-- article --

 

On the Denial of Indian History
by S.Ramakrishnan

To: cjwallia@indiastar.com
Subject: "On the Denial of Indian History"

Dear Dr. Wallia,

Recently, the Hindu Students' Council (HSC) and Baruch College,
City University of New York, had an exhibit at the student center titled
"India's Millenium." The contents of the exhibit were unacceptable to Mr.
Nouman Ali Khan, secretary of the Muslim Students' Association, and he
wrote a letter to the editor of the campus newspaper "The Ticker." If he feels
that such recapitulation will invariably lead to hatred, he should contact
Mr. Steven Speilberg first and order him to abstain from screening
"Schindler's List" on the ground that it might perpetuate hatred of
Germans among Jews.

This history must be continually disseminated to prevent such hatred
from ever happening again. All these documents as well as my
response to Mr. Khan are appended below for your perusal and
possible publication on your webmagazine.

Yours sincerely,
S. Ramakrishnan

...................................................................................................................

Hindu Students' Society (HSC), Baruch College, City University of New York.

Namaskar.

The HSC at Baruch College had an exhibit in the student center
from Feb 4 - March 3, 1999, entitled "India's Millennium."
The purpose of the exhibit was to remind everyone of the
atrocities Hindus faced the past 1000 years and, by this knowledge,
to prevent such things from ever happening again.

The exhibit had paintings and descriptions of Muslim rule and British
occupation and photos of freedom fighters, along with a time-line of
India's history (taken from Will Durant's "Story of Civilization"), and
a short summary of the exhibit. This is part of the on-going Freedom
Festival exhibit that has been traveling to all HSC chapters since 1997.

The paintings exhibited:
1. Destruction of Somnath Temple
2. Slave Trade
3. Sati of Rani Padmini
4. Jizayah (head tax on unconverted Hindus)
5.. Destruction of Nalanda University
6. Sword of Tipu Sultan
7. Hell of Andaman
8. The public martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Bhai Mati Das,
Bhai Sati Das, andBhai Dayal Das on Aurangzeb's order.

In response to this exhibit, Mr. Nouman Ali Khan (secretary of the
Muslim Students' Association) sent in a letter, which was published in
he college newspaper, "The Ticker." As you will read, he was outraged
tthe exhibit, stating that we were promoting false history and inciting hatred.

The history we showed is accurate, is documented, and must be continually
disseminated to prevent such hatred from ever happening again.

We request that those reading this send in a response to the college newspaper.
Letters can be sent to the Op-Eds Editor, Mr. Sergy Tabuteau, at:ticker_op-ed@scsu.baruch.cuny.edu

Below is Mr. Khan's letter. All capitalization is his.

Thank you. -- HSC, Baruch
**********************************************

Subj: Ticker Article (Baruch College): History or Hate?
-- Op-eds Section

History or Hate?
by Nouman Ali Khan

Dear Editor:
A student group in Baruch placed a display of Indian History last week.
I was surprised to see such a hateful message being showcased in the
heart of our college. The display is full of pictures and descriptions
of all the suffering and torment the Muslims put the innocent Hindu's
through in the past centuries. It disappointed me that the entire
display was geared only to promote hate for Muslims.

First of all, the Muslim portrayal in that showcase is very far from the
truth. True, there were battles between Muslims and Hindus, and true a
lot of lives were lost on both sides, but to say that the Muslims were
all at fault and the only victims in the Indian sub-continent are the
Hindu's is just a plain LIE. I personally felt insulted to see such
hideous pictures displayed on our school campus. I don't think
we should tolerate any attempts to promote hate amongst
others. It is a matter of fact that during the Muslim rule of the Indian
sub-continent, that society flourished economically and socially.

Before Muslim rule there were open traditions such as burning widows and
an unjust caste system. Muslims abolished the idea that some men are
created greater than others. The only reason Muslims were
successful in establishing rule over India was that they had the support
of the oppressed lower classes like the Achuts, that had no social
rights under the Hindu system. They were treated no better than slaves.
If Muslims were forcing Hindus to convert from their religion or even to
abolish it, there would be no Hindus today! On the contrary, India
itself is a clear example of Muslim tolerance for centuries as they
allowed freedom of religion. There still exist ancient Hindu
temples all across India and even Pakistan!

If anything, we should talk about what our beloved Hindu brothers are
doing in India today! In this decade alone we have seen a holy Mosque
for Muslims (Babari Masjid) invaded by fanatic Hindu terrorists in
India. Was there any government action that stopped this inhumane
behavior? The Hindu Indians love to call themselves a democracy. but
where is the democracy when it comes to Muslim, Sikh and Christian
rights? The Muslim, Christian and Sikh people of Kashmir, Tamil Nadu,
Punjab and various other parts of India remain oppressed even to this
day. I am in no way saying that all Hindus are evil. My only point is
that hate should not be allowed to spread, especially using altered
history to promote it.

Nouman A. Khan
*******************************************************

Dear Editor,

This is with reference to Mr. Nouman Ali Khan's censure of the exhibit
of the Hindu Students' Council (HSC) at Baruch. His letter is an
exemplary negation of history in which he attempts to defend an
aggressor by casting aspersions on the character of the victims.

The Islamic conquest of India was the most murderous attack any
civilization has had to face in history. Across a period extending over
a millenium, many Hindus paid heavily, very often with their lives,
for their religious heritage. Mr. Khan writes that "If Muslims were
forcing Hindus to convert from their religion or even to abolish it,
there would be no Hindus today!" It is a ridiculous, callous, and
insensitive remark, much like denying the reality of Auschwitz on
grounds that Jewry still survives. Maybe, I need to refresh his memory
with the accounts of Muslim historians and conquerers who unflaggingly
strove to dispel the "vapours of unbelief" (as Amir Khusro put it) from
the Indian subcontinent. Their accounts are uniformly overflowing with
pious rapture and moral exultation upon participating in the destruction
of a "false religion" and the massacre of unbelievers who are
"...destined for the fire of hell, whose fuel is men and
stones...(Al-Qu'ran, 2.24)."

A taste of the kind of terror faced by the Hindus over the last
millenium can be had from the "Tuzk-i-Timuri," an account written by the
Mongol general, Timur-i-Lang (Tamerlane) who invaded the Indian
subcontinent in 1399. He starts his chronicle quoting scriptural
inspiration in the form of the following Qu'ranic verse:

"9.73:   "O, Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites
and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the
destination."

Now, as an obedient soldier of the faith (Mujahideen), Timur presents
evidence of his religious fervour. "My great object in invading
Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel
Hindus...[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering
the wealth and valuables of the Hindus." To start with, he stormed the
fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill
all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and
lay waste all their property". Next, he "directed towers to be built on
the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers". Soon after,
he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after
some fight, and were pardoned. But not for long. He records: "In a short
space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in
the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The
sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the
goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year
had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set
fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the
buildings and the fort to the ground."

At the next stop (Sarsuti), "all these infidel Hindus were slain, their
wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods
became the spoil of the victors". Timur was now moving through (modern
day) Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to "plunder
and destroy and kill every one whom they met". And so the soldiers
"plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu
prisoners, both male and female". Loni which was captured before he
arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim
inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that "the Musulman
prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be
dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword."

At a later stage, he boasts that he had 100,000 Hindu slaves in his
custody. However, when the battle with the Tughlaq king of Delhi became
imminent, his commanders advised him that "that on the great day of
battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and
that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these
idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty." Therefore, "no other course
remained but that of making them all food for the sword." And so, Timur
writes with charming candour: "I proclaimed throughout the camp that
every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and
whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property
given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of
Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One
hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain.
Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all
his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order,
slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives."
And thus did the obliging faithful acquire the coveted title of "Ghazi"
--slayer of the infidel. That we Hindus have survived a millenial pogrom
into modern times is IN SPITE of Islam, not because of it.

Now, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a few ordinary
students, without any halo of prophethood, will actually contribute to
increasing hatred. In that case, I leave it for Mr. Khan's analytical
ability to fathom how much hatred can be whipped up by the denunciation,
condemnation and persecution of kafirs (unbelievers), enjoined by Allah
and revealed by Prophet Muhammad in Al-Qu'ran. A few examples are quoted
below:

4.144: "O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather
than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a
manifest proof against yourselves? "

9.5: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters
wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege
them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent
[that is, convert to Islam] and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate,
leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

9.23: "O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers
for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you
takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust."

9.29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in
a state of subjection."


I don't think HSC members can ever compete with such entities, divine
and human, in the dissemination of hatred and intolerance. The simple
fact is that that as an iconoclastic and monopolistic ideology, Islam
has little sympathy or tolerance for a religion like Hinduism, which
bases its spiritual vision on a Unity underlying visible plurality.
Islam insists on the superiority of a particular unit, while Hinduism
emphasizes the fundamental Unity of all existence. Mr. Khan talks about
the existence of temples in Pakistan, as if the existence of Inca
monuments in Peru constituted proof against the Spanish atrocities in
the Americas! While on the subject of monuments, I would like to remind
him that authoritative Muslim histories inform us
(proudly) that the mosque at Mecca was itself a pagan sanctuary,
acquired after venting missionary zeal on Arab pagans and iconoclastic
fury on 360 images.

In the interests of an accurate account of history, I also state that we
Hindus owe our civilizational survival in no small measure to the heroic
efforts of the oft-reviled HINDU ANCESTORS of the modern Pakistanis and
Afghans.

It is obvious that Mr. Nouman Ali Khan finds a factual
recapitulation of history distasteful, much as Germans struggle to come
to terms with the actions and ideology of the Third Reich. If he feels
that such recapitulation will invariably lead to hatred, he should
contact Mr. Steven Speilberg first and order him to abstain from
screening "Schindler's List" on the ground that it might perpetuate hatred of
Germans among Jews.

Sincerely,
S. Ramakrishnan