Referring to the by-now-viral-on-social-media item on the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey being photographed with a poster bearing a call to “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy” – the authors start out their very first paragraph saying
“Controversy arose as the interpretation of this message shifted from a rallying cry against intersecting power hierarchies to accusations of hate speech against India’s small but powerful caste group of Brahmins. Author Advaita Kala drew a parallel between the supposed demonisation of Brahmins and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. Referring to casteism as a mere “historical ill”, Kala suggested that Brahmins were the real victims here, who, like Jews, comprise a minority group “touted to be privileged” and scapegoated for political gain. Congress leader Manish Tiwari latched on to this parallel, and Twitter was soon abuzz with claims that “Brahmins are the new Jews of India”.
I have italicized the phrases that these two authors chose to illustrate the modern academic “Humanities” linguistic tactics of subtly placing words and expressions into the mind of the reader to associate negativities or positivities as per “Humanities” academic’s underlying beliefs or projected beliefs and world views they seek to impose on the public. By claiming that the “interpretation shifted” they are pretending that there was already a prior – “correct interpretation” or the “interpretation that should have been unchallenged” which was “shifted”. Further they already declare and probably unintentionally identify the “message” as a “rallying cry” against “intersecting power hierarchies” – thereby more openly admitting or making the “message” an essentially politically motivated activist defined agenda. In doing so, and even in the use of jargon used within the subdomain of “Humanities” the authors belong to – like “intersecting power hierarchies” (which most common readers will not be able to immediately place in the context of their own readings), the authors beautifully expose many of the tools of the trade with which specific and selected political and religious ideologies are now being legitimized from within the “Humanities” academics as worthy of projecting on to the public domain as the “norm” against which all other rival claims should be measured or judged.
But more crucially, the more the authors expand on their initial comments, they actually expose two fatal weaknesses in their arguments and their version of the narrative:
(1) they reveal and actually lend credence to their critic’s claims that the whole “anti-Brahminism” project is a political and possibly religiously motivated modern project.
(2) they end up showing that there are actually uncanny similarities between the “Jew” and the “Brahmin” in the context of the modern anti-Jew/anti-Brahmin paradigms – both often covered up under labels that would allow wriggling out of accusations of “identity-based-hatred” by tagging the “Humanities” obfuscation device of “ism” [“oh no we are not against A or B/we are against A-ism or B-ism”]. The device is actually quite deceptive as by adding “ism”, Humanities/political activists can construct, add, delete, suppress, imagine, relabel, any or all aspects of an entity and stretch it to suit their contemporary political, ideological, religious or other agenda.
Most of the times this device acts as a double edge sword – as the same “ism” device is then selectively applied to also protect favourite religions or politics, as and when opportune. For example, “Islamism” can be “bad” if something crops up in real life that cannot be denied or falsified in public perception but is perpetrated with openly proclaimed elements identifiable with historical claims within Islam but is not deemed glorifying by modern claimed-to-be-universally-applicable standards, but by adding the “ism”, both “Islam” and “Muslim” can be detached from the negatives associated with the “bad”.
The authors next explain why they cannot simply let go of this “reaction” to the “poster”, even though they are careful in avoiding a direct statement as to “why” they feel it is “worthy” to “reflect upon this discourse”, for a direct statement would make their project and drives appear more politically or ideologically driven.
“It is tempting to dismiss these claims as feigned outrage or the whimpers of “Brahmin fragility” and simply wait for the controversy to pass. Yet, there is value in reflecting upon this discourse that attempts to conflate two groups with very different historical trajectories – briefly considering what it evokes, what it masks, and why it has provided a useful vehicle for claims of Brahmin victimhood.”
Note the two key phrases I have italicized as continuing illustrations of the “academic humanities” linguistic techniques of subtly trying to associate negative/positive value judgments in the mind of their readers. By using the word “attempt” they want to make the reader think that the “conflation” is a construction, that there is no basis for it, that the reader must start normalizing the belief that these are “two groups” with “very different historical trajectories” – both in turn being claims in their own right, and which can only be done by strictly defining the identities in a certain way, and therefore critically depends on who is constructing these two as “groups” and what constitutes “difference” in historical trajectories. Note that the authors are not stating their own definitions or characterizations of these groups or their histories – for both depend on perception and construction by other authors who came before these two – all having their own opinions and “interpretations” of the past, all coloured by political and religious undertones in those authors, with attendant fallacies of selective highlighting or suppression and approval or disapproval of elements that align with what those authors themselves had approved or disapproved. Note the authors themselves do not feel the need to clarify that they too are constructing these two “identities” and claiming “historical trajectories” which are themselves possibly contaminated by historical biases in reconstruction.
“Anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism
The parallel suggests that Brahmins today (like Jews back then) are persecuted for their success. By celebrating caste-based successes in education and profession but denying any advantages of group membership, Brahmins deploy what anthropologist Ajantha Subramaniam calls the “politics of meritocracy”. The parallel also allows for what academic MSS Pandian has called “the subtle act of transcoding caste and caste relations into something else”. As Pandian astutely notes, caste always belongs to someone else, it is somewhere else, it is of another time. The act of transcoding caste into merit allows the group to acknowledge feelings of persecution and disavow caste privilege at once.”
I have italicized the phrases that the authors are using again first to point out their linguistic technique I have been repeatedly drawing attention to, and secondly, to start pointing out their methods of constructing the “Brahmin” as an “identity” in a way that suits their underlying ideological agenda here. Pandians “observation” also acts for excuses on jihadi or evangelist violence: “the subtle act of transcoding Islamist/Evangelist of imperialist conquest and destruction of the other and dominance-submission relations into something else – violence always belongs to someone else, it is somewhere else, it is of another time. The act of trasncoding the results of dominance or success of jihad/inquisition into legitimacy/peaceful winning over allows the group to acknowledge feelings of persecution and disavow religious privilege at once”.
Note that they have avoided the tricky task of defining the “Brahmin”, by default, making the “Brahmin” a label denoting a homogeneous subgroup, which is rigorously “caste” aligned, and which as a single homogeneous “caste” identity has monopolized privilege, and educational success. Like the device of Marxian “class”, and its concretization into abstract rival categories of “bourgeois” and “proletariat” which over the history of Marxist experiments in real life politics, was always suitably stretched or shrunk, here the authors too casually use the label “Brahmin” to tag into the “educationally successful” “class”, and those who seemingly therefore also derive privilege. Suddenly all the usual “nuance and context”, the “inhomogeneities and heterodoxies” which “must be taken into account” when “Jihad” or many other problematic social and political phenomena are discussed, the loud claims that “Islam or muslim is not a homogeneous category, with wide diversity of opinions, values, even marital or social practices” are no longer applicable.
Is this just an error of omission not to support claims of and use of a single category of “Brahmin” in discussing privilege, in an opinion piece? Perhaps not. If it was the case of “islam/jihad” the same subject area within humanities discipline would be ultra-cautious to find counterexamples and their favourite method of “case studies” (that can avoid answering questions of how representative are the claims being made on these case studies on broader identities or phenomena which are however still be placed in context – directly or indirectly – while doing the “case studies”, in another subtle linguistic and psychological manipulation of the reader to associate hoped for imagery and conclusions about the wider phenomena based on carefully selected “case studies”).
So did the authors not do any homework on possible counterexamples to “Brahmin” “by caste exclusive” privilege and dominance over “hierarchies of power”? In a “humanities area” which is super diligent on doing such homework on chosen or apparently approved-of-identities, this appears more a deliberate silence – so that the imagery of a “homogeneous” power hierarchy monopolizing privilege – is not jeopardized. There have been two cases that have refused to be erased in the public perception even after endless and arduous attempts by academia, and “mainstream” media, with the first refers to the rape and eventual death from injuries of a female student in a Delhi bus 2012_Delhi_gang_rape.
For a long time, the media avoided giving out the name of the student, preferring to mask it under excuses of “privacy” and claiming that by dubbing her “Nirbhaya” (a word derived from Sanskrit “bhaya/fear”- and supposedly “Brahminical language” which therefore needs to be hated, or removed or replaced because it is the language of the “Brahmin” – as per many in the “anti-Brahminical” political spectrum), they were actually glorifying the courage she had shown in trying to resist. Given that names, or identities, that give out “caste/religious/social-subgroup” context of victims of criminal assaults are quite common in Indian media, if the victim, especially women come from assumed to be violently repressed identity categories such as “Muslim”, “Dalit”, it was rather curious that media avoided any and all details that would reveal the “caste/social layer/” identity bits in this particular case. When it leaked out much later, that the name of the student was “Jyoti Singh Pandey”, that she and her family came from very poor background from a rural area that has not seen any or much “development”, it became clear why the media initially hesitated. Jyoti was a Hindu, not a Muslim or a Christian. She was also a Pandey – a surname indicating “Pandit”, and therefore, by “caste” mappings, indicating a traditional “Brahmin” descent. Did she show high educational success on the road to privilege?
From wiki, “Her father sold his ancestral land to educate her, and worked double shifts to continue to pay for her schooling. In an interview he related that as a youth he had dreamed of becoming a school teacher, but at that time education was not considered important and girls were not even sent to school. “Attitudes are changing back home now, but when I left 30 years ago, I vowed never deny my children so sending them to school was fulfilling my desire for knowledge.”[28][29] He said that he put his daughter’s education above that of even his two sons, stating: “It never entered our hearts to ever discriminate. How could I be happy if my son is happy and my daughter isn’t? And it was impossible to refuse a little girl who loved going to school.”
A “Brahmin” who by “caste” has “monopolized educational success and privilege” only “dreaming of becoming a school teacher” but unable to? A “patriarchal Brahmin” (whose “ism” is to be smashed as per the poster in whose defence the authors are writing) putting his daughter’s education “that of even his two sons”?! We can perhaps see why such “case studies” will not find place in these kinds of “academic exercises” in opinion pieces.
The second case, a recent one, is strangely but not unexpectedly absent in mainstream discourse with a few social media voices sharing the story: incident in UP, Varanasi where a Brahmin girl was raped with a stark absence of activists or the media. In sharp contrast to these two, with the latter never making the hallowed sphere of liberal “unbiased and authentic” journalism of the likes of Guardian, or both international and Indian media that gleefully ran claims of India’s “patriarchal” culture of “violence against women” (the “patriarchal” gets more stressed if the attackers cannot be conclusively identified as “Upper/forward caste Hindu”, and more so if they are non-“privileged classes” or Muslim, and even non-Hindu “attackers” would be blamed to have been inspired by “Hindu patriarchy”) – both the name and the “religious identities involved” made immediate headlines – even as far as the Guardian – on the following case: theguardian.com/killing-of-muslim-girl-india-hindu-religious-tensions.
But the fact that emerges is that if either of the first two cases were explored in details as to social background, income level, education, one would immediately start doubting the representation of the “Brahmin” as a unique “caste based category that monopolizes educational success, privilege, and dominate power hierarchies”. The authors chose not to as it would jeopardize their model. How will they excuse their omission? Let me anticipate: they will hide behind their deliberate mixing in of both “Brahminism/Brahmin” to claim that they were critically analyzing the “ism” which represents the “monopoly/hierarchy/privilege/education” paradigm. But to defend that excuse they should have shown an awareness of the counterexamples, an honest acknowledgment that their “term” for “Brahminism/Brahmin” is an abstract construction, on which they have slapped on all the hallmarks typical of any elite anywhere – all of which tend to become overt or covertly endogamic, seeking to protect privilege within blood descent, and who use all relevant and contemporary tools to engage with contemporary levels of technology and economy to leverage material success. But they did not clarify, and chose to retain the imagery of a “caste” with all its colonial era constructions that were in turn driven by imperialist need to project superiority and delegitimize pre-existing cultural categories especially social subgroups who might most compete with them.
At the same time, the parallels being drawn between Jews and Brahmins mask the systemic nature of Brahminical oppression originally referenced on Dorsey’s placard. Like patriarchy, Brahminism is a social system that reflects not just oppression by the group at the top of the ritualistic structure (Brahmins or men), but the violence engendered by its categorical inequalities. In contrast to colonial depictions, India’s caste system has varied geographically and has transmuted over time, as mid-tier caste groups have asserted power in matters of territory, politics, and property. Yet, Brahmins have remained the structural constant, the core around which the locally specific Brahminical system has been formed and reformed. Supporting this durable social system, Brahmin agency and self-valourising ideologies – including patriarchy – have allowed this numerical minority to occupy and retain positions of hegemonic power.
Noting that their abstract categorization is problematic, the authors quickly try to close the loophole by briefly mentioning the problem in constructing a homogeneous “Brahmin” minority dominating “power” – as if this somehow makes them academically honest, but immediately try to dilute their own acknowledgment by reaffirming the “Brahmin” not as an abstract category – but a real social subgroup of individuals, the “Brahmins” who are the “structural constant” and thereby falsifying their own initial “masking” of their underlying target as the group of real human beings and not just the supposed “abstract” “ism”. In this they also throw in the jargon, which in turn can be stretched in any direction as per immediate agenda – such as “self-valourising ideologies” and “patriarchy”, as somehow being part of the “Brahmin” social existence. Which ideology in the world has ever been not “self-valourising”? Was “feminism”, “Marxism/communism”, or the religious ideologies of various flavours of Christinaity or Islam or even Buddhism self-de-valourising? Can any ideology survive if it does not self-valourize? If all ideologies share the same property, why make it specifically “Brahmin” as a social group?
Then again the problems of the historical assumptions on “Brahmin” power are not addressed, the authors simply perpetuate the colonial constructions of caste and its alleged role in history, even though they pretend to know of the problems with the colonial construction. The reality of Brahmins as a social group occupying “seats” of power over historical times, is not addressed, and not “contextualized” (as the favourite term goes) against analysis of any possible similar roles of various other categories of “intellectual elite” connected to non-Brahmin constructions, like role of lay and theological hierarchy of Buddhist Sangha or Jaina orders, or Ulema of both Sufi and non-Sufi orders.
The discursive association with Jews in Nazi Germany has been effective in discrediting anti-caste movements and legitimising the rejection of anti-Brahminism simply for its new association with anti-Semitism. But anti-Brahminism, as a movement that has taken shape over the past 100 years, has no resemblance to anti-Semitism. Rather, anti-Brahminism is aimed at dismantling the structure of Brahminism that has legitimated the oppression of Dalits not just by Brahmins but by all caste groups. Taking distinct forms across the country, including the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra, the Self-Respect Movement of Periyar, and the Justice Party’s Non-Brahmin Manifesto, these movements have noted that despite their significant numerical minorities, Brahmins have stood as an elite because of their institutionalised access to education, religious authority, economic power, political influence, and social prestige. These movements have at times been criticised for pinning blame too heavily on the Brahmin and ignoring the roles mid-tier and lower castes have played in reproducing structures of caste oppression. But while these groups may slip too casually from anti-Brahminism to anti-Brahmin, they have not engaged in the kind of ethno-religious scapegoating and systematic dehumanisation experienced by Jews in Nazi Germany. Moreover, by brushing over the attempted genocide and mass extermination, the parallels between anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism stretch beyond acceptable hyperbole.
I have again italicized the expressions that expose the inner line in the authors. By dubbing it “discursive” they are trying to make readers think, it’s just a “construction by association” – even though they do the same thing themselves by linking “Brahmin” with their model of “Brahminism” in a linguistic technique, while ignoring every aspect of reality that jeopardize their “discursive” linking.
Their first objection is essentially that of political strategy – they are resenting and objecting to an assumed political response to a political agenda, so that even if the reaction had no political drive (as most mainstream political parties do not claim to, neither do they have any reason to appease the “Brahmin” as an identity, as electorally, non-Brahmin “caste” identities and religious mobilizations are reflected in the real games of hierarchies of power: nor are any traditionally ascribed Brahmin concerns reflected in Indian state power’s treatment of Hindu ritualistic or cultural practices which are supposed to be key aspects of Brahmin “control”).
Among countless examples available, I have cited just two, which shows that the alleged “institutionalized” access to “power/privilege/dominance/violence/authority/patriarchy” claimed by the authors and directly equated to “Brahmanism” which in turn is equated by them to “Brahmins” as a social group – is a carefully selective abstraction, which denies reality, which perpetuates constructions of “Brahmin” and “Brahminism” by colonial imperialists and aggressive proselytizing organized religions which acted as arm or spearhead of imperialism, and which avoids acknowledging the fact that just like the “Jews” in Europe, the vast majority of “Brahmins” eked out a meager existence, often without much educational or material success, while their few elite top tier attained a success under patronage by ruling elite.
It is interesting that the authors try to focus only on the “Nazi” era experience of the “Jew” and that too equating the whole experience with the specifics of the officially labour and unofficially extermination camps – in Europe, while perhaps even within the Nazi era there were differences between time periods and areas, and European anti-Semitism stretches back to late classical, all the way through post-Roman and medieval period to the pre-modern. That Jews were periodically targeted is well recorded, and often proudly displayed in narratives, and in this particular pastime, the reactions of pagan Imperial Rome towards Jewish religious claims spilled over into both Christian Europe and Mediterranean Islam each often drawing inspiration from the other in symbols and methods of anti-Semitism as well as genocide. Nazis were the latest in a long and illustrious history of genocides, in which Spain, France, Germany, and England once played their glorious roles. While genocides in the past were restricted by sparse and distributed nature of the Jewish populations, they did happen, and the underlying matrix of ideological justifications as and when the genocide became opportune never went away.
The authors are trying to falsify the parallel by pretending that “anti-Semitism” or even the “Nazi” version of “anti-Jew(ism)” is entirely characterized by “genocide”. Even here, the authors are perhaps deliberately keeping silent on historical narratives, especially that from the Persian sources during the Islamic regimes in most parts of India, of specific targeting of the “Brahmins” and their social situation, frequently amounting to pogroms and mass executions or executions through spectacular tortures, and often simply for practising their rituals or religion in the privacy of their homes – reported against by Muslim neighbours. The Portuguese Catholic church did the same in Goa, specifically mentioning extermination of Brahmins as their objective. Brahmins were targeted for conversion in most parts of India, tortured, executed, humiliated in public, forced to give up their women and daughters to Muslim armies, commanders or rulers, with gleeful records of their plight in records of jihadi rulers and narrators in “Islamic” Kashmir, Sultanate and Mughal India. Calls of uniting of “Islamist” activists, and a section of “Dalit” activists which try to claim promotion of an Islamist-Dalit axis against “Brahmins” will revive the image of historical genocides of “Brahmins” in many quarters.
“Pitfalls of parallelism
If it was not Jack Dorsey but an Indian chief executive officer (or even an Indian-American chief executive officer) who had held the placard, this controversy may not have grown nearly as large as it did. While caste and casteism have been debated internally, their ascendance to the global stage has made people uncomfortable. Most commentators critical of Dorsey have highlighted his limited understanding of Indian social structures and expressed discomfort with the parallel he implied – as a non-Indian – between Brahminism and white supremacy, by displaying the sign designed by Dalit rights activist Thenmozhi Soundararajan.
And while that parallel simply suggests that patriarchy intersects with other systems of hegemonic power, we do agree that one should tread carefully when making claims of parallel experience and parallel oppression. We do not suggest that comparison in and of itself is the problem, but it can become a problem when another group’s experiences are decontextualised and used to mask systemic oppression. Anti-Semitism amounted to an entire group of people being stripped of voice, agency, and life. Brahmins, on the other hand, have regularly asserted their voice, authority, and interests over the course of history in assuming the role of spokespeople for the Indian social milieu.”
The authors try to represent that the reaction came from “discomfort” on “caste and casteism” being, implied “adversely”, raised to status of “international issues”, thereby trying in turn to represent the “reactionaries” as inherently guilty who are getting their just desserts in the court of “international opinion”. I doubt they would similarly characterize the reaction in UK to exposure of the “systemic” protection afforded to the infamous Rotherham “grooming” scandal, or the latest rush of denials of “sharia law dominates UK” in case of alleged refusal by the British Prime Minister to grant asylum to Asia Bibi, as discomfort from exposure in “international court of public opinion” – as both point to a long term and persistent indication of a minority becoming so powerful socially and politically that states and governments are proved to be scared in “hurting their sentiments”. The reason I suspect Prof Weinstein and Postgraduate researcher Diwakar will refuse to treat these at par with their “caste and casteism” paradigm is that perhaps their internal value system already prejudices them against anything in defense of “Brahmin=Brahminism” while the same value system prejudices them questioning “parallels” with other possible “minority dominance” cases, especially if it is in the “Atlantic – Anglo-US axis” of “power hierarchies” and in favour of Islam.
If we start thinking along the lines of these authors, we may wonder if their spirited “attack” against the “parallel” also stems from discomfort at the exposure of the underlying political agenda and strategy of “anti-Brahminism”, and “anti-Brahminism” would not have drawn their spirited defense had it not been perhaps aligned to the rather ancient and moldy colonial agenda of humiliating, denigrating, or delegitimizing “Hinduism”, with the constructed “Brahmins” as the source of all evil in “evil pagan Hinduism”, which in a certain perception, obstructed the advance and conquest of the subcontinent under Islam or Christianity. Absence of similar critical finding by the same category of “academic humanities” as a supposedly “scholarly discipline” of similar elements or elite behaviour and their contribution on hierarchies among christian and Muslim subcultures over the subcontinent, seems to strengthen this speculation.
The authors acceptance of the political face of “anti-Brahminism” has led them to adopt the image and categorization of the abstract “Brahmin” which was more a construction actively encouraged by the colonial regime over the subcontinent, and as represented by the “Dalit” movement – both the modern version of “Brahmin” and “Dalit” itself are abstract and created categories, where the definitions were shaped by political need and strategy in colonial regimes as well as social identities they decided to create and foster in “confrontation” to what they considered the majority – “Hindu”. Early British reliance on textual authority, and their alliances with Islamic scholarship and theologians skewed their models of the “Hindu” in a caste context that even at the time of formulation in 19th century was actually protested widely. But both the modern European insistence on this so-called caste “realism” as well as its use by “Dalit” “elite” is based on created and invented categories of political convenience, which once formed can get a seeming life of their own and therefore seemingly self-justified as to historical existence. This is the deeper parallel between the modern treatment and use of the “Brahmin(ism)” as reflected in the authors together with its use by “Dalit” or Christian and Islamic groups that is uncannily parallel to the way the 19th century “Jew” was constructed in Europe, for a specific political purpose and serving certain international political objectives. Going into the details of the European scenario would unnecessarily lengthen this post but I am sure that the background of scholarship of these two authors will enable them to identify the sources and research I am hinting of.
Yes, it can become a problem when another group’s experiences are decontextualised and used to mask systemic oppression – just as the experience of the large majority of Brahmins who do not make it into any hierarchies of power or privilege or education or wealth and their systematic historical repression at the hands of the Christian and Muslim regimes, with the marginalization of the majority of them happening over many centuries as a social group, suggests.
Anti-Semitism amounted to an entire group of people being stripped of voice, agency, and life, just as anti-Brahmanism is seeking to strip an entire group of people of their voice, agency, and in some parts of India, increasingly seemingly, also of life. Yes, some Brahmins, like some Jews, on the other hand, have regularly asserted their voice, authority, and interests over the course of history but only in a personal context and not in assuming the role of spokespeople for the Indian social milieu. While many Jews have spoken out in favour of their “identity”, most of “Brahmins” who are being touted as having “reasserted” their voice were actually only allowed to say things that would strengthen the anti-Brahminical position, and none of India’s so-called “Brahmins” in “power” have spoken a single item that has reinforced the imagery constructed by the authors. From “Pundit Nehru” to most of the “eminent historians” who are supposedly “Brahmins by birth caste” or judicial luminaries who have “redefined” Hinduism and supposedly “Brahmins by birth caste” and who have never wavered from judicial activism or rulings that favour the referred “repressed non-Brahmin” or ruled against “Brahminical ritual practices” they deem personally unsupportable, there is not a single example to show that the “Brahmin voices” in power have actually done anything to “assert” or “consolidate” anything the authors characterize “Brahmins” with in their alleged ritualistic, religious, social views which allegedly characterizes them.
Thus in a way, the actual track record of the small number of “Brahmins” successful in education, or privilege, who loom large as they appear to be in a large proportion of elite/state-patronized positions but which taken in the context of the overall population still leaves out the overwhelming portion of Brahmins as surviving at the margins of economic and educational opportunities and entitlements, and thus do not represent their entire “caste group”. Further, once in privilege or power they do not do anything to perpetuate their “Caste identities” grip or role in power as “Brahmins” – rather the reality of their overt and often persistently vicious “anti-Brahminical” positions simply indicates the weakness and marginalization of the “Brahmin” as an identity, and “Brahminism” as a culture. Claims and representation that these authors make, places patriarchy as a seemingly purely “Brahminical” contribution and dangerously removes the possibility of role of other ideologies and religions than the “Hindu” or the “Brahmin” as having contributed to it.
Hatred of “Brahminism” is not only about removing the abstract “Brahmin” who supposedly dominates society, but everything that can be linked to the “Brahmin” theologically or religiously as constructed by the self-appointed “enemies” of “Brahminism” – this has led to claims to suppress, reject, eliminate, refuse space to languages deemed “Brahminical”, or texts, philosophies deemed “Brahminical”, in effect cultural or knowledge base aspects that may not have anything to do with “power”. In fact most “rituals” of the “Hindu” are target, often under the excuse of same labels the authors use – by linking anything and everything Hindu with “brahmin” and “Brahminism”, in a sense the anti-Brahminical agitation gets so much traction in the formal academic humanities simply perhaps because it helps delegitimizing the “Hindu”. The same category and group of academics are however in sharp contrast very cautious in criticizing rituals of Islam, sometimes showing rather positive keenness in trying to rationalize or find “scientific” roots or “legitimate perceptions of a different time and society – in nuanced and contextual” way. No such consideration for the “ritualistic/hegemonistic” practices of the abstract “Brahmin/Brahminical Hinduism”.
Delegitimization of the social media voices drawing parallels between the “Jew” and the “Brahmin” as attempted by these two “academic” authors, is mischievous, and perhaps deeply disturbing as it does resemble many initial reaction to Nazism or its precursor movements – that perhaps facilitated the initial passage towards the extreme that it became under the closing days of WWII – sort of “well they had it coming”.
Let us look at the key building blocks of this thesis:
“The reason why caste has remained stubbornly invulnerable to reform – efforts have been on since the time of the Buddha – is because it has two dimensions, one good, one bad. On the one side, there is exploitation and oppression; on the other side, there is a beneficial dimension. As many people have pointed out in the past, caste is a form of social capital. This is why deras exist. And, in a first-past-the-post democracy, caste has become even more important, for it is the numbers you bring to a coalition that decide your position in the political power structure. All political parties thus seek dera support, or that of caste groups.”
Jaganathan is here starting with the first fundamental weakness of his thesis: he proclaims that there is both a “good” and “bad” side to “caste”, and the primary reason he thinks that “caste” has been persistent from Buddha’s times in spite of repeated attempts at “reform”. Even in the subsequent development of his thesis, and the solution he proposes – is “allowing” castes to “separate” if necessary from “Hinduism” which however he does not recognize as an integral whole. Apart from the confusions and contradictions implied in his alternate portrayal of Hinduism as a single entity or concept (“greater than sum total” of components or as an entity from which a caste can distinguish or exclude itself) and as something impossible or infeasible to be a “whole”, he calls to “allow” such separation – implying thereby that there exists a super-authority latent in “Hinduism” that has the power and should do so. He fails to recognize that this in turn implies that “castes” on their own have no benefit in separating, and an external authority to caste has to take the initiative to jettison the castes from implied “main”-body.
Since so far, by his own claim, castes have benefited from being “castes”, or “minorities”, and therefore persisted in remaining “castes”, his alleged “bad” side – that of exploitation, must therefore be deemed by castes to be more than compensated for by “benefits” – so much so that they had so far not had any incentive to move away from their “minority” status. Thus Jagantahan wants a divorce enforced by one party in a marriage which he himself acknowledges as being more beneficial than exploitative to the other party so that the other party has not taken initiative to file suit.
Having started with this explanation of “bad and good” Jaganathan then sets out to elaborate on what he thinks are the “bad” side to build a case for “divorce”.
“Two major forces – urbanisation and capitalism – are autonomously working to lower caste inequities. Both ensure mobility between trades and professions. But the process is slow and difficult to manage in the context of electoral democracy. The net result is thus a preference for sub-optimal solutions like increasing reservations based on caste, and a non-merit based system of job-creation that delivers poor outcomes.
Worse, the existence of caste involves a constant demonisation of all Hindu denominations, since anyone claiming to be Hindu is deemed to be favouring casteism. This leaves all Hindus stuck with guilt, again making us less than confident in our dealings with others.”
Thus Jaganathan’s fleshing out of the “bad”, adds basically the following three aspects:
(a) capitalism and urbanization driven “mobility” that reduces “caste” based inequities are hampered by electoral democracy which gives advantage to leveraging identity to extract benefits disproportionate to contribution.
(b) caste based claims of “reservation” hampers merit-based job-creation in turn negatively affecting the economy.
(c) existence of caste apportions “guilt” to and demonizing of all “Hindus” and psychologically hampers confident Hindu engagement of “others”.
For (a) Jaganathan somehow fails to catch the significance of his own observation earlier that existence of caste is not jeopardized even when Indians went out of Hinduism as in Islam or Christianity – which he points out as having failed to create spaces for groups he terms “Dalits” and “shudras”, and that these non-Hindu religions still push for “caste-based” reservations even for those converted “out” of Hinduism. Thus by his own earlier observation, electoral democracy providing advantages to being “minority” will not stop “casteism” suddenly simply because a “caste” has separated from “Hinduism”.
For (b) since Jaganathan is apparently a pro-capitalist – if non-merit based job-occupation negatively impacts the economy, then in a hopefully free-market “capitalist” economy, the market itself will build up pressures to adopt merit-based recruitment, as otherwise a capitalist venture will lose out in competition to one that is able to recruit more merit. Thus here again the answer is then not jettisoning “caste” but allowing greater freedom to the market to decide employment.
For (c), confident dealing with “others” does not seem to have been much of a problem for Swami Vivekananda – at a period when “casteism” was likely more overt and rampant. Moreover, in the current period – the bulk of Hindu population does not really have to engage with the “other” on theological or religious questions unless they are going abroad or are specifically engaged in fields where other religions and ideologies hold the sway. Even here, the lack of confidence probably comes more from a lack of knowledge of and willingness to confront the “others” with their own respective “inequities” and historical or continuing inequities and injustices such as racism, sectarianism, oppression of minorities and dissent, and social exclusion.
“It does not matter if castes become separate religions, retaining only a loose link with Hinduism; it does not matter if groups that are currently identified with Hinduism want to break away, and seek minority, non-Hindu status, as some groups within the Lingayats want to do. If the Ramakrishna Mission wants to be treated as a non-Hindu denomination, why not allow it to do so? It will not actually become less Hindu because of this nomenclature change. In fact, it could become more innovative and grow faster.
Here’s the point: As long as Hinduism remains a very loose aggregation of incompatible castes and groups, it cannot move or change very fast. It is easier for even a slow running to win if he runs alone; three-legged races are tougher to win.”
It is here that Jaganathan’s underlying thought process starts to expose the memes he is using to drive his thesis – he is converting religions or faiths into consumer products on offer in a marketplace of ideologies and belief systems. His liberal use of market terminology tells us that once he makes the equation of religions to commodities on a market, he abandons any lingering concern about the nature of religions modeled as commodities or whether religions can at all be realistically commoditized. Once Jaganathan makes the equation he forgets this possible incompatibility between religions and commodities and switches to thinking entirely in terms of inanimate commodities in a market. Thus he freely talks of “innovation” and “growing fast”, assumes there are producers of new “innovative” commodities of religions within existing caste groups who can outpace other manufacturers.
There are many problems with the religion-as-commodity-in-a-free-market model. To explore this one needs to check up as to what exactly can be the “commodity” nature if any, in a religion, and what then will compose the competing “other” manufacturers of religion and the “market” in which that competition happens.
(a) To compete, two different manufacturers of religions must be satisfying the same needs in the “buyer” of “religions”. Is there a common set of needs satisfied by all “religions” or do different religions address different needs in the same buyer or different buyers? Does Islam and “Hinduism” satisfy the same needs?
(b) what is the currency of exchange in the market of religions? for any such market must develop a unit of comparison and this is something that the buyer gives up to the seller? is it people, following, material contribution to increased manufacturing? If following or numbers is a measure of valuation – how can the author dub the current versions of Christianity or Islam as T.Rex? for they have succeeded more than Hinduism in that currency and without much innovation.
(c) what makes a buyer change his or her preference for one religion as commodity to another? does that change follow free-market rules? Historically almost every known religious innovation had to be shoved down unwilling throats by state sponsored coercion. Islam from its foundation was raiding and pillaging until it could militarily subdue northern Arabian tribes and then spread its “commodity” further into the Levant and Persia by war. Christianity did not make much of a headway until a “minority” faction found it to be useful for imperial power consolidation in Rome and even after that its spread into much of Europe had to be by military conquest. The first claimed “monotheistic” innovation by Akhenaten is assessed now to have been imposed by royal authority and violence.
The peak of this commodity-market model in author’s mind surfaces here:
In the corporate world, when companies become too unwieldy, they demerge to create faster growth for the demerging parts. Hinduism should allow its constituent units to demerge, and this will make each one stronger. A looser and voluntary federation works better for Hinduism than trying to create a large agglomeration that circumscribes the freedom of movement for each of the parts.
This comparison is interesting, for it implies that in Jaganathan’s mind he is totally switched into and focused on real world commodities and their prices and profits to corporate models. He conveniently forgets that the “demergers” are supervised by an authority external to the market – a state, ostensibly to encourage competition to the benefit of the consumer. What authority external to “Hinduism” is going to supervise this “de-trustification” of “Hinduism”? How is that authority going to determine what is of benefit to the consumer in the absence of clear-cut market mechanisms and prices? Is this authority also going to apply the same principles of “anti-trust” to non-Hindu religions too?
In Hinduism, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Hinduism is thus served best by freeing its parts from the whole so as to create new wholes that will work more coherently. Whether these mini-Hinduisms will survive or perish depends on how fast they are able to adapt to change and modernise themselves for the new age.
Some of the demerging parts will become new religions, and possibly better ones. Some will deal with caste better than others. Some castes could become religions too. And some will regress and perish. But Hinduism as a whole will be alive in spirit in vibrant new ideas.
Even politically, trying to pretend that 80 per cent of Indians are Hindus of one kind is counter-productive. It denies benefits that minorities get by being small. Small is beautiful.
Here Jaganathan drives the final logical nail into the “coffin” of his own thesis: if being “small” and “in the minority” is beneficial then that presumes the existence of a “big” and “in the majority” in contrast to which the “small” can remain “small” and the “minority” can remain a “minority”. By pushing the “small” and the “minority” out of the “majority” framework of Hinduism, Jaganathan is actually condemning them – by his own logic – to losing all the benefits of being “small” and “minor”.
This is the age of the start-up, not megaliths. Remember T-Rex did not survive evolution. It is unlikely that religions organised like T-Rexes – most of the Abrahamic religions fit this description – will survive an era of fast change.
Jagnathan forgets that in the age of startups it is a few megaliths that dominate – the Google or Apple or Microsoft or Amazon – who by their sheer size and structural incorporation of ever increasing variety of capabilities to satisfy needs in turn gobble up most other innovative startups, and these megaliths have virtually no competition because they already satisfy what at least currently are the basic consumer needs from that sector.
Postulate One: European consumption levels could historically be only maintained by exploiting resources and productivity outside the self-defined territory of Europe (as in Roman expansion dependent on Egyptian grain and “barbarian” slave labour and fecundity).
Postulate Two: USA is an extension of western Europe as shaped in British state form revised under imagined and reconstructed Roman Republic with perceptions and constructions of both what is “European” and what is not – based on cumulative claims of history, both regional and global.
Postulate Three: Europe prioritizes consumption of its elite over ideology.
Most of what is happening now in the USA, in its politics, its legislative bodies, its government and state institutions – all the way to its attitudes towards and handling of or engagement with Islam, Middle East, and Asia can be deduced from the three postulates.
The Roman Republic generated several interesting phenomena that is rarely put in perspective when analyzing modern-day politics of the “western” world. The contest between the Plebs and the Patricians was a contest for power and say in state affairs between the increasingly self-aware Plebs (stemming from their co-option into the armies under people like Marius the uncle of Caesar in turn driven by elite hunger for land and slaves in the ever-expanding “periphery”) and the “Patri-cians” claiming descent from leading founding fathers of the historical Roman colony in Italy and who thereby had hogged the material and monetary benefits of the state formation exercise over the centuries. The Romans went through a phase of submission to non-Roman “rule” as well as “kingship” to finally overthrow “dynastic royalty” but evolving or recasting a new form of authoritarianism legitimized by representative bodies of people – closely followed in essence in the process of formation of USA.
All these are pretty well-known in standard history lessons: what is less discussed is how Roman institutions also institutionalized politico-financial corruption together with formation of well-organized coteries that infiltrated, and manipulated the Roman state institutions for combined business, political and power benefits – running almost as “organized crime”. In fact the model of “mafia” now popularized by Hollywood, typically labeled as originating in remnants of old Roman empire in the medieval such as “Sicily” or “Naples”, had their roots in the system of Roman knights/captains put in charge of various zones/districts of historical Rome. The blurred lines between ambitions of impoverished Patricians like that of the Caesars or the still wealthy Patrician Sulla, the stinking rich Crassus, or the yuppie military genius of a country bumpkin-from-peasant-north maternal uncle of Julius – Marius : they all formed a politically-financially-incestuous vicious competition of various groups of “mafia”.
Thus it is crucial to drop the Hollywood imagery of the “Godfather” and expand it in the reality of US politics on the more historical Roman “mafia” of the Republic and transition-to-empire phase of Rome. Such an “extended” mafia can be both “criminally organized” and “patriotic” or more “transnationally minded” just like the ancient Roman “mafia”.
The current phase can be thus understood as a phase of competition between two domestic groups of “mafia” (in the extended “Roman” sense I am using) where one side has grown close to the Sunni-Saudi interests over a cold-war, and inheritance of Indian Ocean geostrategic burdens of defunct British “political” empire (as in every mature and jaded “empire”, the formal fall of empire-state leaves behind a network of transnational finance and elite of ex-colonies connected firmly to an integrated shared “interests” with the ex-empires successor). This means this side shares the political and hence even religious biases of the Saudi Sunni axis which grew up under British imperial patronage as a supposed barrier to restrict the Ottoman grasp over the “passage” to India. This in turn led to panic scramble by then Russia and Europeans powers wary of the British to try and gain access to Indian Ocean aligning a veritable rivalry between “western” (France/UK) and “eastern” (Germany/Russia) Europe to push to the Persian Gulf. However the ancient contest for supremacy between the west and east of Euphrates that had once ended the Greeks and Cyrus’s house allowing Rome to grow, and similarly exhausted Byzantines and Parthians to allow Islamic jihad to flourish in the “frontier” no-mans land between the two sides – continued in the Arab versus Iran contest, and was used by the completely emasculated remnants of Arab tribes to reassert claims against the “east” and try to repeat their 7th century success using the British and French need to secure the Gulf.
Discovery of oil has gradually shifted the balance of power within the front of Sunni-Saudi-“western” axis, and WWII drew up an extended “frontier” of two hostile “fronts” running roughly North-East – South-West from Balkans through Syria-Iraq into Persian gulf.
The “western” Anglo fear of Russian breakthroughs in this sector combined with Arab jealousy of the more pre-Islamic nationhood retaining Iran with all consequent better human capital not destroyed as much as in Saudis under mullahcracy – drove the US attempt at wooing Communist China away from USSR, in return China extracting economic entry into global capitalist flow, and an attempt to ring-fence Iran and central-Asian routes from Russia down south by encouraging Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However even if this strategy largely succeeded in weakening USSR and led to its overthrow, two problems had been created for US “mafia”: the immensely financially networked with US Saudi lobby’s growing influence among the “mafia” and China’s capture of the US consumer market using its totalitarian state economy and control over Chinese labour. After US had to necessarily engage in the mop-up operations consequent to fall of USSR and Sunni-Saudi lobby’s grasping the opportunity to expand its long-held jihadi ambitions to revive Caliphate style re-conquest of the Middle East, and beyond, parts of US mafia must have realized the growing threat of China’s economy.
However during the long cold-war era, Sunni-Saudi axis had been allowed to become politically entrenched in influencing US foreign policy and thus in the US state institutions and its political class as well as in the instruments of ideological hegemony of modern states – like the media, academics of “humanities”. The faction of US mafia that realizes the supreme importance of China as a threat to their interests (by disrupting the mafia’s finger in the global – “outside of territory” economic exploitation) was the force that allowed someone like Donal Trump to come through. Looking from this perspective, it becomes clear why he had to be “promoted” – they needed an “outsider” or “outcast” or deemed “dilettante” political actor, therefore less likely to have been compromised by the existing pro-Sunni-Saudi pro-China cliques.
That the majority of US state institutions are waging a virtual but desperate war to remove “Trump” from power is simply a manifestation of the failure of the “cold-war” legacy portion of the administration and ideological establishment to grasp the drive and perhaps even realpolitik “sense/pragmatism” of the anti-China “patriotic mafia” as the need of the hour for “US” interests just as overthrow of USSR was in then US interests.
So Trump is being driven to make superficial “compromises” while he is trying to protect the underlying agenda of cutting China down to size. However the pro-Sunni-Saudi US mafia does not want China to be cut down to size as both the Saudis and the Chinese favour each other as hedges for their respective geostrategic ambitions. Saudis do not really want Pakistan to be cut down to size as Pakistan is most helpful in delegating tasks of wahabization and radicalization that serves Saudi geo-strategic ambitions while China does not want Pakistan to be harmed as Pakistan provides a corridor to Indian ocean as well as a useful jihadi counter-balance to India whose territory and population the Chinese see as an obstacle to their own imperial ambitions.
So even if Trump announces a troop increase in Afghanistan, the reality of the situation will simply help Saudi strategy for the zone. The Sunni jihadi assets were first tested on Syria – seen as a rival Shiite state, and on Iraq – but it quickly spiraled out of control revealing the extent of jihadism that Saudis have unleashed which even they can no longer fully control. Russian backing stalled overthrow of the Syrian regime, so that means the “western/European” and Saudi-Sunni jihadi assets need to be “saved” and protected by the pro-Saudi-mafia/European elite from total destruction so they can be unleashed against the real intended targets – Iran and Russia. This means there will be an attempt to carve out a “sovereign” protectorate style enclave for those dubbed “free Syrian army” on the eastern parts of Syria, thereby giving them breathing space and regrouping recouping as well as a Sunni buffer which in turn faces a Kurdi enclave on the east – thereby balancing each other and buffering each other. However the jihadis will be most effective in the greater anonymity of northern Afghanistan and even frontiers of Pakistan to be effective against Iran and Russia. Hence the bulk of the ISIS jihadis will be “helped” by “west” and Saudi-Sunni lobby to “escape” to northern Afghanistan.
US boots on the ground , in the hands of local networks of politics remaining from British imperial days – will effectively be a force that facilitates – willingly or unwillingly – the fall of the “north” to jihadis, while a “progressive” regime will gradually shrink to the south and east of the country around the big cities in the south even while under US “protection”.
The Saudi-Sunni penetration of the US state implies that Trumps “threat” to Pakistan will in effect have little impact. The Sunni-Saudi lobby has slightly different geo-political ambitions compared to what even the pro-Saudi lobby thinks it has. The Sunnis want a repeat of their seventh century jihadi performance – they want one sweep of continuous jihadi territory from Arabia through India into Indonesia in the east, and all the way to Gibraltar in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.
For myself, I see benefit in the expansion of Sunni jihad across Afghanistan and Pakistan and towards India. Jihad destroys pre-existing nationalisms – even the artificial and opportunistically foisted ones like that of Pakistan. It will also weaken the part of the modern Indian state that is ideologically and for other reasons, similar to the pro-Saudi lobby within US “mafia” and which can use state coercive resources to protect the Islamist interests against the non-Muslim majority of the country. Any genuine resistance to jihad can only come from the vast non-Muslim populations of India but only when their state power actively is no longer able to protect the Islamic infrastructure and allows new state forces to come up that can resist and roll back jihadis back to where it started – in the deserts of Saudis. Jihadis expanding in north Pakistan and Afghanistan will also finally roll-back Chinese presence and effectiveness in this zone.
When the Indian National Congress (INC) started off in the late 1800’s as an elite club of landowners and entrepreneurs its elite naturally went for “narampantha” (“soft path”) of pleasing the ruler to get crumbs as anti-narampantha would jeopardizetheir wealth/status by confrontation and retaliation by state. However it soon realized that unless it got the “common” “chota log” (literally “small people” used in a semi-derisive way to disparage the “lower status”) Hindu on its side, it would not have enough numbers to appear worth negotiating with.
But this meant a dilemma – how to keep the societal hierarchy of control over the “lowers” and prevent them from being “uppity” when realizing the power of their numbers in political mobilization. That problem was brilliantly solved by Gandhi’s almost-collaborative-with-Brits removal of Hindu-sadhus/babas who had been in the forefront of popular dissent/resistance against the Brit state, but which was also a threat to backers of Gandhi – as such movements showed the potential of decentralized, beyond-elite-control-from-above, Hindu “lower” mobilization, and which within colonial frame also threatened the economic gains that elite had maintained under new rulers. Simultaneously Gandhi and his coterie formulated the very first steps of Islam appeasement and recognition of both Ulemaic claim of sole control over Muslims and communal/separate “award” (as early as 1915/16).
The Ulema showed their strategic depth in recognizing the opportunity provided by the Hindu elite under Gandhian reformulation by setting one part of their own to act in collaboration with Gandhians ostensibly over Khilafat, but in doing so they could keep the pressure on INC not to go against core Islamic interests, especially where Islamic infra for future expansion was concerned. A part of this gain would also be in self-restriction and self-censorship by INC on any subtext of Hindu mobilization. Thus by selectively joining INC issues, the Muslim leadership secured INC restriction of “Hindu mobilization”, while protecting Islamic expansionist agenda and infra. Hindu elite in INC also recognized, that by playing along with Muslim leadership helped their own agenda of preventing Hindu mobilization which would empower the “lower”s.
Over time this meant that even if INC rode to power on Hindu mobilization it ultimately increasingly became a protector of Islamic interests for by its success in “eliminating” the “Hindu” side of mobilization, it could claim the “There is no alternative” factor later on, and Hindus became trapped in a vicious cycle of having to vote for a force that had betrayed every aspect of Hindu aspiration and even used “Hindu” infra/resources to help anti-Hindu forces and religions to expand at the cost of the Hindu. Its crucial not to allow the same process to repeat. The voices dubbed “fringe/extreme” simply because they talk of some purely Hindu aspiration and their aspirations pose an obstacle to imperialist expansionist and often predatory plans of totalitarian religions must not be allowed to be sidelined or ostracized, just because Hindu mobilization is helping political realignments.
About six years ago, when the Syrian “civil war” started off, I had already been used to frequently writing and debating on an online forum. There was a poster apparently from India, but claiming intimate knowledge of the Gulf states and having access to “higher levels” of policy-making and decision makers in both Gulf Saudi allied regimes and in India. He often gave out timelines for fall of Assad, overthrow of the Syrian regime, or even sometimes how Saudi forces were preparing for the final assault that will annihilate Syrian government, and occasionally the imminent victorious or successful battle plans of Israel, USA and others against Assad. Sometimes it was about how in the following weeks the Russians were going to abandon Assad to his fate.
I had already clashed with him on his whitewashing of the history of Palestine in favour of Islamic occupation of the Levant following Byzantine withdrawal, or the legitimacy of the claims of the Jews on their current lands (leading to the series I wrote on this blog on Palestine and Islamo-Judaic relations). So when he declared that Assad was going to “fall” in the “next two weeks”, I thought I would have some fun by contradicting him on his “sure” predictions on Syria, (this led me to coin the term “Assadfall” – something that is promised to happen the next day or next week but never happens even in years) and proposed,
(1) If Assad could hold onto the narrow ridge highland that separated coasts from the eastern trough before the vast eastern plateau he was not going to fall. Not in two weeks. Not in two years.
(2) Syria was going to be partitioned one way or the other and the Kurds were going to get their independent homeland.
(3) Russia was not going to abandon Assad, and Israel was not going to move against Syria.
I was of course laughed at just like the time when I had predicted that the US forces will be withdrawing from Afghanistan, that the British forces would make no headway against the Taleban, and that the Taleban were going to re-emerge as the main power in Afghanistan. My reasons for predicting the resurgence of the Taleban is perhaps material for another post, so skipping it now.
Returning to this six-year old issue, I can see that my reasons for predicting the outcome of the Syrian adventure by Sunni-Saudi-West have not really changed. But the fallout needs to be fleshed out in further predictions. So what will be the major trends for the future for the region?
(a) I find that there is a remarkable lack of awareness of the historical reality of the Kurds among western audiences and perhaps even so-called think-tanks. The Kurds, after Islamization, were at the vanguard of Islamic expansionism, with the most famous example perhaps being the forces around Salahuddin the expeller of crusaders. Kurdis were also implicated as the main forces used by the Ottomans to “manage” the Armenians which later came to be seen by non-Turkish scholarship as the Armenian genocide. Ironically, it was this cooperation with Ottoman regimes that helped coalesce military strength around family, clan and regional lines among the Kurds. The Kurds were not free of Islamist theological-political admixture with leadership held within pseudo-dynastic frameworks.
(b) With the break up of the Ottoman empire, this Kurdi nucleus of state formation around charismatic and pseudo-dynastic clan leadership in one particular remote terrain among all the regions inhabited by the Kurdis, began to pursue political independence more vigorously. Like with Saudis, western powers toyed with but dashed their hopes of political sovereignty. But Ottoman failure also led to soul-searching by new generation of Middle East’s muslims, and one section of Kurdis, like all over both Arabs and non-Arab population in the zone, began to explore “Left” approach. This tendency eventually led to the modern PKK.
(c) The current Kurdi assertion is split between the “Leftists” in PKK and its armed wings, which have fought alongside the more “mainstream” Peshmarga, the forces around the “clan”. The Peshmarga will compromise on independent state-formation as its leadership will be more interested in keeping their personal control over Kurds, which might be less assured at current stages if the dissenting factions come into a sovereign state where other national governments cannot be tasked with reducing this opposition.
(d) Given that Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and even Iran would not like an independent Kurdi nation being carved out as it would bite into each of their current territories, at this stage, its Turkey which stands to lose most and the other countries involved may concede a little just so that the major portion of the new Kurdi territory is taken out of Turkey.
(e) Since the forces around Peshmarga are likely to be softer on independent state formation, and the balance of forces would like to see Turkey being cut down a bit, it’s the PKK led faction and its forces which are likely to gain increasing political support from within Kurdi populations, and they will gradually replace the political predominance of the current clan based framework that Kurdis have.
(f) Turkey, Saudis and Qataris or Kuwaitis, who most likely supplied and deemed the ISIS as deniable assets of an army of expansion, will seek to carve out a territory for the ISIS assets. This Turkey, European powers, are going to try to do by overtly representing it as an autonomous or independent region of “Sunni” “moderate rebels” just south of Turkish borders. In fact this could also be a part of a deal in which both Kurdis and ISIS re-packaged as “moderate rebels” have each their adjacent “independent states”. Turkey may accept this as a check against Kurdis and as temporary compromise to protect its jihadi assets. Saudi money might also work behind the scenes in western corridors of power to create pressure to accept this model.
However in the long run, this will just be an interim redrawing of Middle Easts borders. The main objective of Europe, and Saudis will be to transfer the jihadi assets developed in the plains of Iraq and Syria into two directions – east and north against Russia and Iran, and further east towards Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We may already see the beginnings of this policy in increased activities of claimed ISIS operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, even within that, its India’s north that is the target.
Enticing them into India is the thing to do. As I have been projecting for years, any such jihadi incursion will create the conditions for eventual erasure of Islam and jihadism.
Over the years, on this blog I have written several posts on Bangladesh and its role in Jihad on the subcontinent. On 1st July, jihadis confirming their Islamic credentials by shouting the customary laudatory exclamation by Muslims about their god, attacked the Holy Artesan Cafe near the posh Diplomatic Quarters of Dhaka, took hostages and stabbed/hacked to death most if not all of the 20 dead found later by the security forces. bbcnews
Abinta Kabir, Faraaz Hussein, and Tarushi Jain – three girls and all vacationing in Dhaka after their first year at US universities, were among those killed. While Abinta and Faraaz were Bangladeshi Muslims, Tarushi appears to be of Indian Hindu origins. Foreigners were separated from Bangladeshis and taken to an upper floor apparently for a Quran recitation test and torture. telegraph As per DailyStar Tarushi’s Indian origins is confirmed by the Indian Foreign ministers statements to the effect. The same site also states that Tarushi was a resident of Bangladesh but an Indian citizen, and her family had close personal friends among Dhaka’s Muslims such as her father Ziam Sanjeev’s friend Rashid Hassan Khan who has been quoted by The Daily Star. Daily Star also reports in greater details on the Quran test, (DailyStar)
“They (gunmen) did not behave rough with the Bangladesh nationals,” Reazul said quoting his victim son Hasnat. “Rather they provided night meals for all Bangladeshis.”“The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”
The unexplained issue here is then how come the two Bangladeshi Muslim girls were also killed along with Tarushi? Did they fail the Quran test too, or they were executed for being male-guardian unaccompanied women in public? Or they were found out to have been in USA as students or no-longer Bangladeshi nationals? Given jihadi’s obsession with rape and sexual torture of captive women, were these women spared from rape before being tortured to death?
Over the recent years, AQIS, or Al Queda in Indian Subcontinent claimed the following as targeted victims of their jihad in Bangladesh: (Source: SiteIntel )
15/01/2013 Asif Mohiuddin, wounded, at Uttara, Dhaka
15/02/2013 Ahmed Rajiv Haidar, killed, Mirpur, Dhaka
The reactions to the attack have been predictable.
Begum Khaleda Zia, the leader of the opposition BNP, while “gravely” condemning the incident, she apparently declared it to be “an outcome of the government’s undemocratic mentality that has been turned into an autocratic rule”. She held the government responsible for such an attack, and blamed the emergence of militancy and such “bloodstained incident” as “the outcome of the prevailing oppressive rule of the government”. (DailyStar) Thus Khaleda carefully avoided finding the root problem in the Islamic foundations of the nation and its society and its continuously maintained pace of Islamisation through riots, forced conversions, enforced exiles, rape and abduction of women, and alienation from land and turned it all into a blame game on her political rivals.
Sheikh Hasina, the prime minister, on the other hand thought that it was a “vested quarter [which] wanted to establish Bangladesh [as] a dysfunctional state keeping hostage innocent people. “They’ve taken a path of terrorism after having failed to win the hearts of people through the democratic process”. She blamed this same alleged “quarter” as “pushing the soft-hearted youths and children to the path of destruction confusing them in the name of religion”. It can be inferred that here she is referring to her rivals in national politics of which BNP is the most dominant electorally and the now somewhat disgraced (from trial and execution of their 1971 time war-crimes accused leaders) Jamaat-e-Islami.
Hasina further states “The peace-loving people of Bangladesh won’t allow the perpetuators to materialise their strategy. We‘ll resist their conspiracy at any cost taking the people of the country with us…We’re committed to protecting at any cost the sovereignty of Bangladesh that was earned at the cost of martyrdom of 30 lakh and sacrifice of two lakh mothers and sisters.”
However, the society of Bangladesh is part of the same society that stood behind Muslim League in the lead up to Partition riots and Noakhali genocide, and the general ethnic cleansing of Hindus by forced exile, land-grab, rape, abduction of women. Its the same society that split into two rival contestants for power during the lead up to independence in 1971, with a large contingent of locals helping and participating in the rapine of the Pakistani army. (See my earlier post on this https://dikgaj.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/sayedees-jamaat-e-islami-shows-how-islam-actually-spread-in-india-or-for-that-matter-in-arabia-too/).
Post independence, one half of Bangladesh polity – which by its length of occupation of state power, appears to be the more dominant faction, that represented by the BNP, rehabilitated the jihadis of 1971. The atrocities on Hindus and even Buddhists continued post-independence and the trend only has been more spectacularly splashed in the media recently due to the militant groups own propaganda and greater reach of the internet. (See another earlier post of mine on this: dikgaj on Bangladesh : counterstrategy). Hasina’s raising the issue of “sovereignty” is peculiar as its typically raised by Bangladeshis as a dark hint of alleged Indian eye on its territory and sovereignty. Possibly this was a diversionary tactic to prevent Indian reaction at popular level against the increasingly high profile targeting of Hindus in Bangladesh.
Hasina apparently addressed those “who are misguiding youths and children and patronising this” by claiming “Islam is the religion of peace. Stop killing people in the name of Islam; don’t blemish it with such incidents.” She also urged guardians to give proper education to their children and keep watch on them so that they cannot get derailed. Interestingly she does not explain why Islam is so susceptible to derailment.
Another group of so-called security “expertise” is trying to say that the violence was due to the competition between IS and AQS for base, recruits, and resources. In a sense they support my contention in my blogpost (dikgaj on ’71 blunder )
Indira Gandhi scored a tactical brilliance in 1971, but a strategic blunder when she helped an independent Bangladesh to form. This independent nation immediately showed its fangs of islamism, has continued to expel Hindus, abduct rape and enslave Hindu women, and welcomed all possible transnational anti-India and anti-Hindu forces. As and when Pakistan falls, this nation will provide an alternative base for jihadis to restart their movement.
What is the ground reality of Bangladeshi Islam that will increasingly jihadise the country on top of its latent Islamism and its foundations in jihad against Hindus and Buddhists?
Bangladesh hosts a number of transnational Islamic networks, and the second largest gathering of Islamic world takes place under a Tablighi Jamaat inspired and maintained so-called “world Istema”. Both Awami League and BNP led successive governments, seem to have warmly welcomed the Tablighi gathering with enthusiastic state involvement in its arrangements. Maulana Mohammad Ilyas established Tablighi Jamaat in 1926 to spread Deobandi Islam as a missionary line to reconvert the Muslims, who according to Tablighi notions ‘have gone astray’. The movement was in fact from the beginning considered as an extension of Deobandi movement’s preaching and proselytizing arm. ( Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism”, Stratfor Global Intelligence, January 23, 2008, Burton and Stewart ).
Tablighi Jamaat is now a global network and as Furnish elaborates (Furnish)
it does promulgate a literalist reading of the Qur’an and strict emulation of Islam’s founder, Muhammad–both of which are problematic. Not only are the “sword,” or jihad, verses of the Qur’an numerous–numbering some 164 by one count[26]–but under the doctrine of naskh, “abrogation,” they supersede all of the Qur’an’s apparently peaceful verses. In addition, TJ members are taught to emulate Islam’s prophet unswervingly. Thus, when some learn about Muhammad leading armies in battle or ordering the execution of theological and political opponents, they may decide that the jihadist groups are more faithful followers of their prophet than TJ itself–and so make the transition. Thus, the key issue is not whether TJ is actively inculcating jihadist thought, per se. What is more important, and disquieting, is that the organization is instilling Qur’anic literalism and Muhammadan emulation, both of which are also staples of violent jihadist groups.
And there’s no arguing with TJ’s success. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations may castigate the organization for its disengagement from politics and for its lack of popular welfare and education programs, but one could argue that Tabligh is better than its detractors at keeping its eye on the real prize: renewing piety among Muslims and indoctrinating them with a strong sense of Islamic community that is global in scope.
Tablighi Jamaat is singularly silent on Islamic terror incidents and is never known to have publicly condemned such jihadi acts. However its literal and orthodox insistence appears to be preparing a wide swathe of Muslim populations in countries it is allowed to operate towards first and acceptance of the historical claims of core texts of Islam, through its Quran and ahadith, and through this, secondly an acceptance of the violent, genocidal jihad waged by founders of Islam as proudly recorded or claimed in ahadith and Sira, or biographies of the founder of Islam.
Shoe bomber Richard Reid for attempted transatlantic airline bombing (2001), Jose Padilla for attempted dirty bomb manufacturing (2002) (Jane Perlez, “Pakistani Group, Suspected by West Jihadist Ties, Holds Conclave Despite Ban”, The New York Times, November 19, 2007,) in New York City, Barcelona terror plot (2008) (Kathryn Haahr, “Spanish Police Arrest Jamaat al-Tabligh Members in Bomb Threat”, Terrorism Focus Volume: 5 Issue: 6, February 13, 2000) and arrest of American Taliban John Walker Lindh in Afghanistan (2001) (Susan Sach, “A Muslim Missionary Group Draws New Scrutiny in US”, The New York Times, July 14, 2003), western Muslims involved in planning of terrorist attacks in the US, such as Portland Seven (2002), and Lackawanna Six (2002) all had one way or other been linked to Tablighi Jamaat and its proselytization.
French authorities have repeatedly blamed Tablighi Jamaat for promoting extremism as they found Tablighi involvement in more than 80 percent of cases. (Burton and Stewart) Pakistan is considered the primary base of Tablighis because of possible access and recruitment among upper echelons of Pakistani civil and military power structures. Several high ranking politicians like Pakistani president Rafiq Tarrar, during Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff’s second term (1996-99), was active Tablighis. According to Riaz ul Hassan, former PM Nawaz Sharif during his second tenure (1996-99) visited Tablighi congregation at Raiwand, Lahore and had requested Tablighi Jamaat’s leader Omar Palanpuri, an Indian, to convince Sipah-e-Sahaba and its splinter group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) to end their violent anti-Shia terror campaign. The Tablighi leader replied, “there should always be a hot wire along with a cold one to light up the bulb’. (Riaz ul Hassan, “An insider’s account”, View Point Online, Hassan)
Former Pakistani intelligence chief (DG-ISI) Lt General Javed Nasir was an active Tablighi during his tenure (1995-97) and supported jihadis in Bosnia and Kashmir.(Khaled Ahmed, What did Husain Haqqani write?”, The Express Tribune, June 2, 2012, Khaled Ahmed ) Several members of 1995 attempted military coup in Pakistan against Benazir Bhutto were Tablighis. (Saba Imtiaz, “Tabligi cleric’s political meetings raise eyebrows”, The Express Tribune, August 22, 2011) During Benazir Bhutto’s second term (1993-96), a group of jihadi officers collaborated with HuJI to try and overthrow her in 1995. Investigations found the Islamist officers were influenced by Jihad bi-al Saif (Jihad by Sword) an offshoot of Tablighi Jamaat.( Burton and Stewart )
Tablighi Jamaat’s missionaries who were then actively recruiting volunteers to fight the anti-Soviet jihad, were invited allegedly to Pakistan Military Academy during 1980s, to indoctrinate and convert the officers to Deobandi Islam (Shuja Nawaz, Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army and the Wars Within, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2008). But the official pretension of recruitment only for a defensive pseudo-nationalist cause, is falsified by HuJI being founded by among others, Tablighi Jamaat members Qari Saifullah Akhter and Fazal ur Rehman Khalil. It was from the platform of HuJI that other jihadist organizations such as HuM, JeM and SSP/LJ came into being (Alex Alexiev, “Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad’s Stealthy Legions”, The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005, pp.3-11). Thus the pseudo-nationalist pretension of Pakistani mobilisation was in reality a cover for wider transnational jihad not aimed only at Afghanistan, and the ideological grounding by Tablighi Jamaat appears to sharpen rather than lessen the urge for jihad among Muslims.
Jamaat Islami and JUI factions also have close interaction with Tablighi Jamaat with many having dual membership, and Tablighi Jamaat’s annual congregations are regularly attended by these parties’ leaders. Tablighi Jamaat’s claimed apolitical non-violent character is perhaps merely a part of Islamic core tradition of tactical hiding of militant agenda when revelation may jeopardise long term goals. But Islam’s core as politics and state power could not stay hidden forever, and during 2002 general elections Tablighi Jamaat announced its support for Muthaida Majlis-e-Amal, the alliance of Islamist parties which formed provincial government in KPK province and implemented its Islamist agenda, and is seen as promoting resurgence of Afghan Taliban and formation of Tehrik Taliban (TTP).
Tablighi Jamaat has been linked to ‘American Taliban’ John Walker Lindh, Jose Omer Padila, David Hook ‘the Australian Taliban’, and Richard Reid ‘the Shoe Bomber’. (Muhammad Amir Rana, “Tablighi Jamaat: Discourse and Challenges”, Conflict and Peace Studies, April-June 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, p. 79.)
Thus the more intense proselytisation by Tablighi Jamaat type of transnational Islamic orthodoxification movements, allowed and even protected or sponsored actively by all ends of the Bangladeshi political spectrum, and even its state infrastructure, the possible jihadi penetration of the state coercive forces (BDR uprising), indicates both that Bangladeshi Muslim society in itself had the characteristics that welcomed radicalisation and in turn made it attractive for first “purification” and literalism based on the texts and claimed narratives of jihad campaigns and tactical or strategic practices of conflict of the founder of Islam – by organisations like Tablighis.
Bangladesh will turn increasingly jihadi. All its “secular” portions, minority numerically anyway, will either be killed or forced to flee. Its weaker Hindu, Buddhist, Christian minorities either converted or exiled – possibly mostly the men, while the women will be kept behind by jihadi Bangladeshis as sex-slaves, as they did during the Noakhali genocide.
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and even parts of Nepal, Myanmar are being activated in a systematic and long term manner by subcontinental components of transnational jihad, whose ideological leadership or the necessary theological framework to carry out practical implementation of jihad, appears to be coming from the entire subcontinent including those ulama in India connected to not only the Deobandi spectrum but also Barelvis.
Only Indian Hindus have the only remaining chance to fight this back and in fact reverse the process into a cleansing of Islam and Islamic jihadi infrastructure from the entire subcontinent. For various reasons the current Indian state is a confused state ob the question of Islam (which is a different discussion). The Indian army has been extended from the Raj imperial framework of excess “secularism” which was a cover to keep the army alienated from the native majority and thus make it easier to keep the people subjugated to the regime. Such an army will be incapable of dealing with the psychologically sophisticated jihadi armies of the current era. Hindus should learn to organise themselves for defence militarily in all the ways necessary to tackle forces built along ISIS(IL), AQ lines without relying too much on existing state armies and defences.
John Strachey, the iconic colonial administrator and so-called liberal theoretician posed the question “What is India? What does the name India really signify?” and answered it as
“The answer that I have sometimes given sounds paradoxical, but it is true. There is no such country, and this is the first and most essential fact about India that can be learned….India is a name which we give to a great region…there is not, and never was an India, or even a country of India, possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social, or religious; no Indian nation, no “people of India,” of which we hear so much” [John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress, 4th ed. London, 1911, 1-5.]
Yogendra Yadav, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-is-a-statenation-not-a-nationstate-yogendra-yadav/417588-55.html uses Strachey in a dangerous game of justifying the centrifugal forces generated by persistent imperialist religions and ideologies which have remained foreign to Bharat by their own declared identification with politic-military-cultural centres of power and transnational intrigue situated outside the subcontinent’s geography.
Yadav’s article itself is a textbook illustration as to how Indian anti-Hindu humanities academics spin their fantastic narratives of Bharat’s past and even history of whatever period of whatever part of the world they cite to support their hidden political agenda. But refuting and showing up the fallacies, misrepresentations and gross suppression of historical realities in Yadav’s article will itself need another blog post. So here I will concentrate on giving the positive counter-arguments rather than the negative ones to simply refute him. During the course of these arguments one should be able to see the hilarious contradictions of Yadav’s pompous statements about India’s past, and even his lack of knowledge of the supposed “diversity-worshiper Congress leadership of the freedom movement”.
Briefly, Yadav’s tactics lies in mischievous and rather academically dubious silence on why the Brit Isles, or Spain, or Italy remained unified while Yugoslavia, USSR splintered, even though sociologically all had comparable “deep” identity diversities. Yadava’s mischief also lies in completely avoiding the role of religion behind state and unity and inter-religious rivalry in the disintegrations he blames the idea of nation-states on. However lets leave Yadav behind for a moment and look into the issues involved.
For John Seeley “the fundamental fact then is that India had no jealousy of the foreigner because India had no sense whatever of national unity, because there was no India and therefore, properly speaking, no foreigner” [John Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1882, 161.]
The same Seeley however saw in Brahmanism the seed of Indian nationalism ” After this victory [over Buddhism] Brahmanism had to resist the assault of another powerful aggressive religion, before which Zoroastrianism had already fallen and even Christianity… had to retreat some steps, Mohammedanism. Here again it held its own…Now religion seems to me to be the strongest and most important of all the elements which go to constitute nationality, and this element exists in India” [Expansion of England, 1882, p.15].
However, the viewpoint of the new nationalist thinking in India was radically different with an insight either not available or unpalatable for the imperialist and racist European mind.
Gandhiji, then still in South Africa in 1909, wrote in “Hind Swaraj”: “The English have taught us that we were not a nation before and it will require centuries before we became one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom.” [M. K. Gandhi-Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad, 1950, p. 56].
The same year, Bengali historian Radha Kumud Mukerji read a paper before the Dawn Society, Calcutta, presenting his “scientific” findings on the “Fundamental Unity of India”. An expanded form of this essay was published from London in 1913. Bipin Chandra Pal wrote on his own interpretation of “nationalism” in 1912, in his monthly journal, ‘The Hindu Review’ under the title ‘Hindu Nationalism: What It Stands For’ followed by another article ‘Nationalism and Politics’ in May 1913. His thesis was that European nationalism, being isolationist and materialist in nature was anti-humanity, while the Indian nationalism represented a higher stage of group consciousness and was a positive step towards human brotherhood and spirituality. In his own words, Hindu nationalism stood for – “God, Humanity and the Motherland” [B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, Calcutta, 1916. 22-48, 73-112].
For Sukumar Dutt “A mind free from western conception of nationality is absolutely necessary to comprehend the problems of Indian Nationality” (p.18) because “it is difficult for a western mind to grasp the order of the ideas, unknown in European history, which has evolved this unique conception of the spiritual unity of India.” [Sukumar Dutt, Problems of Indian Nationality, Calcutta, 1926, p.17]
For those who do not believe in the existence of any “nation” of Indians in the past and throw all these into the “garbage heap” as “Hindu fundamentalists” living in their “dream world”, there are people who cannot fit the bill of “Hindu revivalism” by any stretch of imagination, holding similar views on nationalism.
However, already in the backdrop of experiences of WWI, in the 1920’s the three theoreticians, Ramsay Muir, G.P. Gooch, and MacDougall rejected the old definition based on five unities. MacDougall defined it as a ‘group consciousness’ [The Group Mind, London, 1920, p.100]. G.P Gooch [Nationalism, London 1920] was explicit, “The core of nationalism is group consciousness[….]. neither the occupation of a well defined area, nor community of race, language, religion, government or economic interests are indispensable to national self-consciousness” (p. 5-6). Ramsay Muir wrote “Nationality, then, is an elusive idea, difficult to define[….] Its essence is a sentiment”. [Nationalism and Internationalism, London, 1919].
In “Nationalism: A religion” [C.J.H Hayes, New York, 1960], Carlton Hayes concludes “In simplest terms nationalism may be defined as a fusion of patriotism with a consciousness of nationality” (p. 2) and that “A nationality receives its impress, its character, its individuality from cultural and historical forces (p. 3)….historical tradition means an accumulation of remembered or imagined experiences of the past” (p. 4). Hayes defines patriotism “as a peoples’ territorial past, its ancestral soil, involving a popular, sentimental regard for a homeland where one’s forefathers lived and are buried or cremated” (p. 4).
Rejecting the nineteenth Century belief that nationalism was a political phenomenon and the existence of State was a prerequisite in nation-formation, Hayes writes, “If we are to grasp what a nationality is, we must avoid confusing it with state or nation” (p. 6). Accepting the idea of cultural nationalism, Hayes writes, “Cultural nationalism may exist with or without political nationalism. For, nationalities can do and exist for fairly long periods without political unity and independence.”
Hans Kohn, [The Idea of Nationalism, 1944] concludes that the nature of the processes of nation formation in Europe and Asia was not the same. In Europe ‘state’ was mainly instrumental in nation formation, while in Asia nationalism had cultural origins. Even political unity of Germany and Italy was preceded by vigorous intellectual and cultural movements led by Herder, Goethe and Kant, and Mazzini. Regarding patriotism, Hayes writes, “Loyalty to familiar places is relatively natural, but it requires artificial effort-purposeful conscious education and training to render men loyal to the sum total of places unfamiliar as well as familiar in an entire country inhabited by his nationality” (p. 9). That means that the spirit of patriotism and national consciousness does not permeate all sections of the population in the same degree at a given point of time. To quote Hayes again, “only through an intensive and extensive educational process will a local group of people become thoroughly aware of their entire nationality and supremely loyal to it” (p. 10).
Every Purana text contains a section called Bhuvan Kosh, in which the boundaries of the land called Bharatavarsha are clearly defined and its progeny is given a common name Bharati. A list of all the Janapadas scattered all over the country is given along with the lists of rivers and mountains. A smaller list of seven holy rivers, mountains and cities symbolizing the unity of the land are given there. These slokas were meant for daily recital. List of “punyasthan” or tirthas are explicitly given in the Puranas as well as Mahabharata. These pilgrim centers cover the whole land.
This devotion to the land is not confined to its physical or material aspect only. Vishnu Purana states that the gods in heaven also feel envious of those who are born in the land of Bharatavarsha because the gods after the expiry of their merits will have to take rebirth on the earth while those born in Bharata will be able to transcend the cycle of rebirth. Chapter 9 of the Bhishmaparva in Mahabharata describes Bharatavarsha. While describing the greatness of Bharatavarsha the narrator gives a long list of ancient kings who loved this land – combining the very modern elements of “patriotism, love of the land”.
Thus, we find that all the ingredients of the group consciousness called nationalism are present here. This consciousness of the geographical unity exists in the Samkalpa mantra meant to be part of daily prayers and was recited at the beginning of every sacred act or ritual. Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji goes to the extent “India was preaching the gospel of nationalism when Europe was passing through what has been aptly called the Dark Age of her history, and was labouring under the travails of a new birth”. [Nationalism in Hindu Culture, London 1921, 2nd Edition 1957, p. 47]
Asokan inscriptions use a common dialect and script with minor regional variations addressed to the subjects. They use the term Jambudvipa. The Samkalpa mantra treats Bharat Khande or Varsh as a part of Jambudvipa. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, usually thought to be composed in the 4th Century B.C., in defining the territory to be conquered by a Chakravarti King defines it as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean from north to south and equivalent in span of eight thousand miles from east to west. [Book 9, Chapter 1, Prakarana 135-136 -R.D.Shyamasastry]. Mukherji was of the opinion that the conception of a single power dominating the whole country had not originated with Chandragupta Maurya or Kautilya but must have preexisted. Aitreya Brahmana (VIII 15) repeats the dictum that there should be only one ruler of this Prithvi up to the ocean.
In both the above references the word Prithvi has been used as the name of the country. In Mahagovindsutta of Diggha Nikaya (currently held to be the oldest portion of Buddhist Tripitakakas) “Maha Prithvi” name has been given to the land whose shape has been compared with that of a bullock cart which happens to be rectangular in the north and conical in the south. (Rahul Sankrityayana identifies this with Bharat). Therefore the word Prithvi could not have been used for the whole earth beyond Bharatavarsha.
The Prithvi Sukta of Atharva Veda (XII.I) uses the common word Bhumi for land, but uses Prithvi for that particular territory which was later called Jambudivpa or Bharatavarsha. Here, Prithvi is clearly identified with the Vedic history and culture. This Sukta states that this is the land where our ancestors displayed their valour, where gods defeated the Asuras; where our gods Ashwinis, Vishnu and Indra, the husband of Sachi performed their divine feats; it is the land where sacrifices are performed, for them altars are established, where our sacrificial posts stand erect where five classes of men (four varnas and fifth the Nishad) live; this land which is sustained by Dharma where we are protected by god Indra himself; where we offer ghee to the Agni, who acts as our messenger to the gods. It is the land where men offer their oblations to the gods in sacrifices and relish the remains of the sacrificial offerings. Here Indra destroys the enemies of gods, the Asuras and the demon Vrtra. This is the land where pillars (Yupas) are erected for the Sacrifices and where the Rishis chant the mantras of Rigveda Samaveda and Yajurveda, where Indra is offered Somarasa. The land, where ancient Rishis sang divine songs, where they performed seven sattras with Yajnas and Tapas. This is the land where men move in their chariots and bullock carts on the roads where Sabhas and Samitis function in the villages.
Although the Prithvi Sukta does not give exact boundaries of the land, but its citing Himalayas, Sindhu, the six seasons, the flora and fauna, agriculture and crafts all point to a geographical entity identified as “Bharatavarsha”. Prithvi Sukta uses the word “bhumi” to denote ‘land’ while the word Prithvi denotes its name and expresses a deep sense of affiliation and identification with all the living and non-living attributes of this “land”. It repeatedly reminds us that this “motherland” sustains, feeds and gives refuge even after death. Therefore, this land is our mother and “we are her sons” (12th stanza), because it feeds us just like a “mother” (10-th stanza). Prithvi Sukta acknowledges different dialects and different norms of behaviour according to their own regions, but this motherland just like a “cow”, “feeds them all with her milk without any distinction” (45-th stanza).
The opening verse of the Prithvi Sukta mentions those values and ideals which sustain this land called Prithvi : Truth, Cosmic Law, Initiation, Penance, Veda and Sacrifice. The name Prithvi, itself could have originated from king Prithu (supposed to have started agriculture on the land) indicating a conscious connection of civilization and culture.
Was there a concept of early geographical core? Manu Smriti gives four increasing spheres of influence. As the core, Manu Smriti (II. 18-19) states that the land between the divine rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati was created by the gods themselves and was known by the name Brahmavarta. In this land the code of conduct transmitted by the tradition in regular succession from generation to generation was seen as the noble code of conduct for all varnas”.
As the next circle of expansion, Manusmriti mentions (II. 20-21) the name of Brahmarshi Desh which included the Janapadas of Matsya, Kurukshetra, Panchala and Shurasena. Manusmriti declares that the people born in this land were the torch bearers in the realm of human conduct and therefore all the inhabitants of Prithvi should learn the lessons in character and conduct from them (Manu II. 20-21).
The next expansion circle is named Madhyadesa in Manusmriti (II. 22), covering the land between Himalaya and Vindhya mountains from north to south and to the west of Prayag in the east and to the east of Vinsana in the west, (the place where river Saraswati is believed to have disappeared).
The fourth and the last expansion circle mentioned by Manu Smriti was called Aryavarta, i.e. the land of the Aryas. It was spread from eastern sea to the western sea and from Himalaya Mountain in the north upto river Narmada in the south. This pure land is worthy of performing sacrifices (yajna) and the black antelope, the symbol of sacrifice, could roam there freely. The lands beyond Aryavarta are impure, i.e. not yet part of the cultural stream. (Manu II. 22-23).
The etymology of the word Arya also includes the meaning ‘agriculture’ as well as its use as a qualitative meaning “noble, respectable, higher” in classical Sanskrit and Praakrit texts. Rigvedic “Aryanise the whole world”, could there have meant a civilizational process leading to the spread of an advanced culture and this is also reflected in the early Buddhist and Jain texts. The story of Mathav Videgh following the march of Sacrificial fire from the bank of the river Saraswati to the banks of the river Sadanira (Satapath Brahman) also indicates that it was a cultural process and not a racial one.
Gandhiji wrote in Hind Swaraj (1909). “Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts………. what do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setuabandh in the south, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes….But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people with idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world”. (M.K. Gandhi. Hind Swaraj, Chap. 9, Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad 1950, p. 56).
If we are looking for “historical awareness of the need to defend borders as sign of awareness of nationhood” we are looking for something that will be hard to find not only in India but even across the world.
Start with UK. Apparently one tribal king invited the Romans in, and even left his inheritance to them, while his queen led other tribes against the Romans. Lots of English Breton tribal chiefs joined in with the Romans, and “aristocracy’s” habits were “Romanized”. But then, Hadrian built a wall cutting off Scots and Picts. When Saxons came in, they had been invited in as mercenaries by English kings who had risen up after the departure of the Romans. When they took land for themselves and tried to expand, the Welsh – predominantly perhaps Romano-Breton tried to fight them at their border – which was where Wales ended. And the distinction of Welsh, Scottish and Irish identities continued with bloody fanfare well into the early modern. So parts of UK were not conscious of their modern “borders” well into the early modern. But do we find strands of commonality – yes, starting from Bede’s narrative – monks and Christianity crossed “borders”, and were accepted as part of a “national” awareness distinguishing the “islanders” from that of the mainland or from the “Irish”.
Think of the Germans. At least six different tribes are mentioned by Tacitus, and we know mostly of their early history from their “enemies”. We have explicit references to sections of German tribes collaborating with the Romans against other German tribes, and not always defending their modern “borders”. Until modern German unification, the constituents of “German nation” existed in “elusive” mistiness of literature, myth and legends.
All through Europe, even in the Russia under the Golden Horde and then under the early Tsars, we do not always see a consciousness of “borders to be defended” in the modern sense. Whole groups, fought to defend themselves and survive, or migrated en-masse to preserve themselves. What was more important was survival of their “way of life”, their culture, and their “civilization” – whatever that “civilization” could be.
We dont even see that “defending the border” as part of “national/civilizational” awareness even in the Islamic regimes of Arabia, Iraq and Iran.
What is today our official “border” need not be our border in the future. If in the past that “border” had shrunk inwards, in the future it can expand. The crucial point was preservation of the core in times of adversity and expansion in favourable times – or when situation could be made “favourable”.
When hard-pressed in the north, it became a choice of “fight/flight”, and at some point they had to decide painfully what took priority – pride and annihilation, or “slinking away” to preserve your texts and the best continuing mechanism of “culture” – living, practicing humans. No wonder, so many of the Sanskrit texts were recovered from the “South”.
Borders should be taken as temporary compromises in space-time, to keep identities in equilibrium. When needed “borders” should be changed, even expanded – not “identities”.
The discourse on ISIS, the iconic Islamic jihadist movement that illustrates all aspects of the core of Islam as a social and state meme – has been mired with the strange but expected confusions of non-Islamic civilizations which try to model and understand the “other” on their own world-views and expectations of what it means to be human.
The stories of ISIS activities that make it to the media, are there for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions from. Problem is that we are either never told, or we don’t manage to realize ourselves, that what we make of a described event, is coloured and shaped by our pre-existing views on related and not so related elements. For a liberal, non-Muslim, “modernized”, educated mind, the very ideas of torture, sadism, rape, sex-slavery, is so far removed from daily contemplation – that the response is either a denial or disbelief that such a thing could really have taken place.
But the situation here is more complicated by possibly two factors in why we fail to grapple with the reality of Islam.
The west has difficulty in going after deconstructing Islam as it clearly recognizes that undermining the basics of Islam would need undermining the Judaic roots of Abrahamic religions and that undermines Christianity too. So it consistently tries to represent the challenge from Islam as a merely real-politik one, as conflicts between this or that factions over power, politics, and economic factors. So the real problems posed by Islam, its core of genocidic, civilization-erasing and often sadistically brutalizing corrupting memes are ignored, bypassed, whitewashed or even denied and constructed as temporary political/social conflicts that have no long-term relation to Islam as an idea. Thus Islamic jihad is always misrepresented as being driven by contests that have nothing to do with Islam per se.
There is also the post-Christian but still “Christian” west’s fears and loathing of what it deems “pagan” and “non-Abrahamic” which it fears will gain from a retreat of Islam as in places like India, where Hindus had proven a repository of civilizational memes too complex and resourceful to submit to colonial attempts at replacement.
The second and deeper problem with the non-Muslim failure to understand and deal with Jihad comes from the very fact of its liberal, and non-closed or non-exclusive world-view. The built in components of exploratory, doubtful, non-stationary in most modernized non-Muslim civilizational frameworks makes them necessarily accepting of diversity and dissent, which in turn make it impossible to reject exclusive claims.
The diversified interests of modern non-Muslim societies, problematizing as “narrow” and “primitive” and therefore denigrated, the obsessive, biologically focused memes of Islam that revolves round the capture, possession and control of natural resources, agriculture, irrigated land, women. Trying to make sense of the horrors of these fundamental drives in Islam, the non-Muslim mindset tries to hang on to modern Islamic society’s use of products of western consumer products (including cultural ones) as signs of “normality” and eventual hoped for convergence with their own non-islamic ones. In the process they fail to realize that the primary attraction and interest within islamic societies remain the time-tested method of ordering societies on biological relationships, “natural orderings” of power and force and physical domination, coercion – that between men and women, between the military and the civilian, between the theologian and the politician. Whatever is absorbed from the non-Muslim is filtered through the lens of utility and non-challenging of the fundamental drives of Islam : gaining military technologies, and pure consumption that doesn’t upset Islam’s core power relations. Thus better guns and ammunition or nuclear bombs, missiles, are welcome as are women’s lingerie and cosmetic products or porn which are welcome if it enhances the male pleasure in the privacy of homes or brothels or harems of sex-slavery. Ideas that clash with such core obsessions of Islam, as sex-slavery – are not absorbed even in contact or immersion within non-Muslim societies, as shown by European participants of jihad in Iraq.
Once the confusion is cleared, the next step is an uncompromising exposure and deconstruction of Islamic attempts at camouflaging or whitewashing and misrepresenting both the term “Jihad” as well as its usage, not only now but also in history. Plenty of works now accumulated over the overwhelmingly and consistently violent interpretations of “jihad” and not the “personal-internal-peaceful” struggle that it is often whitewashed as when exposed in non-Muslim societies. When the Muslim knows there is not going to be annihilating retaliation, he/she will justify the violence, genocide, rape, massacre, slavery as being solidly supported by precedence and cryptic injunctions of the founder of their religion. When the Muslim is yet to gain numerical or military strength to carry his/her agenda out without facing negative consequences, he/she will cry about how jihad means peaceful-personal “struggle” and only turns “defensive” when “attacked”: not clarifying that this attack could be and has been taken merely even as non-Muslim existence in the neighbourhood, or non-Muslims practising their own culture.
The second step and need for the hour is a clear, unemotional recognition of this confusion over Islam and Jihad and declare a counter-jihad. There are two basic components to counter-Jihad: ideological and politico-military.
In ideology, ruthlessly challenge and call out the intellectual fraud often perpetrated by Islamists, their spokespersons or whitewashers – both Muslim as well as non-muslim, in defending, misrepresenting, or confusing their audiences over the term “jihad” and its usage.
In politico-military, attack every assertion of Islamist symbols, terms, politics wherever they try to make inroads. Militarily destroy their supporting geographical bases, political entities which seek their recognition and protection as respectable and equivalent to non-muslim entities.
In the military side, recognize that jihad is based on a shrewd psychological understanding of sadistic terror and sexuality. Jihad uses terror and sex to psychologically weaken and destroy its target populations, before any actual large-scale retaliation can take place. They count on non-Muslim liberal hesitation to strike back with forms of counter terror that matches the Islamic. What to learn from the Islamic is the clever use of deniability and “plausible deniability” to extract psychological and political advantages by both practicing terror and denying practicing it. Islamics represent any concession from non-Muslim side as weakness of the non-Muslims and as proof of strength of their god and their theology.
Islamists crucially think that non-Muslim reluctance to use the sadism that muslims use on non-Muslims – is a sign of Muslim strength and non-Muslim weakness, and the weakness of the non-Muslim god/gods. Only when the Islamic will face terror of higher sadism than his own, will he finally acknowledge defeat, as he will see his “god” weak and unable to protect him.
Islamics use provocation to invite retaliation which they can then pretend to be defending while actually having prepared for aggression before. They also don’t take chances after conquest by executing those who already have or are liable to resist. Provoking Islamists to take up arms makes them combatants and no-longer civilians. If anonymous groups and militants carry out counter-terror as the west allegedly arranged for to deal with leftist insurgency, then there is plausible deniability. There are many methods which have already been tried out both by the “west” and the “Islamics”.
A group of sixty odd academics in various UK institutions have decided to join the Indian electoral fray by posting an open letter to the “left” leaning Independent under the headline:
Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread
“As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.”
Concern is always nice. Concern about democracy, pluralism, and human rights are particularly nice to hear about. But when these concerns are raised by voice which are only selectively concerned, that troubles us. These academics are not concerned about continued Saudi rule and its impact on the middle East’s prospects for democracy, pluralism and human rights. They are completely silent about Palestinian ruling junta (that is what it is – because each one of them come solidly from military outfits, and once-dubbed-terrorist groups), or for China, or for Pakistan, or Afghanistan. But more of this at the end.
“Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.”
The slyness of academic evasiveness starts to reveal itself now. It is the same method by which so-called professional historians create new impressions of truth by weaving propositions into a narrative and creating a new narrative where propositions become blended into certainties. Note the smooth blending of “some” “stand accused”. At one smooth stroke, these academics of high integrity have made an “accusation” appear as “convicted”, and “some” is used to taint the “whole”.
By their logic, the Congress parivar (family) is embedded in a politics which has had very dubious roles, and sometimes outright bias in defacto protecting Muslim violence from Nehru’s time at power during the Partition, with selective targeting of alleged Hindu violence. Usually the Congress hides behind the legalistic excuse – again first used by Nehru to allow the Islamic violence in Noakhali, Bengal to continue while he personally and immediately intervened in Bihar where Muslims were at the receiving end – that when the Congress sees the victims as non-Muslim, non-Christians, it mumbles about law and order being a state prerogative. Whereas, when Muslims appear to be the target, Congress sees it as a union/federal/central issue. This was the cover under which Congress did not intervene in the genocide of Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80’s because in this case it was the Muslims who were the perpetrators. The helplessness of the Hindu surviving refugees, was perhaps the root cause of the revival of the Hindutva” movement these academics so lambast – because many Hindus in the wider arena of India began to realize the selective bias of the Indian state under the Nehrus and the Congress in favour of whitewashing and allowing Islamist violence to thrive, especially if such violence was directed against Hindus.
The Congress is therefore imbedded in a movement, that has always protected Islamism and Islamist pretensions, and have at various times carried elements in its governments who are connected to or stand accused of rioting and communal hatred which amount to acts of terrorism.
“We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.”
Recalling is a good thing, but if what happened before under a regime historically is proof of repeating the same then the Congress should be even more in the dock – for the Partition riots happened under the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, and ant-Sikh pogroms happened under Rajiv-Gandhi/Congress, and all the riots that happened before the BJP came first to power, with such spectacular ones as in Bhagalpur, were also under various Congress governments.
The academics think that by adding the word “extreme” to “violence” they can make a special case against Modi -as they perhaps feel, and rightly so, that “violence” has been the norm for anti-Hindu attacks by Islamists or Christianists too. Maybe for them those “other” violence are genuine expressions of grievances,
“Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.
“There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy. “
Different groups of people agree among themselves about different things. Concepts like “authoritarian” are so abstract, and inconcretizable, that tons of academic papers have tried to make academic careers out of hair-splitting over the very definition of “authoritarian”. Many communists are still dewy eyed over Stalin or Mao, and have “widespread agreement” among themselves over their most fortunate appearance on earth. Same goes for Hitler. Jews have “widespread agreement” in spite of a portion of Jewish origin academics hosted by various UK universities to the contrary – that existence of Israel is perfectly justified even at the cost of Palestinians. There is widespread agreement among large swathes of Muslims about the necessity and justifiability of historical violent genocidic jihad, and significant groups have “widespread agreement” among themselves about the benevolence of sex-slavery of the non-Muslim as part of jihad.
Typically when groups do not want to spell out the membership of the group, or are unsure about their numerical strength in proportion to the wider population – they turn to vagueness, or unpinnable conjectures -so that they can never be called out for lying or pretending, and claiming “widespread agreement” is one way of doing that.
The “widespread agreement” is among this tiny coterie of Indian origin academics – probably groomed and selected in the early days of their studenthood and careers by previous generations and peer groups of British interest serving academics, like the Marxist academics who desperately denied any role of triangular Atlantic slave trade in the kickstart of the British industrial revolution.
The curious bit is about somehow Modi being guilty of sidelining “senior” party members as proof of exceptional authoritarianism. All the Nehru-family members have sidelined senior party members to come to power. Does it not make them even more authoritarian already?
“Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.”
This is actually hilarious. For this is what actually has been happening since Margaret Thatcher in Britain, happened too even under Tony Blair, and has accelerated under Cameron. Do they want to say that all that has led UK down the drain? Or do they have not the courage to spell out those pearls of wisdom to the masters of their souls? It happens at even grander scale in China, where party-apparatchiks and their minions or progeny ruling over millions in their regional satrapys hog investments from a financial sector which is still centrally and nationally owned as well as managed. No, these academic’s can only open their mouth against the “Hindu” India, and the BJP and Narendra Modi. They have not open lettered even on the very entertaining case of Ukraine, where “right wing nationalists” have been on the rampage with alleged support of big biz and oligarchs who grew into tycoons with diversion of state investments. Naturally – since doing so is not in the current interests of the British ruling interests.
“A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.”
These academics never protested Muslim censorship, moral policing of women, vigilanteism in Indian Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh, or Bihar, or West Bengal, or Assam, or Christians doing exactly the same in Nagaland and Mizoram, and attempting to do the same in Manipur. They cannot mention anything about those other communities or religions or states, because they cannot afford to show these other ones in the same or worse light than the “Hindus” – then they lose the affection of the system.
Overall, then what does it show about such concerted concerns from such groups?
Let us go back to the very beginning again of their open letter. They are claiming that democracy, pluralism, human rights in a one specific distant nation, is going to be trumped if one man and his party or political alliance gets elected in a plural democracy which as yet respects human rights. One can see why they have been allowed to succeed as academics, because they can pretend an intellect which can be used to legitimize the complete lack of any logical capacity on issues that are of interest to a post-imperialist neo-imperialist state.
The west-European political dogma of the political class has now run into a fatal dilemma. They either have to accept that democracy and pluralism can be used, to subvert, overturn, or cover anti-democracy and non-pluralism – which makes themselves open to analysis as tow whether they had been doing and continue to do so themselves.
Or they have to find escape clauses that can be used selectively to target nations and regimes that they see as obstacles in the way of their agenda of global domination, within their dogma that still allows some mantle of legitimacy for their own systems.
The method being tried out in general for a couple of decades, is trying to enforce a so-called consensus or “widespread agreement”, on very vague and often duplicitous or contradictory criteria to judge if the “consensus” value system is being subverted or not. The west-European dogma thinks it has found an escape clause that can cover their selective neo-imperialist agenda – claim that a certain vague outline of democracy, pluralism and human rights exists – whose identification and verification lies solely in their own hands, which then justifies imperialist intervention in other nations, to overturn regimes, assassinate significant individuals, or economically and militarily destroy the fundamentals of that nation.
In order to find out in whose interests any self-proclaimed group of experts, academics, humanitarians, activists actually are acting for – we just need to check out what they remain silent on in contrast to what they choose to pick on. These open-letter academics do not criticize Hamas or Palestinian authority parts for their Jew-cleansing hate campaigns, torture, rape, murder, or that by the so-called freedom-fighters in Syria, or those in Kosovo and Croatia against Serbs in the 90’s, or the Bahraini state, or the Saudis, or Pakistan, or China, or western Ukraine, or Turkey, or Egypt, or even in their own backyard where the state ruthlessly cracks down with full state violence on peaceful protesters against economic destruction of the commoner.
Just compare their stances on these “other” stuff – and you can identify whom they work for, in whose interests.
Priymavada Gopal’s opening piece in Guardian runs as follows:
Imagine this. A pogrom takes place in a foreign country targeting a minority group, say Christians, with hundreds brutally killed by rampaging mobs, many mutilated and raped, and foetuses removed from pregnant women. Thousands flee destroyed homes. The provincial leader on whose watch these events take place is a politician with open links to extremist Islamist organisations. Three holidaying British citizens are among the massacred. Allegations emerge that this politician’s language helped foment the massacres. With one of his cabinet jailed for her role in the pogroms he becomes the frontrunner to lead this increasingly powerful country. Would you worry?
Yes, is the likely answer, and so you should. In reality, the country is India, the extremists are Hindus, the 2002 Gujarat pogroms targeted Muslims, and the leader in question is Narendra Modi.
It is highly revealing to see how Gopal’s use of English carefully transforms, transmutes and transfers guilt and horror from a widely obvious violent religious movement to another with which she would otherwise have failed to establish any comparative basis. The violent scenario becomes her equation between two religious communities by which she can serve her dual purpose of reducing Jihadi guilt and responsibility on one hand, and raise the other community to the same violent status. “Removing foetuses” is an allegation that is typically dismissed by Indian “Thaparite” historians when they appear historically, as being carried out by Islamist mobs – as in the Moplah rebellion of the 1920’s or thr Partition riots.
In her hypothetical Islamic scenario, she does not equate “muslim” with “extremist”. In her follow on comment she makes that jump, subtly, and glibly – casually bracketing “Hindu” with “extremist”. But the most insidious and devious part of her argument lies in noting that she paints the “victim” in her scenario – as “Christian minority”. She did not say just any minority – for example Buddhist minorities, Sikh minorities and Hindu minorities are – and continue to be targets of Islamist attacks. But Gopal must only mention “Christian minorities”. She knows she is actually appealing to the Christian majoritarian audience of UK, trying to tickle their own underlying religiosity and religious anger and transfer it against the “Hindu”.
“As the candidate of the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in current elections he does not dispute his or its links to the extremist Hindu network known as the Sangh Parivar.”
It is interesting to note the casual application of adjectives, which do not need to be, and are never qualified. Gopal thinks that extremist is such a well-defined term, that mere slapping it on anyone from such a high and undisputed authority as herself – is enough. Extremist in one school, one religion, one nation – become moderates, average, centrist in another school, religion, nation. Again Gopal is very careful in disjuncting “Muslim” from “extremist” – she reserves such joining to Muslim only by adding an “ist”, creating the linguistic illusion of the two being separate. No such kindnesses for the “Hindu” though. In the eyes of enemies of the Hindu, any assertiveness or protest or attempt at defining itself independently of self-appointed experts form outside – who however carry their own hidden religious agenda by criticizing religions/cultures selectively – is a criminal offense.
“Modi was a leading activist for its secretive and militaristic arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – whose founder expressed admiration for Hitler, ideologies of racial purity and the virtues of fascism. It is an organisation that, on a good day, looks like the British National party but can operate more like Nazi militias. Known for an authoritarian leadership style, Modi’s only expression of regret for the pogroms compared them to a car running over a puppy, while he labelled Muslim relief camps “baby-making factories”.”
Interestingly, the roots of the current Palestinian movement against Israel, and Jews – has its roots in a certain Grand Mufti of Palestine, who became a close associate, admirer of Hitler, and collaborator of the Nazis. This Grand Mufti had however been helped to get selected to his post by the dubious role of the then British administrator of Palestine. Does this make the British, Christians, current Palestinian movements, any better than the RSS? The Palestinian groups still express admiration for Hitler, for example http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655
“Hitler awaited me. I said, ‘You’re the one who killed the Jews?’
He [Hitler] said: ‘Yes. I killed them so you would all know that they are a nation which spreads destruction all over the world. And what I ask of you is to be resilient and patient, concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.’
I said [to Hitler]: ‘Thanks for the advice.’ “ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655&doc_id=6029
“Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law. Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings…”
“Palestinians whose first name is “Hitler”: Hitler Salah [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec.18, 2000.] Articles reflecting admiration for Hitler have appeared in both Fatah and Hamas newspapers.”
Millions go as aid and funds diverted for Palestinian movements from UK. Does Gopal lambast them similarly? no. Why not? Because doing so would not be in the interests of the core of the British establishment thinking– which still has its pro-Sunni, Wahabi, anti-Semitic bent of the early 20th century.
“Hindu extremism is rooted in a macho 20th-century response to British colonialism which mocked Hindu “effeminacy”. It is rarely scrutinised in the west, partly because Hinduism is stereotyped as gentle and non-violent in the image of Gandhi – who, ironically, was assassinated by an RSS activist – and benefits from the disproportionate attention given to Islamist violence, which enables other pernicious extremisms to slip under the radar.”
Gopal obviosuly covers up her glee at supposed “hindu effiminacy” just as newly enslaved woman in Islamic hands were often reported to be over-zealous to show her devotion to new masters by sharing in the mocking or humiliation of her own kin. Actually, Gopal’s shoddy scholarship and very poor or rather dishonest understanding of colonial history shows in her lack of reference to studies of militancy within the Hindu long before the British arrived, as in Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires By William R. Pinch published from within the very Cambridge that Gopal struts about.
“For all its anti-British rhetoric, Hindu nationalism played no significant role in either the freedom struggle or in creating the secular constitution of independent India. But over recent decades, the notion of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) has grown in force along with the unfettered capitalism it espouses: it is responsible for vicious attacks on Christians, murdering missionaries and calling for Muslims to choose between Pakistan and the graveyard. And any victory for a proponent of a nuclearised Hindu India where homosexuality remains criminalised will have consequences that will be felt well beyond the subcontinent, not least in multicultural Britain.”
As for pontificating on who played no significant role in freedom struggle : Gopal follows the cue of Congress favoured so-called professional historians who see political agenda in everyone else other than themselves. The latter served the dual purpose of reassuring the British that the threat of militancy or militancy itself among the Hindu having any role in the removal of the Brits – because the Brits have always been mortally scared of appearing to have been militarily or violently thrashed. It fed into their ancient paranoia of appearing weak before continental brothers. The other purpose was legitimizing the dynastic continuity of British Raj through the Nehruvian one, by projecting Nehru and Gandhi as the sole harbingers of Indian freedom – erasing and denigrating all other threads of Indian freedom struggle and its success. Such an agitprop and construction of the colonial-anti-colonial story served the purposes of all three players in that game – British imperialism, the north-Indian mullah-Hindu-elite collaborator class developing within the Sultanate-Mughal spectrum represented by Motilal and Jawaharlal, and the mercantile fledgling capitalists of India. Making Gandhi the sole victor, then was strategy of redefining the Hindu as passively accepting of all that is thrown against, tolerant of everything and everyone so that the extreme exclusivism, culture erasure memes of Christianity and Islam could continue unhindered even after their British patrons were gone from direct power. Gopal simply parrots the line.
Interestingly, and expectedly, Gopal shows her lack of integrity by not mentioning that the anti-homosexual laws were actually British laws imposed on Hindus – in deference to Islamic and Christian demands when the laws were being formalized for the Raj, and that the current strongest opposition against decriminalizing homosexuality comes from Muslim leadership in India. It is Hindus who have some traditional space for the third “gender”, not Muslims – some of whose voice have already promised alternatives under Islamic law for India. Gopal slyly makes an Islamic and Christian problem into a Hindu one, and then pitched it on her chosen target. When mentioning “vicious attacks” on Christian missionaries, she quietly avoids the role and effect of such missionaries on simple believing communities, the fraud and financial promises used to manipulate and win converts, and the attacks on and exclusion of Hindus by missionaries. When Hindu “missionaries” go for similar work – they are murdered too, and their activity is touted by the likes of Gopal as disruptive and therefore their murder somehow legitimate. Gopal has absorbed British ruling classes’ traditional duplicity rather well.
“The Gujarat pogroms took place after an unexplained fire on a train, which killed Hindu activists and was swiftly attributed by Modi to Islamic forces and Pakistan. Allegations remain that he deliberately prevented authorities from intervening. Contrary to claims, India’s supreme court has not issued him a “clean chit” but criticised him as a “modern-day Nero”.”
For Gopal – the “fire” is “unexplained”, not even unfortunate – or no commiseration expressed for those burned. Notwithstanding that the commission reports did not declare the fire “unexplained”, but rather suspicious. However, the suspicious reports were generated to make it appear that the burned passengers set fire to themselves – so that arson was so strongly suspected and secretly acknowledged by the anti-Hindu forces in the country and abroad – that they swung into action to pitch the blame on the “hindu” themselves. Gopal mentions allegations in a neat weave to create the impression that they were somehow not mere allegations but truths.
“Modi’s moral culpability was recognised by both Britain and the US in denying him a travel visa for several years. Britain has also been attempting, without success, to get justice for the three Britons – Saeed and Sakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat – who were chased, cornered and brutally killed, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, disgracefully, trumped by British corporate interests in India, many owned by British Indians, governmental links with Modi have been re-established. This rehabilitation is the result of hard lobbying by some Hindutva-friendly politicians and the many front organisations that operate in Britain. We are urged to focus on corporate-friendly Modi, the pogroms being a little mishap to be shrugged off.”
Gopal is at her ridiculous shamelessness best : the US/UK’s rejection of Modi somehow reinforces the guilt of Modi. Is she prepared to do the same for US/UK’s virtual rejection of Palestinian demands and accept that it proves Palestinian guilt? Or UK’s virtual clean chit to allow South American genocide criminals to move freely in UK shows their lack of guilt? Gopal claims to have been at the forefront of fighting fascism – but fails to recognize the reach, spread and power of fascism in the form of Islamism. She want to equate Islamism with Hindu reassertion – and this is where she reveals her secret agenda.
“We should note with concern that some charitable funds raised in Britain, including for the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, went to charities run by Hindu extremists who systematically foment hate. So too must we care about the “saffron pound” sent by long-distance Hindu “patriots” to fund extremism. But investigating Britain’s Hindu zealots doesn’t have the same political currency as pronouncements about getting “tough” on Islamic extremism.
A Modi victory will strengthen the arm of chauvinist forces in Britain, which have already had successes such as shutting down exhibitions, quashing caste discrimination laws, and withdrawing Royal Mail stamps. Under Modi there will be no progress on Kashmir, which will also have far-reaching violent consequences. In the face of a global resurgence of the right we must be alert to all its extremist forms. Britons committed to anti-fascism must not allow their country to abdicate morality.”
The weakest part of Gopals’ argument is however her failure to establish any strong connection between a Modi victory and negative consequences for UK home territories. Shutting down of exhibitions and withdrawal of stamps is far behind the political exigencies by which the London series bombings are related to the global fascist Islamist agenda. Hindu India has little to gain out of blackmailing a puny world player like the UK whose only influence can be exercised through its big-brother the USA. Islamists on the other hand have a lot depending on the UK and vice versa. Her most concrete argument is that of Modi will stall progress on “Kashmir”. Interestingly again, Gopal shows her real affiliations and commitments by dropping the word Jammu – and making one cause with the Islamist agenda of erasing the reality of Hindu and Buddhist Jammu and Ladakh. Since she thinks “Hindu” is against “Kashmir” she is already subscribed to the idea of an Islamist Kashmir – the dream of islamists, many of whom find a niche in her very UK – and against whom she has nothing to say. Not to speak of no Guardian article from her pen about the fascism unleashed by the valley Muslims on Hindu “Kashmiris”.
Gopals’ anti-fascism is very very selective – it only finds it in Hindu reassertion, not in Islamics, or christians, or in the actions of states in the west and its Islamist allies like the Saudis, around the globe and sometimes on their own home territories – which have amounted to and continue to be so – as fascist. So at the end of the day, her shrill cry of sky-is-falling and frantic appeal to the UK to intervene in Indian politics reveals her real motivations – serve the cause of imperialism under cover of anti-fascism – the same face used in Europe and the world since the end of WWII.
How many nations of our times are based purely on a religion and recognized by other nations as independent nations? Only two – the Vatican City and Pakistan. Ironically they share in common some traits. Both have helped in the unravelling of the USSR but not of Communism – for it still survives behind the People’s Republic of China and is still working towards global dominance. In spite of the UK and West’s blatant support for Pakistani sadism on both Afghans and Indians, for its supposed role in overthrow of USSR – Pakistan is desperately grabbing the Chinese communist hands in gratitude for having benefited from Chinese nuclear proliferation. Pakistan showed that gratitude by dealing in stolen or robbed property – so typical of Islamism, by gifting China territory Pakistan received from its British facilitated deceptive raid mounted on Indian territories in 1948.
Both the Vatican and Pakistan have been courted by the USA in its Cold War struggles. Neither has disappointed. Both exert influence on the global politics disproportionate to their actual size, economy, military capabilities, and the capacity to contribute in any meaningful way towards a modern, knowledge based, technological and information society. Both manage to do so by manipulating their historical images as projections into the future.
But there the similarities end. The Vatican’s leadership has made amends to its historical victims, and has shown its flexibility and readiness to change with the times. It has steadfastly refused to underwrite radicalism of the theological variety [the severe castigation of the Liberation Theology for example]. This may change in the future. But the leadership of the Vatican have proved themselves consummate statesmen in the concessions and compromises that they have made while never abandoning the fundamental objective of total global ideological domination. This is an objective that would have been a crime if not from the “one and only true message”, for any other “religion” in the times when the Church ruled supreme. But now in the days of “total religious tolerance”, there is nothing wrong in having a declared agenda of “harvesting all souls” and poaching on the following of looked-down-upon religious cultures. In fact, legal and state coercive machinery in liberal states can be used to guarantee protection of any proselytizer – even someone swearing by texts that recommend putting the unrepentant unbeliever to the sword, while raising no questions as to the right of the followers of those very same religions – where they are a majority – to deny exactly those very same rights to non-co-religionsists. How tolerant Christianity can be with regards to cohabiting with Islamists, and vice versa – especially where Christians have sufficient numerical strength – was and is being shown in Sudan. But no great talk is being thrown about in the liberal western media about what is going on in Sudan and why.
Where Pakistan differs is not in its protection of organizations claiming the right to practice “Dawa” or spreading of the Islamist beliefs -in parallel to Christianist demands for the right to badmouth non-Christian religions and beliefs and “spread the light” – by any and all means possible, and where even “charity” as concrete monetary benefits is kosher in a process of buying religious allegiance that in the corporate world would be condemned as criminal bribing – but in its total lack of statesmanship. Unlike the Vatican, the Pakistani leadership never apologizes to the victims of its Islamists, never acknowledges that it has nurtured Jihadis in its madrassahs, never concedes to modernization in education and social practices, never really allows any land reforms or dismantling of feudal exploitation in its backyard.
Pakistan is basically an anachronism, a nation whose only foundational claim for identity is a religion – in a historical period where the world is leaving behind, exclusive and historical claim based religions. Moreover, that religion is not even unique to the country – it is shared by a host of other nations, some of whom have louder and more well established claims of being the centre for that religion. So Pakistan is based on a type of ideology increasingly irrelevant globally as national foundation, and moreover on an ideology based identity shared with other “nations” – and therefore has no real claims of distinction from other nations. It cannot look at history and culture, for in spite of the best sadistic efforts of generations of “mullahs” – elements of pre-Islamic cultures lie firmly interwoven in the national fabric, and those elements are shared by its imagined nemesis – India. In fact the pre-Islamic cultural element proved so strong that a part of it broke away in reaction in 1971 as Bangladesh.
So now Pakistan finds itself in a terrible dilemma. To strengthen and give uniqueness to its national foundation, it has to become more Islamic than “others”. Becoming more Islamic means more and more unquestioning obedience to a strict and literal interpretation of the core texts. That in turns means more Jihad with violent means which accelerates the competition between the ruling feudal elite, the army, the mullahs, the commons, the militants – to become “purer” than the others. That means an almost perpetual state of national Jihad. Purer Islam can only be maintained by preventing modernization – in education, productivity, technology and above all the questing mindset. Which means Pakistan will become more and more dependent on largesse from interested external sources and be a drain on the global economy as the sources would spread the cost around.
So the West and the global community should perhaps start thinking of dissolving the entity called Pakistan. Here are the brief reasons :
(1) Dissolving Pakistan saves the West (and therefore the world economy )a huge amount of money and resources needed to keep the state afloat, and a total drain, because none of that capital goes into productive capacities.
(2) Even though the Chinese are now playing second fiddle to the West, it is uncannily similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov handshake where both sides appear to be buying time. Eventually, Russia and China could come together with Iran (or whatever is left of it even if a so-called revolutionary liberalization and democratization takes place there under non-theologians) to which the CAR will lean. As long as Pakistan remains an independent entity, it can play the prostitute and threaten to kiss the higher bidder or the one more willing to pay. That is both a security risk and a potential disaster, if everything given to Pakistan lands up in Russian, Iranian or Chinese hands and the West’s presence is virtually terminated in the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. Dissolving Pakistan takes away this worry.
(3) Dissolving Pakistan and putting up new independent states in its place actually creates new multiple centres where Jihad can be protected and nurtured. One Pakistan becomes many and the western problem multiplies. One of the best bets is to allow India to absorb the populations and the territories. India is a growing economy which can absorb the costs. It has the capability and the will to manage multicultural groups and religious animosities. Culturally Indians of the western part of the country will be closer to the Pakistanis across the border [Punjab for example shares the language across the border in spite of the state sponsorship of Urdu] compared to any other external ethnicity or country. Moreover the costs of developing infrastructure and the economy or carrying out necessary social reforms will be borne on Indian shoulders and not on the west.
(4) As the price for non-intervention in the absorption, the West could extract concessions from India that it will have assured access and facilities to reach the CAR through channels and routes maintained and developed through Pakistani territories connecting the Karakorum Highway and other CAR approach routes.
(5) The Taliban lose their foster home, and are buffered off from the crucial supply routes of Karakorums and the Arabian Sea. The so-called Kashmir problem vanishes as the Pakistani military and ISI mechanism to foment terrorists inside India vanishes. So one of the greatest excuses for maintaining Jihad from the Pakistani side, vanishes. With dissolution of Pakistan, one of the persistent Pakistani revivalist jihad trends that periodically and insistently reappears in Bangladesh, gets cut from its roots – leaving only Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and elements from Malaysia as remnant patrons.
(6) India can and should promise land reforms, and redistribution of concentrated big-landholding from Pakistan’s obnoxious feudal lords and the military upper echelons who are either created landlords as rewards or come from the feudal network itself – to landless and marginal farmers of Pakistan. These are the same people who are exploited ruthlessly, often sexually and through slavery, by the Pakistani elite in an obvious extension of the worst aspects of casteism, but on which no Christian or western liberal intelligentsia will comment upon as it shows Islam in a bad-light compared to eminently much more bashable “Hindu”.
If it is any consolation, MacArthur broke the Japanese feudal class’s back to an extent through land-reforms, in post war Japan. Moreover all the off-shore money laundering units that UK maintains for complete deniability from its colonial days can still harness and will definitely attract Pakistani Islamist and feudal military elite’s looted capital for parking on the prospect of imminent fall before Indian troops, and to play with for financial speculative profits and bonuses by the “city” bosses. That in itself should convince the UK and its ally across the pond, to allow the “fall” to happen.
India, because of linguistic and unique cultural history, will remain firmly in western and specifically the Anglo-Saxon or Atlanticist orbit for generations to come. There are sufficient fissures in the Indian ruling class for the west to exploit and protect western interests.
It is worth a try – at least the largest source for generating terror of the Jihadi and allied kind (through international crime and other non-religious or ethnic militancy) will be effectively liquidated. At one stroke West no longer has to face Islamist terror, pay for upkeep of Jihad, and instead can profit from a growing economy which bears all the costs, together with an alternate route to get closer to tantalizing natural resources to be looted in Central Asia and keep a nervous eye to the age-old threat – Russia! After all, the greatest threats come from those shared common ideological roots, and who are well-versed as brothers from the same family school in the tactics of robber imperialism that originated in “greater” Europe!
It is almost six years since I started writing on this blog. As with most of my intellectual forays, it was to search for root causes to phenomena on which people seem to be talking from belief, bias, preconception and conscious or subconscious agenda, and on which I seemed to find no answers of my own yet.
Six years later, and a myriad interactions with ideological friends and foes or the merely non-committed, desperately trying to appear neutral middle-roaders, I feel that the task is not only to understand but also to try and share what I have felt to be the way forward while trying to understand.
However, I should stress that I do not support the idea of final answers and incontrovertible truths. More of that later, and I will try to explain why I think so. I am not demanding or claiming that others should think like me, or that what I say or think is important. But it is a deep seated, slowly maturing urge over the years to think aloud, to borrow the cliché. What do I expect out of it? A myriad small sparks, not the incinerating brilliance of a nuclear device, but the small, fragile, light of the primitive oil lamps, or the hopeful glowing embers of the evening fires of cooking of the first human settlements.
I am starting off this sequence with a topic that appears to hog the Indian subcontinental discourse for some time (apart from supposed uniqueness of Indian propensity to rape, or supposed waiting global disaster of a Modi led “saffron” resurgence, or the glowing future of a post NATO Afghanistan, and the continuously improving civilizational status of Pakistan) – namely, the recent elections in Bangladesh.
My thoughts on Bangladesh and its society has been laid out on this blog before. So I will only briefly touch and summarize.
Bangladesh was formed in 1971 as a result of an intra-elite factional contest for power over the Islamist movement that had managed in 1947 to use tactical violence, British covert support, and Delhi-Uttar-Pradesh-Gujarat based axis of the Indian Congress’s fear of the more populous two ends of the Gangetic plains – Punjab and Bengal’s long tradition of independent counter-Delhi political undercurrent.
For the Islamist, they needed a base in which they could nurture jihad and hopefully accumulate the resources for a future “final solution” of getting rid of all Kaffir on the subcontinent, and as many mullahs openly express – more openly in Taliban land fertilized by decades of Saudi funding and tacit support from the UK and the USA through their islamist allies in power in Pakistan. Pakistan was a good starting point for their agenda, as they felt that the liberalizing, modernizing, educating world of the Indian Hindu would eventually open up Islamic society beyond mullah sadistic control.
For the British, smarting under the loss of their global dominance to the Americans, Pakistan would be boots on the ground for British interests. Such interests would include long term hope of reviving sole control over Indian Ocean ring, use American fear of Soviet expansion to simultaneously get the USA involved in regional wars of attrition so over the that long term Americans would be weakened and hated sufficiently to leave the field open again for the British, while at the same time prevent modernization, liberalization and resurgence of cultural identities that the British had hated out of racial, religious and perhaps a bit of underlying twisted obsession with the darker side of human nature. One of the foremost targets of British hatred was anything to do with the “Hindu”. It was the “Hindu” they saw as the elusive system which sourced resistance to imperialist subjugation where as the supposedly more virulent and “martial” Islam quickly turned bootlickers. For the British – the Congress was “Hindu”, “Sanskrit” was Hindu, Hindu temple and architecture was ugly compared to the seductive feminine curves of the “domes” of Islam, Hindu texts, knowledge base and culture represented the apotheosis of all that was supposedly, pure, Christian and “white”. The rump state of India that was left after 1947, was still “Hindu” and the galling reminder that the Hindu failed to “convert” to submission to British claims of supremacy. Thus Pakistan, in its western and eastern ends would remain the best chance to gall India into the future, and be hopefully bases of jihadism if not outright British comeback – that will continue to bleed “Hindu” India. At least that was perhaps the hope anyway.
Where the British failed was their belief in their own propaganda, invented out of a necessity to play intra-Islam factionalism to subdue the Ottomans by raising the Wahabi-Saud jihad – that somehow intra-Islamic factional fight for dominance represented the non-monolithic nature of Islam. Islam being actually a cover for blatant imperialism, every regional power within a broader spectrum of Islamic following, will try to become the centre of that imperialist claim – so that they can then use the religious imperialist authority enshrined within Islam – to mobilize the total resources of global reach of Islam for their own individual regional power centre benefit. This has been the history of the Islamic politics right from its inception.
Contrary to western misrepresentation, this internal drive to become the supreme imperialist claiming the loyalty and support of all Muslims behind their power hunger, leading to inter-regional fights, does not represent any actual deviation from the core genocidic, culture erasing, enslaving agenda of Islam – where it concerns the as yet non-Muslim.
Now to understand Bangladeshi politics, this above understanding is crucial. The Awami League split from the Muslim League of Jinnah, not out of secular or non-Islamist core drives – but as power seeking movement that wanted the fruits of the partition of 1947, the control over the land and in more mundane terms, the wealth, property and women of the Hindu’s of eastern Pakistan and dominance over the whole of Pakistani state structure. The greater contiguity and inter-mingling of non-Muslim motifs and memes and the relatively later entry of Islam into the area historically, compared to the western end of India, implied a difficult task ahead for “eastern” Islamists. There were spontaneous popular movements influenced by the remnant secular, liberal and modernizing influences of pre-Partition Hindu-presence [the relative strengths were roughly 45/50-55/50 at the end of a disputed and allegedly biased-in-favour-of-the-Muslim in the last census before Partition], which was seized upon shrewdly and tactically by the Awami League leadership under Mujibur Rehman. But the fact is often forgotten that Mujibur started his political life as a student activist for the Muslim League in Calcutta, under patronage of Suhrawardy – the architect of government supervised and protected pogrom on Calcutta Hindus that led to the notorious pre-Partition massacres.
Independence for Bangladesh was therefore just a manifestation of the intra-Islamic fight within Islamic imperialism for monopoly of the imperialist claim, it no way represents any compromise at any fundamental level with the commitment to jihadist clearing of non-Muslim cultures, seizing their property and resources and enslaving their women. It would be natural to expect that after the formal separation of power and independence for Bangladesh was obtained by necessary tactical pretension by future leadership of Bangladesh to get Indian and global support – that the core of this political movement would quickly reassert its fundamental drive by getting rid of all symbols and structures that they saw as being tainted by the need to compromise even tactically to “Hindus” or non-muslim sympathetic powers. Mujibur was the most blatant symbol of this and therefore he had to be made an example of. Note that elements of the core of Awami League and the military which had apparently sided with the “liberation movement” collaborated in the bloodshed.
Since, Bangladesh has consistently seen expulsion and genocide of remnant Hindus, looting of their property, rape and abduction and forced conversion of their women. Islamic atrocities are also typical in the deliberate psychological cruelty or sado-masochistic practices involved – for example it is not enough to simply kill the kaffir, but make it horrific by torture of the most inventive imagination, not only rape but rape before a father or a husband and forcing them to watch – intended to not only cause psychological trauma, but also to burn into the helpless men their emasculation and ineffectiveness. This is an extremely sophisticated grasp over the psychology of coercion, ans shows that the mullah is a highly trained and conditioned psychological warrior who has almost no sense of guilt or empathy where it concerns unleashing the more twisted form of sado-masochistic tendencies in the human.
The recent elections, showing widespread torture, rape, genocide of Hindus as an aftermath, in which elements of both the supposedly winning “secular” Awami League, as well as the BNP and Jamaat combination participated – shows that nothing really has changed from the early days of Islam in that zone. Mymensingh Gitika, a collection of medieval folk tales in verse forms from a region in Bangladesh – tells the story of a Hindu housewife being forced to pleasure a Qazi. Whether a faction loses or wins, be it Awami League or BNP or Jamaat – Islamists would go out to rape Hindu women, torch their houses, and loot their belongings, be it to celebrate a win , or to grieve over a loss.
Bangladeshi core thinking is reflected in the blatant statement of academics of Jehangirnagar university (a deliberate naming done to emphasize the Mughal association, from the Mughal name given to the then town, over the more ancient Dhaka-Vikramanipur – having therefore Hindu connotations) aspiring for an unbroken new Mughalistan carved out of Northern India stretching from Punjab and Pakistan over the Gangetic Valley all he way to Bangladesh and hopefully even what is now North-Eastern India. Academics and “intelligentsia” of Bangladesh, openly discuss on media and TV shows, the desirability of destabilizing the North-East India so that eventually it gets detached from India and become ripe for Bangladeshi and “Islamic” expansion.
It is in the interest of the core drivers of Bangladeshi society – to preserve elements of Islamist jihadism. Over the years, Saudi and UK based funding sources have developed an extensive network of madrasshas and other institutional means of preaching the Arabic, Sunni-Wahabi views, and the result has been the increasing mass-presence of younger people in extremism, and obvious support enjoyed by the organizations like Hifazat whose members have played an increasingly visibly public as well as militant role.
Indira Gandhi scored a tactical brilliance in 1971, but a strategic blunder when she helped an independent Bangladesh to form. This independent nation immediately showed its fangs of islamism, has continued to expel Hindus, abduct rape and enslave Hindu women, and welcomed all possible transnational anti-India and anti-Hindu forces. As and when Pakistan falls, this nation will provide an alternative base for jihadis to retsart their movement.
I know that many have disagreed with me on this, but I still think, that in 1971, India should have raised the stakes by tantalizing the “west” with supporting Bangladeshi independence, but prepared to compromise if allowed to conquer and re-incorporate the northern “Pakistani occupied Kashmir”, hold on to the thin corridor to Rawalpindi up to the hills of the Swat, and extract a land corridor through Chittagong in the east to the sea. Impose demilitarization of east Pakistan on the formal logic of ensuring that Bengalis were not going to be subjected to Pakistani military atrocities, and guarantee autonomy within Pakistan. End of all manipulations by China, USA and the UK and their support for the violently sadistic societies and mullahs of jihad in both ends of Pakistan. The Indian naval presence on both sides of the mouth of the delta and demilitarization would ensure the prevention of Pakistani military presence for ever to repeat the type sex-alavery and torture camps that they ran in 1971, and end of Chinese imperialist expansion schemes and their consequent inputs in genocide on subcontinental soil. End of Karakorum highway being lucrative for geo-political sadism and an alternative and peaceful land network to central Asia, connecting to India the more liberalizable northern Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics bypassing the Pakistani/Gulf/Saudi proximity and mullahfied jihadi societies of Southern Afghanistan and starving them of the economic flow that they now hog and use to support jihad.
It sounds too cynical, too “reverse-imperialist”, “safffron-revivalist”? We have seen most of the previous liberalizing conquests. They have only enhanced the blatantly cynical, racist, and sadistic existing imperialistic implementations of the Abrahamic cults. Why not a counter offensive that has proven its secular, liberal and modernizing credentials?
Some days ago, I came across the controversy over supposed remarks by the Pakistani Prime Minister about the Indian Prime Minister – that the latter was a “dehaati aurat” (literally a woman from the “countryside”/”village”/a specific zone of the Gangetic Valley). The journalist who apparently first made the remarks withdrew it or denied it [depending on your source], and neither would perhaps be surprising given the abysmal standards of journalism in the subcontinent where transnational point-scoring is concerned. But the merry drama over this dominated the media waves.
The political and diplomatic icons of both countries felt the need to deny that anything like this was ever uttered – thereby confirming that both sets of dignitaries and intellects deemed the phrase an insult and a denigration. Having thereby indirectly confirmed the “dehaati aurat”‘s status as a lowlife, the Indian regime spokespersons, Indian National Congress party apparatchiks and bureaucrats, were essentially of the same position as the one man they singularly target politically now – Narendra Modi of the BJP. The latter had taken the alleged remark as emblematic of the Pakistani attitude towards India.
Was Narendra Modi correct in his appraisal? Public domain extracts of his relevant speech seems to imply that he used the allegation as casting shadows on the weakness of image of the Indian PM – which makes the Pakistanis “dare” to say such things. If Modi was taking umbrage at the possible mindset that could lead a Pakistani to think that “dehaati aurat” is an insult, and it was the thinking behind the utterance of the phrase that was unacceptable – the intent to insult the Indian leader – then I find no fault in Modi’s speech.
If on the other hand, Modi was saying this by accepting that “dehaati aurat” is indeed insulting as an epithet, then he was wrong.
From what I have seen in the Indian doab and upper or middle Gangetic plains, the “dehaati” woman is one hell of a tough cookie. She is one not to cross the path of if she is defending her home, her children, her husband or father or brother, her honour and her rights. Even if she is often found to be illiterate or dirty (for no fault of her own and even there things are changing), here is one sample of womanhood we men (and even many women) have a lot to learn from in terms of honesty, loyalty, and dedication.
It is surprising that all the progressives of India, the left liberals, the Marxians, the pseudo-Marxians, the sophisticates of English language media, the fashionistas and tear-jerkers of sole-voices-for-oppressed-women-of-India – have not felt insulted that the “dehaati aurat” is used and acknowledged as a denigratory term, perhaps because the official self-proclaimed-secular-liberal parties themselves have de-facto admitted thinking so.
If the Pakistanis have even thought about calling Indian leadership as “dehaati aurat” as a lowlife, then it is not surprising from an Islamic mindset. Women and their sexual disposal in the hands of men are treated in their core text in a chapter entitled significantly as the “cow”. The various schools of sharia and hidaya make it amply clear, that women are for all practical purposes – chattel, the “mohar” or bride price having been explicitly stated by the Islamic law texts as the price for the “buza” or the vagina and associated private parts of the woman. This is then used to justify various clauses that give rights to the owner of that “property” to use-rights 24/7, 365 days a year, and rights ensuring proper implementation of such use-rights. This is not a joke, and is found actually stated in Islamic jurisprudence texts. From that viewpoint a Pakistani, supposedly the resident of a land created solely for the preservation of Islam from the big bad Hindu across the border – will think of the woman as milch and draught animal, to be traded, abducted, captured and used as cattle. [Something that the Pakistani muslims often practice apparently with state non-chalance, on Christian, Hindu and Sikh girls]. A dehaati or country woman therefore falls at the lowest of the pecking order within the domesticated herd.
But what drives the progressives of India that they did not come out in their droves to proudly wear the epithet of the “dehaati” woman?
My sincere apologies to the mother, sister, daughter of dehaat on behalf of the others for no one coming out to say that it is a matter of honour to be called a “dehaati aurat”.
In Uttar Pradesh, two Hindu brothers were killed because they beat up a Muslim man harassing their sister persistently for some time – and a result of this “roughing up” the Muslim boy died. A Muslim mob gathered, brutally beating them and killing them. Typically, the pious media and judiciary and the state would solemnly shake their head and denounce the two brothers for taking up the law into their own hands – and that no one has the right to kill another however grievous the perception of injury – for only the state has monopoly over personal violence. However in case of Muslim violence on non-Muslims, the tenor typically becomes that yes it is “unfortunate” and “sad” and “we grieve for the loss” “but” we have to “look at root causes” – which can range from anything and everything including “hurt religious sentiments”, “lack of development”, “poverty”, “deprivation”. In some sense, as if such claimed factors then become ameliorating factors in fixing guilt. The solemn injunctions of “law should not be taken into own hands” do not apply for Muslims in the Indian public game of condemnation and apportioning of guilt and responsibility.
Was this a one-off reaction? A sign of “Hindu” intolerance for innocent Muslim teasing and roughing up of Hindu girls? Mullah inspired and textually encouraged predation on kafir women is now a well-established phenomenon all over the world. With the emergence and exposure of Islam’s core deceptive strategy of expansion at all possible levels on the most primitive and biological of human thought processes – after the same-side goal scored by Islamists on their patrons the Anglo-Saxon axis of global division of power – the hitherto suppressed information on Islam’s consistent record over the centuries and the core doctrines as maintained in the texts have come increasingly into public domain. In particular focus is the so-called “love jihad” – the deliberate targeting of non-Muslim women and girls for sexual predation and violence, under various guises in societies where the Muslim is not yet in state power – and openly and overtly in rape/abduction/forced-marriages/sex-slavery in nations where Muslims are the majority or manage to get near-majority influence and protection out of complicated historical misfortunes for humanity like the British empire with its love for violently jihadi Sunni Wahabis as tools against rival Ottomans, as in India.
The way Islamist shenanigans In India are condoned is by fixing the violence by Muslims as a “reaction” against Hindu provocation or violence. But the possibility of an original Muslim provocation to which the Hindus “reacted” to which the Muslims then again reacted – is never explored. Thus we always get the refrain of the Gujarat riots of the early 2000’s without often even a murmur about the Islamic mob burning a whole train carriage load of Hindu pilgrims that started off the riots in reaction. The Islamic mob that burned Hindu pilgrims were reacting against supposed revival of the Hindu interest for reconstructing their claimed holy temple for their divinity -Rama – at a spot where Islamics had destroyed Hindu structures in the 16th century and put up a mosque of their own. This was in turn a continuation of incidents of a sequence of very public bombings by Islamists in 1993, in turn supposedly a reaction to events in 1992 when Hindu groups destroyed the mosque. But before the 1992 incident, there had been increasing violence by Islamists in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir – intensifying from late 80’s and intensifying into early 90’s – with rapes, abductions, massacres and large scale enforced migrations of ethnic Kashmiri Hindus out of the state. No media, no western sympathizers of Muslims, no “deprivation” and “reaction only” theorists will ever connect the rise of Hindu assertiveness to the unchecked and well-protected violence by Islamists in the Kashmir valley and the literal genocide that Muslims of the valley undertook or allowed their ummah brethren to continue unopposed in undertaking – in sharp contrast to the violent mob reactions they show on international or foreign Islamic interests on the streets of India, as in demanding expulsion of Tasleema Nasreen or the head of Salman Rushdie.
This case was no exception either. Because international or Indian media suppress the ground realities of islamist expansionism, and the grotesque and medieval Middle Eastern methods or tactics employed – when large scale retribution or reactions from non-Muslims happen – they appear surprising or shocking.
Initial source : http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/warning-very-graphic-the-2-hindu-jat-brothers-killed-in-muzaffarnagar/
This link claims to provide pictures of the bodies of the two brothers lynched by the Islamist mob for roughing up the Muslim boy who had been persistently teasing their sister. The report also provides clues to a persistent Islamist campaign of harassing, and teasing or abduction – effectively a kind of generic sexual predatory behaviour unleashed on the Hindus of the area, for many years now.
Satyender Kumar Baliyan 24, was among a group of 2,000 villagers returning home after attending the Mahapanchayat [“Grand Assembly” – a traditional ancient Hindu ethnic parliament summoned to settle issues of importance to the community] hosted by several Jat communities of western Uttar Pradesh in nearby Kawal village, when they were ambushed by a mob, armed with assault rifles and other sophisticated weapons leading to a bloody massacre at Gang Nahar, popularly known as Jolly canal, last Saturday. [Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1888043/report-dna-special-jolly-canal-killings-triggered-the-muzaffarnagar-riots ]
“Since, I was with the NCC for more than three years during my school days, I could easily tell that our assailants were using AK47 rifles and other weapons,” he told dna at the site of the massacre. The mob set on fire 18 tractor trollies and three motorbikes of the villagers. Local people say the Jolly canal massacre turned into the communal riots of Muzaffarnagar, in which the official death toll is 45. But local people say the number is much higher.
Eyewitnesses say after the mass killings, the attackers dumped the bodies in the canal, which meets the Ganges river in adjoining Haridwar district. So far, six bodies have been fished out. “We were unarmed. And they(attackers) ambushed us like Naxals. They started firing indiscriminately,” Baliyan said. Omkar Singh Rana of Baseda village, cannot find his elder brother Brijpal Singh Rana since the attack on Saturday. “It is not only my elder brother… there are hundreds of people who have gone missing after the massacre. Though six bodies have been found, we are sure there will be many more,” Rana told dna.
The villagers accused the local administration of not acting swiftly and of the police allowing the attackers to escape after the carnage. “The district administration has not made any effort to track the missing persons or find the bodies. Even the water flow in the canal was not controlled; it was deliberately increased to sweep away the dumped bodies,” said Bhanwar Singh, pradhan [“chief”] of Baseda village.
The district administration has registered 40 missing complaints till Wednesday. But apparently often cases are not registered because officials decide that people might have “migrated” to other parts of the state. District magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma admitted that the number of missing persons is more than the registered cases. “In case of the Jolly canal, we have recovered six bodies so far. Work is on to trace others, if any,” he said. “But in some cases people have migrated to other places. And since there is no contact with family members, they lodge missing complaints.” It is interesting to note that even in the backdrop of unnatural conditions and violence, the official Indian state and government functionaries “think” that missing people are simply “migrating” – which is a longer term phenomenon – and not necessarily trying to temporarily flee from massacres or are simply dead/killed/abducted.
A dozen daily wage farm workers and ordinary villages were travelling in a tractor as usual from Mod Khurd village to Munjhera in search of work. At the entrance to Munjhera is a mosque on the roadside which everyone has to pass through to enter the village. Hiding within the mosque were some 50-60 heavily armed men waiting in darkness to pounce upon any ‘Kafirs‘ who were unlucky enough to pass through on that fateful Friday evening. As the tractor ambled across the mosque road, it was met with scores of flying stones, which took them by surprise. This stone pelting continued for some time, even as the men tried to find cover in the trolley. Some jumped over the sides and melt into the wilderness, but others weren’t so lucky. [Source: http://centreright.in/2013/09/muzaffarnagar-where-riots-turned-into-pathology-from-anatomy/#.UjTKu7zXFok]
The mob from the mosque then surrounded the tractor and pulled down some 6 men and threw them on the roadside. What happened over the next 30 minutes is too graphic to print – “it was the worst nightmare one could ever have” as per one of the survivors who is grievously injured and may not live long. The farm workers were first beaten up mercilessly and were then attacked with sharp weapons by a gang of 50 odd “mushtandey“ [toughs/goons]. Finally, they were shot at pointblank range, to ensure that they did not survive.
Meanwhile, those who had escaped the stone pelting reached the local police station and complained about the attack, but to their utter frustration, the police refused to budge from their seats. For more than an hour the police refused to visit the mosque to rescue the victims and when they finally did reach the spot, they found three bodies lying in a pool of blood. Two of the dead were simply identified as that of Pappu and Joginder, while one other victim was still breathing. Three other farm workers are still missing, 3 days after the incident, and are presumed dead for all practical purposes.
In the same post, Praveen writes that if one went to “any village in Muzaffarnagar” then ” you are likely to find new settlements of outsiders – a euphemism for “Bangladeshis” – who have now become part of the village political-economy. Add to this, the growing reach of the global Ummah philosophy combined with the fanaticism angle of “Islam Katre mein hai” and you have a potent mixture for disaster. In this concoction, when you add a large haul of “sophisticated arms, like hand grenades and AK 47s” smuggled from the Nepal border, you get a deadly syrup of violent riots.”
Praveen reflects the local perception of state administration being hand in gloves with Islamists when he writes, “Over the last few months there have been numerous reports of deadly weapons being circulated in UP, but the government has taken absolutely no action till date. There have been rumours that a powerful minister of the region belonging to the minority community is hand-in-glove with this whole exercise of arming a community to the teeth. In fact, quite a few vehicles have been raided by the police with large quantities of illegal weapons, but the state administration has adopted a “blind eye” policy towards this whole phenomenon. Finally, on Sunday, when the army conducted flag marches in various villages, some of the villagers actually fired back at the army, which eventually led to army seizing a large haul of illegal arms.”
Praveen speculates that the Islamist violence took the mostly Hindu Jats of western UP, a hard working Hindu primarily farming community – completely by surprise, because of their previous longstanding political alliance in this region. Also perhaps the degree of sophistication of the weapons available to the jihadis were a shock factor too – in a country that has assiduously maintained the British imperial policy of as complete a disarming of the civilian population as possible – but where Maoists, Jihadis, and Christian extremist groups in the North East seem to have no significant restrictions on the level and supply of weapons.
Four days after the riots began, on the 31st of August, the Jats first called a Panchayat at Jaansaath Tehsil, but even after trying to organize themselves, they were hopelessly outmaneuvered. It was only after Narendra Tikait and Rakesh Tikait – both sons of the legendary farmer leader, Mahendra Singh Tikait – entered the scene that the fight back began in earnest. As long as the Hindus failed to retaliate in kind, administration and media sat quietly. Then the Hindu farmers organized themselves and struck back. As usual, the Indian state suddenly then jumped into the fray with political parties who protect islamism and islamists now perhaps pressed into service by a desperate islamist leadership.
First, BSP MP Kadir Rana, Congress leader Saiduzzaman and Samajwadi Party leader Rashid Siddiqui made a highly charged communal speech at Khaalapur on the 30th of August, which was attended by more than 15 thousand people, despite prohibitory orders under section 144. Then the Mahapanchayat [the ethnic Hindu parliament] of 7th September was attended by Hukum Singh, Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana of BJP, former Congress MP Harinder Malik and the Tikait brothers of the BKU. [Source : Praveen Patil]
The English language media which gets the lions share of international attention and which was almost totally absent for ten days when the violence was only from the Islamic side, went in their droves to Muzaffarnagar to paint tales of minority victimhood. The news editors zoomed in on Islamic skull-caps and darkly hinted that Narendra Modi of the BJP – the supposed nemesis of the all things positive in India, precipitated this crisis by possibly “hurting Muslim” sentiments by the mere fact of his existence.
At the end of the day, all this leads to a renewed convergence among various Hindu groups, and a consolidation that the fanatical Muslim will find quite difficult to digest.
The mood of the non-Muslim generations that were not born under the shadow of the Nehruvian Congress has been slowly and steadily changing. The islamist leadership failed to realize this, blinded by the apparent Saudi success in having the west as its prostitute and virtual blank cheque for any jihadi and expansionist agenda as long as it did not hurt the “western interests” directly. Having a pliant politically subservient national media also does not help. It lulls the planners at highest levels of regime power into a false sense of secure power and assumed acceptance by the majority for ever into the future.
If the international community does not want to be shocked and surprised, it needs to go beyond the official posturings and look into ground realities of Islam in India, and the type of reactions it is generating from the non-Muslims.
What Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh is doing in collaboration with other sharia-fascist Islamist groups is being dubbed by the media as merely being Pakistani agents, or trying to complete what Pakistan failed to do in 1971. There are two reasons or rather compulsions behind this media or even mainstream “secular”
political parties.
The first one is the fear in parties like Awami League stemming from the uncertainty of not really knowing how much of covert Islamist sympathy lies within their own ranks, or in the state machinery, or in the police and armed wings. Then there is also the fear of what pressures might be applied by external forces which no regime of Bangladesh can afford to displease. A possible spectrum of such forces can perhaps be hypothesized as the covert state wings of UK, USA and KSA. Islamic leaders, or political and military leaders from Islamic nations on the subcontinent – typically get immediate shelter in one of three countries when things get too hot in their native land and in anticipation of placing them back in their proper “roles” once things cool down – UK and KSA primarily, and USA secondarily. The eldest son of the current opposition leader has been “recuperating” quietly in UK ever since he went there for treatment after suffering health problems while in custody in Bangladesh under corruption charges. We can hear nothing, not even a murmur, from the anti-corruption agencies in Bangladesh over this – even though we do hear murmurs about the other son who is sheltered in Singapore. Another leader of the “interim-caretaker-government” is sheltered on the island too, and nothing is heard of him even though the opposition makes noises from time to time (not very loudly though). Musharraf has sheltered on the island too.
United Kingdom was instrumental in creating the Islamist problem on the subcontinent as part of a consistent and premeditated political programme of subverting Indian society, and there is some indication that the British state machinery had set the task of outlining separatist Islam based territorial and political units – to Islamic civil servants in the Indian administrative services as early as 1934. Then the remarkably successful British Indian intelligence service, which penetrated almost each and every anti-Britsh peaceful or covert political groups, apparently failed completely in anticipating how demobilized Muslim soldiers of British Indian Army were being recruited by the Muslim League to train jihadi gangs as part of a planned pogrom and genocide move to be unleashed in the infamous “Direct Action Day”. The Partition violence was orchestrated to a very large extent from within resources ultimately traceable to the British Indian army (demobilized soldiers) and administration.
Thus it might actually be in the interest of sections of political and covert intelligence wings of both UK and KSA, not to allow the violent Islamist factions in Bangladesh (and in Pakistan) to be completely destroyed, as these may appear to be valuable destabilizing assets for future manipulation of subcontinental politics. If Awami League moves to the extent of destroying these assets, their leaders may suddenly find themselves assassinated or coups mounted.
The other reason, potentially, is the awareness that what Jamaat is doing – is actually consistently within the ambit of Islamism, and very much practised and used as precedence from the founding days of Islam. Thus countering the Jamaat is not possible from the Islamic religious angle. For every supposed “peaceful conversion” verse in the Quran, there are many more in the ahadith that makes deceptive, violent and genocidic jihad on the non-Muslim the norm.
That Jamaat is carrying out an Islamic programme is clear in the way it is actually repeating the Islamic jihadi meme for non-muslims on each and every excuse on which violence can be mounted, even if officially the call by them was simply to protest against the hanging order on Sayedee.
(1) In Chittagong, Jamaati Islamists attacked Hindu majority localities at Jaldi union of Banshkhali upazila and set fire to a Buddhist temple.(2) Jamaat members also burned houses at Dhopapara and Mohajonpara and attacked people with sticks, iron rods and sharp weapons.
(3) The rioters also burned three shops belonging to Hindus at Kaliash union of Satkania upazila.
(4) Members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir attacked a temple and business establishments belonging to Hindus at Bhelkobazar in Sundarganj upazila of Gaibandha district.
(5) Rioters also vandalised some houses in Shovaganj union.
(6) Vandalism, arson and looting took place in temples, houses and business establishments of Hindus in Sylhet, Rangpur, Thakurgaon, Laxmipur and Chapainawabganj.
(7) Attackers had vandalised the central Kali temple at Mithapukur upazila in Rangpur and another at Kansat in Chapainawabganj.
Jamaat is indeed following in the same order of politics of violent provocation, and using legitimate retribution from the victim side as the excuse to increase the level of violence in a bid to extract totalitarian state power – that was laid down in the early battles and campaigns of the founding of the religion in northern Arabia, targeting deceptively, by ambush, by flouting of all then prevalent code of conduct of war, by rape, genocide, and again betrayal of the basic human values.
As expected, while Islamist march in violent demand of action against the Shahbag youth in Kolkata, the “progressiveness” capital of India under watchful protection of the state police [that which also maintains watchful protection of Islamist and jihadi campaigns in Hindu villages along the border with Bangladesh on the Indian side], no protests or marches or sit-ins have happened from the left and secular brandholders of the state. After all, there could be much higher than allowed to be known – electoral and financial benefits from the Muslim population in the state.
What is happening in India and the neighbouring Muslim states – is a repeat, and therefore revealing of actual totalitarianist strategies by which Islam originally spread on the subcontinent. It is just a renewed attempt after gathering the strength that was needed to make the move – recovering from the losses of defeat at the hands of European imperialism, and pretension of submission and alliance with the west.
Ending with a full list of the 20 charges against Sayedee for a sample of those activities reported and could be supported by witnesses : many others could not make it to the courts because of the successful delay in the trial for 40 years, by which time many witnesses had died or “vanished” when the Jamaat was rehabilitated under international and military-dictatorship patronage.
1. On May 4, 1971, Delawar Hossain Sayedee as a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee carried secret information to the Pakistan army about a gathering of a group of people behind the Madhya Masimpur bus-stand under Pirojpur Sadar and took the army to the spot. The army killed 20 unnamed people by firing.
2. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee along with his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army looted belongings of members of the Hindu community living in Masimpur Hindu Para under Pirojpur Sadar. They also set the houses of Hindus alight and opened fire on the scared people, who started fleeing the scene, killing 13 people.
3. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to Masimpur Hindu Para, where the team looted goods from the houses of two members of the Hindu community — Monindra Nath Mistri and Suresh Chandra Mondol — and destroyed their houses by setting them on fire. Sayedee also directlytook part in the large-scale destruction by setting fire to the roadside houses of villages Kalibari, Masimpur, Palpara, Sikarpur, Razarhat, Kukarpara, Dumur Tola, Kalamtola, Nawabpur, Alamkuthi, Dhukigathi, Parerha and Chinrakhali.
4. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices, accompanied by the Pakistani army looted the houses of members of the Hindu community and opened fire indiscriminately on them in front of Dhopa Bari and behind the LGED Building in Pirojpur, leaving four persons killed.
5. Sayedee declared publicly to arrest Saif Mizanur Rahman, then deputy magistrate of Pirojpur Sub-division, when the magistrate organised a Sarbo Dalio Sangram Parishad to inspire people to join the Liberation War. On May 5, 1971, Sayedee along with his associate Monnaf (now deceased), a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee, accompanied by the Pakistan army picked up Saif from the hospital where he was hiding and took him to the bank of the Baleshwar river. On the same date and time, Foyezur Rahman Ahmed, sub-divisional police officer, and Abdur Razzak (SDO in charge of Pirojpur), were also arrested from their workplaces and taken to the river bank. Sayedee as a member of the killer squad was present there and all three government officials were gunned down. Their bodies were thrown into the river Baleshwar. Sayedee directly participated and abetted in the acts of abduction and killing of those three officers.
6. On May 7, 1971, Sayedee identified the houses and shops of Bangalees belonging to the Awami League, Hindu community and supporters of the Liberation War at Parerhat Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar. Sayedee as one of the perpetrators raided those shops and houses and looted valuables, including 22 seers of gold and silver from the shop of one Makhanlal Saha.
7. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to the house of Nurul Islam Khan, where he identified Nurul Islam as an Awami League leader and his son Shahidul Islam Selim as a freedom-fighter to the army. Sayedee then detained Nurul Islam and handed him to the army, which tortured Nurul Islam. His house was then looted and finally set on fire.
8. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of one Manik Posari at Chitholia under Pirojpur Sadar and caught his brother Mofizuddin and one Ibrahim. Sayedee’s accomplices then burnt five houses there. On the way to the Pakistani army’s camp, Sayedee instigated the members of the occupation force to kill Ibrahim by gunshot and dump his body near a bridge. On the other hand, Mofiz was taken to the army camp and tortured. Sayedee directly participated in the abduction, murder and persecution of the victims.
9. On June 2, 1971, armed associates of Sayedee under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistani army raided the house of one Abdul Halim Babul at Nolbunia under Indurkani Police Station and looted valuables from Halim’s house. The team then reduced the house to ashes.
10. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee’s armed associates under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistan army burnt 25 houses of a Hindu Para in Umedpur village under Indurkani Police Station. At one stage, a victim, Bisabali, was tied to a coconut tree and was shot dead by Sayedee’s accomplice.
11. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee led a team of Peace (Shanti) Committee members, accompanied by the Pakistani army, to raid the house of Mahbubul Alam Howlader (freedom-fighter) of Tengra Khali village under Indurkani Police Station. Sayedee and the team then detained Mahbubul’s elder brother Abdul Mazid Howlader and tortured him, and looted cash money, jewellery and other valuables from the house.
12. One day a group comprising 15-20 armed accomplices of Sayedee under his leadership entered the Hindu Para of Parerh at Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar and captured 14 Hindus, who were all supporters of Bangladesh’s independence. The fourteen were then tied with a single rope and dragged to Pirojpur and handed over to Pakistani soldiers, who killed them. Their bodies were thrown into the river.
13. One night, about 2 to 3 months after the war commenced, some members of Peace Committee under Sayedee’s leadership accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of Azhar Ali of Nalbunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station. They then caught and tortured Azahar Ali and his son Shaheb Ali. The team then abducted Shaheb Ali and ultimately he was taken to Pirojpur and killed.
14. During the final stages of the war, Sayedee one morning led a team of Razakar Bahini consisting of 50 to 60 Razakars, into attacking the Hindu Para of Hoglabunia under Pirojpur Sadar. Seeing the attackers, the Hindus managed to flee but one Shefali Gharami failed to do that. Some members of Razakar Bahini entered her room and raped her. Being the leader of the team, Sayedee did not prevent them from committing rape upon her. Sayedee and the members of his team also set fire to the dwelling houses of the Hindu Para.
15. During the last part of the war, Sayedee led 15 to 20 armed Razakars who entered the Hoglabunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and caught 10 members of the Hindu faith. The attackers then tied all the members of Hindu community with a single rope, dragged them to Pirojpur and handed them over to the Pakistani army. They were all killed and their bodies were dumped into the river.
16. In the course of the Liberation War, Sayedee led a group of 10-12 armed Razakars and Peace Committee members, which surrounded the house of Gouranga Saha of Parerhat Bandar under Pirojpur Sadar. Subsequently, Sayedee and the others abducted three women and handed them over to the Pakistan army at Pirojpur where they were confined and raped for three days before being released.
17. During the Liberation War, Sayedee along with other armed Razakars kept Bipod Saha’s daughter Vanu Saha confined to Bipod Saha’s house at Parerhat under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and regularly used to go there to rape her.
18. During the Liberation War, one Bhagirothi used to work in the camp of the Pakistan army. One day, after a fight with the freedom fighters, and at the instance of Sayedee, Bhagirothi was charged with passing information to the freedom fighters and killed.
19. During the war, Sayedee, being a member of Razakar Bahini and exercising his influence over the Hindu community of Pirojpur, converted 100-150 Hindus of Parerhat and other villages and compelled them to go to the mosque to offer prayers.
20. On a day at the end of November 1971, Sayedee got information that thousands of people were fleeing to India in order to save their lives. A group of 10-12 armed members of the Razakar Bahini, under Sayedee’s leadership, then attacked the houses of Talukdar Bari at Indurkani village and detained a total of 85 persons and looted goods from there. Of them, all but 10-12 persons were released in exchange for bribes negotiated by Fazlul Huq, a member of the Razakar Bahini. Male persons were tortured and female persons were raped by Pakistan soldiers deployed in the camp.
[authors note : posting on the theme that started the blog, after a long time. This item in the original series was drafted a couple of years go. But I realized that this portion may take up several blog-size posts, rather than one. Workload is heavy so – this sequence might come hence irregularly, but I am serious about taking up laying out the economic consequence of Islamic dominance on India. So please be patient.]
Removal of capital from the Indian economy by Muslims took place directly under three major forms (1) repeated invasions amounting or not amounting to permanent acquisition of territory with specific removal of capital in kind in the form of looted bullion and other valuables, as well as removal of human capital in the form of skilled and unskilled labour, and the basic reproductive unit for human labour, women, all as enslaved and exported commodity out of India, (2) extraction of capital by settled Muslim elite from the Indian economy for hoarding, and funding luxuries originating outside of India meant for pure consumption with no reinvestment or economic input into the local market (3) subsidizing religious activities primarily benefiting foreign Muslim countries and economies (4) Islam’s essential economic understanding amounting to only the desert-economy of Arabia and a complete failure to understand more sophisticated economies as reflected in the Muslim’s disastrous state interventions in the Indian market – also removed capital by impeding creation of value and growth and ultimately consumption and destroying already accumulated capital.
The indirect removal of capital was mainly under five forms (1) ruining and utterly destituting the basic producers of the economy, and extracting almost all surplus for personal consumption thereby preventing reinvestment and ultimately reducing total capital (2) continued and vastly increasing expenditure on military hardware and “software” such as horses imported from outside of India (3) destroying the non-Muslim intellectual classes and pre-Islamic centres of education that had promoted a wide variety of research into science and technology and substituting this by theological seminaries run by fundamentalist Muslim clergy usually imported from Islamic heartland in the middle east and whose qualifications usually did not rise beyond a strict Wahabi or Salafi interpretation of the Islamic religious texts learned by rote (4) institutionalization of endemic corruption and system losses that increased the cost of capital, and thereby its ultimate devaluation (5) Sadistic and violent Islamic military religious policy aimed at subjugation of the non-Muslim populations ultimately forcing productive social units off the land and the economy into forests or rugged badlands from where they either carried out military struggles [raising the cost of administration and expending capital on maintaining ever-increasing armed forces on the part of the Islamic administration] or engage in low-surplus marginal productions and economies.
removal of material capital through repeated invasions
Accurate estimates of capital removed by Islamic invaders are very difficult to arrive at, mainly because of lack “undisputed records” of “looting” and amounts. Most surviving records of looting and shipping of loot back to the respective power centres of the raiding armies, are naturally, from side of the raiding armies themselves or from subsequent chroniclers who draw upon or claim to draw upon earlier, relevant, and contemporary Islamic sources. As in the case all over the world, although historians try to shout a lot about absence of records of “trauma” on the part of the victims, who are not necessarily known to be illiterate, there is a persistent pattern of lack of such records, and we consistently find such records only from the “winners”. Logically thinking, such a situation is most natural to expect – a “traumatized” society is most unlikely to find time and resources to devote to keeping records “reliable” enough for modern professional historians with their highly selective and opportunistic use of logic in favour of hidden or sometimes not so hidden political agenda or political/academic patronage from interested regimes. Such a society is more likely to be obsessed about survival.
If we use modern, more closely observed from various sources, “history” of invasions by hostile regimes into an area, especially invasions that are also associated strongly with a particular hegemonistic ideology – we see certain persistent patterns – (1) specifically targeting the intellectuals [and try and eliminate them physically altogether] of the invaded society (2) destroy or suppress circulation of records, books, and other archival material of the invaded society (3) disrupt communication by actively discouraging native languages and imposing the languages preferred by the invaders (4) removal of capital resources from the invaded society (5) almost always a systematic programme of ethnic cleansing through genocide, a state sponsored regime of rape or enforced prostitution of the women of the invaded society – [which for very obvious physical reasons, targets more the women of the elite of the invaded society, and a section more likely to be a second line of repository of cultural heritage, or knowledge] thereby achieving two invader objectives in one stroke – removal of reproductive resources from the invaded society and increasing reproductive resources of the invader. This is what happened under the Nazis, and under units of the Red Army as retribution for the activities of the Nazis when they overran Germany in the final phases of WWII, under the Imperial Japanese army in South East Asia, Korea and China [there are indications that Bose’s INA had come to an agreement with the Japanese Army command that such activities will not be carried out in their joint march towards the Indian border, and a recent interview on the Delhi based news channel NDTV reported eye-witness accounts from a Naga dignitary of the period – that in spite of what the British administration had tried to say, the Japanese occupation forces never “used” Naga women the way the British officers were habitually prone to do], and then by US army units stationed in Japan after the capitulation of the latter, with similar patterns repeated in the wars between the African nations and regional-ethnic conflicts, in the persistent accusations [disputed hotly by historians] of such practices by the Pakistani army in its various operations in the subcontinent, [the British army’s record in India during the Raj appear to be increasingly coming under the cloud in this regard].
If we extend the modern experience to the “historical” period, we can see, that it is consistent with records of the Roman empire, or the Persian, Parthian, Egyptian, Chinese, empires. Historians appear to have no problems in accepting the claims of the Spanish or the Portuguese about the Latin Americas, even though hardly anything survives that can hold up to historian’s claimed level of reliability from the side of the “victims”. Similarly, hardly anything survives of records of trauma of the various Italian groups subjugated by the Romans, not all of whom were illiterates (e.g. Etruscans), or of the various Germanic and Celtic tribes of Europe, but historians appear to have no problems with the Roman records of claims of ethnic cleansing, torture, destruction, looting or organized rape and enslavement. There are hardly any historian voices trying to say that the records of repression on the Jews as claimed in Roman texts by Roman authors were propaganda, since nothing much exists from contemporary Jewish sources [ the most famous one, that by Josephus, can also become suspect as he was being patronized by the Romans at the time of his wrtings – and he is not very sympathetic to the Jewish cause either]. Historians even quote figures of dead, slaughtered, raped, straight from the Roman texts.
The only exception in this general pattern of historians’ acceptance of records of repression by an invading regime is that applied to Islamic armies into the Indian subcontinent, where all their records of repression are demanded to be treated as false and propaganda for glorification.
We will start with trying to get an idea of the amounts involved in the loot by the Islamic armies removed from India.
Muhammad bin Qasim [C.E 711-713 – the first Islamic record of a relatively successful invasion] Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, worship rights of Hindus were allowed only in exchange of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. The campaign expenses came to 60 thousand silver dirhams and Hajjaj paid to the Caliph 120 thousand dirhams. In Muhammad bin Qasim’s administration of the conquered territories the principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted “with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult”. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.
Multan (Punjab) “…He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan… Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as the ministers of the temple, to the number of six thousand. The Muslamans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad, and there was an aperture above, through which the gold was poured into the chamber…” (Futuhul-Buldan of Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir, aka al-Biladuri).
Multan (Punjab) “Then all the great and principal inhabitants of the city assembled together, and silver to the weight of sixty thousand dirams was distributed and every horseman got a share of four hundred dirams weight. After this, Muhammad Qasim said that some plan should be devised for realizing the money to be sent to the Khalifa. He was pondering over this, when suddenly a Brahman came and said, ‘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 idol temples. I have heard from the elders of Multan that in ancient times there was a chief in this city whose name was Jibawin, and who was a descendant of the Rai of Kashmir. He was a Brahman and a monk, he strictly followed his religion, and always occupied his time in worshipping idols. When his treasures exceeded all limits and computation, he made a reservoir on the eastern side of Multan, which was hundred yards square. In the middle of it he built a temple fifty yards square, and he made a chamber in which he concealed forty copper jars each of which was filled with African gold dust. A treasure of three hundred and thirty mans of gold was buried there. Over it there is an idol made of red gold, and trees are planted round the reservoir.’ It is related by historians, on the authority of ‘Ali bin Muhammad who had heard it from Abu Muhammad Hindui that Muhammad Qasim arose and with his counsellors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold, and its two eye were bright red rubies……Muhammad Qasim ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty mans of gold were obtained, and forty jars filled with gold dust… This gold and the image were brought to treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of Multan.” (Chachnama)
Yaqub bin Laith (CE 870-871) was a highway robber who succeeded in seizing Khurasan from the Tahirid governors of the Abbasid Caliphate and founded the short-lived Saffarid dynasty.
Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan) “He first took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul…
“Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple – the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers-of its sculptural wealth…The exact details of the spoil collected from the Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh -i-Sistan records 50 idols of gold and silver and Masudi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Yaqub also speaks for their high value. The best of our authorities put the date of this event in 257 (870-71). Tabari is more precise and says that the idols sent by Ya’qûb reached Baghdad in Rabi al-Akhar, 257 (Feb.-March, 871). Thus the date of the actual invasion may be placed at the end of CE 870.” (Tarikh-i-Tabari)
Mahmud of Ghazni [first quarter of C.E. 1000] Mahmud extracted 2,50,000 dinars as ransom from Jayapal (1001-02 C.E.). Jayapal’s necklace worth 2,00,000 gold dinars was appropriated by Mahmud, and twice that value extracted from the necklaces of his imprisoned or executed relatives. All the wealth of Bhera which was “as wealthy as imagination can conceive”, was captured in (1004-05 C.E.). In 1005-06 the people of Multan were forced to pay an indemnity of the value of 20,000,000 silver dirhams. When Nawasa Shah, who had reconverted to Hinduism, was deposed (1007-08), the Sultan confiscated his wealth amounting to 400,000 dirhams. Mahmud seized coins of the value of 70,000,000 Hindu Shahiya dirhams, from the fort of Bhimnagar in Kangra, and gold and silver ingots weighing some hundred maunds, jewellery and precious stones. There was also a collapsible house of silver, thirty yards in length and fifteen yards in breadth, and a canopy (mandapika) supported by two golden and two silver poles. This vast treasure could not be shifted immediately, and Mahmud left two of his “most confidential” chamberlains, Altuntash and Asightin, to arrange for its gradual removal to Ghazni. In subsequent expeditions (1015-20) Punjab and the adjoining areas were sucked dry. Over and above the looting by Mahmud, there was additional looting by his soldiers. From Baran Mahmud obtained, 1,000,000 dirhams, from Mahaban a large booty, from Mathura five idols which when melted [Should we apply the Thaparite algorithm of dividing by 10 or 100?] alone yielded 98,300 misqals (about 390 kg) of gold, and two hundred silver idols. Kanauj, Munj, Asni, Sharva and some other places yielded another 3,000,000 dirhams. Somnath yielded 20,000,000 dinars. [Utbi, the Secretary to Sultan Mahmud, reports this and if he exaggerated then as this was a contemporary record, the Caliphate would come to know of this and would be able to calculate that Mahmud had not sent full share of the Caliph. This is a part usually not much mentioned by the Thaparite School and generically dismissed as part of boasting].
Archaeologically there is a significant absence of Indian coins or artefacts made of precious metal from this entire period in the Punjab and Sind area. [The Thaparite school of Indian history typically remains silent on this or jokes that this could be a possible pointer that the stories of these Hindu kingdoms with fabulous riches are simply stories and fantasies and they probably never existed. In this sense nothing contemporary specifically archaeologically associated with the early founders of Islam including its Prophet has been found in Arabia. [Sunni Wahabis dispute the authenticity of the Ottoman collections in this regard]. However the Thaparite school will never dare raise a similar joke in the Arabian context. This also helps the Thaparite school in trying to prove that “Hinduism” did not exist in general before the pre-Islamic period. However it is a general principle of the Thaparite School to accept archaeology only if it supports the Schools hypotheses and it very angrily reacts and disparages archaeology if it dares to differ from its diktats] The flow of bullion outside India stabilized Ghaznavid currency and debased the Indian. The gold content of millenial north Indian coins reduced from 120 to 60 grams with a similar reduction in the weight and content of the silver coin. This in turn reduced credit of Indian merchants in the international market.
India had always been an exporter against bullion and had accumulated bullion from domestic sources as well mines of Tibet and Central Asia. Mahmud collected in loot and tribute valuable articles of trade like indigo, fine muslins, embroidered silk, and cotton stuffs, and items and raw ingots of famous Indian steel, lavishly praised by Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Alberuni and others. [this is the source of the famous Damascus steel coveted by both by Europe and the Muslim world. One valuable commodity taken from India was indigo. From Baihaqi, who writes the correct Indian word “nil” for the dye, it appears that 20,000 mans (about 500 maunds) of indigo was taken to Ghazna every year. According to Baihaqi, Sultan Masud once sent 25,000 mans (about 600 maunds) of indigo to the Caliph at Baghdad, for “the Sultans often reserved part of this (valuable commodity) for their own usage, and often sent it as part of presents for the Caliph or for other rulers”.
Mahmud also started the later consistent Islamic traditions of looting wealth and women whenever the Islamic heartlands of middle East or central Asia became “impoverished” as a result of intensive and destructive Islamic looting. Utbi writes “It happened, that 20,000 men from Mawaraun nahr and its neighbourhood, who were with the Sultan (Mahmud), were anxious to be employed on some holy expedition in which they might obtain martyrdom. The Sultan determined to march with them to Kanauj”. This is the tradition of Ghazis, (the Arabic root means one who has gone for a Ghazwa, literally a tribal raid typically mentioned in the context of looting wealth, animals, and women) as imposed on India. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, Muhammad Ghori declared jihad in “Hind” (1205 C.E.- 13 years after the second battle of Tarain, decisively destroying his strongest Hindu opponent Prithviraj), “in order to repair the fortunes of his servants and armies; for within the last few years, Khurasan, on account of the disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished, and his armies renewed”.
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “…He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus. He was victorious, and obtained much wealth, including about a hundred idols of gold and silver. One of the golden images, which weighed a million mishkals, the Sultan appropriated to the decoration of the Mosque of Ghazni, so that the ornaments of the doors were of gold instead of iron.” (Tarikh-i-Guzida : of Hamdullah bin Abu Bakr bin Hamd bin Nasr Mustaufi of Kazwin)
Indian and international media will have a field day speculating on the twin blasts killing many and injuring even more in the Indian city of Hyderabad, India. The security agencies of India, perhaps under proper political correctness imposed by “secular” regimes, will discover “saffron” hands behind the blast.
However, I would like to speculate on another possibility. That of “green on green” jihad by one sect of Muslims against others. The bane of all monotheistic, organized, textual and doctrinaire religions is the need for evermore apparent perfection and purity. That in turn almost always leads to hyperfine distinctions in interpretation of fixed ancient texts, based on which each new faction derides and when feasible, tries to eliminate the other factions if necessary by violent means. The reason as to why strictly textual religions almost surely land up in such political struggles for power is an entirely different issue, and not for this post.
The fact of the matter is however, that all three of Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism – would have fared far better had they not bled each other and themselves, in fratricidal and internecine bloodshed sourced from this contest over who is the “purest” within the family -so to speak. The Byzantine and Italian Roman church’s murderous jealousy of Arrianism had no small role in the eventual fall of Gothic Christian power in Spain to yield place to Al Andalus. In the end the “Roman” calculation paid off through the Reconquista -but meanwhile almost 800 years of Islamic rule had to be endured (how “glorious” or “civilizing” it was – is issue of another debate).
The Byzantine iconodule versus iconoclast violence, and the three-cornered fight with the Coptic brotherhood, led to possibly quick capitulation of Coptic Egypt before Arab Muslim armies, and the roll-back of Byzantine power from south of the Bosphorus before the early pious Caliph armies.
The violent iconodule versus iconoclast Christian contest again perhaps had a significant influence on how early Islam shaped itself and placed itself as, with similar intra-faith conflicts starting up within Islam from its earliest days.
Most of the world has become aware of the intolerance of the most influential, (because of oil and “western” connections) faction of Islam – that of Sunni Wahabism, and in another direction also Salafism. However what is often overlooked is that as much as the Ummah theological leadership is looking to subvert the non-Muslim world for eventual conquest and enslavement, they reserve an equal violence for those they deem “less pure” than themselves in doctrinal interpretation of the unchanging text.
Recently Hyderabad was in the news – because a scion of the wealthy Islamic clan of the Owaisis of Hyderabad, had made typical Islamist speeches warning of violence towards Hindus. Owaisis have old family connections to pre-Independence reactionary regimes of the Nizam. The Nizam was a key figure of Islamism in pre-Independence India, and had many close and influential friends among the planners and plotters of the British ruling circles. Nizam was a reluctant joiner of the Republic, and as a last ditch effort had unleashed his genocidic jihadi Razakars on the majority Hindus of his state, in looting, raping and massacres as per true jihadi legacy prior to the Indian army marching into the capital. In fact a certain ancestral clan relative of the current Owaisi’s had been very active in the Islamist movement that turned violent, and had been imprisoned by the Indian government after accession of the state.
It has been suggested by some researchers that he was “released” and quietly allowed to emigrate to Pakistan and his Islamist party under its new avatar MIM allowed to “revive” post-Independence because the Congress got increasingly worried at the resurgence of the Communists in the state and the city.
Subsequent Congress governments, appear to have coincided with the increasingly sharp religious identity politics among competing factions of both Christianism and Islamism that in a lop-sided but indirect way also involves the Maoists. The pulse of this three-cornered and very murky religious politics can be estimated from under the heavy fog of media and regime protection of so-called “minority” sentiments in the periodic and too stinky to be entirely suppressed scandals involving financial and other sorts of corruption that also reach into religious halos.
But what perhaps has gone under the radar for a long time, is the observation that more Sunni influence appears to be showing up in Andhra Pradesh – and its capital city Hyderabad – mainly though the tell-tale signs of spread – the mosques and “dawa” institutions. With such growth, and a possible Gulf connection behind providing the material means to sponsor such institutional growth – has come the inevitable signs of Saudi-esque Wahabi intolerance – against other Muslim factions deemed “less pure”.
These less pure factions are those of the Shia and the Ahemedyya. Orthodox Sunnis berate the Ahemedyyas verbally when they are militarily powerless, and behead or torture to death when they have state protection – as in Pakistan and in some cases even in Indonesia or Bangladesh. Hyderabad is actually a significant centre for the Ahmedyyas and the Shias. In fact , just the previous year there were reports headlined :
India: Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque Attacked by Militant Clerics and Mob in Hyderabad
The new angle to be looked into Islamic terror on the subcontinent is the added Sunni Wahabi and Salafist trend of also cleaning up their intra-Islamic rivals, especially Shias and Ahmedyyas.
Rajiv Haider, an activist young blogger from Bangladesh was stabbed and hacked with clovers, to death. His crime : his demand for justice for the war-crimes committed in 1971, by the so-called Razakars, Al-Bdrs, Al-shams, and various Islamist collaborators of the Pakistani occupation forces – running sex-slavery camps, torture chambers, and systematic genocide, massacres, forced conversion of Hindus.
While bloggers of the world seem to have come out in support of the “occupy Shahbag” movement and condemned the murder of Rajiv, Pakistani websites have been reported to have celebrated Rajiv’s murder.
The intolerance of any criticism is a common feature of all Islamists, and whenever a voice protesting any of the genocidic aspects of Islamism is cut off by the assassin’s hand, it is a call-sign of the mullah and his fascism. Pakistan was created by a fascist movement that used the tacit support of British intelligence and post-war demobilization policy of the British Indian army to employ Muslim ex-soldiers go out to train and lead armed Muslim gangs in preparation for jihad – which was given the spin of “direct action” by Jinnah and his Islamist advisors.
The then Congress leadership, in which Gandhiji had been sidelined, and Bose expelled [perhaps suitably “advised” to be lured into “escaping” so that the more amenable sections of the Congress leadership could be played into accepting a separatist Islamist homeland] – seems to have thought of the distant extremes of Punjab, North West Frontier Provinces, Balochs, and Bengalis as peripheral. Perhaps they also remembered that these were the regions which were the earliest militant dissenters against British imperialism – and hence likely to be rebellious against the Delhi/Uttar-Pradesh based “core” they were basing their new empire about. So it would be good riddance in a political sense, to allow these areas to be decimated by jihadis, and the non-Muslims/Hindus of these regions to be broken for generations so that they could not strike back politically against the new dynastic system fashioned along the British system.
In the process, they left the liberal and modernizing forces among the Muslims, decimated and cornered too – and left to the tender mercy of the mullah, who represent the darkest caverns of sadomasochistic evil in the human mind. Now, not only the Pakistanis or the Bangladeshis themselves, but the world suffers from the consequence of what happened in a power sharing game played by British imperialism, Sunni-Wahabi jihadism, and an immature and entirely devoid of statesmanship section of the Congress leadership keen for personal power.
We are facing a resurgent totalitarianism. This time its the totalitarianism of the mullahcracy.
Note: it is fascinating to see that the Bengali intelligentsia, and the Muslim rioting hordes that took over the streets of Kolkata – the supposed capital city of everything progressive, to hound Tasleema Nasreen out – is not to be seen on the streets protesting Haider’s murder. Tasleema was a Bangladeshi – so it was okay for Indian Muslims and mullahcracy to come out into the streets against her. If she could be demonstrated against and rioted against even as a foreigner and for alleged insults she heaped on Islam by exposing the role of Islamists in raping or committing genocide on non-Muslims in Bangladesh – why is it so difficult to come out now similarly to condemn the murder of another Bangladeshi?
And, Indian intellectuals, especially of the Leftist variety from West Bengal – are nowhere to be found with their shrill cries of indignation. Isn’t that funny!
Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, wrote a piece on Rediff http://www.rediff.com/news/column/hanging-could-have-damaging-repercussions/20130209.htm– about the possibly “damaging” consequences of the rather quiet hanging of Afzal Guru – an Indian from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and an accused as well as convicted of a murderous terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.
Mustafa’s primary concerns can be summarized as
(1) supposed signs of “bias” in a section of Indian journalists over questions of “nationalism”
(2) supposed allegation that Afzal did not have a fair trial or adequate representation
(3) supposed fear of “damaging consequences” of the hanging.
Mustafa brings out everything that is wrong with the Indian media’s long history of playing and pretending “secularism” which effectively became Hindu/Saffron bashing while selectively whitewashing, even protecting the image of so-called “minority” religions by clamping down on anything negative motivated by such religions. She writes in such frank tones of a sense of betrayal, that she possibly does not realize how she has exposed the underlying religious politics of selective favouritism that plagues her profession.
A television news anchor, shortly after Parliament terror attack accused Afzal Guru was hung by the government in Tihar jail, declared, ‘All nationalist, secular and progressive people support this.’
That was just one statement amidst a cacophony of euphoric reactions to the hanging, but stood out as many of us who have been opposing the death penalty and questioning the fairness of the Afzal Guru trial certainly do not regard ourselves as communal and reactionary or for that matter anti-national.
Quite the contrary really, and so it did sound strange when journalists supporting death by hanging, refusing to question the fact that Guru did not get a capable lawyer through the trial, and blocking out the responses of those raising such issues, so easily put large segments of the Indian population into their self-defined ‘anti-national’ frame.
And so before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views.
Most interesting to read! Now did the colleagues of Mustafa, only report the “news” and not give their editorial comments to the point of restricting contrary voices from giving their views when it came to talking about the rape, eviction, enforced migration – each and every element of genocide by most current standards of definition of a genocide – on the Kashmiri pundits? How many of Seema Mustafa’s colleagues practised what she wants them to – when the targets were Hindus from Kashmir Valley, or did they care to give space to view from the “other” side of what is alleged to have happened in the burning of returning Hindu pilgrims in a locked train compartment at Godhra, that is supposed to have led to the inter-community clashes in Gujarat which has been mad einto an international issue. I remember watching a news report from a well-known “secular” channel of India based in New Delhi – during the heyday of the Kandhmal (Orissa) conflict, when Hindu tribals hiding out in the forests express their fear of being lynched by Christian mobs or their Maoist collaborators – but the news-anchor comments before them along the lines of “look how much they have been threatened so that they they lie out of fear”. What reports have ever been covered by Mustafa’s secular colleagues on the atrocities carried out by Muslim gangs in Kerala, or West Bengal, or Assam? Did they go and ever give any space to any views on the “other” side, if that other side did not happen to be Muslim or Christian? It is exactly these sort of biased behaviour that strengthens the more radical among the Hindu!
There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves.
How many times have details of religiously motivated atrocities been ever objectively and impartially reported by the media – without considering the supreme objective of not allowing the tarnishing or exposure of the on-ground modus operandi of extremist religious movements if and only if those movements happen not to be “Hindu”? Riots have been frequent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, atrocities by organized muslim gangs in Kerala, or Bengal – but Mustafa’s colleagues never find the space to report them. By accusing her colleagues of biased and ideologically motivated reporting, Mustafa confirms that Indian media can be and does operate on religious and ideological bias in reporting. In fact many like us draw the inference that it must have been this or that Muslim gang that started a riot – if the media reports it as a violent clash between “two communities”. One way or the other, if the responsibility can be or needed to be – put on “Hindus”, the names or details will be leaked to the sufficient degree to make sure that the conclusion or impression holds.
Afzal Guru has been hung. And apart from the main story the news media has a responsibility to:
one, trace his story with the facts of the case highlighted;
two, review the trial through important voices to see whether he had the best legal advice at hand or whether he was virtually left unrepresented;
three, to find out (and not just from official quotes) whether his family was informed in time, and were asked to meet him as per the humane provisions of law;
four, to seek answers to the commonly asked questions as to why the rush now, has it been prompted by political considerations;
five, to look at the possible political consequences of the hanging at this point in time and analyse whether the death of one man was worth what might follow.
This constitutes responsible reporting. As for the beating of the drums, this can be safely left to the political parties and the government who have held innumerable press conferences to applaud the act.
Has this ever been done by Mustafa’s colleagues when the victims of religiously motivated violence were non-Muslims or non-Christians? Even Sikhs were not always given the benefit of “unbiasedness”! Recently unusually (for Indian courts in such cases) harsh sentences were passed on BJP political leader for her alleged complicity in riot violence against Muslims – and a woman to boot – in Gujarat, on a peculiar legalistic claim that her “crimes” deserved exemplary punishments (I thought law was usually claimed to be about “fairness” and not about “examples”). Did Mustafa and her colleagues go and research the “other” side’s views? Did they report allegations of one “victim” having been in the habit of pulling out his firearm on previous occasions to threaten non-muslims or even use the firearm [I did not see any follow-ups, even debunking attempts, of this by any of Mustafas secular colleagues]. Significantly, she uses an expression that has often been used in the past by the Indian state, predominantly the Congress and the Leftists, and in some cases – ideology-less regional charismatics, to clamp down on protests against Islamic claims of immunity from even verbal criticism. The ubiquitious claim is that “any crackdown on Islamic violence, protests, or outrage, or even protest or criticism of an Islamic gang coercive street rampage behaviour – is going to lead to a deterioration of law and order problem”. On this excuse Indian state regimes often pre-emptively strike on opposition to Islamic claims, and such an attitude has been primarily responsible for the threats and attacks on writers the Islamic shariacracy in India think of as damaging to their agenda of Islamization of India – like the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book, or the hounding out of the exiled woman author from Bangladesh – Tasleema Nasreen.
Journalists are supposed to play the devil’s advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as ‘nationalist’ promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country..
Unfortunately, Mustafa’s case seems to rest on having all these benefits as privileges of the Islamic only – and her voice comes out when she effectively sees these privileges being taken away from the Islamic. Mustafa even does not realize that “nationalism” has its boundaries and terms of debate that cannot be allowed to be infinitely stretched. Otherwise, no attack on the “nation” can be opposed logically, for there will always be a “diversified” view that supports exactly such attacks as valid becausee they do not agree to “our” definition of “our nationhood”. One day, the presence of non-Muslims will become problematic for “nation-hood” – the argument used by the jihadis of Muslim League and Jamaatis to unleash the partition genocide and carve out “Muslim” nations.
The terror attack on Parliament was heinous. And could have been far more disastrous had the terrorists been able to enter the building.
But Mustafa fails to say that 12 people were killed in that attack. Is this part of merely factual reporting too?Is not “heinous” a qualitative expression and not an objective one?
It was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi [ Images ] university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani’s trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of wellknown lawyers, he was finally released.
Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented.
Geelani, contacted by Rediff.com, one of the news sites doing its job professionally, said, “Afzal Guru was denied a fair trial. This has been proved in his last moments. I do not understand the attitude of the government. They have done nothing but play to the gallery.”
“Do you know there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of India ? The court has been looking into the delay into this case, arguments are going on and the matter is pending justice.”
‘Do you think it was right to hurry up the matter?’
“The due process of law has not been followed. This is nothing but a flawed process.”
But somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are convicted by the courts?
As wellknown women rights lawyer Indira Jaising said, while arguing against the death penalty, is there not a right to reform, and if even reform for some is seen as impossible, is there not a right to remorse? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged?
The interesting piece about Indian journalism is revealed in the way the “facts” are presented here. Somehow the Indian “police” are seen to be “obviously” not having a clue “right from the beginning”. I am not sure how many police forces of the world have clues to crimes being committed “right from the beginning” – for such details in prior knowledge would in most case lead to prevention of the crime actually being committed. From this “obviousness” in the eyes of the journalist, an ominous silence hangs to the onset of the next statement about Afzal being picked up after the arrest of another. The insinuation perhaps intended is that somehow this allegation of “obvious lack of clue” should encourage the reader to suspect that the police arrested Afzal without any proof or evidence. If the evidence gathering process was so good and reliable in passing sentences on Kandhmal and Gujarat riot accused after long delays and twists and turns that could have raised even more serious concerns about police “capabilities or intentions” – why is it suddenly so unreliable when the accused is implicated in a violent terrorist attack on the very symbolic seat of Indian democracy?
The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle. The media informs us, through the usual sources, that the decision was taken after top-level meetings and discussions. So one is led to believe it was a considered decision.
Instead of instilling confidence, this actually evokes fear, fear of being led by a government that clearly is unable to make the right assessments and basically does not care if parts of the country go up in flames.
The government has bitten the bullet as channels screamed with joy, but there is every possibility of the bullet exploding in its mouth. And this is what makes one wonder at a political leadership that willfully invites trouble.
Aspects of the case, as has been pointed out by lawyers as well, were before the Supreme Court and the government could have easily ridden the issue out instead of converting it into a storm that will hit it, in all likelihood, in Kashmir.
The military has clamped down in Jammu and Kashmir. As a resident there said, “Not even a leaf is fluttering here.” But while the state can be confident of maintaining control in normal circumstances, and beating down demonstrations, it also realises that one civilian death will snowball into a major uprising.
The February 11, 1984 hanging of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Maqbool Bhatt led to a decade of the worst violence that India has ever seen. It is true that Afzal Guru does not have the same stature in terms of a leadership profile, but in terms of sympathy and support he was probably far ahead.
Besides, the alienation and anger in Kashmir is in a heightened stage, more so after the death of the young boys in the 2010 stone pelting incidents. A Facebook post by this columnist on Afzal Guru’s hanging has elicited a volley of responses reflecting this anger and alienation and asking why those responsible for the death of the boys have not met with similar punishment.
Now that sounds like a threat, isn’t it? It is time that the pretenders of secularism who actually effectively, on the ground, promote and protect Islamism by their selective reporting or campaigns at manufacture of social consensus in favour of Islamist agenda – realize, that a new generation is coming up. They are seeking to search out the reality of religious politics, especially of the medievalist brand of religiosity represented by modern Islamism. Even a Morsi cannot easily take an Egypt back to the 7th century one-sided propaganda that targeted all other cultures and human freedoms or civilizational achievements for erasure.If Mustafa is so concerned about the Kashmiri boys trained to give a Intifada style uprising – is she also concerned about the Kashmiri Hindus murdered, raped, looted at the start of the Shariafication drive of the Valley in the late 80’s – long before the excuse of all Muslim reaction stemming from the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could be given ?
The only logical explanation, thus, for the sudden hanging of Afzal Guru is the fact that general elections are around the corner.
And the Congress in its usual cynical manipulation of the votes is trying to eat into the majority constituency with this action. As for the Kashmiris they do not figure in Delhi’s plans. As for the secular forces, the argument voiced by Congress leaders is: ‘Where will you go. If there is Modi as prime minister you will have to be with us.’
So the minorities do not figure either, as they are the bechaara who can easily be made to run into Congress arms while fleeing from communal shadows. The secularists too, in the Congress analysis, will not be far behind as there is no Left and hence no Third Front alternative that could attract them in the polls.
So all in all a cozy scenario, except for the fact that the dynamics of India and the aspirations of the people cannot be controlled and tend to upset the most careful calibrations.
Tut -tut! why such a frustration? Is it so bad to be on the receiving end of the religious politics which had been so good for so many decades in expanding the network of madrassahs and Islamism spreading structures fueled by Gulf money and complicity by Islamophile regimes of the Left and Congress? If the Congress is really the supreme popularists they are made out to be, if saffron is really the outcast of Indian politics, and yet the Congress feels the pressure to need to appease the “majority” of the populations of India – that appeasement politics has run its steam off? That no longer should any population be hostage to the type of totalitariansim represented by Islamism – under excuses or threats of “potential damage”?
Take Islamist threats of damaging more liberal societies, and the tactics of emasculating entire societies by trying to raise apocalyptic visions of destruction and “damages” if terrorists are not pampered – with yourselves away from the public space! Nay! Better – speak more about this – because by doing so, the cozy arrangement to manipulate public opinion through clever manipulation of appeal to liberal values to progress non-liberal agenda and veiled threats of violence otherwise – gets more and more exposed.
Prequel : from a friend’s note saw that the UK Daily Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 claims the name of the target of the gangrape to be Jyothi Singh Pandey. The first name means “light/illumination/brightness”. The middle name is a common patronymic/family/clan name of Northern India, meaning “Lion”, and the last name derives from Hindu “Pundit”, almost surely assigned only to “Brahmin” lineages. In India, we can now hear the bandying of “rape of Dalit girls” as a special issue – as if in Indian identity politics, even “rape” can be classified based on politically correct positive discrimination lines. Somehow, it appears that by the frequent throwing of a special phrase of “Dalit rape”, the rape of a Dalit girl is of a different order compared to the rape of a “Brahmin” girl. If according to tweeter allegations, the alleged minor who is alleged to have inserted the u-bar and ripped intestines by hand through the vagina, turns out to be a Muslim – then this rape flies against all the propaganda dished out by regime influence over Indian media – that it is only “repressive” “upper caste” Hindus who repress and rape minorities and “Dalits”. But again India is a strange society nowadays where people feel ashamed to be Indians over a rape, unlike most other countries whose leadership only make profound promises to “correct the situation”, but who never apologize or feel ashamed.
Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan and Tech Wizard Narayana Murthy – two iconic Indians of modernity, from two opposite ends of public entertainment and economic value creation, have been reported on Indian media as supposedly having felt “ashamed to be an Indian” over the issue of the Delhi gang rape.
Women activists on TV chat shows and discussion rounds have directly or indirectly blamed “Indian traditional attitudes” for the mistreatment of Indian women. The list of complaints is long : patriarchy, religious orthodoxy, fundamentalism. The overall impression in going through the media representations is however – a definite sense of discomfort in blaming “religion” for it. The reasons are obvious, because both Islam and Christianity in India have shown their orthodox, and religiously motivated, attitudes towards the female body and the female role in society so often and so intensively – that the main target of so-called secular politics, that is “Hindutva”, cannot be singled out, and the prime favourites of secularists will also get tarred and feathered.
The real reasons as to why Indians are in a spot is because they have been forced by regime dependent and encouraged professional historiography to cover up the reality of Indian cultural development, being forced to swallow fanciful reconstructions of Indian past where foreign imperialist ideologies like Islam and colonial period European Christianity had to be shown as having immensely positively shaped and “reformed” a supposedly “backward, primitive, pagan, Brahminical, repressive” Indian society.
The brevity of this post forces me to touch upon some of the myths of Indian history – especially where it concerns women, but very briefly.
Vedic and Puranic literature show ample examples of women choosing their own husbands, having the right to approach and be “satisfied” by a man they took fancy to, to go out on dates with other men even while having fixed longer term partners and children [the very institution of Vedic marriage rites as a contract of mutual loyalty by the sage Swetaketu – son of Uddalaka – because he did not like his own mother going out with a strange man when he was a child and his father explained that women were free to “roam” and were not be held as private property]. If a woman chose to have a child outside of marriage, she and her child were both acceptable – for example, a founder of a Brahmin lineage, Bharadwaja, was a son of his mother Mamata by her brother-in-law Brihaspati (brother of her husband), and delivered twins she carried at the same time – one from her husband, and the other from the brother-in-law. Puranic literature shows many cases of women proposing to men they fell in love with, or have clandestine marriages [the story of Shakuntala], and being recognized as founders of prestigious lineages. Brahma’s unmarried daughter Saraswati declares that she would like to go and “live” with the Gandharvas because they know how to “please” women and she is not prevented from doing so.
The two famous epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata are much lambasted by western and Indian scholars as epitomizing patriarchal attitudes and repression. The central story of Ramayana revolves around the destruction of a whole city and a king because he abducted the wife of another. But the same story also told how an “adultress” could still “come back to life” and be taken back into society (Ahalya), and how it was okay for a wife to sit through the murder of her husband to marry the brother of her husband, whom she loved and served loyally (Tara). A key feature of the Mahabharata is however that a woman could practice polyandry – with the lead characters of the five-brothers sharing one significant wife. What is not mentioned is that Mahabharata shows the prevalence of swayamvara – the open and public choice of husbands by eligible girls, and of warrior women who go and fight alongside their husbands or even without husbands. At least two women, Satyabhama, the wife of Krishna, and Chitrangada, the wife of Arjuna – are described as having actually taken to the battlefield – with their partners/lovers/husbands.
A primary cause of the core story of the Mahabhrata war is given to be the molestation of the wife of the five-brothers in public space. Thus molestation of women was seen to be worthy of terrible retribution. In fact in a little highlighted passage, Krishna explains the reason as to why the brothers who were reluctant to shed the blood of their kin, should actually take up arms – because if their elite-status wife could be so molested, what about the protection of women in general society? They should fight the war to re-establish “dharma” which among many other things, was also supposed to ensure freedom and dignity for women. With one exception, all abduction of women, in Mahabharata is punished – one way or the other – even in a society that recognized certain types of “abduction” if ended with “honourable” marriages. Bhisma, abducts Kasi princesses to give in marriage to his nephews (by the custom of his times he had a right to be angry because his nephews had not been invited to the sayambhara of the girls), but is punished for not marrying them – even if he did not rape or molest them – by having to die at the hands of a transgender enemy. The Kurus are destroyed horribly because their leader molested a wife.
Interestingly, women were abadhya/aghnaya – or could not be killed, even in war-situations. A commander of one side, Bhisma, drops his weapons when faced with a transgender opponent- whom he considers a woman, and allows himself to be fatally wounded to maintain this principle of conduct of war.
Sounds oh so Brahminical and patriarchal and repressive towards women, sexuality and the female body?
Indian regimes and historians often portray the advent of Buddhism as a “liberating” and “reforming” movement that “cleansed” Indian post-Vedic society from the “evils of Brahminism”, and try to shift all blame to the Vedic as being repressive towards “caste” and “women”. I have great respects for the Buddhists, but I am intrigued by very curious features of early and later Buddhism, that go against the propaganda.
First, early Buddhist literature show two things not shared in general by the Vedic – the gradation of human work as “uttama” (good/higher) and “adhama”(evil/lower) based, presumably on whether the work involved violence or not, and the emphasis given in Buddhism to the connection between “uttama/adhama” karma to reincarnation in a better future life or lesser punishment in such future existence. This would give an early pointer as to how and why categories of work connected to animal husbandry or butchery, or tanning would become later “untouchable”. Buddha and his disciples seem to be over-aware of “superiority” of caste. If one tries to read up the extant early Buddhist literature, one can see “Brahmana” and “Sramana”(the term reserved for Buddhist aspirants and initiates) used equivalently. Moreover the Buddha is reluctant to be born in any other caste that “Kshatryia”or “Brahmin” in his next incarnation as Maitreya – because those are the “empowered” categories of society. So even the early Buddhists did not think their movement would abolish castes and hierarchies.
The more important feature relevant for our current discussion is the attitude towards women, women’s bodies and their dress and public behaviour. Many Vinayas and early texts portray women who freely move around in public in a disparaging tone, hinting at “low moral character”. Significantly the Buddha is claimed to have been reluctant in the early days to allow women to become members of his cloister or become nuns. After a lot of appeal from the women, he is supposed to have allowed them to join on condition that they follow certain restrictions on conduct in addition to those applicable for monks. Most interestingly these conditions pay a great deal of attention as to how the female body of the nun is to be “covered up” and require the nuns to be always under the authority of a male monk.
Bhikṣunīvibhaṅga, says that a bhikṣunī “should not show her nakedness when bathing. She is advised to either bathe in a screened-off area or to wear a bathing cloth”. Also another must-wear is kaṇṭhapraticchādana, “a robe that covers the rounding (of the breasts)”. All the Vinaya texts devote a lot of space to discussing the exact forms of coverage of different parts of the nun’s body – all adding at least two more items of covering-dress over and above the three reserved for monks.
The important thing to note here is that the nuns are segregated cloistered members of the movement, and their covering up in public is insisted upon as “setting an example” to “society” on exemplary “moral conduct”. This in turn implies that their covering up was not needed within a segregated cloister, and the general public was less concerned about covering up – so much so that the nuns had to be sent out to set an example.
But let us see what the non-Buddhists – before the advent of the Buddhists, were doing about women. Vandhul Malla, and his wife, a couple of martial arts experts and warriors, trained Visakha, the daughter of prosperous merchants, in warfare, chariot driving, weapons and “wrestling”. This daughter of merchants, married another merchant, set up her own household away from the extended family of her husbands, and ran her own business over and above that of her husband’s. This was the lady who was very much in public life, and with many other similar independent, business or otherwise productively engaged women – who were instrumental in promoting the early Buddhist “church”. They were not Buddhists, or the society that produced them were not Buddhists.
Chinese pilgrims visiting India from the middle of the 4th to the 8th century, similarly speak of the general freedom of movement of women, and the general law-abiding nature of citizens, with not much mention of crimes against women. This is the period when Buddhism was supposed to be in retreat, under huge repression from revivalist “Brahminism”.
Many of the women activists on Indian TV have referred to how “suttee” was stamped out by colonial regimes, as a model of how to deal with “patriarchal repressive traditions”. Interestingly, even as late as the first successful Muslim raid on Sindh portion of India in 712, as per the version of Islamic chroniclers whose claims on Indian society are claimed by professional historians to be “accurate” if they show non-Muslim society in any negative light (but “exaggeration” and “boasting” or “fanciful” if it shows Islam in negative light) – the mother of the reigning king, wife of Chach, had actually helped in the assassination of the previous king and her previous husband – because she had fallen in love with a visiting handsome young Brahmin to her husband’s court – Chach.
Note that a wife could remove her husband from power, marry her lover, without facing social hue and cry and opposition, and without being forced to commit “suttee”. She was a “Rajput” to boot too.
But with the advent of Muslims, Indian society goes quickly downhill. Rape, abduction, public humiliation and sale of captive women become the norm. Girls and women are no longer safe in the public domain, and educational or professional space is closed off for women. The extremely misogynist, and sexually commodifying memes in Islam and Sharia take over the definition of Indian womanhood. The incidence of jauhar or “suttee”, self-immolation by widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands or on separate pyres, begin to be frequently mentioned only from the advent of Islamic armies. The label of “suttee” and widow-burning however stuck to the Hindu forever.
In my “how Islam came to India” series, I have shown how Qasim’s successful raid (three previous ones had failed) had as one of its primary objectives (apart from making good the war chest) the capture and enslavement of Indian women. Thousands of Sindhi women were captured, inspected in the public like cattle, enslaved and given as rewards to jihadis or reserved for the Baghdad markets and for the private pleasure of the pious leaders of Islam around their Gulf dens. The Islamic attitude that entered India at this stage can be estimated from the Islamist side story that – Qasim was executed with typical Islamic barbarity (by being stitched within raw animal hide, and then nails driven into the bundle – the rawhide would dry up and strangulate him also at the same time). His crime : the two Sindhi princesses he had sent for the pious head of Islam – the Caliph’s personal pleasures – were found no longer to be “virgins” in the bed by the pious Caliph. Whether the girls themselves tore their hymen and accused Qasim of “rape” – as told in some versions of the story, or their hymen tore because of some other causes – the fact comes out that these enslaved girls were vulnerable to rape during transport and sale.
All those crying hoarse about “Indian” traditions, should take note of the explanatory note given as the speech by the princesses – to the effect that they warn the Caliph about not “trusting mere women” on accusations of “rape”, and that the Caliph should not have taken their word for it. This single story gives out the entire mindset of Islam that imposed itself on India. A girl crying rape was not to be believed easily against a man’s claim of innocence. Women are manipulative and they cry rape by tearing their own hymen. The status of a woman is that of “merely a woman/slave” and hence her words did not matter. And most significantly, where the “virginity” of the woman did not matter to the repressive culture “brahmin” Chach who married a widow and happily produced children with her – in the same period – the supreme leader of Islam has his goats shaken by discovering that his captive and enslaved bed-fellow was not a “virgin”.
How did women began to become a “problem” for Hindu households? In my post on “peaceful Sufis”, I have given the details on how the famous Sufi founder of Ajmer Sahrif obtained his wife. He “dreamed” that his prophet visited him and chastised him for not “keeping sunna” (not having a wife) and promptly the local Islamic commander arranged for a regional chief’s daughter to be captured and given to him that very “night”. The Sylheti “mouthpiece of peace” from Yemen, Shah Jalal – took up swords against the local non-Muslim ruler, whose daughter Anandi “promptly fell in love with this paragon of peace with a sword in hand on the battle field itself” (what was the girl doing there?), and was “immediately” “converted” and was married on the “battlefield”.
Shams Siraj Afif (fourteenth century) write “Firoz Shah was born in the year 709 H. (1309 C.E.). His father was named Sipahsalar Rajjab, who was a brother of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq Ghazi. The three brothers, Tughlaq, Rajjab, and Abu Bakr, came from Khurasan to Delhi in the reign of Alauddin (Khalji), and that monarch took all the three in the service of the Court. The Sultan conferred upon Tughlaq the country of Dipalpur. Tughlaq was desirous that his brother Sipahsalar Rajjab should obtain in marriage the daughter of one of the Rais of Dipalpur. He was informed that the daughters of Ranamall Bhatti were very beautiful and accomplished. Tughlaq sent to Ranamall a proposal of marriage. Ranamall refused. Upon this Tughlaq proceeded to the villages (talwandi) belonging to Ranamall and demanded payment of the whole year’s revenue in a lump sum. The Muqaddams and Chaudharis were subjected to coercion. Ranamall’s people were helpless and could do nothing, for those were the days of Alauddin, and no one dared to make an outcry. One damsel was brought to Dipalpur. Before her marriage she was called Bibi Naila. On entering the house of Sipahsalar Rajjab she was styled Sultan Bibi Kadbanu. After the lapse of a few years she gave birth to Firoz shah“. If this could be accomplished by force by a regional officer, there was nothing to stop the king. In the seventeenth century, Jahangir writes in his Memoirs that after the third year of his accession, “I demanded in marriage the daughter of Jagat Singh, eldest son of Raja Man Singh (of Amer). Raja Ram Chandra Bundela was defeated, imprisoned, and subsequently released by Jahangir. Later on, says Jahangir, “I took the daughter of Ram Chandra Bandilah into my service (i.e. married her)”.
Ibn Battuta who visited India during Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s reign and stayed at the Court for a long time writes: “At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Vazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them to me. My companion took three girls, and – I do not know what happened to the rest.” On the large scale distribution of girl slaves on the occasion of Muslim festivals like Id, he writes: “First of all, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year, come and sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing. The Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives, sons of Maliks etc. On the second day the durbar is held in a similar fashion after Asr. Female singers are brought out. the Sultan distributes them among the Mameluke Amirs”. Thousands of non-Muslim women were distributed in the above manner in later years.
The few incidents I quoted above, are just a few among thousands of such narratives – described with pride and glee by Islamic chroniclers. Wherever Muslims arrive for the first time in India, their chronicles show extreme surprise at the openness of Indian/Hindu womens’ public presence, their lack of “proper covering” (proper in the Islamic head-to-toe sense), and their relative freedom in society. The father of the doyen of Indian secularism – Hyder Ali, father of Tipu – is described in Nishan-i-Hyduri to have enslaved Coorgi women when he attacked Coorg – for their heinous crime of walking about bare-breasted or short dresses.
Thus it became a norm for Indian society – to be anxious and unhappy at the birth of the girl child, because the girl child brought rape, raid, and destruction of families, livelihoods, and entire communities. The girl child had to be married off early, hidden from the eager glances of every local muslim who felt it was his divine right to appropriate the beautiful of the kaffir for rape or other pleasures , and therefore not to be educated, not to be given skills to run businesses or professions, and closeted out of sunlight. Hidden away from the public place – so that even her existence did not come under the notice of Islamic hunters for female flesh.
Society takes a long time to come out of what had become a rationalization of impotence – especially if it had to be tolerated for more than a thousand years.
Indian culture is not about the violently misogynist memes of the Middle East, and Indians should not feel ashamed of their true culture – which was far different from the Islamic hybrid it is now pushed as for. It is a case of mistaken identities.
The alleged gangrape and torture of a young woman in the Indian capital of New Delhi, which ultimately led to her death two weeks later has become partly an international, and definitely an Indian national issue. The youth of the capital took to the streets, and soon the government was seen to be on the backfoot. It had failed to gauge the game changing paradigm of electronic bypassing of older political mobilization forms. It unleashed its police on the youth while keeping up the appearance of listening to youth grievances by meeting student leaders from its own and other official political party student fronts.
The reaction to the protests and the nature of the protests – both represent a sign of things to come for the existing political parties of India, but more of that in a separate post. Today, I will only raise a disturbing angle of the alleged rape that haunts me through my comparison of notes of rape as a penal instrument, used all around the subcontinent. The issue is that, unconfirmed but semi-official media reports indicate the possibility of the woman having been subjected to sharp instrument insertion into the vagina, as well as the possibility of an attempt to tear out the uterus.
The use of metal/hard objects after or during the rape – is usually a feature of penal rapes, typically done in a gang/group, and is reported more from Islamist or Muslim contexts. The rape is not just about sex, but also about penalizing – for being a woman, for being a non-muslim, for being the “temptresses” and leaders of going astray – as portrayed repeatedly in various contexts in the core texts of the theology.
I would expect such penal rapes to be more frequent the closer we get to long-time centres of Islamic military power in the subcontinent, in a gradient of increasing intensity as we move from the east to the west of Gangetic Valley, increasing from India to the Middle East across Pakistan.
Although the Ayatollahate would deny this – the following has consistent commonality with what the Pakistani soldiers do wherever they go, with concrete evidence for 1971 in now Bangladesh :
“On August 9, in a letter published in the Etemad Melli paper, the reformist presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi wrote that some detained individuals stated that some authorities have raped detained women with such force, they have sustained injuries and tears in to their reproductive system.”In another high-profile case, the very pretty 19-year old Taraneh was not shot with a single bullet to her chest, as was the case with Neda Agha Sultan There were no bystanders in the dungeon with a cell phone to capture the prolonged torture, rape, and sodomy of this teenager.According to reports, as well as testimony on the House floor from the honorable U.S. Congressman McCotter, on June 28, 2009, Taraneh Mousavi, a young Iranian woman, was literally scooped off the streets without any provocation on her part and with no arrest warrant. This young woman was taken to one of the regime’s torture chambers, where she was repeatedly brutalized, raped, and sodomized by Ahmadinejad’s agents, and with the consent of the “supreme leader,” Ali Khamenei.
Near death from repeated beating, raping and sodomizing, the fragile young woman, bleeding profusely from her rectum and womb, was transferred to a hospital in Karaj near Tehran. Eventually, an anonymous person notified Taraneh’s family that she had had an “accident” and had been to be taken to the hospital.
The devastated family rushed to the hospital only to find no trace of their beloved daughter. The foot-soldiers of Allah’s “divine representative” Ali Khamenei decided to eliminate all traces of their savagery. These vile people decided to remove the dying woman from the hospital before the family’s arrival, whereupon they burned her beyond recognition and dumped her charred remains on the side of the road.
It was then that they began raping the girls. They wanted sex as they killed, and this is sexual homicide. A sex killer gets excited when he thinks about forcing himself inside an unwilling victim, but the rape itself does not produce the ultimate excitement. It is the rape followed by the killing that is arousing. This is what happened at Beslan.
One by one, females were targeted. The sex killers looked for the perfect victims, and after zeroing in, they grabbed and disrobed the little girls in the middle of the gym. There were muffled cries as the girls were humiliated in front of everyone. They were stripped, raped, and sodomized by several men. Not content to simply rape, the terrorists used their guns and other objects to penetrate the screaming victims while the other hostages were forced to watch. And the terrorists laughed. They laughed as they violated the children and made them bleed. What few people know is that some of the girls died as a result of being raped with objects. The internal damage was so severe that without immediate medical attention, the girls bled to death. Those who managed to survive required extensive reconstructive surgery and painful recoveries.But raping the girls was not enough for the deviants who had entered the school. The terrorists beat the other children. In fact, beatings took place regularly, and as they pummeled the little ones, the terrorists smiled and laughed. It was said that they would strike a child and then watch the child cringe. When the youngsters recoiled, their captors laughed. This says the offenders enjoyed inflicting the suffering. They wanted their victims to suffer.
Use of similar methods was peculiarly more intense in post-Islamic Spanish inquisition – compared to the rest of Europe. We know now, that opportunist Muslims switched sides during the final days and became devout Catholics. We see similar attitudes in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or in the cancer that is now attempting to take over the frontier space across Russia in Daghestan or Chechnya.
Psychologically speaking, it could have connections to some hatred of the “mother”, the “uterus” being symbolic of that, a convoluted connection to self-hatred and hatred for imagined or real neglect/abandonment by the mother [and very peculiarly prominent in the founding stages of the leaders of the theology itself].
Whoever had primary role in that gang in doing this, is likely to have been exposed to the inner anecdotal/undercurrent of the meme of “penal rape” in the theology. By the way, with a lot of talk about Honey Singh, an Indian origin rapper apparently noted for raunchy lyrics and what has been described by womens’ rights groups as being misogynist and almost condoning rape – is claimed to be extremely popular or topping the chart in the Punjab and North India – and expectedly Bollywood. Now why exactly is he so popular exactly in that region, that saw the earliest and longest entrenchment of Islamic military power in the subcontinent – lies the answer.
Given the patterns, the psychological drive would be to dehumanize the woman – that is the reason even the penis is not used finally to commit the rape – it becomes a disembodied, dehumanized blunt or sharp tool. I would expect it to be accompanied by related dehumanizing actions – like urinating on the mouth/body etc. If they ever fully make the chargesheet public there is likely to be indications of this. But officially administrations typically drop the actual details of torture from public access. One cannot find the details in the judgment copies available for open access – on torture of women in police custody, for example. The now well-known case of Archana Guha’s is an example where public domain material, including the judgments, do not have the attached evidence – claims, and to know about what possibly this woman had to face, one has to look up a biography of her written by another woman.
My salute for the girl who fought to resist the six subhumans, as well as for Guha and her biographer.
I had to write allegedly in the title. First I have no real means of verifying the allegation, especially if any Islamophile regime in India decided to bring its full coercive power behind Islam. Second, I would not have needed the allegation qualifier – if it was say the case of a Muslim husband Rizwanur, being “murdered” (and no need for “allegedly” here) by Hindus for marrying a Hindu woman in the same province. As shown by the media of West Bengal, the then governments at centre and state, and the then fiery activist and the current Chief Minister of the province – who made it a public issue, offering namaaz e janaaja lamenting Rizwanur – and whose current police administration is now alleged to be suppressing the current incident from taking legal course.
For all those on the net, who believe in the supposed one-sided repression and violence on Muslims by Hindus in India, here is version that looks at cases on the ground from the other direction. This might not have been what really happened, this might be an exaggeration, murderers and criminals have no religion, yadda, yadda. But do we allow such doubts to creep in when we accuse non-Muslims on supposed atrocities on Muslims?
Dipankar Roy, 22 years old (Hindu) was brutally murdered as he had married Salima (Muslim). Both of them had been in love for a while. The victim was riding his motorbike coming back from Chandpara to his own house, when he was lynched and shot dead by Muslim activists led by Aamir Mandal, a member of the local Islamist organization. Dipankar’s body was found in a pool of blood and bore multiple bullet wounds in the chest, abdomen and shoulders. But West Bengal police has not bothered to arrest the murderers, as there is intense pressure from the local Muslim religious bodies. Instead, the police is trying to shield the perpetrators. District: North 24 Parganas. Subdivision: Bongaon. Near the Bangladesh border.
The alleged role of the provincial administration:
on December 5th, 2012, 05/12/2012 when the relatives of Dipankar Roy, who was killed by Aamir Ali on 03/12/2012, went to RG Kar Hospital morgue. At first, Shri Malay Roy (cousin brother of the victim) and Shri Haridas (brother in law) remained unattended for several hours. Later, when they insisted for the dead body, local police under Tala police station informed them, off the record, that it is instructed from the higher position to delay the process so that no sentiment can be created amongst Hindus while returning to their home town.
According to the blog-poster, the West Bengal police, under pressure from the local Muslim clergy-mafia nexus, is now barging into Dipankar’s house and intimidating / creating mental pressure upon the family members of the victim to cremate his body at the dead of the night without post-mortem, to avoid any further investigation into this issue.
After intervention of Hindu Samhati activists, the deadbody was finally released at around 4pm, post mortem was done, but that too without a medical certificate. One police from Bangaon police station Mr. Ranjan was posted in the hospital for passing minute by minute report to Bangaon police station. He insisted to accompany the deadbody in the small truck but family members objected to that citing very small place inside the truck. Then he called In-Charge Bangaon police station and forcibly entered into the truck under his instructions.
Later, the body of the victim was brought at Barasat. Activists of Hindu Samhati paid their homage to the victim. Then similar kind of program was also organized at Chandpara, Nera Pukur Pas en route to their house.
Late in the night, police came to the house of the victim and forced the family members to perform the last rites in the night itself as the Administration was scared of any communal tension in the area arising out of the cremation of the victim. Sisters and brother-in-laws of the victim strongly turned down the proposal of the administration and stuck to their demand for cremation in the morning. Then, local MLA (member of legislative assembly) came to their house at around 2330 hours and again, for half an hour, tried to convince the family for early cremation but it went in vain.
According to the blog, on 6th December morning, the family members proceeded towards the crematorium for last rites.
Police had been deployed in huge numbers, especially in front of houses of Hindu Samhati activists. 500 plus people blocked the road in front of SDPO office at Bangaon town, as they carried Dipankar’s corpse. They were demanding immediate arrest of the killers of Dipankar.
This is not an isolated story in India. There is a huge propaganda machinery that runs in overdrive about supposed atrocities on Muslims in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The reality is that the troubles in Kashmir started long before the so-called 1990’s demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya, or the so-called one-sided riot on Muslims in Gujarat, with several cases in the Kashmir Valley in the 60’s and 70’s whereby Hindu girls were abducted and raped systematically by Muslim gangs. Throughout northern India, especially in places of high muslim concentrations, riots and conflicts frequently break out on instigation by Islamics. They know, that their specific religious agenda and role will be protected by the politico-business-mafia interests that control the Gangetic Valley – and since the media is under constant threat unless it toes the regime lines (two Zee news functionaries were recently dragged to jail on allegations of extortion by a Congress MP) – no reports on any Islamic atrocity gets ever published or aired in India. A string of recent atrocities in the southern state of Kerala against Hindus, where a spate of gruesome ritualistic slaughter of animals, especially dogs, have also taken place and been interpreted to reflect the Islamic hatred and love for torturing dogs out of their founder’s possible hatred of Hekate. (There have been reports of the Afghan National Army members bringing in stray dogs into their compounds to torture and mutilate them to death.)
Just because the Indian state machinery manages to suppress the release of such information in the public domain, does not necessarily mean that Islamist atrocities on non-Muslims in India, are not happening. Non-Hindus might rejoice secretly if Muslims eliminate Hindus, imagining that the space might then be clear for other proselytizing religions to harvest new slaves of their respective religions. But the fact remains that once mullahcracy takes over a country – Christians are constantly tortured and eliminated too, and the supremely confident Christian evangelists in the west, who boast such spectacular success on “pagans”- fail completely and abjectly and run with their tail behind their hind legs where it comes to harvesting Muslims.
It is crucial for the non-Muslims to unite in their perception of the totalitarianism represented by Islamism.
For some time now, the Indian state of Assam has been on the news due to its large-scale civilian strife and internal displacement of communities. But even more spectacularly, the internet and the media to an extent – has been ablaze with the issue of alleged threat mails and texts that perhaps forced a lot of migrant labour and students from the North Eastern ends of India. Following up, the government of India apparently has moved on in its bid to control the net, just like almost any other government on the planet, on the formal platform of protecting vulnerable people.
I will not go into the details of the Assam ethnicity, migration, religious divide problem that is essential to get a perspective of what is happening there and why. But in this Kafkaesque world of interest groups, doublespeak, hidden motivations shaped in their outward expression by complicated legacies of history and concocted morality, what is much more revealing is what the intellectuals and the self-acknowledged voices of nations and communities say on the issue.
I will pick on a very interesting voice pointed out to me by a friend, that of Amaresh Mishra in his timesofIndia blog. Mishra gives a good clue to his ideological lens in the very beginning lines
Before joining the Times of India in 1993 as a roving correspondent, I was part of the radical Left movement led then by the CPI-ML (Liberation). However, sufferings of dalits, adivasis and the working classes—natural Left constituencies—did not contribute to my early, personal radicalization. Still a student leader in the Allahabad University, I took active part in debates, discussions concerning national-international topics—and agitations mainly—on student issues.
In 1984, the day our Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, I was in Calcutta. I had gone there to take part in the national conference of the Indian Peoples Front—the only attempt of its kind—of a Communist Party sponsoring a democratic-peoples party in India—made under the leadership of late comrade Vinod Mishra—the then general secretary of the CPI-ML (Liberation).
Mishra, says much more about where his mindset comes from – that of the Maoist strand within Indian communism, which typically frantically tries to distinguish itself from the second attempt at puritanism within Indian Marxism – that of CPI(M=Marxist), by adding the claim to be closer to Lenin in the L of its CPI(ML). In so many ways, the communists seem to uncannily reflect the classical search for ever more purity and a return to the golden mythical pure origins of all totalitarian and monoiconic ideologies including totalitarian religions – through evermore stringent factional and sectarian schisms.
Eric Hoffer writes : “Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth. …Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power. …The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. …It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.” (The True Believer, Psychology of Mass Movements, 1948, p. 110-111)
This sense of inadequacy and insufficiency, minus the humility of spirituality, leads to a constant instability and inequilibrium that leads the communist radical as much as a religious one, into a permanent search for something to feel guilty about and atone for that guilt by extreme action on a focused enemy, the “other”, the devil of his instantaneous ideology. Note that Mishra is perhaps subconsciously aware of this – in that he claims that his radicalism did not stem from communism per se but had existed even before – that his innate fanaticism and radicalism perhaps only found an appropriate vehicle to express itself.
Mishra explains his “anti-right wing” radical thoughts based on his glimpse of communal violence in 1984, when according to him he witnesses an atrocity:
Back then, I was only 18 years of age; the incident traumatized me so deeply that after I got back to Allahabad I fought with everyone—including my close relatives—who—as per the norm those days—were abusing Sikhs incessantly.
For several days, I was unable to sleep; I was full of rage; it was good that I did not have access to a gun those days—I would certainly have used it on some right-wing, communal/anti-Sikh element in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
I am expressing my inner most urges to make a point—that during desperate/unjust times—a sensitive human being—belonging to the majority community—can be driven to anti right-wing violence. Being a ruling class brahmin—whose family had protected Muslims during the 1947 riots—and who took any violence against minorities as a challenge to his sense of honour directly—also must have contributed a lot to my aggressive stance.
So, imagine the plight/mindset of minority communities who saw unspeakable crimes—raping of daughters and mauling of children—being committed on their kith and kin.
It is most illuminating that Mishra always thinks of the “majority” in the context of the “Hindu”, and never ever expresses similar thoughts about the plight of the “minority” Hindu or Buddhist in Muslim majority areas or societies. In his memory and narrative, the “majority” member Hindu-Brahmin ancestor of his, is and does what is expected of the “majority” in any society. However, he conspicuously avoids the issue of duty of similar muslim majorities to protect the humanity and dignity of minorities in Muslim majority countries – even on the subcontinent and as neighbours, as in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where minorities have been systematically targeted for elimination and have been constantly dwindling from the time of Partition. Mishra of course needs to be completely silent about similar trauma and reaction in the “Hindus” seeing similar action during the Partition – when a future luminary of Pakistan, and icon of Bangladesh , Hussein Suhrawardy allowed a planned pogrom of Hindus to go through in Noakhali and Calcutta. Mishra cannot cite Liaqat Khan’s role in organizing a pogrom of Sindhi Hindus and what effect such memories should have had on Hindu survivors!
Amaresh Mishra then goes on to list the long tale of alleged woes of Muslims in India and allegations of state connivance in supposed “right-wing” torture. For Mishra’s deracinated guilt-ridden conscience, however, it does not pay to remember the case of the Kashmir Valley and the state sponsored “Muslim” “right-wing” atrocity on the Kashmir Valley Hindus from as early as late 60’s and early 70’s. Mishra has never heard of a certain Kashmiri Pundit girl who was abducted and the consequences thereof – long, long before the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.
Mishra accepts that in India, it was possible to flourish as an “upper-caste” “ex-Naxalite”. He fails to realize, that in his clever self-pity, he shows that even after passing through “Naxalism”, it was impossible for someone to leave behind his awareness of privileged birth. Or therein lies the tragedy and the real failure of the Indian leftist, the failure to realize that his leftist radicalism often has its roots in an imperfect digestion of his Hindu cultural roots. The reason that the ranks of leftism are dominated by “upper castes” and Hindus, but not Muslims or Christians – who only make rare appearances, lie in Hindu threads of a pervasive universal humanism that has remained alive through texts and folk belief in spite of the louder voices of so-called elitism of caste or jaati-varna hierarchies. Islamic culture theologically endorses property, and the imperialism shaped later Christianity similarly endorses authoritarianism and property, and discourage rebellions against the theologically approved regimes which protect those very things that the Left seeks to destroy.
The remainder of Mishras’ article goes on to repeat the allegations in the current Congress led Indian regime’s attempts at sticking the blame for almost each and every terrorist atrocity on Indian soil at the door of Congress’s hated “other”, the apotheosis, the “devil” – of the saffron, or the “Hindu”. Mishra’s political project therefore does not wait to mention the fact that many of these alleged cases against the so-called saffron terror themselves suffer from allegations of torture, political witchhunts, use of state machinery to serve electoral calculations, and that some of the accused could very well be agents provocateurs sent deliberately by the state – like a certain Col Purohit.
Is it so that Mishra perhaps needs a devil, a satan, on whom he can put the sense of all his inadequacies, and transfer all his guilt to? The underlying Hindu memes of equality of all mankind – amritasya putra of the Upanishads, the persistent and recurring post-Vedic Indian thinkers who repeatedly fought with the elite against claims of hierarchy and superiority, prepare him to expect social justice for all humanity- something a predominantly Muslim society never, ever feels towards the non-Muslims. But the established social hierarchy that gave birth to him practices differently from the underlying memes, and this contributes part of the guilt.
But the major part of the guilt comes from the colonial project of Macaulay, prompted by his dear friend Sir William Jones, and other missionaries aligned to the imperialist project on British India. Jones’s favourite textual representation of “Hinduism” was the work attributed to Manu, even though at the time, there was ample evidence that in India, various other Hindu texts were actually followed – like the various grihya sutras of Apastambha, Baudhayana, or Gautama – many far more liberal than that of Manu. In fact modern scholarship excavates increasingly the reality of 18th and 19th century Indian “Hindu”legal practice as far more heterodox and non-Manu like than the British colonial project wanted it to be. For the British empire, demonizing the “Brahmin” was a primary necessity – just as it was for the centuries of Muslim invaders before them. The cultural and intellectual legitimacy of the “Hindu” needed to be undermined and associated with guilt before the colonial project could succeed fully. The source of Mishraic guilt lies in that colonial project. Even the very fact of his “Brahmin” upper-caste ancestor behaving very un-Brahmin-like during 1947 fails to stir him to question the Islamist and British colonial stereotype of the evil caste-repressive “Brahmin” exploiter.
The intellectual limitations that lead to Mishra’s feverish imagination of conspiracy theories could have been overcome had he allowed himself to look at news items like the following:
Khine Myo Min: Myanmar government authority in Sittwe evacuated ninety eight Hindu refugees from Bengali Muslim dominated refugee camps to downtown Sittwe on Wednesday.
98 people from 18 Hindu families were moved from their current shelter of Thae Chaung and Thak Kay Pron camps to Sittwe city due to increased threats by Bengali Muslim extremists after many reported rapes and attempted rapes and tortures committed by the Bengali Muslims who are majority in the camp.
A mind more used to logical dissection without ideological preoccupations, would have immediately noted the peculiarity by which even the horrors of a common refugee existence fails to suppress the Islamic urge for genocide or repression/exploitation of the non-Muslim.
In constructing grand saffron conspiracies, Mishra ignores news items that come from his trusted “secular” side of the narrative construction business :
Cyber security agencies have apparently detected the hand of radical groups, such as the Popular Front of India (PFI) in Kerala and Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jehad al Islami (HuJI), while tracking SMSs that led to the exodus of Northeast people[…] they have been successful in detecting forwarding of bulk messages going viral from Bangladesh groups and PFI activists. Some of the messages hold out communal threats of retribution for alleged atrocities on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, a community in the Arakan state linked with Bangladesh, traditionally backed by Islamist and jihadist groups, such as the HuJI.
The Arakan state, in west Myanmar, lies on the route for supplying guns to Northeast insurgents through Cox’s Bazaar, in Chittagong in the past. The HuJI, formed by former Bangladeshi jihadists who took part in the Afghan civil war, was involved in the attack on Sheikh Hasina, now Bangladesh PM, in 2004.
The agencies, monitoring Facebook and Twitter, are also examining the possible role of the Hindu radical groups and the underworld.
Mishra, if he had retained his critical intellectual faculties, would have noticed that the “security” agencies could give much greater details in case of Islamist outfits, and could only add the “possibility” of “Hindu radicals” too being involved. Such equating of Islamism with saffronism seems to have become a requirement of Indian political correctness, often resulting in hilarious columns. Actually, such perspectives should have led to exploring the “possible role” of “Christian” groups in the North East too, with some prominent insurgent groups in the past having paraded their Christian identity a lot possibly in the hope attracting international sympathies from appropriate corners.
It is understandable as to why Mishra cannot quote the following items, or even dismiss them as concoctions of a right-wing state. His devil then has to be extended to icons he needs to clutch on to as the last remaining helpless wronged victims of his limitless guilt. If he has to acknowledge the reality, he loses the fulcrum of his life.
When armed communities are at each other’s throats in the three violence-hit western districts in Assam, the unarmed and unorganised are fleeing the state — mostly to West Bengal and Meghalaya. The fear factor has gripped Bengali Hindus — the softest target whenever violence takes over the state’s fragile peace — and Koch-Rajbonsi tribals are fleeing the Muslim-dominated Dhubri district over the last one month since the Bodo-Muslim clashes broke out on July 20.
Curfew was today clamped in an Allahabad locality as a precautionary measure while stray incidents took place in Lucknow during a street protest against the ongoing ethnic strife in Assam.
“The curfew was imposed in Kotwali police station area from 7 P.M. And will remain in force till midnight when further decision will be taken after reviewing the situation,” Additional District Magistrate (City), D P Giri told PTI. Trouble began this afternoon when a procession was being taken out by some members of a minority community in localities falling under Kotwali police station.
However, policemen deployed in the area objected to the procession pointing out that no prior permission had been obtained and that order had to be maintained in view of large crowds expected at places of worship on the occasion of the last Friday prayers of Ramzan. The agitators allegedly reacted strongly and tried to proceed with the procession with some of them indulging in heavy stone-pelting which left several persons, including some policemen, injured and caused damage to a number of shops in the vicinity and vehicles parked nearby. […] Earlier, the protest march in Lucknow after the Friday prayers turned violent here as a group of people, shouting slogans against alleged atrocities on minorities in Assam and Myanmar, resorted to stone pelting and vandalism. The protest march which started from near the Tile Wali Masjid created a ruckus on its way forcing business establishments to close down and vandalising parks and vehicles, a senior police official said.
When the RAF and PAC tried to stop them they indulged in brick batting damaging public properties and vehicles. The protesters also took offence to the presence of media covering the event and damaged their vehicles and equipments, police said.
Later police resorted to baton charge as the protesters tried to march towards Vidhan Sabha.
With such a single-track focus, Mishra therefore shows no grasp of the longer social processes of history and reconstruction of history by both the colonial forces as well as those to whom the colonialists handed over power. He shows in exemplary detail, why the Indian Left had long stopped thinking and questioning themselves, their very own belief systems and values – to check for how those very concepts and values were shaped. In thinking how others wanted them to think for their own geo-strategic purposes and projects, projects which themselves are now defunct – there might still have been a way out.
But indulging in such conspiracy theories actually helps the neo-imperialist strategies to succeed. Mishra will be nowhere to defend whatever is left of his society when the time comes, a society which people of his ideology have helped undo out of unthinking and politically created guilt.
There is a huge amount of web-chatter and media frenzy generated on the rare reports of alleged “saffron” atrocity on Christian proselytizers in India. There are even seminars and media spotlights on the secular bandwagon in India expressing solidarity or mounting public indignation shows at perceived “lesser penalties” for such alleged atrocities. Web based Christian views roundly and justifiably highlight the issue.
Interestingly, these same voices – both inside India and outside, Christians or Hindus who have learned to hate their birth culture, apparently still remain rather silent about the open threats issued by Kashmir Valley Muslims against Christian missionary and especially conversion activities.
In a recent open warning the Ameer of Karwani Islami, Maulana Ghulam Rasool Hami, has apparently expressed serious concern over the alleged role of Christian missionaries in converting young Kashmiri Muslim boys and girls to Christianity.
On Sunday, 30th October, Hami said that some Christian missionaries were attempting to alter the Muslim majority character of Jammu and Kashmir at the behest of America and Israel and added that “We ask Muslims who have fallen for the trap of these missionaries and converted to Christianity to present themselves before Ulema before Eid-ul-Azha, and seek repentance from Allah…..Otherwise, Karwani Islami and Darul-Ifta will convene a joint session of Ulema and Muftis on November 11 and issue a fatwa(decree) of social boycott against these converts”.
According to Hami, the Ulema will not remain silent over the activities of Christian missionaries. “ They are luring young Muslims with money to convert and we will go to any extent to stop their activities,” he said.
Hami and his Karwani Islami is not dismissible as an isolated, “fringe” group – as is typically done by so-called secularist apologists of Islamic sectarianism and exclusivism . Just few two days before, Mufti Bashir-ud-din – J&K’s official ” mufti azam”, or head Muslim clergyman – issued new summons to a leading Christian priest, CM Khanna, on Friday, asking him to appear before his court to explain his alleged activities of reported conversions of young local boys and girls at his church in Srinagar. Khanna alleged in counter that the mufti was annoyed with him because Khanna had expressed his inability to help the mufti in the admission of a boy to a Christian missionary school. Talking to Times of India, Mufti Azaam Bashir-ud-din is reported to have said: “Our shariat court had summoned the Christian priest, CM Khanna, to appear personally today at 11am but he failed to appear. Now we have issued fresh summons to him for personal appearance on November 12.”
I have often come up against the explanation for the alleged atrocities committed on Hindus in the Portuguese colony of Goa, apparently to cleanse the pagan out of Indians – known infamously as the Goan Inquisition – that the “Church” had nothing to do with it, and it was all about politics and politicians who were on the ground from the Portuguese side. No atrocity is ever to be blamed on “religion” but on the over-zealousness and “misinterpretations” of “one and only true doctrine of pure love and mercy” – all three mutually exclusive versions. It seems that the same logic is not to be applied to non-Judaeo-Christian-Islamic traditions -for whom all atrocities carried out by people overtly and officially allied to the religions stem from the religions themselves.
But when the same thing happens within a Judaeo-Christian tradition like Islamism, it becomes immensely problematic from the theoretical apologetics viewpoints. Here the theologians themselves are taking up the cudgel and clearly sourcing it within the claims of one-sided right to convert others.
It would be interesting to see some explanations of the puzzling silence from “secularists” and Christian evangelists!
When do we hear the Arab League and Iran agreeing on something? Now both do not like the actions undertaken under the no-fly-zone agreement. One is trying to condemn “indiscriminate” bombing, and the other warning against allowing western dominance. Both groups want the popular uprisings (they are popular, by all indications) to serve their agenda, rise and fall and bark according to the sweet wills and paranoid ambitions of the ayatollahs and sheiks and emirs. They are as much scared of revolutions as Americans or the West are. This is the key to understand the statements being made and potential behaviour from the existing leaders of the Arab world and Iran over the Libyan action.
Americans should not have said that they were leading it but allow UK or France to do the honours. Moreover they have a short window in which to decimate Gaddafi’s forces, and restock the opposition.
As for Russia, India or anyone else mumbling and playing it safe, it is important to realize that historical turning points do not stay on forever. It is a tendency in Indian analysis of situations to be confounded by complex contradictions in political developments and get stuck in an overemphasis on “nothing is entirely black and white” which then becomes the excuse for decision paralysis. On the other hand it is this same “nothing is black and white” mindset to stick to paradigms and never update even with real experiences. Thus it appears that policy-makers of India have a rigid mindset to think that the Islamic regions do not have forces and dynamics of change within themselves that are not entirely mullahcratic.
It is critical to support the non-mullahcratic component against the mullahcratic component in the uprisings or movements that at the moment have converged on the point of common hatred against their ruling regimes. If we don’t support the more modernizing trends within these movements, the elite of Islamic systems will hijack this popular sentiment into their pet agenda – hatred of the “qufr”, wallowing in the Sharia, and erasure of the Jews as a first step towards erasure of all perceived obstacles to their absolute mullahcracy.
The West once made the blunder of encouraging Islamism and authoritarian dynastic or dictatorial regimes in their short-sighted strategy of tackling the so called Red-Menace. As a result the world suffers from the genocidal and totalitarian mindset of the mullahcracy.
The same blunder should not be repeated. It is important for the younger generations within the uprisings to be aware that both the Arab and Iranian leadership, the Islamic organizations, as well as the West, or even say China, (Russia and China are more scared of getting burnt unnecessarily and therefore non-intervention) are scared of independent popular uprisings. They want these revolutions to serve their own desires. Iran wants to paint these revolutions as anti-Israel and will rant and rail and turn against the revolution if that does not happen. Arab league wants to maintain their filthy rich lifestyles of their emirs and their sheikhs and the network of feudal patronage and arbitrary power. The west wants a pliable regime popular or not.
For the West or less-sectarian countries like India, it is crucial to realize that it is in their interest to encourage the modernizing sections within these revolutions. Next time around there will be little opportunity left to correct such errors as made in wiping out modernizers in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia.
Recently, the net and the news media has been abuzz with a certain founder of a certain website that claims to release into the public domain supposed secret communications between American diplomats and Washington. Using some journalistic license in lampooning I will use the keyword “Wikipee” – since in some casually polite English circles “taking a leak” is an euphemism for a natural and essential mammalian act. Apologies in advance if anyone feels offended – both from the supporting or the opposing side.
Having said that, there is no alternative verification possible about the truth, reality or reliability of the information posted, so we can neither accept them at face value, nor reject them at face value. There are wild speculations about the possibility of these being a selected list of items which have been manufactured to create a certain opinion in favour of US foreign policy itself or help the US attain specific foreign policy objectives. Attacking the apparent source in public could then be seen as increasing the credibility of the source. On the other hand, it could also be simply a random act of omission, carelessness, negligence combined with various personal grievances and ideological dissent from among American personnel at various levels. It could even be an act of penetration and sabotage by opposing international forces like China which has been alleged many times as behind hacking attempts against national governments.
But whoever has selected the items to be released must have selected it out of some purpose, some aim at creating some impression. Here I will look at one item that has raised a huge storm in India : the alleged quote of Rahul Gandhi alleging much greater threat of supposed “Hindu Terror” compared to Pakistani or Islamist terror. The concerned text can be found here : http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=09NEWDELHI1624
5. (C) Responding to the Ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. (Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a “home-grown” extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention.
Comment
If true, Rahul is actually causing some severe logical problems for both himself as well as his party.
(a) Alleged “Hindu terrorists”—who are so completely penetrated, rounded up and cases put up in a jiffy by the Indian anti-terror organizations currently under the Congress led government in contrast to the lackadaisical pursuit of cases, penetration and rounding up or even absence of proper cases by the same government agencies if a single Indian Muslim name appears in connection with any terror atrocity — are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.
The principal Hindu groups accused have little or no international presence – no theological support within Hinduism similar to the doctrine of violent Jihad (yes violent, as amply borne out by the core texts of Islam, where one ambiguous citing for “conditional peaceful treatment of people of the book” is propagandized by modern hagiographers compared to numerous references where Jihad is only mentioned in the context of violence). But those alleged to have a hand behind incidents like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, have a wide ranging support network and connections of Islamist Jihad.
No Islamist government whose territories have been used to perpetrate terror on India has seriously taken any steps at all to try and book the culprits or even properly investigate the organizations. India under the Congress on the other hand jumps up and down ardently to pin the blame on its majority community.
Nowhere in the alleged report by Roemer, Rahul Gandhi is quoted as saying similar things about Jihadi terror. Significantly there is no hint of any importance being given to the Maoist terror or Left wing radicalism, which has consistently claimed lives and property damages. No mention either of outfits in the North East with open affiliations to Christian beliefs or who appear to tout their religious affiliation as a means of attracting obvious international interest and support.
(b) Rahul is a shame on his “historian” great-grandfather, who at least selectively quoted histories existing at his time and predominantly created by colonial historians with their own imperialist agenda in mind.
He tries to blame all Islamist Jihadi reaction against India as a reaction to supposed Hindu atrocities or provocations. But then can he answer what Hindu provocation in Jammu and Kashmir provoked the violent rapes and massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits in 1989 – a full three years before the supposed incident over the disputed structure at Ayodhya?
Moreover, if Islamist reaction has only started as reaction to Hindu provocation, then did his great-grandfather Jwaharlal Nehru – who became the sole and supreme leaders of the Congress, its legislative wing, and key figure in the transitional government for independence of India – provoke the Muslims so much so that they went into Direct Action (rather Direct Rape and Genocide Action) Day leading to the Partition in 1947? The majority of Hindus made up the Congress at the time.
If every violence is due to historical trauma, why cannot Hindus have a similar justification and only Muslims are allowed to use such an excuse? If every historical atrocity event has a precursor provocation event, why does not Rahul try to apply the same logic to alleged Hindu violence?
—
¶6. (C) Gandhi was forthright in describing the challenges faced by the Congress Party and the UPA government in the months ahead. Over the past four years, he was an elusive contact, but he could be interested in reaching out to the United States, given a thoughtful, politically sensitive and strategic approach on our part. We will seek other opportunities to engage with him and with other promising young members of the new generation of parliamentarians. Gandhi mentioned that in the recent election 60 members of the new Parliament were 45 or younger. In a system long viewed as relatively static, the influx of new faces and the rising profile of young leaders like Rahul Gandhi provides us an opening to expand the constituency in support of the strategic partnership with a long term horizon.
What is however more seriously damaging for Rahul Gandhi and the US itself is however here. If the US feels that reaching out to Rahul will ensure securing US strategic interests, that damns both Rahul and the US and their mutual strategic interest.
(1) Rahul’s desirability for the US makes him rather dubious as a candidate to win the future trust of Muslims.
(2) For India’s Hindus, US approach to enlist Rahul on their side is discomforting. His religious affiliations have been publicly ambiguous, unlike her illustrious grandmother Indira Gandhi who at least had no discomfort in display her Hindu affiliation, and there are increasing concerns in many quarters of India about the aggressive proselytization and conversion activities of Christian missionaries funded by Evangelicals from the USA – activities often seemingly protected by state machinery whereas any attempt at reconversion back into Hinduism is treated as “violence”.
USA forgets that the record of Christian missionaries and the Churches have often been actions in favour of colonial and imperialist designs, and that perception remains in the general Hindu society although it always does not come out in the Abrahamic violent intolerance of the “other” because of the inherent pluralistic nature of Hinduism.
(3) USA also should keep in mind that if the majority Hindu is sought to be disempowered and its faith undermined or attacked, then there are two fallouts that the USA will not be able to control.
First, removal of the Hindu from India will mean that there will be no moderating influence to mediate between the Islamists and the Christians, and these two have never been able to flourish together. No country exists today where this has been so. The only known example where it comes close to co-existence is Lebanon, which however speaks for itself. Removal or weakening or attacking the Hindu will mean civil war between Islamist Jihadis and Christian Jihadis – and who will ultimately win that war – Chinese or the Russians or it will become all a part of the grand Islamic Caliphate.
Second, Hindus have never proven easily digestible. They have not always gone the Abrahamic sectarian, non-pluralistic way – but neither have they always succumbed to onslaughts. Islamics made the error of treating the Hindu as a single category to be wiped off, and the Sikhs and the Marathas were the result who practically made the Mughals their slaves. Timely intervention of British saved the Muslims to an extent, but if US lends a hand to a similar attack against the “Hindu” – will it not do the opposite of what USA or its Evangelists want? What if it only consolidates the moderates and the conservative Hindu together more?
USA has often proved its shortsightedness in dealing with nations by concentrating on individual apparently pliable fanbois. Most of the time they turned out at the head of corrupt and unpopular regimes, supporting which even the US became ultimately unpopular in that country. It would be better sense to look at the national fabric, its majority culture and framework – which in case of India will provide a much better long term security for US strategic interests in Asia.
I hope there is more sense in one of the few remaining hopes for democracy and freedom of thought and words – that is the American “conscience”.
1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said:
“At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important.”
“These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that ‘the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier’. My today’s statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.” (E.T.C.)
“I have read a journal ‘Epigraphica Indica’ in regard to inscription…… One of its editions makes mention of an inscription and contains an article which makes mention of inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a statement in this very court that there was just one pillar inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.”
1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian…also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement on page 54…Babar was his favourite subject However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in Baburnama..contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written…he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic
. The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language.
1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein ornot. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir Baqi.
1344. …Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to aconcrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation.On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term “revelation” and its meaning.
1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said:
….I never came by air but on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. …
1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different statement on page 201 as under:
” I travel by rail and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times.”
1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion.
“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also.”
“It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in reading and writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian language, which neither I can read nor write,..father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian languages..father in law felt that the translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage is not wholly correct…can not say whether out of three inscriptions one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no knowledge of these two language..In my book I have written about the three inscriptions after getting the same translated in English. For English transcription I have requested my father-inlaw and got it done from him….he know Arabic and Persian…style of Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this mosque was constructed by Babar or not…basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law realized so. I have written this fact in my book.”
“I have not the least knowledge of art or science of calligraphy…true that, in the foot note of my book, I have mentioned those books too which I have not read…true that I have a very little knowledge of history.”
Vol 7, Page 1511 (12/251) 1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed upon the motive of this witness certain facts antecedents to the publication of his book “The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under Special Marriage Act. When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim..I married according to Islamic rites.”
My wife encouraged me for this work.” “ In the Preface of my book I have written that Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to popularize the historical truth.” 1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate” which she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian..
1357. ..Though the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page 222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history. That being so according to own statement of the witness his statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act…We in fact find it surprising with the kind of dishonesty, such person has shown..
1357.[…]On page 106 on the one hand he admits that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic, Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish, Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15 has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter without having made an in-depth study on the subject and hasdeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge of history.
On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier statement he said that he has made research on the question as to how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not expected from a responsible Expert Historian.
Page 1513 (14/251)
Vol 7 1359. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination has said: “Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid.”“Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at the site and could not even see the inside inscription.”
“This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather, it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per the means of Mir Baqi…It was so written in the stone inscription at the mosque and the same had also been seen by me before demolition of the mosque”
1360. The statement of PW 16 … is solely based on two inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed building in Persian language though neither the witness can read Persian nor could see the inner one. ..though the witness claims that the inscriptions which were installed when he visited the premises were the same as were installed at the time of construction of the building..shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as published in different books..but the statement has been made on pure conjecture and surmises.
Next expert witness PW 15, Sushil Srivastava,, on behalf of muslim parties
J. Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15
3603. About PW 15, Sushil Srivastava, we have already dealt in detail while considering the issues about the date of construction of the disputed building. The aforesaid witness has given a new theory that the building in dispute was constructed much earlier from the period when Babar came to India and must have been constructed before commencement of Mughal period. It is clearly against the pleadings of Muslim parties on whose behalf he has appeared as an expert witness. He also admits of teaching “Modern History” and on page 220, he admits that he has a very little nowledge of History. He, however, admits that there was a possibility of an earlier structure at the place where the disputed building was constructed:
“At page 113 of my book, I have written that this probability cannot be ruled out, i.e, cannot be completely ruled out, i.e, no other ancient construction would have existed at the place of Babri mosque……This conclusion of mine is based on Cunningham’s report.”
“It is true that stones were found in the mound below the Babri mosque. The size of the stones in this mound was very big, i.e. very large stones were present.”
“Q. You have just stated above that in the mound below the Babri mosque large stones were present, did you mean by “long size bricks” or “long size stones?” “Ans. I mean by long size bricks.” (ETC)
3604. He has written a book “An Inquiry on the Disputed Mosque”. On page 87 thereof, he has written that in 17th century, the people started claiming that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar after demolishing a temple but on page 256 of his cross examination, he said that the 17th century mentioned on page 87 of his own Book is wrong and it ought to be 19th century:
“At page 87 of this book, 17 century is written, which is wrong. In fact, it should be 19th century. Further said that the supposition that Babar had got constructed the mosque after demolishing the temple, commenced in the first half of 19th century. By first half of 19th century, I mean the period between 1801 to 1850. The amalgamation of Avadh Province in East India Company took place on13th Feburary 1856. i.e. since the British rule.” (ETC)
3605. He has further said:“To my knowledge, prior to 1526, except Syed Salar Masoodi and Ibne Batuta, no any other foreign Muslim Traveller had come to Ayodhya.” (ETC) “means that it cannot be wholly ignored that where Babri mosque situated, earlier, there had been any old structure or ancient construction.” (ETC)
“This Babari mosque had not been in possession of Muslims during 1853 to 1855.” (ETC)
3606. All the Muslims parties have denied of any riot or dispute among the two communities in 1855 but this witness gave a different stand and admitted such a clash: “After 1855, no clash took place at the disputed place between Hindus and Muslims.” (ETC) 3607. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW 15 has been challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement at page 129 observing that Shshil Srivastava is a Modern Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
The three judge panel of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, has finally delivered three separate sets of judgments on the disposal and questions of title and rights to a disputed land. The land in question being an ancient site, now reported by the Archaeological survey of India to have been occupied by humans from at least 1300 BCE, and traditionally long held by faithful Hindus to be the birthplace of an avatar of Vishnu or the “supreme” in Hindu philosophy.
There have been traditional narratives of pre-Islamic religious structures and complexes on the site to have had undergone a series of iconoclastic attacks by Islamists and Islamic rulers who consolidated their military power on the northern plains of India from the late 13th century CE up to and including the mughal period. The latest incident of vandalism is attributed to a commander under Babar, the leader of a faction of the neo-convert Mongols in or around 1538, when he destroyed most of what Hindu structures had existed and built a mosque. This is attested to by Islamic chroniclers and foreign travelers. This is a different and larger issue discussed threadbare from both Islamophile and Hindu sides.
What I find most interesting is however the reported statements of one of the judges, a Muslim by faith, among the panel.
Justice Khan said:“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. “However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.”
Now taken together that is a dangerous piece of text! Is he a judge in an Indian Court of Law or he is here representing Alim or a Mufti? He has to interpret Indian law as it exists and not argue himself as a Muslim or Islamic scholar on behalf of Muslim litigants in the case? What is more dangerous is the “subtext” of which he seems to be very particular.
From the “Hindus” he wants “sacrifice” and tyag, but from the Muslims he clearly mentions the tactical retreat involved in Hudaybya from which ultimately Muslims emerged victorious. Maybe he thinks that under the careful management of the rashtryia educational apparatus most Hindus kept ignorant of the actual history of early Islam as narrated by accepted Islamic narrators, would be unaware of the real significance of mentioning “Hudaybyah” to Muslims and especially Islamic theological establishment.
This was a “treaty” meant to be and clearly intended to be “broken” as soon as the early muslim army around its leader gained enough strength and the treaty was simply to buy time. This is what he clearly indicates in the following lines to that reference. Mentioning this in the context of the Janambhumi case can only be interpreted in one way – it is a reminder or a “subtext” message that for “survival” of Islamism in the current world, where more and more non-Muslims were becoming aware of the underlying agenda of Islamism and taking political action to prevent the spread of Islam – it was necessary to make a show of compromise. This is only to buy time and “strike back” as and when “opportunity arises”.
Moreover the claim that no blood was dropped in entering Mecca is false. There were executions, including of women who had once composed sarcastic poems ridiculing the the founding father of Islam when he secretly preached his faith in Mecca for three years before negotiating a move to Yathrib outskirts with the Yathrib Jews. The entry into Mecca followed from victory in a battle against the last Qureysh army to resist him.
Hudaybya was about gaining time and pretending cooperation simply to mask the preparations for final annihilation. The treaties were typically faithfully maintained by the non-Muslim parties but were always broken on some pretext [dreams/message from Gabriel/suspicion] when opportune and the groups finished off /driven off/killed off/enslaved.
A unique position
“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”
That bolded part is curious! it is almost verbatim from some major Islamic works – and as a theme occurs in many Islamic core texts as a strategy of war and impose the system on non-Muslims.
Is the “subtext” also a message to the Indian Muslim to wait and remember the history of Islamic spread – pretending to compromise when militarily weaker, and make a show of cooperation so that the core group is not wiped off in a conflict for which they are not prepared. Wait and gain strength and annihilate the ex-treaty-group.
Some on the media have called for “moving on” and derided “revanchism”. Moving on is a collective business – we cannot move on if only one subgroup are asked to and tries to move on. All the reactions of the Sunni Waqaf board, and people like Irfan Habib show that the Islamists are not prepared to move on. For them, the supposed past glories of the supposed military invincibility of Islamic regimes in parts of the country – the one-sided extraction of surplus from the majority non-Muslims and the abuse of the very basics of humanity through abduction of women and whole-sale enslavement as well as religious torture and conversion which was tuned to a fine art of state policy and finance [which Irfan Habib and his father both acknowledge in their early works] – is something that cannot be abandoned.
Every fruit of such repression is cherished as a symbol of Islamic identity in India. Why? Why don’t pro-mosque voices trying to be neutral on terms set by the Islamists or their tactical supporters among non-muslims – fail to also point out the fact, that the Owaisis and Habibs [representing the supposed extreme opposites in intellectual “liberalism” among the Indian Muslims] are solidly refusing to give up on their past?
It should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest training in logical analysis that the sole reason for such cherishing of Islamic structures of the past in India – is exactly because of what they are associated with in the Indian Muslim mythology. These are all symbols of imagined Islamist triumph over the culture and religion and society of the “Hindu”. Without these landmarks, the version of Islamism in India that hopes for the “Islamist revanchism” in some future time point when hopefully Indian Muslim alone or with external help can be mobilized to finish the unfinished business of Islamization – can be kept alive.
Islamists are very keen users of site or structural iconism. It is ironic that those systems which claim greater abstraction in their theology and abhor visualizations of the “supreme” are maddeningly obsessed with “houses” and “property” and “structures/building” of the “supreme”. This is because they realize that visualizations are almost a must for the majority of any community to consolidate identities.
What is particularly revealing about the virulence with which Islamists are running the campaign about the disputed site is the connection it has to historical atrocities on Hindus. In a way the struggle in their mind is on two levels – the outer symbolic one of triumph and the imagery of Ba(r)barism that is being diluted and hence will lose its iconic message for the future. The inner level is that one of the highest and most popular deity of the Hindus seem to be winning back against Islamism’s highest deity. It is a retreat of Islamism’s “God” before the “Hindu” “God”.
This is a crucial thing to understand as to why it is important to roll back every such presence and structure. It is the Islamist refusal to move on that is the key to dealing with them. Every structure cleaned of Islamist memory of “triumph” over the “Hindu” or the “buddhist” or the Sikh – both humans as well as their “supremes” or cherished deities, is a psychological crushing of the spirit of Jihad and delegitimizing its hidden currents that is constantly seeking to “strike when opportunities arrive” along the expression that justice Khan uses in his verdict.
Parvez’s name itself is a compact history of Kashmir which is suppressed by interested forces in the West keen to tag along to Islamic bandwagon – a history of pre-Islamic Indians desperately searching for ways to survive against a murderous and sadistically fanatic belief system. Kaul is a Kashmiri Pundit surname – indicator that the person descended from Kashmiri “Hindu” Brahmins. His ancestor probably converted and became a Muslim and hence his name of Parvez. Finally he or his ancestor became a Christian given his middle name of Samuel [ the Islamic form would have been Ishmael/Ismail]. But no matter what the Kashmiri tries out – nothing saves him from the sadism that originated from the deserts of 7th century Arabia.
Islamists worldwide claim repression on them and justify atrocities on Kashmiri Hindus or Sikhs by Kashmiri and other infiltrator Islamic terrorists, and many in the West take up their refrain – without caring to know the other side of the story.
Burning books of non-Muslims has always been a standard practice of muslims everywhere in their militant phase – when they are no longer militarily weak and capable of Jihad. They of course copy non-Muslim books and sources of knowledge when they are weak [as the Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan copied and stole nuke tech while studying in the West] using the liberal values of the non-Muslim. But they neither have the gratitude nor the conscience to acknowledge this debt or extend protection when they win militarily. “Cordoba” is now often cited as a paragon of tolerance and academic cooperation , but its foundational history is now suppressed. Interested people can do some research on their own on the created myths of these “tolerant Moors” of “Al-Andalus”.
Muslims use the knowledge gained by non-Muslims if it helps in war, and they will steal, loot, and preserve such knowledge. But it is all for destruction of anything that reminds humanity of its real civilization – for to Islam anything other than what the early Islamic militants said was Jahilya – darkness. They will seek to erase all other human civilization’s histories and cultures and components as long as the last Muslim survives.
Book burning is core Islamic tactics – and they claim the right to protect their own “holy text” while burning the “holy texts” of all others.
Futûhãt-i-Fîrûz ShãhîThis small history was written by the Delhi Sultanate period Islamist ruler Sultãn Fîrûz Shãh Tughlaq (AD 1351-1388) himself. The writer of Tabqãt-i-Akbarî, Nizãm’ud-Dîn Ahmad, a 16th century historian, says that the Sultãn had got the eight chapters of his work inscribed on eight slabs of stone which were fixed on eight sides of the octagonal dome of a building near the Jãmi‘ Masjid at Fîrûzãbãd.
[At Gohana, located in the modern Indian state of Haryana]
“Some Hindûs had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohãna, and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols, and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with them, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmî could follow such wicked practices in a Musulmãn country.” [Elliot and Dowson, History of India. Vol. III, pp. 380-81.]
Now let us come to Kashmir proper.
Writes Srivar, “The erudites of that period witnessing the en masse destruction of books by Muslims fled their land with some books through mountain routes.” Sikander Bushtikan organized state administration to get the houses of Pandits ransacked and looted and the choicest books retrieved were thrown into rivers, lakes and wells and hurled into deep ditches and ravines.
Walter Lawrence states that ” All books of Hindu Learning which he (Sikander) could find were sunk in the legal lake and after some time Sikander flattered himself that he had extirpated Hinduism from the valley.” An Islamic chronicler, Hassan, writes, ” All the Hindu books of learning were collected and thrown into Dal Lake and were buried beneath stones and earth.”
Jia Lal Kilam records, “Even in their miserable plight they (Pandits) did not forget their rich treasures which linked them with their past. They felt that they were custodians of their past cultural heritage-the illuminating treatises on the stupendous Shaiva philosophy and other great works on literature, art, music, grammar, and medicine-works which have excited the wonder of an admiring world and wherever they went they carried these treasures with themselves. Judging from the depth of thought displayed in these works that have been preserved, their high literary merit, their insight into the depth of nature, their poetical flights, their emotional Devour coupled with an incisive logical treatment of the subjects dealt with in them, one can easily imagine the colossal loss the world has been subjected to by the acts of vandalism which resulted in the destruction of hundreds of works which contained the labours of more than two thousand years.”
“The destruction of books as leitmotifs of Hindu worldview, Hindu philosophical probes into supra-sensible realms, Hindu historiography, Hindu aesthetics did not diminish in its fury even in the comparatively peaceful times of Zain-ul-Abidin popularly known as Budshah. It is surprising that before his conversion to Shriya Bhat he is said to have constructed a cause-way from Naidkhai to Sopore with the temple stones and pillars along with invaluable stock of books that were looted from the temples, libraries and Pandit houses. He is the same king that rehabilitated the Pandits after their first forcible and massive exodus from their natural homes to unknown destinations.
The prolific and high calibre Kashmiri pandit scholars and intellectuals having scaled heights in creative drinking based on an all-embracing outlook and psychical diversity w ere reviled, humiliated and tortured to death. Bhuvaneshwar who had tremendous reputation all over the country for his amazing levels of scholarship in Vedic lore and learning was harassed and put to an orgy of plunder and loot (lotri-dand). Ultimately under motivations of infinite bigotry he was butchered in a merciless Muslim manner. His severed head smeared with tilak as a caste-mark was hurled away on a road-side with a view to instilling fear and trepidation among the intellectuals who had not renounced their religion and continued contributing to the indigenous expressions of learning and scholarship. All the Brahmans who were learned and had mastery over theology were exterminated. The fanatical intolerance and inveterate hatred that was exhibited against Hindu lore and learning and especially scholars irrigating them led to the demise of an ethos that had fostered plenitude and plenteousness of scholarship and learning.
Nona Dev, Jaya and Bhima Brahman with their depth of knowledge and breadth of vision were forced to commit suicide by leaping into the rivers. The Kashmiri Pandit scholars who were highly venerated for their varied contributions to learning and aesthetics were subjected to the mutilation of body-parts and gruesome killings. Nirmal Kanth who had mobilised resistance against Muslim holocaust was physically eliminated not for encouraging apostasy but for his attainments in the annals of learning and scholarship. Men of letters were put to a whole-sale massacre and the books which they had authored were looted, torn and burnt.
Records Shuka, “Khwaja Mir Mohammad on the other hand induced Kak Chakra (Kaji Chak) who was alarmed at the work of Nirmal Kanth and others to give him permission to act against them, and actuated by malice caused them to be killed.” Sukha again laments, “O Brah,nans, where in this Kali Yug are your Brahmanical spirit and practice? It was for want of these that the sorrowful and the affrighted Nirmal Kanth and others were killed. The oppression of the Mausalas (Muslims) which began in the times of Saidas (Sayyids) was perfected by Kaka Chakra (Kaji Chak).””
Now has this tendency of the Muslim stopped in modern times? No, long before the so-called Babri-Mosque demolition incident that is claimed by Islamophiles as the root cause of all Islamic violence on India – in 1989, The Muslims had started their core Islamic practice – ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims, complete erasure of non-Muslim literature, books and cultural icons, and abduction and looting of non-Muslim women to simultaneously swell the Islamic army with unbounded reproduction and denying the same route to the non-Muslim.
Koul further writes :
With the motive of destroying Sanskrit learning and its vestiges in Kashmir the invaluable treasure of Sanskrit manuscripts in Sharda script that was preserved in the Research Library, Srinagar was shifted to the Department of Central Asian Studies where it is said to have been dumped in gunny bags left to the care of hostile moths. The manuscripts are a veritable treasuretrove dilating on mind-body disciplines, recondite philosophical doctrines, arcane fortune telling systems, integrated theoretical systems from aesthetics to rhetoric and complexities of language nuances.
The books looted from Pandit clusters prior to their total decimation have been contemptuously torn, mutilated and scattered over the interiors of the houses. There are marauders who have collected numerous books on varied subjects, and have been selling them by weight. There is a special class of Muslim marauders who have dumped a huge stock of invaluable books in their residential quarters and have been selling them to retailers who in turn tear them page by page and convert them into cones and other geometrical shapes to vend off their retail items like tea, sugar, salt, spices et al. There are Muslim fanatics of the Jammaat-i-Islami breed who make a pile of the looted books in the isolated corner of a lane and set it afire chanting “death to Pandit Kaisers.” A few more cunning among them harness the services of Kashmiri Pandit hostages staffing back in the valley and despatch them to Jammu and other metropolises to mobilise the sale of old manuscripts in Shardascript at a lucrative price. The horoscopes looted from Kashmiri Pandit houses are also a saleable item with the looters.
An officer in the state government, a literattucr by all standards, at the time of “office move” from Jammu to Srinagar way back in 1992, was shocked and dismayed to learn about the sale of the looted books at a particular shop in a down-town locality. Camouflaging his real identity he made a foray into the Muslim den and succeeded in locating the shop. While accosting to the Muslim shopkeeper putting on a well-cut beard he was plainly informed that he had been selling books looted from the houses of Pandit Kafirs who had fled the land thus rendering a damage to the on-going movement. On enquiry he was told that he himself had been looting books from the Pandit houses and then he had contacts who have been pursuing it as a profession at the behest of respectable Muslims. “Who are the persons at whose behest they pursue it as a profession?” asked the officer. “That I cannot tell”, was the reply. Ultimately the officer was led into the interior of the shop where he purchased 5 kgs of books for fifty rupees. When back home he was surprised and vexed to find that the books he had purchased included Stein’s Rajtarangini and two volumes of Nilmat Puran. On perusal he discovered that all the books he had fetched home bore the signatures of the Pandits who had purchased them with the moneys that they had earned with the sweat of their brow. For the officer it was a shock, but for the Muslim looter it vas a religious act as he was vending off booty legitimised by the Textual injunctions.
It is rather interesting to see that the strongest Western powerhas now bowed down to this Islamic demand to protect its own texts while burning non-Islamic books. This is a very interesting following in the footsteps of what the Congress led governments in India have consistently done. So USA has now learned to follow India! Those grumbling in America about what happened should perhaps have the beginning glimmers of understanding how the most powerful elite of powerful and prosperous people – like Indians in the 7th or 12th or 16th century – start becoming dhimmi – or literally conditionally and whimsically protected trembling bootlickers of Islamism.
A friend from India has just now let me know that apparently 25 cows were slaughtered by alleged Islamists on the Hindu festival of Ashadhi Ekadashi in Malegaon, Maharashtra on 23/07/2010. There had been allegedly a “lathicharge” (liberal use of sticks and batons by police and paramilitary forces – in Indian parlance) on protesting Hindus. The Muslim MLA was taken into “custody” (or as my friend says, protected from public retribution) and the Central Reserve Police Force deployed in Northern Maharashtra. Police protection has apparently been extended to every mosque in Western Maharashtra. But nothing on this, even so called “factual reporting” to denounce “rumour mongering” against a “forever peaceful and repressed community” has not been undertaken by the Indian media.
Same has been the case with a certain Christian lecturer in the so-called “socialist republic of Kerala” where leftists and Islamists are two sides of the same political coin. This lecturer allegedly earned Islamist wrath by giving the name of the prophet of Islam to a character quoted from a play in one of his question papers, and he was ambushed and his hands chopped off. Not much has been heard of this in the world news papers and no discussion at all from Islamophiles in the west who jump and down on the slightest wind passed by any critique of the ideology. Not much is being heard even from the Christian denominations and Church organizations who were so loudly present in all forms of the media regarding alleged atrocities on Christians in the Indian state of Orissa. Then of course the alleged perpetrators were “Hindu”, but with any Islamic perpetrator – apparently atrocities are sweeter and the true forgiving and forgetting principles of Christianity are to be stringently applied.
These are not uncommon news for most parts of India. Some time ago, this year, a certain town in Uttar Pradesh, one of the electorally key political provinces of India, was engulfed in violent riots. The source of the riot was apparently another trivial incident in the increasingly bitter fights beteen the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of Indian Islam. These two have been fighting a sometimes violent and sometimes polemical battle for centuries now – in rhetoric over the “true” interpretation of Islamic doctrine. In reality, as many locals observe, it is about a fight to posses the mosques, Islamic institutions and financial networks – and in this recently the Deobandis have been winning. [the factors of external monetary inputs, the success of Deobandis in both Pakistani Punjab and Indian Gangetic Valley as well as Kerala, role of Islamic charities and their global networks of raising money in non-Muslim lands and transferring it to other places to expand Islamism is a much larger issue to be touched on perhaps in another post].However, the known victims of this Islamic factional rioting turned out to be Hindus.
The provincial government, led by one of the stalwarts of the abstract and twentieth century created Indian category of “Dalits”, clamped down on all information regarding the rioting to come out into the media. Apparently this censorship, imposed by the administration or voluntarily adhered to by Indian media – who typically suppress anything that may show the Islamic in bad light, but who are quite eager to report anything that will show the non-Muslim except Christians in bad light – was quite successful.
So the outside world does not come to know of the constant attrition or provocation faced by the “Hindus” spread over India from over-zealous factions or leaders of Indian Islam. The world does not come to know of fanatical Indian Muslim mobs in southern and eastern India rioting to banish the Bangladeshi female author, Tasleema Nasreen – who writes in Bengali – one of the national languages of India, and was hosted by India after her virtual exile from Bangladesh at the behest of equally fanatical Bangladeshi Islamists. The primary crime of Tasleema was of course that she had dared to write about the rape, and abuse of Hindus and other non-Muslims in Bangladesh by Islamists, as well as the abuse and torture of women by the Fatwaists.
Both the Marxist provincial government of Indian West Bengal, as well as the superbly “secular” central government at New Delhi, quickly succumbed to Islamist pressure and Tasleema was forced to come under virtual house arrest in the name of “safe house” and then bundled out of the country.
The Indian system is ruthless only if there appears the possibility or imagination of a “law and order” deterioration. However the state’s reaction is entirely dependent on who can “cause” the deterioration of ‘law and order”. If it is the “Muslim”, then of course all their demands are to be met in the name of “communal harmony”, whose maintenance in India apparently is the responsibility of only one community. This is why even the media cooperates to prevent any news of any atrocity by any Muslim or Islamic group of Indian origin, from being spread around or known globally. This was why, the rape and genocidic ethnic cleansing of Indian hindu Kashmiri pundits from the Valley portion of Jammu and Kashmir was never allowed to be publicized, and the Indian government simply keeps shut as if the Pundits never existed in the province. But all the while Islamophiles in the West and in Indian cry themselves hoarse about supposed repression on muslims in “Kashmir”.
Why do I write this? Because one day, all this one sided propaganda in favour of Islamism and total suppression of all information about its continual atrocious behaviour on Hindus and other non-Muslims of India, will come to haunt the world. Just as north Europe and the USA conveniently forgot the atrocities by Islamists and the Ottomans on Balkan society, and ignored the careful planning by Islamist organizations to use this weakness to create a beachhead for an Islamist state in Europe and moved against the Serbs – they may have to try and do the same in India. Because the anger and frustration will accumulate and burst one day. Yes with external help from Christian West, Islamism can perhaps win the day using the shared deep-lying hatred of the “pagan” – but then the West should not be surprised.
It is the price of suppression of any information that does not suit a desired world-view. Once of course the Islamists win in India in any major way, the Christian “white”, “non-mud-race” West will enjoy the Islamist attention fully! Cheers to that future!
In the October of 2009, the custodial death of a Sarwal youth in Sringar triggered tension outside Mortuary department of GMC after family members alleged police hand in the death of the youth instead of the police claims of suicide by the detainee. Moreover the police had put in the name of the elder brother of the deceased in the place of the actual deceased. Apparently the youth Rajneesh Sharma of Sarwal, son of Lt. Nanak Chand Sharma of Sarwal, whose dead body was shifted from Srinagar to Jammu in the name of his elder brother Pawan Sharma, was picked by Bakshi Nagar police on September 30 and handed over to a police team from Ram Munshi Bagh police. A case of kidnapping had been lodged against Rajneesh by family members of Amina, daughter of a house boat owner in Dal Lake in Srinagar.
The illuminated and enlightened Jammu and Kashmir coalition government that includes the intensely secular Congress, could order a CBI inquiry in the Shopian case, but only a magisterial inquiry in the case of Rajneesh after extensive agitation by the local population. As noted by many, in a police cell where a blanket, tooth brush or even a paper pin is not tavailable normally, the rope with which Rajneesh was found hanged, appeared magically.
Here is a link from the “Hindu” side of the story – which has not found press and media coverage in the intensely and supremely secular Indian apparatus for “manufacture of consent” : http://www.aryasamaj.org/newsite/node/769.
Here is a selection from the above link:
“When Ameena disclosed her desire to convert to the Hindu Dharm and marry her beau ideal, hell broke loose in the Muslim society and opposition to the wedding became an Islamic issue. Ameena eloped to Jammu. Rajneesh and Ameena went to the Arya Samaj, Jammu and declared their intention to tie the knot. The Arya Samaj received them with open arms and supported their idea of a wedding. On conversion to the Vedic Dharm, Ameena became Aanchal and along with Rajneesh performed the Havan, walked seven steps together in Saptpadi and took the vow to be together in life and death as husband and wife. Rajneesh’s father and the entire Sharma family along with friends, relatives and neighbourhood celebrated the Vedic wedding with feast, fun and frolic that it merited.
Back in Srinagar, Ameena’s father lodged an FIR with the Kashmir police that his minor daughter had been kidnapped by Rajneesh and forced to marry him. The complaint was against facts of the case. However, the communal overtones swayed the course of action and the Srinagar police went to Jammu and arrested Rajneesh. They brought him to Srinagar, tortured him endlessly for days and beat him black and blue for no fault of his. The bride, Ameena, in Jammu supported her husband through thick and thin but it did not cut ice with the pre-conceived notions of authorities in Srinagar. Ameena’s brother turned out to be the villain of the piece in perpetrating physical and mental cruelty on Rajneesh till he died of wounds inflicted on him. Here was a case of custodial death.”
Let us do an equal-equal with the case of Rijwanur in Calcutta. Muslims and Hindus came out on to the streets of Calcutta and the media unanimously ran a trial where the bride’s Hindu family was found “guilty”. The innocent love of Rijwanur that was apparently quashed by fanatical “Hindutva” found the top space in government concerns, CBI concerns, political party concerns, and most importantly in the apparently peaceful, and tolerant Islamists of India.
The suicide was deemed a murder. Just as every custodial or other death in Jammu and Kashmir is deemed a murder by the security forces and indirectly by the Hindus. But there is a big conditionality – suicides can be deemed a murder by the Indian media, only if they happen to Muslims. Rijwanur cannot be made equal to Rajneesh. Because Rajneesh is a Hindu and therefore it is a crime for him to “make a Muslim girl” fall in love with him, where it is a natural born right for a Muslim to make a “Hindu girl fall in love” – a right to be protected by all the instruments of the state.
Nothing so far has moved in Rajneesh’s case. No CBI inquiry. And in an uncanny parallel to Rijwanur’s case, Rajneeshs’ wife vanished recently to resurface at her parents to claim that she had been “duped” and “married against her will”. I guess, even this will be turned around to prove “victimhood” for Muslims and further justification to carry out violent jihad against Hindus who dared to “steal” Muslim women and maybe compensate for this imagined outrage – by a dozen rapes and abductions when Ghazwa’s would be appropriate – as the Islamists did in 1947 and 48 in India and Kashmir, in 1971 East Pakistan.
The recent fiasco in the “Gaza adventure” throws up in sharp light the current tomfoolery that is being played on Asia. Since the fall of USSR there was a temporary lull in pandering to Islamist violence from the west. Within that space, the Jihadis consolidated and turned their attention from Russia towards their real objectives in Asia – Israel and India. They intensified their campaign against India with Jammu and Kashmir, and their rocket/bombing campaigns against Israelis, from both within Lebanon and the Gaza strip.
Their real ambitions is for global domination, and the real long term targets for Islam – militant Jihad and Ghazwas to convert, loot, rape and take over non-Muslim majority nations. This became clear to the racially and colour blinded ideology of the west only when the Jihadis turned their attention directly to pricking the west, as part of their global strategy to tie down western forces away from any protective interest the west may develop for Israel and India.
The calculations were quite clear and as consistently seen in the tactics of Islamist groups ranged against their Asian targets.
(1) Carry out terrorist outrages against both military and civilians of Israel and India, so that the military of these nations are forced to react. Use the terror attacks to stimulate survivor instincts within the civilians in the hope that they will create political pressure on their governments not to retaliate. Use the internationally conformed limitations within which national armies have to work as a tactical field advantage.
(2) Pressurize Muslims living within the territory of these nations to take sides, which in the ultimate analysis has always been historically proved to be on the position that “jihad cannot or should not be opposed violently” by Muslims anywhere. In every situation of war or conflict where Islamism has taken up arms to subjugate non-Muslims among them or beside them, the Muslim population has never ever really taken any effective steps to resist such Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims. In Middle East, in now Pakistan occupied western India, or in then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in 1971, large Muslim populations which apparently showed all outward forms of communal amity did not do anything to stop Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims and in many instance took advantage of the situation to possess land, wealth and women of non-Muslims. This practice is consistent with the basic line of Islamist expansion as formulated in their core texts.
(3) Simultaneously carry out a publicity campaign among western nations – especially those in academia and media who for various reasons have had anti-establishment fantasies all the while being sustained by the establishment. There have always been a toying undercurrent with Marxist thinking in the west, especially in the British universities beginning in the post war radicalism phase of 60’s. Probably this was maintained out of two tactical considerations by the authorities – as a honey trap to confine radical intellectuals so that they did not go out to do more damage in the outer world, and at the same time work as a captive experiment where the Leftist thought process could be observed and manipulated. Problem with this game is that it basically creates a reward system for radicalism and anti-establishment sentiments which over time will draw more and more opportunist political activists who will use this legitimacy to carry out their personal political agendas.
The Islamists used this sympathetic base from within the western establishment. It was natural that with the fall of the USSR and an overtly nationalistic and dictatorial redefinition under Putin the western establishment radicals were without a cause to champion. This they now found in championing the cause of supposedly repressed Islamic communities under Israel and India.
(4) To drive home the Islamist representation of reality, Islamists selectively targeted western institutions with violence. Having placed a pro-Islamist radical western sympathy base among the very vocal academia, media, NGO’s, charities etc, such targeting could be used to pretend that all this was because the west was not doing enough to destroy Israel and India or dismember these countries so that the Jihadis could occupy the dismembered portions. The general risk avoidance of the civilian populations of prosperous economies would ensure that there would be a backlash against any government retaliation.
(5) Once the western core of governments or regimes realized the new trends, the policy formulated was perhaps two pronged : give the Jihadis a new target of shifting attention towards Russia in Chechnyia and adjoining Muslim dominated areas sensitive for Russian security, and towards Eastern Turkmenistan currently under Chinese occupation. Simultaneously, overt pressure would be put on both India and Israel to concede more towards Islamist demands. It is possible that the first hesitant and obviously confused (read secret intense debate and therefore indecision) implementation of this policy was in the Balkans with the ultimate creation of a Muslim homeland within Europe.
(6) The success of the Croatian case showed the Jihadis the way forward, and they now know almost all the manipulative strings that they can use to pressurize the west into conceding more and more Islamist homelands carved out of non-Muslim dominated areas, from where they will launch more and more Jihadi campaigns.
The western strategists are losing this game. It is crucial that Israel and Indian people do not get confused by the manipulative propaganda and representations of Islamists and their non-Muslim sympathizers, and see to it that regimes capable of resisting western pressures are put in government.
The national armies and even special intervention forces have to work under international forms and restrictions that will be stringently applied by Islamists and their sympathizers for their ulterior motives. In both countries there should be targeted erasure of the sources of support for Jihad, or all anti-state terror under forces that do not officially exist. Forces which also have strong ideological indoctrination to add that extra armour to manipulation. Forces which do not exist and therefore are free of formal restrictions of so-called one-sided humanitarianism.
All anti-Israel forces are celebrating today. There were even chants of humanitarians to remind the Jews of Khyber. Khyber – the symbol of Islamic tactic of shouting that someone somewhere was against them and planning to attack Islam and therefore liable to genocidic erasure.
This “running the blockade” has perhaps been carefully planned for a long long time that shows political planning of the highest order from people who are used to manipulation of international opinions. So if there are claims that there are members of this “delegation” who are trained or qualified in social “sciences”, or maybe even “professional historians”, then almost surely they have been involved from within academia in lobbying for “pro-Palestine” anti-Israel activism.
This same thinking usually also pretends that what they are driven by are “pure academic” interests and humanitarian concerns. However any criticism of their historical reconstructions are likely to be immediately, publicly, and very loudly denounced as “politically motivated”. When questions about Palestinian, Arab and Turkish Muslim role of anti-Semitism and typical Islamic Jihadism and riots or genocides in the lead up to 1948, denial of Jewish connection to the land, or the Holocaust by Muslims are raised the immediate redneck reaction is “oh dont give that bull**** of Islamic conspiracy”. This is the same general group think that is also obsessed with trying to prove “assimilative, tolerant and non-militant” Hinduism was in the past and how recently “right-wing Hindu fascists” were “revising Hinduism” for their “sinister political agenda”. In such a discourse typically the plight of Hindu Kashmiri Pundits is dismissed as mere propaganda, and all records or claims by Islamists of iconoclasm, genocide, enslavement and ghazwas on non-Muslims of the subcontinent as propaganda or exaggeration. In fact I had once a long running debate with someone who dismissed even the extent of atrocities by the Pakistani army and their Muslim accomplices in 1971 in then East Pakistan. He wanted to say that what happened was negligible, dismissed all western historians finding support for factuality of genocide, and all others from the subcontinent finding similar “proof” as being politically motivated.
When I raised the issue as to why, if “others” talking history could be driven by “political motives”, what made themselves – the professional historians – free of similar political agenda or motive, I was dubbed a “right wing” activist too.
People sympathetic towards the “Palestinian cause”, do think of the possibility that – the motivations that drive anti-Israel and pro- Palestinian movements in non-Muslim social groups share a certain common underlying political and ideological agenda. Is it possible that those among such “sympathizers” coming from a Christian, European cultural background probably have a twisted and ancient anti-semitic strain masquerading under “humanitariansim”? Those coming from say Indian, “Hindu” background – are doing so from a hidden and twisted interpretation of Marxism? Early Marxists use Christian, and New-testamental memes widely – especially the “activist” Engels.
Fall of Israel is strategically a disaster for India. Israel absorbs a lot of Islamic attention. Once Islamits are free of that thorn in the side, their full loving hands will move towards India. Now, at this stage, any formation of an independent Palestinian state means one more step in the progress of Islamic Jihad. One more step towards eventual overrunning of Israel. One more point bolstering the confidence and clamour in Pakistanis about “Kashmir”.
The new Islamists of Turkey needed an excuse to part ways with Israel, that is all. Turkey is not going to risk a direct war just now. Because that will scare off some in EU – which is the main kicking point Turkey is jumping on – and tie up the hands of pro-Islamist groupings within the EU. However the Turkish Islamists will encourage Iran to go after Israel covertly. It will probably also facilitate such covert support for Palestine from Iran. But Turkey will want Iran and the Saudis to get involved in a tussle over Palestine and Israel and wear each other out as much as possible. Turkish islamists are definitely looking back towards a pseudo-Ottoman revivalism.
Is it possible that the traditional Anglo-Turkish rivalry could be in some twisted EU minds, to encourage the Turks when UK has been going after Iran? If any covert European sympathy has been behind the Turkish rise in temperatures, then they should think of the long term consequences for Europe of a fall of Israel and overrunning of Israelites. Europe will be next in line, and this time a much larger horde will be knocking at European gates compared to Sulaiman the Magnificent.
They should see again and again the videos where the humanitarians chant asking Jews to remember Khyber. How many Europeans know what these chanters are talking about? Search out, outraged sympathizers of humanitarian politics!
Significantly unnoticed events have taken place over the last last few months : at MIT a conference was organized by one Omar Khalidi, a staff member of MIT, who advocates separate laws for Muslims such as polygamy etc, different constituencies for Muslims to elect Muslim lawmakers, apparently has issues with Christian nature of USA and is known even by Muslim scholars as someone who selects his data to paint a picture that suits Islamic agenda. Some people are of opinion he is what one can call ‘soft’ jihadi.
The speaker list is a who’s who of academics known for their soft corner towards Islamism. The keynote speaker is Paul Brass. He has written several books on Hinduism whihc has been accepted as standard texts on Hinduism by many western universities. A close collaborator and fellow-traveller of the Thaparite school of Indian history (whose main thrust is to deny atrocity on non-Muslims by Muslim regimes and states in India )- is one of the leading academic activists to paint comparative pictures of Hindus vs Muslims antagonism and is supposed to be an authority on Hindu-Muslim violence. His books show an uncanny association of the word “Hindu/Hinduism” automatically with “right wing/extremists/nationalists” in close proximity or as qualifying adjectives. Read them and you will be inspired!
Read up on the other speakers and contributors mentioned and their sometimes not so much aired political positions and leanings : Angana Chatterji, Meenakshi Ganguly, Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, Chinnaiah Jangam, Ratna Kapur, Omar Khalidi, Shafeeq R. Mahajir, Manoj Mitta, R.K. Raghavan, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Haimanti Roy, Srirupa Roy, Bish Sanyal, Ornit Shani, Mukul Sinha, Nirjhari Sinha, Arvind Verma.
They serve ironically as great catalysts for “Hindu consolidation” and acceleration towards “right”. Moorthy Muthuswamy has studied Khalidi for his apparent influence on political parties within India with an obvious agenda of creating a separate state for Muslims within India. This fits in with perhaps a perception among a section of Jihadis and their backers that for the next stage of Islamist expansion, resources needed can be gleaned from non-Muslims in India since the Pakistan experiment has failed to provide the resources on its own.
Now why this consistent pattern of western support for elements that bring on Islamic Jihad on non-Muslim civilizations? Maybe the key lies in a fundamental weakness of Christianity towards Islam -specifically to the Arabic Sunni sect of Islam. The problem in fact can be traced back to this weakness after we eliminate all other potential reasons.
It appears that both Islam and Christianity had been in competition over the Judaic legacy and therefore each in its own way saw Judaism proper or the community of Jews as an obstacle to this ideological supremacy. However, ideologically they cannot go too far away from each other in the fundamentals because of this root foundation in Judaism. The conflicts bewteen Christendom and Islam in the historical period basically starts over this claim of sole legacy and takes the form of imperialist conflict – because, both the proselytizing versions of Judaism emerged out of a practical imeprialist need for expansion.
The conflict therefore took the form of war for territory and control of productive economies and trade routes of others. To maintain the drive for this imperialist expansion, each side needed to identify the other side as “alien” and the “devil”. The peculiarity of common origins and memes however forced them to find racial divide as an identifier of alien-ness and the enemy.
To date there has been no solid, logical refutation of Islam by Christianity except the claim that Islamics do not recognize Jesus as the sole way to salvation. Even this is problematic because Islam places Jesus as one of the principal prophets and reserves a special role for Jesus in the “end-times”. So the Christian-Islam conflict has taken the loose and weaker basis of “race” rather than any concrete and profound difference in ideology.
It is this theoretical confusion that is clearly indicated in the responses that Christian dominated west gives to Islamic moves. Contrary to the propaganda that west’s reaction to Islamism is purely determined by economic motives, it is actually Christianity’s secret attraction for what it perhasp considers the “purity” of the Sunni Arabic extension of Judaism. For example the West has studiously cultivated the Arabs since using them as tools against the competitors of the British – the Ottomans. But there would be no reason to continue preferring them over and above the Iranians long after Ottomans have been finished, and both Arabia and Iran sit over oil wealth. Not that the west does not dip to deal with Iran when needed – as in the Contra-hostage deal.
Where does this put Christianity and Islam in the eyes of other non-revealed-tradition cultures?
In UK, judicial and executive systems enforce the law strictly when it comes to the case of say liquidation of the “holy cow” of a Hindu temple becuase, reasonably – the cow was diseased. However the same country and system finds desecration of its prized memorial by a Muslim as not being driven by religious hatred and has allowed a symbolic violent form of expression of hatred in Islam – the throwing of the shoe (typically symbolically used against the devil), as a legitimate form of public expression.
In the USA, the California text book controversy showed that the administration and system would be reluctant to withdraw protection to attempts to represent the non-Muslim past of India in a way that suits the Islamic agenda aginst Hindus. The same system finds a Chief Minister of an Indian state known for his strong Hindu affiliations persona non grata even though he has not yet been convicted on the charges of complicity in Hindu-Muslim violence – the main excuse given to refuse him visas. However the same administration has no problem with Omar Kahlidi’s claims which as Muthuswamy points out are based on dubious scholarship. So the “Hindu” fall foul of freedom of expression but Islamist views do not.
In India, the Christian proselytizers are not known to target the Indain Muslim communities for conversion, but Hindus. Indian Christians are also not seen as active protesters against Jihadi activities or statements by various sections of Islamists.
Alll this shows up as a secret attraction and weakness towards the Sunni-Wahabi form of Islam within Christianity of the west to the Hindus, among whom the mistrust of Christian missionaries and their motives have been increasing. Moreover the gradually increasing intervention of western states in favour of protecting the primary propaganda mechanisms of Islamists, and prevention of movements or expressions of ideological criticisms of Islam, is bound to alarm Hindus or Buddhists across South Asia.
If Christianity cannot resolve this fundamental dilemma, it will not be too distant a day, when the Azaan will be heard from Westminster Abbey, the British Monarch may well come out of his Zenana Harem to attend Friday Prayers where the Khutba will be read extolling a new Caliph in the middle East, and the USA rechristens itself the United American Emirates.
Yes, absurd perhaps – but just imagine it for a moment and decide!
How many nations of our times are based purely on a religion and recognized by other nations as independent nations? Only two – the Vatican City and Pakistan. Ironically they share in common some traits. Both have helped in the unravelling of the USSR but not of Communism – for it still survives behind the People’s Republic of China and is working towards global dominance. Both have been courted by the USA in its Cold War struggles. Neither has disappointed. Both exert influence on the global politics disproportionate to their actual size, economy, military capabilities, and the capacity to contribute in any meaningful way towards a modern, knowledge based, technological and information society. Both manage to do so by manipulating their historical images as projections into the future.
But there the similarities end. The Vatican’s leadership has made amends to its historical victims, and has shown its flexibility and readiness to change with the times. It has steadfastly refused to underwrite radicalism of the theological variety [the severe castigation of the Liberation Theology for example]. This may change in the future. But the leadership of the Vatican have proved themselves consummate statesmen in the concessions and compromises that they have made while never abandoning the fundamental objective of total global ideological domination. This is an objective that would have been a crime if not from the “one and only true message” for any other “religion” in the times when the Church ruled supreme. But now in the days of “total religious tolerance”, there is nothing wrong in having a declared agenda of “harvesting all souls”. In fact, legal and state coercive machinery can be used to guarantee protection of any proselytizer – even someone swearing by texts that recommend putting the unrepentant unbeliever to the sword.
Where Pakistan differs is not in its protection of organizations claiming the right to practice “Dawa” or spreading of the Islamist beliefs – but in its total lack of statesmanship. Unlike the Vatican, the Pakistani leadership never apologizes to the victims of its Islamists, never acknowledges that it has nurtured Jihadis in its madrassahs, never concedes to modernization in education and social practices, never really allows any land reforms or dismantling of feudal exploitation in its backyard.
Pakistan is basically an anachronism, a nation whose only foundational claim for identity is a religion – in a historical period where the world is leaving behind, exclusive and historical claim based religions. Moreover, that religion is not even unique to the country – it is shared by a host of other nations, some of whom have louder and more well established claims of being the centre for that religion. So Pakistan is based on a type of ideology increasingly irrelevant globally as national foundation, and moreover on an ideology based identity shared with other “nations” – and therefore has no real claims of distinction from other nations. It cannot look at history and culture, for in spite of the best sadistic efforts of generations of “mullahs” – elements of pre-Islamic cultures lie firmly interwoven in the national fabric, and those elements are shared by its imagined nemesis – India. In fact the pre-Islamic cultural element proved so strong that a part of it broke away in reaction in 1971 as Bangladesh.
So now Pakistan finds itself in a terrible dilemma. To strengthen and give uniqueness to its national foundation, it has to become more Islamic than “others”. Becoming more Islamic means more and more unquestioning obedience to a strict and literal interpretation of the core texts. That in turns means more Jihad with violent means which accelerates the competition between the ruling feudal elite, the army, the mullahs, the commons, the militants – to become “purer” than the others. That means an almost perpetual state of national Jihad. Purer Islam can only be maintained by preventing modernization – in education, productivity, technology and above all the questing mindset. Which means Pakistan will become more and more dependent on largesse from interested external sources and be a drain on the global economy as the sources would spread the cost around.
So the West and the global community should perhaps start thinking of dissolving the entity called Pakistan. Here are the brief reasons :
(1) Dissolving Pakistan saves the West (and therefore the world economy )a huge amount of money and resources needed to keep the state afloat, and a total drain, because none of that capital goes into productive capacities.
(2) Even though the Chinese are now playing second fiddle to the West, it is uncannily similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov handshake where both sides appear to be buying time. Eventually, Russia and China could come together with Iran (or whatever is left of it even if a so-called revolutionary liberalization and democratization takes place there under non-theologians) to which the CAR will lean. As long as Pakistan remains an independent entity, it can play the prostitute and threaten to kiss the higher bidder or the one more willing to pay. That is both a security risk and a potential disaster, if everything given to Pakistan lands up in Russian, Iranian or Chinese hands and the West’s presence is virtually terminated in the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. Dissolving Pakistan takes away this worry.
(3) Dissolving Pakistan and putting up new independent states actually creates new multiple centres where Jihad can be protected and nurtured. One Pakistan becomes many and the western problem multiplies. One of the best bets is to allow India to absorb the populations and the territories. India is a growing economy which can absorb the costs. It has the capability and the will to manage multicultural groups and religious animosities. Culturally Indians of the western part of the country will be closer to the Pakistanis across the border [Punjab for example shares the language across the border in spite of the state sponsorship of Urdu] compared to any other external ethnicity or country. Moreover the costs of developing infrastructure and the economy or carrying out necessary social reforms will be borne on Indian shoulders and not on the west.
(4) As the price for non-intervention in the absorption, the West could extract concessions from India that it will have assured access and facilities to reach the CAR through channels and routes maintained and developed through Pakistani territories connecting the Karakorum Highway and other CAR approach routes.
(5) The Taliban lose their foster home, and are buffered off from the crucial supply routes of Karakorums and the Arabian Sea. The so-called Kashmir problem vanishes as the Pakistani military and ISI mechanism to foment terrorists inside India vanishes. So one of the greatest excuses for maintaining Jihad from the Pakistani side vanishes.
India, because of linguistic and unique cultural history, will remain firmly in western and specifically the Anglo-Saxon or Atlanticist orbit for generations to come. There are sufficient fissures in the Indian ruling class for the west to exploit and protect western interests.
It is worth a try – at least the largest source for generating terror of the Jihadi and allied kind (through international crime and other non-religious or ethnic militancy) will be effectively liquidated. At one stroke West no longer has to face Islamist terror, pay for upkeep of Jihad, and instead can profit from a growing economy which bears all the costs!
The Yemeni geo-politics is becoming most interesting, It is a mini cold war being played out to secure on the one hand resources, and on the other, ownership of the “hearts and minds’ of the Ummah. Whichever of the two contestants among the self-styled “original/pure” Islamic “ashrafs” – Saudi Arabia or Iran, gains Yemen, ceases the economic flow between the East and the West, through controlling the mouth of the Red Sea into Indian Ocean Region. So it becomes imperative for Saudi Arabia to prevent Iranian ascendancy in Yemen.
Whereas if Iran gains Yemen, it can stretch out and outflank the USA+Saudi Arabia strategic presence on the western side of the Gulf. Both sides are therefore likely to accuse the other of carrying out a proxy war in Yemen. What is strange is the supposed existence of the Al Qaeda in Yemen, with solid origins from Saudi Arabia and one-time collaboration with USA (Osama’s connections during the anti-USSR AFG war), and the simultaneous supposed Iranian sponsoring of the Shi-ite Houthi’s. But no reports of conflict between Qaeda and the Houthis.
Added complication is the often missed problem of the Al Ahwaz area under Iran. This is claimed to be a primarily “Arab” area and population with the greatest concentration of natural gas/petrol resources of Iran. There is a separatist movement based on this claim, and their spokespersosn find sympathetic ears in Yemen. It is possible that USA+Saudi Arabia allows Al-Ahwaz separatists to function to pick at Iran, while Iran allows the Shia tribes in north Yemen to function to pick at USA+Saudi Arabia. But a connection between Qaeda and Iran is interesting to the point of absurdity. They obviously can have common purpose – overthrow of the Saudi Royal regime and then wiping off Israel. But how far will this Shia-Sunni collaboration go? Iran can very well think of sponsoring Osama, as an antidote to Israel+USA. But how much will the Arabian Sunnis accept Shi-ite domination? They have accepted “non-Arabic” Islamic over-lordship before though – Ottoman Turks for example. Or is it entirely a representation to tar and feather Iran and Qaeda together? It will be important to see how far Iran digests attacks against Shias in Pakistan and still does nothing against Pakistan.
Being seen as “sympathetic” to theologians in the various Islam dominated countries can appear sweet as a strategy for the moment – but it is much better to think of the future in these countries in the long run. The best bet lies in holding out the hope for a liberal democracy in today’s youth in these countries. If we have to choose sides, lets choose it on the side of the future of these countries. Assuming a blanket trend towards extremism could be realistic but does not help us to divide up these societies so that the theologians do not get all the advantages of a united society behind them!
Interestingly Yemen had a Marxist party almost in power (in a part before unification) just like a similar party in Iran whose antics were hijacked by the Ayatollahs – may with blessings from the anti-communist leaguers of the Cold War days. But a reformed “leftism” could be a good tool to spoil the fun in both Iran and Yemen.
The death sentences against the condemned army- personnel indicted for the assassination of Sk. Mujibur Rehman in Bangladesh, are most likely to be carried out early this morning. There may not be any immediate backlash against the hangings. But the hangings are likely to convert the executed into icons for the militant Islamists and their supporters in the Islamic world. The trial and execution already generated several threats against state personnel and politicians, but nothing concrete has yet taken place. There was a substantial proportion of voters who voted for candidates not belong the Awami League led alliance, and a proportion of this vote would overlap with the “Islamist” vote. The move towards de-religionization of politics in Bangladesh has already brought out the Islamists in protest especially against any move aimed at weakening or delegetimizing “Islamic poilitics”.
Militant, hegemonic Islamism has now managed to manipulate “western powers” into getting trapped into a war of attrition which the western mind is bungling because it has failed to understand “Islamism”. The greatest factor in this bungling has been the dominant academic sociological schools of thought – led by various shades of the Marxists – that overemphasized the role of economics as primary motivations for violence and hegemony. This extremely biased and narrow view of societal dynamics that almost completely downplayed the role of “ideologies”, forced public and foreign policies that were completely unrealistic and inappropriate – especially in dealing with Islamic radicalism.
The result has now been an extension of the “west” versus “Islamism” war – from a small zone in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Sudan, into all of Afghanistan and Pakistan, into the Horn of Africa – Mauritania, sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen, with branches leading into Bangladesh, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Indonesia, parts of Philipines, almost the entirety of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and spreading into Central Asia.
For Bangladesh, the executions will probably be used by the Islamists as an indication of the Awami League government’s connections and alleged “dependence” on countries like India and the USA – deemed to be among the “enemies” of Islam – (in spite of the zealous protestations to the contrary from the most vocal sections of Indian society and polity). If Islamism gains in sentiments in Bangladesh, the Awami League government will be forced to depend more and more on India and this will push the polarization further. Such a polarization in itself is not bad for India, if India can see a clear policy towards Islamic radicalism. However, so far Indian reaction has been self-contradictory – as it still mostly holds on to the Marxists myths of “all radicalsim comes from lack of economic development”. So this part remains uncertain for the future.
The dynamic of the “Islamist politics” is changing. Regimes like the “royal” house in Saudi Arabia will become increasingly identified with and dependent on the “west”. Looking carefully as to how USA is being forced to shift its military attention, from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, back to Afghanistan, back to Iraq, to Yemen – all the while the militancy is gaining recruits across north and central Africa – spanning the two oceans is illustrative. Increasingly the Islamist militancy is taking on its traditional twin front struggle. On the one hand it is the struggle between theologians and temporal rulers for ultimate dominance of the Islamist movement. On the other it is the dream of conquering the whole world in the name of Islam.
In time, the “royal houses” in Saudi Arabia/Jordan or the emirates – will lose their prestige and position if the Islamist movement continues under the radical theologians. On the one hand – there is the exclusivist strand of claims of bloodline/clan connections to the Qureyish. On the other there is the urge to gain popular representation and empowerment irrespective of bloodlines within the “greater” Islamic identity – this is the Iranian trend. Over the long run, the ideals of “democracy” and empowerment prevalent in non-islamic societies will reinforce and strengthen its twisting into Iranian style theocracy dominated “populist” Islamic rule.
The “life span” of the Saudi royal house will be short if the “house” does not make tactical compromises with the “populist Islamism”.
The new leadership of the Taleban have openly laid out their formal objectives. Once they establish “purer” Islamism on Pakistan they are going to target India. This was stated in an interview broadcast by the Sky. This fits perfectly the scenario that I have been promoting as possible- perhaps for many, a bit too paranoid.
There can be all sorts of explanations and possibilities of deception to explain this away. One of the most plausible ones will be that of the need in some school of opinion within the USA to create the impression that India should contribute towards US plans as India is also “threatened” – or that if the collapse of Pak is not staved off with Indian contribution also, India will “suffer”. UK’s inner strategy or secret services may also be interested in maintaining their own strategic asset which they had created by the Partition on the subcontinent – Pakistan. China has contributed its own towards this “save Pakistan” bandwagon by raising the spectre of a “threat” in Arunachal Pradesh. At the same time Naxals have been activated inside India.
This means that all of the non-Indian parties involved in this merry game think that for one reason or the other, the time for loss of direct handle on the Pakistani Jihadi state is imminent. The Jihadis have organized and overcome their factional divisions, to further the overall aims with which the Islamists joined the British project of creating Pakistan. This overall aim on the part of the Islamists, was a revival of the legendary and mythical Caliphate that sat astride the main economic exchange route between the main production centres of the world – East and the West. The Islamists’ extremely low intellectual and educational level, combined with the aridity and nonproductivity of the lands they occupied, implied they could only live off the produce of others. Once oil runs out or is replaced by alternatives, the temporary productivity in economic terms that allowed them to flourish – will be lost. Then they will need to go back to the Caliphate model – which was essentially a way of justifying the basically looting economy of Islam – to extract surplus from allowing trade between the east and west.
Islamists cannot allow modern educational pursuits that could have allowed them to try and climb back on to the current knowledge based economy. Modern education is typically based on open exploration and unrestricted questioning. This is dangerous for Islam – as learning to question in one direction can spill over on to questioning the very claims based on which theologians and Islamic social system imposes itself on human society. So the Islamists’ very own obsessive search for permanent and absolute power, limits their educational, research and knowledge-base improvement. This leaves them only with the old Caliphate model to extract a peace-tax on global trade between the two main regions of innovation and productivity.
The Islamists have seen their chance now. USA the main thorn in their side (as the controller and chief patron – although supportive but still restraining beyond a certain limit) has been weakened. China has come up as a competitor economy to the USA, and is willing to take up the role of the patron. Also because of the competition, China will be more lenient than the USA in allowing the Jihadis greater freedom in their murderous objectives as long as such objectives do not directly infringe on China’s own imperialist designs.
Contrary to popular speculation I had tried to emphasize that Pakistan will not implode on its own. Instead, the basic Jihadi core behind Pakistan’s state will activate its programme of Jihadi expansion in both directions – Afghanistan and India. This is part of recreating the only economic model they can understand and which they feel will still allow them to maintain their lifestyle and power structures – that of the mythical Caliphate (in historical reality a very short period of success).
The conflict we see now is a superficial one – maintained only because of external interest and pressure. This does not mean that every part of the state machinery of Pakistan is insincere in its formal confrontation. But only those parts which are vulnerable to western pressure or believe in a middle road between the Jihadis and the west are participating actively. This is a minority in Pakistan. Over the years, Arab patronization of Wahabi radicalization through education and other sociopolitical means have practically erased all resistance to the core Jihadi ideology within Pakistan. The society itself has no firm ideological and cultural basis to resist the Jihadis.
Sooner or later, India will have to face the Jihadis. It cannot do so by imagining and trying to convince the Indian people – that Islamic ideology is completely detached from what Islamists are practising. It cannot pretend that preserving the roots and basis of Islamic culture on the subcontinent will allow peaceful coexistence of Pakistan and India. By doing any such pretension, any Indian regime betrays its people – for it creates the false impression and expectations of inherent “benevolence” that is the source of confusion in being ruthless towards Jihadis.
There is only one solution for this whole problem – dissolution of Pakistan as a state, and complete dismantling of Islamic educational system, complete deactivation of those theologians already brought up in the Wahabi tradition. These in turn can only be done if the current populations under Pakistan comes under direct control of a secular regime that is also firmly anti-Islamist.
One way of course is the reunification of the people and land currently under the control of Islamophile and Jihad-tolerating-supporting regime in Pakistan, with that of a firm and no-nonsense secular power based in India. That will be the opening of untold opportunities for the people now living in Pakistan in terms of health, education and an open society where voices of dissent and protest against arbitrariness cannot be silenced by fatwas and fanatical Islamist zealots. Freedom from the terror of violent and personal-greed-hiding imposition of Sharia – is something which these people have even forgotten to dream about. The Indian ruling elite has proved its secular credentials by being more ruthless on what it dubs “Hindu right wing fascism” than it ever showed the teeth against Islamic Jihad. The “Muslims” of Pakistan will actually be treated more fairly than the “native” Hindus under such Indian regimes.
Those who will oppose this objective will do so from a variety of covert and overt interests and positions. This will include excuses of humanitarian values, claims of inherent benevolence of the ideology and all blames only on “misinterpretation”, supposed positive and inseparable cultural contributions, as well as claimed inherent superiority of the ideology compared to all other pre-existing ones on the subcontinent in terms “equality/fraternity” etc. with attendant suppression of real historical experience.
Covert interests will primarily be external – with strategic interests of continued energy, economic and territorial imperialism. These can also be tackled, if India shows the will and determination to do so.
Manmohan Singh (MMS), the economist PM of India is being buffeted from both sides of the political divide about the mysterious origins of the supposed joint statement in Egypt at Sharm-el-Sheik (S-e-S). He has apparently conceded a lot to his Pakistani counterpart.
Any strengthening of the hands of the semi-feudal elite at the head of Pakistani regime and military, means strengthening of Jihadi Islam. For only by propagating Jihad, Pakistan has been able to ransom the world, and particularly the West, to survive on a state which was, right from its paranoid conception, unsustainable.
So what really could have been the run-up to the supposed concession by the Indian Prime minister?
Suppose we have the following hypothesis :
The inner echelons of decision making within the Congress hierarchy decides in tandem with (or is persuaded by) USA and UK, that, in the short term – stabilization of the Gilani government is necessary. If the Gilani government falls, and the unreliable Pakitani Army (PA) is left with government powers, or Musharraf makes a comeback, or the PA teams up with the Talebs, or atleast some sort of Terrorist State of Pakistan (TSP) government pressure is not mounted against the Talebs until the Afghanistan elections are over, USA will lose all its bases in TSP although TSP will still carry on with support of China.
This could panic the Congress leadership, if they do not have much faith in the fighting ability of the Indian people. The current Congress-top-think is probably geared towards equating survival with the proximity of USA. USA could convince the Congress leadership that, it was more important to increase the prestige of Gilani in the eyes of the “commons” of TSP, since Gilani was actually on amuch weaker political basis and is only being propped up because of USA. The Congress on the other hand has been given a strong electoral mandate recently to do as they please. So some concessions, to Gilani, would be important.
As is usual in such cases, MMS might have been reassured that it would all only be verbal, and not meant concretely and as a commitment. The coterie around the dynasty however were not sure of the political fallout, and hence the “future leader” was solidly kept out of any association with this. If any negative thing comes out of S-e-S, it will be blamed on the benign ego of a well-meaning but elderly gentleman inching towards senility (no MMS is not senile – but I am saying it could be passed off as such).
I also think of him as amenable to “persuasion”. Of course he is subject to “influence”. But he is too weak politically to take such decisions all alone. Such decisions have to come from a more protected and better hidden core. The script is definitely there – and I had been worrying for quite some time that the new Government of India seemed too “eager” and over-ambitious and was in a hurry, and for me that was a possible indication that they knew they had little time before something quite negative was possible.
My worry is that the phenomenon that happened around Sanjay, is repeating itself around Rahul Gandhi. A so-called young gun think-tank could be forming. But this time around, the interested “outsiders” will not take the risk, and will ensure that at least some of their controllers belong to this circle. Likely candidates will be those who have had long “foreign” stints – I have a certain gentleman from “God’s own” in mind.
A Bharatyia society that takes the decision to reincorporate territories currently under Government of TSP occupation, will only do it after it has come to certain decisions about TSP and the people under it. People are not born with genes for Islamic Jihad and universal hatred for the Quafir. Children born in TSP and Afghanistan are not born with a gene for Jihad either. These are people, who are kin of the Indic (in spite of their tall-claims of having Arabic descent) – they have almost entirely Indic roots. I, for one think of them simply as blood brothers and sisters of Indians who are forced into a crucible of hatred from birth and not given any other options to even think of other options. Incorporation under a liberal, democratic and modernizing nation of India gives them that option to be otherwise – to be different from the rabid pack of animals they seem to be headed towards.
I would consider it a civilizational duty of Bharat to create conditions under which branches of the Bharatyia civilizational family, however distant they might have become, and however wayward they might have become, are brought back to the family hold – by the ears, if need be, kicking and screaming if needs be. To be thrashed if they want to go back to the lawless streets, and loved if they behave. This is to ensure that we do not have a vicious bandit on the loose whom we could have easily controlled and made otherwise useful.
So at last we see the real reason behind getting B. Hussein Obama elected US president – the calculation by the power elite of USA was to use Obama to try and divide the Muslim world into as many fractures as possible. Construct “moderate” versus “extremist”, “modernizing” versus “retrogressive”, etc. Iran is the first gamble after the “coming out” debutante speech of extending a warm handshake to “Islam”. But the Iranian attempt was too quick. Is Obama in a hurry? Or is the US power elite in too much of a hurry? The danger is the possibility of a wave of reaction that the US simply cannot fathom, and will escape from as quickly as possible leaving the hapless neighbours and caught-in-betweens who cannot jump on to the evacuation flight.
In countries like Iran, urban “revolutions” against religious or theological establishment cannot sustain themselves at this stage of economic organization, unless these are staged and led by the armed forces. The rural Iran is still solidly behind the Ayatollahs. If Mousavi and Khatami are not careful they will simply serve as agents for liquidation of a generation of urban youth.
If we go back to Napoleon’s period, then there would be many examples – for example all the urban uprisings in Europe in the 1830’s and the widespread ones of 1848 – all of which failed or actually led to being defeated and creating conditions for more despotic or dictatorial regimes. The Chinese communist uprising is another example whose urban uprising phase failed horribly with the spectacular example of the Shanghai massacre. The crucial factor in urban uprisings is whether the army joins in or stays neutral or not. Consider the Afghan “revolutions”, the Iraqi -earlier Marxist revolution and then the Baathist “revolution”, same for the Iranian ones. Significantly, in Afghan, Iran, Iraq, no revolution/palace coup/ urban putsch succeeded without backing and involvement from the clergy and rural theologian networks.
Iran is no longer going to be pro-west. What the younger Iranians are looking for is a greater freedom to pursue modern “happinesses”. They will remain strongly nationalistic and in fact any overthrow of the Ayatollahs will lead to a stronger nationalistic reconstruction of the foundational values of Iran as a replacement for the “binder” of Ayatollahaic Islamic authority.
The Islamic clergy already senses the change in the mood of the younger generations and they have begun to hedge their bets as Islamic theologians always do historically. They try to dissociate in factions away from established but doomed or unpopular Islamic regimes so that the theologians ultimate hold on the population does not come under attack. In time they will grow back again in military and political power if they manage to survive with their ideological “sanctity” undamaged.
The pivotal changing years in Iranian history in the modern period have been 1919 (post WWI British+US penetration and disruption of Ahmad Shah’s hold – leading to the Pahlavi coup in 21-25), 1949 – the post WWII start of the replacement by a younger Pahlavi more likely to be open to western manipulation – leading to the upheaval of 51-53, 1979 – the Iranian “revolution” led again by “modernizers” and “leftists” giving vent to popular generational anger against the Shah’s regime and its western counterparts but taken over by the Ayatollahs because of their wider support base in the countryside and among rural populations. This was followed by the typical period of crisis from 1981-1983 when Iran won the psychological warfare with USA with perhaps secret Reagan help but forced to compromise and get mauled by Iraq. This 30 year generational cycle comes back in 2009. So the processes that started post WWI will start unravelling in the next 30 years.
Countries in the region like India should cultivate “nationalism” in Iran, and be firmly on the side of democracy. They should look for future populations who are going to increasingly take over the country and not bank calculations solely on the short term adhoc approaches so typical of the regimes in Indian politics. The US influence in the Caspian region is on the wane. Does the “West” want Russia and China to step in completely and fill in the blanks? A cautious but firm ideological commitment to see democracy in Iran cannot harm the “western” or Indian interests. It holds out hopes to the future generations, but it does not immediately threaten the Ayatollahs. But any country in the region or in Europe should be very very careful about being seen by the Iranians to be dealing with the “devil” – that is something that will be remembered.
As I have mentioned before, when popular support indicates anger turning against state authority which in classical Islamic terms is a fusion of theologian+military+executive, then the theologians typically split themselves into factions. One or more factions then disassociate themselves from the existing setup, and allow a change of faces. This is done so that the basic image of the theologians and the theology itself is not delegitimized. In time, when heads cool, the theologians can crawl back to their supreme seats of power.
The Taliban thrust towards India is now probably materializing. Those who have been dreaming for implosion of Pakistan should sit up and notice. A lot of the strategic negatives for India I had scoped for are possibly coming together now. Obama’s policy as I mentioned before was about stabilization and all his initial bluster would be simply to not be outdone by Bush’s legacy. His ultimate goal would be a compromise with Jihad, minimize US commitments and withdraw without appearing to withdraw. The US is leaving the neo-caliphate, and Obama is simply trying to buy it out by paying Pakistan lavishly.
Whether India likes it or not, my envisioned TalebaniPakistani caliphate expansive thrust from their base area in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, into the South East will start now in earnest. They will be helped by China, who will see this as a golden opportunity to seal off India’s potential linking up with Afghanistan and blocking Chinese access to the subcontinent through north Kashmir. The Caliphate’s expansion into Kashmir is a big strategic gain for Jihad. A weak and Islam-appeasing Government of India will simply give this as proof that Indians are not doing sufficiently in appeasement. Even the unthinkable could happen – the Indian state could fall before Jihad in the North. And this would then be an unrelenting aggression from neo-caliphate jihad.
With the declared and proposed “army action” by Pakistani Army against the Talebs, one of two things is going to happen. Either the Pakistani Army command arranges for an “eyewash” of temporary retreat by the Talebs so that international pressure can be staved off a bit. But a worse future scenario would be the formal switching over of sides by the Pakistani Army troops once they are in the “contact zone”. This would lead to a very rapid “collapse” of the entire north of Pakistan.
For the moment, it is not in the interests of the Pakistani Army to reveal to the world that the entire north collapses before the Talebs or that the Talebs are simply the irregular wing of the theologian-Jihadi-military structure of the Pakistani Army. This will choke up the material resources supply that it needs to finance and support its long term Jihadi ambitions for the subcontinent. With the recent phased supply promised by the “west” it needs to formally wait until this resource is delivered. Also, China would be under pressure to and there could be concerted effort by the US to remove the nukes from within Pakistani territory. Which would be a great loss of bargaining power for the Pakistani Army.
So my guess will be a formal temporary retreat by the Talebs, and much fanfare about assembling troops for military action against the Talebs. This will never materialize fully on the ground. Any formal engagement that Pakitani Army is forced to go in with the Talebs now, is problematic. If they really have to take action, for the sake of the media and the western opinion, this would mean a war of attrition between irregulars and regulars of the same force. This is not good for the future projections and ambitions of the Pakistani Army. So there is going to be no serious fight. At most those units will be sacrificed deliberately whose loyalty to the essential Jihadi cause of the Pakistani Army leadership, is suspect. Or whose future preservation could preserve military expertise in “undesirable” ethnic communities.
The promised huge western help and the undercover help provided by China and the Islamic powers has to be built up sufficiently, as stocks have been depleted to provide for the success of the Taleb adventure in Afghanistan, and maintaining terrorist activities against India. Once sufficiently built up, the resources will be used to plan and support the next phase of Jihadi expansion – more into Afghanistan and east and north into Pakistan, and finally on to India – the ultimate target.
But any serious attempts by the Pakistanis to use the Talebs to finish their unfinished agenda of grabbing Kashmir by People’s Liberation Army, will necessitate actions on many fronts, both to the general direction of south-west and west from Srinagar. The complication can be facilitation by the PLA of the Talebs from the “north” or Karakorum highway, and any diversionary attacks or movements by the PLA in Chinese occupied sectors of India.
Hopefully the USA is not at the same time manipulated by its allies and “business interests” like UK or China, to treat this as an opportunity where the Talebs appear to be less strong in the Afghanistan sector as they appear to have moved their momentum to the east. There could be genuine agreements between the so-called good-Talebs and the USA to “shift east”. On the other hand it could all be a part of ruse and deception, where the Talebs want to appear to have moved to the east, but in reality preparing to trap the NATO forces in the west.
Some Indian political parties have promised Indian army support to tackle terrorism inside Pakistan. Promising openly, Indian soldiers to fight Taleban in Pakistan, can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this can activate US and western forces who have interests in the outcome of Indian elections in favour of the “promiser”. But on the other hand this will prompt the Taleb-Pakistanis to intensify their campaign against Kashmir and western India in general. Given that the grounds have been prepared for both “withdrawal to save the skin” as well as “jingo” mentality, this can lead to an uncertain outcome. There can be loud cries of, “more needs to be done to assure the communities, since all these attacks are actually because of rise of right-wing Hindutva”.
What appears to be lack of control by the government, is actually an appearance. This is partly true but represents possibly a deliberate attempt by the ISI+Pakistani+Taleb combination to delegitimize the civilian governmental structure. Behind all this facade, the combination is working towards its traditional goal – the overall subjugation of the subcontinent under an Islamic regime, and restoration of what they consider their glory days of lording it over India.
They have managed to coax Obama admin’s funds, which in-spite of all attempts to the contrary, will still be surreptitiously diverted to fund the Pakistani national project of conquering at least part if not whole of India. USA is trying to find glorious ways of covering up withdrawal from Afghanistan. Already this has led to inventing a “moderate” Taleban (Islamic Jihadis always pretend to be moderates when they think they can extract resources, or buy time). If the plan has been hatched between Pakistan+China on one side and USA+UK on the other, it can be a dangerous trap for India, if India has to divide its forces and get bogged down in a war which China and allies sponsor as a proxy war, while the entire north-west of India lies vulnerable.
Suppose, US cuts a deal with its invented “moderate Taleban” and brokers an agreement between Zardari and the Talebs for power-sharing in the North West. This will simply be a ratification, according to my thinking, of the TalebPakistaniArmy plan to coax USA into a position where, the defacto transition to a TalebPakistaniArmy Islamic state is tacitly endorsed by the USA in the “hope” of showing to its electorate and the world media that USA has retreated “ethically”. This plan could have the support of UK+China. Karazai could be brought in on this out of necessity on his weak power and resource basis. Russia+Iran could be made to wait and watch. So in that case the entire brunt of the TalebPakistaniArmy expansionist plan would fall towards India. Why India? Because of many different possible calculations.
TalebPakistaniArmy can hope to get tacit Chinese support. It can hope to get US reluctance to commit forces in this theatre as a favourable scenario. It can calculate that Government of India can be made to negotiate in an international form of “zazyia” extraction. This can be made in a form very similar to the way in which “zazyia” was extracted from the USA – by posing as “funds” required to “develop” sufficiently “to alleviate poverty and economic factors that gives rise to terrorism”. A situation can easily be developed by which India is made to look like a “miser” “who is reluctant to share her fortune” with the poor “neighbour”, and therfore must face the consequences of continuing “terror attacks”.
Internal divisions, fractured and antagonistic opinions within the “anti-Jihadi” section in India, who still agonize over the “hows” and “why’s” of Jihad and what strategy should be appropriate, can be banked upon to provide the typical scenario of lack of ruthless retaliation that probably existed during the early years of Islamic invasions into India. It can also be a military preemptive move to prevent India participating in any joint military operations in the core areas of Pakistan. China could panic if Indians start talking too much of sending expeditionary forces into Pakistan.
The asinine policy of inventing a “moderate Taleban” to cover up the eventual retreat from the Afghan theatre, is the latest in the superb series of contributions from the Anglo-US to human civilization. The help provided to Pakistani Army (the state and the army is the same in Pakistan, at least from the army viewpoint – so resources provided formally to the civilian government will be surreptitiously moved to Pakistani Army disposal or manipulation) will simply be used against remaining “divergence” in Afghanistan and the final push towards the Jihadi dream of an uninterrupted Islamic empire running from Arabia to Indonesia.
Whether that dream is realistic or feasible is an entirely different question, but the enormous pain and horror on the way even towards the eventual demise of that dream, is something that the west will forever be guilty of.
I began to write this post on the 26th of December last year, but held it as I thought it might appear too paranoid. Now the drama of the BDR uprising made me rethink that my earlier worry about the real strengths of the Jihadis within the Bangladesh state machinery and armed forces were justified. I have already written at some length about the general long term societal balance of forces within Bangladesh society. Here I have maintained that the forces of Bengali nationalism is slightly weaker than the forces of Islamic retrogression – and it has been so right from the post-47 start of the journey as part of Pakistan.
The immediate background of the BDR uprising could turn out to be a damp squib officially – it will be blamed on long-standing grievances, and “wayward” soldiers. But it takes a greater significance in the light of the recent urging by the emissary of Pakistan to the BD government to drop the proceedings towards war-crimes trials of the Rajakaras and the AlBadrs, Al shams for their atrocities during ’71. On top of that the AL led government moves ahead with transit and trade agreements with India, a reasonable and pragmatic move on the part of Bangladesh as the country is even now crucially dependent on Indian imports of essential commodities. This draws immediate vehement protests by the nearly decimated BNP, as expected. Just like many political parties in Pakistan, a lot of political careers are made in Bangladesh by inflating up the “demonic” “Hindu” India. However, it is Pakistan’s palpable fear at possible re-exposure of Pakistan’s role in the ’71 war of liberation that is significant.
Why does Pakistan have to be so paranoid about it ? It is already almost 40 years old – and could be passed off as a historical event, and not redounding on the current regime! There could be question of compensation and fear by a bankrupt Pakistan government. But financial compensation is a lesser worry, given the Pakistan government’s traditional expertise in moving money around meant for one purpose to fuel another pet agenda, and the fact that it can still milk the USA for some time into the near future. With the increasing acceleration of the Pakistani Army and the Taleban coalescing into a neo-Caliphate on the gray borderland between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the now overtly Jihadi Pakistani state can be worried that the war-crimes trials could damage and expose the true character of Jihadi Islam, to a population which has so far proved a safe haven for Jihadi terror to be launched on India. It is the ideological delegitimization that worries the Jihadis of the subcontinent, and the transit agreements could actually cover eventual move towards military agreements between India and Bangladesh to destroy the Jihadis themselves in the eastern part of the subcontinent.
I will primarily characterize this election as a four-cornered struggle for state power in which the forces in order of “strength” are (1) the military establishment (2) the Jamaat (3) the Awami League and associates (the so called “great alliance”) (4) the BNP +non Jamaat associates. The military as per my earlier analysis is in favour of Islamic consolidation of the state regime – in tune with the power base of the military command among the elite of Bangladeshi muslim society, whose prime feudal motivations of gaining and controlling “land” and dominance over society is best served under strengthened Sunni Wahabi authoritarian framework. The military has consistently reasserted its dominance over the state machinery whenever it had felt that its long term strategy of bringing Bangladesh closer to the Islamic axis centred in Saudi Arabia is being threatened – this was why it eliminated Mujibur and even its own – like Jia, or leftist “heretics” like Col. Taher. At present, the prime tool is the Jamaat. As I have mentioned before, the Jamaat will be the key political force which can be used by the military to serve its agenda. The Jamaat was allowed to suffer the least in the anti-corruption drive against the political establishment. To be fair, the military’s weakness for the Jamaat could be coming out of reasons very similar to those that kept the two major political groups also “strangely” weak towards the Jamaat – that all the political elite including the Jamaat share core social networks at the same level and that all the non-Jamaat political elite share political secrets as to activities during the 71 struggle as well as post-Independence that could be used by the Jamaat to manipulate them.
The Jamaat is the direct descendant of the philosophy of Moududi – the ideologue and founder of a strict Wahabi/Sunni interpretation of Islam whose core message therefore almost always inevitably landed up into the domain of cataclysmic confrontation with everything deemed “unIslamic and therefore anti-Islamic”. The top leadership has been accused persistently of war-crimes but they take pride in claiming that apparently none of these accusations could be proved – they can do so, as the Bangladesh military post-Independence ensured (with the help of factions within the “liberators”) that cases/investigations/charges were withdrawn and that the Jamaat were politically rehabilitated. The Jamaat has minuscule vote share, but displays an impact and influence on Bangladesh state power hugely out of proprtion to its apparent electoral strength. The Jamaat will be the most likely stable political Islamic group to receive Saudi and extended Islamic expansionist network support, and this Islamic axis will see Bangladesh and Jamaat’s role as crucial to its overall expansionist agenda of takeover of the subcontinent in the name of Islam. The Jamaat of course has now turned ultra-nationalist and pretends to fight “colonial aggression” which of course as conveniently for Islamic agenda is seen only in India which is portrayed as “Hindu/Kaffir”. Hiding under the ultra-nationalist slogans is of course the mother of all colonialism – the ultimate Jihadi Islamic takeover of not only Bangladesh but the entire subcontinent – an experiment already started by the Taleban in the west of the subcontinent. The recent Mumbai attacks is a signal that Islamic agenda for the subcontinent is intensifying and Indian “war posturing” will be used as a rallying cry and panic button to push further for Islamic consolidation in Bangladesh. (Mumbai Islamic message)
The Jamaat’s strength does not lie in numbers, but the social networks among the elite, the theologians and the international Jihadi and Sunni Wahabi fundamentalism – (1) the military has ensured that it suffered almost nothing in the anti-corruption drives and so will claim themselves as “pure” and untainted compared to the others – and is likely to be rewarded for this by the electorate (2) the various military regimes as well as political ones, by failing to try the culprits of war-crimes and infighting among the “liberators” has ensured that newer generations have far less concerns about what happened almost 40 years ago than other “more pressing” concerns (3) the Islamic propaganda machinery allowed to flourish under the pro-Islam military regimes as well as political forces have been able to increase the rate of Jihadi Islamization of the rural as well as a section of urban Bangladeshi youth – Islam holds several attractions for males especially – it promises all that they biologically desire, consumption, women and power – without having to make the hard effort of intellectual skills development required to compete in a modern knowledge based economy, or having to tolerate modern rights given to women over their sexuality or their bodies. (4) sections of the younger generations are likely to be relatively free of qualms about experimenting with an authoritarian Islamic system which of course at first they would like to believe would be along the lines of Malaysia or Iran- especially since the military has succeeded in discrediting the pre-existing political establishments. All these factors could have been instrumental in repeating the general pattern observable all over the subcontinent – of increasing radicalization of younger recruits who gravitate to the armed forces in Islam dominated countries.
The Awami League represents strongest electoral combine as of date but will have to reckon with the Jamaat. The BNP has taken a bad knock but will not lag far behind the Awami League, as the military would have strong connections with the setup and would like to keep it afloat as a second line of defence and the major political face of the Islamic agenda which will be led from behind by the Jamaat – this is simply a tactic to allow the Jamaat to grow and takeover.
The uprising was most likely to have been carefully planned, with sleepers trained by Pakistan and Jihadi organizations acting in careful coordination to use genuine grievances and liquidate the older generation of commanding officers – a group less likely to be submissive completely to the charms of the Jihadis. The core group has most probably now vanished, and been taken to safe havens maintained by the Jihadis in West Bengal under a tolerant Leftist regime. This was simply a warning, in showing that the force which is on the border of Bangladesh is out of control, and that the Jihadis still hold the keys of state power. It could not have happened unless key elements of the security apparatus allowed it to happen.
Obama’s takeover could actually be a dampener for all those hoping to see more positive action in favour of India. His primary concern will be restoration of the US economy. US strategic interests in Asia will therefore be intimately tied in with strategies for growth of the US economy. In spite of rhetoric, economic calculations will impose restrictions on where and how far Obama will go. It seems most unlikely that Obama will increase overseas military commitments and war or surgical strikes against Iran is most unlikely unless Iran deliberates provokes US into a position where it will be embarrassed internationally if it does not retaliate. Obama will try to hold the “line” rather than expand or contract. His main tactic will be to retain the bluster to outshine Bush in foreign affairs but basically do nothing. He will try to achieve more with bluffs and diplomatic pressure and nerve wars rather than do anything that escalates military commitments. He will be under pressure to be seen not to retreat compared to Bush’s legacy, which will be a dampener for those within and outside US who hope that Obama will reverse many of the aggressive Bush moves.
For the subcontinent, Obama’s main strategic steps will be to reassure and to a certain extent increase cooperation with India mainly in the economic arena. Obama will also see to it that Indian regimes are not penalized at the elections by not taking aggressive retaliatory measures against Pakistan. Obama’s tactic will be to increase public visibility of military collaboration with India, and a declared programme of strengthening defence capabilities of India, and maybe even some kind of enhanced NATO type guarantee of alliance/protection in case of third party aggression. Similarly Obama will see to it that any Pakistani regime is not penalized by the people, by holding off India from POK. If India can bargain here properly, it can wrangle out an agreement to station troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan as part of a strategy of anti-terror and disruption of Taleban supply lines to the POK.
The key here again will be to stabilize rather than expand. This is here where Obama and US policy will begin to unravel. The situation in the Afghan+Pakistan front needs expansion and dynamic rather than stabilization. Stabilization of control would mean the beginning of loss of initiative on NATO part and the turning point of the campaign. The reason static war would be disastrous for the US, is because of the peculiar ground situation. So far the anti-US forces have been fighting Chinese Red army style mobile warfare. Such war style can only be matched by continuous positional movement and encirclement of mobile warriors. As soon as this movement is lost, the mobile warriors gain advantage. For now, in an unfamiliar and unaccustomed territory, positional static NATO can be picked off at ease by its opponents.
Obama’s concentration on economic affairs out of necessity, is likely to lead to less stress on foreign affairs that are seen to be expensive and without direct long term benefits. This in turn is likely to lead to less clarity on strategic military objectives, and a corresponding confusion in the military command over operations. It will not be as if Obama himself will be directly responsible, but his preoccupation with internal affairs and priority to world economic manipulation will lead to a neglect of military expansion and therefore adoption of stop-gap stabilization tactics. Obama will try to get India onboard for the US economic recovery programme, and formulate joint policies to counter China. Strategically, this can benefit the entire Indian subcontinent, especially those economies in a position technologically and educationally to benefit from such US-India relationship – especially India, Bangladesh and SriLanka. But this will also be a great opportunity for India to push through in strategic initiatives of its own about the central Asian republics. India can shrewdly play around to force US acceptance of Indian military presence, if India offers to provide substantial military and economic help directly to the Afghan government. Most diplomatic pressures are only effective when the other party realizes that the pressurizing party will go ahead and do something anyway – and that it is better to join in before it is too late to appear to be a reliable “friend”.
US current needs coincides with India’s on the economic front, primarily against Chinese capture of world markets, and I think there will be no problems in the evolution of collaboration here. But overall this economic movement will subtly and in a very complex way, leave its mark on the military/political strategic scenario, whereby the US and the NATO will ultimately retreat from the Afghan front. This is both a danger as well as an opportunity for India, if it has the correct leadership.
Mumbai’s recent Jihadi terror attack is big media story now. Pakistan has played its cards well – its military and secret service has long been in alliance with the Islamic theologians to promote Islamic Jihad all over Asia. This definitely has been going on for a long time with full knowledge and resourcing by the West from the days of the Cold War – and it is these same leaders of the West who are now desperate to see to it that India does not militarily retaliate. Pakistan has warned already with great alacrity that it will move the Pakistani Army to the Indian border if “tension” increases due to “India” and its fight in the North West against Talebani/Al Qaeda terror will “suffer”! This is hilarious for it simply covers for the complete lack of effort and effectiveness or will to fight against the Islamic Jihad on behalf of the Pakistani state, obvious for years now. It is practically impossible for the Pakistani establishment too – for its primary reasons for existence since its formation by the British was to subjugate India once again in the name of Islam – nothing else, absolutely no other goal exists for Pakistan. Islam imposes unquestioning obedience to Islamic theologians who are increasingly unable to cope with the intellectualal complexity of modern science and society and knowing fully well that only the retrogression and imposition of primitive 7th century Arabian desert culture of looting kafelas and women and property of neighbouring tribes in Ghazwas was the only safe bet to continue in power. Pakistan’s state establishment and its theological establishment know that as a failed state and a gift of blind British shortsightedness, the only way to extend their existence is to live off the wealth and productivity of India. Wherever the Muslims invaded in its historic past, it looted and destroyed without even understanding the basics of sophisticated economies – and inevitably ruined these invaded countries over the long run – leading to their vulnerability against European colonization.
Pakistan’s state promoted the Taleban with Western blessing, and the madrassahs were utilized to brainwash and train generations of Jihadi males – the resources were a heaven-sent for the Muslims since the western support could be used to radicalize more of the youth in Jihad and ultimately use it to carry out “Ghazwa-e-Hind” – total liquidation of the “Hindus”, looting their wealth, land and women – the lucrative incentive to participate in Jihad for the millions of products of only feudal Islamic preaching and nothing else. The military-secret service establishment, probably already moved a major portion of the army to the Indian border knowing fully well about the planned attacks on Mumbai. This army movement would have served a dual purpose (1) the brainwashed Jihadi tutoring of the younger generations most likely to provide the lower ranks of the army are in all likelihood collaborating with the Taleban in the North Western provinces or deserting to them, or supplying the products of the ordnance factories of Pakistan to the Taleban. Moving the remnant under the control of the government to the eastern borders separates them from the Talebani contagion (2) since the elected government (but not the army) has already lost control over the north-western areas and the tribal belt, and failed to contain the Taleban and Al Qaeda, this attack provides a good excuse for abandoning the sham fight against “Jihad” from Afghanistan altogether, and practically leave it in Talebani hands. All these indicate that the theologian-elite nexus of Pakistani society has already come to an agreement with the Taleban-Qaeda to form an alliance to takeover the Pakistani state, and turn it into a hardcore Islamic regime able to strategically extract support from Iran and China and the blindly shortsighted opportunist imperialist elements within European elite to liquidate the only thorn in Islam’s side in Asia and the Indian Ocean region – India. Once India can be subjugated to Islamic sadism, the pan-Islamic belt runs in an uninterrupted belt from Africa, middle East, through to Indonesia – the weak and pacifist societies of Myanmar and Thailand will be mere tasty morsels before Jihadi Islamic greed.
What was the hidden Quranic and Hadithic message within the Mumbai attacks ? This was more a message for the remaining terror modules within India and their support bases within Indian state protected Islamic communities, networks and theological establishments.
22nd-27th of November must be the second half of the Islamic month of Dhu’l Qadah – and as far as I can remember, this is a very significant month in the Islamic calendar. This is the first pilgrimage or Umrah that the Muslims made after the migration/hijra to Medina under Muhammad. The Muslims came on the morning of the fourth day of Dhual-Qadah, in the 7th year after migration, after the treaty of Hudaybiyyah the previous year. The entire event lasted for three days. Any pilgrimage during the month of Dhul-Qadah is named a “major pilgrimage”, or just “pilgrimage” (Hajj), while pilgrimages on all other month are called “minor pilgrimage” (Umrah). The Muslims were armed even though the prevalent practice was not to carry weapons on pilgrimage. The treaty had provided for temporary abandonment and evacuation of the town of Mecca, by the Qureysh when the Muslims entered it, and was primarily meant as a show of strength by Muhammad to the Qureysh.
I find it highly significant in the context of Islamic viewpoint to mount the attack on Mumbai at this date -we have to consider actual terror activities described unemotionally and compare with Mumbai outcomes. A highly significant incident in this month was the destruction of the Banu Quraiza Jews. The Banu Quraizah Jews were originally part of an alliance of Jewish tribes who managed and cultivated the oases farms in the desert of northern Arabia who had been alarmed at the systematic expulsion, sudden ambush and slaughter, and looting of all their camels, women and children. They tried to form alliances with expelled Jews and defend themselves against the Muslim raids. There is hardly any evidence of their having done any atrocity on the Muslims even by Islamic chroniclers – their only crime seems to have been resisting ethnic cleansing, eviction from land which they had worked hard on, and defend their women and children – typically described by the chroniclers as “conspiracy against Islam and Allah’s messenger”. After a siege lasting for 25 days, the Jews surrendered:
Sahih Bukhari records: [Original Sahih Al-Bukhari]
The women and children were then separated from their husbands, others were put under the care of Abdullah, a renegade Jew. All the goods and possessions of the B. Qurayzah Jews, their camels and flocks were all brought as spoils of war. The B. Qurayzah Jewish men were handcuffed behind their backs with their women and children having already been separated. They were placed under the charge of Mohammad ibn Maslama, the assassin of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, to be sent to Medina before their execution in batches. A long trench was dug in the marketplace of Medina. The Prisoners were then taken there, made to kneel down and beheaded in a group of five or six. Muhammad was personally present to witness this slaughter. Ali and Zubayr cut off the heads of the Jews in front of Muhammad. Sourcing from Al-Waqidi, Tabari writes:
“…the messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the B. Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.” Ibn Ishaq writes that they were taken in groups to Muhammad for beheading in front of him.
Tabari further writes:
‘The messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups. Among them were the enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, and Ka’b b. Asad, the head of the tribe. They numbered 600 or 700-the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900. As they were being taken in groups to the Messenger of God, they said to Ka’b b. Asad, “Ka’b, what do you understand. Do you not see that the summoner does not discharge [anyone] and that those of you who are taken away do not come back? By God, it is death!” the affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them.’
The Sahi (authentic) Hadith of Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.”
The very old Jewish man Az-Zabir had saved the life of a Muslim convert, Thabit b. Qays in the Bu’ath war. When Az-Zabir was about to be beheaded Thabit requested Muhammad to save the life of Az-Zabir and his family as a return to his favor. Muhammad agreed. Az-Zabir then asked Thabit b. Qays about the Jewish leaders such as Ka’b b. Asad and Huayy b. Akhtab, as he preferred to die rather than to live without them. Az-Zabir replied, “Then I ask you for the sake of the favor I once did for you to join me to my kinsmen, for by God there is no good in living after them. I will not wait patiently for God, not even [the time needed] to take the bucket of a watering trough, until I meet my dear ones.” So Thabit brought him forward, and he was beheaded. Abu Bakr commented “He will meet them, by God, in the Gehenna, there to dwell forever and forever.”
[this is the battle that gives explicit culling of all adult males including those that had begun to show pubic hair] Hadith from Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 38, Number 4390: Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
After executing all the adult male Jews, Muhammad sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari with some captive women and children from the B. Qurayzah to Najd to sell them in the slave market. Among the captive was a young woman called Rayhanh bt. Amr b. Khunafah [all her male relatives including her husband were executed under personal supervision of the prophet of Islam] and took her as his concubine. It is said that when Muhammad offered to make her his wife by embracing Islam, she declined. She preferred to remain a concubine to becoming a Muslim and said, “Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession [as a concubine], for it is easier for me and for you.” [Some biographers claim that Rayhana eventually accepted Islam].
I think this is highly relevant as the terrorists were perhaps trying to send a message not only to non-Muslim Indians but more so to the Muslims of India who would connect the significance better than non-Musilms. If the reports of supposed torture [comment by Dr. Aaron Abraham, physician friend of the slain Rabbi in Mumbai on Indian media, who has claimed the Rabbi’s body] on the Jewish family, separate execution of the women, and deceptive negotiation with the commandos about hostages when they had already been executed, are confirmed then this will tie in exactly with the significance of this raid in Islamic theologian eyes.
For the Taleban-Qaeda and their various backers all over the middle-east, China, Iran, theologians of Saudi Arabia – this is the start of the signal for Muslims in the subcontinent, that those who are really “faithful” should see this as the command of the final offensive towards annihilation of the Jews and the “Qureysh” of the modern world – the Americans. The month of Dhul Quadah was used to attack Mumbai so ferociously and target Israelis because of Islamic historical significance of notorious Jew-liquidation campaigns by the prophet of Islam and show of strength to his opponents at Mecca in this “sacred month”. The genocide of the Banu Quraizah Jews by the Muslims in this context came immediately after the battle of the “trench” in which the leader of Islam was almost killed and was only saved by “falling into a ditch” and another Muslim resembling him becoming the centre of wrath of the enemy and being killed in error. This could be a message to the remaining terror modules and community support networks of Jihad within India to the effect that recent advances and attacks by the NATO forces with elimination of key commanders, is like the temporary setbacks of the “battle of the trench” and that the “faithful” should take this as the signal for the final campaign – to eliminate all “tribes” (read India, Israel etc) allied to the “Meccan Qureysh” (read Americans) before “conquering Mecca” (read USA).
But, I hope, the Islamic Jihadis get this message clearly into their heads – that they have made a tremendous blunder. Since many from the middle east do visit this site – they should clearly understand, that they have fallen a victim to propaganda from a certain section of regime sponsored historians of India and colonial neo-imperialist historiography of European origins, that “Hindus” are soft targets, and that they can be beaten to a pulp without much damage to Islam. Reality was that “Hindus” managed to survive, still maintaining all their liberal practices compared to Islam, over more than 1300 years of brutal fighting and resistance – a history of conflict and resistance that brought successive Islamic regimes to their knees, completely erased out of public discourse by Indian official historians under Western pressures for tactical reasons of the Cold War. What Islamists have done in Mumbai, has set in motion a process, by which the Hindu will galvanize into a nation and regime that will visit terrible retribution and possible complete eventual liquidation of Islam in most parts of Asia – this time around no imperialist regime will succeed to keep it in check.
It will be the height of political stupidity to think that this is going to be led by this or that party of Indians, the Congress or the BJP – not really, it will be a political force in the making from the grassroots that will coerce even the BJP if necessary to pursue a less opportunistic line, and will leave the shattered remains of both parties by the roadside in its march towards an extreme rightwing reaction against all things Islamic. I already feel sorry for the “common” Muslim who will have to bear the brunt of this reaction if they do not liquidate their theologians and reject the Jihadi core of Islam as ant-Islamic and not just un-Islamic – an outcome most unlikely I think!
There is now candlelight vigils all over India, mourning and showing anger at the Mumbai attacks – and the media is hawing and hemming about recognizing the anger of the common Indian but still ordering on the behalf of Islamophile regimes that people should do nothing that hurts Islam for the survival of the political regime crucially depends on the roughly 13-14% Muslim swing vote factor in Indian elections. Although some Muslim voters do appear to vote outside of religious affiliation, it has been always a recognized fact of Indian elections that groups like the Deobandi fatwaists or the Imam of the Jame Mosque in Delhi decide for whom the majority of the Indian Muslims vote.
India’s Islamophile regimes’ typical obsession is about giving highest priority to protection of Islam, and is the only non-Muslim majority country that sponsors and hugely subsidizes costly Hajj pilgrimage for Muslims and even uses government infrastructure overseas especially to provide for such pilgrimage. The reason for this is the steady decline in the voter fraction of the Congress as evident right from the first general elections in independent India (less than 50%) when it had hardly any opposition left thanks to the British who selectively wiped off the competitors of Nehru, their lackey and choice for continuation of their interests in India. In fact electoral laws that appeared to go against the Congress even as apparent in the that very first elections were amended at the behest of the Nehru government. This was thus a problem right from the start even as the two major most populous and influential opposition from people, those from Punjab and Bengal, were partitioned and traumatized and decimated under Islamic Jihad as allowed to develop by the British with most of their policymakers deciding to side in favour of Islam probably out of revenge for the loss of the Indian empire resulting from the anti-British movement spearheaded predominantly by the Hindus.
Indian Hindus have known for 1300 years what Islamic terror means, (see here) and Indian Hindus have fought back with the only tactic that is effective against Islamic terror – with similar tactics of deceptive, violent, sadistic attacks – this is how the non-collaborator Rajputs, the Vijaynagar empire, or the Marathas under Shivaji, or the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh were able to bleed the Sultanate and the Mughals to getting dismembered. Only after independence, which coincided with the start of Cold War, British pressure was high on India to protect and nurture Islam as part of whole range of strategy based around immunizing the south and middle east of Asia against communism. This was the reason, combined with Nehru’s increasing realization that over time, the British suppression and removal of credible opposition to him and his coteries would be neutralized as the basic forces within Indian non-Muslim society would reassert, that for the future the marginal Islamic vote would be crucial for the survival of the Congress in power. This led to a huge campaign to whitewash the record of Islam in India, by regime sponsored and dependent historians so that future generations of non-Muslims did not have access to knowledge and evidence that showed the real agenda and modus-operandi of Islam – while the madrassahs and Muslim religious educational institutions, systems were protected and continued to disseminate the actual Jihadic core message of the texts of Islam.
This has made generations of Indian Hindus unprepared psychologically for Islamic violence. But the trend has reversed once the British nurtured intelligentsia, historians, academics, and politicians began to die out from natural demographic factors – with more and more Indians being educated within India and being able to move out of India as well and becoming independent of government control and influence and finding out on their own about the real nature of Islam from resources not restricted (even if the rulers wish to) in the free world. They are vilified by the whitewashers of the Thaparite school of Indian history for they realize the danger these new generations of India pose for the existence of the Islamophile regimes.
In the short term the only thing Indians can do is to have zero tolerance for politicians, media and academics that protect, justify, or do nothing against the ideological motivator for terror – Islam, and especially politicians at the centre of the federal system in whose tenure terrrorist attacks take place -simply try to give zero votes to each candidate of the regime in the next general elections – that is the only thing that will hurt these callous bootlickers of Islam.
What Islamic Jihadis have done in Mumbai has been micro-covered by the world media now. It is not my task to repeat what cameras and anchors have been ranting about. However, it is a day of great sadness as well as a day of great hope. For with this attack Islam has sealed its fate in India. It will continue to survive for years but its end has begun. The Hindu has now essentially broken its final shred of shyness and philosophical disregard of its own relentless annihilation. I have warned in this blog before that this is one community that appears docile on the outside, but with great resilience, persistence and determination that had fought the Islamic hordes for more than a 1000 years – this is how nearly 80% still survive within the borders of India.
The media under the overwhelming influence of a leftist political correctness imposed by almost 60 years of Islamophile and blatantly anti-Hindu propagandist regime dependent Thaparite school of Indian history, will continue to do damage control in favour of Islam, and the Indian political establishment will try to divert attention by hinting at “foreign hands”. But this is one damage that cannot really be covered. The bulk of the Indian population has disjointed itself psychologically from everything Islamic – including every element in the apparatus of state and civil society that appears to have sided with Islam, protected Islam or patronized Islam. If the BJP fails to give shape to this disjunction, the momentum of the “Hindu” will not stop, and we will see a new nationalist avowedly Hindu movement taking birth.
The Taleban, the Al Qaeda, Pakistani state and security apparatus that supplies and sources terror outfits and outrages in India, the ideological backbone from which modern Jihad took its inspiration – the return to orthodoxy movements of the Tabliqi Jamaat and the Deobandis in the subcontinent, in spite of all their tactical show of condemnation of terrorists as unIslamic (but not antiIslamic and not punishable like sexual offences by stoning or death), the communist imperialism of China which sponsored both Iran and Pakistan, all will now be clubbed together by the “Hindu” as the enemy – and anyone, any force in the world that sympathises, patronizes, justifies Islami Jihad will be silently assigned the status of enemy by the “Hindu”. The Congress’s political future is doomed, the BJP may not fare much better if it does not reflect this rising silent rage in the Hindus. The Congress will still survive in the next general elections but its political pre-eminence is now on inevitable decline.
As I have tried to warn many times in this blog, once this Hindu consolidation takes place, the days of Islam on the subcontinent are numbered. Once India itself frees itself of Islam, the new “Hindu” India will turn its attention to Pakistan and Bangladesh and the next round of retaliatory and liquidation moves against Islam will take place. Its start of the endgame in the Indian subcontinent at least for Islam – a faint glimmer of hope in an otherwise overwhelming gloom.
All Indian media has been buzzing with images and sounds of the Mumbai Taj hotel burning as a result of an encounter between Jihadi terrorists and Indian security forces. There could be more fatalities, and more casualties. Encounters have been going on in other places in Mumbai too. But the main target of the Taj was also an important place where corporate India met regularly and at the time of the Jihadi attack several important trans-national business meetings were going on. The Trident is another hotel where terrorists have struck.
Why did the Jihadis get so bold? They have got the clear message from the Left of Centre Indian regime currently in power that with the general elections next year in sight, the regime will do everything to convince the Muslim populations of India that the regime is prepared to go to any lengths to please Islam – what better method than to try and paint the “Hindu” – the hated “infidel”, the “qufr”, whose land is to be looted by Jihad, whose women are to be raped and captured and enslaved by Jihad, and all whose cultural icons to be erased by Jihad, as the “bad guy” and therefore gain the gratitude of Islam.
The Islamists know that the Islamophile regime of India will use its state power to prevent any retaliation – the only language of retaliation and revenge that Islam understands will not be spoken to the Muslims. This whole game of Islamic Jihadi sadism on the non-Muslims of India would have been over forever in a matter of months if the “Hindus” decided and were allowed to take matters into their own hands. The Islamophile regime at the centre knows this very well and has used every means possible to prevent the majority community come to exactly such a conclusions – including traditional state influence and regime sponsored academics’ control over the media. It is possible, that Centre-Left has already decided or panicked that the next general elections could be quite bad for them and that the majority sentiment was veering away from them – so they desperately went out to ensure minority support which because of long term steady mobilization by Muslim theologians and infiltration from the neighbouring Muslim countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh has now significant vote swing capabilities in terms of sheer numbers.
The Centre-Left regime’s tactic is self-defeating. Its antics and Jihad’s singleminded agenda of destroying non-Muslim cultures has now more or less ensured that non-Muslims of India mostly have now come out of the traditional illusion of mythical peaceful advent of Islam in India propagandized by the Thaparite school of Indian history. There will be a huge campaign now mounted by the Indian media and the regime in power that the greatest need of the hour is for Indians to respect “communal harmony” – so that the only language Islam understands (and if spoken, historically, Islam always turned “peaceful” – for their greatest theological concern is to survive and increase in numbers) that of retaliation and liquidation of Islamic leadership and support bases, will not be used – giving time and confidence for Jihad to expand further in India. There will also be an attempt perhaps to divert attention and justify Jihadi action in two cliche modes (1) “we have to understand the frustrations that lead to such desperate actions!” (implying that Indians should concede more and more to Islam while similar logic should not be applied to non-Muslim frustration) (2) “it was because of the Hindu terror that Muslims reacted” – implying that Hindus should never think of resisting Jihad.
Non-Muslims of India should identify which political groups appease Jihad and Islam and vote accordingly. At this stage, India will not survive, if Islam and its Jihadi agenda cannot be contained and liquidated – this will be the primary issue for the nation’s existence. If India survives only then can it deal with its economic problems – and non-Muslims have to consolidate their position with respect to Islam. For those in the West who have been supporting and still continue to think of protecting Islam in India as continuation of British Imperialist and Cold war western strategy – should get it into their myopic thick heads, that the fall of India to Islam will complete the pan Islamic regime running from NorthAfrica through the Middle East to Malaysia and Indonesia and will nicely cut the West off from all the major sources of world’s oil and the Asian markets.
It is unimaginable how the wise-old political wizards of the Centre-Left in India committed this monumental blunder of allowing the Mumbai ATS to suddenly discover “Hindutva terror” before regional elections and the general elections peeping in the horizon. The key figures chosen for media highlighting and vilification are significant : a mid-ranking male army officer and female religious activist. We can speculate whether these figures were deliberately chosen to make a plausible story (sourcing of explosives and technology from “military” experience and ideological motivation from religious activist – a “female” terrorist is also a scoring point in favour of Islam as apologists can shout – look, at least in India Islam is so good as not to make females into terrorists, and therefore how bad the “Hindus” are! the more this drama goes on the more it becomes too convenient a political scoring point for the Centre-Left). We can speculate if it was done to reassure Muslim voters that the Centre Left was doing all it could to demonize the “Hindu” and therefore the Muslims should vote overwhelmingly in their favour. However I am less concerned with motivations if any for concocting such a storyline – for as the future will show, the Centre Left loses the game in all possible ways.
It will not matter if the “Hindu” accused really were or were not involved in the blasts. Any calculation by the Centre Left of using this “case” to serve one or more of the three main possible objectives (1) in regional/provincial elections to gain Muslim votes (2) demonize the “Hindu” and make it embarrassing for the common “Hindu” to vote from community and cultural affiliations (3) to distract the general and rising anger in non-Muslim populations of India about the de-facto helplessness or lack of political will in the Centre Left whose only strong stands against Islamic Jihadi terrorism excel in the volubility of their media statements, will prove futile. The Centre Left completely fails to understand the long-term shift in the general non-Muslim Indian consciousness towards a open recognition of the extremely retrogressive and traumatic role of Islam on the subcontinent (this recognition remained deeply submerged but dormant under official educational propaganda and patronage of Islam compared to denigration and demonization of the Hindu starting officially approved school textbooks which detail plenty of “evils” of “Hinduism” but none whatsoever in the revealed traditions).
By picking on a “Hindu” armyman and a “Hindu” woman religious activist, ironically the Centre Left will realize soon what cultural icons they have created for the “Hindu” – symbols that will only gain stature if the government manages to prove them “guilty”. To the common Hindu mind, if they really carried out the “blasts”, they were for the first time in decades doing something in revenge or retaliation against persistent Islamic terror that started within India through Pakistan sponsored Talebani Jihad in Kashmir – in the face of what will appear to be consistent failure by the Centre Left to protect non-Muslims of India from Jihadi Sadism. This is the same strategy of “retaliation” from the population in a situation that appears to continue to provide relentless terror and repression “tolerated” or “indirectly protected” by a national government that was followed by the Palestine “Liberation” movement against Israel and was romantically lauded by the Centre Left for decades. This has proven quite successful for the Palestinians with Israel politically cornered, and the basis for this success, the gain of political legitimacy in the the minds of populations who had felt helpless and unprotected before has every likelihood of being repeated in the arena of social consciousness in India.
It is this tremendous blunder by the Centre Left in failing to read the basic social trend that will cause them to regret this incident in the decades to come. The Right of course in the future will come to realize this as a turning point that indicates the fundamental changes taking place in Indian society that ultimately will lead in its favour.
Before I continue with my series on the “immensely significant periphery” of the Indian subcontinent, I would like to touch here briefly on the “heartland” India itself, as its fundamental trends are going to have an impact on the developments in the periphery. India is crucially and deeply involved in almost all the countries of the “periphery”.
The recent investigations and attempts by the Mumbai ATS to implicate the so-called “Hindu Right Wing” in the blasts in the predominantly Muslim areas of Nanded and Malegaon in Maharashtra is significant for more reasons than the obvious immediate ones in the minds of the investigators or in their political “motivators” within the Congress led government both at the state as well as the national level as suggested by the political detractors of the Congress. Any speculation as to the political motivations to paint the “Hindu” as terrorist and equate with the “Islamic” terrorists with the next general elections in sight is good food for the “political” media. So far all the “brain mapping” and “modern” techniques of extraction of truth has failed to provide any basis for the speculative allegations against the so called “Hindu Right”. Scanning the media reaction and media trial by “secular” forces of the security apparatus’ attempts at “nailing” Islamic terrorists we can find a deep suspicion and derision of any “identification” of Islam with “terrorism” and where it becomes really indefensible – we hear loud protests that we should all actually look into the real “provocations” behind such “Muslim reactions”. The same voices appear to be instantly convinced about the legitimacy of the Mumbai ATS’s claims, and leads us to realize the real political affiliations of this “progressive” “neutral and objective” voices which are allowed solely to be voiced on the media. In any case these are all processes of short term duration played out in the immediate future. We should look at the real significance of this phenomenon for the longer term.
The fact that some “Hindus” could decide to take matters into their own hands, was always a possibility, and I have repeatedly stressed this out here in my blog. The root of this phenomenon goes back a long way into the history of the Indian subcontinent and how that history has been reconstructed in the modern period under the British and its successor regimes for their own hegemonistic purposes. The fundamental problem is that of the complete denial by regime dependent historians of the Nehruvian and post Nehruvian Congress-(pro-Soviet)-Leftist schools of Indian history of Islamic atrocities on the non-Muslims of India throughout the numerous invasions and conquests and the various Islamic state authorities, and the struggle carried on by the non-Muslims against such Islamic behaviour. The fact is that the memory of Muslim torture, rape, abduction and forced marriage of women, enslavement, extreme economic exploitation with religious justifications, carries on in non-Muslim groups who have strong traditions of intergenerational transfer of knowledge and experiences. The handing down of this memory, a basic distrust of all things Islamic, runs deep in most strongly bonded “Hindu” clans and communities that have faced Islamic onslaught and survived still maintaining their “Hindu” identity, and does not need the “official” vehicle of “historical education” under the watchful reconstructive eyes of the Thaparite school of Indian history.
Just as Islam failed to completely convert all Indians because of the intensive and long drawn out struggle against Islam – an aspect completely suppressed by the Thaparites as it would jeopardize their “idyllic” myth of peaceful conversions and perfect communal amity – the Thaparites failed to completely brainwash all Hindus and rewrite the history of Islam in India in their minds. The Hindu appears docile, compromising, philosophical, “other-worldly” etc., but this is a deceptive impression – for the story of their struggle and their survival against the ruthless barbarities of Islam have been edited out of public representation through the media or education. This long struggle, which preserved their culture to a great extent (although traumatized and showing the cultural effects of such trauma in “self-repression”) if studied properly and honestly, will show that this is a community which appears “loose”, divided, ritualistic and carrying a lot of baggage like “caste” which can mostly be traced surprisingly to modern colonial regimes of Islam and the British – but all these are mere superficial features, the social veneer hiding their actual strategic flexibility and determination that have continuously produced characters like the legendary founders of the Vijaynagar empire, or Shivaji and Ranjit Singh.
The transition to “independence” in India followed the general subcontinental pattern of elite mobilization to get control of state power and machinery established by a colonial regime for the elites’ monopolistic hegemonistic enjoyment. This meant that the British actually handed over power to a regime that was likely to remain in the British sphere of influence and carry out policies in favour of British interests. The British helped liquidate opposition to Nehru within India by using discriminatory repression against likely alternative popular candidates, because Nehru showed significant psychological disjunction from the majority culture on the one hand and great affinity for the British “taste” or Islam on the other- thereby ensuring continuation of long term British imperialist design on the subcontinent.
The apparatus of state control under colonial regimes depended on the apparatus of personal power, and this structure was retained essentially even after transition. This implies retention of personnel and systems faithful to the previous colonial masters, with direct and indirect structures of ideological and cultural hegemony of the British continuing through various mechanisms like education (the current Prime Minister proudly reminded his British audience once that he was an “Oxonian” himself and that “many Oxonians” have in the past gone forth to rule India). This regime embarked on the project of redoctrinating the forthcoming generations of Indians into a soporific mythical history of India where everything “Hindu” was retrogressive and evil, and only those aspects of Hinduism which tried to be syncretic with the revealed traditions were worth treating without disdain – and all the revealed traditions as practised or introduced in India as paragons of virtue and as liberating for Indian society (The Thaparites actually manage to “confess” this agenda in their public posturings). Such indoctrination programs could be maintained only as long as the generation represented in the state apparatus derived from colonial affiliations, remained active. Natural causes progressively diminish the proportion of such elements in the apparatus of social control, and it was a matter of time only that newer generations of Indians from the majority community would reassert their deep cultural affiliations to their own community.
All this will lead to a gradual strengthening of the “Hindu” community bonds, and cultural affinities. Modern generations of professionals or intellectuals will gradually erode or eliminate practises that are seen as retrogressive or obstructive towards reassertion of “Hindu” hegemony. This cultural consolidation would not have taken a political turn, if the Indian regimes did not try to denigrate or delegitimize this “Hindu” cultural identity. Blatant whitewashing and patronizing of religions like Islam, in complete contradiction to social historical memory of the “Hindus”, alienated the community from political forces that supported such regimes. We have to remember, that there are concrete case studies of how Islamic forces were encouraged by such regimes when faced with possible electoral defeat at the hands of “leftists”, beginning in the 60’s – long before the rise of the BJP. Similarly the Kashmiri Islamic aggression, the atrocities and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim Kashmiris, continued without hindrance under these very same regimes beginning in the 70’s and intensifying into the late 80’s, long before the BJP became a significant electoral force. Early 70’s also showed that the essential character of Islam on the subcontinent had remained unchanged from its first appearance through the Arab raids into Sindh – through the brutal massacre, organized rape, and destruction of cultural icons of the “Hindus” in the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. All these factors combined with the relentless terrorist activities of Islamic groups supported by Pakistan, forced the “Hindu” cultural consolidation process to take a political turn -as Hindus probably came to realize that they would need to control the apparatus of state power to ensure survival against violently retrogressive Jihadi Islam whose sole aim is to completely liquidate all traces of non-Muslim cultures.
The more the “Hindu” is demonized, and Islam raised sky-high in praise, the greater will be the politicization of this essentially cultural reassertion. Retaliation against atrocities that appear to continue under state “non-chalance” has been found to be effective – and is romantically praised in many circles both in the West and India – take the case of the Palestine “Liberation” movement for example. The Indian state has not been able to stop Kashmiri Jihadi Islami atrocity nor has it been able to prevent explosions at huge human costs sourced by Islamic militants. It was only a matter of time before some “Hindu” thought of retaliation seeing in the government’s consistent failure and indirect “encouragement” and protection of Islam – the root ideological cause and motivation for such violence (and not the humans who are brainwashed at madrassah’s from childhood in hatred of the Qafir). Just as in Palestine, or Algeria, such retaliation will unfortunately prove quite effective – and the “villains” of today have every likelihood of turning “heroes” or “liberators” of the future. A long term side-effect of continued demonization of the “Hindu” will be an increasing acceleration of the community towards the “Right”, and I feel that the process has now become irreversible. The next general elections may not reflect this, but over a longer span of 10-20 years the trend will be evident.
This Right-wing tendency will not necessarily be characterized by a dominance of “Brahmins” (as its opponents hopefully try to prophecy). The leadership is more likely to come from the “middle/upper middle” order of the social hierarchy, and surprisingly or in complete contradiction to “social wisdom” could even contain so-called “backward castes”. This wil be a defensive consolidation initially, and then turn increasingly aggressive towards all forces it sees as potentially hazardous for its cultural survival. Once this trend takes political shape, there is hardly any force left in the subcontinent that will be able to survive against it without huge foreign intervention. This Right wing consolidation also has effects on the periphery. Its immediate beneficial effects will perhaps be first felt by Sri Lanka and Nepal. But more of this later!
Now that the Election Commission “of” (the technical and formal legal separation of the Election Commission as a completely independent entity can have some legal complications in the future as part of the broader problem of legitimacy of entire “reformation” process) the “interim” “Caretaker” government of Bangladesh has announced a tentative schedule for the December parliamentary elections, the question of the nature of the future regime comes up. The case of this “regime to be” is of crucial significance as an indication of how Islamic politics in South Asia is going to transform itself in the near future.
As I have speculated before, the elections will take place only if the two major groupings in Bangladeshi elite can be coerced into agreeing to the long term agenda of the military and its international allies – which come under two major mutually dependent but antagonistic international groups – the predominantly Christian, white industrial export oriented West, and the Islamic oil-gas exporters of the Middle East (historically no less colour based racist compared to Europe – for this it is enough to look at the Arabic and Persian Islamic chroniclers who inevitably refer to the people of Indic origin abusively and derisively as “black faced Hindoo”, or are always very conscious of “white” or “black” colour in the Indians and write appreciatively of “white” whenever they see them in an otherwise “dark” subcontinent – see Firishta, Biladuri, Masudi, and many others, especially the Arabic ones). The mutual dependence between these two international “blocks” (not homogeneous, they have their own internal conflicts, but here I refer to their block nature in terms of Bangladesh only) is over “energy” and “markets”, and the conflict is of course over “ideological domination” over the world (in both religions, historically at a practical implementation religion has always been very nearly indistinguishable from biological greed – i.e., religions simply justify and “legalize” taking over of the biological resources of the “others”).
The Awami League has shown its flexibility already (as it has done also on many occasions previously) by possibly agreeing to the terms and conditions which like many other such “agreements” before, will never be made public. As I have also speculated before, the two weapons of “persuasion” in this has most likely been (1) mediation by the West (which probably affected the change in the “mood” and “modus operandi” of the caretaker government over the last one year from aggressive deconstruction of the political apparatus to rehabilitation of the political apparatus) (2) the use of the trump card of the “Jamaat” – which typically is used by the military-feudal-business elite leadership to keep the “anti-Urdu non-Jihadist Bengali” elements in check.
The case of the BNP is more interesting. I have already written about my assessment that the elite and its social support heavily leans towards Islamic authoritarianism, and they remain the overall dominant force in Bangladesh politics. This ideological leaning should not be confused with formal party affiliations, as its elements will appear all across the political spectrum with the exception of perhaps the extreme Left. One of the features of any society where Islam has managed to finish off “almost all ideological opponents” is a distinctive feature of the mass psychological acceptance of “authority” endorsed by the Islamic theologians- which is consistent with the basic tenor of the Quranic and Hadithic “revelation” as a submission to some authority – and inevitably to the personification of that authority. In the struggle for claim over this authority the theologians always appear to have been stronger, and have always managed to keep Islamic societies closer to their own fossilized mindset that lives in the 7th century Arabian desert. Because Islam cannot deal with the complexity of modern science and technologically complex socio-economic superstructure, the theologians whose sole power derives from the existence of as near a copy as possible to the society of the prophet of Islam, the theocracy is ruthless in taking societies back as far as possible to their primitive ideal.
In the background of the history of Bangladesh, all this implies the incomplete Islamization of the region stemming from the late intrusion of Islam into the heartlands of Bengal, and the protracted struggle between predatory Islam and the non-Muslims as evident in numerous legends (which sometimes reveal the military resistance and the essentially initial military subjugation of mainly non-violent Buddhist groups followed by supposedly “peaceful” conversion as per modern propaganda – typically in modern renditions of the “spiritual” conquest by Islamic preachers and adventurers the chronicled accounts of initial military raids are either completely avoided or when undeniable are “mumbled” away as “defensive” actions, and the historically significant clues as to the presence of some major Islamic state-military machine in close proximity is also suppressed) and significant clues in the British censuses which indicate slightly less than half the population still remaining non-Muslim at the beginning of British Imperialist presence. This “incomplete” Islamization of Bengal was always a problem with the theocracy of Islam and their closely linked patrons in Islamic state machinery. To a certain extent, with the help of the British, and the political dishonesty of the Nehru-Gandhi axis, they managed to revive the classic Jihadi Islamic strategy of ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims to capture land, wealth and women of non-Muslims, during the partition of India to create Pakistan, and thereafter manipulate social conditions to ensure that non-muslims continue to “emigrate” out of Islamic Bengal.
The process having accelerated during the buildup to the Liberation War of 1971, (exact proportions of non-Muslims raped, murdered or forced to flee as refugees compared to overall estimates are never concretely discussed, and typically “patriotically” dismissed as all part of overall Bangladeshi casualties implying that any further demographic analysis which might reveal the basic Islamic Jihadi bias against non-Muslims would be “unpatriotic”), Bangladesh’s elite cleverly managed three basic objectives (1) reducing the number of non-Muslims (the census revelations of missing Hindu populations are indirectly blamed on the “unpatriotic” India leaning mindset of “Hindus”) and gaining their lands (the Enemy Property Act which was practically a license for Muslims to take over “Hindu” property without any compensation enacted by Pakistan was retained for a long time in independent Bangladesh) (2) manage to exclude West Pakistani elite from exploitation of Bangladesh resources which the elite could now control for their own private profit through the achievement of an independent nation (3) reestablish more direct ties and connections with the Islamic heartland as an independent nation without having to go through the regimes of Pakistan.
We have to remember that a substantial portion of Bangladeshi elite are ethnically descended from pre-Islamic non-Muslim elite, who as late as the waning Mughal period were converting into Islam to preserve their political and feudal existence. This is also evident in the anthropological composition and appearance of the spectrum of elite leadership – even if they have high flying claims of descent from “illustrious” Arabic or Persian Islamic roots. The fundamental concern of this elite is to hold on to power and hence overall control of exploitation of resources. There could also be a basic continuity of cynical Brahmanical priestly theocracy under the new garb of Islam which provides lots of opportunities to reduce embarrassment for evidence of personal biological greed compared to pre-Muslim ideologies. The incomplete Islamization has paradoxically given rise to this peculiar situation of polity in Bangladesh – it has transformed Brahminical theocratic exploitation (the Brahmins could have been eager converts as they were numerically weaker compared to the Buddhists, and could have found a better excuse for their greed in Islamic formalism) into a Islam justified feudal mindset and claims of authority. Having separated from the main subcontinental culture with violence, the elite needs the support of the Islamic power centres of Saudi Arabia and Iran, to maintain the predominance of Islamic theology which would allow a more natural submission of the non-elite to that of the elite – this comes out in the frequent defiant admissions of favouring “Islam” or “refusal to take action against Islamic theocracy” by spokespersons of the military-elite “caretaker” governments as well as “past” leaders from the military.
In the mindset of the elite, the key to holding onto state power is the deepening of Islamic authority under their political control, as otherwise the cultural tendencies of the Bengali’s (like their non-Muslim brothers in West Bengal) would lead them to experimentation of the most radical of modern ideologies which usually spells disaster for what one Bangladeshi author has translated as “timber mullah’s” (I would rather translate it as “dimwit”).
The Jamaat has been re-kitted out in formal political clothes that would make it less embarrassing for the military political elite in its international posturing towards the West, and promptly adopted into the political process. This is the key force of Islamic theocracy, and will never be abandoned by the elite. It will be used to keep those in favour of modernization and weakening of theocracy in the left-of-centre/centre as in the fourteen party alliance around the AL, under pressure. It will also be used to bring around the remaining right wing of the elite’s broader social basis of support based around the BNP into the agenda of the military leadership. The BNP leadership may rail its rhetoric against the “current government” in field “rabble-rousing” for political credibility, but incredible as it may sound, it is the wee little tail of Jamaat that will wag the dog of the right wing “led” by the BNP.
With consistent and persistent state patronage and extensive foreign support, Islamic theocracy has substantial hold on the common Bangladeshi now. It will be the height of political stupidity to assume that the Right has taken a knocking and will come out the worst in the “elections”. The campaign of the sector Commanders against the Jamaat and the existing “Rajakars” will not be very successful, as Jamaat’s role has been carefully politically rehabilitated by the military and allied political elite. Unless the West has worked out a compromise with the Saudis, to include and give a share of power to the AL, the military will actually ensure that the forces “centred” around Jamaat will win the elections to form the new regime.
This regime will be characterized by a strengthened Islamic theocracy, greater role of Islam in the long term internal and international policies, greater indirect military support, involvement in, control and mobilization of the Islamic forces, long-term eventual rise of Jamaaat as the dominant political force, greater penetration of the influence of the theologians into academics and the media and overt and covert liquidation of cultural entities deemed to be a threat to absolute eventual control by the Islamic forces (more of incidents like vandalization of the statue of the “integrative” “syncretic” Baul “emperor” will take place without any state retribution).
A leading web search engine flashed today the news of a serial blast in the far-eastern province of Assam in India, perhaps better known to most of us in the west as a label appearing on certain brands of tea. The blasts killed perhaps at least 65 people. Blasts are becoming an acceptable part of the common Indian’s life, so it no longer raises shockwaves. Indians go on about their daily business, and there is little reflection of ripples in the remote corners of the country. It is perhaps how Indians went on with their daily business when the Islamic hordes overran the north, in search of food, wealth, and women which their rapacious lifestyle had already denuded from the hinterland of India, in Persia and Central Asia. But what caught my attention was the casual mention of “possible involvement of suspected Hindu extremists” also in the recent blasts in India, along with the general statement and reference to Indian governmental claims of Pakistani secret service involvement along with suspected separatists and Islamic infiltrators. Just as the alleged attacks of the “Hindu” King of Kashmir, Harsha, on some “Hindu temples” is repeatedly shouted about by the Thaparites as claim that “iconoclasm” was of the same scale between Hindus and Muslims, while quietly suppressing the comment that the source of this claim Kalhana the chronicler makes – that in doing so Harsha was behaving like a “Turushka” (Turk – a generic name used by early Indian chroniclers for Muslims, which the Thaparites twist into trying to exclude “Arabs” from the records of Islamic barbarism) – the authors and editors of this web-piece have been careful to try and associate “Hindus” also as potential terrorists at par with “Muslim” terrorists.
It is understandable that a for a lot of people, it is urgent to demonize the “Hindu”. It is crucial for political elite in India who are dependent on divisions of the “Hindu” vote. It is crucial for Islamic organizations who follow the Quranic and Hadithic injunctions to utilize the divisions in “unbeliever’s” attitudes towards Islam to utilize support or sympathy of one “unbeliever” group against another, until all “unbeliever” groups are weakened and assimilated or conquered – typically, the best and preferred method being execution of adult males, and enslavement of children (pre-puberty males) and the women, and taking over all lands and wealth of non-Muslims. It is also crucial for the ideologically committed and therefore of limited statesmanship in the Left, for possible reasons ranging from a cynical recognition that the “mainstream” Indian society still abhors “communism” based on their loose “Hindu” religious identities, or a secret admiration and attraction for the colonial period reconstructed claims of “Islamic brotherhood and community feeling” , or as some scholars have speculated, may even have its origins from the failure and frustration of the Bengali “armed anti-British insurrectionists” (who dominate among the founding fathers of Indian Communism) to mobilize the Muslims of Bengal in their anti-colonial cause.
For long I have had my own debates with myself about the “Hindu”. In my study of the “Hindu” sources, I have increasingly come to the realization that at least at one level the Thaparite criticism that the “Hinduism” of today did not exist in the past, is correct. For the Thaparites, this non-existence is confirmed by what they interpret as (1) lack of a unified centre and presence of sects (2) lack of surviving records of the term “Hindu” (3) literary evidence of practises that are taboo in modern “Hinduism”. Although I do find a severe and crippling lack of logical clarity on the part of the Thaparites, I agree with their conclusion – that many of the features of “modern Hinduism” never existed. Where the Thaparites stop short, for obvious reasons of their political agenda and affiliation, are the exploration of historical causes behind introduction of “such features” into the philosophy, ritual and practice of the survivors of pre-Islamic Indians among Islamic state authorities.
I am going to raise a few simple ideas that the “Hindus” can possibly consider. I will justify where I feel direct justifications exist from within “Hindu” literary sources, and where no such justifications exist, I will simply ask that the proposed idea be considered as an extension or interpretation of an idea contained within the basic philosophical and logical texts of the Upanishads.
My proposition consists of four basic and simple ideas :
(1) Replace the use of the word “Hindu” with the word “Bharatyia”. The word definitely does not exist in the core literature, and although occuring early among the Islamic scholars the earliest references from the “Hindu” side appear only in certain royal inscriptions in the medieval period in Central and South India. Almost certainly the etymology of the word comes from a corruption of a root derived from the Sanskrit “Sindhu” and transformed by the tongue of foreigners, especially foreigners who have been associated beyond doubt with the “Hatem” divide of “Satem/hatem” linguistic divide in the Indo-European – and therefore a distinct region beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the Indian subcontinent. The Bharatyia is a better description of the body of the nation as it connects solidly and consciously with the geographical territory of the subcontinent, as mainly established in the highly political tract of the epic Mahabharatam. I will later give my commentary on the Mahabharatm as embodied political ideology of the “Bharatyia” nationhood, and here only mention my suspicion that the name of “Bharat” was deliberately chosen by the constructors of the epic not as a mere name of king or emperor – but for very specific features and actions by this mythical king which set him apart from other mere royalty and made him a representation of an ideal of “statehood” or “nation” (Bharat disinherited his biological heirs, and gave the reign to someone outside royal birth, because he valued the “nation” and its interests higher than his own personal feelings or attachments).
(2) “Varna” is a descriptive attribute and not a classificatory one and not an inherited one. Each person should be considered as having all the four “Varnas” inside him or her, and depending on the context, each person can and should manifest features of all four “Varnas” as and when required. The same individual when a student or participating in a ritual is a “Brahman”, when fighting a war is a “Kshatryia”, when carrying on “trade” or commerce is a “Vaishya” and when doing physical labour is a “Shudra”. At different time points in life, all these roles can become important and necessary for the single human being. I will give both textual justifications for this more elaborately later, as well as my own interpretations and justifications.
(3) Give the formal symbol of “Yognapobita” (the “sacred thread”) to all students of “Bharatyia darshan” (Bharatyia philosophy) irrespective of origin, class, region, gender. Once given the symbol could be worn also when participating in a ritual, but only in these cases of being a student or participating in a religious ceremony. This definitely does have precedence in the literature.
(4) Make the Upanishadic concept of “Charaibeti” – “never become stationary – move on” as the central concept of “Bharatyia Darshan”. The continuous “quest” for understanding, revisiting previous understanding and requestioning continuously as and when new understanding or knowledge is achieved. All else, rituals, practises, laws, injunctions, should be subordinate to this central concept. Only the act of “quest” should be the permanent feature and all else should be taken as transitory and temporary, and understood as an imperfect response to current conditions and limitation of knowledge. Views of the world, including that of any supra-human conscious authority controlling all processes, or the absence of any such, should be treated the same – subordinate to the quest. This can seem a bit too strong on the agnostic or atheist side, but there are substantial references to the basics of this concept in the Upanishads. Moreover, as stated, the concept is far from pure agnosticism (the concept does not rule out searching or questing the possibility of existence of such an “authority”) or pure atheism (it does not rule out any current understanding by some of what they experience or what some in the future may experience as “God”). However, as I have said in the introduction, I see no reason to be limited by the exact wordings of a text, and we can extend or interpret – for it is the human mind which thinks of the text, it is the human hand which writes it or gives words to it, and it is another human mind which reads it or hears it.
I think these four basic concepts can be worthwhile to explore, having foundational basis in the preexisting philosophical and religious texts and therefore not completely alien or rejectable by those who need the reassurance of continuity – as tools for moving forward, for unifying the people of the subcontinent into a forward looking nation, the ultimate dream of the ultimate statesman in the Mahabharatam – Krishna.
” ….(1) If Islamic terrorists did this, why would they want to have Muslims killed in the blast? Or is it that this was the safest place to carry out blasts, given that deep cover was necessary now when the security forces would be combing the whole country – and such cover could only be provided by a sufficiently large and entrenched Muslim community, and therefore the momentum of Jihad could only be maintained by continued explosions but now only within a smaller feasible radius around the base of the cover. It could also be punishment to the local Muslims at large, who might have shown reluctance or lack of sufficient enthusiasm to join the Jihadi network – there is strong disapproval in the Quran for those Muslims who show “reluctance” in joining militant Jihad or providing material support for such Jihad.
(2) A second more sinister aspect could be a tactical calculation that, these attacks could be attributed to the so-called “Hindu Right wing”, and thus help in the current apparent campaign of the UPA to try to equate “Islamic terror” with “Hindu Right”. If true this would be a very subtle and cynical tactic on the part of the Jihadists, as it achieves many objectives – (1) this makes Jihadi terror appear more “palatable” (2) helps the Congress in its desperate fight to utilize minority support in the coming elections and attempt at delegitimizing the BJP (3) makes the vacillating among the “secular” Hindus shaky in identifying with or leaning towards the “Hindu Right”.
(3) A third possibility could be a copy-cat retaliation from among the non-Muslims of India, as a part of making Muslims share the pain of Jihadi and Islamic terror. This could be an increasing possibility if the Islamophile state policy of India continues. The reaction to Islamic terror is coming, in spite of my deep reluctance to accept the reality of such reaction which will tend not to distinguish between the barbaric theologians of Islam and the common brainwashed followers who in the case of India will be descended from the most unfortunate of pre-Muslim Indians, and one day it will sweep Islam away and deposit it in history’s garbage heap.”
The Mumbai Anti Terror Squad (ATS) has apparently suddenly found “evidence” of possible “extremist Hindu” groups in the Malegaon blasts. This is the same ATS whose “evidence” was severely questioned and doubted by the so-called “right-minded” secular “intellectuals” and “activists” when such “evidence” concerned “possible extremist Islamic” groups. The so-called secular forces fail to realize that by dismantling the credibility (in India, such issues are usually decided by trial by the media, who appear to be under strict compulsions to always portray the “Hindu” as “fascist” – for example in a documentary on the Kandhmal incident, I saw the commentator consistently describe tribals converting out of Christianity and describing their reasons for “disillusionment” openly on the camera as evidence for “conversion into Hinduism out of terror”, or another commentator with great reluctance mumbling briefly about “the general atmosphere of fear” when she discovers on camera that the tribal family hiding out in the forests every nightfall away from their homes was actually “Hindu” as obviously this would be a “blot” in the overall representation of a “one-sided” Hindu “assault”) of the ATS when it “went against Muslims” it leaves the door open to raise similar doubts when the ATS “goes against Hindus”.
Those who would want to see a pattern, could perhaps easily find a pattern of “finding” evidence of implication of “Hindu extremism” in those parts of India, where either the BJP is dominant, or is likely to be a strong contender for state power in the upcoming general elections. There is now increasing symptoms of what is possibly a very cynical political tactic – try to equate “Islamic terror” with an invented “Hindu terror”, and thereby try an prevent “Hindu consolidation” as a political force. This is only the result of extreme panic on the part of portions of the political elite who have thrived on maintenance and strengthening of fissures in Indian society (some of which like caste by birth, are of dubious historical authenticity although declared by historians to be of endemic and ancient in nature) that the processes of “Hindu consolidation” are accelerating.
In my previous post I have written about the current political situation in Bangladesh, where I have expressed my serious concerns about the role of the army in consolidation of the Saudi theologian led radicalization of Bangladeshi Islam, and Islam’s agenda for the subcontinent as a whole. But in the introduction I have also promised visions of revolutionary and positive changes for the “immensely significant periphery”. In this post we will look at the potential for “positive changes” for Bangladesh.
Historically, Bengal (the undivided province) was one of the richest areas of the subcontinent, with a thriving agrarian and “industrial” economy – with records and evidence for a flourishing trade link with Egypt, South East Asia, as well as the Roman empire, in commodities like sugarcane molasses, cotton and fine cotton textiles. The province was sufficiently rich to support independent Sultanates against the nominal control of the Delhi Sultanate, and whenever the central-Northern Indian empires weakened, this tendency of the region to secede politically revived. The same pattern emerged when the Mughal empire weakened, with the Subahdars, and the Nawabs emerging as semi-independent rulers of the region (the highly emotional claim in Bengali literature of the “last independent” Nawab is fallacious – technically and formally, the Nawabs were “vassals” of the Mughal emperors, and Siraj was not the last Nawab either, as he was “legally” followed by Mir-Jafar and Mir Qasim who were “formally” endorsed by the Mughal emperor). The revenue and the products of the province supported and provided a substantial portion of the income of Aurangzeb, towards the beleaguered dusk of his reign.
Bengal was also the first rich Indian plum in the East India Company’s pocket, whose looting of the province and its economy is far better recorded (and less suppressed than the records of destruction and denudation under Islamic rulers). The cumulative effect of Islamic looting for 600 years and British looting for 200 years could be seen in the Bengal famine of 1943 – as official records indicate that by this period, this once rich, net exporter province had become a net importer of its staple food -rice, and any obstruction in the flow of such imports could land up Bengal in severe famine. The previous notorious large scale famine of 1769 can be tied up very well with extreme taxation at the hands of tax-farmers employed by the Company, but once the tax regime normalized the province regained its vitality to a certain extent, although it never regained its pre-Mughal or pre-Islamic prosperity. The extent of Mughal and Sultanate period extraction and impoverishment of Bengal is well attested to by foreign travellers, [see my series on How Islam came to India…economic decline], but systematic British exploitation brought Bengal to its knees.
After Partition from India, Bangladesh was virtually treated as a semi-colony by west Pakistan, and the issue was partly a motivator for the independence movement. Even after independence and a tremendous growth in its productive capacity, population pressure has ensured that Bangladesh is still crucially dependent on imports of essential commodities from its neighbours, and mainly from it’s supposed nemesis-India. The main export earnings of Bangladesh comes from its historical main commodity of export – cotton textiles. Since the ethnic and cultural (in spite of religious divides) composition of Bangladesh is essentially similar to that of neighbouring Indian province of West Bengal, we should expect cultural biases in favour of intellectual and technological achievement. Thus with proper modern and widely accessible scientific and technological education, Bangladesh can achieve the potential it originally enjoyed before the advent of Islam or the British.
While most of Indian populations have had greater success with modern education and technological elevation, the main obstruction in the progress of Bangladesh has been the grip of Islam over its society. On the one hand Islam prevented the majority of Bangladeshi populations from joining the secular and modernizing trends within British India, and led directly to their subservience to Pakistani exploitation without any benefits of modernization. On the other hand Islam of the Arabic version had never had it easy with the ingrained traditions, beliefs and culture of the Bangladeshis – and nowhere in the subcontinent are syncretic tendencies between Islam and Hinduism so vividly apparent as in Bangladesh. This second largest community of Islam remained quite consciously distant from the Wahabi versions of Islam and the Islamic theologians are forced to tolerate the indignities of hearing the appearance and peaceful coexistence of Hindu Krishna or Radha together with calls towards the God of Islam in the ever-popular songs of Hason Raja (descendant of converted Hindu elite).
With the realignment of Bangladesh elite under pressure from the army to the Islamic axis, this struggle between syncretic Bengali Islam and the revivalist, orthodox, and extremely retrogressive Sunni Wahabi Jihadi Islam has been gaining virulence since the formation of Bangladesh. The Islamic Jihadi theologians are quite worried that left to its own wiles, Bangladeshi Islam will forget the Arabic Islam’s agenda of Jihadi expansion and total liquidation of all non-Muslim cultures. This is the reason there has been increasing flows of funds to strengthen the Islamic propagation networks of the madrassahs and maqtabs or “charitable institutions” – the net effect of all such efforts being visible in the increasing militancy of overground and underground Islamic organizations in Bangladesh. In spite of all propaganda as to the early “peaceful Sufi” converters of Hindu Bengalis, the general pattern on the subcontinent is also found with Sufi or other modes of conversion – that their “huge” success almost always coincides with the presence of Islamic military forces in close proximity – and just like other Sufis, the more famous Sufis of Bengal show fondness for direct military action to win converts or wives.
If the Bangladesh army’s command core, and the elite whose networks give support to this core, can be prevented in this agenda of Wahabi Islamization of Bangladesh, the natural tendencies of this emotional and spirited community will move against Islamic retrogression – the socio-cultural aspects of Arabic Jihadi Islam being completely alien to this more diverse, productive, and flexible Bengali culture. Bangladesh can realize its full intellectual, economic and technological potential only if it is no longer burdened with Islam – the creed that most violently suppresses all “quests”, “quests” that are the key towards progress. Modernization and technological upgrading of the productive forces would also bring in a fundamental change in the historical dynamic that at least partly fuelled Islamic conversions – the hunger for land in a highly productive agrarian economy, that forced Hindu elite to convert to preserve land ownership in the face of Turko-Afghan or Mughal aggression, or tempted the landless to convert and use the Jihadi sanctions to grab land from non-Muslims. In the process of this national redirection, such a liberation from the authoritarianism of retrogressive Islam, will also transform or redefine “Islam” as represented by the Bangladeshi Muslims, and could be a way forward or an example for other Islamic communities not under direct and total control of Wahabi Sunni Islamic theologians.
The future scenario for the subcontinent is intricately linked with what happens in what we can loosely call the “greater” Bharatavarsha – the original Sanskritic name in literature for not only the subcontinent as we understand today but also including adjoining areas currently in Afghanistan, Iran, and central Asia. India derives from Graeco-European corruption of possibly Persian rendering of Sindhu [the Satem/Hatem divide in Indo-European] and is used mostly in European colonial terminology.
I am starting this series with what I choose to call the “immensely significant periphery”, the countries of Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. I feel that the force of historical development is accelerating now in all the countries of the “immensely significant periphery” and the future trends are dangerous, revolutionary on the one hand and hold also tremendous possibilities for positive change on the other hand and at the same time.
I will deal with the case of Bangladesh first, as it has been going through a peculiarly significant phase in its tumultous political history. I have already written about my analysis of the balance of forces in Bangladesh society as developed through its separation from India during the Partition, and its separation from Pakistan in 1971, previously in this blog. I see no reasons to change my estimate, that forces of modernization and Bengali nationalism is slightly weaker than Islamic retrogression. The 1971 war against Pakistan was an anomaly in the sense, that apparently this weaker force managed to get rid of Pakistan’s grip on Bangladesh. However, we can see, that this tilting the balance in favour of the nationalists and modernizers was essentially due to the long covert and finally short overt support given by India. The two forces within Bangladesh fought under their respective leadership which however as in most Asian nationalist struggles, were mostly derived from the same social elite class networks. Factions within the elite fight it out for their personal ambitions and look for support among potential social groups whom they can manipulate to bolster their personal claims for state power. Thus, at the upper levels of this political contest, dividing lines of ideology tend to get blurred. As members of elite have the same social networks tugging on their sentiments, leanings and deep hidden inclinations.
It is critical to understand and identify this distinction between supporting social groups and their leadership to understand the evolution of subcontinental politics. In Bangladesh for example, the “nationalist” faction leadership originally evolved out of the Indian Muslim League (both radicalized under and radicalizing Jinnah), and contained leaders like Suhrawardy (a great hero of “nationalist” Bangladesh) whose role in the Calcutta riots has remained questionable. The core elite leadership around Mujibur Rehman, managed to retain elements like Khondokar Mushtaq, and representatives of the strong force of Islamic fundamentalism which in the case of Pakistan or Bangladesh is usually only expressed in ethnic cleansing of Hindus or Buddhists, or abduction, rape and forced marriages of non-Muslim women, and grabbing non-Muslim property. Mushtaq later turned out to be the figurehead of a coup by officers of the Bangladesh Army that assassinated Mujibur and his entire family then present, in classic Islamic style reminding us of the great traditions of Caliphate – wipe out even the toddlers, so that no male descendants can turn up later to become focus and claim for political power (another sign of the medieval Islamic thought patterns of the Bangladesh elite that dominated the Army).
Subsequent history of Bangladesh has shown clearly that its armed forces are dominated by an Islam leaning leadership. The Army managed to liquidate “left leaning” army officers and members, (like Col. Taher) but brought to power commanders with overt, distinct, and explicitly Islamic agenda – like Gens Jiaur Rahman and his successor H.M.Ershad. These army regimes protected, and revived the Islamic fundamentalists represented and regrouped under the Jamaat e Islami, an organization openly against the nationalist liberation movement and many of whose leadership are also implicated in genocide, organized rape, and torture of people they considered “pro-India”, Hindu, and anti-Pakistan or anti-Islamic. The military regimes saw to it that war-crimes accusations were never seriously taken up, promoted Islamic education and propaganda machinery primarily through the madrassahs, and began to steer the country back towards the Islamic axis of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Popular discontent with the political and military regimes have erupted from time to time, which were most likely to have been prompted and utilized by elite factions desperate in their “prolonged” lack of access to state power. But the character of the social elite that thrived on Islam, in their early land-grabbing from Hindus under the Sultans or the Mughals (or conversion of Hindu elite to preserve their land), and Islam sanctioned Jihads or Ghazwas to loot women and property of non-muslims, never changed. This elite is obsessed with possession of land, (the only country in the subcontinent that maintained and justified looting of non-Muslim land and property under an “enemy property act” was Pakistan, and Bangladesh continued to enjoy this law long after its independence from Pakistan – a clue to the mindset of the Bangladeshi elite) and they need Islam to complement and maintain the semi-feudal rural social structures that ensure elite control (just as in Pakistan).
The latest feather in the cap of the Bangladesh army is what is popularly mentioned in the Bangladeshi media as “1/11” (1/11/2007) in that the army engineered what can only be seen as a coup – with possibly active involvement and covert support from a host of Western powers – a formal replacement of the “caretaker” government with a group that quite ruthlessly moved towards dismantling the established political power centres. The military elite quietly and quickly eliminated the captured alleged leaders of extremist Islamic outfits, in total secrecy from the media – possibly to suppress any potentially damaging leaks of connections to the elite itself, and we cannot completely rule out the possibility of covert connections between military intelligence and the so-called Islamic extremist as part of a much broader pattern of connections and support of the military of Islamic countries provided to hardline Islamic militant organizations like that of the ISI in Pakistan.
The military continues to be extremely shy of appearing to be “hard” on the Jamaat, or any Islamic organization – the latest parody being the “inability” of the police to arrest the secretary general of the Jamaat, who freely roams the country and the capital giving speeches or meeting politicians from the Right side of the political spectrum.
The army had managed to chastize the existing politicians under corruption charges, and given the history and record of Islamic armies or secret services, it is safe to assume that substantial doses of torture and ruthless psychological manipulation was liberally applied to neutralize the leadership or make them sufficiently pliable – the favourite method of dealing with those whom the Bangladesh Army finds unpleasant was recently illustrated by the fate of an expat Bangladeshi barrister from London by Air Force personnel. What the army is aiming for is quite clear : it wants the ruling social-military elite’s interests protected. Given the close alliance the Bangladesh army has developed over the years with the Islamic axis, this also means forwarding the agenda of Islamic absolute control over the subcontinent.
The army needs the two main factions within the ruling class to converge to this overall agenda, and for this it is prepared to sacrifice or coerce individuals from among its own class who have become more a liability than an advantage – as it eliminated Jia or sent Ershad to jail, and turned the “next generation of political inheritors” either “physical wrecks” like Jia’s sons or ensure Haseena’s son’s virtual exile in the USA. Political legitimacy independent of Islamic control and dependent on charismatic tradition is an obstacle in the army’s overall plans, and it appears that the army is desperate to ensure subservience of the two elite factions into a national “consensus” framework, and in this a key role will be played by the hardcore Islamic faction led at least superficially by the Jamaat. The Jamaat’s involvement in crucial “dark episodes” of Bangladesh’s history ensures its continued influence within the elite including perhaps even the core driving the military – with mutual dependence and “sensitive knowledge” about each other. The Jamaat is the hidden trump card to “soften up” one faction and “threaten” the other, and will be used by the military to enhance its agenda for Bangladesh.
The promised elections in December will not be held unless concrete commitments are obtained from both elite factions to follow and toe the line given by the army, and this will involve the strengthening of the Jamaat’s role in Bangladeshi politics, as well as overall gradual manifestation of the agenda of Islam for the subcontinent. In its turn it means continued sheltering of Islamic militants for infiltration into India through the border state of West Bengal ruled at present by a sympathetic “Left”, continued protection and enhancement of the madrassah system of education, continued attacks on cultural items deemed “un-Islamic”, and providing a second base for the flourishing and operations of the Islamic theologians hell-bent on returning the world to the looting, raping, genocidic, ethnic cleansing ideology of 7th century Arabic Islam.
The media has had a field day in blaming the politicians for this situation. But in reality the politicians were never strong enough to override the military, and the nationalists who emotionally fought for a “Bengali culture” as distinct from the “Urdu-Pakistani” Islamic state were of necessity too humane to match the cunning, ruthlessness and pathologically Sadistic upbringing of the Islamic elite of Bangladesh. It was only a matter of time, before the Islamic leadership panicked sufficiently that if they delayed any further they might never recoup their agenda at all.
Hamid Karazai has offered safe passage and “safe return” to one of the founders of the Taleban – “the students” – Mullah Omar. This is perhaps based on the assumption that the Taleban leadership is still roaming freely and safely somewhere in the grey zone in North West Pakistan and North Eastern Afghanistan. Hamid Karazai would not have made this offer, unless NATO and primarily the USA approved of it. What are the tactical calculations behind such monumental blunders?
(1) NATO and the USA thinks that they have to somehow lure the Taleban leadership out of the “protection” of the Pakistani ISI establishment, into Afghanistan where they can have a greater freedom in dealing with the Taleban. This calculation is asinine – even if the Taleban agrees to this truce, they will leave their bases in Pakistan intact under the protection of the Pakistani army top brass and the ISI. None of the real military strength of the Taleban will be compromised. The Taleban and the Al Quaeda will hold on to this strategically crucial area between Afghanistan and Pakistan as the new base of expansion for their brand of Islam. One just has to look at Google earth to see how militarily important this particular region is – and together with Syria-Anatolia-Turkey, has been crucial in the overall Islamic expansionist plans since its inception in Arabia in the 7th century.
(2) An even more stupid idea would be thinking of luring Mullah Omar and his cronies in Taleban to come and share some form of political power in Afghanistan, and thus gradually soften them up a bit in standard politics. Mullah Omar’s brand of politics is that laid down in the Hadiths, the Shariah and the Hidaya – where politics is simply following the orders of “higher ups”, doing everything as dictated by the existing Islamic texts which claims to be word of a supra-human authority beyond any questioning or negotiations by mere human beings – and these higher ups typically are the Mullahs and the Imams – most of the time whose qualifications do not rise beyond a learning of the Arabic texts by heart, and the various compilations and addendums accumulated over the centuries facilitating and justifying the most horrible of inhuman measures to be applied on society to ensure control by these demented, perverted and self-serving megalomaniac theologians for the satisfaction of their biological needs. A modern democracy will be beyond their personal control, and will require rights to be given to people not allowed under Islam, and a modern technologically and knowledge-based sophisticated society can throw up severe questions on the fundamental premises of Islam itself. Mullah Omar’s entry into Afghan politics will mean beating up cloth-entombed women for imaginary infractions of Islamic virtue, or the public execution of rape victims for adultery, a rolling back of science education, and the imposition of Islam’s barbarity that is always trying to drag us back to the darkness of the male founders of Islam and their essential greed for wealth, women, and the sadistic enjoyment of the pain of those under their power.
(3) With the Bush presidency at its fag end, those Islamophile elements within the USA or the European countries behind NATO, who are ever-willing to compromise with Islam are trying to reassert their position of tactical as well as strategic co-existence – the same strategy that has led to the flourishing of Islamic Jihad over the better part of the twentieth century. Islam’s agents would convince western decision-makers that it is possible to tackle Islam through democracy and that all we need is “love” and “peace” – it is only a few disgruntled Muslims who are to blame, and not Islam as a whole. These disgruntled Muslims can be bought over with “power” and “luxury” just as the Saudi Royal house could be – most of whose young princes while being educated out in the “decadent West” had shown consistent and wide departures from Shariati “Islamic purity”. But the fundamental problem is the complete lack of understanding of Islam itself, and the convenient overlooking of the fact that the “buying” was only successful in a land and system on which Islam had no influence or ideological control, where the state was not a totalitarian Islamic state, and which therefore placed limitations on the satisfaction of the immense biological greed that drives the male-centric ideology of Islam. Where an Islamic state has already successfully established itself, no buying is successful.
Mullah-Omar or his representative’s return will only mean re-emergence of the Talebani-Al-Qaeda power base back in Afghanistan, and it will have then formally expanded from its current power base within the state of Pakistan, into Afghanistan again. Hamid Karazai and his “Mujahideen” were very effective against the Russians, but will be no match against the Taleban without US help – as the Taleban and Al Qaeda follow the Sadistic and cynical [and therefore highly effective against modern “civilized” military forces] military theory proposed in the core texts of the Islam and as reported to have been practised by the prophet of Islam himself. It is always, deception, deception and deception – probably very closely matched by the infamous Dantonist slogan of “de l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”.
Pakistan has been the refuge of the worst forms of Islamic fundamentalist theologians right from its inception. On the Indian subcontinent, this Muslim theologian class is mostly descended from imported “foreign-born” adventurers, who had little cultural or educational qualifications beyond that of the few injunctions of the Quran or the Hadiths. The “real” Muslim intellectuals, mostly descended of pre-Muslim Persian and Afghan-Hindu or Buddhist elite, visited or were “forced to visit” (like Al Beruni) but did their best (like Ibn Sina) to stay away from the Islamic invaders and marauders like the Turks, Mongols or earlier Arabsinto Persia, outer India (Afghanistan/Seistan) and the Indian subcontinent itself. It was the nearly criminal British colonial policy that revived this Islamic theologian class through the so-called colonial law reforms, which ignored and overturned the syncretic and modernizing trends that had evolved in interaction over centuries of successful defence by the Hindus of their traditions and more liberal polity, and simply asked the theologians to dust-off their copy of the Sharia or the Hidaya (just as they did damage the Hindu modernization process by naively supporting the clamour by certain Brhamins that their copy of the Manu-Smriti/Samhita was the sole repository of “Hindu” law – a mistake obviously committed by AlBeruni too who reports textual claims of “caste” but shows no awareness of “sects” which were typically never recognized by Brahminical texts).
With the legitimization of the existence of Pakistan, the British and the Congress under Nehru, who appeared to swallow all pride and shame and had not a single strong word to utter against the Islam inspired Jihadi outrage perpetrated on the common woman, child and man of the Sikhs and the Hindus, in his eagerness to slip into the “Indian vice-regal throne” with British blessing, connived to protect and give shelter to Islamic Jihad. Muslims deciding to remain in India were not “encouraged” to leave India for Pakistan as the Hindus in Pakistan were repeatedly “encouraged” to do, as the very clear calculation of the British and hence of Nehru dependent on their tutelage was that if Pakistan failed to become the centre of Jihad and Islamic proselytization, the remnant Islamic populations within India as nurtured by Nehru could be used to further continuing British designs on the subcontinent given that the middle-east was coming increasingly under US control. All this also tied in nicely with the then prevalent paranoia and the “neo-crusade” against Communist Russia, as some dimwit with typical European shortsightedness had decided that Islam would be the best antidote to Marx, and the Islamic worldview should be protected and encouraged and its spread through the Mullahs and Imam’s ensured and encouraged.
This sort of Islamic insurgency, as in most insurgencies, utilizes the ruggedness of the terrain and terror to survive or flourish. If we look at historical commanders (like Alexander) who succeeded in subduing these regions, we can see that they were relentless in liquidating centres of resistance, typically after complete and absolute encirclement, by first cleaning up the plains surrounding the rugged lands and then cornering and trapping the insurgents and liquidating them giving no quarters . This whole area, including that of Pakistan can only be rid of the menace of Islam, by a similar military doctrine, that emphasizes tight encirclement and complete liquidation.
But the west will continue in its muddled understanding of Islam, trying to model it by their own religions and failing to understand its predatory and sadistic essence. The perhaps secret sadistic tendencies in some of the males, and masochistic tendencies in some of the females among the non-Muslims are expressed in their outward defence and sympathy for Islam, and provides support for the shrewd observation in the Quran and directly from Muhammad as reported in the Hadiths, that the “unbelievers” are themselves divided over attitude towards Islam, and that the Muslims should use this tactically to finish off one group after another using this division of opinion.
It is time to identify this fifth column in our societies, and try and expose their ideological dishonesty and opportunism or simple befuddlement. If non-Muslims do not consolidate and come to tactical and strategic understanding for ultimate erasure of Islam as an ideology and re-humanization of ex-Muslims as modern human beings, the fate of civilization is Islamic barbarity, injustice, superstition and darkness over all knowledge and quest.
Blasts again shook two cities of India late Monday night and took human lives – they appear to be similar in pattern to what probably accidentally happened in Delhi two days ago. What is highly significant is that blasts are now taking place in areas which are Muslim majority regions. The nature of explosives also point to a highly effective but cruder technology. One of the cities to have the latest of these blasts is Malegaon – literally derived from a 18th century place-name meaning “village/town of gardens”. It was originally strategically located between Gujarat and Agra, the early Mughal military and administrative centre. A local jahagirdar, Naro Shankar Raje, started building a fort in the area in 1740, a project that took 20 years, and this construction work attracted a large number of Muslim workers and artisans from places like Surat and northern India. When the British captured the Malegaon fort in 1818, Muslims from Hyderabad migrated to Malegaon. After the failure of the 1857 “first war of independence” British brutality of reprisals forced many Muslims to migrate from around Delhi and other places of UP into Malegaon as a convenient community refuge. Famine in 1862 forced Muslim weavers in the Varanasi area to move to Malegaon. In my series on the effect of Muslim rule on the economic decline of India I have extensively written on how the producing classes were ruthlessly exploited by the imported “Ashrafi” (literally pure – this is the title given to themselves by the descendants of those whose records show no more qualifications than an infinite capacity for bloodlust, murder, rape and loot, and of course an extreme devotion to “Islam” which of course very conveniently always condones such acts as part of Jihad) Muslim elite almost to the point of ruin.
The non-Muslim artisans of northern India at the time of the Muslim invasions were in severe straits. India had been famous as a producer, and exporter of cotton and fine cotton based material as well as in constructions and architecture. The early pre-Muslim towns and cities of Northern India therefore had a concentration of artisans specializing in weaving, dyeing or construction and masonry. By the very nature of their work, they were dependent on the urban environment and a concentration of necessary infrastructure not only for their particular skills but also for trade and markets. As the Hindu kingdoms fell before the Muslim invasions, the artisan’s survival (which had already been quite jeopardized because of the Muslim interference in Indian trade through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean sea-trade using piracy) was crucially dependent on holding on to their urban production infrastructure. This probably led to their acceptance of Islam as there are countless indications and claims by the Muslim chroniclers [like Ferishta and many many others] of the only choice given to the inhabitants of a city that fell to Muslim armies, as being either conversion to Islam or death.
Thus we do find a concentration of Muslim weavers in Varanasi, the very ancient centre of Hindu cultural development, and the capital of a long surviving kingdom. These were in fact descendants of the Hindu artisan class converted under extraordinary circumstances. If they are now concentrated in Malegaon, they should be treated as Hindu descendants who were converted under extreme pressure, when they were defenceless and without protection of their rulers, when their livelihoods and survival were at stake. There has been a similar blast in 2006 in Malegaon, exactly on similar dates of religious significance to the Muslims – the Shab-e-barat, with the end of the Ramadan month in sight.
If Islamic terrorists did this, why would they want to have Muslims killed in the blast? Or is it that this was the safest place to carry out blasts, given that deep cover was necessary now when the security forces would be combing the whole country – and such cover could only be provided by a sufficiently large and entrenched Muslim community, and therefore the momentum of Jihad could only be maintained by continued explosions but now only within a smaller feasible radius around the base of the cover. It could also be punishment to the local Muslims at large, who might have shown reluctance or lack of sufficient enthusiasm to join the Jihadi network – there is strong disapproval in the Quran for those Muslims who show “reluctance” in joining militant Jihad or providing material support for such Jihad.
A second more sinister aspect could be a tactical calculation that, these attacks could be attributed to the so-called “Hindu Right wing”, and thus help in the current apparent campaign of the UPA to try to equate “Islamic terror” with “Hindu Right”. If true this would be a very subtle and cynical tactic on the part of the Jihadists, as it achieves many objectives – (1) this makes Jihadi terror appear more “palatable” (2) helps the Congress in its desperate fight to utilize minority support in the coming elections and attempt at delegitimizing the BJP (3) makes the vacillating among the “secular” Hindus shaky in identifying with or leaning towards the “Hindu Right”.
A third possibility could be a copy-cat retaliation from among the non-Muslims of India, as a part of making Muslims share the pain of Jihadi and Islamic terror. This could be an increasing possibility if the Islamophile state policy of India continues. The reaction to Islamic terror is coming, in spite of my deep reluctance to accept the reality of such reaction which will tend not to distinguish between the barbaric theologians of Islam and the common brainwashed followers who in the case of India will be descended from the most unfortunate of pre-Muslim Indians, and one day it will sweep Islam away and deposit it in history’s garbage heap.
Two young men on a bike were riding through a busy market in the Mehrauli area of South Delhi. A black polythene wrapped box dropped off from the bike. A young girl called after the bikers, to tell them that they had dropped a package, and picked it up and gave a young boy to return it to the bikers. The bikers however sped away. And then the box exploded killing the boy on the spot, injuring three others seriously, and in all injuring 17 people. These were perhaps terrorists on the way to planting explosives to catch maximum population densities over the weekend markets leading up to the festive season in Northern India. These were perhaps terrorists simply carrying explosives in small packets from one storage to another. Several pointers indicate the stamp of Islam in this – this is a Muslim dominated area, with most traders and clients belonging to the Muslim community, with a “prestigious” mosque nearby, and the time of the day was not the point at which Hindus from outside the area would be likely to be in sufficient number, which makes it unlikely that the blast was pre-planned. Secondly, it would be typically Islamic ethics as in historical practice [and not as per lofty claims in the modern sanitized reconstructions of the history and practice of Islam] which considers preservation of the life of the Muslim soldier or raider to be much more important than show the courage or chivalry of saving the innocent child by accepting the package back. Especially as I have pointed out many times in my posts here before, the Quran as well as the Hadiths indicated that the life of children of non-Muslims was not really important for Muhammad – “they[children and women of “pagans”] are from them[“pagans”]” in the context of possibility of danger to the children and women of non-Muslims when Muslims attack at night.
While we have this in the capital of India, we have the eminent wisdom of Eddy Markey whose argument against the Indo-US civil N-deal in the last desperate attempt by the Islamophile lobby in the US to block the deal in the House and the Congress, is simply that Pakistan “warned of arms race” if the N-deal with India went through. No wonder that Islam gains converts in the USA, if such asinine statesmanship is voted to represent the American people in the legislature.
India is strategically crucial in the defence of non-Muslims against the last scourge of 21st century human civilization – Islam. Christianity has not proved to be a strong antidote to Islam. The reason lies in the very origins and nature of both the aggressive proselytizing branches of the revealed traditions. The Jews had long decided in favour of a restriction of their faith to ethnicity and strictly by biological descent, for various possible reasons, perhaps not excluding the severe political and military repression they apparently went through in the final stages of their theological development [however, by the logic of the Thaparite School of Indian History applied to prove absence of historical Islamic terror in India, we have little record of “trauma” at the hands of the Romans from the side of the Jewish victims, and therefore the “trauma” theory should normally be suspect as per “professional” historian’s standards – copying the logic of Thaparites, we could say that Romans including the “Romanized” Josephus, after all always had boasted and prized military ruthlessness and therefore could have written in all the gory details of the liquidation of the Jews as propaganda for self-glorification]. Hindus have no formal mechanism for conversion, and for a non-hindu to become a “Hindu”, they also have to take the socio-biological route – either getting married to a Hindu or getting “adopted” by a Hindu. Hindus are not congregational, and do not insist on collective religious action under a centralized religious organization. Both Islam as well as the more radical offshoots of Christianity starting from the medieval period have been on the other hand distinctly aggressively proselytizing – this is the characteristic of minority ideologies without strong social roots desperately struggling to increase following and power in competition with established ideologies. Both Islam and Christianity could significantly expand only through military imposition of the faith – as in their original forms they represented a simplification of the world view that was far less complex and sophisticated compared to some of the cultures they were in conflict with. It is usually not remembered that Christianity really expanded in Europe only two significant phases – the first under the aggressive military imposition under Constantine and second under the Frank Charles [Charlemagne] who reputedly chopped off thousands of Saxon chief’s heads to establish acceptance of Christianity but himself showed just like Constantine many persistent departures from the Ten Commandments.
As I have pointed out earlier, such minority ideologies would be attractive to (1) those who have not been able to keep up with increasing technological and therefore socio-economic superstructural complexities of a given civilization (2) those who are insecure and feel bewildered faced before the increasing number of multiple and myriad choices and decisions (3) low sense of self and self-esteem who need the esteem of a group to compensate (4) to men if these ideologies promise the sexual and social subjugation of women especially if such men feel threatened by the independence and control of women over their own sexuality and are only reassured if the entire activity of women are restricted to reproductive and physically submissive sexual roles only (5) to the economically and politically disadvantaged if such ideologies promise to legitimize the transfer ownership of wealth, power and women from the current elite irrespective of qualifications of the “neo-converts”. This is indeed the attraction of Islam, and it remains true for those Americans who satisfy the criteria mentioned above.
Europe is actively allowing the main organizational units for aggressive Islamic proselytization, the mosques where theologians inevitably having training and connections to the Sunni Wahabi orthodoxy safely operating out of Saudi Arabia and definitely benefiting from the price of oil, carry out the real agenda of Islam – the brainwashing and preparing of future adult Muslims to undertake violent military Jihad to capture the lands, wealth and women of non-Muslims.
Islam actively and openly promotes the destruction of or taking over of as well as prevention of the construction of new cultural centres of non-Muslims, including shrines, temples, or holy sites, and therefore it has no ethical right to protection of its own cultural centres. Attitude towards any ideology should be based on reciprocal basis – and new constructions of mosques or Islamic cultural or religious centres should not be allowed unless the Islamic countries allow the construction of non-Muslim centres. Further, since Muslims have and continue to destroy non-Muslim cultural icons or religious places wherever they have military and political authority or so called “land of Islam”, no protection should any longer be given to Muslim centres in “non-Muslim lands”. Every terrorist activity by Muslims should actually be made to be responded with an actual reduction in number of practising Muslims, not the Islamic method of reducing non-Muslims by chopping off the head of anyone who refuses to follow Islam, but by either disenfranchising, expelling, or exchanging populations, if the Muslims refuse to give up their religion publicly. It is Islam as a practising religion which must go – it will not be the first time a religion has bitten the dust because people leave it in droves.
Both in India and the USA, the non-Muslims should now decide on and identify the forces in their respective countries that are Islamophiles – and are trying to bring in Islam for various personal, political and economic tie-ups with the Islamic establishment as well as a mistaken perspective of the strategic importance of Islamic oil and Islamic markets. Pressure should be mounted for more self-sustainable energy sourcing within their own national boundaries, and develop internal markets rather than depend on the easier route of enjoying excessive profits from trade with the Islamic markets. Economic activity of non-Muslim countries should try to bypass the Islamic countries as much as possible. The thorny issue of conversion into Christianity in India can be tackled easily, if the Christian and Hindu groups come to an understanding that they will not proselytize on each other’s existing following, but coordiante or concentrate on converting Muslims. Also in India, it is important to delink religion or ethnicity from social opportunities and benefits but which will be hotly resisted by the Congress as its management of political power at the centre is crucially dependent on the maintenance of these social fractures.
The world will never know peace from the threat of Islam, unless the last practising Muslim is no more, for as long as the practise of Islam remains, its Jihadist violent greed for the Sadistic enjoyment of the pain of the non-muslim under its power, its continuing agenda of promoting war on non-Muslims [just type in Google “ghazwa-e-Hind” -literally translating as the Arabic tribal style raid to loot wealth, and women of another tribe to be launched on/in India] , and its fundamental driving force of greed for the lands, wealth and women of non-Muslims, will plague the human civilization – as it crystallizes, sanitizes and gives suprahuman “divine” justification for all the most biologically powerful and dark motivations in humans.
A proposed demonstration against the proposed construction of a mosque at Cologne, Germany, which was supposed to be raising “stop Islam” slogan, was banned – ostensibly in the face of “communist” or other “leftist” counter demonstration. I wonder why Germans do not burst out laughing at the sheer absurdity and farce of it all! (I am holding back my temptation to make a very politically incorrect joke about why we should not expect them to laugh at all about this). Germany’s weakness for Islam seriously started with the realpolitik of a Kaiser who played a pivotal role in the initiation of the trans-Syrian “holy rail” to Mecca in the 1890’s, that ultimately connected all the way through to Baghdad. This is the rail line which probably significantly fuelled the industrial demand and market for steel in Germany, as the whole railway, with all its supporting infrastructure was manufactured in Germany and shipped to the building site. This is also the rail line which served as the iconic backdrop to the fictionalized hagiographies of “Lawrence of Arabia”. Germany’s relationship deepened with the Ottoman Turkish empire, perhaps not only as a strategic and tactical countermove to the British Empire’s hogging of all of the world’s colonial “goodies” and British Imperialism’s persistent refusal to “share” markets – a position it now has strongly reversed and demands all the world’s markets to open up after losing imperial dominance. German scholars have left us some important translations of works from the middle east, which perhaps in the hands of the likes of some of the British “scholars” who plastered up “obscene” ancient figurines on Indian temples, would have been destroyed forever. But Germany’s fascination with the “Orient” and especially Islam took a much more serious turn during the march of Nazism – the anglicized shortened form of the original in Deutsche meaning “National Socialism”.
We have the following gems about how intensely antagonistic the Nazis and Muslim leadership of the Middle East were to each other: the first is a message from Himmler to The Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini, [“GrossMufti” in Deutsche] dated November 2, 1943,
[message from Heinrich Himmler to an anti-Balfour Declaration meeting]:
To the Grand Mufti:
The National Socialist Movement of Greater Germany has, since its beginning, inscribed upon its flag the fight against world Jewry. It has, therefore, followed with particular sympathy the struggle of the freedom-loving Arabians, especially in Palestine, against the Jewish interlopers. It is in the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against him that lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between National-Socialist-Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Moslems of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the certain final victory.
Signed: Reichsfuehrer-S.S. Heinrich Himmler
Better still is the following recording by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti [“GrossMufti”] in Berlin, November 21, 1941, in his own handwriting about his meeting with Hitler in his diary:
The words of the Fuehrer on the 6th of Zul Qaada 1360 of the Hejira (which falls on the 21st of November 1941) Berlin, Friday, from 4:30 P.M. till a few minutes after 6. The objectives of my fight are clear. Primarily, I am fighting the Jews without respite, and this fight includes the fight against the so-called Jewish National Home in Palestine because the Jews want to establish there a central government for their own pernicious purposes, and to undertake a devastating and ruinous expansion at the expense of the governments of the world and of other peoples.
It is clear that the Jews have accomplished nothing in Palestine and their claims are lies. All the accomplishments in Palestine are due to the Arabs and not to the Jews. I am resolved to find a solution for the Jewish problem, progressing step by step without cessation. With regard to this I am making the necessary and right appeal, first to all the European countries and then to countries outside of Europe.
It is true that our common enemies are Great Britain and the Soviets whose principles are opposed to ours. But behind them stands hidden Jewry which drives them both. Jewry has but one aim in both these countries. We are now in the midst of a life and death struggle against both these nations. This fight will not only determine the outcome of the struggle between National Socialism and Jewry, but the whole conduct of this successful war will be of great and positive help to the Arabs who are engaged in the same struggle.
This is not only an abstract assurance. A mere promise would be of no value whatsoever. But assurance which rests upon a conquering force is the only one which has real value. In the Iraqi campaign, for instance, the sympathy of the whole German people was for Iraq. It was our aim to help Iraq, but circumstances prevented us from furnishing actual help. The German people saw in them (in the Iraqis-Ed.) comrades in suffering because the German people too have suffered as they have. All the help we gave Iraq was not sufficient to save Iraq from the British forces. For this reason it is necessary to underscore one thing: in this struggle which will decide the fate of the Arabs I can now speak as a man dedicated to an ideal and as a military leader and a soldier. Everyone united in this great struggle who helps to bring about its successful outcome, serves the common cause and thus serves the Arab cause. Any other view means weakening the military situation and thus offers no help to the Arab cause. Therefore it is necessary for us to decide the steps which can help us against world Jewry, against Communist Russia and England, and which among them can be most useful. Only if we win the war will the hour of deliverance also be the hour of fulfillment of Arab aspirations.
The situation is as follows: We are conducting the great struggle to open the way to the North of the Caucasus. The difficulties involved are more than transportation because of the demolished railways and roads and because of winter weather. And if I venture in these circumstances to issue a declaration with regard to Syria, then the pro-de Gaulle elements in France will be strengthened and this might cause a revolt in France. These men (the French) will be convinced then that joining Britain is more advantageous and the detachment of Syria is a pattern to be followed in the remainder of the French Empire. This will strengthen de Gaulle’s stand in the colonies. If the declaration is issued now, difficulties will arise in Western Europe which will cause the diversion of some (German-Ed.) forces for defensive purposes, thus preventing us from sending all our forces to the East.
Now I am going to tell you something I would like you to keep secret. First, I will keep up my fight until the complete destruction of the Judeo-Bolshevik rule has been accomplished.
Second, during the struggle (and we don’t know when victory will come, but probably not in the far future) we will reach the Southern Caucasus.
Third, then I would like to issue a declaration; for then the hour of the liberation of the Arabs will have arrived. Germany has no ambitions in this area but cares only to annihilate the power which produces the Jews.
Fourth, I am happy that you have escaped and that you are now with the Axis powers. The hour will strike when you will be the lord of the supreme word and not only the conveyer of our declarations. You will be the man to direct the Arab force and at that moment I cannot imagine what would happen to the Western peoples.
Fifth, I think that with this Arab advance begins the dismemberment of the British world. The road from Rostov to Iran and Iraq is shorter than the distance from Berlin to Rostov. We hope next year to smash this barrier. It is better then and not now that a declaration should be issued as (now) we cannot help in anything. I understand the Arab desire for this (declaration-Ed.), but His Excellency the Mufti must understand that only five years after I became President of the German government and Fuehrer of the German people, was I able to get such a declaration (the Austrian Union-Ed.), and this because military forces prevented me from issuing such a declaration. But when the German Panzer tanks and the German air squadrons reach the Southern Caucasus, then will be the time to issue the declaration.
He said (in reply to a request that a secret declaration or a treaty be made) that a declaration known to a number of persons cannot remain secret but will become public. I (Hitler) have made very few declarations in my life, unlike the British who have made many declarations. If I issue a declaration, I will uphold it. Once I promised the Finnish Marshal that I would help his country if the enemy attacks again. This word of mine made a stronger impression than any written declaration. Recapitulating, I want to state the following to you: When we shall have arrived in the Southern Caucasus, then the time of the liberation of the Arabs will have arrived. And you can rely on my word.
We were troubled about you. I know your life history. I followed with interest your long and dangerous journey. I was very concerned about you. I am happy that you are with us now and that you are now in a position to add your strength to the common cause.” [Source: The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947, by the Nation Associates].
Huseini, was after all, being consistent with the core teachings of Islam in his fanatical anti-semitism. The Quran does not give direct incitement to massacre of Jews, but gives hints and references consistent with the more gory details supported by all the principal Hadiths. There was only one significant difference between the teachings of the Quran and the Hadiths on one side and the Nazi philosophy on the other side, the Prophet of Islam categorized the Jews as “people of the book” and hence at least in the Quran, they should be allowed to survive only on condition they pay a “survival tax” or Jiziya or they convert to Islam, whereas in the Hadiths of course, their males are declared to be fit to be “killed”, their lands to be “appropriated by Muslims”, and especially their women to be taken over by the Muslims. Although there are some allegations of sexual contact between the Jewish captive women and Nazi soldiers or officers, formally there were severe laws against such practices, and there are known instances of convictions and sentences carried out.
At the time of his death, Hitler’s official place of residence was in Munich, which led to all rights to Mein Kampf, coming under the ownership of the state of Bavaria. The government of Bavaria, in agreement with the federal government of Germany, does not allow any copying or printing of the book in Germany [and opposed it also in Sweden without success]. Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well unless it is done in such a fashion as to “promote hatred or war”, which is, under anti-revisionist laws, generally illegal. In Austria, the possession and/or trading of Mein Kampf is illegal. In France, the selling of the book is forbidden unless the transaction concerns a historical version including commentaries from specialists and states the law allowing its special historical edition. In the Netherlands, selling the book, even an old copy, can be illegal as “promoting hatred”, but possession and lending is not. The Dutch states treats this as claims of copyright infringement (as acclaimed owner of the translation) and does not allow any publishing. In 1997, the government explained to the parliament that selling a “scientifically annotated version” might escape prosecution, and the debate was repeated in 2007 with similar conclusions. In Indonesia the book is available in Indonesian language, in Lebanon, an Arabic edition of Mein Kampf was published in 1995 by Bisan/Beisan. In Turkey, the book is freely available and a Turkish edition was reported to be a bestseller in Turkey in March 2005, and claimed to have sold over 100,000 copies in two months. Note that the European nations which had significant collaborators with the Nazi ideology during the war, have turned the strongest protectors of the European populations who are considered to be completely immature, from the possible insidious infection in contact with the words of a “demented fanatic” by trying to ban these words, whereas these very same words are not deemed to be “antagonistic” or “revisionist” in the Muslim countries.
If the European populations are so intellectually immature that they cannot handle “Mein Kampf”, how can they handle the Quran, which says in the context of the first successful looting and massacre mission by the Prophet of Islam after six earlier unsuccessful ones on his relatives from Mecca engaged in their traditional trading journeys [and after having been allowed to leave and “migrate” from Mecca with full life, limb and liberty, and with indications of having abused profusely the beliefs, sentiments, as well as the hospitality of the Meccan Qureysh with his associates sometimes having also shed blood of those who had refused to submit to their ideology] – the “famous” Nakhla raid:
022.039 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
022.040 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is Allah”. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
022.041 (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.
022.042 If they treat thy (mission) as false, so did the peoples before them (with their Prophets),- the People of Noah, and ‘Ad and Thamud;
002.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
002.192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
002.193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
002.194 The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
Those who were reluctant to join in the war of plunder were reproved. Allah’s revelation on this came down in verses 47:20-21. These verses granted paradise to those who fight (or terrorize and plunder) for Islam i.e., Jihad and are killed.
047.020 Those who believe say, “Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?” But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
047.021 Were it to obey and say what is just, and when a matter is resolved on, it were best for them if they were true to Allah.
Allah then asked the Jihadis to “strike off the heads of the unbelievers; to make a great slaughter and bind them fast in bonds” in verse 47:3-4
047.003 This because those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord: Thus does Allah set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.
047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
Furthermore, the true believers were expected not only to fight but also to contribute materially towards the cost of war (4:66-67, 9:88, 9:111), to kill and be killed. Those who did this were promised a higher rank in paradise (4:74, 4:95). The believers were asked to prepare with whatever force in their ability, troops, horses, etc. to strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.
004.066 If We had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it: But if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been best for them, and would have gone farthest to strengthen their (faith);
004.067 And We should then have given them from our presence a great reward;
009.088 But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.
009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
004.074 Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
004.095 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-
009.073 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.
009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
008.060 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
This does not seem to promote “hatred” or “war”? Or the Hadithic description of ethnic cleansing of the Jews which have an uncanny resemblance to what happened to the Jewish areas or ghettos under the Nazis? -for example the genocide of Bani Qurayzah Jews by Muhammad-February-March, 627 : The Muslim soldiers marched toward the fortress of Bani Qurayza that lay two or three miles to the south-east of Medina. Muhammad rode an ass, while an army of three thousand Muslims, with thirty-six horses followed him. After twenty-five days of siege, the Jews grew desperate, exhausted and terrified at their future. They were on the verge of starvation.
Tabari writes: ‘When they saw him (i.e Abu Lubabah), [ A Muslim from a friendly tribe whom the Jews hoped to intercede on behalf of them] the men rose to meet him, and the women and children rushed to grab hold of him, weeping before him, so that he felt pity for them. They said to him, “Abu Lubabah, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgment”? “Yes”, he said, but he pointed with his hand to his throat, that it would be slaughter.”’ Haykal writes that the Jews thought that the former allies from al-Aws tribe would give them protection if they migrated to Adhriat in al Sham, and that Muhammad would allow them. Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their waiting for his judgment.
In the morning, B. Qurayzah Jews surrendered. The male Jews were chained and kept in the fortress till a decision was made about their fate. The B. Aws were friendly with the B. Qurayzah Jews and pleaded with Muhammad for mercy and a fair judgment for their Jewish allies. On this, Muhammad proposed that the judgment be passed by Sa’d b Muadh who was the B. Aws leader, trying to recuperate from his eventually fatal wound in a tent at Medina. B. Aws and the B. Qurayzah both agreed on this proposal of Muhammad, hoping to have some mercy from Sa’d b. Muadh. Muhammad dispatched some B. Aws men to bring Sa’d to deliver his judgment. Many B. Aws people requested Sa’d to deal with the Jews with leniency and mercy. Sa’d then asked his people if they would accept whatever judgment he pronounced. The assemblage agreed.
On being asked by Muhammad Sa’d b. Muadh replied, “I pass judgment on them that the men shall be killed, the property divided, and the children and women made captives.” Muhammad praised Sa’d for proclaiming a solemn judgment of the Almighty and termed Sa’d’s judgment as fair and said, “You have passed judgment on them with the judgment of God and the judgment of His Messenger.” Sahih Bukhari records:
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).”
[Original Sahih Al-Bukhari] The women and children were then separated from their husbands, others were put under the care of Abdullah, a renegade Jew. All the goods and possessions of the B. Qurayzah Jews, their camels and flocks were all brought as spoils of war. The B. Qurayzah Jewish men were handcuffed behind their backs with their women and children having already been separated. They were placed under the charge of Mohammad ibn Maslama, the assassin of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, to be sent to Medina before their execution in batches. A long trench was dug in the marketplace of Medina. The Prisoners were then taken there, made to kneel down and beheaded in a group of five or six. Muhammad was personally present to witness this slaughter. Ali and Zubayr cut off the heads of the Jews in front of Muhammad. Sourcing from Al-Waqidi, Tabari writes:
“…the messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the B. Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.” Ibn Ishaq writes that they were taken in groups to Muhammad for beheading in front of him.
Tabari further writes: ‘The messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups. Among them were the enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, and Ka’b b. Asad, the head of the tribe. They numbered 600 or 700-the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900. As they were being taken in groups to the Messenger of God, they said to Ka’b b. Asad, “Ka’b, what do you understand. Do you not see that the summoner does not discharge [anyone] and that those of you who are taken away do not come back? By God, it is death!” the affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them.’
Sir William Muir describes: ‘The men were penned up in a closed yard, while graves or trenches were being dug for them in the chief marketplace of the city. When these were ready, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, gave command that the captives should be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company was made to sit down by the brink of the trench destined for its grave, and there beheaded. Party by party they were thus led out, and butchered in cold blood, till the whole were slain. One woman alone was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements.’
Huyayy b. Akhtab, the banished B. Nadir Jewish leader was taken to the execution field. Tabari describes his execution:
‘Huyayy b. Akhtab, the enemy of God, was brought. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty from him, and his hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at the Messenger of God, he said, “By God, I do not blame myself for being hostile to you, but whomever God forsakes is forsaken.” Then he turned to the people and said: “People, there is no injury in God’s command. It is the book of God, His decree, and a battlefield of great slaughter ordained against the Children of Israel. Then he sat down and was beheaded.’
Only one woman of the B. Qurayzah, the wife of Hasan al-Qurazi and a friend of Aisha, was killed. Aisha’s narrated her story of beheading thus:‘Only one of their women was killed. By God, she was by me, talking with me and laughing unrestraintedly while the Messenger of God was killing their men in the marketplace, when suddenly a mysterious voice called out her name, saying, “Where is so and so?” She said, “I shall be killed.” “Why?” I asked. She said, A misdeed that I committed.” She was taken away and beheaded. (Aisha used to say: I shall never forget my wonder at her cheerfulness and much laughter, even when she knew that she would be killed.).’
The Sahi (authentic) Hadith of Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.”
Ther very old Jewish man Az-Zabir had saved the life of a Muslim convert, Thabit b. Qays in the Bu’ath war. When Az-Zabir was about to be beheaded Thabit requested Muhammad to save the life of Az-Zabir and his family as a return to his favor. Muhammad agreed. Az-Zabir then asked Thabit b. Qays about the Jewish leaders such as Ka’b b. Asad and Huayy b. Akhtab, as he preferred to die rather than to live without them. Az-Zabir replied, “Then I ask you for the sake of the favor I once did for you to join me to my kinsmen, for by God there is no good in living after them. I will not wait patiently for God, not even [the time needed] to take the bucket of a watering trough, until I meet my dear ones.” So Thabit brought him forward, and he was beheaded. Abu Bakr commented “He will meet them, by God, in the Gehenna, there to dwell forever and forever.”
Muhammad commanded that all those Jewish men with pubic hair were to be executed. Hadith from Sunaan Abu Dawud:
Book 38, Number 4390: Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
After executing all the adult male Jews, Muhammad sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari with some captive women and children from the B. Qurayzah to Najd to sell them in the slave market. While we do not have an accurate price of a female slave during that time, Ibn Sa’d writes that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, bought her slave, Zayd b. Haritha, (who would later become Muuhammad’s adopted son), for four hundred Dirhams at the slave market of Ukaz, Mecca. [the price of young slave varied from five hundred dirhams to eight hundred dirhams – Sunaan Abu Dawud hadith numbers, 3946 and 4563]. Among the captive was a young woman called Rayhanh bt. ‘Amr b. Khunafah and took her as his concubine. It is said that when Muhammad offered to make her his wife by embracing Islam, she declined. She preferred to remain a concubine to becoming a Muslim and said, “Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession [as a concubine], for it is easier for me and for you.”
I have not heard of the Quran or the Hadiths being banned in Europe. As for the communists or the leftists, they need simply to look for a functioning leftist, socialist or communist party working in any of the core Islamic countries in Asia – other than a few intellectuals tolerated here and there – with two notable exceptions, one without a country among the Kurds, and the other in Turkey where the nationalist modernization started by the army under Ataturk is still battling it out with headscarfs and explosions. The communists can also ponder the fate of the communists at the hands of Muslims in Afghanistan, or the “Marxist” army commander in Iraq who took over from the boy-king and was then replaced by the mentor of Saddam. Forgetting history is a serious lapse, but selective percolation of politically motivated reconstructions or “scientifically annotated” histories in favour of a particular group or ideology and against others is a “criminal” offence against freedom of thought and speech – for ultimately it always leads to the most pernicious of ideologies to take over our lives by not revealing to us the real agenda behind the sugar-coated pills provided by the “ideologues”.
With the Marriott Hotel in the capital of Pakistan, being the latest of targets of a blast from an estimated 1000 Kg of explosives, the old question becomes obvious again – who is supplying the military hardware and the logistics for such attacks? It is not only about who is supplying, but also the question of who has the capability of supplying such necessary ingredients of terror? Both in Isarel and India, Islam’s terrorists are showing up with the latest military technology and knowledge of explosives and using such hardware which are only typically available only in the armies of modern nation states. Weapons in modern warfare come from sophisticated defence establishments and are a result of long and intensive research, and are necessarily products of highly sophisticated and centralized industrial networks with the end product almost inevitably coming from the top of the industrial pyramid. Thus, increasingly it is becoming impossible for the non-military common population to mount any successful rebellion against a national government – as even veterans or those who have been trained in the military as reserve cannot do much without access to the hardware, and continued supply from these industries for military consumables and replacements. Thus it is crucial to note that in Islam’s continued aggression on Israel and India, two things have to coincide to sustain this onslaught – (1) the preservation and stoking the fire of the hardcore Sunni Wahabi or closely allied in agenda (but not necessarily allied in practical terms) Shia sectarian aggressive proselytization and an obsessive intent on capturing the lands and the non-muslim people of Israel and India (2) the continuous provision of finance and military hardware for the various levels of Islamic terror- ranging from paramilitary/semi-armies like that of the Hezbollah, Pakistani Taleban, or regrouping Al Qaeda in Afghanistan all the way through to the individual suicide bomber in Iraq, or the executors of blasts in Pakistan and India.
In India, the situation is rather more complex than in Israel. It appears to me that now there are indications of a disturbing possible collaboration between Islamic forces and other ideologies. The other ideologies involved in this collaboration may not be fully aware of their own place in the overall Islamic strategy for the Indian populations. The Islamic strategy appears to be heading now towards utilizing the existing divisions between the various ethnicities and non-muslim religions or ideologies. There is a strong possibility that various so-called Maoist outfits, ethnic separatists, as well as some proselytizing religious groups could be playing into the hands of the Islamic Jihadi leadership. The Quran, and the Hadiths repeatedly stress, as well as provide examples of how Islam utilizes the conflicts and misunderstandings between various groups of “unbelievers”, to weaken all unbelievers until they are no longer militarily strong to resist Islam when it suddenly reveals its actual Jihadi militant agenda. A part in this could also be played by the clever use of political anxieties within anti-“Hindu” political parties that a cultural consolidation of the “Hindu” is taking place within India, and showing signs of a political consciousness as well. This could be behind the recent string of attacks on churches in BJP led states or states where BJP has come to a sharing of state power, as, if we apply the principle of who benefits from a “crime”, we can see that everyone gains apart from the BJP – the Congress gains by posing as the protector of minorities and then can curry for votes from these sections, the proselytizing groups gain by posing as the “leader” among all the different sects of this religion and polarize religious sectarian sentiments in favour of their particular sectarian group [especially if their prestige and funding is dependent on the number of “conversions” of the “heathen” they have benn able to make], and “Maoists” gain money or arms in return for supporting actions against the majority groups in favour of a particular religious sect. In all this Islamic Jihadis gain the most, by engaging the majority community in basically what amounts to “death by a thousand cuts”, and could be behind supporting all these groups with money and arms.
For India, two things are working in its favour – its military is still relatively free from the presence of Islamic influence, and that a cultural and political consolidation of the “Hindu” is taking place. The political forces that have been infiltrated by Islam are an “aging” generation, and an “aging” ideology which tries to relive an earlier era following the various compromises and sheer greed for personal power that accompanied the formal but not actual removal of India from the British empire – and is still following the realpolitik of the Cold War, not realizing that even the West has had to reverse its earlier overwhelming Islamophilia in favour of a more practical policy as consistent with their dependence on “Islamic” oil and markets.
It is important for non-Hindu non-Muslim proselytizing groups to realize, that any attempt to replace the culture of the Hindus from among its populations through the after-effects of “conversions” will only make these converts more vulnerable to the onslaught of Islam – as monotheism of the revealed traditions represents a simplification of the complexity and diversity of the world view of the classical Hindu philosophies, and it becomes infinitely easier to convert from one form of the revealed traditions to another – as is seen by the increasing conversion rates of Christians into Islam in Europe and America. Leaving the Hindus as they are, is the best possible antidote to Islam on the Indian subcontinent at present – even though the “Hindus” of India may appear to be rich picking in terms of showing “scalp counts” at religious conventions to compete for funding. Money can be raised in various other ways, but fall of India to Islam will be accelerated if Christianity spreads in India, which will ultimately unhinge the entire US strategy in Asia to prevent the formation of a continuous Islamic “Caliphate” running from North and East Africa, Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Myanmar,Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines.
In the wake of the recent Delhi blasts, and the encounter in high-Muslim density part of Delhi, close to a well-known mosque, an “Islamic” university, and the office or headquarters of most of the known Islamic organizations, Indian media shows indications of the revival of a persistent campaign to increase the recruitment of Muslims into all the branches of Indian security forces – the formal logic being given is a recommendation of a report prepared by a committee formed and commissioned by the UPA government to look into the “status of minorities”. On the face of it the recommendation appears sound and logical – make the representation of the Muslims in the security forces proportionate to their representation in the population. With any other religion, this need not have been much of a problem – but with Islam in perspective this is indeed a huge problem. Historically the experience of Muslims as defenders of Indian territories against foreign armies or forces dominated by Muslims or inspired by Islamic Jihad – has been appalling. The Thaparite school of Indian history picks up on a couple of textual claims of apparent participation of “Arabs” in the defence of Indian territory against “Turuskas” in an attempt to extend this to the claim of a society wide phenomenon.
Historically we find records of significant populations of settled Islamic traders, deep inside “Hindu” territories especially near important commercial, political, and cultural centres [Buddhist university townships] which are later on targets of surprise military attacks by Muslims with surgical precision. Ibn Asir mentions explicitly in his Kamil-ut-Tawarikh, that there were “Mussalmans in the country of Banaras” from the days of Sabuktigin.[Elliot and Dowson]. Muhammad Aufi also speaks of Bahram Gur of Iran coming to Hindustan under the guise of a Muslim merchant [although a historically unlikely event, as this particular name is given to Bahram V, a pre-Muslim Persian ruler]. When Bakhtyiar appeared in Nudiya people thought that he was a Muslim trader come to sell horses – implying that visits to this old Hindu city on the banks of the Ganges in modern West Bengal, by Muslim traders was quite common and that Muslim military leaders were in the habit of using this acceptance to disguise themselves for spying or raiding or surprise attacks. Taranath mentions settlement of “Turuskas” (at this period a generic name for Muslims) in the AntarVedi or Ganges-Yamuna Doab. He also significantly mentions that during the time of Lavasena and his successors and prior to the invasions and destruction of the Buddhist university townships of Odantapuri and Vikramasila the number of “Turuskas” had significantly increased. Muhammad Habib in his introduction to Elliott and Dowson suggests that the far-flung campaigns of Mahmud Gaznavi would have been impossible without an accurate knowledge of trade routes and local resources of India, which he probably obtained from Muslim merchants. Many Arab narratives [including that of Al Beruni, who had been allowed to learn Sanskrit and copy and translate Hindu texts] contain accurate accounts of land-routes in India with minute details of the distances between cities and their products and other strategic details whose context shows that these were supplied mostly by Muslim merchants who had visited these places in person and recorded these details back at home accurately for future use by their fellows.
Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalauddin Khalji (1290-96), after a battle, “whatever live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants. The Musalman captives had their lives spared”.[Miftah-ul-Futuh (Aligarh text, 1954), p. 22 -za hindu harche amad zinda dar dast/bazere pae pilan khurd ba shikast/musalmanan-i-bandi gushta ra baz/ bajan bakhshi chu isa gasht damsaz]. Malik Kafur, the notorious general of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316), and a Hindu-woman-lifter extraordinaire, while on his expeditions in South India, spared the lives of Muslims fighting on the side of the Hindu Rai as they deserted to his army [Lal, Khaljis, p. 250].
North Indian Muslim armies, under Muslim rulers, have faced foreign invasions by other Muslim armies, and have been only successful once – that under Alauddin Khalji against one Mongol attack. The Delhi Sultanate lost miserably under Ibrahim Lodi to Babur, who was invited and supported by an influential Multani Muslim administrator. The Mughals lost abjectly to the Persian looter Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali, or became pensioners of the British before being humiliatingly hanged or exiled by the British. After the initial reports of collaboration by a few North Indian Hindu rulers with Mahmud, or Muhammad Ghori, we do not hear of any further collaboration by the Hindus with invading forces. On the other hand, even when they had not been in control of the state and its resources for centuries, and ruthlessly exploited and decimated by Islamic Jihadi onslaught, they have tried to muster forces to resist foreign invasions when the relevant Muslim ruler of northern India gave up easily – Babur met his serious opposition in the Rajputs led by Sanga, Akbar met his first serious opposition in Himu, it was the Marathas that undertook to fight the Persian adventurers, while the Nizam of Hyderabad – the ancestor of the dynasty that later patronized the Rajakars in Hyderabad – the Islamic fundamentalist group that carried on looting, abduction of Hindu women and murders for a sufficiently long period to provide the Indian army the necessary excuse to annex this princely state, collaborated right from the beginning with the British.
Muslim dominated armies in India have a fundamental weakness, their ideology teaches them that they should prefer Muslims over “infidels”, in friendship, in social interactions, in loyalty and war – and that their ideological centre lies outside of India – in Arabia. Any religious ideology that has its centre outside the borders of India, and that believes in aggressive proselytizing – ultimately is a cover for imperialist ambitions of foreign nations. I have already predicted in my previous articles on the blasts, that the Islamic Jihadi Wahabi imperialists are getting panicked that if they do not accelerate the process of Islamization in India, it can get out of their hands, and that non-Muslim consolidation would outpace their efforts so that they can never hope to bring India under Islamic rule. Islamic forces have now sufficient backing and contacts within the general administration and political party structures that ensures protection of their religious agenda for India. They have been able to protect their Islamic agenda dissemination, and indoctrination through the Islamic educational systems and organizations, which in several areas have seen continuous growth in resources from foreign inputs, as well as indirect contribution from the Indian government such as persistent refusal to bring Muslim institutions under the tax net [unlike Hindu institutions] as well as public audit. Muslims insist on and protect their right for a separate civil law – something they usually deny in the core Islamic countries to Hindus, and in states like Kashmir they have even been able to get away with imposition of the Shariah law through the backdoor of the special-“status” state legislature. The Indian governments consistently protects Islam by choosing to or threatening to dismiss state governments that fail to protect “minority” rights even for a month, under Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, but has never used this to protect the rights of Hindus or Buddhists in Kashmir, when they were subjected to ethnic cleansing for years, when their women were abducted or raped, when their properties, their religious shrines, were destroyed and when they were being murdered – never, ever, in no instance did the Central government under various Congress regimes come out with even a strong statement. The remaining obstacle in Wahabi Islamic Jihadis eventual takeover of the nation is the fact that the security forces have remained strongly non-Muslim, and therefore as correctly “lamented” non-“secular” in composition – in India this means non-Muslim, as “secularism” practically translates into “Islamo-philia” in the Indian context. The few examples of Muslim majority units that remained loyal against the Pakistani forces in action during the 1965 war comes from a period before the rising strength and penetration of the Wahabi Islamic aggressive proselytization, and should not be used as self-lulling agent towards destruction of the non-Muslims.
If this campaign to increase Islamic proportion in the Indian armed forces succeeds, it will lead to a serious weakness in the ultimate defence of India as a functioning non-Islamic state – because the insidious propaganda that hides the violent agenda of Islam’s core principles for the non-Muslim population at large, while at the same time training and indoctrinating Muslim youth in its various madrassahs and cultural organizations to wait and prepare for the eventual military conquest of non-Muslims to appropriate their land, wealth and women, is accelerating, and sooner or later, such elements in the Army will collaborate with or defect to Pakistani or other Islamic invasions at opportune moments.
It is possible, that internal security systems, such as the police as well as various state security organizations have been very well aware of Islamic Jihadi activities and preparatory movements towards Islamic takeover of the country, but have been held back from taking action, by the Islamo-phile governments that have been at the centre of the Indian state. As previously proposed by me, the Islamic terrorists will act from bases in areas that have sufficiently high concentration of Muslims to provide social cover, but will carry out their terror in mixed areas within their geographical reach where non-Muslims are a majority, so that in any blast or public outrage, more non-Muslims are victims together with a few Muslims which can of course be accepted as necessary “costs of war”. The fact that the Indian Home minister, or his corresponding counterparts for the state of Delhi, had little or no foreknowledge or concurrent knowledge of the “Delhi” encounter, together with angry protests from the Muslim leadership in the area as well as leadership of so-called national level Muslim organizations that the police should have “consulted” local Muslim leadership before launching an “encounter”, implies that the police mounted this operation on extremely short notice and either did not have time or did not consider it safe to inform the “politicians”. It could be an indication that certain sections of the command of the security forces have already decided that that they can only tackle this “Islamic terror” by avoiding the politicians as far as possible, as the main motivations of the politicians are to protect “Islamic votes”. An insistence by the Islamo-philes to increase Muslim presence in the armed forces which have had to face the brunt of Jihad in Kashmir and elsewhere, will only lead to an increased politicization of the armed forces against such moves.
Religious conversion in India is a hotly debated and highly controversial topic. The fact is that the modern Constitution of India does not prevent a “genuine change of heart” but it is illegal to “entice” or “force” conversions. This was expected of course, since the early politicians under Nehru who dominated the legislative process would be very much aware of the success of both these strategies under Islam and Christianity. The Muslim invaders from Qasim, Mahmud, Ghori, the Delhi Sultans, or the Mughals have consistently used forced conversions, and enticements – either direct aggression with the only choice being given as either death or conversion, or penalizing taxation.
Another highly enjoyable conversion activity of the Muslims was of course abduction, rape, and enslavement of non-Muslim women, and raising the children from such unions as Muslims. So the Islamo-philes under Nehru decided to block these Islamic technique of conversions specifically fearing that the remnant majority Hindus in India could decide to copy the Muslims now that they are no longer under the military threat of the Muslims. Nehru was genuinely saddened at the loss of Muslim populations who migrated to Pakistan, and we can understand his sense of loss of people from a culture he identified with. It is a deep irony of Nehruvian politics however, that it was mostly his rivals whom he eliminated with the help of Gandhiji and indirect help of the British, like Bose or Sardar, [Bose was consistently kept under house arrest, or exiled from India, so that he could not carry on political activities or maintain connections with his organizations, and as usual with all all nationalists anywhere whom the British hated, from Napoleon to Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, Bose consistently fell “ill” in British captivity – while Nehru was never exiled, was given the right to freely carry on his political work while free] who had genuine influence and acceptance with the “Muslims” – Bose was helped by loyal Afghan “Muslims” in his “escape”, and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan – “frontier Gandhi” declared the Congress leadership under Nehru to be one which “stabbed” his people “in the back” over the Partition. Nehru knew that he was deeply resented in many parts of India outside the Uttar Pradesh, particularly by Sikhs in Punjab and Bengali Hindus in West Bengal, and Nehru needed Muslims as a counterbalancing force to prevent the non-Muslim consolidation to maintain his tenuous control over the fractures which he could use in Indian society.
There are speculations about possible personal reasons behind Nehru’s Islamo-philia, but I am against discussing them without concrete proof. Overall, however, we can see the basic motivations behind banning “illegal” methods of conversion by “force, enticements” – as without military support, Muslims would not be able to carry out these methods of conversion, whereas sheer number and resources of the Hindus could make these methods even non-militarily feasible given that there could not be official justification for use of “Indian” security establishment to continue protection of Islamic proselytization. So the most important task in front of the Nehruvian regime was to protect the gains of Islam in India already achieved under the methods now banned and made unavailable to others.
But as I have written and given detailed historical, and practical justifications in these posts before, Islam must go from India as a “practising religion”, and I want the Muslims to come out of “Islam” but continue to be Indians – what should be the policy and strategy of the Indian nation about conversions in general?
The two most common issues that give rise to controversy about conversions are (1) inter-faith marriages/”abductions for sex” (2) enticements. It is a consistent feature of Islam that everywhere it insists on the conversion of a non-Muslim groom before he can marry a girl born a Muslim – and they are prepared to go to any length or violence to ensure this, depending on the level of support they can obtain from state authorities they live under – so that the entire state apparatus of Islamic states jump on to enforce this like in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia or Arab states, and the maximum possible help is given by the administrative and legislative institutions of countries that have usually Islamo-phile regimes like in India. On the other hand a Hindu or non-Muslim woman can be easily married [or abducted and forced in Islam dominated countries like Pakistan] by a Muslim, as once married or taken to Islamic countries such a “wife” will be treated as a Muslim, and children will be automatically deemed to be Muslim. The fact is that this is supported by the Quran, the Hadiths, the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam, and the Shariah and the Hidaya – however much the modern Muslim theologians try to sanitize and whitewash these injunctions in the core texts of Islam away from their misrepresentation of Islam before non-Muslims – and which they are very much aware of and openly teach/preach for and within “safe” and secure Islamic audiences. There is a similar insistence on conversion into Christianity before marriage from certain denominations within Christianity, although not carried out with such violence as in the case of Islam. The Sikhs, Buddhists, also have similar insistence but over many decades now, there are fewer and fewer incidences of violence from these faiths.
In India, only objections by the relatives of a Hindu or Hindu religious groups against the marriage with a non-Muslim are supposed to be seen as “proof of fanaticism” and the “evil right-wing Hindu fascist” who “trample on the pure love between a Hindu and a Muslim” – for all other religions it is an “internal matter” of the religion concerned and Hindus are expected or demanded to shut up as Hindus should respect the “religious sentiments of Muslims” etc. In India it seems to be tacitly accepted that all other religious groups except the Hindus have the right to convert “freely” and their “forcing” should be seen as “genuine change of heart” and “friendly ardent persuasion” rather than forcing – as accusations of “forcing/enticing” are only genuine if it comes against the “Hindus”.
How do Indians tackle the task of removing extremely dangerous, deceptive, violently intolerant, and aggressively expansive movements like Islam from their immediate surroundings?
(1) Bring in a complete civil law that is not binding initially on all citizens, but which can be adopted formally by an oath and declaration voluntarily by any adult Indian citizen. This should include a complete marital, family, and inheritance law guided by modern humanitarian principles. At the moment Indians do not have any choice in their religious denomination and they are considered to belong to the religion they are born into or “adopted”. This can be a good way out for those who want to come out of Islam but do not want to face “charges” of apostasy and hence the Hadithic/Sharia injunctions not to really wait for the day of “resurrection” but to carry out immediate retribution for converting out of Islam.
(2) give a very clear warning against Muslim countries that are carrying out forced conversions of Hindus, that Islam stands to lose a much larger chunk if Indians decide to get serious about “persuading” Indian Muslims to convert out of Islam.
(3) ensure that surviving Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs in Pakistan, or non-Muslims of Indic origin faiths, in Malaysia or Indonesia are protected, either by exchange of populations or establishing direct diplomatic centres.
(4) enforcing all religious institutions to register, and have a separate unit set up, possibly under the Ministry of Culture, that will formally not only audit but have representatives on the board of trustees or management. All religious institutions will have to make transactions through bank accounts, and will not be allowed to receive foreign funding, and accounts will be regularly audited. All citizens will have to be registered in one of the religions recognized or declare themselves to be under the civil law who will not be then considered legally as belonging to any religion. Also legal steps can be taken if someone who has declared in favour of the civil law, continues to participate in activities under a specific religious institution.
(5) religions which prescribe a fixed rate of contribution from their followers, will be guaranteed the required proportion deducted in addition to regular income tax from the source of income of the religion’s followers. This money will then be forwarded to one or more religious institutions of choice as indicated by the donee. Islam prescribes Jakaat and fitra, which should then be deducted from the income of Muslims at source and handed over to Islamic institutions. All religious institutions will have to function within this source of revenue, as transparently audited and supervised by the Government, and no external source of funding will be allowed. Any breaking of this stipulation will lead to criminal proceedings against the religious institution. Those who adopt civil law will not have to pay this “religious contribution”.
(6) educational activity carried out by religious organizations will have to conform to a National Education policy, and have to cover the basic elements including all modern science subjects required in a national syllabus. Material declared objectionable and not in consistency with the Constitution, or the legal system will have to be removed, and if retained will lead to closing down of the educational setup.
(7) Conversions have to be applied for to the government, together with documentary evidence of sanction by a recognized religious body, and subject to a waiting period, during which people or bodies that have objections can raise it with the appellate body. The convertee can be subjected to repeated interviews by independent experts, and have also to agree to audit of personal accounts, sources of income expenditure and wealth, for an unspecified period of time before and after the recognition of conversion. This process will not have to be gone through in case of adopting the civil law.
After the latest in the string of blasts in India by Islamic militants at New Delhi, India’s capital, and with the consistent failure of the current ruling Indian government and its administrative setup to crack these cases and prevent Islamic Jihadi activities, Indians should start seriously thinking of what really lies ahead of them. Non-Muslims of India have already seen the strategy of Islam at work for a long long time. Communities remember by oral tradition what the Muslims have been doing for the last 1000 years – looting, raping and abducting women, converting under pain of death or crushing taxes, and massacres under any flimsy excuse. Non-Muslims survived by sheer number, determination and by militarily fighting back. In spite of the fact that some of Hindu elite were bending over backwards in the boot-licking of Islamic rulers to maintain their lands or their wealth, and collaborated in the inhuman torture of their “lower classes”, Hindus have survived – in this they were helped by the vastness of their country and the remoteness of many parts where they escaped into deep forests from the clutches of Muslim armies and in many instances carried on a guerrilla struggle that later on gained momentum into recapture of lands from Islam under the Mahrattas, the Sikhs, and some of the Rajputs.
The scale of blasts in India should make Indians realize that at least three crucial factors are needed for such terror activities to be carried on without any disruption – (1) the military training and material support of the army of some militarily “modern” nation (2) deep community support to provide both material and intelligence cover (3) good connections within the administration and political setup that leaks crucial information and provides protection from any negative reaction.
The impression that is consistently gaining ground is that the UPA government is Islamo-phile, either because of historical reasons as a legacy of Nehru’s sole dominance of the Congress organization with the help of the British and Gandhiji – who combined their mettle in removing or neutralizing all potential rivals of Nehru within the organization, or because of growth of deep penetration of Islamic elements within the networks of the Congress and related parties, or a combination of both. Bengal terrorists during the British Raj did not succeed because the Bengali community as a whole did not support the “armed insurrectionists”, and this lack of support is indicated by the consistent emergence of detailed information from even the most insignificant of meetings by the revolutionaries – it was the Bengali community itself that was helping the British with intelligence. The Punjab separatist insurrection in the 80’s did not ultimately succeed because the Sikh community decided to go against it. The Muslim community has so far not shown any indication of a similar sentiment against their Jihadi brethren. This is typical everywhere in Islam, because the core texts of Islam always teach about the necessity and “validity” of violent militant Jihad against non-Muslims – a fact now carefully suppressed both by Islamo-phile non-Muslims as well as Muslim theologians themselves in their public face towards non-Muslims – but intensively and authentically carried on within their own Islamic circles.
Now we come to the first factor mentioned above – that of the basic infrastructural support that can only be provided by the technological knowledge and sophistication of a modern army, [not necessarily that of a “modern” nation]. The most direct source of this for Indian Jihadis is that of Pakistan, and indirectly from groups operating in Pak-occupied Kashmir, Bangladesh, as well as eventual links back to the middle-East and Afghanistan, as well as possible indirect material help from China, Iran and funding from sources tolerated tacitly by Saudi Arabia. The ultimate source of all this is money from oil and natural gas, and the investment of the resulting capital in various non-Muslim economies.
Pakistan’s sole national project and now the only driving reason for its existence appears to be the capture of entire Kashmir, and subsequently as much of India as possible under the banner of Islam – as acknowledged by the dominance of public statements and debates by Pakistan’s politicians both inside and outside its legislature – whereas we would have expected more time devoted to making statements about combating terror within its borders. This campaign also helps Pakistan to gain support from the orthodox Islamic regimes sitting on oil wealth, and countries like China which have their own imperial axes to grind on India. As I have written before, Kiani would have sacrificed Musharraf, his mentor, only if the “elected” democratic government promised continued and perhaps even increased support for Kiani’s original organization, the ISI’s promotion of Jihadi Islamic violence across the border with India. The Pakistani government has recently concluded an understanding with the Taleban, and it is incapable or unwilling to fight back and annihilate the Islamic Jihadis based around the gateway to the Indian subcontinent – the Afghan-Pak border area known commonly as the NWFP or NW Pakistan. By all accounts, the Jihadis are gaining ground and they have already occupied a government building for some time before retreating. The official Pakistan government’s writ does not run in this grey-zone, and thsi perhaps necessitated a missile attack by the US led coalition leading to loud protests by the Pakistani army – either from loss of pride, or from the actual loss of “allies” with whom the Pakistani Aarmy has already come to an understanding to turn over Pakistan firmly into Jihadi hands.
India’s recent tie-ups with the USA has led to a panic in the Wahabi Islamic Jihadi expansionist agenda for the subcontinent – and they are striking back with the only weapon taught in the Quran and the Hadiths – Islamic Jihadi violence, surprise attacks and assassination on the innocent populations including women and children of non-Muslims whose lands, wealth and women are desired by the Muslims. The islamic forces think that time is running out, and their Islamo-phile allies within India are perhaps no longer reliable enough to slow down the growth of Indian non-muslim’s power and further lapse of time will simply make it impossible for them to conquer India in the name of Islam. They are banking on the support from Muslim populations within India, who have always served as the fifth-column of invading Muslim armies in the historical past of India [ read my series on How Islam came to India]. The Pakistani army, whose lower ranks are being recruited from the society at large which has been increasingly radicalized with the worst form of Islamic Jihadism sponsored by oil-money through the madrassahs, and therefore increasingly sympathetic to the Jihadi cause, will collaborate and “appear to collapse” before the Talebani-Al Qaeda onslaught from the Afghan border. Pakistan stands to be dismembered not by the USA or India, but by the Army from within itself allied with the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. The entire northern Pakistan will fall, including NWFP and the Punjab. The war with India will take off from this point.
The non-Muslim Indian should immediately realize the weakness and essential betrayal of the Islamo-phile parties [who repeat the role of the Brahmin minister to Prithviraj Chahman, the minister who advised Prithviraj not to collaborate with the Chalukyas of Gujarat in annihilating the forces of Muhammad Ghori the very first time]. In the international arena, a military alliance should be formed by India with the USA and Russia. China should be kept out of this, as China will only betray, and leak information to the Pakistani forces. India should not buy into the pretensions of the current Pakistani government to offer “good news” on Kashmir – this is simply a tactic to buy time and deceive – in classic Islamic style of “deception is war, and war is deception”. War is coming into India, whether India behaves like the proverbial turkey burying its head into the sand or not.
“Indian Mujahideen” claims responsibility in an email for blasts that have left at least 30 dead and 100’s injured in the capital of India, New Delhi.
Many times have I written on the tolerance of Islam in India by a section of Islamo-phile non-Muslim elite and how none of the accumulated grievances in non-Muslims due to the historical rape, torture, massacre and exploitation by the Muslim elite have been ever acknowledged. I had already warned explicitly that even after the “capture” of a few suspects connected to the Gujarat blasts, and claims of catching key terrorists, these were most likely peripheral units, and the main network is under deep cover all over the western Indian hinterland. These terrorists can only function with a certain minimal support from local Muslim communities. [extract from original post dated 17th August]
“While this pussyfooting is going on in Kashmir, the Gujarat police has claimed to nab the main culprits behind the Gujarat blasts, and identified them as a breakaway hardline faction of SIMI, calling itself the Indian Mujahideen. However sometime ago, in the aftermath of the blasts media leaks from officials appeared to project the theory that Indian Mujahideen did not really exist but was a “shadow name” of a Pakistan based outfit that specifically wanted to pretend to be “Indian”. Both cannot be true at the same time, and it is quite possible that neither of the two theories are entirely correct. It seems unlikely that the main culprits behind the Gujarat blasts have been nabbed. These are people still under deep cover all over the western coastal areas of India, with strong underground networks between Communist extremists, and ethnic separatists throughout India as well as groups based across the border not necessarily with Pakistan. The people nabbed are most likely to be the peripheral weak links. The ideological shortsightedness of these groups may make them itch in “righteous anger” to prove that the Indian authorities have barely even scratched their bottoms, and more public outrages or “show of strength” can probably be expected.”
I had also given a list of provinces in India whose Muslim population proportion was within a certain critical range – not too small so that sufficient social depth of cover is not available, not too high as then blasts jeopardize the existence of the Muslim population itself providing excuses for security forces to move in. Here is an extract from the original post dated 26th July. ” Now blasts have taken place in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, a day after blasts in Bangalore, Karnataka. It is interesting also that recently the three states which suffered from blasts are Rajputana, Karnataka, and Gujarat, all states which have recently come under BJP led state governments. It is quite clear now that these are Islamic extremists who are behind these blasts. These are states which have a small but significant Muslim population. We can look at the states with medium to low concentrations of Muslim populations (Census of India 2001):
(State – total population – percentage of Muslim populations)
Kerala 7,863,842 24.6969
Uttar Pradesh 30,740,158 18.4961
Bihar 13,722,048 16.5329
Jharkhand 3,731,308 13.8474
Karnataka 6,463,127 12.2291
Uttaranchal 1,012,141 11.9225
Delhi 1,623,520 11.7217
Maharashtra 10,270,485 10.6014
Andhra Pradesh 6,986,856 9.1679
Gujarat 4,592,854 9.0641
Manipur 190,939 8.8121
Rajasthan 4,788,227 8.4737
So the pattern indicates, the following factors, between 7-8% on the lower limit and 25% as upper limit on Muslim populations, with a BJP led government or where BJP may come to power in the near future through the electoral process, centres of commercial and industrial activity with current or future potential for FDI’s, are possibly ripe for continued “blast” violence. A much higher percentage of Muslim population’s religious leadership obviously feels secure enough that nothing against their religious agenda will be undertaken by the respective state governments. A much lower percentage simply does not have the community resources to provide cover for extremists.”
I had also warned that Musharraf’s departure will signal increased power of Kiani to carry on his activities from the time he was chief of the Pakistan ISI, and increase it with indirect material and resource help from the “democratic” political government. [original post dated 18th August] Added to this of course now the failure of Pakistan, China, and other nations who prize the Islamo-Chinese axis, to stop the NSG waiver for India. These have made the Islamic Wahabi Jihadist leadership and networks extremely anxious – and from now on India should expect increasing attacks from Muslim networks in the subcontinent. Indian governments have always been soft on Islam, especially the fundamental sources of Islamic expansion and growth in India – the countless Muslim religious trusts and Madrassahs which claim and are allowed the right to function completely unsupervised. Unlike any other educational institutions run by other religious groups, Islamic madrassahs function in a closed manner with complete immersion in Islamic propaganda and religious texts. In my blog posts I have tried tos how what is the real message and agenda of Islamic religious texts – loot, murder, terrorise, rape and enslave under deceptive war on non-Muslims with coveted resources – land, wealth, women and live off this resource like a band of marauding robbers.
Indian government does not have any financial supervision on the activities, funding and expenditure of these Muslim institutions – in fact whereas Hindu institutions are taxed normally, no Muslim institution is taxed or audited under government supervision. Additionally these institutions are funded or subsidized partly, using public money. The Indian government has proved its complete failure intelligence wise to deal with the Islamic terror threat. The Delhi police and the Home Minister, who just days ago had turned down a request from the Gujarat government to introduce tougher anti-terror laws – repeats the lines learnt by heart now – stay calm, don’t panic, don’t heed rumours, don’t add to social discord, we will nab the culprits and give them tough punishments – his main concern as always is the protection of “Islam” – see to it that no retribution takes place on the Muslim networks by popular anger. As always, he is never able to catch “the culprits”, his main concern being protecting Muslims. It is obvious why the Indian intelligence fails completely to break Islamic terror networks and only wisecracks after the blasts have already taken place: because these Islamic networks have developed political connections within the ruling elite and serve as conduit of critical information from the ruling side to the Muslim leadership and disinformation from the Muslim side to the government. Ruling elite’s conscious or subconscious involvement in the protection of Islam game is now so deep that almost nothing can be done without a complete rehaul of the political and administrative structure of India.
This terror will only stop if it can be shown to the Islamic networks that each such attack will actually decrease the “number of practising Muslims” – a call should immediately be given to the Muslim community and leadership in India, that they should offer to publicly declare and promise that each such attack by Islamic Mujahideen or other terror outfits will be met by pubic renouncement of Islam and coming out of the religion of Islam by a number equal to the number of non-Muslims dead or injured – only in this way can non-Muslims believe in the sincerity of Muslim’s claim of peaceful intent. Similarly, It is the Muslim communities themselves who must give up these terrorists, otherwise the entire Muslim community will be deemed to be in support of these terror tactics.
The soft border in West Bengal with Bangladesh, which allows coninuous unhindered infiltration by Islamic terrorists from Bangladesh with ultimate routes to the middle East whose petro-dollar now is pouring into Bangladesh at an accelerating rate to build mosques and madrassahs – all centres of Islamic propaganda and institutionally protected centres to store, train and serve as bases of Islamic terror when the opportunity arises – as in the Lal Mosque of Pakistan and many others [ Ibn Ishaq, and Tabari write how many of the initial jihadi calls for raids and assassinations of non-Muslims around Medina were given from within the mosque] and is a long tradition of Islam right from the days of its foundation – can only be checked by a state government that is not ideologically dependent or soft towards Islam. Both the Left as well as its current nemesis the Trinamool Congress have proved their complete failure in statesmanhip over the Tata nano plant. It is the need of the country as well as the common people of West Bengal that there is a regime change there that can fight the Islamic infiltration as well as industrialize – it perhaps should start looking for a Modi.
Ultimately in the long run, as long as Islam is practised in India and the Indian subcontinent, the terror threat will never go. The Islamic and Islamo-phile false propaganda that Islam is peaceful and has no evil intentions on the land, property, and women of non-Muslims and complete destruction of all non-Muslim cultures, have hidden for a long time the real reasons behind the rise of Islamic terror. Complete eradication of Islam as practised religion in the subcontinent must take place, and non-Muslims, mainly the Hindus, the Christians and the Judaic communities should come to an understanding between themselves to fight unitedly the common threat of Islam – its not very difficult to do, if the Quranic observation that “un-believers” are always torn by dissension and that they cannot take united action against Muslims, is remembered.
LIE 4: ISLAM DOES NOT ALLOW KILLING OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY, OR CUTTING DOWN OF TREES, NOT EVEN IN WAR-ISLAM RATHER PROTECTS THE CHILDREN AND WOMEN OF THE DEFEATED
Killing women : The Murder of Asma bt. Marwan at Medina by Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi -March, 624CE
Immediately after his return from the victory at Badr, Muhammad felt strong enough to put a halt to his critics who were displeased at his arrival at Medina. During those days, poets served as mouthpiece of political and social satire. One such poetess was Asma bint Marwan. She belonged to the B. Aws and did not hide her dislike for Islam. She was married to – Yazid b. Zayd, a man of Banu Khatma and had five sons and a suckling infant. After the Badr war, she composed some satirical poems. The verses spread from mouth to mouth and finally reached the ears of the Muslims and they were greatly offended. Muhammad could not at all endure satire or vituperation. Therefore, an incensed Muhammad decided that it was time to get rid of her.
In his mosque, at night, Muhammad sought a volunteer to assassinate Asma bt. Marwan. A blind man, Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi, belonging to the same tribe as Asma’s husband (i.e., Banu Khatma) stood up to complete the job. In the dead of night he crept into her apartment. Her little children then surrounded Asma while she slept. Hugging her bosom was her infant, suckling her breast. The blind man, feeling stealthily with his hand, removed the infant from her breast and plunged his sword in her belly with such a force that it passed through her back. This severe blow killed Asma on the spot. It was just five days before the end of the month of the sacred month of fasting, Ramadan when Muslims are not supposed to shed blood.[Ibn Ishaq]
After murdering Asma, next morning, the killer Umayr went to pray in the mosque while Muhammad was there. Muhammad was quite anxious to learn if the mission of Umayr was a success or not. He said to Umayr, the killer “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?’ Commenting on this Ibn S’ad writes, “This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him.” When Umayr replied that the job had been carried out with success, Muhammad said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!’ When Umayr asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences, the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.” Muhammad then praised Umayr in front of all gathered for prayer for his act of murder, and Umayr went back to his people. (Note: Some biographers suggest that Omayr was Asma’s former husband). Five days later, the Muslims celebrated the first Eid (the end of fasting)! [Ibn Ishaq]
When Omayr, the killer returned to Upper Medina, he passed the sons of Asma who were burying theirs slain mother. They accused Umayr of murder of their mother. Without hesitation, Umayr admitted the accusation boastfully and threatened to kill the whole family if they dared to repeat the lampoons that their mother had composed deriding the Prophet of mercy. This threat of terror worked wonderfully. The entire tribe of Asma’s husband (i.e., Banu Khatma) who secretly hated Islam, now openly professed their adherence, just to save their lives. Ibn Ishak writes, “That was the first day that Islam became powerful among B. Khatma. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam”. [Ibn Ishaq]
Singing women killed:
Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2678: Narrated Sa’id ibn Yarbu’ al-Makhzumi: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.
Later, Umar killed Sarah by causing his horse to trample her at al-Abtah. On the day of occupation of Mecca, Muhammad commanded that six men and four women be killed. The women were: 1. Hind bt. Utbah b. Rabiah, 2. Sarah, the freed slave girl of Amr b. Hashim b. Abd al-Muttalib; she was killed (waqidi) on the day of invasion. 3. Quraybah; killed on the day of invasion, 4. Fartana escaped death and lived until the Caliphate of Uthman.
The killings of polytheist women and children and old men are definitely sanctioned by Muhammad.
Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4321: It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
Old Women killed : Raid against Umm Qirfa of B. Fazarah by Zayd b. Haritha/Abu Bakr-January, 628CE
After Zayd b. Haritha’s first raid at Wadi al-Qura ended in a failure, he conducted further raids. In one of these operations, he set out for a mercantile trip to Syria to do some border trading there. When he arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he again raided the inhabitants there. However, his caravan was waylaid and was attacked by B. Fazarah tribe. During the fighting B. Fazarah killed a number of Muslims including Ward b. Amr, one of Zayd’s dear comrade-in-arms. Zayd himself was wounded.[NOTE THE EASE WITH WHICH MUSLIMS COMBINED THE DUAL ROLE OF TRADER AND RAIDER]
After Zayd returned to Medina with his wound he vowed to avenge the death of his comrade by raiding B. Fazarah again. After his recovery from the injury Muhammad sent Zayd with an army against the B. Fazarah. He attacked them at Wadi al-Qura and inflicted heavy casualties on them. He took Umm Qirfa (her real name was Fatimah bt. Rabiah b. Badr), the wife of Malik b. Hudhayfah, the chief of B. Fazarah, as a prisoner. Umm Qirfa was a very old woman having a young and exquisitely beautiful daughter. She (Umm Qirfa) was the aunt of Uyeina and was married to her cousin, Malik, the uncle of Uyeina. They formed a branch of Fazarah, Fazarah tribe being a branch of the Ghatafan tribe. Zayd took her daughter as a captive and ordered a Jihadist, Qays b. Mohsin to kill Umm Qirfa. Qays tied each of her legs with a rope and attached the ropes to two camels. Then he drove the camels in opposite directions thus renting her in two. Rodinson writes that Umm Qirfa was torn from limb to limb by four camels. Two brothers from the same family were also brutally executed. When told, Muhammad fully approved this ferocious punishment meted out to a grand old lady. When Zayd brought Umm Qirfa’s daughter to Muhammad, he allocated her to Salamah b. Amr al-Akwa, a Jihadist who captured her. Then Muhammad found that one of his maternal uncles, Hazn b. Abi Wahb was eyeing on Umm Qirfa’s beautiful daughter. So he asked her owner, Salamah b. Amr b. al-Akwa, if he would give her to his (Muhammad’s) uncle. Salamah readily agreed to Muhammad’s request. This distinguished lady was then passed on to Muhammad’s uncle for his private use.
Another version of this story says that the leader of this raid was Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhafah (told by Salamah): Muhammad appointed Abu Bakr as the leader of this raiding party. When Abu Bakr arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he ordered his troop to rest there; then they prayed. After prayer, Abu Bakr made a raid on B. Fazarah. The Muslims killed a number of B. Fazarah people and captured a number of their women and children. Among them was Umm Qirfa, a very old lady, wearing a worn-out piece of leather coat. With her was her young daughter, the fairest of the Arabs. Abu Bakr gave Umm Qirfa’s pretty, young daughter to, the Jihadist, who had captured her as a booty. After Salamah b. al-Akwa returned to Medina and met Muhammad at the market place, he (Muhammad) asked Salamah to give this pretty young lass to him. Salamah told Muhammad that he liked her but had not had sex with her yet. Then he offered her to Muhammad.
Quoting Salamah, Tabari (Tabari, vol. viii, p.97) writes: ‘When I returned to Medina, the messenger of God met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent the father who begot you!-give me the woman.” I said, “Messenger of God, I like her, by God, and I have not uncovered her garment.” He said nothing to me until the next day, when he met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent a father begot you!-give me the woman.” I said: “Messenger of God, I have not touched her garment. She is yours, Messenger of God.” The Messenger of God sent her to Mecca, and with her he ransomed some Muslim captives who were in the hands of the polytheists.’ Look also Sahih Muslim (Refer to: Sahih Muslim: Book 19, Hadith number 4345)
Killing Old Men:The Murder of Abu Afak at Medina by Salim b. ‘Umayr-April, 624CE
Abu Afak, a Jew of Medina was a very old man, about 120 years old. He was active in the opposition of Muhammad’s religion. He too composed some satirical verses that annoyed the Muslims. One month after his victory at Badr, Muhammad showed his limit of tolerance to his intellectual opposition by expressing his wish to eliminate this old man. At his mosque, the apostle of Allah sought the service of a volunteer killer, saying, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ A convert by the name of Salim b.‘Umayr, brother of B. ‘Amr b.’Auf from the B. Amr tribe came forward to do the job. He killed Abu Afak with one blow of his sword when the latter slept outside his house. (Some say that Abu Afak was murdered first then Asma). Ibn S’ad describes this gruesome murder in this way: “He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim b. ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed him, took him to his house and interred him.”
Cutting down trees of the “enemy”
The Ethnic Cleansing of B. Nadir Jews from Medina by Muhammad-July, 625CE
Bani Nadir Jews inhabited the fertile land in the vicinity of Medina. They were prosperous Jews, having vast tracts of land, on which they cultivated date palms. They were in confederation with the B. Amir people. Muhammad went to the Bani Nadir Jews to raise the blood money to be paid for the killing of two men of B. Amir, whom the professional killer, Amr b. Umayya al-Damri had killed by mistake.
So, Muhammad, with a few of his followers, including, Abu Bakr, Ali and Umar visited the village of B. Nadir, two or three miles away from Medina and requested the chief of B. Nadir to refund the blood money that he had already paid. The B. Nadir Jews received Muhammad courteously, asked him to sit down while they attentively listened to his demand and agreed to honor Muhammad’s request. Muhammad was quite unhappy when the B. Nadir readily agreed to his demand. In reality, he was expecting the B. Nadir Jews to reject his demand, so that he could have a good pretext to attack them and seize their land and property.
After agreeing to Muhammad’s demand for blood money, the B. Nadir Jews went for a private discussion among themselves. While he was sitting by the wall of a house, he claimed that B. Nadir Jews wanted to kill him by dropping a stone from top of the house and claimed that Gabriel gave him this information. So, he suddenly stood up and left the place, as if to answer the call of nature asking others, including Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali not to leave the place until he returned. When his companions found that Muhammad’s return was very much delayed, they went out looking for him. On their way to Medina they met a man who told them he saw Muhammad was headed for Medina. When they met Muhammad at Medina, he told them his perception of treachery by B. Nadir and asked the Muslims to prepare to fight the B. Nadir.
With clear war and invasion of Jewish property in mind, Muhammad asked another of his professional assassins, Muhammad ibn Maslamah (He murdered Ka’b b. Ashraf) to go to the Banu Nadir Jews to announce to them the ultimatum to vacate Medina. He gave the Jews ten days to evacuate Medina and, if after this deadline any Jew was seen in the area, he would be killed. The B. Nadir Jews were surprised that Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who was hitherto very much on friendly terms with the Jews had to serve them the ultimatum. When the B. Nadir Jews expressed their dismay at the action of Muhammad b. Maslamah, he said, “ Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants.”
When Abd Allah ibn Ubayy learned about the precarious situation of the B. Nadir Jews, he sent the message to them that he himself would be coming to their assistance with two thousand Jewish and Arab fighters. But the Banu Nadir Jews recalled that the same person promised to help the Banu Qaynuqa Jews, but in the end, betrayed. So, the Banu Nadir Jews, at first, decided towards removing themselves to Khaybar or nearby. They thought that they could still come to Yathrib (Medina) to harvest their crops and then return to their fortresses at Khaybar. Huyayy ibn Akhtab, their leader finally resolved against this view. He decided to send a message to Muhammad, declining his order of expulsion,. entered in their fortified fortresses, stocked them with enough supplies to last up to a year and got ready to defend themselves. So, no Jew left Medina after the expiry of the ten days ultimatum. Muhammad, immediately ordered Jihadists in his mosque to arm themselves and march forward to lay a siege on the fortresses of B. Nadir Jews. A band of Muslims, with Muhammad as their leader started marching against B. Nadir who had already taken shelter in their formidable fortresses. In the beginning, the Jews attacked the Muslim besiegers with arrows and stones and held out gallantly. Although not unexpected, they were greatly disappointed when no help came from Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, nor from any other previously trusted sources. The siege lasted for fifteen or twenty days, and Muhammad became very impatient. At last, to hasten their surrender, Muhammad, cut down the surrounding date trees and burned them. When the Jews protested about the breaking of sacrosanct Arab laws on warfare, he demanded a special revelation from Allah (59:4) that was promptly sent down, sanctioning the destruction of enemy’s palm trees. In this verse Allah gave generous permission to the Muslims to cut down the palm trees: it was not a destruction but the vengeance from Allah, and to humble the evil doers that is to say, it is alright to cut down cultivated land and burn crops in a war. The Muslim poet (or the war correspondent of those days) Hassan b. Thabit enjoyed this gutting of the livelihood of the B. Nadir Jews and composed lyrics on this savage acts of the Jihadists.. Here is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari that describes Hassan’s mood :
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 519:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet got the date palm trees of the tribe of Bani-An-Nadir burnt and the trees cut down at a place called Al-Buwaira . Hassan bin Thabit said in a poetic verse: “The chiefs of Bani Lu’ai found it easy to watch fire spreading at Al-Buwaira.”
After Muhammad destroyed their only source of livelihood, the B. Nadir found their case completely hopeless, and finding no other alternative, they decided to surrender and abandon their lands. In exchange for this, they wanted Muhammad to spare their lives, on which he agreed, on condition that they could only take those of their property that they could carry on their camels. He stipulated that the Jews must surrender their arms. They were allowed to carry whatever they could stock upon their camels. The Jews agreed to comply with those humiliating conditions, loaded six hundred camels with their goods and departed from their ancestral land with fanfare, din and alacrity. Some of them, with their chiefs Huyey, Sallam and Kinana went to Khaybar [These were the Jews who were later captured, tortured as prisoners of war to death, and their wives taken over by Muhammad and his followers for their personal enjoyment]. The rest of them went to Jericho and the highlands of south Syria. Only two of them embraced Islam.
Attacking suddenly at night and killing :
Raid on B. Kilab at Nejd by Abu Bakr-July, 628CE Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2632: Narrated Salamah ibn al-Akwa’: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed AbuBakr our commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was “put to death; put to death.” Salamah said: I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to seven houses.
As for fate of women and children in Islamic war :
Genocide of Bani Qurayzah Jews by Muhammad-February-March, 627
The Muslim soldiers marched toward the fortress of Bani Qurayza that lay two or three miles to the south-east of Medina. Muhammad rode an ass, while an army of three thousand Muslims, with thirty-six horses followed him. After twenty-five days of siege, the Jews grew desperate, exhausted and terrified at their future. They were on the verge of starvation.
Tabari writes: ‘When they saw him (i.e Abu Lubabah), [ A Muslim from a friendly tribe whom the Jews hoped to intercede on behalf of them] the men rose to meet him, and the women and children rushed to grab hold of him, weeping before him, so that he felt pity for them. They said to him, “Abu Lubabah, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgment”? “Yes”, he said, but he pointed with his hand to his throat, that it would be slaughter.”’ Haykal writes that the Jews thought that the former allies from al-Aws tribe would give them protection if they migrated to Adhriat in al Sham, and that Muhammad would allow them. Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their waiting for his judgment.
In the morning, B. Qurayzah Jews surrendered. The male Jews were chained and kept in the fortress till a decision was made about their fate. The B. Aws were friendly with the B. Qurayzah Jews and pleaded with Muhammad for mercy and a fair judgment for their Jewish allies. On this, Muhammad proposed that the judgment be passed by Sa’d b Muadh who was the B. Aws leader, trying to recuperate from his eventually fatal wound in a tent at Medina. B. Aws and the B. Qurayzah both agreed on this proposal of Muhammad, hoping to have some mercy from Sa’d b. Muadh. Muhammad dispatched some B. Aws men to bring Sa’d to deliver his judgment. Many B. Aws people requested Sa’d to deal with the Jews with leniency and mercy. Sa’d then asked his people if they would accept whatever judgment he pronounced. The assemblage agreed.
On being asked by Muhammad Sa’d b. Muadh replied, “I pass judgment on them that the men shall be killed, the property divided, and the children and women made captives.” Muhammad praised Sa’d for proclaiming a solemn judgment of the Almighty and termed Sa’d’s judgment as fair and said, “You have passed judgment on them with the judgment of God and the judgment of His Messenger.” Sahih Bukhari records:
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).”
[Original Sahih Al-Bukhari] The women and children were then separated from their husbands, others were put under the care of Abdullah, a renegade Jew. All the goods and possessions of the B. Qurayzah Jews, their camels and flocks were all brought as spoils of war. The B. Qurayzah Jewish men were handcuffed behind their backs with their women and children having already been separated. They were placed under the charge of Mohammad ibn Maslama, the assassin of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, to be sent to Medina before their execution in batches. A long trench was dug in the marketplace of Medina. The Prisoners were then taken there, made to kneel down and beheaded in a group of five or six. Muhammad was personally present to witness this slaughter. Ali and Zubayr cut off the heads of the Jews in front of Muhammad. Sourcing from Al-Waqidi, Tabari writes:
“…the messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the B. Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.” Ibn Ishaq writes that they were taken in groups to Muhammad for beheading in front of him.
Tabari further writes: ‘The messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups. Among them were the enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, and Ka’b b. Asad, the head of the tribe. They numbered 600 or 700-the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900. As they were being taken in groups to the Messenger of God, they said to Ka’b b. Asad, “Ka’b, what do you understand. Do you not see that the summoner does not discharge [anyone] and that those of you who are taken away do not come back? By God, it is death!” the affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them.’
Sir William Muir describes: ‘The men were penned up in a closed yard, while graves or trenches were being dug for them in the chief marketplace of the city. When these were ready, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, gave command that the captives should be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company was made to sit down by the brink of the trench destined for its grave, and there beheaded. Party by party they were thus led out, and butchered in cold blood, till the whole were slain. One woman alone was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements.’
Huyayy b. Akhtab, the banished B. Nadir Jewish leader was taken to the execution field. Tabari describes his execution:
‘Huyayy b. Akhtab, the enemy of God, was brought. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty from him, and his hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at the Messenger of God, he said, “By God, I do not blame myself for being hostile to you, but whomever God forsakes is forsaken.” Then he turned to the people and said: “People, there is no injury in God’s command. It is the book of God, His decree, and a battlefield of great slaughter ordained against the Children of Israel. Then he sat down and was beheaded.’
Only one woman of the B. Qurayzah, the wife of Hasan al-Qurazi and a friend of Aisha, was killed. Aisha’s narrated her story of beheading thus:
‘Only one of their women was killed. By God, she was by me, talking with me and laughing unrestraintedly while the Messenger of God was killing their men in the marketplace, when suddenly a mysterious voice called out her name, saying, “Where is so and so?” She said, “I shall be killed.” “Why?” I asked. She said, A misdeed that I committed.” She was taken away and beheaded. (Aisha used to say: I shall never forget my wonder at her cheerfulness and much laughter, even when she knew that she would be killed.).’
The Sahi (authentic) Hadith of Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.”
Ther very old Jewish man Az-Zabir had saved the life of a Muslim convert, Thabit b. Qays in the Bu’ath war. When Az-Zabir was about to be beheaded Thabit requested Muhammad to save the life of Az-Zabir and his family as a return to his favor. Muhammad agreed. Az-Zabir then asked Thabit b. Qays about the Jewish leaders such as Ka’b b. Asad and Huayy b. Akhtab, as he preferred to die rather than to live without them. Az-Zabir replied, “Then I ask you for the sake of the favor I once did for you to join me to my kinsmen, for by God there is no good in living after them. I will not wait patiently for God, not even [the time needed] to take the bucket of a watering trough, until I meet my dear ones.” So Thabit brought him forward, and he was beheaded. Abu Bakr commented “He will meet them, by God, in the Gehenna, there to dwell forever and forever.”
Muhammad commanded that all those Jewish men with pubic hair were to be executed. Hadith from Sunaan Abu Dawud:
Book 38, Number 4390: Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
After executing all the adult male Jews, Muhammad sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari with some captive women and children from the B. Qurayzah to Najd to sell them in the slave market. While we do not have an accurate price of a female slave during that time, Ibn Sa’d writes that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, bought her slave, Zayd b. Haritha, (who would later become Muuhammad’s adopted son), for four hundred Dirhams at the slave market of Ukaz, Mecca. [the price of young slave varied from five hundred dirhams to eight hundred dirhams – Sunaan Abu Dawud hadith numbers, 3946 and 4563]. Among the captive was a young woman called Rayhanh bt. ‘Amr b. Khunafah and took her as his concubine. It is said that when Muhammad offered to make her his wife by embracing Islam, she declined. She preferred to remain a concubine to becoming a Muslim and said, “Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession [as a concubine], for it is easier for me and for you.” [Some biographers claim that Rayhana eventually accepted Islam].
Sir Willima Muir:
‘Having sated his revenge, and drenched the market-place with the blood of eight hundred victims, and having given command for the earth to be smoothed over their remains, Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all whose male relatives had just perished in the massacre. He invited her to be his wife, but she declined; and chose to remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative) his slave or concubine. She also declined the summons to conversion, and continued in the Jewish faith, at which the Prophet was much concerned. It is said, however, that she afterwards embraced Islam. She lived with Mahomet till his death.’
The American electorate is being fabulously entertained. It is fascinating to watch what the movers and shakers of American opinion demand that the American mind should think – lipsticks and pigs dominate proceedings – and with all adult-o-teens and perhaps half the unborn population deemed trained Freudian psychiatrists – lipsticks and pigs are just two words that spawn a billion networks of interpretations and interpretations of interpretations. But no one has told them that what the therapist interprets is also a revelation of the therapist’s own obsessions and paranoias, and in the patterns and passions of your looking for “others” secrets, your own secrets come out – especially about secret pleasures. Why should it matter whether a woman Vice-Presidential candidate has an affair or not or whether her daughter is pregnant or not? What should have been more relevant is whether she is good for what she is being asked to do – play the role of a deputy leader to the highest executive post in the country – if having an affair or her daughter’s supposed pregnancy doesn’t interfere with her state responsibilities why should we bother? It is ridiculous to accept the pseudo-logic that her daughter if pregnant represents her lack of control and leadership, given the fact that Americans champion personal freedoms and individual responsibilities especially in the realm of sex. And as for affairs, should we forget the two illustrious White Christian examples of ladies at the top seats of their realms – Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Tsarina Catherine the Great? By most historical accounts, both ladies had their fill of affairs while proving themselves to be some of the best things that could have happened to their nations in the very practical terms of statesmanship. Isn’t it time that opinion builders of America decide to grow up a bit? What should concern Americans more is what is happening in South Asia and the middle East. The Indo-US nuclear deal has drawn a lot of attention, and it comes as no surprise to me that the Democrats failed to send a woman as a Presidential candidate, and that all Democrat Presidents have gone against strategic strengthening of India at the cost of India’s Muslim neighbours. If we analyze the regimes that have put up women for the top post, they have invariably been leaning towards the Right, whereas the Left, from the Communists to the “Democrats” in spite of all their libertarian rhetoric always shy of women for the top posts and always land up ultimately in the camp of Muslims. Ex President Carter while in the USA is vehemently anti-Indian as far as nuclear strengthening of India is concerned, and frankly ridicules both India’s nuclear capabilities as well as its security concerns which he dubs “ambitions”. The same President Carter while in India however feels no shame in associating his name with remote Indian villages claiming that the Indian connection had been “good for him”. Ex President Clinton, on his visit to India, demanded that both “India and Pakistan” respect the LOC, and pointedly refused to acknowledge Pakistani responsibility for the typically Islam recommended “deceptive” war of killing 35 Kashmiri Sikhs -one of many massacres of non-Muslims of Kashmir towards the ethnic/religious cleansing by the Kashmiri Muslim militants wearing Indian army uniform. Obama is aware of this pattern perhaps and has already consciously tried to neutralize the edge gained by the Republicans through the Indo-US nuclear deal, by highlighting Indo-“phile” Biden and accusing Pakistan of diverting funds meant to fight “terror” towards preparing for war with India.
The coalition forces are not having a very good time in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and the west should now realize that the centre of power of the Islamic Jihad is firmly in the middle East, with financial and ideological support maintained by the wealth of oil, and Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist clergy, and at least one unsupervised strategically important military establishment that has dubious attitudes to the Taleban – and has already come to an understanding with this patron of Al-Qaeda in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan – the corridor that connects Muslim Jihadi insurgents in Afghanistan through northern Pakistan right into Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Fall of India to Islam, either by cooperation or weakness from some of its Islamo-phile centre-left political parties or by outright aggression facilitated or spearheaded by Pakistan with tacit help from China, would mean the establishment of a continuous band of Jihadi Islam from Egypt, and Sudan through Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia (the smaller non-Muslim majority nations of Myanmar or Thailand may not prove a strong bulwark against Islam because of their Buddhism) establishing a stranglehold over the Indian Ocean and virtually over Asia itself, making American presence and control in the middle East virtually impossible..
It is crucial, that no weakness of the “leftist” sort comes in the way of consolidation of all non-Muslim ideologies and forces. Christians and Hindus have the potential of forming an effective alliance in this game of survival. The Right way forward…?
I came across some interesting propaganda from an Indian from Mumbai. We have to keep in mind this is a Muslim from India, who is allowed to run an Islamic “research” organization to carry out his propaganda based on highly selective and edited quotations from a certain class of sources in Mumbai, the site of a string of blasts in the public railway system by Islamic terrorists in India, a country whose Muslims amount to less than one-fifth in the overall population, a country that was one of the first to ban the “Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie, a country where a provincial government was sacked for not being able to “protect” a Muslim mosque built on territory disputed by the Hindus as the site of a holy temple which has been recorded by Islamic chroniclers to have been destroyed by the Mughal adventurer Babur, a country which however remains completely silent when numerous ancient and archaeologically important Hindu sites in Kashmir are destroyed by Muslims, a country that gags the voice of a woman of Bangladeshi origin writing about the “shame” of Islamic atrocities on Hindu women in Bangladesh and now a refugee because of the “fatwaists” in her own country. Apparently such a propagandist who declares with glee and with a smile that even though the “method” of destroying the twin towers was wrong, the fact is that right after that “attack” a large number of Americans converted to Islam, is welcomed by a visa in western countries whereas the elected Chief Minister of a neighboring province from a “not-anti-Hindu” party in India is denied a visa to attend a conference. What drew my attention was that his claims have been reproduced word-for-word by a Muslim as “counters” to my posts on how Islam came to India. I saw that this person had actually tried to offer an open challenge to the Pope, so it was clear that, his greatest weakness lay in a deep insecurity that needed compensation by provoking through outrageous comments and lies, and ultimately trying to draw attention to himself. So in my new sequence of posts I am not going to name him – the one-who-has-no-name : but the common face of a string of lies not supported by facts usually hurled at non-Muslims. This particular Indian should be an interesting study for anyone trying to understand what really went on in the minds of the early founders of Islam, as I feel that similar motivations of insecurity and inferiority/deprivation complex turned into megalomania, move both this one and the founders. I have left enough hints in the heading for anyone with some knowledge of Hebrew or Arabic to figure out the actual name!
LIE 1: ISLAM TRANSLATES FROM ARABIC AS “PEACE” AS IT IS DERIVED FROM SALAAM WHICH MEANS “PEACE”
Here I will quote from a reader’s comment to another reader’s similar claim that “Islam literally translates as peace” to one of my posts:
“Actually “Islam” does mean “submission” and not “peace”.
“Islam” is derived from the triliteral root s-l-m. The root means to “submit”…Salaam means peace… Islam means submission. Some confusion exists because people don’t understand how the term “peace” is arrived at, from s-l-m. There will only be peace when one side “submits”. That is why Islam dedicates so much time to subjugation. Once an enemy is defeated, they will be subjugated, at which time peace will ensue. Islam, as in the religion means submission to God, not peace.
The central belief and action of Islam is submission to Allah, not “Peace”. Rendering Islam as “Peace” makes the term senseless in the way of naming a religion. If you studied Qur’anic Arabic, as I did, you should know this. It is a pretty simple concept of Arabic. And my guess is you spent your time memorizing Arabic, and not studying it semantics or syntax.”Ibn al-Rawandi
LIE 2: THE QURAN SAYS THAT IF ONE INNOCENT HUMAN BEING [all muslims or non-muslims] IS KILLED IT IS AS IF ALL HUMANITY HAS BEEN KILLED, SIMILARLY IF ONE INNOCENT HUMAN IS SAVED IT IS EQUIVALENT TO ALL HUMANITY BEING SAVED [FROM AL MAEDA]
005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
Apart from the obvious quotation from Hebrew sources,and the fact that we have plenty of Hadiths and Ishaq’s biographical notes that show how far from truth the real practice of Islam was even by Muhammad himself from this injunction, note that all three translations specifically mention “Children of Israel” – primarily the Jews.The propagandist always quotes this verse as a “proof” of peaceful intentions in Quran, but strangely they always drop the “Children of Israel” bit. If Muslims claim that by the various convoluted claims of descent, Arab bedouins were also children of Israel, then also this injunction becomes valid only for the identifiable Semitic ethnicities of the Jews and the Bedouins. A host of questions are not cleared, (1) should we consider all Muslims as “children of Israel”? Does it mean then that all humankind are descended from the twelve tribes? If so then all humankind are “people of the Book”? Then no-one could be pagan by definition – including the early Meccans against whom Muhammad waged war – and different rules were applied to the “people of the book” and “pagans”? On the other hand if only the Arabs and the Jews are “Children of Israel”, then does this injunction apply to Muslims who are not of Arab or Jewish origin?
Who interprets what “corruption”, “mischief” means? If we go by the Meccan episode, this could simply mean non-acceptance of Islam, or debating it, or challenging it verbally – as we can and will show in this sequence. This propagandist shouts a lot that the Quran is quoted without context, but he most carefully remains silent on the verse immediately following the above from the Quran.
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
So we have the first clause for not being “innocent” – waging “war” against “Allah” and Muhammad : Note that nothing here states about who started the war – for example, if someone wages a “defensive” war to protect themselves from looting of caravans and settlements being raided and attacked it still deprives the “wagers” of this defensive war of their “innocence” and therefore liable for “Muhammad”ian punishments. In the next post I will describe at least six raids and attacks on the Meccan trade kafelas after Muhammad and his followers, who had began to physically attack their opponents in Mecca, were expelled or allowed to leave without any penalties on life, limb or property. Only after six such raids, did the Meccan Qureysh, took preparations to defend their life, property and means of livelihood – the “war against Allah” and his “messenger”. This will also be related to another big lie about the “context” of the so called “hate-murder-unbelievers” verses in Quran, so I will take it up in a longer next post.
The profound economic wisdom of the Islamic rulers as reflected in their consistent policy of ruining the producers
A firman of Aurangzeb acknowledges the Jagirdars as demanding for official records only half but in practice actually more than the total yield[Moreland]. According to Dr. Tara Chand, “The desire of the State [Mughal empire in the second half of the seventeenth century] was to extract the economic rent, so that nothing but bare subsistence. remained for the peasant… [Aurangzeb’s instructions were that] there shall be left for everyone who cultivates his land as much as he requires for his own support till the next crop be reaped and that of his family and for seed. This much shall be left to him, what remains is land tax, and shall go to the public treasury.” [Tara Chand, History of Freedom Movement in India, I]
Iltutmish, Alauddin Khalji and Firoz Tughlaq’s or some of the Mughal emperor’s few irrigation works or repairs are much highlighted by the Thaparite School of Indian History. But there is no evidence that such works were undertaken with a view to raise the living standards of the agrarian producers, as the tax assessments were revised upwards so that the policy of leaving no significant surplus at the hands of the producers still remained effective. For example, a widely practised administrative measure was to advance loans to peasants [here the standard Islamic claims against usury apparently was invalid] to help them tide over their difficulties, which by the rule of penalizing and crushing taxation or other illegal demands simply added to various forms of bonded labour. Sher Shah’s instructions to his Amils reveal the general policy of the Islamic rulers “Be lenient at the time of assessment, but show no mercy at the time of collection.” The real concerns of Sher Shah Suri who is highly eulogized by the Thaparite School for his apparent claims of concern for the living conditions of cultivators, are revealed in his sending his “good old loyal [meaning his Muslim Afghan officials] experienced servants” to districts which yielded good “profits” and “advantages” and after two years or so transfered them and sent “other servants like them that they may also prosper.” [Abbas Sawani, Eliott and Dowson, IV] – such prospering implies only one thing, private enrichment of the Islamic elite at the cost of peasants.
Collection of Arrears
The Islamic scholars like Al Beruni, Ibn Batuta, or Abul Fazl point out the importance of the Indian rainy season and its impact on the productivity of the land [even now the Met Dept. of India’s brief moment of media glory is in announcing the forecasts of seasonal rainfall] and the overwhelming tax burden which as we have seen sometimes could amount to as high as three-fourths of the harvest given the crucial fact usually never mentioned that this was all taken by the Islamic rulers as revenue and therefore there was no reinvestment into the land from the side of the state [Republican India had some 50-50 division of harvest, “adhiyar”- but this meant half for the pure farmer-labourer, who is advanced not only the use of the land but instruments of agriculture and seed, while the other half went to the owner of the land and who has sole responsibility for land revenue]. The unrealistic and punitive uniformly high taxation led to inability of the peasants to pay their revenue regularly and the revenue collection used to fall into arrears. Contemporary sources indicate that remissions were rare- even in return for conversion to Islam. Sultan Firoz Tughlaq rescinded Jiziyah for those who became Muslim, but their land tax continued to be at the rate as before their conversion. [Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, Eliott and Dowson, III], He instructed his revenue collectors to accept conversions in lieu of Kharaj.[Afif, Ishwari Prasad, Qaraunah Turks]. Rajas and Zamindars who could not deposit land revenue or tribute in time had to convert to Islam, with Bengal and Gujarat [the more productive revenue earners] providing specific instances which indicate that such rules were practised throughout areas under Muslim-rule.[Many of the Punjabi, and Bangladeshi Muslims “Rajas” or “Diwans” are historically known to be descended from Hindu rulers who were forced to convert if they wanted to live and continue in the possession of their lands. [Lal, Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, Lal, Indian Muslims, C.H.I., III; Census of India Report, 1901, IV, Pt. I, Bengal]. Remissions of Kharaj were never allowed and the arrears went on accumulating and the Muslim rulers tried to collect them with the utmost rigour. The Sultanate period saw the establishment of a full-fledged department by the name of the Diwan-i-Mustakharaj whose responsibility to inquire into the arrears against the names of collectors (Amils and Karkuns) and force them to realize the balances in full. [Barani, Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration] Under the Mughals collections of arrears were carried out with Sultanate-style harshness. The detailed descriptions of the system in place indicates that the peasants were never relieved of accumulated arrears. The continuous extraction of surplus by the Muslim rulers and their deliberate policy of not allowing the farmers even to accumulate sufficient capital to plow back into production capacity meant that productivity either remained stagnant or declined in real terms. This in turn implied that the entire amounts and the balances could not be collected and was generally carried forward to be collected along with the demand of the next year. Vagaries of the climate would therefore sometimes push the cultivator over the edge, and led to suicides or complete abandonment of land and escape into the forests. The Muslim rulers reacted in three physical ways to this accumulation of arrears, abandonment of land, and escape into badlands or forests – (1) they demanded the arrears, owed by peasants who had fled or died, from their neighbour (2) peasants unable to pay to be sold together with their family as slaves [there are explicit descriptions about how families got separated in the process] usually by decree to Muslim buyers to ensure that only the minority Muslims [and not the vast majority] benefited from the fruits of the slaves labour and that enslaved women only multiplied Muslim numbers by reproduction (3) hunt down and torture to death escapees.[Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, The Agrarian System of Moslem India, Irfan Habib, The Agrarian system of Mughal India]. We will later discuss again in the context of enslavement as a process of realizing revenues, how the so much talked about important still existing practices of “bonded labour”, “child bonded labour”, and “sex trafficking” or “sex slavery” probably started and took its most obnoxious forms under the Islamic Sultanate and “grand” Mughal rule. There were other significant social effects of this extraction process of revenues by torture, enslavement and armies which are still observable in Indian society which we will elaborate. The situation continued to deteriorate in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as attested to by contemporary historians Jean Law and Ghulam Hussain[Barani, Lal, Twilight of the Sultanate]. Artificial price control
An economically devastating idea of the Muslim rulers of India beginning with Alauddin [or his courtiers and the Ulama who are known to have been particularly active in trying to promote the Sahria way of “finance” as applied to non-Muslims], was to artificially keep the prices of commodities of daily consumption at an extraordinary low level. Alauddin constantly raided non-Muslim territorries without any pretext and as surprise invasions, and according to his contemporary Islamic scholars, sometimes simply to gather beautiful women of the non-Muslims for his harem or for the slave market [Barani] and also faced frequent Mongol invasions, requiring thereby a large standing army. According to Barani, it was calculated that even on moderate salaries, the required size of the standing army would have exhausted the entire treasure of the state in five or six years. Alauddin, decided to drastically lower the salary of soldiers; but enforced a reduction of the prices of commodities of daily use as sold in the markets or in the special soldier’s markets where locals were compelled to bring their products [Barani].
Contemporary Muslim chroniclers show their profound knowledge and level of Islamic economic or financial theory, by admiring the administrative coercion that maintained these prices at extremely low levels and fluctuations, “not even of a dang (small copper coin)” were tolerated irrespective of variability in weather and productivity. But “when a husbandman paid half of his hard earned produce in land tax, some portion of the remaining half in other sundry duties, and then was compelled to sell his grain at cheap rates” to the governments,[started by Alauddin who procured grain with great severity, to keep Government godowns full -Barani] it is easy to see what the effects would be not only on the producers but long term on the path to economic destitution itself [Lal, History of the Khaljis]. Indian historians typically acknowledge the destructive effect on the economy of the Mughals [Irfan Habib- Agrarian system of Mughal India] but stop short of making the possible obvious connection to the success of European colonialism over India replacing the Mughals, with that of this economic degeneration [Irfan Habib, Potentialities of capitalistic developments in the economy of the Mughal India]. The tall claims of “Islamic finance” notwithstanding, the Muslim’s basic inability to understand the dynamics of economies more complex than the desert oases or looting of “kafelas” revealed itself painfully in the many sultans after Alauddin Khalji who took pride in competing with him in keeping prices low. These Sultans as well as their Ulemas completely failed to understand how such drastic state intervention and artificial price stability at extremely low levels not only crippled production and impoverished the producers over the long term, but also led to a general impoverishment of the intermediate sectors or those involved in the pure process of circulation. Shams Siraj Afif enthusiastically describes and lists the low prices during the reign of Firoz Tughlaq, claiming that while Alauddin had to make strenuous efforts to bring down the prices, in the time of Firoz Tughlaq they remained low without resorting to any coercion. “Like Alauddin, Sikandar Lodi also used to keep a constant watch on the price-level” in the market [Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i-Akbari, I, Farishtah, I], Abdullah, in his Tarikh-i-Daudi, writes that “during the reign of Ibrahim Lodi the prices of commodities were cheaper than in the reign of any other Sultan except in Alauddin’s last days”, and adds that while Alauddin maintained low levels of prices through coercion in Ibrahim’s reign prices remained low “naturally.”This simply indicated that Alauddin’s measures had by this time been completely institutionalized and become a “natural” part of the economic order. Historians generally agree that Sher Shah followed Alauddin in formulating his agrarian policy and Akbar in turn adopted many measures of Sher Shah. During the Mughal period prices generally went up, [Abul Fazl, Ain, I] although as late as in the reign of Aurangzeb, sometimes the prices reported were regarded as exceptionally low. But since the land revenue extracted the major portion of the peasant’s surplus and there are indications that such extraction increased as the Mughal empire matured, this increase must have neutralized gain from increased prices.[Moreland, From Akbar to Aurangzeb].
Fiscal policy in taxation and its effects
Irfan Habib, who has made extensive studies of the Mughal economy from the Marxist viewpoint provides some important economic data and analysis. Although Habib’s major impetus was in trying to analyze the favourite Marxist theme of transition from feudalism [or pre-capitalist forms in Marxist jargon] to capitalism as applicable to India, we can find some revealing clues as to how the Mughal system which essentially continued and intensified the processes of exploitation started under the Sultanate, also landed India into utter ruin and open to colonial aggression – simply from continuation of early Islamic practices in India.
The Zamindars[landlords] typically collected from 10-25% in land rent as their share, and this was mostly collected in kind from the peasants and has been shown to dominate all other forms of dues extracted by the Zamindars[ Irfan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India]. “Mal”, usually translated as “land revenue”, was actually not a land rent in the modern sense of the word, but a share of the crop or harvest on the land. This was in general a complex procedure, with the revenue being imposed in kind, but the demand was fixed by a sophisticated sample survey system [we have hints of this surprisingly modern statistical procedure as early as the pre-Islamic Indian text of Arthasastra] used to estimate the total production [“Kankut”]. Typically this demand in kind was converted into demand in cash, and often at aribtrary conversion ratios – leading to cash nexus appearing as an established institution at least in the Delhi region as early as the 14th century [ Moreland, Agrarian system of Moslem India]. The conversion into cash demand appears to increasingly dominate over time, and even if revenues were sometimes collected in kind they were either used to build up stores or sold in markets to raise cash.
The areas from which the revenue went directly to the royal treasury, were called “khalisa”, and in 1647, the estimated treasury revenue amounted to 13.6% of the total [Irfan Habib, Agrarian system of Mughal India], and this was mostly collected in cash. The remaining portion came from “jagirs” or fiefs assigned to the elite and significant followers entrusted with supplying military contingents to the “Badshah”. The jagirdars or mansabdars [officials specifically responsible to maintain military units – even the princes could be mansabdars] were assigned lands in lieu of personal pay, maintenance of soldiers [some Mansabdars also drew pay in cash from the administration directly]. This entire class, with a few exceptions of some of the “Hindu” collaborator jagirdars who had their own inherited and traditional territories, consisted of urbanized Muslim elite, and was almost entirely of foreign origin [Moreland, India at the death of Akbar, M. Athar Ali – The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb- Bombay, 1966]. They were deliberately prevented from growing local “roots” by a system of regular transfers within three years, and the jagirs were explicitly declared to not to be hereditary or fixed to ranks. This lack of continuity and stability prompted the growth of extraction of surplus in the form of cash. When the Badshahs tried to make mansabdars more dependent on central authority they also paid the Mansabdars in cash and therefore the revenue demand from Khalisa lands also were mostly in cash. This led to a fabulous hoarding of bullion by the elite and removal of substantial amounts of capital from the production cycle, to which we will come to later.
This cash for kind substitution had several significant effects : (1) because of the high rates of taxation, the peasants were in general at the margins of sustainability, and with little surplus to reinvest, together with the vagaries of the weather and river systems, became increasingly dependent on financiers who could advance cash against future harvests – the cash nexus. The elite was significantly involved in this extortion process by which cash from one cycle of surplus could be advanced for the next cycle, and at a low-surplus equilibrium, the peasant communities could be easily pushed into a debt trap. There is significant evidence of debt bondage beginning to take shape at this specific period – a fact usually suppressed in standard Thaparite representations of this period. (2) the overwhelming pressure to convert production into cash meant turning the surplus into commodity production for the market, which therefore over time led to a shift in emphasis on production of high-grade cash crops – thereby reducing production of consumption article of the common producer. (3) production of high-grade cash crops, and their conversion into cash also developed demand for increasingly costly elite consumption items requiring even more cash and hence increasing taxation. (4) development of unprecedented escalation in usury – in the form of loans advanced at exorbitant rates of interest to peasants to meet Muslim revenue demand-for example in 18th century Bengal, 150% per annum at the simple rate was usual, but the loan was usually advanced only for a couple of months at a time at the end of which period the interest was added to the capital, and so on. In rural Maharashtra the interest rate was 24% per annum, but on smaller loans and the practice of breaking up calculation cycles into shorter periods within the year, the interest rates amounted to 40% [Comparative studies in Society and History , VI(4), and Thomas Coats – Transactions of the literary society of Bombay,III, London, 1823] (5) growth of finance capital and the demand for cash crops led to conversion of traditional tenant-owner relations, with the consolidation and conversion of lands previously cultivated for consumption into lands explicitly producing cash-crops for the market. This meant removal of a large number of peasants from owner, tenant farmer category into landless rural “proletariat” or agrarian labourers. Typically this meant loss of the minimal food security enjoyed by these dispossessed people. This also changed mutual client-dependency relations between the Zamindars and the ryots [tenant farmers] into debt bondage relations. [A fact that should be investigated further than the few existing studies looking into the origins of the “bonded-labour-slavery” in modern India – and surprisingly the Thaparite School of Indian History bypasses this origin issue completely by trying to force connections to supposedly pre-Islamic “roots”, whereas even the works of “Marxist” historians like Irfan Habib points firmly towards its origin within the known Islamic period].
It was high drama and almost the typical unnaturally concocted Hollywood thriller at the NSG meeting that finally saw through a waiver specific for India, mainly under possibly a lot of arm-twisting led by the USA and also perhaps a good deal of contribution to this arm-twisting on a much more subtle level by the UK, France, Russia. The Indian Foreign Minister’s statement that this will solve India’s energy requirement problem, can at best be dubbed hogwash. Any new proposed nuclear reactor design takes around one and half years to be approved by the IAEA, and around five years to set up. So India is unlikely to get direct benefits in the power sector from this NSG agreement until about seven years from the present. The last significant opposition will now be coming from within the USA, by representatives of interests both within the country as well as from outside ranged against India. The reason these attempts will only perhaps be able to delay the final ratification of this agreement but not prevent its eventual clearance through the US Congress, is because of the political realization of the ruling elite in the Western circles of the importance of bringing India under its strategic control.
What does India gain after all? It does not gain much in terms of nuclear power or nuclear weapons technology. India had already developed quite sophisticated technology of its own during the first tentative engagement by the USA of India after the 1998 tests by India. Current projections of India’s power supply sources assign only around 3-4% of total production capacity, compared to almost half being produced by hydel, and nearly half being produced by coal. India has one of the largest publicly known reserves of Thorium, which can be reprocessed to bring it to usable fissile forms. On its own India would perhaps have needed a much longer time to achieve this, which may, just may be shortened using technological collaboration from some NSG countries. Apart from this India can only benefit from multilateral trade of nuclear substances and technologies, as an exporter and processing hub. There will be some cosmetic benefits perhaps too in the areas of dual processing technologies and access to space technologies, and perhaps some cascading effect in subsidiary technology such as computer chips etc., but it has to be remembered that in many of these latter areas, India is quite advanced on its own.
India now has accepted serious virtual limitations on its weapons programme. The 1954 Acts of the US Congress and the Hyde Act is binding on all US administrations until a future Congress repeals or reforms these acts – and it has to be remembered, that non-proliferation concerns appear to come along only when India is seen to be gaining in weapons technology – such as the formation of the NSG specifically after India’s first tests, and not after the first tests by China, UK, or France, or the passage of the Hyde Act specifically targeting India.
India’s main benefits will be strategic. India is now firmly in the Western camp, and is going to be a virtual ally of the USA in the latter’s strategic concerns in Asia. India will probably play a balancing role between Russia and the USA, its already well-known concerns about China making it a blocker of Chinese imperialism, and serve as a strategic heavyweight in the extremely volatile current climate of Jihadi Islamic aggression in the entire Middle and South Asian region. But it is China and Pakistan who have been primarily responsible in pushing India to ally itself with the USA. In Pakistan’s sole national project of destabilizing India and spread Islam, with tacit and sometimes not so secret help from China, and both country’s continuing aggressive actions against the territories of India – lies the main reason for what has ultimately led to the NSG meeting. But to take India beyond this meeting, and on its own feet, requires a superhuman effort on the part of its leaders and its people – as nothing will come out of even the strategic aspects of this agreement unless India outpaces the Chinese economy, modernizes its society and comes out of the influence of retrogressive religions like Islam, and becomes a fully capable military establishment able to take on China, a country which will now help the Islamic aggressors against India much more surreptitiously and at an increased rate, if necessary.
Postscript: Apparently the Indian government will convey its “disappointment” with Chinese “behaviour” to China!! The various spokespersons acted so surprised on media, as if they never expected such “behaviour” from China! I simply find it unbelievable that such “intelligent” people pretend so much ignorance. Did they think that by simply doing everything to gag the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugee protesters, India will have given enough sops to China to please it? Politicians and diplomats who are “surprised” should not at least be given the responsibility for security of a nation. On my post dated 1st August, I had clearly written
“USA’s diplomatic efforts ably seconded by India, almost had made it a foregone conclusion that IAEA would pass this safeguards by consensus. More difficult will be getting consensus at NSG, where some EU countries as well as China can cause significant trouble for India. It will be USA’s networks and dependence of these countries on the USA that can only see India through. Passage of the 123 agreement through the Congress may also hold some hiccups as there can be strong last-ditch lobbying by Pakistan as well as other interest groups within USA who from various considerations of race, religion, etc as hidden motivations can try to put restrictive conditions in the hope that India will be sufficiently provoked to reject the whole agreement altogether.”
What, I, not-a-politician, not-a-diplomat could see more than a month ago, surely these “professionals” cannot pretend not to have seen! Who are they trying to hoodwink – the Indian people?
As I had proposed in my earlier post on the Kandhmal incident in Orissa, India, after long speculation in the media about the stunning silence of the Maoists about their “role in the assassination of Laxmananda Saraswati”, one week after the assassination suddenly a statement has appeared out of thin air – supposedly coming from the Maoists : The Central Committee of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (?) declares “The Sangh Parivar leaders like Praveen Togadia have been trying to divert the people by uttering lies that it is not the Maoists but Christian organizations that had carried out the attack on the VHP leader…Saraswati was a rabid anti-Christian ideologue and persecutor of innocent Christians who was responsible for the burning
down of over 400 churches in Kandhamal district alone.” This “Maoist” statement warned the VHP of “more such punishments if it continued violence against religious minorities in the country” and called for a ban on groups linked to the Sangh Parivar, such as the VHP, its youth wing Bajrang Dal, right-wing Hindu political party Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This is a most unusual Maoist group indeed! A Maoist group that finds only one particular religion as the “persecutor”, finds all “Christians” innocent, deplores “rabid anti-Christianism”, and most significantly is absolutely against “burning down Churches” – and still calls itself “Maoist” – unbelievable!
The statement which uncannily resembles standard Marxist harangue from the Left leaning section of the Thaparite School of Indian History, and those that daily shout about the “danger of Hindu Right Wing” in mainstream Indian politics, became necessary as the involvement of “real” Maoists became suspect, and the Government was probably quite desperate. A section of the “well-wisher”s of the Christian leadership might also have thought that it was important to reinforce the arrow of suspicion towards the Maoists. This only shows that the statement originated from people who have never seriously studied or observed Maoist strategic thinking and their ideological framework. Even if local “Maoists” were involved, it is now more obvious that it was far from actual Maoism. For most authentic Maoist groups in India and abroad, their ideology requires them to treat all religions as “opiates of the people” – the Indian Maoists have traditionally been in fact more “Maoist” than Mao himself. In certain parts of the world, there have been attempts from within the Christian groups to align with radical movements – the radical Liberation Theology in the Latin American nations for example. But Church authorities have moved quickly enough to expel these elements whom they thought were getting too close to Communism.
What could have really happened? There are three possible scenarios :
(1) The major Maoist recruits could have initially come from the minority Panas group from which also a large number of conversions into Christianity took place. But the clan ties were stronger than both Maoism or Christianity and hence when it became crucial for the Panas community to try and regain their Scheduled status to get various State benefits [which they lost under the Indian constitution as in general just like the Majority caste Hindus or Muslims, for Christians too, reservation is not available based on religion, and these religions are not considered to be so “backward” as to need reservation] the entire community pitched in and the “Maoist” clan brothers helped their non-Maoist brothers out.
(2) The Maoists have had a deal with suppliers of arms and ammunition, either from the Jihadi networks or from other foreign religious movements which have promised or delivered sophisticated arms and ammunition, in return for collaboration in elimination of their common threat – the Hindu organizations in the state. The dense forest cover allows the real identity of these “Maoists” and their alliances to be hidden.
(3) Or what could be most dangerous, that those who are operating in the guise of Maoists are no Maoists at all but simply an extension of various foreign interests. If a section of the Church has played into this, it will be most unfortunate, as I don’t think they realize the real processes of change in the “Hindu” attitude in India.
Suppose now a serious military campaign is unleashed against the Maoists whose main strategy has always been to use “inaccessibility of terrain” to “live like fish among the water of people” and expand fluid “base areas”, and have always failed in the face of determined “encirclement campaigns”, so that the Maoists face extinction in the state. My prediction is that there will be an immediate huge media campaign to denounce the “persecution of Christians in the name of tackling Maoist extremists”. But having started this game now, whoever wished well for the Christians did a great disservice to Christianity – first it has associated Christians with Maoist Communists, and second, they in reality will have no defence in case a strong Indian government at the centre decides to liquidate the Maoist threat forever, thereby also eliminating those the well-wishers are lobbying for.
On August 30 the Delhi based private news channel NDTV 24X7 quoted “unnamed government sources” as saying that their assessment was that Christians had no role in the killing of Saraswati, and that the probe was leading to Maoist culprits. I find it highly amusing that both bloggers as well as Indian media usually reports this statement from NDTV, and the Christian organizations reports of an “estimated 50,000 Christians” living in the jungles abandoning their homes in fear of attacks, while they remain completely silent that this same channel also showed a documentary, where they also showed violent attacks on “Hindu” tribals, destruction of their villages, and their women and children hiding out in open jungle to escape from fear of attacks by “Christians”. The documentary makers tried their best not to appear “pro-Hindu”, which implies that the evidence of attacks on Hindu villagers were too numerous to ignore completely and liable to show up NDTV as completely biased later on if not at least partially represented.
Wherever I have gone in India, I have almost always observed genuine respect and tolerance for Christians by Hindus – but I do not think that Christians in the West would show the same tolerance towards the Hindus if the Hindus practised items of their culture that the Christian West thought obnoxious [the issue of public slaughter of cows for festivals and eating beef nad hence also the related issue of illegal beef trade- which is not favoured by the Hindu tribals] or react most favourably to disparagement of Christian practices and beliefs by the Hindus. The role of Christian missionaries in education and healthcare in India is acknowledged by the Hindus with great warmth and genuine gratitude. But I think the modern Christian missions in India have to think carefully before they get involved in the fractures of Indian society. Many Hindus celebrate Christmas as their own festival, and many of the Bhakti sects of Hinduism in India have no problem in displaying Jesus as a manifestation of their “supreme lord”. The stereotypical portrayal of the Christian Missionary as a “benevolent father” was and continues to be common in popular movies. I have never seen a similar religious accommodation of the “Hindu” within Christianity – where typically the best representation of the Hindu is that of a “poor ignorant bewildered fallen soul” “mired in darkness” and needing “salvation”.
This is a misunderstanding between Hindus and Christians, and is being exploited by forces that have their own designs on controlling India. A strong government that was determined in liquidating Maoism could actually ultimately prove beneficial for the image of Christianity in India, as otherwise these sort of media campaigns will only ultimately consolidate the so much “feared” “Hindu Right”.
Indian and US media have flashed the news of the leak of a “secret letter” by a senior US-Congressman, that reportedly promises (1) to stop all N-trade with India if India ever tests (2) to force other countries in NSG also to stop N-trade with India if India ever tests (3) there is no guarantee of perpetual N-fuel supply to India. If true, coming from a senior US-Congressman, this is wonderful news about the maturity and statesmanship of US politicians. If it was a “secret letter” which had apparently been sent 9 months ago from the Presidential administration, the Congressman or his sucessors and associates have broken several clauses of the confidentiality regulations, and in a country which often jails people for 5 lifetimes or more for “treason”, he should be liable for some penalties. If the politicians were hoping to provide some fuel for the murmurs of dissent within NSG, then it is not of much help as the only way it can work in favour of the Congressman is if the “promises” in the “secret letter” are now taken up by the “dissenters” within NSG as a demand to be publicly declared and included by the USA in the revised draft proposal for N-trade with India.
In reality what mostl likely happened was that the Bush administartion deliberately kept the draft agreement “vague” in full knowledge and consultation with its Indian counterpart, so that both administrations could “explain” away and satisfy their respective detractors in their countries and politics. Having seen that the N-deal was being hotly pressed forward, this Congress-lobby panicked and wanted to play up the opposition he hoped would arise against India. It is also possible that the State Department itself leaked the document in the hope of reassuring the dissenters that it will indirectly take stern “action” against India if the latter departs from “Western control”.
Why would a senior US-Congressman or his successors be so obsessed with preventing India’s maintaining and upgrading its nuclear weapons capability by testing as and when required in the face of nuclear weapons capable hostile countries like Pakistan and China? There are two sources of opposition and hatred for India within the USA. The first comes from a very narrow interpretation of Christianity aligned and meant to support and justify racial supremacy concepts, which associates the “best form” of Christianity with a certain “skin colour” and inverts historical quirks such as the success of European colonial land-grabbing as a justification for megalomania. The danger in such logic for Americans themselves is that it masks the real factors that led to European success, and the short term historically specific nature of these factors, which are most unlikely to recur in the future. As the history of warfare amply shows, no society could monopolize and maintain its “military” success forever after using “surprise” once – either a technological “surprise” or a “strategic surprise” – once used these are known to others. Europeans can never again hope to dominate the world on their own as they had done during the colonial period, when they could use the complacency and philosophically sophisticated relaxed attitude of more advanced civilizations, to extract capital from them. The second comes from strong lobbying by and commercial connections with China, as well as the influence of heavy capital investments circulating in the US economy from oil-rich Islamic countries.
The anti-India [anti-Hindu pro-Islam??] lobby in the USA is showing its ignorance of Indian society by not realizing that what it is trying to do is only consolidating the position of its hated foe which it so fondly dubs “the Hindu Right” – the BJP for example, which has consistently claimed that the N-deal as negotiated by the UPA government is a sell-out of crucial national strategic interests of India. The question will obviously arise as to why a senior US-Congressman is obsessed and paranoid with India maintaining its nuclear weapons capabilities – and is determined to abort its crucial defense capabilities in the face of known militarily aggressive and nuclear weapons capable hostile neighbour countries – is this a first stage in the grand eventual Islamo-Chinese coalition to finish off non-Muslim India? India should stick to its right to test at most under the concession that testing of nuclear weapons delivery systems or any nuclear testing by neighbours will immediately prompt India to test both delivery systems as well as nuclear warheads. No European country came to India’s defence when Pakistan attacked it or China invaded it, and even in the future they will only express their “righteous indignation” if the Islamo-Chinese alliance invaded India, but never come to preserve India’s non-Muslim cultures [as for a strong driving force within the European elites, commercial interests come first and Islam would still be preferable to the “hated” pagans]. In the end, in the greater interests of preservation of non-Muslim cultures all over the world, preservation of India as primarily and distinctly non-Muslim and non-Communist is of utmost importance – Christianity may prove unable or unwilling to tackle Islam, the West’s dependence on and greed for Islamic-oil and capital can make it rather soft to any aggression on India from Islamic or Chinese sources.
The quality of work of the urban artisans and craftsmen was internationally acclaimed and without parallel in the Muslim world as testified by Timur who invaded India in 1398, was highly impressed with Indian craftsmen and builders and on his return home from India he took with him architects, artists and skilled mechanics to build in his then mud-bricked Samarqand, grand edifices. Babur too was pleased with the performance of Indian workmen and described how thousands of stone-cutters and masons worked on his buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dholpur, Gwalior and Koil and “In the same way there are numberless artisans of every sort in Hindustan”.[Baburnama]
Up to the 13-14th century, contemporary Indian writers and foreign travellers do not generally talk about poverty and give an impression of the relative prosperity of the agrarian producer. Poverty or deprivation is not mentioned among the detailed and numerous socio-economic observations and studies of Hindus by Alberuni, the famous 11-th century scholar companion of Mahmud Gaznavi. Minhaj Siraj, Ibn Battuta, the Shihabuddin Abbas Ahmad in his Masalik-ul-Absar, Al-Qalqashindi in his Subh-ul-Asha, Amir Khusrau and Shams Siraj Afif (13-14th centuries), talk of the prosperity of the people. Barani conveys his overwhelming glee at the actions of contemporary Muslim rulers against prosperous Hindu landlords and cultivators. Ibn Battuta writes “When they have reaped the autumn harvest, they sow spring grains in the same soil in which autumn grains had been sown, for their country is excellent and the soil is fertile. As for rice they sow it three times a year”. Shams Siraj Afif testifies to the prosperity of Hindu Orissa when Firuz Tughlaq’s invaded it as “The country of Jajnagar was in a very flourishing state, and the abundance of corn and fruit supplied the wants of the army, the numbers of animals of every kind were so great that no one cared to take them. Sheep were found in such countless numbers”. [Similar references can be found for the south in Kincaid and Parasnis, A History of Maratha People, I, Yule – Ser Marco Polo and for rural Vijayanagar in particular by Abdur Razzaq in Mutla-us-Sadain, Eliott and Dowson, Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz also indirectly indicate this through their description of items of common consumption traded in the urban markets]. Typically where and when Muslim power became weak, the prosperity of the ground level producers appear to increase. For example when the Delhi Sultanate weakened in the 15th century, or in areas outside the control of Islam, such as Orissa until the very late Sultanate and early Mughal incursions, or Vijaynagar in the south [mostly modern Karnataka, but almost coast to coast and a much larger extent at its peak say under Devaraya III or KrishnadevaRaya] from the peak Sultanate period to early Mughal period. Archaeological excavations around the Khajuraho site in Madhya Pradesh, has revealed the presence of extensive fortifications and innumerable temple sites with obvious indications of a high level of culture and consumption backed by a sound economy- not unnatural perhaps for pre-Islamic India, but what is strange is the fact that this seems to be a sexually, militarily and economically thriving Hindu kingdom flourishing in the middle of Islamic military dominance of the Delhi Sultanante at its peak power in central and northern India with the highly significant reality that cultural icons of Hindus including massive temples from this Delhi Sultanate period only survive in kingdoms that militarily resisted the Muslims for a long time into the Sultanate period – the Bundelkhand region and Orissa.
By the late Sultanate and Mughal period however almost all foreign and many Indian writers like Domingo Paes, Fernao Nuniz, Linschoten, Salbank, Athanasius Nikitin, Varthema, Barbosa, Hawkins, Jourdain, Sir Thomas Roe talk of the grinding poverty of the Indians. Pelsaert, the Dutch traveler during Jahangir’s reign, writes: “The common people (live in) poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and the dwelling place of bitter woe, their houses are built of mud with thatched roofs. Furniture there is little or none, except some earthenware pots to hold water and for cooking”. His contemporary Salbank, writes of people between Agra and Lahore says that the “plebian sort is so poor that the greatest part of them go naked”.[Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar]. Medieval India under Muslims inherited an agriculturally and technologically resourceful economy from the pre-Islamic period [an economy that had sustained the enormous looting careers of the Islamic horde for nearly 500 years], and the Islamic historiand as well as Mughal court records show the obscene luxury and wealth of the Mughals and their minuens. These records also point out the inherent features of Islamic rule that impoverished and almost ruined the Indian economy.
In Contrast to Central Asia, Persia or Afghanistan, the conquest of India as well as conversion of its people was only partial. This fact is usually held up by Islamic apologists as grand proof of the “tolerance” of Islam and its spread “not by the sword”, as I come across the infinite arrogance of statements both from Muslims as well as White Christian “scholars-in-love-with-Islam”‘s profound wisdom – that “the Muslims who ruled India for 1000 years could have crushed and converted the Hindus completely if they wanted to”. They can get away with this moronic misutilization of their own ignorance, because the Thaparite School of Indian History which declares itself the sole speakers on behalf of India and Indians have managed to completely erase the records of the persistent non-Muslim resistance beginning right from the fall of the Chahamans and Gahadavalas until the dissolution of the Mughal empire by the Sikhs, Marathas, and Rajputs. The Muslim chroniclers’ trumpeting of unqualified victories for their Turko-Afghan or Mongol kings are matched by a significant number of inscriptions of Hindu kings claiming military successes.[A.B.M. Habibullah-s The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, First ed., Lahore, 1945].
The Sultanate and the Mughal period shows almost continuous stiff resistance to Muslim rule and many parts of India under Muslim rule erupt into open rebellion. As we will see later this was one weakness of the Islamic setup in the same way that the pressures of the Cold War brought the USSR down – this resistance needed maintenance of ever increasing number of military personnel thereby increasing the drain on the economy in several crucial ways. To suppress the resistance, apart from more traditional Islamic ideas of spectacular tortures that shows a much greater understanding of Sadism in Islam than De Sade himself, Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) decided that it was “wealth” which was the “source of rebellion and disaffection. It encouraged defiance and provided means of revolt”. Barani reports that he and his counsellors apparently came to the conclusion that if somehow people could be impoverished, “no one would even have time to pronounce the word rebellion”. Barani says that the Islamic theologians in Alauddin’s employ declared that the Hidaya stipulates that when an “infidel country” is conquered, the Imam can divide it among the Muslims. He can also leave it in the hands of the original inhabitants, “exacting from them a capitation tax, and imposing a tribute on their lands. If the infidels are to lose their lands, their entire moveable property should also be taken away from them. In case they are to continue with cultivating the land, they should be allowed to retain such a portion of their moveable property as may enable them to perform their business.”[trs. of the Hidaya, Chapter IV – by Charles Hamilton] The Sultans divided the conquered land among Muslim officers, soldiers and Ulema in lieu of pay or as reward. Some land was kept under Khalisa or directly under the control of the ruler. But in almost all cases the agrarian labourer remained the original Hindu cultivator. As an infidel he was to be taxed heavily, although a minimum of his moveable property like oxen, cows and buffaloes (nisab) was to be left with him [Muhammedan Theories of Finance, Aghnides]. The Shariah stipulation was to leave with the original cultivator only as much as would be necessary to maintain production, but ensure that they remained at the bare subsistence level. This was the principle used by Muhammad in many of his take-overs of the fertile oases or land made fertile by the hard labour of Jews. It is significant to note that a recent TV documentary on the “Moors” in “Al Andalus”, the commentator laments the “Christians” living off the “Islamic agrarian producers” for a whole year without ever mentioning that it was simply a very old and Sunnah supported Islamic practice as applied to Muslims themselves.
For Moreland “the question really at issue was how to break the power of the rural leaders, the chiefs and the headmen of parganas and villages” [Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India] prompting Sultan Alauddin to enforce a series of measures to crush them by striking at the economic basis of their defiance [Barani – Fatawa-i-Jahandari] which affected the entire social structure of non-Muslim communities. Alauddin started by raising the land tax (Kharaj) to fifty percent [compared to IltutmishBalban’s usually and formally one-third of the produce but in reality perhaps much more to satisfy the private greed of Muslim collectors in the field]. Further all the land occupied by the rich and the poor “was brought under assessment at the uniform rate of fifty per cent” thereby reducing the chiefs practically to the position of peasants. Alauddin levied house-tax and grazing tax, and all milk-producing animals like cows and goats were taxed. According to Farishtah, animals up to two pairs of oxen, a pair of buffaloes and some cows and goats were exempted. This concession was declared to be on the principle of nisab, namely, of leaving some minimum capital to enable one to carry on with one’s work.[Hidaya,Muhammedan Theories of Finance-Aghnides]. There were additional taxes like kari, (from Sanskrit/Hindi Kar), charai and Jiziyah. The sultans of Delhi collected Jiziyah at the rate of forty, twenty and ten tankahs from the rich, the middle class and the poor respectively.[Afif]
The Sultan had “directed that only so much should be left to his subjects (raiyyat) as would maintain them from year to year without admitting of their storing up or having articles in excess.” Alauddin’s punitive taxation were highly lauded by the Islamic writers. In India contemporary writers like Barani, Isami and Amir Khusrau praised his role as “a persecutor of the Hindus”. Foreigner Maulana Shamsuddin Turk, a Muslim theologian from Egypt, was delighted to observe that Alauddin had made “the wretchedness and misery of the Hindus so great and had reduced them to such a despicable condition that the Hindu women and children went out begging at the doors of the Musalmans.”[Barani, Isami, Futuh-us-Salatin, Agra text, Tarikh-i-Wassaf, Bombay Text, Book IV-V]. Summing up the achievements of Alauddin Khalji, the contemporary chronicler Barani emphasises, “that by the last decade of his reign the submission and obedience of the Hindus had become an established fact. Such a submission on the part of the Hindus has neither been seen before nor will be witnessed hereafter.” Thus all sections of Hindu society both the economically well off and the worst off were all reduced to poverty, and the Hindus in general were impoverished to such an extent that there was no sign of gold or silver left in their houses, and the wives of Khuts and Muqaddams used to seek odd jobs in the houses of the Musalmans, work there and receive wages.[Barani] The poor peasants (balahars) suffered horribly to the great joy of Ziyauddin Barani, [who is also a Maulana] who celebrates the suppression of the Hindus, and writes in greatdetail about the utter helplessness to which the peasantry had been reduced because the Sultan had left to them bare sustenance and had taken away everything else in kharaj (land revenue) and other taxes.[Barani]
Such a huge taxation burden could not be sustained and “One of the standing evils in the revenue collection consisted in defective realization which usually left large balances,”[R.P. Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration], added to the corruption and extortion of low-level revenue officials. Sultan Alauddin created a new ministry called the Diwan-i-Mustakhraj which was entrusted with the work of inquiring into the revenue arrears, and realizing them.[Barani] In addition Alauddin anticipated the modern Indian governments [which has resulted in a disincentive for the grain-basket Punjab’s wheat farmers having tangible effects on the wheat reserves] by almost 700 years by compelling the peasant to sell all of his surplus grain at government controlled rates for replenishing royal grain stores which the Sultan had ordered to be built in order to sustain his market control [ Lal, History of the Khaljis] After Alauddin’s death (C.E. 1316) most of his measures appear to have been discontinued for a short time, but Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq who came to power in C.E. 1320 and revived Alauddin’s laws ordering that “there should be left only so much to the Hindus that neither, on the one hand, they should become arrogant on account of their wealth, nor, on the other, desert their lands in despair.”[Barani], Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s, [a successor of Ghyiasuddin] enhancement of taxation went even beyond the lower limits of “bare subsistence.” and the people left their fields and fled. This enraged the Sultan and he went on hunting parties to kill them as wild beasts. [Hajiuddabir, Zafar-ul-Wali; Barani; Ishwari Prasad, A History of the Qaraunak Turks in India]
Both W.H. Moreland and Irfan Habib [Agraraian System of Mughal India], who have specially studied the agrarian system of Mughal India, agree that the basic object of the Mughal administration was to obtain the revenue on an ever-increasing scale. The share that could be taken out of the peasant’s produce without destroying his chances of survival was the fundamental . In Akbar’s reign, in Kashmir, the state demand was one-third, but in reality it amounted to two-thirds [W.H. Moreland, From Akbar to Aurangzeb]. The Jagirdars in Thatta (Sindh) took half as tax. Geleynsen writes in 1629 that in Gujarat the land tax was three-quarters of the harvest. This is supported by De Laet, Fryer and Van Twist. [Moreland in Journal of Indian History, IV, pp. 78-79 and XIV, p. 64]. Abul Fazl, the administrative chronicler of Akbar writes that “evil hearted officers because of sheer greed”, used to proceed to villages and mahals and sack them. [Abul Fazl, Akbar Nama, Beveridge’s translation]. By Shahjahan’s period, as we have already mentioned, Manucci describes how peasants were compelled to sell their women and children to meet the revenue demand. Manrique writes that the peasants were “carried off to various markets and fairs, (to be sold) with their poor unhappy wives behind them carrying their small children all crying and lamenting”. Bernier writes that the “unfortunate peasants who were incapable of discharging the demands of their rapacious lords, were bereft of their children, who were carried away as slaves.” The weeping widower ShahJahan who found time to console himself with the captured younger women of Hindus from his raids [look at part 1 of this series on enslavement] further proved his Thaparite “lack of religious motivation” by ordering that such Hindus peasants and their family should be sold to Muslim buyers only. Given this scenario, the peasantry had no interest in cultivating the land. Bernier observes that “as the ground is seldom tilled otherwise than by compulsion, the whole country is badly cultivated, and a great part rendered unproductive. The peasant cannot avoid asking himself this question: Why should I toil for a tyrant who may come tomorrow and lay his rapacious hands upon all I possess and value without leaving me the means (even) to drag my own miserable existence? – The Timariots (Timurids), Governors and Revenue contractors, on their part reason in this manner: Why should the neglected state of this land create uneasiness in our minds, and why should we expend our own money and time to render it fruitful? We may be deprived of it in a single moment. Let us draw from the soil all the money we can, though the peasant should starve or abscond”. This encouraged the revenue collector to be extremely exploitative on the and the peasantry fatalistic and disinterested. The result, according to Bernier, was “that most towns in Hindustan are made up of earth, mud, and other wretched material; that there is no city or town (that) does not bear evident marks of approaching decay. Wherever Muslim despots ruled, ruin followed” so that similar is the “present condition of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Palestine, the once wonderful plain of Antioch, and so many other regions anciently well cultivated, fertile and populous, but now desolate. Egypt also exhibits a sad picture.”
In my previous posts on this subject, I had repeatedly tried to dampen the apparent euphoria in Indian circles about the passage of the Indo-US N-deal through the IAEA. Like many others, I had tried to point out that the greatest difficulty would be at the NSG. This was predictable from at least two different angles: the first was that at that time China was preparing for the Beijing Olympics, and needed all possible cooperation from the international powers to suppress the Tibetan protests, secondly the powers that are most likely to be opposed to any significant increase in India’s strategic defence capabilities because of their own designs on Indian territories would be misled by their ignorance of how far India has changed in recent years to hope that internal dissent would prove sufficiently strong to scuttle the process anyway from within India. Once the IAEA passage went off relatively smoothly, these powers were likely to be panicking, and would begin lobbying in earnest to delay the passage through the NSG if not scuttle it altogether. The three natural allies in this game against India would be the forces represented by China, the Islamic expansion movement within Asia, and the smaller countries in EU. Each has its reasons, and we can analyze them one by one.
China has yesterday come out with a statement in its official mouthpiece [ and therefore of the state and therefore of the Communist Party of China] that passage of the N-deal with India would represent “a blow to non-proliferation”. This coincides uncannily with the apparent views of the leading non-proliferation groups within the EU. This could be a calculated move on the part of China to utilize the dissent from within EU, or a coordinated move. China’s real reasons for opposing this deal has as much to do with the “geo-strategic” interests it accuses India of – China was the aggressor in 1962, and invaded Indian territories without warning or a formal declaration of war – a-la-Islam. China knows that even historically they have had to fight with indigenous Tibetans for control over Tibetan territories – we have concrete evidence for this at least from the 1st millenium CE. China occupied Tibet by force and desperately wants to push through to the Indian Ocean. It sees India as the largest obstacle to its dominance in South Asia. After Mao’s split with the USSR mainly due to Russia’s formal split with Stalinism, Mao was quite worried at the growing ties between the Russia he did not understand or thought a betrayer to the “Stalinist cause” and India, as well as the protection nd asylum given to the Dalai Lama by India and decided to bring in pressure on India. China still holds on to Indian territory in the East and the North, and its main objective is to isolate Tibet from Indian reach [thus it helped the Nepali communists to come to power] and sever any strategic land connection that India can possibly have with Russia. China very possibly helped Pakistan with Nuclear and missile technology, as Pakistan has not shown any other independent parallel comprehensive development in indigenous technology and scientific research in other areas that could justify its “sudden” and “miraculous” nuclear weapons capability. China has also consistently tried to cultivate the Muslim nations, and especially Pakistan and Bangladesh who it knows to be vehemently opposed to the existence of a “non-Muslim” India. Chinese communists encourage Islamic movements against India since in the limitations of Communist ideology they think that they can “manage” Islam, whereas the Islamic forces use China according to their successful tactic as revealed in the Quran and in the Sunnah of the prophet – ally and use one “unbeliever” against another, until they are all weakened and ripe for subjugation. By China’s statement against India, China shows that it is now a completely blinded fool driven only by its imperialist ambitions and blind also to the growing Islamic insurgency in its own backyard. China also knows its economic importance for the smaller countries of the EU. so it may be more than a coincidence that these countries and China appear to speak in the same language as regards India.
For the smaller EU countries, their considerable markets in both the Islamic world as well as China, for dairy and meat products, as well as other manufactured exports [as so aptly evidenced by the retreat of certain North European countries over “freedom of expression” as applied to Islam, because of a boycott of products from that country in the Middle East], it is understandable that the non-proliferation argument will appear to be strongly appealing and most important. In this it will not be convenient for them to remember that many of them as a part of NATO are installing a missile defence system in anticipation of attacks from a country which has had no history of attacking them and is much farther away geographically compared to both Pakistan and China from India – two countries which are both nuclear missile-delivery capable and have already militarily attacked India and still hold on to Indian territories. Their economic dependence on the oil from Islamic countries, and Chinese markets will obscure them to the real defence needs of India in possible future testing and upgrading of nuclear weapons capabilities as deterrent and strategic neutralization of danger from aggressive Chinese imperialism and Jihadi Islamic aggression.
As for the Muslim countries, their theologians are always baying for non-Muslim blood and non-Muslim lands and women. With immense physical coercion this theocracy has managed to indoctrinate its subjects in an atmosphere of physical violence which is used to root out physically any alternative idea, of science, of modernization, of liberal modern humane ideas of equality between genders or of freedom of speech and thought. India’s vibrant much freer culture is a thorn on the sides of the Alims and the Ulemas of Islam whose flock are being constantly tempted by the visions in the neighbouring country of the “pagans”. In this their natural allies are “sympathetic” admirers of Islam in EU countries and business or governmental strategic interests, as well as the extreme paranoid jealousy of the Chinese communists who like Muslims do not like ideological competitors who can tempt their flock and therefore undermine their narrow selfish megalomania.
In the end, I personally feel that Europe with its classic shortsightedness that gifted the world with the horrors of colonial looting and destruction of civilizations, will only be concerned with the Islamic horror as and when it threatens its own gates, and not otherwise. Thus they may even help indirectly the Islamic cause by proving mostly a reluctant ally of the USA in the latter’s bid to neutralize the Jihadists, and may even decide to oppose strengthening India in order to preserve their commercial and strategic interests with the Islamic countries and China. It is already known that the EU exports to the Islamic middle East is three times that of the USA to the same region.
It is important for Europe to realize that China’s rise to importance started with its formal role in tying up a large Japanese occupation force in the Pacific theatre during WWII. However this importance was simply formal as the internationally recognized Chinese government and an ally of the Western allies, was the so-called Nationalist government under Chiang-Kai-shek and the Kuomindang – a government which consistently failed in preventing the Japanese advance, but consumed a huge amount of resources as supplied by the USA. Even the Communists in the North were not much of a success although they at least managed to carry on a guerrilla fight against the Japanese near the coastal areas of occupation. There was a time towards the close of the Pacific war, when USA toyed with the idea of supporting the Communist Red Army and suddenly Mao waxed eloquent about US friends. Turn of political climate in Washington removed the pro-Chinese element in US state policy, and Mao went back to his “anti-imperialist” stance. It is significant to note that Chinese success in recovering their country only gained momentum after the surrender of the Japanese, and Stalin did not initially allow the Communists to occupy Manchuria which surrendered to the Russians and not to the Chinese. The Communists could only make their major moves to occupy the whole of China after 1948, when Soviet support turned in their favour due to Stalin’s realization of the process of Cold War. Throughout the war, the Chinese were more an absorber of military resources and money from the Allies rather than an effective contributor. Contrast this with the tremendous amount in men and material supplied by India, and its contribution to winning the war for the Allied forces, which remains rarely acknowledged.
Not India’s current policy-makers, but the future generations should start thinking of who they can really rely on in their strategic plans to exist in the face of determined Islamic expansion programmes.
The Thaparian hypothesis of the important cause of ruin of the Indian economy from excessive import of horses from the West of India by feudatoty chieftains inside India for luxury and internecine warfare serves two purpose – first it provides one convenient internal scapegoat to which the general economic decline could be attributed to, and secondly by the other great Thaparian project to remove all traces of the destructive nature of Islam and its slaughtering, enslaving, and looting invasions in India it removes any external cause for this increased “consumption of horses”. The Thaparites are able to get away with this because Indian history textbooks are careful never to mention anything about the frequent Islamic raids, invasions, and the social and economic destructions and disruptions they caused and significantly the obvious resistance by the Hindus that required almost 500 years of continuous attacks and attempts from the side of Islam. But more importantly this then allows the Thaparites to remove a possible crucial reason behind the need felt by the Indian rulers to import good quality horses suitable for military purposes. The suppression of the conflict also suppresses any realistic estimate of the degree of resistance and hence the resources that had to be committed to this conflict by the Hindu rulers. Here we recount this almost 500 year long conflict initiated by the Muslims to capture only about a third of Northern India as a possible indication of the scale of military resources that must have been needed by the Hindus, and which must have needed extraordianry number of horses to match the swift mounted soldiers and archers of the Muslims. For an idea of the number of horses among other military resources involved, look at Part 2 of this series which describes the last battles between Prithwiraj and allies and Ghori. Foreign breeds of horses, especially of the western Asian type, and specially those from Vanayu [Hindu name for Arabia] were found to be good quality war horse-material [ even now, reconstrucive historians find that few horses in a given batch can be trained to ignore the sights, smells and sounds of war, especially ignore the sounds of drawing the bow or releasing the arrow which must have been crucial for mounted archers] as described in Abhidhanaratnamala, and Vaijayanti. Breeding these horses appeared to be difficult because the Arabs prevented any farrier to come to India [Wassaf, in Eliott and Dowson, Marco Polo]. Chau-ju-kua in the Chinese text Ling-wai-ta aqlso refers to the Arabs importing large numbers of horses to Quilon. Prabandhachintamani refers to a ship importing 10,000 horses into Stambha [Cambay]. Wassaf gives one instance of the drain of resources in buying horses through the agreement made between an Arab merchant and a Pandya king, by which 14,000 horses were imported into the ports at a cost of 2.2 million dinars. This is supported by figures given by Marco Polo [hearsay or otherwise, Marco’s figures appear to be consistent with Wassafs]. It is highly significant to note that the textrual evidence for the magnitude of horse imports increases rapidly towards the 12th and 13th centuries, and that most of these texts actually mention sea-ports on the southern sea-board of India as the main entreports. The Thaparites in their enthusiasm to remove any ideological contribution of Islam in Mahmud Gaznavi’s motivations to attack India, propose that he wanted to stop the import of horses into India through Sind and Gujarat, or control the trade in horses – if true then this can imply two possibilities that the limited Thaparite vision excludes – that horses were being imported through the sea and not through the North-West passage which he was in full control of , and the possibility that he realized the importance of horses in the resistance shown by the Hindus he wanted to subjugate.
Let us first discuss briefly the numerous raids by Islamic invaders, and the Hindu efforts to rrepel them for almost 500 years. The armies of Islam after the death of its prophet in AD 632, conquered the Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria after a six month’s campaign in AD 636-637, the Sassanid empire of Persia which included Iraq, Iran, and Khorasan in AD 637, and by A.D. 643 the boundaries of the Caliphate touched the frontiers of India. The Turkish speaking territories of Inner Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand, and Samarkand, etc. were annexed by AD 650, while the Byzantine province of Egypt fell in AD 640-641, and the Arab armies reached the Atlantic and crossed over into Spain in AD 709. These were not mere territorial conquests but in which people of different creeds and races such as Syrians, Persians, Berbers, Turks and others were all rapidly Islamised and their language and culture Arabicised. [“Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem till they repeat and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity. -Quran, 11.5]. The same Islamic armies, however, had to struggle for 69 long years to make their first effective breach in the borders of India. In the next three centuries, they pushed forward in several provinces of Northern and Western India. But at the end of it all, India was far from being conquered militarily or assimilated culturally.
The Arab invasion of Sindh started soon after their first two naval expeditions against Thana on the coast of Maharashtra and Broach on the coast of Gujarat, had been repulsed in the reign of Caliph Umar (AD 634-644). The expedition against Debal in Sindh met the same fate “The leader of the Arab army, Mughairah, was defeated and killed. Umar decided to send another army by land against Makran which was at that time a part of the kingdom of Sindh. But he was advised by the governor of Iraq that “he should think no more of Hind”. The next Caliph, Usman (AD 646-656), followed the same advice and refrained from sending any expedition against Sindh, either by land or by sea. The fourth Caliph, Ali (AD 656-661), sent an expedition by land in AD 660. But the leader of this expedition and “those who were with him, saving a few, were slain in the land of Kikan in the year AH 42 (AD 662)”. Muawiyah, the succeeding Caliph (AD 661-680), sent as many as six expeditions by land. All of them were repulsed with great slaughter except the last one which succeeded in occupying Makran in AD 680. For the next 28 years, the Arabs did not dare send another army against Sindh. The next expedition was despatched to take Debal in AD 708. Its two successive commanders, Ubaidullah and Budail, were killed and the Arab army was routed. When Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq, asked the Caliph for permission to send another expedition, the Caliph wrote back: “This affair will be a source of great anxiety and so we must put it off, for every time an army goes, [vast] numbers of Mussalmans are killed. So think no more of such a design.”
Hajjaj spent the next four years in equipping an army more formidable than any which had so far been sent against Sindh. While sending off his nephew as well as son-in-law, Muhammad bin Qasim, with this army in AD 712, Hajjaj said: “I swear by Allah that I am determined to spend the whole wealth of Iraq, that is in my possession, on this expedition.” Muhammad was successful in overcoming the fierce resistance he met at every step in his progress through Sindh. By AD 713 he had occupied the whole of this province as well as Multan. He was helped to a certain extent by the treachery of some merchants and local governors at a few places. But as soon as he was recalled in AD 714, “the people of India rebelled, and threw off their yoke, and the country from Debalpur to the Salt Sea only remained under the dominions of the Khalifa.” This was only a narrow coastal strip.
Subsequently, the Islamic armies reconquered Sindh, and advanced through Rajputana upto Ujjain in the east and Broach in the south. Their advance to the south was signally checked by the Chalukya ruler of Lat (S. Gujarat), Pulakesin Avani-Janasraya. The Navasari inscription (A.D. 738) records that Pulakesin defeated a Tajika (Arab) army which had defeated the kingdoms of Sindhu, Cutch, Saurashtra, Cavotaka, Maurya and Gurjara and advanced as far south as Navasari where this prince was ruling at this time. The prince’s heroic victory earned him the titles of ‘solid Pillar of Dakshinapatha (Dakshinapatha-sadhata) and the Repeller of the Unrepellable (Anivarttaka-nivartayi)’. The Gwalior inscription of the Gurjara-Pratihar King, Bhoja I, tells us that Nagabhatta I, the founder of the family who ruled in Avanti (Malwa) around A.D. 725, ‘defeated the army of a powerful Mlechha ruler who invaded his dominions’. The Gurjara-Pratiharas, known to the Arab historians as ‘kings of Jurz’, are sometimes acknowledged by them as ‘Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Mohammaden faith than he’.
The Arabs also made advances to the north of Sindh into the Punjab and towards Kashmir. Here they were blocked and driven back by Lalitaditya Muktapida (AD 724-760) of Kashmir. He was in alliance with Yasovarman of Central India. “He is said to have ordered the Turushkas to shave off half of their heads as a symbol of their submission.” Biladhuri wrote that “the Mussalmans retired from several parts of India and left some of their positions, nor have they upto the present advanced so far as in days gone by”. Further, “The people of India returned to idolatry with the exception of the inhabitants of Qasbah. A place of refuge to which the Moslems might flee was not to be found, so he [Arab governor] built on the further side of the lake, where it borders on al-Hind, a city which he named at-Mahfuzah [the protected] establishing it as a place of refuge for them, where they should be secure and making it a capital.”
Arab travellers to India of the 10th century all speak of only two independent Arab principalities with Multan and Mansurah as their capitals. The Pratihara kings waged constant war against the “Arab prince of Multan, and with the Mussalmans, his subjects on the frontier”. Multan would have been lost by the Arabs but for a Hindu temple. Al-Istakhri wrote about AD 951 that in Multan “there is an idol held in great veneration by the Hindus and every year people from distant parts undertake pilgrimages to it… When the Indians make war upon them and endeavour to seize the idol, the inhabitants [Arabs] bring it out pretending that they will break it and burn it. Upon this the Indians retire, otherwise they would destroy Multan.” Thus even after 300 years of continuouis efforts from the first raid into Broach, the Arab dominion in India was limited to the relatively small states of Multan and Mansurah. And here they only survived by utilizing the Hindu idols. The Arab conquest of other countries, outside India, had been followed by wholesale conversions and replacement of local institutions by Islamic ones. In Central Asia, the idolaters for whom, unlike the People of the Book protected under subjugation and Jezia, the choice given by Islam was between death or Islam, had been rooted out. The failure of the Arabs in Sind however is proved by the fact that even after Debal where the temples were demolished and mosques founded, a general massacre endured for three days, prisoners were taken captive; women raped and enslaved and exported for the pleasures of the Muslim religious leadership and immense plunder was collected, the Hindus rebuild their temples and performed their worship and the three per cent which had been allowed to the priests under the former government was not discontinued.
Many historians, particularly the apologists for Islam, have presented this expediency as a proof of Islamic liberalism under the early Arabs. But the military and political leaders always knew when and where to make a compromise in the interests of self-preservation, and till the next stage of aggrandisement arrived in the vicissitudes of war. The same story was repeated by the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul (Kapisa) and Zabul (Jabal) which lay to the north-west of Sindh, and which the Islamic armies had started attacking soon after they annexed Khorasan in AD 643. It was in AD 650 that the first Islamic army penetrated deep into Zabul by way of Seistan, which at that time was a part of India territorially as well as culturally. The struggle was intense and protracted with the Islamic army defeated and driven out after suffering heavy losses. Another attack followed in AD 653. The Arab general, Abdul Rahman, was able to conquer Zabul and levy tribute from Kabul. The king of Kabul was reluctant in paying tribute regularly. Finally, another Arab general, Yazid ibn Ziyad who had been the governor of Seistan for some time, attempted retribution in AD 683. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army was put to flight with great slaughter. The Arabs lost Seistan also, and had to pay 5,00,000 dirhams to get one of their generals, Abu Ubaida, released.
The Arabs recovered Seistan some time before AD 692. Its new governor, Abdullah, invaded Kabul. The Hindus trapped the Arab army in the mountain passes after allowing it to advance unopposed for some distance. Abdullah agreed to cease hostilities, and the king of Kabul agreed to renew payment of an annual tribute, but both the treaty as well as Abdullah was dismissed by the Caliph. The war against Kabul was renewed in AD 695 when Hajjaj became the governor of Iraq. He sent an army under Ubaidullah, the new governor of Seistan. Ubaidullah was defeated and forced to retreat after leaving his three sons as hostages and promising that “he shall not fight as long as he was governor”. Once again, the treaty was denounced by the Caliph, and another general, Shuraih, was sent to advance upon Kabul. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army suffered huge losses as it retreated through the desert of Bust. Ubaidullah died of grief. In the next round, Hajjaj commissioned Abdul Rahman once again who made some conquests but could not consolidate his hold. Hajjaj threatened to supersede him inciting Abdul Rahman to revolt and enter into a treaty with the Hindu king to “carry arms against his master”. The treaty did not work, and Abdul Rahman committed suicide. The Hindu king, however, continued the war. Masudi, the Arab historian, mentions a prince in the valley of the Indus who after having subjugated Eastern Persia, advanced to the bank of the Tigris and Euphrates. Hajjaj had to make peace according to which the Hindu king was entitled to keep his kingdom in exchange for an annual tribute. The Hindu king, however, stopped payment in the reign of Caliph Sulayman (AD 715-717). Some attempts to force him into submission were made in the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur (AD 745-775). But they met with only partial success, and we find the Hindus ruling over Kabul and Zabul in the year AD 867. The kingdom of Kabul suffered a temporary eclipse in AD 870. The Turkish adventurer, Yaqub bin Layth, who started his career as a robber in Seistan and later on founded the Saffarid dynasty of Persia, sent a message to the king of Kabul that he wanted to come and pay his homage. The king was deceived into welcoming Yaqub and a band of the latter’s armed followers in the court at Kabul. Yaqub bowed his head as if to do homage but he raised the lance and thrust it into the back of Rusal so that he died on the spot. A Turkish army then invaded the Hindu kingdoms of both Kabul and Zabul. The king of Zabul was killed in the battle, and the population was converted to Islam by force. But the succeeding Hindu king of Kabul who had meanwhile transferred his capital to Udbhandapur on the Indus, recovered Kabul after the Saffarid dynasty declined. Masudi who visited the Indus Valley in AD 915 designates the prince who ruled at Kabul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into this region. The Hindus lost Kabul for good only in the closing decade of the 10th century. In AD 963 Alaptigin, a Turkish slave of the succeeding Samanid dynasty, had been able to establish an independent Muslim principality in Kabul with his capital at Ghazni. It was his general and successor, Subuktigin, who conquered Kabul after a struggle spread over twenty years. The Hindus under king Jayapala of Udbhandapur tried to recapture Kabul in AD 986-987. A confederate Hindu army to which the Rajas of Delhi, Ajmer, Kalinjar and Kanauj has contributed troops and money, advanced into the heartland of the Islamic kingdom of Ghazni. According to Utbi, the battle lasted several days and the warriors of Subuktigin, including prince Mahmood, were reduced to despair. But a snow-storm and rains upset the plans of Jayapala who opened negotiations for peace. He sent the following message to Subuktigin: ‘You have heard and know the nobleness of Indians – they fear not death or destruction… In affairs of honour and renown we would place ourselves upon the fire like roast meat, and upon the dagger like the sunrays.’” But this peace treaty was short lived and the Muslims resumed the offensive leading to the Hindus being defeated and driven out of Kabul. By the time of Ghori, the Islamic armies had struggled successively for nearly 540 years in order to seize the heartland of India but they had succeeded only in occupying the frontier areas of Kabul, Zabul, the North-West Frontier Province, Multan, and parts of Punjab and Sindh. This was rather small compared to the area under Islam, outside of India.
The Yaminis (Ghaznavids) were replaced in Afghanistan by the new dynasty of Shansabanis (Ghurids) around the time that Vigraharaja (also called Visaladeva) was recovering his lands from the Muslim possessions in the Punjab. Prithiviraja II, the successor to Vigraharaja, had placed his maternal uncle, Kilhan, in charge of the fort at Asika (Hansi). His Hansi stone inscription of AD 1168 describes the Hammira (Amir) as a “dagger pointed at the whole world”. The flag that fluttered at the gateway of this fort, we are told, “defied the Hammira, as it were”. Another line in this inscription compares Prithiviraja II to Sri Rama, and Kilhana to Hanumana. Besides the Chauhans of Delhi and Ajmer, India at that time had two more powerful kingdoms positioned against the Muslims – the Chaulukyas (Solankis) of Gujarat and the Gahadavals of Kanauj. Muhammad Ghuri was installed at Ghazni in AD 1173 by his elder brother, Ghiyasuddin, who had himself ascended the throne at Ghur in AD 1163. The task of conquering India was assigned to Muhammad Ghuri while his brother was extending the Ghurid empire towards the west. The Ghaznavids were still in possession of the provinces they had been able to conquer in north-western India.
Ghuri bypassed the weaker Gaznavid rulers in Punjab, [apparently not to alert the Chauhans beyond Sutlej by attacking the Gaznavids] entered India through the Gomal pass and took Multan from the Qaramatih chiefs in AD 1175. He intrigued with the wife of the Bhatti Rai of Uch and promised to marry her if she poisoned her husband. Firishta records that “she declined the honour for herself but secured it for her daughter, caused her husband to be put to death and surrendered the fort”. Ghuri’s way to Gujarat now lay open by way of Western Rajasthan. Prithviraj III [the famous later opponent of Ghuri], had ascended the throne of Ajmer the previous year and was pressed by his Chief Minister, Kadambavasa, not to intevene. Muhammad Ghuri advanced upon Gujarat in AD 1178 with a large army. Merutunga writes in his Prabandhachintamami that “the mother of young Mularaja, queen Naikidevi, the daughter of Parmardin of Goa, taking her son in her lap, led the Chalukya army against the Turushkas and defeated them at Gadararaghatta near the foot of Mount Abu”. Mularaja II was a minor at that time. Firishta records that the king of Gujarat “advanced with an army to resist the Mohammedans and defeated them with great slaughter. They suffered many hardships before they reached Ghazni.” In Sanskrit inscriptions of Gujarat, Mularaja is invariably mentioned as the “conqueror of Garjanakas [dwellers of Ghazni]”. One inscription states that “during the reign of Mularaja even a woman could defeat the Hammira [Amir]”.
Muhammad Ghuri did not lead another expedition against the Hindus for the next 12 years but concentrated on occupying the Ghaznavid possessions in India till he reached Lahore in AD 1186. He was opposed by the Chauhan ruler of Ajmer (AD 1177-1192) Prithiviraja III, whose feudatory, Govindaraja, was stationed at Delhi. Prithviraja-vijaya tells us that the Chauhan ruler was aware of a “beef-eating Mlechha named Ghori in the north-west who had captured Garjani [Ghazni]”. Hammira-mahakavya of Nayachandra Suri states that Prithviraja defeated Muhammad Ghuri at least seven times while Prabandha-chintamaNi of Merutunga and Prithvirajaraso of Chand Bardoi puts the number of Prithviraja’s victories at twenty-one. Muslim historians – Minhaj, Firishta, and others – on the other hand, mention only two battles between these two rulers, one in AD 1191 and the other a year later. Dasharatha Sharma reconciles these two versions by suggesting that the Ghorid generals began raiding the Chahmana [Chauhan] territories soon after the occupation of Lahore in AD 1186 but were beaten back by the Chahmana forces. Muslim historians have ignored them altogether.
It was only in AD 1191 that Muhammad Ghuri gathered sufficient forces to advance against the fortress of Tabarhindah (Sirhind) and took that stronghold. This was a frontier fortress held by a Chauhan feudatory. Hearing of the rather provocative public rape and enslavement of women from messengers and fleeing refugees who swarmed to Delhi, Prithviraja now advanced with his own army and met Muhammad Ghuri at Tarain. Before the onslaught of the Chahmana army, the right and left flanks of the Muslim army broke down and took to flight. The Sultan might have fallen off his horse had not a Khalji youth recognised him and carried him out of the field of battle. The Muslim army, losing sight of their leader, fled headlong from the battlefield and did not draw rein till they had reached a place considered safe from pursuit. The Sultan was also brought there in a litter of broken spears. From there, they returned to their own dominion. The Rajputs simply recovered Sirhind but did not pursue Ghori. Before he reached Tarain again next year Muhammad Ghuri sent a messenger from Lahore asking Prithviraja “to embrace the Musalman faith and acknowledge his supremacy.” Firishta reproduces the letter which Prithviraja wrote to him from the field of battle: “To the bravery of our soldiers we believe you are no stranger, and to our great superiority in numbers which daily increases, your eyes bear witness… You will repent in time of the rash resolution you have taken, and we shall permit you to retreat in safety; but if you have determined to brave your destiny, we have sworn by our gods to advance upon you with our rank-breaking elephants, our plain-trampling horses, and blood-thirsty soldiers, early in the morning to crush the army which your ambition has led to ruin.” Ghori, as is typical in Muslim strategic behaviour towards non-Muslims, replied: “I have marched into India at the command of my brother whose general I am. Both honour and duty bind me to exert myself to the utmost… but I shall be glad to obtain a truce till he is informed of the situation and I have received his answer.” The Hindus fell into the trap. Firishta records “The Sultan made preparations for battle… and when the Rajputs had left their camp for purposes of obeying calls of nature, and for the purpose of performing ablutions, he entered the plain with his ranks marshalled. Although the unbelievers were amazed and confounded, still in the best manner they could, they stood the fight.” The battle raged upto afternoon, when the Hindus found themselves tired and exhausted. They had not eaten even a breakfast. The fight was finished when Ghuri threw in his reserve division constituted by the flower of his army. The Rajputs were defeated, and suffered great slaughter.
The Muslims now occupied Delhi and marched into Ajmer. Prithviraja who had been made captive and who refused to swear submission, was brutally tortured according to the Muslim chroniclers and beheaded. Rajput resistance was still continuing in the countryside. Ghuri realized that his victory by deception was now well known among the Hindus and their combined forces could make his position precarious and tried to play for time by installing a son of Prithviraj as the new king. Hariraja, the younger brother of Prithviraja, reoccupied Ajmer in AD 1193. He also planned to attack and take Delhi again but failed because Ghuri had assembled another big army for his march on the Gahadaval kingdom of Kanauj. Hariraja committed suicide out of apparently shame from being unable to prevent the slaughter of his countrymen and had been unable to redeem his own pledge.
Jayachandra, the Gahadavala ruler of Kanauj, had not only kept away from the battles raging to his south and west; he had also rejoiced in the defeat of the Chauhans, the traditional rivals of the Gahadavalas in his bid for control over Northern India. It was his turn to face Ghuri in AD 1194 at Chandawar. The battle was fiercely contested and the Gahadavals led by Jayachandra almost carried the day when the latter seated on a lofty howdah received a deadly wound from an arrow and fell from his seat to the earth. The Muslims were able to plunder Kanauj and Asni where Jayachandra had kept his treasure. But Rajput resistance continued till Jayachandra’s son, Harishchandra, recovered Kanauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur in AD 1197. Kanauj seems to have stayed independent till the reign of Iltumish who ultimately conquered it from Harish Chandra’s successor, Adakkamalla. Bihar, which had been a bone of contention between the Gahadavals and the Senas of Bengal, was conquered unopposed by Bakhtiyar Khalji, a general of Ghuri, in AD 1202, and he reached Navadvipa, the capital of the Senas, a year later probably using deception and a surprise raid in the guise of Muslim horse-traders. The Senas fled to Sonargaon in East Bengal where we hear of at least two further Senas, Vishwaroop and Abhiroop or Keshav ruling in Estern Bengal from their capital and naval base at the time, Bikramanipur.
Muslims had occupied the big cities and the fortified towns but the countryside was in revolt. The first to deliver a counter-attack were the Mher Rajputs around Ajmer. They rose in AD 1195 and appealed to the Chaulukya ruler of Gujarat for help. The help came. Qutbuddin Aibak, another general of Ghuri, was in charge of Ajmer at that time. According to Hasan Nizami, a contemporary historian, “The action lasted the whole day and the next morning that immense army of Naharwala [Anhilawara, capital of Gujarat] came to the assistance of the vanguard, slew many of the Musalmans, wounded their commander, pursued them to Ajmer and encamped within one parasang of the place.” Aibak rushed messengers to Ghazni, crying for help. “It was only after a very large army was despatched to reinforce him, that Aibak could be rescued.” Aibak, in turn, invaded the kingdom of Gujarat in AD 1197. The Chalukyan army again faced the Muslims at the foot of Mount Abu where Ghuri had been defeated in AD 1178. The Muslim army became nervous and dared not attack. Hasan Nizami indicates that the Islamic forces advanced under the cover of darkness of night and caught the Chalukyan army unprepared at dawn. The Hindus were defeated this time. Anhilawara was occupied and sacked. But the Muslims could not hold Gujarat for long. In the next four years, Bhimadeva II, the Chaulukyan king, recovered the whole of his kingdom from the invaders and was back in Anhilawara in AD 1201. Arnoraja, the Vaghela feudatory of Bhima Deva, met his death in this campaign. But his son, Lavanaprasada, won a singular victory at Stambha, modern Cambay. Sridhara, the governor of Devapattan, inflicted another crushing defeat on the Muslims. How and when this army of occupation was driven out of Gujarat is nowhere mentioned by Muslim historians. It is precisely here that the two inscriptions of Dabhoi and Verawal refer to the heroic struggles of two generals of the Chaulukya king, Lavanaprasada and Sridhara. In the east Bakhtiyar Khalji could not conquer East Bengal. The Madanpara and Edilpur inscriptions of Visvarupa Sena and Keshava Sena, the successors of Lakshmana Sena, speak of victories won by them over the yavanas. Hodivala points out that “we possess epigraphic evidence of Lakshmana Sena’s descendants having ruled for at least three generations at Vikramapur near Sonargaon in Dacca”. Blocked by the Senas from East Bengal, Bakhtiyar Khalji advanced into Assam. But his army was destroyed by the king of Kamarupa. He was able to escape with his own life and about a hundred followers. But his army was slaughtered so that he fell sick due to excessive grief and died or was murdered in sick bed by a Muslim rival.
Swami Laxmanananda was actively involved in a contest to preserve indigenous tribal traditions from aggressive Christian evangelists in the state’s tribal belt since 1966. He was killed in his crowded ashram at Jalespata, Kandhmal district, while performing Janmastami prayers. The murder followed a threat letter warning he would suffer for preventing Hindus from converting to Christianity. As the Swami had been previously attacked on 25 December 2007 [he escaped four attempts on his life before falling to the last attack] for the same reason, he personally lodged a complaint with the police and enclosed the threatening letter along with the FIR. He sought police protection, but on Saturday, around 9.35 pm as the ashram was celebrating Janmashtami, when around dinner time, a group of 30-40 armed assailants surrounded the place. Eyewitnesses reported that about four of the assailants carried AK-47s and many others had country made revolvers. Two of the four home guards stationed for security had gone to eat and only two of them were guarding the premises. The assailants tied down the two guards, and gagged them. They then searched out the Swamiji within the premises, lobbed a hand-grenade at the gathering of devotees, and fired indiscriminately with sophisticated weapons, killing Swami Laxmanananda and four ashram inmates, including Mata Bhaktimayee, on the spot. The recovered bullets show they were from an AK-47, the police said. The assailants then warned the guards not to raise an alarm and fled the scene. Within minutes of the reaching the crime scene, the district authorities declared that Maoists had carried out assassination of the Swami.
Orissa does have a “Maoist” problem. Recently, a boat-load of security forces combing the area for Naxalites [a local name for Maoist armed insurrectionists in India, originating from the name of a small town in Northern Bengal, where the first symbolic act of Maoist “agrarian violence” took place] were blown up. However assigning responsibility to the Maoists could be a typical tactical administrative ploy as in December 2007, the area suffered some of the bloodiest violence Orissa has even seen after the Swami was attacked by Christians. Although Indian media tried its best not to highlight violence on Hindu villagers in the ongoing conflict where both sides obviously targeted each other, and Christians had no less responsibility than the Hindus for atrocities, reports of Christian violence did leak out from time to time. The Christian inspired violence could be partially sought to be justified as reactions and defensive action against expressions of anger by Hindus retaliating indiscriminately for the violent attack on a man who has become their iconic representative. However even now the state has not been able to come out with a clear and credible report on how much the involvement of Christian militant action was in defense, on only the Hindus who had attacked them and not on innocent Hindu villagers, and how much of this action had been pre-planned to utilize the expected violent reaction by the Hindus.
Elections are due soon in the state and the administration has proved unwilling, or unable to curb the Maoist insurgency. The government could be hoping to get the Hindu majority involved in the hunting down and liquidation of the Maoists on a social scale and therefore the most effective one [as proved in Punjab]. There are severe problems with the Maoist theory. Typically the central committee for the relevant Maoist group authorises the killings and the outfit issues statements owning up to the murders they commit – as they pick targets who they believe would in general be unpopular with the “repressed class” whose support they wish to obtain. Strangely the Maoists are keeping mum, and no statements have been forthcoming [although after this point is raised in the media, some statement may drop out of thin air]. The five attackers who the locals caught and handed over to the police are not Maoists and they are locals from the region.
Orissa police arrested one Pradesh Kumar Das, an employee of the Christian organisation, World Vision, from Khadagpur, while trying to leave Kandhmal at Buguda. Two other converts, Vikram Digal and William Digal were arrested from the house of Lal Digal, a local Christian, from Nuasahi at Gunjibadi, Nuagaan. They apparently admitted having joined a group of 28 other assailants.
The Maoists spared the policemen on duty when they usually execute any representative of the security forces present in their attacks. The Maoists are usually quite disciplined and they try to avoid firing at women and children or lob grenades at them. An AK-47 is quite a costly weapon, and are more numerous among well-funded terrorist groups with possible access to hostile foreign governmental support such as the Islamic Jihadi terrorists. In uncanny parallels with Islamic terrorists, the assailants were wearing masks and hoods, whereas Marxists usually make such attacks high profile with faces kept uncovered. The indiscriminate firing and throwing grenades on children in an orphanage over and above killing the target, is one of the strongest possible indications that the order to assassinate could not have come from any “central committee” and even if carried out by or with the help of Maoists were initiated from sources outside the Maoist movement.
Who had a reason to be angry with the Swami, or had sufficient reasons to benefit from his removal? The Swami’s activities in the jungle were essentially based around the welfare of the tribals and the only way this could be problematic for the Maoists is if it prevented the tribals from joining the Communist struggle by partially satisfying their urgent problems. But by similar arguments leaders of Christian missionaries should have been the target of the Maoists too, and why is never a thought given to the possibility that the Maoists could be involved in the violence against Christian villages? The Maoists have long claimed that most of Orissa falls under the ‘liberated zone’ and the Kandhamal district with its dense forest cover is a haven for them. The Swami received an anonymous threat only a week before he was killed. The local SP did not even register a case after the Swami lodged a formal complaint. Would the government have gained from the removal of the Swami? The BJD would then lose votes to the BJP. Would the Conrgress which has weakened in the state, have gained from it – only if it was foolish enough to think of hoping to gain Christian votes as defender and protector of Christian minorities, once communal tensions could be flamed up either voluntarily from angry Hindu reaction to the assassination or a little discreet and pre-planned prompting.
For a die-hard Maoist, all religions are equally suspect, and if these religions are providing “cosmetic relief” to the “oppressed” and saturating them with “religious opiates” then they are all equally to be attacked. The Christians know this very well in China. For some strange reason they do not appear to attack the Christian missionaries at Kandhmal! [Historically the only religion that the Chinese Maoists have been partial to was Islam and Mao’s love affair with Islam in his early struggling days at Yenan. Security forces are said to have seized 20 guns from 47 Maoists arrested in connection with the burning of villages inhabited by Hindus. In this respect, the murder of Swami Laxmanananda may be said to closely resemble the murder of Swami Shanti Kali ji Maharaj in Tripura in August 2000; he too was shot in his own ashram by gun-wielding assassins after several dire warnings for anti-conversion activities in the state’s tribal belt. Subsequently, Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar admitted the involvement of a certain church-movement with the insurgency in the state. There has been reports suggesting that Swami Laxmanananda was also active in the movement against illegal beef trading, and was demanding a high level probe into an alleged illegal beef trading racket in Kandhamal.
The major reason behind this conflict in Kandhamal is actually due to India’s notorious reservation regime and politics. At the moment, almost half of desirable “social opportunities” are reserved one way or the other in India, resulting in a perpetuation and reconfirmation of social fractures, and the demand for their continuation and extension shows that reservations are self-defeating in their declared purpose – they never “uplift” and “empower” in concrete, socially tangible terms, for such empowerment actually weakens the case for “reservation” of the beneficiaries. The majority Kandha (Kondh) tribe which has Scheduled Tribe status was obviously alarmed at the second local group, the Scheduled Caste Panas [who by converting to Christianity lost the reservation benefits due to Scheduled Caste status under the constitution] beginning to agitate for Scheduled Tribe status on the plea that they also spoke Kui, the mother tongue of the Kondhs, which is also the principal language of the district. The Hindus’ fears of lowered benefits due to competition deepened when the UPA-appointed Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission recommended extension of all reservation facilities to converts among the “Dalits”, which would include the Panas in Orissa.
Only if belonging to a special subgroup of Indians does not bring “special favours” over and above that of other Indians, will proselytizing religions or political parties cease to encourage and utilize the existing fractures within Indian society. What is needed is an all-inclusive developmental plan for all Indians that includes compulsory, uniform education, basic health-care, and economic opportunity irrespective of origin – combined with a clear recognition of a reward system of incentives to perform at all levels of society. Are Indians mature enough now to give and face the call “opportunities will be given unbiasedly – but you have to perform”?
In contrast to the so called “very friendly relations” that Indian merchants and princes apparently had with Arab Muslim traders in the early part of the Islamic invasions, based on a few references to “cordial meals” or dinners being given by a Arab merchant to his Indian counterpart at Hormuz, all references to any hostile behaviour including involvement of Islamic traders in military action against Indians are suppressed in the Thaparite literature. However the Prabandhachintamani describes explicitly how an Arab Muslim trader, Saida (Sayyad) had become so powerful as to initiate a naval fight against Vastupala, a minister of Chalukya state. It is interesting to note that the same story describes in great detail that the dispute arose at the port of Stambha (Cambay) and Saida called on an Indian ally Mahasadhanika Sanka from the port of Bhrgukachha (Broach). Harihara, who was associated with Vastupala and therefore a contemporary, [satisfies at least three of Thaparite criteria for acceptability of textual sources – it is contemporary, it is from the “attacked side”, it is from a non-Muslim side which claims to have “repressed” a non-upper-caste-Hindu] has awritten a play Sankhaparabhava Vyayoga, which claims ultimate victory of Vastupala. The fact that one “Hindu” helped Sayida against another would perhaps have been highlighted by the Thaparite School to prove the “extremely cordial relationship” between Indians and Muslim Arabs, had not this incident also involved proof of involvement of the Arab Muslim traders in direct military action against Indian states.
Trade over land route – Role of Islam
We see that exactly as the Islamic regime consolidated its power over the Middle East and expanded into Central Asia through its bulkhead in Persia, the penetration and reach of Indian merchants into Central Asia decreased, whereas the penetration of Muslim traders into India increased. We do not read of significant non-Muslim Indian settlements of traders in the lands conquered by the Arabs, and the Thaparites have managed to fish out only some references in the early Islamic period at Hormuz, and connected therefore with the sea-trade [these were possibly simply remnants of an earlier long-term trade relation between Nabateans and western-Indians]. If Islam was so liberal in encouraging commerce and trade with non-Muslims, why did all of a sudden non-Muslim Indian traders suddenly lose their interest in overland trade with areas newly converted to Islam? At the same time however the previously overland trade with China continued in volume and value with nearly equal participation in the transport of goods by India and China continued as before by shifting the greater bulk of the trade over the sea-route. The non-Hindu non-Indian traveller I-Tsing [Chavannes’s quotation] comments on how the Ta-shi interfered with travel on the road to Kapisha. The Arab control over the central Asian trade route passing through the “greater India” (Balkh-Bahlik Pradesh, Kabul/Zabul, Samarquand – this was captured only after a typical surprise Islamic military attack when the bulk of the male population was away in distant lands for trade, and the women and children were captured and used for bargaining for surrender and conversion to Islam – etc., ) was only completed in about 1022 C.E. That the Arabs were in the habit of severely restricting non-Muslim traders is also testified to in their own chronicles [Biladuri] as well as in versions by Europeans [Pirene – Economic and Social history of Medievalal Europe-note that in this period they cannot yet be called fanatical anti-Islamic Hindu fascists since by the Thaparite School Hinduism was yet to be conjured from thin air and non-existent ideas by them as a colonial power].
Four cornered struggle between Arabs, Persia, China and Tibet for control of Central Asian trade and evidence for the Muslims gradually pushing out the non-Muslim traders
In the first half of 7th century exactly when Muhammad was consolidating his hold over the isolated oases in Northern Arabia, the Chinese empire virtually controlled all the area up to the borders of Persia [Yule, Cathay]. The intensification of this struggle seems to have peaked in 650-670 C.E.[Tsuh Chih, A short history of Chinese civilization.] There are indications that Kashmir at this period could be involved in a partnership with China to fight against the Arabs, the Tukharas, and Daradas and blocked the route to Tibet. [Indian Historical Quarterly, XXX, pp 89-92]. Chinese sources represent the Pallavas from South India as requesting Chinese aid against the Arabs and the Tibetans [K.A.N. Sashtri, Foreign Nations]. There have been questions about the real motivations behind this Chinese representation as to China’s priority on the threat from Tibet. However we do find these references as indicating a struggle with the rising power of the Arab Muslims trying to take over the trade routes through Central Asia and prevent non-Muslim traders from benefiting from this trade. A significant amount of trade also began now to pass over into sea-trade between East Asia and India, and alternative land routes through (1) Bengal, Assam, and upper Burma (2) Bihar, Nepal, Tibet.[Chau ju kua, Chavannes, P.C.Bagchi -India and China, P.C.Choudhury – History of civilization of Assam].
The disbalance in the number of settlements of Muslim traders in India compared to “Hindu” traders in the Muslim world.
There are very few actual references to “Hindu” merchants being allowed to survive in areas dominated by Islam outside subcontinental India in this period. Muhammad Aufi [Elliott and Dowson] describes the case of a Hindu merchant called Wasa Abhir from Nahrwala who had trade agents at Gazni, and had property valued at one million rupees indicating that he was probably a top-league merchant. When Muizudin bin Sam was defeated by the Gujarat army after Muizuddin mounted an invasion into Gujarat, he was apparently advised to confiscate Wasa’s property at Gazni after his retreat back to Gazni. Muizuddin is supposed to have refused to follow this advice on grounds of justice. This story yields several interesting aspects. First, it does not show actual presence of Hindu Merchants in Islamic territories on a permanent basis but simply, agents, and material holdings probably as necessary components of trade. Second, it shows that they were subject to political arbitrariness as Muslims defeated in their jihads on hindu territories could in general satisfy their frustration by seizing on Hindu merchant’s properties or family. Third, the possibility of a practical motivation in the rulers of that time, that top-merchants from other nations and ideologies should not be harassed too much because of fear of potential loss of revenue. This last point in its turn could also be applied to the so-called patronization of Muslims by the Rashtrakutas or other Hindu rulers on the west coast of India – that such protection of merchants need not automatically imply non-existence of general hostilities between the two regimes or ideologies of Islam and “Hinduism”.
Similarly we hear the propaganda of “presence of Indian merchants at Hormuz and very friendly and cordial relations between them and Arab Muslims” in the Thaparaite literature, and this alone is supposed to be incontrovertible proof of “cordial relations between Muslims and Hindus in general”. This is based on among two other textual references, on the following story. According to Abu Zaid, when one of the principal merchants of Siraf invited the Indian merchants of the place he would serve them food in separate plates. On such events there would be hundreds of guests and most of them were obviously “Indians”.[Fernande, Voyage du Marchand Arabe Sulayman]. The Jewish traveller Rabbi Benjamin, writes in 1170 c.e. that the island of Kish was the point to which the Indian merchants bring their commodities. [K.A.,N. Sastri, Foreign Nations]. Ibn Batuta writes of a colony of Indian merchants in Aden, but we can no longer be absolutely certain about their religious affiliation at the time of Ibn Batuta’s writings. The last reference that we will quote is a very popular one with the Thaparite School, that of Jagadu in Jagaducharita [A.K. Majumdar, Chalukyas of Gujarat] who is supposed to have Indian agents at Hormuz and who maintained regular trade with Persia. Note the preponderance of agents, who are not always mentioned to be non-Muslim Indians, who represent Hindu merchants in Islam dominated areas, and not a significant population of settled Hindu merchants.
In contrast we find records of significant populations of settled Islamic traders, deep inside “Hindu” territories especially near important commercial, political, and cultural centres [Buddhist university townships] which are later on targets of surprise military attacks by Muslims with surgical precision. Ibn Asir mentions explicitly in his Kamil-ut-Tawarikh, that there were “Mussalmans in the country of Banaras” from the days of Sabuktigin.[Elliot and Dowson]. Muhammad Aufi also speaks of Bahram Gur of Iran coming to Hindustan under the guise of a Muslim merchant. When Bakhtyiar appeared in Nudiya people thought that he was a Muslim trader come to sell horses – implying that visits to this old Hindu city on the banks of the Ganges in modern West Bengal, by Muslim traders was quite common and that Muslim military leaders were in the habit of using this acceptance to disguise themselves for spying or raiding or surprise attacks. Taranath mentions settlement of “Turuskas” (at this period a generic name for Muslims) in the AntarVedi or Ganges-Yamuna Doab. He also significantly mentions that during the time of Lavasena and his successors and prior to the invasions and destruction of the Buddhist university townships of Odantapuri and Vikramasila the number of “Turuskas” had significantly increased. Muhammad Habib in his introduction to Elliott and Dowson suggests that the far-flung campaigns of Mahmud Gaznavi would have been impossible without an accurate knowledge of trade routes and local resources of India, which he probably obtained from Muslim merchants. Many Arab narratives [including that of Al Beruni, who had been allowed to learn Sanskrit and copy and translate Hindu texts] contain accurate accounts of land-routes in India with minute details of the distances between cities and their products and other strategic details whose context shows that these were supplied mostly by Muslim merchants who had visited these places in person and recorded these details back at home accurately for future use by their fellows.
Is it true that all “Hindus” welcomed the “peaceful” and “pure commercial motive” Muslim traders as the Thaparite School demands that we should believe based on the scanty textual evidence [scanty because they would dismiss such evidence as scanty if it went against their hypothesis]?
The Arab writers are unanimous in severely accusing the Pratihara kings of being most hostile to Arabs and Islam.[Sulaiman,Al Masudi, in Elliot and Dowson]. The same authors, curiously enough, admit that the Pratihara administration was highly efficient, for Sulaiman says “there is no country in India more safe from robbers”. But the extremely harsh criticism of the Pratiharas for their “religious” intolerance and “xenophobia” are far more intense than the critiques of the “Hindu” kings who desperately fought to defend their land and people from the mostly deceptive, jihadist aggression of Islamic armies on their campaigns of iconoclasm, enslavement, massacre and looting. The Pratiharas discouraged the influx of Arab Muslims to protect the interests of their own countrymen and imposed checks and restrictions in support of this policy. There is difference in opinion among historians about interpretation of the term “Turuskadanda” and one line of opinions favours this to be interpreted as a tax [ a reverse Jiziya] on “Turuska” settlers in Gahadavala [successors of Pratiharas] lands [Sten Konow, Epigraphia Indica, IX].
The protection provided by Siddharaja Jayasimha, the Hindu ruler of Gujarat, to Muslims and their places of worship was continued by his successors in Gujarat. Both the populations as well as shrines and mosques of Muslims continued to rapidly multiply in several cities of Gujarat as reflected in numerous inscriptions, particularly from Khambat, Junagadh and Prabhas Patan, dated before Gujarat passed under Muslim rule in the aftermath of Ulugh Khan’s invasion in 1299 C.E. Z.A. Desai, the eminent epigraphist, comments that “These records make an interesting study primarily because they were set up in Gujarat at a time when it had still resisted Muslim authority. That the Muslims inhabited quite a few cities, especially in the coastal line of Gujarat, quite long before its final subjugation by them, is an established fact. The accounts of Arab travellers like Masudi, Istakhari, Ibn Hauqal and others, who visited Gujarat during the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian era, amply testify to the settlements of Muslims in various towns and cities. The inscriptions studied below also tend to corroborate the fact that the Muslims had continued to inhabit Gujarat until it became a part of the Muslim empire of Delhi. Moreover, they furnish rare data for an appraisal of the condition of Muslims under non-Muslim rulers of Gujarat. On one hand, they indicate the extent of permeation of Islamic influence in Gujarat at a time when it was still ruled by its own Rajput princes and show that Muslims had long penetrated into different parts of Gujarat where they lived as merchants, traders, sea-men, missionaries, etc.; these settlements were not only on the coastal regions but also in the interior as is indicated by some of these records. On the other hand, these epigraphs form a concrete and ever-living proof of the tolerance and consideration shown vis-a-vis their Muslim subjects by Hindu kings who were no doubt profited by the trade and commerce carried on by these foreign settlers.”[Arabic Inscriptions of the Rajput period from Gujarat’, Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1961].
Prof. Romila Thapar repeatedly cites one inscription from Prabhas Patan, the city of “Somnatha” and quotes only one of the two translations done by Z.A.Desai describing an event as recorded in two different inscriptions – in her public tirades against “revisionist historians” and in her hotly promoted Penguin history of India, she remains completely silent about the other inscription. This silence is puzzling. The inscription is dated 1264 C.E., and records the construction of a mosque at Prabhas Patan by a Muslim ship-owner. The stone slab containing its Arabic version is now fixed in the Qazi’s Mosque at Prabhas Patan and is not on site. The Sanskrit version which, it seems, was removed at some time and is now in a wall of the Harasiddha Mata temple in the nearby town of Veraval, has been summarised by Z.A. Desai: “Ship-owner Nurud-Din Piruz, son of ship-owner Khwaja Abu Ibrahim, a native of Hormuz, had come for business to the town of god Somnath during the reign of Arjunadeva, the Vaghela king of Gujarat (C. 1261-74) when Amir Ruknud-Din was the ruling chief of Hormuz; Piruz purchased a piece of land situated in the Sikottari Mahayanpal outside the town of Somnath in the presence of the leading men like Thakkur Sri Palugideva, Ranak Sri Somesvaradeva, Thakkur Sri Ramdeva, Thakkur Sri Bhimsiha and others and in the presence of all (Muslim) congregations, from Rajakula Sri Chhada, son of Rajakula Sri Nanasiha; Piruz, who by his alliance with the great man Rajakula Sri Chhada, had become his associate in meritorious work, caused a mosque to be constructed on that piece of land; for its maintenance, i.e., for the expenses of oil for lamp, water, preceptor, crier to prayers and a monthly reader (of the Quran) and also for the payment of expenses of the particular religious festivals according to the custom of sailors, as well as for the annual white-washing and repairs of rents and defects in the building, the said Piruz bequeathed three sources of income: firstly, a pallaDika (particulars regarding whose location and the owner are given in detail); secondly, a danapala belonging to one oil-mill; and thirdly, two shops in front of the mosque, purchased from Kilhanadeva, Lunasiha, aSadhar and others; Piruz also laid down that after meeting the expenses as indicated above, the surplus income should be sent to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina; as regards the management, he desired that the various classes of Muslims such as the communities of sailors, ship-owners, the clergy (?), the artisans (?), etc., should look after the source of income and properly maintain the mosque.”
The English translation of the first seven lines of the Arabic text as given by Z.A. Desai, is as follows:
1. Allah the Exalted may assign this (reward) to one who builds a house in the path of Allah… [This auspicious mosque was built].
2. on the twenty-seventh of the month of RamaDan, year [sixty-two].
3. and six hundred from migration of the Prophet (23rd July AD 1264), in the reign of the just Sultan and [the generous king].
4. Abu’l-Fakhr (lit., father of pride), Ruknud-Dunya wad-Din (lit., pillar of State and Religion), Muizzul-Islam wal-Muslimin (lit. source of glory for Islam and the Muslims), shadow of Allah in [the lands],
5. one who is victorious against the enemies, (divinely) supported prince, Abin-Nusrat (lit., father of victory), Mahmud, son of Ahmad, may Allah perpetuate his…
6. and may his affair and prestige be high, in the city of Somnat (i.e. Somnath), may God make it one of the cities of Islam and [banish?].
7. infidelity and idols…
Z.A. Desai noted differences between the Arabic and the Sanskrit versions. “For example,” he writes, “the Arabic inscription does not give all the details regarding the sources of income, the procedure for its expenditure, management, etc., which are mentioned at some length in the Sanskrit record. Also, the Arabic version mentions only the leader of prayer (imam), caller to prayers (muaddhin) and the cities of Mecca and Medina among the beneficiaries… Likewise, no mention is made of the provision for the celebration of religious festivals as stated in the Sanskrit record. Further, in the extant portion of the Arabic record, we do not find mention of the then Vaghela king of Gujarat, Arjunadeva… On the other hand, the Arabic version gives some more information regarding the status and position of Piruz (Firuz) and his father Abu Ibrahim. For example, Firuz is called therein ‘the great and respected chief (sadr), prince among sea-men, and king of kings and merchants.’ He is further eulogised as the ‘Sun of Islam and Muslims, patron of kings and monarchs, shelter of the great and the elite, pride of the age’, etc. Likewise, his father, Abu Ibrahim, son of Muhammad al-‘Iraqi, is also mentioned with such lofty titles as ‘the great chief of fortunate position, protector of Islam and the Muslims, patron of kings and monarchs, prince among great men of the time, master of generosity and magnanimity’, etc. Needless to say, all these titles are absent in the Sanskrit version.” The record is complete for all practical purposes except for a few gaps which the epigraphist has filled up creditably with the help of his long experience in reading and reconstructing such inscriptions. Could the name of Arjunadeva, the then Vaghela king of Gujarat, could have occurred in any of these gaps even if the king was stripped of all his appellations. Could the name of a Hindu king be found anywhere in the general format of the inscription. There are similar inscriptions on mosques and other Muslim monuments all over India, before and after this period in exactly the same format with the name of the reigning Muslim monarch with all his lengthy appellations displayed prominently. Significantly, there was no Muslim monarch at that time in Gujarat which was a Hindu kingdom independent of the Delhi Sultanate, the builder of the mosque chose the king of Hormuz for showing his solidarity with the land and ruler of Islam. It is also significant to note that by installing two versions of the same installation plaque in two different languages, the Muslim merchant shows that he is very much aware of this deception and therefore he expresses his true loyalties and feelings in his own language, which was obviously not widely known among the non-Muslims. Prof. Thapar remains completely silent on this because even mentioning this to discard it as a forgery or unreliable would bring attention to the original translation by Z.A. Desai and throw serious doubts on her desperate attempt to establish “friendly attitude of Muslim traders towards Hindus”.
Note that for a subject of the Hindu king of Gujarat or a resident alien doing business in Gujarat, and given that the mosque was erected at Prabhas Patan which was situated in the kingdom of Gujarat and not within the dominions of Hormuz, the Muslim merchant eulogises the king of Hormuz as “the source of glory for Islam and the Muslims,” and he prays fervently that “may his affair and prestige be high in the city of Somnat, may Allah make it one of the cities of Islam, and [banish?] infidelity and idols” from it. In other words, he was earnestly desiring another Islamic jihad on Gujarat. Comparing the Sanskrit and Arabic versions of this inscription, we see that the Muslim merchant from Hormuz had carefully edited out from the Sanskrit version what he had included confidently in the Arabic text. This shows that just as in the modern period, in the 13th century, Muslim elite took care with help from some elite Hindus [who collaborated out of commercial interests as claimed by the Thaparite School] that the ordinary Hindu never understood the real meanings of teachings of Islam, never read authentic versions of the core texts of Islam, never understood the real agenda of Islam, and that the Islamic Jihadi agenda of slaughter, enslavement, looting and conversion remained completely hidden until it was too late.
There were similar Muslim settlements in other places in Gujarat, for example at Anhilwada Patan, the capital of Gujarat under the Chaulukya and the Vaghela dynasties of Hindu kings. An inscription dated 1282 C.E. fixed in the wall of a mosque here, records the death of a Muslim merchant in the reign of the Vaghela king Sarangadeva (1274-96). Z.A. Desai is of the opinion that “this is the only record at Patan which is dated in the pre-Muslim period of Gujarat, furnishing evidence of the settlement, or at least presence, of Muslims in the very capital of the Rajput rulers.” Cambay or Khambat, the famous port of Gujarat, has yielded many Muslim inscriptions from the time when Gujarat was a Hindu kingdom. A 1218 C.E. inscription in the reign of the Chaulukya king Bhimadeva II (1178-1242), records the construction of a Jami Masjid and says in the very first sentence “that no one else would be invoked with Allah.” Another inscription of 1232 C.E. in the same reign records the death of a Muslim and declares, again in the first sentence, that “Surely, the true religion with Allah is Islam.” A third inscription dated 1284 in the reign of the Vaghela king Sarangadeva (1274-96), records the death of another Muslim and says that “whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah-then, surely Allah is quick in reckoning.” An inscription dated 1286-87 records the construction of a mosque at Junagadh in the reign of Sarangadeva gives the name of the builder, Abul Qasim, with high-sounding titles which according to Z.A. Desai, “may be taken to suggest that Abul Qasim, probably an influential merchant conducting business in that part, was associated in some way with the liaison work between the state and its Muslim population. The record also indicates that there was a considerable number of Muslim population residing at Junagadh, which necessitated the building of a prayer house and that some of the Saurashtra ports used to clear the traffic of Haj pilgrims from Gujarat and possibly from outside too.”
The invasion of Ulugh Khan that was to finally subject Gujarat to Muslim rule, was the eighth in a series which started within a few years after the Prophet’s death at Medina in 632. Five Islamic invasions had been targeted on Gujarat before Siddharaja Jayasimha ascended the throne of Gujarat in 1094 C.E. The first raid took place in 636 on Broach by sea on the pretext of attacking a “nest of pirates” [as accepted by the Thaparite School], second in 732-35 by land; third in 756, and fourth in 776 by sea; fifth by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026, sixth by Muhammad Ghuri in 1178, and the seventh was by Qutbud-Din Aibak in 1197. Just as in the modern period, even after a sequence of Muslim raids and its effects, the complacency and acceptance of possible representation of Islam as peaceful with complete hiding of the inherent Jihadi agenda of Islam shown by Hindus in Gujarat, had allowed the dual plaques of Piruz to be put up in 1264. This was before the last invasion of Gujarat that brought it under Muslim control.
Most historians writing on the economic aspects of the subcontinent at least agree that many indicators of economic activity in India appear to decline beginning in the 7th century. The Thaparite School of Indian history ascribes this to primarily two factors – (1) excessive expenditure on import of good quality horses from the middle East and central Asia (2) excessive consumption of imported luxury items by the numerous feudatory chiefs and their exploitation of India for petty internecine warfare. To this is usually added the apparent general apathy of Indians to defend their maritime trade, foreign trade, to develop and take initiative to expand their economy and international trade.
Typically, in all this, it has become fashionable now to remove any role of Islamic invasions and the Islamic traders. If at all mentioned they have to be mentioned in a totally positive light, with the few stories of apparent friendship or collaboration between certain non-Muslims of India and Arabian traders as generally representative of a society wide phenomenon. We must remember, that similar arguments are not allowed to be applied to the few instances of conflict or repression by Islamic invaders and traders as a general phenomenon and are usually demanded to be dismissed as fabrications, lies or exceptions.
A formal rigorous analysis of such historical material explicitly aimed at investigating the role of Islam and Islamic traders and invaders (we will see that these two roles were not always separate, and there are instances when the traders are known to have spied for their Islamic rulers as well as traders performing military roles or military disguised as traders performing survey of the land and its people or defences) has yet not been undertaken on its own, but as parts of works by different historians. Typically this appears to be a very uncomfortable portion of their work, for most of them are perhaps aware that the official Thaparite establishment can finish off their careers through their control of the Indian Historical Congress, control over the media, patronage by the political establishment affiliated to the Congress and “vulgar” Marxism (Marxists will know the meaning of the term!) and their control over research agenda as well as filtering the upcoming generations of historians by deciding who gets supported through academic and research positions or who get published. Well known connections of mutual patronage to historians of European origin primarily maturing in the neo-Marxian crucibles of 60’s West European universities, as well as possible general subconscious bias in favour of mono-theistic traditions over and above that of the “pagans” combined with fear from racist and imperialist fear of cultural consolidation of the “Hindu” on the subcontinent which has already proven strongly resistant to mono-theism of the revealed strand – has led to a continuation of the stranglehold of the Thaparite School as the sole arbitors of historical truth.
Decline of the Indian naval and merchant fleets – piracy and apathy or advent of Islam?
Up to the 7th century, historians find and report that the Indian empires had powerful navies and merchant fleet, with an active interest taken by the highly organized state administrations in the maintenance, development, and deployment of fleets of ships both for military and commercial purpose. The Arthasastra mentions state-owned vessels lent to merchants and used for cruising, transport of men and material as well as commerical operations. Megasthenes [McCrindle, Ancient India as described in Classical literature] reports that the Indian shipbuilders were salaried public servants and that ships built in the royal yards were hired to ocean voagers and traders. A Jataka story also refers to sailors as King’s salaried men. The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, describes native fishermen in the King’s service stationed at the entrances of the western sea-ports in well-manned large boats going up the coast as far as Syrastrene, from which they pilot vessels to Barygaza (Bahrukaccha – Broach). These pilots in royal service are called sagara-palogananam (literally knowledgeable in the arts of sea and sails) in a Kanheri inscription (Proc. of I.H.C., 1960). The Satavahana kings actively promoted and regulated shipping as proved in the ship coins of Sri Yajna Satakarni [Rapson, coins of the Andhra Dynasty]. There are supporting evidence in Harchacharita [Life of Harsha, by Bana] and Ptolemy. This tradition was kept alive by the Pallava and Kurumvara kings, some of whose coinage seems to reflect the Satavahana style, as well as other literary indications, and archaeological indications of the presence of South Indian ships in South East Asia. The last such indication of naval concerns we find curiously enough in the 7th century when Bhaskaravarma [reputed to have invaded parts of Gaura-Vanga or north Bengal], a ruler of Assam is reported to own 30,000 ships.
The crucial factor never taken up for investigation by historians, is the coincidence of exactly this period of gradual decline of the Indian sea-trade, a significant source of its wealth, with the rise of the Islamic regime in the Middle East. We have already mentioned in previous posts how the 7th century marks the beginning of the the Arab raids both from the sea along Sind and Gujarat as well as the land routes through the North-West passages, with the high point being the devastation of Sind in the early 8th century by Qasim. Typically the Thaparite School bypasses this issue in two ways.
The first of this is the “piracy by non-Muslim rulers of India” hypothesis. One big problem with the “Indian non-Muslim pirate” hypothesis is the fact that Pirates are reported to have sailed in “great” and powerful vessels called Bira, and that they were looting sailors and merchants all over the Arabian sea, including the Gulf area, southern Red Sea, Ceylon and as far as Zanzibar. [ Al Beruni, Marco Polo, Ibn Batuta- Voyages, Badger – A History of the Imams and Sayyids of Oman] If Indian sailors had the capacity to maintain such large ships with military intent and skill [piracy is only a form of naval warfare in the ancient world – and quite prestigious depending on how valuable the pirate was to the ruler – Elizabeth I of England would be a prime example] – and could dominate the whole of the Arabian sea, why could not they maintain this dominance in trade, which obviously they had done in previous centuries? On the other hand, if it was a common custom in the Arabian sea rim for powerful rulers to use piracy as means of gaining wealth and controlling trade, then why should we leave out the growing Islamic power in the region for resorting to piracy as means of wresting control of the lucrative sea-trade from the Indians. There are two important clues overlooked in standard histories – the Arab trading vessels appear to suffer less, and piracy actually goes on as far as Zanzibar and southern Red Sea, where Indians rarely manage to go in this period. The second important clue is provided by the pretext on which Hajjaj sends his son-in-law Qasim to invade Devala in Sind after failing in his earlier attempts- that King Dahir of Sind should recompense Hajjaj for the alleged lootings by pirates of certain ships laden with people, slaves, and gifts meant for Hajjaj sent from Ceylon. We have on good authority of the Chinese and Arabian sources, that at this period, Indian ships were smaller, slower, and less powerful than both Chinese and Arabian ships, but the largest ones actually belonged to the kingdom of Ceylon.[Al, Beruni, Hourani- Arab seafaring, Chau-ju-kua]
I would like to raise the speculative question in the style the Thaparite School is so fond of : Is it possible that the Arab and Islamic regimes dominating the Middle East now actively engaged in sponsoring piracy to wrest control of the Arabian sea trade from the Indians , and also used these pirates for political and military strategic needs? [something along the lines of a public outrage in modern societies sponsored by the secret services so that an unpopular policy can be foisted upon the population]. Is it possible that the expansion of Islamic power on the Arabian plateau, and the Gulf region, displaced coastal populations and Persian skilled sea-farers who were forced to take up piracy after being deprived of their land bases and over-land trade routes? Is it possible some of the Muslim Arab traders themselves took up piracy on a part time basis or performed the dual role of traders and pirates as and when opportunity arose? It is interesting in this context to note the modern work based on extensive “research” of the Bombay archives by the Sultan of Sharjah, Muhammad Al-Qasimi, [The Myth of Arab piracy in the Gulf, 1988] claims that it was the Est India company which painted the Quasims in the lower Persian Gulf as pirates in order to wrest control of the sea-trade to India. Curiously, he mentions that the Company did not have sufficient warships to to defeat the Quasim fleet, and called on the British Ryal navy to complete the task – why would anyone need warships to complete the task of suppressing a peaceful merchant fleet? The Southern Arabians, ancient Nabaeteans, were associated with piracy from classical times. Diodorus tells us: “After one has sailed past this country, the Laeanites Gulf comes next, about which are many inhabited villages of Arabs who are known as Nabataeans. This tribe occupies a large part of the coast and not a little of the country which stretches inland, and it has a people beyond telling and flocks and herds in multitude beyond belief. Now in ancient times these men observed justice and were content with the food which they received from their flocks, but later, after the kings of Alexandria had made the ways of the sea navigable for their merchants, these Arabs not only attacked the shipwrecked, but fitting out pirate ships and preyed upon the voyagers, imitating in their practice the savage and lawless ways of the Tauri of the Pontusl. Some time afterwards, however, they were caught on the high seas by some quadriremes and punished as they deserved.” The naval details mentioned here indicate approximately 200 BCE. From Strabo we know that it was a Nabataean policy to not allow foreign ships to pass beyond the southern end of the Red Sea. They did this, by maintaining a pirate station in Eudaimon Arabia, known today as Aden. Strabo tells us that fewer than 20 boats a year would venture past the end of the Red Sea of fear of these pirates.
The indictment of only the Indians in “piracy” by the Thaparite School is actually based on very few anecdotes and is open to other interpretations. Practically speaking only three major instances are repeated over and over again in the Thaparite literature – (1) the Dasakumaracharita, in which a prince of Tamralipti [ancient seaport in Midnapore, modern WestBengal] “swarms” around a “Yavana” [at this period anyone coming from the west of India] ship (2) the Prabandhachintamani, which talks of three princes of King Yogaraja looting near the port of Somesvara a ship belonging to another country, and Yogaraja himself refers to the negative reputation of soem of his predecessors as regarding looting of vessels by Gurjara (3) the Motupalli pillar inscription in which King Ganapatideva claims that former kings forcibly took away the wares of ships voayging from one country to another which were wrecked, driven ashore or forced to touch at a place that was not meant as a port of call. Only in this context , is of course also Ibn Batuta’s testimony as to Indian pirates are also acceptable by the Thaparite School but not his claims of Islamic repression on non-Muslims of India, which are to be treated as boasts. It is never mentioned that the coastal states appear to have adopted and strictly enforced a license system. The boats of sailors residing in the country had to pay 1/10th of their cargo as duty on returning to the harbour, whereas a foreign boat without license was liable for confiscation. This rule could have arisen from genuine security concerns, where the states wanted to protect their coasts from the depredations of piratical raid from the sea by foreign powers, as such foreign ships alighting at unsupervised parts of the coast could very well be pirate ships themselves. It is significant to note that even at the height of Arab sea-power, the deep south coastal states appear to have survived and managed to at least partially defend themselves from Arab pirates. And the complaints of all Islamic sources of piracy appears to be connected to this strict enforcement of the laws of the coastal states which they describe as “piracy”.
The second primary reason given for the decline of the maritime trade is the “apathy” of the merchants and the rulers. Typically there is no agreement or even attempt at finding out why the sudden reluctance to be concerned with the sea-trade, which was an important source of the so-called luxuries of which the feudatory chiefs continue to be fond of. The demand apparently was still there, but suddenly Indians are supposed to have got bored with the sea and ceased to take interest in sea-voyages. The only two speculations allowed by the Thaparite School are (1) supreme interest of the feudatories in importing horses overland through Afghanistan and therefore neglect of the sea-trade (2) religious peculiarities. We will discuss (1) later in connection with the decline in the land-trade, and here we take up the “religious reluctance” hypothesis. In the earlier period Buddhism was the dominant religion among the Indian merchants, but this period was a period of decline for Buddhism and growth in the popularity of Jainism. Contrary to the general impression sought to be created by the Thaparite School that Brahmanism was on the rise, and that it systematically physically destroyed Buddhism and Jainism is one big lie of official Indian history – right upto the plantation of the Delhi Sultanate we find Jainism quite popular among the ruling princes and Buddhist centres of learning and universities being maintained throughout India. The Jain text Upamitibhavaprapanchakatha describes how enterprising and enthusiastic young Jain merchants are discouraged from taking up sea-trade. The text is not very clear about whether how much of this restriction owes actually to the Jaina faith itself. On the other hand, the Brihannaradiya, a recognized Brahmanical text of the period, lists sea-voyage as one of the practices which are unfavourable for attaining heaven and unpopular with the people, and therefore forbidden for the Kali Yuga. Kane [History of Dharmasastra] interprets tthe relevant passages to show that the prohibition affected only Brahmanas and that there is evidence to show that even after making such voyages they still remained fit to be associated with. However after Basham, the possibility of the connection between growth of Islamic dominance and declining non-Muslim Indian trade to these religious injunctions as a practical recognition of the existing conditions, has never been taken up within the official Thaparite School of Indian history. It is also interesting to note that Chinese records and epigraphic records indicate that Indians not yet under Islamic control such as the Chola empire under Rajaraja I in the south continued with a significant sea-trade with the Chinese, so much so that at the same time when the Gaznavids were having their “annual holidays” in northern India, the Tanjore inscription (1019 C.E.) of Rajendra mentions an endowment in terms of Chinese gold made by a certain merchant and as late as 1296 C.E., at the beginning of the peak period of the Sultanate, the Chinese government is still trying to prohibit the export of gold and silver to and limit the value of the trade with Ma’bar (Coromandel), Kulam(Quilon) and other places in the deep south.
The great Gazis and Shahids and Jihadis of Islam in history have always used their Prophet’s injunction that “war is deception”, and a common tactic for Muslims has always been to capture something of great emotional value to non-Muslims and use that not only to preserve themselves from retaliation after unprovoked acts of looting, massacre and destruction but as a means of imposing Islam or enslavement. In Jammu, terrorists dressed as police entered a residential area and opened fire indiscriminately killing civilians. They then holed themselves up in a house and took children below the age of nine and women hostages. Using women and children as pawns in violence is a very old characteristic in Islam, and dates right from the very beginning of its advent in Arabia.
Here are a few relevant quotes from the Hadiths :
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.”
This Hadith is a very peculiar one : Hima normally in Arabic means “protected/inviolate region/territory/environment”. Mentioning this in the same context of night attacks possibly endangering women and chilldren of “infidels” can only mean one things that – women and children of “pagans” are not inviolate [ abstract use of the term Hima in other parts of the Hadiths are well established, implying that such an abstract association is allowed] The Raid on Bani al-Mustaliq by Muhammad-December, 627CE
Bani al-Mustaliq was a branch of the Khozaa (Jewish) tribe. Two months after Muhammad returned from Dhu Qarad campaign, Allah suddenly told him that B. al-Mustaliq, under the leadership of Haritha b. Abi Dirar was mobilizing forces against him. B. al-Mustaliq were friendly to Muhammad but the rumour was spread that B. al-Mustaliq were now joining with the Quraysh to launch an attack against the Muslims. The Muslims even killed a man from B. al-Mustaliq alleging him to be a spy. On this pretext Muhammad rallied all the fighting men around him to assail the B. al- Mustaliq. B. al-Mustaliq were a prosperous Jewish clan who had immense wealth and property, and after the successful ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Medina the B. al-Mustaliq Jews took all precautionary measures to prevent such an invasion on them. They sought help from other clans as well. Muhammad gave no opportunity to this clan to embrace Islam before facing ethnic cleansing. On previous occasions, he used the rule that the infidels be given a three days reprieve to decide whether to accept Islam or face liquidation.
Sahih Muslim on this raid:
Book 019, Number 4292: Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.
Further confirmation of this sudden pillage is referred in Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.
Ali b. Talib killed a few wounded B. al-Mustaliq people; among them were Malik and his son. Muhammad seized their cattle herd, took many as captives and divided them among the Jihadists. Two hundred families were taken as captives, two thousand camels and five thousand sheep and goats, as well as a huge quantity of household goods were taken as booty. Juwayriah, the young, beautiful and vivacious daughter of B. al-Mutaliq chief was one of those captives. The household goods were sold in an auction to the highest bidders. During the battle a Muslim was mortally wounded by another Muslim by accident. Muhammad allowed the Jihadists to rape the B. Mustaliq women captives. Here is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459: Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” After raping his captive-girl, Said al-Khudri took this young girl to the nearest slave market for a quick sale. Here is the continuation of the above story, as told by al-Waqidi (vol.i, p.413) and excerpted by Rodinson: “A Jew said to me: ‘Abu Said, no doubt you want to sell her as she has in her belly a baby by you.’ I said: ‘No; I used the ‘azl.’ To which he replied [sarcastically]: ‘Then it was lesser child-murder!’ When I repeated this story to the Prophet he said: ‘The Jews lie. The Jews lie.’”
Raid against Umm Qirfa of B. Fazarah by Zayd b. Haritha/Abu Bakr-January, 628CE
When Zayd b. Haritha’s first raid at Wadi al-Qura failed, Zayd conducted several raids. In one of these he set out for a mercantile trip to Syria to do some border trading there. When he arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he again raided i but his caravan was waylaid and was attacked by B. Fazarah tribe. During the fighting B. Fazarah killed a number of Muslims including Ward b. Amr, one of Zayd’s dear comrade-in-arms. Zayd himself was wounded. After Zayd returned to Medina with his wound he vowed to avenge the death of his comrade by raiding B. Fazarah again. After his recovery from the injury Muhammad sent Zayd with an army against the B. Fazarah. He attacked them at Wadi al-Qura and inflicted heavy casualties on them. He took Umm Qirfa (her real name was Fatimah bt. Rabiah b. Badr), the wife of Malik b. Hudhayfah, the chief of B. Fazarah, as a prisoner. Umm Qirfa was a very old woman having a young and extremely beautiful daughter. She (Umm Qirfa) was the aunt of Uyeina and was married to her cousin, Malik, the uncle of Uyeina. Zayd took her daughter as a captive and ordered a Jihadi, Qays b. Mohsin to kill Umm Qirfa. Qays tied each of her legs with a rope and attached the ropes to two camels. Then he drove the camels in opposite directions thus renting her in two. Rodinson writes that Umm Qirfa was torn from limb to limb by four camels. Two brothers from the same family were also brutally executed. When told, Muhammad fully approved this ferocious punishment meted out to a grand old lady. When Zayd brought Umm Qirfa’s daughter to Muhammad, he allocated her to Salamah b. Amr al-Akwa, a Jihadist who captured her. She belonged to a very distinguished Arab family. Then Muhammad found that one of his maternal uncles, Hazn b. Abi Wahb was eyeing on Umm Qirfa’s beautiful daughter. So he asked her owner, Salamah b. Amr b. al-Akwa, if he would give her to his (Muhammad’s) uncle. Salamah readily agreed to Muhammad’s request. This distinguished lady was then passed on to Muhammad’s uncle for his private use.
Another version of this story says that the leader of this raid was Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhafah (told by Salamah) and runs like this: Muhammad appointed Abu Bakr as the leader of this raiding party. When Abu Bakr arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he ordered his troop to rest there; then they prayed. After prayer, Abu Bakr made a raid on B. Fazarah. The Muslims killed a number of B. Fazarah people and captured a number of their women and children. Among them was Umm Qirfa, a very old lady, wearing a worn-out piece of leather coat. With her was her young daughter, the fairest of the Arabs. Abu Bakr gave Umm Qirfa’s pretty, young and vivacious daughter to, the Jihadist, who had captured her as a booty. After Salamah b. al-Akwa returned to Medina and met Muhammad at the market place, he (Muhammad) asked Salamah to give this pretty young lass to him. Salamah told Muhammad that he liked her but had not had sex with her yet. Then he offered her to Muhammad. Quoting Salamah, Tabari (Tabari, vol. viii, p.97) writes:
‘When I returned to Medina, the messenger of God met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent the father who begot you!-give me the woman.” I said, “Messenger of God, I like her, by God, and I have not uncovered her garment.” He said nothing to me until the next day, when he met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent a father begot you!-give me the woman.” I said: “Messenger of God, I have not touched her garment. She is yours, Messenger of God.” The Messenger of God sent her to Mecca, and with her he ransomed some Muslim captives who were in the hands of the polytheists.’
There is a similar Hadith from Sahih Muslim (Refer to: Sahih Muslim: Book 19, Hadith number 4345)
When Muhammad entered Mecca he granted a general amnesty to the Meccans except for eight people (or ten people, according to Ibn Sa’d). He ordered that those were to be killed even if they were found under the curtains of Kaba. Previously shedding of blood in the holy precinct was strictly forbidden by the polytheists. Muhammad proclaimed that Allah had permitted only him to cause bloodshed in the holy sanctuary, just for a few hours. Here is a Sahi Hadith from Sahhi Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 303:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah made Mecca a sanctuary and it was neither permitted for anyone before, nor will it be permitted for anyone after me (to fight in it). And fighting in it was made legal for me for a few hours of a day only. None is allowed to uproot its thorny shrubs or to cut down its trees or to chase its game or to pick up its Luqata (fallen things) except by a person who would announce it publicly.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul-Muttlib requested the Prophet, “Except Al-Idhkhir, for our goldsmiths and for the roofs of our houses.” The Prophet said, “Except Al-Idhkhir.” ‘Ikrima said, “Do you know what is meant by chasing its game? It is to drive it out of the shade and sit in its place.” Khalid said, “(‘Abbas said: Al-Idhkhir) for our goldsmiths and our graves.” Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2678: Narrated Sa’id ibn Yarbu’ al-Makhzumi: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam. Sarah was the freed slave-girl of one of the sons of Abd al Muttalib. Muhammad claimed that she used to molest him while he was in Mecca. It is reported that Muhammad eventually forgave Sarah. Hind bt. Utbah, the wife of Abu Sufyan b. Harb. She chewed the liver of slain Hamzah at Badr II. She accepted Islam and Muhammad pardoned her. Later, Umar killed Sarah by causing his horse to trample her at al-Abtah. Another source lists that on the day of occupation of Mecca, Muhammad commanded that six men and four women be killed. The women were: 1. Hind bt. Utbah b. Rabiah, 2. Sarah, the freed slave girl of Amr b. Hashim b. Abd al-Muttalib; she was killed (waqidi) on the day of invasion. 3. Quraybah; killed on the day of invasion, 4. Fartana escaped death and lived until the Caliphate of Uthman.
Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4321: It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. Surprise Raid on B. Khatham at Talabah by Qutbah ibn Amir ibn Hadidah-August, 630CE
During this period Muhammad sent Qutbah ibn Amir at the head of twenty men to conduct a surprise raid on B. Khatamah, inhabiting Tabalah near Turbah, and no reason is given in any of the Hadiths. The Muslims killed a man who pretended to be dumb. Then they attacked the infidels while they were asleep. The Muslims slaughtered whomever they could and took a great number of camels, goats and women as booty.
Whatever be the claim of modern spokespersons of Islam as regards treatment of women and children of non-Muslims, we have to understand that core traditions of Islam use them as potential property – either as slaves, as future soldiers of Islam or for sex and reproductive resource, and their safety is not of paramount importance in Islamic warfare.
The non-Muslims should carefully read the principal Hadiths, and the biographies of the Prophet of Islam, either in the original unabridged form or translations made by western authors prior to the emergence of Communist power.
The only way this sort of Jihadist violence on unarmed and non-combatant civilians of non-Muslims and on their women and children can be stopped is to ensure that each such raid aimed at reducing the number of non-Muslims and increasing the number of Muslims results in an actual reduction of believers in Islam – not a physical liquidation a-la-Islam but creations of conditions where “muslims with a good heart” feel ashamed of remaining Muslims and come out of Islam. On the other hand if Muslims really believe in “peace” they should make such declarations in public that they will come out of Islam if any non-Muslim is killed in such violence – this perhaps could be the only starting point for restoration of trust between Muslims and non-Muslims. In reality the Islamic terrorists in Jammu have done a great favour to the struggling Hindus and non-Muslims of the state of Kashmir – it will only make their resolve harder, getting a reminder of what living under Islam means, and will go a long way towards the eventual cleaning of the subcontinent of the creed of Islam. It will be worthwhile for the non-Muslims to also consider the possibility that “deception is war and war is deception in Islam” – and such attacks simply could be part of a general strategy to draw security forces away from areas of infiltration just as the Pakistani army consistently shoots repairing team of Indians of the control fences at the LOC, and try to push in militants under cover of heavy shelling or firing.
(46) Tarikh-i-Khan Jahan Lodi: The author, Niamatullah, was a historian in the court of the Mughal emperor Jahangir (CE 1605-1628). His Tarikh is practically the same as his Makhzan-i-Afghani except for the memoirs of Khan Jahan Lodi which have been added. Khan Jahan Lodi was one of the most illustrious generals of Jahangiri. The history begins with Adam and comes down to CE 1612 when it was completed. Niamatullah refers to Hindus as “the most notorious vagabonds and rebels.” Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Somnath (Gujarat) “After a long time, in AH 400, Allah… conferred the honour of sultanate on Sultan Mahmud Ghazi, son of Subuktigin… Nine men from among the Afghan chiefs… took to his court and joined his servants… The Sultan… gave to each one of them enamelled daggers and swords, horses of good breed and robes of special quality and, taking them with him, he set out with the intention of conquering Hindustan and Somnat…Rai Daishalim whom some historians have pronounced as Dabshalim or Dabshalam was the great ruler of that country. The Sultan inflicted a smashing defeat on that Raja, demolished and desecrated the idol temples there, and devastated that land of the infidels…” Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Dholpur (Madhya Pradesh) “…Sikandar himself marched on Friday, the 6th Ramzan AH 906 (CE March, 1501), upon Dhulpur; but Raja Manikdeo, placing a garrison in the fort, retreated to Gwalior. This detachment however, being unable to defend it, and abandoning the fort by night, it fell into the hands of the Muhammadan army. Sikandar on entering the fort,…The whole army was employed in plundering and the groves which spread shade for seven kos [about 14 miles] around Bayana were tom up from the roots… Mandrail (Madhya Pradesh) “In Ramzan of the year 910 (CE 1504), ….he raised the standard of war for the reduction of the fort of Mandrail; but the garrison capitulating, and delivering up the citadel, the Sultan ordered the temples and idols to be demolished, and mosques to be constructed. After leaving Mian Makan and Mujahid Khan to protect the fort, he himself moved out on a plundering expedition into the surrounding country, where he butchered many people, took many prisoners, and devoted to utter destruction all the groves and habitations; and after gratifying and honouring himself by this exhibition of holy zeal he returned to his capital Bayana.” Udit Nagar (Madhya Pradesh) “In 912,… the Sultan went towards the fort of Awantgar… On the 23rd of the month, the Sultan invested the fort, and ordered the whole army to put forth their best energies to capture it…the gate was forced open by Malik Alau-d din… The Rajputs, retiring within their own houses, continued the contest, and slew their families after the custom of jauhar… the Sultan gave over charge of the fort to Makan and Mujahid Khan, with directions that they should destroy the idol temples, and raise mosques in their places…” Narwar (Madhya Pradesh) “…The Sultan set out for conquering the fort of Narwar. Those inside the fort asked for refuge when they became helpless because of the dearness of grains and scarcity of water; they sought security of their lives and left the fort together with their goods. The Sultan took over the fort, demolished the temples and idol-houses in it and built mosques” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “The Islamic sentiment (in him) was so strong that he demolished all temples in his kingdom and left no trace of them. He constructed sarais, bazars, madrasas and mosques in Mathura which is a holy place of the Hindus and where they go for bathing. He appointed government officials in order to see that no Hindu could bathe in Mathra. No barber was permitted to shave the head of any Hindu with his razor. That is how he completely curtailed the public celebration of infidel customs…” Thanesar (Haryana) “Sultan Sikandar was yet a young boy when he heard about a tank in Thanesar which the Hindus regarded as sacred and went for bathing in it. He asked the theologians about the prescription of the Shariah on this subject. They replied that it was permitted to demolish the ancient temples and idol-houses of the infidels, but it was not proper for him to stop them from going to an ancient tank. Hearing this reply, the prince drew out his sword and thought of beheading the theologian concerned, saying that he (the theologian) was siding with the infidels…” Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (CE 1517-1526)
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “…When the thought occurred to Sultan Ibrahim, he sent azam Humayun on this expedition… The Afghan army captured from the infidels the statue of a bull which was made of metals such as copper and brass, which was outside the gate of the fort and which the Hindus used to worship. They brought it to the Sultan. The Sultan was highly pleased and ordered that it should be taken to Delhi and placed outside the ‘Red Gate’ which was known as the Baghdad Gate in those days. The statue was so fixed in front of the ‘Red Gate’ till the time of the Mughal emperor, Akbar the Great, who ordered in AH 999 that it be melted down and used for making cannon as well as some other equipment, which are still there in the government armoury. The author of this history… has seen it in both shapes.” Sultan Sulaiman Karrani of Bengal (CE 1563-1576)
Puri (Orissa) “Sulaiman Karrani…made up his mind to demolish all the temples and idol-houses of the infidels. As the biggest temple of the Hindus was in Orissa and known as Jagannath, he decided to destroy it and set out in that direction with a well-equipped force. Reaching there, he demolished the idol-house and laid it waste. There was an idol in it known as that of Kishan… Sulaiman ordered that it be broken into pieces and thrown into the drain. In like manner, he took out seven hundred golden idols from idol-temples in the neighbouring areas… and broke them.…When the armies of Islam entered that city, the women of the Brahmans, dressed in costly robes, wearing necklaces, covering their heads with colourful scarves and beautifying themselves in every way, took shelter at the back of the temple of Jagannath. They were told again and again that a Muslim army that had entered the city would capture and take them away, and that those people would desecrate the temple after laying it waste. But the women did not believe it at all. They kept on saying. ‘How could it happen? How could the soldiers of the Muslim army cause any injury to the idols? When the army of Islam arrived near the temple, it made prisoners of those Hindu women. That is what surprised them most…”
The History of the Afghans in India CE 1545-1631 by M.A. Rahim (Karachi, 1961) quotes Makhzan-i-Afghana while describing the exploits of Sulaiman Karrani’s general, Kalapahar, in CE 1568. It says: “Every Afghan, who took part in the campaign, obtained as booty one or two gold images. Kala Pahar destroyed the temple of Jagannath in Puri which contained 700 idols made of gold, the biggest of which weighed 30 mans.”
(47) Mirat-i-Sikandari: The author, Sikandar bin Muhammad Manjhu bin Akbar, was in the employ of Aziz Koka, the Mughal governor of Gujarat, and fought against Sultan Muzaffar Shah III, the last independent sultan of Gujarat, who was dethroned in CE 1591. He finished his history in 1611 or 1613 relating the history of Gujarat from Muzaffar Shah I to Muzaffar Shah III. Sultan Muzaffar Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1392-1410)
Somnath (Gujarat) “On his return (from idar) the Khan made up his mind to destroy Somnat, that is, the temple of Patandev…In AH 799 (CE 1394-95) he invaded Jahdand (JunagaDh)which was in the Kindgdom of Rai Bhara and slaughtered the infidels there. From there he proceeded towards Somnat, and destroyed the famous temple. He embellished that city with the laws of Islam.” Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1411-1443)
Sidhpur (Gujarat)
“Thereafter in AH 823 (CE 1420-21) he proceeded to different parts of his Kingdom for establishing order and good government… He got temples demolished and palaces and mosques constructed in their stead…” Sultan Mahmud BegDha of Gujarat (CE 1458-1511)
Dwarka (Gujarat) “On 17 Zilhijja he started towards Jagat and reduced that place after marching continuously. The infidels of Jagat ran away to the island of Sankhu. The Sultan destroyed Jagat and got its palaces dismantled. He got the idols broken…” Sankhodhar (Gujarat) “…When the Sultan saw that the infidels had gone to that island, he ordered boats from the ports and proceeded to the island with his well-armed soldiers… The infidels did not stint in fighting with swords and guns. In the end the army of Islam achieved victory. A majority of the infidels were slaughtered. The Musalmans started giving calls to prayers after mounting on top of the temples. They started destroying the temples and desecrating the idols. The Sultan offered namaz out of gratefulness of Allah… He got a Jami Masjid raised in that place…” Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat (CE 1511-1526)
Idar (Gujarat) “…The Raja of idar ran away to the mountains and on the fourth day the Sultan started from Morasa and halted near idar. He ordered that the houses and temples of idar should be destroyed in such a way that no trace of them should remain.” Sultan Bahadur Shah of Gujarat (CE 1526-1537)
Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “Afterwards he went towards Bhilsa which country had been conquered for Islam by Sultan Shamsud-din (Altamsh), King of Delhi. Since eighteen years the estate of Bhilsa had been subject to Silahdi, and the laws of Islam had been changed there for the customs of infidelity. When the Sultan reached the above place, he abrogated the ordinances of infidelity and introduced the laws of Islam, and slew the idolaters and threw down their temples…”[this is an indication that many time the Hindus recovered their territories once the Islamic looters passed on]
(46) Intikhab-i-Jahangir Shabi; The name of the author is not known but he was apparently a contemporary and a companion of Jahangir. The Tabqat-i-Shah-Jahani mentions a work written by Sheikh Abdul Wahab and named Akhlaq-i-Jahangiri. This work may be the same as the Intikhab. The Shykh died in 1622-23. Nurud-Din Muhammad Jahangir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1605-1628)
Ahmadabad (Gujarat) “One day at Ahmadabad it was reported that many of the infidel and superstitious sect of the Seoras (Jains) of Gujarat had made several very great and splendid temples, and having placed in them their false gods, had managed to secure a large degree of respect for themselves and that the women who went for worship in those temples were polluted by them and other people… The Emperor Jahangir ordered them banished from the country, and their temples to be, demolished. Their idol was thrown down on the uppermost step of the mosque, that it might be trodden upon by those who came to say their daily prayers there. By this order of the Emperor, the infidels were exceedingly disgraced, and Islam exalted”
(47) TazkiratuI-Muluk is a history of Bijapur written in CE 1608-09 by Rafiud-Din Ibrahim Shirazi, an Iranian adventurer and diplomat. Sultan Ali I adilshah of Bijapur (CE 1557-1580)
Karnataka “While campaigning in Karnataka following the fall of Vijayanagar Ali I’s armies destroyed two or three hundred Hindu temples, and the monarch himself was said to have smashed four or five thousand Hindu images…”
(48) Tarikh-i-Kashmir : The author, Haidar Malik Chadurah, was a Kashmiri nobleman in the service of Sultan Yusuf Shah (CE 1579-1586). He gives the history of Kashmir from the earliest times. The pre-Islamic period is based on Rajatarangini. It was begun in CE 1618 and finished sometime after 1620-21. Sultan Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (CE 1389-1413)
Kashmir “During the reign of Sultan Sikandar, Mir Sayyid Muhammad, son of Mir Sayyid Hamadani… came here, and removed the rust of ignorance and infidelity and the evils, by his preaching and guidance… He wrote an epistle for Sultan Sikandar on tasawwuf… Sultan Sikandar became his follower. He prohibited all types of frugal games. Nobody dared commit acts which were prohibited by the Shariat… The Sultan was constantly busy in annihilating the infidels and destroyed most of the temples…” Malik Musa of Kashmir was a powerful minister in the reign of Sultan Fath Shah (CE 1489-1516), but Tarikh-i-Kashmir presents him as the monarch. It says:
“Malik Musa ascended the throne in AH 907 (CE 1501). During his reign, he devoted himself to the obliteration of the infidels and busied himself with the spread of the religion of the prophet. He made desolate most of the temples where the infidels had practised idolatry. Wherever there was a temple, he destroyed it and built a mosque in its place… None of the Sultans of Kashmir after Sultan Sikandar… ever made such an effort for the spread of the Islamic faith as did Malik Musa Chadurah, and for this auspicious reason he received the title of the ‘Idol Breaker’.
(49) Mirat-i-Masudi is a biography of Sayyid Salar Masud Ghazi whose tomb at Bahraich (Uttar Pradesh) occupies the site of a Sun Temple. It was written by Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Chishti in the reign of Jahangir (1605-1628). He drew his main material from Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi by Mulla Muhammad Ghaznavi, a contemporary of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030). Salar Masud, according to this account, was the son of Sitr Mualla’, a sister of Sultan Mahmud, married to his general, Salar Sahu. Salar Masud was born when the couple was staying in Ajmer. He is famous among the Muslims as Ghazi Miyan, Bala Miyan (revered boy) and Hathila Pir (the obstinate saint). There are many stories current regarding how he led or sent many expeditions against the Hindu Kafirs in all direction from his headquarters at Satrakh in the Barabanki District of Uttar Pradesh. He is supposed to have defeated many Rajas, plundered many towns, and destroyed many temples, particularly in Awadh. Many tombs all over Awadh and neighbouring areas are reputed to be the graves of his Ghazis (veterans) who became Shahids (martys) in a prolonged Jihad (holy war) directed by him. He was finally caught and killed near Bahraich by a league of Hindu Rajas. Saiyyid Salar Masud Ghazi (CE 1013-1033)
Somnath (Gujarat) “It happened that Mahmud had long been planning an expedition into Bhardana, and Gujarat, to destroy the idol temple of Somnat, a place of great sanctity to all Hindus. So as soon as he had returned to Ghazni from his Khurasan business, he issued a farman to the General of the army, ordering him to leave a confidential officer in charge of the fort of Kabuliz, and himself to join the court with his son Salar Masud…the Sultan shortly after reached Ghazni, and laid down the image of Somnat at the threshold of the Mosque of Ghazni, so that the Musulmans might tread upon the breast of the idol on their way to and from their devotions. As soon as the unbelievers heard of this, they sent an embassy to Khwaja Hasan Maimandi, stating that the idol was of stone and useless to the Musulmans, and offered to give twice its weight in gold as a ransom, if it might be returned to them. Khwaja Hasan Maimandi represented to the Sultan that the unbelievers had offered twice the weight of the idol in gold, and had agreed to be subject to him. He added, that the best policy would be to take the gold and restore the image, thereby attaching the people to his Government. The Sultan yielded to the advice of the Khwaja, and the unbelievers paid the gold into the treasury. One day, when the Sultan was seated on his throne, the ambassadors of the unbelievers came, and humbly petitioned thus: ‘Oh, Lord of the world! we have paid the gold to your Government in ransom, but have not yet received our purchase, the idol Somnat.’ The Sultan was wroth at their words, and, falling into reflection, broke up the assembly and retired, with his dear Salar Masud, into his private apartments. He then asked his opinion as to whether the image ought to be restored, or not? Salar Masud, who was perfect in goodness, said quickly, ‘In the day of the resurrection, when the Almighty shall call for azar, the idol-destroyer, and Mahmud, the idol-seller, Sire! what will you say?’ This speech deeply affected the Sultan, he was full of grief, and answered, ‘I have given my word; it will be a breach of promise.’ Salar Masud begged him to make over the idol to him, and tell the unbelievers to get it from him. The Sultan agreed; and Salar Masud took it to his house, and, breaking off its nose and ears, ground them to powder. When Khwaja Hasan introduced the unbelievers, and asked the Sultan to give orders to restore the image to them, his majesty replied that Salar Masud had carried it off to his house, and that he might send them to get it from him. Khwaja Hasan, bowing his head, repeated these words in Arabic, ‘No easy matter is it to recover anything which has fallen into the hands of a lion.’ He then told the unbelievers that the idol was with Salar Masud, and that they were at liberty to go and fetch it. So they went to Masud’s door and demanded their god. That prince commanded Malik Nekbakht to treat them courteously, and make them be seated; then to mix the dust of the nose and ears of the idol with sandal and the lime eaten with betel-nut, and present it to them. The unbelievers were delighted, and smeared themselves with sandal, and ate the betel-leaf. After a while they asked for the idol, when Salar Masud said he had given it to them. They inquired, with astonishment, what he meant by saying that they had received the idol? And Malik Nekbakht explained that it was mixed with the sandal and betel-lime. Some began to vomit, while others went weeping and lamenting to Khwaja Hasan Maimandi and told him what had occurred…Afterwards the image of Somnat was divided into four parts, as is described in the Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi. Mahmud’s first exploit is said to have been conquering the Hindu rebels, destroying the forts and the idol temples of the Rai Ajipal (Jaipal), and subduing the country of India. His second, the expedition into Harradawa and Guzerat, the carrying off the idol of Somnat, and dividing it into four pieces, one of which he is reported to have placed on the threshold of the Imperial Palace, while he sent two others to Mecca and Medina respectively. Both these exploits were performed at the suggestion, and by the advice, of the General and Salar Masud; but India was conquered by the efforts of Salar Masud alone, and the idol of Somnat was broken in pieces by his sold advice, as has been related. Salar Sahu was Sultan of the army and General of the forces in Iran.
Awadh (Uttar Pradesh) “…Masud hunted through the country around Bahraich, and whenever he passed by the idol temple of Suraj-kund, he was wont to say that he wanted that piece of ground for a dwelling-place. This Suraj-kund was a sacred shrine of all the unbelievers of India. They had carved an image of the sun in stone on the banks of the tank there. This image they called Balarukh, and through its fame Bahraich had attained its flourishing condition. When there was an eclipse of the sun, the unbelievers would come from east and west to worship it, and every Sunday the heathen of Bahraich and its environs, male and female, used to assemble in thousands to rub their heads under that stone, and do it reverence as an object of peculiar sanctity. Masud was distressed at this idolatry, and often said that, with God’s will and assistance, he would destroy that mine of unbelief, and set up a chamber for the worship of the Nourisher of the Universe in its place, rooting out unbelief from those parts…Meanwhile, the Rai Sahar Deo and Har Deo, with several other chiefs, who had kept their troops in reserve, seeing that the army of Islam was reduced to nothing, unitedly attacked the body-guard of the Prince. The few forces that remained to that loved one of the Lord of the Universe were ranged round him in the garden. The unbelievers, surrounding them in dense numbers, showered arrows upon them. It was then, on Sunday, the 14th of the month Rajab, in the aforesaid year 424 (14th June, 1033) as the time of evening prayer came on, that a chance arrow pierced the main artery in the arm of the Prince of the Faithful”[Here obviously the Islamic tactics have been used back upon them – deception, ambush with reserve]
(50) Badshah-Nama: The author, Abdul Hamid Lahori, was commissioned by Shah Jahan himself to compile this history which is a voluminous work covering the first twenty years of Shah Jahan’s reign. Lahori died in 1654. Nurud-Din Muhammad Jahangir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1605-1628)
“Perhaps these instances [Mewar, Kangra, and Ajmer] made a contemporary poet of his court sing his praises as the great Muslim emperor who converted temples into mosques.” Shihabud-Din Muhammad Shah Jahan Padshah Ghazi (CE 1628-1658)
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late reign many idol temples had been begun, but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares, and throughout all his dominions in every place, all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was now reported from the province of Allahabad that seventy-six temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.”[This is the same Shah Jahan who is to be representd in the Thaparite text books as only a doting father, loving husband, and grief stricken Taj-Mahal builder] Orchha (Madhya Pradesh) “At the Bundela capital the Islam-cherishing Emperor demolished the lofty and massive temple of Bir Singh Dev near his palace, and erected a mosque on its site.” Kashmir “Some temples in Kashmir were also sacrificed to the religious fury of the emperor. The Hindu temple at Ichchhabal was destroyed and converted into a mosque.”
(51) Shahjahan-Nama was written by Inayat Khan also known as Muhammad Tahir ashna. It comes down to AH 1068 (CE 1657-58), the year when Aurangzeb seized power and imprisoned Shah Jahan in the fort of Agra. Shihabud-Din Muhammad Shah Jahan Padshah Ghazi (CE 1628-1658)
Orchha (Madhya Pradesh) “When the environs of Orchha became the site of the royal standards, an ordinance was issued authorising the demolition of the idol temple, which Bir Singh Deo had erected at a great expense by the side of his private palace, and also the idols contained in it…”
(52) Mirat-i-alam: The author, Bakhtawar Khan, was an aristocrat of Aurangzeb’s court. He died in CE 1684. The history ascribed to him was really compiled by Muhammad Baqa of Saharanpur who gave the name of his friend as its author. Baqa was a prolific writer who was invited by Bakhtawar Khan to Aurangzeb’s court and given a respectable rank. He died in CE 1683.
Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
“Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and all the worshipping places of the infidels and great temples of these infamous people have been thrown down and destroyed in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task. His Majesty personally teaches the sacred kalima to many infidels with success… All the mosques in the empire are repaired at public expense. Imama, criers to the daily prayers, and readers of the khutba, have been appointed to each of them, so that a large sum of money has been and is still laid out in these disbursements…”[Thus public taxation from the Hindu majority also went towards the upkeep of Islamic shrines and maintenance of its theorlogians]
(53) Alamgir-Nama was written in CE 1688 by Mirza Muhammad Kazim, and contains a history of the first ten years of Aurangzeb’s reign. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Palamau (Bihar) “In 1661 Aurangzeb in his zeal to uphold the law of Islam sent orders to his Viceroy of Bihar, Daud Khan, to conquer Palamau. In the military operations that followed many temples were destroyed…” Koch Bihar (Bengal) “Towards the end of the same year when Mir Jumla made a war on the Raja of Kuch Bihar, the Mughals destroyed many temples during the course of, their operations. Idols were broken and some temples were converted into mosques.”
(54) Masir-i-alamgiri: The author, Saqa Mustad Khan, completed this history in CE 1710 at the behest of Inayatullah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb’s last secretary and favourite disciple in state policy and religion. The material used in this history of Aurangzeb’s reign came mostly from the State archives which were thrown open to him. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan, and especially at Benares, the Brahman misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “It was reported that, according to the Emperor’s command, his officers had demolished the temple of Viswanath at Kashi.” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “…During this month of Ramzan…the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as a knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet, issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished, and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum…On seeing this instance of the strength of the Emperor’s faith and the grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud Rajas were stifled and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall. The idols, large and small, set with costly jewels which had been set up in the temple were brought to Agra, and buried under the steps of the mosque of the Begam Sahib, in order to be continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.” Khandela (Rajasthan) “…Darab Khan who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and to demolish the great temple of the place, attacked the place on the 8th March/5th Safar, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. The temples of Khandela and Sanula and all other temples in the neighbourhood were demolished…” Jodhpur (Rajasthan) “On Sunday, the 25th May/24th Rabi. S., Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhanah) of the Court and under the steps of the Jama mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost” Udaipur (Rajasthan) “…Ruhullah Khan and Ekkataz Khan went to demolish the great temple in front of the Rana’s palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of life and property of the despised worshippers twenty machator Rajputs who were sitting in the temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was then himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave, Ikhlas. The temple was found empty. The hewers broke the images.On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680/2nd Muharram, the Emperor went to view lake Udaisagar, constructed by the Rana, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished…On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rana’s palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed. The Khan received the title of Bahadur Alamgirshahi” Amber (Rajasthan) “Abu Turab, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court on Tuesday, the 10th August/24th Rajab, and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples…” Bijapur (Karnataka) “…Hamiduddin Khan Bahadur who had gone to demolish a temple and build a mosque (in its place) in Bijapur, having excellently carried out his orders, came to Court and gained praise and the post of darogha of gusalkhanah, which brought him near the Emperor’s person…”
“…Through the auspices of his hearty endeavour, the Hanafi creed (an Orthodox Sunni branch) has gained such strength and currency in the great country of Hindustan as was never seen in the times of any of the preceding sovereigns. By one stroke of the pen, the Hindu clerks (writers) were dismissed from the public employment. Large numbers of the places of worship of the infidels and great temples of these wicked people have been thrown down and desolated…Arid on the sites of the temples lofty mosques have been built…”
(55) Akhbarat : reports from different provinces compiled in the reign of Aurangzeb. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “The Emperor learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shukoh, remarked, ‘In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. Remove the railing. By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) removed it.” Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, to destroy all temples around Ujjain… A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men.” Aurangabad (Maharashtra) “The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagi and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled flocked to the Censor’s house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagi free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar.” Pandharpur (Maharashatra) “The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men… ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple… It was done.” enroute Deccan “When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with the destruction to many temples on the way. On 21 May, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers was ordered to destroy all the temples on the route.” Lakheri “On 27 September, 1681, the emperor issued orders for the destruction of the temples at Lakheri.” Rasulpur “About this time, on 14 April, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district fojdar to demolish the temples at Rasulpur.” Sheogaon “Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693.”[Shankar sounds a Hindu name,a s Muslims are known to meticulously avoid Sanskrot words and names of Hindu gods – one of the continuing small class of Hindu collaborators perhaps] Ajmer (Rajasthan) “Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public adoration of idol worship there.” Wakenkhera “The temple of Wakenkhera in the fort was demolished on 2 March, 1705.” Bhagwant Garh (Rajasthan) “The newswriter of Ranthambore reported the destruction of a temple in Parganah Bhagwant Garh. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto.” Malpura (Rajasthan) “Royal orders for the destruction of temples in Malpura Toda were received and the officers were assigned for this work.”
(56) Fathiyya-i-Ibriyya is a diary of Mir Jumla’s campaigns in Kuch Bihar and Assam. “By looting,” writes Jadunath Sarkar, “the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mir Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon.” Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Koch Bihar (Bengal) “Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway… In six days the Mughal army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the Muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by demolishing the principal temple…”
(57) Kalimat-i-Tayyibat is a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by Inayatullah in CE 1719 and covers the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb’s reign. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Somnath (Gujarat) “The temple of Somnath was demolished early in my reign and idol worship (there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolaters have again taken to the worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building may be left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place.” Satara (Maharashtra) “The village of Sattara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of a hill, stood a temple with an image of Khande Rai. By God’s grace I demolished it, and forbade the temple dancers (muralis) to ply their shameful profession…” “The demolition of a temple is possible at any time, as it cannot walk away from its place.”[an observation that the Emperor missed was that long after he was gone similar logic could be applied to the mosques he had built on destroyed Hindu temples] Sirhind (Punjab) “In a small village in the sarkar of Sirhind, a Sikh temple was demolished and converted into a mosque. An imam was appointed who was subsequently killed.”[apparently Sikhs began to give back to Islam in measure equal to that they received]
(58) Ganj-i-Arshadi is a contemporary account of the destruction of Hindu temples at Varanasi in the reign of Aurangzeb: Mubiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shah Yasin, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, demolished the big temple. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasul to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. Next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid hid himself in a corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasul gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman resident of the neighbourhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded Muslims were taken to Shah Yasin who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighbourhood. The civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the royal displeasure on account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shah Yasin, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor’s permission. Shah Yasin, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones… The, doors (of temples) were forced open and the idols thrown down. The weavers and other Musalmans demolished about 500 temples. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further.”
(59) Kalimat-i-Aurangzeb is another compilation of letters and orders by Inayatullah covering the years 1703-06 of Aurangzeb’s reign. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Maharashtra “The houses of this country (Maharashtra) are exceedingly strong and built solely of stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the Government in the course of my marching do not get sufficient strength and power (i.e., time) to destroy and raze the temples of the infidels that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint an orthodox inspector (darogha) who may afterwards destroy them at leisure and dig up their foundations.”
(60) Muraqat-i-AbuI Hasan is a collection of records and documents compiled by Maulana Abul Hasan, one of Aurangzeb’s officers in Bengal and Orissa during CE 1655-67. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Bengal and Orissa “Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa:- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, has issued his august mandate for its destruction, and the destruction of all temples built anywhere in this province by the worthless infidels. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter you should destroy the above-mentioned temples. Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the Court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.”[Aurangzeb is supposed to be a strict Muslim, and not even in the favourite Mughal habit of taking opium. Also the letter is bing sent to an officer, and not meant for private fantasy. The Thaparite school would have a very hard time to suppress or discredit this important clue as to how ancient Hindu temples were “naturally” ruined]
(61) Futuhat-i-alamgiri : The author, Ishwardas Nagar, was a Brahman from Gujarat, born around CE 1654. Till the age of thirty he is in the service of the Chief Qazi of the empire under Aurangzeb. Later on, he took up a post under Shujat Khan, the governor of Gujarat, who appointed him amin in the pargana of Jodhpur. His history covers almost half a century of Aurangzeb’s reign, from 1657 to 1700. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 16M-1707)
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, he ordered the faujdar of the city, Abdul Nabi Khan, to raze to the ground every temple and to construct big mosques (over their demolished sites).” Udaipur (Rajasthan) “The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur and destroyed the gate of Dehbari, the palaces of Rana and the temples of Udaipur. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed.”[Brahmins in the employ of Muslims usually do not speak of Islamic violence on Hindus – and this is the sole reason given to justify the Thaparite claim that there was no trauma on the Hindu side. What should we do with this Brahmin?]
(62) Nau-Bahar-i-Murshid Quli-Khani: The author, azad al-Husaini, was a poor but learned immigrant from Persia, who presented this work in CE 1729 to Mirza Lutfullah surnamed Murshid Quli II who had arrived in Dhaka in 1728 as the Deputy Governor of Shujaud-Din, the Mughal Governor of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from 1727 to 1739. Nasirud-Din Muhammad Shah Bahadur Padshah Ghazi (CE 1719-1748)
Udaipur (Tripura) “Tipara is a country extremely strong… The Raja is proud of his strength and the practice of conch-blowing and idol-worship prevailed there…Murshid Quli II decided to conquer Tipara and put down idolatry there. He wrote to Sayyid Habibullah (the Commander-in-Chief), Md. Sadiq, Mir Hashim, Shaikh Sirajuddin Md., and Mahdi Beg who were then engaged in the Chittogong expedition, that… they should set out with their forces, observing every precaution, arrive close to the Kingdom of Tipara, and try to conquer it…The Tipara soldiers did not fail to fight regardless of death. The Muslim troops invested the fort from four sides. A severe battle was fought. The zamindar’s men lay dead in heaps. The victors entered the fort… The flag of Murshid Quli Khan was unfurled on the top of fort Udaipur. The Muslims raised the cry of Allahu-akbar and the Muslim credo and demolished the temple of the zamindar which had long been the seat of idol-worship. Making a level courtyard on the side of the temple, they read the Khutba in the Emperor’s name… The world-illuminating sun of the faith of Muhammad swept away the dark night of infidelity, and the bright day of Islam dawned.”
(63) Kanzul-Mahfuz : The name and position of the author is not known. It deals with the history of the Ummayids, the Ghaznivids and the Muslim dynasties of India. Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Agra (Uttar Pradesh) “In the city of Agra there was a large temple, in which there were numerous idols, adorned and embellished with precious jewels and valuable pearls. It was the custom of the infidels to resort to this temple from far and near several times in each year to worship the idols, and a certain fee to the Government was fixed upon each man, for which he obtained admittance. As there was a large congress of pilgrims, a very considerable amount was realized from them, and paid into the royal treasury. This practice had been observed to the end of the reign of the Emperor Shah Jahan, and in the commencement of Aurangzeb’s government; but when the latter was informed of it, he was exceedingly angry and abolished the custom. The greatest nobles of his court represented to him that a large sum was realized and paid into the public treasury, and that if it was abolished, a great reduction in the income of the state would take place. The Emperor observed, ‘What you say is right, but I have considered well on the subject, and have reflected on it deeply; but if you wish to augment the revenue, there is a better plan for attaining the object by exacting the jizya. By this means idolatry will be suppressed, the Muhammadan religion and the true faith will be honoured, our proper duty will be performed, the finances of the state will be increased, and the infidels will be disgraced.’ …This was highly approved by all the nobles; and the Emperor ordered all the golden and silver idols to be broken, and the temple destroyed…”
(64) Muntikhabul-Lubab: The author, Hashim Ali Khan, is better known by his designation of Khafi Khan and was the son of a historian in the employ of Aurangzeb. He was brought up in the court of Aurangzeb, made a diwan, but was ordered to stop writing history. He, however, continued writing in secret. Muhammad Shah was pleased when he saw what had been written and named him Khafi Khan. The work is also known as Tarikh-i-Khafi Khan. It starts with the invasion of Babur in CE 1519 and comes upto the fourteenth year of Bahadur Shah (CE 1719-1748). He refers to the Hindus as evil dogs, accursed wretches, etc. Shihabud-Din Muhammad Shah Jahan Padshah Ghazi (1628-1658) After the destruction of temples in Benares and Gujarat, “materials of some of the Hindu temples were used for building mosques.” Hargaon (Uttar Pradesh) “In CE 1630-31 (AH 1040) when Abdal, the Hindu chief of Hargaon in the province of Allahabad, rebelled, most of the temples in the state were either demolished or converted into mosques. Idols were burnt.” Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707)
Golkonda (Andhra Pradesh) “On the capture of Golkonda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as Censor of the city of Haiderabad with orders to put down infidel practices and (heretical) innovations and destroy the temples and build mosques on their sites.” Bijapur (Karnataka) “The fall and capture of Bijapur was similarly solemnized though here the destruction of temples was delayed for several years, probably till 1698.” Sikh Temples (Punjab) “Aurangzeb ordered the temples of the Sikhs to be destroyed and the guru’s agents (masands) for collecting the tithes and presents of the faithful to be expelled from the cities.” Shah alam Bahadur Shah Padshah Ghazi (CE 1707-1712)
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) “Ajit Singh… sent a message humbly asking that Khan Zaman and the KaziuI-Kuzat might come into Jodhpur, to rebuild the mosques, destroy idol-temples, enforce the provisions of the law about the summons to prayer and the killing of cows, to appoint magistrates and to commission officers to collect the jizya. His submission was graciously accepted, and his requests granted…”
(65) Mirat-i-Ahmadi is the most important Persian history of Gujarat. It starts with the Hindu Rajas of Anhilwada Patan and ends with the establishment of Maratha rule in the eighteenth century. It was written after the Third Battle of Panipat in CE 1761. The author, Ali Muhammad Khan, came to Gujarat from Burhanpur in 1708-09 and, when grown up, had access to official records. Sultan A1aud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Sidhpur (Gujarat) “…When Raja Sidhraj Jaisingh Solanki became the king, he extended his conquest as far as Malwa and Burhanpur etc. and laid foundation of lofty forts such as the forts of Broach and Dabhoi etc. He dug the tank of Sahastraling in Pattan, many others in Biramgam and at most places in Sorath. His reign is known as ‘Sang Bast’, the Age of Stone Buildings. He founded the city of Sidhpur and built the famous Rudramal Temple. It is related that when he intended to build Rudramal, he summoned astrologers to elect an auspicious hour for it. The astrologers said to him that some harm through heavenly revolution is presaged from Alauddin when his turn comes to the Saltanat of Dihli. The Raja relied on the statement of astrologers and entered into a pledge and pact with the said Sultan. The Sultan had said. ‘If I do not destroy it under terms of the pact, yet I will leave some religious vestiges.’ When, after some time, the turn of the Sultan came to the Saltanat of Delhi, he marched with his army to that side and left religious marks by constructing a masjid and a minar…” Somnath (Gujarat) “In the year 696, six hundred and ninety-six, he sent an army for the conquest of Gujarat under the command of Ulugh Khan who became famous among the Gujaratis as Alp Khan and Nusrat Khan Jalesri. These Khans subjected Naharwala that is, Pattan and the whole of that dominion to plunder and pillage… They broke the idol of Somnat which was installed again after Sultan Mahmud Ghaznawi and sent riches, treasure, elephants, women and daughters of Raja Karan to the Sultan at Delhi…”
Patan (Gujarat) “After conquest of Naharwala and expulsion of Raja Karan, Ulugh Khan occupied himself with the government. From that day, governors were appointed on this side on behalf of the Sultans of Dilhi. It is said that a lofty masjid called Masjid-i-Adinah (Friday Masjid) of marble stone which exists even today is built by him. It is popular among common folk that error is mostly committed in counting its many pillars. They relate that it was a temple which was converted into a masjid… Most of the relics and vestiges of magnificence and extension of the ancient prosperity of Pattan city are found in the shape of bricks and dried clay, which inform us about the truth of this statement, scattered nearly to a distance of three kurohs from the present place of habitation. Remnants of towers of the ancient fortifications seen at some places are a proof of repeated changes and vicissitudes in population due to passage of times. Most of the ancient relics gradually became extinct. Marble stones, at the end of the rule of rajas, were brought from Ajmer for building temples in such a quantity that more than which is dug out from the earth even now. All the marble stones utilized in the city of Ahmedabad were (brought) from that place…” Sultan Muzaffar Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1392-1410)
Somnath (Gujarat) “He made efforts at the proclamation of the word of God (confession of the Muslim faith). He led an army for plundering the temple of Somnat, that is, Pattan Dev. He spread Islam at most of the places…” Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1411-1443)
Sidhpur (Gujarat) “In the year 817, eight hundred and seventeen Hijri, he resolved to march with intent of jihad against the unbelievers of Girnar, a famous fort in Sorath. Raja Mandalik fought with him but was defeated and took refuge in the fort. It is narrated that even though that land (region) this time did not get complete brightness form the lamp of Islam, yet the Sultan subdued the fort of Junagadh situated near the foot of Girnar mountain. Most of the Zamindars of Sorath became submissive and obedient to him and agreed to pay tribute. After that, he demolished the temple of Sayyedpur in the month of Jamadi I of the year 818, eight hundred and eighteen Hijri… In the year 823, he attended to the establishment of administrative control over his dominion. He suppressed refractoriness wherever it was found. He demolished temples and constructed masjids in their places…” Sultan Mahmud Begah of Gujarat (CE 1458-1511)
Junagadh (Gujarat) “Rao Mandalik saw that his fate was sealed. He fled at night to the fort and gave him a battle. When the warfare continued for some time provisions in the fort became scarce. He requested the Sultan in all humility to save his life. The Sultan agreed on condition of his accepting Islam. Rao Mandalik came down from the fort, surrendered the fort’s keys to the Sultan. The Sultan offered recitation of the word of Unity to him to repeat. He instantly recited it. The fort was conquered in the year 877… In a few days, he populated a city which can be called Ahmedabad and named it Mustafabad. Rao Mandalik was given the title of Khan Jahan with a grant of jagir. He gave away as presents the gold idols brought from the temple of Rao Mandalik to all soldiers…” Sankhodhar (Gujarat) “This victory took place in the year 878, the island of Sankhodar was never conquered in any age by any king of the past. It is related that the Sultan performed two genuflexions of namaz out of thanksgiving at the time of demolishing the temple and breaking the idols of Jagat. He grew eloquent in recitation of praise out of gratitude to God. The Muslims raised calls to namaz (azan) by loud voice from top of temples… He built a masjid there.” Idar (Gujarat) “He marched towards Malwa, in the same month, from Muhammedabad for repulsion of unbelievers and defence of religious-minded Muslims. He halted at the town of Godhra for reinforcement of powerful forces when he received a report about insolence of the Raja of Idar. He, therefore, marched thither and ordered to demolish houses and temples of Idar. This event took place in the year 919…” Muhiyud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb alamgir Padshah Ghazi (CE 1658-1707)
Ahmadabad (Gujarat) “During the Subedari of religious-minded, noble prince, vestiges of the Temple of Chintaman situated on the side of Saraspur built by Satidas jeweller, were removed under the Prince’s order and a masjid was erected on its remains. It was named ‘Quwwat-ul-Islam’…”
Gujarat “As it has come to His Majesty’s knowledge that some inhabitants of the mahals appertaining to the province of Gujarat have (again) built the temples which had been demolished by imperial order before his accession… therefore His Majesty orders that… the formerly demolished and recently restored temples should be pulled down.” Vadnagar (Gujarat) “The Emperor ordered the destruction of the Hateshwar temple at Vadnagar, the special guardian of the Nagar Brahmans.” Malarina (Rajasthan) “Salih Bahadur was sent to pull down the temple of Malarna.” Sorath (Gujarat) “In CE 1696-97 (AH 1108) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.” Dwarka (Gujarat) “He stopped public worship at the Hindu temple of Dwarka.”
(66) Tarikh-i-Ibrahim Khan was composed by Nawab Ibrahim Khan and written down by Mulla Baksh in the town of Benares. It was finished in the year CE 1786. It is mainly a history of the Marathas. Ahmad Shah Abdali (CE 1747-1773)
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “Ahmad Shah Abdali in the year AH 1171 (CE 1757-58), came from the country of Kandahar to Hindastan, and on the 7th of Jumadal awwal of that year, had an interview with the Emperor Alamgir II, at the palace of Shah-Jahanabad… After an interval of a month, he set out to coerce Raja Suraj Mal Jat, who from a distant period, had extended his sway over the province of agra, as far as the environs of the city of Delhi. In three days he captured Balamgarh, situated at a distance of fifteen kos from Delhi… After causing a general massacre of the garrison he hastened towards Mathura, and having razed that ancient sanctuary of the Hindus to the ground, made all the idolaters fall a prey to his relentless sword…”
(67) Tarikh-i-Husain Shahi was written in CE 1797-98 by Sayyid Imamud-Din al-Husain.
Ahmad Shah Abdali (CE 1747-1773) Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “Idols were broken and kicked about like polo-balls by the Islamic heroes.”
(68) Riyazus-Salatin is a history of Bengal from the invasion of Bakhtiyar Khalji to CE 1788. The author, Ghulam Hussain Salim of Zaidpur in Awadh, had migrated to Bengal and become a Postmaster in Malda. He died in CE 1817. Ikhtiyarud-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji (CE 1202-1206)
Lakhnauti (Bengal) “Muhammad Bakhtiyar sweeping the town with the broom of devastation, completely demolished it, and making anew the city of Lakhnauti… his metropolis, ruled over Bengal… and strove to put in practice the ordinances of the Muhammadan religion… and for a period ruling over Bengal he engaged in demolishing the temples and building mosques.” Sulaiman Karrani of Bengal (CE 1563-1576)
Orissa “Kalapahar, by successive and numerous fightings, vanquished the Rajahs forces, and brought to his subjection the entire dominion of Odisah (Orissa), so much so that he carried off the Rani together with all household goods and chattels.[Kalapahar was Brahmin Hindu convert and here guves an important clue as to why Brahmins collaborated with Muslims if they did-loot and women] Notwithstanding all this, from fear of being killed, no one was bold to wake up this drunkard of the sleep of negligence, so that Kalapahar had his hands free. After completing the subjugation of the entire country, and investing the Fort of Barahbati, which was his (the Rajah’s) place of sleep, Kalapahar engaged in fighting… The firm Muhammadan religion and the enlightened laws of Islam were introduced into that country. Before this, the Musalman Sovereigns exercised no authority over this country. Of the miracles of Kalapahar, one was this, that wherever in that country, the sound of his drum reached, the hands and the feet, the ears and the noses of the idols, worshipped by the Hindus, fell off their stone-figures, so that even now stone-idols, with hands and feet broken, and noses and ears cut off, are lying at several places in that country. And the Hindus pursuing the false, from blindness of their hearts, with full sense and knowledge, devote themselves to their worship! “It is said at the time of return, Kalapahar left a drum in the jungle of Kaonjhar, which is lying in an upset state. No one there from fear of life dares to set it up; so it is related.”
(69) Asarus-Sanadid is a book on the antiquities of Delhi written by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, the famous founder of the Aligarh Muslim University. Its first edition was published in 1847, Qutbud-Din Aibak (CE 1192-1210) Iron Pillar: “…In our opinion this pillar was made in the ninth century before (the birth of) Lord Jesus… When Rai Pithora built a fort and an idol-house near this pillar, it stood in the courtyard of the idol-house. And when Qutbud-Din Aibak constructed a mosque after demolishing the idol-house, this pillar stood in the courtyard of the mosque…”[Even now any visitor not already steeped in Thaparism, can see the how the Hindu shrines and constructions have been turned over into the Islamic site – with signs of much more ancient constructions extending well into the National Park now surrounding the Meherauli site] Idol-house of Rai Pithora: “There was an idol-house near the fort of Rai Pithora. It was very famous… It was built along with the fort in 1200 Bikarmi [Vikrama SaMvat] corresponding to CE 1143 and AH 538. The building of this temple was very unusual, and the work done on it by stone-cutters is such that nothing better can be conceived. The beautiful carvings on every stone in it defy description… The eastern and northern portions of this idol-house have survived intact. The fact that the Iron Pillar, which belongs to the Vaishnava faith, was kept inside it, as also the fact that sculptures of Kirshan avatar and Mahadev and Ganesh and Hanuman were carved on its walls, leads us to believe that this temple belonged to the Vaishnava faith. Although all sculptures were mutilated in the times of Muslims, even so a close scrutiny can identify as to which sculpture was what. In our opinion there was a red-stone building in this idol-house, and it was demolished. For, this sort of old stones with sculptures carved on them are still found.” Quwwat al-Islam Masjid: “When Qutbud-Din, the commander-in-chief of Muizzud-Din Sam alias Shihabud-Din Ghuri, conquered Delhi in AH 587 corresponding to CE 1191 corresponding to 1248 Bikarmi, this idol-house (of Rai Pithora) was converted into a mosque. The idol was taken out of the temple. Some of the images sculptured on walls or doors or pillars were effaced completely, some were defaced. But the structure of the idol-house kept standing as before. Materials from twenty-seven temples, which were worth five crores and forty lakhs of Dilwals, were used in the mosque, and an inscription giving the date of conquest and his own name was installed on the eastern gate…When Malwah and Ujjain were conquered by Sultan Shamsud-Din in AH 631 corresponding to CE 1233, then the idol-house of Mahakal was demolished and its idols as well as the statue of Raja Bikramajit were brought to Delhi, they were strewn in front of the door of the mosque…”
“In books of history, this mosque has been described as Masjid-i-adinah and Jama Masjid Delhi, but Masjid Quwwat al-Islam is mentioned nowhere. It is not known as to when this name was adopted. Obviously, it seems that when this idol-house was captured, and the mosque constructed, it was named Quwwat al-Islam…” Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236)
Tomb of Sultan Ghori: Sayyid Ahmad Khan notices this tomb and describes it as exquisite. He says that it was built in AH 626 corresponding to CE 1228…But the editor, Khaleeq Anjum, comments in his introduction that “the dome of the mosque which is of marble has been re-used and has probably been obtained from some temple”, and that the domes on the four pavilions outside “are in Hindu style in their interior.” He provides greater details in his notes at the end of Sayyid Ahmad’s work. He writes:
“…This is the first Muslim tomb in North India, if we overlook some others. And it is the third historical Muslim monument in India after Quwwat al-Islam Masjid and Cehai Din Ka Jhonpra… Stones from Hindu temples have been used in this tomb also, as in the Quwwat al-Islam Masjid.”
“…In the middle of the corridor on the west there is a marble dome. A look at the dome leads to the conclusion that it has been brought from some temple. The pillars that have been raised in the western corridor are of marble and have been made in Greek style. It is clear that they belong to some other building…” Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Tughlaq (CE 1320-1325)
Tomb of Ghiyasud-Din Tughlaq: Similarly, Sayyid Ahmad notices this tomb in some detail but does not describe its Hindu features. Khaleeq Anjum, however, says in his introduction that “corridors inside this tomb have been constructed in the style of Hindu architecture, and the pillars as well as the beams in the corridors are fully of Hindu fashion.” Nasirud-Din Muhammad Humayun Padshah Ghazi (CE 1530-1540 and 1556)
Nili Chhatri: “At the foot of Salim Garh and on the bank of the Jamuna, there is a small Baradari near Nigambodh Ghat… It is known as Nili Chhatri because of the blue mosaic work on its dome. This Chhatri was built by Humayun Badshah in AH 939 corresponding to CE 1533 in order to have a view of the river. Hindus ascribe this Chhatri to the time of the PaNDus. Even if that is not true, this much is certain that the bricks with mosaic work which have been used in this Chhatri have been taken from some Hindu place because the bricks bear broken and mutilated images. On account of a derangement of the carvings, some have only the head left, while some others show only the torso. This derangement of carvings also goes to prove that these bricks have been placed here after being taken out from somewhere else. According to the Hindus, Raja Judhastar had performed a Jag [Yajna] at this Ghat. It is not inconceivable that in the Hindu era a Chhatri had been built at some spot on this Ghat in commemoration of the Jag, and that this Chhatri was built in the reign of Humayun after demolition of that (older) Chhatri…He repeats some of these comments while describing the Nigambodh Ghat…
(71) Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was written in the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh (CE 1847-1856) by Mirza Ali Jan, an eyewitness of and active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi in 1855 for recapturing the Hanuman Garhi temple at Ayodhya. The temple had been converted into a mosque in the reign of Aurangzeb but restored when Muslim power suffered an eclipse. The work was written immediately after the failure of the jihad and published in 1856. Zahirud-Din Muhammad Babur Padshah Ghazi (CE 1026-1030)
Ayodhya (Uttar Pradesh) “Wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Masud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries and inns, appointed muazzins, teachers, and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise, they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too, from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood the great temple (of Ramjanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, and where there was a small mandap (pavilion), there they erected a camp mosque (masjid-i-mukhtasar-i-qanati). The Janmasthan temple is the principal place of Rama’s incarnation, adjacent to which is the Sita ki Rasoi. Hence, what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in AH 923 (CE 1528) under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan! The mosque is still known far and wide as the Sita ki Rasoi mosque. And that temple is extant by its side (aur pahlu mein wah dair baqi hai).”
(72) Muraqqa-i-Khusrawi was completed in 1869 by Sheikh Azmat Ali Kakorwi Nami who was an eyewitness of the reign of Wajid Ali Shah. The work, known as Tarikh-i-Awadh also, was published for the first time in 1986 by the Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Committee, U.P., Lucknow, but the chapter dealing with the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi was left out. This chapter was published separately by Dr. Zaki Kakorawi from Lucknow in 1987. Zahirud-Din Muhammad Babur Padshah Ghazi (CE 1526-1530)
Ayodhya (Uttar Pradesh) “According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence (of kufr). Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in AH 923 under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple (butkhane Janmsthan mein) in Faizabad Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama’s father…A great mosque was built on the spot where Sita ki Rasoi is situated. During the regime of Babar, the Hindus had no guts to be a match for the Muslims. The mosque was built in AH 923 under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan… Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhi… The Bairagis effaced the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sita ki Rasoi is situated.”
(73) Waqiat-i-Mamalakat-i-Bijapur is an Urdu work compiled in 3 volumes by Bashirud-Din Ahmad in CE 1913-14 and published from Agra in 1915. The first two volumes are translations of Basatin al-Salatin, a general history of Bijapur written in 1811 by Muhammad Ibrahim Zubairi. The third volume contains details collected by Bashirud-Din Ahmad himself from the life-stories and sayings of Sufis. Sultan Ali adil Shah I of Bijapur (CE 1558-1580)
Mudgal (Karnataka) “And in Mudgal town located 75 miles south-east of Bijapur Ali I tore down two temples and replaced them with ashurkhanas, or houses used in the celebration of Shia festivals.”
Sometime ago, I was asked by a reader as to what were my concrete suggestions about the “Kashmir problem” given my insistence on winning the “cultural war” on Islam in the Valley and combine this with economic measures. Having been forced to trawl through my source material for the “How Islam came to India…” series, and my recent rather reluctant outburst about Article 370, I think it is time to spell out a bit more of what I think should be an appropriate strategy for Kashmir. All this is in the hope of a future leadership, out of th current upcoming generations, and who hopefully look beyond what their “political elders” are promoting as the “next generation of leadership” – for it is worthwhile to remember that any “future leader” the current established older generation of “party bosses” project is someone who has been able to reassure them that nothing in reality is going to change, and things will remain pretty much the same as the “elders” want to be. It is also most unlikely, that a really innovative leadership would be allowed to come up through the various party ranks, as the elders would feel threatened by such upcoming leadership – and most of the current crop of elders are the generational dregs and rotting leftovers of the great and brilliant minds that rose through the freedom struggle.
The younger generation of Indians should look beyond what the parties are offering to them as “young faces”, and stay away from the sycophancy and courtiership that hails these “leaders of the future”. If the people consciously refuse to accept such projections and treat such projection rather as a disqualification, then it would start the change of political ethics in the country.
For Jammu and Kashmir, the first thing that needs to go is Article 370. This is one outdated and temporary administrative compromise that has been purposefully kept alive beyond its intended lifetime, by a dishonest Congress government that ruled India at the centre for better part of the 20th century Republican India. The BJP cannot escape its role either as to why it also failed to push through the abrogation of this article when it was in power at the centre. The first Legislative step towards the eventual “solution” of the Kashmir problem is abrogation of Article 370. There could be spurious detractors both inside India and outside as well as to why the Indian government waited so long to take this rather minor legislative step. A terse statement that just because it was not done before does not mean that a lapse or an error has to be continued indefinitely, and that the parliament of India, the supreme legislative authority invested in the people of India does not have to answer to anyone as to why it decided to correct a n error committed in the past, should suffice. This will most likely almost immediately create a furore in the Valley and panic reaction in the pan-Islamic consolidation movement in the subcontinent. The government has to be fully prepared for such an eventuality militarily.
Since a referendum or plebiscite in a state that has formally acceded to one of the two dominions of India and Pakistan, is only pseudo-legally justified on the principle of right of self-determination of peoples, (for example even though not a princely state, the Eastern Bengal portion of Pakistan used this principle to break away from Pakistan), India cannot entirely avoid the question of a referendum or plebiscite since it was personally ensured by emperor Nehru I installed by the British on the throne of India. But this also opens the question of right of self determination for peoples of other regions which acceded to Pakistan
– such as the Balochs and the Hindu majority area (at the time of the partition) of Sind – for the right of self determination cannot only be applied exclusively to Kashmir. I see no difficulty in India facing the referendum on Kashmir after Article 370 is abrogated and due time such as 10 years given to ensure unbiased and free and fair referendums not under pressure from religious leaders, organizations, and armed Islamic militants. Due provision should be made also for the non-Muslim majority areas of Jammu and Ladakh to choose to be part of India even if the Muslim part wants to accede to Kashmir. I am sure a correct Indian leadership as chosen correctly by the Indian people will know how to guarantee that the results of the referendum reflect the pre-Islamic and essentially non-Islamic Indic cultural basis of the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir. However the plebiscite in a region that formally acceded to the Indian dominion should only be accepted if a plebiscite is also held in Balochistan and Sind.
Meanwhile, after the abrogation of article 370, the fruit producing areas of Kashmir should be encouraged to integrate with the economically deprived Jammu which has better potential to establish processing industries meant for export of valued added products. The economic future of Kashmir as well as most areas of Pakistan lies in being part of the Indian economy. It is only the ideological limitation of fanatical Islam as encouraged by petro-dollar that will try to disrupt this economic integration. Meanwhile, the most important cultural war that openly discusses and exposes into the public domain the insidious lies and misrepresentations or reconstructions of Indian cultural history, role of Islam on the subcontinent, and the pre-Islamic cultural roots of the people of the entire Indian subcontinent propagated by the Thaparite School of Indian History, should be taken up. The evidence and source is out there, even if the Thaparite establishment has done its best through Government methods of educational control such as the NCERT, to edit out anything that reveals the true nature of Islam and its role on the subcontinent. The younger generation is no longer restricted by the Thaparite school texts for sources of history, and they should look, find out, investigate, explore, and reason out on their own about all available sources and decide for themselves. I have tried to give as much as possible source quotations for readers to decide on this blog, and people of India should independently verify, read and analyze these sources, and not restrict themselves by what the Thaparite school wants them to think. Whatever and however the Islamic theologians try and resist, the role of Islam in India, and particularly in the context of Kashmir should be openly, unflinchingly discussed with surgical precision and detachment. What Islam has represented as the history and culture of the people of the Kashmir Valley, should be immediately challenged and the Islamic theologians defeated.
These are tasks that the current crop of “elders” of India will hesitate and procrastinate to carry out so that the whole issue ripens to a point where it becomes impossible to solve. Out of all the Presidents of the USA only a few remain in the public discourse for their politics centuries after they passed away – over the last 150 years only two – “Abe” Lincoln, and “FDR”, for they could risk their popularity, power bases, and almost everything that had propelled them to power, for the sake of long term future prosperity and benefit of their nation – and did not flinch from short term immense pain and danger. India perhaps can boast of only three, M.K.Gandhi, Bose, and Sardar – their errors only showed their humanity but their intentions and actions mark them out as the only statesmen India has produced in the modern period – (perhaps to a certain extent even Indira Gandhi but not emperor Nehru I!). These are points I hope some in the future generations of India will consider.
(39) Muntakhabut-Tawarikh :The author, Mulla Abdul Qadir Badauni son of Muluk Shah, was born at Badaun in CE 1540 or 1542. A scholar introduced to the court of Akbar by the father of Abul Fazl and Faizi he was employed by Akbar for translating Sanskrit classics into Persian, a work which he hated as also any liberal policies as regards the Hindus. His history, which is known as Tarikh-i-Badauni also, is the general history of India from the time of the Ghaznivids to the fortieth year of Akbar’s reign. Sultan Muhmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Somnath (Gujarat) “Once more he led his army against Somnat, which is a large city on the coast of the ocean, a place of worship of the Brahmans who worship a large idol. There are many golden idols there. Although certain historians have called this idol Manat, and say that it is the identical idol which Arab idolaters brought to the coast of Hindustan in the time of the Lord of the Missive (may the blessings and peace of God be upon him), this story has no foundation because the Brahmans of India firmly believe that this idol has been in that place since the time of Kishan, that is to say four thousand years and a fraction [this date of Krishna coincides with the most common calculations by non-Thaparites -either 2500 or 3000 BCE] The reason for this mistake must surely be the resemblance in name, and nothing else… The fort was taken and Mahmud broke the idol in fragments and sent it to Ghaznin, where it was placed at the door of the Jama Masjid and trodden under foot.” Thanesar (Haryana) “In the year AH 402 (CE 1011) he set out for Thanesar and Jaipal, the son of the former Jaipal, offered him a present of fifty elephants and much treasure. The Sultan, however, was not to be deterred from his purpose; so he refused to accept his present, and seeing Thanesar empty he sacked it and destroyed its idol temples, and took away to Ghaznin, the idol known as Chakarsum on account of which the Hindus had been ruined; and having placed it in his court, caused it to be trampled under foot by the people…” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “…From thence he went to Mathra which is a place of worship of the infidels and the birthplace of Kishan, the son of Basudev, whom the Hindus Worship as a divinity – where there are idol temples without number, and took it without any contest and razed it to the ground. Great wealth and booty fell into the hands of the Muslims, among the rest they broke up by the orders of the Sultan, a golden idol…” Ikhtiyarud-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji (CE 1202-1206) Navadvipa (Bengal)“…Muhammad Bakhtyar brought an army from Behar towards Lakhnauti and arrived at the town of Nudiya, with a small force; Nudiya is now in ruins. Rai Lakhmia (Lakhminia) the governor of that town… fled thence to Kamran, and property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims, and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded Mosques and Monasteries and schools and caused a metropolis to be built called by his own name, which now has the name of Gaur.[Gaur however was at least 600 years older and first came to prominence during the reign of Sashanka] Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210~1236)
Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “…And in the year AH 631 (CE 1233) having made an incursion in the direction of the province of Malwah and taken Bhilsa and also captured the city of Ujjain, and having destroyed the idol-temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikrmajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era… and brought certain other images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the door of the mosque of old Dihli and ordered the people to trample them under foot…” Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296)
Ranthambhor (Rajasthan)“…and in the same year the Sultan for the second time marched against Ranthambhor, and destroyed the country round it, and overthrew the idols and idol-temples, but returned without attempting to reduce the fort…” Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Patan and Somnath (Gujarat) “And in the year AH 698 (CE 1298) he appointed Ulugh Khan to the command of a powerful army, to proceed into the country of Gujarat… Ulugh Khan carried off an idol from Nahrwala… and took it to Dihli where he caused it to be trampled under foot by the populace; then he pursued Rai Karan as far as Somnat, and a second time laid waste the idol temple of Somnat, and building a mosque there retraced his steps.” Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Mandrail (Madhya Pradesh)“…in the year AH 910 (CE 1504), marched to reduce the fortress of Mandrayal, which he took without fighting from the Rajah of Mandrayal, who sued for peace; he also destroyed all the idol-temples and churches of the place…” Udit Nagar (Madhya Pradesh)“And in the year AH 912 (CE 1506),…he marched against the fortress of untgarh and laid siege to it, and many of his men joyfully embraced martyrdom, after that he took the fort and gave the infidels as food to the sword… He then cast down the idol-temples, and built there lofty mosques.” Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (CE 1517-1526)
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “…The fortress of Badalgarh, which lies below the fortress of Gwaliar, a very lofty structure, was taken from Rai Man Singh and fell into the hands of the Muslims, and a brazen animal which was worshipped by the Hindus also fell into their hands, and was sent by them to agra, whence it was sent by Sultan Ibrahim to Dihli, and was put over the city gate. The image was removed to Fathpur in the year AH 992 (CE 1584), ten years before the composition of this history, where it was seen by the author of this work. It was converted into gongs, and bells, and implements of all kinds.” Jalalud-Din Muhammad Akbar Padshah Ghazi (CE 1556-1605)
Siwalik (Uttar Pradesh) “… the Emperor gave the pargana of Lakhnou as jagir to Mahdi Qasim Khan… Husain Khan was exceedingly indignant with Mahdi Qasim Khan on account of this… After a time he left her in helplessness, and the daughter of Mahdi Qasim Beg at Khairabad with her brothers, and set off from Lakhnou with the intention of carrying on a religious war, and of breaking the idols and destroying the idol-temples. He had heard that the bricks of these were of silver and gold, and conceiving a desire for this and all the other abundant and unlimited treasures, of which he had heard a lying report, he set out by way of Oudh to the Siwalik mountains…” Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “…The temple of Nagarkot, which is outside the city, was taken at the very outset… On this occasion many mountaineers became food for the flashing sword. And that golden umbrella, which was erected on the top of the cupola of the temple, they riddled with arrows… And black cows, to the number of 200, to which they pay boundless respect, and actually worship, and present to the temple, which they look upon as an asylum, and let loose there, were killed by the Musulmans. And, while arrows and bullets were continually falling like drops of rain, through their zeal and excessive hatred of idolatry they filled their shoes full of blood and threw it on the doors and walls of the temple… the army of Husain Quli Khan was suffering great hardships. For these reasons he concluded a treaty with them… and having put all things straight he built the cupola of a lofty mosque over the gateway of Rajah Jai Chand.” Sultan Sulaiman Karrani of Bengal (CE 1563-1573)
Puri (Orissa)“In this year also Sulaiman Kirrani, ruler of Bengal, who gave himself the tide of Hazrati ala, and had conquered the city of Katak-u-Banaras, that mine of heathenism, and having made the stronghold of Jagannath into the home of Islam, held sway from Kamru to Orissa, attained the mercy of God…”
(40) Tarikh-i-Daudi : The author, Abdullah, says nothing about himself and does not give even his full name. As he mentions the name of Jahangir, it can be assumed that he wrote it at some time after CE 1605. He starts with the reign of Sultan Bahlul Lodi (CE 1451-1489) and ends with the reign of Daud Shah who was beheaded in CE 1575 by the order of Bairam Khan. Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Kurukshetra (Haryana) “It is also related of this prince, that before his accession, when a crowd of Hindus had assembled in immense numbers at Kurkhet, he wished to go to Thanesar for the purpose of putting them all to death…”[probably the traditional religious gathering at the place and a good method of exterminating of a lrage number of Hindus with relative ease] Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “He was so zealous a Musalman 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 heathenism, and turned other principal Hindu places of worship into caravansarais and colleges. Their stone images were given to the butchers to serve them as meat-weight, and all the Hindus in Mathura were strictly prohibited from shaving their heads and beards, and performing their ablutions…”
Dholpur (Madhya Pradesh) “In that year the Sultan sent Khawas Khan to take possession of the fort of Dhulpur. The Raja of that place advanced to give battle, and daily fighting took place. [the rare admissions of resistance of the part of Hindus in contrast to the apparent immediate overjoyed embracing of Islam]The instant His Majesty heard of the firm countenance shown by the rai of Dhulpur in opposing the royal army, he went there in person; but on his arrival near Dhulpur, the rai made up his mind to fly without fighting… He (Sikandar) offered up suitable thanksgivings for his success, and the royal troops spoiled and plundered in all directions, rooting up all the trees of the gardens which shaded Dhulpur to the distance of seven kos. Sultan Sikandar stayed there during one month, erected a mosque on the site of an idol-temple, and then set off towards agra…” Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)“…Sultan Sikandar passed the rainy season of that year at agra. After the rising of the star Canopus, he assembled an army, and set forth to take possession of Gwalior and territories belonging to it. In a short space of time he took most of the Gwalior district, and after building mosques in the places of idol-temples returned towards agra…” Narwar (Madhya Pradesh) “Sultan Sikandar, after the lapse of two years, in AH 913 (CE 1507) wrote a farman to Jalal Khan, the governor of Kalpi, directing him to take possession of the fort of Narwar… Jalal Khan Lodi, by the Sultan’s command, besieged Narwar, where Sultan Sikandar also joined him with great expedition. The siege of the fort was protracted for one year… Men were slain on both sides. After the time above mentioned, the defenders of the place were compelled, by the want of water and scarcity of grain, to ask for mercy, and they were allowed to go forth with their property; but the Sultan destroyed their idol-temples, and erected mosques on their sites. He then appointed stipends and pensions for the learned and the pious who dwelt at Narwar, and gave them dwellings there. He remained six months encamped below the fort.” Sher Shah Sur (CE 1538-1545)
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) “His attack on Maldev, Raja of Jodhpur, (was due) partly to his religious bigotry and a desire to convert the temples of the Hindus into mosques.”
(42) Zafarul-Walih Bi Muzaffar Wa alihi: The author, Abdullah Muhammad bin Umar al-Maqqi al-Asafi Ulugh-Khani, aka Hajjiud-Dabir. He arrived in India with his father in CE 1555. After 1573 he started living in Ahmadabad where Akbar had put his father in charge of many endowments, the income from which was sent to Mecca and Medina. After the death of his father he entered the service of another Amir, and finally went to Khandesh in 1595. He finished his history in 1605 but took some more years to revise it. Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236)
Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “…In 631 (1233), Shamsuddin marched to Malwa and conquered the city of Bailsan and its fort and demolished its famous temple. The historians have narrated that its citizens built the temple by digging its foundation and raising its walls one hundred cubits from the ground in 300 years. All the images are fixed with lead. The temple is called Gawajit (Vikramajit) Sultan of Ujjain Nagari. The history of the temple is a proof of what is said about its construction and demolition, that is, eleven hundred years. People of Hind are ignorant of history.”[rather Islamic historians are completely out of their minds] Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296)
Jhain (Rajasthan) “He marched from it to Ranthanbhor. He first encamped at Jhayan and conquered it. He demolished temples and broke idols. He killed, captured and pillaged…” Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “He permitted Alauddin for a religious war in Bhilastan. Jalaluddin had marched to Mandu. Alauddin influenced his uncle by the booty of the religious war. It was immense. [so Islamic religious war does not bring spiritual wealth but material ones]It contained a Nandi idol carved in yellow metal and equal in weight to an animal. Jalaluddin ordered it to be placed at the entrance to the Gate of Delhi famous as Badaun Gate…” Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Devagiri (Maharashtra) “…He routed Ramdev everywhere except the fort. The fort contained temples of gold and silver and images of the same metals. Besides, there were jewels of different varieties. He ordered them to be destroyed and collected its gold. Ruler of the fort was surprised at this action and his mind got confused. He sent an envoy for conclusion of peace on condition of sparing the temples from destruction which was agreed to…”
Somnath (Gujarat)“…Mahmud demolished Somnath in the year 416 (1122)… and carried its relics to Ghazni. After his death, unbelief returned to Naharwala as its residents took an idol and buried it on a side. There was publicity of return of Somnath. They took it out from its burial place. It was exhibited and fixed at a place where it was. Malek Ulugh Khan took it along with all the spoils to Delhi. They made it the threshold at its gate. This victory took place on Wednesday, 20th Jamadi I, 698 (1299)…It was kept by a Brahmin after being mutilated by Mahamud. It was Lamnat. They named it Somnath. They worshipped it out of misguidance from ancient times. They carried it to Delhi. It was placed at the entrance of the gate…” Mabar (Tamil Nadu)“…In 710 (1310) Kafur conquered the region of Mabar (Malabar) and Dahur Samand. Both these regions belonged to Bir Rai. He marched further to Sarandip (Ceylon) and Kafur broke the famous idol of Ram Ling Mahadev. It was wonderful that the swordsmen deserted the temple. The Brahmins assembled to fight with him at the time of his breaking the idol till they collected all broken parts and got displeased with swordsmen. Kafur marched further to Sira and demolished the temple of Jagannath…Kafur always gained one victory after another until he dominated over Jagannath and consigned it to fire. He…arrived at Delhi on 4th Jamadi II of the year 711 (1311). It was a day worth witnessing…. A good omen was drawn from his arrival with that booty for his sultan and for general Muslim public. [Note that the common Muslims are also motivated by a share of the loot to support Jihad]They believed that all these victories were facilitated by the blessings of Quth-uz-Zaman, Qiblat-ul-Asfiya Mawlana Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya and Qutb-uz-Zaman, Madar ul-Jamkin Mawalana Shaikh Nasiruddin and similarly the two Qutbs of people of the world and faith Mawlana Shaikh Ruknuddin and Mawlana Shaikh Alauddin, may God benefit us through them. During their life time, whatever they desired from their Lord, became the sunna (rule and regulation of the Prophet, may peace and benediction of God be on him). Every member of the house of the Alaiya Sultan was a disciple and spiritual follower of Mawalana Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya including the wazirs and amirs and persons of rank. His blessings were upon them all…[Nizamuddin and Nasiruddin are highly positioned in Thaparite history as peaceful and influential converters -but here the Islamic chronicler proudly associates them with slaughter and loot of non-Muslims] ” Sultan Mahmud Begha of Gujarat (CE 1485-1511)
Junagadh (Gujarat) “In AH 871 (CE 1466-67) the Sultan led an expedition to Karnal [Girnar]… He spread the story that he was out for hunting. Thereafter he suddenly attacked and his army also arrived. He took possession of those treasuries which were beyond estimation. Many people living in those valleys lost their lives. They had a famous idol there. When Mahmud decided to break it, many members of the Barawan clan gathered round it. All of them were slaughtered and the idol was broken…”[this strategy of declaring hunting or going on peaceful normal activities to spring surprise raids on commoners leading their daily lives and avoid taking on armed resistance can be called the Sunnah of Islam’s Prophet – look at my discussion page on Islam and non-Muslims – even the “Great” Akbar was no above using this] Dwarka (Gujarat) “In the same year of AH 877 (CE 1472-73) the Sultan made up his mind to destroy Jagat… Jagat is a very famous abode of infidelity and idolatry. Its idol is regarded as higher than all other idols in India and it is because of this idol that the place is called Dwarka. It is a very big nest of Brahmanas too. The idolaters come here from far off places and the great hardships they undergo in order to reach here is regarded by them as earnest worship… There is a fort nearby known as Bait…The Sultan mounted (his horse) in the morning. The people of Jagat also got this information. They shut themselves in the fort along with Rai Bhim. After a few days the Sultan entered Jagat and got its idols broken. He got its canopies pulled down and established the way of Islam there.”
(42) Zubdatut-Tawarikh: The author, Shaykh Narul-Haqq al-Mashriqi al-Dihlivi al-Bukhari, was the son of Abdul Haqq who wrote Tarikh-i Haqqi in CE 1596-97. Nurul-Haqq’s history is an enlarged edition of his father’s work. The history commences with the reign of Qutbud-Din Aibak and ends with the close of Akbar’s reign in CE 1605.
Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517) “In his time Hindu temples were razed to the ground, and neither name nor vestige of them was allowed to remain…”
Jalalud-Din Muhammad Akbar Padshah Ghazi (CE 1556-1605)
Mewar (Rajasthan) “When Mewar was invaded [CE 1600] many temples were demolished by the invading Mughal army [led by Prince Salim].”
(43) Tarikh-i-Firishta: The author, Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah Firishta, was born in Astrabad on the Caspian Sea and came to Bijapur in CE 1589. He lived under the patronage of Sultan Ibrahim adil Shah II of Bijapur where he died in 1611. He claims to have consulted most of the earlier histories in writing his Gulshan-i-Ibrahimi which became known as Tarikh-i-Firishta and completed in 1609. It contains sections on the independent sultanates of the Deccan, Gujarat, Malwa, Khandesh, Bengal, Multan, Sindh and Kashmir besides narrating the history of the kings of Ghazni, Lahore, Delhi and Agra. Amir Subuktigin of Ghazni (CE 977-997)
NWFP and Punjab “Even during the fifteen years of Alptigin’s reign Subuktigin….made frequent attacks upon India, and even to have penetrated as far as Sodra on the Chinab, where he demolished idols in celebration of Mahmud’s birth, which, as it occurred on the date of the prophet’s birth, Subuktigin was anxious that it should be illustrated by an event similar to the destruction of idols in the palace of the Persian king by an earthquake, on the day of the prophet’s birth.” Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “The king, in his zeal to propagate the faith, now marched against the Hindoos of Nagrakote, breaking down their idols and razing their temples. The fort, at that time denominated the Fort of Bheem, was closely invested by the Mahomedans, who had first laid waste the country around it with fire and sword.” Thanesar (Haryana) “In the year AH 402 (CE 1011), Mahmood resolved on the conquest of Tahnesur, in the kingdom of Hindoostan. It had reached the ears of the king that Tahnesur was held in the same veneration by idolaters, as Mecca by the faithful; that they had there set up a number of idols, the principal of which they called Jugsom, pretending that it had existed ever since the creation. Mahmood having reached Punjab, required, according to the subsisting treaty with Anundpal, that his army should not be molested on its march through his country…The Raja’s brother, with two thousand horse was also sent to meet the army, and to deliver the following message:- ‘My brother is the subject and tributary of the King, but he begs permission to acquaint his Majesty, that Tahnesur is the principal place of worship of the inhabitants of the country: that if it is required by the religion of Mahmood to subvert the religion of others, he has already acquitted himself of that duty, in the destruction of the temple of Nagrakote. But if he should be pleased to alter his resolution regarding Tahnesur, Anundpal promises that the amount of the revenues of that country shall be annually paid to Mahmood; that a sum shall also be paid to reimburse him for the expense of his expedition, besides which, on his own part he will present him with fifty elephants, and jewels to a considerable amount.’ Mahmood replied, ‘The religion of the faithful inculcates the following tenet: That in proportion as the tenets of the prophet are diffused, and his followers exert themselves in the subversion of idolatry, so shall be their reward in heaven; that, therefore, it behoved him, with the assistance of God, to root out the worship of idols from the face of all India. How then should he spare Tahnesur?This answer was communicated to the Raja of Dehly, who, resolving to oppose the invaders, sent messengers throughout Hindoostan to acquaint the other rajas that Mahmood, without provocation, was marching with a vast army to destroy Tahnesur, now under his immediate protection. He observed, that if a barrier was not expeditiously raised against this roaring torrent, the country of Hindoostan would be soon overwhelmed, and that it behoved them to unite their forces at Tahnesur, to avert the impending calamity. Mahmood having reached Tahnesur before the Hindoos had time to take measures for its defence, the city was plundered, the idols broken, and the idol Jugsom was sent to Ghazny to be trodden under foot…” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “Mahmood having refreshed his troops, and understanding that at some distance stood the rich city of Mutra, consecrated to Krishn-Vasdew, whom the Hindoos venerate as an emanation of God, directed his march thither and entering it with little opposition from the troops of the Raja of Delhy, to whom it belonged, gave it up to plunder. He broke down or burned all the idols, and amassed a vast quantity of gold and silver, of which the idols were mostly composed. He would have destroyed the temples also, but he found the labour would have been excessive; while some say that he was averted from his purpose by their admirable beauty. He certainly extravagantly extolled the magnificence of the buildings and city in a letter to the governor of Ghizny, in which the following passage occurs: ‘There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; most of them of marble, besides innumerable temples; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of deenars, nor could such another be constructed under a period of two centuries.’ The King tarried in Mutra 20 days; in which time the city suffered greatly from fire, beside the damage it sustained by being pillaged. At length he continued his march along the course of a stream on whose banks were seven strong fortifications, all of which fell in succession: there were also discovered some very ancient temples, which, according to the Hindoos, had existed for 4000 years. Having sacked these temples and forts, the troops were led against the fort of Munj…
The King, in the year AH 410 (CE 1019), caused an account of his exploits to be written and sent to the Caliph, who ordered it to be read to the people of Bagdad, making a great festival upon the occasion, expressive of his joy at the propagation of the faith.”
East of the Jumna (Uttar Pradesh) “In this year, that is AH 412, Sultan Mahmud learnt that the people of Hindustan had turned against the Raja of Qanauj… Nanda, the Raja of Kalinjar attacked Qanauj because Raja Kuwar (of Qanauj) had surrendered to Sultan Mahmud. As a result of this attack Raja Kuwar was killed. When Sultan Mahmud learnt it, he collected a large army… and started towards Hindustan with a view to take revenge upon Raja Nanda. As the army of Musalmans reached the Jumna, the son of Raja anand Pal… stood in the way of Mahmud. The river of Jumna was in spate at this time… and it became very difficult for the army to get across… But as chance would have it, eight royal guards of Mahmud showed courage and crossed the river… they attacked the army of the Hindus and dispersed it… the son of anand Pal ran away with his chiefs. All the eight royal guards… entered a city nearby and they plundered it to their heart’s content. They demolished the temples in that place…”[this type of story of a handful of Muslims overwhelming a whole garrison or a city are usually euphemisms for surprise attacks in the guise of “peaceloving” merchants, mendicants etc.. as is described many time in the military annals – deception and pretension is a key to Islamic warfare] Nardin (Punjab) “About this time the King learned that the inhabitants of two hilly tracts, denominated Kuriat and Nardein, continued the worship of idols and had not embraced the faith of Islam… Mahmood resolved to carry the war against these infidels, and accordingly marched towards their country… The Ghiznevide general, Ameer Ally, the son of Arslan Jazib, was now sent with a division of the army to reduce Nardein, which he accomplished, pillaging the country, and carrying away many of the people captives. In Nardein was a temple, which Ameer Ally destroyed, bringing from thence a stone on which were curious inscriptions, and which according to the Hindoos, must have been 40,000 years old…” Somnath (Gujarat) “The celebrated temple of Somnat, situated in the province of Guzerat, near the island of Dew, was in those times said to abound in riches, and was greatly frequented by devotees from all parts of Hindoostan… Mahmood marched from Ghizny in the month of Shaban AH 415 (CE Sept. 1024), with his army, accompanied by 30,000 of the youths of Toorkistan and the neighbouring countries, who followed him without pay, for the purpose of attacking this temple…Some historians affirm that the idol was brought from Mecca, where it stood before the time of the Prophet, but the Brahmins deny it, and say that it stood near the harbour of Dew since the time of Krishn, who was concealed in that place about 4000 years ago… Mahmood, taking the same precautions as before, by rapid marches reached Somnat without opposition. Here he saw a fortification on a narrow peninsula, washed on three sides by the sea, on the battlements of which appeared a vast host of people in arms… In the morning the Mahomedan troops advancing to the walls, began the assault…”
“The battle raged with great fury: victory was long doubtful, till two Indian princes, Brahman Dew and Dabishleem, with other reinforcements, joined their countrymen during the action, and inspired them with fresh courage. Mahmood at this moment perceiving his troops to waver, leaped from his horse, and, prostrating himself before God implored his assistance… At the same time he cheered his troops with such energy, that, ashamed to abandon their king, with whom they had so often fought and bled, they, with one accord, gave a loud shout and rushed forwards. In this charge the Moslems broke through the enemy’s line, and laid 5,000 Hindus dead at their feet… On approaching the temple, he saw a superb edifice built of hewn stone. Its lofty roof was supported by fifty-six pillars curiously carved and set with precious stones. In the centre of the hall was Somnat, a stone idol five yards in height, two of which were sunk in the ground. The King, approaching the image, raised his mace and struck off its nose. He ordered two pieces of the idol to be broken off and sent to Ghizny, that one might be thrown at the threshold of the public mosque, and the other at the court door of his own palace. These identical fragments are to this day (now 600 years ago) to be seen at Ghizny. Two more fragments were reserved to be sent to Mecca and Medina. It is a well authenticated fact, that when Mahmood was thus employed in destroying this idol, a crowd of Brahmins petitioned his attendants and offered a quantity of gold if the King would desist from further mutilation. His officers endeavoured to persuade him to accept of the money; for they said that breaking one idol would not do away with idolatry altogether; that, therefore, it could serve no purpose to destroy the image entirely; but that such a sum of money given in charity among true believers would be a meritorious act. The King acknowledged that there might be reason in what they said, but replied, that if he should consent to such a measure, his name would be handed down to posterity as ‘Mahmood the idol-seller’, whereas he was desirous of being known as ‘Mahmood the destroyer’: he therefore directed the troops to proceed in their work…The Caliph of Bagdad, being informed of the expedition of the King of Ghizny, wrote him a congratulatory letter, in which he styled him ‘The Guardian of the State, and of the Faith’; to his son, the Prince Ameer Musaood, he gave the title of ‘The Lustre of Empire, and the Ornament of Religion’; and to his second son, the Ameer Yoosoof, the appellation of ‘The Strength of the Arm of Fortune, and Establisher of Empires.’ He at the same time assured Mahmood, that to whomsoever he should bequeath the throne at his death, he himself would confirm and support the same.” Sultan Masud I of Ghazni (1030-1042)
Sonipat (Haryana) “In the year AH 427 (CE 1036)… he himself marched with an army to India, to reduce the fort of Hansy… Herein he found immense treasure, and having put the fort under the charge of a trusty officer, he marched towards the fort of Sonput. Depal Hurry, the governor of Sonput, abandoned the place, and fled into the woods; but having no time to carry off his treasure, it fell into the conqueror’s hands. Musaood having ordered all the temples to be razed to the ground, and the idols to be broken proceeded in pursuit of Depal Hurry…” Sultan Masud III of Ghazni (CE 1099-1151)
Uttar Pradesh “In his reign Hajib Toghantugeen, an officer of his government, proceeded in command of an army towards Hindoostan, and being appointed governor of Lahore, crossed the Ganges, and carried his conquests farther than any Mussulman had hitherto done, except the Emperor Mahmood. Like him he plundered many rich cities and temples of their wealth, and returned in triumph to Lahore, which now became in some measure the capital of the empire, for the Suljooks having deprived the house of Ghizny of most of its territory both in Eeran and Tooran, the royal family went to reside in India.” Sultan Muhammad Ghuri (CE 1175-1216)
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “Mahomed Ghoory, in the mean time returning from Ghizny, marched towards Kunowj, and engaged Jyechund Ray, the Prince of Kunowj and Benares… This prince led his forces into the field, between Chundwar and Etawa, where he sustained a signal defeat from the vanguard of the Ghiznevide army, led by Kootbood-Deen Eibuk, and lost the whole of his baggage and elephants… He marched from thence to Benares, where, having broken the idols in above 1000 temples, he purified and consecrated the latter to the worship of the true God…” Bihar “Mahomed Ghoory, following with the body of the army into the city of Benares, took possession of the country as far as the boundaries of Bengal, without opposition, and having destroyed all the idols, loaded four thousand camels with spoils.” Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236)
Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “After the reduction of Gualiar, the King marched his army towards Malwa, reduced the fort of Bhilsa, and took the city of Oojein, where he destroyed a magnificent temple dedicated to Mahakaly, formed upon the same plan with that of Somnat. This temple is said to have occupied three hundred years in building, and was surrounded by a wall one hundred cubits in height. The image of Vikramaditya, who had been formerly prince of this country, and so renowned, that the Hindoos have taken an era from his death, as also the image of Mahakaly, both of stone, with many other figures of brass, were found in the temple. These images the King caused to be conveyed to Dehly, and broken at the door of the great mosque.” Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296)
Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) “The King, after the decease of his son, marched his army towards Runtunbhore, to quell an insurrection in those parts…. The enemy retired into the fort of Runtunbhore, and the King reconnoitred the place, but, despairing of reducing it, marched towards Oojein, which he sacked. At the same time also, he broke down many of the temples of Malwa, and after plundering them of much wealth, returned to Runtunbhore.” Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “In the year AH 692 (CE 1293), the King marched against the Hindoos in the neighbourhood of Mando, and having devastated the country in that vicinity, returned to Dehly. In the mean time, Mullik Allood-Deen, the King’s nephew, governor of Kurra, requested permission to attack the Hindoos of Bhilsa, who infested his province. Having obtained leave, he marched in the same year to that place, which he subdued; and having pillaged the country, returned with much spoil, part of which was sent to the King. Among other things, there were two brazen idols which were thrown down before the Budaoon gate of Dehly, to be trodden under foot. ” Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Gujarat “In the beginning of AH 697 Alaud-Din sent Almas Beg and Nasrat Khan along with other chiefs of Dehli and the army of Sindh, for the conquest of Gujarat… Gujarat had a very famous idol which was not only of the same name as Somnat but was also equally prestigious. The Musalmans got hold of this idol and had it sent to Dehli so that it could be trampled upon…” Dwarasamudra (Karnataka) “In the year AH 710 (CE 1310), the King again sent Mullik Kafoor and Khwaja Hajy with a great army, to reduce Dwara Sumoodra and Maabir in the Deccan, where he heard there were temples very rich in gold and jewels… They found in the temple prodigious spoils, such as idols of gold, adorned with precious stones, and other rich effects, consecrated to Hindoo worship. On the sea-coast the conqueror built a small mosque, and ordered prayers to be read according to the Mahomedan faith, and the Khootba to be pronounced in the name of Allaood-Deen Khiljy. This mosque remains entire in our days at Sett Bund Rameswur, for the infidels, esteeming it a house consecrated to God, would not destroy it.” Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388)
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “From thence the King marched towards the mountains of Nagrakote… Some historians state, that Feroze, on this occasion, broke the idols of Nagrakote, and mixing the fragments with pieces of cow’s flesh, filled bags with them, and caused them to be tied round the necks of Bramins, who were then paraded through the camp. It is said, also, that he sent the image of Nowshaba to Mecca, to be thrown on the road, that it might be trodden under foot by the pilgrims…” Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Mandrail (Madhya Pradesh) “… in the year AH 910 (CE 1504), marched towards Mundril. Having taken that place, he destroyed the Hindoo temples, and caused mosques to be built in their stead.” Udit Nagar (Madhya Pradesh) “… the King proceeded in the year AH 912 (CE 1506) towards the fort of Hunwuntgur, despairing of reducing Gualiar. Hunwuntgur fell in a short time, and the Rajpoot garrison was put to the sword, the temples were destroyed, and mosques ordered to be built in their stead…” Narwar (Madhya Pradesh) “…In the following year (AH 913, CE 1506), the king marched against Nurwur, a strong fort in the district of Malwa, then in possession of the Hindoos. The Prince Julal Khan governor of Kalpy, was directed to advance and invest the place; and should the Hindoos resist, he was required to inform the King… The King remained for the space of six months at Nurwur, breaking down temples, and building mosques” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “…He was firmly attached to the Mahomedan religion, and made a point of destroying all Hindoo temples. In the city of Mutra he caused musjids and bazars to be built opposite the bathing-stairs leading to the river and ordered that no Hindoos should be allowed to bathe there. He forbade the barbers to shave the beards and beads of the inhabitants, in order to prevent the Hindoos following their usual practices at such pilgrimages…” Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (CE 1517-1526)
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “…The Dehly army, arriving before Gualiar, invested the place… After the siege had been carried on for some months, the army of Ibrahim Lody at length got possession of an outwork at the foot of the hill, on which stood the fort of Badilgur. They found in that place a brazen bull, which had been for a long time an object of worship, and sent it to Agra, from whence it was afterwards conveyed to Dehly, and thrown down before the Bagdad gate (AH 924, CE 1518).” Sultan Alaud-Din Mujahid Shah Bahmani (CE 1375-1378)
Vijayanagar (Karnataka) “Mujahid Shah, on this occasion, repaired mosques which had been built by the officers of Alla-ood-Deen Khiljy. He broke down many temples of the idolaters, and laid waste the country; after which he hastened to Beejanuggur… The King drove them before him, and gained the bank of a piece of water, which alone divided him from the citadel, where in the Ray resided. Near this spot was an eminence, on which stood a temple, covered with plates of gold and silver, set with jewels: it was much venerated by the Hindoos, and called, in the language of the country, Puttuk. The King, considering its destruction a religious obligation ascended the hill, and having razed the edifice, became possessed of the precious metals and jewels therein.” Sultan Ahmad Shah I Wali Bahmani (CE 1422-1435)
Vijayanagar (Karnataka) “Ahmud Shah, without waiting to besiege the Hindoo capital, overran the open country; and wherever he went put to death men, women, and children, without mercy, contrary to the compact made between his uncle and predecessor, Mahomed Shah, and the Rays of Beejanuggur. Whenever the number of slain amounted to twenty thousand, he halted three days, and made a festival celebration of the bloody event. He broke down, also, the idolatrous temples, and destroyed the colleges of the bramins. During these operations, a body of five thousand Hindoos, urged by desperation at the destruction of their religious buildings, and at the insults offered to their deities, united in taking an oath to sacrifice their lives in an attempt to kill the King, as the author of all their sufferings…”[naughty Hindus!] Kullum (Maharashtra) “In the year AH 829 (CE 1425), Ahmud Shah marched to reduce a rebellious zemindar of Mahoor… During this campaign, the King obtained possession of a diamond mine at Kullum, a place dependent on Gondwana, in which territory he razed many idolatrous temples, and erecting mosques on their sites, appropriated to each some tracts of land to maintain holy men, and to supply lamps and oil for religious purposes…” Sultan Alaud-Din Ahmad Shah II Bahmani (CE 1436-1458) “…He was averse from shedding human blood, though he destroyed many idolatrous temples, and erected mosques in their stead. He held conversation neither with Nazarenes nor with bramins; nor would he permit them to hold civil offices under his government.”[this indicates the presence of South Indian christian sects and being discriminated against in spite of being people of the book] Sultan Muhammad Shah II Bahmani (CE 1463-1482)
Kondapalli (Andhra Pradesh) “Mahomed Shah now sat down before Condapilly and Bhim Raj, after six months, being much distressed, sued for pardon; which being granted, at the intercession of some of the nobility, he surrendered the fort and town to the royal troops. The King having gone to view the fort, broke down an idolatrous temple, and killed some bramins, who officiated at it, with his own hands, as a point of religion. He then gave orders for a mosque to be erected on the foundation of the temple, and ascending a pulpit, repeated a few prayers, distributed alms, and commanded the Khootba to be read in his name. Khwaja Mahmood Gawan now represented, that as his Majesty had slain some infidels with his own hands, he might fairly assume the title of Ghazy, an appellation of which he was very proud. Mahmood Shah was the first of his race who had slain a bramin…” [note the conditions for getting the title of Gazi and how glorious is the act in Islam of slaying a Brahmin] Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) “…On his arrival at Condapilly, he was informed…, that at the distance of ten days’ journey was the temple of Kunchy the walls and roof of which were covered with plates of gold, and ornamented with precious stones; but that no Mahomedan monarch had as yet seen it, or even heard of its name. Mahomed Shah, accordingly, selected six thousand of his best cavalry, and leaving the rest of his army at Condapilly, proceeded by forced marches to Kunchy… Swarms of people, like bees, now issued from within, and ranged themselves under the walls to defend it. At length, the rest of the King’s force coming up, the temple was attacked and carried by storm, with great slaughter. An immense booty fell to the share of the victors, who took away nothing but gold, jewels, and silver, which were abundant…” Sultan Ali adil Shah I of Bijapur (CE 1557-1579)
Bankapur (Karnataka) “…Ally Adil Shah, at the persuasions of his minister, carried his arms against Bunkapoor…The King ordered a superb temple within it to be destroyed, and he himself laid the first stone of a mosque, which was built on the foundation, offering up prayers for his victory.… Sultan Quli Qutb Shah of Golconda (CE 1507-1543)
Dewarconda (Andhra Pradesh)“After his return the King proceeded to reduce the fortress of Dewurconda, strongly situated on the top of a hill, which after a long siege was taken, and the Hindoo palaces and temples, by the King’s orders were consumed to ashes, and mosques built in their stead.” Sultan Ibrahim Qutb Shah of Golconda (CE 1550-1580)
Adoni (Karnataka) “When… Ibrahim Kootb Shah, had settled the countries of the Hindoos on his southern frontier, and despatched his commander, Ameer Shah Meer, to oppose the armies of his Mahomedan neighbours, he vested the management of the affairs of his government in the hands of one Moorhary Row, a Marratta bramin, to whom was attached a body of ten thousand infantry, under the command of Mahomedan officers of rank, with permission to beat the nobut. Moorhary Row was in every respect the second person in the state, not even excepting the princes of the blood-royal. In the latter end of the late king’s reign, this unprincipled infidel proceeded with a force towards a famous temple near Adony, where he attacked the inhabitants, laid waste the country, and sacked it of its idols, made of gold and silver, and studded with rubies. He levied also four lacks of hoons (160,000l.) from the inhabitants. At sight of the idols the King was taken seriously ill, and never recovered. He died on Thursday the 21st of Rubbeeoos-Sany, AH 988 (CE June 2, 1580) CE…”[this is a strange story indeed – for it grants pwoers to idols not usually recognized by Islamic scholars. More interestingly this is a wonderful example of the tradition still exemplified by the Thaparite school of “upper caste” Hindus violently turning against their class of origin and collaborating or helping in the spread of Islam possibly motivated by economics and gaining political power] Sultan Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah of Golconda (CE 1580-1612)
Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh) “Moortuza Khan, with the main army of the Mahomedans, had pentrated as far as the city of Krupa, the most famous city of that country, wherein was a large temple. This edifice the Mahomedans destroyed as far as practicable, broke the idol, and sacked the city…” Kalahasti (Tamil Nadu) “The King determined to spare neither men nor money to carry on the war against the Hindoos: … Etibar Khan now proceeded to the town of Calistry, which he reached after a month’s march from Golconda. Here he destroyed the Hindoo idols, and ordered prayers to be read in the temples. These edifices may well he compared in magnificence with the buildings and paintings of China, with which they vie in beauty and workmanship. …” Sultan Muzaffar Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1392-1410)
Somnath (Gujarat) “…On the return of Moozuffur Khan to Guzerat, he learnt that in the western Puttun district the Ray of Jehrend, an idolater, refused allegiance to the Mahomedan authority. To this place Moozuffur Khan accordingly marched, and exacted tribute. He then proceeded to Somnat, where having destroyed all the Hindoo temples which he found standing, he built mosques in their stead; and leaving learned men for the propagation of the faith, and his own officers to govern the country, returned to Puttun in the year AH 798 (CE 1395).” Jhalawar (Rajasthan) “…he went towards Guzerat. On reaching Julwara, he destroyed the temples; and after exacting heavy contributions, and establishing his authority, he returned to Puttun…” Diu (Gujarat) “…In the following year AH 804 (CE 1402), he marched to Somnat, and after a bloody action, in which the Mahomedans were victorious, the Ray fled to Diu. Moozuffur Shah having arrived before Diu laid siege to it, but it opened its gates without offering resistance. The garrison was, however, nearly all cut to pieces, while the Ray, with the rest of the members of his court, were trod to death by elephants. One large temple in the town was razed to the ground, and a mosque built on its site; after which, leaving his own troops in the place, Moozuffur Shah returned to Puttun.” Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujrat (CE 1411-1443)
Sompur (Gujrat) “Ahmud Shah having a great curiosity to see the hill-fort of Girnal pursued the rebel in that direction… After a short time, the Raja, having consented to pay an annual tribute, made a large offering on the spot. Ahmud Shah left officers to collect the stipulated amount, and returned to Ahmadabad; on the road to which place he destroyed the temple of Somapoor, wherein were found many valuable jewels, and other property.” General order “In the year AH 817 (CE 1414), Mullik Tohfa, one of the Officers of the King’s government was ennobled by the title of Taj-ool-Moolk, and received a special commission to destroy all idolatrous temples, and establish the Mahomedan authority throughout Guzerat; a duty which he executed with such diligence, that the names of Mawass and Girass were hereafter unheard of in the whole kingdom.” enroute Nagaur (Rajasthan) “In the year AH 819 (CE 1416), Ahmud Shah marched against Nagoor, on the road to which place he plundered the country, and destroyed the temples…” Idar (Gujarat)“…In the year 832 he marched again to Idur; and on the sixth of Suffur, AH 832 (CE Nov. 14, 1428) carried by storm one of the principal forts in that province, wherein he built a magnificent mosque…” Sultan Mahmud BegDha of Gujarat (CE 1458-1511)
Girnar (Gujarat) “..in the year AH 872 (CE 1468), the King saw the holy Prophet (Mahomed) in a dream, who presented before him a magnificent banquet of the most delicate viands. This dream was interpreted by the wise men as a sign that he would soon accomplish a conquest by which he would obtain great treasures, which prediction was soon after verified in the capture of Girnal. In the year AH 873 (CE 1469), Mahmood Shah marched towards the country of Girnal, the capital of which bears the same name…The victorious army, without attacking the fort of Girnal, destroyed all the temples in the vicinity; and the King sending out foraging parties procured abundance of provisions for the camp…The King, being desirous that the tenets of Islam should be propagated throughout the country of Girnal, caused a city to be built, which he called Moostufabad, for the purpose of establishing an honourable residence for the venerable personages of the Mahomedan religion, deputed to disseminate its principles; …” Dwarka (Gujarat) “Mahmood Shah’s next effort was against the port of Jugut, with a view of making converts of the infidels, an object from which he had been hitherto deterred by the reports he received of the approaches to it…The King, after an arduous march, at length arrived before the fort of Jugut a place filled with infidels, misled by the infernal minded bramins… The army was employed in destroying the temple at Jugut, and in building a mosque in its stead…” Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat (CE 1511-1526)
Idar (Gujarat) “The King…On reaching Mahrasa he caused the whole of the Idur district to be laid waste. Bheem Ray took refuge in the Beesulnuggur mountains; but the garrison of Idur, consisting of only ten Rajpoots, defended it against the whole of the King’s army with obstinacy; they were, however, eventually put to death on the capture of the place; and the temples, palaces, and garden houses, were levelled with the dust…” Sultan Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (CE 1435-1469)
Kumbhalgadh (Rajasthan) “…Sooltan Mahmood now attacked one of the forts in the Koombulmere district, defended by Beny Ray, the deputy of Rana Koombho of Chittor. In front of the gateway was a large temple which commanded the lower works. This building was strongly fortified, and employed by the enemy as a magazine. Sooltan Mahmood, aware of its importance, determined to take possession of it at all hazards; and having stormed it in person, carried it, but not without heavy loss; after which, the fort fell into his hands, and many Rajpoots were put to death. The temple was now filled with wood, and being set on fire, cold water was thrown on the, stone images, which causing them to break, the pieces were given to the butchers of the camp, in order to be used as weights in selling meat. One large figure in particular, representing a ram, and formed of solid marble, being consumed, the Rajpoots were compelled to eat the calcined parts with pan, in order that it might be said that they were made to eat their gods…” Mandalgadh (Rajasthan) “On the 26th of Mohurrum, in the year AH 861 (CE Dec. 23, 1465), the King again proceeded to Mundulgur; and after a vigorous siege occupied the lower fort, wherein many Rajpoots were put to the sword, but the hill-fort still held out; to reduce which might have been a work of time but the reservoirs of water failing in consequence of the firing of the cannon, the garrison was obliged to capitulate, and Rana Koombho stipulated to pay ten lacks of tunkas… On the following day the King caused all the temples to be destroyed, and musjids to be erected in their stead, appointing the necessary officers of religion to perform daily worship…” enroute Kumbhalgadh (Rajasthan) “Sooltan Mahmood, in the year AH 863 (CE 1485), again marched against the Rajpoots….he detached Gheias-ood-Deen to lay waste the country of the Kolies and Bheels. In this excursion the Prince penetrated to the hills of Koombulmere, and on his return, having given the King some description of that fortress, Sooltan Mahmood resolved to march thither. On the next day he moved for that purpose, destroying all the temples on the road…” Sultan Mahmud Shah bin Ibrahim Sharqi of Jaunpur (CE 1440-1457)
Orissa “…Mahmood Shah Shurky, ..took the field again for the purpose of reducing some refractory zemindars in the district of Chunar, which place he sacked, and from thence proceeded into the province of Orissa, which he also reduced; and having destroyed the temples and collected large sums of money, returned to Joonpoor.” Muhammad bin Qasim (CE 712-715)
Debal (Sindh) “On the receipt of this letter, Hijaj obtained the consent of Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, to invade India, for the purpose of propagating the faith and at the same time deputed a chief of the name of Budmeen, with three hundred cavalry, to join Haroon in Mikran, who was directed to reinforce the party with one thousand good soldiers more to attack Deebul. Budmeen failed in his expedition, and lost his life in the first action. Hijaj, not deterred by this defeat, resolved to follow up the enterprise by another. In consequence, in the year AH 93 (CE 711) he deputed his cousin and son-in-law, Imad-ood-Deen Mahomed Kasim, the son of Akil Shukhfy, then only seventeen years of age, with six thousand soldiers, chiefly Assyrians, with the necessary implements for taking forts, to attack Deebul…On reaching this place, he made preparations to besiege it, but the approach was covered by a fortified temple, surrounded by strong wall, built of hewn stone and mortar, one hundred and twenty feet in height. After some time a bramin, belonging to the temple, being taken, and brought before Kasim, stated, that four thousand Rajpoots defended the place, in which were from two to three thousand bramins, with shorn heads, and that all his efforts would be vain; for the standard of the temple was sacred; and while it remained entire no profane foot dared to step beyond the threshold of the holy edifice. Mahomed Kasim having caused the catapults to be directed against the magic flag-staff, succeeded, on the third discharge, in striking the standard, and broke it down… Mahomed Kasim levelled the temple and its walls with the ground and circumcised the brahmins. The infidels highly resented this treatment, by invectives against him and the true faith. On which Mahomed Kasim caused every brahmin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death; the young women and children of both sexes were retained in bondage and the old women being released, were permitted to go whithersoever they chose.” Multan (Punjab) “…On reaching Mooltan, Mahomed Kasim also subdued that province; and himself occupying the city, he erected mosques on the site of the Hindoo temples.” Sultlan Jalalud-Din Mankbarni of Khwarizm (CE 1222-1231)
Thatta (Sindh) “…JulaloodDeen now occupied Tutta, destroyed all the temples, and built mosques in their stead; and on one occasion detached a force to Nehrwala (Puttun), on the border of Guzerat…” Sultan Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (CE 1389-1413)
Kashmir “In these days he promoted a bramin, by name Seeva Dew Bhut, to the office of prime minister, who embracing the Mahomedan faith, became such a persecutor of Hindoos that he induced Sikundur to issue orders proscribing the residence of any other than Mahomedans in Kashmeer; and he required that no man should wear the mark on his forehead, or any woman be permitted to burn with her husband’s corpse. Lastly, he insisted on all golden and silver images being broken and melted down, and the metal coined into money. Many of the bramins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the bramins, Sikundur ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down; among which was one dedicated to Maha Dew, in the district of Punjhuzara, which they were unable to destroy, in consequence of its foundation being below the surface of the neighbouring water. But the temple dedicated to Jug Dew was levelled with the ground; and on digging into its foundation the earth emitted volumes of fire and smoke which the infidels declared to be the emblem of the wrath of the Deity; but Sikundur, who witnessed the phenomenon, did not desist till the building was entirely razed to the ground, and its foundations dug up. In another place in Kashmeer was a temple built by Raja Bulnat, the destruction of which was attended with a remarkable incident. After it had been levelled, and the people were employed in digging the foundation, a copper-plate was discovered, on which was the following inscription:- ‘Raja Bulnat, having built this temple, was desirous of ascertaining from his astrologers how long it would last, and was informed by them, that after eleven hundred years, a king named Sikundur would destroy it, as well as the other temples in Kashmeer’…Having broken all the images in Kashmeer, he acquired the title of the Iconoclast, ‘Destroyer of Idols’…”[This could also be the everlasting story of “peaceful conversions” and “voluntary migration of stiff lipped upper castes” away from the Kashmir valley helped perhaps by an overzealous converted originally-Brahmin fanatic overdoing things in order to show his new masters how devoted he was to Islam] Sultan Fath Shah of Kashmir (CE 1485-1499 and 1505-1516)
Kashmir “On the imprisonment of Mahomed, Futteh Khan, assuming the reigns of government, and being formally crowned, was acknowledged King of Kashmeer in the year 902; and appointed Suffy and Runga Ray, the two officers who had lately made their escape, his ministers. About this time one Meer Shumsood-Deen, disciple of Shah Kasim Anwur, the son of Syud Mahomed Noorbukhsh arrived in Kashmeer from Irak. Futteh Khan made over to this holy personage all the confiscated lands which had lately fallen to the crown; and his disciples went forth destroying the temples of the idolaters, in which they met with the support of the government, so that no one dared to oppose them. In a short time many of the Kashmeeries, particularly those of the tribe of Chuk, became converts to the Noorbukhsh tenets. The persuasion of this sect was connected with that of the Sheeas; but many proselytes, who had not tasted of the cup of grace, after the death of Meer Shumsood-Deen, reverted to their idols…”
(45) Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri : The author is the fourth Mughal emperor, Jahangir (CE 1605-1628). He wrote it himself as his memoirs upto the thirteenth year of his reign, that is, CE 1617. After that his ill-health forced him to give up writing and the work was entrusted to Mutamad Khan who continued writing it in the name of the emperor upto the beginning of the nineteenth year of the reign. Muhammad Hadi continued the memoirs upto Jahangir’s death in 1628. Ajmer (Rajasthan) “…On the 7th azar I went to see and shoot on the tank of Pushkar, which is one of the established praying-places of the Hindus, with regard to the perfection of which they give (excellent) accounts that are incredible to any intelligence, and which is situated at a distance of three kos from Ajmir. For two or three days I shot waterfowl on that tank, and returned to Ajmir. Old and new temples which, in the language of the infidels, they call Deohara are to be seen around this tank. Among them Rana Shankar, who is the uncle of the rebel Amar, and in my kingdom is among the high nobles, had built a Deohara of great magnificence, on which 100,000 rupees had been spent. I went to see that temple. I found a form cut out of black stone, which from the neck above was in the shape of a pig’s head, and the rest of the body was like that of a man. The worthless religion of the Hindus is this, that once on a time for some particular object the Supreme Ruler thought it necessary to show himself in this shape; on this account they hold it dear and worship it. [Probably referring to a Baraha Avatar – the Hindu representation with uncanny similarities to Darwinian evolution through Dashavatar] I ordered them to break that hideous form and throw it into the tank. After looking at this building there appeared a white dome on the top of a hill, to which men were coming from all quarters. When I asked about this they said that a Jogi lived there, and when the simpletons come to see him he places in their hands a handful of flour, which they put into their mouths and imitate the cry of an animal which these fools have at some time injured, in order that by this act their sins may be blotted out. I ordered them to break down that place and turn the Jogi out of it, as well as to destroy the form of an idol there was in the dome…” Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “On the 24th of the same month I went to see the fort of Kangra, and gave an order that the Qazi, the Chief Justice (MirAdl), and other learned men of Islam should accompany me and carry out in the fort whatever was customary, according to the religion of Muhammad. Briefly, having traversed about one koss, I went up to the top of the fort, and by the grace of God, the call to prayer and the reading of the Khutba and the slaughter of a bullock which had not taken place from the commencement of the building of the fort till now, were carried out in my presence. I prostrated myself in thanksgiving for this great gift, which no king had hoped to receive, and ordered a lofty mosque to be built inside the fort…After going round the fort I went to see the temple of Durga, which is known as Bhawan. A world has here wandered in the desert of error. Setting aside the infidels whose custom is the worship of idols, crowds of the people of Islam, traversing long distances, bring their offerings and pray to the black stone (image)… Some maintain that this stone, which is now a place of worship for the vile infidels, is not the stone which was there originally, but that a body of the people of Islam came and carried off the original stone, and threw it into the bottom of the river, with the intent that no one could get at it. For a long time the tumult of the infidels and idol-worshippers had died away in the world, till a lying brahman hid a stone for his own ends, and going to the Raja of the time said: ‘I saw Durga in a dream, and she said to me: They have thrown me into a certain place: quickly go and take me up.’ The Raja, in the simplicity of his heart, and greedy for the offerings of gold that would come to him, accepted the tale of the brahman and sent a number of people with him, and brought that stone, and kept it in this place with honour, and started again the shop of error and misleading…” Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “I am here led to relate that at the city of Banaras a temple had been erected by Rajah Maun Singh, which cost him the sum of nearly thirty-six laks of five methkally ashrefies. The principle idol in this temple had on its head a tiara or cap, enriched with jewels to the amount of three laks ashrefies. He had placed in this temple moreover, as the associates and ministering servants of the principal idol, four other images of solid gold, each crowned with a tiara, in the like manner enriched with precious stones. It was the belief of these Jehennemites that a dead Hindu, provided when alive he had been a worshipper, when laid before this idol would be restored to life. As I could not possibly give credit to such a pretence, I employed a confidential person to ascertain the truth; and, as I justly supposed, the whole was detected to be an impudent imposture. Of this discovery I availed myself, and I made it my plea for throwing down the temple which was the scene of this imposture and on the spot, with the very same materials, I erected the great mosque, because the very name of Islam was proscribed at Banaras, and with God’s blessing it is my design, if I live, to fill it full with true believers.”
Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir signed the accession papers on October 26, 1947 under which the state acceded to India. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India was carried out following the common pattern as drafted for other states acceding to India or Pakistan. Nehru I the Great took it upon himself to force the Maharaja for handing over power to Sheikh Abdullah. On the insistence of the latter it was decided that the State Assembly will take the final decision on the accession. We do not know whether there was a special mutually obligatory relationship between Nehru I and Sk. Abdullah, (why did Nehru declare himslef a Muslim in culture?) or such a relationship was forged on prompting by the British and we can only speculate about how Nehru came to this course of action and why people like Sardar were unable to stop him – there seemed to be no such fatal vacillation and weakness in the case of Hyderabad. To deal with the situation arising until the Assembly took the final decision Article 370 was incorporated in the Constitution as a temporary measure. But even after ratification by the State Assembly of Kashmir’s accession to India, the Article was not abrogated.
The Parliament has the power to legislate laws for rest of the states in the country but Article 370 prevents the Government of India from enforcing any law connected with Jammu and Kashmir without the approval or concurrence of the State Government. Only defence, external affairs and communications fall in the central list. Thus the law prohibiting misuse of religious places could not be extended to Jammu and Kashmir and so Kashmir is the only region in India which can claim to be legally not secular. The Uttar Pradesh Government was dismissed under Article 356 of the constitution over non-prevention of the demolition of the so-called Babari Masjid, but Article 356 was never invoked in Kashmir in spite of well known and very old pre-Islamic temples and shrines being openly destroyed by sections of Kashmiri Muslims.The President has no right to suspend the Constitution in the State and only the National emergency act under Article 352 of the Constitution can be imposed on Jammu and Kashmir to a limited extent and the financial emergency under Article 360 cannot be enforced in Jammu and Kashmir.
Under part four of the Constituion of India there is provision and scope for one constitutional practice, one administrative structure and one economic pattern. But under Article 370 Jammu and Kashmir has its right under its own constition to choose its own policies irrespective of the rest of India. Kashmir has separate flag from India and two flags have to be raised on the Government buildings in the state. For hoisting freely the National flag, permission has to be obtained from the State because it is necessary to hoist the national flag with the state flag. By Article 370, citizens of Jammu and Kashmir are citizens of India but the citizens of the rest of India cannot be citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and do not have the right to have property or the right to vote in Jammu and Kashmir. If a girl belonging to Jammu and Kashmir marries a boy who is not a state subject, she loses all her rights in the state, while the same does not extend to a Kashmiri boy. The wealth tax cannot be imposed in the state. The Urban Land Act, 1976, which is in force in the entire country is not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.
Muslims from rest of India are given citizenship of Jammu and Kashmir but Hindus displaced during the partition, have been consistently refused citizenship according to some sources. The state Government did not accept the Anti-defection law adopted in the country and instead made several amendments. Here the decision on defection is not taken by the speaker of the Assembly but by the leader of the connected political party. The Governor has no right to vote in the Assembly if he/she is not a citizen of the state. The recommendations of the Wazir Commission for political reforms in Kashmir have been refused with the help of Article 370. Burning of the national flag is not a cognizable offence in Kashmir because the obligation enshrined in the Constitution to show respect to the tricolour, the national anthem and the national symbol is not valid in Kashmir. Under Article 370 the Indian Parliament cannot increase or reduce the borders of the state. The Union Government implements international agreements and accords under Article 253 of the Constitution but this Articel is superseded by Article 370 Jammu and Kashmir. One of the architects of Constitution of India, Dr.Ambedkar had apparently cautioned Nehru I that Article 370 can make full integration of the state with India difficult. But it is unlikely that Dr. Ambedkar’s warning will be heeded even now by his ideological and political descendants who are now dreaming of becoming a Prime Ministerial party using the very same complete appeasement and surrender to Islamic theological agenda.
On April 7, 1958 the Plebiscite Front of Sheikh Abdullah adopted a resolution specifically citing Article 370. and stated that : “Jammu and Kashmir state has not yet acceded to any of the two dominions, India and Pakistan. Therefore, it will not be right to call Pakistani invasion on Jammu and Kashmir as an attack on India.” Using Article 370 Kashmiri Muslim leaders have opposed any family planning and welfare schemes formulated by the Government of India, and the programme was implemented only in the Hindu majority Jammu. The former Chief Minister, G.M. Shah, had said that the aim of the Government family planning programme was to convert the Muslim majority into a minority. The former External Affairs Minister, M.C. Chagla, had told the United Nations that the Article was a temporary measure. The two former Chief Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and G.M. Sadiq, too wanted this Article to be repealed.
Articles 3 and 5 of the State Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir states that it will remain an “inseparable” part of India and the Parliament should immediately repeal article 370. For those Kashmiri Muslims who have declared themselves to be Pakistanis should be asked to apply for Pakistani citizenship, and if their application fails should be declared stateless persons and no longer citizens of India, and therefore no-longer citizens of any part of the dominions of the Republic of India.
Continuing with the Islamic chronicler’s claims of the destruction of the cultural icons of non-Muslims : if not true as claimed by the Thaparite School of Indian History, it then raises the obvious question as why all these opium or other drug-fuelled feverish narratives allways seem to find destruction of cultural icons of non-Muslims such an integral and glorifying aspect of Islam.
(12) Asarul-Bilad : The author, Zakariya bin Muhammad, was born in the town of Kazwin in Iran and became known as al-Kazwini. His work is a compilation from the writings of travellers like Istakhri and Ibn Hauqal. It was written between CE 1263 and 1275.
Sultan Muhmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Somnath (Gujarat) “Somnat-A celebrated city of India, is situated on the shores of the sea, and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnat… When the Sultan Yaminuddaula Mahmud bin Subuktigin went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnat, in the hope that Hindus would become Muhammadans. He arrived there in the middle of Zil Kada AH 416 (December CE 1025). The Indians made a desperate resistance… The number of slain exceeded 50,000…”
Muhammad bin Qasim (CE 712-715)
Multan (Punjab) “Muhammad Kasim, ascertaining that large offerings were made to the idol, and wishing to add to his resources by those means, left it uninjured, but in order to show his horror of Indian superstition, he attached a piece of cow’s flesh to its neck, by which he was able to gratify his avarice and malignity at the same time.”
(13) Nizamut-Tawarikh The author, Abu Said Abdullah bin Abul Hasan Ali Baizawi, was born at Baiza, a town near Shiraz in Iran. He became a Qazi, first at Shiraz and then at Tabriz, where he died in CE 1286. His history starts from the earliest period and comes down to the Mongol invasions.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) “Nasiru-d din [Subuktigin] died in the year AH 387 (CE 997) and the command of his troops descended to Mahmud by inheritance, and by confirmation of Nuh, son of Mansur… He demolished the Hindu temples and gave prevalence to the Muhammadan faith…”
(14) Miftahul-Futuh : The author, Amir Khusru, was born at Delhi in 1253. His father occupied high positions in the reigns of Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236) and his successors. His mother was the daughter of another dignitary under Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Balban (CE 1266-1286). He himself became a companion of Balban’s son, Prince Muhammad, and stayed at Multan till the prince was killed in a battle with the Mongols. Reputed to be the dearest disciple of Shykh Nizamud-Din Auliya‘, he became the lick-spittle of whoever came out victorious in the contest for the throne at Delhi. He became a court poet of Balban’s successor, Sultan Kaiqubad (CE 1288-1290) and wrote his Qiranus Sadain in the Sultan’s praise in CE 1289. Next, he joined Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296) as a court poet after the latter murdered Kaiqubad. He wrote in 1291 the Miftahul-Futuh which describes Jalalud-Din’s victories.
Sultan Jalalud -Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296)
Jhain (Rajasthan) “The Sultan reached Jhain in the afternoon of the third day and stayed in the palace of the Raya… He greatly enjoyed his stay for some time. Coming out, he took a round of the gardens and temples. The idols he saw amazed him… Next day he got those idols of gold smashed with stones. The pillars of wood were burnt down by his order…Two idols were made of brass, one of which weighed nearly a thousand mans. He got both of them broken, and the pieces were distributed among his people so that they may throw them at the door of the Masjid on their return [to Delhi]…”
Another version of the same text is available in the translation by Elliot and Dowson:
“Three days after this, the king entered Jhain at midday and occupied the private apartment of the rai… He then visited the temples, which were ornamented with elaborate work in gold and silver. Next day he went again to the temples, and ordered their destruction, as well as of the fort, and set fire to the palace, and ‘thus made hell of paradise’… While the soldiers sought every opportunity of plundering, the Shah was engaged in burning the temples, and destroying the idols. There were two bronze idols of Brahma each of which weighed more than a thousand mans. These were broken into pieces and the fragments distributed amongst the officers, with orders to throw them down at the gates of the Masjid on their return.”
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “When he advanced from the capital of Karra, the Hindus, in alarm, descended into the earth like ants. He departed towards the garden of Behar to dye that soil with blood as red as tulip. He cleared the road to Ujjain of vile wretches, and created consternation in Bhilsan. When he effected his conquests in that country, he drew out of the river the idols which had been concealed in it.”
(15) Khazainul-Futuh another work by Amir Khusru who wrote it in praise of Alaud-Din Khalji when the latter became the Sultan after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji. Khusru was among the foremost notables who welcomed Alaud-Din when the latter reached Delhi with the head of the late king held aloft on the point of a spear. He completed this history in CE 1311. It is famous for its flowery language and figures of speech.
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Delhi “He started his building programme with the Jami Hazrat mosque… Thereafter he decided to build a second minar opposite to the lofty minar of the Jami Masjid, which minar is unparalleled in the world… He ordered the circumference of the new minar to be double that of the old one. People were sent out in all directions in search of stones…Some others proved sharper than steel in breaking the temples of the infidels. Wherever these temples were bent in prayers, they were made to do prostration.”
Somnath (Gujarat) “On Wednesday, the 20th of Jamadi-ul Awwal in AH 698 (23 February, 1299), the Sultan sent an order to the manager of the armed forces for despatching the army of Islam to Gujarat so that the temple of Somnat on its shore could be destroyed…When the royal army reached that province, it won a victory after great slaughter. Thereafter the Khan-i-azam went with his army to the sea-shore and besieged Somnat which was a place of worship for the Hindus. The army of Islam broke the idols and the biggest idol was sent to the court of the Sultan.”
Professor Mohammed Habib’s translation provides a fuller version. It reads: “So the temple of Somnath was made to bow towards the Holy Mecca; and as the temple lowered its head and jumped into the sea, you may say that the building first said its prayers and then had a bath… It seemed as if the tongue of the Imperial sword explained the meaning of the text: ‘So he (Abraham) broke them (the idols) into pieces except the chief of them, that haply they may return to it.’ Such a pagan country, the Mecca of the infidels, now became the Medina of Islam. The followers of Abraham now acted as guides in place of the Brahman leaders. The robust-hearted true believers rigorously broke all idols and temples wherever they found them. Owing to the war, ‘takbir,’ and ‘shahadat’ was heard on every side; even the idols by their breaking affirmed the existence of God. In this ancient land of infidelity the call to prayers rose so high that it was heard in Baghdad and Madain (Ctesiphon) while the ‘Ala’ proclamation (Khutba) resounded in the dome of Abraham and over the water of Zamzam… The sword of Islam purified the land as the Sun purifies the earth.”
Jhain (Rajasthan) “On Tuesday, the 3rd of Ziqad in AH 700 (10 July, 1301), the strong fort [of Ranthambhor] was conquered. Jhain which was the abode of the infidels, became a new city for Musalmans. The temple of Bahirdev was the first to be destroyed. Subsequently, all other abodes of idolatry were destroyed. Many strong temples which would have remained unshaken even by the trumpet blown on the Day of Judgment, were levelled with the ground when swept by the wind of Islam.”
Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) “…the tents around the fort were pitched together so closely that the head of a needle could not go between them… Orders were issued that every man should erect behind his own tent a kathgar, that is wooden defence. The trees were cut with axes and felled, notwithstanding their groans; and the Hindus, who worship trees, could not at that time come to the rescue of their idols, so that every cursed tree which was in that capital of idolatry was cut down to the roots…“During the attack, the catapults were busily plied on both sides… ‘Praise be to God for his exaltation of the religion of Muhammad. It is not to be doubted that stones are worshipped by Gabrs, but as the stones did no service to them, they only bore to heaven the futility of that worship, and at the same time prostrated their devotees upon earth’
Deccan and South India “The tongue of the sword of the Khalifa of the time, which is the tongue of the flame of Islam, has imparted light to the entire darkness of Hindustan by the illumination of its guidance… and on the right hand and on the left hand the army has conquered from sea to sea, and several capitals of the gods of the Hindus in which Satanism had prevailed since the time of the Jinns, have been demolished. All these impurities of infidelity have been cleansed by the Sultan’s destruction of idol temples, beginning with his first expedition against Deogir, so that the flames of the light of the law illumine all these unholy countries, and places for the criers to prayers are exalted on high, and prayers are read in mosques. God be praised!”
Chidambaram (Tamil Nadu) “After returning to Birdhul, he again pursued the Raja to Kandur… The Rai again escaped him, and he ordered a general massacre at Kandur. It was then ascertained that he had fled to Jalkota… There the Malik closely pursued him, but he had again escaped to the jungles, which the Malik found himself unable to penetrate, and he therefore returned to Kandur… Here he heard that in Brahmastpuri there was a golden idol, round which many elephants wore stabled. The Malik started on a night expedition against this place, and in the morning seized no less then two hundred and fifty elephants. He then determined on razing the beautiful temple to the ground – ‘you might say that it was the Paradise of Shaddad which, after being lost, those hellites had found, and that it was the golden Lanka of Ram,’ – ‘the roof was covered with rubies and emeralds’, – ‘in short, it was the holy place of the Hindus, which the Malik dug up from its foundations with the greatest care… and heads of the Brahmans and idolaters danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet,’ and blood flowed in torrents. ‘The stone idol called Ling Mahadeo which had been a long time established at that place and on which the women of the infidels rubbed their vaginas for [sexual] satisfaction, these, up to this time, the kick of the horse of Islam had not attempted to break.’[The sexual fantasy of the “imaginative” Muslim mind takes a leap here – typical sizes of the “Lingams” could only be accommodated by female elephants perhaps] The Musalmans destroyed all the lings, ‘and Deo Narain fell down,… Much gold and valuable jewels fell into the hands of the Musalmans, who returned to the royal canopy, after executing their holy project, on the 13th of Zi-l Kada, AH 710 (April 1311 CE). They destroyed an the temples at Birdhul, and placed the plunder in the public treasury.”
Madura (Tamil Nadu) “.. they arrived at the city of Mathra (Madura), the dwelling place of the brother of the Rai Sundar Pandya. They found the city empty, for the Rai had fled with the Ranis, but had left two or three elephants in the temple of Jagnar (Jagganath). The elephants were captured and the temple burnt.”
(16) Dawal Rani-Khizr Khani: Amir Khusru wrote this epic in CE 1315. It is popularly known as ashiqa, love-story. Its main theme is the so-called “love” between Dawal Rani, the captured daughter of the last Hindu King of Gujarat, and Khizr Khan, the eldest son of Alaud-Din Khalji. It also describes Muslim history in India upto the reign of Alaud-Din Khalji, including Malik Kafur’s expedition to South India in CE 1310.
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Pattan (Tamil Nadu) “There was another rai in those parts, whose rule extended over sea and land, a Brahmin named Pandya Guru. He had many cities in his possession, and his capital was Fatan, where there was a temple with an idol in it laden with jewels… The rai, when the army of the Sultan arrived at Fatan, fled away, and what can an army do without its leader? The Musalmans in his service sought protection from the king’s army, and they were made happy with the kind of reception they met. [this is a possible fallout of employing Muslims in an army created to defend non-Muslims] 500 elephants were taken. They then struck the idol with an iron hatchet, and opened its head. Although it was the very Kibla of the accursed gabrs, it kissed the earth and filled the holy treasury.”
(17) Nuh Siphir is the fourth historical mathnavi which Amir Khusru wrote when he was 67 years old. It celebrates the reign of Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji. It consists of nine(nuh) siphirs (parts). In Siphir III, he says that the Hindus “worship…stones, beasts, plants and the sun, but they recognize that these things are creations of God and adore them simply because their forefathers did so.”
Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji (CE 1316-1320)
Warrangal (Andhra Pradesh) “They pursued the enemy to the gates and set everything on fire. They burnt down all those gardens and groves. That paradise of idol-worshippers became like hell. The fire-worshippers of Bud were in alarm and flocked round their idols…”
(18) Siyarul-Auliya was written by Sayyid Muhammad bin Mubarak bin Muhammad Alwi Kirmani known as Amir or Mir Khwurd. He was the grandson of an Iranian merchant who traded between Kirman in Iran and Lahore, and who became a disciple of Shykh Faridud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, the Sufi luminary of Ajodhan near Multan. His father was also a disciple of the same Sufi. The family travelled to Delhi after Shykh Farid’s death and became devoted to Shykh Nizamud-Din Auliya. Mir Khwurd was forced to migrate to Daulatabad by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq but allowed to return to Delhi after some time. It was then that he wrote this detailed biography of the Auliya and his disciples.
Sheikh Muin al-Din Chisti of Ajmer (d. CE 1236)
Ajmer (Rajasthan) “The other miracle is that before his arrival the whole of Hindustan was submerged by unbelief and idol-worship. Every haughty man in Hind pronounced himself to be Almighty God and considered himself as the partner of God. [with typical high intelligence of the Muslim bigot, this is the interpretation of the Advaita or Vedantic philosophies] All the people of India used to prostrate themselves before stones, idols, trees, animals, cows and cow-dung. Because of the darkness of unbelief over this land their hearts were locked and hardened. “All India was ignorant of orders of religion and law. All were ignorant of Allah and His Prophet. None had seen the Kaba. None had heard of the Greatness of Allah. “Because of his coming, the, Sun of real believers, the helper of religion, Muin al-din, the darkness of unbelief in this land was illumined by the light of Islam. “Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrab and mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of ‘Allahu Akbar’. “The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until the Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. [ note the unhesitating declaration of Sufis being associated with conversion by the sword].”
(19) Tarikh-i-Wassaf : The author, Abdullah ibn Fazlullah of Shiraz, is known by his literary name which was Wassaf, the panegyrist. The history he wrote is titled Tazjiyatul Amsar Wa Tajriyatul asar. But it is popularly known as Tarikh-i-Wassaf. The first four volumes of the work were published in CE 1300. Later on, the author added a fifth volume, bringing the history down to CE 1328. The work was dedicated to Sultan Uljaitu, the Mongol ruler of Iran.
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Somnath (Gujarat) “…In short, the Muhammadan army brought the country to utter ruin, and destroyed the lives of the inhabitants, and plundered the cities, and captured their offspring, so that many temples were deserted and the idols were broken and trodden under foot, the largest of which was one called Somnat, fixed upon stone, polished like a mirror of charming shape and admirable workmanship… Its head was adorned with a crown set with gold and rubies and pearls and other precious stones… and a necklace of large shining pearls, like the belt of Orion, depended from the shoulder towards the side of the body. The Muhammadan soldiers plundered all these jewels and rapidly set themselves to demolish the idol. The surviving infidels were deeply affected with grief, and they engaged ‘to pay a thousand pieces of gold’ as ransom for the idol, but they were indignantly rejected, and the idol was destroyed, and ‘its limbs, which were anointed with ambergris and perfumed, were cut off. The fragments were conveyed to Delhi, and the entrance of the Jami Masjid was paved with them, that people might remember and talk of this brilliant victory.’ Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds. Amin!”
(20) Tarikh-i-Guzida : The author, Hamdullah bin Abu Bakr bin Hamd bin Nasr Mustaufi of Kazwin in Iran, composed this work in CE 1329. He was secretary to Ghiyasud-Din as well as his father Rashiduddin, the ministers of Sultan Uljaitu.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “…He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus. He was victorious, and obtained much wealth, including about a hundred idols of gold and silver. One of the golden images, which weighed a million mishkals, the Sultan appropriated to the decoration of the Mosque of Ghazni, so that the ornaments of the doors were of gold instead of iron.”
(21) Masalikul Absar fi Mamalikul Amsar : The author, Shihabud-Din Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Yahya bin Fazlullah al-Umri, was born in CE 1301. He was educated at Damascus and Cairo. He is considered to be a great scholar of his time and author of many books. He occupied high positions in Syria and Egypt. This book of his is a large collection of history, geography and biographies. He himself never visited India about which he based his account on sources available to him. He died at Damascus in CE 1348.
Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq (CE 1325-1351) “The Sultan is not slack in jihad. He never lets go of his spear or bridle in pursuing jihad by land and sea routes. This is his main occupation which engages his eyes and ears. He has spent vast sums for the establishment of the faith and the spread of Islam in these lands, as a result of which the light of Islam has reached the inhabitants and the flash of the true faith brightened among them. Fire temples85 have been destroyed and the images and idols of Budd have been broken, and the lands have been freed from those who were not included in the darul Islam, that is, those who had refused to become zimmis. Islam has been spread by him in the far east and has reached the point of sunrise. In the words of Abu Nasr al-aini, he has carried the flags of the followers of Islam where they had never reached before and where no chapter or verse (of the Quran) had ever been recited. Thereafter he got mosques and places of worship erected, and music replaced by call to prayers (azan), and the incantations of fire-worshippers stopped by recitations of the Quran. He directed the people of Islam towards the citadels of the infidels and, by the grace of Allah, made them (the believers) inheritors of wealth and land and that country which they (the believers) had never trodden upon…He has achieved victory, supremacy, conquest of countries, destruction of the forts of the infidels, and exposure of magicians. He has destroyed idols by which the people of Hindustan were deceived in vain…”
(22) Futuhus-Salatin : The author whose full name is not known is famous by his surname of Isami. His forefathers had served the Sultans of Delhi since the days of Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236). He was born in CE 1311-12 and lived at Daulatabad (Devagiri) till 1351 when he finished this work at the age of forty. It covers the period from Mahamud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) to Muhammad bin Tughlaq (CE 1325-1351).
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Devagiri (Maharashtra) “Malik Naib [Kafur] reached there expeditiously and occupied the fort… He built mosques in places occupied by temples.”
(23) Rehala of Ibn Battuta : The full name of this book is Tuhfatun-nuzzar fi Gharaibul-amsar wa Ajaibul-afsar. The author was Sheikh Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Lawati at-Tanji al- Maruf be Ibn Battuta. He belonged to an Arab family which was settled in Spain since CE 1312. His grandfather and father enjoyed the reputation of scholars and theologians. He himself was a great scholar who travelled extensively and over many lands. He came to India in 1325 and visited many places – east, west, north and south – till he left in 1346. India during this period was ruled by Muhammad bin Tughlaq with whom Ibn Battuta came in close contact. He openly declares his extreme fondness for bedding Hindu girls from different parts of India. They were presented to him by the Sultan and other Muslim dignitaries during his sojourn in various places. He also married Muslim women wherever he stayed, and divorced them before his departure. He finished his book in 1355 after reaching Fez in Morocco where his family lived after migration from Spain.
Delhi “Near the eastern gate of the mosque lie two very big idols of copper connected together by stones. Every one who comes in and goes out of the mosque treads over them. On the site of this mosque was a bud khana that is an idol-house. After the conquest of Delhi it was turned into a mosque…”
Maldive Islands “Reliable men among the inhabitants of the islands, like the jurist (faqih) and teacher (muallim) Ali, the judge Abdullah – and others besides them – told me that the inhabitants of these islands were infidels… Subsequently a westerner named Abul Barakat the Berbar who knew the great Quran came to them… He stayed amongst them and God opened the heart of the king to Islam and he accepted it before the end of the month; and his wives, children and courtiers followed suit… They broke to pieces the idols and razed the idol-house to the ground. On this the islanders embraced Islam and sent missionaries to the rest of the islands, the inhabitants of which also became Muslims. The westerner stood in high regard with them, and they accepted his cult which was that of Imam Malik….”[These religious ecstasy claims have to be analyzed in the background of dependence of island societies on trade relations with the Muslim world which had taken over the Asian trade routes. We also do not have any independent non-Muslim version of the events as to how much of the conversion stemmed from immigration etc.]
(24) Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi : The author, Ziaud-Din Barani was born in AH 684 (CE 1285-86) at Baran, now known as Bulandshahar, in Uttar Pradesh. His ancestors, paternal as well as maternal, had occupied important positions in the reigns of Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Balban (CE 1266-1286) and the Khaljis. His uncle was a confidant of Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316). Barani became a friend of Amir Khusru and a disciple of Nizamud-Din Auliya, the renowned Chishti saint of Delhi. His prosperity continued in the reign of Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Tughlaq (CE 1320-1325) and he became a favourite of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq (CE 1325-1351). He completed this history in CE 1357. It covers a period of 82 years, from CE 1265 onwards. He wrote several other books among which Fatwa-i-Jahandari is famous for its tenets regarding how an Islamic state should be run. Barani’s ideal ruler was Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. He exhorted Muslim rulers to follow Mahmud’s example in their treatment of Hindus, for whom he often uses very foul language.
Sultan Jalalud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296)
Jhain (Rajasthan) “In the year AH 689 (CE 1290), the Sultan led an army to Rantambhor… He took… Jhain, destroyed the idol temples, and broke and burned the idols…”
Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “ Alaud-din at this time held the territory of Karra, and with the permission of the Sultan he marched to Bhailsan (Bhilsa). He captured some bronze idols which the Hindus worshipped and sent them on carts with a variety of rich booty as presents to the Sultan. The idols were laid before the Badaun gate for true believers to tread upon…”
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Somnath (Gujarat) “At the beginning of the third year of the reign, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan, with their amirs and generals, and a large army marched against Gujarat… All Gujarat became a prey to the invaders, and the idol, which after the victory of Sultan Mahmud and his destruction of (the idol) of Manat, the Brahmans had set up under the name of Somanat, for the worship of the Hindus, was carried to Delhi where it was laid for the people to tread upon…”
Mabar (Tamil Nadu) “……Malik Naib Kafur marched on to Mabar, which he also took. He destroyed the golden idol temple (but-khanah i-zarin) of Mabar, and the golden idols which for ages had been worshipped by the Hindus of that country. The fragments of the golden temple, and of the broken idols of gold and gilt became the rich spoil of the army…”
(25) Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi : The author, Shams Siraj Afif or Shamsud-Din bin Sirajud-Din, became a courtier of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq and undertook to complete the aforementioned history of Barani who had stopped at the sixth year of Firuz Shahs reign.
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388)
Puri (Orissa) “The Sultan left Banarasi with the intention of pursuing the Rai of Jajnagar, who had fled to an island in the river… the Sultan directed his attention to the Rai of Jajnagar, and entering the palace where he dwelt he found many fine buildings. It is reported that inside the Rai’s fort, there was a stone idol which the infidels called Jagannath, and to which they paid their devotions. Sultan Firoz, in emulation of Mahmud Subuktigin, having rooted up the idol, carried it away to Delhi where he placed it in an ignominious position…”
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “The idol, Jwalamukhi, much worshipped by the infidels, was situated on the road to Nagarkot… Some of the infidels have reported that Sultan Firoz went specially to see this idol and held a golden umbrella over it….The Sultan held the idol in the deepest detestation, but the infidels, in the blindness of their delusion, have made this false statement against him. Other infidels have said that Sultan Muhammad Shah bin Tughlik Shah held an umbrella over the same idol, but this is also a lie; and good Muhammadans should pay no heed to such statements. These two Sultans were sovereigns especially chosen by the Almighty from among the faithful, and in the whole course of their reigns, wherever they took an idol temple they broke and destroyed it; how, then, can such assertions be true? The infidels must certainly have lied!”
Delhi “A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahman (zunar dar) who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musulmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet (muhrak), which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects… An order was accordingly given that the Brahman, with his tablet, should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at Firozabad. The judges and doctors and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the Brahman was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahman must either become a Musulman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahman, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar. The Brahman was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at the darbar and witnessed the execution. The tablet of the Brahman was lighted in two places, at his head and at his feet; the wood was dry, and the fire first reached his feet, and drew from him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him. Behold the Sultan’s strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees!”[Another imaginary story by Thaparian logic – what faith makes its believer imagine such things in a daydream?]
(26) Insha-i-Mahru : The author, ainud-Din Abdullah bin Mahru, was a high official in the court of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq. Insha-i-Mahru is a collection of 133 letters related to various events.
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388)
Jajnagar (Orissa) “The victorious standards set out from Jaunpur for the destruction of idols, slaughter of the enemies of Islam and hunt for elephants near Padamtalav… The Sultan saw Jajnagar which had been praised by all travellers…The troops which had been appointed for the destruction of places around Jajnagar, ended the conceit of the infidels by means of the sword and the spear. Wherever there were temples and idols in that area, they were trampled under the hoofs of the horses of Musalmans…After obtaining victory and sailing on the sea and destroying the temple of Jagannath and slaughtering the idolaters, the victorious standards started towards Delhi…”
(27) Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi : This small history was written by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388) himself. The writer of Tabqat-i-Akbari, Nizamud-Din Ahmad, a 16th century historian, says that the Sultan had got the eight chapters of his work inscribed on eight slabs of stone which were fixed on eight sides of the octagonal dome of a building near the Jami Masjid at Firuzabad.
Prayers for Temple-destroyers of the Past “The next matter which by God’s help I accomplished, was the repetition of names and titles of former sovereigns which had been omitted from the prayers of Sabbaths and Feasts. The names of those sovereigns of Islam, under whose happy fortune and favour infidel countries had been conquered, whose banners had waved over many a land, under whom idol-temples had been demolished, and mosques and pulpits built and exalted, the fragrant creed had been extended, and the people of Islam had waxen strong and warlike, the names of these men had fallen into neglect and oblivion. So I decreed that according to established custom their names and titles should be rehearsed in the khutba and aspirations offered for the remission of their sins.[Thats strange – Islam warlike! was he under the influence of opium?]
Delhi and Environs “The Hindus and idol-worshippers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya) and had consented to the poll-tax (jizya) in return for which they and their families enjoyed security. These people now erected new idol-temples in the city and the environs in opposition to the Law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under divine guidance I destroyed these edifices and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished. The following is an instance:- In the village of Maluh there is a tank which they call kund (tank). Here they had built idol-temples and on certain days the Hindus were accustomed to proceed thither on horseback, and wearing arms. Their women and children also went out in palankins and carts. There they assembled in thousands and performed idol-worship… When intelligence of this came to my ears my religious feelings prompted me at once to put a stop to this scandal and offence to the religion of Islam. On the day of the assembly I went there in person and I ordered that the leaders of these people and the promoters of this abomination should be put to death. I forbade the infliction of any severe punishments on Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol-temples, and instead thereof raised mosques. I founded two flourishing towns (kasba), one called Tughlikpur, the other Salarpur. Where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols, Musulmans now, by God’s mercy, perform their devotions to the true God. Praises of God and the summons to prayer are now heard there, and that place which was formerly the home of infidels has become the habitation of the faithful, who there repeat their creed and offer up their praises to God…Information was brought to me that some Hindus had erected a new idol temple in the village of Salihpur, and were performing worship to their idols. I sent some persons there to destroy the idol temple, and put a stop to their pernicious incitements to error.”[Thus even if non-Muslims pay money to the Muslims who are generally non-productive and primarily depend on looting, they still cannot continue in their own culture]
Gohana (Haryana) “Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana, and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols, and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with them, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmi could follow such wicked practices in a Musulman country.”[this is the continuing modern practice in Islam dominated countries – a lesson perhaps for non-Muslims about how to treat Muslims and return the favour]
(28) Sirat-Firuz Shahi is a text either written or dictated by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq himself. According to this book, the objects of his expedition to Jajnagar were: “extirpating Rai Gajpat, massacring the unbelievers, demolishing their temples, hunting elephants, and getting a glimpse of their enchanting country.” Ain-ul-Mulk also says, “The object of the expedition was to break the idols, to shed the blood of the enemies of Islam (and) to hunt elephants.”
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388)
Puri (Orissa) “Allah, who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction, he ordered the nose of the image of Jagannath to be perforated and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols, which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar, and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and way of the musallis and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images may be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims.”
(29) Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi : The author, Yahya bin Ahmad bin Abdullah Sirhindi, lived in the reign of Sultan Muizud-Din Abul Fath Mubarak Shah (CE 1421-1434) of the Sayyid dynasty which ruled at Delhi from CE 1414 to 1451. This history starts from the time of Muhammad Ghuri (CE 1175-1206) and closes with the year CE 1434.
Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236)
Vidisha and Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “In AH 631 he invaded Malwah,.. he destroyed that idol-temple which had existed there for the past three hundred years…Next he turned towards Ujjain and conquered it, and after demolishing the idol-temple of Mahakal, he uprooted the statue of Bikramajit together with all other statues and images which were placed on pedestals, and brought them to the capital where they were laid before the Jami Masjid for being trodden under foot by the people.”
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316)
Somnath (Gujarat) “Ulugh Khan invaded Gujarat. He sacked the whole country… He pursued the Rai upto Somnath. He destroyed the temple of Somnath which was the principal place of worship for the Hindus and great Rais since ancient times. He constructed a mosque on the site and returned to Delhi…”
(30) Tarikh-i-Muhammadi : The author, Muhammad Bihamad Khani was the son of the governor of Irich in Bundelkhand. He was a soldier who participated in several wars. At last he became the disciple of a Sufi, Yusuf Buddha, of Irich and spent the rest of his life in religious pursuits. His history covers a long period – from Prophet Muhammad to CE 1438-39.
Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Tughlaq Shah II (CE 1388-89)
Kalpi (Uttar Pradesh) “In the meanwhile Delhi received news of the defeat of the armies of Islam which were with Malikzada Mahmud bin Firuz Khan… This Malikzada reached the bank of the Yamuna via Shahpur and renamed Kalpi, which was the abode and centre of the infidels and the wicked, as Muhammadabad, after the name of Prophet Muhammad. He got mosques erected for the worship of Allah in places occupied by temples, and made that city his capital.”
Sultan Nasirud-Din Mahmud Shah Tughlaq (CE 1389-1412)
Kalpi (Uttar Pradesh) “Historians have recorded that in the auspicious year AH 792 (CE 1389-90) Sultan Nasirud-Din got founded a city named Muhammadabad, after the name of Prophet Muhammad, at a place known as Kalpi which was a home of the accursed infidels, and he got mosques raised in place of temples for the worship of Allah. He got palaces, tombs and schools constructed, and ended the wicked ways of the infidels, and promoted the Shariat of Prophet Muhammad…”
Khandaut (Uttar Pradesh) “He laid waste Khandaut which was the home of infidels and, having made it an abode of Islam, founded Mahmudabad after his own name. He got a splendid palace and fort constructed there and established all the customs of Islam in that city and place.”
Prayag and Kara (Uttar Pradesh) “The Sultan moved with the armies of Islam towards Prayag and Arail with the aim of destroying the infidels, and he laid waste both those places. The vast crowd which had collected at Prayag for worshipping false gods was made captive.”
(31) Jawamiul Kilam : The book contains the malfuzat of Khwajah Sayyid Muhammad bin Yasuf al-Husaini Banda Nawaz Gisu Daraz (CE 1321-1422), one of the leading disciples of Shykh Nasirud-Din Mahmud Chiragh-i-Dihli. He settled down at Gulbarga, the capital of the Bahmani Empire in the Deccan, and became the mentor of Sultan Ahmad Shah Bahmani (CE 1422-1436).
(32) Habibus-Siyar: The author, Ghiyasud-Din Muhammad bin Humamud-Din, is known as Khondmir. He was the son of Mirkhond, the author of the famous Persian history, Rauzatus-Safa. Born at Herat in CE 1475 he reached Agra in 1528-29 when he was introduced to Babur. He accompanied Babur in his expedition to Bengal and Humayun in his expedition to Gujarat where he died in 1534-35. His Khulastul-Akhbar is a history of Asia brought down to CE 1471. The Habibus-Siyar which he started writing in 1521 starts with the birth of the Prophet and comes down to CE 1534-35.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Somnath (Gujarat) “He several times waged war against the infidels of Hindustan, and he brought under his subjection a large portion of their country, until, having made himself master of Somnat, he destroyed all idol temples of that country…Sultan Mahmud, having entered into the idol temple, beheld an excessively long and broad room, in so much that fifty-six pillars had been made to support the roof. Somnat was an idol cut out of stone, whose height was five yards, of which three yards were visible, and two yards were concealed in the ground. Yaminuddaula having broken that idol with his own hand, ordered that they should pack up pieces of the stone, take them to Ghaznin, and throw them on the threshold of the Jama Masjid…”
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “a certain city, which was accounted holy by the people of the country. In that city the men of Ghaznin saw so many strange and wonderful things, that to tell them or to write a description of them is not easy… In short, the Sultan Mahmud having possessed himself of the booty, burned their idol temples and proceeded towards Kanauj.”
Kanauj (Uttar Pradesh)“…The Ghaznivids found in these forts and their dependencies 10,000 idol temples, and they ascertained the vicious belief of the Hindus to be, that since the erection of these buildings no less than three or four hundred thousand years had elapsed. Sultan Mahmud during this expedition achieved many other conquests after he left Kanauj, and sent to hell many of the infidels with blows of the well tempered sword. Such a number of slaves were assembled in that great camp, that the price of a single one did not exceed ten dirhams.”
(33) Babur-Nama is an autobiography written in the form of a diary by Zahirud-Din Muhammad Babur, founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, who proclaimed himself a Padshah after his victory in the First Battle of Panipat (CE 1526), and a Ghazi (killer of kafirs) after the defeat of Rana Sanga in the Battle of Khanwa (CE 1528). While presenting himself as an indefatigable warrior and drug-addict he does not hide the cruelties he committed on the defeated people, particularly his fondness for building towers of the heads of those he captured as prisoners of war or killed in battle. He is very liberal in citing appropriate verses from the Quran on the eve of his battle with RaNa Sanga. In order to ensure his victory, he makes a covenant with Allah by breaking the vessels containing wine as also the cups for drinking it, swearing at the same time that “he would break the idols of the idol-worshippers in a similar manner.” In the Fath-Nama (prayer for victory) composed for him by Shykh Zain, Allah is described as “destroyer of idols from their foundations.”
Zahirud-Din Muhammad Babur Padshah Ghazi (CE 1526-1530)
Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh) “In AH 934 (CE 1528), I attacked Chanderi and, by the grace of Allah, captured it in a few hours… We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been a darul-harb for years, was made into a darul-Islam.”
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “… Going out of the Hathipole Gate of the fort, we arrived at a place called Urwa…Solid rocks surround Urwa on three sides… On these sides people have carved statues in stone. They are in all sizes, small and big. A very big statue, which is on the southern side, is perhaps 20 yards high. These statues are altogether naked and even their private parts are not covered…Urwa is not a bad place. It is an enclosed space. Its biggest blemish is its statues. I ordered that they should be destroyed.”
(34) Tarikh-i-Shahi : The author, Ahmad Yadgar, was an old servant of the Sur sultans. He started writing this history on order from Daud Shah bin Sulaiman Shah. It is also known as Tarikh-i-Afaghana and Tarikh-i-Salatin-I-Afaghana. It deals with the history of the Lodis down to CE 1554. He completed it in AH 1001-02 (CE 1592-93). He calls the Hindu kings “rascally infidels”, “black-faced foes”, “evil-doers”, “dark-faced men”, etc. He extols the plunder and depopulation of entire regions by Bahlul Lodi (CE 1451-1489). He reports how Babur presented to his sons, Humayun and Kamran, two daughters of the Raja of Chanderi.
Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Kurukshetra (Haryana) “One day he ordered that ‘an expedition be sent to Thaneswar, (the tanks at) Kurkaksetra should be filled up with earth, and the land measured and allotted to pious people for their maintenance,’ …He was such a great partisan of Islam in die days of his youth…”
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “Sultan Sikandar led a very pious life… Islam was regarded very highly in his reign. The infidels could not muster the courage to worship idols or bathe in the (sacred) streams. During his holy reign, idols were hidden underground. The stone (idol) of Nagarkot, which had misled the (whole) world, was brought and handed over to butchers so that they might weigh meat with it.”
Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (CE 1517-1526)
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “It so happened that Raja Man, the ruler of Gwalior who had been warring with the Sultans for years, went to hell. His son, Bikarmajit, became his successor. The Sultan captured the fort after a hard fight. There was a quadruped, made of copper, at the door of the fort. It used to speak. It was brought from there and placed in the fort at Agra. It remained there till the reign of Akbar Badshah. It was melted and a cannon was made out of it at the order of the Badshah.”
(35) Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi : The author, Abbas Sarwani, was connected with the family of Sher Shah Sur by marriage. He wrote this work by order of Akbar, the Mughal emperor, and named it Tuhfat-i-Akbar Shahi. But it became known as Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi because of its main theme. He wrote it probably soon after CE 1579.
Sher Shah Sur (CE 1538-1545) “…The nobles and chiefs said, ‘It seems expedient that the victorious standards should move towards the Dekhin’…Sher Shah replied: ‘What you have said is most right and proper, but it has come into my mind that since the time of Sultan Ibrahim, the infidel zamindars have rendered the country of Islam full of unbelievers, and having thrown down masjids and buildings of the believers, placed idol-shrines in them, and they are in possession of the country of Delhi and Malwa. Until I have cleansed the country from the existing contamination of the unbelievers, I will not go into any other country’…”
(36) Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi : The author, Shykh Rizqullah Mushtaqi, was born in CE 1492 and died in 1581. He heard accounts of the past from the learned men of his times and compiled them in a book. He was a great story-teller who revelled in “marvels”. He was known for his study of Sufi doctrines and spiritual exercises.
Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517)
Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “Khawas Khan….ordered by the Sultan to march towards Nagarkot,..succeeded in conquering it, and having sacked the infidels’ temple of Debi Shankar, brought away the stone which they worshipped, together with a copper umbrella, which was placed over it, and on which a date was engraved in Hindu characters, representing it to be two thousand years old. When the stone was sent to the King, it was given over to the butchers to make weights out of it for the purpose of weighing their meat. From the copper of the umbrella, several pots were made, in which water might be warmed, and which were placed in the masjids and the King’s own palace, so that everyone might wash his hands, feet and face in them and perform his purifications before prayers…”
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “He got the temples of the infidels destroyed. No trace of infidelity was left at the place in Mathura where the infidels used to take bath. He got caravanserais constructed so that people could stay there, and also the shops of various professionals such as the butchers, bawarchis, nanbais and sweetmeatsellers. If a Hindu went there for bathing even by mistake, he was made to lose his limbs and punished severely. No Hindu could get shaved at that place. No barber would go near a Hindu, whatever be the payment offered.”
Sultan Ghiyasud-Din Khalji of Malwa (CE 1469-1500)
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) “Once upon a time a temple had been constructed in Jodhpur. The Sultan sent the Qazi of Mandu with orders that he should get the temple demolished. He had said to him, ‘If they do not demolish the temple on instructions from you, you stay there and let me know.’ When the Qazi arrived there, the infidels refused to obey the order of the Sultan and said, ‘Has Ghiyasud-Din freed himself from lechery so that he has turned his attention to this side?’ The Qazi informed the king accordingly. He climbed on his mount in Mandu and reached Jodhpur in a single night. He punished the infidels and laid waste the temple…”[this is most interesting : either the Hindus dared speak of the lechery of the Sultan or the Muslim chroniclers imagined this up and dared write it down!]
(37) Tarikh-i-Alfi was composed in CE 1585 by Mulla Ahmad ThaTawi and asaf Khan. It covers a period of one thousand years from the death of the Prophet.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Somnath (Gujarat) “Mahmud, as soon as his eyes fell on this idol, lifted up his battle-axe with much anger, and struck it with such force that the idol broke into pieces. The fragments of it were ordered to be taken to Ghaznin, and were cast down at the threshold of the Jami Masjid where they are lying to this day…”134
(38) Burhan-i-Masir : The author, Sayyid Ali bin Azizullah Tabataba Hasani, served Muhammad Qutb Shah (CE 1580-1627) of Golconda at first and then Sultan Burhan Nizam Shah (CE 1591-1595) of Ahmadnagar. He wrote this history in CE 1592. It deals with the Bahmani Sultans of Gulbarga (CE 1347-1422) and Bidar (CE 1422-1538) and the Nizam Shahi Sultans of Ahmadnagar upto CE 1596.
Sultan Alaud-Din Hasan Bahman Shah (CE 1347-1358)
Dankuri (Karnataka) “The Sultan sent Khwaja-i-Jahan to Gulbarga, Sikandar Khan to Bidar, Qir Khan to Kutar, Safdar Khan to Sakar which is called Sagar, and Husain Garshasp to Kotgir. He appointed other chiefs to invade the kingdom of the infidels. Aitmadul Mulk and Mubarak Khan led raids upon the river Tawi and laid waste the Hindu Kingdom. After having invaded the province of Dankuri and cutting off the head of Manat,135 they attacked Janjwal…”
(39) Tabqat-i-Akbari : The author, Khwajah Nizamud-Din Ahmad bin Muhammad Muqim al-Harbi, was a Bakshi in the reign of Akbar, the Mughal emperor (CE 1556-1605). He wrote this history in CE 1592-93 and added to it, later on, events upto 1593-94. He died next year. The history starts with the times of the Ghaznivid Sultans. The work was initially known as Tabqat-i-Akbar Shahi but became known as simply Tabqat-i-Akbari. It is also known as Tarikh-i-Nizami. It is the first Muslim history which confines itself to India and excludes matter relating to other countries.
Amir Subuktigin (CE 977-997) “After this with kingly energy and determination, he girded up his loins for a war of religion, and invaded Hindustan, and carried away many prisoners of war and other plunder; and in every country, which he conquered, he founded mosques, and he endeavoured to ruin and desolate the territories of Raja Jaipal who, at that time, was the ruler of Hindustan.”
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030)
Thanesar (Haryana) “The Sultan now received information that there was a city in Hindustan called Thanessar, and there was a great temple there in which there was an idol called Jagarsom, whom the people of Hindustan worshipped. He collected a large force with the object of carrying on a religious war, and in the year AH 402 marched towards Thanessar. The son of Jaipal having received intelligence of this, sent an envoy and represented through him, that if the Sultan would relinquish this enterprise, he would send fifty elephants as tribute. The Sultan paid no heed to this offer, and when he reached Thanessar he found the city empty. The soldiers ravaged and plundered whatever they could lay hands upon, broke the idols and carried Jagarsom to Ghaznin. The Sultan ordered that the idol should the placed in front of the place of prayer, so that people would trample upon it.
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “From that place [Mahawan] the Sultan advanced to Mathurah, which is a large city containing many temples… and the Sultan completely destroyed the city and burnt the temples… There was one golden idol which was broken up under the orders of the Sultan…” Somnath (Gujarat) “Then in accordance with his custom, he advanced with his army towards Hindustan with the object of the conquest of Somnath… there were many golden idols in the temple in the city, and the largest of these idols was called Manat…When he reached Somnath, the inhabitants shut the gate on his face. After much fighting and great struggles the fort was taken, and vast multitudes were killed and taken prisoners. The temples were pulled down, and destroyed from their very foundations. The gold idol Somnath was broken into pieces, and one piece was sent to Ghaznin, and was placed at the gate of the Jami Masjid; and for years it remained there.”
Sultan Abu-Said Masud of Ghazni (CE 1030-1042)
Sonipat (Haryana) “…He marched with his army to the fort of Sonipat, and the commandant of that fort, Danial Har by name, becoming aware of his approach, fled… the army of Islam, having captured that fort, pulled down all the temples and obtained an enormous quantity of booty.”
Ikhtiyarud-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji (CE 1202-1206) Bengal “In short, Muhammad Bakhtiyar assumed the canopy, and had prayers read, and coin struck in his own name and founded mosques and Khankahs and colleges, in place of the temples of the heathens.”
Sultan Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236)
Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “…In the year AH 631, he invaded the country of Malwah and conquered the fort of Bhilsa. He also took the city of Ujjain, and had the temple of Mahakal… completely demolished, destroying it from its foundations; and he carried away the effigy of Bikramajit… and certain other statues which were fashioned in molten brass, and placed them in the ground in front of the Jami Masjid, so that they might he trampled upon by the people.”
Sultan Jalaud-Din Khalji (CE 1290-1296) Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “About the same time Malik Alaud-Din, the nephew of the Sultan, begged that he might have permission to march against Bhilsah and pillage those tracts. He received the necessary orders, and went and ravaged the country and brought much booty for the Sultan’s service. He also brought two brass idols which had been the object of the worship of the Hindus of these parts; and cast them down in front of the Badaun Gate to be trampled upon by the people
Sultan Alaud-Din Khalji (CE 1296-1316) Somnath (Gujarat) “In the third year after the accession, the Sultan sent Ulugh Khan and Nasrat Khan, with large armies to invade Gujarat. They ravaged and plundered Nahrwalah, and all the cities of the province… Ulugh Khan and Nasrat Khan also brought the idol, which the Brahmans of Somnath had set up, and were worshipping, in place of the one which Sultan Mahmud had broken to pieces, to Delhi, and placed it where the people would trample upon it…”
Mabar (Tamil Nadu) “Again in the year AH 716 Sultan Alauddin sent Malik Naib towards Dhor Samundar (Dvar Samudra) and Mabar… they then advanced with their troops to Mabar, and conquered it also, and having demolished the temples there, and broken the golden and jewelled idols, sent the gold into the treasury…”
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (CE 1351-1388) “Sultan Firuz Shah composed a book also in which he compiled an account of his reign and which he named Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi. He writes in its second chapter… ‘Muslim and infidel women used to visit sepulchres and temples, which led to many evils. I stopped it. I got mosques built in place of temples’…”[Another instance of encouraging integration and understanding or intermingling of faiths]
Sultan Sikandar Lodi (CE 1489-1517) Mandrail (Madhya Pradesh) “After the rainy season was over, he marched in Ramzan AH 910 (CE February-March, 1505) for the conquest of the fort of MunDrail. He stayed for a month near Dholpur and sent out armies with orders that they should lay waste the environs of Gwalior and MunDrail. Thereafter he himself laid siege to the fort of MunDrail. Those inside the fort surrendered the fort to him after signing a treaty. The Sultan got the temples demolished and mosques erected in their stead…”
Udit Nagar (Madhya Pradesh)“ he led an expedition towards the fort of Udit Nagar in AH 912 (CE 1506-07)…Although those inside the fort tried their utmost to seek a pardon, but he did not listen to them, and the fort was breached at many points and conquered… He got the temples demolished and mosques constructed in their stead…”
Narwar (Madhya Pradesh) “He ordered Jalal Khan Lodi, the governor of Kalpi, to go there and besiege the fort… The Sultan himself reached Narwar after some time… He kept the fort under siege for an year… The soldiers went out to war everyday and got killed… Thereafter the inhabitants of the fort were in plight due to scarcity of water and dearness of grains, and they asked for forgiveness. They went out with their wealth and property. The Sultan laid waste the temples and raised mosques. Men of learning and students were made to reside there and given scholarships and grants. He stayed for six months under the walls of the fort.”
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) “ He got all temples of the infidels demolished, and did not allow even a trace of them to remain. In Mathura, where the infidels used to get together for bathing, he got constructed caravanserais, markets, mosques and madrasas, and appointed there officers with instructions that they should allow no one to bathe; if any Hindu desired to get his beard or head shaved in the city of Mathura, no barber was prepared to cut his hair.”
Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (CE 1517-1526)
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) “At the same time the Sultan thought that though ‘Sultan Sikandar had led several expeditions for conquering the fort of Gwalior and the country attached to it but met with no success.’ Consequently he sent azam Humayun, the governor of Kara, with 300,000 horsemen and 300 elephants for the conquest of Gwalior… After some time the royal army laid a mine, filled it with gunpowder, and set fire to it. He entered the fort and took possession of it after the wall of the fort was breached. He saw there a bull made of brass, which the Hindus had worshipped for years. In keeping with a royal order, the bull was brought to Delhi and placed at the Baghdad Gate. It was still there till the reign of Akbar. The writer of this history saw it himself.”
Sultan Mahmud bin Ibrahim Sharqi (CE 1440-1457)
Orissa“After some time he proceeded to Orissa with the intention of jihad. He attacked places in the neighbourhood of that province and laid them waste, and destroyed the temples after demolishing them…”
Sultan Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (CE 1436-1469) Chittaurgarh (Rajasthan) “After he had crossed the river Bhim, he started laying waste the country and capturing its people by sending expeditions towards Chittor everyday. He started constructing mosques after demolishing temples. He stayed 2-3 days at every halt.
Kumbhalgadh (Rajasthan) “When he halted near Kumbhalmir which was a very big fort of that province, and well-known for its strength all over Hindustan, Deva the Vakil of the Governor of Kumbha took shelter in the fort and started fighting. It so happened that a magnificent temple had been erected in front of that fort and surrounded by ramparts on all sides. That temple had been filled with weapons of war and other stores. Sultan Mahmud planned to storm the ramparts and captured it [the temple] in a week. A large number of Rajputs were made prisoners and slaughtered. About the edifices of the temple, he ordered that they should be stocked with wood and fired, and water and vinegar was sprinkled on the walls. That magnificent mansion which it had taken many years to raise, was destroyed in a few moments. He got the idols broken and they were handed over to the butchers for being used as weights while selling meat. The biggest idol which had the form of a ram was reduced to powder which was put in betel-leaves to be given to the Rajputs so that they could eat their god.”
Mandalgadh (Rajasthan) “He started for the conquest of ManDalgaDh on 26 Muharram, AH 861 (CE 24 December, 1456… Reaching there the Sultan issued orders that ‘trees should be uprooted, houses demolished and no trace should be left of human habitation’… A great victory was achieved on 1 Zilhijja, AH 861 (CE 20 October, 1457)…He got the temples demolished and their materials used in the construction of a Jami Masjid. He appointed there a qazi, a mufti, a muhtasib, a khatib and a muzzin and established order in that place…”
Kelwara and Delwara (Rajasthan) “Sultan Mahmud started again in AH 863 (CE 1458-59) for punishing the Rajputs. When he halted at ahad, Prince Ghiyasud-Din and Fidan Khan were sent towards Kilwara and Dilwara in order to lay waste those lands. They destroyed those lands and attacked the environs of Kumbhalmir…When they came to the presence of the Sultan and praised the fort of Kumbhalmir, the Sultan started for Kumbhalmir next day and went ahead destroying temples on the way. When he halted near that fort, he mounted his horse and went up a hill which was to the east of the fort in order to survey the city. He said, ‘It is not possible to capture this fort without a siege lasting for several years’…”
Sultan Muzaffar Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1392-1410)
Idar (Gujarat) “In AH 796 (CE 1393-94), it was reported that Sultan Muhammad bin Firuz Shah had died at Delhi and that the affairs of the kingdom were in disorder so that a majority of zamindars were in revolt, particularly the Raja of idar. Zafar Khan collected a large army and mountain-like elephants and proceeded to idar in order to punish the Raja… The Raja of idar had no time to prepare a defence and shut himself in the fort. The armies of Zafar Khan occupied the Kingdom of idar and started plundering and destroying it. They levelled with the ground whatever temple they found… The Raja of idar showed extreme humility and pleaded for forgiveness through his representatives. Zafar Khan took a tribute according to his own desire and made up his mind to attack Somnat..In AH 803 (CE 1399-1400) azam Humayun paid one year’s wages (in advance) to his army and after making great preparations, he attacked the fort of idar with a view to conquer it. After the armies of the Sultan had besieged the fort from all sides and the battle continued non-stop for several days the Raja of idar evacuated the fort one night and ran away towards Bijanagar. In the morning Zafar Khan entered the fort and, after expressing his gratefulness to Allah, and destroying the temples, he appointed officers in the fort…”
Somnath (Gujarat) “In AH 797 (CE 1394-95)… he proceeded for the destruction of the temple of Somnat. On the way he made Rajputs food for his sword and demolished whatever temple he saw at any place. When he arrived at Somnat, he got the temple burnt and the idol of Somnat broken. He made a slaughter of the infidels and laid waste the city. He got a Jami Masjid raised there and appointed officers of the Sharih…“In AH 804 (CE 1401-02) reports were received by Zafar Khan that the infidels and Hindus of Somnat had again started making efforts for promoting the ways of their religion. azam Humayun started for that place and sent an army in advance. When the residents of Somnat learnt this, they advanced along the sea-shore and offered battle. azam Humayun reached that place speedily and he slaughtered that group. Those who survived took shelter in the fort of the port at Dip (Diu). After some time, he conquered that place as well, slaughtered that group also and got their leaders trampled under the feet of elephants. He got the temples demolished and a Jami Masjid constructed. Having appointed a qazi, mufti and other guardians of Sharih… he returned to the capital at Patan.”
Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat (CE 1411-1443)
Champaner (Gujarat) “Sultan Ahmad… encamped near Champaner on 7 Rabi-us-Sani, AH 822 (CE 3 May, 1419). He destroyed temples wherever he found them and returned to Ahmadabad.”
Mewar (Rajasthan) “In Rajab AH 836 (CE February-March, 1433) Sultan Ahmad mounted an expedition for the conquest of Mewar and Nagaur. When he reached the town of Nagaur, he sent out armies for the destruction of towns and villages and levelled with the ground whatever temple was found at whichever place… Having laid waste the land of Kilwara, the Sultan entered the land of Dilwara, and he ruined the lofty palaces of Rana Mokal and destroyed the temples and idols…”
Sultan Qutbud-Din Ahmad Shah II of Gujarat (CE 1451-1458)
Kumbhalgadh (Rajasthan) “…Sultan Qutbud-Din felt insulted and he attacked the fort of Kumbhalmir in AH 860 (CE 1455-56)… When he reached near Sirohi, the Raja of that place offered battle but was defeated.
From that place the Sultan entered the kingdom of Rana Kumbha and he sent armies in all directions for invading the country and destroying the temples…”
Sultan Mahmud BegDha of Gujarat (CE 1458-1511)
Junagadh (Gujarat) “In AH 871 (CE 1466-67) he started for the conquest of Karnal [Girnar] which is now known as Junagadh. It is said that this country had been in the possession of the predecessors of Rai Mandalik for the past two thousand years… Sultan Mahmud relied on the help of Allah and proceeded there; on the way he laid waste the land of Sorath… From that place the Sultan went towards the temple of those people. Many Rajputs who were known as Parwhan, decided to lay down their lives, and started fighting with swords and spears in (defence) of the temple… Sultan Mahmud postponed the conquest of the fort to the next year… and returned to Ahmadabad.”[A hint of the resistance of the Hindus…very naughty indeed!] Dwarka (Gujarat) “After some time the Sultan started contemplating the conquest of the port of Jagat which is a place of worship for the BrahmaNas… With this resolve he started for the port of Jagat on 16 Zil-Hajja, AH 877 (CE 14 July, 1473). He reached Jagat with great difficulty due to the narrowness of the road and the presence of forests… He destroyed the temple of Jagat…”
Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat (CE 1511-1526)
Idar (Gujarat) “Sultan Muzaffar… started for idar…The Raja of idar evacuated the fort and took refuge in the mountain of Bijanagar. The Sultan, when he reached idar, found there ten Rajputs ready to lay down their lives. He heaped barbarities on them and killed them. He did not leave even a trace of palaces, temples, gardens and trees…”
Sultan Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (CE 1389-1413) Kashmir “He got demolished the famous temple of Mahadeva at Bahrare. The temple was dug out from its foundations and the hole (that remained) reached the water level. Another temple at Jagdar was also demolished… Raja Alamadat had got a big temple constructed at Sinpur. He had come to know from astrologers that after hundred years a king by the name of Sikandar would get the temple destroyed and the idol of Utarid, which was in it, broken. He got this [forecast] inscribed on a copper plate which was kept in a box and buried under the temple. The inscription came up when the temple was destroyed [by Sikandar]…The value of currency had come down, because Sultan Sikandar had got idols of gold, silver and copper broken and turned into coins…”
Sultan Fath Shah of Kashmir (CE 1489-1499 and 1505-1516)
Kashmir “Fath Shah ascended the throne in AH 894 (CE 1488-89)… In those days Mir Shams, a disciple of Shah Qasim Anwar, reached Kashmir ….All endowments, imlak, places of worship and temples were entrusted to his disciples.His Sufis used to destroy temples and no one could stop them…” [The peaceful sufi converters of Kashmir]
Jalalud-Din Muhammad Akbar Padshah Ghazi (CE 1556-1605) Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “On the 1st Rajab 990 [CE 1582] he (Husain Quli Khan) encamped by a field of maize near NagarkoT. The fortress (hissar) of Bhim, which is an idol temple of Mahamai, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. [the example of Muslim valour as best practised on a few priests] A party of Rajputs, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brahmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hindus had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple. [This is the Great Akbar’s army – supposed to be a paragon of tolerance towards non-Muslim faiths]
What about the Thaparite fable of natural decay and ruin by forces of nature alone of all cultural centres of non-Muslims in India and the construction of Islamic sites on these ruins an act of love and gratitude for enlightenment by the peacefully and voluntarily converted into Islam ex-non-Muslims?
The Thaparite school of Indian History is fond of shouting that narratives of destruction of cultural icons of non-Muslims have been copied by succeeding historians from the writings of their predecessors and they are all fabrications of a feverish imagination and boasting for glorification of Islam. If the question is raised as to why this boasting about destruction is such a glorifying quality in Islam, it would immediately be met with a tremendous din and cacophony from a whole horde of “secular historians” that “Islam” is being attacked, and that such a din alone is sufficient answer for the question raised.
It is never pointed out that sometimes the same site is repeatedly attacked by succeeding generations of Islamic invaders and rulers and that there are archaeological evidence of destruction of sites not mentioned or found worth mentioning by the Islamic chroniclers. It is most significant to note that these Islamic historians repeat narratives and add details which reveal the continuing and growing interest in Islam to associate destruction of cultural icons of non-Muslims with Islam as an integral part of Islam.
We will divide this very long list of narrative claims of destruction and decimation of non-Muslim cultures by Islamic historians into several parts (but the list in itself is a very small proportion of those available in Persian, Arabic and other related Islamic languages, and only those which are available in translations)
Futuhul-Buldan : The author, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir, is known as al-Biladuri. He lived at the court of Khalîfa Al-Mutawakkal (CE 847-861) and died in CE 893. His history is one of the earliest and major Arab chronicles. It gives an account of Arab conquests in Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Iran, Armenia, Transoxiana, Africa, Spain and Sindh. The account is brought down to Khalîfa Mu’tasim’s reign in CE 842.
Ibn Samurah (CE 653) His full name was Abd ar-Rahman bin Samurah bin Habib bin Abd ash-Shams. He was appointed governor of Seistan after the first Arab invasion of that province in CE 650 was defeated and dispersed. Ibn Samurah reached the capital of Seistan in CE 653. Seistan (Iran) “On reaching Dawar, he surrounded the enemy in the mountain of Zur, where there was a famous Hindu temple.…Their idol of Zur was of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musalmans cut off its hands and plucked out its eyes, and then remarked to the Marzaban how powerless was his idol to do either good or evil…”
Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahila (CE 705-715) He was a general of Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf Saqafi, the notorious Governor of Iraq under Caliph Al-Walid I (CE 705-715). He was made Governor of Khurasan in CE 705 and is renowned in the history of Islam as the conqueror of Central Asia right upto Kashghar. This is also the Hajjaj who kitted out Qasim and sent him on the murderous campaign in Sind for loot and sex-slaves. Samarqand (Farghana) “Other authorities say that Kutaibah granted peace for 700,000 dirhams and entertainment for the Moslems for three days. The terms of surrender included also the houses of the idols and the fire temples. The idols were thrown out, plundered of their ornaments and burned, although the Persians used to say that among them was an idol with which whoever trifled would perish. But when Kutaibah set fire to it with his own hand, many of them accepted Islam.”
Muhammad bin Qasim (CE 712-715) He was the nephew as well as son-in-law of Al-Hajjaj, who sent him to Sindh after more than a dozen invasions of that province had been defeated by the Hindus. Debal (Sindh)“…The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left four thousand Musalmans to garrison the place…
“…‘Ambissa son of Ishak Az Zabbi, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mutasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison. At the same time he began to repair the ruined town with the stones of the minaret…” Multan (Punjab) “…He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan… Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as the ministers of the temple, to the number of six thousand. The Muslamans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad, and there was an aperture above, through which the gold was poured into the chamber…” Hasham bin ‘Amru al-Taghlabi : He was appointed Governor of Sindh by Khalifa Al-Mansur (CE 754-775) of the Abbasid dynasty. He led many raids towards different parts of India, both by land and sea. Kandahar (Maharashtra) “He then went to Kandahar in boats and conquered it. He destroyed the Budd there, and built in its place a mosque.”
Tarikh-i-Tabari: The author, Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari, is considered to be the foremost historian of Islam and the Tarikh is regarded as Umdatul-Kutab, mother of histories. He was born at Amil in Tabaristan in the year CE 839. He was educated at Baghdad and lived in Basra and Kufa as well. He travelled to Egypt and Damascus in order to perfect his knowledge of Traditions. He spent the last days of his life in Baghdad where he died in CE 922. The citations below are only summaries made by modern historians. Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (CE 705-715) Beykund (Khurasan)“The ultimate capture of Beykund (in CE 706) rewarded him with an incalculable booty; even more than had hitherto fallen into the hands of the Mahommedans by the conquest of the entire province of Khorassaun; and the unfortunate merchants of the town, having been absent on a trading excursion while their country was assailed by the enemy, and finding their habitations desolate on their return contributed further to enrich the invaders, by the ransom which they paid for the recovery of their wives and children. The ornaments alone, of which these women had been plundered, being melted down, produced, in gold, one hundred and fifty thousand meskals; of a dram and a half each. Among the articles of the booty, is also described an image of gold, of fifty thousand meskals, of which the eyes were two pearls, the exquisite beauty and magnitude of which excited the surprise and admiration of Kateibah. They were transmitted by him, with a fifth of the spoil to Hejauje, together with a request that he might be permitted to distribute, to the troops, the arms which had been found in the place in great profusion.” Samarqand (Farghana) “A breach was, however, at last effected in the walls of the city in CE 712 by the warlike machines of Kateibah; and some of the most daring of its defenders having fallen by the skill of his archers, the besieged demanded a cessation of arms to the following day, when they promised to capitulate. The request was acceded to by Kateibah; and a treaty was the next day accordingly concluded between him and the prince of Samarkand, by which the latter engaged for the annual payment of ten millions of dirhems, and a supply of three thousand slaves; of whom it was particularly stipulated, that none should either be in a state of infancy, or ineffective from old age and debility. He further contracted that the ministers of his religion should be expelled from their temples and their idols destroyed and burnt; that Kateibah should be allowed to establish a mosque in the place of the principal temple, in which, to discharge the duties of his faith… To all this, Ghurek, with whatever reluctance, was compelled to subscribe, and he proceeded accordingly to prepare for the reception of Kateibah; who at the period agreed upon, entered Samarkand with a retinue of four hundred persons, selected from his own relatives, and the principal commanders of his army. He was met by Ghurek, with a respect bordering on adoration, and conducted to the gate of the principal temple, which he immediately entered; and after performing two rekkauts of the ritual of his faith, directed the images of pagan worship to be brought before him, for the purpose of being committed to the flames. From this some of the Turks or Tartars of Samarkand, endeavouring to dissuade him, by a declaration, that among the images, there was one, which if any person ventured to consume, that person should certainly perish; Kateibah informed them, that he should not shrink from the experiment, and accordingly set fire to the whole collection with his own hands; it was soon consumed to ashes, and fifty thousand meskals of gold and silver, collected from the nails which has been used in the workmanship of the images.” Yaqub bin Laith (CE 870-871) was a highway robber who succeeded in seizing Khurasan from the Tahirid governors of the Abbasid Caliphate and founded the short-lived Saffarid dynasty. Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan) “He first took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul…
“Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple – the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers-of its sculptural wealth…The exact details of the spoil collected from the Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh [-i-Sistan] records 50 idols of gold and silver and Masudi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Yaqub also speaks for their high value. The best of our authorities put the date of this event in 257 (870-71). Tabari is more precise and says that the idols sent by Ya’qûb reached Baghdad in Rabi al-Akhar, 257 (Feb.-March, 871). Thus the date of the actual invasion may be placed at the end of CE 870.”
Tarikhul-Hind : The author, Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni al-Khwarizmi, was born in about CE 970-71. He was an astronomer, geometer, historian and logician. He was sent to Ghazni in an embassy from the Sultan of Khwarizm. On invitation from Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) he entered his service, travelled to India and spent forty years in the country, chiefly in the Punjab. He learnt Sanskrit and translated some works from that language into Arabic. His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the eleventh century. Jalam ibn Shaiban (Ninth century CE) Multan (Punjab) The Sun Temple at Multan has been described by early Arab geographers like Sulaiman, Masudi, Istakhri and Ibn Hauqal who travelled in India during the ninth and tenth centuries CE. The Arab invaders did not destroy it because besides being a rich source of revenue, it provided protection against Hindu counter-attack. “Multan,” wrote Masudi, “is one of the strongest frontier places of the Musalmãns… In it is the idol also known by the name of Multan.13 The inhabitants of Sind and India perform pilgrimages to it from the most distant places; they carry money, precious stones, aloe wood and all sorts of perfumes there to fulfil their vows. The greatest part of the revenue of the king of Multan is derived from the rich presents brought to the idol… When the unbelievers march against Multan and the faithful do not feel themselves strong enough to oppose them, they threaten to break their idol, and their enemies immediately withdraw.” [If true then this would be another wonderful example of the inherent meanness and wily nature of Islamic strategy – it always, almost always pretends to be something it is not – it is all a part of an integrated life philosophy of deception of others to satisfy the basic and primitive biolgical greed]
Al-Biruni records: “A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kritayuga… When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunabih conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow’s flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests…”
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) Thanesar (Haryana) “The city of Taneshar is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the cakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with the Lord of Somanath, which is a representation of the penis of Mahadeva, called Linga.” Somnath (Gujarat) “The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natha means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! – AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with the Cakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somanath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet.”
(4) Kitabul-Yamini : The author of this history in Arabic was Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Jabbarul-Utbi. The family from Utba had held important offices under the Samanis of Bukhara. Utbi himself became Secretary to Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030). His work comprises the whole of the reign of Subuktigin and that of Sultan Mahmud down to the year CE 1020. He lived a few years longer. Persian translations of this history are known as Tarjuma-i-Yamini or Tarikh-i-Yamini. Amir Subuktigin of Ghazni (CE 977-997) Lamghan (Afghanistan) “The Amir marched out towards Lamghan, which is a city celebrated for its great strength and abounding wealth. He conquered it and set fire to the places in its vicinity which were inhabited by infidels, and demolishing idol temples, he established Islam in them. He marched and captured other cities and killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters and gratifying the Musalmans.”
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) Narain (Rajasthan)“The Sultan again resolved on an expedition to Hind, and marched towards Narain, urging his horses and moving over ground, hard and soft, until he came to the middle of Hind, where he reduced chiefs, who, up to that time obeyed no master, overturned their idols, put to the sword the vagabonds of that country, and with delay and circumspection proceeded to accomplish his design…” Nardin (Punjab) “After the Sultan had purified Hind from idolatry, and raised mosques therein, he determined to invade the capital of Hind to punish those who kept idols and would not acknowledge the unity of God… He marched with a large army in the year AH 404 (CE 1013) during a dark night…[ so much for the the so called injunction against night attacks”] “A stone was found there in the temple of the great Budda on which an inscription was written purporting that the temple had been founded fifty thousand years ago. The Sultan was surprised at the ignorance of these people, because those who believe in the true faith represent that only seven thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world, and the signs of resurrection are even now approaching. The Sultan asked his wise men the meaning of this inscription and they all concurred in saying that it was false, and no faith was to be put in the evidence of a stone.” [ A wonderful instance of the superior knowledge and high intellectual level of the Islamic dignitaries on holiday then in India] Thanesar (Haryana) “The chief of Tanesar was… obstinate in his infidelity and denial of God. So the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islãm and extirpating idolatry…The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously, that the stream was discoloured, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it… The victory was gained by God’s grace, who has established Islãm for ever as the best of religions, notwithstanding that idolaters revolt against it… Praise be to God, the protector of the world, for the honour he bestows upon Islãm and Musulmãns.” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)“The Sultan then departed from the environs of the city, in which was a temple of the Hindus. The name of this place was Maharatul Hind… On both sides of the city there were a thousand houses, to which idol temples were attached, all strengthened from top to bottom by rivets of iron, and all made of masonry work…In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and firmer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan thus wrote respecting it: – 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 were employed’… The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” Kanauj (Uttar Pradesh) “In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples, which the idolaters falsely and absurdly represented to have been founded by their ancestors two or three hundred thousand years ago… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled and were scattered abroad like so many wretched widows and orphans, from the fear which oppressed them, in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Many of them thus effected their escape, and those who did not fly were put to death,”
(5) Diwan-i-Salman The author, Khwajah Masud bin Sad bin Salman, was a poet. He wrote poems in praise of the Ghaznavid Sultans – Masud, Ibrahim and Bahram Shah. He died sometime between CE 1126 and 1131. Sultan Abul Muzaffar Ibrahim (CE 1059-1099) “As power and the strength of a lion was bestowed upon Ibrahim by the Almighty, he made over to him the well-populated country of Hindustan and gave him 40,000 valiant horsemen to take the country, in which there were more than 1000 rais… Its length extends from Lahore to the Euphrates, and its breadth from Kashmir to the borders of Sistan… The army of the king destroyed at one time a thousand temples of idols, which had each been built for more than a thousand years. How can I describe the victories of the king…” Jalandhar (Punjab) “The narrative of thy battles eclipses the stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar. Thou didst bring an army in one night from Dhangan to Jalandhar… Thou didst direct but one assault and by that alone brought destruction upon the country. By the morning meal not one soldier, not one Brahman, remained unkilled or uncaptured. Their beads were severed by the carriers of swords. Their houses were levelled with the ground with flaming fire… Thou has secured victory to the country and to religion, for amongst the Hindus this achievement will be remembered till the day of resurrection.” Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) “Thou didst depart with a thousand joyful anticipations on a holy expedition, and didst return having achieved a thousand victories… On this journey the army destroyed a thousand idol-temples and thy elephants trampled over more than a hundred strongholds. Thou didst march thy arm to Ujjain; Malwa trembled and fled from thee… On the way to Kalinjar thy pomp obscured the light of day. The lip of infidelity became dry through fear of thee, the eye of plural-worship became blind…”
(6) Chach-Namah This Persian history was translated from Arabic by Muhammad Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi in the time of Nasirud-Din Qabacha, a slave of Muhammad Ghori, who fought over the throne of Delhi with Shamsud-Din Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236). The translator who lived at Uccha had gone to Alor and Bhakkar in search of accounts of the Arab conquest. He met a Maulana who had inherited a history written in Arabic by one of his ancestors. The translation in Persian followed because Kufi found that the Hijajji Arabic of the original was little understood by people in those days while the work was “a mine of wisdom.” The Arabic original has been lost. The author remains unknown.
Muhammad bin Qasim (CE 712-715) Nirun (Sindh) “Muhammad built at Nirun a mosque on the site of the temple of Budh, and ordered prayers to be proclaimed in the Muhammadan fashion and appointed an Imam.” Siwistan and Sisam (Sindh) Muhammad bin Qasim wrote to al-Hajjãj, the governor of Iraq: “The forts of Siwistan and Sîsam have been already taken. The nephew of Dahir, his warriors, and principal officers have been despatched, and infidels converted to Islam 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 takbir and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening.” Multan (Punjab) “Then all the great and principal inhabitants of the city assembled together, and silver to the weight of sixty thousand dirams was distributed and every horseman got a share of four hundred dirams weight. After this, Muhammad Qasim said that some plan should be devised for realizing the money to be sent to the Khalifa. He was pondering over this, when suddenly a Brahman came and said, ‘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 idol temples. I have heard from the elders of Multan that in ancient times there was a chief in this city whose name was Jibawin, and who was a descendant of the Rai of Kashmir. He was a Brahman and a monk, he strictly followed his religion, and always occupied his time in worshipping idols. When his treasures exceeded all limits and computation, he made a reservoir on the eastern side of Multan, which was hundred yards square. In the middle of it he built a temple fifty yards square, and he made a chamber in which he concealed forty copper jars each of which was filled with African gold dust. A treasure of three hundred and thirty mans of gold was buried there. Over it there is an idol made of red gold, and trees are planted round the reservoir.’ It is related by historians, on the authority of ‘Ali bin Muhammad who had heard it from Abu Muhammad Hindui that Muhammad Qasim arose and with his counsellors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold, and its two eye were bright red rubies……Muhammad Qasim ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty mans of gold were obtained, and forty jars filled with gold dust… This gold and the image were brought to treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of Multan.” Janaki
Janaki was one of the daughters of King Dahir of Sindh. She was captured along with her sister and sent to the Khalifa at Baghdad. When the Khalifa invited Janaki to share his bed, she lied to him that she had already been violated by Muhammad bin Qasim. Her sister supported her statement. The Khalifa ordered that Muhammad be sewed up in raw hide and sent to his court. Muhammad was already dead when the chest containing him arrived in Baghdad. Janaki accused the Khalifa of having killed one of his great generals without making proper enquiry. She said: “The king has committed a very grievous mistake, for he ought not, on account of two slave girls, to have destroyed a person who had taken captive a hundred thousand modest women like us… and who instead of temples had erected mosques, pulpits and minarets…” [this is a story which sounds really like a fantasy, and could be based on a core of reality in which either the Sindhi princesses voluntarily tore their hymen or they were actually raped by Qasim or his followers after capture of Debal or Qasim’s enemies had organized the rape of the girls during transportation to the Khalifa and then had them presented knowing that the Khalifah would feel insulted to be a taster of “the left over” of another man]
(7) Jamiul-Hikayat : The author of this collection of stories was Maulana Nurud-Din Muhammad Ufi. He was born in or near the city of Bukhara in Transoxiana. He came to India and lived in Delhi for some time in the reign of Shamsuddinn Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236).
Amru bin Laith (CE 879-900) Sakawand (Afghanistan) “It is related that Amru Lais conferred the governorship of Zabulistan on Fardaghan and sent him there at the head of four thousand horse. There was a large Hindu place of worship in that country, which was called Sakawand, and people used to come on pilgrimage from the most remote parts of Hindustan to the idols of that place. When Fardaghan arrived in Zabulistan he led his army against it, took the temple, broke the idols in pieces and overthrew the idolaters…”
(8) Tajul-Masr: The author, Sadruddin Muhammad Hasan Nizami, was born at Nishapur in Khurasan. He had to leave his ancestral place because of the Mongol invasion. He came to India and started writing his history in CE 1205. The history opens with the year 1191 and comes down to CE 1217.
Sultan Muhammad Ghori (CE 1175-1206)
Ajmer (Rajasthan) “He destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established…” Kuhram and Samana (Punjab) “The Government of the fort of Kohram and of Samana were made over by the Sultan to Kutbuddin… He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed it from the thorn of God-plurality, and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigour and intrepidity, left not one temple standing…” Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) “Kutbuddin marched from Kohrãm ‘and when he arrived at Mirat -which is one of the celebrated forts of the country of Hind, for the strength of its foundations and superstructure, and its ditch, which was as broad as the ocean and fathomless-an army joined him, sent by the dependent chiefs of the country’. The fort was captured, and a Kotwal appointed to take up his station in the fort, and all the idol temples were converted into mosques.” Delhi “He then marched and encamped under the fort of Delhi… The city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idols-worship, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods, mosques were raised by the worshippers of one God. Kutbuddin built the Jami Masjid at Delhi, and adorned it with stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants, and covered it with inscriptions in Toghra, containing the divine commands.” Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) “From that place [Asni] the royal army proceeded towards Benares ‘which is the centre of the country of Hind’ and here they destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations; and the knowledge of the law became promulgated, and the foundations of religion were established…” Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) “There was a certain tribe in the neighbourhood of Kol which had… occasioned much trouble… ‘Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their beads, and their carcases became the food of beasts of prey. That tract was freed from idols and idol-worship and the foundations of infidelity were destroyed’…” Bayana (Rajasthan) “When Kutbuddin beard of the Sultan’s march from Ghazna, he was much rejoiced and advanced as far as Hãnsî to meet him… In the year AH 592 (CE 1196), they marched towards Thangar, and the centre of idolatry and perdition became the abode of glory and splendour…”
Kalinjar (Uttar Pradesh) “In the year AH 599 (CE 1202), Kutbuddin proceeded to the investment of Kalinjar, on which expedition he was accompanied by the Sahib-Kiran, Shamsuddin Altamsh… The temples were converted into mosques and abodes of goodness, and the ejaculations of bead-counters and voices of summoners to prayer ascended to high heaven, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated…”
Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236) Delhi “The Sultan then returned [from Jalor] to Delhi… and after his arrival ‘not a vestige or name remained of idol temples which had raised their heads on high; and the light of faith shone out from the darkness of infidelity… and the moon of religion and the state became resplendent from the heaven of prosperity and glory.”
(9) Kamilut-Tawarikh : Also known as Tarikh-i-Kamil, it was written by Sheikh Abul Hasan Al ibn Abul Karam Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Karim ibn Abdul Wahid as-Shaibani, commonly known as Ibn Asir. and was born in CE 1160 in the Jazirat ibn Umar, an island on the Tigris above Mosul. This book is quite famous in Islamic scholarship. Khalifa Al-Mahdi (CE 775-785) Barada (Gujarat) “In the year 159 (CE 776) Al Mahdi sent an army by sea under Abdul Malik bin Shahabul Musammai to India… They proceeded on their way and at length disembarked at Barada. When they reached the place they laid siege to it… The town was reduced to extremities, and God prevailed over it in the same year. The people were forbidden to worship the Budd, which the Muhammadans burned.” Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) Unidentified Places (Rajasthan and Gujarat) “So he prayed to the Almighty for aid, and left Ghazni on the 10th of Shaban AH 414… with 30,000 horse besides volunteers, and took the road to Multãn. After he had crossed the desert he perceived on one side a fort full of people, in which there were wells. People came down to conciliate him, but he invested the place, and God gave him victory… So he brought the place under the sway of Islam, killed the inhabitants, and broke in pieces their images…The chief of Anhilwara called Bhim, fled hastily… Yaminu-daula again started for Somnat, and on his march he came to several forts in which were many images serving as chamberlains or heralds of Somnat, and accordingly he (Mahmud) called them Shaitan. He killed the people who were in these places, destroyed the fortifications, broke in pieces the idols and continued his march to Somnat…” Somnath (Gujarat) “This temple of Somnat was built upon fifty-six pillars of teak wood covered with lead. The idol itself was in a chamber… Yaminuddaula seized it, part of it he burnt, and part of it he carried away with him to Ghazni, where he made it a step at the entrance of the Jami masjid…”
(10) Tarikh-i-Jahan-Kusha : The author, ‘Alauddin Malik ibn Bahauddin Muhammad Juwaini, was a native of Juwain in Khurasan near Nishapur. His father who died in CE 1253 was one of the principal revenue officers under the Mongol ruler of Persia. Alauddin followed in his father’s office. He was with Halaku during the Mongol campaign against the Ismailis and was later on appointed the governor of Baghdad. He fell from grace and was imprisoned at Hamadan. He was, however, exonerated and restored to his office which he retained till his death in AH 681 (CE 1282). His history comes down to the year CE 1255.
Sultan Jalaluddin Mankbarni (CE 1222-1231) Debal (Sindh) “The Sultan then went towards Dewal and Darbela and Jaisi… The Sultan raised a Jami‘ Masjid at Dewal, on the spot where an idol temple stood.”
(11) Tabqat-i-Nasiri : The author, Maulana Abu Umr Usman Minhajuddin bin Sirajuddin al-Juzjani, was born in CE 1193. In 1227 he arrived in Uccha where he was placed in charge of Madrasa-i-Firuzi. He presented himself to Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish when the latter came to Uccha in 1228. The same year he accompanied Iltutmish to Delhi and joined the expedition to Gwalior, which city was placed in his charge. He returned to Delhi in 1238 and took charge of Madrasa-i-Nasiriya. His fortune brightened after Nasiruddin became the Sultan in 1246; he was appointed Qazi-i-mamalik in 1251. His history starts with Adam and comes down the year 1260.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (CE 997-1030) Somnath (Gujarat) “When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty, his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted so many thousands of idol temples into masjids… He led an army to Nahrwalah of Gujarat, and brought away Manat, the idol, from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one of which was cast before the entrance of the great Masjid at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan’s palace, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.” The translator comments in a footnote: “Among the different coins struck in Mahmud’s reign one bore the following inscription: ‘The right hand of the empire, Mahmud Sultan, son of Nasir-uddin Subuk-Tigin, Breaker of Idols.’ This coin appears to have been struck at Lahore, in the seventh year of his reign.” Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish (CE 1210-1236) Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) “After he returned to the capital in the year AH 632 (CE 1234) the Sultan led the hosts of Islam toward Malwah, and took the fortress and town of Bhilsan, and demolished the idol-temple which took three hundred years in building and which, in altitude, was about one hundred ells.” Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) “From thence he advanced to Ujjain-Nagari and destroyed the idol-temple of Mahakal Diw. The effigy of Bikramjit who was sovereign of Ujjain-Nagari, and from whose reign to the present time one thousand, three hundred, and sixteen years have elapsed, and from whose reign they date the Hindui era, together with other effigies besides his, which were formed of molten brass, together with the stone (idol) of Mahakal were carried away to Delhi, the capital.” Among his “Victories and Conquests” is counted the “bringing away of the idol of Mahakal, which they have planted before the gateway of the Jami Masjid at the capital city of Delhi in order that all true believers might tread upon it.”
The Islamic conversion in India of non-Muslims into Islam has been declared to have been done by Sufi preachers who were always a very tolerant, integrative, and peaceful interpretation of Islam always using peaceful means to convert Hindus. Let us see, what the Sufi’s themselves say about their conversion methods in the early days of Islam in India.
The author of Siyarul-Arifin, Hamid bin Fazlullah is also known as Dervish Jamali Kamboh Dihlawi. He was a Sufi of the Suhrawardiyya sect who died in AD 1536 while accompanying the Mughal Emperor Humayun on an expedition to Gujarat. His son, Shykh Gadai was with the Mughal army in the Second Battle of Panipat (AD 1556) and advised Akbar to kill the Hindu king, Himu imprisoned in battle, with his own hand. On Akbar’s refusal, according to Badauni, Shykh Gadai helped Bairam Khan in beheading the blinded and fatally wounded Himu [So much for treatment of prisoners of war in Islam]. This work, completed between AD 1530 and 1536, is an account of the Chishti and Suhrawardi Sufis of the period.
Sheikh Jalaluddin Tabrizi (AH 533-623) was the second most famous disciple of Sheikh Shihabuddin Suhrawardi (AD 1145-1235), founder of the Suhrawardiyya silsila of Sufism. Having lived in Multan, Delhi and Badaun, he finally settled down in Lakhanauti, also known as Gaur, in Bengal.
Devatala (Bengal) “Shaikh Jalaluddin had many disciples in Bengal. He first lived at Lakhnauti, constructed a khanqah and attached a langar to it. He also bought some gardens and land to be attached to the monastery. He moved to Devatalla (Deva Mahal) near Pandua in northern Bengal. There a kafir (either a Hindu or a Buddhist) had erected a large temple and a well. The Shaikh demolished the temple and constructed a takiya (khanqah) and converted a large number of kafirs… Devatalla came to be known as Tabrizabad and attracted a large number of pilgrims.”
[S.A.A. Rizvi: A History of Sufism in India. Vol. I, New Delhi, 1978]
Tarikh-i-Kashmir was written by Haidar Malik Chadurah, was a Kashmiri aristocrat in the service of Sultan Yusuf Shah (AD 1579-1586) and purports to give the history of Kashmir. Earlier portions are based on Kalhana’s Rajatarangini with some additions in the later period. It was begun in AD 1618 and finished sometime after 1620-21.
Sufi Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi of Kashmir was a sufi of the Kubrawiyya sect who came to Kashmir first in AD 1481, next in AD 1501, and finally in 1505 in the reign of Sultan Fath Shah. He found it convenient to work as a member of the Nr Bakhsh Sufi sect. His doings are “anticipated” in the Tarikh-i-Kashmir as follows:
“…Baba Uchah Ganai went for circumambulation of the two harms (Mecca and Medina)… in search of the perfect guide (Pir-i-Kamil). He prayed to God (to help) him when he heard a voice from the unknown that the ‘perfect guide’ was in Kashmir himself… Hazrat Shaikh, Baba Uchah Ganai… returned to Kashmir… All of a sudden his eyes fell upon a place of worship, the temples of the Hindus. He smiled; when the devotees asked the cause of (his smile) he replied that the destruction and demolition of these places of worship and the destruction of the idols will take place at the hand of the high horn Sheikh Shams-ud-Din Irraqi. He will soon be coming from Iraq and shall turn the temples completely desolate, and most of the misled people will accept the path of guidance and Islam… So as was ordained Sheikh Shams-ud-Din reached Kashmir. He began destroying the places of worship and the temples of the Hindus and made an effort to achieve the objectives.” [Tarikh-Kashmir, edited and translated into English by Razia Bano, Delhi, 1991, pp. l02-03. ]
Siyar al-Aqtab was completed in AD 1647 by Allah Diya Chishti and deals with many miracles performed by the Sufis, particularly of the Sabriyya branch of the Chishtiyya silsila.
Sheikh Muin al-Din Chishti of Ajmer (d. AD 1236) Ajmer (Rajasthan)
“Although at that time there were very many temples of idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol temples.’
“It is said that among those temples there was one temple to reverence which the Raja and all the infidels used to come, and lands had been assigned to provide for its expenditure. When the Khwaja settled there, every day his servants bought a cow, brought it there and slaughtered it and ate it…
[CE 1236 was the time of Qutbudin Aibak and Iltutmish, (whose reputation about treatment of non-Muslims we will discuss later) based a short distance away from Ajmer, in Delhi, with Muslim military bases all around in Punjab. The integration and tolerance towards non-Muslims is shown in the bold declaration of occupying a Hindu temple, slaughtering (imagined or real) cows in a Hindu temple and eating the beef up.]
“So when the infidels grew weak and saw that they had no power to resist such a perfect companion of God, they… went into their idol temples which were their places of worship. In them there was a dev, in front of whom they cried out and asked for help…
“…The dev who was their leader, when he saw the perfect beauty of the Khwaja, trembled from head to foot like a willow tree. However much he tried to say ‘Ram, Ram’, it was ‘Rahim, Rahim’ that came from his tongue… The Khwaja… with his own hand gave a cup of water to a servant to take to the dev… He had no sooner drunk it than his heart was purified of darkness of unbelief, he ran forward and fell at the Heaven-treading feet of the Khwaja, and professed his belief…
“The Khwaja said: ‘I also bestow on you the name of Shadi Dev [Joyful Dev]’…
“…Then Shadi Dev… suggested to the Khwaja, that he should now set up a place in the city, where the populace might benefit from his holy arrival. The Khwaja accepted this suggestion, and ordered one of his special servants called Muhammad Yadgir to go into the city and set in good order a place for faqirs. Muhammad Yadgir carried out his orders, and when he had gone into the city, he liked well the place where the radiant tomb of the Khwaja now is, and which originally belonged to Shadi Dev, and he suggested that the Khwaja should favour it with his residence…
[A realistic version will be the story of a typical strong arm bully backed up by the threat of Muslim military might simply picking up a nice property that takes fancy]
“…Muin al-din had a second wife for the following reason: one night he saw the Holy Prophet in the flesh. The prophet said: ‘You are not truly of my religion if you depart in any way from my sunnat.’ It happened that the ruler of the Patli fort, Malik Khitab, attacked the unbelievers that night and captured the daughter of the Raja of that land. He presented her to Muin al-din who accepted her and named her Bibi Umiya.”
[ This method of obtaining a bride is of course also a wonderful way of showing tolerance, integration, peaceful gestures of conversion. What is more significant is that a Sufi writer does not think that such behaviour is odd and not in the character of a Sufi]
Currie comments that “…The take-over of ‘pagan’ sites is a recurrent feature of the history of the expansion of Islam. The most obvious precedent is to be found in the Muslim annexation of the Hajar al-aswad at Mecca… Sir Thomas Arnold remarks that ‘in many instances there is no doubt that the shrine of a Muslim saint marks the site of some local cult which was practised on the spot long before the introduction of Islam…There is evidence, more reliable than the tradition recorded in the Siyar al-Aqtab, to suggest that this was the case in Ajmer. Sculpted stones, apparently from a Hindu temple, are incorporated in the Buland Darwaza of Muin-al-din’s shrine. Moreover, his tomb is built over a series of cellars which may have formed part of an earlier temple… A tradition, first recorded in the Anis al-Arwah, suggests that the Sandal Khana is built on the site of Shadi Dev’s temple.” [P.M. Currie, The Shrine and Cult of Muin al-Din Chishti of Ajmer, OUP, 1989]
Bahar-i-Azam is an account of a journey undertaken in 1823 by Azam Jah Bahadur “after he ascended the throne of the Carnatic as Nawab Walajah VI.” The author, Ghulam ‘Abdul Qadir Nazir, was his court scribe who accompanied the Nawab on this journey. The Nawab was only in name as he was living in Madras on British gratuity, in lieu of his ancestral principality of Arcot which had been cturned over to the British in 1801. The account names numerous Sufis etc., who came to the districts of Chingleput, North Arcot, South Arcot, Tiruchirapalli and Thanjavur and established Muslim places of worship. What these new monuments replaced becomes obvious from the following instances.
Sufi Natthar Wali of Tiruchirapalli (Tamil Nadu) “It is said that in ancient days Trichila, an execrable monster with three heads, who was a brother of Rawan, with ten heads, had the sway over this country. No human being could oppose him. But as per the saying of the Prophet, ‘Islam will be elevated and cannot be subdued’, the Faith took root by the efforts of Hazarat Natthar Wali. The monster was slain and sent to the house of perdition. His image namely but-ling worshipped by the unbelievers was cut and the head was separated from the body. A portion of the body went into the ground. Over that spot is the tomb of the Wali, shedding rediance till this day.”
Sufi Shah Bheka “Shah Bheka… when he was at Trichinopoly during the days of Rani Minachi, the unbelievers who did not like his stay there harassed him. One day when he was very much vexed, he got upon the bull in front of the temple, which the Hindus worship calling it swami, and made it move on by the power and strength of the Supreme Life Giver… They abandoned the temple and gave the entire place on the aruskalwa as present to the Shah.” (this is during a time when the Muslim faction in court politics was dominant)
Sufi Qãyim Shah “Qayim Shah[…]was the cause for the destruction of twelve temples. He lived to an old age and passed away on the 17th Safar AH 1193.”
Sufi Nur Muhammad Qadiri of Vellore (Tamil Nadu) “Hazarat Nur Muhammad Qadiri was the most unique man regarded as an invaluable person of his age. Very often he was the cause of the ruin of temples. Some of these were laid waste. He selected his own burial ground in the vicinity of the temple. Although he lived five hundred years ago, people at large still remember his greatness.”
[Bahar-i-Azam, translated in English, Madras, 1960, 382 Ibid., p. 51. Sayyid Nathar Shah (AD 969-1030) from Arabia destroyed a Shiva temple and converted it into his khanqah. He died in AH 673, and the khanqah became a dargah which has since grown into an important place of Muslim pilgrimage]
The N-Deal is in a Mess now, and as I had predicted the greatest difficulty would be getting agreement at the NSG. The strongest opposition will come from EU member states who have strong economic ties with the Middle East and China. Europe’s extensive economic ties with the Middle East have been seen as a key reason for differing U.S.-European approaches. The EU is the primary trading partner of the Middle Eastern Islamic countries and overall European economic interests are more integrated with the region than the US. EU exports to the Middle East were roughly three times the size of U.S. exports. Some analysts think that many European countries are primarily motivated by the need to protect these commercial ties with the region, and often do so at the expense of security concerns. Most experts agree that European countries’ extensive trade and economic ties with the Islamic heartland heighten their desires to maintain good relations with Arab governments and makes them wary about policies that could disrupt the normal flow of trade and oil. Recent overtures to China from some of these strong protesters could also be indirectly related to their opposition to the passage of the deal. All these countries are either members of or virtually protected by the NATO, they do not hesitate to intervene and use overwhelming military force in their neighbourhood as in Yugoslavia, or put up long range missile attack/defence systems in Poland. These are countries who never protested the Chinese invasion into India in the 60’s or Pakistan’s invasions in 65 and 71, and choose to ignore the fact that at least two Nuclear weapons states are also antagonistic neighbours of India, and EU will never come to India’s defence in a military emergency – for a variety of racial, religious, economic, political and strategic reasons. The very possibly nuclear weapons capable country against whom the NATO is deploying missiles in Poland is actually far closer to India than to Europe. India should take lessons about where Europe’s sympathies will lie if it is forced to choose between India and the Islamic heartland or China. India should expect a delaying tactic so that the key passage through the US Congress can be successfully jeopardized.
In West Bengal the Left Front government is in a mess as its Chief Minister is at a complete loss as to what to say about the premier industrial house of India, the Tatas’s intention to pull out their Nano operation from the disputed site of Singur. I had discussed a long time ago that Mamata Bannerjee in her eagerness to put herself forward as the new and real power centre in West Bengal will adopt exactly the strategies the Left had used almost 30-35 years ago to come to power and want the Tatas to negotiate with her directly. At that time it was the Left which had championed crippling strikes, and its consistent slogan was that “Tatas and the Birlas” were the enemies of the people, against whom the agrarian labour and workers of the weakened industry should fight. Combined with the arrogance and reliance on sycophants that the Left leadership has practised in West Bengal for a long time, it was a matter of time before the upcoming generations got psychologically detached from the “Left”. The Tatas have little to do but pull out, unless Mamata Bannerjee is prepared to swallow her pride, which in her impatience to get a piece of the cake seems most unlikely. By insisting on her conditions Mamata will also prove that she is just a small politician like Buddhadev and not a statesperson.
Some bloggers who criticize armchair politicians think holding free and fair elections is necessary and sufficient to solve the Kashmir problem and isolate the separatist Hurriyat. This sort of daydreaming comes out of a complete failure to understand what Islam is all about – its is a complete system of politics, and it is shrewd enough to realize that wherever it manages a foothold it has to completely erase all traces of pre-Islamic identities, cultures and independent or rational thought not dictated by the theologians. The basic social institution through which a new born citizen learns social and political behaviour is the education system. This made the Islamic leadership target the secular schools established under the general Indian pattern in Kashmir, but the Madrassahs were left intact, so that children would be forced to get only Islamic brainwashing and nothing else. A whole generation in the Kashmir valley has grown up indoctrinated in the most primitive and violent aspects of Islamic ideology, that of pretending “peace” as long as weak in numbers and launch violent expansion against non-Muslims as soon as sufficient numerical strength is reached. By allowing this to happen and protecting Islamic erasure of the pre-Islamic cultural roots of the Kashmiri’s the Congress has now brought India to a point where separatist support is widespread. Just as the British left no longer capable of coping with the mess they created in India the Congress too will retreat, leaving the non-Muslim people of India to suffer the brunt of their mismanagement.
The sack of Somnath in particular came to be considered a specially pious exploit because of its analogy with the destruction of idol of Al Manat in Arabia by the Prophet. This explains the lavish panegyric of Mahmud by Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, and especially the early Sufi [who were very peaceful converters of Indians to Islam according to the Thaparite School of Indian history] poets like Sanai and Attar, or narrators as Awfi. After the Somnath expedition (1026 C.E.), “a deed which had fired the imagination of the Islamic world”, Caliph al-Qadir Billah himself celebrated the victory with great pomp and ceremony and sent Mahmud a very complimentary letter giving him the title of Kahf-ud-daula wa al-Islam, thereby formally recognizing him as the “ruler of Hindustan”. Mahmud for the first time issued his coins from Lahore only after this second commendation from the Caliph in connection with the “destruction of Somnath”.
Mahmud extracted 2,50,000 dinars as ransom from Jayapal (1001-02 C.E.). Jayapal’s necklace worth 2,00,000 gold dinars was appropriated by Mahmud, and twice that value extracted from the necklaces of his imprisoned or executed relatives. All the wealth of Bhera which was “as wealthy as imagination can conceive”, was captured in (1004-05 C.E.). In 1005-06 the people of Multan were forced to pay an indemnity of the value of 20,000,000 silver dirhams. When Nawasa Shah, who had reconverted to Hinduism, was deposed (1007-08), the Sultan confiscated his wealth amounting to 400,000 dirhams. Mahmud seized coins of the value of 70,000,000 Hindu Shahiya dirhams, from the fort of Bhimnagar in Kangra, and gold and silver ingots weighing some hundred maunds, jewellery and precious stones. There was also a collapsible house of silver, thirty yards in length and fifteen yards in breadth, and a canopy (mandapika) supported by two golden and two silver poles. This vast treasure could not be shifted immediately, and Mahmud left two of his “most confidential” chamberlains, Altuntash and Asightin, to arrange for its gradual removal to Ghazni. In subsequent expeditions (1015-20) Punjab and the adjoining areas were sucked dry. Over and above the looting by Mahmud, there was additional looting by his soldiers. From Baran Mahmud obtained, 1,000,000 dirhams, from Mahaban a large booty, from Mathura five idols which when melted [Should we apply the Thaparite algorithm of dividing by 10 or 100?] alone yielded 98,300 misqals (about 390 kg) of gold, and two hundred silver idols. Kanauj, Munj, Asni, Sharva and some other places yielded another 3,000,000 dirhams. Somnath yielded 20,000,000 dinars. [Utbi, the Secretary to Sultan Mahmud, reports this and if he exaggerated then as this was a contemporary record, the Caliphate would come to know of this and would be able to calculate that Mahmud had not sent full share of the Caliph. This is a part usually not much mentioned by the Thaparite School and generically dismissed as part of boasting. However it is important to note that this starts the long and economically devastating drainage of capital out of India, and the increasing rate of such drainage of capital throughout Muslim dominance and the final acceleration under the Mughals. India was hardly given the chance to recover by the British, which is not however our ambit here. What is significant is to note the role of Muslim exploitation in the 1000 year long economic decline of India which is usually suppressed in the Thaparite reconstruction of Indian history and allows the gloating recreation of the image of modern India as a “backward country full of flies and beggars” with the blame variously laid at the feet of Brahminical exploitation, a pagan superstitious religion, or inherently primitive and backward ethnicity. We will see subsequently how the basic inability of the Islamic mind in comprehending sophistication and extreme insecurity and jealousy of more advanced societies prevented them from utilizing the advanced forms of Indian economic processes and basically continue in their marginal desert culture of looting of Kafelas or subsisting by looting more productive populations].
Archaeologically there is a significant absence of Indian coins or artefacts made of precious metal from this entire period in the Punjab and Sind area. [The Thaparite school of Indian history typically remains silent on this or jokes that this could be a possible pointer that the stories of these Hindu kingdoms with fabulous riches are simply stories and fantasies and they probably never existed. In this sense nothing contemporary specifically archaeologically associated with the early founders of Islam including its Prophet has been found in Arabia. However the Thaparite school will never dare raise a similar joke in the Arabian context. This also helps the Thaparite school in trying to prove that “Hinduism” did not exist in general before the pre-Islamic period. However it is a general principle of the Thaparite School to accept archaeology only if it supports the Schools hypothesis and it very angrily reacts and disparages archaeology if it dares to differ from its diktats] The flow of bullion outside India stablized Ghaznavid currency and debased the Indian. The gold content of millenial north Indian coins reduced from 120 to 60 grams with a similar reduction in the weight and content of the silver coin. This in turn reduced credit of Indian merchants in the international market.
India had always been an exporter against bullion and had accumulated bullion from domestic sources as well mines of Tibet and Central Asia. Removal of skilled artisans as slaves, decimation of adult male populations, destruction of the social productive structures including removal of women and reproductive resources of the populations, destroyed internal production and the domestic market, and trade networks. One reason prompting Anandpal to send an embassy to Mahmud at Ghazni with favourable terms to the Sultan (C. 1012) was to try to normalize trade facilities, and after an agreement “caravans (again) travelled in full security between Khurasan and Hind.”
Mahmud collected in loot and tribute valuable articles of trade like indigo, fine muslins, embroidered silk, and cotton stuffs, and items and raw ingots of famous Indian steel, lavishly praised by Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Alberuni and others. [this is the source of the famous Damascus steel coveted by both by Europe and the Muslim world. As is typical with the Muslims, they never acknowledged the debt they owed Indians for technology and intellectual achievements such as mathematics which they are usually most careful in claiming as their own inventions – leading to the so called nomenclature of Arabic numerals in the West] One valuable commodity taken from India was indigo. From Baihaqi, who writes the correct Indian word “nil” for the dye, it appears that 20,000 mans (about 500 maunds) of indigo was taken to Ghazna every year. According to Baihaqi, Sultan Masud once sent 25,000 mans (about 600 maunds) of indigo to the Caliph at Baghdad, for “the Sultans often reserved part of this (valuable commodity) for their own usage, and often sent it as part of presents for the Caliph or for other rulers”.
What was the record of these peaceful holiday visitors of Islam in their own words about their leisure activities? The chief of Thanesar (modern Kurukshetra) was “obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah, so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people were unable to drink it. Praise be to Allah for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musalmans.” At Sirsawa near Saharanpur, “The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty”.
Alberuni, an eyewitness of Mahmud’s destruction of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Punjab writes about its kings that “in all their grandeur, they never slackened in their ardent desire of doing that which is right, they were men of noble sentiments and noble bearing”. On the other hand, Mahmud’s “sole business was to wage war against the Thakurs and Rajas (whereby) Mahmud sought to make the plunder of Hindustan a permanent affair”. The Indians were horrified by an “inopportune display of religious bigotry, and indulgence in women and wine”. In such a situation, “Hindu sciences retired away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and fled to Kashmir, Benaras and other places”.[Al Beruni- this is an important indication of why Indian intellectual development stagnated from the advent of Islam in India. In fact the famous universities with international fame, were systematically destroyed, the general educational system obliterated, and insecurity shut up women within the house and for the first time in the long history of women’s education in pre-Islamic India, women were almost completely excluded from education]
Mahmud also started the later consistent Islamic traditions of looting wealth and women whenever the Islamic heartlands of middle East or central Asia became “impoverished” as a result of intensive and destructive Islamic looting. Utbi writes “It happened, that 20,000 men from Mawaraun nahr and its neighbourhood, who were with the Sultan (Mahmud), were anxious to be employed on some holy expedition in which they might obtain martyrdom. The Sultan determined to march with them to Kanauj”. This is the tradition of Ghazis, (the Arabic root means one who has gone for a Ghazwa, literally a tribal raid typically mentioned in the context of looting wealth, animals, and women) as imposed on India. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, Muhammad Ghori declared jihad in “Hind” (1205 C.E.- 13 years after the second battle of Tarain, decisively destroying his strongest Hindu opponent Prithviraj), “in order to repair the fortunes of his servants and armies; for within the last few years, Khurasan, on account of the disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished, and his armies renewed”. Fourteen Ghaznavids ruled at Lahore and surrounding regions for nearly two centuries.This Muslim base shrank and deteriorated, but a core of the Islamic theocracy had been established around Multan and served as the bulkhead for the next stage of central Asian Islamic expansion into the subcontinent.
Following Mahmud’s death in Ghazni on 20 April 1030 at the age of sixty his two sons Muhammad and Masud fought for the throne but Masud won and replaced the governor of Punjab with Ahmad Niyaltigin. Niyaltigin attacked Benaras looting the markets of the drapers, perfumers and jewellers and obtained immese booty in gold, silver, and jewels. This raised the jealousy of Masud who declared a “Jihad” on “Hindustan” and attacked India by way of Kabul in November 1037. Hansi was stormed and sacked in February the next year, but in his absence Tughril Beg, the Seljuk Turk, sacked a portion of Ghazni town and seized Nishapur (now in Iran) in 1037. Khurasan was rapidly falling before the Seljuks and western Persia was becoming independent of Ghazni. In India 80,000 Hindus under Mahipal seized Lahore in 1043, but retreated on arrival of the Ghaznavid army. The Seljuks bypassed unproductive Afghanistan, expanding to modern Turkey but a small insignificant tribe of the rugged hills of Ghor lying between Ghazni and Herat, with their castle of Firoz Koh (Hill of Victory) who had submitted to Mahmud in 1010 C.E. and had joined his army on his Indian campaign rose in rebellion. To take revenge of the death of two brothers at the hands of the Ghazni ruler, a third, Alauddin Husain, coverran the kingdom and burnt down the new capital of Ghazni built by Mahmud at the cost of seven million gold coins(1151), earning him the title of Jahan-soz (world burner). The graves of the dynasty were dug up and scattered, but the tomb of Mahmud, “the idol of Muslim soldiers” was spared [outside modern Ghazni only that tomb and two minarets one of which still boasts the titles of the idol-breaker remains of the wealth looted from India].
Alauddin, died in 1161, and his son two years later, and his nephew, Ghiyasuddin bin Sam, became the chief of Ghor. He brought order to Ghazni and established his younger brother Muizuddin on the ruined throne of Mahmud (1173-74). Ghiyasuddin ruled at Firoz Koh and Muizuddin at Ghazni [is commonly known by three names as Muizuddin bin Sam, Shihabuddin Ghori and Muhammad Ghori]. Muhammad Ghori now had Alberuni’s India and Burhanuddin’s “Hidaya”, not available to previous invaders. Alberuni’s work provided to Islamic world information on Hindu religion, Hindu philosophy, and sources of civil and religious law. Hindu sciences of astronomy, astrology, knowledge of distance of planets, and solar and lunar eclipses, physics and metaphysics, ideas on matrimony and human biology, Hindu customs and ceremonies, their cities, kingdoms, rivers and oceans are all described. Hidaya, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh Burhanud-din Ali in the twelfth century, claims to have studied all earlier commentaries on the Quran and the Hadis belonging to the schools of Malik, Shafi and Hanbal besides that of Hanifa. The Hidaya is quite explicit in how non-Muslims should be treated and the military manuals of strategy like the Siyasat Nama and the Adab-ul-Harb [these three gems are constantly referred to by Islamic chroniclers of this time and should be read by modern non-Muslims to get a flavour of Islamic ethics of this period with regards to warfare and treatment of non-Muslims] make a formidable combination. Ghori led his first expedition to Multan and Gujarat in 1175. Three years later he again marched by way of Multan, Uchch and the arid Thar desert toward Anhilwara Patan in Gujarat, but the Rajput Bhim gave him a crushing defeat (1178-79). Ghori was not disheartened and annexed Peshawar (ancient Hindu Purushpur) in 1180 and marched to Lahore in 1181. Two more expeditions in 1184 and 1186-87, finally brought him Lahore. By false promise Khusrau Malik, a prince of the Ghaznavid dynasty, was induced to come out of the fortress, was taken prisoner and sent to Ghazni, and executed in 1201. Ghori systematically executed all survivors of the dynasty of Mahmud Ghaznavi [Compare with the Ummayad and Abbasid struggle for power among brothers of the Islamic brotherhood, which led to the only survivor of the previous regime to seek his fortune in Spain]. In 1188 Ghori invaded the Chahamana kingdom and sacked the fort of Bhatinda killing the adult Hindu male populace and carried out a systematic public rape and subsequent enslavement of the women. Hindu refugees flocked around Delhi alarming Prithviraj. Ghori had already been defeated by Solanki Rajputs in Gujarat, and made elaborate preparations before marching towards the Punjab in 1191 C.E. He captured Bhatinda, which had been retaken by the Rajputs from its Ghaznavid governor, and placed it under Qazi Ziyauddin Talaki with a contingent of 1200 horse. Before returning to Ghazni he learnt that Prithviraj Chauhan, the Rajput ruler of Ajmer-Delhi, was coming with a large force to attack him. Ghori encountered Prithviraj at Tarain or Taraori, about ten kilometers north of Karnal. The Rajput army comprised hundreds of elephants and a few thousand horse. The Muslims were overwhelmed and their left and right wings were broken. In the centre, Muhammad Ghori charged at Govind Rai, the brother of Prithviraj, and shattered his teeth with his lance. But Govind Rai drove his javelin through the Sultan’s arm, and Ghori’s life was saved only by a Khalji Turk. His army retreated and Prithviraj besieged Bhatinda but Ziyauddin held out for thirteen months before he capitulated.
At Ghazni, Muhammad held the Ghori, Khalji and Khurasani amirs responsible for his defeat. They were paraded through the city with sacks full of oats tied to their necks. The Sultan himself was overcome with such shame that he would “neither eat nor drink nor change garments till he had avenged himself”. Next year he marched against India with full preparations and with a force of one hundred and two thousand Turks, Persians and Afghans. From Lahore, he invited Prithviraj “to make his submission and accept Islam” and raising an equally arrogant reply. The Rajput army was far superior in numbers. Prithviraj had succeeded in enlisting the support of about one hundred Rajput princes who rallied round his banner with their elephants, cavalry and infantry. Firishta writes that Prithviraj’s reply to Ghori had promised no harm if Ghori retreated. Ghori, as is typical in Islamic commanders, following the Quranic decree that “war is deception” replied: “I have marched into India at the command of my brother whose general I am. Both honour and duty bind me to exert myself to the utmost… but I shall be glad to obtain a truce till he is informed of the situation and I have received his answer.” The Hindus fell into the trap. Of the five divisions of Ghor’s army, four composed of mounted archers, were instructed to attack (by turns) the flanks and, if possible, the rear of the Hindus, but to avoid hand to hand conflicts and, if closely pressed, to pretend flight. Ghori mounted a surprise attack early at dawn when the Indians were busy in their morning ablutions forcing the Hindus to fight on empty stomach. Firishta records “The Sultan made preparations for battle… and when the Rajputs had left their camp for purposes of obeying calls of nature, and for the purpose of performing ablutions, he entered the plain with his ranks marshalled. Although the unbelievers were amazed and confounded, still in the best manner they could, they stood the fight. ”Explaining the reason for the empty stomach Dr. Jadunath Sarkar writes: “It was the Hindu practice to prepare for the pitched battle by waking at 3 O’clock in the morning, performing the morning wash and worship, eating the cooked food (pakwan) kept ready before hand, putting on arms and marching out to their appointed places in the line of battle before sunrise. But in the second battle of Naraina (also called Tarain, Taraori) the Rajputs could take no breakfast; they had to snatch up their arms and form their lines as best as they could in a hurry and fought the Turko-Afghan army from 9 o’clock in the morning to 3 o’clock in the afternoon at the end of which the Hindus were utterly exhausted from the fighting, hunger and thirst.”
When Ghori realized that the Rajput army was sufficiently weary, he charged their centre with 12,000 of his best cavalry and the Rajputs were completely defeated. Govind Rai was killed, and Prithviraj was captured and beheaded and huge spoils fell into the hands of the Muslim army. Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram and Hansi were captured in quick succession with ruthless massacre and a general destruction of temples and building of mosques. The Sultan then marched to Ajmer and repeated his Islamic actions. Ajmer was made over to a son of Prithviraj on promise of punctual payment of tribute [ probably because Ghori was not yet certain of his strength this far from his main power base]. Delhi was occupied under the command of Qutbuddin Aibak who was to act as Ghori’s representative in India.
The Gahadvala Jayachandra had not come to the aid of Prithviraj hoping, that after the defeat of the Chauhan ruler, a rival, [reputed also to have had stolen the heart of his daughter who eloped with Prithviraj] he himself would become unchallenged master of northern India. Ghori marched from Ghazni in 1193 at the head of fifty thousand horse and gave a crushing defeat to Jayachandra on the Yamuna between Chandwar and Etah, and annexed Kanauj and Varanasi. At Kol (Modern Aligarh), “Those of the horizon who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancestoral faith were slain with the sword…20,000 prisoners were taken and made slaves. Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads and their carcases became food for the beasts of prey. At Kalinjar 50,000 prisoners were taken as slaves. Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir records, “The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children,(who were taken into slavery) and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary.”
The Muslim chroniclers describe with great glee and in explicit details about the systematic execution of adult males, public rape of women and their eventual enslavement, with great details of torture before execution or during rape. The strategy of Islamic invaders always rely on deception and they do not follow any ethical code of conduct in war or in treatment of non-combatants or prisoner of wars. It is not as if the Muslim world is ignorant of such code of conduct, for even now pro-Islamic scholars point out with immense emotion on the latest western documentaries on the Crusades that Saladin and the Muslim world in general were horrified by the treatment of Muslim prisoners of war by Richard Lionheart – in exactly the same historical period. That Muslims have not given up on this double standards was amply proved in the 1971 war between Pakistan and India on the eastern front, where enforced prostitution, organized rape, and enslavement of women for sex was practised widely by the Pakistani army, and targeted primarily the women of non-Muslims such as Hindus. The Thaparite School argues that no records of trauma on the side of victims are available, therefore no trauma existed. It is obvious from the descriptions of the Muslim chroniclers that the intellectual elite class was specifically targeted, “the shaven headed But-prasts” (buddhists) or the “black faced Hindoo priests” were inevitably slaughtered, as they would be relatively useless for hard work and slavery – the only thing the Muslims understood as valuable. A huge amount of books and manuscripts were deliberately destroyed, and on certain occasions it is recorded that commanders searched in vain for someone who could read the strange symbols in manuscripts remaining in the smouldering ruins of a sacked city, but being told that all who could read or write had been executed. Mahmud also removed an immense number of books and manuscripts [ one of the few “facts” in Islamic chronicles apparently thought to be reliable and not a boast by the Thaparite School and prominently propagated as undisputed proof of Mahmud’s erudition and respect for scholarship – although unfortunately none of these “taken from India” manuscripts are available archaeologically traceable to Ghazni] which if true would mean an immense loss of textual material and records used in education and Indian academics.
We will take up the systematic cultural destruction programme undertaken by the Muslim invaders in the next part:
The peaceful Islamic traders who came to India on annual holidays with holiday security and with whom the vast millions of caste-repressed Indians immediately fell in love-The Thaparite position on advent of Islam in India, in spite of the fact that there has been no records of trauma by the victims of caste repression in the period-a logic used to negate Islamic terror in India since not many records of trauma at the hands of Muslims survive.
Appearing in Arabia, Islam spread by conquering with amazing rapidity. The Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria were conquered by the newly converted Arabs after a campaign of six months in C.E. 636-37. The Sassanid empire of Persia (including Iraq, Iran and Khurasan) was defeated in 637 and by 643 the Caliphate stretched to the frontiers of India. In the west the Byzantine province of Egypt fell in 640-641, and Inner Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand and Samarqand were annexed by 650. The Arab armies marched over North Africa and crossed into Spain in C.E. 709. All this took place within seventy years (637-709) and the conquered people were quickly converted to Islam and their language and culture Arabicised.
India, known to early Arabs as “Hind va Sind”, [showing that the Arabs were well aware of the distinction between Sind as a part and not whole of India] was their next target both by land and sea. These invasions proceeded along the then known (trade) routes – 1. from Kufa and Baghadad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India’s west coast; 2. from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sind; and 3. through the land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian. But progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was extremely slow. Caliph Umar (634-44 C.E.) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage Thana on the coast of Maharashtra during the reign of the great Hindu monarch Pulakesin II. This was followed by expeditions to Bharuch (Broach) in Gujarat and the gulf of Debal in Sind. These were repulsed and Mughairah, the leader of the latter expedition, was defeated and killed. Umar thought of sending another army by land against Makran which at that time was part of the kingdom of Sind but was dissuaded by the governor of Iraq from doing so. The next Caliph Usman (644-656) followed the same advice and refrained from embarking on any venture on Sind. The fourth Caliph, Ali, sent an expedition by land in 660 but the leader of the expedition and most of his troops were slain in the hilly terrain of Kikanan (42 H./662 C.E.). This was the fate of the attempts by the four famous “pious” Caliphs of Islam.
According to Chachnama and Tuhfatul Kiram, the kingdom of Sind extended on the east to the boundary of Kashmir and Kanauj, on the west to Makran, on the south to the sea and Debal, and on the north to Kandahar, Seistan and the mountains of Kuzdan and Kikanan. This includes modern undivided Punjab and Baluchistan, parts of North-West Frontier Province and parts of Rajasthan. Muawiyah, the Caliph (661-80), sent six expeditions by land to Sind. All of them were repulsed with great slaughter except the last one which succeeded in occupying Makran in 680. Thereafter, for twenty-eight years, the Arabs dared not another expedition against Sind. Makran probably remained partially independent so that as late as 1290 Marco Polo speaks of the eastern part of Makran as part of Hind, and as “the last Kingdom of India as you go towards the west and northwest”
Arabs attacked India from the north-west, and after the fall of Khurasan in 643 C.E., the first Arab army penetrated into Zabul by way of Seistan (at that time considered a territorial and cultual part of India). After a protracted struggle the Arabs were defeated and driven out. A decade later the Arab general Abdul Rahman finally conquered Zabul and levied tribute from Kabul which apparently was not paid willingly and regularly. To ensure regular payment another Arab general Yazid bin Ziyad attempted retribution in 683, but was killed and his army put to flight with great slaughter. [contrary to romantic Islamic representations, it has been a consistent part of Islamic war strategy to deceive, and escape when faced with sure death, or beg and grovel before or appeal to non-Muslim generosity but usually never give quarter and systematically execute able bodied male prisoners of war – an awareness of their own tactic to save themselves so that they can gather strength to come back and finish off non-Muslims] The war against Kabul was renewed in 695, but it became protracted and developed into a stalemate. Caliph Al-Mansur (745-775 C.E.) attempted to force the Hindu king of Kabul to submit but met only with partial success and the Ghaznavid Turks found the Hindus ruling over Kabul in 986 C.E.
In the south, in 712 a full-fledged invasion was launched after prolonged negotiations. The king of Ceylon had sent to Hajjaj bin Yusuf Sakifi, the governor of the eastern provinces of the Caliphate, eight vessels filled with presents, Abyssinian slaves, pilgrims, and the orphan daughters of some Muslim merchants who had died in his dominions. These ships were attacked and plundered by pirates off the coast of Sind. Hajjaj’s demands of compensation was refused by Dahir, the ruler of Sind, and Hajjaj sent two expeditions against Debal (708 C.E.), the first under Ubaidulla and the second under Budail. Both armies were defeated and their commanders killed. Hajjaj fitted out a third and more elaborate expedition under the command of his seventeen year old nephew and son-in-law Imaduddin Muhammad bin Qasim. Hajjaj was a de facto ruler over territories of the former Persian empire, and sent one army under Kutaiba which penetrated to Kashgar, where the Chinese quickly came to an understanding. A second army attacked Hindu Kabul, and the third (under Muhammad bin Qasim) advanced towards the lower Indus through Makran. The reigning Ummayad Caliph Walid I (86-96 H./705-715 C.E.) was a powerful ruler who spread the Khilafat to the greatest extent, but was skeptical because of earlier failures of Ubaidulla and Budail and is known to have raised concerns about the distance, the cost, and the loss of Muslim lives. Hajjaj promised to compensate the Caliph for this war effort and only then was Qasim allowed to invade Sind. The declared injunctions on Qasim for this invasion were (1) Spread Islam in Sind, (2) Conquer Sind and expand the territory under Islam, (3) Acquire all available wealth for by Hajjaj and repayment to the Caliph.
Hajjaj and Muhammad bin Qasim’s military knowledge of Sind and Hind was based substantially on the Muslim traders who had been allowed to trade and settle freely along the trade routes in non-Muslim kingdoms. These traders had obviously little interest or intellectual background to know anything beyond India’s wealth, military background, and that India was a land of Qufr. Every Muslim, whether educated or illiterate is taught the essential bits from the Quran and the Hadiths that promise the land, wealth and women of “un-believers” and that it was the highest duty of a Muslim to carry out violent Jihad [look at my discussion in Islam and non-Muslims] aimed at destruction of idols, shrines, books, and adult male population of non-Muslims and capture their pre-puberty males and women to reproduce and multiply Muslims.
On the way to Sind, the governor of Makran, Muhammad Harun, supplied reinforcements and five catapults. His artillery which included a great ballista known as “the Bride”, and was worked by five hundred men, had been sent by sea to meet him at Debal (a coastal city so named because of its Devalaya – House of God or temple and contained a citadel-temple with stone walls as high as forty yards and a dome of equal height). Qasim arrived at Debal in late 711 or early 712 C.E. with an army of at least twenty thousand horse, infantry with additional Jat and Med mercenaries. The majority of the Sindhi population was Buddhist (Samanis of chronicles), and totally averse to fighting, with marginal tribal groups apparently “dancing in joy seeing their Islamic liberators” and only Raja Dahir of Sind, his Kshatriya soldiers and Brahman priests of the temples were left to defend their land. This is the Islamic version and although sourced from the same texts whose claims of repression on Hindus are discounted by the Thaparite School of Indian history, is still presented as the correct “version” of reality of welcoming Islam by the Indian “underclass” and not propaganda – if “caste” repression was endemic then this welcome should have been extended to the not-much-earlier invasions.
At the start of Muhammad’s invasion Raja Dahir was in his capital Alor about 500 kms. away. Debal was in the charge of a governor with a garrison of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few thousand Brahmans. The Islamic communication network was fast – letters were written every three days and replies were received in a week. When the siege of Debal had continued for some time a defector helped Muhammad in breaching the walls [ the deception used many times in Islam in its greatest military successes rather than actual military might]. The inhabitants were invited to accept Islam, and on their refusal all adult males were put to the sword and their wives and children were enslaved. This carnage lasted for three days, the temple was razed and a mosque built. Muhammad laid out a Muslim quarter, and placed a garrison of 4,000 in the town. The legal fifth of the spoil including seventy-five girls were sent to Hajjaj, and the rest of the plunder was divided among the soldiers. [The Thaparite School of Indian history and Islam’s Marxist apologists keep silent on the question as to why an economically unproductive activity of demolishing religious structures is so important in the so-called pure economic motive for Islamic aggression on cultural icons of non-Muslims. Why are adult males who do not accept Islam to be executed – they could have been more useful economically as slave labour – doesn’t this smack of ideological motivations?]
Muhammad bin Qasim next attacked Nirun, (near modern Hyderabad) and Nirun voluntarily surrendered after agreeing to give riches, but after accepting these terms Muhammad destroyed the “temple of Budh” (Buddhist or Hindu shrine – Muslims were so ignorant of Indic cultural fine-points that they always confused Buddhists with Jainas and “Hindu” sects) at Nirun. He built a mosque at its site and appointed an Imam. After placing a garrison under a newly appointed Muslim governor, he marched to Sehwan (Siwistan), about 130 kilometres to the north-west, populated mainly by Buddhists and traders. Sehwan surrendered on condition of loyalty and paying jiziyah.
At this, Dahir decided to meet the invader at Aror or Rawar. Qasim was bound for Brahmanabad but stopped short to engage Dahir first where the Arabs encountered an imposing array of war elephants and a large army under the command of Dahir and his Rajput chiefs. Al Biladuri writes that after the battle lines were drawn, “a dreadful conflict ensued such as had never been seen before”, and Chachnama gives details of the valiant fight which Raja Dahir gave “mounted on his white elephant”. A naptha arrow struck Dahir’s howdah and set it ablaze. Dahir dismounted and fought desperately, but was killed towards the evening, “when the idolaters fled, and the Musulmans glutted themselves with massacre”. Raja Dahir’s queen Rani Bai and her son locked themselves into the fortress of Rawar, which had a garrison of 15 thousand. The soldiers fought valiantly, but the Arabs proved stronger. When the Rani saw the inevitable, she assembled all the women in the fort and told them: “God forbid that we should owe our liberty to those outcaste cow-eaters. Our honour would be lost. Our respite is at an end, and there is nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil, for I think we should burn ourselves and go to meet our husbands. If any wish to save herself, she may.” They entered into a house where they burnt themselves in the fire of jauhar. Muhammad occupied the fort, massacred the 6,000 men he found there [most likely the sick, infirm, old and the wounded] and seized all the wealth and treasures that belonged to Dahir.
Muhammad now marched to Brahmanabad but a number of garrisons in forts challenged his army, delaying his arrival. The civil population, longed for peace and let the Muslims enter the city on peaceful terms. Qasim however on entry “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 others sixteen thousand were killed”. He proceeded to Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus with its famous Sun-Temple which was destroyed and its treasures looted. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, worship rights of Hindus were allowed only in exchange of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. The campaign expenses came to 60 thousand silver dirhams and Hajjaj paid to the Caliph 120 thousand dirhams.
In Muhammad bin Qasim’s administration of the conquered territories the principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted “with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult”. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.
The total number of prisoners was calculated to be thirty thousand (Kalichbeg – sixty thousand), including thirty “daughters of the chiefs”. They were exported to Hajjaj. The head of Dahir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the African Slave Kaab, son of Mubarak Rasti. In Sind itself females captured after every campaign of the marching army, were enslaved and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to “give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives”. At the end of the conquest of Sind, “when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim” one-fifth of all the female prisoners were chosen and set aside and counted to be twenty thousand. Since they belonged to high families, “veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers”. This implies at 100,000 non-Muslim Indian women were enslaved and distributed among the elite and the soldiers.
Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little over three years after which Islamic chroniclers say he was suddenly recalled and summarily executed, probably by being sewn in an animal hide and then pierced with iron nails, on the charge of deflowering two Sindhi princesses meant for the bed of the Caliph. [The overzealous among Muslim ranks can remember the other famous instances such as the early Islamic commanders in Spain. It is also interesting to note that the story comes from Islamic pens, which explicitly describes how the Caliph, the supposed spiritual leader of all Islam is murderously concerned about the virginity of maidens he wants to bed himself– an indication of the generic insecurity of Islam’s roots whose core religious texts show an overwhelming concern with womens’ sexual purity and the predilection towards consummating marriages with child-brides]
After Qasim’s departure the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly with a majority of the newly converted returned back to their former religions. According to Denison Ross after the recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslims retained some foothold on the west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small number that they gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism. Muslims who continued in the new religion wre mostly concentrated to cities, and particularly Multan which according to Al Masudi (C.E. 942) remained one of the strongholds of the Muslims. Ibn Hauqal, (C.E. 976), also calls Multan a city with a strong fort, “but Mansura is more fertile and prosperous[…]Debal is a large mart and a port not only of this but neighbouring regions”. Thus the Muslim population more or less became stable and integrated with the indigenous society of Sind. Ibn Hauqal writes: “The Muslims and infidels of this tract wear the same dresses, and let their beards grow in the same fashion. They use fine muslin garments on account of the extreme heat. The men of Multan dress in the same way. The language of Mansura, Multan and those parts is Arabic and Sindian” [We will see later how Islamic concerns deriving from their desert roots as well as propriety aimed mainly at “protecting” their “reproductive resources” – women, imposed dress-codes and socio-cultural practices that were completely alien to the pre-Islamic Indic cultures as well as as its general climate]. An interesting angle yet to be explored in historical analysis is the possible vulnerability in “monotheistic” or mono-iconic religions, such as Zoroastriansim or Sun-worship or Buddhism (which in its later phases foucsed on the “Buddha” entirely) to Islam. Early European Christianity dominated by recent pagans of the Germanic stock which overran the post-Romanic scenario, retained sufficient viciousness and and imbibed less of the later-Christian imperialist “peaceful submission” to monotheism to ruthlessly repulse the Moorish or eastern Islamic advances. Jews and Nestorians in the Levant fared poorly against Islam, as did the extensive Buddhist, Zoroastrian and monotheistic strands within Hinduism in central and South Asia. A modern phenomenon could be the trend of conversion from Christianity to Islam among white Europeans in the countries of Germanic stock.
Andre Wink points out, that In contrast to Persia there is no indication that Buddhists converted more eagerly than brahmans. The Thaparite School maintains that Muslim Arabs were “invited” to Sind by Buddhist “traitors” who aimed to undercut the brahmins is problematic and typically stated without proof and in the style of Indian historians which places hypothesis with or without qualification by isolated and dubious examples, as undisputed reality. If Buddhists collaborated with the invaders, there are apprently equal examples of collaboration by brahmins which simply could have been a matter of expediency rather than any genuine love for Islam.
The newly converted Turks, who were enrolled as military slaves of the Caliphate, ultimately grew strong enough to form their own principalities under the formal tutelage of the Caliphs with a much reduced authority for legitimacy. Amir Subuktigin (977-997 C.E.) was one such Turkish adventurer who frequently raided the Hindu Shahiya Brahman kingdom of Punjab which extended up to Kabul “in the prosecution of holy wars, and there he conquered forts upon lofty hills, in order to seize the treasures they contained.” When Jayapal, the ruling prince of the Shahiyas, heard of Subuktigin’s depredations, he moved with a large army and huge elephants to wreak vengeance upon Subuktigin, “by treading the field of Islam under his feet”. After crossing Lamghan, Sabuktigin advanced from Ghazni with his son Mahmud and the two armies fought repeatedly against one another. Jayapal, with soldiers “as impetuous as a torrent,” was difficult to defeat, and so Subuktigin threw animal flesh (probably beef) into the fountain which supplied water to the Hindu army. Apparently Jayapal sued for peace, but Sabuktigin protracted negotiations, and Jayapal’s envoys were sent back on which Jayapal again proposed cessation of hostilities saying: “You have seen the impetuosity of the Hindus and their indifference to death, whenever any calamity befalls them, as at this moment. If, therefore, you refuse to grant peace in the hope of obtaining plunder, tribute, elephants and prisoners, then there is no alternative for us but to mount the horse of stern determination, destroy our property, take out the eyes of our elephants, cast our children into the fire, and rush on each other with sword and spear, so that all that will be left to you, is stones and dirt, dead bodies, and scattered bones.”
Jayapal’s declared intention forced Subuktigin to conclude “that religion and the views of the faithful would be best consulted by peace”. He demanded a tribute of cash and elephants and nominated officers to collect them which apparently was not believed by Jayapal and having learnt his lessons in Islam’s complete lack of any ethics in warfare, refused to pay anything, and imprisoned the Amir’s officers. At this Subuktigin supposedly marched out towards Lamghan, conquered it and set “fire to the places in its vicinity, demolished idol temples, marched and captured other cities and established Islam in them”. Jayapal collected troops to the number of more than one hundred thousand, “which resembled scattered ants and locusts”. Sabuktigin on his part “made bodies of five hundred attack the enemy with their maces in hand, and relieve each other when one party became tired, so that fresh men and horses were constantly engaged. The dust which arose prevented the eyes from seeing. It was only when the dust was allayed that it was found that Jayapal had been defeated and his troops had fled leaving behind them their property, utensils, arms, provisions, elephants, and horses.” Subuktigin levied tribute and obtained immense booty, besides two hundred elephants of war. He also increased his army by enrolling those Afghans and Khaljis (previously Hindu followers of Jayapal) who submitted to him.
Subuktigin’s son Mahmud succeeded his father in C.E. 998 and in 1000 he first attacked India. The Thaparite school tries to represent Mahmud as common looter intent on capturing the “horse trade through Multan and Sind” whose iconoclastic exploits have been inflated by later Islamic scholars to make him seem an Islamic theologically approved hero. However they quietly suppress tha fact that Mahmud himself was well-versed in the Quran and the Hadiths and was considered its eminent interpreter. He collected either by promise of wealth or by force (consider the case of the brilliant Ibn Sina who spent a lifetime escaping from his clutches and is known to have celebrated Mahmud’s death) a galaxy of eminent theologians scholars, and on his investiture, he vowed to the Caliph of Baghdad “to undertake every year a campaign against the idolaters of India”, convinced that “jihad was central to Islam and that one campaign at least must be undertaken against the unbelievers every year.” Mahmud made seventeen (or 10) expeditions in the next thirty years and is the object of the highest praise in Islamic historians almost at par with Slahuddin. Mahmud always included the Caliph’s name on his coins, represented himself in his Fateh-namas as a “warrior for the faith”, sent to Baghdad plundered wealth and slaves (the highest spiritual leaders of Islam, the Caliphs appear to have a never ending appetite for enslaved Hindu women for their personal bed) from his Indian campaign. The Caliph Al-Qadir Billah in turn praised the talents and exploits of Mahmud, conferred upon him the titles of Amin-ul-millah and Yamin-ud-daula (the Right hand) after which his house is known as Yamini Dynasty.
In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made Muslims. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan conversions of remaining Hindus took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were “witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.” In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud “converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.” In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, many conversions took place. Describing the conquest of Kanauj, Utbi saya: “The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him”, or those who submitted were also converted to Islam or conversion was a condition for submission and life [this is by the Sunnah of the Prophet, whose protestaions of liberalism more common in the Quran which represents his earlier struggling days are almost always contradicted in the Hadiths which represent a post-Muhammad collection of actual events]. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, “Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force.” According to all contemporary and later chroniclers like Qaznivi, Utbi, Farishtah etc., “conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objectives of Mahmud” and whenever he was militarily successful he demanded the people to convert to Islam leading to Hindu rulers simply running away without giving a battle. “The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai was that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpal’s uncles and relations, when they demanded quarter in their distress.”
Mahmud destroyed an almost uncountable number of temples and idols as is reconstructable from the detailed descriptions of his campaigns. [ It is difficult to understand why Mahmud would use precious labour in the uneconomic structure destroying activity]. His interest in destroying renowned temples is only interpreted by the Thaparite School as aimed at extracting wealth but larger temples would be structurally more difficult to destroy and economically unproductive as gold or valuables were highly unlikely to have been imbedded in huge blocks of stone and the more natural possibility of “bringing glory to Islam” is quietly suppressed.
At Thaneshwar, the temple of Chakraswamin was sacked and its bronze image of Vishnu was taken to Ghazni to be thrown into the hippodrome of the city. Mathura did not fight back and the residents had fled, and Mahmud had been greatly “impressed with the beauty and grandeur of the shrines” but the temples in the city were thoroughly destroyed. Kanauj had a large number of temples with some of great antiquity and just as in Mathura even when there was no armed resistance all the temples were destroyed.
According to Andre Wink, from the seventh century onwards, peaking during Muhammad al-Qasim?s campaigns in 712-13, a significant number of Jats among others were captured as prisoners of war and exported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Examples of prominent Jat freedmen include Abu Hanifa (699-767), the founder of the Hanafi school of Islamic law.
Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud reports that when Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive. This figure appeared so preposterous that Elliot and Dawson (the translators) reduce it to 5000. Many modern historians including the Thaparite School consistently declare that this figure is notional and therefore not true and an exaggeration. None of these discounters give any concrete reasons for reducing this claimed number – which could have easily been done among others on the basis of estimated ancient demographics of the region concerned – except their own stature as infallible and final adjudicators of truth. The common characteristic of all these narratives by Islamic chroniclers is that taking of slaves was a routine practice in every expedition and only unusually large numbers drew attention of the chroniclers. For example after Mahmud’s Ninduna (Salt Range -1014) campaign, Utbi reports that “slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land[India] were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni)”. He is supported by Nizamuddin Ahmad in Tabqat-i-Akbari stating that Mahmud “obtained great spoils and a large number of slaves”. Ferishtah reports that in the next campaign on Thanesar, “the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls”. Slaves were taken in subsequent campaigns in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj, Asni etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to include 53,000 captives according to Nizamuddin. Utbi reports that “the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact, that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants came from different cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them”. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.
It was a matter of Islamic policy to capture and convert, destroy or sell the male population, and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-ul-Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made “war against the provinces of Hind. He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty.” Further In Benaras, Muhammad Ghori’s massacred the Hindus – “None was spared except women and children.” Fakhr-i-Mudabbir reports that as a result of the Muslim achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin Aibak, “even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave before became the owner of numerous slaves of all description (jauq jauq ghulam har jins)”.
This brings us to the iconic case of Somnath which I will take up in the next part of this series. This will also be a great opportunity to explore the particular style of Thaparite reconstruction of Indian history for its special pro-Muslim anti-Hindu agenda.
As I had discussed before, the IAEA episode was actually a very small and rather the easier step compared to the current hurdles of unanimous passage through the NSG. The non-proliferation lobby is led by countries strongly dependent economically on NWS’s – the Nuclear Weapons States – US, UK, France, Russia and China. Therefore, their greatest pressure will be on countries like India. These countries will deliberately ignore that they are protected by the presence of NATO (even if not members always themselves of NATO) and NWS’s themselves in the event of military aggression from “enemies”, whereas India practically has no defence against military aggression from powerful and aggressive NWS like China, and the unofficial NWS Pakistan. It is possible that the Islam lobby as well as indirect Chinese pressure has effects on the NPT lobby’s stance. Some of the NPT lobbyists have important markets in the Muslim world, and India should perhaps consider this in its diplomatic efforts. India’s only hope of passing through the NSG with all it wants is based on riding on US shoulders as the NPT lobby will only be forced to accept India under US pressure. India’s nuclear weapons capabilities are crucial for India’s existence as a nation remembering that given half a chance the Muslim forces arrayed against India will try to overrun it with passive or active help from China – and India is the last homeland that the non-Muslim Indic cultures like Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism can call its own.
Meanwhile it is a positive sign to see the first visible indications of the growth of a mature non-Muslim political identity in India. The current elite dependent on a fractured Indian society for their continuance in power will of course try to portray this as a “communal” development. But if one looks at the faces of the agitation in Jammu, where in addition to a jail-filling agitation participated in by large numbers of women, and the declaration of a civil disobedience movement, one can see the Sikh headgear mingling in the forefront, and there are indications that Buddhists from the eastern part of the state have also participated. Islam is one of the factors responsible for the economic decline of India in the medieval ages, and the stagnation of its educational, academic and technological progress – compared to the brilliance of its intellectual achievements in the pre-Islamic period. Islam in a way has been the single largest factor in forcing modern India to involve a large proportion of its resources into defending itself against aggressors aligned along an Islamic axis (including China). Islam is still an expenditure for India on at least three major counts – (1) need to defend against Pakistan (2) need to tackle Islamic terror sponsored from within Pakistan and Bangladesh and probably financed and resources by a much wider network which may also involve petro-dollars. (3) subsidies needed to support Islamic religious activities and the social costs of backwardness imposed specifically by retrogressive and medieval Islamic practices. Being the second largest population group in India, this imposes substantial resource diversion for India. It is a very very positive sign that the non-Muslims in Gujarat and Jammu are finally realizing what a truly mature political strategy that benefits the non-Muslim majority both in the short term as well as in the long term means. Instead of breaking up the Babari Mosque, the current strategy aimed at isolating Islam politically, and raising political consciousness of the dangers of continued existence of Islam on the subcontinent is a much better strategy. It is most important to emphasize and keep in mind that “Muslims” are Indians, that they are derived from pre-Islamic and non-Islamic cultures, that they mostly converted under ruthless physical and economic duress, that everything should be done to encourage them and create conditions facilitating their return to the “fold”.
Islam’s record in India has been always controversial. For a long time a particular reconstruction of Islam’s role in India has been pushed through because of political reasons, and by a regime dependent and supported group of official historians, whose best iconic representation is Prof. Romila Thapar, a lady of Hindu origin who completed her PhD under the obscurantist and orientalist Basham. I refer to this common paradigm of Indian history established basically through government patronization, the Thaparite Scool of Indian History. In this Thaparite paradigm of Indian history, Islam came to India through peaceful means, mainly by the peaceful efforts of traders and Sufi preachers. Further, according to this paradigm, Islam took root because of Brahmanic oppression of “lower castes” and all claims of trauma of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims are modern reconstructions by British Imperialists and post Nehruvian “Hindu” upper caste elite.
It is not as if claims or records of trauma are not available, but they are all discounted by the Thaparite school as propaganda or myth created for various reasons. I will subsequently specifically analyze the Thaparite technique of historical interpretation and new narrative creation through her often repeated and favourite example – that of Somnath.
Let us start with textual records and then we can analyze how far these records are propaganda or myths. Note that many of these details come from sources in Persian and written down by Islamic scholars or historians, and this is the only reason given by the Thaparite School of Indian history as sufficient to discount all such “barbaric” claims as propaganda or boasting by Muslims and since they are not always supported by contemporary written records by the “victims” themselves. Similar arguments however are never allowed to be used on “Hindu” claims of “repression on lower castes”.
Enslavement of non-Muslims of India
The Chachnama describes how Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind, enslaved many prisoners, especially women prisoners, and exported them to his homeland. Parimal and Suraj Devi, the two daughters of Raja Dahir, sent to Hajjaj for the pleasures of the Caliph, were part of a large shipment of girls remitted as one-fifth share of the state (Khums) from the booty of war (Ghanaim). After the capturing of the fort of Rawar, Muhammad bin Qasim halted there for three days and massacred 6,000 men. Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. The total number of prisoners was calculated to be thirty thousand (Kalichbeg – sixty thousand), including thirty “daughters of the chiefs”. They were exported to Hajjaj. The head of Dahir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the African Slave Kaab, son of Mubarak Rasti. In Sind itself females captured after every campaign of the marching army, were enslaved and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to “give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives”. At the end of the conquest of Sind, “when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim” one-fifth of all the female prisoners were chosen and set aside and counted to be twenty thousand. Since they belonged to high families, “veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers”. This implies at 100,000 non-Muslim Indian women were enslaved and distributed among the elite and the soldiers.
According to Andre Wink, from the seventh century onwards, peaking during Muhammad al-Qasim?s campaigns in 712-13, a significant number of Jats among others were captured as prisoners of war and exported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Examples of prominent Jat freedmen include Abu Hanifa (699-767), the founder of the Hanafi school of Islamic law.
Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud reports that when Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive. This figure appeared so preposterous that Elliot and Dawson (the translators) reduce it to 5000. Many modern historians including the Thaparite School consistently declare that this figure is notional and therefore not true and an exaggeration. None of these discounters give any concrete reasons for reducing this claimed number – which could have easily been done among others on the basis of estimated ancient demographics of the region concerned – except their own stature as infallible and final adjudicators of truth. The common characteristic of all these narratives by Islamic chroniclers is that taking of slaves was a routine practice in every expedition and only unusually large numbers drew attention of the chroniclers. For example after Mahmud’s Ninduna (Salt Range -1014) campaign, Utbi reports that “slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land[India] were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni)”. He is supported by Nizamuddin Ahmad in Tabqat-i-Akbari stating that Mahmud “obtained great spoils and a large number of slaves”. Ferishtah reports that in the next campaign on Thanesar, “the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls”. Slaves were taken in subsequent campaigns in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj, Asni etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to include 53,000 captives according to Nizamuddin. Utbi reports that “the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact, that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants came from different cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them”. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.
It was a matter of Islamic policy to capture and convert, destroy or sell the male population, and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-ul-Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made “war against the provinces of Hind. He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty.” Further In Benaras, Muhammad Ghori’s massacred the Hindus – “None was spared except women and children.” Fakhr-i-Mudabbir reports that as a result of the Muslim achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin Aibak, “even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave before became the owner of numerous slaves of all description (jauq jauq ghulam har jins)”.
The Delhi Sultan Iltutmish attacked Gwalior in 1231and “captured a large number of slaves”. Minhaj Siraj Jurjani writes that Sultan Balban’s “taking captives, and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted”. Minhaj writes that Balban’s campaign in Awadh against Trailokyavarman of the Chandela dynasty (Dalaki wa Malaki of Minhaj), “all the infidel wives, sons and dependents and children fell into the hands of the victors”. Balban captured many prisoners in his Ranthambhor campaign in1253. In 1259, attacking Haryana (in the Shiwalik Hills), he enslaved many women and children. Twice Balban led expeditions against Kampil, Patiali, and Bhojpur, and in the process captured a large number of women and children. In Katehar Balban ordered a general massacre of all males older than eight years and carried away the women and children. [ This is significant as such an order could be considered a Sunnah of Islam’s Prophet, who had either directly or through the mouth of an associate ordered a similar culling of Jewish males after the capture of Badr – this is also the famous battle where Muhammad had a Jewish leader tortured to extract treasury information and then executed – it was the beautiful widow of this executed Jew whom Muhammad selected as the concubine Rihanna who refused to convert to Islam]
Khaljis and the Tughlaqs (1290-1414 C.E.) were famous for their fondness for Hindu women and enslaving them. Alauddin Khalji is reported to have 50,000 slaves many of whom were boys, and mainly captured during war. According to Firoz Tughlaq’s order whenever a non-Muslim place was sacked, the captives should be sorted out and the best ones should be forwarded to the court. His acquisition of slaves was accomplished through various ways – capture in war, in lieu of revenue and as present from nobles. He collected 180,000 slaves. Ziyauddin Barani describes the Slave Market in Delhi, a common feature throughout Islamic India, during the reign of Alauddin Khalji, reporting that “fresh batches of captives were constantly replenishing them”. Amir Khusrau writes in the fourteenth century that “the Turks, whenever they please, can seize, buy, or sell any Hindu”. He is corroborated by Vidyapati who writes that the Muslim army commanders take into custody all the women of the enemy’s city, and wherever they happened to pass, in that very place the ladies of the Raja’s house began to be sold in the market.” Alauddin Khalji fixed the prices of such slaves in the market, as he did for all consumer items. The sale price of boys was set between 20 to 30 tankhas; (from which the modern Indian “taka” derives) with the least attractive for 7 or 8. The slave boys were classified according to their looks and working capacity. The standard price of a working girl was fixed from 5 to 12 tankahs, that of a beautiful girl from 20 to 40, and a beauty of high family from 1 thousand to 2 thousand tankahs. According to Shihabuddin al Umri, under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, a domestic maid in Delhi could be had for 8 tankhas and one deemed fit for sexual use was sold for about 15 tankahs, with prices apparently even lower in other cities. Further “The Sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels. Everyday thousands of slaves are sold at very low price, so great is the number of prisoners.” Ibn Battuta gives eye-witness accounts of the Sultan’s arranging marriages of enslaved girls with Muslims on a large scale on the two Ids – “First of all, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year, come, sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this the daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing and the Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives sons of Maliks etc. On the sixth day male and female slaves are married.”
Ibn Battuta writes: “At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Wazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them to me, but he was not satisfied. My companion took three young girls, and I do not know what happened to the rest.” Thousands (chandin hazar) of non-Muslim women (aurat va masturat) were captured during the yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq and under him the Id celebrations were held on lines similar to those of his predecessor. These women were exported for sale outside of India, especially during the Hajj season, and apparently brought brought huge profits to the Muslim rulers and merchants.
The Thaparite claim that these were all propaganda by Muslims for glorification purposes is highly problematic as there exist firmans [Mughal official decrees] that try to control enslavement practices – unless such practices were so widespread that they were beginning to have disruptive effect on the fabric of the Mughal empire in its struggling early stages, the Mughlas would not have needed to issue a firman against something which according to the Thaparite school never really happened – were Akbar and Jehangir writing firmans in the haze of too much opium? Akbar, decreed abolishing the custom of enslaving helpless women and children in times of war, and Jehangir ordered that “a government collector or Jagirdar should not without permission intermarry with the people of the pargana in which he might be” for abduction and forced marriages were apparently quite common. After the Third Battle of Panipat (1761), according to the Siyar-ul-Mutakhkhirin “the plunder of the (Maratha) camp was prodigious, and women and children who survived were driven off as slaves – twenty-two thousand (women), of the highest rank in the land”.
The Thaparite school of Indian history cites Iltutmish and Balban to claim liberal and excellent treatment of slaves in Islam. The Muslim regime usually put adult male prisoners to the sword, especially the old, the overbearing and those bearing arms, (Muhammad bin Qasim’s raids, Ghori’s attack on Benaras, Balban’s attack on Katehar, Akbar’s attack on Chittor). Of the captured males, skilled workers fetch good price and were sold in India and exported to central Asia and the Arab world as the technology and skill of the Indians were well known and in great demand. A lucrative trade in Indian slaves flourished in the West Asian countries. Some modern non-Indian, and definitely not Hindu, scholars have estimated that between the eleventh to the nineteenth century, three quarters of the population of Bukhara was of mainly Indian slave extraction. The Hindu-Kush (Hindu-killer and not the Thaparite-Britannica attempt at corrupting this to Hindu-Koh, again if according to the Thaparite paradigm Hinuism never existed in Islamic or pre-Islamic times and “Hindu” culture never went beyond the Punjab why was the word associated to a range apparently not connected to India at all!) mountain ranges are so called because thousands of Indian captives “yoked together” used to die while negotiating them as described by Ibn Battuta himself.
Unsold male slaves served as domestic servants, artisans in the royal Karkhanas (a kind of “factory”) and as Paiks (an old derivation from Sanskrit “padatik”- infantry) in the army who served as a supporting wing and as human “shields” in battle. Professional soldiers captured in war and willing to serve the Muslim army, joined the infantry, and were noted for loyalty. Alauddin and Mubarak Khalji, Firoz Tughlaq were sall reported to have been saved by Paiks during assassination attempts.
Captured boys of eight/nine or younger whose family males had been executed and women enslaved and sold and scattered, were ideal candidates to be Ottoman style Janessaries. According to the price-schedule of Sultan Alauddin Khalji while the price of a handsome slave was twenty to 30 tankahs and that of a slave-servant ten to 15 tankahs, the price of a child slave (ghulam bachchgan naukari) was fixed at 70 to 80 tankahs. Therefore campaigns aimed at capturing large number of children. This perhaps encouraged, in the face of an impending defeat, Hindu mothers to burn together with their little children in the fire of Jauhar. Hindu goodlooking pre-puberty boys would also have been attractive to Muslims as potential candidates for eunuchs, needed in large numbers to manage the large harems of the Muslims, since castration could not be performed on Muslim boys.
The sexual relish with which Muslims treated women captives is revealed in Al Umri who writes “in spite of low prices of slaves, 200,000 tankahs and even more, are paid for young Indian girls. I inquired the reason and was told that these young girls are remarkable for their beauty, and the grace of their manners.” Muhammad bin Qasim sent to Hajjaj some thirty thousand captives many among whom were daughters of chiefs of Sind. Hajjaj forwarded the prisoners to Caliph Walid I (C.E. 705-15). The latter “sold some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted as rewards. When he saw the daughter of Rai Dahir’s sister, he was much struck with her beauty and charms and wished to keep her for himself. But as his nephew Abdullah bin Abbas desired to take her, Walid bestowed her on him saying that it is better that you should take her to be the mother of your children”. During Jahangir’s reign, Abdullah Khan Firoz Jung declared that “I made prisoners of five lacs of men and women and sold them. They all became Muhammadans. From their progeny there will be crores by the day of judgement”. This is one of the primary motivations in Islam, – having progeny from captured women and thereby increasing Muslim population while at the same time preventing and reducing the chances of non-Muslims to reproduce.
Islamic hunger for attractive and reproductive women and their capture in military campaigns was not the only direct method for acquisition of slaves. There were many other routes to slavery devised by Islamic regimes.
The revenue system of the Delhi Sultanate was designed to enslave Hindus as these rulers, and their subordinate shiqadars, ordered their armies to abduct large numbers of Hindus as a means of extracting revenue.Communities loyal to the Sultan and regular in paying taxes were usually excused from this practice, punitive taxes were extracted from less loyal groups in the form of slaves. Thus, according to Barani, the Balban ordered his shiqadars in Awadh to enslave those people resistant to his authority, (implying those who refused to pay him tax on demand). Sultan Alauddin Khilji legalized the enslavement of those who defaulted on their revenue payments.This policy continued under the Mughals. Apart from this regular enslavement process, huge numbers of people were enslaved as a part of the Delhi Sultan’s raising of finance for their expansion into new territories.Qutbuddin Aibak invaded Gujarat in 1197 and enslaved some 20,000 people and later, he enslaved an additional 50,000 people during his conquest of Kalinjar. [ A possible Thaparite version can perhaps be obtained by treating these figures as repeated and therefore notional and therefore possibly a “0” a too many and therefore actually a “0” too many]. Levi finds reasonable K.S.Lal’s assertion that the forcible enslavement of Indians due to military expansion “gained momentum” under the Khilji and Tughluq dynasties, as being supported by available figures.Barani reports that Alauddin Khilji owned 50,000 slave-boys, in addition to 70,000 construction slaves. Firoz Shah Tughluq owned 180,000 slaves, roughly 12,000 of whom were skilled artisans.A significant proportion of slaves owned by the Sultans were likely to have been military slaves and not labourers or domestics. However earlier traditions of maintaining a mixed army comprising both Hindu soldiers and Turkic slave-soldiers (ghilman, mamluks) from Central Asia, were disrupted by the rise of the Mongols reducing the inflow of mamluks. This intensified demands by the Delhi Sultans on local Indian populations to satisfy their need for both military and domestic slaves.
Alongside Buddhist Oirats, Christian Russians, non-Sunni Afghans, and the predominantly Shia Iranians, Hindu slaves were an important component of the highly active slave markets of medieval and early modern Central Asia. Presence of Hindu slaves exported to Central Asia is shown by the 17th century records of one Juybari Sheikh, a Naqsbandi Sufi leader, (the Sufis are represented in the Thaparite school of Indian history as a very liberal, humane, tolerant and integrative interpretation of Islam – which I will investigate later from Persian sources written by the Sufis themselves ) owning over 500 slaves, forty of whom were specialists in pottery production while the others were engaged in agricultural work.High demand for skilled slaves, and India’s larger and more advanced textile industry and agricultural production, architecture, demonstrated to its neighbours that skilled labour was abundant in the subcontinent leading to enslavement and export of large number of skilled labour, following successful invasions.After sacking Delhi, Timur enslaved several thousand skilled artisans, presenting many of these slaves to his subordinate elite, although reserving the masons for use in the construction of the Bibi Khanum Mosque in Samarquand. Imported young female Hindu slaves fetched higher market price than skilled construction slaves, sometimes by 150%.Because of their identification in Muslim societies as qufirs, “non-believers”, Hindus were especially in demand in the early modern Central Asian slave markets, with Indian Hindu slaves specially mentioned in waqafnamas, and archives and even being owned by Turkic pastoral groups.
Most extensive records of the Mughal Badsha’s interest in the slave trade is available for Shah Jahan. The fact of Shah Jahan being the son of a Hindu princess, Jagat Gosain (a wife of Jehangir) and the grandson of another Hindu Rajput princess, (Jodha or not) illustrates that the Mughals pursued slave trade and enslavement of Hindus as a matter of state policy without any consideration to kinship and other consideration. In 1632 Shah Jahan ordered all recently constructed or partially-constructed Hindu temples, Christian churches obliterated. Seventy-six temples were destroyed in Benares, and Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished and ten thousand inhabitants were executed by being “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire”. As a result of this campaign, four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostatised; the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to ShaJahan’s harem. This is the same Shah Jahan who has to be represented according to the diktats of the Thaparite School of Indian History as only the doting father and grief-stricken love lorn husband who built the Taj Mahal (with his own labour and hard earned money it seems).
Abd Allah Khan Firuz Jang, an Uzbek noble at the Mughal court during the 1620s and 1630s, was appointed to the position of governor of the regions of Kalpi and Kher and, in the process of subjugating the local rebels, “beheaded the leaders and enslaved their women, daughters and children, who were more than 2 lacks [200,000] in number. When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus. Most of the women committed jauhar but those captured alive were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars. Under Shah Jahan, peasants were forced to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements. The peasants were carried off to various markets and fairs “to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting”. According to Qaznivi, Shah Jahan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.The Augustinian missionary Fray Sebastio Manrique, who was in Bengal in 1629–30 and again in 1640, remarked on the ability of the shiqdār—a Mughal officer responsible for executive matters in the pargana, (the smallest territorial unit of imperial administration) to collect the revenue demand, by force if necessary, and even to enslave peasants should they default in their payments.
A survey of a relatively restricted sample of seventy-seven letters regarding the manumission or sale of slaves in the Majmua-i-wathaiq reveals that slaves of Indian origin (hindi al-asal) accounted for over 58 per cent of those whose region of origin is mentioned. Khutut-i-mamhura bemahr-i qadat-i Bukhara, a smaller collection of judicial documents from early eighteenth-century Bukhara includes several letters of manumission with over half of these letters referring to slaves “of Indian origin”. Even in the model of a legal letter of manumission written by the chief qazi for his assistant to follow, the example used is of a slave “of Indian origin”.
It is to be noted that sections of Indian society, such as the Ghakkar merchants, actively participated and profited from the slave trade involving Indians. Levi is of the opinion the supply of Indian slaves for export dwindled as the Mughal Empire weakened, decentralized and its military expansion came to an end. The degeneration of the Mughal empire coincided with the increasing general exclusion of slaves from the tax-revenue systems of the successor states and the growing commercial and cultural separation of India and its neighbours to the north and west under the British Raj.
So Musharraf has finally resigned. What does this mean for Pakistan? This simply means that the coalition partnership between the emotional Nawaz and cold and calculating Zardari will now be increasingly under strain. In spite of Nawaaz being the more popular, his emotional approach to politics will ultimately put him in a very dangerous position, and once Musharraf’s eagle has been removed from overshadowing Zardari, it will now be a matter of time before each tries to oust the other. Will there be a return for Musharraf, possible but difficult – Kiani may want his own taste of the cake. Kiani also has a lot in stake in preserving the ISI and the Pakistan army’s cross border activities in India and Afghanistan – and perhaps not impossibly in a lot of other central Asian countries including the north-east of China. As discussed before in these columns, Kiani will ditch Musharraf only if Zardari-Nawaz can promise a higher price for ISI and the Pakistani Army and committment to support and provide resources for further continuation and escalation of the ISI-Army top-brass’s agenda to propagate Islamic dominance in the garb of Pakistani nationalism (or Pakistani nationalism in the garb of Islamic dominance) within the subcontinent.
The so-called return of democracy to Pakistan has little effect on India. This democratic government completely failed to rein in the ISI and had to beat a hasty and humiliating retreat. The situation will not improve in terms of relations with India, in spite of official “wish” to do so, as the establishment is practically now completely infiltrated at all levels by Islamic fundamentalists.
So Musharraf’s departure means increased availability of support for the ISI and the Pakistani Army to carry out cross border terrorism against “non-Muslim” (or Muslim governments not entirely following the hardcore Wahabi or Salafi Sunni expansionist agenda in Asia – such as the current Afghan government under Karazai) regimes. By doing this Pakistan’s army actually is doing a great disservice not only to the “Islamic” cause but also to its own country. As sooner or later, the current vacillating and weak government in India will be replaced by a much stronger will. Sooner or later, Russia, China, Afghanistan and India will have to form a coalition to disrupt the Islamic fundamentalist power base and network developing from Saudi Arabia through Central Asia and north Pakistan right into North Eastern China. Once this happens, it will be the end of Islam as we know it. Either Islam reinvents itself as so many other religions in the history of mankind have done as an up-to-date reconstruction or forced into oblivion.
No scope for complacency and feeling happy about the apparent exit of Musharraf for all those who know what Islamic fundamentalism really means for the non-Muslims.
Hurriyat did not realize that it was shooting itself in the feet when it took on the mantle of champion of economic rights of Kashmiri Muslims by demanding trade across the LOC in Kashmir. I had written awhile ago in these columns that for Pakistan to agree to open the trade routes across the LOC means a possibly serious economic drain. The not-so-robust economy of Pakistan, thanks to the Talebani dance of merry Islamic militancy, may ill afford a drain of resources across the border. Trade across the LOC could also over the long term involve products that do not originate in the valley but are traded by Kashmiris in the valley sourced from the much stronger economy in the plains of India. This does not bode well for Pakistan. And Pakistan is dragging its feet over allowing this trade across the LOC, as expected. Hurriyat is looking for slogans that can rally the largest support in the Valley, and this has nothing do with its actual ideologically motivated agenda – doing its bit for the consolidation of Islam in the subcontinent. As with all ideologically motivated organizations, like that of the Communists, there are always blind alleys into which Hurriyat rushes headlong. Pakistan’s elite’s agenda is grabbing land, and this essentially ex-Hindu converted Muslim elite (who converted in the first instance out of economic and power motives in the first place to retain their land) only uses Islam as a pretext for its land-grabbing motivations. This elite is quite uncomfortable with unbridled Islamic consolidation movements which do not consider the economic or strategic realities. However, in this case Hurriyat is a creation of the Pakistani elite as much as it is a creation of Islamic fundamentalist proselytizing agenda. It will be an interesting exercise in diplomatic coughing and sneezing on the part of all three players in this Kashmiri roulette.
While this pussyfooting is going on in Kashmir, the Gujarat police has claimed to nab the main culprits behind the Gujarat blasts, and identified them as a breakaway hardline faction of SIMI, calling itself the Indian Mujahideen. However sometime ago, in the aftermath of the blasts media leaks from officials appeared to project the theory that Indian Mujahideen did not really exist but was a “shadow name” of a Pakistan based outfit that specifically wanted to pretend to be “Indian”. Both cannot be true at the same time, and it is quite possible that neither of the two theories are entirely correct. It seems unlikely that the main culprits behind the Gujarat blasts have been nabbed. These are people still under deep cover all over the western coastal areas of India, with strong underground networks between Communist extremists, and ethnic separatists throughout India as well as groups based across the border not necessarily with Pakistan. The people nabbed are most likely to be the peripheral weak links. The ideological shortsightedness of these groups may make them itch in “righteous anger” to prove that the Indian authorities have barely even scratched their bottoms, and more public outrages or “show of strength” can probably be expected.
The only strategy that will work in preventing aggressive Jihadi Islam is to frustrate the basic target of Islam, to increase the number of Muslims. There should be a sustained and intensive cultural campaign to revive the pre-Islamic roots of the modern Muslims, and climate created where truly “peaceful Muslims” would feel “ashamed” to remain a Muslim. The false propaganda, which has no support in any of the core texts of Islam, that a Muslim who “leaves” Islam (an “apostate”) has to be physically immediately killed, should be dispelled. Hindus have shown their intelligence in being sufficiently flexible to modernize as and when required – reflected in the sequence of reforms that Hindus themselves undertook and continue to undertake. It is the Hindu historian or politician who is allowed to oppose Hindus in favour of falsification in favour of Islam and get away with it by Hindus, a behaviour never seen in Muslims in reverse towards Hindus. Just imagine the freedoms that a Muslim woman or even a man can enjoy when she or he leaves Islam behind – the freedom to be able to negotiate and redefine and reconstruct their own lives rather than take life as a rigidly pre-ordered diktat from a non-negotiable entity speaking only through insecure and power hungry human voices! It is time the Indian Muslim grows up out of the fear and “submission” that is Islam, and their Hindu countrymen welcome them back.
While speaking in the Rajaya Sabha on 17-08-2006 Dr. Farooq Abdullah had questioned the Government of India on the steps being taken by it after Pakistan refused to grant permission to Kashmiri Pandits for visiting Hindu Shrines or places of religious importance in Muzaffarabad. Dr. Man Mohan Singh appreciated Farooq Abdullah for raising the question and said that he would surely raise this question with Pakistan. Carvan e Aman Bus had first left for Muzaffarabad on 7 April 2005. Lt. General ( Retd ) S. K. Sinha had said in an an interview that the Bus will also carry the historical and spiritual message of Sheikh Noor-ud-Din Noorani and Lala Ded. After 60 years of accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India, spiritual message of Noor-ud-Din and Lala are still awaiting to be transported from one part of Kashmir to another, and the Kashmiri Pundits are still “Migrants” from Kashmir Valley.
For Marxists, or Thaparite Hindu historians, all terrorism in Kashmir or by Muslims stem from exploitation and economic hardship or enforced displacement. Why the Pandits did not become terrorists? Many lost everything they had and finally settled down in Jammu and not all were top bureaucrats or rich businessmen or professionals as they have been represented by historians, politicians and the media. They did not become militants because they were Indians, and they were not brought up in a religion whose fundamental principle is relentless “physical” warfare against “unbelievers” until they “submit”.
The regime dependent and supported political analysts, historians as well as sections of the media treated Kashmir as an “Islamic state” and therefore its “Islamic features” to be “protected” at all costs. This recognition and acceptance of “Islam” as the sole claimant of “Kashmir” immensely played into the hands of Islamic revivalists based in religious centres in India and Pakistan who had been carefully nurtured under the culture of “tolerance of minorities”. Islams agenda in Kashmir succeeded in confusing the common Kashmiri Muslim and their religious sentiments which contain early exposure and brainwashing with not only an inveterate hatred of all non-Muslims, but sanctions and exhortations of violence against them in opportune moments as natural and “Allah” ordered (thereby any personal human regret or conscience can be bypassed) together with a blatant falsification of Kashmir’s pre-Islamic past [in this their greatest allies were of course the Thaparite school of Indian history, who did everything possible to suppress the real role and mechanism of spreading of Islam, and paint pre-Islamic or non-Islamic cultures of India in the worst possible comparison with Islam]. These were exploited to create doubts about completeness of 1947 Accession to India.
The economic backwardness was explained to the poor and unemployed as a result of being a Muslim living under Hindu majority “rule”. Hindu Thaparite historians were most prominent in describing militancy as being out of neglect, unemployment and communal hatred by Hindus. Kashmiri Pundits were blamed for their part in this mistreatment of “Islam” and just as in Bangladesh the “missing Hindu populations in the census” are tried sometimes indirectly to be ascribed to the “economic opportunism of Hindus and their hatred of Muslims and hence their stealthy migration” the Pundits’ mass migrations of flight to safety was represented as an opportunistic Hindu-communal betrayal. All of this had to be done because the Nehruvian strand of Congress politics [Nehru himself had declared that he felt himself culturally a Muslim] possibly also under Western pressure to encourage Islam as immunization against communism, took it upon itself to not only preserve Islam but also to try and help it grow in India. In the “Muslim majority” state of Kashmir, the “heart bleeding for the repressed minorities” political elite of NewDelhi could not recognize the Kashmiri Hindu Pundits or Buddhists as “minorities” – since doing so would have been an embarrassing contradiction and not suitable for their strategy of using Islam as a double whammy – something to tame Hindu pan-India cultural consolidation which would have gone out of the control of the small UP based coterie of Congress as well as an immunization against Left or progressive forces [Islam has proved to be the best antidote against modernization in social and human rights].
Our eminent historians of the Thaparite school of Indian history, never discuss the circumstances that made the campaign posters threatening Kashmiri Pundits a common sight in 1989-1990 in Kashmir Valley, showing the extent to which the anti-Hindu Islamic forces had been allowed to strengthen. The Kashmiri Pundits and many Muslims felt that the militants could actually carry out their threats where as they were not sure about the capacity or political will of the “democratic government” to guarantee security to life and property of those who did not support merger with Pakistan.
The Kashmiri Pundits were Hindu and neither believed in the two nation theory nor did they believe that there could be any thing like an independent nation of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence majority of Kashmiri Pundits left Kashmir Valley along with some Muslims who supported accession to India. Some from the Muslim ruling elite thought that Kashmir should have special constitutional status within India but did not accept the merger with Pakistan as well as Kashmir becoming an independent country. Hence many Muslims and political leaders of the National Conference and Congress also migrated from Kashmir Valley along with the Kashmir Pundits as they also felt unsafe in the Valley. Some Kashmiri Muslims had stayed continuously outside Kashmir Valley upto 1994 and thereafter they gradually returned to the Valley. Dr. Farooq Abdullah had remained in exile for many years under special personal security.
Dr.Farooq Abdullah always described himself as first an Indian and strongly advocated “greater autonomy ” and should be admired for his political courage to oppose militancy and pro-Pakistan groups at the cost of political losses to his party. His political dilemma comes out though on many occasions, such as his allegation that Mr. Jagmohan, a BJP MP, encouraged the Pundits to leave the Valley when he became governor of the state for the second time. Some separatist leaders from Kashmir Valley, some Kashmiri pro India leaders of local political parties and even sections of the Indian media have claimed that Jagmohan wanted Kashmiri Pundits to be out of the way to enable him to deal with militants. To understand this we have to realize that the Kashmiri Pundits never had the tradition of aggressive militant action to defend their rights as the Punjabi Hindus or Sikhs. This is the reason that Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs who have had to survive the worst forms of Islamic violence for at least fourteen hundred years (Sikhs from the Mughal period) did not give up in the face of separatist terrorism in Punjab. About 40000 Sikhs still manage to stay in the Valley.
The Kashmiri Pundits now in exile outside of the Valley, have been excluded from the negotiations on Kashmir. The wishes of the non-Muslim majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir should be taken into account. If this is not done, sooner or later India will have to wake up to a very stark choice – Kashmiri unification has to be then done militarily which may also necessitate the dismemberment of Pakistan, and a thorough wiping off of religious fundamentalist leadership and their cultural propagation systems on the subcontinent.
The Hurriyat wants trade across LOC, and a shaking New Delhi bleats weakly like a lamb that they also agree – only that Pakistan does not respond. This is as I had predicted in a previous post, that NewDelhi will appear increasingly the cornered fool dancing to pro-Pakistani Islamic revivalists’ demands. Indian non-Muslims, especially in the Kashmir and Jammu region should gear themselves for increased Islam sponsored violence and should begin thinking longer term about a permanent solution to the Kashmir problem that safeguards non-Muslim existence and interests indpendent of whatever the Islamophile bosses at NewDelhi promise or say. The ordinary Kashmiri Muslim is an Indian, by origin, by history, by cultural roots. Islamic violence only retreats before an overwhelming force that leaves no doubt about its will and capability to exterminate Islamic “leadership” [the “eradication of Islam” in Spain towards the end of the middle ages for example]- this is the lesson of history, for survival at any cost in order to preserve chances of future multiplication is a fundamental aspect of all Islamic strategy. The American attempt in the middle east is running uphill simply because they do not recognize that the main source of inspiration of Islamic violence utilized by Islamic religious leadership is a primitive greed for biological resources driven by extreme insecurities and intellectual incapability to deal with the complexities of modernizing societies. These religious “scholars” are the main source of selective and opportune interpretations from the core Islamic texts with a shrewd understanding of political manipulations that can satisfy their personal ambitions of power and influence in a world system that goes increasingly beyond their intellectual capabilities. Islamic religious mechanisms and institutions that pretend to preach “peace” for the benefit and division of non-Muslim opinions should have been the first target of the Western colonizing forces in the expansionist phase of European colonialism, and the world would have been spared a lot of pain if instead of concentrating their efforts on destroying the “pagans” they had targeted erasing these Islamic institutions from the face of the earth. Unfortunately we all have to bear the fruits of the West’s long love affair with Islam. But Indians may yet have a way out, as they have always had in the past in overcoming forces that had seemed invincible at first.
There is a lot of talk about Hindu Muslim marriages, and most of the reports I come across in the media appear to conclude that Hindus are fanatical religious bigots who object, oppose, and kill in order to prevent “love” matches between Hindus and Muslims. I will start this sequence of posts with two modern and one historical cases.
Rizwanur was found dead near railway tracks in Kolkata. Amidst trial by media which more or less indicted the Todis, an influential Hindu business family having roots in Rajasthan but now resident in Kolkata – whose daughter had married the practising Muslim, Rizwanur. There were storms of emotional protests by Kolkata-ns with the now fashionable candle-light vigils to book the “murderers”. CBI was requested to intervene, and after lengthy investigations they ruled in favour of “suicide” by Rizwanur, but thought that there were sufficient reasons to justify chargesheeting “abettors” to this suicide, which of course included the in-laws of Rizwanur. Here of course “love” triumphs, especially because the “love” was between a Muslim man and a Hindu girl.
Malaysia, where Islam is the dominant religion, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus are the minorities. (Malaysia was very much under Hindu and Buddhist influence before the advent of Islam. It is surprising that this increasingly fundamentalist country still allows names like Data Seri Muhathir Muhammad to be used – Data Seri points to DuttaSri – a Hindu past, Muhathir or Mohasthobir – a Buddhist past). Islamic authorities suddenly took away Raimah Bibi and six of her seven children on the grounds that her marriage with Marimuthu was illegal. It was not clear why the authorities acted now when the couple had been together for 21 years. At the hearing Raimah Bibi, 39, broke down and sobbed openly when the judge asked her if she will give up custody of their seven children, who are aged between four and 14. “Yes, I agree to surrender my children to Marimuthu,” she said, wiping her tears with the ends of her headscarf. Later, government lawyer Zauyah Be Loth Khan said the Islamic Affairs Department had no objection to the children being raised as Hindus by the father. “It is up to the parents,” she said. The decision was supposed to be a landmark step in minority rights because it allowed a Hindu man to take custody of his children who legally might be considered Muslims because their mother is one. “It would set a precedent for other cases,” said the 43-year-old Marimuthu”s lawyer, Karpal Singh. Singh indicated that Raimah Bibi gave up the children as a compromise to end the family”s predicament. “What is very sad is that a happy united family has been divided and has faced such a crisis,” said Lim Kit Siang, opposition leader. “For this to happen to a couple that has lived together for 21 years as a result of a religious conflict is not good for our international image,” he said. After Raimah Bibi and the six children were removed, Islamic authorities took them to a Muslim village for rehabilitation and religious counselling. Marimuthu has claimed that his wife was a practising Hindu despite having a Muslim name and that he feared she would be brainwashed at the rehabilitation village. However, in a statement to the court, Raimah Bibi said she was born a Muslim and wants to “continue professing the Islamic faith”. Singh said Raimah Bibi “will have absolute access” to her children.
Although modern Hindu secular historians and apologists for Islam propagate that Hindus are against marrying “foreigners” and nonHindus, there appears to be little actual support for this in history. Chandragupta Maurya apparently married either a daughter or a relation of Seleucus Nikator, the Greek general left in charge of eastern Alexandrian empire and who also ceded the ex-Persian provinces of Baktria or Afghanistan. Throughout the medieval period, Hindus married non-Hindus and foreigners in Southeast Asia. (Modern Hindus marry Europeans or foreigners in host countries). In medieval India, beautiful women captives of Muslim warfare were kept mainly as sex-slaves called kanchanis, kanizes and concubines. Muslim nobles exchanged them widely and frequently and Hindu nobles shared in this practice of “taking” Muslim women. In the Delhi Sultanate, according to Nizamuddin Ahmad, “Musalman” women were taken by the Rajputs and sometimes taught the art of dancing and singing and were made to join the “akharas”. Muslim women from the palace of Malwa Sultan entered, between 1512-1518, the household of his nayak or captain Medini Rai. Sultan Mahmud Sharqi (1436-58 ) was accused of handing over Muslim women to his “kafir” captains. Similarly, the Muslim ruler of Kalpi and Chanderi, shortly after 1443, had made over Muslim women to some of his Hindu captains. Malwa was not an exception. In Kashmir, according to Jonraj, Shah Mir had gone to the extent of marrying his daughters to his Brahman chiefs.
Muslim military power being more effective, Islamic rulers in general discouraged Hindus from taking Muslim women. Sher Shah, represented by modern Hindu historians to be a “liberal”, broke his treaty with Puran Mal of Raisen because of the latter’s “gravest of all offences against Islam” in keeping some Muslim women in his harem. The Mughals demanded and freely married Hindu princesses (The liberal Jahangir writes this openly in his autobiography), but there is not a single instance of a Mughal princess being married to a Rajput prince. Akbar discouraged all types of inter-communal marriages. When Jahangir learnt that the Hindus and Muslims intermarried freely in Kashmir, and both give and take girls, (he ordered that) “taking them is good but giving them, God forbid”. And any violation of this order was to be visited with capital punishment. Shahjahan ordered that the Hindus in Kashmir could keep their Muslim wives only if they converted to Islam. Therefore, under him, 4,000 to 5,000 Hindus converted in Bhadnor alone. (there are similar references in Gujarat and Punjab)
Hindus sometimes rescued Hindu girls forcibly married to Muslims. Many Hindu Rajas and elite kept Muslim women in their seraglios, sometimes as a symbol of revenge and continued to capture Muslim women wherever they felt strong. Khafi Khan and Manucci both affirm that the Marathas used to capture Muslim women because, according to them, “the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu women in (their) territories”. There are indications that Sikhs also followed this Maratha example in some cases.
The Islamic dominance and insistence kept marriage a one-way traffic of Hindu women into Islamic households. Hindus were forced to avoid marrying Muslim women on the pain of the favourite Islamic method of killing – decapitation. Modern Indian media or the so-called eminent historians of the Thaparite school will never have the spine to consider publicly the possibility that generations of traumatic experience at the hands of Islamic practice in regard of inter-community marital relationships has made the Hindu wary and rigid.
In subsequent posts I will deal in details with historical cases as well as modern trends, and what the future holds.
The CBI has recommended chargesheets to be drawn against suspected abettors of the “suicide” of Rizwanur, husband of a daughter of an influential and prosperous Hindu Todi “business” family currently residing in Kolkata. The case was initially tried by the media, with widespread public anger expressed against the Todi family which stopped just short of calling the father-in-law of Rizwanur as the killer or hirer of assassins of Rizwanur. A high ranking police officer in Kolkata was also indirectly implicated, and the net widened daily in the public discourse like a modern who-dun-it – with the “usual suspects” – “upper class” “business house” “elite”. The case was a high profile one, and it took the form of a trial of “hindu right wing” fundamentalism that was so anti-liberal that it could not tolerate the pure love that broke religious barriers – with the underlying implication as apparently in this particular case, that barriers are always put up by “Hindus”.
For a long time the Hindu-Muslim marriage or love-affairs have intrigued me and I found some of the most interesting stories or a majority of the stories were never brought up by the media or were in public discourse. Only those stories are widely publicized that shows Hindu resistance to marriages or romantic connections between Hindu girls and Muslim boys. I will discuss this in a subsequent series of posts. However in this case, what is more interesting is the fact that a Muslim agitation was successful in panicking the bastion of the Left in India – the West Bengal Government led by the CPI(M) to quietly and quickly banish Tasleema Nasreen – the exiled Bangladeshi lady and writer from the city of “joy” and all things “progressive”. Tasleema has long been at the centre of two controversies – (1) her apparently candid and not necessarily “authenticated” writings about sexual intrigue and sexual harassment of women at all levels of Bangladeshi society and by all sections of the male population – from the “most sophisticated and educated” to the least (2) her criticism and description of atrocities on minority Hindus of Bangladesh by Muslims.
It was primarily the second controversy, that intensified after the publication of her book “Lajja” (Shame) which explicitly describes atrocities by Muslims on Hindus, that fatwas (Islamic diktats) poured forth from the liberal Islamic society and leadership of Bangladesh. With open threats on life in typical Islamic fashion (of beheading or declaring “murtad”) which were not protested by the liberal and progressive government of a “people’s republic” of Bangladesh, Tasleema decided to leave Bangladesh. After travelling widely in the West, Tasleema had tried to return to the subcontinent. For a writer in Bengali, Tasleema’s natural choice would be West Bengal and the city of Kolkata.
However, the Muslim population of West Bengal promptly began to react against the presence of Tasleema. They ultimately managed to burst out in rioting processions through the streets of Kolkata, and the brave custodians of revolutionary fervour, the Communists of West Bengal promptly buckled under the pressure. Tasleema was quietly removed to Rajasthan and placed under semi-virtual house arrest. Tasleema has since gone out of the country to the West and returned again, trying wistfully to return to her friends and well-wishers in Kolkata. The governments both at the centre and the state have opened their mouths saturated with infinite wisdom – she is a guest , should behave as a guest , and not do anything that disturbs the “peace” of the country. Apparently if Islam in India sneezes the whole country catches cold. The guardians of principle, and morality who flaunted their “principled stand” in the runup to the trust vote in the parliament on the N-deal, those very people who claim to stand above narrow communal feelings and stand for the forces of freedom, liberation, justice and progress find Islam’s inherent murderous hatred of its critics worth supporting or giving in to – but Tasleemas right to freely speak about what she felt were injustices done to a minority under the guidance of a religion were not worth supporting.
So Rizwanur gets justice in India, and Tasleema who spoke about atrocities on minority Hindus across the border is a persona-non-grata or a gagged “guest” in India. Maybe Hindus will learn from the success of this Islamic strategy of manipulation as they have learnt from Kashmiri Muslims in Jammu. Any Indian government with any spine left should have offered Tasleema Indian citizenship, and therefore with automatic rights of protection from the Indian establishment. That would have completed the partial attempt at pretending to be impartial by recommending “abettors” to be chargesheeted.
The Indian Independence Day of 15th August, was boycotted in the Kashmir Valley after a call by separatists to do so. It is possible that people were scared of the separatists. It is more likely however, that the tactical moves of the separatists, Islamic fundamentalists, and the Pakistani Islamo-political elite for the last couple of months have paid rich dividends. The Indian government in its continuing weakness about Islam, and the resulting delusional confusion about the correct handling of Kashmir right from the greatest blunder by Nehru, is now in a very tight corner, where Islam’s agenda calls the shots – and the Indian government will increasingly appear a fool and a cornered one too dancing to the tune of pro-Pakistani Islamic fundamentalists.
The Kashmir problem is partly economic – with deliberate disruption of the economy being a target of Islamic militants and their Pakistani masters since the late 80’s. The process was helped along by the vacillations of certain Kashmiri political elements who could not decide where their loyalties lay, with Islam as propounded by the pan-Islamic movements of the subcontinent or with a “intensively secular (anti Hindu pro-Islam)” Indian central government mostly dominated by the Congress. But if we believe all our secular Hindu historians (desperately trying to shed off their guilt in not being born a Muslim) as well as our secular politicians then the Kashmir problem is simply a result of economic deprivation. If it was indeed economic deprivation, then the vast tribal belts of Orissa should be shaking in volcanic mega-eruptions compared to the hot-spring of Kashmir. If it was economic deprivation in spite of all the special status treatment, why did the Congress led central government fail in 50 odd years to make Kashmir really the “oa hameen-ast”?
The main reason behind the Kashmir problem is Islam. The main problem behind Kashmir is Islam’s strategy of erasing pre-Islamic cultures, erasing the memory in the newly converted (by force or otherwise) of their historical past and roots, of the circumstances under which conversion took place, and Islam’s successful manipulation of the liberalism and humanism of non-Islamic societies to multiply with the ultimate aim of overthrowing these very same host societies. This is the reason, cultural symbols are the target of Islamic resurgence in India – cultural identification with India is sought to be disrupted – this was an old strategy of Islam in Kashmir, by micromanaging cultural elements such as even insistence on adapting non-Indian dress code in the early years of Kashmiri Islam. The boycott of Indian Independence day is just a symbol of this Islamic separation.
The Kashmiri separatists want “trade” across the LOC. This is part of the grand plan for uniting with Pakistan. I think the spinelessness of the Indian government will lead to blaming the Hindus for the whole crisis. It is time to seriously consider taking up the issue of extreme repression in Balochistan by the Pakistani occupying forces in the Pak occupied territorries of Balochistan. India may be drawn into this conflict even if it desperately wants no part of it – for the Balochs will most likely see India’s gas pipeline as a symbol of collaboration with their hated occupiers – the Pakistanis whose Islamic sentiments appear suddenly non-existent in the case of Baluchistan.
Noida farmers are up in arms against developers and apparent breach of promises of “fair” market price for their land. This is part of a general conflict in the whole of India characterized by increasingly militant resistance against government take-over of land for urbanization or industrialization as well as private or corporate purchase of land.
The history of land grabbing by the government of India for “developmental purposes” are well recorded in the annals of the British Raj. I have known people who remembered stories from their ancestors about how families in their neighbourhood had lost almost everything when the first rail lines began to be laid by the British empire in India. I have searched for and seen documents that tend to show that although on the whole the British government of India paid very nearly the prevailing market rate for acquisition of land, this money actually found its way into the pockets of the various “new zemindars” (new landlords – replacements of the old landed gentry by the British from among the financier trader class who eagerly collaborated with the British in the overthrow of the local aristocracy) and “Mutsuddis” or “banyans” (agents or the favourite term of the Marxists – compradors) and not to the real tillers and agrarian labourers who were the real producers from whom the remaining economic parasites of “Zemindars” and “banyas” siphoned off their wealth in the pure process of circulation and “middle-man”-ship.
The recent events show that not much has changed in India from the time of the Raj. This is also expected as the social classes and elites who came to power as a result of Independence were simply the new face of the older Indian elite, with age-old class and network interests – and they were not against the British system as perfected in India but simply wanted to take it over for their own interests (I have this uncanny feeling that had the British been able to overcome their Achilles heel – racism, and incorporate Indian elite at the highest echelons of power, they might never have had to go).
In UK, acquisition of land for industrialization and “development” was accompanied with large scale disruption of the agrarian poor’s life. Wholesale eviction of tenant farmers took place, who swelled the ranks of the urban poor and provided the early cheap labour that utilized the capital extracted from the colonies and the slave trade to jump-start the British industrial revolution. The child labour or bonded labour so much talked about now in the context of India was quite the order of the great British capitalist revolution now almost completely suppressed and vehemently denied by modern British historians while at the same time blaming India for a similar “crime”. Such labour also came from these displaced farmer families, whose women are known to have been forced to “work the streets” of London and the major industrial towns – (Jack the Ripper had his fun on such women in the East End purgatory of London – then the festering hole of such displaced farmer turned proletariat).
Our industrialists have a peculiar problem. Modern industries are capital intensive and labour substitutive. This implies that new industries set up on lands acquired from farmers have little chance of absorbing them as workers in the industries being set up. Our sequence of visionary governments’ (from right after Independence) have succeeded in managing to let each social class or profession continue through the generations without imposing upon them the importance and necessity of modernizing through a continuous upgrading and ever-widening net of scientific education or technical skills in keeping with technological progress. Which means in most cases the younger generation in any given farming community is most likely to be geared towards being a farmer only without technological or other relevant education that can allow them to diversify into new and upcoming technology. So the only way to do anything is to compensate financially a farmer for land. Typically since land is an element of juicy speculation for the financiers of India, land prices would rise at fantastic rates as soon as financiers smell the prospect of development either because of proximity of industrialization or otherwise. Thus land prices could change rapidly within a very short space of time.
There are at least two ways out of this impasse :
(1) a financial market based solution to this problem is possible
(2) build up agro-industrial townships within an integrated self-sustaining community setup where the farmers and their lands are incorporated as an integral part
But both need vision and political will, a rare commodity among our visionary political elite. Their extraordinary genius is all spent on ensuring their electoral success based on exponentially increasing and actively promoted fracture of Indian society
Kashmiri Muslims in the valley have defied curfew and come out on the streets in large numbers during the funeral processions to bury their dead. Business interests, building and infra-structure contractors panicking at the possibility of land-transfer to “outsiders” who may not award contracts to them, might have been behind the Kashmiri agitation to begin with. They might also have been behind the renewal of agitation in Kashmir to counter any effect the agitation in Jammu may have on the Indian government. That the business interests are hobnobbing with the Hurryat should come as no surprise and should be expected. Gujarati Hindu, Jaina traders and merchant-princes in the 13th century appear to have tolerated and actively collaborated in the spread of Islam possibly simply because of their greed in maintaining the trade across the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean then increasingly going under the control of the Islamic forces dominating the middle East. The traders and business interests of Kashmir now probably encouraging the Kashmiri “Islamic” agitation, are simply out to give the Indian government a message and quoting a price. Total control over parts of territories in India cannot be given up to any particular sub-population, so that they can use it to bargain indefinitely and without any limits. Separatist slogans raised by some in the crowds are from opportunistic isolated minor cells of pro-Pakistan political extremists. Notwithstanding this, sentiments can be used to make this a more general slogan – as “freedom” for Kashmir simply means incorporation of entire Kashmir into Pakistan, and incorporation of areas whose non-Muslims might be as against joining Pakistan as the Muslim leadership might be for joining a “dream” Islamic Ummah. The Indian government needs to talk with the business interests in Muslim Kashmir. Given the proper “price”, the main sustaining economic interest behind the slogan of separatism will sell itself, and only the ideologues will remain die-hard against Hindus and India. These are people who have to be tackled with an intensive public discourse on the past and real history of Islamic “outsiders” who came and “imposed” themselves on Kashmir.
Musharraf is playing his Kashmir card. He is posing as the unifier of Pakistan, and a single icon of focus for political stability. Musharraf in talking about Kashmir, is actually hinting at how much he and the whole Pakistani elite is involved in the agitations that plague Kashmir. The Islamic theologians and ideologues interest in the “spread” of Islam, Pakistan’s semi-feudal elite which produced all the bickering leaders – Musharraf, Zardari and Nawaz – eager to turn the attention of the deprived masses away from their consistent internal failures as well as hoping to get more land (the Kashmiris if ever in Pakistani hands will realize what “land grabbing” by “outsiders” really means – similarly Pakistanis will learn how such “land grabbing” can develop vehement Islam defying regionalisms as in Bangladesh), and the deliberately kept ignorant of all modern scientific rational thinking common Pakistani – for all of these three prime currents of Pakistani society – Kashmir is the sole national project and the sole reason for national existence. Kashmir is the ultimate Eldorado or Xanadu, the fabulously attractive prize in the hands of the foreign “devil” (the best devil that can be around, the Jews for Edwardian England or for many other medieval European Christians, the “black faced Hindoo” for the Islamic chroniclers justifying and gloating in their claims of slaughter, and enslavement campaigns initiated by their invading patrons – or friendly peaceful visitors on annual holiday in India with holiday security perhaps according to the Thaparite school of Indian history) which when really proved to be the figment of feverish and greedy imagination, will destroy Pakistan as a functioning nation.
Musharraf has a plan. He probably already has assurances from powerful sections of Pakistani society. I have a bad taste in my mouth about the future of Nawaz Sharif. He is the most emotional of the three and the heartthrob of Pakistans political middle class – neither of the feudal, nor of the “serfs”. His emotional attitude to politics and his lack of political shrewdness can make his future quite uncertain, and probably quite dangerous.
The Pakistan national assembly has passed a resolution condemning India over Kashmir. Pakistan has also expressed its ardent desire to take the issue of Kashmir to the UN – a very old strategy of Pakistan, probably stemming from secret Western promises to back Pakistan up in its demand for Kashmir. At that time, at the end of WWII, the West was getting ready for the Cold War with the USSR, and Islam was seen as a good immunization programme against the Communists. In the 50’s the anti-Communist League was formed with the Muslim “nations” of Asia, under the leadership of the West, chiefly by UK and the USA. There are indications that the ruling elite of UK at that period were quite sore over the loss of the “Jewel in the Crown” – India, and squarely blamed the “Hindu” Congress for this. Both factors could have led the British primarily to back up Pakistan and maybe even arrange for the UN resolution on Kashmir to pass quickly.
Pakistan in its naivete still believes those old equations to persist. Whatever be Pakistan’s belief, if it goes to the UN over Kashmir, India should happily accompany Pakistan to the UN with (1) a list of atrocities commited on Indian soil by Pakistan aided terrorists (2) India should also immediately declare support for the “liberation struggle” of the Balochs and promise to accompany the Pakistanis with the case of Baluchistan to the UN (3) and conclude a military and security cooperation treaty with Afghanistan with the declared intent of “hot pursuit” for militancy exported from across the border with Pakistan – this will “encircle” the current northern hotbed of Taleban, AlQaeda and ISI inspired terrorism based in the Punjab, POK and NWFP.
Untimely death is unacceptable. A leader of the Hurriyat conference had been shot dead among a score others. I don’t have any sympathy for the brand of Islam now being projected on the subcontinent, but my heart grieves for the ordinary Indian Muslim, whom I see only as Indians and not as Muslims. I see Kashmiri Muslims as most unfortunate since their ancestors were mostly peaceful Hindus and Buddhists, and who have been forced by the weakness of their Hindu rulers and elite to be divorced from their roots and culture. Kashmir resisted Islam for a long time, long after the Sun-worshippers of Multan, or the Hindu kings of Kabul and Zabul, or the sundry small princes who from time to time invited the likes of Islamic fortune seekers as Mahmud of Gazni into the Indian heartland for their own petty quarrels or jealousies. Even after being Islamized in the late 14th century, when the Delhi Sultanate was already beginning the the long decline to defeat at the hands of the Mughals in another hundred odd years, Kashmir’s Islam had a chequered history – and the brand of Islam that developed there had little in common with the various strands of orthodox Sunni fanaticism now being put up as the monolithic face of Islam. A curious Kashmiri version of Sufism developed, and even in the time of Mughals, ShahJehan – the fabulous prince now only represented as the grief-stricken husband and the doting father who built Taj Mahal (forget the dispute about its real constructor – but it was the countless artisans and skilled artists and architects, as well as the crores of Rupiah’s extracted from the peasantry – who were the real constructors of the Taj Mahal) – but in reality who has been chronicled to be a zealous Muslim bigot, had to formally decree that Kashmiri Hindu men who had been marrying Kashmiri Muslim women, had to convert to Islam or be beheaded. This sort of intermarrying must have been going on at a very significant rate to warrant the Mughal Badshah’s attention and personal intervention. It is quite likely, as at the entry of the Mughals under Akbar the “great” who tricked the ruling sultan of Kashmir under a false promise of safe passage using as his mouthpiece a Hindu Rajput courtier, Islam in Kashmir was a relatively new religious entry. Islam under Sufi garb perhaps had also pretended in its initial proselytizing phase as a “liberal” creed – revealing its fangs only later when sufficiently strong numerically. Thus the newly converted families and those who had not converted probably took their ancient lineal connections much more seriously than a new-fangled religion, one in a long chain of religious ideas and mini-ideological revolutions in Kashmir. Thus intermarriage was not such implausible after all. Not so in Islam, originally a desert based nomadic culture peculiarly obsessed with “perceptions of deprivation” – deprivation of the “yatin” or orphan, deprivation from “fertile land”, “water”, and “women” which others have possessed and which therefore its “God” promises to give them rights on. Islam is keen to hold on to its “women” as well as “women” of others – and therefore this insistence on only one-way traffic into Islam of women. ShahJehan was instrumental in using enslavement of Hindus, especially peasants to raise money, reduce the number of Hindus, and spread Islam. He is known to have expanded the slave trade in Hindu women and had a well recorded taste in stocking up his harem with an endless stream of “baandi”s acquired by all possible means, who regularly found themselves in his bed (all that for the “eternal love” for Mumtaj enshrined in the Taj Mahal). It is quite understandable that ShahJehan felt worried that Hindus in Kashmir were getting women from Muslims rather than the other way round.
If this was the picture even in the mid 17th century, we can pretty well understand, why the Sunni strands of Islam, most responsible for the current worldwide spate of sadistic violence in the garb or religious justification, would be so concerned about the “religious health” of Kashmir. I strongly feel, Indians should seriously think of the need for an iron fist in a pair of velvet gloves – a will strong enough to ignore religious machinations, and be ruthless in crushing militancy – the iron fist, and be immensely persistent in a no-holds-barred cultural and economic conquest of Kashmir and Jammu – the velvet gloves.
Time and again we have talked about why things always go wrong when politicians call in the army to solve the mess they have created. The army is trained to think of every action in a “disturbed” area as a confrontation with the “enemy”. Thus their actions create irreparable psychological damage in the collective consciousness of the civilian population at the receiving end. Why does not the administration of Jammu and Kashmir have modern crowd dispersal techniques such as water cannons at hand? A state that has faced civil unrest continuously for more than 20 years now, still does not have specialized riot-police with appropriate protective and dispersal gear! The army has been trained to kill enemy, “neutralize” an armed combatant to render him or her ineffective. Controlling the civilian crowd is a completely different ball game. Right from the time of Napoleon, who famously began his meteoric rise “with a whiff of grapeshot” that dispersed a “revolutionary Paris mob” threatening the “revolutionary Directory”, concentrated armed forces fire have dispersed crowds but with long term effects that have countered and overturned not only the politicians behind the initial incident but their class, society, or ideology as well. [The British for example do not talk too much about their “Peterloo” – a peaceful gathering of working class men, women and children protesting the abominable conditions of semi-slavery they were kept in by the enlightened liberators of the world – who were chewed up by by sabre wielding mounted police – a psychology that shows that Jallianwallbag massacre was in keeping with the British mentality, and that it remains so even today since the British government or the Monarchy still refuses to formally apologize for what its soldiers did on the civilian population]. The government of India should take lessons from Jalianwalabag. The British government then won, with Rex Dyer consistently supported by his regiment, his superiors, parts of Sikh communities, as well as the British MP’s and the press. But Jallianwalbag became a symbolic rallying icon for the nascent Indian freedom movement, that ultimately succeeded in establishing formal loss of control [ notwithstanding a great deal of “friendship” post-Independence with the ruling elite, a friendship that might have started the whole Kashmir problem – with the very strange and very hasty unilateral decision by Nehru to accept the hastily declared UN referendum proposal] by the British over India.
The Government of India has given in to the expulsion of the Kashmiri Hindus from their ancestral places within the Kashmir valley, to the destruction of secular schools, to the mushrooming of Madrassahs without any supervision, to the demands by Kashmiri Muslims to gradually strengthen Shariati control over the society, to the continuous and steady destruction of pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist shrines or cultural icons by Muslims. This was a cultural war, which had to be fought with ruthless determination. Already our eminent historians have done the damage, by suppressing all evidence of pre-Islamic cultures, painting pre-Islamic and non-Islamic cultures as retrogressive and inferior compared to Islam, [a typical Islamic agenda], by editing away and suppressing all notion of determined Islamic violence against non-Muslims. In this the eminent Hindu historians were either probably merely following their political master’s wishes and the regime’s agenda – or indulging in their own secret attractions for the Muslim way of life [the ladies in particular among them perhaps should convert to Islam and go and live in Islamic countries, as I do find it very hard to understand that they do not wish to do so since Islam seems to be far superior to any other culture for them, and so peaceful and progressive too for women in Islamic nations].
Kashmir’s fruit and other agro-based economy should be converted into a value-adding industry of processing, and in this Jammu should have a stake. This economic and trade integration with mutual dependence between the various regions will go a long way towards real integration. Meanwhile a determined campaign to bring out the pre-Islamic cultural context of the entire valley should be undertaken, even if the Muslim leadership does its best to block this. This is going to be a cultural war and should never be allowed to be converted into a confrontation by bullets, which is exactly what the Islamic leadership wants- for it knows once the actual history and culture comes up, they have nothing to do but to hide their faces or tell preposterous lies to cover it all up.
Today, traders from Kashmir Valley fruit markets swelled in ranks by political activists and villagers amounting to around 50,000 marched towards the Uri sector in their official intent of breaking through the LOC for economic reasons. The state police failed to stop them as expected, and it now falls to the Indian Army to stop them actually breaking through to the sensitive Uri sector. The Hurryiat, which definitely had a hand in this march, (the traders reportedly asked the Hurriyat for support) is gloating over the “success” of this march, as it has been successful in taking the Kasmiri Muslims back to their 80-90’s agenda of joining Pakistan in the hope of unifying the Muslim Ummah of “Kashmir”. Most “secular” Hindus join Islamic apologists in claiming that conversions in India were voluntarily undertaken by “oppressed” “lower castes”. This is a hypothesis never concretely tested – and is typical with Indian historians, the hypothesis was converted into a conclusion. There are two problems with this “caste oppression” theory – the “horrendous” caste system is supposed to be unique to India, but conversions have not proceeded beyond the 25% mark on an average in spite of 1000 years of “friendly” exposure, whereas conversions have been much more complete in areas outside of India, such as in Indonesia (only a small proportion of which had exposure to Indic cultures in the historical past) or Persia, or central Asia, – by the caste oppression theory these societies must have been almost 4 times more “caste” riddled than India. The second problem is that genetic studies conducted on North Indian populations indicate that “upper caste” Hindus and Muslims share common ancestry – this is also quite obvious from anthropometric considerations – such as complexion, and facio-cranial characteristics. Conversion could have been a much more complex process of adjustment by local Hindu elite to preserve their lands and influence as well as the defencelessness of more vulnerable sections of Hindu and Buddhist populations open to extortion of “protection money” or Jiziya by Muslim marauders as well as frequent raids of looting, slaughter and enslavement (there are indirect records of such raids in late pre-Islamic period Indian texts – something Prof. Thapar will never bring up – such as the Lekhapaddhati – as this will be an example of a written record from the side of “victims”, and therefore by her theory admissible as evidence of trauma on the part of “non-Muslims”).
One of the first tasks of Islam after being able to militarily dominate an area or a population is to erase all traces of previous cultures. This is why there is such a strong emphasis in the core Islamic texts on destruction of cultural icons, shrines, temples, places of worship, of “unbelievers” – this serves two purposes, the show of strength of “Islam” and the psychological effect on “unbelievers” that their “gods” are unable to protect their own. But longer term, this is part of a more sinister strategy – as Muhammad was definitely shrewd enough to realize that cultural icons were the concrete material connections of a community to its past – and this is why it is so important in Islam to not only destroy a shrine of a previous culture but to build a “Islamic” shrine on it, so that no visible traces of the previous icon remains overground. Following this of course Muslims will insist that their “cultural icon” can never be destroyed, although they did and can freely destroy in the future anything they consider belonging or representing that of “unbelievers”. This is why, wherever Islam militarily triumphs, it also insists that the history of that region started with the advent of Islam in that area, and everything before was “darkness”. (In Bangladesh, for example, history starts around 1000 CE).
Indian historians have allowed and taken part in this Muslim claim of erasure of history of the communities before they converted – and the modern crisis of Kashmir has been a result of this. Kashmir’s past was strongly linked to Indian heartlands, and even if it was geographically in the periphery, its long historical connections to Indian culture is revealed in the as yet surviving (after Harsha and his Muslim iconoclast successors) in the presence of such significant Shaivite centres such as Amarnath, Shankaracharya temple, Martanda (Sun) temple near Anantnag, Pandrethan etc.
Realpolitik made New Delhi neglect Jammu economically for a long long time, and the current widely popular agitation has gained wind from popular discontent, just as the march towards the LOC by Kashmiri Muslims have gained from popular discontent – which perhaps also stemmed from long disruption to the economy deliberately employed by the militants as well as encouraged by Pakistan.
An intensive campaign should start to revive the study and memory of Kashmir, and the converted Kashmiri Muslim’s pre-Islamic past and putting it firmly in the public discourse without flinching from or suppressing any “uncomfortable” details. Simultaneously, the fruit production in Kashmir valley should be modernized to food processing industry, and given the difficulty of developing actual industrial infrastructure in the hills (some should definitely be constructable) with a spread of the industry into Jammu. At the moment the fruit trucks from the valley pass through Jammu and locals get little benefit from this trade. Mutual dependence between the valley and Jammu in a strong, correlated, and value added industry will go a long way towards solving the persistent problems. At the same time both regions should be placed in their common, pre-Islamic cultural context, consciously as part of public discourse.
Kashmiri Muslims should not be treated as “different”, we have to remember that in many instances they were reluctant converts, and a section of the Hindu elite prevented them from returning to the “fold”.
Recent comments from obvious Indian “Hindus” who think that any negative criticism of aspects of the functioning of the Indian Army is a critcism inspired by “blindly communal” feelings, prompted me to look into the apparent need in some Hindu minds to construct a supreme “divine”, an ultimate icon of reliability and “purity” making up for whatever the Hindu feels insecure about.
Let us look into the “secular” and “unbiased” aspects of the Indian Army, so fervently declared by VKDas and YamirB.
Recruitment Policy
The British East India Company created three ethnically mixed armies, one each in the three presidencies of Bengal, Madras and Bombay (Bengal Army was predominantly high-caste Hindus and Muslims of Oudh and Bihar). In the 1857 First Indian anti-British Uprising, majority of the Bengal Army rebelled or were pre-emptively disarmed, while the Madras and Bombay Armies remained mostly loyal, and fought with distinction against their rebellious counterparts. In contrast to the upper-caste Hindu and Muslim soldiers of the Bengal Army, Sikhs and other Punjabis, Garwalis and the Gurkhas in the same army actively fought for the British. Post rebellion, the British rewarded the Dogras, Garhwalis, Gurkhas, Pathans, and Punjabis- whether Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh- the so-called “martial races.” The martial races theory predates the mutiny, according to some historians according to which some Indian “races” (actually ethno-religious groups) such as the Dogras, Garhwalis, Gurkhas, Kumaonis, Marathas, Pathans and Punjabis (of all religious affiliation); Rajputs: as well as Hindustani, Deccani and Moplah Muslims make good soldiers (meaning they remain loyal to those who pay them above and any other considerations of religion, or nationality). The martial races could also have been constructed out of affinity with emerging British racism based on Caucasoid/White European physical body types. The recruitment to the army along constructed military qualities of certain groups was carried out from 1858 to 1939. The colonial British Indian army therefore formed along ethnic lines with Dogra, Garhwali, Gurkha, Jat, Kumaon, Mahar and Sikh regiments- the socalled “one class.” There were also “fixed class” units – a regiment or battalion having two to three classes, but with each of its subunits belonging to “one class”. Finally, there was the “mixed class,” comprising soldiers from different groups. The much smaller non-combatant supporting services were composed of men from all ethnic, caste and regional groups. Officers of this army were British, while Indians were admitted to the ranks only after world War I. Officer recruitment was based on social class and loyalty to the Raj.
Although large-scale recruitment of Muslim ethnic groups took place, there were no pure Muslim regiments – probably stemming from iconic role of the Mughal Badhsah in the Great Uprising and continued pan-Islamic intrigue with Afghans by sections of Indian Muslims. World War II in 1939 required relaxation of the martial races theory and led to increased the recruitment of soldiers from non-martial races because of the manpower shortage. After the end of WWII, there was some demobilisation and the policy of recruitment reverted to the pre-war patten.
The Indian National Congress criticized this policy as restrictive and discriminatory. Nirad C. Chadhuri (1935), an avowedly sympathetic writer towards British culture, argued that “a national army” recruited from all parts of the country will be “animated by a national spirit”. “It should be a self-contained fighting machine able to do without the help and guidance of foreigners and, above all, it should foster the military capacity of the whole nation and be directly related to it.” On 14 February 1947, the Secretary of Defence Ministry said in the Central Legislative Assembly that it was the government’s policy to do away with the distinction between martial and non-martial races in recruiting. Since the soldiers were already Indians, the nationalists demanded full “Indianization”- the opening of the officer level for the natives of India. During the partition, the British Indian army was still largely composed of soldiers of the “martial races” and junior officers of Indian origin, while the higher officers were all British. The army had 30-36% Muslims, 8% Sikhs, with the remainder predominantly Hindu, including Gurkhas, Indian Christians and Anglo-Indians.
In mid-August 1947, at independence, the British officers left the subcontinent. By the terms of partition, soldiers and officers of the Raj’s army were given the choice of joining the forces of India or Pakistan. Most of the predominantly Punjabi or Pathan Muslim soldiers chose Pakistan. But 215 Muslim commissioned officers and 339 VCOs (Viceroy’s Commissioned Officers, later called Junior Commissioned Officers), chose India, according to the Ministry of Defence. Among these were officers such as Brigadiers Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Anis Ahmad Khan, Lt. Col. Enayat Habibullah. Partition divided the Muslim nobility – Major Yunus of the influential Rampur aristocracy remained in India, while Sahibzada Yaqub KhanYaqub, chose Pakistan and became its foreign minister in the 80s.
A highly significant proof of the nationalism, and lack of regional, political or ideological bias of the post-Indpendence Indian Army as donated by the British to the Congress government was the refusal of the Army or the Defence ministries to absorb or restore the captured and surrendered soldiers of the Indian National Army (whose loyalty to the nation was vouched for by Nehru himself in his very emotional speeches before the angry mass sentiments in favour of the INA – but promptly obliterated from Nehruvian memory once the popular crisis passed) into the new Indian Army. Similar were the the treatment of the Indian Naval forces in 1948 who had mutinied against the British, and who were tricked by leaders of the stature of Gandhiji, and Nehru into surrendering to the British. Service records of those who had gone against the British were maintained to penalize them after Independence, whereas those who had remained loyal to the British were rewarded. One strange case here is ofcourse that of the WWII overseas Indian volunteers, who fought for the British in the African theatre as well as in the European theatre of the Allied invasions. It is probable that highlighting their case too much could have been an embarassment for the British, as even now, some British openly declare on public media that “they never heard of any f*** Pa.. or In.. of having fought in WWII – my [relative who was in the war] never saw any!”, and the loyal new “Indian government” obliged their “British friends”.
When India went to war against Pakistan over Kashmir in 1947 Brig. Muhammad Usman died fighting for India, earning him a posthumous gallantry award. A year later, during India’s military operation in Hyderabad, Operation Polo, about 700 Muslims left the army after it invaded Hyderabad.Maj.Gen. Muhammad Anis Ahmed Khan, who opted for India and was promoted to a Major-General, gained access to secret information and then retired voluntarily in 1955 and at once settled down in Pakistan, accepting a Pakistan government post. Organiser published the views of the former Indian Army Commander-in-chief Gen. K.M. Cariappa., that Muslim “Loyalty seems to be primarily to Pakistan. This is a crime unpardonable. This is also the impression of a large percentage of non-Muslim intellectuals in India. Here is the root cause for there being a none-too-happy feeling towards Muslims by a large percentage of the majority… This is understandable.” Raju Thomas, an American academic who interviewed army officers, found that “when the [India-Pakistan] war began in September 1965, a Muslim majority battalion of the Rajput Regiment stationed in the crucial Poonch sector of Jammu and Kashmir, far from being hastily withdrawn, was allowed to play its part in the execution of the army’s forward actions. According to several high-ranking Indian army officers, the fact that the battalion did not flinch and carried out its assigned role with considerable credit, sufficiently dispelled worry- at least within the military- about the loyalty of Indian Muslim soldiers.” However, Daljit and Katherine Singh, “were able to find not a single Muslim officer above the rank of a major-general occupying a responsible position of military command.”
In 1953, Nehru noted the absence of Muslims from the army in a communication addressed to the chief ministries, observing that “in our Defense Services, there are hardly any Muslims left… What concerns me most is that there is no effort being made to improve this situation, which is likely to grow worse unless checked.” Mohair Tyagi, the Minister of State for Defense told the Aligarh University Union that in 1953, “the percentage of Muslims in the armed forces forces, which was 32 percent at the time of partition” had come down to around 2 percent. Before independence, the Kashmir’s Dogra Maharaja’s Force consisted of Dogras and Sikhs, with some Muslims, but not Kashmir Valley Muslims, who were excluded from the state army as matter of policy. In October 1947, the State Force’s Muslim soldiers rebelled and joined the Pakistan-supported tribal invasion.
To be continued…..
Sources:
1. David Omissi, “Martial Races: Ethnicity and Security in Colonial Indian 1858-1939.” War & Society vol. 9, no. 1 (May 1991).
2. Indian Army Handbook. Muslims: P.Holland – Proyor, Mapplias or Moplahs, 1903;R.M. Bethan, Marathas and Dekhani Musalmans, 1908; R.T. Ridgreway, Pathans, 1910; W.F.G. Bourne, Hindustani and Musalmans of the Eastern Punjab, 1914; and Punjabi Musalmans, 1915; (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing).
3. Defence of India or Nationalization of Indian Army, Congress Golden Jubilee Brochure no.8 (Allahabad: All India Congress Committee, 1935).
4. Daljit and Katherine Singh, “The Military Elites and Problems of National Integration in India and Pakistan.” Indian Journal of Politics, vol. 7, 2 (1973);
5. K.M Cariappa, Organiser (15 August 1964).
6. Raju G.C Thomas and Bharat Karnad, ” The Military and National Integration in India, “in Ethnicity, Integration and the Military, Henry Dietz, Jerrold Elkin, and Maurice Roumani, eds. (Boulder, CO: West View Press, 1991).
Please note that comments that are simply abusive, and uses a string of abusive adjectives without justifying or giving reasons, will not be published. I welcome critical comments that do not agree with my exposition, but which at least try to give solid reasons and arguments. Please note also that if it becomes obvious that comments aim to force me to share in the propaganda of the commentator in any form then such commentators will be blacklisted.
Liked it here? Why not try sites on the blogroll...
Dikgaj's Weblog 