Muslim Legacy in India

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 ones soul and may lead to reconciliation with the past and
lead to a peaceful future.
The First Muslim In India Wasnt Babur 
The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, Baburs 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 Qasims 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 Qasims 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 Qasims 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 Qasims 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. Dahirs 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 Subuktigins 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 Mahmuds 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 Mahmuds 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.
Mahmuds 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 Chauhans 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 Aibaks 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) Khans Invasion Of
Baghdad. The Flight Of Muslim Mystics To India And The Spread Of Islam
Illtutmish ruled when Changez (Gengis) Khans 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 Balabans 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 Quran allows its use in a
revelation at the beginning of the Madinah period of Prophet Muhammads
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 --. (Quran.
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 wasnt 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-Saints 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-Kul” (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 husbands
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 Baburs 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! (Baburs 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? Isnt 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 (Islams) 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.