|
Page 1
Muslim dynasties which figure in the history of India are divided, by modern historians of medieval India into two categories - Imperial and Provincial. Dynasties which ruled from Delhi/Agra are called Imperial Dynasties, whatever might have been the extent of their domain or power. On the other hand, dynasties which ruled independently of Delhi/Agra are labelled as Provincial Dynasties, even though some of them overshadowed the contemporary Imperial Dynasties in terms of territory controlled, or power wielded, or both.
Strangely enough, the Yamînîs of Ghazni and the Shanshabãnîs of Ghûr are not included in any of the two categories. They are supposed to be foreign dynasties having their seats outside India proper and being interested in expanding their domain in Islamic lands to their west and north as well. Medieval Muslim historians, however, do not look at the Yamînîs and the Shanshabãnîs in that way; they regard both of them as inextricably entwined with the history of India. We agree with the medieval Muslim historians. Firstly, Afghanistan was very much a part of India not only in the days of these dynasties but till as late as the disintegration of the Mughal empire in the eighteenth century. Secondly, the so-called Indian dynasties were prevented from intervening in the larger world of Islam not by any lack of willingness on their part but because, starting with the rise of the Mongols in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, the powers that arose in Persia and Transoxiana made it difficult for them to do so.
In any case, there is nothing Indian about any of the Muslim dynasties, no matter from where they functioned. All of them were equally foreign in terms of inspiration and behaviour, even if not always in terms of blood. A bandit who breaks into my house with sword in hand and occupies it by means of brute force, does not become a member of my family simply because he lives under my roof and fattens on my food; he remains a bandit, no matter how long the occupation lasts. He never acquires moral or legal legitimacy. Nor does that member of my family who takes to the ways of the bandit retain the ties which once bound us together; I am fully within my rights to look at him also as one of the bandit team. I am not impressed at all if the bandit believes in a right acquired by conquest or bestowed by a being named Allãh, and quotes from a book he deems as divine. Nor am I prepared, like Jawaharlal Nehru and his degenerate secularist clan, to consider the bandit a member of my family, simply because he drags into his bed my sister or daughter or some other female from my household. I am not called upon to recognize his right to rule over me, and hesitate in throwing him out as soon as I can muster the strength to do so. I am, therefore, treating as foreign to India, more so to the intrinsic spirit of Indian culture, all Muslim dynasties which figure in the Islamic invasion of or rule over this country or any of its parts.
About Author : Shri Sita Ram Goel
|
