CREMATION IS PURIFICATION BY FIRE

Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni: let not his body or his skin be scattered,
O all possessing Fire, when thou hast matured him, then send him on his way unto the Fathers.
When thou hast made him ready, all possessing Fire, then do thou give him over to the Fathers,
When he attains unto the life that waits him, he shall become subject to the will of gods.
The Sun receive thine eye, the Wind thy Prana (life-principle, breathe); go, as thy merit is, to earth or heaven.
Go, if it be thy lot, unto the waters; go, make thine home in plants with all thy members.

— Rigveda 10.16

In the Western world,we see countless bodies being buried in coffins. And it requires a lot of space.In India,for centuries, Hindus have shown the way of cremation-human beings are formed of five basic elements,pancha bhutha,and finally they return gto those elements, by cremation.

‘What is the greatest wonder?’ Lord Yama asks in the Mahabharata. Yudhisthira replies, ‘Day after day countless people die. Yet the living wish to live forever.’

Death has been an enigma from time immemorial. The human mind refuses to accept its utter finality. All civilizations and religions believe that somehow, the ‘individual’ keeps living, goes somewhere else, or will eventually ‘rise’ and reach heaven or hell. Hindus believe both in ‘life’ after death and in reincarnation.  

For a Hindu the value of the next world is higher than that of the present one. The Baudhayana Pitrmedha-Sutras say, ‘It is well-known that through the Samskaras after the birth one conquers this earth; through the Samskaras after the death the heaven”. Therefore the ritualists are very anxious to have the funerals performed with meticulous care.  

Hindus believe in the soul being indestructible; and that death symbolises end of the existence of a person’s physical being, but the start of a new journey for the soul. This soul then reincarnates in some other life form, and passes through the same cycle of taking birth, growing and eventually meeting death- only to begin the cycle afresh. Cremation of a person’s dead body is therefore, supposed to rid the departed soul of any attachments to the body it previously resided in. 

Fire is considered holy in Hinduism. It burns away everything until nothing remains. On the other hand, burying is a very slow process of dissolving the five elements inside the body back into the five elements of the cosmos. By cremating the body, the physical remnants of the ghost are entirely wiped out from the face of earth, so that the ghost may continue with its journey forward after the 11 days.

Agni, consume not this body to cinders neither give it pain nor scatter about its skin or limbs. When the body is fairly burnt, convey the spirit to the ancestors. May the five elements be merged with their basic forms. – Vedic hymn to Agni. Since Agni, the god of fire is seen as a link between the gross and subtle, matter and spirit, the seen and unseen, the known and unknown and a messenger between men and gods, dead bodies were disposed by cremation. 

Thus, the dead body is an offering to Agni with an earnest prayer to purify and lead the individual to a better and brighter life. Another reason for preferring cremation is to produce a feeling of detachment in the freshly disembodied subtle body and to encourage it to pass on, rather than hover around loved ones. Moreover, Hindus, out of respect for the dead, did not want to leave the bodies around to be consumed by vultures and other animals.

Hindus cremate their dead, believing that the burning of a dead body signifies the release of the spirit and that the flames represent Brahma, the creator. In addition, burial sites utilize large areas of arable land. Earlier, digging a grave was laborious and required special implements compared to cremation which was easier, quicker and cheaper because everyone who came would bring along some wood for the fire. 

 The exceptions to cremation are saints, holy men, pregnant women and children. Since saints are supposed to have attained a high degree of detachment from the body, they do not need to be cremated – they are buried in the lotus position. For children too, the attachment to the body is much less. Also, according to custom, an offspring is required to light the funeral pyre, and both categories would normally not have any.

Children are not grown so their funeral must differ from that of the adult. Their tender body should be spared the fierce flames; their innocent life neither inflicts so much impurity nor does it require so much purification. The next special rite is that of a Garbhini or a pregnant woman who dies in her pregnancy. Baudhayana says that she should be carried to the cremation ground but after saving the child. In case, the child could not be saved, she should be floated or buried. 

Vajpayee cremated

In ancient Egypt, the physical body was preserved through an elaborate process of mummification, as it was believed that, without a home, the soul wandered around to be lost forever. Similarly, Chinese emperors were buried with replicas of objects called grave goods. Again the belief was that on death, the person enters an ‘after life.’ All the daily comforts of their past life such as servants, attendants, objects, pets, wives, guardians, concubines, food and drink were buried along with the emperor.

Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, both cremation and burial were practiced. Christianity and Judaism discourage cremation and Islam prohibits it. Lately, more Christians are becoming open to the idea of cremation, but the Eastern Orthodox churches still forbid it. Many Liberal and Reform Jews support cremation as an option. The Roman Catholic Church’s discouragement of cremation stems from the idea that the body is holy and should be treated with honour and respect. Moreover cremation constituted a denial of the resurrection of the body. 

Burial as opposed to cremation, apparently, seems to be a ‘neater’ and ‘nicer’ way of disposal. However, since the whole dreadful process of gradual decomposition and decay of the body is not seen, cremation is, in actual fact, a ‘kinder’ method. Moreover, it is definitely preferable for environmental reasons. Since a traditional burial consumes nearly one tree, Hindus are enjoined to plant three trees, on special occasions, during their life span.

According to Islamic belief, Allah will resurrect all dead from the graves on judgment day and send them to heaven. If they cremate the body then there will be no body to resurrect. They consider body belongs to god and burning it is disrespectful. Geographical conditions may also be responsible for this difference in opinion as Islam is originated in region (desert) where cremating cannot be followed because of lack wood (main requirement of creating fire)! 

Another pandemic has proved again that the Hindu practice of cremation is rooted in the wisdom of a robust culture. 

QUARANTINE IN THE VEDAS

Body is the Best Temple

A shloka in Charaka Samhita scripted around 5000 years back squarely matches with the four corners of the Lockdown and physical distancing.

पश्यसीति गंदार्थस्य किम औषधे निषे वमे,
पश्य अस्ति गंदार्थस्य किम औषधे निषे वमे।

“Early to rise and early to bed makes a man healthy wealthy and wise”.

It means that if a person follows some restrictions like waking up early, doing yoga, eating herbal nutritious food and fruits, taking bath maintaining personal hygiene etc. going early to bed, then there is no need of any medicine.The other part is the shloka very interesting which says that if person is not taking any precautions then again, the medicine is not going to play any role.

The essence of this Shloka is that in Ayurveda the hygiene, waking up early in the morning, doing yoga and pranayama, taking purely vegetarian food, fresh nutritious fruits, maintaining personal hygiene by taking bath daily for the inner cleanliness and performing havan for outer atmosphere, is the better way to keep healthy, rather than waiting for the virus to infect us.

our ancient seers has always emphasised that how to clean and take care of our body. Veda Says:

येहा आत्मानी तिष्ठति, यस्य कश्याराम शरिरम, यस्य आत्मा शरिरम।

A clean and hygienic body contains a pious Atma inside.

Sri Shankracharya says:  

देहो देवालय प्रोक्तो दही देवों निरंज्जन:।
अर्चित: सर्वभावेन स्वानुभूत्या विराजते।।
(Ref सदाचरहा 13)

A body is said to be the best temple in this universe, the owner of the body is the Lord, so if lord resides inside the body then the cleanliness, purity and hygiene of the body is to ne maintained at the highest level.

Whereas Ayurveda or Knowledge of life has two main goals, one is examination of health with hygiene and second the eradication of any Vikara(Disorder) of the body. Even statutory body of health WHO (World Health Organisation) states that health is a state of complete Physical, Mental, Spiritual and Social wellbeing and not merely absence of disease or infirmity. In the present scenario when social distancing, cleanliness, fitness and enhancing one’s immunity is the need of the hour then Indian mythology and scriptures provide a path to get rid of this Virus.

The very idea of Vedic texts is “Cleanliness is next to Godliness”. The vedic text believes in Tri(three) Shuddhi(Cleanliness): 
One is कायिका or Physical
Second is वाचिका or Verbal and
Thirdly मानसिका or Cleanliness of the mental level for all round growth and development where the body is without any disease. 

By remaining confined to one’s home, spending valuable time with family, maintaining social distancing, inculcating your passion, doing lot of yoga, pranayama and having kadha (Ayurvedic drink including herbs and spices) etc. one can enhance his immunity. This is the key to success in this Lockdown period. This shloka of Mahabharta again justifies that there is no iota of doubt that everything shall be normal in the course of time.

हते द्रोणा हते भिष्मे कर्णे च विनिपातिते ।
आशा बलवती राजञ्शल्यो जेष्यति पाण्डवान्।।

Drona, Bhishma, Karna have been killed, but still there is a ray of hope in Shalya, perhaps he conquers upon pandavas.

Quarantine and self-isolation became the gateway to work in Science, Arts and Literature as history depicts that Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, John Milton and Lord Byron accomplished by editing than formidable work while they were in Isolation.Even the Marxist Milovan Djilas translated The Paradise Lost,while in Yugoslavia jail. Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote “Geeta Rahasya” while he had been in Burma Jail and Poet Makhan Lal Chaturvedi also wrote his best Poems while he was in Jail.

Prison literature is a fully formed genre. While locked up many people find the reflexive outlet of writing a way to pass the monotony. Others find that they feel they must write to express some wrong, either against themselves or others. While imprisonment has been the cause of great works, such as The Gulag Archipelago of Solzhenitsyn, there are works actually composed within prisons or jails .Ii is a different story.

LUMBINI AND BUDDHA"S NATIVITY

550 BC Shrine Found in Excavation

Today is Buddha Purnima.It marks the birth anniversary of Gautam Buddha, the founder of Buddhism.

It was on this day that Gautam Buddha was born in 623 BC. It is believed that this was also the day he attained enlightenment. 

It is believed that when Gautama was 29 years old, he ventured outside the comforts of his luxurious palace and witnessed the sufferings of the people for the first time. The event had a profound impact on him and he renounced his palace life in search of truth. Six years later, he became enlightened. 

In 2013, archaeologists uncovered evidence of the oldest Buddhist shrine dating to around 550 BC. An international archaeology team dug beneath existing brick structures at the Lumbini pilgrimage centre and discovered older wooden structures. It is believed that Lumbini is the place where the Buddha’s mother, Maya Devi, grasped a tree and gave birth to the historical figure. 

Pioneering excavations within the Sacred Garden of Lumbini, Nepal, a UNESCO World Heritage site long identified as the birthplace of the Buddha, uncovered the remains of a previously unknown timber structure under a series of brick temples. Laid out on the same design as those above it, the timber structure contains an open space in the center that links to the nativity story of the Buddha himself.

Archaeologists Robin Coningham (left) and Kosh Prasad Acharya direct excavations within the Maya Devi Temple

“Very little is known about the life of the Buddha, except through textual sources and oral tradition,” said archaeologist Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University, U.K., who co-led the investigation. Some scholars, he said, have maintained that the Buddha was born in the third century B.C. “We thought ‘why not go back to archaeology to try to answer some of the questions about his birth, “Coningham said. “Now, for the first time, we have an archaeological sequence at Lumbini that shows a building there as early as the sixth century B.C.” 

The archaeological investigation was funded by the Government of Japan in partnership with the Government of Nepal under a UNESCO project aimed at strengthening the conservation and management of Lumbini The research was also supported by Durham and Stirling Universities in the UK and the National Geographic Society’s Global Exploration Fund. 

Lumbini is one of the key sites associated with the life of the Buddha; others are Bodh Gaya, where he became a Buddha or enlightened one; Sarnath, where he first preached; and Kusinagara, where he passed away. At his passing at the age of 80, the Buddha is recorded as having recommended that all Buddhists visit “Lumbini.” The shrine was still popular in the middle of the first millennium A.D. and was recorded by Chinese pilgrims as having a shrine beside a tree.

                                    Pilgrims meditate at the wall below the nativity scene within the Maya Devi Temple

The temple at Lumbini remains a living shrine; the archaeologists worked alongside meditating monks, nuns and pilgrims. 

Writing in the international journal Antiquity, Professor Robin Coningham, who led the international team along with Kosh Prasad Acharya – one of Nepal’s top archeologists, state: “The sequence (of archaeological remains) at Lumbini is a microcosm for the development of Buddhism from a localized cult to a global religion.” 

Lost and overgrown in the jungles of Nepal in the Medieval period, ancient Lumbini was rediscovered in 1896 and identified as the birthplace of the Buddha on account of the presence of a third-century B.C. sandstone pillar. The pillar bears an inscription documenting a visit by Emperor Asoka to the site of the Buddha’s birth as well as the site’s name — Lumbini. 

Despite the rediscovery of the key Buddhist sites, their earliest levels were buried deep or destroyed by later construction, leaving evidence of the very earliest stages of Buddhism inaccessible to archaeological investigation, until now. 

Half a billion people around the world are Buddhists, and by 2020, some 22 million Buddhist pilgrims are expected in South Asia; many hundreds of thousands make a pilgrimage to Lumbini each year. 

While people are advised to remain indoors during the COVID-19 lockdown, they can read and send the following quotes of Buddha to their near and dear ones on Buddha Purnima. 

It is better to conquer yourself than to win thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you. 

As you walk and eat and travel, be where you are. Otherwise you will miss most of your life. 

Every human being is the author of his own health or disease. 

Meditation brings wisdom; lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom. 

Your body is precious. It is our vehicle for awakening. Treat it with care. 

Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace. 

Set your heart on doing good. Do it over and over again and you will be filled with joy. 

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. 

If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path. 

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become. 

To understand everything is to forgive everything. 

In the end these things matter most: How well did you love? How fully did you live? How deeply did you let go?

GURUVAYUR INCOME CAN'T BE LOOTED

Make it Secular By Looting Churches and Mosques

Guruvayur is a temple which has an income of Rs 250 Crore.It has a fixed deposits worth Rs 1350 Crore.25,000 devotees come to darshan every day.Income from bhandaram,offerings,guest houses and elephants come to Rs 120 Cr,while it gets Rs 100 Cr from the fixed deposits.

Government had acquired 14,000 acres of temple land-but the annuity for it is a meagre Rs 13 lakhs.Hence it has been put on record that the temple income can be spent on;y for temple purposes.

But the government sponsored temple managing committee has given Rs 5 cr each to the government during the flood and now for covid spending.It is definitely illegal-the government is giving an annuity as compensation to a victim.

Exploiting such a victim is unethical.

It is illegal and unethical for more reasons: 

1.The Guruvayur Sree Krishna temple has become a cash cow for pseudo secular governments ever since it was taken over by the Kerala state government in 1971.

2. In 1977 when the Kerala state government tried to take money from the temple for its housing scheme, the Kerala High Court prevented the govt from taking temple money and struck down many sections the act as it was found to be in violation of Article 26 of the constitution. 

3. However in 1978, the Kerala State Government once again retained the administration of the temple by passing a new act called Guruvayur Devaswom Act of 1978.

4. Since then, time and again various governments have called upon the devaswom board to contribute towards development projects in the temple town – something which is never demanded from any non Hindu place of pilgrimage.

5. During the floods in 2018, the Guruvayur Devaswom was forced by its highly political administration committee to transfer 5 Cr to CM fund. Same has been repeated now for Corona relief. 

6. The Guruvayur Devaswom Act of 1978 has no provision for such transfer of funds. But such blatant illegal loot of temple wealth seems to be a continuing process.

7. Such an illegal act is also justified by many because the state government pays 13 lakh rupees per annum as rent compensation for 14,000 acres of land taken over by the it from the temple.

8. As compensation for  14000 acres of land, the state government should be paying 25-30 crores to the temple every year, assuming that none of these lands are commercial/residential.

9. In reality the just compensation for these lands may run into several 100 crores since land use pattern is largely non-agricultural.

10. On the whole, while the government is not paying the temple it’s due,it is looting directly from the temple.

11. In the current situation, the Travancore Devaswom Board has been begging the government to provide financial assistance for the administration of thousand plus temples falling under its purview.

12. Many artists associated with temples are suffering due to this lockdown – being denied their source of livelihood. Instead of supporting these traditional temple servants and artists, the party in power is keen on looting the Guruvayur temple funds directly and indirectly.

13. Hindu interests are not even given cursory attention by the current administrators of Guruvayur Devaswom Board.

14. The cash in Guruvayur is not pseudo secular.It will become secular only if  the government takes money from churches like Edathva, Manarkad, Parumala, Malaytoor and mosques like Kodungallur Cheraman Masjid, Mambram Puthan Palli, Kanjiramattam and Ponnani.

15. If Guruvayur is allowed to be looted no doubt Sree Padmanabha swamy Temple assets will get looted next.

ISLAM COMES TO INDIA 18/JAYAPALA IMMOLATES HIMSELF

Islam Comes to India 18

Maharaja Jayapala was the ruler of the Hindu Shahi dynasty in India from 964 to 1001 CE.
His kingdom stretched from Laghman to Kashmir and Sirhind to Multan, with Peshawar being in the center.He was the son of Maharaja Hutpal and the father of Maharaja Anandapala. Epithets from the Bari Kot inscriptions record his full title as “Parama Bhattaraka Maharajadhiraja Sri Jayapaladeva”. 

Jayapala is known successfully defending his kingdom against the Ghaznavids in the modern-day eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan region his entire life, until finally being defeated in Peshawar due to a snowstorm. Jayapala saw a danger in the consolidation of the Ghaznavids and invaded their capital city of Ghazni both in the reign of Sebuktigin and in that of his son Mahmud, which initiated the Muslim Ghaznavid and Hindu Shahi struggles. Sebuk Tigin, however, was defeated, and he was forced to pay an indemnity to Jayapala. Jayapala stopped receiving tribute and took to the battlefield once more. Jayapala, however, lost control of the entire region between the Kabul Valley and Khyber Pass. 

Before his struggle began Jayapala had raised a small army of Punjabis. When Jayapala went to the Punjab region, his army had 10,000 horsemen and an smaller host of foot soldiers.

 

According to Ferishta:
“The two armies having met on the confines of Lumghan, the Maharaja ascended a hill to view the forces of Sabuktigin, which appeared in extent like the boundless ocean, and in numbers like the ants or the locusts of the wilderness. However, Jayapala considered himself as a wolf about to attack a flock of sheep: calling, therefore, his chiefs together, he encouraged them to glory, and issued to each his commands. His soldiers, though few in number, were divided into squadrons of five hundred men each, which were directed to attack successively, one particular point of the Mooslim line, so that it might continually have to encounter fresh troops.“ 

However, the army was hopeless in battle against the eastern forces, particularly against the Punjabis.In the year 1001, soon after Sultan Mahmud came to power and was occupied with the Qarakhanids north of the Hindu Kush, Jayapala attacked Ghazni once more and upon suffered his first defeat by the powerful numerous Ghaznavid forces, near present-day Peshawar. After the Battle of Peshawar, the Maharaja planned in his last day’s further attacks.
Battle of Peshawar, was fought on 27 November 1001 between Mahmud of Ghazni and the army of Jayapala, near Peshawar. Jayapala was defeated and captured, and as a result of the humiliation of the defeat, he later immolated himself in a funeral pyre. This is the first of many major battles in the expansion of the Ghaznavid Empire into the Indian subcontinent by Mahmud of Ghazni .

Last stand of Jayapala

Alp Tigin’s successor Sebuk Tigin started to vigorously expand his domain, first capturing Kandahar, then began a struggle with the Hindu Shahi kingdom. Jayapala attacked Sebuk Tigin, but was defeated, then again later when his army of a reported size of over 100,000 was beaten.Lamghan was plundered, and Kabul and Jalalabad were annexed by the Ghaznavids. In 997, Mahmud ascended the throne at Ghazni, and vowed to invade India every year until the northern lands were his. In 1001 he arrived at Peshawar with a select group of 15,000 cavalry, and a large corps of ghazis and Afghans. 

An account of the battle between the invading Turkic Ghaznavids and the Shahi kingdom was given by Al-Utbi in Tarikh Yamini.According to Al-Utbi, Mahmud pitched his tent outside the city upon reaching Peshawar. Jayapala avoided action for some time waiting for reinforcements, and Mahmud then took the decision to attack with swords, arrows, and spears. Jayapala moved his cavalry and elephants to engage his opponent, but his army was decisively defeated. 

Jayapala, along with members of his family were captured, and valuable personal adornments were taken off the prisoners, including a necklace of great value from Jayapala. The figures of Hindu dead ranged from 5,000 to 15,000,and five hundred thousands were said to have been taken captive. Judging from the personal adornments taken off captured Hindus, Jayapala’s army was not prepared for battle and thousands of children were taken captive as well.
Jayapala was bound and paraded, and a large ransom was paid for the release of members of his family. Jayapala felt the defeat to be a great humiliation, and later he built himself a funeral pyre, lit it, and threw himself into the fire.
Mahmud later conquered the upper Indus region, and then in 1009, defeated Jayapala’s son Anandapala in a battle at Chach. The battle is known as the battle of Waihind. He then captured Lahore and Multan, giving him control of the Punjab region.
Anandapala who ascended his father Jayapala’s throne at Lahore (in about March/April AD 1002) already proved an able warrior and general in leading many battles prior to his ascension. According to ‘Adáb al-Harb’ (pp. 307–10) in about AD 990, it is written,

“the arrogant but ambitious Raja of Lahore, having put his father in confinement, marched on the country of Jayapála with the intention of conquering the districts of Nandana, Jailum (Jehlum) and Tákeshar“ 

(in an attempt to take advantage of Jayapala’s concentrated effort with defence against the armies of Ghazni). “

Remains of Nandana Fort

Anandapala defeated Bharat of Lahore and took him prisoner in the battle of Takeshar and marched on Lahore and captured the city and established his kingdom from there.
However, during his reign as emperor many losses were inflicted on his kingdom by the Ghaznavids. During the battle of Chach between Mahmud and Anandapala, it is stated that “a body of 30,000 Gakhars fought alongside as soldiers for the Shahi Emperor and incurred huge losses for the Ghaznavids”. However, despite the heavy losses of the enemy, he lost the battle and suffered much financial and territorial loss.

This was Anandapala’s last stand against Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. He eventually signed a treaty with the Ghaznavid Empire in AD 1010 and shortly a year later died a peaceful death. R.C Majumdar (D.V. Potdar Commemoration Volume, Poona 1950, p. 351) compared him to ancient “King Porus, who bravely opposed Alexander but later submitted and helped in subduing other Indian rulers”. And Tahqíq Má li’l-Hind (p. 351) finally revered him in his legacy as “noble and courageous”. Nandna was a fort built at strategic location on a hilly range on the eastern flanks of the Salt Range in Punjab Pakistan. Its ruins, including those of a town and a temple, are present. It was ruled by the Hindu Shahi kings until, in the early 11th century, Mahmud of Ghazni expelled them from Nandana. Anandapala, the son of Jayapala of the Hindu Shahi dynasty, had erected the Shiva temple in Nandana.

ISLAM COMES TO INDIA:GHAZNI'S FATHER DEFEATS JAYAPALA

Islam Comes to India 17

Mahmud of Ghazni’s father,Abu Mansur Sabuktigin ( ca 942 – August 997), was the founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty, ruling from 367 A.H/977 A.D to 387 A.H/997A.D. In Turkic the name means beloved prince. Sabuktigin lived as a slave during his youth and later married the daughter of his master Alptigin, the man who seized the region of Ghazna (modern Ghazni Province in Afghanistan) in a political fallout for the throne of the Samanids of Bukhara. Although the latter and Sabuktigin still recognized Samanid authority, and it was not until the reign of Sabuktigin’s son Mahmud that the rulers of Ghazni became independent. 

When his father-in-law Alptigin died, Sabuktigin became the new ruler and expanded the kingdom after defeating Jayapala to cover the territory as far as the Neelum River in Kashmir and the Indus River in what is now Pakistan.

Alp-Tegin bust

Sabuktigin was of Turkic origin born around 942 CE in what is today Barskon, in Kyrgyzstan. The ruler of Barskhan was one of the Qarluqs according to the Persian geographical treatise Hudud al-‘Alam. It is therefore probable that the Ghaznavids had Qarluq ancestry. He was captured by the neighbouring Tukhsis in a tribal war and sold at the Samanid slave market at Chach. He rose from the ranks of Samanid slave guards to come under the patronage of the Chief Hajib Alptigin. 

When Alptigin later rebelled against the Samanid rule, capturing Zabulistan and Ghazna south of the Hindu Kush in modern-day Afghanistan, he raised Sabuktigin to the position of a general and gave his daughter in marriage to him. Subuktigin served Alptigin, and his two successors Ishaq and Balkatigin. 

Alp-Tegin was a Turkic slave commander of the Samanid Empire, who would later become the semi-independent governor of Ghazna from 962 until his death in 963. Before becoming governor of Ghazni, Alp-Tegin was the commander-in-chief (sipahsalar) of the Samanid army in Khorasan. In a political fallout over succession of the Samanids he crossed the Hindu Kush mountains southward and captured Ghazna, located strategically between Kabul and Kandahar in present-day Afghanistan, and thereby establishing his own principality, which, however, was still under Samanid authority. He was succeeded by his son, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim.
Pirai, a slave of Alptigin, succeeded to throne of Ghazni in 972 A.D. His misrule led to resentment among the people who invited Abu Ali Lawik, son of Abu Bakr Lawik, to invade Ghazni. The Kabul Shahis allied with him and the king, most likely Jayapala, sent his son to assist Lawik in the invasion. When the allied forces reached near Charkh on Logar River, they were attacked by Sabuktigin who killed and captured many of them, whilst also capturing ten of their elephants. Piri was expelled from the governorship due to his acts and Sabuktigin became governor in 977 A.D. The accession was endorsed by the Samanid ruler Nuh II.
Sabuktigin enlarged upon Alptigin’s conquests, extending his domain from Ghazna to Balkh in the north, Helmand in the west, and the Indus River in what is today Pakistan. 

Sabuktigin was recognized by the Caliph in Baghdad as governor of his dominions. He died in 997, and was succeeded by his younger son Ismail of Ghazni. Sabuktigin’s older son, Mahmud, rebelled against his younger brother and took over Ghazna as the new emir. 

Ferishta records Sebuktigin’s genealogy as descended from the Sassanid emperors: “Sabuktigin, the son of Jukan, the son of Kuzil-Hukum, the son of Kuzil-Arslan, the son of Firuz, the son of Yezdijird, king of Persia.”Some doubt has been cast on this due the lineage having been reckoned as too short to account for the 320 intervening years.What is known about Sebuktigin is that he was of Turkic origin. 

Sabuktigin grew up in the court circles of Alptigin and was conferred the titles of Amīr al-umara (Chief of the Nobles), and Wakīl-e Mūtlak (Representative), ultimately being made general. He was then heavily involved in the defence of Ghazna’s independence for the next 15 years, until Alptigin’s death in 975. 

Upon Alptigin’s death, both Sabuktigin and Alptigin’s son Abu Ishaq went to Bukhara to mend fences with the Samanids. Mansur I then officially conferred upon Abu Ishaq the governorship of Ghazna and acknowledged Sebuktegin as the heir. Abu Ishaq died soon after in 977 and Sabuktigin succeeded him in the governorship of Ghazna; subsequently marrying Alptigin’s daughter.
In 977 he marched against Toghan, who had opposed his succession. Toghan fled to Bost, so Sebuktigin marched upon it and captured Kandahar and its surrounding area. This prompted the Shahi King Jayapala to launch an attack on Ghazna. Despite the fact that Jayapala amassed about 100,000 troops for the battle, Sebuktigin was victorious. The battle was fought at Laghman (near Kabul) and Jayapala was forced to pay a large tribute. He defaulted upon the payments, imprisoned Sebuktigin’s collectors, and assembled a yet larger army consisting of 100,000 horse and an innumerable host foot, allied with forces from the kingdoms of Delhi, Ajmer, Kalinjar, and Kannauj, which was defeated in battle with Sebuktigin’s Ghaznavids at the banks of the Neelum River in Kashmir. Sebuktegin then annexed the regions of Afghanistan, Peshawar, and all the lands west of the Neelum River. 

In 994 he was involved in aiding Nuh II of the Samanids against internal uprisings and defeated the rebels at Balkh and then at Nishapur, thereby earning for himself the title of Nāsir ud-Dīn (“Hero of the Faith”) and for his son Mahmud the title of Governor of Khorasan and Saif ud-Dawlah (“Sword of the State”).

Sabuktigin

Sabuktigin had increased upon Alptigin’s domains by extending his domain to cover the area south of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan and east to the Indus River in what is today Pakistan; he was eventually recognized by the Caliph in Baghdad as governor of his dominions.

After becoming sick during one of his campaigns, Sabuktigin died in August 997 while travelling from Balkh to Ghazni in Afghanistan. The nature of his illness is unknown and the exact location of his death is uncertain. Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, a 13th-century historian, stated that “Sabuktigin died in the village of (Bermel Madwari, or Madar wa Moi, or Madawri, or Madraiwi, or Barmel Maderwi).” In modern times, Henry George Raverty has also mentioned Termez in his translations of the village name. Firishta, a 16th-century historian, has also mentioned Termez as the place of death of Subuktageen.[Abdul Hai Habibi believes that Sebuktigin’s place of death is Marmal, Mazar-i-Sharif.He was buried in a tomb in Ghazni which can be visited by tourists. He was succeeded by his younger son, Ismail. Sabuktigin is generally regarded as the architect of the Ghaznavid Empire. 

After the death of Sabuktigin, his son Ismail claimed the throne for a temporary period, but he was defeated and captured by Mahmud in 998 at the Battle of Ghazni.

Who was Jayapala?

MAHMUD OF GHAZNI LOOTED SOMNATH

Islam Comes to India 16

Three hundred years after bin Qasim’s death, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, the ferocious Muslim,  the first ruler to hold the title Sultan, led a series of raids against Rajput kingdoms and rich Hindu temples, and established a base in Punjab for future incursions. In 1024, the Sultan set out on his last expedition to the southern coast of Kathiawar along the Arabian Sea, where he sacked the city of Somnath and its renowned Hindu temple.

Mahmud assumed the throne in 997 AD. He was very conscious of the wealth he could achieve from further conquests into India. He was also a religious fanatic who aimed to spread Islam. Mahmud is said to have invaded India seventeen times between 1001 -1027 AD. King Jaipal and later his son Anandpal resisted Mahmud but were defeated. Between 1009 and 1026 AD he invaded Kangra, Thaneshwar, Kanauj, Mathura, Gwalior, Kashmir and Punjab. In 1025AD Mahmud invaded Somnath on the coast of Saurashtra or Kathiwar. Enormous treasure of the fortified temple was looted. His last invasion was in about 1027 AD. He died in 1030AD. 

Mahmud of Ghazni ( 971 – 1030) was the first independent ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty, ruling from 999 to 1030. At the time of his death, his kingdom had been transformed into an extensive military empire, which extended from northwestern Iran proper to the Punjab in the Indian subcontinent, Khwarazm in Transoxiana, and Makran. 

Highly Persianized, Mahmud continued the bureaucratic, political, and cultural customs of his predecessors, the Samanids, which proved to establish the groundwork for a Persianate state in northern India. His capital of Ghazni evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual center in the Islamic world, almost rivaling the important city of Baghdad. The capital appealed to many prominent figures, such as al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. 

He was the first ruler to hold the title Sultan (“authority”), signifying the extent of his power while at the same time preserving an ideological link to the suzerainty of the Abbasid Caliphate. During his rule, he invaded and plundered parts of the Indian subcontinent (east of the Indus River) seventeen times. 

Mahmud was born in the town of Ghazni in the region of Zabulistan (now present-day Afghanistan) on 2 November 971. His father, Sabuktigin, was a Turkic slave commander (ghilman) who laid foundations to the Ghaznavid dynasty in Ghazni in 977, which he ruled as a subordinate of the Samanids, who ruled Khorasan and Transoxiana. Mahmud’s mother was the daughter of an Iranian aristocrat from Zabulistan, and is therefore known in some sources as Mahmud-i Zavuli (“Mahmud from Zabulistan”). Not much about Mahmud’s early life is known, he was a school-fellow of Ahmad Maymandi, a Persian native of Zabulistan and foster brother of his. 

Mahmud married a woman named Kausari Jahan, and they had twin sons Mohammad and Ma’sud, who succeeded him one after the other; his grandson by Mas’ud, Maw’dud Ghaznavi, also later became ruler of the empire. His sister, Sitr-e-Mu’alla, was married to Dawood bin Ataullah Alavi, also known as Ghazi Salar Sahu, whose son was Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud.
Sabuktigin died in 997, and was succeeded by his son Ismail as the ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty. The reason behind Sabuktigin’s choice to appoint Ismail as heir over the more experienced and older Mahmud is uncertain. It may due to Ismail’s mother being the daughter of Sabuktigin’s old master, Alptigin. Mahmud shortly revolted, and with the help of his other brother, Abu’l-Muzaffar, the governor of Bust, he defeated Ismail the following year at the battle of Ghazni and gained control over the Ghaznavid kingdom. That year, in 998, Mahmud then traveled to Balkh and paid homage to Amir Abu’l-Harith Mansur b. Nur II.He then appointed Abu’l-Hasan Isfaraini as his vizier,and then set out west from Ghazni to take the Kandahar region followed by Bost (Lashkar Gah), which he turned into a militarised city.

Map of Khorazan

Mahmud’s companion was a Georgian slave Malik Ayaz, and his love for him inspired poems and stories. 

In 994 Mahmud joined his father Sabuktigin in the capture of Khorasan from the rebel Fa’iq in aid of the Samanid Emir, Nuh II. During this period, the Samanid Empire became highly unstable, with shifting internal political tides as various factions vied for control, the chief among them being Abu’l-Qasim Simjuri, Fa’iq, Abu Ali the General Bekhtuzin as well as the neighbouring Buyid dynasty and Kara-Khanid Khanate. 

Mahmud’s father Sabuktigin himself had defeated Maharaja Jayapala.

THE LEGEND AND HISTORY OF RAJA CHACH

Islam Comes to India 15

Raja Chach Rai was a Brahmin who reigned as king of Sindh region of the Indian subcontinent in the mid-7th century CE. Chach expanded the kingdom of Sindh, and his successful efforts to subjugate surroundin monarchies and ethnic groups into an empire covering the entire Indus valley and beyond were recorded in the Chach Nama. 

During the time of Muhammed’s death, the regions of Makran and Sindh belonged to India culturally and politically; Muslims knew the area as the frontier of al-Hind. Though the tendency is to consider Indus as the Western border of India, people from Pliny the Elder (23 – 79 C.E) to Nicolo de Conti (1385 – 1469) thought that it was Gedrosia or Makran.
At this time Harsha (590 – 647 C.E.) was the ruler of Northern India; the Gupta empire had come to end following the invasion of the White Huns. While Harsha ruled over the Gangetic plain, Punjab, Gujarat, Bengal and Orissa, the other side of the modern border was ruled by the Hindu Rai dynasty with the capital in Alor (modern day Sukkur). 

Founded by Rai Dewaji in 485 C.E, just a decade after Rome fell to the Visigoths, the Rai kingdom extended all way from Kashmir to Makran and from the mountains of Kurdan to Karachi. Within this empire some parts of Makran was controlled by Persians and Indians alternatively. 

The Chinese traveler Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang) visited the region during the time of the Rai dynasty. Makran at that time had a large Buddhist population; there were towns like Armabil which were ruled by Buddhists who were originally agents of the Rais. Xuanzang saw 80 Buddhist convents with 5000 monks, several hundred Deva temples and one temple of ‘Maheswara Deva’ which was richly adorned. 

Sindh too was part of al-Hind. This was a time when the Buddhist influence was strong, but was in the decline due to rise of Hinduism and the influence of the Gupta empire. By this time, according to Xuanzang , Buddhism in Sindh was in decline and Takshashila was in ruins. There was a Brahmin migration to Sindh and many cities were founded by them. Buddhists and Brahmins blended in a unique way without any dispute which the Arab invaders could exploit.

Chach Nama

Chach was a Brahmin who rose to a position of influence under Rai Sahiras II, king of Sindh and a member of the Rai dynasty. Chach was prime minister to the King, and retained influence after Rai Sahasi’s death. He became the lover of Chach’s widow, and their marriage enabled him to receive the kingship the date of which is normally put at 632 AD.

Chach enlisted his brother Chandar (also known as Chandra) to help him administer the kingdom. He then launched a campaign against a succession of autonomous regions; he defeated his opponents along the south bank of the River Beas, at Iskandah, and at Sikkah. He sacked Sikkah, killing 5,000 men and taking the remainder of its inhabitants prisoners. A significant number of these captives were enslaved, and much booty was taken. After this victory, which he appointed a thakur to govern from Multan, and used his army to settle boundary disputes with Kashmir. Chach also conquered Siwistan, but allowed its chief, Matta, to remain as his feudatory. 

Later, he expanded his rule into Buddhist regions across the Indus River. These efforts culminated in a battle at Brahmanabad, in which the region’s governor, Agham Lohana, was killed. Chach remained in Brahmanabad for a year to cement his authority there, and appointed Agham’s son Sarhand as his governor; Sarhand was also wed to Chach’s niece. Chach took Agham’s widow as his wife, as well. 

From Brahmanabad, he invaded Sassanid territory through the town of Armanbelah, marching from Turan to Kandahar. He exacted tribute from the latter before returning.
Upon his death, Chach was succeeded by his brother Chandar; Chandar is stated to have ruled for eight years, whereupon Dahir, Chach’s eldest son, inherited the throne. 

n 644, after the Muslim conquest of Sassanid Empire, the Rashidun army entered Makran and defeated Sindh’s army in the Battle of Rasil, annexing Makran (a traditional Persian territory under control of Rai dynasty at that time) and eastern Balochistan. Caliph Umar (634-644), however, for the time being, disapproved of any incursion beyond the Indus river and ordered his subordinates to consolidate their position west of Indus. 

Several places along the Sindhu River were named after Chach; among these are Chachpur, Chachar, Chachro, Chachgaon, Chach.

The Chachnama takes its name from Raja Chach of Sindh, whose son Dahar stood against the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). It comes down to us in its Sindhi, Urdu and English versions. In 1216, one Ali bin Mohammad Kufi, then being a resident of Uch in south Punjab, wishing to learn about the history of his adopted country sought out true sources.
His search brought Kufi to Bhakkar (the fort midstream between Sukkur and Rohri) where the Qazi, Ismail bin Ali of the tribe Sakifi became his mentor. Among his collection, the Qazi had a manuscript that he said was written by one of his ancestors and which detailed the account of Sindh at the time of the Arab invasion. Now, Sakifi was the tribe that MbQ also belonged to, so the Qazi was a descendent from the conqueror’s line. The book, therefore, was the version of the victor — something that we always tend to hold against history. 

Impressed by the book “adorned with jewels of wisdom and embellished with pearls of morality”, Ali Kufi resolved to translate it into Persian, then a better known language in Sindh than Arabic. Indeed, Kufi’s impetus may have been Qazi Ismail’s lament that the book being in its original Hijazi Arabic, its content was virtually unknown in Sindh. 

It was from Persian that the book came into English in 1900, by the learned pen of the remarkable Mirza Kalich Beg. The Chachnama opens with a very detailed account of the Rajput King, Sahasi Rai, and of a young Chach, a Brahman, joining his staff. The author’s source for this part was clearly native oral or written tradition, whereas the account of the invasion is from Arabic sources. 

Segueing again at the end, Ali Kufi reverts to local sources. He tells us how the virgin daughters of Raja Dahar upon being presented to Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik misrepresent out of malice: that they have already spent time with MbQ. Upon this, the incensed caliph orders for the hero to have himself sewn in a fresh cowhide and dispatched back to the capital. He arrives dead and Walid gloats over the corpse. “The Caliph had a stick of green emerald in his hand at that time, and he placed it on the teeth of the dead body, and said, “O daughters of Rai Dahar, look how our orders are promptly obeyed by our officers …”’, the Chachnama tells us. 

This is clearly a Sindhi dramatisation of a different event. From Ahmed Al Bilazri’s Futuh-ul-Baladan we know that upon his return to Iraq, MbQ hardly received a hero’s welcome. His kinsman and mentor Hujaj bin Yusuf had fallen from favour and on the orders of Walid, MbQ was imprisoned where he succumbed to torture. Sifting between the two versions, one has to admit that it is nearly impossible to piece together the exact truth. Nevertheless, it is clear that owing to political rivalries, the young conqueror did not return home to accolades.
Now, the Chachnama has been billed variously, either as a romance or as authentic history. We know that Mir Masum Shah, the governor of Bhakkar (where Ali Kufi was tutored by the Qazi) during the reign of Akbar the Great, writing his famous Tarikh-e-Masumi in the early years of the 17th century, drew heavily from Kufi’s translation. Likewise, Ali Sher Qanea of Thatta for his Tuhfa-tul-Kiram, a century-and-a-half later. Modern researchers would not altogether dismiss the Chachnama as balderdash: it has to be looked at critically but it, nevertheless, is authentic in parts. 

Chachnama tells us the invasion of Sindh in 711 was the sixth. Five earlier attempts were routed with great loss of Arab life and investment. 

But Manan Ahmad Asif,historian at Columbia University,in his A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia questions the historicity of Chachnama.His contentions are mainly that the Chachnama isn’t a book of conquest at all and that it isn’t part of the futuh narratives or, conquest stories that formed a genre of Arab literature. And because it isn’t one, the Chachnama can’t claim to explicate the campaigns of Mohammad bin Qasim. Following from this, Asif also states that the Chachnama isn’t a work composed in Arabic in the 8th century and then translated into Persian, four hundred years later, by Ali Kufi. Instead, Ali Kufi, wrote in Persian, using the literary tools of his time which included a claim to respectability by tracing a scholarly genealogy for oneself – usually from Arabic literature.He completed his work in 1226 CE.

FIRST ARAB RAID ON INDIA DEFEATED

Islam Comes to India 14

Inspired by the early and meteoric military successes that made the Arabs ‘world conquerors’ within a short span of time, it was only natural that they “cast their covetous eyes towards India.” (Indian Resistance To Early Muslim Invaders Upto 1206 AD, P 18 — Dr. Ram Gopal Mishra). 

The first Arab invasion of India was an expedition by sea to conquer Thana near Mumbai as early as 636 A.D. It was undertaken during the vigorous expansionist regime of the second Caliph, Umar-bin-Akhtab, who was on a proselytizing mission to spread Islam to all corners of the world. He appointed Usman, of the tribe of Sakif, to capture Bahrain and Oman. Usman sent his brother Hakam to Bahrain and himself proceeded to Oman. Upon reaching Oman, Usman sent a naval expedition to capture Thana on the western coast of India (Kitab Futuh Al Buldan: Vol. 2, P 209 — Al Baladhuri Tr. By Francis Clark Murgotten).The Arab army was repulsed decisively and returned to Oman and the first ever Arab raid on India was defeated.
A second naval expedition was sent to conquer Barwas or Barauz (Broach) on the coast of southern Gujarat by Hakam, ( Kitab Futuh Al Buldan: Vol. 2, P 209 — Al Baladhuri Tr. By Francis Clark Murgotten ) the brother of Usman. This attack too was repelled and the Arabs were driven back successfully.

Caliph Abd Al Malik Coin

A third naval invasion, which was also the first attack on Sindh, was sent by Hakam to the port of Debal near Karachi in 643 A.D. He sent his brother Mughairah as the leader of the Arab army. 

At the time Sindh was ruled by the brahmin king, Raja Chach Rai who had established himself on the throne by supplanting Rai Sahasi II, son of Sahiras. Some historical accounts mention that Chach Rai had ascended the throne after the death of his master Rai Sahasi II ( The History And Culture Of The Indian People: Vol. 3 — The Classical Age, P 165 — R. C. Majumdar ). Raja Chach Rai was a powerful king who not only subdued the provincial governors who opposed his suzerainty, but also fixed the frontier of Sindh bordering Kashmir on the east and conquered a part of Makran on the west. On the south his kingdom extended to the Arabian Sea and on the north to the mountains of Kurdan and Kikanan.
The target of the first Arab naval expedition to Sindh was the port of Debal or Devalaya at the mouth of the Sindhu river. Debal was a seaside town inhabited mostly by merchants, and was under the command of Samah, son of Dewaji, who was a governor of Raja Chach Rai. When Mughairah reached Debal with his expedition, he was engaged in battle by the brave Samah, who personally led his army against the Arab invaders. The Arabs were defeated by Samah, who “issued out of the fort and engaged with them in fight” and their leader, Mughairah was killed in battle ( The Chachnama: Volume 1 (1900), P 57 — Translated from Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg). The news of the killing of Mughairah and the defeat of his army at Debal must have been an unpleasant surprise for Caliph Umar-bin-Akhtab, who was accustomed to tidings of Arab victories elsewhere. Umar had been very anxious for a victory over ‘Hind’. The defeat at Debal had been the third in a row for the ‘pious’ Caliph Umar, so he planned to send an expedition by land against Makran this time. He commanded Usman to proceed to Iraq, and also told Rabiah to set out on an expedition to Makran in present-day Balochistan, which was part of the kingdom of Sindh at the time. 

Umar also commanded Abu Musa, governor of Iraq for detailed information about the extent of success against Sindh and Hind. Abu Musa had come to know about the defeat and death of Mughairah and victory of Raja Chach, “a king who was very headstrong and stiff necked, and was determined to behave offensively,” ( The Chachnama ) and so he advised Umar that the kingdom of Sindh was a very powerful one that would not succumb to Islamic domination at any cost and that “he should think no more of Hind”. 

During the reign of the first Umayyad Caliph, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan (661–680 A.D), there were as many as six Arab raids on Kikan, a frontier province of Sindh. Muawiyah was driven by a zeal for political expansion and although, his reign was focused on territorial expansion in Byzantine territories, he was nevertheless determined to conquer Sindh. The three preceding Rashidun Caliphs had made several attempts to dominate Sindh but had failed to make any impact. Each of these attacks had been repulsed by the brave and powerful Raja Chach Rai of Sindh and the robust Meds and Jats of Kikan. With each passing failure of the Arab armies in conquering Sindh, the anxiousness of the succeeding Caliphs of somehow “wanting to add a prized feather to his crown that his predecessor was unable to acquire” seemed to grow as they “revived the plans to conquer Sind” ( Echoes Among Ruins: Revisiting The Brahmin Dynasty Of Ancient Sind, P 106 — Vinay Mehta ). 

Muawiyah was the fourth Caliph to send Arab armies to Sindh repeatedly, but unfortunately for him too, each of the six expeditions failed, barring the last one, in which the Arabs managed to subdue Makran in 680 A.D. Thus, after nearly fifty years of relentless attacks, all that the world-conquering Arabs managed to gain was a tiny principality of Sindh. 

It was nearly twenty-eight years before the Arabs could think of raiding Sindh again. The second Umayyad Caliph, Abd Al Malik ibn Marwan (685–705 A.D) appointed a ruthless and over-zealous loyalist Al Hajjaj as governor of Iraq in 695 A.D. Driven by his expansionist zeal to win over Sindh, “a country which had so long defied the might of Islam,” ( R. C. Majumdar ) for the Islamic Caliphate, an aggressive Hajjaj resumed hostilities with Sindh over an incidental pirate attack on a Sri Lankan ship carrying gifts, slaves and some Muslim women for the Caliph in 708 A.D. He secured “permission to declare a religious war against Hind and Sind” ( The Chachnama) from the succeeding Caliph Al Walid ibn Abd Al Malik (705–715 A.D.), and despatched an expedition to attack the flourishing coastal town of Debal near present day Karachi under the leadership of Ubaidullah.

Grave of Uthman

While the lore of the pirate attack on the Sri Lankan ship off the coast of Debal has been popularised by Islamic, and subsequently leftist historians as the raison d’etre for Al Hajjaj’s hostility and attack over Sindh, this theory does not hold much water as the same Arabs had been making desperate attempts to somehow conquer Sindh for over half a century. The motives behind Hajjaj’s attack were no different from the earlier attacks, viz. religious and imperialist expansion of the Islamic Arab Caliphate. In addition to the insatiable greed for world domination by Arab Islamists, the other, more pragmatic and shrewd motive behind the Arab imperialist advances on Sindh was to open up shorter, in-land access to China to promote Arab commercial interests. 

Sindh was ruled by Raja Dahir at the time, son of the mighty king Raja Chach Rai. Raja Dahir was a brave, honourable and magnanimous ruler and “the fame of his sovereignty spread throughout the length and breadth of the world, and his rule was firmly fixed in the country of Hind and Sind” ( The Chachnama ). 

When Ubaidullah attacked the port city of Debal, he was killed in battle by Raja Dahir’s troops in Debal and the Arab army was severely routed. The news of the Arab army’s failure and Ubaidullah’s killing further heightened Hajjaj’s desperation to capture Sindh. He commanded Budail to attack Debal with an army of 6000 Arab soldiers. Budail received further reinforcements of 3000 Arab soldiers from Mohammed Haroon at Nerun. However, despite such a large army, the Arab attack on Debal was decisively trounced by the brave Prince Jaisiah, son of Raja Dahir, and his 4000 strong troops in a long, hard battle. Prince Jaisiah used his elephants effectively in battle to frustrate the Arabs, and as the battle raged, Budail’s horse was frightened of the elephants and ended up throwing him off its back. Budail was surrounded on all sides by Jaisiah’s brave soldiers and was killed in the battlefield.The Arab army suffered a crushing defeat as Prince Jaisiah valiantly defended Debal and Sindh.Raja Chach Rai,who defeated the Arabs,need to be celebrated.

SEMIRAMIS CAME BEFORE ALEXANDER

Islam Comes to India 12

Before Alexander, Assyrian queen Semiramis had attacked India.She travelled with 400,000 troops to conquer India and returned with only 20000 troops. 

Semiramis was the mythological Lydian-Babylonian wife of Onnes and Ninus, succeeding the latter to the throne of Assyria, as in the fables of Movses Khorenatsi.

The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, describe her and her relationships to Onnes and King Ninus, a mythical king of Assyria not attested in the far older and more comprehensive Assyrian King List.Armenians and the Assyrians of Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey, and northwest Iran still use the Shamiram as a given name for female children.

The real and historical Shammuramat (the original Akkadian and Aramaic form of the name) was the Assyrian wife of Shamshi-Adad V (ruled 824 BC–811 BC), ruler of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and its regent for five years until her son Adad-nirari III came of age and took the reins of power.She ruled at a time of political uncertainty, which is one of the possible explanations for why Assyrians may have accepted her rule (as normally a woman as ruler would have been unthinkable). It has been speculated that ruling successfully as a woman may have made the Assyrians regard her with particular reverence, and that the achievements of her reign (including stabilizing and strengthening the empire after a destructive civil war) were retold over the generations until she was turned into a mythical figure.

The name of Semiramis came to be applied to various monuments in Western Asia and Anatolia, the origin of which was forgotten or unknown. Various places in Upper Mesopotamia and throughout Mesopotamia as a whole, Media, Persia, the Levant, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Caucasus bore the name of Semiramis, but slightly changed, even in the Middle Ages, and an old name of the Armenian city of Van was Shamiramagerd (in Armenian it means created by Semiramis). Nearly every stupendous work of antiquity by the Euphrates or in Iran seems to have ultimately been ascribed to her, even the Behistun Inscription of Darius. Herodotus ascribes to her the artificial banks that confined the Euphrates and knows her name as borne by a gate of Babylon. She conquered much of Middle East and the Levant. She was mortally wounded after fighting an Indian king and the Assyrian army was mostly destroyed.

Semiramis painting

She ruled at a time of political uncertainty, which is one of the possible explanations for why Assyrians may have accepted her rule (as normally a woman as ruler would have been unthinkable). 

She not only ruled Asia effectively but also added Libya and Aethiopia to the empire. She then went to war with king Stabrobates (Sthabarpati) of India, having her artisans build an army of false elephants by putting manipulated skins of dark-skinned buffaloes over her camels to deceive the Indians into thinking she had acquired real elephants. This ploy succeeded initially, but then she was wounded in the counterattack and her army mainly annihilated, forcing the surviving remnants to re-ford the Indus and retreat to the west. 

The historical Queen Shammuramat (824-811 BC) ruled Assyria briefly while waiting for her son to come of age. She is also called Semiramis or Shamiram.

The Puranas mention a King Supratika of the Indian Ikshvaku dynasty who ruled nine generations before King Prasenajit (who reigned circa 600 BC). This King Supratika,some argue, is the ruler most likely to have clashed with Semiramis, as her contemporary. 

The story of Semiramis, the Assyrian Queen and the Indian King Stabrobates by a Greek ‘historian,’ Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus) is of interest. 

A long period of peace ensued, till she resolved to subjugate the Indians on hearing that they were the most numerous of all nations, and possessed the largest and most beautiful country in the world. For two years preparations were made throughout her whole kingdom ; in the third year she collected in Bactria 3,000,000 foot soldiers, 500,000 horsemen, and 100,000 chariots. Beside these, 100,000 camels were covered with the sewn skins of black oxen, and each was mounted by one warrior ; these animals were intended to pass for elephants with the Indians. For crossing the Indus 2000 ships were built, then taken to pieces again, and the various parts packed on camels.

Stabrobates, the king of the Indians, awaited the Assyrians on the bank of the Indus. He also had prepared for the war with all his power, and gathered together even a larger force from the whole of India. When Semiramis approached he sent messengers to meet her with the complaint that she was making war upon him though he had done her no wrong ; and in his letter he reproached her licentious life, and calling the gods to witness, threatened to crucify her if victorious. Semiramis read the letter, laughed, and said that the Indians would find out her virtue by her actions. The fleet of the Indians lay ready for battle on the Indus.

 Semiramis caused her ships to be put together, manned them with her bravest warriors, and, after a long and stubborn contest, the victory fell to her share. A thousand ships of the Indians were sunk and many prisoners taken. Then she also took the islands and cities on the river, and out of these she collected more than 100,000 prisoners. 

But the king of the Indians, pretending flight, led his army back from the Indus; in reality he wished to induce the enemy to cross the Indus. As matters succeeded according to her wishes, Semiramis caused a large and broad bridge to be thrown skilfully over the Indus, and on this her whole army passed over. Leaving 60,000 men to protect the bridge, she pursued the Indians with the rest of her army, and sent on in front the camels clothed as elephants. At first the Indians did not understand whence Semiramis could have procured so many elephants and were alarmed. But the deception could not last. Soldiers of Semiramis, who were found careless on the watch, deserted to the enemy to escape punishment, and betrayed the secret. 

Stabrobates proclaimed it at once to his whole army, caused a halt to be made, and offered battle to the Assyrians. When the armies approached each other the kind of the Indians ordered his horsemen and chariots to make the attack. Semiramis sent against them her pretended elephants. When the cavalry of the Indians came up their horses started back at the strange smell, part of them dislodged their riders, others refused to obey the rein. Taking advantage of this moment, Semiramis, herself on horseback, pressed forward with a chosen band of men upon the Indians, and turned them to flight. Stabrobates was still unshaken; he led out his elephants, and behind them his infantry. Himself on the right wing, mounted on the best elephant, he chanced to come opposite Semiramis. He made a resolute attack upon the queen, and was followed by the rest of the elephants. The soldiers of Semiramis resisted only a short time. The elephants caused an immense slaughter ; the Assyrians left their ranks, they fled, and the king pressed forward against Semiramis ; his arrow wounded her arm, and as she turned away his javelin struck her on the back. She hastened away, while her people were crushed and trodden down by their own numbers ; and at last, as the Indians pressed upon them, were forced from the bridge into the river. As soon as Semiramis saw the greater part of her army on the nearer bank, she caused the cables to be cut which held the bridge ; the force of the stream tore the beams asunder, and many Assyrians who were on the bridge were plunged in the river. The other Assyrians were now in safety, the wounds of Semiramis were not dangerous, and the king of the Indians was warned by signs from heaven and their interpretation by the seers not to cross the river. After exchanging prisoners Semiramis returned to Bactra. She had lost two-thirds of her army. 

Ctesias in Diodorus Siculus mentions Semiramis commissioned an inscription at Bagistan – later known as The Behistun /Besitoon /Bisitoon Inscription – a rock-face carving. But what we see today at Behistun is a message by Darius – a tri-lingual message which helped in decipherment of Elamite, Akkadian and Old Persian scripts.

Semiramis staring at corpse of Ara

Mired in legend and prejudice, Semiramis is discredited in modern Western history – especially starting from 1853-1857. Her very existence denied, accused of incest, Semiramis has been tarred and condemned to the rubbish heap of modern history – and the Bible. As far back as 1798, the Asiatick Researches By Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India), were able to trace references to the Semiramis campaign in the Indian Puranas also. And …
“In the case of Semiramis, confusion may have been caused by the fact that her husband and her son were both named Ninus; but to classical and medieval readers it seemed quite plausible that a powerful woman ruler (and a barbarian to boot) would be tyrannical and transgressive in her lust and that her violent delights would have a violent end. “(from Incest and the Medieval Imagination By Elizabeth Archibald). 

Semiramis was generally viewed positively before the rise of Christianity, although negative portrayals did exist. In the Divine Comedy, Dante sees Semiramis among the souls of the lustful in the Second Circle of Hell. The book The Two Babylons (1853), by the Christian minister Alexander Hislop, was particularly influential in characterizing of Semiramis as associated with the Whore of Babylon despite a lack of supporting evidence in the BibleSemiramis appears in many plays and operas, such as Voltaire’s tragedy Semiramis. In Eugène Ionesco’s play The Chairs, the Old Woman is referred to as Semiramis.

Some 300 years, after the reign of Semiramis, the Assyrian Empire passed into Persian hands – and then into the hands of Alexander. Early historians of Semiramis and Alexander mixed fables using details gleaned from Alexander’s expedition.