Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

[Kamboja]

Hearing the stories of many on this thread of the abduction, rape and 'conversion' of Hindu and Sikh (and other religions as well) girls set off a tube light in my head.

Mods, I apologize if this crosses the line of what is allowed to be said but I strongly believe it to be true.

This uber-masculine woman-snatching is a fundamental pillar of Islam throughout history and to this day. It is also not just our subcontinental Muslims who have done it; it is a historic practice from every Muslim ruler in any part of the world. I remember the first time I spoke with a few Bulgarians about the experience of the orthodox Christians under the Ottoman Turks, and he told me about the blood tax -- it was an annual practice where the Sultan's men would go around to the Christian villages (just like in India, the villages retained their native religion whereas the cities were bastions of the invading Muslims) and line up all the young boys and girls. The most beautiful girls would be collected to become concubines in the harem of the local bey or even more important figures all the way up to the Sultan himself, depending on the beauty of the girl. The strongest, best-looking and most intelligent boys would be taken to be the personal slaves of the Sultan -- converted to Islam and then raised to be fanatic in their faith and loyalty to the Sultan. This is the origin of the famous Ottoman Janissaries. Year after year, for the centuries of Ottoman rule, wherever Christians lived they were subject to this diabolical practice -- imagine, taking the very flower of their youth and converting them into their most loyal, exploited subjects! Incidentally my Bulgarian friend told me this grim story in response to my half-joking statement that Turkish women tended to be better looking than Bulgarians... this explained it in an all too dark fashion.

Islam has always needed non-Muslims to prey upon in this manner -- harass them, rape and 'convert' their women to be the third, fourth, fifth wife (or hundredth concubine or sex slave), and occasionally murder the men and confiscate their wealth. This promise of booty and plunder has been fundamental to the military expansion of Islam -- the ghazis that extended the frontiers of the Caliphates were motivated in equal part by their lust for divine virgins as for the real-world non-Muslims virgins, who were after all fair game.

But I also think that this oppression of women is key to the Islamic strategy for domination -- Islam reduces women to two functions, both attending to the needs of the ghazi: to serve him in whatever sexual desires he has, and to produce two or five or ten children for him. Women are nothing but baby factories in Islam, and this demographic aggressiveness gives them strength in numbers -- even in places that Muslims never were before, such as America and Northern Europe. In these democratic societies numbers, combined with narrow parochial voting patterns, gain an additional weight because they sway politicians.

So: women, when out of the clutches of the ghazis of Islam, are the prize: and once caught, raped, and appropriately subjugated, become baby machines to produce the next generation of looting and plundering ghazis. At a certain point large populations have a momentum beyond all other qualities (or lack thereof) that competing populations may bring to bear.

This disturbing but effective strategy also contains the key to the reversal of Islamic fortunes: and that is to liberate the women. If women are no longer prey, either pre-conversion as 'exposed meat' or post-conversion as baby machines and sex toys sequestered in four walls; if women could fight back, had access to education and career goals and dreams, and could pursue life as humans and not as the playthings of ghazis, then Islam would lose its vitality.

I am convinced that this is true.

Apologies if this has been an incoherent rant (my blood is still boiling at the injustices suffered by my fellow brothers and sisters, and ancestors, at the hands of these subhuman brutes over the centuries), I am typing in stream-of-consciousness mode... take it FWIW.

[shiv]

Apologies if this has been an incoherent rant (my blood is still boiling at the injustices suffered by my fellow brothers and sisters, and ancestors, at the hands of these subhuman brutes over the centuries), I am typing in stream-of-consciousness mode... take it FWIW.

Was going to cross post in the Islamism thread where it would also be appropriate but it has already been done. It is appropriate here too.

I think there are two fundamental pillars in handling Pakistan. One is to shame about the decrepit state of their Pakhanaland and the other is to diss Islam. The objective of being critical of Islam is two-fold. First is to speak about about how non Muslims feel and make a clear record of the non Muslims side of the story. The second offers a choice. Either accept what is said or start a religious war. Pakis have already started a religious war - so fine, let us fight the war. If they don't want religious war, they have to roll back their fundamentalism.

For too long on this forum I have heard the pessimistic words "They will never roll that back". Why not? Have they been pushed enough? Have they seen enough dead bodies yet?

[parsuram]

SBajwa

Your Post on the Abductions of Hindu/Sikh women by Muslim Raiders was excellent. This reminds me of the Interview of Imran(Taliban)Khan who was asked by a Journo (some years back) as to why women from the Indian Subcontinent fall for him. His Answer .. ? . "We always had for ourselves & enjoyed the best of the Indian women !"

dada: Not counting raiding parties, an average invading army coming in from Afghanistan and attacking the major economic/political power centers of north India would have had 50-100,000 men - and of course, no women. As they rolled across the Punjab plains, they were unlikely to abduct any women, as those would be a liability before the battles. So all they would manage is to raise the alarm among the civilaian population. Assuming they were more successful than not, what is the number of women that they could reasonably be headed back with by the time they got across the sindhu? lets assume that such invasions were a regular happening, and not the very first one that took the entire population by surprise. This is not such an easy question to handle, other than to say that the pickings well might have been pretty slim (no pun). Before I scratch my head and make too many assumptions and put a number together, how about a few more of the forum members join me in scratching their heads as well. maybe the 20 odd invasion trips of ghori could be a bench mark for figuring out an average to go by

[Sushupti]

Assuming they were more successful than not, what is the number of women that they could reasonably be headed back with by the time they got across the sindhu? lets assume that such invasions were a regular happening, and not the very first one that took the entire population by surprise. This is not such an easy question to handle, other than to say that the pickings well might have been pretty slim (no pun). Before I scratch my head and make too many assumptions and put a number together, how about a few more of the forum members join me in scratching their heads as well. maybe the 20 odd invasion trips of ghori could be a bench mark for figuring out an average to go by

Ghaznavid capture of Hindu slaves
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/mssmi/ch3.htm
If such were the gains of the ‘mild’ Muhammad bin Qasim in enslaving kaniz wa ghulam in Sindh, the slaves captured by Mahmud of Ghazni, “that ferocious and insatiable conqueror”, of the century beginning with the year 1000 C.E. have of course to be counted in hundreds of thousands. Henry Elliot and John Dowson have sifted the available evidence from contemporary and later sources-from Utbi’s Tarikh-i-Yamini, Nizamuddin Ahmad’s Tabqat-i-Akbari, the Tarikh-i-Alai and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh to the researches of early European scholars. Mohammad Habib, Muhammad Nazim, Wolseley Haig and I myself have also studied these invasions in detail.9 All evidence points to the fact that during his seventeen invasions, Mahmud Ghaznavi enslaved a very large number of people in India. Although figures of captives for each and every campaign have not been provided by contemporary chroniclers, yet some known numbers and data about the slaves taken by Mahmud speak for themselves.

When Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive. This figure of Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud, is so mind-boggling that Elliot reduces it to 5000.10 The point to note is that taking of slaves was a matter of routine in every expedition. Only when the numbers were exceptionally large did they receive the notice of the chroniclers. So that in Mahmud’s attack on Ninduna in the Punjab (1014), Utbi says that “slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land (India) were degraded by becoming slaves of common shop-keepers (in Ghazni)”.11 His statement finds confirmation in later chronicles including Nizamuddin Ahmad’s Tabqat-i-Akbari which states that Mahmud “obtained great spoils and a large number of slaves”. Next year from Thanesar, according to Farishtah, “the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls”.12 Thereafter slaves were taken in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj, Asni etc. When Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to consist of (besides huge wealth) 53,000 captives. Utbi says that “the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that, each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants came from different cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawarau-un-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them”. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.13

Before proceeding further, let us try to answer two questions which arise out of the above study. First, how was it that people could be enslaved in such large numbers? Was there no resistance on their part? And second, what did the victors do with these crowds of captives?

During war it was not easy for the Muslim army to capture enemy troops. They were able-bodied men, strong and sometimes ‘demon like’. It appears that capturing such male captives was a very specialised job. Special efforts were made by ‘experts’ to surround individuals or groups, hurl lasso or ropes around them, pin them down, and make them helpless by binding them with cords of hide, ropes of hessian and chains and shackles of iron. Non-combatant males, women and children of course could be taken comparatively easily after active soldiers had been killed in battle. The captives were made terror-stricken. It was a common practice to raise towers of skulls of the killed by piling up their heads in mounds. All captives were bound hand and foot and kept under strict surveillance of armed guards until their spirit was completely broken and they could be made slaves, converted, sold or made to serve on sundry duties.

In a letter Hajjaj instructed Muhammad bin Qasim on how to deal with the adversary. “The way of granting pardon prescribed by law is that when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads… make a great slaughter among them… (Those that survive) bind them in bonds… grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them” etc., etc.14 The lives of some prisoners could be spared, but they could not be released. That is how the Arab invaders of Sindh could enslave thousands of men and women at Debal, Rawar and Brahmanabad. At Brahmanabad, after many people were killed, “all prisoners of or under the age of 30 years were put in chains… All the other people capable of bearing arms were beheaded and their followers and dependents were made prisoners.”15

That is also how Mahmud of Ghazni could enslave 500,000 “beautiful men and women” in Waihind after he had killed 15,000 fighting men in a “splendid action” in November 1001 C.E. Utbi informs us that Jaipal, the Hindu Shahiya king of Kabul, “his children and grandchildren, his nephews, and the chief men of his tribe, and his relatives, were taken prisoners, and being strongly bound with ropes, were carried before the Sultan (Mahmud) like common evil-doers… Some had their arms forcibly tied behind their backs, some were seized by the cheek, some were driven by blows on their neck.”16 In every campaign of Mahmud large-scale massacres preceded enslavement.

The sight of horrendous killing completely unnerved the captives. Not only were the captives physically tortured, they were also morally shattered. They were systematically humiliated and exposed to public ridicule. When prisoners from Sindh were sent to the Khalifa, “the slaves, who were chiefly daughters of princes and Ranas, were made to stand in a line along with the menials (literally shoe-bearers)”.17 Hodivala gives details of the humiliation of Jaipal at the hands of Mahmud. He writes that Jaipal “was publicly exposed at one of the slave-auctions in some market in Khurasan, just like the thousands of other Hindu captives… (He) was paraded about so that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace… inflicting upon him the public indignity of ‘commingling him in one common servitude”.18 No wonder that in the end Jaipal immolated himself, for such humiliation was inflicted deliberately to smash the morale of the captives. In short, once reduced to such straits, the prisoners, young or old, ugly or handsome, princes or commoners could be flogged, converted, sold for a tuppence or made to work as menials.

It may be argued that Mahmud of Ghazni could enslave people in hundreds of thousands because his raids were of a lightning nature when defence preparedness was not satisfactory. But even when the Muslim position was not that strong, say, during Mahmud’s son Ibrahim’s campaign in Hindustan when “a fierce struggle ensued, but Ibrahim at length gained victory, and slew many of them. Those who escaped fled into the jungles. Nearly 100,000 of their women and children were taken prisoners…”19 In this statement lies the answer to our first problem. There was resistance and determined resistance so that all the people of a family or village or town resisted the invaders in unison. If they succeeded, they drove away the attackers. If not, they tried to escape into nearby forests.20 If they could not escape at all they were made captives but then all together. They did not separate from one another even in the darkest hour. Indeed adversity automatically bound them together. So they determined to swim or sink together.

Besides, right from the days of prophet Muhammad, and according to his instructions, writes Margoliouth, “parting of a captive mother from her child was forbidden… The parting of brothers when sold was similarly forbidden. On the other hand captive wife might at once become the concubine of the conqueror.”21 This precept of not separating the captives but keeping them together was motivated by no humanitarian consideration but it surely swelled their numbers to the advantage of the victors. Hence large numbers of people were enslaved.

And now our second question - what did the victors do with slaves captured in large crowds? In the days of the early invaders like Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi, they were mostly sold in the Slave Markets that had come up throughout the Muslim dominated towns and cities. Lot of profit was made by selling slaves in foreign lands. Isami gives the correct position. Muhammad Nazim in an article has translated relevant lines of Isami’s metrical composition.22 “He (Mahmud) scattered the army of the Hindus in one attack and took Rai Jaipal prisoner. He carried him to the distant part of his kingdom of Ghazni and delivered him to an agent of the Slave Market (dalal-i-bazar). I heard that at the command of the king (Mahmud), the Brokers of the Market, (maqiman-i-bazar in the original) sold Jaipal as a slave for 80 Dinars and deposited the money realised by the sale in the Treasury.”23

When Muslim rule was established in India, the sale of captives became restricted. Large numbers of them were drafted for manning the establishments of kings and nobles, working as labourers in the construction of buildings, cutting jungles and making roads, and on so many other jobs. Still they were there, enough and to spare. Those who could be spared were sold in and outside the country, where slave markets, slave merchants and slave brokers did a flourishing business, and the rulers made profit out of their sale.

Mahmud of Ghazni had marched into Hindustan again and again to wage jihad and spread the Muhammadan religion, to lay hold of its wealth, to destroy its temples, to enslave its people, sell them abroad and thereby earn profit, and to add to Muslim numbers by converting the captives. He even desired to establish his rule in India.24 His activities were so multi-faceted that it is difficult to determine his priorities. But the large number of captives carried away by him indicates that taking of slaves surely occupied an anteriority in his scheme of things. He could obtain wealth by their sale and increase the Muslim population by their conversion.

[parsuram]

Sushupti: Thank you for this detailed history lesson. I have made a copy to discuss this with my more gentile muslim acqaintences. But seriously, I read more or less the same thing in vol 1 of "Story of civilization" (our oriental heretage), but without the detailed math. And just equally as seriously, in the very very unlikely event that I ever in any position to repay the ghazni mahmood the favor, I shall do so with interst

[Kamboja]

Cross-posting

There is some evidence for this, but its not so black and white. Modern Iran is a compelling case in point. Under the appearances of an adrenalized Islamist swagger lies an alter ego where Islamism is weak. And a great part of it has to do with the aspirations and even the rebellious nature of their women and their "temerity" to express it. There is also a clear trend of targeting and trying to bully womenfolk, a tactic turned on by the regime each time they feel the need to show who's in control. It was also widely noted that women were a sizeable portion of the 'Green Revolution' street presence.

Another noticeable statistic there is the high divorce rate. And then among stable marriages there is a low birthrate. The birthrate there initially shot up for a while during the war, when the faithful produced many offspring at the orders of their Marjas (gurus). But then it plummeted.

However, its not necessarily such a one-sided picture. Many educated women who affiliate themselves with Islamism of their own choice become very vocal and assertive proponents of this ideology, and make gung ho activists. As long as they are allowed to speak forcefully and pursue their life's aspirations, they are prepared to wear a tight sock and scarf on their heads as a bold public statement. In fact, I usually notice a peculiarly feverish drive among these women to attain some material achievement, in order to prove (to others or themselves?) how liberated Islamist women can be. Generally in Iran one finds more women going in for higher education than men. But many of these are now becoming sick and tired of the regime.

And at the other end of the spectrum, the under-educated womenfolk tend to typically cling to a Marja and his congregation, just like some Indian women like to be part of some adorable guruji's sanga. Its common for such women to be actively involved in constantly organizing home programs and inviting the Marja or some deputed mulla/molana to speak to an almost all-women audience. Once the short talk is over and praises to the holy ones chanted, it all then turns over to tea and snacks and plenty of gossip. So this culture also accommodates a large portion of the women from more traditional backgrounds.

I also noticed that the Islamist government in Iran is very smart in its social engineering strategies. Often they will provide a facility for women that seems very progressive in the short term, but in the longer term it is guaranteed to isolate them and make them less confident surviving independently in society. For example, I know that in the town of Rasht (Gilan), they had created women's only parks complete with exercise equipment and jogging tracks, and the freedom to use it without any hijab requirements. Younger women were ecstatic, to be able to be outdoors without a headscarf or manteau, jogging and using attractive exercise facilities. But as one slightly older female friend pointed out, by getting the public to swallow the segregation pill, the Islamists were setting these younger women up for failure in the future, since they would find themselves feeling awkward around men in the workplace. She had to get over that awkwardness herself, and she sees it becoming a bigger hurdle for these clueless young ladies.

As I said, there is some evidence to support your theory, though it applies to conservative traditional societies everywhere to some extent. But it is particularly sharp in Islamist societies because they wield the iron rod in enforcing such attitudes. This delicate but crucial issue must be 'educated' in order to crack open and break apart Islamism.

As for the rest of your post, I do think it was a bit over the top in restricting the phenomenon to one religion only. I have come across descriptions of the use and abuse of village belles even by some Hindu kings and zamindars. The erstwhile royal house of Nepal is a recent 'shining' example. Naxals and Maosist gangsters don't manage to get grassroots cooperation just solely at gunpoint. But I do agree that the Turks made a glorified sport of it far more than any other peoples I know. One Turkish friend of mine boasted with a cackle that they have a proverb in Turkish: "Turks freely take words and women from other peoples/cultures!" This was the macho excuse of super-nationalist Turks for the fact that their language would be worth little without all the Persian (with its Arabic) in it.

Carl-ji, many thanks for adding some nuance to what was undoubtedly a black-and-white post. I do not disagree with anything you've written, and in fact had the same thought cross my mind about kings who were Hindu or Buddhist or whatever religion. Kings and powerful men have always taken many women against their will, no doubt it was true of non-Muslim Indian rulers as well.

However: the reason I think Islam is exceptional in this regard is that this kind of abduction and rape-marriage has a degree of approval unlike any other religion/civilization. This is because of the example of Mohammed.

Mohammed as you no doubt know is held to be the perfect exemplar of what a man should be; all Muslim men are supposed to aspire to emulate him. However, Mohammed also conducted war, including raids involving the plunder and capture of non-Muslim men and women who were enslaved. Mohammed also married and took for himself some of these women slaves.

Simplistic Islamic fundamentalism reduces Mohammed's life to: 'if he did it, I have divine sanction to do it'. Thus Islam gives divine sanction to the abduction, rape and forced conversion of non-Muslims. Certainly other men in other civilizations have preyed upon women, it is a side of human nature. No other civilization holds this behavior up as exemplary, even divinely sanctioned, like Islam seems to. The closest parallel I can think of is Rome; whose foundational myth included the story of the Rape of the Sabine Women. Even that does not compare to how Islam seems to justify the abduction and rape of non-Muslim women.

That is the despicable aspect of unreformed Islam that I was trying to call out in my initial post, and adding caveats like 'other men/religions have done it too', while true, would only dilute the point and would be a form of equal-equal that I wanted to avoid.


To your second point that women will not start abandoning Islam; again I agree. However I do not see that as necessary; for the vitality of Islam to be sapped it is sufficient that these women be independent minded enough to stay unmarried until at least the mid-twenties, and that they reproduce at or close to the replacement rate. Imagine if that change alone could be applied to Pakistan; overnight their population would stabilize. All those mushrooming communities of fundamentalist Muslims who are seeking to change the demography of Europe and the US -- if overnight the women were liberated enough to choose when and how to have children, suddenly the Muslim community would not be the fastest growing one around, and the demographic advantage that comes from breeding like rabbits would be lost. Think of all those future suicide bombers and mujahideen waiting to be born to reluctant women in Pakistan; if they could be liberated to the point where they decide perhaps three children is enough, in sixteen years that is one less unemployed, radicalized scoundrel taking potshots at our servicemen and women or planting bombs in Kashmir or Mumbai or Afghanistan.

So yes, Muslim women may mostly remain loyal to the religion that ties them down and denigrates them, but as long as they gain some degree of control over their bodies and destinies it will fundamentally weaken Islam, because it will rob the Arab imperialist religion of its biggest engine of growth.

[Singha]

in modern times have there been genetic studies done to see if the areas around the places where slaves were sold in large numbers just a few hundred years ago are closely matched to indic people?
male slaves must have started families with female slaves eventually just as the blacks did in the american plantations. granted some of the females may have been reserved for the buyers only.

there has to be a genetic markers all over the place if such huge numbers were marched off and made it alive across the hindukush.

[darshhan]

in modern times have there been genetic studies done to see if the areas around the places where slaves were sold in large numbers just a few hundred years ago are closely matched to indic people?
male slaves must have started families with female slaves eventually just as the blacks did in the american plantations. granted some of the females may have been reserved for the buyers only.

there has to be a genetic markers all over the place if such huge numbers were marched off and made it alive across the hindukush.

Singha ji ,Check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ani_people

Further evidence for the Indian origin of the Romanies came in the late 1990s. Researchers doing DNA analysis discovered that Romani populations carried large frequencies of particular Y chromosomes (inherited paternally) and mitochondrial DNA (inherited maternally) that otherwise exist only in populations from South Asia.

47.3% of Romani men carry Y chromosomes of haplogroup H-M82 which is rare outside the Indian subcontinent.[18] Mitochondrial haplogroup M, most common in Indian subjects and rare outside Southern Asia, accounts for nearly 30% of Romani people.[18] A more detailed study of Polish Roma shows this to be of the M5 lineage, which is specific to India.[19] Moreover, a form of the inherited disorder congenital myasthenia is found in Romani subjects. This form of the disorder, caused by the 1267delG mutation, is otherwise known only in subjects of Indian ancestry. This is considered to be the best evidence of the Indian ancestry of the Romanies.[20]

The Romanies have been described as "a conglomerate of genetically isolated founder populations".[21] The number of common Mendelian disorders found among Romanies from all over Europe indicates "a common origin and founder effect".[21] See also this table:[22]

A study from 2001 by Gresham et al. suggests "a limited number of related founders, compatible with a small group of migrants splitting from a distinct caste or tribal group".[23] Also the study pointed out that "genetic drift and different levels and sources of admixture, appear to have played a role in the subsequent differentiation of populations".[23] The same study found that "a single lineage ... found across Romani populations, accounts for almost one-third of Romani males.

A 2004 study by Morar et al. concluded that the Romanies are "a founder population of common origins that has subsequently split into multiple socially divergent and geographically dispersed Gypsy groups".[20] The same study revealed that this population "was founded approximately 32–40 generations ago, with secondary and tertiary founder events occurring approximately 16–25 generations ago".

[darshhan]

After I read the Parshuram ji , SBajwaji and others wrt Islamist abduction of Kafir women , my blood is boiling.I feel like catching hold of an islamist and then smashing his head with a boulder.I just cant imagine how much of history has been suppressed by our leftist historians.

To all the Pakis who are reading this(Paklurks) , we will avenge all the wrongs committed by your ancestors in time.

[darshhan]

By the way this is regarding Raymond Davis(the CIA Agent and Paki Killer).The following link enumerates the articles that were being carried by Raymond Davis when he was arrested after shooting pakis.Gives an insight into the gear carried by Operatives.

http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2011/08/what ... carry.html

1. Glock 9 mm pistol (1)
2. 9 mm pistol magazine (5)
3. Ammunition, 9 mm pistol (75)
4. Tracker alongwith charger (1) [Remarks: GPS map 60 CSX]
5. Purse (1)
6. Wireless set (1)
7. Wireless set battery (1)
8. Cutter (2)
9. Mobile along with 1x battery (2) [Remarks: Nokia 6300, 1100]
10. Head torch (1)
11. Digital camera (1)
12. Small telescope (1)
13. Small torch (1)
14. Bandage (5)
15. QuikClot (1)
16. Hyfin chest seal (1) [Remarks: Mask]
17. Integrity Medical (1)
18. Health care Stike (1)
19. Simple light torch (1)
20. Priority 1 Immediate (1)
21. Cyalum chemical light(3)
22. Rescue products (2)
23. Needle decompression (1)
24. Rusch Sterile (1)
25. Notice card (1)
26. Duracell AA batteries (8)
27. Key Honda Civic (1) [Remarks: LED 10-680]
28. Diary (1)
29. Packet Tobacco (1)
30. Handbag (1)
31. Keychain with key (1) [Remarks: Alongwith 2x V-Card-Contact Card]
32. Contact cards (18)
33. Memory card (1)
34. Pakistani currency (Total: Rs. 5,605/-) [Remarks: Rs. 1000*5, 100*4, 50*3, 20*2, 10*1, 5*1]
35. American Dollars (Total: $ 126) [Remarks: $ 100*1, 20*1, 5*1, 1*1]
36. ATM Bank Cards (5)
37. Copy of PIA ticket (1)
38. Receipt money exchange (1)
39. Receipt Al-Falah bank (1)
40. Chit Embassy (1)
41. Black Cheque (2) [Remarks: USAA Federal Saving Bank]
42. Passport (1)

Don't know if it was posted earlier.

[parsuram]

darshan: patience. Our day just dawned a scant 64 years ago. And our days, while not as long as Brahma's days, are atleast as long as, say Indira's day. Oh, and about the "Romanis" - gypsies of Europe, I studied their genetics back in graduate school. definately of N Indian origin. Actually, there is a facinating novel based on that fact. There is also some genetic factors relating to the Rajputs, that I just dont recall at this time.

[Singha]

while romanies have been treated shabbily almost everywhere, conventional theory is they left on their own from north india around 800-1000AD and in some waves thereafter and kept moving. they still retain some cohesion as a people.

slaves who were taken from india would be much more dispersed into the general population today, long since converted to ROP, married into the native stock and would be identifiable perhaps only via DNA type studies not by language, religion or culture which was long ago obliterated by the host society. "looks" can be quite deceptive though I agree there are lots of people stretching from turkey eastward who can pass off as north indian.

[Lalmohan]

romanies are increasingly taking pride in their indian origin, they get excited if you call them indian. there are even anglo-irish romany names like "Bibby" which trace to the Indic word "Bibi". most sources support singha's observations above.

on the numbers of killed and enslaved - whilst the numbers were undoubtedly large, i suspect that they are inflated somewhat to glorify the patrons of the historians. the fact is that india was not depopulated and the indic culture was never extinguished - we survived everything the barbarians threw at us. similarly - transporting such large numbers of captives across harsh terrain for so many miles with limited food and water would result in massive casualties and relatively small numbers would make it to the destination. even the "voluntary" shift of population from delhi to daulatabad led to massive numbers of deaths in transit. certainly 10's of thousands were taken and absorbed into the middle eastern gene pool, but i am not convinced that 100's of thousands were transported so easily.

i believe the name "Hinda" is often used in Arabic for a woman of beauty - undoubtedly taken from the slave population

[Vikas]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

[shiv]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next generation turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one. After mother always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

VikasRaina - you are asking questions that would be asked by a serious researcher - a dharmic seeker of knowledge. There is a weak spot in the numbers that have been quoted. When you start putting numbers of abducted women, then you start coming up with exactly the sort of questions you have asked.

I have no doubt whatsoever that women were abducted and raped by Islamic hordes. That much is clear from personal histories and narratives posted on here. But people were not totally dumb. Many would have run to safer lands. My own ancestors fled from a defeated Vijayanagar empire in Anegundi to Mysore.

There are very distinct physical differences between the people of Afghanistan and the people of North-West India. And if you think a lot of Indian are TFTA looking and share genes with the hordes, you could ask how come they were not necessarily converted. So I think that one has to be a little careful about getting caught out when one comes up with gi-normous numbers. The questions you have asked are the very questions that can be used, in a systematic way, to rubbish claims that Hindu women were abducted and raped.

[Vikas]

So I think that one has to be a little careful about getting caught out when one comes up with gi-normous numbers. The questions you have asked are the very questions that can be used, in a systematic way, to rubbish claims that Hindu women were abducted and raped.

ShivJi, This explanation actually puts lot of things in perspective. The numbers that have been thrown around from History especially when it related to Muslim Victories have always been skewed and so are the stories/myth of Islamic valor or secular Islamic Kings ruling Agra, Awadh,Nizam or Mysore. If all the history had really happened and Hindus always were like lambs taken to slaughter-house, We would have seen Al-Green on Red fort way back in 1947.

As Ramanna had said, Distances may dim the vision, but not distort the prespective.

[SBajwa]

This is how you show your strength.

There were two places connected with Guru Teg Bahadur. One was at the Kotwali where the Guru was beheaded. The other was at Rakabganj where his headless body was cremated by Lakhi Banjara. At both these places mosques had been built. In order to build Gurdwara, mosques had to be demolished. The Muslims had been most sensitive with regard to their mosques. But their fanaticism had grown weaker before the supremacy of the Sikhs.

Earlier, a small body of Sikhs under Sahib Singh Khondah, a small Sikh chief, visited Delhi. He was there on October 1, 1778. This was the Dussehra day and the Sikhs riding out went to the Guru’s bungalow near Rakabganj, and they demolished the mosque and ravaged the cultivated fields." (Delhi Diarist, anonymous, in Delhi Chronicle, 31).

The diarist further observed that with the departure of the Sikhs, the Muslims again erected the mosque. When Baghel Singh planned to pull down the mosque, the Muslims of the capital grew furious and thousands of them gathered there to save the mosque.

Baghel Singh asked the mob to send their representatives to discuss the matter with him. About one hundred Muslim leaders met him. He gave them a fortnight to declare their final decision. Till then the construction was stopped. He sent his agents to the Cis-Satluj chiefs to be ready for an expedition. The details of which he would supply in a couple of days. He prepared a list of all the Jagirs held by Delhi Muslims in the Ganga-Doab and in the region north of Delhi in the district of Rohtak and Karnal. He marked certain Sardars for certain areas. They entered those villages and created havoc. The leaders finding themselves in ruin waited for Baghel Singh individually and gave in writing that they have no objection to the demolition of the mosque at Rakabganj. He laid the foundation of the Gurdwara before sunrise. The building was soon built.

[parsuram]

So I think that one has to be a little careful about getting caught out when one comes up with gi-normous numbers. The questions you have asked are the very questions that can be used, in a systematic way, to rubbish claims that Hindu women were abducted and raped.

ShivJi, This explanation actually puts lot of things in perspective. The numbers that have been thrown around from History especially when it related to Muslim Victories have always been skewed and so are the stories/myth of Islamic valor or secular Islamic Kings ruling Agra, Awadh,Nizam or Mysore. If all the history had really happened and Hindus always were like lambs taken to slaughter-house, We would have seen Al-Green on Red fort way back in 1947.

As Ramanna had said, Distances may dim the vision, but not distort the prespective.

I too have wondered about the remarkably large numbers put up by muslim invaders when bragging about their exploits in India. ghasni mamood has numbers approaching one mil. hindus taken in slavery. In addition, he brags that on taking Delhi, he had 100,000 hindus slaughtered every day and their corpses packed as cord wood for him to inspect - every day(Durant and Durant, Our oriental heritage). It took this man about 20 years of invasions to finally take Delhi. He came like clockwork every year. Were the Hindus all dumb to sit and wait for him to come by and kill/enslave them? There is pleanty of family lore about families going into hiding to avoid the invading barbarians. They particularly put their women in hiding, and, come worst consequence of those invasions, women had themselves sacrificed or comitted suicide rather than be taken alive by those barbarians. There is pleanty of family and general folklore that clearly points to men in "rang de basanti chola" and women comitting suicide. I have seen communal suicide chambers (fire pits) in which women comitted suicide once their men went off to die in battle wearing saffron cholas. That was in a small town near Gwalior (I was 9 years old when I saw those fire pits and heard those stories about hindus dying in muslim invasions). In Gwalior fort, too, at the lowest level there is a fire pit used for communal suicide by women to avoid capture by muslims. More recently, there were mass suicides by Sikh and Hindu women when they were trapped by muslim mobs in west Punjab in 1947. village wells were the common means to do this, but men were also known to sacrifice their women (beheadings). I have posted a description of this latter means that a group of sikhs had to practice when they were trapped by muslims in 1947 near Rawalpindi. So, taking all this together, I am sceptical that barbaric mussalman of little intellect, using brute force could accomlish all that they brag about in their tehrik namas. that is their description of their invasions, and not accurate as sources oh truth in the historical record. And there is pleanty of evidence that this practice was very wide spread among the invading mussalmans.

[A_Gupta]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

The influence would fade away over time. The mullah is a constant.

[parsuram]

Bajwa ji: I have heard this history at Rakabganj. I have also worshiped there. It is a beautiful Gurudwara. I wish such Sikhs were incharge of removing that Babri mosque; there would not have been all the mess that has been created there by indecision of weak willed people.

[Sushupti]

Slave trade
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/mssmi/ch10.htm

It is nowhere mentioned in medieval chronicles how slaves, captured in war, were sorted out and separated for the purpose of being sold, drafted into the army, given as gifts to princes and nobles or set apart for domestic service. All that is known is that slaves were disposed of on all these counts and many more. It appears that the sorting was done on the basis of the looks of the females, physical fitness of the males, intuition of the master.....

Low Price of Indian Slaves

Ziyauddin Barani reckons regulations regarding sale of “horses, slaves and quadrupeds” under one category. T.P. Hughes quoting the Hidayah says that slaves, male and female, are treated merely as articles of merchandise, and “very similar rules apply both to the sale of animals and bondsmen.”29 A milch buffalo cost 10-12 tankahs., a working girl was cheaper. The price of a good quality horse was 90-120 tankahs, that of a ghulam was 100 on an average. A handsome boy could be had for 20 to 30 tankahs.30 It is therefore a matter of some satisfaction that under the Khaljis the value of humans in terms of price was not less than that of horses and buffaloes.

The contemporary chronicler Barani boasts that the cheapness of prices in Alauddin’s time was not witnessed after his reign.31 But the trend towards low prices was universal and spread over a long period. Writing about the days of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325-51), Shihabuddin Al-Umari writes: “The Sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels… Every day thousands of slaves are sold at a very low price, so great is the number of prisoners… (that) the value at Delhi of a young slave girl, for domestic service, does not exceed eight tankahs. Those who are deemed fit to fill the parts of domestic and concubine sell for about fifteen tankahs. In other cities prices are still lower…” Probably it was so because Ibn Battuta while in Bengal says that a pretty Kaniz (slave girl) could be had there for one gold dinar (or 10 silver tankahs). “I purchased at this price a very beautiful slave girl whose name was Ashura. A friend of mine also bought a young slave named Lulu for two gold coins.”32 It is very difficult to establish a relationship between the prices of Delhi market and those of the provinces. Umari continues, “but still, in spite of low price of slaves, 20000 tankahs, and even more, are paid for young Indian girls. I inquired the reason… and was told that these young girls are remarkable for their beauty, and the grace of their manners.”33

The cheapness of price of young slaves is indirectly attested to by Ibn Battuta also. Such was their influx that at one place he writes, “Once there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Vazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them… My companion took three young girls, and I do not know what happened to the rest.”34 Thousands of slaves were captured in the minor yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq and obviously sold, for, says the contemporary chronicler Shams Siraj Afif that “in places which are sacked and looted the captives are selected as per royal regulations. Those fit for royal service (alone) are sent to the court.”35 The others were sold. It was under such a system that one of Firoz’s slaves Bashir Sultani could buy with money 4,000 slaves (mal kharida) for his personal service.36

From the fifteenth century onwards, we have some more information about the sale of slaves and their prices at home and abroad. Babur writes in his Memoirs that “there are two trade-marts on the land-route between Hindustan and Khurasan; one is Kabul, the other, Qandhar. (Route to Kabul was from Lahore, to Qandhar from Multan)… Down to Kabul every year …from Hindustan, come every year caravans… bringing slaves (barda)” and other commodities, and sell them at great profit. “In Kabul can be had the products of Khurasan, Rum, Iraq and Chin (China); while it is Hindustan’s own market (emphasis added).” There was also barter prevailing with regard to the disposal of slaves. For example, William Finch writing at Agra in about 1610 says that “in hunting the men of the jungle were on the same footing as the beasts” and whatever was taken in the game was the king’s shikar, whether men or beasts. “Men remain the King’s slaves which he sends yearly to Kabul to barter for horses and dogs.” Many other writers tell it besides Finch.37 Barter was in vogue not only in the days of Jahangir but it was practised throughout the medieval period.

[parsuram]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

The influence would fade away over time. The mullah is a constant.

Not necessarily, Gupta ji. Recall that Akbar swore at Ajmer Sharif that only sons of Hindu mothers would inherit the mughal throne. Jodhabai was the mother ofJahangir; and Shahjahan's mother was also Hindu. His designated heir, Dara Shikoh's mother was also Hindu. Dara Shikoh was, therefore 7/8th of Hindu blood. He was a Vedic scholar, and would have been a great emperor, except for aurangzeb, son of that Iranian mussalmani mother. Aurangzeb killed all his brothers and took over as emperor. After him, the mughal empire fell apart.

[parsuram]

Sushupti: This account is self contridictory. the prices range anywhere from 1-2 to 20,000 tankahs. It is clear that those early mussalman invaders (sultanate period) really enslaved the entire population under their jurisdiction, so there could not have been a settled civil society at that time. If any person can be taken off the street and bought & sold, no civil society can function, with laws, taxation, and any kind of predictable order. This was probably because there were no muslim people in the general population, and these mussalmans were only taught to rule over muslims, as their book sets apart the muslims from non muslims for the purpose of administration. What emerges from reading this is a picture of a society in anarchy. Because the people were reletively financially well off (compared to the muslims in the lands from where these barbaric invaders came) the invaders probably freely robbed the hindus for what ever they wanted, in place of an orderly tax system. At least this is an accurate picture of how the anarchic society functioned under these mussalman invaders.

[Sushupti]

SEX SLAVERY

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/mssmi/ch12.htm

In the preceding pages it has been seen how women and children were special targets for enslavement throughout the medieval period, that is, during Muslim invasions and Muslim rule. Captive children of both sexes grew up as Muslims and served the sultans, nobles and men of means in various captives. Enslavement of young women was also due to many reasons; their being sex objects was the primary consideration and hence concentration on their captivity.

Psychology regarding Sex

Islam originated in the Arabian peninsula which is by and large stony and sandy. There is no luxuriant herbage, there are no lofty trees or winding rivers. Muhammad used to say that “three things gladden the eye of the gazer: green fields, running water, and fair faces.”1 Since green fields and running water were denied to the medieval Arab, he concentrated on deriving comfort and society mainly in fair faces. This phenomenon became prominent in the course of Islamic history throughout the world.

In the campaigns launched by Muslims, it was easy to capture women, more so after their menfolk had been massacred. The Prophet's one great aim was propagation of his religion and as Margoliouth observes, “Abu Bakr (the chief campaigner for Muhammad’s creed) probably was aware that women are more amenable to conversion than men… slaves than freemen, persons in distress than persons in prosperity and affluence.”2 Women slaves turned concubines could increase Muslim population by leaps and bounds when captured in large numbers.3 Hence there was particular keenness on enslaving women from the very beginning of Islam.

This was also encouraged by the injunctions of the Quran. Muslims are allowed four wives besides they are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves. Surah iv:3 says, “Then marry what seem to be good to you of women”; Surah iv:29, “Take what your right hand possesses of young women”, and Surah xxxiii:49, “Verily we make lawful for thee what thy right hand possesses out of the booty God hath granted thee.” Muslims are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves. Surah iv:28 declares, “Unlawful for you are… married women, save such as your right hand possesses”, that is, female slaves captured in war. Manucci’s observation on the seventeenth century India is significant in this regard. He says that “all Muhammadans are fond of women, who are their principal relaxation and almost their only pleasure”4

From the teachings of the Quran quoted above, it will be seen that while Muhammad restricted the number of lawful wives, he did not restrict the number of slave girls and concubines.5 All female slaves taken as plunder in war are the lawful property of their master, and the master has power to take to himself any female slave married or single. T.P. Hughes adds that “there is absolutely no limit to the number of slave girls with whom a Muhammadan may cohabit, and it is the consecration of this illimitable indulgence which so popularizes the Muhammadan religion amongst uncivilized nations, and so popularizes slavery in the Muslim religion”.6

Then there was the life and thought of the Prophet himself. Muslims try to imitate, as far as possible, the life-style of Muhammad. He is the model, the paradigm of every pious Muslim.7 There is nothing unusual in this phenomenon. The followers of Mahavira, Buddha, Christ or Guru Govind Singh live, as far as in them lies, the life that their Masters lived. Their teaching was mostly oral but their words were lovingly collected by devoted men as guides to their own personal conduct. So did the followers of Muhammad collect the hadises and tried to imitate his way of life. Company of women had a very important place in Muhammad’s life. William Muir writes that “Aisha used to say: ‘the Prophet loved three things-women, scents, and food; he had his heart’s desire of the two first, but not of the last”.8 This is put by Margoliouth as “the three things about which he cared were scent, women, and prayer…”9 According to these aphorisms and sayings attributed to the Prophet, the place of women was prominent in his mind, a preoccupancy in his psyche.10 It is well-known that his matrimonial affairs gave him the means of establishing a princely harem.

Besides the urge of following in his ways, Muhammad's idea of Paradise inspired the Muslims even more in craving for the company of women. The Paradise in the Quran provided “Rest and passive enjoyment; verdant gardens watered by murmuring rivulets, wherein the believers… repose (quaffing) aromatic wine such as the Arabs loved from goblets placed before them or handed round in silver cups replendent as glass by beautiful youths… ‘Verily! for the Pious is a blissful abode; Gardens and Vineyards, and damsels with swelling bosoms, of an equal age, and a full cup…’ These damsels of Paradise are introduced as ‘lovely large-eyed girls resembling Pearls bidden in their shells, a reward for that which the faithful have wrought… ‘Verily! we have created them (the houries) of a rare creation; We have made them virgins, fascinating, of an equal age’.”11

Abode in such a Paradise of “carnal image”, says Gibbon, was the reward of the faithful in the next world. In this world Muhammad encouraged the Muslims to take slave women without restraint. From very “early period Muhammad admitted slave girls to be lawful concubines, besides ordinary wives. Bond-women with whom cohabitation is thus permitted are here specified by the same phrase as was afterwards used for female slaves taken captive in war, or obtained by purchase, viz. ‘that which your right hand possesses.’ …(It was) an inducement to fight in the hope of capturing women who would then be lawful concubines.”12 Margoliouth working with the same scriptural source materials, also avers that “It was then [early years of publicity of Islam] too, that coveting the goods and wives (possessed by Unbelievers) was avowed without discouragement from the Prophet.”13

Special interest in Sex

In brief, the climatic conditions of Arabia the birth-place of Islam, Muhammad’s life-style as a model for Muslims, and injunctions in the Quran and the Hadis, determined Muslim psychology about women. Islam permits polygamy with unbelievable liberality. A man can have four wives at any point of time, that is, if he chooses to have a fifth one, he can divorce one of the already at hand and keep the number within the legal limits of four. Besides, he can have as many slave girls or concubines as he pleases. It is related in the Hadis that Muhammad said that “when the servant of God marries, he perfects half his religion… Consequently in Islam, even the ascetic orders are rather married than single.”14 In Islam there is provision for temporary marriage (muta), multi-marriages, divorce, remarriage of widows, concubinage - in short, there is freedom from all inhibitions and reservations in matters of sex. The insistence is on everybody marrying and celibacy is frowned upon. According to a tradition derived from Ibn Abbas and quoted by Ibn S’ad, popularly known as Katib al-Waqidi the Prophet’s biographer, Muhammad said that “in my ummah, he is the best who has the largest number of wives.”15

It has been repeatedly said Musalmans are allowed by the Quran and the Hadis to have four wives. The aphorisms and maxims current about this phenomenon indicate that all wives could not have been procured in the normal way; some would have been purchased, some others captured. One aphorism says, “One quarrels with you, two are sure to involve you in their quarrels; when you have three, factions are formed against her you love best; but four find society and occupation among themselves, leaving the husband in peace.”16 According to another, “Wives there be four: there’s Bedfellow, Muckheap [dirty], Gadabout [idle] and Queen O’ women. The more the pity that the last is one in a hundred.”17 Yet another says, “A man should marry four wives: A Persian to have some one to talk to; a Khurasani woman for his housework; a Hindu for nursing his children; a woman from Mawaraun nahr, or Transoxiana, to have some one to whip as a warning to the other three.”18 The mention of so many nationalities in the sayings show that obtaining wives and concubines through all kinds of means - capture, purchase, enslavement - was in vogue among medieval Muslims.

In later times, this encouragement to polygamy was taken advantage of by Muslim conquerors. That Muhammad restricted the number of lawful wives but did not restrict the number of slave concubines, came handy to Musalmans. He “thus left upon the minds of his followers the inevitable impression that an unrestricted polygamy was the higher state…”19 Hazrat Umar, the second Caliph, was the first to allow instant divorce (by the pronouncement of talaq, talaq, talaq, three times) called talaq-i-bidat (innovative form of divorce), “to meet an extraordinary situation brought on by wars of conquests”. Those wars brought in such an influx of women that constant divorce became necessary to falicitate quick acquisition of fresh spouses by divorcing the old ones. “Victory over an enemy would seem to have been consummated only when the enemy’s daughter was introduced into the conqueror’s harem”20 - a precept so enthusiastically practised by Muslim conquerors and rulers in India.

It is therefore no wonder that from the day the Muslim invaders marched into India to the time when their political power declined, women were systematically captured and enslaved throughout the length and breadth of the country. Two instances pertaining to two extreme points of time would suffice as examples. When Muhammad bin Qasim mounted his attack on Debal in 712, all males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.21 And after the Third Battle of Panipat (1761), “the unhappy prisoners were paraded in long lines, given a little parched grain and a drink of water, and beheaded… and the women and children who survived were driven off as slaves - twenty-two thousand, many of them of the highest rank in the land, says the Siyar-ut-Mutakhirin.”22

These two instances have been chosen from two points of time on either extremity of Muslim rule in India. And now onwards this pattern of mentioning only two examples, one from the earlier period and the other from the later, will be adhered to. There are reasons for adopting this model. Persian chroniclers were not scientific historians. They often give isolated and disjointed bits of information. This characteristic is also found in their references to issues pertaining to our area of study. For example, while most of the chroniclers give detailed information about the enslavement of women in times of war, only a few like Abul Fazl and emperor Jahangir write about how they were captured, lifted or seduced by nobles and officers in times of peace. Of the women captured in war, some were appropriated by the king, many were presented by the king to the nobles, and many others were sold. But all writers do not give satisfactory information on all these points for the whole of the medieval period. Ibn Battuta gives details of “presentation” ceremonies of slave captives in the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and Bernier and Manucci in the time of Jahangir and Shahjahan. Detailed account of the Slave Markets and prices of slave girls are mainly given by the fourteenth century chronicler Ziyauddin Barani, although some others also refer to them but only casually. Many writers, especially European travellers, describe the treatment meted out to slave girls and girls turned concubines, but the accounts of Pelsaert and Manucci are the most detailed. Many women from Hindu rulers’ families were forcibly married by Muslim kings throughout the medieval period and yet only Shams Siraj Afif narrates in detail of the marriage of Firoz Shah’s mother to Malik Rajjab, a cousin of the king, and emperor Jahangir tells how he demanded daughters of Hindu kings.

In this background, it would be an unremitting task both in volume and repetition to give all anecdotes, facts and figures of enslavement and concubinage of captive women in the central and provincial kingdoms and independent Muslim states found mentioned in the chronicles. This would only lead to repetition resulting in the book becoming bulky. Therefore, two examples - one from the Sultanate period and the other from the Moghul times - would be enough as samples of the system that prevailed throughout. These will suffice to being out the panorama of Muslim indulgence in sex slavery in the medieval period.

The special interest of Muslims in sex slavery was universal and widespread and a plethora of evidence is available in contemporary Persian chronicles. In fact, Muslim historians derive extra delight in narrating anecdotes and stating facts about Muslim indulgence in sex and allied activities. Two incidents from the lives of the first two Sultans, Qutbuddin Aibak and Shamsuddin Iltutmish, may be mentioned here as examples.

On the arrival of Qutbuddin Aibak at Karman (situated between Kabul and Bannu), Tajuddin Yaldoz received him with great kindness and honour and gave him his daughter in marriage. A fete was held on the occasion and poetical descriptions in Hasan Nizami’s Taj-ul-Maasir follow – “of stars, female beauty, cup-bearers, curls, cheeks, eyes, lips, mouths, stature, elegance, cups, wine, singers, guitars, barbets, trumpets, flutes, drums, of the morning, and the sun.”23 And again, when Aibak, some years later tried to remove Yaldoz form his kingdom, he marched to Ghazni and occupied the throne. But only for forty days, for during this period he was “wholly engaged in revelry”, wine and riot, and the affairs of the country through this constant festivity were neglected, and the “Turks of Ghaznin and Muizzi Maliks” invited Yaldoz back to his capital. Aibak was incapable of opposing him and retired to Delhi.24

The following anecdote is related of Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish. He was greatly enamoured of a Turkish slave girl in his harem, whom he had purchased, and sought her caresses, but was always unable to achieve his object. One day he was seated, having his head anointed with some perfumed oil by the hands of the same slave girl, when he felt some tears fall on his head. On looking up, he found that she was weeping. He inquired of her the cause. She replied, “Once I had a brother who had such a bald place on his head as you have, and it reminds me of him.” On making further inquiries it was found that the slave girl was his own sister. They had both been sold as slaves, in their early childhood, by their half-brothers; and thus had Almighty God saved him from committing a great sin. Badaoni states in his work, “I heard this story myself, from the emperor Akbar’s own lips, and the monarch stated that this anecdote had been orally traced to Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban himself.”25

Forcible Marriages

Forcible marriages, euphemistically called matrimonial alliances, were common throughout the medieval period. Only some of them find mention in Muslim chronicles with their bitter details. Here is one example given by Shams Siraj Afif (fourteenth century). The translation from the original in Persian may be summarised as follows. Firoz Shah was born in the year 709 H. (1309 C.E.). His father was named Sipahsalar Rajjab, who was a brother of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq Ghazi. The three brothers, Tughlaq, Rajjab, and Abu Bakr, came from Khurasan to Delhi in the reign of Alauddin (Khalji), and that monarch took all the three in the service of the Court. The Sultan conferred upon Tughlaq the country of Dipalpur. Tughlaq was desirous that his brother Sipahsalar Rajjab should obtain in marriage the daughter of one of the Rais of Dipalpur. He was informed that the daughters of Ranamall Bhatti were very beautiful and accomplished. Tughlaq sent to Ranamall a proposal of marriage. Ranamall refused. Upon this Tughlaq proceeded to the villages (talwandi) belonging to Ranamall and demanded payment of the whole year’s revenue in a lump sum. The Muqaddams and Chaudharis were subjected to coercion. Ranamall’s people were helpless and could do nothing, for those were the days of Alauddin, and no one dared to make an outcry (italics ours). One damsel was brought to Dipalpur. Before her marriage she was called Bibi Naila. On entering the house of Sipahsalar Rajjab she was styled Sultan Bibi Kadbanu. After the lapse of a few years she gave birth to Firoz shah.26 If this could be accomplished by force by a regional officer, there was nothing to stop the king. In the seventeenth century, Jahangir writes in his Memoirs that after the third year of his accession, “I demanded in marriage the daughter of Jagat Singh, eldest son of Raja Man Singh (of Amer).”27 Raja Ram Chandra Bundela was defeated, imprisoned, and subsequently released by Jahangir.28 Later on, says Jahangir, “I took the daughter of Ram Chandra Bandilah into my service (i.e. married her).”29

The reason for including such cases of ‘royal marriages’ in the study of sex slavery is obvious. The language of the above citations shows that such wives, or such secondary wives, are always mentioned as having been taken into service or included among female servants, or as obtaining glory by entering the king’s harem. This style of language is not used in describing the marriages of Nur Jahan or Mumtaz Mahall. Such wives were no more than concubines. Concubinage was very common among Muslim royalty and nobility. Among the Muslim rulers children born of concubines were considered equal to children by marriage, although this is not explicitly laid down in the Quran. The custom must have asserted itself in the first century of Islam.30 The children of such a union belonged to the master and were therefore free but the status of the concubine was thereby raised only to that of ‘mother of children’.31 As an example, the case of Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) may be cited. His mother Zeba was originally a Hindu by the name of Hema or Amba. Bahlul Lodi was attracted by her beauty while he was governor of Sarhind. He married her after ascending the throne of Delhi. He had nine sons. Zeba’s son was not the eldest nor was she originally more than a Hindu concubine.32 Although sons of concubines are very freely mentioned without any inhibitions,33 Hindu concubines themselves had little influence on the Muslim psyche. This is evident from the fact that while the mothers of Firoz Tughlaq and Sikandar Lodi were both originally Hindu, their sons became Muslim bigots.

There were some marriages which were not forced, but the wedded women were not accorded due regard even by their own people. In the homes of Muslim ruling classes such women were treated no better than slave girls or concubines. The cases of Rani Ladi and Deval Rani are appropriate examples. Muhammad bin Qasim had captured Rani Ladi, consort of Raja Dahir, during his invasion of Sind. Later on he married her. Thinking that she could wield some influence with her people, he sent her to persuade the people of Alor fort to cooperate with the powerful invader. But “the men standing on the top of the ramparts jeered at her saying: ‘You have mixed with the chandals and defiled yourself. You prefer their rule to ours.’ They then began to abuse her.”34 Deval Devi was the daughter of Raja Karan Baghela of Gujarat and his queen Kamala Devi. Kamala Devi was captured in the sack of Gujarat (1299), and married by Alauddin Khalji. According to the Islamic law, kafir women could be married to Muslims even while their husbands were alive,35 for marriage is annulled by captivity.36 Later on her daughter Deval Devi was also captured in another campaign (1308) and brought to Delhi.37 There she was married to Alauddin’s son Khizr Khan who had fallen in love with her.38 After the assassination of Khizr Khan in the politics of succession, she was married by Qutbuddin Mubarak Khalji (1316-20) against her Will.39 With the murder of Qutbuddin at the hands of Khusrau Khan she was taken into the latter’s harem. In short, this princess was treated as nothing more than a chattel or transferable property in the Khalji ruling house.40 Although such ‘wives’ were treated more or less as slave girls or concubines, they sometimes brought with them scores of bandis for service in the harem. The best example for the Sultanate period is to be found in Malik Muhammad Jaisi’s Padmavat. The story of Padmini may be allegorical, but the important fact is that Padmini and her companions and bandis are said to have been carried in 1,600 litters (actually Rajput warriors who rescued Ratan Singh) to the palace of Alauddin Khalji.41 For the Mughals, it has already been said that Akbar had 5,000 women in his harem who in turn had their own entourage of bandis. To the conquering and ruling Mughals there was no dearth of such women.

Distribution of Slave Girls

Marriages brought servants and bandis, but the largest number of slave girls was collected during raids, campaigns and wars throughout the medieval period. We have briefly seen the achievements of Muslims in this regard from the time of Muhammad bin Qasim onwards. It was a consistent policy to kill all males, especially those capable of bearing arms, and enslave their hapless women.42 Al Biladuri writes that “the governors (who succeeded Qasim) continued to kill the enemy, taking whatever they could acquire…”43 Most of the captives were distributed among nobles and soldiers. Two examples of this custom may be given, one from the Sultanate and the other form the Mughal period.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq became notorious for enslaving women and his reputation in this regard spread far and wide. Ibn Battuta who visited India during his reign and stayed at the Court for a long time writes: “At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Vazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them to me… My companion took three girls, and - I do not know what happened to the rest.”44 On the large scale distribution of girl slaves on the occasion of Muslim festivals like Id, he writes: “First of all, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year, come and sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing… The Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives, sons of Maliks etc. On the second day the durbar is held in a similar fashion after Asr. Female singers are brought out… the Sultan distributes them among the Mameluke Amirs…”45 Thousands of non-Muslim women were distributed in the above manner in later years.46

Shahjahan attacked the Portuguese in Hugli in 1632, and captured many women. One such was Maria de Taides “one of the sisters living in the palace of king Sahajahan.”47 Maria de Taides was later married to Ali Mardan Khan.48 One Thomazia Martins also had been taken captive during the fall of Hugli. Many more like these were distributed among the nobles.

Jauhar during attack

How did the Indian women react to such a desperate situation? When Sindh lay prostrate before the armies of Muhammad bin Qasim, “Raja Dahir’s sister Bai collected all the women in the fort (of Rawar) and addressed them thus: ‘It is certain that we cannot escape the clutches of these Chandals and cow-eaters… As there is no hope of safety and liberty, let us collect fire-wood and cotton and oil (and) burn ourselves to ashes, and thus quickly meet our husbands (in the next world). Whoever is inclined to go and ask mercy of the enemy, let her go… But all of them were of one mind, and so they entered a house and set fire to it, and were soon burnt to ashes.”49 Thereafter, throughout the medieval period, as soon as it was certain that there had been a defeat and the men had been killed, women perished in the fire of Jauhar (jiva har, taking of life). In some cases it was practised by Muslim women also,50 because of the influence of Hindu practice. The Jauhar at Chittor during Akbar’s invasion may be mentioned as an instance in the Mughal period. On the night of 23 February 1568, Rajput commander Jaimal’s death had so discouraged the people of Chittor that they resolved to perform the rite of Jauhar. Flames broke out at various places in the fortress and the ladies were consumed in them. The Jauhar took place in the house of Patta who belonged to the Sisodia clan, in the house of Rathors of whom Sahib Khan was the chief, and the Chauhans whose chief was Aissar Das. “As many as three hundred women were burnt in the destructive fire.”51

But all were not that brave or lucky to escape capture in this manner. During Jujhar Singh Bundela’s resistance in Orcha in the time of Shahjahan, many women were captured and treated most cruelly. Jujhar Singh abandoned his fort of Chauragarh and hastened towards the Deccan. He put to death several of his women whose horses had foundered. The remaining ones made for Golkunda (December, 1634) but were taken by surprise. They had not the time to perform the full rites of Jauhar, but stabbed a number of women. The Mughals picked up the wounded women and made away with them.52 It was in this fashion that women used to be captured and distributed for service in the harems of the Muslim elite.

Behaviour of Slave Girls

Slave girls may be divided under three categories on the basis of their character and conduct. One set comprised of the ambitious, cunning and crafty who tried to wield influence in the harem. Just the opposite were the simple, docile and submissive. In between were those who were keen to exercise ascendancy but through beauty and tact; they were otherwise loyal and lovable.

During the very beginning of Muslim rule in India the domineering and intriguing figure of Shah Turkan attracts our attention. According to Minhaj Siraj, the author of the contemporary chronicle Tabqat-i-Nasiri, “Shah Turkan was a Turkish hand-maid, and the head [woman] of all the Sultan's (Iltutmish’s) haram.”53 She manipulated to prefix the title of Khudawand-i-Jahan to her name and rise to the position of “the greatest [of the ladies] of the sublime haram, and her place of residence was the royal palace”.54 She used to confer lavish presents upon the nobles of the court in order to win support for her son for the throne. She caused royal orders and decrees to be issued in her name and tortured many favourite ladies of Iltutmish after his death.55 For the later Mughal period, there is the classic example of Lal Kunwar and her lay-in-waiting Zohra, both concubines of the Mughal emperor Jahandar Shah (1712). Lal Kunwar was a vulgar, thoughtless, dancing girl from the streets.56 She received a large allowance and imitated the style of Nur Jahan, the famous queen of Jahangir.57 “All the brothers and relatives… of Lal Kunwar received mansabs of four or five thousand… and were raised to dignity in their tribe.”58 Naturally, talented and learned men were driven away from the court. Zohra was a melon seller and a friend of Lal Kunwar. At the latter’s instance she was called into the harem by Jahandar Shah. She was highly ambitious and scheming like Lal Kunwar. She was, however, shown her place by the servants of Chin Qulich Khan, a retired general of Aurangzeb. The incident is interesting to narrate. Once Zohra was going on an elephant with her retinue, an insolent lot. Chin Qulich also happened to go that way and was met by her equippage. His men stepped aside, but Zohra called out: “Thou, Chin Kalich Khan, must surely be the son of some blind father, not to move out of the road.” These words unhinged the general’s temper, who made a sign to his people to chastise that vulgar woman’s servants. After dealing with her servants and eunuchs, “they dragged Zohra herself from the elephant to the ground, and gave her several cuffs and kicks.”59 Arrogant and crafty women like Shah Turkan, Lal Kunwar and Zohra were rather common in the Muslim harems. Nor uncommon were women who were not that uncultured although they were equally unscrupulous. Aurangzeb could imprison his brother Prince Murad through the active cooperation of one of his concubines,60 and Udaipuri-Mahall, a Georgian slave girl and concubine of prince Dara Shukoh, willingly went over to Aurangzeb on the latter’s ascension to power.61

On the other extreme were women of unquestioned fidelity. Akbar was told that because of the practise of monogamy among Christians, fidelity of their women was taken for granted. “The extraordinary thing is,” he said to the Christian Fathers in retort, “that it occurs among those of the Brahman (i.e. the Hindu) religion. There are numerous concubines, and many of them are neglected and unappreciated and spend their days unfructuously in the private chamber of chastity, yet in spite of such bitterness of life they are flaming torches of love and fellowship.” On hearing about such noble souls the seekers after wisdom were filled with surprise in the august assemblage.62 Devotion of such women was well known. Jahangir narrates the story of Lal Kalawant - the singer also know as Miyan Lal63 – “who from his childhood had grown up in my father’s service… (He) died in the 65th or 70th year of his age. One of his girls (concubines) ate opium on this event and killed herself. Few women among the Musalmans have shown such fidelity.”64 Rupmati of Sarangpur, because of her love for her paramour Baz Bahadur “bravely quaffed the cup of deadly poison and carried her honour to the hidden chambers of annihilation,”65 rather than be captured by Adham Khan. Before her, Deval Rani, though not so lucky, was an equally determined character. Loyalty of Hindu concubines was proverbial, but Muslim ones were not devoid of it. Akbarabadi-Mahall and Fatehpuri-Mahall, shared Shahjahan’s captivity in the Agra Fort and they were present by his beside when he breathed his last in January, 1666. Rana-i-Dil was originally a dancing girl before she became a favourite concubine of Prince Dara Shukoh. After his execution, Aurangzeb desired to possess her, but she refused.66

Extreme cases of shrewish and termagant women on the one hand and those known for sacrifice and devotion on the other were few. Muslim harems mainly contained attractive women with normal behaviour. In medieval times mutilation and castration were common punishments meted out to men in war and peace and their beautiful women were taken into the harems of the elites. Besides, “silver bodied damsels with musky tresses” were purchased in the slave markets of India and abroad. The harems were thus filled with an assortment of beauties from various countries and nationalities, although Indian women predominated. They were renowned for their beauty, delicacy and femininity. From the time of Amir Khusrau, many a poet in medieval India has extolled their beauty and charm. So also have the Europeans. Orme, along with many others, affirms that “nature seems to have showered beauty on the fairer sex throughout Hindustan with a more lavish hand than in most other countries.”67 Their faithfulness and devotion matched their charm. In the harem these amenable creatures were an asset and were welcome in ever larger numbers.

Concubinage

Slave girls had two main functions to perform, domestic service and providing sex if and when required. In medieval Muslim society sex slavery and concubinage were almost interchangeable terms. For the polygamous Muslim men of means slave girls and maids were as much in demand as kanchanis or dancing girls, concubines or even free born women. Whether they were purchased in the open market,68 or captured during war, or selected during excursions, or came as maids of brides, in short whatever their channel of entry into the harem, the slave girls kept in the palace of the king or mahals of the nobles were invariably good looking. Their faces determined their place in the harem and in the heart of the master. Their being a little sexy was an additional attractions,69 but those with bad breath and odour in the armpits were avoided as unpleasant smell was repugnant to kissing and caressing.70 They used to be elegantly attired. Their garments were sometimes gifted to them by their masters or mistresses. It was a custom that the princesses did not wear again the dresses they put on once, and gave them away to their bandis.71 Some favourite slave girls were taught to sing and play on musical instruments. Many of them were trained to recite verses, naghmas and ghazals. The habit of speaking elegantly in correct diction and immaculate pronunciation was so familiar to the females of Muslim society that maids too were readily distinguished by their refined language. Placed as they were, they knew how to win the hearts of their masters who gave them lovely and caressing names like Gulab, Champa, Chameli, Nargis, Kesar, Kasturi, Gul-i-Badam, Sosan, Yasmin, Gul-i-Rana, Gul Andam, Gul Anar, Saloni, Madhumati, Sugandhara, Koil, Gulrang, Mehndi, Dil Afroz, Moti, Ketki, Mrig Nain, Kamal Nain, Basanti etc., etc. Elaborating on their ethnic status Manucci adds that “All the above names are Hindu, and ordinarily these …are Hindus by race, who had been carried off in infancy from various villages or the houses of different rebel Hindu princes. In spite of their Hindu names, they are however, Mahomedans.”72 As a rule, “being kafir is a defect in both ghulam and bandi as by nature the Musalman detests to associate with or keep company of a kafir.”73 Obviously, the number of such converted slave girls was so large that even Hindu names of all of them could not be changed to Islamic ones. For instance, while under Aurangzeb women and children of the Rajputs and Marathas74 were regularly enslaved during raids and invasions, even nobles of lesser note indulged in reckless enslavement throughout. Sidi Yaqut of Janjira or Zanjira (Zanj is used for black African), once took a Maratha fort and seven hundred persons came out. Notwithstanding his word to grant quarter to the garrison “he made the children and pretty women slaves, and forcibly converted them to Islam… but the men he put to death.”75

Francisco Pelsaert gives a succinct description of the sex-play of a nobleman in his harem. and the role of slave girls therein. He writes that “each night the Amir visits a particular wife, or mahal, and receives a very warm welcome from her and from the slaves (i.e. slave girls), who (are) dressed specially for the occasion… If it is the hot weather, they… rub his body with pounded sandalwood and rosewater. Fans are kept going steadily. Some of the slaves chafe the master’s hand and feet, some sit and sing, or play music and dance, or provide other recreation, the wife sitting near him all the time. Then if one of the pretty slave girls takes his fancy, he calls her to him and enjoys her, his wife not daring to show any signs of displeasure, but dissembling, though she will take it out on the slave girls later on.”76 But the wife could not get rid of her by dismissing or selling her. As per the Islamic law the mistress could quarrel with the husband, could even reproach him, but she could not free a slave girl or get rid of her.77 Manumitting a ghulam or bandi was the privilege of the master only.

But except in exceptional cases, where the maid’s beauty and blandishments so excited the jealousy of the mistress that she treated her severely, a slave girl’s life was not of unmitigated suffering. In this scenario, the bandis were both maids and companions of their mistresses. The mistress in distress poured out her heart to her slave girl and the maid sought the advice of the former regarding her problems. Young and beautiful girls, whether ladies or maids, did wish to be married. And marriage was not shut out for either. A slave girl could be married with the permission of the master. If the master liked a maid, he just took her as his own wife.78 Slave girls could be easily swapped by admiring masters. Prince Aurangzeb readily gave his concubine Chhatar Bai in exchange for Hira Bai with whom he had fallen passionately in love.79 Begums like Mumtaz Mahall and Nur Jahan married off a large number of slave girls to deserving men.80 But all were not so lucky and many of the slave girls had to wait in vain for matrimony. Manucci writes that some of them suffered from insomnia, hallucinations and hysteria, and marriage brought them back to “perfect health.”81 Manucci helped many maids to marry.

But all slave girls were not married. They were not captured, purchased or enticed to be married. They were there in the Muslim harems to do service and be enjoyed by the masters. They could be sold, distributed or exchanged. Therefore most of them were unhappy. And they were never a scarce commodity; fresh arrivals or rivals were always replacing old ones. Hence the desire for self-preservation dominated their psyche. A change on the throne meant passing over to a new master, and if and when a ruler or noble lost power, slave girls sought shelter in fending for themselves. An example of this scenario given by us elsewhere pertains to the slave girls in the harem of Saiyyad Abdulla Khan of Saiyyad Brothers fame.82 On the fall of Abdulla Khan from power, “when in 1720, the intelligence of his captivity reached Delhi, his women, of whom he had gathered a large number around him, were in dismay: some of noble birth, remained in their places, but a good many made the best of time, and before the arrival of the royal guard (who would have taken them away also in escheat), they seized whatever they could, and disguising themselves with old veils and sheet, they took their departure.”83 This is the version of Khafi Khan. Mir Ghulam Husain Khan, the author of Siyar-ul-Mutakherin, also throws light on some other facets of the situation and therefore he needs to be quoted at some length. “The ladies of Abdullah-Khan’s family,” writes he, “far from quitting the house, remained within their own apartments, and covering themselves from head to foot with the veil of decency and modesty, sat weeping in a circle, without anyone offering to move or to escape the dismal scene around them… But some of the inferior females availed themselves of the confusion to carry off whatever came to hand, and stole away in disguise, wearing dirty clothes and common veils. These had disappeared before the government officers thought of taking possession of the palace of the Saiyyads. Some of these women were taken up by the police officers, but others effected their escape… One Abdullah-Khan, of Cashan in Persia, to whom Abdullah-Khan, his old friend and master, had intrusted the care of his seraglio, no sooner heard of the disaster that had befallen his benefactor, entering the sanctuary of the women, seized and carried away whatever persons and effects he chose…”84.

The above narrative correctly depicts the role of men and women slaves in a Muslim harem. Everything went off well in days of prosperity. When misfortune struck, the noble ladies suffered in silence, the ever-exploited slave girls fled without remorse, and the ‘confidant’ men slaves did not miss the opportunity to carry away women and indulge in unbridled sex slavery.”85

Hijras

Early in the eighteenth century Muslim rule in India set on its path of decline. The harems of royalty and nobility began to suffer from a financial crunch. Many slave girls in these establishments, unable to bear the rigours of penury, left their palaces and mansions and took up quarters in the cities to fend for themselves. Thousands of eunuch guards of the harems also took to the streets when their services were dispensed with or starvation knocked at their doors.86

In their effort to provide means of livelihood for themselves many slave girls adopted the profession of dancing girls and prostitutes and hundreds of eunuchs, thrown out of employment, turned bhands and hijras. Prostitution is practised the world over, hijras are a people peculiar to India. Basically, and historically, they have come down or ‘descended’ from the medieval eunuchs.

A typical and complete hijra was Sultan Qutbuddin Mubarak Khalji (1316-1320). He occasionally dressed himself in female attire, embroidered with laces and adorned with gems, and went about dancing in the houses of the nobles like a typical hijra. Similarly, Hasan Kangu, the ruler of Malabar, often used to come to court (darbar-i-am) dressed in the fashion of females. He bedecked his arms and neck with jewellery and ornaments and used to ask his nobles to treat him to sexual passivity.87 In short, the courts of Qutbuddin and Hasan Kangu presented licence and obscenity of the hijras in utter nakedness.

In the polygamous Muslim society some men possessed a plurality of women leaving many other men to remain unmarried. This led the latter to entice, abduct and enslave girls wherever possible as well as to make love to beardless boys (amrads) and hijras. Thus need combined with perversion contributed to the proliferation of hijras. This is amply reflected in a brief survey of life in Delhi in Muraqqa-i-Dihli (Album of Delhi) written by Dargah Quli Khan who visited the metropolis in 1738-39 and often walked through its streets. Like in the fourteenth, in the eighteenth century also one found in the city of Delhi boys dancing in a world of lecherous sinners soliciting their hearts’ desire. Amrads were as much in demand as courtesans.88 During and after the decline of the Mughal empire, hijras did not remain confined to cities like Delhi or Agra. They spread far and wide but especially where the scions or governors of the Mughals established independent states like in Avadh or Hyderabad. A good number of hijras are found in Lucknow and in Hyderabad, as well as in cities like Bombay where ‘composite culture’ and a respectable presence of Muslims obtains.

These unfortunate hijras, who have continued as a legacy of the Muslim slave system, still play a pernicious and parasitical role in Indian society. Their aggressive demand for benefaction makes them detested. There are many negative aspects of Muslim slave system of which probably the hijra is the worst. But in medieval times hijras were as essential a part of Muslim society as any other section. In Delhi and its environs there are extant a number of mausoleums, called Gumbads, of the Saiyyad and Lodi period. It is an interesting fact that with Bare Khan Ka Gumbad (Dome and Tomb), Chhote Khan Ka Gumbad, Dadi ka Gumbad, and Poti Ka Gumbad, there is also the famous Hijre Ka Gumbad.89


Footnotes:

1 Margoliouth, Muhammad, 149.
2 Margoliouth, 97. For role of women in spreading Islam see also Arnold, Preaching of Islam, 234.

3 Arnold, 365.

4 Manucci, II, 240; also 336-338, 391-93. 467; Lal, The Mughal Harem, 164 and n. 49, 50, 51.

5 Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 464.

6 Ibid., 600.

7 A devout Muslim Uwayah Qami lived in the valley of Urfa. He told Umar and All that “when I learnt that a tooth of the Prophet had been martyred (in the Battle of Uhud) I broke one of mine. Then I thought that perhaps some other tooth of his had been martyred. So, I broke all my teeth… It is only after that that I felt at peace” (Shykh Fariduddin Attar, Tazkirat-ul-Auliya, trs. into Urdu by Maulana Zubair Afzal Usmani, Delhi, n.d., 16, and quoted by Sita Ram Goel, Islam vis-a-vis Hindu Temples, New Delhi, 1993, 59-60).

8 William Muir, Life of Mahomet, 528.

9 Margoliouth, 148. Also Gibbon, II, 694.

10 Margoliouth, 351-52; also 449-50 writing on the authority of Musnud, iv, 422.

11 Quran, Lii.21ff., Lvi.11ff., Lxxviii.31ff. Cited in Muir, 74-75. Hughes, 449.

12 Muir, 73-74n.; Hughes, 59. Also Gibbon, II, 678.

13 Margoliouth, 149.

14 Hughes, 313-14.

15 Ram Swarup, Understanding Islam through Hadis, 57 and n.

16 Burton, Sindh Revisited, I, 340.

17 Bary, 81.

18 Ain., I, 327. All these three references have been given in Herklot, Islam in India, 85-86.

19 Hughes, 464.

20 Margoliouth, 177.

21 W. Haig in C.H.I., III, 3; Chachnama Kalichbeg, 82-84.

22 H. G. Rawlinson in C.H.I., IV, 424 and n.

23 E.D., II. 221.

24 Minhaj, 506, 526n.

25 Ibid., Reverty in 601n.

26 Afif, 36-40. Trs in E.D., III, 271-73.

27 Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, 144.

28 Ibid., 82-83, 87.

29 Ibid., 160.

30 Hamilton, Hedaya, I, Discourse, XVIII; Schacht, Cambridge History of Islam, II, 144.

31 Hitti, The Arabs, 76.

32 Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, Persian Text, 17, 31-34; Farishtah I, 179; Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, 298. For many other references see Lal, Twilight, 162-63.

33 Niamatullah, Makhzan-i-Afghani, 51 (6); Tuzuk, I. 20.

34 Chachnama, Kalichbeg, 176-77.

35 Muir, Life of Mahomet, 365.

36 Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 59; Margoliouth, Mohammed, 407, 461.

37 For details see Lai, Khaljis, 234-36.

38 Ibid., 264-65.

39 Hajiuddabir, Zafarul Valih, 841-44; Farishtah, I, 125.

40 Barani, 410-11; Lal, Khaljis, 298-99.

41 Lal, Khaljis, 102-110, esp. 103.

42 Chachnama, Kalichheg, 83, 155, 161, 173-74; E.D., I, 164, 170-71, 203; Al Biladuri, E.D., I, 123. For massacres of Alauddin Khalji, Khazain-ul-Fatuh, Habib trs, 49.

43 Al Biladuri, op.cit. 127.

44 Ibn Battuta, 123.

45 Ibn Battuta, 63; Hindi tras., in Rizvi, Tughlaq Kalin Bharat part I, Aligarh 1956, 189.

46 Afif, 119-20, 180, 265.

47 Manucci, I, 202; II, 35; III, 179.

48 Saksena, B.P., History of Shahjahan, 89, 112-13, for die Portuguese captives of Hughli and female prisoners of the Bundela ruling family of Orcha.

49 Chachnama, Kalichbeg, 153-55; E.D., I, 181.

50 Yazdi, Zafar Nama, II, 130-32. Lal, Twilight, 32.

51 Akbar Nama, II, 472.

52 C.H.I., IV, 195.

53 Minhaj, 630;631 and n.4. Futuh-us-Salatin, a historical work by Isami, composed in the 14th century, mentions casually that she was a Hindu slave girl. Mahdi Husain’s acceptance of Isami’s version lacks critical analysis. Futuh, trs. II, 247 and n.2. Also 249.

54 Minhaj, 638.

55 Nigam, Nobility under the Sultanate of Delhi, 28.

56 C.H.I., IV, 328.

57 Sarkar in Ibid., 226.

58 Khafi Khan, 432-33.

59 Siyar-ul-Mutakhrin, 33.

60 C.H.I., IV. 215.

61 Andre Butenschon, The Life of the Mughal Princess, 39, 194-95.

62 A.N., III, 372.

63 Ain, I, 681 and n.

64 Tuzuk, I, 150.

65 A.N., II, 213-14.

66 Lal, Mughal Harem, 30.

67 Orme’s Fragments, 438.

68 Barani, 314-15; Bernier, 426.

69 Ashraful Hidayah, VIII, 138.

70 Ibid., 137.

71 Bernier, 258; Manucci, II, 341.

72 Manucci, II, 336-38.

73 Ashraf-ul-Hidayah, Deoband, VIII, 138-39. P. Venkateshwar Rao Jr., in his review of Akbar Ahmed’s, BBC BKs/Penguin, From Samarkand to Stornoway living Islam, in the Indian Express Sunday Magazine, June 27, 1993, observes: “He (Ahmed) hates Muslim wives whose children have Hindu names.” But that is the legal position. A Musalman is expected to detest the company of a kafir, in spite of the efforts made for acquiring non-Muslim wives in medieval and modem times. But Ahmed’s aim is, as he himself claims, to show “where Muslims are able to live by the ideal and where they are not”.

74 Khafi Khan, II, 300, 371.

75 ibid., II, 228, 261 ff, 498 ff.

76 Pelsaert, 64-65.

77 Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, Delhi, III, Kitab-ul-’Ataq, 1-89; Deoband, XII, 23-98; esp. 15.

78 Gulbadan Begum, Humayun Nama, Persian Text, 27, English trs., 112.

79 Hamiduddin Khan, Bahadur, Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, 36-38; Lal, Mughal Harem, 158-60.

80 Muhammad Hadi, Tatimma-i-Waqiat-i-Jahangiri (or Epilogue to Jahangir’s Memoirs), E.D., VI, 339.

81 Manucci, II, 397-98.

82 The Mughal Harerm, 198.

83 Khafi Khan, Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, text, II, 921 ff. trs. in E.D., VII, 515.

84 Mir Ghulam Husain Khan, Siyar-ul-Mutakherin, revised from the translation of Hag Mustafa by Johns Briggs, 1832, and republished Allahabad, 1924, 183.

85 Servants formed part of the establishment and so were included in escheat. Ibid., 188.

86 Lal, Mughal Harem, 198,199.

87 Barani, 396; Afif, 261-62

88 Muraqqa-i-Dihli, Persian text and trs. in Urdu by Nurul Hasan Ansari, 129-34, 192-205 respectively.

89 Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Islamic Period) third ed. 28-29; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, 196-97; Archaeological Survey Report, IV, 67ff. XX, 155-58. Also Lal, Twilight, 230-31 for other references.

[member_19686]

Scott Levi's paper "Hindus Beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade" is a good source besides KS Lal about this topic.

[shiv]

Aatish Taseer is a modern day example of what mothers can do. Women are tough in a different way and I suspect that too many on BR have too much fear and respect for the purported attraction and loyalty of Islamism on its followers and too little confidence in other things to believe that. Dhimmitude is the ultimate example of Taqiyya. But the concept of dhimmitude being accepted in Islam as one option instead of instant death as the faith tends to call for shows a "weak spot" - an acknowledgement that kafirs are needed for something - even if it is toilet cleaning/sweeping. That sets up a niche area where kafirdom survives and if kafirdom survives it is essentially living to fight another day. A total wipe-out is the best bet. Never happened around SDREland although it seems to have occurred in other places.

Parsuram, about those pits - they would be archaeologically very interesting. excavations should show human remains.

[Vikas]

The more I read about Sikh's v/s Mughal empire, more I am impressed. Wish leaders of modern India learn something from those unfettered ruthless warriors who would write poetry on one hand and slay enemy on the other yet were embodiment of Dharmic forces for most of the time.

Maybe we still will have to wait for sometime before another Ranjit Singh appears on the horizon and kicks Paki ass and takes back what was always ours.
We have had enough of Gandhi inspired ahole leaders with hole at the wrong place...
Now back to Paki bashing..
What will GoI gain by reducing duty on Paki goods. It is not as if a huge market is waiting with open arms in Pakistan nor Paki produces anything worthwhile that India so badly needs. So why this desire to trade with TSP.

[Vikas]

Aatish Taseer is a modern day example of what mothers can do. Women are tough in a different way and I suspect that too many on BR have too much fear and respect for the purported attraction and loyalty of Islamism on its followers and too little confidence in other things to believe that. Dhimmitude is the ultimate example of Taqiyya. But the concept of dhimmitude being accepted in Islam as one option instead of instant death as the faith tends to call for shows a "weak spot" - an acknowledgement that kafirs are needed for something - even if it is toilet cleaning/sweeping. That sets up a niche area where kafirdom survives and if kafirdom survives it is essentially living to fight another day. A total wipe-out is the best bet. Never happened around SDREland although it seems to have occurred in other places.

Parsuram, about those pits - they would be archaeologically very interesting. excavations should show human remains.

+1 to that Dr. Shiv

[RajeshA]

Aatish Taseer is a modern day example of what mothers can do. Women are tough in a different way and I suspect that too many on BR have too much fear and respect for the purported attraction and loyalty of Islamism on its followers and too little confidence in other things to believe that.

Let's not forget that Aatish grew without the shadow of a Paki father overseeing his upbringing!

[subodh]

Aatish Taseer is a modern day example of what mothers can do. Women are tough in a different way and I suspect that too many on BR have too much fear and respect for the purported attraction and loyalty of Islamism on its followers and too little confidence in other things to believe that.

Let's not forget that Aatish grew without the shadow of a Paki father overseeing his upbringing!

And in a very traditional Sikh household.

[shiv]

Let's not forget that Aatish grew without the shadow of a Paki father overseeing his upbringing!

And what a mistake that was for Pakhanis. Let one woman go and you have a hurricane. The difference gets magnified and hits below the belt and guess what. Papa is dead. Too late.

[A_Gupta]

The influence would fade away over time. The mullah is a constant.

Not necessarily, Gupta ji. Recall that Akbar swore at Ajmer Sharif that only sons of Hindu mothers would inherit the mughal throne. Jodhabai was the mother ofJahangir; and Shahjahan's mother was also Hindu. His designated heir, Dara Shikoh's mother was also Hindu. Dara Shikoh was, therefore 7/8th of Hindu blood. He was a Vedic scholar, and would have been a great emperor, except for aurangzeb, son of that Iranian mussalmani mother. Aurangzeb killed all his brothers and took over as emperor. After him, the mughal empire fell apart.

Illustrates my point perfectly. The influence of the Hindu mom is contingent on favorable circumstances. The pressure from the mullah to be more pious is constant.

PS: e.g., no one is going to wage a jihad to save a Dara Shikoh, because those who think like him have been dejihadized. But there will be one to back an Aurangzeb.

PPS: there has to be an entire theology, philosophy, thought-leadership, whatever that supports the Hinduizing Mussalman. In our world, today and now, such Hinduizing Mussalmans are accused of taqqiya, are dismissed as irrelevant, or they haven't changed enough and are thus deemed irrelevant.

[Rahul M]

shiv ji, I beg to differ on the what were the women doing hypothesis. non muslim women (not only from India) were taken as sex slaves and had a status lower than even muslim women, which is quite low to begin with and at par with domestic animals. any children they bore were not raised by the mothers. I am afraid we are applying our modern ideas to a society that played outside those rules.

a few days back I watched a video of a mid eastern woman muslim religious teacher (with a Dr before her name) on youtube. she suggested that the solution to the problem of crime against women in arab society can be easily solved if they kidnapped russian women and sold them as sex slaves to arab men ! this is thinking that is alive today !
what rights or powers would have been provided to sex slaves in the earlier centuries ?

[Venkarl]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

I guess kids were assigned a teacher or were sent to some Imam for Islamic teachings. Any attempt by a Dharmic mom to instill Dharmic values in her kids would cause tremors in Imam's heart which will hit back at Mom with Punishment/torture/Death. So Moms keep quiet and suffer till they live.

[Prem]

a video of a mid eastern woman muslim religious teacher (with a Dr before her name) on youtube. she suggested that the solution to the problem of crime against women in arab society can be easily solved if they kidnapped russian women and sold them as sex slaves to arab men ! this is thinking that is alive today !what rights or powers would have been provided to sex slaves in the earlier centuries ?

The right and privileges of right hand posession are clearly defined by the Deen and historicaly.The wise woman recommending sexual naughtiness is a lawmaker in Kuwait.

[KLNMurthy]

Sorry for the OT but the could it be that this pattern of females' abductions might shed new light on the skewed gender ratios in India? Is there some correlation by region between prevalence of abductions and the amount of gender ratio skew?

In good times, girl children are Lakshmi and highly prized, but in harsh times with ever-present danger of abduction, girls become a liability that have to be protected and there is more need for potentialwarrior males. And I can see a desparate parent preferring to commit female infanticide.

[KLNMurthy]

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

Probably most of the "women" were actually little girls who would have absorbed dharmic values by osmosis in the normal course but didn't have any ability to teach the same. I think even adults, when they are cut off from their native culture, lose it very fast. Well-documented in case of African slaves in Alex Haley's Roots.

[KLNMurthy]

@VikasRaina it is not easy for anyone to jump into a firepit. Selfpreservation instinct is very strong. For every one lady with the courage to commit johar there were probably hundreds who couldn't do it and accepted a living death. Existence of johar per se doesn't disprove the number of slaves.

[a_kumar]

Sorry for the OT but the could it be that this pattern of females' abductions might shed new light on the skewed gender ratios in India? Is there some correlation by region between prevalence of abductions and the amount of gender ratio skew?

In good times, girl children are Lakshmi and highly prized, but in harsh times with ever-present danger of abduction, girls become a liability that have to be protected and there is more need for potentialwarrior males. And I can see a desparate parent preferring to commit female infanticide.

I wasn't aware that female infanticide (the kind we saw in past decades) was prevelent in older times. If true, this is a possibility.

On similar lines, ever wondered how the percentage of skin exposed has so drastically changed over the 700 years. We see temples decorated with sculptures of women shown as well endowed and thinly covered (giving a peek into say 14th century). Contrast that with conservative culture that was extremely conscious about the amount of skin exposed (end of 20th century).

There could be several factors here including exposure to the European standard of what is appropriate. Here is an analogy to explain a more likely scenario, consider a typical busy western beach setting filled with sunbathing women. Add a gang of horny perverted thugs passing by once in a while with no fear of repurcussions and see how the beach setting would transform!

So barbarian invasions and rule could be a very signficant reason. Let me add that same was true in feudal and zamindari setting, but most of it is likely the residual effect.

[member_19686]

Sorry for the OT but the could it be that this pattern of females' abductions might shed new light on the skewed gender ratios in India? Is there some correlation by region between prevalence of abductions and the amount of gender ratio skew?

In good times, girl children are Lakshmi and highly prized, but in harsh times with ever-present danger of abduction, girls become a liability that have to be protected and there is more need for potentialwarrior males. And I can see a desparate parent preferring to commit female infanticide.

I wasn't aware that female infanticide (the kind we saw in past decades) was prevelent in older times. If true, this is a possibility.

Its earliest mentions are in medieval times, the SGGS of Sikhs has a reference to it.

The areas with the worst sex ratio also tend to be areas which saw prolonged Islamic rule (Haryana, Punjab), you also hear of honor killings usually from these areas.

Related to this is the fact that the Dharmashastra's are very explicit in their condemnation of abortion (referred to as bhrUNa hatya) as murder (irrespective of whether you base it on gender or for some other reason) and only recommend it case of serious health risks to a mother. The skewed ratio in these states today is mostly due to sex selective abortion these days.

However we find no references in pre Islamic times of infanticide based on gender. Of course infanticide may have existed like in almost every other society but it was condemned and not based on gender.