Indopak (PCS/CSS Notes 2nd thread for discussion
 

[B][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][B][SIZE="5"][B][SIZE="5"][B]Discussion thread:-
[/B][/SIZE][/B][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR][/B]
[B][B]Dear friends you may ask anything related to our notes' threads [/B][/B]

Our Indo-Pak's journey.....:)

if you could please answer this question from 2002 CSS Exam.

Q: "Mahmood of Ghazna's real aim was to establish a Turkish empire and his Indian campaigns were only means to this end". Comment.

Thank you

[QUOTE=my1manarmy;655056]if you could please answer this question from 2002 CSS Exam.

Q: "Mahmood of Ghazna's real aim was to establish a Turkish empire and his Indian campaigns were only means to this end". Comment.

Thank you[/QUOTE]
[B]
Introduction[/B]
Mahmud’s invasion occupy special place in the history of indopak, these invasions had great impact on the history of indopak and resulted in establishment of muslim rule in sub-continent. Mahmud made seventeen expeditions to India from 1000 to 1027 AD and changed semi in dependent state of Ghazni into full developed gahsnavid empire. It also leads to future muslim rule in subcontinent. There is alo t of debate amonth the historians about the nature of invasion because even after seventeen expeditions he never established his rule in India.

[B]Difference views of Historian [/B]
There are three school of thoughts
Hindu Nationalist Historians:
They consider campaign of Mehmud as an act of loot and plunder

Muslim Historians
They hold the view that Mahmud’s invaisoin were of Islamic passion

Third group of historians
(SM Jaffar, Prasad, Dr. Nazim) This group of historians hold the views that Mehmud was great military general. It was his ambition which brought him to sub-continent.

Now, we have to analyze according to the views of the above historians, in simple words, we can say, thus, Mehmud’s invasions were not for propagation of Islam, nor were war agaisn Hinduism. They were of politico-economic nature. Mehmud had to strengthen and extend his Ghaznavi empire to Central Asia for that he had to need money of subconidint. So he broke temples that wer store house of wealth. Apart from that violation of treaties by Hindu, Rajas and Molestation of Mehmud’s ally by their neighbor s were also among main catalysitic factors of invasion. So for as propagation of Islam is concern, that was by product of expeditions not the sole purpose.

I think your answer has not touched the question properly... I think Muhmood Ghaznavi's indian conquest we in reality the mean to an end to establish the central asain empire.... He just needed safe indian border along the surplus which indian had accumulated form the DOAB region....

[QUOTE=Abdul Hadi;655230]I think your answer has not touched the question properly... I think Muhmood Ghaznavi's indian conquest we in reality the mean to an end to establish the central asain empire.... He just needed safe indian border along the surplus which indian had accumulated form the DOAB region....[/QUOTE]

His real aim was to establish his own empire in central asia. For that purpose he needed a lot of wealth, that is why he looted many temples, as in that time period the temples were the wealth houses. Hope you have understood now. :) Thanks...

What are main reasons behind his Love for Central Asian Empire rather than an Indian Empire or both combined as big south and central asian Empire? where as Mughals built all this in India.

Mehmood Ghaznavi was an Afghan and wanted to create his own Empire in Ghazni (Afghanistan), which he achieved but the case of Mughals are different. Read Babur, the circumstances forced him to go for India, while his ancestors were from central Asia.
Mehmood Ghaznavi fought with Hindus (17 invasions) but Babar fought with Muslims (i think Ibrahim Lodhi) to capture Sultante Delhi.

Both Ghaznavi and Babar encountered and fought with both Hindus and Muslims. I think Mahmud was successful in Central Asia due to his vigor and generalship. His plan was only to consolidate his central Asian Affair but still he had his governor up to Lahore. He just used india as a mean to an end in central asia. Ghaznavi fought with Multanis and Sindhis who were muslims and babur fought with delhi sultanate and rajput hindu princes... he has described it in his memoir. Al-Beruni had also pointed out the differences among Hindus and Muslims living in India and this point from his book Kitab ul Hind also supports two nation theory. Two Nation Theory which later became stand point for Pakistan....

[QUOTE=Abdul Hadi;655724]Both Ghaznavi and Babar encountered and fought with both Hindus and Muslims. I think Mahmud was successful in Central Asia due to his vigor and generalship. His plan was only to consolidate his central Asian Affair but still he had his governor up to Lahore. He just used india as a mean to an end in central asia. Ghaznavi fought with Multanis and Sindhis who were muslims and babur fought with delhi sultanate and rajput hindu princes... he has described it in his memoir. Al-Beruni had also pointed out the differences among Hindus and Muslims living in India and this point from his book Kitab ul Hind also supports two nation theory. Two Nation Theory which later became stand point for Pakistan....[/QUOTE]

Really I could not understand that why are you relating Ghaznavid with Babur. For Babar, you can follow my notes, the link is as under:
[url]http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optional-subjects/group-e-history-subjects/indo-pak-history/85304-my-complete-short-notes-indo-pak-css-pcs-2014-a.html[/url]

Aso how are you kindly post other Indo Pak topic notes also plz or can you give in soft copy your notes are realy good