I am not debating on Indo-Gangetic plains but on the notion that most of North India was held and islamized by Turks.
Agreed. So is true about Kashmir and Himachal, Malwa, Central India of Chandels etc. What is left is Indo-Ganetic plains accessed via Punjab. That is not called "Most of north India". Furthermore, that is zenith of Turkish terirtory, not what they held from day one to the last day. And the kind of hold they had, has been discussed already.
First, we need to define what is "North India". The following map shows the official GoI zonal classifications:
I would exclude Madhya Pradesh, as I consider that to be more Central India than North, but otherwise the states shown above can be taken to constitute "North India". One might also add West Panjab (Pakistan) and Sindh to the definition since, in terms of history and geography, these regions form a continuum with the rest of 'North India'.
Now, with the exceptions of Kashmir and Uttarakhand (until the mid-14th century), and Rajasthan, the whole region described above was dominated by Turks since the early 13th century. We can squabble over the precise territorial extent of 'North India' and the exact percentage of this territory which was under Turkish dominion, but the important fact is that the
the most productive and densely-populated lands in India, i.e. those of the greater Indo-Gangetic plain stretching from Sindh/Panjab to Bihar/Bengal, were under the political domination of foreigners. This domination by foreigners would continue more or less from the 13th to the 18th centuries, as I stated previously (in the western parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the domination lasted even longer than that). And this vast swathe of land does indeed constitute "most of North India". Even if you disagree with the precise territorial definitions, it cannot be denied that this territory held the majority of North India's population and produced the greater part of its revenue. It is population and especially revenue which matters here, and in North India, the greater part of both were subject to foreign rulers during the time period I specified.
Then we should also remember the fact that Mongols had displaced a huge number of Turks who entered north India and disturbed the politico-military balance in favor of the existing Sultanates here.
No. The Mongol invasions, if anything, hurt the 'politico-military balance' of the Turks in India, and served to further destabilize an already turbulent NW frontier. The Mongols cut off Delhi's access to the vital military resources of Central Asia, namely Turkish slave-warriors and horses. The loss of access to these resources forced Delhi to rely increasingly on Afghan and even Indian troops rather than Turks, and local breeds of horses rather than those from Central Asia. As for the people displaced from Central Asia coming to India and helping the Sultanate, this is true mainly for Persian scholars, administrators, artists, saints, etc., all of whom found refuge in Delhi and helped to reinforce the strongly Persianate flavor of the Sultanate. As for the Turkish warriors and elites, their displacement only caused more political confusion and turmoil in NW India. The Turkish ruler of Khwarezm, Jalaluddin Mangbarni, had fled to India in the wake of Genghis Khan's invasion, and captured Uch in the Indus Valley. Mangabarni also extended an offer of alliance to Iltutmish, proposing that they join forces against the Mongols. However, Iltutmish actually repudiated this offer, fearing that it would provoke Genghis to advance against Delhi. It proved to be a wise move, as Genghis had invaded Sindh in pursuit of Mangbarni and massacred his forces, but decided not to continue on to the Delhi doab.
The displacement caused by the Mongols also extended into parts of Afghanistan. The Turkish ruler of Ghazni, Hasan Qarlugh, was ousted by the Mongols, and invaded northern Panjab (the Salt Ranges) shortly after the death of Iltutmish. This resulted in a mutli-pronged struggle for Panjab which involved the Delhi Sultanat, the Mongols, the displaced Turks, and the local Khokhar tribesmen, the ultimate outcome of which being that the Delhi Sultanat's effective frontier was pushed back to the Beas river until the time of Alauddin. Bands of Turkish Khalaj tribesmen, who were likewise dispalced by the Mongols, also invaded lower Sindh and came into conflict with Qubacha (the Turkish noble in charge of this region).
In sum, these displacements and others could hardly be said to have benefited the 'politico-military' balance of the Turks. Rather, they, along with the Mongols themselves, provided additional external threats and destabilizing factors that prevented a concerted Turkish expansion into other parts of India until the early 1300s.
And every instance such a thing happened, people have lost no time in reverting to their ancestral faith and sidelined native rulers/clans have quickly recovered the lost ground
The "recovering of lost ground" by native rulers only occurred in a few places, like in South India where the Sultanate of Madurai was totally uprooted and conquered by Vijayanagar (which itself was founded in course of a rebellion against Turkish rule). Most of the time, however, when centralized Islamic empires collapsed, they were simply replaced by a number of regionalized Islamic states, rather than resurgent Hindu kingdoms. We have seen this happen numerous times on various levels: Delhi Sultanat getting replaced by the regional sultanates of Jaunpur, Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Bahmanis in 14th century, Bahmanis getting replaced by the five Deccan sultanates in late 15th century, Mughals in eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain getting replaced by indepedent nawabs in Bengal and Awadh in 18th century, etc.
In fact, it has struck me that, with few exceptions, that most of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (which constitutes the greater part of North India) has been ruled almost continuously by foreigners from the 13th century all the way to 1947 itself. The British too governed most of the Indo-Gangetic Plain directly rather than through vassal princely states.
Neither the Khaljis and Tughlaqa had pan-Indian sultanates nor they were pan-north Indian.
Yes, they can be called pan-Indian, and they were definitely pan-North Indian.
Gujarat and Malwa were annexed under the Khaljis, and Rajasthan subjugated by Alauddin during his 10-year long campaign. Maharashtra was occupied and Deogir/Daulatabad became the center of Turkish power south of the Vindhyas. Parts of Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu were all temporarily brought under the Turkish fold. The nobles in the Indo-Gangetic Plain had been put in line, and the authority of the center was relatively strong throughout North India. Orissa too was invaded and subjugated by Ghiyasuddin Tughluq.
Indeed, for a brief period from c.1310-1340, the political and military influence if not actual rule of the Delhi Sultanat extended from the Himalayan foothills to southern Tamil Nadu. Howeever, many of these newly-conquered territories, especially those south of the Vindhyas, would be rapidly lost from c.1340, either to regional Muslim governors who declared independence, or to rebelling Hindu kings and chieftains who formed new states in the region (of which Vijayanagar was the most important).
If the Delhi Sultanat during this time was not a pan-North Indian state, then the 'Imperial' Guptas were not pan-North Indian either, but ruled only a small regional state based in Magadha.
Many sultanates still complied to Delhi because they were fearful of being torn apart by the native powers had they distance themselves from Delhi.
No, not really.
Allied or alone, they were still holed up in their forts and towns for most of the times. Effective rule and conversions need active continuous presence in country side and permanent garrisons in local small forts.
Turks were active in the countryside of North India, albeit through intermediaries. They couldn't have obtained tax revenues from the peasant masses otherwise. They had to use intermediaries since the government was not bureaucratized enough for a direct collection of taxes throughout the empire. Most Hindu states relied on some sort of intermediaries as well for tax collection.
It was during this time that the word
zamindar was first coined, by Amir Khusrow, to describe the many rural intermediaries which worked beneath the Sultans of Delhi.
Arabs, Turks initially and Mughals on and off .. they all tried to convert people. Sword, Tax, Incentives .. everything was tried. Problem is, nothing succeeded that well. It is not because the invaders were gentlemen. It is because our people were resolute.
Except the Indians were not the only ones who lived under centuries of Islamic rule and did not convert. I already mentioned the southern Europeans who were under centuries of Ottoman rule, but were never converted. The Ottomans were also Turks, just like the Ghaznavids and most Sultans of Delhi. They all had their ultimate origins in the same place, i.e. the steppes of Central Asia. The present-day southern Europeans may hate the Turks for ruling over them for centuries, just like modern Hindus (especially of North India) may hate Turks for ruling over them for centuries, but the fact is that most of these Turkish rulers were not intent on converting the non-Muslim masses under their rule. With a few exceptions like Aurangzeb, most were far too pragmatic to attempt such a project. They were perfectly content with the Hindu masses, so long as they remained submissive to Islamic rule and continued to pay taxes. There was never a time, in the history of North India, when an Islamic state was overthrown by the Hindu masses, or even came close to being overthrown.
Moreover, as
@nrupatunga has mentioned, Indian converts to Islam were not treated or viewed particularly well by the Turkish elites, so the social advantages that may accompany conversion in other cases did not exist during the Delhi Sultanat's domination of North India. In fact, the likes of Ziauddin Barani explicitly argued that Indian Muslims were inferior to Turkish Muslims, and should not be allowed the same social positions as foreign-born Muslims. The Delhi Sultanat operated on a racially-based quasi-caste system, where the Turkish nobles and elites stood at the top, followed by Afghan warriors and Persian/Tajik scholars and
nawisandas (clerks/bureaucrats), and with native Indians (both Hindus and Muslim converts) at the bottom. This was especially true of the 13th century under the likes of Balban; under the Khaljis and Tughlaqs of the 14th century, who recruited more non-Turks into the military and administration, there was a slight broadening of the sociopolitical base of the Sultanat. But throughout the existence of the Delhi Sultanat, no one seriously opposed the superior social and political positions of the Turkish Muslims of foreign descent, compared to Muslims of native Indian descent. As I explained earlier, this has had long-reaching implications because it meant that Indian Islam was associated, at a very fundamental level, with foreigners (and trying to become like those foreigners).
Indeed, the question we should be asking is not why more Indians did not convert to Islam (the numbers that ultimately
did convert are still quite large, especially given the circumstances. South Asia has the largest population of Muslims in the whole world), but rather, how could a small minority of Muslim foreigners dominate the predominantly Hindu masses of North India for so long?
We are not concerned about only the major recorded wards here. In a country as fragmented as India, you would have to fight 100 small battles if not ten large ones to dominate huge areas or else forge alliances (only Mughals did it properly).
Again, counting major states is irrelevant in a politically and militarily fractured north India.
Babur rode into India with just a few thousand troops, and had most of the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the palm of his hand after fighting just a few big battles (Panipat, Khanua, Ghagra). What are irrelevant here are the numerous minor rajas and chieftains that you mention. Even Babur mentions them in his accounts, but he does not expend much ink on them because they had hardly any geopolitical significance, except in a very local sense. They certainly did not impede Babur in his drive into India, despite the paltry amount of troops he had with him; Babur's campaigns are recorded with considerable detail and any such reverses would certainly have found mention. Moreover, the sheer fact that Babur was able to fight battles at Panipat/Khanua/Ghagra in short succession, shows that any harassment or obstacles he faced in the form of local chiefs - if he faced any at all - were inconsequential. Most of these minor potentates probably sumbitted to Babur immediately, as it was in their interest to do so (rather than fight a suicidal battle against a far more powerful army).
Besides, we know that Indians had the gall to bounce back with surprises like Hemu.
He was aware of the fact and constantly recruiting Hindu troops while marching towards Delhi.
Again, Hemu rose to prominence by serving the Suri Afghans, not as an independent Hindu ruler fighting against Muslims. If anything, it shows that the Suris were relatively liberal for allowing a Hindu to rise so far in their ranks, and ultimately lead them.
Hemu's army consisted of both Hindu and Muslim troops, as did the army of Sher Shah.
Apart from Lohara dynasty 1003–1320 CE .. there were entities like Chaks, Zulchu etc.
I never claimed that Kashmir was ruled by the Turks during 13th century, so it is not surprising that the Loharas would mint their own coins and continue to build temples. That's what one would expect independent states to do.
What's interesting, however, is the speed with which Kashmir was Islamized once Muslim rule was established (I don't know why you said Kashmir was out of reach of Turks until 1354, because it was being ruled by a Muslim dynasty since 1339). It only took a couple centuries for Islam to become firmly entrenched in Kashmir.
And who/what are "Chaks" and "Zulchu"?
I know just how much power these broken sultanates wielded, because not only they were repeatedly defeated, Nagor was decimated by Kumbha and Sanga's border with Delhi Sultanate was Peelakhal, near Agra, their capital !!!
As mentioned before, the Delhi Sultanate in the 15th and 16th century was just one of several, competing regional states, and was not even the most powerful of these regional states. Even the sultans of Jaunpur advanced up to Delhi and almost captured the Doab.
I'm not debating the influence of 1-2 cases like Alauddin. Yet the fact that Delhi couldn't evaporate co-religionalist rebellious governors/sultanates reveals just how much power they had anyway. Like I said .. regional sultanates most of the times.
It reveals intense factionalism and lack of a centralized politcal order among the Turks in India, not some great resistance by the native Indians.
They were also harassed by mandals of villages who would hold up revenue and conduct raids as soon as the bulk of Turkish army sets out for field wards and campaigns against oganized native armies like Rajputs. It is not out of the blue that every Indian farmers's house had swords/lances against Turks and matchlocks against Mughals. Resistance was right at the grassroots and that is why Turks left the people alone most of the times and that is why we don't see an islamized north India today.
If resistance was right at the grassroots and the Indian peasantry was so militarized, why didn't they overthrow the Turks? Except in the vicinity of Delhi itself, taxes were not collected directly but through rural intermediaries (khots and muqaddams). These intermediaries collected taxes from the peasantry and paid what was due to the local iqtadar/governor, who used this income to support himself and his military establishment. The remainder was sent to the Sultan in Delhi.
And again, whether or not the Hindu masses converted to Islam was largely irrelevant. The difference in religion between rulers and ruled did not cause undue rural unrest, since the rule of the Sultans over the greater part of their Hindu subjects was quite indirect anyway (this reality of indirect rule was true even for the Hindu 'empires' that preceded the Delhi Sultanate). Since the Hindu masses in the history of pre-modern India have seldom caused trouble for the established political elites, whether they be Hindu or Muslim, there was no real reason for the Turkish sultans to expend much effort in grandiose projects like converting all of India to Islam (again, idealists like Aurangzeb being the exception). They were perfectly content with keeping the Hindu masses in a perpetually subservient position and using them as a source for their immense wealth, and this system of rural exploitation to support an opulent nobility (which soon came to include many Hindus as well as Muslims) and grandiloquent royal courts continued right up to modern times. The various foreign nobles which dominated North India from the 13th to the 18th centuries - Turks, Persians, Afghans, Mongols - all grew rich and successful at the expense of the North Indian peasant. One wonders how this was possible, when we are told that 'every Indian farmer's house had matchlocks'.
How could they? Hindu Kings weren't allying with Turks in the first place.
The question was why didn't more Hindu kings and chieftains revolt and establish large, independent kingdoms like Vijayanagar? Following the collapse of the Delhi Sultanat, why did we see Muslim states in Bengal, Bihar-UP, Malwa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra rather than resurgent Hindu realms? Surely, if the Hindus were politically dominant and the hold of Turks so tenuous, the collapse of Delhi would have meant the end of Muslim rule in India.
Arab hold on Sindh was tenous and defensive at best. They were defeated noth in Kangra by Lalitaditya Muktipada, defeated east by Gurjara-Pratiharas Nagabhatta) and defeated south by Chalukyas (Pulakesin).
Yet none of them uprooted the Arabs from Sindh itself. In fact, Sindh was under near-continuous Muslim rule for the past 1300 years, and remains so even today.
As for the islamization, it certainly didn't succeed during Arab rule.
As late as 9th century, Arab geographers were complaining "Islam has not made a single convert in India."
The Islamization was well underway, though there were still large non-Muslim populations of course.
We know for sure that least the political elites and some powerful tribal/caste leaders converted, because by the 11th century Arab rule had ended and was replaced by indigenous Sindi Muslims. The Sumrah dynasty of Sind, which existed with various degrees of independence until 1351, was the first native Muslim dynasty to rule any part of India. Needless to say, the rise of indigenous Muslim dynasties presupposes a degree of conversion under Arab rule. We also know that conversions took place due to the proliferation of people who adopted Arabic names and carried the surname "al-Sindi". This certainly disproves as hyperbole any statement that "not a single convert was made".
Their hold wasn't even entire Sindh wide. Arabs controlled only two principalities - Multan and Mansurah.
The Arab province of "Sind" included far more than the contemporary region of Sindh. It also included large parts of modern Balochistan and Panjab (Multan for example is in Panjab, not Sindh). As for the actual governance of this province, until the 10th century the Arabs governed most of the countryside indirectly through brahman intermediaries. This was similar to how Indian kingdoms also governed the countryside. It should also be mentioned that, of the places and peoples in Sind mentioned by Arab sources to be under their rule, over three-fifths were acquired by treaty (
sulh) rather than force (
anwatan). Acquisition by treaty meant that the new subjects would be under the protection (
aman) of the new Arab government.
Funny that after three centuries of constant efforts (backed by a strong Imperial empire), all that the Arabs had was Multan and Mansurah; that too by hiding behind the same idols they came to break.
The Arabs were only backed by a "strong imperial empire" from 711-854, at most. From the mid-9th century, Sind came under the rule of an independent Arab dynasty (Habbaris). At the same time, independent Muslim dynasties appeared in Khorasan (Tahirids), Sistan (Saffarids), and Transoxiana (Samanids). In subsequent years, the Caliphate would lose whatever remained of its effective political authority, and the caliph became a mere puppet controlled by Shi'a Iranian rulers (Buyids).
Relentless resistance forced Hajjaj to send orders to Muhammad Bin Qasim :
"Permission is given to them to worship their Gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion .... once you have conquered the country and strengthened the forts, endeavour to console the subjects and soothe the residents."
People were allowed to re-build their temples and perform their worship, priests kept their allowance and native institutions were left as is, under the care of Dahir's Prime Minister.
What is your source for this statement, and where is it from?
In fact, al-Hajjaj scolded Muhammad bin Qasim for being too lenient, and accepting subjugation by treaty rather than subjugating by force.
Overran? Took them half a century to get rid of Shahis, who were worn out by constantly fighting with Arabs and Karkotas on two fronts for more than two centuries and didn't have well developed clan hierarchies to sustain losses, reversald in the long term.
The Ghaznavids and Ghorids were also fighting on multiple fronts and faced much more serious and competent enemies, namely the Turks from Central Asia. The ultimate defeat of both the Ghaznavids and the Ghorids came from the West and not the East. The same is also true of the Delhi Sultanate (at the hands of Timurids/Mughals), and arguably even of the Mughals themselves (at the hands of Persians and Afghans).
Islam has had too much time and full political protection to comfortably make numbers in what we call Pakistan and Afghanistan today. No big achievement when you have kept a struggling sedentary civilization in east and have co-religionalists in west.
First we are told that the Hindus were constantly and continuously resisting the Muslims, and that 'every Indian farmer had a matchlock', and now India was a 'struggling agrarian civilization'? Anyway, it should be mentioned that the biggest success of Islam in the Subcontinent (in terms of conversions), was not in the West but the East. The conversion of East Bengal was the single largest conversion in Islamic history.
The people in the West were co-religionists but that was irrelevant, as it did not prevent wars between different Muslim powers. As mentioned before, it was precisely the powers in the West which posed the greatest threat to Muslim states based in North/Northwest India, as well as the non-Muslims of Central Asia like the Mongols.
As Isami asks rhetorically, "why should the army that defeats the Mongol be afraid of fighting the Hindu?" (
Futuh al-Salatin, pg.284).
) at all. Similarly a sena in bengal would be a bengali and not a karnataka guy. Nothing wrong in it.
