Results 1 to 20 of 244

Thread: Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact

    In the post Harshavardhana Era the regional forces asserted their authority in Northern and Southern India and their remained even no semblance of central authority to hold all parts of India together. In northern India there arose several independent big and small kingdoms during the next centuries who carried on relentless wars against one another to establish their hold on larger territories than they had captured. Their mutual fight led to further rise of petty kingdoms. Thus a sense of uncertainty on political scene of Indian political landscape resulted in emergence of chaotic political situation in most parts of the country.

    In the neighbouring region of Arabia and Iran the Islamic hold was on the increase and their religious and political leadership was established in the hands of Caliph/Khalifa. The Islamic armies carried out unbelievable successful attacks in various parts of Asia, Africa and even in Europe.

    In view of weak political power of Indian rulers, invasions of these Islamist forces started with invasion of Sindh by Mohd Qasim in 712 AD but their magnitude and frequency increased with the foundation of Ghaznavid kingdom in Afghanistan. Their initial success in these invasions swelled their number of army men as people from several parts of the central Asia and Arab countries joined them ostensibly to have share in war booty. After Ghaznavis appeared Mohd Ghori who not only took booty from India but also founded a kingdom here which after his death was known as Sultanate. The Sultanate founded by Qutubuddin Aibek lasted till the advent of Mughals under Babur in 1526.

    To know the causes, events and their impact of these invasions and to assess the reasons of the failure of Indians of those times, the thread invites well reasoned write ups supported by contemporary sources. Only relevant comments may be shared by the participants.

    Kindly remember we are going to discuss a long time historic process which is a very wide field of study having deep impact on the growth of India as a nation with unity of diversity and diversity in unity. It must not be forgotten that the fight was between mostly the ruling elite heads which incidentally professed Hinduism and Islam. The fight was for retaining the hold by the former and the latter were engaged in snatching it and this they did !

    How, why and with what results are the broad issues of those times [it must not be coloured with modern or contemporary issues or events or comparisons between the two religions, please] to be taken up for in-depth study through discussion.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 18th, 2014), RKhatkar (September 21st, 2014), sukhbirhooda (September 22nd, 2014)

  3. #2
    The initial interaction between Hindu India started in peaceful manner in the southern India and with armed conflict between the two sides in the Northern India.

    India came into contact with the Arab world in remote ancient times through sea traders, the interaction between the two continued to grow at the same time between the cultures of the two. The people of the region on the seashore area of Arabian Sea having rich production of spices attracted the first interaction between the people of Arab who had adopted Islam and the local people of India. This relationship between them was pacific acceptance of the good points of one another.

    On the other end, the people of northern India came into contact in a big way when Mohd bin Qasim led people came to India with the Islamic forces having sword and spears in their hands in 712 AD. A section of the divided local people of Sindh joined the invaders to get rid of the tyranny of and prosecution by the ruler.
    This event led to a fierce fight between the inflated in numbers of joining Indians with the forces of Khalifa led by his nephew Qasim and Raja Dahir in which the latter was worsted in the battle. The victor retired to his native country along with a considerable number of Indians with him. This led to continued relationship between the people of Sindh and the state founded by the Khalifa. A few people started professing Islam in Sindh and thus started growth of pockets of alien land borne followers.

    Important point here to note is that victory of the foreign raiders was ensured by a group of Indians joining hands with them. Why did they do so, is a big question. It was neither attraction to new faith/religion nor hate to the prevalent religion. Then why did they do so !
    The answer is wrongs done to them by the ruling elite on the basis of faulty social system current in that area complled them to do so. There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side. Hindus had joined hands with the invading armies to get deliverance from their tyrant king Raja Dahir and this they did with the help of Qasim.


    After this incident there continued lull on the political front but trade and commerce and social interaction continued to flourish for next about one and a half century till Ghaznavis appeared as rulers at Ghazni.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  4. #3
    Comments and contribution of the participants are invited to take forward the theme of study in accordance with the timeline/chronological order.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  5. #4
    Subuktgin, the ruler of Ghazni carried out raids on some parts of India in tenth century AD and a number of people professing Islam who had joined in his army started to live in the areas raided by him. Then came on the scene M. Ghaznavi, who carried out sword and fire to get as much booty as possible from wherever he could lay his hands including Hindu Temples. These hindu religious shrines were ill protected and fell easy prey to the invaders and starting from loot of Jawalamukhi temple near Kangra increased the frequency and fury of the invading armies culminating in their loot of Somnath temple near the banks of Arabian sea in 1025 AD.

    During the return journey, the Ghaznavis faced the attack of Jats who carried away much of the wealth which the invaders were taking away to Ghanavi. This encouraged M.Ghaznavi to aim his last invasion against the Jats. The Jats gave a befitting reply to him and in the fight he was wounded. The wound proved fatal for him as he could never recover from its effects and he passed away leaving behind enormous wealth collected during his several raids of northern India.

    The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year. No concrete steps seem to have been taken by the ruling elite to stop the advancing armies and to protect the wealth and people of the country being carried away by the invading hordes from Ghazni and beyond. The booty hungry people swelled the number of Ghanavi invaders each time while the resistance on the part of people of India thinned out with each successive invasion.

    Why it was so remains a big question before the inquisitive readers ! What led apathy to Indian mind : Socio-religious and cultural milieu or political culture of the time! What ????

    Here more questions arise, what the then ruling kings and elite were doing at the time of invasions; and what prevented the rulers from forging a united front to stop the invaders beyond the borders of India as well as to know What was the impact of these raids on India !
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 26th, 2014 at 08:18 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  6. #5
    Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

    Aur doosri jagah likah hai:
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post

    The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year.
    Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

    Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romar For This Useful Post:

    prashantacmet (September 29th, 2014), Prikshit (December 3rd, 2014)

  8. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Romar View Post
    Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

    Aur doosri jagah likah hai:


    Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

    Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?
    Read again, your doubt will automatically be cleared as there is no contradiction between the two statements under refrence.

    The first comment relates to M. Qasim's invasion of Sindh when a considerable number of Indians joined hands with the invaders to punish Raja Dahir.

    The second quote relates to M. Ghaznavi's attacks on India.

    The time line between the two events separates their purpose or causes of attacks as well as pattern of fight carried out by the Indians against their attackers.

    There was no 'JEHAD' involved in either case. First was to take revenge against the loot of some ships and the second was to satisfy the lust for getting Indian wealth of a ruler of barren lands in and around Ghazni [who had no connection directly or indirectly with the Caliphs].

    The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  9. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    A section of the divided local people of Sindh joined the invaders to get rid of the tyranny of and prosecution by the ruler.
    Doesn't a section of people always support the invaders? Tell me one war where a section of population didn't support the invaders. This is very biased rhetoric to say the least.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    The victor retired to his native country along with a considerable number of Indians with him. This led to continued relationship between the people of Sindh and the state founded by the Khalifa.
    Are you talking about the swathes of slaves that were trafficked? This is some jugglery of words! You make it sound as if they were invited for a feast into the Arabia in jovial atmosphere of mutual appreciation.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Important point here to note is that victory of the foreign raiders was ensured by a group of Indians joining hands with them.
    Which was this group of people joined hands with "foreign raiders" against Dahir? Can you kindly specify?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    The answer is wrongs done to them by the ruling elite on the basis of faulty social system current in that area complled them to do so. There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side. Hindus had joined hands with the invading armies to get deliverance from their tyrant king Raja Dahir and this they did with the help of Qasim.
    Please give instances of "tyranny" of Dahir, and the "faulty social system".
    Last edited by sahij; November 3rd, 2014 at 03:41 PM.

  10. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by sahij View Post

    Which was this group of people joined hands with "foreign raiders" against Dahir? Can you kindly specify?
    Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.


    Quote Originally Posted by sahij View Post
    Please give instances of "tyranny" of Dahir, and the "faulty social system".
    daahir and chach mistreated jats. they imposed disgraceful regulations on them. Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!. cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.
    Correct, but reasons range from oppression to personal gains. And if I remember correctly, some of them even feigned a capture by Qasim - so that can hardly be called "honourable" conduct.

    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!.
    She was Jat, and not a real sister, but his step sister and the marriage was never consummated - that might be unacceptable social conduct, but doesn't really qualify as "tyranny" or "faulty social system". Irrespective of that Dahir was brave - so I give that much credit to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.
    Exactly, (though I had originally replied to DrRajpalSingh), nothing changed due to this invasion. In fact, brahmins were left out of most of the trouble because they pleaded in front of Qasim. So the claim that somehow islam was the savior or provided deliverance is a false one. Further the war was fought on the pretext of muslim women captured by some people (and consequently on religious grounds to extend muslim dominion) and had nothing to do with Dahir or his "tyranny".
    Last edited by sahij; November 4th, 2014 at 03:18 PM.

  12. #10
    Reawakening among Hindu Saints to reform society led to appearance of increased social reformers compositely known as BHAKTI MOVEMENT SAINTS as well as appearance of increased activities of SUFI SAINTS.


    Both these groups enriched Indian social fabric and Literary heritage.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by sahij View Post
    .................................................. .................Exactly, (though I had originally replied to DrRajpalSingh), nothing changed due to this invasion. In fact, brahmins were left out of most of the trouble because they pleaded in front of Qasim. So the claim that somehow islam was the savior or provided deliverance is a false one. Further the war was fought on the pretext of muslim women captured by some people (and consequently on religious grounds to extend muslim dominion) and had nothing to do with Dahir or his "tyranny".
    Friend kindly share your findings by quoting source please !
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    vk23 (November 9th, 2014)

  15. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.




    daahir and chach mistreated jats. they imposed disgraceful regulations on them. Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!. cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.
    Not have much knowledge about it. Please provide credible proof. What were those regulations specificly for jats ? How they mistreated us? married her sister & what about the one who fought him ? his generation is marrying with sisters ..

  16. #13
    Well, without going into the good and the bad of it, the foreign invasions brought in a lot of changes to the sub-continent, the effects of which we still see to this day. From our language, to our dress, our food, music etc is directly correlated to these invasions.
    Pagdi Sambhal Jatta..!

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to swaich For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (November 8th, 2014), vk23 (November 9th, 2014)

  18. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RathiJi View Post
    Not have much knowledge about it. Please provide credible proof. What were those regulations specificly for jats ? How they mistreated us? married her sister & what about the one who fought him ? his generation is marrying with sisters ..
    Read "chachnama", read on Jatland wiki or just google you will find lot of matter to read
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (November 8th, 2014)

  20. #15
    मित्रों/भाइयो बहनों, (मोदी वाला उच्चारण नहीं )

    मुझे नहीं लगता यहाँ कोई मुस्लिम विरोधी है या हिन्दुओ और मुस्लिमो के बीच खाई पैदा करना चाहता है। दरअसल कुछ लोग अतिराष्ट्रवादी है जो इस्लाम के बढ़ते प्रभाव से आशंकित है। जिस प्रकार से आज भी अधिसंख्य मुस्लिम मदरसों से पढ़कर देश में रिक्शा और रेहड़ी वालो की फ़ौज में लगातार इज़ाफा कर रहे है। उसने हमारे उग्र राष्ट्रवादियो के सामने रोज़गार का गंभीर संकट पैदा कर दिया। इन हालात के मद्देनज़र अगर कोई राष्ट्रवादी भावनाओ में बहकर कुछ बोलता या लिखता है तो उसे गम्भीरता से नहीं लेना चाहिए।
    अब आते है जाट थ्योरी पर। सबकी अलग अलग है सबने अपने हिसाब से जाटो की परिभाषा घड रखी है। सबके गले में एक ढोल है और अपने हिसाब से बजा रहे है। किसी को चौधर चाहिए, किसी को मुख्यमंत्री। कोई मंत्री के चक्कर में , कुछ ऐसे भी है जिन्हें गाँव की प्रधानी मिल जाये तो भी गंगा नहा ले। पर यहाँ इतने लोगो के बीच कैसे करें "मन की बात"। अजीब दुविधा है पहले ये तो तय हो कि कौन असली और कौन है नकली जाट।

    ----फनहित में जारी (आयुष के सौजन्य से)
    I have a fine sense of the ridiculous, but no sense of humor.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ayushkadyan For This Useful Post:

    cooljat (November 10th, 2014), RKhatkar (November 11th, 2014), sanjeev1984 (November 9th, 2014)

  22. #16
    Name*Of*The Book:*Tarikhu'l-Hind*************Name Of The Historian: Abu*Rihan*Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni*al-Khwarizmi.*************About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan*Mahmud*of*Ghazni*(AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century.*************The Muslim Rulers He*Wrote*About:************** a.*Jalam*ibn*Shaiban*(9th century AD)***************Multan*(Punjab)************** "A famous idol of theirs was that of*Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called*Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last*Kritayuga*.....When Muhammad*Ibn*Alkasim*IbnAlmunaibh*conquered*Multan , he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the*Karmatiansoccupied*Multan,*Jalam*Ibn*Shaiban,* the*usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."************** b. Sultan*Mahmud*of*Gazni*(AD 997-1030)***************Thanesar*(Haryana)************ ** "The city of*Taneshar*is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called*Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the chakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in*Ghazna, together with the Lord of*Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the*Mahadeva, called*Linga."***************Somnath*(Gujrat)************** "The*linga*he raised was the stone of*Somnath, for soma means the moon and*natan*means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince*Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence,*Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with*Cakrasvamin, an idol of*bronze, that*had been brought fromTaneshar. Another part of the idol from*Somnath*lies before the door of the mosque of*Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet."***
    Dr.sahab how you can prove he was not a true muslim?

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to agodara For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (October 2nd, 2014)

  24. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

    The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.
    Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
    he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
    And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
    babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
    thanks
    Last edited by agodara; October 2nd, 2014 at 11:19 PM.

  25. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by agodara View Post
    Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
    he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
    And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
    babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
    thanks
    Point 1 - Agreed.
    Point 2 - Name of his father was Umar Shaikh Mirza who was a petty chief of Fargana in central Asia.
    Point 3 - As per his autobiography, he stopped drinking on the evening preceding his battle of Khanwa against Rana Sanga, whom he calls 'pagan' who had failed him in keeping his word to join him with his forces coming from Agra Side towards Delhi against Ibrahim Lodhi, the then Sultan of India.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  26. #19
    Very Nice Information.
    Read Free Job Alert Notification.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •