The Ghurian invasions, Factors behind Ghurian Success | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

• India is separated from Central and West Asia by mountain barriers, but these mountains are not as difficult to cross as the Himalayas in the north.
• Throughout history, nomadic and semi-nomadic groups have been drawn to India through these mountain passes because of several appealing factors.

Attraction Factors:

• Fertile Land: India has well-watered plains with fertile soil, making it ideal for agriculture.
• Wealthy Cities: The country is home to rich and flourishing cities and ports, which are attractive for trade and commerce.
• Economic Prosperity: India's wealth is generated by hardworking peasants, skilled artisans, and experienced traders and financiers.

Political condition of North India 

Political Fragmentation in India after Harsha's Death:

• After the death of Harsha and before the Muslim invasion, India was not politically unified.
• By the mid-10th century, two powerful Rajput states—the Gurjar-Pratihar empire (with its capital at Kannauj) and the Rashtrakuta empire (centered at Manyakhet)—began to decline.
• New kingdoms emerged during this period, including the Chandels of Kalinjar and Mahoba, the Chauhans of Sakambhari in Rajasthan, the Paramars of Malwa, and the Chalukyas of Gujarat. These kingdoms had many vassals who often tried to assert their independence rather than assist their overlords.
• Kashmir, during this time, was ruled by the powerful queen Didda, who reigned from 958 AD to 1003 AD. Initially, she ruled as a regent for her son and grandsons before becoming the sole ruler.
• Didda had a longstanding rivalry with the Shahis(also known as the Hindu-Shahis), and she did not assist them in their conflict with Mahmud of Ghazni. Contrary to the claims of the historian Ferishta, no Rajput rulers came to the aid of the Shahis against Mahmud. The Hindu-Shahis controlled the region from Peshawar to the river Beas and were the first victims of Mahmud's invasions into India.

Ghazni Invasion

Mahmud of Ghazni's Invasions and Their Impact on Indian History:

• Political and Military Precursors: Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions in the late 10th and early 11th centuries set the stage for the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate.
• Ascension to Power: Mahmud became the ruler of Ghazni in 999 AD. In 1001, he launched military campaigns against the Hindu-Shahi rulers in present-day northern India.
• Defeating the Hindu-Shahis: Mahmud defeated the Hindu-Shahi rulers and expanded his influence into the region. By 1015, he reached Lahore, paving the way for further Turkish advances into India.
• Historical Accounts: 17th-century historian Ferishta claimed that Rajput rulers aided the Shahis against Mahmud. However, modern historians question this account due to lack of contemporary evidence and the weakened state of the mentioned Rajput kingdoms at the time.
• Purpose of Expeditions: Mahmud's raids into the Ganga Valley aimed to amass wealth for his campaigns in Central Asia and to destabilize local powers, preventing any unified resistance against him.
• Neutral Territory: While Mahmud did not expand his territories beyond Punjab, his expeditions created a neutral zone in the upper Ganga doab, hindering the rise of powerful local kingdoms.
• Raids into India: In 1025, Mahmud's raids extended to Rajasthan and Somnath. His invasions became a regular feature until his death in 1030 AD.
• Impact on Indian Resistance: Mahmud's campaigns highlighted the fragmentation of Indian political power and set the stage for future Turkish conquests.
• Mahmud Ghazni as a Leader: He was a formidable warrior who built a vast empire in West and Central Asia. He supported literary figures like the Persian poet Firdausi, who authored the Shahnamah, the longest epic poem by a single poet.
• Legacy: Despite his achievements, Mahmud did not establish enduring institutions and is remembered in India primarily as a plunderer. His rule outside Ghazni was often seen as tyrannical, particularly due to heavy taxation in Khurasan.
• Contemporary Reputation: Mahmud was not well-regarded in India and did not gain a positive reputation among his contemporaries outside India either.

After death of Ghazni

Period of Warfare and Fragmentation (1030 - Ghurid Invasion):

• After Mahmud Ghazni's death in 1030, there was a period of continuous internal conflict among various Rajput principalities in northern India, with no single power emerging dominant.

Decline of Pratihar Power:

• Following Mahmud's raids on Kannauj, the Pratihar Empire collapsed, leading to the rise of smaller feudal states.

Rise of the Gahadvalas:

• Toward the late 11th century, the Gahadvala dynasty(centered around Varanasi) emerged, frequently clashing with the Pala Empire of Bengal and the Tomar dynasty of Delhi.

Chahman (Chauhan) Dynasty:

• Another significant power was the Chahman (or Chauhan) dynasty in Rajasthan, which engaged in constant warfare with the Chaulkyas of Gujarat and the Paramaras of Malwa.

Chandela Dynasty:

• The Chandelas of Khajuraho were another influential dynasty, whose main rivals were the Paramaras of Malwa and the Gahadvalas of Kashi.

Inability to Unite Against the Ghaznavids:

• Despite the decline of Ghaznavid power in West and Central Asia, these Rajput states were either unable or unwilling to unite to expel the Ghaznavids from Punjab.
• The successors of Mahmud Ghazni continued to launch raids into the doab region, reaching as far as Varanasi, which kept the economy of the Ghaznavid Empire buoyant through the flow of plundered bullion.
• However, the Ghaznavids were not in a position to expand their territories in India.

Division in the South:

• In the South India region, kingdoms like the Cholas,Cheras,Pallavas,Chalukyas, and Pandyas were also divided into small, competing kingdoms.

The Rise of Ghurids

Rise of the Ghurids to Power:

• The Ghurids rose to power in Ghur, a remote area between the Ghaznavid empire and the Seljukids.
• Ghur was so isolated that it remained a pagan enclave(with a form of Mahayana Buddhism) until the 11th century, surrounded by Muslim regions.
• The region was converted to Islam in the early 12th century after Mahmud raided it.
• After some regional conflicts, the Ghurids became a prominent power.
• In 1163,Ghiyasuddin Muhammad became the ruler of Ghur and appointed his brother,Muizzuddin Muhammad, as the ruler of Ghazna.
• This appointment allowed Muizzuddin to focus entirely on the conquest of India.

Ghurian invasions

• Minhaj Siraj's Tabaqat-i-Nasiri
• Hasan Nizami's Tajul-Ma'asir
• Prithviraj Raso by Chand Bardai

Prithviraj III and political situation in North India

Prithviraj III: The Notable Chauhan Ruler:

• Prithviraj III became a prominent ruler of the Chauhan dynasty, ascending the throne in 1177 at the young age of eleven in Ajmer.
• He took full control of the administration by the age of sixteen and initiated an aggressive expansionist policy, targeting smaller states in Rajasthan.

Conflict with the Chandelas:

• One of his most famous military campaigns was against the Chandelas of Khajuraho and Mahoba.
• The Chandelas were a powerful state known for their resistance against the Ghaznavids.
• The epic battles involving the legendary warriors Alha and Udal, who fought to defend Mahoba, are celebrated in the Hindi epics Prithviraj-raso and Alha Khanda.
• Prithviraj achieved a significant victory against the Chandelas, gaining booty but no additional territory.

Struggles with the Chaulukyas and Gahadvalas:

• Between 1182 and 1187, Prithviraj focused on his longstanding rivals, the Chaulukyas of Gujarat.
• The Gujarat ruler Bhima II defeated Prithviraj, who then turned his attention to the Ganga Valley and the Punjab.
• This period led to conflicts with the Gahadvalas of Kannauj, particularly highlighted by Prithviraj’s abduction of Sanyogita, the daughter of Gahadavala ruler Jai Chand, during her svayamvara.
• The subsequent defeat of Jai Chand in battle was a notable event during this time.

Isolation and Downfall:

• By waging wars against all his neighbors, Prithviraj politically isolated himself.
• This isolation became a significant disadvantage when he faced the Turkish armies led by Muizzuddin Muhammad.

Legacy:

• Prithviraj is remembered as a formidable fighter and a patron of poets and scholars.
• Despite his many military victories, his performance in the second battle of Tarain is considered a blemish on his record as a general and a statesman.

Chandbardai and Prithviraj Raso

• Chand Bardai was a the court poet of the Indian king Prithviraj III Chauhan. He had mastery of grammar, literature, astrology and the Puranas. He accompanied the king during wars. Also in the second battle of Tarain. 
• Chand Bardai composed the Prithviraj Raso, an epic poem in Hindi about the life of Prithviraj. Over time, the Prithviraj Raso was embellished with the interpolations and additions of many other authors.
• The Prithviraj Raso is a semi-historical, semi-legendary account that depicts the bravery of Prithviraj Chauhan. 
• The legend exaggerates the historical events for dramatic effects. Its historicity is considered unreliable by historians. Many events and battle details narrated in Prithviraj Raso do not agree with other contemporary accounts found in both Hindu and Muslim sources.
• While not strictly history, the Prithviraj Raso is a source of information on the social and clan structure of the Kshattriya communities of northern India. 

Early Invasions of Ghori (Muizzuddin Muhammad)

Muizzuddin's Expeditions in India:

• Muizzuddin's first attack on India was in 1175, when he captured Multan.
• In the following year, he seized Uchch.
• During 1178-79, Muizzuddin marched through Multan and Uchch to Neharwala in Gujarat. However, he faced a significant defeat at the hands of the Gujarat ruler near Mt. Abu.
• The Chaulukyas had sought assistance from Prithviraj, but his ministers refused to help, viewing both the Ghurids and the Chaulukyas as enemies.
• At the time, Prithviraj was only twelve years old, so he cannot be held responsible for this decision.
• Muizzuddin's initial goal was to gain control over Punjab and Sind. By 1181, he had established control over Peshawar, Uchh, Multan, and Lahore.
• As he advanced further into India, Muizzuddin encountered resistance from the Rajputs who controlled the Gangetic plain.

The first battle of Tarain ,1191 

• In 1191, Muizzuddin attacked and captured the fortress of Tabarhinda, which was crucial for defending Delhi.
• Recognizing its significance and wanting to prevent the Turks from strengthening their position, Prithviraj quickly marched towards Tabarhinda.
• In the ensuing battle, Prithviraj achieved a decisive victory, with Muizzuddin being rescued by a Khalji horseman.
• After his win, Prithviraj chose not to追击 the demoralized Ghurid army, possibly because he didn't want to venture far into hostile territory or believed, like the Ghaznavids, the Ghurids would be content ruling over Punjab.
• He viewed the siege of Tabarhinda as a minor frontier skirmish and was content with his victory.
• The Prithviraj Raso criticizes Prithviraj for neglecting state affairs during this period.

The second battle of Tarain,1192: 

• 1192 is considered a significant turning point in Indian history.
• Muizzuddin had meticulously prepared for the battle, humiliating many amirs who had previously failed in combat.
• Contemporary chronicler Minhaj Siraj notes that Muizzuddin's army consisted of 120,000 men equipped with steel coats and armor.
• Ferishta claims Prithviraj's forces included 3,000 elephants, 300,000 horsemen, and a substantial infantry.
• These numbers seem greatly exaggerated, but it can be concluded that Prithviraj's forces were indeed larger.
• Ferishta also mentions that all the leading 'Rais of Hind' rallied to Prithviraj's cause.
• However, this is inaccurate as Prithviraj had alienated his powerful neighbors due to his aggressive policies.
• Moreover, Ferishta fails to specify any prominent Rais.
• The Battle of Tarain was characterized more by movement than by positional warfare.
• Muizzuddin's lightly armed mounted archers continuously harassed Prithviraj's slow-moving forces.
• They attacked from all sides after creating confusion within Prithviraj's ranks.
• Prithviraj faced a complete defeat and fled but was pursued and captured near Sarsuti, present-day Sirsa in the Hissar district.
• Historian Minhaj Siraj states that Prithviraj was executed immediately.
• However, another contemporary writer, Hasan Nizami, suggests that Prithviraj was taken to Ajmer and allowed to rule.
• This claim is supported by numismatic evidence showing coins of Prithviraj with the words ‘Sri Muhammad Sam’ on the reverse.
• Prithviraj later rebelled and was executed, with his son succeeding him and ruling Ajmer for some time as a feudatory.
• The Battle of Tarain marked a watershed moment in Indian history, signaling the irreversible decline of Rajput power.
• The Ghorians did not immediately take over the administration of all conquered territories.
• In feasible areas, they allowed the Rajputs to continue, provided Turkish suzerainty was acknowledged.
• For example, Ajmer was retained by Prithviraj’s son as a vassal ruler.
• The Tomar chief of Delhi had died in the Battle of Tarain, but his son was installed as a vassal in Delhi.
• However, this policy was disrupted by ongoing conflicts between the Ghorians' imperial ambitions and local rulers.
• Ghori returned to Central Asia, leaving an occupation army at Indraprasth (near Delhi) under the command of Qutbuddin Aibak.
• In 1193, Delhi was occupied. Its location and historical significance made it an ideal capital for Turkish power in India.
• To expand into the upper Ganga valley, the Turks needed to control Delhi.
• Rebellions in both Ajmer and Delhi solidified this decision, with Delhi becoming the main base for Turkish operations in India.
• Delhi's proximity to the Ghorid stronghold in Punjab and its strategic position for expeditions to the east further solidified its importance.

Battle of Chandawar,1194

Factors behind Ghurian success and defeat of Rajput

Contemporary chroniclers attributed the success of the Ghorian armies to the 'Will of God.'

• British historians argued that the Ghorian armies were composed of warlike tribes from the difficult region between the Indus and the Oxus rivers. These tribes had gained military strength and expertise by fighting against the Seljuq armies and other fierce Central Asian tribes.
• In contrast, they viewed the Indians as pacifist and divided into small states, which hindered their ability to resist the invaders effectively.
• However, this perspective is seen as limited and unbalanced because it overlooks important aspects of Indian history and the history of the invaders' homelands.
• For example, the Mongol conquests in 1218-19 involved the large-scale conquest and destruction of the so-called warlike Islamic regions without significant resistance.
• Additionally, the Rajputs, who were conquered by the Turks, were not lacking in bravery and martial spirit. The period from the 8th to the 12th century in India was marked by constant warfare and violent internal struggles.
• For the Rajputs, war was almost a sport, and their prolonged resistance to Turkish invasions stands in contrast to the easier defeat of other ancient civilizations.

Some Indian historians, like Jadunath Sarkar, attributed the Turkish success to the social structure created by Islam. Sarkar emphasized three unique characteristics that Islam imparted to the Arabs, Berbers, Pathans, and Turks:

• Complete equality and social solidarity regarding legal and religious status.
• Absolute faith in God and His will, which provided them with drive and a sense of mission.
• Islam helped secure the Turkish conquerors from drunkenness, while Indian rulers like the Rajputs and Marathas faced ruin due to it.

While this perspective may hold some truth, it appears insufficiently grounded in historical evidence.

Two major factors

1. Prevailing Socio-Political System in India and Military Preparedness

Internal Conflicts:

• After the decline of the Gurjara-Pratihara empire, various small independent powers emerged, such as the Gahadvalas in Kannauj,Parmaras in Malwa,Chalukyas in Gujarat,Chauhans in Ajmer,Tomars in Delhi, and Chandellas in Bundelkhand.
• These powers were not united and often engaged in mutual conflicts.

Mutual Quarrel:

• Powerful Rajput dynasties, such as the Chauhans,Rathors, and Chandelas, were constantly at war with each other.
• This internal strife weakened their military strength and financial resources.
• The fighting among the Rajputs led to a loss of national unity. For example, in 1192, Jayachand did not support Prithvi Raj, and when Jayachand faced a similar fate two years later, other Rajput dynasties abandoned him.

Political Disunion and Absence of Dominant Power:

• India was divided into numerous small principalities with no dominant power capable of establishing a Central Government.
• A strong central authority is easier to confront on the battlefield than a collection of petty states.

Lack of Centralized Power:

• Indian forces were composed of feudal levies, with each military unit under the command of its immediate lord rather than the king.
• This arrangement led to a lack of Unity of Command.
• Feudal lords were hard to control and often sought to become independent rulers whenever possible.
• Only a few castes and clans engaged in military service, leaving most of the population excluded from military training.
• The general populace was largely detached from the country’s defense efforts.
• Practices like untouchability hampered military efficiency by disrupting the division of labor, forcing soldiers to handle all tasks themselves.

Absence of Strong Frontier:

• The Rajputs neglected the defense of their frontiers, especially the North-west frontier.
• No forts were built, nor were any soldiers stationed to guard the borders, allowing foreign invaders to penetrate the country with ease.

Lack of Strategic Awareness Among Rajputs:

• The Rajputs failed to recognize the threat of invasion and lacked political foresight.
• Despite intermittent invasions, they did not take advantage of thebreaks between attacks.
• They neglected to secure north-west India and made no efforts to expel the Ghaznavids from Punjab after Mahmud’s death.
• The Rajputs' insular mindset, rooted in Indian culture, prevented them from developing a strategic perspective.
• Al-Biruni noted this insularity, stating that Hindus believed there was no other country, nation, king, or science like theirs.

Institutional Factors Favoring Turkish Military Power:

• The Turkish polity was more highly centralized than Rajput states.
• In the iqta system, amirs were appointed at the sultan's discretion, not by heredity.
• Islam provided a strong bond of unity among different groups and instilled a sense of mission and fighting spirit in the Turks.
• The Islamic principles of equality and brotherhood were beneficial, although both Turkish and Rajput societies were hierarchical.
• Power and office were monopolized by narrow sections in both societies, but there was greater social mobility among the Turks than among the Rajputs.

2. Military preparedness

• The Turks utilized iron stirrups and horse-shoes, enhancing their cavalry's striking power and stamina. Horse-shoes improved a horse's mobility, while stirrups provided soldiers with a significant advantage.
• In contrast, Rajput rulers lacked a regular standing army, relying on their feudatories to supply troops during times of war. This system had several drawbacks:
• The number of soldiers was always uncertain and unpredictable.
• Feudatories could declare independence when rulers faced difficulties.
• The army lacked team spirit and was not under a single command.
• Feudatories sometimes fled the battlefield with their own soldiers.
• Turks depended on professional and slave soldiers on horseback, while Indians primarily used untrained peasant infantry. Slavery provided Turkish sultans with loyal commanders.
• Rajput cavalry was inferior to that of the Turks. Rajputs relied heavily on elephants, which were slow-moving, and they were not accustomed to moving as an organized body of horsemen over long distances. Rajputs also lacked mounted archers.
• Turkish warriors were skilled in quick movements, rapid advances and retreats, and shooting arrows while mounted. Rajput forces, in contrast, were heavy and slow-moving, centered around their elephants. The Turks also had better access to high-quality horses, particularly from the Oxus region.
• Scholars like Andre Wink argue that even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, the Delhi Sultans aimed to deprive Hindu rulers of access to war-horses.
• Contrary to the popular belief that Indians were defeated due to the use of elephants, historical sources like the Tabaqat-i Nasiri do not support this view. The case of Jayapala, where his elephants fled, is an exception.
• Mahmud of Ghazni is reported to have successfully used elephants in his campaigns, having maintained a large number of them imported from India.
• The effectiveness of elephants depended on their usage rather than their mere presence. The ghazi spirit, initially used against non-Islamic Turks, was later directed against non-believers in India.
• Ghazi volunteers, driven by the spirit of defending and spreading Islam, were not regularly paid and compensated their lack of pay through plunder.
• Rajputs faced limitations in recruiting grounds due to small state sizes and a lack of interest among people in joining the army. In contrast, Muslims had numerous recruiting centers from which they could easily raise large armies.
• Despite this, Rajput-held areas were not at a disadvantage in terms of human resources or population. The Rajput rajas were able to find sufficient soldiers for their armies, and their forces included not only Rajputs but also warrior groups like the Jats, Meenas, and lower caste groups.

Lack of organisation:

Rajputs vs. Muslims in Battle:

• Rajputs showed great personal bravery and fighting spirit, but the outcome of battle often depended on organization and leadership.
• Muslims were more aggressive and had a clear mission, while Rajputs tended to be more defensive in their strategy.
• Rajputs adhered to a code of honor on the battlefield. For example, they would refuse to fight an unarmed opponent and would not attack an enemy who was defenseless.