Sita Ram Goel shows that the ordinary Hindu masses have never genuinely accepted Muslim rule in India as legitimate or indigenous, regardless of how "liberal" individual rulers like Akbar may have appeared to some. The common Hindu mind has consistently viewed Muslim emperors as foreign invaders, condemned those Hindus who sent daughters to their harems, and remembered the destruction of temples.
NEHRU IS NOT ALONE in his ill-informed interpretation of Indian history. Due to the influence of Western education, the number of Hindus who hate their own religion, caste and nation is increasing day by day.
In all these so-called ‘well-educated’ and ‘cultured’ Hindus, every loyal Hindu appears communal, while every anti-Hindu Muslim and Christian appears to them as a symbol of progress. Every Hindu who considers the tyrannical rule of foreign Muslim invaders as an integral part of India’s nationalism, it is no surprise that Hindu nationalism would seem like communalism.
If there is anything surprising, it is this: that Hindu nationalism has still not made any attempt to write the history of India from its own perspective, and the children of the Hindu community are compelled to study in the very same educational institutions where the worthless prattle of people with distorted views like Nehru is taught as if it were the word of the Vedas. And this dereliction of duty is occurring at a time when, in the minds of the ordinary Hindu masses, the fully evidence-based and unanimous interpretation of India's history still remains intact and unblemished.
The common Hindu people have never considered Muslim emperors as indigenous rulers. Even regarding a ‘liberal’ ruler like Akbar, the mindset of the common Hindu masses has always remained suspicious. The common Hindu people have never accepted that Muslim emperors who forcibly added Hindu women to their harems became indigenous merely because of this act. On the contrary, the common Hindu masses have always condemned those Hindus who, swayed by greed or fear, sent their daughters to the harems of Muslim emperors.
Mahmud of Ghazni, who destroyed countless temples like Somnath and committed horrific massacres, has always been regarded by the common Hindu people as a symbol of Islam’s hostility towards other religions.
Nor has the common Hindu populace ever accepted that Islam came to India bearing any message of progress whatsoever. The gaze of the common Hindu masses has never been drawn towards those tombs and intricately carved wine goblets over which people of distorted intellects like Nehru become ecstatic. The gaze of the common Hindu masses has always remained fixed on those temples whose sites and whose bricks and stones were used to build mosques. To atheists like Nehru, the Hindu deities buried beneath the steps of Jama Masjids may hold no significance, but the common Hindu people can never forget those insults and injuries to their culture and religion.
The distorted interpretation made regarding the period of Muslim rule is merely a part of a larger distortion. Without the eradication of that distortion, the revival of the true history of India can never be possible.
That larger distorted interpretation firstly creates the proposition that the land of India is not merely the motherland of the Hindu race alone. It is said that the ancestors of the Hindu race, the Aryans, also came to India from foreign lands. And in these races that came from abroad, the Aryans were not alone. In the course of time, many other races such as Iranians, Yavanas (Greeks), Shakas, Pahlavas, Kushans, Huns, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Mughals, and English, etc., also arrived from abroad. Therefore, the Hindu race has no special claim over this country. Either all the foreign-origin races have equal rights over this land, or it belongs to whichever race conquers it.
Thirdly, although a society famously known as the Hindu race may have resided in this country for a very long time, no one has ever received any indication of an ideology such as Hindu nationalism. The Hindu race has never collectively struggled against any foreign invader. On the contrary, the Hindu race has only been known for eruptions of mutual rivalry among its own sects, sub-castes, and provincial clans; no tradition of united resistance is found anywhere. Therefore, it has always been well-known that during the period of British rule, Hindu nationalism that existed for a short while is indisputably the conclusion that the repetitive chant of modern Hindu nationalism merely vocalizes the narrow communal mentality of a handful of reaction-prone individuals.
But what is the actual truth about the Hindu race? Does the entire evidence of Indian history support the aforementioned view, or is it pointing towards some other view?
First of all, based on historical evidence, the following conclusion is indisputable: the Hindu race alone has been, since time immemorial, the presiding and protecting force of the land of India. No other race has ever shown such boundless love and such intense sacrifice for the land of India.
The mountains of India, the rivers of India, the lakes of India, the forests of India — in short, every corner and every particle of the land of India — if it has been supremely sacred for any race, then it has been so solely for the Hindu race.
The Hindu religion, Hindu conduct and traditions cannot even be imagined by disregarding the geography of India. Muslims and Christians can naturally abandon the birthplaces of their respective faiths and flourish in foreign lands. But for the Hindu alone, the land of India has been — and will remain — both his field of Dharma and his Kurukshetra.
Therefore, this very controversy is futile: where the various components of the present Hindu race came from in the course of time, and what blood flows in their veins.
Even the hundreds and thousands of fanciful theories propounded by Western scholars have not been able, till today, to prove that the Aryans ever came to this country from outside. In this context, abundant evidence can be presented to show that at one time the Aryan race and Aryan culture themselves spread out from this very country to the farthest corners of the world.
Of the Iranians, Yavanas (Greeks), Shakas, Kushans, and Huns, only their memory remains in this land. They never performed any heroic deed here, nor did they ever engage in any struggle against anything.
On the contrary, the Hindu race has always been famous precisely for the mutual rivalries among its sects, sub-castes, and provincial families.
Even the brief outburst of Hindu nationalism that occurred during the British rule finds no rooted tradition behind it.
Therefore, this conclusion is inescapable: the parrot-like repetition of modern Hindu nationalism merely gives voice to the narrow communal mentality of a handful of reaction-prone individuals. Hindus always had the pan-Bharatavarsha consciousness in their very DNA.
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.
