One cannot keep track of the numerous religious gatherings of Hindu ‘saints’ that are supportive of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and advocate for violent cleansing of Muslims in India. Recently, Tathagata Roy, an influential figure in the RSS who served as the Governor of Tripura, tweeted that a civil war is necessary to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem. Roy claimed that he was only reminding Hindus of Syama Prasad Mookerji’s unfulfilled wish, who is seen as an icon in the RSS. This notion of violent cleansing has been a favorite theme of the RSS since its establishment in 1925.
The RSS and its Hindutva affiliates seek revenge for past crimes against Hindus and have particularly focused on the medieval period, highlighting the persecution by ‘Muslim’ rulers. It is surprising that in a country with a civilization dating back more than 5,000 years, only 400-500 years of ‘Muslim’ rule are examined. To understand the truth, it is necessary to examine the nature of this rule.
The main question is why present-day Indian Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of past ‘Muslim’ rulers who had friendly and cordial relations, including intermarriages, with higher caste Hindus. It is also important to investigate if ‘Hindu’ history was devoid of religious, social, and political persecution. Those radicalized by Hindutva seeking a Muslim-free India must recognize that ‘Muslim’ rulers survived due to the assistance of higher caste Hindus in running their empires. The unity between Muslims and caste Hindus can be seen by the fact that no Mughal emperor after Akbar was born to a Muslim mother. Several higher caste Hindus served the ‘Muslim’ rulers faithfully. Even the Mughal rule established by Babar, who was invited by some Hindu kings, was supported by higher caste Hindus.
Aurobindo Ghose, a key figure in establishing the Hindu foundation of Indian nationalism, acknowledged that the Mughal rule lasted for over a century because Hindus were given positions of power and responsibility to preserve the kingdom. Historian Tara Chand, based on primary sources from the medieval period, concluded that superior land rights in most of India were held by Hindus, predominantly Rajputs, except for the western Punjab region.
The most authentic record of high-ranking officials employed by Mughal kings is the biographical dictionary called Maasir-ul Umra, covering the period from 1556 to 1780. According to this work, around 100 out of 365 high-ranking officials were Hindus, mainly Rajputs from various regions of India. Brahmins were the second largest group of Hindu officials in the Mughal administration. Interestingly, the Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha, which supports the use of Hindi as the official language, published a Hindi translation of the book in 1931.
It is not argued that Aurangzeb did not commit heinous crimes against his Indian subjects. However, it is important to note that his cruelty was not limited to non-Muslims. He targeted his own family members, Shias, Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam, and ruling Muslim families in different parts of India. Aurangzeb even executed the Sufi saint Sarmad in the Jama Masjid in Delhi. While there were countless cases of violent targeting of Hindus and their religious places during his rule, he also patronized Hindu and Jain places of worship. For example, the Gauri Shankar temple near the Lahori Gate of the Red Fort, built during Shahjahan’s reign, continued functioning during Aurangzeb’s rule.
The desecration of the Somnath temple by Mahmud Ghaznavi is well-known, but it is often overlooked that local Hindu chieftains actively participated in the destruction with his help. M.S. Golwalkar, a prominent RSS ideologue, acknowledged this fact, mentioning that Hindus stood alongside Mahmud Ghaznavi’s army during the assault on the temple.
It is important to note that Hindu rulers also defiled Buddhist temples. Swami Vivekananda acknowledged that the Jagannath temple was originally a Buddhist temple that was later “re-Hinduized.” Swami Dayanand Saraswati, considered a prophet of Hindutva, wrote about Shankaracharya’s efforts to refute Jainism and advocate for the Vedic religion, which involved breaking Buddhist idols that were later dug out of the ground.
In the ‘Hindu’ narrative of ancient Indian history, the last Buddhist king of the Maurya dynasty, Brihadratha, was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin, marking the end of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and the establishment of the Shunga dynasty. Pushyamitra Shunga is described as a persecutor of Buddhists who destroyed their religious places, as mentioned in the Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana. Grammarian Patanjali, a contemporary of the Shungas, also wrote about the eternal enmity between Brahmins and Shramanas (Buddhist and Jain ascetics).
In the Hindutva narrative, the persecution of Sikh Gurus and their followers by Mughal rulers is used to fuel hatred against present-day Indian Muslims. While it is true that Mughal rulers, especially Aurangzeb, committed atrocities against Sikhs, Sikh records reject the idea of Muslims versus Sikhs. During the brutal siege of Anandpur Sahib in 1704, Hindu and Muslim hill rajas surrounded the city, preventing Sikhs from escaping the Mughal invaders.
It is important to consider historical facts and not reduce the crimes of specific rulers to solely targeting a particular religious group. By doing so, the gravity of their crimes against humanity is minimized. It is crucial to comprehend the complexity of historical events and avoid using historical animosities to fuel present-day divisions in society.