The Muslim occupation of north India
Right from very ancient times, the Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula had trade relations with Kerala. But they did not have any colonial or occupation interest. The Persian imperial forces attacked India in the 5th century A.D., but it did not have any visible impact on North India. The North Indian kings resisted all attempts of invasion by foreign forces. Early in the 8th century, the Arabs invaded India from the north and conquered Sind and established their rule. But the Turkish-Arab-Afghan forces invaded India in 12th and 13th centuries continuously and occupied sizeable chunks of Indian territories. They claimed that it was all a holy war against the 'infidels'. The Indian rulers were not united and they engaged themselves in internecine quarrels. India was the only place on earth where diamond was being mined during in those days. The abundance of India's riches, gold, silver, diamonds and other precious stones attracted Islamic rulers. They planned to attack India with a view to plundering the riches. The first to send troops to India were the Turks. Mohamed of Ghazni in Afghanistan (971 –1030) was one of the first among them to lead an army into India. By a continuous campaign of military invasion, he managed to establish an empire that came to be known later in history as the Delhi Sultanate. And India was thus drawn politically into the Muslim world. The next invader Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed temples and plundered their enormously rich treasures with an unmatched vehemence, as if with some vengeance. The empire he established included Afghanistan, a lion's share of Iran and the north west of India.
The next invader was Muhammad Ghuri, the brother of the ruler of Ghur, a small vassal state under Mohamed of Ghazni. The Ghurs took advantage of the quarrels among their masters and the vassals became the next masters and conquerors who conquered the territory of their former masters. Muhammad Ghuri (Ghori) annexed Punjab and defeated Prithviraj, the bold and powerful Rajput ruler of Delhi and Ajmer. Ghuri attacked the Indian kingdoms several times and ruled over his sprawling empire from 1173 to 1206. He too killed a large number of non-Muslims and destroyed Hindu temples.
Muhammad was killed by one of his slaves. Now enters Qutb-ud-din- Aibak (1206-1210), the man whom Ghuri once trusted as his Governor of Northern India. Now that Ghuri was no more, Aibak declared himself the Sultan of all that Ghuri once possessed in India. Aibak first chose Lahore as his capital, and then shifted to Delhi. And it was thus that the Sultanate of Delhi came into being, along with it was marked the beginning of the era of the Muslim dynasties in India, and the dynasty Aibak established came to be known as the Ghulam (denoting a slave serving in the royal guard, which he had been) dynasty. He was able to rule only for four years – he died falling from his horse, during a game of polo. But the Ghulams continued till 1290. Then came the Khiljis (1290 –1320), the Tuglaqs (1320 – 1413), the Sayyids (1414 – 1451), and the Lodhis ((1451 – 1526). During Alauddin Khilji's reign the empire extended upto South India. During the rule of these Muslim dynasties, Delhi had been shivering out of fear because of the seemingly unending series of political murders for snatching the power of the Sultanate.
It was then that another emperor from abroad attacked north India in 14th century – Timur, also known as Tamerlane. He was a Turko-Mongol, and the founder of one of the largest empires in world history (1370 –1405). Also known as Timur the Lame, his empire included Turky, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, parts of Kazakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Russia, Turkmenistan, Usbekistan, Kirgistan, the north western parts of India etc. Timur, who was ruling his empire from Samarkhand of Usbekistan, turned to India with his troops on hearing about the rat race for power there and their internal squabbles. In September1398, Timur crossed River Indus and captured villages and towns and cities, and indulged in mass murders and marched forward unchecked. In December, he captured Delhi, defeating the troops of Naziruddin Muhammed, the last ruler of the Tuglaq dynasty. This attack and invasion of Delhi resulted in the death of thousands and the destruction of the city. It was Khisrkhan, whom Timur appointed governor of Delhi, who founded the Sayyid dynasty of rulers in Delhi. The administration of the Sultanates was as per the Islamic dictum. The reign of the Sultanate was instrumental in paving the way for the Persian culture and language to acquire a decisive role in Indian politics.
Indologists K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin and G. Kotovsky evaluates the socio-economic position of the Delhi sultanate as follows:
"The Moslem conquerors of India seized the lands belonging to Hindu rulers and proceeded to establish their power there. However, the Turkish military commanders were unable to introduce radical changes in methods of farming and commerce that had evolved in India over the centuries. For all intents and purposes, relations between peasants and feudal lords had remained the same as before, although some modifications in the form of feudal ownership had ensued. State ownership of land was now more firmly rooted and this enabled the conquerors to maintain their strong armies and control an alien population. It was indeed the state that acquired lands that had formerly belonged to many banished and war-shattered Indian feudal families….
….It is at this period (of the Sultanate rule of Delhi) that the names of new towns appear in the chronicles and there are likewise frequent references to the expansion, consolidation and refurbishing of old ones. For the most part this applied to administrative centers and military headquarters, since traders and craftsmen were mainly engaged in attending to the requirements of feudal lords and the armies. Towns were also founded in the so-called 'holy places', where pilgrims gathered and fairs were held. Gradually the population of these urban centers grew. However, it was still the feudal lords who were in charge of their administration; often they owned the caravanserais, the craftmen's stalls and determined market tariffs. Only within the castes was there some semblance of self-government. There was no security of tenure enjoyed by the urban population with regard to their property. The feudal lords could at will raised taxes or force merchants to sell their wares at prices that they themselves laid down. The sway of these feudal lords was particularly oppressive during the reigns of Ala-ud-din (Khilji) and Muhammad Tughlaq. It is not surprising that unrest grew among the urban population and it found an outlet in all manner of heretical movements. As for the peasantry, its protest against oppression often led to flight from the villages. The chronicles, that as a rule were written by court historians, make brief references to "robber tribes" and "detachments of bandits" taking refuge in the jungles. It is possible that these were in fact the fugitive peasants."
The next invader was Muhammad Ghuri, the brother of the ruler of Ghur, a small vassal state under Mohamed of Ghazni. The Ghurs took advantage of the quarrels among their masters and the vassals became the next masters and conquerors who conquered the territory of their former masters. Muhammad Ghuri (Ghori) annexed Punjab and defeated Prithviraj, the bold and powerful Rajput ruler of Delhi and Ajmer. Ghuri attacked the Indian kingdoms several times and ruled over his sprawling empire from 1173 to 1206. He too killed a large number of non-Muslims and destroyed Hindu temples.
Muhammad was killed by one of his slaves. Now enters Qutb-ud-din- Aibak (1206-1210), the man whom Ghuri once trusted as his Governor of Northern India. Now that Ghuri was no more, Aibak declared himself the Sultan of all that Ghuri once possessed in India. Aibak first chose Lahore as his capital, and then shifted to Delhi. And it was thus that the Sultanate of Delhi came into being, along with it was marked the beginning of the era of the Muslim dynasties in India, and the dynasty Aibak established came to be known as the Ghulam (denoting a slave serving in the royal guard, which he had been) dynasty. He was able to rule only for four years – he died falling from his horse, during a game of polo. But the Ghulams continued till 1290. Then came the Khiljis (1290 –1320), the Tuglaqs (1320 – 1413), the Sayyids (1414 – 1451), and the Lodhis ((1451 – 1526). During Alauddin Khilji's reign the empire extended upto South India. During the rule of these Muslim dynasties, Delhi had been shivering out of fear because of the seemingly unending series of political murders for snatching the power of the Sultanate.
It was then that another emperor from abroad attacked north India in 14th century – Timur, also known as Tamerlane. He was a Turko-Mongol, and the founder of one of the largest empires in world history (1370 –1405). Also known as Timur the Lame, his empire included Turky, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, parts of Kazakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Russia, Turkmenistan, Usbekistan, Kirgistan, the north western parts of India etc. Timur, who was ruling his empire from Samarkhand of Usbekistan, turned to India with his troops on hearing about the rat race for power there and their internal squabbles. In September1398, Timur crossed River Indus and captured villages and towns and cities, and indulged in mass murders and marched forward unchecked. In December, he captured Delhi, defeating the troops of Naziruddin Muhammed, the last ruler of the Tuglaq dynasty. This attack and invasion of Delhi resulted in the death of thousands and the destruction of the city. It was Khisrkhan, whom Timur appointed governor of Delhi, who founded the Sayyid dynasty of rulers in Delhi. The administration of the Sultanates was as per the Islamic dictum. The reign of the Sultanate was instrumental in paving the way for the Persian culture and language to acquire a decisive role in Indian politics.
Indologists K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin and G. Kotovsky evaluates the socio-economic position of the Delhi sultanate as follows:
"The Moslem conquerors of India seized the lands belonging to Hindu rulers and proceeded to establish their power there. However, the Turkish military commanders were unable to introduce radical changes in methods of farming and commerce that had evolved in India over the centuries. For all intents and purposes, relations between peasants and feudal lords had remained the same as before, although some modifications in the form of feudal ownership had ensued. State ownership of land was now more firmly rooted and this enabled the conquerors to maintain their strong armies and control an alien population. It was indeed the state that acquired lands that had formerly belonged to many banished and war-shattered Indian feudal families….
….It is at this period (of the Sultanate rule of Delhi) that the names of new towns appear in the chronicles and there are likewise frequent references to the expansion, consolidation and refurbishing of old ones. For the most part this applied to administrative centers and military headquarters, since traders and craftsmen were mainly engaged in attending to the requirements of feudal lords and the armies. Towns were also founded in the so-called 'holy places', where pilgrims gathered and fairs were held. Gradually the population of these urban centers grew. However, it was still the feudal lords who were in charge of their administration; often they owned the caravanserais, the craftmen's stalls and determined market tariffs. Only within the castes was there some semblance of self-government. There was no security of tenure enjoyed by the urban population with regard to their property. The feudal lords could at will raised taxes or force merchants to sell their wares at prices that they themselves laid down. The sway of these feudal lords was particularly oppressive during the reigns of Ala-ud-din (Khilji) and Muhammad Tughlaq. It is not surprising that unrest grew among the urban population and it found an outlet in all manner of heretical movements. As for the peasantry, its protest against oppression often led to flight from the villages. The chronicles, that as a rule were written by court historians, make brief references to "robber tribes" and "detachments of bandits" taking refuge in the jungles. It is possible that these were in fact the fugitive peasants."
