SERIES ONE (POST FOUR)
‘’NATURE OF GHAZNAVID STATE: INVADERS OR LIBERATORS’’
This is the fourth post of series one. Series One deals with the foundation of ‘’GHAZNAVID STATE’’, first state of Indian Muslims. In Post One, I have discussed the motives of this series. In Post Two, I have talked about a brief history of Caliphate from State of Medina to Abbasid Revolution- overthrowing the Umayyad Family from the position of Caliphs. In post three, I have discussed ‘’Persian Renaissance’’, thirst for a Persian State, succession of Persianate Turks in state of Samanid and Ghaznavids’ beginning of battles for the liberation of slaves (Sudras) from slave owners (Brahmans).
It will be futile to read further if you haven’t understood previous posts of this series yet. I have mentioned links, as follows, for you to connect the Post Four with the previous ones-
Post 1-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=243717003474723&id=100035092741319
Post 2-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=243773003469123&id=100035092741319
Post 3-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=245797983266625&id=100035092741319
WHAT IS GHAZNA AND GHAZNAVID STATE?
Ghazna is a city in present day Afghanistan. In 977, Alp Tegin Bey, a military commander of province of Khorasan, conquered the city. Alp Tegin Bey’s son in law, Subug Tegin Bey, consolidated the rule of Ghazna and founded ‘’State of Ghaznavids’’. Both Alp Tegin Bey and Subug Tegin Bey ruled the Ghaznavid State as a ‘’Beylik’’, but, in the later phase of life, Subug Tegin Bey declared independence and Mahmood, son of Subug Tegin Bey, declared himself a ‘’Sultan’’. He expanded the City-State into a Sultanate, followed by the Muhammad of Ghor who ruled the Ghaznavid state at a peak.
WHO ARE GHAZNAVIDS?
There are many reasons that I disapprove Hindu Historiography (both Liberal and Conservative) and Colonial Muslim Historians. Hindu Historians portrayed arrival of Muslims in India as ‘’invaders, cruel, cunning, looters and barbarian’’. Colonial Muslim Historians wrote to appease/impress Englishmen for petty jobs in government and portrayed the rule of Ghaznavids as ‘’backward, feudal and undemocratic’’. Therefore, I depart from both of these perspectives which, in my opinion, are full of lie, demonising Muslim rule and based on personal hatred for Islam.
‘’Ghaznavids’’ is not an ordinary group of people. Their struggle was for Allah, Mohammad (PBUH) and Islam. They rose against the tyranny, barbarism and injustice. They didn’t envision rule on a principality or a Kingdom but the earth under a just system. They had no ambitions for imperialism under a family rule. Sanjak (Flag) of Islam was their vision, sky was their tent, and struggle for Allah’s words was their aim of life. They were the extra-ordinary people and gave birth to legendary heroes. In centuries to come after the foundation, a section of Ghaznavids will accomplish the mission to unite the earth under their banner and will be known as ‘’Cihan Padishah’’, the Emperor of World.
IS GHAZNAVID A DYNASTY?
As opposed to Dynastic Rule, Ghaznavids rose with a ‘’New Vision’’ of a group of people, given by the Turks of Ghazna to unite the Fractured Islamic World-due to the wrong policies of Abbasids- and carry the flag of Islam to the far lands. However, majority of the historians are of the opinion that rise of Turks was a climatic event in the world history but Hindu, British and Colonial Muslim Historians wrongly portrayed the Ghaznavids, having no or less knowledge of Turkic Culture and Customs, and labelled them as a ‘’Dynasty’’ (Family Rule). Turkic Polity is based on ‘’Khanate’’, the chief administer is called ‘Khan’’ who is an ‘’Elected Monarch’’ to rule the administration. According to Turkic Historiography, idea of Presidential Form of Government is taken from ‘’Turco-Mongol Khanate’’, for instance, Boomin Khan of Gokturks and Gengiz Khan of Mongoloids.
POLICY OF SUCCESSION IN STATE OF GHAZNAVIDS AND ROLE OF ‘’KURULTAY’’
Succession in Turkic Khanate was a process by the means of election in grand assembly of all tribes and was called ‘’Kurultay’’ in Turco-Mongol language. Tribal leaders and Beyliks used to play an important role in electing a Sultan and shaping the nomadic sultanate. To understand succession, it is necessary to understand the formation of state. Ghaznavid, or any other state, is not formed by one family but by the people of different tribes. Rule taken by one elected Monarch will pass on to his sons but in case of inefficient Sultans, Kurultay (assembly) will decide the future of state and elect a leader from among them.
There was no hereditary succession except in cases that succeeding Sultan, son of the sitting Sultan is capable in ruling the state. However, succeeding Sultan could be challenged either through the assembly of emirs, viziers and noblemen (it was practiced in Delhi when Iltutamish was appointed at place of Aram Shah) or through the right of sword; leading to a civil war. In many cases, ‘’Hereditary Succession’’ became a bone of contention and led to a civil war, leaving the state wounded, stranded and shattered. To avoid Civil Wars, even the ‘’Fratricide laws’’ were framed, as we see in Ottoman State, because the survival of state was foremost.
POLICY OF LANGUAGE
State of Ghaznavids succeeded Samanid Empire which was a part of Persian Intermezzo. Persianisation of the regions of Khorasan and Transoxiana led to the formation of Turco-Persian Culture. Ghaznavids will retain Persian as a court language in the state except that language of the Military will be ‘’Turkic’’, as mentioned in my previous post that army of Khorasan (which was of Turks) will rebel to the Samanid Rulers. Ghaznavids continued to use Arabic in mosques, Persian as language of court, academics and literature, and Turkic as the language of military. When Turkic speaking army of state will come in contact with Apbhramsha speaking Hindus, a new language will take a shape, Hindustani, in next three centuries of rule which will also become a second language of court after Persian. Popular writers, like Amir Khusro, will kick off formalisation of Hindustani in his writings. In Turkic language, the word ‘’Ordu’’ refers to army and the language spoken by the Turkic Military in India will be known as ‘’Urdu’’, or Zaban E Lashkar or Hindustani. We will discuss ‘’Development of Urdu’’ with details in upcoming post.
POLICY OF RELIGION
As Khorasan and Transoxiana (present day Western Pakistan, Northern Afghanistan, Northern Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uyguristan) were Turkic Lands, it is necessary to understand the polity, society and culture of the region in order to understand the Ghaznavids. They were the Tengirist, Shamanist and later Buddhist before converting to Islam. During Umayyad, Khorasan and Transoxiana were annexed to Caliphate. Apart from this, these lands are cradle of ‘’Sufism’’, it originated in Persia, culminated among Turks and they carried Sufis with them all over the world. Earliest Turkic Sufi, Khoja Ahmad Yesevi, played an important role in shaping the Turkic World. We will discuss about Sufis in state of Ghaznavids in separate chapter.
Aren’t you wondered that Muslims in Turkey, Bosnia, Iran (before conversion to Shi’ite), Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Uyguristan, Balkans, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Russia are followers of ‘’Imam Abu Hanifa’’, or known as ‘’Hanafi’? During Persian Renaissance, scholars like Ibn E Sina, Al Bruini, Al Firdousi were attracted towards Persianisation of the region. Abu Hanifa Al Numan was a jurist and theologian of ‘’Persian Origin’’ and it was the reason enough to adopt the Jurisprudence of Abu Hanifa for the Persianate Empire. Persianate Turks, successor of Ghaznavids, like the Ottomans, Seljuk, Khwazarshah, Bahri Turkic Empire in Egypt, Mughals and many other dynasties in Turkistan will carry the Islamic Jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifa to the far lands as state policy.
In East of Indus, the word ‘’Hindu’’ was used by the Samanid or Sasanian Empires for the people living on the banks of river Indus. It never referred to ‘’Hindu Religion’’, as we use it today. There was no such religion like Hinduism. India was a land of diversity in ritual and practices. Historically, word ‘Hind’ was used for the geography and ‘Hindu’ was used for the people living in ‘Hind’. After the arrival of Ghaznavids in India, twofold classification emerged - ‘’Turks and Hindus’’. Turks referred to the Muslims and Hindus to the Non-Muslims. Anyone other than Turk/Muslim began to be known as ‘Hindu’. This shift of meaning and practicing it for centuries will give the people of different ideologies a single identity, ‘Hindus’. Later, British will add ‘’ism’’ in this word and these different rituals will collectively come to known as ‘Hinduism’. Unknowingly, the Ghaznavids, and knowingly the British, laid foundation of modern day Hinduism.
15th century mystic poet, Kabir Das, in his poetry will clear this twofold division-
"हिन्दू कहें मोहि राम पियारा, तुर्क कहें रहमाना,
आपस में दोउ लड़ी-लड़ी मुए, मरम न कोउ जाना!"
At a time when indigenous people of Indian subcontinent were given a single identity, Turks were taking pride in division on the basis of their homelands. People from Sherwan will be known as Sherwani, Kermani from Kerman, Ghorid from Ghor, Bukhari from Bukhara, Farghali from Farghana, Samarkandi from Samarkand and so on. This division among Turks on the basis of their homeland will transform into Caste System among Muslims. Turkic titular names like Khan, Beg, Mirza, will further strengthen the newly formed caste system. We will discuss about formation of Caste System among Turks in upcoming posts.
GHAZNAVIDS: INVADERS OR LIBERATORS
British Historians, knowingly, laid the foundation and Hindu Historians constructed their communal agenda on the ruins of City-State Ghazna. The so called ’New World Order’ and ‘Creation of Nation-States’ is a century old hard work of English gentlemen. They occupied earth and created such a discourse that we are still fighting on it, even after dissolution of British Empire. A state, Ghazna, which was idealised by the Persian and Arab Historians, is now a matter of shame for Indian Muslims. First Ghaznavid Sultan, Mahmood was accused of plundering Hindu Temples by the British and they laid foundation of communal feelings, hatred and communal clashes among Hindus and Muslims in India (discourse of Babri Masjid also originated during British). The then Muslim Literatures idealised Sultan Mahmood for his extraordinary expansion from the west of Indus to Ganga which made him popular in Islamic World and this is the basis of British Historians’ discourse of plunders.
Unfortunately, Muslim Historians, worst kind of opportunists, of the Colonial Era falls in the line with British, however, some of them tried to defend the Ghaznavids but their efforts were futile before the fancy words of English Gentlemen. Our own history was being manipulated, polluted and adulterated in front of us, in our own Red Fort, with support of ‘’Liberal Muslims’’. In absence of Turkic Records of Ghaznavids, so called ‘’Liberal Hindu’’ Academicians manipulated our historical facts as it suits them to communalise the majority. Hindu Communist Historiography will take a lead in creation of this hatred; they believe that Hindu and Muslims were in constant clashes since the Ghaznavids to British. Heroes of Sudras, the so called Dalit Panthers, in post independent India, believe that Sudras were brutally exploited in Ghaznavid State (that ruled from 977 to 1857).
In my next post, I will discuss about the Expansion and Fracture of State, Successions of Sultans, Division, Successor States of Ghaznavids and Rise of Mongols. As far as the question of Ghaznavids as Liberator or Invader is concerned, I will discuss this question with detail in upcoming posts with reference to Caste System.
No comments:
Post a Comment