The Arab imperial expansion is one of the most dazzling military sagas in world history, a tornado of awesome kinetic energy and speed that swept through a vast stretch of land from the frontiers of China to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, covering Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, as well as Spain and southern France, an area more extensive than the Roman empire at its height. And all this was achieved within the span of just a century after the death of Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, in CE 632. Arabs believed that they had the power of god with them and were therefore invincible. And indeed they did prove to be invincible.
Inexplicably it was only in the last phase of this imperial expansion, in the second decade of the eighth century, that Arabs made their first major military move into India, although India was at this time famed for its riches, and Arab chieftains had been for over half a century right at the border of India, in Afghanistan, and India was a familiar country for them, for they, as seafaring traders, had a many-centuries-long commercial relationship with Indians.
The history of the commercial relationship between India and Arabia goes back to ancient times, and this amicable relationship continued even after Arabs, galvanised by Islam, turned their primary interest from trade to empire-building. Arab traders had many settlements in India in early medieval times, at port cities and royal capitals, where Indian kings in their characteristic tolerant religious spirit had allowed them to build their homes and mosques, practice their religion without any restriction, and maintain their distinctive lifestyle. Some Indian kings even employed Arabs in top administrative and military positions, and some had Arab contingents in their armies.
There was however an irritant in the Indo-Arab relationship, the menace of pirates operating out of Indian harbours, which hampered Arab shipping and trade. This prompted Arab rulers to send a couple of naval expeditions into Indian coastal waters, to chastise the pirates. But these were minor incidents. And their purpose was to secure the sea trade, not to conquer territory. It was in any case impossible to conquer land from the sea in that age.
There is only one recorded instance of a caliph even considering sending an exploratory contingent into India. This was by Caliph Usman of the mid-seventh century, who at one time thought of sending an army into Sind. But he was, according to the ninth-century Persian historian Al-Biladuri, advised against it by an explorer. ‘Water is scarce there, the fruits are poor, and the robbers are bold,’ the explorer warned. ‘If few troops are sent there, they will be slain; if many, they will starve.’
What finally made Arabs send an army into Sind was a piracy related incident. There are three different versions of what provoked this action, but the generally accepted account is that what led to it was the capture of an Arab ship by pirates off the port city of Debal in the Indus delta. The pirates not only plundered the ship but also seized the Arab girls who were on it, the orphan daughters of the Muslim traders who had died in Sri Lanka. The incident, particularly the capture of the girls, roused the wrath of Hajjaj, the pugnacious Arab governor of Iraq, and he then sent an imperative letter to Dahar, the king of Sind, demanding that he should immediately free the girls, punish the pirates, and make reparation for the damage caused. But Dahar claimed that he was helpless to do anything in the matter. ‘They are pirates who have captured these women, and over them I have no authority,’ he wrote to Hajjaj. The reply was probably disingenuous, for several of the coastal rulers of India at this time were known to connive with pirates and share their booty. In any case, Hajjaj considered the reply evasive or deceitful, and he sent two punitive forces against Dahar, one by land and the other by sea. But both these forces were routed in Sind, and their commanders slain.
HAJJAJ THEN SENT, with the Caliph’s permission, a full-fledged army to invade Sind, and gave the command of this campaign to Muhammad Qasim, his nephew and son-in-law, who was then the governor of Shiraz in Persia. Muhammad was only seventeen years old at this time, but he conducted the Sind campaign with a sagacity way beyond his age, and proved to be resourceful and ingenious in military strategies as well as in diplomacy and administration.
The Caliph took care to provide Muhammad with a strong army for this campaign: 6000 picked Syrian cavalry, the flower of the Arab armies, backed by a large camel corps and a baggage train of some 3000 camels. Several more troops and adventurers joined the army on its way to India, motivated by religious zeal and the prospect of plunder. Heavy siege weapons were sent to Sind by sea, and this included a monstrously huge ballista ironically named ‘Bride’, which required some 500 men to operate it. Muhammad, states Al-Biladuri, ‘was provided with all he could require, without omitting even thread and needles.’
Setting out on the campaign, Muhammad adventurously took the hazardous but short Makran seacoast route—the ‘waterless inferno’ through which Alexander had retreated from India in the fourth century BCE—to advance into Sind. The army seems to have endured the perils of the journey well, and it reached Sind in good shape. And, although it suffered some initial reverses in Sind, it had little difficulty in storming into Debal by scaling its ramparts.
Muhammad was usually humane and fair in his treatment of the defeated enemy, but at Debal, where he had his first major military engagement in India, he was utterly ruthless in the carnage he inflicted on the people there, presumably to terrify the chieftains of Sind into submission by a demonstration of the doom that awaited them if they resisted him, and no doubt also to rouse the ferocity of his own soldiers with bloodlust and the prospect of plunder. Arabs ravaged Debal for three whole days, slaughtering all the adult men who refused to become Muslims, enslaving their wives and children, and plundering the town of all its wealth. Muhammad then sent the customary one-fifth of the plunder to the Caliph, and divided the rest among his soldiers.
Muhammad stationed a garrison in Debal to secure his line of communication and supply, and then proceeded northward along the Indus, to confront his main adversary, the king Dahar. He met very little resistance as he advanced, and a couple of towns along his route surrendered to him peacefully, though there were also a few places where he had to fight his way through. Muhammad, notes Al-Biruni in his eleventh-century chronicle, advanced ‘sometimes fighting with sword in hand, sometimes gaining his ends by treaties, leaving to the people their ancient beliefs, except in the case of those who wanted to become Muslims.’
MUHAMMAD WAS OFTEN brilliantly innovative in his military tactics. One such tactic he used was to divide his army into two divisions while attacking forts, one to fight during daytime, and the other to fight at night, thus giving no rest to the defenders, while his own soldiers always remained well-rested and fresh. Because of such tactics, and the sheer ferocity of his soldiers, Muhammad was usually victorious in his battles.
As in military tactics, so also in diplomacy Muhammad was quite ingenious, winning over the local chieftains to his side. According to Al-Biladuri, Muhammad counselled the people of Sind to surrender to him peacefully, promising them that if they did so they would not be molested in any way, but would be given full protection, and that their ‘temples shall be unto us, like the churches of Christians, the synagogues of Jews, and the fire temple of the Magians.’ But he also warned them that if they resisted him, he would be absolutely ruthless in suppressing them. And this warning was demonstrated by him in several places, where he faced resistance, by indiscriminately slaughtering the enemy soldiers as well as the common people, and by enslaving their women and children. He also desecrated a number of temples, or demolished them to build mosques in their place. In one temple he defiled the idol by attaching a piece of beef to its neck.
This dual policy of Muhammad was quite successful. His military ferocity scared off many of his potential adversaries—sometimes they fled by the back gate of their fort when Arabs entered it by its front gate—or induced them to submit to him prudently, without resistance. Some chieftains even sided with Muhammad and assisted him in his campaign. As for the general public, according to Chach-nama, a near-contemporary chronicle of the Arab conquest of Sind, Muhammad won them over by his ‘honesty, prudence, justice, equity, and generosity.’ He took particular care to give ‘protection to artificers, merchants and the common people,’ and at times even compensated those whose properties were plundered by his soldiers. Because of all this, in some places people even greeted Muhammad as a saviour, by ‘ringing bells, beating drums and dancing.’
Muhammad’s magnanimous treatment of the local people—mostly Hindus and Buddhists—involved a liberal interpretation of the injunctions of Koran, which allow Muslim armies to spare only the ‘people of the book’ (Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians) and their religious places, but require all other infidels to be put to death if they did not become Muslims. Hajjaj in fact cautioned Muhammad on this. ‘The great god says in Koran, “O true believers, when you encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads.” The above command of the great god is a great command and must be respected and followed,’ he warned. ‘You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to none of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.’
Koran, however, is not entirely consistent in its injunctions on this, and in one place it says, ‘Make war upon such of those . . . who believe not in god . . . until they pay tribute out of hand, and are humbled.’ This command was often liberally interpreted to mean that non-Muslims should not be harried in any way if they paid jizya and conducted themselves humbly. It was this policy that Muhammad adopted. And Hajjaj himself later approved it. As ‘the chief inhabitants [of Sind] . . . have made submission, and have agreed to pay taxes to the Caliph, nothing more can be properly required from them,’ he wrote to Muhammad. ‘They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given to them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like . . . [They should be allowed to] live without any fear, and strive to better themselves . . .You deserve praise and commendation for your military conduct, and for the pains you have taken in protecting the people, ameliorating their condition, and managing the affairs of the government.’
MUHAMMAD’S FAR-SIGHTED AND conciliatory policy towards Sindhis paid good dividends, for many local chieftains, as well as the gentry and the common people, responded to it by peacefully submitting to him. And several of them, including some chieftains, even a son of Dahar, became Muslims, and took Arab names—mainly, we may assume, to retain their power or to gain other temporal advantages, though some probably had a genuine change of faith. There does not seem to have been any large number of forced conversions by Muhammad. According to Chach-nama, the good conduct of Muhammad ‘dispelled the fear of the Arab army from the minds of those who offered allegiance, and brought those to submission who were inimically disposed.’
Another major reason for the easy submission of Sindhis to Arabs was their general belief, based on an ancient astrological prediction, that it would be futile for them to resist Arabs, for they (Arabs) were destined to be victorious. ‘In the books of the Buddhists it is predicted, upon astrological calculations, that Hindustan shall be captured by Muhammadans . . . It is the will of god,’ stated a local chieftain to his clansmen as he prepared to surrender to Muhammad.
Yet another factor that facilitated the easy advance of Muhammad in Sind was that a good number of the people there at this time were Buddhists, and they, notes Chach-nama, peacefully surrendered to Muhammad, telling him, ‘Our religion is one of peace and quiet; fighting and slaying, as well as all blood-shedding are prohibited to us.’ This pacific attitude of Buddhists was motivated, apart from their anxiety to prevent carnage, by their desire to protect their business interests, for they were the dominant commercial community in Sind, and antagonising Arabs would have seriously harmed their business.
It was on the whole a smooth passage for Muhammad in Sind. But during his northward thrust to confront Dahar he was delayed for some months on the western bank of the Indus, as a number of his soldiers were there afflicted with scurvy, and many of his horses died of some disease. Hajjaj then sent him medicines and reinforcements, and eventually, in June 712, Muhammad crossed the river and advanced on the fortress of Brahmanabad, where Dahar was stationed.
As Muhammad approached the fortress, he was confronted (according to an evidently exaggerated account) by Dahar with a huge army consisting of 50,000 cavalry. He even had 500 Arabs in his army, according to Chach-nama. ‘A dreadful conflict ensued, such as had never been heard of,’ comments Al-Biladuri. Dahar, as was usual among Indian kings, led his army mounted on a huge elephant. His high visibility was meant to inspire his army, but it also made him an easy target for enemy sharpshooters. And, as it happened, an Arab soldier ‘shot his naphtha arrow into Dahar’s howdah and set it on fire,’ reports Chach-nama. Dahar then, according to Al-Biladuri, ‘dismounted and fought valiantly, but was killed towards the evening. The idolaters then fled, and Musulmans glutted themselves with massacre.’ Dahar’s head was severed and sent to the Caliph as a trophy, along with his share of the booty taken in the campaign.
As the Arabs charged into the fortress, one of Dahar’s queens committed sati, but another, Rani Ladi, surrendered and eventually married Muhammad. Two of Dahar’s maiden daughters, Suryadevi and Parmaldevi, who were found in the fort, were sent by Muhammad to the Caliph, as a part of the homage due to him.
After capturing Brahmanabad, Muhammad spent some time there, organising the administration of the conquered territories. He then continued his northward advance, fighting several battles along the way, and captured the city of Multan.
It had been a brilliant campaign by Muhammad all along. But presently he was overtaken by a dreadful misfortune, which ended his career while it was still in full bloom.
THE CAUSE OF Muhammad’s tragic end is given variously in contemporary chronicles. According to Chach-nama, this was a vengeance wreaked on him by the two Sind princesses he had sent to the Caliph’s harem. The story, as told in Chach-nama, is that one night some days after the princesses arrived, the Caliph had the older princess, Suryadevi, brought to him. When he made her sit down, ‘and she uncovered her face . . . [he] was enamoured of her surpassing beauty and charms. Her powerful glances robbed his heart of patience, and he laid his hand upon her and drew her towards him.’ But she shrank away from his touch and stood up, and said that she was not worthy of him, for Muhammad had violated her before sending her to him. This so enraged the Caliph that he right away, without any enquiry whatever, despatched an imperative order to Muhammad that he should, directly on receipt of the order, ‘suffer himself to be sewed up in a hide and sent to the capital.’
Muhammad obeyed immediately, as expected of a loyal Arab officer. He was then tightly sewed up in a hide and sent to Baghdad in a locked chest. Predictably he died of suffocation on the way. When the chest arrived at the Caliph’s palace, he showed the corpse to Suryadevi, to impress her with his power. ‘The virtuous . . . [princess then] put off the veil from her face, placed her head on the ground,’ and told the Caliph that he had made a dreadful mistake in punishing Muhammad. ‘It is proper that a king should test with the touchstone of reason and weigh in his mind whatever he hears from friend or foe,’ she told him. ‘And when it is found to be true and indubitable, then orders compatible with justice should be given . . . Your gracious mind is wanting in reason and judgement. Muhammad Qasim respected our honour, and behaved like a brother or son to us, and he never touched us . . . with a licentious hand. But he had killed the king of Hind and Sind, he had destroyed the dominion of our forefathers, and he had degraded us from the dignity of royalty to a state of slavery. Therefore, to retaliate and to revenge these injuries, we uttered a falsehood before the Caliph . . . Through this fabrication and deceit we have taken our revenge.’ The Caliph then, overcome with remorse and wrath, ‘bit the back of his hand’ and immediately ordered the princesses to be entombed alive, thus inflicting on them a fate similar to that suffered by Muhammad.
This tragic tale is usually discounted by historians as mere romance, but the story is no more incredible than many other similar historical accounts of royal vengeance, though some of the detail in it—the words spoken by the princess, for instance—are obviously frills added to it by its raconteur. The plausibility of the Chach-nama story is also indicated by the fact that this work was written not long after the Arab invasion of Sind, so the writer could not have deviated too far from the actual events without exposing himself to ridicule. The other account of Muhammad’s end—that he was tortured and put to death by the Caliph due to family enmity—is of a later period, though it is possible that family enmity was also a factor in the Caliph’s ill-treatment of Muhammad. Whatever it was that actually happened, it is certain that Muhammad’s life ended tragically. He had been in Sind for only about three years, but during that short period he had won the affection of the people there by his prudence and benevolence so that, according to Al-Biladuri, ‘the people of Hind wept for him’ on hearing his tragic end.
The history of Arabs in Sind after the departure of Muhammad is obscure. Presently the Arab power declined everywhere in Eurasia, and Turks seized from them the political and military leadership in the Muslim world. Although the Arab state in Sind endured for some three centuries, it made no major gains in territory or power during this period. The successors of Muhammad did at one time, in the second quarter of the eighth century, overrun a good part of Rajasthan and Gujarat, and advanced as far as Ujjain, but these gains were transitory, for Arabs were presently pushed back into Sind by Chalukyas of northern Deccan and Pratiharas of Malwa. The Arab expansion northward towards Kashmir and Kanauj was also repulsed, by Lalitaditya of Kashmir and Yasovarman of Kanauj.
The Arab power in India was thus mostly confined to Sind, but there it endured till the early eleventh century. And it was finally extinguished, ironically, not by any Indian king, but by another Muslim invader, Mahmud Ghazni. On the whole, the occupation of Sind by Arabs, though it is a fascinating story, was an event of little consequence in Indian history. It was an isolated, peripheral event, which had no connection at all with either the Indian raids of Mahmud Ghazni three centuries later, in the early eleventh century, or the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate yet another two centuries later, in the early thirteenth century, events which would radically transform the very texture and pattern of Indian history.