What do you think?
Rate this book
A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia
The question of how Islam arrived in India remains markedly contentious in South Asian politics. Standard accounts center on the Umayyad Caliphate's incursions into Sind and littoral western India in the eighth century CE. In this telling, Muslims were a foreign presence among native Hindus, sowing the seeds of a mutual animosity that presaged the subcontinent's partition into Pakistan and India many centuries later.
But in a compelling reexamination of the history of Islam in India, Manan Ahmed Asif directs attention to a thirteenth-century text that tells the story of Chach, the Brahmin ruler of Sind, and his kingdom's later conquest by the Muslim general Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 CE. The Chachnama has long been a touchstone of Indian history, yet it is seldom studied in its entirety. Asif offers a close and complete analysis of this important text, untangling its various registers and genres in order to reconstruct the political vision at its heart.
Asif challenges the main tenets of the Chachnama's interpretation: that it is a translation of an earlier Arabic text and that it presents a history of conquest. Debunking both ideas, he demonstrates that the Chachnama was originally Persian and, far from advancing a narrative of imperial aggression, is a subtle and sophisticated work of political theory, one embedded in both the Indic and Islamic ethos. This social and intellectual history of the Chachnama is an important corrective to the divisions between Muslim and Hindu that so often define Pakistani and Indian politics today.
But in a compelling reexamination of the history of Islam in India, Manan Ahmed Asif directs attention to a thirteenth-century text that tells the story of Chach, the Brahmin ruler of Sind, and his kingdom's later conquest by the Muslim general Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 CE. The Chachnama has long been a touchstone of Indian history, yet it is seldom studied in its entirety. Asif offers a close and complete analysis of this important text, untangling its various registers and genres in order to reconstruct the political vision at its heart.
Asif challenges the main tenets of the Chachnama's interpretation: that it is a translation of an earlier Arabic text and that it presents a history of conquest. Debunking both ideas, he demonstrates that the Chachnama was originally Persian and, far from advancing a narrative of imperial aggression, is a subtle and sophisticated work of political theory, one embedded in both the Indic and Islamic ethos. This social and intellectual history of the Chachnama is an important corrective to the divisions between Muslim and Hindu that so often define Pakistani and Indian politics today.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published September 19, 2016
9 people are currently reading
269 people want to read
About the author
Manan Ahmed Asif
4 books16 followersManan Ahmed Asif is Associate Professor of History at Columbia University and the author of A Book of Conquest
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 23, 2020
Composed in the 13th century in Persian, the Chachnama was long believed to be a translated historical account of an Arab invasion that took place in the Indian region of Sindh five centuries earlier. An obscure text unknown to most Indians of any background, it took on a new importance during the British colonial period when the colonized were beginning to develop political identities based on religion. The book was reimagined and indeed promoted by the British as an emblematic example of pre-colonial Muslim despotism, against which they depicted themselves as the liberators of India. This was based not only on a selective reading of this particular text, but by conflating the local history it described with the history of an entire subcontinent over the duration of more than a millennia.
Ahmed provocatively argues that Chachnama was never a history book, but rather a book of political theory with moral lessons drawn by allegory with the past. There is a tradition of such moralistic writing in Central Asia which is different from the straightforward correspondent reporting that we imagine as constituting “history.” I’m unequipped to pass judgement on his conclusion. But I can say that he succeeds in injecting enough academic nuance into our understanding of the Chachnama that the sectarian understanding of it is undermined. Used as a keystone text for many other historical works, published in English during the colonial period, the text unfortunately helped develop the ideas that would later grow into both Muslim separatism and Hindu nationalism. There is an ongoing cost of blood being paid by South Asians in choosing to interpret history in this way.
The most interesting part of the book to me was how the text was instrumentalized by British colonial historians in later centuries. The Chachnama was essentially weaponized for politically useful purposes. Reading Ahmed’s eye-opening excerpts from British orientalists helped me understand how a writer like V.S. Naipaul’s startlingly violent and sectarian view of Indian history was formed. Naipaul held the Western intellectual tradition in completely uncritical regard, as opposed to scholars like Edward Said who attempted to analyze it objectively. Naipaul read these British accounts and then indigenized the sentiments they were trying to seed in people wholeheartedly. The ideas of British colonial historians thus flowed through Naipaul, a Trinadian, who then helped transmit them to modern Indian Hindu nationalists. The circle was thus closed.
This is a solid short book about one particular text. For a broader analysis of the textured history of the subcontinent dealing with the above themes, people should read the incredible India in the Persianate Age by Richard Eaton.
Ahmed provocatively argues that Chachnama was never a history book, but rather a book of political theory with moral lessons drawn by allegory with the past. There is a tradition of such moralistic writing in Central Asia which is different from the straightforward correspondent reporting that we imagine as constituting “history.” I’m unequipped to pass judgement on his conclusion. But I can say that he succeeds in injecting enough academic nuance into our understanding of the Chachnama that the sectarian understanding of it is undermined. Used as a keystone text for many other historical works, published in English during the colonial period, the text unfortunately helped develop the ideas that would later grow into both Muslim separatism and Hindu nationalism. There is an ongoing cost of blood being paid by South Asians in choosing to interpret history in this way.
The most interesting part of the book to me was how the text was instrumentalized by British colonial historians in later centuries. The Chachnama was essentially weaponized for politically useful purposes. Reading Ahmed’s eye-opening excerpts from British orientalists helped me understand how a writer like V.S. Naipaul’s startlingly violent and sectarian view of Indian history was formed. Naipaul held the Western intellectual tradition in completely uncritical regard, as opposed to scholars like Edward Said who attempted to analyze it objectively. Naipaul read these British accounts and then indigenized the sentiments they were trying to seed in people wholeheartedly. The ideas of British colonial historians thus flowed through Naipaul, a Trinadian, who then helped transmit them to modern Indian Hindu nationalists. The circle was thus closed.
This is a solid short book about one particular text. For a broader analysis of the textured history of the subcontinent dealing with the above themes, people should read the incredible India in the Persianate Age by Richard Eaton.
July 28, 2017
India was partitioned in 1947 to make space for the state of Pakistan as an abode for the Muslims of the subcontinent. In spite of the hollow protestations of secular politicians like Nehru, the wide chasm that separated the Hindu and Muslim communities was obvious to all. Jinnah’s contention that the Hindus and Muslims are two nations enjoyed the benefit of practical wisdom. The newly founded Pakistani state was quick to write a history for themselves, totally unattached to mainstream history of that period, which had centred its attention on Delhi and North India. They elevated Chachnama, a thirteenth century Persian work as the foundational text of the state of Pakistan. This book narrates the conquest of Sind in 712 CE by a general of the Baghdad caliph, named Mohammed bin Qasim. He defeated the Hindu king Dahir and annexed the territory to the caliphate. Though killed by his own master in the end owing to the machinations of the daughters of the dead king Dahir, the process of upheaval set in motion by Qasim heralded more than a millennium of strife between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The author refutes the pedigree of Chachnama as a book of conquest and presents forceful arguments in claiming the ancient text as a fountain of political theory in the genre of books such as the Arthashastra of Kautilya. Manan Ahmed Asif is of Pakistani origin and is Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Columbia University.
Chachnama (the annals of Chach) is a book of legends, but the author insists that it contains snippets of conquest, conciliation, dialogue, political theory, alliances and peaceful coexistence of societies. V S Naipaul has another idea about the book as ‘describing the destruction, by an imperialist power with a strong sense of mission and a wide knowledge of the world, of a remote culture that knows only itself and doesn’t begin to understand what it is fighting’! Chachnama was written by Ali Kufi in 1226 CE in the the city of Uch which was the political capital of Sind. It describes the history of the regions of Sind from roughly 680 CE to 716 CE. It tells the story of the Hindu Brahmin king Chach who ruled Sind and its conquest by the Arabs. Asif stresses on the Arab usage of the term “al Hind wa’l Sind” (Hind and Sind) to reiterate the geographic and cultural separateness of the two, thus reinforcing the rationale for Pakistan. He also adds disdainfully that the terms Hindu or India or Hinduism is a construction imposed from the outside (p.31).
Asif’s attempt is path-breaking in that while the established wisdom among historians make Chachnama out as a translation, or rather, ‘trans-creation’ of original Arab accounts contemporaneous with Qasim’s campaign in Sind, he recreates it as an exemplar of political theory and advice. The author makes a thorough survey of the literature. The first account of an expedition to Sind appears in Kitab Futuh al-Bulden by Baladhuri. It mentions a naval expedition by Uthman bin Abi’l Thaqafi, the governor of Bahrain in 636 CE. Further adventures were cut short by the sharp rebuke from caliph Umar, who was more concerned about consolidating his hold on nearer kingdoms such as the subjugation of the Sassanian Empire. Arabs came to Sind on account of the presence of rebels like Kharajites and Alawis who used the province as a base to foment trouble on the caliph’s territories. However, legends have it that Qasim was deputed to extract revenge on the assault of Muslim women at the hands of pirates along the Sind coast, who couldn’t be kept in check by the ruler on land.
Chachnama differs from other conquest narratives. Unlike other stories of invasion that glorify the conqueror, it presents the tale of a just ruler from the pre-Islamic period. Chach was a Hindu king who was a righteous and generous ruler. Baladhuri, whose work is thought to be the source of Chachnama, treats Sind as a frontier province beset with disorder and distress, whereas the author of the latter text keeps Sind as the centre of attention. Moreover, Qasim is portrayed as much more tolerant than many of the later conquerors. He declared that ‘the Budd’ (local temples) are like churches of the Christians and Jews and the fire-houses of the Magians. We don’t know what kind of a person Qasim really was, but the Chachnama finds no practical differences between the elite of the Hindu and Muslim aristocracies.
The author takes great pains to argue his case for Chachnama as a piece of political theory but is far from convincing for anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with Arthashastra. Chachnama is just a ballad, or story that appeals to the listeners without placing any particular community or religion in a bad light. Influence of Panchatantra is also deduced by Asif, but he makes it clear that the influence came through the Arabic translation of Panchatantra, where it appeared as Kalila wa Dimna in 750 CE. Even accounting for the inspiration from Sufism, assimilation of different polities as not through forced conversion but through alliance and law, will be granting the author of Chachnama an enlightenment of a future era. With no other similar source contemporaneous with it, the author’s argument is plausible, but not exactly possible.
Two basic claims are put forward in this book. One is that Chachnama is neither a work of translation nor a book of conquest. The other is that this must be read as a text of political theory and represents a politically heterogeneous world of thirteenth century Sind. His contention that this is the first instance of Muslim presence in the subcontinent is not exactly true. The western coasts of India, particularly Kerala, have long been in continuous trading contact with Arabia. The first mosque in India is said to have been built in Kerala in the seventh century – without destroying a temple – before the Arab invasion of Sind. However, Sind is undoubtedly the first province of India that decidedly came under Muslim hegemony.
A notable feature of the book is its tirade against British historiography. East India Company’s historians and other Asiatic scholars sifted through the available material in the native languages and presented the history of India as a three-layered body with Hindu, Muslim and British periods, in that sequence. The earliest Hindu period was said to be a golden era that was devastated by a string of Muslim invasions from the outside, which was put under check in the British period through the East India Company’s victory over the Muslims. Quite expectedly, Asif makes a seething criticism against this colonial classification. This might possibly be the official Pakistani view of history. What is astonishing is that the leftist historians of India also toe this same line of reasoning. When you ask them why the British followed this scheme, the old cliché is thrown back in your face – ‘the British wanted to divide and rule’! However, Asif’s argument is quite reasonable and even rational, when Pakistan’s national interests are also weighed in. What is incomprehensible is the blind following of Indian leftist historians of the Pakistani system of historiography.
The book is a little difficult to read in the first part, but is compensated for this with lucidity in the second. The author travels through the ancient city of Uch and his photographs add a lively interest to the narrative. It also contains an excellent section of Notes and a good index.
The book is recommended.
Chachnama (the annals of Chach) is a book of legends, but the author insists that it contains snippets of conquest, conciliation, dialogue, political theory, alliances and peaceful coexistence of societies. V S Naipaul has another idea about the book as ‘describing the destruction, by an imperialist power with a strong sense of mission and a wide knowledge of the world, of a remote culture that knows only itself and doesn’t begin to understand what it is fighting’! Chachnama was written by Ali Kufi in 1226 CE in the the city of Uch which was the political capital of Sind. It describes the history of the regions of Sind from roughly 680 CE to 716 CE. It tells the story of the Hindu Brahmin king Chach who ruled Sind and its conquest by the Arabs. Asif stresses on the Arab usage of the term “al Hind wa’l Sind” (Hind and Sind) to reiterate the geographic and cultural separateness of the two, thus reinforcing the rationale for Pakistan. He also adds disdainfully that the terms Hindu or India or Hinduism is a construction imposed from the outside (p.31).
Asif’s attempt is path-breaking in that while the established wisdom among historians make Chachnama out as a translation, or rather, ‘trans-creation’ of original Arab accounts contemporaneous with Qasim’s campaign in Sind, he recreates it as an exemplar of political theory and advice. The author makes a thorough survey of the literature. The first account of an expedition to Sind appears in Kitab Futuh al-Bulden by Baladhuri. It mentions a naval expedition by Uthman bin Abi’l Thaqafi, the governor of Bahrain in 636 CE. Further adventures were cut short by the sharp rebuke from caliph Umar, who was more concerned about consolidating his hold on nearer kingdoms such as the subjugation of the Sassanian Empire. Arabs came to Sind on account of the presence of rebels like Kharajites and Alawis who used the province as a base to foment trouble on the caliph’s territories. However, legends have it that Qasim was deputed to extract revenge on the assault of Muslim women at the hands of pirates along the Sind coast, who couldn’t be kept in check by the ruler on land.
Chachnama differs from other conquest narratives. Unlike other stories of invasion that glorify the conqueror, it presents the tale of a just ruler from the pre-Islamic period. Chach was a Hindu king who was a righteous and generous ruler. Baladhuri, whose work is thought to be the source of Chachnama, treats Sind as a frontier province beset with disorder and distress, whereas the author of the latter text keeps Sind as the centre of attention. Moreover, Qasim is portrayed as much more tolerant than many of the later conquerors. He declared that ‘the Budd’ (local temples) are like churches of the Christians and Jews and the fire-houses of the Magians. We don’t know what kind of a person Qasim really was, but the Chachnama finds no practical differences between the elite of the Hindu and Muslim aristocracies.
The author takes great pains to argue his case for Chachnama as a piece of political theory but is far from convincing for anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with Arthashastra. Chachnama is just a ballad, or story that appeals to the listeners without placing any particular community or religion in a bad light. Influence of Panchatantra is also deduced by Asif, but he makes it clear that the influence came through the Arabic translation of Panchatantra, where it appeared as Kalila wa Dimna in 750 CE. Even accounting for the inspiration from Sufism, assimilation of different polities as not through forced conversion but through alliance and law, will be granting the author of Chachnama an enlightenment of a future era. With no other similar source contemporaneous with it, the author’s argument is plausible, but not exactly possible.
Two basic claims are put forward in this book. One is that Chachnama is neither a work of translation nor a book of conquest. The other is that this must be read as a text of political theory and represents a politically heterogeneous world of thirteenth century Sind. His contention that this is the first instance of Muslim presence in the subcontinent is not exactly true. The western coasts of India, particularly Kerala, have long been in continuous trading contact with Arabia. The first mosque in India is said to have been built in Kerala in the seventh century – without destroying a temple – before the Arab invasion of Sind. However, Sind is undoubtedly the first province of India that decidedly came under Muslim hegemony.
A notable feature of the book is its tirade against British historiography. East India Company’s historians and other Asiatic scholars sifted through the available material in the native languages and presented the history of India as a three-layered body with Hindu, Muslim and British periods, in that sequence. The earliest Hindu period was said to be a golden era that was devastated by a string of Muslim invasions from the outside, which was put under check in the British period through the East India Company’s victory over the Muslims. Quite expectedly, Asif makes a seething criticism against this colonial classification. This might possibly be the official Pakistani view of history. What is astonishing is that the leftist historians of India also toe this same line of reasoning. When you ask them why the British followed this scheme, the old cliché is thrown back in your face – ‘the British wanted to divide and rule’! However, Asif’s argument is quite reasonable and even rational, when Pakistan’s national interests are also weighed in. What is incomprehensible is the blind following of Indian leftist historians of the Pakistani system of historiography.
The book is a little difficult to read in the first part, but is compensated for this with lucidity in the second. The author travels through the ancient city of Uch and his photographs add a lively interest to the narrative. It also contains an excellent section of Notes and a good index.
The book is recommended.
December 15, 2022
Good to revisit this work.
April 20, 2021
In this book the writer tries to find the origin of the Muslims in South Asia through the lens of Chachnama. I personally didn't enjoy it.
May 17, 2017
Manan Ahmed puts his full effort in dismantling the origin narrative of the advent of muslims in the sub-continent. He substantiates his argument through a 13th century document i.e. Chahchnama, written in Persian by 'Ali Kufi. It gives a sense of how the 8th century polity worked and what were the motives of the connection between Sindh and Arabia. Moreover, he points out the antiquity of the Hindu-Arab (trade) relations well before the 8th century CE. In short, a very insightful and though-provoking read. Highly recommended.
July 22, 2021
Definitely a five star book. A must read for everyone who wants to learn Islamic invasion of India.
Read
April 25, 2016original write up on history of sindh
April 8, 2017
Fascinating. Manan Ahmed takes a seminal text and explores it through a different lens, arguing that being Muslim in the subcontinent did not merely begin with conquest. Not from a history background but his prose was surprisingly easy to understand.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews