History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.4

v3.c33.s6.4

But granting that Mahmud led merely plundering expeditions into India without any intention of permanent conquest, would it be proper to describe him as a bandit as many historians have done? Such wrong descriptions have actually led to wrong theories and to baneful results as is well-known and historians should use such terms with care and depict persons in their proper light. Two persons in history have suffered much in this way. Mahmud and Shivaji have usually been called bandits and plunderers, in consequence of, the large number of their plundering expeditions and of their uniform success resulting in fabulous accumulation of riches. But we forget that correctly speaking neither Mahmud nor Shivaji can be called a bandit or a robber and if we do use the terms, we do so without attributing to them the moral degradation connoted by them. It must always be remembered that murder or dacoity is not only legally but morally reprehensible. The story of Alexander and the robber may be a very witty one but it inculcates a wrong theory. A robber when he robs a fellow citizen acts against the tacit agreement which he has entered into in acknowledging allegiance to a government that he would not deprive a fellow citizen of his property except in due course of law or of his life except in self-defence exercised within legal limits. The relations of nations or peoples are subject to no such tacit agreement. Indeed international law or custom has always recognized, from the most ancient times down to the present, the right of the stronger nation to attack the weaker and deprive it even of its independence. The law of the brute, to speak plainly, or of the fish as it is actually called in an inscription of Pāla kings of Bengal, has always been followed by nations. The Digvijayas in ancient Indian history can only be justified on this admitted right of the strong to humble the weak. There are no doubt instances in history, of noble sovereigns who refused to benefit by this law and who rose superior to the temptations of power, a Maria Theresa who refused to attack Poland because it was weak or an Aśoka who after slaughtering a lakh of people in conquering Kalinga was so seized by the feeling of remorse that he gave up war for all time to come. But these rare instances only prove the rule. It is only after the last European War that nations have become alive to the necessity and the propriety of conceding the right of the weak to live undisturbed. But throughout past history, we see that nations and kings have generally followed the law of brute force by which the strong can at any time and for any reason pounce upon the weak and deprive him of his land, property and even independence. While, therefore, the robber is legally or morally reprehensible, Alexander and many of his compeer conquerors cannot be considered morally depraved, when they deprived other nations of their liberty or property. And when Shivaji or Mahmud are described in historical writings as bandits or plunderers, it must always be understood that these terms do not convey the ordinary sense of condemnation connoted by them.