twelfth century as they had been in the beginning of the eleventh century A.D.

Our bid for freedom

c27.s2.1

Over-running the country was one thing and its effective conquest quite another. It did not mean that the Turks succeeded in capturing easily what they had over-run. The real and effective resistance of our people began only when the Turks attempted to occupy the country and rule over it. Perhaps our people laboured under the mistaken notion that the invader was not concerned with territorial sovereignty and would content himself with mere plunder. But when they saw that his lieutenants were establishing military garrisons and occupying the country, they adopted concerted measures to oppose. The struggle between the Hindushahi kings of the Panjab and their Arab and Turkish neighbours is the story of a remarkable resistance which was put up for centuries. The province of the Panjab could be conquered by the invaders only after over 350 years’ (636—1026 A.D.) effort. The Chauhans of Sambhar and Ajmer revolted four times within the brief period of half a decade in order to drive away Muhammad of Ghur’s officers. The fort of Ranthambhor could not remain in effective Muslim possession even after 150 years’ fighting. The entire Rajasthan could not really be conquered and occupied during this period. One reads in the pages of the *Tabaqat-i-Nasiri* that annual expeditions had to be undertaken to the fertile regions of the Ganga and Yamuna Doab by the Sultans, from Qutub-ud-din Aibak down to Balban, and yet it could not be thoroughly subdued. The process of annual conquest of this region, as of several others, had to be repeated throughout the Sultanate period, and the revenue of the Doab could not be collected except at the point of the bayonet. In fact, the Hindus continued their struggle against their Turko-Afghan rulers throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi. When one compares the fate of other Asian and European countries, which so tamely submitted to the Arab and Turkish aggression, one cannot but have admiration for our ancestors who fought for long and fought hard against the enemy who had so quickly established his supremacy, political, military and religious, over many countries of the three continents of the world.

Why were foreign pockets allowed to exist on our soil ?

c27.s3.1

Another surprise that awaits the curious student when he surveys the history of the age is as to why our ancestors did not make a concerted effort to drive the conquerors from the pockets which they had conquered and occupied. At any rate, why were they suffered to establish their rule in Sindh, Multan and the Panjab ? After their victory over Dahir, the Arabs permanently occupied Sindh and Multan. Mahmud of Ghazni captured the Panjab in the early years of the eleventh century. The rest of India, still being in powerful Hindu hands, should have made a united attempt to expel the Arabs from Multan and Sindh in the eighth century A.D. and the Turks from the Panjab in the eleventh century. The answer is that there was the same old problem as to how to bring about unity among the warring Hindu chiefs. Their bravery and local patriotism were out of the question. Many dozens of contemporary inscriptions in Sanskrit have come down to us describing that the ruler of this State or that defeated *malekshas* and occupied this town or that which had been in their possession. The Chauhans, the Gujara Prathiharas, the Guhilots the Baghelas and several other Rajput ruling families were credited with unusual valour and success in their wars against the Arabs in Multan and Sindh and the Ghaznavides in the Panjab. Individually, they could fight all right; but a collective and united attempt was never made. Secondly, the spirit of aggression and offence seems to have been absent in our rulers and people for ages in the past. Hardly did any king of India even think of waging an aggressive war against any foreign country or foreign people. Thirdly, the Arabs in Multan and Sindh and the Ghaznavides in the Panjab followed the cunning policy of treating the Hindus in their respective States as hostages. Whenever a neighbouring Hindu chief invaded any of these foreign States on Indian soil, the Arab or the Turkish ruler threatened the local Hindus with death and declared that he would demolish the principal temples and break their images to pieces. The contemporary Arab travellers and historians have described in detail this cunning device resorted to by the local Muslim rulers to save themselves from destruction. Al-Idrisi writes in his *Nuzhatul Mushtaq* : “The people make it (the image of the Sun Temple at Multan) the object of a pious pilgrimage, and to obey it is the law. So far is this carried that, when neighbouring princes make war against the country of Multan, either for the purpose of plunder or for carrying off the Idol, the priests have only to meet, threaten the aggressors with its anger and predict their destruction, and the assailants at once renounce their designs. *Without this fear the town of Multan would be destroyed.*” (*Elliot and Dowson*, Vol. I, page 82). Another Arab historian, Al-Masudi, writes in his *Muruj-ul-Zabab*, composed about 941 A.D. : “When the unbelievers march against Multan and the faithfuls do not feel themselves strong enough to oppose them, they threaten to break their Idol, and their enemies immediately withdraw.” (*Elliot and Dowson*, Vol. I, page 23). Our superstitious ancestors, who were far stronger than the later Arabs and Ghaznavides, were thus duped and did not undertake the conquest of Multan or Sindh or the Panjab.

Causes of frequent dynastic changes

c27.s4.1.1

When a comparison is made between the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughul empire that succeeded it, one notices that, while during the latter age one single dynasty ruled over the country for more than 250 years, the former age was characterised by the rise and fall of many ruling dynasties. There were many causes of the frequent dynastic changes between 1206 and 1526. In the first place, there was no fixed or universally recognised law of succession among our Turko-Afghan rulers. According to Islamic theory of sovereignty, any Muslim, irrespective of his birth and position in life, is qualified to be king, provided he is fit and powerful. In view of this theory, ambitious men, whether they were related to the ruling family or not, aspired for the throne. Powerful and ambitious provincial governors during the Sultanate made a successful bid to reach the throne. Iltutmish, Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Ala-ud-din Khalji, Ghiyas-us-din Tughluq and Bahlol Lodi, who became rulers of Delhi, were provincial governors and, with the exception of one, namely, Ala-ud-din, none of these was a member of the ruling family which he supplanted. Many a rebellion was also due to the above cause, for the throne was not considered to be beyond the reach of one who could wield the sword successfully. Secondly, the government was weak. It was based upon personal rule, as opposed to the ‘Rule of Law’.

c27.s4.1.2

The strength of the Government, therefore, depended upon the personality and character of the ruling monarch. There was no guarantee that a capable ruler would be followed by an equally competent successor. As a rule, powerful rulers had weak successors, as the latter were brought up in the luxury of the *harem* which was full of vice. The Turks were foreigners and had to face perpetual opposition from our people who had not given up their attempt to regain their freedom. In these circumstances, the Sultanate could not afford to have a weak ruler on the throne. Hence, the nobles generally preferred an able soldier, whether he belonged to the ruling family or not. Thirdly, the slave system, which had once produced great leaders, like Qutub-ud-din Aibak, Iltutmish and Balban, degenerated rapidly in our country. The number of slaves rose to thousands. It was not possible to give them all efficient education and training in the art of administration and war; but, as they were slaves of the rulers, they always got enough wealth and leisure and received preferential treatment, with the result that they became a lazy and pampered class. The system, thus, became tainted with corruption and ceased to produce able men. Moreover, a few able slaves, like Malik Kafur and Malik Khusrav, that the age produced, did not possess the loyalty of their predecessors. They acted against the interests of their patron's family.

c27.s4.1.3

Malik Kafur conspired against the life of his master, Ala-ud-din Khalji, and was suspected to have poisoned him. He was responsible for the blinding of the royal princes and, had he not been put to death in time, he would not have left alive any male member of Ala-ud-din's house. Malik Khusrav actually murdered his royal master, Qutub-ud-din Mubarak, and seized the throne for himself. The degenerated slave system thus became a potent cause of frequent dynastic changes in that age. Fourthly, many of the Sultans of Delhi did not possess a powerful standing army. Ala-ud-din Khalji had wisely laid the foundation of this necessary institution; but his successors allowed it to relapse and, like the previous rulers, depended upon the support of the contingent furnished by the provincial governors. The powerful military governors, thus, acquired a position of king-makers. In fact, military governorship became a stepping stone to the throne. A weak king with no powerful standing army at his back was at the mercy of his powerful barons. This is another reason why so many provincial governors reached the throne of Delhi. Fifthly, Hindu chiefs, who had been deprived of their freedom and country, naturally, continued to entertain the ambition of getting rid of the foreign yoke. The contemporary Persian chroniclers tell us that the Rajputs of Ajmer and Sambhar and those of Gujarat revolted again and again against Qutub-ud-din Aibak.

c27.s4.1.4

In the time of Iltutmish a powerful Hindu reaction occurred and lasted for many years. Balban was faced with the problem of saving the infant state from the depredations of the people and their leaders, the Rajput chiefs. Ala-ud-din Khalji tried to repress them, but, when his eyes were closed in death, our people again raised their heads. The Sultans were obliged to fight almost perpetually against the Hindu patriots. In view of this, they had to keep their armies in proper trim and to have on the throne of Delhi a tried soldier who could cope with the Hindu reaction. Weaklings were, therefore, ruthlessly set aside. Sixthly, the ever-recurring Mongol raids, which began after the death of Raziah in 1240, exercised great effect upon the policy and fortunes of the Sultanate. The Mongols had massed themselves on our north-western frontier since the time of Iltutmish. They made frequent raids into the interior of the Panjab and Multan. After Balban’s death they made raids into the heart of Hindustan and besieged Delhi more than once. The Sultans were, therefore, obliged to give the first priority to the work of defence and fortification of the frontier. As has been shown in a previous chapter, the threat of Mongol invasions diverted the attention of so able a monarch as Balban from the much-needed conquests in the interior and even urgent suppression of rebellions. Further, the Mongol raids encouraged the forces of discontent.

c27.s4.1.5

Whenever their invasion took place, the disaffected Hindu chiefs and rebellious *maliks* and *amirs* almost invariably raised their heads. Only a strong government could rise equal to the situation. The Mongol problem produced another important result on the fortune of the Sultanate. When, in the second half of the fourteenth century, the Mongol threat ceased to operate, the morale of the Sultanate of Delhi went down. It was not necessary to be very vigilant and to keep the military establishment in a state of preparedness. In the absence of this, the morale of the troops fell and decay set in. From after Muhammad bin Tughluq there was hardly any Sultan of Delhi who was possessed of military ability of a high order. Disloyalty and corruption became the rule so far as military commanders and officers were concerned. Seventhly, the government of the Sultan was based on force and not on the consent of the governed. The government cared for two duties only, namely, the maintenance of peace and order and the collection of revenues. No attempt was made, except under Firoz Tughluq, to advance even the material interests of the people. It was, therefore, not expected that the Sultans would be supported by the teeming millions over whom they ruled. Sometimes the people deliberately acted against a Sultan because he or she was their ruler. For example, Raziah was put to death by some Hindu rebels or robbers.

c27.s4.1.6

The chroniclers of the period do not give any indication as to what ideas the masses of the people entertained about their rulers. The inscriptions, which were usually drafted in hyperbolic style, do not help us. It seems, however, certain that the people were indifferent towards their foreign sovereigns and did not care as to who occupied the throne of Delhi. There is no record to show that the Hindus rallied round any Sultan in the time of distress.

The effect of Turkish impact on our society

c27.s5.1.1

When the Arabs, the Turks, the Afghans, the Iranians and other Central Asian foreigners had conquered and settled down in our country and came into close contact with the indigenous population, they influenced our society and culture and were themselves influenced in turn. The history of the impact of Hinduism and Islam upon one another is a theme of absorbing interest. In the eighth and ninth centuries A.D. the Arabs settled in large numbers on the eastern and western coasts in southern India and it was there that the two religions, for the first time, began to influence each other. Northern India remained immune from Islamic influence until the Arab conquest of Sindh. Dr. Tara Chand, in his enthusiasm for his special subject—*Influence of Islam on Indian Culture*—makes us believe that even the great Shankaracharya, who flourished during the later years of the eighth and the early years of the ninth century A.D., was influenced by Islamic theology, although he admits that there is no direct evidence to substantiate his inference. If Shankaracharya borrowed his theory of monism from Islam, why did he fail to condemn and denounce image-worship to which Muslim theologians of all schools of thought are absolutely opposed? Moreover, can it not be said that two people could develop a similar line of thought, religious or secular, quite independently of each other?

c27.s5.1.2

How very much can it be true of Shankaracharya's *Adwait* philosophy when it is realised on all hands that its germs are found in our *shrutis* and that what he preached is only the logical development of the teachings of the ancient *rishis*. Be that as it may, in northern India, at any rate, the presence of the Turks and the Afghans did not produce a revolutionary effect on our religious thoughts and practices. The bhakti movement, as has been explained elsewhere, was not the direct fruit of the contact between Hinduism and Islam. The teeming millions during the period remained practically unaffected so far as their religious thoughts and practices were concerned. Our upper classes, no doubt, showed a keen desire to bring about a compromise between the two religions and in the south our leaders and people extended very generous treatment to the new-comers. Everywhere the foreigners were accorded a place of honour and allowed freely to make converts to their religion. Some of our leaders, reformers and teachers openly preached the gospel of unity and friendliness. Nanak and Kabir, for instance, emphasised the fact that Hinduism and Islam were two different paths leading to the same destination and that Rama and Rahim, Krishna and Karim, and Allah and Ishwara were different names of the same God. They deprecated priestly ritualism and formalities of all religions and emphasised devotion and true piety.

c27.s5.1.3

But the Musalmans, as a class, kept aloof and failed to appreciate the Hindu attempt at a compromise. The Hindu society was influenced by the presence of Islam in our midst in two respects. Firstly, the missionary zeal of Islam, which aimed at converting the Hindu population to a foreign religion, strengthened conservatism in our ranks. The Hindu leaders believed that the one way of saving their religion and society from the onslaught of Islam was to make themselves as orthodox in outlook and practice as possible. So, attempts were made to make caste rules more rigorous. Daily rules of life were prescribed with a rigidity that was unknown before. New rules of conduct were formulated in our *Shrutis*. Hindu scholars, like Madhava, Visvesvara and others, wrote works and commentaries prescribing a rigid religious life for the people. Early marriage was brought in. Rigid *purdah* was enforced. Strict rules of diet and marriage were also prescribed. Secondly, some of the democratic principles of Islam were borrowed by our leaders and reformers who stressed the equality of castes and preached that caste was no bar to religious salvation. The bhakti cult, though not the result of the impact of Hinduism and Islam, was, nevertheless, influenced to some extent by the presence of Islam in our midst. Our reformers preached fundamental equality of all religions and unity of God-head. There was a similar effect on our literature, too; but it was slight.

c27.s5.1.4

Very few among the Hindus took to the study of Persian or Arabic in that age. The Sanskrit and Hindi works of the time do not betray any appreciable Islamic influence on their style or themes. After Amir Khusrav there was no notable musician at Delhi. Indian music, therefore, was little influenced by Islamic ideas. There is no evidence to show that the early Turko-Afghan rulers of Delhi had any fondness for painting. Indian painting continued its even tenure of life without being, in any way, influenced by the presence of foreigners. The Turko-Afghan rule produced an unhealthy result on the character and dignity of our race. Our upper and middle class people, who had to come into daily contact with the rulers, were obliged to conceal their true feelings about their religion, culture and sundry other matters and to develop a kind of servility of character in order to get on in the world. Many of our men imbibed low cunning and deceit. Therefore, the Hindus, in general, lost manliness of character and straightforwardness in behaviour.

c27.s5.2

Notwithstanding their desire and determination to the contrary, the conquerors were greatly influenced by our religion and culture. The Indian converts to Islam could not but retain some of their Hindu notions and practices. The worship of saints and shrines was only another form of the Hindu predilection for local and tribal gods which the converts could not shake off. Muslim mysticism, particularly *sufism*, derived inspiration from Hindu *Vedanta*. Some of the Muslim scholars were attracted to the study of Hindu philosophy, like *Yoga* and *Vedanta*. Some studied Hindu medicine and astrology. The Turko-Afghan rulers had to adopt Indian food and to modify their dress to suit Indian conditions and climate. They borrowed the gorgeous ceremonial paraphernalia of the Rajput courts in the field of administration, particularly those of the departments of revenue and finance. They could not fail to make use of Indian elephants in their battles. The Islamic architecture, which the foreigner brought with him, was so greatly modified by our art tradition that it ceased to be purely Islamic. As we have seen elsewhere, the buildings erected by the Sultans of Delhi and the rulers of the provincial dynasties were the result of the united genius and effort of the Hindus and the foreign Musalmans. Though they retained Persian as their court and literary language, it became necessary to make compromise with indigenous languages and the result was the birth of Urdu. Thus, there gradually emerged a linguistic synthesis as the result of our mutual contact. Similarly, Muslim manners and customs were greatly influenced. The Hindu converts to Islam retained their caste in many parts of the country. Some of the aristocratic Muslim families assimilated the Hindu custom of *sati* and *jauhar*. Mr. Titus is right when he says: "……when all is said there seems to be little doubt that Hinduism has wrought a far greater change in Islam than Islam has wrought in Hinduism which still continues to pursue the even tenor of its way with a complacency and confidence that are amazing." (*Indian Islam* by Titus)

Why the Hindus failed to absorb Muslims

c27.s6.1.1

It is a matter of common knowledge with scholars that the assimilative capacity of ancient Hinduism was so great that it completely absorbed within its fold the earlier invaders, like the Greeks, the Sakas and the Huns. But, on the contrary, the same absorbing Hinduism failed to Hinduise the Turko-Afghan foreigners. It is sometimes believed that our ancestors made no attempt to absorb the new-comers and that the Muslims would have too readily agreed to become Indians in outlook, spirit and way of life only if they had been given an opportunity by the Hindus to do so. But the latter kept them at arm's length and refused to inter-dine and inter-marry with them. This view is not altogether correct. We have unimpeachable recorded evidence to show that, during the early days of the advent of the Arabs and the Turks in this country, Hindu rulers and people meted out a very generous treatment to them. In southern India, where the Arabs had settled in large numbers as early as the eighth century A.D. our rulers not only gave the foreigners every facility in their commercial activities, but also definitely encouraged conversion to Islam. The Zamorin of Calicut "gave orders that in every family of fishermen (*makkuvans*) in his dominion one or more of the male members should be brought up as Muhammadans." Like European traders in a later age, the Arabs were granted certain commercial privileges which were not enjoyed by the indigenous mercantile community.

c27.s6.1.2

As has been related in a previous chapter, Hindu reformers and teachers emphasised that Hinduism and Islam were two different paths leading to the same goal. They preached that Rama and Rahim, Krishna and Karim, and Ishwara and Allah were different names of the same God. An earnest attempt was made to bring about unity between the two communities by deprecating priestly ritualism and formalities and emphasising religious devotion. Not only were the foreign Muslims honoured and respected, but even Indian converts to Islam were shown regard and a treatment which was better than that meted out to lower castes among the Hindus themselves. In one respect, however, our people did not extend to the foreigners' proper courtesy. That was the sphere of inter-dining and inter-marriage, and the reason was obvious. The Hindu has always believed in ceremonial purity, that is, purity of the body, dress, dwelling place and the mind, while not only the foreign Turk and Afghan but even the Indian Musalman insisted on leading the kind of life led by the Arabs of the desert. Moreover, the Hindus in general were vegetarian, and even those of them who were meat-eaters, abhorred beef. Muhammadans, on the other hand, were almost cent per cent non-vegetarians and were not prepared to give up cow-slaughter and beef-eating. They refused to accept the cult of *bhakti*. They believed in their ‘superiority’ and branded the Hindus as an inferior people, effete and unprogressive—*dal ke khane wale*.

c27.s6.1.3

They were proud of their religion which is clear, definite and rigid in its dogmas, and acted as militant missionaries of Islam. And they had little to gain by merging themselves in a society that was caste-ridden and torn by internal dissensions. Moreover, they had the conquerors’ innate pride and were determined to retain their separate identity. If the Hindus looked down upon them as unclean (*malekshas*), they returned the compliment by styling them as *kafirs* or infidels. It was not possible for Hindu missionaries and teachers to succeed with a people who punished apostacy from their faith with death and made it a capital crime for anyone to seduce a Musalman from his religion. If a Hindu, who was converted to Islam, showed any inclination to revert to the religion of his forefathers, he was, according to the laws of the Sultanate, to be put to death; and any Hindu who preached that Hinduism and Islam were alike good religions was liable to capital punishment. Moreover, the Muslim practice of converting a Hindu girl to Islam before marrying her and compelling a Hindu to become Muslim before he could be allowed to marry a Muslim woman¹ stood in the way of a real matrimonial alliance between any two families and militated against the attempt at fusion of the two communities. The early Turks and Afghans did not resent their exclusion from inter-dining.

c27.s6.1.4

In fact, they tried to turn the Hindu prejudice to their advantage by declaring that so and so had partaken of the prohibited food and had, therefore, become defiled and unfit to remain a Hindu. Under these circumstances all the efforts of our rulers and people and reformers and teachers at bringing about unity between the Indian people and the foreigners met with inevitable failure.

c27.s6.2

¹ Islam insists on the rigid observance of these fanatical rules even in the 20th century. Princess Fatima of Persia was not allowed to marry her lover Vincent Lee Hillyr, until he had renounced Christianity and embraced Islam (May 1950).