Struggles such as these deserve wider attention also because of the highly inspirational leaders who led some of these struggles but whose stories have not been adequately told. Apart from Govind Guru from Rajasthan, one of the most inspiring and courageous such leaders was Sridev Suman. A follower of Mahatma Gandhi, in normal times Suman attracted many people with his pleasing personality and soft manners. He was also a poet and a writer. However, when cruel repression was unleashed, he revealed the amazing strength of his commitments by refusing to compromise despite facing brutal torture and sacrificing his life in jail at a very young age (29 years).

Suman attained martyrdom in the very courageous struggles against exploitation and for freedom in the distant Himalayan kingdom of Tehri. There are several other highly courageous chapters of the freedom struggle of Tehri.

Soon after independence, Sunderlal Bahuguna had edited a small book on these various struggles of Tehri, which was published by Satya Prasad Raturi who as a teacher had played a role in mobilizing students during the freedom movement days. Most people know Sunderlal mainly for chipko and environment activism, but he was also a freedom fighter and follower (perhaps it is better to say worshipper) of Suman. After independence he was in a leadership role and with his strong inclination for writing about movements and struggles, planned this book titled Baagi Tehri (Rebel Tehri) on the struggles of the freedom movement in Tehri (including various struggles against exploitation). The essays and memoirs included in this book can be trusted for their authenticity as these were written soon after the events by those who were leading participants in these struggles or who were well informed on these issues.

This book was first published in 1948 but had not been available in recent years. After the passing away of Sunderlal Bahuguna, his daughter Madhu Pathak started searching for this book and finally found this with the help of two members of the family of the original publisher—Urmila and Prerna. Encouraged by her mother Vimla, Madhu started making efforts for the re-publication of this book with some additions. Thus in its new form, this book has been published by a leading publisher of Dehradun Samaya Sakshaya very recently in 2026 under the same title but by adding significant portions from the diary of Sunderlal Bahuguna written during those times. This has added further to the value of this book, as Sunderlal was a direct participant in some of the events of these struggles. For those interested in his early life also, these pages of his diary will be useful and interesting. Not many people know that following his participation in early struggles of Tehri and an early jail sentence at a very young age, to escape a second imprisonment he escaped to Lahore where he tried to study further by concealing his real identity. However, the police caught up with him and he had to flee again, finding safety in a village for some time. Some of these episodes I have also related in my biographies of Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

This book tells us about several important struggles such as Saklana’s struggle against exploitation and the farmers’ movement of Dang Chaura. These reports have tales of the greatest courage in very difficult and adverse circumstances. These should be more widely known and this book in its new form makes an important contribution to taking these stories to many more readers including young readers of a new generation.

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine, A Day in 2071 and Guardians of the Himalayas—Vimla and Sunderlal Bahuguna.

Related:

Light a lamp of hope in 2026

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post Hidden Histories: A rare memory of the struggle for freedom in a Himalayan kingdom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The gun-wielding terrorists and conspirators who assassinated Gandhiji not only shared the ideological world-view of the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS),  led by VD Savarkar and the RSS’ own brand of Hindu nationalism but were also closely connected with these organisations. Instead of being ashamed of such this heinous crime, the inheritors of this worldview resort to lies —the pot calling the kettle black!

Let us compare the RSS’ claim of innocence in Gandhiji’s assassination with the views of the first home minister and deputy Prime Minister (PM) of Independent India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the perpetrators of this crime. It needs no reminding that Sardar continues to be a favourite of both the RSS and the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Modi got Patel’s statue erected in Gujarat, the tallest in the world. Modi did not ever think Gandhi befitting of such a monument. Though a vocal proponent of ‘atma-nirbhar Bharat’ (self-relying India, ‘Make in India’) Sardar Patel’s statue was moulded in an iron foundry of China!

Following is the compilation, in chronological order, of the communication between the Indian Home Ministry under Sardar Patel, to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Syama Prasad Mookerjee (the then head of Hindu Mahasabha) and MS Golwalkar (the then Supremo of the RSS) on and after Gandhiji’s assassination.

This chronological presentation clearly reveals how Sardar Patel developed his understanding (based on facts supplied by his officials) on the Role of the Organisations Involved/Responsible for Gandhiji’s Assassination:

(1) February 4, 1948, Government of India Communique Banning the RSS

The order banning the RSS issued by Sardar’s Home Ministry was unequivocal in holding the former responsible for terror activities.

It read:

“Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 65-66.]

(2) February 27, 1948: Sardar Patel letter to Prime Minister Nehru

In the early days of investigation when not all facts were known Sardar told Nehru:

“All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. In one case, the statement extends to ninety typed pages. From their statements, it is quite clear that no part of the conspiracy took place in Delhi…It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through. It also appears that the conspiracy was limited to some ten men, of whom all except two have been got hold of.” [Bold for emphasis]

The RSS and its supporters quote a part of the above letter, which read: “It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all” but hides the following text of the same letter, which is very significant. The letter continues:

“In the case of secret organisation like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”

[Shankar, V., Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, p. 283-85.]

How does one identify a member of the RSS?

Sardar Patel raised a highly significant question about knowing whether a criminal or terrorist is a member of RSS or not. Whenever a linkage between a criminal activity and RSS is exposed, the latter comes out with the patent answer that the criminal is not RSS member. How do we know it? Is there an authenticated list of RSS members, which can be perused for such an investigation by the State? If it is not there, how RSS can file cases against those who find RSS members indulging in the assassinations and terrorist activities.  In such cases, the police and judiciary should demand from RSS proof that such persons were not its members.

(3) July 18, 1948: Sardar Patel’s letter to Shyama Prasad Mookerjee

As investigation progressed, Sardar found that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were jointly responsible for the murder of Gandhiji, which was corroborated by him in a letter to a prominent leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Syama Prasad Mookerjee. On July 18, 1948, Sardar wrote:

“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organisations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure. ”

[Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.]

(4) September 19, 1948: sardar Patel letter to MS Golwalkar, RSS Sarsanghchalak

By September 19 (1948), exactly 214 days after the murder of Gandhiji when Sardar wrote this letter, the role of the organisations in the assassination of Gandhiji was clearer to him. Without mincing words, he told Golwalkar:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress,that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

Do we need more proof to prove the RSS involvement in the murder of Gandhiji?

Another contemporary, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS)–predecessor of IAS– who was the first home secretary of Uttar Pradesh corroborated the fact that RSS was involved in this anti-national heinous crime. According to him:

“Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, felt to a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart.”

[Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Orient Longman, 94.]

Hatred for Gandhiji is a fundamental element in the Hindutva-RSS discourse

The RSS’ hatred for Gandhi is as old as the formation of the RSS itself. Dr K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was a Congress leader but parted company with the latter in 1925. After meeting the Hindutva icon V.D. Savarkar, he realised that Gandhi was the biggest hurdle in the Hindutva project of organising Hindus separately. According to an RSS publication, since Gandhi worked for Hindu-Muslim unity,

“Doctorji sensed danger in that move. In fact, he did not even relish the new-fangled slogan of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity”. Another RSS publication corroborates the fact that the main reason behind Hedgewar’s parting with the Congress and formation of the RSS was because the “Congress believed in Hindu-Muslim unity”.

[Seshadri, H.V. (ed.), Dr Hedgewar, the Epoch-Maker: A Biography, p. 61. & Pingle, H.V. (ed.), Smritikan: Parm Pujiye Dr Hedgewar ke Jeevan kee Vibhinn Ghatnaon kaa Sankalan, p. 93.]

The RSS launched its English organ, Organiser, in July 1947 and a perusal of its issues until the murder of Gandhi on January 30, 1948 shows a flood of articles and sketches full of hatred for Gandhiji. The RSS seemed to be competing with the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Savarkar, and the Muslim League English organ, The Dawn, in denigrating Gandhi.

Modi as Chief Minister, Gujarat sent congratulatory messages to Janajagruti Hindu Samiti, Goa Conference held with the Objective of turning India into a Hindu State. The Conference celebrated ‘Vadh’ –Killing of Gandhiji.

Modi was in Goa in June 2013 for the BJP executive committee meeting. He as Gujarat CM sent a message to the ‘All India Hindu Convention for Establishment of Hindu Nation’ organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) at Goa from June 7. Modi’s message lauding the conference for establishing a Hindu nation read:

“It is our tradition to remain alert and raise a voice against persecution…Only by protecting our culture, can the flag of ‘dharma’ and unity be kept intact. Organisations inspired by nationalism, patriotism and devotion for the Nation are true manifestations of people’s power.”

[ORIGINAL LETTER REPRODUCED AT THE END]

On the third day from the same podium in this convention from where Modi’s felicitation message was read, one of the prominent speakers, K.V. Sitaramiah, a seasoned RSS cadre declared that Gandhi was ‘terrible, wicked and most sinful’. Rejoicing the killing of M.K. Gandhi, he went on to declare,

“As Bhagwan Shri Krishna said in the Gita, Paritranaya SadhunamVinashaya Cha Dushkritam/ DharamasansthapnayaSambhavamiYuge-Yuge (For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age) On…30th January 1948 evening, Shriram came in the form of Nathuram Godse and ended the life of Gandhi.”

[ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REPRODUCED AT THE END]

It is to be noted that K.V. Sitaramaiah has also authored two books titled ‘Gandhi was Dharma Drohi [anti-religion] and Desa Drohi [anti-religion]’ and ‘Gandhi was Murderer of Gandhi’ in which the back cover text of the first book, quoting from the epic Mahabharat, demands “Dharma Drohis must be killed“, “Not killing the deserved to be killed is great sin” and “where the members of Parliament seeing clearly allow to kill Dharma & truth as untruth, those members will be called dead“.

The death-knell of democratic-secular India, established after a rigorous and robust freedom struggle, is to be ruled by those very forces that militate against inclusive nationalism, values that Gandhiji lived, and eventually died for. The forces that rule today were born out of a hatred for him, many played a lead role in Gandhiji’s assassination and continue to celebrate his ‘vadh’; sacrifice done for a good cause.

Let us take a firm vow on the 78^th martyrdom anniversary of Gandhiji. That all of us will rise up to challenge this Hindutva juggernaut.

January 30, 2026

Documentary Evidence

Before Gandhi’s assassination, Hindutva organizations, in their publications, especially through cartoons, portrayed him as anti-Hindu and a stooge of Muslims. This created an atmosphere of hatred and violence against him, a fact Sardar Patel also mentioned in his letter mentioned above. Some examples of these cartoons:

Related:

Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post 78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing an application filed by Hindu Front for Justice, which sought permission for day-long Basant Panchami rituals at the site on January 23, coinciding with Friday Juma Namaz. The proceedings and directions were reported by LiveLaw.

Background: A contested sacred space

The Bhoj Shala, an 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), occupies a deeply contested place in India’s religious and legal landscape. Hindus regard the structure as a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), while Muslims consider it the Kamal Maula Masjid.

Since 2003, a court-monitored arrangement has been in place permitting Hindu puja on Tuesdays and Muslim namaz on Fridays, a fragile equilibrium that has periodically come under strain, as per The Hindu.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the Hindu applicants, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that Basant Panchami holds exceptional religious significance, with the auspicious muhurat extending from sunrise to sunset, during which uninterrupted pujas and havans are traditionally performed.

Jain urged the Court to consider whether Juma Namaz could be shifted to after 5 PM, allowing Hindu rituals to continue throughout the day without interruption.

Representing the Muslim side, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee, firmly opposed the suggestion, pointing out that Juma Namaz is time-specific and must be performed between 1 PM and 3 PM, in accordance with Islamic religious practice. He clarified that once the namaz concluded, worshippers would vacate the premises, as has been the practice.

Justice Bagchi intervened during the exchange, remarking that the Court was conscious of the religious significance of both practices and cautioning against arguments that ignored doctrinal constraints—an observation noted by LiveLaw.

Administration’s role and court-endorsed arrangement

Seeking to de-escalate tensions and ensure public order, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India and the ASI, proposed a pragmatic administrative solution. He suggested that if the mosque committee provided an estimate of the number of persons expected to attend the namaz, the district administration could cordon off a separate enclosure within the compound, complete with distinct ingress and egress, and issue passes to prevent overcrowding or provocation.

Khurshid agreed to furnish the numbers on the same day, a position welcomed by the Court. The Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh also assured the Bench that law and order would be strictly maintained, a commitment the Court formally recorded, as reported by Bar & Bench.

Supreme Court’s recorded directions

In its order, the Bench recorded the consensus arrangement as follows:

“A fair suggestion was given that for the duration of Juma Namaz between 1 PM and 3 PM, an exclusive and separate area within the same compound, including separate ingress and egress, shall be made available so that namaz can be performed peacefully. Similarly, a separate space shall be made available to the Hindu community to conduct traditional ceremonies on the occasion of Basant Panchami.”

The Court further noted that the district administration may issue passes or adopt any other fair mechanism to ensure that no untoward incident occurs.

In a rare and deliberate appeal, the Bench urged both communities to exercise mutual respect and restraint, stressing that cooperation with civil authorities was essential to maintaining communal harmony.

Clarification on pujas and non-interference with merits

When Jain pressed the Bench to explicitly record that Basant Panchami pujas could continue uninterrupted from sunrise to sunset, the Court clarified that this was already permitted under an existing ASI order, and nothing in its directions curtailed that right.

Importantly, the Bench emphasised that its directions were purely interim and facilitative, and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the larger dispute, which remains sub judice.

Larger Case: ASI survey and High Court proceedings

The application was heard in the backdrop of a Special Leave Petition filed in 2024 by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar, challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the disputed complex.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed the survey to continue but imposed strict safeguards:

• No physical excavation that could alter the structure’s character
• No action on the survey findings without the Supreme Court’s prior approval
• Maintenance of status quo at the site

During Thursday’s hearing, LiveLaw reported, the Court was informed that the ASI has completed the survey and submitted its report in a sealed cover to the High Court.

Accepting a suggestion by Salman Khurshid, the Supreme Court directed that:

• The High Court may unseal the ASI report in open court
• Copies be supplied to both parties
• Where copying is not feasible, inspection may be allowed in the presence of counsel
• Parties be permitted to file objections
• The matter thereafter be taken up for final hearing

The Court further directed that the writ petition pending before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court be heard by a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice or one of the senior-most judges, and disposed of the SLP accordingly.

Continuing status quo

Until final adjudication, the Supreme Court ordered that:

• Status quo at the site shall be maintained
• Parties must continue to abide by the ASI’s April 2023 operational order
• No step shall be taken that alters the religious character of the structure

A judicial tightrope

The Court’s orders reflect a careful judicial balancing act—protecting religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26, while preventing escalation at a site emblematic of India’s broader debates on faith, history, and constitutional secularism.

By foregrounding administrative coordination, mutual respect, and non-interference with pending adjudication, the Supreme Court has, for now, sought to ensure peace at Bhoj Shala—while leaving the ultimate question of its religious character to be resolved through due process of law.

Related:

In UP’s Mosque Coverings, a New Chapter From The Hindutva Playbook Unfolds

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Sufidar Trust, Walajah Big Mosque: The 4 decades long tradition of Hindus serving Iftar meals to Muslims during Ramzan

Conspiracy or Coincidence? Mosques defaced in March after spate of hate speeches provoking the crime weeks before

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post Supreme Court brokers interim peace at bhoj shala, allows basant panchami pujas and Friday namaz under strict safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The latest outburst was on January 11, 2026, when inaugurating the Swabhiman Parv (self-respect event) in Somnath, he declared that “every particle of the soil of Prabhas Patan is a witness to valor, courage, and heroism, and that countless devotees of Shiva sacrificed their lives for the preservation of Somnath’s form. He said that on the occasion of Somnath Swabhiman Parv, he bows first to every brave man and woman who dedicated their lives to the protection and reconstruction of Somnath, offering everything to Lord Mahadeva.”[1]

Shri Modi further stated that “when invaders from Ghazni to Aurangzeb attacked Somnath, they believed their swords were conquering eternal Somnath, but those fanatics failed to understand that the very name ‘Som’ carries the essence of nectar, the idea of remaining immortal even after consuming poison. He added that within Somnath resides the conscious power of Sadashiva Mahadev, who is both benevolent and the fierce ‘Prachanda Tandava Shiva’.”

[‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable]

The senior most security advisor of the RSS-BJP government and close confidant of PM Modi, Ajit Doval was at his best seeking revenge for the religious crimes of Muslim rulers.  Speaking at the opening ceremony of Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue, at Delhi on January 9, 2026, Doval said, “This independent India wasn’t always as free as it appears now. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for it. They endured great humiliation and experienced periods of profound helplessness. Many people faced the gallows… Our villages were burned. Our civilisation was destroyed. Our temples were looted, and we watched helplessly as silent spectators. This history presents us with a challenge that every young person in India today should have the fire within them. The word ‘revenge’ isn’t ideal, but revenge itself is a powerful force. We have to take revenge for our history. We have to take this country back to where we can build a great India based on our rights, our ideas, and our beliefs.”[2]

[‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india]

The gist of the speeches of both Modi and Doval was that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples. The revenge has to be taken from Indian Muslims who are necessarily children of the Muslim rulers. These calls were nothing but brazen demonizing the largest religious minority of India. PM Modi and NSA chief, in fact, were dog-whistling for cleansing of Muslims. However, we need to compare the above-mentioned claims with the ‘Hindu’ narratives of destruction of Somnath Temple.

No sane person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed by an army led by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a crucial fact remains buried that it was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while referring to the desecration and destruction of Somnath Temple by Mahmud Ghazi in the RSS English organ, Organizer (January 4, 1950) stated:

“He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished…But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness, they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history.”

[Organizer, January 4, 1950.]

So far as valour of defenders of Somnath Temple against ‘idol-breaker’ Ghazni was concerned founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Sarswati in his fundamental work, Satyarth Prakash, a Bible for Arya Samajists, stated that instead of resisting the army of defilers, the then priests, “made offering, called on gods and prayed: ‘O Mahadeva kill this infidel and protect us!’ They advised their royal followers to have patience as Mahadeva would send Bhairava or Bhadra who would kill all the infidels (mlechhas) or blinden them…Many popish astrologers said that it was not astrologically proper for their advance…Thus the warriors were misled and delayed.  The army of infidels soon came and surrounded them. They fled in disgrace.”  [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 328.]

PM, Ajit Doval and the entire Hindutva tribe instead of calling for revenge against Muslims need to do a serious introspection about the guilty-men responsible for the desecration of Somnath Temple. It is generally accepted that Mahmud entered India as aggressor seventeen times between 1000 AD and 1027 AD. He travelled approximately 2000 kilometres from Ghazni to reach Somnath Temple in 1025, covering almost 1000 kilometres in the region which fell in India. According to ‘Hindu’ narrative after destroying the Temple he travelled back with huge precious booty laden on hundreds of camels and horses. Those who are telling stories of valour at Somnath need to tell the nation: Who allowed his journey back? Why were he and his gang of robbers not liquidated despite destroying one of the holiest temples of India? The horrendous reality is that our ancestors miserably failed in resisting one of the meanest aggressors in Indian history.

Desecration of Buddhist and Jain Temples by ‘Hindus’

These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that, “Temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet”.

[The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 264.]

It has been corroborated by another darling of the Hindutva fraternity, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him the Rath Yatra, an integral part of the rituals connected with Jagganath Temple was originally a Buddhist ritual. Bankim Chndra Chatterjee wrote:

“I am aware that another and a very reasonable, account of the origin of the festival of Rath [at Jagganath Temple] has been given by General Cunningham in his work on the Bhilsa Topes. He there traces it to a similar festival of the Buddhists, in which the three symbols of the Buddhist faith, Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, were drawn in a car in the same fashion, and I believe about the same season as the Rath. It is a fact greatly in support of the theory, that the images of Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been modelled upon them.”[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, ‘On the origin of Hindu festivals’ in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]

Conversion of Buddhist monasteries into Hindu temples was a common occurrence after Buddhist rulers were gradually overthrown by Brahmins. This process began when the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Brahman Shunga dynasty. It was corroborated by Bankim in his controversial novel Anandmath, Bible of the Hindu nationalism. He described the scene of a temple used by Hindu army in the following words:

“Within this wood there stood a large monastery on a large piece of land with broken stones all around. Antiquarians would perhaps say that it was a Buddhist monastery in old days and was subsequently converted into a Hindu one.” [Sen-Gupta, Nares Chandra (translator Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath), Abbey of Bliss, Padmini Mohan Neogi, Calcutta, nd, 16]

Many of Jain temples too met the same tragic fate. Swami Dayanand Saraswati regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva while dealing with the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya (8^TH CENTURY) in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote:

“For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole (unbroken) here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.” [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 294.]

Crimes of Maratha ‘Hindu’ armies against Hindus

Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a Hindu historian, narrator of the history of India from a Hindu point of view. His description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in early 1740s, makes it clear that this army of ‘Hindu nation’ cared least about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal. According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), p. 457.]

Sarkar, in his monumental work on the history of Bengal, reproduced eyewitness accounts of the sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas. According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram,

“The Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.]

Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas against Hindus in the following words:

“Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of sinful act.” [Ibid., 458.]

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundred years of ‘Muslim’/Mughal rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an almost 2/3 majority of Hindus at the historical juncture when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. According to the Census report:

“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

This happened because Hindu dominent Castes with few exceptions decided to serve the Muslim rulers for hundreds of years which is known as a relationship of roti-beti (bread and daughter).

[Memorandum on the Census of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

The linking of crimes committed by rulers with Muslim names in the pre-modern India to their religion is going to create serious unthinkable consequences even for ‘Hindu’ history as narrated by the RSS.

Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to again ‘Hindu’ narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and his companions for 14 years long vanvaas or exile. This Ravana, according to the same narrative, was a learned Brahman who also happened to be one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.

The epic Mahabharata is a story of a great war between two families known as Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas) not between Hindus and Muslims but between two ‘Hindu’ armies in which, if you go by the ‘Hindu’ version 1.2 billion (120 crore) people, all Hindus are stated to have been slaughtered. Draupadi joint wife of Pandavas was disrobed by Kauravas, all Hindus. Modi and Doval must be aware that if the crimes of Ravana and Kauravas, are linked to their religion then India country will lose 80% of the population. And if revenge is to be taken from the present descendants of the past perpetrators then beginning must be made from the beginning of the Indian civilization; turn of the Indian Muslims will come far later!

[1] ‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable

[2] ‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india

Related:

Babri Mosque Demolition: When the Indian State succumbed to majoritarian propaganda

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

NCERT’s ‘Partition Horrors’: A brazen exercise in white-washing the ‘crimes’ of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS

The post Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Love Letters like no other. Letters from Savitribai to Jyotiba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yet, the film’s real significance lies not in its artistic value but in its ideological purpose. It continues a project begun decades ago by P. N. Oak, a Maharashtrian Brahmin ideologue whose writings fused conspiracy, caste supremacy, and cultural chauvinism into a potent mythos. Oak’s “Tejo Mahalay” theory, though dismissed by every serious historian and by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), continues to shape popular nationalist imagination. Yet beneath the spectacle of “historical reclamation” lies a more insidious purpose—Oak’s narratives serve to consolidate Brahminical supremacy under the garb of cultural nationalism, while simultaneously erasing Rajput agency and demonising Muslims.

The Ideological Lineage: From Savarkar to Oak 

P. N. Oak (1917–2007) came from the same ideological and cultural milieu as V. D. Savarkar, M. S. Golwalkar, and K. B. Hedgewar—all Maharashtrian Brahmins who sought to define India as a Hindu Rashtra under Brahminical hegemony. Their nostalgia for the Peshwa era of the Maratha polity reflected a longing for a Brahmin-led theocratic order—one that combined scriptural orthodoxy with militant nationalism. In their eyes, the Peshwas represented a purified Hindu past: Sanskritic, hierarchical, and morally austere, unlike the syncretic world of the Rajputs and the cosmopolitanism of the Mughals.

For Oak, as for these ideologues, the Mughal empire epitomised “foreign domination,” while Rajput kingship—though Hindu—was morally suspect because of its historical engagement with the Mughals through diplomacy and marriage. The Rajputs’ cultural openness and martial honour did not fit into the Hindutva binary of invader versus resister. Thus, Oak’s project was twofold: to vilify Muslim rulers and to discipline Rajput history—absorbing it into a Brahmin-sanctioned Hindu narrative where Rajputs were useful only as foils or symbols.

“Tejo Mahalay”: The Appropriation of the Rajput Legacy

Oak’s most famous work, republished as The Taj Mahal: The True Story (1989) — claimed that Shah Jahan merely took over a pre-existing Rajput palace or temple, allegedly dedicated to Shiva and known as “Tejo Mahalay.” He even speculated that it had been built by the Chandelas of Bundelkhand or the Kachhwahas of Amber—two illustrious Rajput lineages. This claim was entirely devoid of evidence, but it was ideologically potent. It allowed Oak and later Hindutva propagandists to erase Muslim creativity while simultaneously appropriating Rajput heritage into the Brahminical fold.

In this retelling, Rajputs cease to be historical agents; they become tokens in a morality play staged by Brahminical nationalism. Their temples, forts, and palaces are recast as manifestations of an imagined “Vedic civilisation” over which Brahmins alone hold interpretive authority. Once their history has served its purpose—negating the Muslim contribution—it is re-absorbed into the greater “Hindu” past defined by Sanskritic ideology. Thus, Tejo Mahalay functions as a symbolic colonisation of Rajput legacy: the Rajput is stripped of agency, and the Brahmin is enthroned as interpreter and custodian of history.

“Mina Bazar”: Objectifying Rajput Women to vilify Mughals

Another recurring motif in Oak’s writings—and in later Hindutva propaganda—is the Mina Bazar, a courtly fair allegedly held during Mughal times where noblewomen and men interacted. Oak and his ideological successors portrayed this event as a site of immorality and licentiousness, an emblem of Mughal decadence. But within these retellings, Rajput noblewomen— who actively participated in courtly diplomacy—became the primary objects of moral commentary. They were presented as helpless “Hindu daughters” exploited by Muslim kings, their identities erased and their agency denied.

Yet, historical, and literary records reveal an entirely different picture. Rajput and Mughal cultures carried similar notions towards honour of women — including each other’s. One such episode, recounted in both Rajasthani oral traditions and Mughal chronicles, involves Raja Aniruddh Singh Hada of Bundi and Jahanara Begum, the daughter of Shah Jahan.

When Jahanara Begum once found her camp attacked by Marathas, she called Rao Aniruddh Singh Hada close to her elephant and told him:

“Asmat-e-Chaghtaiya wa Rajput yak ast”: The honour of a Chaghtai (Mughal) woman and that of a Rajput are one and the same.

She added, “If God gives us victory with this small army that would be good; otherwise rest assured about me, I shall sit down after doing my work.” Moved by this declaration of shared honour, Raja Hada and his Rajput soldiers fought valiantly and emerged victorious.

This exchange—whether apocryphal or literal—speaks to the deep respect and chivalric regard that often-defined Rajput-Mughal interactions, far removed from the predatory caricatures peddled by Hindutva storytellers. Oak and his successors rewrite a history of mutual cultural respect into one of sexual conquest.

In short, the Mina Bazar myth is anti-Rajput woman, a patriarchal narrative disguised as historical morality.

The Brahminical Core of Hindutva Historiography

Oak’s work exposes the Brahminical DNA of Hindutva historiography. His narratives consistently elevate the Brahmin as the intellectual and moral authority over India’s past, while marginalising both the Rajput’s martial honour and the Muslim’s cultural brilliance.

By glorifying the Peshwas and appropriating Rajput heritage, Oak reaffirmed a social hierarchy in which Brahmins claim ownership of sacred knowledge and interpretation, while warriors, artisans, and others exist merely as instruments. This is why the “Tejo Mahalay” theory cannot be dismissed as mere eccentricity—it represents a Brahminical takeover of historical memory, a deliberate attempt to collapse India’s plural past into a single, Sanskritic mythos.

In doing so, Oak’s revisionism advances two parallel exclusions:

1. It excludes Muslims from the civilisational narrative by branding their contributions “foreign.”
2. It subordinates Rajputs by converting their legacy into property of the Brahmin-defined “Hindu civilisation.”

The result is an ideological order where only the Brahmin remains autonomous; everyone else, living or historical, exists within his interpretive domain.

From Fringe Pseudo-history to State-sanctioned Narrative

For decades, Oak’s theories were dismissed as fringe conspiracy. Yet today, his ideas echo through court petitions, WhatsApp forwards, and government-linked cultural projects. His books are republished, his claims amplified by television debates and political speeches. The release of The Taj Story marks the cultural mainstreaming of this pseudohistory. By presenting Oak’s fiction through the medium of film, the Hindutva ecosystem gives it emotional force and legitimacy. The courtroom format of the movie—where the Taj Mahal is “put on trial”—turns propaganda into performance, inviting audiences to see pseudohistory as suppressed truth.

This is not about rediscovering history—it is about owning it. By turning monuments into religious battlegrounds, Hindutva ideologues redirect social frustration away from real inequities—caste injustice, unemployment, agrarian distress—and towards imagined enemies. The Rajput, whose history of honour and sovereignty once stood apart, is now re-cast as the obedient foot-soldier of this Brahminical nationalism.

Rajputs in the Crossfire of Myth and Politics

The irony is profound. The same ideological movement that glorifies “Hindu warriors” has historically shown disdain for Rajput political traditions. Savarkar and Golwalkar’s writings betray a deep discomfort with Rajput alliances with Mughals, and an implicit preference for Brahmin-led militarism like that of the Peshwas.

Oak’s narratives continue this trend: Rajputs are celebrated only as mythic ancestors, never as living agents. Their plural political ethos—the synthesis of valour, diplomacy, and cultural patronage—is erased. Their women become allegories of victimhood; their men, backdrops for Brahminical triumphalism.

This trend is exemplified by a recently viral X post  by Brahmin influencer Amit Schandillia, who appropriates the pre-16th century Jauhars of Rajput women to vilify the Muslim community. He deliberately frames these pre-16th century tragedies as ‘Hindu’ events and uses them to erase the long, convivial, and harmonious history shared between Rajputs and Muslims up to 1947.

In this way, the Hindutva appropriation of Rajput history mirrors its treatment of India itself: a civilisation reimagined as a homogenous Brahminical state, scrubbed of diversity and stripped of nuance.

Conclusion

P. N. Oak’s legacy is not one of historical revision but of ideological engineering. His “Tejo Mahalay” myth and “Mina Bazar” fantasy are not just anti-Muslim—they are anti-Rajput and fundamentally Brahminical. They recast the Rajput past into a mere accessory for Brahminical nationalism, while exploiting Rajput women’s image to moralise history through patriarchal codes.

Behind the spectacle of “Hindu pride” lies a deeper agenda: the re-assertion of Brahmin control over India’s collective memory. What appears as the reclamation of the Taj Mahal is, in truth, the conquest of the past by caste. Oak’s project—and the films and movements that follow from it—transform history from a field of inquiry into a battlefield of hierarchy.

To defend the integrity of India’s past, one must see through these saffron myths and recognise their caste logic. The struggle is not just over monuments but over meaning—between those who seek to understand history in its fullness, and those who wish to reduce it to the propaganda of a Brahminical state.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography)

Related:

Hate Watch: BJP MLA demands demolition of Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar, willing to donate one year’s salary to have temples built on those…

EXCLUSIVE: Shahjahan returned properties of King Jai Singh for donating haveli for Taj Mahal

Is Taj Mahal not a part of Indian Culture?

The post The Taj Story & Resurgence of a Myth, the ideological engineering of a Brahmanical narrative of pseudo-history appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Friends in India and abroad wished to have a compilation of documentary evidence of how both the Indian State and Supreme Court succumbed to a majoritarian project of obliterating a historic mosque at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. The following description and timeline examines the Hindutva propaganda falsehood with irrefutable facts which were conspicuously overlooked by the most crucial institutions of the Indian state.

Falsehood 1: Babri mosque built after destroying Ram birthplace temple

The supremacist Hindutva lot claimed that the new Ram temple was built on an ancient site of Hindu worship; the Ram birthplace temple which was destroyed in the early 16th century (1528-29) during the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babar by one of his commanders, Mir Baqi. Archaeological evidence proves the mosque had no foundations of its own and was built upon a Hindu temple. They even identified the exact place of birth of Ram; under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque.

This falsehood has been repeated by none less than Narendra Modi several times since 2014 when he took over as Prime Minister of India, the latest pccasion being at Ayodhya on November 25, 2025, when he stated: “The wounds of centuries are healing, the pain of centuries is finding an end today, the resolution of centuries is achieving success today. Today marks the final offering of a yajna whose fire burned for 500 years.”[1]

Truth 1: This is a brazen falsehood propagated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with no historical or legal proof, nor any corroboration even in the ‘Hindu’ narratives of history. There is no mention of the destruction of Ram Temple even in the writings of the most prominent Ram worshiper to date, Goswami Tulsidas (1511-1623), who penned the Epic Ramcharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language in 1575-76. It was this work which made Ram the most popular God in Northern India. According to the Hindutva version, Ram’s birthplace temple was destroyed in the period 1528-1529. It would be surprising indeed if the Ramcharitmanas, written almost 48 years after the so-called destruction of Ram’s birthplace temple, did not mention such a momentous event. Does the Hindutva lot mean to argue that the revered Saint, Goswami Tulsidas was a coward?!

For the RSS, Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Dayanand Saraswati were the saints who contributed immensely to the cause of Vedic religion and the growth of the Hindu nation. None of these Vedic saints ever referred to this destruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya by Mughal King Babar or his agents in any of their writings.

Today, Ayodhya is referred to as one of the oldest and holiest places for Hindus. It is interesting to note that Adi Shankaracharya (788-820), who toured India preaching Vedas and refuting Buddhism and Jainism for more than a decade, who established 5 Peetams [main centres of Sanatan Hinduism] at Badrinath in the North, Puri in the East, Dwarka in the West and Sringeri and Kanchi in the South for the revival of the Vedic religion but did not consider Ayodhya as one.

It is true that traditionally, Hindus believe that Ram was born in the city of Ayodhya, but the issue is whether he was born exactly under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque as is claimed now by Hindutva’s flag-bearers.

Moreover, the Indian Supreme Court, in its 1,045-page Ayodhya Judgment (November 9, 2019), has, nowhere in the Judgment agreed with the claim that the Babri Mosque was constructed after destroying any temple.

Indian Supreme Court, in the said judgment made two other observations demolishing the RSS claim on the Mosque. Firstly, the SC stated: “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment dated November 9, 2019, pp. 921-22]

Secondly, at pages 913-14, the SC stated that “On 6 December 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this Court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.”

However, Mother India ought to be aghast to find Indian Supreme Court, despite all the above findings in its own verdict handed over a historic building which was a protected monument under Article 49 of Indian Constitution to supremacists. Arguably, what a supremacist mob could not achieve on December 6, 1992, the Supreme Court of India handed them on November 9, 2019.

It is worth mentioning here that the RSS—which initiated the bloody, violent campaign to build the Ram Temple at the end of the decade of the 1980s, never advanced this demand during the period of its founding (1925) until India attained Independence. Even after Independence, it was only in 1989 that the political appendage of the RSS, the BJP, began to focus on this issue.

The views of two RSS luminaries who initiated the Ram Temple movement reveal the preposterousness of the claim that Ram himself was born under the dome.

Rama Vilas Vedanti, a prominent Hindu clergyman of the Ram Birthplace Trust (an RSS front), stated, “We will build a temple at Ramjanam Bhoomi even if Lord Rama says he was not born there” [Outlook, Delhi, 7 July 2003). Similarly, L. K. Advani, who rode a chariot (Rath Yatra) as part of an aggressive Ram Temple campaign in 1990 said, “It did not matter whether the historical Rama was actually born at the spot in Ayodhya. What mattered was that Hindus believed that he was born there. Faith took precedence over history” [The Hindustan Times, Delhi, 20 July 2003.]

Falsehood 2: Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque was essential to seek ‘restorative justice’

According to RSS the Ram Mandir has great symbolic and emotional resonance for Hindus in contemporary times and that the trauma that this destruction brought has been passed down through generations and continues to impact the psyche of Hindus and contributed historically and continues to contribute to Hindu-Muslim tensions in India to this day.

Truth 2: According to this logic, the rule by rulers with Muslim names in India was the Islamic rule of idol-breakers. This narrative of Muslim history developed only at the beginning of the 19^th century is in absolute contradiction with historical facts and even common sense. To understand the lies behind this fabricated Medieval past, one needs to examine the nature of this ‘Muslim’ rule.

Despite ‘Muslim’ rule of almost one thousand years, approximately 75% of Indians did not convert to Islam, as was made clear by the first Census held by the British in 1871-72 when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. Hindus and Sikhs constituted 73.5 percent of the population, and Muslims numbered 21.5 percent only. [Memorandum on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

In fact, this period of ‘Muslim rule’ was also the rule of the Hindu High Castes. According to contemporary ‘Hindu’ narratives, Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battlefield; these were his two Rajput commanders, Jay Singh I and Jai Singh II, who fought against Shivaji on Aurangzeb’s behalf. Akbar personally never fought any battle against Rana Pratap of Mewar; Man Singh, brother-in-law of Akbar fought all battles against Rana. The Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan and Aurangzeb was Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth Hindu.[2]

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India. Anybody who has visited Delhi’s Red Fort must have seen two temples; Jain Lal Mandir [Red Temple] and Gauri Shanker Temple, just across the Red Fort towards Chandni Chowk side. These temples were built before the rule of Aurangzeb and continued to function during his time and later.

Falsehood 3: According to RSS building of the Ram Temple was an important event for Hindus of all traditions 

Truth 3: They did not explain to the Nation why 4 Shankaracharyas of the Peetams (out of 5) established by Adi Shankaracharya boycotted the inauguration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The most revered living Hindu saints of the Sanatan Dharm declared Ayodhya’s inauguration to be in contravention of Vedic scriptures, calling it Hinduism done for petty electoral gains.

It was sad to see the RSS run roughshod over the diversity of Hinduism. In its attempt to prove the homogenous character of Hindus, it turned a debate on the nature of the Ayodhya inauguration into Hindus versus others. The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-83), is glorified by RSS as a pillar of the Hindu nation. But Swami was an ardent opponent of the Brahmanical rituals like Pran Pratishtha, putting life into a lifeless idol (in Ayodhya case by Prime Minister Modi) and did not mince words in decrying this very ritual. He stated (in Satyarth Prakash or Light of Truth, chapter 11), “The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit [God] can neither come into an idol, nor, leave it. If your mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy? There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction the invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise, there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, install them in temples, and apply sandal paste to them.” 

Falsehood 4: According to the Hindutva narrative Ayodhya represents a five hundred years long war between Hindus and Muslims of India

Those who defend the demolition of Babri mosque argue that though sometimes presented as being a recent conflict, the fact is that this site has a long history of Hindus and Sikhs attempting to reclaim it, dating back to the early 19th century. Furthermore, the conflict has been ongoing regardless of the political party in power following India’s independence.

Truth 4: Ayodhya is presented as a place of perennial war between Hindus and Muslims, and the central dome of the Babri Mosque claimed to be the exact place where Ram was born, are modern ‘constructs’ as we will see in the following.

There cannot be a shoddier lie than this that Ayodhya was a place of perpetual war between Hindus against Muslims. During India’s War of Independence 1857, Ayodhya was the place where Maulvis and Mahants and ordinary Hindus and Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya, and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest, Baba Ramcharan Das, took the lead in organising the armed resistance to the British rule. Both of them were captured and hanged together on the same tree. In another instance of the glorious unity of Hindus and Muslims against the colonial rule at Ayodhya, Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla led the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the area. Due to the treachery of Hindu and Muslim lackeys of the British, they were captured and killed together. The British rulers hated this unity and created narratives of perennial Hindu-Muslim conflict not only in Ayodhya but the whole of India.

Iqbal a renowned poet much maligned by the Hindutva ideologues whose poetry has been removed from textbooks wrote a peerless poem in praise of Ram in 1908 titled “Imam-e-Hind”. For Iqbal, Ram was not merely a Hindu God but “Imam-e-Hind” (spiritual leader of India). The first two lines of the poem read: Hai Raam ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz/
Ahl-e-Nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind
(India is proud of the existence of Ram
Spiritual people consider him prelate of India).

The flag-bearers of Hindutva working overtime to undo a composite and all-inclusive India are using the Sikh factor as a bluff to legitimize its illegal project. Sikhs who do not believe in idol worship of Ram or any other Hindu God/Goddesses; we are told that on 28 November 1858, a Nihang Sikh [member of a warrior order within Sikhism] organized Pooja [worship] and havan [a Brahmanical ritual offering of grains, pure ghee and other such items to fire] in the Babri Mosque. It is unbelievable for a Sikh to perform Brahmanical rituals and would invite immediate ex-communication. Why Hindus at that time did not enter the Mosque is a mystery!

Aggrieved Muslims chose legal recourse and not community mobilisation, were they betrayed by the Judiciary?

Supremacist forces within Hindutva must understand that Ram was never the cause of perpetual conflict between Hindus and Muslims until RSS invented it as a convenient tool for religious polarization. Muslims of Ayodhya stopped going to Babri Mosque once the idol of Ram Lalla (child Ram) was smuggled into the Babri Mosque on the night of December 22/23 1949 with the connivance of local senior officials. Local Muslims did not try to break into the usurped Mosque, and there was no bloodshed engineered by Muslims of Ayodhya who were in substantial numbers in Faizabad, now rechristened as Ayodhya Dham despite the Indian Supreme Court declaring that “the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”

The RSS and its affiliates instead of being ashamed of the carnage celebrate the demolition on December 6 as Shauriya Divas, day of bravery. These criminals have succeeded since 1990, RSS and its appendages had organized an aggressive campaign for demolishing the Babri Mosque, targeting Indian Muslims as Baber-zade/Haram-zade (children of Babar/illegitimate children). For more than two years, Hindus in India and abroad were asked to come to Ayodhya to tear down the mosque as kar-sevaks.

Babri mosque demolition was not a Hindu-Muslim battle but a seminal conflict between the RSS and the Secular Indian State

Did Muslims call for counter-mobilisation to save the mosque or reach the site on December 6 to confront the Hindutva mobs? Never! In fact, they trusted the RSS to honor the commitment made to the then-Indian Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Indian Supreme Court that its appendages and cadres would not harm the mosque. RSS reneged on all commitments shamelessly. Indian State and judiciary remained silent spectators. How critically and fundamentally Indian Muslims were let down and even betrayed would be evident by the fact that Rao promised to rebuild Babri Mosque at its original place twice (once in Parliament and second time while addressing the nation from Red Fort on August 15, 1993), which were both promises that stand reneged on!

A detailed Video Narration of the sordid Ram Temple saga may be viewed here and here.

[1] PM’s speech during the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir Dhwajarohan Utsav, November 25, 2025, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pms-speech-during-the-shri-ram-janmabhoomi-mandir-dhwajarohan-utsav/

[2] ‘Fallacy of the Hindutva project’ May 4, 2022, Chennai, link: https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/fallacy-of-the-hindutva-project-aurangzeb-mughals-islamophobia/article38484103.ece

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Babri demolition to Ram Temple: A trajectory of Indian politics

Invites to Ayodhya temple inauguration extended to judges who gave the verdict in Babri Masjid demolition-Ram Janmabhoomi case

31 years after Babri Mosque demolition perpetrators in power

The post Babri Mosque Demolition: When the Indian State succumbed to majoritarian propaganda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article examines the true nature of that “discrimination.” The sources relied upon here are primarily Muslim, but they are far from “revisionist.” They belong to the period when Islam was at its political and moral zenith — when Muslims did not need to indulge in apologetics.

Among these, Imam Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj occupies a central place. Written for Caliph Harun al-Rashid by an eighth-century jurist and student of Imam Abu Hanifa, it remains a foundational text on Islamic finance, taxation, and public administration. Even if some of its stories lack external verification, the principles they reflect are undeniable. Whether historical fact or transmitted ideal, the moral weight of these narratives lies in the standards that Muslim society aspired to — standards so lofty that even the “myths” (if such they be) testify to the civilisation’s ethical conscience. Two non-Muslim sources cited at the end confirm that these were not mere ideals but broadly reflected historical practice.

I. Imam Abu Yusuf’sKitab al-Kharaj

1. On the exemption of the weak and poor:

“The command of Jizyah stands null and void if a man grows decrepit, suffers from a physical ailment, becomes the recipient of alms and charity donated by members of his religion, or has been reduced to destitution. As long as he stays in the Islamic state, the expenses of his family, along with his own, will be met from the public treasury.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.146; cf. Zia-un-Nabi, Vol.4, pp.308–309)

2. The Caliph Umar’s compassion:
Abu Yusuf records that Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab once encountered an elderly beggar who could no longer pay the poll tax. On learning his story, Umar took him home, provided for him personally, and then ordered the public treasury to support him and others like him. He declared:

“We imposed the poll tax on him when he was young and earning, but as he grew old, we ignored him. Alms are for the poor and the needy.” (9:60)
Umar thereupon abolished the tax for the infirm and decrepit, declaring their upkeep a responsibility of the State. (Kitab al-Kharaj)

3. Protection of Dhimmis from oppression:
Umar also issued strict orders to his tax collectors:

“One who subjects a Dhimmi to oppression, inflicts punishment beyond his capacity, causes him harm, or takes anything from his possession against his will shall be my accuser on the Day of Judgement.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.150)

4. Umar’s final testament:
On his deathbed, Umar left these words:

“I advise my successor concerning the non-Muslim subjects of the State: fulfil the covenant made with them; protect them with your army against all aggression; and do not burden them beyond their capacity.”
(Kitab al-Kharaj, p.149)

II. Al-Inayah Sharh al-Hidayah

Written by Akmal al-Din al-Babarti in the 14th century, this authoritative commentary on the Hanafi legal manual al-Hidayah records that a Muslim who had killed a non-Muslim subject without legal cause was executed by the Prophet himself. The Prophet declared:

“My foremost duty is to uphold justice.”
Justice under Islam, therefore, knew no distinction of faith when it came to life and law. (Al-Inayah Sharh al-Hidayah, Vol.8, p.256)

III. Burhan Sharh-e-Mawahib ar-Rahman

1. Equality of blood and wealth:
During the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, a Muslim had killed a Dhimmi. The victim’s brother forgave the murderer upon receiving compensation. Ali verified that the forgiveness was voluntary and then declared:

“The blood of our Dhimmi is like our blood. His wealth is like our wealth.”
(Burhan Sharh-e-Mawahib ar-Rahman, Vol.2, p.287)

2. Justice without discrimination:
Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered the execution of a Muslim who had murdered a Dhimmi in Heera — a ruling of exact parity.

3. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz’s fairness:
When the Dhimmis of Samarqand complained that a Muslim commander had seized their city unlawfully, Umar II ordered a special court to hear their case. The verdict went in favor of the Dhimmis, and Muslims were ordered to vacate the city.

The Prophet’s warning was recalled:

“Allah will forbid Paradise to one who kills a Dhimmi unjustly.”

The rule of Islamic law thus recognized absolute equality in rights and justice.

IV Tarikh al-Tabari

The 9th-century historian al-Tabari records numerous covenants illustrating this ethos:

1. The pact of Jerusalem:

“Their persons, properties, churches, crosses, sick and healthy are under protection. Their churches shall not be occupied or destroyed. There shall be no compulsion in religion, nor any harm done to them.”
(Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.245)

2. The pact of Heera:

“If I can defend your persons and property, I shall impose a tax upon you. In the event of failure, I reserve no right to levy tax.”
(Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, 1939, Vol.4, p.16)

3. Refund of Jizya:
When Muslim forces under Abu Ubaydah withdrew temporarily from Syria, they refunded the Jizya collected from their non-Muslim subjects, announcing publicly:

“We collected it for your protection. Since we cannot defend you now, it is returned.”
History records no parallel of such integrity among conquerors.

4. Waiver of tax for mutual defense:
When the king of Albab allied with the Muslims in defense, Umar ibn al-Khattab approved the waiver of their Jizya. (Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Vol.5, p.256)

5. Equality in covenants:
Utbah bin Farqad’s pact with the people of Azerbaijan declared protection for all — rich or poor, Muslim or not — according to ability and mutual obligation. (Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol.5, p.25)

V. Bernard Lewis,The Jews of Islam

Bernard Lewis writes:

“Abu Ubayd insisted that Dhimmis must not be burdened beyond their capacity, nor caused to suffer. Abu Yusuf ruled explicitly that none of the Dhimmis should be beaten or humiliated for the collection of Jizya; rather, they should be treated with leniency.” (The Jews of Islam, p.15)

He further observes:

“It was the jurists of early Islam—confident, humane, and expanding—whose attitudes reflected actual governance. The later, harsher interpretations arose in eras of decline and insecurity.” (p.16)

VI. Nassim Nicholas Taleb,Skin in the Game

Taleb, himself from an old Maronite Christian family of Lebanon, writes:

“The Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in converting non-Muslims. In fact, my ancestors saw clear advantages in not being Muslim—mostly in the avoidance of military conscription.”

This was not subjugation, he concludes, but a stable, pragmatic coexistence.

Conclusion

These testimonies — from classical Muslim jurists, historians, and non-Muslim scholars alike — converge on a single truth:

Under Islamic governance, minorities retained their dignity, property, and faith. The Jizya was not a badge of inferiority but a contractual payment in exchange for state protection and exemption from military duty. Where non-Muslims volunteered to fight, their Jizya was waived; where Muslims failed to protect them, it was refunded. The non-Muslims saw the Jizya as an advantage, not as a disadvantage. It assured their protection without the obligation to perform military duty.

Even if some of the stories cited are legends, the legends of Islamic rule breathe the fragrance of justice, and legends, far from being fantasies, express the moral aspiration of a civilisation. There is no reason to doubt their historicity; yet even if they were legends, they still testify to what Islamic rule meant to those who lived and ruled by it. That moral testimony outweighs the absence of corroboration for every story by non-Muslim historians.

—–

A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework.

His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post How Muslims treated non-Muslims in early Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post What Indian Cities Owe to Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I am nervous in speaking before this panel of knowledge elites who are far ahead of me in mediatized performance. In fact, I was hardly needed within this panel, given there is a galaxy of experts present.

These days, communicating within (and among) the like-minded audience is hardly a challenge and it doesn’t serve the desired purpose as much as it should.  The panellists have already spoken a lot on the theme of the symposium. At stake are the words, “evidence”, “proof”, “facts” (subut, sakshya, pramaan). The incumbent regime is doing everything in its power to create a common sense against “evidence” (rationality). Not just in the discipline of history but in every sphere of our daily lives. Not just in India; elsewhere too. Non-state actors, with the backing of state power and wilfully failed criminal-justice system, are deciding what we eat, what not to and what kind of edibles can be stored in our kitchens and refrigerators. These factors impinge on whether we can live or can be killed with impunity.

We are here to reflect upon the National Education Policy 2020. Its basis, as admitted by the Indian government is National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023. The three year of school education during the Grades 6 to 8, according to them are very critical. They do admit that content and pedagogy both are crucial. I looked into the textbooks meant for Grade 6 and for Grade 7. The title is Exploring Society, India and Beyond. The regime claims that these textbooks have an emphasis: minimizing the text by focusing on core concepts. “Focusing on big ideas”, is their emphasis in the “Letter to the Student”, appended at the beginning of the books; and multi-disciplinary approach is an important stated concern. Fundamental Rights and Duties are excerpted from the Constitution, and printed with embellishment. All these are high sounding claims, apparently. But not so, as we get into the details by proceeding further into the book.

A few years ago, we also had “Learning Outcomes based Curriculum Framework (LOCF): BA History Undergraduate Programme, 2021”. In an essay in the journal, Social Scientist, Irfan Habib has written extensively. The prose is endearingly satirical, a trait which the eminent historian employs in his public speaking and less in writing and within the classroom. I would strongly recommend that all of you read the essay. Such a Framework from the regime envisages political encroachment upon the curricula-framing and through this the shrinking autonomy of the universities.

Maulana Azad’s role as education minister (1946-58), along with Nehru and Radhakrishnan, in the autonomy of the UGC was foundational (1953-56). He championed the creation of an independent statutory body to manage and fund higher education, a move that was essential for the institutional autonomy of universities and for the development of a standardized and high-quality higher education system in India. Not only this, Maulana Azad served as the Chairman of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a vital body for advising the central and state governments on educational matters and in framing school curricula. He presided over multiple meetings of the board, including those held in 1948, 1949, and 1950. This position gave him a direct platform to shape and influence educational reforms and policies at a national level.

Maulana Azad was quite conscious of the fact that the Medieval historical past (Muslim rulers) will be weaponized in certain ways by both, Hindu and Muslim communal forces. He therefore instructed (1949) ‘the historians of AMU to conduct research on that period by accessing original sources in Oriental languages.’ While resisting colonialism, his own perception of the Mughal past was distinctive. For instance, he looked upon Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi’s resistance (otherwise quite a conservative figure) against Akbar as an instance of why Muslim subjects too rise in resistance against the British colonial state (See Muzaffar Alam, “Maulana Azad and his memory of the Islamic past: a study of his early writings”, JRAS, Cambridge. 33, 4, 2023, pp 901-916)

For the diminishing autonomy of the universities in recent decades, politics is responsible as also the misuse and abuse of autonomy by the universities and the academia themselves, over a period of time. Recently, the Vice Chancellor (VC) of a prestigious university recently got a show cause notice on the flimsiest of grounds and the notice was not issued by the Visitor. More on that on another occasion!

The specific theme around which we have gathered here is something we are agitated about given that the incumbent regime is selective about facts, besides distorting the facts of history and more than that, which is, not less important, manipulating historical facts in most insidious ways. Manufacturing falsehood, parading these as history, and thereby poisoning the minds of children, of ordinary people in general. That is our concern here. There is a systematic attack on reason. People should not have minds, apply them, should not have or develop any critical faculty. They should not be thinking like citizens with powers of critical thinking, rather, they should function as mere subjects, praja, reáaya, before rulers. This appears to be the dominant political wisdom today.

We also need to keep in mind the fact that the NCERT textbooks are written more for the purpose of teaching material to the teachers. This is the purpose forgotten a long while ago.

Just four days ago, my teacher, Prof Farhat Hasan, along with Prof. Neeladri Bhattacharya, in their interview with Vrinda Gopinath (The Wire.In, July 31, 2025), have articulated all the important concerns pertaining to the issue. Ruchika has been doing it consistently in so many ways with effective communication. I hardly need to repeat these here. I would therefore seek your permission to raise some other issues which may not be getting adequate attention in terms of diagnosing the trouble. Just for the sake of informing the less informed, non-specialist audience here, allow me to do a quick recap, before embarking on the issues I wish to raise here:

In the latest version of NCERT textbooks, we have:

• Demonisation of Mughal rulers including Akbar (a feat achieved by Muslim reactionaries too); and the controversy around Aurangzeb-Shivaji. Through both of these, we can clearly identify the ways in which Hindu and Muslim Right Wing treat history.
• Discussing historical periods and rulers within the binaries of ‘Glorious’ and ‘Dark’ periods and rulers defined as ‘Heroes’ and ‘Villains’, in terms of their personal faith. This irrational method overlooks overall state policies and political contexts and values of the era, and thereby creates an atmosphere through which co-religionists of these past rulers are made answerable for certain deeds. Taken to extremes, this can mean ‘punishing them for the previous wrongdoers.’
• The authors/editors of the NCERT textbooks of the 1970s and then again in 2005-06 had reputed professional academic historians this is not the case anymore;
• Earlier, each chronological period had judiciously distributed adequate space, across the evolving grades from VI to XII;
• All regions had spaces in terms of history-making, in the earlier textbooks, yet there were allegations of selective emphasis;
• Gender, Caste, Environment, Technology and Socio-economic changes, Growth of Science in history, sports, literature, sartorial culture, etc., were the issues which remained less addressed; with the evolution of a historical understanding, these issues were attempted in the NCET textbooks of 2005-06. Yet, right wing allegations persisted.
• Allegations of the Right wing were and are (about earlier books), temple ‘destructions’ during the time when Muslim rulers ruled were not emphasized in these texts. Making this argument they pushed for deletion of similar acts by Hindu rulers. Narratives built to create a communally divisive atmosphere. As if today’s ordinary Muslims are answerable for the past conduct of Muslim rulers, and today’s Hindus aren’t answerable for the similar acts of the Hindu rulers in the past.
• Anglo-Maratha Wars are okay to be taught, the Anglo-Mysore wars must to be omitted
• Ironically, while right wing forces might apparently talk of nativism laced with the rhetoric of being anti-West, at the same time their historical narratives derive much from the colonially divisive projects of historical representation;   Dr Ruchika Sharma is doing a lot to speak and write on these.

History has a political goal, has been a tool of ruling class, across the globe. It was so, always. This reminds me of Paul Freire’s 1968 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He identifies two objectives of pedagogy: a tool for domination, and a tool for liberation. Here there are two models viz., “Banking Model”, in which the students are treated as passive recipients who in turn become unthinking, “submissively obedient” and status-quoist.[1] This de-humanises both the teachers and the students. In this, the oppressed turn into a new batch oppressors. Another model of pedagogy, Friere says, is: “Problem-Posing Model” wherein the teachers and students are co-educators to each other, it is dialogic and interactive.

In this context, one is also reminded of a recent book, Hilary Falb Kalisman, Teachers as State-builders[2]. This book talks of teaching which turns students into a force of resistance, state-subverters, disruptors, challengers to the status quo, and thereby creating thinking citizens who will build stronger society and state, rather than collaborators of the regime.  That is how, Kalisman says, colonial societies emerged to resist the state and attain freedom.

School textbooks are often used to both craft what the nation is or must be and to “teach” future citizens how they are now bound to and by a common historical narrative. Therefore, it is not surprising that India and Pakistan (and later Bangladesh) have put concerted efforts into crafting propaganda-like historical narrations about what their nations stood for.

Such historical narrations ‘droned on, ponderously, sonorously, and repetitively’ in citizenship projects about how the nation came to be formed and what the nation-state did for people’s benefit. Joya Chatterji (in her Shadows at Noon, p. 145) writes: ‘It was not so much that this publicity was executed with brilliance. It was not. It was merely the case that it was repeated ad nauseam, and that everydayness made the message natural’.

Not that history has not been used as a tool in earlier times! But then it was, as it should be, used as a tool of emancipation. Emancipation of the colonised, enslaved people. To inject self-confidence among the rising nation, the nation in making. By the word, nation, I mean people, not merely territory.  Jawaharlal Nehru’s Discovery and Glimpses were written for those noble purposes. Tara Chand’s books, the books written on the history of 1857 in 1907-09, in 1957, in 2007, etc., by the scholar-activist nationalists were pursuits in those directions. The NCERT textbooks, the books written for popular readings and published by the NBT were all exercises in those noble desirable purposes and directions.

Modern rational, secular democracies need such pursuits immeasurably. Praja ko Nagrik mein badalna hai, that is our biggest challenge today. It is a battle between “communalisation” and “secularization”. Please do note the difference. I am not using the words, “communalism” and “secularism”. I am using its variants, the process, not the mere nouns.

Once we read, Yasmin Khan’s 2011 essay (Modern Asian Studies), “Performing Peace: Gandhi’s Assassination as a Critical Moment in the Consolidation of the Nehruvian State”, we get to know, beyond the stated motive of the author, that the Nehru-led state was making efforts which were, in turn, using it in a certain way; the way for the marginalizing the forces who liquidated Gandhi’s body and life, if not his mind and ideas and ideology and praxis and methodologies.  Nehru strategically managed the public mourning, funeral, and distribution of Gandhi’s ashes to assert state power and legitimise Congress leadership during the turbulent post-Partition period (1947–1950). The state-organised funeral in Delhi, contrasted with widespread, vernacular mourning rituals across India, bridged the gap between the state and the people, reinforcing Nehruvian secularism. Public grief, amplified by events like the Ardh Kumbh Mela, transformed Gandhi into a saintly figure, fostering communal harmony and countering Hindu nationalist sentiments. Yasmin Khan emphasizes that these rituals were not merely ceremonial but politically transformative, solidifying the Congress Party’s role in shaping a unified, secular Indian state.

Nehru was very clear about the problem of communalism. He knew it more clearly than anybody else that in colonial era Muslim communal separatism was stronger because of the colonial state; during 1938-47, competitive communalisms of the two largest religious communities became greater menace because of the colonial state. After 1947, more particularly, after January 30, 1948, Hindu communalism was greater threat. Patel realised it only after January 30, though he didn’t survive for long after that to help Nehru in a larger way. He died in December 1950; not in 1960 (our Home Minister, Mr Shah should allow me to correct him)!

I was referring to the processes of communalisation. These forces remained there, not exactly subterranean, in the early years of independence. The majoritarian forces were apparently and arguably not in a hurry to be state-centric. They were working more on cultural fronts, and in the spheres of education, with the “Catch-them-Young” approach. This focus was there among both Hindu and Muslim communal forces. Both, were waiting for the right moment to capture state power for a full scale implementation of their communalisation programmes. In Pakistan, this project was hardly ever in resistance, as the very basis of the creation of Pakistan was communal. Krishna Kumar and at least in a column, Arvind N Das had written extensively on this. Persons, some previously with the prestigious, St Stephen’s, [I H Qureshi (1903-1981) and also the Gen Zia’s regime] did much to push Pakistan rightward. Ali Usman Qasmi’s (essay in Modern Asian Studies, 2018), “A Master Narrative for the History of Pakistan: Tracing the origins of an ideological agenda”, explains this phenomenon at length.

Gen Zia’s reign (1977-1988), more aptly depicted in Hanif’s novel, A Case of Exploding Mangoes[3], coincided with the Saudi-funded project of the Islamisation of Knowledge (IoK) scheme. A range of scholars in different parts of the world started promoting Islamisation of Knowledge (known as ‘IoK’) in the late 1970s. The first World Conference on Education in Makkah (1977) marked a decisive step in the formulation of this project on an international platform. [Among the best-known scholars advocating this notion were Palestinian–American scholar Ismail al-Faruqi and Malaysian philosopher Syed Naqib al-Attas. For radicalization under Gen Zia’s regime, see, Virinder and Waqas Bhatt’s ‘If I Speak, They Will Kill Me, to Remain Silent Is to Die’: Poetry of resistance in General Zia’s Pakistan (1977–88), Modern Asian Studies, 53, 4, 2019. Also see my blog, “Namo’s India a parody of Zia’s oppressive regime in Pakistan?”, SabrangIndia. In, February 17, 2020].

“Sub-continental Majoritarianisms”, to use Papiya Ghosh’s expression, and global politics of the Ummah created a fear among Hindus, especially after the Khilafat mobilisations during the national movement. After Partition too, Hindu Majoritarianism derived fodder from such political pursuits of the Ummah. (Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was against the pan-Islamic, extraterritorial, Ummah; he was for a Qaum confined within national boundary). This phenomenon (Muslim communalism) feeding majority communalism has been afoot since the 1970s and 1980s. This is not a marginal factor. One communalism feeds another, is what Nehru had said, and Bipan Chandra later elaborated upon it.

India and its own Muslim right wing organizations were not averse to or unconnected with the abovementioned schemes promoting the Muslim right wing. Please do have a look into Chapter 6 of Laurence Gautier’s latest book on post-1947 AMU and JMI, Between Nation and Community, Syed Anwar Ali, a Jamaat-e-Islami affiliated teacher in the AMU and his book, Hindustan Mein Islam, and I H Quraishi’s book, The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, 610-1947, which give us a clear idea of Muslim Right Wing in our sub-continent, pre and post-1947.

All right wing forces have globalised networks. Secular resistance too has to ensure globalised networks of solidarity. No study or commentary in isolation will really help us understand the communal forces. (Communalisation of the textbooks is just a part of that politics); and thus, a less informed understanding and flawed or partisan diagnosis will not help us create an effective solidarity. Going soft on the Muslim right wing and hard against the Hindu right wing has proved a counterproductive strategy all these years.

Khoo gar-e- Hamd se thorha sa gila bhi sun le

Barring one or two lesser known pamphlets published by the Indian Left I have hardly come across any comprehensive criticism against the India’s Muslim right wing pursuits in these domains. We do understand that post-1947, the Muslim Right Wing couldn’t be as dangerous as the Hindu Right Wing. It was Nehru’s understanding of communalism and it was his desired magnanimity. That does not, however, really mean that such a lesser danger would not attract attention and will not be resisted. I am not compartmentalising the resistances we ought to offer.

Given the contemporary challenges, I strongly feel that Muslim intellectuals (if they really exist) of India need to speak out more on those aspects. India’s Liberals as also Leftists have reasons to agree with Nehru’s understanding on the colonial and post-Independence communalisms in India (Nehru understood that Muslim communal separatism was more dangerous only till 1947, under the colonial prodding; post-1947 India, Hindu communalism is more dangerous). To this, Late Prof Imtiaz Ahmad had an opinion: this differential understanding doesn’t really mean that while fighting the two communalisms you will discriminate between the two. They have reasons not to speak as much on Muslim right wing. But that cannot be a choice for the Muslim intellectuals. The more they avoid exposing India’s Muslim right wing, the more they provide weapons to the Hindu right and the more they weaken the moral authority of India’s Secularists.

I am only reminding this audience of the fact that minority rights discourses from Muslim leaders have remained weaker during our national movement (the Muslim League shifted this discourse to a direction in which Muslim minority was to be treated to be a nation of ex-rulers), and after Independence too, communal-identitarian concerns were given priority. Rather than strengthening the secularisation processes of India, Muslim intellectuals have remained more active in safeguarding regressive and patriarchal Personal Laws, and less at strengthening the secular forces of India. The religious and “secular” Muslim leadership has remained more identitarian, less secularistic. That has all along done a great disservice to the overall processes of secularisation, only to help majoritarian forces.

Fast forward to 1977 and after: Resurgence of competitive communalisms in the 1980s

Riding on alliance-politics, majoritarian forces in India eventually succeeded, more menacingly with the turn of this century/millennium. They had never really given up. Competitive majoritarianism remained a force to reckon with across the sub-continent. Whenever they formed governments in alliance/coalition in New Delhi, majoritarian parties preferred to the portfolios education, culture, information and broadcasting. Other non-Congress or anti-Congress regional forces hardly pitched for such portfolios.

Unlike majoritarian parties, secular forces, most of who have been state-centric; were dependent upon state resources, subsidy concessions and spaces to run their secularisation projects. Of course, the Left forces existed in industrial trade unions, on the university campuses, students and youth movements, and in the peasant movements, and through certain effected cultural organisations in both theatre, literature and art, too. A changing global economy and the disintegration of the USSR has weakened Left forces in recent decades.

One of the reasons why in recent years more and more Hindus have embraced Neo-Hindutva is the real question to be addressed, here. To my understanding, this question is fundamental because the attack on rationality and ever-increasing receptivity of the falsehood and of the distorted history is linked with this issue. This leads us to another question, how did we deal with the Muslim communalism, in the colonial era as well as in post-independence era?

What proportion of the Muslim literati looked at India’s ancient past with desirable and reasonable pride? Why did Shibli feel more agitated to write in defence of Aurangzeb? Why did he write biographies only of Muslims – non-Indian, Arab-Muslims at that? What proportion of Muslim elites are self-critical? To what extent do they look critically upon the ideas, institutions and history-making individuals of Muslims? What made a section of Muslim elites run a narrative of venerating Aurangzeb as Zinda Pir, and adding the suffix of rahmatullah alaih too?

An honest answer to those questions may help us find one of the missing answers for the first question I raised here as to why more and more Hindus have been embracing majoritarianism in recent decades.

The vilification and/or “villainisation” of Medieval Muslim rulers by Hindu majoritarian and reactionary forces, by stating half-truths, or putting out facts in a distorted manners, is just one problem! What is the obverse side of this problem? Why do a section of Muslims of today feel so very compelled to defend and justify and eulogize only a certain kind of Muslim rulers?  Omission of the story of valiant resistance and confrontation of British colonialism by Tipu Sultan is an obvious problem. The latest NCERT edition has omitted Tipu. A valid resistance to this politics does require that certain facts about Hyder-Tipu rule should not be ignored or omitted by secularists too. The Moplah-Nair “communal” conflict has an agrarian history of land ownership as to whose ownership preceded whose, before and after Hyder-Tipu rule? D N Dhanagre (Past and Present, OUP, vol. 74, 1977) has written about this. Quite a secular historian. Yet, that fact, uncomfortable for Muslims and Liberals and Left, has been obviously overlooked. Ignoring these aspects of history not just makes us intellectually dishonest, it also thereby weakens the legitimacy of our resistance. And that is how we self-restrict building a solidarity for our cause. We have to rethink and introspect.

I recall having read a long interview of Intezar Husain, with Umar Memon (July 1974), published in the early 1970s. (English rendering carried in the Journal of South Asian Literature, 1983). Intezar reminded us Muslims that, in comparison with the Hindus, our attitudes vary. This variation hasn’t been addressed as adequately as required. That has contributed to communalisation and pushing the country rightward.

Our discriminatory and dishonest treatment of both communalisms might be one of the factors why Hindutva has been gaining greater acceptance among growing number of Hindus?

I would therefore seek your permission to make you a bit uncomfortable at least in the last segment of this talk, if not intermittently throughout the talk.

Intezar argued that Shibli Nomani “continually romanticised our history, but there were some other aspects of our history which he didn’t describe at all”. Nirad Chaudhuri’s Continent of Circe, “dealt with the history of India and analysed the Hindu community in an uncompromising and even brutal manner”. “The Muslim community has taken great pride in the fact that the philosophy of history was born among Muslims. But the fact is that these Muslims do not face their history squarely, but merely picked out its good features and then celebrated these as the entire whole of our history. Nirad Chaudhuri’s approach is completely the opposite since he has no wish to “celebrate” the history of the nation of which he is one individual. We see him striving to reach its essence and to present that essence without regard to how his own people would react to it”, argued Intezar Husain.

Now, my question is this: why when such issues were raised in the 1970s, did they remain unaddressed (or inadequately) addressed as before? Addressing these questions may help us understand, at least partly, why more and more Hindus have begun to hate Muslims incrementally.

I have already referred to Syed Anwar Ali’s Urdu book Hindustan Mein Islam. This could be a case study to measure the Muslim right wing’s way of looking at post-Independent Indian History (and their political intent too) Anwar was a faculty at AMU.

As the Hindu right wing has engaged more in vilifying Muslim rulers in general, they appear to be less interested with the Muslim right wing’s knowledge production in India. The day they take this up, things would become even more difficult in terms of building solidarity and resistance against Neo-Hindutva.

Leaving this at that, let us come around the issue of Partition. The subject has been taught through the prism of causes, not on consequences. Why? Because, causation is motivated with the idea of blaming someone and absolving others. In this case, since the League asked for Pakistan and got it, it has to share greater blame. Nonetheless, in such a restricted or selective teaching of the causes behind Partition, Muslims and Muslim League are hardly distinguished from each other, even in among some of liberal circles.

Why is it that stories and narratives of Muslim resistance to Partition remain under-explored, under-prescribed and under-popularised? Why do a good number of educated Muslims of India still rejoice in a historical literature which absolves Jinnah and his League? I leave this question for certain sections of the Muslim educated elite of India: to undertake an honest self-introspection on this count too.

Following two works of Muslim writers are very significant in the genre of anti-League Partition literature.

Syed Tufail Ahmad Manglori’s 1946 book, Musalmanon Ka Raushan Mustaqbil, got translated into English in 1994 only. Similar literature, such as Hifzur Rahman Seohaarvi’s 1945 book, Tehreek-e-Pakistan Par Ek Nazar, remain least known. Does this mean that in academic circles as well as in the popular domain, anti-League Muslims remain lesser known? How many of the Muslim literati really talk about such figures and such writing? I have spent over three decades as student and as teacher in AMU. Few years back, when I was addressing an AMU gathering, on Tufail Manglori (Manglauri), the founder of the City School and shared that he was an ace wicket keeper of the MAO College Cricket team, the information was received by a large audience with surprise. Very few knew about this. A good number of Muslims do remember Seohaarvi as an ex-MP but his anti-League book, Tehreek-e-Pakistan is hardly known even among the literati or the chatterati.

Mushir-ul-Haq (1933-1990) has demonstrated it very well in his 1972 essay, “Secularism? No; Secular State? Well- Yes”. In this essay Haq highlighted a contradiction in the approach of some Muslim leaders. He observed that while they might publicly criticise “secularism” as a concept, they would simultaneously defend the “secular state” and the constitutional protections it afforded them, such as minority rights and the freedom to manage their own religious and educational institutions. He pointed out that this stance could appear to be a form of double standards.

With this, the point I am trying to emphasise here is: in order to strengthen the fight against Neo- Hindutva and in order to strengthen the hands of the likes of Yogendra Yadavas, Apoorvanands, Harsh Manders, Ravish Kumars, Ruchika Sharmas, we ought to resolve that critiquing and exposing the Muslim right wing should not be the business best ignored by thought-leaders, opinion-writers, academics, public intellectuals bearing Muslim names. They must not shy away from this urgent task. They must not keep arguing to the tune that ‘this is not the right time for burdening Muslims of India’ with such a task. For too long we have made such a fallacious and counterproductive argument. This is one of the many factors having contributed to the rise of Neo-Hindutva. The projects of communalising the textbooks, the state and the society have been gaining strength with the way we have been arguing, “this is not the right time to critique, expose and resist the Muslim conservatives and right wing ……’

Do we really even realise the depth of the threat?

I am very sorry to say the answer to this question is not in the affirmative. I am saying this with the unique experience of working with and living on a Muslim majority campus. This is a pessimism coming from me who in his own self-assessment is not someone who gives up on anything easily.

Before I leave, I must clarify what Neo Hindutva is:

The term “Neo-Hindutva” is a relatively recent academic and journalistic concept used to describe the evolution and new expressions of Hindu nationalism in contemporary India, popularised by scholars such as Edward Anderson and Arkotong Longkumer in a 2018 special issue of the journal Contemporary South Asia and an earlier 2015 article, which is, “idiosyncratic expressions of Hindu nationalism which operate outside of the institutional and ideological framework of the Sangh Parivar”, quite distinct from  the modernisation of Hinduism by figures like Swami Vivekananda in the late 19th century.

Neo-Hindutva is defined as a more diffused, mainstreamed, and adaptable version of traditional Hindutva. Unlike the original ideology formulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923, which was explicitly a political theory of Hindu nationhood, Neo-Hindutva is characterised by its ability to permeate new spaces and take on various forms.

Key characteristics that distinguish Neo-Hindutva from its traditional counterpart include:

• Mainstreaming and Normalisation: It is no longer confined to the institutional and ideological boundaries of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates (the Sangh Parivar). Instead, it has become a normalised, everyday discourse that is seen in popular culture, social media, and even in spaces like yoga and spiritual movements.
• Focus on Development and Neoliberalism: Unlike traditional Hindutva, which was often viewed as separate from economic policy, Neo-Hindutva has been linked to a specific brand of neo-liberalism. It often frames economic progress and material prosperity as a result of and a prerequisite for Hindu assertion. This ties national pride and economic growth together.
• “Hard” vs. “Soft” Expressions: Scholars like Anderson categorize Neo-Hindutva into two types: Hard Neo-Hindutva: This includes groups and movements that are openly connected to Hindu nationalism but operate outside the direct control of the Sangh Parivar, often with a more militant or vigilante approach. Soft Neo-Hindutva: This is a more subtle and concealed form, often avoiding explicit links to majoritarian politics. It operates through think tanks, international organisations, and cultural groups that promote a Hindu identity and narrative under the guise of cultural preservation, charity, or community building.
• Appeal to new constituencies: Neo-Hindutva has expanded its appeal beyond the traditional upper-caste support base by incorporating and co-opting the aspirations of lower-caste groups and Adivasi (tribal) communities, often by offering them a space within a broader, unified Hindu identity.

Thank you for the patience in listening to my discomfiting words!

(The author presented this view on August 4, 2025 at a symposium held at the Constitution Club of India, New Delhi, topic Distortions in the Syllabus of History Books; the presentation sent to us by the author has been suitably edited for publication)

[1] Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire written in Portuguese between 1967 and 1968.

[2] Assistant Professor of History and Endowed Professor of Israel/Palestine   in the Program for Jewish Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder

[3]  2008 comic novel by the Pakistani writer Mohammed Hanif. It is based on the 1988 aircraft crash that killed Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the sixth president of Pakistan.

The post Distortions in the syllabus of history books, an uncomfortable perspective appeared first on SabrangIndia.