Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924024066833#page/n7/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia600404.us.archive.org/18/items/cu31924024066833/cu31924024066833.pdf

Amita : What exactly do you mean by ..."but the army that he led was beaming with Hindu infantry" ?

i hv always felt sad at the fact tht the foreign conquests of Indian lands were aided by the natives directly or indirectly :(

Amita : The key question would then be : Would the Hindu Infantry of Muhammad of Ghazni have participated in the sacking of the Somanath Temple ?

Islamic Star Over India By Amartya Sen When a Bengali Hindu performs his religious ceremonies according to the local calendar, he may not be fully aware that the dates invoked in his Hindu practice is attuned to commemorating Mohammad's flight from Mecca to Medina. The absorption of Islamic influences within the body of Indian civilisation is resented by some Hindu activists who look to the pre- Muslim period as the era of purity of the unalloyed Indian civilisation. This raises the interesting question as to whether such a purity did, in fact, exist in the pre-Muslim period. It also raises the question: How best to view the integration of Islamic rule and culture in India, and how to assess its impact on the identity of Indian civilisation itself. What did the Islamic influence do to India? Did it, in fact, change what is sometimes characterised, by some contemporary commentators, as a homogeneous culture - an allegedly 'pure' pre-Islamic culture - into an inescapably hybrid one? The sense of a loss of Indian pureness in the early years of this millennium seems to have some hold in political discussions in contemporary India. How sound is this way of seeing what happened in the last millennium? It is worth recollecting that even pre-Muslim India was not just Hindu India. Indeed, to begin with the most obvious, perhaps the greatest Indian emperor in the pre-Muslim period was a Buddhist, to wit, Ashoka, and there were other great non-Hindu emperors, including Harsha. Even as the Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni raided India, the Buddhist dynasty of the Palas was firmly in command over eastern India. In fact, Bengal moved rapidly from Buddhist rule to Muslim rule with only a very brief period of Hindu monarchy in between - in the form of the rather hapless Sena kings. Nearly all the major world religions other than Islam were already well represented in India well before the last millennium. Indeed, when Christianity started gaining ground in Britain in the seventh century, India had had large and settled communities of Christians for at least 300 years - certainly from the fourth century. Jews too had been settled in India - in fact from immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. And of course, Buddhism and Jainism had been quite well-entrenched in India for a very long time. The Muslim arrival merely filled up the spectrum. Unlike the British rule in India where the rulers remained separate from the ruled, Muslim rulers in India were combined with the presence of a large proportion of Muslims in the population itself. A great many people in the land embraced Islam, so much so that three of the four largest Muslim national populations in the contemporary world are situated in this subcontinent: in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Indeed, the only non-subcontinental country among the top four Muslim populations in the world, Indonesia, was also converted to Islam by Indian Muslims, mostly from Gujarat. Islam was by then a native Indian religion. Although Islam remained a separate religion from Hinduism, the roles of the different communities in the cultural life of the country were largely integrated. Whether in music or in painting or in poetry, evidence of integration is plentifully present. Indeed, it would be impossible to understand the nature of Indian culture today without seeing it in integrated terms. While references to raids from Ghazni and other isolated elements of divisive history remains tactically potent and even flammable in the contemporary politics of India, the nature of present-day Indian civilization cannot be understood without seeing it as a joint product of many influences of which the Islamic component is very strong. The integrated nature of contemporary Indian culture has been illustrated by many commentators with reference particularly to the arts, the literature and music. Let me choose a different field of illustration. It is, year 1405 now in the Bengali calendar. What does 1405 stand for? Its history is a most engaging form of cultural integration. In the year 963 in the Muslim Heijira calendar (coinciding with 1556 AD) the Bengali solar calendar - corresponding to the Shaka system of reckoning - was "adjusted" to the Hejira number, that is, the clock was put back, as it were, to 963. Since then the Hejira has marched ahead, being a lunar calendar, so that the Bengali "san" has fallen behind Hejira as well. But when a Bengali Hindu does his religious ceremonies according to the local calendar, he may not be fully aware that the dates invoked in his Hindu practice is attuned to commemorating Mohammad's flight from Mecca to Medina, albeit in a mixed lunar-solar representation. Indian civilisation evolved substantially with the absorption of Islamic culture as an integral part of it. In viewing these changes, an attempt is sometimes made to see pre-Islamic India as being homogeneous and unmixed in a way it never was. The arrival of the Islamic influences only furthered a heteroge

there is a very interesting narration of Mahmud's sack of Somnath and the resistance by the natives of the place and the local rulers in Ferishta....

it will also be interesting to find out that how many in Mahmud's army were Muslims in true sense, for i feel that there is a need to understand the nature of Islam and how it spread and affected the Tribal societies in the region of Hindu Kush and Afganistan as early as 10th century...

Thanks Amita....you have put forth the right perspective.

It may not be correct for us to visualise these raids as the assaults of an advancing army. Very often conquerors use deceit and internal support to achieve their ends. Different Muslim raiders have raided India at different times. The desire and opportunity to rule India came later. The early interest must have been to make inroads for trade and loot (to be carried back) whenever an opportunity presented. Muhammad bin al Kasim was among the first to raid in the Punjab area. He occupied the Sun temple in Multan but protected the idol (holding it hostage). Albiruni has stated that the Brahmans went around villages telling people not to resist conversion to Islam if it was not coerced. This was contrary to the spirited resistance put up during the time of Alexander. Later raids are recorded to have been made with fewer soldiers and they succeeded in their aim of loot and more importantly securing rights for Muslim traders from the Hindu kings. The muslim traders who spread into the interiors provided the inside support for further raids. Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar at the end of 12th century is said to have raided the palace at Nadia with just 18 soldiers. The soldiers entered the city disguised as traders. But it seems to be beyond doubt that the people at large were least interested in preserving their rulers and did show a remarkable indifference to the raids. Contemporary sanskrut and prakrut literature carries no reflection whatsoever of these political upheavals (if they can be called that). The literateurs and their patrons were fully engrossed in their literary romantic or religious pursuits. Amartya Sen in the speech quoted Mr. Siddiki seems to correctly capture the attitude of people towards Islam within a definitely plural society.

The fact of the matter is that there no sense of religious nationalism in history. they are all freebooters

With due respect to Amita, I must disagree with her on many points. This is not because she is giving incorrect information deliberately, but because there has been an unfortunate movement in India (during the previous administration) of deliberately distorting history. There was extensive debate on such actions at the Indian Historical Congress a few years ago, and most experts disapproved of such attempts. I suspect Amita, being young, is gathering information from such revisionist sources without knowing that they are all cooked up. (I have seen this wicked corruption of an event in Indian history myself.) There is no credible evidence that the armies of Ghaznavi, Ghauri,the Slave dynasty (Aibak, Al-Tamash, Balban), Khilji, Tughlak, Syeds and Lodi Sultans had any Hindu soldiers engaged in fighting. Of course, this does not include supporting roles - but the infantry, cavalry, and eventually the artillery consisted of Muslim soldiers only. In the case of Mahmud Ghaznavi, his army consisted of local Afghan tribes, Turkoman, Uzbek, and Uighur soldiers drawn from Central Asia. He recruited them in the name of waging a war agains 'idol worshippers' but the real aim seems to have been to grab the riches of India. Karl Marx once called Robert Clive as the 'greatest robber in history'. He was wrong; Mahmud Ghaznavi and Nadir Shah exceeded him in robberies. Now it is hard to recruit soldiers for just robbing a country; hence, these invasions were done under the garb of spreading Islam. Ghaznavi did nothing to spread Islam; he just looted the richest Jain temples of India. He did have some distinguished poets and intellectuals around him. Al-Biruni's critical analysis of Indian mathematics - such as the calculation of the distance to the moon - is most interesting. He loved wealth and even reneged on his promise to reward the great poet Firdausi for 'Shah Nama'. There were no Hindu soldiers even in the armies of the early Moghuls Babur or Humayun. It was only after Akbar that mutual trust was established due to people like Raja Man Singh. Regular Hindu troops were active in the army of Shah Jahan and afterwards but these too consisted almost exclusively of brave Rajputs. The greatest generals in Shah Jahan's army (and later in Aurangzeb's army) were Raja Jai Singh (of Amber) and Raja Jaswant Singh (of Jodhpur) who served the Emperors with loyalty. No Hindu soldier would have been involved in the destruction of the great temples like Somnath and Nagarkot.

I find Asad Ahmed's views quite refreshing. Also his comment about "cooking up history", is interesting.

Wow ! Now...this is turning out to be one interesting discussion. Proving yet again my favorite maxim...."to learn history you must first learn to unlearn"....! Ad inifinitum ??

@Assad Ahmed: I think you have made a very important point. Falsification of history is always done to serve present day purposes.

I go with Asad sahab...

On a lighter note and to sensationalize this a bit, should we say... Breaking News : Romila Thapar exposed !!

@RBSI: Politics of today cannot be separated from politics off yesterday.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past” ~ George Orwell

Agree,India is not about Hindus only and the sooner this idea is accepted,and not merely for political games, the better it will be for all Indians.

Guys its just been 60 years of Independence Only future will decide whether Local Language or Geographical Nationalism will come into force in future

Ps I just want to add to Asad Sahab. That even Aurangzeb who many in India believe was an Islamist actually did more harm than good to the Muslim Rule in this country. because he destroyed fellow Shia Muslim Kingdoms in Deccan thereby weakening The Muslim Rule. So infact even Aurangzeb was more of a Ambitious Megalomaniac

Sameer: I have always maintained that Aurangzeb was a religious bigot. He destroyed Islamic Moghul rule in India by his intolerant short-sightedness. But here I want to correct a common impression that is grossly mistaken. Whatever evil deeds Aurangzeb perpetrated (like killing his three brothers, imprisoning his two sons and forcing the third one into exile, imprisoning his father - the Emperor, etc), he did for himself - not for Islam - as he claimed. In other words, he used his religion as a shield to cover his evil deeds. The prevalent impression is that he was anti-Hindu since he demolished great Hindu temples in Mathura and Kashi, waged wars on the Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, and Sikhs. Of course, he destroyed the Muslim kingdoms of Golkunda and Bijapur as being Rafzi (shias) by breaking all treaties.What is not commonly known is that he also waged war on tribal Pathans who are Sunnis. At the peak of this war, 200,000 infantry and 40,000 cavalry were despatched towards Afghanistan.The Afghans planned an ambush in the mountain passes and destroyed the Mughal army "down to the man". This lesser known fact shows that, whatever Aurangzeb did was on account of his own lust for power - it had nothing to do with Islam. He did'nt spare anybody whether he was a Maratha, a Rajput, a Sikh, a Shia, or even a Sunni. I may add that Raja Jaswant Singh was sent on the last expedition and died in the Frontier area; Aurangzeb then tried to convert his children into Islam while they were returning to Rajputana. Such actions define only a wicked man - not a good Muslim or a good Hindu.

Amita: Regarding your comment " I hope ... the history dept .of DU and JNU are not reading this !!!", I should mention that A. Camus in his famous Notebooks writes " The age of Greek philosophers was followed by an age of Professors of Philosophy". The same is true for history.

Asad ~ perhaps today we might say ~ "the ages wherein history was made were followed by an era wherein 'historians' at endless leisure dissected, distorted and redefined the very same ~ much to their pompous, preening and frequently political prospectus."

@Amita Roy: I don't know if you are aware that one of the divisions of Azad Hind Sena was named after Gandhi. Even if SC Bose won with a narrow margin at the election, he conceded to Gandhi. One cannot develop such grievances as you have expressed as they may be based on personal prejudices. Ideological differences should not be underestimated in comparison to personality differences. The basic premise of "enemy of enemy is a friend" is flawed.

Julian: You are absolutely right. Thank you.

Amita: Re: Your comment about Subhash Chandra Bose. In my opinion, the two most brilliant leaders in the early stages of the freedom movement in India were Subhash Chandra Bose and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But brilliance is not necessarily associated with greatness. That is where Gandhiji comes in. He was not in the same intellectual class as these two, but was undoubtedly a great leader.

Amita: DNA fingerprinting cannot be done on ashes (unless some bodily remains had remained unaffected by high temperatures, and that seems unlikely). But you are right that we might be living in a united India today had S. C. Bose been alive during the madness of partition. His tactical error was that, out of frustration, he sought assistance from the Axis powers.

India would have still been United if Jinnah's plan was not rejected by the Congress

It would be difficult to blame one person or one party for the debacle that occurred. It was an aggregate of unfortunate events that should best be forgotten. The existensialist attitude would be to learn from the tragic mistake. ' Every experience is a useful experience.'

The debate on the motives for Mahmud Ghazni to destroy Hindu temples in India is absurd and an attempt to try and rationalize his actions. The revisionists on the other hand have ulterior motives and they spread falsehood. The simple fact that the Somnath was destroyed numerous times is proof of his motives. Robbers don't burrn and destroy houses after they are done robbing. It is laughable to think that Ghazni had to only have a single motive. While I commend Asad Bhai and Sameer for their perspective, folks should use common sense and not get caught up in arcane PhD theses that in this case have only obfuscated the facts. The plain and simple truth is Mohammad Ghazni and Auragnzeb were bigots and mass murderers.

all Victors were barbarians whether it was British, Mongols or so called Alexander the great they all were Mass Murderers

There are some differences between Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb. Both were religious hypocrites, but Ghaznavi was an accomplished warrior - Aurangzeb was not. Aurangzeb won all - repeat all - his battles by intrigue (secret correspondence with some traitorus General on the other side). Ghaznavi was after wealth, Aurangzeb was after power. Neither of them qualifies as a mass murderer as the term is applied today (killer of civilians). There is nothing absurd about trying to uncover the truth about historical facts.

Asad bhai, I beg to disagree about the actual motives for Ghazni or Aurangzeb's actions. That they destroyed temples is beyond question. That Aurangzeb ordered the killing of Sikhs, innocent Hindus or for that matter his own brethren, is also beyond dispute. His attacks on Kashmiri Pundits are also well documented. If these actions do not qualify as mass murder, much as Milosevic's did, I do not know what is. An Akbar he was not. There are tolerant Islamic kings, chieftains etc. in Indian history, but Ghazni and Aurangzeb exhibited an extreme form of violence, much like General Dyer at Jallianwala Bagh.

In wars, people do get killed. Several million people were killed in the First and Second World wars in the last century. But the question here is about motivation. The motivation of these two rulers was not killing innocent people, but wealth or power. Ghaznavi went after the temples because that is where the most precious rubies and gems were stored. Why do bank robbers go to the banks? Because that is where the money is. Ghaznavi went to Somnath and Nagarkot because that is where the most precious jewels were. He could have gone on a killing spree anywhere in India, if that was the aim. Of course, it was done under the garb of religion. The only invader who qualifies as a 'mass murderer' was Taimur - not the British nor Alexander as Sameer writes. Actually Alexander was a great conquerer - he set out to 'hellenize' the world, seeking neither riches nor power.