NCERT Books May Not Be Accurate, But Muslim Rule In India Was Oppressive

News18

2 days ago

The barbarity of Muslim rulers is well-documented, mostly by Muslim writers
Revision of a Class VIII social science textbook by the National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT) has once again brought the issue of the saffronisation of the education system, especially of historiography, to the fore. While the new NCERT outlook may be coloured with the ideological tilt of the ruling coalition, its opponents are not exactly impartial in their criticism.
The book, Exploring Society: Indian and Beyond, informs students about the Sultanate and Mughal periods. It describes Babur as a 'brutal and ruthless conqueror, slaughtering entire populations of cities". Akbar, termed as a 'blend of brutality and tolerance", fares a shade better. Aurangzeb, too, has been depicted as the destroyer of temples and gurdwaras.
But if the new NCERT books are inaccurate, Left-leaning historians and intellectuals are also presenting facts and arguments that are at variance with reality. For instance, the most visible public historian, Dr Ruchika Sharma, has claimed that the jizya tax was not used to spread Islam.
But Firuz Shah Tughlaq, who ruled during 1351-88, wrote in his autobiography, 'I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet, and I proclaimed that everyone who repeated the creed and became a Musalman should be exempt from the jizya or poll-tax. Information of this came to the ears of the people at large, and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves, and were admitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, and adopting the Faith, were exonerated from the jizya, and were favoured with presents and honours."
It was not just that the jizya was discriminatory; how it was collected was also humiliating. The taxpayer was ordered to offer the money, keeping his palm up; the collector snatched it rudely to show that the payer was at the mercy of the rulers.
Sharma and others also try to normalise various barbaric Muslim invasions and the ensuing oppressive Muslim rule with the such-things-happened-in-those-times line. The underlying message is that the actions of medieval Muslim rulers should not be regarded as exceptionally brutal.
Really? The famous American historian Will Durant wrote, 'The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation 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."
The barbarity of Muslim rulers is well-documented, mostly by Muslim writers. Consider Taimur (1336-1405), Central Asia's jihadist conqueror. I reproduce the sack of Delhi (December 1398) in his own words; one lakh Hindus were slaughtered in the massacre. The following passage is from his memoirs, Malfuzat-i-Timuri, quoted from HM Elliot and J Dowson, The History of India as Told by its Own Historians.
'On the 16th of the month… when the soldiers proceeded to apprehend the Hindus and gabrs (Parsis) who had fled to the city, many of them drew their swords and offered resistance. The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahánpanáh and Sírí to Old Dehlí, burning up all it reached. The savage Turks fell to killing and plundering. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them, and rushed into the fight and were killed. The Hindus and gabrs of the city showed much alacrity and boldness in fighting… On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army, no longer under control, went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering, and making prisoners. All that day, the sack was general. (…) Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulamá, and the other Musulmáns, the whole city was sacked… It was the will of God that this calamity should fall upon the city."
Then there was Amir Khusru (1253-1325), or Amīr Khusrow. A Sufi musician, poet, and scholar, he is lionised as a symbol of composite culture, which is the desi term for multiculturalism. But he also celebrated jihad. As the historian Sita Ram Goel wrote, 'Amir Khusru describes with great glee how the heads of Brahmins danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet, along with those of the other 'infidels' whom Malik Kafur had slaughtered during the sack of the temples at Chidambaram."
Goel has quoted passages from Khusru, like, 'When the royal army (of Alau'din Khalji) reached that province (Gujarat), it won a victory after great slaughter… The army of Islam broke the idols (at Somnath) and the biggest idol was sent to the court of the Sultan." This is Khusru—the icon of interreligious faith!
Just because some votaries of Hindutva show excessive enthusiasm and prejudice in rewriting history doesn't mean that Muslim rule was humane.
The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.