Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/shahnamehofpersi00firdiala#page/n5/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia600309.us.archive.org/19/items/shahnamehofpersi00firdiala/shahnamehofpersi00firdiala.pdf

Thank you!

Firdausi was the court poet in the house of Mahmud of Gazni who raided temples in India and carried wealth back to Gazni. Sabuktajin, a Turkish slave, was Mahmud's father. Jaypal, then King of Punjab raided Gazni confident of defeating a Turkish slave turned king. Jaypal was defeated and set free against a promise of a ransom. Jaypal reneged on the promise. Sabuktajin attacked Jaypal to recover the promised ransom money. The two armies met in the mountainous region when Jaypal was defeated once again. The word Hindu-kush for the mountain range is said to have originated after the war when Jaypal's Hindu army suffered a bloody defeat. Sabukajin, tired from the war, returned to Gazni without the ransom money. It is said that Mehmud raided Hindu temples to recover the unpaid ransom. Firdaus was betrayed by courtiers jealous of him and Mehmud ordered him to be trampled under elephant's feet. Firdaus escaped. He wrote a satire condemning Mahmud of Gazni which one can find on page 341 of the book. The story of Jaypal and Sabuktajin was told by Atkins in his other book on Mughal history. That book was also put up by RBSI several months ago.

^^ The above is probably an rather incorrect account of wars between the Turks and Hindushahi kings of Afghanistan and Punjab. Other versions are different and have more consistency.

Sorry Shekhar, but I have to disagree with you here. According to the South Asian Studies Department at the University of Toronto, our professors taught us (a truly secular and western education I might add) and showed us the accounts written and recorded by invaders that the term Hindu Kush was derived from the very fact that Hindu slaves died in the millions while being dragged to the slave markets of Central Asia. These were mostly women and children since most of the men had been killed in battle. The term Hindu Kush makes no reference to a battle, since the terrain is not appropriate, but was instead a treacherous route through which Hindus from across India were made to walk, a death march if you will, to eventually be sold as slaves to their Masters in Central Asia and the Middle East.

I have quoted from Atkinson's book which describes the second battle between Jaypal and Sabuktajin where Jaypal's (Hindu) army was massacred in what thereafter came to be known as Hindukush mountains. That the same pass were the routes of trade including the slave trade cannot be disputed. Atkinson has quoted relevant sources in his book. Rare Book Society of India can perhaps help us to relocate the book. Atkinson also describes there how Jaypal was advised to renege on the ransom promise which later led to the bloody Hindu-kush war.

^^ I meant the battle between Jaypal and Sabuktagin are not necessarily as Atkinson has talked of. The source for all the above is of course primarily Tarikh-e-Yamin http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924073036729#page/n39/mode/2up However other sources exist too and are referred to in the wiki link below. Here we see that Jaypal actually faught previous Turko-Mongols to a stand still. Only after Mahmud did Jayapl lose, and the ransom was collected by picking the bodies of the dead for jewellery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmana_Hindu_Shahis_of_Afghanistan

The account contained in this book from page 20 to 25 is similar to what was recounted earlier. Historians do differ on detail and conjecture differently. Court historians write in praise of their masters. But there can be no doubt about the bloody battles between Jaipal and Sabukajin and later, with Mahmud of Gazni, his son. Jaypal committed Johar whether in shame of defeat or in grief over his son's distrust of him is not known. But the story of his successive defeats and unpaid ransom appear to be true. Another conclusion one can draw from these accounts is that feudal wars are wars over power and wealth and not over religions. Religion, because it exists, provides the vineer and the war-cry for inflaming the soldiers on either side. Any way, the discussion has strayed from Firdausi who greatly suffered at the hands of Mahmud.

>> But the story of his successive defeats and unpaid ransom appear to be true I would strongly disagree. The picture is of successive battles, not defeat. We know that he mounted multiple attacks on the enemy, and was not content to be. Quite unlike the case where he would be defeated and be forced to pay ransom. >> Another conclusion one can draw from these accounts is that feudal wars are wars over power and wealth and not over religions. This is certainly incorrect. Religion was equal, if not bigger motivation. The change in behavior of Turko-Mongol tribes and their coordination pre and post religion is in itself a testimony to the fact. Also there are many actions in the war which are purely religious in nature. There would be no reason to do so from reasons of real-politic or strategy or even tactics. In fact some steps were distinctly counterproductive, yet they were done. I am not sure why there is a such a great need to underplay the real reasons as very well expressed by the chief actors of the drama themselves. I find no reason to disbelieve Al Beruni, Firdausi and many other writers who chronicled their Khan's actions and believe in the modern reinterpretation of the same.

I wonder if a hundred years later...if people saw George Bush swearing on the Bible and later attacking Iraq...whether it would be seen as a religious war ? Human nature has always and will always take precedence over religion and other considerations. Religion is just one more excuse to camouflage the real intentions of supremacy, domination, power and greed.

>> I wonder if a hundred years later.. Why wait a hundred years for that? I think the motivations are pretty clear even right now. Just as the wars of the Ghazanvids were pretty clear in what they meant to people then and openly expressed by both sides. Also to carry on the simile further, GWB swore on a Bible, but chose to say that he was going in to Iraq for 1) WMD (however untrue) 2) World freedom (some what true, depending on US PoV about world freedom, which we understand well) In case of the Ghaznavids, they swore on the Quran and were clear in setting forth to all the worlds what their reasons were. So yes, if some one can think that GWB swearing on the Bible is grounds for considering it a religious war (which undoubtedly it was to an extent -- in terms of a civilizational conflict) By that token the nature war of the Ghaznavids is not even in debate -- it is crystal clear.

>> Human nature has always and will always take precedence over religion and other considerations. Religion == Human nature. A choice of religion speaks eloquently about the nature of humans who have constructed the religion. There is no dichotomy.