Historian's Dispute

HISTORIAN'S DISPUTE Mubarak Ali FICTION HOUSE 18-Mozang Road, Lahore. Copyrighr© Muharak Ali 1998,; All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system. or transmitted any form of by any means _ electronic: mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise . without the prior permission of the author and publisher. Published by: Zuhoor Alunad Khan, Raila Abdur Rehman, Fiction House, 18-Mozang Road, Lahore. Phones: 7237430. 7249218 Primed by: Premier Primers. Lahore, Title Design: Riaz Price Rs. 200.00 CONTENTS Preface vi Part II 1. Muslim Rule in India ~ 1 2. The Muslim Society 38 3. The Ulema and the Sufis 62 4. The Muslims under the British Rule 81 Part II f. Communalism in the Writing of History. ...... ..... 103 ~. Born to lend 111 Travelling back in time 119 4. Muslims in subcontinent: Roots of Dictatorship 123 5. Evolution of Urdu: The Class Character of Urdu .. 135 6. Bahishti Zewar and the Image of Muslim Women. 144 7. Fundamentalism 158 v PREFACE The book is the collection of articles which have been published in the daily Frontier Post, Lahore and Peshawar. I am particularly thankfuLto Khaled Ahmed the Resident Editor, who published all essays in spite of opposition from a number of prominent individuals who regarded my writings as a national risk. These articles, from time to time, also provoked the readers to initiate lively debates. Some times, I am accused of distorting history in order to create chaos. However, I am happy that my interpretation of history creates some ripple in the stagnant water. Mubarak Ali IV ·1. MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA Was there Muslim rule in India? James Mill, writing the history of India for the first ' time, divided it onthe. communal basis as Hindu. Muslim. and Britisb periods. The whole medieval period is called the period of Muslims rule signifying the domination of foreign race over India. The Britishers, by dividing the history of India on a communal basis. called their rule as secular and enlightened and termed it not Christian but.British, implying that the Britishers liberated India from the communalist rule of the Muslims and ushered in an era of peace and religious tolerance. Indian historians also accepted this division of history consciously or unconsciously. Resultantly, history written with this approach deepened the communalist feelings and created a gulf between Hindus and Muslims. Historians on both sides began to glorify their past and denigrate the history of the other. ' The period from the Arab conquest to the.fall of the last Mughal ruler (712-1858) is termed as the Muslim period although c(~ntemporary historians, never called this period Islamic or Muslim. They referred to it as Turkish. Khilji, Lodhi. or Timurid because it was the period when these different dynasties ruled over India and these dynasties did not comprise the whole Muslim community of India but some privileged classes of the society who formed a ruling elite. 2 The Muslim community in India was not formed on an egalitarians basis, but was divided into different classes according to wealth add social status, In The upper starata of society were the nobles who controlled all the high ranks in the administration and possessed Jagirs and landed properties. Next to nobility W"JS the class of the artisans, petty shop-keepers, and clerks who were subservient to the nobility. In the third 'category were the unskilled labourers and the peasants. These different Muslim classes were aligned to one another in the name of religion but otherwise they were neither culturally nor socially related to each other. The Muslim community in India was very much caste• conscious and proud of their ancestry. Culturally, there were wide differences between the nobility and the other lower classes as the poor were not in a position to produce any higher culture. It was monopolised by the upper classes and through cultural manifestations they preserved their domination and superiority. Throughput history, the language, dress, food, houses. and etiquettes remained different and kept the lower classes at a distance. The Muslim community was not a unit but fragmented into different classes and castes on social and economic bases. It was the need of the Muslim ruling class to get the support of Muslims in general in order to protect their privileges. To achieve this, the ruling classes kept a permanent conflict going between Hindus and Muslims. To justify their imperialist wars, they called them holy wars and persuaded the common Muslim man to fight and sacrifice his life for the cause of religion. During the war or the political Crisis, the slogan of Islam in danger was raised but as soon as the Crisis was over the ruling classes assumed the role of exploiting forces, for example. during the Sultanate period a Hindu convert slave MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA 3 Khusru Khan revolted against Qutbuddin Mubarak Khilji and after assassinating him, occupied the throne and declared himself the ruler.· The Muslim nobility, threatened by his rule. called him an unbeliever who attempted to oust the Muslims from power and to revive Hindu rule. Although Khusru neither took any steps which could be detrimental to the Muslim community, nor proclaimed himself a Hindu to s~t up Hindu rule. The only thing which was resented by the Muslim nobility was his Indian origin. They were not ready to recognise the overlordship of a .neo-Muslim. It appears from contemporary sources that different segments of the Muslim society supported him, hut they were condemned by a contemporary historian Ziauddin Barani as opportunists. The foreign origin. Turkish nobility rallied against Khusru Khan and unitedly fought against him and overthrew his government. It was a clash between the Indian convened Muslims and the foreign Muslims who refused to treat the neo-Muslims as equals. In the communalist political atmosphere of India, the term Muslim rule became very popular. Once the period was recognised as "Muslim", it obliterated class consciousness and every Muslim, high or low, began to regard this period as his. ThIS concept popularised such phrases as "when we ruled over India, or in our period the an and literature flourished, or our period was the golden period: ..... " This concept gave currency to the rule of Muslims in general instead of dynasties and consequently made every Muslim defend the ruling dynasties and their policies as his own and also the weaknesses of this period became his personal weaknesses. He owned all the Muslim rulers and glorified their achievements. All the misdeeds of the rulers were justified and to him each of them became enlightened, religious, and tolerant. Any criticism of these rulers became intolerable. Their imperialistic policies. their conquests and victories became a 4 part of his past legacy. The' exploitation of the ruling classes was completely forgotten and every Muslim became the inheritor of their culture. This approach of history concealed all the class conflicts and the difference between high and low, the nobles and the toreign and local Muslims. In fact. history of India is the history of Muslim dynastic rule. If this history is examined from the dynastic point of view. the ruler and the nobles could be criticised as historical persons. Mohammad bin Qasim or Mahmud of Chazni could be condemned as invaders. But once they became a part of the religious process. they became immune from all criticism and became sacred and holy. History ceased to be history and became blind faith. If the history of the Muslim dynasties is analysed from the class point of view, a common Muslim would have no reason to be proud of the conquests and victories of the Muslim rulers. Neither would he be proud of the annihilation of the unbelievers or the dismantling of temples because the object of these wars was to get benefit only for the ruling classes and not the general people. Every new conquest brought more war booty and new land to the ruling elite. The common people were used in the name of religion to serve the vested interests of the upper classes. To hide the class contlict, to have a dignified place in the history and to nourish the communal feelings, the myth of the Muslim rule in India is promoted and nurtured. The Muslims ruled over India and kept the Hindus as their slaves is the concept which creates pride in the common Muslim. The facts were quite different. The Muslim ruling classes kept the administrative structure intact and the powers and privileges of the Hindu zamindars remained untouched. As an intermediary force, they collected revenue from the peasants, Hindus and MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA 5 'Muslims alike, and deposited it in the government treasury. They were called the Muqaddam, Chaudhry, Rai, and Rana. The countryside was ruled by them. They were quite independent in their territories. Similarly, there were a number of petty Rajas and Hindu rulers, who, after paying the tribute, ruled their states independently. Therefore, there is not truth in calling the whole period the Muslim period. To understand the history of the Medieval India, it is imperative' to examine who were the rulers and who were the subjects'! The ruling classes consisted of both the Muslims and Hindus and the same was the case with the subjects. Although the Hindus were in majority. there were also Muslim peasants, workers. and. artisans who were exploited without any consideration. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that in the medieval period there was the rule of the Muslim dynasties and not the rule of the Muslims in general. The common Muslim suffered under the Muslim rulers like the common Hindu.

Load more