02-16-2007, 04:28 PM
Thanks kartiksri. One point to look at is group dynamics. The various groups were trying to seek dominance over each other no matter how and often made alliances with the Muslims who were quite homogenous. It would be useful to do a comparative study of similar situations like the Crusaders states and their interactions with the Muslim states in the Middle East. Again how were the invasions from the Central Asian tribes stopped? I think you need strong central states to field the large armies that are needed to combat these invasions. Further group self interests have to be subsumed to face the bigger threat. However when ever there is a period of stability local groups jockey for dominance and this leads to the break down of central authority.
Also if you look at history of medieval India, the accounts talk of invaders who came as slaves etc but there is no info as to how and who they are? The Slave dynasty is really the Mameleuke dynasty which was the standard Islamic dynasty in Egypt, Syria and even Bagdad at that time. Who came up with the name Slave dynasty and how did it become the standard nomenclature? Eg. There was an Aibek ruling Egypt in that time frame after the overthrow of the Fatimid Shia Caliphs. And an Aibek in India. Was Aibek a tribe ? There is no integrated study of Muslim India as a continuum of the Middle East. By treating it as a isolated geographical place we lose the connections that forced the Islamic movements. For example why was there a lull between Qasim to Ghazni? I submit that was the time the Arabs were loosing ground to the Turco-Persians in Baghdad and then new mameleuke armies were being created and needed critical mass to explore further East.
Also if you look at history of medieval India, the accounts talk of invaders who came as slaves etc but there is no info as to how and who they are? The Slave dynasty is really the Mameleuke dynasty which was the standard Islamic dynasty in Egypt, Syria and even Bagdad at that time. Who came up with the name Slave dynasty and how did it become the standard nomenclature? Eg. There was an Aibek ruling Egypt in that time frame after the overthrow of the Fatimid Shia Caliphs. And an Aibek in India. Was Aibek a tribe ? There is no integrated study of Muslim India as a continuum of the Middle East. By treating it as a isolated geographical place we lose the connections that forced the Islamic movements. For example why was there a lull between Qasim to Ghazni? I submit that was the time the Arabs were loosing ground to the Turco-Persians in Baghdad and then new mameleuke armies were being created and needed critical mass to explore further East.