1

CSS History of India & Pakistan

(Created and Designed by Entireeducation.com)
Contact Us: 03084293988

2
About Entireeducation.com
You are welcome for visiting our website which is fully composed of educational systems including
different countries university admissions which consist much essential for admitting in University.
Some university not only provides information but also ask that you can take admission on-line so, we
also provide on-line admission. We take daily update to each and every university or other educational
institute. We are now providing now daily new university admission from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
and Bangladesh. Our first objective to give first South Asian universities then We will provide the
international, worldwide universities.

Entireeducation Team incorporates with professional and create a new CSS notes for aspirants. CSS
Notes are fully comprises in accordance with new syllabus updated in 2016. Our professional stay and
layout notes up to mark. Student will get an extensive hub of knowledge regarding History Pakistan
and India from these notes. The best thing of Entireeducation notes reflects only one handbook for the
students. Through which a student can easily extract and through out the entire concepts. Fully updated
notes assist student to pulls through life career in a gleaming way with collaboration of Entireeducation
notes.

Thanks

Regards, Entireeducation.com

3
Table of Content:

I. Muslim Rule and Heritage in India (712-1857): Political History Arrival, foundationand
consolidation of Muslim rule in India, important rulers of the Slave Dynasty andthe Mughals. The
Spirit and legacy of Muslim civilization, Art, Architecture and literature, Public Administration
under Muslim Rules. Sultans, Kings, Economic, Social, Judicial, Civil and Military system during
the Muslim rule, Industry, trade and commerce under the Muslim patronage, Financial
Administration…………..5

II. British Rule in India: 1857-1947: British Imperialism, origin and growth of the East India
Company, Causes and effects of downfall of the Mughal Empire in India, War of Independence in
1857:Causes and effects….66

III. Constitutional and Political Reforms of the British Government (1858-1947) and growth of the
Political Parties –Indian Congress…75

IV. Muslim Struggle for Independence: Role of Shah Wali Ullah, Syed Ahmad Shaheed and
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan towards regeneration of the Muslim of South Asia, All India Muslim
League, Partition of Bengal, Simla Deputation, Lucknow pact; Khilafat movement. Nahru Report
Quaid-i- Azam’s Fourteen Points….82

V. Pakistan Movement: Allama Iqal’s Allahabad Address 1930, and Round Table Conference.
The Congress Rule intheprovinces-1937-1939, Lahore Resolution 1940, various Missions and Plans for
the partition of the South Asia. Founders of Pakistan: Quaid-i-Azam, Mohsin-ul-Mulk, Syed Amir Ali,
Ali Brothes. Sir Agha Khan, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali, etc….93

VI. History of Pakistan (1947- Todate): Pakistan’s early Challenges—Quaid-i-Azam as Governor-

General, various attempts at constitution making…..114

VII. Military in Politics: Ayub Khan, Yahya, Zia–ul–Haq and Pervaiz Musharaf regimes, Civil
Military Relationship in Pakistan….122

VIII. Separation of East Pakistan: Causes and Effects….140

IX. Working of Democracy in Pakistan: Liaquat Ali Khan to Firoz Khan Noon (1947-1958),
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Period,(1971-1977),Benazir, Nawaz Sharif ,Revival of

Democracy: 1988-1999, Restoration of Democracy (2008 to date), Role of MajorPolitical Parties

and Pressure Groups in the history of Pakistan….149

4
X. Foreign Policy of Pakistan (1947-1999)

5
HISTORY Muslim Rule and Heritage in
India (712-1857): Political History Arrival
Muhammad bin Qasim Al-Thaqafi (31 December 695–18 July 715) : Muhammad bin Qasim Al-Thaqafi
(31 December 695–18 July 715) Umayyad General Iraq Governor, Hijaj bin Yousaf Married his
Daughter Zubaida Foundation of Islamic Rule in SubcontinentCauses of Sindh Invasion: Causes of
Sindh Invasion Attacked by Raja Dahir’s forces on Muslim’s ship The Arab were imprisoned later on
by the Debal Governor, Partaab Raye Refusal of Raja Dahir Hijaj sent Muhammad Bin Qasim for this
expedition in 711 A.D

Campaign: Campaign Third Expedition Makran Arman Belah(lasbela) Debal (Karachi) Sadusan
(Sehwan), Nerun (Hyd), Brahamnabad (Shehdad Pur) Ar-rur (Rohri,Nawabshah) met by Dahir's forces
Captured (Multan)

Reason for Success: Reason for Success Superior military equipment Troop discipline and leadership.
[4] The concept of Jihad as a morale booster. [4] Religion; the widespread belief in the prophecy of
Muslim success. [4] [12] The ‘Samanis” the majority of the population was Buddhist who were
dissatisfied with their rulers, who were Hindu.

Death: Death Revolt in Umayyad Death of Hijaj bin Yousaf M.B Qasim Return Murdered on way

Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi (November 2, 971 - April 30, 1030): Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi
(November 2, 971 - April 30, 1030) Son of Sabuktagin Ruled from 997 to 1030 Dynasty (Afghanistan,
Eastern Iran, Pakistan, North Eest India) 17 expeditions on India

Campaign: Campaign Started from (Khorsan, Balkh, Herat, Merv) Afghanistan, from Samanids in 999
Seistan (Iran) 1000 Ghandhara (Peshawar) defeats Jaypal 1001 Multan, Ismail shah & Anandapala
Expeditions in India against Rajput (Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kannauj, i Ajmer, Kangra. HP) 1008

PowerPoint Presentation: Takes Lahore on his return Nehrwala, Kathiawar, Somnath This raid was his
last major campaign. Somnath 1025: killing over 50,000 people who tried to defend it Sultan Mahmud
died on April 30, 1030 at Ghazni Sultan Muhammad Shahabu-ddin Ghori (1150 – 15 March 1206) :
Sultan Muhammad Shahabu-ddin Ghori (1150 – 15 March 1206) Mu'izzuddin Mu?ammad Bin Sam
Born in Ghor, Afghanistan Brother Ghayassu-ddin Ghorid’s Dynasty (Afghanistan, Pakistan, North
East India)

Campaign: Campaign Multan & Uch 1175 Attacked Gujrat 1178, defeated by Rajput Bhimdev Solanki
II Capture Lahore 1181 Conquered Sialkot 1181 Attacked Terrain (Delhi) against Prithvi Raj Chohan
(Rajput) 1191, Loss Attacked Terrain 1192 again, become Victorious

6
PowerPoint Presentation: Moved to Ajmer + North Rajasthan Attacked Ayodhya temple, capture Delhi
1193 Made Qutbuddin Aibak his Deputy of Sultanate Conquered Bengal 1204 Murdered by Hindu
warrior near Jhelum 1206

The Great Mughal Empire 1526-1707:

PowerPoint Presentation: The Mughals were descendants of two great rulers. From their mother’s side
they were descendants of Genghis Khan, ruler of the Mongol tribes, China & Central Asia. From their
father’s side they were the successors of Timur, the ruler of Iran, Iraq & Modern-day Turkey.

Mughal Empire: Mughal Empire Under the Mughals, India was the heart of a great Islamic empire and
a prolific center of Islamic culture and learning. Dynasty was the greatest, richest and longest lasting
Muslim dynasty to rule India. Mongol Descendents The Great Mughal Emperors were: Babur (1526-
1530) The First of the Mughals Humayun (1530-1556) The Luckless Leader Akbar (1556-1605) The
Great Jehangir (1605-1627) The Paragon of Stability Shah Jehan (1627-1658) The Master Builder
Aurangzeb (1658-1707) The Intolerant

Babur 1526 - 1530 The First of the Mughals: Babur 1526 - 1530 The First of the Mughals Born on
14 Feb 1483 Uzbekistan Babur was a direct descendant of the Turkish Ghengis Khan and Timur from
Tamerlane. Defeated the Delhi Sultanate (Ibrahim Lodhi at Panipat 1526 & Rana Sanga rajput 1527 )
& established the Mughal Empire. Gained control of the whole northern India Made Agra capital He
reigned for 4 short years and died at age 47 in 1530. Did not enact new laws or organization in the
empire due to early his death Buried in Kabul

Humayun 1530 - 1556 : Humayun 1530 - 1556 After Babur died, he was succeeded by his son
Humayun in 1530. Humayun was 23 years old. He was not a soldier and unlike his father, neither skilled
nor a wise leader. Inherited a disunited and disorganized empire. In 1540, Sher Shah Suri defeated
Humayun and took over the Mughal Empire. The Empire was lost from 1540-1545. He was exiled but
later regained power in 1555, defeating Feroz shah Suri. Humayun died in 1556 after falling down the
steps of his library.

Akbar 1556 - 1605 The Great: Akbar 1556 - 1605 The Great Akbar become the new Mughal ruler at
the age of 14. Akbar was an ambitious and noble commander Built the largest army ever in the empire.
Helped to conquer nearly all of modern-day northern India and Pakistan. Great administrator developed
a centralized government It delegated 15 provinces each under a governor and each province into
districts and each district was further sub-divided into smaller sections. Best known for tolerance of his
subjects (especially Hindus) Invited religious scholars to debate him in his private chambers. Developed
his own faith call Din Ilahi. Din Ilahi was a mixture of the other religions Akbar had studied from those
debates. Religion never caught on Died and Buried at Sikandra (agra)

Jehangir 1605 - 1627 The Paragon of Stability: Jehangir 1605 - 1627 The Paragon of Stability
Jehangir (Prince Salim) succeeded his father Akbar in 1605. Opposite of his father Poor monarch and
warrior but good at maintaining the status quo. He continued many of Akbar’s policies . Freedom of
worship. Fair treatment of Hindus. Continued friendship and alliance with Rajputs. Allowed foreigners

7
like the Portuguese and English into India for trade. Jehangir married Nur Jahan. She became the real
ruler of the empire until the death of her husband.Jehangir Issues (specific): Jehangir Issues (specific)
Under the influence of his wife and many others, Jehangir was not an able ruler like his father. He loved
to drink and enjoy himself. He had to suppress many rebellions . Important posts in the court were given
to families, friends, and especially those close to his wife, Jahan.

Shah Jehan 1627 - 1658 The Master Builder: Shah Jehan 1627 - 1658 The Master Builder Shah Jehan
(Prince Khurram) succeeded his father in 1627. Better ruler than Jehangir. Restored the efficiency of
government. Recovered territories . Maintained peace Foreign traders were allowed into India and trade
increased considerably. The empire was expanded. Shah Jehan was a patron of the arts Built many great
architecture buildings including the Taj Mahal

Shah Jehan: Shah Jehan Taj Mahal ( Mumtaz ) Built in honor of his wife ( Arjuman Bano ) who died
during childbirth. 1657 - Shah Jehan became seriously ill and a dispute over the succession of the throne
between his three sons. Aurangzeb depose Shah Jehan in 1658. Shah Jehan was imprisoned in the
Octagonal Tower of the Agra Fort from which he could see the Taj Mahal . He died in 1666 and was
buried next to his wife in the Taj Mahal .

Aurangzeb 1658 - 1707 The Intolerant: Aurangzeb 1658 - 1707 The Intolerant Aurangzeb ascended
the throne after disposing his father and beating out his two brothers. Dictator severely mistreated
Hindus of Northern India. Empire declines under his reign He removed the tax-free status (Jizya)for
Hindus Destroyed their temples Crushed semi-autonomous Hindu states Primary Interest - Promote
Islam

Aurangzeb: Aurangzeb Aurangzeb over expanded the empire and strained his resources. Large sums of
money and manpower were lost. He lost the support of the Hindu people. The over expansion of his
empire weakened his administration. Aurangzeb died in 1707 Son Bahadur Shah succeeded him., he
only managed to live a few more years. But at this point in time, the government was so unstable and
so weak, the empire become an easy target of invasion and exploitation, first by the Persians, and then
by the British. The death of Aurangzeb, the empire started its gradual decline

PowerPoint Presentation: 1526-1530 Babur’s victory at Panipat in 1526 established the Mughal
Empire and ended the reign of the Delhi Sultanate. The rise of the great Mughal Dynasty in India began
with Babur. 1530-1556 Humayun succeeded his father Babur and became emperor. He was defeated
and dislodged by insurrections of nobles from the old Lodi regime. In 1540, the Mughal domain came
under control of Farid Khan Sur (Shir Shah Sur). Humayun died at the age of 48 when he fell down the
steps of his library. 1556-1605 Akbar, the most sophisticated Mughal commander and leader, was
only 14 years of age when he succeeded his father Humayun. Under Akbar's reign, Muslims and
Hindu’s received the same respect. Summary: The Dynasty of the Great Mughals in India

Summary: The Dynasty of the Great Mughals in India: Summary: The Dynasty of the Great
Mughals in India 1605-1628 Jehangir succeeded his father, Akbar. 1628-1658 Prince Khurram was
35 years old when he ascended the throne as Shah Jehan, King of the World. 1659-1707 In the
summer of 1659, Aurangzeb held a coronation in the Red Fort where he assumed the title of Alamgir

8
(World Conqueror). After a bitter struggle with his two brothers, Aurangzeb was the victor who took
the throne. 1857

Bahadur Shah II, the last Mughal emperor, was deposed in 1858. India was brought under the direct
rule of the British Crown. This brought the end of the Mughal Empire.

Delhi Sultanat:

The Delhi Sultanate was a Muslim kingdom based mostly in Delhi and the Punjab region that stretched
over large parts of the Indian subcontinent for 320 years (1206–1526). Five dynasties ruled over Delhi
Sultanate sequentially, the first four of which were of Turkic origin: the Mamluk dynasty (1206–90);
the Khilji dynasty (1290–1320); the Tughlaq dynasty (1320–1414);[10] the Sayyid dynasty (1414–51);
and the Afghan Lodi dynasty (1451–1526).Qutb-ud-din Aibak, a former slave of Muhammad Ghori,
was the first sultan of Delhi and his dynasty conquered large areas of northern India. Afterwards the
Khilji dynasty was also able to conquer most of central India, but both failed to unite the Indian
subcontinent. This sultanate also is noted for being one of the few states to repel an attack from the
Mongol Empire,[11] and enthroned one of the few female rulers in Islamic history, Razia Sultana from
1236 to 1240.

The Delhi Sultanate reached its peak in terms of geographical reach, during the Tughlaq dynasty,
covering most of Indian subcontinent.[13] The sultanate declined thereafter with continuing Hindu-
Muslim wars, and kingdoms such as Vijayanagara Empire re- asserting their independence as well as
new Muslim sultanates such as Bengal Sultanate breaking off.

The Delhi Sultanate caused destruction and desecration of ancient temples of South Asia, as well as
led to the emergence of Indo-Islamic architecture.In 1526, it fell and was replaced by the Mughal
Empire.

Background By 962 AD, Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms in South Asia were under a wave of raids from
Muslim armies from Central Asia and Persia.[19] Among them was Mahmud of Ghazni, who Raided
and plundered kingdoms in north India from east of the Indus river to west of Yamuna river seventeen
times between 997 and 1030.Mahmud of Ghazni raided the Treasuries but retracted each time, only
extending Islamic rule into western Punjab.

The wave of raids on north Indian and western Indian kingdoms by Muslim warlords continued after
Mahmud of Ghazni, plundering and looting these kingdoms. The raids did not establish or extend
permanent boundaries of their Islamic kingdoms. The Ghurid Sultan Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad began
a systematic war of expansion into north India in 1173. He sought to carve out a principality for himself
by expanding the Islamic World, a tradition common among the warring orthodox (Sunni) and
heterodox (Shia) warlords in West and Central Asia since the 9th century onwards. Mu’izz sought A
Sunni Islamic kingdom of his own extending east of the Indus River, and he thus laid the foundation

9
for the Muslim kingdom called the Delhi Sultanate.Some historians chronicle the Delhi Sultanate from
1192 due to the presence and geographical claims of Mu'izz al-Din in South Asia by that time. Mu'izz
al-Din was assassinated in 1206, by Ismāʿīlī Shia Muslims in some accounts or by Hindu Khokhars in
others. After the assassination, one of Mu’izz slaves (or Mamluk, Arabic: ‫)مملوك‬, the Turkic Qutbu l-
Din Aibak, assumed power, becoming the first Sultan of Delhi.

Qutb-ud-din Aibak was a slave of Mu'izz al-Din, whose reign began the Delhi Sultanate. Aibak was of
Cuman-Kipchak origin,[28] and due to his lineage, his dynasty is known as the Mamluk (slave)
Dynasty (not to be confused with Mamluk dynasty of Iraq or Mamluk dynasty of Egypt). Aibak reigned
as the Sultan of Delhi for four years.

After Aibak died, Aram Shah assumed power in 1210, but he was assassinated in 1211 by Iltutmish,
his nephew. Iltutmish's power was precarious, and a number of Muslim ‫)مملوک‬, (Urdu: ‫ )خاندان غالم‬was
directed into Northern India by Qutb-ud-din Aybak, a Turkic With Sayyid dynasty’s failing powers,
Islam’s history in Indian subcontinent underwent

• West Asia came under Mongol siege.

• were slaughtered in a single day, due to fears of an uprising.
• well as controls on where, how, and by whom these goods could be sold. Markets called
was killed by his son Juna Khan, who then assumed power in 1325 AD. Juna Khan
wars.[32] Iltumish conquered Multan and Bengal from contesting Muslim rulers, as well
Vijayanagara Empire liberated south India from the Delhi Sultanate rule.[50] In 1337,
victories were cut short because of Mongol attacks and plunder raids from northwest. value of
silver coins - a decision that failed because ordinary people minted until Ghiyas ud din Balban
rose to the throne and successfully repelled both external ud din Balban came to power and
ruled from 1266 to 1287.[32][33] He was succeeded by two raids on Malwa (1292) and
Devagiri (1294) for plunder and loot. His military Turko-Afghan origin, and ruled for 6 years
before he was murdered in 1296 by his nephew

Tughlaq:

Tughlaq dynasty is remembered for its architectural patronage, particularly for ancient Tughlak
dynasty, as a puppet of various factions at the court.[45][66] to support the new capital. The capital then
returned to Delhi. Nevertheless, Muhammad titular name of Sultan (‫ )سلطان‬and reigned from 1206 to
1210. He temporarily quelled the time the geographical reach of the Sultanate shrunk. The Vijayanagara
Empire originated through a treaty. Thereafter, the region from Delhi to Benares (then at the border of
threats to the Sultanate.[3][6] The Khilji dynasty came into being when Jalal ud din threat to this power
was killed along with the women and children of that family. In Those who failed to pay taxes were
hunted and executed. Famines, widespread poverty and those who dared build new temples.[86] Other
historical records from wazirs, amirs and those of amirs (Muslim nobles). Firoz Shah Tughlaq reign
was marked by reduction in

This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section the Turkic Islamic
king of Samarkhand. He became aware of the weak and quarreling . The Tughlaq dynasty lasted from

10
1320 to nearly the end of 14th century. The first ruler the throne, only to be assassinated by Iltutmish
in 1211.

The third Sultan was Shams-ud-din Iltutmish (‫)التتمش الدین شمس‬, who had the titular name of the then
Delhi residents into Deccan region led to a growth of Muslim population in The Sultanate under
Iltutmish established cordial diplomatic contact with the Abbasid the Sultan of Delhi was short lived
as he died in 1210 and his son Aram Shah rose to The Somnath Temple in Gujarat was repeatedly
destroyed by Islamic armies and rebuilt by

The second Sultan was Aram Shah (‫)شاہ آرام‬, who had the titular name of Sultan and reigned The Sayyid
dynasty was displaced by the Lodi dynasty in 1451. The Sayyid dynasty was a Turkic dynasty.[67] It
ruled Delhi Sultanate from 1415 to The Qutub Minar, an example of the Mamluk dynasty's works.

the practice of his predecessors who had historically exempted all Hindu Brahmins from The Mongols
withdrew after plundering and stopped raiding northwest parts of the Delhi the man died, his body fell
apart, and only his tied leg reached Daulatabad.[46].The Mamluk, literally meaning owned, was a
soldier of slave origin who had converted to

The Mamluk Dynasty (sometimes referred as Slave Dynasty or Ghulam Dynasty) (Persian: ‫ سلطنت‬The
Lodi dynasty had its origins in the Afghan Lodi tribe.[67] Bahlol Lodi (or Bahlul The inscription was
deciphered by James Prinsep about 480 years later, in 1837; the the Indian subcontinent.[13] the
Himalayas. Few survived that journey. The few who returned were executed for the Gangetic heartland
of India and established control over some of the new areas.

The first Sultan of the Mamluk dynasty was Qutb-ud-din Aibak (‫)ایبک الدین قطب‬, who had the The first
ruler of Khilji dynasty was Jalal-ud-din Firoz Shah Khilji. He came to power The first historical record
of a campaign of temples destruction, and defacement of the court historians of various Sultans of Delhi
Sultanate describe the grandeur of the behest of Turkic, Afghan, and Persian amirs. Jalal-ud-din Firoz
Shah Khilji was of the base metal coin experiment.[52][53] By 1347, Bahmanid Sultanate had become
an tenures. Power shifted from Rukn ud din Firuz to Razia Sultana and others, until Ghiyas
temples.[59] As punishment, wrote the Sultan, he put many Shias, Mahdi and Hindus to temples if the
patron or religious community paid jizya (fee, tax). For example, a taxes collected by local chiefs,
banned socialization among his officials as well as support of Persian and Afghan nobility. Malik Kafur
was killed.[38] The last Khilji Sultans in Delhi. So he marched his way with his army to Delhi,
plundering and killing Sultans

Sultanate. sultan, Firoz Shah left a memoir.[57] In it he wrote that he banned torture in practice

sultan of Multan. Qutub-ud-din-Aybak became the sultan of Delhi, and that was the succession of weak
ْ a tax
rulers, disputing Muslim nobility, assassinations, and short-lived spoils and paid Ghanima (‫الغَني َمة‬,
on spoils of war), which helped strengthen the spending controls strengthened his treasury to pay the

11
keep of his growing army; he South India, with the help of generals such as Malik Kafur and Khusraw
Khan, collecting Simultaneously, he raised taxes and jizya, assessing it at three levels, and stopping
Sikandar Shah Ghazi Lodi and ruled from 1489-1517.[69] One of the better known rulers

Sikandar Lodi died a natural death in 1517, when his second son Ibrahim Lodi assumed shahana-i-
mandi were created.[43] Muslim merchants were granted exclusive permits and Shah, another relative
of Firoz Shah Tughlaq who ruled from Firozabad which was few Shah Tughlaq describes how he
destroyed temples and built mosques instead, and killed scholarly works as Tughlak Shah. He was of
Turko-Indian origins, with a Turkic father Sayyid rules were severely punished, such as by mutilation.
Taxes collected in the form of rulers of this dynasty were two, both calling themselves Sultans from
1394 to 1397 - ruler was Ala-ud-din's 18-year-old son Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Shah Khilji, who ruled
for rule, Delhi Sultanate reached its peak in terms of geographical reach, covering most of rule was
challenged a number of times, such as by Qubacha, and this led to a series of

Revolts against Muhammad bin Tughlaq began in 1327, continued over his reign, and over reused to
build mosques and other buildings. For example, the Qutb complex in Delhi was respond to the
shrinking kingdom.[51] The historian Walford chronicled Delhi and most replaced it.removed. (July
2014)

remains of Hindu temples.[80] Mohammad Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed Buddhist and Hindu reduce
famines by commissioning an irrigation canal from river Yamuna. An educated rechristened himself as
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and ruled for 26 years.[47] During his rebellions of Nasir-ud-Din Qabacha
of Multan and Tajuddin Yildoz of Ghazni. Making rebellion grew across the kingdom. In 1338 his own
nephew rebelled in Malwa, whom he rebelling against Delhi Sultanate.[51] He was succeeded by Firoz
Shah Tughlaq (1351 rebelled against the Sultanate and the kingdom shrunk.

Qutb-ud-din Aibak initiated the construction of Qutub Minar[34] and the Quwwat-ul-Islam Qabacha
of Multan and Tajuddin Yildoz of Ghazni, who had declared themselves contenders Punjab, Haryana
and Uttar Pradesh under the command of Ghuri. Under Khalaji, the Punjab - Dawlat Khan Lodī -
reached out to the Mughal Babur and invited him to attack provinces of the Sultanate. Power shifted
hands from Rukn ud din Firuz to Razia Sultana proposal by the Chinese to repair Himalayan Buddhist
temples destroyed by Sultanate's prohibited repairs of old temples or construction of any new
temples.[82][83] In powerful military caste in various Muslim societies. Mamluks held political and
power. Ibrahim did not enjoy support of Afghan and Persian amirs, or regional chiefs. poetry and other
fields. He was also deeply suspicious of his kinsmen and wazirs pillar script of Emperor Ashoka asked
people of his and future generations to seek a person who failed to move to Deogir, was dragged for the
entire journey of 40 days - persecution, stop all killing, and be compassionate to all living beings.[56]

particularly around Mathura. He also moved his capital and court from Delhi to Agra

Panipat in 1526. Ibrahim Lodi's death ended the Delhi Sultanate, and Mughal Empire or ruling India.
He looted the lands he crossed all the way to Delhi, then plundered

12
On another occasion, after becoming upset by some accounts, or to run the Sultanate of weak rulers
remained in power and a number of the noblemen gained autonomy over the of this dynasty, Sikandar
Lodi expelled his brother Barbak Shah from Jaunpur, installed of India faced severe famines during
Muhammad bin Tughlaq's rule, in the years after of his capital from Delhi to Deogir in Maharashtra
(renaming it to Daulatabad), by of Ghazni. Mohammad Bin Bakhtiyar Khilji got Bengal. Nasir-ud-Din
Qabacha became the of Delhi Sultanate.

of conquests and brutal executions of opposition, he consolidated his power.[31] His Nasir Amir-ul-
Mu'minin (‫ ) المؤمنين ناصرامير‬and reigned from 1211 to 1236. He shifted the Muslim mosque in
Khanapur, Maharashtra was built from the looted parts and demolished Muslim monuments, the
Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutub Minar. In 1210 he died Muslim and Mahdi sects from
proselytizing people into their faith, nor did he tolerate Muslim amir (noble) governors of Bihar agreed
to pay tribute and taxes, but operated Muhammad-bin-Sam. The Qutub Minar Complex or Qutb
Complex was expanded by Iltutmish, Muhammad of Ghor was assassinated.[5] Since he had no
children, his empire split into Muhammad bin Tughlaq was an intellectual, with extensive knowledge
of Quran, Fiqh, Muhammad bin Tughlaq ordered an attack on China,[45] by sending part of his forces
over
Muhammad bin Tughlaq moved his capital to the Deccan Plateau, ordered Delhi people to Muhammad
bin Tughlaq died in 1351 while trying to chase and punish people in Gujarat Mubarak Shah, and tried
to regain lost territories in Punjab. He was unsuccessful.[66] move and build a new capital named
Daulatabad (shown), then reversed his decision months, when Ghazi Malik, later to be called Ghiyas-
ud-din Tughlaq, killed him and months in 1359. However, Bengal did not fall, and remained outside
of Delhi Sultanate. monopoly in these mandi to buy and resell at official prices. No one other than these
minor sultanates led by his former mamluk generals. Taj-ud-Din Yildoz became the ruler minarets.
Firoz Shah decided otherwise, and had them installed near Mosques. The military power most notably
in Egypt, but also in the Levant, Iraq, and India. In 1206, miles from Delhi.[61] The battle between the
two relatives continued till the invasion merchants could buy from farmers or sell in cities. Those found
violating these mandi meaning of Brahmi script on the pillar (right) was unknown in Firoz Shah's
time.[55]

Tughlaq dynasty

Sayyid dynasty

Lodi dynasty

Khilji dynasty

Mahmud Tughlaq, the grandson of Firoz Shah Tughlaq who ruled from Delhi, and Nusrat Maharashtra,
and continued through late 13th century.[16] The campaign extended to

Lodi:

13
Lodi) was the first Afghan, Pathan, to rule Delhi Sultanate and the one who started the Lodi was unable
to consolidate his power. After Jalal Khan's death, the governor of little is known about the rule by
Sayyid dynasty. According to historian William libraries and their manuscripts at Nalanda and
Odantapuri Universities at the beginning lats (pillars, left image).[54] Dated to be from 3rd century BC,
and of Buddhist and large war booty (Anwatan) from those they defeated.[41] His commanders
collected war

Lahore his capital, he consolidated his control over North India through an
known diamonds in human history, the Koh-i-noor.[42]

Khilji

Khilji rule. Among the spoils was the Warangal loot that included one of the largest Juna Khan, who
was also his son-in-law.[38] Juna Khan later came to be known as Ala jizya tax.[58][60] He also vastly
expanded the number of slaves in his service and jizya for those who convert, and by lavishing new
converts with presents and honours.

Jaunpur to expand the influence of Delhi Sultanate, and was partially successful Islam. The
phenomenon started in the 9th century and gradually the Mamluks became a Islam became diluted,
alternate Muslim sects such as Shia rose, and new competing into throats, putting people on fire, driving
nails into hands and feet, among others.intermixed with instances of years where the temples were
protected from desecration.inter-marriage between noble families to help prevent any opposition
forming against
infidels and Hindus during his campaign.[64][65] Timur had no intention of staying in independent of
Delhi Sultanate. Sikandar Lodi led a campaign of destruction of temples, independent and competing
Muslim kingdom in Deccan region of South Asia. increased intolerance and persecution of targeted
groups. include converting Hindus to Sunni Islam by announcing an exemption from taxes and in
southern India as a direct response to attacks from the Delhi Sultanate.[49] The in Lahore.in Delhi
Sultanate by his predecessors, tortures such as amputations, tearing out of in 1290 after killing the last
ruler of the Mamluk dynasty, Muiz ud din Qaiqabad, at idols and temples they witnessed in their
campaigns and how these were destroyed and Hunter,[45] the Delhi Sultanate had an effective control
of only a few miles around

History

Historians note him as a tyrant and that anyone Ala al-din Khilji suspected of being a his son Jalal Khan
as the ruler, then proceeded east to make claims on Bihar. The

Hindus. It was destroyed by Delhi Sultanate's army in 1299 AD.

14
Hindus who tried to rebuild their temples after his armies had destroyed those Hindu origins, the
Sultanate initially wanted to use the pillars to make Mosque him, and he cut salaries of officials, poets,
and scholars.[38] These tax policies and he collected and carried the wealth, captured women and slaves
(particularly skilled Gujarat during Timur’s invasion, returned and nominally ruled as the last ruler of
grandson of Balban, and assumed the throne at Delhi. grain were stored in kingdom's storage. During
famines that followed, these granaries governors and southern parts led by Hindu kings had revolted
and declared independence governor of Jaunpur by his father and had support of the amirs and
chiefs.[68] Ibrahim

Ghazi Malik rechristened himself as Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq and is also referred to in Genghis Khan
and his successors.[3] Following the death of Iltutmish in 1236 a series general from Central Asia. It
was the first of five unrelated dynasties to rule India's

Legacy of Muslim in India:

What was the condition of the Hindus under Muslim rule in India? This is a very natural question, and
in the present situation of the country the inquiry has a significance of the deepest practical importance.
Every tree is judged by its fruit; and the ideal Muslim Government of India, namely, a theocracy
administered for Allah by His agents, showed its unmistakable practical consequences in the moral,
intellectual and economic condition of the people of this vast sub-continent when Muslim rule ended
and British administration began. When Wellesley and the Marquis of Hastings established British
paramountcy after overthrowing the six-century old Muslim domination, what Indian does not blush as
he reads in the history of that conquest, how hopelessly weak our country was in defence, how abjectly
degraded in spirit and education our people were, and how inefficient and corrupt the public
administration, conducted entirely by 'natives' had become?

True, our Hindu rulers had shown a similar bankruptcy of capacity at the end of the Hindu period, when
youthful Islam first attacked India. But in that age the Hindu intellect was still active and it continued
to produce gems of thought and heroes of action even during he early stage of the expansion of Islamic
political sway over the country. But in the age of Wellesley and Hastings, 1798-1818, Muslim rule had
turned India into a sort of "Darkest Affica" as regards culture, thought and character, and we had to take
our inspiration for a new birth of the spirit only by turning to Europe in the 19th century.

The poison lay in the very core of Islamic theocracy. Under it there can be only one faith, one people,
and one all overriding authority. The state is a religious trust administered solely by His people (the
Faithful) acting in obedience to the Commander of the Faithful, who was in theory and very often in
practice too, the supreme General of the Army of militant Islam (janud). Every Muslim sovereign
claimed to be the Khalif of the Age, and as such the "Commander of the Faithful" and shadow
(representative) of God - the true sovereign. There could be no place for non-believers, not even for the
heretical sub-divisions of Islam (such as the Shias in a Sunni state like that of the Sultans and Padishahs

15
of Delhi) in its administration. Even Jews and Christians could not be full citizens of it, though they
somewhat approached the Muslims by reason of their being "People of the Book" - or believers in the
Bible, which the Prophet of Islam accepted as revealed, though insufficient for salvation, unless
supplemented by his Quran. The Muslim attitude to these Ahal-i-Kitab is well expressed in the
following verses quoted by AI Badayieni, an orthodox literary champion of Islam and enemy of the
liberal philosophers Abul FazI and Faizi:

"The water touched by a jew is impure:

But it will do to wash the corpse of a Christian"

Zimmis

As for the Hindus and Zoroastrians, they had no place in such a political system. If their existence was
tolerated it was only to use them as hewers of wood and drawers of water, as tax-payers "Khiraj-guzar"
for the benefit of the dominant sect of the Faithful. They were called Zimmis or people under a contract
of protection by the Muslim state on condition of certain services to be rendered by them and certain
political and civil disabilities to be borne by them to prevent them from growing strong. The very term
zimmi is an insulting title like "the Protected Princes" of British India. It connotes political inferiority
and helplessness like the status of a minor proprietor perpetually under a guardian; such protected
people could not claim equality with the citizens of the Muslim theocracy. Could the late Gaikwar
Sayaji Rao, as he trembled and hobbled before George V at the Delhi Darbar of 1912, be called a ruler
bound in equal alliance with the British King, or even possessed of the same rights as a British peer?

Thus by the basic conception of the Muslim state all non-Muslims are its enemies and it is the interest
of the state to curb their growth in number and power. The ideal aim was to exterminate them totally,
as Hindus, Zoroastrians and Christian nationals have been liquidated (sometimes totally, sometimes
leaving a negligible remnant behind) in Afghanistan, Persia and the Near East. The last remnants of the
descendants of Alexander's soldiers, settled in north-eastern Afghanistan, were ground down to accept
Islam and their province's name changed from Kafiristan to Nuristan (province luminious with Islam)
in our own lifetime.

Whatever tended to strengthen the Hindus would ipso facto constitute a menace to Islamic
predominance. The same was seen in the late lamented British Indian Empire, when a Bengali who
learnt military science in Mexico or France immediately became a political suspect and was ever
afterwards shadowed by the CID as a potential traitor. But the British, while curbing the martial spirit
of our educated classes, did not try to crush the Hindu mind at its source: they did not forbid the study
of Hindu philosophy and the practice of the Hindu religion, rather encouraged them and opened the
gates of the Temple of Western Science to us. Not so, the orthodox Muslim rulers of India.

16
Part II

Temple Destruction

The temples of the Hindus often served as seats of learning besides being scenes of religious worship.
The late Sister Nivedita never wearied in her praise of the vast temples of South India as exactly like
the Cathedral closes of medieval England. Here in, the many cloisters running along the inside of the
boundary walls, the young students lived and studied and they joined in the arati in the evening. To
strike at the great temples was to strike at the roots of Hindu learning through Sanskrit, then the only
vehicle of higher education. Instances are on record of Hindu teachers and preachers being put to death
by Firuz Shah, Aurangzib and other pious Muslim sovereigns - who are still extolled as model rulers of
the theocracy. In addition, a slow but sure policy was adopted for removing all temples from the face
of India. Aurangzib at the very beginning of reign (1658) wrote in his Benares Farman, "According to
our Holy Law, long standing temples should not be demolished, but no new temple should be allowed
to be built." But he himself did not follow even this limited restraint of the Shariat. In his letters collected
by his "disciple" and "secretary" Inayetullah Khan, we find one that states: "The temple of Somnath
was demolished early in my reign and idol-worship there put down. It is not known what the state of
things there is at present. If the idolaters have again taken to the worship of images, then destroy the
temple in such a way that no trace of the building may be left." On 9th April 1669, he issued a general
order to the governors of all the provinces of his Empire to demolish the schools and temples of the
infidels and to put down strongly their teaching and religious practices. (His official history, Maasir-i-
Alamgiri, Persian text, p. 81). How this order was everywhere carried out throughout his reign of half
a century, can be read in detail with dates in my History of Aurangzib, Vol. Ill, chapter 34, appendix V.
At the very end of his life, a new temple built near Murshidabad was demolished under strict official
orders. The letter translated from Persian is given in my introduction to Bankim Chandra's Sitaram,
Bangiya Sahitya Parishad edition.

It has been urged by this pious Emperor's ignorant admirers that temples were destroyed only when
they were strongholds of rebels and centres of plots hatched by his political enemies. A Persian report,
written from Delhi and preserved among the state records of Jaipur, tells us that Aurangzib had sent an
order to the ever-loyal Raja of Jaipur to demolish a large number of temples in his dominions, and when
His Majesty read the Muhtasib's report that the order had been faithfully carried out, he cried out in
admiration, "Ah, he (i.e. Raja Ram Singh Kachhwa) is a khanazad, i.e., a hereditary loyal slave."

So much for his modem apologists. Even in our own days, Osman Ali Khan, ninety per cent of whose,
subjects are Hindus, rejoiced thus in a ghazal of his own composition which was published in the
periodical Rahbar-I-Daccan (25, February 1939):

17
• Band naqus hua sunke nara-e-takbir
• Zalzala a ho gaya rishta-e-zunnar poi bho.

It means: The pealing of conches and the ringing of bells have been stopped on hearing the shout Allah-
o-Akbar. An earthquake is shaking the sacred threads (worn by Hindus).

What reaction this policy naturally provoked among the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and Bundelas when the
brute force of the Muslim Government declined in the 18th century is a well-known tale of Indian
History.

Economic Repression

The Emperor Aurangzib (reign 1658-1707) was an orthodox Hanafi Sunni sovereign and the political
exemplar of Muhammadan writers, past and present. Every regulation of his Government was
determined like that of Firuz Tughlaq and Sikandar Lodi - by the letter of the Quranic law. He reimposed
the jaziya or tax per head on the Hindus. The Quran (IX, 29) calls upon the Muslims "to fight those who
do not profess the true faith, till they pay jaziya with the hand in humility (ham sagkhirun)." This was
a poll-tax payable by Hindus (and also Christians) for permission to live in their ancestral homes under
a Muslim sovereign. The object of Aurangzib in imposing it (by a decree operating from 2nd April,
1679), was "to spread Islam and depress the infidel faith" as his own Secretary words it. The Italian
traveller Nicholo Manucci at the very time noted this fact: he writes, "Many Hindus, who were unable
to pay turned Muslim to obtain relief from the insults of the tax-collectors, Aurangzib rejoices that by
such exactions these Hindus will be forced into embracing the Muhammadan faith."

It has been pleaded in our times that the jaziya was a fair tax paid by the Hindus for exemption from
compulsory military service. But it was only as late as May 10, 1855, when English and French
sympathy had to be secured by the Sultan of Turkey for the war against Russia that a decree was issued,
replacing the jaziya as a tax on the free exercise of religion by a tax for exemption from military service
in European Turkey. (See Encyclopaedia of Islam, i, 1052). We should not forget that every Muslim
was exempt from the payment of jaziya even when he did not serve in the army, nor was called up as a
conscript; and those Muslims who did serve received full wages for the work.

18
Besides, the true nature of the jaziya can be clearly seen from the Quranic commentary on the method
of collecting the tax; it is laid down that the zimmi must pay the tax personally; if he sends the money
by the hand of an agent, it is to be refused; the taxed person must come on foot and pay the money
standing, while the receiver should be seated, etc. This explains the Quranic direction, ham sagkhirun,
i.e. "with marks of humiliation." That these rules were enforced in India is illustrated by many examples
cited in the Persian manuscript records, Akhbarat.

In addition to the obligation to pay this poll-tax, the Hindu was subjected to many disabilities by the
very constitution of the Muslim theocracy. He must distinguish himself from the Muslims by wearing
a humble dress, and sometimes adding a label of a certain colour to his coat. He must not ride on horse-
back or carry arms - though wearing the sword was a necessary part of the dress of every gentleman of
that age. He must show a generally respectful attitude towards Muslims - "Natives must salam every
sahib they meet on the road." The Hindu was also under certain legal disabilities in giving testimony in
law courts, protection under the criminal law, and in marriage. Finally, in the exercise of his religion he
must avoid any publicity that may rouse the wrath of the followers of the Prophet.

Can this "depressed" sect be called citizens of the Muslim state? No, answers that most authoritative
work, the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. I, pp. 958-959.

Under the Canon Law, as followed in Islamic countries, a man who converts a Muslim to some other
faith is liable to death at the hands of any private Muslim, and so also is the apostate from Islam. A
Muslim murdering a Hindu on private grounds was not subjected to the choice between payment of "the
price of blood" and death at the hands of the heir of the murdered man - which was the legal right of
Musalmans aggrieved in such conditions.

So much for the political and legal equality of all sects in the Islamic theocracy.

Women's Fate

What most wounded the hearts of the non-Muslims - Christians and Jews, as much as Hindus - was the
lot of non-Muslim women under Muslim sway. Whatever may have been the theory, in practice
everywhere it amounted to this that conversion of the victim to Islam sanctified the seduction or
abduction of non-Muslim women. Kinglake in his Eothen gives an illustration of it from Turkey as late
as 1830-40: In the city of Nablous, a Muslim Shaikh of great wealth and local influence had accidentally
seen a beautiful young Christian girl, recently married to a Christian youth, and plotted to "gratify his
passion by inducing her to embrace his own creed: if he could get her to take this step, her marriage
with the Christian would be dissolved, and then there would be nothing to prevent him from making
her his own wife... The Shaikh was a practical man;... he sent no tracts, not even a copy of the holy
Quran. An old woman acted as missionary. She brought her a whole basket, full of arguments - jewels,
and shawls and scarves. Poor Mariam (the Christian bride)! She put on the jewels and took a calm view
of the Mahomedan Religion in a little hand-mirror - she could not be deaf to such eloquent earrings,
and the great truths of Islam came home to her young bosom in the delicate folds of the Cashmere
(shawl); she was ready to abandon her faith." (Chapter 25).

Similar cases were known in Mughal India and have been tried in British law courts too, owing to the
convenient doctrine that conversion to Islam dissolves a woman's previous lawful marriage.

19
Of the forcible abduction of Hindu women by powerful grandees and even by Nawabs, which went
unpunished and was not even treated as "cognisable" by the then police and judiciary, examples are
frequent in the histories and travel-reports of that time. It will be enough to say here that the French
Chief of Chandemagore, M. Jean Law, who came to fight the English for Siraj-ud-daula, but arrived
too late (after Plassey had been fought), tells in his Memoire that the young nawab used to ride to any
village where his servants reported the existence of a beautiful young woman, and then get her abducted
and placed in his harem. This was in 1757.

About the same time Shuja-ud-daula, the Nawab Wazir of Lucknow, took a fancy on a young Khatri
virgin whom he had seen during his ride, and after getting her abducted by his servile tools and ruining
her turned her out of his harem. The story is told without any blush by the historian of his house, Sayyid
Ghulam Ali Naqavi in his Imad-us-Sadat.

The parda system was introduced among the free Arab women after the incident of Zainab. It has
become a rigid institution among Hindus and Muslims in Northern India, where Muslim rule was most
extensive and lasted longest. The fact that parda is not observed among the Hindus of Madras,
Maharashtra, Kerala and the Mongoloid fringe (except among a few rich families that pretend to be
Rajputs) clearly indicates how it originated in North India during Muslim rule.

Seduction or abduction sanctified by the recital of the Kalima was only one among the various devices
practised for increasing the number of Muslims by hook or crook. Public service except of the lowest
kind was denied to the Hindus who were vastly in the majority and usually superior in capacity. It is
recorded by Abul Fazi that the Muslims of his time called Akbar an apostate from Islam, a kafir chiefly
because he had sought to unite the nation by granting toleration to all religions (Sulh-i-kul, peace to all)
and by including highly competent Hindus among his umara or upper nobility of office. Conversely
Aurangzib is admired by many even today, for having "by one stroke of pen" dismissed all the Hindu
clerks and imposed discriminating custom duties on the Hindus merchants, while allowing the goods
of his co-religionists to pass free.

In Western Rajputana there is a sect called Bishnois who are a branch of the Vishnu-worshippers, but
have many nonconformist tenets and practices and do not honour the Brahmans as priests. Aurangzib
wrote to his local governor there to prevent them from amalgamating with the orthodox or regular
Hindus, but to try every means of bringing them over to Islam by inducing them to drop their remaining
Hindu rites and beliefs. His orders to this effect have been preserved among the Persian records of the
Jaipur State. Thus under Islamic theocracy, religion ceased to be a concern of the human soul in its
quest for the Creator but degenerated into a mere instrument of political gerrymandering.

The strict theory of the Shariat, however, did not always and everywhere prevail in Muslim India; such
uniformity of pressure was impossible in this vast continent of a country. In practice, the Hindus were
left to toleration of a sort and freedom in business in villages and remote corners, where the mullas did
not penetrate and even in cities when the ulema slept under a just Sultan. The two creeds touched each
other at the very top and at the very bottom only. As T. W. Arnold remarks: "In mysticism they found
a common basis for religious thought. In Kashmir a Muhammadan ziarat frequently marks the site of a
Hindu Tirtha; it is then stated to be the tomb of a saint (Pir)... Such survivals from Hinduism are more
marked in villages and country districts remote from the influence of the Ulema. Here the Muslims still
continue to worship the tutelary godlings of the village and join the Hindu festivals."

20
In addition, some mixed sects were formed, which attempted to bring about a reconciliation between
Muslims and Hindus; but they were dissenting bodies, and stood clearly removed - like outcasts - from
the vast orthodox bodies of the two sects. The worst mischief done by the dominance of Islam in the
state was its reaction in brutalising the Hindu character. Hinduism in many places lost its liberal tolerant
character, which sees God in every being and admits that every religion, if sincerely practised, will lead
to salvation. "Just as the water of the Ganges, flowing through a hundred mouths, all enters the ocean,
so the different paths of salvation prescribed by the different scriptures of the world all lead to God."
(Kalidas). Hindus now learnt to retaliate and pay the ruling bigots in their own coins. The Jaipur Raja
(bout 1660-100) reconverted some former Hindus from Islam by Suddhi. Shivaji's general Netaji Balkar
had been forced by Aurangzib in 1646 to embrace Islam as Muhammad QuIi, but in 1676 the great
Maratha king "made him Hindu again by Prayashchitta." When the pealing of conches in Hindu temples
was obstructed, a Rajput raja forbade the chanting of the Azan or the Muslim call to prayer. One jaziya-
collector's beard were plucked in Berar, another of these harsh officers was beaten to death in Rutlam.
The Sikhs retaliated for the desecration of their temple by the Muslims and the slaying of cows in
Amritsar (1762): when they returned in full force they compelled their Muslim prisoners to work in
chains under the lash and cleanse the temple and wash the ground with hog's blood. The mere murder
of an infidel (such as a Hindu or European Christian officer) is considered a pious deed by the Pathan
ghazis of the North-West Frontier Province (like the murder of Lord Mayo). By a most deplorable
reaction, whenever such a murderer was convicted and hanged by the British courts, for some years a
tuft of dry grass used to be placed on the navel of the corpse and set fire to, before it was buried, to
ensure that his soul "went to hell by way of fire". In the late 18th century a body of Sikh horsemen came
to Delhi and demolished a mosque in Rikabganj as an act of vengeance. In Lord Robers' Afghan
Campaign the Gurkhas (and Sikhs?) treated the Pathan dead in the same way till stopped by British
orders. (See Ashe's Afghan War.)

Such was the condition to which the Hindus were reduced by Islamic theocracy. Did the dominant sect
profit by this policy? What was the moral and intellectual condition of the faithful at the end of Muslim
rule in India? They were even more unhappy and helpless than the Hindus to face the moving modern
world. Look outside for the reason of it.

Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been turned into a desert haunted by
ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim
rule. (See Kinglake's graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a garden,
miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of orange and citron, the chemical
resources of the Dead Sea are being extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised
life have been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to go there from the
countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the living history.

British Rule in India: British Rule in India

British Rule: British Rule East India Company 1601 James Lancaster (Commander) Trade (Cotton,
Silk, Salt, Tea) Surat, Madras, Bombay Calcutta… Trading zone Well Established in 1690 Battle of
Palessy 1757 was the major offense by Company against Nawab Sirajudolla of Bengal Captured
Bombay from Marathas Conquered Mysore by defeating Tipu Sultan, Battle of Seringapatam 1799

21
For Complete CSS History of Indo
Pakistan Notes

Call At:
03084293988,
03314019933

22
For Complete CSS History of Indo
Pakistan Notes

Call At:
03084293988,
03314019933

23