certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic History (09 Jan 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)


It is High Time to Discard the Pernicious Myth of India’s Medieval Muslim ‘Villains’

 

By Audrey Truschke

09/01/2016

Whatever happened in the past, religious-based violence is real in modern India, and Muslims are frequent targets. It is thus disingenuous to single out Indian Muslim rulers for condemnation without owning up to the modern valences of that focus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: Prince Aurangzeb facing a maddened elephant named Sudhakar, 1633.

 

The idea that medieval Muslim rulers wreaked havoc on Indian culture and society – deliberately and due to religious bigotry – is a ubiquitous notion in 21st century India. Few people seem to realise that the historical basis for such claims is shaky to non-existent. Fewer openly recognise the threat that such a misreading of the past poses for modern India.

Aurangzeb, the sixth Mughal Emperor (r. 1658-1707), is perhaps the most despised of India’s medieval Muslim rulers. People cite various alleged “facts” about Aurangzeb’s reign to support their contemporary condemnation, few of which are true. For instance, contrary to widespread belief, Aurangzeb did not destroy thousands of Hindu temples. He did not perpetrate anything approximating a genocide of Hindus. He did not instigate a large-scale conversion program that offered millions of Hindu the choice of Islam or the sword.

In short, Aurangzeb was not the Hindu-hating, Islamist tyrant that many today imagine him to have been. And yet the myth of malevolent Aurangzeb is seemingly irresistible and has captured politicians, everyday people, and even scholars in its net. The damage that this idea has done is significant. It is time to break this mythologized caricature of the past wide open and lay bare the modern biases, politics, and interests that have fuelled such a misguided interpretation of India’s Islamic history.

A recent article on this website cites a series of inflammatory claims about Indo-Muslim kings destroying premodern India’s Hindu culture and population. The article admits that “these figures are drawn from the air” and historians give them no credence. After acknowledging that the relevant “facts” are false, however, the article nonetheless posits that precolonial India was populated by “religious chauvinists,” like Aurangzeb, who perpetrated religiously-motivated violence and thus instigated “historical injustices” to which Hindus can rightly object today. This illogical leap from a confessed lack of reliable information to maligning specific rulers is the antithesis of proper history, which is based on facts and analysis rather than unfounded assumptions about the endemic, unchanging nature of a society.

A core aspect of the historian’s craft is precisely that we cannot assume things about the past. Historians aim to recover the past and to understand historical figures and events on their own terms, as products of their time and place. That does not mean that historians sanitise prior events. Rather we refrain from judging the past by the standards of the present, at least long enough to allow ourselves to glimpse the logic and dynamics of a historical period that may be radically different from our own.

Going back more than a millennium earlier, Hindu rulers were the first to come up with the idea of sacking one another’s temples, before Muslims even entered the Indian subcontinent. But one hears little about these “historical wrongs”

In the case of Indian Muslim history, a core notion that is hard for modern people to wrap our heads around is as follows: It was not all about religion.

Aurangzeb, for instance, acted in ways that are rarely adequately explained by religious bigotry. For example, he ordered the destruction of select Hindu temples (perhaps a few dozen, at most, over his 49-year reign) but not because he despised Hindus. Rather, Aurangzeb generally ordered temples demolished in the aftermath of political rebellions or to forestall future uprisings. Highlighting this causality does not serve to vindicate Aurangzeb or justify his actions but rather to explain why he targeted select temples while leaving most untouched. Moreover, Aurangzeb also issued numerous orders protecting Hindu temples and communities from harassment, and he incorporated more Hindus into his imperial administration than any Mughal ruler before him by a fair margin. These actions collectively make sense if we understand Aurangzeb’s actions within the context of state interests, rather than by ascribing suspiciously modern-sounding religious biases to him.

Regardless of the historical motivations for events such as premodern temple destructions, a certain percentage of modern Indians nonetheless feel wronged by their Islamic past. What is problematic, they ask, about recognising historical injustices enacted by Muslim figures? In this regard, the contemporaneity of debates over Indian history is crucial to understanding why the Indo-Islamic past is singled out.

For many people, condemnations of Aurangzeb and other medieval Indian rulers stem not from a serious assessment of the past but rather from anxieties over India’s present and future, especially vis-à-vis its Muslim minority population. After all, one might ask: If we are recognising injustices in Indian history, why are we not also talking about Hindu rulers? When judged according to modern standards, medieval rulers the world over measure up poorly, and Hindu kings are no exception. Medieval Hindu political leaders destroyed mosques periodically, for instance, including in Aurangzeb’s India. Going back more than a millennium earlier, Hindu rulers were the first to come up with the idea of sacking one another’s temples, before Muslims even entered the Indian subcontinent. But one hears little about these “historical wrongs” for one reason: They were perpetrated by Hindus rather than Muslims.

Religious bigotry may not have been an overarching problem in India’s medieval past, but it is a crucial dynamic in India’s present. Religious-based violence is real in modern India, and Muslims are frequent targets. Non-lethal forms of discrimination and harassment are common. Fear is part of everyday life for many Indian Muslims.  Thus, when scholars compare medieval Islamic rulers like Aurangzeb to South Africa’s twentieth-century apartheid leaders, for example, they not only display a surprising lack of commitment to the historical method but also provide fodder for modern communal fires.

It is high time we discarded the pernicious myth of India’s medieval Muslim villains. This poisonous notion imperils the tolerant foundations of modern India by erroneously positing religious-based conflict and Islamic extremism as constant features of life on the subcontinent. Moreover, it is simply bad history. India has a complicated and messy past, and we do it and ourselves no justice by flattening its nuances to reflect the religious tensions of the present.

Audrey Truschke is a historian at Stanford University and Rutgers University-Newark. Her first book, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court will be published by Columbia University Press and Penguin India in 2016. She is currently working on a book on Aurangzeb that will published by Juggernaut Books.

Source: thewire.in

URL: http://newageislam.com/islamic-history/audrey-truschke/it-is-high-time-to-discard-the-pernicious-myth-of-india’s-medieval-muslim-‘villains’/d/105936

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Islamic History




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   5


  • I'm afraid "the pernicious myth of India’s medieval Muslim villains" will not be discarded unless we challenge also the equally pernicious myths about the colonial rule. Blind nationalism based on hatred and fantasies takes no time to turn into communalism. History has to be seen as a mixed-bag of good and bad, with no absolute heroes or villains. 
    By C M Naim - 1/11/2016 7:06:05 AM



  • To
    All
    ( Author & commenters) 

    We Hindus do not accept Aurengzeb as good person he was tyrant and will remain tyrant forever for Hindus, we cannot forget the past but can forgive their is wast difference between forget and forgive .

    I do not believe most Muslim will see modi in high esteem even though he might done by heart some eying or said good words or just pretending to be good withMuslim.

    With same token as Muslim cannot forget and furgive modi,we Hindus can atleast furgive.

    any way our hero is Dara-Siko which is certainly not for Muslim because any Muslim who likes Hinduisium will never be good symbols for Muslim we are witnessing from Indain Muslim( I am not worrying about rest Muslims of the world) that hate preachers like Zakir Naik, Mulana Sajjad Nomani and lots of other have lots of follower.

    Even if see now NewAge Islam on one hand will post one Article praising Dara-Siko and today we are seeing another posted article trying to improve image of Aurangzeb.

    This double standards were used by Zakir Naik when he started his carrier than he started show his true behaviour may Sutan shahin same, because I am seeing this website is falling into same trap apart from most of comments are published.

    By Aayina - 1/11/2016 2:16:36 AM



  • Good article!
    By Ghulam Faruki - 1/10/2016 12:39:03 PM



  • I agree 1oo percent west biased media n indea propaganda disgrace New Age Islam
    By Taj Mohammad Bughio - 1/10/2016 12:37:54 PM



  • Those who want to promote divisionism will continue to spew their malicious distortion of history. If Muslim rulers were so murderous, they could not have ruled for 700 years, nor could Aurangzeb have ruled for 49 years.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/9/2016 2:04:00 PM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content