What is the difference between the approach of mahmud ghaznavi and mohammad ghori towards India?

readability="5.1282051282051">

src="http://d2hej51cni6o0x.cloudfront.net/images/user-profiles/1000027619_48.jpg"
class="profilePic" alt="fami's profile pic"/>

To begin with, both
Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghori were foreign traders to India who came to invade the
country in order to earn for their own respective benefits. Mahmud of Ghazni was and
remain to be a controversial figure. It is said that he made his way to India in order
to plunder the state and ultimately design his capital in Afghanistan. He was very
conscious of the wealth he could achieve from further conquests into India. He was also
a religious fanatic who aimed to spread Islam.
Thus, Mahmud's approach towards
India was only to spread Islam and gain personal benefits for his state. He was not
interested to rule India after the chores of attempting to invade it 17 times. This was
not the case with Ghori since his approach towards India was to rule the country. Thus,
after conquering it at his 7th attempt, Mohammad Ghori at his death bed had left
Qutab-ud-din Aibek who was a slave from Turkistan in charge of the Indian affairs. This
shows that he wanted the charge of India.

class="message-footer">

data-id="343536" data-method="/api/2.0/qa/rateAnswer">
like

id="upvoteCount-rateAnswer-343536">0


data-method="/api/2.0/qa/rateAnswer">
dislike
itemprop="downvoteCount"
id="downvoteCount-rateAnswer-343536">0