History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.8

v3.c33.s6.8

It is, in fine, wrong both historically and philosophically to describe Mahmud or Shivaji as a bandit in the ordinary sense of the term. Their acts were committed as sovereigns and when there was an actual state of war and they, therefore, do not come under the code of ordinary law or morality. The law of nations as understood hitherto in the east and even in the west has always conceded the right of the strong to attack the weak for any ostensible reason and the victor has always exercised the right to plunder the vanquished. The destruction of Hindu temples and idols may no doubt be condemned from the higher stand-point of humanity as acts of bigotted intolerance. But the plundering of cities and temples being an act of war committed by one sovereign against another cannot be described or denounced as dacoity even though it led to ‘the destruction of priceless monuments’ and we are constrained to record our view that even Mahmud, much more Shivaji cannot be properly described as a bandit.