[The article reproduced below first appeared, with
very minor differences, in Kashmir Herald (dt. April 2003) and
can be read in the original at the following website also -
http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/communalisinghistoryx.html . It is
being reproduced here with the permission of the author.
The
article refers to an address titled ‘Against Communalising History’ that the
Marxist historian D. N. Jha delivered in 1999. The address is available at the
website http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/members/DNJha/GeneralPresidentsAddress.html
There is nothing spectacular about what is essentially a political speech, and
the fact that it is reproduced by Dominik Wujastyk on his website shows the
growing nexus between certain Indologists in the west, and Marxist historians
in India. We are grateful to the author for allowing us to reproduce it
here. – The Bharatvani Team]
__________________________
Is D. N. Jha
Communalising History?
Ever since the Bharatiya
Janata Party led NDA government came to power in Delhi the
"rewriting" of history has become a contentious, at times
acrimonious, issue. Marxist historians
who had dominated writing history books under the Congress patronage for
decades have suddenly started accusing the BJP government (and the Sangh Parivar)
of "communalising" or "saffronizing" history. Those who
contest Marxists' version of history were labeled as "communal" while they call their own version as
"secular".
Dr. DN Jha, a Professor of
History at the Delhi University belongs to the 'secular' school of History. In
the year 1999, at the Punjab History Conference held at Patiala, he delivered
his presidential address focusing on the theme: "Against communalising
History". Some of the "secular
historians" have, in fact, globalized this issue by talking about it
constantly at the International conferences and seminars across the globe, and
particularly in North America and Europe.
Various aspects of
"rewriting" history have been dealt with in the Indian media at
length. There are many points of contention but the most notable two that make
the issue so divisive are (i) the
treatment given to Aryan invasion theory and (ii) how Muslim invasions and rule
are portrayed in history books.
History can be neither
secular nor communal. Simply, history is nothing but a record of events as they
happened as best ascertained by available evidence. While dealing with history
as a subject, 'objectivity' should only be the sole criterion and nothing else.
Again, this objectivity must be sustainable on archeological or other
verifiable evidences. Furthermore, whenever new evidences come along through
new scientific methods or newly found evidences at a particular historical
site, the "wrong" historical records and books must be corrected to
reflect the truth as it unfolds. At any rate, objectivity should be the guiding
factor while writing history books, past or present.
In his keynote address Dr.
Jha told the audience "the
Hindutva forces, in their bid to aggravate religious conflicts in the country,
argue that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam and Christianity in the past
and therefore they have to be reconverted so as to take them back into the
Hindu fold. But such an assertion has no basis in our history. The idea that
the Muslims were destroyers of 'Hindu' temples and that they converted 'Hindus'
to Islam by force is extremely tendentious and is largely unfounded."
Citing Alberuni Dr. Jha said
"the use of force in this conversion was neither necessary nor
possible". To the best of my knowledge, of all the twenty or so books
about India written by Alberuni, only one titled Indica has survived. It is not clear how from reading
Alberuni, Dr. Jha drew the
above mentioned conclusion. Alberuni's book is not about Muslim conquest of
India. It is "an account of the religion, philosophy, literature,
geography, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030".
Conversion of Hindus or the
demolition of Hindu temples by the Muslims was not the subject of Alberuni's
book. Yet, he made some observations as
and when these touched upon the issues he dealt with in his book.
Alberuni wrote Prince Mahmud
that "utterly ruined the prosperity of the country" and calling these
as "wonderful exploits" by which Hindus became like atoms of dust
scattered in all directions. This, he goes onto observe, has created "the
most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims". Keen as he was on learning
about Hinduism and India, he laments that this has caused the Hindu sciences to
"retire far away from those parts of the country conquered by us" and
have fled to places where "our hands cannot yet reach". He stayed, it
is surmised in Punjab - the area under Prince Mahmud's occupation.
If Dr. Jha was looking for
the full extent of the destruction of temples and conversion of Hindus, he
should have rather looked into Tarikh-e-Yamini written by Prince Mahmud's
secretary Utbi and other Islamic sources dealing with the exploits of Muslim
invaders and rulers.
When it comes to the
destruction of temples, the Somanath temple evokes strongest emotions. Somanath
is mentioned fifteen times in Alberuni's Indica. While discussing the
sacredness of the Somanath idol and its origins and construction, Alberuni
records that the idol was destroyed by Mahmud and broken parts shipped to
Ghazni; "the upper part with all its trappings of gold, jewels and
embroidered garments" being kept at his residence and another part before
the door of the mosque of Ghazni, on which people rub their feet to clean them
from dirt and wet". Part of it was thrown into the hippodrome of the town,
together with the Chakraswamin, an idol of bronze brought from Thanesar.
Additional proof of the
destruction of Somanath temple, again, is recorded in a letter written by
Aurangzeb. He wrote:."The temple of Somnath was demolished early in my
reign and idol worship (there) put down. It is not known what the state of
things is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of
images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the
building may be left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the
place." (Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb from
Inayetullah's Ahkam, 10a, Mirat 372)
Somanath temple was
demolished by the Muslims -- from Mahmud to Aurangzeb - and rebuilt by the
Hindus several times - the last time soon after India gained her independence.
Focussing on Somanath temple
does not, in any way, imply that this was the only temple demolished by the
Muslims. This was one of thousands that met similar fate.
Breaking of idols and
demolition of places of worship was not unique to medieval Muslims. The latest
example of this practice was witnessed by the entire world only two years ago
(April 2001) when in opposition to calls from all quarters centuries old Buddha
statues carved on hillside in Bamiyan were demolished in Afghanistan.
"The possibility of a
forced mass conversion is, in fact, contradicted by Muhammad ibn Qasim himself
who, according to Baladhuri, is believed to have said: "The temples shall
be unto us like the churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and
the fire temples of the Magians." Dr. Jha went on to say.
Islamic warriors spared some
temples. However, this was not done as an act of tolerance or compassion
towards Hindus. Alberuni writes about one such incident. When Muhammad bin
Kasim conquered Multan, he inquired "why the town was so very flourishing"?
When told the cause was the idol of Aditya, for there came pilgrims from all
sides to visit it. He decided to "leave the idol where it was but he hung
a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery." When the Karmatians
occupied Multan, Jalam ibn Shaiban broke the idol into pieces and built a
mosque at the same place, Alberuni went on to add.
For reasons best known to
him, Dr. Jha does not tell all the facts of the history. He gives only a
sanitized account of Muslim invasion, and exploitation.
At Debal, the temples were
demolished and mosque founded; a general massacre endured for three whole days;
prisoners were taken captive; plunder was amassed. At Nirun, the idols were broken, and mosques founded on the site
of the temple of Budh, notwithstanding its voluntary surrender. The account of
Mahmud's invasions is full of demolition of temples (at Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Somnath - to mention a few),
plunder, massacres, enslavement and forced conversions.
Hajjaj, the governor of Irak
and sponsor of Muhammad bin Kasim's
campaign to Sind had written clear instructions: "My dear cousin, I have
received your life-augmenting letter. On its receipt my gladness and joy knew
no bounds. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by law is different from
the one adopted by you. The Great God says in the Koran: 'O true believers,
when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads. The above command
of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed."
If at times Hindus enjoyed
some freedom in the practice of their religion; it was dictated less by any
principle of justice or humanity, than the impossibility of suppressing the
native religion by the small number of Muslim invaders. The Hindus were never
treated equal to Muslims. They had to pay higher taxes in addition to
humiliating Jiziya.
The truth is that Muslim
invasions, almost without exception, were followed by a great massacre and
demolition of Hindu temples. All means from the sword to political to economic
pressure in the form of excessive taxation and humiliating Jiziya were used to
convert Hindus to Islam.
When the Communist
Government of West Bengal issued orders not to mention demolition of Hindu
temples by the Muslims in textbooks, at least indirectly, they accepted that,
indeed, this had happened.
However, historians such as
Dr. Jha go to extraordinary lengths to deny, hide and twist true historical
facts.
What is presented by Dr. Jha
is far from objective history. It is communal history - history favoring one
community at the expense of the other in contradiction to all available
evidence. Ironically, Dr. Jha while protesting against
"communalising" history is very much doing the same. What India needs
now is "true" academic historians who won't be afraid to call a spade
as spade.
*****