Ghaznavids had large number of Hindus in their army

[Kambojaric]

Well, you seem to be well up on this! A pleasant surprise; thank you very much!

Oh I love history, and like studying it without bias to the greatest extent possible.

The Kamboh/Kamboja migration to the east is of course tenuous; it is thought that they passed through Tibet in their journey. Very slim, especially as there are no traces, physical or cultural, of their passage. On the other hand, the story of the Ahoms makes us pause and step back from rejecting this theory about the Kambohs outright.

Well the Pala Kambojas are well attested to. We do know from ancient sources that Kamboja cavalry was highly prized, with Sudakshina being mentioned in the Mahabharata as leading the Kamboja cavalry. Groups of mercencary Kamboja cavalrymen had been settling in Bengal (in a similar fashion to how Afghan soldiers were used as mercenaries in later periods). One such mercenary (Rajyapala or Dharmapala, cant remember which one now) was able to amass enough influence and power to actually oust the Palas from NW Bengal, establishing his own dynasty.

However the further east (Cambodia theory) is as you mention quite dubious, although I have never made the effort to properly study this chapter of history. Given that cavalry was the mainstay of the Kambojas however, dense jungle regions like Cambodia was probably not their first choice of destination.

....not to forget the Janissaries.

And even the mighty Ottoman sultans had to try several times before they got rid of this slave-soldier faction.

 

[!eon]

Oral history and tribal tradition is fine, but I prefer historical evidence. What you have mentioned is not historical evidence.

You can happily continue believing what you want, you asked and I wrote, and we don't need a western or eastern writer to tell us our history. We have it safe with us, even with the names up to generations and generations.

 

[Spring Onion]

Well History has it that It was religious tolerance of Sultan Ghaznavi that out of his 12 general 5 were Hindus.

Some of Hindu names come to mind include Tilak Rai, Hazari Rai and Tash etc etc.

Ghaznavids had a little bit of Afghan and Pakistanis....No where does it state it had Hindus.

There is another view that these Hindus (primarily Hindu generals or slave generals as they were called), many of them converted since they were allowed to keep their kingdoms.

Mr.Ottoman, no nation by name of Pakistan existed in 10th and 11th centuries AD. The famous historian C.E.Bosworth has consulted following contemporary sources of the Ghaznavid period for the content from which i have taken extracts ;

1- "Kitab-al-Yamini" whose author Utbi was court historian of Mahmud Ghaznavi

2- "Zain-ul-Akhbar" whose author Abdu Said Gardezi was contemporary of Mahmud Ghaznavi

3- "Tarikh-i-Al-sebuktegin" by Baihaqi who was court historian of Masud Ghaznavi (son of Mahmud Ghaznavi)

4- "Siyasat-nama" by Nizam-ul-mulk whose father was an official in the service of Sultan Mahmud and Masud.

According to Baihaqi (page-52) on one occasion (in 1031) Sultan Masud Ghaznavi's escort to capital comprised of 300 Indian cavalry and 200 Indian infantry and was provided with three Indian ghulams as his personal servants. (original word used is 'Hindu', translator has 'Indian' in english)

According to Utbi (page- 84), in 1008 AD, Sultan Mahmud faced the Qarakhanids with a mixed army of "Indians (Hindus), Afghans, Oghuz, Khalaj and local troops from Ghazna"

@Joe Shearer
@!eon
@Kambojaric
@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::>

so what do you employ here by bringing this topic that Hindus were part of Mehmud Ghaznavi's army?

 

[Samlee]

Poor Hindus of that part whose bravery was reduced to either change of faith or enslavement.... All hail to bravery of mass murderers ....

Change of Faith Was Due To Hazrat Ali Hajvery and Khwaja Moeen ud Din Chishti Not Mahmud Ghaznavi.And If You Can Hail To Criminals Like Marhatas Than Why So Upset If We Celebrate Ghaznavi

What r u on about,,what mass murderers,,they allowed these pagan martial slaves to live n practice thr religion,didnt they?
pashtuns were strong n brave,unlike the incompetent poor cowards living around indus.which is why,They got humiliated n conquered time after time by almost every invading force.
Yaa those poor,so called martial ppl were slaughtered enmasse n got a mountain named after thr humiliation,,but thn again price for eternal cowardice has to be paid in grand

Yes I Am Sure Your Country Fiercely Retained It's Independence From The "Evil" and "Barbaric" Muslims

Oh And Last I Checked Tarain and Panipat Were In India Land Of Such Brave People Indeed

 

[Indus Pakistan]

no nation by name of Pakistan existed

Mr. Braith you are aware no nation by the name 'India' existed and if it did do please give us source for that. Also don't bother fishing for a 'name' and then append a contemperory definition of on it.

@ThunderCat

 

[Braith]

Mr. Braith you are aware no nation by the name 'India' existed and if it did do please give us source for that. Also don't bother fishing for a 'name' and then append a contemperory definition of on it.

I merely corrected Mr-Ottoman who was claiming that "Pakistanis" not Hindus were part of Mahmud Ghaznavi's army. No nation (qaum) by name of Pakistani existed in 10th and 11th century. If you disagree with me then provide the historical source which says that a qaum by name of Pakistani was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna. Word 'Pakistan' was coined by Chauhdri Rahmat Ali in 20th century.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

No nation (qaum) by name of Pakistani existed

Your deflecting my friend. When or where did I say a nation called Pakistan existed before 1947? I said no nation called India existed before 1947. I quote -

no nation by the name 'India' existed and if it did do please give us source for that. Also don't bother fishing for a 'name' and then append a contemperory definition of on it.

 

[Braith]

Your deflecting my friend. When or where did I say a nation called Pakistan existed before 1947? I said no nation called India existed before 1947. I quote -

What i said exactly was ;

Mr.Ottoman, no nation by name of Pakistan existed in 10th and 11th centuries AD.

Are you disagreeing with me? if yes then why?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

historical source which says that a qaum by name of Pakistani was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna.

And I wait for your source that shows that a 'quam' by the name of 'Indian' and I reiterate 'Indian' was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna?

 

[lastofthepatriots]

And I wait for your source that shows that a 'quam' by the name of 'Indian' and I reiterate 'Indian' was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna?

Forget this guy. He is a racist Punjabi hating TTP supporting scum bag. He considers himself Afghan.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Are you disagreeing with me? if yes then why?

I agreed with that by ommission. Scroll back and you will see I did not challange that. Instead I asked you and I repeat

source that shows that a 'quam' by the name of 'Indian' and I reiterate 'Indian' was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna?

Here - instead of affirmation by ommission I sall make a confirmation by act of commisssion - "Pakistan did not exist prior to August 1947".

Now I throw the ball in your court -

'source that shows a quam' by the name of 'Indian' and I reiterate 'Indian' was in the service of Mahmud of Ghazna?

 

[Braith]

Mr.Ottoman, no nation by name of Pakistan existed in 10th and 11th centuries AD. The famous historian C.E.Bosworth has consulted following contemporary sources of the Ghaznavid period for the content from which i have taken extracts ;

1- "Kitab-al-Yamini" whose author Utbi was court historian of Mahmud Ghaznavi

2- "Zain-ul-Akhbar" whose author Abdu Said Gardezi was contemporary of Mahmud Ghaznavi

3- "Tarikh-i-Al-sebuktegin" by Baihaqi who was court historian of Masud Ghaznavi (son of Mahmud Ghaznavi)

4- "Siyasat-nama" by Nizam-ul-mulk whose father was an official in the service of Sultan Mahmud and Masud.

According to Baihaqi (page-52) on one occasion (in 1031) Sultan Masud Ghaznavi's escort to capital comprised of 300 Indian cavalry and 200 Indian infantry and was provided with three Indian ghulams as his personal servants. (original word used is 'Hindu', translator has 'Indian' in english)

According to Utbi (page- 84), in 1008 AD, Sultan Mahmud faced the Qarakhanids with a mixed army of "Indians (Hindus), Afghans, Oghuz, Khalaj and local troops from Ghazna"

@Joe Shearer
@!eon
@Kambojaric
@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::>

@Kaptaan read the bold part

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Does all this matter? Yes, it does. Much as you I also am a history buff and read a lot. The problem is all historical sources have to be pegged. Are they primary or secondary. If they are primary you have to translate the original in the context of their times. If the source is secondary then you have to prudent in understanding the contents of the secondary sources because often they are contaminated by the translators subjective thinking.

Thus for example most of the English works relating to South Asia from 1700 to 1847 apply their own understanding. For example to somebody from China as soon as you cross the Bosphorus everybody is European. Failing to understand that beyond the Bosphorus there are myriad of peoples - not some humongous entity.

read the bold part

Thank you. Read what I just wrote above. The translator f*ucked up because he, probably a Englishman from the British Empire regarded everything from Khyber to Irrawawady as 'Indian'.

Did you know the term 'Indian' is English and only became common currency after the colonial contact by the British with South Asia. By repeating this your just spreading the worldview created by British through their translations.

And i rest my case. I knew with absolute confidence that no original source could have used the term 'Indian' as that 'quam' did not exist in times of Mahmud of Ghaznava anymore then the term 'Pakistan'. Both came after. One earlier then the other but both before the time in question.

*Just to clarify I was correct. The term India was not used. It was 'Hindu' which meant something else 1,000 years ago from what is understood today.

 

[Braith]

There were also Arabs and Kurds in Ghaznavid army. According to Baihaqi, Arabs and Kurds formed the bulk of the vanguard of Masud Ghaznavi's army when he marched to Merv in 1040. Arabs were finest cavalry of Ghazvanid forces. In Mahmud's reign, the commander of the Arab cavalry was 'Abdullah Muhammad bin Ibrahim at-Tai" , his troops held the center position in the great battle with the Qarakhanids in 1008 AD. Again under at-Tai, Arabs were chosen as advance guard when Khwarizm was invaded in 1017 AD.

There were many colonies of Arabs in present-day Northern Afghanistan and Khorasan in that period. The author of Hudud-i-Alam (written in 983 AD) mentions as many 20,000 Arabs in his home province of Juzjan (northern Afghanistan).

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Before I go a word or two on translation and transformation. If we say 'Alexander invaded India in 327BC" is that correct sentance? Most of the works in English on Alexander which are used by most people were written in 1880s onwards. during that time the English had a a Indian Empire which began at Khyber and ended in the Irrawaday delta in Burma.

Therefore if a Englishman was writing or translating primary source matarial in 1880 like Anabasis of Alexander they too India as what existed in 1880 - their empire which began on the Khyber Pass. So in translation they said 'Alexander crossed over into India in 327BC'. This was not correct because even the name 'India' had not been dreamed of in 327BC - in fact even the English language had not been yet formulated. Yet these writers said 'India' and 'Alexander' in one sentance as if both were contemperory.

Now in 2016 people use those translation and still say "Alexander invaded India in 327BC". That is factually incorrect. If you can use the term Indian in 1880 to refer to 327BC when no such thing existed why can you not use "Pakistan". After all Khyber region is in Pakistan today. In 1880 it was in British India. In 327BC it was not in either as both did not exist.

(written in 983 AD) mentions as many 20,000 Arabs in his home province of Juzjan (northern Afghanistan).

Being a historian you should know that Afghanistan did not exist in 983 AD and definitely Juzjan province was not part of anything called 'Northern Afghanistan' at that time !

And people I am not being pedantic here. This sort of contrived pseudo history annoys me - it is intellectual deciet at best and driven by agenda but dressed as scholarly work. Mention 'Pakistan' for anything 7 days before 14th August 1947 and you will get attacked by vultures reminding you 'Pakistan' did not exist before 12 noon 14th August 1947.

However the same people will flog off names of countries/places that refer to 7,000, 700 years before even those terms were invented - or in the case of 'India' even the English language was yet to be born.

And that of course is all fine !!!