Synopsis
The way history is compiled, written, presented and taught
has profound effect on our minds. What we learn as school children stays with
us all our lives. And it is very difficult to get away from impressions of
those days. They affect and mould our thinking, how we see ourselves, how we
treat our own people and how we behave with others.
A classic example is Indian History as written by the
British Historians during the British Raj. After conquering India, various officers of the
(English) East India Company wrote History of India. They
simply used the term Muslim Rule to describe the period when various Muslim
rulers were in power in India. This falsified history has affected the psyche of both Hindus and
Muslims. Hindus were infested with inferiority complex whereas Muslims were
made arrogant with false pride of their past. It created a
false impression in the minds of Indian Muslims that they were the rulers of
India before the British. British historians thus created a bloating in the minds of Indian
Muslims leading to false pride and arrogance, intransigence, monstrous
ambitions, resulting ultimately in the partition of India in August 1947.
Unfortunately that history also affected minds of Hindus
(even today).
The fact is that the Muslim rulers and the ruling class were
Turks from Central Asia and they utterly despised Indian Muslims. Even the
first Nizam was not born in India. He came from Bokhara in Russia, some 1,000
miles from Delhi.
My article explains how this tragedy happened.
-------------------
In India, the Muslim
rulers and their 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 Setumadhavrao Pagdi, historian
from Mumbai had also stressed this vital point in his article in the Diwali
issue of Marathi magazine Kirloskar in November 1974. Here is the gist
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) an Arab knight established a small kingdom in
Tamilnadu around Madura, but within one or two generations they were ousted by
kings of Daulataabaad (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 also demand separate status
for Muslims), Abul Kalam Azaad. Many Sufi saints were also 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 befriended 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.
Muslim 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 Northern 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.
[A piece of
missing history – The time difference
between 1026 and 1192 is 166 years. Did the Muslims say – we had enough loot?
No. They tried again but on 14 June 1033 the entire Muslim army of Pathans and
Persians was wiped out at the Battle of Bahiraich, 60 miles from Lucknow, by
the combined army of 17 Hindu kings. Not one Muslim was left alive even to tell
folks back home that they had lost. So severe was the shock that Muslims dare
not attack India for 6 generations!!
Also in 1191
Ghori was defeated by Prithwiraj Chauhan, but was allowed to go free. He paid
dearly for this folly a year later.]
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 southern 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 northern 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 strange
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
Turkish Muslims NOT Native Indian Muslims.
We find several references,
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
Shahaaji the
father of Great Maratha King Shivaaji’s was also a great warrior. In 1648, Shahaaji
was tricked and imprisoned by Mustaphakhan, Afzulkhan and Baji Ghorapade on
orders of Adilshah of Bijapur. Shivaaji sought his father’s release by
intrigues with Shahjahan. But Shahaaji could not forget the insult. He wrote to
Shivaaji 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 Turk and betrayed me. I ask you to seek revenge.”
Shahaaji has used the word Turk, not Muslim. Clear indication that the ruler
was a Turk.
Mustafakhan died
shortly after betraying Shahaji. Shivaji killed Afzalkhan in November 1659 and Baji
Ghorapade in an open fight in October 1664.
Shivaaji’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 the land of the Hindus and NOT of Turks. [He
Hindunche sthan, Turuksthan navhe ]”
[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. Keene was an ICS officer who served in U.P for more than 30 years.
-------------------------------------
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 Mahaaraashtra). 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.
[In 1540, Babar’s
son Humayun was ousted 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.
--------------------
Pagdi continues -
“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 (southern India) during 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 5,000 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)
* In 1974 Mr
Pagdi visited the battlefield of Panipat. 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 -
Travellers’ accounts
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
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
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 ranking generals of Aurangzeb. He came from Samarkand to seek
his fortune at the court of Delhi – October 1669.
* Mirza Miuza a
Persian of Mashahad was 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 Turkish Muslims (not
from present day Turkey).
Their period can be called Turkish Muslim Era. In the histories of Iran,
Russia and China, historians do use the term Turkish Era, but they never call
it a Muslim Era. [You may call Turkish 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 Bangladeshis 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 -
(1) 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.
(2) Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) may sound like an innocent department. But they played a
mischief in 1910. It was divided into two circles (divisions), namely
Muhammadan and British monuments; AND Hindu and Buddhist Monuments. Thus equating
Muslims with British – leading to an inflated feeling among Muslims that they
were at par with the British. It was natural therefore that if British were to
leave Muslims should take over and rule India once again.
(3) Savarkar,
while in internment in Ratnagiri gave 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.
(4) 1997 marked
50th anniversary of Indian independence. On that occasion on 14th
August 1997, Evening Standard of London wrote in its editorial -
A birthday celebration
“INDIA and
Pakistan celebrate the 50th anniversary of their independence at midnight
tonight. Curiously, however, they are not marking the occasion with
anything like the
enthusiasm with which it is being remembered here. In Delhi and Karachi the
party mood has been muted and the media coverage slight. Here, the newspapers
and TV screens have for the past week been filled with Raj nostalgia and
whither-the-sub-continent speculation. The anniversary means far more to
Britain, where it evokes such deep feelings about the lost Empire and the end
of a glorious era, than it does to India. Not all that this introspection says
about us is healthy. We might benefit from more honesty about our colonial past,
unsure as we are about our present and future as a
medium-sized
European power. Yet on this day we have every right to look back with pride at
our dealings with the sub-continent and the legacy we left behind.”
“Notwithstanding
all its vast problems India, too, should be proud of its achievements as a
secular state in the last 50 years. If hoopla is absent in the anniversary celebrations,
that is more to do with the way Indians look at time — what the great
Jawaharlal Nehru described in 1947 as the idea of India travelling on a road for
"trackless generations" — than any lack of confidence. That a country
of a billion people, with 40 languages and a dozen ethnic groups which have a
history of violent rivalry, can work as a democracy is extraordinary. There is
extreme poverty, but in the last 25 years the country has become
self-sufficient in food. Corruption in public life is endemic — spawning the
popular joke about the Indian theory of relativity defined as
"everything
is for the relatives". Yet the country is stable. The caste system that
has caused such misery for millions is changing — Mahatma Gandhi's dream that one
day a Dalit, or "untouchable", would lead the country came true last
year when KR Narayanan became president.”
“Pakistan is
less of a success story.
For more than half its brief history it has been a military dictatorship and it
has never had a government that was voted, rather than summarily forced, out of
office. Poverty is increasing and the economy is stagnant. Yet its existence
has almost certainly saved the lives of millions of people who faced a real
risk of massacre in inter communal violence if British India had not been
partitioned. The three wars on the sub-continent have been costly; but not as
costly and disastrous as might have been.”
[These words
clearly shows the British mentality. The paper cleverly hides the fact that K R
Narayan was a Christian taking orders from the Pope.]
---------------------------
Reality of
Indian history during mediaeval times was evident by the existence of Caste
System among the Muslims of India. This has been a taboo subject. Hindus are totally ignorant about it and
Muslims always keep quiet about it. Let us examine it in detail. We are only
interested in castes with foreign sounding names. Here is the summary
Caste among
Indian Muslims
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) |
|
62,458,000 |
|
Muslims who
shared same castes as Hindus were |
(or 33.84% of
Muslims) |
21,134,822 |
|
Muslims of
other castes This includes -
Arabs - Moghul - Pathans - Sayyads - Shekhs Other Muslims
(trades) |
(0.49% of
Muslim population) (0.58% of
Muslim population) (5.45% of
Muslim population) (2.15% of
Muslim population) (45.97% of
Muslim population) (17.43% Muslim
population ) |
41,323,178 307,920 358,885 3,404,706 1,339,734 28,708,706 7,203,227 |
|
|
|
|
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. As a matter of interest let us
see where the Shekhs were located in 1881.
|
AREA |
Numbers |
% of total
Shekhs |
|
Ajmer |
31,972 |
00.110 |
|
Andamans |
2,213 |
00.008 |
|
Assam |
1,494,019 |
05.20 |
|
Baluchistan |
4,864 |
00.17 |
|
Bengal |
21,713,172 |
75.63 |
|
Berar |
130,583 |
00.46 |
|
Bombay |
967,862 |
03.37 |
|
Burma |
269,022 |
00.94 |
|
Central
Province |
--- |
|
|
Coorg |
4,403 |
00.15 |
|
Madras |
786,556 |
02.74 |
|
Punjab |
340,063 |
01.19 |
|
U.P. |
1,365,536 |
04.76 |
|
PRINCELY
STATES |
|
|
|
Baroda |
56,736 |
00.20 |
|
Central India |
201,884 |
00.70 |
|
Cochin |
317 |
00.001 |
|
Hyderabad |
848,698 |
02.96 |
|
Kashmir |
66,959 |
00.23 |
|
Mysore |
178,625 |
00.62 |
|
Rajputana |
242,046 |
00.84 |
|
Travancore |
3,156 |
00.011 |
Note – Burma was
part of British Indian Empire till 1935
Above
distribution shows how hollow the claims of Indian Muslims to be different from
Hindus are. Burma was never conquered by any Muslim king. How can it have any
Shekhs? The same goes for Assam
---------------
Next are Pathans
- only 5.45% of Muslim population.
Then come
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 0.68%
of Muslim population
Arabs are 0.49%
of Muslim population
It is very
strange that only 45,152 Muslims regarded themselves as Turks!
And thus not even a tiny section of Muslims could have claimed to be descendents of former rulers of (parts of) India. Unfortunately this reality of life was ignored by Hindus and Muslims with disastrous consequences.
We should remember that the above information was collected
by Muslim enumerators and compiled by British officers. It must be said in all fairness that these
Census Reports were available through well known booksellers in India.
Unfortunately Hindus did not study them.
In 1918 (3
January) Two or three khojas were present at a public meeting of Gandhi in
Mumbai. They said, “We are Hindus (satpanthis).” Instead of taking advantage of
this information Gandhi retorted, “Aga Khan was President of Muslim League. How
can you be called Hindus?”
(Gandhi – A
detailed chronology by Dalal, published 1971 by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p
16)
Mr Pagdi tells us
-
“In the recent
past we know of many Muslims who had Hindu ancestors. For example-
Urdu poet Musaphi
(original Rajput)
Historian Shibali
Nemani (Rajput)
Well-known Urdu
poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Kashmiri Brahmin)
Sir Phirozkhan
Noon – (Rajput)
Zulphikhar Ali
Bhutto – (Rajput)
Prime Minister of
Hyderabad state the Nawab of Chhatari -
(Rajput)
Poet Laureate of
Pakistan Hafiz Jalandhari (Chauhan – Rajput)
Prime Minister of
Hyderabad Sir Akbar Hyderi (Hindu from Gujarat)
Labour minister
who recently died, Abid Ali Japharbhai (Hindu from Kutch)
Revolutionary and
writer, Ubedulla Sindhi (Sikh)
Revolutionary
Abdulkarim (brother of Acharya Kripalani)
Boharis and
Momins of Gujrat, majority of Muslims of Kashmir, Jats in western Punjab,
majority of Muslims of Bangladesh were undoubtedly descendents of Hindus. One
can take a clue from the titles Pandit, Bhat, Jutshi (astrologer) among
Kashmiri Muslims, Kitchlu and other surnames give away their origin.”
[In the old
Bombay Province, Khojas and Memons of Kutchh were Hindu converts. They followed
inheritance as per Hindu Law till 1920.]
“These are
without doubt Muslims who can be called Indian. That does not mean the rest are
not Indians. Today all Muslims must regard themselves as Indians whatever their
forefathers were.“
-------------------------------------
One can add -
Muhammad Ali
Jinnah & Poet Iqbal had Hindu grandfathers. Gandhi himself had pointed out
in 1940 that Sir Sikandar Hiyat Khan’s forefathers were Hindu Brahmins. Fazul
Huq, the Chief Minister of Bengal had Hindu forefathers. How could they, all
of a sudden start to say that, they, the Muslims are different from Hindus,
have their own history, culture, values, language and identity?? No one
asked this question.
Jinnah declared
that Urdu was the language of Muslims, but he himself could not speak a single
word in Urdu. He used to speak in English and some one would translate it into
Urdu for the audience. But no one laughed at this. Even the fanatical Moplas of
Kerala regarded Malyalam as their mother tongue, not Urdu.
[Note – The
British have not changed one little bit. In U.K. in 2011 a census was carried
out by the Government. All Christians are counted as one. There is no way of
knowing how many are Catholics, how may are Orthodox. Same applied to Muslims.
All Muslims are counted as one. No space to say if you are a Shia or Sunni or
Ahmedia, but Hindus? Oh, that is a different matter. Hindus, Sikhs and
Buddhists are counted separately!]
Disastrous
consequences
Let us see now
turn to the disastrous consequences of this falsified history. First, the
Khilafat Movement. Hindu politicians led by Gandhi were obsessed with making
concessions to Muslims. This led to the Khilafat Movement in the 1920s.
* Khalifat movement
The First World
War ended on 11 November 1918. Turkey, the ally of Germany was defeated and it
was obvious that Britain and France would disintegrate the Ottoman Turkish
Empire. Its Sultan was Khalifa. As Prophet Mohammed was both a political and
religious leader, his successors also had both roles. Of course, there were
many feuds and many Khalifs but the Sultan of Turkey was Khalif since 1517. He
was also the ruler of the vast Ottoman Empire.
Arabs resented
Turkish rulers. During World War I, Arabs, with the help of the British, threw
yoke of Sultan of Turkey. (Remember the film Lawrence of Arabia?)
Why were these
events in a far off land of interest to Indian Muslims? But as they were
brought up to think that they were foreigners and once rulers of India, they
got into their heads that the Sultan of Turkey must remain as Khalifa, their
temporal and spiritual leader. And Gandhi was so obsessed with seeking
co-operation of Indian Muslims that he immediately supported the Khilafat
movement. Strangely Jinnah had opposed this movement saying – it is like going
to stone ages.
No Congressman
asked, “There are millions of Muslims in North Africa in countries such as
Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. But they are not agitating for the Sultan
of Turkey. Millions of Iranians who are Shias never accepted any authority of
the Sultan of Turkey as Khalifa. So, why should Indian Muslims feel affinity to
him?” They of course, did not put that question to likes of Maulana Mohammed
Ali and Shaukat Ali.
After the end of
World War I the principle of right of self-determination of nations was being
put forward as key to new formation of Europe. This was the major principle of
the Peace Conference. In 1919,Tilak, while in London, wrote to The French Prime
Minister M Clemenceau
and American President Woodrow Wilson that like European countries, India too
must have right of self-determination. Both leaders acknowledged letters of
Tilak.
It was
astonishing therefore that Gandhi, Nehru and Bose were flagrantly denying that
right to Arabs who did not want to be ruled by Turks. And as a result even
Indian Muslims were mocked, ridiculed and despised by Arabs.
Monstrous
ambitions of Indian Muslims was aroused by the Khilafat movement leading to
most horrific atrocities committed by Moplas on Hindus of Kerala in 1921. In
the end the British had to send in the Army to crush the Moplas.
This was followed
by Muslim riots in Gulburga, Nagpur, Lucknow, Shajahanpur, Jabalpur, Kohat and
many other places in India.
* We can go
back to our country
On 11 May 1938,
Maulana Shaukat Ali met Savarkar and told him,” If tomorrow there is a
catastrophe in India we Muslims will go back to our countries, but you Hindus
have nowhere else to go.”
(public speech at
Ajmer, 20 May 1938, S S V 4, p348)
Pagdi tells us,
“We see a kind of arrogance in the writings of Sir Sayyad Ahmad, Poet Latif
Hussein Hali, journalist Vahibuddin Salim. They say, “We came to Hindusthan and
we ruled.” Vahibuddin Salim in his poem says -
Oh Indians,
racially we are different to you, but you honoured us, gave us everything,
positions of power, respect and honour. How can we thank you?”
Garche hamame
miltijulti teri komiyat na thee. Hamame atha Hindosita go buye Insinayat na
thee.
Tune lekin
apani akhonpar liya hamako bitha.
Apani
akhanopar bithakar tune ijjat kee hame
Tune apane
hukmdanopar fajeelat do hame
Tune rahat
dee, famarat dee hame
Tune sarabat
dee, hukumad dee, riyasad dee hame
Shukra kis kis
miharbanika kare to ada
The family of
poet Altaf Hussein Ali, stayed in India for hundreds of years. Still he echoes
the same sentiments as above. Same applies to thoughts of Sir Sayyad Ahmad.
They may be true in a few cases. But vast majority of Indian Muslims are
descendents of converted Hindus. They cannot share above thoughts.
• Pagdi tells of
his own experience. In 1933 he was appearing for examination for entry into
land revenue service under the Nizam. Pagdi came across a Muslim candidate named
Abu Turab. Pagdi did favour to him and by copying Pagdi’s paper Abu Turab
passed the qualifying examination. They met again a few years later. Abu Turab
was transferred to Marathawada (a Marathi speaking area). Pagdi said, “You
better learn some Marathi to make your life easy and understand the issues you
have to deal with, in the same way as we learn Urdu and Farsee.”
Abu Turab
replied, “There is no need for us (Muslims) to learn your mother tongue. It is
you (Hindus) who need to understand us (Muslims).”
In 1963 Pagdi
wrote, “So arrogant were the remarks of Abu Tarab that even after 25 years I
cannot forget them. That reminds me of the cinema Benhur. Benhur was Jew and
his childhood friend named Masala, a Roman was sent to Palestine as Governor.
Welcoming Masala, Benhur said, “It is good that you are appointed as Governor,
I welcome you as someone who knows the Jews well.” Masala replied, “What is the
necessity of we Romans to know the Jews? It is they (Jews) who need to
understand us.” Abu Tarab and Muslims in Hyderabad harboured and expressed same
arrogance.
(Vida rangato
asa, by Pagdi. 1963, pp65/66)
• Dr B R Ambedkar provides an example in his book Thoughts on Pakistan published in 1946 (pp 303/304).
In a manifesto on
Hindu-Muslim relations issued in 1928 Khwaja Hasan Nazami declared :
“ Musalmans are
separate from Hindus; they cannot unite with the Hindus. After bloody wars
the Musalmans conquered India, and the English took India from them. The
Musalmans are one united nation and they alone will be masters of India. They
will never give up their individuality. They have ruled India for Hundreds
of years, and hence they have a prescriptive right over the country. The
Hindus are a minor community in the world. They are never free from internecine
quarrels; they believe in Gandhi and worship the cow; they are polluted by
taking other people’s water. The Hindus do not care for self-government; they
squabble. What capacity have they for ruling over men? The Musalmans did
rule, and the Musulmans will rule.”
(Times of
India 14 March 1928)
• Dr B R Ambedkar provides yet another example in his book Thoughts on Pakistan published in 1946 (pp 303/304).
Far from
rendering obedience to Hindus, the Muslims seem to be ready to try conclusions
with the Hindus again. In 1926 there arose a controversy as to who really won
the third battle of Panipat, fought in 1761. It was contended for the Muslims
that it was a great victory for them because Ahmad Shah Abdalli had 1 lakh of
soldiers while the Mahrattas had 4 to 6 lakhs. The Hindus replied that a
victory to them – a victory to the vanquished – because it stemmed the tide of
Muslim invasions. The Muslims were not prepared to admit defeat at the hands of
Hindus and claimed that they will always prove superior to the Hindus. To prove
the eternal superiority of Muslims over Hindus it was proposed by one Maulana
Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that the Hindus and Muslims
should fight, under test conditions, fourth battle on the same fateful plain of
Panipat. The Maulana accordingly issued a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan
Malaviya in the following terms :
“If you
Malaviyaji, are making efforts to falsify the result at Panipat, I shall show
you an easy and excellent way (of testing it). Use your well-known influence
and induce the British Government to permit the fourth battle of Panipat to be
fought without hindrance from the authorities. I am ready to provide … a
comparative test of the valour and fighting spirit of Hindus and the Musalmans.
… As there are seven crores of Muslims in India, I shall arrive on a fixed date
on the plain of Panipat with 700 Musalmans representing the seven crores of
Muslims in India and as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you to come with
2,200 Hindus. The proper thing is not to use cannons, machineguns or bombs;
only swords and javelins and spears, bows and arrows and daggers should be
used. If you cannot accept the post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may
give it to any descendents of Sadashivarao or Vishwasrao so that their scions
may have an opportunity to avenge the defeat of their ancestors in 1761. But
any way do come as a spectator; for on seeing the result of this battle you
will have to change your views, and I hope there will be end of the present
discord and fighting in the country. …. In conclusion I beg to add that among
the 700 men that I shall bring there will be no Pathans or Afghans as you are
mortally afraid of them. So, I shall bring with me only Indian Musalmans of
good family who are staunch adherents of Shariat.” (Times of India 20
June 1926)
The above example
does show arrogance of Muslims, but it also illustrates inferiority complex of
Hindus. Ambedkar was so obsessed with anti-Hindu phobia that he took for
granted the Muslim boasts. What a pity that his own caste Mahars, though
formerly treated as untouchables, are warriors and the Indian Army even had a
Mahar Regiment. 2,200 Mahars (who are also covered by the term Marhatta) could
have easily called bluff of Muslims. But Ambedkar did not do that.
The much
publicised Muslim riot of Bombay in 1929 had given answer to arrogance of
Muslims. Before the riot, Muslims boasted that one Muslim is superior to 29
Hindus, and that too ordinary Indian Muslim. One Pathan would easily overpower
100 Hindus. And what happened in practice? At the very outset it was Pathans
who were running away and pleading that the riot should stop!! (S.S.V part 4,
1965, pp213-217). But Ambedkar does not quote this example.
As for the battle
of Panipat, one should only remember that just four days after the battle, the
victorious Ahmad Shah Abdalli sent a letter to the Maratha Peshwa Balaji
Bajirao, asking for a re-conciliation!! Why would a victor do that? The answer
is simple. He knew at heart that Marathas would seek revenge and were quite
capable of avenging their defeat. A few months after the battle Balaji Bajirao
died and when his 16 year old son Madhavrao became a Peshwa (July 1761), same
Ahmad Shah Abdalli paid his respects and sent presents to Madhavrao. Ambedkar
easily forgets this history, may be because he too only read the history as
written by English. But we have to remember that after the battle of Panipat,
Abdalli himself had expressed astonishment at bravery of Marathas and admitted
that such a battle was unprecedented.
But Ambedkar did
not want to know!!
Bhutto became
Prime Minister of Pakistan, after freedom struggle of Bangladesh in December
1971. His mother was Hindu. But her conversion to Islam put fantastic ideas
into head of Bhutto and he said that he would wage a war with India for a
thousand years.
Things have not
changed even in the year 2012. We have received following E Mail
To: media_monitor5@yahoogroups.com
From: shadikatyal@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:44:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [media_monitor5] Myth of Aryan Invasion
Pakistan tried to tell the world that they are Arabs
and started teaching even Arabic in schools but Saudi and other Gulf nations
objected and told them that they are not for their stock. / Shadi
[The author could not
be specific. He says that this is an old story.]
-----------------
This just shows how
deep the effects of works of British Historians have been.
1901 Census of
British Indian Empire revealed that out of the Muslim population, only 0.49%
counted themselves as Arabs. And yet in 2012 Pakistanis claim to have their
origins in Arabia.
Effect on
minds of Hindus in the 20th century
Poet Iqbal
composed the famous poem Sare Jahanse Achha Hindoostan Hamara
There are many
lands on earth, but only our Hindoostan is dear to us.
And yet same
Iqbal demanded Pakistan in 1930 on the basis that Muslims were different people
from Hindus!!
As Pagdi remarked
earlier even Mughal Emperors used to say that they were rulers of Hindusthan.
Surprisingly enough even a map printed in London in 1808 clearly shows (so
called) India as Hindoosthan, its western boundary is with Iran (I do have a
copy of such a map). And the same name is used on many maps of Globe. But once
the British started to use the meaningless word India, Hindus loved it because
it removes the word Hindu. Even after the partition in 1947 Hindus were not
prepared to call their land as Hindusthan, Nehru suggested the name Bharat and
yet even that name was never adopted. Have you ever heard of an Embassy of
Bharat anywhere? So shameless have we become that even while speaking in our
mother tongues, be it Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali or whatever Hindus continue to
use the word India!!
In February 1937
Dr Ambedkar was to address the conference in Punjab arranged by Jatpat Todak
Mandal (Society for abolishing of the caste system) of Lahore. Conference was
cancelled but he had printed his speech in English. In it he said, “The Hindus’
has been a life of a continuous defeat. It is a mode of survival of which every
Hindu will feel ashamed.” Savarkar replied to such senseless remarks and later,
in 1952 he delivered his famous series of speeches – Six Glorious Epochs of
Indian History, which are available in book form.
One can say that
Dr Ambedkar was prejudiced, having declared on 13 October 1935 that he would
not die as a Hindu. But his sentiments were echoed 60 years earlier even by
Gopalrao Agarkar, Tilak’s contemporary. Agarkar was born in poverty but still
studied and passed M A. examination. He however refused to accept service under
the British Administration. He started his movements for social reforms, which
he believed to be necessary before fight for political independence could be
started. He was a staunch Hindu, but he still wrote in 1880, “How can we say
that we had a golden past when we were ruled by Muslims for more than 700 years
and now the British have been ruling over us for more than 100 years.”
In 1968 Prof P N
Oak of New Delhi proved that Taj Mahal was an ancient Rajput Temple Palace and
not a Mausoleum built by Shahjahan. His research indicated the extent to which
Indian history has been falsified. And yet many of Mr Oak’s followers still use
the phrase “Thousand year slavery of Hindus” without thinking. It has been a
thousand year of struggle to keep the identity and freedom of the Hindu people.
The struggle could have been won over much shorter period if only Hindus had
learnt from their history.
Accessing
Hinduism by Helen
Kanitkar and Duncan Macpherson was published in 1999. Helen was a Welshwoman
married to my friend Hemant Kanitkar of London.
In Module Four :
The Modern Historical Context the authors say on pp28/29 –
Hinduism and
Islam
“… When Muslims
ceased to rule India, however, they found it difficult to reconcile themselves
to the prospect of being a minority out of power.”
Savarkar (1883 – 1966)
* We must remember
that there were some leaders who were aware of the truth. Veer Savarkar was
such a person. In 1910 he was sentenced to Transportation for Life twice to
Andaman Islands, some 1000 miles from Chennai. He narrates his experiences
during World War I
I (Savarkar) said
to fellow prisoners. “Don’t get carried away by emotions. We have to see how we
can use this war to our advantage. It is natural that we sympathise with
Germans (and her allies like Turkey). But we must be careful. We do not want to
change one ruler (English) for another (German). Most accepted my argument. I
also said – what good would it be for us if Turkish Sultan or Amir of
Afghanistan was to become ruler of India?
Muslim prisoners
objected to that. The Sultan of Turkey was a God to them. How many stories and
legends had grown around him as the Khalifa in their sacred writings! They were
taught in their cradle to worship the name of that Sultan with feelings of
sanctity and reverence. That personage was to invade India and I said that his
rule will bring no good to India. What a blasphemy to say so. That the rule
of the Sultan over India would be a foreign rule was a proposition beyond their
understanding. If among the prisoners there was a Maulavi or a Muslim with
some education who knew something of history, I would tell him of the
atrocities committed by Arabs on Iranians, by Turks on Arabs, by Pathans and
Iranians on each other and finally by all these and Mughals on Indian Muslims.
Even though the Maulavi or little educated Muslim accepted the historical truth
of my arguments he would still say – ‘ It is in India’s interest that Sultan of
Turkey should invade India and establish a Muslim rule there.’ Muslim prisoners
were devoid of any national self-respect. Added to that was their religious
fanaticism and utter ignorance of world affairs. Their bloating knew no bounds.
The Muslim
prisoners started to preach, ‘Germany was sure to beat England and conquer
India. The Sultan of Turkey would personally crown the German Kaiser as the
Emperor of India, and Muslims would get high positions and big jobs in the
Indian Empire. Those who would not be Muslims then, were going to be severely
punished.’ Savarkar of course effectively countered this Muslim propaganda.
Savarkar
continues, “The fact of Turkey entering the war on the side of Germany against
England, fired the imagination of the Muslims; and man, woman and child began
to dream of Muslim Raj in India. And when occasionally they came to hear that
the Amir of Afghanistan had made a common cause with the Germans and the Turks,
their enthusiasm knew no bounds. The Pathans were so entrapped by the prospect
that their tongues began to wag like the croaking of frogs in a pool of water
before the advent of the monsoon. If one Pathan raised one rumour, another
multiplied it tenfold, and so long as Anvar Beg was in the field, he was
reported to have decimated thousands of British regiments or taken the city of
Basra. About the Amir of Afghanistan, the reports were still more extravagant.
It was not enough for him to cross the Indus (Sindhu), but he must knock today
at the door of Lahore, and march another day on to Sirhind. The petty officers,
moving in and out of prison, brought in fantastic news that produced convulsion
among the prisoners…… But behind the ridiculous behaviour of the Pathans there
was one quality, which I never failed to impress upon those who simply laughed
at them. I always asked my Hindu brethren not to forget how enthused they were,
to a man, over the prospect of Muslim Raj in India or over the invasion of
India by a Muslim power. This pride of race and religion was a virtue worthy of
emulation, and it was this pride that would instantly translate itself into
action at the right moment and with the right opportunity. The Hindus lacked
this pride, this fervour, this unity of action, and therefore, they had
suffered.”
“This was a
matter of compliment for the Pathans but was full of menace to the Hindus, and
the Hindus must be ever vigilant about it. Eternal vigilance was the price of liberty.
Also they had to bear it well in mind that the Musulman imbibed this religious
fervour and this spirit of Pan-Islamism with their mother’s milk. In every
Muslim household he was taught from his childhood to love his religion and to
stand by the Muslim Raj. What had the Hindus to show in comparison with this
fervour, with this ardent, burning passion? Not one in ten thousand Hindus knew
or cared to know what was Hindusthan, what was Hindu power, Hindu Raj, or the
meaning of the term Hindu. What then of a common bond of sympathy among them?”
(My
Transportation for Life, pp 349/354)
In 1921 Savarkar
was sent back to mainland India and being kept in various prisons for another
three years, was released from prison but had to live in internment in Ratnagiri.
He moved to other places on some occasions with the permission of the Governor
of Bombay Province.
* In November
1924, in Mumbai, Savarkar met the Muslim leader Maulana Shaukat Ali. The
Maulana told Savarkar, “ You see things are quite different for Hindus and
Muslims. Historically we Muslims have always beaten you Hindus (we have hit you
with shoes). Therefore you Hindus can only rise if you co-operate with
Muslims.”
Savarkar was of
course not going to accept such remarks. He retorted, “It is true that we
Hindus suffered defeats at the hands of Muslims, but we had avenged our defeats
and defeated you Muslims on every battlefield from Attock (near Rawalpindi) to
Rameshwar.”
The British
therefore always despised Savarkar and praised Gandhi who was perfectly happy
to live under a Muslim Rule, whether he was the Amir of Afghanistan or Nizam or
Jinnah.
Dr Munje (1872
- 1948)
Dr Munje of
Nagpur was another such person. Once
one Muslim student came met Munje. He started the conversation very politely
and then suddenly said, “We Muslims ruled over India for 700 years.” Doctor intervened,”
You are mistaken. You are a Hindusthani Muslim. The Muslim rulers were
foreigners such as Afghans and Mughals. At present the English are ruling over
us, would you say that the Anglo-Indians or Indian Christians are the rulers?”
The Muslim
understood what Dr Munje had stated
(Dr Munje’s
biography, part II by Mrs Veena Hardas, 1981, p425)
But Hindus
considered Savarkar and Dr Munje as Hindu extremists and followed Gandhi and
Nehru.
Effect on
minds of Hindus in the 21st century
It is astonishing
that today, even staunch Hindus do not know the true history. Take for example
the book Architects of RSS by Dr V R Karandikar, former Head of Marathi
Department, Fergusson College, Pune, India, published in 2003. On pages 31 and
32 we find –
“ The
Muslims came to India as invaders. The English also occupied
this country as rulers. They had no involvement with this nation’s earlier
history and heritage. In fact, as conquerors they wanted to wipe it out. Even
during the struggle for independence, the Muslims ever felt proud of
having once established a mighty empire in this country. One can
understand this, as the Muslim rule was a part of the history of mediaeval
period. The Hindus do not feel any need of denying it. How can history be
disowned? But, then, the Hindus are also aware that their history stretches
more than two thousand years beyond the Muslim and Christian conquests of
Bharat. In their new awakening of self-respect they also knew that they
could overthrow the English rule and be free to re-establish the old glory of
their country. On the contrary, Muslims could never forget that they were
the absolute rulers here, and therefore they did not feel it necessary
to develop a feeling of fraternity with the earlier people in this country. The
English rulers saw great advantage in this aggressive mentality of the Muslims
and they in fact, encouraged it. One cannot but admire the courage, ambition,
and confidence of these two societies. But then the safety and the future of
this country was also a sincere concern of the Hindus who cared for the same.”
The author was
born in around 1918. Just look at the blunders he has repeated. Even the
British rulers did not describe their conquest as Christian conquest!!.
One can but feel
astonished at how the falsified history has moulded the thinking of even
staunch Hindus.
* Recently I came
across a booklet in Marathi entitled, “Why the Congress does not like
Savarkar?”
It has been
written by Arvind Vitthal Kulkarni. Second edition was published in January
2005. The author, a staunch supporter of Savarkar uses the phrase, “Hindus had
developed certain phobias due to 1,000 years of slavery.”
* In December
2005 a large gathering of Hindus was held in Pandharpur, Maharashtra. On that
occasion the monthly magazine Hindubodh of Pune wrote on page 5 - Reservation for Christians and Muslims
Item 3 - Just 200
years ago Muslims were the rulers. How can they now say that they are
economically backward?
Terrorism
Item 3 - In India,
Muslims ruled for 1,000 years but still they could not wipe out Hindu Dharma.
Facts about
Muslim rule in India
(1) Sindh ruled
by Hindoos, until conquered by the Moslems, A.D. 711
Governed by the
deputies of the Ommiad Caliphs, A.D.750
Governed by the
deputies of the Abbasides, till annexed by Mahmud of Ghazni to his dominions in
A.D. 1025
Governed by a
Sindhi tribe called the Sumrah, A.D. 1054
The Sammah
Rajputs overthrew the Sumrahs A D. 1315
Conquered by Shah
Beg Urghun, prince of Kandahar, A.D 1519.
Annexed by the
English, 1843
Reference -
Sindh and the
races that inhibit the valley of Indus. by Richard F Burton, Reprinted by Oxford University
Press, 1973
Thus, Sindh was
ruled by Hindoos for nearly 500 years. We have simply forgotten this history.
(2) In 1294,
Allauddin Khilji of Delhi invaded Maharashtra and reached Devagiri the capital.
Ramdevrao Yadav accepted defeat. But there were many fierce battles till 1318
when Khiljis finally subdued Marathas. Then followed an age of darkness. One
shudders to look into the horrors of those times.
However, three
centuries later rose Shahaji Bhonsle. He tried exciting adventures for five
years. He even challenged the might of Mughal Emperor Shahjahan (1633-36).
Though he did not succeed, such dangerous moves prepared his men for adventures
in future. He was forced to accept service under Adilshah of Bijapur and move
south to Karnatak. When his son Shivaji was 11 years old Shahaji sent his
assistants involved in his adventures.
Shivaji began his
freedom struggle in 1648 and eventually was crowned King in 1674.
Marathas were
defeated in 1818 by the forces of the (English ) East India Company.
(3) Gujarat
Allauddin Khilji
subdued Gujarat by 1317. Until then it was ruled by Rajputs.
So, where is the
Thousand years of slavery? Afghanistan became Muslim only in 1025. Even they
cannot claim to be Muslims for 1,000 years. That is the reality of our history.
(4) Assam
This province was
never ruled by any Muslim ruler.
(1) In 1977 Setu
Madhavrao Pagdi was invited to attend Shivajayanti (birthday of Shivaji)
function in Bhivandi, which has a large Muslim population. Muslims were invited
for the celebrations and did attend. Pagdi explained the theme of this article.
This is the gust of his findings –
Shivaji’s
struggle was mainly political. First against the Adilshah of Bijapur and then
the Mughal Badshah of Delhi. Both were Turks. It is incorrect to say that
Marathas had some affinity towards Adilshah as he was a southerner. Well known
historical researcher Dr Muhammad Naim has published a book entitled Foreign
relations of Bijapur kingdom. He says – “ Bijapur was mainly the kingdom of
Afafis (foreign Muslims who came across the seas like Turks, Persians.) The
ruling class (senior knights) were Afafis. From central government to
provincial administration officer class – was dominated by Afafis. This
immigration did not stop till 1686.” Then what can we say about the Mughals?
They were Turks from central Asia and were keenly aware of this till the death
of Aurangzeb (in 1707). Some say that Aurangzeb used to address Muslims as
Hindusthanis!. The officer class in civil and military was 60 to 65% Turks and
Iranis (Persians) similar to proportion of British in the ICS cadre till 1947.
At the peak of
Mughal power Indian Muslims were not found in any positions of authority. The
Ministers, Governors of Provinces (Subedhar), heads of departments and generals
were without exception Turks or Iranis, very rarely Pathans. The Boharis of
Gujarat, Kokani Muslims on the west coast, Muslims in the south or even those
who had been converted to Islam for 15 to 20 generations in Bengal, Uttar
Pradesh or Sindh had no place in the administration. They had no value as far
as the rulers were concerned.
It is fantasy of
Indian Muslims that they were rulers before the British. Rulers were Turks from
central Asia. The status and treatment meted out to Indian Muslims were no
different to those of Indian Christians under the British Raj.
This
enlightenment is essential. If truth is told repeatedly it will magnify the
incredible achievement of Shivaji. The work is difficult but not impossible. We
need confidence. One of the assistants of American General George Marshall used
to say ‘what is impossible, we can do tomorrow. Only miracles will take some
time.’
In Bhivandi, as
usual I was introduced. During my lecture I explained work of Shivaji. I
explained his attack on Bhivandi on 24 October 1657. I was busy with the Irani
fort officer of Mahuli, Aurangzeb’s Turkish officers like Mahabhatkhan,
Bahadurkhan, Uzbeckkhan and Iranis like Shaisthakhan and Namdarkhan. I forgot
myself when describing these persons. I was trying to explain the position of Indian
Muslims during this Maratha – Mughal struggle.
I was trying to
bring the Muslims in audience from fantasy to reality. I was explaining to them
that they were NOT descendents of the Turks from Central Asia who were the
rulers in Shivaji’s times.
I was talking for
one hour and forty-five minutes.
The reaction of
Muslims was encouraging. After his lecture Pagdi took tea with Mr Gafud Said, a
well-known local resident. He said, “It would have been much better if such
lectures had taken places in the past.” Pagdi understood what he meant.
Pagdi therefore
remarked, “Enlightenment on this subject is not easy. It is difficult, but
possible. Yes, it can be done.”
We do not know if
Pagdi delivered series of lectures, but he had shown the way.
[ Ashi hee
Shivajayanti (Sobat
weekly 13 May 1977) ]
(2) We urgently
need periodic maps of Hindusthan showing provinces ruled by Hindu rulers.
(3) We must
stress that other countries were under foreign domination for centuries. For
example, Romans (Italians) once ruled over a huge empire stretching from
England / Wales to Romania in Europe and from Tunisia to Libya in North Africa
and from Egypt to Turkey in the East. But in course of time that empire
collapsed and Italians were ruled by foreigners. First by the
Germans (Lombards) for 200 years (571 to 771), then by the Franks (773 to 873).
By 843 Arabs (Moors) captured the port of Bari on the Adriatic Sea and occupied
much of Southern Italy and Sicily. Italy was ruled by the Spanish from 1563 to
1713 and by Austrians from 1713 to 1870. But no one talks about 1,300 years of
slavery.
Spain and Portugal were ruled by Romans for 500 years and
then by Moors (Arabs) for 700 years. Again, no one talks about 1,200 years of
slavery.
---------------------------------------------
Bibliography
In English
Ambedkar Dr B R Thoughts
on Pakistan, 1946
Bernier F Travels
in Mughal Empire edited by V Smith 1914
Census of India
of 1901, Government of India publication
Encyclopaedia
Britannica 1977
Kane P V, History
of Dharmashastras Vol II
Kanitkar Helen
and Macpherson Duncan
Accessing
Hinduism, Melisende, London 1999.
Karandikar Dr V.R
- Architects of RSS, 2003
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
Savarkar V.D - My Transportation for Life, 2nd
edition 1984.
- Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, 2nd
edition 1985.
Tavernier J B Travels
in India – Edited by Dr V Ball,
1889
In Italian
Manucci Niccolao,
Storia Do Mogor
In Marathi
Hardas Mrs Veena
- Dr Munje’s biography, part II, 1981
Kulkarni.Arvind
Vitthal - Congressla Savarkar nakot,
Karan, 2005
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) 1976
Samagra Saavarkar
Vangmaya part 4, 1965
Saavarkar,
Balarao – Biography of Veer Saavarkar, Ratnagiri Era, 1972
-------------------------------
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, 31 January, 17 March,
28 May and 16
December 2012.