History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.1

v3.c33.s6.1

The greatest condemnation of Mahmud is contained in the Oxford History of India by Sir Vincent Smith which states (p. 194). "So far as India was concerned, Mahmud was simply a bandit, operating on a large scale. He did not attempt to effect any permanent conquest except in the Panjab and his raids had no lasting results beyond the destruction of property and priceless monuments". Mahmud's plundering expeditions into India were so many and so successful like those of Shivaji, that one's attention is fixed on these plunders and one is led to look at Mahmud as at Shivaji as a great plunderer, a successful bandit. Many historians have written in the same strain and said in derogation of him that he merely plundered and did not annex, suggesting therein that annexation is less heinous than plundering. But is it really so? Is it not practically plundering other people of their immovable property, especially of their land which is the most valuable of all properties? And even if annexation mean stable government, it does always mean better government. Indeed Mahomedan government was not and could not have been better government than Hindu government. For that matter any foreign government is worse than native government, for it always leads to heavy taxation which is equivalent to continuous, systematic and legalised plundering of the people. That Mahmud did not annex but merely plundered Indian territories would be rather praiseworthy than otherwise. As a matter of fact, however, this statement itself is not correct as we proceed to show.