A person of medium height, strongly built, Mahmud apparently did not look like a king. But he was a great general and a great soldier. Endowed with a shrewd intelligence, he was calm, cool and collected. He had all that was required in statecraft excepting perhaps far-sightedness.

According to Professor Habib, Mahmud’s out­look on life was essentially secular and he did not follow the ulema blindly. However, Utbi, his court historian, described his attacks on India as jihad or a holy war for the destruction of infidels (Hindus) and the spread of Islam. Then there was the greed to amass wealth as also the need to add more to his military glory which brought him time and again to devastate kingdoms and hearths in India.

Ibn-ul-Athir, writing the obituary notice of Mahmud in 1030 praised him for his intelligence, devoutness, patronage of learned men and strenu- ousness in waging war against the unbelievers and then added: “There was in him nothing which could be blamed save that he would seek to obtain money in every way.”

Ibn-ul-Athir laid his finger on this one weak spot in his monarch’s character. “Besides being greedy of wealth, he was fanatical, cruel to Muslim heretics as well as to Hindus, fickle and uncertain in temper and more notable as an irresistible conqueror than as a faithful friend or a magnanimous foe.”

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Dr R.C. Majumdar says that to the historians of India Mahmud appears merely “as an insatiable invader. He was neither a missionary for propagation of religion in this country nor an architect of empire. The main object of his eastern expeditious seems to have been the acquisition of the wealth of the Hind and the destruction of the morale of its custodians. The annexation of the Punjab was a measure of necessity rather than of choice. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that his invasions had no permanent political results in India. He drained the wealth of the country and despoiled it of its military resources to an appalling extent. The Ghaznavid occupation of the Punjab served as the key to unlock the gates of the Indian interior. Big cracks were made in the fabric of Indian polity, and it was a question of not whether but when the age old structure would fall. Neither the Arabs nor the Yamini (Ghaznavid) Turks succeeded in adding India to the growing empire of Islam, but they paved the way for the final struggle which overwhelmed the Gangetic kingdoms some two hundred years later.

In the opinion of Lane-Poole “…Mahmud was no constructive or far-seeing statesman. We hear of no laws or institutions or methods of governme that sprung from his initiative. Outward order and security was all he attempted to attain in his unwieldy empire, to organise and consolidate was not in his scheme. He left his dominions so illknotted together that they began to fall asunder soon as he was no longer alive to guard them by his vigilant activity.”

Still, historians consider Mahmud to have been a great patron of arts and letters. He had in his court artists, poets and men of intellect. Lane People observes “…he pressed into his service the lights of oriental letters, and compelled them, not unwillingly, to revolve round his sun like planets in his firmament of glory”. Al-Beruni, the eleventh century philosopher, mathematician, scholar was in his court and accompanied Mahmud on one of his expeditions to India. He stayed in India for a number of years, studied Sanskrit and science and philosophy and on his return to Ghazni published an account of history which is still regarded as a masterpiece. Likewise, Utbi, Farabi, Baihaki, the Persian poet Ujari, Tusi, Ansari, Asjadi, Farrukhi and Firdausi who were leading scholars, poets and writers of the time were all at his court. Utbi, regarded as a great literary figure at that time, was Mahmud’s court historian. His Kitab-ul-Yamni or Tarikh-i-Yamni is a book on Mahmud’s life and times. Unfortunately, besides flowery language and style, it contains little. Facts, details and dates were of not much use to Utbi.

Firdausi, known as the immortal Homer of the East, wrote Shahanama, a panegyric immortalising the name of Mahmud. The controversy relating to the honorarium Mahmud promised to pay Firdausi immortalises his stinginess. It seems he promised Firdausi 60,000 gold mishkals for the work, but actually paid 60,000 silver dinars on completion. An indignant Firdausi refused it and left Ghazni for good. Sometime later, realising his mistake, Mahmud sent the requisite amount, but by then Firdausi was dead.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Lane-Poole calls Baihaki, a writer in Mahmud’s court, “the oriental Mr Pepys”, whose Tarikh-i- Subuktigin is comparable to the works of Samuel Pepys. Farabi was a philosopher like Al-Beruni. Uzari, the poet, came from Raye, Persia, and was paid (handsomely) for writing a short poem in praise of Mahmud. Ansari was a renowned teacher and had many students. Mahmud established a university at Ghazni as also a museum displaying the treasures he obtained by force. Celestial Bride was the name of a big mosque built by Mahmud. Surrounding it were 3,000 quarters housing the students and teach­ers of the university. Band-i-Sultan was the name of the bridge constructed spanning the river Nawar. Ghazni became a centre of Islamic culture and was one of the most beautiful cities of Central Asia during Mahmud’s reign.

Very strict in the administration of justice, Mahmud is stated to have cut off a nephew’s head by his sword for immoral conduct. He forced his son Masud to pay back a loan which the prince falsely declined to admit having taken. In spite of it all, within a few years after his death, Mahmud’s empire disintegrated. As there was no law and order in the country, the brigand chiefs did what they liked. There was no well-organised administration and there was no sense of unity among the people. The officers of Mahmud worried only about the expansion of the empire which crumbled when his iron hand was not there any more.