Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


if i had the mental energy, i would try to improve this article. it looks great already ;] בינה תפארת (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... maybe if it looked great then, we should revert. It has quite a few problems now. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim POV[edit]

20 Million deaths? Wait, wait, Are you trying to tell me that Medieval India consisted had more than 20 millions which were to die?

The section on the "conversion" clearly shows the lack of actual historical knowledge on the side of its author, The author of it simply called the followers of "this islam" "barbaric" and "done many bad things"-- This alone contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV and I, consequently, removed the whole section until it is re-written from a NPOV. 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Pro-Muslim POV: should be called muslim crusade of the indian sub-continent[edit]

another muslim crusade that gets a complete pass for being the atrocity that it iz wrong for me but xyz iz just fine for anyone else.just another case of "i'll just pick and choose the things from history that are convenient for me to remember and forget the things that are convenient for me to forget" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since crusade has the cross built right into the word, maybe not the most felicitous title. Conquest does just fine, especially given the temporary nature of the actual crusades. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


The article, "Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent" seriously needs "proper" rewriting. The fact of the matter is many paragraphs are actually pro Muslims and mere fantasies. How can its say, trade expanded because of Islam when it was already Well established before Islam, i.e silk route.

Many of the facts are irrelevant to arrival of Islam in south Asia. As European economic expanded, its trade was expanded with other countries including India as well therefore one cannot say arrival of Islam is responsible of trade expansion! Also age of exploration also helped Trade expansion, not Islam.

One more thing, Islam also destroyed many ancient Indian universities and did not built any infrastructure which "contributes to science" and destroyed Hindu, Buddhist, Jain temples and universities and built Mosques on them which is irrelevant to science expansion! So it will be better for "proper" rewriting of Impact of Islam that should include its atrocities on Hindu civilization!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before making any contentious edits. Removing large chunks of content just because they have not been tagged with citations on this article is no reason for removing them. The text you removed about technology is most likely verifiable and the architecture part is unchallengeable. Any thing added to the article can not be discriminatory or giving undue weight to something. Also keep in notice that if you don't like the content of the article or because you think it is not correct WP:TRUTH, it doesn't mean you can remove it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is; all my points above are not deniable and also many point in your so called “Impact of Islam and Muslims” is irrelevant to Islam, one example, you have written (without any source) that “because of Muslims rulers and Islam, large urbanization took place in India”, which is completely false and nothing more than "propagandist statement” as population expanded which ultimately results in more urbanization, this “happen everywhere” not just Muslims countries but all round the World so crediting Islam or Muslims rules in particular, is again nothing more than propagandist. Also you have not written anything about economic sanctions on Non-Muslim population under Muslims rule which also include Jizya and other discriminations as well.--Pt.Sumit (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I've not written this content. Wikipedia is contributed to by a number of editors. I just reverted when you removed chunks of information without any explanation. There are parts of information that are verifiable. And the article itself is not so well sourced at the moment. It needs some working from all aspects. Removing material at this stage will tilt the article to a certain POV. It is better to use citation tags so that some other editor will eventually cite the material. Cherry picking content and adding only one side's POV is not the way it's done here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoever written it, it does seem you are not interested in removing /replacing it with true and sourced information! Just by reading it, one can easily get the pro-Muslim appeal to the article which contents "many unfactual" and "irrelevant to Islam" information which itself is a violation of Wikipedia’s policies of neutrality and Correct information! Also the articles says, “Conversion controversy” which again; is completely false information to begin with. If I and many Muslims writers start saying "Osama bin laden was a Hindu" that does not make it a controversy or a thing for a debate, it will simply be “a completely false and propagandist information” similarly saying, conversion was because of genuine change of heart is again; biggest false information ever and it does not make it a topic of great debate or a "controversy" indicating that there is a possibility of such thing happening. Also it is clearly given in "Al-Hind", how they did convert people of Hindustan to Islam starting from Gandhara (Article: How 'Gandhara' became 'Kandahar')(Read it!) and latter whole India!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I reverted those edits but they do need improvement and inline citations. The edits you just claimed to make are completely undue. The word controversy would be the right word. Just because some citations say it is the 'fact' doesn't mean it is, because others will very much argue against it. So what you need to read before editing this is WP:UNDUE & WP:POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Pt. is obviously bringing rather too much of his own baggage into the article (inter alia, the Silk Road had almost nothing to do with India as it ran well north of the Himalayas & it was staffed by Muslims for a goodly portion of its existence), but it should go without saying that mentions of trade and architecture easily run afoul of WP:RELEVANT in an article on conquest. Surely there are articles on, say, Indo-Islamic architecture and the Economic history of India where such issues should actually be discussed. Including them via a see also link here is generous or even questionable.
With respect, TopGun could do with looking over WP:UNDUE again himself. UNDUE deals with treating rogue, pet, or nationalistic theories (like, say, the idea that the conquest of India was a peaceful affair by friendly Sufi wisemen) as though they were reliable sources; it has nothing at all to do with removing unsourced claims, which is fine and particularly so when those claims themselves run afoul of UNDUE. Mentioning lots of extraneous irrelevant cultural details in a page on conquest is itself a violation of UNDUE.
I'm not defending all of Pt's stance or edits, but this page does currently have some UNDUE problems & they're not the ones being misrepresented in this exchange. There is no legitimate controversy that the Muslim expansion in India was either heartless domination or a peaceful love-in. There were elements at different times of both, there's some controversy of the extent of both, and sections of the article need rewriting and sourcing to reflect that. — LlywelynII 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, fwiw, WP:Beware of the tigers is rather less obnoxious than that "truth" link. WP:DONTBITE. — LlywelynII 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead In[edit]

The first sentence in the lead in is very confusing. It says...

"Muslim conquest in South Asia mainly took place from the 13th to the 16th centuries, though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into the region, beginning during the period of the ascendancy of the Rajput Kingdoms in North India, from the 7th century onwards."

The part after the first comma seems like it should be a separate sentence but it's not a full sentence. Desasu11 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. Awkward, maybe. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

one of the bloodiest chapter in human history ? really ? and you're using rđa Trifković , the fervant islam hater as a reference ? how does the muslim conquest of india compare to the mongol invasions of the middle east? the conquest of the americas and the near-extermination of the natives in north america? the holocaust ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." from Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization|url= August 2012|date=7 June 2011|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-1-4516-4668-9|pages=725

Population of India,Pakistan,Bangladesh (South Asia) during 1000 and 1500 AD[edit]

According to this source: Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Graziella Caselli,Jacques Vallin,Guillaume J. Wunsch, page 34, 2006. Online

The population of South Asia (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) increased

DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Too much indian nationalism in this article guys this wikipedia not[edit]

Too much indian nationalism in this article guys this wikipedia not

examples they think Afghanistan belongs to india, Afghanistan was never part of it but pakistan was. The indus river is border between Iranian plateau and greater India!!!! get facts right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talkcontribs) 20:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Brother, relax. Nobody is saying it was a part of India. It WAS a part of the Indian Subcontinent, and still is. More importantly, Afghanistan WAS a part of the Mughal empire, which is also referred to as "India," broadly speaking. If you want to change the second phrase to "Northwestern Indian Subcontinent" I don't have any objections. Leave that first bit alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Please understand, Afghanistan is the Northwestern extreme of South Asia also known as the Indian sub-continent. It is part of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). Afghanistan is recognised and respected as a sovereign nation and it belongs to the Afghani people themselves. Nobody claims that the country of Afghanistan belongs to India (or any other country for that matter) and there is no nationalism involved at all. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan was ruled by Turks, Buddhists, Hindus, Persians and others. The context of your concern must have been about the Hindu Kabul Shahi dynasty of Afghanistan who were defeated by Mahmud Ghazni's father. Before these Hindu rulers there were also Persian, Greek and Buddhist rulers as well in Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean that Afghanistan belongs to any other country. Instead it belonged to the Afghani people. So just chill bro ! Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Will Durant and Jadunath Sarkar[edit]

My bad for not being clear in my edit summary. When I said "he never made such a book" I was referring to Sarkar not Durant; whom never wrote that book nor does a book with that title exists. As for Durants, he does not say that on 495 nor anything like it through his book (link to PDF of book here). Also for "Source is unreadable", I was referring to KashmirHerald which leads to nothing. Its quit odd that there are two links referring to something that was never said/written, dont you think? AcidSnow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Issues about this article keep appearing at the noticeboards and the Help Desk. This is a reminder that this article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions and is subject to Arbitration Enforcement arising from WP:ARBIP. Anyone who is planning to report any issues at a public forum such as the Help Desk or the noticeboards should first read the boomerang essay. If you report edit warring but have been edit warring yourself, you are likely to face sanctions. Use caution and judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by User:Ghatus[edit]


I have reverted your edits as I find that there was no reason attributed for section blanking, deleting tags without acting on them & a few edits which do not seem to add value or context to the article. In fact you have not given edit summaries for your edits from this edit to this one. Moreover, you have not added any references to support your edits. Please discuss your edits & get consensus as your actions look suspiciously like vandalism. Your account looks like a single purpose account too. AshLin (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

King Bhoja and defeat of the Ghaznavi army[edit]

Battle against Ghaznavis: Gujarat was a vessel state of Bhoja. In early 11th century Ghaznavi attacked Gujarat and Somnath after plundering East Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan. The King of Gujarat informed the whole matter to King Bhoja. King Bhoja then organized a huge army and marched against Ghaznavi. Ghaznavi himself fearing the powerful army of Bhoja retreated through the shortest route i.e. via the desert of Sindh to avoid a clash. But, his army was severely destroyed. Then, Bhoja marched against Ghazi Salar Masud, the nephew of Ghaznavi and the man in charge of the north India for Ghaznavi, and annihilated them in the Battle of Bahraich. Masud was killed and the whole army of Ghaznavi was permanently thrown away form India.

Please provide verifiable references. AshLin (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Muhammadans did not make a great stand, hut fled ; many of tliem were slain by Hindu scymitars and prostrated by Rajput war-clubs(Page-112)

also check the wikipedia page of "King Bhoja"

Rajputs and south India between 13th and 16th century[edit]

From the time of Tuglaqs in the early 14th century, Rajputs again started to consolidate their powers. The Mewar reestablished their supremacy under Maharana Hammir. Hammir defeated Muhammad bin Tughlaq with Bargujars as his main allies, and captured him. Tughlaq had to pay a huge ransom and relinquish all of Mewar's lands. After this the Delhi Sultanate did not attack Chittorgarh for a few hundred years.

The Rajputs re-established their dominance, and Rajput states were established as far east as Bengal and north into the Punjab. The Tomaras established themselves at Gwalior(central India), and the ruler Man Singh Tomar built the fortress which still stands there. Mewar emerged as the leading Rajput state, and Rana Kumbha expanded his kingdom at the expense of the sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. Kapilendra Deva or Kapileshvara Deva was the emperor of Kalinga-Utkal (Orissa) and the founder of the Gajapati dynasty which annexed large swathes of territory in Telengana, Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the south to Madhya Pradhesh in central India and most of present day Bengal in the north. South India was, however, free from the hustle and bustle of the North under Vijayanagar Empire.

Rana Sanga of Mewar invaded many territories of the Lodis. Ibrahim Lodi fought Sanga repeatedly, only to be defeated each time, losing much of his land and Sanga's military influence came to extend within striking distance of Agra, the then the most important city of the North India.


Please check the wikipedia page of "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquest of India" and "Maratha Empire". All sources are already there. I am adding nothing.

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests appears to be a pathetically sourced article and reeks of POV writing;
1. Sudhir Kakar, is not a historian and has no specialization in the time period in question
2. Encyclopedia Brittanica, an unspecialized tertiary source, which should not be used
3. "Muslim conquest and the Rajputs", with outdated historiography(1922), appears to be unverifiable, no listing on google books. amazon, alibris, abebooks....
4. "Serving empire, serving nation: James Tod and the Rajputs of Rajasthan", clearly taken out of context to support the POV of that article.
5. "A Historical Review of Hindu India: 300 B. C. to 1200 A. D", also unverifiable, also containing outdate historiography(1939).
I find no mention of Lodi or Rana Sanga in the Maratha Empire article. Also, "Târikh-i-Soraṭh, a history of the provinces of Soraṭh and Hâlâr in Kâthiâwâd" is a primary source translated in 1882, which is clearly outdated. You need to find modern reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Defeat of the Army of Ghaznavi[edit]

@Kansas Bear

I am giving you as much "reliable" sources as possible,judging as far the current sources of this current article are concerned. Now, it's upto you to decide whether to write proper history or to write concocted fancies.


     1)The Writings of Turkic author Gardizi. (The Ornament of Histories - The History of the Eastern Islamic Lands AD 650-1041)

    2) “The Discovery of India” by Jawaharlal Nehru. (Page-251, L-18-19, Penguin Ind., ISBN Number: 978-0-143-03103-1))
 3) “Somanatha: The Many Voices of History” ( ISBN 1-84467-020-1) by Marxist historian Romila Thapar.     
 4) A Persian text named “Tarikh-i-Sorath” vividly depicts the destruction of  the army of Ghaznavi at the hands of Rajputs. The English translation by Ranchodji Amarji in 1882, Divan of Junagadh, runs as follows(bad translations/typos in some parts):

"...This(attack on somnath) act so provoked the Mahdraja Masidalika, who was a protector of his own religion, that he marched with Bhim Dera, the Raja of Gujarat, in pursuit :

They ran like fawns and leaped like onagers^ As lightning now, and now outvying wind I

The Mohammedans did not make a great stand, hut fled ; many of them were slain by Hindu scimitars and prostrated by Rajput war-clubs, and when the sun of the Raja's fortune culminated, Shah Mahmud(reference to Ghaznavi) took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but many of his followers, of both sexes, were captured. Female prisoners were, if they happened to be virgins, considered pure according to their own belief, and were without any difficulty taken as wives ; the bowels of the others, how- ever, were cleansed by means of emetics and pur- gatives, and the captives were after that disposed of ^according to the command, " The wicked women to the wicked men, and the good women to the good men." The low females were joined to low men. Respect- able men were compelled to shave their beards and Were enrolled among the Shekhavat and the wadhet tribes of Rajputs. ”

Also read Battle of Bahraich of the early 11th century.[edit]

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs) 10:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As I stated before, "Târikh-i-Soraṭh, a history of the provinces of Soraṭh and Hâlâr in Kâthiâwâd" is a primary source. This coupled with the fact your methodology is clearly biased and you can not or will not do the proper research(Nehru:lawyer, Gardizi:Persian not Turkic(Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources, Scott Cameron Levi, page 59) for these sources leads me to believe you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
  • Also, to highlight your lack of proper research, Studies in "Alberuni's India, Arvind Sharma, page 132 n.56, "It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India...".
  • Jawaharlal Nehru, was a politician and lawyer, not a historian.
  • Abu Saʿīd Gardēzī writings are also considered a primary source.
  • “Somanatha: The Many Voices of History”, page 176, makes no mention of a battle, "The Tarikh-i-Sorath of Ranchodji Amaraji, written in 1825, refers briefly to Mahmud's raid and gives some information on the fate of the temple from the eighteenth century". No mention of a battle. Again poor research.
  • You should take your own advice, "decide whether write proper history or to write concocted fancies". --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

All we know about Ghaznavi are from literary sources. You are allowing one set of literary sources in wiki page and totally rejecting other sets of literary sources. A neutral observer must present both sets of literary sources. That's not being done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs) 03:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pity you continue to ignore the facts when told to you. You wish to write history to suit your own personal opinion(s). The author of Tarikh-i-Sorath was not a historian and the historian Arvind Sharma clearly states, "It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India... This coupled with the facts that Nehru was not a historian, your Gardezi "source" has no page number or quote and your Thapar source makes absolutely mention of a battle, but you believe you should have license to write whatever you want. Neutrality has nothing to do with it. You have nothing. You have presented nothing. I have shown your sources to be both unreliable and that you have clearly distorted information from these sources to push your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You yourself have already reached conclusions. Pity. When an eminent historian(Thapar) says" follow this book for details", you call the book crap or a portion of it "crap". When she refers to it, she means to read it fully to get a historical perspective or angle. Again, I do not know what "possibly exaggerated" means. The historian himself is not sure and at the same time it implies that "something certainly happened" but the "extent of the event is not clear". By the way, you should research what level of respect "Discovery of India-by Nehru" enjoys among the historian fraternity.But sadly,You are allowing one set of literary sources in wiki page and totally rejecting other sets of literary sources on probably some personal grounds. All the perspectives must be mentioned.

Wrong. Per reliable sources, Nehru is not a historian, therefore is not a reliable source. Where does Thapar say follow this book for details? Pity you have to resort to lying, "The Tarikh-i-Sorath of Ranchodji Amaraji, written in 1825, refers briefly to Mahmud's raid and gives some information on the fate of the temple from the eighteenth century". This is a direct quote from the source you provided! There is no mention of a battle and no mention to refer to the Tarikh-i-Sorath. Either provide evidence from a reliable source or drop it. Continue to make this issue personal, and I'll contact an Admin to help you with your issues.
But sadly, you will not accept what a real historian has said about the fairy tale battle, probably some personal grounds. "It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India." Oxford History of India makes no mention of a battle after Somanatha. Your personal interpretation of what Arvind Sharma's states is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Some Edits[edit]

1)Maratha Empire rose after the Mughal, and the British rose after the Marathas .

2)Added a “ proper and scaled Maratha Empire Map” in place of a childish drawing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs) 03:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC) 

Marathas rose after the Mughal and The British rose after the Marathas[edit]

I referred to the wiki article for going through the references and citations, not to follow what is written there. You will find scores of references and citations in support if you do not have any comprehension problems.

Sources:- (Check the Maratha Empire Section there. By the way, you will get them all with links in “Maratha Empire” wiki page “note” section.)

1)The New Cambridge Modern History(G.R. Potter) – Google Books. Retrieved 12 July 2013.,bihar&hl=en&ei=b30mTpvkMcS4rAfezomRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved

2)The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy(R.C. Majumder)

3) Shivaji, the great Maratha, Volume 2, H. S. Sardesai, Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd, 2002, ISBN 81-7755-286-4, ISBN 978-81-7755-286-7

4)The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent Cite: "Swarming up from the Himalayas, the Marathas now ruled from the Indus and Himalayas in the north to the south tip of the peninsula. They were either masters directly or they took tribute."

5) History of the Marathas – R.S. Chaurasia – Google Books. Retrieved 26 May 2012.

6) History of Midieval India – Saini A.K, Chand, Hukam – Google Books. Retrieved 17 September 2012.

7) Mehta, J. L. Advanced study in the history of modern India 1707–1813

8) Mackenna, P. J. et al. Ancient and modern India

9) J. L. Mehta (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India: Volume One: 1707 – 1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 707–. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6. – It explains the rise to power of his Peshwa (prime minister) Buluji Vishwanath (171 3–20) and the transformation of the Maratha kingdom into a vast empire, by the collective action of all the Maratha stalwarts.

If you provide a book as a source, then you need to provide page numbers in every case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Pages with links are available in the reference or citation or Note section of Maratha Empire. Please do visit. I can not copy & paste every thing. By the way i will wait for your response for a day and then I will again edit it if you do not have any problem. I hope you will certainly have not. Thanks. Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs) 06:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why I object to the second paragraph of the introduction[edit]

Why I object to the second paragraph of the introduction is simple.It says

Prior to the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Moghul Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's Hindu kings. However, it was never able to conquer the Hindu kingdoms in upper reaches of the Himalayas such as the regions of today's Himachal Pradesh,Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan and the extreme south of India such as Travancore.


1)It clears makes Marathas non existent and tries to portray( Mughal> British) instead (Mughal> Maratha>British)

2)With use of such phrases “Muslim Moghul Empire”, “able to annex or subjugate most of India's Hindu kings”, it tries to portray British as the savior of Hindus. On the contrary, Marathas who were Hindus either annexed or subjugated almost all the Mughal territories in the 18th century. Personal communal bias must be avoided.


Isn't the title wrong (grammatically)? Shouldn't it either be Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent or Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent? Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The term 'Indian subcontinent' is increasingly archaic, and should be replaced by the modern term 'South Asia'[edit]

Requested move 28 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47 Talk 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinentMuslim conquests in South Asia – There are multiple reasons: 1) The term 'Indian Subcontinent' is increasingly being phased out of use in the academic, literary and journalistic circles. For example, a search for the term 'South Asia' in Google scholar leads to 897,000 results (, while the same search for 'Indian subcontinent' leads to 85,900 resuls (, a factor of 10 difference. Additional evidence is available here:

2) The term 'Indian subcontinent' does not usually include the eastern regions of present-day Afghanistan, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan, which were definitely part of the conquests of the Mughal Empire. These regions are however, included in the term 'South Asia'.

3) The title 'Muslim conquests in South Asia' will acknowledge the fact that a lot of the conquests under various Muslim kings and emperors were conquests of political entities under other Muslim rulers, most of whom were also of a non-South Asian/Indian background. The title as it stands sets up an 'Indian'-'Muslim' binary which has not withstood the scrutiny of modern historians. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The "Indian subcontinent" is what is called "India" by a historian. We call it "Indian subcontinent" here to distinguish it from the present day India. "South Asia" is an entirely different concept, which arises when people try to divvy up the world into regions in order to allocate resources. It has no relevance to the issues of this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "South Asia" implies a much wider area than the present scope of the article. RGloucester 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am just wondering if the topic is POV in that it only covers conquests and I'm wondering what would happen if there was a one sided article on "Crusader conquests". An article on Muslim wars might be more neutral. GregKaye 07:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is called India or the Indian subcontinent in English. The argument that the Mughal Empire included areas not part of the Indian subcontinent is irrelevant - so did the British Empire. As for South Asia being more common; it is not the same thing; the UN includes Burma, Ceylon, Iran, the Maldives, Tibet, etc. in South Asia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Page has nothing about Iran. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Query about India, in particular, in detail[edit]

This article relates to the Indian Subcontinent. Being aware of India as we know it today came into existence in 1947 prior to which the history is always told w.r.t. Indian Subcontinent, I was wondering if there's any article exclusively on detailed chronological account of ″Muslim Invasions in India″ and/or so-called "conquests" right from 7th century?? My search results did not yield any article that I was looking for. Seeking help & clarity in this issue -Anand2202 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Our History of India page deals with the entire Indian subcontinent up to 1947. "India" in pre-1947 times means the Indian subcontinent. Please see that page for authoritative information. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Anand2202: I have now beefed up the page called Battle of Rajasthan (old title) with reliable information about the Arab incursions into "India." Please check there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Arab or Umayyad[edit]


So I was reading the article and I loved how it is done in the beginning, first you start with the "Background", then "Early Muslim communities", then "Rashidun Caliphate and the India Frontier", then "Umayyad Expansion in Al Hind" and then something weird happened the next part says "Arab invasion of Sindh". Wait a minute what, why divide the Umayyad expansion in to two, then change the word expansion to invasion and then use an ethnic word rather than the Imperial name of the forces??? Don't you think it's better to merge and say "Umayyad Expansion in Al Hind and Al-Sindh". I noticed many Muslim Historians use the words "Al-Hind wal Sind" in the Arabic language. Please stay peaceful. RussianDewey (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A severe case of Skew[edit]

There is far too much material on the Umayyad Caliphates history and too little about the rest. Much of this is suitable for shifting to a different article or merging. As of now, a very badly skewed article. AshLin (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)