There is nothing a premodern Muslim ruler, teacher, or devotee could ever do to be accepted as Indian by the far Right—even if premodern Hindus accepted or even worshipped them.
We now live in a world order that will keep shifting. India must use this window. This also means we remain disciplined enough not to be knee-jerked into reacting to what Pakistan sees as its moment in the sun.
Well this isn’t even the whole story. If as it is mentioned 150 years from the historical records then what about the Samudra Manthan where the Kurma(tortoise) avatar came in this story.
And in this Indian culture the masses were transferred the the knowledge in the form of stories that eventually passed to generations after generations. Well I listen and read to stuffs and I can say people that it is half baked. Don’t trust me well you shouldn’t so search it, read history as it is.
The sooner we get rid of this myth that Sufis were these peaceful lot promoting some kind of syncretism and an accommodative Islam, incorporating local beliefs, practices etc the better.
This article, on whether the dargah was built by destroying a temple, talks about everything but what the article is supposedly about – whether the dargah was built by destroying a temple.
It also gives the impression that Sufis were peaceful completely evading Moin ud din Chisti’s role in facilitating Mohammed Ghori’s invasion. Also, the role of Sufis in general, including Bangladesh, that still continues to play out. The roles of Sufis in the Noakhali pogrom against Hindus is just one example.
This article is at best, a work of a delusional “historian” who doesn’t have the rigor to go deep into a subject.
At worst, it is a hitjob on behalf of interests that aren’t happy with the hold the idea of India as a civilisational nation is taking.
Given his earlier articles, I suspect it is the latter.
After reading this article, it is safe to conclude the followiung things:
1. The author is definitely not a historian. If he was indeed one, he wouldn’t reject the historical proofs mentioned by the court historians of Muslim rulers.
2. There is compelling archaeological evidence, to prove the destruction and vandalism. A notable example being Gyanvapi Mosque.
3. Khawaja of the Ajmer Dargah had a deep-seated hatred toward Hindus. He was among the very first Sufi saints to arrive in India where Delhi was under the rule of Sultan Iltutmish. Having arrived in Ajmer, Chishti reportedly saw a number of temples near the Anasagar lake and promised that he will have them razed to the ground.
The logic of this writer is
1. Accounts written by rylers about themselves are not to be believed
2. The archaeological evidence that screams out about destruction is not to be believed
3. The behavior of modern day ideological descendants of the violent jehad is not to be believed
Juts go with his manohar kahaniyaan . His evidence free and logic devoid ideological rant.
The Print will do well to review of this is the kind of stuff they want on their site.
Many Hindus served in the army of Mughals and British. And they followed orders of their masters. So who should apologise to whom? The rulers and their soldiers are dead.
How convenient. Earlier accounts of historians about reported destruction of temples is brushed off as exaggeration , since the writings do not fit the columnist’s thoughts
To say that a handful of invaders could not have wreaked such havoc as being reported,is again a convenient way of turning the narrative.After all the British conquered India with much less man power.
What more can one expect from a wanna-be-liberal ? Anirudh,you have truly outdone yourself in this piece.You say you stand for true history and facts yet you yourself are twisting history for political motivations “many devotees” “few temples” try to be more specific when you write lies next time.
Wishing you all the best.
Mr Anirudh, how do you know there is “nothing” the pre modern Muslims could do ? When are you going to call out the loot, plunder, forcible conversion by threats of jizyah rape and murder ? Do you have an iota of sense of proportion before trying to convince what would be acceptable to the “far right” ? Guess what, marxist historians post independence have been trying to whitewash all those pre modern Muslims rulers. It is hilarious to note that you are simply shifting the goal post now. Who is trying to convince the “far right” ? You ? As far as I understand, it is the marxist historians who conveniently waxed over tales of loot and plunder and wrongly attributed certain dark chapters of historical blunders by Muslim invaders and tried to present it in hues of them becoming Indian to fighting the British. Think again, who tried to appropriate history to convince present day Muslims ? Forget the “far right”, read the history right first. Shall we ?
Well this isn’t even the whole story. If as it is mentioned 150 years from the historical records then what about the Samudra Manthan where the Kurma(tortoise) avatar came in this story.
And in this Indian culture the masses were transferred the the knowledge in the form of stories that eventually passed to generations after generations. Well I listen and read to stuffs and I can say people that it is half baked. Don’t trust me well you shouldn’t so search it, read history as it is.
The sooner we get rid of this myth that Sufis were these peaceful lot promoting some kind of syncretism and an accommodative Islam, incorporating local beliefs, practices etc the better.
This article, on whether the dargah was built by destroying a temple, talks about everything but what the article is supposedly about – whether the dargah was built by destroying a temple.
It also gives the impression that Sufis were peaceful completely evading Moin ud din Chisti’s role in facilitating Mohammed Ghori’s invasion. Also, the role of Sufis in general, including Bangladesh, that still continues to play out. The roles of Sufis in the Noakhali pogrom against Hindus is just one example.
This article is at best, a work of a delusional “historian” who doesn’t have the rigor to go deep into a subject.
At worst, it is a hitjob on behalf of interests that aren’t happy with the hold the idea of India as a civilisational nation is taking.
Given his earlier articles, I suspect it is the latter.
After reading this article, it is safe to conclude the followiung things:
1. The author is definitely not a historian. If he was indeed one, he wouldn’t reject the historical proofs mentioned by the court historians of Muslim rulers.
2. There is compelling archaeological evidence, to prove the destruction and vandalism. A notable example being Gyanvapi Mosque.
3. Khawaja of the Ajmer Dargah had a deep-seated hatred toward Hindus. He was among the very first Sufi saints to arrive in India where Delhi was under the rule of Sultan Iltutmish. Having arrived in Ajmer, Chishti reportedly saw a number of temples near the Anasagar lake and promised that he will have them razed to the ground.
The logic of this writer is
1. Accounts written by rylers about themselves are not to be believed
2. The archaeological evidence that screams out about destruction is not to be believed
3. The behavior of modern day ideological descendants of the violent jehad is not to be believed
Juts go with his manohar kahaniyaan . His evidence free and logic devoid ideological rant.
The Print will do well to review of this is the kind of stuff they want on their site.
Many Hindus served in the army of Mughals and British. And they followed orders of their masters. So who should apologise to whom? The rulers and their soldiers are dead.
HaHa. This guy is no historian.
How convenient. Earlier accounts of historians about reported destruction of temples is brushed off as exaggeration , since the writings do not fit the columnist’s thoughts
To say that a handful of invaders could not have wreaked such havoc as being reported,is again a convenient way of turning the narrative.After all the British conquered India with much less man power.
Mandir wahin banayenge.
What more can one expect from a wanna-be-liberal ? Anirudh,you have truly outdone yourself in this piece.You say you stand for true history and facts yet you yourself are twisting history for political motivations “many devotees” “few temples” try to be more specific when you write lies next time.
Wishing you all the best.
Mr Anirudh, how do you know there is “nothing” the pre modern Muslims could do ? When are you going to call out the loot, plunder, forcible conversion by threats of jizyah rape and murder ? Do you have an iota of sense of proportion before trying to convince what would be acceptable to the “far right” ? Guess what, marxist historians post independence have been trying to whitewash all those pre modern Muslims rulers. It is hilarious to note that you are simply shifting the goal post now. Who is trying to convince the “far right” ? You ? As far as I understand, it is the marxist historians who conveniently waxed over tales of loot and plunder and wrongly attributed certain dark chapters of historical blunders by Muslim invaders and tried to present it in hues of them becoming Indian to fighting the British. Think again, who tried to appropriate history to convince present day Muslims ? Forget the “far right”, read the history right first. Shall we ?