"From History to Harmony: Rethinking Hindu-Muslim Relations" Pamsa Essay 1 Ibrahim Nadeem Pamsa S-5 Sir Muzammil Patel Stories have served a dual purpose throughout history, both as records of the past and as gateways into modern beliefs and perspectives. The period we're exploring, defined by colonialism and nationalist movements, is no different. To hide the destruction and instability the British had caused in the Subcontinent, Western historiographers inflated and falsified important historical events. This delusion included promoting the idea of the "Orientalist triptych," which portrayed Hindus as ancient and Muslims as un progressive and possessing “alien governments”, (Metcalf,32). We will see how Later on Hindu nationalists used these exaggerations for political purposes, as demonstrated by the Babri Masjid incident. We will also explore and question the widespread belief that Muslims and Hindus are constantly at war, which is supported by the idea that such tensions existed in the pre-colonial era. The British arrived in India not to enlighten or encourage development, which they considered inhumane, and backward but for their self-serving motives and to gain power over the Indians. "On the one hand, it was lauded as an ancient land of mystery and romance, extraordinary wealth and profound spirituality. On the other, it was denounced for its irrationality and inhumanity and derided for its destitution and squalor." (Jalal, 30). In Bengal, the British started exploiting the emperor-granted right to free trade because they wanted to increase their profits. They allowed Indians free trade passes and even unrestricted access to the domestic market. While it may seem as if this initiative will benefit Indian traders as well, it is important to note that Indian businesses are beginning to depend on the British. In addition, British autonomy can be seen here as they could grant or revoke these passes at their discretion which would harm the Indian businessman in the long term. Additionally, the British ‘exaggerated’ (Metcalf, 52) the black hole incident where they claimed that hundreds of Britishers died of suffocation. They manipulated this situation to their advantage and saw this as an opportunity to benefit from it. After the defeat of Siraj Ud Dawalah at the hands of Robert Clive, mir Jafar was used as a puppet leader and the East India Company secured significant privileges including the right to collect taxes which extended their power. It can be inferred that Instead of promoting development which the Britishers, claim to be the reason for their arrival, individuals like Robert Clive saw India, particularly Bengal, as a land of immense wealth, ' an inexhaustible fund of riches'(Metcalf, 52) that they could exploit for their benefit. The word” fund” used by Robert Clive implies a resource to be extracted for their own benefit highlighting the exploitative nature of the British and a clever plan to make use of India's rich resources and valuable location in the world and not a desire to foster development. In reality, the British were opportunistic exploiters who came to India to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the Indian people, as Clive's comment makes clear. “The most familiar ways of understanding the Mughal era in Indian history were forged in a framework created by the British as they themselves devised a national history for their own emerging nation” (Metcalf, 1). This “triptych” framework depicted the historical narrative in three stages: ancient preserved Hindu culture, the time of Islamic domination that resulted in despotism, and the enlightened and progressive British colonial era. This perspective not only formed British historiography but also left a lasting impact on Indian nationalist historiography. During the reigns of Aurangzeb and Babur, the belief of Muslim rulers as being "Islamic" was extensively promoted, which led to the idea of an Islamic Empire in a land that belonged to Hindus however this was not the case because the Muslims Empires had nothing at all "Islamic" about them because the majority of the bureaucracy and the army had Hindus which shows that Indian involvement in different departments was not characterized by religion. Among the local Muslim rulers from the subcontinent, there were divisions and conflicts on the notion of Islam and due to the diverse interpretation of many rulings of Islam, there were internal disputes and rivalries which challenged the idea of uniform Islamic/Muslim rule over a ‘Hindu’ land because we cannot generalize the diverse interpretations of Islamic teachings over a singular idea. “Moral arguments, particularly a focus on what became a caricature of Aurangzeb’s ‘intolerance’, were central in explaining ‘decline’” (Metcalf, 3). Hindu nationalists in India still believe that Aurangzeb was led by the desire to Islamize the continent. They argued that the Mughal Rulers were preventing the Hindu majority of the population from rising into higher positions in the Mughal Darbar and repressing them. The majority of this claim about an unequal distribution of opportunities is related to Aurangzeb's rule, with the introduction of the "Jizya" being one of the most significant examples. This claim is however, partially correct, there was actually very little work done throughout his reign due to the never-ending war against Marathas, and, more notably during the reign of Akbar, there was the promotion of religious tolerance and no religious categorization. “Akbar sought shared esoteric or philosophic truths across traditions, as well as disciplinary practices in the pursuit of those truths. He patronized translations into Persian of the Sanskrit Ramayana (the story of Lord Ram)”, (Metcalf,18), from the above text we analyze that Akbar's approach to governance was based on shared values and his effort to bridge cultural and religious differences. The controversy over the Babri masjid is still relevant and is a source of conflict between Muslims and Hindus. Babri masjid, as the name suggests, was built in the name of Babar, the first Mughal emperor. “There is no evidence from the sixteenth century that any temples were destroyed to build this particular mosque.” (Jalal, 29). Hindu nationalists claimed that the mosque was built on the site of Lord Ram's birthplace and therefore demanded the mosque's removal to build a ram temple. This unverified statement was used by the Hindu nationalists to benefit their political agendas taking advantage of the sentimental value of the Hindus towards their lord ram and the agenda of reshaping India into a Hindu region thereby promoting the Hindutva ideology. This argument subject was used to increase Hindu support and push a majoritarian agenda, thereby changing India's political landscape. (Chandra). The article also talks about how Modi has a goal to establish a political system where the majority group, Hindus, has greater authority and influence. The construction of the temple in Ayodhya is a crucial component of this strategy since it is consistent with Hindu nationalists' ideas. The Babri Masjid controversy illustrates how historical narratives may be taken advantage of and manipulated for political reasons, creating divisions and generating ongoing sectarian tensions, despite the lack of historical evidence. A thorough and historically correct analysis of the Mughal era is necessary as we will be able to overcome our pre-conceptions of Muslims oppressing the Hindus and this idea of ours will challenge the idea of Muslims and Hindus fighting since the pre-colonial era and build unity and tolerance among modern day Muslims and Hindus. Many historical descriptions of the Mughal reign have offered a biased perspective, a common stereotype of Aurangzeb is that of a religious extremist who persecuted non-Muslims. Although his programs had a religious component, but not to the extent portrayed by Hindu nationalists. Moreover, the British colonial framework portrayed Mughal rule as backward, justifying their presence as civilizers. This perspective was biased and served their interests. Conclusively, a comprehensive analysis of the Mughal era frees us from historical misunderstandings and biased narratives. It inspires us to adopt a more accepting and tolerant perspective of India's diverse past, by challenging them thereby eradicating our pre-conceived idea of Hindu-Muslim in conflict since the pre-colonial era. REFERENCES: 1. Bose S. & Jalal A. (1998). South Asia: History Culture Political Economy. Routledge. 2. Metcalf, B., & Metcalf, T. (2012). A Concise History of Modern India (3rd ed., Cambridge Concise Histories). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 3. Chandra. The Making of a Hindu India. Al Jazeera.
