Achaemenians in Sindh (516-400 B.C.)
Before Independence, the Achaemenian conquest and rule of Sindh was known from Herodotus[1] as well as Persepolis Naqsh-i-Rustams inscriptions[2]. The Voyage of Skylax from Peshawar via the Indus to the Red Sea to connect Sindh and Egypt, the two granaries of his empire at orders of Darius-I also comes from Herodotus. Olmstead[3], is the first authority on Achaemenians, who has gone into details of their provincial administration, taxation and benevolent rule after independence. He thinks they were not despots but rather kings of Council. Under them the Provincial Governments had autonomy and they were the first to connect the remote provincial cities to each other and the Imperial capital. They were also the first to provide world currency against local coinage. They were also the first to provide world currency against local coinage. They adopted Aramaic (northern Mesopotamian language) as official language and not Avasti (the Ancient Persian). Ghirshman is another authority on the subject. Basing on Herodotus and Hecatus, he describes Darius-I’s successor Xerexe’s war with Greeks, in which the meds of Sindh and the Punjab under Persian generals took part[4]. Lambrick too had briefly described Achaemenian rule of Sindh, Sindh became independent of Achaemenian rule some where between 450-400 B.C. In the latter year Egypt too became independent.
Alexander in Sindh (325-324 B.C.)
For nearly 250 years European colonizers of Asia, took keen interest in Alexander and his exploits. His historians run into many hundreds. Prof. Robin Fox-Lane[5] in Alexander the Great has used more than 1370 sources written in past 200 years. Although each one of his original historians i.e. Ptolem Soter, Aristobolus, Clitarchus, Justin, Arian, Diodorus, Strabo, and Plutarch[6] had mentioned Alexander’s military operations in Sindh and translations were available, no attempt was ever made to write detailed history of Alexander in Sindh. The first such attempt has been done by Lambrick in History of Sindh, Vol-II, with a map on Alexander’s route and courses of the Indus in Sindh around 325 B.C. Holmes and Wilhelmy[7] in their maps have increased our knowledge of historical-geography of the period. Eggermont[8] is the only another, who has written a complete volume on Alexander in Sindh and Balouchistan, though the learned professor had done a few basic blunders in his investigations. In presence of all these new sources, it is a ripe time, to write on Alexander’s operations in Sindh. M. H. Panhwar’s Chronological Dictionary of Sindh’ has a map of Alexander’s conquest and retreat based on these new and old sources.
Mauryans in Sindh (324-187 B.C.)
Smith[9] and Rapson[10] were the best sources on Mauryans, before Independence. No work of note has been done on Mauryans since Independence. Mookerjee[11] is the only authority who had done some additional work on Mauryans. Even this work is more than 30 years old. Mookerjee thinks that Chandragupta started the War of Independence in 323 B.C. There is a thinking that Moeris-I and II rulers of the Lower Sindh (Patalene) were Muryans related to Chandragupta and it was with their help that anti-Greek movement started in Sindh, while Alexander was still at Patala. Based on above 3 sources and also Eggermont[12], it is possible to reconstruct Mauryan rule in Sindh. Lambrick’s work is based on Smith and Rapson[13], but routes in Sindh. Are his own which have been copied by Robin Fox lane in on Alexander’s tracks, above cited.
Bactrian Greeks (187-80 S.C.), Scythians (80 B.C. 46 A.D.),
Parthians (46-78 A.D.) and Kushans (65-176 A.D.) in Sindh.
There has been very little work done on this period of Sindh’s history since Independence. Lambricks[14] work is too sketchy, three works by Tarn[15] Marain[16] and Woodcock[17] produced in fifties are the only authorities making use of numismatics. Mujamdar
And Munshi[18] by making use of pre-independence sources have re-constructed the chronology of kings of various dynasties. A recent article of Dr. Dani[19] is another source based on numismatics.
Post-independence archaeological explorations are limited to Banbhore, where the bottom layers go first country B.C.A number of objects[20] of this period and coins were un-earthed. Dr. F.A. Khan states that because of high water table he could not dig deeper. In his opinion this settlement may well have been Alexander’s Heaven, the port through which the fleet of Nearchus entered the Sea. Lambrick’s map of Buddhist sites, the first to seventh centuries A.D., based on pre-independence sources especially Henry Cousin[21].
While this article was being sent to press, the daily Dawn on May 18th 1985, reported a new settlement oposite to Banbhore and of the same age on an island. Present writer is of the opinion that there is gorge of the rive Indus between Banbhore and this island. The gorge seems to have trapped a branch of the Indus and held there probably between 4th century B.C. and 13th Century A.D.
The present writer[22] used all these sources, except ref. No.109 to buildup the history of the period and has covered the material in 18 pages. The various rulers of Sindh and the period of their rule was as under:-
During this period Kushans held the northern Sindh only. The lower Sindh was ruled by Parthians: 78-135 A.D; Scythians: 135-145 A.D. and Parthians: 145-176 A.D.
Small independent principalities ruled Sindh from 176-283 A.D.[23].
Sassanians: (283-167) A.D.
Hitherto it was thought that Sassanians ruled Sindh from 283-632 A.D. and Rai Dynasty of Sindh were their governors. Close examination of the all available and scattered sources mostly of Pre-independence period has revealed otherwise. The present writer; has collected this material and presented in 6 pages. Sindh was ruled by an independent principality of Vahlikas from 376-415 A.D. and again by some other principality independently upto 499. A.D., when Rai Dynasty established themselves. Most of the known Buddhist stupas (in ruins) in Sindh were constructed between 200-500 A.D.
Rai Dynasty 499-641 A.D.
The basic information on this dynasty still comes from Chach Namah. The first Arab Naval expedition was sent against the subcontinent in 637 A.D. Chronology of Chach-Namah is defective. Hieun Tswang, who visited Sindh saw a Sudra king (Rai Sehasi-II) ruling Sindh between 630-641 A.D. Chach therefore could not have come to power until 641 A.D. That Sindh was independent in 617 A.D. is known from Sindh’s king sending his ambassadors with a congratulatory message to Roman Heraclius on his defeating Khusro Parwez at Naina. The present writer has collected all scattered pre-Independence sources for supplementing the information and had revised the chronology of rain and Brahman dynasties[24]. Lambrick has also done full justice to his chapter of Sindh’s history[25]. Chach-Namah Sindhi translation has useful notes by Dr. N.A Balouch[26], based on Daudpota’s Chach Nama (persian text), Haig (Ref. 12), Raverty (Ref.2), elliot and others.
.
Brahman Dynasty 641-712 A.D. and 715-725 A.D. the eastern Sindh only.
Chach-Namah’s Sindhi translation with notes 118 gives basic information on this dynasty, however Mujamdars[27] Arab conquest of Sindh has lot new information. He had used a number of original Arab sources. Lambrick[28] had analysed causes of the down fall of Brahman dynasty. He has also produced a good map of the routs of Arab conquest.
The present writer has used all these sources as well as the original sources to re-construct Brahman rule and Arab conquest of Sindh in 711-714 A.D.[29], Williams has revealed that Cutch formed part of Rai and Brahman Sindh from about 500 A.D. to about 685 or 696 when it was lost to Chawras[30]. The river Indus changed its course around 685-700 A.D., deserting the Lower Sindh. Kathias, a local tribe from Sindh, moved to Cutch and from thence to Kathiawar around 700 A.D. Since the lower Sindh was depopulated, it made the Arab conquest of the Lower and South –western Sindh easy and with-out any resistance[31].
In view of all this new and systematic material it is now possible to rewrite a complete history of Rai and Brahman dynasties and circumstances leading to Arab conquest of Sindh, when it happened after failures of first fourteen invasions over a period of more than 50 years.
The work on this subject was initiated by Dr. Daudpotta in the Persian texts of Chach Namah and Masumi in 1938 and 1940 as already mentioned. These sources were used by Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi to write history of Sindh. It was the first attempt to write history of the Arab governors of Sindh and with analysis of events. The author has done many blunders and distortions and his historical maps are totally in-accurate and un-intelligible[32]. Memon Abdul Majeed has probably used this as the only source for his Sindh and Multan’s Arab governors and has repeated the same chronological mistakes,[33], but it formed definite information for Sindhi scholars as Nadvi’s book was not readily available. Dr. Mumtaz Pathan is the first scholar, who used all scattered material on Arab rule of Sindh. His work so for is the best document on this subject[34]. Dr. N.A. Balouch in his various articles as well as notes on Masummi has referred to Arab governors’ rule of Sindh, but this material is scattered and required re-compilation[35]. R.C. Mujamdar has given references to many new Indian sources on his successors. This new information collected from inscriptions and some contemporary Sanskrit and Gujarati works, has merit of its own[36]. There is also some material in the Archaeological Survey of India’s reports, Bombay Gazetteers/Annals and Histories of Gujarat and finally writings of Arab travellers and merchants.
The present writer made use of all available material, had Arab.
Sources re-verified with the original texts and put all the events in a chronological order[37]. In view of this new material, is possible to re-write this chapter of Sindh’s history.
Archaeological Department of Pakistan has carried out excavation at Banbhore and Brahmanabad-Mansura site. On the first site final report has been issued, work on second site is in progress[38], although in 1979 the dept. issued an official statement that Brahmanabad / Mansura is same site.
Habari Rule of Sindh (854-1011 A.D.)
Dr. Daudpotta had worked out chronological rule of Habaris in notes on Masumi in 1938. This material was utilized by Nadvi to write history of Habaris[39], but the latter work is far from satisfactory and same is case of Memon Abdul Majeed[40]. Dr. Mumtaz Pathan’s Arab kingdom of Mansura is upto date work on the subject. Habaris with the active help of local tribes ruled successfully for 171 years and had maintained good relations with Gujarat, Pratiharas (of Rajasthan, Uttar Pardesh, Bihar and Northern Madhya Pardesh), Rashkuttas of Maharshtra and Hyderabad (Dn). They managed to have good relations with Hindu Shahi rulers of the Punjab; Sammas of Multan and Hindu Sammas and Chawra rulers of Cutch. The political and economic conditions of the period for other areas of Sub-continent are also well known. Present writer was able to locate the courses of the river Indus in the 9th century and from it worked out possible areas under cultivation, as well as the population[41]. A large number of travellers, geographers and merchants, mostly of Persian origin (but popularly called Arab geographers) visited Sindh as well as the Sub-continent and wrote accounts specially pertaining to local produce industry, exportable commodities and etc. These accounts await a full analysis by historical economists. The present writer has covered their chronology in 24 pages and has the guidance of future writers[42].
Soomra Dynasty (1011-1351)
As already mentioned, the sources of original information on Soomra dynasty was Tarikh-i-Bahadur Shahi, which is now lost. This work was used by Firshta, Abul Fazal, Khan-e-Khana, Nizamuddin, Masumi and many other Persian historians of late 16th and early 17th century to write Samma-Soomra history. The Archaeological department of Pakistan had undertaken a survey of Soomra-Samma ruined towns and settlement in Sindh at my request in sixties and large numbers of sites have been located[43], but no explorations have been done. Dr. N. A. Balouch had made serious efforts to build Soomra history from the folk-lore, was written in 15th and 16th centuries and is not a sober history. Besides, Marvi, Laila and Mumal etc. are fictional beings having no real existence. Certain incidents are however too well known and present writer used this material to reconstruct Soomra history:-
A few notes worthy points are:
i. Soomras were Ismailis, was already known, but Abbas H. Hamadani has collected all possible information[44].
ii. Upto 1714 A.D., Soomras practiced lot of Hindu customs[45].
iii. Daulat-i-Alviya a history of Soomras is a forged and unreliable source on Soomras.
iv. That Mahmud of Gaznavi sacked Mansura in 1026 A.D. was already known from works under-taken by Nazim and Habib. Dr. Mumtaz has used same sources to prove this point, but department of archaeology’s statement in “Dawan” should be considered as the last word that Mahmud sacked and burnt Mansura.
v. Mahmud’s army being looted by Jatts of northern Sindh and his avenging on them in 1027-28 is no longer being doubted. Earlier version that Jatts belonged to northern Punjab is no longer valid.
vi. That Sindh remained part of Gaznavid Empire upto 1281 A.D., is disproved. Sindh became independent soon after Mahmud’s death in 1030 A.D.
vii. A 16th century history of Soomras called Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh by Muhammad Yousif belonging to Maulana Qasimi was reprinted in his foot notes on Tuhfatul-Kiram by Hassamuddin, is a new source and has been helpful in writing Soomra genealogy and adding to our knowledge of Soomra period.
viii. Ismaili sources and biographers of their preachers have also added to our knowledge of Soomra period.
ix. Historians of Gujarat and Rajasthan have also given some information on relations of those States with Sindh, but this information is not fully explored[46].
x. The Persian Historians of Delhi and Mongols, too have given some references to Sindh. These have been tapped to connect a chain of incidents. Such historians are: Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Mubarak-Shahi, Mirat-i-Sikandri, Mirat-i-Ahmedi, Zainul-Akbar, Ibn Asir, Tarikh-i-Utbi, Diwan-i-Farrukhi, Tarikh-i-Behaqi, Al-Abad Saghani’s Taj ul-Masasir (Arabic), Ain-i-Haqiqat namah, Jahan-gusha-i-Juwaini, Rehala of Ibn Battuta, tarikh-i-Feroz Shahi of Barani, Tughlaq name of Amir Khusru, Jami-ul-Tawarikh of Hamadani, and Masalikul absar of Abu-Safa-Sirajuddin Umar.
xi. Jalaluddin Khawarizm Shah after having been defeated by Chengiz Khan was chased by him right upto Attack. The former came to Sindh, sacked Sehwan and burnt Debal, Pari Nagar and some towns in Kathiawar to collect wealth, to re-conquer the lost territories. Chanesar was ruler then.
xii. Ibn Battuta visited Sindh in 1333 A.D., and saw Samma’s rebellion against Delhi government.
xiii. Mohammad Bin Tughlaq took an expedition against Soomras but probably was poisoned and died at Sondha. The imperial troops were chased and looted by Soomras.
The present writer has collected all above material and has reconstructed a history of Soomra over 104 pages[47] discarding folk-lore altogether.
It is possible to collect material on the same lines especially from areas around Sindh to add to our knowledge of Soomras of Sindh. Archaeological explorations can throw light on arts, crafts, economics and day to day life of this period.
Samma Dynasty (1351 – 1224 A.D.)
The situation on Samma period is exactly the same as Soomra Period. Its original source being Tarikh-i-Bahadur Shahi, now lost, from which same histories were copied as mentioned in first paragraph of (v) above. The material being scanty the present writer has made efforts to co-relate various incidents chronologically, to make a continuous chain of events with encouraging results. Luckily for us there are some outside sources of information, for example.
i. Battuta’s visit to Sindh in 1333 A.D. and seeing Sammas under Unar, rebellion[48].
ii. Mohammad Bin Tughlaq’s expedition on Sindh in 1351 A.D. and death at Sondha is better known from various sources including Mahdi-Hussain Agha[49] and 14th century historian Ziauddin Barani’s Tarikh-i-feroz Shahi. That he was poisoned to death is elaborated by Mahdi Hassan. His temporary burial at Sehwan for the first time discovered by Professor Muhammad Shafi in 1935[50], was brought to the notice of Sindhis by Dr. Daudpotta’s Masumi in 1938. It has been reproduced by many scholars in various journals including Alwahid’s “Sindh Azad Number” in 1936.
iii. The Samma’s overthrew Soomras soon after 1335 A.D. and the last Soomra ruler took shelter with Feroz Shah’s governor of Gujarat is known from “Insha-e-Mahru, a collection of 101 letters of Mahru, the governor of Multan and a master mind of his age[5