Historians From India

"Early Muslims in India lived and preferred to live in cities. (116)"

"It is not surprising that for some communal historians suffering from extra-territorial chauvinism, the Persian wheel, the spinning wheel, the dome and the arch all came from lands outside India and the highly developed ancient Indian civilization was unaware of these...."

"We assert that the N.C E.R.T. books have met their fate because of the studied bias and fantastic theories and interpretations of writers like Habib and his friends, and their communal approach in deliberately glossing over the misdeeds of one section of medieval Indian society and repeatedly hammering on the failings of the other....."

"The source is the late Delhi Univ history professor K.S. Lal. But his claim is not that 80 millions were physically killed by the invaders/occupiers, merely that 80 million have gone missing from the extrapolated demographic development (itself already a very risky guess) during that period. This includes people killed, but also the effect of lawlessness and famines which he claims were triggered by the extremely high taxation and other deliberate poverty-promoting policies of the Delhi Sultanate."

"On serious estimates of the total death toll, Hindu efforts have been remarkably defective. Twitterati bandy about the number arrived at by historian KS Lal back in 1979: “80 to 100 million between 1000 and 1525” missing from the demographic figures, which already are necessarily vague in themselves. Moreover, these are not all victims of massacres: some fell as collateral damage of agricultural or economic policies that disrupted food production (as under the British or in Maoist China), or were never born because of the potential parents’ displacement or enslavement. On the other hand, in the Northwest the killing started centuries earlier, and after 1525, it resumed."

"Thousands of non-Muslim women were captured in the minor yearly campaigns of Firoz Tughlaq, and under him the Id celebrations were held on lines similar to those of his predecessor."

"Alauddin had 50,000 slaves some of whom worn mere boys,* and surely many captured during wax. Firoz Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the-captives should be sorted out and the best ones tht for service with the Sultan) should be forwarded to the court/ 0 Soon he was enabled to collect ISO.OOO slaves.’ Ziyauddin Barani's description of the Slave Market in Delhi (such markets were there isi other places also) during the reign of Alauddin Khaljt, shows (hat ficsh batches of slaves were constantly replenishing them."

"In 1231 Sultan Iltutmish attacked Gwalior, and ‘captured a large number of slaves’. 31 Minbaj Siraj Jurjani writes that ‘his (Balban’s) taking of captives, and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas cannot be recounted." Talking of his war in Avadh against Trailokyavarman of the Chandela dynasty (Dalaki wa Malaki of Minhaj), the chronicler says : ‘All the infidel’s wives, sons and dependents...and children . fell into the hands of the victors.’ In 1253 in his campaign against Ranthambhor also Balban appears to have captured many prisoners. 31 In 1259, in an attack on Hariyana (the Shhvahk hills), many women and children were enslaved. Twice Balban led expeditions against Kampil, Patiali, and Bhojpur, and in the process captured a large number of women and children. In Katehar he ordered a genera! massacre of the male population of over eight years of age and carried away women and children. (114)"

"Muslim rulers were keen to obtain captives in war and convert them. During wa:fare it was still more easy to enslave women and children. It was almost s matter of policy with the Turkish rulers and their commanders, from the \erv start of Muslim rule, to capture and convert or disperse and destory the male population,’ and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-til Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made ‘war against the provinces of Hind.He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty." 8 In Banaras, according to Ibn-ul Asir, Shihabuddin’s slaughter of the Hindus was immense, none was spared except women and children". 53 No wonder that slaves began to fill the household of ctcry Turk from the very in¬ ception of Muslim rule in Hindustan. Fakhre Mudabbir informs us that as a result of the Turkish achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin Aibak, ‘even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave (before) became the owner of numerous slaves.’ (113-4)"

"During the lime of Qutbuddin Aibak a large number of places were attacked and prisoners captured than for which actual figures, given above, are available. Figures of any conversions during campaigns to Kanauj, Ranaras (where the Muslims occupied “a thousand” temples), sfi Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Havana and Gwalior, and the campaigns carried out rigid up to Bengal arc not available. (107)"

"Aibak-entered upon a series of conquests. He despatched Ihhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji to the East and himself captured Kol (modern Aligarh) in 1194. There “those of the garrison who •were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood "by their ancient faith were slain with the sword.” 51 In 1195 when Raja Bhim of Gujarat was attacked, 20,000 prisoners were •captured, 55 'and in 1202 at Kalinjar 50,000, 55 “and we may be sure that (as in the case of Arab conquest oT Sind) all who were made •slaves were compelled to embrace the religion of the masters to -whom they were allotted.” 57 Ferishtah specifically mentions that on the capature of Kalinjar “fifty thousand kaniz vo gliulam, having suffered slavery, were rewarded with the honour of Islam.” is According to Ferishtah three to four hundred thousand Khokhars jmd Tirahias were also converted to Islam by Muhammad Ghori. (106)"

"In the year A.D. 1000 the first attack of Mahmud of Ghazni was delivered. He captured many frontier towns and appointed to them his own governors, rt is also reasonable to assume that in these places some people would have been converted to Islam. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom, like Suhhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. Since the whole town is reported to have been converted the number of converts may have been quite large. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory fat Multan) were 'witnesses to his exalted state of prosclytism’! In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud 'converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni’. In the latter campaigns, in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing ‘the conquest of Kanauj’, Utbi sums up the situation thus : "The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort..., and the inhabitants of them cither accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.” In short, those "ho submitted were also converted to Islam* In Bn ran (Bn lands!: a hr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja, During his fourteenth invasion in A.D, 1023, Kirat. Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. Hie chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad. 'Islam upread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force’. Conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objects of Mahmud. A1 Qazwini writes that when Mahmud went “to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Sotnnat, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans", 2 Sultan Mahmud was well-versed in the Quran and was considered its eminent interpreter. 3 He ardently desired to play the role of a true Muslim monarch and convert non-Muslims to his faith. Tarikh-i-Yamim , Rausai-us-Safa and Totikh-UFerfshtah, besides many other works, speak of construction of mosques and schools and appointment of preachers and teachers by Mahmud and his successor MasudA Wherever Mahmud went, he insisted on the people to convert to Islam. (102-3)"

"Over and above this, foreign invasions also followed in quick succession. Nadir Shah invaded the country' in 1739. Besides the loss of life in the Punjab and decimation of the Mughal army, in Delhi itself he massacred not less than 30,000 people 86 Ahmad Shah Abdali followed in the footsteps of Nadir Shah and led a number of campaigns in each of which there was great loss of life. In his first invasion (1748), all men bearing arms in Sarhind were put to the sword. His killings in the Punjab, massacres at Mathura (1757), and mass deportations were followed by famine and pesti¬ lence/ 7 The battle of Panipat (1761) was preceded by famine and followed by pestilence. In the battle itself 100,000 men were killed and, according to Siyar-uI-Mntakhirin , no less than 20,000 persons were carried away as captives to Afghanistan. (86)"

"If the seventeenth century in India was a century of demo¬ graphic growth, the eighteenth was of decline. All evidence in¬ variably leads to this conclusion. During the last twenty years of the seventeenth century, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was strenuously fighting against the Marathas and the independent Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan. In the early years of the war, the loss of life does not appear to have been great. 58 But a quarter of a century’s warfare in the Deccan did show is effects, and by the beginn¬ ing of the eighteenth century pestilence and death began to stalk the Deecan countryside. From 1702 to 1704 there was no rain, “but instead plague prevailed. In these two years there expired over two, million souls.” 57 In 1706 Aurangzeb moved northwards, “leaving behind (in the words of the eye-witness Manucci)...fields... devoid of trees and bare of crops, their place being taken by the bones of beasts. Instead of verdure all is blank and barren. The country is so entirely desolated and depopulated that neither fire nor light can be found in the course of a three or four days’ journey...” 58 This picture may be a little overdrawn. But Khafi Khan, ‘one of the best and most impartial historians’ of Mughal India, says almost the same about the Deccan... (84-85)"

"Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq (c. 1296-1350) were great warriors and killers. Alauddin’s conquest of Gujarat (1299) and the massacres by his generals in Anhilwara, Cambay, Asavalli, Vanmanthali etc., earned him, according to t[ie Rasmafq, the nickname of Khuni. His contemporary chronicler proclaims that Alauddin shed more blood than the Pharaohs did. He captured Ranthambhor after very heavy casualties . Chittor’s capture was followed by a massacre of 30,000 people, after Jauhar had been performed and the the Rajputs had died fighting in large numbers. When Malwa was attacked (1305), its Raja is said to have possessed 40000 horse and 100,000 foot. After the battle, ‘so far as human eye could see the ground was muddy with blood. Many cities of Malwa like Mandu, Ujjain, Dharanagri and Chanderi were captured after great resistance, The capitulation of Sevana and Jalor ( 1311) were accompanied by massacres after years of ‘prolonged warfare. In Alauddin’s wars in the South, similar killings took place, especially in Dwarsamudra and Maabar. In the latter campaign Malik Kafur went from place to place and to some places many times over, and in his rage at not finding the fleeing prince Vira pandya, be killed the people mercilessly’. His successor Mubarak Khalji once again sacked Gujarat and Devagii. Under Muhammad Tughlag, wars and rebellions knew no end. Even an enhancement of land-tax ended in massacres in the Doab, Many more perished on the way when the capital was shifted to Daulatabad. His Qarachal expedition cost him a whole army. His expeditions to Bengal, Sind and the Decean, as well as ruthless suppression of twenty two rebellions, meant only depopulation’. From all accounts it is certain that in the thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century the loss of population was immense. For one thing, in spite of constant efforts no addition of territory could be made by Turkish rulers from 1210 to 1296, for another while the weapons of the Turkish period were not as sophisticated ‘as those of the Mughal, the Turkish rulers were more ruthless in war and less merciful towards rebels, ‘with the result their killings were heavy. Hence, the extirpating ‘campaigns of Balban,, and the repeated ‘attacks on regions already devastated but not completely subjugated. Bengal was attacked by Bakhiiyar, by Balbap, by Alauddin, and by all the three Tughlags Ghayas, Muhammad and Firoz. Malwa and Gujarat were repeatedly attacked and sacked. Almost every Muslim ruler invaded Ranhambhor until if was subjugated by Alauddin Khalji (1301, again temporarily). Gwalior, Katehar ‘and Avadh regions were also repeatedly attacked. Rajputana, Sind and Punjab (also because of the Mongol invasions) knew to peace. Tn the fist decade of the fourteenth century Turkish invaders penetrated into the South, carrying death and destruction."

"During the reigns of Nasiruddin and Balban (1246-86) warfare for consolidation and expansion of Turkish dominions went on apace. Trailohyavarman, who ruled over Southern U.P., Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, and is called ‘Dalaki va Malaki’ by Persian chroniclers, was defeated alter great slaughter (1248). In 1251, Gwalior, Chanderi, Narwar and Malwa were attacked. The Raja of Malwa alone had 5,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry and would have been defeated only after great loss of life. The inhabitants ofKaithal were given such severe punishment (1254) that they ‘might not fotgtt (the lesson) for the rest of their lutes’: In 1256 Ulugh' Khan Balban carried on devastating warfare in Saimur, and ‘so many of the rebellious Hindus were killed that numbers cannot be computed or described’. Ranthambhor was attacked in 1259 and ‘many of its valiant fighting men were sent to hell’. In the punitive expedition to Mewat (1260) ‘numberless Hindus perished under the merciless swords of the soldiers of Islam’. In the same year 12,000 men, women and children were put to the sward in Hariyana."

"Mahmud's invasions alone meant to the country' a loss of about two million people.... Bakhtiyar Khalji marched through Bihar into Bengal and massacred people in both the regions. During his expedition to Gwalior Iltutmish (1210-36) massacred 700 persons besides those killed in the battle on both sides. His attacks on Malwa (VMisha and Ujjain) were met with stiff resistance and were accompanied by great loss of life. He is also credited with killing 12,000 Khokhars (Gakkhars) during Aibak's reign. The successor of XhutmisK (Raziyah, Bahrain etc.,) too fought and killed zealously."

"Husain Khan. Jagirdar of Patiali and Sruvmsabati, had ordered that the Hindus of his jagtr should wear a piece of cloth on their dress as a mark of distinction from the Muslims. (19)"

"In the Assam campaign “khani-khanan ordered that the prisoners should have the heads of the slain tied round them, and be thus exposed to the derision of the camp...and afterwards put to death."

"Ziyauddin Barani is an eye-witness historian, but his figures and data are not always precise. When sometimes he means to convey‘a very large number’, he gives the figure of 100,000.... Let us take another fourteenth century historian, Shams Siraj Afif. If Barani has a weakness for 100,000, Afif is very fond of 180,000, so that the slaves of Firoz Tughlaq numbered 180,000, the revenue from his 1200 gardens was 180,000 tankahs, and in his war with Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah (A.D. 1353), he killed 180,000 men in Bengal. The immensity and coincidence of the numbers create misgivings. ... The chronicler has left no stone unturned to convince us of his veracity. Still the figure seems to be unduly. large for Firoz Tughlaq ; it could have fitted in with the narrative of massacres of Chingiz or Timur. And then there is the authority of the Sirac-i-Firoz Shahi , which says that only 60,000 were killed."

"The weaknesses of medieval chronicles are well-known. Their style is by and large turgid and ornamental; their narrative is often exaggerated. And this applies as much (if not more) to figures as to facts. A few no doubt are trustworthy but many of them are extremely faulty with regard to figures and statistics ; and almost all of them let their imagination and their pen run riot. Consequently, even when they are not quite reticent on demograghic matters, they are neither very informative nor always reliable."

"Population studies of pre-census times are being successfully attempted in many western countries but in India not much work has been done in this area. This book is almost: a maiden attempt at population study the medieval period. ... Besides, any study of population of pre-census times can be based only on estimates and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative. In our computation, however, sufficient historical evidence has been forthcoming for any demographic behaviour. If nothing more. I have at least been able to collect in one place direct and indirect evidence leading to fairly good estimates of medieval Indian population, although the estimates themselves may not always be invulnerable to challenge. However I hope that the uniqueness, magnitude and delicacy of the task would make the reader indulgent and the critic tolerant."

"Any study of the population of the precensus times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative."

"If the medieval chronicler cries out "Jihad" it is not heard, but if he cries out persistently, it is claimed that he never meant it."

"Ziyauddin's sarcasm is incisive. Occasionally his sardonic humour helps him to sum up his ideas in a few words. His remark that in Alauddin's days " a camel could be had for a dang," but wherefrom the dang?" - shows at once how the reforms of Alauddin had made articles cheap and people poor."

"But even in the deepest darkness light persists. Timur’s gruesome invasion had a silver lining. Hindus and Muslims all stood up to a man to fight him wherever he went. The days of Mahmiid of Ghazni were a story of the past, and Timur met resistance everywhere. The people of India were known for their disunity in the face of a foreign invader. But they stood united against Timur. At Tulamba, Ajodhan, Deopalpur, Bhatnir, Meerut and Delhi—nay everywhere —the Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder against the , invader. Shaikh Sa’iduddin interceded with Timur on behalf of the Hindu chief of Bhatnir. At Meerut, Ilyas Afghan, a Muslim, burnt his womenfolk in the fire of jawhar. During Timur’s visitation the Hindus and Muslims learnt to sink their differences and stand united."

"Muslim conquest was not without its blessings in Bengal. There, as elsewhere, developed an understanding between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus offered sweets at Muslims shrines; consulted and kept copies of the Quran. Musalmans responded with similar acts."

"With the Muslim conquest the position of Indian women suffered a set-back."

"I have tried my utmost to be judicious in my conclusions, and have neither explained an act or policy to the extent of excusing, nor have I uncritically dispraised or blamed."

"Yet K.S. Lal maintains that for several decades the Left-liberals in the history establishment have discriminated against people of differing views. "The ICHR was not politicised by the BJP but by the Marxists. Nurul Hasan, and Irfan Habib after him, packed the place with Leftists," Lal says, citing instructions by the NCERT in 1982 to "weed out undesirable textbooks in history" and the notification by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which in 1989 said "Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned." As far as he's concerned, says K.S. Lal, this is an attempt to suppress facts. He also says the Congress has always promoted its brand of official history through agencies like the NCERT."

"The Hindu Bethlehem now lay utterly prostrate before the invaders. Early at dawn on 1st March the Afghan cavalry burst into the unwalled and unsuspecting city of Mathura, and neither by their master’s orders nor from the severe handling they had received in yesterday’s fight, were they in a mood to show mercy. For four hours there was an indiscriminate massacre and rape of the unresisting Hindu population, all of them non-combatants and many of them priests, Even the few Muslim residents could not always save themselves by taking their trousers off and showing that they were really followers of the Prophet. "Idols were broken and kicked about like polo-balls by the Islamic heroes." Houses were demolished in search of plunder and then wantonly set on fire. Glutted with the blood of 3,000 men, Jahin Khan laid a contribution of one lakh on what remained of the population and marched away from the smoking ruins the same night. After the tiger came the jackal. "When after the massacre Ahmad Shah’s troops marched onward from Mathura, Najib and his army remained there for three days, plundered much money and buried treasure, and carried off many beautiful females as captives."

"Jadunath Sarkar may be compared with Ranke and Momsen. He was unquestionably the greatest Indian historian of his time and one of the greatest in the world. His powerful personality and erudite works have established a tradition of honest and scholarly historiography whose tenets have exerted a healthy influence on many an individual historian."

"Yet Sarkar had his critics, though none could challenge the factual basis of his historical edifices nor accuse him of distorting facts. Irresponsible fault-finding apart, A.L. Srivastava cites three instances of criticism and tells us how the critics were silenced when facts were revealed to them. 38 1. In assessing Aurangazeb’s religious policy Sarkar omitted to mention the emperor’s Benares firman making a grant of land to the Viswanath temple. Sarkar answered that Aurangazeb issued the specific firman during the war of succession when he was keen on getting Hindu support in capturing Shuja, and that it had nothing to do with his so-called desire to patronize Hindu religious institutions."

"Before William Irvine and Jadunath Sarkar, scholars working on medieval India had not cared to know of anything beyond the court chronicles in Persian. Sarkar insisted on getting all original contemporary material including letters and diaries in the various languages. Like Ranke, he went on treasure hunts for first-hand original documents. But his long and tedious journeys had also another end in view. To free himself from dependence on written records alone, he would visit the historical site connected with the subject of his study in order to acquaint himself with its topography and terrain."

"His works are characterized by unity of conception, of theme and presentation, and are delivered to the reader in direct, easy flowing language and a charming style free from cant, verbosity and affectation."

"Naturally, Jadunath Sarkar began to earn the ire of his contemporary academics at a time when the field of historical research was slowly beginning to acquire ideological tinges. Thus, this ire, in the hands of such ideological scholars turned into vicious enmity and single-minded witch hunt. Perhaps the definitive reason for this was Sarkar’s no-holds-barred expose of Aurangzeb in his majestic, History of Aurangzib in five volumes....The subsequent generations of historians and scholars—trained under them— carried forward this slander. Among other big names, this calumnious campaign was led by Irfan Habib, son of the same Muhammad Habib. In his scholarly work titled Agrarian System of Mughal India, Irfan Habib wrote about this subject without any reference to Sarkar’s work as if Sarkar’s volumes did not exist. Irfan Habib calculatedly chose only such themes which allowed him to reject Sarkar’s sources. The result was that he succeeded in breaking Sarkar’s image as a towering historical scholar. Which is consistent with Habib’s credentials as an avowed Marxist as we shall see. With this move, Habib killed two birds with one stone: he deflected attention away from Aurangzeb’s legendary cruelty and Islamic bigotry by presenting the fall of Mughals as rooted in a mere “revenue crisis of the Empire!”"

"[when one surveys Sarkar’s life and work as a historical scholar, one cannot miss the connection between his] “insistence on the cultivation of a certain truthfulness on the part of the historian—the demand that the historian make a sincere attempt to rise above his or her own times and interests—and his ideas about historical truth.” [This also includes] “a certain cultivation of self-denying ethics in the personhood of the historian, a practice of a sense of ascesis, was therefore essential, for without that, the historican could not receive the truths the facts told.” ...[Historical research and writing, for Jadunath Sarkar, was] “a way of preparing oneself for a truth that was beyond partisan interests.” [This was] “a self- denying quality he willingly imposed on himself...It was an inextricable part of his historical method; the man was the method.”"

"Historians (of Jadunath Sarkar’s time) who criticized Sarkar’s emphasis on “character” never stopped to ask why someone of Sarkar’s erudition, intelligence and sense of engagement with the politics of his time would be so obsessed with the role of character in political history.”"

"In the words of the late British history scholar, J F Richards, Jadunath Sarkar “set the narrative frame for the late Mughal period virtually single-handed.”"

"A group of younger scholars at Allahabad, Aligarh and Oxford were conducting research that would ensure that by the time someone like me came into the world of South Asian history as a young novice in Calcutta in the early 1970s, the name of Jadunath Sarkar would be all but forgotten among the prominent historians of India. [...] Our teachers did not teach about emperors, battles and the character of kings anymore. They did not believe in the role of heroes of history. Heroes had been replaced by “causes.” Cause was a code word for institutional analysis."

"Jadunath Sarkar was once a name every educated Indian knew...he was easily the most highly-regarded Indian historian and had a very strong public presence in late colonial India."

"Jadunath applied the critical and scientific methodology of Ranke and Mommsen to Indian history and could only cover 150 years of its history in 50 years... his historical works... were examples of 'honest history', an epithet applied by V.A. Smith to his Aurangzeb."

"Sir Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb ... has rightly earned him the position of the doyen of Indian historians.... Sarkar has been a source of inspiration for hundreds of scholars.... His History of Aurangzeb is almost a classic."

"Sir Jadunath Sarkar's Aurangzib was avidly read, and also criticised. But those were the days of a different culture not found now among Marxists and progressives. For instance, when there was criticism of some statement of Jadunath Sarkar, it was also acknowledged in and outside the class room (by R.P. Tripathi, for example) that Sarkar was the doyen of Indian historians and "head and shoulders above all of us"."

"But his voice remained a voice in the wilderness. Fourteen years later, he [R.C. Majumdar] had to return to the theme and give specific instances of falsification. “It is very sad,” he observed, “that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians… It is painful to mention though impossible to ignore, the fact that there is a distinct and conscious attempt to rewrite the whole chapter of the bigotry and intolerance of the Muslim rulers towards Hindu religion. This was originally prompted by the political motive of bringing together the Hindus and Musalmans in a common fight against the British but has continued ever since. A history written under the auspices of the Indian National Congress sought to repudiate the charge that the Muslim rulers broke Hindu temples, and asserted that they were the most tolerant in matters of religion. Following in its footsteps, a noted historian has sought to exonerate Mahmud of Ghazni’s bigotry and fanaticism, and several writers in India have come forward to defend Aurangzeb against Jadunath Sarkar’s charge of religious intolerance. It is interesting to note that in the revised edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of them, while re-writing the article on Aurangzeb originally written by William Irvine, has expressed the view that the charge of breaking Hindu temples brought against Aurangzeb is a disputed point. Alas for poor Jadunath Sarkar, who must have turned in his grave if he were buried. For, after reading his History of Aurangzib, one would be tempted to ask, if the temple-breaking policy of Aurangzeb is a disputed point, is there a single fact in the whole recorded history of mankind which may be taken as undisputed? A noted historian has sought to prove that the Hindu population was better off under the Muslims than under the Hindu tributaries or independent rulers.”"

"The life of Aurangzib was one long tragedy, — a story of man battling in vain against an invisible but inexorable Fate, a tale of how the strongest human endeavour was baffled by the forces of the age."

"In April, 1669 he ordered the provincial governors to ‘destroy the temples and schools of the Brahmans… and to utterly put down the teachings and religious practices of the infidels…."

"On 2nd April, 1679, the jazia or polltax on non-Muslims was revived. The poor people who appealed to the Emperor and blocked a road abjectly crying for its remission, were trampled down by elephants at his order and dispersed.”"

"Jadunath Sarkar writes: “The prime minister’s grandson, Mirza Tafakhkhur used to sally forth from his mansion in Delhi with his ruffians, plunder the shops in the bazar, kidnap Hindu women passing through the public streets in litters or going to the river, and dishonour them; and yet there was no judge strong enough to punish him, no police to prevent such crimes.”"

"“when a class of men is publicly depressed and harassed (as under Muslim rule)… it merely contents itself with dragging on an animal existence. The Hindus could not be expected to produce the utmost of what they were capable… Amidst such social conditions, the human hand and the human mind cannot achieve their best; the human soul cannot soar to its highest pitch.”"