“...keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh…”
NSR
Communalising history?
Vinod Kumar
Kashmir Herald
April 2003
http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/communalisinghistoryx.htm Ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party led government came to power in
Delhi the "rewriting" of history has become a contentious, at times
acrimonious, issue. Marxist historians who had dominated writing
history books under the Congress patronage for decades have suddenly
started accusing the BJP government (and the Sangh Parivar)
of "communalising" or "saffronizing" history. Those who contest
Marxists' version of history were labeled as "communal" while they
call their own version as "secular".
Dr. DN Jha, a Professor of History at the Delhi University belongs to
the 'secular' school of History. In the year 1999, at the Punjab
History Conference held at Patiala, he delivered his presidential
address focusing on the theme: "Against communalising History". Some
of the "secular historians" have, in fact, globalized this issue by
talking about it constantly at the International conferences and
seminars across the globe, and particularly in North America and
Europe.
Various aspects of "rewriting" history have been dealt with in the
Indian media at length. There are many points of contention but the
most notable two that make the issue so divisive are (i) the
treatment given to Aryan invasion theory and (ii) how Muslim
invasions and rule are portrayed in history books.
History can be neither secular nor communal. Simply, history is
nothing but a record of events as they happened as best ascertained
by available evidence. While dealing with history as a
subject, 'objectivity' should only be the sole criterion and nothing
else. Again, this objectivity must be sustainable on archeological or
other verifiable evidences. Furthermore, whenever new evidences come
along through new scientific methods or newly found evidences at a
particular historical site, the "wrong" historical records and books
must be corrected to reflect the truth as it unfolds. At any rate,
objectivity should be the guiding factor while writing history books,
past or present.
In his keynote address Dr. Jha told the audience "the Hindutva
forces, in their bid to aggravate religious conflicts in the country,
argue that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam and Christianity
in the past and therefore they have to be reconverted so as to take them
back into the Hindu fold. But such an assertion has no basis in our
history…. The idea that the Muslims were destroyers of 'Hindu'
temples and that they converted 'Hindus' to Islam by force is
extremely tendentious and is largely unfounded."
Citing Alberuni Dr. Jha said "the use of force in this conversion was
neither necessary nor possible". To the best of my knowledge, of all
the twenty or so books about India written by Alberuni, only one
titled Indica has survived. It is not clear how from reading
Alberuni, Dr. Jha drew the above mentioned conclusion. Alberuni's
book is not about Muslim conquest of India. It is "an account of the
religion, philosophy, literature, geography, astronomy, customs, laws
and astrology of India about AD 1030".
Conversion of Hindus or the demolition of Hindu temples by the
Muslims was not the subject of Alberuni's book. Yet, he made some
observations as and when these touched upon the issues he dealt with
in his book.
Alberuni wrote Prince Mahmud that "utterly ruined the prosperity of
the country" and calling these as "wonderful exploits" by which
Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions. This, he goes
onto observe, has created "the most inveterate aversion towards all
Muslims". Keen as he was on learning about Hinduism and India, he
laments that this has caused the Hindu sciences to "retire far away
from those parts of the country conquered by us" and have fled to
places where "our hands cannot yet reach". He stayed, it is surmised
in Punjab - the area under Prince Mahmud's occupation.
If Dr. Jha was looking for the full extent of the destruction of
temples and conversion of Hindus, he should have rather looked into
Tarikh-e-Yamini written by Prince Mahmud's secretary Utbi and other
Islamic sources dealing with the exploits of Muslim invaders and
rulers.
When it comes to the destruction of temples, the Somanath temple
evokes strongest emotions. Somanath is mentioned fifteen times in
Alberuni's Indica. While discussing the sacredness of the Somanath
idol and its origins and construction, Alberuni records that the idol
was destroyed by Mahmud and broken parts shipped to Ghazni; "the
upper part with all its trappings of gold, jewels and embroidered garments"
being kept at his residence and another part before the door of the
mosque of Ghazni, on which people rub their feet to clean them from
dirt and wet". Part of it was thrown into the hippodrome of the town,
together with the Chakraswamin, an idol of bronze brought from
Thanesar.
Additional proof of the destruction of Somanath temple, again, is
recorded in a letter written by Aurangzeb. He wrote:.
"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 is
at present. If the idolators 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." (Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb from
Inayetullah's Ahkam, 10a, Mirat 372)
Somanath temple was demolished by the Muslims -- from Mahmud to
Aurangzeb - and rebuilt by the Hindus several times - the last time
soon after India gained her independence.
Focussing on Somanath temple does not, in any way, imply that this
was the only temple demolished by the Muslims. This was one of thousands
that met similar fate.
Breaking of idols and demolition of places of worship was not unique
to medieval Muslims. The latest example of this practice was
witnessed by the entire world only two years ago (April 2001) when in
opposition to calls from all quarters centuries old Buddha statues carved on
hillside in Bamiyan were demolished in Afghanistan.
"The possibility of a forced mass conversion is, in fact,
contradicted by Muhammad ibn Qasim himself who, according to Baladhuri, is
believed to have said: "The temples shall be unto us like the churches of the
Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and the fire temples of the
Magians." Dr. Jha went on to say.
Islamic warriors spared some temples. However, this was not done as
an act of tolerance or compassion towards Hindus. Alberuni writes about
one such incident. When Muhammad bin Kasim conquered Multan, he
inquired "why the town was so very flourishing"? When told the cause
was the idol of Aditya, for there came pilgrims from all sides to
visit it. He decided to "leave the idol where it was but he hung a
piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery." When the
Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam ibn Shaiban broke the idol into
pieces and built a mosque at the same place, Alberuni went on to add.
For reasons best known to him, Dr. Jha does not tell all the facts of
the history. He gives only a sanitized account of Muslim invasion,
and exploitation.
At Debal, the temples were demolished and mosque founded; a general
massacre endured for three whole days; prisoners were taken captive;
plunder was amassed. At Nirun, the idols were broken, and mosques
founded on the site of the temple of Budh, notwithstanding its
voluntary surrender. The account of Mahmud's invasions is full of
demolition of temples (at Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Somnath - to
mention a few), plunder, massacres, enslavement and forced
conversions.
Hajjaj, the governor of Irak and sponsor of Muhammad bin Kasim's
campaign to Sind had written clear instructions:
"My dear cousin, I have received your life-augmenting letter. On its
receipt my gladness and joy knew no bounds…. But the way of
granting pardon prescribed by law is different from the one adopted by you….
The Great God says in the Koran: 'O true believers, when you
encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads. The above command of the
Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed."
If at times Hindus enjoyed some freedom in the practice of their
religion; it was dictated less by any principle of justice or
humanity, than the impossibility of suppressing the native religion
by the small number of Muslim invaders. The Hindus were never treated
equal to Muslims. They had to pay higher taxes in addition to
humiliating Jiziya.
The truth is that Muslim invasions, almost without exception, were
followed by a great massacre and demolition of Hindu temples. All
means from the sword to political to economic pressure in the form of
excessive taxation and humiliating Jiziya were used to convert Hindus
to Islam.
When the Communist Government of West Bengal issued orders not to
mention demolition of Hindu temples by the Muslims in textbooks, at
least indirectly, they accepted that, indeed, this had happened.
However, historians such as Dr. Jha go to extraordinary lengths to
deny, hide and twist true historical facts.
What is presented by Dr. Jha is far from objective history. It is
communal history - history favoring one community at the expense of
the other in contradiction to all available evidence. Ironically, Dr.
Jha while protesting against "communalising" history is very much
doing the same. What India needs now is "true" academic historians
who won't be afraid to call a spade as spade.
URL::