Hindu-Muslim tensions during the war of independence in 1857

UPDATE (August 12, 2012): For some reason, some other folks seem to have the impression that this post is a review of Parag Tope’s book “Operation Red Lotus”. It is not. It is a small examination of the mendacity of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim unity propounded by Marxist-secularist history engineers as well as some well-meaning but misguided people. 1857 was not some Utopian Hindu-Muslim bonhomie as it is sought to be portrayed. In fact, it was a period when in many cases, Hindus were at the receiving end of Islamic barbarity, in part owing to the self-defeating idealistic idiocy of certain Hindus themselves.


Parag Tope, the author of “Operation Red Lotus”[1] made some interesting remarks on Hindu-Muslim relations[2] during the war of independence in 1857.[3]

It was much more than a “civilian” Hindu-Muslim solidarity, which clearly was on display at every level – but as a matter of fact – not as a “romance” that it is viewed as today.

While there were indeed successful attempts at forging Hindu-Muslim unity in 1857, as Parag rightly says it definitely was no “romance” as it is viewed today largely due to Marxist-secularist subversion of history. A careful examination further reveals data which underneath the veneer of the purported unity shows outright religious tensions and bigotry at work. This makes it hard to justify defining Hindu-Muslim relations during the war of independence in 1857 as,

solidarity, which clearly was on display at every level

It is undeniable that there were instances where both Hindus and Muslims responded to calls and successfully forged alliances both at military and civilian levels, but there is also significant evidence of religious tensions and bigotry leading to an inevitable conflict. We will in this post examine some of this evidence which makes it difficult to give colors of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim amity to 1857.

The proclamations that went out of the Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah’s court no doubt stressed Hindu-Muslim unity and desisted from using any particular religious colors.[4] The Delhi proclamation of May 11 1857, and the Azamgarh proclamation are also fine examples of attempts at forging Hindu-Muslim unity.[5] Both proclamations called upon Hindus and Muslims to be of one mind and overthrow the British. Interestingly, Sarfaraz Ali, the Islamic religious leader of Gorakhpur made fervent calls to Muslims invoking the prophet, the “impure” kaffirs, and then also solemnly called upon Hindus to rise against the firangis.[6] Similar wording is also seen in the proclamations issued by the grandson of Bahadur Shah, Mohammad Feroze Khan and the imam of Allahabad, Liyaqat Ali.[7]

However, to many Muslims, 1857 was really nothing more than a bright prospect for the return to power of Islamic authority, as it had been during the heydays of Bahadur Shah’s ancestors. The imam of Delhi Muhammad Sayid openly declared jihad[8] and gave the uprising colors of an Islamic holy war. Green flags[9] were displayed in the city and Hindus were bullied.[10] Bahadur Shah to his credit resisted Sayid’s bigotry and for the purposes of the uprising forbade jihad against Hindus.[11] However, the gradual arrival of assorted bands of jihadis accompanied by fanatical Wahabis muddied the waters and created tensions. Fatwas were issued calling the uprising religious duty of all Muslims to fight the British[12] and restore Muslim rule. The jihadi-mujahiddin force that gathered at Delhi displayed open hostility toward Hindus and resorted to aggressive religious posturing. Gazis who had come from Tonk, a Muslim dominated area in Rajasthan, declared they will slaughter cows and kill Hindus before destroying the firangis. Thankfully, again to Bahadur Shah’s credit, he promptly put a stop to this outright religious fanaticism.[13] Away from Delhi, in Varanasi, on the night of the uprising (June 4) some Muslims attempted to raise a green flag in the temple of Bishessur.[14] In Hyderabad, the Muslim response to the possibility of Maratha success during the uprising was outright negative, to say the least. While the prospect of Mughal rule bring restored to bring back the days of Islamic hegemony found a lot of favorable opinion.[15]

While in avadh the uprising took the form of what could perhaps be called a people’s movement[16], Hindu-Muslim tensions nonetheless played their part. Raja Man Singh appealed to thakurs and talukdars not to join the mussalmaan-s since the uprising, if successful, would only end up putting power into their hands. He invoked Muslim destruction of Hindu temples, the murderous massacres of entire populations, rape of women and putting them in harems as sexual slaves, religious taxation on Hindus, forcible conversions, etc. to support his appeal.[17][18]. He also raised the matter of Islamic religious leaders Ghulam Husain and Amir Ali attempting to destroy the hanumAn-garhi temple in avadh not too long ago.[19]. Ahmadullah Shah, an Islamic religious leader openly displayed religious bigotry against Hindus in avadh. Having returned from visits to Iran and Arabia not too long before the uprising[20], he called for jihad wherever he went[21]. Jailed at Faziabad sometime during Jan-Feb 1857 for inciting violence by his calls for jihad[22], he broke prison in June 1857 during the chaos accompanying the uprising. Soon after on being chosen as a leader[23] by an assortment of sepoys[24] and religious fanaticism driven bigots, following the path of Ghulam Husain and Amir Ali, he promptly called for destruction of the hanumAn-garhi Hindu temple.[25]

Khan Bahadur Khan, descendant of a regional Muslim ruler, declared himself Nawab of Rohilkhand and tried to reconcilie with Hindus by promising ban on cow-slaughter. However, his efforts were futile and his followers created communal feuds.[26] Hindu property was confiscated, villages were burnt, cows were slaughtered in temples and the macabre sight of heads of murdered Hindus on poles greeted people entering Muslim majority areas.[27] The Maratha Peshwa Nana Sahib attempted to put a stop to the prevailing situation and create Hindu-Muslim amity, but was unsuccessful.[28] We can however understand why he failed since the Hindus in Barailley and the surrounding areas being badly mauled by Muslim brutality were in no mood to join hands with their oppressors. Meanwhile the Rohillas were not pleased with Nana’s presence.[29] There were also tensions in Bijnor between Hindus and Muslims, mainly fueled by the machinations of one Ahmad Allah Khan.[30]

The commendable efforts of the likes of Bahadur Shah, Khan Bahadur Khan, Nana Sahib to forge a Hindu-Muslim alliance through religious amity must be appreciated. Bahadur Shah in particular made a conscious effort to be sensitive to Hindu religious sentiments and was quite assertive in curbing the anti-Hindu jihadi elements. However, without passing any judgement on the motives behind those efforts, it must be noted that the aged Mughal ruler was aware of the fact that significant sections of the sepoys were Hindus. He knew only too well that any religious extremism upon their community would beget nothing but disaster for the uprising that he had reluctantly approved at the prospect of a revival of Mughal rule to its long lost position.[31] Notwithstanding the steps taken by Bahadur Shah and to a lesser extent by Khan Bahadur Khan and Nana Sahib, Hindu-Muslim conflict could not be avoided. In the aftermath of 1857, a religious revival of orthodox Islam took hold. Spearheaded mainly by the Deoband, shared practices with Hindus were derided and avidly sought to be discarded. Fatwas[32] prohibiting social and business relations with Hindus were passed.[33] Unfortunately, but not very surprisingly, the chasm between Hindus and Muslims widened further.


UPDATE (June 21, 2011): Parag Tope has kindly clarified that in his remark, as quoted in this post, “Level was in the context of hierarchy“. I find myself agreeing with his remark after this clarification. Readers are directed to his comment for a clear elucidation, and my subsequent response here.


[1] ^ (Tope 2010)
[2] ^ (Tope 2011)
[3] ^ While some call it mutiny, some call it rebellion, we will for the purposes of this article call it war of independence of 1857 or simply as 1857. We may at times also refer to it as uprising.
[4] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[5] ^ (Hussain n.d.)
[6] ^ (Chaudhuri 1957)
[7] ^ (Hussain n.d.)
[8] ^ Sayid declared to Bahadur Shah that his call for Jihad extended against the Hindus as well (Darymple 2006).
[9] ^ green is the color of Islam
[10] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[11] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[12] ^ (Jain 2010)
[13] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[14] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[15] ^ Ibid.
[16] ^ (Jain 2010)
[17] ^ (Innes 1895)
[18] ^ It is beyond the scope of this article to dwell upon the matters invoked by Raja Man Singh. We will hopefully discuss those in different articles which will in time be published on this blog.
[19] ^ (Jain 2010)
[20] ^ (Asfraf 2007)
[21] ^ (Jafri 2007)
[22] ^ (Chick 1974)
[23] ^ (Jain 2010)
[24] ^ The sepoys included Hindus as well (probably in small numbers), who were dismayed by their new leader calling for jihad against their community and destruction of Hindu temple(s). We can safely assume many of these Hindus who chose Ahmadullah to be the leader were brain-dead fools who had neither any sense of history nor any vision. Sadly, such useful idiots abound in copious numbers even today. Indeed, this reminds us of the British general James Outram’s disparaging characterization (post 1857) of Hindus as the most credulous and childish race (Lee-Warner 1972).
[25] ^ (Jafri 2007)
[26] ^ (Sen 1977)
[27] ^ (Brodkin 1969)
[28] ^ (Jain 2010)
[29] ^ Ibid.
[30] ^ (Malik and Dembo 1971)
[31] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[32] ^ Islamic religious injunction
[33] ^ (Metcalf 1982)


Ashraf, K.M. 2007. “Muslim Revivalists and the Revolt of 1857.” In Rebellion 1857, National Book Trust.

Brodkin, E.I. 1969. “Proprietary Mutations in Rohilkhand.” Journal of Asian Studies 24(4).

Chaudhuri, S.B. 1957. Civil Rebellion in the Indian Mutinies 1857-1859. The World Press Private Ltd.

Chick, N.A. 1974. Annals of the Indian Rebellion, 1857-58. Charles Knight & C.

Dalrymple, William. 2006. The Last Mughal. Penguin.

Hussain, Iqbal. “Proclamations of the Rebels of 1857.” In Indian Council of Historical Research.

Innes, Lieut-Gen Mc. Leod. 1895. Lucknow & Oude in the Mutiny. A.D. Innes & Co.

Jafri, Saiyid Zaheer Husain. 2007. “Indegenous Discourse And Modern Historiography of 1857: The Case Study of Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah.” In Rethinking 1857, Orient Longman.

Jain, Meenakshi. 2010. PARALLEL PATHWAYS Essays on Hindu-Muslim Relations 1707-1857. New Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt Ltd.

Lee-Warner, William. 1972. The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie. Irish University Press.

Malik, Hafeez, and Morris Dembo. 1971. Sir Sayyidʼd History of the Bijnor Rebellion. East Lansing, Michigan: State University Asian Studies Center.

Mazumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1963. The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857. Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay.

Metcalf, Barbara Daly. 1982. Islamic revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900. Princeton University Press.

Sen, Surendranath. 1977. Eighteen Fifty-Seven. Publications Division.

Tope, Parag. 2011. “comment-228476154 on Book Review- Operation Red Lotus.” Centre Right India. http://centreright.in/2011/06/book-review-operation-red-lotus/#comment-228476154 (Accessed June 17, 2011).

Tope, Parag. 2010. Tatya Topeʼs Operation Red Lotus. Rupa & Co.

19 thoughts on “Hindu-Muslim tensions during the war of independence in 1857

  1. First of all – a nicely written blog and excellent details.  Great job.There are two critical successes that the marxists have achieved in their narrative of 1857.  They have altered the discourse from the role of the leadership and brought the focus of 1857 to “society” and a “social” narrative – which is the core of liberal/leftist thought.  The minute you quoted my second line without the first – it shows that you have fallen for the leftist trap.  Your entire blog on this subject – is *exactly* what the leftist presentation of 1857 is all about.  You are taking an opposite position (so if the leftist say – “hindu-muslim” unity – you want to say “hindu-muslim” quarrel).  I would like to marginalize this kind of thinking.The Anglo-Indian War of 1857 was about a Maratha-Mughal alliance with a figurehead Mughal emperor – in continuation of a longstanding Maratha strategy that started in the early 1700s and then was cemented by Mahaji Shinde.  That is the primary story.  The secondary story is about Hindus and Muslims – and yes – reading the 125 letters written to Tatya Tope during february/march 1857 – shows that Hindu and Muslim relations were indeed very different then than now.  Yet – I deliberately chose not to emphasize that – because that was a distraction from the main context of 1857.Unfortunately – by highlighting what is secondary and marginalizing what is primary – you are implicitly supporting the leftist paradigm.  Making the less consequential, consequential.  You are missing the woods for the trees…  if you want to alter the narrative I would urge you to think orthogonally… 

    • Comment by Parag Tope via email:
      I would urge you get out of the “hindu-muslim” hole that was created in the early 1900s… in 1857 – there was  no romance of hindu-muslim solidarity – it was a pragmatic alliance which worked as well as it could…

      …if you are looking for whip for self-flagellation – then yes – blame the Indian leaders for not being able to plan for the barbarism of the enemy… that is the point I make in the conclusions of the book… this obsession with “hindu-muslim” relations is a distraction…

    • @google-c536d18214468a9cf658d0581244de6f:disqus Thanks for the kind words, and for following up.

      I would like to point out that this article is not about 1857 in general. You might have also noticed what I mentioned right towards the beginning.

      We will in this post examine some of this evidence which makes it difficult to give colors of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim amity to 1857

      The focus of this short article is on one particular aspect of 1857 only, as the title of the post indicates in no uncertain terms. As you and others may have noted, it is not “The war of independence in 1857”, “Exploring the 1857 uprising”, “A study of the 1857 mutiny/rebellion/war” or anything of that sort. If I wrote a book (or even an article) on 1857 in general, and then devoted say 90% of it on “Hindu-Muslim tensions” alone, then perhaps any ungracious insinuation of being in a hole, or missing woods for the trees, or marginalizing other aspects of 1857 would hold true. Also, do note that even though this article is only on the matter of Hindu-Muslim tensions in 1857, I have on multiple occasions mentioned instances of amity, and attempts of various characters to achieve the same. Furthermore, the goal of this article is not to discuss logistics or leadership or military/civilian alliances in 1857, so your observations about “Maratha-Mughal alliance” or “strong leadership”, as valid they may be, are really extraneous to the subject matter of this article and there was no reason for me to provide those quotes here.

      The goal of this short article is simply to expose the mendacity that 1857 was an instance of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim amity. Perhaps I misunderstood, but your remark over at CRI that

      Hindu-Muslim solidarity, which clearly was on display at every level

       seems to support this mendacity. Of course your subsequent points here show you are aware that there was no solidarity at every level. As I have mentioned numerous times, alliances were formed and indeed there were many instances of sincere and/or successful efforts at forging inter-community amity. But, such instances cannot be allowed to whitewash undeniable evidence of plain religious bigotry and resulting conflict, as I have demonstrated in my short article. I agree with your characterization that,

      it was a pragmatic alliance which worked as well as it could

      I haven’t read your book yet, but going by Karmasura’s review and the title of the book itself, it seems like the focus of the book is on the tactical and leadership aspects of 1857. So, your gracious acknowledgement of intentionally choosing not to emphasize other aspects is understandable. Any new data on the strategic aspect, or logistics or the roles of Nana Sahib and any other 1857 leader is very valuable, and I am very eagerly looking forward to reading your book.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the only point of “discord” between us is on how to challenge the Marxist-secularist narrative. Any historical narrative that claims to throw light on a whole episode, and instead focuses on any specific aspect(s), while whitewashing others/(hard-data) is dishonest. Which is exactly how the Marxist-secularist complex (henceforth referred to as MS)  works. I will reserve any comment on the differences you have mentioned with regards to non-Marxist historians like Majumdar, Sen, et. al. until I have read your book. Your contention is that the narrative should shift from the social aspect (which the Marxists focus on) to leadership, strategic, tactical aspects. While throwing light on the latter is most welcome, I think it is important not to let the social narrative of MS go unchallenged. We can discuss more either here or over email if you wish. Thanks again for your comments.

      • Just a quick response to one of points above…>> “at every level”  Level was in the context of hierarchy.  Highest level – Nana Saheb/Baija Bai/Bahadur Shah/Begum Hazrat Mahal etc.  At Tatya Tope/Diwans/Nawabs level.  At the soldiers level and at the civilian level.  You do see an alliance at every level.  This statement is factually and logically accurate and complete.  However – while there you see an alliance at every level – does not statistically mean that at each level – there was 100% solidarity.  Clearly – some kings did not participate (muslims and or hindus)… or soldiers who did not fight shoulder to shoulder… or civilians who did not help…Let me repeat –  there is evidence of a Hindu-Muslim solidarity/alliance at every level – from the Maratha alliance with the Mughals at the top to the civilians sharing a common goal -This statement is logically and factually correct.  It makes no claim on any statistics of how many percentage of kings were allied or how many soldiers fought shoulder to should or how many civilians supported the war – disregarding religion.  

      • @Parag, In light of your clarification that “Level was in the context of hierarchy“, I agree with your remark. That was clearly a misunderstanding. I have updated the post with your clarification.

        I would like to carry this discussion forward in terms of the type of historical narrative (social vs. strategic/leadership/logistics) which you averred to in one of your comments, with respect to challenging Marxist narratives of Indian history. However, such a discussion deserves a more tight academic treatment than what is possible in the comments thread under this post. Unfortunately, other commitments and pending posts make it difficult for me to embark on it as of now. I’ll be in touch with you, hopefully in not too long a time. Your responses here and over email, on this particular article, are appreciated.

      • Thanks Manas for clearing up the misunderstanding.  
        I do hope that the primary thesis of ORL about 1857 being a war with advanced planning with full logistical understanding, the primary successes, the *real* reasons for the defeat, and the secondary, but an important success for Indic values – don’t get sidelined.

  2. Thanks for the link. To me, nothing is more significant and specific other than Point (24) that correctly, precisely and ‘sadly’ summarizes the sentiments of Hindus, then, recent past and current present.

    We have not moved one step forward. Still living battered, bruised and divided as ever! It is a shame.  The rest of the narrative has a relevance only to a historical past of India which, if has to be believed, has to be from a Marxian, Nehruvian, Utopian Leftist viewpoint. I am also surprised not to find any reference of Rani of Jhansi who was also contemporary to Bahadur Shah and Tantya Tope during the 1857 rebellion or the first war of independence as one might call it.

    To sum up that Hindu-Muslims were bhai bhai during those years is very in-conceivable.  Muslims have always been the black mole in Indian History, deceitful and traitors at the same time.

    • Comment by Prashanth via email:
      An excellent blog. My inferences.

      1] To believe that Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony during those years is inconceivable. The maxian, nehruvian Indian history spoon fed to us during our history classes is as absurd and ludicrous as one would want to believe it to be as correctly pointed out in “reference 24”.

      2] I don’t see any reference to Rani of Jhansi who is a contemporary of that time and an avid contributor to the 1857 rebellion along with Tantya Tope and Bahdur Shah.

      • Comment by Parag Tope via email in reply to Prashanth’s comment:

        An excellent blog. My inferences.
        1] To believe that Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony during those years isinconceivable. The maxian, nehruvian Indian history spoon fed to us duringour history classes is as absurd and ludicrous as one would want to believeit to be as correctly pointed out in “reference 24”.

        living in harmony and living in dis-harmony are phrases that don’t really mean anything – other than evoke emotional reactions.

        2] I don’t see any reference to Rani of Jhansi who is a contemporary of thattime and an avid contributor to the 1857 rebellion along with Tantya Topeand Bahdur Shah.

        I assume you mean the blog – because Operation Red Lotus – does cover the events at Jhansi and Lakshmibai extensively.

  3. Comment by Karmasura via email:
    Thanks for that very insightful article. Awesome research! Parag Tope ought to have spoken about that in the book and if that had been a factor for the defeat of the 1857 fighters. But sadly, that has not been mentioned in the book and it goes on to view the book on the tactical aspects of the war. I did not have the data as you mentioned above, so I did not raise that issue in the review

    • Comment by Parag Tope via email in reply to Karmasura’s comment:

      Parag Tope ought to have spoken about that in the book and if that had been a factor for the defeat of the 1857 fighters.

      “social harmony/disharmony” mean nothing – unless you can translate them into something more tangible in military terms.  Hindu-Muslim civilian relations is a secondary subject in the context of 1857, and therefore was not a priority in ORL.

      I would urge you look at the three different phases that I present in the book – and then see if you can make these “social disharmonies” affect the military aspects that were concurrently going on.  I am willing to debate this – provided you can convince me that “social relations” affected the logistics more than England’s F8 campaign. Else – I would urge you to stop the self-flagellation!

      The marxist narrative sidelines the logistics, focuses on the emotions.  It is nonsensical to talk about war and not talk aboutlogistics!

      • Comment by Karmasura via email in response to Parag Tope’s comment
        @ Parag, I meant exactly that. My intention was to raise a question on it. In Manas’s post: 

        Raja Man Singh appealed to thakurs and talukdars not to join the mussalmaan-s since the uprising, if successful, would only end up putting power into their hands. He invoked Muslim destruction of Hindu temples, the murderous massacres of entire populations, rape of women and putting them in harems as sexual slaves, religious taxation on Hindus, forcible conversions, etc. to support his appeal.[17][18]. He also raised the matter of Islamic religious leaders Ghulam Husain and Amir Ali attempting to destroy the hanumAn-garhi temple in avadh not too long ago.

        So, there you have it, some Hindu leaders were insightful enough to see it as a struggle for Muslim power. Whether such leaders prevented participation of Hindus in the war, and thus effected military outcomes remains to be seen.

      • Evidently, Raja Man Singh’s appeal didn’t quite meet the success which he had perhaps hoped for. The talukdars and thakurs, after some initial hesitation, eventually threw in their weight behind the uprising. In fact, there was a whole wave of mass movement in avadh, as per reports of British officials.

  4. Excellent job, Manas. You really ought to take a look at the articles of Akhilesh Mithal in the Artbeat Section of the Sunday Guardian. He presents a whitewashed, sanitized version of Muslim rule in India, and of Somanath Temple specifically, not to mention the 1857 War of Independence. Perhaps you could refute his points?

    • @si91

      [Please do not make the exact same comment under different posts unless there is any compelling reason.]

      Akhilesh Mittal spouts the usual Marxist-secularist nonsense which doesn’t stand the test of historical veracity. His accounts are full of leaps of logic, consummate inaccuracies and massive oversights. I don’t think his clap-trap is even worthy of any refutation. But the dishonesty and fraud of these history engineers and terror apologists do need to be exposed.

      If you read the articles, books, etc. of these ideologues, they broadly follow a common strain with regards to Islam in India:
      *blame the British for communal conflict in India
      *uncritically eulogize the period of Islamic hegemony
      *invent a so-called composite culture
      *uncritically eulogize the fanatic Sufis
      *deny genocide of Hindus by the armies of Islam
      *deny Islamic iconoclasm
      *heap guilt of the hordes of Islam and their mass-murdering temple destroying ways on Hindus (specially those evil, ugly Brahmins)
      *heap scorn and throw innuendos at anyone who questions or exposes their fraud
      …and so forth.

      There is sufficient scholarly material that decimates the engineered history of the likes of Akhilesh Mittal. It is however spread over many books and as far as I know, there doesn’t exist a single venue where the information has been collated and presented in a methodical manner. Do keep in mind that I run this blog only in my spare time, which is sparse. Nonetheless, I’ll see what I can do.

  5. Sorry about the double post; I wasn’t sure if it got published the first time. You’re probably right; Mithal’s sanitized, secularist trash is so obviously pseudo-historical that it probably doesn’t warrant formal refutation. I just thought you might be interested because I regard the Sunday Guardian as a bit more palatable than your average Commie rag like Frontline, which idolizes “scholars” like Romila Thapar and D.N. Jha (their recent interview with him regarding alleged beef eating in ancient India being a case in point.) The Sunday Guardian, in contrast, has people like Ram Jethmalani and MD Nalapat who are refreshingly critical of the Nehru Gandi royal family, and are not afraid of breaking India’s unofficial lese majeste laws to do so. Given that Congress sycophancy and secularist historical perversion generally go hand in hand, its important to note that the virus of “secularism” is not just limited to pure leftist screed but has infected even respectable publications.

    • @si91, You are right. The toxicity of farcical Indian secularism has pervaded very deep. Even non-establishment, seemingly non-communist/leftist publications aren’t free from its subversive influence. Specially with regards to negating the barbaric atrocities commited upon Hindus by the forces of deen and dogma. Sunday Guardian may seemingly be anti-Nehru-dynasty, but I am sure they under no cirsumstances wish to be branded as communal, fascist, etc. Which is what happens to those who challenge the secularist subversion of Indian history. Even a Hindu-sympathetic publication like the Pioneer avoids any direct confrontation with the Marxist-secularist engineered version of Indian history. We still have a very, very long way to go before the subversion of Indian history is cleansed.

      One way to fix the subversion is to make the unsanitized, un-engineered version of Indian history common knowledge. So for instance, among other concoctions, the secularists want us to believe that the jihadi Aurangzeb was a great proponent of composite culture and harmony and a friend of the Hindus (except of course those evil, ugly, bourgeoisie Brahmins whom he rightly chastized). However, unfortunately for these history engineers, there exists copious scholarly material which decimates their fantasies. Not to mention, records of edicts passed by the jihadi himself. Lately, there has been some activity by the Marxists enlisting an American historian, Richard Eaton, to push their whitewashing of Islamic iconoclasm by making the argument of political motives. However, there again exists sufficient evidence which readily trashes such chicanery and outright academic dishonesty. The key is to make such evidence public by presenting it in a methodical, scholarly manner and educating enough people so it becomes common knowledge. If everyone knows that 1+1=2, then no one can try to push theories saying 1+1=-10.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s