Rewriting NCERT School Textbooks
'Muslim Raj' is just an excuse; Hindutva
Project is to Hide Truth!
[This response to malicious
rewriting of school textbooks by Hindutva led NCERT is a lengthy one as author
intends to challenge not journalistically but with facts and documents mostly
drawn from ‘Hindu’ sources. The author has tried to produce a comprehensive
document exposing the Hindutva project of falsifying history and denigrating
democratic-secular-egalitarian polity of India.]
Director of the National Council of
Educational Research and Training (NCERT), D. P. Saklani unveiled the Class 8
Social Science textbook with several fundamental changes on July 17, 2025. This
revised version is to be implemented from session 2025-26. Wide changes have
been made in this new edition, but the press reports simply stated that the
existing lessons on Mughal and Muslim rulers had been replaced with details of
the religious persecution and other atrocities committed by Muslim rulers in
India. And regarding this, the Hindutva-captive media and WhatsApp universities
started another war against Islam and the country's Muslims.
Before this, radical changes had
been made in the textbooks of classes 6-12.
The expert who has been given the
responsibility to complete this work by NCERT, under the complete control of
RSS, is Michel Danino, an Indian writer of French origin. He secured Indian
citizenship only in 2003. Modi government conferred on him Padma Shri award, India's fourth-highest
civilian award, in 2017. He is currently the chairman of the
social science curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT). He is a supporter of Hindutva and has been criticized for
indulging in historical negationism (denying the truths of the past).
Let us first know which important
topics have been left out from school syllabus.
Emergency 1975
The chapter on Emergency in the Class
12 political science textbook 'Politics in India after Independence' has been
reduced by five pages. Parts relating to the harsh impact of the Emergency on
people and institutions have been deleted.
Another reference to the ban imposed
on all trade union activities during the Emergency has been removed from chapter
8 ('Social Movements') of the class 12 sociology textbook.
Material on protests and social movements
dropped
Nearly three chapters detailing protests that turned into
social movements in contemporary India have been removed from political science
textbooks for classes 6 to 12.
A chapter on "Rise of Popular Movements" has
been removed from the class 12 textbook 'Politics in India after Independence'.
The Chipko movement, the growth of the Dalit Panthers in
Maharashtra in the 1970s, the agrarian struggles of the 1980s, especially those
led by the Bharatiya Kisan Union, the anti-alcohol movement of Andhra Pradesh,
details on the famous Narmada Bachao Andolan [Save Narmada River Movement]
opposing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River
and its tributaries in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra and the Right to
Information movement were removed in one go.
The chapter 'Struggle for
Equality' also removed
NCERT has also removed the chapter
'Struggle for Equality' from the Class 7 Political Science textbook, which
states how ‘Tawa Matsya Sangh’ fought for the rights of displaced forest
dwellers of Satpura forests of Madhya Pradesh.
Chapter on struggles of indigenous/foreign
people removed
The third chapter on mass struggles has been removed from
the Class 10 political science textbook 'Democratic Politics-II'. It dealt with
indirect ways of influencing politics through pressure groups and movements.
Besides the movement for democracy in Nepal and the protests against water privatization
in Bolivia, South America. This chapter also covered the Narmada Bachao
Andolan, the non-violent ‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’ (‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’, also known as the "Kittiko Hachiko"
movement, was a non-violent protest in Karnataka, India, in 1987 which
opposed eucalyptus plantations on grazing land. The movement involved
people plucking eucalyptus saplings and planting alternative, useful plants
instead) in Karnataka
in 1987, the BAMCEF (All India Backwards
SC/ST/OBC and Minorities Communities Employees' Federation) founded by Kanshiram in 1971,
and the National Alliance of People's Movements, whose founders included Medha
Patkar.
Scissors on study of
social movements
The only chapter on social movements
in the sociology syllabus of classes 11 and 12 has been significantly reduced.
In the chapter titled 'Social Movements' in the class 12 textbook 'Social
Change and Development in India' one of the several changes made is the removal
of the exercise box in which students were asked to discuss the recent farmers'
protests against the three farm laws passed by Parliament.
Shredding
of Indian democracy
Four chapters dealing with Democracy and the Making of Indian Democracy
have been removed on the ground that similar topics are covered in Political
Science textbooks of other classes. For example, a chapter
titled 'Key Elements of Democratic Government' has been removed from the Class 6 political science book. This was the first detailed
introduction to the concept of democracy in middle school and discussed some of
the key elements that affect the functioning of a democratic government,
including chapters like 'Democracy and Diversity' and 'Challenges to Democracy'
that have been removed from the Class 10 political science
textbook.
Both these chapters were first removed from the CBSE syllabus in April and
have now been permanently removed from the NCERT textbook.
Jawaharlal
Nehru cut short
The following comment of Nehru on Bhakra Nangal Dam has been removed from Class
12 Sociology textbook, ‘Social Change and Development in India’:
“Our engineers
tell us that probably nowhere else in the world is there a dam as high as this.
The work bristles with difficulties and complications. As I walked around the
site I thought that these days the biggest temple and mosques and gurdwara is
the place where man works for the good of mankind. Which place can be greater
than this, this Bhakra Nangal, where thousands and lakhs of men have worked,
have shed their blood and sweat and laid down their lives as well?”
Discussion on sedition deleted
A section describing the arbitrariness of
colonial sedition law through the example of sedition and how Indian
nationalists, specially, revolutionaries played a role in challenging it is no
longer part of a chapter ‘Understanding Laws’ in the class 8 political science
book. This deleted section also carried the following exercise for students:
“State one reason why you think the Sedition Act of 1870 was arbitrary? In what
ways does the Sedition Act of 1870 contradict the rule of law?”
Constitution making and creation of linguistic states
left out
The chapter 'India after Independence', which talks about constitution
making and creation of linguistic states, has been removed from the Class 8 history textbook 'Our Pasts III'.
Description
of demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujarat and Manipur violence removed
References to
the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya (1992), Muslims killed in the
Gujarat riots (2002), and to the Manipur violence were removed from Class 11
and 12 textbooks.
Pioneers of Anti-British struggle, Hyder Ali and Tipu
Sultan dropped
NCERT’s new Class 8 social science textbook does not mention Hyder Ali and
Tipu Sultan, or the four Anglo-Mysore Wars of the 1700s, in its chapter on
India’s colonial period. Remember, Tipu Sultan, known as the “Tiger of Mysore”,
led a glorious military resistance to British colonialism. He was the pioneer
of rocket artillery which had great success against the British. The economy of
Mysore reached its peak during his reign.
He was martyred on 4 May 1799 while fighting the combined forces of
British-Maratha-Nizam at the Srirangapatna front. At the time of Tipu's
martyrdom, he was wearing a heavy gold ring on which 'Ram' was inscribed in
Devanagari script.
How much British dreaded Tipu would be clear by the letter which A.
Campbell, wrote to the Court of Directors of the East India Company in 1788, “the
most active powerful, ambitious Prince of Hindostan, whose troops are in high
order and whose powerful antipathy to the English is beyond what the Directors
are yet well aware of.” When he died there were jubilant celebrations in
Britain with declaration of public holiday in Britain.
Shockingly, Danino defending the removal of Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan’s contribution
to anti-colonial wars while confirming that
Tipu Sultan and related events will likely remain absent in Part 2 of the
series as well, stated: “If we include every war, we go back to cramming.”
The ‘Muslim’ rule not removed but toxified
The Hinduized captive media and experts have been arguing that the period
of rule of Muslim rulers in India has been removed, that is why the secular and
progressive camp is getting irritated. The truth is that it is very much there
narrated with vigorous anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric in tune with the
current communal politics of RSS-BJP rulers.
The history section of the new book, begins with the Delhi Sultanate and
goes up to the colonial period (the British Raj), deliberating in a note on
'Dark Periods of History', when war, abuse, fanaticism and bloodshed prevailed.
The description of ‘dark periods of history’ includes the oppressive policies
of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Mughal rulers as we will know in the following.
1. Reference to Mahmud Ghazni of Afghanistan, who invaded the
subcontinent and raided the Somnath temple, has been tweaked. First, the title
“Sultan” has been dropped from his name. Second, the sentence “he raided the
subcontinent almost every year” has been revised to “he raided the subcontinent
17 times (1000-1025 CE) with a religious motive”.
2. On Babur,
the first Mughal emperor, the book notes that his autobiography points to him
as being cultured and intellectually curious. “But he was also a brutal and
ruthless conqueror, slaughtering entire populations of cities, enslaving women
and children, and taking pride in erecting ‘towers of skulls’ made from the
slaughtered people of plundered cities.”
3. Akbar’s
reign is described as a blend of “brutality and tolerance”, and that during the
seizure of the Chittor fort, Akbar, then 25 years old, ordered the massacre of
30,000 civilians, and the enslavement of women and children, the new textbook
states. Akbar’s message is also quote in the textbook: “We have succeeded in
occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to infidels and have
established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword, we have
erased signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those
places and also all over Hindustan.”
4. On Aurangzeb, the book points out
that some scholars argue that his motives were primarily political, and they
give examples of his grants and assurances of protection to temples. While
politics played a part in his decisions, his farmans (edicts) “make his
personal religious motive clear too.” He ordered governors of provinces to
demolish schools and temples, and destroyed temples at Banaras, Mathura,
Somnath, and Jain temples and Sikh gurdwaras.
This detailed account of the
atrocities committed by the ‘Muslim’ rulers on their Hindu subjects has been
accompanied by a commentary which underlines that it is important to study the
dark events objectively, without blaming anyone of the present-day people (i.e.
the Muslims of the country). If we want to identify the criminals of the
‘Muslim Raj’, then the historical facts of that period, as recorded by the
‘Hindu’ sources themselves, will clearly reveal that the upper caste Hindus
were fully complicit in the atrocities committed by the Muslim rulers.
‘Hindu’ narrative of incidents in history when High Caste Hindus
helped ‘Muslim’ rulers
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.”
[RSS English organ, Organizer, January 4, 1950.]
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”. [The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,
vol. 3, 264.]
It has been corroborated by another darling of
the Hindutva camp, Bankim Chndra Chatterjee. According to him RATH YATRA, an
integral part of Jagganath Temple was a Buddhist ritual. Bankim wrote:
"It is a fact…that the images of
Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies
of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been
modelled upon them."
[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, 'On the origin of
Hindu festivals' in Essays & Letters,
Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]
It was not an isolated takeover. Swami Dayanand Saraswati who is
regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva and revered by RSS while dealing with the
contribution of Shankaracharya (8th century) 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.” [Sarswati, Dayanand, Satyarth Praksh, chapter xi, p.
347.]
According to
the Buddhist 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.
[https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-and-essays/dn-jha-destruction-buddhist-sites]
Did Hindus join persecution of Sikhs by
Mughals?
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”. [https://www.sikhdharma.org/4-sons-of-guru-gobind-singh/]
Maratha Rule glorified overlooking what it did to Hindus
The class 8 social science book now has a separate chapter on the Marathas;
it refers to the Anglo-Maratha wars between 1775 and 1818 and states that “the
British took India from the Marathas more than from the Mughals or any other
power”. Marathas in general are seen as
having “contributed substantially to India’s cultural developments.”
Let us compare these claims with the horrendous experience of the
contemporary Hindus. 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
true ‘Bhartiye’ historian by RSS and a truthful 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”.
[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.]
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”.
[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.]
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 everyone and committing
every kind of sinful act.” [Ibid., 458.]
Babur's atrocitiesNCERT does not tell the truth that Babur captured northern India by defeating and killing the Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi. It is also not mentioned that the chief commander of the Hindu king Rana Sanga who challenged Mughal army led by Babur was Hasan Mewati who was martyred while fighting Babur's army in the Battle of Khanwa [near Bharatpur] on March 15, 1527.
Atrocities of Aurangzeb
It cannot be argued that
Aurangzeb [1618-1707] did not commit heinous crimes against his Hindustani
subjects. It is important to remember that his cruelty was not confined to
non-Muslims.
His own father (Mughal emperor Shah Jahan), brothers (Dara Shikoh,
Murad Bakhsh and Shah Shuja), the Shia community, Muslims who did not follow
his brand of Islam and the Muslim ruling dynasties in the eastern, central and
western parts of India suffered his terrible cruelty and repression. They were destroyed. The word barbaric would be too
mild a word to describe his treatment of the Sikh Gurus, their families and
followers.
It was Aurangzeb who murdered the famous Sufi saint,
Sarmad, in the premises of Delhi’s Jama Masjid [there is a mausoleum on his
grave at the eastern gate of the Jama Masjid where the stairs begin, which is
still revered by many people]. It is also true that there were numerous cases
when Hindus and their religious places were violently targeted during the
autocratic rule of Aurangzeb. He crushed the rebellions of the 'Satnamis' in
Gujarat.
However, there are contemporary records of his
patronage of Hindu and Jain religious sites. Two surviving examples are the
magnificent Gauri Shankar Temple, a short distance from the Lahori-Gate of the
Red Fort, which was built during Shah Jahan's reign which continued to function
during Aurangzeb’s reign and the famous Jain Lal Mandir right opposite the Red
Fort. [Trushke, Audrey, Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Penguin, Gurgaon,
2017, pp. 99-106.] Both these temples continue to function even today. It is important to remember that limiting all the
crimes of Aurangzeb only to the suppression of Hindus would be tantamount to
trivializing his grave crimes against humanity.
Mughal rule evolved and sustained
by the support of the Hindu Upper Castes
How naive is NCERT (or it is under the total influence
of RSS) that it is unaware of the fact that Aurangzeb or Mughal 'Islamic' rule
used Hindu upper castes in droves to establish and run their empire which was
inhabited predominately by Hindus. How deep and strong this unity can be gauged
from the fact that after Akbar, no Mughal emperor was born to a Muslim mother.
The Hindu upper castes showed immense loyalty to the 'Muslim' rulers and served
them well with both their brains and strength.
Aurobindo Ghosh, who played a major role in
providing a Hindu dimension to Indian nationalism, acknowledged that Mughal
rule survived due to the fact that the Mughal emperors gave Hindus "positions
of power and responsibility, they
used their brains and brawn to preserve their kingdoms". [Chand, Tara, History
of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division, Government
of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]
The renowned historian Tara Chand, relying on primary
source material of the medieval period, concluded that from the end of the 16th
century to the middle of the 19th century, "it can be reasonably
concluded that the entire Punjab, except western Punjab, in whole of India, the
ownership of land had come into the hands of the Hindus”, most of whom were
Rajputs. [Chand,
Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division,
Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]
What do the contemporary official records
show?
Maasir-ul-Umara [Biographies of Commanders] A
biographical dictionary of officials the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1780 [from
Akbar to Shah Alam] in Persian language is the most authentic record of
high-ranking officials employed by the Mughal rulers. This work was compiled by
Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1780. The details
contained in it were based on the official records of the Mughal rulers.
According to this compilation, during this period the Mughal rulers had about
100 Hindus (out of 365) were appointed to the high-ranking positions of Mughal
empire, most of whom were from "Rajput Rajputana, Central-India,
Bundelkhand, Maharashtra". As far as numbers are concerned, Brahmins
followed Rajputs in handling the Mughal administration.
[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir
al-Umara [translated by H
Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1 & 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.]
Interestingly, the Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha,
founded in 1893 which was "committed to the establishment of Hindi as the
official language", published part of this book in Hindi which contained
‘Biographies of Hindu Chieftains of the Mughal Court’ in 1931. [व्रज रत्न दास (अनुवाद), माआसिरुल-उमरा, काशी नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा, काशी, 1931]
Aurangzeb's Hindu Generals & Advisors
Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji on the battlefield. It
was his general, Jai Singh I (1611-1667), a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan),
who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jai Singh II (1681-1743),
(nephew of Jai Singh I) was another prominent Rajput general of the Mughal army
who served Aurangzeb loyally against Shivaji. He was given the title of 'Sawai'
by Aurangzeb in 1699. He was awarded the title of [one fourth time superior to
his contemporaries] and thus he 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. Other titles given to him by other Mughal rulers were
'Sarmad-i-Rajah-i-Hind' [Eternal Ruler of India], 'Raja Rajeshwar' [Lord of
Kings] and 'Shri Shantanu Ji' [Benevolent King]. These titles are even today displayed by his descendants today.
Akbar vs. Maharana Pratap
According to the current Hindutva narrative, Pratap
Singh I, popularly known as Maharana Pratap (1540-1597), fought for Hindus and
Hindu nation against the Mughal emperor Akbar who wanted to subjugate the
Hindus of India under Islamic rule. Interestingly, Akbar never faced the
Maharana in any battle; it was Akbar's most trusted Rajput military commander,
Man Singh I (1550–1614), also his wife’s real brother, who fought against the
Maharana on behalf of the Akbar.
The most important battle of Haldighati (June 18,
1576) was fought between the army led by Maharana and Mughal army led by Man
Singh I. He was one of the Navratnas (favourite courtiers of Akbar). Akbar
called him his Farzand (son), and he ruled several provinces of Akbar's empire.
It also must be noted that chief of artillery of the
army of Maharana Pratap was Hakim Khan Suri. He played a great role in confronting the Mughal army
led by Man Singh in the Battle of Haldighati. Hakim Khan Suri fought
alongside Maharana Pratap and was killed in the same battle while defending
Maharana.
A Kayastha Prime Minister of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb
Contemporary documents mention carry first-hand
accounts of Raja Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayastha, who served as the Diwan Aala
(Prime Minister) of both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. According to a biography
written by one of his descendants, Raja Maharaj Lal,
“Raja Raghunath Bahadur was not oblivious to the
interests of his co-castes [Kayasthas], having risen to the highest post of
Dewan Aala (Prime Minister). Raja appointed each of them to positions of honour
and emoluments according to their individual merits, while many of them were
granted honours and valuable estates for their services. Not a single Kayastha
remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”
[Lal, Lala Maharaj, 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.]
This account reveals that in the Sultanate of
Aurangzeb, who was a 'fanatic Muslim' and an unbridled tyrant, the Kayastha
prime minister was free to patronize people of his caste, all of whom were
Hindus. Aurangzeb was so fond of this Hindu Prime Minister that after his death
he instructई one
of his Wazirs (ministers) Asad Khan in a letter to follow the 'saintly guidance' of Raja Raghunath. [Trushke,
Audrey, pp. 74-75.]
Investigating only
the “Muslim period’ (500 years) in a 5000-year-old Indian civilization
Linking the crimes committed by Aurangzeb or other
'Muslim' rulers in pre-modern India to their religion is going to have serious
consequences even for the 'Hindu' history as told by the RSS. For instance,
take Ravana, the king of Lanka, who as per the ‘Hindu’ legend, committed
unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and their companions
during their 14-year long exile [exiled by Hindus only]. This
Ravana, according to the same legend, was a learned Brahmin and one of the
greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.
Violence when only
Hindus inhabited India
Mahabharata
The epic Mahabharata is not the
story of a fierce war between Hindus and Muslims but between two 'Hindu' armies
(Pandavas and Kauravas, both Kshatriyas). In this War, according to the 'Hindu'
account, 120 crore people (all Hindus) were killed. Draupadi, the joint wife of
the Pandavas, was disrobed by the Kauravas (all Hindus).
If the crimes of Ravana, Kauravas,
Jai Singh I and II etc. are linked to their religion like Aurangzeb and other
'Muslim' rulers, then the country will turn into a slaughterhouse. If revenge
is to be taken on the present co-religionists of the rulers/criminals of the past, then it must
begin from the beginning of Indian civilization; the turn of Indian Muslims
will come much later!
‘Muslims’ ruled India for
centuries, but Muslim population remained a minority
Another crucial
fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than five
hundred hundreds of effective ‘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…”
[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.]
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%. India seems to be the only country in world history where despite
‘Muslim’ rule of more than half of a millennium the populace did not convert to
the religion of the rulers. Hindu High Castes remained in control of the
national wealth during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be in control whereas common
Muslims remained paupers during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be so!
In the latest NCERT rewrite spree on
Muslim period, a mysterious note has been added which generously states that
the dark events i.e. Muslim period should be studied impartially without
blaming any present-day people (i.e. Muslims of the country). If we really want
to identify the criminals of 'Muslim Raj' then it is very important to settle
the account with the upper Caste Hindus of the country and not Indian Muslims.
There are historical reasons behind the huge amount of wealth that the upper
castes of the country have today.
They Hindu High Castes did not bear
enmity towards either Muslim or Christian rulers but rather served them with
utmost loyalty; they even developed bread-daughter [roti-beti] relationship
with the Muslim rulers. It is not that the upper Caste Hindus did not fight
these cruel rulers, but nobody of their lineage survived. The tragedy of the
country is that children of those who betrayed common Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains of this country, served most loyally the 'Muslim Raj' and
Shamsul
Islam
August 8, 2025
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam
Facebook:
https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332
Twitter: @shamsforjustice
http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/
Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com
Link for procuring Shamsul Islam’s books in English, Hindi & Urdu:
No comments:
Post a Comment