Sita Ram Goel strongly attacks Jawaharlal Nehru's historical interpretation of medieval India, particularly his views on Islamic invasions and the Mughal period, as expressed in works like Glimpses of World History and The Discovery of India.
NEHRU’S FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE is the Marxist interpretation of Indian history, according to which Islam arrived in India carrying a message of progress to the decayed and disintegrated Hindu society. While explaining this principle, he pronounces his famous grandmother’s-tale verdict:“Islam shook India to its very foundations.”
Thus, according to Nehru, as a result of Islamic invasions, a new vital force and progressive inspiration entered Indian society. That society was becoming stagnant and unprogressive. Hindu architecture had become dilapidated, decayed, and inclined towards despondency. Due to excessive ornamentation and unnecessary elaboration, that architecture had begun to feel burdensome and heavy. In northern India, it had started reaching a stage of culmination and decline.
A new style of architecture was born, which can be called Hindu-Muslim architecture. This style was vigorous and robust. India's old master-builders (sthapatis) drew inspiration from the new system introduced by the Muslims. The religion of Islam and its philosophy of life were extremely simple and straightforward. This too influenced the contemporary architecture, and as a result, its expression became natural, graceful, and full of dignity and beauty.
This sort of analysis reflects Nehru's well-known view (written in the 1940s) that the arrival of Islam brought a revitalizing energy to a society and artistic tradition that he saw as having become stagnant, eventually leading to the beautiful synthesis visible in Indo-Islamic architecture (e.g., Mughal monuments like the Taj Mahal, mosques, forts, etc.).
It is indeed true that Indian society had begun to become decrepit and worn out at that time. It was precisely for this reason that the Hindu race, which had preserved its independence in tact for thousands of years against numerous invaders, had to witness evil days and endure miserable conditions.
But does this mean that we must accept that Islam arrived in India bearing a message of progress? What is the evidence for this conclusion? Is it merely that the Muslims succeeded, for a brief period, in forcibly violating the Hindu society? At this point, even the soul of a rigid man like Nehru probably trembled. That is why, in the absence of any other evidence, he rushes to take refuge in architecture and building art (sthāpatya). He knows full well that most of his readers are as little acquainted with the subtle interpretations of architecture and building art as he himself is. When a person spouting nonsense finds no refuge anywhere else, he resorts to self-deception and pretentious exhibitions.
Otherwise, what real connection could a heartless, utterly tasteless and crude man like Nehru possibly have with architecture and art?
Nehru’s passages on architecture is a polemical rebuttal against Hindu nationalist or traditionalist perspectives (common in critiques of Nehru's secular-Marxist lens on history), which challenge Nehru's portrayal of medieval Indian society as stagnant and Islam as a revitalizing force, dismissing his emphasis on the emergence of Indo-Islamic (or Hindu-Muslim) architecture as superficial and lacking genuine expertise or sincerity.
The present author argues that temporary military dominance ("forcible violation") does not equate to cultural or progressive advancement, and accuses Nehru of using architecture as a convenient fallback when other arguments fail. This reflects the ongoing debates in Indian historiography about the reality of medieval Islamic rule, cultural synthesis versus conquest, and Nehru's legacy.
After praising the indigenization or localization of Muslim rule, the exoneration or whitewashing of Muslim atrocities, and the glorification of Islam's progressiveness, Nehru proceeds to elaborate on his Marxist interpretation as follows:
Due to these economic changes, the Mughal Empire declined. However, no middle class (bourgeoisie) emerged at that time to take advantage of this decline and seize power... The excessive despotism of the rule had generally rendered the people powerless and spiritless, and the people had almost forgotten their ancient tradition of independence. Partly feudal, partly middle-class, and partly peasant — such forces had made several attempts to seize power. And some of these attempts had almost succeeded.
This passage reflects Nehru's application of Marxist historical materialism to late Mughal India: he attributes the empire's fall (post-Aurangzeb, 18th century) primarily to internal economic transformations, laments the absence of a revolutionary bourgeoisie (as in Europe), notes the demoralizing effect of prolonged absolutism on the populace, and acknowledges scattered, incomplete efforts by mixed social groups (feudal lords, emerging middling elements, and peasants) to challenge or capture power — efforts that fell short of establishing a new order.
The present author presents this as further evidence of Nehru's ideological lens, which downplays Hindu resilience, cultural continuity, or resistance while framing medieval Islamic rule and its decline through a Eurocentric, class-struggle framework. This aligns with Nehru's broader narrative in the book, where he sees Indian history as a series of syntheses and stagnations, without a strong indigenous capitalist or middle-class force until modern times.
But the main point is that there was a chasm between the decline of feudalism and the rise of a middle class capable of seizing power. Wherever such a gulf exists, chaos and misery inevitably emerge. The same thing happened in India as well. Petty kings and principalities struggled among themselves to gain control over the country. But they were merely representatives of a decayed and disintegrated social system. They had no solid foundation whatsoever.
This author’s analysis closely paraphrases Nehru's own analysis in his Glimpses of World History, where he applies Marxist historical materialism to explain why post-Mughal India descended into fragmentation and anarchy during the 18th century. Nehru argues as follows:
1. The Mughal decline was driven by economic shifts (e.g., weakening of centralized feudal structures).
2. No strong, revolutionary bourgeois class (as emerged in Europe) arose to fill the vacuum and establish a new progressive order.
3. This "gap" or "gulf" led to instability, with only weak, fragmented forces — petty rulers, regional nawabs, and princely states — vying for power in a society that had lost vitality under prolonged despotism.
Nehru's portrayal of pre-colonial Hindu society as inherently stagnant or decayed, does not acknowledge the resilient indigenous forces such as the Maratha, Sikh, or Rajput resistance that did challenge Mughal rule and laid the groundwork for later revival. Instead, Nehru frames the era as one of inevitable disorder due to the absence of a class-based dialectical progression, aligning with his broader narrative of India needing modern synthesis under colonial and post-independence rule.
Therefore, the Marathas, Rajputs, Jats, and Sikhs — who displayed valor by confronting and ultimately bringing about the end of the Mughal Empire — were not bearers of any national consciousness or nationalist spirit. They were merely reactionary symbols of the same decayed and disintegrated feudal system. If one accepts Nehru's interpretation of history, this is the inevitable conclusion that emerges.
To be continued
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.