Dhruv Rathee − When Hindu-Hatred Goes Berserk

 

Dhruv Rathee − When Hindu-Hatred Goes Berserk

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

 

Someone sent me this video by Dhruv Rathee, "Reality of Aurangzeb, Shivaji Maharaj and Modi. 1000 years of History", for comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdKTsvFuR_I

No, I am not apprehensive that by putting up this URL I am encouraging people to watch this video slavering with Hindu-hatred. Firstly, there are literally millions of people who watch this Hindu-hater's videos anyway. Secondly, I am a full believer in Sita Ram Goel's principle that you should not simply ignore who your most inveterate hate-filled enemies are, and what they are doing and saying, since all of it makes you understand the full reality of what you are really up against. And thirdly, it proves once more the truth of what I have always been saying: that the so-called enemies of Modi and the BJP are actually fully in cahoots with them in trying to see to it that voter-polarization takes place on purely religious grounds (to the exclusion of every other issue) with every self-respecting and not-yet-deracinated Hindu concluding that only the BJP and Modi can save Hindus from this vicious and unrelenting Hindu-hatred: after all, what could push self-respecting Jewish voters in Israel into backing one particular Israeli politician over others more surely and effectively than the political enemies of this particular politician condemning him for condemning Hitler, and trying to prove that Hitler was actually quite a nice person or at worst not as bad as he is painted?

After Audrey Truschke has streaked past the other Hindu-hating western academics to the first rank, pushing all other anti-Hindu historians into the category of the "also-ran" in the eyes of every self-respecting and well-read Hindu, by making it her life's mission to show that Aurangzeb was good (while, of course, Rāma was bad), she has set the benchmark, in a sense, for anti-Hindu history writing. Dhruv Rathee, by picking up the same line, not only seeks to establish himself as a prime anti-Hindu, but also leverage this into the "polarize-votes-for-Modi" game of which he is a part. The funny part of his video is the way in which he alternately blows hot and cold on the subject of Aurangzeb, as per his convenience: in places he quotes (with a smug, gloating expression, I must add) Audrey Truschke's whitewashing attempts to show that Aurangzeb is not really bad and was actually nice towards Hindus. In other places he contrasts good Shivaji with bad Aurangzeb, when his aim is to advice Hindus on how they should behave if they want to be Real Hindus like Shivaji!

 

This video begins with a video clip of Modi castigating Aurangzeb for destroying hundreds of Hindu temples.

Then (after a slight interlude where he vigorously advertizes a book for which he has written the foreword, and in which he very obviously has considerable mercenary interest since he tells us "we have priced it at only…") he turns to another video clip where we have J Sai Deepak being interviewed by Ranveer Allahbadia and being asked "which three Indians should leave our country and never return?". He criticizes this as a question in very poor taste. I don’t know about "taste", but I would go further and say it is one of the stupidest and most senseless question that anyone could have asked anyone else for many very obvious reasons, and any answer would be equally senseless for the same reasons. But Rathee's real and greater objection is to the actual answer given by Sai Deepak rather than to the question itself (since he fatuously tells us that an answer naming three terrorists or gangsters/murderers or corrupt people would have been acceptable to him). His objection is to the fact that Sai Deepak names one journalist and two historians: Barkha Dutt, Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar.

Then Dhruv Rathee (in order to make his listeners "understand" why Sai Deepak would name these three names) makes an assertion that is really astounding and makes one wonder whether he is in his senses. He tells us that people like Sai Deepak "hate" Romila Thapar "because Romila Thapar says that we Hindu people were not slaves". After assuring us that we heard him right, he repeats again that people (like Sai Deepak) are angry with Romila Thapar "for just this reason (isī kāraṇse)": "because she says that our ancestors, our Hindu ancestors, weren't slaves, they were free people"!!!!

I have heard and read many spirited defenses of the anti-Hindu historians, but this one really takes my breath away. It is like quoting some lines from Mein Kampf where Hitler describes the efficient way in which Jews reach the top of the field in almost every field they enter, and asserting that all those (Jews or otherwise) who criticize Hitler are doing this because they are offended by his "praise" of Jews (implying some kind of Jew-hatred or anti-Semitism in the attitude of those who criticize Hitler)!!!!

He goes on to repeat once more that normally people are offended when described as slaves or servants, but, in this case, Hindus like Sai Deepak (note that Rathee directly converts "Sai Deepak" into "BJP Hindus") are offended because "Romila Thapar says you were never slaves, you were never servants. These BJP Hindus are furious at her for claiming that we were free. How dare she claim that we were free, how dare she take away the label of being slaves? Romila Thapar, leave India!"

That these slavering anti-Hindu leftists repeatedly show themselves to be brain dead is a known fact. But even I did not expect this degree of brain-deadness from Dhruv Rathee. This whole idiotic diatribe shows unsuspected depths of stupidity in this man. To begin with, using this same twisted illogic, anyone who says India attained "freedom" or "independence" in 1947 from the British stands accused of saying that "Indians were slaves and servants of the British till 1947" and of being addicted to wearing "the label of being slaves".

No sane Hindu to my knowledge has ever "hated" Romila Thapar because he/she believed Romila Thapar guilty of "taking away (from Hindus) the label of being slaves". At the very outset, this whole video by Rathee stands exposed as a video by someone tilting at windmills or fighting straw-men. There is no better way to evade real issues and escape defeat in debate than to create a false straw man to fight and then "defeat" this straw man. So let me clarify what the real issue is: it is not whether Hindus ever were or were not "slaves" or "servants" of the Muslim invaders (who, however much crooks like Dhruv Rathee may want to reinvent geography along with history, did indeed come from outside India as invaders as testified by detailed historical accounts recorded by themselves): it is whether or not these Muslim invaders who came from outside brutally slaughtered millions of Hindus, literally captured millions of other Hindus to be sold as slaves in Muslim countries, destroyed and desecrated lakhs of Hindu temples, and ruled over large parts of India for centuries during which they imposed brutal laws in which non-Muslims were severely penalized for being non-Muslims. By Rathee's illogic, Jews "hate" negationist writers who deny the organized large-scale massacres of Jews in the cities, concentration camps and gas chambers of Nazi Germany, not because they are denying real history, but because they are "taking away (from Jews) the label of being slaves"!

Rathee gratuitously adds: "they want to paint you as a victim". Sorry, it's time for you to grow up, and stop lying and being childish! The Muslim invaders and rulers (even while they did indeed export millions of Hindus to Muslim countries as "slaves") did indeed treat (not "paint") the Hindus who continued to be in India as victims. And all this was recorded by themselves in great detail. And it is these detailed records that "historians" like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib (and venomous journalists like Barkha Dutt) completely ignore and even propagate lies against.

So while Ranveer Allahbadia's question, and J Sai Deepak's answer to it (as any answer to such a question would necessarily be) were indeed rather fatuous, Rathee's objection to the answer on the grounds of the people named is not simply  fatuous, it is sinister and grossly incorrect. False and fraudulent historians and journalists like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and Barkha Dutt are, in a deeper and more long-term sense, more dangerous for the nation even than terrorists, or gangsters/murderers or corrupt people.

I am the biggest fan of George Orwell's two seminal books (Animal Farm and 1984) and constantly cite them in my writings on political topics. It is painfully ironic to see Orwell being cited as a model (as he indeed does) by this crook to perpetuate his lies. The particular concept from Orwell's book that Rathee cites is the concept of "double think" which he tells us "means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them". As we will see now, while claiming to expose the double think of Hindus like J Sai Deepak, Rathee subconsciously (through a continuous trail of Freudian slips and illogical arguments) illustrates the working of the concept in the most telling way possible.

The main idea which he now vigorously tries to propagate, as indicated in the title of his video, is (his idea of) a comparison and contrast between Aurangzeb and Shivaji. He tells us that most people comparing the two seem to believe that Aurangzeb and Shivaji were two opposing figures representing two monolithic entities ranged against each other, the "green" Muslims and the "saffron" Hindus. But, he triumphantly assures us that this simplistic division is wrong, and proceeds to tell us why this is so.

He starts out by telling us that both Shivaji and his ancestors respected both Hindu as well as Muslim saints. He gratuitously adds that at that time there were no BJP, no Godi media, and no whatsapp mafia to spread hatred among Hindus and Muslims. This would appear to indicate that Hindu-Muslim conflict started with the BJP, and that the Muslims of that time were following a different Quran and Hadith (which preached love for non-Muslim religions) from what the present-day Muslims are following, and so both Hindus and Muslims loved each other and each other's religions, whatever may be testified by the joint testimony of the medieval Muslim historians and (since history writing was never a strong point with Hindus) Hindu traditional memory − not to speak of the material records of architecture which, at least if only in the case of one structure (the "disputed structure" at Ayodhya) has been vigorously discussed and judgments passed upon in modern courtrooms.

 

I. Aurangzeb and Shivaji

As proof of his assertion of mutual love and tolerance between Hindus (represented by Shivaji in the pre-BJP days) and Muslims (represented by Aurangzeb in the pre-BJP days), Rathee deals alternately with, and therefore confuses together, two very different fields of data:

1. Data regarding the attitude of both Shivaji and Aurangzeb in respect of respect for and tolerance to other religions and their followers.

2. Data about  the number of Muslims in prominent positions in the army and administration of Shivaji, and the number of Hindus in prominent positions in the army and administration of Aurangzeb.

 

1. In respect of point one, he tells us in very great detail (which must be noted with equally meticulous care), is that although he was a Hindu, Shivaji respected saints, women and common people and religious structures (i.e. mosques) of all religions, Hindu as well as Muslim. (From this, as an aside, he launches a diatribe against Savarkar who objected to this one-sided tolerance of Shivaji. But I will not go into this side-issue here). To keep up the facade of objectivity, he then proceeds to list out, again in some detail, the atrocities by Aurangzeb against Hindus (the destruction of Hindu temples, discriminations against non-Muslims, etc.). And then, presto, he suddenly comes out, after some triumphant foreplay, with what he juvenilely calls a "twist in the tale": he "reveals" historical instances similar (to those concerning Shivaji) of Aurangzeb expressing respect for and tolerance towards Hindus! He starts out with a quote from Hinduphobic Audrey Truschke: "Aurangzeb laid out his vision of how good kings ought to trat temples and other non-Muslim religious sites in a princely order (nishan in Persian) that he sent to Rana Raj Singh, the Hindu Rajput ruler of Mewar, in 1654: 'Because the persons of great kings are shadows of god, the attention of this elevated class, who are the pillars of god's court, is devoted to this: that men of various dispositions and different religions (mazahib) should live in the vale of peace and pass their days in prosperity, and no one should meddle in the affairs of another". The rapt ecstatic look with which Rathee reads out this single and vague "princely order", and the "comedy" clip that immediately follows, are worth a good laugh. Further, Aurangzeb apparently promised: "Once I ascend the throne, I will put a stop to such un-Islamic practices (of temple destruction)".

To stupid Truschke and Rathee, the fact that Aurangzeb is supposed to have written this when he was still a prince and had not yet ascended the throne, and that it was addressed to a Hindu king whose strategic help he clearly required in order to finish off his fraternal rivals to the throne, overrides the fact that after he did ascend the throne, he destroyed temples right and left! But let me correct this: it is not Truschke and Rathee that are stupid, it is their massive crowds of Hinduphobic fans who are correctly expected by them to swallow this kind of "evidence"!

He claims that there is a long list of grants and help given by Aurangzeb to Hindu Brahmins and priests from all over his kingdom, but, again, he does not explain how this (even if true) reconciles with the much longer, more authenticated and more officially recorded lists of his orders for the destruction of important and major Hindu temples: destructions which took place throughout his reign and empire.

Rathee explains Aurangzeb's seemingly contradictory stances as follows (at the same time likening him to Modi): "both (Aurangzeb and Modi) were extremely hungry for power, and in their pursuit of power, both sometimes became 'communal' and sometimes 'secular', depending upon the situation". He buttresses this by giving a list of instances where Modi has praised Islam and Muslims to the skies and sought to help them − of course, he does not cite the much more graphic and fundamental instances listed in Anand Ranganathan's book "Hindus in Hindu Rashtra" which show how in fact Modi showered special favors on Muslims while refusing to give to Hindus the same rights that Muslims and Christians have in India.

This analogy between Modi and Aurangzeb, showing both being "secular" and "communal" by turn whenever it is most convenient and profitable to them, although perfectly correct in respect of Modi − and hence I am not going to bother to reply to any of his comments in this respect concerning Modi − does not really apply to Aurangzeb, who did not have to bother about voters and votebanks and election "strategies". As detailed books by Sita Ram Goel have shown, Aurangzeb was naturally "communal" at all times and only became "secular" as a matter of strategy whenever it became necessary to temporarily appear to be so.

But most important of all, Rathee himself gives data to show (and also quotes both Truschke and Habib as having admitted at some point) that Aurangzeb did indeed order the destruction of countless temples (long before the BJP era) − the quote from Truschke is: "Emperor Aurangzeb authorised targeted temple destructions and desecrations throughout his rule". And the fact is that there are countless sources, both official and unofficial, and both Hindu and Muslim, which testify to this. But no-one is able to cite a single source, official or unofficial or Hindu or Muslim, to show a single case where Shivaji similarly targeted mosques or Muslim commoners, and in fact even Rathee himself cites countless sources including Muslim ones to exactly the opposite effect: to show that Shivaji honored and respected mosques, Islamic religious objects, and Muslim commoners and Muslim women!

How then can there be any analogy between Auragzeb and Shivaji?

Even more pertinent to the point is that Shivaji and Aurangzeb are not unique examples of their type, though they are the most celebrated rulers, and the most often cited and compared, in discussions on such matters. They both fully represent their types: Aurangzeb represents almost all Muslim rulers and Shivaji represents almost all Hindu rulers, all of whom, in the two respective categories, behaved just like Shivaji and Aurangzeb respectively − any odd aberrations in either of the two groups were just that: odd aberrations or exceptions to the rule. This is not a sweeping, subjective "communal" statement, it is a factual statement which is fully corroborated by any examination of the actual and detailed recorded evidence of those times. Sita Ram Goel (among other writers of the Voice of India group, as well as other genuine historians from all over the world) has recorded this history of Islamic rule in India in very great detail in many books. as an example, I append to this article just one chapter (chapter 5) from his path-breaking and eye-opening book, "The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India" (1982).

 

2. To show that neither Shivaji nor Aurangzeb was really a bigot who hated other religions and their followers, Rathee gives long and detailed data about the large number of Muslims in Shivaji's army and administration. He then takes up the case of Aurangzeb, and gives long and detailed data about the large number of Hindus in Aurangzeb's army and administration.

Again, Rathee is not being naïve himself, but he is fully expecting that his viewers and fans will be naïve enough to swallow this as "evidence" of the lack of conflict between Muslims and Hindus, or of the absence of a ruler-vs.-ruled relationship between Muslims and Hindus. But using the same logic, the British never ruled over India: at any point of time, the overwhelming majority of soldiers, policemen and other administrative officials who ruled over "British India" were of Indian origin. In fact, the British never committed the Jallianwala Bagh massacre: almost all the fingers which pulled the triggers in Jallianwala Bagh were Indian fingers! Going on in this strain, every country under occupation throws up legions of native collaborators who join up with the occupiers in order to save their own skins, and then work openly or secretly against their own countrymen: the "Vichy France' government in France collaborated with the German occupiers and its members participated in the deportation of Jews, abuse of prisoners and severe acts against the members of the French Resistance. Many of the overseers who oversaw the Jewish prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps, and tried to be more loyal than the Nazis themselves, were Jews. All this does not change the character of any conflict, but in fact emphasizes it.

If there were Muslims in Shivaji's army and administration, it was because, as Rathee and his eminent historians themselves testify, he never oppressed Muslims or indulged in religious attacks on Muslim mosques or religious objects. Whether they would have remained loyal to him if he had done so is a hypothetical question. However, again as per the testimony of Rathee and his eminent historians, Aurangzeb did persecute Hindus, and destroy and desecrate Hindu temples: that there were collaborator Hindus who did some of his dirty work for him does not change the Islamic anti-Hindu nature of Aurangzeb's rule.

 

II. The Old "Real Hindu" Tactic.

But Rathee is not finished with the Shivaji-Aurangzeb story. He suddenly changes tack again − though not to a new tack, but to the old, hackneyed, tried-and-tested tack of telling Hindus how they should behave if they want certificates from him for being "Real Hindus" − the change, in the context of his video, lies in his now accepting that yes, there was a difference between Shivaji and Aurangzeb: Shivaji was good while Aurangzeb was really not quite so good! Shivaji was good − he was a "Real Hindu" − and anyone who wants to consider himself a "Real Hindu" and follow in the footsteps of Shivaji must now act according to Dhruv Rathee's instructions as to how this is to be done! Whenever a leftist starts praising a Hindu icon, the immediate follow-up to this is to offer that Hindu icon (or those aspects of his real or assumed behavior which are most convenient for pushing the leftist-secularist point of view) as the model which Hindus must follow if they want a certificate (from the leftist) that they are "Real Hindus".

I have already dealt with this kind of tactics in my article "Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva":

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/hinduism-vs-hindutva-oxism-vs-oxatva.html

 

Rathee starts out by asking "whatsapp Hindus" whether they consider themselves to be more true and courageous than Shivaji. To be like Shivaji, he cites those aspects of Shivaji's words or actions which to his mind represent the "secular Hindu" that Shivaji was and which we must also try to be (and Shivaji behaved thus although, Rathee gratuitously assures us, Shivaji lived in the same period as the contrastingly intolerant Aurangzeb!!). So, Rathee tells us, to be like Shivaji we must accept that "The Book of Quran is the word of God himself. It is a heavenly book". Veering off to another point, he tells us how wrong the "whatsapp Hindus" are in classifying the medieval period as a period of conflict between Hindus and Muslims by, for example citing the enmity of Akbar and Rana Pratap. To show that this was not so, he gives the name of a Pathan Muslim warrior, Hakim Khan Sur, who fought on the side of Rana Pratap. Likewise Akbar had Raja Man Singh as his general. Then he informs us that while "whatsapp Hindus" tell us that the Kashi Vishwanath temple was destroyed on Aurangzeb's orders, they do not tell us that it was built a few generations earlier on the orders of Akbar's general Man Singh.

He also cites the fact that the Modi government has praised Akbar's democracy and secularism in its published book "Bharat the Mother of Democracy". He however fails to point out that  most of the prominent Muslim clerics of the time had condemned Akbar for this. Nor that Savarkar, whom he condemns in the beginning of the video, had a postage stamp issued in his honour by the Indira Gandhi government! He even tells us that Sant Tulsidas had composed the Ramcharitmanas during the rule of Akbar, and the Ram Leela had first started around that time − ironically bringing to the reader's mind the present trend of bhakts attributing every good thing taking place in India today to the rule of Modi! He also devotes some time to the praise of Dara Shikoh (but fails to mention that Aurangzeb got Dara Shikoh killed for his sacrilegious admiration for Hindu texts)! The purpose of retailing all these miscellaneous pieces of trivia and data appears to be to point out that "whatsapp Hindus" do not tell us all these things! But if we set about preparing a list of all the very significant and important things about Hindu-Muslim relations in the medieval period that Dhruv Rathee does not tell us, the truth is that they would fill out a large size volume or two at the very least. In sum, Rathee assures us that in actual fact (as opposed to the propaganda of "whatsapp Hindus") Hindus and Muslims have always lived in mutual love and peace in India.

While it is no-one's contention that Hindus and Muslims should not live in mutual love and peace in India − and certainly not mine, since a large proportion of my best friends are Muslims − this cannot be achieved by falsifying history. Claiming that Nazis and Jews lived in mutual love and peace in Nazi Germany cannot be the solution for ensuring that Germans and Jews in general live in mutual love and peace in the world in future. Among other things, that also amounts to identifying all Muslims as Islamicist invaders, clerics and rulers and all Germans as Nazis!    

The fact is that the history of Islamic invasions and rule in India has been dealt with in great detail by many eminent authors, quoting the original sources (i.e. usually the actual Islamic sources), but for the best and most concise studies to the subject, and a bird's eye view of the different aspects (including iconoclasm and temple destruction, and slave trading), the following books by Voice of India (New Delhi) are the best place to start. Fortunately they are available in pdf form on the internet:

 

1. The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India - Sita Ram Goel

https://ia801907.us.archive.org/20/items/the-story-of-islamic-imperialism-in-india-by-sita-ram-goel/The%20Story%20Of%20Islamic%20Imperialism%20In%20India%20by%20Sita%20Ram%20Goel.pdf

2. Hindu Temples What Happened To Them (Vols. 1 and 2) - Sita Ram Goel

 

https://ia803108.us.archive.org/17/items/hindu_temples_-_what_happened_to_them-1_sita_ram_goel/Hindu%20Temples%20What%20Happened%20to%20Them%20Vol%201.pdf

https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/hindu_temples_what_happened_to_them__-__vol2__sitaram_goel/Hindu%20Temples%20What%20Happened%20to%20Them%20Vol%202%20-%20Sita%20Ram%20Goel.pdf

 

3. Muslim Separatism - Causes and Consequences - Sita Ram Goel

https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/muslim-separatism-causes-and-consequences-sita-ram-goel/Muslim%20Separatism%20-%20Causes%20and%20Consequences%20-%20Sita%20Ram%20Goel.pdf

 

4. Negationism in India - Koenraad Elst

https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/negationism-in-india-concealing-the-record-of-islam/Negationism%20in%20India%20-%20Concealing%20the%20Record%20of%20Islam.pdf

 

5. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India - K S Lal

https://dn720003.ca.archive.org/0/items/theory-practice-of-muslim-state-in-india-k.-s.-lal/Theory%20%26%20Practice%20of%20Muslim%20State%20in%20India%20%28K.S.%20Lal%29.pdf

 

6. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India - K S Lal

https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/legacy-of-muslim-rule-in-india-k.-s.-lal/Legacy%20of%20Muslim%20Rule%20in%20India%20%28K.S.%20Lal%29.pdf

 

All in all, I am happy that Dhruv Rathee made this video, that someone sent me the URL of it, and that I saw it. It was the very thing I needed to brace me up for the election results, and allow me to take the results in my stride. I have repeatedly, in so many articles, made it clear that in my informed opinion, the BJP is infinitely more dangerous for Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva and Indian culture, than the openly breaking India Forces. So, while logic tells me that Modi and the BJP are very definitely going to win these elections handsomely (even though probably not crossing 400 seats), I am definitely not happy at the prospect of these back-stabbers and frauds winning handsomely, and the victory (even though expected) is sure to spoil my mood to a considerable extent. In this event, this venomously anti-Hindu video by that fraud Dhruv Rathee comes as a godsend to help me accept the results not just stoically but even with some pleasure.

An acquaintance of mine, who combines a fanatical passion for cricket with a jingoistic disposition and a gambler's eye, once told me: "Whenever there is an India-Pakistan cricket match, I always bet heavily in favor of a Pakistani victory. That way, there is something to be happy about whichever way the chips fall. If India wins, that is after all what I want, and so I am deliriously happy. If Pakistan wins, I am happy because I stand to benefit financially".

In the elections on hand, if the BJP loses a considerable number of seats from its position the last time (I honestly do not expect a defeat), I will be happy because the backstabbers will have been taught a lesson that they very much require to learn (though they may or will still refuse to learn it). If, on the other hand, the BJP sweeps to power as in 2019 or gets more seats than they did then (and of course accept that backstabbing-of-Hindus activities stand vindicated), I will at least have the happiness and satisfaction of seeing the faces of anti-Hindus like Dhruv Rathee fall badly, even as they try to put up a brave front: I still remember Dhruv Rathee's election-results-day program on his youtube channel in 2019, where his extremely crestfallen and chagrined reactions to the results, although he tried his best to brazen it out, showed how he was trying bravely to fight back the tears.

Yes, whatever happens in whichever direction, will definitely have some positive and satisfying side for me. So thank you, Rathee, for again showing me for the umpteenth time (and at this point of time, just when it was needed) the full horrors of what Hindus are up against from the Breaking India side.

But, in the context of this video by Rathee, let me again reiterate that the history of the medieval history of medieval Muslim-ruled India is one matter, and the shenanigans of modern politicians from Nehru to Modi is another matter altogether. Intermixing the two is unacceptable.

As I wrote earlier, I will append one chapter from Sita Ram Goel's book "The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India" below.

 

 

APPENDIX

ISLAM WAS THE CULPRIT

(Chapter 5 of "The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India", 1982 , by Sita Ram Goel)

The Aligarh apologists accuse the medieval Muslim historians of exaggerating the barbarities committed by the Muslim invaders and rulers. Next, they blame on the inherent barbarism of the Turks whatever irreducible minimum of atrocities cannot be hushed out of recorded history. And they end by absolving Islam of every crime committed in its name.

My first question is: How is it that what the Prophet of Islam did in Arabia and the Arab armies in Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Africa, Sicily, Spain and Sindh, bears such close resemblance to what the Turks did in India?

The Aligarh school is never tired of telling us that Islam would have had a brighter record in India had it been brought by the Arabs instead of the "terrible" Turks. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has swallowed this lie, hook, line, and sinker, and relayed it to two generations of Hindu students through his best-sellers.

Here the Aligarh apologists depend upon the ignorance of the average Hindu about the history of Arab imperialism inspired by Islam ever since the city of Yathrib was converted into Medina after conversion of its pagan citizens and massacre of the Jews. Otherwise, they would not have risked smuggling in such a stupendous lie without batting an eye.

We need not travel to distant lands in order to discover the truth about Islamic imperialism as practised and perfected by the Arabs. What the Arabs did in Sindh, as soon as they entered this unfortunate province of Bharatavarsha, provides every detail of the pattern they had repeated elsewhere.
 

THE ARAB RECORD IN SINDH

The Chachnāma which is the most famous Muslim history of the Arab conquest of Sindh, describes graphically what Muhammad bin Qasim did after that "accursed Dahir" had been "dispatched" while defending the fort of Rawar: "Muhammad took the fort and stayed there for two or three days. He put six thousand fighting men, who were in the fort, to the sword and shot some (more) with arrows. The other dependents were taken prisoner with their wives and children." When the number of prisoners was calculated, it was found to amount to thirty thousand persons amongst whom thirty were the daughters of the chiefs, and one of them was Rāî Dāhir's sister's daughter whose name was Jaisiya. They were sent to Hajjāj. The head of Dāhir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of K'ab, son of Maharak." (emphasis added).

How did Hajjāj react towards these helpless people from Sindh? The Chachnāma continues: "When the head of Dāhir, the women and the property all reached Hajjāj, he prostrated himself before Allah, offered thanks-giving and praises" Hajjāj then forwarded the head, the umbrellas, and wealth, and prisoners to Walîd the Khalifa." (emphasis added).

The behaviour of the Amîr-ul-mu'minîn, (commander of the faithful) was also true to type. The Chachnāma relates "When the Khalifa of the time had read the letter (of Hajjāj), he praised Allah the great. He sold some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted as rewards. When he saw the daughter of Rāî Dāhir's sister he was much struck with her beauty and charms, and began to bite his finger with astonishment. Abdullah bin Abbās desired to take her, but the Khalifa said: "O my nephew! I exceedingly admire this girl and am so enamoured of her, that I wish to keep her for myself. Nevertheless, it is better that you take her to be the mother of your children"." (emphasis added).

Meanwhile, Muhammad bin Qasim had been conspiring with some merchants of Brahmanabad and promising protection to the common people, provided they committed treason and threw open the gates of the fort in the thick of the fight. He had some doubts whether he had done the right thing. He referred the matter to Hajjāj in a letter which was sent post haste. According to Chachnāma, Hajjāj replied as follows: "O my cousin! I received your life-inspiring letter. I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are confirmable to the Law (of Islam), except that you give protection to all, great and small, and make no distinction between enemy and friend. Allah says - Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats. Then know that this is the command of Allah the great. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you". (emphasis added).

So Muhammad bin Qasim carried out the command of Allah conveyed to him by Hajjāj. The Chachnāma carries the story forward after the fall of Brahmanabad: "When the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qāsim and enquiries were made about every captive, it was found that Lādî, the wife of Dāhir, was in the fort with two daughters of his by other wives. Veils were put on their faces and they were delivered to a servant to keep them apart. One fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside: they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number, and the rest were given to the soldiers. He sat on the seat of cruelty, and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to some, sixteen thousand were killed." (emphasis added).

After "peace" had thus been restored, the conqueror took the next step. The Chachnāma records: "Muhammad bin Qāsim fixed a tax upon all subjects according to the laws of the Prophet. Those who embraced Islam were exempted from slavery, the tribute and poll-tax, and from those who did not change their creed a tax was exacted according to three grades." (emphasis added).

Then followed the privilege reserved for every Muslim, conqueror or convert. According to the Chachnāma: "As the commander of the faithful, Umar, son of Khattāb, had ordered respecting the people of Shām (Syria), so did Muhammad bin Qāsim also make a rule that every (Muslim) guest should be entertained (in Hindu homes) for one day and night, but if he fell sick then for three days and nights."

Another massacre followed at Askalanda which was surrendered by the common people after the Hindu commandant had fled: "He went into the fort, killed four thousand fighting men with his bloody sword and sent their families into slavery." And Multan: "Six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves." (emphasis added). The Chachnāma chooses a Brahmin of Multan to proclaim Muhammad bin Qāsim's momentous victory in the following words: "Heathenism is now at an end, the temples are thrown down, the world has received the light of Islam, and mosques are built instead of idols temples". The Brahmin was a new convert.

Al Biladuri who died in 892-893 AD wrote another account of the Arab conquest of Sindh. He tells us in his Futûhul-Buldān: "We are told that Hajjāj caused a calculation to be made of the sums expanded in fitting out this expedition of Muhammad bin Qāsim, and the riches which resulted from it. He had spent 60 million dirhams and that which had been sent to him amounted to 120 millions dirhams."

This 120 million dirhams represents only one-fifth of the total loot which was paid into the Caliph's coffers according to a rule laid down by the prophet of Islam. Another four hundred and eighty million dirhams were distributed among Muslim soldiers in the field. Again, this total of 600 million dirhams does not include the sale proceeds of nearly two hundred thousand Hindu men, women and children who were taken prisoners and put to auction all over the world of Islam at that time.

 

PERFORMANCE OF THE PATHANS

My second question is: How come that the Pathans, who hated the Turks and fought them tooth and nail throughout the medieval period, followed the Turks so faithfully in their treatment of the Hindus?

Take Sikandar Lodi. He was the son of a Pathan father. His mother was the daughter of a Hindu goldsmith of Sirhind. Abdullah records as follows in his Tārîkh-i-Dāûdî written in the reign of Jahangir: "It is also related of this prince that before his accession, when a crowd of Hindûs had assembled in immense numbers at Kurkhet, he wished to go to Thanesar for the purpose of putting them all to death" He was so zealous a Musalmān that he utterly destroyed diverse places of worship of the infidels and left not a vestige remaining of them. He entirely ruined the shrines of Mathura, the mine of infidelism, and turned the principal Hindû places of worship into caravanserais and colleges. Their stone images were given to the butchers to serve as meat-weights, and all the Hindûs in Mathura were strictly prohibited from shaving their heads and beards and bathing at the ghāts. Badauni writes in his Muntakhāb-ut-Tawārîkh that "he took the fort (of Untgarh) and gave the infidels as food for the sword. He then cast down the idol temples and built there a lofty mosque". He repeated the performance at Narwar next year, and at many other places in the years that followed.

 

BEHAVIOUR OF HINDU CONVERTS

My third question is: How do we explain the behaviour of marauders who were not Turks but Hindus converted to Islam, and who behaved no better, if not worse, than the much-maligned Turks?

The story of Kalapahar and his exploits in Bengal and Orissa may be dismissed by the Aligarh apologists as a cock-and-bull story cooked up by "Hindu old women". But the achievements of Malik Kafur are recorded by no less an authority than Amir Khusru who was also a contemporary. Malik Kafur was a handsome young Hindu who was captured and enslaved when Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan, two generals of Alauddin Khalji, invaded Gujarat in 1298 AD. He was bought by Nusrat Khan for a thousand dinārs, converted to Islam, and presented to the emperor at Delhi. Alauddin was infatuated by Kafur who rose rapidly to be the topmost officer of the empire, titled Malik Naib.

Kafur led his famous expedition to the South in 1310-1311 AD. Devagiri was already a tributary of the Delhi Sultanate. The Hoysala King of Dvarasamudra was frightened into surrender. But the Pandya prince of Madurai refused either to purchase peace or fight a pitched battle. He tired out the Malik Naib by his hit and run tactics. The Malik Naib took it out on the non-combatant common people and their temples. At Brahmastapur (modern Chidambaram), he massacred the citizens, demolished the golden temple, and dug up its foundations. Next, the temples at Srirangam and in the neighbourhood of Kannanur were sacked. At Madurai he set fire to the temple of Sokkanatha. He had to beat a retreat in the face of fierce Hindu resistance. But he did not forget to capture and carry with him an immense booty and hordes of prisoners who were sold into slavery all along his long route to the imperial headquarters at Delhi.

Or take the case of Suhabhatta, the chief minister of Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (1389-1413 AD). Suhabhatta who had renounced his ancestral faith for Islam is known as Suhā in the Rājataraṅgiṇî of Jonarāja. This historian of Kashmir records: "Instructed by mlechhas, (Suhā) instigated the king to break down the images of Gods. The king forgot his kingly duties and took a delight day and night in breaking images" He broke the images of Mārtaṇḍa, Vishaya, Ī'lāna, Chakravaratî and Tripureśvara. There was no city, no town, no village, no wood where Suhā and the Turushka left the temples of Gods unbroken.

Suhabhatta continued to be the chief minister under Sikandar's son, Ali Shah (1413-1420 AD). During Sikandar's reign, he had stopped at destroying Hindu temples. Under the new regime, he started persecuting the Brahmins. Their religious performances and processions were banned. The traditional allowances of the Brahmins were stopped. The Brahmins, therefore, became beggars "who had to move from door to door, like dogs, for food". Many of them tried to flee the land to escape oppression and save their caste. But they could not do so without an official permit. As a result, many of them committed suicide by fire, poison, drowning, hanging, and jumping from precipices. Amidst all this, Suhabhatta maintained that he bore no malice towards the Brahmins, and that he was only doing his duty towards Islam!
 

TURKS WERE BRUTALISED BY ISLAM

My fourth question is: Were the Turks really such black barbarians as they have been painted by the Aligarh apologists? How then do we explain the glaring contradiction in the behaviour of many Turkish kings who were such fearsome fiends when dealing with Hindus, but who became benevolent monarchs when dealing with Muslims?

Take Mahmud Ghaznavi who tops the list of Muslim invaders most hated by Hindus. Muhammad Nazim, a "modern historian", writes as follows in his well-documented monograph, The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna: "The Sultan was affectionate by nature. Sultan Mahmud was strict in the administration of justice". Sultan Mahmud was a poet and scholar of some reputation. He is said to have been the author of a book named Tafridul-Furu which was regarded as a standard work on Fiqh'. The Sultan was a great patron of learning and his court was the rendezvous of scholars from all parts of the Muslim world. His meanest rewards were calculated in thousands of dinārs, and the later generation of poets cherished his memory chiefly as a giver of "elephant loads of gold and silver". Firishta records that he used the war booty captured from Kanauj for building at Ghazni a magnificent mosque, a university well-stocked with books, and a museum full of many curiosities.

Or take Jalaluddin Khalji. He was second to none among the Muslim kings when it came to heaping atrocities on Hindus. But when Malik Chhajju, who had rebelled against him and caused bloodshed, was brought before him in chains, he overruled his advisers for harsh punishment with the remark that he would rather renounce his throne than shed the blood of a Muslim! Again, when the Rana of Ranthambhor refused to surrender, Jalaluddin gave up the siege of the fort, in spite of protests from his generals, with the remark that he did not consider ten such forts worth a single hair of a Muslim's head!

Firuz Shah Tughlaq was a great patron of learning, a builder of new cities, and patron of many public works such as tanks, gardens, and canals. In his autobiography he writes: "Better a people's weal than treasures vast; better an empty chest than hearts downcast". But by "people" he meant only the Muslims. For Hindus he was nothing short of a monster.

The much-maligned Turk did have another face which was far from being that of a barbarian. It is quite another matter that the benevolent face of the Turk was always and exclusively turned towards his Muslim Ummah, and never towards the "accursed" Hindus. What is relevant here is that crimes committed by the Turks in India cannot be explained away in terms of a barbarism inherent in his race. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who also blames the crimes of Islam on the barbarism of the Turks says in the same breath that the Turks were Buddhists before they got converted to Islam. Was it Buddhism that had brutalised the Turks?  Or had Buddhism failed to humanise them?

But even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that the Turk was a born barbarian, the basic question remains unanswered. Some of the medieval Muslim historians were not Turks. They were Arabs and Persians whom the Aligarh apologists credit with the quintessence of Islamic culture. Quite a few of them were learned mullahs conversant with the commandments of Islam. The positions and privileges they obtained in the courts of their Turkish patrons were entirely due to their erudition.

So my fifth and final question is: Why did these medieval Muslim historians credit their patrons with crimes which the latter had not committed, or exaggerate the scale of some minor misdemeanours?

 

 

 .