Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Litmus Test of Whether Your History is Secular

Arun Shourie

The pattern of NCERT History textbooks is set in stone : concoct a
picture of pre-Islamic society of Indian history as a period riddled
by discord, tensions, inequity and oppression -- evidence or no
evidence; on the other side, concoct a picture of the Islamic period
as one in which a "composite culture" flowered, one in which, in spite
of the errors of few who acted out of normal, non-religious motives,
there was peace and harmony -- evidence or no evidence!

This pattern continues throughout the textbook, Medieval India written
by Satish Chandra, and published by the NCERT for Class XI students.
Satish Chandra has been a recipient of the ICHR's projects, he has
been a member of the ICHR, he has been a National Fellow of the ICHR,
he has been Chairman of the University Grants Commission. It is about
him that Tasneem Ahmad wrote in his plagiarised book, "My debt to my
revered teacher, Professor Satish Chandra is incalculable. He took
great pains in reading and correcting the work and his considered
suggestions have paid me rich dividend." In a word, as eminent as they
come.

"Thus, there was no atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and
the Mughal rulers during this period," says Satish Chandra. "Nor was
there any systematic persecution of the Hindus, and hence, no occasion
for the Sikhs or any group or sect to stand forth as the champion of
the Hindus against religious persecution. The occasional conflict
between the Gurus and the Mughal rulers was personal and political
rather than religious. Despite some display of orthodoxy by Shah Jahan
at the beginning of his reign and a few acts of intolerance, such as
the demolition of 'new' temples, he was not narrow in his outlook
which was further tempered towards the end of his reign by the
influence of his liberal son, Dara."

That being the case, what do these eminent historians have to say
about Guru Nanak, and his searing cry,

"Khurasan khasmana kiya Hindustanu daraiya
Aapae dosu na deyi karta jamu kari mughlu chadhaiya
Aiti maar payi karlande tain ko dardu na ayiya
Karta tu sabhna ka soi
Je sakta sakte kayu mare taa mani rosu na hoyi
Sakta sihu maare paye vagaye khasme sa pursai
Ratan vigadi vigoye kuttin muiya saar na koyi..."

"Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan
in dread....
Such cruelties have they inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains
unmoved....
Should the strong attack the strong the heart does not burn.
But when the
strong crush the helpless, surely the One who was to protect
them has to be
called to account.... O' Lord, these dogs have destroyed this
diamond-like
Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one asks after
those who have
been killed, and yet You do not pay heed..."

What do they say of Guru Nanak's account of the young brides whose
youth, jewels, honour have been snatched away by the invaders on the
orders of Babar ? What of his wail,

"Ikna vakhat khuvai ahi ikhan pooja jayi
Chadke vindu hindvandiyan kiyu tike kathi nayi
Ramu na kabhu chetiyo hundi kahndi na mile khudai..."

"Hindus have been forbidden to pray at the time of the Muslim's
namaz, Hindusociety has been left without a bath, without a tilak.
Even those who have never uttered "Ram", even they can get no respite
by shouting "Khuda,
Khuda".... The few who have survived Babar's jails wail.... The
desolation
which has come over the land.... The entire races which have been
exterminated, which have been humiliated..."

The account not of some merely eminent historian, but of Guru Nanak.
[The verses given above are merely illustrative. For a comprehensive
account of the question see, K P Agarwal's forthcoming, Sri Guru
Granth Sahib aur Islam.] Not some account written by looking at
records of centuries ago, but testimony of the moment, of what Guru
Nanak had been witness to himself...

Let us hear these eminent secularists, then, declare that this cry of
Guru Nanak was a concoction. And that the entire life and campaign of
Guru Govind Singh was born of "personal and political" factors rather
than from a profound religious impulse, and that, therefore, all his
own explanations, his impassioned, soul-stirring explanations in this
regard are that much deception.

Akbar is the epitome of tolerance, Shah Jahan "despite some display of
orthodoxy .... at the beginning of his reign and a few acts of
intolerance" remains broad-minded. The only opposition to this
liberalism comes from "orthodox elements". But here too Satish Chandra
executes the "balancing". The orthodox elements in question are always
of "the two leading faiths, Hinduism or Islam," together ! Both sides
strive to undo the liberality of the Islamic rulers out of the same
mundane motivation, that is, they oppose the liberal policy because it
threatens their entrenched interests.

Aurangzeb's orthodoxy cannot, of course, be entirely denied.
Therefore, explanations upon explanations -- secular explanations --
are invented. While reading the following, bear in mind the
far-reaching assertions these historians made about ancient India on
the basis of little evidence, and contrast them with how they treat
unambiguous, overwhelming evidence in the case of Aurangzeb.

"Later, in the eleventh year of his reign (1669)," remarks Satish
Chandra, "Aurangzeb took a number of measures which have been called
puritanical, but many of which were really of economic and social
character, and against superstitious beliefs... Many other regulations
of a similar nature, some of a moral character and some to instill a
sense of austerity, were issued..."

The destruction of temples upon temples by Aurangzeb naturally comes
in for the longest explanations! Firstly, we are told that all that
Aurangzeb did was to reiterate the old order of the Shariat -- that no
new temples shall be built, and that this "order regarding temples was
not a new one" -- it merely reaffirmed the position which had existed
during the Sultanate period, the period, remember, of "general
toleration" ! Satish Chandra adds a second explanation : "In practice,
it [the order] left wide latitude to the local officials as to the
interpretation of the words 'long standing temples'. "

A third extenuating circumstance is then invented. Having noted the
destruction of temples in Gujarat by Aurangzeb when he was the
Governor of that province, and having noted his reiteration of the
Standing Order under the Shariat, Satish Chandra says, "however, it
does not seem that Aurangzeb's order regarding ban on new temples led
to a large scale destruction of temples at the outset of the reign."
It is only when Aurangzeb "encountered political opposition from a
number of quarters, such as, the Marathas, Jats etc.," that he "seems
to have adopted a new stance". When he now came in "conflict with
local elements," he began to consider it "legitimate to destroy even
long standing Hindu temples as a measure of punishment and as a
warning." Thus, first, the order was just an old one! Second, the
order left wide latitude to the local officials ! Third, even this
order was not implemented "at the outset of the reign"! Fourth, it is
only when he encountered political opposition and when he came in
conflict with local elements that Aurangzeb began to consider it
legitimate to destroy Hindu temples! Fifth, this "new stance" too is
only something which seems to have been adopted!

Moreover, Aurangzeb did so, Satish Chandra tells us, because "he began
to look upon temples as centres of spreading subversive ideas, that is
ideas which were not acceptable to the orthodox elements. Hence the
destruction of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Banaras and the temple
at Mathura." "The destruction of these temples had a political
motivation as well...", Satish Chandra emphasizes, and continues, "it
was in this context that many temples built in Orissa during the last
10 to 12 years were also destroyed." And then, "but it is wrong to
think that there were any orders for the general destruction of
temples." Lest anyone come up with citations upon citations from
contemporary historians, another sentence to explain away what was
actually done : "however, the situation was different during periods
of hostilities."

The general conclusion : what Aurangzeb did "was a setback to the
policy of broad toleration followed by his predecessors" ! And even he
did it for secular reasons! And even though, compelled by these
reasons, he did it only for the shortest time, for the years marked by
hostilities instigated by "local elements" ! "However," concludes
Satish Chandra, "it seems that Aurangzeb's zeal for the destruction of
temples abated after 1679, for we do not hear of any large scale
destruction of temples in the South between 1681 and his death in
1707."

Yes, Aurangzeb introduced the jaziya, but, cautions Satish Chandra,
"it was not meant to be an economic pressure for forcing Hindus to
convert to Islam, for its incidence was to be light." For this
assertion Satish Chandra gives two bits of proof, so to say. First,
"women, children, the disabled, the indigent, that is, those whose
income was less than the means of subsistence, were exempted as were
those in government service." How could even Aurangzeb have exacted a
tax from those "whose income was less than the means of subsistence? "
And why would he exact a discriminatory and humiliating tax from those
who were in government service, that is, from those who were already
serving his interests and those of the Islamic State? The second proof
that Satish Chandra gives is that "in fact, only an insignificant
section of Hindus changed their religion due to this tax" -- but could
that not have been because of the firm attachment of Hindus to their
faith, because of their tenacity rather than because of the liberality
of Aurangzeb?

The jaziya was not meant either to meet "a difficult financial
situation". Its reimposition was in fact, says Satish Chandra, "both
political and ideological in nature." Political in the sense that "it
was meant to rally the Muslims for the defence of the State against
the Marathas and the Rajputs who were up in arms, and possibly against
the Muslim States of Deccan, especially Golconda, which was in
alliance with the infidels." A parity twice-over -- one, that
Aurangzeb was only trying to rally the Muslims just as those opposing
him had rallied the Marathas and Rajputs ! And, in any case, the ones
who were opposing him were "infidels"!

And what about the "ideological" impulse? "Ideological," yes, but the
"ideology" was everything except Islam!

Furthermore, Satish Chandra explains, "jaziya was to be collected by
honest, God-fearing Muslims who were specially appointed for the
purpose and its proceeds were reserved for the Ulema." As the proceeds
went to Ulama, there was a secular reason for exacting the tax -- it
was to be "a type of bribe for the theologians among whom there was a
lot of unemployment," and, second, as the tax was being collected by
"honest, God-fearing Muslims," one can be certain that they were
considerate and, like Allah in the Qur'an, would have never imposed
upon anyone a burden which he could not bear !

Some modern writers, Satish Chandra says, are of the opinion that
Aurangzeb's measures were designed to convert India into Dar-ul-Islam
but, in fact, "although Aurangzeb considered it legitimate to
encourage conversions to Islam, evidence of systematic or large scale
attempts at forced conversions is lacking."

And finally a piece of evidence which is a favourite with the
secularists : "Nor were Hindu nobles discriminated against. A recent
study has shown that the number of Hindus in the nobility during the
second half of Aurangzeb's reign had steadily increased, till the
Hindus, including Muslims, formed about one-third of the nobility as
against one-fourth under Shah Jahan." Correspondingly, one can claim
on behalf of the British Empire that close to 98% of the titles it
conferred -- Rai Sahib, Rai Bahadur, knighthoods and so on -- were
conferred on Indians ! That they were conferred because these Indians
were serving the British Empire faithfully, just as Aurangzeb was
taking into his nobility those who were serving his purposes
faithfully, is a matter of detail by which naturally Class XI students
would not like to be confused!

The final assessment of our secularist eminence could not be more
empathetic! First, Satish Chandra emphasizes that "Aurangzeb's
religious beliefs could not be considered the basis of his political
policies." Aurangzeb was an "orthodox Muslim," true; he was "desirous
of upholding the strict letter of the law," true; but he was also a
ruler and was "keen to strengthen and expand the empire." The former
required that he be tough with the Hindus. The latter, on the other
hand, required that he retain "the support of the Hindus to the extent
possible." The two impulses -- his religious ideas and beliefs on the
one hand and the requirements of empire on the other -- sometimes "led
him to adopt contradictory policies which harmed the empire."

Our eminent historian then proceeds to give an account of the
Marathas, the Jats, the campaigns against Golconda and Bijapur. At
every turn he labours to show that the religious impulse did not have
much to do with Aurangzeb's attitude towards any of these
"rebellions". Indeed, Aurangzeb's religious policy must be seen in the
context of the rebellions which were challenging his empire, we are
told ! Thus, Satish Chandra's final conclusion :

"Aurangzeb's religious policy should be seen in the social,
economic and political context. Aurangzeb was orthodox in his outlook
and tried to remain within the framework of the Islamic law. But this
law was developed outside India in vastly dissimilar situations, and
could hardly be applied rigidly to India. His failure to respect the
susceptibilities of his non-Muslim subjects on many occasions, his
adherence to the time-worn policy towards temples and re-imposition of
jizyah as laid down by the Islamic law did not help him to rally the
Muslims to his side or generate a greater sense of loyalty towards a
state based on Islamic law. On the other hand, it alienated segments
of the Hindus and strengthened the hands of those sections which were
opposed to the Mughal empire for political or other reasons. By
itself, religion was not a point at issue. Jizyah was scrapped within
half a dozen years of Aurangzeb's death and restrictions on building
new temples eased."

"In the ultimate resort," Satish Chandra concludes, "the decline and
downfall of the empire was due to economic, social, political and
institutional factors" -- notice, no religious factors! Akbar held the
forces of disintegration in check for some time. But it was impossible
for him to effect fundamental changes in the structure of society,
says our author, and therefore :

"By the time Aurangzeb came to the throne, the socio-economic
forces of disintegration were already strong. Aurangzeb lacked the
foresight and statesmanship necessary to effect fundamental changes in
the structure or to pursue policies which could, for the time being,
reconcile the various competing elements.

"Thus, Aurangzeb was both a victim of circumstances, and helped
to create the circumstances of which he became a victim."

Empathy personified! And this is the point : the litmus test of
secularist writing is whether you are prepared to stand up for
Aurangzeb or not.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->