History Of India

"Among the stone pieces with carvings found after demolition of the disputed structure, on 6 December 1992, three had inscriptions in Nagari script of the 11th-12th century: ―Two of these are fragmentary and datable palaeographically to a period fifty years later than the third inscription. These were found deeply and clearly cut and engraved on a pillar, unfortunately found broken vertically in two parts (…). These fragmentary inscriptions bear the names of some Gods and some kings, in genealogical sequence, and courtiers."

"Instead, just like B. B. Lal’s report, this inscription became a skeleton in their closet, which they have to keep from public view as long as possible."

"But what is truly astounding is Kishore Kunal's exposure on the Treta Ka Thakur inscription housed in Lucknow Museum. For over two decades, Left historians, principally Professor Irfan Habib, mounted a forceful campaign claiming that this inscription was stolen from Lucknow Museum and planted at Ayodhya during the chaos of 6th December. Now for the first time a photograph of the Treta Ka Thakur inscription has been published. It conclusively establishes that the Treta Ka Thakur inscription and the Vishnu Hari inscription found in 1992 are two distinct epigraphs and that there had been no substitution. But does evidence really matter? Evidence may come; evidence may go; bu Left historians "go on forever"."

"The Indian History and Culture Society arranged a three-day (10th–13th October 1992) all-India workshop and seminar on ‗Archaeology and History of Ayodhya‘, … [which] was attended by 40 delegates … [The scholars] added at least two more and most vital pieces of archaeological evidence — one, epigraphical and second, architectural. The former ... is the letter ‗ si’ found engraved on the top portion of the black stone pillar fixed on the outer left side of the main entrance to the central domed-room. Palaeographically, it is in the Nagari script of 11th-12th century AD. In Sanskrit it stands for Shrī, the Goddess Lakshmi. ... A year later, … a similar black stone-pillar inscribed with the same letter ( si) in the same location of the pillar, the capital, was found re-erected in a small triangular park [nearby]... The architectural evidence came to light in the form of a fragmentary wall over which ran the outer boundary wall of the disputed structure. It means that the Muslims used a part of the temple wall to build the boundary wall of the mosque."

"Verse 28. And now the King, having fierce arms, annihilated the fear coming from the west. The brilliance of the mighty great ruler (spreads) in the east and west like a festive occasion."

"The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alaayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, (...). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana). Line 20 contains an allusion to the serious threat from the west, apparently posed by Sultan Subuktigin and his son Mahmud of Gahni, and its destruction by the king."

"Verse 24. While residing at Ayodhyā, which was full of towering abodes and temples, he pacified dissension through his righteous conduct, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, rest-houses and ponds throughout the Sāketa-mandala."

"The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigennd, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th century... The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra..... verse 21 gives the important information that, in order to ensure his easy passage into the heavens, Meghasuta built a lofty stone temple for the Gode Visnu-Hari.. verse 28 refers to a king (probaly Ayusyacandra) as warding off the danger of invasion from the west... Lines 13-14, verse 19. His nephew (literally brother's son), the widely, celebrated Meghasuta, the illustrious one, who superseded Anayacandra; he earned the lordship of Saketa-mandala through the grace of his elder, the lord of the earth, Govindacandra. Lines 14-15, verse 21. By him, who was meditating in his mind on the easiest means of quickly jumping across the ocean of worldly attachments, was erected this beautiful temple of [The god] Visu-Hari, [on a scale] never before done by the preceding kings, compactly formed [i.e., built] with rows of large and lofty stones which had been sculpted out. Lines 15-16, verse 22. ... king Govindacandra's empire, .... his younger (son?) Ayusyacandra. Line 17, verse 24. By him, who was of good conduct, and abhorred strife, while residng at Ayodhya, which had towering abodes, intellectuals and temples, Saketa-Mandala was endowed with thousands of wells, reservoirs, alms-houses, tanks. Lines 18-19, verse 27. Separating [the flesh and blood of the demon] Hiranyakasipu from his skeleton,....and performing many valorous deeds, having killed the Ten-headed [demon Ravana],..."

"Verse 19. That Alhana’s nephew (brother’s son) and the son of Megha, rich in wisdom, was Anayachandra who became the ruler of Sāketa mandala with the grace of the elderly Govindachandra, the Lord of the earth."

"Now, Irfan Habib’s seemingly strongest piece of evidence (not for the temple’s non-existence, of course, but at least for the untrustworthiness of some pro-temple spokesmen) turned out to be false. During the demolition on 6 December 1992, many Hindu artefacts had turned up, albeit in less than desirable circumstances from an archaeological viewpoint. Proper excavations at the site in mid-1993 found some more, before the thorough Court-ordered excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 uncovered the famous pillar-bases, long ridiculed as a “Hindutva concoction” by the secularists but henceforth undeniable. Among the first findings during the demolition was the Vishnu Hari inscription, dating from the mid-11th century Rajput temple, which the Babri Masjid masons had placed between the outer and inner wall. Several Babri historians dismissed the inscription as fake, as of much later date, or as actually brought by the Kar Sevaks during the demolition itself. Prof. Irfan Habib, in a combine with Dr. Jahnawi Roy and Dr. Pushpa Prasad, dismissed this inscription as stolen from the Lucknow Museum and to be nothing other than the Treta ka Thakur inscription. The curator kept this inscription under lock, but after some trying, Kishore Kunal, author of another Ayodhya book (Ayodhya Revisited, 2016), could finally gain access to it and publish a photograph. What had been suspected all along, turns out to be true: Prof. Habib, who must have known both inscriptions, has told a blatant lie. Both inscriptions exist and are different... Yet, none of the three scholars has “responded to the publication of the photograph of the Treta ka Thakur inscription, which falsifies the arguments they have been persistently advocating for over two decades.”"

"Verse 21. He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple adorned with a gold Kalas+a, on a scale never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with the blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks."

"Though China also exercised a considerable influence over countries of Southeast Asia, Indian influence was more effective and durable for the Chinese always remained colonies of foreigners with little inclination to mix with the local population and in contrast to what the Hindus achieved, there is nowhere any trace of the taking-over of Chinese culture by the children of the soil."

"Indonesia is the country that has the maximum number of muslimsin the world. They are having various unique versions of Ramayana i.e. ‘Kakawin Ramayana’, ‘Swarnadeep Ramayana’, ‘Yogeshwar Ramayana’ just like our country. Lord Rama is venerated & adored there even today. There are ‘Ramker Ramayana’ in Cambodia, ‘Fra Lak Fra Lam Ramayana’ in Lao, ‘Hikayat Seri Ram’ in Malaysia and ‘Ramaken’ in Thailand."

"Indonesia too has retained the Rama tradition. No visitor to Java can afford to miss the excellent performance of dance-dramas based on the Ramayana story... But what is most breath-taking is the superb portrayal of a number of scenes from the Ramayana in the temples at Prambanam, dated to the 9th century CE."

"Verse 2. May you all be ever protected by Lord Vāmana in the form of Trivikrama who, though being dwarf, is tall with a physique which is an embodiment of all sixteen branches of knowledge. He bears in his palm the Universe which gets disturbed by cloud Samavarta and Pramad, as they strike against the rocks of Kulagiri and create echo."

"Chinese culture did not penetrate Southeast Asia as much as Indian culture because of the fundamental difference in the natures of expansion. Indian penetration was not conquest by a central power. India was politically divided and culturally, racially and linguistically diverse and tolerant. It had a long seafaring and trading history and Indian ships continued to sail to China. After the Zhou conquest of the Shang, Chinese thinking was land-based, centrally directed and to an extent racially motivated. It conquered, annexed and brought cultural unity where possible, administrative unity where not. Its influence spread as far south as Hue in Annam, ‘the pacified south’. Merchants in Southeast Asian and Indo-Chinese ports, on the other hand, spread Indian culture. Exchanges of ambassadors or goods between Indian kingdoms and Southeast Asian polities were made on the basis of equality, whereas Chinese expansion required suzerainty and regular tribute. This was and is an important cultural divide; to the north sinicised, conquered, assimilated, authoritarian; to the south Indianised, trade-minded, expansionary, looking southwest to its cultural origins and north for its biggest customer. Indo-China is so-named for good reason."

"The Indianization of Southeast Asia was a slow and gradual process. With a few exceptions... it was carried out by peaceful means and in consequence, as it developed, it did not build up a resistance to its further progress. Though its initial impact was probably at the level of the ruling classes, Indian influence had no difficulty in merging with indigenous cultures to create a series of distinct Southeast Asian amalgams in which it is now virtually impossible to disentangle all the Indians from the non-Indians. The result may not have simplified the task of a cultural historian; but it has now without doubt guaranteed the Indian heritage a place in Southeast Asian civilization from which it cannot possibly be dislodged without the total destruction of that civilization."

"Verse 5. It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxieties (over Bhargava’s war) and is the birthplace of a man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Herein resides the person who is illuminated with the power of thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for most exciting wealth hankered after by the world."

"Amongst the south-eastern countries, Thailand seems to have witnessed the maximum influence of the Ramayana story. For example, one of its capitals was even named as Ayodhya, wherefrom kings of various dynasties ruled from 1350 to 1767 CE. ... Shadow-plays even today keep the story of Rama alive."

"The lowest cultural deposits common to all these sites [related to the Ramayana] were characterized by the Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW)... on the basis of the Carbon-14 dates... the duration of the NBPW period at Ayodhya ranges from somewhere in the 13th century BCE to about the 4th century BCE."

"The coins [of the NBPW period] were the earliest to be produced in the country.."

"The evidence from the excavations at the foregoing five [Ramayana related] sites shows that the earliest time when all these were under occupation was that of the northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW).... The ... C-14 dates indicate that the lower levels of the NBPW do go back to a period well before 1000 BCE."

"Indian cultural patterns in particular became widely disseminated during the early centuries AD, while Chinese influence, although culturally less contagious, virtually dominated from Sung times (960 and later) the trade and politics of the eastern seas."

"Although attempts have been made from time to time to minimise the extent of Indian influences upon Southeast Asia, the evidence for their importance is there for all to see and cannot be controverted."

"Verse 8. He, the resolute noble Karna, first sent his fame to the heaven and then, intending to reach there in person, bestowed his entire asset along with his throne upon his son Sallakshana in the same way as the Sun bequeathes his lustre to the fire – an event unique in the world."

"Another respected epigraphist, K.V. Ramesh, states: ―The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigned, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th century on palaeographical grounds as well as the internal evidence provided by the inscriptional text in question. … The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra, obviously of the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a fairly vast empire from 1114 to 1155 A.D.‖"

"In retrospect, the rapidity with which the writings of such scholars as Radhakumud Mukherjee, KP Jayaswel, RC. Majumdar and others came to be pejoratively mentioned as those of the nationalist historians in post-Independence India is surprising, especially in view of the fact that none of them ever tried to question the basic premises of Western Indology. I do not think that the volumes on ancient India in the History and Culture of the Indian People Series edited by R.C. Majumdar try to dispute even a single date established by Western scholars for the ancient Indian texts. I do not think that they even made any attempt to go into the basis of arriving at such dates. It is not that they were unaware of the remarkably flimsy and subjective lines of arguments on which the entire system of ancient Indian chronology is based. I am not aware that any author contributing to these volumes offered any hypothesis unduly stretching back the chronology of anything Indian."

"Additional difficulties are created by the necessity of dealing with the activities of men like Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who are looked upon by a large section of Indians with veneration, incompatible with dispassionate judgment. A regular propaganda has been kept up to preserve untarnished the halo of glory which contemporaries, in the first flush of enthusiasm, put round their heads. (xxx)"

"Thus the Muslim antagonism to the Freedom Movement of India dates back to its beginning itself. (151ff)"

"A number of people including William Wilberforce, sought to refute these arguments by painting in black colors the horrible customs of the Hindus such as sati, infanticide, throwing the children into the Ganga, religious suicides, and above all idolatry. Vivid descriptions were given of the massacre of the innocent resulting from the car procession of Lord Jagannath at Puri, and the Baptists put down the number of annual victims at not less than 120,000. When challenged they had to admit that they did not actually count the dead bodies but arrived at the figure by an ingenious calculation."

"Even Muhammad Ali, later regarded as the greatest nationalist leader among the Muslims, admitted in a public speech in 1908 that the interests of the Muslims differed from those of the Hindus and would suffer if they joined the Hindus in their political agitation. He therefore frankly asserted that the Muslims could not be expected to become martyrs to the unity of India and it would be a retrograde step in the political evolution of the Muslims to leave them “at the mercy of an angelic majority” (i.e. of the Hindus)." The spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who, with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian after- wards... It is hardly surprising that Englishmen would exploit the situation and seek by every means to keep up, if not aggravate, the differences between the Hindus and Muslims... (151 ff)"

"A modern historian of British India, therefore, finds it absolutely necessary to dispose of a large legacy of falsehood, half-truths, and perversion of facts and judgments, which are new passing current as history. To expose their true nature and seek to establish truth on the basis of facts and reason, is by no-means an easy task. (xxvi)"

"The editor has been a witness to the grim struggle for independence which began with the partition of Bengal in 1905 and continued till the achievement of independence in 1947. He does not pretend to have been a dispassionate or disinterested spectator; he would have been more or less than a human being if he were so. His views and judgments of the English may, therefore, have been influenced by passions or prejudices to a certain extent. Without denying this possibility, the editor claims that he has tried his best to take a detached view of men and things—a task somewhat facilitated by lapse of time. How far this claim is justified, future generations of readers alone would be in a position to judge. (preface, xxxi-xxxiii)"

"The Muslims fully exploited the eagerness of the Hindus for Muslim support in their political struggle against the British, and grew more and more truculent in their attitude, demanding further extension of the principle of communal representation and increase in the appointment of Muslims in all State services. Agitation for all these was carried on not only in India but also in England. A British branch of the Muslim League was opened in London in 1908, with Sir Syed Ameer Ali as Chairman, in order to enlighten public opinion in England regarding the separatist tendencies of the Indian Muslims. In his inaugural address Ameer Ali observed: “It is impossible for them (the Musalmans) to merge their separate communal existence in that of any other nationality or strive for the attainment of their ideals under the aegis of any other organization than their own”. (158ff)"

"The contribution of the British rule to the cleavage between the Hindus and Muslims should be considered in its proper perspective. It must be frankly admitted that the roots of the cleavage lay deep in the soil, and it was already manifest even early in the nineteenth century. The British did not create it, but merely exploited the patent fact to serve their own interests. (325)"

"The most powerful monarch of the world relentlessly attempted to destroy one man, and he braved all adversities to emerge triumphant It is related in the Rajasthan chronicles that the Maharana adopted extreme measures to deny the Mughuls all forms of provisions. Death was the penalty for anyone who cultivated land for supplying the Mughul army. The result of this order was that the peasants left Mewar, and the Mughul garrisons had to get their provisions from Ajmer. It is related that a Mughul garrison commander induced a peasant to grow some vegetables for him. At night the Mahdrana went there and executed the man.” The Rajasthan chronicles also tell of many exploits of the Maharana and his officers Of these the most notable was 25 lacs of rupees and 20,000 ashrafis looted from Malwa. On another occasion, Prince Amar Singh attacked a Mughul camp and captured the wife of the Khan Khanan, but after treating her with due honour returned her to her husband... Thus died the greatest hero of medieval India, the bravest of the brave whose sturdy frame was exhausted by almost two decades of constant fighting. (338-9)"

"For, generally speaking, both British and Indian writers were, more or less, influenced by personal feelings and prejudices, and few could rise above them in order to produce a real objective study. (xxiii)"

"The creation of the Khalsa was an epoch-making event in the religious and political history of the country. It marked the beginning of the rise of a new people, destined to play the role of defenders against all oppression and tyranny. (319)"

"In general, the historical writings of Englishmen from about the last quarter of the 19th century were, more or less, tinged by the spirit of imperialism which they inherited as a legacy from the British rule in India during the preceding century. The most typical example of such a historical work is furnished by V. A. Smith’s Oxford History of India (1919) on a smaller scale, and The Cambridge History of India, Vols. V(1929) and V1I(1932), on a more comprehensive scale. One may be pardoned for gathering the impression from these books, that they were pro- ducts of men who honestly believed in the doctrine-—‘my country, right or wrong,’—and used the medium of history to defend British imperialism which had by that time come in for a good deal of criticism both in India and abroad. The Cambridge History of India, Vols. V-VI, the last great historical work on modern India written by British historians, looks at India purely from the standpoint of British officials and statesmen. Its attention was mainly directed to, and its interest was primarily concerned with, the British dominion and British administration. While minute details are given on these points, the story of Indians, as such, is almost completely ignored. One may go through the two ponderous volumes without gaining any idea of the great cultural renaissance in India in the 19th century which transformed her from the Medieval to the Modern Age. While reference is made in detail to official transactions or administrative machinery, there is hardly any reference. except by way of casual mention as a part of administrative history, to the great social and religious reforms, literary revival, and political aspirations, which so strongly marked the 19th century. One comes across enthusiastic references to British Governors-General, Governors and even lesser officials, but looks in vain for the names and careers of men like Rammohan Roy, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra Chatterji, Ramkrishna Paramahamsa, Keshab Chandra Sen, Swami Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati, Surendra Nath Banerji, M. G. Ranade, Dadabhai Naoroji. Pherozeshah Mehta, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and a host of others, who will be remembered as makers of Modern India, long after the names of officials, with whose careers the two volumes of Cambridge History abound, have been completely forgotten. (xxiii-xxv)"

"Babur exempted Muslims from the payment of stamp duties which Hindus alone paid.“ His officers demolished Hindu temples and constructed mosques in their places at Sambhal,3 Chanderi and Ayodhya, and broke to pieces Jain idols at Urva near Gwalior. (306-7)"

"But the errors of Cambridge History are not of omission only. The errors of commission are equally, if not more. grave and serious. Differing in spirit even from the old English historians of British India, it has put forth only the official or imperial view of British transactions in India, without any attempt to discuss the dissentient views, It suppresses truth in many cases where the preservation of good name for the British rulers requires it; worse still, it repeats the official calumny against Indian rulers concocted by the British Government of the day in order to justify their unjust action against them, though a little inquiry would have sufficed to demonstrate the totally unreliable character of the evidence on which the statements of the Government of India were based. Typical instances of the former ate supplied by the accounts given of the annexation of Burma, Awadh, Nagpur, Jhansi, Sindh and the Panjab, as well as dealings of Ellenborough with Sindhia. As regards the latter, it is only necessary to refer to the grounds on which the rulers of Mysore, Coorg, Cachar, and Satara were dethroned, and an armed expedition was sent against Manipur and its Commander-in-chief, Tikendrajit, was hanged. (xxiii-xxv)"

"A standard work of many volumes commissioned in the 1950s to celebrate India's liberation from foreign rule and foreign scholarship."

"Shah Jahan was an orthodox Muslim. In 1632, while returning from Kashmir, he found that some Hindus of Rajauri, Bhimbar and Gujarat accepted Mushm girls as wives and converted them to their own faith. The emperor stopped such marriages and Muslim women, already married, were seized from their husbands who were fined and, in certain cases, even executed. They could retain their wives only on their embracing Islam. As many as 4,500 such women were recovered. In 1635, it was reported to the emperor that a Muslim girl, Zinab, had been converted, given the new name of Ganga and was taken as a wife by Dalpat, a Hindu of Sirhind. The woman, along with her seven children—one son and six daughters—was taken away and the man was executed 34 Kaulan, a daughter of the qazi of Lahore, had also run away from home, embraced Sikhism and taken shelter with Guru Har Govind, who immortalised her by constructing a new tank at Amritsar named after her, Kaulsar. (311ff)"

"“The Khalji empire rose and fell during the brief period of twenty years (A.D 1300-1320). The empire of Muhammed bin Tughlaq… broke up within a decade of his accession (A.D. 1325), and before another decade was over, the Turkish empire passed away for ever…"

"The Mughul rule is distinguished by the establishment of a stable Government with an efficient system of administration, a very high development of architecture and paintings and, above all, wealth and splendour such as no other Islamic State in any part of the world may boast of. (xii-xiii, preface)"

"Slavery was fairly common, and the matter-of-fact way in which Ibn Batitah refers to the acquisition of slave-girls in lots, and their distribution as ordinary gifts or presents, throws a lurid light on the moral ideas of the time. A sort of communal spirit seems to have prevailed in this matter. The Muslims took delight in enslaving Hindu women en masse from the highest to the lowest rank, and many of them, including even those who once were princesses, were forced to entertain the Muslim court and the nobility with dance and music. Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq made free gifts of them to his relations and the nobility, and sent as presents to the Chinese Emperor ‘“‘one hundred male slaves and one hundred slave songstresses and dancers from among the Indian infidels’. On the other hand, according to Nizam-ud-din, ‘“‘even Musalmans and Sayyid women were taken by the Rajputs and were turned into slave girls. They were taught the art of dancing and were made to join the akharas.’’(582)"

"So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims. With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all the other Mughul Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus, mentioned in Vol. VI (pp. 617-20), and thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughul Emperors (and other Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was displayed by their pre-decessors, the Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzib, who deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since. Such disclosures may not be liked by the high officials and a section of the politicians, but it is the solemn duty of the historian to state the truth, however unpleasant or discreditable it might be to any particular class or community. Unfortunately, political expediency in India during this century has sought to destroy this true historic spirit This alone can explain the concealed, and mostly unsuccessful, attempt to disparage the statements about the Hindu-Muslm relations made in Volume V (pp 497-502) and Vol. VI (pp. 615-636), though these were based mainly on Muslim chronicles and accounts of a Muslim traveller, supported by contemporary Indian literature (xii-xiii, preface)"

"Muhammad bin Tughluq is generally, and perhaps rightly, regarded as a man of liberal views. The Chinese Emperor asked for his permission to build a temple at Samhal, a place of pilgrimage in the Himalayan hills frequented by the Chinese, which the Muslim army “had seized, destroyed and sacked”. But the Sultan, who accepted the rich presents sent by the Chinese Emperor, wrote to him a reply to this effect: ‘Islam does not allow the furthering of such an aim and the permission to build a temple in a Muslim country can be accorded only to those who pay the jizya."

"Whether we look at the intrinsic importance of the posts, or the number of them filled up by the subject people, the Hindus were in much worse condition after three hundred years of Muslim rule than the Indians after one hundred and fifty years of British supremacy. Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu culture during their rule of three hundred years, pale into insignificance when compared with the achievements of the British rule during half that period in the same direction. It is only by instituting such comparison that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective. (623)"

"It is very sad that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians (xii-xiii, preface)"