Medieval India

Assignment II
Marukh Budhraja

Examine the nature of the Turkish Campaigns in the context of developments in Central
Asia.

There is evidence to prove that Islam did not arrive with the Turkish campaigns around the
10th century. There are Muslim shrines in the Indian subcontinent that predate the Turkish
campaigns. The idea that the Turkish campaigns that began around the 10th century were
religiously motivated comes from thoughts that were embedded in the Indian mind during
the British rule that aimed at dividing religious communities so as to prevent a unified
uprising against them. These communal ideas have manifested themselves in the works of
most nationalist scholars.

One can trace that the Turkish Campaigns in the Indian subcontinent began after certain
developments that took place in Central Asia at the time. From the period of the Abbasids,
the ghulam system - that was used to train Turkish slaves, or ghulams, both in military and
administrative skill by the ruler so as to produce a group of close associates who owed
allegiance to him (not necessarily his family) and were appointed so as to prevent the rise of
autonomous sections in the kingdom - had led to certain ghulams rising up to very
prominent positions. By the time of the decline of the Abbasids in the 9 th century, the
Samanids had come to power and continued using the ghulam system. The decline of the
Samanid state in the late 10th century had led to the emergence of two prominent states
both ruled by former ghulams. These were Qarakhatais and Ghaznividi. Mahmud of Ghazni
who was the ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty 998 to 1130 AD was the first ruler to take up
the title of the ‘sultan’, implying that he was equal and independent from the caliphate, not
subordinate to him. He had started expanding his empire further towards the Indian
subcontinent after he faced pressure from the Samanids in the west and the Quakhatais in
the north. He is said to have led a series of 17 campaigns between 1001 and 1027 and had
captured West Punjab. The Indian subcontinent saw a second wave of Turkish campaigns
after Mahmud’s death. The Ghaznavid state had disintegrated and had led to the rise of the
two important states, the Ghurid state in Afghanistan and the Khwarazim state in Iran.
Muizzuddin Ghuri was the ruler of the Ghurid state at the time and had led the second wave
of campaigns between 1175 and 1192. In 1192, having defeated Prithviraj Chauhan in the
second battle of Tarain, the victory of the Turks marked the establishment of a permanent
Muslim force near Delhi. The Mongol pressure in Central Asia by this time had allowed for a
large number of Tukish people to migrate to the Indian subcontinent as refugees. Slowly,
one can thus see the rise of a primitive, almost tribal state in Delhi from this period
onwards.
Our source material for the Turkish campaigns is of mainly two types: the Persian literature
on history and the Rajput bardic literature along with some Sanskrit records. Utbi’s Tarikh-i-
Yamini and Fakhr-i-Muddabir’s Adab-ul-Harb work among the Persian literature is
particularly important for the period of the campaigns. To keep in mind the background of
the chronicler, his intended demographic, his biases et al is of paramount importance. All of
the Persian chroniclers of the time belonged to the ulama and were hence well versed in
the doctrines of sunni law and had certain religious expectations from the rulers. They
believed that the ruler should keep in mind the interests of Islam and even interpreted non-
religious events as religiously inspired ones. They wrote for an audience mostly based in
Central Asia and hence added religious rhetoric to further eulogise the activities of the ruler.
They believed that a ruler with Islamic roots should take up the cause of his religion and rule
accordingly. We cannot say for sure whether these were the thoughts of the rulers. The
Rajput literature on the other hand eulogizes the Rajput kings and exaggerates their
victories and acts of chivalry. A perfect example of this would be the “grand” Somnath
temple that the Persians claim to have destroyed, however the Sanskrit inscriptions have no
mention of the temple being destroyed by Persians or repaired subsequently. In fact, the
temple wasn’t even considered ‘grand” in the sources. The coins issued by Mahmud Ghazni
in Punjab were bilingual, containing the devanagari script and the motif of the Nandi bull,
obviously targeted towards the large non-Muslim audience. If one still believes that the
campaigns were religiously motivated, how does one explain the campaigns carried out by
the Turks upon other Muslim dominated regions in Central Asia before reaching the Indian
subcontinent?

To begin with, I would like to discuss Cynthia Talbot’s work on religious identities in pre-
colonial India. She starts with making a very simple point, that most Hindus today believe
that the Muslims among them are not indigenous to India. The truth however is that most
Indian Muslims have descended from families that converted to Islam during the early
medieval period. She blames the British colonisers for having etched such deep communal
hatred between Hindus and Muslims, and having made these communities believe that they
were enemies from the very start. She does not deny the fact that the Turkish were involved
in military conflict with the indigenous people of the subcontinent. She rubbishes the fact
that these campaigns were carried out solely in order to propagate Islam. She points out
that the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ are missing in the Andhra inscriptions from the 14 th to
mid-17th centuries. She believes that invoking the religious sentiments of a group helped in
gaining support and mobilizing masses against an impending attack and was hence used as a
tactic. When faced with Muslim threat in the 16th century, the Telugu warriors sought to
mobilize the masses by associating themselves with the great Kakatiyas. Also, an outsider
establishing rule in the subcontinent would require cooperation from the local rulers and
people at various levels. The desecration of temples by the Muslims was certainly one of the
issues addressed when it came to analysing the nature of the Turkish campaigns. What
however must be noted is that most desecration was only carried out in areas of contest
and was lacking during periods of stability. Also, the destruction of a temple did not
physically involve the breaking down of the structure and most often only involved
tampering with the movable property or closing down worship rather than sheer
iconoclasm. As Richard Eaton points out, the motives behind the profanation of temples
were most likely political and not religious. Harbans Mukhia elucidates this argument by
giving the example of the Cholas who also desecrated temples when they conquered an
area. The desecration of temples was mostly done so as to imply the change of the ruling
polity. What then must be kept in mind when reading the works pertaining to the period is
that religious terminology was most often used only to inflate the importance of a minor
campaign, to mask the actual political motive and to enhance the legitimacy of a ruler
carrying out the campaign. The term ghazi (holy warrior) used in the Turkish texts cannot be
deemed as a pointer towards religious warfare as a number of rulers had taken to such titles
when seeking legitimacy from among their people. There is NO evidence of mass
conversions to Islam pertaining to this period. Both the Hindu and Turkish texts of the
period had concentrated on showing the ‘other’ in a condescending, demeaning light;
showing their ‘self’ as a superior identity.

Sheldon Pollock points out that the term Hindu was first used by Muslims and it was done
not as a religious term used for forming a contrast with the Muslim but as one that defined
the people and culture of the region. He believes that it was the fact that the Turkish
conquerors retained their distinct religious and linguistic identity that made them seem
more like an outsider and only further helped in creating two separate identities. The
resistance shown by the indigenous people to these conquerors was in the form of literary
defamation. They resorted to describing the Turks as decadent lot that came to the
subcontinent as yet another characteristic of the Kali age.

In his book, The Language of Political Islam, Muzaffar Alam starts with discussing the
uncertainty of interpreting the sharia, Quran, hadith and the akhlaq (the ethical codes) of
the Muslims. The two could be interpreted rather subjectively by rulers who wished to
consolidate a large empire using religious text as a means of gaining legitimacy than actually
intending on creating a religious state. Alam points out that the notion about the rigidity of
Muslim jurisdiction had not yet set in, that most theological work was subject to
interpretation and most often used as a tool for justification. What one also learns is that
the patronage of texts by Muslim rulers was not limited to texts produced by Muslims, but
also included works like the Mahabharata that they considered important for the Hindus. He
also mentions how Sufism played an important role in promoting harmony and tolerance
among different faiths using its doctrine of wahdat al-wujud meaning the ‘unity of being’.
Though Alam talks about the Persian language and how the Turks had come to influence
language and culture in the north Indian region, he also highlights the ensuing diminution of
other cultures and languages.

Simon Digby, unlike the modernists - who lay emphasis on the social aspect, how the Indians
lacked unity due to the caste system and hence were at the mercy of the Turkish army that
fought as a unified lot – concentrates on the military aspect. He rubbishes the arguments
made by scholars about the fact that the Hindus were unaware of the tactics of mounted
combat. He also rubbishes the theory of Muslim success based on the fact that they had
superior weapons like the sword as compared to the primitive ones the Hindus supposedly
fought with. Another theory he proves wrong is the on absence of the stirrup among the
Rajputs, whereby he uses evidence from paintings and sculptures from the period that do in
fact show the use of the stirrup however one cannot ascertain the extent of its knowledge
or use. He believes that Muslim superiority lay in the supply of military resources. The best
known supply of horses came from Central Asia, and in this the Turks were at an obvious
advantage. Not only in terms of creating their own army but also regulating the horse trade
into India. The Rajputs most often depended on the landed gentry for the supply of horses
for their armies. What is also discovered in reading his work is that the Rajputs, known to
have mainly elephants in their army, had a cavalry and did in fact fight on horses. The Turks
on the other hand known for their cavalry, did have elephants in their army as indicated by
words such as ‘pil’(elephant) or ‘pil khana’ (shelter for elephants). The number of horses in
Rajput armies and the number of elephants in the Turkish ones however, may have been
inferior to the other. The Turkish forces were a centralised lot. The ‘ghulam’ system had
allowed their armies to be trained rigorously.

Aziz Ahmad has studied the works of the Turkish and Rajput chroniclers pertaining to the
period of the campaigns and after. What he believes is that there existed two literary
traditions that stemmed from the tensions between the Hindus and Muslims, each one
trying to lay emphasis on their own superiority. The Muslim epics were mostly those about
the conquests they made. The Hindu ones on the other hand were those that showed signs
of internal resistance and rejection. He states “Each of these two literary growths developed
in mutual ignorance of the other; their readership hardly ever converged”. He uses the term
“counter-epic” to describe the heroic poetry of resistance produced by the Hindus. He
believes that the contrast in these two types of literature is the ‘epic material’. The Muslim
chroniclers such as Amir Khusrau, concentrated much of their narratives on the success of
the Turks, exalting them against the Hindus, also talking about the iconoclasm carried out
during conquest. However, what must be kept in mind is that this was not done as part of a
religious movement to propagate Islam by destroying temples and building mosques, but
was a general pattern, a habit that they followed during conquest alongside the acquisition
of resources and booty. The Muslim chroniclers believed that it was their rule over India
that made it worth praise. What is seen among Hindus is that during the initial phases of
conquest, they seemed to have simply been passive observers to what they believed was a
result of bad karma. No resistance or attempt at defeating the Muslims was shown by the
Brahmanas, as a result. The main literature of resistance is seen in the bardic literature of
the Rajputs that lay emphasis on Rajput chivalry and courage against the Muslims and even
among warring Rajputs. Victories were exaggerated and rulers of one’s own side were
exalted.
Peter Jackson believes that early campaigns launched by Mahmud Ghazni helped him in
replenishing his treasury in Ghazna and helped provide a foothold for Islam in western
Punjab. He points out that the victory of the Turks did not imply the sure-shot removal of
the king but may have also implied placing him at an inferior level. The writings of the
chroniclers cannot by any means be taken at face value. Though it is likely that there existed
some elements of truth, the events were almost always highly exaggerated. For example, it
is possible that stone from a Hindu temple was used to make the mosque of Arhai Din ke
Jhompra at Ajmer, but the fact that Aybeg indulged in iconoclasm to the extent that he
removed all idols from the region of Kol is unlikely. The fate of Hindu temples had most
often relied on circumstance, not all temples were destroyed. It is the religious terminology
of the sources that causes such ideas of religious hostility to arise. The use of terms like
jihad (holy war) or sultan-I ghazi (holy warrior sultan), allows for such assumption. However,
at least from the sultan’s point of view, it is likely that the ulterior motive behind most
campaigns was religious and in fact the booty acquisition may have been more important.
There is also the evidence of Mui’zz al-Din having allied with the Prince of Jammu, a Hindu,
in order to defeat Khusraw Malik. Also, Aybeg’s army itself did comprise of some Hindu
soldiers. It is then important to recognise that the religious sentiments of the writer may not
have been those of the sultan.

B.D Chattopadhyaya mentions how the terms used to denote the Turks were the same as
the terms used to denote any outsiders that did not find place in the varna system. These
included terms like mlechhas and yavanas. Romila Thapar points out that the sources of the
period do not refer to the Turks with any religious terminology and Sanskrit sources refer to
them as ‘tajikas’ or traders and there is also mention of the ruling Turks as the ‘Shakhas’ in
the 13th century. The fact that religious terminology is not used in mentioning the Turks can
also be used in our argument that Hindus and Muslims did not view each other as
contrasting monolithic identities.

Nationalist writers presented views which were often based on the barbaric nature of the
Turks who attacked the royal chivalric Rajputs and disrupted the peace in the Indian
subcontinent. What is overlooked in doing so is that Rajput kings were often at war with
each other within the subcontinent and also that they looked at the Turkish conquerors as
just another emerging political contender for power without the religious hostility that we
believe to have existed among them due to the misinterpretation of sources. Some scholars
believe that the communal identities that clash today could simply not have existed without
modern technological development through the circulation of elements that comprise an
identity and that most clashes during the medieval period would have been confined to a
local realm rather than such a massive level. The religious aspect of the campaigns is one
that is over emphasized and subsequently one that overshadows all other political
complexities. The Persian tradition was more likely the driving force of the campaigns.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Talbot, Cynthia “Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in
Pre-Colonial India”
- Thapar, Romila, “Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History”, Oxford University
Press
- Ahmad, Aziz “Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India”
- Jackson, Peter, “The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History”, Cambridge
University Press
- Digby, Simon, “War-Horse and Elephant in the Dehli Sultanate: A Study of Military
Supplies”
- Alam, Muzaffar, “The Languages of Political Islam: India, 1200-1800”