THE%20SINDH%20STORY

“There are several hundred Sangh aramas, (resting places) occupied by about
10,000 priests.... There are about thirty Deva temples, in which sectaries of
various kinds congregate. The king is of the Sudra (Sho-tu-lo) caste. He is by
nature honest and sincere, and he reverences the law of Buddha.... By the side of
the river Sindhu along the flat marshy lowlands there are several hundreds of
thousands of families settled. They are of an unfeeling and hasty temper, and are
given to blood- shed only. They give themselves exclusively to tending cattle....
Men and women, both cut their hair short.”
Although the ruler at the time was Chach, a Brahmin, Hiuen Tsiang describes
him as a Sudra (Sho-tu-lo) either because he had come to the throne in an
irregular manner, or because he was ruling a rough border area, off the Indian
mainstream. Some scholars interpret Sho-tu-lo not as Sudra but as “Kshudrak”
an ancient republic in central Sindh. Still others think that Sho-tu-lo does not
mean Sudra at all, that it stands for ‘Shrotriya” Brahmins. The king was a
Brahmin but there were too many Buddhists, making for social dissonance. The
social tensions showed in hasty temper and bloodshed. Many of the Buddhists
were traders who preferred peace to resistance.
Apart from this general decline, there were specific reasons.
One reason no doubt was the controversies surrounding the royal family.
Another was the failure of Dahir to prevent --- and punish --- cowardice and
treason in the local camp. Yet another was the dubious position of many
Buddhists, who conveniently camouflaged their cowardice as desire for peace,
even though Dahir had placed them in important positions. But a much bigger
reason was the explosive nature of Islam which had combined one Allah and one
Prophet with the single-minded devotion to murder and loot and rape. It is no
wonder that the Arabs who had overrun Iran in A.D. 641 in spite of Sindhi help -
-- and entered even far-away Spain in A.D. 711, should roll up Sindh in A.D. 712.
The north Indian kingdom of Kanauj could have helped --- as the Franks did
help Spain --- but after the death of Harsha in A.D. 647, it was too weak to help
itself, much less others. Sindh fought and fell alone.
The official history of Sindh published in ten volumes in Pakistan makes
interesting reading on the subject. According to Dr. Mumtaz Hussain Pathan, the
reasons adduced by the Arabs for the invasion were all false. He thinks that the
story of the loot of Arab ships by the Sindhi pirates is “a fabrication”. He adds:
“That the Arab prisoners were recovered from Debal after the Arab conquest is
another fabrication, not supported by historical evidence and contrary to the
facts recorded in contemporary sources. He thinks the real reasons were two ---
loot, and the necessity of keeping the in-fighting Arabs occupied elsewhere.” In
The Sindh Story; Copyright © www.panhwar.com
38