Talk:Islamic invasion of India

Top

This article reads as a very biased description of the Islamic Invasion of India, which seems more concerned with the atrocities committed than with the actual circumstances in Indian society before, during, and after the invasion. I do not dispute that atrocities were committed by the Ghazni and Ghurid empires (as well as many other invaders of the Indian subcontinent). But to only describe the invasion using these atrocities would be to provide a small understanding of the history. Frankly, this article seems to be inspired more by Hindu nationalist propoganda, rather than an objective historical analysis of the socioeconomic and political consequences of the early Islamic invasions of the subcontinent. Changes I propose: weak militarily to defend themselves from the Ghazni invasions.

- Mention the inefficiency of Indian trade, and agriculture prior to the Islamic invasion. I would theorize that under the Brahmin - Point out the politically disunited state of Indian society prior to the invasion. Outline the reasons why the Indian states were too influence, trade was suppressed, which led to the deterioration of roads and the hoarding of wealth (not to mention land). Although some citizens of India were highly cultured, there was little effort into improving the economy or improving technology within this Indian society. The Islamic invasion, while disastrous for the Brahmin classes, significantly improved the situation for a lot of the society and allowed Indian society to flourish. We can also point to the Carder's Bow and the Spinning Wheel as two of the main technological introductions that improved Indian daily life.

- Many other changes occurred in Hindu life with the destruction of the temples. Sanskrit decreased in usage, and Hindu ceremonies became more accessible to the other castes.

- The human rights atrocites should be stated, but they should not be the main focus of the article. This invasion was a critical historical turning point in not just Indian history, but Asian and world history. And it is not just defined by these atrocities.

My sources include...

Kulke and Rothermund, A History of India, Fourth Edition.

Spengler, Joseph J., Indian Economic Thouight

Wolpert, Stanley, A New History of India, fifth and sixth editions

Solousy 17:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I won't pretend to know enough about this to edit it, but you sound like you do. We encourage users to be bold in editing, so by all means, make the changes yourself! We'd be glad to have your expertise. Of course, the original author might disagree, in which case you two will have to work it out amongst yourselves on this page, eventually creating compromise wording. Good luck! Meelar 20:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. It's usually considered polite to sign your posts, using four tildes like this ~~~~

P.P.S. Why not create an account? It would make it easier for others to speak to you.

Thanks for the tips Meelar! I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and the only reason I chimed in was because this article seemed so biased (almost bordering on propoganda) and I hate to see wikipedia be subverted like this. I created a username and I'll start learning how to do the editing.

Solousy

It should also be noted that Mahatama Gandhi and Jawarlal Nehru, the founding fathers of India had a lot of positive things to say about the Islamic Invasions. If these statements are relegated as appeasement then the attitude of the right wing BJP party would also have to described as being fascist.

An Indian Reader - To brand an opinion "facist", "hindu nationalist" is bringing an assertion of bias in itself. If facts are correct then they should remain. It is a fact that the Islamic invasion did cause destruction and bloodshed. Thousands of temples were destroyed, priests killed, with the aim to suplant the original culture and replace it with the culture of the invaders (muslim records have documented this extensively). Simply to stating a fact should not mean it should be "branded" and thus disregarded. As above, to make an assumption "I would theorize that under the Brahmin influence" is what I would call theorising with an agenda - ie apologists or even belonging to the "negate the brutality of Islamic invasion in India by making assumptions on how India has actually benefitted" gang of so called experts. This only adds insult to injuries to the Indians. I guess I am now a "fascist" and my views do not merit the same consideration as "the more enlightened western intelectuals".

---

This article is basically cut and past collection from various rightwing Hindu web sites. Completely one sided popaganda. OneGuy 10:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add more to User:JASpencer relying on anti-Islamic sites and adding stuff to wiki. He added this quote:

It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.

There are some difference between that quote and as the quote appears on neutral Indian sites, such as

O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats." "Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you [1]

Aren't these just two different translations by different translators. The original untranslated text should of course be considered to see if there is a mistranslation or even a delibarate falsification. It would be nice to have the source for the first translation also, since only the one for the second translation is included. The muslim invasion however with all its destructive side is however of course best and amply documented by the muslim historians themself, so there would be little reason to make such a minor "change".

Notice this is not pro-islamic site. It's Indian site. This is just one example of adding POV stuff without checking the source. I don't know how much more falsehood exists in these articles about Muhammad Bin Qasim and others that JASpencer has edited. OneGuy 23:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed the following line :

"These invasions were no more than banditry and were motivated by gold and wealth found in Hindu temples."

Gold and wealth found in Hindu temples may be a motivation but to dismiss that as banditry is speculation.

Abhijna

Description of Islamic rule vis-a-vis British rule

I think this page is biased. We can search wikipedia for info on British rule in india. there is no talk of their "invasion" of india and the massacres that no doubt were involved. it is briefly written, "In 1498, the Portuguese set foot in Goa. Rivalry between reigning European powers saw the entry of the British and French among others. The fractured kingdoms of India were quickly taken over by the Europeans and indirectly assumed control of by subjugating rulers. By the early 19th century the British had assumed direct and indirect control over most of India." as you can see, the comment has ommitted talk of the massacres by subsuming them in the word "subjagating". also, it describes the fractured political situation which was also true during the period before islamic rule. furthermore, it should be noted that european incursions into india are termed as colonizations while the muslim incursions are termed as invasions. while the muslims certainly did not colonize in the modern sense, you must invade BEFORE you colonize. and why is it not described as a christian invasion? one could argue that religion did not drive the invasion, but did not the british charge into battle crying "For God and Country (or King)"? weren't missionary forces one of the biggest supporters of the invasion and subsequent colonization? while the christians (read europeans) are parsed into their separate ethnic identities (thereby emphazing their national identity and not religious identity) the muslims (read central asians) are placed in one group (thereby emphazing their religious identity over their national identity). this minor difference leads to seeking to view the european invasion in politico-economic terms, while this is neglected in the discussion of the muslim invasion. to illustrate this point, where is the page entitled "christian (or european) invasion of india". we should not ignore or omit the atrocities committed by muslims, europeans, and others in the indian subcontinent. however, the description of any invasion should not focus solely on its' violent aspects and should discuss the situation that gave rise to the invasion (as opposed to reasons that gave rise to the massacres) and the socio-economic and political effects of the invasion. the page should be properly retitled "Muslim Massacres in India". reza

---

MASSIVE ARTICLE CHANGE

Did a complete rewrite of this article. It was clearly vandalism before with stuff quoted from right-wing hindu sites. Hopefully this makes it better.

Alexeifjodor, you asked me to state my reasons for the change. I believe it is quite clear, look how biased this topic was before. Clearly it was written from a very radical and anti-Islamic point of view. As I want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia, it is imperative that the bias be removed.

I live in India and have long studied the history. As you can see, I did not write a huge article on the subject of the Islamic invasions but started it from scratch so that it was not biased garbage anymore. I think the great influences and contributions of Islam to India should be mentioned as they were a result of the invasions of the early centuries.

TO EVERYONE: Feel free to add any factual statements if you want but please refrain from vandalising the article by making it offensive and biased. -- User: Admin001

________________________________________

Well, I merged your addtions with the original article. After having read the article, I agree that it is not written very npov especially because of inappropriate vocubalary (words like "barbarism"). This is however not a reason to delete the whole article (the good and the bad parts) and replace it with another version that is at least as POV as the prior version. Instead, the bad parts should be rewritten in a npov manner. --Alexeifjodor 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________

I agree totally. Thank you for your response. I did incorporate several things, although I must tell you that if you checked even the sources and the External links of the previous article, you would see that the article was mostly bias from right-wing Hindu sites who without a doubt have a grudge against the Islamic invasions as a whole. It is for this reason that the majority of the article must be changed and written anew to reflect the contributions and the influences that Islamic rule had over India. The fact of the matter is that the invasions led to mostly positive results in the shaping of the "Indian subcontinent" and I am trying to refrain from bias as much as I can.

I did like the edits you put in, but the easiest way is to rewrite the article and allow users to add factual unbiased material after the rewrite. So I hope you do not mind adding any information you have into the rewritten article. To everyone: unbiased/factual external links would be appreciated. -- User: Admin001

Well, thanks for comments. I have however the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are trying to remove every criticism regarding these invasions. Well, this is an article on invasions, and almost every invasion has had its critics. Since you wrote "Islam was generally tolerant of other religions and granted rights to the diverse population of the region." I'm sure you must also be somehow a tolerant person, which I think includes accepting some criticism regarding one's personal POV's. I wrote that the article could be written better and worded in a more neutral fashion, this may also be the reason that it has a npov header on it. However, let me remark that removing the entire article just to replace it with another version that is at least as much POV as the original version is not considered very tolerant and is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I merged your additions together with the original article, and since both parts of the article still have some bias in it, I left the npov header in the article. If however you see a way to improve the article, or see some mistakes please try to improve the article, and please document your reasons and cite your sources while doing so. Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal POV is however not very "tolerant" and should at all costs be avoided. --Alexeifjodor 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

________________________________

Alexeifjodor, I am in no way trying to remove fair criticism of the invasions. I have repeatedly stated that as long as it not a bunch of bullshit quoted from biased sites I am happy and let others feel free to add to this article. The fact of the matter is that the invasions had a positive influence and I can not deny that (even being Indian); that is FACT. I am an historian in India and feel it is necessary for the article to reflect the positive affects of the invasion.

Furthermore, I find that you are being irrational by insisting that garbage should be kept into the article such as: "all of the Muslim invaders were zealots" and that "only one of the Moghul emperors, Akbar, was very liberal" because he established a new religion! There is absolutely no credible historic evidence that all throughout the invasions people were "forced to embrace Islam" either especially since my research indicates that forced conversions are against the tenets of the religion!

Finally by saying that "The impact of the invasions on Indian culture has been extensive and devastating" is more bullshit as India owes most of the culture and other assets that attract millions of tourists as a result of these invasions. Also it is not necessary to write what Will Durant said about the invasions. There are millions who have opinions of the invasion and the fact that Durant stated what he did is a result of his own opinion. If you want to state his opinion, why not state that of everyone.

So if you are finding that my editing is such a POV, why don't you fix the article by actually blending what I stated with what the original POV writer (JAspencer) said, rather than jumbling the article completely by putting both articles above and below eachother. SO instead of "frowning upon this" and saying that I am not very "tolerant" why don't you try to balance the article rather than promoting POV and being critical of a religion? -- User: Admin001

Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal pov is considered vandalism in wikipedia, try instead to improve the article in little steps and please document reasons/cite sources, and your edits will much likelier get accepted. Can you really imagine this happens in other articles as well, or would you consider it neutral if someone would do the same in another article that would contain criticisms which you would consider maybe relevant or even justified? And why are you also deleting the links and even the link to the french wiki? Most articles contain critical links, and the articles where this can't be the least avoided would surely be articles on invasions and war. And yes, Will Durant is relevant, because the citations is from The Story of Civilization which is considered as one of the masterpieces in historical literature. And Will Durant did in general say many positive things about Islam, so his remark is not against Islam or religion per se but is against the invasion and against the specific invaders (like Mahmud etc.)itself. Will Durant critcises the invaders and the behaviour of the invaders, their destructivness and greed etc., he doesn't criticize their religion. Read some Durant. --Alexeifjodor 06:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This is what the Will Durant article says, btw, about Will Durant and his Story of Civilization: The profound respect with which they treat Islamic culture and civilization--treading the groove first carved by Edward Gibbon but seldom followed up upon by historians who followed him--has caused at least one Arabic translation of their sections on Islamic Civiliziation. Note: their frequent use of the terms "Mohammedans" and "Mohammedanism" for Muslims and Islam, respectively, should not deter Muslim readers. It was merely a convention of the time, much as African-Americans were described as "Negroes" when the Durants were writing. Given the fairness with which all subjects Islamic are handled by the Durants, the terms can in no way be interpreted as pejorative or as being indicative of a hostility toward the Arab and Islamic world.--Alexeifjodor 06:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Writing style

The article is mostly true, but should be written in a more tactful way.

No the article is NOT mostly true; I have noticed there remains extreme POV mostly from 'right-wing', nationalist hindu sites. So I have blended the two separate articles which were in the topic and belnded them to make the article more NPOV. --Anonymous editor 20:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sanitizing of the conquerers, their actions and affects on the population. Unneccessary removal of external sources, and unsubstantiated claims attributed without proof. Also removal of certain notices where the local population were enslaved and tormented, does not do justice to an article on the invasion of India. References to 'system of constitutional laws' implies lack of any such government or coded laws, pre-invasion. Akbar and Aurangazeb should be mentioned to show the contrast between rulers. It should be noted that Akbar was only liberal in relation to the other rulers, since he too once had 30,000 people executed for opposing him. Also requesting sources that are non-indian, relating to the history of India, does not make sense. Many of the sources are from Islamic historical records by Islamic historians, that have simply been translated by Indians. On a positive note, the two articles were blended together well.

Entirely Wrong and baised.

This article starts with " Some Muslims believe that connection between Islam and India was established right from the very beginning, but this is untrue."

Which is a distorted version of History.There is evidence that connection between Islam and India did established from the very beggining. There in Kerla [2]

is a Mosque supposed to be the second Jama Mosque of the world which was built by  Malik Ibn Dinar a diciple  of Prophet 

Mohammed (Mpuh) and a Sea Trader who contanly was in contact with India .There is Other historical record of trading between Kerala and Middle East. It is also said about Pallibana Perumal’s (He was one of the prominent king of Cheraman Perumal dynasty who embraced Islam ) pilgrimage to Mecca was a major influence in this regard. This can be verified with the documents at India Office Liabrary which are titled " "Qissat Shakruti Firmad" which, according to the catalogue (Loth 1044), is "A fabulous account of the first settlement of the Muhammadans in Malabar, under King Shakruti (Cranganore), a contemporary of Muhammad, who was converted to Islam by the miracle of the division of the the moon." There are Other evidence too of the Contact between India and Arabia For example in Bhatinda Punjab [3]There is mention of a person, a hindu poet , named Rattan Chand who went to Mecca and performed Hajj , He has his Mazar still located at Bhatinda , its also said that he may have taken part in the " Battle of Trenches " or " Ghazva-e-Khandaq " .

As it can be seen that the article starts with a Wrong assumption and even cursory glance will show it to be baised.

Previous editor, if you feel that the article is wrong factually, and I agree with you to some extent, please feel free to make edits to it. I am sure that the contributing editors to this article will mediate/overlook editing. If you know the facts then by all means they should be added. Thank you. --Anonymous editor 16:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Critical" Views

I strongly object to this POV title. It is like describing Nazi holocaust as something positive, and writing 2 lines about the Jews under "Critical" Views.

What do you object to? What you think of this issue, is your own personal opinion, but this article should remain NPOV as possible. It is up to the user to decide what they think. Clearly the views shown are those of two "historians" critical of the topic, what exactly don't you agree with about the heading? --Anonymous editor 00:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

"What you think of this issue, is your own personal opinion, but this article should remain NPOV as possible." It is funny that you are saying this to me. I thought it should have been the other way round. Here you are trying to present a picture that the "Islamic invasion was the most wonderful thing that ever happened to India, but nevertheless there are a few insignificant non-mainstream historians who have criticized it."

Funny because you are the person who was trying to insert POV about negative "purdah" systems and other unverified material. I still maintain this should remain NPOV and the invasions should not simply be material from hindu extremist sites. The views are of critical historians and no one should disagree that those 2 historians are critical of the topic.--Anonymous editor 02:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I request you to refrain from sabotaging all attempts made to NPOV this section. I am not saying that the "Modern Influences" section is POV, because it isn't, but according to the Wikipedia Policy, "even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through selection of which facts to present." Listing only positive influences of Islam on India with the aim of indirectly inducing a POV on the reader, and opposing any attempts at making the section more balanced by including certain negative influences is not a very healthy attitide. There is no dearth of references on the origins of purdah system in India, so I am surprised that you find it unverified. Even Islamist sources -- which make a claim that the purdah/chador/niqab system did not originate with Islam but existed in the Middle East before that -- never argue that it wasn't with Islam that this tradition came to India. Also, I think there can be a better title for this section, since these influences did not start recently, but were absorbed over a long period of time. 70.105.188.134 28 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)

[aquaris] I Strongly dispute the Claim that Mohammed Bin Qasims rule was unjust or cruel. This article is highly biased with just One purpose to prove that mulsims are volient , cruel, and looters and plunderers. the following discussion which I posted in the orignal article and has now been removed from it by the orignal author of the article will prove my point

The land of Sind has a hoary past with some of the most striking episodes in history having occurred in its bosom. It has given a slightly different variation of its name to our neighbouring country and to the religious majority of its inhabitants. Both the words India and Hindu are derived from Sindhu, which, in Persian became Hind and Hindu (the letter H substituted for S) and in Greek and Roman, Ind (the letter S of Sind having being dropped). The meaning of the word Sindhu is water, referring to the great river. There is an old belief among Muslims that four rivers had sprung from Heaven: Neel (Nile), Furat (Euphrates), Jehoon (Juxartes) and Sehoon (Sind).

The Aryans called the whole of Pakistan, Kashmir and East Afghanistan as Sapta Sindhu -- the land of seven rivers. In Rigveda it is referred to as Sapta Sindhva, while India is named Bharat Varsa (the land of the sons of Bharat, a legendary Emperor).1 Thus, even for the Aryans there were two countries in this sub-continent: Sapta Sindhva and Bharat Varsa. The Assyrians in the 7th century B.C. knew the north-western part of the sub-continent as Sinda. However, when India began to be called Hind by Persians and Arabs, and Ind by Greeks and Romans, the local people continued to call their land, Sind. This distinction continued for centuries. Arab geographers, historians and travellers also called the entire area from the Arabian Sea to the range of Kashmir mountains Sind.3 As such, there were always two countries in the sub-continent -- Sind and Hind. The present Pakistan (including Kashmir and a major portion of Afghanistan) constituting one country, and India, another.

Dawn of history reveals an Aryan dynasty in power in Sind. In the Mahabharata (12th or 13th century B.C.) Jayadrath, King of Sind appears as a partisan of Panduas against their cousins Kauruas. Next historical mention of Sind is found about 575 B.C. during the time of Achaemenian dynasty. The Iranian General, Skylax, explored Indus in a flotilla equipped near Peshawar, conquered the Indus Valley and annexed it to the Empire of Darius the Great. The conquered province of the Punjab and Sind was considered the richest and the most populous satrapy of the Empire and was required to pay the enormous tribute of fully a million sterling. Next historical record is that of Alexander's invasion in 326 B.C. A tribe called Mausikanos whose capital is usually identified with Alor (Rohri) is said to have submitted. According to Greek historians the territories of this chief were the most flourishing of all that the Greeks had seen. A few centuries later Roman historians have mentioned Sind as a rich country. Patala in lower Sind was known to them as an emporium of trade.

Alexandrian period was followed by that of the Mauryas (3rd century BC) whose fall brought in Graeco-Bactrians (2nd century B.C.). They ruled over the whole of Pakistan with their capital at Taxila. Their coins are still found in the old towns of Sind. The Graeco-Bactrian period was followed by that of the Scythian (Saka) invasion in the first century BC. "They settled here in such large numbers that Sind became known as Indo-Scythia and to this day a large proportion of the population is certainly Scythian."5 Two Scythian tribes, the Jats and Meds, are mentioned as having invaded the Punjab and Sind. Some of the present day Mohanas of Sind and Baluchistan call themselves Med. "In 60 AD Sind was occupied by Scythians, ruled perhaps from far away Taxila."6

The first century A.D. witnessed the arrival of the Kushans who, along with the Scythians (Sakas) and later Parthians, ruled over Afghanistan and Pakistan for about four centuries from Peshawar. The next great holocaust occurred in the 5th century A.D. with the Hun invasion which surpassed all previous records in its intensity and vastness. Their invasion ushered in the Rajput era which lasted till the 7th century A.D. in Sind (80 years before the arrival of Mohd. Bin Qasim); till the end of 10th century AD in the Punjab and NWFP (upto the arrival of Mahmud Ghaznavi) and till the end of 12th century in northern India when Mohammad Ghori defeated Prithviraj in 1192 A.D.

Before lmaduddin Mohammad Bin Qasim's arrival here, Rajputs were the ruling race in Sind and in the rest of northern India. The last Rajput ruler of Sind was Raja Sahasi II whose dominions extended up to Kashmir. He was a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad and professed Buddhism as did his father Siharus. The rule of Raja Sahasi II ended in 632 A.D. the year Prophet Mohammad died. He was succeeded by his Brahmin chamberlain, Chach, who had become a favourite of Sahasi's wife. Chach ruled over Sind for about 68 years from 632-700 A.D. His son Dahir was the ruler when Mohammad Bin Qasim arrived here in 711 A.D.

The line of rulership before Islam runs thus: Siharus, Sahasi II, Chach, Dahir. The first two were Buddhist Rajputs and the last two Hindu Brahmins. The new Brahmin rulers were extremely hostile towards the Buddhists who were in substantial numbers in Sind at that time and they had ruthlessly suppressed the Jats and Meds who formed the bulk of the peasantry. Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights. "When Chach, the Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed."7 It was because of this background that Mohammad Bin Qasim received cooperation from the Buddhists as well as the Jats and Meds during his campaign in Sind. Among others who did not oppose Mohammad Bin Qasim's advance and made peace with him was the Bhutto tribe.8 In fact he was hailed as deliverer by several sections of local population. The humble position of the Buddhists in Sind seeking support from outside can be read in the Chach Nama.

"Mohammad Bin Qasim's work was facilitated by the treachery of certain Buddhist priests and renegade chiefs who deserted their sovereign and joined the invader. With the assistance of some of these traitors, Mohammad crossed the vast sheet of water separating his army from that of Dahir and gave battle to the ruler near Raor (712 A.D.). Dahir was defeated and killed."9

The author of Mujmaul Tawarikh has quoted an extinct Sanskrit work according to which the original inhabitants of Sind were Jats and Meds. Early Arab writers on Sind also say that Jats and Meds were important tribes in their time. Ibn Khurdabah mentions 'zutts' as guarding the route between Kirman and Mansura while Ibn Haukal writes: "Between Mansura and Makran the waters from the Mehran form lakes and the inhabitants of the country are the south Asian races called Zutt. The Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang who visited this region in the 7th century A.D. also mentioned Jats.

"The Jats claim to be included in the 36 royal Rajput tribes. Some of them state that their forefathers came from Ghazni. But it is generally accepted that they are the descendants of the ancient Getae, or Jeutchi, from Scythia. Some authorities consider that they entered the sub-continent some time in 1500 BC and are the same as the Jattikas mentioned in the Mahabharata, and also identical with the Jatti of Pliny and Ptolemy. Their original home was on the Oxus."10 According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Jats of the lower Indus comprise both Jats and Rajputs, and the same rule applies to Las-Bela where descendants of former ruling races like the Sumra and the Samma of Sind and the Langah of Multan are found. At the time of the first appearance of the Arabs they found the whole of Makran in possession of Jats (Zutts).

According to a 'Hadis', Hazrat Abdulla Bin Masood, a companion Prophet saw some strangers with the Prophet and said that their features and physique were like those of Jats.11 This means that Jats we in Arabia even during the Prophet's time. Hazrat Imam Bukhari (d. 875 A.D. - 256 A.H.) writing about the period of the Companions in his book "Al adab al Mufarrad" has stated that once when Hazrat Aisha (Prophet's wife) fell ill, her nephews brought a Jat doctor for her treatment. We hear of them next when the Arab armies clashed with the Persian forces which comprised of Jat soldiers as well. The Persian Command Hurmuz used Jat soldiers against Khalid Bin Walid in the battle of 'salasal' of 634 A.D. (12 hijri). This vvas the first time that Jats were captured by the Arabs. They put forward certain conditions for joining the Arab armies which were accepted, and on embracing Islam they were associated with different Arab tribes.12 This event proves that the first group of Pakistanis to accept Islam were Jats who did it as early as 12 hijri (634 A.D.) in the time of Hazrat Omar.

The Persian King Yazdjard had also sought the help of the Sind ruler who sent Jat soldiers and elephants which were used against the Arabs in the battle of Qadisia.

According to Tibri, Hazrat Ali had employed Jats to guard Basra treasury during the battle of Jamal. "Jats were the guards of the Baitul Maal at al-Basra during the time of Hazrat Osman and Hazrat Ali."13 Amir Muawiya had settled them on the Syrian border to fight against the Romans. It is said that 4,000 Jats of Sind joined Mohammad Bin Qasim's army and fought against Raja Dahir. Sindhi Jats henceforth began to be regularly recruited in the Muslim armies.

"Some of the Zutt deserters from the Persian army were transplanted in 670 A.D. by Caliph Muawiya from Basrah to Antioch. When the Arabs conquered Sind, another batch of Zutts whom the conquerors had uprooted from their native pastures seem to have been sent to Syria by Hajjaj (691-713 A.D.) and eventually sent on by the Caliph Walid 1(707-15 AD) to join the previous batch of Zutt deportees at Antioch whence some, again, were sent on by the Caliph Yazid II (720-24 A.D.) to Massisah in Cicilia…. But the bulk of Hajjaj's deportees from Sind seem to have been settled in Iraq. In the reign of Abbasid Caliph Mansur (813-33 A.D.) they broke into a rebellion which it took him and his successor Mutasim 833-42 AD), the best part of 20 years to quell….. Whether there had or had not been a voluntary immigration as well as a compulsory deportation of Zutt to Iraq from Sind, we may take it that in the course of the first two centuries of Arab rule, manpower from western subcontinent (i.e., Pakistan) had it in one way or another been pouring into a south-western Asia that, on the eve of the Arab conquest, had been depopulated by the two last and most devastating of the Romano-Persian wars."14

This statement of Tonybee is revealing in that it shows the close relations Pakistan had with the Middle East. Sindhis began to settle in areas as far away as Iraq and Syria which were depopulated by wars between the Persians and the Romans.

The origin of European gypsies is also traced to Sindhi Jats. Harun-ur-Rashid had recruited Jats to reinforce Cilician fortress. When the Romans descended on Ayn Zarbah in 855 A.D. they carried off into East Roman territory the Jats together with their women, children and buffaloes. This detachment of the Jats was the advance guard of the gypsies of Europe.15 They continued to pour into Europe in small batches at various stages subsequently.

THE ARAB PERIOD

Turning to the history of Sind, it may be divided into seven periods: (1) Pre-Muslim; (2) Arab Rule; (3) Middle Ages from Mahmud Ghaznavi to the establishment of Mughal Rule; (4) Mughal Period; (5) Kalhora period; (6) The Talpur Period; and (7) The British Period. We shall deal with briefly discussing only certain salient features of each period.

We have already spoken of the Indus Valley Civilization and the pre-historic period in an earlier chapter. Between the fall of the Mauryan Empire and the arrival of the Arabs i.e., roughly 200 B.C. to 700 A.D., a span of 900 years, Sind and other parts of Pakistan experienced wave after wave of hordes from Central Asia settling down in these regions. The Bactrians, Sakas, Kushans, the Pahlavas and the Huns etc., came, conquered and settled here. From these stocks, mingled with indigenous blood, ultimately emerged the new Kshatrya ruling class of Hindus later called Rajputs and the peasant class of Jats and Gujjars. 16 The most outstanding aspect of this pre-Muslim period is that Sind was intimately connected with the rest of Pakistan and not with India. It had either independent kingdoms or kingdoms in common with Pakistan.

Several reasons are ascribed to the Arab desire to conquer Makran 17 and Sind. Firstly, Sindhi Rajas had helped the Persians in their wars against the Arabs. Sindhi forces participated in the battles of Nehawand, ‘Salasal’, Qadisia and Makran and fought against the Arabs. Secondly, when after the conquest of Persia by the Arabs some of their rebel chiefs began to seek refuge in Sind, its Raja refused to surrender them to the Caliphs inspite of repeated requests. Thirdly, since Arab traders were being constantly harassed by pirates from the Makran and Sind coasts, a foot-hold in these areas considered necessary to safeguard Arab maritime interests.

The first naval expedition undertaken by the Arabs in this ocean was during Hazrat Omar's caliphate in 636 A.D. - 15 A.H. under the command of Osman bin Abi'Aas, the Governor of Bahrain and Oman. He attacked Thana, a port near modern Bombay. A little later he sent another naval expedition to Debal in Sind under the command of his brother Mughira. Raja Chach was the ruler of Sind at that time and his kingdom was well defended. Mughira was defeated by the Raja's forces and killed in action.

During Hazrat Omar's caliphate the Governor of Iraq also sent an expedition by land to Makran under the command of Rabi Bin Ziad Haris. Though Makran was conquered but the victory was short-lived, as the locals recaptured the country. Makran was, however, permanently conquered during the last days of Hazrat Omar's caliphate in 642 AD - 43 AH. under the command of Hakam Taglabi. Hazrat Osman, the third Caliph had sent Hakim bin Jabala to Sind in 650 A.D. to collect information. Before him Sahar-al-Abdi had visited Sind for the same purpose in 643 A.D. during Hazrat Omar's last days.18 The next Arab general to enter Pakistan by land was Muhlib bin Sufra who came through the Khyber Pass in 665 A.D. -65 A.H.

The real story, however, begins with Hajjaj Bin Yusuf who was Governor of Iraq. The story of Arab merchants returning from Ceylon to Basra having been looted by Sindhi pirates is well-known. It is related that some of the women who were being carried away by the pirates implored Hajjaj to rescue them.

Hajjaj took serious notice of the incident and wrote to Dahir, the ruler of Sind, for the release of captives as well as the goods which were being sent to the caliphate as presents by the ruler of Ceylon. Not receiving a favourable reply, Hajjaj, with the permission of Caliph Walid, sent a force to Debal under the command of Abdulla bin Nabhan. This force was annihilated by Dahir's army and its commander killed in battle. (According to Dr. Daud Pota the tomb of Abdullah Shah at Clifton in Karachi is of this General, Abdulla bin Nabhan).l9 Again, Hajjaj sent a bigger expedition to Debal, to oppose which Dahir sent his son Jaisia with a fairly large contingent. For the second time Arabs were defeated and their commander Badil bin Tuhfa killed in action at Debal. (According to the British historian Eliot, Karachi and the island of Manora constituted the city of Debal).

Hajjaj was infuriated and perturbed at the developments. Having realised that the ruler of Sind was a powerful monarch, he started making large-scale preparations and took personal interest in the matter since the issue had now become one of prestige. The selection of a commander for this expeditionary force had also to be made with due care keeping in view all the aspects of the problem. Hajjaj's choice fell on the young 20 year old (according to some 17) Mohammad Bin Qasim. The army and its Commander were given rigorous training for over one year in the desert of southern Iran which had similar climatic conditions to those of Sind. Through intelligence reports, all the strong and weak points of the enemy and details of their weapons and defences were collected, studied, and the Arab army equipped accordingly. Hajjaj bin Yusuf went through through the minutest details and after thorough study of the maps of Sind, guided Mohammad Bin Qasim on the strategy to be followed. Not content with this, Hajjaj made arrangements to convey his messages and orders to Mohammad Bin Qasim from Basra to any point in Sind within a week. Orders were that Mohammad Bin Qasim should not attack any city or fort or engage his forces in any large-scale battle with the enemy without getting orders from Basra. Even instructions concerning the day and time of attack and weapons to be used in a particular place or battle were sent by Hajjaj.

This time Arab armies triumphed and the triumph proved permanent. I shall not go into details which are available in all histories and mention only a few points which have not been high-lighted.

MOHAMMAD BIN QASIM'S RULE

As mentioned elsewhere, Sind had a large Buddhist population at this time but the ruler, Dahir, was a Brahmin. It is said that the Buddhists been receiving constant information from their co-religionists in Afghanistan and Turkistan about the extremely liberal treatment meted out to them by the Arab conquerors of those regions. In view of these reports, the Buddhist population of Sind decided to extend full cooperation to Mohammad Bin Qasim and even acclaimed him as liberator from Brahmin tyranny. Several principalities in Sind were ruled by Buddhist Rajas. The Buddhist ruler of Nerun (Hyderabad) had secret correspondence with Mohammad Bin Qasim. Similarly, Bajhra and Kaka Kolak, Buddhist Rajas of Sewastan, allied themselves with Mohammad Bin Qasim.20 On similar grounds, Jats also joined the Arabs against Dahir.

Secondly, it is generally believed that Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered areas only up to Multan. No, he conquered almost the entire Pakistan which then formed part of the Kingdom of Sind. According to Chach Nama, after conquering Aror (near Rohri), Mohammad Bin Qasim advanced towards Bhatia, an old fort on Beas which was under the command of Chach's nephew. After conquering Bhatia the Arabs laid siege to Iskandla on river Ravi and took it. Chach Nama further states that Mohammad Bin Qasim proceeded to the boundary of Kashmir called Panj Mahiyat, at the upper course of Jhelum just after it debouches into the plains.21 "With a force of 6,000 Mohainmad Bin Qasim, a youth of 20, conquered and reorganised the whole of the country from the mouth of Indus to the borders of Kashmir, a distance of 800 miles in three years 712-15 A.D.22

"Waihind (neat Attock) which was one of the oldest cities of the sub-continent was included in the kingdom of Sind."23 "Mohammad Bin Qasim made Multan the base for further inroads and garrisoned Brahmanpur, on the Jhelum, the modern Shorkot, Ajtabad and Karor; and afterwards with 50,000 men marched via Dipalpur to the foot of the Himalayas near Jelhum."24

It is recognised by all historians that Mohammad Bin Qasim's rule was most liberal and his treatment of non-Muslims extremely just and fair. He not only appointed Hindus to senior administrative posts but left small Hindu principalities undisturbed. Brahmins had become so loyal to him that they used to go from village to village and urge people to support the Arab regime. When Mohammad Bin Qasim was recalled from Sind by the Caliph in very unhappy circumstances, the Hindus and Buddhist of Sind wept over his departure; and when he died they erected a statue in his memory and worshipped it for a long time. Mohammad Bin Qasim’s two sons had a distinguished career. Arnroo became Governor of Sind and Qasim was Governor of Basra for fifteen years.25

But the early Arab period is not one of peace and tranquility. With the recall of Mohammad Bin Qasim the province returned to chaos and confusion. After a few years of anarchy governor Junaid restored normalcy. A short while later, due to bad administration, chaos prevailed again. Conditions were so critical that the next governor, Hakam bin Awanah established a new city called 'Mahfooza' (place of safety) in 732 A.D. - 113 A.H. where all the Muslims collected for safety. Later on, after restoring order and reorganising most of the Province, Hakam’s general Amroo (the son of Mohammad Bin Qasim) built another city 'Mansoora' (victory) near Shahdadpur in 737 A.D. - 119 AH. which became the capital of the Arab kingdom. Because of these unsettled conditions Sind had to be conquered again and again.

"In Sind the recall of Mohammad Bin Qasim was followed by a Hindu reaction which almost wiped out the results of the first victories. When Hakam bin Awanah was appointed Governor of Sind, he found that the natives had rebelled and apostasized. He built two cities, Mahfuzah and Mansurah in the north and south of Sind, to provide places of security for Muslims. 26

From the departure of Mohammad Bin Qasim in 715 A.D. to the fall of the Umayyad caliphate in 750 A.D., a period of 35 years, Sind had nine governors. They were Habib Bin Mohlab, Amro Bin Muslim Bahili, Bilal Bin Ahwaz, Junaid Bin Abdur Rehman Marri, Tamim Bin Zaid Atbi, Hakam Bin Awanah Qalbi, Amroo Bin Mohainmad Bin Qasim, Yazid Bin Arrar and Mansur Bin Jamhur Qalbi. During this period "Governor Junaid again conquered all the territory up to Beas and Ravi in the north-east, Kashmir in the north, Arabian ocean in the south, Malwa in the south-east and Makran in the west."27

Umayyad caliphate was replaced by that of the Abbasids in 750 AD, Sind became part of the Abbasid dominions. It remained under Baghdad’s control during the Abbasid Caliphs Saffa, Mansoor, Hadi, Haroon, Mamoon, Mutasim, Wasiq and Mutawakkil. In the reign of the last mentioned Caliph, the Governor of Sind, Umar Hibari, became practically independent owing nominal allegience to the Caliph. Earlier, during the caliphate of Mamoon-ur-Rashid, Sind Governor Bashar Ibn-e-Dawood had revolted and withheld the payment of revenues, but the revolt was quelled judiciously. It may be of interest to note that the postal and intelligence services of Sind were directly controlled by the Caliphs.

The man who governed Sind (then covering major portion of present day Pakistan) for the longest period was Dawood bin Yazid bin Hatim who died in 821 A.D. Two members of the famous Baramaka family of Abbasid Prime Ministers ruled over Sind as Governors during this period. One was Musa Barmakh and the other his son Omar Barmakh. The Barmakh family were said to be originally Kashmiri Buddhists who had migrated to Balkh (now in northern Afghanistan) and after accepting Islam, went to Baghdad where several members of the family had distinguished career. Two of them, Yahya and Jafar, became Prime Ministers of Haroon-ur-Rashid. (The word Barmakh is derived from the Sanskrit word ‘par mukh’ meaning sardar).

During the 105 years of Abbasid period when Sind formed part of their dominions (750-855 A.D.) thirty-one Governors were appointed. The Hibari dynasty which had become independent lasted from 855 A.D. to 1010 A.D. i.e., till the annexation of Sind by Mahmud Ghaznavi. It was the last Arab government. One of its rulers Abdulla bin Omar Hibari (d. 893 AD) ruled for about 30 years and made great contribution to the cultural and economic development of the province. It was during the Hibari period that Sind severed its relations with the caliphate; and it was during this period that two separate states emerged in Sind: one had its capital at Mansura and the other at Multan. In addition, several small Hindu states had also sprung up. It was again during the Hibari rule that the Fatimid Caliph Obidullah-aI-Mahdi sent the first Ismaili missionary, Haishan, to Sind.

MISSIONARY WORK

Sind being the eastern-most province of the Umayyad, and then of the Abassid Caliphates with loose control from the centre, its political as well as religious life was highly perturbed. In the political field due to internecine quarrels, Muslim governments in the area were divided into two sections: The upper region had Multan as its capital and the capital of the lower region was Mansura near Shahdadpur. Sind also became an arena of religious acrimonies because of the large number of Ismaili missionaries who visited this country and the herectics who took refuge here. The first Ismaili missionary to visit Sind was Haisham who came to Sind in 877 A.D. - 270 A.H. He was sent by the founder of the Fatimid caliphate, Obaidullah-al-Mahdi. Among other prominent Ismaili missionaries to visit Sind were Hazrat Abdullah (1067 A.D.), Pir Sadruddin (1430 AD), his son Kabiruddin, his brother Tajuddin and Syed Yusufuddin, all of whom gained considerable following in Pakistan. Pir Sadruddin had his grand lodge in Sind and it was he who conferred on the new converts the title of Khwaja (Khoja), meaning honourable. According to Dr. Arnold a number of Ismaili missionaries were sent to Sind from the famous "Alamut" fort which was the headquarter of Hasan Bin Sabbah who lived in the late 11th and early 12th century A.D.28 Abdullah-al-Ashtar Alvi, a great grandson of Hazrat Ali was among those who had religious differences with the Caliph, was considered a heretic and took refuge here. Because of sheltering him, the Governor of Sind, Omar bin Hafs was transferred to North Africa by the Caliph. Hazrat Abdullah Ashtar's tomb at Clifton on the sea-shore near Karachi is still visited by devotees.

A large number of Sunni missionaries also visited Sind during the Arab period. The Omayyed Caliph Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz is said to have sent a number of them who were successful in converting several Sindhi landlords. The Abbasid Caliph Mahdi also sent some missionaries who converted a number of Rajas and prominent Hindus up to Peshawar. Mohammad Alfi who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim and was among the most successful missionaries, later became adviser to the Raja of Kashmir and settled there.

The Arab rulers of Sind-Multan were extremely liberal, spoke Sindhi and treated their subjects well. They never encroached upon the religious liberties of the Hindus and Buddhists and appointed them to positions of responsibility. Mohammad Bin Qasim had appointed Sisakar, the Prime Minister of Raja Dahir, his own Prime Minister, and Kiska, another Hindu, his Revenue Minister. The entire history of Sind under the Arabs is replete with instances of Hindus holding positions of great responsibility and honour. Three per cent of the country's revenues were given to Brahmins as stipends. When some of the district administrators informed the Government that they were experiencing shortage of cows and bulls which were needed for agricuiture and transport, Government prohibited cow slaughter.

In the economic field also Sind made considerable progress. Agriculture received great impetus with foodgrains being exported tothe Middle East. A number of new varieties of fruits were cultivated among which the bananas of Sind were extremely popular in the neighboring countries. Camphor, neel, banana, coconut, dates, sugarcane, lemons, mangoes, almonds, nuts, wheat and rice are mentioned by almost all visitors as grown in plenty in Sind. Bishari Maqdasi writes that there were innumerable gardens in Sind and the trees were tall and luxuriant. The whole city of Mansura was covered with almond and nut trees.

The cities established by the Arabs "flourished as great centres of trade and learning. A busy trade grew up and the merchants of different nationalities carried Indian goods through Sind to Turkistan and Khurasan imported horses into Sind."32 Debal, Nairun Kot, Sehwan, Khuzdar, Aror, Multan and Mansura were flourishing commercial centres. Arabs had more trade with this country than with Gujrat, Malabar and Bengal. A large proportion of merchandise was transported from the Punjab by rivers. 700-800 maunds of goods were sewn in jute cloth, put in leather bags oiled from outside to prevent water penetrating and put in the rivers. 33

"On account of their favourable geographical position the ports of Sind played a vital role, even before the Arab invasion, in the commercial intercourse between the countries to the west (Iran, South Arabia, Ethiopia) and to the east of the Indus delta, as well as in the export of commodities manufactured in Sind itself. This role gained momentum after Islam had reached Sind. The author of Hudud al'Alam mentions that there were plenty of merchants in Sind, stressing that many a citizen of the coastal areas were engaged in sea trade. The cities of Daibul and Mansura were major trade centres of Lower Sind at the turn of the first and second millennia. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Thatta came in the fore as another major economic and political centre of the country: in the opinion of some scholars, the city in its prime had a population of 280,000."34

Leather and leather goods industry also made great progress during this period. The coloured and soft leather of Sind was known all over the world markets as Al-Sindhi. According to 'Muruj-uz-Zahab', the shoes of Mansura were very popular in Iran and the Arab world. Imam Hanbal relates that a large number of shoes were imported from Mansura into Baghdad where they were in great demand among the royal family and the gentry. But, he remarks, they were very showy.

Arabs also took keen interest in animal husbandry. They improved several breeds of camels, horses, cows, bulls and buffaloes. Sindhi buffaloes were so popular that Arabs used to carry them to their home towns when returning from Sind.

Building of cities and construction of roads and houses was a hobby with the Arabs. They built several new cities such as Mahfooza (in 732 A.D), Mansura (737 A.D.), Baiza (835 A.D.), Jundrore near Multan (in 854 AD) and several others. They also improved and expanded the existing cities by constructing satellite towns. A bridge called "Sukkar-al-Maid" was built over the Indus near Sukkur.

A number of Arab tribes of Quraish, Kalb, Tameem, Saqeef, Harris, Ael-e-Utba, Aal-e-Jareema and Asad, and several prominent families of Yemen and Hejaz had settled in Sind. Masudi (915 A.D. - 302 A.H.) writes that he met many descendants of Hazrat Ali in Mansura who were in the line of Omar bin Ali and Mohammad Bin Ali. He also mentions that there was fertility and opulence here and people were healthy. Some authorities have expressed the view that the wife of Hazrat Imam Hussain, who other of Hazrat Imam Zainul Abdin from whom the line of Hussaini Syeds is traced, was not a Perstan as is generally believed, but a Sindhi lady of noble family."35

Bishari writes that the people of Multan were prosperous, they did not drink wine and their women did not use cosmetics. Both Arabic and Sindhi were spoken. Regarding Mansura he states that the people were very well-read, courteous and religious. The city had a large number of scholars and the general standard of morals and intelligence was high. Mansura remained the capital of Sind from 737 A.D. - 120 A.H to 1026 A.D. - 416 A.H. for about 300 years till its conquest by Mahmud Ghaznavi. In late 3rd century Hijri when Multan became the capital of the northern kingdom, Mansura remained the capital of only the south i i.e., modern Sind. It survived till the Tughlaq period in the 14th century A.D. when it disappeared due to change in the course of river Indus.

As during the time of Darius when Sind constituted the 20th Satrapy of the Achaemenian Empire and considered an extremely rich province, so also during the Arab rule Sind was regarded a prosperous part of the Caliphate and paid a million dirham per annum as revenue to the Government at Baghdad.

REFERENCES:

1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham 2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky 3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi. 4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly 5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin 6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957 7. Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. 8. Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi. 9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta 10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross 11. Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi; 12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi. 13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1 14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee. 15. Ibid. 16. Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick. 17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later. 18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1 19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi. 20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi 21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi 22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali. 23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai. 24. Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25. Ibid. 26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb. 27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi. 28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold 29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister. 30. Ibid. 31. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi 32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut. 33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi. 34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky. 35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

source :History of Sind [4]

The article is about the invasion of India. No where but in Pakistan would people find this concept of 'Sindh' and 'Hindh'. Mainstream thought does not differentiate between the two, and indeed, it states that the two are merely corruptions of the same, due to the lack of appropriate phonetics in the language of the Greeks. Too many of your sources are Pakistani based, and created after the partition of India and Pakistan, and hence goes directly towards your theory of 'Sind' and 'Hind', in an effort to prove some special alternate identity. Modern mainstream historians, British historians from the 150 years of British rule, of the subcontinent, as well as the court historians of the Islamic invaders & their rulers(prior to the British), all hold views that are in direct opposition to your article. In fact recorded maps of Ashoka kingdoms, show that the areas you wish to seperate were all part of the same. If anyone has a case for seperation, it is the South of India, which was for the most part seperate from the major empires that ruled India. Also, there is no need for some special background history. Since the topic is about the invasion of India. We are not arguing the merits or demerits of Islamic rule. This is akin to arguing that writing about the Jewish holocaust needs to have some background information on Hitler, and/or how the Jews deserved what they got, and/or how the general germans benefitted from Hitler's policies. Create a seperate article stating 'The merits of the Islamic invasion of India', or something to that affect, because that seems to be what you have in mind for this article.

Other Religions

Besides the classic Hindu vs. Muslim arguments, my personal bias says a sentence or two might be added about the Parsis fighting for their new adopted land and their population being halved. And also, how this invasion influenced directly and indirectly on the influence of Sikhism. Of course I could be talking about the wrong invasion, this article is so confusing right now! Khirad 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the information regarding the Parsis will probably belong to articles like Islamic conquest of Iran, or maybe Persecution of Parsis or Persecution by Muslims. But yes, some aspects of it might also be mentioned in this article. The relationship with Sikhism definitely belongs in this article and should be mentioned. Be bold in updating articles. --Garcia Marquez 14:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

re-write needed

This article is bad beyond salvation through editing. Much of it is simply a list of names. Where it isn't a list, it's a biased attack on Islam. As one who majoried in Indian history, I say it needs a total re-write. A precis of any respectable mainstream history (Romila Thapar for example) could provide a basis. PiCo 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why bother?

Why bother with a rewrite when a merger will do?

To begin with, this article is wrongly titled. As the Wikipedia listing for South Asia will attest, the term "Indian subcontinent" is no longer correct, being unacceptable to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Therefore "Islamic invasion of India" is equally wrong, since the area mostly affected by the initial invasions was what is now Pakistan. Yes, it was called "India" back then, but it's South Asia now. Likewise, we no longer speak of the "Islamic conquest of Spain" (since the area of modern Portugal was affected). We call it the Islamic conquest of Iberia.

So then, there exists a more objective article called the Islamic conquest of South Asia within which some of the correct and neutral information in this article can be imported. This article can then be converted into a Redirect to the other.

67.94.0.46 16:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Fred

I think the article could still also be named "Islamic invasion (or conquest) of India". We are talking here of the period of ca. 1000 CE to 1700 CE. The "westerners" who conquered India at that period of time called the country and people "Hindu, Hind, Hindusthan, etc.", in fact the very name India derives from this period. (Though the term Hindu is not an invention of the Islamic conquerors, it was already used by the Persians). And the majority of the histories and accounts on medieval India use the word India rather than South Asia, because the country was called by that name in that period of time. I don't think that it is controversial to use the word "India" when referring to the medieval period, but I could be wrong. However, if you still think that South Asia is the better name than India for the article title, or if India could really be considered as "controversial", I don't mind if the article is renamed to South Asia. If we rename this to "South Asia", Greek Conquests in India should also be renamed. --Kefalonia 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Should this article be moved to Islamic conquest of South Asia. After second thoughts I think that this is indeed the better name.

I merged the content of Islamic invasion of India to Islamic conquest of South Asia. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do this. If somebody thinks that the history of the old article ought to be transferred to Islamic conquest of South Asia, then the content of that article (the merged article) should be copied into Islamic invasion of India, so that Islamic invasion of India can then be moved to Islamic conquest of South Asia. Maybe such a move should be requested on WP:RM. This should probably be done by an admin, because there is already an article at Islamic conquest of South Asia.

If a move of this article to Islamic conquest of South Asia should not be necessary, then this article should simply be redirected to Islamic conquest of South Asia. --Kefalonia 14:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

the author is totaly wrong in his assessments. Muslim is terrorist religion from its birth to till now. any muslim dominated area is communaly polarised area . one of mohamed ghaznavi and mohamed ghor are those basterds who try to destroy hindu religion and country but they failed to do so totaly it is the same in the case of so called jihadis of this dirty religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.76.47 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tbh the early comments about how India owes all its tourist attractions to Islam and that Islam brought economic and social progress is such racist, genocidal garbage that I wonder if these people breath the same air!

The level of arrogance, condensation and other indignities Hindus have to suffer over their own history is profound!

Raaj Karega Khalsa Aaki Rahe Na Koi|| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2C9F:FA68:6100:F1B2:DBC6:A788 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

South Asia or India ?

I agree with both South Asia and India. South Asia is correct because Pakistan is in south Asia as is India. However, most of muslim invasions of India was actually in today's modern Pakistan. Muslim invasions from Central Asia, Middle east did indeed occupied/ruled Pakistan much more than than they did in India but I is true that Pakistan was India in the past, there was no Pakistan and those territories were all Hindus in the past before being converted to Islam. Vamlos (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)