Muslim Rule over Hindu India Is a Myth: AIMIM UP Chapter President Is Reiterating the Poison Spread By the British Colonists
By
Saquib Salim, New Age Islam
18 October
2022
Shaukat Ali And His Party Should Learn That
Indians, Of Any Religious Faith, Have Always Rejected Fanaticism And Bigotry.
The Myth Of Muslim Rule Over A Hindu India Needs To Be Rejected By Decolonizing
And Nationalizing Our History.
------
The British subjugated Indians (Image courtesy: Sikh Museum, UK)
------
People
often ask, why do we want complete decolonization of thought and education
before National reconstruction? The answer has been given by Shaukat Ali,
President of AIMIM (UP chapter). When he said, “we ruled on India for 832
years, and you (Hindus) were forced to say Ji Hazur (Yes Sir) by keeping
your hands behind your back in front of our Badshahs”, Shaukat was reiterating
the poison spread by the British colonists that also led to the division of
India into three nations.
A
Slice of History
As an
Indian Muslim and a historian, it is my responsibility to point out the
criminality hidden in this poisonous remark. It must be understood that to
divide and rule the Indians, the British invented, or catalysed, the divisions
among Indians in the name of religion, caste, language, or region.
The
education system sowed the seeds of divisions in young Indian minds. To portray
themselves as saviours of the majority, they started teaching Indian history classified
into three periods - the Hindu period (ancient), the Muslim period (medieval),
and the Modern period. The intent is very clear from the fact that the British
rule was never called Christian rule, based on the religion they professed,
while previous eras were identified based on religions. Even those
classifications are completely devoid of facts.
It is a
tragedy that Indians accepted this history and kept reproducing it even after
independence. Akhtar Hameed Khan, a former ICS officer, and economist wrote,
“Since childhood, I have been fed with my superior tribal identity. I was told
that I should be proud of the destruction caused by Turk soldiers of Mahmud’s
Army during their victory marches. But, at the same time, I should be agitated
at the destruction of the Balkans. I should laugh at the destruction of Vijay
Nagar Empire by Bahmani but weep at the defeat of Srirangapattanam by the
English Army.”
I, with all
sense of responsibility counter this false history. Shaukat has arrived at the
figure of 832 years by counting from Mahmud of Ghazni’s raid till the capture
of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1857. I wish he had followed Bahadur Shah’s vision of
a united secular India. First of all, we must teach Shaukat and his ilk that
Muslims never reigned over India for 832 years. Mahmud, with whom his timeline
starts, never ruled but raided Indian territories. The first Muslim ruler to
establish rule over Delhi was Mohammad Ghori, almost 150 years after Mahmud’s
last raid into India. Here it must be kept in mind that ruling Delhi did not
mean control over India like in present times.
There were
different sovereigns in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Deccan, Karnataka, Bengal,
Rajasthan, and Punjab. From 1192 till 1526, when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi,
several dynasties ruled over Delhi by warring with each other. A large part of
India was still under the rule of Hindu sovereigns and they had political
alliances with Muslim rulers according to the need.
The rulers
were Muslims but it doesn’t mean that all Muslims were rulers. Just because PM
Narendra Modi is a Hindu doesn’t mean that all Hindus are rulers and no Muslim
can belong to the ruling elite. We find Hindus doing menial jobs and several
Muslims holding powerful positions like governors or ministers. Padma Bhushan
K. S Narang, an eminent historian, wrote about the Sultanate period, “The
Muslims did not constitute one single class. They were divided into three
subdivisions: the upper class, the lower-middle class, and the slaves.”
Subhas
Chandra Bose echoed similar sentiments when he said, “There is much more in
common between a Hindu peasant and a Muslim peasant than between a Muslim
peasant and a Muslim Zamindar”.
The more
widespread area came under Muslim rulers after Akbar expanded the Mughal
Empire. The fact is that the Mughal Empire was not by any means a Muslim empire
but a coalition of Hindus and Muslims. Most of the army generals were Hindus
while enemies suppressed by Mughal armies were headed by Muslims. Dr. Rajendra
Prasad noted, “Much of the time and energy of the Mughal Emperors from Akbar
right down to Aurangzeb was taken up in suppressing the revolts of Muslim
Governors of Provinces or in conquering independent Muslim kingdoms.
It is well
known how Aurangzeb spent many years in the South conquering the Kingdoms of
Bijapur and Golkonda and that he died there. Many of these expeditions and wars
were led on behalf of the Emperors at Delhi by Hindu generals like Man Singh
and Bhagwandas in the time of Akbar and by Jaswant Singh and Jay Singh in the
time of Aurangzeb, conquering and suppressing not only Muslim rulers and
governors but also Hindus who were ruling at the time in parts of the country.”
He further
wrote, “If in his wars Aurangzeb employed Hindu generals, his Hindu rival
Sivaji also had in his employ quite several Muslim military officers. Some of
them held important positions, like the Generals Siddi Hullal and Nur Khan. In
Shivaji’s Navy, there were at least three Muslim Admirals — Siddi Sambal, Siddi
Misri, and Daulat Khan.”
Ram Gopal,
a historian often identified with the Hindu right-wing, also refutes the claim
that India came under Islamic rule with Ghori. He writes, “Another wrong notion
held is that with the establishment of Mohammad Ghori’s rule, India became an
Islamic state and that only the kingdom changed hands from the one Muslim
dynasty to the other”. The so-called Muslim rule did not extend to the whole of
India.
The
Vijayanagar Empire existed at the same time. Ram Gopal notes, “in 1558, Ali
Adil Shah, the Sultan of Bijapur, had with the active support of Rama Raya of
Vijayanagar attacked and given a crushing defeat to Husain Nizamshah of
Ahmednagar.” So much for a fantasy of Hindu Muslim rulers acting according to
religious bigotry and not politics.
It must
also be noted that after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, Sikhs, Marathas, Jats,
and Pathans emerged as sovereigns. From 1707 to 1857, India was not a Mughal
kingdom. Mughal rule was practically over by 1765. But, the spirit of
syncretism remained. Rajendra Prasad pointed out, “Even today in India. States
Hindus and Musalmans are appointed to the highest posts irrespective of their
religion. It is enough to cite the instances of Maharaja Sir Kishen Prasad of
Hyderabad and Mirza Sir Mohammad Ismail of Mysore and now of Jaipur.”
Of course,
there were religious bigots as well but they always remained a minority like
Shaukat Ali and his party AIMIM, which was rejected by the Muslims of UP
earlier this year. His party secured 0.49% votes in the elections while he
received 1,525 votes out of 2, 47,266 votes cast in the Zahoorabad constituency
of Ghazipur. Shaukat Ali and his party should learn that Indians, of any
religious faith, have always rejected fanaticism and bigotry. The myth of
Muslim rule over a Hindu India needs to be rejected by decolonizing and
nationalizing our history.
-----
Saquib Salim is a Historian and a Writer
URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/muslim-rule-hindu-india-aimim-british-colonists/d/128205
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African
Muslim News, Arab World
News, South Asia
News, Indian Muslim
News, World Muslim
News, Women in
Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim Women
in West, Islam Women
and Feminism