India's Holocaust

[Adux]

March 1999
COMMENTARY
India's Holocaust
Belgium scholar analyzes the "the bloodiest story in history"Subhead
The great genocides of history are rarely taught in school. Only the Jews have succeeded in publicizing what happened to their people--Amazon.com lists 2,856 books devoted to the Holocaust of World War II. But just in this century Tutsis, Tibetans, Cambodians, Bangladeshis, Gypsies, Ukrainians and Armenians have all suffered more than a million deaths in deliberate actions. Before them died possibly a hundred million natives in North and South America, tens of millions in the slave trade--and unknown millions of Hindus in India as a result of the invasions beginning in the 7th century. In this thought-provoking article, Belgium scholar Koenraad Elst attempts to shed light on the horrific and historically neglected Hindu experience.

By Koenraad Elst, Belgium

Genocide is the intentional attempt to destroy an ethnic community, or by extension any community constituted by bonds of kinship, of common religion or ideology, of common socio-economic position or of common race. The pure form is the complete extermination of every man, woman and child of the group. Examples include the native Tasmanians and many Amerindian nations, from Patagonia to Canada, by European settlers in the 16th-19th century. The most notorious attempt was the Nazi "final solution of the Jewish question" in 1941 to 45. In April 1994, Hutu militias in Rwanda went about slaughtering the Tutsi minority, killing ca 800,000, in anticipation of the conquest of their country by an Uganda-based Tutsi army.

Hindus suffered such attempted extermination in East Bengal in 1971, when the Pakistani Army killed one to three million people, with Hindus as their most common target. It is significant that no serious count or religion-wise breakdown of the death toll has been attempted. The Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ruling classes all agree that this would feed Hindu grievances against Muslims. While India-watchers get indignated about communal riots in India killing up to 20,000 people since 1948, allegedly in a proportion of three Muslims to one Hindu, the best-kept secret of the post-Independence Hindu-Muslim conflict is that in the subcontinent as a whole, the overwhelming majority of the victims have been Hindus. Even apart from the 1971 genocide, "ordinary" pogroms in East Pakistan in 1950 alone killed more Hindus than the total number of riot victims in India since 1948.

"Selective genocide" may be defined as killing a sufficient number who form the backbone of the group's collective identity, and assimilating the leaderless masses into the dominant community. This has been the Chinese policy in Tibet, killing over a million Tibetans. It was also Stalin's policy in eastern Poland and the Baltic states after they fell into his hands under the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, exemplified by the massacre of thousands of Polish army officers in Katyn. During the Islamic conquests in India, there was a policy to murder the brahmin priests after the Hindu warrior class had been dispatched on the battlefield. The Portuguese in Malabar and Goa also followed this policy in the 16th century. In antiquity, such partial genocide typically targeted the men for slaughter and the women and children for slavery or concubinage. That is how the Athenians depopulated the isle of Melos in 416 bce to punish the Melians for their reluctance to join the war against Sparta. Likewise, in 626 ce, Islamic forces destroyed the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quraiza by having its 700 men beheaded and its women and children sold into slavery. Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g., when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 ce. The Chach-Nama reports how in Multan "six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves." This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide, to save their honor in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g., 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar's capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants).

A third type of genocide is when mass killing takes place unintentionally, as collateral damage of other forms of oppression. The death of millions of natives in Central America after the first Spanish conquests was mostly the unintended side effect of the hardships of forced labor and the contact with new diseases brought by the Europeans. In contrast with Nazi and Soviet work camps, where forced labor had the dual purpose of economic profit and a slow but sure death of the inmates, there is no evidence that the Spanish wanted their Native laborers to die--eventually replacing them with African slaves required a large extra investment. These invader's religious missionaries wished to convert the unbelievers, and preferred not to kill them.

The mass killing of Hindus by Muslims typically took place in the fervor immediately following military victories, e.g., a general massacre and arson followed the fall of the South Indian metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565. Genocide in peacetime, perhaps the most perverse kind, is extremely rare; one example was Stalin's organized famine in Ukraine in 1931-33, which killed some ten million people.

In India, once Muslim power was established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than kill the Hindus, and discouraged rebellion either by military action or by making some sort of compromise. One constraint was the endemic intra-Muslim warfare and intrigue, another the prevalence of the Hanifite school of Islamic law in India. This is the only school which allows Pagans to subsist as zimmis, disempowered third-class citizens paying a special tax for the favor of being tolerated; the other three legal schools ruled that Pagans, as opposed to Christians and Jews, had to convert. Sometimes, though, Muslim rulers resorted to forms of oppression comparable to Stalin's famine. A policy of deliberate impoverishment by rulers like Alauddin Khilji and Jahangir were described as follows by Fernand Braudel in A History of Civilizations (1963): "The levies [the Hindus] had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Baghdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Timur Lenk, who conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler in 1398, recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each." Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of those Hindus.

For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with its occasional intention to exterminate entire Hindu communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully called off since the first naval invasion in 636 ce, was famously evaluated by Will Durant as follows: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers indicates that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the subcontinent, Muslim warriors easily killed more Hindus than the six million of the Jewish Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they had set as a minimum goal for "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 ce); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526- 1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in earnest.

In Indian schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the testimony of the primary sources. Like Holocaust denial, this propaganda can be called "negationism." The really daring negationists don't just deny the crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus themselves. Thus, it is alleged that Hindus persecuted and destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by Ghori and his lieutenants.

Hindu philosophy holds that God pervades everything and everyone in the universe and that nothing and no one is intrinsically evil. How then to understand these great slaughters? Did the Ukrainians starve ten million people to death at some point in their past? Did the American Indians annihilate a race? Who did we Hindus conquer and oppress? History doesn't record such events, and they certainly could not have been on the scale of the modern events, for there simply were not that many people in the world in prehistory.

But perhaps these catastrophic events are matters of national or racial karma, necessary occurrences related to the overall evolution of the people. In this down-to-earth sense, suffering genocide is the karmic reward of weakness. Even Hindu scriptures on government advise a king to invade and conquer his weaker neighbor, least another king do the same first and then threaten him.

The Jews concluded their genocide was a result of weakness, and since World War II have sought to create a strong nation-state out of a fragmented and stateless community. Even more importantly, they helped foster an awareness of the history of their persecution among their former persecutors, the Christians, which makes it unlikely that Christians will target them again. At the Global Forum in Moscow in 1993, the Jewish representatives said their oppressors have not repented and reconciled for their actions, and therefore, the representative said, "Given the chance, they will do it again." In this respect, the Hindus have so far failed completely. With numerous Holocaust memorials already functioning, one more memorial is being built in Berlin by the heirs of the perpetrators of the Holocaust; but there is not even one memorial to the Hindu genocide, because even the victims don't seem to care.

Belgian Indologist:
Dr. Koenraad Elst, 40, of Roman Catholic upbringing, studied philosophy, Sinology and Indology in Leuven, Belgium and Varanasi, India. Now a full-time writer, he has published works on comparative philosophy, the Aryan invasion debate, Islam and contemporary Indian politics.

KOENRAAD ELST, PO BOX 103, 2000 LEUVEN 3, BELGIUM

REFERENCES: WILL DURANT, THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION, OUR ORIENTAL HERITAGE. MEERA NANDA, EUROPEAN TRAVEL ACCOUNTS DURING THE REIGNS OF SHAHJAHAN AND AURANGZEB, NIRMAL BOOK AGENCY, RAILWAY ROAD, OPP. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KURUKSHETRA 132118, INDIA. S.K. BHATTACHARYYA, GENOCIDE IN EAST PAKISTAN/BANGLADESH, A. GHOSH, PUBLISHER, 5720 W. LITTLE YORK, #216, HOUSTON, TEXAS, 77091, USA. S.D. KULKARNI, EDITOR, BHISHMA'S STUDY OF INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, VOL. VI, ENCOUNTER WITH ISLAM, BHISHMA, B7-8 SHREEPAL APARTMENTS, NEAR ARADHANA TALKIES, PANCH PAKHADI, THANE 400 602, INDIA. ARUN SHOURIE, ET AL, HINDU TEMPLES, WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM, VOICE OF INDIA, 2/18 ANSARI ROAD, NEW DELHI, 110 002, INDIA.


http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1999/3/1999-3-14.shtml

 

[alamgir]

Muslim Legacy In India :: Do Muslims Deserve The Hatred Of Hindus? ::by Javeed Akhter
(Tuesday, November 25, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hope for a better and peaceful future for all those who live in the sub-continent does not lie in the rise of a charismatic leader who would lead all communities to utopia. The era of heroes is past."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The violence against committed Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 was in some ways a continuum of the periodic riots that have gone on for decades. In other ways it was a watershed event. The level of violence against women and families reached horrific proportions never seen before. The ruling party in Gujarat planned and carried out the violence with the active support and connivance of the government and the law. The mobs that perpetrated apocalyptic violence against Muslims were taunting their victims by calling them “Babur ki aulad” that is progeny of the Mughal emperor Babur. The implication in their mind was clearly that Muslims are the descendants of brutal foreign invaders and need to be thrown out of India. Their understanding of the Muslim legacy in India is similar to that of an occasional historian.

For example the noted historian Will Durant notes in his book the “Story of Civilization”, “The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying with in.”

His assessment of Muslim history is shockingly negative!

On the other hand, Jadu Nath Sarkar, a Hindu historian, comes to a diametrically opposite assessment of Muslim legacy. He feels India reached new heights of civilization during the Muslim rule. Some of the benefits of Muslim rule that he assesses include, internal peace over a long period of time, uniformity of administration, uniformity of social manner and dress irrespective of creed, common lingua franca, rise of vernacular literature, monotheistic religious revival, rise of mysticism (Sufism) and a general improvement in civilization.

He lists no significant negatives!

Where does the truth lie? What is a factual and fair assessment of Muslim legacy in India? Is it possible to attempt an analysis in an unbiased manner? For me the answer is clear. Muslims have to analyze their past with honesty. If Muslims have to learn from the past they have no choice but to look at their legacy in an objective manner and let the conclusions fall where they may. Truth is cathartic as it liberates one’s soul and may lead to reconciliation with the past and lead to a peaceful future.

The First Muslim In India Wasn’t Babur

The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, “Babur’s progeny, go away to Pakistan or die” were wrong on one fundamental historical fact. Muslims came to India long before Babur. The first Muslims in India were traders. The Malabar Muslims, on the west coast of India, are the descendants of Arab traders who may have arrived in India in the late 7th or early 8th century.

The first Muslim military incursion carried out by Muhammad Bin Qasim also in the 8th century CE was a rescue mission. Muslims could be called Qasim’s progeny. A ship carrying widows and children of Arab traders that had died in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) ran aground at Debul near the modern city of Karachi in Pakistan. Dahir a Hindu ruler of the area known today as Sind took them captive. The first two expeditions sent to free these Muslim women and children failed. The armies were decimated by heat, exhaustion and scurvy. The soldiers in the third expedition soaked cotton with vinegar to suck on as a brilliant prophylaxis against scurvy. This third expedition was lead by Muhammad bin Qasim who defeated Dahir and captured the city of Brahmanabad. He ruled over Sind for only two years between 712 and 714. When Hajjaj, Muhammad Bin Qasim’s father-in-law and a notoriously brutal governor of Iraq died, the new governor took revenge against all who were close to Hajjaj. Muhammad bin Qasim was recalled from Sind imprisoned and tortured to death.

Muhammad bin Qasim’s incursion into India was to free captives followed failed attempts to resolve the issue without force. Even by modern international law it might be considered justifiable and even noble. It succeeded partly because Dahir was an unpopular Hindu king that ruled over a Buddhist majority. Buddhists all over India were being simultaneously assimilated and persecuted by Hindus. Muhammad bin Qasim was noted to be humane and considerate. A contemporary historian Baldhuri records that when Qasim was recalled, “people of Hind wept for Qasim and preserved his likeness at Karaj”. Another contemporary record the “Chach-nama” notes the following highlights of Qasim’s rule. He permitted all to practice their religion freely, Hindus were included in the “ashabul kitab” (people of the book) category and the status of Dhimmis (protected people) was conferred upon them. Property destroyed during hostilities was compensated. As a sign of respect to his Hindu populace an edict was issued banning cow slaughter in Sind and Multan.

Muslim rulers who followed Muhammed bin Qasim did not distinguish themselves in any way. Dahir’s son Jaisimha who had obviously converted to Islam for expediency recanted. Multan was taken over by Ismailis. They destroyed an old and historic temple in Multan that bin Qasim had protected and built a mosque in its place.

For the next three hundred years there was no further extension of the Muslim rule in India. In fact there was a gradual erosion of control till the first group of Turks/Afghans arrived in the late 10th century.

India of the 8th century was not a nation state

Another myth about India of the seventh century is that it was a unified whole, a nation state, living in peace. In fact it was a divided country. The two major religions Hinduism and Buddhism were at loggerheads with Buddhism losing ground fast. The caste system, against which Buddhism came as a reaction, was well entrenched and unshaken. There was no sense of India as a nation state. The South was far removed from the North culturally and in the languages it spoke. To an outsider India must have looked like a fractured country with permanent civil strife, an easy target for ethnic Turks that ruled neighboring Afghanistan.

The Sacking of the Temple at Somnath

Subuktigin a Turkish slave becomes the first king of the Ghazni dynasty in an area of Afghanistan contiguous with India. Historians note friction with the neighboring Hindu king. Jaipal who defeats Subuktigin but in turn is defeated by Subuktigin’s more active son Mahmud. There is resentment against this Afghan/Muslim invader who returns to India more than once. Hindu women sell their ornaments to help with the war effort. Nevertheless Mahmud is victorious. After defeating the Hindu king Mahmud makes deep forays into India. The most dramatic is the sacking of the temple at Somnath in Gujarat. This attack on Somnath takes two years of planning and great tenacity. The purpose is to plunder the jewels and other treasures the temple is known for. This act appears to be motivated by greed rather than by religious zeal. The argument that Mahmud’s actions were motivated by desire for personal aggrandizement rather religion is supported by the fact that he had many Hindu officers and men in his army as a counter weight to his Muslim enemies. These Hindu officers are used to suppress a Muslim revolt in Sistan. His army massacres Muslim rebels in a Mosque in Zarang. On another occasion his army kills Christians in their church proving that he was an equal opportunity tyrant.

One of the scholars Mhamud patronizes is the well-known historian al-Biruni who makes the following observations that give an insight into the times. Writing about Mahmud he says, “He ruined the prosperity of the country and performed wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions. Those scattered cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason why Hindu sciences have retired to far away places like Kashmir and Benares”. About Hindus he writes, “They had many philosophers, mathematicians and astrologers. They behaved as if there was no country like theirs, no nation, no kings, no religion----. They were haughty, self conceited, foolish and stolid. They withhold themselves from men from another caste and of course from any foreigner.”

In addition to the inveterate aversion that resulted from the invasion the sacking of the temple at Somnath has left a deep and abiding scar on Hindu psyche and Mahmud of Ghazna has become a symbol of the Muslim invader. In the broader context of Muslim legacy in India he was an aberration. Moreover Mahmud’s legacy is complex and contradictory. In Afghanistan he is known for his patronage of arts and literature. The historian Gibbon assesses Mahmud as “a brave and resourceful general and a cultured monarch”. He was in the tradition of kings like Alexander and was motivated by desire for power and personal glory. His wars were not waged for the glory of Islam or motivated by Islamic principles. Nevertheless, in the Hindu psyche, he remains a potent symbol of the Muslim invader because of his attacks on the Somnath temple.

Many peaceful contacts between Hindus and Muslims occurred during this era. Caravans traveled regularly between Khurasan and Hind. Muslim communities sprang up even in Benares and Kashmir.

Mahmud’s successors established a more liberal pattern of dealing with their Hindu subjects. There were 150 years of respite. This initial Muslim rule by Turks/Afghans gave way to the curious “slave dynasty” that lasted a hundred years.

The Slaves Who Would Be Kings

The slave dynasty owes its origins to Shihabuddin Ghauri (1175). He was an adventurer who established control over northern India. He is known for the legendary battles with the last important Hindu king Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer. In the first battle Chauhan defeated and nearly killed Ghauri. However there was return engagement in which Chauhan was killed. Chauhan has grown in modern mythology as the last defender of the Hindu motherland when in fact Ghauri had the support of many Hindu Rajas. Moreover Shihabuddin Ghauri was known for his tolerance of other faiths and traditions. He was a prudent leader and wisely made Chauhan’s son the governor of Ajmer. Ghauri did not have any sons himself but owned a large number of slaves that he raised as his own children. One of his slaves succeeded him and started the “slave dynasty”. This is one of two dynasties of slaves in the Muslim history. The other held sway in Egypt. This startling phenomenon of slave kings, the ultimate contradiction, speaks volumes to how slaves were treated in Muslim societies. Can one imagine Roman slaves ascending to the throne peacefully and with the consent of their masters?

Two of the slave kings deserve special mention. Qutubuddin Aibak who was lovingly called Lakh Baksh (Giver of, Lakhs, hundreds of thousands) was known for his open handed generosity. He was not interested in conquests and pursued a policy of reconciliation. He was a patron of letters and built two magnificent mosques one in Delhi and the other in Ajmer. Qutubuddin Aibak’s successor Shamsuddin Iltutmish was an even more endearing personality. He would refuse to sit on the throne preferring instead to stand in the same row as his nobles. He often stated that he was one among many equals and indeed treated his peers as equals. He consolidated the dominions under his control. Hindus continued to enjoy the “Dhimi” (term used for protected subject in a Muslim state) status. He was a god-conscious pious man. He built the Qutub Minar, one of the tallest towers of its time in Delhi in the memory of the Sufi Qutubudin Bakhtiyar Kaki. His daughter Razia Sultan was highly educated and groomed for assuming the throne that she did briefly after his death. Razia remains the only Muslim woman ruler in Indian history and possibly only one of two female sovereigns, the other was the Queen of Jhansi, till the prime minister ship of Indira Gandhi in modern India.

Up to this point in history there is no evidence of any significant spread of Islam in India

The Unintentional Byproduct Of Changez (Gingis) Khan’s Invasion Of Baghdad. The Flight Of Muslim Mystics To India And The Spread Of Islam

Illtutmish ruled when Changez (Gengis) Khan’s armies were ravaging Baghdad in modern day Iraq. Many refugees, that included scholars, artisans and the Sufis, fled east to India. This arguably had a greater impact on India than all of the Muslim invasions.

“Thousands of Muslim theologians, Sufi saints and missionaries migrated to India to escape Mongol terror. The devastation of Khurasan was to the benefit of India.” Historians Edward Maclagan and Quanungo both conclude that the spread of Islam was largely the work of Muslim Sufis. Quanungo writes that in Bengal during the Balaban’s regime “saints of Islam excelled the Hindu priesthood in acts of piety and foresight and started proselytizing on a wide scale by the fervor of their faith and exemplary character. They lived and preached among the low class Hindus”. This moral and religious conquest followed the military and political conquest by about a century. Muslim “Khanqahs” (fraternities) rose in every corner of India with many set up by design outside the boundaries of a Muslim state.

Historically the Sufi dynasties have had a profound and long lasting impact on Indian history. Two of the more important Sufi dynasties are the Suhurwardi in Multan that is now part of Pakistan and the Chishti in Ajmer, Rajhastan. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti the founder of the Chishti sisila (continuum) knew neither the local languages nor was he conversant with local customs. Yet he was able to set his Khankhah (monastery) literally in the middle of nowhere, under the shadow of hostile Hindu king, and successfully spread Islam. He is known for his charisma, piety, simple living and love for the weak and poor of the society. One of the techniques he employed in spreading Islam was the use of Sama (spiritual music) that has survived as the art form known as the Qawwali (devotional music of the Muslim mystics).

Early 14th century was more remarkable for great advances in culture. The Sufi Nizamuddin Auliya and his brilliant disciple Amir Khusro were making waves. Urdu as a language was born, Sitar was invented, many new Ragas (musical scores) were written and there was a general efflorescence of art. The relations between Hindus and Muslims were in general peaceful and productive.

The Jizya Tax. Permitted But Imprudent

Jizya (tax imposed on the protected subjects)looms large in Hindu history as an unfair tax imposed by the ruling Muslims on their populace. It was considered humiliating by those who were forced to pay it. It is also evident that Muslim rulers were ambivalent about its imposition. Firoz Shah Tughlaq imposed it and Sikander Lodhi abolished it. Akbar and other Mughals did not use it but Aurangzeb did. The Jizya controversy existed long before Aurangzeb although is associated mostly with him. For some rulers the motivation for imposing this tax was religious and for others monetary.

A Jizya like tax is neither a new concept nor is it exclusive to Islam. Romans had a tax on all non-citizens; the Persians levied a capitation tax that they called “gezit”; the French called it “host tax” and the Germans “common penny”. In England it went by two different names, “scotage” and “victual money”. The Qur’an allows its use in a revelation at the beginning of the Madinah period of Prophet Muhammad’s mission.

Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission --. (Qur’an. 9:29)

Once the hostilities ceased Jizya was to be levied for the purpose of protection of life and property of the population under occupation. It was levied at four different levels. Rich paid four dinars per annum, the middle class two per annum and the poor one per annum. Women and children were exempt. As the Muslim invasion and rule of India did not have the same motivation as the early Muslim conquests, the rationale for Jizya wasn’t as clearly defined. Jizya tax clearly did more harm than good to Muslim Hindu relations and a prudent ruler would have avoided using it.

The Schizophrenic Record Of Human Rights Under Muslim Rule

Although arbitrary it is practical to analyze Muslim rule in two sections as before the Mughal period and the Mughal period itself. There were numerous Muslim kings that ruled before the Mughals for about 700 years. They had differing personalities and their record on human rights was as different as their personalities. Iltutmush was an exemplary ruler and human being and his successor Balban was the total opposite, brutal and ruthless. Sometimes the same individual displayed schizophrenic behavior. The well-known historian Ibn Batuta writes that Muhammad Tughlaq was on the one hand an intellectual who enjoyed the company of philosophers and artists and also one of the worst abusers of human rights. “His gate was hardly free from the corpse of a man who had been executed”. No one including Muslims was spared. “Every day hundreds of people were brought with hands fastened to the neck and feet in shackles. Some were killed, some were tortured and others beaten.” His son Firoz Tughlaq, was horrified by this and without naming his father writes “In the reign of former kings the blood of many Musalmans has been shed and many varieties of torture employed. Amputations of hands, feet, ears and noses, tearing out of eyes, poring molten lead into the throat, crushing the bones of hands and feet with mallets, burning the body with fire, driving iron nails into the hands feet and bosom and cutting the sinews sawing men asunder. These and many similar tortures were practiced. The great and merciful God made me his servant hope and seek for mercy by devoting myself to the prevention of unlawful killings of Musalmans and the infliction of any kind of torture upon them or upon any man”. The God conscious among the Muslim kings had a better human rights record. Those that followed the old Roman or Persian model of the emperor were the worst abusers of human rights.

The Differential Impact Of Muslim Invasion On Various Castes

A few general conclusions may be drawn form the study of contemporary accounts by historians on the impact of Muslim rule on various castes in India. During invasions and military operations Hindus suffered loss of life and property. Loss of sovereignty affected mostly the two higher castes the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. Even those who were given exalted positions in the state regarded their patrons as malechas (impure).

The famous Hindu, Santana who was the private secretary to the Muslim king Alauddin Hasan Shah abstained from visiting the temple at Jagannath for he felt his association with the Muslim had defiled him.

The land ownership and use was unaffected. The Banya, moneylender caste, remained and essential part of the societal fabric. In general non-Muslims were considered a protected minority and governed by their own personal laws and had basic safe guards. The historian al-Baruni records, “In Delhi idols are publicly worshiped and traditions adhered to with greater insistence than before. The infidels are honored, distinguished, favored and made eminent. They live in delight and comfort. The poor Musalmans beg at their door.”

The lower castes were ecstatic at the liberation from the tyranny of the Brahmins. “Caste dissensions will be broken,” says one lower caste song “for there is a Musalman in the Hindu family.” Islam gained the greatest success in areas on the eastern and western fringes of India away from the Hindu heartland.

Official Proselytization Or The Lack Of It

As a rule there is no evidence of conversions under duress, and interference with worship. The policies practiced were mostly conciliatory and there were constant attempts at rapprochement. There were no attempts by the state to proselytize. The reason for the lack of an attempt at aggressive spread of Islam may have been the precarious hold the early dynasties had on the throne. William Crooke observes, “Early Mohammedan dynasties were too precarious to any general propaganda, the emperors too engrossed in schemes of conquest to take up proselytization in earnest. Their power depended on alliances with Rajput princes. The native princesses they married brought Hindu blood into the royal line.” Tolerance was the hallmark of some Muslim rulers like Iltutmish but many others were indifferent to the concept and some were intolerant of all

Occasionally Muslim warriors destroyed temples and monasteries, which only strengthened Hindu nationalism and idolatry. Some “darghas” (mausoleums) and “Khanqahs” were built on the sites of these ruined places of worship. The Makhdum-kund at Rajgir was built on the site of Sringi Rishi-Kund. More intriguing is the transfer of old Hindu and Buddhist legends into the miracles of saints and ghazis (warriors).

Nevertheless Islam did spread, with approximately 30-40% of Indian continent converting to Islam. As pointed out earlier this was largely the result of the Sufi influence.

Cultural Rapids

When different faiths and traditions come together there is inevitable friction and turbulence that creates many cultural rapids. Both traditions are influenced by the others cultural and moral norms. This exchange of ideas and ideals occur at many levels that may change both the victor and the vanquished. A dramatic example of this in Muslim history happened when the Mongols that invaded Baghdad in about two generations converted to Islam and their native culture was metamorphosed beyond recognition.

In India the fierce monotheism of Islam spawned a number of reform movements and inspired reformist leaders. Guru Nanak of Punjab, Chaitanya of Bengal, Tukaram and Namdev of Maharashtra and Kabir all owed all or part of their reformist messages to Islam. Brahmo-Samaj a tolerant and monotheistic sect of Hinduism owes its origin almost directly to Islam in India.

Sufism that was already a strong spiritual movement within Islam took on many Hindu traits. Worshipping at the Sufi-Saint’s grave, miracles attributed to the Sufi-Saint and the use of Qawwali music that has the Bhajan (Hindu devotional music) as its counterpart in the Hindu tradition are some examples. Early marriage and the stigma attached to widow marriages amongst Muslims of the Indian subcontinent is also a Hindu influence. Even the obnoxious caste system entered Muslim culture with categories like the Sayyids that might be called the Muslim Brahmins.

Babur ki Aulad - (The progeny of Babur) - The Mughals

As pointed out earlier a lot of Muslim history happened before the Mughals and Babur arrived in India. Nevertheless Muslim rule in India is considered synonymous with the Mughals. Historians point out that although of Turkish descent the Mughals set down roots in India and considered themselves Indian. This is not an accurate statement as it was Akbar the third Mughal ruler considered himself truly Indian. Babur himself was reluctant to settle down in India. His heart was in his native province of Farghana and he is buried in Kabul. He came to India partly because his rivals threw him out of Farghana and partly because of the court politics. The governor of Punjab, a relative of the ruling King Ibrahim Lodhi, invited him to assist him in his insurrection against the center. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi and subsequently the Hindu king Rana Sangha before ascending to the throne at Delhi.

Babur was an exceptionally erudite man and wrote his memoirs in a book called “Babur Nama.” Of his new country India he writes, “Hindustan is a country that has few pleasures to recommend it. The people are not handsome; they have no idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing together or of familiar intercourse. They have no genius, no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manner, no kindness or fellow-feeling, no ingenuity, no mechanical invention in planning or executing their handicraft, no skill no knowledge in design or architecture. They have no horses, no good flesh, no grapes, or muskmelons, no good fruits, no ice, no cold water, no good food or bread in their bazaars, no baths, no candles, no torches not a candlestick.” Babur never really considered himself an India.

Humayun, his successor, struggled to stay on the throne. He had to battle two different Muslim governors, Bahadur Shah on the West and Sher Shah on the East. Sher Shah prevailed and almost killed Humayun. Sher Shah ruled for about five years and is considered a better administrator and just ruler than Humayun. Nevertheless Humayun was able to reclaim the throne but died six months later after falling down the steps of the Delhi library.

The third ruler in the Mughal dynasty, Akbar excelled himself as a conqueror, administrator as well as a pluralistic leader. Some criticize his pluralism as mere appeasement. The most successful of the Mughals, Akbar, was very pluralistic in his outlook and actions. His pluralism extended to a policy of “Sulh-i-Kull” (universal tolerance) and the protection of all inhabitants. He even attempted to synthesize the common elements of all religions in a new faith he called the “Din-Ilahi” (Godly faith) with himself as the prophet of this new tradition. His Hindu wives that practiced their religion freely, Jizya tax on Hindus was abolished and temples and churches thrived.

Jehangir who succeeded him was large hearted and well meaning but loved the easy life style. Nur Jehan, his wife, was the de facto ruler of the kingdom. She was a very effective ruler, had good taste, spent large sums of money in charity and was given to noble impulses. Gracious living became the “summun bonum” of human existence. Their interest in Islam was at best perfunctory. The practice of courtiers doing sajada (prostration) before the king, that started with Akbar continued. This practice violates a cardinal Islamic belief of never prostrating oneself before anyone but God and constitutes committing Shirk (opposite of monotheism and unity of God). Shaik Mujaddid of Sirhind, a man of conviction, refused to prostrate himself before the king and had enough popular support to survive his wrath.

The next emperor in line Shah Jehan is known of his monumental projects the Taj Mahal, the Jama Masjid of Delhi and the Red Fort. Mughals are remembered more for these grandiose structures than anything else. These expensive projects may have a huge impact on the state treasury that led to the eventual unraveling of the Mughal Empire. During his reign there was a great deal of internal peace. Shah Jehan was initially a fairly orthodox Muslim and tried to rule by strict Sharia tenets. Later he was influenced by Sufism and mellowed a lot. During his time there was a widespread practice of Muslim girls being converted to Hinduism. This became a large enough problem that he had to open a department to deal with it. The next ruler was Aurangzeb, the man who presided over the demise of the empire.

By now the Mughal Empire was beset with financial problems as well as insurgencies at the fringes of the empire. One of the Sikh gurus Tegh Bahadur was executed for insurgency and at the instigation of Hindu kings another Sikg Guru Gobind Singh was attacked. Gobind Singh himself escapes but his sons are captured and executed. Gobind Singh pens a long epistle about the event in Persian called the Zafar Namah. These two events are at origin of the long-standing resentment of the Sikhs toward Muslims. Sikhism that started out as a faith that attempted to bring Hinduism and Islam together was initially very sympathetic to Islam. In the West the Maratha king Shivaji and later his son Sambhaji were in constant conflict with Aurangzeb. Although Shivaji is portrayed as Hindu hero king fighting the evil Muslim invader his insurgency was no different than the uprising by the local Muslim governor in the South who later declared independence and formed the Nizam dynasty

Inspite of these constant conflicts during his reign, Aurangzeb attempted many reforms. He banned Sati, widow immolation on husband’s pyre, abolished cultivation of opium, gambling, alcohol and prostitution. He also abolished rahdari (inland transport duty) and octroi. Surprisingly he also banned cow slaughter. However he re-imposed the Jaziya tax that had been cancelled a hundred years ago. He destroyed some temples and closed down others. But he gave money to restore other temples and gave running expenses to still others. He did not interfere with the celebration of private religious Hindu worship, or the teaching of religion by Hindu priests. Personally he was brave and industrious and lived a life of simplicity and purity. The well-known poet Iqbal called him the “first exponent of Muslim nationalism in the Indian sub-continent.”

The impact Of British Rule On Muslims And Hindu-Muslim Relations. The Decimation Of Babur’s Progeny

The Most severe impact of British conquest of India was on the Muslims. This is understandable because Muslims were the rulers. The British went after the Mughlas with vengeance. The last king Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled and died in Rangoon that is modern Myamar. With one exception all the Mughal princes were publicly hanged in front of the Red fort. Some surviving members of the last surviving prince live quietly in the Indian city of Hyderabad. Many other Muslims who resisted the British were either killed or lost power. Those who cooperated with the British lived in subservience. Tipu Sultan of Bangalore resisted the British and died and the Nizams of Hyderabd cooperated and ruled till independence.

The British had a deliberate policy of dividing the two communities and fanning suspicion between them. Sir H.M.Elliot, the British foreign secretary to India, authored a history book titled “History of India as told by its own historians. The Muhammaden period in the name of himself and Dawson.” This book tried to teach the Babus (Indians trained to help the British) the great virtues of British rule and divide India on communal lines.

Babur ki Aulad: Pakistan ya Qabristan! (Babur’s progeny, die or go to Pakistan.) - The Continuing Fallout Of Partition

The other slogan the killers and rapists in Gujarat were shouting alluded to the role of Muslims in the formation of Pakistan. The argument is that Muslims were responsible for dividing India. Moreover the argument goes as Muslims have their own land they have no business to live or have rights in India. The story of formation of Pakistan is far more complicated than the common understanding is. The popular construct that Muslims are responsible for dividing India fails to answer the question as to why Jinnah the most secular of individuals and a champion of Hindu Muslim unity turned into a champion of the “Islamic republic Of Pakistan?” What role did the introduction of religion onto politics by Gandhi had? What role did the intransigence of Congress in sharing power at the center playing this saga? Is it not a fact that the one of the first calls for partition came from the Bengal Congress that feared living as a minority in a Muslim majority Bengal? Isn’t the story of partition really the result of two distinct faith groups lacking trust in each other and fearful of living with each other?

What Is The Real Legacy Of Muslims In India?

Even this brief overview should be sufficient to persuade anyone from the foolhardiness of generalizing about the legacy of Muslims in India. There are many different legacies. Is the legacy of Mahmud Ghazni the true legacy of Muslims or is it the legacy of Iltutmish? Should we be looking at Muhammad bin Qasim or Akbar? Does Babur and other kings really represent anyone? Is it the legacy of the mystics, poets, architects and artistes that is more important?

In spite of the violence that is the inevitable consequence of any invasion, Muslims in India played a significant humanitarian and liberating role. Islam offered to many of the outcastes and untouchables that were leading a sub-human existence liberation by providing within its fold complete equality and an opportunity for social, economic, intellectual and spiritual development. William Hunter writes “Its (Islam’s) missionaries were men of zeal who brought the Gospel to the unity of God and equality of man in its sight to a despised and neglected population.”

Muslim legacy is also that of opening up India to the outer world, providing internal peace, uniformity of administration and a common language. There was a monotheistic revival in religion and increase in spirituality. Many of the indicators of civilization like arts, literature, architecture and good living went up.

The more relevant question today is does it really matter what the Muslim legacy is? To my kids growing up in diaspora in the west this question of legacy seems so remote and irrelevant that they would not spent a minute on the issue. For those living in the Indian sub-continent what appears to matter is a mythological memory of history far removed from objective facts. In fact most Indians would fail a quiz on the basic facts of Indian Muslim history partly because it has been essentially written out of history books. So Babur becomes the ultimate fall guy. A mosque built in his name the symbol of the myth of the brutal Muslim invaders that destroyed local tradition and culture and imposed their own. The fact that there is no evidence that Babur or the majority of Muslim rulers did any thing to destroy the local culture and change the faith and traditions of the population seems lost to most

Hope for a better and peaceful future for all those who live in the sub-continent does not lie in the rise of a charismatic leader who would lead all communities to utopia. The era of heroes is past. Instead the best hope for a better future lies in education, dispaaionate analysis of history and a grass root movement of thoughtful individuals that share a belief in the common goodness of all humans. Hope lies in those intellectually honest souls that can look at the past objectively, without flinching and built upon it constructively.

Selected Bibliography

[1]. Historical memories and nation building in India. M.Rmakrishnayya.. Booklinks corporation. Hyderabad, 500 029 India.

[2]. The preaching of Islam. T.W.Arnold. SH. Muhammad Ashraf. 7, Aibak Road (New Anarkali) Lahore. Pakistan.

[3]. Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan. SM Ikram. Kazi Publications. Chicago, IL

 

[alamgir]

www.saxakali.com

Atrocities against minorities in India:

On the heels of large scale disturbance directed against Christian communities in various parts of India at the hands of its ruling party supporters, the Hindu fanatics burned Australian missionary, Graham Stewart Steins, and his two sons, Philips (9) and Timothy (7) to death on January 23, 1999. Mr. Steins had been working with leprosy patients at Birapada in India since 1965. On January 26th, 1999, 21 Dalits, totally unarmed and including 3 women and 7 minors, were gunned down in Bihar by an Upper Caste gang called Ranbir Sena, timing it for the eve of the Republic Day. Episodes of this kind against Christians, Muslims and Dalits (previously called untouchables) are not very uncommon in India. These days Christian missionaries in India are being accused (by the fanatics and their friends) of "inducing" people to convert to Christianity with "educational and other facilities" provided to the converts. When did a humanitarian and noble inducements like the provision of "education, hospital for sick, shelter for the homeless," become a bad and reprehensible things?

Calling these as "inducements" towards a change of religion is a stab at the heart of free speech and democracy. If attracting people with humanitarian good deeds is not right then the promise of a good government by a party has to be taken as an "inducement," and hence undesirable. If someone provides "inducement" to somebody to commit a crime, I would say that the inducement was reprehensible. The inducements that the missionaries provide are for something that they consider as elevating and liberating. It is only if one considers Christianity to be bad that one can denounce inducements for the same to be bad. But those who question the missionaries' mission won't come out and denounce Christianity to be bad because they want to wear the badge of "tolerance" at the same time, claiming that Hinduism preaches "tolerance."

The truth is that no religion encourages its followers to go on a rampage of killing and looting others. Followers of any particular religion go on rampages only when someone or some group has something to gain out of that rampage. So one has to dig deeper if one really wants to know as to who is behind current Hindu rampages, and what are they gaining out of it, or what they are afraid of losing without such rampages, be it against Christians, Muslims or Dalits. The "tolerant" Prime Minister wants a national debate on "conversion." On the surface it may look only as bad as questioning freedom, free speech or democracy. But it is actually much more sinister than that if you take the religious element into account.

First of all there is nothing wrong with conversion as long as it is not forced. Secondly, even if one does not try to persuade another person into converting, the former can be accused of trying to induce others into converting, just because he or she belongs to another religion. That is why the bogey of conversion is far more insidious and treacherous than it looks on the surface. While most reports say the miscreants were raising slogans hailing Bajrang Dal, one of the Sangh Parivar outfits, the Home Minister L.K. Advani has already absolved Bajrang Dal of any wrong doing. Question is what was the motivation, and who had the motivation, to carry out the dastardly act? Gujrat Chief Minister, Mr. Keshubhai Patel, belonging to BJP, the current ruling party of India, claims that `conversion' was the root cause of the recent violence in India. (Hindu, Jan. 25, 1999.) Attack on conversion is aspersion on Christianity and incitment of people against it under a very thin disguise. What kind of "tolerance" is that? Some hypocrites like Ms. Mamata Banerjee, leader of Trinamul Congress Party, suggests banning of Bajrang Dal, at the same time she is supporting the BJP Government at the center, knowing full well that BJP and Bajrang Dal are merely two of the several different fronts on the same body of the Sangh Parivar.

So what is really the motivation behind these sinister mischief? The family of Hindu fundamentalist parties, collectively known as Sangh Parivar (family of Sangh parties) under the umbella of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) have found that whenever there is communal disturbance (riots against one religious minority or the other), they have fared relatively well in elections. This is because even though a vast majority of Indians, inspite of being castigated lower caste Hindus, they call themselves Hindu. One would find it unthinkable to believe in a religion that bestows upon that same person a lower level station than upon some others. But inspite of the fact that about 70% of Indians are regarded as low caste Hindus, they do call themselves Hindus and worship some form of Hindu god or the other. And in the name of religion the Sangh Parivar has found it to easier to get them excited and vote for them (for the the Sangh Parivar) when religious tension is festering. It is important to delve a little deeper into what causes people to follow and vote for the religious instigators.

In Southern part of India the distance of the devotees from their gods is assigned by the priests and it is managed to be in proportion to the distance of their caste from the top of the Hindu hierachy (the Brahmins.) Accordingly, the untouchables should not even be able enter the temples, yet most of them call themselves Hindus. It seems that once one accepts the mysticism of god, one becomes willing to accept any amount of illogical things contained within that package. Any amount of inhumanity, any amount of degradation, any amount of indignities heaped upon themselves or others become acceptable to the believers of god as long as all these irrationalities are contained within the enigmatic package that contains that god. The package seems to creat a distance between its "believers" and logic, rationality, and questioning spirit of a person. It seems that all those rituals and stories that come wrapped up within the package, which one gets submerged in, and drilled with, from the time people are born puts a damper on the reasoning capacity of a person.

Otherwise why would a person "believe" in the religion that makes that same person a lowly untouchable being. Why would a person want to believe in a god while they are forbidden even from hearing the verses of scriptures about these same gods. If they somehow hear those scriptures, the sciptures commands that molten lead be poured into the ears of those low caste individuals. If these low caste individuals perform a certain "yagya," (a certain ritualistic prayer offering,) the scriptures demand such low caste individuals to be beheaded, yet even to this day many of the same low caste individuals, including very prominent ones, aspire to perform that "yagya." What kind of rationality is that. What is it that makes them so devoid of sensible thinking? Could it be the unquestioning attitude one is drilled with from the time of their birth?

Any time there is conflict between Hindus and persons belonging to a religious minority, it assumes a religious over-tone. Because majority of people in India are Hindus, the Hindus band beaters stand to gain as fundamentalist vanguard of the majority. This should give a clue as to who are the instigators of trouble in most instances. One would think that it would be mostly the illiterate masses who would be duped by this kind of trick of the fanatic Sangh Parivar. But unfortunately even the literate segment has come to buy into this kind of trickery and treachery, as vast majority of literate segment happens to be upper caste which has sold its allegiance to the Sangh Pariwar.Why are they more attached to the Sangh Parivar today than yester years? The reason is that the Sangh Parivar is the staunchest opponent of caste-wise distribution of jobs and other means of power, dubbed as Mandalization in India. In recent election in five or six states Indian states Sangh Parivar were beaten badly, so they are trying to shore up their slack by increasing religious tensions.

Indian President's speech and long term prognosis:

In his address to the nation on the eve of 49th anniversary of the Republic Day in India, the Indian President Mr. K.R. Narayanan, said that the Indian Constitution pledged to secure for our people ``justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and opportunity, and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation.'' He went on to quote Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's, (first Vice-President and second President of India,) speech in the Constituent Assembly when the national flag was formally adopted, ``The Flag tells us, be ever alert, be ever on the move, go forward, work for a free, flexible, compassionate, decent, democratic society in which Christians, Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, will all find a safe shelter.'' In light of the above excerpts from his own speech, perhaps the Honorable President would like to question the motivation behind Sangh Parivar's questioning of conversions and the Prime Minister's sinister suggestions of a national debate about "conversion" ? In any case I do not believe Presidential intervention, throwing the BJP government out is going to solve the problem.

The plurality system of elections historically always leads to two party system without much difference between them. Unless we change our electoral system, BJP and Congress(I) appear to be destined as the only two survivors, guaranteeing periodic government of BJP and their constant provocation against the minorities either to get into or to maintain power.

 

[niaz]

Hon Alamagir,

No need to be apologetic about what our forefathers and Muslims in the days gone by may or may not have done.

Articles as posted by Hon Adux have been written as a propaganda against the muslims. These days; thanks to 9/11 and its aftermath; it is in vogue to demonize the Muslims. Basically they want to say that Muslims are not bad now, they were always genocidal maniacs. I am however dismayed by the malicious intent of our dear members from India, who surf all over the web for such hateful material and "copy & paste" primarily as a provocation.

I am not going to defend or deny what Muslim invaders did to the local Indians from circa 711 to the 1770's. After that muslim power had became too weak to do much anyway..

My point is that it is height of prejudice to judge todays Muslims in the light of what Alauddin Khilji, Babur of Auragzeb did half a millenia ago. All these happenned during war or in an attempt to consolidate the political power.

I maintain that if one examines history, Muslims have been relatively benevolent rulers compared to non muslims. Let me cite actual examples.

The world:

1. Vandals and Hun's destruction is legendary. The term "Vandalism" originated from it. Who knows how many people and nations were completely annihilated.

2. Alexander himself was a very violent man. He wanted to teach Greeks a lesson and in 336 BC he either killed or sold to slavery every living soul of Thebes. To this day Thebes, once a great city, has virtually ceased to exist.

3. Crusading Christians were barbaric to the extreme. Massacre at Acre in 1191 is a legend to this day. During the 4th Crusade, they turned on the greatest city of Christendom and sacked the seat of the Byzantium. Any one who resisted looting was killed. The killing and attrocities on the the Christians by the Christians were so great that Pop Innocent -III was forced to excommincate the Crusaders.

4. In 1220 Chengiz invaded Kingdom of Khwarizm ( Iran). So many people were killed that it took Iran 300 years to recover. Some great cities such as Bulkh, never recoverd and today are just a ghost of their medieval past.

5. In 1492, the most Catholic Majesties Ferdinend and Isabella gave the following choice to the 250,000 surviving Muslims of Granada:

- Convert to Christianity or be killed

- or Leave the country of Spain altogether.

In order to to root out thousands who coverted falsely, Spanish inquisition was instituted which again killed in thousands all over Europe.

6. Spanish Conquistedors between 1518 and 1568 completely annilhilated the great Mayan and Inca civilizations. Only God knows how many millions were killed.

7. Euorpean settlers in the US carried out whole sale slaughter of the native Red Indians. While the plains were full of people in the 1500, by 1900's most Indian tribes either ceased to exist or were relocated. This is the worst genocide in history of the world.

8. WWI killed nearly 8 million and WW2 26 millions.

9. US atomic bombs destroyed two whole cities in 1945.

India:

Starting with Ashoka and Guptas, all great Indian kings have been guilty of wholesale slaughter of their captives. No one knows how many people were killed by the Marhattas and by Sikhs. Sikh attrocities against muslims in Punjab are legend to this day in Pakistani Punjab. British revenge after black hole of Calcutta and after 1857 Sepoy rebellion was horrendous.

In more recent times, after their withdrawl from Singapore; British were so scared by the advancing Japanes that they created an artificial famine in Bengal in 1943 which killed more than 5-million as a conservative estimate.

Whole sale salughter of muslims by the Sikhs during 1947 far outnumbers the non muslims killed in Pakistan.

This is the last time I am going reply to the malicious propaganda against the Muslims published in the Western media as it lacks objectivity.

Hon Adux is welcome to copy/post as many articles as he likes.









3.

 

[alamgir]

thanks sir naiz, you try to clear the concept how cunning our neighbors,they always try to change the fects,perhaps we may be to much moderate.if we only count crimes on low cast hindu,s from thousends years which is much high then entire world crimes against humanity.

 

[KashifAsrar]

Excellent post Niaz sahab.
This is all propaganda stuff. No doubt about it.

Articles as posted by Hon Adux have been written as a propaganda against the muslims. These days; thanks to 9/11 and its aftermath; it is in vogue to demonize the Muslims. Basically they want to say that Muslims are not bad now, they were always genocidal maniacs. I am however dismayed by the malicious intent of our dear members from India, who surf all over the web for such hateful material and "copy & paste" primarily as a provocation.

100% agreed on this reasoning.
Kashif

 

[blitz]

Excellent post Niaz sahab.
This is all propaganda stuff. No doubt about it.

100% agreed on this reasoning.
Kashif

For god's and honesty's sake !!! Such hypocrisy i have never seen. Just look around this board, from Indian threads to Kashmir thread to Pakistan thread to social thread. This entire forum is over flowing with cut & paste anti-Indian and anti-Hindu propaganda. And if an article is posted that asks some relevant questions about Muslim invaders, its derided as anti-islamic propaganda. wow. If someone really wanted to spread anti-Islamic propaganda, do you believe there is any dearth of material on the internet ? Problems emanating in the name of Islam are perhaps the most talked about issues on the internet these days.

Yes Niaz sir, i agree with you that Islamic conquerors were no worse than Christian or Hindu ones, but does that mean that we should just stick our heads in the sand when it comes to talking about them ? Just because they are muslim, does it automatically become propaganda ? I have said earlier, and i will say again, lack of self-introspection and asking difficult questions about themselves is the primary reason why Muslim populations the world over find themselves at the bottom of every social, economic, and scientific ladder. You could attribute it to some great Hindu or zionist or christian conspiracy with regards to India, if not for the fact that its the exact same case in every nook and corner of the world.

 

[Adux]

Hon Alamagir,
No need to be apologetic about what our forefathers and Muslims in the days gone by may or may not have done.

Why should you sir,

Articles as posted by Hon Adux have been written as a propaganda against the muslims.

One hand you tell, not to be apologetic, then you tell it is propaganda.

These days; thanks to 9/11 and its aftermath; it is in vogue to demonize the Muslims. Basically they want to say that Muslims are not bad now, they were always genocidal maniacs.

Are you telling me Muslims now are genocidal maniac's, cuz i dont think so, but there is something really wrong with logic and some extremist idiots in your sect

I

am however dismayed by the malicious intent of our dear members from India, who surf all over the web for such hateful material and "copy & paste" primarily as a provocation.

And I am utterly disappointed in you, It is not provcation if you post about ills about India and Hindu's, Christains and Bush. But it is when you post some medival muslim invaders. Why? Cuz you have your missile's named after them. Honestly sir, I did not expect this out of you.

I am not going to defend or deny what Muslim invaders did to the local Indians from circa 711 to the 1770's. After that muslim power had became too weak to do much anyway..

My point is that it is height of prejudice to judge todays Muslims in the light of what Alauddin Khilji, Babur of Auragzeb did half a millenia ago. All these happenned during war or in an attempt to consolidate the political power.

Why dont you talk about it then, This article is written by a belgian man. Would you believe it, In our text books there is nothing about hindu slaves and also nothing about how hindu's of those era were mass murdered. From my prespective. This is my history, sad part of it yes. But still something I never knew off. Say something about the muslims and I am a RSS, even worse you bought it.

I maintain that if one examines history, Muslims have been relatively benevolent rulers compared to non muslims. Let me cite actual examples.

Benevolent for one, might not same for others. u

The world:

1. Vandals and Hun's destruction is legendary. The term "Vandalism" originated from it. Who knows how many people and nations were completely annihilated.

True

2. Alexander himself was a very violent man. He wanted to teach Greeks a lesson and in 336 BC he either killed or sold to slavery every living soul of Thebes. To this day Thebes, once a great city, has virtually ceased to exist.

Yes

3. Crusading Christians were barbaric to the extreme. Massacre at Acre in 1191 is a legend to this day. During the 4th Crusade, they turned on the greatest city of Christendom and sacked the seat of the Byzantium. Any one who resisted looting was killed. The killing and attrocities on the the Christians by the Christians were so great that Pop Innocent -III was forced to excommincate the Crusaders.

Yes, they were.

4. In 1220 Chengiz invaded Kingdom of Khwarizm ( Iran). So many people were killed that it took Iran 300 years to recover. Some great cities such as Bulkh, never recoverd and today are just a ghost of their medieval past.

True

5. In 1492, the most Catholic Majesties Ferdinend and Isabella gave the following choice to the 250,000 surviving Muslims of Granada:

- Convert to Christianity or be killed

- or Leave the country of Spain altogether.

In order to to root out thousands who coverted falsely, Spanish inquisition was instituted which again killed in thousands all over Europe.

Nobody says what the spaniards did was right. Not even the spanish.

6. Spanish Conquistedors between 1518 and 1568 completely annilhilated the great Mayan and Inca civilizations. Only God knows how many millions were killed.

True, you give some of the deaths to plague though.

7. Euorpean settlers in the US carried out whole sale slaughter of the native Red Indians. While the plains were full of people in the 1500, by 1900's most Indian tribes either ceased to exist or were relocated. This is the worst genocide in history of the world.

True, Genocide of the american tribes.

8. WWI killed nearly 8 million and WW2 26 millions.

9. US atomic bombs destroyed two whole cities in 1945.

War, and Genocide of Jews

India:

Starting with Ashoka and Guptas, all great Indian kings have been guilty of wholesale slaughter of their captives. No one knows how many people were killed by the Marhattas and by Sikhs. Sikh attrocities against muslims in Punjab are legend to this day in Pakistani Punjab. British revenge after black hole of Calcutta and after 1857 Sepoy rebellion was horrendous.

True, So is the revenge attacks by muslims, conversion to islam under the sword.

In more recent times, after their withdrawl from Singapore; British were so scared by the advancing Japanes that they created an artificial famine in Bengal in 1943 which killed more than 5-million as a conservative estimate.

True.

Whole sale salughter of muslims by the Sikhs during 1947 far outnumbers the non muslims killed in Pakistan.

The same is said about muslim killing sikhs and hindu's. it was a riot. You dont count dead bodies and call up a winner.

This is the last time I am going reply to the malicious propaganda against the Muslims published in the Western media as it lacks objectivity

.

Objectivity is not something muslims writers can claim to have, in my opinion.

Hon Adux is welcome to copy/post as many articles as he likes.

Copy and Paste is only wrong when I paste something bad about muslims, while it is Hindu's, it is ok. I didnt know that you were that narrow minded, that you had conditions on debate.

I pasted this article the same day I opened the thread about Hindu Slaves.
Do you deny that this ever happened, Are you saying that it is not worthwhile to listen or be talked about.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Adux,

First you create thread about Hindu slaves and now this. Next time you will come up with Tipu Sultan killed 1 million Hindus...etc.

 

[Samudra]

Nobody is training their guns onto Muslims for what their ancestors or somebody's ancestors who had them converted either by the magic of the Sufi's or the sword.

However, it is when one begins to deny that these(most of it in the name of religion) never ever happened that one gets really angry. It's like asking many million Hindu's to go do whatever they can after having destroyed the Somnath, Ayodhya, Kashi or Mathura and built Mosques in the same place. You're asking for fight then. The world is now in a mood to gladly give you that.

IIRC The Kaaba itself was a place of worship for people of other faith before Mohammed went on to destroy all idols kept there.