Scheme of Muslim rule in India

[Guest]

Muslim rule from Delhi from 1206-1707 (= 501 years)



The Muslim rulers of Delhi influenced more or less the politics from the fortified residences within their annexed areas the life in and outside those areas. While they could dominate (read terrorize) the cities, towns and countryside outside their strongholds but within their kingdom respectively empire, they tried to conquer the inimical strongholds outside their kingdom with planned raids of the cities, towns and countryside and sieges of their strongholds. These were either annexed or remained independent.



The Turki and Mughal invasions were attempted to conquer and rule over India. The Islamiced Turks from the Ghazni belt, pressing the local Bauddha Turks and Hindu/Bauddha Pathans and other locals, managed to rule over Delhi and other fortified areas in the northern plains. The Mughals started from 1221 on with their attempts from the Ghazni-Gandhara belt. They only managed to conquer India in 1526, to lose it again in 1540, and regain it in 1555 , with the help of Iran.

Four groups of Mughals, Turks, Pathans and other Indians interacted, with the Hindu-remaining Indians within specific geographical zones, which I call Mandalas, from Central-Asia to the Indian seas.



Mandalas (belt): Political wave effects on India from geo-zones



I. OXUS-JAXARTES VALLEYS

1. Khurasan Mandala (Khurasani areas)

This area was important for the developments into the subcontinent from the Hindukush deep into the Indo-Gangetic plains. The Islamiced Turks and Tajiks and other E-Iranic (E-Iranian and descendants of Sakas and Tukharas) were dominant in these areas with a hybrid but predominantly Persian culture.

Mughal invasion, enslaving Turks from the north, and then also Turks and Tajiks from Khurasan caused a deep antagonism between Turks-Tajiks and Mughals.



II. OUTER INDIA (Pash/khtuni areas)

2. Ghazni-Gandhara Mandala

Migrated Turks and Tajiks already settled or freshly arrived from Khurasan dominated the local newly Islamiced Pathans-Hindkos-other Hindus and non-Islamiced populations. This caused a deep antagonism of the Turk-Tajik with the local freshly Islamized Pathans-others and non-Islamized Hindu groups.

With the Mughal invasion within the Ghazni-Gandhara Mandala, we get three antagonistic groups: Mughals-Turks and Tajiks-Pathans and Hindus.



III. INNER INDIA (Pakistani areas)

3A. Indus Valley Mandala: (WPanjab-Multan-Sindh)

After the Ghazni Mandala the next thread came from the Islamized Indus Valley centers in Lahore and Multan. The last was an Ismaili Shiite mini-belt.



B. North India Mandala

In this Mandala the power triangle Delhi-Bangal-Gujarat influenced other centers like Rajputana, Malwa-Mathura and the Mid-Gangetic. Political fortified centers and other citadels were interlinked, Hindu religious centers were converted into Muslim ones, changing also their place names.



The four Sunnite tribes formed these groupings: Khurasano-Afghani Mughals, Turk and Tajiks versus Afghano-Hindustani converted Pathans and converted Hindus. Both groupings were antagonistic towards each other, but both were religiously hostile towards Hindus. Pathans were spread in the Purab and other countrysides.



C. South India Mandala

In this Mandala the Iranian Shiites started a belt in the Deccan, wagings political wars against the Sunnites from the North, with help of the Hindus, but religious wars with help of Sunnites against the same Hindus from the South.



The Muslims, starting from Muhammad bin Sam established bases for Muslim overlords over Hindu rulers who paid tribute. At local levels within direct Muslim rule, a host of lesser chieftains (muqqaddams) and headmen (khots) were employed during Alauddin Khilji, as per Barni.

During Muhammad Tughluq, Hindus who lived in villages under a Muslim officer or Hakim were distinguished from Hindus of the Mawasat (jungles, bare or barren lands).



Dar-ul-Islami heartland

A. The fortified areas (forts, towns, cities) were under direct Sultanate rule.

B. The open countryside was land of the infidels: The landholders (zamindar) and peasants (dahiqin) are only ostensily subjects (ra'aya-yi suri), paying taxes out of fear of the sword.



Dar-ul- Harbi periphery

A. Zaminbus areas; loosely tolerated Hindu kingdom areas were existent due to paying tributes (pAibUs, zamInbUs).

B. Mawas areas: these were beyond control. Even Muslim rebels and dissidents took refuge there, forming a cluster sometimes of Hindu and Muslim partizans.

Two means of attacking these Harbi areas were through actions of Sultani Swords and Sufi Saints.



Within every stronghold area of the Delhi Sultanate, there were pacified Zaminbus royals and troublemaking Mawas rebels. The Delhi and other Sultans never controlled their subjects outside the fortified dots within their kingdoms. Therefore, any map depicting the geographical limits of their power with one colour, is giving a highly flattered picture!



In the Sultanate Period, the largest kingdoms were under:

a. Turki Balban Mamluk

b. Turkoid Alauddin Khalaji

c. Turki Muhammad Tughluq

d. Turkoid Sikandar Lodi (Khalaji)



The Padishah Period has three subperiods:

A. Babur and Humayun

B. Interregnum Suri Pathans

C1. Akbar: most influential Padishah

2. Jahangir

3. Shah Jahan

4. Aurangzeb: largest kingdom





I. 1st Delhi Kingdom (1206-1398 = 192 years)

1. Turki Mamluks (1206-1290 = 84 years)

Shamanist Mughal threats, at least 15 major invasions.



A. Qutbuddin Aibak (1206-1210)

B. Aram Shah (1210-1211)

C. Iyaltimish (1211-1236)

1223/4 Dorbey and Bala Mughals invade Multan and Lahore for Chengiz Khan (1206-1227)

1235 Kashmir area invaded for Ogodei (1227-1241)

Pakchak Mughal invades Peshawar for Ogodei (1227-1241)



D. Rukuddin Firuz (1236), Razia Sultana (1236-1240), Muizzuddin Bahram (1240-1242), Alauddin Masud (1242-1246) , Nasiruddin Masud (1246-1266)

1239 Mughal held the tract beyond the Chenab.

1241 Dayir and Mengutei Mughal invasion of Lahore for Ogodei (1227-1241)

Sali Mughal invades Kashmir area for Mongke (1251-1257)

1245/6 Mengutai Mughal invasion of Uch and Multan

1248-1252 Sali Mughal invades Multan and Lahore for Hulagu (1257-): bought of.. Lahore and Sindh became Mughal

1257 Kushlu Khan invades Delhi

1257/8 Sali Mughal occupies Ucch and Multan for Hulagu

NOTE: Ulugh Khan Balban was active as general against the Mughal invasions. Not always successful.



E. Ghiyasuddin Balban (1266-1286)

Annual Mughal attacks, as far as Rupar on the Satlaj, as per Barni.

1266 Mughals crossed the Beas river and attacked Uch.

1268 Balban takes Lahore from Mughal subordinate Kushlu Khan.

1284/5 Temur Mughal defeats Balban's general at Ravi junction with Dhandh.



F. Muizzuddin Kaikubad (1286-1290)

Kayumars (1290) only three years old was dethroned by his guardian Alauddin Khalaji.

1287 Temur Mughal invades territory between Lahore and Samana.



2. Turkoid Khalajis (1290-1320 = 30 years)

Shamanist some Muslim Mughal invasions, 10 counted.

1303 Siri and Jahanpanah fortifications repaired.



A. Jalaluddin Firuz

1291 Mughal invasion at frontier.

1292 Abdallah Mughal invasion: Alughu into Panjab, Alughu and his 4000 advance guard became the New Muslims and settled in Delhi's Mughalpur quarter, main thread of Mughals was bought off.



B. Ali Gurshasp Alauddin (1296-1316): usurped the throne

1st Mughal invasions 1296-7 Duva Khan: in 1297 Jalandhar

2nd Mughal invasion 1297/8 Saldi

3rd Mughal invasion 1399 Qutluq Khvaja into Delhi

4th Mughal invasion 1303 Targhay into Delhi

5th Mughal invasion 1303 Ali Beg and Tartaq into Panjab

6th Mughal invasion 1306 Kebek into Multan and Panjab

7th Mughal invasion 1307/8 Iqbalmand and Taibu at Indus river. Duva Khan died, succession war.

Mughal commander tried to kill Malik Kafur in 1311 > all Mughals of Sultanate murdered.



C. Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah (1316- 1320)

1320 Mongol invasion of Zulju into Kashmir



- Interregnum

1320 Sultan Khushrau Khan Parvar: Hindus and their cults (ban on cow-slaughter) again revered.



3. Turki Tughluqs (1320-1413 = 93 years)

Three Mughal invasions

A. Giyathuddin (1320-1325)



B. Muhammad (1325-1351): 'usurped' the throne

1327 Mughal invasion Tarmashirin into Lamghan-Multan-siege Delhi. Thread was bought off. Bauddha Tarmashirin later became Muslim.

Mughal raids of Amir Qazaghan into Northern India

Mughal Amir Qazaghan helped Muhammad suppress rebellions in 1350.



C. Firuz Shah (1351-1388)

Note: Timur from 1363 ruler of Transoxiana-Khurasan: centralization (politics), Islamization (religion) and Islamo-Persianization (culture). A split between Islamiced and non-Islamized Chaghatai Mughals. He tried to found a new Mughal empire.



II. 2nd Delhi Kingdom (1398-1556 = 158 years)

1398 DESTRUCTIVE RAID TIMUR A CHAGATAYID MUGHAL

1398-1414 anarchy and regionalism

Many areas in Northern India were untouched by the weakened Delhi kingdom.



a. Saiyads (1414-1451 = 47 years)

A. Khizr Khan (1414-1421): vassal of the Timurid Chaghatays (Mughal)

B. Mubarak Khan (1421-1434)

C. Muhammad Shah (1434-1445)

D. Alauddin Alam Shah (1445-1451)



b. Turkoid Lodis (Khalajis) (1451-1526 = 75 years)

A. Bahlul (1451-1489)

B. Sikandar (1489-1517)

C. Ibrahim (1517-1526

Mughal invasion of Babar



c. Timurid Chaghatay Mughals (1526-1556 = 30 years)

A. Babar (1526-1530) – hated his Mughal ancestry, considered himself a Turk, but Barlas are Mongols.

B1. Humayun 1st rule (1530-1545)

C. - Interregnum Pathan Suris (1540-1555)

B2. Humayun 2nd rule (1555-1556)

- Interregnum Hemu (1556)



III. Delhi Empire (1556-1707 = 151 years)

A. Akbar (1556-1605)

B. Jahangir (1605-1627)

- Interregnum (1527-1528)

C. Shah Jahan (1528-1558)

D. Aurangzeb (1558-1707)





The above described scheme includes many blank incidents, not mentioned in standard works, such as the prolonged Mughal attempts to conquer India from 1221 on. Omitting the weight of these invasions, and even all the occurring ones in contemporary works indicates the submissive nature of court writers to their Turki patrons. Many facts, like defeats were not given proper attention. Exageration of their own exploits were not uncommon. (This is equally true of their defeats at Hindu hands.)



The scheme has the benefit to get a better grasp of the political picture, related to the regnal periods and extent of their dominion. Keeping in mind that the Muslims only controlled fortified dots within their kingdom, we get also a picture of the partly independent tributary Rajas and also the fully independent and uncontrollable rulers.

We get a better outlining of the heoric Hindu resistence.



The severe threats of the invasions of the Mughals were the real cause of the relocations of the capital seat in Delhi, and even once outside Delhi during the Tughluqs. There wasn't any time and money to build from scratch any major city, fort or building, thus the Sultans were content with usurping preexisting ones, making them fit or embellishing them to acquire Islamic standards, to pacify their Ulemas.



Another factor to reckon with is the political and religious interaction of 4 groups of Muslims (outer belt Mughals, outer belt Tajik-Turks, inner belt Pathans and other converted, inner belt converted Hindus; actually a fifth is when taking the Shiites apart from the Sunnites) with each other and against the non-Muslim Hindus.

This scheme provides a handy tool to outline the atrocities commited by the Muslims rulers, originating from which belts and by which of their 5 groups, and thus getting a twofold better picture of the Hinducides and total Hinducaust and the developments of architecture.

[ramana]

I will work on a mind map that shows these streams.



Were the Mongols invading from 1221 already Islamised or not?

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='ramana' date='30 August 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1283110533' post='108103']

I will work on a mind map that shows these streams.



Were the Mongols invading from 1221 already Islamised or not?

[/quote]



No



Even as late as Marco Polo, 1280, Iran was ruled by Shamanist Mongols and Buddhism was allowed

This was snuffed out when they converted around 1300



Remember, Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258,

at that time, only the golden horde tribe of mongols which ruled russia was islamised



The later slave dynasty allowed islamised Mongols to

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='ramana' date='30 August 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1283110533' post='108103']

I will work on a mind map that shows these streams.



Were the Mongols invading from 1221 already Islamised or not?

[/quote]



No



Even as late as Marco Polo, 1280, Iran was ruled by Shamanist Mongols and Buddhism was allowed

This was snuffed out when they converted around 1300



Remember, Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258,

at that time, only the golden horde tribe of mongols which ruled russia was islamised



The later slave dynasty allowed islamised Mongols to settle in Punjab

[Guest]

Exactly! The Muslims had by then a dreadful fear for "Pagan" Mughals.



See also my scheme below for India:



I. 1st Delhi Kingdom (1206-1398 = 192 years)

1. Turki Mamluks (1206-1290 = 84 years)

Shamanist Mughal threats, at least 15 major invasions



2. Turkoid Khalajis (1290-1320 = 30 years)

Shamanist Mughal invasions, 10 counted.





NOTE: except for the invasion of the Mughal Abdallah. He converted to Islam when the Mughals were governing Ghazni. But still, despite being a Muslim, he despised the Turks, for Mughals they were slaves. Therefore he attacked the Turkoid Khalajis, who were actually Turks from Mawara-un Nahr (Transoxiana), and fled to the southeast for the Mughals. The Khalaji Sultan made an agreement, and the depicted story is that the Mughals became newly converted and settled in Delhi. The real story rather must have been that these were freshly converted Mughals from the army settled in Ghazni. Probably they were captured and spared and considered as special mercenaries in the army of their co-religionists. They were used against the Hindu Rajas. Till some incidents occurred against the general of the Sultan, that all were considered too dangerous for the Turks. Thus the newly Muslim Mughal mercenaries were massacred.



But the main body of Mughals in Transoxiana were still non-Muslim Shamanists.



3. Turki Tughluqs (1320-1413 = 93 years)

Three Mughal invasions

Tarmashirin of the first invasion in 1327 was a Bauddha, afterwards converted to the Islam.



How fast the islamization of the Mughals went on, I don't know yet fully in detail. It had to do with the islamization of the heartland of Mughals (Transoxiana) from where they launched expeditions to the next belt which they held for launching attacks on Turki Sultans in India.

By the time of the Timurid Chaghatay Mughals, of the clearly Mughal Barlas tribe, this islamization of that heartland was completed. The role model for this new identity came from the largest populations of Transoxiana: Muslim Turks (language) and E-Iranic Sogdians (architecture, culture) and to a lesser extent Muslim Iranic Tajiks (Persian culture). The Shamanist Mughals then must have been looked down upon by the Muslim ones.



But, Timur remained a (raiding) Mughal and still looked down upon the Turks, whether Muslim or not. That's why he punished the Delhi Tughluq Sultan, not because he found him lax, but simply because Turks were considered their slaves, unworthy to be their equals as rulers. But in which standard book is this point mentioned?

Of course, Hindus were unworthy of living in his Muslim eyes.



By the time of Babur, the Turkic influence through the language was the strongest, may be through marital relations with Turki women? May be also because other powerful Mughals in Central-Asia were hostile towards him.

Anyway, the Timurid Mughals spoke by then Turki and were Tajiko-Persianized in their manners. Previously the enemies of the Turks during their Shamanist period, now really started looking down on the dominant people of the new belt towards India: the ethnically different (islamized) Pathans.

[Guest]

In the Sultanate Period, the largest kingdoms were under:

a. Turki Balban Mamluk - Mughal invasions

b. Turkoid Alauddin Khalaji - Mughal invasions > relocated to preexisting citadel of Siri - impregnable when besieged

c. Turki Muhammad Tughluq - Mughal invasions > relocated to Tughluqabad , then to Devagiri , then to Jahanpanah-Siri

d. Turkoid Sikandar Lodi (Khalaji)



But the irony is that the most dreadful invasions of Mughals occurred during the rules of the first three putting a heavy financial load on the shoulders of the Sultans. And two of these had their royal seats relocated.

When Balban was a general during the last Mamluk Kaikubad, the Mughals were very actively threatening the Sultan and the royal seat was relocated far away from the western fortress of Yoginipura towards Indarpat metropolis. The new capital seat, a preexisting fortress city in safer areas, was called Shahr-i Nau.

Firuz Shah Tughluq, with constant Mughal threats, relocated his capital seat to the remoter location in Indarpat metropolis.

The relocating Sultans were very nervous of the Mughal threats. They moved towards preexisting city forts and palaces which they took from their tax paying Hindu vassals.



According to Hari Charan Das in his work he gives these names for the Rajas of the later called Shahjahanabad area in Indarpat metropolis:

Hari Charan Das: Chahar Gulzar Shuja'i (ca. 1785 century finished)

Book V. The Kalí Yuga: this book is divided into two parts.

Part I.—The Rájas of Dehlí, now called Sháh-Jahánábád, from the beginning of the Kalí Yuga, or the reign of Rája Judhishtar, in whose time the great war took place, up to the first irruption of the Muhammadans, as taken from the Rájávalí and Faizí's translation of the Mahábhárata from Hindí into Persian.

Part I.—Sec. i. ….X. Dahí Sen; Baláwal Sen, son of Dahí Sen; Keshú Sen, son of Baláwal Sen; Madhú Sen, son of Keshú Sen; Súr Sen, son of Madhú Sen; Bhím Sen, son of Súr Sen; Kanak Sen, son of Bhím Sen; Hari Sen, son of Kanak Sen; Ghan Sen, son of Hari Sen; Náráin Sen, son of Ghan Sen; Lakhman Sen, son of Náráin Sen; Madr Sen, son of Lakhman Sen.— xi. Rája Díp Singh. Six Rájas of this family ruled during 107 years and 7 months: Rán Singh, son of Díp Singh; Ráj Singh, son of Rán Singh; Chatar Singh, son of Ráj Singh; Nar Singh, son of Chatar Singh; Jíwan Singh, son of Nar Singh.—xii. Rája Pithaurá. Of this line five princes filled the throne during 80 years 6 months and 10 days: Ráí Abhai Mal, son of Ráí Pithaurá; Durjan Mal, son of Abhai Mal; Udai Mal, son of Durjan Mal; Ráí Vijai Mal, son of Udai Mal.



NOTE: Indarpat metropolis with the royal area of Shahjahanabad had its own Raja! Hari Charan Das confirms ca. 130 years after Shah Jahan that Indarpat city had its own Rajas before Muhammad bin Sam and Qutbuddin. The Mirat-i Ahmadi confirms that Shah Jahan only repaired the existing palaces with marble stucco, within Red Citadel. The structures were there already. He only renamed this ancient fortress city.

Dipasimha usurped the throne of the previous dynasty hailing from Bangal, who ruled for 152 years (853-1005), according to other sources The architecture style of the Bangal school was probably introduced in the Red Fort city of Shahjahanabad-Indarpat during these Rajas from Bangal.



Thus, 107 years and 7 months 1005-1113

Dipasimha

Ranasimha

Rajasimha

Chhatrasimha

Narasimha

Jivanasimha



And 80 years and 6 months 1112-1193 86 years in other sources

Pithaura Prithviraja 12-2 (1107-1119)

Abhayamala Abhayapala 14-5 (1119-1133)

Durjanamala Durjanapala 11-4 (1133-1144)

Udayamala Udayapala 11-7 (1144-1156) Vigraharaja Chauhana conquered Dhilli and probably also Indarpat

Vijayamala Yashapala 36-4 (1156-1193) Prithviraja Chauhana overlord of Dhilli and probably of Indarpat



Qutbuddin Aybak conquers Delhi, thus also Indarpat. There was another Pithaura in the Tomara Dhilli list in 1073-1095. In 1093 Chandradeva Gahadavala was overlord of Indrasthaniyaka, making the Raja there (Jivanasimha) his vassal. The next dynasty may have been of the Tomara branch too (like their cousins in Dhillipura metropolis) and seized the Indarpat throne from the vassal.



The Indarpat Rajas were not affected by Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion attempts. Dhilli the capital city of Vijayapala is unaffected by Mahmud, but he did harrass the areas of the Tomaras in Haryana. During Salar Mahmud's invasion, Mahipala had an encounter which he lost initially, giving up Thaneshvar and Hansi, temporarily.

[ramana]

Instead of calling them pagan Mongols can you call them Shaman Mongols? Pagan is Roman word to describe non-Christians in Europe.

[Guest]

You're absolutely right. I had named them from the point of view of their adversaries as "pagan" (not as pagan) Mughals. But now I have changed that into Shamanist Mughals.

[Guest]

Ishwaji,excellent series of articles by you.The ones on Indian architecture stolen by the islmaic vandals were great.Do you run a blog as well?



one question I had: who are the "parwaris" mentioned in muslin records like Barani etc.They refer to slaves taken from Gujarat,but was it a specific catergory like parmars?



also what are "paiks"? , they seem to be some sort of hindu soldiers in the moslems service.again a term i came across in the muslim chronicles.

[Guest]

[quote name='devagiri' date='17 September 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1284724705' post='108360']

Ishwaji,excellent series of articles by you.The ones on Indian architecture stolen by the islmaic vandals were great.Do you run a blog as well?



one question I had: who are the "parwaris" mentioned in muslin records like Barani etc.They refer to slaves taken from Gujarat,but was it a specific catergory like parmars?



also what are "paiks"? , they seem to be some sort of hindu soldiers in the moslems service.again a term i came across in the muslim chronicles.

[/quote]

Dear Devagiri,

Thank you. I do not run blogs. Whatever sparetime and breath (or health) I have, I spent reading and sometimes writing on the medieval period. Though my favourite period used to be the ancient time, the necessity of exposing a lot of biased data and clear untruths of the medival time, having still its bearings on modern day, stimulated me to quickly launch the recent writings here. I Hope to the stimulation of others to explore and expose more. When the time is ripe for more general acceptance, at least this part of the job could have been done in advance.



Parwaris are called 'low cast' in sources. But they might be (partly or totally) Islamized Parmars. I do not know the definite answer to this.



Paiks seem to point to a pedestrian function (paaii = feet), thus infantry.

[ramana]

If another member creates a blog for you will it work for you?

[Guest]

[quote name='ramana' date='20 September 2010 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1284950416' post='108392']

If another member creates a blog for you will it work for you?

[/quote]



That might work. Though I am not that productive in providing sufficient numbers of required articles within short time. I am a slow reader, and an even slower writer.

[Bodhi]

Ishwa, excellent points, thank you.



"Babar (1526-1530) – hated his Mughal ancestry, considered himself a Turk..."



Akbar on the other hand willed to re-invent their ancestral history and connect themselves back to the Great Khaqan's relatives rather than with their turkic forefathers on the paternal side of timur-lang. The intellectual jugglary on this front is quite evident in the accounts by Abu-al Faz'l. He also got the Secret History craefully preserved & translated into Persian, and took pride in being descendants of the great shamanic mongols.



"The Indarpat Rajas were not affected by Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion attempts..."



I think actually they were affected. If I am not mistaken, there is a record of bhojadeva having sent a strong joint force of chandrahella-pramAra led by his own nephew, to the aid of the then Indrapat Raja beseiged by the generals of Ghazanavi.



On Islamization of Moghals, it is surprising that those Moghals who were within the Indian theatre were the last to be Islamized. Late Khalji records mention much oppression of these moghals at the hands of turkoids. On one instance, by the orders of sultan, over 15000 Mogals were butchered in cold blood in dillI orudu-s. (ref SAA Rizavi's Khalji Kalin Bharat). The Moghals also supported the Hindu armed rebellion followed by brief overthrow of the dillI Sultanate by Khusru Khan/Deval Rani, and were their allies in the battle.

[Bodhi]

Ishwa, excellent points, thank you.



"Babar (1526-1530) – hated his Mughal ancestry, considered himself a Turk..."



Akbar on the other hand willed to re-invent their ancestral history and connect themselves back to the Great Khaqan's relatives rather than with their turkic forefathers on the paternal side of timur-lang. The intellectual jugglary on this front is quite evident in the accounts by Abu-al Faz'l. He also got the Secret History craefully preserved & translated into Persian, and took pride in being descendants of the great shamanic mongols.



"The Indarpat Rajas were not affected by Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion attempts..."



I think actually they were affected. If I am not mistaken, there is a record of bhojadeva having sent a strong joint force of chandrahella-pramAra led by his own nephew, to the aid of the then Indrapat Raja beseiged by the generals of Ghazanavi.



On Islamization of Moghals, it is surprising that those Moghals who were within the Indian theatre were the last to be Islamized. Late Khalji records mention much oppression of these moghals at the hands of turkoids. On one instance, by the orders of sultan, over 15000 Mogals were butchered in cold blood in dillI orudu-s. (ref SAA Rizavi's Khalji Kalin Bharat). The Moghals also supported the Hindu armed rebellion followed by brief overthrow of the dillI Sultanate by Khusru Khan/Deval Rani, and were their allies in the battle.

[Guest]

Dear Bodhi, thank you. And also for the reference of Bhojadeva. Do you have a transcription of that record? Unfortunately I do not have a book containing the inscriptions of the medieval period, which would be a welcome primary source besides the translated Persian sources.



There are so many hiati in the period of Muslim dominance of Delhi (and Agra). And there are a lot of fabricated or forged claims about preexisting cities, forts, palaces and temples. Luckily we have contradicting and silent views written down by the court writers.



The precomposed minds of researches credits the Muslims and particularly the Mughals with superiority on almost every field, including architecture. Just like the AIT, the medieval period was the result of the influence from abroad. But the picture is entirely different. Bundela architecture for instance has nothing to do with Mughals. The symmetrical architecture has rather more parallels with the Shaiva temple complex of Angkor Vat or other ancient Hindu structures. Our lofty edifices based upon Hindu vastushastras before 1200 and after are grossly misrepresented in standard works. There is too much a Muslim-appeasing and hostile Hindu-appreciating approach in academia, not giving room to realities fed by contradictions in the first approach.

[Bodhi]

Ishwa, tarikh-i-ferishta alludes to the occurance, but I also remember having come across a mention of it in epigraphical sources. K C Shrivastava also mentions it in Madhyakalin Bharat Ka Itihas vol 2. will inform you if manage to find the reference/transcript.

[Guest]

Thank you, Bodhi. I will look in the Tarikh-i Ferishti.