You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: India

    India has always been secular polity prior to british rule.

    Indian society has always been secular giving ample space to dissenting cultural views ever since its existence. Indian history has always welcomed and embraced relegious beliefs from other cultures and has extensively intermingled with beliefs of other societies. This was true until advent of Europeans. The IVC, Vedic, Mahajanpadas, Magadhan, Mauryan, Iranian, Indo greeks, Kushanas, Parthians, Scythians, Hunas, Tamil rulers, Sultans, Mongols have all protected this secularism away from politcs. The contribution of Slave dynasty sultan rulers and Mongols are commendable in this aspect. They confined their relegious beliefs to their personal life and protected tolerance in public life. Does not these things mean that secularism has been passed on ti us by our ancestors. This is really commendable.
  • #611310
    "........... Sultans, Mongols have all protected this secularism away from politcs. The contribution of Slave dynasty sultan rulers and Mongols are commendable in this aspect. They confined their relegious beliefs to their personal life and protected tolerance in public life. " This we read in our standard History books, but thesee aree totally incorrect.

    For example, only today I have seen the image of the 'firman' issued by Aurangzhev banning fireworks during Diwali. It was issued in 1667. The 'firman' has been kept in the Bikaner Museum. Does it prove that "They confined their relegious beliefs to their personal life and protected tolerance in public life."?

    Indian people have been hoodwinked for a quite long time using these false history. Time has come to throw away the incorrect history books and learn correct/true history.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611314
    History writers wrote the events which they know and which they like. Going through these books may not give a true picture at all. India is secular before British rule also. If we feel different religious people living together in the country at a time is the indication of secularism, I accept that statement. But from the beginning, Hindus are the majority religion people in India. But the plight of these people under various rulers of various religions is to be understood. Many Hindu temples were converted to Masjids. Is it secularism. Many Hindu temples were ruined in the same country where Hindu population is very high. But a single instance of a Masjid spoiled by Hindus is never known to any of us. As Hindus are tolerant people and they are capable of taking sufferings they kept quiet all these days and India is named as a secular country where there is no justice to the Religion of the majority. An example you can see the thread of Partha.I don't aspect the statement that "They confined their religious beliefs to their personal life and protected tolerance in the public life". They managed the majority religion people as minority taking the tolerance nature of that religious people as the advantage.
    always confident

  • #611323
    Response to #611310
    The problem is Historical events have to be understood in their context and not using present discourses. And I do not understand why singling out Aurangazeb. The rule of Akbar, Zahangir, Khurram have all not only allowed relegious tolerance but encouraged dabate among faiths.
    Regarding Aurangazeb we need to understand that he had 33% of his ruling nobles posts as Hindu subjects.
    Regarding the controversial order first even the present SC has given a similar order. Aurangazeb for most part remained outiside Delhi to face his adverseries so we need to find who gave orders on behalf of him. His real place of residence was Aurangabad, Maharastra for most time.
    Regarding history books there were always arguments and counter arguments ro every events in history. Then historiand refer to the context in which an event took place and the back ground details. Aurangazeb never forced his people to follow a parricular faith. He was a pious relegious person but he remained secular in his politics. He had to wage a bitter battle with Marathas ans at last it was a Rajput prince who subdued Shivaji temporarily. The prince was none other than Jai Singh was known for his warfare and a Hindu follower to core. Further Mughal polity was such that The emporer has very less influence over their people and it were the Mansabdars and Jagirdars who really mattered. And during Aurangazeb rule Maximum Zagirs were given to Hindus.

    Response to #611314
    There are historical references to Shivaji destroying many Muslim structures. In Indian history destroying temples was done by Hindu rulers too. When cholas attacked Pandyas temples were looted. Temple town Kanchipuram was sacked by Chaulikyan forces. In those days temples symbolized rulers glory. Hence enemy rulers were bent on destroying them. Hindus were not always majority people in India. Mauryans were Jains and Buddists predominantly.

  • #611326
    What context? Killing, raping, looting, forceful conversion, destruction of religious places, detruction of learning institutions can't be explained by 'context'.

    Sorry to say, this lame excuse no longer works.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611328
    The above things are done by every persons of every faith. When an army enters a place of enemy all these things take place and this does not determine the secular credentials. Hindus in Medeival India have done all the above things to their own Hindu people.

  • #611329
    I haven't heard any Hindu king destroyed educational institution like Nalanda University. This is an example. Kindly provide reliable link.

    We must not parrot the baseless theory of Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Irfan Habib, Tapan Roychowdhury and their followers.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611330
    Indeed it is commendable on the part of our ancestors who were giving credentials to the secular fabric of India. And in Hyderabad we can see Hindus and Muslims having long standing relations and stay with peace. There are Mandir and Mosque situated in same premises. Hindus used to read and write Urdu paper and subject and like wise Muslims read the Telugu news paper and speak in Telugu. For the Nizam. both Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes for him and even today Charminar has the temple abetting it called Bhagyalakhsmi temple and that is existing since 400 years.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #611331
    Mr. Mohan: The activites of Kashim Rizhvi during late forties and the present activities of Owaisi brothers prove that Hindus and Muslims have beeen living peacefully in Hydrabad! Hydrabadis were forced to learn Urdu because it was the offficial languagee of Nizams.

    Why are we so simple to believe everything?

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611441
    There are numerous references. But to cite as an example what about Pushyamitra Sunga and his followers who destroyed buddhist monastries which are centres of learning. Infact he had a as nickname cutter of Buddhists.

  • #611507
    Unfortunately I missed this response earlier.

    So, now we are comparing Pushyamitra Sunga (who had overthrown Buddhist Maurya dynasty) with Sultan Mahmud, Alauddin Khilji, Aurangzheb, Tipu Sultan or Afonso de Albuquerque? Does the author know that not a single temple or Buddhist monastery older than eleventh century remains in the entire north India? Does the author know that the books of Nalanda University were burnt for three months by Bakhtial Khiliji? Does he know what inhuman torture did the Kokanastha Brahmin face during the rule of Albuquerque and his successors?

    Do we want to teach this sort of history to our next generation for the sake of 'sickularism'? SHAME!

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611514
    I compleletely find no difference. When any rule was to be established prior to muslim rule persecution has taken place. Similarily establishment of muslim rule also.
    Tipu sultan persecuted only those christians and Hindus whom he considered were helping British. He had parted funds for up keep of a Kali temple and even worshiped temples of Wodaiyar dyasty.
    Bringing a dynasty rule is different and up keeping law and order is different. The rulers of Alauddin khiliji, Tipu sultan defenitely had battles with near by Hindu Kings for political reasons same like Shivaji, Ranjit Singh who also persecuted Muslim States around them.
    Allauddin Khilji openely oppossed Ulemas by saying Relegion has no place in his Kingdom except on his own life. There are two Mahmud's in history and both had no intention to conquer but only plunder.
    Destruction of Buddhist Monastries started with Sungas and continued until Muslim rule. So giving entire blame to a single dynasty is unacceptable.
    We must understand Sungas destroyed Buddhist Monastries despite knowing them to have knowledge resources but Kalji destroyed it as an invading army. Infact Sungas had more reason to preserve them because they got Mauryan throne intact without major battles and have lived with Buddhist for centuries before and knew Monastries had knowledge.

    Hindus have persecuted many of their own temples in war.
    Eg. Sack of Kanchipuram by Chaulikyan forces.
    Sack of Badami temples by Pallavas.
    Sack of Madurai temples by Cholas.

    To answer the quesrion why relegious institutions were targets of rulers of all faith because temples had enormous wealth stored in them along with Monastries. So rulers captured the wealth in those temples which will help them in paying auxiliaries and establishing a Kingdom.

  • #611515
    Pushymitra Sunga had overthrown the Maurya dynasty who started following Buddhism. The so-called secular historians have termed this as killing of Buddhists. They are master of giving twist to natural phenomena. If Pushyamitrra Sunga was so terrible towards Buddhists, then how did Ashoka pillars survive his wrath? We must not make ourselves more ridiculous comparing Pushyamitra Sunga with Mahmud or Alauddin Khilji.

    The justification given by the author regarding destruction of temples sounds familiar to me. Romila Thapar, in her books and treatises, has defended destruction of temples in similar language. Waiting eagerly for the justification of rape, murder, forcible conversion and looting.

    In the next part, we can see the justification of medieval treatment of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We may see demand for similar treatment of Hindus in India also.

    Indeed, seculars and liberals of India can go upto any extent to destroy India and Indian culture.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611517
    First Ashokan pillairs were not Buddist in nature. Though having Buddhist influence they had secular and non relegious matters including Ashokan conquests.
    Exactly I find no reason difference in calling acts done by some as natural phenomena and others as having communal overtunes.
    I find no justification on conscious non debating of Pallavas, Chaulikyan, Chola destructions of relegious temples.
    Next looting was a state of nature during Medeival India. Several Hindu kings have indulged in it. Murdering is part of war. Even Hindus have converted many other relegious people forcefully. What happened in Sri lanka, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam when Chola armies went on rampage? Cholas were Hindu imperial power and destroyed Buddhist, Hindu temples in the above states.
    What humanitarian laws were there in Medieval India to condemn them?
    And Arabian people havd visited India since the Advent of Muslims as early as 7th century as traders. There was cultural agglomeration.
    It was in 712 AD when Qasim invaded India purely for plunder, 1025 AD Mahmud of Gazhini, 1192 Mahmud of Ghor.
    All their routes of India were places of treasure those days like Kanauj, Ujjain, Malwa, Sindhu. When Rajendra chola went north to campaign, mahud of Ghazini was just few Kms away with his army. But both emporers did not wage war. They both knew each other well. Horse trade was going on between Rajendra Chola and Mahmud Ghazini even as both armies were near. They did not even wage a single war.
    And armies of these people had Hindus, Bedouins apart from muslims. Infact Ghor army had only 30% muslims.
    When allauddin was marching south the general of Madurai who opposed him was a muslim.
    If relegion was basis of war during muslim rule then how can we explain the conflicts between Ahmednagar rulers and Delhi rulers. How can we explain the conflict between khaljis and Mohammad Aibak.
    Why Rajputs and Marathas were enemies despite both being Hindus.
    Why marathas have to give shelter to Mughal emporer in battle ofPanipet 1761 despite themselves being killed.
    Why Ahmad Shah Abdali sacked Delhi despite being a Muslim.
    Ranjit Singh had Muslim generals in his army, Peshwas had alliances with Muslim commanders, Mughals had several Hindus as their advisers and generals.
    If looting rape forceful conversions had taken place Hindu generals must be equally found guilty of them. Todar Mal was Hindu who was Revenue Minister to Akbar.

  • #611525
    #611517: The response has raised many points which I love to debate from academic point of view. However, due to paucity of time, I am taking only one or two points.

    1."Infact Ghor army had only 30% muslims. ": This is not factually correct. Ghor's Army employed many soldiers from different nationalities/communities, but the majority of them were Muslims.
    2. "If relegion was basis of war during muslim rule then how can we explain the conflicts between Ahmednagar rulers and Delhi rulers."-Conflict between two Muslim rulers does not hide the larger fact.
    3. The salary structure of the soldiers of the invading army was different. Their salary was less, but they were encouraged to plunder and were allowed to take the booty. The salary-structure of Hindu rulers was different.
    4."Todar Mal was Hindu who was Revenue Minister to Akbar."-Todar Mal was known for land-revenue system and taxation policy-not for pillaging and destruction.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611528
    The problem is not it is a single incident. Sher shah Suri fought against Humanyun. Infact Babur was fighting against Lodi. Humayun was fighting against Muslim rulers of Gujarat. Khaljis were always throughout their dyansty enemies of Sultans of Delhi.
    It was Marathas under Brahmin Peshwas who came to rescue of Mughal emporer when Afghans invaded Delhi in 1761.
    May be muslims are majority and my source is wrong. I completely acknowledge.But it does not deny the fact that Non Muslims were part of his army.
    All the above correlate the fact that communalism was never a factor in wars.
    It is surprising as Revenue Minister he was not aware of attrocities by his King in wars. He chose to remain a mute spectator. Either way it assures he was not communal despite being Hindu. The other way around Akbar and Sher Shah Suri had not been communal in chosing thier Advisors.
    Exactly salary structure of Muslim rulers were different. It what enabled them to overcome the armies of their enemies. It is a war tactic.

  • #611537
    A very interesting thread going on. Mr Aravindh doing very well with his arguments. I do not want to enter the discussion at this stage but I want to make one thing clear. India was, India is and India will be a secular country. Those are against it and want to change the fabric of this country are anti-nationals. Those people have to understand the reality and adjust accordingly.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #611545
    Very apt observation. India is a secular country and it will remain so till Hindus remain a majority in the country. Otherwise it will follow the path of Pakistan. (Incidentally yesterday I saw a terrible video where a Hindu woman was brutally beaten and her underage daughter was being forcibly taken by two middle-aged men). Moreover, secularism can't be strengthened by mocking the majority community and its customs (Again a photo released by a Congress leader of Maharashtra mocking karwa chauth festival).
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #611551
    We in India are tolerant to many things including religion and faith. It's only for personal gain that vested interests keep the issue of majority and minority alive. Yes, India is secular and I'm amazed by the contributions of the historical facts so far.

  • #611580
    At the end of debate I must confess that I have learnt new ways of approaching history from Partha Sir. I agree with one point that our history is fully dominated by Marxist historians. Though I differ significantly from views but I agree the cultural angle has been given less importance or viewing culture fully from economic perspective needs to be revisited in our History books. History is key to future.

  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.