@Haider
I hope you don't mind a frivolous intervention, just time-pass, just to cool down after having thoroughly lost my temper reading about some idiotic decisions by people in authority who should have known better. This kind of historical topic, if handled properly, and unless attacked by some t**d without a sense of humour, can add information (not knowledge) and lighten things up; it can also go horribly wrong.
So, hopefully, here goes.
For the sake of knowledge, want to know how you see thousand year of muslims rule over Sub-continent. Also the entry of Mohammad Bin Qasim in Sind. (Addressing only Hindu or Hindu religion follower is not kinda religious profiling, just to get the point of view)(please no bashing)
My assessment is that there are two corrections needed in your original definition, which shouldn't affect the scope of the debate in any significant way, but which does make things more historically accurate:
- The years of "Muslim" rule - itself a tendentious and inflammatory statement, also inaccurate, which is however a different topic for later discussion, should extend from Iltutmish to Aurangzeb, at the latest to the deposition of Bahadur Shah Zafar II. This gives us dates between and 1857. This is not an attempt at propaganda, as frankly, as an agnostic with friends among votaries of both religions, and many more who refuse to be clubbed under either, it doesn't make any difference to me personally. Some of the worst rows I have got into, both here and in PTH, have been with supporters of the Sangh Parivar. So kindly take this as my honest opinion, which you don't really need to pay attention to: most people choose not to pay attention to the significant things I have to say, only to the sensational bits.
- It isn't a good idea to define this rule as being over the sub-continent. Nobody to date, not even the British, have ruled over the entire sub-continent. If anybody wants, I can walk them through the Maurya, the Gupta, the Khilji, the Tughlaq, the Mughal and the British empires and explain my point in detail. For now, this is my personal opinion, and you are free to consign it to the nearest friendly neighbourhood spittoon.
muslims never ruled Bharat for 1000 yrs thats rubbish the moghuls were defeated by the Marathi empire and the Sikh empire
Muslim Period 11001800 CE
Islamic Rulers 12061707 CE
- Delhi Sultanate 12061526 CE
- Deccan Sultanates 14901596 CE
Vijayanagara Empire 13361646 CE
Mughal Empire 15261803 CE
Maratha Empire 16741818 CE
Numerous interesting topics are generated by this comment. I am not sure whether to put my fat head into the Yeti's mouth, or play safe and concentrate on improving my game of backgammon.
Let's try a tentative and cautious wave of a helmet at the end of a bayonet, and see what happens.
Using 'Muslim' as a category is a real downer, as it brings in the basher in all those who aren't 'Muslim'. At the same time, obviously Haidar meant precisely that period of Indian history when strong rulers of the Muslim religion reigned in various parts of India. He obviously wants to know in a broad sense, anecdotally, what non-Muslims think this period stood for. So let us go forward, with a sideways rap on the knuckles for Haidar (sorry!) for being naughty.
Yeti is broadly correct in pointing out the dates, but not accurate. The closest we get to agreement is 1206 to 1707, and we disagree by 150 years; while he wants to stop the clock at the end of Aurangzeb, I think it only fair to go on until the Sepoy Mutiny, 1857, which really removed the last vestiges of Mughal rule from India.
I am sure people will ask what is behind the elimination of either Muhammad bin Qasim in the Sind, or Mahmud of Ghazni, or Iltutmish' master, Muhammad of Ghor. Quite simply, transience, and marginal relevance.
Transient, because bin Qasim's bringing in Arab rule in the Sind was not of long duration, and the entire expedition was unwound within a relatively short duration, soon after bin Qasim's unexpected and wholly undeserved recall and cruel death.
So, too, were Mahmud's smashing raids; they were just that, raids, with no administrative impact on India. On the other hand, there were huge political and social and even anthropological consequences. Given half a chance, I would like to remind people what it entailed, in various aspects.
Finally, the rather more focussed efforts of Muhammad of Ghor. He, too, was transient, in a personal sense; his efforts brought about the Sultanate of Delhi, and initiated a period of immigrant rule of the Gangetic Plain which lasted for a little over 600 years, by itself among the longest lasting durations of imperium in India. The fact that it was split among half a dozen dynasties does detract from the political achievement to some extent, but the duration was not trivial; we are not discussing the Xatraps of the west, the Saka princes, or their Pallava underlings, or even the Kushana or the Indo-Greeks.
The second point was about marginal relevance. bin Qasim, Mahmud and Muhammad were all engaged with the border marches, those territories in fact which are described by the new-fangled Indus Man theories of Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan. While I am a staunch admirer of Chaudhry Sahib, I think his historical proposition needs much more validation before it can be accepted as canonical. That is not to deny its brilliant insights. It is a delightful exposition, but needs time to be matured by discussion and debate. At the moment, it only serves as not-well-understood ammunition during food fights between different sets of amateurs of history. Worth avoiding, just to avoid the loud and shrill tones on both sides.
You have to understand only time when Muslims ruled almost of the S. Asia was under the Mughals..
Right after it got to its peak, it crumbled under pressure from Marathas, Sikhs, etc..
When modern North west India and Pakistan was being invaded by Muslims, Empires like the Cholas wasnt being affected..
Interesting and relevant points, but asynchronous. This could lead to misunderstanding(s) and unnecessary accusations of mischief.
As a matter of fact, the Mughals were strong in the Gangetic Plain, latterly in Bengal, in Rajasthan, and in the Indus Valley. They never managed to get the upper hand over the longest rulers in any part of India for any period, the Ahoms and their 600 year domination of the Brahmaputra basin. Finally, as has been pointed out, their entry into the Deccan was very late, and crumbled into provincialism very, very soon. Far more than the Mughals, it was the Bahmani Kingdom and its successor states which influenced the history of South India, with its three key river basins, counting the Narmada and the Mahanadi out of this.
As regards the maps, they are hugely misleading and asynchronous. This is by no means to suggest that they are deliberately so. It is just that not everybody in this military studies and analysis forum, which concentrates on contemporary, not on historical military issues, may be aware that what is being described is the high point of Chola imperium, in the 11th century AD. At this time, it was just about very broadly contemporary with Mahmud of Ghazni (Mahmud died in 1030, so he preceded this period by about a decade, although Chola power was burgeoning even during his dates). While the example is good in its own way, perhaps a better example could be found.
@Yeti
You forgot the Ghaznavids and Timurids, these were Turk - Ruled Muslim Empires which Conquerd Parts of India !
Strictly speaking, the first was transient, the second is the Mughal Empire, dealt with separately. Yeti hasn't forgotten them at all.
Indeed, the mughals too were a Turkic people.
Quite. Nobody, not even a Turk can figure out the details of Turkish clans. The Mughals, the Timurids, to be precise, were Barlas Turks by some accounts, Chaghatai by others. There are reasons why Timur their ancestor described himself as he did; primarily to cover himself in the glory of Chengiz Khan. But this is about India, not about that other fascinating region, Central Asia.
They were Turkic, and Timur plundered and left. Ghaznavid had parts of Pakistan and North west India.
They are a hybrid of many peoples.
I am baffled.
Timurid refers not to Timur, but to his descendants, Babur onwards.
Thought it fell under the Moghul empire?
Umm, Ghaznavid, no, Timurid, yes; in fact, it is the Mughal empire.
The Ghaznavid empire grew to cover much of present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northwest India, and the Ghaznavids are generally credited with launching Islam into Hindu-dominated India. In addition to the wealth accumulated through raiding Indian cities, and exacting tribute from Indian Rajas the Ghaznavids also benefited from their position as an intermediary along the trade routes between China and the Mediterranean. They were however unable to hold power for long and by 1040 the Seljuks had taken over their Persian domains and a century later the Ghurids took over their remaining sub-continental lands.
Transient, and marginal. My own opinion only, and I'm not even a good Hindu. So don't anyone rush out of the house and wreak dire vengeance for this.
Timur, Ghazni, Muhhamed-Bin-Qasim, etc looted and brought the loot back to their land. Mughals, India was their land.
btw Why have you added "Hindu" religion ? The people who got the worst were the poor Buddhists, the Islamic invasions marked the end of Buddhism in the subcontinent
Technically true; it must be remembered that Buddhism was in retreat from 800 AD onwards, and this catastrophic turn, and the wholesale massacres that followed, were the last straw.
First of all India was NOT under Muslim rule for 1000 years..I guess you are not including South-India,Marathas,Sikhs and Rajputs in your INDIA..
Regarding Muhammad Bin Qasim,Mahmood Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghouri..
They were looters who had a great fighting force at their disposal who plundered the Hindukush region and this was a normal thing those days..
If i have to choose the most powerful King in the Indian subcontinent , I would choose Chandragupta Mourya , Ashok , Porus (i know many people here believe that Alexandar defeated Porus but what i have come to know after extensive research ,thats not the truth.) , Shershah Suri , Hyder Ali,Tipu Sultan and Maharaja Ranjeet singh..
Three comments:
1. I am afraid that the Marathas, Sikhs and Rajputs were very much part of the north Indian empires during this period, specifically the Khilji, the Tughlaq, and the Mughal, and including others as well.
2. bin Qasim was emphatically not concerned with the Hindu Kush. Mahmud's area of raiding covered far, far more than the Hindu Kush. So did Muhammad of Ghor's attacks. Perhaps we need to review which region we are referring to. The Hindu Kush refers to the mountain boundaries between north-west India and Afghanistan. By that definition, my second point is relevant.
3. I have known that Porus' defeat at the hands of Alexander is moot, ever since my father's presentation of the matter to the Asiatic Society in the 70s. Professor R. C. Majumdar was still alive and present; his reaction was non-committal, and more or less on the lines that while the circumstantial evidence was strong, history was not written on circumstantial evidence but on the comparative weight of sources, as judged by trained historical minds.
So while agreeing with you informally, I must remind you that in historical terms, this is not yet accepted.