Appointed Lecturer

It is a matter of great pleasure and satisfaction that Dr. Mazhar Kibriya, a former fellow of IOS Scholarship, has been appointed a Lecturer of Political Science at Magadh University in Bihar by the Bihar University Service Commission. He received his appointment letter in December 2002. The IOS and the Newsletter wish him a bright career and future.

Ph.D. Submitted

Many scholarship awardees have recently submitted their theses for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). The details are given below:

Mr. Zulfiquar Ph.D. in Hindi: "Swatantrayottar Hindi Patrakarita Mein Dharm Nirpekshta Ka Swaroop" under the supervision of Dr. Meera Rani Bal.

Ms. Tanzeem Fatima Ph.D. in Law: "Negotiation in the Marriage Contract: A Socio-legal Study" under the supervision of Prof. Saleem Akhtar.

Mr. Zafrul Allam Ph.D. in Psychology: "A study of Job Involvement among Bank Employees as Related to Job Anxiety Personality Characteristics and Job Burn out" under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Mahmood S. Khan

Eligibility Test

Miss Sanobar Naheed, an awardee of the IOS Scholarship, has qualified the State Eligibility Test from Uttar Pradesh and thus has become eligible for appointment as a lecture in a College or University of U.P.

Islam in Indian Environment

Dr. Imteyaz Ahmad a noted historian who teaches at Patna University, delivered a lecture on ‘Islam in the Indian Environment’.

Dr. Ahmad divided his lecture in four parts:

(i) different stages of entry of Islam into India (ii) attitude of Muslim rulers towards Muslim as well as non-Muslim subjects (iii) evolution of synthetic cultural lives of people involving indigenous influences as well as the influences brought by Islam (iv) expected attitude of Muslims in India towards our country-brethren against the above historical background.

The elaboration on the above lines does provide light in the present darkness of communal hatred in India, said Dr. Ahmad. As far as the first stage is concerned, Islam entered into India between the 7^th century to the 16^th century A.D. First it entered the south-western part of India such as Malabar followed by its entry into the Sindh in the 7^th century; thereafter it set up the Turkish state in Punjab in the 12^th century north India, and in Bengal in the 13^th century. It entered into Deccan in the 14^th century. Emperor Akbar, for the first time after the fall of the Mauryan Empire, set-up an all India Empire from Kabul/Kandhar to Bengal and from Kashmir to the valleys of Tapti and Narbada rivers. Emperor Aurangzeb after annexation of Bijapur and Marathawada established the largest empire in India touching the modern areas of Tamil Nadu, said Dr. Ahmad.

In the second stage we find different religious communities and sects. Muslims were divided into different sects, the Sunnis being the largest one followed by the Shias. Also there were sub-sects among them. By and large they lived in peace because the state itself tolerated all such heterogeneous elements. The court also delivered justice without any bias. There were non-Muslim subjects also such as Hindus, Jains, Parsis and Sikhs. It is interesting to know the position of Hindus under Muslim rulers specially in view of the present canard being spread that the Hindus were persecuted during the Muslim rule in India.

The source of this kind of canard lies in the compilation of events of the Muslim period of history by the British rulers, said the speaker. They knowingly edited the events based on the Persian historical work written in the medieval period in such a way that created hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims, and thus they wanted to rule over India by following the divide and rule policy. One of the European scholars known as Eliot Dowsen has done such misleading a work called "History of India as Told by Its Own Historians" in eight volumes. Eliot very clearly mentioned in his introduction to the volumes that the purpose of the book was to impress upon the people of India that the British rule was better than the Muslim rule in the past because it was benevolent. He, in his introduction, lambasted ‘the Bambastic Babus’ who were craving for reforms in the British rule and asked them to look into their plight of the past and asked them to appreciate the benevolent nature of the British rule. The public were exhorted on the above lines at a time when Western education had widely spread, the western concept of government such as peoples representatives and democracy were at work. Through such elaboration it was made clear that the concessions given by the Britishers were more than what they had in the past. They are living in an atmosphere of peace and security and there were far less discriminations against them.

Eliot very intelligently made choices about presentation of extracts from the Turkish writings that suggested hostile attitude of the government towards non-Muslims and deliberately eliminated texts that represented the lack of discrimination towards them. For example, the objective comments of the historian Zeyauddin Berni in his "Tarikh-e-Firoze Shahi" about the Hindus have been misrepresented by Eliot. Thus the work of European scholars like Eliot set the stage for entry of communal tinge in the works of other historians. R.C. Majumdar was one such historian. He viewed the medieval India from a communal angle. He treated the Muslim rule as a period of slavery for the Hindus and heralded the end of the slavery with the battle of Palasey in which Sirajuddaula was defeated by the Britishers with the help of his prime minister Mir. Qasim who betrayed him.

In spite of the communal tinge in the writings of the present day historians about medieval India, it is very useful to look objectively at the attitude of the Muslims, the state and the Muslim Community towards the non-Muslims. The issue may be examined in terms of three questions (a) attitude of the State (i.e. the ruling class) (ii) the attitude of the Ulama and (iii) the attitude of the people in general.

As far the first question is concerned the state maintained a balance between the practical needs and the requirements of Sharia. Of course there existed, sometimes, state arrogance as well. But it existed against the Muslims also in different situations and circumstances. For example, Abul Fazal, while invading the Deccan states mentioned about Laskhar-e-Islam and Lashkar-e-Kufr. Similarly Badayuni, the historian, talked about Kafiran-e-Mati-ul-Islam (heretics who have accepted the authority of the State) and Kafiran-e-Kalmago (heretics who believed in God but rejected the authority of the State).

As far as the Sharia was concerned, the Ulama interpreted it sometimes in a very narrow way and this created problems for the state.

As far as attitude of the people in general was concerned, they lived together with understanding, mutual respect and co-operation. Idolatry was one such issue. Muslims rejected the worship of idols while Hindus worshipped them. The irreconcilable situation was reconciled on the basis of realities and the rationale attitude of the state. Emperors like Aurangzeb who has been maligned by the communal historians had generously granted lands and state aids through Farmans (i.e. state orders) that are still preserved in the temples of Varanasi, Mathura, Multan and many places. However, they destroyed temples also and even razed them to the ground. They did so only in two situations: (a) in a situation of war in which the army of the enemy took refuge in temples and (b) in a situation in which punishment was given for making temples as places of corruption and serious anti-social activities.

Imposition of ‘Jazia’ is also misconstrued by the peole. We all know the theoretical aspect of Jazia. Therefore it is interesting to know its practical side. For the first time Jazia was imposed by Md. Bin Qasim in the 7^th century in Sindh. During Sultanate period it was not imposed on a regular basis, till the period of Firoze Shah Tughlaqh. It was treated as a special secular taxes for providing security to the non-Muslim subjects and also to ensure that the rich would not become richer and the poor poorer. In the Muslim period we don’t find continuation of the tax. Sometimes it was levied and sometimes it was withdrawn depending on the exigencies of the situation such as during the period of Zainul Abedin of Kashmir it was withdrawn but again re-introduced by Allauddin Khilji. Later on induction of Rajputs in the Mughal Imperial Services became a rationale for withdrawal of Jazia in the Mughal period. In short imposition of Jazia as a tax by the Muslim rulers was based entirely on political considerations and not on injunctions of Islam.

Another issue that has created much misunderstanding relates to conversion. We do not have statistical data to show how much conversion took place. But the reasons for conversion have been more than one such as coercion, convenience and conviction. There are interesting things to tell that conversion through coercion was few and conversion through preaching was very large. This is what is proved by the pattern of Muslim population during the medieval period in India. For example in cities such as Agra and Delhi that were centres of Muslim political powers Muslim were in minority whereas in other cities that were centres of Sufi activities Muslim population was dominant.

Another important point that deserves our attention is that there were substantial representation of non-Muslims in bureaucracy and army services of the State throughout the medieval period. Even orthodox rulers did not discriminate against the Hindus. For example once Aurangzeb passed orders for inducting Muslims in the revenue department. But when he came to know that all the Hindu employees of the department would be dismissed once the royal order was implemented to accommodate Muslims he withdrew the order and dropped the idea. Unfortunately the communal historians comment upon the first part of the order but they are silent about its second part.

Serious injustices have been done to Aurangzeb by misrepresenting historical facts. Aurangzeb did take many actions at different points of time that were contradictory to one another. The historians have clubbed all such actions together and put them in sharp focus suggesting that he imposed both Jazia and at the same time demolished temples also. Actually this was not the case. He re-imposed Jazia in the year 1679 and provided the tax payers the status of Zimmi, i.e. the protected people by the State. He did not destroy temples while going on Deccan mission because of Jazia tax.

So, in a nutshell, the various elaboration stated above do suggest that the State attitude towards its Hindu subjects was that of tolerance, understanding and cooperation throughout the medieval period excepting a few aberrations by the rulers here and there more on personal grounds.

Under the third stage of the discussion relating to the evolution of the synthetic culture in the Indian society during the medieval period, the learned speaker pointed out that since the two faiths in practice represented two dissimilar religious systems, the initial stage was hardly marked by active interaction.

However, the interest of a few Muslim scholars, such as Al Beiruni in Hindu science and learning and the activities of Sufism played important role in developing interaction among the Muslim and Hindu Communities. By the 16^th century the interactions continued with greater vigour: the Muslim scholars continued learning Hindu Science and learning and the non-Muslims learnt Persian language. This interaction led to mixing of Hindu and Muslim culture in such a way that new sects also developed that combined the teachings of both. The followers of the sects, truly speaking, were neither Hindus nor Muslims (even Din-e-Allahi of the Emperor Akbar represented a synthesis of the two regions). Thus both the communities came very close to each other at the social and cultural levels and each, by and large, participating in one another’s social and cultural events such as festivals, special programmes etc., However, there were disturbances also but they were of individual nature and professional rivalries or local factors, used to be at work in such events.

The present existing monuments are example of Turkish archaeology, music and painting. They reflect a blending of the influences of Islam and the Indian culture. Similarly the Mughal paintings are said to represent Indian soul and Iranian body.

Based on the above historical facts one very important conclusion emerges: clear indication of the three situations: (a) extremism in the Hindu-Muslim relation at the writing levels (b) moderation in such relations (c) whenever there has been political stability the second view got currency and wherever there has been instability the first view became prominent.

These historical findings find parallel in the present day India also. Period of political stability and economic development is followed by a tension-free environment in which all live together peacefully, deeply involved in making their respective contributions to the progress of the society on the other hand period of political instability and lop-sided economic development is followed by tension-packed environment in which people live under mutual mistrust, acrimony and violence.

Recent elections in Gujarat are a case in point. The election was fought on sectarian grounds only because there was political instability and economic stagnation in the country. As long as political and economic instability exist there will be a tension-borne environment around us in which the weaker sections and the minorities will suffer the most.

The speaker put emphasis on using our voting rights skillfully so that a stable government is elected with progressive policies and agenda. Strategic voting, electoral coalition and other methods may be used for making our right to franchise more and more decisive. However, we should be careful while indulging in strategic voting because it is a double-edged sword. Similarly we must, in an organized way, speak out against the myths and canards being spread out by a handful people. The majority is still peace-loving and therefore oriented towards co-existence. We must harness this situation by repeatedly speaking out in favour of a federal set-up and a pluralistic society. It should also be made clear that the present communalism being spread by a particular segment aims at setting up fascism in India. It always identifies a target group for violence. For example, it has identified minorities as its target groups just like it identified Jews in Germany during the second World War. In the process it demolishes all democratic norms to achieve its objectives. Since we have survived as a democratic society for more than fifty years, it is our duty to safeguard our achievements. It is a fight between fanaticism and liberalism and to safeguard all that is good in the Indian ethos both for the Hindus as well as the Muslims, said Dr. Ahmad.

1    2    3    4  5