Ghaznavids had large number of Hindus in their army

[Hindustani78]

Ghaznavi had multiple sufi regiments who were responsible for peaceful mass conversion. And it was PURE voluntary.

Actually its opposite what you are trying to say .

Slavery was condemned by the Prophet Muhammed Pbuh and infact the 4 Guided Caliphs, Ummayyad and Abbassids denounced slavery.

Sabuktigin , the father of Ghaznavi adopted Islam but before that even there were waging wars against the Indian kingdoms.

 

[ThunderCat]

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 -

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Oh, good! Now all you need is your own geography and you're good to go. Congratulations. When do you reach Numenor?

That's the thing, they had no non Turks in the army. Well, if they did it was very small in number, not even worth mentioning
People might bring up Ottomans and the Janissaries but, they were mostly Turks too.
Anyways, like I said, chances are hardly any Hindus in the Ghaznavids. Afghans maybe yeah, and Pakistanis i suppose. that is it.


Nothing wrong with it, come on now, who says there's anything wrong with having Hindus in the medieval Turkic armies?


Busy now, will reply to all that soon.

Not a single Janissary was a Turk.

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?

His statement is not contradicted or confirmed by the existence of a state named India. The point he made was valid: Mahmud's armies had more than one contingent, organised as formations, with their own leadership, consisting of Hindus, from as far away as Kanauj. Kanauj by itself was not India; northern India in political terms consisted of a number of Rajput kingdoms, southern India was then working out its Chola imperium and the aftermath, and the east was under the Palas and then the Senas. Even subsequent to his raids, when Muhammad of Ghor mounted his campaigns, he had to overcome the successor kingdoms of the earlier age, again, a conglomeration of Rajput kingdoms who fought separately and lost separately.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

His statement is not contradicted or confirmed by the existence of a state named India.

I never said his statement was contradicted or confirmed by his use of 'India'. what I said was that his use of 'India' was as out of sync as 'Pakistan' since both terms did not exist within the meaning as understood today. Therefore use of 'India' was incorrect and created a false meaning. As false as if I said in 327BC Alexander invaded Pakistan.

When I asked him to furnish one source where 'India' had been used contemporanously to the time of Mahmud, he as I suspected produced a translation. Clearly that was not the primary source.

The orginial term used was 'Hindu" which is not , repeat not 'India'. Whoever had translated it had decided to use India. That is not a accurate translation. For in translation we convey as accurately as possible the original meaning. We know in 2016 what India is. If anything in 2016 'Pakistan' would be more accurate translation.

Further even the term 'Hindu' held a differant meaning in thousand years ago. It certainly did not mean a religion. I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.



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.



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

@Spring Onion

Dear respected lady, please read the post above yours. I have many Hindu acquaintances, and know of many more, who have these delusional views of history, but they are matched, possibly even outdone, by romanticists from another part of the sub-continent. You may not be pleased to have pointed out that the people of the north-west frontiers of Pakistan perhaps have as strong a penchant for fable and origin-myth as any Kumbakonam Brahmin, but this thread demonstrates that propensity for the credulous in ample measure.

I never said his statement was contradicted or confirmed by his use of 'India'. what I said was that his use of 'India' was as out of sync as 'Pakistan' since both terms did not exist within the meaning as understood today. Therefore use of 'India' was incorrect and created a false meaning. As false as if I said in 327BC Alexander invaded Pakistan.

When I asked him to furnish one source where 'India' had been used contemporanously to the time of Mahmud, he as I suspected produced a translation. Clearly that was not the primary source.

The orginial term used was 'Hindu" which is not , repeat not 'India'. Whoever had translated it had decided to use India. That is not a accurate translation. For in translation we convey as accurately as possible the original meaning. We know in 2016 what India is. If anything in 2016 'Pakistan' would be more accurate translation.

Further even the term 'Hindu' held a differant meaning in thousand years ago. It certainly did not mean a religion. I hope that clarifies my position.

Will be re-written; please ignore this totally.

Oh, absolutely. If by primary source, you meant the use of 'India' in a narration, that may not have occurred anywhere outside Europe. Certainly not in Central Asia or in West Asia.

After reading your note, it is clear that there is no divergence in pointing out that neither the state of Pakistan nor the state of India existed in ancient or in mediaeval times, and using those names as a translation is misleading.

But there are other than political post-Westphalian concepts to consider; there are linguistic shifts and equivalences to consider.

The term 'Hind' was also, I believe, in parallel use in mediaeval times, to describe the geography. And to describe the generic term 'Hind' as a variant of 'India' is not inaccurate. After all, the term 'India' was derived from 'Hind', or 'Hindu', by the Greeks through the Persian word.

If the original, untranslated word was 'Hindu', it is probably preferable NOT to translate it as India, although such a translation is not unknown. If the original was 'Hind', there might be some room for further consideration. Not knowing the original, that is as much as I can say.

Summing up my reaction, if the word used was 'Hindu', mapping it onto 'India' is often contested (it is not discarded; there are those - not contemporary Indians, but agnostic scholars - who use that equivalence), and what you said is a point of view held by many. If the word used was 'Hind', it becomes more complicated.

As you have pointed out, the word 'Hindu' was originally not used of the religious systems now clubbed under that name. It was originally an ethnic descriptor, again, in its first usage, a reference to the cis-riparian and trans-riparian dwellers of the Indus river basin, extended over time to other inhabitants lying further east, and was probably a Persian derivative, originating in the name of the river. We are all aware of the linguistic shift from sibilant to aspirate, from Saraswati to Haraovati, or Harauvati. But on extending that derivation, we come to the further shift that occurred with the Greek hostility to aspiration,and the consequent shift from 'Sindhu' to 'Hindu' to 'Indus'. In parallel, from 'Hind' to 'Ind', or, grammatically speaking, 'Indika', from which other Europeans derived 'India'.

It is misleading in the context of a statement to the effect that Pakistan did not exist; it is historically and etymologically by itself not wholly inaccurate.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

state of Pakistan nor the state of India existed in ancient or in mediaeval times, and using those names as a translation is misleading.

Bow my head

'Hind' as a variant of 'India' is not inaccurate.

Disagree. In translation we have to have accuracy. Hind meant geography - which geography? Indian Republic? No. South Asia? Yes

So in 2016 it would be more accurate and fair to say 'South Asia' > 'Hind'. Even here I am being lax. To get the exact meaning you have to look at the context.

It is though very frustrating how simple matter can be distorted. If say Pakistan changed name to 'Asia' the very next day could I come here and state Troy was in Ancient 'Asia'. Claim all of Mesopotamia as 'Ancient Asia'. Etc etc.

 

[!eon]

Oh, good! Now all you need is your own geography and you're good to go. Congratulations. When do you reach Numenor?

.

Oh good now we are obliged to believe in your thoughts and beliefs.

 

[Attila the Hun]

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.

I don't really want to argue, i mean, Ghaznavids only recruited locally, it would mean Afghans and Pakistanis..Maybe some Hindus too..but "Many in their army" ???

I merely corrected Mr-Ottoman who was claiming that "Pakistanis" not Hindus

Ghaznavids had lands in Pakistan, i would assume many parts of Pakistan can claim to be part of the Ghaznavids.,

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

Janissaries were Turks..and NOT Slaves.

 

[Braith]

If the original, untranslated word was 'Hindu', it is probably preferable NOT to translate it as India, although such a translation is not unknown. If the original was 'Hind', there might be some room for further consideration. Not knowing the original, that is as much as I can say.

Summing up my reaction, if the word used was 'Hindu', mapping it onto 'India' is often contested (it is not discarded; there are those - not contemporary Indians, but agnostic scholars - who use that equivalence), and what you said is a point of view held by many. If the word used was 'Hind', it becomes more complicated.

.

The word "Hind" has been used in all the Persian scripts of that period and i see nothing wrong with its translation as 'India' in English. Alberuni's famous book is named 'Tarikh al-Hind' , the English translation of which is given "History of India".........Its case is same as translating " Shaam" to "Syria" and "Misar" to "Egypt" in English

@Kaptaan has nothing fresh to say, he was always entangled with Indian members on historium forum over the same subject on almost every thread and i wonder if he really has any interest in history in general. Uski sui yahin atki hui hai. He always does that so my responses to him are in that context.

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 !

You chose to ignore that its in brackets and you know it very well that 'Northern Afghanisan' is in brackets for Jujzan to make it easier for the audience to understand its nowadays location. When i will mention 'Dipalpur' , [Okara, Punjab] or [Punjab, Pakistan] will be accompanying it. And no i am not a historian, just a book reader.

 

[Kabira]

I never said his statement was contradicted or confirmed by his use of 'India'. what I said was that his use of 'India' was as out of sync as 'Pakistan' since both terms did not exist within the meaning as understood today. Therefore use of 'India' was incorrect and created a false meaning. As false as if I said in 327BC Alexander invaded Pakistan.

When I asked him to furnish one source where 'India' had been used contemporanously to the time of Mahmud, he as I suspected produced a translation. Clearly that was not the primary source.

The orginial term used was 'Hindu" which is not , repeat not 'India'. Whoever had translated it had decided to use India. That is not a accurate translation. For in translation we convey as accurately as possible the original meaning. We know in 2016 what India is. If anything in 2016 'Pakistan' would be more accurate translation.

Further even the term 'Hindu' held a differant meaning in thousand years ago. It certainly did not mean a religion. I hope that clarifies my position.

Correct, OP is as we all know just another pseudo historian (book reader) with agenda. I've seen him countless times denying Afghan hindu(Indian) connection when you have shivas and lingam found from Afghanistan.

"Al Beruni mentions the Afghans once (ed Sachau, I 208) saying that in the western mountains of India live various tribes of Afghans who extend to the neighbourhood of the Sindh (ie Indus) valley. Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned, they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendents, the very tribes which the advocates of the exclusive claims of the Durannis will not admit to be true Afghans. Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage (loc. Cit .p 199) where he says that rebellious savage races, tribes of Hindus (Indians), or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west.[6]"

 

[Joe Shearer]

Bow my head


Disagree. In translation we have to have accuracy. Hind meant geography - which geography? Indian Republic? No. South Asia? Yes

So in 2016 it would be more accurate and fair to say 'South Asia' > 'Hind'. Even here I am being lax. To get the exact meaning you have to look at the context.

It is though very frustrating how simple matter can be distorted. If say Pakistan changed name to 'Asia' the very next day could I come here and state Troy was in Ancient 'Asia'. Claim all of Mesopotamia as 'Ancient Asia'. Etc etc.

I am embarrassed to read my previous post: it was an absolute disaster. May I come back to this? Perhaps in a separate message, since I am travelling the next few days, and will return only on the 3rd. Please ignore that damn' post. How could I have written it, even while half-asleep?

Oh good now we are obliged to believe in your thoughts and beliefs.

Not at all! Just read The Silmarillion directly.

The word "Hind" has been used in all the Persian scripts of that period and i see nothing wrong with its translation as 'India' in English. Alberuni's famous book is named 'Tarikh al-Hind' , the English translation of which is given "History of India".........Its case is same as translating " Shaam" to "Syria" and "Misar" to "Egypt" in English

Would it be possible for you to dilate a bit on the interconnections between 'Sindhu', 'Hindu', 'Indika', 'India', and 'Hind'? What tends to happen is a great deal of indignation among Pakistanis who believe that their own history has been wrongly appropriated by others; generally, this is centred around the IVC, and this indignation is based on the fortuitous circumstance that the name 'Pakistan' was selected as the new name for this area, and this was taken as a handle to deny their inheritance of the history and culture of the region. Also, that with the continuation of the name 'India' for the Dominion representing the former British Crown Colony, the entire history of the entire region described as India has been annexed to the general body of Indian history.

It is this that stirs up @Kaptaan.

My understanding is that he is angered by the cultural appropriation, not so much by the historical detail. As a consequence, any loose (by his definition) use of the words 'Hind', 'Hindu' and 'India' bring out an immediate and hostile response from him.

Without getting into the specifics of the cultural war that has been raging for some decades, it is probably best to understand the multiple uses of certain sensitive words, such as 'Hind', 'Hindu' and 'India', and to be very clear about the nature of political perception before and after Westphalia. It is also useful and instructive to see how other regions were dealt with, both by contemporaries and by those coming after.

By saying that it is better not to get into the specifics of the cultural war, the idea is to convey that patriotism and hostility towards the jingoism displayed by others often bring about a more violent response than warranted by the mere facts on hand. It is better if we understand, in their own context, not in ours, what each writer intended to convey by these confusing terms, and to spell out that understanding clearly, to allow others to form their own, possibly contradictory, opinions.

@Kaptaan has nothing fresh to say, he was always entangled with Indian members on historium forum over the same subject on almost every thread and i wonder if he really has any interest in history in general. Uski sui yahin atki hui hai. He always does that so my responses to him are in that context.

He must speak for himself; he is far too sophisticated not to possess a well-articulated position. It is just that this position may not emerge in day-to-day conversations. I will not make the mistake of putting words in his mouth.

You chose to ignore that its in brackets and you know it very well that 'Northern Afghanisan' is in brackets for Jujzan to make it easier for the audience to understand its nowadays location. When i will mention 'Dipalpur' , [Okara, Punjab] or [Punjab, Pakistan] will be accompanying it. And no i am not a historian, just a book reader.

I don't really want to argue, i mean, Ghaznavids only recruited locally, it would mean Afghans and Pakistanis..Maybe some Hindus too..but "Many in their army" ???


Ghaznavids had lands in Pakistan, i would assume many parts of Pakistan can claim to be part of the Ghaznavids.,


Janissaries were Turks..and NOT Slaves.

Complete rubbish. Not even worth contradicting.

Bow my head


Disagree. In translation we have to have accuracy. Hind meant geography - which geography? Indian Republic? No. South Asia? Yes

So in 2016 it would be more accurate and fair to say 'South Asia' > 'Hind'. Even here I am being lax. To get the exact meaning you have to look at the context.

It is though very frustrating how simple matter can be distorted. If say Pakistan changed name to 'Asia' the very next day could I come here and state Troy was in Ancient 'Asia'. Claim all of Mesopotamia as 'Ancient Asia'. Etc etc.

On reading this through a second time, I find I agree with all of it. And I agree that we have to look at the context. However, I retain a vague feeling that perhaps we are all talking of the same thing, in slightly displaced terms.

What you have stated above, that I have highlighted, is in fact my position exactly.

 

[!eon]

Not at all! Just read The Silmarillion directly.

Well, then we know what to do

 

[Attila the Hun]

Complete rubbish. Not even worth contradicting.

These Janissaries were recruited by every ethnicities at the start, Greek, Bulgarian, etc, but not long after, they only concentrated Balkan region of newly conquered Serbia, Bosnia . Even then most were Turks(which lived in those regions long before Ottomans got there, read Hungarians. ,

Then you got parents bribing Janissary scouts to accept their sons, from wealthy Bosnians etc.

They were mostly Turks, or "TURKIFIED" Bosnians, Serbs and so on.

In short they were not slaves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

These Janissaries were recruited by every ethnicities at the start, Greek, Bulgarian, etc, but not long after, they only concentrated Balkan region of newly conquered Serbia, Bosnia . Even then most were Turks(which lived in those regions long before Ottomans got there, read Hungarians. ,

Then you got parents bribing Janissary scouts to accept their sons, from wealthy Bosnians etc.

They were mostly Turks, or "TURKIFIED" Bosnians, Serbs and so on.

In short they were not slaves.

Please don't bother. There is a huge weight of contrary evidence that these were the sons of Christian subjects of the Emperor. There is no point in trying to re-write history single-handed.

There were no Hungarians in Serbia and Bosnia; there were Hungarians in, at most, Greater Hungary, with the Temesvar/Timisoara region included and parts of what later was absorbed into Bohemia; Hungarian irredentists have always claimed these as their lost lands. There is no other record of Turks who lived in these regions long before the Ottomans got there. To count Greeks, Albanians, Serbians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, and Croats as Turk is truly delusional.

You will not get any more replies from me, not, at least, on these hilarious claims.

 

[Attila the Hun]

There were no Hungarians in Serbia and Bosnia;

God sake never said there were.

There is no other record of Turks who lived in these regions long before the Ottomans got there

You know nothing then. wasting my time with you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars_of_Romania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians

To count Greeks, Albanians, Serbians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, and Croats as Turk is truly delusional.

Never said they were.

You will not get any more replies from me,

Good.