Recently, I came across this very illuminating article from 1994, by Dharma Kumar, 'Left Secularists and Communalism'. It is on the subject of 'Left-Secularists' writing history for the sake of intervention in current politics. It explains everything about Left-Secularists' history writing.
Linked here : https://jstor.org/stable/4401462 [Preview below]
Since this article was written in 1994, academia and activists have become more muscled in their approach to pressing social justice narratives, not just on historical periods being interpreted, but also on the modern day discussants of history (or any subject, even science). Any disagreement with a social justice minded historian will get you labelled a fascist or Nazi, while YOU get accused of making personal attacks, strangely.
Audrey Truschke in the community of Leftist historians is like Donald Trump in the Republican Party. She was supposed to play Leftist history writing as a genteel shell game not obvious to the eye, not as the 'in your face' brash con game as she does.
Be that as it may, where does all this leave us? I think Leftist historians in the social justice era have created a dead end of misrepresentations which secular practicing Hindus cannot in conscience accept, just as they cannot accept gross misrepresentations of Hindutva ideologues.
To explain.
Leftists in writing Indian history insist that Hindus and Muslims always lived in harmony with syncretism before colonialism (please see Dharma Kumar, link above). They write that when Muslim rulers over several centuries broke idols, looted temples, imposed discriminatory oppressive policies on Hindus, their motivations were material/political or arose from a sense of “justice”. A religious motivation is only assigned very rarely, if ever. Any overt religious motivation was declared as a fake feigned one, a mere pretense by the ruler to keep mullahs happy or to justify one’s rule. [Truschke/Aurangzeb, Romilla Thapar/Somnath]
Harmony and syncretism may have been broadly true of the general public. There is enough documentation to show that there was no harmony or syncretism in the effect on Hindu subjects of most Muslim rulers' discriminatory actions and decrees, whether in time of war or in a settled realm. Muslim rulers were not paragons of religious pluralism as Leftists try to claim with remarkable rigidity.
This tough as steel framing of 'Hindu and Muslim harmony during the approximately 1000-1800 AD Muslim era' by Leftist historians (mostly hollow, not addressed here) has these modern-day implications.
1. From the Leftist historian's point of view, no Muslim ruler, whether in breaking idols, destroying temples, imposing harsh restrictions on Hindu religious practices, or in imposing discriminatory oppressive laws adversely affecting Hindus, ever committed injustices or violated religious rights of their Hindu subjects. If they had, Leftist historians would have stated it as so -they are very vocal on rights violations. They have never stated it as so.
Leftists state that if anything, Muslim rulers did Hindus a big social justice favor whenever they wiped out Hindu temples, broke idols and ended Hindu religious practice, as the Brahmins were ‘oppressive’ or 'manipulative' or 'greedy'. Maybe, but no one is breaking churches due to the Catholic child molestation scandal.
Muslim iconoclasts were not Hindu reformers. It is Leftist fiction to imply they were. And when qazis and mullahs were reported in historical documents as 'oppressive', 'manipulative' or 'greedy' during particular episodes (such as during Aurangzeb's reign), should we accept that the destruction of mosques and places of Islamic religious learning would have been justice. If so, why wasn't it carried out?
The Leftists do say that Brahmins during Muslim rule were oppressive. You can imagine how oppressive they were because again, in contrast, the Leftists never ever say that, ever, about any Muslim rulers from 1000-1800 AD. So Brahmins who assisted Hindu pilgrims in religious practices and taught philosophies of Hinduism to all those came to learn in their schools were oppressive, while the Muslim rulers who broke idols, prevented Hindus from worshiping in temples, or from approaching Brahmins for rituals or religious learning, or who imposed oppressive taxes on Hindus for centuries or decades, were not oppressive, never.
Whether the smallest idol breaking incident(Hindu, Jain, Buddhist) to the largest temple demolition with a mosque rebuilt on ruins or the most excessive religious tax, ever, in the entire 1000-1800 AD period, Leftists have NEVER said that Muslim rulers might have been oppressive. Brahmins, yes. Their Muslim rulers, no, never. Will never get through peer review.
Leftists will call you oppressive on the basis of one tweet, but will never term even a single Muslim ruler oppressive ever, even for a day in the 1000s or in the 1600s, even after a very well-documented 50 year reign(Aurangzeb), or more than half a dozen temple looting forays (Ghaznavi), for instance.
2. For Hindus, this steel framing (of Hindu and Muslim harmony during the approximately 1000-1800 AD Muslim era) offers only two options.
First option: denounce the so-called oppression by Brahmins, celebrate Muslim rulers' social justice actions of temple destruction and suppression of Hindu religious practice. Never, ever, point to egregious well documented events and say that the particular Muslim ruler was unjust, oppressive or bigoted towards Hindus or Jains or Buddhists or Sikhs, on those occasions (any incident from 1000-1800 AD).
Assert the opposite, falsify history to be accepted. Critically examine your privilege and the flaws of Hinduism that caused Muslim rulers to deliver “justice” as they did. If Hindus had not been idol worshipers or not been following a 'Brahmanical religion', Indian Muslim rulers, being fonts of justice, would never have done what they did. In essence, dhimmify yourself - as a Hindu, adopt the value system of others, not your own.
Second option: term the episodes when Muslim rulers’ destroyed temples and imposed discriminatory oppressive laws against Hindus, (whatever the Muslim rulers’ motivations), as religious rights violations. It was hardly unusual in the world in those times. Accept being labeled a communal Nazi or fascist for this simple choice. Accepting every Muslim ruler in medieval or pre-modern era, bar none, as pluralist in all those 800 years is the litmus test for you not be fascist. It doesn't matter if your own community has living memories or there is community history or archeology as corroboration of Muslim depredations on Hindus/Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs/others.
So how about social justice. Don't practicing secular Hindus want social justice? Why make a big deal about religious rights 500 years ago when other Hindus feel discriminated against today? Speaking for myself, secular practicing Hindus do want social justice. I look up to the Indian Constitution which outlaws caste discrimination and declares all citizens are equal, as the binding social contract among Hindus. The social contract of the Indian Constitution also, for instance, decreed take over of Hindu temples by government appointed bodies to prevent perpetuation of caste discrimination. The Indian Constitution has provided legitimacy to multiple large affirmative action programs in education, employment and political representation.
The Indian Constitution's social contract does not require a practicing Hindu to abandon Hinduism or lie about the past to show support for social equality.
Hindu religious scriptures and commentaries by Hindu religious teachers through the ages provide enough basis for a religious believer to consider social equality and religious equality as entirely consistent with Hindu belief. The Divine is indivisible, and the goal of self-realization or moksha or eternal bliss is the much sought for realization that the divine, oneself and all beings are part of the same whole. This realization frees a Hindu from the cycle of birth and death.
Striving for this goal continues in a Hindu's life through fulfilling duties to family, through ethical conduct, meditation, prayer (including idol worship), rituals, pilgrimages, good works and religious studies. There is no contradiction between accepting the equality of all and Hindu belief.
Both the Indian and the US Constitution guarantee the right of religion to Hindus just as to everyone else.
What makes the social justice activists among historians and others demand that Hindus alone virtually disown their personal religious traditions to achieve social justice goals, including when discussing the depredations on Hindu religious practice by policies of medieval and pre-modern Muslim rulers? Are social justice activists supra-constitutional entities or are they merely abusive individuals?
How about secularism and pluralism? Don't secular-minded Indian Hindus want their Muslim compatriots to be safe from the weaponizing of history by Hindutva bigots? If 800 years worth of Muslim rulers are held to be pluralistic, if long dead Hindus are slandered, if idol breaking is projected as a social justice measure, it has no bearing on the present, except to protect Muslims and get Leftists tenure. Why are these white lies such a big problem?
Firstly, as I said, today's Leftists are practicing a brash in-your-face con on ordinary Hindus going about their business instead of the genteel academic shell game of the past, which most lay people ignored.
If just being Hindu refusing to disown one's religious beliefs while disagreeing with Leftists social justice history writing invites labels of Nazi and fascist, the scheme of preserving secularism, pluralism and communal harmony is failing.
Hindus cannot be wished away, whether by Leftists or evangelists. Then there are the effects of this con on Hindu-Muslim relations to worry about.
3. For Muslims, everything in Leftist history of "Hindu and Muslim harmony during the approximately 1000-1800 AD Muslim era" is perfect and without issues, whether viewed in a religious or secular light.
If viewed religiously, Muslim rulers earned great religious merit in their pious aggression against idol worship and in reigning in depravities of Hindus and Hinduism. From writings of many medieval and pre pre-modern Muslim writers, idol worship and Hinduism in general were viewed as depravities in themselves based on Islamic religious principles.
If viewed in a secular light, then too, Muslim rulers did great- they earned great social justice merit in destroying idols and ending the power of Brahmins, reigning in depravities of Hindus and Hinduism, and spreading the counter influence of Islam. Hinduism is obviously an oppressive superstition when seen through peer reviewed social justice viewpoints.
Whether medieval and pre-modern Muslim rulers’ are viewed in context of their times or in context of modern times, only hate mongers would find fault with their just actions in the past. After all, while the temples today still lie in ruins, the graves of those who helped destroy them are still revered, with yearly urs and festivals, and Hindus come to revere them too. Grave worship is meritorious and secular but why can't Hindus end their adherence to the superstition of Hindu idol worship? Why don’t they build toilets instead? (I've heard this one).
Unlike Hindus, there is nothing in the past or the present that says Muslims have to critically examine their scriptures, or their past or present. Idol breaking and oppressive taxes were no big deal. The Prophet broke idols - it was a great thing for his religion.
Violation of religious rights of Hindus was a favor to them. The lucky ones converted to Islam and were saved. Read Iqbal if you have any doubts. Muslim fighters of the past were all heroes who left the precious legacy of Islam and conquest to present day Muslims.
The Muslims of the past did the correct things, and Muslims of the present are in the right today as well. If idols are broken today, or the destruction by say, Khilji or Ghaznavi are thrown in today's ignorant Hindus' faces as taunts, it is just the curbed enthusiasm of the faith to serve Islam, save Hindus from eternal hellfire, much as that of Christian missionaries who try to convert Hindus every day of the week. And it is Muslims' constitutional right to hold these beliefs and propagate them.
Meanwhile, specialists on South Asian religion should never mention the large landowning Muslim pirs whose lands are served by 1000s of landless laborers and who are worshiped by entire regions as living divines. It is fine for such living divines to also be a Foreign Minister or Interior Minister of Pakistan or one of its rich elite living in walled homes.
Unlike the oppressive Brahmin earning Rs. 5 for every ritual in the Hindu temple, the US/UK educated Armani/Hermes clad Pakistani elite are egalitarian, as you've been assured by them in smooth polished tones. No social justice talk to rich Muslim divines or the invitations will end.
4. Meanwhile, no consideration is shown, either by Leftist historians, or from today’s Muslim discussants, of the practical fact that Hindus still worship idols, perform Hindu religious rituals in temples, acquire/propagate Hindu religious learning among themselves and today’s Indian Muslims have to find a sustainable way to peacefully coexist with all that.
Neither the Leftists’ steel framing of "Hindu and Muslim harmony during the approximately 1000-1800 AD Muslim era" nor the Muslims’ secular or religious view on history of Muslim rulers’ idol breaking and discrimination allows peaceful coexistence today. That is because Leftists’ and Muslims’ disdain for idol worshiping Hindus based either on Islamic principles or so called modern social justice principles offers no space for peace with those Hindus.
Yet many of them tout India’s composite culture and syncretism! Am curious, what do Leftists and disdainful Muslim discussants want secular practicing idol worshiping Hindus to do, who are unwilling to lie and falsify history, who are unwilling to accept historic or current violations of their religious rights as justified or to accept abusive anti-Hindu disdain of social justice activists as deserved? Leftists and Muslims leave no viable options.
If Leftists weren't 'in your face' about their disdain, we could just get on with life. Since they are aggressive, it is best to take time to understand the phenomenon, arm yourself with knowledge, and then get on with life.
No comments:
Post a Comment