Comment by Riaz Haq on September 17, 2017 at 8:55pm

How the British convinced Hindus that Muslims were despots and religious invaders

The East India Company wanted to be seen as a rectifier of the historical harm inflicted by the Muslims.


https://scroll.in/magazine/850787/how-the-british-convinced-hindus-...


It is a fact not so easily known, thus rarely acknowledged, that the British colonial project in India at one moment turned into an excavation of India’s pasts. This excavation was aimed at exploring the arrival of various foreign people, cultures, religions and politics into the subcontinent. After all, the Indian peninsula had been the site of commercial, political and military incursions by the Portuguese, the Dutch and the Timurids since 1498. Surely, one reason for the excavation was that, as the latest foreigners to arrive in India, the British wanted a justification for their own arrival. The other reason is tied to the way in which the British saw themselves as heirs to the Romans.

Edward Gibbon published the first volume of his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776, the year Great Britain lost 13 of its colonies in America. All six volumes of the book came out by 1788 to tremendous acclaim and sales. A central theme in Gibbon’s work was his quest for historical linkages between Pax Britannica – the period of British-dominated world order – and Pax Romana.

He provided the foundational stone for a theory that sought to legitimise British colonial enterprise as a successor to a great empire of the past that brought a long era of peace and prosperity for Europe in its wake. Even more influential, I would argue, is his exploration of the relationship between race and politics within the context of the Roman experience. This relationship was immediately employed in legitimising the British conquest of India.

---------------------

John Jehangir Bede’s doctoral dissertation, The Arabs in Sind: 712-1026 AD, was written within this academic context. Submitted to the University of Utah in 1973, the thesis remained unpublished until Karachi’s Endowment Fund Trust for Preservation of the Heritage of Sindh printed it earlier this year.

We do not know why Bede never published his work. Notes on the dust jacket of the book state that all attempts to trace his family or career were largely unsuccessful. The only thing we know is that he worked with Dr Aziz S Atiya, an influential historian of the Crusades, and that his work has been cited and expanded upon by historians such as Derryl MacLean, Mubarak Ali, Muhammad Yar Khan and Yohannan Friedman in the 1980s and 1990s. How are we to read this dissertation in 2017? One possible way is to see what the history of Muslim origins in India, as well as the historiography detailed above, looked like in 1973.

Bede starts his dissertation by reflecting on the fact that the history of Sindh has received little contemporary attention. He observes that this is because there have been relatively few textual sources for this history and that historians have been “generally subject to preconceived prejudices mainly colored by the religious outlook of particular authors”.

Instead of treating the Muslims as religious invaders, he explores an economic basis for their conquest of Sindh by examining a variety of sources, earliest of which date to the middle of the 9th century. In his last chapter, Commerce and Culture in Sind, he draws upon travelogues, merchant accounts and poetry from the ninth and 10th centuries to argue that there once existed an interconnected Indian Ocean world in which Sindh was a pivot.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 14, 2017 at 10:12am

What #India's textbooks don't tell us: Why the #Rajputs failed miserably in battle for centuries. #Mughal #Muslims

https://scroll.in/article/728636/what-our-textbooks-dont-tell-us-wh...

The home minister, Rajnath Singh, wishes our school textbooks told us more about the Rajput king Rana Pratap, and less about the Mughal emperor Akbar. I, on the other hand, wish they explained why Rajputs fared so miserably on the battlefield.

A thousand years ago, Rajput kings ruled much of North India. Then they lost to Ghazni, lost to Ghuri, lost to Khilji, lost to Babur, lost to Akbar, lost to the Marathas, and keeled over before the British. The Marathas and Brits hardly count since the Rajputs were a spent force by the time Akbar was done with them. Having been confined to an arid part of the subcontinent by the early Sultans, they were reduced to vassals by the Mughals.

The three most famous Rajput heroes not only took a beating in crucial engagements, but also retreated from the field of battle. Prithviraj Chauhan was captured while bolting and executed after the second battle of Tarain in 1192 CE, while Rana Sanga got away after losing to Babur at Khanua in 1527, as did Rana Pratap after the battle of Haldighati in 1576. To compensate for, or explain away, these debacles, the bards of Rajputana replaced history with legend.

Specialists in failure

It is worth asking, surely, what made Rajputs such specialists in failure. Yet, the question hardly ever comes up. When it does, the usual explanation is that the Rajputs faced Muslim invaders whose fanaticism was their strength. Nothing could be further than the truth. Muslim rulers did use the language of faith to energise their troops, but commitment is only the first step to victory. The Rajputs themselves never lacked commitment, and their courage invariably drew the praise of their enemies. Even a historian as fundamentalist as Badayuni rhapsodised about Rajput valour. Babur wrote that his troops were unnerved, ahead of the Khanua engagement, by the reputed fierceness of Rana Sanga’s forces, their willingness to fight to the death.

Let’s cancel out courage and fanaticism as explanations, then, for each side displayed these in equal measure. What remains is discipline, technical and technological prowess, and tactical acumen. In each of these departments, the Rajputs were found wanting. Their opponents, usually Turkic, used a complex battle plan involving up to five different divisions. Fleet, mounted archers would harry opponents at the start, and often make a strategic retreat, inducing their enemy to charge into an ambush. Behind these stood the central division and two flanks. While the centre absorbed the brunt of the enemy’s thrust, the flanks would wheel around to surround and hem in opponents. Finally, there was a reserve that could be pressed into action wherever necessary. Communication channels between divisions were quick and answered to a clear hierarchy that was based largely on merit.

Comment by Riaz Haq on November 18, 2017 at 8:07am

Islam in South Asia presdates Mohammad Bin Qasim's invasion. 


http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/74835/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-Book%20Review%20A%...

A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia is a critical literary, historical
and intellectual analysis of a 13
th century Persian text which tells the story of the Arab invasions of
Sindh in the 7-8
th centuries. Asad Abbasi finds the book an important re-examination of a key text
which has been used to perpetuate the myth that Hindus and Muslims are historic enemies, despite
offering a moral conduct for governance.
A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia . Manan Ahmed Asif.
Harvard University Press. 2016.

------

Asif implies that previous commentators have invariably selected, chopped, derided, ridiculed, and ignored parts of
the text to fit their own agendas. But there are two common assumptions that still hold, primarily because of how Ali
Kufi frames his work: first, the Chachnama is a translation of an Arabic manuscript, and second it is a book about
conquest in eighth century Sindh. Asif rejects both these assumptions. He argues the Chachnama is an original
book of political theory written in Persian addressed to the audience of thirteenth century Sindh.
Asif builds on work by Muzaffar Alam and A.C.S. Peacock in challenging the notion that the text is a translation.
Alam, an eminent Mughal historian, proposes that translation was key part of ‘Persianisation’ i.e. process for the
elites to move away from religious values towards more secular methods (p. 55). Peacock, Professor of History at St Andrews, views the translations of that period as ‘transcreations or commentarial interpretations’. Asif highlights that
in the 13th century claiming a book’s Arabic heritage was customary but also very prudent for raising author’s
profile. Kufi’s contemporaries such as Awfi and Juzjani are known to have employed similar methods. The historians
of thirteenth century may call their own work translations but ‘saw pedagogy and self-reflection as key function of the
texts’ (p. 60).
Asif also argues that the Chachnama does not fit the mould of other conquest narratives within Arabic
historiography. These differences are stark: while the conquest narrative deals in proper names; the Chachnama
gives ‘general attributes’ and uses generic citations (p. 63). The Arabic conquest literature focuses on plot of the
story, description of land and regions; Kufi, instead, writes about ‘inner turmoil, deliberation, doubts and planning of
the campaign’. The conquest narratives paint dismal picture of pre-Islamic times; Chachnama informs the reader of
the wealth and resources in Sind before Muhammad Bin Qasim. Furthermore, unlike the conquest narratives, Kufi
draws comparisons between the Hindu ruler Chach, and the Muslim ruler Bin Qasim (p. 66). Based on these
differences, Asif contends that the Chachnama is not a conquest narrative but ‘an Indic political theory’ which is
‘deeply ingrained in the physical geography and spatial constraint of the thirteenth century’ (p. 67).
Asif’s interpretation differs significantly from those of earlier commentators. 

--------

The falsehood that Hindus and Muslims are enemies who have been engaged in conflict since time immemorial is
perpetuated by centres of power to establish legitimacy. The British used it to legitimise colonisation, for Pakistani
state it provides legitimacy for military expenditure and for Hindu nationalists it becomes the basis for delegitimising
last one thousand years of Indian history. Asif’s new volume seeks to challenge the misinterpretations of the
Chachnama that has arisen from its use in these instrumental narratives.

Comment by Riaz Haq on December 31, 2017 at 8:46am

#Islamophobia, #casteism characterize #Hindu comics Amar Chitra Katha. #BJP #Modi #Hinduism

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-comic...

since its debut in 1967, ACK has also helped supply impressionable generations of middle-class children a vision of “immortal” Indian identity wedded to prejudiced norms. ACK’s writing and illustrative team (led by Pai as the primary “storyteller”) constructed a legendary past for India by tying masculinity, Hinduism, fair skin, and high caste to authority, excellence, and virtue. On top of that, his comics often erased non-Hindu subjects from India’s historic and religious fabric. Consequently, ACK reinforced many of the most problematic tenets of Hindu nationalism—tenets that partially drive the platform of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, currently under fire domestically and internationally for policies and rhetoric targeting religious minorities and lower castes.

Yet millions of children—myself included—revered “Uncle Pai” for creating a popular avenue to an Indian heritage, however limited. Like many other Indian diaspora kids, my mother brought her own collection when she immigrated to the United States as a 9-year-old in 1973. My family had built a library of some 90 issues by the time I began to read them, tattered from decades of swapping between cousins. When I was a boy growing up in upstate New York, my parents had no Indian friends or nearby relatives. We only spoke in English and ate burritos more often than dal bhat. 

The heroes of ACK became my superheroes long before I discovered Spider-Man or the Flash. They also became my first window into a culture I barely knew. I didn’t care that the protagonists I was reading about were drawn with white skin. I was unaware of the broader, ongoing effort by Hindu nationalists to define a doctrine devaluing lower castes, women, tribal populations, and religious minorities. I didn’t understand how ideals of obedience to authority—something the comics taught—can feed systemic inequality. I was just reading about heroes who made me feel stronger than I was, and who would teach me, I believed, how to be Indian.

* * *

ACK defines Indian identity via stories—which naturally appealed to a bookish child like me who constantly escaped into the worlds of Philip Pullman, Garth Nix, and C.S. Lewis. Most histories in the comics feature virtuous Hindus who fight against evil rulers, an encroaching Muslim horde, or arrogant British imperialists. The religious stories are drawn from (usually Hindu) epics, sacred texts, and folktales, and they frequently weave the same gods and heroes among minor vignettes and massive story arcs. Though many ACK issues could stand alone, roughly 30 pages at a time the series constructed a limited and tonally consistent India sanitized through a distinctively Hindu lens.

While many scholars reject the notion of a single Hindu doctrine, they have some opponents. In 2008, Hindu nationalist students at Delhi University protested the inclusion of A.K. Ramanujan’s landmark essay “Three Hundred Ramayanas” in the history syllabus. The protestors alleged that it demeaned Hinduism to imply nonclassical versions of the epic were equally legitimate. Under a renewed wave of dissent in 2011, the university dropped the essay from the syllabus.

Comment by Riaz Haq on January 31, 2018 at 5:37pm

Mythification of History and ‘Social Common Sense’
By Ram Puniyani

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01122001/40.htm

The discipline of history has come to the center stage of social debate for last two decades. We have witnessed a worsening of inter-community relations and spreading of derogatory myths against minority communities in particular and weaker sections of society in general. The rising tide of communal violence is standing on the myths against the minority community, which are based on a particular interpretation of history. 


In today’s parlance many a myths have assumed the status of unshakable facts. Generally it is assumed that Muslim kings destroyed Hindu temples to spite the Hindus. Today’s ‘social common sense’ believes that not only Somnath temple but also Ram Janm bhumi temple, Kashi Vishwanth temple, the Mathura Krishna Janmasthan and thousands of other temples have been destroyed by the Mughal aggressors. The general and sweeping statement apart let us have a look at some of these demolitions. Mahmud Gazni on way to Somanth encountered the Muslim ruler of Multan (Abdul Fat Dawod), with whom he had to have a battle to cross Multan. In the battle the Jama Masjid of Multan was badly damaged. Further on way he struck compromise with Anandpal, the ruler of Thaneshwar who escorted his army towards Somanth with due hospitality. Gazni’s army had a good number of Hindu soldiers and five out of his 12 generals were Hindus (Tilak, Rai Hind, Sondhi, Hazran etc). Before proceeding to damage the temple he took custody of the gold and jewels, which were part of the temple treasury. After the battle he issued coins in his name with inscriptions in Sanskrit and appointed a Hindu Raja as his representative in Somnath. Similarly Dr. Pattabhi Sitarammaiya in his History of India describes the circumstances under which the Kashi Vishwanth temple had to be razed to the ground. He states that when Aurangzeb’s entourage was on way from Delhi to Kolkata the Hindu queens requested for the overnight stay in Kashi to enable them to have the Darshan of Lord Vishwananth. Next morning one of the queens who had gone to have the holy prayer did not return and was found in the basement of the temple, dishonored and raped by the Mahant of the temple. The Mahant was punished and the temple was razed to the ground as it had become polluted due to this ghastly act. Aurangzeb gave land and state support to build another temple.

It should be noted that Hindu Kings were not far behind in attacking and damaging temples when it became a political necessity for their rule or for the lust of wealth. Retreating Maratha armies destroyed the temple of Srirangtatanm, to humiliate Tipu Sultan whom they could not defeat in the battle. Parmar kings destroyed Jain temples. A Hindu king called Shashank cut off the Bodhi tree where Lord Gautam Buddha got his Nirvana. Similarly Kalhan a Kashmiri poet describes the life of King Harshdev of Kashmir, who appointed a special officer, Devotpatan Nayak (An officer who uproots the images of Gods) to usurp the gold from the temples. Aurangzeb did not hesitate to destroy the Jama Masjid in Golconda as Nawab Tanashah refused to pay him tribute for three consecutive years and hid his wealth underneath a mosque, which was damaged by Aurangzeb to recover his ‘dues’. Also many a Muslim kings gave Jagirs to the temples to keep their subjects happy. It is clear that kings from both the religions destroyed the places of worship for the sake of amassing wealth or for other political purposes.

-----------

the glorification of Shivaji and Rana Pratap for establishing Hindu Kingdoms is a total myth. Rana Pratap was longing for a higher status in the Mughal administration and having been denied that, entered into a battle with Mughal king Akbar. Now this was by no means a fight between Hindus and Muslims. Akbar was represented in the battle by Raja Mansing and an army, which was a mix of Rajput soldiers and Muslim soldiers, while Rana Pratap’s army also had Muslim (Pathan) and Rajput soldiers.

Comment by Riaz Haq on March 15, 2018 at 8:02am

Soni Wadhwa 14 July 2017 Non-Fiction, Reviews
“A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia” by Manan Ahmed Asif

http://asianreviewofbooks.com/content/a-book-of-conquest-the-chachn...


Chachnama, and its discussion of Chach as a just ruler, was incorporated in subsequent regional histories Masum’s Tarikh-i Masumi (1600) and Qani’s Tuhfat ul-Kiram (eighteenth century). Chachnama also finds a mention in Firishta’s history of cluster of regions in India, Gulsham-i Ibrahimi/Tar’ikh (1606-16). It is with Alexander Dow’s summary/translation that Chachnama came to be seen as “exposing” the origins of the “brutal” and “despotic” “Mahommedan empire in India”. Dow’s attempt was a part of larger project of conquest of Sindh by the British. Sindh was annexed to the empire of the East India Company in 1843. James Mill’s History of British India (1817) draws upon Dow’s interpretation to package the political arrival of Arabs as the history of Islam in India and to frame the British rule as enlightened and civilized. The British were manufacturing a Hindu past and thereby a 19th-century present that needed to be “rescued” from the Muslims.



Asif studies the aftermath of Chachnama and argues that it is misunderstood and misclassified as a work of history. It claims to be a translation of an earlier Arabic text but that claim is, as Asif argues, a gesture in gaining currency, legitimacy and authority in the period it was written—the 13th century.

Asif’s critical reading of Chachnama goes on to substantiate his opening sentence: “Beginnings are a seductive necessity”. In claiming to be a work of history, an authentic account that originates in an Arabic text written in 8th century, the author of Chachnama, Ali Kufi, strategically positions his creation to be perceived as carrying a certain magnitude. Asif demonstrates that this self-styling as history cannot be taken at its face value. He systematically makes a case for studying the case as a text of political theory after comparing it with other texts in the genres of so-called “conquest narratives” and “advice literature”.

Chachnama fails on all the points of reference of a conventional conquest narrative. To begin with, it does not describe all the conquests of the protagonist’s, that is, Qasim’s, achievements. The title “Chachnama” itself is inconsistent with a work purported to be about the conquests of Qasim. Asif shows that the text is a work of political theory and is concerned with dos and don’ts of governance, justice, ethics, kingship and warfare:



Chachnama argues that recognizing forms of difference and translating them into politically viable structures allows for communities to coexist. Chachnama’s theory of making difference commensurable and citing precedents is remarkable from a text that is understood as a conquest narrative.

--------------------------

Asif closes his book with the statement, “The stories we tell have consequences” after providing an extraordinary account of the kinds of stories left out of about thirteen centuries of the story of Islam in India: the stories of the women in Chachnama, and the strength of their participation in the definition of right conduct, or the stories of Buddhism, or the stories of the violence that Qasim did not commit.

The nineteenth century distortion of a text continues to have repercussions on national identity and communal harmony in South Asia and all around the world. The notion that Muslims are outsiders and thereby have a separate identity had been the premise behind the demand for the creation of Pakistan. It has also been used by the Hindu right to avenge the “humiliation” of its past. Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion is time and again invoked to provoke and justify terrorist actions. Asif’s book is a timely reminder that the questions of origins cannot be answered categorically and need to scrutinized carefully.

Comment by Riaz Haq on April 28, 2018 at 8:26pm

تحریر:
محمد حارث خان یوسفزئی.

مسلم حکمران اور پروپیگنڈا .

چند سال سے اس ملک کے ٹیلیویژن چینلز پر تعلیم کے نام پر سفید جھوٹ پر مبنی پروگرام چلائے جا رہے ہیں اور یہ باور کرانے کی کوشش ہے کہ جب یورپ میں یونیورسٹیاں کھل رہی تھیں تو مسلم بادشاہ تاج محل اور شالامار باغ بنا رہے تھے.میری یہ تحریر مختلف مصنفین کے متعلقہ کالمز اور پروفیسرز، مورخین یا محققین کی تحقیق کے اس حصہ پر مبنی ہے جو میں نے ذاتی تحقیق کے بعد درست پائے، اس تحریر میں میرے اپنے الفاظ کم اور مندرجہ بالا شخصیات کے الفاظ زیادہ ہیں. تاریخ کی گواہی بعد میں پیش کروں گا پہلے بنیادی عقل کا ایک درس پیش کروں. ان چینلز یا پروگرامز میں اگر کوئی سمجھ بوجھ والا آدمی بیٹھا ہوتا تو اسکو سمجھنے میں یہ مشکل نہیں آتی کہ مسلم دور کی شاندار عمارات جس عظیم تخلیقی صلاحیت سے تعمیر کی گئی، وہ دو چیزوں کے بغیر ممکن نا تھیں. پہلی فن تعمیر کی تفصیلی مہارت، جس میں جیومیٹری، فزکس، کیمسٹری اور ڈھانچے کے خدوخال وضع کرنے تک کے علوم شامل ہوتے ہیں. دوسری کسی ملک کی مضبوط معاشی اور اقتصادی حالت، اس قدر مضبوط کے وہاں کے حکمران شاندار عمارات تعمیر کرنے کا خرچ برداشت کر سکیں. معاشی حوالے سے ہندوستان بالعموم مسلم ادوار اور بالخصوص مغلیہ دور (اکبر - عالگیر) میں دنیا کے کل GDP میں اوسطاً 25% فیصد حصہ رکھتا تھا. در آمدات انتہائی کم اور برآمدات انتہائی زیادہ تھیں اور آج ماہر معاشیات جانتے ہیں کہ کامیاب ملک وہ ہے جس کی برآمدات زیادہ اور درآمدات کم ہوں. سترویں صدی میں فرانسیسی سیاح فرانکیوس برنئیر ہندوستان آیا اور کہتا ہے کہ ہندوستان کے ہر کونے میں سونے اور چاندی کے ڈھیر ہیں. اسی لئے سلطنت مغلیہ ہند کو سونے کی چڑیا کہتے تھے.
اب تعمیرات والے اعتراض کی طرف آتے ہیں. فن تعمیر کی جو تفصیلات تاج محل، شیش محل، شالامار باغ، مقبرہ ہمایوں، دیوان خاص وغیرہ وغیرہ میں نظر آتی ہے، اس سے لگتا ہے کہ انکے معمار جیومیٹری کے علم کی انتہاؤں کو پہنچے ہوئے تھے. تاج محل کے چاروں مینار صرف آدھا انچ باہر کی جانب جھکائے گئے تاکہ زلزلے کی صورت میں گرے تو گنبد تباہ نہ ہوں. مستری کے اینٹیں لگانے سے یہ سب ممکن نہیں، اس میں حساب کی باریکیاں شامل ہیں. پورا تاج محل 90 فٹ گہری بنیادوں پر کھڑا ہے. اس کے نیچے 30 فٹ ریت ڈالی گئی کہ اگر زلزلہ آئے تو پوری عمارت ریت میں گھوم سی جائے اور محفوظ رہے. لیکن اس سے بھی حیرانی کی بات یہ ہے کہ اتنا بڑا شاہکار دریا کے کنارے تعمیر کیا گیا ہے اور دریا کنارے اتنی بڑی تعمیر اپنے آپ میں ایک چیلنج تھی، جس کے لئے پہلی بار ویل فاونڈیشن (well foundation) متعارف کرائی گئی یعنی دریا سے بھی نیچے بنیادیں کھود کر انکو پتھروں اور مصالحہ سے بھر دیا گیا، اور یہ بنیادیں سینکڑوں کی تعداد میں بنائی گئی گویا تاج محل کے نیچے پتھروں کا پہاڑ اور گہری بنیادوں کا وسیع جال ہے، اسطرح تاج محل کو دریا کے نقصانات سے ہمیشہ کے لئے محفوظ کر دیا گیا. عمارت کے اندر داخل ہوتے ہوئے اسکا نظارہ فریب نظر یعنی (Optical illusion ) سے بھرپور ہے. یہ عمارت بیک وقت اسلامی، فارسی، عثمانی، ترکی اور ہندی فن تعمیر کا نمونہ ہے. یہ فیصلہ کرنے کے لئے حساب اور جیومیٹری کی باریک تفصیل درکار ہے. پروفیسر ایبا کوچ (یونیورسٹی آف وینیا) نے حال میں ہی تاج محل کے اسلامی اعتبار سے روحانی پہلو واضح (decode) کئے ہیں.اور بھی کئی راز مستقبل میں سامنے آ سکتے ہیں. انگریز نے تعمیرات میں (well foundation) کا آغاز انیسویں صدی اور (optical illusions) کا آغاز بیسویں صدی میں کیا. جب کے تاج محل ان طریقہ تعمیر کو استعمال کر کے سترھویں صدی کے وسط میں مکمل ہو گیا تھا. آج تاج محل کو جدید مشین اور جدید سائنس کو استعمال کرتے ہوئے بنایا جائے تو 1000 ملین ڈالر لگنے کے باوجود ویسا بننا تقریباً ناممکن ہے. 'ٹائل موزیک' فن ہے ، جس میں چھوٹی چھوٹی رنگین ٹائلوں سے دیوار پر تصویریں بنائی جاتی اور دیوار کو منقش کیا جاتا ہے. یہ فن لاہور کے شاہی قلعے کی ایک کلومیٹر لمبی منقش دیوار اور مسجد وزیرخان میں نظر آتا ہے. ان میں جو رنگ استعمال ہوئے، انکو بنانے کے لئے آپ کو موجودہ دور میں پڑھائی جانے والی کیمسٹری کا وسیع علم ہونا چاہئیے. یہی حال فریسکو پینٹنگ کا ہے، جن کے رنگ چار سو سال گزرنے کے باوجود آجتک مدہم نہیں ہوئے . تمام مغل ادوار میں تعمیر شدہ عمارتوں میں ٹیرا کوٹا (مٹی کو پکانے کا فن) سے بنے زیر زمین پائپ ملتے ہیں. ان سے سیوریج اور پانی کی ترسیل کا کام لیا جاتا تھا. کئی صدیاں گزرنے کے باوجود یہ اپنی اصل حالت میں موجود ہیں. مسلم فن تعمیر کا مکمل علم حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کی جائے اور موجودہ دور کے سائنسی پیمانوں پر ایک نصاب کی صورت تشکیل دیا جائے تو صرف ایک فن تعمیر کو مکمل طور پر سیکھنے کے لیے پی ایچ ڈی (phd) کی کئی ڈگریاں درکار ہوں گی. کیا یہ سب کچھ اس ہندوستان میں ہو سکتا تھا، جس میں جہالت کا دور دورہ ہو اور جس کے حکمرانوں کو علم سے نفرت ہو؟؟ یہ مسلم نظام تعلیم ہی تھا جو سب کے لئے یکساں تھا، جہاں سے بیک وقت عالم، صوفی، معیشت دان، طبیب، فلسفی، حکمران اور انجینئر نکلتے تھے. شیخ احمد سرہندی رح ہوں یا جھانگیر ہو یا استاد احمد لاہوری ہو، یہ سب مختلف گھرانوں سے تعلق رکھنے کے باوجود ایک ہی تعلیمی نظام میں پروان چڑھے، اسی لئے ان سب کی سوچ انسانی مفاد کی تھی.
مزید بھی میں مغربی مصنفین کی گواہی پیش کروں گا، اسلئے کہ میرے ان "عظیم" صاحبان علم کو کسی مسلمان یا لوکل مصنف کی گواہی سے بھی بو آتی ہے. ول ڈیورانٹ مغربی دنیا کس مشہور ترین مورخ اور فلاسفر ہے. وہ اپنی کتاب story of civilization میں مغل ہندوستان کے بارے میں لکھتا ہے: "ہر گاوں میں ایک سکول ماسٹر ہوتا تھا، جسے حکومت تنخواہ دیتی تھی. انگریزوں کی آمد سے پہلے صرف بنگال میں 80 ہزار سکول تھے. ہر 400 افراد پر ایک سکول ہوتا تھا. ان سکولوں میں 6 مضامین پڑھائے جاتے تھے. گرائمر، آرٹس اینڈ کرافٹس، طب، فلسفہ، منطق اور متعلقہ مذہبی تعلیمات. " اس نے اپنی ایک اور کتاب A Case For India میں لکھا کہ مغلوں کے زمانے میں صرف مدراس کے علاقے میں ایک لاکھ 25 ہزار ایسے ادارے تھے، جہاں طبی علم پڑھایا جاتا اور طبی سہولیات میسر تھیں. میجر ایم ڈی باسو نے برطانوی راج اور اس سے قبل کے ہندوستان پر بہت سی کتب لکھیں. وہ میکس مولر کے حوالے سے لکھتا ہے "بنگال میں انگریزوں کے آنے سے قبل وہاں 80 ہزار مدرسے تھے". اورنگزیب عالمگیر رح کے زمانے میں ایک سیاح ہندوستان آیا' جس کا نام الیگزینڈر ہملٹن تھا، اس نے لکھا کہ صرف ٹھٹھہ شہر میں علوم و فنون سیکھانے کے 400 کالج تھے. میجر باسو نے تو یہاں تک لکھا ہے کہ ہندوستان کے عام آدمی کی تعلیم یعنی فلسفہ، منطق اور سائنس کا علم انگلستان کے رئیسوں حتیٰ کہ بادشاہ اور ملکہ سے بھی زیادہ ہوتا تھا. جیمز گرانٹ کی رپورٹ یاد رکھے جانے کے قابل ہے. اس نے لکھا " تعلیمی اداروں کے نام جائیدادیں وقف کرنے کا رواج دنیا بھر میں سب سے پہلے مسلمانوں نے شروع کیا. 1857ء میں جب انگریز ہندوستان پر مکمل قابض ہوئے تو اس وقت صرف روحیل کھنڈ کے چھوٹے سے ضلع میں، 5000 اساتذہ سرکاری خزانے سے تنخواہیں لیتے تھے." مذکورہ تمام علاقے دہلی یا آگرہ جیسے بڑے شہروں سے دور مضافات میں واقع تھے. انگریز اور ہندو مورخین اس بات پر متفق ہیں کہ تعلیم کا عروج عالمگیر رح کے زمانے میں اپنی انتہا کو پہنچا. عالمگیر رح نے ہی پہلی دفعہ تمام مذاہب کے مقدس مذہبی مقامات کے ساتھ جائیدادیں وقف کیں. سرکار کی جانب سے وہاں کام کرنے والوں کے لئے وظیفے مقرر کئے. اس دور کے 3 ہندو مورخین سجان رائے کھتری، بھیم سین اور ایشور داس بہت معروف ہیں. سجان رائے کھتری نے "خلاصہ التواریخ"، بھیم سین نے "نسخہ دلکشا" اور ایشور داس نے "فتوحات عالمگیری" لکھی. یہ تینوں ہندو مصنفین متفق تھے کہ عالمگیر نے پہلی دفعہ ہندوستان میں طب کی تعلیم پر ایک مکمل نصاب بنوایا اور طب اکبر، مفرح القلوب، تعریف الامراض، مجربات اکبری اور طب نبوی جیسی کتابیں ترتیب دے کر کالجوں میں لگوائیں تاکہ اعلیٰ سطح پر صحت کی تعلیم دی جا سکے. یہ تمام کتب آج کے دور کے MBBS نصاب کے ہم پلہ ہیں. اورنگزیب سے کئی سو سال پہلے فیروز شاہ نے دلی میں ہسپتال قائم کیا، جسے دارالشفاء کہا جاتا تھا. عالمگیر نے ہی کالجوں میں پڑھانے کے لیے نصابی کتب طب فیروزشاہی مرتب کرائی. اس کے دور میں صرف دلی میں سو سے زیادہ ہسپتال تھے.
تاریخ سے ایسی ہزاروں گواہیاں پیش کی جا سکتی ہیں. ہو سکے تو لاہور کے انارکلی مقبرہ میں موجود ہر ضلع کی مردم شماری رپورٹ ملاحظہ فرمالیں. آپکو ہر ضلع میں شرح خواندگی 80% سے زیادہ ملے گی جو اپنے وقت میں بین الاقوامی سطح پر سب سے زیادہ تھی، لیکن انگریز جب یہ ملک چھوڑ کر گیا تو صرف 10% تھی. بنگال 1757ء میں فتح کیا اور اگلے 34 برسوں میں سبھی سکول و کالج کھنڈر بنا دیئے گئے. ایڈمنڈ بروک نے یہ بات واضح کہی تھی کہ ایسٹ انڈیا کمپنی نے مسلسل دولت لوٹی جس وجہ سے ہندوستان بدقسمتی کی گہرائی میں جاگرا. پھر اس ملک کو تباہ کرنے کے لئے لارڈ کارنیوالس نے 1781ء میں پہلا دینی مدرسہ کھولا. اس سے پہلے دینی اور دنیاوی تعلیم کی کوئی تقسیم نہ تھی. ایک ہی مدرسہ میں قرآن بھی پڑھایا جاتا تھا، فلسفہ بھی اور سائنس بھی. یہ تاریخ کی گواہیاں ہیں. لیکن اشتہار و پروگرام بنانے والے جھوٹ کا کاروبار کرنا چاہے تو انہیں یہ باطل اور مرعوب نظام نہیں روکتا.
مجھے دہلی جانے کا اتفاق ہوا ہے اور ان تعمیرات کا مشاہدہ کیا ہے، آپ یقین کیجئیے کہ ان عمارات کے سحر سے نکلنا ایک مشکل کام ہوتا تھا اور فخر اور حیرانی ہوتی تھی کہ ان ادوار میں مشین کا وجود نا ہونے کے باوجود ایسے شاہکار تعمیر کرنا ناممکن لگتا ہے. لاہور میں مغلیہ فن تعمیر پر کبھی نظر دوڑائیے، آپ انجینئرنگ کے کارناموں پر محو حیرت رہے گے کیونکہ جب یورپ یونیورسٹیاں بنا رہا تھا تو یہاں وہ تعلیمات عام ہو چکی تھیں. لیکن یہ موجودہ ظالم نظام جہاں ہمیں اپنی اعانت کے لئے اپنا کلرک بناتا ہے وہاں ہماری عظیم تاریخ کو بھی مبہم بناتا ہے.
تحریر کا اختتام کرنے کے لئے بہت کچھ ہے لیکن ایک سنہری قول سے اختتام کروں گا. امام وقت حضرت اقدس مولانا شاہ سعید احمد رائےپوری نور اللہ مرقدہ فرمایا کرتے تھے "آج مسلمانوں کی سب سے بڑی کمزوری یہ ہے کہ انہیں ذرائع ابلاغ (Media) کا پروپیگنڈا بہا کے لے جاتا ہے ."..

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 15, 2018 at 9:47pm

#India deputy rep at #UN: #Indian civilization built on "waves of #migration". "Science confirms that all of us are migrants. The deep and the more recent history of our migration and mixed ancestry is, in fact, recorded in our genes," http://toi.in/7i9GCa49/a24gk via @timesofindia

India has acknowledged here at an international forum that its civilization was built upon successive waves of migration like most countries and it was a scientific fact.
"The Indian civilization has been built upon successive waves of migration throughout history comprising traders, soldiers, missionaries, communities escaping persecution, artists and academics and artisans seeking better opportunities," India's Deputy Permanent Representative Tanmaya Lal said on Monday.
"This mega diversity of our peoples is among our greatest strength," he said at a session of the intergovernmental negotiations on a global compact on migration.
The statement comes amid heated debates in India about historic migrations, some that happened eons ago.
Lal did not get into the debate or into the specific theories or peoples, but made a general statement, which mentioned "soldiers" among the wave of migrants.
He pointed out that migrations were a global phenomenon throughout history and nations have emerged through this inter-mingling.
"Most nation states and societies have been built upon waves of migration over the past several centuries," he said.
"Science confirms that all of us are migrants. The deep and the more recent history of our migration and mixed ancestry is, in fact, recorded in our genes," Lal added.
"Migration has continued to expand and is now aided by the integration of economies over the last few decades," he said.
Speaking of the benefits to the world through migration, he cited the example of Mahatma Gandhi, who studied in England and worked in South Africa, saying he is "among the most well-known international migrants who contributed hugely to our collective progress."
Lal also mentioned the many Nobel Prize-winners of Indian descent "who made seminal contribution to science" as well as foreign-born scientists, inventors, businesspersons, artistes, sportspersons, authors, academics, doctors and political leaders "who have made an indelible mark not only on societies where they lived but globally." 

Negotiations are taking place for a global agreement to facilitate safe, orderly and regular international migration that is to be concluded in December in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Lal tried to dispel what he considered two widely held misconceptions about India and migrations

While India is considered to be among the top countries of origin for migrants globally, the rate of emigration from India is less than half of the world's average, he said.
"It is much lesser known and appreciated that India is also among the major countries of destination, as also a transit country, for migrants largely from our neighbourhood," he added. 

Comment by Riaz Haq on August 23, 2018 at 7:06pm

Muslims in Sanskrit texts
Kuldeep Kumar


https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/muslims-in-sanskrit-te...

A study of the works of historians Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya and Audrey Trushke suggests that the Muslim ‘other’ was really not so much ‘other’


Romila Thapar, the pre-eminent historian of early India, drew attention in her various lectures and articles to the schema of periodisation suggested by James Mill in the early nineteenth century that saw Indian society emerging out of three periods –Hindu, Muslim and British. While he divided the pre-British history on the basis of religion, he did not term the British period as Christian and set the colonial paradigm of viewing the period of Muslim’s arrival in India as one of permanent struggle between the native Hindus and the invader Muslims. Unfortunately, this colonial paradigm continues to be followed by the Hindu nationalists even till this day.

Seminal research

While acknowledging the pioneering work done by Thapar, who wrote in 1971 on the image of barbarian in early India, and by Aloka Parasher who wrote on a monograph on the category of people called Mlechchhas and about the way Indians looked at the outsiders up to 600 AD, Chattopadhyaya devotes his research to the period that falls between the eighth and the fourteenth centuries.

It is a noteworthy fact that the Sanskrit texts and inscriptions of these six centuries rarely referred to the Muslims in religious terms. Instead, ethnic or regional terms were generally employed to refer to them.

They included terms such as Turushka, Tajika, Mlechchha, Parasika, Yavana, Hammira, Gori, Turaka, Matanga and Garjanaka. Only in Veraval inscription of the time of Vaghela Arjunadeva, issued in the year 1264, one finds the term Musalmaana used to denote the Muslims.

Between fifteenth and seventeenth centuries too, Yavana, Shaka and Turushka were used but new words like Pathana, Mugil, Sultana and Patrishaha also made their appearance. Interestingly, Allavadina (Alauddin Khilji) was referred to as Dillishwar and Yavana and his soldiers were called Turushka. There are ample references in the Sanskrit texts of this period to the forging of political alliances between Yavana rulers and local or regional rulers who too were described not as Hindus but by their family names like Kakatiyas or Pandyas.

In fact, in the circa 1330 AD inscription of Vilasa (Pithapuram, East Godavari district) grant of Prolaya Nayaka, the Delhi Sultan – often Sultan was Sanskritised as Suratran – who brought calamity to the Andhradesha, was viewed as somebody who was carrying on the tradition of Parashurama in his role as the destroyer of the kshatriyas!

A meticulous and erudite scholar, Chattopadhyaya after discussing a great many Sanskrit sources in detail arrives at the conclusion that they “do not project the image of the Muslims as an undifferentiated ‘other’.” It is also significant that they do not represent them as a religious group and choose to identify them on the basis of their ethnic or spatial origins. Indian society was not unfamiliar with ‘otherness’ as there were so many ‘others’ like the tribals and lower castes that were outside the pale of the Brahmanical order and whose moral world was incompatible with the caste-based varnashrama dharma. Therefore, if one believes the contemporary Sanskrit sources, the engagement between the Muslims and the indigenous people took place at various levels. “A situation of unmitigated hostility and conflict through centuries would not have produced the kind of evidence that we have cited,” writes Chattopadhyaya.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 4, 2018 at 7:25am

In India and Pakistan, religion makes one country’s hero the other’s villain
By Haroon Khalid

https://qz.com/india/1398093/why-aurangzeb-is-a-hero-in-pakistan-an...

At the entrance of the [Badshahi Masjid in Lahore] are some pictures from the colonial era. They show the mosque’s dilapidated condition after having served as a horse stable during the Sikh era.

[…]

The pictures narrate the story of the mosque, of the benevolence of the “just and fair” colonial empire that returned its control to the rightful inheritors—the Muslims of the city. It narrates the story of colonial historiography, the categorisation of history into Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and British eras, pitting epochs, communities, religions, and histories against one other, and in the process creating new classifications that might not have been there at the start. History is used as a political tool, an excuse, a justification for the imposition of colonial rule. The British were needed to rescue the Muslims from the Sikhs, the Hindus from the Muslims, the Dravidians from the Aryans, the Dalits from the Brahmins, the past from the present.

The narrative continues to unfold even today, throughout south Asia, as modern sensibilities are imposed on historical characters, making heroes out of them, of imagined communities. The Mughal rule, for example, in this narrative became a symbol of the oppressive Muslim “colonialism” of India, as foreign to the Indian subcontinent as British rule, while figures such as Chhatrapati Shivaji were representative of Hindu indigenous resistance. Just like the British, everything Muslim was deemed “foreign,” alien to the Indian subcontinent, a coercive historical anomaly that ruptured the Indian, read Hindu, civilization. In this narrative there was room for Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs within the fold of Hindu nationalism, but not for the Muslims, the successors of foreign occupation.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Muslims too looked back to a “glorious” past when this infidel land was ruled by one true force. This imagined memory became the basis of laying down future plans, with one group determined to uproot all vestiges of foreign influence, and the other wanting to take inspiration from the past to reclaim lost glory. The British, in the meantime, were more than eager to perpetuate this communalisation of history for it provided them with a justification to govern as arbitrators, as correctors of historical injustices.

In this communalisation of history, emperor Aurangzeb (1618–1707) bears the dubious distinction of being blamed for the downfall of the mighty Mughal empire due to his intolerance, a product of his puritanical interpretation of religion. It is believed that during his long rule, which saw the expansion of the Mughal empire to its zenith, Aurangzeb isolated several of his key Hindu allies because of his religious policies. Ever since the time of Emperor Akbar, jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects in a Muslim empire for their protection, stood abolished. It was reintroduced by Aurangzeb, adding to the grievances of his Hindu subjects, including his Rajput allies, whose support to the Mughal throne had been crucial to its stability throughout Mughal history. Also, Aurangzeb’s protracted campaign in the Deccan was perceived as his vainglorious attempt to expand his autocratic rule, which put such a burden on the state that it quickly unravelled after his death.


As evidence of Aurangzeb’s intolerance, it is argued that he demolished several Hindu temples. Sikh history notes how he ordered the assassination of the ninth Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur, for his sympathy to the Kashmiri Brahmins. The Mughal-Sikh conflict continued with Guru Tegh Bahadur’s son, Guru Gobind Singh, who waged several battles with the powerful Mughal army. The staunchest opposition to Aurangzeb came from the Marathas in the south, under the leadership of Shivaji.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page