NAME : ATTIA SULTANA

ROLL NO : CB565987
SEMESTER : AUTUMN,2020
LEVEL : MA HISTORY
COURSE : MUSLIM IN INDIA (712-1526) (5673)

ASSIGNMENT NO : 01
Q. 1 Elaborate the expeditions sent by Umayyad in the north western regions of

India?

Answer:

Umayyad dynasty, also spelled Omayyad, the first great Muslim dynasty to rule the empire

of the caliphate (661–750 CE), sometimes referred to as the Arab kingdom (reflecting

traditional Muslim disapproval of the secular nature of the Umayyad state). The Umayyads,

headed by Abū Sufyān, were a largely merchant family of the Quraysh tribe centred at

Mecca. They had initially resisted Islam, not converting until 627, but subsequently became

prominent administrators under Muhammad and his immediate successors. In the first

Muslim civil war (fitnah; 656–661)—the struggle for the caliphate following the murder of

ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, the third caliph (reigned 644–656)—Abū Sufyān’s son Muʿāwiyah, then

governor of Syria, emerged victorious over ʿAlī, Muhammad’s son-in-law and fourth caliph.

Muʿāwiyah then established himself as the first Umayyad caliph.

Umayyad rule was divided between two branches of the family: the Sufyānids (reigned 661–

684), descendants of Abū Sufyān; and the Marwanids (reigned 684–750), Marwān I ibn al-

Hakam and his successors. The Sufyānids, notably Muʿāwiyah I (reigned 661–680),

centralized caliphal authority in Damascus. The Syrian army became the basis of Umayyad

strength, enabling the creation of a united empire through greater control of the conquered

provinces and of Arab tribal rivalries. Muslim rule expanded to Khorāsān, garrison cities

were founded at Merv and Sīstān as bases for expeditions into Central Asia and

northwestern India, and the invasion of northwestern Africa was begun. A new fleet

conducted a series of campaigns against Constantinople (now Istanbul; 669–678), which,

while ultimately unsuccessful, offset the secular image of the state because they were

directed against the Christians. Though the Sufyānids generally retained the Byzantine and

Persian administrative bureaucracies they inherited in the provinces, they were politically

organized along Arab tribal lines, in which the caliph was chosen by his peers to become,
theoretically, “first among equals” and act on the advice of a shūrā (tribal council).

Muʿāwiyah, however, in securing during his lifetime an oath of allegiance to his son Yazīd I,

disregarded the traditional election (bayʿah) and introduced the alien concept of hereditary

succession. Civil war and the deaths of Yazīd I in 683 and Muʿāwiyah II in 684 brought

Sufyānid rule to an end. Marwān I was proclaimed caliph in Syria in 684 amid tribal wars.

Under ʿAbd al-Malik (reigned 685–705) the Umayyad caliphate continued to expand.

Muslim armies invaded Mukrān and Sindh in India, while in Central Asia the Khorāsānian

garrisons conquered Bukhara, Samarkand, Khwārezm, Fergana, and Tashkent. In an

extensive program of Arabization, Arabic became the official state language; the financial

administration of the empire was reorganized, with Arabs replacing Persian and Greek

officials; and a new Arabic coinage replaced the former imitations of Byzantine and Sasanian

coins. Communications improved with the introduction of a regular post service from

Damascus to the provincial capitals, and architecture flourished (see, for

example, khan; desert palace; mihrab).

Decline began with the disastrous defeat of the Syrian army by the Byzantine emperor Leo

III (the Isaurian; 717). Then the fiscal reforms of the pious ʿUmar II (reigned 717–720),

intended to mollify the increasingly discontented mawālī (non-Arab Muslims) by placing all

Muslims on the same footing regardless of ethnicity, led to financial crisis, while the

recrudescence of feuds between southern (Kalb) and northern (Qays) Arab tribes seriously

reduced military power.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.Subscribe Now

Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (reigned 724–743) was able to stem the tide temporarily. As the

empire was reaching the limits of expansion—the Muslim advance into France was

decisively halted at Poitiers (732), and Arab forces in Anatolia were destroyed (740)—

frontier defenses, manned by Syrian troops, were organized to meet the challenge

of Turks in Central Asia and Berbers (Imazighen) in North Africa. But in the years following

Hishām’s death, feuds between the Qays and the Kalb erupted into major revolts in

Syria, Iraq, and Khorāsān (745–746), while the mawālī became involved with

the Hāshimiyyah, a religio-political faction that denied the legitimacy of Umayyad rule. In
749 the Hāshimiyyah, aided by the western provinces, proclaimed as caliph Abū al-ʿAbbās

al-Saffāḥ, who thereby became first of the ʿAbbāsid dynasty.

The last Umayyad, Marwān II (reigned 744–750), was defeated at the Battle of the Great Zab

River (750). Members of the Umayyad house were hunted down and killed, but one of the

survivors, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, escaped and established himself as a Muslim ruler in Spain (756),

founding the dynasty of the Umayyads in Córdoba.

MUAWIYA WAS A COUSIN OF UTHMAN; HE REFUSED TO SETTLE FOR ANYTHING

LESS THAN THE EXECUTION OF HIS KINSMAN'S ASSAILANTS.

After the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (l. 570-632 CE), Abu Bakr (r. 632-634

CE, a senior companion of the Prophet) took the title of the Caliph, hence forming the basis

of the Islamic Caliphates (intermittently: 632-1924 CE). Abu Bakr was the first of the four

initial caliphs referred collectively by the mainstream Sunni Muslims as the Rashidun

Caliphs, while the Shia Muslims only consider the fourth one of these, Ali (a close

companion and son-in-law of the Prophet), the sole legitimate candidate for the Caliphate.

In the Rashidun period, the armies of Islam launched full-scale invasions into Syria,

the Levant, Egypt, parts of North Africa, the islands of the Greek archipelago, and the

whole of the Sassanian Empire. These conquests were initiated by Abu

Bakr and successfully carried on by his successors Umar (r. 634-644 CE) and Uthman (r. 644-

656 CE). Uthman, however, was not a strong ruler and was murdered in his own house by

rebels in 656 CE. His death marked the breaking point in the history of the Islamic empire:

his successor Ali (r. 656-661 CE) was pinned between handling a disintegrating realm and

people insisting that justice be served to his dead predecessor.

Ali was faced with opposition, most notably from the governor of Syria, Muawiya (l. c. 602-

680 CE). Muawiya was a cousin of Uthman; he refused to settle for anything less than the

execution of his kinsman's assailants. Civil war erupted, the First Fitna (656-661 CE),

which ended with Ali's murder at the hands of an extremist group called the Kharjites. These

zealots had made an attempt on Muawiya's life as well, but the latter survived with only a

minor injury.
Muawiya I

Muawiyya's (r. 661-680 CE) lineage is referred to as the Sufyanids (after his father Abu

Sufyan), or sometimes as Harbites (after his grandfather Harb). He was a shrewd politician

and a strong diplomat who preferred bribery to warfare. He convinced Hasan (l. 624-670

CE), the son of Ali, who had succeeded him in Kufa, to abdicate in his favor in exchange

for a high pension. However, when he felt that someone posed a threat to his rule, he would

take no risk and have them killed. The death of Hassan in 670 CE, who is said to have been

poisoned by his wife, is often linked with him by Muslim historians, alongside that of many

other supporters of Ali.

His 20-year reign, from his capital at Damascus, was indeed the most stable one that the

Arabs had seen since the death of Umar, and his administrative reforms were just as

excellent, such as the use of a police network (Shurta), personal bodyguards for his

safety, diwans (for local administration, just as Umar had established) among others.

He initiated campaigns in parts of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan and, in the west,

all the way to the Atlantic coast of Morocco. He managed to regain territories lost to the

Byzantines, but most of his gains were reversed after his death, owing to internal unrest.

Yazid I & the Second Fitna

Problems started when Muawiya appointed his son Yazid (r. 680-683 CE) as his successor.

The Arabs were not accustomed to dynastic rule and so Yazid's accession was met with

much resentment, most notably from Husayn ibn Ali (l. 626-680 CE), Hasan's younger

brother, and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (l. 624-692 CE), who was the son of a close companion of

Prophet Muhammad.

TODAY YAZID IS REMEMBERED AS PERHAPS THE MOST NEGATIVE FIGURE IN

ISLAMIC HISTORY.

In 680 CE, Husayn, convinced by the people of Kufa, marched to Iraq, intending to gather

his forces and then attack Damascus. Yazid, however, put a lockdown on Kufa and sent his

army, under the command of his cousin: Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad (d. 686 CE) to intercept

Husayn's force. The two parties met in Karbala, near the Euphrates, where Husayn's army –
some 70 combatants (mostly family members and close associates) made a heroic stand

and were all brutally massacred and Husayn beheaded. This sparked the second civil war of

Islamic history – the Second Fitna (680-692 CE).

Yazid then ordered another army to attack the Medinans, who had rebelled due to their

disgust over Yazid's character and actions; this culminated in the Battle of al-Harra (683 CE),

where opposition was crushed. In the aftermath of the battle, according to some sources,

Medina was subjected to plunder, pillage, rape, and murder. The Syrian army then

proceeded to Mecca, where Abdullah had established his own realm. The city was besieged

for several weeks, during which the cover of the Ka'aba (Islamic holy site) caught on

fire. Though Yazid's army retreated to Syria after their leader's sudden death (683 CE), the

damage done by Yazid's army left an indelible mark in the hearts of the Muslims. Abdullah

continued his revolt for another decade, claiming the title of Caliph (r. 683-692 CE) for

himself; he earned the fealty of Hejaz, Egypt, and Iraq – while his opponents were barely in

control of Damascus after their sovereign's death.

Today Yazid is remembered as perhaps the most negative figure in Islamic history. His son

Muawiya II (r. 683-684 CE) was proclaimed caliph after his death, but the sickly youngster

wanted no share in his father's ill actions. He died just a few months later in 684 CE,

bringing an end to the Sufyanid rulers. Apart from Damascus, the whole of the Umayyad

realm had been tossed into chaos.

The Marwanids

Marwan ibn Hakam (r. 684-685 CE), a senior member of the Umayyad clan and a cousin of

Muawiya, took over, with the promise that the throne would pass on to Khalid (Yazid's

younger son) upon his death. He had no intention of keeping this promise; now the empire

was in the hands of the Marwanids (house of Marwan), also known as Hakamites (after

Marwan's father Hakam). Marwan recaptured Egypt – which had revolted and joined the

Zubayrid faction. But he could not contain Abdullah's revolt, as he died just nine months

after assuming the office (685 CE). This task now fell upon the shoulders of his brilliant

son, Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705 CE).

Support our Non-Profit Organization

With your help we create free content that helps millions of people learn history all around

the world.

In 685 CE, Al Mukhtar (l. c. 622-687 CE), started a revolt in Kufa and joined hands with

Abdullah against the Umayyads. Al Mukhtar systematically hunted down all those who were

involved in Husayn's murder. An army sent by Abd al-Malik under Ubaidullah (the general

from Karbala) was crushed by the combined forces of the Kufans and Zubayrids; the

defeated general was put to the sword.

He then declared his wish to establish an Alid Caliphate, using one of Ali's sons (although

not from Fatima), Muhammad ibn al-Hanaffiya (l. 637-700 CE). This led to his parting ways

with Abdullah who had claimed the Caliphate for himself from Mecca. Abd al-Malik then

waited as his rivals weakened each other. In 687 CE Al Mukhtar was killed by Zubayrid forces

during the siege of Kufa. Although Al Mukhtar died there and then, his revolt ultimately led

to the evolution of Shi'ism from a political group to a religious sect.

With the threat in Kufa neutralized, Abd al-Malik shifted his attention towards Mecca: he

sent his most loyal and ruthless general, the governor of rebellious Iraq, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (l.

661-714 CE) to subjugate his rival. Although Abdullah stood no chance against Hajjaj's

mighty army, he refused to surrender and died sword in hand in 692 CE; the war was over.

Although he has not escaped the criticism for Hajjaj's cruel deeds, Abd al-Malik is credited

for bringing stability and centralization to the empire, Most notably he Arabized the whole

of his dominion, which in time helped the propagation of Islam; he also established official

coins for his empire.

The construction of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem took place under his canopy (691-692

CE); it is conceivable that this was to balance his position against Abdullah, who at that time

was in control of the Ka'aba. It was also during his reign that all of North Africa, including

Tunis, was conquered (by 693 CE) for good. The local Berbers, who accepted Islam, would

become vital in carrying it all the way to Spain during the reign of his son.

Al Walid & Conquest of Spain

After Abd al-Malik's death, his son Al Walid I (r. 705-715 CE) assumed the office who pushed

the boundaries of his empire even farther. Hajjaj continued to extend his influence over his

sovereign; two of his protégés – Muhammad ibn Qasim (l. c. 695-715 CE) and Qutayba ibn

Muslim (l. c. 669-715 CE) were successful in subjugating parts of modern-day Pakistan and

Transoxiana, respectively.

Muslim conquest of Spain started in 711 CE when a Berber named Tariq ibn Ziyad landed

on the Iberian Peninsula on a mount that bears his name today: Gibral-Tar. He defeated a

numerically superior army led by Gothic king Roderic (r. 710-712 CE) at the battle of

Guadalete (711 CE), after which, the land simply lay still for him to take.

Musa ibn Nusayr (l. 640-716 CE), the governor of Ifriqiya (North Africa beyond Egypt)

reinforced Tariq with more men and the duo had conquered most of Al Andalus (Arabic for

Spain – the land of the Vandals) by 714 CE. Musa was on the verge of

invading Europe through the Pyrenees, but at that fateful moment, for reasons not clear to

historians, the Caliph ordered both of them to return to Damascus.

Expansion Halted

Walid had tried to nominate his own son as his successor, instead of his brother Sulayman,

who was his successor by their father's covenant; naturally, Sulayman refused to let go of his

claim. Walid died before he could force his brother into submission, and Sulayman (r. 715-

717 CE) assumed the office; his brief reign was an abject failure. Sulayman had nothing but

contempt for the late Hajjaj and released many people who had been held captive in

Hajjaj's prisons.

However, the dead governor's subordinates faced the full wrath of the new Caliph;

Sulayman had many of the empire's dauntless generals and talented governors killed, as

most of them had been handpicked by the aforementioned. Sulayman then turned his

attention towards Constantinople and sent a massive force

to conquer the Byzantine capital in 717 CE. This venture was a costly and humiliating

defeat, the damage was permanent and irreversible, halted expansion, moreover, it was the

first major setback against the Byzantines. Nearing his death, Sulayman realized that his
own sons were too young to succeed him, he nominated his pious cousin Umar ibn Abd al-

Aziz.

Umar II (r. 717-720 CE) managed to rule for only three years as he was poisoned by his own

family because of his unwavering stance on justice and on Islamic principles. This quality of

his, supplemented by many of his admirable actions such as stopping public cursing of Ali,

facilitating conversion and halting attacks on peaceful neighboring empires, has earned him

much posthumous fame as he has often been dubbed as the fifth Rashidun Caliph.

He stopped all military expeditions, knowing that the internal state of the empire needed to

be improved before anything else. He had also entered negotiations with the non-Arab

Muslims (Mawali – in Arabic), who had opposed and resented Umayyad rule (since they had

been violently repressed). Had he been given enough time, there was a fair enough chance

that he might have succeeded, and the Abbasids might have never gained enough support

against the Umayyads from Mawalis and Shia Muslims (of the Eastern Provinces).

Umar's successor, Yazid II (r. 720-724 CE), another son of Abd al-Malik, proved to be no

better a ruler than the first one to bear his name. Whilst he was busy fondling with his

favorite concubines in his harem, his ineffective governors had lost all control of the empire.

Fortunately for the Umayyads, he died just four years after assuming control.

Restoration of Order

Yazid's brother and successor, Hisham (r. 724-743 CE) had inherited an empire torn apart by

civil wars and he would use all of his energies and resources to bring the kingdom out of

this tumult. A strong and inflexible ruler, Hisham reinstated many reforms that had been

introduced by Umar II but discontinued by Yazid II.

Some of his military expeditions were successful, others not so much: a Hindu revolt in

Sindh (a province in modern-day Pakistan) was crushed, but a Berber revolt broke out in the

western parts of North Africa (modern-day Morocco) in 739 CE. The Berbers had been

stirred up by the fanatical teachings of Kharijite zealots (a radical and rebellious sect of

Islam) and caused a great deal of damage, most notably, the deaths of most of the Arab

elites of Ifriqiya at the Battle of Nobles (c. 740 CE) near Tangier. Attempts to crush the
rebellion did not even come close to complete the objective, but the disunited Berbers soon

disintegrated (743 CE) after they failed to take the core of Ifriqiya, the capital city of

Qairouwan, but Morocco was lost for the Umayyads.

{================}

Q. 2 The Ghazanvi attacks in the north west India was the mile stone in the

establishment of Muslim rule in the region?

Answer:

The Ghaznavid dynasty was a Persianate Muslim dynasty of Turkic mamluk origin, at their

greatest extent ruling large parts of Iran, Afghanistan, much of Transoxiana and the

northwest Indian subcontinent from 977 to 1186. The dynasty was founded

by Sabuktigin upon his succession to rule of the region of Ghazna after the death of his

father-in-law, Alp Tigin, who was a ex-general of the Samanid Empire from Balkh, north of

the Hindu Kush in Greater Khorasan.

Although the dynasty was of Central Asian Turkic origin, it was thoroughly Persianised in

terms of language, culture, literature and habits and hence is regarded as a "Persian

dynasty".

Sabuktigin's son, Mahmud of Ghazni, declared independence from the Samanid Empire and

expanded the Ghaznavid Empire to the Amu Darya, the Indus River and the Indian Ocean in

the east and to Rey and Hamadan in the west. Under the reign of Mas'ud I, the Ghaznavid

dynasty began losing control over its western territories to the Seljuq dynasty after

the Battle of Dandanaqan, resulting in a restriction of its holdings to modern-day

Afghanistan, Pakistan (Punjab and Balochistan). In 1151, Sultan Bahram Shah lost Ghazni to

the Ghurid king Ala al-Din Husayn.

Two military families arose from the Turkic slave-guards of the Samanid Empire, the

Simjurids and Ghaznavids, who ultimately proved disastrous to the Samanids. The Simjurids

received an appanage in the Kohistan region of eastern Khorasan. The Samanid generals

Alp Tigin and Abu al-Hasan Simjuri competed for the governorship of Khorasan and control

of the Samanid Empire by placing on the throne emirs they could dominate after the death
of Abd al-Malik I in 961. His death created a succession crisis between his brothers. A court

party instigated by men of the scribal class – civilian ministers rather than Turkic generals –

rejected the candidacy of Alp Tigin for the Samanid throne. Mansur I was installed instead,

and Alp Tigin prudently retired to south of the Hindu Kush, where he captured Ghazna and

became the ruler of the city as a Samanid authority.[8] The Simjurids enjoyed control of

Khorasan south of the Amu Darya but were hard-pressed by a third great Iranian dynasty,

the Buyid dynasty, and were unable to survive the collapse of the Samanids and the

subsequent rise of the Ghaznavids.

The struggles of the Turkic slave generals for mastery of the throne with the help of shifting

allegiance from the court's ministerial leaders both demonstrated and accelerated the

Samanid decline. Samanid weakness attracted into Transoxiana the Karluks, a Turkic people

who had recently converted to Islam. They occupied Bukhara in 992, establishing in

Transoxania the Kara-Khanid Khanate.[citation needed]

After Alp Tigin's death in 963, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim, followed by his slave Sabuktigin, took the

throne. Sabuktigin's son Mahmud of Ghazni made an agreement with the Kara-Khanid

Khanate whereby the Amu Darya was recognised as their mutual boundary.

Until the rise of the west, India was possibly the richest country in the world. China was a

rival in wealth, but we are not placed to compare the two nations. To the extent that India’s

climate was more temperate than China’s, and the land probably more fertile, it is likely

India was the richer.

Such a country presented an irresistible target for the ravening Mongols and

their descendents who settled in present day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan, all

within comparatively easy reach of northwestern India.

The northwest was, at this time, a mish-mash of warring kingdoms, more interested in

settling scores with their neighbors than in unifying against the Mongols. It is then

unsurprising that Mahmud Ghaznavi’s armies so handily defeated those of the Indian kings.

Mahmud Ghanznavi (translated: Mahmud of Ghazni) was not, according to some, like future

Muslim invaders of India, a religious proselytizer. Indeed, with the exception of Punjab,
which he needed as his "forward operating base" for his Indian expeditions, he made no

attempt to rule any of his conquests. His intent was economic and political. It has been said

that the destruction of Somnath is mentioned only in Muslim texts, whose authors had the

habit of exaggeration. This view goes as far as to say in the opinion of some,

the Ghaznivad empire fell apart because of Mahmud’s excessive reliance on Hindu soldiers

and generals.

Others, however, have argued the reverse: he may have wanted the money, but also

wanted to spread Islam and did his best to destroy temples even when offered large sums

to leave the temples alone. The Indian historian Romila Thapar [2002] takes a middle view:

Mahmud needed money for his wars; India’s temples were known to contain fabulous

treasures; we need not look for more complicated explanations. Thapar said he was

undoubtedly an iconoclast, and hardly averse to destroying temples to gain favor when he

went to heaven. Nonetheless, he warred equally with other Islamic sects, because he was a

Sunni. The secondary purpose of his raids may have been tied up with his need to convert

Shias to Sunni beliefs.

Nonetheless, for our purposes, which are military history, Mahmud Ghaznavi's motives and

large aims are irrelevant, and we say without hesitation we have little idea of where the

truth lies. Understandably, Indians know Mahmud Ghaznavi because of his invasions of

India. But he fought many wars to the west, and captured large parts of today's Iran, and

that was an entirely different part of his life. His father was a Turkish slave; this would be

one reason he looked to the west. While we have believed, as have most school and college

students of Indian history, that there were 17 invasions, some say there were 14. We hope

someone with the necessary scholarship can enlighten us on this.

MAHMUD GHAZNAVI

Born in 971, Mahmud Ghaznavi was the elder son of Subuktagin, the king of Ghazni.

When Subuktagin attacked King Jaipal, Mahmud fought for his father in the battlefield.

Though Mahmud was the elder son of his father, it is said that in his last

days, Subuktagin was not happy with Mahmud. So, when Subuktagin died in 997, his

younger son Ismail became the king of Ghazni.

Ismail reigned only for a little time. Very soon, Mahmud defeated him and became the king.

Mahmud began a series of seventeen raids into northwestern India at the end of the 10th

century. Nonetheless, he did not attempt to rule Indian territory except for the Punjab,

which was his gateway to India, as Ghazni lay in present day Afghanistan.

1000 AD: Indian Frontier Towns

1001-03 AD: Jaipal, Peshawar

Jaipal was the king of Hindushahi Kingdom. Mahmud had already fought against him,

when Subuktagin was the king of Ghazni. When Mahmud became the king, he decided to

attack on Hindushahi Kingdom, as its king, Jaipal, was his old enemy.

In 1001, Mahmud attacked the Hindushahi Kingdom. 15,000 Hindu soldiers were

killed. Jaipal was defeated and captured. He was presented before Mahmud with his 15

other relatives; 500,000 enslaved persons were also brought along.

Mahmud looted all his wealth. He received 250,000 Dinars to free Jaipal. About

5,00,000 Indians were taken to Ghazni as slaves. Though Jaipal was freed, but he refused to

survive his disgrace. He cast himself upon a funeral pyre and died.

1008: Anandpal

Anandpal was the son of Jaipal, and now became the king of Hindushahi Kingdom.

In 1008, Mahmud attacked on Anandpal. Anandpal called other Hindu kings to help him.

The kings of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kannauj, Delhi, Ajmer etc. came to help him with their

armies. In the battlefield of Peshawar, both the armies remained standing before each other,

but no one attacked. Meanwhile the Khokhars (a race) also came there to help Hindus.

Mahmud deployed 6,000 archers to attack. Khokhars attacked the Muslims and killed

approximately 5,000 Muslims.

Unfortunately, Jaipal's elephant became infuriated and ran from the battlefield. As soon

as Jaipal left the battlefield, the Hindu army got confused and ran away. Muslims chased

them and killed 20,000 Hindus. Thus, the best organized national efforts ever made by

medieval Hindu India against the foreigners ended.

1009: Invasion of Nagarkot [Kangra]

Nagarkot was very famous for its wealth kept in its temples. So, Mahmud decided to

invade Nagarkot. Like a swarm of locusts, his army destroyed everything in its path.

Paralyzed with fear, the defenders opened the city’s gate and fell on the ground in

submission.

Mahmud got so much jewelry, gold and silver, that when he returned to his capital, his

people congregated to see the incredible wealth of India.

1014: Thanesar

Mahmud came to know of the riches of Thanesar’s temples. In 1014, he invaded Thanesar.

The Hindus wanted to reach on a compromise, but Mahmud refused. His army destroyed

the city, massacred the inhabitants, and plundered the sacred temples.

1015: Kashmir Valley

1018-19: Mathura and Kannauj

When Mahmud invaded Mathura, he was amazed to see so many huge and beautiful Hindu

temples. No one would resist him, and he entered the city unopposed, leaving with untold

wealth.

Then, he attacked Kannauj in January of 1019. The King of Kannauj, Rajpal Pratihar did not

dare to stop him and ran away. The invaders looted the sacred temples. Many innocent

people were killed.

The king of Kannauj, Rajpal Pratihar accepted the superiority of Mahmud Ghaznavi and then

Mahmud turned back for Ghazni.

1021: Kalinjar

Rajpal Pratihar, the king of Kannauj, had accepted the superiority of Mahmud. This made

other Rajput kings angry. The Rajput kings of Kalinjar, Gandda Chandel, with the king of

Gwalior and others attacked on Kannauj and killed the king Rajpal Pratihar.
Mahmud was unhappy with this. To punish the culprits, he attacked Kalinjar. The

king, Gandda Chandel accepted the superiority of Mahmud. Mahmud was satisfied with the

money the King gave him and he returned.

1023: Lahore

1925: Somnath, 16th Invasion

The most famous and terrible invasion launched by Mahmud was his sixteenth, against

the Somnath Temple in Gujrat, western India. This was an immense distance from Ghanzni,

but one supposes by now he was so feared that he had easy passage.

The Somnath temple was very famous for its treasures. There were one thousand priests to

serve the temple. Hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gate. There was

famous Linga, a rude pillar stone, adorned with gems embroidered with precious like stars,

which decorated the shrine.

The brave Hindu Rajputs came forward to defend the temple. Shouting 'Allah hu Akbar', the

enemy tried to entered into the temple. The Hindus fought very bravely and the invaders

could not damage the temple. The battle lasted for three days.

After three days, the invaders succeeded and entered into the Somnath temple.

Mahmud ordered his men to destroy the sacred idol, Linga. He looted the treasures of the

temple. It is said that he got wealth worth 20-million Dinars, eighty times the already huge

sum he had gained on his first invasion.

1026: The 17th and Last Invasion

After looting the Somnath temple, when Mahmud was going back to Ghazni, the Jats had

attacked his army. So, to punish the Jats, he returned and defeated them in 1026.

DEATH OF MAHMUD

On April 30, 1030, Mahmud died in Ghazni, at the age of 59 years. He had contracted

malaria during his last invasion. This turned to tuberculosis.

{================}
Q. 3 Compare the personalities and achievements of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznah

and sultan Muhammad Ghauri?

Answer:

Mahmood Gaznavi was born in 971AD, in khurasan. Mahmood Ghazni was the son of Abu

Mansur Sabuktigin, who was a Turkish slave soldier of the samanid ruler. In 994 Mahmood

joined his father in the conquest of Ghazni for Samanid ruler, it was the time of instability

for Samanid Empire. In 998AD Mahmood took control of the Ghazni and also conquered

Qandahar.

In 1001 AD, he started his military companies, which were lasted before his death in 1030

AD. Mahmud’s campaigns seem to have been motivated by religious zeal against both the

Fatimid’s Shiites and non-Muslims; Buddhists, Jains and Hindus. Mahmood of Ghazna was

one of the undefeatable military commanders of the World. He attacked South Asia

seventeen times successfully and went back to Ghazni every time with a great victory. He

fought against the forces of Jaipal, Annadpal, Tarnochalpal, Kramta and the joint forces of

Hindu Rajas and Maharajas but all of them were forced to flee away from the battlefield due

to Mahmood’s war strategy as a general.

The military campaigns of Mahmood Ghaznavi made him controversial personality in the

history of South Asia. Mahmood of Ghazni destroyed important Hindu shrine- Krishna

Janmabhoomi Temple (known as Kesava Deo Temple) in 1017 AD along with several other

Hindu and Buddhist temples in the holy city of Mathura. Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed and

looted one of the most sacred temples of Hindus- Somnath Temple in 1025 AD killing over

50,000 people who tried to defend it. Due to this Mahmood Ghaznavi is considered as a

looter and plunder by the most of the non-Muslims of South Asia.

Mahmood of Ghazna became the sign of respect and bravery for South Asian Muslim and is

considered as their Hero. Mahmood weakened the power of the neighboring rulers as they

could not attack over the newly established Muslim state. The booty of war was used to

consolidate the power of the state. After the conquest of Multan and Lahore, Mahmood
made Punjab a part of his empire in 1021. He also established his provincial headquarters at

Lahore. Ghazni and Lahore become the center of learning and culture. Thus Mahmood

established a strong Muslim empire, which was lasted for hundreds years. He also exposed

the weakness of Hindu rajas, which enabled the Muslim leaders to conquer India in future.

These all made him the Hero for the Muslims of South Asia.

Mahmood of Ghazna was a great patron of learning. Firdosi the poet, Behqi the historian

and Al-Biruni the scholar and scientest were associated with his court. Ghazni became one

of the most important and beautiful cities of the Islamic world. Lahore also became a great

center of learning and culture.

Mahmud was also a deeply religious man. He himself wrote a book on Fiqh. He had respect

for other religions. A large number of Hindus lived in Ghazni, and they enjoyed religious

freedom. One of his commanders named Tilak was a Hindu. A number of soldiers in his

army were also Hindus. Mahmud attacked the Hindu Temples in India because of political

and not religious reasons. Mahmud Ghaznavi died on April 30, 1030AD.

Sultan Shahab -ud -din Muhammad also known as, Muizzuddin Muhammad Bin Sam, was

born in 1162. He was the younger brother of Ghiasuddin and son of Sultan Bahaudin Suri of

Ghure. After Mahmud of Ghazni the next invader in India was Muhammad Ghuri. He

belonged to the Ghorid dynasty which replaced the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan. After the

death of Mahmood Ghaznovi, he was the first Turkish who invaded India; after a long period

of 150 years. He laid the foundation for Muslim rule in India and his slave Qutb -ud -din

Aibak became the founder of the first Turkish rule in India.

He remained loyal to his elder brother Ghiyas-ud-din and helped him in his invasions until

his death in 1202 AD. At that time at the west of Afghanistan there was strong empires so

Muhammad Ghuri turned his attention toward East. Shahab-ud-din Ghori`s first invasions

were on the Muslim states of Multan and the fortress of Ouch. In 1181, he attacked on

Lahore and successfully ended the Ghaznavids Empire, bringing the remaining territory

under his control. He fought the first battle of Tarain in 1191 against Raja Prithviraj

Chauhan; the most powerful raja of India. In the second battle of Tarain, in 1192 Ghuri

defeated raja Prithviraj and the victory paved the way for Ghori to push Muslim rule further
in India. The other Rajas were not much strong to defend their rule against Ghuri’s strong

military and power. With in a period of one year Ghuri get control of northern parts of India

and marched to Delhi. The Kingdom of Ajmer was t given over to Golā, on condition that he

would send regular tributes to the Ghurids.

After the death of Ghiys-ud-din he established the rule of the Ghuri dynasty in Afghanistan.

Due to heavy taxes they became quite unpopular among their local people. This forced

Muhammad Ghori to search out new sources of income and diverts the attention of Ghori

towards the invasion of India, which was the richest neighboring country.

In 1206, Ghauri had to travel to Lahore to crush a revolt. On his way back to Ghazni, his

caravan rested at Damik in Jhelum district of Punjab province in modern-day Pakistan. He

was assassinated while offering his evening prayers by a small band of Hindu Khokars.The

murderer killed him so brutally that there were 22 wounds on his body. As per his wishes,

Ghauri was buried where he fell.

In 1173 AD Shahab-ud-Din Ghuri finally brought an end of Ghaznavid Empire and

established their dynastic rule. He had no son to succeed him as a ruler but had Turkish

slaves. After his assassination, his Empire was divided amongst his slaves. In 1206 his most

famous slave Qutb-ud-Din Aibek established Sultanat of Delhi and became Sultan. In 1210

AD Nasir-ud-Din Qabacha became the ruler of Multan. Tajuddin Yildoz became the ruler of

Gazni.

{================}

Q. 4 Asses the role of Qutbuddin Aybag in the establishment of Delhi sultanate?

Answer:

Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who was the governor of Ghori’s Indian possessions became

independent after his death and began his rule in 1206 A.D. in the title of Delhi Sultan. He

has been regarded as the real founder of Turkish rule in India. Of course, Muhammad of

Ghur had included the territories of India in his empire but his seat of power was not in

India. He was the Sultan of Ghur and after his death, Qutb-ud-din had cut off his
connections with Ghazni and Ghur. He was fully independent by the time he become the

Sultan of Delhi. He, therefore, is rightly regarded as the first Turkish Sultan of Delhi.

Slave Dynasty:

It is said that the early three Sultans of Delhi were slaves in their early life. So they belonged

to one dynasty called the slave dynasty. The early three rulers such as Qutbud-din-Aibak,

Iltutmish and Balban were all slaves. But in fact neither they belonged to one dynasty nor

was any of them a slave when they occupied the throne of Delhi. Qutb-up-din had formed

the Qutbi dynasty while Iltutmish and Balban had formed the Shamsi and the Balbani

dynasty respectively.

Each of them had ceased to be a slave before they became Sultans and, except Qutb-ud-din

all others had obtained their formal manumission (Freedom from Slavery) long before their

accession. Therefore, it is correct to call them early Turk Sultans or the Mameluk Sultans of

Delhi.

Career of Qutb-ud-din:

Qutb-ud-din Aibak was born of Turkish parents in Turkistan. He was sold as a slave in his

childhood and after passing through few hands was purchased by Sultan Muhammad of

Ghur. Very soon he drew the attention of his master by his talent and superb

swordsmanship. He was offered with several responsible posts gradually. He was very

faithful to his master Muhammad Ghori and was with him throughout his Indian campaigns.

Owing to his meritorious services, he was assigned with the charge of his Indian conquests

after the second battle of Tarain in 1192 A.D. It was Qutb-ud-din who consolidated and

extended his conquests in India. In 1206 A.D., Qutb-ud-din was formally invested with

viceregal powers and promoted to the rank of Malik by Sultan Muhammad of Ghur.

After the death of Muhammad, the people of Lahore invited Qutb-ud-din to ascend the

throne. The title of Sultan was conferred upon him later on by Ghiyas-ud-din, the Sultan of

Ghur. Of course formal letter of manumission was not granted to him. Though he did not

struck coins or read the khutba in his name but remained as the defacto Sultan of his

master’s territories in India.

Qutb-ud-din as a Sultan:

Qutb-ud-din ascended the throne of Delhi in A.D. 1206 and became the first Turkish Sultan

of Delhi. But, the throne of Delhi was not a bed of roses for him. He had to face many

challenges from in and outside the country. He could not depend on the loyalty of all his

Turkish officers who were jealous of him. The Rajput’s, on the other hand though

vanquished in north India were eagerly waiting for a possible opportunity to strike.

Moreover, he had to face strongest opposition from Taj-ud-din Yeldoz and Nasir-ud-din

Qubacha, the two more contenders for the throne of Delhi. Yeldoz was the ruler of Ghazni

and Qubacha was of Uch and both had matrimonial relations with Qutb-ud-din. Yeldoz was

his father-in-law and Qubacha was his brother-in-law as he had married one sister of Qutb-

ud-din.

Besides, there were two more contenders also for the throne of Delhi. They were nobles like

Baha-ud-din Tughril Khan and Bakhtiyar Khalji but to the good fortune of Qutb-ud-din they

were dead by then. According to historians like Professor K.A. Nizami, this was due to the

weak position of Qutb-ud-din over the throne of Delhi as Muhammad of Ghur did not

decide anything about his succession in India before his death; therefore each of his

governors and lieutenants was left free to decide his own course of action.

This may be a fact but as the struggle for supremacy was the order of the time, the question

of legal sanction behind the throne of Delhi has nothing to do with that. Besides, there was

another great danger for him from outside. Khwarizm Shah Ala-ud-din Muhammad, the

ruler of persia had desired to capture Ghazni and Delhi.

His Achievements:

In the face of these difficulties, Qutb-ud-din stood with determination. After all he himself

was a gifted soldier and a great military leader. He decided to keep himself free from the

policies of Central Asia. He had to move with caution. He first strengthened his position in

Delhi and Lahore. He tried to persuade some Turkish nobles to accept his subordination. He

gave his sister in marriage to Qabacha and his daughter to Iltutmish and secured their
support. Yeldoz who was his father-in-law did not accept his claim over Delhi. In the

meanwhile an interesting situation arose which went in favour of Qutb-ud-din.

Yeldoz who was the ruler of Ghazni, was pressurized by Khwarizm Shah to leave the throne

of Ghazni. Yeldoz had no way out. He left Ghazni and proceeded towards Punjab. Qutb-ud-

din faced him and forced him to return back. Qutb-ud-din even occupied Ghazni but was

forced to leave it after forty days when Yeldoz reached back there. But he did not allow

Yeldoz to occupy any Indian territories further.

Qutb-ud-din had to face some internal problems as well. Ali Mardan Khan, the ruler of

Bengal and Bihar was dethroned and imprisoned by some Khalji nobles and they had

offered the throne to Muhammad Sheran who had promised to rule Bengal independently.

However, Ali Mardan escaped from prison, reached Delhi and requested Qutb-ud-din to

interfere in the affairs of Bengal.

Qutb-ud-din accepted his prayer and deputed Qaiwaz Rumi Khan, a noble to settle the

matter. Rumi Khan used both force and diplomacy to win over the Khalji nobles of Bengal.

He convinced them to accept Ali Mardan as the governor of Bengal under the Suzerainty of

Delhi. Thus, finally, Ali Mardan became the governor of Bengal and agreed to pay annual

tribute to Qutb-ud-din.

However Qutb-ud-din could not pursue the policy of extension of his kingdom. He

remained busy in defending his independent position. The affairs in the north-west and

Bengal in the east were his primary concerns. That is why mostly he remained at Lahore

instead of Delhi. But he could not live long. While playing polo, he fell from his horse and

shortly died in 1210 A.D.

Estimate of Qutb-ud-din:

Qutb-ud-din Aibak was the real founder of Turkish rule in India. He was the key man behind

Muhammad’s success in India. After the death of Sultan Muhammad, he” consolidated his

Indian conquests by adding some more victories to his credit. He established his supremacy

over his Turkish nobles by following a policy of war and diplomacy. He succeeded in putting

down Yeldoz and Qubacha, the two contenders for the throne of Delhi.
Qutb-ud-din rose to a high position from the life of a slave. He proved to be the most

capable slave among the slaves of Sultan Muhammad. He was a self-made man who rose to

the status of Sultan by his own merit and services. He possessed the qualities of both head

and heart. He had the good qualities of loyality, generosity, courage and sense of justice.

He was a good diplomat and possessed practical wisdom. He saved the infant Turkish

kingdom by following a policy of war and diplomacy. He was also a seasoned soldier and a

military leader of high ability. As an individual he was both generous and cruel. But he was

not a good administrator as he ruled the country as a military jagir which lacked the

elements of stability.

He was intolerant in the matters of religion. He had destroyed some Hindu Temples and

had constructed mosques out of the materials of the temples. However he had left his tasks

unfinished as he died shortly in 1210 and perhaps could not provide stability to his rule. He

also could not make Delhi entirely free from the coveted eyes of Yeldoz and other Turkish

nobles. These tasks were completed by Iltutmish, his son-in-law and successor. But he had

paved the way for the independence of Delhi and had claimed to be the founder of Turkish

rule in India.

{================}

Q. 5 Compare the economic policies introduced by Khaljis and Taghlugs?

Answer:

The impact of the market reforms of Alauddin Khilji on contemporary Economy and

Society.

The market reform of Alauddin Khilji was one of the most effective and far reaching

economic regulations of the Sultanate period. It did not remain confined to rural economy

but extended to urban market as well. He issued a set of seven regulations which came to

be known as market control measures.

These measures were enacted to regulate the activities of the traders who brought grain to

Delhi. The Sultan fixed the prices of all commoditions from grain to cloths, slaves, cattle etc.

A controller of market (shahna-i-mandi) intelligence officers (barids) and secret spies

(munhiyan) were appointed. The grain merchants were placed under the Shahna-i-mandi.

Regrating (ihtikar) was prohibited.

While ensuring strict control in the market, the Sultan did no? Overlook the regular supply

of grains and other things at lower prices. For controlling the food prices, Alauddin Khilji

tried to control not only the supply of food grains from the villages, and its transportation

to the city by the grain – merchants (Karwanis or banjaras) but also its proper distribution to

the citizens.

His first effort was to see that there were sufficient stocks of food grains with the

government so that the traders did not try to hike up prices by creating an artificial scarcity

or indulging in profiteering (regarding). For this purpose royal stores were set up at Delhi.

Perhaps significant and lasting impact of these reforms was the furthering of the growth of

a market economy in the villages and bringing about a more integral relationship between

the town and the country, the furthering of the process of the internal restructuring of the

sultanate.

Though Alauddin Khilji’s market reforms were oriented more towards administrative and

military necessities than internal restructuring but he adopted a holistic approach to see the

reform working properly. That is why he did not control the price of essential commodities

only, for those meant for direct use by the military.

Instead he tried to control the price of everything from caps to socks, from combs to

needles, vegetables, sweet meats to chapatis etc. Such widespread centralised control was

found to influence every section of the society.

The price, control system affected trade severely. The merchants were unable to realise

sufficient profits. The rule was enforced so rigidly that no corn-dealer, farmer or anyone else

could hold back secretly a mound or half a mound of grain and sell it far above the fixed

price.

The horse merchants were so tightly controlled that, they were fed up with their lives and

wished for death. The severe punishments given to erring merchants made many to stop

business.
The cultivators most certainly would have been affected adversely by the low price of food-

grain and the high land-revenue. It seems they lost on the other hand what they gained

from one. Alauddin Khilji’s policy was to leave the cultivator with so little as to barely

enough for carrying on cultivation and his food requirements.

As a result they were unable to take home the surplus produce even after paying 50 per

cent of their produce as land revenue. They were compelled to sell their grain at a low price

to the merchants who were permitted to purchase grain. The fear of the government was

such that the cultivators would sell even their wives and cattle to pay the land- revenue so

many had lost interest in agriculture.

The impact of Alauddin Khilji’s market reforms on the contemporary society was immense.

The fact that articles were sold at cheap rates in Delhi made many to migrate to Delhi.

Among them were learned men and excellant craftsmen. As a result the fame of Delhi

increased.

The people of Delhi were happy. They were prepared to follow the rules prescribed by the

state. They became more disciplined. Hence crime decreased. They benefited the state very

much.

This created an environment of socio-cultural development. Literature, the mirror of a

society, took a new life. A distinct type of literature was born in the khanqah (hospice) of

Nizamuddin Auliya. It is known as Malfuz (sufi) literature which gives mystic version of the

history between 1308 to 1322.

Fawaid-ul-Fuwad, the first mulfuz literature, was compiled by a disciple of Nizamuddin

Auliya, Amir Hasan Sijzi. Amir Khusro and Ziauddin Barni also belonged to the same period.

The reforms of Alauddin Khilji even touched the fate of the lowest rank of his officials –

Khuts, muqaddams and chaudharis. They were deprived of their Khuti charges for collecting

land-revenue to maintain the royal stores. They were brought at par with other citizens.

Thus, in exaggerated language of Barni, they were reduced to the level of the balhar, or the

lowest of till ‘”age society, the manila. It was a very significant orange in the social structure

of the society.
Alauddin Khilji’s military strength had increased on account of the price control system. It

not only provided strength and stability to the administration but also provided

employment to the people. Through employment he checked the social unrest on the one

hand and on the other hand he saved the people from the Mongol menace,’ controlled the

revolts of local chiefs and led the successful expedition to South India.

The South Indian expedition enabled Alauddin to replenish the treasury, which obviously

benefited the citizens of Delhi. The autocracy of Alauddin also was unchanged because it

gave the people, at least the citizens of Delhi, a comfortable living.

Because of the price control people from adjoining areas flocked to Delhi to purchase grain

at the fixed rates. The benefit of the reforms not only trickled down to other areas but it

also paved the way for the cultural inter course among the people of the Delhi Sultanate. It

resulted into what is now called, a composite culture. .,

The task of transporting food grains from the country side was generally carried out by

karwans and banjaras. They were ordered to form themselves into one corporate body,

giving sureties for each other. They were settled on the banks of the river Jamuna with their

wives, children, goods and cattle.

Ala-ud-Din’s economic policy was guided by the following considerations:

1. To raise as much finance as possible so as to maintain a well- equipped strong and large

army.

2. To reduce the wealth of the nobles and other sections of the society as Ala-ud-Din

believed that too much of wealth with them was the most importance cause of the revolts.

3. To provide essential commodities of daily use so that the soldiers could enjoy a

reasonable standard of living in their pay.

4. To fix up price of the essential commodities and for this to control the market through a

well-regulated system and machinery.

In the words of Dr. P. Saran, “The problem of maintaining the huge army in a good state of

equipment and efficiency with limited resources of the kingdom was the sole motive which
prompted control of all necessities of life so as to make them cheap enough for the soldiery

to maintain themselves on the low salaries which they were to be paid.”

Assessment of the Economic Policy of Ala-ud-Din:

In general it is admitted by most of the historians that Ala-ud-Din succeeded in fulfilling his

objectives by his economic policy. His primary objects were to increase the income of the

state for the maintenance of the army and rooting out the possibilities of revolts. He

achieved both.

However opinions differ regarding the impact of his policy on the peasantry and the

common man. The revenue policy of Ala-ud-Din imposed a heavy burden on the peasantry.

Probably, in some cases, the peasants had to pay 75 per cent to 80 per cent of their income

to the state as taxes. In the words of Dr. Tara Chand, “The policy was suicidal for it killed the

goose that laid the golden egg. It left no incentive for increasing the produce or improving

the method of cultivation.”

Dr. U.N. Dey has commended favourably. He states, “The peasants do not seem to have

materially affected much.” Dr. Ifran Habib has stated, “Ala-ud-Din consciously utilised the

conflict between the two rural ‘classes’ by standing forth as the protector of the ‘weak’

against “strong’ in these villages and was perfectly reasonable.”

Dr. R.S. Tripathi justifies Ala-ud-Din’s policy of confiscating land grants, “He took up this

measure to assert the right of the monarch to deal with all classes of lands, cancelled all

such grants which he did not approve and bestowed others on his own terms.”

Merits of Ala-ud-Din’s Economic Policy:

1. With the abolition of land grants, the state treasury’s revenue increased.

2. By reducing the wealth of the nobles, the chances of internal revolts were minimized.

3. Stern measures adopted to check the malpractices of the revenue officials provided some

relief to the peasants and at the same time provided more revenue to the government.

4. Control over price of essential commodities enabled the soldiers to lead reasonable

standard of life.
5. The system of rationing enabled the people to get relief from natural calamities.

6. Fixing of weights and measures proved very helpful to consumers.

7. By collecting sufficient revenue it became possible for Ala-ud-Din to maintain a strong

army.

Demerits of the Economic policy of Ala-ud-Din:

1. The peasants had to pay high taxes which sometimes were as high as 80 per cent of the

produce of their land. This had an adverse affect on them.

2. The profit margin of the traders was reduced on account of market control. This reduced

their incentive.

3. Economic policy had an adverse affect on agricultural production. The peasants were

required to sell their produce at a fixed price which was not quite remunerative to them,

Their motivation for increased production received some setback.

{================}