 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. You are watching present, past and the future. Day-to-day hearings are underway on 14 appeals against the 2010 Alabad High Court judgment in the Ayodhya case. Yes, it is not yet Prayagraj High Court. That aside, the Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid judgment partitioned 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya among the 3 parties. First, the Sunni Vakbod, then the Nirmohi Akhara and finally, Ram Lalla Virajman. Now, this may sound extremely odd, but the deity considered an infant form of Lord Ram is a party and making arguments in the case. The deity is represented by topmost lawyers engaged by the petitioner, a senior member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. From 1989, when the VHP first moved a Faizabad court on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman, the court has held that the deity is a juristic entity. This intervention came just as the initial phase of the agitation for constructing a Ram temple after demolishing the Babri Masjid was speaking. I often argue that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would not have become the leader with such a stranglehold on Indian politics if it had not been for the Gujarat riots of 2002. The riots also would not have occurred if it had not been for Ayodhya. So, in a way, the Ram Janambhoomi agitation is the primary reason for the BJP being in power today. Among other issues, the Ayodhya agitation was founded on the belief that it was imperative for Hindus to undo a historical wrong to seek revenge for humiliation heaped in the past. Modi often refers to medieval India as 12,000 years of slavery. Much of the majoritarian sentiment in contemporary India is justified as being part of the need for retribution for crimes committed by Muslims against Hindus in the past. Previously, only the Ram temple and the other temples allegedly demolished to build mosques with symbols of such subjugation of Hindus. Now, other evidences too are cited. Higher population growth among Muslims when compared to Hindu birth rate is depicted as Islamist conspiracy to reduce Hindus to a minority. Because of such false or half-truthful narratives, it is important to understand how Islam grew in India and if there is any substance in these allegations. We need to know if there was an Islamic design or conspiracy to undermine Hindu society. Or was this just the play out of power politics and the result of intermingling? There is need to know that neither was the medieval period the golden era of Islam in India nor was it the dark age for Hinduism. Rajyuddin Akhil joins me today to discuss several fundamental questions which impinge on the current political discourse. A historian who teaches at Delhi University is also the author of the important book, The Muslim Questions, Understanding Islam and Indian History. And his most latest book is Literary and Religious Practices in Medieval and Early Modern India. Welcome to the program Akhil. Let us begin with what I say when we try to actually talk about that the basic essence of the Hindu right discourse is driven by this argument that there is need to undo this historical wrong that the historical wrong must be righted. Now as a person who is an expert on medieval India about which not much is known except very preconditioned ideas how do you explain that you know how do you respond to this discourse? You are right that there are difficulties regarding understanding medieval India and there is a lot of ignorance and much of this ignorance is often deliberate. Because lots of research has actually been happening that is showing that there is need to actually have our political discourse more informed regarding what actually happened in medieval India, especially from around 13th century onwards when the Delhi Sultanate was emerged or maybe from the early decades of the 11th century when Sultan Mahmudavhazna rated these parts. Certainly the conquerors came with some amount of violence that was involved in the making of those conquerors. That was not a permanent trend across different centuries that you had various Muslim you know rulers in power in different parts of northern India and in other parts of the country also. Yes. So once the conquests were completed once the dynasties were established empires were set up whether the Turkish dynasties from the 13th century onwards or the Mughal empire once it was established on a firm footing by late 16th century we see that even if violence is possible in the wake of the conquests but when actually it comes to governing and governance governing principles were certainly going to be you know broad based, inclusive ensuring that justice is done to all sections of the society and not and the notion of justice is not based on religious considerations in the sense that one set of people are being discriminated against for not being Muslim in this case perhaps but that was not the case. So are you trying to say you know that across the various centuries that you had the Muslim Badshah you know ruling various Sultanates you know the Sultan you know. The ruling classes were not just Muslims they were they were a lot of you know Hindus who were their part of the ruling classes was this across various centuries. It is actually and different you know you had the Mongols you had the Turks you have the Afghans you had the Mughals you had various kinds of other kingdoms you know away from the Delhi Sultanate you know either in Bengal or whether in you know in South in Deccan you had different kinds of kingdoms and different rulers. What was the character of the ruling classes in those kingdoms? Certainly there in the wake of the conquests they the Turks and subsequently the Afghans and the Mughals they incorporated local chief tens local you know ruling classes. The case of Rajasthan is very very interesting. A large number of chief tens will be incorporated very peacefully into the Afghan system or the Mughal system and they would be reinstated in their own you know. So these Hindu chief tens continued to Rajputs they continued to rule as some kind of an extensions of the kingdom. Very very autonomous actually very very autonomous. In the sense that in fact the term that was used for their own principalities where was referred to as Watan Jagir you know their own Watan is given into Jagir for them to rule in the manner in which they can continue to do. So what policies were then being controlled by the center if you actually try to look at in modern terms you know as some kind of a federal arrangement between the Jagis and the kingdom you know. So whether any specific powers which was there vested in the hands of the Sultan. I think you know once a particular region has accepted this sovereignty or sovereignty of the ruler based in Delhi or Agra. There is no difficulty in the sense that. They would be of course contributing taxes. They would be contributing taxes. They would be sending soldiers for conquests elsewhere. Oh you mean to say that you know soldiers of these Jagis would be participating in the army of the Sultanates. Yes the Imperial soldiers operating in Bengal will have a large number of Rajput contingent working under Mansi for instance late in the 16th century early 17th century. Similarly for any Deccan campaign south of you know southern India campaign a large contingent of the Mughal soldiers are actually not Muslims. They might be Rajputs even for. How little of this is actually known you know what. That's the thing you know. So there is an entire idea that it was the Mughal Empire which was going and crushing various you know Hindu kings across across the country. Whereas you are saying that you had a huge amount of Hindu soldiers in these. I mean as we began in the in the beginning that there is a lot of ignorance about what happened in the medieval period or early modern period. Even for the Chittor case for instance. So very politically motivated very politically motivated. Even for Chittor campaign you know the army Mughal army was led by Mansi and his Rajput soldiers were fighting against you know Rana Pratap. And in our 21st century discourse it would appear that the Rana was fighting some Dharam youth and the Mughals were fighting some Jihad. Certainly the. You also have an entire you know myth created around the Haldighati battle you know. It was not such a big deal then as it was made out to be in the latter half of the 20th century onwards. Because our history is now necessarily being communalized in the modern sense in the Hindu Muslim sense. And therefore it would appear that it was you know Hindu Muslim quotient was dogging our. You know there is something which you know sensible scholars like you all the time warned you know that just as you know that there is a certain. Majoritarian distortion of medieval Indian history. There is also need to be careful that there is no distortion from a secularist perception. After all not every period can be everything cannot be hunky dory. There would be a lot of negativities also which need to be understood also. So would you say that the truth is actually somewhere between what we can call the dogmatic secular approach to his medieval history and the communalist framework. Yes I think you know the communal history has to be actually discarded and the secular history has to be qualified. You know in the sense that the secular history has actually not being not doing justice in terms of knowing exactly what happened in medieval India. Because our secular historians are concerned about communal harmony in the present and therefore. So we are trying to say that everything was fine and you know because we want everything to be fine. Some bhaichara unity in diversity in today's context. I want to read unity in diversity also historically are you trying to say. Yeah there you know and there are many examples that we can be given about about about communal harmony. What for instance you know why following your Sufis among non-Muslims is one example or the veneration and support respect for for rulers like Akbar. For instance you know much as our you know political discourse is getting vitiated. But all nationalist historians scholars previously had a lot of respect for figures like Akbar figures like Dara Shukko. You know in the in the early you know early early 17th century the way he was looking for common grounds among between Muslims and Hindus. Going back to ancient texts as also Sufi literature would be showing that it is possible for Hindus and Muslims and other sections of the society to live together peacefully. And it is theoretically supported by texts and examples historically. Now our secular history has tended to sanitize you know our past in such a way that some examples examples like Aurangzeb for instance will have to be hushed. Examples of you know cases of temple demolition demolition we do not want to talk about. And because there are ramifications about it in the present as in the Ayodhya case. But I will argue and many historians are now increasingly agreeing that we have to be a mature well informed society in such a way that we can take head on even controversial questions which have come down to us from the past. You know cases cases like the construction of the Babri Masjid at that site and the controversies which have emerged subsequently. We need to educate our people. But there are you know as we were talking about Ayodhya you know having studied the history of Ayodhya at length and also written a book on the entire Ayodhya controversy way back more than 25 years ago. There is actually there are big question marks on the historicity of the story of this Ayodhya being the birthplace of Lord Ram as it is believed. There is also big question marks that if a temple had actually been demolished to build the Babri Masjid why was it not incorporated by Tulsidas. Who was writing his poetry in the same region and operating out of the same milieu why does it not find references. Why is it that stories of the demolition of a temple to build the mosque come in much later more than about 150 200 years later. So despite that you know but yes there are instances of better instances or more visible approves of temples being demolished. If even if they were were they done for religious reasons or was this only to stamp the political authority. I think this is a very important thing. Today's political discourse I do say that it was a religious battle. It was a jihad against Hinduism whereas it was going to the historian. If these temples were demolished whether it is a Varanasi or whether it is Mathura or the entire 300 or temple list which has been compiled by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Why were they being demolished? You see reasons political certainly reasons political and in medieval times as the ancient times and even in modern times you know that in our politics religious justification of political violence is rampant. You know political violence is being justified in the name of religion. So therefore medieval rulers when they are attacking a place of worship they are doing so to justify the violence which they have perpetrated in the wake of the conquest. And with regard to temple demolitions there is no one attitude in medieval India. There are several historians very good historians Richard Eaton for instance and Philip Wagner. They have actually written about how there are varying degrees of attitude towards places of worship in the wake of the conquest and after. So in some cases a temple can be just destroyed and demolished and finished off altogether. In another cases a very new temple is destroyed. A new building mosque complex has been erected at that place. A third case could be that the temples several temples have been destroyed and the debris have been used. Recycling material was very common you know. That is what possibly appears in Ayodhya to be the case. And a fourth case could be that half the place has been occupied for one set of people and another half have been left over for the other people to continue to practice their religion. So certainly in the middle of a temple complex you will find a mosque has emerged. You will find that in Varanasi you find something very similar. So in later times it is also possible that in the middle of a mosque a temple has emerged. Or an old mosque has been completely transformed into a temple or a idgah has been now taken over. The time when these type of constructions were being made it was not exactly that this is your space and this is my space and that we shall never meet. It was not such head on collision that there was a far greater understanding of each other's religion and religiosity. Not entirely. I mean the notion of very assertive kind of community identities are also emerging. And people are conscious of the fact that they are Muslims of different kinds. Maybe she has only etc. Or Hindus of different kinds, different sects etc. Those notions are emerging in a big way. By 16th century we know that curses and sects and religions and communities and Sampradais etc. The diversity in every religion is becoming more and more clear. What becomes important is what role the political domain is playing in ensuring that this diversity coexist respectfully and not resorting to violence against one another. So as I said that violence is possible in the wake of the conquest but when it comes to actually ruling and governing the responsibility of the rulers has been to ensure that people are not killing each other in the name of religion. And people are not harassing each other in the name of religion or occupying there etc. And this is what the Indian system has evolved to be. Since the 17th century at least that all different kinds of religious communities can peacefully coexist and the state has to maintain an equidistance from all of them and not to be seen as supporting or against equidistance. Equidistance was the word. Equidistance was a key word at that point. And that is what the path which we chose at during when India became independent. So it is not that a new political theory was imposed on India after independence. It is a continuation of what happened in the medieval period also. There is something which I want to understand from your Rajyuddin. The making of the Muslim community in India. People who came, the invader kings or the kings who came later on. They were not the people who comprise the Muslim community today. They comprise of local people. So how did this come about? Were there elements of coercion? Were there elements of inducement? How was it that a large number of people converted to Islam? Was it because at that point Islam appeared to be a more open society, more progressive society allowing them a greater amount of egalitarian, religious egalitarianism compared to Hinduism? You see there are four or five theories regarding how the making of Islam has happened in this and conversion, Islamization. The making of the Muslim communities today historically over 700 years period also, 13th century. It happened over several centuries. One hypothesis is that Muslims are foreigners. They have come from outside and well-to-do Ashraf Muslims have also been claiming that we have come from Arabia and our ancestors have come from Arabia or Iran etc. Many of those claims are actually very dubious. Those claims are dubious because we understand that a large section of the Indian Muslim population is Indian. And they have embraced Islam. They have undergone a process of Islamic acculturation as Richard Eaton and others would also be talking about through introduction to Islam through various means, certainly through the means of the political. When a Muslim sultanate would emerge claiming it is to be an Islamic sultanate and then Sufis would also come in the picture. The Ulama would be coming in the picture. The Qazi's etc. would be coming in the picture. A small locality would then seem to be emerging as a Qasbah kind of town where it is a Muslim locality and increasingly we find especially with regard to Sufi narratives and Sufi literature and traditions which have come down to us from the middle of the 14th century onwards saying that last sections of population in different parts of the continent have actually emerged in close proximity to Sufi shrines. And there is a very close intermingling between the Sufi bhakti tradition. Exactly. Though they were also contested with each other in the sense that they appropriated each other's ideas and made efforts to win over followers from each other but there is certainly commonality in practices. You find so many numerous writings of Sufi saints of that period. Guru Granth Sahib is actually a compilation of the devotional songs etc. of a large number of bhaktas and sons from across different religious traditions including Baba. It really provides a slice of devotional thought of those actually. So there are those common grounds of devotional religiosity but also at the same time community, building and markers of very very aggressive in certain political contexts, aggressive community identities have also undergone. So basically what you are trying to say is that we cannot look at medieval history as some kind of pure black and white terms. You would say that it is not something of the golden era of the Mughal of India and the dark ages of Hindu society. On the dark age, the very interesting example that I will give to you of a historian, a writing historian, he taught in Delhi University otherwise a good historian working on the Khulji's etc. He would say that medieval India under Muslim rulers was a dark age because there was no electricity in medieval India. And there was no electricity in medieval India because Muslims were ruling and Muslims were against science and therefore electricity could not be developed. This is a completely dubious kind of proposition that is often offered and a large number of people who are otherwise ordinary. When you have people at this time who try to find every scientific discovery in ancient India so I would not blame your medieval historians possibly. That is true. Just part of the same political tradition. I deny that the medieval era or ancient Greece and ancient India, ancient Iran were not advanced civilizations. They were very, very advanced civilizations. But the kind of abuses that are made of the past in the present, in the politics of the present today is objectionable. It is wrong use, misleading use of the past in the politics of the present which is a matter of serious concern because in doing so misleading people who are just interested to know things that you are telling them and you are informing them in a manner that is not historical and therefore there is a need to actually go back to the past in all its complexities. One last question Akil as we run out of our time. Over the last century at least, slowly and progressively it has been increasing year by year, decade by decade it has been increasing. Religion has become the principal basis of social identity. It has become much more than when we were children, it is much more now and the way things are continuing it is possibly going to become even more sharper in the years and decades to come unless there are counterbalancing forces. In the medieval period was religion actually looked as a primary basis of social identity or whether other identities which were actually more important. I think identities of different kinds existed, they coexisted. The plurality of identities is the take away of the medieval era. Not black and white, Hindu, Muslim, upper caste, lower caste. The communities of people with their own traditions how they were able to be managed is that the political domain maintained that distance. For scholars we call it historical distance in the sense that even if there are difficulties between communities we are not going to be as historians or rulers going to be siding with one side of people against another. And at the same time we have to recognize the secular historians had not done and the communal historians had tried to abuse by asserting that community identities existed. Whereas they did exist, the more important question is how they were managed. They were managed. That was the key, it was not becoming confrontational like now. We find that the British tried to do by intervening in our tradition and creating difficulties there and setting people against one another by saying that you have come to face this kind of question problems because other people have come and dominated you over you, conquered you and ruled over you in a manner that is so very insulting and we have come to correct you, correct that and this is for your benefit. So long as for a multi-ethnic kind of society that we have and we have it for, you know, we have 2,500 years of, you know, continuous history now and we can add another 1,500 years to it 4,000 years of continuous history on the subcontinent. There will be moments, moments of the kind now we are faced with that there will be difficulties in social relations, etc. But eventually those in the business of power have to ensure that these communities coexist peacefully with regard to each other's you know, religious sentiments and emotions, etc. and that is the day forward. Unfortunately what has been happening is that those who have been in power have been increasingly trying to utilize them for consolidating their political hold on the social and the political order. That is what we have been seeing for a long time. True, but this kind of aggressive political agenda cannot be sustained for long. You know, from our history we know that we have to have some sanity in our political system and society otherwise we are going to create a harakiri with an anarchy in the society when people will just go and kill each other the way the mob lynching, etc. is going on, this has to be checked. On the note of your hope and also on the point which you made that unless we actually put an end to this it is going to lead to very worse and worse situations. Thank you very much for coming and joining me. You have actually been able to provide a very right perspective to medieval history and not really look at only in terms of black and white not to distort the past with through the prism of the present. I think it is a very important take away. Much of our understanding of contemporary India is built on false premises. History is often difficult to accept especially if it does not substantiate our theories of the present. Much of contemporary hostility is based on false notion and wrong interpretation of the past. Medieval India has been for long at the epicenter of the political conflict in India. I hope today's discussion has provided you with a fresh way of looking at this important period of India's history. Thank you very much.