The Struggle for Hindu Supremacy (Bhishma's Study of Indian History and Culture Vol. VII) An Old and Rare Book

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

We have shown in the earlier volume, how the even tenor of polity followed in India since ages past was disturbed with the advent of the Muslim invaders. Before them, the main principle on which was based the Governmental administration in India, was "Raja Prajanuranjat" The ruler is he whose first and foremost objective is to look after the welfare of his subjects. May be this was not followed by all the Hindu rulers for all the period during which he or she held the reins of power. But there is no denying the fact that each and every ruler was expected to follow this norm in his administration. It is true the King has been regarded as God Vishnu (one of the Hindu Trinity). But that is because the God Vishnu is the sustainer of life and Dharma-ethical righteous conduct on this Earth and the universe as a whole.

It was also enjoined on the King to ensure that the principles of Dharma the rules of righteous conduct were followed by all his subjects including himself. The King was held to be subordinate to Dharma. It has to be remembered here that Dharma is not religion. The latter is, a specific and institutionalized set of beliefs, and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, e.g. the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion. In the name of religion, therefore, bigotism is nurtured and irrational beliefs are fostered. For example it is a religious belief amongst the Muslims that to kill a Kaffir, to loot his wealth and to enjoy his wife entitles one to a place in Allah's heaven. The Christians have the belief that their God throws into hell-fire those who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus the Christ, or the last day ie. Judgement Day. It does not strike both of them, that Christianity is only two thousand years old or the Islam is hardly 1,400 years old, whereas man's advent on the earth is some 200 crores of years old, if not earlier. Then, were all those who died before the birth of these religions, the inmates of hell?

The Hindu Kings followed the principles of Dharma i.e. the rules of righteous and ethical conduct, and allowed their subjects freedom to choose any mode of worship one liked. So amongst the Kings, there were political encounters but never religious. It was Muslim invader who brought in this new doctrine of religious hatred and vitiated the whole political and religious life, wherever he went and ruled. It became for them the religious necessity to wipe out all those who professed other beliefs. Even the peace loving citizens were not spared, if they were non-Muslims. So the muslim religion, politics and rule were all based on conflict pure and simple. Only when these rulers were faced with stiff Hindu resistance and they could not rule without Hindu co-operation that they allowed the Hindus to retain their faith, under compulsion of events. Imam Hanifa made an exception and allowed a change in the teachings of the Sunni sects of the Muslims.

The Hindus, like the Christians and the Jews were allowed to follow their mode of worship on payment of a poll tax named Jiziya. The Islamic Prophet himself was aware that confrontation with the majority community professing a different faith, does not pay especially if the Muslims are militarily not strong. In a democratic society, it is still more hazardous He, therefore lays down a very wholesome principle for harmonious living in a pluralistic society. He says "For every one of you, we appointed a law and a way And if Allah had desired a single community (He willed otherwise) in order to test you by means of what he has given unto you Vic, then, with one another in doing good deed so" But the Muslim theologians have so far ignored such wholesome advice of the Quran and have chosen the confrontationist posture Prior to the Muslim invaders, there were many non-Hindu aggressors in the past, like the Huns, the Shakas and others But they were repulsed as they had come mainly for loot and plunder, Again these invaders who chose to stay behind were all assimilated by Hindu Culture Such was not the case with the Muslims. They invaded for loot and plunder no doubt. But their main motivation was to convert or kill the Kaffirs. Their religion was based on politics and vice-a-versa. These marauders could not be assimilated, though they were tamed and civilised to some extent.

Though the Hindus were late in realizing the character of the Muslim rule in India, they had already sensed that their religion and way of life.

was endangered and so they put up a very stiff resistance to these bigots We have traced that saga of resistance in sufficient detail as far as the history of north India is concerned in the previous volume No. VI. The character of Hindus resistance in the South was qualitatively different. After the Shahi King Anandapala's attempt in 1008 A.D. to organise a joint action by the confederacy of Kings of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kanauj, Delhi and Ajmer for expulsion of the Muhammedans from India as a sacred duty, no further organised confrontation against the Muslim invaders was.

made by the Hindus. The Rajputs fought bravely against the Muslim invaders and held their own till Akbar broke their resistance by his wily tactics of forging matrimonial alliances with them. Thereafter, the Rajputs lost their clan to fight this menace. However, stubborn resistance was evident in the South in the form of the Hindu Kingdom of Vijaynagar. This later on inspired the Marathas to defend their ancestral faith and from among them rose Shivaji the Great who altered the situation qualitatively. Shivaji's aggressive tactics restored the balance of power in favour of the Hindus Under the able leadership of Shivaji's successors, even the common Maratha soldier turned into a defender of the faith and Aurangzeb's mighty empire reeled under the impact of his brilliant military strategies. Later, under the able leadership provided by the Peshwas, the Muslim power and glory vanished from the Indian political scene These Maratha empire builders who dominated the Indian scene for the whole of the eighteenth century. however fell a prey to the wily British.