This academic response is to counter the malicious rewriting of school textbooks by the present regime that is influencing institutions like the NCERT. The length of the response is necessitated by the fact that the author intends to challenge –not journalistically –but with facts and documents mostly drawn from ‘Hindu’ sources, this project. The author has tried to produce a comprehensive document exposing the Hindutva project of falsifying history and denigrating the democratic-secular-egalitarian polity of India.
Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), D. P. Saklani unveiled the Class 8 Social Science textbook with several fundamental changes on July 17, 2025. This revised version of texts will be utilised in schools from the academic session, 2025-26. Wide-ranging changes have been made in this new edition. Media reports have singled out how existing lessons on Mughal and Muslim rulers had been replaced with details of the religious persecution and other atrocities under ‘Muslim rule’ in India. And on this pretext, the Hindutva-captive media and ‘WhatsApp university’ have started another war against Islam and the country’s Muslims. Before this move, some radical changes had been made in the textbooks of classes 6-12.
The expert who has been given the responsibility to complete this work by NCERT, under the complete control of RSS, is Michel Danino, an Indian writer of French origin. He secured Indian citizenship only in 2003. The Modi government has conferred the Padma Shri, India’s fourth-highest civilian award on him, in 2017. He is currently the chairman of the social science curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). He is a supporter of Hindutva and has been criticised for indulging in historical negationism (denying the truths of the past).
Let us first understand which crucial developments have been omitted from the school syllabus.
Emergency of 1975
The chapter on Emergency in the Class 12 political science textbook ‘Politics in India after Independence’ has been reduced by five pages. Parts relating to the harsh impact of the Emergency on people and institutions have been deleted. Another reference to the ban imposed on all trade union activities during the Emergency has been removed from chapter 8 (‘Social Movements’) of the class 12 sociology textbook.
Material on protests and social movements dropped
Nearly three chapters detailing protests that turned into social movements in contemporary India have been removed from political science textbooks for classes 6 to 12. A chapter on “Rise of Popular Movements” has been removed from the class 12 textbook ‘Politics in India after Independence’. The Chipko movement, the growth of the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra in the 1970s, the agrarian struggles of the 1980s, especially those led by the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), the anti-alcohol movement of Andhra Pradesh, details on the famous Narmada Bachao Andolan [Save Narmada River Movement] opposing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River and its tributaries in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra and the Right to Information movement were removed in one go.
The chapter ‘Struggle for Equality’ also removed
NCERT has also removed the chapter ‘Struggle for Equality’ from the Class 7 Political Science textbook, which states how ‘Tawa Matsya Sangh’ fought for the rights of displaced forest dwellers of Satpura forests of Madhya Pradesh.
Chapter on struggles of indigenous people removed
The third chapter on mass struggles has been removed from the Class 10 political science textbook ‘Democratic Politics-II’. It dealt with indirect ways of influencing politics through pressure groups and movements. Besides the movement for democracy in Nepal and the protests against water privatization in Bolivia, South America. This chapter also covered the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the non-violent ‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’ (‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’, also known as the “Kittiko Hachiko” movement, was a non-violent protest in Karnataka, India, in 1987 which opposed eucalyptus plantations on grazing land. The movement involved people plucking eucalyptus saplings and planting alternative, useful plants instead) in Karnataka in 1987, the BAMCEF (All India Backwards SC/ST/OBC and Minorities Communities Employees’ Federation) founded by Kanshiram in 1971, and the National Alliance of People’s Movements, whose founders included Medha Patkar.
Scissors on study of social movements
The only chapter on social movements in the sociology syllabus of classes 11 and 12 has been significantly reduced. In the chapter titled ‘Social Movements’ in the class 12 textbook ‘Social Change and Development in India’ one of the several changes made is the removal of the exercise box in which students were asked to discuss the recent farmers’ protests against the three farm laws passed by Parliament.
Shredding of Indian democracy
Four chapters dealing with Democracy and the Making of Indian Democracy have been removed on the ground that similar topics are covered in Political Science textbooks of other classes. For example, a chapter titled ‘Key Elements of Democratic Government’ has been removed from the Class 6 political science book. This was the first detailed introduction to the concept of democracy in middle school and discussed some of the key elements that affect the functioning of a democratic government, including chapters like ‘Democracy and Diversity’ and ‘Challenges to Democracy’ that have been removed from the Class 10 political science textbook.
Both these chapters were first removed from the CBSE syllabus in April and have now been permanently removed from the NCERT textbook.
Jawaharlal Nehru cut short
The following comment of Nehru on Bhakra Nangal Dam has been removed from Class 12 Sociology textbook, ‘Social Change and Development in India’:
“Our engineers tell us that probably nowhere else in the world is there a dam as high as this. The work bristles with difficulties and complications. As I walked around the site I thought that these days the biggest temple and mosques and gurdwara is the place where man works for the good of mankind. Which place can be greater than this, this Bhakra Nangal, where thousands and lakhs of men have worked, have shed their blood and sweat and laid down their lives as well?”
Discussion on sedition deleted
A section describing the arbitrariness of colonial sedition law through the example of sedition and how Indian nationalists, specially, revolutionaries played a role in challenging it is no longer part of a chapter ‘Understanding Laws’ in the class 8 political science book. This deleted section also carried the following exercise for students: “State one reason why you think the Sedition Act of 1870 was arbitrary? In what ways does the Sedition Act of 1870 contradict the rule of law?”
Constitution making and creation of linguistic states left out
The chapter ‘India after Independence’, which talks about constitution making and creation of linguistic states, has been removed from the Class 8 history textbook ‘Our Pasts III’.
Description of demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujarat and Manipur violence removed
References to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya (1992), targeted killing of Muslims in the Gujarat communal violence (2002), and to the Manipur violence have been removed from Class 11 and 12 textbooks.
Pioneers of Anti-British struggle, Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan dropped
NCERT’s new Class 8 social science textbook does not mention Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, or the four Anglo-Mysore Wars of the 1700s, in its chapter on India’s colonial period. Remember, Tipu Sultan, known as the “Tiger of Mysore”, led a glorious military resistance to British colonialism. He was the pioneer of rocket artillery which had great success against the British. The economy of Mysore reached its peak during his reign.
He was martyred on 4 May 1799 while fighting the combined forces of British-Maratha-Nizam at the Srirangapatna front. At the time of Tipu’s martyrdom, he was wearing a heavy gold ring on which ‘Ram’ was inscribed in Devanagari script.
How much British dreaded Tipu would be clear by the letter which A. Campbell, wrote to the Court of Directors of the East India Company in 1788, “the most active powerful, ambitious Prince of Hindustan, whose troops are in high order and whose powerful antipathy to the English is beyond what the Directors are yet well aware of.” When he died there were jubilant celebrations in Britain with declaration of public holiday in Britain.
Shockingly, Danino defending the removal of Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan’s contribution to anti-colonial wars while confirming that Tipu Sultan and related events will likely remain absent in Part 2 of the series as well, stated: “If we include every war, we go back to cramming.”
The ‘Muslim’ rule not removed but toxified
The supplicant majoritarian regime-captive media and experts have been arguing that the period of rule of Muslim rulers in India has been removed, attributing this reason to the ire within the secular and progressive camp. The truth is different: Muslim rule has been related but re-configurated and now narrated with a vigorous anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric in tune with the current communal politics of RSS-BJP rulers (regime).
The history section of the new book, begins with the Delhi Sultanate and goes up to the colonial period (the British Raj), deliberating in a note on ‘Dark Periods of History’, when war, abuse, fanaticism and bloodshed prevailed. The description of ‘dark periods of history’ includes the oppressive policies of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Mughal rulers as we will know in the following.
- Reference to Mahmud Ghazni of Afghanistan, who invaded the subcontinent and raided the Somnath temple, has been tweaked. First, the title “Sultan” has been dropped from his name. Second, the sentence “he raided the subcontinent almost every year” has been revised to “he raided the subcontinent 17 times (1000-1025 CE) with a religious motive”.
- On Babur, the first Mughal emperor, the book notes that his autobiography points to him as being cultured and intellectually curious. “But he was also a brutal and ruthless conqueror, slaughtering entire populations of cities, enslaving women and children, and taking pride in erecting ‘towers of skulls’ made from the slaughtered people of plundered cities.”
- Akbar’s reign is described as a blend of “brutality and tolerance”, and that during the seizure of the Chittor fort, Akbar, then 25 years old, ordered the massacre of 30,000 civilians, and the enslavement of women and children, the new textbook states. Akbar’s message is also quoted in the textbook: “We have succeeded in occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to infidels and have established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword, we have erased signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those places and also all over Hindustan.”
- On Aurangzeb, the book points out that some scholars argue that his motives were primarily political, and they give examples of his grants and assurances of protection to temples. While politics played a part in his decisions, his farmans (edicts) “make his personal religious motive clear too.” He ordered governors of provinces to demolish schools and temples, and destroyed temples at Banaras, Mathura, Somnath, and Jain temples and Sikh gurdwaras.
This detailed account of the atrocities committed by the ‘Muslim’ rulers on their Hindu subjects has been accompanied by a commentary which underlines that it is important to study the dark events objectively, without blaming anyone of the present-day people (i.e. the Muslims of the country). If we want to identify the criminals of the ‘Muslim Raj’, then the historical facts of that period, as recorded by the ‘Hindu’ sources themselves, will clearly reveal that the upper caste Hindus were fully complicit in the atrocities committed by the Muslim rulers.
Majoritarian narrative of incidents in history when privileged caste Hindus helped ‘Muslim’ rulers
No sane person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a 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 added:
“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.”
[RSS English organ, Organizer, January 4, 1950.]
These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that,
“The 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 camp, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him the rath yatra, an integral part of Jagganath Temple was a Buddhist ritual. Bankim wrote:
“It is a fact…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.]
It was not an isolated takeover. Swami Dayanand Saraswati who is regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva and revered by RSS while dealing with the contribution of Shankaracharya (8th 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 here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.” [Sarswati, Dayanand, Satyarth Praksh, chapter xi, p. 347.]
According to the Buddhist narrative of ancient Indian history 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 Shunga dynasty. DN Jha an authority on ancient Indian history referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries which described how Buddhist and Jain religious places were destroyed by Pushyamitra Shunga, a great persecutor of Buddhists.
“He is said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana (opposed to Vedas).”
Jha also presented evidence from the grammarian Patanjali, a contemporary of the Shungas, who famously stated in his Mahabhashya that Brahmins and Shramanas were eternal enemies, like the snake and the mongoose.[1]
Did Hindus join persecution of Sikhs by Mughals?
In the Hindutva narrative the persecution of Sikh Gurus and their followers by Mughal rulers is used to spread hatred against present day Indian Muslims. The Mughal rulers especially Aurangzeb’s armies committed the most heinous and unspeakable crimes against Sikhs. Was the conflict really Muslims versus Sikhs? The contemporary Sikh records reject such an interpretation. According to a Sikh site during the last and the most brutal siege of Anandpur Sahib in 1704, “The Muslims and the Hindu hill rajas completely surrounded the city and cut it off from outside supplies.” While trying to escape the Mughal invaders,
“The younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh, Baba Zorawar Singh age 9 and Baba Fateh Singh age 7, were separated from the group in the confusion. They walked through the rugged jungle with their holy grandmother, Mata Gujri ji (mother of Guru Gobind Singh) until they came to small village where they took shelter. An old servant of the Guru’s household, Gangu, heard they were there and came to Mataji. With sweet words he requested that they go with him to his village. He expressed care and concern, but his heart was dark with betrayal. Cold, wet and alone, Mata Gujri gratefully went with Gangu to his house. For a few gold coins, Gangu betrayed their whereabouts to the Moghul army. At dawn, a loud banging came on the door, and the soldiers of the evil governor Wazir Khan came to escort the holy family to Sarhind. As they travelled through the city, people thronged to see them pass offering words of encouragement. They shouted curses at the Brahmin and were shocked at the depravity of the Moghul governor”. [2]
Maratha Rule glorified overlooking what it did to Hindus
The class 8 social science book now has a separate chapter on the Marathas; it refers to the Anglo-Maratha wars between 1775 and 1818 and states that “the British took India from the Marathas more than from the Mughals or any other power”. Marathas in general are seen as having “contributed substantially to India’s cultural developments.”
Let us compare these claims with the horrendous experience of the contemporary 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 true ‘Bhartiye’ historian by RSS and a truthful narrator of the Hindu history during the Mughal rule. However, his description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in 1742, too, 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), 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.]
Babur’s atrocitiesNCERT does not tell the truth that Babur captured northern India by defeating and killing the Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi. It is also not mentioned that the chief commander of the Hindu king Rana Sanga who challenged Mughal army led by Babur was Hasan Mewati who was martyred while fighting Babur’s army in the Battle of Khanwa [near Bharatpur] on March 15, 1527. Atrocities of Aurangzeb
It cannot be argued that Aurangzeb [1618-1707] did commit heinous crimes against his Hindustani subjects. It is important, however, to remember that his cruelty was not confined to non-Muslims.
His own father (Mughal emperor Shah Jahan), brothers (Dara Shikoh, Murad Bakhsh and Shah Shuja), the Shia community, Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and the Muslim ruling dynasties in the eastern, central and western parts of India suffered his terrible cruelty and repression. They were destroyed. The word barbaric would be too mild a word to describe his treatment of the Sikh Gurus, their families and followers.
It was Aurangzeb who murdered the famous Sufi saint, Sarmad, in the premises of Delhi’s Jama Masjid [there is a mausoleum on his grave at the eastern gate of the Jama Masjid where the stairs begin, which is still revered by many people]. It is also true that there were numerous cases when Hindus and their religious places were violently targeted during the autocratic rule of Aurangzeb. He crushed the rebellions of the ‘Satnamis’ in Gujarat.
However, there are also contemporary records of his patronage of Hindu and Jain religious sites. Two surviving examples are the magnificent Gauri Shankar Temple, a short distance from the Lahori-Gate of the Red Fort, which was built during Shah Jahan’s reign which continued to function during Aurangzeb’s reign and the famous Jain Lal Mandir right opposite the Red Fort. [Trushke, Audrey, Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Penguin, Gurgaon, 2017, pp. 99-106.] Both these temples continue to function even today. It is important to remember that limiting all the crimes of Aurangzeb only to the suppression of Hindus would be tantamount to trivializing his grave crimes against humanity.
Mughal rule evolved and sustained by the support of the Hindu privileged castes
How naive is NCERT (or it is under the total influence of RSS) that it is unaware of the fact that Aurangzeb or Mughal ‘Islamic’ rule used Hindu upper castes in droves to establish and run their empire which was inhabited predominately by Hindus. How deep and strong this unity can be gauged from the fact that after Akbar, no Mughal emperor was born to a Muslim mother. The Hindu upper castes showed immense loyalty to the ‘Muslim’ rulers and served them well with both their brains and strength.
Aurobindo Ghosh, who played a major role in providing a Hindu dimension to Indian nationalism, acknowledged that Mughal rule survived due to the fact that the Mughal emperors gave Hindus “positions of power and responsibility, they used their brains and brawn to preserve their kingdoms”. [Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division, Government of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]
The renowned historian Tara Chand, relying on primary source material of the medieval period, concluded that from the end of the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, “it can be reasonably concluded that the entire Punjab, except western Punjab, in whole of India, the ownership of land had come into the hands of the Hindus”, most of whom were Rajputs. [Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division, Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]
What do the contemporary official records show?
Maasir-ul-Umara [Biographies of Commanders] A biographical dictionary of officials the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1780 [from Akbar to Shah Alam] in Persian language is the most authentic record of high-ranking officials employed by the Mughal rulers. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1780. The details contained in it were based on the official records of the Mughal rulers. According to this compilation, during this period the Mughal rulers had about 100 Hindus (out of 365) were appointed to the high-ranking positions of Mughal empire, most of whom were from “Rajput Rajputana, Central-India, Bundelkhand, Maharashtra”. As far as numbers are concerned, Brahmins followed Rajputs in handling the Mughal administration.
[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1 & 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.]
Interestingly, the Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha, founded in 1893 which was “committed to the establishment of Hindi as the official language”, published part of this book in Hindi which contained ‘Biographies of Hindu Chieftains of the Mughal Court’ in 1931. [व्रज रत्न दास (अनुवाद), माआसिरुल–उमरा, काशी नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा, काशी, 1931]
Aurangzeb’s Hindu Generals & Advisors
Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji on the battlefield. It was his general, Jai Singh I (1611-1667), a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jai Singh II (1681-1743), (nephew of Jai Singh I) was another prominent Rajput general of the Mughal army who served Aurangzeb loyally against Shivaji. He was given the title of ‘Sawai’ by Aurangzeb in 1699. He was awarded the title of [one fourth time superior to his contemporaries] and thus he came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. He was also given the title of Mirza Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince] by Aurangzeb. Other titles given to him by other Mughal rulers were ‘Sarmad-i-Rajah-i-Hind’ [Eternal Ruler of India], ‘Raja Rajeshwar’ [Lord of Kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu Ji’ [Benevolent King]. These titles are even today displayed by his descendants today.
Akbar vs. Maharana Pratap
According to the prevalent Hindutva narrative, Pratap Singh I, popularly known as Maharana Pratap (1540-1597), fought for Hindus and Hindu nation against the Mughal emperor Akbar who wanted to subjugate the Hindus of India under Islamic rule. Interestingly, Akbar never faced the Maharana in any battle; it was Akbar’s most trusted Rajput military commander, Man Singh I (1550–1614), also his wife’s real brother, who fought against the Maharana on behalf of the Akbar.
The most important battle of Haldighati (June 18, 1576) was fought between the army led by Maharana and Mughal army led by Man Singh I. He was one of the Navratnas (favourite courtiers of Akbar). Akbar called him his Farzand (son), and he ruled several provinces of Akbar’s empire.
It also must be noted that chief of artillery of the army of Maharana Pratap was Hakim Khan Suri. He played a great role in confronting the Mughal army led by Man Singh in the Battle of Haldighati. Hakim Khan Suri fought alongside Maharana Pratap and was killed in the same battle while defending Maharana.
A Kayastha Prime Minister of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb
Contemporary documents carry first-hand accounts of Raja Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayastha, who served as the Diwan Aala (Prime Minister) of both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. According to a biography written by one of his descendants, Raja Maharaj Lal,
“Raja Raghunath Bahadur was not oblivious to the interests of his co-castes [Kayasthas], having risen to the highest post of Dewan Aala (Prime Minister). Raja appointed each of them to positions of honour and emoluments according to their individual merits, while many of them were granted honours and valuable estates for their services. Not a single Kayastha remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”
[Lal, Lala Maharaj, Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan Lal Bahadur Late Honrary Magistrate Delhi, With Extracts from His Diary Relating to the Times of Mutiny 1857, 1902.]
This account reveals that in the Sultanate of Aurangzeb, who was a ‘fanatic Muslim’ and an unbridled tyrant, the Kayastha prime minister was free to patronize people of his caste, all of whom were Hindus. Aurangzeb was so fond of this Hindu Prime Minister that after his death he instructई one of his Wazirs (ministers) Asad Khan in a letter to follow the ‘saintly guidance’ of Raja Raghunath. [Trushke, Audrey, pp. 74-75.]
Investigating only the “Muslim period’ (500 years) in a 5000-year-old Indian civilization
Linking the crimes committed by Aurangzeb or other ‘Muslim’ rulers in pre-modern India to their religion is going to have serious consequences even for the ‘Hindu’ history as told by the RSS. For instance, take Ravana, the king of Lanka, who as per the ‘Hindu’ legend, committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and their companions during their 14-year long exile [exiled by Hindus only]. This Ravana, according to the same legend, was a learned Brahmin and one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.
Instances of Violence when in the earlier periods, when Hindus inhabited India
Mahabharata
The epic Mahabharata is not the story of a fierce war between Hindus and Muslims but between two ‘Hindu’ armies (Pandavas and Kauravas, both Kshatriyas). In this War, according to the ‘Hindu’ account, 120 crore people (all Hindus) were killed. Draupadi, the joint wife of the Pandavas, was disrobed by the Kauravas (all Hindus).
If the crimes of Ravana, Kauravas, Jai Singh I and II etc. are linked to their religion like Aurangzeb and other ‘Muslim’ rulers, then the country be represented as one that is perennially on the war path. If revenge then needs to be taken on the present co-religionists of the rulers/criminals of the past, then it must begin from the beginning of Indian civilization; the turn of Indian Muslims will come much later!
‘Muslims’ ruled India for centuries, but Muslim population remained a minority
Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than five hundred hundreds of effective ‘Muslim’ 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 absolute Hindu majority. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. It was the time when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. According to the Census report:
“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindus (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…”
[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.]
These figures make it clear that persecution and cleansing of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If it had been so Hindus would have disappeared from India. At the end of ‘Muslim’ rule Hindus were 73.5%. India seems to be the only country in world history where despite ‘Muslim’ rule of more than half of a millennium the populace did not convert to the religion of the rulers. Hindu High Castes remained in control of the national wealth during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be in control whereas common Muslims remained paupers during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be so!
In the latest NCERT rewrite spree on Muslim period, a mysterious note has been added which generously states that the dark events i.e., Muslim period should be studied impartially without blaming any present-day people (i.e. Muslims of the country). If we really want to identify the criminals of ‘Muslim Raj’ then it is very important to also settle the account with the privileged caste Hindus of the country and not Indian Muslims. There are historical reasons behind the huge amount of wealth that the upper castes of the country have today.
They Hindu privileged castes did not bear enmity towards either Muslim or Christian rulers but rather served them with utmost loyalty; they even developed bread-daughter [roti-beti] relationship with the Muslim rulers. It is not that the upper Caste Hindus did not fight these cruel rulers, but nobody of their lineage survived. The tragedy of the country is that children of those who betrayed common Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains of this country, served most loyally under both the ‘Muslim Raj’ and the British.
[1] https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-and-essays/dn-jha-destruction-buddhist-sites
[2] https://www.sikhdharma.org/4-sons-of-guru-gobind-singh/
Related:
Now NCERT removes passages about caste and religious discrimination from social science books
Are citizenship and secularism ‘disposable’ subjects for Indian students?