K. S. Lal

"Yet K.S. Lal maintains that for several decades the Left-liberals in the history establishment have discriminated against people of differing views. "The ICHR was not politicised by the BJP but by the Marxists. Nurul Hasan, and Irfan Habib after him, packed the place with Leftists," Lal says, citing instructions by the NCERT in 1982 to "weed out undesirable textbooks in history" and the notification by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which in 1989 said "Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned." As far as he's concerned, says K.S. Lal, this is an attempt to suppress facts. He also says the Congress has always promoted its brand of official history through agencies like the NCERT."

"I have tried my utmost to be judicious in my conclusions, and have neither explained an act or policy to the extent of excusing, nor have I uncritically dispraised or blamed."

"With the Muslim conquest the position of Indian women suffered a set-back."

"Muslim conquest was not without its blessings in Bengal. There, as elsewhere, developed an understanding between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus offered sweets at Muslims shrines; consulted and kept copies of the Quran. Musalmans responded with similar acts."

"But even in the deepest darkness light persists. Timur’s gruesome invasion had a silver lining. Hindus and Muslims all stood up to a man to fight him wherever he went. The days of Mahmiid of Ghazni were a story of the past, and Timur met resistance everywhere. The people of India were known for their disunity in the face of a foreign invader. But they stood united against Timur. At Tulamba, Ajodhan, Deopalpur, Bhatnir, Meerut and Delhi—nay everywhere —the Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder against the , invader. Shaikh Sa’iduddin interceded with Timur on behalf of the Hindu chief of Bhatnir. At Meerut, Ilyas Afghan, a Muslim, burnt his womenfolk in the fire of jawhar. During Timur’s visitation the Hindus and Muslims learnt to sink their differences and stand united."

"Ziyauddin's sarcasm is incisive. Occasionally his sardonic humour helps him to sum up his ideas in a few words. His remark that in Alauddin's days " a camel could be had for a dang," but wherefrom the dang?" - shows at once how the reforms of Alauddin had made articles cheap and people poor."

"If the medieval chronicler cries out "Jihad" it is not heard, but if he cries out persistently, it is claimed that he never meant it."

"Any study of the population of the precensus times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative."

"Population studies of pre-census times are being successfully attempted in many western countries but in India not much work has been done in this area. This book is almost: a maiden attempt at population study the medieval period. ... Besides, any study of population of pre-census times can be based only on estimates and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative. In our computation, however, sufficient historical evidence has been forthcoming for any demographic behaviour. If nothing more. I have at least been able to collect in one place direct and indirect evidence leading to fairly good estimates of medieval Indian population, although the estimates themselves may not always be invulnerable to challenge. However I hope that the uniqueness, magnitude and delicacy of the task would make the reader indulgent and the critic tolerant."

"The weaknesses of medieval chronicles are well-known. Their style is by and large turgid and ornamental; their narrative is often exaggerated. And this applies as much (if not more) to figures as to facts. A few no doubt are trustworthy but many of them are extremely faulty with regard to figures and statistics ; and almost all of them let their imagination and their pen run riot. Consequently, even when they are not quite reticent on demograghic matters, they are neither very informative nor always reliable."

"Ziyauddin Barani is an eye-witness historian, but his figures and data are not always precise. When sometimes he means to convey‘a very large number’, he gives the figure of 100,000.... Let us take another fourteenth century historian, Shams Siraj Afif. If Barani has a weakness for 100,000, Afif is very fond of 180,000, so that the slaves of Firoz Tughlaq numbered 180,000, the revenue from his 1200 gardens was 180,000 tankahs, and in his war with Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah (A.D. 1353), he killed 180,000 men in Bengal. The immensity and coincidence of the numbers create misgivings. ... The chronicler has left no stone unturned to convince us of his veracity. Still the figure seems to be unduly. large for Firoz Tughlaq ; it could have fitted in with the narrative of massacres of Chingiz or Timur. And then there is the authority of the Sirac-i-Firoz Shahi , which says that only 60,000 were killed."

"In the Assam campaign “khani-khanan ordered that the prisoners should have the heads of the slain tied round them, and be thus exposed to the derision of the camp...and afterwards put to death."

"Husain Khan. Jagirdar of Patiali and Sruvmsabati, had ordered that the Hindus of his jagtr should wear a piece of cloth on their dress as a mark of distinction from the Muslims. (19)"

"Mahmud's invasions alone meant to the country' a loss of about two million people.... Bakhtiyar Khalji marched through Bihar into Bengal and massacred people in both the regions. During his expedition to Gwalior Iltutmish (1210-36) massacred 700 persons besides those killed in the battle on both sides. His attacks on Malwa (VMisha and Ujjain) were met with stiff resistance and were accompanied by great loss of life. He is also credited with killing 12,000 Khokhars (Gakkhars) during Aibak's reign. The successor of XhutmisK (Raziyah, Bahrain etc.,) too fought and killed zealously."

"During the reigns of Nasiruddin and Balban (1246-86) warfare for consolidation and expansion of Turkish dominions went on apace. Trailohyavarman, who ruled over Southern U.P., Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, and is called ‘Dalaki va Malaki’ by Persian chroniclers, was defeated alter great slaughter (1248). In 1251, Gwalior, Chanderi, Narwar and Malwa were attacked. The Raja of Malwa alone had 5,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry and would have been defeated only after great loss of life. The inhabitants ofKaithal were given such severe punishment (1254) that they ‘might not fotgtt (the lesson) for the rest of their lutes’: In 1256 Ulugh' Khan Balban carried on devastating warfare in Saimur, and ‘so many of the rebellious Hindus were killed that numbers cannot be computed or described’. Ranthambhor was attacked in 1259 and ‘many of its valiant fighting men were sent to hell’. In the punitive expedition to Mewat (1260) ‘numberless Hindus perished under the merciless swords of the soldiers of Islam’. In the same year 12,000 men, women and children were put to the sward in Hariyana."

"Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq (c. 1296-1350) were great warriors and killers. Alauddin’s conquest of Gujarat (1299) and the massacres by his generals in Anhilwara, Cambay, Asavalli, Vanmanthali etc., earned him, according to t[ie Rasmafq, the nickname of Khuni. His contemporary chronicler proclaims that Alauddin shed more blood than the Pharaohs did. He captured Ranthambhor after very heavy casualties . Chittor’s capture was followed by a massacre of 30,000 people, after Jauhar had been performed and the the Rajputs had died fighting in large numbers. When Malwa was attacked (1305), its Raja is said to have possessed 40000 horse and 100,000 foot. After the battle, ‘so far as human eye could see the ground was muddy with blood. Many cities of Malwa like Mandu, Ujjain, Dharanagri and Chanderi were captured after great resistance, The capitulation of Sevana and Jalor ( 1311) were accompanied by massacres after years of ‘prolonged warfare. In Alauddin’s wars in the South, similar killings took place, especially in Dwarsamudra and Maabar. In the latter campaign Malik Kafur went from place to place and to some places many times over, and in his rage at not finding the fleeing prince Vira pandya, be killed the people mercilessly’. His successor Mubarak Khalji once again sacked Gujarat and Devagii. Under Muhammad Tughlag, wars and rebellions knew no end. Even an enhancement of land-tax ended in massacres in the Doab, Many more perished on the way when the capital was shifted to Daulatabad. His Qarachal expedition cost him a whole army. His expeditions to Bengal, Sind and the Decean, as well as ruthless suppression of twenty two rebellions, meant only depopulation’. From all accounts it is certain that in the thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century the loss of population was immense. For one thing, in spite of constant efforts no addition of territory could be made by Turkish rulers from 1210 to 1296, for another while the weapons of the Turkish period were not as sophisticated ‘as those of the Mughal, the Turkish rulers were more ruthless in war and less merciful towards rebels, ‘with the result their killings were heavy. Hence, the extirpating ‘campaigns of Balban,, and the repeated ‘attacks on regions already devastated but not completely subjugated. Bengal was attacked by Bakhiiyar, by Balbap, by Alauddin, and by all the three Tughlags Ghayas, Muhammad and Firoz. Malwa and Gujarat were repeatedly attacked and sacked. Almost every Muslim ruler invaded Ranhambhor until if was subjugated by Alauddin Khalji (1301, again temporarily). Gwalior, Katehar ‘and Avadh regions were also repeatedly attacked. Rajputana, Sind and Punjab (also because of the Mongol invasions) knew to peace. Tn the fist decade of the fourteenth century Turkish invaders penetrated into the South, carrying death and destruction."

"If the seventeenth century in India was a century of demo¬ graphic growth, the eighteenth was of decline. All evidence in¬ variably leads to this conclusion. During the last twenty years of the seventeenth century, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was strenuously fighting against the Marathas and the independent Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan. In the early years of the war, the loss of life does not appear to have been great. 58 But a quarter of a century’s warfare in the Deccan did show is effects, and by the beginn¬ ing of the eighteenth century pestilence and death began to stalk the Deecan countryside. From 1702 to 1704 there was no rain, “but instead plague prevailed. In these two years there expired over two, million souls.” 57 In 1706 Aurangzeb moved northwards, “leaving behind (in the words of the eye-witness Manucci)...fields... devoid of trees and bare of crops, their place being taken by the bones of beasts. Instead of verdure all is blank and barren. The country is so entirely desolated and depopulated that neither fire nor light can be found in the course of a three or four days’ journey...” 58 This picture may be a little overdrawn. But Khafi Khan, ‘one of the best and most impartial historians’ of Mughal India, says almost the same about the Deccan... (84-85)"

"Over and above this, foreign invasions also followed in quick succession. Nadir Shah invaded the country' in 1739. Besides the loss of life in the Punjab and decimation of the Mughal army, in Delhi itself he massacred not less than 30,000 people 86 Ahmad Shah Abdali followed in the footsteps of Nadir Shah and led a number of campaigns in each of which there was great loss of life. In his first invasion (1748), all men bearing arms in Sarhind were put to the sword. His killings in the Punjab, massacres at Mathura (1757), and mass deportations were followed by famine and pesti¬ lence/ 7 The battle of Panipat (1761) was preceded by famine and followed by pestilence. In the battle itself 100,000 men were killed and, according to Siyar-uI-Mntakhirin , no less than 20,000 persons were carried away as captives to Afghanistan. (86)"

"In the year A.D. 1000 the first attack of Mahmud of Ghazni was delivered. He captured many frontier towns and appointed to them his own governors, rt is also reasonable to assume that in these places some people would have been converted to Islam. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom, like Suhhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. Since the whole town is reported to have been converted the number of converts may have been quite large. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory fat Multan) were 'witnesses to his exalted state of prosclytism’! In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud 'converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni’. In the latter campaigns, in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing ‘the conquest of Kanauj’, Utbi sums up the situation thus : "The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort..., and the inhabitants of them cither accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.” In short, those "ho submitted were also converted to Islam* In Bn ran (Bn lands!: a hr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja, During his fourteenth invasion in A.D, 1023, Kirat. Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. Hie chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad. 'Islam upread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force’. Conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objects of Mahmud. A1 Qazwini writes that when Mahmud went “to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Sotnnat, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans", 2 Sultan Mahmud was well-versed in the Quran and was considered its eminent interpreter. 3 He ardently desired to play the role of a true Muslim monarch and convert non-Muslims to his faith. Tarikh-i-Yamim , Rausai-us-Safa and Totikh-UFerfshtah, besides many other works, speak of construction of mosques and schools and appointment of preachers and teachers by Mahmud and his successor MasudA Wherever Mahmud went, he insisted on the people to convert to Islam. (102-3)"

"Aibak-entered upon a series of conquests. He despatched Ihhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji to the East and himself captured Kol (modern Aligarh) in 1194. There “those of the garrison who •were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood "by their ancient faith were slain with the sword.” 51 In 1195 when Raja Bhim of Gujarat was attacked, 20,000 prisoners were •captured, 55 'and in 1202 at Kalinjar 50,000, 55 “and we may be sure that (as in the case of Arab conquest oT Sind) all who were made •slaves were compelled to embrace the religion of the masters to -whom they were allotted.” 57 Ferishtah specifically mentions that on the capature of Kalinjar “fifty thousand kaniz vo gliulam, having suffered slavery, were rewarded with the honour of Islam.” is According to Ferishtah three to four hundred thousand Khokhars jmd Tirahias were also converted to Islam by Muhammad Ghori. (106)"

"During the lime of Qutbuddin Aibak a large number of places were attacked and prisoners captured than for which actual figures, given above, are available. Figures of any conversions during campaigns to Kanauj, Ranaras (where the Muslims occupied “a thousand” temples), sfi Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Havana and Gwalior, and the campaigns carried out rigid up to Bengal arc not available. (107)"

"Muslim rulers were keen to obtain captives in war and convert them. During wa:fare it was still more easy to enslave women and children. It was almost s matter of policy with the Turkish rulers and their commanders, from the \erv start of Muslim rule, to capture and convert or disperse and destory the male population,’ and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-til Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made ‘war against the provinces of Hind.He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty." 8 In Banaras, according to Ibn-ul Asir, Shihabuddin’s slaughter of the Hindus was immense, none was spared except women and children". 53 No wonder that slaves began to fill the household of ctcry Turk from the very in¬ ception of Muslim rule in Hindustan. Fakhre Mudabbir informs us that as a result of the Turkish achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin Aibak, ‘even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave (before) became the owner of numerous slaves.’ (113-4)"

"In 1231 Sultan Iltutmish attacked Gwalior, and ‘captured a large number of slaves’. 31 Minbaj Siraj Jurjani writes that ‘his (Balban’s) taking of captives, and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted." Talking of his war in Avadh against Trailokyavarman of the Chandela dynasty (Dalaki wa Malaki of Minhaj), the chronicler says : ‘All the infidel’s wives, sons and dependents...and children . fell into the hands of the victors.’ In 1253 in his campaign against Ranthambhor also Balban appears to have captured many prisoners. 31 In 1259, in an attack on Hariyana (the Shhvahk hills), many women and children were enslaved. Twice Balban led expeditions against Kampil, Patiali, and Bhojpur, and in the process captured a large number of women and children. In Katehar he ordered a genera! massacre of the male population of over eight years of age and carried away women and children. (114)"

"Alauddin had 50,000 slaves some of whom worn mere boys,* and surely many captured during wax. Firoz Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the-captives should be sorted out and the best ones tht for service with the Sultan) should be forwarded to the court/ 0 Soon he was enabled to collect ISO.OOO slaves.’ Ziyauddin Barani's description of the Slave Market in Delhi (such markets were there isi other places also) during the reign of Alauddin Khaljt, shows (hat ficsh batches of slaves were constantly replenishing them."

"Thousands of non-Muslim women were captured in the minor yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq, and under him the Id celebrations were held on lines similar to those of his predecessor."

"The forcible conversion of frontier tribes by Aurangzeb is a well-known fact. “Popular Hindu and Sikh tradition ascribes mass conversions by force to Aurangzebs reign. (151)"

"On serious estimates of the total death toll, Hindu efforts have been remarkably defective. Twitterati bandy about the number arrived at by historian KS Lal back in 1979: “80 to 100 million between 1000 and 1525” missing from the demographic figures, which already are necessarily vague in themselves. Moreover, these are not all victims of massacres: some fell as collateral damage of agricultural or economic policies that disrupted food production (as under the British or in Maoist China), or were never born because of the potential parents’ displacement or enslavement. On the other hand, in the Northwest the killing started centuries earlier, and after 1525, it resumed."

"The source is the late Delhi Univ history professor K.S. Lal. But his claim is not that 80 millions were physically killed by the invaders/occupiers, merely that 80 million have gone missing from the extrapolated demographic development (itself already a very risky guess) during that period. This includes people killed, but also the effect of lawlessness and famines which he claims were triggered by the extremely high taxation and other deliberate poverty-promoting policies of the Delhi Sultanate."

"We assert that the N.C E.R.T. books have met their fate because of the studied bias and fantastic theories and interpretations of writers like Habib and his friends, and their communal approach in deliberately glossing over the misdeeds of one section of medieval Indian society and repeatedly hammering on the failings of the other....."

"It is not surprising that for some communal historians suffering from extra-territorial chauvinism, the Persian wheel, the spinning wheel, the dome and the arch all came from lands outside India and the highly developed ancient Indian civilization was unaware of these...."

"Early Muslims in India lived and preferred to live in cities. (116)"

"The large establishment of wives and servants rendered the nobles immobile. No Indian scholars, engineers or travellers went abroad to learn the skills the Europeans were developing in their countries. While people from Europe were frequently coming to Hindustan, no Indian nobleman could go to the West because he could not live without his harem and he could not take with him his cumbersome harem to countries situated so far away. Europe at this time was forging ahead in science and technology through its Industrial Revolution, but the Mughal elites kept themselves insulated from this great stride because of inertia. Consequently, the country was pulled back from marching with progress, a deficiency which has not been able to be made up until now."

"In short, while there can be no doubt about the presence of some Muslims in Sind, Gujarat and on the western coast of India, their number till the end of the tenth century was almost microscopic. In Hindustan proper, east of the river Indus, there were hardly any Musalmans in C.E. 1000."

"Indigenous converts added to the numerical strength of foreign Muslims. How quickly their numbers swelled may be inferred from the fact that when, early in the fourteenth century, Malik Kafur marched into Maabar (Malabar), about 20,000 Musalmans who had settled in South India for long and were fighting on the side of the Hindus, deserted to the imperialists and were spared."

"A year before the dawn of the fifteenth century, Timur had claimed to have invaded Hindustan to destroy its infidels and idolators.1 In the year 1400 India was predominantly Hindu; Muslims comprised less than 2 per cent of the population. ... Timur might have made his declaration merely as a champion of Islam, and yet he was not wrong in his assessment of the Hindu population of India."

"About the percentage of Muslims in the total population no precise information can be obtained from the contemporary records. Babur’s statement that most of the inhabitants were Hindus, conveys only a general impression. Two facts are, however, certain. First, it is widely recognised that the majority of Muslims were converts from Hinduism. Secondly, the largest number of conversions took place under the Turks and Afghans who ruled between C. 1300 and 1556."

"In April 1667, four revenue collectors (qanungos), who had been dismissed for various faults, were reinstated on their accepting the Muhammadan faith.39 Aurangzeb’s declared policy of “Qanungo basharte Islam” (Qanungoship on the condition of conversion to Islam) brought many converts and many Muslim families in Punjab still retain the letter of reinstatement on conversion or fresh appointment of Muslims in place of Hindu Qanungos who were retrenched because they would not convert."

"The forcible conversion of Frontier Tribes by Aurangzeb is a well-known fact. “Popular Hindu and Sikh tradition ascribes mass conversions by force to Aurangzeb’s reign.”"

"So, all through the medieval period, Foreign and Indian Muslims strove hard to make India a Muslim country by converting and eliminating the Hindus. They killed and converted, and converted and killed by turns. In the earlier centuries of their presence here, the picture was sombre indeed. Turkish rule was established in northern India at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Within fifteen years of Muhammad Ghori’s occupation of Delhi, the Turks rapidly conquered most of the major cities of northern India. Their lightening success, as described by contemporary chroniclers, entailed great loss of life. Qutbuddin Aibak’s conquests during the life-time of his master and later on in the capacity of king (c.1200-1210) included Gwalior, parts of Bundelkhand, Ajmer, Ranthambhor, Anhilwara, as well a parts of U.P. and Malwa. In Nahrwala alone 50,000 persons were killed during Aibak’s campaign.8 No wonder, he earned the nickname of killer of lacs.9 Bakhtiyar Khalji marched through Bihar into Bengal and massacred people in both the regions. During his expedition to Gwalior Iltutmish (1210-36) massacred 700 persons besides those killed in the battle on both sides. His attacks on Malwa (Vidisha and Ujjain) were met with stiff resistance and were accompanied by great loss of life. He is also credited with killing 12,000 Khokhars (Gakkhars) during Aibak’s reign.10 The successors of Iltutmish (Raziyah, Bahram, etc.) too fought and killed zealously. During the reigns of Nasiruddin and Balban (1246-86) warfare for consolidation and expansion of Turkish dominions went on apace. Trailokyavarman, who ruled over Southern U.P., Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, and is called “Dalaki va Malaki” by Persian chroniclers, was defeated after great slaughter (1248). In 1251, Gwalior, Chanderi, Narwar and Malwa were attacked. The Raja of Malwa alone had 5,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry and would have been defeated only after great loss of life. The inhabitants of Kaithal were given such severe punishment (1254) that they ‘might not forget (the lesson) for the rest of their lives.’ In 1256 Ulugh Khan Balban carried on devastating warfare in Sirmur, and ‘so many of the rebellious Hindus were killed that numbers cannot be computed or described.’ Ranthambhor was attacked in 1259 and ‘many of its valiant fighting men were sent to hell.’ In the punitive expedition to Mewat (1260) ‘numberless Hindus perished under the merciless swords of the soldiers of Islam.’ In the same year 12,000 men, women and children were put to the sword in Hariyana."

"In 1000 Muslim numbers in India were microscopic. In 1200 they were perhaps about three to four hundred thousand. By 1400 their number had risen probably to 3.2 million and they formed about 1.85 percent of the total population. In 1600 they were probably 15 million. And from the 1:9 to 1:10 Muslim-Hindu ratio in 1600 the proportion of Muslims to Hindus had gone up to about 1:7 by the year 1800...Thus at about the middle of the ninteenth century, the Muslim-Hindu ratio stood approximately at 1:6.... By the end of the nineteenth century, the ratio had changed to 1:5, and Stanely Lanepoole, whose Medieval India was first published in 1903, rightly observes: “The population of India in the present day is over three hundred millions, and every sixth man is a Muslim.”"

"Had India been completely converted to Muhammadanism during the thousand years of Muslim conquest and rule, its people would have taken pride in the victories and achievements of Islam and even organised panIslamic movements and Islamic revolutions. Conversely, had India possessed the determination of countries like France and Spain to repulse the Muslims for good, its people would have forgotten about Islam and its rule."

"Here the feudal nobility was a military aristocracy which incidentally owned land, rather than a landed aristocracy which occasionally had to defend Royal lands and property by military means but at other times lived quietly."

"Its history is soaked in blood of the supposed enemies of Islam. But all this is denied by Marxists who always try to cover up the black spots of Muslim rule with thick coats of whitewash."

"Abdul Qadir Badaoni is not an exception. This style of writing, born out of the ingrained prejudice against non-Muslims, is found in all medieval chronicles in various shades of intensity. They denounce non-Muslims. They write with jubilation about the destruction of their temples, massacre of men, raising towers of skulls and such other “achievements”. They also write about the enslavement of women and children, and the licentious life of their captors, their polygamy and concubinage. There is a saying that no man is condemned save by his own mouth. By painting their heroes as cruel and atrocious destroyers of infidelity, Muslim chroniclers themselves have brought odium on the kings and conquerors of their own race and religion, all the while thinking that they were bringing a good name to them."

"Now, it is a recognised fact that the contribution of European scholars in general and of British historians in particular to the study of Muslim literature and history is invaluable. ... Their painstaking diligence and honesty compel our admiration. ... Indian historians owe a lot to the pioneering researches of British historians, whatever may be said about their merits and shortcomings. .... There is no need to get ruffled about such assertions. Most of the conclusions of British historians about Muslim history do find confirmation in the description of cruelties perpetrated by the Muslims in their own chronicles as well as their reiteration in indigenous source materials in Hindi, Sanskrit, Rajasthani and Marathi. Hindu source materials are few. They are also not as informative as the Muslim chronicles. But curiously enough the meagre Hindu and the voluminous Muslim source-materials corroborate and supplement rather than contradict each other about the behaviour of the Muslim regime."

"At the close of the Khalji regime, Ghiyasuddin declared himself as a champion of the faith, because the Ulama had been dissatisfied with Alauddin’s policies and Ghiyasuddin with the activities of Nasiruddin Khusrau. “The slogan of ‘Islam in danger’ so common yet so effective in the history of the Muslims, was started.”39 And this to a great degree won Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq the throne."

"So that, in the Islamic state, Delhi was not the capital of the empire; it was Quwwat-ul-Islam. The king was not the ruler of the people; he was Amir-ul-Mauminin, “the conqueror of infidels and shelterer of Islam.” The army was not the royal army; it was Lashkar-i-Islam. The soldier was not a cavalry man or infantry man; he was Ahl-i-Jihad. The law of the state was not any secular or humanitarian law; it was Shariat, the law of Islam. The state was not an end in itself, like the Greek state, but a means of sub-serving the interests of Islam. Conquests were made, shrines were broken, captives were taken, converts were made - all in the name of Islam. The raison d’etre of the regime was to disseminate the Islamic faith."

"On the other hand, Hindu saints used to assuage the outraged feelings of Hindus and encourage them reconvert to Hinduism. For instance Harihar and Bukka, sons of the Raja of Kampil ,converted to Islam by Muhammad bin Tughlaq, fled his court. At the instance of sage Vidyaranya they reverted to Hinduism and founded the Vijayanagar kingdom to resist the expansion of Muslim power in the South. Like Vidyaranya, there were scores of Bhakta saints who were helping people to resist injustice and retain their original religion. In Maharashtra, Namdeva in the fourteenth century declared that people were blind in insisting upon worshipping in temples and mosques, while His worship needed neither temple nor mosque.69 Such courageous denunciations were infectious and these spread in Gujarat, Bengal, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Ramananda, Kabir, Nanak, Chaitanya, Raidas, Dhanna, Sain, Garibdas and Dadu Dayal and a host of others spoke out in the same idiom openly and repeatedly. They came from all classes of society - Raidas was a chamar, Sain was a barber while Pipa was a Raja, Raja of Gauranggarh - but they were all respected and listened to. Of these the three most important saints who turned Bhakti into a movement were Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya."

"Muhammad Bihamad Khani, the author of Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, gives a clear idea of the keenness of the Muslim sultans and their subtle methods in obtaining converts. He writes that sultan Mahmud while fighting Rai Sumer in the vicinity of Irich “concluded that if he allowed his brave warriors to wage the war (outright), they would undoubtedly extirpate the infidels… but he deemed it fit to delay the operation (or advance slowly) in the hope that the infidels might accept Islam”."

"The Girvan-Vanmanjari of Dhuniraj 119 written in 1702-04 during the reign of Aurangzeb, brings out this problem clearly. The book is written in the form of a catechism between two Brahmanas discussing the correct course of action to be adopted to put a stop to the injustices of Aurangzeb. One of them advocates protest and resistance. The other is of the view that such a course would still more exacerbate the tyranny of the King, but if they cooperated with the regime, they might obtain some relief and minimise the tribulations of the Hindus under the Mughal government. Centuries have rolled by, the country has been partitioned on religious lines, and yet the problem remains as a legacy of Muslim rule in India. How to live with the Muslims who cannot but discriminate between the faithful and the infidels? Through appeasement or confrontation? Not a happy legacy indeed."