Historians From India

1356 quotes
0 likes
0Verified
100Authors

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

All Quotes

"Chatterji is also a standard and predictable face at major events supporting Kashmir separatists, having declared herself to be working on ‘self-determination in Indian-administered Kashmir’. At one such conference on Kashmir, organized by the Pakistani Students Association at George Washington University, the Embassy of Pakistan, and Pakistan’s Minister of Kashmir Affairs, she spoke of the ‘growing concern among civil society groups about human rights crises in Indian-occupied Kashmir in the areas of social, political, cultural, religious, and economic rights’. She accused India of ‘continued occupation of [certain areas of] Kashmir’. Muhammed Sadiq... explains how Angana Chatterjee uses human rights concerns in a lopsided way to play in the hands of Islamic terrorists: [Angana Chatterji] announced the formation of the ‘International Peoples’ Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian Administered Kashmir’ on 5 April in Srinagar. Interestingly, this organisation too insists that the focus of HR investigations should be on the Indian side of Kashmir and not in PoK too. Moreover, this is a fault-finding mission. Its only aim is to slam the Indian security forces, further highlight HR issues and vitiate the situation. There is no attempt at reconciliation, offering succour to HR victims or working with the government to ensure that HR violations do not take place. Dr Chatterji, like many before her, are, intent on primarily demonising the Indian security forces and thereby fanning hatred."

- Angana P. Chatterji

• 0 likes• human-rights-activists• activists-from-india• feminists• historians-from-india• anthropologists-from-india•
"Professor S.A.A. Rizvi gives some graphic details of this dream described by Shah Waliullah himself in his Fuyûd al-Harmayn which he wrote soon after his return to Indian in 1732: “In the same vision he saw that the king of the kafirs had seized Muslim towns, plundered their wealth and enslaved their children. Earlier the king had introduced infidelity amongst the faithful and banished Islamic practices. Such a situation infuriated Allah and made Him angry with His creatures. The Shah then witnessed the expression of His fury in the mala’ala (a realm where objects and events are shaped before appearing on earth) which in turn gave rise to Shah’s own wrath. Then the Shah found himself amongst a gathering of racial groups such as Turks, Uzbeks and Arabs, some riding camels, others horses. They seemed to him very like pilgrims in the Arafat. The Shah’s temper exasperated the pilgrims who began to question him about the nature of the divine command. This was the point, he answered, from which all worldly organizations would begin to disintegrate and revert to anarchy. When asked how long such a situation would last, Shah Wali-Allah’s reply was until Allah’s anger had subsided… Shah Wali-Allah and the pilgrims then travelled from town to town slaughtering the infidels. Ultimately they reached Ajmer, slaughtered the nonbelievers there, liberated the town and imprisoned the infidel king. Then the Shah saw the infidel king with the Muslim army, led by its king, who then ordered that the infidel monarch be killed. The bloody slaughter prompted the Shah to say that divine mercy was on the side of the Muslims.”"

- Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"But Rizvi has summarized them in the following words from Waliullah’s magnum opus in Arabic, Hujjat-Allah al-Baligha: “According to Shah Wali-Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Sharia was the performance of jihad. There were people, said the Shah, who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Mohammed. If one chose to explain Islam to people like this it was to do them a disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the better course - Islam should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child. This, however, was possible only if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed, the strength of the community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavourable discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of rule of retaliation, compensation for manslaughter, and marriage and political matters. However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying jiziya. They like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock were to be kept in abject misery and despair.”"

- Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"This was not an isolated instance of popular feelings. The spirit of the age sanctioned such and even worse practices. Mubarak, a scholar of no mean repute, was persecuted even though he was a Muslim, for holding rather unorthodox views. Mir Habshi was executed for the offence of being a Shi'a. Khizar Khan met his death on a charge of blasphemy there were others as well who shared a similar fate. As BadayunI tells us, it was customary 'to search out and kill heretics’, let alone non-Muslims.’ The popular attitude towards heretics and non-Muslims can be well understood by several incidents of Akbar’s reign itself. In 1569-70 (977 a.h.) Mirza Muqlm and Mir Ya'qub were executed for their religious opinions. Hemu’s father, when captured, was offered his life if he turned Muslim, Even in 1588 when the murderer of a Shi'a was executed, the people of Lahore showed their religious sentiments by desecrating the tomb of his victim. Feelings towards the Hindus could not be restrained — ‘Abdun Nabi executed a Brahman for blasphemy on the complaint of a Qazl. Husain Khan, the governor of Lahore who died in 1575-76 (983 a.h.), made his government famous by ordering that the Hindus should stick patches of different colours on their shoulders, or at the edge of their sleeves, so that no Muslim might be put to the indignity of showing them honour by mistake. Nor did he allow Hindus to saddle their horses but insisted that they use packsaddles when riding. The Akbar Nama, the An-i-Akbarl and Badayuni are all agreed that prior to 1593, some Hindus had been converted to Islam forcibly. When Todar Mai was appointed Finance Minister, Akbar had to defend this appointment of a Hindu to such a high office by reminding his Muslim critics that they were all utilizing the services of Hindu accountants in their own households."

- Sri Ram Sharma

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"Jahangir continued, with some exceptions, his father’s practice of allowing non-Muslims to build public places of worship. His friend, Bir Singh Bundela, built a magnificent temple at Mathura, which was now once again rising into prominence as the sacred city of the Vaishnavas. He raised another magnificent place of public worship in his own State as well. More than seventy new temples were built in Banaras alone towards the end of his reign. They were, however, not yet complete when Jahangir died. He allowed the Christian Fathers to open a church at Ahrnedabad in 1620 and another at Hugh. At Lahore and Agra public cemeteries for the Christians were allowed to be set up. But when he made war on the Hindus and the Christians these ; considerations were sometimes given up. When Mewar was invaded, many temples were demolished by the invading Mughal army... Sometimes his fury would break out even without the aggravating cause of war. When he visited Ajmer in the eighth year, the temple of the Boar god, Varsha, was destroyed and the idols were broken. Probably these instances made a contemporary poet of his court sing his praises as the great Muslim emperor who converted temples into mosques. These exceptions apart, Jahangir usually followed the path shown by his father. It is interesting to note that some of the Hindu shrines of Kangra and Mathura continued to attract a large number of Muslim pilgrims besides their Hindu votaries."

- Sri Ram Sharma

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"Babur inherited his religious policy from the Lodis. Sikandar Lodi’s fanaticism must have been still remembered by some of the officials who continued to serve when Babur came into power. Babur was not a great administrator. He was content to govern India in the orthodox fashion. He projected no great changes in the government of the country except the design of a royal road from Agra to Kabul. But the Hindus, he met with, occupied no humble position. Rana Sanga, a Hindu, led a host wherein even Muslim armies were present under disaffected Pa than chiefs. It was Babur’s success at the battle of Khanava against Rana Sanga that enabled him to remain in India as her ruler. These two factors seem to have governed his religious policy. Babur, the born fighter against heavy odds, knew he was at a great crisis in his life on the eve of his battle against Rana Sanga. In order to conform strictly to the Muslim law he absolved Muslims from paying stamp duties thus confining the tax to Hindus alone. He thus not only continued, but increased, the distinction between his Hindu and Muslim subjects in the matter of their financial burdens. One of his officers, Hindu Beg, is said to have converted a Hindu temple at Sambhal into a mosque. His Sadr, Shaikh Zain, demolished many Hindu temples at Ghanderi when he occupied it. By Babur’s orders, Mir Baqi destroyed the temple at Ayudhya commemorating Rama’s birth place and built a mosque in its place in 1528-29. He destroyed Jain idols at Urva near Gwalior. There is no reason to believe that he did anything to relax the harshness of the religious policy which he found prevailing."

- Sri Ram Sharma

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"It is wrong to say that Sher Shah did not destroy a temple or break an image. His conquest and occupation of Jodhpur was followed by the conversion of the Hindu temple in the fort into a mosque. The Thrlkh-i-DnUdl ascribes his attack on Maldev, Raja of Jodhpur, partly to his religious bigotry and a desire to convert the temples of the Hindus into mosques. His treachery towards Puran Mall was not, as Qanungo tries to assert, the result of a fanatic religious leader forcing his opinions upon an unwilling king. It had been planned by Sher Shah beforehand, discussed by him with his officers and was deliberately done to earn religious merit by exterminating this arch-infidel. Sher Shah said prayers of thanks after this ‘religious’ deed. No amount of mere rhetoric can enable us to get over the accounts of the expedition, especially when we find Sher Shah, who got ill on the eve of the battle, inviting his officers and confiding to them that ever since his accession he had been anxious, in the cause of his religion, to defeat Puran Mall. All accounts give this expedition a religious significance which no argument can destroy. Sher Shah was only a product of his own age as far as his religious policy was concerned. Like Feroz Shah before him, he combined administrative zeal with religious intolerance. His place in history does not depend upon his initiating a policy of religious toleration or neutrality. He had no more to do with founding a united nation in India, which is yet in the making, than any other successful ruler before him."

- Sri Ram Sharma

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•
"Now Man Singh’s prophecy seems to have been reported to Jahangir. He could, however, take no action against him as Rai Singh had been pardoned and Man Singh was living under his protection at Bikaner. In the twelfth year, however, when Jahangir visited Gujarat where there were many Jains, he decided to embark upon their persecution. They were accused of having built temples and other buildings which were reported to be centres of disturbance, Their religious leaders were accused of immoral practices (probably of going about naked). They were generally believed to be a troublesome class of Hindus. Jahangir first of all summoned Man Singh to the court. Afraid of meeting a mere ignominious fate he took poison on his way from Bikaner to the Emperor. Jahangir issued orders thereupon for the expulsion of the Jains from the imperial territories. These orders do not seem to have applied to the territory of the Rajput Rajas where the Jains were driven to seek protection. Jahangir here seems to have been prompted by religious rather than political motives. Unlike Guru Arjun, Man Singh had been left alone for several years after his alleged act of treason. All Jains were punished irrespective of their political proclivities. Still further there was a section of the Jains which did not even acknowledge Man Singh as their leader. They were also included in the order of expulsion. Dr Beni Prasad is wrong in stating that the order of expulsion was confined to one sect alone."

- Sri Ram Sharma

• 0 likes• historians-from-india•