Historian Dr. Mubarak Ali and columnist Urya Maqbool Jan (in Hindi/Urdu)
Watch also parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
(The following introduction by Frances W. Pritchett to S. M. Ikram’s book sheds a bit more light on the anti-Hindu bias. Ed.)
Introduction by Frances W. Pritchett
When Muhammad bin Qasim fights Raja Dahar’s troops in Sind in 712, the Sindhi troops are referred to as “the Hindu army” (p. 7), even though, as Ikram himself points out, southern Sind was “largely Buddhist” (p. 9), religious tensions played a major role in Dahar’s defeat, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that Dahar’s army was organized along religious lines. Ikram quotes with apparent approval R. C. Majumdar’s description of local Buddhists’ hostility to Dahar as “treachery,” and his characterization of the readiness of Dahar’s chiefs and courtiers to change sides as “base betrayal” (p. 9)– although in view of Dahar’s behavior as Ikram describes it, an eagerness for regime change would hardly be surprising. Similarly, when speaking of the readiness of Jats and Meds to enlist with the newcomers, he quotes Elliot and Dowson, who describe this action as having a “moral effect in dividing national sympathies, and relaxing the unanimity of defense against foreign aggression” (p. 9).
Columbia University for more