The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c27.s3: 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.