Distorted history

I do have a problem when some Muslim rulers are glorified at the expense of non-Muslim ones on the basis of religion.

Recently, I wrote an opinion piece on why our history books should include Ranjeet Singh. The name Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was symbolic and used as an example to point out the need to look at our history objectively.

For the critics who just could not shed their keyhole vision of looking at history through a religious lens, I would ask them a question. When Pakistan plays a cricket match with India, why do we support Danesh Kaneria, a Pakistani Hindu cricketer, over Irfan Pathan, an Indian Muslim cricketer? We support Kaneria for the simple reason that we associate his spirit of nationalism with the geographic confines that he represents, not the religion he follows. Going by the same logic, shouldn’t our hero be Raja Jaipal instead of Mahmood Ghaznavi? And if Ghaznavi being a fellow Muslim is enough for us to overlook his devastation in India, then we should also gleefully accept Taliban suicide bombings in Pakistan.

One has no problems with Muslim rulers being covered in history books. I do have a problem, however, when certain rulers are glorified at the expense of others on the basis of religion, regardless of who the aggressor was. I do have a problem when the names of non-Muslim rulers are conveniently skipped as if they never existed. I have a bigger problem when the mission of spreading Islam is attributed to the invasions of Muslim rulers. Because when the true motive behind their attacks is revealed, it’s Islam that gets maligned not them.

Even if I were to believe that these rulers attacked out of a genuine wish to spread Islam, who authorised them to do so by the use of the sword? Even the battles fought by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) were actually a punishment of Allah for the disbelievers because the disbelievers persisted in denying Allah’s message. It was only when Allah ordered: “Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands” (9:14); that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) waged war. I would like to know who gave these rulers the authority to decide which disbelievers deserved to be punished and which people had reached the level of purity to be left alone? If spreading Islam was their intent, they could have just preached it. If anything, they should be discredited for contributing to Islam’s wrong image as a violent religion.

I wonder why we are so quick to assume the role of a Muslim apologist. May I remind all such people how Mahmood Ghaznavi killed the locals of Lahore ruthlessly when he attacked and burnt the entire city? May I remind them of Nadir Shah who in matter of a day killed thousands of Muslims when he marched on to Delhi to snatch the throne from Mohammed Shah, one of the last Mughal kings of India and yet another Muslim? Or Ahmed Shah Durrani, who ravaged the Muslim population of Gujrat while fighting the Sikhs? What about the Delhi Sultanate which, over a period of 300 years from 1206 to 1526, saw five Muslim dynasties namely Slave, Khilji, Tughlaq, Syed and Lodhi dynasties, indulge in intrigues and murders of each other to capture the throne. Did any of these rulers care about Muslims that we are so religiously guarding them? Do we all know that Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was requested by prominent Muslims of Lahore to come and capture the city?

All the rulers of the subcontinent, Muslims or non-Muslims, locals or invaders, were interested in ruling this land purely for political and economic reasons. Why bring in the religious angle or deprive ourselves of our multicultural history? Not only does this fuel religious bigotry and intolerance, it also plants a false sense of invincibility in our minds that allows us to deflect the blame of our failures on others.

And those who think distorting history is a strategic tool need to wake up to the detrimental effects of this policy. Not only has it fanned intolerance by making us believe we are victims of some nefarious and well-coordinated chicanery, it has also instilled a misguided and one-sided sense of Muslim brotherhood in us. I was appalled to hear a member of the National Assembly a few days ago declaring that we should come to the aid of our Afghan brothers. How did a country that has for 800 years attacked the subcontinent suddenly become our brother is devoid of any logic. Let alone the fact that the only country to oppose Pakistan’s entry into the United Nations was Afghanistan. What about Egypt, which provided supplies to India during the 1965 war? How about Iran, which refused to sign the gas pipeline project to protect India’s concerns? So why embark upon this one-way road?

In the end, I’ll mention an incident, found in one of Manto’s stories, which is the perfect manifestation of the prejudice we have come to espouse. The incident is about the religious riots in Lahore during Partition when a group of Muslims is attacking the statue of Sir Ganga Ram, an honourable son of Lahore, which once adorned Mall Road. During the attack a man gets carried away, climbs atop the statue, falls down and injures himself seriously. The fellow rioters immediately pick him up while one of them screams “Hurry; let’s take him to Sir Ganga Ram hospital”.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 11^th,  2011.