Get Complete Information on Mahmud

According to Dr. Ishwari Prasad, “To the Musalmans of his day he was a Ghazi, a champion of the faith who tried to extirpate infidelity in heathen lands. To the Hindus, he is to this day an inhuman tyrant, a veritable Hun, who destroyed their religious susceptibilities. But the unbiased enquirer who keeps in mind the peculiar circumstances of the age must record a different verdict.

In his estimate, Mahmud was a great leader of men, a just and a right according to his owns lights, an intrepid and gifted soldier, a dispenser of justice, a patron of letters and deserves to be ranked among the greatest kings of the world”.

According to Dr. Stanely Lane-Poole, “A great soldier, a man of infinite courage and indefatigable energy of mind and body, Mahmud was no constructive or far-seeing statesman. We hear of no laws or institutions or methods of government 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 ill-knotted together that they began to fall asunder as soon as he was no longer alive to guard them by his vigilant activity.

But so long as he lived he strove to govern every part with even justice. The most sagacious and high minded Asiatic statesman of the middle Ages, the famous Seljuk vezir Nizam-al-Mulk, in his treatise on the art of government, cites many anecdotes of Mahmud’s conscientious exercise of justice and the pains he took to protect his widely scattered subjects. ‘Mahmud’, wrote the great vezir, ‘was a just sovereign, a lover of learning, a man of generous nature and of pure faith.”

According to Sir Wolseley Haig, “Mahmud is one of the most prominent figures in the history of Islam. During the reign of thirty-two years, he extended his empire over the whole of the country now known as Afghanistan, the greater part of Persia and Transoxiana and the Punjab. He is stated to have made a vow to wage every year a holy war against the misbelievers of India and he invaded^ the country no fewer than 17 times, extinguishing ruling house of the Punjab, crossed the Ganges, penetrated into Bundelkhand and reached the western sea.”

According to Havell, the Musalmans of Mahmud’s time were justified in declaring that Mahmud was endowed with all the qualities of Prince reflected luster upon the faith. Mahmud was a brilliant commander in the field. As a dashing cavalry leader, he had no equal. He exploited the culture of India and Persia as systematically and zealously as he plundered the temples of the Hindus. He had neither constructive genius as a statesman nor any profound religious convictions.

He would have sacked Bagdad with as little compunction as he plundered Somnath if the undertaking seemed profitable and easy. He- did not hesitate to threaten the Khalifa with death when the latter refused to give him Samarkand. Havell refers to the cheating of Firdousi by Mahmud and his exactions from his subjects. Havell also refers to the fact that Muhmad took away from India not only its gold and the precious stones but also Indian craftsmen so that the latter could be employed for purpose of constructing great buildings in Ghazni.

Professor S. R. Sharma is of the view that Mahmud was a seasoned soldier. Fear did not find any place in his heart. His army won against the rulers of India “like a comb through a poll of hair.” “Forts and cities surrendered as the great Sultan passed by; abject chiefs placed their followers at his disposal. He fought when necessary but more often triumphed by mere prestige.” Mahmud was an angel to his Muslim subjects at Ghazni and the devil incarnate to infidels abroad. Whatever his greatness at home, he was merely a gifted condotteire so far as the people of India were concerned.

According to Elphinstone, “Even his Indian operations, for which all others objects were resigned, are so far from displaying any sense of system or combination that their desultory and inconclusive nature would lead us to deny him a comprehensive intellect, unless we suppose its range to have been contracted by the sordid passions of his heart.”

According to Dr. R. C. Majumdar, Mahmud appears to the historians of India merely “as an insatiable invader. He was neither a missionary for the propagation of religion in this country nor an architect of empire. The main object of his eastern expeditions seems to have been the acquisition of the ‘wealth of India’ and the destruction of the morale of its custodians. The annexation of the Punjab was a measure of necessary 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 great fabric of Indian parity, and it was no longer a question of whether but when that age-old structure would fall. Neither the Arbas nor the Ghaznavid (Yamini) 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.”

Dr. Tarachand says that even a cursory perusal of the activities of Mahmud shows that his aims were not the propagation of the faith or the exaltation of the glory of Islam, but purely territorial aggrandisement and plunder. It is true that he was honoured with the high-sounding titles like the “Ramin-al-Daulah wa Amir-al-Millat” by Caliph-AI-Qadir, but this was a reward for Mahmud’s support of Qadir against the Samanid Amir Nuh Bin Mansur who refused to recognise him.

In later life, Mahmud himself intended to bring the Caliph under his control. Mahmud was undoubtedly the greatest general of his age and perhaps one of the greatest of all times who, by his matchless skill and indefatigable energy, overturned numerous principalities, vanquished a host of chiefs, devastated cities, sacked and pillaged temples and harried regions from Ispahan in the West to Banaras in the East.

But in spite of the eulogies of his blind admirers like the historian Utbi the poets Farukhi and Unsuri and their modern imitators, he remains in the category of such world-shakers as Atilla and Chingiz who rendered little service to religion or human progress. Firdausi called him a king who knew neither faith, nor law, nor manners. That Mahmud possessed no evangelical zeal is evident. With rare exceptions, he made no conversion. His razzias in India had only one object-to collect gold, silver, precious stones, elephants and slaves.

It is calculated that he took away more than 150 crores of rupees worth of gold and silver, beside large quantities of jewels, several hundred elephants and numerous slaves, who were sold cheap in the markets of Central Asia. A Dr. Tarachand further point out that Mahmud was a soldier but not a statesman. His hastily-constructed empire was not founded upon any firm foundations and within 10 years of his death, the whole of this jerry-built structure fell to pieces. The Saljuqs took possession of its western parts and the Indian princes occupied the country as far as Satlej. In India, only the Punjab remained under the rule of Ghaznavids.’

According to Professor Habib, “No honest historian should seek to hide and no Musalman acquainted with his faith will try to justify the wanton destruction of temples that followed in the wake of the Ghaznavide army. Contemporary as well as later historians do not attempt to veil the nefarious acts but relate them with pride. It is easy to twist one’s conscience and we know only too well how easy it is to find a religious justification for what people wish to do from worldly motives. Islam sanctioned neither the vandalism nor plundering motives of the invader; no principle known to the Shariat justified the uncalled for attack on Hindu princes who had done Mahmud and his subjects no harm; the shameless destruction of places of worship is condemned in law of every creed.

And yet Islam, though it was not an inspiring motive, could be utilised as an a posteriori justification of what had been done. It was not difficult to mistake the spoliation of non-Muslim populations for a service to Islam and persons to whom the argument was addressed found it too much in consonance with the promptings of their own passions to examine it critically. So the precepts of Quran were misinterpreted or ignored and the tolerant policy of the second Caliph was cast aside, in order that Mahmud and his myrmidons might be able to plunder Hindu temples with a clear and untroubled conscience.”

Mahmud was a great patron of art and letters. Great architect’s poets and artists flocked to his court. According to Lane-Poole. “From the cities of the Oxus and the shores of the Caspian, from Persia nad Khorasan, 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.”

Utbi was a great literary figure of the time of Mahmud. He was his court historian. His ‘Kitab-Ul-Yamni’ or ‘Tarikh-I-Yamni’ is one of the most important authorities on the life and work of Mahmud. However, Utbi cared more for language and style than for facts. He also does not give dates and details.

Firdausi was the most famous poet at the court of Mahmud. He was the author of Shahnama which is one of the best pieces of literature. Firdausi has been described as “the immortal Homer of the East.” The Shahnama has made the name of Mahmud immortal. We are told that Mahmud promised Firdausi 60,000 mishkals of gold for writing the Shahnama. However, when the work was ready, Mahmud offered the poet only 60,000 silver Dirhams.

The poet was so much annoyed that he left Ghazni for good. Later on, Mahmud realised his mistake and sent 60,000 gold coins to the poet. Unfortunately, when money reached the poet, his dead body was being carried to the grave. Before his death, Firdausi wrote a satire on Mahmud in which he referred to his low birth. That satire has been translated by Browne thus:

Long years this Shahnama I toiled to complete,

That the king might award me some recompense meets,

But naught save a heart writhing with grief and despair,

Did I get from those promises empty as air!

Had the sire of the King been some prince of renown,

My for end had surely been graced by a crown.

Was his mother a lady of high pedigree?

In silver and gold had I stood to new!

But, being by birth not a prince but a boor,

To praise of the noble he could not endure!

Al-Beruni also belonged to the court of Mahmud. This versatile genius was born in 973 A.D. in the territory of modern Khiva. When Khiva was conquered by Mahmud in 1017 A.D. Al-Beruni was also captured. He came to India along with Mahmud and stayed here for some time. He was a great mathematician, philosopher, astronomer and Sanskrit scholar. He has given a full account of the social and political condition of India.

He was very much impressed by the learning of the Hindus. He criticised the Hindus for their isolation from the nations of the world and their want of sympathy and communication with peoples of other countries whom he called Mlechchhas. Early marriage was common but there was no custom of widow re-marriage. Marriages were arragned by the parents of children. The Hindus worshipped a large number of gods. The educated Hindus believed in God who was one, eternal, without beginning and end, acting by free will, almighty, all-wise, living, giving life, etc. The administration of justice was liberal and humane.

Written complaints were filed and sometimes even oral complaints were entertained. Cases were decided on the testimony of witnesses. Criminal law was comparatively mild. There was no principle of equality of law among the Hindus; the Brahmans were exempted from capital punishment. The punishment for theft varied in accordance with the value of the property stolen. The share of the state was 1 /6th of the produce and Brahmans were completely exempted. Politically India was disunited and rival States fought against one another completely ignoring the interests of the country.

The word “national” had no meaning for them. There was a rigid caste system and that made the task of the unification of the country difficult. The country was divided into a large number of small States. Al-Beruni refers to the States of Kashmir, Sind, Malawa Gujarat, Bengal and Kanauj. He has also referred to the effects of the invasions of Mahmud on India in these words: ‘

Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country and performed those wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions and like a tale of old in the mouths of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Banaras and other places.”

Asjadi, another poet of Mahmud, wrote the following: I do repent of wine and talk of wine, Of idols fair and chains like silver fine, A lip-repentance and a lustful heart, O God, forgive this penitence of mine, Baihaki, another writer in the court of Mahmud, has been described by Lane-Poole as “the oriental Mr. Pepys”. He wrote ‘Tarikh-i-Subuktgin’. Farabi was a philosopher and he also belonged to the court of Mahmud. Uzari was a poet of Mahmud. He came from Raye in Persia. He was given by Mahmud 14,000 Dirhams for writing a short panegyric. Asadi Tus. Was a native of Khorasan. Unsuri was the greatest genius of the age and he had a large number of students and many acknowledged him as their master. Mahmud set up a university at Ghazni. He also set up a museum in which were placed the various things brought to Ghazni.

Mahmud patronized artists and architects. A large number of Madrasas, Khankahas and mosques were built in Ghazni. The Celestial Bride, which is described as “a wonder of the East”, was one of the most important buildings of Mahmud. It was a big mosque which was surrounded by 3,000 quarters for the residence of the teachers and students of the university. The Band-i- Sultan, a bridge across the river Nawar, was constructed. Under Mahmud, Ghazni became the cradle of Islamic culture. It became one of the most beautiful cities of Central Asia.

Mahmud was very strict in the administration of justice. It is stated that once upon a time a person came to the Sultan with a complaint that his nephew had an evil eye on his wife and was not prepared to desist from visiting her in spite of his protests. Mahmud asked the person to come to him once again when his nephew paid a visit to his wife.

The man did as ordered. Mahmud went personally to the house where the nephew was and cut off his head with his own hands. It is said that a merchant brought a suit against Prince Masud, the son of Sultan Mahmud. The only way for the Prince to escape from appearing before the Qazi was that he paid him the money.

A Muslim mystic referred to the work of Mahmud in these words: “He is a stupid fellow, without being able to manage what he already possesses; he yet goes out to conquer new countries.” The result was that within a few years of his death, the Empire founded by Mahmud disappeared.

There was no law and order in the country. The brigand chiefs did whatever they pleased. There was no well-organized system of police. There was no sense of unity within the Empire. All the officers of Mahmud were worried more about the expansion of the Empire than about the establishment of a good system of administration. No wonder, the whole of the superstructure fell.