Different Viewpoints - Hindu Holocaust During the Muslim Occupation of India Part I

After having examined the evidence about the Hindu Holocaust, let us now see what different Historians have to say on this subject.

A Realistic Interpretation of History


After having seen what the Islamic historian had to say about India, let us see what Western Historians and Indian historians have to say. Some Western Historians are very candid about the events that took place during the Muslim Occupation of India. Here is what one contemporary Western Historian has to say:

"Under the rule of some of the Delhi sultans of the Middle Ages, there was persecution, and Brahmans were put to death for practicing their devotions in public."

- A.L. Basham quoted from his book "The Wonder that was India".

Another Western historian is even more forthright when he says:

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

- Francois Gautier quoted from his book "Rewriting Indian History" Copyright 1996. Published by Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd., New Delhi


The Kutub Minar built by Kutub-ud-din Aibak. The Kutub Minar is one of the earliest Islamic monuments in India. This Minar was built from the columns of destroyed Hindu and Jain temples. It stands at the site of Pithoragarh which was the capital of Prithiviraj Chauhan, the last Hindu ruler of Delhi.The damaged motifs in this picture show clear Hindu origins - a testimony to the vandalism of the Muslim aggressors. There are many such temples which had been converted into mosques like the Bhoja Shala Mosque, the Gyan Vyapi Mosque, the Krishna Janmabhoomi Idgah, apart from the now liberated Ramjanmabhoomi at Ayodhya. The total runs to 3000 (Three Thousand).
In the opinion of the author, all such controversial structures should be taken possession of by a national educational trust and be converted into schools for humanist and rationalist education. This could be the first step in the long journey for converting all places of religious worship all over the globe into schools for humanist and rationalist education where humans can finally be taught the futility of worshipping human ignorance termed as God and the stupidity of fighting each other due to the different names we have given to human ignorance.



But some Indian Historians do just the opposite when they try to white-wash the misdeeds of Islam in India. We shall discuss Indian Historians in three categories : Pseudo-secular, Realistic and Apologists of Alien Rule - Islamic and British:


British Historians - Alternation between Prejudice and Objectivity

Some British historians were prejudiced. But there were also other British Historians who had genuine curiosity and in spite of their pre-conceived notions, they tried to do their job faithfully in the spirit of objectivity.

The Objectivity of some British Historians

In the pursuit of their researches, they applied methods followed in Europe. They collected, collated and compared old manuscripts. They deciphered old, forgotten scripts and in the process discovered an important segment of India's past. They developed linguistics, archaeology, carbon-dating, numismatics; they found ample evidence of India in Asia. They discovered for us much new data, local and international.

True, many times they tried to twist this data and put fanciful constructions on it, but this new respect for facts imposed its own discipline and tended to evolve objective criteria. Because of the objective nature of their criteria, their findings did not always support the prejudices and pre-conceived notions which some of them had. For example, their data proved that India represented an ancient culture with remarkable continuity and widespread influence and that it had a long and well-established tradition of self-rule and self-governing republics, and free institutions and free discussion.

The Prejudice of some British Historians

The However while admitting these positive factors, it is also true that the British historians distorted Indian history on some most essential points. The distortion was not conscious but was unconscious; however, it was not less real and potent on that account. The mind of British scholars was shaped by their position as rulers of a fast expanding Empire and by its need to consolidate itself ideologically and politically. As rulers, they felt a new racial and cultural superiority and, reinforced by their religion, developed a strong conviction of their civilizing mission. Many of them also felt a great urge to bring the blessings of Christian morals and a Christian God to a benighted paganhood, as long as the attempt did not endanger the Empire.

Offical British (Macaulayists) Distorted Indian History to serve the Compulsions of British Colonial Rule

The rulers had also more palpable political needs. The subject people should have no higher notion of their past beyond their present status, which they should also learn to accept without murmur and even with thankfulness.

The British rulers had an interest in telling the Indian people that the latter had never been a nation but a conglomerate of miscellaneous people drawn from diverse sources and informed by no principle of unity; that Indian history had been an history of invaders and conquerors; that they had never known indigenous rule; that, indeed, they were indifferent to self-rule; and that so long as their village life was intact, they did not bother who ruled at the Centre. All these lessons were tirelessly taught and dutifully learnt, so much so that even after the British have left, these assumptions and categories still shape the larger political thinking and historical perspective among many Indian historians. That India is multi-racial, multi-national. multi linguistic, multi-cultural painfully trying to acquire a principle of unity under their aegis is also the assumption of Indian's own new leaders and elite of the post-independence period.

British Historians did not tell the Complete Story of India's history

These were the basic attitudes and unspoken interests that shaped the minds of the British historians, but within this framework there was room enough for individual preferences and temperamental peculiarities. Some of them could show their genuine appreciation for Hindu language, grammar, architecture, and other cultural achievements, but this appreciation would not go beyond a certain point nor in a direction which began to feed the people's wider national consciousness and pride in themselves as an ancient nation In this respect too, our intellectual elite follow the lead of the British scholars. Many of them - unless they are Pseudo-secularists or Macaulayists -are not without a measure of appreciation and pride for some of India's old cultural creations.

But this appreciation does not extend to that larger culture itself which put forth those creations, and that religion and spirit in which that culture was rooted, and those people and that society which upheld that religion and that culture.

British Highlighted Hindu-Muslim Differences for their Own vested Interests

We are told that the British highlighted Hindu-Muslim differences. They certainly did. But they had no interest in telling the Indians that their forefathers shared a common religion, that some of them got converted under peculiar circumstances, that those circumstances were no longer valid, and that they should not lose their consciousness of their original and wider fold.

On the other hand, the way the British wrote India's history perpetuated the myth of a Muslim rule and a Muslim period which could not but accentuate Hindu-Muslim differences and promote Muslim separatism.

The British Felt a Sense of Affinity with the Muslim Rulers

The main interest of the British was to write a history which justified their (i.e. British)presence in India. The British were Imperial rulers and by their situation and function they felt a sense of affinity, if not sympathy, with the rulers that had preceded them.

Like the Muslims, the British also held India by the right of conquest; therefore, they had to recognise the legitimacy of this right in the case of the Muslims too. But this justification was too crude and naked for the British conscience. To assuage it, the British offered a legal and moral alibi. They held that they were legitimate successors of the Muslims (Mughals, Afghans and Arabs) and represented continuity with India's past.
- The Nalanda University.
The defeat of the last Hindu Kings of North India - Prithviraj Chauhan and Jaichandra Gahadawal (Rathore) in 1192 and 1194 C.E., respectively by the Afghan raider, Mahmud Shahabuddin Ghori (Ghauri) opened up the Gangetic plains to the ruthless invader where the Buddhist (and Hindu) centres of learning were located. The destruction of monasteries and the slaughter of monks that followed the headlong rush, of the Muslim invaders down the Ganges, stilled the agony of this once glorious; educational and monastic institution into the silence of death.

Before it was destroyed by the blind fury of the Muslim invaders, the Nalanda University housed nine million manuscripts. It was the center of education for scholars from all over Asia and Europe. Many Greek, Persian and Chinese students studied here.

Its vivid descriptions in the chronicles of Huien Tsang, the Chinese Buddhist scholar who visited Nalanda twelve hundred years ago... bring the crumbling stones back to life again. It was this university that was the cradle of ancient Hindu mathematics, astronomy, linguistics, philosophy and theology.

Nothing remains today of this great ancient university.... except ruins! The fanatical ferocity of the Muslim invaders made sure of that. The blazing fires into which the Muslims soldiers threw the nine million manuscripts, reduced them to ashes. Yet this vandalism and hatred of the marauders could not destroy the immortal wisdom that lay within. The spirit that went behind the creation of this university could never be destroyed permanently.

The memory of that intellectual tradition, that was sought to be destroyed by the Muslim Marauders, survives in the hearts of many Indians. The living proof of this is the creation of this website that tries to recollect the immortal wisdom of ancient India. A wisdom that has never preached malice against other faiths, nor have the citizens of this country ever indulged in a holy war against those of another country. Indians have since ancient times won their way by persuasion and never by the sword, nor have they ever used their position or power to compel conformity to their precepts.

Only in ancient India did we have an emperor (Samrat Ashok Maurya) who after a military victory - laid down his weapons and forswore violence. There is no parallel to this attitude, the world over. It is due to this deep sagacity that we could preserve our innate spirit of humanness in face of the heart-rending tyranny of the Muslims - which we had to live with, for seven centuries at a stretch. And yet we still survive as a wounded civilization to tell the tale of the kind of culture we had before we were forced to shed our blood against the sword of the Islamic Jihad.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mughals were presented by the British as empire builders who united India and gave it law and order, peace and stability-the natural blessings of an Imperial order. And the British themselves were merely the successors to the Imperial rights of the Muslims (Mughals and Afghans) and upheld the Imperial Authority of Delhi. Whatever elevated Mughal authority at Delhi, also elevated their (i.e. British) Imperial authority too.

Facts sometimes compelled the British historians to speak of cruelties and vandalism of the Muslim rule, but this did not stop them from upholding its authority. For they knew that the myth of Imperialism is one whosoever be the Imperial ruler. And hence the glory of the Mughal rulers and the myth of their invincibility added to the glory and the myth of the British Empire itself.

The Compulsions of Colonial Rule united the British with the Muslims, although the British represented a Relatively Civilized Ruler as against the Muslims who were Crude

Thus all these factors made the British give a new boost to the Muslim rule in India. While trying to legitimize their own rule, they also gave to their predecessor a kind of legitimacy which they never had in the eyes of the Indian people. In fact, in the larger national consciousness, the Muslim rule had as little legitimacy as the British rule had. Both were considered as foreign impositions and resisted as much and as far as time, opportunity and the prevailing power equation allowed it.

British Historians underplayed the Hindu Struggle for Independence against Muslim Occupation

But by the same token and for the same reason the Hindu resistance to Muslim rule, long and stubborn, was underplayed by British historians and presented as "revolts" or "rebellions" against the legitimate Imperial authority of the Centre. They felt, and quite rightly, from their viewpoint, that Indian history should have nothing to show that its people waged many battles and repulsed many invaders. Thus, in this way India came to have a history which is the history of its invaders, whose dominion its people accepted meekly.

The Correction of the Distortion of History by Colonial Historians

Wole Soyinka, African Nobel Laureate, delivering the 20th Nehru Memorial Lecture on November 13, 1988, made an important though by no means a new observation-that the colonial histories have been written from the European viewpoint. Speaking about Indian histories, he said that "there is a big question mark on everything that the British historians have written". He added that serious efforts are being made by historians back home to rewrite African history.

We do not know what this project involves and how it is faring in Africa, but in India efforts in this direction have yielded meagre results. Not that there has been a dearth of rewriters, but their talent has not been equal to their zeal.

The phrase "re-writing of history" leaves a bad taste in the mouth and it is offensive to our sense of truth. Recent instances of rewriting have not helped to improve the image of the task and they inspire little confidence. In most cases, one did not know where legitimate rewriting ended and forgery began. In practical terms, it has meant that history is written to support the latest party line, or the latest dictator or in India's Context the British Colonialist or Muslim Sultan.

How Muslim Historians Presented their Case with Brazen Crudeness

In India even before the British came on the stage, Muslim historians had written similar histories. Those histories were mostly annals written by scribes employed by Muslim kings. The task of these scribes was to glorify Islam and their immediate patrons, a task which they performed with great zeal and rhetoric. In the performance of this task, they resorted to no moral or intellectual disguise. The glory of Islam and the extension of Dar-ul-lslam (the Muslim equivalent of the British "Empire") was self-justified and needed no artificial props. They spoke of the massacres of the infidels, of their forcible conversions, of Hindu temples they razed and of similar tyrannies perpetrated with great rejoice, as Sir H.M.Elliot points out.

The Hindu Apologists of Islamic Rule

The results were no better when the annalist employed happened to be a Hindu Munshi in the employ of a Muslim Sultan. Elliot again observes that from "one of that nation we might have expected to have learnt what were the feelings, hopes, faiths, fears, and yearnings, of his subject race," but this was not to be. On the other hand, in his writing, there is "nothing to betray his religion or his nation...With him, a Hindu is an 'infidel', and a Muhammadan 'one of true faith',... With him, when Hindus are killed, 'their souls are despatched to hell', and when a Muhammadan suffers the same fate, he 'drinks the cup of martyrdom'...He speaks of the 'light of Islam shedding its refulgence on the world'."

But what comes next intrigues Elliot even more. Even after the tyrant was no more and the falsification of history through terror was no longer necessary (Elliot quotes Tacitus), he finds that there is still not one of this slavish crew who treats the history of his native country objectively, or presents us with the thoughts, emotions, and raptures which a long oppressed race might be supposed to give vent to".

The Pseudo-Secularists have Inherited the mantle of the Renegade Hindu Munshis

This tribe of renegade Hindu munshis or the "slavish crew" of Elliot have a long life and show a remarkable continuity. Instead of diminishing, their number has multiplied with time. In fact, today in modern day India, they dominate the universities, the media and the country's political thinking.


Islamic Iconoclasm Today
A gigantic image of the Great Master - Buddha
at Bamiyan near Kabul in Afghanistan.
It is this image which has been threatened to be blown off by the Taliban,
the Islamic militia that rules Afghanistan.
The statue faced its first defilement at the hands of Islamic invaders
when they invaded pre-dominantly Buddhist Afghanistan in the 8th century
Incidentally the name Afghanistan is derived from the Sanskrit terms Upa-gana-stan
which means "Lands where the Allied tribes live".


The Pseudo-Secularists have Inherited the mantle of the Renegade Hindu Munshis. The Renegade Hindu Munshis were at least the paid servants of their Muslim masters. Secondly, they lied under the fear of death of their ruthless masters. But the behaviour of today's pseudo-secularists call for surprise. They see all the real and imaginary evils of Hindu society, but white-wash all Islamic cruelties and barbarism - past and present. It is they who provide the grist to the mills of the politicians who clamour to hold Iftar parties (and who are conspicuously absent during Diwali or Christmans or Gurupurab or Pateti).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pseudo-secularists are reinforced by another set of historians - those who carry the British tradition. One very important thing in common with them is that they continue to look at India through the eyes of Muslim and British rulers even long after their rule has ceased. Elliot regards the problem with moral indignation but the phenomenon involves deep psychological and sociological factors.

The Benumbing Influence of a long drawn Hostile Rule on Indians

Hindus have lived under very trying circumstances for many centuries and during this time their psyche suffered much damage. Short-term tyranny may prove a challenge but long-term, sustained tyranny tends to benumb and dehumanize. Under continued military and ideological attack, many Hindus lost initiative and originality; they lost naturalness and self-confidence; they lost pride in themselves, pride in their past and in their history and in their nation. They learnt to live a sort of underground life, furtively and apologetically. Some tried to save their self-respect by identifying themselves with the thoughts and sentiments of the rulers. They even adopted the rulers' contempt for their own people.

These attitudes imbibed over a long period have become our second nature, and they have acquired an independence and dynamism of their own. We have begun to look at ourselves through the eyes of our past rulers! This is the intellectual heritage of the Pseudo-secularist intellectuals who while jumping to attention while waxing eloquent of the real and imaginary evils of Hindu society, develop selective amnesia and white-wash all Islamic cruelties and barbarism - past and present.

Indian Historians of the Post-Independence Period

One would have thought that all this would change after we attained Independence, but this did not happen. It shows that to throw off an intellectual and cultural yoke is far more difficult than to throw off a political yoke. By and large we have retained our old history written by our past Muslim and British rulers. Muslim rule became 'indigenous', and Muslim kings became 'national' kings, and even nationalists, those who fought them began to receive a low score. R.C. Majumdar tells us how under this motivation, national leaders created an "imaginary history", one of them even proclaiming that 'Hindus were not at all a subject race during the Muslim rule", and how "these absurd notions, which would have been laughed at by leaders at the beginning of the 19th century, passed current as history...at the end of that century".

One of the seven gateways of Jaipur fort
Jaipur City created in the 1720 C.E. by Raja Jai Singh
is enclosed by a wall which has seven such gates.
Those were the times when the Muslims ruled Delhi and
every city ruled by a non-Muslim ruler was susceptible to attack without notice.



Pseudo-secularist Distortions

Pseudo-secularists have taken to re-writing Indian history on a large scale and it has meant its systematic falsification. They have a dogmatic view of history and for them the use of any history is to prove their dogma. Their very approach is hurtful to truth. They propagate that India was never a nation, that it did not know any freedom or freedom struggle in the past.

We find that their attacks on India's past are as vicious and motivated as those of the Muslim historians. No wonder histories continue to be written with all the contempt we learnt to feel for our past and with all the lack of understanding we developed for our culture during the days of foreign domination.

The Compulsions of the Freedom Struggle against British Colonialism led to Distortion of the Truth

A new source of distortion was opened during the period of the freedom struggle itself. Nationalist leaders strove to receive Muslim support for the Independence struggle. In the hope of achieving this end, Indian nationalism itself began to re-write the history of medieval times by skirting issues of Islamic Vandalism. Unfortunately this expected support never came and finally resulted in Partitioning of India.

The Pseudo-secularists' contempt for India

The Pseudo-secularists' contempt for India - particularly ancient Indian culture and philosophy - is deep and theoretically fortified. It exceeds the contempt ever shown by the most die-hard imperialists. Some of the British had an orientalist's fascination for the East or an administrator's paternal concern for their wards but the Pseudo-secularists suffer from no such sentimentality. The very "Asiatic mode of production" was primitive and any "superstructure" of ideas and culture built on that foundation must be barbaric too.

In this the Pseudo-secularists are following the lead given by Karl Marx who treated all Asia and Africa as an appendage of the West and indeed of Great Britain. We can absolve Karl Marx as he never stepped into India. He borrowed all his theses on India from British rulers and fully subscribed to them. With them he believed that "Indian society has no history at all; at least no known history", and that what we call its history of India, is the history of successive intruders". With them he also believed that India "has neither known nor cared for self-rule".

In fact, he ruled out self-rule for India altogether and in this matter gives her no choice. He says that the question is "not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton". His own choice was clear.

Indian Pseudo-secularists fully accept this thesis, except that they are also near-equal admirers of the Muslim conquest of India. Indian Pseudo-secularists get quite lyrical about this conquest and find quite a fulfillment in it.

Let us illustrate the point with the example of M.N. Roy. We are told that he gave up Marxism but he kept enough of it to retain his admiration for Muslim Imperialism. He admires the "historical role of Islam" in a book of the same name and praises the "Arab empire" as a magnificent monument to the memory of Mohammad". He hails Muslim invasion of India and tells us how "it was welcomed as a message of hope and freedom by the multitudinous victims of Brahmanical reaction".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Hindu Caste System was De-humanizing, but everything is preferable as compared to the Islamic Terror

That the pre-Muslim Hindu society was based on the de-humanizing caste system is a reality. But the class division of society is common to all parts of the globe and not specific to India. In India, this class division was perpetuated not by the masters Whiplash on the slave (as it happened in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome) but by a neat integration of religious taboos into the social structure. The Hindu caste system was tyrannical without a shade of doubt. But this was the case in different forms in all class society all across the globe in all human history. By comparison the tyranny unleashed by the Muslim invaders was incomparably more ruthless and inhuman.

The Pseudo-secularist Misunderstanding of the Worst face of Religious Bigotry

But what the Pseudo-secularist historians overlook in their pseudo-secular zeal to whitewash Islamic misdeeds in India is that Islam represents the worst face of religious bigotry. And in the ultimate analysis in the struggle against religious bigotry, Islamic fanaticism will be the hardest to overcome, at a global level. All faces of fanaticism are negative - whether Islamic, Christian or Hindu. But the Islamic element of religious bigotry is by far the worst and has to dealt with, with a ruthlessness that out-matches the ruthlessness of Islamic fanatics. AND, IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, ALL RELIGIOUS FANATICISM HAS TO BE FOUGHT TO A FINISH AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. This is the moot point that Pseudo-secularist historians miss totally, while talking about the misdeeds of Islam in India.

Indian History as Presented by Conventional Historians

What was India's history as presented in the learned tomes and treatises as well as in school and college textbooks? By and large, it was a history of conquerors coming from the outside and establishing regimes of long or short duration in this count, the Persians, the Greeks, the Scythians, the Kushans, the White Huns, the Arabs, the Turks, the Mughals, the Portuguese, the Afghans, the Dutch, the French, and the British. The scenario had been given a finishing touch by converting the authors of India's earliest civilization into Dravidian and Aryan invaders. In the process. India had been converted into an empty space with no society or culture of its own.

It was obvious that this version of India's history was only a mix of various versions floated by imperialist ideologies - Islam (Dar-ul-harb) Christianity (White Man's Burden). The message which this history conveyed was also loud and clear: namely that there was no such thing as India's indigenous society that there was no such thing as India's indigenous culture, that India at any time belonged to those who could occupy it by means of armed might, and that the independent India that had emerged in 1947 was a @#%$-and-bull story of many races, many religions many cultures, many languages, and many other things.

The most sinister aspect of this version was that Indian heroes who had fought and finally defeated every foreign invader were to be found only in footnotes, if at all. Most of the time, the heroes that India was being asked to cherish, particularly in the post-1947 period, were chosen from among the invaders themselves.

What was then the Real Story of India

What was India's history according to the indigenous historical traditions, on the other hand? A connected and coherent version had not been available for a long time. But the broad outlines were not in doubt.

An Unbiased (Realistic) Outline of Indian History

1. Indian civilization was the dominant civilization of the world for a long time before the birth of Jesus Christ, the same as the modern Western civilization has been since the last two-three centuries;

2. India's presence world-wide could be seen in the language and literature, religion and philosophy, and science and technology of many peoples, east and west, north and south;

3. A long spell of unrivalled power and prosperity made India self-centered and complacent so that she neglected the art of warfare and invited invaders from far and near to flock towards her borders;

4. While the early invaders were beaten back from India's frontiers, the later ones who succeeded in storming in were absorbed rather speedily into the vast complex of India's society and culture so that instead of weakening or dividing India in any manner, they added to her vitality and vigour;

5. The Islamic invaders who had overrun large parts of Asia. Africa, and Europe and converted whole populations to the new creed in the short span of a hundred years, took five hundred years to reach the heartland of India due to the stiff and persistent resistance they met at every step;

http://www.hinduunity.org