05-20-2007, 12:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Feb 16 2007, 09:58 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Feb 16 2007, 09:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]64514[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets not assume too many things about Muslim political power. It was not a consistent, stable stste. Its political power waned and waxed. Even after Tarain, the Delhi Sultanate was not necessarily consistently dominant. Under able, aggressive rulers like Iltutmish, Balban, Alauddin Khalji, Sikander Lodhi it increased in dominance, under weak rulers it waned. There was Rajputana, where powerful Rajputs still maintained their strongholds and independance mostly safe within their massive forts till the coming of cannons and gunpowder in mid 15th century. Bengal though a Muslim power was always rebellious. There were independant Muslim states in Malwa, Gujarat. Bahmani became independant in mid 14th century, a century and a half after Tarain. And down south Vijayanagar was the bulwark against the Muslim tide. The point I want to make is till the time of Mughals, let us not make too much of the Delhi Sultanate. Yes it was a big power, the star attraction in India to Muslim immigrants from Persia and Central Asia, but not a consistently strong empire.
But yet the fact remains that with Tarain, Hindu kingdoms did lose political power to a large extent in large parts of India, especially in the north. The Muslims were never numerous enough to displace or dominate entire India, even though there was a large influx of immigrants and also conversions. Still India did not convert as easily as Persia, where loss of political power also meant wholesale change of religion. The reason is that Hinduism was on a revival path during this period. Post 8th century, we had a dharmic revival. That has kept our civilization intact. Also when our religious base was weak in 6-8th centuries, our political landscape had strong, centralised empires which could check an invasion like the Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas and Pratiharas checked the Arabs.
Secondly I believe there is boon in a bane too. In this case the bane is our political disunity. This meant that any power which wanted to centralise had to fight all that more different parties to achieve consolidation. Consolidation quickened only after gunpower was introduced. Gunpowder meant that recalcitrant lords were no longer safe in their forts as gunpowder can make mincemeat of those walls. It took a long time for Alauddin to defeat certain Rajput kingdoms, still he could not enjoy complete dominance of a threat centre so close to his capital. Because there were so many different powers to be fought and kept under check the Muslims could never completely dominate all part of India. The same could be said for any power since the beginning of our history. Except for a very brief time during the Mauryan period when the empire was not just widespread across almost whole of India, but also centralised, we never have had a political unity like China.
Just as an aside, sometimes strong centralisation and political unity can also be disastrous in the long run. In the fifteenth century China had by far the strongest navy in the world and it was poised to dominate the world proceedings in the era of trans oceanic mercantile empires. China was able to build up such an advanced navy because of its ability to generate huge resources due to its centralisation. However this centralisation proved to be its death knell. One emperor and one writ was sufficient to destroy the entire navy. This because the emperor felt the navy to be a strong threat to his power. Cant imagine something like that happening in India.
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.
[right][snapback]64514[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets not assume too many things about Muslim political power. It was not a consistent, stable stste. Its political power waned and waxed. Even after Tarain, the Delhi Sultanate was not necessarily consistently dominant. Under able, aggressive rulers like Iltutmish, Balban, Alauddin Khalji, Sikander Lodhi it increased in dominance, under weak rulers it waned. There was Rajputana, where powerful Rajputs still maintained their strongholds and independance mostly safe within their massive forts till the coming of cannons and gunpowder in mid 15th century. Bengal though a Muslim power was always rebellious. There were independant Muslim states in Malwa, Gujarat. Bahmani became independant in mid 14th century, a century and a half after Tarain. And down south Vijayanagar was the bulwark against the Muslim tide. The point I want to make is till the time of Mughals, let us not make too much of the Delhi Sultanate. Yes it was a big power, the star attraction in India to Muslim immigrants from Persia and Central Asia, but not a consistently strong empire.
But yet the fact remains that with Tarain, Hindu kingdoms did lose political power to a large extent in large parts of India, especially in the north. The Muslims were never numerous enough to displace or dominate entire India, even though there was a large influx of immigrants and also conversions. Still India did not convert as easily as Persia, where loss of political power also meant wholesale change of religion. The reason is that Hinduism was on a revival path during this period. Post 8th century, we had a dharmic revival. That has kept our civilization intact. Also when our religious base was weak in 6-8th centuries, our political landscape had strong, centralised empires which could check an invasion like the Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas and Pratiharas checked the Arabs.
Secondly I believe there is boon in a bane too. In this case the bane is our political disunity. This meant that any power which wanted to centralise had to fight all that more different parties to achieve consolidation. Consolidation quickened only after gunpower was introduced. Gunpowder meant that recalcitrant lords were no longer safe in their forts as gunpowder can make mincemeat of those walls. It took a long time for Alauddin to defeat certain Rajput kingdoms, still he could not enjoy complete dominance of a threat centre so close to his capital. Because there were so many different powers to be fought and kept under check the Muslims could never completely dominate all part of India. The same could be said for any power since the beginning of our history. Except for a very brief time during the Mauryan period when the empire was not just widespread across almost whole of India, but also centralised, we never have had a political unity like China.
Just as an aside, sometimes strong centralisation and political unity can also be disastrous in the long run. In the fifteenth century China had by far the strongest navy in the world and it was poised to dominate the world proceedings in the era of trans oceanic mercantile empires. China was able to build up such an advanced navy because of its ability to generate huge resources due to its centralisation. However this centralisation proved to be its death knell. One emperor and one writ was sufficient to destroy the entire navy. This because the emperor felt the navy to be a strong threat to his power. Cant imagine something like that happening in India.