The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c8.s7: Causes of the fall of Sindh

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c8.s7

Language: English

c8.s7.1 — 5 parts

Causes of the fall of Sindh

c8.s7.1.1

Many causes contributed to the subjugation of Sindh. In the first place, the province was internally disunited and unable to resist a mighty invader like the Arabs. Its population was sparse and heterogenous. Besides the Hindus, who formed the bulk of the population, a considerable number consisted of Buddhists, and a fraction probably of Jains too. The lower orders of the society were badly treated. The Jats, the Meds and certain other castes were looked down upon and subjected to humiliation by the ruler, the court and the official class no less than by the higher caste people. They were not allowed to ride on saddled horses, to carry arms or to put on fine clothes. Owing to these circumstances social solidarity, the best guarantee of political independence, was conspicuously lacking. In the second place, the ruler and his government were unpopular and also inefficient in war and probably also in peace. Only a generation before Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion the throne of Sindh had been usurped by the hated Chach. His son, Dahir, was equally disliked. In fact, there was little sympathy between the people and their king. Dahir's governors were almost semi-independent princes and did not seem to have co-operated with him in the time of crisis. Owing to these causes many of Dahir's subjects, particularly the Buddhists and the traders, refused to fight on the plea that it was none of their business.

c8.s7.1.2

Quite a considerable number of them supplied valuable information to the invader and joined him against their king and country. Mr. S. N. Dhar protests against what he calls making the Buddhists ‘the knaves of the story’¹² but the Buddhist defection is based on recorded evidence, and facts must always have more weight than logic. Some of the Hindus, too, must share with the Buddhists the ignominy of treachery to their country, and the example was shamelessly set by a priest from the sacred temple of Debal. It is generally forgotten that, in spite of social tyranny within their own folds, the Hindus, long accustomed to religious tolerance, had developed a cosmopolitan attitude towards other faiths and peoples. Little did they reflect how Islam, which looks upon other religions as false and considers it to be its primary duty to put down idolatry, would treat them. Ignorant cosmopolitanism, combined with lack of patriotism, had produced a frame of mind in the generality of the Hindus that made little difference between their own countrymen and foreigners and induced the disgruntled among them to go over to the side of the enemy of their country. Defection and treachery were, without doubt, important causes of the fall of Sindh. Fourthly, Sindh was then, as now, an economically poor and a deficit province. Its meagre resources could not support a large standing army or finance a long war with a superior enemy.

c8.s7.1.3

Fifthly, the Arab invading force was vastly superior to that of Dahir both in numbers and equipment, though not in the qualities of courage, daring and contempt of death. The garrison of 4,000 Sindhi troops, at Debal, had to face 25,000 Arabs, the flower of the Khalifa’s army, and, with a disparity of one to six and a traitor supplying the besieger with every useful information, it was surprising that they could hold out for as many days as they actually did. Nirun, Sehwan and Sisam combined did not possess a quarter of the fighting strength of the army of invasion. There was something like parity in numbers, though not in equipment and enthusiasm (as the Arabs, on account of their repeated successes, were flushed with enthusiasm and our people, proportionately, dispirited and demoralized for the same reason), when the parties came face to face at Rawar. And this witnessed so tough a conflict that the enemy for a time seemed to have become despaired of success. The story of the Arab heroism and Muhammad bin Qasim’s towering genius as well as of the cowardice of the Indian soldiers, so often related by interested writers, is now an exploded myth, thanks to the modern scientific research in our medieval history. It is worthy of note that the Arabs had been twice beaten by the Sindhi troops. Their eventual success was due to their superiority in numbers and equipment and to the want of proper leadership on the other side.

c8.s7.1.4

Sixthly, Sindh was isolated from the rest of the country for a pretty long time. While it was overwhelmed by superior military force, it could not look to the rest of India for assistance. Our country was then divided into numerous independent states, each concerned with its own affairs, and with no central government or any other common organisation for the protection of their own frontiers. Seventhly, while the Arabs were spurred on to an adventurous and aggressive warfare by a firm, though misguided conviction that Divine Providence was pleased to use them as agents for forcing on the infidel people the blessings of Islam, our people possessed no such inspiring ideology to sustain their spirits in that fateful hour of their country’s history. A curious irony of ignorant fate prevented them from facing hard facts and from realising that their religion and culture as well as homes and hearths were in imminent danger. Finally, Dahir’s ignorance, initial lethargy and want of leadership and his silly mistakes furnished an adequate explanation of his defeat and the enslavement of Sindh. It was an unpardonable sin on the part of the governments of Sindh and the Punjab in particular not to have maintained touch with the great revolution in Arabia that created a mighty empire there in the seventh century A.D.

c8.s7.1.5

and to have failed to make adequate arrangements for the defence of their frontiers after the Arab conquest of Makran (modern Baluchistan) which borders on, and is contiguous to, Sindh. Dahir did not raise his little finger and allowed Debal, Nirun, Sehwan, Sisam and several other places comprising the lower Sindh, to fall into the hand of the enemy. By a curious infatuation or folly he waited for the invader to arrive near Rawar and made no attempt to check his progress or to attack him while he lay for months on the other side of the Mihran almost paralysed by sickness that grievously affected his horses. He suffered Muhammad to cross the river without obstructing his passage. He staked his all on the issue of one pitched battle. Instead of supervising his men in the field of battle as a general and leader and sending succour where necessary, he took a personal part as a soldier and lost touch with various divisions of his army. He expiated for his sin with his life, but not in the eyes of posterity, as he paved the way for his country's bondage.

c8.s7.2

¹² S. N. Dhar, *The Arab Conquest of Sindh* (Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1939), pp. 849-57.