Temple destruction, religious conversion, and the treatment of Hindus by the Muslim rulers of India in the pre-colonial era are currently at the center of public discourse. It is a highly emotional issue, understandably, that can maintain social harmony and impede economic growth, which is all the more reason for us to look at different aspects of the problem objectively and rationally.
There are three separate issues involved that need to be kept separate. First, what is a crime against society? Second, can the distant descendants of criminals be held responsible? Third, what is the historical accuracy of the allegations?
First of all, do we know if the perpetrator was really the culprit? Looking at past actions based on current sensitivities puts us on a thin edge. Owning slaves was part of the economic system in the pre-Bellam American South. The treatment of castes seen as outside the purview of the Varna system in India was reprehensible, to say the least. The invaders proudly took back the looted property and enslaved the people from the conquered territories. The people were identified as ‘witches’ and were burnt to death. Women were considered inferior and forced into limited forms of behaviour. Indians of North American origin drove out their enemies. Cannibalism was prevalent in some societies. Most of those settings deemed these behaviors appropriate at the time. As Audrey Truschke remarked in Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, for all the great excesses that can be attributed to Aurangzeb, “the Mughal rulers in general gave much leeway to their subjects – shockingly that compared to the harsh measures instituted by many European sovereigns of the era – to follow their own religious views and inclinations.” It is arrogant and arrogant on our part to label acts of old-fashioned barbarism as the work of evil criminals.
The second issue is who is to be accounted for. In most cases, no apology needs to be issued. However, let’s put the issue of changing sensitivity aside for a moment. Even where an amnesty, reimbursement or retribution is considered desirable, it should not violate a fundamental legal principle of democratic governance based on fundamental rights that no one can be held guilty of What he didn’t, believed for the actions of the ancestors alone centuries ago. The right to equal treatment under the law cannot be taken away. History is irrelevant in constitutional democracies, as all constitutions make a fresh start and are not based on selective accounting of the past.
We need a golden rule that only criminals can give forgiveness. Since the offense is not inherited, the question of apologizing after the death of the offender does not arise. If the person was acting on behalf of the state, an apology can be made by the head of state. If the state has changed, there is no reason for an apology. The current head of Italy, who had no role in Christ’s execution, has no reason to apologize for the sins of the Roman Empire. Forgiveness for Nazi atrocities could only be made by the Nazi state or its representative, and not by any successor German state that had no role. In fact, the disparity of the Weimar Republic and the German people to pay for their Kaiser’s sins through the Treaty of Versailles had facilitated Hitler’s rise.
The third issue is the accuracy of the allegations. Much of popular thinking on the subject is ultimately derived from the work of British imperial historians, such as Eliot and Dawson’s monumental 8-volume Indian History which was published some 150 years earlier. These ideas promoted an imperial narrative based on the selective use of Persian sources. A comprehensive and new set of sources—including Sanskrit texts—have since become available, especially on Aurangzeb, a not-so-distant figure in the distant past on the historical time scale.
We should note that the temples were desecrated by the conquerors before the arrival of the Muslim invaders in India. If the remains of temples have been found in mosques, then in temples (as well as mosques) there are remains of Buddhist viharas. The works of Richard Eaton, Audrey Truschke and Hermann Kulke are eye-opening in this regard.
Be that as it may, narratives about the past will always be opposed because they are informed by current needs and debates. As the Italian historian Benedetto Croce said, “All history is contemporary history. We must leave it to the historians to their craft. Let the professionals go into the past, explain and interpret it. Historical consciousness helps us understand who we are.” How we got here, and maybe even how to avoid past mistakes. It fulfills a felt need and is therefore one of our oldest subjects. But that’s all there is to history. It should not be made a weapon.
The French historian March Bloch observed that the purpose of history is to explain, not to judge. If we want to stay on the path of progress then we need to look ahead and not think about past mistakes. Attempts to right wrongs of the past cannot make the present better. These not only create division, rancor and hatred, but also distract us from focusing on the current mistakes. On the whole, Indian Muslims today are more sinful than they are committing. It needs to be fixed.
Similarly, in the US, both racial discrimination and poverty (which is not limited to African Americans) need to be addressed, but this does not oblige the current government in Washington to apologize for the sins of the Confederate states.
Alok Sheel is a retired Indian Administrative Service officer and former Secretary, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister.