Sita Ram Goel demonstrates how the history of the so-called Muslim period is a majestic saga of Hindu valor. Because the struggle against invaders was relentless and ultimately resulted in the re-establishment of Hindu dominance before the British rule, the term "Muslim era" is simply a propaganda-driven misnomer.
THEN, THERE IS THAT other great propaganda — that India was never invincible to any invader. Among world-conquerors, the first name mentioned is that of Alexander. In just three or four years, he had crushed the empires of ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and ancient Persia. Yet the same Alexander was forced to retreat in defeat from the very frontier regions of India. In the history of India, not even a mention of that barbaric invader is to be found.
The Shakas, Kushans, and Huns had repeatedly defeated the empires of ancient Rome, ancient Persia, and ancient China. But the Hindus defeated them many times over and ultimately assimilated them completely. Today, the descendants of those races have merged into the vast ocean of the Hindu race, and even the efforts of many Western historians like Colonel Todd cannot lay a finger on them.
In this context, the emperor of literature, Bankimchandra, had collected ample evidence. He writes:
Whenever a newly risen, distinctive, and conquest-hungry race establishes itself near an ancient race, the ancient race is generally brought under the dominance of the new race. The all-conquering and conquest-ambitious races of this kind were the Romans in ancient Europe, and the Arabs and Turks in Asia. Every race that came into contact with these races was defeated and subjugated by them. But among all races, the Hindus have remained unconquerable for as long as any other race has not. The Romans attacked Greece in 200 BCE. Thereafter, in only 58 years, that country was completely conquered. The famous state of Carthage first engaged in battle with the Romans in 264 BCE. By 146 BCE—that is, within just 120 years—that state was destroyed by the Romans… The Western Roman Empire, whose name is still a symbol of heroic pride in the world, was first attacked by the subsequent barbarian races in 286 CE and was destroyed in 476 CE — that is, within 190 years of the first barbarian invasion. The Arabs were, in a sense, world-conquerors. They were defeated and repelled from only two countries — France in the West, and India in the East. The Arabs conquered Mena and Syria within ten years after the death of Muhammad. They fully occupied Iran in ten years, Africa and Spain in one year each, Afghanistan in eighteen years, and Turkestan in eight years. But these same people, despite striving for three hundred years, could not bring India under their control. Muhammad bin Qasim did conquer the land of Sindh. However, he was defeated and driven out from Rajasthan, and a short time after his death, the Rajputs once again took possession of Sindh! The Eastern Roman Empire was first attacked by the Turks in the first half of the fourteenth century CE and was extinguished in 1453 at the hands of the Turkish Sultan Muhammad II — that is, within one hundred and fifty years. India was first attacked by the Muslim Arabs in 664 CE. Five hundred and twenty-nine years after that year, Shahabuddin Ghori established control over northern India. Shahabuddin or his followers were not of the Arab race. Just as the Arabs had failed in their attempts, the Turks who ruled Ghazni had likewise remained unsuccessful. Those who seized northern India from Prithviraj, Jaichandra, the Sena kings, and others were Pathans or Afghans. Five hundred and twenty-nine years after the first Arab invasion, and two hundred and thirteen years after the first Turkish invasion, the Pathans established control over India. Thus, through the successive efforts of these three races — the Arabs, the Turks, and the Pathans — India’s independence was lost over a period of five hundred years.
As a result of the Muslim invasions, the independence of most of India was indeed lost for the first time, but only for a short period. Not even five hundred years had passed when Hindus halted the advance of the Muslim invaders and turned the tables of the struggle.
Thereafter, within a hundred years, Hindus brought an end to the tyrannical Muslim regime. The powers that fought against the English invaders were therefore the Marathas, Jats, Sikhs, and others. By that time, the Mughal emperor had already become a puppet of the Marathas.
From this perspective, it is absolutely ridiculous to conclude that there ever existed a ‘Muslim era’ in the history of India, or that the Muslim emperors — who inflicted havoc and tyranny in India — were ‘Indian emperors’.
There never was any ‘Muslim era’ in India.
The period that is called the ‘Muslim era’ was, in reality, the era of continuous struggle between the self-protecting Hindu race and the invading Muslim aggressors. In that struggle, victory ultimately belonged to the Hindus alone. It is a separate matter that Hindus often had to endure the stigma of defeat for many years and on many occasions before embracing victory.
What is worthy of reflection in the present context is this: that Hindus never, even for a single moment, turned their face away from the struggle against the Muslim invaders, and continued day after day to display tremendous valour and prowess.
The history of that valour is the glorious and majestic saga of pride of the Hindu race.
The advance of the Arab invaders was finally halted from the south by the Chalukyas, from the east by the Gurjara-Pratiharas, and from the north by the Karkotas.
The Shahi emperors of Uttarapatha fought battle after battle for five generations against the Yamini sultans of Ghazni and sacrificed their lives, but never surrendered.
Muhammad Ghori and his followers had to face fierce battles with the Chauhans of Delhi, the Gahadavalas of Kannauj, the Chandellas of Jejakabhukti, and the Senas of Bengal.
Many Kshatriya dynasties of Rajasthan, the Vaghelas of Gujarat, the Parmaras of Malwa, the Kakatiyas of Andhra, the Yadavas of Maharashtra, the Hoysalas of Karnataka, and the Pandyas of Madura were indeed defeated at the hands of Alauddin Khalji and Malik Kafur, but they never turned their backs on the battlefield.
Every preceding Muslim power before the Mughals had remained incapable of bringing Odisha and Rajasthan under their control.
And in the year 1336, there arose that great Hindu Empire of Vijayanagara, which for a long three hundred years kept the Muslim invaders confined to the northern bank of the Krishna River.
By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Muslim empire at Delhi had already disintegrated. The real struggle of Babur, who re-established that empire, was not with Ibrahim Lodi, but with the united Hindu army led by Rana Sanga.
And thirty years later, the king who fought Akbar was also a Hindu—Raja Hemchandra.
If the Mughal Empire achieved unprecedented success, it was only because Akbar abandoned the path of conflict with the Hindus and adopted a policy of conciliation (sama-niti). Most of the generals who built Akbar’s empire were Hindus.
And Maharana Pratap, along with the other Sisodias of Mewar, not only rejected the Mughal policy of conciliation but spurned it outright.
They preserved their independence intact by waging war year after year.
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.