Fallacy of the
Hindutva Project by Shamsul
Islam
One has lost count of religious conclaves of Hindu
‘saints’ friendly to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) calling for violent
cleansing of lawful Indian Muslims.
It was not long ago that Tathagata Roy, an RSS
luminary who
also graced the high constitutional office of
Governor of Tripura, tweeted that “the
Hindu-Muslim problem won’t be solved without a Civil War”.
In fact, it has been the most favourite theme of
the RSS since its inception in 1925.
The RSS and its Hindutva appendages have been
demanding revenge for crimes against Hindus in history but have singled out the
medieval period in order to focus on the persecution by ‘Muslim’ rulers.
It is surprising that in a country like
In order to arrive at the truth, we need to study
the nature of ‘Muslim’ rule. The most crucial issue is, why do the common
Muslims of today’s India have to pay for the sins of ‘Muslim’ rulers of the
past who had friendly and cordial relations (including matrimonial) with higher
caste Hindus?
We also need to investigate whether ‘ Hindu’
history was devoid of religious, social and political persecution.
Hindutva zealots demanding a Muslim-free
This unity between Muslims and caste Hindus can be
gauged
from the fact that no Mughal emperor after Akbar
was born of a Muslim mother. Several higher caste Hindus served the ‘Muslim’
rulers faithfully.
The Mughal rule established by Babar, who was
invited
by a section of Hindu kings to seize
Aurobindo Ghose, who played a prominent role in
providing Hindu foundation to Indian nationalism, confessed that Mughal rule
continued for over a century because Mughal rulers gave Hindus “positions of
power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their kingdom.
The renowned historian Tara Chand, relying on the
primary source material of the medieval period, concluded that from the end of
the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, “it may
reasonably be concluded that in the whole of
the hands of Hindus” most of whom happened to be
Rajputs.
Maasir-ul Umra, a biographical dictionary of
officers in the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1780 (Akbar to Shah Alam), is
regarded as the most authentic record of high-ranking officials employed by
Mughal kings. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between
1741 and 1747.
According to it, Mughal rulers during this period
employed around 100 (out of 365) high-ranking officials most of whom were “Rajputs
from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and
Interestingly, the Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha
established in 1893, “committed to the cause of Hindi as official language”,
published the Hindi translation of the book in 1931. It is nobody’s argument that
Aurangzeb did not commit heinous crimes against his Indian subjects. It must be
remembered that his cruelty was
not restricted to non-Muslims; his own father,
brothers, Shias, Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and Muslim
ruling families in the eastern, central and western parts of India faced brutal
repression and were annihilated. Aurangzeb executed the renowned Sufi saint
Sarmad in the precincts of the Jama Masjid in
However, contemporary records reveal that he
patronised Hindu
and Jain religious places of worship. A standing
example of this is the grand Gauri Shankar temple, a stone’s throw from Lahori
Gate of Red Fort, which was built during Shahjahan’s reign and continued
functioning during Aurangzeb’s rule.
Reducing all his crimes to repression of Hindus is
tantamount
to reducing the gravity of his crimes against
humanity. No sane person would deny that the Somnath temple in
desecrated, looted and razed by Mahmud Ghazi
(Mahmud Ghaznavi). But a fact that remains buried is that it was done with the
active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains.
M.S. Golwalkar, the most prominent ideologue of the
RSS, while referring to the desecration and destruction of the Somnath temple
said: “He crossed the
Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to
cross the great
Muslim rulers were not the only ones who defiled
Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that “the
Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who is regarded as a
Prophet of
Hindutva, while dealing with the contribution of
Shankaracharya in his tome Satyarth Prakash wrote:
“For ten years he toured all over the country,
refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that
are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst
those that are found whole here and there under the
ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of
their being broken.”
According to the ‘Hindu’ narrative of ancient Indian
history, Brihadratha, the last Buddhist king of the Maurya dynasty (Asoka being
one), was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 B.C., thus
ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the reign of
the Shunga dynasty.
D.N. Jha, an authority on ancient Indian history,
referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries that
described Pushyamitra Shunga as a persecutor of Buddhists who destroyed
Buddhist and Jain religious places. In his 2018 collection of essays titled
Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History, Jha writes: “He
is said to have
marched out with a large army, destroying stupas,
burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as
Jha also presented evidence from the grammarian
Patanjali, a contemporary of the Shungas, who famously stated in his
Mahabhashya that Brahmins and Shramanas were eternal enemies, like the snake
and the mongoose (“Monumental Absence: The destruction of ancient Buddhist
sites”, Caravan,
June 2018).
In the Hindutva narrative, the persecution of Sikh
Gurus and
their followers by Mughal rulers is used to spread
hatred against present-day Indian Muslims.
Mughal rulers, especially Aurangzeb’s armies,
committed heinous and unspeakable crimes against Sikhs. Was it Muslims versus
Sikhs? Contemporary Sikh records reject such an interpretation.
According to a Sikh website (https://www.sikhdharma.org/4-sons-of-guru-gobind-singh/),
during the last and the most brutal siege of Anandpur Sahib in 1704, Muslim and
Hindu hill rajas completely surrounded and cut off the city.
While the Sikhs were trying to escape the Mughal
invaders “the younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh, Baba Zorawar Singh, aged 9,
and Baba Fateh Singh, aged 7, were
separated from the group in the confusion. They walked through the rugged
jungle with their holy grandmother, Mata Gujri ji (mother of Guru Gobind Singh),
until they came to small village where they took shelter.” An old servant of
the Guru’s household, Gangu, on coming to know that they were there in the
village visited Mataji and persuaded her to go with him to his village. According
to the narrative,“he expressed care and concern, but his heart was dark with
betrayal. Cold, wet and alone, Mata Gujri gratefully went with Gangu to his
house” taking her grandsons along.
For a few gold coins, Gangu betrayed their
whereabouts
to the
Mughal army. At dawn, there was a loud banging on the door and soldiers of the
evil governor Wazir Khan took away the holy family to Sarhind.“As they
travelled through the city, people thronged to see them pass offering words of
encouragement. They shouted curses at the Brahmin and were shocked at the
depravity of the Moghul governor.”
Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned
historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in
However, his description of the Maratha invasion of
According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands
committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”. In The History of
According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram, “the
Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some
people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed
outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after
raping them.”
Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the
court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of
atrocities committed by the Marathas. “Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity,
slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of
spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of
sinful act.”
Contemporary records prove that Aurangzeb’s rule
was also the rule of Rajputs and Kshatriyas (members of two of the four castes
in the Hindu social hierarchy) and other members of higher caste Hindus.
Aurangzeb never faced the Maratha ruler Shivaji in
the battlefield. It was his commander-in-chief Jay Singh II (1688-1743), a
Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), who was sent to subjugate Shivaji.
Aurangazeb conferred the title ‘Sawai’ (one and a
quartertimes superior to his contemporaries) on him in 1699 and thus he came to
be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Aurangazeb also conferred the title
‘mirza raja’ (a Persian title for a royal prince) on him. The other titles
bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind (eternal
ruler of
https://www.indianrajputs.com/famous/Jai-Singh-
II-Amber.php)
We have first-hand account of Raja Rughnath
Bahadur, a Kayasth who functioned as
Raja appointed every one of them to posts of honor
and emoluments, according to their individual merits; while many of them were
granted titles of honor and valuable jagirs for their services. Not a single
Kayasth remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”
(Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan
Lal Bahadur,
Late Honorary Magistrate
This account shows that a Kayasth prime minister of
Aurangazeb, a bigoted Muslim ruler, was able to patronise people of his own
caste.
Another crucial fact that is consciously kept under
wraps is that despite more than 500 years of Muslim rule, which according to
Hindutva historians was nothing but a project to annihilate Hindus or forcibly
convert them to
The British conducted the first Census in 1871-72,
by when the ceremonial Muslim rule was over. According to the Census report:
“The population of
These figures make it clear that persecution and
cleansing of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If
it had been so, Hindus would have disappeared from
According to the 2011 Census, Hindus constitute
79.80% of the total population and Muslims constitute 14.23%.
The linking of Aurangzeb or other Muslim rulers’
crimes committed in pre-modern
Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who
according to the Hindu narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her
husband Rama and his companions. This Ravana was a learned Brahman who also
happened to be an ardent worshipper of Siva.
The epic Mahabharata narrates the story of a great
war between two families Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas),
not between Hindus and Muslims, in which 1.2
billion people were slaughtered.
Draupadi was disrobed by Kashtriyas. If the crimes
of Ravana, Kauravas, Pushyamitra Shunga, Jai Singh II, Marathas and Gangu
Brahmin, among others, are linked to their religion, as in the case of
Aurangzeb and other Muslim rulers, then the country will turn into a land of
butchery.
If revenge is to be taken on the present
descendants of the past perpetrators, then a beginning must be made from the
beginning of Indian civilisation; the turn of Indian Muslims will come later.
It is sad that the RSS-Bharatiya Janata Party
rulers of
