collection of hauma hamiddha's scattered posts

The important aspect of Lal’s work is his careful analysis and profound grasp on
Indian aspects of Islamic history. By
reading his works and placing them next to the following: Dick Eaton, Sanjay
Subramanian and Rom Thapar one can see
that he scores over these fellows in truthfulness to the sources. I would place
him in the same bracket as KAN Shastri
and RC Majumdar. J. Sircar is a good historian too, but I find his obsequious
attitude towards our erstwhile white masters
to be a bit too much. One important point to consider is the origin of the
The famous historians Elliot and Dowson state that Khaljis were a hyopthetical
tribe. Barani states that when Jalal-ud-din
seized power from the Mamluq chiefs Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkha the power
passed from the ruling Turks to that
of another ‘race’. Now Marxist historians like C.Lakshmi have taught in their
classrooms that the Khaljis were Indian
Moslems and they were a ruling class of Indians following Islam. The Habibs seem
to present such a view albeit in a very
nuanced way and blame all the atrocities not on the ideology of Islam but on the
natural Turkish rapacity and lack of
aesthetics. Lal also falls prey in part to such discussions but he does not
hide the truth at all.

Lal conclusively demonstrates that Khaljis were Turks. He plays his card well by
pointing to the most important source on
the matter: the Tarikh-i-Fakhruddin. Here F gives a detailed account of the
Altaic tribes of central Asia circa 1206 AD and
shows the Khalji’s to be a part of this assemblage. See:
There were pagan Khaljis, like Chingiz Kha’Khan’s general Arslan Khalji, who led
the Tibetan operations of the Mongol
army. But in the West Islam was enforced on some Khalji clans and it was this
Islamic group that entered India along
with other Turkic clans of Afghanistan. Prior to this they formed alliances with
the QanQali Turks to conquer Herat and
then participated in the Ghor-Ghazni wars on the side of the Ghoris.

Regarding the Turkish rapacity: Yes steppe people have some rapacity but they
are not at all un-aesthetic. These same
Turks including tribes like Khalji were pagans or Buddhists before and were not
averse to art. Even in India they always
praised the beauty of hindu temples before breaking them in their Islamic zeal.
They erected mosques of considerable
architectural splendor- so they were not incapable of admiring art. While much
of their rule did not differ much from that of
the Taliban- the brutality of their torture and executions in public and prisons
is unimaginable., they had a great liking for
music that eventually played a role in North Indian music. They even had Hindu
and female musicians at their court. So
we may safely conclude that the principle cause of the Turkish violence towards
the Hindus was only due to the ideology
of their religion.

Sidenote: Turks always tended to retain some of their ancestral tendencies before being
smothered by Islam. In the original altaic
society women held a high status. Il-Tut-mish retained a lot of his original
Turkish instinct. Notice his name! So naturally
Razzia inherited some of this. Even in Alla-ud-din’s court there were Turkish
female musicians. So Razzia’s unusual rise
should be viewed in purely Turkic light and not at al conflated with Islam. She
is best compared with Orghana Khatun
rather than with a burqa called Mulla woman.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: