The Two Invasions: Aryan and Muslim - 2
By Syed Osman Sher
Mississauga, Canada
The Aryan invasion had taken place in pre-history times. It was neither deliberate nor directed only towards the Subcontinent. It was a mass dispersal from the Eurasian steppe in all directions forced by natural or physical factors. The Muslim invasion of the Subcontinent, however, took place in historical times, whose main reason may be as described in the words of G. W. F. Hegel, in The Philosophy of History: “India as a Land of Desire forms an essential element in General History. From the most ancient times downwards all nations have directed their wishes and longings to gaining access to the treasures of this land of marvels, the most costly, which the Earth presents”.
The first Muslim force reached India as early as AD 644. Facing an inhospitable environment in Sindh, its commander reported to the caliph Osman bin Affan that "water is scarce, the fruits are poor, and the robbers are bold; if a few troops are sent they will be slain, if many, they will starve.” It was, therefore after a long pause, that in AD 712 a serious attempt was made to conquer Sind, when the Umayyad governor of Iraq, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, sent a mighty force under a young commander Muhammad bin Qasim. He marched through Shiraz in Iran and Makran. As reinforcement, a ballista was dispatched from sea to Debal, an inland commercial port near Karachi. Raja Dahir's army was safely entrenched in the stone fortification of Debal, but the rock bombardment from the Arab ballista forced them to come to open and fight. Raja Dahir was killed and the capital, Brahmanabad (north of Hyderabad), was captured.
The Arabs who invaded Sindh in 712 were not violently anti-Hindu. In Mankind And Mother Earth, Arnold Toynbee writes: “The Arab conquests were also facilitated by the directive, in the Koran, that ‘People of the Book’ were to be tolerated and protected if they submitted to the Islamic Government and agreed to pay a surtax. The benefit of this directive was extended from Jews and Christians to Zoroastrians, and eventually to Hindus as well...In Arabia, Islam was obligatory, but in the subject territories conversion, so far from being imposed, was positively discouraged.”
To his letter, Muhammad bin Qasim received the following reply from the Caliph: “The letter of my dear nephew Muhammad bin Qasim has been received and the facts understood. It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made the submission and agreed to pay taxes to the Caliph, nothing more can be properly required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives and property. Permission is given them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like…”
The Arabs founded a town and a garrison on the river Indus named Mahfuza, and later they built their capital, Mansura. They did not take their entry into Sindh as a serious attempt for expansion. The Muslim dispersion in India had to wait for another three hundred years or more, which did not take place through the Arabian Sea or from the foothold of Sindh but from the gateway of the north-west frontier following the Turkish eruptions. In this intervening period, the Arabs adjusted their tribal life to the Sindhi tribal pattern and adopted local customs and manners.
In 1175, Sultan Muizzuddin Muhammad (Shahabuddin) Ghuri of a Turkish family of Ghur made his foray into India. He reached Peshawar in 1179 and seized Lahore in 1186. He defeated the Hindu confederates under the command of Prithviraj at the second battle of Tarain in 1192. After the victory, the Sultan returned to Khorasan, leaving the campaign and the new possessions in the hands of his trusted slave lieutenant QutbuddinAibek, who finally reached Delhi and occupied it in 1193. After Mahmud Ghuri was assassinated by an Isma’ili fanatic in 1206 near Lahore, QutbuddinAibak assumed the role of the sultan of Delhi. The Sultanate era which was thus initiated lasted for more than three hundred years with the rule of five successive Turco-Afghan dynasties: Slaves, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, and Lodhis. This period saw a special phase of Hindu-Muslim relationship for a new religious and ethnic element had been introduced in India, at large.
The Turkish sultans who had established themselves in India had not entered here with the religious zeal and passion as had been demonstrated by the Arabs of the seventh century who had dispersed in the Middle Eastern countries, Africa and Persia. Centuries had passed. They were no more bound by the cultural traditions of the old Islamic lands. They had every intention to enjoy the pomp and pleasure of royalty and avoid confrontation with the local people as far as possible.
After the Turkish Sultans, the long reign of the grand Mughals started on April 21, 1526, when “I placed my foot in the stirrup of resolution and my hands on the reins of confidence in God and marched against Sultan Ibrahim…By the grace and mercy of the Almighty God this difficult affair was made easy to me, and that mighty army, in the space of half a day, was laid in the dust.” This was the account of the founder of the Mughal empire, Zahiruddin Babar, in his memoir, Babar Nama. The Mughal dynasty lasted for a little more than three hundred years when they were replaced by the British in 1858.
The Muslims, who had been in the process of acclimatizing with the Indian society and culture, were completely Indianized during this period. The process of integration was undoubtedly facilitated by the wishes and the personal involvement of the Mughal rulers themselves. They devised policies in this regard, whose quick and universal acceptance promoted a new culture. "The Mughals considered themselves Islamic rulers…But their ruling ethos was non-communal and led to the emergence of a cross-communal service class. This was a development actively encouraged. Akbar’s successors continued this tradition of drawing upon differentiated symbols of legitimacy to serve as Hindu Maharajah and Padishah-i-Islam simultaneously. Cleavages rested on class rather than religious lines; prevailing standards were aristocratic rather than communal. Among those who participated in the court culture, communalism was regarded as bad manners." (Dr Henny Senderin, Kashmiri Pundits, quoted by M. J. Akbar in Nehru: The Making of India, Ch 2). Indeed, the molding of the Indian culture was the finest achievement of the Mughals.
The Muslim rulers, who had the force and power to effect changes, were least concerned with politicizing religion. They did not interfere with the faith, culture, and traditions of the indigenous community, and let the hold of the Brahmans and their arch superiority on Hinduism and the resultant exploitations to continue, respecting the Hindu religious sentiments. They did not even abolish the most inhuman practice of satti (burning alive of the widow on the funeral pyre of the husband), which was abolished in 1829 by the British Governor-General, Lord Bentinck, disregarding the Hindus’ protests on religious grounds.
The Muslim population of the sub-continent owe their existence, firstly, due to the three contingents of soldiers who came with Muhammad bin Qasim, ShahabuddinGhuri, and Zahiruddin Babar. Secondly, it was the result of the paltry immigration in the early Muslim period when people from adjoining Muslim countries came here in search of economic opportunities. Thirdly, the piety, simple life, and noble words of the Sufi saints inspired the local people to convert to Islam. Lastly, the most significant role was played by the discrimination of the Hinduism itself against its own lower castes that induced them to voluntarily accept Islam, as other religions too like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Christianity. In this way, they were able to elevate their social status to the level of the caste Hindus. According to the historian, RomilaThapar (A History of India, Vol. One), the fact that the Muslims have always been a minority community in India would suggest that the vast majority of Hindus were not in so desperate a plight as to seek conversion. Further, any pressure, especially in proselytizing, would have generated bitter animosity between the Muslims and the Hindus and massive riots and revolts. History does not record such events.
It is in the nature of things that two living beings never possess the same character, behavior, sensitivities, and susceptibilities. But they continue passing their lives together harmoniously. So is the case with the Hindus and the Muslims of the subcontinent. Lord Lytton, Bengal’s governor in the 1920s, had noticed how well the rank and file of the communities got on with each other in all the daily business of life (Echoes of British India, Ameer Ali).
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
