After conquering
India, various officers of the (English) East India Company wrote History of
India. By depicting that the Indian Muslims were the rulers in India before the
English they created a bloating in the minds of Indian Muslims leading to false
pride and arrogance, intransigency, monstrous ambitions, resulting ultimately
in the partition of India in August 1947.
This impression
is TOTALLY FALSE. The rulers and the ruling class were foreign Muslims and they
utterly despised native Indian Muslims. I had given some indications of this in
my newsletter number 6 of 16 February 1982. Later on I found that historian
from Mumbai, Mr Setumadhavrao Pagdi had also stressed this vital point in his
article in the Diwali issue of Marathi magazine Kirloskar in November 1974.
Here is the gust of the information.
Pagdi says, “ I
was always puzzled by one thing when we read Indian History in school. The
prescribed texts contained three periods – Hindu Era, Muslim
Era and the
British Era. When there were Hindu and Muslim Eras, I could not understand why
the British Era was NOT regarded as Christian Era. I never got a satisfactory
answer in my school days. Things were no different in my college days. When I
read histories written by likes of Vincent Smith I became aware of another
trick of British historians. They would extend Muslim Era till 1761, start
British Era from 1603 (when the first ships of the East India company landed in
Surat) and just briefly mention Maratha history in passing.”
“ During my service under the Nizam (1933-48), I used to hear Muslims saying that they ruled India for a thousand years. I was shocked by their claim and decided to look closer at this issue.”
Prophet Muhammed
was an Arab. So, many Muslims try to stretch their ancestry to Arabs, but what
was the true picture?
“ Arabs came to
India as merchants. On the west coast they had their colonies but had nothing
to do with politics. Arabs attacked Sindh on the orders of Caliph of Baghdad.
Muhammad bin Kasim defeated King Dahir in the year 710. True, Arabs tried to
invade in other parts of India, but Gurjar Pratihars of Delhi, Bappa Rawal of
Chitod and Chalukyas of Gujrat kept Arabs in check. Thus Arabs ruled Sindh for
hundred to hundred and fifty years, later it was ruled by Turks.
In the days of
Muhammad Tugluck (1324 -1350) a Arab knight established a small kingdom in
Tamilnadu around Madura, but within one or two generations they were ousted by
kings of Daulatabad (Devagiri). In 1354, Hindu rulers of Vijayanagar absorbed
this kingdom within their rule.
Apart from these
two examples, Arabs did not rule in any part of India. However, hundreds of
Arab families did migrate to India. We can still recognise them by their
names.”
“ Take for
instance, Sayyad. Muhammad Paigambar’s daughter Fatima was married to Ali and
had two sons Hasan and Hussein. Their descendents are called Sayyads. Famous
Sayyad brothers (in the days of the first Maratha Peshwa Balaji Vishvanath –
1707 to 1720), Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan (of Aligad movement and who encouraged
Muslims to keep away from the Congress party and demand separate status for
Muslims), Abul Kalam Azad and many Sufi saints were Sayyads.
There were ten
Gurus among descendents of Hussein. They were called Imams and their names
Musa, Riza, Naki, Jafar etc became surnames like Musavi, Rizavi, Nakavi,
Jafari.
Among the Muslim
population the Sayyads were highly respected, in the same manner as Brahmins
used to be respected by Hindu Kings. Turks and Pathan rulers also showed
respect to Sayyads.”
“ Muhammad
Paigambar was born in Quereshi tribe, hence the surname Quereshi. They used to
be traders, hence the name Hashami. When Muhammad was not strong he was driven
out of Mecca and had to seek refuge in Medina. Those who befriend him were
called Ansaris (meaning friends in Arabic language)
Some of the
descendents of Ali became Alawi, those who descended from Caliph Umar were
Farukhi, and those who descended from Caliph Abu Bakr were Siddiquis.
These are some of
the families who migrated to India.”
Thus Arab ancestry is nothing to be proud of. In India there were never any Arab Kings or Generals or Governors.
Rulers were
foreigners.
“ Things were
again different in mediaeval times. Those who ruled were openly foreigners.
They regarded Hindus converted to Islam and those foreign merchants who had
settled in India as Hindusthanis. Rulers, on the other hand regarded themselves
as Turks or Pathans and were proud of ruling the foreign land of Hindusthan.
This is especially true of those who ruled from Delhi; though they were Muslims
by religion, by race they were Turks, Afghans or Pathans. This led to the
popular concept that Muslim means Turk. In Kannad language Muslims are called
Turks, in Urdu, Muslims are also called Turks. Same thing applies in Telagu
language. In mediaeval times, in Hindi language Muslims were called Turks – for
example, ‘Tum to nire Turk bhaye’ or ‘you have really become Turk’ Vagabonds or
unclean people used to be called Turks in this way.”
Let us explore
this subject further
Many people are confused by the word Turk. Let us see its proper meaning.
Oxford English
Dictionary says – Turkoman, Turkman, Turco: Member of any of various Turkish
tribes in Turkestan, Afghanistan, Persia & Russia.
Pagdi says,
“ Turks
originated from Central Asia. Many confuse between Turks and Mongols. The two
were bitter enemies for centuries. Mongols originated from Mongolia (north of
China). Gengizkhan (1162-1227), Kublaikhan (1216-1294) first Mongol Emperor of
China and grandson of Gengizkhan etc were Mongols, but they were NOT Muslims.
At one time (13th and 14th century) Mongols controlled
vast areas from Iraq and East Russia to Korea (including China)
Turks, Turanis,
Turkmans and Uzbeks are neighbouring tribes. They came from Uzbekistan (cities
of Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara) Turkmenistan, Sinkiang province of China
(cities of Yarkand, Kashgar, Khohan) and Balkh and Bahrushan areas of
Afghanistan.
After Arabs conquered
Central Asia, Turks accepted Islam in the 9th century.
Turks then joined
the armies of Caliph of Baghdad and spread all over the Arab empire. In the
course of time the Caliphs became rulers in name only. Turks then spread west.
Today’s Turkey (Anatolia) was settled by them. Many Military officers accepted
the rule of Caliph for namesake but became rulers themselves. Mahmood of Ghazni
was one such ruler.”
“ Mahmood of
Gazni was the first Turk who invaded North of India 17 times. He destroyed the
famous Somnath temple in Gujarat for the last time in 1026. At the time of his
death Turkish rulers controlled Punjab, North West Frontier Province and Sindh.
Mahmood’s descendents ruled till 1190. By then a Turk named Muhammad Ghori
deposed the Ghazni dynasty and attacked Delhi. In 1192, in the battle of
Thanesar, he defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan and Mahmood Ghori became ruler of
Delhi – Ajmer. Kutubuddin Aibak, one of Ghori’s officers founded the Gulam
dynasty of Delhi. These Gulams were Turks. The successors were Altmash, Razia,
Nasiruddin, Balban. They were all Turks. Majority of their knights were also
Turks. Some knights, though originally Turks had settled in Afghanistan for
generations and had become Afghans. In history books they are called Turkish
Afghans.”
“ Turks of Gulam
dynasty extended their rule Eastwards up to Bengal by defeating various Hindu
Kings.”
“ The Gulam
dynasty was followed by the Khiljis (1290 to 1324). The well-known Allauddin
Khilji conquered Malwa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra and imposed heavy tributes on
kings of Andhra, Karnatak and Tamilnadu (1296-1316). After his death there was
bloodbath and many claimants to his throne were killed. Kutubuddin Mubarik khan
Khilji eventually succeeded and ruled for four years.”
In his excellent
book Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Veer Savarkar gives
startling information
“ In 1320,
Khusro, a Hindu who was forcibly converted to Islam killed Mubarik, son of
Allauddin Khilji and became king in Delhi in his place. A shock to the whole of
India, as Khusro declared himself to be a Hindu again!! However, within a year
Giyasuddin Turk defeated Khusro and re-established the rule of Turks in Delhi.
His son was Muhammad Tugluck (1324 to 1350) who once extended his rule right up
to Madura in the South.
But during
Tugluck’s days itself his empire had started to crumble. In 1347 Alauddin Hasan
Gangu Bahamani established his own kingdom in south India. Thus started the
Bahamani dynasty. He was an Afghan (Turkish Afghan).”
VIJAYANAGAR
“ Harihar and
Bukkarai, two Hindu youths were forcibly converted to Islam and taken to Delhi.
They became so confident of Muhammad Tagluck that he sent them south for a
battle in 1331. But they escaped with the help of Hindu warriors and
encouragement of Vidyaranyaswami (Shankaracharya) they became Hindus and
established the mighty Vijayanagar Empire in 1336. It lasted till 1565, more
than 200 years.”
Mr Pagdi
continues,
“ Firozshah
Tagluck succeeded Muhammad Tugluck and during his time there were many
independent kingdoms. There were Turks in Kashmir, in Bengal there were Turks
and then Afghans, in the south Afghan Bahamani were rulers, in Malwa
Dilarwarkhan Khilji (Afghan) was the ruler. Farukhi rulers of Khandesh (1370 to
1599) called themselves descendents of the second Caliph Umar Farukh.”
“ In 1489, The
Bahamani kingdom disintegrated into five. Yusuf Adilshah of Bijapur was a Turk
who had fled Constantinople (Istambul)
Sultan Kuli Kutub
(Kutubshah) of Golconda was a Turk who fled northern Iran
Kasim Berid
(Beridshah) of Beedar was a Turk from Georgia (Soviet Union)
Nizamshah of
Nagar was originally a Hindu Brahmin – Bhairavbhat
Imadshah of Berar
was also originally a Hindu Brahmin.”
(Also quoted in Raja
Shivachhatrapati by B M Purandare, 1974 edition, p34)
“ There are other
examples too. Sultans of Gujarat were originally Rajputs.
In Bengal a
landlord named Raja Ganesh became a King, but his sons embraced Islam and his
kingdom lasted for two generations. But there is NO EXAMPLE of a native Indian
Muslim ever becoming a king.
When the Tuglucks
were ruling Delhi, Timerlung invaded north India and committed atrocities. A
Subedhar from a Sayyad family ruled from Delhi as representative of Timerlung.
But in 1456 an Afghan named Bahalol Lodi ousted this ruler and gained the
throne of Delhi.
In 1526 Babar,
descendent of Timurlung defeated Ibrahim Lodi and established the Mughal rule
in Delhi. Babar was a Turk.”
“ It is true that
during this time many Hindus were being forced to accept Islam by terror, but
they were always kept away from political power by foreign Muslim Rulers.”
“ The funny thing
was that after two generations, descendents of foreign Muslims would despise
new incoming foreign Muslims. This led to many factions, feuds, massacres and
destruction of kingdoms.”
“ During the days
of Bahamani rule (1347 to 1489) and thereafter, large number of Muslims
migrated from Iran and Iraq. Khwaja Mahmud Gawan, Prime minister of Bahamani
king came from Gilan in North Iran. General Valaf Hasan Basari was an Iraqi.
Guru of Bahamanis, Niyamatulla came from Kirman area of Iran, their general in
Belgaum, Sardar Asadkhan was an Irani. Vazir of Bijapur, Rafiuddin Shiraji was
an Irani. Salabatkhan and Chengizkhan, officers of Nagar were Turks. Chief
Minister of Nizam of Ahmednagar was Malik Ambar (1605 to 1626), an Abyssinian
(Ethiopian).
The list is
endless. Such immigrants were called Afafi, those who came from across the
horizon. Later day history of the Bahamani kingdom is full of bloodbath between
the Afafis and the South Indian Muslims. And thus Kwaja Muhammad Gawan and
Nizam-ul-mulk were killed.
In the Nizamshahi
of Nagar also this dispute led to bloodbaths. Famous historian Farishta was an
Afafi. He had to flee for his life.”
Rulers were
Turks NOT Muslims.
We found some
examples, which support Pagdi’s statement.
c 1586
Maratha saint
Eknath wrote-
Davalmalakachi
pujita gada. Varshatuni phakir hoti ekada. Maga dola hota thanda khati malida.
Turkanche Kharakate
Meaning that
people had become so despondent that they accept leftovers from dinners of
Turkish rulers at the time Id. Eknath has used the word Turk correctly. He knew
that the rulers were Turks and not Indian Muslims.
1648
Shivaji’s father
Shahaji was a great warrior. In 1648, Shahaji was tricked and imprisoned by
Mustaphakhan, Afzulkhan and Baji Ghorapade on orders of Adilshah of Bijapur.
Shivaji sought his father’s release by intrigues with Shahjahan. But Shahaji
could not forget the insult. He wrote to Shivaji about Baji Ghorapade, “ Swadharmasadhanata
sodun yavan dushta turukanche krutyas anukul hovun dagabajiche hunare karun
Bajine vartan kele. Tyanche vedhe ghyave.” In other words, “ My son, this
Baji has joined in the conspiracy of this vicious Turks and betrayed me. I ask
you to seek revenge.” Shahaji has used the words Turks, not Muslims. Clear
indication that the ruler was a Turk. Shivaji killed Baji Ghorapade in a open
fight in October 1664
Shivaji’s
contemporaries Poet Bhushan and Chhatrasal, the Bundela king have also used the
word Turk to denote foreign Muslim rulers.
If we look at the
history of Sikhs we find that their Gurus, be it Guru Nanak, Guru Tegbahaddur
or Guru Govindsingh had used the word Turks to denote foreign Muslim rulers.
Nanak wrote,’
Neelbastar ke kapade pahane, Tutuk, Pathani ammal bhaya.’
1675
Some Kashmiri
Brahmins were being forced by their Muslim governor to embrace Islam. They
sought help from Guru Tegbahadur. He told the Brahmins -
Tum suna dijesu
dhig Turkesu imgabo
Ik peer hamara
Hindu bhara bhaichara lakhpao
Hai Tegbahadur
jagat ujagar ta agar Turk karo
Tispachhe tabahi
hum fir sabahee bana hai Turak bhara.
Oh Brahmins, go
and tell the tyrant TURKS that we Hindus have a great Guru named Tegbahadur.
First you try to convert him to Islam and if you succeed then we will follow.
After this reply
three disciples of Tegbahadur were tortured to death in Delhi and Tegbahadur
was beheaded.
1705
During his escape
from Punjab, Guru Govindsingh had to wear a blue dress to disguise himself as a
Pathan. Once the danger was over he torn the clothes and said, ‘Neel bastarake
kapade phate Turuk Pathani ammal Gaya.’
I have relieved
from the rule of Turks and Pathans.
1793
Govindrao Kale,
Peshwa’s envoy at the court of Nizam, wrote to Nana Fadnavis, “ This land from
beyond Attock (near Rawalpindi) to the seas in the South and South-east (The
Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal ) is land of Hindus and NOT of Turks. [ Hindunche
sthan, not Turukstahan ]”
[Ref -Hindutva by
Veer Savarkar pp 68/69]
Thus the Marathas
were fighting against the Turks who were the foreigner rulers, not native
Indian Muslims.
1879
Henry George
Keene’s book Turks in India was published. He properly calls Mughals as
Turks
Mr Pagdi
continues -
Mughals
In course of
time, Mongols and Turks intermarried and there arose a race called Chagtai
Turks or Mughals. But in the early days they were despised by other Muslims. In
Delhi, Allauddin Khilji even massacred them in 1315.
Babar was a Turk
from Fargana province of Central Asia (Uzbekistan). His mother tongue was
Turkish. His biography is in Turkish. He addresses all communities in India
(including Muslims) as Hindusthanis. Babar’s grandson was Akbar whose mother
was Hamidabanu, an Irani. Akbar annexed kingdoms of Kashmir, Sindh, Malwa,
Gujarat, Bengal and Khandesh even though the rulers were Muslims. In a similar
manner, Shahjahan annexed kingdom of Nagar (in Maharashtra). Aurangzeb annexed
kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda.
Mughals were
foreigners, Turks. Even the kings of Bijapur and Golconda considered Mughals as
foreigners. Akbar was born in Amarkot, Sindh; Jahangir in Fatehpur Sikri near
Agra, Shahjahan in Lahore and Aurangzeb in Dohad, Gujarat. But they all still
regarded themselves as Turks. They called themselves as Emperors of Hindusthan.
They never called themselves as Hindusthanis. Addressing Indian Muslims they
used to say, “ We are Turks, you are Hindusthanis.” Aurangzeb had used these
words on several occasions. Shahjahan wasted millions of rupees to gain
territories in Central Asia (Balkh and Badashakhan) because he considered that
part to be his homeland!!
Manucci the
Italian adventurer tells us, “
Education of Mughal Princes. Teachers are appointed to princes from the
age of five. They are taught Turkish language as it is considered their
original language or
Mother-tongue. “
Pagdi continues,
Wave of
migrants continued.
The language of
Indian Muslims was NOT Farsi (Persian) but Hindusthani - pre-runner of present day Urdu. Mughals
carried out state affairs in Farsi. Until the fall of Mughals, Hindusthani
remained a spoken language.
During the Mughal
period thousands of Turks from Central Asia continued to flood India. And in
addition Iranis added to this influx [In 1540, after defeat by Shershah,
Humayun travelled to Iran and sought help. King of Iran sent his troops with
Humayun who regained power in Delhi in 1555]. So, once again, Afghans were in
control for 15 years. After return of Humayun, however we had ministers,
regional governors, military officers and men in positions of authorities as
Turks or Iranis.
[Sher Shah’s
grandfather had come to India in search of employment in the time of Bahlol
Lodi. Afghan king of Delhi.
What about the army
of Sher Shah? He invited Afghan soldiers from every part of the country
and gave them highest posts in the army.
Afghan contingents often consisted of a single clan or tribe. The result
was that their natural loyalty was to the tribal leaders rather than to
sovereign.
Noorjahan’s
father Giasbeg came from Iran and became Jahangir’s Prime Minister. Noorjahan’s
brother Asafkhan became Shahjahan’s Prime Minister, her niece Mumtaz-ul-zamani
was wife of Shahjahan, another niece was wife of Muhammad Jafar, another Prime
Minister, her third niece was married to Aurangzeb’s Prime Minister Asadkhan.
At one time Noorjahan’s relations controlled half the Mughal territory.
* In the court of
Aurangzeb more than 75 percent of officers were either first or second
generation Turks or Iranis.
* First Nizam –
Nizam-ul-mulk (1671-1748) came from Bukhara in Central Asia (Uzbekistan) along
with his father Gaziuddin Firozjang in the days of Aurangzeb. He became
Subhadar of the Deccan in 1713, just 6 years after death of Aurangzeb. Distance
between Bukhara and Delhi is more than 1,000 miles (1,600 Km)
* First man in
the family of Nawabs of Lucknow, Sadatkhan came from Mashahad in East Iran.
* Nawab of Bengal
Alivardikhan (grandfather of Siraj-uddaula who was defeated at the battle of
Plassey in 1757) came from Iran.
* Forefathers of
Sir Sayyad Ahmad khan came from Hirat in Afghanistan.
* Poet Galib’s
grandfather was a Turk from Cenrtal Asia.
* Forefathers of
Zakir Hussein, 3rd President of India were teachers who migrated
into India from Afghanistan in 1712, but by that time the Mughal Empire was
rapidly losing its power.
Mr Pagdi has
given more information in some of his other articles.
* While
describing some of Aurangzeb’s campaigns in the Deccan (1682-1707), Mr Pagdi
tells us -
Siege of
Vishalgarh
Aurangzeb’s
knights were -
Matlabkhan – a
relation of Aurangzeb’s wife Dilrasbanu.
Muhammad Amin
Khan – a Turk of 3,000 horse. He came to India from Bukhara in 1686. His cousin
Gaziuddin Phirozjung was a General of the Mughals.
Tarbiyatkhan, a
relation of Dilrasbanu.
Fatehullakhan
Khosti, a Turk from Badkhshan in Central Asia
(Diwali issue of
Lokasatta, 1977)
* Mr Pagdi
visited the battlefield of Panipat in 1974. Writing on that occasion he tells
us -
Mughals and
Pathans were bitter enemies. However, Aurangzeb went south to crush the
Marathas and had to stay there for a long time (1682-1707). Marathas ultimately
triumphed. But as a result there was no check on activities of Pathans who
settled in thousands in Doab (vast area between the rivers Ganga and Yamuna).
This gave rise to various lords, such as Hafiz Rahmatkhan of Baireley, Indekhan
of Pilibhit, Ali Mahammad Khan, Mahammad Bangash of Farukhabad, and most
dangerous of all Najibkhan of Najibgad. It was the last one who invited
Ahmadshah Abdalli of Kabul to invade Delhi. This eventually led to battle of
Panipat in 1761.
Marathas
supported the Nawab of Oudh and Shujauddaula of Lucknow. Maratha General
Sadashivrao Bhau wrote, “ These Pathans despise Indian Muslims more than they
despise Hindus.”
(Sobat weekly, 14
June 1977)
While doing
research on true origins of Taj Mahal, I (Godbole) found some interesting
information -
It is a great
fallacy that Indian Muslim ruled India before the Marathas and the British. Not
only the Muslim rulers and ruling class was alien to India, but they also
despised native Muslims.
Tavernier, the
French jewel merchant, famous for his sentence “ 20,000 men worked on Taj Mahal
for 22 years.” tells us –
“ Moreover the
chiefs are generally fugitives from Persia, people of no birth and of little
heart, who attach themselves to those who give most. “
(Travels in
India by J B Tavernier – Edited by Dr V Ball, 1889, Volume I p232)
In Volume II
pages 176-177 he says –
“ I have
elsewhere remarked that of the native Muhammadan subjects of the Great Mogul
there are but few in position of command; this is the cause why many Persians
go to seek fortune in India. Being clever they are successful in finding means
to advance themselves in (the profession) of arms, so that in the Empire of the
Great Mogol, as well as, in the kingdom of Golconda and Bijapur, the Persians
are in possession of the highest posts. ….”
Bernier, the
French doctor, who stayed at Aurangzeb’s court for eight years (1658-1665)
tells us –
“ The majority of
his (Great Mogol’s) courtiers are Persians. ….Moreover, the Great Mogol is a
foreigner in Hindoustan …. The court itself does now consist as originally, of
real Mogols, but a medley of Usbecks, Persians, Arabs and Turks or descendents
from all these people: known as I said before, by the general appellation of
Mogols. It should be added however that children of third and fourth generation,
who have the brown complexion, and the languid manner of this country of their
nativity are held in much less respect than new comers, and are seldom invested
with official situations; they consider themselves happy, if permitted to serve
as private soldiers in the infantry or cavalry. (So what chance did the Indian
Muslims have?) If the Omrah’s life were sufficiently prolonged he may obtain
the advancement of his children by royal favour, particularly if their persons
were well formed, and their complexions sufficiently fair to enable them to
pass for genuine Mogols….. “
(Travels in
Mughal Empire by F Bernier edited by V Smith 1914 pp 209-212)
Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1977 edition) tells us –
Akbar’s administration
(1556 to 1605)
The army – Mostly
foreign in personnel, Akbar’s army was originally composed of Mogols, Persians,
Turks, Uzbeks and Afghans
(Where were the
native Indian Muslims?)
[Macropaedia
Volume 9 p381]
* Gias Beg a
Persian came to India in the last days of Akbar. His daughter Mehrunnisa (Nur
Jahan) was married to Jahangir. His son Asaf Khan became Prime Minister of
Jahangir and continued in that position under Shahjahan. His second son Itiquad
Khan was Subedar of Delhi in 1633.
Asaf Khan’s son
Shaista Khan (whose fingers were cut in 1663 during a daring attack by Shivaji)
held various high offices under Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb.
Shaista Khan’s
son Buzurg Ummed Khan was Subedar of Bihar (1683 to 1692)
* Mir Shihabuddin
was one of high generals of Aurangzeb. He came from Samarkand to seek his
fortune at the court of Delhi – October 1669.
* Mirza Miuza a
Persian of Mashahad married to a sister of Aurangzeb’s wife. He was created
Musai Khan and Diwan of the Pay Office in September 1688 and Divan of Deccan in
June 1689.
* Muhammad Amu
Khan came to India from Bukhara in 1687. He rose to the position of Sadr in
1698, Chin Bahadur in 1706 and a Commander of 4,000 horse in 1707.
* Mir Jumla was a
similar adventurer. He became Prime Minister of Golconda. Later he betrayed the
King of Golconda and joined the Mughals in last days of Shahjahan. His son
Muhammad Amin Khan Hafiz was made Mir Bakshi (Chief of all cavalry) by
Aurangzeb; and was later made Governor of Gujarat 1672-1682.
(Anecdotes of
Aurangzeb and Historical Essays by Yadunath Sarkar, published by M C Sarkar
and sons 1912)
Niccolao Manucci,
the Italian adventurer who lived in India during 1653 to 1708 tells us –
Administration of Mughals
Some Muslim
communities -. Pathans.
They live beyond
Sindhu river (i.e. on the west or north). Mughals are cautious about Pathans
who believe that they were once rulers in Delhi. Therefore Mughals and Pathans
do not get on with each other and do not intermarry. Of course there are
divisions among Pathans too.
* Nizam Ali’s
minister Ghulam Saiyad Khan, called Mushir-ul-mulk came from Persia and secured
service under Salabat Jang (Nizam’s Chief Minister) around 1754 and became the
first minister in 1775.
(Vol III pp
281-288)
* Aliwardi Khan,
a Turk came to India in 1726, became principal military officer and was awarded
the title Mahabat Jang by the Mughal Emperor.
* Mir Habib was a
clever Persian of Shiraz. He rose to deputy governorship of Orissa (c 1740).
( Vol II p221)
Pagdi continues,
“ When the native
Muslims were in such hopeless position the work of preventing onslaught of
Foreign Muslim invasion was carried out by Rajputs in the north and the Kings
of Vijayanagar in the south.”
Thus the Indian
Muslims had nothing to do with the foreign Muslim adventurers who came to rule
and administer Indian provinces on behalf of Foreign Muslim rulers. They only
had one thing in common – Islam. But Indian (native) Muslims never enjoyed
positions of authority or power (military or civil). On the contrary even the
Mughal Emperors despised Indian Muslims.
It would be
absurd for Indian Christians to boast that they ruled India for hundred and
fifty years during the British Raj or that they ruled over Goa for more than
four centuries. In a similar manner it is absurd for Indian Muslims to boast
that they ruled India for a thousand years. Rulers were Turks (not from present
day Turkey). Their period
can be called Turkish Era. In the histories of Iran, Russia and China,
historians do use the term Turkish Era, but they never call it a Muslim Era.
But in India the English caused havoc by calling the Turkish Era as Muslim Era.
It also created an unjustified ego and ambition in the minds of Indian Muslims.
Indian Muslims rejoiced at the atrocities of Muhammad of Ghazni and Aurangzeb
and feel sorry for death of Afzulkhan at the hands of Shivaji.
It is very
important that the Indian Muslims need to be educated and awakened to
historical reality. They need to be proud of Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Kings
of Vijayanagar Empire. Indian Muslims got no respect or positions of authority
during the Turkish Era and have no reason to praise that era.
In this context
one needs to study the uprising of Bangladeshi against the rule West Pakistanis
(1971), Sindhis are trying to preserve their identity & mother tongue from
onslaught of Punjabi and Urdu. Muslims in Sindh have now started to consider
Hindu King Dahir as their ancestor and hate Muhammad bin Kasim as an aggressor.
British rulers
created yet another fantasy. They said that they took over rule from hands of
Muslims. Nothing can be farther from truth. They had to wage bloody battles with
Marathas, Sikhs and Gurkhas. But the fantasy created by the British echoes in
the thoughts of likes of Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan.
The British
started to tell Hindus that if the British depart, Muslims would rule over them
as in the past. To the Muslims they said, “ If we leave Hindus would revenge
the past Muslim rule.” And thus they created a picture of straightforward,
brave Muslim but timid and businessman Hindu who is only interested in making
money and has no honour. One can sense this in histories written by English
authors, their biographies, storey books and novels. For example, Mother
India, Verdict on India.
This impasse must
end. Muslims must feel part and parcel of Indian society. The distance between
Hindus and Muslims must end. This work of enlightenment is difficult but not
impossible. True history must be taught. Muslims share the same history as
Hindus. That truth must be emphasised all the time. That will reduce the sense
of alienation among Muslims.
Let us now look
at some other facts -
One should
remember that during the British Raj, 70% of soldiers were Muslims, giving them
a false sense of pride that before the British, Muslims were indeed the rulers
of India. This British policy of recruitment did not change even in 1920s after
they faced the real danger of Amir of Afghanistan invading India as per
invitation by Gandhi and the Ali brothers openly advocating Muslim soldiers not
to oppose the Amir!
There is also an
important point of note. The Muslim soldiers were exclusively from Punjab and
the Northwest Frontier Province. Muslims from other provinces were never
recruited. But even this point was not exploited by Hindu politicians.
* Savarkar, while
in internment in Ratnagiri gave a startling news. On 22 July 1924 New York
Times published an article by one Mr Arthur Havtar. The author prophesised
that though in India Muslims are only one fifth of the population they are very
strong and powerful. If at any time the English were to abandon their rule in
India in a hurry Muslims would take over power.
One can imagine
what effect this news would have had on minds of Indian Muslims and how widely
they would have spread this news among their people.
Reality
ignored by both Muslims and Hindus
Caste among
Muslims has been a taboo subject. Hindus are totally ignorant about it and
Muslims always keep quiet about it.
British
administrators carried out Census in India every 10 years. It had been their
unwritten policy to depict Hindus as a community divided into thousands of
sections but Muslims as a homogenous people. They therefore did not divide
Muslims even into Sunnis and Shias.
There were no
Muslim castes in the 1881 Census, whereas information in 1872 and 1891 Census
was very incomplete. We find full information in 1901 Census.
From the
information compiled under the British administration we find 309 castes, which
are common to both Hindus and Muslims.
There are 122
castes who are only Muslims. The reason may be that all Hindus of that caste
were converted to Islam for whatever reason.
Very roughly, in
1901 total population of Muslims in British India
(including the
princely states) was 62,458,000
Out of these Muslims
who shared same castes as Hindus were 21,134,822
(or 33.84% of Muslims)
Muslims of other
castes 41,323,178
This includes
Shekhs 28,708,706
(45.97%
Sayyads 1,339,734 (2.15%)
Moghul 358,885 (0.58%)
Pathans 3,404,706 (5.45%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total who claim
foreign descent 33,812,026 (54.14% of Muslims)
It is therefore
interesting who these Shekhs are –
(Note – It should
be remembered that Bengal included Bihar and Orissa also)
The Superintendent for the Province of Bengal says -
Page 439
Conventional
division of Shekh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan has very little application to the
province. In the proper sense of the words the Shekhs should be Arabs, Saiads
the descendents of Ali (Muhammad’s son-in-law)
But in Bengal
both groups include a great number of persons of purely local origin. This is
especially the case with Shekh, which in many parts, instead of connoting a
foreigner, does exactly the reverse, and raises the presumption that the
persons who so describe themselves are converts of Indian origin.
The caste figures
for the Musalmans in Table XIII such as attari, kasai or chapparband, must be
received with great caution. As already explained the majority of Indian
converts to Islam have a fondness for returning themselves as Sheikhs of the
Kureshi stock, or even as Sayads, and nearly one million of the total Musalman population
will be found under the tribal name of Sheikh (No. 847). It is, therefore,
more than probable that the figures given opposite the caste entries fall very
short of the correct total for the Musalmans following the occupation that the
caste name suggests.
P204
.. But the term Sheikh is one used now-a-days by almost all Hindu converts to Islam. The total number of Sheikhs enumerated in the Presidency at this Census was 967,000. Only a minute section of this collection could be Arabs.
P84
Sheikhs
This is a very
numerous class and represents the descendents of the original Hindus who were
converted to Islam by Musalman conquerors. Their Karm or tribe name usually resembles
those of the Hindus, but they appear to have lost all traces of the old
customs, which they inherited from their Hindu ancestors.
We would find
similar remarks about Shekhs in other provinces.
Next are Sayyads,
but they only amount to 2.15% of the Muslim population. Moreover they are the
priestly class (like Brahmins) and could never claim to have ruled any part of
India in the past.
Moghuls are only
0.68% of Muslim population
Pathans are only
5.45% of Muslim population.
It is very
strange that only 45,152 Muslims regarded themselves as Turks!
We should remember that the above information was collected by Muslim enumerators and compiled by British officers. And thus even a tiny section of Muslims could not have claimed that they once ruled (parts of) India. Unfortunately this reality of life was ignored by Hindus and Muslims with disastrous consequences.
Let us see now
turn to the disastrous consequences of this falsified history.
Bibliography
In
English
Bernier F Travels
in Mughal Empire edited by V Smith 1914
Census of India
of 1901
Encyclopaedia
Britannica 1977
Mahajan V D Mughal
Rule in India, 1982
Sardesai New
History of Marathas, 1946
Sarkar, Sir
Yadunath Anecdotes of Aurangzeb and Historical Essays, published by M C
Sarkar and sons 1912
Savarkar V D Hindutva
1926
Tavernier J B Travels
in India – Edited by Dr V Ball,
1889
In
Italian
Manucci Niccolao,
Storia Do Mogor
In
Marathi
Pagdi,
Setumadhavrao,
Amhala khotach
itihas shikaval jato ka?
(Kirloskar magazine, Nov 1974)
Vida rangato
asa, 1963,
Ashi hee
Shivajayanti (Sobat
weekly 13 May 1977)
Panipatachi
mati (Sobat weekly, 14
June 1977)
Vishalgadacha
vedha (Diwali isue of
Lokasatta, 1977)
Purandare B M Raja
Shivachhatrapati (in Marathi)
Prepared by Dr V
S Godbole on 27 January 2004, revised 8 and 25 February, 25 and 31 July 2004, 8
July and 16 October 2005