The Mughal Era in India

[Shanmukh]

From Riazu-s-salatin:

End of Bakhtyar.

In the year 599 A.H. when Sultān Qutbu-d-dīn after conquest of the fort of Kālinjar,* proceeded to the town of Mahūbah* which is below Kālpī* and conquered it, Malik Muhammad Bakhtiār going from Behar to wait on him, met the Sultān, at the time, when the latter was proceeding from Mahūbah towards Badāun.* He presented jewelleries and divers valuables of Bengal and a large amount in cash. And for a time remaining in the company of the Sultān, he took permission to return, and came back to Bengal, and for a period ruling over Bengal he engaged in demolishing the temples and in building mosques. After this, he planned an expedition towards the Kingdoms of Khata* and Tibbat, with a force of ten or twelve thousand select cavalry,* through the passes of the north-eastern moun­tains of Bengal. Guided by one of the Chiefs of Koch, named ‘Ali Mich, who had been converted to Muhammadan faith by Muhammad Bakhtiār, he reached towards those mountains. ‘Alī Mīch led Bakhtiār’s forces to a country, the town whereof is called Abardhan.* and also Barahmangadī. It is said that this town was founded by Emperor Garshāsp.* Facing that town, flows a river called Namakdi,* which in its depth and breadth, is thrice as much as the river Ganges. Since that river was tumultous, broad, and deep, and fordable with difficulty, marching along the banks of the river for ten days,* he reached a place where existed a large bridge* made of stone, and extending over twenty-nine arches, erected by the ancients. It is said that Emperor Garshāsp, at the time of invading Hindūstān, constructed that bridge, and came to the country of Kāmrūp. In short, Muhammad Bakhtiār sending across his forces by that bridge, and posting two commandants for its protection, planned to advance. The Rājah of Kāmrup, dissuading him from an advance, said that if he (Muhammad Bakhtiār) would postpone his march to Tibbat that year, and next year collecting an adequate force would advance towards it in full strength “I too would be the pioneer of the Moslem force, and would tighten up the waist of self-sacri­fice.” Muhammad Bakhtiār absolutely unheeding this advice, advanced, and after sixteen days,* reached the country of Tibbat. The battle commenced with an attack on a fort which had been built by king Garshāsp, and was very strong. Many of the Moslem force tasted the lotion of death, and nothing was gained. And from the people of that place who had been taken prisoners, it was ascertained that at a distance of five farsang from that fort, was a large and populous city.* Fifty thousand Mongolian cavalry thirsty for blood and archers were assembled in that city. Every day in the market of that city, nearly a thousand or five hundred Mongolian horses sold, and were sent thence to Lakhnautī.* And they said “you have an impracticable scheme in your head with this small force.” Muhammad Bakhtiār, becoming apprised of this state of affairs, became ashamed of his plan, and, without attaining his end, retreated. And since the inhabitants of those environs, setting fire to the fodder and food-grains, had removed their chattels to the ambuscades of the rocks, at the time of this retreat,* for fifteen days, the soldiers did not see a handful of food-grains, nor did the cattle see one bushel of fodder.

Neither human beings saw any bread except the circular disc of the sun.
Nor did the cattle see any fodder except the rainbow!

From excessive hunger the soldiers devoured flesh of horses and horses preferring death to life placed their necks under their daggers. In short, in this straitened condition, they reached the bridge. Since those two commandants quarrelling with each other had deserted their posts at the head of the bridge, the people of that country had destroyed the bridge. At the sight of this destruction, the heart of the high and the low suddenly broke, like the Chinese cup. Muhammad Bakhtiār engulphed in the sea of confusion and perplexity, despaired of every resource. After much striving, he got news that in the neighbourhood there was a very large temple,* and that idols of gold and silver were placed there in great pomp. It is said that there was an idol in the temple which weighed a thousand maunds. In short, Muhammad Bakhtiār with his force took refuge in this temple, and was busy improvising means for crossing the river. The Rājah of Kām­rūp* had ordered all his troops and subjects of that country to commit depredations. The people of that country, sending out force after force, engaged in besieging the temple, and from all sides posting in the ground bamboo-made lances, and tying one to the other, turned them into the shape of walls. Muhammad Bakhtiíār saw that all chance of escape was slipping out of his hands, and that the knife was reaching the bone, so at once with his force issuing out of the temple and making a sortie, he broke through the stockade of bamboos, and cutting through his way, rescued himself from the hard-pressed siege. The infidels of that country pursued him to the banks of the river, and stretched their hands to plunder and slaughter, so that some by the sharpness of the sword and others by the inundation of water, were engulphed in the sea of destruction. The Musalman soldiers on reaching the river-banks stood perplexed. Suddenly, one of the soldiers plunged with his horse into the river, and went about one arrow-shot, when another soldier seeing this, plunged similarly into the river. As the river had a sandy bed, with a little movement, all were drowned. Only Muhammad Bakhtiār with one thousand cavalry (and according to another account, with three hundred cavalry) succeeded in crossing over;* the rest met with a watery grave. After Muhammad Bakhtiār had crossed safely over the tumultous river with a small force, from excessive rage and humiliation, in that the females and the children of the slaughtered and the drowned from alleys and terraces abused and cursed him, he got an attack of consumption, and reaching Deokot* died. And according to other accounts, ‘Ali Mardān Khiljī, who was one of his officers, during that illness, slew Bakhtiār, and raised the staudard of sovereignty over the kingdom of Lakhnauti. The period of Malik Ikhtiāru-d-dīn Muhammad Bakhtiār’s rule over Bengal was twelve years. When Muhammad Bakhtiār passed* from the rule of this transitory world into the eternal world, Malik* ‘Azu-d-dīn Khiljī succeeded to the rule over Bengal. Eight months had not passed, when ‘Alī Mardān Khiljī slew him.

Ganesh

At length, in the year 775 A.H., by the stratagems of Rajah Kāns who was a zemindar in that part, the king was treacherously killed. The reign of Ghiāsu-d-dīn lasted seven years and some months, and according to another account, it lasted sixteen years, five months and three days.*

REIGN OF SAIFU-D-DĪN STYLED SULTĀNU-S-SALATĪN.*

When Sultān Ghiāsu-d-dīn passed from the narrow human frame into the wide space of the soul, the nobles and the generals of the army placed his son, Saifu-d-dīn, on the paternal throne styling him Sultān-u-s-Salatin.
One goes out, and another comes in in his place:
The world is never left without a master.

He was sober in character, and generous and brave. He reigned over Bengal for ten years, and in the year 785 A.H. he died, and according to another account, he reigned three years and seven months and five days. God knows the truth.
REIGN OF SHAMSU-D-DĪN,* SON OF SULTĀNU-S-SALĀTĪN.

After the death of Sultānu-s-Salātīn, his son, Shamsu-d-dīn, with the consent of the councillors and members of Government, ascended the throne, and according to ancient usages he observed the ceremonies attendant on assumption of sovereignty, and for a period was at ease and comfort. In the year 788 A.H. either by some natural disease, or by the stratagem of Rajah Kāns, who at that time had become very powerful, he died. Some have written that this Shamsu-d-dīn was not an actual but adopted son of Sultānu-s-Salātīn, and that his name was Shahābu-d-din. Either way, he reigned for three years, four months, and six days. And the true account is, that Rajah Kāns who was zamindār of Bathuriah* attacking him, slew him, and usurped the throne.
USURPATION OF RAJAH KĀNS* ZAMINDAR.

When Sultān Shamsu-d-dīn died, Rajah Kāns a Hindū Zamindar, subjugating the whole kingdom of Bengal, seated him­self on the throne, and commenced oppressions, and seeking to destroy the Musalmans, slew many of their learned and holy men. His aim was to extirpate Islām from his dominions. It is said one day Shaikh Badrul Islām, father of Shaikh Muinu-d-dīn ‘Abbas, sat down before that wretch, without saluting him. Thereupon he said: “Shaikh, why did you not salute me?” The Shaikh said: “It is not becoming for the learned to salute infidels, especially a cruel and blood-shedding infidel, like thee, who has shed the blood of Musalmans.” On hearing this, that unholy infidel kept silent, and, coiling like the serpent, aimed at killing him. One day he sat in a house which had a low and narrow entrance, and summoned in the Shaikh. When the Shaikh arrived, he guessed the Rajah’s object, so he first put out his legs inside, and afterwards not bending the head, entered. That infidel flew into rage, and ordered that the Shaikh should be placed in a line with his brothers. Immediately, the Shaikh was killed, and the rest of the learned that very day were placed on a boat and drowned in the river. The Saint Nūr Qutbu-l-‘Alam becoming impatient by reason of the oppressions of that infidel and his slaughter of the Musalmans, wrote as follows to Sultān Ibrahīm Sharqī* who ruled at that time up to the limits of Behār: “The ruler of this country, named Kāns, is an infidel. He is committing oppressions, and shedding blood. He has killed many of the learned and holy men, and destroyed them. At present, he is aiming to kill the remainder of the Musalmans, and to extir­pate Islām from this country. Since to help and protect Musal­mans, is a duty incumbent on Musalman sovereigns, accordinly I intrude on your valuable time with these few lines. I pray for your auspicious arrival here, for the sake of the residents of this country, and also in order to oblige me, so that Musalmans may be rescued from the oppressive load of this tyrant. Peace be on you.” When this letter reached Sultān Ibrahim, the latter opened it with great respect, and read it. Qāzī Shahābu-d-dīn* Jaunpurī who was one of the scholars of the time, and the chief of the body of the learned men, and who was highly respected by Sultān Ibrahīm who used to seat him on a silver chair on auspi­cious occasions, also used his great persuasions and said: “You ought to set out quickly; for in this invasion both worldly and religious benefits are to be obtained, namely the country of Bengal will be subjugated, and you would also meet the Saint Shaikh Nūr Qutbu-l-‘Alam, who is the fountain-head of both worldly and eternal boons, and you would also be doing a pious deed by avenging the oppression of Muhammadans.” Sultān Ibrāhim pitching out his tents struck the kettle-drum of march, and making forced marches, in a short time, with a powerful army reached Bengal, and encamped at Firuzpur.* Rajah Kāns, on hearing this news, was confounded, and hastened to wait on the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam. Showing submissiveness and humility, and weeping, the Rajah said: “Pray, draw the pen of forgiveness across the page of the offences of this sinner, and dissuade Sultān Ibrāhim from subjugating this country.” The Saint replied: “In order to intercede on behalf of an oppressive infidel, I cannot stand in the way of a Musalman sovereign, especially of one who has come out at my desire and request.” In despair, Kāns pros­trated his head on the feet of the Saint, and added, “Whatever the Saint may bid, I am willing to submit thereto.” The Saint said: “So long as thou dost not embrace the Musalman religion, I cannot intercede for thee.” Kāns assented to this condition, but his wife casting that misguided man into the well of misguidance, prevented his conversion to Islām. At length, Kāns brought to the presence of the Saint his son named Jadū who was twelve years old, and said: “I have become old, and desire to retire from the world. You may convert to Islām this son of mine, and then bestow on him the kingdom of Bengal.” The saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam taking out from his own mouth some chewed betel, put it into Jadū’s mouth, and making him pronounce the creed of the Musalman faith, converted him to Islām, and naming him Jalālu-d-din, had the fact proclaimed in the city, and caused the Khutba of the kingdom to be recited after his name The ordinances of the sacred Muhammadan law from that day were again put in force. After this, the saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam went to meet Sultān Ibrāhim, and after making apologies, prayed that the latter might withdraw. The Sultān was annoyed at this request, and turned his face towards Qazī Shahābu-d-dīn. The Qazī said: “Saint, the king has come here at your requisition; and now you yourself siding with Kāns, appear as his agent; what is your aim?” The Saint said: “At that time (when I made the requisition) an oppressive ruler was tyrannising over the Musal­mans; now owing to the auspicious arrival of the Sultān, he has embraced the Muhammadan faith. The Jihād (or holy war) is enjoined against infidels, not against Musalmans.” The Qāzī, finding no answer, kept quiet. But as the Sultān’s temper was irritated, in order to soothe the Sultān, the Qāzī commenced testing the learning and miracles of the saint, and was discomfit­ted. After much questions and answers, the Saint said: “To view with contempt saints and to try to test them, ends in nothing but discomfiture. Before long, thou shalt die in a wretched plight.” And the saint at the same time cast an angry glance towards the Sultān. In short, the Sultān, annoyed and vexed, returned to Jaunpūr. It is said that shortly after Sultān Ibrāhim and Qāzī Shahābu-d-dīn Jaunpurī died.
‘Whoever quarrels with saints, suffers.’

Rajah Kāns hearing that Sultān Ibrāhim had died, displaced Sultan Jalālu-d-dīn, and himself re-ascended the throne. According to the injunctions of his false creed, the Rajah prepared several gold-figures of cows, shoved in Jalālu-d-dīn through their mouths, and pulled him out from their buttock-sides, and then distributed the gold of those cow-figures among the Brahmans, and thus re-perverted his son to his own creed. As Jalālu-d-dīn, however, had been converted by the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam, he did not abandon his faith in Islām, and the persuasions of the infidels had no effect on his heart. And Rajah Kāns again unfurling the standard of misbehaviour, attempted to destroy and extirpate Muhammadans. When his cruelties passed all bounds, one day Shaikh Anwār, son of the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam, complained to his father of the oppressions of that tyrant, and said: “It is a matter of regret that in spite of such a holy saint of the time as yourself, Musalmans should be oppressed and ground down by the hand of this infidel.” The saint at that time was absorbed in prayer and devotion. On hearing this utterance of his son, the saint was enraged, and replied: “This tyranny shall cease only, when thy blood shall be shed on the earth.” Shaikh Anwār knew full well that whatever fell from the lips of his holy father, was sure to come to pass, and so after a moment, said: “What you have said about me, is meet and proper; but in respect of my nephew, Shaikh Zāhid, what is your will?” The saint said: “The drum of the virtues of Zāhid shall resound till resurrection-day.” In short, Rajah Kāns extend­ing more than before his oppressions and cruelties, gradually oppressed the servants and dependants of the saint himself, plundered their effects and chattels, imprisoned Shaikh Anwār and Shaikh Zāhid. As he had heard the Saints’ prophecy about Shaikh Zahid, not daring to kill him, he banished both to Sunār­gāon, and sent orders to his agents there, that after ascertaining from them the whereabouts of the hidden treasures of their fathers and grandfathers, they should slay both. And on the Shaikh’s arrival at Sunārgāon, they perpetrated many cruelties, yet not finding any clue to the hidden treasures which did not exist, first they murdered Shaikh Anwār, and when they attempted to take the life of Shaikh Zāhid, the latter stated that in a certain village a large cauldrou was hidden. When they dug it up, they found a large chatty, but did not find more than one gold coin in it. They enquired, “What has become of the rest?” Zāhid said: “Apparently some one has stolen it.” And this affair was the outcome of a miracle. It is said that on the very day and at the very moment when Anwār was murdered at Sunārgāon, and his sacred blood shed on the carth, Rajah Kāns passed away from his sovereignty to hell. According to some accounts, his son, Jalālu-d-dīn, who was in prison leagued with his father’s servants, and slew him. The rule and tyranny of that heathen lasted seven years.

Very interesting account, B-ji. Thank you very much.

[ramana]

nageshk, You didnt need to quote the whole post to thank Bji! Think of those on smartphones.

Meanwhile

After beheading of Hemu, his skull was sent to Kabul to display outside the 'Delhi Darwaza'.[citation needed] His torso was sent to Delhi and hanged outside Purana Quila on a 'gibbet' to terrorise Hindus. Hemu's wife escaped from Purana Quila taking the booty along with and remained untraceble. A genocide of Hindu civilians was ordered by Bairam Khan of which continued for many years.[4] Hemu's relatives and close Afghan supporters were caught and many of them beheaded.[5] Minaretts were made of the beheaded skulls at different places. Hemu's 82 years father who had escaped to Alwar was traced after 6 months and was beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam.[4]
===
Bairam Khan was a Shia muslim and was disliked by the Sunni Turkic nobles.[4] Bairam was dismissed by Akbar's in 1560. He subsequently chose to leave India to perform the hajj pilgrimage in Mecca.[5]

While travelling through Gujarat,[6] he was killed by Hazi Khan Mewati of Alwar, who was the General and close confidant of Hindu Kings of North India Hemu, and was staying at Patan after Akbar's forces captured Alwar Sarkar in 1559. One day when Bairam Khan was at Sahstraling Talav, a religious site, he was recognised by Lohani Pashtun an associate of Hazi Khan Mewati, whose father had been killed in Second Battle of Panipat (1556), five years ago, which was led by Bairam Khan. Hazi Khan attacked and killed Bairam Khan for the atrocities he had committed after the Second Battle of Panipat. Bairam Khan died on 31 January 1561. However, his son and wife were allowed to go free and sent to north India. Bairam Khan's wife, who was also the cousin of Akbar, married Akbar after Bairam Khan's death and later on Bairam's son, Abdul Rahim Khan-i-khana, got an important assignment in Akbar's administration and was one of the 'Nau-rattans' (Nine Gems) of Akbar.

So what do the seculars who want to project Akbar's Rajput wives as his secular USP say now?

[RamaY]

Well he is secular in this aspect, I would say.

[ramana]

I guess Hafiz Suar marrying his dead terrorists' wives is an Akbarian tradition.

[brihaspati]

Akbar was also very very tolerant of high-ranking mughals having a fondness for the gluteals of nubile pretty boys. Abul-Fazls' Nama is full of this stuff for the initial years. There could be a thing or two why he is such a dear for our Dilli-billi progressives.

[Virendra]

Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.

I have the Maharana Pratap book by Bhawar Singh Rana as source for Hamir.

habal ji,
I've got the book and started reading. Not sure about Hamir but till now I've got something for Pratap's father Rana Udai Singh.
At page 29, the author says that among more than 24 sons of Rana Udai Singh, 11 were from unnamed wives.
Two of these sons are:
Sahib Khan & Sultan

...Sahib Khan was probably born of some Muslim wife or sub-wife. If we had converted from a Hindu to a Muslim, his Hindu name would also have been mentioned...

I'll continue reading but here's the problem. This book cannot be weighed in good light from a historiographical view point.
It has been written like a summarized biography in fairytale mode. No citations, no bibliography, no footnotes - nothing.
One doesn't know that for a particular statement, the author relies on his imagination or some primary source. If there is a source, what is it?
Bottom line, I'm a bit disappointed with the way it has been written. Many names .. common names that any half serious student of Mewar history knows .. have been given wrong in the book. All this doesn't help the book and the author in terms of credibility.
Anyway, I can at least try to follow up in the known sources, what the book puts up.

Regards,
Virendra

[ramana]

A related subject to Mughal Rule

Google books

African Dispersal in the Deccan
By Shanti Sadiq Ali

Talks about the Habshis, the Bahmani Kingdom, Malik Ambar etc

[Paul]

]What Genghis and Babar owed to rain

- wet spell powered Mongol empire, sowed mughal seeds: scientists

[brihaspati]

A dry and cold spell followed by wet spell - to be more accurate. It is a standard pattern of human nomadic expansion traceable from 3000 BCE at least.

[Murugan]

Mughals in 100 tweet ‏@smathur1962

[vishvak]

Mughals in 100 tweet ‏@smathur1962

storify link of the tweets.

Who are the sayyids he mentioned in the tweets? Religious Sunni heads of Jumma masjid or similar powerful bunch?

[ramana]

The two Sayyid brothers came after Aurangazeb. They were king makers for a while leading a gang called 'Corps of Forty'. One of the Mughals had one brother murdered and later exiled or killed the other.

I think the TSPA Corps commanders inspiration is this Post Aurangazeb model of civilian regime change.


And modern day Lootyens gangs.

refer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Brothers

[Paul]

Sayyids were not Ashrafs. Wanted jizya to be lifted and were opposed by the Turani lobby. They represented the Hindustani nobles at court.

[harbans]

Is the Mughal Era in the past only? Or is the there a future to it?

An Islamic Coup in India-Mughalistan

[brihaspati]

Sayyids were not Ashrafs. Wanted jizya to be lifted and were opposed by the Turani lobby. They represented the Hindustani nobles at court.

The "Sayyeds" in general were not so "liberal" in the wider Punjab-Kashmir arc. In kashmir valley, they played a very repressive and intolerant role. They were seen as "central-Asian" in origin, of Turkic [in reality eastern Persians who vehemently fought Arab Muslims to the last before conversion in 13-16th century] origin, and hence kind of thrashed by folks from western Persia even after conversion.

Maybe as is typical the neo-converts from the resisting category are under extra pressure to appear zealous!

[peter]

Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.

I have the Maharana Pratap book by Bhawar Singh Rana as source for Hamir.

habal ji,
I've got the book and started reading. Not sure about Hamir but till now I've got something for Pratap's father Rana Udai Singh.
At page 29, the author says that among more than 24 sons of Rana Udai Singh, 11 were from unnamed wives.
Two of these sons are:
Sahib Khan & Sultan

...Sahib Khan was probably born of some Muslim wife or sub-wife. If we had converted from a Hindu to a Muslim, his Hindu name would also have been mentioned...

I'll continue reading but here's the problem. This book cannot be weighed in good light from a historiographical view point.
It has been written like a summarized biography in fairytale mode. No citations, no bibliography, no footnotes - nothing.
One doesn't know that for a particular statement, the author relies on his imagination or some primary source. If there is a source, what is it?
Bottom line, I'm a bit disappointed with the way it has been written. Many names .. common names that any half serious student of Mewar history knows .. have been given wrong in the book. All this doesn't help the book and the author in terms of credibility.
Anyway, I can at least try to follow up in the known sources, what the book puts up.

Regards,
Virendra

Rajput kings did not marry muslim women. They were concubines.

[Murugan]

Akbar the Not Great

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/histor ... ch-tyrant/

[gandharva]

By the way, Jahanara does not actually complain of "rape" by dad - there is just a passing hint of the possibility in her autobiography. What if the feelings were mutual? However the possibilities were noted by Shah Jehan the lover boy himself - and he forced her to give her nips to Dara in a ritual from the Arabic lunacy of 7th century hadith lore - she becomes technically a mom to Dara, and hence cannot have ahem ahem with him.

B Ji, Do you know which page?

[Rahul Mehta]

Which thread will be best to discuss Raja Hemachandra ? I am currently using this thread. And if someone suggests me better thread, I will move my post there.

==

Many blame fall of Hemachandra's empire on one single stray random arrow. Well, 10000s of arrows were flying all over. Why didnt an arrow hit Akbar? That simple question apart, lets compare STRUCTURE of Hemachandra's administration etc with that of Mughals.

Raja Hemachandra could not never enable Hindus to manufacture cannons. So his artillery was mostly runs by Afghans. There were some Hindu Generals incharge of Hemachandra's artillery, but second and third ring consisted of Afghans only. So even if Hemachandra had won Battle of Panipat against Moguls, Hemachandra would have lost second round to Afghans. In fact, Afghans could have defeated Hemachandra in first round itself. But they instead supported Hemachandra. Why? Why did Afghans support Hemachandra? Afghans supported Hemachandra because Afghans needed huge manpower to fight against Moguls, and Hindu soldiers can be easily motivated under Hemachandra. But finally cannons proved mightier than masses. Mugal cannons were superior (came from Uzbeks), which is why Raja Hemachandra's army and empire lost. Blaming whole collapse on a random stray arrow is exaggeration to misguide us all. For that matter, Humayun died in accident when he slipped from stairs. But Mogal empire didnt collapse like house of cards. The Mogals immidiately installed Akbar as new Emeperor and had Beiram Khan as guardian cum defacto acting Emperor. But when Hemschandra died, Hemschandra's administration failed to create a new Emperor and collapsed like house of cards. In addition, Hemchandra had led and won 35 battles and Hemschandra always led from front !! Where as Akbar led battle from back seat. So random arrow killed Hemachandra and not Akbar. But if an emperor has to lead 35 battles from front, then it speaks volumes about structural deficiencies in administration. Hemachandra only focused on uniting Hindus under him, possibly by removing alternatives, but never worked to remove these structural deficiencies. Now luck doesnt favor everyone all the time. Hemachandra was lucky 34 times, that no arrow hit him. But his leading battle from front was a gross flaw in his strategy which finally went against him.

====

And btw, I am not an "eminent" historian aka paidhistorian. I just asked difficult questions to myself like

1. why didnt arrow hit Akbar?

2. why didnt Hemachandra decide to use back seat driving strategy that Akbar used?

3. why did Hemachandra led so many battles from front

4. if afghans could defeat all Hindu Raja before Hemchandra, then why didnt Afghans defeated Hemachandra

5. why did Afghans supported Hemachandra to begin with

6. Mughal administration didnt collapse after death of Humayun, then why did Hemachandra's administration collapsed after his death"?

And so on. And answer to all questions lead to more questions and more answers. All work is my own. Take it or leave it.

[Virendra]

I will make a novice attempt :-

1. why didnt arrow hit Akbar?
Bairam Khan and other Chiefs had kept the teenaged Akbar miles away in the Mughal camp at - Saudhapur.

2. why didnt Hemachandra decide to use back seat driving strategy that Akbar used?
He was a brave warrior who had won 22 consecutive battles before Panipat 2 and commanded an army twice the Mughals. Perhaps this type is always a bit reckless in personal safety, specially when their battle record is such.

3. why did Hemachandra led so many battles from front.
He had been a Military General, before he declared himself Samrat in Delhi. Leading by front was no surprise then, more so for one who is not a royal.

4. if afghans could defeat all Hindu Raja before Hemchandra, then why didnt Afghans defeated Hemachandra.
Hemachandra began and raised his career within Aghans only. He had good relations with Afghan soldiers and chiefs alike.
Till the time he won Delhi, all was done as a military officer of Afghan administration. Why would he or Afghans go against each other, when both belonged to the same camp. Technically, he was one of them.
Even after he (a Hindu) anointed himself at the throne of Delhi (that he formally came to win as Adil Shah's Commander), his mixed origin army didn't cut him to pieces calling it a betrayal. Why?
a) His spotless military records spoke for him. A soldier always likes a leader who almost always ends up on the wining side. Universal rule of sorts.
b) He has a liberal hand. He used to distribute war booty among his soldiers very generously and was famous for that. Which soldier wouldn't like such a leader.

5. why did Afghans supported Hemachandra to begin with
Given above. To add to that, Adil Shah was perceived by most as an uninterested royal who wanted Hemu to do all the sweat and blood business in fields.
Moreover, Hemu always kept a mix of Hindu-Afghan soldiers to balance things up. The mix worked well because of the 2 reasons mentioned above.
This in a way is what Mughals under Akbar repeated, employing Rajputs etc. Many good aspects of Sher Shah's and Hemu's administration were adopted as is, by Mughals under Akbar.
Akbar seems to be a smart politcian and quick learner, one could say.

6. Mughal administration didnt collapse after death of Humayun, then why did Hemachandra's administration collapsed after his death"?
Because the Army was not only routed, but chased and slaughtered, Chiefs, Officers hunted down one by one.
Besides, he hardly had a month in Delhi before Panipat II. Where was the time and opportunity to do these things that stable Kingdoms indulge in?
On the other hand, Mughals had a backup in (Kabul) Afghanistan to fall back on, where nobody from India went after them.

Regards,
Virendra

[Singha]

this reliance on imported merceneries or european allies of dubious loyalty was seen in tipu sultan's army (french artillery corps) as well I believe. add to that the cholas had to import horses at great cost by sea from arabia.

all boils down to the same basic ground rules - indigenize and stop reliance on imported kit if you want to survive for long. find ways to use local resources for all your problems.

[harbans]

Need citations for medieval Islam gloats/accounts of rape. Can anyone point me to texts of chroniclers/historians etc. I have pointed texts on mass abductions/kidnapping of women post mass murder of men. Since early times including the Roman empire abductions/kidnappings of women were not distinguishable from the act of rape itself. While there is no extrapolation required that mass rape by muslim victors was the norm will help in gathering specific evidences of that through chroniclers both Dharmic and Islamic.

[Aditya_V]

this reliance on imported merceneries or european allies of dubious loyalty was seen in tipu sultan's army (french artillery corps) as well I believe. add to that the cholas had to import horses at great cost by sea from arabia.

all boils down to the same basic ground rules - indigenize and stop reliance on imported kit if you want to survive for long. find ways to use local resources for all your problems.

Singha Ji, I think you are mixing the Vijaynagar Kingdom with the Cholas.

[Singha]

it was true for both I think.
http://www.trcollege.net/study-material ... nistration
The Cholas had an efficient army and navy. The Chola army consisted of elephant, cavalry and infantry. Soldiers were given proper training. Commanders enjoyed the ranks of nayaks and senapathis. The army was divided into 70 regiments. The Chola arm had 60,000 elephants. Very costly Arabian horses were imported to strengthen the cavalry

--
I doubt they had a large cavalry but the only three sources of domestic horses manipur, marwar and kathiawar were far off.

[IndraD]

v nice thread I always wanted to learn about Mughal dynasty, has some one pointed out a tree regarding who was the first to come and who was the last?

[Singha]

[Singha]

interesting series of miniature paintings convering the life of dara shikoh and his ghazi brother aurangzeb

http://dara-shikoh.blogspot.in/

[harbans]

I got this account from the web:

-----
The Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India in 1757 AD and made his way to the holy Hindu city of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus and birthplace of Krishna.

The atrocities that followed are recorded in the contemporary chronicle called : 'Tarikh-I-Alamgiri' :

"Abdali's soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives...Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.

"It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people...All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared."

Can someone help guide me to Tarikh-i-Alamgiri. Wasn't able to find it on Google.

[shravanp]

There's whole list of chronicles listed here: http://persian.packhum.org/persian//main

However I couldn't find Tarikh-i-alamgiri. Tried searching by 'Tawarikh', still didn't get it. Usually the term "Alamgir" was referred to Aurangzeb, so how is it possible to have Abdally's notes as part of Tarikh e Alamgiri?

[harbans]

Got that from this link:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=207402

Being passed on from somewhere.

[Virendra]

Need citations for medieval Islam gloats/accounts of rape. Can anyone point me to texts of chroniclers/historians etc. I have pointed texts on mass abductions/kidnapping of women post mass murder of men. Since early times including the Roman empire abductions/kidnappings of women were not distinguishable from the act of rape itself. While there is no extrapolation required that mass rape by muslim victors was the norm will help in gathering specific evidences of that through chroniclers both Dharmic and Islamic.

Not sure if it will talk of rape specifically. But this would at least give you plenty of primary sources to dig into.
http://www.oocities.org/hindoo_humanist/medieval.html
The page seems to have been put up by Aravindan who co-authored 'Breaking India'.
I'll try to more info if possible.

Regards,
Virendra

[Rahul Mehta]

One can read 1000s of accounts of islamist attacks on India from Raja Dahir of 700 AD to Akbar

What these accounts often skip is ---

1. Which weapons enabled invaders to win

2. Why is that invaders had better weapons and indics didnt - couldnt make them

Even Chanakya serial made in 1990s was hopelessly incomplete. The serial merely showed that Alex had better weapons. But didnt give details. And was absent on why Alex had better weapons, while indics didnt = couldnt manufacture them.

You only here tales like "one random stray arrow changed whole course of history" like one pebble of stone made river turn its flow !! And "Hindus were divided while invaders were all united" etc simpletons. Well, muslims were also divided. eg Afghans and Moguls fought very bitterly till 1700s. And whole artilleriy of Hemachandra as well as Shivaji/Pehswa were run by Muslims, mostly Shia who were against Sunni Moguls.

[Theo_Fidel]

The Pandya army lost on the Cauvery river bed due to the re-curved composite bow wielded by horsemen using stirrups. That was the end of the Pandya kingdom.

[ramana]

Rahul Mehta, Even the Sanjay Bhansali version of Jodha Akbar showed that it was no stray arrow but a Uzbeg assassin archer in Akbar's army that hit Hemachandra.
So it was hit squad tactic that Akbar's army practiced. Modern days called sniper.

[SagarAg]

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records
http://www.aurangzeb.info/
http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/blog-post_05.html

[shravanp]

Is there some book in Marathi, on Aurangzeb, that takes sympathetic view of him? My FIL was referring about it.

[ramana]

Rekha Mishra also takes a sympathetic view of Aurangazeb.

[member_25985]

THE DETERMINANTS OF HINDU DEFEATS

It is true that Hindus resisted Islamic imperialism for a long time, and overcame it in the long run. But it would be foolish to forget that their failure for a long time in the face of an enemy with whom they had become familiar pretty soon, was of frightening proportions. It is this failure of the Hindus and not the defeat of the Muslim marauders which invites a serious review and reflection. I will, therefore, do my own loud thinking on this subject. For I feel very strongly that the lessons we may learn from these failures are still valid for us.

It is held by almost all historians of this period, including those who neither swear by Marxism nor apologise for Islam, that the Hindu failure had its source in the Hindu social system, particularly the caste structure. But that proposition does not stand a deeper probe. Moreover, the proposition is preposterous because it reverses the chronological sequence. The Hindu social system became moribund and the caste system rigid only after Hindus had lost political power. There is sufficient evidence to prove that on the eve of Islamic invasions, the Hindu social system did not harbour the defects which it developed at a later stage. It is my considered opinion that it was their highly organic social system which saved the Hindus from extinction in the initial stages, and provided the powerful impetus which propelled them to victory in the long run. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa were engulfed by Islam because they did not have a social structure which could withstand the storm.

At a first glance, the Hindu failure looks like the failure of their art of warfare, pure and simple. The traditional Hindu warriors, particularly the Rajputs, were in no way inferior, if not superior, to the Turks in terms of valour and tenacity. Nor were the Muslim mercenaries any match for the Hindu warriors when it came to dedication to ideals of freedom and sense of honour and sacrifice. But the superiority of the Turkish art of warfare in terms of strategy, tactics, mobility, military morale, and arsenal set at nought the Hindu superiority and Muslim inferiority in many other respects.

At a second remove, the Hindu failure can be perceived as a political failure, a failure of their state system. In the initial stages at least, the larger Hindu states like the Shahiyas, the Chauhans, the Chandellas, the Gahadvads, and the Chaulukyas were far superior to the Islamic invaders in terms of financial means as well as manpower. But Hindus failed to mobilise these resources in any worthwhile manner. They could not have mobilised these resources even if they had wanted to, without radically reforming their state system. The decentralised and democratic character of the Hindu state, and the paucity of central revenue under the Hindu system of public finance, prevented Hindu princes from maintaining standing armies on a permanent war-footing. Hindu princes had to depend largely on levies recruited on the spur of the moment. And most of the time, these levies behaved no better than mobs. The larger the mob, the lower was its power to withstand assaults from solid phalanxes such as the Muslim conquerors brought to the battlefield. The battle could last only so long as the small number of trained and traditional Hindu warriors could sustain the shock. The Muslim war-machine on the other hand had been reared by a militarised state system, and was geared to withstand a stiffer strain.

But the deeper reason fails to be satisfied even by these explanations of the Hindu failure. Why did not the Hindus mend their art of warfare after they had seen the superiority of Muslim military methods? Why did the Hindus refuse to streamline their state system till it was too late? The military as well as political failure could have been overcome speedily if some deeper failure had not continued to linger for a long time. It is this deeper failure which I want to discuss in this chapter.


THE FOREMOST FAILURE: SPIRITUAL

To start with, what strikes me most is the steep decline in the Hindu spiritual perception. The sacred and philosophical literature produced by Hindus from the 5th century onwards compares very unfavourably with similar literature of an earlier age - like Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the earlier literature Manusmriti. The earlier literature dwells naturally and effortlessly on the Himalayan heights of the human soul, but at the same time it pays due attention to every detail of terrestrial life. The family, the clan, the village, the janapada, the rãshtra - life at each of these levels is sustained by a dharma appropriate to the level and complexity of relationships involved. The janmabhûmi, the motherland, is equated with the janani, the loving mother, and endowed with sanctity higher than that of heaven. Human society in its smaller as well as larger segments is an enabling environment in which the individual seeks abhyudaya, mundane welfare, as well as nisshreyas, spiritual salvation. Society has a lot to give to the individual in terms of upbringing, education, status within the brotherhood of the varNa, and livelihood in the fraternity of the jãti. But society also demands a lot in terms of self-discipline, performance of duties due from one�s station in life, and sacrifice which mostly means living for others. The rãjã, the state, is an embodiment of the protecting power of the Divine, and demands in turn taxes and obedience to legitimate laws.

In the eyes of this highly vigilant spirituality, evil is as much present in human nature as the good, and manifests itself in as many ways as the good. This spirituality is, therefore, wide awake to every eruption of evil, individual as well as collective. It can spot evil at the ideological and the psychological level as easily as at the level of its physical manifestation or concrete action. And it recommends a combat with evil, devãsura-saMgrãma, in every sphere of life. In this spirituality, there is no place for suffering evil silently, or for explaining it away, or for facing it with a subjective sanctimoniousness, howsoever elevated the language that sanctimoniousness may employ. When Alexander had asked a Brahmin as to what they taught which inspired Hindu warriors to such high heroism, the Brahmin had replied in one sentence � �We teach our people to live with honour.�

While it does not lose any of its heights, its grip on life as lived in this world gets greatly loosened. There is an insistent and increasing rejection of terrestrial life, and turning one�s back upon it is termed as the highest human endeavour. (Advent of buddhism) Dharma is no more a comprehensive concept embracing the wide wealth of human relationships; it is narrowed down to specialised disciplines enjoined by the goal of individual salvation. (Buddhism) In fact, human relationships start getting redefined as so many snares which entangle and encumber the individual soul in its journey towards the supreme attainment. (moksha, Buddhism) Honour and heroism now become lower values when compared to the herculean effort of breaking the shackles of karma and getting across the ocean of rebirth. Most spiritual seekers now not only take to sannyãsa but also go into seclusion in search of samãdhi, the mystic trance. Tantra, mantra, maNDala and yantra follow in sequence till spirituality in most cases gets reduced to some sort of an esoteric ritualism which is loath to subject itself to any objective test of character or performance. Those who do not feel drawn towards this highly elaborate but entirely subjective spirituality are now free to pursue artha, acquisitions, or kãma, pleasures, or both, without any guidance from dharma.

Many students of the spiritual literature of this period have hailed the medieval siddhas and the saints as harbingers of a casteless society. They do not see the perspective in which varNa and jãti become irrelevant for the spiritual seekers of this period. The perspective is one of social indifference, not one of social concern. The siddhas and the saints are indifferent not only to varNa and jãti, but also to the rãjã and the rãshtra. None of them tells the princes that the supreme test of their prowess and honour is the protection of their prajã. Some of them do bemoan the terror, destruction, desecration, and spoliation perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. But the complaint is addressed to God Almighty who allows such horrible things to happen. The voice which a Valmiki or a Vyasa would have raised for resistance to and destruction of the dasyu, marauder, and the ãtatãyî, gangster, is missing. Samartha Ramdas is the only exception.

It is small wonder, therefore, that Hindu saints of this period failed to see Islam with the eyes of a wholesome spirituality practised in earlier ages. They took at face value the professions of Islam that it was a religion like one of their own. Some of them were impressed by Islamic monotheism, and started denouncing the multiplicity of their own Gods and Goddesses. None of them could see that the Kalimah - there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his last prophet - could emanate only from a beastly rather than a religions consciousness. Not a single Hindu saint made the effort to see or succeeded in seeing through the professions of Islam or the piety of its sufis, and exposing the sin and the sham masquerading as religion and sainthood. The NirguNa saints did question the exclusive claims of Islam. But none of them questioned its claim as an alternate path of salvation. And all of them assailed Brahmanism and polytheism.

The thinkers and philosophers of this period proved worse than the saints in this respect. They argued back and forth on all possible positions in metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, linguistics, social ceremonies, and religious rituals. But none of them made a systematic or serious study of Islam, or traced to its scriptural source its terrorism and cruelty. The saints at least soothed and strengthened their people by their songs and sermons. The thinkers and philosophers cannot claim even that much credit. They only divided their people by their highly sectarian scholasticism. A majority of the Muslims were Hindu converts who had been forced or lured into the fold of Islam which sat lightly on them for a long time. Hindu society closed its doors on them, and condemned them to permanent and progressive alienation. The results would have been radically different if Hindu thinkers and philosophers had rejected Islam, and won back the converts to Islam into their mother society.


THE SECOND FAILURE: CULTURAL

The failure of Hindu spiritual perception had something, perhaps much, to do with the failure of the Hindu cultural vision. There was a lapse of historical memory and cultural tradition about the essential unity, integrity, and sanctity of what the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Puranas, and the Dharmashastras had clearly defined as Bharatavarsha. This vast land which Islam has dismembered in due course into the separate states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hindustan, and Bangladesh had been a single indivisible whole since times immemorial. Bharatavarsha had been termed by the ancients as the cradle of varNã�rama-dharma, witness to the wheel of the caturyugas, and the kShetra for chakravãrtya, spiritual as well as political. This historical memory and cultural tradition was alive as late as the imperial Guptas. Kalidasa had clothed it in immortal poetry in his far-famed RaghuvaM�a.

This failure of Hindu cultural vision had serious consequences. Hindus failed to organise a collective effort to guard the frontiers of Bharatavarsha. Hindu princes in the interior did not rally round Raja Dahir when Muhammad bin Qasim violated the sacred soil of Sindh. They made some better effort when the Hindu Shahiyas of Udbhandapur were challenged by Subuktigin. But the effort fizzled out before long, because very few of them had their heart in it. Hindu princes by now had taken a deep dose of Kautalya�s Artha�ãstra which, along with Vatsyayana�s Kãmasûtra, had become a prime part of their political education. In this sterile statecraft, centred on the politics of the maNDalayoni, one�s neighbour was always an enemy, and the enemy of an enemy always a friend! Hindu princes, therefore, failed to hang together in the face of a common calamity. In the event, they were hanged separately.


THE THIRD FAILURE: MENTAL

The third failure which was closely linked with the first two was the failure of mental alertness to what was happening in the world around. Hindu merchants were still selling the products of Indian agriculture and industry in all lands invaded by Islam. Hindu saints, particularly the Buddhist monks, were still practising their austerities and preaching their sermons in their farflung monasteries in Iran and Khorasan. But none of them could see the storm that was rising on the sands of Arabia and sowing a harvest of mass slaughter, pillage, plunder and enslavement, not even when it swept over neighbouring lands. They waited where they were till they were slaughtered and/or plundered in their own turn, or, if they fled back home, they did not say the word that could have served as a warning. Nor were the Hindu princes in a mental mood to heed any warning even if it had been tendered to them. An awareness of what was happening in neighbouring lands was no more needed by them. Each one of them was busy with his immediate neighbours. There was no lack of martial spirit, or sense of honour, or sentiments of chivalry in them. But all this wealth of character was wasted in proving their prowess over primacy of the right to a first dip in holy rivers and tanks, or to the hands of pretty princesses. What they lacked was statesmanship which is always an outcome of an alert and wide-ranging mind. They learnt neither from their own defeats, nor from the victories of the enemy. They mended neither their statecraft, nor their system of revenue, nor their military establishment, nor yet their art of warfare.

It cannot be maintained that Islam did not provide an ample opportunity to Hindu saints, philosophers and princes to understand its true character and role. Before the armies of Islam invaded India, the sufis had settled down in many parts of India, built mosque and khanqahs and started their work of conversion. They were the sappers and miners of Islamic invasions which followed in due course. Muinuddin Chishti was not the first �saint� of Islam to send out an invitation to an Islamic invader to come and kill the kãfirs, desecrate their shrines, and plunder their wealth. He was following in the footsteps of earlier Islamic �saints� functioning as fifth-columnists for Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi. There was an interval of two and a half centuries between the Arab demonstration in Sindh of what Islam had in store for the Hindus, and the horrors let loose by Mahmud Ghaznavi. Again, there was another interval of a century and a half between the invasions of Mahmud Ghaznavi and those of Muhammad Ghuri. But neither the Hindu saints, nor the Hindu philosophers, nor the Hindu princes could see the sufis for what they were in essence, or draw any worthwhile conclusions about the character of Islam.

This triple Hindu failure on the spiritual, cultural, and mental levels prevented Hindu society from evolving and pursuing policies which were imperative in the unprecedented situation, and which would have saved it from the permanent scourge of a malignant fraternity embedded in its very heart.


THE POLICIES WHICH WERE NOT PURSUED

The first need of the situation was a centre round which Hindus could rally, and from which Hindu resistance to the Islamic invasion could be directed. The effectiveness of such a centre was demonstrated first in Mewar under Maharana Pratap, secondly in the South under Vijayanagara, thirdly in Maharashtra under Shivaji, and lastly in the Punjab under Banda Bahadur. But these centres crystallised too late. A nationwide centre established earlier could have contained Islamic imperialism at the borders of Bharatavarsha, or defeated and driven it out from wherever it had secured a foothold. Chandragupta, Vikramaditya, and Skandagupta had headed such a centre, and saved the motherland by hurling back the barbarians as soon as they came.

The second need of the situation was a forward policy which would have taken the war into the heartland of Islam, instead of being fought over the length and breadth of Bharatavarsha. But the Hindus during this period were afflicted by a fortress psychology. They waited for the invader till he arrived at Panipat, or shut themselves into citadels which could be stormed or starved into surrender while the unprotected populace outside was slaughtered. Nor did they ever pursue and destroy the invader even when he was defeated and made of flee. If the Chaulukyas of Gujarat had pursued and destroyed Muhammad Ghuri and his hordes when he was defeated by them in his first expedition in 1178 AD, he would not have come back to Tarain in 1191 AD. Again, if the Chauhans had pursued and punished Ghuri after his defeat in the first battle of Tarain, there would have been no second battle of Tarain, and perhaps no more Muslim invasion of India, at least for some time to come. The effectiveness of a forward policy was demonstrated first by the Marathas under Shivaji, and later on by the Sikhs under Banda Bahadur. But that was against an Islamic state already established in India. Meanwhile, Islam had succeeded in doing very severe damage to the self-respect and self-confidence of Hindu society, particularly to the psyche of its elite.

The consequences of this damage to the Hindu psyche came to the surface during the days of the Mughal empire. Hindu generals like Mansingh Kacchwaha, Jaswant Singh Rathore, and Mirza Raja Jaisingh, to name only the most notable, proved their great calibre when employed by an alien imperialism. Hindu administrators like Raja Todarmal streamlined the revenue system of an alien state. But they could not use their abundant talents for establishing their own leadership in the service of their own nation. The Marathas who finally occupied Delhi in 1771 AD provide an excellent example of this loss of elan. They could not muster the courage to proclaim their own sovereignty over their own motherland, and continued to function in the name of a phantom whom they had themselves freed from British captivity. They were frightened of their own greatness. The notion of an independent nationhood no more informed their vision.

The third need of the situation was a policy of reciprocity which nations have to follow when they are faced with gangsterism. Islam was suffering from the high fever of self-righteousness, and was badly in need of some strong medicine. If the Islamic invaders had been made to understand that what they intended to do to Somnath could also be done to the Ka�bah, they would have paused to think and shed some of their self-righteousness. But Hindus never tried to cure Islam of its iconoclastic zeal. On the contrary, they used every opportunity to convince Muslims that their mosques, mazars, and khanqahs were absolutely inviolable. No wonder Muslims came to the conclusion that while Somnath was built from bricks and mortar, and the �ivaliñga made of mere stone, the Ka�bah was hewn out of some spiritual substance and the sang-i-aswad hallowed by the Almighty Allah. Muslims felt sure that while Hindu images had no power to protect themselves, their own idol in Mecca was capable of hurling into hell whole armies of infidels. Their sense of surety would have been shaken and done them immense good if it had been demonstrated by Hindu armies that the Ka�bah was also built from bricks and mortar, and that the sang-i-aswad also had no power to save itself, not to speak of sending even a mosquito to perdition.

Europe saved itself from the depredations of Islam because it had a centre in the Catholic Church which gave a call for action to Christian princes, and followed a forward policy in the Crusades. It did not allow Islam to retain any of its self-righteousness. Spain was ruled by Muslims for several centuries. But today there is no Muslim �minority� in Spain to poison its body politic, and no Muslim �places of worship� from which Muslim hooligans can hurl stones on Christian processions or in which they can assemble arsenals.


ISLAM IS STILL SELF-RIGHTEOUS

Islam in India is still suffering from the high fever of self-righteousness, though lately it has shifted its claim from the �only true religion� to the only �human brotherhood�. Powered by petro-dollars, it is again dreaming of an empire in India. Hindus, on the other hand, have learnt no lesson from history as is evident from their slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhãva vis-a-vis Islam which is only a totalitarian and terrorist ideology of imperialism. And now the Hindu secularists are bent upon perverting the historical record in order to prove that Islam never intended any harm to Hindus or Hinduism! Will Hindu society have to pay the price again? It is highly doubtful if Hindu society will survive another determined assault from Islam, such is the mental, moral and spiritual health of this society.

A society which has no self-confidence, which suffers from self-pity, which indulges in breast-beating at the behest of every Hindu-baiter, and which stands in daily need of certificates of good conduct from its sworn enemies, has not the ghost of a chance in a world which is becoming deadlier with the passing of every day. Can such a society make any creative contribution to the greater good of mankind? Let every Hindu search his heart, and seek the answer.

[Singha]

Wow...

[harbans]

Virendra ji, many thanks for your effort. From your link i get this:

The fate of Hindu women captured alive by Muslims was worse than death. Even as their fathers, husbands and children lay killed they had to dance and sing before Muslims and would then be given in slavery to the Muslim kings, generals, soldiers and of course Maulvis. Here is a gleeful Muslim recording of this inhuman barbaric events:

"First of all daughters of Hindu kings 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 Hindus dance and sing...Sultan gives them to brothers, sons of high officials etc. The third dasy also Sultan distributes girls to generals and his relatives."
[Source:Ibn Battuta (A.A.Rizvi in Tughlaq Kalin Bharath)]

Need to get an academic edu kind of link on the net to this than an archived geocities one.
Do keep me posted here if you get anything else of interest. Need to compile authentic links and references to the mass murder and rape that took place.