@advaita
I still don't understand what the main disagreement is..
Instead of seeing everything in terms of religion, I have said that it was more to do with political alliances. I think its an insult to Rajputs tribes to say that just because they couldn't fight the Mughals they meekly joined them. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that because native muslims and pathan migrants in present-day Maharashtra joined Shivaji's army just because they were afraid of him. They were political alliances and both alliances had respect for each others religion. (
shivaji). Then ofcourse there were the Sufi and bhakti movements that characterized the spread of Islam and peaceful co-existence. I agree that that must people might have lived in their own community, but this is a feature of Indian society where each caste would mingle with their co-caste people. That didn't mean that just because they didn't inter-marry or inter-dine that they were hostile to each other.
Besides, Mughals were just one dynasty. There were hundreds of other kings. Tipu Sultan was another brave son of Mysore who single handedly defeated the British multiple times. He even wanted to ally with other local kings, the marathas and Nizams to oust the British but failed to do so.
As other posters have mentioned Sher Shah Suri was probably one of the best kings in recent times for his administrative and monetary policies. Infact, he names the currency rupiyah which is now used in India Pakistan, Indonesia and many other countries even today. It was later the founders of Mughals Babar e.t.c that invaded Sher Shah's kingdom to establish their rule. So Babar invaded India by fighting Muslim king. Can you see how far fetched it would to call his invasion as a Hindu-Muslim conflict? It might be interesting to check out Babar's will to his son which is preserved in a museum in Bhopal.
Babar's will. Infact there are only three instaces of a muslim king invading India and fighting a Hindu king. Other than that these were either non-muslims on both sides or muslims on both sides.
Of course, there were invaders like Mahmud Ghouri that committed large scale looting and plundering, no one can be proud of that. Even Al-Buruni was critical of him in his writings calling him a barbarian. So you can't look at all muslim kings as one monolith. Just as you can not say that just because Ashoka killed hundreds of thousands of people (including women and children) in his early expansion, all Hindu kings were bad. Ghouri doesn't represent the entire period of muslim kings in India when infact he never planned to stay here. His actions were similar to the British where the main plan was to take wealth from India back to his country of origin unlike the local Muslim kings.
And most people don't know this but the first muslim king of India was actually a native of India from present day Kerela. Islam came to India from the south first right at the time of the Prophet (SAW).
Interview with a descendant of King Cheraman Perumal
No one is calling AZ raja ram or saint but he was not a demon incarnate either. There are positive and negative aspects to everyone, that is necessary to give a holistic picture. Otherwise you can fall prey to simplistic assumption. That differentiates a person who can lead to a person who can (
sometimes wrongly) be led.
(1) There are huge temples and palaces of Hindu kings in the north and south as well. Taj Mahal just happens to be the most famous one. It was a symbol of Hindustan contributing almost 25% of world GDP and being one of the richest nations. Travelouges from French, Arab and Turkish travelers talk about this.
(2) I also suggest you understand that the partition was mainly to serve British strategic interests in Middle East and as a bulwark against the Soviets. Secondly it was a political settlement not a religious one. The vast majority of common Indians didn't have a say in it. I have more than explained these reasons on various partition related threads. You can search for them if you are interested. Alternatively, you can read the book "The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition"
(3)It has only happened now because of the use of religion in politics. Also the partition affected the NW part of India the most so that is understandable but not excusable. I have not been to uttharkhand but in the South and East of India you will not find these problems. In J&K also its not like that.
The problem is for some people communal harmony is not in their political interests. They benefit in polarizing society after riots or agitations. But the average Indian is getting wiser and kicking out those who use communal politics. Even religious Hindus have realized this.
I had an interesting conversation with a devout Hindu friend of mine who is Lingayat from Karnataka. He told me that the mixing of politics with Islam is one of the main causes of extremism, something that only started in the 50s and 60s. This was supported by the western regimes as a bulwark against Communism. In any Muslim country in the ME and Asia where there was rise in Communism, these religious fundamentalists were covertly supported. Sometimes overtly in case of Afghanistan. Now these extremists even got bomb making and weapons training as well but were later left free to do what they please after the Soviets left. These very same people now use these techniques to wreck havoc in the name of "protecting" Islam.
Similarly, mixing of any religion including Hinduism with politics will have the same blowback and radicalising affect on disillusioned youth. You can already see that with groups like Ram sene e.t.c. becoming moral police. More recently was the banning and arrest of the group Abhinav Bharat and other organisations in Nepal who were involved in terrorists activities. These groups main aim was to "protect" Hindus. And he said that just as the muslims have had to take responsibility and moved ahead to condemn and stop the use of Islam in terrorism and politics. So too will Hindus rise to stop use of their religion sooner or later. Terrorism has no religion whether it be done by Muslims or Hindus. I guess he is right seeing the situation in Ayodhya nowadays (
=What Ayodhya Hindus think?)
To say that the "traditional belief systems" are the basis of Indian society is again preposterous. Both Maulana Azad (as well as the members of pro-India Jamiat-ulema-e-hind) and Mahatma Ghandhi were devout muslims and hindu but they represented Indian society. Similarly Ashfaqulla Khan and Ram Prasad Bismil but they represented the Indian society. Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were more atheists but they were proud Indians. What about the contribution of parsis and jews to India? I hope you understand the fallacy. All Indians have the right to follow any religion or no religion if they choose to do so. They can also be as devout and religious as they want provided they don't mix religion with politics.
Take example of America, the reason for its success are many but one primary reason is that it has not defined itself solely around a religion or ethnicity. It welcomed people from around the world the brightest minds from different religions and ethnic backgrounds. And in 200 years became one of the most powerful nation in history.
If you have already made up your mind that some "commies" have reconstructed history and that should be changed, I can't change your opinion. I also fail to understand how illiterates like Mualayam and Lalu could have influenced history research in India. I personally feel that the people at NCERT are well versed with history and have done a good job in the recent history textbooks for CBSE schools. I suggest you read some good history books that will give the correct picture. Posing history as a Hindu-Muslim conflict is only used to further political agendas and that is understood by many just like it was used by the Colonial British. It is only a matter of time till the truth comes out.
Overall I personally think it is useless to idolise or demonise any ruler. They should be looked at objectively to learn from their rule and appreciate the good things they did and understand any bad actions they had committed. These are all in the past and should be left as such.
What is probably needed is people should be taught what happened as political and cultural developments rather than just religious. So both Hindus and Muslims can be equally proud of say Ajanta caves as well as the Taj Mahal because it belongs to all Indians. This is what is being done and is providing a solid basis for Indian society. This is what will define the future and fate of India. As it is said Satya meva Jayate (truth alone triumphs)
