NEXT, R.S SHARMA CONTEMPLATES on conversions to Islam in many places in India during the mediaeval period. He miraculously discovered that this happened mainly in areas where Buddhists were in majority – for example, Kashmir, Northwestern region, Punjab, Sindh, Nalanda, Bhagalpur, Bangladesh, etc.
So, were the Muslim invaders responsible for the conversions of Buddhists residing in these areas? No, it was the nasty Hindus who forced them to convert, conjectures our Marxist historian. To him, the Buddhists of those areas “seem to have been persecuted. This left them with only two options. Either they had to flee to other countries or had to accept Islam to get rid of the social disabilities under which they lived.”
The only problem is nobody can find what Prof. Sharma meant by ‘the social disabilities’ as neither before nor after this statement he has mentioned anything on that score. Thus, nowhere does he state the reason which made Buddhists convert to Islam. Just a wild speculation: ‘they seem to have been persecuted.’
Now, compare this Marxist speculation with what an erudite scholar like B.R Ambedkar had concluded:
"There is no doubt that the decimation of Buddhism in India was because of the Islamic aggression. Islam came as the enemy of ‘But’ which means idol in Arabic. What many people do not know that ‘But’ is but a corrupted form of ‘Buddha’. The genesis of this Arabic word shows that to the Muslims idol-worship was associated with Buddhism. The two meant the same for them. Therefore, their mission of idol-destruction (‘But-shikani’) became a mission for the destruction of Buddhism itself. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Buddhism was the religion of entire Asia including Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan." (Emphasis added)
Since Dr Ambedkar was himself a bitter critic of Hindu Dharma, he cannot be charged of being a Hindu communalist as Prof. Sharma simply does in case of other historians. According to him, the ‘anti-Muslim historian’ R C Majumdar ‘finds it “very painful” that when a Hindu state was invaded by Muslims, a neighbouring Hindu ruler seized the opportunity to invade it from the rear.’
Indeed, what greater evidence is available in support of Majumdar being an ‘anti-Muslim’? He felt sad because a Hindu king had troubled another Hindu king while the latter was under attack from a Muslim, and so he is anti-Muslim. The great philosopher Ram Swarup had aptly analysed the Indian Marxists in a brilliant manner:
"Marxist writers are not ‘indiscriminately’ anti-imperialist. They are selective in their anti-imperialism. They have their favoured imperialisms about which they can be very lyrical. M N Roy calls the ‘Arab Empire’ a ‘magnificent monument to the memory of Mohammad,’ According to him, Islam had already ‘played out its progressive role before it penetrated India.’ Here its flags were planted on the ‘banks of the Indus and the Ganges not by revolutionary Saracen heroes, but by Persians demoralized by luxury and the barbarians of Central Asia who had embraced Islam.’ But, for M N Roy, even this corrupted Islamic imperialism was good enough for degraded India…" (Emphasis added)
Holding a similar approach towards the ‘favourite imperialism’ of the Marxists, Prof. Sharma berates those who tend to differ. As he wrote about R C Majumdar, “The specter of Mahmud of Ghazni and Timur haunts him historically.”
In an excellent defense of Islamic invaders and their cruelties, Prof. Sharma argued that it may be a fact that Timur ‘cold-bloodedly massacred one hundred thousand Hindus outside the plains of Delhi (in one single day)’, but so what! Timur had done similar things in Samarkand and Central Asia as well. Iin which case, what was so special about the Hindu massacre, which made Majumdar perturbed? It was but his ‘anti-Muslim’ attitude, suggested Prof. Sharma.
The next favourite area of Marxist R.S. Sharma is “beef-eating in ancient India.” Indeed, this topic is so dear to all Marxist historians that even without context, they love to mention it every now and then. They cannot hold back the temptation of repeating it innumerable times. They also never mention whether anything other food item was consumed in ancient India.
In a textbook for children entitled Ancient India, Prof Sharma has mentioned it prominently not once, but thrice:
“A great lover of ancient tradition, Lal viewed ancient (Indian) society rationally and wrote a great booklet proving that people consumed beef in ancient times”. (p. 7)
“(In the stone-copper age, Indian) people did consume beef but not much of pork”. (p.49).
“(In the later Vedic period) the yagna ceremony involved large-scale animal sacrifice, which resulted in the dwindling of animal wealth. Guests were called cow-killers because they were fed with beef”. (p. 95)
It would be naïve to believe that these three references to beef-eating are directed towards adding to the knowledge of children. It is simply a method of injecting in children a disapproval for the cow-reverence prevalent among the Hindus in particular, and for introducing ridicule and dislike towards Hinduism in general. Which is why Prof Sharma does not bother to tell children what other things the ancient Indians ate, or by what other names the guests were addressed?
Please do note: just like the false claim of an alleged temple-breaking ‘tradition’ among Hindu kings, this claim, too, has been made on the evidence of some obscure writer, to enhance whose authority our Marxist professor adds that he was ‘great lover of ancient tradition.’
R.S. Sharma himself has no reference to offer in the original or even secondary historical sources, even while writing a textbook with full leisure and enough time in hand. The eminent Marxist trusts and thrusts a contemporary writer upon the hapless children in his eagerness to push forward his own pet hate towards Hinduism.
Series Concluded
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
