Which Indian King/Historical event is most under appreciated in Indian History?

[temp1994]

1) For a non muslim, can jaziya be waived by joining the army? (the general commentary says for protection offered by muslims)
2) why Jaziya amount or calculation menthod not prescribed unlike for Zakat?

That should answer your questions

Difference between Jaziya and Zakat is given in these links in a tabular form.

Difference between Jizya and Zakat « The Mindset

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know how to post tables. If you could, you should post them for sake of argument.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

On the whole Aurangzeb was an honest man and hence his actions were never kept hidden, he never had a double face...

Ashoka was a far more intruguing character. He committed mass murders that were unprecedented in those times and still renounced everything!

Some other folks from India whom I find interesting are - Rajaraja Chola, Sher Shah Suri and Shivaji and @Armstrong the Magnificient.

Buttsy - Thanks for accepting that in blod.^^

Actually it was Rajendra Chola who took his troops to Sri Vijaya and expanded his empire. However Rajaraja is more famous than Rajendra for his famous Tanjore temple , his simple nature and his unvawering sense of Justice. Rajaraja's ambition was capturing whole of Lanka in his lifetime, which he couldnt achieve. But Rajendra achieved that and more than that.

SherShahsuri is my favourite Muslim emperor.

 

[scorpionx]

I did not answered that question because i would have been repeating myself.

No,Eaton nowhere assured that mass conversion took place due to political patronage but you are not getting the point.I have drawn my own deductions from same argument used by Eaton in order to reach at a completely different conclusion.

Eaton uses population distribution to prove the point that Islamic conversions had no relation with political power of Islam or conversion by sword did not happened. I used same population distribution to prove that Islamic conversion are directly related to political power of Islam.

The difference between my deductions and Eaton's deduction is due to fact that Eaton consider locus of nominal political power of Islamic empire as a indicator of ease with which Islamists could convert by sword, while i consider cumulative time a piece of land remained under Islamic political control as a metric of political power of Islam.

It was my deduction from Eaton's population distribution argument that mass conversions took place due to political patronage.It is open for everyone to see that percentage of muslims on a piece of land completely corelates with the amount of time their area has been under muslim rule.

I would give an example from Physics to demonstrate difference between mine an Eaton's deduction.

For a Hollow cylinder, mass moment of Inertia of that cylinder passes through it's center. According to Eaton's line of thought; Since MoI of a hollow cylinder lies to the center of cylinder but there is nothing around cylinder, the mass of cylinder has no effect on MoI of the cylinder and rim is useless. I on the other hand argue that since all the mass is at the rim, it is most important part of cylinder.



My gripe with Eaton was not that Eaton's " Accretion and reform " theory is completely bogus. Some conversion to Islam must have happned by this process. My gripe with him was that he tried to bowl a curve ball by trying to use a fact( population distribution ) in favor of his argument when in reality that fact completely disproves his assumptions.

Eaton’s refutation of forcible conversion theory rests upon an assertion which is further we go from the very heart of the Islamic State, its military and political influence weakens. Hence weakens its administrative power to convert its subjects to another faith. Now the question comes, why the external peripheries of Islamic Empire displays such unsettling tendencies. The answer lies in the organic structure of Turko-Afghan administrative system; the reign during which most of the conversion in India is believed to be happened.

The centre of the Islamic state or as it has been termed as the “core” by Eaton always faced difficulties to hold its control over the regions that was far away from it. Whenever a ruler died or got defeated by war, the local military commanders revolted. For example, Bengal never gave slightest respite to Iltutmish and threw off its allegiance whenever it got faint opportunity. During the reign of Razia, the governor of Lahore rebelled against her. Before she returned to Delhi, governor of Tabarhinda revolted. Balban’s one of the most fatal failure was his inability to control Tughril’s rebellion in Bengal. Even 150 years after, Firuz Shah was still struggling to keep Bengal under his firm grip. One of the major reasons why Tughlaq wanted to shift his capital to Deogiri was to have a better centralized command and control all over his empire.

What Eaton has tried to pursue is, perhaps the growing incapacity of the Turkic Rule at Delhi to control its distant patches conquered in an unprecedented time. Before we could have a consolidated centralized rule all over India, the Turkic rule collapsed. The basis of Eaton’s assumption is if the “Islamic conquerors” wished to convert its subjects forcefully, they could have done it with quite ease in the area where they had firm command and military presence i.e. upper Ganga doab, not in Bengal and North West where they had limited and fragile access to the local governors. It is just a theory proposed by Eaton, but the way this theory has been refuted as a "leftist version" or "fruits of poisonous history" is utterly absurd and intellectual parochialism to me.

 

[Armstrong]

Eaton’s refutation of forcible conversion theory rests upon an assertion which is further we go from the very heart of the Islamic State, its military and political influence weakens. Hence weakens its administrative power to convert its subjects to another faith. Now the question comes, why the external peripheries of Islamic Empire displays such unsettling tendencies. The answer lies in the organic structure of Turko-Afghan administrative system; the reign during which most of the conversion in India is believed to be happened.

The centre of the Islamic state or as it has been termed as the “core” by Eaton always faced difficulties to hold its control over the regions that was far away from it. Whenever a ruler died or got defeated by war, the local military commanders revolted. For example, Bengal never gave slightest respite to Iltutmish and threw off its allegiance whenever it got faint opportunity. During the reign of Razia, the governor of Lahore rebelled against her. Before she returned to Delhi, governor of Tabarhinda revolted. Balban’s one of the most fatal failure was his inability to control Tughril’s rebellion in Bengal. Even 150 years after, Firuz Shah was still struggling to keep Bengal under his firm grip. One of the major reasons why Tughlaq wanted to shift his capital to Deogiri was to have a better centralized command and control all over his empire.

What Eaton has tried to pursue is, perhaps the growing incapacity of the Turkic Rule at Delhi to control its distant patches conquered in an unprecedented time. Before we could have a consolidated centralized rule all over India, the Turkic rule collapsed. The basis of Eaton’s assumption is if the “Islamic conquerors” wished to convert its subjects forcefully, they could have done it with quite ease in the area where they had firm command and military presence i.e. upper Ganga doab, not in Bengal and North West where they had limited and fragile access to the local governors. It is just a theory proposed by Eaton, but the way this theory has been refuted as a "leftist version" or "fruits of poisonous history" is utterly absurd and intellectual parochialism to me.

You know it may also be because of what Eaton states that most of these Muslim Monarchs who came to build indigenous empires in India came to grant patronage to certain Sufi Orders for Political purposes - Something about deriving greater legitimacy through association.....!

Now I don't know what was the case with Bengal but quite a few Sufi Saints on this side came from Persia or Iraq like the Chistis or Naqshbandis and it maybe so that they settled down near the peripheries because those were the first Non-Muslim settlements they came in contact with. Later their Orders created more localised Sufis like Sultan Bahoo, Baba Bulleh Shah, Shah Abdul Lateef Bhittai etc.

 

[scorpionx]

You know it may also be because of what Eaton states that most of these Muslim Monarchs who came to build indigenous empires in India came to grant patronage to certain Sufi Orders for Political purposes - Something about deriving greater legitimacy through association.....!

Now I don't know what was the case with Bengal but quite a few Sufi Saints on this side came from Persia or Iraq like the Chistis or Naqshbandis and it maybe so that they settled down near the peripheries because those were the first Non-Muslim settlements they came in contact with. Later their Orders created more localised Sufis like Sultan Bahoo, Baba Bulleh Shah, Shah Abdul Lateef Bhittai etc.

This is an excellent read on Islam in Bengal. It gives a fine insight of the whole process. You can give it a read when you are free.

The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760

 

[Prayas]

I havent read full reply yet but there is no one mention Satvahna still 5pages.they r one of best kindom in history and Indian calendar started from a day when Satvahna Empire established

They rule current day Andhra,Maharashtra,Karnataka to Delhi

 

[temp1994]

Eaton’s refutation of forcible conversion theory rests upon an assertion which is further we go from the very heart of the Islamic State, its military and political influence weakens. Hence weakens its administrative power to convert its subjects to another faith. Now the question comes, why the external peripheries of Islamic Empire displays such unsettling tendencies. The answer lies in the organic structure of Turko-Afghan administrative system; the reign during which most of the conversion in India is believed to be happened.

The centre of the Islamic state or as it has been termed as the “core” by Eaton always faced difficulties to hold its control over the regions that was far away from it. Whenever a ruler died or got defeated by war, the local military commanders revolted. For example, Bengal never gave slightest respite to Iltutmish and threw off its allegiance whenever it got faint opportunity. During the reign of Razia, the governor of Lahore rebelled against her. Before she returned to Delhi, governor of Tabarhinda revolted. Balban’s one of the most fatal failure was his inability to control Tughril’s rebellion in Bengal. Even 150 years after, Firuz Shah was still struggling to keep Bengal under his firm grip. One of the major reasons why Tughlaq wanted to shift his capital to Deogiri was to have a better centralized command and control all over his empire.

What Eaton has tried to pursue is, perhaps the growing incapacity of the Turkic Rule at Delhi to control its distant patches conquered in an unprecedented time. Before we could have a consolidated centralized rule all over India, the Turkic rule collapsed. The basis of Eaton’s assumption is if the “Islamic conquerors” wished to convert its subjects forcefully, they could have done it with quite ease in the area where they had firm command and military presence i.e. upper Ganga doab, not in Bengal and North West where they had limited and fragile access to the local governors. It is just a theory proposed by Eaton, but the way this theory has been refuted as a "leftist version" or "fruits of poisonous history" is utterly absurd and intellectual parochialism to me.

I could not make head and tail of your argument since you are repeating those point which have been explained by me.


The mistake Eaton makes ( and you are so vehemently arguing for ) is that he conflates " Political power of Delhi sultanate" with "Political power of Islam".

All example you have given of revolts shows lack of consolidation of power of Delhi sultanate in areas far away from it's capital, not lack of consolidation of power of Islam. Whatever may be political situation may be,how many times a governor may change in peripheral areas, the ruler in those areas was always a muslim.

Thus while political power of Delhi sultanate may be weak in Lahore or Multan compared to Delhi, but Political power of Islam by virtue of those areas being incessantly under Muslim rule, irrespective of how many times the ruler is changed, was greatest.Political power of Islam comes from unbroken incessant muslim rule in Punjab and Bengal, whether under Emperor or governor compared to UP/Bihar where every 20 years, Sultanate shrinked to Delhi only ,and where Rajput kings regularly defeated various sultans.

Political power of Islam in a place could be taken as proportional to number of years a muslim ruler ruled over that place.

I simple proved that there is direct correlation between " Political power of Islam " and percentage of muslims in every part of India.Percentage of muslims in each state of India correlated with the number of years that place was under muslim rule. This proves that majority of conversions occurred due to militaristic/administrative reasons, a euphemism for Sword and Jiziya conversion.

What difference does it matter whether Punjab was ruled by Razia or Tabirhinda. Both were muslims and it did not changed status of Islam.



I could attack Eaton's argument from a completely different direction.Since Eaton claims that areas on periphery of Islamic empire were more easily Islamized, why is it that Orrisa, MP, and Chattishgarh have very low muslim population even after being at periphery of Islamic rule. Eaton's argument does not make reliable predictions.

I havent read full reply yet but there is no one mention Satvahna still 5pages.they r one of best kindom in history and Indian calendar started from a day when Satvahna Empire established

They rule current day Andhra,Maharashtra,Karnataka to Delhi

Saka Calander does not start with establishment of Satvahana empire but from day when Gautmiputra satkarni defeated Sakas.

 

[scorpionx]

The mistake Eaton makes ( and you are so vehemently arguing for ) is that he conflates " Political power of Delhi sultanate" with "Political power of Islam".
All example you have given of revolts shows lack of consolidation of power of Delhi sultanate in areas far away from it's capital, not lack of consolidation of power of Islam. Whatever may be political situation may be,how many times a governor may change in peripheral areas, the ruler in those areas was always a muslim.

Eaton is not an idiot that he would conflate between political power of Turkic rule with political power of Islam.If you had read his articles more thoroughly with patience you would have known that he said exactly about this same confusion that proponents of Sword theory were suffering from. He writes about it which you think he has been confused about and I quote,

"Moreover, proponents of this theory seem to have confused conversion to the Islamic religion with the extension of Turko-Iranian rule in North India between 1200 and 1760, a confusion probably originating in too literal a translation of primary Persian accounts narrating the “Islamic” conquest of India. As Yohanan Friedmann has observed, in these accounts one frequently meets with such ambiguous phrases as “they submitted to Islam” (“iṭā‘at-i Islām numūdand”), or “they came under submission to Islam” (“dar iṭā‘at-i Islām āmadand”), in which “Islam” might mean either the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam.” But a contextual reading of such passages usually favors one of the latter two interpretations, especially as these same sources often refer to Indo-Turkish armies as the lashkar-i Islām, or “army of Islam,” and not the lashkar-i Turkān, or “army of Turks.” In other words, it was the Indo-Muslim state, and, more explicitly, its military arm, to which people were said to have submitted, and not the Islamic faith."

Political power of Islam in a place could be taken as proportional to number of years a muslim ruler ruled over that place.

I simple proved that there is direct correlation between " Political power of Islam " and percentage of muslims in every part of India.Percentage of muslims in each state of India correlated with the number of years that place was under muslim rule. This proves that majority of conversions occurred due to militaristic/administrative reasons, a euphemism for Sword and Jiziya conversion.

Not necessarily. Fundamental flaw of your argument is there are similar regions in India which have been dominated by political Islam to the same or even much extent compared to North West and Bengal. If time-degree of conversion proportion is to be believed would it explain the state of Hyderabad or Junagadh which were ruled by Muslim rulers till 1950s and not Bengal which saw the departure of its Islamic rule with the fall of Siraj in 1757?

could attack Eaton's argument from a completely different direction.Since Eaton claims that areas on periphery of Islamic empire were more easily Islamized, why is it that Orrisa, MP, and Chattishgarh have very low muslim population even after being at periphery of Islamic rule. Eaton's argument does not make reliable predictions.

Eaton's argument does not necessarily rest upon refutation of sword theory; he has built up his thesis on a gradual conversion theory which was certainly much plausible in case of Bengal where still the signatures of amalgamation of Islamic faith with the thousand years old non-Brahminic Hindu beliefs can clearly be seen in an area where people have been converted on a more massive degree than any other part of India; however these are thesis. You are free to believe it or reject it. But if you think it represents the leftists or "anti-nationalist" version of history as it is presumed by most right wing historians you are, Sir sadly mistaken.

 

[scorpionx]

This proves that majority of conversions occurred due to militaristic/administrative reasons, a euphemism for Sword and Jiziya conversion.

This is another misconception and I am not sure where did you get this fact from. Historian Satish Chandra in his Medieval India writes, "Regarding the economic impact of Jizyah on poor Hindus, it should be borne in mind that the Hindus had the reputation of being very strong in their faith, this being conceded by sufis, such as Nizamuddin Auliya, many poets and other thinkers. Although jizyah had been levied and collected since the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, it had not led to any large scale conversions. Nor did it happen during Aurangzeb's reign, else Aurangzeb would have been praised to the skies for his great success. As is well known, large scale conversions in Sindh, West Punjab, Kashmir and East Bengal had taken place much before Aurangzeb's accession."

 

[temp1994]

Not necessarily. Fundamental flaw of your argument is there are similar regions in India which have been dominated by political Islam to the same or even much extent compared to North West and Bengal. If time-degree of conversion proportion is to be believed would it explain the state of Hyderabad or Junagadh which were ruled by Muslim rulers till 1950s and not Bengal which saw the departure of its Islamic rule with the fall of Siraj in 1757?

Apples and oranges.

Both Hyderabad and Junagarh were part of British Indian empire. They could not levy Jiziya, could not convert by sword, were not only source of gainful employment ( British government was there). Apart from funding, Islam did not enjoyed any asymmetric advantage in these states.

This is another misconception and I am not sure where did you get this fact from. Historian Satish Chandra in his Medieval India writes, "Regarding the economic impact of Jizyah on poor Hindus, it should be borne in mind that the Hindus had the reputation of being very strong in their faith, this being conceded by sufis, such as Nizamuddin Auliya, many poets and other thinkers. Although jizyah had been levied and collected since the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, it had not led to any large scale conversions. Nor did it happen during Aurangzeb's reign, else Aurangzeb would have been praised to the skies for his great success. As is well known, large scale conversions in Sindh, West Punjab, Kashmir and East Bengal had taken place much before Aurangzeb's accession."

Aurangzeb, even though having a very bad reputation, was moderate compared to most of Sultanate Kings. Kashmir, West Punjab and SIndh had undergone extreme form of oppression. Can't say much about Bengal, but it is one region which never slipped out of hand of Muslims , except for a short period of time.

 

[Shark2]

Thanks for the compliment.
Superpower -100 yrs of peak maurya rule.100 yrs of peak gupta rule.150 yrs of peak mughal rule(akbar to aurangzeb).Note in all these cases it was not THE sole superpower of its time in world but counted among the superpowers of that era.
two other examples close would be sultanate under alauddin khilji and chola empire peak(50 yrs).

I didn't understand first part of ur question.

From the 8th to 10th century India was also one of the Superpowers of the World as India was ruled during this period
by the Rashtrakuta Empire and Pratihara Empire. Both Dynasties defeated the Arab invaders and the Rashtrskuta Empire
was even described by the Arabs as one of the 4 great Empires of the World.

 

[scorpionx]

Apples and oranges.

Both Hyderabad and Junagarh were part of British Indian empire. They could not levy Jiziya, could not convert by sword, were not only source of gainful employment ( British government was there). Apart from funding, Islam did not enjoyed any asymmetric advantage in these states.







Aurangzeb, even though having a very bad reputation, was moderate compared to most of Sultanate Kings. Kashmir, West Punjab and SIndh had undergone extreme form of oppression. Can't say much about Bengal, but it is one region which never slipped out of hand of Muslims , except for a short period of time.

Apples and oranges!! Better I rest my case here if it did not reject the patronage theory. And Aurangzeb suddenly becomes more moderate!!!Good luck with your theories.I am wasting my time.

 

[temp1994]

Apples and oranges!! Better I rest my case here if it did not reject the patronage theory. And Aurangzeb suddenly becomes more moderate!!!Good luck with your theories.I am wasting my time.

Everything is relative.

Aurangzeb with his Jiziya and iconoclastic zeal would be moderate to Sikanders 'Islam or Death' policy.

 

[Levina]

Irfan Habib's "An Atlas of Mughal Empire", Oxford Univ. Press, Delhi. (1982) is a good read, though coming from a 'Commie'.
Edicts from the Mughal harem (IAD oriental) - By S.A.Tirmizi (asfaik)

The edicts/firmans of his time in particular are preserved in Bikaner Museum, Rajasthan, India.

He left behind a crumbling empire, that would see bickering jagirdars fighting over puny territories, squabbling etc until the Marathas spanned the nation and brought some order. Even that did not last as the infighting led to a general weakness that was amply exploited by the British (and other colonial powers).


Posted some. ^^
Bikaner is a place where you can come and see but online...there must be some. Will let you know.

Oops!
I've spent 3 yrs of my life in Bikaner and visited the museum too. I wish back then I knew how important those farmaans were (not as if I remember seeing them)

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And Aurangzeb suddenly becomes more moderate!

Actually Aurangzeb (or rather the Mughal family) followed the Hanafi fiqh. It's a school of though that is comparatively more 'tolerant' than other schools of though like the 'Shafi'. According to the Hanafi fiqh, Jizya is imposed, ie there is a way a Dhimmi can live. Sikander Butshikan lived by a different code. If you compare Aurangzeb and Sikander, Aurangzeb was a dove.