Who Laid the Foundation of Muslim Rule in India

Local kings who converted to Islam existed as early as the 7th century in places like Gujarat. Islamic rule in India before the advent of the Mamluk dynasty (Delhi) includes that of Muhammad bin Qasim in the Umayyad, Ghaznavid and Ghuride Caliphate. The credit for laying a solid foundation for Muslim rule in India goes to Shahab ud Din Ghori. Shahab-ud-Din Ghori conquered the throne of Ghazni in 1173. After consolidating his position, he turned to the fertile plains of India. The Karrani dynasty was the last ruling dynasty of the sultanate. The Mughals were determined to put an end to Bengali imperialism. Mughal rule officially began with the Battle of Rajmahal in 1576, when the last Sultan Daud Khan Karrani was defeated by the forces of Emperor Akbar, and the establishment of the Bengali Subah. The eastern delta region of Bhati remained out of the control of the Mughals until it was absorbed in the early 17th century. The delta was controlled by a confederation of aristocrats from the sultanate who became known as Baro-Bhuiyans. The Mughal government eventually suppressed the remains of the sultanate and placed all of Bengal under the full control of the Mughals. Although there was a general fear of Hindus during the sultanate`s time, it seems that the different political environments of each dynasty allowed for an average degree of religious tolerance on the part of Muslim leaders towards the Hindu population. This moderation is well reflected in the fact that even before the sultanate began, the Islamic rulers of India gave their Hindu subjects the status of dhimmis.

This title protected the rights of non-Muslim citizens in an Islamic state, albeit with certain restrictions, such as the Jizya tax. [2] Hindus maintained this status throughout the sultanate period, reflecting how Muslim sultans did not really oppress their Hindu subjects, but at the same time were never too liberal towards them. It is common knowledge that the sultanate`s first two dynasties, the Mamluks and Khalji, were intolerant of their Hindu subjects and destroyed many Hindu temples during their reign. However, the sultanate`s third ruler, Shams-ud-din Iltuttmish of the Mamluk dynasty, was generally able to keep religion free from his politics, unlike the rulers who would succeed him. [3] This reflects how politics influenced the sultanate`s tolerance of Hindus. Iltutltmish began his reign in 1210, just four years after the founding of the sultanate. As such, he probably should have established some form of stability among his Hindu subjects to avoid internal and even external conflicts in the surrounding Hindu kingdoms. Clearly, this stability could not have been achieved if Iltutmish had taken a tough stance against Hinduism. Because of the political environment of the time, he had to be relatively moderate and keep religion free from his politics.

However, once Iltutmish established stability, the political environment changed and allowed the subsequent leaders of the Mamluk dysnasties and Khalji to be less tolerant of Hindus, which is reflected in the destruction of temples and higher taxes. [4] The reign of the sultanate`s third dynasty, the Tughlaqs, also reflects how the political environment characterized the sultanate`s religious tolerance as moderate. He annexed the kingdom of Devgiri, Warangil and Dwarasamudra, so we note that the empire under the Tughlaqs extended to all of India. Tughlaq rule divided the country into 23 provinces to effectively manage the vast territory. However, this solidarity did not last long, and the sources of this period also show that Hindus were indeed an integral part of the sultanate`s economy. The act of regulation consists of buying a commodity from outside or buying it on the market when prices are low and selling it when prices are high. Ziauddin Barani comments on how “the profession of Hindus is regulated” and that “he is a man who calls himself Musalman and yet accepts to govern as his profession. ignores the Muslim faith.” [19] The fact that theologians opposed such regulation left many commodities in the hands of Hindus alone, such as cereals. In addition, the Hindu Sindhis effectively monopolized many parts of the trade that had to do with carpentry, blacksmithing and more. [20] In this way, the sultanate would have been foolish to seriously repress hindus because of the power they had through economic control.

At the same time, the sultanate did not want Hindus to become too rich, as Ibn Battua comments on how some Hindus who had monopolized the jewelry trade in Dawlat Abad were incredibly wealthy. [21] In this case, one can see how and why the sultanate chose a policy of moderation towards hindus. Hindus were the cornerstone of much of the sultanate`s economy, so rulers could not suppress Hindus for fear of economic consequences. However, the sultanate had to contain the growing wealth of Hindus by imposing certain taxes on them that were not too harsh but were able to satisfy Hindus within the economic system. Indeed, it seems that there are many dimensions to consider when assessing the sultanate`s dominance over Hindus. In the end, all these aspects seem to contribute effectively to the idea that the sultanate`s domination over the Hindus was a rule of moderate tolerance. He extended patronage to education by maintaining several schools and colleges. During its time, a number of new buildings, cities, mosques and gardens were built and dawn was laid. It also relaunched the Jagir and Slave systems. The political environment of tolerance created by Muhammad Tughluq influenced firuz Shah`s incredibly intolerant policies, as he had to appease Muslims whom his predecessor had alienated, which in turn created another rule of moderate tolerance. Firuz Shah essentially reversed the policy of his predecessor as he was incredibly intolerant towards Hindus. He forced many conversions because of the death threat and often turned to the Ulema Muslim body for leadership in state affairs.

[8] Although Hindus were treated badly under Firuz Shah, the environment created by Muhammad Tughluq had a lasting positive impact on many Hindus, helping to balance the oppressive regime of Firuz Shah. The subsequent dynasties, the Sayyid and the Lodi, again softened Firuz Shah`s policy to a more general level of tolerance. [9] Here too, however, politics played a role, as the sultanate lost most of its share of South India at the time and probably could not afford to alienate Hindus for fear of revolt against an already weak state. One can obviously see how politics played a role in establishing different policies of tolerance towards Hindus during the delhi sultanate era. In general, Hindus enjoyed a moderate level of tolerance throughout the sultanate era, as they were free to practice their religion, but were subject to certain restrictions that varied from ruler to ruler depending on the different political climate. A simple look at politics and celebrities will not paint a complete picture of the nature of the position of Hindus in the sultanate. Interactions between the citizens of the sultanate must also be taken into account. In short, we can say that Aurangzeb destroyed the nation-state created by Akbar.

Aurangzeb`s successors were very weak and the Mughal Empire continued to deteriorate under their orders. The Mughal Empire ended in 1857 when the British deposed Bahadur Shah, the last Mughal ruler. Around 1350, India and China were in crisis and in full mutation: the two cultural centers were under foreign domination, essentially hostile to local traditions. After the Tughlaqs, Sayyid Khizar Khan ascended the throne of Delhi and founded the Sayyid dynasty. In total, there were four rulers of this dynasty, but their reign was limited to the walls of Delhi alone. They did not adopt the royal style, nor mint coins in their own name. During their time, repeated rebellions broke out in various parts, and these leaders had to spend much of their energy to suppress these rebellions. The eventual end of modern India`s period of Muslim rule is mainly marked by the beginning of British rule, although its aspects persisted in the state of Hyderabad, the state of Junagadh, the state of Jammu and Kashmir and other small princely states until the mid-20th century. Today`s modern Bangladesh, the Maldives and Pakistan are the Muslim-majority nations of the Indian subcontinent, while India has the largest Muslim minority in the world with more than 180 million inhabitants. Sher Khan founded the Suri dynasty in 1540. He ensured a solid system of civil administration and introduced a series of original land reforms, works for public services.

He followed the policy of tolerance and justice and gained a reputation as a great leader. However, his dynasty did not last long, as his successors were very weak. This was fully exploited by Humayun to reconquer his kingdom after 15 years of exile in Persia. The next attempt to conquer India was made by the Turks of Ghazni. Subuktgin and his son Mahmud (995-1030) attacked Punjab, which was then ruled by the Shahi dynasty. Subuktgin defeated the ruler Shahi Jaipal and deprived him of his Trans-Indus territory. The rest of Jaipal`s territories were taken from his son Mahmud. When the rulers of the five Deccan sultanates joined forces and attacked the Vijayanagara Empire in 1565, the empire disintegrated at the Battle of Talikot. Quṭb al-Dīn Aibak, Aibak (born 1150; † 1210), founder of Muslim rule in India and capable general of Muʿizz al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Sām of Ghūr. The sultanate`s different attitudes towards Hindu music, in turn, seem to influence their moderate tolerance towards their Hindu subjects. Although Islam strictly rejected music, several sultans adopted Hindu music in their courts and encouraged it among the population.

[15] In this way, not only could Hindu music flourish under the sultanate, but also improve the position of Hindus. .