Been on Twitter for some time. A lot of knowledge get shared on the barbarity of islamic rule of India.Nothing wrong. But not enough emphasis on the resistance provided by Hindus to the marauders. THREAD(Based on SitaRam Goel's book which is summary of Ram Mishra's book)

The first most imp thing to understand is that islamic conquests started with Mohammad n accelerated after his death (632 AD). By 650, Ms had captured all lands from Arabia to Syria to Persia n islamised them all. Persia is Iran. They were already at our borders by 645 AD.

D simple fact that we had our 1st caliphate in around 1200 is proof that Islam which had otherwise ravaged all lands, islamised every people, n destroyed all upto borders of India could only make a few raids on a few temples n took only a few territories. It failed in Hind.

So d 1st land they encounter is Sind. D 1st naval expedition to India was in Thane. After that, successive attempts to take over Sind by different caliphs but all failed.

Mauwiyah the Caliph sent 6 land expeditions n all failed except last which took over Makran (coastal strip btw Pak n Iran of today) . D defeats were so bad that no attack happened for 28 yrs after that.

Hajjaj, the most notable ruler of the Ummayyads sent out his nephew n son in law, Mohd bin Qasim, n he was able to take Multan by 713 AD. But when he was recalled, Indians rebelled and left him only a narrow strip of coast.

They recaptured Sindh later n advanced east. But they werw stopped by the Chaulukya ruler of Gujarat, Pulakesin

Arabs also tried to take Kashmir but they were strongly stopped by Lalitaditya Muktapida (724-760) (A gem we hv forgotten).

Even the Multan that the Caliphate held was because of a temple (possibly Multan Surya Mandir). Hindus revered it so much that Ms would ask them to not attack them or else they will destroy d temple. So the Hindu kings didn't attack them. D Caliphate SURVIVED becoz of a TEMPLE

Kabul was also attacke multiple times but the Hindus resisted. It finally fell in 870 but not by bravery but by treachery of a Turkish adevnturer.

Kabul stayed under Islamic rule for some time before Jayapala tried to recapture it in 986 AD. Jayapala had almost won but for a snowstorm after which he bid for peace. The Ms surrendered but not for long. It was recaptured some time later. This all brings us to 1000 AD.

This brings us to Mahmud of Ghazni, the guy who fell Somnath. 1st, it is imp to say that he was a ruler, not a raider. Someone who held so many lands west of India didn't come to India only to destroy temples. He wanted to rule but couldn't. D only thing he COULD do was raid

In 1001 AD, he attacked Shahiya rulers n defeated them because the Hindus did not hv a standing army. (this is one of the most imp reasons for future defeats, not "They were infighting" or "They didn't care for Dharma")

This was the land of Jayapala (d same one). He was captured but soon released lest it irks other hindu rulers. He burned himself on a pyre out of shame. His successor also fought valiantly but when Mahmud was gone to west for some other war, he didn't attack mahmud out of honor

Mahmud attacked again in 1008 AD and a great war happened. Hindus lost because the elephant carrying the king turned tail. N so did the whole army. M army was more disciplined. Mahmud attacked Lohara (refuge of Shahiyas) in 1015 but that was a disaster

In refuge, driven out of their lands, Shahiyas were not in position to protect themselves. Their lineage died with Bhimapala in 1026 AD. They fought for nearly 50 yrs but finally succumbed in absence of a disciplined army n a powerful offensive.

Next Mahmud met with Chandellas. Mahmud's contemporary was Vidyadhara who raised a vast confederacy against the Ms. Mahmud could only make strategic retreats and embarrassing gift exchanges. He effectively lost to them 100%

Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1026 AD. The battle raged with 'great fury'. 50000 sons of soil gave up their lives. But he could only plunder d temple n driven out by the Hindu kings. He had to change his route lest he die. Jats 'molested' his army on d way.

Such was the hindu resistance to Islamic invasions until the Somnath event. It continued with other kings against other M invaders until it took another 200 yrs for d 1st islamic caliphate.

These truths r important to tell because we were not "scared" or "infighting" or "did not care for dharma". We did. No one anywhere else was able to brave the wind of I$lamic rule for 550 yrs which is btw longer than d span of islamic rule in India.

550 yr long hindu resistance to I$lamic invasion
@TheRightster @UshaNirmala @NirastraBhawah @ExSecular @thinkinghindu @vrschikaa @madanabhat @omisohm @_kyunrious @VarahaAdi @iVikram_IND @maithili181102 @krish_vijayan @KrishFlanks @SudhirPuthran @ChetA71739301 @moolyaindia

550 yr long hindu resistance to I$lamic invasion. (thread)
@bowingtomyQueen @Abhinav_IMHO @iAnkurSingh @NAN_DINI_ @VC4Hindus @sanghialien @Sanghi_wrath @moolyaglobal @RevivingDharm @naikrakesh

550 yr long hindu resistance to I$lamic invasion. Kindly help it get more exposure
@Richard48699844 @liberal_slayerr @BesuraTaansane @mnindian @ViratMVasani1 @TheHinduYoddha @Drskrath @SamSpeaketh @vishkanyaaaa @vedicvishal @ArmyKaFan @svraghavoft @tillusultan @IndiaGr8er