The Savage History Of Jihad In India
By Maha Sabah
Mr. Sabah is of the muslim faith. Editors’s Note: Jihad In India met ferocious resistance from the Sikh Faith. The Sikhs and the Islamic invaders fought for nearly 300 years and at the end of the period the Sikhs had prevailed. Ahmed Shah Abdali made the last of his eleven invasions into India around 1763 and returned disheartened never to return to India again. Effectively, a long period of muslim domination of India had come to an end.
The prime characteristic of Islam and Christianity is the denial of individual conscience. They are systems which are based on complete coercion. If you are not a Muslim or a Christian you will go to hell. Throughout history whenever these two religions have gained the upper hand they have committed horrific barbarities against people who are not adherents. Sikhs in the Punjab must understand the historical record of Christianity and understand the fundamental intolerance of this religion as it tries to deceive it’s way into the Punjab. Extreme caution is urged. Due to the well known historical record of Islamic conversions in Punjab, muslims refrain from attempting conversion here. Sikhs are not aware of the sordid killing history of Christians.
Note On The Picture Above: At the Battle of Chamkaur Sahib, 40 Sikhs fought the army of the Emperor Aurangzeb said to number about 100,000 soldiers. Aurangzeb was a notorious fanatic who carried on a lifelong policy of forced conversions. The picture shows Sahibzadah Ajit Singh, aged 17 years, engaging the enemy. In this battle, Sahibzadah Fateh Singh aged 14 also laid down his life in battle. This battle ranks as the absolute apex of Sikh heroism. Prologue: Sufi Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), wrote several letters to the courtiers of Akbar and Jehangir protesting their “liberal policies towards Hindus” Here is an excerpt from letter No. 163: “…The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya (editor’s note: religious head tax) on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam…” Forced Conversions to Islam
In his “Discovery of India” Jawaharlal Nehru (erstwhile Prime Minister Of India)
appears to attribute the conversion of Hindus to Islam to Islam’s purported egalitarian character and hence its ‘mass appeal’: ” The idea of brotherhood of Islam and of the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal, especially those of the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.”
But strangely, India’s demographic data stands in complete contradiction to such a conclusion. From Punjab and Haryana in the North to the Gangetic Plains, and to Bengal, Hindu communities include members of all castes – including those that should have been most amenable to conversions to Islam. If Islam had truly been perceived as the vehicle for liberation from a petrified caste society as Nehru had claimed, surely there could be no Hindus left at the lower ends of the caste spectrum – especially after five centuries of Islamic rule.
Furthermore, such a speculation appears to be contradicted by another of Nehru’s assertion (concerning Muslim Rajputs) which seems more historically accurate: “It is worth noting as a rule, conversions to Islam were group conversions…Among the upper castes individuals may change their religion…almost an entire village would convert…group life as well as well as their functions continued as before with only minor variations with regards worship etc.”
If entire villages converted and maintained their former practices, how could the conversion have had any tangible effect on any prevalent social hierarchies? Moreover, as Nehru himself implied, the conversion of the lower castes followed the conversion of the upper-castes such as the Rajputs. This is quite in line with the observations of Arab historian Ibn Khaldun who noted that conversions to Islam amongst the masses followed the conversion of the elites. In other words, the subjects followed the religion of the rulers – and not the other way around, as was gratuitously implied by Nehru.
Yet, such an ahistorical view has continued to receive wide currency, and has been echoed by numerous Indian intellectuals and government-supported historians and has been reinforced by another commonly held notion that Hindus converted to Islam peacefully and voluntarily and were won over by enlightened Sufis.
In fact, a careful perusal of the historical record suggests that the observations of Ibn Khaldun apply as much to India as they did to North Africa and the Middle East. Surviving records point to most conversions being preceded by military victories by Islamic invaders or local interlopers. While some conversions may have been of a purely voluntary nature, most were coerced, or were, at least of an opportunist character. Furthermore, the historical record provides numerous instances of conversions that were a result of violent terror or blackmail.
And unsurprisingly, when Islamic invaders/rulers left or were subsequently defeated, the converted population returned almost en masse to their former faiths.
Referring to statements made by E. Denison Ross (who along with Eileen Power wrote and edited a 26 volume series on India: The Broadway Travellers),
K.S. Lal concludes that after the recall of the Arab General bin Qasem from Sindh, Islamic power in Sindh declined rapidly and the neo-converts reverted to their original faith. Battle Of Chamkaur Sahib Picture: courtesy of Sikhi Art That mass conversions to Islam took place after violent invasions and massacres is documented by several historians of the Khalji period (late 12th-13th C) including K.S. Lal. When Bakhtiar Khalji marched into Bihar and destroyed the university centers at Nalanda, Vikramshila and Odantapuri (Magadh) and massacred the Buddhist monks, the Buddhist masses turned to Islam or Brahminism. K.S. Lal also refers to Malik Kafur, the victorious general of Alauddin Khalji, who gave the Raja of Dwarsamudra a choice between Islam, death or payment of a huge idemnity.
Such threats were neither uncharacteristic nor unusual.
K.S. Lal notes how during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq there was even greater insistence on the vanquished Hindu princes to embrace Islam. During the Warangal campaign all the eleven sons of the Raja of Kampila were forced to become Muslims.
In the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, it is recorded that when Firoz Tughlaq invaded Jajnagar (Orissa), he captured the son of the Rai of Sikhar, converted him to Islam, and gave him the name of Shakr Khan. During his campaigns in the Saurasthra region of Gujarat, Mahmud Beghara attacked the Raja of Girnar in 1469, even though he had been paying regular tribute. Although he offered considerable resistance, he was eventually compelled to convert to Islam and was bestowed the title ‘Khan-i-Jahan’. In 1473, the Raja of Champaner died in a valiant attempt to fend off an attack, following which his son was forcibly converted to Islam and given the title ‘Nizam-ul-Mulk’.
Such practices continued during Mughal rule under Jehangir, Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb.
In the Gangetic plain, when local Hindu chieftains or royal feudatories were subjugated after they had rebelled against the Mughal authorities (or their agents), they were coerced into converting, (along with their clans and other loyal followers).
Forcible conversion during war became common iduring the reign of Shah Jehan. When Shuja was appointed governor of Kabul, the rebellion of Jujhar Singh yielded a rich crop of Muslim converts, mostly minors. His young son Durga and his grandson Durjan Sal were both converted to become Imam Quli and Ali Quli
It is therefore no surprise, that in UP (prior to partition) there were as many (or more) Muslims amongst the landlords and the elites than amongst the lower castes. Scheduled castes who were considered impure because they handled corpses or performed janitorial duties were looked down upon by the Muslims elites no less than their Hindu counterparts.
In contrast, when local rulers were successful in resisting the Islamic rulers, there is simply no record of any conversions having taken place. For instance, the Kateheriyas of the Bareilly/Aonla region remained undefeated till the reign of Akbar, but it was only when Bareilly fell to the Afghan Rohillas that there is any notable record of conversions to Islam.
Likewise, in Gonda and Bahraich, there was staunch resistance to the Islamic invaders.
At different points in time, rulers emerged from amongst the local tribes and castes and during Mughal rule, Raja Dutt Singh refused to pay taxes to the Mughal authorities.Later Raja Jai Singh of Gonda refused to pay the customary tribute to the Nawabs of Awadh. After his death in battle, his wife Rani Phul Singh administered the region for some months before she was murdered by rivals to the throne.Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/history-of-sikhism/28893-the-savage-history-of-jihad-india.html
Because there were no major victories recorded by the Islamic invaders in these districts, there are no early records of conversions to Islam, and this appears to be a trend that prevailed throughout the plains of what is now Uttar Pradesh.
In many other districts of UP (such as Kannauj, Etawah and Mainpuri) resistance and rebellion against the imperial Islamic rulers of Delhi persisted right up to Mughal rule, thus limiting the number of conversions. K.S. Lal estimates that the proportion of Muslims in India was probably less than 2% prior to 1400 and may have risen to 10-11% by 1600 and to 14-15% by 1800 and this obviously included those that had arrived with the invaders and other Islamic migrants.
By and large, areas that came under victorious Islamic invasions more frequently saw a proportionally greater percentage of Hindus convert than areas that virtually escaped defeat at the hands of Islamic invaders, thus refutating the Nehru claim that Islam held any sort of mass appeal amongst Hindus chafing under a repressive caste system.
Nevertheless, it may be useful to explore further detail as to how, in 400 years, the Muslim percentage had grown seven-fold.
The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sultăn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) persecuted Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir “Many of the brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes , while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the bramins, Sikundur ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down” Sikh archives note how Guru Tegh Bahadur helped save Kashmiri Hindus who were fleeing from slaughter during the reign of Sher Afghan Khan, the viceroy in Kashmir, who had launched a campaign of mass murder against Kashmiri Hindus who refused to embrace Islam.
Historians of Bengal have noted how during the reign of Jalaluddin Muhammad (converted son of Hindu Raja Ganesh, 1414-1431) a large number of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. British historian Dr. Wise observed that the only condition he offered were the Koran or death, forcing many Hindus to flee to Kamrup and the jungles of Assam. And contrary to the widespread myth about Sufis only converting through peaceful means, both Prof. Abdul Karim and Dr I.H. Qureshi refer to the activities of militant and warrior Sufis who forced conversions from amongst the Hindus and Tribals of Bengal (and what is now Bangladesh). Other Bengali historians have recorded how rulers and landlords unable to deposit land revenues by the proscribed date were forced to convert.
(It is also recorded by Jamali how Raju Qattals efforts to convert Nahawan, the Darogha of Uchch led to the latter’s resistance and murder by Sufi zealots.) Most significantly, K.S. Lal refers to the widespread scourge of mass enslavement and the ensuing forced conversions that resulted during the reign of the Khaljis and Tughlaqs. Alauddin Khilji was reputed to own 50,000 slaves some of whom were mere boys, of which many were captured during war.
Chroniclers such as Ziyauddin Barani record how the Delhi Slave Market was constantly replenished with fresh batches of slaves. “Firoz Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the captives should be sorted out and the best ones (fit for service with the Sultan) should be forwarded to the court”. “Soon he was enabled to collect 180,000 slaves”. Under Firoz Tughlaq (1351-88) the state openly became an active agent of conversion and Tughlaq ordered his subordinates to convert Hindus to Islam. In his memoirs Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, he acknowledged how he rescinded the Jiziyah to lure people into converting.
Likewise, Gujarat’s Ahmad Shah (1411-1442), collected the Jiziyah with such strictness, that it brought a number of converts to Islam.
Early in his reign Shahjahan had appointed a Superintendent of converts to Islam, thus setting up a department for the special purpose of making converts. The one common practice was to make terms with the criminals. The Hindus of the Punjab, Bhimbar, Bhadauri and Sirhind were all offered remission of their sentences provided they accepted the true faith. Thus common criminals were converted to Islam.
Earlier, Jahangir had banned his Muslim subjects from embarcing Hinduism even of their own free will. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif who, under the influence of a Sanyasi, showed inclination for Hinduism.
Thus, while Hindu rulers were frequently coerced into coverting, there was no freedom for Muslims – even converts to voluntarily embrace Hinduism.
Even Tipu Sultan – who has been held up by several historians as a great patriot, as a “liberal” and “secular” ruler was not free from a Jehadi mentality as is evident from these quotes from his correspondence: In a letter dated January 18, 1790 to Syed Abdul Dulai, Tipu writes: “With the grace of Prophet Mohammed and Allah, almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. Only on the borders of Cochin State a few are still not converted. I am determined to convert them also very soon. I consider this as Jihad to achieve that object” .
A day later, in a letter sent to Budruz Zuman Khan, Tipu wrote: “Don’t you know I have achieved a great victory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam? I am determined to march against that cursed ‘Raman Nair’ very soon (reference is to Rama Varma Raja of Travancore State who was popularly known as Dharma Raja). Since I am overjoyed at the prospect of converting him and his subjects to Islam, I have happily abandoned the idea of going back to Srirangapatanam now” (K.M. Panicker, Bhasha Poshini, August, 1923).
It is evident, the Nehruvian view of Islam in India is considerably at odds with the actual evidence. One can only hope that honest and serious authors of Indian history take into account the truth in its entirety and not rely on the speculations of those whose views on history have been shaped more by personal dogmas (or ideological prescriptions) than a genuine knowledge and understanding of the actual historical record. References and Bibliography:
Ibn Khaldun: The Muqaddimah (An Introduction to History) trans. Franz Rosenthal, edited and abridged by N. J. Dawood; Bollingen Series, Princeton
Kishori Saran Lal: Indian Muslims: Who are they?, Voice of India, New Delhi
K.S. Lal: History of the Khaljis, 1290-1320 (Forward by Muhammad Habib)
Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi
Satish C. Misra, The Rise of Muslim Power in Gujarat (Bombay, 1963), p.175
Lahori, Badshah Nama
Districts of India: History sections from Bareilly, Bahraich, Gonda, Etawah and Mainpuri oertaining to local/regional resistance to Islamic conquest
Muhammad Qăsim Hindű Shăh Firishta : Tărîkh-i-Firishta, translated by John Briggs under the title History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, first published in 1829, New Delhi Reprint 1981
Hoshiarpur District Administration: Sikh Guru Teg Bahadur and the plight of Kashmiri Hindus threatened with death
R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, and Kaukinkar Datta: An Advanced History of India.1946
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1894, Pt. III, p.28
Abdul Karim, Social History of Muslims in Bengal, pp.136-38, 143-146.
Jamali, Siyar-ul-Arifin (Delhi, 1311 H.), pp.159-60
Satya Krishna Biswas, Banshasmriti (Bengali), Calcutta, 1926, pp.6-10.
Shams Siraj Afif: Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi
Ishwari Prasad, Qaraunah Turks, p.331
Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi of Firoz Tughlaq, E and D, III, p. 386.
Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p.171.
K.M. Panicker, Bhasha Poshini
Romantic and sentimental notions abound regarding Sufi orders in India and elsewhere. However, fulsome praise of the Sufi movement needs to be balanced (and qualified) with the awareness that many Sufi leaders were neither liberals nor Islamic heretics as projected. Some were militant, hard core Jehadis as is evident from some of the following quotes:
Sufi Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), wrote several letters to the courtiers of Akbar and Jehangir protesting their “liberal policies towards Hindus” Here is an excerpt from letter No. 163: “…The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in gran- deur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam…”
Excerpt from another letter: “…The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land… What right have the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels’) humiliation and degradation. What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Muslims. The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam… To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden…” Another excerpt: “The Shariat prevails under the shadow of the sword (al Shara’ tahat al-saij) – according to this (saying), the Shariat can triumph only with the help of mighty kings and their good administration…” And another: “..The only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you again and again to act in this way…”
(Quotes from Sita Ram Goel’s The Story of Islamic Imperialism) Maha Sabah writes: Sita Ram Goel
has observed: “History should not be distorted and falsified to serve the political purposes of a Hindu-baiting herd.” He has also argued that Muslims should evaluate the Islamic history and doctrines in terms of rationalism and humanism “without resort to the casuistry marshalled by the mullahs and sufis, or the apologetics propped up by the Aligarh and Stalinist schools of historians”.