Mahmud of Ghazni's last expedition

[Guest guest]

Mahmud of Ghazni's raids into India.

 

The standard Indian history version based on Muslim historians about

Ghazni is that Ghana was able to at will, come and go in India,

plunder, loot, at pleasure. He is supposed to have mounted no less

than 17 expeditions to India from Afghanistan, the last to punish the

Jats, who he is supposed to have routed in a major naval battle, and

of course after having defeated them and put them to the sword, took

their women and children captive to be sold into slavery back home.

 

This version smacks of unreality.

 

It is based on a late source, five centuries after the event, and is

not recorded by the contemporary Muslim historians.

 

 

The main source for this story is a Muslim history the Tabakat I

Akbari, written by one Nizamud din Ahmad. He served in the Court of

Akbar, in about 1600 AD.

 

The other account is that of Ferista who lived between 1570 and died

about 1612 AD.

 

The only contemporary Historian at the time of Ghazni was at his

court, a Muslim Historian Jabbru -L Utbi. His work covers the period

of Mahmud of Ghazni to Ah 410(1020 AD).

 

He is alive after that, for he mentions an event in AH 420(1030 AD),

 

If this expedition had occurred as the other two describe it, he

should have mentioned it, for the expedition supposedly took place in

1027 AD. Utbi make no such mention.

 

Sita Ram Goyal wrote a book " Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim

Invaders, (636 AD to 1206 AD) Voice of India, New Delhi (see the on

line version at

 

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhrmi/ch3.htm)

 

SR Goyal quoting Dr Misra talking of Ghazni

 

Says:

 

The Jats of Sindh had "molested his army during his retreat from

Somnath." So Mahmud's next expedition was organized against them. The

Jats were very powerful and, according to one Muslim account, "They

had invaded the principality of Mansura and forced its Musalman Amir

to abjure his religion."14 Mahmud is reported to have mobilized a

large number of boats to fight the Jats who had taken to the river.

But the whole account, says Dr. Misra, "smacks of unreality". Girdizi

mentions only "one camp """"

 

 

Elliot and Dowson have a similar problem, not being able to

understand, basically two issues, the lateness of the source of the

story, and the high improbability of assembling 1400, 4000, 8000

boats, when that many boats probably never existed in the Punjab at

that time.

 

What I( ravi) have done is go through Elliot and Dowson's book, and

see what the original Muslim authorities wrote.

 

Here is the Standard Version, reproduced from Elliot & Dowson, the

account the account of his last and seventeenth expedition, this one

to punish to Jats, The account is reproduced verbatim from P 477 of E

& D

 

"As the year 417 Hirji on 22 Feb, 1026, three was ample time for

Mahmud to have returned to Ghazni to escape the heat and rains of

Hindustan, and return again to Multan before the Ghazni winter, all

within the same years.

 

The following account is taken from the - Tabakat-I Akbari of

Nizamud- din Ahmad: -

 

" In the same year (417AH), the Sultan, with a view to punish the

Jats, who had molested his army on his return from Somnat, led a

large force towards Multan, and when he arrived there he ordered

fourteen hundred boats to be built, each of which was armed with

three iron spikes, projecting one from the prow and two from the

sides, so that anything which came in contact with them would

infallibly be destroyed. (1) In each boat were twenty archers, with

bows and arrows, grenades (2) and naphtha: and in this way they

proceeded to attack the Jats, who having intelligence of the

armaments sent their families into the islands and prepared

themselves for the conflict. They launched, according to some for,

and according to others, eight thousand boats, manned and armed,

ready to engage the Muhammadan. Both fleets met, and a desperate

conflict ensued.

 

Every boat of the Jats that approached the Moslem Fleet, when it

received the shock of the projecting spikes was broken and

overturned. Thus the Jats were destroyed, and those who not so

destroyed were put to the sword. (3). The Sultan's army proceeded to

the places where the families were concealed and took them all

prisoners. The Sultan then returned victorious

to Ghaznin.

 

Footnotes:

1. For a similar mode of Armament about the same period see

Chronicles of the crusades p199

2. Apparently some explosive or inflammable missile.

3. Ferista adds that some of the Jat Boats were set on fire."

End of quote.

 

 

Ferista follows this version, and is the standard version taught in

the History textbooks.

 

OUR QUESTION IS HOW VALID IS THIS STORY?

 

Most of the details available about the time of Mahmud of Ghazni come

from a Muslim Historian Jabbru -L Utbi, who was a contemporary of

Mahmud His work covers the period of Mahmud of Ghazni to Ah 410(1020

AD).

 

He is alive after that, for he mentions an event in AH 420(1030 AD),

so why he would not mention Ghazni's expedition is a mystery.

 

Eliot and Dowson also take him to be more reliable for Ghazni than

Ferista, or Nizamud din, which he refers to as inferior authorities.

Utbi does not mention any such expedition, though Nizamud din, and

Ferista, five centuries later do.

 

 

Here is what Elliot and Dowson have to say

 

Note 1- PP 477 - quote;

 

Seventeenth expedition - the Jats of Jud (AH 417- 1027 AD) (1)

 

" This expedition is recorded only by late authorities, but the

attack on the Jats is not in itself improbable, though some of its

attendant circumstances are. It is probable that, on the dissolution

of the Kingdom of Lahore, the Jats of the Jud hills acquired

considerable power, and by predatory incursions were able to harry

their neighbors.

 

Their advance so far from their own country to attack the Muhammadan

army, and the strength of the force with which they opposed it, show

they possessed no inconsiderable power.

 

>From a passage quoted by M. Reinaud from the Kamilu-I Tawarikh (416

A.H.), it appears that they had invaded the principality of Mansuran

and had forced the Musulman Amir to abjure his religion. It does not

appear what portion of the hilly country is here meant, but most

probably the Salt Range, on the part nearest to Multan. The Jats have

now moved further to the north and east, but some of their clan's

point to the Salt range as their original state.

 

The chief improbability, and it is almost insurmountable, consists in

Mahmud's being able to organize a powerful fleet of fourteen hundred

boats at Multan, and in being opposed by at least four thousand boats

manned by mountaineers.

 

Even in a time of briskest trade, fourteen hundred boats could not

be collected in all the rivers of Punjab. It is also remarkable that

Mahmud should choose to fight at all on the river, when his veteran

troops would have been so much more effective on land than on water,

 

If he could have equipped so large a fleet, on a sudden emergency, it

adds to the surprise when Elphinstone invites us to entertain, that

Mahmud, neither in going to or coming from availed himself of the

Indus. On his return he does seem to have come for some way on the

banks of the Indus" End of quote

 

 

E & D add:

 

 

Pp. 434 "The times places and numbers of Mahmud's expeditions to

India have offered great difficulties to those who have dealt with

the histories of that ferocious and insatiable conqueror. We look in

vain for any enquiry on the subject from native historians of this

period, who, in their ignorance of Upper India, enter names and years

without the scruples and hesitations which a better knowledge or a

more critical spirit would have induced."

 

Pp. 435.

 

" It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmud's expeditions to

India to be twelve; the first authority for this number is s Nizamu-

din Ahmad in the Tabakat-I Akbari. But he enumerates no less than

sixteen. but Dow has numbered them as twelve and most English authors

following him as standard, have entertained the same persuasion."

 

 

PP 435: First expedition- Frontier towns: AH 390(1000 AD) mentioned

by Ferista (AD) and Nizamud din Ahmad (AD).

 

" The Tarikh Yamini (does not support these two authors). The author

of this work, one Abu Muhammad, records the history of Mahmud to AH

410(1020 AD), and is alive in AD 1030.In dates he is deficient and

far from precise. "

 

 

Pp440:

 

The third expedition.

 

The expedition to Bhera or Bhati-ia or Bhatnair, town on the northern

extremity of the Bikaner Desert.

 

The Bhatis resisted Mahmud. Jaipal is taken to be Brahman, but Elliot

doubts this for no authority except Ferista, sixteenth

century, which makes this suggestion.

 

(Ravi's note- The Bhatti-s are Jats though Elliot, writing some eight

centuries later, treats them as Rajputs)

 

PP 443.

 

The sixth expedition to Waihind, Nagarkot. (AH 399, 1008-9 AD)

" Dr Bird writes if we believe Ferista, Mahmud at this time was

marching into the mountains captured Nagarkot. According to the

Tabakat -I Akbari and Habibu -I Siyar this was in AH 400."

 

 

Elliot writes " I cannot trace in the Tabakat-I Akbari and the

Habibu -I Siyar the assertion attributed to them; but let us leave

these inferior authorities and refer to the `Yamini""

 

 

Ferista's version is " that Mahmud decided to punish Anandpal.

Anandpal gathered all the Indian Rajas- Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar,

Kana, Delhi and decided to resist.

 

The infidel Gakkars also joined them.

 

In the heat of battle 30,000 infidel Gakkars penetrated Mohammedan

lines and in a matter of minutes slaughtered three of four thousand

Muhamadans.

 

(Ravi - on E & D PP 232 from the "Tajul Ma- sir", describing the war

of Muhammad Ghori against the Gakkurs- the words Gakkar,

Khokar, Ghakkur, Gakkurs, are used interchangeably-. The Khokar Jats

first defeated Ghori, and on his next visit to their land beheaded

him)

 

 

Anandpal's Elephant became unruly and fled. The Hindus; lost heart,

and fled, and were, slaughtered.

 

PP 448 " The seventh expedition- Narain. The Tabakat-I Akbari and

Ferista do not mention this expedition, but it is recorded in the

Yamini."

 

 

Source Elliott and Dowson: History of India as told by its own

Historians, Vol II.

***********

Ravi's notes:

 

 

The Jats were guerilla warriors par excellence, not given to head on

confrontations.

 

The story that they would allow Ghazni the time to assemble an

armada, and they themselves do the same smacks of some unreality.

 

What is more likely to have occurred, is that Ghazni decided to go

on a plundering raid.

 

He advanced `towards' Multan with a large force. This would

indicate he did not have a hold on Multan and the surrounding

countryside, which was in the hands of the Jats.

 

 

He led a couple of raids, could not track down the Jats, and was

harried day and night.

 

His camp would have never slept, and like Timur would be constantly

short of food and water, for the Jats would follow send the women,

children and elders into the jungles for safety, and follow a

scorched earth policy.

 

He subsequently withdrew back to the safety of Ghazni and

Afghanistan, and never returned.

 

In none of expeditions was he successful in establishing a hold on

the countryside, and he was harried, and not allowed to rest on any

plundering raid that he conducted.

 

The records are lost, but if they were available they would read

something like the records of raid of Timur and the resistance to him.

 

See files section:

 

IndianCivilizationTimur.doc

 

A Mahapanchayat would have been called, an army raised, and Ghazni

not allowed to get a grip.

 

Significantly Ghazni never returned.

 

Ravi Chaudhary

 

JatHistory/