Re: History of Pakistan
What does this historian have to say about Raja Dahir? I believe that he is demonized by the Pakistanis as a tyrant but the hindu sindhis I have met in India say he was a victim not the villain as portrayed by the muslims. Here is some alternate theories: The Character of Raja Dahir
He married his sister
He imprisoned and robbed some Arab people.
He abused Buddhists and non-Brahmins.
He was a decadent hedonist and a tyrant.
Observe that it is the work of every group that has been the victor to slander the vanquished party, to defame them, and thus to provide a justification, even though is is their behavior that is most unjust and diabolical.. many such examples exist in history. History has often been written by those in the pay of the victors.
[four specific examples of victors’ version of rewriting history skipped for brevity]
Let us carefully examine each of the allegations against Raja Dahar in turn.
Forget sisters, Hindu Brahmins consider marrying their cousins improper. So the accusation that he married his sister appears to be fallacious. The evidence offered for this accusation is that he refused to give his sister’s hand to some petty chieftain. But everyone knows that Hindus were endogamous within castes and status. Thus if he refused to allow his sister’s wedding to someone of a lower caste, is it reasonable to say that he had done so to marry his own sister? It is an ill-intentioned, bald lie.
The second allegation against him that has been made is that he had some gifts, which the Arab ruler was sending to the King of Ceylon, pirated, and the Arab sailors, arrested. There is also no evidence offered here either — to show that Raja Dahar did such a deed. There was plenty of piracy in those days. It is entirely possible that some pirates did this, but what possible advantage could a great king like Raja Dahar derive from such petty piracy? To make this a pretext for an invasion is entirely fraudulent and merely slanderous.
History states that even before the successful conquest of Sindh, the Arabs attacked 14 times — what was their justification for these attacks? Is it that the attacks on Samarkand, Bukhara, Morocco, Spain also to get compensated for something?
One cannot hide the true facts of history. It is clear that the Arab rulers, like all imperialist powers, had the goal of colonizing other nations. If we regard Roman, Mongolian, British and French imperialists wrong and tyrannical, how then can we call similar action by Arabs fair, and not merely fair but in the glory of Islam? Does the respect for Islam increase by such actions or is it slandered?
The third allegation that is made against him is that he was cruel towards Buddhists and other non-Hindus — but we can’t find evidence of this either. It is a historical fact that when Raja Chandersen, brother of Raja Chuch, reigned, he encouraged Buddhism. He gave special concessions to Buddhists bhikshus and monks. It is also no secret that the Brahmins can be religiously bigoted even more than Mullahs. Their actions eliminated Buddhism in much of India. But Sindh was that country where Buddhism flourished. Their presence is a testament to the liberalness of Raja Dahar. During his reign, two governors were Buddhists. Not only that, but an Arab Muslim Mohammed Alafi and his whole tribe, who were fleeing persecution of Banu Umayas, was granted asylum by Raja Dahar. Raja Dahar was so generous with them that they were permitted to stamp coins which bore Alafi’s name on one face. Examples of such generosity are rare indeed in history.
Accusing such a generous minded king of being prejudiced, made as it is by people whose own history is a testament to narrow-mindedness and bigotry, is nothing short of malicious.
The fourth charge laid against Raja Dahar is that he was hedonistic and cruel. Heaven knows what the intent of the slanderers is in using such terms. Who is the real criminal? The ones who sent two daughters of the Raja as a “gift”, the adulterer who married their mother forcibly, those who considered it proper to make Sindhi women slaves and have illicit relations with them — such rapists, the ones who sold thousands of Sindhis into slavery; or the one who gave his life defending his country? True History About Raja Dahir | mysticspeak
Besides all this Arabs had conquered Makran before Sindh during the reign of second Caliph, Hazrat Omar.
In response of Caliph Umar’s question about the Makran region, the Messenger from Makkuran who bring the news of the victory told him: O Commander of the faithful! It’s a land where the plains are stony; Where water is scanty; Where the fruits are unsavory Where men are known for treachery; Where plenty is unknown; Where virtue is held of little account; And where evil is dominant; A large army is less for there; And a less army is use less there;
**The land beyond it, is even worst (referring to Sind)
If the Commander of faithful wouldn’t have stopped us from going beyond, so we would have bought our forces to the temple of prostitutes .
Referring to the Hindu Temple in interior Sind where prostitutes used to give a part of their earning as alms
This all shows that Arabs have intentions to conquer Sindh way before the birth of Raja Dahir and history has definitely been manipulated by the conquerors in their favour.