(Read Revati Laul’s original piece here.)
On 15 June, this portal published a piece by one Revati Laul, who I gather, has worked both with NDTV and Tehelka in the past. Her Linkedin profile suggests that she also has a Master’s degree in history from JNU.
Now, I am all for academic freedom and what not, but going by the tendentious quality of the arguments that she has made in the piece to somehow reinforce her insinuation that I am a bigot, one would be forgiven for having serious doubts about the quality of the teaching and instruction at one of India’s premier universities.
Fact and Fiction
During the course of the show, which was telecast live on NDTV, I had posed two questions to the anchor Nidhi Razdan and my co-panelist Rana Ayyub – two people for whom I have the greatest respect despite ideological disagreements. The questions which were posed in the context of the celebrity chef Atul Kochar’s tweet – a screenshot of which has been posted in the original piece – were as follows:
(i) Whether Muslim invaders and kings – in particular, Sikandar Butshikan who ruled the Kashmir Valley in from 1389-1413 – committed depredations on the local Kashmiri Hindu population, forcing all but eleven families to flee the Valley or not?
(ii) Whether if the likes of Kancha Ilaiah have the freedom to abuse Hinduism and Hindu Gods as much as they like, the same freedom should be extended to the likes of Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses and even to Atul Kochhar if he wishes to criticise the depredations of Islamist invaders?
It is clear from a perusal of the video that neither my esteemed co-panelist nor the anchor thought my questions were germane to the discussion. Fair enough, it may be their opinion.
However, going by the response the discussion generated on Twitter, my sense is that a lot of people did feel that the questions that I had raised were indeed important and relevant, for if Muslim invaders did indeed commit depredations, then there is no reason why Atul Kochhar’s tweet can be described as hate speech any more than a graphic description of the Holocaust by the descendant of a Holocaust survivor would be considered such.
Similarly, liberal values like free speech, by definition, are such that their benefit have to be afforded to everyone irrespective of caste, creed and so on and so forth. Hence, it does not seem to be a very liberal thing to extend it to those who critique Hinduism (sometimes rightly so) and to not extend the same to those who critique Islam.
Whose History Is It Anyway?
Now, coming back to Revati Laul’s article. Some of the arguments are such that it sounds like almost a parody of the kind of drivel that a lot of liberal journalists and editors produce on a daily basis. Consider this: “If Muslims were all universally invaders and not people who settled here and made India what it is, then going back another 2000 years, the Aryans were also invaders. Either both were or neither was.”
It is quite surprising that someone who has a degree in Modern History from JNU has absolutely no inkling of the fact that to date, even ‘eminent’ historians like Romila Thapar do not subscribe to the theory that Aryan ‘invaders’ attacked the subcontinent and killed and enslaved the native population.
She, for one, has very clearly stated that ‘Aryan’ is not a racial but a linguistic category. So much for Laul’s valiant attempt to establish parity between invaders who committed documented depredations and those who were, even according to ‘secular’ historians, merely a group of linguistic migrants! This is of course without prejudice to my own personal view that the Rigvedic Aryans were indeed native to the subcontinent. However, whether they were natives or not is a debate for another day. Suffice to say in conclusion that even those who say that they were not native to the subcontinent do not term them as invaders.
Settling the Debate on Aurangzeb & the Like
Revati Laul then goes on to quote some obscure website to somehow show that Sikandar Butshikan was a just and tolerant ruler like Aurangzeb. Now, the latter has been the subject of a huge debate and I do feel that on a perusal of the works of Jadunath Sarkar one would indeed come to the conclusion that the last of the great Mughals was indeed a bigot. Forgive me, but I really do not find anything secular in the manner in which he inter alia tortured and killed Shambha ji for the ‘crime’ of refusing to convert to Islam.
Having said that, since the ruler I had mentioned during the course of the debate was Sikandar Butshikan, I would be happy to provide references to support my contention that inter alia, the aforementioned ruler of Kashmir was indeed a third-rate bigot.
Unlike Ms Laul, I will not quote from shady websites but authoritative works on this subject. Sikandar’s destruction of the famous Sun Temple at Martand is something that has been documented and taken note of in the official manual published by the Director General Archaeological Survey of India in 1993 (A Congress government was in power at the Centre then lest I may be accused of quoting fake saffronised history). On Page 13, Professor Debal Mitra states as follows: “The process of destruction and denudation started in the later part of the reign of Sultan Sikandar (AD 1389-1413) who earned the epithet Butshikan (idol breaker) by virtue of his breaking the images and demolishing the temples.”
Page 14 of the manual states as follows: “Ferishta also left an account of the inhuman treatment to the Brahmins and destruction of temples. Thus, he wrote: “After the emigration of the Brahmins, Sikandar ordered all the temples in Kashmir to be thrown down; among which was one dedicated to Mahadev, in the district of Punjhuzara, which they were unable to destroy.” It is interesting to note that Ferishta is a Muslim source and not a Kashmiri Hindu source. On page 83, the manual reads as follows: “The image of Martanda seems to have been in active religious worship till about the end of the fourteenth century AD when it was desecrated and destroyed at the instance of Sultan Sikandar.”
What About ‘Hindu Genocides’?
Yet another author, one Colonel Tej Kumar Tikoo in his book Kashmir – its Aborigines and their Exodus has also quoted Muslim writers to underline the depredations wreaked upon the Kashmiri Pandit population by Sultan Sikandar. The excerpts from the book are available on the internet and those relevant are being reproduced herewith along with the link: “Sikandar’s assault on Hindus and their temples is best summed up in 17th century Persian chronicle, Tarikh-i-Kashmir, which says that Sikandar “was constantly busy in annihilating the infidels and destroying most of their temples…” In order to establish Nizam-e-Mustaffa and keep his patrons, the Syeds, in good humour, he banned all Hindu celebrations, including playing of music. He went to the extent of banning Hindus from putting on even their customary tilak (a mark worn on the forehead)... Among other atrocities heaped on Hindus by Sikandar, were the royal edicts he issued, directing Hindus to either convert to Islam or be prepared to get killed. Many converted out of fear, thousands fled the valley and many preferred to poison or burn themselves to death...”
Here, I would like to ask Ms Laul if what has been described in the foregoing paragraphs so painstakingly sounds like the kind of treatment one metes out to one’s relatives in other political parties (since this is the asinine analogy Ms Laul has employed).
In the aforementioned view of the matter, I would like to state here in my individual capacity and not as a member of the RSS, that India urgently needs a law whereby ‘Hindu Holocaust’ deniers like Ms Laul can be sent to prison just like there is a law in the Federal Republic of Germany to deal with those who deny the Jewish Holocaust.
This seems to be the only way to curb such irresponsible and semi-literate commentary. Rulers like Sikandar Butshikan have committed depredations upon Hindus in quite a few parts of the country.
However, I have chosen to restrict myself to the aforementioned infamous ruler, for he was the one whose name I had mentioned in the debate. I would also like to acknowledge the gracious assistance provided to me in preparing for the debate and its aftermath, by Rahul Pandita and Aarti Tikoo – two eminent Kashmiri Hindu authors who also happen to be critics of the RSS, lest their credentials be questioned. Finally, I would also like to reiterate the fond hope that Revati Laul intended for her article to be a parody.
(Raghav Awasthi is a lawyer, a graduate of the NALSAR University of Law and a member of the RSS, apart from being a history buff and a gym junkie'. He can be reached @raghav355. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)