“The Truth About Mahmud of Ghazni: Looter or Misunderstood Hero?”

This story dates back over a thousand years but took a significant turn when the British army faced its first defeat and humiliation in Afghanistan.

On November 2, 1841, during a council of Afghan tribal leaders, a rebellion against the British army was declared. This date coincided with the seventeenth of Ramadan, the anniversary of the battle of Badr, and the uprising became, as a result, termed a jihad. Afghan tribes started out dismantling the arrogance of the British forces stationed in various elements of Afghanistan, sparking fears that a similar rebellion might ignite in India in opposition to the British Empire.

To counter this, the Governor-General of India, Lord Ellenborough, issued an order on November 16, 1842. According to the order, the gates of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni’s tomb in Ghazni were to be removed and brought to India. Ellenborough claimed that Mahmud of Ghazni had stolen these gates from the Somnath temple in 1026 and taken them to Ghazni.

Ellenborough labeled Mahmud of Ghazni a looter who had desecrated the Somnath temple, vowing to avenge this centuries-old insult. However, when the British forces occupying Afghanistan brought the gates to India, it was revealed that they were made of deodar wood, which is abundant in Afghanistan but had never been used in the construction of the Somnath temple.

Ellenborough’s attempt to create misunderstandings between the people of India and Afghanistan by portraying Mahmud of Ghazni as a looter ultimately failed. When the truth was revealed, the British Parliament held a detailed debate on March 9, 1843, exposing the deceit of the Governor-General of India.

Despite this, in 1857, a rebellion broke out in India against the British occupation. Following the rebellion, several British authors, through various narratives, portrayed Mahmud of Ghazni as a plunderer. Their objective was to create divisions between Hindus and Muslims. These authors also propagated the idea that Islam was spread in the Indian subcontinent through the sword.

This British-influenced history was later adopted by some Hindu extremists, who further vilified Mahmud of Ghazni. Ironically, some Muslim historians also exaggerated Mahmud’s attack on Somnath, causing the truth to be obscured amidst myths and fabrications.

Even today, when Hindu extremists deliver speeches justifying their hostility toward Muslims or actions like the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they do not miss an opportunity to label Mahmud of Ghazni as a plunderer. Recently, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif also referred to Mahmud of Ghazni as a looter, sparking debates not only in Pakistan but also in India.

In Pakistan, an important question arises:

if Mahmud of Ghazni was indeed a looter, why did Pakistan name one of its missiles after him? Should this name now be changed? When asked this question, the defense minister deflected, saying he was not responsible for naming the missile.

Interestingly, the development of the Ghaznavi missile (Hatf III) began in 1993 during Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s tenure. During her term, work also commenced on the Abdali (Hatf II) and Ghauri (Hatf IV) missiles. It was Benazir Bhutto who approved the names of these missiles. The missiles were named after Afghan warriors who had defeated various Indian rulers in the past. This naming strategy was meant to signify that Pakistan’s missile program was directed against India, not any other country.

Indian historian Romila Thapar, in her book Somnath, writes that Mahmud of Ghazni’s army included many Hindus, while Raja Bhima’s army defending Somnath included several Ismailis. She notes that attacking temples was not exclusive to Muslims; Hindu kings also did so to assert dominance. According to some accounts, the attack on Somnath was encouraged by a Sufi elder, Masud Ghazi, because Muslims were being persecuted there. It is said that a Muslim widow from Gujarat, whose only son was captured by the Hindu king, approached Mahmud of Ghazni in Ghazni with her plea and a letter from Masud Ghazi.

If these accounts are true, it suggests that Muslims were already present in Somnath before Mahmud’s arrival. History shows that Islam reached the Indian subcontinent long before Mahmud of Ghazni or Muhammad bin Qasim. The first mosque in the subcontinent was established in 629 CE in Cheraman, Thrissur district, Kerala, by Arab traders.

According to Muhammad Ishaq Bhatti’s book Islam ke Awaleen Naqoosh in Bar-e-Sagheer (Early Traces of Islam in the Subcontinent), published by the Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, Arab military campaigns in India began during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA). Bhatti’s research reveals that 25 companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came to India. Twelve arrived during the caliphate of Umar (RA), five during Uthman’s (RA), three during Ali’s (RA), and five later. Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura (RA) conquered Gujarat and Kathiawar, while Mujashi ibn Masud Salami (RA) conquered Kabul.

Despite this rich history, our textbooks mostly highlight Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmud of Ghazni. Whatever Mahmud of Ghazni’s shortcomings, he respected scholars and mystics. Ali Hujwiri, also known as Data Ganj Bakhsh, was his contemporary, and Mahmud held him in high regard. Hujwir is actually a region in Ghazni, and Ali Hujwiri came to Lahore during the reign of Mahmud’s son, Masud Ghazni, where he spread Islam.

It is worth noting that Afghanistan has not only produced figures like Mahmud of Ghazni but also saints like Ali Hujwiri. Therefore, harboring animosity toward Afghans is unwarranted. If someone strongly dislikes Afghans, they might as well rename the missiles named after Afghan figures.

If the defense minister’s criticism of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni is unrelated to the current Pakistan-Afghanistan tensions, why has the government of Pakistan not yet clarified his statement?

The talk Surrounding Mahmud of Ghazni and Pakistan’s Missile Names

The development of Pakistan’s missile application has usually been intently related to the usa’s ancient and ideological narrative. The Ghaznavi (Hatf III), Abdali (Hatf II), and Ghauri (Hatf IV) missiles have been all named after distinguished Afghan and Turkic conquerors who played a role in shaping the history of the Indian subcontinent. This selection, made throughout Benazir Bhutto’s tenure in 1993, changed into symbolic of Pakistan’s strategic recognition, mainly in the context of its local contention with India.

curiously, regardless of Muhammad bin Qasim’s pivotal function within the early Islamic growth into the subcontinent, no missile has been named after him. This omission raises questions on the selection criteria for missile names. some argue that his Arab history might have played a position in keeping off controversy, even as others advocate that figures like Mahmud of Ghazni and Ghauri had been chosen for his or her direct military campaigns against India. but, the recent controversy surrounding Mahmud of Ghazni indicates that historic narratives are being revisited and reinterpreted, frequently for political motives.

The converting perception of Mahmud of Ghazni

Complaint of Mahmud of Ghazni isn’t a current phenomenon. Indian historians have lengthy depicted him as a looter who plundered temples, particularly the Somnath temple. however, a few Pakistani historians and students argue that his campaigns had been now not completely about plundering wealth but had broader political and spiritual dimensions. Indian historian Romila Thapar, in her book Somnath, points out that Mahmud’s navy included Hindu infantrymen, and Raja Bhima’s protecting army had Ismaili Muslim warriors. This shows that the conflicts of that point were no longer strictly religious however had political and economic motivations as nicely.

There also are historical debts that Mahmud of Ghazni’s campaign towards Somnath became encouraged with the aid of reports of persecution in opposition to Muslims in the location. in keeping with a few resources, a Muslim widow from Gujarat, whose son were taken captive through Hindu rulers, traveled to Ghazni to seek Mahmud’s assist. moreover, Sufi elder Masud Ghazi is stated to have urged Mahmud to intrude. these narratives imply that Muslims have been already gift in the Indian subcontinent earlier than Mahmud’s invasions, similarly complicating the simplistic portrayal of him as merely a looter.

The function of Islam within the Indian Subcontinent before Mahmud

lengthy earlier than Mahmud of Ghazni or maybe Muhammad bin Qasim, Islam had already reached the Indian subcontinent. the first mosque in India become installed in 629 CE in Cheraman, Kerala, by Arab traders. Muhammad Ishaq Bhatti, in his e-book Islam ke Awaleen Naqoosh in Bar-e-Sagheer, documents that Arab military campaigns in India commenced all through the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA). according to his studies, 25 partners of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) got here to India, with numerous gambling key roles in Gujarat, Kathiawar, and even Kabul. This ancient context demanding situations the idea that Islam most effective entered India thru army conquests by using Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad bin Qasim.

Regardless of those historical nuances, Pakistani textbooks have broadly speaking targeted on Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad bin Qasim as critical figures in Islamic enlargement. however, Mahmud turned into not handiest a conqueror but also a purchaser of students and mystics. throughout his reign, he held exceptional recognize for scholars like Ali Hujwiri, additionally called facts Ganj Bakhsh. Ali Hujwiri, at the beginning from Ghazni, migrated to Lahore at some point of the rule of thumb of Mahmud’s son, Masud Ghazni, wherein he performed a chief function in spreading Islam.

Political Implications of the current criticism

The latest announcement by using Pakistan’s defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, wherein he categorised Mahmud of Ghazni a “looter,” has sparked controversy. This complaint comes at a time of growing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, leading many to invest whether the remarks were politically motivated.

Afghanistan has a complicated relationship with Pakistan, particularly concerning border disputes and the Taliban’s have an impact on. historically, Afghanistan has refused to understand the Durand Line, the border drawn between the 2 countries. In latest years, diplomatic family members have similarly deteriorated due to cross-border attacks and accusations from each facets. against this backdrop, Khawaja Asif’s grievance of Mahmud of Ghazni has been seen as an indirect way of distancing Pakistan from Afghan historical figures.

If the defense minister’s declaration became no longer supposed to be part of the continuing Pakistan-Afghanistan tensions, the Pakistani government ought to have straight away issued a rationalization. The absence of this kind of rationalization indicates either a planned political maneuver or a loss of subject about the general public reaction.

The Contradiction in Pakistan’s historic Narratives

whilst a few Pakistani leaders now criticize Mahmud of Ghazni, the authorities maintains to honor him via naming a missile after him. If there’s a real shift in Pakistan’s stance concerning historical figures, then the common sense of keeping missile names like Ghaznavi, Ghauri, and Abdali must be puzzled.

furthermore, Pakistan has traditionally maintained friendly members of the family with Arab international locations, mainly the Gulf states. If the government now seeks to redefine its ancient heroes, could this extend to figures of Arab origin like Muhammad bin Qasim? Given the historic contributions of each Arabs and Afghans to the area, selective criticism of 1 institution appears inconsistent.

The debate surrounding Mahmud of Ghazni’s legacy is a mirrored image of broader ideological and political shifts in Pakistan. even as a few view him as a conqueror who contributed to the spread of Islam, others see him as a plunderer. The Pakistani authorities’s failure to clarify the defense minister’s statement shows that this difficulty is being used to serve political interests, particularly within the context of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations.

If Pakistan absolutely desires to re-evaluate its ancient narratives, it must do so in a consistent and academic manner in place of using selective grievance for political convenience. in any other case, the contradiction will persist—in which figures are venerated through navy symbols even as simultaneously being dismissed in political discourse.