Imagine a world where night and day, predator and prey, fire and ice; are forcibly shoved under one umbrella and aren’t allowed to acknowledge that one is the nemesis of the other and the twain cannot co-exist. Imagine a world where oil and water aren’t recognised as being immiscible and immense guilt is piled on water for being different from oil. This is exactly what Shri Anirudh Kanisetti attempts to do in this article, which is the latest in his series of articles attempting to sprinkle just a touch of Muslim presence in the political and religious history of the Hindus across the geography of Bharata, akin to the final sprinkle of chopped cilantro atop Biryani – unnecessary, irksome and leaving a bad taste in the mouth. He begins with the Deccan and moves upward and westward, where he develops a fascination with the Ghazanavids and the Ghurids and
endeavours to engulf them in sheep’s clothing to hide the wolves within.

This entire exercise is, clear as day, the newest cobblestone on the long winding path of the worldwide drive to whitewash the atrocities and violence committed by followers of Islam, ancient and modern and all in between; taken up by the leftist cabal of mediapersons, intellectuals, academics, politicians, and businesses as their raison d’etre.

In the latest article Shri Kanisetti decides to paint in almost a neighbourly hue Muhammad ibn Sam, known more popularly as Muhammad Ghori, by bringing out several insignificant occurrences and calling them nuances instead of logical conclusions or idiosyncrasies that they were. He picks up inconsequential examples which are inevitable outcomes of a mixing of cultures, albeit forced; or are blips on an otherwise coherent graph.

The example that he picks out to paint the Turks as much loved and admired by the Kashmir kingdom and its neighbouring Ladakh monastery, is that of dress. He refers Kalhana’s Rajatarangini to prove his point that the Kashmiri nobility adopted Turkic dressing of coats and braids; and mentions wall murals in the Dukhang monastery at Alchi in Ladakh, depicting Buddhist nobles from West Tibet wearing Turkic coats, armbands and boots; and infers that the Kashmiri and Buddhist nobility of the period admired the Turks. This is an example of extrapolation to the point of absurdity; as his ilk are wont to do to force-fit existing data into trends of their choosing.

To quote Shri Kanisetti, “The Kashmir kingdom neighboured Ghaznavid territories for nearly a century”. Is it not organic then, for some cultural influence to flow freely between the two territories? Kashmir borders Ladakh on the other side, so a trace of what Kashmir picked up from the Turks, would have percolated down to Ladakh. Appreciation for the dressing style of a people does not equivalently extend to admiration of their rulers. To base an entire article, as far reaching as this, on a premise as flimsy as that of appropriation of a few design elements of the dress of the royals of a neighbouring state; is an indicator of how far he has had to stretch the little material that he had.

Shri Kanisetti’s preoccupation with the need to cleanse Ghori of all sins is almost ludicrous; as becomes evident when he proceeds to state: “In his own time, Ghori claimed a host of titles which seem to suggest that he was, indeed, a murderous orthodox maniac, such as ‘victor over the unbelievers and the heretics, suppressor of heresy and the seditious’”; immediately followed by an explanation to the reader that Ghori did not know his own mind, he wasn’t a murderous orthodox maniac but rather wanted his rivals to think so – thereby severely underestimating the reader’s powers of comprehension.
He proceeds to use the geopolitical scenario of the time to indulgently justify Ghori’s turn towards the east to quench his lust for gold and blood: “For these parvenus to claim parity and prestige within such a world required symbolic and financial wealth, both of which Indian kingdoms (and heterodox Muslim sects) could provide (after some degree of violence)”.
To further drive home his point of Ghori being an exemplar of human virtue, Shri Kanisetti takes the usage of old coins. He looks upon Ghori’s usage of existing coinage as a proud parent would upon his child’s completion of a race without falling; as if it were some unprecedented achievement rather than the most logical path to follow in the given circumstances.
The Ghurids hadn’t shifted their capital to Delhi. Bharata, to the Ghurids, was still only a partially annexed territory which they were content to govern from afar; and therefore, it did not make sense economically and logistically, for them to establish new mints for coins. They continued the use of the existing mints which, following the norm and belief system of the land and its population, had depictions of Hindu Devis and Devatas on them. They simply went on to add the names of the current rulers in the language of the masses, which was Sanskrit for a large part of the geography that was then identified as Bharata and also some areas beyond its borders.

To maximise reach, the language of the masses must be used for communication – and as Sanskrit was the prevalent language not only across the expanse of the territory counted under Bharata but also from South East Asia to Central Asia till Caspian sea, wherever Hinduism and Buddhism spread, it was imperative that they issue coins, and other communication aimed at the masses, in Sanskrit. Unlike what most popular Historians tell the modern world, Sanskrit was not the language of the elite only. Like most languages, it had a classical and a more plebeian version, known as Vedic Sanskrit (Sanskrit of the Vedas) and Laukika Sanskrit (Sanskrit of the people).

The Ghurids were neither the first nor the last to adopt the practice of continuation of existing mints until firmly establishing themselves in a new territory. The East India Company, until they won the territories ruled by the Marathas in the 19^th century, continued to mint pagoda coins, showcasing Gopurams of temples, a hallmark of the erstwhile Vijaynagara empire, in the Madras mint. Similarly, in Northern India, The East India Company continued usage of Mughal coinage and Mughal mints.
The Ghurids set up their own mints in Bharata only after the slave dynasty, their vassals at first, established themselves firmly in 1211 CE. The battle of Tarain was fought in 1192 CE, and resulted in the defeat, capture and death of Prithviraja Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori. After Ghori’s death in 1206 CE, Qutubuddin Aibak came to Delhi as a vassal of the Ghurids and laid the foundation of what came to be known as the ‘Slave Dynasty’. Aibak’s son-in-law, Iltutmish who succeeded him in 1210 CE and ruled till 1236 CE until his own death, was the one who installed the first mints in 1211 CE^[1]. Should Ghori then be lauded for following what was a sort of norm among invaders? Should there be paragraphs upon paragraphs written in praise of one more invader adopting a practice that was akin to the reinvention of the wheel in the correct context? Does this prove Ghori to be extraordinarily generous and kind, or simply not-a-fool?

Shri Kanisetti spends even more time and words waxing eloquent about Ghori’s kindness; in his appointment of Prithiviraja’s son as the ruler of Ajmer as a vassal. However, reinstating the sons or relatives of the defeated kings as vassals was neither a gesture arisen out of compassion, nor a path-breaking idea; rather a political and often religious move employed by many to ensure loyalty from the annexed kingdom in exchange for an assurance of security.
In this particular case, the act was inspired by both the aforementioned motives. The political gain being sought was to create an internal squabble among the Chauhan army – pitting Prithviraja’s minor son Govindaraja against his uncle, Prithviraja’s brother Hariraja who wasn’t willing to be a vassal to the conquering kingdom ^[2]. The existence of Prithviraja’s brother is categorically ignored by Shri Kanisetti in his article because the answer to the next logical question; “why was a minor seated on the throne when an adult contender was available and able?” is not comfortable or easily fitted into the narrative being built.
It is clear to anyone with some logical thinking capability that the minor son could be cowed more effectively, controlled more easily from afar; and therefore was chosen as the one to be instated on the throne of Ajmer as the vassal. Shri Kanisetti, however, wouldn’t touch such inconvenient facts and historical occurrences with a ten foot pole, because the inferences that can be easily drawn from them disrupt his worldview and the rosy picture of Islamic invaders that he is trying to paint for gullible minds.

Coming back to the ascension of Govindaraja to the Ajmer seat; the primary motive of Ghori here was religious – hidden political agenda doesn’t excuse religious motivation. The aftermath of the so-called crowning of Govindaraja; the unchecked unabashed Islamisation of Ajmer, is evidence that speaks for itself.  There have been conquering dynasties prior to the Ghurids as well viz. the Kushans, the Shakas and the Parthians (that came to be known as the Indo-Parthians later on) – each of the non-Islamic dynasties assimilated with the local culture and did not need to destroy the existing religious society and structures; unlike Islam that has wiped out the existence of any traces of local cultures wherever it has set foot – those who wish to disbelieve or verify for themselves may visit Bamiyan in Afghanistan and present an alternative answer for why none of the colossal Buddha statues have faces.
In Ajmer, thankfully for the endemic populace, Govindaraja’s ‘rule’ did not last long. The faction of the Chauhan army led by Prithviraja’s brother Hariraja that broke off after Ghori’s decision to instate Govindaraja, later attacked and captured the official seat of Ajmer in 1193 CE; forcing Govindaraja to take shelter in the Ranathambore Fort. Govindaraja was kept as a vassal of the Ghurids at Ranathambhore, from where Iltutmish displaced him and the Chauhans in 1226 CE^[3]. The Chauhans managed to ultimately reconquer Ranathambhore after Iltutmish’s death between 1236-1240 CE. The fearless Rajput that he was, Hariraja Chauhan made an attempt to recapture Delhi in same year as the recapture of Ajmer; and upon his failure committed ritual suicide with his whole family by entering ritualistic fire, known as Agni Pravesha.

Shri Kanisetti cleverly skips over all of the aforementioned historical information because it doesn’t aid his attempt to paint a barbarous Islamic invader as a gentle, noble soul who was compelled to choose violence in situations where it was unavoidable. He uses the anomalous errant Hindu king across millennia long history to portray the rampage of the Ghurid armies through Bharata as insignificant. Using an exception in one case to justify the rule in another, which is the tool Shri Kanisetti uses across the expanse of his article; is a clear example of flawed logic.
He gives us two examples of Hindu kings who have been known to behave in a manner similar to Muslim invaders. Of them, the first is Harsha of Kashmir who was an outlier – his looting and breaking of temples earned him the censure of all his clergy and subjects, and he was described as behaving in a Turk-like manner. It is clear that such behaviour was unexpected for a Hindu king but was accepted as being the norm for the Turks whom he seems to have admired.
The second example he picks is that of the Cholas of Tamil Nadu, in whose 1500 year long history there has been only one ruler (Kulottunga II, who reigned for less than two decades from 1133 CE to 1150 CE) who can be accused of destruction of temples of sects other than his own.

To use these cases from the Hindu history, which are no more than sparse idiosyncrasies, to justify doctrine sanctioned violence that Islam has inflicted for centuries on pagans and minorities across the world, idolators and otherwise, shows a quiet desperation to prove the existence of secularism among the followers of a decisively inflexible faith. The attitude of Islam, since its advent, towards non-believers is no undisclosed secret. Shri Kanisetti conveniently and comfortably ignores all of it because that’s how the leftist system trains its recruits – the flow of information is relentless, ceaseless and always one-way. No amount of correction or evidentiary dismissal of their hypotheses or conclusions ever makes its way to their brains.
Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the true history of Bharata and the nature of Islam can see through the whitewash exercise that Shri Kanisetti’s series of articles is. It seems to be an attempt to prove that the clashes of warriors and invaders belonging to ancient civilisations, which were based upon diametrically opposite ideologies, were nothing more than a corporate meet-and-greet or to use the West’s favourite phrase – a melting pot of cultures.

The model of historical education followed for close to eight decades in our country has been, to quote a famous TV programme of the 90’s, “Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate”; and it will continue to be so unless we read true history, write corrections and rebuttals of such subtly and brilliantly misleading pieces, tell our true stories – not to always keep one step behind the leftists and to keep answering their attacks, but to someday wrench their narrative-setting power and form our own narrative; to flood the public consciousness with the truth so often and so loudly so that it drowns out the din of the lies that have been drilled into our brains.

 

References:

1. The History and Culture of the Indian People Vol -6: The Delhi Sultanate; RC Majumdar; Bharati Vidya Bhawan
2. History of the Chāhamānas; RB Singh
3. A Study of Cahamana Inscriptions of Rajasthan; Anita Sudan