The following text is the full English transcript of a speech by Late Bishambhar Nath Pandey. He delivered this speech in the past, but it still addresses the misinformation and propaganda that some people spread against Indian Muslims in Modi’s India. He urges an honest and respectful relationship between Hindus and Muslims, based on a clear understanding of each other’s social and cultural values and the historical facts of Muslim rule. He also suggests a framework of national integration and fraternity for all communities, especially Hindus and Muslims. Bishambhar Nath Pandey’s speech is a guide for the secular and democratic forces in the country and offers them a vision of a united and strong India.
Photo Courtesy: Orissa Review (Archival Ref. No: J1-13/0144, Year: 1983)
Full transcript of Late Bishambhar Nath Pandey’s speech:
(A Speech by Bishambhar Nath Pandey in Rajya Sabha On 29th July 1977.)
Veteran Gandhian freedom fighter, congressmen for life, eminent parliamentarian, a committed secularist, and one of the founders of the Society for Communal Harmony, late Bishambhar Nath Pandey, Moved a resolution in Rajya Sabha on 29th July 1977. The resolution aimed to reorient the study of medieval Indian history with a view to promoting cultural and emotional integration of the Indian people. While moving the resolution, Shri Bishambhar Nath Pande said:
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I have the honour to move the following resolution for the consideration of this House; “This House is of the opinion that the main factor retarding cultural and emotional integration of the Indian people is the communal interpretation of the medieval Indian history and its distortion by the British historians, while India was under British Rule, portraying the Hindus and the Muslims as being divided into two warring camps with little in common between them, and that this distortion paved the way for the emergence of the two-nation theory, and therefore recommends that the Government should take immediate steps for the reorientation of the study of the Medieval Indian History so as to-
- Bring out points of contacts and understanding between different Indian communities; and (ii) serve, in the words of Gandhiji, the purpose of creating a sense of Indian-ness and to help in promoting concord in place of discord, peace in place of strife, progress in place of retrogression and mutual faith in place of ”
Sir, in this vast land of ours have dwelt since time immemorial people of different races and cultures and into this land entered races from beyond the mountains and seas. But the old inhabitants and the newcomers, after they had struggled and fought, forgot eventually their enmities, made peace and joined in their common endeavour. Each epoch of such a fusion was marked by an efflorescence of culture in which the different elements were so cunningly mixed as to make one whole.
This unity of spirit has ever been conveying to the different groups and communities which form part of the whole known as India, the fundament, all realisation that although the waves upon sea are many and play of winds upon its surface gives rise to varied and even contradictory phenomena like calms and storms, yet the substance of this multiplicity and variety is the unchanging sea. The socio-economic continuity is the distinguishing feature of Indian history.
The harmony found in the many-sides culture of the people of India stems from this source.
Thus, although India has many religions, many languages, many races, its fund, mental attitudes towards life have persisted through centuries and millennia. It is a remarkable fact that the socio-economic structure of India, which originated in the settlements of the Aryans and their assimilation of the pro-Aryan inhabitants of India, continued without any radical change till the nineteenth century.
This unity of her history, her ideals and of her humanity is the living spirit of India. It is greater than any of its particular manifestations in time or in type. It underlies the multiplicity of our creeds and sects, customs and institutions, and art and philosophies. It underlies our historic failures and successes, our struggles and triumphs. If abides in the midst of these changes. It is this spirit which fused the pre-Dravidian, the Dravidian and the Aryan into that ancient social organism which found utterance in the sublime philosophies, beautiful crafts, the stirring arts, which make up the first chapter of our history. Rama and Krishna, Mahavir and Buddha, Chandragupta and Ashoka, Valmika and Vyas worthily represent the spirit of this culture. The monuments of Sarnath and Sanchi, and paintings of Bagh and Ajanta, and the temples of Khajuraho and Bhuvneshwar, the dramas of Kalidas and Bhavbhuti constitute the living memory of this glorious age.
The close of this epoch saw the impact of new races-Arabs, Turks and Mughals. The ancient culture of India came into violent conflict with the newcomers, but even before the political struggles had ended, our construction had begun. Islam and Hinduism, which appeared at the start, so antithetical, at last intermingled, each one stirred the profoundest depth of the other and from their synthesis, grew the religion of Bhakti and Tasawwuf, the religion of love and devotion, which swept the hearts of millions following different religions and sects of India. The currents of Islamic Sufism and Hindu Bhakti combined into a mighty stream which fertilized old desolate tracts and changed the face of the country. It was this spirit of India which achieved apparently an impossible task of reconciling the puritanical severity and awe-inspiring transcendence of Islam into the luxuriant fullness and abundance of forms and the intuitive perception of their imminent unity of Hinduism, and created those monuments of architecture and painting, music and poetry and love inspired religion which are the heritage of Indian history during the Middle Ages. A harmonious study of Indian History, a study both wide and deep, seems urgently called for now more than ever before. The question arises: Can we cut up history into little bits, and say: this is ancient history, this is medieval and that is modern history? The Central doctrine of the modern scientific study of history, according to the great Oxford Professor Freeman’s teaching is, the unity and continuity of history.
This theory is supported by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who says—I quote— “We cannot divide history of India into the three water-tight compartments, namely the Hindu period, the Muhammadan period and the British period. Nothing can be more absurd. In the first place they should be either Hindu, Muhammadan and Christian, or ancient, medieval and modern. The first is a communal division of Indian history and should be banished from all history books for ever. The second classification may be resorted to for convenience of study, especially for the study of culture. But it should be invariably borne in mind that although in the world of thought there may be a temporary division of history for the sake of specialisation, in the world of action history ought to be treated as having a continuous sequence. This, in fact, is the basic idea of history, as any student of historiography will tell us.”
Let us consider the factors that are responsible for continuously aggravating disunity, disharmony and disintegration between communities. The underlying primary cause is misunderstanding. This misunderstanding takes many forms and expresses itself in numerous ways. It ins-pries the interpretation of India history and makes it possible for extremists on both sides to press the distortion of historical facts and movements into service to uphold their different theories.
The distrust affects our judgement of men and their motives and exaggerates every intentional or unintentional neglect into a deliberate piece of oppression, and every petty incident of a quarrel or suppression of a breach of law and order into a calculated piece of atrocity. This suspicion colours the whole outlook upon life; every little difference of customs, manners, modes of speech and dress, ways of living and of vocational pursuits is magnified into a profound difference of culture—of economic, social, political and spiritual’ ideals. Is there any wonder that every clash of personal and of group ambition is regarded as a symptom of deep social cleavage and of communal and cultural disharmony?
The task is not easy, because unfortunately the histories of India which have been taught in our schools and colleges for generations past were originally compiled by European writers. And Indians have not yet succeeded in shaking off the biases inculcated by their European teachers. These so called histories have produced indelible impressions on the minds of their readers and corrupted the springs of national life. They have laid emphasis on differences, drawn pictures in which the relations between Hindu and Musalmans bear most prominently the marks of violence, conquest, rapine and religious bigotry. They have presented the Muslims as destroyers of Hindu culture and traditions; Despoilers of Hindu temples and palaces; and brutal idol breakers who have offered to their Hindu victims the terrible alternative of conversion or the sword. It is hardly surprising that educated men in India drugged with such poisonous stuff from the most impressionable period of their lives grow up to suspect and distrust each other. The Hindu has been brought to believe that the Muslim period of Indian history which extends over eight hundred years and more is a nightmare. Not only does he feel no pride in it, but when he turns back his mind to find inspiration in the past he skips over this long interval and draws highly idealised pictures of the golden past which lies beyond. The Muslim on the other hand having lost the power built up by his co.religionists to a Christian nation from the West and being regarded as a mere intruder by the Hindus, naturally feeds his self-respect upon deeds by which he won conquest and glory and completely ignores the remoter past which moulded his cultural achievement of which he ought to be justly proud. How British historians have used these sen. Timents would be clear from the following quotation from the well-known compilation, Sir, H.M. Elliots “History of India as told by its own historians”. The passage occurs in the general preface to Volume I,
I quote— “We behold kings…sunk in sloth or debauchery and emulating the vices of a Caligula or a Commodus.” “Under such rulers we cannot wonder that the fountains of justice are corrupted: that the state revenues are never collected without violence and outrage; that villages are burnt and their inhabitants mutated or sold into slavery; that the officials so far from affording protection, are themselves the chief robbers and usurpers, that parasites and eunuch revel in the spoils of plundered provinces, and that the poor find no redress against the oppressor’s wrong and proud man’s contumely. The few glimpses we have even among the short extracts of this single volume, of Hindus slain for disputing with Mohammedans, of general prohibitions against processions worship or ablutions and other intolerant measures, of idols mutilated, of temples razed, of forcible conversions and marriages, of proscriptions and confiscations of murders and massacres and of the sensuality and drunkenness of the tyrants who enjoined them, show us that this picture is not overcharged.”
A glimpse into official British records will show how this policy of Divide-et- Impera was taking shape. Secretary of State Wood in a letter to Lord Elgin said: “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling.” (Wood Papers; Wood to Elgin, March 3, 1862).
At another occasion Wood remark: “We cannot afford in India to neglect any means of strengthening of opposition.
Depend upon it, the natural antagonism of races is no inconsiderable element of our strength. If all India was to unite against us, how long could we main-tain ourselves.” (Wood to Elgin, May 19, 1862).
George Francis Hamilton, Secretary of State of India wrote to Curzon, “I think the real danger to our India not now, but say 50 years hence is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation, organistion, and, if we could break educated Indians into two sections holding widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan educational text-books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened (Hamilton to Curzon, 26th March 1888).
Cross informed the Governor-General, Dufferin, that “This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look for some good as a result of your Committee to Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material”. (Cross to Dufferin, 14 January, 1887).
Thus under a definite policy the Indian history text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Islamic rule. There were no common factors in social, political or economic life. Now let us briefly examine the truth of these allegations.
Let us see what the contemporary Muslim historians say Qazi Mughis-ud-Din laments;
“Although in the medieval period the head of the State in India was a Muslim, the State was not Islamic. The State did not follow the injunctions of the holy scriptures-The Quran, the Hadith, or the laws elaborated in the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. It is a mistake to call medieval state in India, theocratic, for it did not function under the guidance of the Muslim theologian.”
Almost everyone of the Muslim monarchs of India from the 13th century onwards expressed his inability and indicated the impossibility of conducting Government in accordance with Shariat. Iltutamish, Balban, Alauddin Khalji and Mohammad Tughalak were among the pre-Moghal sovereigns on India who
Questioned the suitability of applying Muslim law to India, Zia-ud-Din Burni a historian in his Fatwa-i-Jahandari, says:
“True religion consists in following on the foot-steps of the prophet. But royal Government, on the contrary, can only be carried on by following the policies of Khusro Parvez and great emperors of Iran.” He admits that-
“Between the traditions (Sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad and his mode of life and living and the customs of the Iranian emperors and their mode of life and living there is a complete contradiction and opposition.” But he pointed out that the Shariat, which is the command of God, could be followed in State matters only in exceptional times. Muhammad succeeded in enforcing Shara because he was directly inspired by God, the first four Khalifas did so because they had been the associates of the Prophet. But prophethood is a perfection of religion and the Kingship is the perfection of wordly fortune. These two protections are opposed and contradictory to each other, and their combination is not within the bounds of possibility. Nizamud-Din, observes:
“Bulban gave precedence to the affairs of the State over religion.” (Tabquat-i- Akbari (Vol. I, p. 82) Burni states: “In the matter of punishment and exercise of royal authority he acted without fear of God and whatever he regarded to be in the interest of Government, irrespective of whet, her it was in accord with Shara or not, he carried into action.” (Tarikh-i-Shahi)
Alauddin Khalai’s discussion with Quazi Mushis-ad-Din is well known. His parting reply to the Quazi was: “Whatever I consider to be in the interest of Government, and find to be the requirement of the time. I order. I do not know what the ex-alter God will do to me on the day of resurrection.”
Prof. M. Habib says:
“It is true that Muslim kings, mostly of foreign extraction, sat on Indian thrones for some six or seven centuries. But they could only do so because their enthronement was not the enthronement of the Muslim rule. Had it been otherwise they could not have lasted for a single generation.” (Medieval India Quarterly, op. Cit p. 5).
Socially the Musalmans of India developed an organisation similar to that of the Hindus. Muslim societies in India unlike Muslim societies in other countries became divided into castes comparable with the Hindu caste system. These distinctions also became heredity.
In every social system woman holds a characteristic position. Arab and Turkish societies differ considerably from Hindu society in this matter. Yet in India the Muslims followed not the customs of Arabia and Turkis-tan but those of India. In toilet, dress, ornaments, ways of social intercourse, and daily routine of life, they adopted Indian ways and manners. The Muslim marriage ceremonies were adopted from Hinduism Nisbat, Haldi, Menhdi, Tel, Mandwa, Barat, Jalwa, Kanghan etc. Were Muslim adaptations of Hindu ceremonies. The only difference that remained was that in the Hindu marriage bride and bridegroom went round the fire to the chanting of Vedic Mantras while in the Muslim marriage they were joined together in bonds of matrimony by the Qazi who read appropriate verses from the Quran.
Early marriage of girls, prohibition of widow marriage, dependence and subordination of woman and the use of the veil were common to the Hindus and the Muslims.
The Muslims adopted many Hindu funeral ceremonies, for example, the Tija, the Daswan etc. Then ceremonies concerning pregnancy and childbirth like he seventh month, satmasa sixth day of childbirth chhathi, the shaving of the child’s head (Mundan-Aqiqa), licking of Khir, Khir chatai bonning of ears, kanchhedan birthday anniversary Janamdin etc. Were common to both. Even such purely Hindu practices as the immolation of the widow on the death of her husband and Jauhar were occasionally resorted to by the Muslims. Ibn Batuta relates the story of the defeat of Ainul Mulk by Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and tells how his wife plunged into death after her husband. Again, the Zafar Namah describes the Jauhar committed by Kamaluddin, Governor of Bhatnair, when he proceeded to fight against Timur. Amir Khusro’s admiration is evident from his famous lines:
“Choon Zane Hindu Kisi dar Ashiqui Mardanana Neest, Sokhtan bar shama Murda kaar e Har Parwana neest.”
(Hindustani aurat ki tarah koi doosra bahadur nahin hota, Murda Shama par chalna har parwane ke bus ki baat nahin hai).
Dress is the most outstanding expression of the inner character of a society, of its grades and classes, of its psychological values, taboos and reticences. From this point of view, it is important to notice how the Muslims in India discarded the garments worn in Arabia, Iran and Central Asia and mainly adopted the Indian costumes and clothes. The use of Arab Amama, Jubba, Rada, Tahmad, and Tasma, and the Central Asian Kulah, Nima, Moza, etc disappeared, giving place to Hindu pagari and Chira, Kurta and Agarakha, Patka and Dupatta, Pajama and Juta.
Now, let me illustrate how historical facts have been distorted. In 1928, while I was doing research on Tippu Sultan at Allahabad, some school students came to me and invited me to inaugurate their History Association. They had directly come from the school with their textbooks. Incidentally, I glanced through their history textbooks. I opened the chapter on Tippu Sultan. One of the sentences struck me deeply and it was this: “Three thousand Brahmins committed suicide because Tippu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam”. The author of that book was Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Har Parshad Shastri, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Calcutta University. I immediately wrote to Dr. Shastri as to the source of his information. After many reminders came the reply that he had taken that fact from the Mysore Gazetteer. The Mysore Gazetteer was not available either at Allahabad or at the Imperial Library, Calcutta.
So, I wrote to Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, the then Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University, seeking a confirmation of the statement of Dr. Shastri. Sir Brijendra Nath Seal forwarded my letter to Prof. Srikantia, who was then busy editing a new edition of the Mysore Gazeteer. Prof. Srikantia informed rne that the episode of the suicide of 3, (100 Brahmins is nowhere in the Mysore Gazzeteer and he, as a student of history of Mysore, was absolutely certain that no such incident had taken place.
He further informed me that the Prime Minister of Tippu Sultan was a Brahmin, named Purnea, and his Commander-in-Chief was also a Brahmin, named Krishna Rao, He supplied me with the list of 156 temples to which Tippu Sultan used to pay annual grants. He sent me 30 photostat copies of Tippu Sultan’s letters addressed to the Jagadguru Shankara-charya of Sringeri Math with whom Tippu had very cordial relations. Tippu Sultan, as was customary with the rulers of Mysore, daily visited the temple of Lord Ranganafha, located inside the forth of Srirangapatnam, before taking his breakfast. Prof Srikantia suggested that Dr. Shastri might have based his narrations on the so-called History of Mysore”, by Col. Miles. Col. Miles claimed to have translated his “History of Tippu Sultan” from a Persian manuscript which was then in the personal library of Queen Victoria. On investigation, it was found that there was no such manuscript in the library of Queen Victoria. Most of the facts in Col. Miles’s history book were concocted and absolutely false. Dr. Shas-tri’s book was approved as a course book of history for high schools in Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Orissa, U.P., M.P. and Rajasthan.
I approached Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary the then Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University and sent him all the correspondence that I had exchanged with Dr. Shastri the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Seal, and Prof. Srikantia, with the request to take proper action against the offending passages in the textbook. Prompt came the reply from Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary that the history book by Dr. H. P. Shastri has been put out of course. But I am amazed to find that the same description about Tippu Sultan is still existing in the history textbooks which have been prescribed for junior high schools in UP. For the students of VI, VII and V111 Classes
Similarly when I was the Chairman of the Allahabad Municipality a case of Dakhil Kharij came up for my consideration. It was the case of a dispute over the property dedicated to the temple Someshwar Nath Maha dev. After the death of the Mahant, there were two claimants for the property. One of the claimants filed some documents which were in the possession of the family. The documents were the Farmans issued by Emperor Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb conferred a jagir and a cash gift on the temple. I felt puzzled. I thought that the Farmans were spurious. I was wondering how Aurangzeb, who was famous for breaking temples, could confer a jagir on a temple with the words that the Jagir was being conferred for the puja and bhog of the deity. How could Aurangzeb identify himself with idolatry? I felt sure that the documents were not genuine.
But before coming to my conclusion, I decided to take the opinion of Dr. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. Dr. Sapru was a great scholar of Persian and Arabic. I put the documents before him and asked for his opinion. After examining the documents Dr. Sapru said that these 17 of Aurangzeb were absolutely genuine. Then he asked his Munshi to bring the file of the case of Jangum Badi Shiva Temple of Varanasi, the case of which was lying in the Allahabad High Court for the past 15 years. The Mahant of the Jangum Badi Shiva temple was also in possession of various Farmans of Aurangzeb granting Jagir to the temple. That was a new image of Aurangzeb appeared before me. I was thoroughly surprised. As advised by Dr. Sapru, I sent letters to the Mahants of various important temples of India requesting them to send me photostat copies of the Farmans of Aurangzeb, in their possession, granting them Jagir for their respective temples. Another big surprise was in store for me. I received copies of Farmans of Aurangzeb from the great temples of Mahakaleshwara Ujjain. From Balaji Temple Chitrakoot, Umanand Temple, Gauhati and the Jain temple of Shatrunjai and other various temples and Gurdwaras scattered over northern India. I also received copies of Farmans. These Farmans were issued from 1065 AH (1659) to 1091 AH (1685).
Though these are the only few instances of Aurangzeb’s generous attitude towards Hindus and their temples, they are enough to show that what the historians have written about him was biased and is only one side of the picture. India is a vast land with thousands of temples scattered all over. If proper research is made, I am confident, many more instances would come to light which will show Aurangzeb’s benevolent treatment of non-Muslims. But there are instances which prove beyond doubt that Aurangzeb did order demolition of Vishwanath temple of Varanasi and the Jama Masjid at Golkunda and the reasons that were given out for the demolition of the temple and the mosque may give benefit of circumstances to Aurangzeb. The story regarding demolition of Vishwanath temple is that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt is made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were posted on the 5-mile route to Varanasi and all the Ranis made a journey on the Palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. All the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kachh.
A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the Statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a movable one. When the statue was moved, a fleet of stairs led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat. The Hindu Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. They demanded justice. The case was very grave. Aurangzeb ordered that the sacred precincts have been spoiled. Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place. The temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, in his famous book “The Feathers and the Stones” has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. Dr. P.L. Gupta, former Curator of Patna Museum has also narrated this incident.
Now, about the Jama Masjid: The Ruler of Golkunda, the famous Tanashah, after collecting revenues of the State, did not pay his dues to Delhi. In a few years they were accumulated into crores. Tanashah buried this Khazana and erected a Jama Masjid over it. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he ordered the demolition of the Mosque. The buried Khazana was seized and utilised for the benefit of the people. These two examples are sufficient to show that Aurangzeb did not make any distinction between a temple and a mosque in coming to a judicial finding.
Now, about Shivaji; Many muslim Historians have paid tributes to Shivaji’s secular policy. Khafi Khan has written the life of Shivaji. His father was a contemporary of Shivaji. He has paid glowing tributes to Shivaji’s generous religious policies towards Muslims, and the holy Quran. Another historian, Bashiruddin Ahmed, has corroborated this fact. A.F.M. Abdul Ali has also
Recorded that Shivaji was generous towards his “Muslim subjects. Hindu and the Muslims had the same rights in his reign. He never made any differentiation “between his Hindu subjects and Muslim subjects. Sheikh Haider Qazi was his Private and Confidential Secretary. He kept all his records and drafted his correspondence. Siddi Hambal and Siddi Bilal were his Generals and one of his Naval Rear Admiral was a Muslim. Shivaji was not against the Central Delhi power. His correspondence with Aurangzeb, preserved in Parasnis Library amply proves this. But he wanted certain rights-the right to collect Chauth and the right to Mint his currency. It may be noted that Shivaji’s Grand father was a great admirer of the Muslim Saint Shah Sharafudin. He named his sons after the Saint. He named his eldest son as Shahji and his younger son as Sharafji. Shahji was the father of Shivaji. Shivaji himself had great reverence for a Muslim saint Baba Yakut of Kalsi.
Take the case of Rana Pratap. His war with Akbar on the battle-field of Haldighati is characterised as the religious war pacts are that the army of Akbar consisting of 40,000 Rajputs and 60,000 Mughals was commanded by Raja Man Singh. Likewise, the army of Rana Pratap included a large contingent of Pathans commanded by Hakim Khan Sur. Taj Khan, the Pathan Raja of Jalaur, joined the army of Rana Pratap with his one thousand cavalry regiment. Rana Pratap’s army had nearly 40,000 Rajputs in the battle-field of Haldighati. Rajputs were fighting Rajputs and Pathans were fighting Mughals without giving any quarter to anyone. How could this battle be described as the battle between Islam and Hinduism? It was a battle between a Central Power and the Regional Power. We salute Rana Pratap for his bravery and for his love of freedom, but in no sense of the term his war can be described as war between Hinduism and Islam.
Let us take the case of Guru Gobind Singh. Amongst his followers were included hundreds of Muslims. The area where Guru Gobind Singh established his political seat was commended by a number of Hill Rajas. The people used to pay taxes to the Rajas. With the growth of power of Guru Gobind Singh, the peasants began to pay their revenues to Guru Gobind Singh instead of the Rajas. This was the cause of the conflict between the Guru and the Rajas. Rajas sought help from the Subedar at Sirhind, who sent his army to help the Rajas.
The combined army of the Nawab of Sir-hind and Hindu Rajas proved ineffective. Then, help was sought from the Emperor at Delhi. Thus indirectly it became the conflict between Delhi and the Guru, resulting in great hardships to Guru Govind Singh. Two of his sons were betrayed to the enemy by his personal cook named, Gangaram, in lure of the reward. The regional council on behalf of the Delhi emperor was running the administration of this region. There were three members of the regional council-The Nawab of Sirhind, his Hindu Vazir and the Nawab of Maler Kotla. By two votes to one, the sons of Guru Govind Singh were put to death. The Nawab of Maler Kotla pleaded in vain that the sons be allowed to go free. Afterwards, Guru Gobind Singh felt so thankful to the Nawab of Maler Kotla that he issued an injunction that no Sikh would enter the territory of Malerkotla with arms on. Incidentally, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh’s army inadvertently passed through the territory of Maler Kotla. Someone reminded the Maharaja of the injunction of the tenth Guru. Maharaja felt sorry and ordered his army to put down their arms. He sent a messenger to the Nawab of Malerkotla with a message “Myself and my army has committed a crime of passing through your territory with arms. We have violated the injunction of the tenth Guru and we stand here as your Mujrim and seek punishment from you.” Nawab replied, “You are a great Maharaja and I am a humble Nawab, how can I punish you?” But on the insistence of the Maharaja he accepted a fine of Rs. 100. Nabi Khan, Ghani Khan and General Syed Beg along with their thousands of Muslim followers fought on the side of Guru Gobind Singh in those delicate years. Pir Badruddin of Sadhaura along with his two brothers, four sons and a thousand strong army fought for the Guru and sacrificed their lives.
Relations between the Sikh Gurus and the Muslims were very cordial. When the Golden Temple of Amritsar was being built, the Sikh Guru invited the great Muslim Saint, Sain Miyan Mir, to lay down the foundation stone of the famous golden temple. A batch of prominent Sikh Sardars went to Lahore from Amritsar and brought the Muslim saint on a Palki carried on their shoulders.
During Ranjit Singh’s reign, Muslims enjoyed equal rights. His Prime Minister was a Muslim and two of his favourite queens were Muslims, Till his death, the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs lived in perfect harmony. In the light of the above facts, if is imperative that the teaching of history should be reoriented so that future generations of the country may be saved from entertaining bias and hatred with each other. I am sorry, Sir, these facts are not mentioned anywhere in the textbooks of History.
Sir, I conclude with the words of Gandhiji. Sir, I quote: “We have Chapter and Verse given to us by Hindu historians and by Mussalman historians to say that we were living in the medieval period in comparative peace and harmony. It was not like that as has been shown to us in the British history.”
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir,
I placer these facts before the Education Minister, through you, for consideration, and I am sure he would take note of these and try to amend and reorient our History text-books-
AN HON. MEMBER: He is a professor of History(PC Chunder, then education Minister).
I am glad that he is a professor of History. It is all the more convenient for him to go through the History text- books and get them examined and see that proper textbooks are issued by the various State Governments, the Government of India, the NCERT and others, so that a proper atmosphere is created in the country. We have been divided; we have been separated. The country had been divided. But we do not want this thing to continue any more. Let our hearts be united. They are still divided. We must do something so that a new Indian community emerges from the debris of partition, and we shake off all our differences and our suspicions from now on.
Thank you, Sir.
[The end of speech]Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
