Author: Vinod Kumar
Publication: Kashmir Herald
Date: June 2003
URL: http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/babar2.html
There is an extremely disturbing
and alarming trend amongst the Indian intelligentsia to glean from history
what suits their bias. Rather than accept the historical fact that the
Muslim invasion of India has, by almost all accounts (including the historical
writings of the invaders themselves), been the bloodiest in the history
of the World, these "scholars" try to project a more "respectable" account
of the Islamic invasion of India. Anyone who rejects this rosy picture
of history is immediately dismissed as being a Hindutva freak. Thus, when
even a respected journalist like Naipaul, dares to speak the truth, he
is accused of succumbing to the Hindutva propaganda. Amulya Ganguli in
one of articles in The Hindustan Times claims that Naipaul has a "warped
vision of (Indian) history" and yet it is actually Ganguli who distorts
Indian history by trying to present Babur as someone who loved India.
Ganguli claims that "There is nothing
in Babur-nama to indicate that Babur "despised" India. Citing Babur's description
of India flora and fauna, Ganguli tries to prove Babur loved India. That,
if anything is a tremendous stretch. Five years of Babur's memoirs prior
to his fifth and final expedition to India are missing -- so we shall never
know what his exact motives were, but one thing that is clearly evident
from the portions of the Babur-nama that have survived is that what Babur
liked most about India, were its "masses of gold and silver" and the large
revenue (52 krurs -- estimated by Erskine to be 4,212,000 British Pounds).
The following couplet, taken from
the Babur-nama, might give some clue as to why Babur came to India:
"For Islam's sake, I wandered the
wilds,
Prepared for war with pagans and
Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr's
death,
Thanks be to God ! a ghazi I became."
Unable to bear the heat and other
travails of the country, soon after coming to India, a large section Babur's
army wanted to return to Kabul. This naturally concerned him. He summoned
all his generals, took counsel, and and made a stirring speech: "By the
labours of several years, by encountering hardship, by long travel, by
flinging myself and the army into battle, and by deadly slaughter, we,
through God's grace beat these masses of enemies in order that we might
take their broad lands. Why after all this should we abandon countries
taken at such a risk? Was it for us to remain in Kabul, the sport of harsh
poverty?"
Loathing Hindustan, Khwaja Kalan,
one of his generals left India with the following couplet inscribed on
the wall of his residence in Dihli:
"If safe and sound I cross the Sind,
Blacken my face ere I wish to for
Hind"
Babur longed for Kabul and what
he thought of Hindustan is evident from the following verse written to
Mulla Ali Khan who had gone there:
"As for you have gone from this
country of Hind,
Aware for yourself of its woes
and its pain,
With longing desire for Kabul's
fine air,
You went hot-foot forth out of
Hind.
The pleasure you looked for you
will have found there
With sociable ease and charm and
delight;
As for us, God be thanked ! we
are still alive,
In spite of much pain and unending
distress;
Pleasure of sense and bodily toil
Have been passed-by by you, passed-by
too by us"
Babur contemplated leaving India
several times -- he was here only for four years -- but he was not going
to leave his empire which he had built with so "much hardship" and "great
slaughter" and where he had found immense wealth on a mere whim without
securing it properly. What he could not do -- leave Hindustan -- while
alive, he did after his death by leaving instructions that his body be
conveyed and buried in Kabul. India, for him was a place to be conquered
for Islam. And he wrote: "by the help of our victorious soldiers the standards
of Islam have been raised to the highest pinnacles."
Babur's heart was always in Kabul
and Tramontana as he expressed in his letter to Khwaja Kalan who, as stated
above, had left for Kabul earlier:
"Boundless and infinite is my desire
to go to those parts. Matters are coming to some sort of settlement in
Hindustan. This work brought to order, God willing! My start will be made
at once. How should a person forget the pleasant things of those countries?"
Ganguli describes Babur's visit
to temples on September 29, 1528, in Gualiar which is described on page
613 of his memoirs translated by Beveridge and comments "There is little
to suggest from these passages that Babur was full of animus against the
Hindus." But Ganguli in his zest to "glean from history what suits his
bias" conveniently forgets to tell the readers what Babur did a day earlier
on September 28, at Urwa described on the preceding page. In Babur's own
words "Three sides of Urwa are solid rocks, not the rocks of Biana but
one paler in colour. On these sides people have cut out idol-statues, large
and small, one large statue on the south side being perhaps 20 qari (yds)
high. Urwa is not bad place; it is shut in; the idols are its defect; I
for my part, ordered them destroyed."
He also conveniently forgets to
talk about the transformation of a temple into a mosque at Sambhal and
in Ayodhya on Babur's orders.
============================
Title: Did Babar love India? (Part
II)
Author: Vinod Kumar
Publication: Kashmir Herald
Date: June 2003
URL: http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/babar2.html
And what did Babur think of India
and its people?
He did not like the heat of India,
he found its towns and country "greatly wanting in charm", "its people
have no good looks, no manners, no genius, in work no symmetry or quality,
no good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, no musk melons or no first rate
fruits, no good bread". Two things Babur liked very much: Hindustan
as stated by him has "masses of gold and silver" and yields immense revenue.
He called them "abject and mean"
, "wretched" . He ordered repeatedly pillars of pagan heads to be built.
He abolished all taxes on Muslims throughout all the territories -- though
its yield was more than the dreams of avarice. Why? It was, he believed
"a practice outside the edicts of the prince of Apostles (Muhammad)". And
what did he wish for the Hindus? "God willing! Soon will be dashed the
gods of the idolaters" It goes without saying that he did not abolish the
tax on Hindus.
At Chandiri, Khwafi Khan records
a massacre by Babur, saying that after the fort was surrendered as was
done on the condition of security for the garrison from 3,000 - 4,000 pagans
were put to death by Babur's troops.
"It was a cruel age when criminals
and spies were routinely ordered by the rulers to be buried or skinned
alive or impaled or trampled to death by elephants" Ganguli wrote. "These
were barbaric times". No, the times were not barbaric -- the invaders/rulers
were barbaric. The massacres of the likes of 100,000 Hindu captives in
one day by Timurlang have never been witnessed before or after in the history
of the World.
Long before the advent of Islam,
a foreign traveler had noted of India "another feature of the ancient warfare
was that the non-combatants were left unmolested." Exception to this rule
were rare.
On the question of balancing act
of history, Ganguli asks Naipaul: "what advice will he give to the Jews
to balance the six million deaths of their relatives and friends in the
Holocaust? . The Holocaust was a medieval act of barbarism committed in
the 20th century."
The Holocaust of the Jews was by
all accounts an act of barbarity. Ghastly and horrendous as it was, the
sustained massacres, barbarities and cruelties committed on the Hindus
that lasted off and on for almost a millennium were of an even larger magnitude.
Neither Naipaul, nor anyone else,
has to give any advice. The Germans don't claim the Holocaust to be the
"glory" of the Germans. They don't identify themselves with Hitler, the
perpetrator of the crimes or his ideology. Nor do they seek their "heritage"
in him or his ideology. All Germans today unanimously, in no uncertain
terms, condemn the barbarities of those days. Denial of Holocaust is a
crime in Germany. They have set up Holocaust memorials. In Germany today
one would not find a single institution or even a street named after Hitler.
They have apologized to the Jews for the crimes committed against them.
And that is exactly what Naipaul
and the Sangh parivar whom Ganguli maligns so badly would like the Muslims
to do: Condemn those acts of barbarities and completely dissociate themselves
from them instead of seeking those barbarities and cruelties as their heritage.
