Independent India’s rendering of a historical understanding of colonialism and all its manifestations has been sorely wanting leading to the birth of a dominant elite that in fact has no real understanding of the critical issues that lay behind India’s struggle for Independence from foreign yoke. Relieving our past from colonial, non-indigenous and prejudicial categorisations and understanding of the past will not only contribute to a more rich and creative understanding of it but could also, at this fragile juncture, contribute to a more rational understanding of the present. Within the broader matrix, the skewed understanding of the lasting exploitation(s) caused by colonial domination, especially in the context of neo-liberal economics that seeks to re-colonise third world cultures and economies needs to be factored in for the education of today’s young.

1. 1
Towards A Modern Indigenous Historical Framework
- Teesta Setalvad
Independent India’s rendering of a historical understanding of colonialism and all its
manifestations has been sorely wanting leading to the birth of a dominant elite that in
fact has no real understanding of the critical issues that lay behind India’s struggle for
Independence from foreign yoke.
Relieving our past from colonial, non-indigenous and prejudicial categorisations and
understanding of the past will not only contribute to a more rich and creative
understanding of it but could also, at this fragile juncture, contribute to a more rational
understanding of the present. Within the broader matrix, the skewed understanding of
the lasting exploitation(s) caused by colonial domination, especially in the context of
neo-liberal economics that seeks to re-colonise third world cultures and economies
needs to be factored in for the education of today’s young.
Colonialism of the Third World:
 Colonialism was a worldwide phenomenon.
 It marked the control of the large parts of the third world by the west, marked by
severe economic exploitation.
 This system of exploitation was unknown to India, Africa, South America and the
Caribbean before modern day imperialism.
 India became an early colony.
 The British from the start followed a policy of divide and rule.
Quote: Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay, 1858 “Divide et impera was the old
Roman motto, and it should be ours.”
Charles Wood, 1868, Secretary of State, “If all India were to unite against us how long
would we be safe.”
To further their dictum of divide and rule, the British proceeded to sow seeds of distrust
among India’s two major religious communities, the Hindus and the Muslims.
Unfortunately many of our leaders further fanned the flames of division and hatred.
While many rose above these and stood strong in their convictions.

2. 2
Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Badruddin Tyabji, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gokhale are
among the names of the early part of the freedom struggle. At some point along the
way, Gandhi, affectionately called Gandhiji, came to dominate the national movement
 Gandhi who managed to carry every creed, caste, religion and community with him.
 Gandhi, who’s creed was non-Muslim.
 Gandhi, who’s belief in Hindu-Muslim unity even after India was bitterly partitioned
made him swear that he would spend his last days in Pakistan.
 He was killed by a Hindu fanatic on January 30, 1948 within six months of
Independence and Partition
 The assassin was Nathuram Godse, a member of the Hindu Mahasbha
 Godse had been inspired by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, another
organisation of which he was a member since youth, that promoted a strong Hindu
identity and a Hindu nation
“The voiceless millions of the land saw in me their friend and representatives and I
identified myself with them to an extent it was possible for a human being to do so.”
Gandhiji
This year, on January 30, 1948 we will commemorate the 65th
Anniversary of this brute
killing. How do we understand this the first act of terror of independent India?
Birth of the Indian Struggle for Freedom
 Significant events the world over influenced the thoughts and spirit of Indians,
themselves humiliated after 300 years of foreign rule.
 The American War of Independence that led to the declaration of American
Independence
 The French Revolution with its ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity.
 The radical ideas of socialism and the Bolshevik Revolution all influenced Indian
people, leaders and thought.
 The struggle against foreign control was accompanied by various other movements
for social and religious reform.
 The awakening of the oppressed castes against centuries of domination, the rise of
the toiling peasants and the weavers against unfair exploitation by landed classes
and the demand for industrialisation and modernisation.
 The national struggle was also marked, for the first time with a consolidated notion
of an Indian identity, a unified geographical entity.
 The National Tricolor was unfurled at the Lahore session of the Indian National
Conference on December 29, 1929.
 It is truly unfortunate that this movement succumbed to sectarian and divisive
politics when India was brutally partitioned in August, 1947.

3. 3
 Behind the Partition law a cynical British power loathe to let it’s control go.
 The fashion of carving the Indo-Pak border was arbitrary and insensitive.
 It forced migrations of people who were loath to leave their place of birth.
 More than everything else it revealed our own weaknesses.
 With the growth of the overall nationalist struggle that strengthened unity, sectarian
streams had emerged within.
 These addressed people as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians rather than as
human beings, to be citizens of a democratic nation, as Indians.
 These political parties and their leaders are known historically as communal
 The word communal is a sub continental term that describes the manipulation of
religion and religious identities for political gain.
How did the colonisers behave?
We have the account of British writer, William Hewitt in his Colonisation and
Christianity, 1838. A Protestant Christian, he had harsh words on the conduct of the
Portuguese explorer, Alphonso Alburquerque in India. “He narrowly escaped with his
life in endeavouring to search and plunder Calicut. He seized on Goa which hence
forward became the metropolis of all Portuguese settlements in India. He conquered
Molucca and gave it to the plunder of his soldiers.”
Chapman Cohen describes the first expedition of John Hawkins in Christianity, Slavery
and Labour, London, 1931.
“The first Englishman of note to engage in the traffic was the celebrated John
Hawkins… he certainly presents that blending of piracy and piety, rascality and
religion…. Hawkins appears to have had his eye for a long time on the slave trade as a
very lucrative business.”
1700s onwards
 Soon after the Europeans established their economic bases all over the Indian
subcontinent, their interference in political affairs began.
 The disintegration of the Mughal Empire and no other to take its place made such
interference easy.
 Unfortunately many independent, Indian Princes and powers did not hesitate to take
the white man’s support against each other.
 The tussle began in South India between the French and the British.

4. 4
 Both powers followed a pattern of recruiting the soldiers under the command of a
French and European officer.
 England’s victory over the French and the capturing of Arcot, the capital of Carnatic
proved a stepping stone to capture over Bengal.
 This finally laid the foundation for Britain’s power of India.
 The Battle of Plassey that took place on 23rd
June 1757 began the road to
establishment of Britain’s power
 Mir Jaffaer’s betrayal of Nawab Siraj ud Daulah led to the latter being killed.
 Initially the concluding battle of Buxar in 1764 during which the new Nawab Mir
Quasim and his allies were defeated.
 The industrial revolution took place first in Britain when spreading to other countries
of Europe and North America.
 It took place 10 years after the English East India Company lodged itself on the Indian
subcontinent.
 Their 1st
three Governor Generals Warren Hastings, Cornwallis and Wellesley
succeeded in adding huge territory to what belonged to the East India Company.
 The ruler of Mysore, Hyder and Tipu and the Marathas are the only two that posed a
challenge to the British.
 Tipu Sultan was killed by the British while fighting them in 1799.
 Subsidiary alliances were engaged in by the British with local rulers.
 The rulers were expected to house British troops and function under the British
control.
 The Nizam of Hyderabad entered into one such agreement with the British.
 After their deaths, the infighting among the Marathas gave full advantage to the
British.
 By 1805 British control over India was unchallenged.
 Following Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, the British fought 2 wars after which Punjab
was annexed in 1849.
 Kashmir which until then was part of Punjab was gifted to Gulab Singh in return for
50 lakhs.
 Awadh was formally annexed in 1856.
Economic Impact of Colonisers
 Patterns of production and the accumulation and distribution of wealth changed
drastically.
 The new economic system demanded a new market for the goods produced and
continuous source of raw materials.
 Britain used its colonies in Asia, Africa and China for these new forms of economic
gains.

5. 5
 Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribbean were all subjected to the new kind of
economic imperialism that over the next centuries bled these continents
economically.
Quote
A Chinese letter to Queen Victoria
The English East India Company had been shipping opium to China. After it was banned
by a Chinese Emperor, the company started smuggling it. A Chinese official seized
20,000 chests (each containing about 120 pounds worth of opium) and destroyed it in
1839. This led to the first opium war. Twenty thousand Chinese were killed by the British
troops. The war marked the beginning of imperial control over China. Chinese officials
prepared a letter to Queen Victoria in March 1839,
“Ever since the port of Canton was first opened, trade has flourished for some 120-130
years. Natives of the place have employed peaceful and profitable relations with the
ships that come from abroad. Rhubarb, tea, silk are all valuable products of ours without
which foreigners could not live ………
But there is a class of evil foreigners that market opium and bring for sale, attempting
both to destroy themselves merely in order to reap profit……..
Any foreign ships that in the future arrive with opium on board, will be set fire to, and
any other goods that they are carrying will inevitably be burnt along with the opium. You
will then not only fail to make any profit out of us, but ruin yourselves into the bargain
intending to harm others you will be the first to be harmed. Do not say you have not
been warned in time.”
The Example of Churchill : Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging
of India During World War II
A dogged enemy of Hitler, resolute ally of the Americans, and inspiring leader through
World War II, Winston Churchill is venerated as one of the truly great statesmen of the
last century. But while he has been widely extolled for his achievements, parts of
Churchill's record have gone woefully unexamined. As journalist Madhusree Mukerjee
reveals, at the same time that Churchill brilliantly opposed the barbarism of the Nazis,
he governed India with a fierce resolve to crush its freedom movement and a profound
contempt for native lives.
A series of Churchill's decisions between 1940 and 1944 directly and inevitably led to the
deaths of some three million Indians. The streets of eastern Indian cities were lined with

6. 6
corpses, yet instead of sending emergency food shipments Churchill used the wheat and
ships at his disposal to build stockpiles for feeding post-war Britain and Europe.
Combining meticulous research with a vivid narrative, and riveting accounts of
personality and policy clashes within and without the British War Cabinet, Churchill's
Secret War places this oft-overlooked tragedy into the larger context of World War II,
India's fight for freedom, and Churchill's enduring legacy.
Winston Churchill may have found victory in Europe, but, as this groundbreaking
historical investigation reveals, his mismanagement facilitated by dubious advice from
scientist and eugenicist Lord Cherwell devastated India and set the stage for the massive
bloodletting that accompanied independence.
Our History Ignores the Work of Artists and Photographers allied with the Communist
Party of India, artists like Chittaprosad and Photographers like Sunil Janah who were
sent out together by veteran communist PC Joshi to report, through powerful drawings
and pictures, for the party journal, then called People’s War.
1943-44
Chittaprosad began his tours in famine-struck Bengal making powerful, sensitive black
and white drawings on the Bengal famine regularly published in People’s War. Chitto’s
scathing exposure of British callousness in a first hand account, was published by
People’s Book House Mumbai in the form of a pamphlet titled Hungry Bengal – A Tour
through Midnapore district, 1943. No wonder (given Churchill’s policy of kill and be
damned), copies of the pamphlet were seized by the British government and banned.
With Independence one, India had little use for the revolutionary fervour of
Chittaprosad.
It is this ambivalence of the Indian elite towards the crippling impact of colonisation that
has led to generational bowing to a new form of colonisation through neo liberal policies
and the flow of multi national capital. The Bhopal Gas tragedy shockingly exposed the
double standards of Union Carbide (and Dow chemicals) in basis safety standards
between the first and third world. Similarly, Cargill tried to target the salt pans of Kutch
with a similar plan until it decided to quit. Today the concretisation of the coastline
through the ports given to private owners poses a dire threat to the future ecological
balance of the region.

7. 7
Now to Colonialism and Historiography in the Traditional Context
Past and Prejudice
Relieving our past from prejudice will not only contribute to a more rich and creative
understanding of it but could also, at this fragile juncture, contribute to a more rational
understanding of the present.
The successful penetration of a single term Babar ki aulad (sons of Babar) in the Indian
socio-political discourse shows the remarkable success of the Hindu communal,
Hindutva ideology in shaping and interpreting past events for us. A series of connected
images get conjured up: the marauding, fanatical Muslim invader who has raped and
killed, plundered our temples and imposed Islam upon us. Some of Babar's descendants
not merely divided the motherland but a section of them still live amongst us, claiming
equal rights. The past decades have been live witness
to the bloody potential of such communal discourse. Text books are today only one of
the means by which communal ideologies are perpetuated.
On the flip side of the coin, Muslim communal historiography is evident in Pakistan's text
books and both these communalist renderings of history are an obstacle to a wholistic
and creative association with our past. Historians inevitably enter the debate because
communal ideology always uses distorted images of historical events for its justification.
Nowhere was this more clearly evident than right through the mobilisation for the
Ramjanmabhoomi campaign. And the history teacher is the crucial live link between this
vast body of analysis and the child.
Apart from publishing Communalism Combat, we at Sabrang Communications have
been experimenting with putting together a module of a secular education project, KHOJ
for the past 20 years.
Apart from the plan for further action the workshop began with detailed presentations
of the four periods of Indian history: Ancient, early Medieval, Medieval and Modern.
Apart from this public note of gratitude for professors Romila Thapar, Keshavan
Velluthat, Anirudha Ray and K.N.Panikkar for their enthusiastic participation in the
workshop, we present excerpts from their presentations for Combat readers.
Professor Romila Thapar, Jawaharlal Nehru university, New Delhi:

8. 8
"The important thing to remember in the understanding, reading and interpretation of
history is that it is an ongoing and dynamic discipline. It is not a body of information to
be learnt by heart, captured and repeated but constantly returned to, re-explored.
Within colonial historiography, we have two distinct trends the Orientalists and the
Utilitarians; the first that presented a sympathetic image of a golden age but this image
had a double edge that pitted the great Indian civilization with the ration-alisation for
the British consquest; and the Utilitarians that moved away from this romantic vision of
a glorious Indian past and presented "Hindu" and "Muslim" periods in a more or less
static sense with Oriental despots at their helm. The unkindest legacy left by James Mill,
one of the Utilitarians was the periodisation of Indian history into three periods, Hindu,
Muslim and British (not Christian). This was a meaningless categorisation as it no way
reflects or characterises an age.
Nationalist historians, in the early part of this century, in their search for an identity
harked back to descriptions and imagery of golden ages of the past. To fight colonialism
these interpretations of history pointed to a backward looking utopia.
All these streams show a close link between ideology and history writing. And it was in
the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s that the culmination of this link, this time in the form of
communal ideologies and history writing became transparent. This clash of
communalisms continues with us (Hindu and Muslim communalist history writing).
Communal interpretations of history have crept into regional histories as well (Sikh
communalism etc). One way of breaking out or away from these kind of motivated
interpretations of history is to study an age not merely through political events but
through social and economic relations. To bring into the study and teaching of history a
study of the history of technology and what impact it had on the social dynamics of an
age. To refer to authentic historical sources and examine the motives behind what
comes through them, to engage in latest developments in archaeology, linguistics and
epigraphy that are extremely illustrative and educative about a particular age and time.
To move away from studying history in terms of the
origin and decline of kingdoms (which reveals facets of life of only the elite) and begin to
examine matters of trade, exchange and communication. We will find then, looking at
ancient India how alternate political systems existed, the ganashastras which were
oligarchies and not monarchies. Other interesting details will get revealed if we
approach history this way. We will find, for instance, how, with trade
--unlike agriculture-- new communities are being born all the time, what their cultural
relations are etc. We will find through such examination how the khojas, moplahs,

9. 9
bohras and navayats are all communities created by trade.
A major theory of of historical explanation which evolved in the 19th century was the
theory of the Aryan race. This theory, developed as an explanation for European origin
by Max Mueller (who held that the Aryans originated in central Asia and came as
invaders into north-western India, subjugating the locals and imposing their language
Indo-Aryan, a technical term for Vedic Sanskrit). This theory divided Indian society along
racial lines arguing that the fair arya and the dark dasa of the Rigveda were
racial distinctions.
This theory is untenable because it equates language with race. Language is an acquired,
cultural feature which can be learnt by a member of any race provided it is taught
whereas race has got to do with biological descent. An interesting thing happened with
this theory of the Aryan invasion. Jyotiba Phule argued that the Aryan invasion brought
the brahmanas who subjugated the indigenous peoples; thus making the sudras, Dalits
and tribals the rightful claimants and inheritors of the land.
At the other end is the Hindutva version of history which holds that there is no invasion,
the Aryans being indigenous India, therefore giving a clean, linear descent to the Hindu
Arya as rightful inheritor of the land. This explanation of origin is
critical to any communal ideology. For Hindutva to be tenable, it must be established
that only Hindu Aryas are true descendants of the land, how else can the notion of
pitrubhumi hold valid? Neither of these interpretations, however, are borne out by
historical evidence. Apart from the Rigveda being the earliest source that refers to the
arya, today we have the evidence pro-vided by archaeology and linguistics. The
Harappan cities cannot be equated with Vedic society as the urban culture of the former
is distinctly different from the predominantly pastoral culture of the latter.
Archaeological evidence from the north-west of the subcontinent and dating to 3000
B.C. onwards provides no evidence of a larges-cale invasion or migration. However there
is evidence of contact between the north-west and the areas beyond in Afghanistan,
north-eastern Iran and the Oxus valley, especially in the second
millennium B.C. that would suggest there was a frequent movement of people and
goods between these areas. Religious monuments their creation and destruction often
becomes central to communal discourse. In studying history, we must
understand that religious monuments represent the religions of the elite, that they are a
statement of wealth, power and author-ity. Only the rich build monuments and because
the religious monument be it the temple, mosque or stupa has also been the safe

10. 10
deposit for a lot of wealth, they have been the target, over the ages of ravage and
plunder. We need to ask some critical questions when we look at the religious
monuments of the past: Who built it? To whom was it aimed? What was it saying to
those who could not worship inside it? Once we look at aspects of history asking such
questions we will be surprised: because Kalhana's Rajataringini (history of Kashmir) tells
us what an 11th century "Hindu" king, Harshadev of Kashmir did because during his rule,
the state constantly faced a fiscal crises. He simply had a temple uprooted or plundered!
In fact he had created an official post, that of the Devauthpadanayaka (officer for the
uprooting of Gods) just for this purpose.
Religious conflicts there have been many and periodic. But that these have been only
between the Muslims and the Hindus is non-sense. Shavites and Buddhists had conflicts
(source: Rajataringini), King Shashanka of Assam destroyed Buddhist temples in the-
north-east and there is evidence of Jains and Shaivites clashing
in the region of Karnataka during the ancient period. When we study Indian history, we
also need to examine Religion in Indian history which was quite different from the way
religion evolved through the history of Europe. Indian, or sub continental
history is replete with instances, from the ancient period on, of the patronage by rulers
of religions other than their own. The ruler or the monarch had to observe a policy of
pluralism. This is unheard of in European history where you would never
hear of a Christian monarch ever building a mosque. Various eras in Indian history are
full of such examples: during the rule by the Kushans, there was evidence of a co-
existence of Shaivism and Buddhism, during the medieval period, the Moghul kings
provide examples of this. So we need to ask ourselves the motive or reason behind this
multi-purpose patronage? Because it was good political policy? Pragmatic for a plularist
society? Once we look at power an patronage of religions and religious
institutions in this light, it will become apparent that temples, too were symbols of
power, authority and wealth and therefore a target of attack. The myth of Mahmud of
Ghaznavi will then stand exposed.
Another important aspect needs to be considered when we deal with the nationalist and
communalist interpretations of history. A recurring theme is the claim to the special
spirituality of the Indian tradition and its inherent tolerance. We must remember that
our civilization has provided the worst evidence of intoler-
ance than anywhere in the world. Slavery and oppressed groups have existed within
different civilizations. But the existence and perpetration of untouchability that is based
on the most dehumanising concept of "so polluting as to be untouchable"
is evident nowhere else in the world. We can't really dare say we have been tolerant as
a civilization with the existence of this phenomenon through centuries of our history.*

11. 11
Professor Kesavan Veluthat, Mangalore University:
A consideration of the theme of the Golden Age and the way in which it was subjected
to rethinking becomes relevant here. One of the elements which nationalism draws
sustenance from is a particular construction of history. During the anti-imperialist
struggles in India in the first half of the 20th century, creation of golden ages in our past
would have served to boost the morale of the educated middle classes. Such a Golden
Age would appeal to the majority only when it
could be applied to them and when it can be pushed back in time
to the maximum possible extent. The Gupta Empire satisfied all these requirements and
in it were identified all the elements with which golden ages are made by historians.
What were these? Among them were mentioned an all-round development in the
political, cultural and economic fields. The Guts were shown to have repulsed "foreign"
invaders such as the Huns. In the field of the arts, developments in painting and
sculpture were projected. Literary achievements were also underlined. Kailas being the
best example. What was identified as Hinduism was shown to have reached its
height with the Puranas representing its highest glory. Gold coins and other indicators
of economic prosperity were also taken
up. However, ever since Kosambi, questions have been raised about the quality of this
golden age, much of which is as Professor Thapar says, shown as more tinsel.
As for the revival of nationalism under the Guptas, it has been shown in recent years
that the only positive evidence of any direct engagement which the Guptas had with
the Hunas comes from the fragmentary play, Devichandraguptam, where Ramagupta is
shown to have been defeated by them and also nearly surrendered his queen
Dhruvadevi to them! The vamsanucharita sections of the Puranas, the other
contemporary literary source of the period, speak of the Guptas as com-
parable to the mlecchas and unrighteous. It is only in the exaggerated claims in their
own inscriptions that they are de-scribed as great, which were used by nationalist
historians.
Thus, Kosambi says, rather than the Guptas reviving Indian nationalism, Indian
nationalism revived the Guptas! In the matter of cultural achievements shown as part of
the "Hindu renaissance" also there has been considerable rethinking. The sculptures
and paintings bearing the Gupta stamp, from Mathura, Ajanta and
Bagh, are mostly Buddhist and not related to Hindu themes. Even in literature, Kalidasa
is shown as carrying forward a tradition dating from a much earlier period, not to speak

12. 12
of the doubts raised about his date. Even about the happy position
enjoyed by the brahmanical sections of society, there have been notes of dissent.
For instance, it is shown that the Puranas express a pathological fear about the bad
times ahead through statements about the impending Kali age. This is shown as
indicating a veritable social crisis where the position of the upper varnas was
threatened.
So also, in the matter of economic prosperity, the age of the Guptas and immediately
thereafter is shown as witnessing the creation of several shades of superior rights
over and the subjection and immobility of peasantry. Women were subjected to
increasing hardships, instances of sati went up. In fact, women
and sudras come to be bracketed together in the texts. Such immiserisation of the
greater sections of population does not indicate prosperity. Even coins of lower
denominations useful in day-to-day transactions do not appear any more and there are
only gold coins. It has been remarked in a lighter vein that the only claim that the
Guptas have to a golden age is on account of the gold coins they issued. Trade declined
and urban centres decayed.
On the whole, therefore the idea that the age of the Guptas represented a Golden Age
does not hold much water any more. When this demystification of the watershed of
the early medieval period has been effected, a straighter thinking is possible about this
and the subsequent periods. There is no particular
glory attached to the "Hindu" period and, therefore, no more degeneration and decay
attributed to the later, "Muslim" period. Communal historiography loses one of its
sharpest teeth. Another way in which communal historiography loses its ground
is on account of the changing concerns of the historian. The
problems addressed in recent decades include the processes and structures in the early
medieval period in the economy, society and polity. There is little scope for communal
consideration in such discussions; and the historians who have taken part in these
discussions are themselves secular and scientifically disposed.
I shall also make a point or two about Vijayanagar, although the early medieval period
cannot be stretched to cover the period of the heyday of that state. Ever since the
supposed discovery of that "forgotten empire", it was presented as established with the
purpose of defending the Hindu faith against the onslaughts of Islam from the North.
Robert Sewell and Henry Heras began it all, Krishnaswami Aiayn-
gar, Venkataramanayya and Saeletore carried it forward. The "plunder and pillage"

13. 13
of the city of Vijayanagara by Muslim vandals was a theme which these historians
were not tired of repeating.
In recent years, however, different kinds of questions have been raised about
Vijayanagara, about the agrarian developments, trade, urbanization, political structure
and other activities. The military expansion of the empire has been shown as towards
the "Hindu" south rather than the "Muslim" north. Detailed studies of the revenue
system and the agrarian order have brought out the pattern of internal contradictions
within the society more than "Hindu-Muslim" conflicts. Studies of the
architectural remains of Hampi by George Mitchell and Klaus
Fischer have laid bare the heavy Islamic content in the Vijayanagara buildings.
Even the so-called "Muslim" destruction of the monuments is now shown to be limited
to Vaishnava structures, as if the Muslims made a choice among the heathens. There is
no longer any justification for the communal bee to remain in the historian's bonnet.**
Professor Anirudha Ray, Calcutta University:
"When we speak of the Medieval Age we unconsciously refer to the "Muslim invasion of
India." We must be very careful in the use of such terminology; the invasion was Turkish
not Muslim. Some important questions need to be asked when we read or interpret
history relating to this critical period. We need to ask
ourselves:
 Was there a largescale massacre of Hindus during the Medieval period?
 Was there a forced conversion of Hindus after invasions, did persecutions take
place?
 Why was there no popular resistance to "Muslim" medieval rule?
Some of the answers to these questions are very surprising. There is one concrete
instance of a largescale massacre by Allauddin Khilji near Delhi. Who were the victims?
Neo-Muslims (newly converted Muslims) and according to the historical source
(Ziauddin Babani thousands of people were killed. There were some specific occasions
during the Medieval period when the state participated in conversion and this was only
when the monarchs were faced with a rebellion. The reasons and motives behind these
conversions was not religious but a question of
ensuring subjugation and loyalty. An underlying feature of the Medieval age -- and this
was the primary moto of every king of that period anywhere in the world--

14. 14
was that he never forgave a rebel. That was why, in the Indian
context, conversion was thrust on a rebel only after he had shown disloyalty.
Or else, how can any historian explain how there was no conversion, nor any attempt in
that direction to convert the Rajputs? There is that famous dialogue between Akbar and
Man Singh when the former asks the latter to become a follower of Din-e-Ilahi and the
latter replies, "I do not want to change my religion." Man Singh was of course not
converted; the real conversion took place at the personal level with the influence of Sufi
and Bhakti saints. One of the major problems in the communal approach to history is
when we make the cardinal error of characterising an age through the character of a
king. This is particularly evident when we speak, or describe, or teach the Medieval Age
of Indian history. Except for the exception of many Pakistani scholars, we are told by
both Hindu and Muslim scholars that the reign of Akbar was a golden one, he is
described as Akbar the Great and furthermore as liberal and secular. I have no personal
problem with labelling him "Great" because
that is a purely personal assessment but to embellish him with labels like liberal and
secular -- both modern and not medieval terms -- is to commit grave injustice in our
understanding of the Medieval Age as a whole. What else is being achieved by
classifying 50 out of 500 years of Medieval rule as liberal and secular? Don't we
immediately, by implication and comparison classify the rest of the period as
"dark"?
Take for example, the Rajput king, Rana Pratap. The crux of the problem between him
and the Moghuls was his refusal to pay homage (a custom instituted by Akbar and
required of all his subjects). Thus he was considered a rebel. And therefore the brave,
glorious fight between rana Pratap and the mighty Moghuls was fought. But
look at the dangerous myths that we create. Rana Pratap did fight and he fought
bravely. But did he fight for India or for Rajputa-na? Did any Rajput come to his rescue?
For what did he fight? Jehangir, after Akbar exempted the Rana of Mewar from personal
homage and the long feud was over. Lets also compare Akbar and Jehangir's Rajput
policy. Akbar was the first to introduce the Rajput landed gentry into the Modgul
administration but during his reign the Kathiawad, Amber and Jaipur families cornered
69 per cent of the posts available for the nobility. Under Jehangir
(who cut down this monopoly of some Rajput families and extended it to include Rajputs
of Jodhpur and other areas) this share was distributed among a wider spectrum of
Rajput families. Who was more democratic, liberal and secular?
Such labelling can serve devious purposes. Once one labels a certain aspect, or one ruler
as liberal or secular, the others automatically represent the "dark ages."

15. 15
Aurangzeb has suffered most at the hands of such stereotyping. Professor Ather Ali's
book also informs us that while under Akbar's reign there were 21.5 per cent of Hindus
in the Moghul administration, during the last 20 years of Aurangzeb's rule
(when due to the imposition of jezzia tax he has been dubbed a Hindu-hater), the
Moghul ruler employed as many as 31.5 per cent of Hindus in his administration.
Ironically under Aurangzeb, percentage of Rajput nobles reduced but the share of
Maratha nobility within the Moghul administration grew considerably.
Besides we also know that the same Aurangzeb who has cruelly been labelled a temple-
breaker also gave enormous grants to temples (Professor Gyanchandra in 1966 at the
lectures of the Pakistan History Society) Similarly while talking of the civil war fought
between Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh we use similar nomenclatures: the fanatical
Aurangzeb (by implication Muslims) against the more liberal Dara. An excellent work by
Professor Ather Ali, titled Moghul Nobility under Aurangzeb shows how there were
more Muslims fighting on the side of Dara than under Aurangzeb!"***
Professor K.N.Panikkar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi:
"Communal history is not purely a distortion of history, there is one other, central aspect
to the communal interpretation of history and that is the denial and selective portrayal
of history. Silence is a major bias and this is clearly reflected in
the textbooks of the Maharashtra SSC Board that do damage as much by their exclusion
of entire periods than anything else. Two major influences still affect our reading,
interpretation or teaching of the modern Indian period of history that spans over 200
years of Bristish colonial rule. One is the influence of colonial histography and the
second is the influence of the communal interpretation of history. The first is a legacy
that is still reflected in our textbooks, in the language that we use, our use of terms like
"the British Raj" and the "Establishment of British Rule" rather than the inclusion o
chapters that discuss the "Resistance to British rule."Concentrating on the second
aspect, it might be important to begin with examining the whole phenomenon of
communalism as it emerged or altered in character distinctly in the second half of the
19th century. We have accounts of communal tensions even
before this -- the tensions that arose between Parsis and Muslims in Bombay in 1875 are
just one example of this, there were others between Hindus and Christians etc.-- but the
important thing to remember about these is that they did not end up in a riot.
It is in the latter half of the 19th century that the political dimension to communal
tension creeps in. It is very evident in Maharashtra in the 1860s, 1870s where there
were a series of riots in Nagpur, Nashik and other parts: almost always each riot was

16. 16
sparked off by the issue of playing of music before a mosque. It is important to
remember, therefore, that in the process of communalisation, the communal riot that
was traditionally seen as the culmination of communal tensions became, and remain
even today, the beginning of the process of communalisation.The second dimension
that is worth guarding against is the use of COMMUNITY-wise categorisation and
RELIGIOUS STIGMATISATION that is again a legacy of colonial terminology and
communal discourse that has still remained with us. For the British, as rulers trying to
understand and control Indian society, it was important to develop and understanding
of what Indian society is. It was through this process that the
category of a community of Hindus and a community of Muslims began to be widely and
increasingly used. This use of community terminology became part of our scholastics
and analysis. What we need to ask ourselves, is does this category as a category of
analysis give us the whole picture? Isn't it that every person who exists in society has
multiple identities? Conversion, both as a continuing and historical phenomenon is an
important facet that is constantly been brought to bear on the
communal discourse. To deal with the issue we need to ask our-selves some questions:
WHY did conversions take place? Is it the force of the state that made conversions take
place?
The most important aspect to remember when we look at the issue of conversion
historically is that the largest concentrations of Muslim population are not in states
where there was a Muslim ruler or dynasty, quite the contrary. What does this tell us?
For example in the Malabar coast in Kerala, large-scale conversions to Islam did not take
place during the invasion by Tipu Sultan. The largest conversions to Islam on the
Malabar coast were during the period 1843-1890 and were directly linked to the fact
that in 1843 slavery was abolished in this region as a consequence on
which, large numbers of formerly oppressed castes bonded in slavery by upper caste
Hindus moved over to Islam which they perceived --rightly or wrongly-- as a religion of
equality and justice.
Religious stigmatisation also, unfortunately affects our reading and interpretation of the
reins of specific historical rulers like say Tipu Sultan or Shivaji. Do we know, however
that it was during the reign of Tipu Sultan that a Maratha Sardar, a good
believing Hindu, invaded Mysore several times and during one attack plundered and
destroyed the Sringari Math. Who was responsible for the reconstruction of the Math
and the pooja that was performed before the reconstruction? Tipu Sultan. We need to
ask ourselves what a "good, secular Hindu Sardar" was doing destroying the Math and

17. 17
how come a "fanatical Muslim ruler" restored it? During the invasion of the same Tipu
Sultan in Kerala, there were hundreds killed, not because they were Hindus but because
the people of Kerala resisted his invasion. There are hundreds of such examples in
history. We need to search them out and examine, in the right perspective what were
the motives of the rulers of those times for such actions? What were the politics and the
historical processes behind the destruction and plunder of temples, the invasion of new
territories and kingdoms and the conversion to a different faith? Why did, whether it
was Tipu Sultan or Aurangzeb have a diametrically opposed behaviour to say the
construction/destruction of temples
at different points of their reign? Explanations are necessary for these actions. One part
of the answer is that it was not the religious factor that determined these acts but the
politics of the ruler of power and supremacy that governed these acts. Another aspect
critical to the study of Modern Indian History is the Counter-positions of
Communalisms, Hindu Communalism and Muslim Communalism that have so
dramatically affected the politics of the subcontinent. We must be very conscious, when
we read and interpret this period to understand that the development of both
communalisms was a parallel process that is not rooted in the second or third decades
of the 20th century (the birth of the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha) but must
be traced back to the middle of the 19th century. When even secular historians say that
Hindu communalism was a response to Muslim communalism for example we are not
just being communal, we are
misreading history.
This critical juncture in the communalisation process (mid 19th century) has to be more
closely examined by us: it will reveal how these processes in parallel happened. How the
Arya Samaj that began as a reform movement turned communal and similarly the
Aligarh movement that began as a movement for internal reform
also became communal. Another critical aspect to a non-communal approach to the
study of Modern Indian history is rooted in an understanding the development of the
concept of Indian nationalism that was always charecterised by its anti-colonial thrust.
We have, through the early part of this century distinct trends visible that go beyond the
anti-colonial, negative thrust, the positive understanding of Indian nationalism. One is
Anantakumar Swamy's "Essays on Nationalist Idealism" that explores the real essence of
a nation as being not politics but culture and Gand-
hi's "Hind Swaraj" which explains the essence of nationalism being civilizational. Both
these thinkers did not link the concept of nationalism with religion. Another contribution
in this area was by Radhakumar Mukherjee who in his works, "Fundamental Unity of
India" and "Culture and Nationalism" tried to conceptually trace the relationship of
nationalism to the ancient period of history. He sought to link culture with religion. In

18. 18
1924, Veer Savarkar's HINDUTVA forcefully pushed this link, between culture and
religion. In this work, the compositeness and
plurality of Indian tradition was overlooked completely when Savarkar explains how the
Indian nation evolved in his chapter "The Six Glorious Epochs of India" where his key
questions are how did India become a nation? How did Hindus become a nation?
The book, forceful written is based of an erroneous interpretation of facts. But the
important thing for us to understand is why Savarkar did this given his own history of
being a revolutionary. In his earlier work written some years earlier "National War of
Independence" the same Savarkar describes the 1857 War of Indian Independence as
the combined efforts of Hindus and Muslims and the rule of Bahadurshah Zafar in New
Delhi as its culmination as "five glorious days of Indian history."****
*
**
***
****All Lectures delivered by Four Historians at the KHOJ Workshop in Mumbai at the National College, 1997 i
- Teesta Setalvad
(Director, Khoj)
Lecture Delivered at the Special Colloquium Lecture at the Azim Premji University on January 16,
2014