Lodi dynasty

41 quotes
0 likes
0Verified
27 days agoLast Quote

Languages

EN
41 quotes

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

All Quotes by This Author

"Abbas relates how Sultan Bahlul Lodi was at first just one of many petty kings of Northern India who was left at peace so long as he remained stuck within the walls of Delhi, but whose city was besieged by the sultan of Jaunpur as soon as he had left it on an expedition to subdue Multan. Bahlul, however, knew his rivals’ weak spot. He told his nobles that none of these kings had a ‘national [gaumdar] following of their own’, whereas, far in the northwest, he had a large number of kinsmen who were valorous and poor and who, if brought to India, would firmly establish his hold over the country. A message was sent to the chiefs of Afghanistan in which Bahlul told them that the preservation of the honour of their kinswomen in Delhi was their affair as well as his. He would share all his possessions with them, he said, as with brothers, keeping only the sovereignty of India for himself. And so they descended to the plains ‘like ants and locusts’, as the usual cliché has it, to serve Bahlul. The Jaunpur king could not withstand these spirited tribesmen. It is true that he had ‘elephants like mountains’ and ‘innumerable zamindars’, but he lacked, Abbas implies, the human resources that Bahlul now commanded: ‘dear and near ones ... imbued with the spirit of honour and prestige’. Jaunpur was defeated. The Afghans were richly rewarded with iqca‘s (fiefs) and more of them began to stream into Hindustan every day.”"

- Lodi dynasty

0 likeshistory-of-india
"One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics? The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history."

- Lodi dynasty

0 likeshistory-of-india
"Sikandar Shah had ruled for twenty-nine years, full of glory and distinction. He was the greatest ruler of the Lodi dynasty, and far outshone both his father Bahlil and his son Ibrahim. During his reign he had retrieved the prestige of the Sultanate and extended its territories... As a king as well as a man, Sikandar Lodi has earned high praise at the hands of Muslim historians. According to them he was verging almost on the ideal. He was averse to pomp and show and rebuked those who wasted money on ostentation. To his sagacity were added a liberal, polite and charitable disposition.... Although a just monarch, Sikandar Lodi could not rise above his religious prejudices. Indeed he revived some of those instruments of tyranny which had lain dormant for many years past. After Timur’s departure the Sultanate had got busy in recapturing and consolidating its lost ground. Here and there a Hindu might have been harshly treated or a temple broken, but by and large the fifteenth century Sultans of Delhi had not indulged in any senseless persecution. During this period the Sultanate was not so powerful as to be able to oppress the Hindus. It could not also antagonise the Hindu population in the interest of its own survival. Sikandar Lodi had succeeded in re-establishing the authority of the Sultanate on quite a firm basis. He was thus in a position to deal with the Hindus in a stern manner, and he did so. Even as a youth he had expressed a desire to put an end to the Hindu bathing festival at Kurukshetra (Thanesar). Such a prince could not have made a tolerant king, and many incidents are related pointing to his uncompromising attitude. But they are mere incidents and they do not point to a definite and persistent policy of persecution. An instance is the oft-quoted case of Bodhan or Naudhan Brahman. Bodhan lived at Kaner, near Lakhnor in Sambhal. He had declared that “Islam was true, but his own religion was also true.’’ Considering his views the Brahman seems to have been a disciple of Kabir or Ramanand. When the assertion of Bodhan became public there were protests from the ’Ulama. The Sultan summoned Qazi Piyéraé and Shaikh Badr from Lakhnor and many other doctors from ‘“‘all directions’ to deliberate on Bodhan’s claim. The discussions must have been exceedingly interesting, but the details are not known to us. All the learned men, however, gave the stereotyped verdict that the Brahman should either embrace Islam or die. Bodhan chose death..."

- Lodi dynasty

0 likeshistory-of-india
"But some other acts of his, which are boastfully mentioned by Persian chroniclers, do defy justification. These are not given chronologically and we have no context of circumstances to find an explanation for them. It is said that in Mathura “and other places” he turned temples into mosques, and established Muslim Sarais, colleges and bazars in the Hindu places of worship.' The author of the Tartkh-i-Daidi adds that idols were given to butchers who used them as meat-weights. Mathura, one of the most venerable cities of the Hindus, associated with the life of Lord Krishna, had the strange fate of being situated between the two capitals of the Sultanate—Agra and Delhi. Time and again it suffered from the ravages of the iconoclasts right up to the time of Aurangzeb. That Sikandar’s bigotry found expression there is not surprising. But what were the ‘“‘other places’? Details given hint at Anahabad and Varanasi. It is mentioned that barbers were forbidden from shaving the Hindus at Mathura. Even bathing at these holy places was discouraged... Indeed the few facts mentioned by the chroniclers about Sikandar’s fanaticism are of the common type witnessed here and there throughout the Muslim rule in India.... Thus there does not seem to be anything extraordinary in the acts and policies of Sikandar Lodi.... in the last chapter. In such an atmosphere the few acts of intolerance on the part of Sikandar Lodi appeared to be so much out of tune with the spirit of the age that they shocked even the Persian chroniclers. In the fourteenth century, Sikandar Lodi’s attitude would have caused no surprise. He would have been considered one among the common one of monarchs. But in the fifteenth century his bigotry was particularly noticeable. Hence the assertion of the chroniclers."

- Lodi dynasty

0 likeshistory-of-india
"Sikandar himself marched on Friday, the 6th Ramzan AH 906 (AD March, 1501), upon Dhulpur (Dholpur); but Raja Manikdeo, placing a garrison in the fort, retreated to Gwalior. This detachment however, being unable to defend it, and abandoning the fort by night, it fell into the hands of the Muhammadan army. Sikandar on entering the fort, fell down on his knees, and returned thanks to God, and celebrated his victory. The whole army was employed in plundering and the groves which spread shade for seven kos around Bayana were tom up from the roots'...'In Ramzan of the year 910 (AD 1504), after the rising of Canopus, he raised the standard of war for the reduction of the fort of Mandrail; but the garrison capitulating, and delivering up the citadel, the Sultan ordered the temples and idols to be demolished, and mosques to be constructed. After leaving Mian Makan and Mujahid Khan to protect the fort, he himself moved out on a plundering expedition into the surrounding country, where he butchered many people, took many prisoners, and devoted to utter destruction all the groves and habitations; and after gratifying and honouring himself by this exhibition of holy zeal he returned to his capital Bayana.'...'In 912, after the rising of Canopus, the Sultan went towards the fort of Awantgar' ...On the 23rd of the month, the Sultan invested the fort, and ordered the whole army to put forth their best energies to capture it' All of a sudden, by the favour of God, the gale of victory blew on the standards of the Sultan, and the gate was forced open by Malik 'Alau-d din' The Rajputs, retiring within their own houses, continued the contest, and slew their families after the custom of jauhar' After due thanks-giving for his victory, the Sultan gave over charge of the fort to Makan and Mujahid Khan, with directions that they should destroy the idol temples, and raise mosques in their places"

- Lodi dynasty

0 likeshistory-of-india