Indologists

"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."

"The forcible conversion of frontier tribes by Aurangzeb is a well-known fact. “Popular Hindu and Sikh tradition ascribes mass conversions by force to Aurangzebs reign. (151)"

"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."

"Unfortunately some archaeologists seem to have no eyes to see anything but what the spade digs up from the bowels of the earth, and no ears to hear anything that is not echoed from excavated ruins."

"[In 1948, R.C. Majumdar submitted a proposal to the Government to write an official history of the freedom struggle, a fact that he records in detail in the Appendix of Volume One of the History of the Freedom Movement in India. This first-ever proposal on this much-needed endeavour was accepted by the Government. What happened next is best narrated by Dr. B.N. Pandey...:] In 1952 the Ministry of Education appointed a Board of Editors for the compilation of the history. Professor Majumdar was appointed by the Board as the Director and entrusted with the work of sifting and collecting materials and preparing the draft of the history. However, the Board as consisting of politicians and scholars, was least likely to function harmoniously. Perhaps this was the reason why it was dissolved at the end of 1955. ... In [the first] volume the distinguished author has shown ample courage and sound scholarship in approaching some very controversial and delicate questions. On the question of Hindu- Muslim relationship in pre-British India he refutes the commonly held view that the Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony before the advent of the British and that the Hindu-Muslim tension was the outcome of the British policy to divide and rule. These two communities, the author holds, lived as "two separate communities with distinct cultures and different mental, and moral characteristics" (p. 33). He argues that the Hindu leaders, including Gandhi and Nehru, deliberately ignored the fundamental differences between the Hindus and Muslims and made no serious efforts "to tackle the real problem that faced India, namely how to make it possible for two such distinct units to live together as members of one State."

"What was Majumdar’s crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interest of the Congress."

"The tale contains an institutional warning also: for this is not the first time that the project to write the history of the freedom movement has been hijacked, and eventually derailed. In the Introduction and Appendix to his three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India, Dr R.C. Majumdar recorded what happened to the original project – how at his instance the Indian Historical Records Commission passed a resolution in February 1948 that a history of the country’s struggle for freedom ought to be prepared; how the education ministry headed by Maulana Azad sat over the matter till Dr Rajendra Prasad, the then president of the country, nudged it ahead; how an Editorial Board was set up; how Majumdar was appointed director for the project; how the first volume was prepared; how it met with the approval of the Editorial Board; how the government, having stated in one breath that the volumes were well on their way to getting ready, alleged in the next that there had been some differences in the Board about the content of the first volume which had been circulated; how suddenly the Board was dissolved; and the project handed over to a previous secretary of the education ministry; how some of the members become turncoats. The result? Mediocre volumes which no one reads, volumes which further what was then the official line… By contrast the British produced their version …. There was the Indian side to the events. This was available at the time in the recollections of those who had led the movement against the British – for many of them were still alive; it was available in their private papers. The Towards Freedom Project was to garner this record. As control over institutions passed to the Leftists, the entire project was yoked to advancing their Line and Theses."

"To sum up this subject of synthesis, assimilation, and composite culture, I would better quote Dr. R.C. Majumdar, one of the best and certainly the most versatile historian which modern India has known."

"The only voice which was heard against this nation-wide exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi in the field of medieval Indian history, was that of the veteran historian, R.C. Majumdar. For him, this “national integration” based on a wilful blindness to recorded history of the havoc wrought by Islam in India, could lead only to national suicide. He tried his best to arrest the trend by presenting Islamic imperialism in medieval India as it was, and not as the politicians in league with Stalinist and Muslim historians were tailoring it to become. .... 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."

"Most of us worshipped at this altar of ‘progress’. We denigrated historians like R.C. Majumdar who spent their lives in understanding the Indian historical sources. We sang hymns in praise of the bullies who could neither read an original ancient text nor decipher an inscription. We were given sermons on the glory of the Marxist approach and the value of diverse sociological and anthropological models. Dissidents were quickly dubbed rightist reactionaries."

"But then, R.C. Majumdar was made of the stuff of Bharatavarasha’s Modern Renaissance. He was undeterred in his quest to author the most authentic history of the freedom struggle of his own countrymen: to keep their hopes, pains, sacrifices, spirit, struggles and tears ever-fresh, and to preserve the vast woodland of their heroic memories watered and evergreen. For this proud son of Bengal, this noble endeavor was not merely a project: it was akin to working towards the same goal with the same spirit that fuelled our freedom struggle: Majumdar had after all, lived during that entire era. It was National Service in the truest sense of the word. And so, with meagre resources, he worked alone and completed the majestic three-volume work in just seven years. It still remains the most comprehensive, authoritative and unchallenged work on India’s freedom struggle. This point has an immense bearing on what will follow."

"No doubt, every generation will produce a host of historians, but it will take decades to produce one of Dr. Majumdar's calibre."

"It is hardly necessary to say that August 15 was hailed with joy all over India, and no words can adequately describe the tumultuous scenes of wild rejoicings witnessed in every city and every village. Lord and Lady Mountbatten, driving in state, were greeted with resounding cheers by the enthusiastic crowds that lined the streets. This heralded a new era of goodwill between India and Britain. Stories of many hard and bitter struggles between India and Britain, and of animosities between the Indians and the British fill the pages of this work. Let it end with a note of goodwill, trust, and confidence which manifested itself on the streets of Delhi on 15 August, 1947. How the author wishes that he could have closed this volume with a similar note in respect of the relation between India and Pakistan. But that was not to be. Instead of an era of goodwill, the independence ushered in one of communal hatred and cruelty of which there is perhaps no parallel in the recorded history of India. It is unnecessary to recount that story of shame and barbarity as it falls beyond the period under review. (819 ff)"

"It is, therefore, not unlikely that the views I have expressed may not commend themselves to any, and perhaps a large section of my countrymen would bitterly resent some of them. But I find consolation in the wise saying of one of the greatest Sanskrit poets to the effect, that ‘there may be somewhere, at some time, somebody who worild agree with my views and appreciate them ; for time is eternal and the world is wide and large’. I may assure my readers that it has been a very painful task to have to comment adversely on the views and actions of some of our great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who are held in the highest veneration. I shall not be surprised if what I have said about them hurts the feelings of many. My only excuse is that it is impossible to avoid all such comments in writing on a subject such as is treated in this book. I may, however, assure my readers that I have always tried to tell the truth, and in doing so followed no other guide than the light of my own judgment, sincerely formed, with malice to none and goodwill to all, and without any personal or ulterior motive of any kind. xxxiii"

"Jinnah, at least in is a er life put up a brave fight. It was, however, a fight not for the’ freedom of India, except in a very qualified sense, but for the freedom of the Muslims from the tyrannical yoke of the Hindus, as he put it. He won the fight ; the cult of violence decided the issue. To what extent Gandhi s cult of non-violence may claim credit for the freedom of India is a matter of opinion. But there is no doubt that the creation of Pakistan was the triumph of violence— in its naked and most brutal form-and of the leadership of Jinnah. Nobody can reasonably doubt that India would have surely attained independence, sooner or later, even without Gandhi, but it is extremely doubtful whether there would have been a Pakistan without Jinnah. So, if we are to judge by the result alone, the events of 1946-7 testify to the superiority of violence to non-violence in practical politics, and of Jinnah to the leaders of the Congress. But this affords an illustration of the blunder that is often committed by hasty inference drawn from the immediate result, apparently flowing from a certain course of action, without weighing the force of other circumstances. It ought to serve as a corrective to those who look upon Gandhi as having wrested independence from the British by waving his magic wand of Satyagraha. In any case Jinnah stands out as the most successful political leader of the period. Whatever the Hindus might think of Jinnah, he has secured a high place in the history of the Muslim nation, a term at which we can hardly cavil after the foundation of Pakistan. He carried to its logical consummation the work that was begun by Sir Syed Ahmad. (xxviii ff)"

"That Gandhi played a very great role in rousing the political consciousness of the masses nobody can possibly deny. But it would be a travesty of truth to give him the sole credit for the freedom of India, and sheer nonsense to look -upon Satyagraha (or Charka, according to some) as the unique weapon by which it was achieved. As mentioned above, Gandhi’s followers could not wield this weapon forged by him and therefore * it never came into play. A successful Satyagraha, as conceived by Gandhi, would necessarily mean that the British had given up their hold on India in a mood of repentance or penitence for their past sinful acts in India. But of this we have no evidence whatsoever. (xxiii)"

"A mystic or saint — such as Gandhi undoubtedly was is beyond the purview of political history, but in dealing with Gandhi as the great leader of the Indian National Congress, a purely political organization fighting for freedom from British yoke, history must apply to him the same standards of judgment and criticism as have been applied to all other personalities, great or small, who have played any role in political affairs. Sober history must subject the public life of Gandhi to a critical and rational review without passion or prejudice, uninfluenced in the least by personal feelings of admiration or devotion, and, above all, by a disposition or proneness to believe as right and proper whatever he might have chosen to do or say. Such history must begin by discounting the halo of semi-divinity — and therefore also of infallibility — which was cast round Gandhi during his life and continues to a large extent even now, thanks to the propaganda to exploit his name for political purposes. I yield to none in my profound respect for Gandhi, the saint and the humanitarian. But as the author of this volume, I am only concerned with the part he played in the struggle for India's freedom from the British yoke. I have necessarily to view his life and activities, thoughts, and feelings primarily from a narrow angle, namely as a politician and statesman leading a great political organization which was not intended to be a humanitarian association or World Peace Society, but had been formed for a definite political object, namely, to achieve India's freedom from political bondage. It has been my painful duty to show that, looked at strictly from this point of view, the popular image of Gandhi cannot be reconciled with what he actually was. A historian must uphold the great ideal of truth which was so dear to Gandhi himself, and if we delineate the political life of Gandhi with strict adherence to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it will, I believe, be patent to all that Gandhi was lacking in both political wisdom and political strategy — as we commonly understand these terms — and far from being infallible, committed serious blunders, one after another, in pursuit of some Utopian ideals and methods which had no basis in reality. It will also be seen that the current estimate of the degree or extent of his success bears no relation to actual facts. I am not unaware of the rude shock that such treatment would give to a large section of Indians and the great probability that they would curse or at least denounce the author without perhaps even going through the book itself. But I am sustained by two considerations. In the first place, I have sincerely tried to uphold the dignity of history by telling the truth as it has appeared to me in the light of such judgment or intellect as God has vouchsafed to me. I have done no less — I could do no more. Secondly, the adverse criticisms I have made against Gandhi — and the most serious ones at that — have almost all been upheld by one or more of his most admiring devotees, perhaps in some unguarded moments of their lives or when they were free from the magic influence of their political Guru. (xviii ff)"

"Generally communal riots were confined to the British territory, and the Indian States were free from them. A serious riot in 1924 in Gulburga, in the Nizam's territory, formed an exception. The Muhammadan mobs attacked all the Hindu temples in jthe city, numbering about fifteen, and broke the idols. They also raided the Sharan Vish- veshwar Temple and attempted to set fiie to the Temple car. The Police were eventually obliged to fiie, with the result that three Muhammadans, including the Police Superintendent Mr. Azizullah, were killed and about a dozen persons injured. Next morning the streets were again in the hands of Muhammadan mobs and considerable damage was done to Hindu houses and shops. On the arrival of Police reinforcements, order was restored. On the 14th August the Muslim mob fury was at its height and almost all the temples within the range of the mob, some fifty in number, were desecrated, their sanctum sanctorum entered into, their idols broken, and their buildings damaged."

"The Partition of Bengal and the foundation of the Muslim League widened the cleavage between the Hindus and the Muslims. The passionate outburst against the Partition which was noticed not only all over Bengal, but more or less all over India, was in striking contrast to the delight with which the Muslim League welcomed the measure. It undoubtedly gave great offence to the Hindus to see that the way in which Government practically disregarded the wishes of the entire Bengali community found support in u section of the population. The Partition was not merely an administrative measure ; it was a deliberate outrage upon public sentiment. But even more than this, it brought to the forefront a great political issue namely, whether India was to be governed autocratically without any regard to the sentiments and opinions of the people, or on the enlightened principles professed by the British rulers. Looked at from this point of view, the Partition invited a trial of strength between the people and the bureaucracy. It was a momentous issue far transcending the mere wishes and opinions or even the interests of once community or another. It was a national issue of vital importance and the attitude of the Muslims naturally constituted one of the greatest shocks to the national sentiments in India. 227ff"

"The accused, Habil Sircar had read over a notice to a crowd of Musalmans and had told them that the Government and the Nawab Bahadur of Dacca had passed orders to the effect that nobody, would be punished for plundering and oppressing the Hindus. Soon after, the image of Kali (Hindu goddess) was broken by the Musalmans and the shops of the Hindu traders were also plundered."

"The most serious disturbance .broke out at Jamalpur in the District of Mymensingh. In addition to the troubles in the town started by the Muslims in the course of which hundreds of Hindus—men and women—had to take shelter in a temple throughout the night, the riot spread to outside area. There were indiscriminate looting and molestation of Hindus in a large number of localities."

"When the Nawab was being taken in a procession through the public streets, there occurred a case of assault on Hindus, and looting of a few Hindu, particularly Hindu Swadeshi, shops. These incidents were a signal for a general outbreak of hooliganism involving assault, looting, destruction of properties and arson… On the other hand, the Government officials were full of praise for the Muhammadans…The Comilla riot was followed by various other outbreaks of a similar nature….Consider able bodies of Muhammadans, armed with lathis mustered from time to time and molested the Hindus. As a result there was wide-spread panic among the Hindu minority population in East Bengal…"

"The four-fold ramification of the Swadeshi movement industrial, educational, cultural and political—and its spread all over India unnerved the Government of India. It was not long before they realized that a local movement for removing a local grievance was being slowly, but steadily, developed into an all-India national movement against British rule. Lord Minto found it difficult to kill the hydra-headed monster let out of the basket of his predecessor. Lord Curzon."