Thursday, 19 May 2016

Why don't Hindu fundamentalists glorify Muslim Rulers in India

Taj Mahal (built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan) by Unsplash
The fact that Muslim rulers contributed significantly towards the development of India troubles Hindu fundamentalists the most. They don't want the Mughals or the Delhi Sultans to be glorified. The only reason is that they were Muslims. They can't digest the fact that Muslims ruled India for more than 600 years.
I have heard many times in news channels, read in articles over the internet, Hindu fundamentalists calling Babur a terrorist. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi (a Muslim ruler) in 1525 captured Delhi and then Agra and established the Mughal Empire. I don't understand that when Delhi and Agra were already under a Muslim ruler and Babur captured it from him and even Ibrahim Lodi died in the battle, what it has to do with the Hindus. At that time there was no India, no Pakistan, no other country as today. There were kingdoms which were ruled by the Kings. Every King had the equal opportunity to expand his kingdom. Many Hindu rulers did the same thing. Mauryan empire did reach up to Persia. Were Mauryans the terrorist?
Qutub Minar (built by Delhi Sultans) by Vijayanarasimha 
They call Sultans and Mughals the "outsiders". What about Aryans or Dravidians then? Were they also outsiders? Do Indians who migrated to some other countries and got the citizenship there be called the outsiders? Will there children be called "the foreigners"? The world expanded through migration. Do you know from where your ancestors came? Are you an outsider? Mughals came from Afghanistan, but they stayed here. They ruled their territory from here. They ruled this country as it was their own, and it actually was. They worked for better administration, advancement in technology, astrology and literature in the country. They gave India its most beautiful monuments, literature, gardens, foods and much more. Talking about equality, they didn't consider themselves as superiors, like the British. They believed in equality among Hindus and Muslims. They gave many Hindus high posts in their administration. Todar Mal, Man Singh, Birbal are some examples. Akbar married Jodha Bai and allowed her to practice Hinduism. The point to be noted here is that they were kings, whatever they say become a law. It was not a democracy. There were no political boundaries. Today we live in a democratic country, a country which has declared itself a secular, but still
some people say that Muslims are not nationalist, they are not real Indians.
Mughals created this country. They were born here. They are buried here. They expanded their empire by defeating both Hindu and Muslim kings. If they killed Hindus, they killed Muslims too. Kings do kill. Alexander killed people, Genghis Khan killed people, Ashoka killed people.
They say that Indians were slaves under Muslims. By Indians, do you mean Hindus and Muslims both? Or you mean to say that Hindus were slaves under Muslims because you know that no Muslim would say that they were slaves under Muslims. Were they sending country's raw materials to some other places? Although many educated Hindus who have some knowledge of  History would never say that India was slaves under the Muslims.  Now, because India didn't see a Muslim Prime Minister (even they saw one Sikh Prime Minister when Sikhs are only 1.7% and Muslims 14.2%) till now should Muslims consider themselves slaves. Are Muslims slaves in India?
Akbar the Great (by Prashant Singh)
They say when we can say Akbar the Great why can't we say Maharana Pratap the Great. Every king was great in some respect. But we generally suffix Great to the name of those kings who ruled a big territory for a long time. Maharana Pratap was only the king of Mewar. Yes, he did fight for his people, he was brave indeed. But you can't have a whole chapter dedicated to him in school history books. He was a king like Akbar, even not as powerful as him. He was not a saint not even Akbar was. But you want to say Maharana as the greatest of the greats because he was a Hindu and Akbar was not so Akbar can't be greater than him. The main agenda is not about respecting him for his achievements, it is only disrespecting Muslims. You can't change the past, but you can change the history. They know this. They want Hindus to hate Muslims. The best way to do this is to feed them hatred in their childhood in schools by changing history books, which teach Muslims as outsiders and terrorists, so they grow up with a feeling of hatred against Muslims. These people know the principle of "Divide and Rule" very well.
These people who are dividing India will not get affected in any means by any kind of violence. Their brothers will never be killed in any riot. It is the common people who will suffer, who will die.
When we talk about India we should talk about India after 1947. When we start talking about the past, we can only talk about revenge because you can't do anything in the past. Are these Hindu groups really looking for a better India? Do rewarding Hindu families for having more children going to help this country in any way? Renaming roads is not going to increase India's economy in any way. What is gone, is gone. You have an independent nation after 1947. You can't even work to make this nation socially and economically developed, you can't even work to remove injustice and intolerance here, you can't even work to remove hatred and you are talking about injustice and hatred in the past.
Are these people true nationalists? Are you really doing any good for people? Dividing India on communal lines will not benefit it in any way, only it can do good to your vote bank politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment