History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s5: Note—Somnath.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s5
- Language
- English
Contents
- v3.c33.s5.5 — 4 parts
Note—Somnath.
v3.c33.s5.1
Somnath Patan or town of Somnath is situated on the west coast of Kathiawar and is at present under Junagadh. The place was visited in 1843 by a traveller and described in J. R. A. S. VIII p. 173. "The old temple is in ruins and a new temple has been built by Ahilyābāi near the site of the old. But the extreme grandeur of the old temple is visible even in the ruins now remaining". This old temple according to our view was the one built by Siddhārāja Jayasinba and Kumārapāla and the temple which was destroyed by Mahmud was probably the one built by Bhoja Paramāra of Malwa as stated in one of their inscriptions to be noted in Paramāra history. The building of Bhoja was probably of wood as stated by Mahomedan historians. This building must probably have been erected before 1026 A. D. The building of a new stone temple was undertaken by Jayasinha of Anhilwad and completed by Kumārapāla, as is evident not only from Gujarat croniclers but from an inscription in a temple in Somnath Patan which will be noticed in the history of Anhilwad. This Bhadrakāli temple Praśasti dated 1169 A. D. is very interesting and begins with the description of a Brahmin from Benares who appears to have undertaken the rehabilitation of temples (probably destroyed by Mahmud) fallen into ruin and he travelled on this meritorious mission throughout India and came to Somnath after visiting Ujjain. This mention of the sage Brahmin's efforts corroborates in our view to some extent the story told by later Mahomedan writers about Mahmud's expedition to Somnath and the description of the temple by them. It is expressly stated that the temple was now built of stones. This temple was destroyed by the Mahomedan kings of Gujarat in the fourteenth century. The story that Mahmud removed the sandle gates of the temple of Somnath to Ghazni has not been credited by modern scholars and the gates which were brought by the English in 1843 aftert their conquest of Afghanistan are lying unnoticed in the fort at Agra (Sardesai).
v3.c33.s5.2
∗ Mahmud in 1024 while returning from Somnath is said to have been harassed by the Jats of the Salt range but these Jats must have belonged to the Lower Indus (Jhelum Gazetteer page 89).
v3.c33.s5.3
We may mention that there is a reference to Somnath in the Bostan of Sadi and he relates a queer story which is probably a concoction of his own. Sadi in his extensive travels came to Somnath and saw there an ivory idol surmounted with precious jewels beautifully arranged, seated on a golden chair set on a throne of teakwood. The Bhahmin pujari had a contrivance by which the idol would raise its hand. Sadi discovered the contrivance by accident when the Brahmin fled pursued by the deceived indignant Sadi who even killed him. Sadi fearing vengeance of the Brahmins fled the country. This story is clearly an invention, for Sadi would not have been allowed even to approach the idol, much less to go behind it. Moreover it is not probably allowed that idols should be made of ivory. To the historian, however this reference by Sadi to Somnath is remarkable as it makes no mention of Mahmud's invasion of Somnath and the breaking of the famous idol of Siva there. One would naturally expect some allusion to that event. This omission strengthens the doubt which is entertained sometimes about the truth of Mahmud's expedition to Somnath. Sadi who was born in 1175 A. D. must have visited India when about 40 years old i. e. about 1215, and he wrote his Bostan when 80 years of age i. e. about 1255 A. D. Delhi was already on both dates under the Mahomedans, though Gujarat was not. And the first writer to describe the expedition to Somnath is Ibn Asir who wrote about 1270 A. D. at the earliest. But after all, omission to mention a fact unless that mention is unavoidable or imperatively necessary is doubtful evidence and we cannot rely upon it and hold that Mahmud's expedition to Somanath is imaginary.
v3.c33.s5.4
IDOLATRY OF THE HINDUS.
v3.c33.s5.5.1
We may pause here a little and reflect upon the superstitious debasement of idolatry into which the Hindus had drifted at this time. It indeed seems to us that the iconoclastic inroads of Mahmud had come upon the Hindus as an eye-opener and as a chastisement. Unfortunately the Hindus did not then take the lesson which these disasters taught them nor have they learnt it even now. This is not a place to enter into the question whether idol-worship is countenanced by the Vedas or whether it is reasonable. There is not the smallest doubt, however, that idol-worship is accepted by Hinduism and perhaps properly accepted as leading to concentration of the mind on the deity. But idol-worship almost always leads the human mind into some superstitious beliefs, especially to the belief that the idol itself possesses the powers of the deity it represents. Belief in the miraculous powers of idols prevailed in ancient times throughout all countries and prevails to this day wherever idol-worship is practised. Buddhism began with almost the denial of the Deity and drifted later into rampant idolatry viz: the worship of the Buddha himself and however learned and philosophic Hiuen Tsang may be, he believed in the miraculous powers of Buddha's relics and Buddha's idols as described in Volume I (p. 103).
v3.c33.s5.5.2
Hindus too amongst whom idolatry was already prevalent to a certain extent and who became still more idolatrous through the example of Buddhism which they supplanted believed to such an extent in the miraculous powers and sanctity of certain idols that the Pratihāra emperors of Kanauj, though powerful enough to capture Multan, were always held back by the threat of the Mahomedan possessors of Multan that if the Hindus advanced they would break the famous sun-idol of Multan (see Vol. II p. 166). Even in the west the Romans and the Greeks who were in advance of other peoples in philosophy believed in the miraculous powers of certain idols. And Christianity in the beginning preached the formless God and often progressed among the pagans by actually proving to the world that no such miraculous powers existed. The frantic but unavailing prayers of the worshippers of Somnath to destroy the sacrilegious conqueror remind us of a similar spectacle at Alexandria about six hundred years before at the demolishing of the idol of Serapis by the order of the emperor Theodosius (389 A. D.), so graphically described by Gibbon. "Alexandria which claimed his peculiar protection gloried in the name of the city of Serapis. His temple which rivalled the pride and magnificence of the capitol was erected on the spacious summit of an artificial mound raised one hundred feet above the level of the city.
v3.c33.s5.5.3
The sacrifices of the pagans prohibited by Theodosius were still tolerated in the city and temple of Serapis owing to the superstitious terrors of the Christians themselves as they feared to abolish these rites which alone could secure the inundation of the Nile, the harvests of Egypt and the subsistence of Constantinople. But at length an explicit order from Theodosius arrived to demolish the temple and the idol. A great number of plates of different metals artificially joined together composed the majestic figure of the deity which touched on either side the walls of the sanctuary. He held in the right hand an emblematic monster the head and body of a serpent branching into three tails terminated by the heads of a dog, a lion and a wolf. It was confidently affirmed that if an impious hand should move to offend the majesty of the god, the heavens and the earth would instantly return to their original chaos. An intrepid soldier armed with a battle-axe ascended a ladder and even the Christian multitude expected with anxiety the result of the combat. He aimed a vigorous blow against the cheek of Serapis and the cheek fell to the ground; but the heavens and the earth continued to preserve their accustomed order and tranquillity. The victorious soldier repeated his blows and the limbs of Serapis broken into pieces were ignominiously dragged through the streets of Alexandria.
v3.c33.s5.5.4
The Nile, though late, with its usual flood fertilized the plains of Egypt and falsified the prediction of false prophets. Many attributed their conversion to this impotence of the tutelary deity of Alexandria".
v3.c33.s5.6
Gibbon moralises here upon the inadvisibility of staking the truth of a religion on the miraculous powers of idols which are but pieces of stone, metal or wood. And yet Christianity itself, like Buddhism, later drifted into the same superstitious idolatry which it had exposed, in the worship of idols of Jesus and Mary and Mahomedanism arose almost as a natural consequence to correct this error. The iconoclastic expeditions of Mahmud were similarly an eye-opener to the Hindus to correct their erroneous belief in the miraculous power of idols. But they also came to correct another error viz. the natural but absurd impulse to dedicate riches to temples and to decorate idols with gold and jewels. This added to the religious zeal of idol-breaking Mahomedans the further motive of greed for the gold and the jewels. Wherein is the merit of making idols of entire gold or of decorating them with priceless jewels? Does an idol of five cubits height of pure gold contribute more powerfully to the concentration of the mind on the deity than a stone idol? The old teachers of the Hindu religion prescribed small unworked stones in their natural shape as the proper *Pratīkās* or idols of the four gods Śiva, Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa and the Sun while Vedic *Ṛiṣis* were content with concentrating their mind on the sun itself and the wind. But the human mind cannot but descend into the superstitious desire first of having finished idols and then of having idols of gold and silver or of decorating them with precious jewels. Śiva worship indeed in selecting the linga as an idol selected natural blocks of stone. And yet prosperous kings who were worshippers of these Swayambhū or natural lingas adorned them with crowns of gold covered with diamonds and rubies, thus tempting robbers and even avaricious kings or conquerors and even priests and thereby themselves causing the desecration of temples and the sacrilege of idols. Indian history is full of the mention of the building of new temples or of new rich endowments of temples by prosperous kings in every kingly line and specially holy places such as Mathura, Kot-Kangra, Somnath or Ujjain were overflowing with rich donations of hundreds of pious kings and thousands of rich merchants. All these riches might have been differently employed, the historian and politician will observe, in the maintenance of strong armies by kings and the amelioration of the people by rich merchants. Both were apparently neglected and temples were enriched and idols sumptuously decorated doubly accelerating the fall of the country by whetting the appetite, and strengthening the resources, of the foreign conqueror on the one side and weakening the power of resistance of our own kings and people on the other. But the Hindus did not learn these obvious lessons from these iconoclastic and plundering expeditions of Mahmud and they continued to build temples and accumulate riches in them. It may finally be observed that Hindus are not still alive to the two errors into which idol-worship when it degenerates into superstition descends viz. the belief in the miraculous powers of particular idols and the belief in the merit of donating riches to temples and idols leading to the demoralization of Mahants and pujaris.
v3.c33.s5.7
It is curious to observe that human nature usually leads men to the same actions. Mahmud the breaker of idols and the plunderer of temples expended his acquisitions on the Juma mosque of Ghazni and used the gold, the rubies and the diamonds obtained from Hindu idols, in decorating its walls, by the same impulse of the human mind as had actuated the Hindus. He thus created the temptation which had impelled him, for others coming after him and history records that this mosque was probably plundered of its rich decorations by the idolators of Chin. Changiskhan whose desecration of the Jami Masjid of Bokhara is described at length in Jahan Kusha of Juwaini (Elliot II p. 388) and whose doings at Bokhara were described by a fugitive in one pithy sentence in Persian "The Moguls came, dug, burnt, slaughtered, plundered and departed ", came to Ghazni on his return from the pursuit of Jelalluddin in 618 H (1226 A. D.), ordered all the inhabitants to be brought out of the city and counted, and after selecting artizans from among them, directed all the rest to be slain. He also destroyed the city and Ogtai returned towards Herat after burying the slain" (Elliot II p. 390). Another extract states that Ogtai took Ghazni by assault after a siege of four months; it was burnt and destroyed to the very foundations, after about two hundred thousand persons had been inhumanly massacred (Elliot II p. 569).
v3.c33.s5.8
DEATH OF MAHMUD AND HIS CHARACTER
v3.c33.s5.9
After the crowning exploit of his career viz. the plundering and destroying of Somnath, Mahmud did not undertake any important expedition; perhaps there were no more worlds to conquer. The fame of his last exploit reached Baghdad "which listened to the edifying tale of the destruction of Somnath with wonder and the Khalifa conferred upon him one more title 'guardian of the fortune and faith of Mahomet' (Gibbon) i. e. Kahaf-ud-daulat-wal-Islam" (Elliot II p. 474). The Khalifa also conferred titles upon his sons Mas'aud, Muhammad, and Yusuf. Thus honoured by the head of the Mahomedan faith and in the fullness of glory and without any reverse, Mahmud died about three years after his greatest exploit i. e. in 420 H. (A. D. 1029) at the advanced age of 61, leaving behind him grown-up sons and experienced ministers and generals.
v3.c33.s5.10
Historians have recorded highly appreciative notices of the character of Mahmud, beginning with Gibbon. "Turning from accounts of bloodshed of which unfortunately history is too full" observes Gibbon "it is a pleasant task to stop for a while to appreciate the good qualities of Mahmud, undoubtedly one of the greatest kings of the world". "His name is still venerated in the East. His subjects enjoyed the blessings of prosperity and peace; and examples are recorded of his justice and magnanimity. Avarice was the only defect that tarnished the illustrious character of Mahmud and never has that passion been more richly satisfied". "In his last moment he viewed with tears in his eyes his whole wealth displayed before him, so laboriously won, so dangerously held, so inevitably lost", and he reviewed his army "which consisted of one hundred thousand foot, fifty-five thousand horse and thirteen hundred war elephants".
v3.c33.s5.11
Mahmud's greatness as a general and commander has been acknowledged by all. Lane-Poole describes him as "a great soldier and a man of infinite courage and indefatigable energy of mind and body.” Lane-Poole also extols his good government and justice and quotes the opinion of the great Vizier of Seljuk that “Mahmud was a just sovereign, a lover of learning, of generous nature and of pure faith” (p. 35). That he was a patron of learned men is proved by the fact that great luminaries like Al-Beruni the astronomer, Al-Faribi the philosopher, Al-Utbi the chronicler, Al-Baihaki the gossiper, (Arabic writers) and Ansuri, Farukhi and Asjudi (Persian poets) and above all Firdusi the Homer of Persian literature resided at his court and obtained support from him. While thus duly appreciating the greatness of Mahmud, Lane-Poole thinks that “Mahmud was not a statesman; no new institutions or methods of government were initiated by him, and he did not attempt to organise and consolidate what he had acquired; for as soon as he passed, his ill-knitted dominions fell asunder.
v3.c33.s5.12
Before we proceed to discuss the adverse remarks of Gibbon and Lane-Poole, we will add our meed of praise of Mahmud as a great soldier, a consumate commander and a just ruler and administrator. We indeed think that Mahmud was one of those great men whom nature produces at intervals, men of exceptional qualities and unparallelled capacities, men who like Akbar or Shivaji, Napolean or Peter the Great create new epochs in the history of the world and change the destinies of nations. As a man Mahmud was a person of strict discipline and stern conduct. In all his expeditions we do not read, along with the plunder of towns and temples and even slaughter and enslavement of fighters, the slaying or ravishing of women. And he loved justice and hated oppression so thoroughly that he was ready to destroy his own son if caught in the act of adultery. He was a good ruler and administrator and laboured to promote the well-being of his people in every way, protected commerce by the suppression of robbery and kept the communications between distant provinces free of danger so that “caravans passed freely between Khorasan and Lahore” (Utbi). He appointed good governors to the provinces and exercised strict supervision over them so that they did not oppress the people. Utbi describes in detail how his brother Nasir, appointed governor of Khorasan in Nishapur, was also known for his excellent administration and " was so kind that he never uttered a harsh word or offered wrong or violence to any one" (Utbi p. 4 86). Utbi is not a flatterer when he praises Mahmud as " the glorious lord of the poor, who displayed the face of level equity between the widow and the wealthy so that the door of boasting and oppression was closed" " And he charged an examiner of weights and measures to go among the market people and guard the standard of weights and measures. He made each street a clear road for asses, camels, and stalls. Formerly the streets of the bazars were not covered and the market people were vexed by dust and rain and he ordered the roofs of the bazars to be connected and in two months the city was entirely covered with roofs, with light-affording devices interwoven, so that all may be gladdened by the penetrating of the rays of the sun" (p. 486). " He expended (yearly) nearly one hundred thousand dinars in promoting justice and gladness for the people and in honourable and pious liberalities" (ditto). This amply shows that Mahmud was fully alive to the duty of a sovereign to secure the happiness and promote the welfare of the common people in the cities and the provinces of his territory.
v3.c33.s5.13
Mahmud was a zealous Mahomedan and had implicit faith in his own religion. He always prayed before he began his battles and often in the hour of trial he would place reliance on God's promise in the Koran to aid and give victory to the faithful. In this respect as in many others, he resembled Shivaji who also had firm faith in his own religion and his own mission and often in his hour of trial he too would appeal to his favourite deity for help and guidance. Such appeals were probably made from conviction, though in both cases they might have been made for the purpose of raising the spirits, and inspiring confidence into the hearts, of his followers. Mahmud's taking augury from the Koran at critical moments was like Shivaji's praying to Bhavānī and in a trance giving utterance to her words of encouragement and guidance. In both cases we believe these acts were not pretences but arose from an intense religious turn of mind and implicit faith in God.
v3.c33.s5.14
It may also be added that Mahmud did not revel in cruelty as some conquerors did in history. He did not perpetrate those inhuman massacres of innocent and helpless human beings which Changis and Timur two and three centuries after him or even some Mahomedan kings of the Deccan later still, perpetrated in Asia and India. In inflicting punishment of death on heretics again, Mahmud always acted not on mere suspicion but after due examination and ascertainment of views of the learned orthodox Kadhis. The descriptions of such religious assemblies or synods presided over by Mahmud himself, given by Utbi are interesting (p. 481) though they were in the nature of inquisition. And Mahmud's presence and power exercised a temperate influence on their proceedings. Even in his religious bigotry, therefore, we think that Mahmud was not inhuman or tyrannical.
v3.c33.s5.15
NOTE:—TAHAKAT-I-NASIRI ON MAHMUD.
v3.c33.s5.16
"This monarch by his manliness, his bravery and intrepidity, his wisdom and foresight, his prudent counsels and wise measures considerably extended the Mahomedan conquests in the east and greatly extended the dominion of Islam in that quarter. The whole of Khorasan and Khwarism Tabaristan, Irak, the territory of Nimroj and Fars, the mountain district of Ghor, Tukharistan came under the control of his officers. The Maliks of Turkestan acknowledged his superiority. He threw a brigde over the Jihun (Oxus) and marched into Turan and the Khakans of Turkestan came and tendered him their allegiance. At their request the son of Seljuk was permitted to cross over the Jihun with all his kindred and dependents into Khorasan. The most sagacious men of the time considered this permission a grave error as they perceived the danger to his sons and descendents (p. 86 Raverty's tras.)
v3.c33.s5.17
Turning now to the consideration of the blemishes in Mahmud's character, Mahmud's avarice, we think, has been greatly exaggerated. The very fact that he amassed riches as no man in history did, impels people to believe that he was avaricious. The story that he wept in the moment of death at the sight of those incalculable treasures he was going to part with, is probably an invention and a calumny. Mahmud was too religiously minded to weep at the inevitable lot of mankind, especially when we remember that he left behind him sons to whom man in his frailty is always willing and glad to resign his own acquisitions. He was no doubt not a spendthrift as princes who inherit vast riches usually are. But there is not the least doubt that he was generous as even the Vizier of Seljuk observed, a testimony more reliable than that of later writers. He spent every year vast sums on the encouragement of letters and had founded a well endowed college with salaried professors where students were fed at state expense near the Jami Masjid he had built, as already stated (Utbi p. 466). The story told about Firdusi that he was promised one thousand gold dirhams for every one thousand verses and offered silver dirhams when the work (Shahnāma) was completed with 60000 verses, has probably confirmed, if it has not actually originated this imputation of avarice to Mahmud. This story is also, we think, a later invention as "much of the traditional life of Firdusi is rejected by modern scholars". (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Indeed the current story would, in our view, rather prove the avarice and anger of Firdusi than the avarice and anger of Mahmud. In any case that same story shows the great encouragement which Mahmud gave to literature and the preservation of the ancient history of Persia. The fact that Firdusi, though a Shia and perhaps a heretic, was entrusted with this work of immortalising the history of fire-worshipping Persian kings brings out Mahmud's unalloyed love of letters. "Mahmud himself a Sunni and a fanatical Moslem still extended patronage to Persian literature and learning and developed it even at the expense of Arabic institutions". (ditto). In this love of learning and knowledge for their own sake, Mahmud may be said to have even surpassed Akbar who encouraged the study of Sanskrit; for Akbar was not a rigid Mahomedan. Mahmud already had directed the completion of Persian legendary history commenced by the Samanides themselves but finally entrusted the work to Firdusi, a native of Tus in Khorasan, the home of Persian poets, seeing that he was best fitted for it by his wonderful poetical talents and his intimate knowledge of the folklore of the ancient Persians. And Mahmud's patronage of Al-Beruni shows that he did not object even to the study of Sanskrit literature, philosophy and science. At any rate the galaxy of learned men, poets, and philosophers of unique ability, like Firdusi and Al-Beruni which illumined the court of Mahmud should make him as renowned as Akbar of modern and Vikramāditya of ancient fame. For these reasons we are disposed to attach not much value to the general imputation of avarice to Mahmud.
v3.c33.s5.18
Nor do we think that Lane-Poole's remark that Mahmud was not a statesman can be justified. The reason why his empire fell as soon as he passed away was entirely different. In the first place we do not know for certain that Mahmud did not initiate any new methods of government or that he made no attempt to organise and consolidate his acquisitions. There are no records either to prove or disprove this statement. We have no author like Abul Fazal who wrote the Ain-i-Akbari and gave us full details about Akbar's administration, to tell us how Mahmud administered his empire. But that it was a well-organised and well-conducted government we cannot doubt. We are told by Utbi that full records were kept at Ghazni even of his expeditions and that Mahmud himself, like Babar, wrote memoirs in the midst of his wars and sent them home. An extract is given by Utbi from his memoir written from Mathura in the very bustle and turmoil of fighting and plundering, admiring the beauties of the temples of Mathura. There were registers of the provinces and of their revenues and expenditures and provincial governors were strictly supervised by the minister who regularly attended the Diwan or office. The working of an ordered administration clearly appears from the gossipping tales of Baihaki also. Although, therefore, we do not know the exact nature of the system of Mahmud's administration, there is no doubt that it was a well-ordered system. Whether it was new or whether it was copied from the system of administration of the Samanide empire of which Ghazni was originally a subordinate member, we do not know. But even if Mahmud followed carefully and strictly an old system it would itself prove his statesmanship. Even Shivaji kept on, to a large extent, the old system of administration at Bijapur, while introducing many changes which were necessary for his Swaraj and the new spirit of a Hindu king. Akbar's administrative system was no doubt new and original but he had to rule an extensive empire inhabited by aliens in race and religion and comprising provinces differing in every detail such as land, climate, and people.
v3.c33.s5.19
How Mahmud organised his army we have also no information as we have as to how Akbar or Shivaji organised their armies. But Mahmud's organisation must have been sound since we know that he had a perfect striking machine which was successful everywhere and he made marches to such distant lands as Kanauj or Somnath over broad rivers, high mountains and long deserts. The institution of his bodyguard was peculiar to himself and this bodyguard of 5000 men, the pick and flower of the Turkish soldiers, was always used by Mahmud with effect at the opportune moment in the fight.
v3.c33.s5.20
We have, therefore, no materials to say that Mahmud did not introduce or initiate new institutions of government or did not attempt the organisation of his provinces. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that Mahmud’s civil and military administration was well-ordered and strong. The reason why his empire fell as soon as he passed away was, according to our view, the fact that Mahmud’s successors were incapable both as soldiers and administrators. This is the principal defect of all despotic systems of government. It is only rarely that we meet with a line of successive kings possessing vigour of body and mind like the Mogul line wherein from Babar to Aurangzeb we have six successive emperors of remarkable ability and even power. Shivaji like Mahmud again was unfortunate in his successors and if the Maratha kingdom prospered in the eighteenth century, it was due to the vigour of the Peishwas whose four generations were men of great power as statesmen and generals. Even the British empire was and is strong not because of its good system of administration but because of its peculiar home constitution. The government in England is not despotic and is a government consisting of King, Lords and Commons which makes it impossible for voluptuous or despotic kings to come to the throne or incapable or ambitious governors or generals to come to India and its provinces. Laws may be imperfect or even bad. It is the strict observance of laws, good or bad as they may be, which ensures strength and prosperity to a kingdom. The system of government in England ensures the observance of laws and therefore the continuous succession of efficient administrators and commanders. Under despotic government, kings who enjoy absolute power by mere birth and not by fitness often turn out voluptuaries and becoming incapable are unable to restrain the ambition of generals of armies or governors of provinces and thus provinces fall away and even the ruling dynasty is eventually destroyed. Then again under a limited monarchy and under republics the people develop a feeling of nationality which further guarantees the strength of the kingdom or the empire. For even if there appear ambitious governors or generals now and then, a strong national sentiment prevents soldiers or peoples from assisting rebels and traitors, thus making them powerless to do mischief. In fine, it is not true that the empire of Mahmud fell to pieces after him because of its imperfect system of administration, but it fell because of the despotic nature of its government which could not secure a continuity of capable rulers and of able and loyal governors; and because of the absence of the feeling of nationality in the people making it impossible for traitorous governors to assume independence.
v3.c33.s5.21
To sum up, we think that Gibbon is right when he says that Mahmud was one of the greatest kings of the world. He was an intrepid soldier and a consummate commander, a lover of justice and a patron of learned men, a sovereign who laboured for the peace and prosperity of his people and strove to extend education and commerce. As a man, Mahmud was a person of strict discipline and was not by nature cruel or avaricious; but was temperate and generous. He was also highly religious and of pure rigid faith. The great and perhaps solitary blemish in his character was, according to our view, his bigotted intolerance. By this defect he was not only led to plunder temples and rifle idols but even to destroy them and forcibly convert people in the conquered territories. Firm faith in, and zeal for, one's own religion is not inconsistent with respect for the religious beliefs and sacred edifices of other peoples. For this reason Mahmud, in our view, ranks lower than Akbar in the list of great kings and can certainly not compare with Shivaji who was as zealous as Mahmud in his own faith yet was tolerant enough to spare the sacred structures of Islam and to honour its holy men. This spot on Mahmud's character is indeed so great, that it does not disappear in the multitude of his good qualities like the spot on the moon in her rays (Kalidāsa), but like poverty mars his many merits (unnamed poet). The plundering of towns and temples may be excusable from the stand-point of international ethics, and may be forgotten but the forcible conversion of people can not be justified or excused from the higher view-point of humanity and can never be forgotten. The reasonable interpretation of the Koran does not countenance the forcible conversion of people, as even the learned in the Koran have lately declared. And Abu Bakr had declared that conquered people should be permitted to retain their religion on payment of a capital tax. Yet religious fanaticism impelled Mahmud not only to destroy temples and idols, but to forcibly convert hundreds and thousands of Hindus in the conquered territories. It can not be denied that man has the most sacred and inviolable right to worship God in the manner he chooses and from this higher stand-point of humanity one can not too strongly condemn the forcible conversion of conquered people. In the present progress of civilization, one may even condemn peaceful but active propaganda for the spread of religion and time will soon arrive when nations will realise the utility and even the necessity of stopping all missionary or other efforts for the conversion of people by force, fraud or favour. But force especially, at all times, must be condemned as infringing the most precious right of man and we are constrained to look upon the bigotted intolerance of Mahmud which led him to forcibly convert thousands of Hindus as a great blemish on the otherwise high character of this great Mahomedan king.
Linked texts (1)
- Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī