Persecution of Hindus
Persecution of Hindus: Reality or myth?
It is a ubiquitous notion even in the 21st century India, that the Hindus suffered religious persecution and systematic violence of colossal level under the rule of medieval Muslim rulers. That they wreaked havoc on the Indian culture and the society, slaughtering millions, demolishing and desecrating temples, destroying educational institutions, carrying out forced conversions, plundering the wealth and clawing out the essence of the subcontinent is the notion the right wing has been trying to promote. The magnitude of alleged savagery committed by the Muslim rulers purportedly out of religious bigotry is of a terrifyingly massive scale as is documented on many websites. However, the historical basis for such claims seems to be questionable. More than that, what one must recognize is that such blatant misinterpretations of the past and outright assertions have a dangerous potential of destabilizing the cultural harmony of the present-day India with extremely perilous consequences.
Will Duran, an American writer, historian and philosopher, in his book ‘The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage’, argues that ‘the Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.” In his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996), Francois Gautier, a journalist based in India, who advocates for an Indigenous Aryan narrative, writes that the ‘massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India’ were ‘more 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’.
Did the Hindus undergo severe religious persecution as is chronicled in the historical records? Religious persecution is a systematic oppression of a group of people based on their religious identities, seeing them as inferior, denying or curtailing their religious freedom including destroying religious icons and buildings and targeting properties shared by a religious community during war. The Muslim presence in the Indian subcontinent can be traced back to the time when Muhammad Bin Qasim, a military commander of Umayyad Caliphate and his army captured Sind, one of the provinces of the present-day Pakistan and one of the oldest Indus Valley civilisations, from Raja Dahir in 712 AD. This paved way for the rise of Islam in India. After a span of Turkic rule under Mahmud Ghazni and Mohammad Ghori, three centuries later, Muslim rule was established in Northern India under Qutb-ud-din Aibak, a Turkic Mamluk General and one of the slaves of Mohammad Ghori. Qutb-ud-din Aibak founded the Delhi Sultanate in 1206 under the Mamluk dynasty. It was the first of the five unrelated dynasties to rule as the Delhi Sultanate till 1526 when the Mughal emperor Babar overthrew Ibrahim Lodhi in the First Battle of Panipat putting an end to Lodhi dynasty and paving way for Mughal rule in India.
The Muslim rulers who were in minority governed subjects, the majority of which were Hindus. In order to comprehend the attitude of these rulers towards Hindus, one must look at various aspects of their rule. And that is why it is difficult to access the nature of subjugation of the Hindus under the Muslim rule. Different political milieus that existed under the different rulers, religious attitudes, artistic exchanges and the fact that the Hindus, as subjects, were an integral part of economies all influenced how the Muslim rulers treated their Hindu subjects. Crosschecking the facts surrounding the Muslim conquest of Indian subcontinent brings to light many truths that could thwart the hardline narratives by the Hindutwa demagogues. It shows that the subjugation of Hindus under the Muslim rule was neither overly liberal nor oppressive but reasonably tolerant.
Muhammad Bin Qasim was the first Muslim who invaded the Indian subcontinent. Often depicted as a ruthless, bloodthirsty invader and a predator, he is also blamed to be responsible for the mass exodus of the Hindu-Buddhist population of Pakistan. Information about Mohammad Bin Qasim and his conquest of Sind is limited in history. However, his Sindh campaign is narrated in the 13th century manuscript Chach Nama by Ali Kufi, which is claimed to be a Persian translation of an earlier Arabic record. The manuscript cites demolition of temples, mass executions of the resisting Hindu forces, enslaving them, attack on the Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, plundering their wealth and so on. The text concludes with an epilogue describing the tragic end of Mohammad Bin Qasim and of the two daughters of Dahir, the defeated king.
Being one of the only written sources about the Arab conquest of Sindh and hence the rise of Islam in India, Chach Nama has been historically significant. However, the authenticity of Chach Nama has been questioned by historians and scholars. Francesco Gabrieli, a distinguished Italian Arabist and an orientalist, considers it to be ‘historical romance’ which was ‘a late and doubtful source’ for information about Mohammad Bin Qasim and therefore must be carefully filtered to separate facts from fiction. Gabrieli admired Muhammad Bin Qasim’s proclamations concerning ‘principle of tolerance and religious freedom’. Western scholars such as Peter Hardy, André Wink and Yohanan Friedmann also question the historicity considered it a work of ‘political theory’ due to its supposed geographical errors, glaring discrepancies with alternate Persian and Arabic accounts of Mohammad Bin Qasim, and the missing Arabic tradition in it even though the text alleges to be a Persian translation of an Arabic original. Manan Ahmed Asif, a historian and associate professor at Columbia University who argues that the work as should be read in the genre of ‘political theory’ where history was creatively extrapolated with romantic fiction to gain favour in the court of Nasiruddin Qabacha, a Muslim Turkic Governor of Multan appointed by Sultan Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri. Friedmann concludes that the Sindh conquest as described in the Chach Nama, did ‘not result in any significant changes in the structure of Indian society’
Muhammad Bin Qasim after the conquest of Sindh, adopted an appeasement policy asking for acceptance of the Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious practice. The non-Muslims were regarded as dhimmis (an Arabic term which literally means a protected person who were allowed to retain their original faith. It was a ‘protected status’ accorded to a person living in a region conquered by Muslim rulers). The dhimmis as well as the ‘People of the Book’ were required to pay ‘jizya’ (a yearly tax imposed on non-Muslims) and in return the state provided protection for them from foreign attacks and enemies. Under his rule, Hindus and Buddhists were inducted into the administration as trusted advisors and governors. So were Dahir’s prime minister and various chieftains. Hindus were also permitted to govern their villages and settle their disputes according to their own laws. Historian Al-Baladhuri notes a decision by Muhammad Bin Qasim in relation to a Buddhist vihara and Aror (a medieval name for the city of Rohri, which once served as a capital of Sindh). AI-Baladhuri cites that after capturing the city through a treaty (sulh), Muhammad Bin Qasim agreed not to kill the people or enter their temple, in addition to imposing kharja (individual tax on agricultural land and its produce developed under Islamic law) on them.
According to researcher and historian Dr Mubarak Ali, the war between Muhammad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahar was never a war between faith versus infidelity. He states that it was after the capture of Sindh that the locals started joining the Arab forces due to poverty and joblessness. He also adds that the takeover of Hind and Sindh by the Arabs never changed a thing for the already oppressed and victimised classes of the society which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance. These several instances substantiate the fact that Mohammad Bin Qasim was an excellent administrator who established peace and order in the areas he conquered and exhibited tolerance for other religions.
Mahmud of Ghazni was another popular figure in History, undoubtedly one of the greatest military leaders who rarely experienced defeat. The Turkic conqueror attacked India 17 times during the period between 1000 and 1027 AD. His campaigns across the Gangetic plains are remembered for plundering and destruction of temples he carried out. As per the Hindutwa narrative, he looted around 3 million rupees from his campaign on Mathura, enslaving over 5000 slaves. The city of Mathura was "ruthlessly sacked, ravaged, desecrated and destroyed" with Mahmud of Ghazni destroying a ‘great and magnificent temple’ in the city, according to AI-utbi in his work Tarikh-e-yamini. In 1025, Mahmud of Ghazni is said to have sacked the Somnath Temple in Gujarat and destroyed the famous Shiva-lingam of the temple. However, some historians oppose these theories. According to them, there are records of pilgrimages to the temple in 1038 that do not mention any damage to the temple.
Historians including Romila Thapar, Richard M Eaton, and A. K. Majumdar have questioned the iconoclastic historiography of this incident. Thapar quoted Majumdar (1956) as ‘but, as is well known, Hindu sources do not give any information regarding the raids of Sultan Mahmud, so that what follows is based solely on the testimony of Muslim authors’. Thapar also argues against the prevalent narrative that ‘yet in a curiously contradictory manner, the Turko-Persian narratives were accepted as historically valid and even their internal contradictions were not given much attention, largely because they approximated more closely to the current European sense of history than did the other sources’. Thapar and Eaton have commented that Mahmud of Ghazni’s religious policies toward Hindus contrasted to his general image in the modern era. Mahmud used his plundered wealth to finance his armies which included mercenaries. Thapar presumes the Indian soldiers to be Hindus, one of the components of the army with their commander called sipahsalar-i-Hinduwan who lived in their quarter of Ghazna practicing their own religion. Richard Eaton in his classic study of temple desecrations cites that in almost all cases where Hindu temples were looted, it was for political or economic reasons. Another Indian historian Mohammad Habib states that there was no imposition of Jizya on non-Muslims during the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni nor any mention of forced conversions. Mahmud’s expeditions against India were not motivated by religion but by love of plunder.
Years after the death of Mahmud of Ghazni, India was invaded by Mu’izz ad-Din or Shihabud Din Muhammad Ghori also known as Muhammad Ghori. According to historians, even though it was Muhammed Bin Qasim who first invaded India, followed by Mahmud of Ghazni, it was Ghori who was successful in building a secured and a powerful Muslim empire in India after a series of invasions. Ghori’s conquest and expansion of empire later paved the way for successive dynasties like the Mamluks, Tughlaqs and Mughals. Just like his predecessors, Ghori was accused of destroying temples and smashing idols as per right-wing propaganda. According to them, he destroyed 27 temples within Qila Rai Pithora, the fort of Prithviraj Chauhan, after the latter’s defeat in the Second Battle of Tarain in 1192. Unlike Mahmud of Ghazni, Ghori was not a general and faced defeat many times. But he never lost his spirit and continued to expand his empire which lasted for centuries. Abu Mohammed Habibullah, a Bangladeshi historian and writer, argues that Ghori was a practical statesman who took ‘the fullest advantage of the rotten political structure of India’. Ghori’s statesmanship was evident while dealing with different Rajput rulers. After his victory over Prithviraj, instead of annexing Delhi and Ajmer to his territories, he handed over the administration of Delhi and Ajmer to the relatives of Prithviraj. Ghori also did not change the status of those Hindu chiefs who accepted his suzerainty and did not interfere in their administration.
Alauddin Khilji, a prominent figure in Indian history, was the most powerful ruler of the Khilji dynasty of Delhi Sultanate, along the lines of Mughal emperors like Akbar and Aurangazeb. Considered one of the world’s greatest military geniuses, Khilji with his formidable army, expanded the kingdom that he inherited from his uncle Sultan Jalaluddin Khilji by launching military campaigns against the states of Gujarat, Ranathambor, Mewar, Malwa, Jalore, Warangal, Mabar and Madurai. Apart from fighting battles with Indian Kings to conquest, Khilji many a time saved India from Mongols in battles of the battles of Jalandhar (1298), Kili (1299), Amroha (1305) and Ravi (1306). Khilji’s success was attributed to his brilliant administrative and military reforms. He won many a battle thanks to his capability as a general, the discipline, bravery of the army and its commanders and their superior military tactics.
The right-wing narrative brands him an oppressive and a cruel ruler to his subjects, who were mostly Hindu. This has led to his image as a cruel despot who persecuted Hindus. But he was not a bigot. He was a pragmatist. Khilji sure meted out barbaric punishments to those who betrayed him. But his cruelty was impartial, and he made no distinction between Hindus and Muslims. The main revenue of the state came from agriculture and most of the farmers were Hindus. In order to finance his expensive military campaigns, he levied heavy taxes on the farmers. This was oppression; but the motivation for oppressing the Hindu farmers was fiscal, not religious.
During the many conquests he made, many atrocities were committed; suffering was inevitable during the times of war. These conquests were of Hindu kings and their kingdoms. But with the establishment of peace and order, no organised persecution of Hindus was possible. Another fact that proves that the rule of Alauddin Khilji was not characterised by bigotry is that it would not have been practical to indulge in large scale persecution of Hindu majority as the rulers were in the minority. Art and architecture, literature and learning reached a new peak under Khilji’s rule. Khilji’s administration is known for different socio-economic reforms, the most important one being agrarian reforms. A strong and efficient revenue administration system was set up and scores of collectors, accountants and agents were hired to administer the system. The officials were also well paid while corrupt ones received stringent punishments.
Aurangzeb was one of the most powerful and the sixth Mughal Emperor. Several facts are cited by the right-wing to substantiate the claims of condemnation about his reign such as destruction of temples, mass execution of Hindus and forced conversions. Historian Audrey Truschke, a historian at Rutgers University- Newark, counters such arguments citing them as baseless. Contrary to the widespread belief, Aurangzeb did not destroy thousands of Hindu temples. Nor did he perpetrate anything approximating a genocide of Hindus. He did not instigate a large-scale conversion program that offered millions of Hindu the choice of Islam or the sword, she says. In short, Aurangzeb was not the Hindu-hating, Islamist tyrant that many today imagine him to have been. During his 49-year reign, Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of select Hindu temples, perhaps a few dozen, but not because he despised Hindus. Rather, Aurangzeb generally ordered temples demolished in the aftermath of political rebellions or to forestall future uprisings, argues Truschke. He also issued numerous orders protecting Hindu temples and communities from harassment, and he incorporated more Hindus into his imperial administration than any Mughal ruler before him by a fair margin, Truschke says. These actions collectively make sense if we understand Aurangzeb’s actions within the context of state interests, rather than by ascribing suspiciously modern-sounding religious biases to him, she adds.
If we look back at history and judge the various rulers according to modern standards, it is quite obvious that the medieval Muslim rulers fail to meet the standards of benevolence towards the subjects. And Hindu kings are no exception. Medieval Hindu political leaders destroyed mosques periodically even during Aurangzeb’s reign, cites Truschke. ‘Going back more than a millennium earlier, Hindu rulers were the first to come up with the idea of sacking one another’s temples, before Muslims even entered the Indian subcontinent. But one hears little about these “historical wrongs” for one reason: They were perpetrated by Hindus rather than Muslims’, she writes.
Aurangzeb was certainly Machiavellian in his tactics and mode of governance, argues Richard Eaton. Aurangzeb’s reign was longer than that of other Mughals, and it witnessed more rebellions. Since temples in Mughal domains were understood as state property, those that were patronised by rebels who had formerly been loyal officials were subject to destruction, just as their patrons were subject to severe punishment. This probably explains why more temples were desecrated in his reign than in others. The French physician Francois Bernier, who was attached to the emperor’s court for about 12 years and observed the emperor at close quarters, noted that Aurangzeb, “though a Mahometan, permits these ancient and superstitious practices; not wishing, or not daring, to disturb the Gentiles [Hindus] in the free exercise of their religion”, notes Eaton. Therefore, it is hard to judge that Aurangzeb harboured any hatred towards Hindus.
While the Hindu demagogues claimed that 60,000 temples were demolished under Muslim rule, Eaton in his published essay, claims that he came up with a figure of 80. When asked about the huge gap between 60,000 and 80, he said that ‘we shall never know the precise number of temples desecrated in Indian history. All we can talk about are instances for which there is contemporary evidence, whether it appears in the archaeological record, in the epigraphic record, or in contemporary chronicles.’ Eaton, Thapar, and Richard H. Davis, a Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, argue that these iconoclastic actions by the Muslim rulers were not primarily driven by religious zeal, but were politically strategic acts of destruction as the temples in medieval India were sites associated with sovereignty, royal power, money, and authority.
There has always been a tendency to view the Muslim conquests and rule as a period of violence against the Hindu culture. But there were also harmonious Hindu-Muslim relations and the Indian population witnessed growth and progress during the medieval Muslim times. No discrimination was made, and no population were expelled on the basis of religion by the Muslim rulers nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religion. According to Romila Thapar, with the start of Muslim rule all Indians, higher and lower caste, came to be regarded as mleccha, and were categorised together as ‘Hindus’. The higher caste Indians regarded the lower castes as impure and now there belonged to the same category which explains the belief among many higher caste Indians "Hinduism in the last one thousand years has been through the most severe persecution that any religion in the world has ever undergone", she says. Thapar further notes that "The need to exaggerate the persecution at the hands of the Muslim is required to justify the inculcation of anti-Muslim sentiments among the Hindus of today." Instead of assuming things about the past and providing fodder for communal divides, it is wiser to follow precise historical events and figures and stop judging the past using the present standards.
Feedback..
- No clear citations.. Such and such a person says.. Says where?
- Who is “historian Dr Mubarak Ali”? Why should he be trusted?
- The lack of sources for historic evidence for Sangh’s claims and its hollowness need to be asserted.. Ex: “According to them, Mahmood Ghazni destroyed 27 temples within Qila Rai Pithora..” Which does not have any historic backing of evidences..