Effacing India’s intolerant Islamic past: A review and critique of M Athar Ali’s idea of Hindu-Muslim syncretism and a study of its historical validity in “Encounter and efflorescence: the genesis of the medieval civilization”

By

Saurav Basu

Athar Ali, considered as one of the pivotal scholars in interpreting medieval history, best known for the critically acclaimed “Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb” makes an attempt to critically appraise the rise of the medieval Indian civilization, which he personally believed to be not only fateful but also immensely creative. We can briefly recapitulate the historiography of Islamic India – the earliest histories at the hands of James Mill, viewed the marauding forces of Islam as the superior civilization which feasted on the avarice of the militarily moribund Hindu civilization. However, the rise of Indomania (to borrow Trautmann’s term) gave rise to a movement which emphasized a heightened understanding and appreciation of myriad elements of the Hindu civilization. Mill’s history was generally supplanted with a version of colonial history where the brutal extermination and conversion of the Hindu culture was highlighted as a crime, an irreplaceable loss for Indian civilization and not a naturally corollary of circumstances as envisaged previously by Mill. The so called nationalist historians then meticulously deciphered crucial evidence in decoding the Islamic civilization in India, to be the outcome of not a relatively one sided Hindu flight from power but a brutal battle for supremacy and Hindu revanchist attempt which continued well within the rule of the Sultanate but finally overwhelmed by the might of the Mughals, under whose rule some form of composite culture blossomed amidst the aridity of previously acrimonious Hindu-Muslim relations.

But this supposedly nationalist historiography became subject to revision soon after by a group of Muslim historians apart from Nehruvian cronies like Tarachand^[1]. Communal Islamic Historians like I M Qureshi launched virulent diatribes against the seeming Hindu hegemony of history, and routinely distorted facts to establish a grandiosity of the Mughals which could not be matched even by their contemporary band of sycophantic court chroniclers’. Another group of similar historians were not Islamic supremacists like Qureshi but apologists. The perfect example of the latter would be the eminent Mohammad Habib who wrote that Islam won infamy in India not only from the original depredations of Mahmud, but also from admiration “by such Musallmans as have cast off the teachings of Lord Krishna in their devotion to minor gods” Mahmud to Habib was a brute, an uncivilized Turkish plunderer who had been unable to come in contact with the benevolently tolerant aspects of Islam. His numerous expeditions into India were purely out of lust for wealth, arising out of his insatiable greed and not a campaign for the Islamicization of India. (The latter routinely espoused by Romila Thapar) But Konraed Elst has rightly questioned Habib’s premise for the same since Mahmud of Ghazni was a product of the highest Islamic civilization, who patronized personal critics like Firdausi and Al Beruni, he could boast being a fine calligraphist and even used part of his plunder to install a magnificent library back home.

Athar Ali represents a third kind of Muslim (his great friend Irfan Habib identifies some of his Marxist leanings) historian who combined elements from both Qureshi and Habib while being dissimilar from both in disowning Qureshi’s historically untenable Islamic supremacist position and in his own words taking a perception out of Islamic history, generated by modern research instead of the apologist’s view of Islam for its basis. In the process which was generated he evolved into the Self Righteous Muslim Historian who refuses to see Islam responsible for any sins of the subcontinent, while simultaneously taking great pride in its achievements, hailing it as the harbinger of a flourishing Medieval Indian civilization – a composite culture between two religions which were theologically, socially and culturally poles apart; an event hitherto unknown to the world.

. . .

Athar Ali explains the genesis of the medieval civilization through a historical process which unfolded serially, beginning from the Arab acquisition in Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim in 714, followed by Ghazni and Ghauri’s expedition in 1030 and 1206 respectively. His reinterpretation of these three events is followed by examination of the Hindu community’s perception of the Sultanate rule, and the latter’s attempt to strive for a collective spirit. The efflorescence in the social order in relations between Hindus and Muslims in routine affairs follows. The essay concludes with an examination of the efflorescence in the religious sphere – the religions of Kabir and Nanak which reflect the outcome of the cultural exchange between two vastly different and supposedly antithetical religions.

This essay on my part is to only examine the validity of Athar Ali’s claims which today have become the academic norm and any deviation from it invites the ridiculous charges of Hinduvta, communalism and even fascism. In any case, academic norms are not monolithic barriers and their transgression is the natural order of the learning process.

Mohammad Bin Qasim’s expeditions to India have a virtually contemporaneous account in the “Chachnama”. The Chachnama is certainly an important historical record of its time. Athar Ali interpretations of the Arab conquest and its aftermath would want us to believe that the conquerors slipped easily into the shoes of the Indian rulers. Ali’s evidence for such assumption relies heavily on the continuation of Brahmans as revenue collectors. Hindu mode of worship and sanctity of images was guaranteed, and the lowly Jats continued to be subjected to same humiliating conditions as before. Ali goes on to record that Chachnama records not a single forcible conversion to Islam because the Arabs were already aware of hierarchical realities and civilized elements amongst non Islamic groups which curbed their zeal for conversion.

The Chachnama records the dominant population of Sindh comprised of both Hindus and Buddhists who lived in amity. It documents extensive array of Buddhist and Hindu temples across the length and breadth of the country, which is corroborated by Hieun Tsiang’s eyewitness account. It records seven attempts by Arabs to invade Sindh (recent research by Maulana Nadvi puts the number at 15) and barring the last all were repulsed. Bin Qasim owed his victory much to the betrayal of the Buddhist samtanis who surrendered without a fight, for dogma dictated they didn’t take up arms, and the starry dynamics predicted the victory of the infidels.

The Chachnama does not record any Arab affinity for Sindh barring its riches. Bin Qasim was a cunning general, and he employed the perfect blend of political expediency and Islamic orthodoxy. He only followed the known historical process of reconciliation of the defeated enemy. Bin Qasim had no immediate plans for return and he had to chalk out an administrative strategy in Sindh. Allowing Brahmins as revenue collectors was a necessity since he didn’t have substitutes possessing the former’s efficiency nor insight into local governance. Importing collectors would have proven too costly, their efficiency would be modest at most, and the local population would have remained hostile to their interferences; all these factors would ultimately have hampered revenue collection. The fact that Bin Qasim despite being aware of the Brahmin collector’s corruptions retained them speaks volumes of how much necessity dictated his actions, there is no reason to suspect that in retaining Brahmin collector’s he was taking care of indigenous sensibilities.

By no stretch of imagination, can we then concur that the Jat maltreatment was out of concern for Brahmin sensibilities. It is quite strange that in another article of his ‘Elements of Social Justice in Medieval Islamic Thought’ Athar Ali recognizes that there was no recognition of any violation of any Islamic principles of ‘social justice’ in the retention of the old constraints. The Muslims were least interested in the affairs of the lowly classes; and it but natural that the Hindu social order would remain least affected by intrusion of the Muslim who maintained their separate and distinct identities. This is further buttressed by the evidence of the Al Badhuri which documents Bin. Qasim earmarking a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there.

Hajjaj had only reinforced in him the futility of engaging in a mass conversion drive, so early into the quest. However, prior to that according to Ferishta, he had forcibly circumcised Brahmins in Debal who refused to convert or pay Jizya. He ordered annihilation of all above the age of 17, and enslavement of women and children. Bin Qasim cherished like any medieval Islamic Invader the desire to convert the infidels, but again it was a lack of resources and resistance of the local population which put paid to his efforts. There is no reason for Ali to claim that the Chachnama does not record any forcible conversion for there is a plethora of internal evidence which points to Bin Qasim’s efforts regarding the same. Chachnama records that he who received the honour of Islam and became a convert was exempt from slavery, paying tribute and was not injured. Those who refused to convert had to pay a fixed tribute or jizya, would have to put up with injuries (gazand) and compulsorily entertain Muslim guests in their homes for a period of three days. The Chachnama then records the mass migration of Hindus from Sindh in order to protect the religion of their forefathers. There is no inconsistency here; active coercion for conversion operated under Bin Qasim’s regime in Sindh.

The Chachnama records the reports of Muhammad bin Qasim Sakifi to Hajjaj, which also point to large number of conversions. Bin Qasim certainly boasts of having converted a sizable majority as evident from one of his letters addressed to Hajjaj
…the strongest forts of the infidels will be conquered, the cities taken, and our treasuries replenished. The forts of Siwistán and Sísam have been already taken. The nephew of Dáhir, his warriors, and principal officers have been despatched,and the infidels converted to Islám or de­stroyed. Instead of idol temples, mosques and other places of wor­ship have been built, pulpits have been erected, the Khutba is read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at the stated hours. The takbír and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening (The History of India as told by its own historians, Volume 1, chpt. 42)

Other historical evidences abound which reflect conversion activities in Sindh. In Debul, for instance, he enslaved and converted some women and children, and left a contingent of 4,000 Muhammadans to garrison the place. In Multan about 6,000 persons were made to accept Islam. Al Biladuri’s narrative indicates that the people of Sawandari, Basmad, Kiraj, and Alor were converted in large numbers.

Further, is it any mystery that the Arab expedition in Sindh was soon followed with the introduction of reconversion facilities for women in the Devala Smriti and the Atri Samhita. They carried several injunctions which facilitated restoration of forcibly converted Hindu women to their original religion even if they had lived with the infidels for as long as 20 years and had borne children of the same. Undoubtedly, the change in Hindu stance was a historical necessity evoked out of the challenge of the Muslim invaders. The consequence of the liberal decree was that after Bin Qasim’s recall not only the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly, but also most of the neo-converts returned to their former faith [K S Lal]

Similarly, the claim that Bin Qasim did not molest Hindu temples and images is debunked by the evidence of the Chachnama itself, which records the case of the famous sun temple of Multan which was held with very high regard by the Hindus. Bin Qasim initially held the site hostage by claiming tribute for not molesting the same; the incident provoked great humor in D D Kosambi, the eminent Marxist historian. Finally, to complete the Hindu humiliation and gratify the iconoclast in him, he hung a piece of beef over the image which completely defiled the site and it was abandoned for once and all. The ill fated temple had to wait another 300 years for its salvation at the hands of Mahmud of Ghazni.

The events which transpired in case of the sun temple are not an exception as scores of prominent Buddhist and Hindu shrines have disappeared forever from the region of Sindh, as has the religion of Buddhism. The circumstantial evidence is too overwhelming to remotely exonerate Bin Qasim although the magnitude of his actions would definitely pale in comparison with that of his successor, the Mahmud of Ghazni.

But is not Athar Ali guilty of homogenizing the heterogeneity of the past. Raja Dahir, his children and harem were ruthlessly massacred. Hindu prisoners of war were terminated without remorse in the twin cities of Sindh with over 12,000 casualties, and yet the Chachnama explicitly records that Muslim prisoners of war (who had been taken captive) were treated respectfully. This dichotomy cannot be resolved through Athar Ali’s narrative, to say the least.

The claim that Sindh remained the shining star of feudal India is brought to a naught by the foremost proponent of the concept of Indian Feudalism, R S Sharma himself who retains his belief in the Arab conquest adversely effecting India’s external commerce during the first two or three centuries of Islam.

Ali raises one pertinent question; how were the conquerors looked upon by the vanquished. While he admits the gravity of the Hindu sentiment which compelled Dahar’s sister to prepare for self immolation to escape from captivity of the cow eating chandalas, he concludes the Brahmins moved from a bitter rejection of an alien invader to the realistic acceptance of condition in which the invader became familiar, and life with honour, though with reduced authority, undoubtedly was possible. But unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth, and Athar Ali’s attempt at bowdlerizing the text deserve the strongest censure, howsoever great his academic credentials might be. For he evades the fact that the Brahmins go back to their people, and urge them to accept the Arab regime not out of any affinity but for self preservation. ‘If we would not submit to these Arabs and obey them, neither any property will be left with us nor any other means of subsistence. We are reduced to a helpless condition, and it is only throughthe kindness and goodness of the masters of the kingdom, that we can hope to secure position or respect. Otherwise we will be instantly driven away, and cut off root and branch from our native land. If you do not submit to the payment of the tribute fixed on you, we may have to bear a heavier burden still. We shall, however be on the look-out for a favourable opportunity to emigrate to some town in the land of Hind and Sind with our families, and then we shall be quite safe. We must need (to) go to such a place, for nothing is more valuable to a man than his personal safety. When we extricate ourselves from our dangerous position, and save ourselves from being molested by the Arab army, then only can we securely enjoy the possession of our family and property’

Clearly, the Brahmins sensed a determined threat to the native’s life and property. The situation is sufficiently grave to warrant submission to the mleccha. There is no hope for honour and privileges, and physical and economic vulnerability is paramount on their minds. The ideal solution to them was flight from Sindh into the interior of Hind but such an option could be exercised only at an appropriate moment, when an opportunity presented itself.

The Hindu response of Jauhar which originated in Sindh soon became a normative pattern for the next 700-800 years right until the reign of Akbar. Every time a Hindu kingdom fell, the harem committed mass suicide in flames lest the cow eating chandalas corrupted even their dead bodies. Jauhar could have originated from Sati, but not Sati from Jauhar although both these customs complemented each other. Therefore, the assertion of Ali that the response of Dahir’s harem was not very different from that of Raja Harshadeva’s in Kashmir is profoundly illogical since, it is common knowledge that the custom of Sati was in vogue in Kashmir from an early time. In the stories of Kathasaritsagara, which was composed in the valley in 11th century A.D., the custom appears to be quite common in contrast to Sindh where literary evidence does not point to such a state of Affairs. Harshadeva’s harem committed only Sati, and not Jauhar – the response was out of a sense of misery and grief, not anguish and hatred directed against any foreign enemy.

…

Bin Qasim’s incursions into Sindh did little to establish the religion of Islam in India. Historians like Elphinstone were surprised at the slow progress of the Islamic conquest in India. The Pratiharas were easily capable of conquering Multan according to the testimony of the Muslims themselves, but were deterred from doing so by the fear that the holy images of Multan might be broken by the Muslim rulers of the place. [HCIP, Volume 4, Page 128] Such thinking is ample testimony to the lack of rationality and foresight on the part of the native rulers.

The iconoclastic inferno of Islam has a lasting continuity ever since the Prophet destroyed the 360 idols of Kaaba to his devoted disciples in the Taliban who carried on the faith by smashing to smithereens the Bamiyan Buddhas!

Sultan Mahmud, followed his ideal, the great Prophet, and changed the course of Islam in India as his highly skilled forces permanently planted the religion of Islam in India by vanquishing all his Hindu rivals. In the course of its history, never had the fair land, its temples and its architecture suffered as in the hands of the iconoclastic Mahmud who routinely transformed them into rubble, and not being satisfied with that transported their remains to the holy places of Islam for their followers to tread upon.

Yet, historians of the Marxist mould have routinely explained away the depredations of Mahmud arising from the economic motive of loot and plunder rather than any religious one. However, they are yet to produce any objective evidence which testifies to the lack of the fanatical sentiment in Mahmud. On the contrary, Al Utbi’s contemporary account of Mahmud, does not hesitate from divulging the fact that the Sultan was very impressed with the temple architecture of Mathura and remarked ‘If any should wish to construct a building equal to this, he would not be able to do it without expending an hundred thousand thousand red dinars and it would occupy two hundred years even though the most experienced and able workmen are employed.’ But the iconoclast in him overwhelmed his aesthetic sense and he gave orders that that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire and be leveled to the ground.” (Tarikh Yemini, Elliot and Dawson, Vol. II, page 43) This flagitious attitude was replicated by a successive generation of Islamic rulers. Even the excellently timid Jalauddin Khalji, at the city of Jhain, while appreciating the beautiful sculptures and paintings ordered their wholesale destruction since they were unislamic. In Ferishta’s words he had made a hell out of paradise. (History of the Khaljis, K S Lal) The indiscriminate destruction of temples by Mahmud cannot be attributed to economic motives alone which in any case were secondary; it was religious zeal which proved to be the primary impetus for Mahmud’s actions.

Mahmud’s exploits have secondary corroboration from AL Beruni’s account who famously wrote “that Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed those wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions……their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims” Utbi, Mahmud’s personal chronicler wrote that “the blood of the infidels flowed copiously” and Hindu men were routinely exterminated, their wives and children enslaved and converted, and indiscriminate destruction of temples was followed by erection of mosques from their very remains. Again, the view of Athar Ali that it was only the fanatically inclined who would interpret Mahmud’s exploits as contributing to the glory of Islam is untenable since, even Jalauddin Khalji whose name is usually disassociated from Islam’s blood thirsty record in India revealed his real inspiration was none other than Sultan Mahmud. He severely reprimanded Ahmad Chap for having the audacity to wish their rule like that of Mahmud and considered it an honour if they were even admitted as their slaves! Barani in his Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi, quotes Jalauddin to this effect “don’t you see for yourself that every day these Hindus who are the bitterest enemies of the prophet, god and Islam are passing beneath my palace beating drums and trumpeting; and arriving in that fashion at the Yamuna and worshiping idols and making demonstrations of the rituals of kafirs before our very own eyes………The present situation is a matter of shame to us and our kingship and our so called support of religion and adherence to it; pretending to be defender of the faith. O Little boy! Give up your inopportune views and do not compare our rule with that of Sultan Mahmud and Sultan Sanjar because we are no more than slaves, attaining kingship and feel highly honoured and elevated if we were admitted as their slaves”

But returning to Al Beruni’s account which Athar Ali, while upholding as the greatest intercultural event of the era, simultaneously wonders whether the sensitive Alberuni and the vainglorious chroniclers have not presented a picture of Mahmud’s depredations that is heavily overdrawn. This is nothing but sophistry for Al Beruni was not so innocent of the art of war and deception. He was himself a captive of war and naturally his sensitivities had been conditioned previously by violence and mayhem. His criticism of Hindu institutions differed in severity and could be quite vitriolic. This is perhaps the reason that he displays no innate sympathy with the Hindus, and it throughout the text quite critical of them. There is an undercurrent of a subtle tension pervading the text, where Beruni has to be cautious in not crossing the limit of Islam’s thin red line of tolerance.

He was aware that He wrote the customs and manners the Hindus differ so completely from the Muslims that “they frighten their children with us, our dress and our ways and customs” and decree us as “devil’s breed” It was not Mahmud’s deprecations alone but his predecessors like Qasim which according to Beruni left Hindus with a deeply rooted hatred in their hearts.

It is any wonder that Beruni was able to perceive that; (Al Beruni’s India, Translated by Edward Sachau)

“they totally differ from us in religion, as second really believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice religious versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy. On the contrary, all their fanaticism is. Directed against those who do not belong to them—against all foreigners”

Only one final objection remains which Athar Ali and Romila Thapar have routinely paraded as their trump card in the past. That Mahmud’s exploits have not been periodically mentioned in contemporary Sanskrit chronicles and even in Kalhana’s account there is only a passing reference. But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Mercia Eliade (see, Cosmos and History), the world renowned philosopher is to be believed then a cyclical concept of time naturally obstructs historical consciousness. Thus, the oriental societies like India are characteristically antihistorical where unique and painful historical events are best left unrecorded so that the memories of another day cease to haunt successive generations in its wake. True, India had been subject to wars even in the past but in all those cases with virtually no exceptions, the common man, the tiller on the field, the articles of faith were all left unmolested and such wars were only a battle for a monarch’s personal supremacy, and not establishment of an alien culture and religion by uprooting the indigenous faith. Indigenous chronicles are usually thus silent on the Turusha’s victory march, the systemic dismantling of temples, the burning of its libraries, the humiliation of the Brahmins, and the conversion of its people. In fact, Romila Thapar repeatedly points out in “Somnatha, the many voices of history” that Sanskrit chronicles of Mahmud’s era routinely consider that due to the advent of the age of Kali, the images in temples self destruct themselves. Of course, that she has used this evidence to exonerate the Islamic invaders is absolutely ludicrous to say the least since no great perspicacity is required to appreciate the attempts of the Hindu chroniclers to attribute victory of the Muslims as ordained by divine sanction in the age of Kali, when sin engulfs the world. Complaining and lamenting on the victory of the Turusha had the potential to compromise the faith of the ordinary Hindus, and possibly expedite conversion to Islam. And therefore the invincibility of the gods of the Hindu pantheon had to be retained at all costs; theological adjustments were a small price to pay for the great cause that demanded it.

This point is further buttressed when we consider Guru Nanak’s testimony against Babur’s barbarianism. “Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan in dread….Such cruelties have they inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains unmoved….Should the strong attack the strong the heart does not burn. But when the strong crush the helpless, surely the One who was to protect them has to be called to account…. O’ Lord, these dogs have destroyed this diamond-like
Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one asks after those who have been killed, and yet You do not pay heed.”

Again, this account of Nanak has no secondary corroboration from Hindu Sanskritic sources for reasons which are no different than those mentioned above, but no sane historian would dare to doubt its authenticity for the same.

…

Athar Ali then moves onto the harbinger of the next wave of Islamic imperialism in India – Mohd. Ghuri who issued bilingual coins that carried the figure of a seated Lakshmi. Not too much should be read into it, though. Even we ignore the act arising out of a personal caprice, or even adoption of a national superstition, it was at most simply a means to achieve legitimacy through symbols.

Similarly, the claim of the Delhi Sultanate’s bolder attempt at cultural synthesis rests on extremely fragile grounds. There is no distinct body of evidence to even persuade us to conclude that Hindus could occupy any sincerely high position in the administration since their loyalty to the Sultan was always suspect! Some exceptions were made out of political and pragmatic reasons especially in view of the small Muslim population pool. However, with time rulers like Muhammad Bin Tughlaq who attempted to undermine the power of the Ulema, realized that their ablest allies in administration would be the indigenous Hindu himself. It was for this reason that the court chronicles of authors like Barani and Isami condemn Tughlaq as a madman, who daily killed Muslims and championed the cause of Hinduism. However, for a man who refused the Chinese emperor to build a temple on Indian soil for the reason that Islam prohibited so, cannot be expected to have been extremely liberal in his dealings. While several Hindu inscriptions thank the Sultan for his benevolence, there are none which credit him for even sponsoring a single Hindu temple. The ultimate self contradictory double standards of Athar Ali are exposed when he credits Mohamamd Bin Tughlaq for playing Holi, and conversing with Jogis while in another article of his ‘Nobility under Mohammad Tughlaq’ he argues that it was probably the policy of appointing Hindus to administrative posts that led to the criticism of him sitting with Jogis and playing Holi. [Mughal India, Athar Ali, Page 34] And the reason for appointing some Hindu officers was not out of any ideological affinity or secular thinking, but because a part of the nobility inherited from Khaljis was not loyal to him. (I might add there is good reason to believe he was suffering from a manic depressive disorder in which the sense of delusion of persecution often heightens itself) Such anxieties drove him to take into service people from community which had so far not been the source or recruitment for the nobility since these officers would have no loyal base of their own and would be dependent upon him. This argument again forms a part of Athar Ali’s article on Nobility under Mohammad Tughlaq.

The Sultanate’s greatest bigot Firuz Tughlaq admits in his autobiography that he burnt down a Brahmin alive who refused to change his faith. While he considered it the most heinous sin for shedding a drop of innocent Muslim blood, there was no remorse in mass massacre of Hindus who were the enemies of the faith. In a long passage, the Sultan declares that he had imposed both the jizya, and the toleration tax in exchange for security. However, he had come to know, these Hindus were worshiping idols. Under divine guidiance, he destroyed these edifices, and killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error……..the leaders of the people, were done to death. I destroyed the temple, and raised mosques over them……I burned their books, and their deities…….It was a warning to all men, that no zimmi should follow such wicked practices in a Musalman country

At Nagarkot, Firuz desecrated the famous temple of Jvalamukhi. We learn from Ferishta that after breaking the idols, Firuz mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows, and hung them in nosebags round the necks of Brahmins and he sent principal idol as a trophy to Medina

Firuz considered India a Muslim country, and his actions are all directed towards converting India from Dar-ul-harb to Dar-ul-Islam. The argument of Romila Thapar (Penguin History of India, Volume 1) that Firuz is to be excused for his iconoclasm since he had left unmolested an ancient Ashoka pillar cum inscription is gratuitous, for we are told that curiosity to decipher the mysterious Brahmi script inscribed on the pillar was foremost in his mind but unfortunately the Pandits he employed worked in vain. For once, the mysterious curiosity had got better of his iconoclastic zeal. Also, the pillar was not an obvious object of infidel deification since the pundits themselves were oblivious of its letter, reasons sufficient to suppress his iconoclasm.

…

The next piece of evidence Athar Ali cites in favour of his hypothesis are the few Sanskritic inscriptions, especially during Mohammad Bin Tughlaq’s reign which thank the emperor for his benevolence. We are informed by the Marxist historian, Dev Raj Chanana in his article “The Sanskritist and Indian society” that the Sanskritists exhausted their repertoire of hyperbolic praise in the flattery of their conquerors and most vexing was that they turned away from the woes of the common people. The very first time they felt their ideology threatened, they preferred the policy of opportunism over resistance and even Hindu gods and goddesses were employed in the service of their heretical conquerors. Athar Ali would like us to believe that the Sultan’s fitted so well into an existing tradition of lauding contemporary rulers that their faith no longer seemed alien. But he fails to inform us that this obsequious procession of panegyrics was evident even in the colonial period. For instance, the Panditas of Puri wrote that Lord Wellesley, a mleccha after all, was responsible for the protection of the gods, Brahmanas and Vaishnvas. The leader of the Vaishnav sect of Surat addressed Lord Cornwallis, who had deprived poor cultivators of their corn as the one possessed of “the sun like splendor whose terrible and firmly consolidated power is scorching the faces of his enemy’s wives”

Yet, it is possible that the Sanskritists were not entirely recreant as would seem from a superficial study of their inscriptional writings. Firstly, those inscriptions were not appeals to the tortured souls of ordinary Hindu subjects but were means of direct communication with the Sultan. The panegyric endeavors probably carried a deep seated psychological message, of bridging the sense of alienation between Islamic Sultan and Hindu subject by associating the Sultan with the most profound Hindu symbols. The process hoped for the self appropriation by the Sultan of those very Hindu symbols he had learnt to abhor; to tone down his fanaticism and diminish, if not transform to kindness the theological hatred in his heart for the Hindu subject, to cultivate in him a sense of belonging towards the land and its people (irrespective of their faith) that he ruled. I believe it would be harsh not to give the Sanskritists the benefit of doubt.

…

Athar Ali is at pains to explain the contribution of Islam to Indian Culture. India received the spinning wheel, the pedals of the loom, cloth printing, paper, magnetic compass, arcuate construction, lime, moral, pindrum, sericulture distillation efficiency. But none of them could claim descent from indigenous Islam. Also, several of those inventions are not really Islamic achievements but merely borrowing from other civilizations, especially the Chinese just like Arabic numerals were originally Indian. However, his claim for Islam giving India the identity of a common geographical entity, since the age of the Mauryas is incorrect. The geographical identity of Bharatvarsha has been celebrated even in ancient texts like the Manu Smriti, and the Vishnu Purana. Is it not a phony fantasy on the part of Athar Ali, to even consider the possibility of the Muslim rulers evolving a common nationality when all the time they were seeking approbation of the Islamicness of their regimes from their Ottoman masters? Even ‘Akbar the great’ was not immune to this pestilential thought process.

The nehruvian historian Tarachand in his book “Influence of Islam of Indian Culture” had arrived at the hypothesis that the entire domain of bhakti thought in India was engineered out of Islamic and Sufi influence; which has since then become established as an unproven theory in Indian History schoolbooks. It is a pernicious argument which was itself inspired from the conspiracy of colonial Indology. Christian Missionaries were rooted in their belief that the gospel of bhakti in Hinduism was imbibed from Christian sources. Tarachand merely substituted Islamic for Christian, probably due to the tensions of the prevailing nationalist freedom movement and political expediency demanding the critical but ever illusory Hindu Muslim unity. Tarachand himself confesses that there is nothing but circumstantial evidence since the Hindus were proud people who wouldn’t resort to cheap, easily palpable imitations. Yet, the same Al Beruni did not detect the absence of bhakti in Hindu religious thought, despite being fairly well aware of Hindu scriptures except the Upanishads. The Bhagavad Geeta does propose an exclusive path of bhakti for salvation, although by no means is it the superior path despite the strongly contested arguments in its favour by dvaitins like Madhva, visitadvaitins like Ramanjua and even advaitins like Madhusudan Saraswati. The path of tantra which intermixes bhakti and eroticism with bland rituals, was fairly well entrenched in Indian society before the actual penetration of Islam. In the 5^th century B.C., the alvars were resorting to exclusive bhakti. Even the Vedas are not bereft of bhakti. Jeanile Miller and A C Bose have pointed out verses of pure devotion like the following [10.149.4] “Like kine to the villages, like warriors to their horses, like loving milch cows to their calves, like the husband to the wife, may the deity, the upholder of all heavens, lord of all bliss turn towards us”. The Taittriya Upanishad contains the summum bonum of bhakti thought. Indian bhakti traditions were far more mature and exhaustive than their abrahamic counterparts since the former enjoins a fivefold relationship between devotee and deity – as a lover [madhura], child, parent [vatsalya], friend and slave [dasa] compared to the latter where only the last prevails. This unique contribution of Indian bhakti thought is explained by Sri Aurobindo ; “Indian bhakti has given to this divine love powerful forms, poetic symbols which are not in reality so much symbols as intimate expressions of truth which can find no other expression. It uses human relations and sees a divine person, not as mere figures, but because there are divine relations of supreme Delight and beauty with the human soul.” (The Synthesis of Yoga) In all, it was very much the reverse and Hindu influence on Islam gave rise to some of the liberal schools of Sufi thought which internalized even song, dance and rapacious bhakti in its ranks, something hitherto unknown to the Islamic civilization.

Expectedly, he invokes two of the greatest religious rebels; Nanak and Kabir to buttress his claim of cultural efflorescence reflected in composite culture. Yet, Nanak’s perception of Islam and Babur was anything but congenial. For instance, he acidly remarked “Here comes Babur at the marriage procession of sin.” While, it is not untrue that he later toned down his criticism of Islam it was for reasons which Swami Vivekananda considered were apt only in tempering the fanaticism of the Mohammedans, since they (bhakti saints like Nanak, Kabir) were mere apologists, struggling to obtain permission to live. Even the intellectual foundations of the Sikh religion are in conflict with Islam. Nanak had a deep reverence for the Goddess Durga as the highest feminine principle (The feminine principle in the Sikh Vision of the transcendent, Nikky Gurinder Kaur Singh), while in Islam there is no concept of the divine as feminine, not even in any branch of Sufism.

It is true that the movement of Kabir was that of the small man. But critical readings strongly suggest that Kabir was predominantly ignorant of Sufi thoughts and ideas and hence his religion was a largely native school of thought, influenced both by orthodox and heterodox Indian traditions. Its originality lay not in any infusion of Islamic ideals but in revivifying the unadulterated Upanishad philosophy with a whole new and inimitable anti-intellectual expression in tune with the prevailing zeitgeist. Ahmad Shah confirms that “The contrast of Kabir’s intimate acquaintance with Hindu thought, writings and ritual with the purely superficial knowledge of Moslem beliefs revealed in the Bijak is too striking to be ignored” [The Bijak of Kabir, Low Price Publications] Krishna Sharma informs us that his religion was based on monistic ideas and an impersonal concept of god, which had been part and parcel of the astika tradition from the Upanishadic times. But his attitude of questioning the established religious norms and mores, and of rejecting them by the use of reason, shows the influence of the nastikas” She further debunks the notion of Kabir actually borrowing any elements of the Sufi religion; “The use of sufi idioms and imagery in Kabir’s poetry, which in any case in occasional does not indicate any intellectual borrowing from the school of Sufi philosophy. As against this, there are numerous verses of Kabir which sound as though they were only simplified expressions of exact passages from certain Hindu religious texts” (Bhakti Movement, New Perspectives, A Study in the History of Ideas)

Anil Chandra Banerjee, contends that the development of Baba Nanak’s ‘cult’ was “within the framework of Hinduism” itself though “conditioned, to some extent, by the challenge of Buddhism, Jainism and Islam”, he convincingly argues that “the influence of Sufism on Nanak’s thought is intangible [See; The Sikh gurus and their religion, Anil Chandra Banerjee, MRML, 1983]

Last but not the least, Amir Khusrav who has often been unjustly portrayed as the apotheosis of the so called composite culture of Hindustan recorded in his own words “The Whole country, by means of the sword of our holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. The land has been saturated with the water of the sword, and the vapours of infidelity have been dispersed. The strong men of India have been trodden under foot, and all are ready to pay tribute. Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law granted exemption from death by payment of poll-tax the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have extinguished.” [History of India as told by its own historians, Volume III, Page 546] Khusro summed up very perceptively the Hindu-Turk relationship “Thanks to the perennial well established convention of the world, the Hindu has all along been a game of the Turks.” Khusro appreciated the utiltity of the Shiva linga since “The stone idols called Ling Mahadeo which had been established a long time at the place and on which the women of the infidels (Hindus) rubbed their vaginas for (sexual) satisfaction” [see, Amir Khusro and the myth of composite culture, Saurav Basu]

He was certainly different from regular contemporary mullahs in not baying for blood with violence in his heart. But that is no reason to illegally prop him up as the ripened mango of the Hindu Muslim encounter, when he won’t qualify even for a jackfruit.

CONCLUSION:

A conscious process to efface the Islamic past has been in operation for more than 50 years now ever since Nehru penned his “Discovery of India” Athar Ali’s article represents the current standard “secular” subterfuge in desecrating historical sanctity by liberally tampering with facts, bowdlerizing texts, dissimulating evidence, drawing fictitious parallels, generalizing the favourable exceptions and negating the unfavourable rules. These partners in historical crime espouse a depraved mode of academic apartheid where anyone contesting their claims is brandished as a Hindu chauvnists despite the fact that Hinduism remains one of the rare religions which has remained immune to genocidal tendencies.

Koenraad Elst writes in ‘Negationism in India’ “In my study of the Ayodhya controversy, I noticed that the frequent attempts to conceal or deny inconvenient evidence were an integral part of a larger effort to rewrite India’s history and to whitewash Islam. It struck me that this effort to deny the unpleasant facts of Islam’s destructive role in Indian history is similar to the attempts by some European writers to deny the Nazi holocaust. Its goal and methods are similar, even though its social position is very different: in Europe, Holocaust negationists are a fringe group shunned by respectable people, but in India, jihad negationists are in control of the academic establishment and of the press.”

Pioneering historical research of stellar academicians is obstructed by this sanctimonious Marxist coterie in the name of maintaining communal harmony. Obsolete historical thought processes are patronized to foster political ideologies of anti Hindu parties. Their dedication to the cause of a peculiar brand of Indian secularism makes one wonder if they are not political activists, masquerading as historians. This denigration campaign against Hindus is projected on varied platforms especially on religious and socio-cultural lines. To instantiate; Romila Thapar in her Penguin History of India contends that the Sufis in the early years were the most original thinkers of India” ; “the Sufis in India protested against the misinterpretation of the Quran by the Ulma”; “the Islamic stress on equality was respected far more than the orthodox” and unlike Hindu saints; the Sufis were of rationalistic bent, avoiding religious escapism or merging in devotion. In one sweeping generalization, she projects three meanings in her discourse – that Hindu saints are irrational; they are superstitious; that Hinduism encourages inequality; that Hinduism lacked any original thinkers. One would believe that such strong arguments warrant empirical evidence but in their absence even the foundation stone of the superstructure of the theory of Sufi supremacy cannot be laid down. Even the partisan Muslim historian S M Ikram cautions against such oversimplification of a complex phenomenon and it able to appreciate that it is important to remember first of all that many of the elements associated with the religious movements at the end of the Sultanate had already been dominant in Hinduism for many centuries. This is especially true of those areas in South India were Muslim influence had not been strong. It is also quite possible that the Islamic mystics, the Sufis had been directly or indirectly influenced by Hindu thought before the conquest of India. [quoted from Hindu culture during and after Muslim rule by Ram Gopal, MD PPL publications, Page 25]

However, it seems none are requirements for historians of her class. Never mind, that the Sufis of India didn’t leave behind a single legacy of their supposed rationalism. In fact, it is India which gave the sufis their first text on mysticism. Sufis themselves engaged in many instances in persecuting the local population and actively conspired with the Sultan in converting the masses (see Sufis of Bijapur, Richard Eaton). Even Sirhindi was a Sufi in name, but if only names could lay claim to fame That the concept of Islamic equality doesn’t apply to anyone outside their religious fold, and a uniform hegemony is established only by brutalizing the enemies of the faith is lost on them. Islam explicitly rejects gender equality and it suppresses all fancies to class struggle. The sufi protest was not against any imaginary quranic distortions but against some of the materialistic/hedonistic/sectarian tendencies of the quran itself like those enticing martyrs to a sensuous paradise and condemning infidels to eternal damnation in fiery hells. In anguish, Rabia Basri, the great female sufi had boldly exclaimed “I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God.” It is beyond my comprehension as to how the Indian saints with their emphasis on realization in the world censured for being escapist and Islam with its emphasis on a materialistic salvation in a sensuous afterworld complimented for its rationality! Last, but not the least, an abject rejection of the fine intellectual traditions of the Indian bhakti movement renders a caricature of the process of historical understanding. But any opposition to her morbid insinuations will be blocked out by erecting the sinister scarecrow of Hindu communalism.

In the near future, the author will indulge in exposing the historical invalidity of a generation of our secular authors on similar lines

http://saurav-basu.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/08/effacing-india-s-intolerant-islamic-past-a-review.htm