A CONQUEST OF PASTS"light" the histories of Muslims and provide a much needed distance
from the native informant but also to give voice to hitherto silenced
populations-the native Hindus of India. It was his hope that the
Hindus could finally provide "the thoughts, emotions, and raptures
which a long oppressed race might be supposed to give vent to, when
freed from the tyranny of its former masters.^45
In Elliot's presentation of Muslim pasts, Chachnama was the cen-
tral text which explicated the origins of Islam in India. Elliot's chosen
excerpts from Chachnama were the first history presented, and their
placement ensured their hegemonic status for the next 150 years. He
remarks in his preface that "an air of truth pervades the whole" of
Chachnama. Elliot wrote a brief introduction to Chachnama in his
published translation. In this he commented only on the episode of Qa-
sim's death. He called it "novel, and not beyond the bounds of proba-
bility, when we consider the blind obedience which at that time was
paid to the mandates of the Prophet's successor, of which, at a later pe-
riod, we have so many instances in the history of the Assassins, all
inspired by the same feeling, and executed in the same hope."^46 He
reads the ethical critique offered in Chachnama as a historical indict-
ment of the perversion at the heart of the Muslim imperium. His views
have long remained out of examination, since his own writings were
not found or published until after his death, but it is imperative to ex-
amine Elliot's own take on Chachnama in his brief note titled "The
advances of Arabs towards Sind."
That note of Elliot, produced as an appendix, relied on Firishta and
Chachnama to illustrate the ignominy of the Muslim invaders: "Scarcely
had Muhammad expired, when his followers and disciples, issued from
their naked deserts ... terror and devastation, murder and rapine, accom-
panied their progress, in fulfillment of the prophetic denunciation of
Daniel, that this descendant of Ishmael 'shall destroy wonderfully .... ' "^47
Qasim, in Elliot's estimation, was one of the "better" invaders who par-
took in "much less, wanton sacrifice of life than was freely indulged in
by most of the ruthless bigots who have propagated the same faith else-
where."48 This "unwonted toleration" on Qasim's part may have "arisen
from the small number of the invading force, as well as from ignorance
of civil institutions," but it still resulted in the wanton destruction of
temples and massacres of civilians. Elliot reflected on the historical