PERSECUTING INDIAN MUSLIMS FOR CRIMES OF ‘MUSLIM’ RULERS: FALLACY OF HINDUTVA PROJECT
[It
appeared titled ‘Fallacy of the Hindutva project’ in FRONTLINE. Link for
access: https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/fallacy-of-the-hindutva-project-aurangzeb-mughals-islamophobia/article38484103.ece]
One has
lost count of religious conclaves of Hindu ‘saints’, friendly to RSS, calling
for violent cleansing of lawful Indian Muslims. It was not long ago that a
senior RSS luminary who also graced the high constitutional office of Governor
of Tripura, Tathagata Roy reminded through a tweet that “the Hindu-Muslim
problem won’t be solved without a Civil War.” Roy claimed that he was only
reminding Hindus of an unfinished task wished by Syama Prasad Mookerji, an icon
for RSS cadres ruling India today.[i]
In fact, it has been the most favourite theme of RSS since its inception in
1925. India is for ‘Ramzade’ (children of Ram) and out of bound for ‘Babarzade’
(children of Babar) who are also described as ‘Haramazade’ (the illegitimate
children).
The RSS and its Hindutva appendages have been
demanding revenge for crimes against Hindus in history but have singled out the
medieval period only in order to focus on the persecution by ‘Muslim’ rulers.
It is really surprising that in a country like India whose civilization is more
than five thousand years old, a period of 400-500 years (‘Muslim’ Rule) only is
put under the scanner. In order to arrive at truth we need to inquire into
about the nature of ‘Muslim’ rule. The most crucial issue is: Why have the
common Muslims of today’s India to pay for the sins of the ‘Muslim’ rulers who
had friendly and cordial relations (including matrimonial) with the high Caste
hierarchy of the Hindu society? We also need to investigate whether ‘Hindu’
history was devoid of religious, social and political persecution.
The
Hindutva zealots demanding Muslim-free India must know that all ‘Muslim’ rules
survived due to the Hindu high Castes joining the ‘Muslim’ rulers in running
their empires. How solid this unity was can be gauged by the fact that after
Akbar no Mughal emperor was born of a Muslim mother. Moreover, Hindu high
Castes provided brain and muscles to the ‘Muslim’ rulers faithfully. Likewise,
Mughal rule established by Babar who was invited by a section of Hindu kings to
seize India was the rule of Hindu high Castes also.
Aurobindo
Ghose who played prominent role in providing Hindu foundation to the Indian
nationalism confessed that Mughal rule continued for over a century due to the
fact that Mughal rulers gave Hindus, “positions
of power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their
kingdom.[ii] Renowned historian Tara
Chand relying on the primary source material of the medieval period concluded
that the from the end of 16th century to the middle of 19th
century, “it may reasonably be concluded that in the whole of India, excepting
the western Punjab, superior rights in land had come to vest in the hands of
Hindus” most of whom happened to be Rajputs.[iii]
Maasir al-Umara a biographical dictionary of
the officers in the Mughal Empire beginning from 1556 to 1780 [Akbar to Shah
Alam] is regarded as the most authentic record of the high rank officials
employed by the Mughal kings. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his
son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1780. According to it Mughal rulers in this
period employed around 100 (out of 365) high-ranking officials most of them
“Rajputs from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and Maharashtra”. Brahmins
followed Rajputs in manning the Mughal administration so
far as the number was concerned.[iv]
Interestingly, Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha [established in 1893] “committed to
the cause of Hindi as official language” published Hindi
translation of this book in 1931.
It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb did not commit heinous
crimes against his Indian subject. It needs to be remembered that his cruelty
was not restricted to non-Muslims, his own father, brothers, Shias, those
Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and Muslim ruling families in the
eastern, central and western parts of India faced brutal repression and were
annihilated. Aurangzeb executed renowned Sufi saint, Sarmad in the precinct of
Jama Masjid of Delhi. It is also true that there were countless cases when
Hindus and their religious places were violently targetted during Aurangzeb’s
despotic rule. However, there are contemporary records available of his
patronizing Hindu and Jain religious places (a living example is the grand
Gauri Shankar temple, a stone’s throw away from Lahori Gate of Red Fort, built
during Shahjahan’s reign continued functioning during Aurangzeb’s reign).[v]
Reducing all his crimes to the repression of Hindus only will tantamount to
reducing the gravity of his crimes against humanity.
No sane
person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed
by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a fact remains buried that it
was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains. The
most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while referring to the
desecration and destruction of Somnath Temple by Mahmud Ghazi added:
“He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in
Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of
Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and
even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished…But no, Mahmud Ghazi
made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs
against them. In their folly and pettiness they believed him. And they joined
him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu,
blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the
vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the
Hindus. These are facts of history.”[vi]
These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were
defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that,
“The
temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over
and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet”.[vii]
It was not an isolated desecration. Swami Dayanand
Saraswati who is regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva while dealing with the
contribution of Shankaracharya in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote:
“For ten years he toured all over the country,
refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that
are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst
those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by
the Jainis for fear of their being broken.”[viii]
According
to ‘Hindu’ narrative of ancient Indian history the last of Maurya dynasty’s
Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a
renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Shunga dynasty. DN Jha
an authority on ancient Indian history referred to Divyavadana, a
Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries which described how Buddhist and Jain religious places were destroyed by
Pushyamitra Shunga, a great persecutor of Buddhists.
“He is
said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning
monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he
announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana (opposed
to Vedas).”
Jha also
presented evidence from the grammarian Patanjali, a contemporary of the
Shungas, who famously stated in his Mahabhashya that Brahmins and
Shramanas were eternal enemies, like the snake and the mongoose.[ix]
In the Hindutva narrative the persecution of
Sikh Gurus and their followers by Mughal rulers is used to spread hatred
against present day Indian Muslims. The Mughal rulers specially Aurangzeb’s
armies committed the most heinous and unspeakable crimes against Sikhs. Was it
Muslims versus Sikhs? The contemporary Sikh records reject such an
interpretation. According to a Sikh site during
the last and the most brutal siege of Anandpur
Sahib in 1704, “The Muslims and the Hindu hill rajas completely surrounded the
city and cut it off from outside supplies.” While trying to escape the Mughal
invaders,
“The younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh, Baba
Zorawar Singh age 9 and Baba Fateh Singh age 7, were separated from the group
in the confusion. They walked through the rugged jungle with their holy
grandmother, Mata Gujri ji (mother of Guru Gobind Singh) until they came to
small village where they took shelter. An old servant of the Guru’s household,
Gangu, heard they were there and came to Mataji. With sweet words he requested
that they go with him to his village. He expressed care and concern, but his
heart was dark with betrayal. Cold, wet and alone, Mata Gujri gratefully went
with Gangu to his house. For a few gold coins, Gangu betrayed their whereabouts
to the Moghul army. At dawn, a loud banging came on the door and the soldiers
of the evil governor Wazir Khan came to escort the holy family to Sarhind. As
they traveled through the city, people thronged to see them pass offering words
of encouragement. They shouted curses at the Brahmin and were shocked at the
depravity of the Moghul governor”.[x]
Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian,
held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a
narrator of the Hindu history during the Mughal rule. However, his description
of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in 1742, too, makes it clear that this army
of ‘Hindu nation’ cared least about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal.
According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and
unspeakable outrage”.[xi]
Sarkar, in his
monumental work on the history of Bengal, reproduced eyewitness accounts of the
sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas. According to one such
eyewitness, Gangaram,
“The Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting
everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and
ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them”.[xii]
Another eyewitness,
Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated
the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas against Hindus in
the following words:
“Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard
of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans
and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of every one and
committing every kind of sinful act.”[xiii]
The
contemporary records prove that Aurangzeb rule was also the rule of Rajputs
and Kshatriyas [members of the two of the four
Hindu Castes in order of precedence after Brahmins]. Aurangzeb never
faced Shivaji in the battle-field. It was his commander-in-chief, a Rajput
ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), Jay Singh I (1611–1667)
who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). He was conferred the
title of ‘Sawai' [one and a quarter times
superior to his contemporaries] chief by Aurangzeb in 1699 and thus came
to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. He was also given the title of Mirza
Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince]
by Aurangzeb. The other titles bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were
‘Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind’ [eternal ruler of India], ‘Raj Rajeshvar’ [lord of
kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu ji’ [wholesome king]. These titles are displayed by
his descendants even today. This Rajput chief also gave his daughter in
marriage to the son of Aurangzeb who became Mughal emperor after Aurangzeb.[xiv]
We have
first-hand account of Raja Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth who functioned as Deewan
Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan, and Aurangzeb.[xv]
According to a biographical work penned by one of his direct descendants,
“Raja Raghunath
Bahadur having attained to the most exalted rank of Diwan Ala (prime minister)
was not unmindful of the interests of his caste-fellows [Kayasths]. Raja
appointed every one of them to posts of honor and emoluments, according to
their individual merits; while many of them were granted titles of honor and
valuable jagirs for their services. Not a single Kayasth remained unemployed or
in needy circumstances.”[xvi]
This
account shows that despite the rule of Aurangzeb, a ‘bigoted Muslim’ a Kayasth
prime minister of his was able to patronize his Caste fellows; all Hindus.
Aurangzeb was so fond of this Hindu prime minister that after latter’s death in
a letter directed vizier (minister) Asad Khan to follow ‘sage guidance’ of Raja
Raghunath.[xvii]
The linking of Aurangzeb or other ‘Muslim’ rulers’ crimes
committed in the pre-modern India to his/her religion is going to create
serious consequences even for ‘Hindu’ version of history as narrated by the
RSS. Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to again ‘Hindu’
narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and
his companions during 14 years long vanvaas or exile. This Ravana was a
learned Brahman who also happened to be one of the greatest worshippers of Lord
Shiva. The epic Mahabharata is a story of a great war between two families
known as Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas) not between Hindus and Muslims
but in which 1.2 billion people were slaughtered. Draupadi was disrobed by
Kashtriyas. If like Aurangzeb and other ‘Muslim’ rulers the crimes of Ravana,
Kauravas, Pushyamitra Shunga, Jai Singh II, Marathas, Gangu Brahmin etc. are
linked to their religion then country will turn into a butcher land. Moreover,
if revenge is to be taken from the present descendants of the past perpetrators
then beginning must be made from the beginning of Indian civilization; turn of
Indian Muslims will come far later!
Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under
wrap is that despite more than 500 hundreds of ‘Muslim’ rule which according to
Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or
forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an
absolute Hindu majority. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. It
was the time when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. According to the Census
report:
“The
population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic]
of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or
21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under
this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”[xviii]
These figures make it clear that persecution and cleansing
of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If it had been
so Hindus would have disappeared from India. At the end of ‘Muslim’ rule Hindus
were 73.5% who now according to the 2011 Census have increased to 79.80%. On
the contrary Muslims who were 21.5% have been reduced to 14.23%. India seems to
be the only country where despite ‘Muslim’ rule of more than half of a
millennium the populace did not convert to the religion of the rulers.
It is sad that RSS-BJP rulers of India who are never
tired of talking of a powerful Hindu nation; Hindusthan leading the world are
forcing the country into a state of civil war. With them around putting one
section of Indians against the other there is no need of any foreign enemy to
undo a democratic-secular India.
Shamsul Islam
Link for
some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam,
Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam
Facebook:
https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332
Twitter:
@shamsforjustice
http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/
[i]
https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/06/20/tripura-governor-tathagata-roy-tweets-the-hindu-muslim-problem-wont-be-solved-without-a-civil-war
[ii]
Cited in Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3,
Publication Division Government of
India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.
[iii]
Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1,
Publication Division Government of
India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.
[iv]
Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra],
volumes 1& 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.
[v] Trushke, Audrey, Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth,
Penguin, Gurgaon, 2017, pp. 99-106.
[vi] RSS English organ, Organizer,
January 4, 1950.
[vii] The
Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 264.
[viii]
Sarswati, Dayanand, Satyarth Praksh, chapter xi, p. 347.
[ix]
https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-and-essays/dn-jha-destruction-buddhist-sites
[xi]
Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200
A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.
[xii]
Ibid., 457.
[xiii]
Ibid., 458.
[xiv] https://www.indianrajputs.com/view/jaipur and
https://www.indianrajputs.com/famous/Jai-Singh-II-Amber.php
[xv] It
has been corroborated by the French traveller Bernier who was in India during
1658-1670.
[xvi] Lal,
Maharaja Lala, Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan Lal
Bahadur Late Honrary Magistrate Delhi, With Extracts from His Diary Relating to
the Times of Mutiny 1857, 1902.
[xvii] Trushke, Audrey, 74-75.
[xviii]
Memorandum
on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented
to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George
Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty's Stationary Office 1875, 16.
No comments:
Post a Comment