Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030) remaining part continued .......
In political and military terms, the invasions
of Mahmud of Ghazni were the actual
precursors of the Delhi Sultanate. Beginnning in
1000, when the Shahiya King Jaypala was
routed, the incursion became almost an annual
feature of Mohmud and came to an end only
with his death in 1030. After taking Multan, he
occupied punjab. Later, Mahmed made incursion
into the Ganga-Yamina doab. The major interest
of Mahmud in India was its fabulous wealth,
vast quantities of which (in the form of cash,
jewellery, and golden images) had been deposited
in temples. From 1010 to 1026, the invasions
were thus directed toward the temple-towns of
Thaneswar, Mathura, Kannauj and finally
Somnath. The ultimate result was the
breakdown of Indian resistance, paving the way
for Turkish conquests in the future. More
importantly, the aftermath of the campaigns had
exposed the inadequacy of Indian politics to
offer a united defence against external threats.
Within a short time of Mahmud’s death, his
empire met the fate of other empires. Newly
emerging centres of powers, formed around
growing clusters of Turkish soldier adventurers,
replaced the older ones. The Ghaznavide
pessissions in Khurasasn and Transoxiana were
thus annexed, first by the Seljuqs, and later by
the Khwarizm Shah. In their own homeland,
Afghanistan, their hegemony was brought to an
end by the principlity of Ghor under the
Shansibani dynasty. However, in the midst of
these buffetings, the Ghaznavid rule survived in
punjab and sind till about 1175.
Since Indian historians have traced the
Turkish success to the peculiar social structure
created by Islam, Jadunath Sarkar, for instance,
lays stress on the unique characteristic which
Islam imparted to the Arabs, Berbers, Pathnas
and Turks. First, equality and social solidarity
as regards legal and religious status. Unlike
India, the Turks were not divided into castes that
were exclusive of each other. Secondly, and
absolute faith in god and his will which gave
them drive and a sense of mission. Finally, Islam
secured the Turkish conquerors from
drunkenness which, accorkding to Sarkar, was
the ruin of the Rajputas, Marathas, and other
Indian rulers. Whatever partial truth in might
contain, this explanation too seems insufficiently
grounded in history. A more compreshensive
view of the Indian debacle most perhaps had
into account at least two major factors: the
prevailing sociopolitical system in Indian and her
military perparedness.
After the fall of the Gurjark-Pratihara
empire, no single state took its place. Instead,
there arose small independent powers like
Ghadavalas in Kannauj, Parmars in Malva,
chlukyas in Gujarat, Chauhans in Ajmer,
Tomars in Delhi, Chadellas in Bundelkhand, etc.
far from being united, they tended to operate
within the confines of small territories and were
in a state of perpetual internal conflicts. Lack of
centralised power was an important factor in
emasculating the strength and efficiency of the
armed forces. Fakhi Mudhbbir in his AdabulHarb
wa-al Shuja’s mentions that Indian forces
consisted of ‘feudal levies’. Each military
contingent was under the command of its
immediate overlora/chief and not that of the
king. Thus, the army lacked ‘unity of command’.
Besides, since only few castes and clans took to
the country; when the Turks came, we find the
indian masses hardly came to the rescue of their
kings. The concept of physical pollution (chhut)
also hampered millitary efficiency since it made
the division of labour impossible; the soldiers had
to do all their work on their own, from fighting
to the fetching of water.
Another important reason for the success of
the Turks was their superior miltary technology
and art of war. These nomads could be credited
with introducnig the horses for warfare with
greater skill. The Turks used iron stirrps and
horse shoes that reinforced their striking power
and the stamina of the cavalry. While horse shoes
provided greater mobility to the horse, the stirrup
gave the soldiers a distinct advantage.
