The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.
India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Šăstras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honour. Sacrifice of honour for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.
Islamic imperialism came with a different code - the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujăhids (holy warriors) and ghăzîs (kăfir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.
Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by KănhaDade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words: “The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.” That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji’s invasion of Gujarat in the year 1298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kăfirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known.
MAHMUD GHAZNAVI AND SON
In 1000 AD Mahmud defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinărs as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him. In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tărîkh-i-Yamînî of Utbi, Mahmud’s secretary, “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultăn returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honour he bestows on Islăm and Muslims.”
In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war: “The Sultăn returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honour on his own religion and degrades infidelity.”
The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records: “The infidels… deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river… but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.” Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 miskals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, “The Sultăn gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” The pillage of the city continued for 20 days.
Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: “In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultăn gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.” The Brahmins of Munj, which was attacked next, fought to the last man after throwing their wives and children into fire. The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, “the Sultăn ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured”.
Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes: “The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty… The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.”
Mahmud’s sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasising is that the fragments of the famous Šivalińga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.
Mahmud’s son Masud tried to follow in the footsteps of his father. In 1037 AD he succeeded in sacking the fort of Hansi which was defended very bravely by the Hindus. The Tărîkh-us-Subuktigîn records: “The Brahmins and other high ranking men were slain, and their women and children were carried away captive, and all the treasure which was found was distributed among the army.” Masud could not repeat the performance due to his preoccupations elsewhere.
MUHAMMAD GHURI AND HIS LIEUTENANTS
Invasion of India by Islamic imperialism was renewed by Muhmmad Ghuri in the last quarter of the 12th century. After Prithiviraj Chauhan had been defeated in 1192 AD, Ghuri took Ajmer by assault. According the Tăj-ul-Mă’sîr of Hasan Nizami, “While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges and precepts of Islăm, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.”
Next year he defeated Jayachandra of Kanauj. A general massacre, rapine, and pillage followed. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Hasan Nizami rejoices that “in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations”. According to Kămil-ut-Tawărîkh of Ibn Asir, “The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary.” The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and the Bhikshus were slaughtered.
Ghuri’s lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak was also busy meanwhile. Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol-worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.” In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-Islăm mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak “adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants”. In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite re-inforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, “fifty thousand infidels were despatched to hell by the sword” and “more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors”. The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as ADhăî Din kă JhoMpaDă. Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak’s crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: “The temples were converted into mosques… Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”
A free-lance adventurer, Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji, was moving further east. In 1200 AD he sacked the undefended university town of Odantpuri in Bihar and massacred the Buddhist monks in the monasteries. In 1202 AD he took Nadiya by surprise. Badauni records in his Muntakhăb-ut-Tawărîkh that “property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded mosques and Khanqahs”.
THE SLAVE (MAMLUK) SULTANS
Shamsuddin Iltutmish who succeeded Aibak at Delhi invaded Malwa in 1234 AD. He destroyed an ancient temple at Vidisha. Badauni reports: “Having destroyed the idol temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikramajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era, and brought certain images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the doors of mosques of old Delhi, and ordered the people of trample them under foot.”
Muslim power in India suffered a serious setback after Iltutmish. Balban had to battle against a revival of Hindu power. The Katehar Rajputs of what came to be known as Rohilkhand in later history, had so far refused to submit to Islamic imperialism. Balban led an expedition across the Ganges in 1254 AD. According to Badauni, “In two days after leaving Delhi, he arrived in the midst of the territory of Katihar and put to death every male, even those of eight years of age, and bound the women.” But in spite of such wanton cruelty, Muslim power continued to decline till the Khaljis revived it after 1290 AD.
THE KHALJIS
Jalaluddin Khalji led an expedition to Ranthambhor in 1291 AD. On the way he destroyed Hindu temples at Jhain. The broken idols were sent to Delhi to be spread before the gates of the Jama Masjid. His nephew Alauddin led an expedition to Vidisha in 1292 AD. According to Badauni, Alauddin “brought much booty to the Sultan and the idol which was the object of worship of the Hindus, he caused to be cast in front of the Badaun gate to be trampled upon by the people. The services of Alauddin were highly appreciated, the jagir of Oudh also was added to his other estates.”
Alauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. In an earlier chapter I have already quoted Tărîkh-I-Wassăf on the “achievements” of this expedition. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse. Kamala Devi, the queen of Gujarat, was captured along with the royal treasury, brought to Delhi and forced into Alauddin’s harem. The doings of the Malik Naib during his expedition to South India in 1310-1311 AD have already been described.
THE TUGHLAQS
Muslim power again suffered a setback after the death of Alauddin Khalji in 1316 AD. But it was soon revived by the Tughlaqs. By now most of the famous temples over the length and breadth of the Islamic empire in India had been demolished, except in Orissa and Rajasthan which had retained their independence. By now most of the rich treasuries had been plundered and shared between the Islamic state and its swordsmen. Firuz Shah Tughlaq led an expedition to Orissa in 1360 AD. He destroyed the temple of Jagannath at Puri, and desecrated many other Hindu shrines. According to Sîrat-i-Fîrűz Shăhî which he himself wrote or dictated, “Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islăm with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannăth to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jăjnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannăth, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the musallis (Muslim congregation for namăz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims.”
After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firuz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where “nearly 100,000 men of Jăjnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations”. The swordsmen of Islam turned “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers”. A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sîrat-i-Fîrűz Shăhî records: “Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier.”
Still more horrible scenes were enacted by Firuz Shah Tughlaq at Nagarkot (Kangra) where he sacked the shrine of Jvalamukhi. Firishta records that the Sultan “broke the idols of Jvălămukhî, mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows and hung them in nosebags round the necks of Brahmins. He sent the principal idol as trophy to Medina.”
AMIR TIMUR
The climax came during the invasion of Timur in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timűrî: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.” He continues: “My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus… [so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.”
To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers “to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property”. Next, he “directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers”. Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the “unbelievers”. His Tuzk-i-Timűrî records: “In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.”
At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, “all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors”. Timur was now moving through Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to “plunder and destroy and kill every one whom they met”. And so the soldiers “plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female”. Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that “the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be despatched to hell with the proselytising sword”.
By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him “that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty”. Therefore, “no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword”. Tuzk-i-Timűrî continues: “I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghăzîs of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.”
The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a “great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round”. He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Timűrî concludes: “Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted… The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahănpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed… On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army… went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners… The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Alăi coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the ulama and the other Musulmăns, the whole city was sacked.”
The NCERT is not the only villain in the game of propping up palpable falsehoods in the field of medieval Indian history. For quite some time, the All India Radio has been presenting a programme in Hindi - Itihăsa Ke Jharokhe Se (Window on History). The refrain is that medieval India under Muslim rule was a period of peace and amity between Hindus and Muslims, and that Muslim rulers, particularly Aurangzeb, went out of their way to be kind and considerate to the Hindus. The insinuation is that the Hindu-Muslim strife was a creation of the British imperialists whose “nefarious game” is now being continued by “Hindu communalists”.
The evidence cited by the speakers in this AIR programme is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history. It is also a very sad spectacle of the slave mentality which was imbibed by a certain section of Hindu intelligentsia during the long spell of Islamic imperialism in India: The master has a god-given right to kick his slave a hundred times a day. But the master deserves gratitude from the slave if the former smiles on the latter once in a blue moon. It is understandable if an apologist of Islam sings the glories of the Islamic empire in India. But for a Hindu to participate in this programme is the limit of self-abasement. No amount of swearing by Secularism can cover up the sin.
One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous mien of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from it blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
I have already related what some of the sultans were doing to the Hindus from their imperial seat at Delhi. The provincial Muslim satraps who became independent whenever Delhi had a weak Muslim monarch, behaved no better.
THE PROVINCIAL MUSLIM SATRAPS
In 1391 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlak Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Farhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan as the new governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expedition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence”, and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque. Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special dărogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.
Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jayasingh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.
Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.
BABUR
The scene shifted once mere to Delhi after Babur came out victorious against the Lodis and the Rajputs. The founder of the Mughal empire has received much acclaim from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for his fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his swimming across many rivers, his love of flowers and fruits, and so on so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his Tuzuk-i-Băburî, suffers irreparable damage if it is denuded of the rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged. The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the infidels, leave no doubt that he was mighty proud of his performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to watch this spectacle. The prisoners were brought before him and butchered by his “brave” swordsmen. On one occasion, the ground flowed with so much blood and became so full of quivering carcases that his tent had to be moved thrice to a higher level. He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and amassing plunder. In the dynasty founded by him it was incumbent upon every king that he should style himself a Ghăzî, that is, slayer of infidels. When he broke vessels of wine on the eve of his battle with Rana Sangram Singh, he proclaimed that he would smash idols in a similar manner. And he destroyed temples wherever he saw them.
SHER SHAH SUR
Sher Shah Sur’s name is associated in our textbooks with the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Dacca, with caravanserais, and several other schemes of public welfare. It is true that he was not a habitual persecutor of Hindus before he became the emperor at Delhi. But he did not betray Islam when he became the supreme ruler. The test came at Raisen in 1543 AD. Shaykh Nurul Haq records in Zubdat-ul-Tawărîkh as follows: “In the year 950 H., Puranmal held occupation of the fort of Raisen… He had 1000 women in his harem… and amongst them several Musulmanis whom he made to dance before him. Sher Khan with Musulman indignation resolved to conquer the fort. After he had been some time engaged in investing it, an accommodation was proposed and it was finally agreed that Puranmal with his family and children and 4000 Rajputs of note should be allowed to leave the fort unmolested. Several men learned in the law (of Islam) gave it as their opinion that they should all be slain, notwithstanding the solemn engagement which had been entered into. Consequently, the whole army, with the elephants, surrounded Puranmal’s encampment. The Rajputs fought with desperate bravery and after killing their women and children and burning them, they rushed to battle and were annihilated to a man.”
AKBAR
Humayun had hardly any time free from troubles to devote to the service of Islam. But his son, Akbar, made quite a good start as a ghăzî. He stabbed the half-dead Himu with his sword after the Second Battle of Panipat. The ritual was then followed by many more “brave warriors” of Islam led by Bairam Khan who drove their swords in the dead body. In 1568 AD Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chittor after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in his Akbar-Năma as follows. “There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed… When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre.” Akbar thus improved on the record of Alauddin Khalji. Watching the war and serving the warriors were re-interpreted as acts of war! To top it all, Akbar travelled post-haste to Ajmer where he offered profuse thanks to Allah and the Prophet, and his (Akbar’s) patron saint, Muinuddin Chishti, and issued a Fathnăma in which many appropriate verses of the Quran were cited in order to prove that he had followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet.
JAHANGIR
Jahangir was primarily a drunkard and a sadist scoundrel. He was too indolent to keep his promise, given to Nawab Murtaza Khan at the time of his accession, that he would uphold the Shariat. He was too much devoted to women and the wine-cup to care much for Allah and the Prophet. But he encouraged conversions to Islam by giving daily allowances to the converts. In the very first year of his reign, he tortured Guru Arjun Dev to death. His contempt for Hindus comes out clearly in his Tuzuk-i-Jahăngîrî: “A Hindu named Arjun lived in Govindwal on the bank of river Beas in the garb of a saint and in ostentation. From all sides cowboys and idiots became his fast followers. The business had flourished for three or four generations. For a long time it had been in my mind to put a stop to this dukăn-e-bătil (mart of falsehood) or to bring him into the fold of Islam.” According to other accounts, he asked the Guru to include some sűrahs of the Quran in the Ădi Grantha, which the Guru refused to do. In the eighth year of his reign, he destroyed the temple of Bhagwat at Ajmer. He persecuted the Jains in Gujarat, and ordered that Jain monks should not be seen in his kingdom on pain of death. Finally, he sent Murtaza Khan to Kangra for reducing that city of temples. The siege lasted for 20 months at the end of which he himself went to Kangra for slaughtering cows in that sacred place of Hindus, and building a mosque where none had existed before.
SHAH JAHAN
The pendulum started swinging towards the true spirit of Islam at the very start of Shah Jahan’s reign in 1628 AD. Its outer symbol was the reappearance of the beard on the face of the emperor. Abdul Hamid Lahori records in his Bădshăhnăma: “It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late reign many idol temples had been begun, but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelism. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares, and throughout all his dominions in every place, all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was now reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.” That was in 1633 AD.
In 1635 AD, Shah Jahan’s soldiers captured some ladies of the royal Bundela family after Jujhar Singh and his sons failed to kill them in the time-honoured Rajput tradition. In the words of Jadunath Sarkar, “Mothers and daughters of kings, they were robbed of their religion and forced to lead the infamous life of the Mughal harem.” Shah Jahan himself made a triumphal entry into Orchha, the capital of the Bundelas, demolished the lofty and massive temple of Bir Singh Dev, and raised a mosque in its place. Two sons and one grandson of Jujhar Singh who were of tender age, were made Musalmans. Another son of Jujhar Singh, Udaybhan, and a minister, Shyam Dawa, had fled to Golconda where they were captured by Qutbul-Mulk and sent to Shah Jahan. According to Bădshăhnăma again, “Udaybhan and Shyam Dawa, who were of full age, were offered the alternative of Islam or death. They chose the latter and were sent to hell.”
AURANGZEB
With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî, the temple of Chintaman situated close to Sarashpur (Gujarat) and built by Sitaldas jeweller was converted into a mosque named Quwwat-ul-Islăm (might of Islam) by order of Prince Aurangzeb in 1645 AD. A cow was slaughtered to “solemnize” the “ceremony”. Three years after he became king, he sent Mir Jumla on an expedition to Cooch Bihar. Mir Jumla demolished all temples in that city and erected mosques in their stead. The general himself wielded a battle-axe to break the image of Narayana.
In 1665 AD, it was reported to Aurangzeb that the temples he had demolished in Gujarat during his viceroyalty had been rebuilt by the Hindus. He immediately issued a farmăn to the governor of Gujarat which said: “In Ahmedabad and other parganas of Gujarat in the days before my accession temples were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and idol-worship resumed. Carry out the former order.” In 1666 AD, he ordered the faujdăr of Mathura to remove a stone railing which had been presented by Dara Shukoh to the temples of Keshav Rai. He explained: “In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple!”
A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî records: “On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares.”
Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî continues: “In the month of Ramzan 980 H. (January 1670) this justice-loving monarch, the constant enemy of tyrants, commanded the destruction of the Hindu temple of Mathura known by the name of Dehra Keshav Rai, and soon that stronghold of falsehood was levelled with the ground. On the same spot was laid, with great expense, the foundation of a vast mosques… Glory be to Allah who has given us the faith of Islam that in this reign of the destroyer of false gods, an undertaking so difficult of attainment has been brought to a successful culmination. The richly jewelled idols taken from the infidel temples were transferred to Agra and there placed beneath the steps leading to the Nawab Begum Sahib’s (Jahanara’s) mosque in order that they might be pressed under foot by the true believers. Mathura changed its name into Islamabad and was thus called in all official documents.”
In the same year, Sitaramji temple at Soron was destroyed as also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda. News came from Malwa also that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy all temples around Ujjain. According to Muraqăt-i-Abul Hasan, civil officers, agents of jăgirdărs, karoris and amlas from Cuttack in Orissa to Medinipur in Bengal were instructed as follows: “Every idol house built during the last 10 or 12 years… should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.”
In 1672 AD, several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near Narnaul in Mewat for which act of “heroism” Radandaz Khan was tided Shuja‘at Khan with the mansab of 3000 and 2000 horse. In 1675 AD, Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured to death for his resistance against the forcible conversion of the Hindus of Kashmir. The destruction of gurudwăras thereafter is a well-known story which our secularists have succeeded in suppressing because the Akali brand Sikhs have been forging ties of friendship with Islam as against their parent faith, Hindu Dharma.
The year 1679 AD was the year of triumph for the “true faith”. On April 2, jizyah was reimposed on Hindus to “spread Islam and put down the practice of infidelism”. The Hindus of Delhi and around organised a protest and blocked Aurangzeb’s way to the Jami Masjid on one Friday. The mighty Mughal Emperor ordered his elephants to be driven through the mass of men. Many were trampled to death. Shivaji also wrote a letter of protest from distant Maharashtra. But it fell on deaf ears. Mirăt-i-Ahmadî records: “Darab Khan was sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and demolish the great temples of that place. He attacked the place on 8th March 1679 A.D. and pulled down the temples of Khandela and Sanula and all other temples in the neighbourhood.” Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî adds: “On 25 May 1679 A.D. Khan Jahan Bahadur arrived from Jodhpur bringing with him several cart-loads of idols, taken from the Hindu temples that had been demolished. His Majesty gave him great praise. Most of these idols were adorned with precious stones. It was ordered that some of them should be cast away in the outer offices and the remainder placed beneath the steps of the grand mosque, there to be trampled under foot. There they lay a long time until at last not a vestige of them was left.”
The year 1680 AD brought an equally “rich harvest” for Islam. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî goes ahead: “On 6th January 1680 A.D. Prince Mohammad Azam and Khan Jahan Bahadur obtained permission to visit Udaipur. Ruhullah Khan and Yakkattăz Khan also proceeded thither to effect the destruction of the temples of the idolators. These edifices situated in the vicinity of the Rana’s palace were among the wonders of the age, and had been erected by the infidels to the ruin of their souls and the loss of their wealth… Pioneers destroyed the images. On 24th January the king visited the tank of Udayasagar. His Majesty ordered all three of the Hindu temples to be levelled with the ground. On 29th January Hasan Ali Khan made his appearance… and stated that… 172 temples in the neighbouring districts had been destroyed. His Majesty proceeded to Chitor on 22nd February. Temples to the number of 63 were destroyed. Abu Tarab who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of idol temples of Amber, reported in person on 10th August that 66 temples had been levelled to the ground.” The temple of Someshwar in western Mewar was also destroyed at a later date in the same year. It may be mentioned that unlike Jodhpur and Udaipur, Amber was the capital of a state loyal to the Mughal emperor.
According to Kalimăt-i-Tayyibăt, Aurangzeb wrote to Zulfiqar Khan and Mughal Khan that “the demolition of a temple is possible at any time, as it cannot walk away from it place”. Even so, he was annoyed by the solid strength of temples in Maharashtra. Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb reproduces his following message to Ruhullah Khan: “The houses of this country are exceedingly strong and built solely of the stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the government in course of my marching do not get sufficient manpower and time to destroy and raze the temples of infidels that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint a darogha who may afterwards destroy them at leisure and dig up their foundations.” Aurangzeb himself acted as such a darogha in one instance. He reports in Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb: “The village of Satara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of hill stood a temple with an image of Khande Rai. By Allah’s grace I demolished it and forbade the temple dancers to play their shameful trade.”
Demolition of Hindu temples remained Aurangzeb’s pastime during his long campaign in the South. Khafi Khan records in his Muntakhăb-ul-Lubăb: “On the capture of Golconda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as censor of the city of Haiderăbăd with orders to put down infidel practices and innovations, and destroy the temples and build mosques on the sites.” That was in 1687 AD. In 1690 AD, he ordered destruction of temples at Ellora, Trimbakeshwar, Narasinghpur, and Pandharpur. In 1698 AD, the story was repeated at Bijapur. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî: “Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur who had been deputed to destroy the temples of Bijapur and build mosques there, returned to court after carrying out the order and was praised by the Emperor.” As late as 1705 AD, two years before he died, “the emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men… ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple.” Cow-slaughter at a temple site was a safeguard against Hindus rebuilding it on the same spot.
The story can be continued to cover similar crimes committed by later Muslim monarchs and chieftains. But I am not continuing it because my theme at present is medieval India under Muslim rule, which period ended with the death of Aurangzeb.
The magnitude of crimes credited to Muslim monarchs by the medieval Muslim historians, was beyond measure. With a few exceptions, Muslim kings and commanders were monsters who stopped at no crime when it came to their Hindu subjects. But what strikes as more significant is the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a jihăd in which the ghăzîs of Islam 1) invade infidel lands; 2) massacre as many infidel men, women, and children, particularly Brahmins, as they like after winning a victory; 3) capture the survivors to be sold as slaves; 4) plunder every place and person; 5) demolish idolatrous places of worship and build mosques in their places; and 6) defile idols which are flung into public squares or made into steps leading to mosques.
Still more significant is the fact that this is exactly the pattern 1) revealed by Allah in the Quran; 2) practised, perfected and prescribed by the Prophet in his own life-time; 3) followed by the pious Khalifas of Islam in the first 35 years of Islamic imperialism; 4) elaborated in the Hadis and hundreds of commentaries with meticulous attention to detail; 5) certified by the Ulama and the Sufis of Islam in all ages including our own; and 6) followed by all Muslim monarchs and chieftains who aspired for name and fame in this life, and houris and beardless boys hereafter.
It is, therefore, poor apologetics to blame the Islamized Turks alone of being barbarous. Islamic barbarism was shared in equal measure by all races and communities who were forced or lured into the fold of Islam - the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians, the Pathans, the Hindu converts. The conclusion in inescapable that Islam brutalizes all those who embrace it. And that is where the blame should be laid in all reason and justice.
We can now return to the NCERT guideline which proclaims that the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in medieval India shall be regarded as political rather than religious. There is no justification for such a characterisation of the conflict. The Muslims at least were convinced that they were waging a religious war against the Hindu infidels. The conflict can be regarded as political only if the NCERT accepts the very valid proposition that Islam has never been a religion, and that it started and has remained a political ideology of terrorism with unmistakable totalitarian trends and imperialist ambitions. The first premises as well as the procedures of Islam bear a very close resemblance to those of Communism and Nazism. Allah is only the predecessor of the Forces of Production invoked by the Communists, and of the Aryan Race invoked by the Nazis.
The NCERT is not the only villain in the game of propping up palpable falsehoods in the field of medieval Indian history. For quite some time, the All India Radio has been presenting a programme in Hindi - Itihăsa Ke Jharokhe Se (Window on History). The refrain is that medieval India under Muslim rule was a period of peace and amity between Hindus and Muslims, and that Muslim rulers, particularly Aurangzeb, went out of their way to be kind and considerate to the Hindus. The insinuation is that the Hindu-Muslim strife was a creation of the British imperialists whose “nefarious game” is now being continued by “Hindu communalists”.
The evidence cited by the speakers in this AIR programme is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history. It is also a very sad spectacle of the slave mentality which was imbibed by a certain section of Hindu intelligentsia during the long spell of Islamic imperialism in India: The master has a god-given right to kick his slave a hundred times a day. But the master deserves gratitude from the slave if the former smiles on the latter once in a blue moon. It is understandable if an apologist of Islam sings the glories of the Islamic empire in India. But for a Hindu to participate in this programme is the limit of self-abasement. No amount of swearing by Secularism can cover up the sin.
One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous mien of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from it blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
I have already related what some of the sultans were doing to the Hindus from their imperial seat at Delhi. The provincial Muslim satraps who became independent whenever Delhi had a weak Muslim monarch, behaved no better.
THE PROVINCIAL MUSLIM SATRAPS
In 1391 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlak Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Farhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan as the new governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expedition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence”, and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque. Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special dărogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.
Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jayasingh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.
Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.
BABUR
The scene shifted once mere to Delhi after Babur came out victorious against the Lodis and the Rajputs. The founder of the Mughal empire has received much acclaim from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for his fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his swimming across many rivers, his love of flowers and fruits, and so on so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his Tuzuk-i-Băburî, suffers irreparable damage if it is denuded of the rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged. The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the infidels, leave no doubt that he was mighty proud of his performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to watch this spectacle. The prisoners were brought before him and butchered by his “brave” swordsmen. On one occasion, the ground flowed with so much blood and became so full of quivering carcases that his tent had to be moved thrice to a higher level. He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and amassing plunder. In the dynasty founded by him it was incumbent upon every king that he should style himself a Ghăzî, that is, slayer of infidels. When he broke vessels of wine on the eve of his battle with Rana Sangram Singh, he proclaimed that he would smash idols in a similar manner. And he destroyed temples wherever he saw them.
SHER SHAH SUR
Sher Shah Sur’s name is associated in our textbooks with the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Dacca, with caravanserais, and several other schemes of public welfare. It is true that he was not a habitual persecutor of Hindus before he became the emperor at Delhi. But he did not betray Islam when he became the supreme ruler. The test came at Raisen in 1543 AD. Shaykh Nurul Haq records in Zubdat-ul-Tawărîkh as follows: “In the year 950 H., Puranmal held occupation of the fort of Raisen… He had 1000 women in his harem… and amongst them several Musulmanis whom he made to dance before him. Sher Khan with Musulman indignation resolved to conquer the fort. After he had been some time engaged in investing it, an accommodation was proposed and it was finally agreed that Puranmal with his family and children and 4000 Rajputs of note should be allowed to leave the fort unmolested. Several men learned in the law (of Islam) gave it as their opinion that they should all be slain, notwithstanding the solemn engagement which had been entered into. Consequently, the whole army, with the elephants, surrounded Puranmal’s encampment. The Rajputs fought with desperate bravery and after killing their women and children and burning them, they rushed to battle and were annihilated to a man.”
AKBAR
Humayun had hardly any time free from troubles to devote to the service of Islam. But his son, Akbar, made quite a good start as a ghăzî. He stabbed the half-dead Himu with his sword after the Second Battle of Panipat. The ritual was then followed by many more “brave warriors” of Islam led by Bairam Khan who drove their swords in the dead body. In 1568 AD Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chittor after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in his Akbar-Năma as follows. “There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed… When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre.” Akbar thus improved on the record of Alauddin Khalji. Watching the war and serving the warriors were re-interpreted as acts of war! To top it all, Akbar travelled post-haste to Ajmer where he offered profuse thanks to Allah and the Prophet, and his (Akbar’s) patron saint, Muinuddin Chishti, and issued a Fathnăma in which many appropriate verses of the Quran were cited in order to prove that he had followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet.
JAHANGIR
Jahangir was primarily a drunkard and a sadist scoundrel. He was too indolent to keep his promise, given to Nawab Murtaza Khan at the time of his accession, that he would uphold the Shariat. He was too much devoted to women and the wine-cup to care much for Allah and the Prophet. But he encouraged conversions to Islam by giving daily allowances to the converts. In the very first year of his reign, he tortured Guru Arjun Dev to death. His contempt for Hindus comes out clearly in his Tuzuk-i-Jahăngîrî: “A Hindu named Arjun lived in Govindwal on the bank of river Beas in the garb of a saint and in ostentation. From all sides cowboys and idiots became his fast followers. The business had flourished for three or four generations. For a long time it had been in my mind to put a stop to this dukăn-e-bătil (mart of falsehood) or to bring him into the fold of Islam.” According to other accounts, he asked the Guru to include some sűrahs of the Quran in the Ădi Grantha, which the Guru refused to do. In the eighth year of his reign, he destroyed the temple of Bhagwat at Ajmer. He persecuted the Jains in Gujarat, and ordered that Jain monks should not be seen in his kingdom on pain of death. Finally, he sent Murtaza Khan to Kangra for reducing that city of temples. The siege lasted for 20 months at the end of which he himself went to Kangra for slaughtering cows in that sacred place of Hindus, and building a mosque where none had existed before.
SHAH JAHAN
The pendulum started swinging towards the true spirit of Islam at the very start of Shah Jahan’s reign in 1628 AD. Its outer symbol was the reappearance of the beard on the face of the emperor. Abdul Hamid Lahori records in his Bădshăhnăma: “It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late reign many idol temples had been begun, but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelism. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares, and throughout all his dominions in every place, all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was now reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.” That was in 1633 AD.
In 1635 AD, Shah Jahan’s soldiers captured some ladies of the royal Bundela family after Jujhar Singh and his sons failed to kill them in the time-honoured Rajput tradition. In the words of Jadunath Sarkar, “Mothers and daughters of kings, they were robbed of their religion and forced to lead the infamous life of the Mughal harem.” Shah Jahan himself made a triumphal entry into Orchha, the capital of the Bundelas, demolished the lofty and massive temple of Bir Singh Dev, and raised a mosque in its place. Two sons and one grandson of Jujhar Singh who were of tender age, were made Musalmans. Another son of Jujhar Singh, Udaybhan, and a minister, Shyam Dawa, had fled to Golconda where they were captured by Qutbul-Mulk and sent to Shah Jahan. According to Bădshăhnăma again, “Udaybhan and Shyam Dawa, who were of full age, were offered the alternative of Islam or death. They chose the latter and were sent to hell.”
AURANGZEB
With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî, the temple of Chintaman situated close to Sarashpur (Gujarat) and built by Sitaldas jeweller was converted into a mosque named Quwwat-ul-Islăm (might of Islam) by order of Prince Aurangzeb in 1645 AD. A cow was slaughtered to “solemnize” the “ceremony”. Three years after he became king, he sent Mir Jumla on an expedition to Cooch Bihar. Mir Jumla demolished all temples in that city and erected mosques in their stead. The general himself wielded a battle-axe to break the image of Narayana.
In 1665 AD, it was reported to Aurangzeb that the temples he had demolished in Gujarat during his viceroyalty had been rebuilt by the Hindus. He immediately issued a farmăn to the governor of Gujarat which said: “In Ahmedabad and other parganas of Gujarat in the days before my accession temples were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and idol-worship resumed. Carry out the former order.” In 1666 AD, he ordered the faujdăr of Mathura to remove a stone railing which had been presented by Dara Shukoh to the temples of Keshav Rai. He explained: “In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple!”
A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî records: “On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares.”
Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî continues: “In the month of Ramzan 980 H. (January 1670) this justice-loving monarch, the constant enemy of tyrants, commanded the destruction of the Hindu temple of Mathura known by the name of Dehra Keshav Rai, and soon that stronghold of falsehood was levelled with the ground. On the same spot was laid, with great expense, the foundation of a vast mosques… Glory be to Allah who has given us the faith of Islam that in this reign of the destroyer of false gods, an undertaking so difficult of attainment has been brought to a successful culmination. The richly jewelled idols taken from the infidel temples were transferred to Agra and there placed beneath the steps leading to the Nawab Begum Sahib’s (Jahanara’s) mosque in order that they might be pressed under foot by the true believers. Mathura changed its name into Islamabad and was thus called in all official documents.”
In the same year, Sitaramji temple at Soron was destroyed as also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda. News came from Malwa also that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy all temples around Ujjain. According to Muraqăt-i-Abul Hasan, civil officers, agents of jăgirdărs, karoris and amlas from Cuttack in Orissa to Medinipur in Bengal were instructed as follows: “Every idol house built during the last 10 or 12 years… should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.”
In 1672 AD, several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near Narnaul in Mewat for which act of “heroism” Radandaz Khan was tided Shuja‘at Khan with the mansab of 3000 and 2000 horse. In 1675 AD, Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured to death for his resistance against the forcible conversion of the Hindus of Kashmir. The destruction of gurudwăras thereafter is a well-known story which our secularists have succeeded in suppressing because the Akali brand Sikhs have been forging ties of friendship with Islam as against their parent faith, Hindu Dharma.
The year 1679 AD was the year of triumph for the “true faith”. On April 2, jizyah was reimposed on Hindus to “spread Islam and put down the practice of infidelism”. The Hindus of Delhi and around organised a protest and blocked Aurangzeb’s way to the Jami Masjid on one Friday. The mighty Mughal Emperor ordered his elephants to be driven through the mass of men. Many were trampled to death. Shivaji also wrote a letter of protest from distant Maharashtra. But it fell on deaf ears. Mirăt-i-Ahmadî records: “Darab Khan was sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and demolish the great temples of that place. He attacked the place on 8th March 1679 A.D. and pulled down the temples of Khandela and Sanula and all other temples in the neighbourhood.” Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî adds: “On 25 May 1679 A.D. Khan Jahan Bahadur arrived from Jodhpur bringing with him several cart-loads of idols, taken from the Hindu temples that had been demolished. His Majesty gave him great praise. Most of these idols were adorned with precious stones. It was ordered that some of them should be cast away in the outer offices and the remainder placed beneath the steps of the grand mosque, there to be trampled under foot. There they lay a long time until at last not a vestige of them was left.”
The year 1680 AD brought an equally “rich harvest” for Islam. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî goes ahead: “On 6th January 1680 A.D. Prince Mohammad Azam and Khan Jahan Bahadur obtained permission to visit Udaipur. Ruhullah Khan and Yakkattăz Khan also proceeded thither to effect the destruction of the temples of the idolators. These edifices situated in the vicinity of the Rana’s palace were among the wonders of the age, and had been erected by the infidels to the ruin of their souls and the loss of their wealth… Pioneers destroyed the images. On 24th January the king visited the tank of Udayasagar. His Majesty ordered all three of the Hindu temples to be levelled with the ground. On 29th January Hasan Ali Khan made his appearance… and stated that… 172 temples in the neighbouring districts had been destroyed. His Majesty proceeded to Chitor on 22nd February. Temples to the number of 63 were destroyed. Abu Tarab who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of idol temples of Amber, reported in person on 10th August that 66 temples had been levelled to the ground.” The temple of Someshwar in western Mewar was also destroyed at a later date in the same year. It may be mentioned that unlike Jodhpur and Udaipur, Amber was the capital of a state loyal to the Mughal emperor.
According to Kalimăt-i-Tayyibăt, Aurangzeb wrote to Zulfiqar Khan and Mughal Khan that “the demolition of a temple is possible at any time, as it cannot walk away from it place”. Even so, he was annoyed by the solid strength of temples in Maharashtra. Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb reproduces his following message to Ruhullah Khan: “The houses of this country are exceedingly strong and built solely of the stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the government in course of my marching do not get sufficient manpower and time to destroy and raze the temples of infidels that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint a darogha who may afterwards destroy them at leisure and dig up their foundations.” Aurangzeb himself acted as such a darogha in one instance. He reports in Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb: “The village of Satara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of hill stood a temple with an image of Khande Rai. By Allah’s grace I demolished it and forbade the temple dancers to play their shameful trade.”
Demolition of Hindu temples remained Aurangzeb’s pastime during his long campaign in the South. Khafi Khan records in his Muntakhăb-ul-Lubăb: “On the capture of Golconda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as censor of the city of Haiderăbăd with orders to put down infidel practices and innovations, and destroy the temples and build mosques on the sites.” That was in 1687 AD. In 1690 AD, he ordered destruction of temples at Ellora, Trimbakeshwar, Narasinghpur, and Pandharpur. In 1698 AD, the story was repeated at Bijapur. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî: “Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur who had been deputed to destroy the temples of Bijapur and build mosques there, returned to court after carrying out the order and was praised by the Emperor.” As late as 1705 AD, two years before he died, “the emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men… ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple.” Cow-slaughter at a temple site was a safeguard against Hindus rebuilding it on the same spot.
The story can be continued to cover similar crimes committed by later Muslim monarchs and chieftains. But I am not continuing it because my theme at present is medieval India under Muslim rule, which period ended with the death of Aurangzeb.
The magnitude of crimes credited to Muslim monarchs by the medieval Muslim historians, was beyond measure. With a few exceptions, Muslim kings and commanders were monsters who stopped at no crime when it came to their Hindu subjects. But what strikes as more significant is the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a jihăd in which the ghăzîs of Islam 1) invade infidel lands; 2) massacre as many infidel men, women, and children, particularly Brahmins, as they like after winning a victory; 3) capture the survivors to be sold as slaves; 4) plunder every place and person; 5) demolish idolatrous places of worship and build mosques in their places; and 6) defile idols which are flung into public squares or made into steps leading to mosques.
Still more significant is the fact that this is exactly the pattern 1) revealed by Allah in the Quran; 2) practised, perfected and prescribed by the Prophet in his own life-time; 3) followed by the pious Khalifas of Islam in the first 35 years of Islamic imperialism; 4) elaborated in the Hadis and hundreds of commentaries with meticulous attention to detail; 5) certified by the Ulama and the Sufis of Islam in all ages including our own; and 6) followed by all Muslim monarchs and chieftains who aspired for name and fame in this life, and houris and beardless boys hereafter.
It is, therefore, poor apologetics to blame the Islamized Turks alone of being barbarous. Islamic barbarism was shared in equal measure by all races and communities who were forced or lured into the fold of Islam - the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians, the Pathans, the Hindu converts. The conclusion in inescapable that Islam brutalizes all those who embrace it. And that is where the blame should be laid in all reason and justice.
We can now return to the NCERT guideline which proclaims that the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in medieval India shall be regarded as political rather than religious. There is no justification for such a characterisation of the conflict. The Muslims at least were convinced that they were waging a religious war against the Hindu infidels. The conflict can be regarded as political only if the NCERT accepts the very valid proposition that Islam has never been a religion, and that it started and has remained a political ideology of terrorism with unmistakable totalitarian trends and imperialist ambitions. The first premises as well as the procedures of Islam bear a very close resemblance to those of Communism and Nazism. Allah is only the predecessor of the Forces of Production invoked by the Communists, and of the Aryan Race invoked by the Nazis.
The NCERT is not the only villain in the game of propping up palpable falsehoods in the field of medieval Indian history. For quite some time, the All India Radio has been presenting a programme in Hindi - Itihăsa Ke Jharokhe Se (Window on History). The refrain is that medieval India under Muslim rule was a period of peace and amity between Hindus and Muslims, and that Muslim rulers, particularly Aurangzeb, went out of their way to be kind and considerate to the Hindus. The insinuation is that the Hindu-Muslim strife was a creation of the British imperialists whose “nefarious game” is now being continued by “Hindu communalists”.
The evidence cited by the speakers in this AIR programme is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history. It is also a very sad spectacle of the slave mentality which was imbibed by a certain section of Hindu intelligentsia during the long spell of Islamic imperialism in India: The master has a god-given right to kick his slave a hundred times a day. But the master deserves gratitude from the slave if the former smiles on the latter once in a blue moon. It is understandable if an apologist of Islam sings the glories of the Islamic empire in India. But for a Hindu to participate in this programme is the limit of self-abasement. No amount of swearing by Secularism can cover up the sin.
One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous mien of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from it blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
I have already related what some of the sultans were doing to the Hindus from their imperial seat at Delhi. The provincial Muslim satraps who became independent whenever Delhi had a weak Muslim monarch, behaved no better.
THE PROVINCIAL MUSLIM SATRAPS
In 1391 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlak Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Farhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan as the new governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expedition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence”, and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque. Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special dărogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.
Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jayasingh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.
Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.
BABUR
The scene shifted once mere to Delhi after Babur came out victorious against the Lodis and the Rajputs. The founder of the Mughal empire has received much acclaim from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for his fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his swimming across many rivers, his love of flowers and fruits, and so on so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his Tuzuk-i-Băburî, suffers irreparable damage if it is denuded of the rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged. The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the infidels, leave no doubt that he was mighty proud of his performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to watch this spectacle. The prisoners were brought before him and butchered by his “brave” swordsmen. On one occasion, the ground flowed with so much blood and became so full of quivering carcases that his tent had to be moved thrice to a higher level. He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and amassing plunder. In the dynasty founded by him it was incumbent upon every king that he should style himself a Ghăzî, that is, slayer of infidels. When he broke vessels of wine on the eve of his battle with Rana Sangram Singh, he proclaimed that he would smash idols in a similar manner. And he destroyed temples wherever he saw them.
SHER SHAH SUR
Sher Shah Sur’s name is associated in our textbooks with the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Dacca, with caravanserais, and several other schemes of public welfare. It is true that he was not a habitual persecutor of Hindus before he became the emperor at Delhi. But he did not betray Islam when he became the supreme ruler. The test came at Raisen in 1543 AD. Shaykh Nurul Haq records in Zubdat-ul-Tawărîkh as follows: “In the year 950 H., Puranmal held occupation of the fort of Raisen… He had 1000 women in his harem… and amongst them several Musulmanis whom he made to dance before him. Sher Khan with Musulman indignation resolved to conquer the fort. After he had been some time engaged in investing it, an accommodation was proposed and it was finally agreed that Puranmal with his family and children and 4000 Rajputs of note should be allowed to leave the fort unmolested. Several men learned in the law (of Islam) gave it as their opinion that they should all be slain, notwithstanding the solemn engagement which had been entered into. Consequently, the whole army, with the elephants, surrounded Puranmal’s encampment. The Rajputs fought with desperate bravery and after killing their women and children and burning them, they rushed to battle and were annihilated to a man.”
AKBAR
Humayun had hardly any time free from troubles to devote to the service of Islam. But his son, Akbar, made quite a good start as a ghăzî. He stabbed the half-dead Himu with his sword after the Second Battle of Panipat. The ritual was then followed by many more “brave warriors” of Islam led by Bairam Khan who drove their swords in the dead body. In 1568 AD Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chittor after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in his Akbar-Năma as follows. “There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed… When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre.” Akbar thus improved on the record of Alauddin Khalji. Watching the war and serving the warriors were re-interpreted as acts of war! To top it all, Akbar travelled post-haste to Ajmer where he offered profuse thanks to Allah and the Prophet, and his (Akbar’s) patron saint, Muinuddin Chishti, and issued a Fathnăma in which many appropriate verses of the Quran were cited in order to prove that he had followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet.
JAHANGIR
Jahangir was primarily a drunkard and a sadist scoundrel. He was too indolent to keep his promise, given to Nawab Murtaza Khan at the time of his accession, that he would uphold the Shariat. He was too much devoted to women and the wine-cup to care much for Allah and the Prophet. But he encouraged conversions to Islam by giving daily allowances to the converts. In the very first year of his reign, he tortured Guru Arjun Dev to death. His contempt for Hindus comes out clearly in his Tuzuk-i-Jahăngîrî: “A Hindu named Arjun lived in Govindwal on the bank of river Beas in the garb of a saint and in ostentation. From all sides cowboys and idiots became his fast followers. The business had flourished for three or four generations. For a long time it had been in my mind to put a stop to this dukăn-e-bătil (mart of falsehood) or to bring him into the fold of Islam.” According to other accounts, he asked the Guru to include some sűrahs of the Quran in the Ădi Grantha, which the Guru refused to do. In the eighth year of his reign, he destroyed the temple of Bhagwat at Ajmer. He persecuted the Jains in Gujarat, and ordered that Jain monks should not be seen in his kingdom on pain of death. Finally, he sent Murtaza Khan to Kangra for reducing that city of temples. The siege lasted for 20 months at the end of which he himself went to Kangra for slaughtering cows in that sacred place of Hindus, and building a mosque where none had existed before.
SHAH JAHAN
The pendulum started swinging towards the true spirit of Islam at the very start of Shah Jahan’s reign in 1628 AD. Its outer symbol was the reappearance of the beard on the face of the emperor. Abdul Hamid Lahori records in his Bădshăhnăma: “It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late reign many idol temples had been begun, but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelism. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares, and throughout all his dominions in every place, all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was now reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.” That was in 1633 AD.
In 1635 AD, Shah Jahan’s soldiers captured some ladies of the royal Bundela family after Jujhar Singh and his sons failed to kill them in the time-honoured Rajput tradition. In the words of Jadunath Sarkar, “Mothers and daughters of kings, they were robbed of their religion and forced to lead the infamous life of the Mughal harem.” Shah Jahan himself made a triumphal entry into Orchha, the capital of the Bundelas, demolished the lofty and massive temple of Bir Singh Dev, and raised a mosque in its place. Two sons and one grandson of Jujhar Singh who were of tender age, were made Musalmans. Another son of Jujhar Singh, Udaybhan, and a minister, Shyam Dawa, had fled to Golconda where they were captured by Qutbul-Mulk and sent to Shah Jahan. According to Bădshăhnăma again, “Udaybhan and Shyam Dawa, who were of full age, were offered the alternative of Islam or death. They chose the latter and were sent to hell.”
AURANGZEB
With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî, the temple of Chintaman situated close to Sarashpur (Gujarat) and built by Sitaldas jeweller was converted into a mosque named Quwwat-ul-Islăm (might of Islam) by order of Prince Aurangzeb in 1645 AD. A cow was slaughtered to “solemnize” the “ceremony”. Three years after he became king, he sent Mir Jumla on an expedition to Cooch Bihar. Mir Jumla demolished all temples in that city and erected mosques in their stead. The general himself wielded a battle-axe to break the image of Narayana.
In 1665 AD, it was reported to Aurangzeb that the temples he had demolished in Gujarat during his viceroyalty had been rebuilt by the Hindus. He immediately issued a farmăn to the governor of Gujarat which said: “In Ahmedabad and other parganas of Gujarat in the days before my accession temples were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and idol-worship resumed. Carry out the former order.” In 1666 AD, he ordered the faujdăr of Mathura to remove a stone railing which had been presented by Dara Shukoh to the temples of Keshav Rai. He explained: “In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple!”
A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî records: “On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares.”
Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî continues: “In the month of Ramzan 980 H. (January 1670) this justice-loving monarch, the constant enemy of tyrants, commanded the destruction of the Hindu temple of Mathura known by the name of Dehra Keshav Rai, and soon that stronghold of falsehood was levelled with the ground. On the same spot was laid, with great expense, the foundation of a vast mosques… Glory be to Allah who has given us the faith of Islam that in this reign of the destroyer of false gods, an undertaking so difficult of attainment has been brought to a successful culmination. The richly jewelled idols taken from the infidel temples were transferred to Agra and there placed beneath the steps leading to the Nawab Begum Sahib’s (Jahanara’s) mosque in order that they might be pressed under foot by the true believers. Mathura changed its name into Islamabad and was thus called in all official documents.”
In the same year, Sitaramji temple at Soron was destroyed as also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda. News came from Malwa also that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy all temples around Ujjain. According to Muraqăt-i-Abul Hasan, civil officers, agents of jăgirdărs, karoris and amlas from Cuttack in Orissa to Medinipur in Bengal were instructed as follows: “Every idol house built during the last 10 or 12 years… should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.”
In 1672 AD, several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near Narnaul in Mewat for which act of “heroism” Radandaz Khan was tided Shuja‘at Khan with the mansab of 3000 and 2000 horse. In 1675 AD, Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured to death for his resistance against the forcible conversion of the Hindus of Kashmir. The destruction of gurudwăras thereafter is a well-known story which our secularists have succeeded in suppressing because the Akali brand Sikhs have been forging ties of friendship with Islam as against their parent faith, Hindu Dharma.
The year 1679 AD was the year of triumph for the “true faith”. On April 2, jizyah was reimposed on Hindus to “spread Islam and put down the practice of infidelism”. The Hindus of Delhi and around organised a protest and blocked Aurangzeb’s way to the Jami Masjid on one Friday. The mighty Mughal Emperor ordered his elephants to be driven through the mass of men. Many were trampled to death. Shivaji also wrote a letter of protest from distant Maharashtra. But it fell on deaf ears. Mirăt-i-Ahmadî records: “Darab Khan was sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and demolish the great temples of that place. He attacked the place on 8th March 1679 A.D. and pulled down the temples of Khandela and Sanula and all other temples in the neighbourhood.” Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî adds: “On 25 May 1679 A.D. Khan Jahan Bahadur arrived from Jodhpur bringing with him several cart-loads of idols, taken from the Hindu temples that had been demolished. His Majesty gave him great praise. Most of these idols were adorned with precious stones. It was ordered that some of them should be cast away in the outer offices and the remainder placed beneath the steps of the grand mosque, there to be trampled under foot. There they lay a long time until at last not a vestige of them was left.”
The year 1680 AD brought an equally “rich harvest” for Islam. Maasir-i-Ălamgîrî goes ahead: “On 6th January 1680 A.D. Prince Mohammad Azam and Khan Jahan Bahadur obtained permission to visit Udaipur. Ruhullah Khan and Yakkattăz Khan also proceeded thither to effect the destruction of the temples of the idolators. These edifices situated in the vicinity of the Rana’s palace were among the wonders of the age, and had been erected by the infidels to the ruin of their souls and the loss of their wealth… Pioneers destroyed the images. On 24th January the king visited the tank of Udayasagar. His Majesty ordered all three of the Hindu temples to be levelled with the ground. On 29th January Hasan Ali Khan made his appearance… and stated that… 172 temples in the neighbouring districts had been destroyed. His Majesty proceeded to Chitor on 22nd February. Temples to the number of 63 were destroyed. Abu Tarab who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of idol temples of Amber, reported in person on 10th August that 66 temples had been levelled to the ground.” The temple of Someshwar in western Mewar was also destroyed at a later date in the same year. It may be mentioned that unlike Jodhpur and Udaipur, Amber was the capital of a state loyal to the Mughal emperor.
According to Kalimăt-i-Tayyibăt, Aurangzeb wrote to Zulfiqar Khan and Mughal Khan that “the demolition of a temple is possible at any time, as it cannot walk away from it place”. Even so, he was annoyed by the solid strength of temples in Maharashtra. Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb reproduces his following message to Ruhullah Khan: “The houses of this country are exceedingly strong and built solely of the stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the government in course of my marching do not get sufficient manpower and time to destroy and raze the temples of infidels that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint a darogha who may afterwards destroy them at leisure and dig up their foundations.” Aurangzeb himself acted as such a darogha in one instance. He reports in Kalimăt-i-Aurangzeb: “The village of Satara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of hill stood a temple with an image of Khande Rai. By Allah’s grace I demolished it and forbade the temple dancers to play their shameful trade.”
Demolition of Hindu temples remained Aurangzeb’s pastime during his long campaign in the South. Khafi Khan records in his Muntakhăb-ul-Lubăb: “On the capture of Golconda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as censor of the city of Haiderăbăd with orders to put down infidel practices and innovations, and destroy the temples and build mosques on the sites.” That was in 1687 AD. In 1690 AD, he ordered destruction of temples at Ellora, Trimbakeshwar, Narasinghpur, and Pandharpur. In 1698 AD, the story was repeated at Bijapur. According to Mirăt-i-Ahmadî: “Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur who had been deputed to destroy the temples of Bijapur and build mosques there, returned to court after carrying out the order and was praised by the Emperor.” As late as 1705 AD, two years before he died, “the emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men… ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple.” Cow-slaughter at a temple site was a safeguard against Hindus rebuilding it on the same spot.
The story can be continued to cover similar crimes committed by later Muslim monarchs and chieftains. But I am not continuing it because my theme at present is medieval India under Muslim rule, which period ended with the death of Aurangzeb.
The magnitude of crimes credited to Muslim monarchs by the medieval Muslim historians, was beyond measure. With a few exceptions, Muslim kings and commanders were monsters who stopped at no crime when it came to their Hindu subjects. But what strikes as more significant is the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a jihăd in which the ghăzîs of Islam 1) invade infidel lands; 2) massacre as many infidel men, women, and children, particularly Brahmins, as they like after winning a victory; 3) capture the survivors to be sold as slaves; 4) plunder every place and person; 5) demolish idolatrous places of worship and build mosques in their places; and 6) defile idols which are flung into public squares or made into steps leading to mosques.
Still more significant is the fact that this is exactly the pattern 1) revealed by Allah in the Quran; 2) practised, perfected and prescribed by the Prophet in his own life-time; 3) followed by the pious Khalifas of Islam in the first 35 years of Islamic imperialism; 4) elaborated in the Hadis and hundreds of commentaries with meticulous attention to detail; 5) certified by the Ulama and the Sufis of Islam in all ages including our own; and 6) followed by all Muslim monarchs and chieftains who aspired for name and fame in this life, and houris and beardless boys hereafter.
It is, therefore, poor apologetics to blame the Islamized Turks alone of being barbarous. Islamic barbarism was shared in equal measure by all races and communities who were forced or lured into the fold of Islam - the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians, the Pathans, the Hindu converts. The conclusion in inescapable that Islam brutalizes all those who embrace it. And that is where the blame should be laid in all reason and justice.
We can now return to the NCERT guideline which proclaims that the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in medieval India shall be regarded as political rather than religious. There is no justification for such a characterisation of the conflict. The Muslims at least were convinced that they were waging a religious war against the Hindu infidels. The conflict can be regarded as political only if the NCERT accepts the very valid proposition that Islam has never been a religion, and that it started and has remained a political ideology of terrorism with unmistakable totalitarian trends and imperialist ambitions. The first premises as well as the procedures of Islam bear a very close resemblance to those of Communism and Nazism. Allah is only the predecessor of the Forces of Production invoked by the Communists, and of the Aryan Race invoked by the Nazis.
Auragzeb, Babur, and Muslim Satraps are repeated a couple of times..
Anyway, why do people keep posting the same thing over and over again? This is more insulting than informative...
Wh dont people try posting about heroism and Hinduism's survival instead of this stuff. What India faced, was similar to what was faced by the Europeans when Christianity arrived, and Christian forces were said to be more humane, so if European Pagans couldnt survive that, Hinduism's survival should be seen as a miracle...
I'll see if I can find a good post about India's dark ages.
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
These are more political articles than informative, I have posted this once. These support the fact that what happens on the street today to your sister isn't an isolated one-time incident, but one in centuries-long atrocities.
Hinduism has survived due to tremendous tenacity of certain people, to suffer economic pressure (jaziya), social pressure, political pressure, but it always was a losing battle, unless the Hindu mass works together. The genocide of the Kalash or Pandits or Bengali Hindus cannot be stopped by themselves alone. For them, it will be a losing battle. But if India comes to their aid, things will be very different.
"English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication; Hindi is the national language and primary tongue of 30% of the people; there are 14 other official languages: Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Sanskrit; Hindustani is a popular variant of Hindi/Urdu spoken widely throughout northern India but is not an official language."
Well, this attack on Muslims proves one point. What Muslim League used to say in 1940s. That Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations, not just religions. That most of the time, [b]heroes of one are villains of another, and vice versa[/b].
Today Muslims of India are marginalized to show their discomfort on such attacks. There would have been constant frictions between the two. India has a checkered history of anti-Muslim violence, even when Hindus have no threat from Muslims. Imagine what would have happened if Muslim population was 35%-40%, and such anti-Muslim articles were published in India?
Indians should be thankful that Pakistan came into being. It gave them an opportunity to do their propaganda freely.
Well, if India was in one piece, there would be no need of such hateful propaganda. But now that there is a reason, these historical baggages just add to the sentiment.
Wake up Indians we won fair and square, just cause our ancestors were superior that doesn't mean we have to listen to you lot constantly squel about your ancestors misery...
What did you lot expect? The conquerors to hand out candy?
---
Türk milleti, Türk milleti,
Aţk ile sev milliyeti,
Kahret vatan düţmanýný,
Çeksin o mel’un zilleti.
Ýsmail Hakký Bey
This message has been edited by istanbul_since_1453 on Jun 14, 2005 6:47 PM
well, posting articles isnt gonna do aything about it.
Pakistan is proud of its history...we didnt name our missiles ghauri for nothing.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
@the turkish guy, prior to the ghaznavids and timur, there has existed a line of invaders from central Asia. Huns, Parthians, Kushans, etc, etc. Thing is, all became Indians, they became Hindu/Buddhist, merged in with local population, became one of us. With the Turks (Islamic), it was not just military warfare, but cultural too.
And after the initial Turks, the rest of the invaders were Indian themselves. Ghauri for example, came from a Hindu caste of cow-herders (gau means cow) whose earlier generation had been converted to Islam by force (they got freed when they converted). And it wasn't fair and square. You Muslims used unchivalric strategies throughout, terrorism isn't a new thing for you-know-who.
Anyway, you guyz didn't finish the job, and while 30% of our own have become Turks, 70% of us remain free, and the hands of time are beginning to work backwards.
was just the beginning of a long list of wrongs that are to be righted now.
Actually, my ancestors were the survivors, the ancestors of the Pakis are the losers, your ancestors are the winners (btw, you guys were also losers wrt Arabs). But the losers ganged up on the survivors with the winners.
I'm not talking about Muslims or Hindus. I'm talking about Indians, come on man the Turks, the Mongols, the Persians, the Brits they all controlled your nation despire the fact your nation always had a larger population...
Face it, Indians were never one of the greats and i doubt they ever will be...
---
Türk milleti, Türk milleti,
Aţk ile sev milliyeti,
Kahret vatan düţmanýný,
Çeksin o mel’un zilleti.
Fierce and persistent Hindu resistance to the Islamic Jihad prevented the complete Islamization of India
Unlike the complete Islamization of Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, North Africa, the Islamization of India was not complete. At the end of one millennium of Muslim Tyranny from 715 up to 1761, more than 70 percent of the population of India remained Hindu. This was NOT due to any Muslim charity or benevolence, since they have none of these characteristics. The Muslim tyranny was as blood-thirsty and savage as it was in all parts of the globe that were unfortunate to be trampled by the Jihadis. The Hindus suffered initial setbacks due to the belief amongst them, as amongst all other no-Muslims, that the Muslim too wee normal human beings, who would after a victory, settle down to govern the defeated population. But once the nightmare of Muslim tyranny began, the Hindus grew wiser faster than the other unfortunate victims of the Jihad. The Hindus never surrendered to the Muslim tyrants. They waged a relentless and violent struggle against the Muslims. And when fortunate favored them, they returned with almost equal measure, the barbarism of the Muslim. We use the qualifier “almost” since the Hindus slaughtered the Muslims on the battlefield, but did not go to the extent of slaughtering Muslim civilians and giving them the choice of Hinduism or death, molesting Muslim women, destroying en masse all Mosques, and building Hindus temples on them (the Babri Masjid-Ramjanabhomi struggle being a one off case) and imposing a penal tax like the jaziya on all Muslims.
It was this valiant Hindu resistance that put paid all the savagery of the Muslims to convert al the Hindus to Islam at the pain of death. But otherwise the sordid tale of Muslim savagery was no less brutal from that in other parts of the world overrun by the Islamic Jihad.
Muslims invaded India only four years after they invaded Persia
Very few know that while the Muslims invaded Persia in 634, they invaded Sindh in India in 638, just a gap of four years. But while Persia succumbed in seventeen years by 651, Muslims took seven hundred years to overrun India (today Sindh is a part of a Muslim country called Pakistan that was carved out of Hindu India in 1947). And even after that they could not rule India in peace. The Hindu resistance was not just fierce, but it kept increasing in ferocity till with the Marathas, the Hindus overtook the Muslims in their ferocity. It was this lesson which the Hindus learnt from the Muslims an applied against the Muslims that led to the Hindu (Maratha) victories against the beast-like Muslims. It was the Marathas who presaged President Bush when he said “We will hunt down our enemies” The Marathas literally hundred down the Muslims. The only other case of a Muslim defeat in face of such tactics was in Ethiopia and Southern Sudan (Nubia) where the African Christians of Nubia used guerilla tactics against the Muslims to hunt them down and finally to defeat them.
Foul Tactics used by the Muslims against Indians
Although the Arab Muslims attacked India in 638, they were repeatedly defeated by the Rajas of Makara (Makran) and Sindh. The Arab chroniclers then wrote derisive accounts of the reasons for their defeats at the hands of the Hindus by saying that the Hidus practice Voodoo and Black Magic and so bring Jinns and Shaitan to help them in war. So the Arabs cannot defeat them, the way they could easily defeat the Persians and the Byzantines. We need only to remember how the Greeks under Alexander overcame the Persian Achemanian empire in a few years, after which they attacked India and the Hindus after initially being defeated the Greeks on the river Jhelum (Vitasta – Hydaspes), harassed the Greek army so much, that the Greek troops mutinied and refused to advance further into India.
How the Muslims blackmailed a guard to open the door of the fort of Debal
The Muslims too had a tough job with the Hindus. After an unsuccessful campaign of more than eighty years, the Muslims captured the Fort of Deval (Debal near modern Karachi) by deceit, by kidnapping the three children of the chief guardsman of the fort of Debal, beheading one and threatening to behead the other two. With this blackmail, they forced him to leave the door open, after they had feigned retreat. Due to this betrayal, the Muslims could finally sink their ugly claws into India under the beast-like leader Mohammed-ibn-Qasim (Mohammed bin Kasim). The Hindus never forgot this treachery. And the two princesses of the King Dahirsen (Raja Dabir) who were captured by Qasim and sent to the Khilafa (Caliph) as a gift with a message that they were royal virgins, meant to be ravished by his holiness (sic) the lecherous Caliph himself. But these princesses outsmarted the Caliph.
They tore apart their hymen with their own hands and told the caliph that their modesty had already been violated by Qasim. The Caliph did not believe them, but when he saw for himself the ruptured hymens, he was convinced that Qasim had violated the modesty of the princesses and then sent them over to him. That though so enraged him that he summoned Qasim to present himself at Baghdad. With Qasim in chains, the Caliph accused him of betrayal. Although Qasim pleaded his innocence, the Caliph, asked for Qasim to be locked in a barrel with nails stuck on the inside and had him rolled down a hill. Qasim died a cruel death. And the first generation of Hindus whom this beast-like Muslim had tormented and slaughtered, received poetic justice in the death of this accursed Muslim general who vandalized Sindh.
How the Rajput Hindus trounced the Muslims for five hundred years
After the Muslim occupied Sindh, they did not rest quiet, they attacked Punjab, but were repulsed, then they attacked Rajputana, but were repulsed by Kings like raja Bhoj, and when they attacked Gujarat, they were defeated by the Chalukyas (Solankis) of Anahilwada. Thus the Muslims could not make any headway into India from their occupation of Sindh in 715, up to 980. It was only in the year 980, that the Muslims could attack India once again. But they had to use another gateway. Instead of attacking Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat from Sindh, they attacked the Shahiya kingdom in Upaganastan (Afghanistan – literally the land of allied tribes). The attackers were not Arab Muslim, but were the Persian and Turkish converts to Islam. The first Muslim chieftain to attack the Hindu domains was name Sabuktagin. He ruled from Ghazni and had forced his way up to the domains of the Hindu Raja of Kubha (later renamed as Kabul by the city’s Muslims occupiers).
How the Muslims used the nobility of the Hindus to craftily defeat them
The Muslims had studied Hindu warfare practices and misused the weakness of the Hindus to their hilt. Sabuktagin’s spies had told him that the Hindus start warfare at Sunrise and end it at sunset. The crafty Muslim chieftain decided to use this weakness of the Hindus against them. He challenged Jayapal Shahiya to pen warfare and decided the place and date of the war. True to his word the Hindu king reached the appointed place one day before the day of the war. This was in the year 980. The Muslim too had assembled at the appointed place and the two adversaries exchanged ambassadors and decided that the hostilities would commence at sunrise the next day. After the Hindus retired for the night, the Muslim were busy preparing for a night assault. While the Hindu army was in deep slumber, except for a few scouts, taking cover of the dark and stormy night, the Muslims stealthily crept towards the camp of the Hindus, after crossing the few hillocks that separated the two camps.
The Muslims had muffled the sounds of their advance by covering the hooves of their horses with felt and cloth. Dressed in dark clothes the Muslim almost reached the Hindu camps at two in the morning. When they were spotted the Hindu scouts raised a hue and cry to awaken their sleeping troops. But it was too late. Before any significant number of the Hindus could arise and don their armor and be ready to fight the Muslim, a large number of them were done to death while they were half awake of struggling to prepare themselves for war. The entire Hindu army was caught unawares, but they still put up a stiff fight against their beastly adversaries. The battle continued till past dawn, but the Hindu army had been overpowered, tricked as it had been to give the advantage of surprise to the Muslims. By late morning the remnants of the Hindu army retreated back to their capital Kubha, with the Muslims in pursuit. The Muslims soon occupied Kabul and continued to push the Hindus eastwards. The disgraced Hindu king Raja Jayapal Shahiya decided to shift his capital to Udabandapura (modern day Und in North West Frontier Province – Paktoonisthan) But he could not bear the humiliation of defeat and decided to immolate himself rather than live with the shame of having been defeated by the Muslims with treachery. Thus ended the first Hindu-Muslim encounter after the Arabs had occupied Sindh in the 8th century.
How the Muslims poisoned the elephants of the Hindus at the Battle of Lahore to snatch victory once again with subterfuge
The Muslims seized on their victory over the Hindu army and overran the capital Kubha (which was renamed Kabul by the Muslims) who destroyed the Hindu temples there and force converted the remaining Hindu population to Islam). After the defeat of Jayapal Shahiya, his son Anandpal Shahiya, moved his capital from Kubha present day Kabul) to Luvkushpura (Lahore). He gathered all allies he could from Northern India and opposed the invading Muslims now led by Sabuktagin’s son Mahmud of Ghazni. The armies met on the banks of the Ravi near Lahore. In the initial skirmishes, the Muslims were worsted by the Hindus, who were determined to liberate their motherland from the schizophrenic savages which is what the Muslims were. In the initial defeats of the Muslims, the Hindus had used armored elephants. The Muslim realized that the Elephants would be their nemesis. As the Muslims came from Afghanistan, they had no access to elephants, so they decided to use subterfuge. They sent an envoy to Anandpala, saying that they are suing for peace, their conditions were that they should be allowed safe passage out of the country. As a gesture of goodwill they wanted to come over to the Hindu camp and have a common meal with the Hindus, to seal the peace treaty. The innocuous and unsuspecting Anandpala agreed going against the advice of his allies.
The Muslims came for the luncheon arranged at the banks of the Ravi river where the Hindu army had encamped. While intermingling with the soldiers, the Muslims moved about in the stables of the Hindu camps and expressed surprise at how the Hindus fed their mighty elephants. With the Hindus playing the role of the gracious hosts, indulged their “guests” with every query they asked. After all the Muslims were their guests and the Hindus had a quaint belief that “A guest is like God” (Athithi Devoh Bhava), but little did these unsuspecting Hindus realize that these Muslims guests were Satan incarnate. While the unsuspecting Hindus showed them around the stables, the Muslims secretly fed the elephants poppy seeds (opium) mixed with fruits. The poppy seeds being raw did not have immediate effect and everything seemed normal. The dastardly deed being done, the Muslim contingent left the Hindu camp and returned to their own camps. The Hindus self-satisfied that the war was over and the peace had now been sealed with a common luncheon began preparations to dismantle their camp.
To their utter amazement, in the next few hours, the Muslim cavalry surrounded the Hindu camp in a pincer move and began a fierce attacks with shrieks of Allahuakbar. The confused Hindus belatedly, realized that they had been double crossed by the Muslims. But manfully they fastened the howdas (seats for the riders of the elephants like saddles for horsemen) to their elephants and charged at the besieging Muslims in a disorderly manner. The Hindus were in far a shock when their elephants refused to obey their mahouts (elephant riders) orders and started running amok and away from the battled. The opium had begun to have its effect. With Anandpala also on one of the elephants which had started running helter-skelter, the confusion grew in the remaining Hindu troops. The Muslim cunningly spread the word that Anandpala was retreating, since he knew that a twofold Muslim army had joined the existing Muslims forces. The rumor gained credence, as the Hindus saw that Anadpala’s elephant had gone a considerable distance from the battle. There isolated from his main army, Anandpala was pursued by the Muslims who had kept him under watch. They surrounded him, cut down the leather strips that held his howdah on the elephant, and when the howdah fell on the ground, they decapitated the unfortunate Anandpala, beheaded him, stuck his head don a spike and paraded it before the Hindu army which was already in confusion. This grisly sight further demoralized the remaining Hindu troops who had initially lost heart when they saw their leader in “retreat”. Now with his head on a spike, a sight which they had never seen in battles before totally unnerved them, and the Hindu retreat turned into a rout, with many of the Hindus massacred on the battlefield.
The rest was easy, for the Muslims to tear down the remaining Hindu troops and turn what was on the way to becoming a Hindu victory into a Muslim one, with the use of subterfuge and betrayal of the innate faith which the Hindus had even in an unscrupulous enemy. This should have been a lesson of the Muslim mind for the Hindus. But it was not to be as, we shall see such foul tricks repeated over and over again by the Muslims in the coming centuries in their duel of death with the Hindus
How the Muslims tricked Trilochanpala, kidnapped and murdered him by luring him using Muslims dressed as Hindu hermits (Sanyasis)
After snatching victory through subterfuge at Lahore, the Muslims began to penetrate deeper into the country. Anandpala attained veergati (martyrdom through the deceit of the Muslims, as had his father Jayapala. Now the teenaged grandson of Jayapala Shaiya, Tirlochanpala Shahiya took the reins of the death struggle against the Muslims in his hands. He was then just a teenager at seventeen years of age when the ascended the throne of the Shahiyas. The first move he did was to shift the capital from Lahore to Kangra in today’s Himachal Pradesh. Kangra was in a relatively fortified position, from where he tried to reorganize the defense of his vastly reduced domains.
The Shahiya empire which stretched from Heart to Haridwar, was now pushed to one fifth its size and its western border which was once at Heart during the reign of Jayapala Shahiya was now pushed about a thousand miles east at Kalka in the Shivalik Hills which were the foothills of the Himalayas. The Shahiya domains had now shrunk and did not occupy a position to block the further advance of the Muslims into India. But he followed the valiant example of his father and grandfather and allied himself with the kings of Kashyapmeru (Kashmir) and Tibet, to eject the Muslims from Punjab and Upaganasthan (Afghanistan). The enraged Muslim governor of Punjab, wanted to nip this effort in the bud. He again made use of the patented Muslim mechanism of subterfuge. He sent a group of his soldiers dressed up as Hindu mendicants to meet Tirlochanpala. These mendicants went to Kangra and sent in a message that they come from Kubha (Kabul) and bring a message to their king whose ancestors originally ruled Kabul. With this trick, they gained entry into Tirlochanpala’s humble household (As the former imperial Shahiyas had now been reduced to penury, as against the opulence they once commanded). Once inside his house, the mendicants surrounded the unsuspecting young prince and sliced his neck and made off with his severed head, leaving a note beside his headless body that Islam will finally overcome anyone who decided to block the path of Allah’s soldiers.
The remainder of the once formidable Shahiya army, became leaderless and demoralized. They migrated deep into the Himalayas and settled down as Shepards and goatherds. They came to be known as Gaddis. These Gaddis follow this profession to this day and they still inhabit the Himalayas coming down to the Shivalik foothills and the plains of Punjab in the winter to graze their cattle. Thus with Tirlochapala’s death, the last scion of the Hindu dynasty that ruled Afghanistan and Punjab passed away. The next Hindu king of Punjab was to be Maharaja Ranjit Singh who ascended the throne after a gap of eight hundred years in the 18th century. The interregnum was to be the dark interlude of Muslim tyranny, during which the majority of the Hindus of Afghanistan, Paktoonistan and West Punjab were to become Muslims at the pain of death.
The plunder of Somnath by Mahmud Ghaznavi
The defeat of the Shahiyas opened the Indian heartland to these heartless invaders and Mahmud of Ghazni, repeated attacked India and plundering and destroying Hindu shrines at Somnath, Palitana, Thanesar (Staneshwara), Mathura, Kannauj, Khajuraho regularly every year, collecting a large booty every time as also many Hindu captives who were sold into slavery in the bazaars of Baghdad and other Muslim cities. His raid on the famous Hindu shrine of Somnath located at Prabhash Patan in Gujarat is seared in Hindu memory till today. The many Hindu captives that he took from were transported on foot across the Western ranges of the Himalayas. Many Hindu captives could not face up to the merciless treatment of their cruel captors, and died in large numbers along the way. These deaths of the Hindus are remembered in the name which the Muslim gave to the Western Himalayas as Hindu Kush, which means the Killer of Hindus (Kush means to kill in Persian)
How the Hindus inflicted the first major and decisive defeat on Muslims at the battle of Baharaich in 1033
The fact that in spite of the subterfuge that the Muslim used, the Hindus did register one spectacular victory over the Muslims in 1033 at Baharaich in today’s Uttar Pradesh. The invader was Mahumd of Ghazni’s son Masud, who following his father’s footsteps invaded India with a large army with the intention of occupying the entire country and not simply raising it as his notorious father had done, He penetrated up to the Ganges valley and established his camp at Baharaich, and sent word to the surrounding Hindu kings to surrender and embrace Islam
As was their practice, before the beginning of hostilities, the Hindu kings also sent a messenger to Masud that this land being theirs, his troops should peacefully vacate it (as was done once again by the Government of India at the inception of the 1999 Kargil war). But Masud sent a reply that all land belonged to Khuda (the Persianized version of Allah) and he could settle wherever he pleased. And that it was his holy duty to convert to Islam all those who did not recognize his Khuda and accept Islam.
Consequently, Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. The Hindus, for once as an exception had learnt their lesson about Muslim treachery, after being victimized for four hundred years from 638 onwards. At the battle of Baharaich. gradually the Hindus began to decimate the Muslim army and as the hostilities progressed, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033. In this furious war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army.
What was exceptional during this war was that the folly of pardoning a defeated enemy, that was displayed by Prithviraj Chauhan 160 years later in 1191, was not to be seen. The Hindus seemed to have followed the tradition of their ancient king Ramchandra of Ayodhya when he defeated and killed Ravana.
The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return. There still exists today near Baharaich the grave of the commander of the invader - Prince Ghazi Mian Masud. There he is hailed today by the local Muslims as a Ghazi and a Peer (a Muslim who is raised sainthood by being a killer of non-Muslims). And every year till this day an Urs (Muslim religious assemblage) is held in his memory. What is forgotten is the valiance of the Hindu soldiers who lost their lives in this major victory against the first Jihadi invasion of India.
After this Hindu decisive and ruthless victory, peace prevailed in the country for a century and a half; till the next (and now once again successful) wave of Muslim invasions started under the leadership of Mohammed Ghori.
This interlude of one hundred and fifty years from 1033 up to 1187, had made the Hindu forget the treacherous nature of the Muslims. The Ghaznivid kingdom of West Punjab, had made peace with its Hindu neighbors and the Hindus came under a delusion that the Muslims were like any other invader who would settle down in India and be absorbed into Hindu society. The policy of the Ghaznivid to issue coins in Sanskrit and use the Sanskrit version of Muslim names as Mahamada for Mohammed, fuelled this wrong impression about the true nature of the Muslims.
Mohammed-ibn-Sam or Mohammed of Ghauri, the tormentor of Hindus was a descendant of Hindu converts to Islam
The next Muslim onslaught came in the year 1187, when the Muslim chieftain of a place named Ghor in Afghanistan, overthrew the Ghaznavid ruler in Ghazni. These Gauris (pronounced by the Muslims as Ghauri, Ghori and rendered in English as Ghurid) were originally Hindu cowherds and were subjects of the Shahiyas, who had been converted by force to Islam, by the Ghaznavids, who overthrew the Shahiya power in Afghanistan in 980 C.E. Now in the 1180 After a lapse of 200 years, these ex-Hindus had become cruel and merciless like any other Muslims and not a trace of their Hindu ancestry was left, except the name Gauri (derived from Gau which mean cow in Sanskrit) which traced their humble origins as Hindu cowherds. Though Muslims, the Gauris got poetic justice, by annihilating the kingdom of their former tormentors, the Ghaznavids. But ironically these former Hindu cowherds, the Gauris had now become the new ruthless tormentors of their former compatriots - the Hindus.
Mohammed defeated by the Solankis of Anahilwada in 1187
After overcoming the Ghaznivid governor of Punjab, Mohammed Ghori found his way into India proper blocked by the two powerful kingdoms. He allied himself with the Muslim governor of Sindh and in 1187, unleashed the full fury of his aggression on Gujarat. But to his misfortune, the Hindu Solankis (Chalukyas) of Anahilwada, defeated him utterly and forced him to retreat across the Thar desert. Thus they for the last time lit the flame of Hindu valor in Gujarat bright in repelling a Muslim attack. The next time this flame was to be lit once again in resisting a Muslim barbarity was when in March 2002, the Hindus of Gujarat, retaliated massively against the Muslims who had roasted alive 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from a pilgrimage to a Hindu holy town Ayodhya, where Babar another Muslim invader had demolished a major Hindu temple dedicated to Rama, an ancient Hindu king, who has been deified as a god by the Hindus and is a popular deity in India.
How the Muslims covered their retreat by using a herd of cows to prevent the Hindu army from pursuing them
Returning to the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori was defeated by the Solankis and had to retreat from the western edge of the Thar, he tried invading India from another route. But on the other side of the Thar lay the domains of the Maharaja of Sambhar (Shaka-amabara) Prithviraj Chauhan, who was known for his bravery and chivalry. Mohammed having tasted defeat at Hindu hands once, decided to make use of subterfuge. He studied Hindu warfare, as had been done by Sabuktgin two hundred years before him. Thus fully prepared to invade India, he advanced through West Punjab and laid siege to the fortress of Bhatinda in East Punjab, that lay on the borders of Prithvitraja’s domains. Soon, he had to face the wrath of the Rajputs and at Tarain (also known as Taraori) in today’s Haryana, the two armies clashed furiously. In face of the repeated onslaughts of the Rajput cavalry, the Muslims broke ranks and fled leaving their king a prisoner in Prithviraja’s hands. Their defeat by the Solankis of Anahilwada had given them a foretaste of Hindu valor. But in that retreat they had left behind many of the best steeds in their cavalry in the hands of the pursuing Solanki army. This time, they had resorted to a trick. Once the fortunes of the battle turned against them, and their king Mohammed Ghori himself was captured by the Rajputs, and the Muslims broke into retreat, with the Rajput sin pursuit, the Muslim general Kutub-ud-din Aibak let loose a large herd of cows chained to each other to block the path of the pursing Hindu army. Thus with their path blocked by bovines, whom the Hindus looked upon as a deity, it was impossible for the Hindus to cut down the cows blocking their path, and the Muslim army shrewdly made its escape, reducing its losses and preventing many Muslim soldiers from falling into captivity of the victorious Hindus.
How Prithviraja foolishly pardoned the defeated and captured Mohammed in 1191
When the captured Mohammed Ghori was brought before Prithviraja bound in chains, he pretended to be humiliated, while internally he was seething with rage at being humiliated for having been captured by a Kafir king. This rage proved itself a few years later when their roles were reversed. Mohammed begged for mercy from Prithviraja from promised that he would never lift his eyes toward India. This melted the innocuous Prithviraja and he ordered that Mohammed’s chains be removed. In his feigned gratitude Mohamed told Prithviraja that he was like his brother. Going against the advice of his general Hammira,and the brave warrior twins Aalaa and Uddhal, he ordered Mohammed to be released and as a token of his generosity, he also gifted his captive some horses and elephants and honorably released him. Once freed, the vengeful Mohammed was seething for revenge.
On reaching Ghor, he promptly murdered the escorts and envoys that Privithrajas had sent to accompany Mohammed to Ghor. He immediately started preparing for another assault on India. Going by the experiences of his two defeats at the hands of the Solankis and Chauhans, Mohammed decided to go by subterfuge, the trademarked mentality of the Muslims that has given them victory over more powerful, but less scheming adversaries. Mohammed’s spies told him that whenever the Hindu battled each other, the armies fought from sunrise up to sunset. There was no warfare in the hours of darkness.
Mohammed’s use of subterfuge to defeat Prithviraja
In the following year, Mohammed broke his sham promise to Prithviraja and attacked India once again. The two armies once again gathered at the same battlefield at Tarain. The Rajput army was camped near a river so as to do their morning ablutions before the war could be joined on the next morning, as was decided by the two commanders. But violating convention, the Muslim army attacked before dawn, as had the army of Sabuktgin in the year 980 (a fact which the Hindus had foolishly forgotten). When the Muslims unexpectedly broke into the Hindu camp, Prithviraj’s soldiers had begun their morning ablutions, and were unprepared for the assault. But they did their best to group their forces and resist the Muslims. The Muslims had the advantage of surprise which they had gained by deceit. The uneven battle continued till noon, by when the Muslims had slaughtered many of the Rajputs. But the Rajputs did not yield and it looked like the second battle of Tarain would also go the way the first had gone. Mohammed saw victory slipping from his hands once again. He resorted to another patented Muslim subterfuge of single combat – called Mard-o-Mard in Farsi – is a technique which Muslims had used quite cunningly against the Zoroastrian Persians, some six centuries earlier when the Muslim first burst out of Arabia In order to humiliate Prithviraj, Mohammed sent word that he would call off the battle, if Prithviraja came and fought his champion Qutub-ud-din Aibak in single combat. To save the lives of his soldiers, and to conclude the war quickly Prithviraja agreed. The rule in single combat was that when one combatant is either pinned down or killed, the army to which he belongs concedes defeat retreats. No other combatant is allowed to participate in this combat, hence the name single combat. But when the two met and Prithviraja’s sword felt heavy on Qutub who risked losing his life, he resorted to a feint and by whirling below his saddle he cut off the feet of Prithviraja’s horse before Prithviraj could realize what he was up to. This made Prithviraja trip and fall of his horse. This was a foul move, but it would have been fair, had Qutub, also dismounted and fought Prithviraja on foot. Instead at a pre-arranged signal from Qutub, a band of truculent Muslim soldiers, who had till then stood aside in the grab of horse-tenders, jumped on Prithviraja, pinned him down, pressed on his face a dose of hashish (that grew abundantly in the poppy farms of Afghanistan) bound the drugged Prithviraja in chains and galloped away with him as a prisoner into their ranks, before the Rajputs could realize what had happened. When they came to know this treacherous capture of their Maharaj (King), the lost nerve and through enraged, fell back against Pithoragarh, their fortified capital at Mehrauli near Delhi.
The betrayal and blinding of Prithviraja and how he avenged his humiliation
When Prithviraj was presented in chains before Mohammed, he reminded Mohammed how he was himself presented before Prithviraja in chains and how Prithviraja had honorably release him. On hearing this Mohammed and his courtiers laughed derisively at Prithviraja. When Prithviraja glared back at Mohammed and his courtiers, Mohammed ordered him to lower his eyes as he was now a captive. When Prithviraja told him that a Rajput’s eyes are lowered only after death, Mohammed in a fit of rage ordered that Prithviraja’s eyes be pierced with red hot irons. He kept the blinded Pritiviraja in solitary confinement and had him occasionally hauled to his court for being made fun of as the “Lion of Delhi”. Here Prithviraja was joined by his friend and biographer Chandra Vardai who joined his master in prison, after offering himself as a prisoner to Mohammed. It was in Prison, that Chandra Vardai told Prithviraja of a plan to avenge his betrayal and humiliation. Before an annual event of Buskhazi (a kind of Turkish sport in which the Afghans indulged) , Chandra Vadrai told Mohammed, that Prithviraja would like to show his skill in archery, but he would accept orders only from a king who had defeated him. And as Mohammed was the only king who had done that, he himself would have to order Prithviraj to shoot. Mohammed’s ego being rubbed the right way, he readily agreed. On the said day Prithviraja was brought to the assemblage. And when Mohammed gave the order for Prithviraja to shoot, Chandra Vardai in the following poetic stanza “Char bans, chaubis gaj, angul asta pramaan, Ete pai Sultan hai (Taa Upar hai Sultan). Ab mat chuko Chauhan." (Ten measures ahead of you and twenty four feet away, is seated the Sultan, do not miss him now, Chouhan). On hearing these words Prithviraja whirled in the direction of Mohammed and shot three arrows one after the other to wound Mohammed fatally. Thus Prithviraja had his justice, although due to his folly in pardoning the ghoulish fiend Mohammed, he lost his kingdom and India lost its sovereignty.
After the Muslim conquest how the Muslim tormentors forcibly converted the Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to Islam
Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Hindu society of Pakistan and Bangladesh into a Muslim one. While in Pakistan and Bangladesh Hinduism was supplanted entirely by Islam, in India, the Muslim tyranny succeeded only partially in converting a part of the population to Islam. In fact those parts of India where a majority of the Hindus were converted to Islam have become Pakistan and Bangladesh today. These countries were parts of India, before the Muslims invaded that part of the world.
We shall see at the end of this article the methods used by the Muslim tormentors to convert a large part of the Hindus to Islam. Many Muslims today raise a canard about an alleged tolerant nature of Muslim rule in India. They try to pull wool over your eyes, and are supported by the unabashedly pro-Jihadi, pro-terrorist anchors like Rajdeep Sardesai, Rajeev Srinivasan, Barkha Dutt, in the Indian media like the electronic media that includes the Prannoy Roy managed NDTV and the English language press like the Muslim owned Asian Age, and The Hindu along with the Times of India, Indian Express, and many other leading (rather misleading) national dailies in India. These scoundrels often pose (rather impose) a question as to how only eleven percent of the population of India is Muslim if the Muslim rulers were tormentors who made Hindus accept Islam at the point of the sword?
The issue here is that in historic times when we refer to India we include all those parts that were inhabited by Hindus before the Muslim aggression. So what is today Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as India, are parts of historic India. And so when we considered this as one whole, the population of Muslims accounts for forty five percent. The fact that Hindus still accounted for fifty five percent of the population is due to the fact that in Rajputana, Maharashtra, Orissa and South India, the Hindu defeated and rolled back the Muslim aggressors, so its was these parts that remained predominantly Hindu. Other parts which were under Muslim rule for an unbroken one thousand years, the Hindu population was decimated to almost zero. As in former Indian provinces of Gandhara (Kandahar), Kubha (Kabul), Makara (Makran), Sakastana (Siestan/Balouchistan), Sindh, West Punjab, Paktoonistan, East Bengal (Bangladesh). Today this process of Islamization is still on in Kashmir through the use of terror, but in other parts of India where these tactics would be fiercely resisted by the Hindus the process of using the womb bomb to increase the Muslim population is being used to the hilt by the mushrooming of high fertility rates among Muslim who can have four wives at one time, and women are treated like baby producing factories. This is happening in the Terai region of Uttaranchal, northern Bihar, Assam, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. There are many districts in India which today are Muslim majority areas. According to unofficial estimates the Muslim population in India is today at 15 percent. Thus if we look at historic India those parts which were under Muslim tyranny the Hindu population was decimated to nil. And on the rest of the country, it was the fierce Hindu resistance and counter attack that led to the Hindu character of some Indian provinces to remain. In the following paragraphs we shall see the fierce resistance put up to Muslim tyranny by Hindu rulers like Man Singh Tomar, Maharana Sangram Singh, Maharana Pratap, Harihara Raya, Krishna Deva Raya, Narsimhadeva, Lachit Barphukan, Guru Govind Singh Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj and other Hindu bravehearts
It was after repeated experience with Muslim treachery, subterfuge, deceit, that wisdom finally dawned on some of the Hindus. Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj was the epitome of this successful Hindu counter-attack on Islam which turned the patented Muslim techniques of deceit and subterfuge on the Muslims themselves.
The Hindu Counterattack on Muslims
The Hindu counterattack against Islam does not have any fixed date. From the very first battle of the Rajas of Makara (Makran) and Sindh in 638, till the Muslim rule was finally eliminated by the Maratha, Jats, Rajputs, Gurkhas and Sikhs in the 18th and early 19th centuries, this constant Hindu-Muslim war did not stop. So we can only define the counterattack as that period when the Hindus started turning the tactics of their tormentors on the Muslims. The first to do that were the kings of Orissa.
How Narasimhadeva defeated Tugan Khan in 1248 C.E.
After the easy victories over North India from Punjab, through Bengal, the Muslims turned and attacked Orissa. Here the Muslim met their match. The people of Orissa were hardy fighters. (In ancient and medieval times, Orissa was also called Kalinga or Utkal – from Uttam Kala which means Excellent Art that reflects the tradition of sculpture of that region) They had given a hard time when in the 3rd century B.C.E. the king of Kalinga Kumara gave a tough battle to Samrat Ashoka Mauya, before Orissa could be annexed to the Maurya Empire. When Tugan Khan attacked Orissa, the then ruling king of Orissa, Narsimhadeva, decided to use subterfuge against the Muslims. He sent word to the invader that he wanted to surrender as had Lakshmansena, the ruler of Bengal without a fight. Tugan Khan had easily conquered Bengal a few years earlier, since the king of Bengal instead of fighting fled the advancing Muslim armies and Begal fell without a fight. Tugan thought that Orissa would also be a cakewalk, as he had put the fear of death in the heart of the Hindus.
Tugan accepted Narasimhadeva’s surrender proposal and asked for the surrender of the major city of Puri (Narasimhadeva had his capital elsewhere at Jajanagara), hand over all weapons and embrace Islam in the central square in front of the Jagannath Temple and convert the temple into Mosque. To the delight of the Muslims, all these terms were accepted and the Muslims advanced into the city, blissfully aware that the shrewd Hindu king had laid a trap for them. On the orders of Narasimhadeva, the bustling city had been completely evacuated of its pilgrims and soldiers from all over the kingdom had occupied every nook and cranny of the city, hidden away inside the closely built houses Once the Muslim army was inside the city, it had to disperse itself into the maze of narrow lanes and bylanes with which they were not familiar and where thy had to dismount from their horses and advance single file. And unaware of the danger lurking they advanced cautiously and slowly towards the central square where the surrender ceremony was to take place.
When the Muslim army was dispersed, at a prearranged signal from one of lookouts from the temple spires, the temple bells started ringing, and this was the signal for the Hindus to pounce on the Muslims. The pitched battle lasted whole day and went into the night pierced by the cries of wounded and dying Muslim and Hindu soldiers. While the Hindus took many losses, the entire Muslim army was caught like in a mousetrap and annihilated. Very few Muslims could escape this trap. And this idea succeeded, as it had never been used till then, by any Hindu king, as it went against the Hindu rules of warfare. But precisely because of it being totally unexpected, the Muslims had to suffer from a bloody nose and the Hindus emerged victorious. Orissa was to remain a Hindu bastion for many centuries and this accounts for the very low percentage of Muslims in Orrisa even today, unlike Bengal, where the eastern part (known today as Bangladesh) has been totally Islamized, and the Western half is undergoing the process of Islamization especially in the district of Murshidabad.
The victorious King Narasimhadeva erected a victory pillar designed as a war chariot. This temple was dedicated to Surya the Sun god, at a place near the temple town of Puri. He named this place Konark which means “Essence of the Corners” While the structure commemorates the victory in the battle against the Muslims, the name Konark commemorates the science of astronomy of which the King was an avid student. Although the Hindus of south India, like the Kings of Vijaynagar and the Marathas, displayed this shrewdness against the Muslims, in the North the Rajputs continued to wage a noble war with the ignoble Muslims and lost out. It was for this reason, that the Muslim could never subjugate the Southern half of India (Dakkan or Deccan from Dakshin which means south in Sanskrit) as they did with North India. It was Hindus of Vijayanagar in the South who gave a tougher time to the Muslim and held back the tide of Muslim aggression at the Krishna river, to finally throw off the Muslim yoke and march northwards to liberate North India, when the Marathas marched to Delhi, and Punjab and beyond up to Attock in Paktoonisthan.
How Vijaynagar survived for two hundred years all through battling the Muslim Aggression from 1331 up to 1565
Vijaynagar, was the first Hindu kingdom which gave up the Hindu practice of not molesting non-combatants. Thus they started paying the Muslims in the same token. When the armies of Vijaynagar overran any Bahamani town or village they torched it. With this they put the fear of death into Muslim minds and soon, the Adilshahi and Nizamshahi sultans sued for a treaty that would proscribe the killing of civilians. Thus from then on till Vijaynagar was finally defeated at the battle of Talikotai, was this treaty adhered to by both the Hindus and Muslims. But with the final defeat of the Hindus at Talikotai, the Muslims repudiated this treaty, as their founder had repudiated the treaty of Hudaibiya, and indulged in a gory slaughter of all the inhabitants of Vijaynagar, they could lay their hands on. Not a single person was allowed to live in that beleaguered city. The city itself was reduced to rubble, after six months of pillage and wanton destruction.
This teaches us two lessons. One that only when you pay back the Muslims in the same barbaric token, that they can come temporarily to their senses. But never ever trust the Muslims for their word, since it s given only as matter of expediency. Whenever fortune favors them, they would go back on their word. Likewise, when all non-Muslims should enter into any agreement with Muslims only if the Muslims cannot be beaten militarily, and when the fortune favors the non-Muslims, they should repudiate any treaty with the Muslims and resume hostilities with the one single aim of destroying Islam. There is no other way of salvation for humankind, from this vile creed of the Muslims.
The Punjabi Hindu resistance to Islam is called Sikhism
In one North Indian province, Punjab, the Hindus resisted Islam by removing the deficiencies from their own religion, and then first matching and finally outmatching the ruthlessness of their Muslim tormentors. The Sikhs considered themselves neither Hindus nor Mussalmaans. But in the eyes of the Mughal rulers, the followers of the Gurus were Hindus who tried to undermine Mughal sovereignty. For this the Sikhs were violently repressed. In the reign of the Mughal Emperor Jehangir, Guru Arjan Dev Ji was the first Guru to be martyred (at the hand of the Mughal oppressors). Jehangir sentenced Guruji to be beheaded after being tormented for days. Burning hot sand was poured on his bare body. After being subjected to such inhuman torture, Guruji we are told, expressed a desire as his last wish, to have a bath in the Ravi river before being beheaded. Guru Arjan Dev Ji who had suffered brutally at the hands of his Mughal tormentors, went into the river till his head disappeared into the swirling currents of the Ravi - never to return. Thus he became the first Sikh Guru to lay down his life due to Mughal oppression.
It was under the later Gurus that Sikhism came to appear as the militant wing of the Hindu community. The idea of Sikhs being defenders of Hinduism was strengthened during the tenure of the 9th and 10th Gurus. Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh. During the tenure of these two Gurus the nature of the Sikh religion underwent a fundamental change. And from being a sect with ascetic and pacifist ideals, the Sikhs were transformed into an aggressive military theocracy.
Militarization of the Sikhs due to Mughal Oppression.
The changes brought about by Guru Gobind Singh were so fundamental that they represented a new phase in the history of Sikhism. It is worth recalling the circumstances that led to this change. Understanding this phase of Sikh history is all the more important as it led to the formation of Sikhism as we know it today.
This phase of the Sikh religion was a direct result of Mughal oppression. The Mughal rulers had no love for a sect that originated from among the Kafirs (Hindus) but had adapted Islamic ideas like monotheism rejection of idol worship, military theocracy and who with the indigenous Hindu terminology of expression tried to secure a following also among the adherents of Islam. This was unbearable to the Mughals who looked upon the Sikhs as wanting to usurp the platform of Islam and stall the process of converting Hindus (in Punjab) to Islam.
Sikhism was in the eyes of the Mughals - a Panic Reaction of the Hindus against Islam
For the Mughals, Sikhism represented a panic reaction from within the Hindu community to salvage its status as non-muslim by accepting the positive ideals of Islam like rejection of idol worship, casteism and ritualism of its Hindu parent religion and infusing militancy into the new Hindu converts to Sikhism. In the eyes of the Mughal rulers, the Sikh reform was detrimental to the conversion of the Hindus to Islam; and the militancy of the Sikhs was harmful to the security of the Mughal empire. Hence the bitter oppression of the Sikhs by the Mughals which was even more severe than the oppression of the Hindus in general.
During the reign of Aurangzeb the severest wave of oppression was unleashed on Non-Muslims with a view to Islamize the country. As the Mughal oppression found tough resistance from the Sikhs they were the favourite target for the Mughals. Here the story of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh needs to be
The Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur
During the reign of Aurangzeb Guru Tegh Bahadur who was the then Guru of the Sikhs was approached by a group of Hindu Pandits from Kashmir with a plea for protection from Mughal oppression. True to the spirit of his faith the Guru decided to approach the fanatical Mughal emperor Aurangzeb himself for a redress of the grievances. Unfortunately at the Mughal court he received abuses and threats. He was told to accept Islam at the pain of death. To prove his word the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. tourtured to death the members of the Guru's entourage one after the other. But Guru Tegh Bahadur did not lose his composure and calmly demanded a halt to the repressive policies. Wanting to teach a lesson to the obstinate Guru and to set an example to his followers the emperor ordered that the Guru to be beheaded. Thus after Guru Arjan Dev, Tegh Bahadur was the second Sikh Guru to meet a violent death at the hands of the Mughals. But after his execution some of his followers managed to sneak out the Guru's severed head from Delhi and carried it to Anandpur. At the place where the Gurus severed head was cremated, a Gurudwara was erected to commemorate this sacrifice undertaken in defence of the Dharma. This place is known to us today as the Anandpur Saheb Gurudwara.
The Khalsa Panth of Guru Gobind Singh Ji
When Guru Tegh Bahadur was martyred, his son Gobindrai, who later became Guru Gobind Singh) was still a boy, but the events which had overtaken his father, influenced him deeply and after succeeding his father as the next Guru, he was determined to carry out the struggle against Mughal oppression. Towards this end he undertook a radical transformation of the Sikh religion. This transformation was too fundamental to be termed as a reform and it virtually amounted to the establishment of a new religious order. And though he transformation differentiated the subsequent Sikhism (the Khalsa Panth from the earlier one; more in temporal and worldly aspects rather than in spiritual matters, it led to the first major split among the Sikhs.
The five Ks (Kakkars)
The transformation of Sikhism as the Khalsa Panth was formally launched by Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Baishakhi (New year) day in the year 1699. The new community was termed the Khalsa Panth or the 'Pure Sect' as its followers were required to be far more strict in observing the tenets of their reformed faith. The followers of the Khalsa were required to observe five visible symbols of membership. These signs as we know were: 1) Unshorn Hair (Kesha), 2) A curved dagger (Kirpan), 3) A comb (Kangva), 4) A steel bangle (Kada), 5) A pair of shorts (Kachha). All members of the Khalsa were required to suffix their name with the term 'Singh' meaning 'lion'. Guru Gobind Singh's aim in forming the Khalsa Panth was to build up a militarized community which could resist Mughal oppression. An anecdote about his forming of the Khalsa army is worth recalling.
The Formation of the Khalsa Army
Once the Guru was delivering an inspiring speech before a group of Sikh youths on the necessity for every youth in the community to be ready to sacrifice everything he had including his life for the cause of his faith. The response of the youths was enthusiastic and many expressed their readiness to get enrolled in the Khalsa Panth. But the Guru' s standards of integrity were very high and he said that he would require the heads of those who wanted to join the Khalsa. The Guru pulled out his sword and beckoned the enthusiastic youths to come forward and lay down their lives there and then.
The youths were dumbfounded and for some moments nobody volunteered to sacrifice his life, while the Guru waited with his unsheathed sword in hand. Finally one of the youths turned up and offered his head to the Guru saying that his head already belonged to the Guru and the Guru may have it if he wanted. The Guru caught hold of the youth and led him inside the sacrificial tent that had been erected for the occasion. After sometime there was a piercing scream form the youth and the Guru emerged from the tent and in his hand was a blood-stained sword. The Guru now demanded another head.
His audience was benumbed at this evident gruesome scene and many devotees fled the place in disgust saying that the Guru had gone mad! But out of the few remaining youths another one offered his head to the Guru. After some time a few select youths had offered their heads to their Guru and has been "sacrificed" by the Guru, while many others had fled carrying with them the memory of a ghastly episode.
But those who fled were never to learn the secret of what happened to those brave youths, five in number, who had offered their heads to the Guru and who were the first Panj Pyaras. Contrary to the impression that he created, after leading every youth into the tent, the Guru embraced each of them and installed them as his select soldiers who were to form the Khalsa army. This army was the bravest that could be had as it was made up of men who had proved that they would lay down their lives to serve their Guru and the Panth in their struggle with the Mughal oppressors.
The Fierce Commitment to Overthrow Mughal Oppression
There is also a less known tradition which Guru Ji is said to have shared orally with the Panj Pyaras in the tent after they had offered him their heads. After baptising them as the first 5 members of the the Khalsa "Pure" Panth Guru Ji decided to have the Panj Pyaras observe the 5 kakkars which included wearing a Kada (signifying a bangle) - as a sign of not yet having fulfilled a commitment of overthrowing the Mughal tormentors who then ruled Punjab(and the rest of India). The Kada was meant to instill a compelling sense of commitment in them to defeat their Mughal tormentors. This aspect of the kada signifying womanhood and shame was later not mentioned for obvious reasons and is not reflected in the Sikh legend. It was this act on part of Guru Ji that spurred on his followers to avenge their oppression by the Muslims and finally led to their successes under Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1799.
(This tradition of fighting Delhi was quoted again by the terrorists during the anti-Indian insurgency of the 1980s. But then the rulers of Delhi were different in 1980 from those in 1699!)
Sahejdharis and Keshadharis
Those members of the Sikh Panth (sect) who observed the five visible signs, and also used the suffix "Singh" (lion) with their names, imbibed the fighting spirit inculcated by Guru Gobind Singh. They came to be known as Keshadharis (wearers of unshorn hair) and those Sikhs (i.e. virtually all the remaining people of Punjab) who revered the Gurus but did not accept the 5 Kakkars laid down by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and did not use the suffix "Singh" were called Sahejdharis (casual devotees), or plainly speaking - Punjabis (i.e. Punjabi Hindus).
The Sahejdharis were also followers of the Gurus, though they did not belong to the Khalsa Panth. And despite this difference, there did not exist a feeling of belonging to different sects among the two sects of the followers of the Gurus till recent times.
Banda Bairagi
Banda Bairagi personifies the ethos of Punjab. His story signifies the oneness of the Sahjedharis and the Keshadharis. Banda Bairagi was born into a Sahejdhari family. He was a devout person from his childhood. Immense love for the Guru attracted him to Guru Govind Singh Ji. In his youth, Banda Bairagi became a Keshadhari and was baptised as Banda Singh Bahadur by Guru Ji. Banda Singh Bahadur carried on a relentless fight against the Muslims. After a stormy life, full of daring adventures, he died on the battlefield fighting the Mughal Oppressors. His name has become legendary in Punjabi folklore.
The Political History of the Sikhs
The later history of the Sikhs is more a political history rather than religious and centers around the establishment of a sovereign kingdom by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Here let us digress into the politico-military situation in North India in the mid 18th century.
The Persian Invasion of 1740 by Nadir Shah
The immediate impetus for the establishment of the Sikh kingdom came from the invasion of North India by Ahmed Shah Durrani (Abdali) the ruler of Afghanistan in 1759/61. On his way to Delhi, Ahmed Shah burnt down the Harmindar Saheb Gurudwara at Amritsar. for 2 years and was planning to settle in India forever, when he was challenged by the Marathas. The Marathas who then were on their ascendancy in North India had since the first Persian-Afghan invasion by Nadir Shah, the king of Persia in 1740, established themselves as a dominant power in Northern India. The 20 years from 1740 to 1760 saw a see-saw battle between the Afghans and the Marathas for the domination of North India.
With the defeat of Mohammed Shah, the Moghul Emperor in 1740 by Nadir Shah (in whose army Ahmed Shah Abdali was a general), the Mughal power steadily declined and its place was usurped by the Rohillas who were led by an ambitious and ruthless chieftain named Najib Khan. Najib's ambition was to supplant the Moghal Emperor and crown himself as the ruler of India by capturing Delhi.
The Rise of the Marathas in Punjab
But the growing power of the Marathas in their northward expansion, stood between Najib and his ambition. To overcome the Marathas, in 1755, Najib invited Ahmed Shah Abdali from Afghanistan to help him in defeating the Marathas and crown himself the ruler of India. In this, he was thwarted by the Marathas who decisively defeated the Rohillas and Afghans near Delhi in 1756. The defeat was so decisive that Najib Khan surrendered to the Marathas and became their prisoner. The Maratha forces were led by Shrimant Raghunath Rao and Malhar Rao Holkar.
After defeating the Afghan-Rohilla forces, the Marathas pursued the Afghans into the Punjab upto the Khyber pass. The last frontier of the Marathas was at Attock in today's NWFP (or Paktoonistan) on the Afghan border. Thus after nearly 800 after the last Punjabi King Tirlochan Pal Shahi had been defeated by Mahmud of Ghazi in 1020 C.E. did that part of India come under Indian rule in 1756 due to the liberation of Punjab by the Marathas.
Meanwhile with machinations and trickery, Najib Khan won over Malhar Rao Holkar and secured his release. On his release Najib started to undermine the Marathas once again and treacherously killed Dattaji Shinde (eldest brother of Mahadji Shinde) . Najib continued to battle the Shindes in 1757-58 and with his newly found confidence again invited Ahmed Shah Abdali to invade India.
The 3rd Battle of Panipat - 1761
Abdali's second invasion was launched in 1759. The Marathas who after their successes in 1756 had been hibernating in Maharashtra and Central India again woke up and in alliance with the Jat King Suraj Mal of Bharatpur formed an alliance. This alliance led by Shrimant Sadshiv Rao Bhau and Shrimant Vishwas Rao (the Peshwa Shrimant Balaji Baji Rao's son) won spectacular victories and captured Delhi and Kunjapura (where the Afghan treasury and armoury was located).
Here the alliance developed cracks due to the Maratha insistence on not allowing the Jats to loot Delhi. This ultimately split the alliance and Suraj Mal withdrew from the alliance.
The Marathas consequently marched upto Panipat, but instead of continuing their attacks to completely defeat the partly defeated Abdali and Najib Khan, they stayed put at Panipat, blocking the way of the Afghans back to Afghanistan. Seeing their way back to their homeland blocked, the Afghans now became restless. They in turn, decided to block the way of the Marathas back into the Deccan. This stand-off continued for a few months, while the Afghans cut-off all supplies to the huge Maratha army. The Afghans with Najib Khan meanwhile recaptured Delhi and Kunjpura.
On the decisive day of 14th January 1761, the Marathas decided to break-through the Afghan blockade and re-enter Deccan. The disastrous battle saw about one hundred thousand Maratha troops being slaughtered in a matter of eight hours. But the Afghans too suffered heavy losses and decided enough was enough and went back to Afghanistan. Abdali never returned to India after this stormy campaign, but his decscendants did make unsuccessful attempts to do so. The invasion of Abdali's grandson (Sher Shah) was one such attempt. This time the invader was challenged by the Sikhs. Sher Shah could not proceed beyond Lahore due to the challenge of the Sarbat Khalsa. Thus, this last of the Muslim invasions also turned out to be the only Muslim invasion of India ever to be defeated by the people of Punjab.
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Ji and the Rise of the first Sikh Kingdom
However, during this period the Sikhs were still unorganised and in the period after the defeat of the Marathas and the withdrawal of the Afghans there existed a power vacuum in North India in the period 1761-1799. It was this vacuum that was filled up by the rising Sikh power under the dynamic leadership of Maharaja Shri Ranjit Singh Ji.
Maharaj Ranjeet Singh Ji was born in 1780 and witnessed these turbulent times in Punjab's history. By 1799, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh had started his attempt to unify the different Sikh Misls, which was to grow into a powerful Sikh Kingdom in the early decades of the 19th century and remained a powerful force till Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's death in 1839.
The Sikh kingdom was also the last of the Indian kingdoms that held out against the British (More of this later)
When the history of Maratha-Afghan warfare was being enacted, the Sikhs in Punjab had formed themselves into Misls (Local Armed Battalions). Though they did not actively participate in helping the Marathas against the Afghans, they nursed a grievance against the Rohillas and Afghans.
Jussa Singh Ahluwalia
Jussa Singh Ahluwalia was a leader of the Alhuwalia Misl prior to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's ascent. Before Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's Asendency the Sikhs had formed themselves into various misls which were under control of various tracts of land of the Punjab. Some of these Misls refused to get themselves integrated into the Sikh Army formed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji. These rebellious Misls were eventually overcome and integrated into the Sikh army by Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji.
Hari Singh Nallua
On the departure of the Afghans, the Sikhs reasserted themselves in the Punjab and Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji who was the leader of the Gujranwala Misl - which was one of the most powerful Misl, formed a kingdom with its capital at Lahore in today's West Punjab in Pakistan. His kingdom stretched beyond the Hindu Kush into Afghanistan. Able generals like Hari Singh Nallua helped in pushing the frontiers of the Sikh kingdom into Afghanistan.
It was a tradition in those days for the eldest son of every family from Punjab to join the army (of the Maharaja) by observing the 5 Kakkars. Brave generals like Hari Singh Nallua took the Sikh armies deep into Afghanistan and they are reputed to have brought back the original Gates of the Somnath Temple which had been desecrated by Mahmud of Ghazni in the 11th century. The gates had been carried off by Mahmud to Afghanistan and had remained there ever since. Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji retrieved them and brought them back to India.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji's reign marked the consolidation of Indian sovereignty in Punjab after first Muslim invasions eight hundred years before in 1020. The Marathas had broken the continuous Muslim occupation of Punjab by liberating it in 1756 and Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji consolidated Indian rule in Punjab a few years later.
The kingdom established by Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji successfully resisted the Afghans, and Rohillas and also out-matched the new imperialist power of the British successfully till Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji was alive. At his death, the Maharaja had warned about the impending coming of the British.
(On his death-bed he is said to have expressed a desire to offer his most precious possession to the Jagannath Puri temple at Orissa. He was asked by the chief Mahant (priest) of the Jagannath Puri temple as to what he considered most precious. In reply Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji is said to have told the Mahant that as a Keshadhari follower of the Guru, his unshorn hair was most precious to him and he wanted to donate that to the temple along with umpteen gold and jewellery.)
It was during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji that the Harmindar Saheb Gurudwara at Amritsar which had been burnt down by Ahmed Shah Abdali in 1760, was repaired and was completely plated with gold and from then onwards it came to be known as the Golden Temple.
Such was Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji who consolidated Indian rule in India's frontier state which had been earlier liberated by the Marathas. Unfortunately the Marathas could not retain their hold over the liberated areas, many of which were re-occupied by the Rohillas and Afghans after a few years. But the rise of the Sikh power ensured that a large part of the Maratha achievements of rolling back alien rule could be consolidated and expanded. Even today the Sikhs continue to form an important element of troops in the Indian army and are an effective bulwark in the fight against Muslim terorism that afflicts India especially so in Kashmir.
How the Maratha Hindus outmatched the Muslims at their own game from 1650 onwards
Now we move to the South where the Marathas were the first who crossed the Muslim invader Malik Kafur's path, when he invaded Central India in 1314 C.E. They were then led by the last scion of the Yadava dynasty - Ramdev Rai Yadava who ruled from Devagiri (today's Daulatabad, near Sambhajinagar aka Aurangbad). In their first clash with the Muslims; the Marathas lost to the invaders and accepted the status of being vassals and mercenaries of their tyrannical Muslim masters. Shivaji's mother, Jijabai was a direct descendant of the erstwhile Yadav royal family of Devagiri. She seems to have nursed deep within her mind the idea of recovering independence from Muslim rule which her Yadav forebears had lost in the year 1318. Shivaji grew up with these ideas embedded into him. His childhood stories are those of playing games in which he and his friends attacked and captured forts held by the enemy. When Shivaji was seventeen, he decided to transform what were till then simply games to a reality. He and his friends encouraged by Jijabai and his Guru Dadoji Kondeo; decided to take a formal oath to free the country from the shackles of Muslim tyranny. This was done in the year 1645 in a dark cavern housing a small temple to the Hindu God Shiva (locally called Raireshwar).
Here Shivaji and his select band of teenaged Maratha friends slit their thumbs and poured the blood oozing from it on the Shiva-linga (Phallus representing the Lord Shiva). By this act they declared a blood-feud against Mughal tyranny. This was the beginning of a long and arduous Maratha-Mughal struggle that went on for the next century and a half to culminate in the defeat of the Mughals and their replacement by the Marathas as the dominant power in India when the British came into the scene.
When Shivaji started his military career by capturing the fortress of Torana, it sent shockwaves in the Adilshshi court at Bijapur. Here was a local Hindu chieftain, daring to challenge the might of a Muslim ruler. The retribution was swift and Adil Shah sent in his most fearsome general named Afzal Khan to bring back Shivaji dead or alive to Bijapur. Afzal Khan who was reputed to be more than six feet tall and of a real massive built, set on his mission and in order to lure Shivaji down into the plains, he destroyed the Hindu temples at Tuljapur, Pandharpur and Shikhar Shenganapur.
This ploy failed to work and Shivaji stuck to his Hill fastness in the Sahyadris. Shivaji even sent a letter to Afzal Khan praising the legendary strength of Afzal Khan's powerful arms and his reputed fearlessness. Shivaji addressed him as his uncle and said that he was afraid to come down to meet Afzal Khan. Shivaji asked him to come up into the hills to meet him and on condition that Afzal Khan came with not more than few select soldiers. The proud Khan felt that the Dekkhan-Ka-Chuha (Rat of the Deccan as the Muslims scornfully addressed Shivaji) had really chickened out.
Shivaji’s ensnaring and slaying of Afzal Khan proved that the Hindu’s had finally come of age in turning against the Muslims their tricks of subterfuge
Before inviting Afzal Khan up to the fort in the densely forested ranges, Shivaji had gone down to the plains in the guise of a fruit vendor with a basket of fruits on his head. This ploy was done so that Shivaji could have a good look at Afzal Khan’s face when the Khan traveled on horseback. No other person could have an excuse to look up to the Khan’s eyes. But a fruit vendor would have to look up to ask if the Khan wanted fruits. This way Shivaji made sure he knew who was the real Khan, as he knew that for meeting enemies, the Muslims sent imposters whenever they sensed that they would be betrayed at the meeting. But this way Shivaji ensured that he knew that it was the Khan himself who had come to meet him and not an imposter in his place.
This action of Shivaji clearly indicated that he had made plans for slaying Khan when the two met at the Fort. Afzal Khan agreed to go up the hills at Pratapgad Fort to meet his nemesis. When the meeting took place, Shivaji had come in full armor, that was hidden beneath his thick satin robes, while Afzal had no such protection. When they came face to face Afzal Khan embraced Shivaji and with his formidable enemy (Afzal Khan was about six feet tall while Shivaji was less than five feet) in his embrace, Shivaji suddenly slipped his the 'Wagh Nakh' into the Khan’s abdomen. The 'Wagh Nakh' (literally tiger’s claws) are a sharp weapon resembling tiger claws that could be hidden in the grip of one's fist. In addition, he had the Bichhwa – a curved dagger hidden in the pocket of his waistcoat with which he repeatedly stabbed the unprepared Khan. When Khan realized that he had been betrayed he bellowed “Dagaa, Dagaa” “I have been betrayed” and called for his bodyguard Syed Banda to come to his rescue. The fact that the Khan had not attacked Shivaji is lent credence by the fact the he yelled out “I have been betrayed”. Had he attack Shivaji first, then there was no question of his yelling out that he had been betrayed.
After Shivaji had wounded him, the Khan then tried to attack Shivaji in self-defence by using his own dagger, and tried to stab Shivaji. But Afzal's dagger could not plunge into Shivaji Maharaj due to the protective armor which Shivaji was wearing, Afzal tried to throttle him. But the wily Maratha was more than prepared for this as he had come down not only with full armor that was hidden by his thick satin robes, but all his palanquin bearers were hardened Maratha warriors who had been armed to the teeth with their weapons hidden in their clothes and turbans.
When Syed Banda, also a burly Muslim was about to strike Shivaji with his sword, Shivaji's bodyguard Jiva Mahalya struck off Banda's upraised arm in the air itself. After this commotion, the bleeding Khan tried to make good his escape and rushed into his palanquin. As the palanquin bearers set off with the fleeing Khan, Santaji Kawji, another of Shivaji's select warriors cut-off the feet of the bearers and Khans' palanquin, with its load of Afzal fell to the ground. Santaji Kawji, then finished off the task of sending Khan to his final resting place. Khan's army which was waiting in the valley was ruthlessly massacred by the Marathas who were hiding behind every crevice and bush in the densely wooded jungles around the Pratapgad fort. At the place where this encounter took place on 10th November 1659 between Shivaji Maharaj and the Khan, there stands today a Kabar (grave) erected by Shivaji for the departed Khan's soul to rest in peace. Thus for once a Hindu had outwitted a Muslim who was twice as strong and was also a towering giant. The pigeons of Muslim subterfuge had come home to roost and with a vengeance too.
Thus the Shivaji’s ensnaring and slaying of Afzal Khan proved that the Hindus had finally come of age in learning Muslim tricks of subterfuge. Tricks that were unheard of in ancient Hindu India and which would have been looked down upon according to the ancient Hindu rules of warfare. Shivaji’s attack on Afzal was a pre-planned one, and for which he used the Muslim psychology of killing their enemies, even if there was no immediate provocation. Unfortunately not many Hindu later followed this illustrious example of Shivaji, and so today India remains condemned to face the Muslim threat, which is raising its ugly head once again.
Another example of Hindus learning subterfuge from the Muslims - Shivaji’s outsmarting another Muslim general Shaista Khan
The next Muslim Khan to come down 'literally' before Shivaji was Shaista Khan. On hearing Shivaji's depredations, Aurangzeb was furious and wanted to desperately crush this infidel upstart. He sent his uncle maternal Shaista Khan with a large and powerful army to checkmate Shivaji. But even this time the wily Maratha proved that brain was stronger than the brawn. Shaista Khan came into Maharashtra and started devastating towns, villages fields, temples, forts and everything that came in his path.
To provoke Shivaji, Shaista Khan established his camp in Shivaji's home in Pune called Lal-Mahal. And to top it up, he put up his Harem in Shivaji's Devghar (prayer room). He bided his time for many months and one on fine day (night), he with a select band of Maratha Samurais, sneaked into Pune and into the Lal-Mahal. He tracked down the sleeping Khan to his bed. The Khan sensing that his time was up tried jumping out of the window. At that point Shivaji cut off the Khan's fingers with which he was holding on to the window sill.
When the Khan's wife's pleading before Shivaji to spare her husband's life as she considered Shivaji to be her brother (sic). And so killing her husband would mean making her a widow, Shivaji spared the Khan's life. This was a mistake for which Shivaji was to pay dearly later. Shivaji made good his escape from the Khan's lair, but not before the treacherous Khan ordered his troops to give chase and try to capture the fleeing Shivaji. Here too Shivaji had tied burning torches to the horns of a herd of cows and bulls and with bells jangling making a ruckus like swords clashing. So instead of pursuing Shivaji who escaped into the night, the Muslim army went in the direction of this cows and bulls which they though to be the Maratha army that Shivaji had brought out. But when they reached the cows and bulls, they were flustered when they realized the trick played on them by the shrewd Hindu. The Khan then, decided that enough was enough and returned to Delhi - without his fingers. This happened in April 1663.
The Hindu counterattack had now begun in earnest. The Marathas after Shivaji managed to reach Delhi in 1720 and by 1756, they had occupied the whole of Punjab to reach the border of Afghanistan. But after Shivaji, there were very few Maratha leaders who realized the depth of the Muslim threat. There were some like Mahadji Scindia, but they were very few. The later Marathas under their Prime Ministers called Peshwa (who came from the crafty Hindu priestly class), opened negotiations with the Mughal (Muslim) King at Delhi and fought battles on his behalf against other Muslims like Nadir the King of Persia and Ahmed Khan Abdali, the ruler of Afghanistan. This was a disastrous policy as the Maratha Hindus became a tool in the hands of the Muslims and suffered many defeats, the most disastrous one being at Panipat in 1761 at the hand of the Afghan invader Ahmed Khan Abdali.
But where the Marathas stopped, the bearded and turbaned Sikhs took over and they carried the saffron flag of India into Afghanistan and planted it at Kabul in the year 1820. A city which the Hindus had lost in the year 980 when Sabuktgin had treacherously defeated Jayapal Shahiya, the last Hindu king of Kabul(then called Kubha).
Why the Marathas and the Sikhs failed to completely defeat the Muslims
After liberating large tracts of the country from Muslim rule, neither the Marathas nor the Sikhs follow the illustrious example of the Spanish Reconquistadors of reconverting the Muslims to their original faith (Hinduism in this context). It was only because of the three alternatives of re-embracing Christianity, leaving Spain or facing death; which the Reconquistadors gave to the defeated Spanish Moriscos (Moors or Muslims), that Spain regained its original Christian character. But there was no such thing in India that was liberated by the Marathas. In fact the Marathas stupidly and shamefully accepted the Mughal (Muslim dynasty in India) court customs, their attires, their habits, except that of converting the subjugated to their religion at the pain of death. This is where the Marathas failed, to consolidate their military victories, while the Spanish Reconquistadors succeeded. The Maratha policy contrasted starkly with the coercion used by the Muslims to convert Hindus to Islam. This proved that for all their valor and skill on the battlefield, the Marathas like all other Hindus had not gauged the nature of the Muslim threat, as the Spanish Conquistadors had succeeded in doing so.
The saving grace was that the Marathas were not displaced again by the Muslims, but by the growing colonial power of the British in the year 1818. Later the Marathas disgracefully joined forces with the Muslims in 1857 to launch an uprising against the British. Fortunately this uprising failed to dislodge the British, but it marked the formal demise of Muslim power in India, as the British dethroned the last Muslim (Mughal) king of India, the wretched Bahadur Shah Zafar, a task which the Marathas should have done a century earlier when they became the dominant power in North India. But under the Macheivellian Peshwas who came from the crafty Hindu priestly class, they instead of dethroning the Mughal king, had made him a status symbol and tried to derive legitimacy for Maratha conquests in North India by asking for his seal of approval and wielding power in his name. It was both ironical and shameful that the Marathas collected taxes in North India as subsidiaries of the tottering Mughal king and not in their own right (as Shivaji Maharaj had done), although it was they who in fact controlled the Mughal king. And hence the destiny of formally ending Muslim rule in India lay with the British and not with the Marathas a task which the British thankfully did in 1857.
By comparison, British rule in India was looked upon by the Hindus as a relief from the ruthless Muslim tyranny. The departure of the British saw the Muslim clamor for the Muslim majority provinces to be cut off from India and made into a synthetic nation which they called Pakistan. This moth-eaten nation split into two parts when in 1971, the eastern wing of Pakistan split from the Western half, and formed a new nation named Bangla Desh. Today both Pakistan and Bangla Desh are at the forefront of fomenting Islamic Terrorism and trying to destabilize India with the aim of intimidating Indians to five in to Islam and become one more Terrorist nation like any one of the Muslim nations from Morocco to Indonesia. Whatever is India’s fate, this populous nation that boasts the highest number of Software Professionals and Doctors is destined to witness it.
How India is once again in danger today
If the Hindus do not learn from the Spanish Reconquistadors, on the right way to deal with the Muslim challenge India could be in deep trouble. The clock of the Islamic Jihad has started ticking once again and a swath of disctricts from Kashmir, thruogh Himachal, Uttaranchal, Northern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar up to West Bengal and Assam have become Muslim majority or ones with Muslims fast approaching majority through demographic multiplication and migration. This is a ploy of the Muslim to use demographics to kink up Pakistan with Bangla Desh. Again the proportion of lands owned by Muslims along the Sea shores across India’s vast sea shore is increasing.
The strategy is to block off all lands facing the sea, to enable nefarious activities like landing of explosives like RDx, and possibly napalm, and depleted uranium, for serial bomb blasts that were first started off by the Muslim mafia in 1883 at Mumbai in Western India. If Hindus do not wake up then they would in a few decades be pushed towards their own destruction, like the Zoroastrians of Iran who 1300 years back disgracefully surrendered to the warriors of the crescent moon!
So we see how after subjugating Persia and Byzantine the Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had to shed their blood to resist the Islamic Jihad. Coercion used by the Muslims to convert Hindus to Islam
Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote the following in 1920 regarding the impact of centuries of jihad and dhimmitude on the indigenous Hindus of the Indian subcontinent:
Islamic theology, therefore tells the true believer that his highest duty is to make 'exertion (jihad) in the path of God', by waging war against infidel lands (dar-ul-harb) till they become part of the realm of Islam (dar-ul-Islam) and their populations are converted into true believers. After conquest the entire infidel population becomes theoretically reduced to the status of slaves of the conquering army. The men taken with arms are to be slain or sold into slavery and their wives and children reduced to servitude. As for the non-combatants among the vanquished, if they are not massacred outright, - as the canon lawyer Shaf'i declares to be the Qur'anic injunction,- it is only to give them a respite till they are so wisely guided as to accept the true faith.
The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary evil, and for a transitional period only. Political and social disabilities must be imposed on him, and bribes offered to him from the public funds, to hasten the day of his spiritual enlightenment and the addition of his name to the roll of true believers...
A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (zimma, or 'dhimma') with the State: for the life and property grudgingly spared to him by the commander of the faithful he must undergo political and social disabilities, and pay a commutation money. In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to the cause of Islam.
He must pay a tax for his land (kharaj), from which the early Muslims were exempt; he must pay other exactions for the maintenance of the army, in which he cannot enlist even if he offers to render personal service instead of paying the poll-tax; and he must show by humility of dress and behavior that he belongs to s subject class. No non-Muslim can wear fine dresses, ride on horseback or carry arms; he must behave respectfully and submissively to every member of the dominant sect.
As the learned Qazi Mughis-ud-din declared, in accordance with the teachings of the books on Canon Law: ‘The Hindus are designated in the Law as ‘payers of tribute’ (kharaj-guzar); and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it 18. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the zimmi [dhimmi], the glorification of the true faith of Islam, and the abasement of false faiths. God himself orders them to be humiliated , (as He says, ‘till they pay jaziya) with the hand and are humbled…The Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive…No other religious authority except the great Imam (Hanifa) whose faith we follow, has sanctioned the imposition of jaziya on Hindus. According to all other theologians, the rule for Hindus is ‘Either death or Islam’.
The zimmi is under certain legal disabilities with regard to testimony in law courts, protection under criminal law, and in marriage…he cannot erect new temples, and has to avoid any offensive publicity in the exercise of his worship…Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects. In addition to the poll-tax and public degradation in dress and demeanor imposed on them, the non-Muslims were subjected to various hopes and fears. Rewards in the form of money and public employment were offered to apostates from Hinduism. The leaders of Hindu religion and society were systematically repressed, to deprive the sect of spiritual instruction, and their religious gatherings and processions were forbidden in order to prevent the growth of solidarity and sense of communal strength among them. No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.
When a class are publicly depressed and harassed by law and executive caprice alike, they merely content themselves with dragging on an animal existence. With every generous instinct of the soul crushed out of them, the intellectual culture merely adding a keen edge to their sense of humiliation, the Hindus could not be expected to produce the utmost of which they were capable; their lot was to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to their masters, to bring grist to the fiscal mill, to develop a low cunning and flattery as the only means of saving what they could of their own labor. Amidst such social conditions, the human hand and the human spirit cannot achieve their best; the human soul cannot soar to its highest pitch. The barrenness of intellect and meanness of spirit of the Hindu upper classes are the greatest condemnation of Muslim rule in India. The Muslim political tree judged by its fruit was an utter failure.
Nearly four decades later, Antoine Fattal, whose 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays' d'Islam remains the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under the Shari'a (i.e., Muslim Law), observed 19:
…Even today, the study of the jihad is part of the curriculum of all the Islamic institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Nagaf, and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war [jihad] is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the Infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world... If he [the dhimmi] is tolerated, it is for reasons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority...In no way is the dhimmi the equal of the Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal in the Law Courts as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims...No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis (Hindus, Christian, Jews and other non-Muslims)
The Paradox of Hinduism while fighting Islam
The more a Hindu become hinduized, he becomes more tolerant, relegating everything to fate, considering all misfortunes (attacks by others such as Muslims) as divinely ordained.
But the more a beast (Muslim) gets beastalized (Islamized), he becomes more cruel, more practical and oriented to killing kafirs, So how do you resole this paradox, So the question is do you Hinduize the Hindus or make them atheistic and practical – Sri Krsna is the only exception who practicalized Parth at Kurukshetra, (few other examples are those of Sage Vidyarnya with Harihara and Bukka and Swami Samartha Ramdas with Shivaji Maharaj) otherwise all Hindu saints make Hindus increasingly vulnerable. This is the Paradox of Hinduism while fighting Islam We have no answer on how Hindus will resolve this paradox
What has defeated Islam so far and what can defeat it in future
The history of Islam tells us that he only contest which the Muslims lost was that between them and the Atheistic-Communists. This was so as it is only the Communists who have it in their outlook to force-fit the Communist outlook in the population, something which it shares with Islam, so when Islam came into conflict with Communism, and when communism had political power, it did not allow Islam to exist, as it also did not allow any other religion to exist. This way the Communist and Islamic outlooks complimented each other. Both the Muslims and the communists had zero tolerance of each other. In this context all other religious outlooks failed to counter Islam, as all of them differing levels of tolerance for other faiths, while Islam has none. So only that outlook can defeat and destroy Islam which has zero tolerance of Islam while its methods are more ruthless, cruel, pervasive , persistent and global than those of Islam. So far only communism has been such an outlook. Maybe in future there would a non-Communistic outlook which is as effective against Islam as Communism was
All this notwithstanding today’s alliance of the Communists with the Muslims is because both of them see in the USA a common enemy of Islam and Communism.
But ironically whenever the communists had power, they did not initiate a dialogue with any religion, they simply acted, by taking over the education system, closing down the places of worship, or severely circumscribing them, they sent religious (and other) dissidents to re-education centers, and the more committed of the dissidents to Concentration camps and the most incorrigible ones to the firing squad.
Communism has been the only attitude that has destroyed religion, although the destruction was unfortunately not complete.
Interestingly, it is the ruthless (communistic) attitude in global state policy (after the War on Terror destroys some religions and weakens all others) that will complete this unfinished task of destroying all religion. Communism in the 20th century was a false start for atheism. Now in the 21st century, the real start for atheism (minus the economic ideology of communism) will come, which will sound the death knell of all religions.
We do not advocate Hinduism at all, as some might think, we only support the free-thinking that goes with Hindu culture (and all other natural human societies that existed before organized monotheism of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and then the missionary Christianity, and finally the ISLAM of the schizophrenic savages came about) We also do not support the economic ideology of communism.
We support a natural human state of existence where atheism and scientific temper rules human outlook. And although we advocate free thought, we will prevent religion to grow in human minds. Since to enable free thought to exist, we need to prohibit religion from being reborn, since religion prohibits free thought.
But ironically going by the track record of religion over the last three millennia, especially that of Christianity, and finally the Islam of the schizophrenic savages, freedom of though would have to sanitized so that religious belief never takes hold over the human mind ever again.
In this scenario of the fight between religions (war on terror) and the following fight to get rid of the weakened religions, the Hindus are the least capable of being active players in the scenario of the demise of religion, since Hindus cannot battle anybody with their open-ended theology. And so most Hindus will not fight Islam, but advocate peace with Muslims, while Muslims call for the destruction of all religions, including Hinduism.
Hence the Hindus are most ineffectual and in fact most Hindus would effectively be obstacles in the process of destroying Islam. Most Hindus would be sterile spectators of this process and some of them (psecs and pacifists) in fact would be trying to defend and save the Muslims. Such Hindus would themselves have to be actively destroyed, if not by the Muslims in their fight with all religions, then by the any anti-Islamic agency.
Once Islam is militarily defeated and then destroyed; the need of the day would be to come up with workable creative ideas, for brainwashing the remaining religious fanatics with techniques like anesthesia leading to amnesia and re-education of such brainwashed ex-religious fanatics; or the use of mass lobotomy to achieve the same result. Only such a technique could prevent religious fanaticism from being resurrected with a name other than Islam and insure the progress of human civilization without any obstacle from any religion.
The War on Terror is the first step towards that, so we are not surprised whenever there is an escalation of this war, after all in today’s situation, we need an escalation of violence for the next few years or decades to prevent sustained religious violence in the coming centuries. A violence that has been exacerbated to blood-curdling depths by Islam - the most violent and cruel expression of the malady called religion.
trying so hard to make Sikhism a sect of Hinduism...heheh, Majority of people that are Sikhs today were not Hindus. Hindus that converted to Sikhism make up approximately 40% of the current Sikh population.
You do realize why Sikhs say they are neither Hindu nor Muslim. It is beacuse SIkhs believe their religion to be a releavetion from God, told through the 10 Gurus.
Stating Sikhs were a Punjabi Hindu resistance against Muslims is simply wrong, not only this but the ideaology of going against one specific religious group itself is against the tenents of Sikhism. Sikhs never directly attacked Muslims, but rather only leaders that committed atrocities.
The 9th Guru attained matrydom because the Kashmiris asked for his help, and at their discreation he went to Delhi. Where he was asked to convert or be killed, and he chose death. Most people, well Hindus state he died in the name of Hindu religion which is wrong, he died for the sake of religious Freedom.
Another thing, Hindus state Khalsa was created to protect Hindus, which is again wrong, the Khalsa always protects the innocent, Khalsa is more about Sainthood than militancy. Through Khalsa is how one attains SaintHood. The 5ks are to distiguish the Sikhs from other religions of the world.
This is something that the Sikhs call Bhraminical Tyranny. Purposely stating lies to undermine the Sikh religion.
By the way the Indian government has killed more Sikhs than Mughal Empire, and that too in 1/10th the time.
If you go to the core beliefs of Sikhism you will see how different it is from both Islam and Hinduism, and if compared to any other religion it comes closed to Sufism and Orthadox Judism.
If you like i would love to debate and prove how these two religions differ.
This message has been edited by ShadowMast01 on Jun 15, 2005 1:08 AM
Quote:Fierce and persistent Hindu resistance to the Islamic Jihad prevented the complete Islamization of India
No kidding!
Very good article too
There were almost constant revolts in Jatt areas around Delhi and Temples were put up to replace the ones lost. We never gave up on them . Unfortunately, some of the Hindu rulers of Bharat weren't as tyranical as they should've been and allowed Muslims rulers and leaders to stay alive when they could've killed them for the greater good. Would be interesting to see if we have a religious war in the 21st century: Islam vs everyone else...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Well, this attack on Muslims proves one point. What Muslim League used to say in 1940s. That Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations, not just religions. That most of the time, [b]heroes of one are villains of another, and vice versa{/b}
Well Asqar you said it yourself. The heroes of one are the villains of another, and vice a versa. You take pride in your heroes and hold disdain for your villains, and vice versa. How can we read about the lives of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Mohammed-ibn-Qasim, Aurangzeb and countless other historic figures and come to the same conclusion? You take pride in your heros and we take pride in ours. You might see this as an attack on Muslims, an attack on one of your heroes, but I see it as telling the truth of one of my villains.
WTF are you talking about?
Hey Einstein, if we were so bad, so cruel, how comes there still a lot of Hindu today in India!
If we were like the westerns, today the half of the world clouded be Muslim!
Look at the South America, India, and specially the Middle East (the heart of Islam)! After all these centuries there are still a lot of Jews, Christians and others in Middle East!
At the time there was no democracy or human right around the world! How comes you people have been considered as a human and not like slaves! If we were so bad how comes you don’t speak Arabic or Turkish and you all are not Muslims!
How comes the Indian people speak English, and the South American speak Spanish or Portuguese? Did you ever think about that?
So please be grateful not to the Turkish people neither to the Arabs but be grateful to Islam! I think the world should never forget what happened to them when Turkish warriors where not Muslims (Genghis Khan’s Army, Attila the Hun)
At the time there was no democracy or human right around the world! How comes you people have been considered as a human and not like slaves! If we were so bad how comes you don’t speak Arabic or Turkish and you all are not Muslims!
Democracy and human rights? Why did the ancient Turks need these things, they had Islam.
So please be grateful not to the Turkish people neither to the Arabs but be grateful to Islam! I think the world should never forget what happened to them when Turkish warriors where not Muslims (Genghis Khan’s Army, Attila the Hun)
First tell us the difference. Secondly, are you saying that the treatment received by the Indians, the Afghans, the Iranian during their own respective Islamic invasions were in conjunction with Islam, that raping women captured in war, making slaves out of young boys was following Islam, that the ancients Turks were following Islam just as the Sudanese currently are practicing it and that they only changed because democracy and human rights were introduced?
Edit: Please don't get offended by anything I say. If you do get offended, I am sorry.
This message has been edited by Gabru47 on Jun 15, 2005 1:11 AM
Statistics done by St Anne's Church of Dhule in Maharashtra.
Complied figures for government emplyoment from 1935 to present for different groups of people in India.
-During British rule Government Jobs:
40% held by Kayasthas Today it is 7%
-In 1953:
35% held by Muslims Today it is 3.5%
-Christains who were favored by British:
15%, Today it is 1%
-Schduled Tribes, Castes, backward classes:
no significant numbers, Today it is 9%
-Now Brahmins.
3% during British rule, Today it is 70% while only making 3.5% of population.
Now What is wrong with this picture. Who says Jews are smart. Look at these Bhamans, Slick ****ers i tell ya hehe. Sad and magnificent at the same time.
This message has been edited by ShadowMast01 on Jun 15, 2005 1:27 AM
By the way indians ancestors were far superior to whatever the turks were culturally, socially, if the indians were warlike and united, you would all be their b!cthes.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Harry, wrt your first post, first define to me the doctrine of Hindu religion, and then we can debate that Sikhism isn't part of Hinduism. As long as you have a false idea of Hinduism, your definition of Sikhism as a separate religion (in the Middle Eastern sense) remains false as well.
Wrt your second post, if we showed stats of how Indian Punjab's GDP grew (or poverty fell) from 1947 to 2005, it becomes a testimony to the work ethic of Punjabis, Sikhs in particular. But when we show the fact that Brahmins are 70% of government (I find it hard to believe that, over-proportionate definitely, but maybe 25% or so), it becomes a testimony to India's racism?
Quote:By the way indians ancestors were far superior to whatever the turks were culturally, socially, if the indians were warlike and united, you would all be their b!cthes.
Unlike the French we did other things then exploit, so it's normal for you not to know...
Let me give you an example, the most known thing about India the Taj Mahal was even made by the Turkic people...Don't recall the French giving any nation anything worth mentioning...
---
Türk milleti, Türk milleti,
Aţk ile sev milliyeti,
Kahret vatan düţmanýný,
Çeksin o mel’un zilleti.
We Brahmins must be Gods you know if that statistic is true. I guess there is a lot of truth to the caste system, keep things in the natural order as made by Brahma (Brahmins from head, Kshatriyas/Kayasthas from chest, Vaishyas from stomach, Shudras from feet, and my addition, mlechhas from the *******). We gave a level playing field, actually tilted it in their favor with all these reservations and reverse discrimination. But we still rule. Brahminism's the way to go.
"Actually, my ancestors were the survivors, the ancestors of the Pakis are the losers, your ancestors are the winners (btw, you guys were also losers wrt Arabs). But the losers ganged up on the survivors with the winners."
lol...oh yes, pakisatni ancestors are losers.
lets see...500 years of ruling india by the mughals.
vast riches and lifestyle. lived better than others.
muslims ruled the hindus for 400 years, untill the british. When the british left, and mijority dictated that hindus could rule over muslims, we got our own seperate country.
still call us losers.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
Hummm, yes, losers. Muslims didn't rule India, a Mughal dynasty ruled India. We were all Hindus or Buddhists or something before. With Sharia as law of the land, some Hindus submitted to economic and militant pressure and converted and became one with their tormentors. The vast majority stuck to our beliefs, willing to die before being converted to such inhumanity through such inhuman practices. And it is funny that the losers now identify themselves as one with their tormentors. We Hindus and Sikhs of today, are nothing but observers, the old stock you may say.
Eric:
"By the way indians ancestors were far superior to whatever the turks were culturally, socially,"
I differ. The founder of Mughal Empire, Babar, writes in his autobiography "Tuzk e Babri":
"Hindustan is a country which has few pleasures to recommend it.... Indians have no idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing together, or of familiar intercourse.... They have no horses, no good grapes, or musk melons, no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread in their bazaars, no bath or colleges, no candles, no torches, not a candle stick."
"if the indians were warlike and united, you would all be their b!cthes."
Like they were our bitches?
Sorry. Couldn't hold myself.
If Indians were warlike then Muslims wouldn't even be in India.
Are you gonna come up with a bogus article stating how all Muslims of South Asia are descended from Arabs and Persians? You guys are nothing but Arab-wannabe Hindus.
Indians were the most backward people. Indians used to take a bath only once in their life, at the time of birth. We changed all that so you lot should be thankfull we gave you a piece of civilization... Also we're the only reason tourists come to India (taj mahal )...
---
Türk milleti, Türk milleti,
Aţk ile sev milliyeti,
Kahret vatan düţmanýný,
Çeksin o mel’un zilleti.
hahaha.
There are many people who were converted from being polytheist. But come to think of it, everyone was converted to Islam from one religion to another.
On the other hand, there are many Muslims who came to India along with armies. The name of "Muslim" language, Urdu, itself means 'Army(lashkar)' in Turkish. Urdu was earlier called 'Zubaan e Urdu', or the 'Language of the Army'.
It does not mean that they never married among local population. They must have. The only criterion was for them to convert to Islam first.
Anyway. My family has never been Hindu. We belong to that second category.
"Anyway. My family has never been Hindu. We belong to that second category."
Foreigners? I wouldn't be saying that so proudly if I were you.
And after being oppressors for 700 years, you whine when we slaughter your type in Gujrat or we destroy your mosques? Remember who started this.......Muslims started it, Hindus will end it. Dunno, have Muslims forgotten this thing called the Spanish Inquisition?
This message has been edited by BharatRakshak on Jun 15, 2005 3:07 PM
Bharat:
"Foreigners? I wouldn't be saying that so proudly if I were you."
Excuse me?! Do you want me to hide the facts? And why do you think I am being proud?
Oh, and you would not have said that you came from outside India if you were me?! Isn't it the very reason you guys try to find continuity in Indus Valley Civilization and Hinduism?
Thanks friend. The truth just came out of your mouth. YOU ARE READY TO DISTORT HISTORY TO FIT YOUR NEEDS!!
Dud what are you bull****ting about Turkish atrocities. Timur Lenk did also many atrocities against the Turks in Anatalia. Stop bull****ting, look at the atrocities of your stupid caste Indian system, before nagging about the big bad Turks.
You are the one distorting the facts. How many soldiers can have come to India from the Middle East and Central Asia in the 700 years of Islamic rule? Let's say one million. That dispersed over the wide sub-continent, and breeding into native population which numbered in the hundreds of millions, how the eff are you not Indian? By my fatherline, I am a Saka too, but genetically, I am 0.00000001% Saka.
You are simply identifying yourself with the foreigners to hide the shame that your mother (figuratively)'s honor was violated by foreign barbarians.
Or are we going to say now that Islam brought to India a system of beliefs that viewed Indians as inferior niggaz, and for that, the Turkish soldiers inbred to maintain racial purity? Wouldn't surprise me, Muslims are capable of the biggest fascism within themselves, you guys case and example in Bangladesh, or Arabs in Sudan.
Bharat:
"How many soldiers can have come to India from the Middle East and Central Asia in the 700 years of Islamic rule? Let's say one million. That dispersed over the wide sub-continent, and breeding into native population which numbered in the hundreds of millions, how the eff are you not Indian? By my fatherline, I am a Saka too, but genetically, I am 0.00000001% Saka."
The difference is that we did not mix as much because of our religion. I am as much of a South Asian as I am an Arab, a Persian, or an Afghan. Because we have passed through all these areas during the last 1000 years. Iranians think I am from Uzbekistan, and South Americans think I am from Peru.
That's why I don't define myself as belonging to any one of these nationalities.
Bharat:
"You are simply identifying yourself with the foreigners to hide the shame that your mother (figuratively)'s honor was violated by foreign barbarians."
As I said, we married among local population only after they had accepted Islam. And there is no honor violated in marriage. Is it?
And I identify myself only as a son of Islam. Whether it is good or bad, but we are a mixed lot. And after marrying among local population as well, and having lived here for more than 500 years, we are now an integral part of South Asian subcontinent.
This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Jun 15, 2005 4:42 PM
Pakistan is not a dharti, Pakistan is a hateful ideology that was allotted some land. The dharti is called Bharat/Hindusthana/India, even plate tectonics will say so. Come on man, we were destined by GOD to be together, lol.
The Indian subcontinent is the peninsular region of South Asia, which includes India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, usually also Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and some disputed territory currently controlled by China, and sometimes Myanmar. Geographically, the region is bound by the Himalaya to the north and east, and the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal to the south. The Hindu Kush mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan/Iran are usually considered the westernmost edge of the subcontinent. It is also known as the Indo-Pak subcontinent, primarily in Pakistan. Being the only region in the world that is commonly described as a subcontinent, it is often simply called the Subcontinent. The term South Asia is often used synonymously with the term Subcontinent, although technically South Asia refers more specifically to a political entity (the various countries that make up the Subcontinent), while the Subcontinent signifies a geographical area.
Geologically, this region is a subcontinent because it rests on a tectonic plate of its own, the India Plate, separate from the rest of Eurasia and was once a small continent before colliding with the Eurasian Plate and giving birth to the Himalayan range and the Tibetan plateau. Even now the India Plate continues to move northward with the result that the Himalaya are growing taller by a few centimetres each decade. In addition, the region is also home to an astounding variety of geographical features that are typical of much larger continents, such as glaciers, rainforests, valleys, deserts, and grasslands in an area about half the size of the United States.
Never noticed before, the dude's face looks like a frustrated penis.
BTW, we have discussed this earlier. Even if a thing is in Hindu mythology (which was believed by all Hindus), since India was all Hindu before Islam, there was a sentiment of the entire sub-continent being one civilizational entity.
Muslims don't believe in Hindu mythology, but your ancestors did. Thus, your theory of nobody believing in greater India is disproved.
bharat man, keepthis up, and people will just start ignoring you, sinc eu just dont seem to get it in your head that we are different nations.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
Quote:Indians were the most backward people. Indians used to take a bath only once in their life, at the time of birth.
Where the hell did you get that idea from?? Its the other way around, Turks bathe when they're born, and thats it. Learned Indians changed your thinking, and taught you a whole lot of other stuff like math, architecture (your domes come from Buddhist Stupa styles), and science/medicine...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Where the hell did you get that idea from?? Its the other way around, Turks bathe when they're born, and thats it. Learned Indians changed your thinking, and taught you a whole lot of other stuff like math, architecture (your domes come from Buddhist Stupa styles), and science/medicine...
Why dont you worship cows and dance like monkeys, thats what indians are good for
-------------------------------------------
From The East To The West: Türkiye
Darkness:
"Where the hell did you get that idea from?? Its the other way around, Turks bathe when they're born, and thats it."
Well, Babar thought otherwise. I posted it earlier as well. The founder of Mughal Empire, Babar, writes in his autobiography "Tuzk e Babri":
"Hindustan is a country which has few pleasures to recommend it.... Indians have no idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing together, or of familiar intercourse.... They have no horses, no good grapes, or musk melons, no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread in their bazaars, NO BATH or colleges, no candles, no torches, not a candle stick."
"That's bull****. The sentiment of belonging to one nation was ONLY among Brahminic Vedic northern land."
Makes no sense whatsoever. Vedas are taught in the South, Brahmins of the South are much more strict than in the north or east or north-east. Are you saying that Dalits don't believe in the Mahabharat and other Hindu mythology?
BTW, Pakistan would qualify as "Brahminic Vedic northern" as well.
Babar's words are a first hand account of a person from Central Asia.
Babar invaded India only because he had been unsuccessful in reclaiming his throne of his original country.
Bharat:
"Vedas are taught in the South, Brahmins of the South are much more strict than in the north or east or north-east. Are you saying that Dalits don't believe in the Mahabharat and other Hindu mythology?"
You are only lengthening this topic. Cause there is nothing for you to left here.
About 'Bharat', we are discussing in another thread. Aren't we?
So do you want me to post Gandhi's pic? Or do you want to worship Jinnah's pic? lol
"BTW, Pakistan would qualify as "Brahminic Vedic northern" as well."
According to you, half of China, half of Iran, Kazakhstan, Burma, Thailand, etc. etc. ALL belong to Brahminic Vedic north. hehe.
Yes, yes. Dream on.
This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Jun 15, 2005 6:17 PM
BTW, Bharat, do you know what the original topic of the thread was, and what you are discussing now?
Hell, I don't have all the time replying to your stupid post one after the other.
I know you have been battered and bruised in this thread. Now you should start a new thread about other "attrocities". This thread has run its course.
*yawn.
And if you still want to discuss something then let me know how cow-urine tastes like .
This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Jun 15, 2005 6:22 PM
Hindime bolta hoon taki moderatorwale ko pata na chale, dharam ko gaali dena yahan pe tumhe ban kar dega. Magar hum bolenge nahi kuchh, tumhare ban-na-ban me mujhe to koi fark nahi parta.
Topic was diverted when you brought up the nation-hood issue of ancient India. The thread dealt with no such issue, the topic deals with the Islamic holocaust in the sub-continent. Scholars put the death toll at anywhere between 80 million and 100 million.
Topic was diverted because everyone thought taht u were whimping about the atrocities that my ancestors commited against yours.
Its a given fact that Muslims in india were in power, and opressed the hindus in india. But what else could u expect, when a minority rules over the mijority.
and it was not racial difference so much so as religous one. The religious minority (Muslims) ruled over the religious mijority (hindus).
period. Now nothing can be done about it
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
Panini, the great ancient scholar of Slatura (present day Lahore on the bank of Indus, a few miles south of Topi) had made a proverbial statement as early as 900 B.C. and not without reason that ‘Udycyia’ (upper land - Upper Indus Valley) could never be overtaken by or merged into ‘Prascyia’ (lower or midland — Gangetic Plains) but ‘Prascyia’ could. History has proved him right repeatedly.
add me on msn, and when u see the name X-treme:Imortality, thats me.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
Panini, the great ancient scholar of Slatura (present day Lahore on the bank of Indus, a few miles south of Topi) had made a proverbial statement as early as 900 B.C. and not without reason that ‘Udycyia’ (upper land - Upper Indus Valley) could never be overtaken by or merged into ‘Prascyia’ (lower or midland — Gangetic Plains) but ‘Prascyia’ could. History has proved him right repeatedly.
Listen bro, weve had our good times, and our arguments, and i understand your pointof view n all, but theres just one thing u need to understand.
First of all, your a benglai right.
Now, if u ant this akhand bharat of yours, shoudlt u be working mroe towards trying to cinvince the bengladeshis to become a part of india rather than us.
second of all, i dont understand how you feel this brotherhood with us pakistanis. Indiansa i can understand, since they are your fellow country men but why us.
U speak benglai, we speak urdu (or pushto or any of the other languages). You have a different religion than us. From what happened in the 1971 war, id understand that the bengalis and paksitanis are quite different.
so we have different languages, different religions, different race (we are just as different as pakistanis and iranians). So why do u want to confederate with us?
The way i see it, if it was an indian from punjab (or any northern part) then it could be understandable, since we are racially the same. But an indian from bengla???
The only thing we have in common is taht we were ruled by the british raj. nothing more.
Lastly, u proclaim that it was your ancestors who were the survivors? But arent u the one speaking hindi/urdu, wheras ur mother language ins bengali. The way i see it, you guys adopted our language.
---
BTW, and u say that it was my ancestors who were tortured and converted under the sword. Let me tell u...
The moghuls who ruled india were the same as the pakisatnis of today. Same reace, culture and language. Pakisatnis are the children of the same muslims who ruled india...
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
akhand bharat is dead. mughalistan was the glory of hind and it shall return. the masses of hind yearn for their masters. look even dogvani has given up on it:
Akhand Bharat" no more relevant: Advani
New Delhi, June 15. (PTI): BJP president L K Advani today made it clear that the concept of "Akhand Bharat" (undivided India) was no more relevant even as he justified his recent stance of sticking to the ground on utterances on Pakistan founder Mohd Ali Jinnah in the face of onslaught from Sangh Parivar.
The former Deputy Prime Minister, who is still facing attacks from VHP, said in the changing situation there could be a possibility of India and Pakistan coming close enough to form a confederation.
"There is a political debate going on and people are asking what happened to the concept of 'Akhand Bharat'. I say that except for the first election manifesto of our party in 1952, it (Akhand Bharat) is mentioned nowhere," he said after releasing a book on 'Bhagvad Gita: Timelessly pertinent' here.
Quoting Jan Sangh leader Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Advani said he had made it clear that after partition, Pakistan had become a sovereign country as was India and he could not imagine either of the countries to give up their sovereignty.
Panini, the great ancient scholar of Slatura (present day Lahore on the bank of Indus, a few miles south of Topi) had made a proverbial statement as early as 900 B.C. and not without reason that ‘Udycyia’ (upper land - Upper Indus Valley) could never be overtaken by or merged into ‘Prascyia’ (lower or midland — Gangetic Plains) but ‘Prascyia’ could. History has proved him right repeatedly.
Dude, so the Mughals have 140 million descendants within 150 years of their demise in 1857, that's not logical. In fact, the descendants of the Mughals actually all were exiled to Kolkata, Bengal, India, while the last emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was sent to Myanmar (Burma). They all live in a big ghetto with other Muslims along the Prince Anwar Shah Road which is in downtown Kolkata. That royal family is pulling rickshaws today. Feel bad, but hey.
Of course I want Bangladeshis to be part of India as well. There are no Bangladeshis here on WAFF, so the question doesn't arise here.
Speaking of Bangladesh (both the nation and the Indian part), there is a HUGE disparity of power between the two Bengals (West Bengal is what India has, East Bengal is what the state of Bangladesh has). West part is Hindu majority, but it is a communist government. East part is Muslim majority, and an Islamic state. In the West Bengal, Muslim population before Partition was 25%, after Partition was 10%, today it is back up to 25%. In the East Bengal, Hindu population was 40%, after Partition was 33%, after 1971 was 25%, today it is hovering around 10%.
Due to the communist government, Hindu nationalism is zero in West Bengal, but Muslims have like their "liberated zones", or those Muslim-majority bastis in the heart of West Bengal. Here, bunch of illegal anti-national activities are carried out. Drugs, smuggling, and I am cent per cent sure that the entire population is filled with ISI agents and Pakistan sympathizers, seeing the way they raise Pakistan flags and burst firecrackers every time Pakistan beats India in cricket.
Due to the Islamist government, Al Qaeda is on the growth in East Bengal, and the Hindu population has drastically plummetted. There is economic boycott on Hindus that still live there, they are denied jobs, education, and even a market to sell their crops. They live in terror everyday so that their sisters don't get raped. The police usually jump in with such mob attacks. After 1971, Hindus in East Bengal (it was a secular republic in the beginning) could go and have their religious festivals. Nowadays, each year, a bomb is dropped across Bangladesh in these processions. In many areas, these festivals (Durga Puja) are no longer done in public. In 1971, there was a brief period of secularism throughout East Bengal, but within years, there was an Islamic coup. So anyway, in 1971, the Secular Republic of Bangladesh chose "Amar Shonar Bangla" as their national anthem, a song written by Bengali Hindu poet Rabindranath Tagore. With the Islamist coup, the national anthem wasn't changed, but nowadays, on Pochishe Boishakh (Tagore's birthday, celebrated in both east and west bengal), bombs are dropped on rallies celebrating their own national anthem's father, just because the song is written by a Hindu (no references to Hindu religion though).
In a sense, while overall in South Asia, Muslims are a minority, in Bengal, Hindus are a minority. I think we have gone beyond making attempts to bridge relationships with our Muslim brothers. Best time for that was 1971, we could have capitalized on the secular sentiment, kept East Bengal, instead of letting it become the monster it is today (and will be in the future). Now, we Hindus are in bigtime retreat. At least if we voted a Hindu nationalist government in West Bengal, we could be saved, because official action would be taken to maintain that Hindus don't get over-run in the westside (actions like ending illegal immigration from the east, and sending back the illegals already here). But that also is not happening. With the 25% vote-bank, the Communist (Muslim ass-kissing) government of West Bengal keeps the Hindu vote divided by using other issues such as poverty, disparity in income, and "people's revolution". The Communists have a deal with all the residents of mohallas throughout West Bengal, that if their vote is guaranteed, then the Communists will leave them unchecked in their illegal anti-national communal acts, the Communist government simply looks the other way in such cases.
Don't get me wrong, poverty/workers' rights/etc are important issues, but aare, Hinduism is under massive attack today in Bengal, we cannot continue being so foolish. First we must consolidate West Bengal, then only can we talk of liberalization and economic upliftment.
Now if you look back, we Hindus have made several attempts to reach out to the majority Muslims. Being a minority, it should be the other way round, but anyway. Throughout the freedom movement, the bulk of young revolutionary freedom fighters were Bengalis or Punjabis. Now, you would say that most Bengali freedom fighters should logically be Muslim, since Bengalis are mostly Muslim. But every single Bengali freedom fighter you will hear of are Hindus. Even in Muslim-majority East Bengal, the revolutionaries came from the minority Hindu community. Now, why is this? Our Hindu leaders tried many times to bring in the Muslim masses as well, but for some reason, Muslims don't have the same attachment to the motherland as do Hindus. Then, the British realized this. While the Muslim absence from the freedom struggle wasn't helping the cause of India, it wasn't hurting us either. It was simply a Hindu vs. British scenario in Bengal, Muslims were just observers.
The British realized if they could play the Muslim communal card, they can set off Muslim vs. Hindu, and divert attention from themselves. This is called divide and rule. So the British set the seeds for Partition in 1905, when they began sending agents into Muslim mohallas that the British province of Bengal must be divided into a Hindu and Muslim part, promising that the Muslim part will be favored by the British. Some Muslim leaders took the bait and started telling Muslims to oppose Hindus that were continuing Swadesi (boycott of all British goods, boycott only works if the whole population does it, not just 1/3rd). Gradually, Muslim support began to wane from the secular nationalist freedom struggle being waged by primarily young Hindu revolutionaries.
Seeing this, bigtime secular Hindu leaders like Tagore went to great lengths to bring back the Muslims. I dunno if you know what is Raksha Bandhan, it is a Gujarati ceremony where sisters tie a band of brotherhood and protection with their own brother. This didn't exist in Bengal, but Tagore brought it here. Hindus began going out on the streets and putting Raksha Bandhan on their Muslim neighbours. Now these are simple but heartfelt gestures of secularism.
Muslims stopped opposing the Swadesi movement, and finally, the British had to call off the Partition. Bengal was rejoined. Then the British vengefully started overtly supporting the fundementalists among the Muslims, the viceroy's wife would often meet with Maulanas and show him dreams of a 3 tier system whereby British would be nominal administrative head, Islam and the Ulema would be the actual rulers, and the Hindus would be powerless.
Slowly slowly, Muslims started digging into this movement, which eventually became the Muslim League. Starting in the 1940s, Bengali Hindus became alarmed. When they realized that Pakistan is going to come no matter what, Bengali Hindus stopped being overly secular and began protecting their own interests. After all, possibly, since entire Bengal was Muslim-majority, even Hindu-majority areas like West Bengal could be vacated for Pakistan. So we ourselves went communalist, the Hindu Mahasabha exponentially grew in Bengal in those last few years of British rule, and after that, it was point of no return.
Looking back, you could probably guess that Muslims cannot be secular and cannot treat Hindus as compatriots. As a Bengali Hindu (minority), I feel that we must fortify the Hindu community first. Maybe that's why I am not so enthusiastic about bringing in Bangladesh to India, because what will probably happen is that we Bengali Hindus get over-run even in West Bengal due to lack of borders, and then, Bangladesh goes out of India again.
As I said, we married among local population only after they had accepted Islam. And there is no honor violated in marriage. Is it?
And I identify myself only as a son of Islam. Whether it is good or bad, but we are a mixed lot. And after marrying among local population as well, and having lived here for more than 500 years, we are now an integral part of South Asian subcontinent.
Well Muslims also had the habit to take right hand possessions(concubines, sex slaves) from the populations they invaded(incentive for young men to go to war) so our ancestors could have been sex slaves.
Actually my extreme friend the majority of Pakistanis are 90% Indian in their racial make up and have nothing to do with the Mughals or any other Islamic invaders. Ok the city dwellers of Lahore may have Turkic/Iranic blood but the average Jatt from Gujranwala or the Khokhars and Ghakkhars you see smoking and watching the traffic go by on the little hillocks near Islamabad are 100% Indian.
That said and done the whole conversion by torture thing isnt really true either. It was because 3 reasons that Islam spread:
1. Out of a sense of awe and respect ofr the mighty Islamic warriors who put them to shame by easily crushing the local Rajputs in battle.
2. So that they wouldnt have to pay the Jizya tax.
3. Conversion by the Sufis and their message of love and brotherhood.
These factors are in chronological order. The biggest reason was because of the Sufis.
Why Pakistanis often look different from other South Asians is because we are the desecendents of teh Sycthians, Parthians and Hephthalites, and not because of the later Islamic invaders.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
LOL, how dumb can you pakistanis be.. YOur ancestors were raped by the turks, arabs, etc.. and you reply by converting to their religions... and even funnier, youre actually proud to be the descendant of someone who raped you.. you pakis are actually convinced that you are arabs or turks, afghans.. please for the sake of DESI pride.. stop being WANNABE ARABS...
pakistanis are nothing but people that were raped by the arabs, turks afghans.. LOl. your ancestors were their biches.. its a disgrace to humanity that youre actuallly proud of this.. but, whatever makes you happy i guess.. sad.
"Actually my extreme friend the majority of Pakistanis are 90% Indian in their racial make up and have nothing to do with the Mughals or any other Islamic invaders. Ok the city dwellers of Lahore may have Turkic/Iranic blood but the average Jatt from Gujranwala or the Khokhars and Ghakkhars you see smoking and watching the traffic go by on the little hillocks near Islamabad are 100% Indian."
well, i never said w earent the same as indians.
I said we are the same as NORTH indians. We are nothing like the tamils or the bengalis or the north easter indians (those living near nepal). We are nothing like them.
We are only similar to indians from punjab or kashmir. and we are 100% similar to them. but only them.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
Punjabi Muslims are 100% similar to Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Sikhs. Kashmiri Muslims are 100% similar to Kashmiri Hindus. Sindhi Hindus and Sindhi Muslims. Gujarati Hindus and Gujarati Muslims. Hindustani Hindus and Hindustani Muslims. Tamil Hindus and Tamil Muslims. Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims.
"Harry, wrt your first post, first define to me the doctrine of Hindu religion, and then we can debate that Sikhism isn't part of Hinduism. As long as you have a false idea of Hinduism, your definition of Sikhism as a separate religion (in the Middle Eastern sense) remains false as well."
Well i think you need to portray your idea of "Hundu" if it is any religion originated on the Sub-continent, then fair enough.
But if compared to any of the so called sects of Hinduism, Sikhism comes closest to Arya Samaj, which itself is a religion which took Sikh beliefs and married tem with Hindu thought.
The way SIkhism functions is totally different from Hinduism, its similarities which Hinduism only apply for Karma, and partially reincarnation. I have always head people stating Sikhism being similar to HInduism, but no one has ever proven it, they have taken beliefs that are not part of Sikhism and have applied to Sikhism to make it similar to Hinduism.
Can you please explain in a different thread how my definition is false.
And for the person stating how Maratha's and Sikhs failed to stop Muslims
Well it might be a surprise for you, but India is about tolerance and not hatred.
Current Topic - The Magnitude Of Muslim Atrocities
