Talk:Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent

Wrong Section

The section on Arab Islamic expansion into Kabul, Balkh or Kapisa have nothing to do with India nor were they ever part of India. Much of this section is irrelevant to Islam in India and falls under; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Afghanistan

Therefore a suggest a pure re-write of this entire section Akmal94 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us not get too stuck on modern day terminology. The Arab expansion happened along two axes (Sindh and Afghanistan), and we need to understand both of them together.

Mind you that this page is not on "Islam" but on Muslim expansion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

User:My Lord, could you explain what were they ALL removed? What should be kept and removed?--79.75.50.221 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are you changing your IP address? I think this is sock puppetry. Dagana4 (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not, since the ip changes whenerver swithed off. U can ask a CU for confirmation.--79.75.45.146 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dagana4: Many (most home users) are given dynamic IP addresses by their internet service providers. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of your added content is off-topic. This article is about Muslim conquests. It is not about some other achievements that appear to justify the conquests and that too in lead section. Dagana4 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

IP, the WP:BURDEN of arguing for changes is always on those who want to make changes. Any changes to the lead especially require WP:CONSENSUS, and you need to establish it first before making revisions. If they are rejected, then you need to discuss them here.

Also, see MOS:LEAD to find out what a lead is supposed to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The proposed new lead:

In the 14th century, Alauddin Khalji extended Muslim rule south to Gujarat, Rajasthan and Deccan, while the Tughlaq dynasty expanded its territorial reach till Tamil Nadu; or the kingdoms in the east,. Several other Muslim sultanates and dynasties also formed and ruled across Indian land such as the Islamic Bengal Sultanate, Qutb Shahi, Lodi dynasty and the Bahmani.

The Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire conquered most of the South Asian land, making it the world's largest economy and biggest manufacturing power, the architectural apex occurring during Emperor Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan's reigns, whereas the economic peak being occurred during Aurangzeb's Islamic sharia based rule through the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, during which the empire is estimated to have been valued 25% of world GDP.

Prior to the rise of the Maratha Empire, which was followed by the conquest of India by the British East India Company, starting from today's modern Bangladesh and West Bengal, known as the Bengal Subah, South Asia's wealthiest province, the Muslim Mughal Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's kings. However, it was never able to conquer the kingdoms in the upper reaches of the Himalayas, such as those of modern Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan; the kingdoms of the extreme south of India, such as Travancore and

After the decline of the Mughal Empire, new emerging Islamic powers such as the Kingdom of Mysore, Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad, and Nizams of Hyderabad overtook parts of the Indian peninsula. Within the end of the 18th century, European powers commenced to extend political influence over Muslim lands, and by the end of the 19th century, much of the Muslim world came under European colonial domination. Ahom Kingdom in Assam.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think a case can be made that the progress of the "Muslim conquests" in the Indian subcontinent should be summarised in some form. But it should be based on regimes and dates, not by name-dropping a Khalji here and a Tughluq there.
• We also need delineate the three agencies: Umayyad/Abbasid caliphates, Turko-Afghan dynasties and the Mughals. The resistance from the native groups: the Rajputs, the Vijayanagara empire, the Maratha, the Sikh empire etc., and the internal fissures among the Muslim regimes are also important.
• We also need to clarify that the "Muslim conquest" in the Indian subcontinent did not imply an erasure of the pre-existing cultures/religions as it happened elsewhere (say, in West Asia or Central Asia). To a large degree the Muslim regimes were syncretic.
• It is probably best to leave out the economy issue. I don't see clear sources that can say one thing or other. (The Indian economy was quite strong before the Muslims set foot in India, and it was equally strong when the Muslims yielded to the British.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, yes the economic topic has been removed, but I strongly disagree that the indian economy was stronger both before or after the Muslims came. The zenith was reached in the 17th century. Some argue that the Mauryan (not worth to consider ancient times) and Gupta Empire might have had 35% of world gdp (during Aurangzeb was 25%), but I can't find any evidences. Could you find it for me? Thank you. 79.75.43.195 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how it works. The WP:BURDEN to show the veracity of the content rests on those who want to add content. So, which of those three sources [3], [4] and [5], say what you said? What do they say? It is your job to demonstrate, not my job to disprove you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Just removed. Those sources mention about the economy of Mughal, that 25% of world GDP. Could you please give a proper reply about the other discussion? So is there any sources that says that were more economically developed empires than the mughals, and had world gdp more than 25%? 79.75.43.195 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is WP:NOTAFORUM and I am not required to give you any replies. I have looked through the three sources you gave for the second paragraph and none of them says anything remotely like what you wrote. Let us take the phrases one by one.

• You claim that the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire made it the world's largest economy. Which source said that? Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked the same thing as you asked. Could you provide any sources that says mauryan one was wealthier than mughal? Also i already removed them, and yes the sources says that mughal was the wealthiest empire in the world, also the other one shows each country's economy, India's one being the highest, followed by china.79.75.43.195 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

not talked about

     outside of india the only peoples known to crusade into,imperialize and colonialize india are alexander the great(greeks) and the british.nothing about the 2200 years in between are talked about.all of history,human causality and behavior,has to be remembered as much as possible,as accurately as possible and with as little bias as possible.stop cherry picking and weaponizing for your own resentful convenience.and stop scapegoating-it's the roots of bigotry and racism.it only causes more adverse reactions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.249.141 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 

Misleading Title

The correlation that certain few conquests and kingdoms have with Islam is merely coincidental. The Indian subcontinent has seen countless conquests across different divides of religions, ethnic cultures, kingdoms throughout its history occuring at the exact same time. It is merely a matter of coincidence considering larger multicontinental empires spanning across a multitude of kingdoms and nations across human races were increasing. Islam being the youngest religion for the time period was popular.

Wars between kingdoms of the same faith have always been greater. Labeling a certain a few Kingdoms and associating them to Islam as a Religious conquest is not the right interpretation to the selective counts of history. Eoz.darkside (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Typo Eoz.darkside (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Eoz.darkside, I think you might be onto something. I was reading through a book for a different article and came across a mention of periodization of Indian history on lines of religious identity which reminded me of this article. Excerpt from it below:

First, the idea of India as a Hindu homeland and of Hindus as the primary citizens of India requires unquestioned acceptance of a simplistic periodization of Indian history—one that harks back to a golden age of Hinduism as the inspiration for the India of today. The Hindu period is supposed to have been followed by the dark age of Muslim rule, brought by invaders from outside India, and then British colonialism. Ironically, Hindutva periodization is based on colonial historiography—except that in the British version, colonialism marks the high point of Indian history.

"The 'Hindu period' and the 'Muslim period'—we never had that kind of periodization in any historical writing prior to the coming of the British,” she tells me. “And to say that there was constant antagonism between the two without investigating the reasons for either antagonism or peaceful coexistence, as the case may be, is not exactly a historical approach." In challenging colonial interpretations of India’s past and showing that their ethnic and religious categorization was a construct in support of colonial policy, modern historians like Thapar were also undercutting both religious nationalisms.

George, Cherian (2016). Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy. MIT Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-262-33607-9.

This makes me question, whether this article should even exist if contemporary scholarship disapproves of such periodisation? Looking at the content of the article, it does not have a sourced section or background for the article which gives a overview of the "Muslim conquests" as a phenomenon or a type of conquest. It is just a collection of invasions, kingdoms, dynasties and arbitrarily selected aspects or occurrences. I can also see a lot of uncited text.

If one can't find contemporary historical scholarship that directly relates to the subject of the article, that is "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent", then it is just original research and the entire article should be considered a product of synthesis. If this is inaccurate and shown to be a non-fringe viewpoint in contemporary scholarship, then the article needs to mention any debate or disagreement over its historiography and give an overview of the subject, cited to relevant sources that directly supports the periodisation.

Kautilya3, pinging since you appear to be have been active on the talk page for a fairly long period of time, what do you think of this? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC

This page predates me by a decade and it was itself preceded by Muslim conquests, which does seem to have WP:HISTRS covering the subject. The terminology is European. Indians would tend to call them "Muslim invasions" rather than "Muslim conquests". (Obviously India can never be "conquered" ;-)

"Muslim" is not just a religion. It is also a community (a world-wide ummah) and a political force. Trying to deny "Muslim conquests" is just as pointless as trying to deny "European colonialism" or "Hindu nationalism". They are as real as daylight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there contemporary scholarship which discusses "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" or "Muslim invasions in India" or some variation of that? The page on "Muslim conquests" just talks about the conquests under Muhammad and the succeeding Caliphs, in others words conquests by a specific polity which is not quite the same as the collection here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there contemporary scholarship which discusses "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" or "Muslim invasions in India" or some variation of that? I think the answer is an obvious yes. Any decent undergraduate textbook on Indian History will have some amount of relevant material and among specialist works, Derryl N. Maclean comes to my mind. [I have not really bothered to read the article and I only intend to state that the topic is encyclopedia-worthy.]TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, undergrad textbooks generally classify the period around the 12th and 16th century as the latter part of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. Looking at Maclean's works; he has authored a book called Religion and Society in Arab Sind (1989). He has articles about the Mahdavia movement in the Delhi sultanate, a council in Akbar's court and another about Arab Sindh.

Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't help in clarifying whether the periodisation or classification of the Arab invasions, the varied Afghan invasions, the polity of the Delhi sultanate, the polities of the Deccan sultanates, the polity of the Mughal Empire, among others as a whole constituting a "Muslim conquests in India" exists in contemporary mainstream scholarship. If it does exist then that's alright although not obvious, the article would still need improvement and should include only those which are charecterised under this periodisation and any debate surrounding its historiography, but if not then this article should not exist. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Periodisation is a different issue altogether. Calling it the "Muslim period" misses the complexities of interrelationships and competitions that were present during it. But no scholar would disagree that the Muslims had the upper hand overall throughout that period. But, still, "periods" is not what this article is about. It is about events.

The more relevant question is whether they should be called "Muslim conquests", identifying the religion, as opposed to the ethnicities: "Umayyad conquests", "Turkic conquests", "Mughal conquests" etc. The medieval Hindu writing did in fact identify ethnicity rather than religion. There is some merit to that, at least from a political point of view. But it is not at all scientific to ignore the fact that there was a world-wide Muslim civilisation at play. Delhi attracted talent from all over the Muslim world, artists, poets, sculptors, noblemen, fighters and so on. They all came and became "Indians", just like loads of us today go to America and become "Americans". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying that religion wasn't an important aspect of the various polities that existed during this period which played into how they interacted with their contemporary neighboring polities. An article along the lines of History of Islam in India would probably be more appropriate for the influence of Islam in India during the period.

The question I'm raising is whether these conquests should be grouped at all, on the basis of any kind of identity, religious or ethnic. I have not seen this done with respect to any other conquests if they were not undertaken by the same polity and doing so appears rather notional instead of scientific. "Muslim conquests" in particular in ever other case refers to invasions or conquests by the polity of the Arab caliphates. Since this article is not specific to any particular polity, this makes it a question of periodisation (e.g Migration Period) or that of a phenomenon (e.g Turkic migration, Spread of Islam in Indonesia). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is fueling hate

Will Durant's point of view should be deleted because it is not based on any historical facts, it is only the opinion of a fanatic who hates Muslims. Are these conquests bloodier than two world wars?? Or even the conquests of Genghis Khan?? The invasion of white Christians to the new world and the extermination of 100 million people with war and epidemics?? This is nonsense stemming from a person writing a false history of his personal perceptions, perhaps Babur and Aurangzeb were using nuclear weapons against Hindus?? There are hundreds of people in India who are being killed because of thia false point of view coming from an American who thinks he knows everything. Yes Muslims killed 150 million Hindus for 500 years... they kill 300,000 every year .... 850 Hindus every day, I don't know how they had time to build the Taj Mahal because Shah Jahan had to kill half of his workers every day to satisfy the opinions of Will Durant the great historian Aah799 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Copy Editing Tag and Lead Section

I came to this article through the copy editing tag. While I have made changes to the first few sections, a larger editing/rewrite is still needed, preferably by someone with greater knowledge to represent it accurately. There are frequently run on sentences so far.

In addition, the lead section is overly dense and specific. Most of this information, particularly the lists of names, could likely be condensed and/or described more comprehensively elsewhere in the article. My suggestion would be to combine several of the paragraphs and divide it more clearly into initial efforts, larger gains, and later defeats.

Plumeria03 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Early Arab presence

Some Arabs had settled in India as traders before the advent of Islam. The first Arab expeditions to India, were naval three raids, probably against pirates and not to conquer territory, took place between 636 and 643 CE, while an Arab army arrived in Sind through Makran in 644CE. According to Baladhuri, the expedition to Debal was a success, he does not mention the results of the other two except Arabs suffered no losses, while one source states Mughira was killed at Debal. Please site sources before erasing this sectionMaglorbd (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Khushalani's Chachnamah Retold

The end flap of Gobind Khushalani's 2006 book Chachnamah Retold describes him as a "litterateur" (in other words, not an academic, but an essayist or critic).[1] The fact that the book is held by only five WorldCat libraries,[OCLC 297207728] and according to Google Scholar has been cited only four times,[2] suggests historians do not regard it highly. The only review I found in a scholarly journal is scathing.[3] This is a questionable source, not a reliable one. A better source is needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for changing of the page.

The page is highly miss leading. Firstly its grammatically not correct. What even is "hindu, sikh". Secondly it has no proper citations. The only citation you have used is of causalities and that citation is highly inrelianle because majority of the historians dont agree with this. It is quite very clear even as per Romila thappar that 60 million deaths is a highly exaggerated and false causality. Wikipedia is made by people like us. But the page is miss leading because it doesnt even covers the hindu reconquests. That's why we have decided to change the military box at any cost. We are using 5+ citations in the military box and all of Our sources are contemporary, Secondly grammar error are fixed thirdly you definetly need to mention the hindu reconquests. Indo12122 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a proper ref for a lower figure? I don't think the "Hindu reconquests" belong in the infobox, which you made far too bloated. There's a case for saying "Muslim conquests" stopped after the Battle of Talikota in 1565, the last significant gain of territory. After that wars were mostly intra-Muslim, or resisting "reconquest". Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod I've opened an ANI 3RR notice for @Indo12122's 3RR violations, and failure to follow WP:ONUS Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I made no violation, You guys are the one spreading miss infos. If i am editing a page with reference to proper citations and contemporary sources then its not vandalism. You guys are hella bent over your own article. Firstly the page isn't yours, Secondly, Many editors have problem with this military box and this needs to be changed.

I am again listing all my reasons as in why this should be changed, don't ignore.

1)- It is grammatically incorrect, in strength section you are using "hindu, sikh" what even is this. Write Hindu kings, Sikh kings.

2)- It is miss-leading and already lacking in citations. It doesnt even use proper citations in the result sevtion

3)- It doesn't cover the hindu reconquests. We do know for the fact that Marathas and sikhs had achieved supremacy in the indian subcontinent during the British east India company. Now what about mysorean kingdom, it wasnt even muslim. Only the last 2 kings were muslims.

4)- Now the changes I made in the page covers the muslim conquests as well as the hindu reconquests

5)- It isnt grammatically incorrect

6)- I have used 5+ citations and most are contemporary and if not contemporary, then it is jadunath Sarkaar who is a reliable historian.

7)- I removed the causality section because genocide of 60 million in medieval era is technically impossible. Literally impossible. Majority of the historians dont believe in this opinion.

And you said other editors are disagreeing however I dont see anyone having problem with my changes made in the military box except for that john guy and now you. I can say the same. That your Military box has something which other editors dont agree with (johran joshi and me). It works both ways.

What you are doing is a mislead. You must bring changes to your info military box. Indo12122 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

All i see is you are being incredibly dishonest at this point. After battle of talikota as well there were many Hindu-Muslim conflicts. I mean for example. The jatts attacked delhi and returned to Bharatpur along with Lohiya Gate and Ashtadhatu gate which had been brought to Delhi, 461 years ago, by Alauddin Khalji after his Siege of Chittorgarh Fort in 1303.

They also melted the two silver doors of the famous Mughal monument Taj Mahal.

This is an example. Most afghan provinces were reconquered by the sikhs, the sikhs went as far as conquering Afghan capitals such as peshawar itself. (*Sikhs seized control over most of Punjab, Kashmir and lower part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.)

In early 1771, Mahadji, a notable Maratha general, recaptured Delhi and installed Shah Alam II as the puppet ruler on the Mughal throne. In north India, the Marathas thus regained the territory and the prestige lost as result of the defeat at Panipath in 1761.

And hindu reconquests have been significant as well because the amount of re-consstruction of the temples stook place was good. Saying that the muslim rule was established till Britiish east India company is a hoax. By the time britishers had arrive. Indian subcontinent had Sikhs and Marathas as a super power, mysoreans too but no historian calls kingdom of mysore as even muslim. Only the last 2 rulers were muslims.

So yes if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, Then mention Hindu reconquests as well. And fix the grammar. Secondly you have no proof that 80 millions died in Hindu-Muslim conflicts. No one agrees with this. American historian Audrey Truschke and Indian historian Romila Thapar even claim that such views are unfounded or exaggerated.

My point is simple, if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, then Hindu reconquests must be mentioned too, several sultanates were ended by Hindus as well to reconquer their lost lands. Indo12122 (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to refute this. the page contradict itself as well. The page shows how Marathas and Sikhs caused a decline to the Muslim rule but the info military box shows that muslim rule lasted till 1857.

This isn't even debatable. Better is to bring changes to the page and make wikipedia a better source of learning. Indo12122 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• This version, from January 23 might be better - no infobox, and ending the pweriod (mostly) in the 16th-century. We should try to focus on the actual subject, which is Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. To say: "if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, then Hindu reconquests must be mentioned too" is obviously wrong - that is a different subject - they can be mentioned, as many are, but they are not part of the actual subject here. Extending the period to 1857 is I think a big mistake. We should not try to turn this article into an overall military history of centuries of Indian history. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think that Mughal conquests don't constitute part of Muslim conquests? Sutyarashi (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the version of January 2023 is far better. Now. Yes indeed the subject is "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" but we clearly have to mention their draw backs and their losses too. As we know. The muslim conquests in India never consisted of permanent conquests as it were in Persia and Egypt. But the point is.

  In strength you have clearly mentioned Shivaji and Ranjit Singh. So if you are mentioning them and Including them too then just writing "establishment of muslim rule is clearly wrong along with the fact that there is already the "Decline of the Muslim Rule" section which you have been contradicting it with the result section of the military information box. During Shivaji's time, the reconquests had already begun and ended by Ranjit Singh's time. Much of the Indian subcontinent was dominated again by the Indians.

  And I appreciate your acknowledgement of admitting the fact that extending the period to 1857 is wrong too and placing it in the info military box is wrong as well. Jonharojjashi (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

References