A new debate has erupted on Mahmood Ghaznavi.
Recently, a statement by former Vice President Hamid Ansari sparked a new debate. In fact, he addressed many invaders who came to India in ancient and medieval times as Indian robbers. He even took the name of Mahmud Ghaznavi and called him not a foreign invader but an Indian robber. After his statement, controversy arose in the political and social scene. Bharatiya Janata Party has launched a scathing attack on Congress and Hamid Ansari for his statement. BJP says that his statement is going to hurt the self-respect of the country.
In view of this statement of Ansari, it is important to know what is recorded in history in this regard and what do historians believe? Is it appropriate to consider Ghaznavi as an Indian or does history see him only as a foreign invader and robber?
Who was Mahmud Ghaznavi?
First of all let us know who was Mahmud Ghaznavi? Actually he was the Sultan of Ghazni in modern Afghanistan. He was the first ruler to expand the Ghaznavid dynasty which extended its influence from Central Asia to Iran. Attacked India 17 times. Mainly economic plunder and strategic expansion were his main goals. Prominent historians Sir Henry Elliot and John Dawson have written in their works that the main objectives of Ghaznavi’s campaigns were property, slaves and political prestige.
BJP rejects former Vice President Hamid Ansari’s statement on Mahmood Ghaznavi It has been described as hurting the self-respect of the country.
What are the grounds for considering Mahmud Ghaznavi as an Indian?
There are three basic standards considered to be an Indian. The person must have been born in India. He should have permanent residence or should have ruled India. Culturally and politically, Indian territory should be the basis of its identity. Ghaznavi did not meet these three criteria. His birth, rule and capital were all in Ghazni (Afghanistan). He did not establish any permanent administration in India. His attacks were continuously aimed at plunder, wealth accumulation and prestige. Historians Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and K.S. Historians like Lal also make it clear that Ghaznavi had no cultural or political integration with India.
What do historians believe?
Most historians consider Ghaznavi as a foreign invader. The reason for this was birth, governance, cultural identity, everything was outside the Indian territory. Although he was not an Indian, his attacks changed the politics of North India. Hindu royal dynasties were weakened. He opened the way for the rise of Delhi Sultanate, hence he is an important character in Indian history, but not an Indian. Pro. Some modern scholars, such as Richard Eaton, say that medieval invasions should not be understood from today’s nationalistic perspective, because the idea of a nation did not exist at that time. But Eaton also considers Ghaznavi to be a Central Asian Turk ruler, not an Indian.
Most historians consider Mahmud Ghaznavi as a foreign invader.
Economic Robber: Irfan Habib’s Perspective
Famous historian Irfan Habib tells in his works that Ghaznavi attacked Somnath, Mathura and various rich cities mainly for economic gains. He says that Ghaznavi’s attacks were part of economic technology rather than religious expansion.
Attacker: K.S. Lal and R.C. Majumdar
Indian historian R.C. Majumdar writes in his book The History and Culture of the Indian People that Ghaznavi’s policies were to weaken the urban centers of India, so that he could strengthen his empire financially. Similarly, K.S. Lal explains that Ghaznavi’s campaigns were a planned plundering strategy, as a result of which many areas of northwestern India remained unstable for decades.
Empire Expander: Description of Al-Utbi
Ghaznavi’s court historian Al-Utbi (Book: Tarikh-e-Yamini) writes that Ghaznavi’s aim was to increase Islamic pride and strengthen his empire. According to Utbi, India’s wealth became the source of Ghazni’s power. This makes it clear that for him India was not a permanent political territory but an area of resources.
There was an uproar over this video
Ghazni and the Lodis were Indian plunderers; they did NOT come from OUTSIDE.
Former Vice President Hamid Ansari:
Congress and its ecosystem romanticises invaders, glorifies ANTI HINDU TYRANTS like Aurangzeb & Babur, and sanitises the actions of those who looted India and pic.twitter.com/K1Ol9ZWWvs
— Pradeep Bhandari(Pradeep Bhandari)🇮🇳 (@pradip103) January 30, 2026
In what context is Hamid Ansari’s statement?
Hamid Ansari’s basic argument was probably that in history the word Indian is not taken in the sense of modern nationalism. The boundaries changed in ancient and medieval times. Empires expanded and contracted. Cultural exchange was extensive. In such a situation, many people became a part of the Indian story with time. His argument was based on cultural assimilation, not political identity.
But BJP leaders say that Ghaznavi’s purpose of coming to India was only plunder. He never tried to become a part of the Indian society, hence calling him an Indian is contrary to history.
Ghaznavi not Indian, but part of Indian history
The gist of historians’ opinion is that Mahmud Ghaznavi was not an Indian. He was a foreign ruler and invader, whose aim was plunder and strategic expansion. Its impact on Indian history was deep and long-lasting. It is important to understand history in the context of its time rather than modern political rhetoric. Former Vice President Hamid Ansari’s statement was based on a broader cultural argument, but in the view of historians, calling Ghaznavi an Indian does not match the facts.
Also read: What happened in the last 10 minutes of Mahatma Gandhi’s life?