Eaton’s refutation of forcible conversion theory rests upon an assertion which is further we go from the very heart of the Islamic State, its military and political influence weakens. Hence weakens its administrative power to convert its subjects to another faith. Now the question comes, why the external peripheries of Islamic Empire displays such unsettling tendencies. The answer lies in the organic structure of Turko-Afghan administrative system; the reign during which most of the conversion in India is believed to be happened.
The centre of the Islamic state or as it has been termed as the “core” by Eaton always faced difficulties to hold its control over the regions that was far away from it. Whenever a ruler died or got defeated by war, the local military commanders revolted. For example, Bengal never gave slightest respite to Iltutmish and threw off its allegiance whenever it got faint opportunity. During the reign of Razia, the governor of Lahore rebelled against her. Before she returned to Delhi, governor of Tabarhinda revolted. Balban’s one of the most fatal failure was his inability to control Tughril’s rebellion in Bengal. Even 150 years after, Firuz Shah was still struggling to keep Bengal under his firm grip. One of the major reasons why Tughlaq wanted to shift his capital to Deogiri was to have a better centralized command and control all over his empire.
What Eaton has tried to pursue is, perhaps the growing incapacity of the Turkic Rule at Delhi to control its distant patches conquered in an unprecedented time. Before we could have a consolidated centralized rule all over India, the Turkic rule collapsed. The basis of Eaton’s assumption is if the “Islamic conquerors” wished to convert its subjects forcefully, they could have done it with quite ease in the area where they had firm command and military presence i.e. upper Ganga doab, not in Bengal and North West where they had limited and fragile access to the local governors. It is just a theory proposed by Eaton, but the way this theory has been refuted as a "leftist version" or "fruits of poisonous history" is utterly absurd and intellectual parochialism to me.
I could not make head and tail of your argument since you are repeating those point which have been explained by me.
The mistake Eaton makes ( and you are so vehemently arguing for ) is that he conflates
" Political power of Delhi sultanate" with
"Political power of Islam".
All example you have given of revolts shows lack of consolidation of power of Delhi sultanate in areas far away from it's capital, not lack of consolidation of power of Islam. Whatever may be political situation may be,how many times a governor may change in peripheral areas, the ruler in those areas was always a muslim.
Thus while political power of Delhi sultanate may be weak in Lahore or Multan compared to Delhi, but Political power of Islam by virtue of those areas being incessantly under Muslim rule, irrespective of how many times the ruler is changed, was greatest.Political power of Islam comes from unbroken incessant muslim rule in Punjab and Bengal, whether under Emperor or governor compared to UP/Bihar where every 20 years, Sultanate shrinked to Delhi only ,and where Rajput kings regularly defeated various sultans.
Political power of Islam in a place could be taken as proportional to number of years a muslim ruler ruled over that place.
I simple proved that there is direct correlation between " Political power of Islam " and percentage of muslims in every part of India.Percentage of muslims in each state of India correlated with the number of years that place was under muslim rule. This proves that majority of conversions occurred due to militaristic/administrative reasons, a euphemism for Sword and Jiziya conversion.
What difference does it matter whether Punjab was ruled by Razia or Tabirhinda. Both were muslims and it did not changed status of Islam.
I could attack Eaton's argument from a completely different direction.Since Eaton claims that areas on periphery of Islamic empire were more easily Islamized, why is it that Orrisa, MP, and Chattishgarh have very low muslim population even after being at periphery of Islamic rule. Eaton's argument does not make reliable predictions.
I havent read full reply yet but there is no one mention Satvahna still 5pages.they r one of best kindom in history and Indian calendar started from a day when Satvahna Empire established
They rule current day Andhra,Maharashtra,Karnataka to Delhi
Saka Calander does not start with establishment of Satvahana empire but from day when Gautmiputra satkarni defeated Sakas.