FROMTHECOVEROF"NEGATIONISMININDIA CONCEALINGTHERECORDOFISLAM"

NegationismusuallymeansthedenialoftheNazigenocideoftheJewsandGypsiesinWorldWar 2.LesswellknownisthatIndiahasitsownbrandofnegationism.AsectionoftheIndian intelligentsiaisstilltryingtoerasefromtheHindus'memorythehistoryoftheirpersecutionbythe swordsmenofIslam.ThenumberofvictimsofthispersecutionsurpassesthatoftheNazicrimes. TheIslamiccampaigntowipeoutPaganismcouldnotbeequallythorough,butithascontinuedfor centurieswithoutanymoraldoubtsarisinginthemindsofthepersecutorsandtheirchroniclers. TheIslamicreportsonthemassacresofHindus,destructionofHindutemples,theabductionof Hinduwomenandforcedconversions,invariablyexpressgreatgleeandpride.Theyleavenodoubt thatthedestructionofPaganismbyeverymeans,wasconsideredtheGodordaineddutyofthe Moslemcommunity.Yet,todaymanyIndianhistorians,journalistsandpoliticians,denythatthere everwasaHinduMoslemconflict.Theyshamelesslyrewritehistoryandconjureupcenturiesof HinduMoslemamity;nowagrowingsectionofthepublicinIndiaandtheWestonlyknowstheir negationistversionofhistory.Itisnotapleasanttasktorudelyshakepeopleoutoftheirdelusions, especiallyifthesehavebeenwilfullycreated;butthisessaydoesjustthat. ThisessaywasstartedasanexpandedtranslationofaDutchlanguagebookreviewofSitaram Goel'sHinduTemples:WhatHappenedToThem,whichcouldnotbepublishedinitsoriginalform duetoproIslamicpressure;andofanarticleonIslamicnegationismpublishedintheSeptemeber 1992issueoftheFlemishmonthlyNucleus. Theauthor: KoenraadElst(Leuven,1959)grewupintheCatholiccommunityinBelgium.Hewasactivefor someyearsinwhatisknownastheNewAgemovement,beforestudyingatthefamedCatholic UniversityofLeuven(KUL).HegraduatedinChineseStudies,IndoIranianStudiesand Philosophy.HetookcoursesinIndianphilosophyattheBenaresHinduUniversity(BHU)and interviewedmanyIndianleadersandthinkersduringhisstayinIndiabetween1988and1992.He haspublishedinDutchaboutlanguagepolicyissues,contemporarypolitics,historyofscienceand OrientalPhilosophies;inEnglishabouttheAyodhyaIssue,andabouttheGeneralReligiopolitical SituationinIndia.

FOREWORD
ThisbookisamuchexpandedversionofanarticletitledHetIslamnegationisme,publishedinthe September1992issueoftheFlemishCatholicmonthlyNucleus,combinedwithareviewofSitaram Goel'sbook"HinduTemples,Whathappenedtothem,vol.2:TheIslamicEvidence".Thereview

waswrittenforInfoerient,theDutchlanguageperiodicaloftheAsianandIslamicStudies departmentofmyAlmaMater,theCatholicUniversityofLeuven,underthetitleEenHeidentegen hetNegationisme(APagan'sStandagainstNegationism).However,aftersomedillydallyingand movingitaroundlikeahotpotatointhemouth,itwasdecidedthatpublishingthisreviewwastoo dangerous:thegoodrelationswiththeembassiesofIslamiccountriesmightbeharmed,aqndthe dominanttrendinwhatiscalledpublicopinionmightobjecttothishighlightingofafrankcritique ofIslam. ThiscensorshipisatonceagoodillustrationofhowtheeffectiveprohibitionofIslamcrticismhas fastbecomeaworldwidephenomenon.WhenIdiscoveredtheIslamproblemduringmyfirststayin Indiain19988,andtheconcomitantpressureagainstIslamcriticism,ithadstillseemedaThird Worldproblem,farremovedfrompostEnlightenmentEurope.Today,aftertheRushdieaffair,the threatenedoreffectivemurderofIslamcritics(liketheEgyptianFaragFoda),andthethreatsand administrativesanctionsagainstIslamcriticsinEuropebynonMuslimauthorities(likethesacking oftheFrenchcivilservantJeanClaudeBarreau),thetabooonafrankdiscussionofIslamhasthe wholeworldinitsgrip.AstudyofIslamnegationism,i.e.,thedenialofitshistoriccrimesagainst humanity,hasbecomeevenmorenecessary. ThisbookdevelopsathemeIhavetoucheduponinmyearlierbooksonIndia'scommunalproblem, RamJanambhoomivs.BabriMasjidandAyodhyaandAfter,viz.thepracticeofsystematic distortionoutofpoliticalmotives,especiallythedestructionwroughtbyIslaminitsjihadagainst Hinduism. InmystudyoftheAyodhyacontroversy,Inoticedthatthefrequentattemptstoconcealordeny inconvenientevidencewereanintegralpartofalargerefforttorewriteIndia'shistoryandto whitewashIslam.ItstruckmethatthisefforttodenytheunpleasantfactsofIslam'sdestructiverole inIndianhistoryissimilartotheattemptsbysomeEuropeanwriterstodenytheNaziholocaust.Its goalandmethodsaresimilar,eventhoughitssocialpositionisverydifferent:inEurope,Holocaust negationistsareafringegroupshunnedbyrespectablepeople,butinIndia,jihadnegationistsarein controloftheacademicestablishmentandofthepress. IwanttodedicatethisbooktoBoutrosGhali,thenewsecretarygeneraloftheUnitedNations Organization.AsaCopticChristianinEgypt,hehasrisentounusuallyhighpostsinthe administrationofhiscountry,probablyhigherthanyoungCoptscantodayreasonablylookforward to.Thoughhewassidelinedintheendbybeingpromotedtothesymbolicpostofdeputyprime minister,hegavehopeandpridetothefellowmembersofhiscommunitybyclimbingashighas possibleforanonMusliminanominallysecularstate.Ofcourse,inhisdifficultpositionhecannot speakoutagainsttheIslamicoppressionwhichhisowncommunityhassuffered;butinhisown way,hehascontributedtoalleviatingtheholdofIslamonhispartoftheworld.Heplayedakey roleintheCampDavidpeacetreatybetweenEgyptandIsrael,forwhichEgyptwasthrownoutof theArabLeagueandpresidentSadatwaskilledbyIslamicfanatics.TheCampDavidtreatyproved thatanationcanputitsnationalinterestsanditsdesireforpeacefulcoexistenceaboveits commitmenttopanIslamicbrotherhoodwithitsprogrammeofhatredanddestruction.Ithas remindedushowintheend,reasonisboundtodefeatIslam. Delhi,Innocents'Day(28December)1992

SomeExcerpts
Thenextgenerationofpoliticalleaders,especiallytheleftwingthatwastogaincontrolof Congressinthethirties,andcompletecontrolinthefifties,wouldprofessnegationismvery explicitly.Theradicalhumanist(i.e.bourgeoisMarxist)M.N.RoywrotethatIslamhadfulfilleda historicmissionofequalityandabolitionofdiscrimination,andthatforthis,Islamhadbeen welcomedintoIndiabythelowercastes.Ifatallanyviolencehadoccurred,itwasasamatterof justifiedclassstrugglebytheprogressiveforcesagainstthereactionaryforces,meaningthefedual Hinduuppercastes. Thisisamodernmythspringingfromanincorrectandmuchtoogrimpictureofthecastesystem,a backprojectionofmodernideasofclassstruggle,andanuncriticalswallowingofcontemporary Islamicapologetics,whichhasincorporatedsomevoguishsocialistvalues.Thereisnorecord anywhereoflowcastepeoplewelcomingtheMuslimsasliberators.Justlikeintheirhomeland,the Muslimgeneralshadnothingbutcontemptforthecommonpeople,andallthemoresobecause thesewereidolaters.TheymadenodistinctionbetweenrichPagansandpoorPagans:intheQuran, Allahhadpromisedthesamefatetoallidolaters. Bycontrast,thereisplentyoftestimonythatthesecommonpeopleroseinrevolt,notagainsttheir highcastecoreligionists,butagainsttheMuslimrulers.Andnotonlyagainstheavynewtaxes (50%ofthelandrevenueforAlauddinKhilji,whomthenegationistshailastheprecursorof socialism)andlandexpropriations,butespeciallyagainsttherapeandabductionofwomenand childrenandthedestructionoftheiridols,actswhichhavebeenrecordedwithsomuchgleebythe Muslimchroniclers,withoutanywherementioningaseparatetreatmentofHindurichandHindu poor,uppercasteKafirorlowcasteKafir.Evenwhensomeofthehighcastepeoplestarted collaborating,thecommonpeoplegavetheinvadersnorest,attackingthemfromhidingplacesin theforests.TheconversionoflowcastepeopleonlybeganwhenMuslimrulersweresafelyinpower andinapositiontorewardandencourageconversionbymeansoftaxdiscrimination,legal discrimination(winthedisputewithyourneighbourifyouconvert),handingoutpoststoconverts, andsimplecoercion.Nevertheless,themythwhichM.N.Royspread,hasgainedwidecurrency.

M.Habib
Firstly,itwasnotallthatserious.OnecannotfailtonoticethattheIslamicchroniclers(including somerulerswhowrotetheirownchronicles,likeTeimurandBabar)havedescribedtheslaughterof Hindus,theabductionoftheirwomenandchildren,andthedestructionoftheirplacesofworship mostgleefully.But,accordingtoHabib,theseweremerelyexaggerationsbycourtpoetsoutto pleasetheirpatrons.OnewonderswhatitsaysaboutIslamicrulersthattheyfeltflatteredbythe bloodydetailswhichtheMuslimschroniclersofHindupersecutionshaveleftus.Atanyrate,Habib hasnevermanagedtounderpinthisconvenienthypothesiswithasinglefact. Secondly,thatpercentageofatrocitiesonHinduswhichHabibwaspreparedtoadmitashistorical, isnottobeattributedtotheimpactofIslam,buttootherfactors.SometimesIslamwasusedasa justificationpostfactum,butthiswasdeceptive.Inrealityeconomicmotiveswereatwork.The HindusamassedalltheirwealthintemplesandthereforeMuslimarmiesplunderedthesetemples. Thirdly,accordingtoHabibtherewasalsoaracialfactor:theseMuslimsweremostlyTurks,savage ridersfromthesteppeswhowouldneedseveralcenturiesbeforegettingcivilizedbythewholesome influenceofIslam.TheirinbornbarbaritycannotbeattributedtothedoctrinesofIslam. Finally,theviolenceoftheIslamicwarriorswasofminorimportanceintheestablishmentofIslam

inIndia.Whathappenedwasnotsomuchaconquest,butashiftinpublicopinion:whentheurban workingclassheardofIslamandrealizeditnowhadachoicebetweenHindulaw(smrti)and Muslimlaw(shariat),itchosethelatter. MohammedHabib'sexciseinhistoryrewritingcannotstandthetestofhistoricalcriticismonany score.WecandemonstratethiswiththeexampleofSultanMahmudGhaznavi(9971030),already mentioned,whocarriedoutanumberofdevastatingraidsinSindh,GujratandPunjab.This GhaznaviwasaTurk,certainly,butinmanyrespectshewasnotabarbarian:hepatronizedartsand literature(includingthegreatPersianpoetFirdausi,whowouldendupintroublebecausehispatron suspectedhimofapostasy,andthePersianbutArabicwritinghistorianAlbiruni)andwasafine calligraphisthimself.TheundeniablebarbarityofhisantiHinducampaignscannotbeattributedto hisethnicstock.HismassacresandactsofdestructionweremerelyareplayofwhattheArab MohammedbinQasimhadwroughtinSindhin71215.Hedidn'tcareformaterialgain:heleftrich mosquesuntouched,butpoorHindutemplesmetthesamefateathishandsastherichertemples. HeturneddownaHinduoffertogivebackafamousidolinexchangeforahugeransom:Ipreferto appearonJudgementDayasanidolbreakerratherthananidolseller.Theoneexplanationthat coversalltherelevantfacts,isthathewasdriventohisbarbarousactsbyhisideologicalallegiance toIslam.Thereisnorecordofhisbeingwelcomedbyurbanartisansasaliberatorfromthe oppressiveHindusocialsystem.Onthecontrary,hiscompanionAlbirunitestifieshowallthe HindushadaninveterateaversionforallMuslims.

TheMarxists
InCommunalismandtheWritingofindianHistory,RomilaThapar,HarbansMukhiaandBipan Chandra,professorsatJawaharlalNehryUniversity(JNU,theMeccaofsecularismand negationism)inDelhi,writethattheinterpretationofmedievalwarsasreligiousconflictsisinfact abackprojectionofcontemporaryreligiousconflictartificiallycreatedforpoliticalpurposes.In BipanChandra'sfamousformula,communalismisnotadinosaur,itisastrictlymodern phenomenon.Theyexplicitlydenythatbeforethemodernperiodthereexistedsuchathingas HinduidentityorMuslimidentity.ConflictscouldnothavebeenbetweenHindusandMuslims, onlybetweenrulersorclasseswhoincidentallyalsobelongedtoonereligiouscommunityorthe other.TheypointtotheconflictswithinthecommunitiesItisofcourseafactthatsomeHindus collaboratedwiththeMuslimrulers,butthatalsocountedfortheBritishcolonialrulers,whoarefor thatnolessconsideredasforeignoppressors.Forthatmatter,intheJewishghettoinWarsawthe NazisemployedJewishguards,intheirsearchforabscondingJewstheyemployedJewishinformers, andintheirpolicyofdeportationtheyevensoughtthecooperationoftheZionistmovement:none ofthiscandisproveNaziJewishenmity.ItisalsoafactthattheMuslimrulerssometimesmade waramongeachother,butthatwasequallytrueforPortuguese,FrenchandBritishcolonizers,who foughtsomewarsonIndianterritory:theywerejustasmuchpartofasinglecolonialmovement withacommoncolonialideology,andallthebrandsofcolonialismwereequallytheenemiesofthe indianfreedommovement.EveninthehistoryoftheCrusades,thatparadigmofreligiouswar,we hearalotofbattlesbetweenoneChristianMuslimcoalitionandanother:thesedonotfalsifythe overallcharacterizationoftheCrusadesasawarbetweenChristiansandMuslims(triggeredbythe destructionofChristianchurchesbyMuslims). AfterpostulatingthatconflictsbetweenHindusandMuslimsassuchwerenonexistentbeforethe modernperiod,thenegationistsarefacedwiththeneedtoexplainhowthistypeofconflictwas bornaftercenturiesofamisunderstoodnonexistence.TheMarxistexplanationisaconspiracy theory:theseparatecommunalidentityofHindusandMuslimsisaninventionoftheslyBritish colonialists.Theycarriedonadivideandrulepolicy,andthereforetheyincitedthecommunal

separateness.Astheexampleparexcellence,prof.R.S.Sharmamentionsthe19thcentury8 volumeworkbyElliottandDowson,TheHistoryofIndiaasToldbyitsownHistorians.Thiswork doesindeedpaintaverygrimpictureofMuslimhordeswhoattackthePaganswithmerciless cruelty.ButthispicturewasnotaconcoctionbytheBritishhistorians:asthetitleoftheirworksays, theyhaditallfromindigenoushistoriographers,mostofthemMuslims. Theoriginalsourcematerialleavesusinnodoubtthatconflictsofteneruptedonpurelyreligious grounds,evenagainstthepoliticalandeconomicalinterestsofthecontendingparties.The negationists'tacticthereforeconsistsinkeepingthisoriginaltestimonyoutofview.Agoodexample isProf.GyanendraPandey'srecentbook,"TheConstructionofCommunalisminColonialNorth India".Asthetitleclearlysays,Pandeyassertsthatcommunalism(theHinduMuslimconflict)had beenconstructedbytheBritishforcolonialpurposesanmdoutofcolonialprejuidices,waslater interiorizedbyIndianslookingfornew,politicallyprofitableformsoforganizationinmodern colonialsociety.ThisislikesayingthatantiJudaismisaconstructionofmoderncapitaliststo dividetheworkingclass(thestandardMarxistexplanationforallkindsofracism),whileconcealing thecopiousmedievaltestimonyofantiJudaismonundeniablynoncapitalistgrounds.Prof.Pandey effectivelydeniesamillenniumfuloftestimoniestoIslamicpersecutionoftheIndian(Hindu) Kafirs.

2.5ForeignSupportForIndianNegationism
Someforeignauthors,influencedbyIndiancolleagues,havealsoaddedabigdoseofnegationism totheirworkonIndianhistory.Forinstance,PercivalSpear,coauthor(withRomilaThapar)ofthe PenguinHistoryofIndia,writes:"Aurangzeb'ssupposedintoleranceislittlemorethanahostile legendbasedonisolatedactssuchastheerectionofamosqueonatemplesiteinBenares." ........destroyedtemple.Heorderedalltemplesdestroyed,amongthemtheKashiVishvanath, oneofthemostsacredplacesofHinduism,andhadmosquesbuiltonanumberofcleared templesites.AllotherHindusacredplaceswithinhisreachequallysuffereddestruction,with mosquesbuiltonthem;amongthem,Krishna'sbirthtempleinMathura,therebuiltSomnath templeonthecoastofGujrat,theVishnutemplereplacedwiththeAlamgirmosquenow overlookingBenares,theTretakaThakurtempleinAyodhya.Thenumberoftemples destroyedbyAurangzebiscountedin4,ifnotin5figures.Accordingtotheofficialcourt chronicle,Aurangzeb"orderedallprovincialgovernorstodestroyallschoolsandtemplesof thePagansandtomakeacompleteendtoallPaganteachingsandpractices".Thechronicle sumsupthedestructionslikethis:"HasanAliKhancameandsaidthat172templesinthe areahadbeendestroyed...HismajestywenttoChittor,and63templesweredestroyed...Abu Tarab,appointedtodestroytheidoltemplesofAmber,reportedthat66templeshadbeen razedtotheground." Inquiteanumberofcases,inscriptionsonmosquesandlocaltraditiondoconfirmthatAurangzeb builttheminforciblereplacementoftemples(someoftheseinscriptionshavebeenquotedin SitaramGoel:HinduTemples,vol.2,alongwithanumberofindependentwrittenaccounts). Aurangzeb'sreignwsmarkedbyneverendingunrestandrebellions,causedbyhisantiHindu policies,whichincludedthereimpositionofthejizyaandotherzimmarules,andindeedthe demolitionoftemples. Aurangzebdidnotstopatrazingtemples:theiruserstoowerelevelled.Therewerenotjustthe

classicalmassacresofthousandsofresisters,Brahmins,Sikhs.Whatgivesamorepointedproofof Aurangzeb'sfanaticism,istheexecutionofspecificindividualsforspecificreasonofintolerance.To namethebestknownones:Aurangzeb'sbrotherDaraShikohwasexecutedbecauseofapostasy(i.e. takinganinterestinHinduphilosophy),andtheSikhguruTeghBahadurwasbeheadedbecauseof hisobjectingtoAurangzeb'spolicyofforcibleconversionsingeneral,andinparticularforrefusing tobecomeaMuslimhimself.Short,PercivalSpear'sstatementthatAurangzeb'sfanaticismisbuta hostilelegend,isamostseriouscaseofnegationism. Anexampleofalessblatant(i.e.moresubtle)formofnegationisminWesternhistoriesofIndia,is theIndiaentryintheEncyclopaediaBrittannica.ItschapterontheSultanateperiod(whichwas muchmorebloodythaneventheMoghulperiod)doesnotmentionanypersecutionsandmassacres ofHindusbyMuslims,exceptthatFiruzShahTughlaq"madelargelyunsuccessfulattemptsto converthisHindusubjectsandsometimespersecutedthem".Thearticleeffectivelyobeysthe negationistdirectivethat"characterizationofthemedievalperiodasatimeofHinduMuslim conflictisforbidden". ItalsocontainsblissfulnonsenseaboutcommunalamityItalsocontainsblissfulnonsenseabout communalamityinplaceswheretheoriginalsourcesonlymentionenmity.Thus,itsaysthat BahmanisultanTajuddinFiruzextractedtributepaymentsandthehandoftheking'sdaughterfrom theHindubastionVijayanagaraftertwomilitarycampaigns,andthatthisresultedin"the establishmentofanapparentlyamicablerelationshipbetweenthetworulers".JawaharlalNehru consideredtheinductionofHinduwomeninMuslimharemsasthecradleofcompositeculture(his euphemismforHinduhumiliation),butitisworseifeventhevenerableEncyclopediaconsidersthe termsofdebateasasignoffriendship.Atanyrate,thearticlegoesontoobservenaivelythatpeace lastedonlyfortenyears,whenVijaynagarforcesinflictedacrushingdefeatonFiruz.Inthiscase, themorecircumspectformofnegationismisatwork:keepingtheinconvenientfactsoutofthe readers'view,andmanipulatingtheterminology. AnAmericanhistorian'sbookisintroducedthus:"Inthisbook[PublicArenasandtheEmergence ofCommunalisminNorthIndia],SandraFreitagexaminesoneofthecentralproblemsofmodern Indianhistory,theHinduMuslimconflict,withnewandprovocativeinsight.Shechallengeslong standinginterpretationsbydefiningthisconflictasadevelopingsocialprocessgroups,notsimply HinduorMuslim,inhighlyspecificlocalcontextsboundtogetherinachanginginstitutional order." Thissophisticatedverbiagecannotconcealthatthebook'sapproachismerelythestandardsecularist versionpropagatedbyIndianestablishmenthistorianssincedecades.Thereisnothingnewand provocativeaboutabookthatclaimstoexplaincommunalismwithouttouchingonitssinglemost importantdeterminant,viz.thedoctrinelaiddowninIslamicscripture,andthatblurstheclearcut processofIndia'scommunalizationbyIslamwiththehelpofscapegoatslikecolonialism.

CHAPTERONENEGATIONISMINGENERAL
Negationismmeansthedenialofhistoricalcrimesagainsthumanity.Itisnotareinterpretationof knownfacts,butthedenialofknownfacts.Thetermnegationismhasgainedcurrencyasthename ofamovementtodenyaspecificcrimeagainsthumanity,theNazigenocideontheJewsin194145, alsoknownastheholocaust(Greek:firesacrifice)ortheShoah(Hebrew:disaster).Negationismis mostlyidentifiedwiththeeffortatrewritinghistoryinsuchawaythatthefactoftheHolocaustis omitted. Thenegationiststhemselvesprefertocallthemselvesrevisionists,afteralltheythinkthatthereis nothingtodenyornegate,andthattheknownfactsofhistoryareafabricationwhichwillbe exposedwhenhistoryisgivenasecondlookorrevised.Manycommentatorsusethetwoterms interchangeably,andithasbecomeimpossibletousethewordrevisionism(onceusedasaMaoist termforKhrushchev'sdestalinization)exceptinthesenseofnegationism.Onlyafewpurists,like theFlemishscholarGievandenBerghe(workingattheInstitutefortheHistoryofWorldWar2in Brussels),insistonthedistinctionbetweennegationismaliasrevisionism,andthelegitimate revisionism.Revisionismstrictosensuisthendefinedasthenormalactivityofhistorians,viz.the reassessmentofgivenhistoricalfacts. Forinstance,whenacountryhaswonawar,itsofficialhistorianswilloftenwriteaversionofthe historyofthewarinwhichthedatesandfiguresarecorrect,butintowhichaveryslanted interpretationiswoven(withalltheguiltandthebarbaritybeingascribedtotheopponent):itis thenthedutyofhistorianstoreanalyzethefactsandgiveanewandmorebalancedinterpretation. Suchrevisionoftheestablishedstoryisoftencontroversial,asitisusuallyanattackontheversion preferredbyestablishedpoliticalinterests.Butnormally,aftersometurbulence,therevisionists' critiqueiseitherrejectedastooextreme,orincorporatedinamoreadvancedandmorebalanced officialversionofhistory.Thisway,revisionismstrictosensuispartofthenormalprogressof scientifichistorywriting.Bycontrast,innegationism,factsarenotreinterpretedbutdenied. Asthetermrevisionismhasbecomeambiguous,wewillnotuseithere.Thepollutionoflanguage withunclearterminologyisaproblemcloselyrelatedtothatofhistoryfalsification,sointhis contextevermorethanelsewhere,wepreferclearterminology.Wewillthereforespeakof negationismontheonehand,andreinterpretationofhistoryontheother.

1.1.BONAFIDEREINTERPRETATIONOFHISTORY
Beforewedescribetheproblemofnegationism,letusfirstlookatthebonafiderevisionofthe historyofNazismandtheHolocaust,inordertoavoidconfusionbetweentheintellectualcrimeof negationismandthepropertaskofhistorianstoreinvestigateandreassessknownandundisputed historicalfacts.ThehistoryofNazismisacomplexone,anditisonlynaturalthathistoriansdonot takereceivedwisdomanddominantinterpretationsforgranted.Evenifsomenegationistswitha politicalaxetogrindwoulddenyfacts,sincerehistoriansstillhaveaprofessionaldutytostudythese factsmorecloselysineiranecstudio(withoutaversionnorpreference)andtoamendinterpretations whichoncloseranalysisarenolongersustainable. Onepointofdiscussionamonghistorians,alreadysincetheearlyfifties,hasbeenthedegreeof intentionalityoftheNazigenocideontheJews,ontheextenttowhichtheHolocausthadbeenpre planned.TheintentionalisttheorysaysthattheNazileadershipknewfromtheverybeginning(early 1920s)that,onceitgotthechance,itwouldexterminatetheentireJewishpopulationlivingwithin itsdomains.ThefunctionalisttheorysaysthatthedecisiontosendtheJewstothegaschamberswas

onlytheculminationofaprocesswhichhadstartedwithfarlessdrasticmeasures,butinwhicheach newphasemadethenextanduglierphasethinkableaswellastechnicallywithinreach. Today,theintentionalistexplanationhasbeenlargelyabandonedforthefunctionalistone(though theremainingintentionalistsmaytellyoutheopposite).Thegaschambershadnotbeenplanned yearsinadvance,butweretheculminationofasuccessionoftwostringsofevents(apossiblethird contributorwillbedealtwithlater). TheoneescalatoryprocessgoesfromgeneralantiJewishpropagandathroughcancellationofJews' citizenship(1935),exclusionofJewsfromprofessionalandeconomiclife(1938),encouraged emigrationofJews,violenceagainstJewishestablishmentsbyNazithugs,internmentofJews togetherwithpoliticalopponentsinworkcamps,herdingofJewsinoccupiedterritoriesinto ghettoes,pogromswiththeaidoflocalmilitias,deportationofGermanJewsandpolitical opponentstocampsintheoccupiedterritories(becauseGermanpublicopinioncouldn'tstomach toomuchrepressionunderitsowneyes),killingtheseprisonersonalesssystematicscaleorletting themdiethroughhardships,andfinallytheindustrialscaleexterminationinthegaschambers. Itisestablishedthataslateas1940,theNazifinalsolution(Endlosung)consistedintheremovalof allJewsfromGermanheldterritories,eithertoPalestine(incooperationwiththeZionist movement193739)ortoanareainthecolonialworld,notablyMadagascar.ButBritaindidnot wanttoletlargenumbersofJewsintoPalestine,nordidanycountryagreetotakeinlargenumbers ofGermanJewishrefugees,andwhenGermanylosttheBattleofBritainin1940,itbecameclear thatthecolonialworldwasgoingtoremainoutofreach.So,somethingelsehadtobetried. Theothertributarytothefinalexterminationcampaignwastheforcedsterilizationofcarriersof hereditarydiseases,followedbytheeuthanasiaprogrammewhich,between1939and1941,killed 70,000handicappedandmentallyderangedpeopleasamatterofracialpurification.ithadtobe stoppedbecauseofmassiveprotestfromtheGermanpublicopinionandtheChurches,butithad giventheNazisatasteofhowtoextreminateonanindustrialscale,andalsotaughtthemthatthe onlypoliticallyfeasiblewaytodoit,eveninwartime,wasundermaximumsecrecy. ThedecisiontoresorttothetotalexterminationoftheJewswasannouncedbyHermannGoeringon 31July1941andfinalizedindetailattheWannseeconferenceon20january1942.Asmall exterminationcamphadalreadybeenstartedonemonthearlierinChelmno.Thedecisionto physicallyliquidatetheJewshadnotyetbeentakenin1922oreven1933.TheGermanswhohad votedfortheNazishadvotedinmanycasesforantiJudaism,butnotfortheHolocaust.Thatatleast isthefunctionalistassessmentofthehistoricalmaterial,corroboratedbyalotofresearchsincethe earlyfifties.Theintentionalisttheory,whichsaysthattheHolocausthadbeentheNaziaction programmefromthestart,isstillpopularinantiGermanstereotypingbuthaslittletorecommend itselfamonghistorians. AsecondcaseofbonafidereassessmentofthehistoryofNazismandtheHolocaust,concernsthe questionofwhethertheHolocausthasauniquestatusinhistory,recentlyhighlightedintheso calledhistorikerstreit(German:"struggleamonghistorians").AmongGermanhistorians,alively debatewasstartedin1986whenErnstNoltequestionedthisuniqueness. Therearetwodifferentaspectstothisuniquenessquestion.Thefirstconcernsthecomparative assessmentoftheNazicrimeswithsuchacomparisonandderideitasatricktominimizeand banalizetheNazicrimes.Otherhistorians,andnotonlyNolte,maintainthatthecomparisonholds inmostrespects.Stalin'smassacresofthekulaks,of(suspected)politicalopponentsandtheir families,oftheeducatedclassesamongsubjectnations(Poles,Estonians),etc.,werewellplanned, largescale,systematic,mercilessandideologicallymotivated.ThenumberofStalin'svictims exceededthatofHitler's(whentheGermanarmyenteredtheSovietUnion,itwaswelcomedasa liberatorinmanyplaces,butitlostthatcreditbytreatingtheSlavasasUntermenschen,lessthan

humans).Moreimportantly,Stalin'smassacreslargelyprecededHitler's:inthe1930salone,hehad between15and20millionpeoplekilled,anumberofvictimsperdecadeliterallyunprecendentedin worldhistory.Whenin1950theleftistintellectualsSartreandMerleauPontyjoinedthedebateon theconcentrationcampsandthebloodyrepressionintheSovietUnion,theyacknowledgedthat Hitler'scampsowedalottoStalin'scamps. So,thepossiblethirdcontributormentionedabove,whichshouldbeconsideredwhenwe investigatethedeterminantsoftheHolocaust,wastheinspiringexampleofStalin'smassacresona scalewhichHitlertried(butfailed)toemulate.OfcoursetheNazicrimescannotbeexplainedasa simplereactiontoandimitationofStalin's(andLenin's)crimes;butthereisnodoubtthatthenew horizonsinorganisedmassmurderwhichStalinhadopenedhavecontributedtothevery thinkabilityoftheHolocaust.TheyalsocreatedanintensefearofCommunism,thesenseofanall outstruggleforlifeagainstthisBolshevikbarbarity,whichinturnmadeextremestepsagainstall whocouldbeaccusedofanykindofassociationwithCommunism(includingtheJews,via"the JewKarlMarx")acceptabletomanyGermans;andwhichconvincedmanyEuropeansoftheneed tocollaboratewiththeNazisasacomparativelesserevil. Itwasalreadyinabout1950thathistorianshadsoughtacommondenominatorforNazismand Stalinism,whichwasfoundintheconceptoftotalitarianism.Theprosocialistspiritofthetimesdid notreceivethisconceptverywell,andincircleswheredoublestandaredsforHitlerandStalinare stillupheld,youwillbetoldthattheconceptoftotalitarianismwasafailure.TheHistorikerstreit was,inasense,anewepisodetothetotalitarianismdebate,butfocusingmoreoneventsandactions thanonideologyandstructures.However,theGermanantiCommunistsweakenedtheircaseby drawinganexaggeratedparallelbetweenNaziGermanyandCommunistEastGermany:equating Stalin'sbrutalityandauthoritarianismwithHitler'sisdefensible,butequatingHoneckerwithHitler andtheBerlinWallwithAuschwitzisofcourseexaggerated. Thereisasecondaspecttotheuniquenessdebate,highlightedinpublicforumsintheU.S.sincethe seventies:thereisanargumentovertheclaimmadebymanyJews(liketheNobelprizewinning writerElieWiesel)thattheHolocaustisanunspeakablyunique,unanalyzableandincomparable event.Thisattitudeiscloselylinkedwiththe(outdated)intentionalisttheory:theuniquethingabout theJewishgenocideascomparedwithothermassmurdersisthattherewasanineffablediabolical willbehindit.Nazismembodiedthefullestmanifestationofanageoldintentionoftheworldto destroytheJews.EveryattempttohistoricizetheHolocaust,toexplainitwithuniversalsocio political,economicalandculturalfactors,isasacrilege,abreachoftaboo:thefactorswhichmight explainothermassacresdonotapplyhere,theNaziholocaustwasnothingbutpurenakedEvil.This claimtouniquenessinsufferingistheobservesideoftheclaimtobeingGod'schosenpeople.In fact,aslargesectionsoftheJewishcommunityoutsideIsraelarelosingtheirreligiousfervour (paralleltothesecularizationoftheChristiancommunities),theHolocaustmemoryhasstartedto replacetheTorah(thefivebooksattributedtoMoses)asthecornerstoneofJewishidentity. ThisclaimtouniquenesshasbecomemoreinsistentasinternationalsympathyforIsraelwaned. Afterthe6daywarinJune1967,Israelhadcometoberegardedasaconsiderablemilitarypower imposingitswillonoccupiedterritories,notaDavidbutaGoliath.WiththeYomKippurwarof 1973,sympathycontinuedtodecrease,andAraboilpowerforcedWesterngovernmentstobecome friendliertowardstheArabstatesandmorealooffromIsrael.TheIsraeliinvasionofLebanonand thesuppressionofthePalestinianrevolt(intifada)broughtIsraelacontinueddecreasein internationalsympathy.Almostindirectproportiontothisshiftintheinternationalattitudetothe stateofIsrael,theHolocaustgetsmoreandmoreemphasizedasthefoundationmythand justificationofIsraelandofitspolicies.Anotherfactorintheincreasedsacralizationofthe holocaustisaculturalandpoliticalshiftwithinIsrael,wheretheZionistfoundersgenerationwithits forwardlookingnononsenseprojectofbuildingamodernstateisbeingreplacedbymore

traditionalisttendencieswhichkeeponcultivatingthememoriesofpersecution. EffortstostudytheHolocaustinthehistoricalcontexteasilygetbrandedasalackofrespectforthe victimsandtheirnextofkin,asanattempttobanalizetheHolocaust,orasaveiledattempttodeny it.Othergenocidescanbecalleduniqueintheirownway,butdidnothavethesameabsolutelyevil qualitythatAuschwitzhad.Auschwitzisaturningpointinhistory,changingourethicalviewof mankind,ouresthetics("canonestillwritepoetryafterAuschwitz?"Sartre)andmetaphysics("It isstupidandreprehensibletocontinuephilosophizingafterAuschwitzjustlikebefore..."Lyotard). Itwasnotahistoricalbutametaphysicalandreligiousevent,akindofreversetheophany(God's manifestationinthestreamofhistory),orratherdiabolophany(devilmanifestation).Accordingto RabbiEmilFackenheim,theHolocaustwastheonlyexampleofAbsoluteEvil. Adispassionatehistoriancannotsubscribetothisuniquenessclaim.TheHolocaustismerelyonein aseriesofgenocides.WithoutanyhowdenyingtheHolocaust,weshouldputitintheperspectiveof othercrimesagainsthumanity(norjustcrimesagainstJewry).Andweshouldkeepinmindthatall peoplewhosuffer,whoarepushedintosufferingwiththeirentirebeingandhavelittleoccasionto contemplateotherpeople'ssuffering,tendtooverestimatethecomparativehorroroftheirown suffering. WithinonecenturyafterColumbus'arrival,theentirenativeAmericanpopulationoftheCaribbean islandswasexterminated,probably8millionpeople.IncontinentalLatinAmerica,only12million peoplesurvivedafteracenturyofcolonizationwhilethepopulationin1492isestimatedatupto 90million.True,manydiedbecauseofnewdiseaseswhichthecolonizershadinvoluntarilybrought withthem,andmanydiednotbymassacrebutunderthehardshipsofslavery(whichalsohappened tomanyprisonersintheNaziworkcamps),butthenumberofliterallymassacredpeoplestill amountedtomillions.InNorthAmericatoo,the2millionnativeinhabitantsofPatagonia(southern ChileandArgentina)weregraduallybutsystematicallykilledtothelast,aswerealltheinhabitants ofTasmaniainasinglecampaign,andmostoftheaboriginalsofAustralia:inthesecases,the genocidewasentirelyintentional. ThenumberofAfricanskilledintheageoftheslavetradeandcolonialconquesthasbeenestimated atupto50million.IthasbeensaidthatEuropeansfoundtheHolocaustsogruesomebecausethe thingswhichtheyhadconsideredacceptableinthecaseofblacksavageshadnowbeencommitted onwhiteEuropeans.IntheconquestsofAmericaandAfrica,thesamepsychologywasatworkas inAuschwitz:theinferiorraceshadtomakeway(orLebensraum,livingspace)forthesuperior race.Insomecasesthemassacrewasfunctional,theresultofanunplannedescalation.Inothers however,themassacrewasentirelyintentionalandpreplanned. Between1915and1917,theTurksmassacrednearly1.5milionChristianArmenians,nearlythe entirepopulationofWesternArmenia,oralmosthalfofallthethenlivingArmenians.Another millionsurviveddeportationthankstothetimelydefeatoftheOttomanempire:theTurks'goalwas thetotalexterminationoftheArmenians,nothingless.Inrelativethoughnotinabsolutefiguresthis isworsethanwhatHitlerdidtotheJews.WesternArmeniahasbeenentirelyclearedofitsoriginal population,andtheremainingchurchbuildingsareusedbythearmyastargetsforartillerypractice. EvenoutsidetheIslamicandtheEuropeansphere,genocidesarenotunknown:the19thcentury ZuluemperorShakapurposelyexterminatedsubduedpopulationsintheorderofmagnitudeofa million.Inantiquity,theAssyrians,likeearlyStalins,bothmassacredanddeportedentirenations. OftheGypsies,atleast400,000werekilledinthesameannihilationcampsastheJews,andsome moreGypsieswerekilledinordinarymassacres.ItisremarkablethattheGypsiesarehardlyever mentionedinconnectionwiththeNaziexterminationcampaign,asaretheestimated6million RussianswhodiedinNazicaptivity(apartfromanother20millionRussianswhodiedinwar circumstances).Thenagain,itisonlynatural:allpeoplewhohavesuffered,complainof(oratleast

notice)agenerallackofinterestfromoutsidersintheirexperiences.Theremarkablethingisrather theenormousattentionwhichhasbeengiventothegenocidecommittedontheJews. Thisattentionisnotoutofproportion,andisinprincipleagoodthing;butitsjustification,viz. "bewarenottoletthishappenagain",isinstarkcontradictionwiththeunicityclaim.Itisprecisely becausenondemonic,purelyhumanfactorsmay,inagivenhistoricalconfiguration,convergeto causeagenocide,ofwhichtheNaziHolocaustismerelyanoutstandingexample,thatwehaveto studypastgenocidesliketheoneinAuschwitzinordertoavoidsimilareventsinthefuture.If Auzchwitzhadbeenatotallyuniqueeventbeyondhumanunderstanding,therewouldbenofearof repetitionandnoneedtostudyit. ItwouldbeabitharshtosayitbeforeaJewishaudience,butitisnonethelessanincontrovertible fact:oneoftheearliestgenocideshasbeendescribedandideologicallymotivatedintheirown sacredScripture,theTenakh(acronymfromTorah+Naviim+Ketuvim,i.e.Moses'Regulations, Propheticbooks,andWritings;knowntoChristiansastheOldTestament).Themassacresof neighbouringnationsandallkindsofidolatersbytheprophetsandestablishedkingsofthe PromisedLandwerenoteventheworst.Theworstwasintheverybeginning,whentheIsraelite peopleconqueredthisLandwhichtheyclaimYahwehhadpromisedthem. InthebooksDeuteronomy,NumbersandJoshua,wereadhowMosesandhissuccessorJoshua receiveordersfromtheirgodYahwehtoexterminatetheentirepopulation(women,childrenand evenanimalsincluded)ofthecitiesinthePromisedLand,thenknownasKanaan(Deut.2:34,20:12 17),aswellasinallcitieswhereidolatrywaspractised(Deut.13:1317).IncitiesoutsideKanaan, theycouldtakebootyandslaves,butthemenhadtobekilled.AtYahweh'sexplicitcommand,all themen,womenandmalechildrenofMidian(outsideKanaan)werekilled,andthevirgingirlsand thecattledistributedamongtheIsraelites(Num.31:718).InsideKanaan,theIsraeliteshadno mercy,andthebookJoshuadescribeshowthepopulationsofJericho,Ai,Makkeda,Libna,Lakis, Eglon,Hebron,Debiranditsvassalcities,wereexterminated(Jo.6:2127,8:2429,10:2839). JoshuacreatedLebensraumforthechosenpeoplebyexterminatingtheKanaanites,withGodonhis side:"ThiswayJoshuaconqueredtheland:thehillcountry,thesutherndesert,thelowlands,the coastalstrip,andhekilledallthekings.Hedidnotletanyoneescapeandhedestroyedeveryliving being,justlikeYahwehthegodofIsraelhadordered."(Jo.10:40) ManyBiblescholarsbelievethatthisstoryishighlyexaggerated:theIsraeliteconquestofKanaan tookplacesome7centuriesbeforetheBibletextwasedited,anditsdescriptionmayhavebeen adaptedtosuittheideologicalneedsoftheIsraelitepeopleanditspriestlyclassatthetimeof writing.ProbablyMoseshadledafairlysmallgroupwhichhadtosettleamidexistingpopulations, onwhomthecultofYahweh(andwithit,theintegrationintotheIsraelitenation)wasimposedonly gradually.Nonetheless,thestoryasitis,andwhichisreveredasrevealedScripture,doescontainan ideologyofgenocide,nomatterwhatloftyethicalorreligiousinsightsmaybepresentinotherparts oftheBible. ItwouldbeunfairtoholdthepresentdayJewishcommunityguiltyofaneffectivecommitmentto thisideologyofGodordainedselfrighteousnessatanycost,includinggenocide.Evenifthereis anamountofselfrighteousnessintheIsraelis'attitudeintheoccupiedterritories,itisnothingbut grossrhetorictosaythatIsraelioccupationisthenewNazism,aswasclaimedinaUNresolution, nowrepealed).EventhecrassestfundamentalistsarenotcallingforaJoshuastyleterrorcampaign: theJewsregardJoshuaaspartoftheirhistory,nottobedisowned,butnottoberepeatedinthe modernworldeither. Today,Israelisthemostdemocratic,humaneandtolerantsocietyinWestAsia.Ifitclaims defensiblebordersandsufficientterritory,thisisalegitimatesecularclaim,especiallyifone considersthemostlikelyalternative,viz.theincorporationintotheIslamicworldwithits

retrograde,financialanddictatorialregimeswhichthreatentodestroyIsrael.TheArabworld,itself theresultofruthlessconquest,andwhichcontinuestoexpandattheexpenseofinternalminorities liketheKurds,Assyrians(AramaicspeakingChristians)andBerbers,isinnopositiontocriticize Israel'sdesireforsafeterritoryforitsdensepopulation. Nevertheless,eveniftheGodordinatedgenocideattributedtoMosesandJoshuahasnotbeen emulatedbytheJewishpeople,itsscripturalsanctionhascertainlyplayedadestructiverolein history.OnecannotdenythattheBiblicalinjunctionstodestroyPagansbyallmeanshas contributedtotheextremeselfrighteousnessagainstPaganswhichChristianityhasdisplayed duirngitsmostexpansivephases. TheexterminationofnativepopulationsinAmericaandOceaniabyChristianscouldnothavetaken placeonthesamescaleifthosepopulationshadnotbeenPagans.ModernChristiansclaimthatnot themissionariesbuttheuneducatedandunChristiangoldseekerswereresponsiblefortheplightof thenativeAmericans;butevenifwedisregardthedestructiveroleplayedbymanymisionaries,the factremainsthateventhemostilliterateChristianadventurerememberedonethingfromhis Christianupbringing,viz.thatPagansareinferiortoChristiansandthatindealingwiththem, differentethicalstandardsapply.IntraChristianwarswereneverthatextreme,andtheworstwarsin ChristianEruopebeforethesecularizationofpoliticsinthe18th19thcenturywasprecisely religiouswarsagainstPagansorheretics:thewaroftheTeutonicKnightsagainsttheBalticPagans (endingintheannihilationofPaganismbythe15thcentury),theCrusadeagainsttheManichean CatharsectinsouthernFrance(120929,anintentionalgenocide),the"thirtyyears'war"between CatholicandProstestantpowers(161848,killing5millionGermans,onethirdofthepopulation). IslamisanotherzealoussuccessortoMoses'heritage:itsdestructionofPaganpopulationsand cultureswasalwayscommittedinthebeliefthatthesameGodwhohadMoses'enemieswipedout, hadnowordainedtheIslamictrailofconquestanddestruction.Thisconvictionimmunized mujahedinagainstdoubtsarisingintheirconscience. TheoccurenceofgenocideinJewishScripturehasofcoursebeenpointedoutbypeoplewhowant tojustifytheirantiJewishfeelingsorpolicies.ThelatestexampleistheCroatianpresident,Franjo TudjmanwhohasbeentryingtoexplaintotheworldwhytheCroatiangovernmentduringWorld War2hadkilledsomanyJews.Accordingtonewspaperreports,hehaswrittenabookinCroatian in1989,titledWastelands:HistoricalTruth,inwhichhereferstotheBibicalnarrativeand commentsthatfortheJews,"genocidalviolenceisanaturalphenomenon...Itisnotonlyallowed, butevenrecommended".ThismaywinhimsomesympathyamongsupportersofthePalestinian cause,butitisquitemisplaced:theantiJewishviolenceofthelastcenturiesandespeciallyofthe NazisandtheirCroatianallieshadnothingtodowiththegruesomewayinwhichMosesandJoshua conqueredthePromisedLand.ThecontentsandorientationoftheJewishreligionhave fundamentallychangedsincethedaysofMoses,andtheJewshavepractisedliveandletlivefor manycenturies,duringwhichtheycontributedimmenselytotheeconomicandintellectuallifeof theirhostcountries. Genocideisnotnaturaltoanyanyindividualornation.Thebehaviourofhumanbeingsis conditionednotsomuchbytheirbloodorancestryornationality,butbytheirthinking.Genocideis theoutcomeofanideology.ItcouldhappentoMoses'IsraelitesandtoHitler'sGermans,tothe Caliph'sTurksandtothecolonizingEuropeans,becausetheybelievedthatgenocidewasjustifiedas ameanstoasuperiorgoal.Eachofthegenocidalmovementsbelieveditwasakindofchosen people,destinedtoruleaspecifiedpartoftheworld(asinthecaseofChristianity,Colonialism, IslamandCommunism). Whiletherearedifferencesofmethodandquantity,itmustbeclearnowthatthedifferencebetween theNazigenocideandothergenocidesisnotabsoluteandmetaphysical.So,thecomparative

assessmentofHitler'sandStalin'smassacres,andthecomparativeassessmentofthegenocideon theJewsandthegenocidesontheRedIndians,BlackAfricans,Tasmanians,Armenians,Gypsies andothernations,arelegitimateobjectsofstudy.Theydon'tneedsuspectpoliticalmotives.Onthe contrary,itistherefusaltoaddressthesetopicsofhistory,thedesiretopreventsuchlinesofstudy, thatdemonstratespoliticalcompulsions.

1.2DENYINGTHEHOLOCAUST
Awhollydifferentmatterfromreinterpretationofknownhistoricalfacts,isthedenialofthese facts.InEuropewehavethenegationismofahandfulofhistoriansandextremerightgroups concerningtheNaziexterminationcampaignagainsttheGypsiesandtheJews,whichtookplace between1941and1945.TheirclaimisthatthisNaziexterminationcampaignisinfactaconcoction. ThewidespreadbeliefthattheHolocaustdidtakeplace,wouldmerelybetheworkofaconspiracy. Thereis,accordingtothenegationists,nodearthofmotivesforfloatingtheconcoctionofthe Holocaust.ThetwomostimportantonesconcerntheCommunistsandtheJews. Inordertolegitimatetheirownhorribleregime,theCommunistshadtoprintFascism(atermoften usedwhenNazismismeant)inthemostterriblecolours.Itistruethattheyalwaysthrowthe swearwordFascistateveryone:fromAleksandrSolzhenitsyntotheDalaiLama,everydecent humanbeingwhostandsinthewayofCommunismgetsbrandedasaFascist.Now,accordingtothe Negationists,theCommunistshadtoinventgruesomecrimesforFascism,andtomakethestingof theswearwordFascistsharper.Acaseinpoint,theyargue,isthemassacreofPolishofficersat Katyn:blamedontheNazisbytheSoviets(anallegationadoptedbytheotherAllies,sothataslate as1989theBritishForeignOfficestilldeniedthatevidenceforSovietresponsibilityexisted),butin factcommittedbytheSovietsthemselves.IftheCommunistscouldfalselyaccusetheNazisabout Katyn,whynotaboutAuzchwitz? ButmorethantheCommunists,itwastheJewswho,accordingtothenegationists,hadeveryreason toinventtheHolocaustmyth.Lookatitseffects:theimmediateoutcomeofthesuccessfulspreding oftheHolocaustmythwasthatin1948theUnitedNationscouldnotdenytheJewstheirnewstate Israel,andthatthisnewstatecouldatonceclaimhugereparationpaymentsfromGermany.Today theHolocaustmemoryisthejustificationofIsrael'spoliticalclaimstosafe,defensibleborders whicheffectivelymeanstheannexationoftheoccupiedterritories.Thelasttwodecades,Western supportforIsraelhasbecomelessunconditional,andtoreclaimthissupporttheHolocaustmemory hasbeenmademoreinsistent,withtheorchestratedfloodofbooksandfilmsabouttheHolocaust. So,accordingtothenegationists,thevictimswereinfacttheaggressors.Withfakesphotographs andfalsetestimoniesbytutoredeyewitnessestheJewsframedtheNazisonahugeandhorrible crimeofgenocidewhichhadneverbeencommitted.Afterall,thedeclarationofwarbyFranceand BritainagainstGermanyin1939hadbeenarrangedbytheJewishconspiracywhichcontrolled finance(andthereforepolitics)inthosecountries.AndtheZionistleaderChaimWeizmannhad immediatelydeclaredthatinthiswaralltheJewswouldbeonEngland'sside.So,thewaritselfhad beenforcedonGermanybytheJews,andtheHolocaustmythwasthenextelementinthisJewish conspiracyaimedatsuckingGermany'sbloodandresources.Thatisverybrieflythenegationists' positiononwhythisHolocauststorywasmadesopopular. Thenegationistpositionisnotwidelybelieved,infactitiswidelydetestedasthemotivatedhistory distortionwhichitreallyis.InFranceandGermany,publishingnegationistwritingsispunishable bylaw(inGermany,denialofthemassacreofGermansinexGermanterritoriesin1945was equallymadepunishable).Negationismcanboastofonlyafewacademicsinitsranks,most

academicswillhavenotruckwithit,andsomehavepublishedthoroughandpreciserefutationsof negationism.Mostofthenegationistpublicationsarepamphletsofapitiableintellectualcalibre. Yet,afewacademiclookinginstitutesfor"revisionofthehistoryofWorldWarII"havebeensetup, notablytheInstituteforHistoricalReviewinCalifornia.Andatleastafewnegationistacademics andwritersarecleverpolemistsandhavemanagedtocreateasemblanceofrespectabilityfor negationisminsomecircles. Themethodsofthenegationistsareintellectuallyquiteobjectionable,theydoallthethingswhich areinthe"don't"columnofmethodologicalvademecums.Forinstance,theycommitunbelievable featsof"quotingoutofcontext".Irealizethatitisoftenacheapexcuseinpolemicalforumsto allegequotingoutofcontext:itisdonewhenyoucannotescapetheconslusionswhichyour opponenthasdrawnfromyourownside'sstatements.Byinvoking(withoutspecifying)theall redeemingcontext,youcanclaimthattheanalyzedstatementreallymeantsomethingelsethanyour opponenthadassumedinmakinghisanalysis.Nevertheless,thefalseallegationcanonlywork becausethegenuineproduct,quotingoutofcontext,doesexist.Thenegationistsshamelessly changethemeaningofsentencesbypluckingthemfromtheircontexts.Wheneveroneoftheir opponents,inthemiddleofasystematicrefutationofnegationism,darestoconcedethat"thereare contradictionsinthetestimonyofexprisonerX",orthat"norecordsareextantfromconcentration campY",theyquotethisonelineandgoontoconcludethatthisopponent"hashadtorevisehis earlierbeliefintheHolocaustundertheimpactofnewfindings". Forexample,theyeagerlyquotetheGermanhistorianMartinBroszat'sstatementthattherewereno gaschambersdesignedforlargescalekillingintheGermanReich.Yes,thatiswhathesaid,andhe wasprobablyright:nomatterhowgruesomeotherwise,thecampsinsideGermany,like BuchenwaldandBergenBelsen,didnotcontainsuchgaschambers.For,Broszatcontinuesbutthe negationistsomit,"themassdestructionofJewsbygassingwasmostlydoneintheoccupied territories". Negationistpamphletsareoftenveryunashamedtoannouncefromthebeginningthattheyarenot meanttodohistory,butmerelywanttotakeanunprejudicedlookattheallegationsofNazi genocide.Someoftheirmorepretentiouspublicationshavealotofacademiclookingreferences andquotations(referringmostlytoothernegationistauthoritiesandtothepamphletliteature),as wellasoutofcontextquotesfromoriginalAuschwitztestimoniesandresearch,inwhichwitnesses achargeareturnedintowitnessadecharge.Negationistpublicationsalsocontainalotofplainlies, apparentlycountingonthepublic'slackoftimeandmeanstochecksources. Ineverydocumenttheyknowhowtoselectalineintheirownfavour.Ifajudgeconvictsthem becauseoftheirnegationism,theyclamourthatitisoutsidethejudiciary'scompetencetojudge historicalmethodsandtheories(apartfromseeingitasproofoftheomnipresentJewish conspiracy);butwhenajudgerefrainsfrompassingjudgementontheirmethodsandtheories,they explainitasavindicationofnegationism.WhentheleadingFrenchnegationistprofessorFaurisson wasconvictedseveraltimesonchargesofslanderandincitementtoracialhatred,butnotbecauseof hishistorydistortion,heclaimedthathenceforthnobodyhadtherighttodenouncehismethod,and that"itisnowpermittedtodeclarethatthegaschambershavenotexisted". TheireasiesttechniqueofdeceptionconsistsinsimplykeepingalltheevidencefortheHolocaust outoftheviewofthereaders,orindenyingitsexistence.Thenumeroustestimoniesbycamp survivorsandNaziofficials(ofwhomsometoappeasetheirconscience,hadalreadyleakedthe truthtotheoutsideworldduringthewar)aresimplynotmentionedatall,exceptifseeminglygross contradictionsormistakescanbeshowninthem,soastocreatetheimpressionthattheHolocaust mythisbasedontherantingsofafewparanoidmisfits. TheychallengetheestablishedhistoricalcertaintyoftheHolocaustnotwithprecisequestionsand

challengestocompetenthistorians,butwithstuntsandbluffaimedatthebroaderpublic.Thus,in 1979theInstituteforHistoricalReviewpromised$50,000towhomevercouldprovethatpeople hadbeengassedintheNazicamps.Thesmallprintsaidthatcandidatesfortheprizemusthaveseen someonebeinggassed,mustsubmitanautopsyreportofavictimgassedwithZyklonBgas.After oneyear,itannouncedtriumphantlythattheprizecouldnotbeawardedasnoonehadcomeforward withtheproof.Actually,theitemsdemandedbytheInstituteareavailable,butmostselfrespecting historianshavedecidedtoboycottthenegationistscompletely,asevenapublictrialofstrength wouldonlygivethempublicity(apartfromthefactthatmostrelevantoriginaldocumentswerein preglasnostSovietandPolishhands).Inmyopinion,itisbettertofacethenegationistchallenge headon,andtoconfrontthemwiththeevidencetheydefiantlyaskfor. ThechiefargumentofthenegationistsisthattheevidencegivenfortheHolocaustisflawed.There areindeedsomeflawsintheavailableevidencefortheHolocaust.Tostartwith,thereis comparativelylittleofit.ItmostcampstheNazishadthoroughlydestroyedalltheevidencebythe timetheSovietandAngloAmericanforcesmovedin.Moreover,theevidenceavailableisincoded language,becausetheHolocaustwasconductedasasecretoperation:hardlyanywhereintheNazi documentsisitwrittenexplicitythatpeoplehavebeengassed.Nevertheless,theremainingevidence isstilloverwhelming:testimoniesbycampguardsandNaziofficials,givenduringtrialorasa voluntaryact;testimoniesbytransportworkers,chemicalengineersandpeopleotherwiseconnected withthematerialrealizationoftheHolocaust;diariesbyprisoners,survivorsinallkindsofforums aftertheliberation.ThecodetothesecretlanguageofNazidocumentshasbeenrevealedbyNazi officials. Theotherflawintheavailableevidence,andwhichisalwaysthenegationists'crowningargument, isthecontradictionsandinaccuraciesofthecampsurvivors'testimonies.Forinstance,peoplehave claimedthatfellowprisonershadbeengassedincampsinwhichnogaschamberseverexisted.Or, theauthenticdiariesofsomeprisonersgiveaverydifferentpicturefromtheversionwhichthey gaveininterviewsafterthewar.Ofcourse,ifonedoesnotselectmerelytheflawedpiecesof testimony,butkeepsaneyeonthegeneralbodyofevidence,suchinaccuracies,contradictionsand insomecasesevenlies,areonlywhatonecanexceptwhenpeopletestifytowhattheyhave experiencedofarealevent.Thesethingscanbeexplainedwithourgeneralknowledgeofhuman psychology:e.g.,thereisakindofenvyamongpeoplewhohavesufferedwhentheyfindthat peoplewhohavegonethroughmorespectacularsufferinggetalltheattention,andsotheymake theirownstoryabitmoreinteresting.Evenafteranordinarytrafficaccident,people'sversions differ,yetthereisnodoubtaboutsomebasics,suchastheactualoccurrenceoftheaccident. Diggingupinaccuraciesinafewtestimoniesinordertodenytheentirebodyofevidenceisthe safestwayoflying:youpronouncecorrectjudgementsaboutsomeoftheparts,andmerelyby actingasifthesefewpartsconstitutethewhole,youimplicitlytellahugelieaboutthewhole. Finally,thenegationistpositionissoughttobegivensomecredibilitybydiscreditingtheforum wheretheHolocaustwasofficiallyputonrecord:theNurnbergtrial.Juristsnowknowledgethatthe Nurnbergtrialviolatedsomerulesofjustice,esp.bythwartingtherightsofthedefence,andby judgingonthebasisofretroactivelawscreatedadhoc.WhenGermanofficerswhohadcommitted crimesagainsthuminityinodediencetoorders,justifiedthesewiththeuniversallyvalidruleof militarydisciplineBefehlistBefehl(anorderisanorder),itwasruledthatmilitaryordersshould notbeobeyedwhentheyviolatecertainhumanprinciples(inemulationofthisruling,German courtshaverecentlyconvictedEastGermansoldierswhohadobeyedtheordertoshootpeoplewho triedtocrosstheBerlinwall;themixedfeelingsoverthisjudgementhavebroughtthedissatisfaction withtheNurnbergtrialbacktomind).Worstofall,theNurnbergtrialwasacynicalfarcetothe extentthatsomeofthepartiessittinginjudgementwerejustasguiltyofwarcrimesandcrimes againsthumanity,startingwiththeSovietUnion.

Andyet,itisobviousthatalltheseflawsinthejudicialtreatmentoftheHolocaustandofthose responsibleforit,donotmakeanydifferencetothequestionwhethertheHolocaustactuallytook place.Thenegationistswillalwaystrytopickontheiropponents'presentationofthefacts,topull theattentionawayfromthefactsthemselves. Intheirattemptstoconvincepublicopinion,thenegationistscurrentlybenefitfromafew circumstances. Firstly,thereisafeelingthattheHolocaustisoverexploited.IncertainJewishcirclesanexcessive cultivationoftheHolocaustmemoryseemstohavetakenplace.ThereforetheHolocaustmemoryis seenbysomeasaninstrumentofJewishselfaggrandizement,andasthebedrockofIsraeliself righteousness.ThisperceptionisespeciallystronginproPalestiniancircles. Similarly,thereisanimpressionofselfrightneousnessinhighprofileantiNazispokesmen.Some statementsbytheFrenchNazihunterSergeKlarsfeldhavecreatedirritation,e.g.thattheleftist lawyerJacquesVergeswas"ashameforhisprofession"byacceptingtheoffertodefendthewar criminalKlausBarbie(whiledefenceofcriminalsbylawyersistheformer'srightandthelatter's job).Klarsfeld'sactioninGermanyin1992againstrestrictionsonthemassiveimmigrationof RomanianGypsieswasequallyconsideredmisplacedandselfrighteous:anycountryhasarightto itsownimmigrationpolicy,andGermanyhadamuchmoregenerousrefugeepolicythananyother country(itaccepted2lakhrefugeesfromYugoslavia,Francelessthan1,000).Thistypeofself rightousnessisperceivedasaconsequenceoftheHolocaustcredit,andso,manypeoplewouldlike theHolocausttalktostopforawhile.Thatdoesnotamounttoanendorsementofnegationism,but thenegationiststakeheartfromanychangeofpublicmoodthatweakenstheindignationoverthe Holocaust. Inthisconnection,thereisalsoaperceptionthattheJewishcontrolledpressreducesthedeathtoll ofNazismtotheJewishvictims,omittingtheGypsiesandthemanymillionsofPolish,Ukranian andRussianvictimsinworkcampsandbattlefields;andalsoomittingthevictimsofAlliedwar crimes(apartfromStalinism,thesecomprisethebombingsofDresden,Hiroshimaetc.,andthe severalhundredsofthousandsofGermansoldiersstarvedinAlliedcampsevenaftertheendofthe war,plusthecrimescommittedbyrealandfakeresistancegroupsafterthewar).Thisway,inthose circleswhereantiJudaisminmildorstridentformhadbeencommon,theoldirritationwiththe JewsfindsitselfconfirmedwhentheHolocaustmemoryisrakeduponcetoooften.The sacralizationoftheHolocaustparadoxicallyfeedsnegationism. ConsideringwhattheJewishpeoplehasgonethrough,IstillfinditunacceptabletosaythatJews exploittheHolocaustmemory.ItisnotoftheJewsbutoftheleftiststhatonecansaystayare exploitingtheHolocaustmemory.AfterthefallofSovietCommunism,thetrendtofillthemedia withremindersoftheHolocaust,coupledwithwarningsthatweshouldnotletithappenagain,has reachedanunprecedentedintensity.Neverbeforehaveweseensomanydocumentariesofthe HolocaustonTV.Worse,leftistjournalistsnowroutinelyshowfilmmaterialoftrainstoAuschwitz whiletalkingaboutpresentdayrightistpartiesthathaveemphaticallydistancedthemselvesfrom therightismofthe1930s:aGoebbelsianuseoftheHolocaust. Thereasonisobvious:afterthelossoffacewhichGorbachovandYeltsinhaveinflictedonthem, theyneedanantiFascistfeverasanewlegitimationandasadistractionofthepublic'sattention. ThetrialoftheCommunistPartyinMoscowoccasionedonerevelationafteranother,e.g.aboutthe SovietfinancialsupporttofrontorganizationsintheWest(suchasthepeacemovement),but reportinghasbeenscant.Fromourpresscoverage,youwouldgettheimpressionthateconomic inefficiencywasCommunism'sonlycrime.SomanysurvivorsoftheGulagcampscanfinallyspeak out,butinsteadwegettoseeAuschwitzsurvivors. ThecollaboratorswithStalinisminourpresswillgotoanylengthtokeepattentionawayfromtheir

ownsins,andtheyhavenoscruplesinusingeventheHolocaustvictimsasacover.Thepublic indignationwiththisshamelessmanipulationoftheHolocaustmemorybyleftistsisentirely justified.Fortunately(andunliketheoppositiontothesocalledJewishHolocaustexploitation),this hasnotledtoanysignsofwillingnesstogototheotherextreme,viz.totoleratenegationism.Still, theHolocaustnegationistsenjoythesetransparentactsofdesperationbytheGulagconcealers. Asecondfactorwhichfavoursacceptanceofnegationismonsomescale,isthemartyrdomsuffered bysomenegationists.TheleadingnegationistFaurissonhasbeenbeatenupbyagroupofJewish youngsters,sendinghimintohospitalforweeks.Ofcourse,anideaisnotworthmoresimply becausesomefoolhassufferedforit,buttheauraofmartyrdomstillhasitseffect.Moregenerally, thereisasenseofunfairtreatmentbythemediaandthejudiciary. Forexample,theFrenchextremerightleaderJeanMarieLePenhasbeenconvictedforsayingon TVin1987thatthegaschambersweremerelyadetailinhistory.Evenhisrightistcolleaguestrying forrespectabilitydisownedhim:theFlemishVlaamsBlokleaderFilipDewinterannouncedthatany partymemberfoundpropagatingnegationismwouldbethrownoutoftheparty,andtheGerman RepublikanerleaderFranzSchoenhuberemphaticallysaidthattheHolocaustmustnotbe minimizedordenied,andthatarenewedGermanselfrespectshouldnotbebasedonthedenialof thishorribleepisode.However,LePen'ssupportershavepointedoutthatinthesameinterviewhe hadclarifiedthatbygaschamberhehadonlymeantthemethodusedforkilling(whichisindeeda minorissue),notthekillingitself.Inthatcase,itisnotstrictlytruethathewasguiltyof negationism.However,inothercontextshehasbeenveryambiguousabouttheissue,andmost Frenchnegationistslookuptohimastheirchampion. Becauseofthepropagandavalueofmartyrdom,itisnotsurprisingthatthereareindicationsof provocation:thenegationistsseemdeliberatelytoprovokeJewishorganizationsandHolocaust survivorstofilecomplaints,forthesakeofpublicityandforcreatingamartyrdomaurawiththe Jewsoncemoreintheroleofthevillains. Anewfactorthatmayincreasetheaudienceofthenegationists,isthatwiththefallofCommunism, wenowgettohearthevoiceoftheCentralandEastEuropeanpeoples,mostofwhichhavequitea recordofcollaborationwiththeNazis.Inthe1920sand30s,theleaderprinciplewasin,andmost ofthesecountrieshadtheirownauthoritarianrulers.WhenfacedwithachoicebetweenHitlerand Stalin,theyoptedforHitler.ManyoftheseproHitlerleadersandmilitiamenwereslaughteredby theCommunists,makingthemnationalheroeswhosememoryhasbeencherishedallthroughthe Communistwinter.Nowthatnationalhistoryisbeingrevived,thesenationsdonotwanttobe stigmatizedasaccomplicesintheHolocaust,becausetothem,collaborationwithHitlerhadother motivesthantheexterminationoftheJews.Ontheotherhand,theirregimesmostlydidpractise theirownbrandofantiJudaism,andwhentheJewswereroundedup,theydidnotexactlyobstruct theseHolocaustpreparations.Still,forafairassessmentoftheHitlerStalinperiod,thesenations wouldprefertoseesomeotherdimensionshighlightedthanjusttheHolocaust,towhichitistoo oftenreduced.Moreover,theantiFascistpropagandawhichtheywerefedunderCommunistrule hadequallydeemphasizedtheJewsandemphasizedtheCommunistsastargetsofNazi persecution.SomeHolocaustdenyingvoiceshavealreadybeenraisedinthesecountries. Inspiteofsomewhatfavourablecircumstancesandoftheirownclevermanipulations,the negationistsareboundtofail.Thus,in1991theSpanishSupremeCourthasconvictedLeon Degrelle,aveteranproNazileaderfromBelgiumlivinginexileinSpain,forhisdescribingthe Nazigenocideas"aJewishfabrication",andsimilarnegationiststatements.Spainhasnolaw againstnegationism,butVioletaFriedman,aJewishHungariansurvivoroftheNazicamps(in whichherparentswerekilled)invokedtheordinarylawsagainstslanderouspublications.Lower courtsruledthatanindividualcannotclaimtobethevictimofslander.ButtheSupremeCourt ruledinherfavour,andprohibitedfurtherpublicdenialsoftheHolocaust.

Similarly,inthe1991electionsforthepostofgovernorofLouisiana,theRepublicancandidate DavidDukehadbeenanadvocateofnegationism.Nowhedisclaimsthisposition,butcertainsins remainunforgivableforverylong.PresidentBush,eventhoughhimselfaRepublican,advisedthe voterstoelecttheDemocraticcandidate,because:"Ithinkthatsomeonewhohasdeniedthe Holocaust,shouldnoteverbeallowedtotakealeadershipposition." ThepresidentdidnotdenyMr.Dukethefreedomtovoicehisnegationistposition,nordidhetryto preventhisstandingforelections,buthemadeitclearthatherejectedthisshamelessfalsehoodof negationism,evenatthecostofhisownparty'simmediateinterest. Theseincidentsshouldmakeitclearthatnegationismissimplynotaccepted.Itisusefultokeepthis determinedrejectioninmindasastandardwhenconsideringothernegationisms.Someofthemare championedbygovernmentsandintellectualseventhoughtheyarejustasobjectionableas Holocaustnegationism.

1.3LEFTISTNEGATIONISM
Inthelate1970s,thenegationistsfoundanunexpectedallywhensomeFrenchleftists,grouped aroundPierreGuillaumeandhispublishinghouseLaVieilleTaupe,tookuptheirdefence.Within theLeftwingofFrench(letaloneEuropean)politics,thisisaninsignificantfringegroup,butthe reasonsfortheirsupporttonegationismareinteresting. ThemoreimmediatereasonforleftistnegationismisthecurrentleftistsupporttothePalestinian cause.ThesacralizationoftheHolocaustasthefoundationmythoftheIsraelistategoeshandin handwithattemptstostrengthenthestruggleagainstIsraelipoliciesbydenyingtheHolocaust.Even quiteapartfromnegationism,theextremeLefthasbeenthefirsttobreakthetabooonestimating theJewishdeathtollintheHolocaustatlessthan6million.Afterglasnost,theauthoritiesinPoland havedeclaredthataccordingtotheirfirsthandinformation,thedeathtollinAuschwitzwasonly1.5 million,lessthan1millionofthemJews.Theearlierofficialversionhadbeen4million,while Jewishorganizationshadassumeditwassome2million.Atanyrate,ifthePolishauthoritieshave givencorrectfigures,andtheAuschwitznumberisdecreased,thenthetotalHolocaustdeathtoll mustalsobedecreasedtolessthan6million.Themostreliablesourcesnowagreeonaround5.3 millionasthetotalcountofJewishvictimsofNazism.Butsomehownoonedarestoamendthe establishednumberof6million,forfearofbeingbrandedanegationist.ItwasintheBelgian MarxistLeninist(andstronglyproPalestinian)weeklySolidairthatIreadforthefirsttimethat"5.1 millionJews"hadbeenkilledbytheNazis. Butherewearenotdealingwithsmallcorrectionsinthefigures,butwithafundamentaldenialof theHolocaustitself.UnlikemostMarxists,theonesunderconsiderationhavetakentheirsupportto thePalestiniancauseasfarasdenyingwhattheyconsidertheconnerstoneofthe"greaterIsrael" ideology,viz.theholocaustmemory. ThedeeperreasonforleftistnegationismisthattheextremehostilitybetweenNazismandJews regardlessoftheirclass,isinconflictwithMarxisttheory.Ofcourse,rivalryandevenwarbetween capitalists(Jewishvs.Germancapitalists,Germanvs.FrenchBritishcolonialcapitalists,etc.)does fitthetheory.ButtheNaziplantodestroyalltheJewsisadifferentmatter,outsidethegripof Marxisttheory.MarxistsdefineFascismasmerelyanextremephaseofcapitalism,justlike imperialismandcolonialismwerenecessaryphasesofcapitalism.Alreadyin1953,some TrotskyiteshadmadetheanalysisthattheHolocaustwasaextremelyusefulpropagandainstrument forAngloAmericancapitalismtodifferentiateitselffromitsfascisttwinbrother.Thankstothe Holocaust,thecapitalistscouldimpressuponthemindsthattherewasaradicaldifferencebetween

Fascism,whichhadcommittedtheHolocaust,anddemocracy,whichhadfoughtFascismand stoppedtheHolocaust.ThiscoversuptherealitythatFascistanddemocraticcapitalismaremerely twofacesofthesamemonster.Thepeople'sstruggleshouldbedirectedagainsttheFascistphaseof capitalism(whichamountstocollaborationwiththenonFascistphaseofcapitalism),butshouldbe againstcapitalismassuch,withoutgettingconfusedbyintracapitalistfamilystrugglesbetween AngloAmericanandAxiscapitalists. Inasense,thefactoftheholocaustescapedMarxisttheoryasunderstoodbytheLaVieilleTaupe group.Sothatwastoobadforthefact:ithadtobedenied.AsAlainFinkielkrauthascommented, theHolocaustwas"aneventtoomany",andthedogmaticMarxistschose"fordoctrinalfaithfulness andagainstthecomplexityofthefacts". Interestingly,theseleftistnegationistsintegratedthemoreconventionalMarxistexplanationforanti Judaism,viz.thescapegoattheory.Theyacceptthatuntil1945theJewswereascapegoatheldupby thecapitalistsinordertochanneltheproletariat'sdiscontentawayfromitspropertarget,capitalism (inaccordancewiththisview,FranzNeumannhadpredictedin1942inhisanalysisofNazismthat theexterminationoftheJewswasexcludedbecauseoftheirpoliticalimportanceasscapegoat).But inandsince1945,itisthefascistswhohavebeenturnedintoakindofscapegoat:theyare blackenedandcoveredwithcontemptinordertochanneldiscontentawayfromitspropertarget,viz. capitalismastheculpritforeverything,towardsthisoneparticularformofcapitalism,whichwas alreadyneutralizedandnolongerusefulanyway.TheHolocaustismerelyadummycreatedby capitalismtodistractsocialistcombattivityandtoinstillinthesupportersofAngloAmerican capitalismasenseofmoralsuperiority. ThisleftistdenialoftheHolocaustfactisapparentlyanaberrationfromwhatwasoriginallya justifiable(withinMarxisttheory)critiqueoftheuseoftheHolocaustfactasanalibiforAnglo Americancapitalism. Acornerstoneoftheleftistnegationistargumentisthetestimonyimmediatelyafterthewar,andthe bookswrittenlaterbyPaulRassinier,asocialistwhohadsurvivedtheNazicamps,though handicapped.ThisembitteredmanhaddepictedtheHolocaustasnothingbutapropagandistic concoction.AsanauthenticleftistandvictimofNazism,hewastheperfectwitnessforthe negationistposition.Thosewhocankeeptheproperoverallperspective,willbeabletomakethe unpleasantbutinescapablejudgementthatPaulRassinierhadprojectedhisownexperiencein Buchenwald(wherenoJewsweregassed)asageneraldescriptionoftheeventsintheNazicamps.I donotwanttojudgetooharshlyonamanwhowentthroughsuchsuffering,butthearmchair historianswhoselectivelyhighlightedhisversionbecauseitwasusefultothem,areadifferent matter.Liftingafewconvenientbutuntypicaltestimoniesoutoftheenormouscorpusofevidenceis awellknownmethodofdistortingthepicture. Fortherest,theleftistnegationistargumentisapitiablelistofcontradictionsandbadreasoning. Forinstance,oneoftheirstalwarts,VincentMonteil,writesthat"alargescalegenocideis impossiblewithoutgaschambers,andthereforenogenocidehastakenplace":evenifweallowfor hispresuppositionthatthegaschambershavealreadybeenexposedasamyth,itisquitestupidto assumethatintheabsenceofgaschambers,thosewhointendtocommitgenocidecouldnotfind alternativetools(whichwoulddeclaremosthistoricalcasesofgenocideimpossible). LeftistnegationismregardngtheNaziholocaustisofcourseonlyafoonoteinthemuchmore generalnegationismpractisedbymostleftists,hardandsoft,regardingthecrimesofCommunist regimes.SomanyfellowtravellersvisitedtheSovietUnion,closedtheireyesforinconvenientfacts, wilfullybelievedonlywhattheirofficialguidetoldthem,andpropagatedarosypictureofStalin's braveachievements.ManysocialdemocratleadersfromtheWestregularlywenttoMoscowfor consultations,andstartedfriendshipassociationswithCommunistcountries,tospreadamore

unprejudicedpictureoftheirregimes.Eventoday,someofthemdeclarethattheydon'tregretthis stabinthebackofthosecountries'oppressedpopulationsWhenin1989theSovietauthorities finallyadmittedStalin'sguiltintheKatynmassacre,IhavenotheardanyoftheSovietsupporters outsidetheSovietblocapologizingforpropagatingtheKatynlieuntilreecently. AwellknownearlycaseofCommunistnegationismputontrial,wastheKravchenkoaffair.In1944 ViktorKravchenkohadescapedfromtheSovietUnion,andinhisbook"Ichosefreedom"(1946)he exposedStalinistrepression.FrenchCommunistsdecriedhistestimonyasaCIAconcoction,but Kravchenkochargedthemwithslander.Incourt,testimoniesbyGulag(Russianacronym:"chief bureauofcamps")campsurvivorswerecounteredbyfellowtravellers,whoallegedthatanyclaims contradictingtheirownimpressionsweremereColdWarpropaganda.ButKravchenkowonhis case. In1949,DavidRousset,whohadsurvivedtheNazicamps,invitedothercampsurvivorstosupport hisappealtohavetheSovietcampsinvestigatedaswell.WhenhepublishedtheSoviet"codeof forcedlabour",itwastoomuchforthecommunists,andtheyaccusedhimofhavingfabricatedall hisinformation.Roussetallegedslanderandwonhiscase.Inhisstandardworkonnegationism, "DeUitbuitingvandeHolocaust"("TheExploitationoftheHolocaust",fromwhichIhave borrowedmuchoftheinformationforthischapter),theFlemishscholarGievandenBerghe observesabouttheRoussettrial:"ThemassofevidencecouldnotconvincetheGulagdeniers.They usedthesamearsenalofargumentswhichthenegationistsusetoday...Testimoniesofescaped prisonerswererejectedasmystifications,andfellowtravellerseffortlesslyconcluded,fromthefact thattheyhadnotseentheGulagcamps,thatthesecouldnotexist."Whatmakesthiscommunist negationismworse,isthatittookplaceevenwhile,inthecampsoftheGulagarchipelago,thecrime wasstillbeingcommitted TheleadingleftistintellectualsJeanPaulSartreandMauriceMerleauPontyjoinedthepublic debatesurroundingtheRoussettrial.TheyacknowledgedthatStalin'scampshadinspiredHitler whomerelyhadtoaddthetechnicalnoveltyofthegaschambers.Yettheyrefusedtodenouncethe SovietcampsbecausetheSovietsactedingoodfaith,deservedthebenefitofthedoubt,andwerein anycasethelesserevilcomparedtoacounterrevolutioninthefatherlandofsocialism.They denouncedRoussetasamanblindedbyhatredandobjectivelyfeedingColdWarpropaganda. AsSartre'sposition(towhichhestuckevenwhenMerleauPontygrewawayfromCommunism,and evenafterhehimselfbrokewiththePartiCommuniste)shows,somepeopledon'tfeeltheneedto denycrimesagainsthumanitybecasetheyconsiderthemjustified.Thisisnotabnormalifyouhave theproperviewpoint,likeSartre'sformula:"EveryantiCommunistisadog".Tilltoday,diehard CommunistsdefendStalin's,Brezhnev's,Mao'sandPolpot'smassacres.Oftentheycombinethis withaminornegationism,allegingthatthefigureshavebeenexaggeratedandatleastsomeofthe crimesfabricatedbytheCIA. Thus,inhisanalysisoftheGorbachovrevolution:"USSR,deFluwelenContrarevolutie",Ludo Martens,presidentoftheminusculeBelgianMarxistLeministparty,writesthatStalin'scrimes werepartlyinevitablemistakes,partlyWesternconcoctionandfantasy,andpartlyjustified.Forthis unrepentantStalinist,Stalin'sterroragainsttheKulakswasanecessaryandjustifiedclassstruggle. InhispartypaperSolidair,hehasarguedthattheorganizedfaminesinUkrainehadbeenapieceof Hitlerianpropaganda.Heusedafamiliarnegationisttechnique:createsuspicionaboutoneofthe sourcesreportingthefacts(viz.RandolphHearst'snewsagency,whichhadsignedanagreement withHitlerforexclusiverightstosellinternationalnews),keepothersourcesoutofthepicture,and suggestthatthefactshaveonlyexistedinthisonesource'sversion. Anotherstalwartofthesameparty,Dr.KrisMerckx,goesonestepfurther.Inreplytoanarticle abouttheMarxistdoublestandardsbythephilosopherProf.EtienneVermeersch,hedeniesthat

Stalincommittedmassacres:"EtienneVermeersch...writesaboutthemassmurdererStalin. ImmediatelyafterWorldWar2,thisgossipwasonlybelievedamongNazicollaborators...Inthose days,peoplestillknewthatthefirststoriesaboutmillionsofpeoplekilledbyLeninandStalinhad beenlaunchedbyacertainAdolfHitler.In1926...Hitlerwrote:InRussiatheJewwentaround withtrulyfanaticalferocity.Hekilledabout30millionpeople,partlybyinhumantorture,partly byorganizedfamine.TheseandotherlieshavenotwithstoodthetestofWorldWar2.TheSoviet nationshaveinflictedthedecisivedefeatontheNazis..becausetheyidentifiedwiththesocialist regimeandwerewillingtobringthegreatestsacrificesforit.Thiswouldnothavehappenedifthe regimehadmeantterrorandoppressionforthem.Andyet,inourmediaandschools,peoplespeak ofthemassmurdererStalinwithoutblinking." Theeditorsofthepaper(Humo19/11/1992)reply:"WhatevernonsenseHitlermayhavewritten abouttheSovietUnionin1926,atthattimeStalinwasonlyjustbeginningtobuildhisreputationof paranoiddictator...Hisforcedcollectivizationandthegreatpurification(whichreacheditspeakin 193438)createdawaveofterrorintheSovietUnion.ReducingStalin'sdisgracefulreputationto Hitler'smendaciousdemagogy,isitselfacrasscaseofdemagogy,andaninsultforthemany (includingsincerecommunists)wholaterbacameStalin'svictims." AbouttheheroismoftheSovietpeople'spatrioticresistanceinspiteofStalinism:"Itistruethat Stalinhadreducedhisterrortoamilderlevel,andhisshareinvictoryshouldnotbeminimized,but theNazis'defeatdoesnoterasehiscrimes.ThegreatcombattivityoftheSovietnationsneednot consideringtheNaziatrocitiesinRussiabereducedtothegeneralpopularreverenceforStalin thatyousuggest.Byyourlogic,Napoleon'sRussiandefeatprovesthatthepeopleallveneratedthe Czar.YouarerightinremarkingthtProf.Vermeersch'slist[ofcrimesagainsthumanity]isnot complete,butthen,neitherisyours.ThatisallthemoredeplorablebecauseStalinstillhasamodel roleinyourvisionofthefuture.AtthelastMayDaycelebration,theMarxistLeninistparty presidentLudoMartenshassaidinsomanywordsthatthechoiceofthefuturewillultimatelybe onebetweenHitlerandStalin." ItshouldbeborneinmindthatthenumberofpeoplekilledbytheSovietregimebetween1917and 1985isestimatedatbetween34million(onthebasisofofficialfigures)and67million(according toAlexsandrSolzhenitsyn).InthesameorderofmagnitudewefindTsetung'snumberofvictims (some30million),duringthecommunisttakeover,theGreatLeapForwardandtheCultural Revolution.Tilltoday,thereisaChineseGulagarchipelagointheoccupiedterritoriesofTibet (includingChinghai),EastTurkestanandInnerMongolia.OveramillionTibetanshavedied becauseofCommunistmassacresandorganizedfamines;forcedsterilizations(whichthe1948UN conventionongenocideconsidersafullbloodedactofgenocide)havetakenplaceona proportionatelylargescale.Butthisishotlydeniedoratleaststronglyminimizedbytheregimeand itssupportersabroad. LiketheHolocaustnegationists,ourCommunistnegationistsprefertodeemphasizetherealissue, andtodrawtheattentiontowardsfaultfindingwiththevictims,andtowardstheaggressor's gloriousachievements.ThustheoldsysteminTibetwasanobscurantist,archfedual,even cannibalisttheocracy,andtheTibetanshavebeenluckytobeforcedintoenjoyingthebenefitsof Maoism.Whilethecommunistversionofprecommunisthistory(defendedabroadbyA.T. Grunfeldin:TheMakingofModernTibet)isagrimcaricature,itistruethatTibetansociety neededsocialaswellasmaterialmodernization;butthisdoesnotjustifytheoccupationofthe country,anymorethanitwouldjustifytheEuropeancolonization(whichhadequallybeen advertisedasagenerousactofhelpingthenativestomodernize).NoncolonizedJapanadopted modernizationmuchfasterandmoresmoothlythananycolonizedcountry,andlefttoitself,the modernizationwhichhadalreadybeenstartedbythe13thDalaiLamawouldcertainlyhavepicked upmomentumovertheyearsanddonealotmoregoodtoTibetthananycolonizationcould.Atany

rate,noneoftheseconsiderationsanyhowjustifiesthegradualgenocidewhichtheChinese occupiershavebeencarryingoutinTibet. LiketheHolocaustnegationists,ourCommunistnegationistsareveryinventivewhenitcomesto explainingawayinconvenientfacts.In1989,whenjournalistandTibetloverFransBoendershad reportedhowhehadheardalongroundofshootingfromhishotelroominLhasa,thepresidentof theBelgoChineseFreindshipAssociationdismissedthereport,sayingthatMr.Boenders,because ofhislackoffamiliaritywithlocalculture,hadmistakenfestivefireworksforgunfire.Somemonths later,adefectingChineseofficialrevealedthat198889hadbeenatimeofintenserepressionin Tibet,includingarazziawith460peoplekilledinApril1989. Sofar,thecollapseofSovietCommunismhasnottriggeredanyaudiblesoulsearchingamongits erstwhilesupporters.ThesmallminoritywhichstickstoMarxistorthodoxy,thinksithasnothingto apologizefor.AmongthosewhohadbelievedinCommunism(likemyself,briefly)butturnedaway fromitlongbeforeGorbachov,manyhavespokenoutclearlyandforcefullyagainstthiscriminal system(e.g.theactorcoupleYvesMontandandSimoneSignoret,andthenouveauxphilosophes likeAndreGlucksmann).ButamongthosewhostayedwithCommunismuntiltheaccomplished factsovertookthem,theattitudeismoreoneofquietlypassingontothemiddlegroundofsocial andpoliticallife,withaminimumofcommentonthiscounterrevolutionwhichMarxhadnot foreseen.InEurope,theseexCommunistsarepresentlytryingtohijacktheGreen(ecologist) movement,droppingsomeoftheirMarxistrhetoricintheprocess,butstillretainingalotofthe Marxistagenda(evenwhileCommunistrulehasbroughtaboutthebiggestecologicaldisasters). TheonesleastinfluencedbythecollapseofCommunismarethesoftleftists,suchasChristiansfor socialismandliberationtheologians:evenafterGorbachov,theykeptonpassingresolutions demandingtheabolitionofprivateproperty,andorganizingpeacedemonstrationsdirectedsolely againsttheUS,asiftheyhadneverheardofLiPengorSaddamHussein.Onthenegationistfront theywillnotdenyhistoricalfactstooopenlybuttheycontinuetoquietlyignorethem.Justlike beforeGorbachov,whentheypaidtheirrespectstotheSovietsystemandignoredthepersecutionof theircoreligionistsasaminoraberration,theystillrefusetopayattentiontothedecadesof persecution,andtheystilldenounceantiCommuniststatementsasantiprogressiveColdWar rhetoric,etc.Lazymindedpeoplewhohaveacquiredaleftistbiasafterlongtermuncritical consumptionofpropaganda,willnotshakeofftheirthoughthabitsuntilthesamestigmaattachesto CommunismastoFascism.

1.4ISLAMICNEGATIONISM
OnepartywhichcouldhaveaninterestinHolocaustnegationism,isthePalestinianpeople.Idonot knowofanofficialnegationisminthePalestinianLiberationOrganization,butinconversationwith PalestiniansabroadIhaveheardnegationistpositionsmorethanonce.EvenifPalestiniansdonot wanttodenytheHolocaust,atlesttheyarguethatthistopicshouldtakeabackseatforawhile, becausenowitisbeingkeptaliveartificiallyinordertounderpinIsrael'sclaimonthePalestinian homeland. IntheArabworldatlarge,therehasoccasionallybeenofficialsupportfornegationism.In1976,the SaudirepresentativeattheU.N.deniedinaspeechthattheHolocausthadoccured.Hussein Sumaida,theyoungIraqispywhorecentlydefected,haswritteninhismemoirshowinschoolhe hadneverlearnedofthepersecutionoftheJewsbytheNazis,butallthemoreabouttheJewish conspiracyandaboutthegreatrealizationsofHitler'sThirdReich. IwouldnotmaketoomuchofthegreatadmirationwhichFascismhadevokedamongtheMuslims,

asamongmanyThirdWorldpopulations.ItistruetheBaathPartyinSyriaandIraqwasmodelled onMussolini'sFascistParty.SirMohammedIqbalhaswrittenaeulogyforMussolini.The YugoslavianMuslimscollaboratedwiththefascistregimeinCroatia,andtheirgrandmufti exhortedthemtoserveintheFascistUstashamilitia.Muslimnations(Tatars,Kalmuks,Balkars, Chechens,Ingoosh)intheSovietUnionfoughtalongsidetheNaziinvader.Thegrandmuftiof JerusalemmadeapactwithHitler,ifonlybecausehetoohadwantedtogetridoftheJewsonceand forall.Butletusassumethatallthathappenedbecausetheydidn'trealizetheultimate consequencesofNazism,orbecausecolonizedpeoplehadnoreasontobelievetheantiFascistwar propagandaputoutbythecolonialpowers,themselvesveteransofmanyamassacre.Eventhen, thereisalotofpostwarwritingintheIslamicworldwhichrestatestheNazipropagandaagainstthe Jews,andforthat,thereisnolongeranexcuse. Inthefirst1989issueofIslamicOrder,aquarterlypublishedinKarachi,thereisanarticlebyAusaf SaiedVasfi,titledBewareArafatBeware.Itispublished"courtesyRadiance,Delhi",whichmeans atleasttwoEnglishlanguageIslamicpapershavepublishedit;anditisbynomeanstheonlyarticle ofitskindwhichiscurrentlybeingfedtotheMuslimpublic.Thearticlestatesthatthesourcesof Zionismarechieflythesetwo:theTalmudandtheProtocolsoftheSagesofZion. TheTalmudisofcoursethechiefJewishscripture,acommentontheTenakh(OldTestament),and formsadecisivereorientationoftheJewishreligion:apluralisticinterpretationoftheBiblicaltexts, recognizingthateachinterpretation(includingtheliteralone)isalwaysalimitedhumanattemptto understandtheunlimitedprofundityofGod'sword,andallowingfordifferentlevelsof understanding(literal,hermeneutical,allegorical,mystical).IntheTalmud,Judaismtranscendsin substantialmeasureitsexclusivisticorgins(whichwouldunfortunatelybereactualizedby ChristianityandIslam),anddevelopsthetypicalemphasisonintellectualinvestigationwhichwill maketheJewishcommunitysuchacradleofpowerfulminds. ButthestartingthingaboutMr.Vasfi'sarticleisthathepresentstheProtocolsoftheSagesofZion asasourceofJewishinspiration,apparentlyignoringthewellknownfactthatitwasnothingbuta forgerymadebytheCzar'ssecretpoliceinordertounderpinthetheoryofaJewishconspiracyto controltheworld.Inallseriousness,hetriestoprovetheJewishworldconspiracywithquotesfrom theProtocols,likethisone:"Andtheweaponsinourhandsarelimitless:ambitions,burning greediness,mercilessvengeance,hatredandmalice...Itisfromusthattheallengulfingterror proceeds...Bytheseactsallstatesareintorture...Wewillnotgivethempeaceuntiltheyopenly acknowledgeourinternationalSuperGovernmentandwithsubmissiveness." Mr.VasfiliststheoccasionswhenJewshavebeenbanishedfromcountries,andcommentswitha rhetoricalquestion:"Thequestionis:why?"Andthenherecountsthestoryofthesuccessive confrontationsbetweenMohammedandtheJewsofMedina,whichprovestheJews'propensityto mischief.Andtheyhaveremainedmischievous:theKemalistrevolutioninTurkeywhichbrought downthekhilafat"wasplannedandexecutedbytheInternationalJewry",and"theentireBolshevik RevolutioninRussiawasengineeredbytheJews".Itshouldbemadeclearthatsuchsweeping allegationsarenothingbutthewellknownstockintradeofantiJudaism. Inlate1992,Westernnegationistgroupshadannouncedanegationistconference,duetotakeplace inSweden.TheSwedishgovernmentprohibitedtheinitiative.Amongtheparticipants:theLebanese HezbollahandthePalestinianHamas,twoIranianbackedIslamicorganizations. SaudiArabiaisthechiefsponsorofnegationistactivityintheWest.TheAmericannegationist authorWilliamGrimstadhasbeenexposedasbeingontheSaudisecretservice'spayroll.In1981, hisbooks,includingAntizionandTheSixMillionReconsidered,weresent,alongwithother negationistliterature,toonethousandBritishpoliticalandbusinessleaders,bytheRabita,the IslamicWorldCouncil,fromPakistan.TheIranianembassiesarealsodistributioncentresof

negationistandantiJewishmaterial Inherotherwisemeritoriousbook"TheHolocaustDenial",theBritishleftistauthoressGillSeidel concludesalistofIslamicsponsorednegationistinitiativeswiththeremarkthat"ofcoursethereis nothingintrinsicallyantiSemitictoIslamasareligion".ThatisevidentlytheMarxistperception propagatedbyMaximeRodinson,butitishistoricallyinaccurate.MohammedhadalltheJewsin hisdomainbanished,enslavedorkilled.Afterthat,theJewsoutsideArabiawereallowedtosurvive underanumberofhumiliatingconditions.Theywerekeptdownandexploited,andtherewere frequentprogroms,asdescribedbyBatYe'orinherbook"TheDhimmi".Theywerethetargetof IslamichatredsimplybecausetheyrejectedIslam,butalsoforamorespecificreason:theyhad deletedfromtheirrevealedScriptureallreferencestoMohammed,thefutureandfinalprophet. ApartfromthecomplicityofMuslimsinHolocaustnegationism,thereisafarmorepervasive participationofMuslimsinadifferentnegationismwhichconcernsIslamdirectly.InTurkeymost people,fromthetopdown,denythegenocideontheArmeniansduringWorldWar1(WhichHitler invokedasaprecedentofsuccessful,unpunishedgenocide).Thegeneralwholedtheoperations againsttheArmenianshasastatueinAnkara.Thisgenocidehadbeendeclaredajihadbythelast caliph,whohadfullestauthoritytomakesuchdeclarations. In1974,theTurkishrepresentativeintheU.N.HumanRightsCommitteedemandedthescrapping oftheparagraph(inthepreparatoryreportonthepreventionandpunishmentofgenocide)referring indiplomatictermstotheArmeniangenocide.AsTurkeyisacornerstoneoftheNATOalliance,it managestogetalotofpassiveWesternsupportforitsattemptstowhitewashitsownpast.The paragraphwasscrapped,andthedocumentnowonlyreferstotheNazigenocide.Butinrecent years,boththeU.N.andtheEuropeanParliamenthaveadoptedresolutionscondemningthe Armeniangenocide,whichtheTurkishgovernmenthasangrilykeptondenying. InthenextchapterweshallseethattheArmeniangenocidewasbyfarnottheonlycrimeagainst humanitycommittedbyIslam,northeonlyonewhichisnowbeinghotlydeniedinacampaignof negationistpropaganda.

CHAPTERTWONEGATIONISMININDIA
ThenegationismregardingtheNazicrimeshasbeentheobjectofmuchpublicdiscussion.Turkish negationismabouttheArmeniangenocidehasreceivedsomeattention.Lesswellknownisthat Indiahasitsownbrandofnegationism. Sinceabout1920anefforthasbeengoingoninIndiatorewritehistoryandtodenythemillennium longattackofIslamonHinduism.Today,mostpoliticiansandEnglishwritingintellectualsinIndia willgooutoftheirwaytocondemnanypublicreferencetothislongandpainfulconflictinthe strongestterms.Theywillgotoanylengthtocreatetheillusionofahistoryofcommunalamity betweenHindusandMuslims.

2.1HINDUVS.MUSLIM
MakingpeoplebelieveinahistoryofHinduMuslimamityisnotaneasytask:thenumberof victimsofthepersecutionsofHindusbyMuslimsiseasilyofthesameorderofmagnitudeasthatof theNaziexterminationpolicy,thoughnoonehasyetmadetheeffortoftabulatingthereported massacresandproposingareasonableestimateofhowmanymillionsexactlymusthavediedinthe courseoftheIslamiccampaignagainstHinduism(suchresearchistaboo).Ontopofthesethereisa similarnumberofabductionsanddeportationstoharemsandslavemarkets,aswellascenturiesof politicaloppressionandculturaldestruction. TheAmericanhistorianWillDurantsummedituplikethis:"TheIslamicconquestofIndiais probablythebloodieststoryinhistory.Itisadiscouragingtale,foritsevidentmoralisthat civilizationisapreciousgood,whosedelicatecomplexoforderandfreedom,cultureandpeace, canatanymomentbeoverthrownbybarbariansinvadingfromwithoutormultiplyingwithin." Onlyoffandondidthispersecutionhavetheintensityofagenocide,butitwassustainedmuch longerandspreadoutmuchwidergeographicallythantheNazimassacre.WhereastheGermans includingmostmembersoftheNaziparty,werehorrifiedattheNazicrimesagainsthumanity withinafewyears,theMuslims,forwhomGottmituns(Godwithus)wasnotasloganbuta religiouscertainty,managedtokeepagoodconscienceforcenturies.Wewillencountersimilarities aswellasdifferencesbetweenNaziandIslamiccrimesagainsthumanity,butthemoststriking differenceisdefinitelythepersistencewithwhichIslamicpersecutionshavecontinuedfor14 centuries.Thisisbecauseithadmorespine,amorepowerfulpsychologicalgriponitsadherents thanNazism. TheideologicalfoundationoftheIslamiccampaignwassimilartotheNaziideology.TheMuslium invaders(aswecanreadinnumerousdocumentswhichtheyleftus,fromtheQuranandtheHadith onwards)distinguishedbetweenthreekindsofpeople:firstofalltheMuslims,theHerrenvolk (masternation)towhichAllahhadpromisedtheworld;secondlytheJewsandChristians,who couldliveonunderMuslimrulebutonlyasthirdclasscitizens,justliketheSlavicUntermenschen (inferiorpeople)inHitler'splannedneworder,thirdlythespeciestobeeliminated,therealPagans whohadtodisappearfromthefaceoftheearth. DifferentfromHitler'svictims,thenoncombatantsamongtheunbelieversoftengotachancetoopt forconversionratherthandeath.WhatMohammed(imitatedbyhissuccessors)wanted,washis recognitionasGod'sfinalprophet,sohepreferredpeopletoliveandgivehimthisrecognition(by pronouncingtheIslamiccreed,i.e.converting),andonlythosewhorefusedhimthisrecognition weretobekilled.Still,conversionoftencametoolatetosavedefeatedPagansfromslavery.Atthis point,MohammeddeservescomparisonwithStalin:unlikeHitler,hekilledpeoplenotfortheirrace butfortheiropinions.Butonecanhardlysaythattheonetotalitarianismisbetterthantheother. TheBlitzkriegoftheMuslimarmiesinthefirstdecadesafterthebirthoftheirreligionhadsuch enduringresultspreciselybecausethePaganpopulationsinWestandCentralAsiahadnochoice (exceptdeath)buttoconvert.Whatevertheconverts'ownresentment,theirchildrengrewupas Muslimsandgraduallyidentifiedwiththisreligion.Withinafewgenerationstheinitialresistance againsttheseforcibleconverionswasforgotten,andtheseareasbecameheidenfrei(freefrom Pagans,cfr.judenfrei).InIndiaitdidn'tgolikethat,becausetheMuslimsneededfivecenturiesof attemptsatinvasionbeforetheycouldcatchholdoflargepartsofIndia,andeventhenthey encounteredendlessresistance,sothattheyoftenhadtosettleforacompromise. TheMuslimconquests,downtothe16thcentury,werefortheHindusapurestruggleoflifeand death.Entirecitieswereburntdownandthepopulationsmassacred,withhundredsofthousands killedineverycampaign,andsimilarnumbersdeportedasslaves.Everynewinvadermade(often

literally)hishillsofHindusskulls.Thus,theconquestofAfghanistanintheyear1000wasfollowed bytheannihilationoftheHindupopulation;theregionisstillcalledtheHinduKush,i.e.Hindu slaughter.TheBahmanisultans(13471480)incentralIndiamadeitaruletokill100,000captives inasingleday,andmanymoreonotheroccasions.TheconquestoftheVijayanagarempirein1564 leftthecapitalpluslargeareasofKarnatakadepopulated.Andsoon. AsacontributiontoresearchonthequantityoftheIslamiccrimesagainsthumanity,wemay mentionProf.K.S.Lal'sestimatesaboutthepopulationfiguresinmedievalIndia(GrowthofMuslim PopulationinIndia).Accordingtohiscalculations,theIndian(subcontinent)populationdecreased by80millionbetween1000(conquestofAfghanistan)and1525(endofDelhiSultanate).More researchisneededbeforewecansettleforaquantitativelyaccurateevaluationofMuslimrulein India,butatleastweknowforsurethatthetermcrimeagainsthumanityisnotexaggerated. ButtheIndianPaganswerefartoonumerousandneverfullysurrendered.Whatsomecallthe MuslimperiodinIndianhistory,wasinrealityacontinuouswarofoccupiersagainstresisters,in whichtheMuslimrulerswerefinallydefeatedinthe18thcentury.AgainsttheserebelliousPagans theMuslimrulerspreferredtoavoidtotalconfrontation,andtoacceptthecompromisewhichthe(in Indiadominant)HanifiteschoolofIslamiclawmadepossible.AloneamongthefourIslamiclaw schools,theschoolofHanifagaveMuslimrulerstherightnottoofferthePagansthesolechoice betweendeathandconversion,buttoallowthemtolerationaszimmis(protectedones)livingunder 20humiliatingconditions,andtocollectthejizya(tolerationtax)fromthem.Normallythezimmi statuswasonlyopentoJewsandChristians(andeventhatconcessionwascondemnedbyjuristsof theHanbaliteschoollikelbnTaymiya),whichexplainswhythesecommunitieshavesurvivedin Muslimcountrieswhilemostotherreligionshavenot.Ontheseconditionssomeofthehigher Hinducastescouldbefoundwillingtocollaborate,sothatamoreorlessstablepolitycouldbeset up.Eventhen,thecollaborationoftheRajputswiththeMoghulrulers,oroftheKayasthaswiththe Nawabdynasty,onebecameasmootharrangementwhenenlightenedrulerslikeAkbar(whom orthodoxMuslimsconsideranapostate)cancelledthesehumiliatingconditionsandthejizyatax. ItisbecauseofHanifitelawthatmanyMuslimrulersinIndiaconsideredthemselvesexemptedfrom thedutytocontinuethegenocideontheHindus(selfexemptionforwhichtheywerepersistently reprimandedbytheirmullahs).Moreover,theTurkishandAfghaninvadersalsofoughteachother, sotheyoftenhadtoallythemselveswithaccursedunbelieversagainstfellowMuslims.Afterthe conquests,IslamicoccupationgraduallylostitscharacterofatotalcampaigntodestroythePagans. ManyMuslimrulerspreferredtoenjoytherevenuefromstableandprosperouskingdoms,andwere contenttoextractthejizyatax,andtolimittheirconversionefforttomaterialincentivesandsupport tothemissionarycampaignsofsufisandmullahs(infact,forlesszealousrulers,thejizyawasan incentivetodiscourageconversions,asthesewouldmeanalossofrevenue).TheMoghuldynasty (from1526onwards)ineffectlimiteditsambitiontoenjoyingthezimmasystem,similartothe treatmentofJewsandChristiansintheOttomanempire.Muslimviolencewouldthenceforthbe limitedtosomeslavetaking,crushingthenumerousrebellions,destructionoftemplesandkillingor humiliationofBrahmins,andoccasionalactsofterrorbysmallbandsofraiders.Aleftoverfrom thisperiodistheNorthIndiancustomofcelebratingweddingsatmidnight:thiswasasafety measureagainsttheIslamicsportofbridecatching. ThelastjihadagainsttheHindusbeforethefullestablishmentofBritishrulewaswagedbyTipu Sultanattheendofthe18thcentury.Intherebellionof1857,theneardefunctMuslimdynasties (Moghuls,Nawabs)triedtocurryfavourwiththeirHindusubjectsandneighbours,inorderto launchajointefforttoreestablishtheirrule.Forinstance,theNawabpromisedtogivetheHindus theRamJanmabhoomi/BabriMasjidsiteback,inanefforttoquenchtheirantiMuslimanimosity andredirecttheirattentiontowardsthenewcommonenemyfromBritain.Thisistheonlyinstance inmodernhistorywhenMuslimsofferedconcessionstotheHindus;afterthat,alltheconcessions

madeforthesakeofcommunalharmonywereaonewaytrafficfromHindutoMuslim. AftertheBritishhadcrushedtherebellionof1857,theIndianMuslimsfellintoastateof depression,increasingbackwardnessduetotheirrefusalofBritisheducation,andnostalgiaforthe past.WhiletheHinduelitestooktoWesternnotionslikesecularnationalism,theMuslimsremained lockedupintheircommunalseparateness.AssoonastheBritishdrewthemintothepolitical process(foundingofMuslimLeaguein1906)inordertousethemasacounterweightagainstthe IndianNationalCongress,theyimmediatelymadeheavyandhurtfuldemandsontheHindus,such astheunlimitedrighttoslaughtercows,andtheystartedworkingforpoliticalseparation.Firstthey obtainedseparateelectorateswhereMuslimcandidateswouldonlyhavetopleaseMuslimvoters, andlatertheywouldsucceedinseparatingaMuslimstatefromIndia. Bythetwenties,theytooktotheunscrupleduseofmusclepowerinabigway,creatingstreetriots andoutrightpogroms.IfHindusretaliatedinkind,itwasawelcomehelpininstillingtheseparate communalidentityintotheordinaryMuslim,whowouldhavepreferredtocoexistwithhisHindu neighboursinpeace.Bycreatingriotsandprovokingrelatiatoryviolence,theMuslimLeague managedtoswingthevastmajorityoftheMuslimelectoratetowardssupportingitsdemandforthe partitionofIndia.Theroughly600,000victimsoftheviolenceaccompanyingthePartitionwerethe pricewhichtheMuslimLeaguewaswillingtopayforitsIslamicstateofPakistan.Whileevery HinduandMuslimwhotookpartintheviolenceisresponsibleforhisownexcesses,theoverall responsibilityforthismassslaughterliessquarelywiththeMuslimleadership. Afterindependence,theIslamicpersecutionofHindushascontinuedindifferentdegreesof intensity,inPakistan,BanglaDeshandKashmir(aswellasheavydiscriminationinMalaysia).This isnottheplacefordetailingthesefacts,whichtheinternationalmediahavebeenignoring completely.WhatmaycutshortalldenialsofthiscontinuedpesteringofHindusinMuslimstates, aretheresultingmigrationfigures:in1948,Hindusformed23%ofthepopulationofBanglaDesh (thenEastPakistan),in1971thefigurewasdownto15%,andtodayitstandsatabout8%.No journalistorhumanrightsbodygoesintoasktheminorityHindusfortheiropinionaboutthe treatmenttheygetfromtheMuslimauthoritiesandpopulations;buttheyvotewiththeirfeet. Inthefirstmonthsof1990,theentireHindupopulation(about2lakhs)wasforciblydrivenfromthe KashmirValley,whichusedtobeadvertisedasashowpieceofcommunalharmony.Muslim newspapersandmosqueloudspeakershadwarnedtheHindustoleavethevalleyorfacebullets. AftertheIslamicconquestofKabulinApril1992,50,000HindushadtofleeAfghanistan(withthe Indiangovernmentunwillingtoextendhelp,andInderKumarGujraldenyingthattheexpulsionof Indianshadacommunalmotive).ThepogromsinPakistanandBangladeshafterthedemolitionof theBabriMasjidleft50,000HindushomelessinBangladeshandtriggeredanotherwaveofrefugees frombothcountriestowardsIndia.InPakistan,245Hindutemplesweredemolished,inBangladesh asimilarnumberwasattacked,andeveninEnglandsometemplesweresetonfirebyMuslimmobs. Andthenwehaven'tevenmentionedtherecurrentattacksonHinduprocessionsandonpolice stations. ItwillnowbeevidentthattheHindupsychehasverylittlesympathyforIslam.Doingsomething aboutthiswasthechiefmotivefornegationism.

2.2NEGATIONISMANDTHEINDIANNATIONAL CONGRESS
Thepoliticalcontextofthefristattemptsatnegationismwaschieflytheattemptofthe

independencemovement,ledbytheIndianNationalCongress,toeliminateallfactorsofdisunity betweenHindusandMuslims.ItwasthetimeoftheKhilafatmovement(191923),theagitationof IndianMuslimsagainsttheBritishtakeoveroftheIslamicsacredplacesfromthedeceased Ottomanempire.ThekhilafatistsdemandedtherestorationoftheOttomancaliph'sauthorityover thesacredplaces.CongresssawinthistheoccasiontoenlisttheMuslimsinthenationalfreedom struggleagainstthesameBritishimperialists. Thiswasamiscalculation:thekhilafatmovementintensifiedtheIslamicsenseofcommunal identity(thereforetherejectionofIndiannationalism),andaddedconsiderablytoMuslim separatismandthePakistanideology.Butbefore1923,whentheTurksthemselvesabolishedthe caliphatesothatthemovementlostitsraisond'etre(andgottransmutedintopogromsagainstthe Hindus),therewasgreatexpectationinCongresscircles.Therefore,Congresspeoplewerewilling togotoanylengthtoironoutthedifferencesbetweenHindusandMuslims,includingtheinvention ofcenturiesofcommunalamity. Atthattime,theCongresslederswerenotyetactivelyinvolvedintherewritingofhistory.They weresatisfiedtoquietlyignorethetruehistoryofHinduMuslimrelations.Afterthecommunal riotsofKanpurin1931,aCongressreportadvisedtheeliminationofthemutualenemyimageby changingthecontentsofthehistorybooks. Thenextgenerationofpoliticalleaders,especiallytheleftwingthatwastogaincontrolof Congressinthethirties,andcompletecontrolinthefifties,wouldprofessnegationismvery explicitly.Theradicalhumanist(i.e.bourgeoisMarxist)M.N.RoywrotethatIslamhadfulfilleda historicmissionofequalityandabolitionofdiscrimination,andthatforthis,Islamhadbeen welcomedintoIndiabythelowercastes.Ifatallanyviolencehadoccurred,itwasasamatterof justifiedclassstrugglebytheprogressiveforcesagainstthereactionaryforces,meaningthefedual Hinduuppercastes. Thisisamodernmythspringingfromanincorrectandmuchtoogrimpictureofthecastesystem,a backprojectionofmodernideasofclassstruggle,andanuncriticalswallowingofcontemporary Islamicapologetics,whichhasincorporatedsomevoguishsocialistvalues.Thereisnorecord anywhereoflowcastepeoplewelcomingtheMuslimsasliberators.Justlikeintheirhomeland,the Muslimgeneralshadnothingbutcontemptforthecommonpeople,andallthemoresobecause thesewereidolaters.TheymadenodistinctionbetweenrichPagansandpoorPagans:intheQuran, Allahhadpromisedthesamefatetoallidolaters. Bycontrast,thereisplentyoftestimonythatthesecommonpeopleroseinrevolt,notagainsttheir highcastecoreligionists,butagainsttheMuslimrulers.Andnotonlyagainstheavynewtaxes (50%ofthelandrevenueforAlauddinKhilji,whomthenegationistshailastheprecursorof socialism)andlandexpropriations,butespeciallyagainsttherapeandabductionofwomenand childrenandthedestructionoftheiridols,actswhichhavebeenrecordedwithsomuchgleebythe Muslimchroniclers,withoutanywherementioningaseparatetreatmentofHindurichandHindu poor,uppercasteKafirorlowcasteKafir.Evenwhensomeofthehighcastepeoplestarted collaborating,thecommonpeoplegavetheinvadersnorest,attackingthemfromhidingplacesin theforests.TheconversionoflowcastepeopleonlybeganwhenMuslimrulersweresafelyinpower andinapositiontorewardandencourageconversionbymeansoftaxdiscrimination,legal discrimination(winthedisputewithyourneighbourifyouconvert),handingoutpoststoconverts, andsimplecoercion.Nevertheless,themythwhichM.N.Royspread,hasgainedwidecurrency. ThebestknownpropounderofnegationismwascertainlyJawarharlalNehru.Hewasrather illiterateconcerningIndiancultureandhistory,sohisadmirersmayinvokeforhimthebenefitof doubt.Atanyrate,hiswritingscontainsomecrudecasesofglorificationofMuslimtyrantsand concealmentordenialoftheircrimes.WitnesshisassessmentofMahmudGhaznavi,who,

accordingtohischroniclerUtbi,sangthepraiseofthetemplecomplexatMathuraandthen immediatelyproceededtodestroyit.Nehruwrites:"BuildinginterestedMahmud,andhewasmuch impressedbythecityofMathuranearDelhi".Aboutthishewrote:"Therearehereathousand edificesasfirmasthefaithofthefaithful;norisitlikelythatthiscityhasattaineditspresent conditionbutattheexpenseofmanymillionsofdinars,norcouldsuchanotherbeconstructed underaperiodof200years."Andthatisall:NehrudescribedthedestroyerofMathuraasan admirerofMathura,apparentlywithoutnoticingthegorysarcasminGhaznavi'seulogy. Moreover,NehrudeniedthatMahmudhadcommittedhisactsofdestructionoutofanyreligious motive:"Mahmudwasnotareligiousman.HewasaMohammedan,butthatwasjustbytheway. Hewasinthefirstplaceasoldier,andabrilliantsoldier."ThatMahmudwasdefinitelyareligious man,andthathehadreligiousmotivesforhiscampaignsagainsttheHindus,isquiteclearfrom Utbi'scontemporarychronicle.EverynightMahmudcopiedfromtheQuranforthebenefitofhis soul.Heriskedhislifeseveraltimesforthesakeofdestroyinganddesecratingtemplesinwhich therewasnothingtoplunder,justtoterrorizeandhumiliatethePagans.Inhiscampaigns,henever neglectedtoinvoketheappropriateQuranverses.InveneratingMahmudasapiousheroofIslam, IndianMuslimsarequitefaithfultohistory:unlikeNehru,theordinaryMuslimrefusestopractise negationism. WithNehru,negationmismbecametheofficiallineoftheIndianNationalCongress,andafter IndependencealsooftheIndianstateandgovernment.

2.3THEALIGARHSCHOOL
AsecondfactorinthegenesisofnegationismwasthepenetrationofWesternideasamongapartof theMuslimelite,andespeciallythe(inEuropenewlyemerged)positivevaluationoftolerance.The Islamicelitewasconcentratedaroundtwoeducationalinstitutes,spearheadsofthetraditionalandof the(superficially)westernizingtrendsamongIndianMuslims.Onewasthetheologicalacademyat Deoband,theothertheBritishorientedAligarhMuslimuniversity. TheDeobandschoolwas(andis)orthodoxIslamic,andrejectedmodernvalueslikenationalism anddemocracy.ItsimplyobservedthatIndiahadoncebeenaDarulIslam(houseofIslam),and thatthereforeithadtobebroughtbackunderMuslimcontrol.Thefactthatthemajorityofthe populationconsistedofnonMuslimswasnotimportant:inthemedievalMuslimempiresthe Muslimshadnotbeeninamajorityeither,andmoreover,demographyandconversioncouldyet transformtheMuslimminorityintoamajority. AmongthescionsoftheDeobandschoolwefindMaulanaMaudoodi,thechiefideologueof modernfundamentalism.HeopposedthePakistanschemeanddemandedtheIslamizationofallof BritishIndia.Afterindependence,hesettledinPakistanandagitatedforthefullIslamizationofthe (stilltooBritish)polity.Shortlybeforehisdeathin1979,hisdemandswerelargelymetwhen generalZialaunchedhisIslamizationpolicy. OutsiderswillbesurprisedtofindthatthesameschoolofwhichMaudoodiwasafaithful spokesman,alsobroughtforthMaulanaAbulKalamAzad,whowasCongresspresidentforseveral termsandwhowastobecomeministerofEducationinfreeIndia.Understandablybutunjustifiably, AzadhasoftenbeendescribedasasmoderateandnationalistMuslim:herejectedthePartitionof IndiaandthefoundationofPakistan,notbecauseherejectedtheideaofaMuslimstate,butbecause hewantedallofIndiatobecomeaMuslimstateintime. WheninthefortiesthePartitionseemedunavoidable,AzadpatronizedproposalstopreserveIndia's unity,stipulatingthathalfofallmembersofparliamentandofthegovernmenthadtobeMuslims

(then24%ofthepopulation),withtheotherhalftobedividedbetweenHindus,Ambedkarites, Christians,andtherest.Short,astateinwhichMuslimswouldruleandnonMuslimswouldbe secondclasscitizenselectorallyandpolitically.TheCabinetMissionPlan,proposedbytheBritish astheultimatesopfortheMuslimLeague,equallypromisedaneffectiveparitybetweenMuslims andnonMuslimsattheCentralGovernmentlevelandavetorightfortheMuslimminority.Without Gandhiji'sandotherCongressleaders'knowing,CongresspresidentAzadassuredtheBritish negotiatorsthathewouldgettheplanacceptedbytheCongress.Whenhewascaughtintheactof lyingtotheMahatmaabouttheplanandhisassurance,helostsomecreditevenamongthenaive Hinduswhoconsideredhimamoderate.ButheretainedhispositionoftrustinNehru'scabinet,and continuedhisworkfortheultimatetransformationofIndiaintoaMuslimState. MaulanaAzad'spleasforHinduMuslimcooperationhadanesotericmeaning,clearenoughfor MuslimsbutinvisibleforwilfullygulliblenonMuslimslikehiscolleaguesintheCongress leadership.AzaddeclaredthatHinduMuslimcooperationwasincompleteconformitywiththe Prophet'svision,for"MohammedhadalsomadeatreatywiththeJewsofMadina".Hecertainly had,butthepracticalimpactofthistreatywasthatwithinafewyears,twoofthethreeJewishclans inMedinahadbenchasedaway,andthethirdclanhadbeenmassacredtothelastman(thesecond clanhadonlybeensavedbytheinterventionofotherMedineseleaders,forMohammedhadwanted tokillthemtoo).MaulanaAzadcouldmentionMohammed'streatywiththeJewsasamodelfor HinduMuslimcooperationonlybecausehewasconfidentthatfewHinduswereawareoftheend ofthestory,andthatbetterinformedHindushonouredakindoftaboooncriticismofIslamandits Prophet. ThisparenthesisaboutMaulanaAzadmayhelpclearupsomeillusionswhichHindusand WesternersfondlyentertainaboutthepossibilityofIslamicmoderacy.TheDeobandschoolwasas fundamentalistinitsAzadfaceasitwasinitsMaudoodiheart,anditsspokesmenhadnoproblems withthehorrorsofIslamichistory,nordidtheymakeattemptstorewriteit.ThatMuslimshad persecutedandmassacredHindus,countedasthefulfilmentofAllah'ssalvationplantotransform thewholeworldintoaDarulIslam.AsMohammedIqbalwrote:"AlllandbelongstotheMuslims, becauseitbelongstotheirGod."(Iqbalwould,however,endupintheAligarhcamp,cfr.infra) MaulanaAzadsharedthisviewofhistory.HecondemnedMoghulemperorAkbar'stolerantruleas thenearsuicideofIndianIslam,andpraisedfanaticslikethetheologianAhmadSirhindi,who throughhisoppositiontoAkbar'stolerancehadbroughttheMoghuldynastybackontherighttrack ofHindpersecution. UnliketheDeobandschool,theAligarhschooltriedtoreconcileIslamwithmodernculture.It understoodtheprinciplesofdemocracyandmajorityrule,andrecognizedthatamoderndemocracy wouldbeincompatiblewiththetransformationofIndiaintoanIslamicstateaslongasMuslims onlyformedaminority.Thetacticaloppositionagainstthedisadvantageoussystemofdemocracy wasunderpinnedideologicallybyMohammedIqbal,whocriticizeditasasysteminwhichheads arecountedbutnotweighed.ButIqbalunderstoodthatdemocracywasthewaveofthenearfuture, and,togetherwithmoremodernandsincerelydemocracymindedpeopleintheMuslim intelligentsia,hefacedthelogicalconsequencethattheMuslimshadtogiveuptheambitionof gainingcontroloverallofIndiaimmediately.Insteadtheyshouldcreateaseparatestateoutofthe MuslimmajorityareasofIndia:Pakistan.TheidealofPakistanwaslaunchedbyIqbalin1930,and in1940itbecametheofficialpoliticalgoaloftheMuslimLeague.AligarhMuslimUniversityhas oftenbeendescribedasthecradleofPakistan. Fromtheirbetterknowledgeofandappreciationformodernculture,theAligarhthinkersaccepted themodernvalueofreligioustolerance.Nottotheextentthattheywouldbewillingtocoexistwith theHindusinasinglepostcolonialstate,butatleasttothisextentthattheywantedtodosomething abouttheimgeofintolerancewhichIslamhadcometocarry.Around1920Aligarhhistorian

MohammedHabiblaunchedagrandprojecttorewritethehistoryoftheIndianreligiousconflict. Themainpointsofhisversionofhistoryarethefollowing. Firstly,itwasnotallthatserious.OnecannotfailtonoticethattheIslamicchroniclers(including somerulerswhowrotetheirownchronicles,likeTeimurandBabar)havedescribedtheslaughterof Hindus,theabductionoftheirwomenandchildren,andthedestructionoftheirplacesofworship mostgleefully.But,accordingtoHabib,theseweremerelyexaggerationsbycourtpoetsoutto pleasetheirpatrons.OnewonderswhatitsaysaboutIslamicrulersthattheyfeltflatteredbythe bloodydetailswhichtheMuslimschroniclersofHindupersecutionshaveleftus.Atanyrate,Habib hasnevermanagedtounderpinthisconvenienthypothesiswithasinglefact. Secondly,thatpercentageofatrocitiesonHinduswhichHabibwaspreparedtoadmitashistorical, isnottobeattributedtotheimpactofIslam,buttootherfactors.SometimesIslamwasusedasa justificationpostfactum,butthiswasdeceptive.Inrealityeconomicmotiveswereatwork.The HindusamassedalltheirwealthintemplesandthereforeMuslimarmiesplunderedthesetemples. Thirdly,accordingtoHabibtherewasalsoaracialfactor:theseMuslimsweremostlyTurks,savage ridersfromthesteppeswhowouldneedseveralcenturiesbeforegettingcivilizedbythewholesome influenceofIslam.TheirinbornbarbaritycannotbeattributedtothedoctrinesofIslam. Finally,theviolenceoftheIslamicwarriorswasofminorimportanceintheestablishmentofIslam inIndia.Whathappenedwasnotsomuchaconquest,butashiftinpublicopinion:whentheurban workingclassheardofIslamandrealizeditnowhadachoicebetweenHindulaw(smrti)and Muslimlaw(shariat),itchosethelatter. MohammedHabib'sexciseinhistoryrewritingcannotstandthetestofhistoricalcriticismonany score.WecandemonstratethiswiththeexampleofSultanMahmudGhaznavi(9971030),already mentioned,whocarriedoutanumberofdevastatingraidsinSindh,GujratandPunjab.This GhaznaviwasaTurk,certainly,butinmanyrespectshewasnotabarbarian:hepatronizedartsand literature(includingthegreatPersianpoetFirdausi,whowouldendupintroublebecausehispatron suspectedhimofapostasy,andthePersianbutArabicwritinghistorianAlbiruni)andwasafine calligraphisthimself.TheundeniablebarbarityofhisantiHinducampaignscannotbeattributedto hisethnicstock.HismassacresandactsofdestructionweremerelyareplayofwhattheArab MohammedbinQasimhadwroughtinSindhin71215.Hedidn'tcareformaterialgain:heleftrich mosquesuntouched,butpoorHindutemplesmetthesamefateathishandsastherichertemples. HeturneddownaHinduoffertogivebackafamousidolinexchangeforahugeransom:"Iprefer toappearonJudgementDayasanidolbreakerratherthananidolseller."Theoneexplanation thatcoversalltherelevantfacts,isthathewasdriventohisbarbarousactsbyhisideological allegiancetoIslam. ThereisnorecordofhisbeingwelcomedbyurbanartisansasaliberatorfromtheoppressiveHindu socialsystem.Onthecontrary,hiscompanionAlbirunitestifieshowalltheHindushadan inveterateaversionforallMuslims. Anotherruler,FiruzShahTughlaq(135188),personallyconfirmsthatthedescructionofPagan templeswasdoneoutofpiety,notoutofgreed:"TheHindushadacceptedthezimmistatusandthe concomitantjizyataxinexchangeforsafety.Butnowtheybuiltidoltemplesinthecity,indefiance oftheProphet'slawwhichforbidssuchtemples.UnderdivineleadershipIdestroyedthese buildings,andkilledtheleadersofidolatry,andthecommonfollowersreceivedphysical chastisement,untilthisabominationhadbeenbannedcompletely."WhenFiruzheardthataPagan festivalwasgoingon,hereactedforcefully:"Myreligiousfeelingsexhortedmetofinishoffthis scandal,thisinsulttoIslam.OnthedayofthefestivalIwenttheremyself,Iorderedtheexecutionof theleadersandpractitionersofthisabomination...Idestroyedtheiridoltemplesandbuiltmosques intheirplaces."

ThecontentionthatHindusstoredtheirrichesintemplesiscompletelypluckedoutofthinair (thoughsomeoftherichertemplescontainedgoldenstatues,whichweretempleproperty):itisone amongmanyadhochypotheseswhichmakeHabib'stheoryamethodologicallyindefensible construction.Infact,Habibisproclainingagrandconspiracytheory:allthehundredsofIslamic authorswhodeclaredunanimouslythatwhattheyreportedwasawarofIslamagainstInfidelity, wouldallhavecoordinatedonesinglefakescenariotodeceiveus. ThisisnottosaythattheentirereportwhichtheMuslimchroniclershaveleftus,shouldbe acceptedatfacevalue.Forinstance,writerslikeGhaznavi'scontemporaryUtbigivetheimpression thattheraidson,andultimateconquestofHindustanwereawalkover.Closerstudyofallthe sourcematerialshowsthattheMuslimarmieshadaverytoughtimeinIndia.FromMuslim chroniclesoneonlygetsafaintglimpseoftheintensitywithwhichtheHinduskeptonoffering resistance,andoftheprecariousnessoftheMuslimgriponHindistanthroughtheMuslimperiod. TheMuslimchroniclershavenotbeencaughtintheactoflyingveryoften,butsomeofthemdistort theproportionsofvictoryanddefeatabit.Thisisquitecommonamongpartisanhistorians everywhere,andamodernhistorianknowshowtotakesuchminordistortionsintoaccount.The unanimousandentirelycoherenttestimonythatthewarsinHindustanwerereligiouswarsof MuslimsagainstKafirsisadifferentmatteraltogether:denyingthistestimonyisnotamatterof smalladjustments,butofreplacingthewellattestedhistoricalfactswiththeirdiametricalopposite. Habibtriedtoabsolvetheideology(Islam)oftheundeniablefactsofpersecutionandmassacreof thePagansbyblamingindividuals(theMuslims).Thesourceshoweverpointtotheoppositestateof affairs:MuslimfanaticsweremerelyfaithfulexecutorsofQuranicinjunctions.NottheMuslimsare guilty,butIslam.

2.4NEGATIONISMRAMPANT:THEMARXISTS
TheAligarhschoolhasbeenemulatedonalargescale.SoonitstorchwastakenoverbyMarxist historians,whowerebuildingareputationforunscrupledhistoryrewritinginaccordancewiththe partyline. Inthiscontext,oneshouldknowthatthereisastrangealliancebetweentheIndianCommunist partiesandtheMuslimfanatics.InthefortiestheCommunistsgaveintellectualmuscleandpolitical supporttotheMuslimLeague'splantopartitionIndiaandcreateanIslamicstate.After independence,theysuccessfullycombined(withthetacitsupportofPrimeministerNehru)to sabotagetheimplementationoftheconstitutionalprovisionthatHindibeadoptedasnational language,andtoforceIndiaintotheSovietArabfrontagainstIsrael.Eversince,thiscollaboration hascontinuedtotheirmutualadvantageasexemplifiedbytheircommonfronttodefendtheBabri Masjid,thatsymbolofIslamicfanaticism.UnderNehru'sruletheseMarxistsacquiredcontrolof mostoftheeducationalandresearchinstitutesandpolicies. Moreover,theyhadanenormousmentalimpactontheCongressapparatus:eventhosewho formallyrejectedtheSovietsystem,thoughtcompletelyinMarxistcategories.Theyaccepted,for instance,thatreligiousconflictscanbereducedtoeconomicandclasscontradictions.Theyalso adoptedMarxistterminology,sothattheyalwaysrefertoconsciousHindusasthecommunalforces orelements(Marxismdehumanizespeopletoimpersonalpawns,orforces,inthehandsofgod History).TheMarxisthistorianshadthefieldalltothemselves,andtheysettoworkto decommunalizeIndianhistorywriting,i.e.toerasetheimportanceofIslamasafactorofconflict. InCommunalismandtheWritingofindianHistory,RomilaThapar,HarbansMukhiaandBipan Chandra,professorsatJawaharlalNehryUniversity(JNU,theMeccaofsecularismand

negationism)inDelhi,writethattheinterpretationofmedievalwarsasreligiousconflictsisinfact abackprojectionofcontemporaryreligiousconflictartificiallycreatedforpoliticalpurposes.In BipanChandra'sfamousformula,communalismisnotadinosaur,itisastrictlymodern phenomenon.Theyexplicitlydenythatbeforethemodernperiodthereexistedsuchathingas HinduidentityorMuslimidentity.ConflictscouldnothavebeenbetweenHindusandMuslims, onlybetweenrulersorclasseswhoincidentallyalsobelongedtoonereligiouscommunityorthe other.Theypointtotheconflictswithinthecommunitiesandtoalliancesacrosscommunity boundaries. ItisofcourseafactthatsomeHinduscollaboratedwiththeMuslimrulers,butthatalsocountedfor theBritishcolonialrulers,whoareforthatnolessconsideredasforeignoppressors.Forthatmatter, intheJewishghettoinWarsawtheNazisemployedJewishguards,intheirsearchforabsconding JewstheyemployedJewishinformers,andintheirpolicyofdeportationtheyevensoughttheco operationoftheZionistmovement:noneofthiscandisproveNaziJewishenmity.Itisalsoafact thattheMuslimrulerssometimesmadewaramongeachother,butthatwasequallytruefor Portuguese,FrenchandBritishcolonizers,whofoughtsomewarsonIndianterritory:theywerejust asmuchpartofasinglecolonialmovementwithacommoncolonialideology,andallthebrandsof colonialismwereequallytheenemiesoftheindianfreedommovement.Eveninthehistoryofthe Crusades,thatparadigmofreligiouswar,wehearalotofbattlesbetweenoneChristianMuslim coalitionandanother:thesedonotfalsifytheoverallcharacterizationoftheCrusadesasawar betweenChristiansandMuslims(triggeredbythedestructionofChristianchurchesbyMuslims). AfterpostulatingthatconflictsbetweenHindusandMuslimsassuchwerenonexistentbeforethe modernperiod,thenegationistsarefacedwiththeneedtoexplainhowthistypeofconflictwas bornaftercenturiesofamisunderstoodnonexistence.TheMarxistexplanationisaconspiracy theory:theseparatecommunalidentityofHindusandMuslimsisaninventionoftheslyBritish colonialists.Theycarriedonadivideandrulepolicy,andthereforetheyincitedthecommunal separateness.Astheexampleparexcellence,prof.R.S.Sharmamentionsthe19thcentury8 volumeworkbyElliottandDowson,TheHistoryofIndiaasToldbyitsownHistorians.Thiswork doesindeedpaintaverygrimpictureofMuslimhordeswhoattackthePaganswithmerciless cruelty.ButthispicturewasnotaconcoctionbytheBritishhistorians:asthetitleoftheirworksays, theyhaditallfromindigenoushistoriographers,mostofthemMuslims. Yet,thenegationistbeliefthattheBritishnewlycreatedtheHinduMuslimdividehasbecomean articleoffaithwitheveryoneinIndiawhocallshimselfasecularist.Itbecameacentralpartofthe negationistargumentinthedebateovertheRamJanmabhoomi/BabriMasjidissue.Timeandagain, thenegationisthistorians(includingBipanChandra,K.N.Panikkar,S.Gopal,RomilaThapar, HarbansMukhia,IrfanHabib,R.S.Sharma,GyanendraPandey,SushilSrivastava,AsgharAli Engineer,aswellastheIslamicpoliticianSyedShahabuddin)haveassertedthatthetradition accordingtowhichtheBabrimosqueforciblyreplacedaHindutemple,isnothingbutamyth purposelycreatedinthe19thcentury.Toexplainthepopularityofthemythevenamonglocal Muslimwritersinthe19thcentury,mostofthemsayitwasadeliberateBritishconcoction,spread intheinterestofthedivideandrulepolicy.Theyaffirmthisconspiracyscenariowithoutanyhow citing,fromthecopiousarchiveswhichtheBritishadministrationinIndiahasleftbehind,anykind ofpositiveindicationfortheirconvenienthypothesisletalonetherigorousproofonwhicha serioushistorianwouldbasehisassertions,especiallyinsuchcontroversialquestions. TheyhavekeptontakingthisstandevenafterfivedocumentsbylocalMuslimsoutsidetheBritish sphereinthe19thcentury,twodocumentsbyMuslimofficialsfromtheearly18thcentury,andtwo documentsbyEuropeantravellersfromthe18thand17thcentury,aswellastheextantrevenue records,allconfirmingthetempledestructionscenario,werebroughttothepublic'snoticein1990. Intheirpamphletsandbooks,thenegationistssimplykeptonignoringmostorallofthisevidence,

defiantlydisregardinghistoricalfactaswellasacademicdeontology. ConcerningtheAyodhyadebate,itisworthrecallingthatthenegationistshavealsoresortedto anothertacticsofamiliartoourEuropeannegationists,andtoalldefendersofuntenablepositions: personalattacksontheiropponents,inordertopullthepublic'sattentionawayfromtheavailable evidence.InDecember1990,theleadingJNUhistoriansandseveralalliedscholars,followedbythe herdofsecularistpenpushersintheIndianpress,havetriedtoraisesuspicionsagainstthe professinalhonestyofProf.B.B.LalandDr.S.P.Gupta,thearchaeologistswhohaveunearthed evidencefortheexistenceofaHindutempleattheBabriMasjidsite.Rebuttalsbythesetwoanda numberofotherarchaelogistshaereceivedcoverageinthesecularistpress. InFebruary1991,IrfanHabibgivehisinfamousspeechtotheAligarhMuslimUniversityhistorians, inwhichhemadepersonalattacksonthescholarswhotookpartinthegovernmentsponsored debateonAyodhyaindefenceoftheHinduclaim,andonProf.B.B.Lal.Inthiscase,theweekly Sundaydidpublishalengthyreplybythedeputysuperintendingarchaeologistofthe ArchaeologicalSurveyofIndia,A.K.Sinha.Thecontentsofthisreplyareveryrelevant,butitisa bittechnical(i.e.notadaptedtothemediumofaweeklyforthegeneralpublic)andwrittenin clumsyEnglish,whichgivesapooroverallimpression. Actually,IspeculatethattheSundayeditormaywellhaveselecteditforpublicationprecisely becauseoftheseflaws.Thepracticeiswellknowninthetreatmentofletterstotheeditor:those defendingthewrongviewpointonlygetpublishediftheyaresomewhatfunnyorotherwise harmless.Icannotbesureaboutthisparticularcase,butitisageneralfactthatfromtheirpower positions,thenegationistsuseeverymeansattheirdisposaltocreateanegativeimagefortheHindu opponentsofIslamicimperialism,includingtheselectivehighlightingofthemostclumsyandleast convincingformulationsoftheHinduviewpoint. InhisBabriMasjidRamJanmabhoomiControversy,theIslamicapologistAliAsgharEngineerhas alsoselectedafewincompleteandlessconvincingstatementsoftheHinduposition,inorderto createasemblanceofwillingnesstoheartheHinduviewpointwhileatthesametimedenyingthe Hindusideanypublicityforitsstrongestarguments.Hehaskeptthemostdecisivepiecesof evidenceentirelyoutofthereaders'view,buthascoveredthisdeliberatedistortionofthepicture behindasemblanceofevenhandedness.InAnatomyofaConfrontation,theJNUhistoriansdonot evenmentionthepowerfulargumentationbyProf.A.R.Khan,whileProf.HarshNarainandMr. A.K.Chatterjee'spresentationauthentictestimonies(inIndianExpress,republishedbyVoiceof IndiainHinduTemples,WhathappenedtoThemandinHistoryvs.Casuistry)areonlymentioned butnotdetailedanddiscussed,letalonerefuted;butclumsyRSSpamphletsandimprovised statementsbyBJPoratorsarequotedandanalyzedatlength. TheconcludingparagraphofA.K.Sinha'srebuttaltoIrfanHabib'sspeechpointsoutthe contradictionbetweentheearlierworkofevenMarxisthistoriansaboutancientIndia(inwhichthey treattheepicsassourcesofhistory,notmerefable)andtheirrecentBabripoliticizedstand:"Today, eventakingthenameofMahabharataandRamayanaisconsideredasantinationalandcommunal bythecommunistleaders,BabriMasjidActionCommitteehistoriansandthepseudosecularists. Whatdotheyproposetodowithallthathasbeenpublishedsofarin[this]contextbytheMarxists themselves,notablyD.D.Kosambi,R.S.Sharma,RomilaThapar,K.M.Shrimali,D.N.Jhaand others?IhavebeenthinkingaboutthebehaviousofourMarxistfriendsandhistorians,their unprovokedslandercampaignagainstmanycolleagues,hurlingabusesandconvictinganyoneand everyoneevenbeforethechargescouldbeframedandproved.Theirlatesttargetis[so]sobreand highlyrespectedapersonasprof.B.B.Lal,whohasallhislife(nowheisnearing70)never involvedhimselfinpettypoliticsorinthegroupism[whichis]sofavouriteasportamongtheso calledMarxistintellectualsofthiscountry.Butthen[slander]isawellpractisedartamongthe Marxists."

AnothertrickwhichastudentofHolocaustnegationismwillreadilyrecognizeintheproBabri campaignoftheIndiannegationists,isthattrulydaringformofamnipulation:selectivelyquotingan authoritytomakehimsaytheoppositeofhisownconsideredopinion.WhentheJNUhistorians startedslanderingProf.B.B.LalasaturncoathiredbytheVHP,thiswasapanicreactionaftertheir earliertactichadbeenexposed(thoughonlyinIndianExpress,butthenegationistfrontwillnot tolerateevenoneholeinthecordonofinformationcontrol).Untilthen,theyhadbeenusingB.B. Lal'sfametosuporttheirownpositionthattheBabriMasjidhadnotreplacedatemple. IntheirpamphletThePoliticalAbuseofHistory,theJNUhistorianshadquotedfromabrief summary,publishedbytheArchaeologicalSurveyofIndiain1980,ofProf.B.B.Lal'sreportonhis excavationsinAyodhyaandotherRamayanasites.Theyknewthisreportperfectlywell,fortheyhad gleefullyquoteditsfindingthattheexcavationsjustneartheBabriMasjidhadnotyieldedany remainspredatingthe9thcenturyBC.Butthentheyhadgoneontostatethattherewasno archeologicalindicationforapreMasjidtempleonthatcontroversialsiteatall,evenwhenthe samereporthadcursorilymentionedtheremainsofabuildingdatedtothe11thcenturyAD.Later on,theyhavequotedthesamesummaryassayingthatthelaterperiodwasdevoidofanyinterest, suggestingthatnothingofanyimportancedatingfromthemedievalperiodhadbeenfound. Infact,thisremarkonlyprovesthattheASIsummarizersawnoreasontogive(orsawreasonsnot togive)detailsabouttheuninterestingbutnonethelessexistingmedievalfindings.Butinautumn 1990,someofthesedetailshavebeenmadepublicandtheyturnedouttobeofdecisiveimportance intheRamJanmabhoomidebate.Prof.K.N.Panikkar(inAnatomyofaConfrontation)suggeststhat, iftheserelevantdetailswerenotrecentlythoughtuptosuitthetheoriesoftheRSS,theymusthave beendeliberatelyconcealedatthattime(lateseventies)bytheASIsummarizer.Thelatter possibilitymeansthatnegationistsareactiveintheASIpublishingsection,editingarchaeological reportstosuitthenegationistcampaign.TheimpliedallegationissoseriousthatK.N.Panikkar expectsthereadertoassumetheotheralternative,viz.anRSSconcoction.Buthemaywellhavehit thenailonitsheadwithhissuggestionthatnegationistsintheASIaredoingexactlythesamething thattheyaredoinginallIndianinstitutionsandmedia:misusingtheirpositionstodistort information. Atanyrate,thedetailsofthefullreportweregiveninarticlesbyDr.S.P.GuptaandbyProf.B.B. Lalhimself(andindependentlybyotherarchaeologistsintalksandletterstoIndianExpress)inlate 1990.Thepillarbasesofan11thcenturybuilding,alignedtotheBabriMasjidwalls,were presentedbyProf.B.B.LalandDr.S.P.GuptainseparatefilmedinterviewswiththeBBC.There couldbenodoubtaboutitanymore:Prof.B.B.Lalhadarrivedataconclusionoppositetotheone ascribedtohimbyanumberofMarxisthistorians(notonlyfromJNU). ThatiswhyisearlyDecember1990severalofthemostvocalMarxisthistorianssuddenlytookto slanderandaccusedProf.B.B.LalofhavingchangedhisopinioninordertosuittheVHP'spolitical needs.NowthattheycouldnolongeruseProf.Lal'sreputationfortheirownends,theydecidedto tryanddestroyit.InthecaseofDr.S.P.Gupta,theyhavenottakenbacktheirridiculousallegation thathehadfalselyclaimedparticipationintheRamayanasitesexcavations.Butwithabignamelike B.B.Lal,animpeccableacademicofworldfame,theyhadtobecareful,becauseslanderagainst himmightsomehowbackfire.Thatiswhytheyhavenorpressedthepoint,andwhyanumberof MarxisthistoriansandotherparticipantsintheAyodhyadebatehavequitelyrevertedtotheearlier tacticofselectivelyquotingfromtheASIsummaryofProf.B.B.Lal'sreport,andactingasifthe greatarchaeologisthassupportedandevenproventheirownposition.Asthepresshadgiven minimumcoveragetoB.B.LalandS.P.Gupta'srevelations,manypeoplewouldnotsuspectthe truth. Anothertrickfromthenegationists'bookthathasbeenverymuchinevidenceduringtheAyodhya debate,consistsinfocusingallattentiononthepiecesofevidencegivenbythosewhoupheldthe

historicaltruth,,andtryingtofindfaultwiththemasvalidevidence.Thus,atthepressconference (19Dec.1992)whereDr.S.P.Guptaandotherhistorianspresentedphotographsofaninscription foundduringthedemolitionoftheBabriMasjid,whichprovedoncemorethatatemplehadstood onthesite,andthatitwasspecificallyabirthplacetemplefor"VishnuHariwhodefeatedBaliand thetenheadedking[Ravana]",somejournalistsheckledthespeakerswithremarksthat"becauseof thedemolition,theinscriptionwasnotinsituandthereforenotvalidasevidence",andsimilarfeats ofpettyfaultfinding. Afewdayslater,agroupof70archaeologistsandhistorians,mostlynameswhohadnottakena prominentroleinthisdebatesofar,broughtshameonthemselvesbypronouncingjudgementonthis pieceofevidencewithoutevenseeing,letalonestudyingit.Theydemandednotthatthe governmentlookintothisnewevidence,aswouldbeproperforrepresentativesofthescientific spirit,butthatittracedownfromwhichmuseumtheplantedevidencehadbeenstolenandbrought toAyodhya.Indoinghistoryfalsification,itisbesttoremainontheattack,andtoputthebonafide historiansonthedefensivebyaccusingthemfirst. Afterdozensofpiecesofevidencefortheforciblereplacementoftemplewithmosquescenariohad beengiven,theBabrinegationistshadnevercomeupwithasinglepieceofcounterevidence(i.e. positiveevidenceforanalternativescenario);theycouldnotdobetterthankeepsilentoverthemost strikingevidence,andotherwisescreamatthetopoftheirvoicethatevidenceAdidnotcount, evidenceBwasnotvalid,evidenceCwasflawed,evidenceDwasfabricated.In1992alone,inthe clearingoperationsneartheJanmabhoomisiteinJune,duringseveralvisitsofexperts,andduring thedemolitionon6December,morethan200piecesofarchaeologicalevidenceforthepreexistent Vaishnavatemplehadbeenfound,butthese70scholarspreferredtodisregardallthem.Thistime, thesuggestionwasthatinthemiddleofthekarseva,theinscriptionhadbeenplantedthere.You couldjustaswelljointheHolocaustnegationistsandsaythatthegaschambersfoundin1945had beenaHollywoodmiseenscene.Pickingatasingletestimonyasifthewholecasedependsonit hasbeenafavouritetechniqueofthenegationiststodistractattentionfromthelargerpicture,to makepeopleforgetthatevenifthisonepieceofevidencewereflawed,thiswouldnotinvalidatethe generalconclusionsbuiltonawholecorpusofevidence. AfinalpointofsimilaritybetweentheMarxistinvolvementintheBabriMasjidcaseandthe techniquesofHolocaustnegationismisthefactthattherewasaBabriMasjiddebateinthefirst place.Indeed,postulatingdoubtandtheneedforadebateisthefirststepofdenial.Thetradition thattheBabriMasjidhadforciblyreplacedatemplewasfirmlyestablishedadsupportedbysources otherwiseacceptedasauthoritative;whenitwaschallenged,thiswasnotonthebasisofnewfound materialwhichjustifiedareexaminationofthehistoricalposition.Thecorrectprocedurewould havebeenthatthedeniersoftheestablishedviewcomeupwithsomepositiveevidencefortheir innovativeposition:untilthen,therewassimplynoreasonforadebate.Instead,theystarted demandingthattheothersidegiveproofofwhathadbeenknownallalong,andforcedadebateon somethingthatwasreallyamatterofconsensus.Subsequently,insteadofenteringthering, attackingorcounteringtheiropponents'casewithpositiveevidenceoftheirown,thechallengersset themselvesupasjudgesoftheotherside'sargumentation.Thisisindeedreminiscentofthe negationistInstituteforHistoricalReviewannouncingaprizeforwhomevercouldprovethatthe Holocausthadtakenplace. ThereisyetanothertrickfromthenegationistarsenalwhichhasbeentriedinIndia:findawitness fromthevictims'camptotestifytotheaggressor'sinnocence.Ofcoursetherearenotwitnesses aroundwholivedthroughAurangzeb'sterror,buttherearemanywholivedthroughthehorrorsof Partition.Itisnobody'scasethatthekillingswichJinnahconsideredafairpriceforhisMuslim state,nevertookplace.Butthenegationistshavespentalotofeffortonprovingthenextbestthing: thattheguiltwasspreadeventlyamongHindusandMuslims.

TheCommunistnovelistBhishmaSahnihasusedthenovelTamastopointtheHindusasthe villainsinthePartitionviolence.TheinterestingthingisthatBhishmaSahni'sownfamilywas amongtheHindurefugeeshoundedoutorPakistan.HisantiHindubias,comingfromamanwho wouldhavemorereasonforanantiMuslimanimus,isagiftfromheavenfortheHindubaiters. MarxistProfessorBipanChandraparadesasimilarcharacterinhispaper:CommunalismtheWay Out(publishedtogetherwithtwolecturesbyKJhushwantSinghas:ManyFacesofCommunalism). OneofhisstudentshadsurvivedtheterrorofPartitioninRawalpindi,losing7familymembers. BudhedidnothaveanyanimusagainsttheMuslims,forhesaid:"VeryearlyIrealizedthatmy parentshadnotbeenkilledbytheMuslims,theyhadbeenkiledbycommunalism."Comingfroma victimofMuslimviolence,thisisexcellentmaterialforthosewhowanttoapportionequalblameto HindusndMuslims. Ofcourse,BipanChandra'sstudentwasright.ThecauseofPartitionandofitsaccompanying violencewasnottheMuslims,butcommunalism,i.e.thebeliefthatpeoplewithacommonreligion formaseparatesocialandpoliticalentity.ThisbeliefisnotfosteredbyHinduism,butitiscentralto IslameversinceMohammedfoundedhisfirstIslamicstateinMedina.ItistruethatsomeHindu groups(mostconspicuouslytheSikhs)haverecentlyadoptedsomeIslamicelements,includingthe communalistbeliefthatareligiousgroupformsaseparatenationentitledtoaseparatestate.Butthe sourceofthiscommunalistpoisoninIndiaisandremainsIslam.Therefore,BipanChandra'sstudent hasinfactsaid:"MyfamilywasnotkilledbytheMuslims,butbyIslam." ItisadifferentmatterthatMuslimsarethemostlikelycarriersoftheIslamicdiseasecalled communalism,andthattheyhadmassivelyvotedforthecommnalistprojectofcreatingaseparate Muslimstate.TheculpritwasIslam,andconcerningthepositionsoftheMuslimsinthelightofthe fanaticalnatureofIslam,IwouldquoteBipanChandra'sownsimileforunderstandingthe differencebetweencommunalismanditsadherents:whenapatientsuffersfromaterribledisease, youdon'tkillhim,butcurehim.ThevictimsofIslamicindoctrinationshouldnotbethetargetof Hindurevenge,astheywereinlargenumbersin1947.Don'tkillthepatient,killthedisease. RemoveIslamfromtheMuslims'mindsthrougheducationandIndia'scommunalproblemwillbeas goodassolved. AtthispointwemaytakeasecondlookattheMarxistposition,mentionedabove,thattheHindu communityisarecentinvention.TheobservationswhichIjustmadeconcerningtheIslamic provenanceofcommunalismmightseemtoconfirmthattherewasnoHinducommunalidentity. However,theauthenticsourcesfromthemedievalperiodareunanimousaboutthesharprealization ofaseparatecommunalidentityasMuslimsandasHindus,overwhelminglyontheMuslimside, butalsoontheHinduside.WeknowforinstancethatShivaji,whoturnedthetideoftheMuslim offensiveinthelate17thcenture,wasaconsciouspartisanofanallHinduliberationwaragainst Muslimrule(HinduPadPadashahi).ThesamecountsforRanaPratapandmanyotherHindu leaders,andtherecannotbeanydoubtthattheVijayanagarempirewasconsciousofitsroleasthe lastfortressofHinducivilization. ItistruethatsomeHindukingsattackedneighbouringHindustatesinthebackwhenthesewere attackedbytheMusliminvaders.TheywereatfirstnotawarethattheseIslamicnewcomerswerea commonenemy,motivatedbyhatredagainstallnonMuslims;buttheirlackofinsightintothe characterofIslaminnowaydisprovestheirawarenessofacommonHinduidentity.Thefactthat theywereacutelyawareoftheirinternalpoliticalrivalries,doesnotexcludethattheywereawareof amorefundamentalcommonidentity,whichwasnotatstakeintheseinternecinefeuds,butwhich theydefendedtogetheroncetheyrealizedthatitwasthetargetofthisnewkindofideologically motivatedaggressor,Islam.Brothersareawarethattheyhavealotincommon,andthisisnot disprovenbythefactthat,whenlefttothemselves,theyalsoquarrelwitheachother. IfatallsomeHindushadatfirstonlybeenconsciousoftheirowncasteorsectratherthanofthe

Hinducommonwealth,theMuslimpersecutionsofallHinduswithoutdistinctioncertainlymade themawareoftheircommonidentityandinterest.So,iftheMarxistsperforcewanttodenythe commoncultureandvaluesystemunderlyingthediversityoftheHinducommonwealth,thenlet themapplysomeoftheirowndialecticsinstead."ItisintheircommonstruggleaginsttheIslamic aggressors,thatthedisparatesectionsofthenativeIndiansocietyhaveforgedtheircommon identityasHindus":Idonotagreewiththisstatementwhichpositsanegativeandreactivebasisfor acommonHinduidentity,butitmustbeacceptedifonelaboursundertheassumptionthatthere neverhadbeenapositivecommonidentitybefore.ItisunreasonabletoexpecttheIndianPagansto belumpedtogetherasHindusforcenturiesonend,tobeuniformlymadethetargetofone neverendingaggressionbyIslam,tobesubjectedtothesamehumiliationsandthesamejizyatax, andyetnotbecomeconsciousofacommoninterest.Thiscommoninterestwouldthengiveriseto unifyingculturalsuperstructure.ThatishowthesustainedanduniformIslamicattackonallIndia PaganswouldinevitablyhavegivenrisetoatleastameasureofcommonHinduidentityifthishad notpreviouslyexisted. InhisCommunalHistoryandRama'sAyodhya(1990),theMarxistProfessorR.S.Sharmaargues thatthemedievalHindusdidnotseetheMuslimsasadistinctreligiousentity,butasanethnic group,theTurks.Hisproof:theGahadvaladynastyleviedataxcalledTurushkadanda,taxfinancing thewareffortagainsttheTurks.ButthisdoesnotprovewhatSharmathinksitproves. TheMuslimscalledthePagansofIndiasometimesKafirs,unbelievers,i.e.areligiousdesignation; butoftentheycalledthemHindusinhabitantsofHindustan,i.e.anethnicgeographicaldesignation (fromHind,thePersianequivalentofSindh).Andtheygavereligiouscontentstothisgeographical term,whichithaskepttilltoday:soitiscorrectthattheHindusneverdefinedthemselvesas Hindus,asthiswasthePersianandlatertheMuslimtermfortheIndianPagansadheringto SanatanaDharma.Butthatwasonlyaterminologicalmatter,thefundamentalreligiousunityofthe SanatanaDharmiswasjustasmuchafact.Similarly,theHinduscalledthesenewcomersTurks,but thisdoesnotexcluderecognitionoftheirreligiousspecificity.Onthecontrary,evenTeimurthe Terrible,whomadeitabsolutelyclearinhismemoirsthathecametoIndiatowageareligiouswar againstthePagans,andwhofreedtheMuslimcaptivesfromaconqueredcitybeforeputtingthe Hinduremaindertothesword,referredtohisownforcesastheTurks.Conversely,theHindus describeasthetypicalTurkishbehaviouspatternthatwhichisenjoinedbyIslam. WhileitistruethattheHindushavebeenmuchtooslow(tilltoday)instudyingthereligious foundationofthebarbaricbehaviouswhichtheyexperiencedatthehandsoftheTurushkas,atleast theysoonfoundoutthatfortheseinvadersreligionwastheprofessedmotiveoftheirinhuman behavious.Prof.Sharma'spieceofevidence,theinstitutionofaTurushkandana,doeshoweverprove veryclearlythattheIslamicthreatwasextraordinary:thenormalarmedforcesandwarcreditswere notsufficienttodealwiththisthreatwhichwasinaclassbyitself. Theoriginalsourcematerialleavesusinnodoubtthatconflictsofteneruptedonpurelyreligious grounds,evenagainstthepoliticalandeconomicalinterestsofthecontendingparties.The negationists'tacticthereforeconsistsinkeepingthisoriginaltestimonyoutofview.Agoodexample isProf.GyanendraPandey'srecentbook,TheConstructionofCommunalisminColonialNorth India.Asthetitleclearlysays,Pandeyassertsthatcommunalism(theHinduMuslimconflict)had beenconstructedbytheBritishforcolonialpurposesanmdoutofcolonialprejuidices,waslater interiorizedbyIndianslookingfornew,politicallyprofitableformsoforganizationinmodern colonialsociety.ThisislikesayingthatantiJudaismisaconstructionofmoderncapitaliststo dividetheworkingclass(thestandardMarxistexplanationforallkindsofracism),whileconcealing thecopiousmedievaltestimonyofantiJudaismonundeniablynoncapitalistgrounds.Prof.Pandey effectivelydeniesamillenniumfuloftestimoniestoIslamicpersecutionoftheIndian(Hindu) Kafirs.

Anotherexampleisprof.K.N.Panikkar'sworkontheMoplahrebellion,,,apofgromagainstthe HindusbytheMalabar(Kerala)Muslimsinthemarginofthekhilafatmovementin1921(official deathtoll2,339).PanikkartakestheorthodoxMarxistpositionthatthiswasnotacommunalbuta classconflict,notbetweenHindusandMuslimsbutbetweenworkerswhohappenedtobeMuslims andlandlordswhohappenedtobeHindus.Inrealitythecommunalcharacterofthemassacrewas soevidentthatevenMahatmaGandhirecognizeditasterribleblowforhisidealofHinduMuslim unity.Itisquitepossiblethattheoccasionwasusedtosettlescoreswithlandlordsandmoney lenders(thatstereotypeofantiHinduaswellasofantiJewishsloganeering),butthemullahs exhortedtheirflocktoattackallHindus,andaddedinsomanywordsthatnotonlythelandlordsbut alltheHindusweretheirenemies.ThepoisonofIslamicfanaticismissuchthatitturnsanykindof conflictintoanattackonthenonMuslims. MoreMarxistwisdomweencounterinRomilaThapar'stheory(inhercontributiontoS.Gopal's bookontheAyodhyaaffair,AnatomyofaConfrontation)thatthecurrentHindumovementwantsto uniteallHindus,notbecausetheHindusfeelbesiegedbyhostileforces,notbecausetheyhavea memoryofcenturiesofjihad,butbecause"amonolithicreligionismorecompatiblewith capitalism"(toborrowtheformulationofareviewer).ShethinksthatthepoliticalHindumovement ismerelyaconcoctionbyHinducapitalists,orinherownwords"partoftheattempttoredefine Hinduismasanideologyformodernizationbythemiddleclass",inwhich"modernizationisseen aslinkedtothegrowthofcapitalism".Shereadsthemindbehindthecapitalistconspiracytoreform Hinduismthus:"CapitalismisoftenbelievedtothriveamongSemiticreligionssuchasChristianity andIslam.TheargumentwouldthenrunthatifcapitalismistosucceedinIndia,thenHinduism wouldalsohavetobemouldedinaSemiticform". ItisalwaysinterestingtoseehowCommunistspresupposethesuperiorityofHinduismby denouncingHindumilitancyasthesemiticizationorislamizationofHinduism.Butthepointisthat thepoliticalmobilizationofHindusocietyundertheincreasingpressureofhostileforcesis explainedawayasmerelyacamouflageofeconomicforces.Onesmilesaboutsuchsimplistic subjectionofunwillingfactsofMarxistdogma.Especiallybecausesuchanalyseswerestillbeing madein1991,andarestillbeingmadetoday:inIndiaithasnotyetdawnedonthedominant intelligentsiathatMarxismhasfailednotonlyasapoliticalandeconomicalsystem,butalsoasa socialogicalmodelofexplanation.Onthecontrary,IndianMarxistsevenmanagetomakeforeign correspondentsfornonMarxistmediaswallowtheiranalysis,e.g.aftertheBabriMasjid demolition,eventheconservativeFrankfurterAllgemeineSeitungexplainedHindufundamentalism inthesamesocioeconomicalterms,completewithurbantraderswhoarelookingforanidentity etc. Incidentally,RomilaThaparisrightinobservingthatcertainHindurevivalistsaetryingto"find parallelswiththeSemiticreligionsasiftheseparallelsarenecessaryforthefutureofHinduism" (thoughherattempttoforcetheRamJanmabhoomimovementintothismould,withRamabeing turnedintoaprophetandtheRamayanaintothesolerevealedScriptureetc.,iscompletely unfoundedandanotherpatheticcaseoftryingtoforceunwillingfactsintoapreconceived scheme).Shesoundslikefavouringarenewedemphasison"thefactthatthereligiousexperienceof IndiancivilizationandofreligioussectswhicharebunchedtogetherunderthelabelofHinduare distinctivelydifferentfromthatoftheSemitic". ItistruethatsomeHindurevivalistmovementshavetriedtoredefineHinduismintermsborrowed frommonotheism,withrudimentsofnotionslikeaninfallibleScripture(backtotheVedas:the AryaSamaj),iconoclasticmonotheism(AryaSamaj,AkalineoSikhs),oramonolithichierarchic organization(theRSS).Butthereasonforthisdevelopmentcannotwithanystretchofthe imaginationbededucedfromtheexigenciesofcapitalism.Anhonestanalysisofthistendencyin HinduismtoimitatetheChristianIslamicmodelwilldemonstratethatapsychologyoftactical

imitationasawayofselfdefenceagainsttheseaggressiveSemiticreligionswasatwork.The tendencycannotpossiblybereducedtothesocioeconomicalcategoriesdeartoMarxism,but springsfromtheterrorwhichIslam(notfedualismorcapitalism,butIslam)hadstruckintheHindu mind,andwhichwassubsequentlyfortifiedwithanintellectualdimensionbytheChristian missionarypropagandaagainstprimitivepolytheism.ThoseHinduswhowerewagingthestruggle forsurvivalagainsttheIslamicandChristianonslaughthavecometoresembletheirenemiesabit, andhaveinteriorizedalotoftheaggressors'contemptfortypicalHinduthings,suchasidol worship,doctrinalpluralism,socialdecentralization.ItisforHindusocietytoreflectonwhether thisimitationwastherightcourse,andwhetherithasnotbeenselfdefeatinginsomerespects. Atanyrate,theveryexistenceofthispsychologicalneedamongsomemilitantHindustoimitatethe propheticmonotheisticreligionsisasymptomofanalreadyoldpolarizationbetweenHinduism andaggressivemonotheism,especiallyIslam.BipanChandra'schronologyofcommunalismasa 20thcenturyphenomenoncannotexplainthecommunalpolarizationofwhichSikhismandthe AryaSamajweremanifestations.Thesecanonlybeunderstoodfromthecenturiesoifactive hostilitybetweenIslamandHinduism.Shivajiwasnotaheraldofcapitalism,noraproductof Britishdivideandrulepolicy,butaparticipantinanongoingwarbetweenHinducivilizationand Islamicaggression. Sincethe1950sthehistorymarketisbeingfloodedwithpublicationsconveyingthenegationist versiontoagreaterorlesserextent.ThepublicisfednegationistTVserialslikeTheSwordofTipu Sultan,anexerciseinwhitewashingthearchfanaticlastMuslimruler.Mostgeneralreadersand manyseriousstudentsonlygettoknowaboutIndianhistorythroughnegationistglasses.InIndia, thenegationistshavemanagedwhatEuropeannegationistscanonlydreamof:turnthetableson honesthistoriansandmarginalizethem.Peoplewhohavespecializedinadaptinghistorytothe partyline,arelecturingothersaboutthepoliticalabuseofhistory.Bycontrast,geuninehistorians whohaverefusedtotamperwiththerecordofIslam(likeJadunathSarkar,R.C.Majumdar,K.S. Lal)areheldusasexamplesofcommunalisthistorywritingintextbookswhicharerequiredreading inallhistorydepartmentsinIndia. Butthenegationistsarenotsatisfiedwithseeingtheirownversionofthefactsbeingrepeatedin moreandmorebooksandpapers.Theyalsowanttopreventotherversionsfromreachingthe public.Therefore,in1982theNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTrainingissueda directivefortherewritingofschoolbooks.Amongotherthings,itstipulatedthat:"Characterization ofthemedievalperiodasatimeofconflictbetweenHindusandMuslimsisforbidden."Under Marxistpressure,negationismhasbecomeIndia'sofficialpolicy. NowthatMarxismisnolongerthefashionoftheday,itisveryeasytoexposetheshameless dishonestyofmanyvocalMarxistintellectuals.Itistimetogothroughtherecordandseewhatthey havesaidaboutthe"economicsuccesses"oftheSovietUnion,theenthusiasmoftheChinesepeople fortheGreatLeapForwardandtheCulturalRevolution,abouttheCommunistinvolvementin crimeslikeKatyn,andabouttheliesputoutbytheCIAsponsoreddissidentsandcampsurvivors. TheirIslamnegationismisbyfarnottheirfirstsystematicfalsificationofachapterofhistory. WhentheMarxistsstartlecturingHindusabouttoleranceandtherespectforBarbar'smosque,itis easytoputthemonthedefensivebyaskingwhathappenedtochurches,mosquesandtempleswhen Maotookover.Communistregimes'treatmentofreligionhasbeensimilartoIslam'streatmentof infidelity.Eitherreligiouspeoplehadthezimmistatus,i.e.theyweresufferedtoexistbutatthecost ofcareerprospects,benefitofsocialormaterialbenefits,alwaysunderthewatchfuleyeofpolice informers,andofcoursewithouttherighttoconvertortoobjecttostateatheism'sconversion efforts(accordingtothechineseConstitution,thereisarighttopractisereligionandarightto practiseandpropageteatheism);ortheyweresimplypersecuted,theirreligiouseducationforbidden (intheSovietUnion,manypeoplehavespentyearsinjailfortransportingBiblesorteaching

Hebrew),theirplacesofworshipdemolishedorexpropriatedforsecularuse.Communismand Islamaretrulycomradesinintolerance. CertainlysomestatementscanbedugupofIndianCommunistsdefendingtheCulturalRevolution inwhichsomanythousandsofplacesofworshipweredestroyedandtheirpersonnelbrutalizedor killed.WhentheKhumarRougewereinpower,lessthat1,000ofthe65,000Buddhistmonks managedtosurvive:whatdidtheIndianMarxists(cardcarryingandother)saythen?Thebigger partoftheMarxists'successwasintheiraggressiveness:aslongastheyremainedontheoffensive, everyonetriedtoliveuptothenormstheyprescribed.Nowitistimetoputthemtoscrutiny.

2.5FOREIGNSUPPORTFORINDIANNEGATIONISM
Someforeignauthors,influencedbyIndiancolleagues,havealsoaddedabigdoseofnegationism totheirworkonIndianhistory.Forinstance,PercivalSpear,coauthor(withRomilaThapar)ofthe PenguinHistoryofIndia,writes:"Aurangzeb'ssupposedintoleranceislittlemorethanahostile legendbasedonisolatedactssuchastheerectionofamosqueonatemplesiteinBenares." ThisisarepetitionofthethesisdefendedbyZahiruddinFarukiinhis"Aurangzebandhistimes" (1935),recentlytakenupagainbyS.N.M.AbdiinIllustratedWeeklyofIndia(5/12/1992),who claimsthatAurangzebwasnotantiHindu,andthattheMa'asiriAlamgiri(madeavailabletothe publicbytheRoyalSocietyofBengalandtranslatedbyJadunathSarkar),whichlistsAurangzeb's templedestroyingactivitiesfromdaytoday,isaforgery.FarukiandAbdicountonthepublic's limitedzealforcheckingthesources,whentheyfalselyclaimthat"apartfromtheMa'asiri Alamgiri,thereisnootherreferencetotheorderforthedestructionoftemples",andthatwedonot hearofanyprotestwhichlargescaletempledestructionwouldhavecaused. AbdithinkshecangetawaywithclaimingasevidenceastoneslaballegedlyseenbyFarukiinthe GyanvapimosqueinBenares,mentioningadate(1659)thatdoesnottallywiththetraditionaldate (1669)oftheforciblereplacementoftheKashiVishvanathtemplewiththismosque;evenwhile admittingthat"theslabseenbyFarukihasdisappearedmysteriously,alongwithanother significantpieceofevidence".Withoutblinking,hethencitesatheorythattheGyanvapimosque alreadyexistedunderAkbar,i.e.acenturybeforeeitherofthetwodates.Further,hequotesas authorityalocalagitatorwhoclaims:"MyresearchrevealsthataBuddhistviharawasdemolished tomakewayforatemple,whichwassubsequentlypulleddownandtheGyanvapimosque constructedonitssite."Thefirstclaim,inspiteofflauntingthepretentioustermresearch,inaplain lie;thesecondisofcoursetruebutcontradictsthecasewhichMr.Abdiisbuildingup.Suchisthe qualityoftheargumentforAurangzeb'stoleranceandHindufriendliness. Whatarethefacts?InBeneras(Varanasi),Aurangzeb(16581707)didnotjustbuildanisolated mosqueonadestroyedtemple.Heorderedalltemplesdestroyed,amongthemtheKashi Vishvanath,oneofthemostsacredplacesofHinduism,andhadmosquesbuiltonanumberof clearedtemplesites.AllotherHindusacredplaceswithinhisreachequallysuffereddestruction, withmosquesbuiltonthem;amongthem,Krishna'sbirthtempleinMathura,therebuiltSomnath templeonthecoastofGujrat,theVishnutemplereplacedwiththeAlamgirmosquenow overlookingBenares,theTretakaThakurtempleinAyodhya.Thenumberoftemplesdestroyedby Aurangzebiscountedin4,ifnotin5figures.Accordingtotheofficialcourtchronicle,Aurangzeb "orderedallprovincialgovernorstodestroyallschoolsandtemplesofthePagansandtomakea completeendtoallPaganteachingsandpractices".Thechroniclesumsupthedestructionslike this:"HasanAliKhancameandsaidthat172templesintheareahadbeendestroyed...Hismajesty wenttoChittor,and63templesweredestroyed...AbuTarab,appointedtodestroytheidoltemples

ofAmber,reportedthat66templeshadbeenrazedtotheground". Inquiteanumberofcases,inscriptionsonmosquesandlocaltraditiondoconfirmthatAurangzeb builttheminforciblereplacementoftemples(someoftheseinscriptionshavebeenquotedin SitaramGoel:HinduTemples,vol.2,alongwithanumberofindependentwrittenaccounts). Aurangzeb'sreignwsmarkedbyneverendingunrestandrebellions,causedbyhisantiHindu policies,whichincludedthereimpositionofthejizyaandotherzimmarules,andindeedthe demolitionoftemples. Aurangzebdidnotstopatrazingtemples:theiruserstoowerelevelled.Therewerenotjustthe classicalmassacresofthousandsofresisters,Brahmins,Sikhs.Whatgivesamorepointedproofof Aurangzeb'sfanaticism,istheexecutionofspecificindividualsforspecificreasonofintolerance.To namethebestknownones:Aurangzeb'sbrotherDaraShikohwasexecutedbecauseofapostasy(i.e. takinganinterestinHinduphilosophy),andtheSikhguruTeghBahadurwasbeheadedbecauseof hisobjectingtoAurangzeb'spolicyofforcibleconversionsingeneral,andinparticularforrefusing tobecomeaMuslimhimself.Short,PercivalSpear'sstatementthatAurangzeb'sfanaticismisbuta hostilelegend,isamostseriouscaseofnegationism. Anexampleofalessblatant(i.e.moresubtle)formofnegationisminWesternhistoriesofIndia,is theIndiaentryintheEncyclopaediaBrittannica.ItschapterontheSultanateperiod(whichwas muchmorebloodythaneventheMoghulperiod)doesnotmentionanypersecutionsandmassacres ofHindusbyMuslims,exceptthatFiruzShahTughlaq"madelargelyunsuccessfulattemptsto converthisHindusubjectsandsometimespersecutedthem".Thearticleeffectivelyobeysthe negationistdirectivethat"characterizationofthemedievalperiodasatimeofHinduMuslim conflictisforbidden". Italsocontainsblissfulnonsenseaboutcommunalamityinplaceswheretheoriginalsourcesonly mentionenmity.Thus,itsaysthatBahmanisultanTajuddinFiruzextractedtributepaymentsandthe handoftheking'sdaughterfromtheHindubastionVijayanagaraftertwomilitarycampaigns,and thatthisresultedin"theestablishmentofanapparentlyamicablerelationshipbetweenthetwo rulers".JawaharlalNehruconsideredtheinductionofHinduwomeninMuslimharemsasthecradle ofcompositeculture(hiseuphemismforHinduhumiliation),butitisworseifeventhevenerable Encyclopediaconsidersthetermsofdebateasasignoffriendship.Atanyrate,thearticlegoeson toobservenaivelythatpeacelastedonlyfortenyears,whenVijaynagarforcesinflictedacrushing defeatonFiruz.Inthiscase,themorecircumspectformofnegationismisatwork:keepingthe inconvenientfactsoutofthereaders'view,andmanipulatingtheterminology. AnAmericanhistorian'sbookisintroducedthus:"Inthisbook[PublicArenasandtheEmergence ofCommunalisminNorthIndia],SandraFreitagexaminesoneofthecentralproblemsofmodern Indianhistory,theHinduMuslimconflict,withnewandprovocativeinsight.Shechallengeslong standinginterpretationsbydefiningthisconflictasadevelopingsocialprocessgroups,notsimply HinduorMuslim,inhighlyspecificlocalcontextsboundtogetherinachanginginstitutional order." Thissophisticatedverbiagecannotconcealthatthebook'sapproachismerelythestandardsecularist versionpropagatedbyIndianestablishmenthistorianssincedecades.Thereisnothingnewand provocativeaboutabookthatclaimstoexplaincommunalismwithouttouchingonitssinglemost importantdeterminant,viz.thedoctrinelaiddowninIslamicscripture,andthatblurstheclearcut processofIndia'scommunalizationbyIslamwiththehelpofscapegoatslikecolonialism. ItisnotentirelycleartowhatextentsuchWesternauthorsareconsciousaccomplicesinthe intellectualcrimeofnegationism,andtowhatextenttheyarejustgulliblecopiersoftheversion giventothembyEnglishspeakingIndians.InthecaseofahistorianinvitedbyPenguintowritea HistoryofIndia,itishardtobelievethathedidn'tknowbetter.

AnothercaseofmalafidereportingisformerTimecorrespondentEdwardDesmond'slengthy reviewofJNUProfessofS.Gopal'sAnatomyofaConfrontationintheNewYorkReviewofBooks. IknowthatMr.DesmondhadgonethroughthebooksstatingtheHinducaseonAyodhya;hehad talkedtobothMr.SitaramGoelandmyself(bytelephone);heknewabouthardevidenceforthe templethatwasforciblyreplacedbytheBabriMasjid,includingProf.B.B.Lal'sfilmed presentationofthearcharologicalevidence.Andyet,likeProf.Gopal,hestrictlykeepsthelidon theHinducase,doesnotmentiontheextensivedocumentaryevidence,andcurtlydismissesthe archaeologicalevidenceasbogus.Here,thepsychologyatworkisapparentlythatofstatus consciousness:youwouldn'texpectaseniorcorrespondentofabigAmericanmagazinetoprefer thecompanyofmarginalproHinduwriterstothatofprestigiousStalinistprofessorsofIndia's Harvard,wouldyou? Ontheotherhand,inthedaytodayreportingonthecommunalsituationinIndia,thereisalotof bonafidecopyingoftheantiHinduviewsdominantintheIndianEnglishlanguagepress.Atypical mixedcaseofsomecomplicityandsomegullibilitywastheTVdocumentaryaboutHindu fundamentalismmadebyBBCcorrespondentBrianBarron,andboradcaseintheweekofthefirst roundoftheLokSabhaelectionsinMay1991.BrianBarronisanotherwisemeritoriousjournalist, witnesshisrevelationsinOctober1991aboutthemassacreofthousandsofBuddhistmonksinthe earlyyearsofcommunistruleinMongolia.ButhisprogrammeabouttheHindumovementwas secondrateandbiased.Forastart,itcontainedsomefactualmistakes(likeamapmeanttoshowthe trailofHinduleaderL.K.Advani'sprocessioninsupportoftheRamJanmabhoomicause,which drewalineunrelatedtotheactualtrail,apartfromplacingDelhiontheGangariver),exemplifying thecarelessnesswhichWesterncorrespondentscanaffordwhenitcomestoIndiareporting. BarronsaidthatIndiahadalreadybeenpartitionedbecauseofreligion.Infact,Indiahasbeen partitionedbecauseofIslam,againstthewillofotherreligions,andthisseeminglysmallinaccuracy isanoldtricktodistributetheguiltofIslaminpartitioningIndiaoverallreligionsequally.Barron madenoattempttoseemimpartial,andintroducedBJPleaderL.K.Advaniasademagogue.He askedAdvani'sdeclaredenemyV.P.SinghwhetherAdvaniwasnotmerelyputtingahumanemask onfanaticism.Easy,thatwayV.P.Singhonlyhadtosayyes.Hefailedtotaketheopportunityto questionV.P.SinghabouthispoliticalmarriagewiththeMuslimfundamentalistleaderImam Bukhari,whilethatwasacaseofaHindupromotingfundamentalismaswell.HeletSwami Agnivesh,aMarxistinochrerobe,accusetheBJPofmixingreligionandpolitics,butneglectedto informtheviewersthatSwamiAgniveshhashimselfcombiningmonkhoodwithbeingaJanataDal candidateintheLokSabhaelections. WhenBarronaskedAdvaniwhyhehadallowedsomuchbloodshedonhisprocession(therathyatra ofOctober1990),whereasinfacttherehadbeennoriotsallalongthepathofhismonthlong journey,Advanicorrectlysaid:"Youaretakeninbyadisinformationcampaign."Aserious journalistwouldhaveinquireddeeperwhenhissources,withwhichthequalityofhisworkstands orfalls,arequestionedsopointedly.WhenasadhusaidthatMuslimsrefusetorespectHindusand thatHindusarelegallydiscriminatedagainst,Barrondidnotinquirewhatthesediscriminations were.Likeallwesternreporters,hehasreportedonHindufundamentalismwithoutaskingeven oncewhythismovementhasemerged,insteadrelayingtheMarxistlinethatitisallacamouflage forclass(c.q.caste)interests,anartificialcreationforpettypoliticalgain. Barroninterviewedprof.RomilaThapar,whoaccusedtheHindumovementofaimingatasystemin whichsomecommunitieswouldbesecondclasscitizenslivinginconstantfearfortheirlives.From aspokeswomanofMarxism,whichhasheldentirepopulationsinconstantfearandoppression,and whichhaskillednumerousmillionsof"contrarevolutionaryelements"(tousethecriminalizing, dehumanizingMarxistterm),theallegationsoundsrathershameless.Buttheviewerswerenottold whereRomilaThaparstands,theywereledtobelievethatthiswasaneutralobserverwhohadbeen

askedforanobjectiveexplanation.ThesamethinghashappenedanumberoftimesinbothTime MagazineandNewsweek:BipanChandra,RomilaThaparandtheircomradesgetquotedasifthey arenonpartisanauthorities.ThoughantiCommunistintheirgeneralreporting,whenitcomesto India,thesepapers(unknowingly?)presenttheMarxists'viewpointasobjectiveindepth backgroundinformation. Onlytenyearsago,theLeftorientedmediainmanyWesterncountriesfreelyattackedthereally existingcapitalismandalsoconjuredupallkindsoffantasticCIAandneofascistconspiracies,but scrupulouslyshieldedthereallyexistingsocialismfromcriticism.Similarly,BrianBarrongave Prof.ThaparthechancetosayherthingaboutunprovensinisterplansimputedtotheHindu movement,butscrupulouslyrefrainedfrompointingoutthatMissThapar'spictureofatheocratic societyinwhichminoritiesaresecondclasscitizenslivinginmortalfear,isalreadyrealllyexisting intheneighbouringIslamicrepublicofPakistanandinmanyMuslimstates(and,mutatismutandis inCommunistcountries). Thesedays,reportingonthecommunalinsituationinIndiaconsistsinhighlightingthesplinterin theHindueyeandconcealingthebeamintheMuslimeye.Atthetimeofthe1991LokSabha elections,theGermanleftleaningweeklyDerSpiegelsummarizedthecommunalriotsin independentIndiaasfollows:"Since1947,Indianstatisticianshavecounted11,000riotswith 12,000Muslimvictims."Hinduvictimsarenotevenmentioned,asifyouwerereadinga fundamentalistpaperlikeMuslimIndiaorRadiance. TheAyodhyaconflictoffersagoodexamplesoftheabsurdstandardsappliedbyreporters.AHindu sacredsite,backinuseasaHindutemple(since1949with,since1986withoutrestrictions)after centuriesofMuslimoccupation,isclaimedbyMuslimleaders,whoalsoinsistoncontinuingthe occupationoftwoothersacredsitesinMathuraandKashi(andnumerousothersiteswhichthe Hinduleadersarenotevenclaimingback).Claimingtherighttooccupyothercommunities'sacred sites:ifthisisnotfanatical,Idon'tknowwhatis.Yet,thewholeworldpressisonethesideofthe Muslims,anddecriesaHinduplantobuildpropertemplearchitectureontheRamJanmabhoomi siteinAyodhyaasfanatical.Thesearenotjustdoublestandards,butinvertedstandards. TheveryfactthatMuslimsinIndialoudlycomplainabouttheirsituation(e.g.abouttheirlow educationallevel,whichis100%thefaultoftheirownmullahs),provesthattheyarerelativelywell off:asIhavehadtheoccasiontoobserve,HinduvisitorsorrefugeesfromPakistanoftendonot daretospeakofthehorribleconditionsinwhichtheyareforcedtoliveunderMuslimrule,because theyfearfortheirrelatives,andbecausetheconstantterrorhasconditionedthemnevertoraiseany objectionsagainsttheMuslimmasterrace.InsidetheseMuslimstates,theremainingHindusare evenmorecarefulnevertodispleasetheMuslimmasters.Forunthinkingjournalists,theirsilenceis proofthatalliswellfortheminoritiesinMuslimstates,andsotheyprefertolistentothevocal malcontentswhoairtheMuslimgrievancesintolerantIndia.Whoevershoutsloudest,willgetour correspondents'attention,ifonlybecauseIndiareportingismostlyofaverylowprofessional quality. AnexampleoftheslantedimpressionwhichtheNehruvianestablishmentcreatesaboutHindu Muslimrelations,concernstheinternationallyhighlightedmartyrdomoftheFlemishJesuitFather Rasschaert,nearRanchiin1964.FatherRasschaert'ssisterwasafriendofmymother's,soasachild Ihaveoftenheardthedetailsofthestory.Thepartwhicheverybodyknows,isthatMuslimshad fledintoamosque,whereHinduswantedtopursuethem,whenFatherRasschaertintervenedto pacifythecrowd,butwaskilledbytheHinduswhosubsequentlymassacredtheMuslims. Butthestartofthestory,neverhighlightedandsometimesnotevenmentionedinthecontemporary newspaperreports(muchlessinlaterreferences),wasthattheHindusintheareahadbeenangered bythesightofmutilatedHinduswhohadbeenbroughtbytrainfromEastPakistan,wheretheyhad

atleastsurvivedthemassacreswhichmanymorehadnot.Asalways,Hinduviolencewasa retaliationagainstMuslimviolence.NomissionaryhassteppedintodefendtheHindusofPakistan, infactnomissionarywasaround,asmissionshaveaveyhardtimeinPakistan.Themissionsin Islamiccountriesfindtheirconvertsharassedandevenkilledbytheirownfamilies,theirschools andchurchesattackedonallkindsofpretexts,theirgraduatesnotgivenjobs.So,themissionary centresprefertodirecttheirenergiestomorehospitablecountrieslikeIndia.Thefactthata missionarywaskilledbyaHinduwhiledefendingtheMuslims,andnottheotherwayround,proves inthefirstplacethatCatholicpriestscanfunctioninIndia,muchmorethaninPakistan.Acloser scrutinyofthisoneincidenceofHindufanaticismrevealsabackgroundofmuchmoresystematic andinstitutionalizedMuslimfanaticism. Thereisathirdaspecttothestory,whichisnevermentionedatall.ItisthattheHindusinRanchi weredesperateabouttheirgovernment'sunwillingnesstodefendtheHindusinPakistan.Oneofthe chiefculpritsbehindthemassacrewasPrimeMinisterJawaharlalNehru,thepatronofsecularism, whousedFatherRasschaert'sdeathasyetanotheroccasiontoparadehisconcernfortheminorities inIndia,andtoputHindusinthedock.Hehimself(andtheentiresecularistestablishmenttill today)renegedonhisdutytodefendtheHindussurvivingintheIslamicstatewhichhehadhelped tocreate.ByeffectivelycondoningthepersecutionofHindusinPakistan,hewasalsoresponsible fortheretalitoryHinduviolence.Buttheinternationalpresshasneverthoughtthematterthrough, andconfineditsreportingonFatherRasschaert'sdeathtocondemningtheHindufanatics,weeping fortheMuslimvictims,andpraisingNehruasthevoiceofsanityamidthereligiousmadness. ThewayourjournalistsareledbythenosetowardsreportingMuslimgrievancesandignoring grievancesofHinduminorities(andridiculingtheveryrealgrievancesofeventheHindumajority inIndia),isreminiscentofthesneakingbiasinallnonrightistmediainWesternEuropeaboutthe LeftrightconflictbeforetheGorbachovera.TheyallcompliedwithMarxistimposedterminology likedictatorPinochetbutpresidentCeaucescu,orrightistrebelsbutleftistresistance.Criticismof theWestwasavailableinplenty,andgivenwidecoverage,butthemutedpopulationsoftheSoviet blocwerenotheard,andlittleeffortwasmadetogoinandhearthem.Thosewhosupportedthe causeoffreedomintheSovietblocwereriduclued.Worse,whenin1968theRussianphysicist SakharovhadareportaboutmassivehumanrightsviolationsintheUSSRpublished,leading intellectualsactuallydeniedtheexistenceof"thatsocalledRussianphysicistinventedbythe reactionaryforcestoslanderthegloriousachievementsofsocialismintheUSSR".Yes,sonoxious wastheintellectualatmosphereintheheydayofMarxism.Inthosedaysitwas"bettertobewrong with[communist]Sartrethantoberightwith[anticommunist]Aron". WhenglasnostmadeclearjusthowstrongtheSovietblocpopulations'disgustwithcommunalism reallywas,Westernintellectualsandsocialistpartiesseemedsincerelysurprised.Theythemselves hadsooftenpleadedthatlifeintheSovietsystemwasnotreallyworsethaninthe"socalledfree" West.Thepresshadnevergivenusanadequatepicture,notbytellingoutrightlies,butbyignoring themutedvoiceswhichthecommunistdictatorswantedustoignore.Atanyrate,ifthereusedtobe farmoredemonstrationsinthestreetsoftheWestthanintheSovietbloc,diditprovethattherewas lessdiscontentinthelatter?Wenowknowbetter:therewasmoreprotestintheWestthaninthe SovietblocbecausetherewasmorefreedomandlessfearintheWest,andinspiteofdeeper discontentintheSovietbloc.Thereisnoexcuseformakingthesamemistakeinourreportingon thesituationoftheminoritiesinIndiaandinMuslimcountries. Withoutreallynoticing,theWesternpresshasbecomethemouthpieceoftheMarxistMuslim alliancewhichdictatespoliticalparlanceinIndia.Iassumeonlyafewfrontlinejournalistsare consciousparticipantsintheongoingdisinformationcampaign.BrianBarron,forone,has demonstratedtowhatextenthehasinteriorizedtheantiHindubiasofhisIndianspokespersons, withaverylittlebuttrulyunpardonablepieceofdisinformation.Reportingonthemillionstrong

demonstrationfortheRamJanmabhoomitemple(Delhi,4April1991),heshowedamonkcarrying asaffroncolouredflagwithawhiteswstika.Andforthelessperceptiveviewers,headdedinso manywordsthattheHindumovementcarriedtheswastika.Ofcourseheknewthesetwothings:(1) mostWesternviewersknowtheswastikaonlyasthesymbolofNazism;(2)mostIndiansknowthe swastikaonlyastheirownageoldsymbolofgoodfortune(swasti=wellbeing).Hemusthave knownperfectlywellthathewasmakingtheWesternviewersreadamessagewhichtheHindu demonstratorsneversent,viz.thattheHindumovementlinksupwithNazism.Regardlessofthe moralqualityofsuchdistortivereporting,itgoestoshowtowhatextentthenegationistfactionin theIndianmediahasmanagedtopicturetheHindusasthebadguysintheeyesoftheworld. AfewmoreexamplesofhowWesternIndiawatchersswallowIndiansecularistdisinformation.The proRamJanmabhoomidemonstrationinDelhion4April1991wasnotreportedin99%ofthe Westernpapersandelectronicnewschannels.Ihaveinquiredamongjournalistsaboutwhatthey hadreceivedontheirtelexesconcerningthelargesteverdemonstrationinthebiggestdemocracyin theworld.Itturnedoutthatthesehadmentioned3lakhdemonstrators(wheneventhegovernment controlledpolicehadgiventheestimateof8lakh),andnotmadetheobjectofthedemonstration clearatall.TheIndiansourceshaddeliberatelyblurredandminimizedtheinformation,sothatthe Westernmediahad,ingoodfaith,notdeemeditworthmentioning.IfsixweekslaterBrianBarron reportedthenumberasmorethanamilliondemonstrators,itwasnottocorrectthisearlierlapse, butbecauseofadifferentpsychology.Hisaimwasnottodenytheimportanceandmagnitudeofthe Hindumovementwhichhedetestssomuch,butonthecontrarytomakeitintoatitillatingly gruesomedinosaur:theTVconsumershaveheardenoughaboutMuslimfundamentalism,soifyou wanttogettheminterestedinanewbrandoffundamentalism,youhavetomakeitextrabigand colourful. AnotherexampleisthenewsconcerningtheIndianattitudetothesecondGulfWarinearly1991. TheDelhicorrespondentfortheFlemishradiostationBRTNsaidthattheIndianpopulationwason thesideofSaddam,againsttheAngloAmericanforces(andtheirSaudiemployers).Thatisjust whattheTimesofindiaeditorialhadsaidafewdaysearlier.Infact,theIndianpeoplewasnoton Saddam'ssideatall.TheHindushadalwayscheeredforIsraelinitswarswiththeArabs,andnow theywereallforthedefeatofthisArabHitlerwhohadannouncedhewould"burnhalfofIsrael withchemicalweapons".TheMuslimsupportforSaddam'sjihadagainsttheCrusaderswasnot exactlymassiveeither.Firstly,millionsofIndianMuslimspersonallysufferedwhentheyortheir reltiveslosttheirjobsinIraqandKuwaitasaresultofSaddam'sannexationofKuwait.Secondly, mostMuslimleadersarefinancedbytheArabmonarchies(includingKuwait),andtheysidedwith theirpaymasters,eitheropenlyorbytheirquietrefusaltosupportSaddam.Theonlyoneswho supportedSaddamwerethehardcoreoftheNehruvianestablishment(whoforcedtheChandra ShekhargovernmenttostopallowingAmericanwarplanestolandinBombay),andthecommunists withtheirvisceralantiAmericanism.Astrikeimposedonthecommunistswiththeirvisceralanti Americanism.AstrikeimposedontheCalcuttadockersbytheCommunisttradeunionwasabout theonlysignofIndiansupportforSaddam,butourcorrespondentplayeditupasmerelyone exampleofanationwidemovement.Ihopeitwasingoodfaithonhispart,butfortheTimesof Indiatherecannotbesuchabenefitofthedoubt. ForeigncorrespondentsinDelhishouldrealizethattheIndianmediaandacademiaareentirely untrustworthywhenitcomestoreportingontheHinduMuslimconflict.Whenyoureportthetruth aboutthedemocraticoppositioninChinaorTibet,youdon'tcopythePeople'sDaily.Whenyou wanttoknowthetruthabouttheKurdishfreedomstruggle,youdon'ttrusttheIraqistaeradio.So, whenyouwanttounderstandtheHindubacklash,youdon'tbelievestrictlypartisansourceslikethe TimesofIndia,orpartylinehistorianslikethosefromJNUorAMU. IfaMr.VijaySinghwritesinLeMondeDiplomatiqueanarticlefullofsecularistinvectivetitled:

HinduFundamentalism,aMenaceforIndia,itissimplythereflectionofavestedinterestin blackeningHinduism,thoughitissoldasanindepthcommentbyafirsthandobserver.Itso happensthatthearticleispartlyanunacknowledgedquotationfromtheintroductorychapterofthe book"UnderstandingtheMuslimMind"byRajmohanGandhi,apartypoliticianofImanBukhari's favouriteJanataDal(nicknamedJinnahDal).IfinanotherissueofthesameprestigiousFrench monthly,Mrs.FrancineR.Frankelmouthsallthewornoutsecularistslogansagainstwhatshecalls the"ViolentOffensiveofHinduExtremists",itmerelyprovesherincapabilityofreadingherIndian sourceswiththedistancebefittingpartisanpamphlets.ItisquiteashamefulmatterthatWestern mediahaveswallowedandreproducedmanysimilarmotivateddistortion. Theextremeignoranceandgullibilityoftheforeignpressprovidesthenegationistswithastrategic cover.MostEnglishknowingIndiansbelievethattheWesternintelligentsiaismoreobjectiveand competent,andtheykeeponbelievingthisevenindomainswheretheWestiscompletelyignorant andincomponent.Sothenegationistsfeelsupportedinthebackbyanoutsideworldwhichtheycan manipulatebutwhichmanyinIndiastillconsiderasastandardoftruth.IftheHinduleadershiphad takenthetroubleofstudyingthementaldeterminantsofIndia'spoliticalconfiguration,itwould haveblownthiscoverawaybyspreadingfirsthandinformationtotheforeignmedia,andeducating themabouttheStalinistIslamicgripontheIndianestablishment. InGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates,theantiHinduandproMuslimbiasinIndiareportingcan partlybeexplainedbythepoliticaltilttowardsPakistan(nowwaningbecauseofPakistan'snuclear ambitions).Thus,theprestigiousBritishweeklyTheEconomisthas,inapredictablynegative articleaboutnationalismandseparatism,heldupthecreationofPakistanasanundisputably justifiedcaseofseparatism(smallwonderthatBritishMuslimsareimitatingtheirIndianMuslim grandfathersanddemandingaseparate"nonterritorialstateofBritishMuslims",justifiableon exactlythesamegrounds).AmoreuniversalreasonisthattheynevergettoknowtheHindu viewpointfromcompetentandeloquentspokesmen:firstly,thesehavepracticallynoaccesstothe nationalEnglishlanguagepress,whichWesterncorrespondentsinDelhifaithfullycopybecause theyaretoolazytoseekoutnewsforthemselves;secondly,theHindusthemselveshavenotyet suifficientlyrealizedtheimportanceofpublicrelations. ThemostimportantreasonisprobablythepoliticalatmosphereinEuropewhichdemandsthatfor thesakeofantiracismandmulticulturalism,Islamasthemostconspicuousandassertiveguest cultureinEuropegetspaintedinrosycolours.TheresultofthisimperativenottoexposeMuslim fanaticismisthatevenavowedlyChristianpapersintheWestkeepsilentabouttheongoing persecutionofChristianpapersandotherminoritiesintheMiddleEast.Christianscherishthe illusionofadialoguewithIslam,sotheywillnotoffendtheirMuslimpartnersbyraising incovenientissueslikethestatusofreligiousminoritiesinMuslimcountries.Now,iftheWestdoes notstandupforitspersecutedChristianbrethren,howmuchlesswillitbebotheredaboutthe idolatrousHindus. Andso,WesternIndiawatchersgoonlickingthebootsoftheaggressor,andkeepontwisting contemporarynewsinthemedia,andtoalesserextentevenhistoricalfactsinacademic publications,totheadvantageoftheMuslimside.TheyhavenotinventedtheIndianbrandof negationism,buttheyareamplifyingandfortifyingit.

2.6BANNINGINCONVENIENTBOOKS
AconsequenceofthenegationistorientationoftheIndianstate'sreligiouspolicy,isthereadinessto banbookscriticalofIslamattheslightestsuggestionbysomemullahorMuslimpolitician.Itis

symptomaticthatIndiawasthefirstcountrytobanSalmanRushdie'sTheSatanicVerses,atthe insistenceofSyedShahabuddin,MP(inexchange,withsomeotherconcessions,forhiscallingoffa marchonAyodhya).Amongotherbannedbooks,wemaymentionedpamphletlikebutnonetheless truthfulbookslikeColinMaine's"TheDeadhandofIslam"orA.Ghosh's"TheKoranandthe Kafir",whichlistwhattheQuranhasinstorefortheunbelievers;butalsomoreprestigiousbooks likeR.M.Eaton's"SufisofBijapur",whichdebunksthemythoftheSufisasbringersofatolerant Islam(infacttheywerenotonlyfanaticalpreachersagainstidolatry,butalsospiesandsometimes mercenaries). InMarch1991,RamSwarup'sbook"UnderstandingIslamthroughHadis"wasbanned,afterthe Hindiversionhadalreadybeenbannedin1990.Thishappenedaftertwocommitteessetupbythe Delhiadministrationhadscreenedthebookandfounditunobjectionable,andafterthejudgehad dismissedthepleaforprosecutionofitspublisher,underthepressureofMuslimdemonstrations. ThisbookisafaithfulsummaryoftheSahihalMuslim,oneofthetwomostauthoritativeHadis collections(actsoftheProphet).AccordingtothefundamentalistpartyJamaatiIslamithebook contained"distortionandslander",andasanexampleofthisslanderousdistortion,itmentionsthis passage:"MohammedsawZaynabinhalfnakedcondition,andhefellinlovewithher".Withthis revelation,thefundamentalistsmanagedtogetsomeagitationgoing,andthebookwasbanned. TheinterestingthingisthatthequotedpassagecomesstraightfromtheoriginalHadis,andisnota slanderousdistortionatall.Theagitationagainstthebookrevealsanimportantfactaboutthe Muslimcommunity:theordinaryMuslimdoesnotknowthecontentsofQuranandHadis,and projectsonMohammedhisownmoralideals,whichhelargelyshareswithhisnonMuslimfellow men.BecauseofhisattachmenttothementalimageofamorallyperfectMohammed,heisshocked whenhegetsconfrontedwiththehistoricalMohammed.Amongthemanyhistoricalactsof MohammedishisarrangingthehandovertohimselfofZaynab,thebeautifulwifeofhissdopted son.ThefactthatarevelationfromAllahcametolegitimizethemarriagebetweenMohammedand Zaynab(whichwasabreachofthetribalincesttaboo),becametheclassicillustrationoftheview thattheQuranisnothingbuttheselfinterestedproductofMohammed'sownmind. ThisignoranceaboutthehistoricalMohammed,bothamongthecommonMuslimsandamongthe Hindus,ispreciselywhatthebannedbookwantedtodosomethingabout,inkeepingwiththe IndianConstitution'sinjuctionto"developthescientifictemper".ButtheNehruvianestablishment (whichincludestheCongressPartyanditsJanataDaloffshoot)hasnolikingforfreeresearchinto thecontentsofIslamicdoctrineandhistory,andinspiteofloudslogansaboutsecularism,the administrationgaveintotheMuslimfanatics.Noneofthesocalledsecularistintelectualshas botheredtoprotestagainstthisobscurantistactofcensorship. Theofficialmotivationforthisbanningofmeritortiousbooksisthattheyhavebeenwrittenwith theintentionofinsultingareligionorincitingcommunalconflict(art.153Aamdart.295Aofthe IndianPenalCode).Undersection95oftheCriminalProcedureCode,theexecutivepowermust takeactionagainstitsinitialusers.For,accordingtosome,thereisabokwhichfulfilsthe descriptiongiveninthePenalCode,eventoafargreaterextentthanthealreadybannedbook;but whichisrecitedandinvestedwithsupremeauthorityinstatesubsidizedschoolsandinprayer housesineverytownandvillageofindia.ThisobjectionablebookisknownastheQuran. In1984acitizenofIndia,H.K.Chakraborty,filedapetitionwiththeWestBengalstategovernment tobantheQuran.Headdedalistof37Quranverseswhich"preachcruelty,inciteviolenceand disturbpublicpeace"(tousetheterminologyofthePenalCode),17verseswhich"promote,on groundsofreligion,feelingsofenmity,hatredandillwillbetweendifferentcommunitiesinIndia", and31verseswhich"insultotherreligionsasalsothereligiousbeliefsofothercommunities". Indeed,evenaftersubtractingsomeverseswhichcouldberegardedaslegitimatepolemics(esp. againsttheChristianbeliefinIncarnation),thereareabout60passagesintheQuranthatformulate

adoctrineofdemonizationofnonMuslims,andofhatredandwaragainstthem.IftheIndianlaws prohibitcommunalhatepropatganda,Mr.ChakrabortywasrightinconsideringtheQuranasan excellentcandidateforbanning.Butevenafterreminderletters,theWestBengalauthoritiesgaveno response. Atthisstage,Mr.ChakrabortymetChandmalChopra,anadherentoftheextremelynonviolentJain sect,whohadtakenupthestudyoftheQuraninordertounderstandtheplightoftheHindusin Bangladesh,whoaregraduallybeingchasedfromtheirancestralhomelandbytheMuslims.In1985 ChandmalChoprafiledapetitionwiththeCalcuttahighCourt,askingforabanontheQuran.He addedalistwithreprehensibleversesfromtheQuran:29passagesfromtheQuran(1to8versesin length)thatinciteviolenceagainstunbelievers,15whichpromoteenmity,26whichinsultother religions. Sometypicalexamplesare:"MohammedinAllah'sapostle.Thosewhofollowhimaremercilessfor theunbelieversbutkindtoeachother."(Q.48:29)"Makewaronthemuntilidolatrydoesnotexist anylongerandAllah'sreligionreignsuniversally."(Q.8:39,also2:193)"Webreakwithyou;hatred andenmitywillreignbnetweenusuntilyebelieveinAllahhalone."(Q.60.4)"TheJewsand ChristiansandthePaganswillburnforeverinthefireofhell.Theyarethevilestofallcreatures." (Q.98:51)TherearedozensofQuranverseslikethiswhichintheirunanimitycannotbedismissed as"isolated,mistranslated"littleaccidents"quotedoutofcontext". ChandmalChoprastatedinhiswritpetition:"ThecitedpassagesintheQuran...arouseinMuslims theworstsectarianpassionsandreligiousfanaticism,whichhasmanifesteditselfinmurders, massacres,plunder,arson,rapeanddestructionordesecrationofsacredplacesbothinhistorical andinthecontemporaryperiod,notonlyinIndiabutinlargepartsoftheworld." ThepetitioncreatedalotoffuroreinCalcuttaandabroad.Muslimscreatedstreetriots.The governmentintervenedandputheavypressureonthejudicialprocess.Thesecretservicewasputto worktofindpossibleobjectionablebiographicaldataofthepetitioner.Thecourtusedsomedirty trickstodisturbtheperitioner'scase,likechangingdatesandchangingtheobjectofasessionto whichthepetitionerhadbeensummoned,duringthesamesessionitself,withapparent foreknowldegeofthegovernment'scounsel. BoththeauthoritiesandthecourtviolatedthesecularbasisoftheIndianConstitutionbyusingas justificationfortheirpolicyc.q.judgementastatementofreligiousbelief.TheMarxistWestBengal governmentstatedinitsaffidavit:"TheQurancontainsthewordsofGodAlmightyrevealedtoHis lastProphetMohammed...AstheHolyQuranisaDivineBook,noearthlypowercansitin judgementonit,andnocourtoflawhasjurisdictiontoadjudicateit." Thejudgedismissedthepetitiononthisground:"BanningorforfeitureoftheQuran...would amounttoabolitionoftheMuslimreligionitself."Indeed,theverytextwhichpreacheswaragainst theunbelieversisthecoretextofIslam,soabolitionofIslamichatepropagandaamountsto abolitionofIslamitself.IslamwithouthatredisnotIslam.Thejudgefurtherobserved:"Thisbook isnotprejudicialtothemaintenanceofharmonybetweenreligions.BecauseoftheQurannopublic tranquillityhasbeendisturbeduptonow..."aresoundingstatementofnegationism. Thisverdictwasonlywhatthepetitionerexpected:becauseofpoliticalpressure,anantiQuran verdictwassimplyunthinkable,andmoreover,thePenalCodekeepsscripturesandclassicsoutside itsownpurview.Thepetitionerhasmadeitclearthatheconsidersbookbanningcounterproductive, andthatthecontroversialpetitionwasmeanttodirectpublicattentitontowardstheQuran'scontents: peopleshouldreadit,becauseIndiancitizenshavearighttoknowwhytheircountryisplagued withneverendingreligiousriots. WhenChandmalChoprahadthedocumentsofthelegaldisputepublished,theadministration decidedtoprosecutehimandhispublisheronthebasisoftheverysamePenalCodearticleswhich

hehadinvokedtorequestabanontheQuran.Thecaseisstillpending. BesideH.K.Chakraborty'sandChandmalChopra'spetitions,athirdtextwhichpointedatthe Quranasasourceofreligiousviolence,wasaposterpublishedinDelhi(1986)byI.S.Sharmaand RajkumarArya,prominentmembersoftheHinduMahasabha,asmallpoliticalpartymoreextreme thantheBJP.Thepostercarriedthetitle:"Whydoriotsbreakoutinthiscountry?"Itshowed24 Quranverses,suchas:"Fighttheunbelieversinyoursurroundings,andletthemfindharshnessin you"(Q.9:123),and:"Killtheunbelieverswhereveryefindthem,,captureandbesiegethemand preparethemeverykindofambush"(Q.9.5). Bothpublisherswerearrestedonthebasisofarts.153Aand295A.However,theywereacquitted. Thejudgedruledthattheyhadmadea"faircriticism",for:"WithallduerespecttotheholyQuran, anattentiveperusaloftheversesshowsthattheseareindeedharmfulandpreachviolenceandhave thepotentialtocauseconflictsbetweentheMuslimsandtheothers."Anappealagainstthecourt rulingisstillpending. ThiscriticismoftheQuranpullsthecarpetfromunderthenegationists'feet.Theenmitybetween MuslimsandPagansisclearlynotabackprojectionfromcontemporaryartificiallycreatedreligio politicaltensions.NeitherisitaconflictwhichdevelopedhistoricallylongafterMohammedand whichcanbereducedtosocioeconomicalfactors.Thisenmityis,onthecontrary,presentinthe verycoreofIslamicdoctrine. WiththisinformationaboutQuranicdoctrine,wefindthatthenegationistthesisisnotonly contradictedbyamassivebodyofauthenticevidence;itisalsohighlyimplausibleinitself.For,the thesisthatIslaminIndiawasnotsystematically(proportionatelytoitspossibilitiesingiven situations)inconflictwithotherreligions,claimsinfactthatIslaminIndiadeviatedfromitsown principles,andbehavedcompletelyuncharacteristicallyforcenturiesonend.Itismethodologically moreusualtoprovisionallyassumeaconsistentandprobablebahaviour(viz.thatadherentsofa Godgivencalltowaragainsttheunbelieverseffectivelymakewarontheunbelievers,andthata religionwhichpersecutedotherreligionseverywhereelse,didthesameinIndia),andonlygivethis upifpositiveevidenceforalessplausibleandmoreinconsistentcoursehasbeenfound.Butwhat positiveevidencethereis,pointsintheoppositedirection:alonglistofMusliminvadersandrulers faithfullyputtheQuranicinjuctionsintopractice. TheproblemofbookbanningandcensorshiponIslamcriticismiscompoundedbytherelated problemofselfcensorship.Thus,wheninlate1992,thefamouscolumnistArunShouriewantedto publishacollectionofhiscolumnsonIslamicfundamentalism,esp.theRushdieandAyodhya affairs(IndianControversies),thepublisherwithdrewatthelastmoment,afraidofadministrativeor physicalreprisals,andtheprinteralsobackedout.Earlier,Shouriehadbeenluckytofindonepaper willingtopublishthesecolumns,formostIndiannewspapersstrictlykeepthelidonIslamcriticism. Hindusocietyisaterrorizedsociety. Afinalaspectoftheban(sometimeslegal,mostlyimposedbysecularistconvention)oncriticismof IslamisthatitisthereinstitutionofanoldIslamicrule.WhentheChristiansinSyriainthefirst centuryofIslamwereforcedtosubmit,theyhadtosignalonglistofpromisestotheirIslamic overlords.Thesecomprisedthewellknownconditionsimposedonthezimmis,butalsosomeextra ones,including"nottoteachourchildrentheQuran".LikeMohammed,hissuccessorsfoundit hardtocounterthenumerousobjectionstothecontradictionsandunethicalinjuctionsintheQuran, whichperceptiveinfidelskeptonraising.ItwaslogicalthattheyprohibitedthestudyoftheQuran bynonMuslims,inordertopreemptivelydisarmfutureantiIslamicpolemists.Thisbanbythe theocraticcaliphateonunfriendlyinspectionoftheQuranisnowreinstitutedinIndiainthename ofsecularism.

2.7THENEGATIONISTS'SECONDFRONT
NotsatisfiedwithdenyingthecrimesofIslam,thenegationistshaverecentlymadeabigeffortto spreadthenotionthatHinduismitselfisguiltyofjustthesamethingsofwhichitaccusesIslam. Remember,HolocaustnegationistsalwaysallegeandhighlightIsraeliinjusticeagainstthe Palestinians:ifyouprovethatthevictimisnotsoinnocent,itwillultimatelybecomequestionable thathewasavictimatall.IfeverthedenialofMuslimfanaticismhastobegivenup,asecondline ofdefence(orcounterattack)willbeready:accusingHinduismofasimilarfanaticism. Forexample,intheIndianmediayouregularlycomeacrossthecontentionthat"theHindus destroyedNalandaBuddhistuniversity".Thisisaplainlie:underseveralHindudynasties,Nalanda flourishedandwasthebiggestuniversityintheworldforcenturies;itwasdestroyedbytheMuslim invaderBakhtiarKhiljiin1200.Butifyourepeatalieoftenenough,itgainscurrency,andnow manyIndianshavecometobelievethatBuddhismhadbeenreplacedbyHinduismasIndia'schief religioninamostviolentmanner. Inreality,BuddhismhadalwaysbeenaminorityreligioninIndia,confinedtonoblesandtraders; beforeitsdisappearancearound1200AD,ithadbeenpartlyreabsorbedbymainstreamHinduism; otherwiseitcoexistedpeacefullywithotherHindusects,oftensharingthesametemple complexes.ThehistoricalallegationsofviolentconflictsbetweenmainstreamHinduismand Buddhismcanbecountedononehand.ItisnotBrahminicalonslaughtbutIslamthatchased BuddhismfromIndia. InCentralAsia,IslamhadwipedoutBuddhismtogetherwithNestorianism,Zoroastrianism, Manicheism,andwhateverotherreligionitencountered.ThePersianwordforidolisbut,from Buddha,becausetheBuddhistswiththeirBuddhastatuswereconsideredastheidolworshippers parexcellence.TheBuddhistsdrewthewrathofeveryMuslimbutshikan(idolbreaker),even wheretheyhadnotofferedresistanceaganinsttheMuslimarmiesbecauseoftheirdoctrineofnon violence.AsareminderoftheBuddhistpastofCentralAsia,thecitynameBukharaisnothingbuta corruptionofvihara,i.e.aBuddhistmonastery;otherIndiannamesincludeSamarkhandand Takshakhand,i.e.Tashkent.InIndia,Buddhismwasamucheasiertargetthanothersectsand traditions,becauseitwascompletelycentralizedaroundthemonasteries.Oncethemonsteries destroyedandthemonkskilled,theBuddhistcommunityhadlostitsbackboneandwashelpless beforethepressuretoconverttoIslam(ashappenedonalargescaleinEastBengal). AhandfulofnegationisthistorianshavetriedtosubstantiatetheallegationsagainstHinduismand sparednoefforttocolectinstancesofHindusactsofpersectution.Wewilltakealookatthemhere. ItwouldtakeawholevolumetosumupAurangzeb'scareerasaniconoclastandpersecutor,butthe Hindurecordofpersecutionwillnottakeusmorethanafewpages. Tomyknowledge,alltheallegedcasesofintraHindupersecutionhavebeensummedupin "CommunalHistoryandRama'sAyodhyabyprof.R.S.Sharma,thechapterinCommunalismand theWritingofIndianHistory"contributedbyprof.HarbansMukhia,andmostexplicitlyCultural TransactionsandEarlyIndiabyProf.RomilaThapar.AccordingtoRomilaThapar,"theinsistence onthetraditionofreligioustoleranceandnonviolenceascharacteristicofHinduism...isnotborne outbyhistoricalevidence".Giventheirstrongmotivation,weneednotassumethattheyhave overlookedincidentsthatcouldbeusefulforthecasetheyaremaking. Thetwobestknowncases,involvingPushyamitraShungaandShashank,cannotwithstand historicalcriticism.Thenoncontemporarystory(whichsurfacesmorethanthreecenturiesafterthe facts)aboutPushyamitra'sofferingmoneyfortheheadsofmonksisrenderedimprobablebyfirm historicalfactsofhisallowingandpatronizingmonasteriesandBuddhistuniversitiesinhis domains.AfterAshoka'slavishsponsorshipofBuddhism,itisperfectlypossiblethatBuddhist

institutionsfellonslightlyhardertimesundertheShungas,butpersecutionisstillanothermatter. ThefamoushistorianofBuddhismEtienneLamottehasobserved:"Tojudgefromthedocuments, Pushyamitramustbeacquittedthroughlackofproof."Theonlyreasontosustainthesuspicion againstPushyamitra,onceithasbeenlevelled,isthat"wherethereissmoke,theremustbefire" butthatpieceofreceivedwisdomispresupposedineveryactofslanderaswell. HsuanTsang'sstoryfromhearsayaboutShashank'sdevastatingamonasteryinBihar,killingthe monksanddestroyingBuddhistrelics,onlyafewyearsbeforeHsuanTsang'sownarrival,is contradictedbyotherelementsinhisownreport.Thus,accordingtotheChinesepilgrim,Shashank threwastonewiththeBuddha'sfootprintintotheriver,butitwasreturnedthroughamiracle;and hefelledthebodhitreebutasaplingfromitwasreplantedwhichmiraculouslygrewintoabigtree overnight.So,thefactofthematterwasthatthestoneandthetreewerestillthereinfullglory.In bothcases,thepresenceofthefootprintstoneandthefullygrownbodhitreecontradictHusan Tsang'sallegations,butheexplainsthecontradictionawaybypostulatingmiracles(which everywherehaveawayofmushroomingaroundrelics,toaddtotheirauraofdivinepower).Ifwe donotacceptmiracles,weconcludethatthebodhitreewhichHusanTsangsaw,andwhichwastoo bigtohavebeenarecentlyreplantedsapling,cannothavebeenfelledbyShashank. HsuanTsangisnotoriousforhisexaggerationsandhisinsertionsofmiraclestories,andhehadto explaintoChina,whereBuddhismwasreadhingitspeak,whyitwasdeclininginIndia.Itseems safertobaseourjudgementonthefactthatinhisdescriptionofBuddhistlifeintheGangabasin, nothingshowstheeffectsofrecentpersecutions.Infact,HsuanTsanghimselfgivesacluetothe realreasonofpreIslamicBuddhistdecline,bydescribinghowmanyBuddhistmonasterieshad fallenintodisuse,esp.inareasoflawlessnessandweakgovernment,indicatingthatthestrengthof Buddhismwasindirectproportiontostateprotectionandpatronage.UnlikeBrahminism,which couldsustainitselfagainstheavyodds,thefortunatesofBuddhistmonasticism(evenmorethan thoseoftheChristianabbeysinearlymedievalEurope)weredependentuponroyalfavours,asunder Ashoka,theChineseearlyT'angdynasty,andtherulersofTibetandseveralSoutheastAsian countries. Athirdstory,abouta12thcenturykingHarshaofKashmir,isapparentlytruebuthasnothingtodo withreligiouspersecution:heplunderedHindutemplesofallsectsincludingBuddhism,inhisown kingdom,withoutbotheringtodesecratethemortheirkeepersapartfromlucrativeplunder.Itisthe onegeuninecaseofarulerplunderingnotoutofreligiousmotivesbutforthegold.Thereisno knowncaseofaMuslimmarauderwhomerelystolefromtempleswithoutbotheringtoexplicity desecratethem,muchlessofaMuslimrulerwhoplunderedthesanctuariesofhisownreligion. Moreover,Kalhana'shistorybookRajataranginirelatesthisstorywiththecomment:"Promotedby theTurksinhisemploy,hebehavedlikeaTurk."ThisHarshaemployedTurkishmercenaries(which hissuccessorswouldregret,fortheyspiedandultimatelygrabbedpower),andtheseMuslims alreadyhadafirmreputationofplunderingtempleswithagoodconscience. NumberfouristheattackbytheParamarakingSubhataverman(11931210)onGujrat,inwhich"a largenumberofJaintemplesinDabhoiandCambay"wereplundered(not"destroyed"or "desecrated").HarbansMukhiacitesthisasproofthat"manyHindurulersdidthesame[asthe Muslims,i.e.destroy]withtemplesinenemyterritorylongbeforetheMuslimshademergedasa politicalchallengetothesekingdoms."However,itiswellknownthatwhenSubhatavarman accededtothethrone,theMuslimshadmorethanemerged:NorthIndiawasbeingravagedby MohammedGhori'sdecisivecampaignofconquest.AsaproofthatHindusoutsidetheIslamic sphereofinfluencepractisedpersecution,thisincidentwillnotdo.Onthecontrary,ifthereportis correct,thenthebackgroundmaywellbesimilartotheattestedcaseofHarshaofKashmir:inspired bytheTurks,hebehavedlikeaTurk. AnothercaseistherecurrentconflictsbetweentheShaivaandtheVaishnavarenunciatesin

Ayodhya.Prof.R.S.Sharmaquotesadescriptionfrom1804,whichtalksof"soldierstaking pleasureinbattle","misery","greatfear"and"shelterinsecretplaces",butnodeathtollisgiven, infactnokillingismentionedinsomanywords.Butprof.Sharmaconcludesnonetheless:"The passagegivenaboveissufficienttoexposethemythoftolerancepractisedbymedievalHindu religiousleaders." HindutraditionacknowledgesthatarivalrybetweenShaivasandVaishnavasdisturbedlifein Ayodhya:itwasthecontextinwhichTulsidasdecidedtowritetheRamcharitmanas.Inorderto emphasizethesuperficialanderroneouscharacteroftheconflictbetweenthefollowersofShivaand thoseofVishnu(andhisincarnationRama),TulsidasmadeShivathestorytellerofhisRama biography.ShivaandVishnuareone,anddevoteeswhodon'tunderstandthis,well,theyhaveto learnit.ThereisnosimilarrecordofanyIslamicauthoritywhohassaidthatShivaandAllahare one,norRamandRahim,norKashiandKaaba.Allthis"onenessofallreligions"rhetoricisa strictlyHinduprojectionoftheonenessofthedifferentHindugodsandtraditionsonajuxtaposition ofradicallyincompatiblenotionsfromIslamandHinduism.WhereastheoppositionbetweenRam andRahim,betweenKashiandKaaba,ledtoendlesspersecutionsandaPartition,suchthingshave nothappenedbetweenShaivasandVaishnavas.AllthatProf.Sharmacanshow,isariotwhichwas notbiggerthanthosewhichtakeplacebetweendrunkenfootballfans. AswemightexpectfromMarxistswhoseektomouldratherthaninformpublicopinion,thislisting ofevidencehasbeendonewithsomeediting.Thus,RomilaThaparwritesthat"theShaivitesaint JnanaSambandarisattributedwithhavingconvertedthePandyarulerfromJainismtoShaivism, whereuponitissaidthat8,000Jainaswereimpaledbytheking".Sheomitsthatthisking,Arikesari ParankusaMaravarman,isalsodescribedashavingfirstpersecutedShaivas;thatSambandar vanquishedtheJainasnotinbattlebutindebate(uponwhichthekingconvertedfromJainismto Shaivism);andthathehadescapedJainaattemptstokillhim.UnliketheMuslimpersecutions,this ShaivaJainaconflictwasclearlynotaonewayaffair.ForthesakeofblackeningHinduism,the BuddhistsandJainshadtobedepictedashaplessvictims,andtheirshareintheintraHindu violencehadtobeconcealed. Itisevenamatterofdebatewhetherthispersecutionhasoccurredatall:theHinduswerenever carefulhistorians,andlikeHsuanTsangtheymixedlegendandhistoricalfact,sothatthemodern historiancanonlyaccepttheirtestimonyifhefindssupportiveoutside(epigraphicaland archaeological)evidence.UnliketheconscientiousMuslimchroniclesorKalhana'sRajatarangini, thisstoryaboutSambandarcomesintheformofalocallegendwithatmostahistoricalcore. NilkanthShastri,inhisunchallengedHistoryofSouthIndia,writesaboutit:"This,however,islittle morethananunpleasantlegendandcannotbetreatedashistory."Iadmitthatthissoundslike PercivalSpear'sstatementthatAurangzeb'spersecutionsare"littlemorethanhostilelegend". However,Mr.Spear'scontentionisamplydisprovenbyalotofcontemporarydocumentsincluding theroyalorderstokillPagansanddestroyPaganinstitutions,aswellasbyeyewitnessaccounts; suchevidencehasnotbeenofferedatallinthecaseofJnanaSambandar. Warnedbythisunmistakablecaseofdistortionofevidence,wetaketherestofthelistcumgrano salis.Butatleast,thenextincidentisreportedbytwoseeminglyindependentsources:the persecutionofBuddhistsbytheHunakingMihirakulainKashmir.RomilaThaparherselfadmits thatHsuanTsang'saccountabout"thedestructionof1.600Buddhiststupasandsangharamasand thekillingofthousandsofmonksandlayfollowers"soundsexaggerated,butshehasfaithin Kalhana'smoredetailedversionwhichmentions"killinginnocentpeoplebythehundreds". ButHsuanTsanggivesaninterestingdetailwhichdoesnotsoundlikeafairytaleandmaywellbe historical.Mihirakula,"wishingtoapplyhisleisuretothestudyofBuddhism",askedtheBuddhist sanghatoappointateacherforhim.Butnoneofthemoreaccomplishedmonkswaswilling,sothey appointedamonkwhohadtherankofaservant.Thekingfoundthisprocedureinsulting,and

orderedthedestructionoftheBuddhistchurchinhiskingdom.ThiskingwasnotantiBuddhist,was openmindedandtookasincereinterestinBuddhism.Butonceaking'segoishurt,hecanget violent,regardlessofhisreligion.Thatisregrettable,butitissomethingelsethanreligious fanaticism. WhenacommanderintheserviceoftheBuddhistemperorAshokawasangeredbytheBuddhist monks'refusaltoletthekingmeddleintheiraffairs,hehad500ofthemkilled.Themassacrehad nothingtodowithreligiousintolerance,merelywithhurtpride,andtheMarxisthistorianshave donewellnottoputitintheirlist.Forthesamereason,Mihirakula'srageagainsttheimpolite monkscannotbeequatedwiththereligiouslymotivatedpersecutionsbytheMuslimrulers.There wasneveraMuslimkingwhoinvitedPaganscholarstoinstructhiminthePagandoctrines,theway MihirakulaaskedforaBuddhistteacher.Theonlyexceptionstothisruleweretheapostateemperor Akbar,whowasvehementlycriticizedforitbytheMuslimclergy,andDaraShikoh,whowas executedforapostasybyhisbrotherAurangzeb. AnotherincidentofintraHindupersecutionquotedfromKalhana'sRajatarangini,is"anearlier persecutionofBuddhistsinKashmirandthewilfuldestructionofavihara,againbyaShaivite king".Thereisaninterestinglittletailpiecetothisincident:"Butonthisoccasionthekingrepented andbuiltanewmonasteryfortheBuddhistmonks".Thisprovesthatasubstantialnumber,ifnotall, ofthemonkshadsurvivedthepersecution.Butmoreimportantly,ithighlightssomething completelyunknowninthelonghistoryofIslamicfanaticism:remorse.ThisShaivitekingknewat heartthatintolerancewaswrong,andwhenhehadregainedhisselfcontrol,hemadeupforhis misdeed.SuchathinghasneverbeendonebyMohammed,orbyGhaznaviorAurangzeb.Ifany proofwasnededfortheradicaldifferencebetweenthesystematicpersecutionsbytheMuslimsand therareabberationintoisolatedactsofintolerancebyHindus,Prof.RomilaThaparhasjustgivenit. Thenextcase:"TheJainatemplesofKarnatakawentthroughatraumaticexperienceatthehands theLingayatsorVirashaivasintheearlysecondmillenniumAD".Ifalltheysufferedwastrauma theywerewelloffincomparisonwiththethousandsoftemplesdestroyedbytheMuslimsinthe sameperiod.Afteratimeofpeacefulcoexistence,whichRomilaThaparacknowledges,"oneofthe templeswasconvertedintoaShivatemple.AtHubli,thetempleofthefiveJinaswasconvertedinto apanchalingeshwaraShaivitetemple,thefivelingasreplacingthefiveJinasinthesancta.Some otherJainatemplesmetthesamefate." Tobesure,conversionsofthetempleshaveindeedhappened,andthepanchalingeshwaratemple maywellbeacaseinpoint.Yet,thatdoesnotprovetherewaspersecution.Whenrivallingsects enteredpublicdebate,theyoftenputinhighwagers,esp.thepromisetoconverttobewinner'ssect. Insuchacase,thetempleorashramwastakenalongintothenewsect.Here,itcouldwellbesucha caseofpeacefulhandover:afterall,thetempleswerenotdestroyed.Againstthis,Prof.Thapar informsus:"AninscriptionatAblurinDharwareulogizesattacksonJainatemplesasretaliation foroppositiontoShaiviteworship." Herewemayhaveanothercaseofdistoringevidencebymeansofselectivequoting.Theinscription ofwhichProf.Thaparsummarizesaselectedpart,saysfirstofallthatthedisputearosebecausethe JainstriedtopreventaShaivafromworshippinghisownidol.ItfurtherrelatesthattheJainsalso promisedtothrowoutJinaandworshipShivaiftheShivadevoteeperformedamiracle,butwhen themiraclewasproduced,theydidnotfulfiltheirpromise.Intheensuingquarrel,theJinaidolwas brokenbytheShaivas.ThemostsignificantelementisthattheJainkingBijjaladecidedinfavourof theShaivaswhenthematterwasbroughtbeforehim.HedismissedtheJainsandshoweredfavours ontheShaivas. Again,inthisstorytheconflictisnotaonewayaffairatall.Weneednotacceptthestoryatface value,asitisoneofthosesectarianmiraclestories(withthemessage:"Mysaintisholierthanthy

saint")whichaboundinthetraditionssurroundingmostplacesofpilgrimage,betheyChristian, SufiorHindu.Dr.Fleet,whohaseditedandtranslatedthisinscriptionalongwithfourothersfound atthesameplace,givessummariesoftwoLingayatPuranasandtheJainBijjalacharitra,and observesthatthestoryinthisinscriptionfindsnosupportintheliterarytraditionsofthetwosects. Bijjala'sowninscriptiondated1162ADdiscoveredatManagolialsodoesnotsupportthestory.The factthattheinscriptionunderconsiderationdoesnotbearadateoradefinitereferencetothereign ofaking,doesnothelpitscredibilityeither.Anddoauthenticinscriptionsdealinmiracles? Itisobviousthataninscriptionofthisquality,ifithadbeencitedinsupportoftheHinduclaimto theBabriMasjidRamJanmabhoomisite,wouldhavebeendismissedbytheMarxisthistoriansas ridiculousandtotallygroundless.Theywouldnotviewitasaseriousobstacletotheirforegone conclusionthatthereisabsolutelydefinitelynoindicationwhatsoveratallthataHindutemplewas forciblyreplacedwithamosque.Butinthiscase,weareaskedtoseeitasevidencethatShaivas attackedJaintemples,andthatHindutoleranceisamyth. UnlikethepartylinehistoriansofJNU,Idonotthinkthathistoriansworkingwithconflicting testimoniesareinapositiontomakeapodicticstatementsanddefinitiveconclusions,,soIwillnot completelydismissthisinscriptionasfantasy.ItispossiblethattheJainashadindeedfallenonhard times,andIdonotdisposeofmaterialthatwouldrefuteProf.Thapar'scontentionthat"inthe fourteenthcenturytheharassmentofJainaswassoacutethattheyhadtoappealforprotectionto therulingpoweratVijayanagar".Still,insize,duration,intensityanddegreeofideological motivation,thisconflictdoesnotatallcomparewiththeterrorwroughtbyIslam.Incidentally,the rulingpoweratVijayanagar,whoseprotectiontheJainssought,wasofcourseaHindupower. FromDr.Fleet'sstudyofthesesources,itseemsthattheShaivaswhoweresohostiletotheJains, belongedtotheVeerashaivaorLingayatsect.Andindeed,Prof.Thapar'snextpieceofevidenceis that"inscriptionsofthesixteenthcenturyfromtheSrisailamareaofAndhraPradeshrecordthe pridetakenbyVeerashaivasinbeheadingShvetambaraJains".Now,theVeerashaivaswereananti casteandantiBrahminicalsect.Astheseareconsideredgoodqualities,negationistshavetriedto linkthemtotheinfluenceofMuslimmissionaries("bringingthemessageofequalityand brotherhood"),whowereindeedveryacvtiveonIndia'sWestcoast,whereandwhenthe Veerashaivadoctrinewasdeveloped.LetusassumetherewasindeedMusliminfluenceonthe Veerashaivasect.Inthatcase,thenegationistsshouldacknowledgethattheVeerashaivas'occasional actsofintolerancemayequallybeduetotheinfluenceofIslam.AtanyrateBrahminismcannotbe heldguiltyofanymisdeedscommittedbythisantiBrahminicalsect. Finally,"inGujrat,JainismflourishedduringthereignofKumarapala,buthissuccessor[i.e. Ajayapala]persecutedtheJainasanddestroyedtheirtemples".In"TheHistoryandCultureofthe IndianPeople",editedbyR.C.Majumdar,wereadaboutthis:"TheJainchroniclesallegethat AjayapalawasapersecutoroftheJains,thathedemolishedJaintemples,mercilesslyexecutedthe JainscholarRamachandra,andkilledAmbada,aministerofKumarapala,inanencounter."Here, theallegedcrimeisrelatedbythevictims,notbytheaggressors.Itispossiblethattheyexaggerated, butIseenoreasontobelievethattheysimplyinventedthestory.So,letusagreethatsometemples weredestroyedandatleastoneprominentJainkilledbyHinduaggressors.Afterall,thefanaticism displayedsystematicallybyIslamhasnotcomefallingoutofthesky,itexistsinhumannatureand mayoccasionallypopupincontextsoftension;thedifferenceisthatHinduactsoffanaticismwere occasionalandtookplaceinspiteofthedoctrine,whileIslamicfanaticismwassystematicand merelyanapplicationofthedoctrine. TheMarxistscholarswhohavecollectedthismaterial,haveomittedfromtheirpresentationsthe followingcasesofintraHindupersecution.TheMahavamshasaysthattheBuddhistking Vattagamini(2917BC)destroyedaJainviharaonthesamesite.IntheShravanaBelagolaepitaph ofMallishena,theJainteacherAklankasaysthatafterasuccessfuldebatewithBuddhists,hebroke

aBuddhastatuewithhisownfoot.TherearesomemoreinstancesofJainBuddhistconflict,but suichmaterialdidnotfitinwiththedesignsofthenegationists.Theyhavethispettheoryof JainismandBuddhismasrevoltsagainstBrahminicaltyranny,subsequentlycrushedoutbythe Brahminicalreaction.Infact,theminorinstancesofintraHinduviolenceweredistributedroughly proportionatelybetweenBrahminical,Buddhist,Jainaandothersects. AmongtheabovementionedreportsofconflictbetweenthedifferenttraditionswithintheSanatana Dharmacommonwealth,severalareprobablyunfounded,andseveralexaggerated.Butaswehave nofirmevidenceforthisplausiblehypothesisyet,letusassumefornowthatallthesereportsare simplycorrectandaccurate.Letusmoreoverassumethatasimilarnumberofsimilarcaseshas goneunrecordedorunnoticedbytheMarxisthistorians.Then,asasumtotal,westilldonothave thenumberofvictimsthatTeimurmadeinasingleday.Thenwestilldonothavethenumberof templedemolitionsthatAurangzebwroughtonhisown.Thenwestilldonothavetheamountof glorificationoftempledestructionthatwefindinanyofthediariesofMuslimconquerorslikeBabr orFiruzShahTughlaqorTeimur,oranyoftheirchroniclers.ThefanaticismrecordofHinduism throughoutmillenniaisdwarfedbytherecordofasingleGhaznavi,GhoriorAurangzeband becomescompletelynegligeablewhencomparedwiththetotalrecordofIslamicdestructionand massacreinIndia.Moreover,apropercomparisonofthefanaticismrecordofHinducivilization wouldnotbewithIndianIslam,whichrepresentsafarsmallernumberofpeople,butwiththeentire MuslimworldfromtheProphet(peacebeuponhim)onwards. Prof.RomilaThaparwrites:"Thedesiretoportraytoleranceandnonviolenceastheeternalvalues oftheHindutraditionhasledtothepushingasideofsuchevidence."Whatevidence?Thesefew disputablecaseswillnotdotoprovethat"Hindutoleranceisamyth".Hinduscanaffordtofacethis evidencesqarely.AfinaljudgementonwhetherHinduismistolerantornotshujldnotdependona fewinstancesselectedandeditedtofittheproconceivedpicture,butonanoverviewofthewhole ofHinduhistory.ThelargerpatternsofHinduhistoryleavenodoubtthattheimpressioncunningly createdbythenegationistsisfalse. ManyforeigngroupsofpeoplepersecutedfortheirreligioncametoseekregugeinIndia.TheParsis havethrived.TheheterodoxSyrianChristianshavelivedinpeaceuntilthePortuguesecameto enlistthemintheirefforttochristianizeIndia.TheJewshaveexpressedtheirgratitudewhenthey leftforIsraelbecauseIndiawastheonlycountrywheretheirmemorieswerenotofpersecutionbut offriendlycoexistence.EventheMoplahMuslimswereacceptedwithoutanyquestionsasked.All thesegroupswerenotmerelytolerated,butreceivedlandandmaterialsupportforbuildingplacesof worship. Whatshouldreallyclinchtheissue,isthetoleranttreatmentwhichtheMuslimsreceivedaftertheir reignofterrorhadbeenoverthrownandreplacedwithHindurashtraslikethoseoftheMarathas, Sikhs,RajputsandJats.TheHinduscouldhaveemulatedthepolicyoftheSpanishChristiansafter theReconquista,andgiventheMuslimsthechoicebetweenconversionandemigration.Withthe benefitofhindsight,wecansaythattheywouldhavesavedmanylivesandIndia'sunitybydoing so,butforcingpeopletoconvertwasnotinconformitywiththeirtraditions. WhennegationistsareconfrontedwiththeevidenceofpersecutionsbyIslam,theyaresureto mentionafewcaseswhereMuslimrulerspatronizedthebuildingofHindutemples.Insomecases thisisdeceitful:intheJNUhistorians'pamphlet"ThePoliticalAbuseofHistory",theymention threesuchcases,butoncloserinspectiontwoofthemdonotconcernMuslimrulers,buttheir Hinduministers(inhisrebuttal,Prof.A.R.Khancalledthis"notonlyconcealmentofevidencebut alsodistortionofevidence").Butallright,afewMuslimrulershavemadegiftstoHindu institutions.ThenegationistsinsistthatthesefewgiftsmakeupforthesystematicIslamic persecutions.Bycontrast,theirblatantlyunequalstandardsdonotallowthemtoacceptthe systematicpatronageoftheinstitutionsofBuddhistsandJainsbyHindukingsthroughtheagesas

compensationforthefewisolatedandaberrantcasesofreligiousconflict. Inordertoundersandtheproblemofreligiousintolerance,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetween twotypesofconflictbetweenreligions.Thefirstoneistheordinaryconflictbetweentwogroupsof people,whomayderivetheiridentityfromtheirnationality,languagefamilystock,economic interests,socialclass,orallegiancetoafootballteam:anytwopeopleorgroupsofpeoplecanpicka quarrel.Therefore,tworeligiouscommunitiescanhaveaconflictofinterestaswell,andbehavejust likeanykindofgroupinconflictsituation.Bydefinition,everycommunitycanrunintothiskindof conflict(thoughsomemayremainnonviolentthroughoutbecauseoftheirdoctrine).Butthiskind ofconflictistemporary,dependentonanaccidentalstateofaffairsandalwaysgravitatesbackto normal. Thesecondkindofreligiousconflictisnotaccidental,butisaconsequenceofthedoctrinesto whichthecommunityadheres.Thisisthecaseonlywithahandfulofreligions(includingthe Marxistquasireligion),distinguishedbytheirexclusivismandtheirambitionforconquest.Islam hasbeenthemostconsistentindenyingotherstherighttoexistoratleasttofreelypractisetheir religion.Itsconflictswithotherreligionsaremerelythematerializationofitsdoctrines. Thisdiscinctionbetweenreligiousconflictasanaccidentoraberration,andreligiousconflictasthe directoutcomeoffanaticaldoctrinesinherentinareligion,isfundamentaltoanunderstandingof theproblem.Inthefirstcase,actsoffanaticismarecommittedinspiteofthedoctrine.TheVedas saythat"thewisecalltheOnebymanynames",andexhortusto"letgoodthoughtscometousfrom everywhere";intheBhagavadGitaKrishnaassurestheadherentsofallreligionsthat"thosewho praywithdevotiontoanygod,itistoMethattheypray".Differencesinreligionareconsidered superficialandunimportant,thereforereligioustoleranceisthenorm,andintolerancecannotbe morethananaberration.Butinthesecondcase,actsoffanaticismaresanctionedbythedoctrine, andareboundtohappenonasubstantialscaleaslongasthedoctrineistakenseroiously."Enmity andhatredwillreignbetweenusuntilyebelieveinAllahalone"saystheQuran,anditisonly logicalthatenmityandhatredhaveindeedreignedbetweenMuslimsandnonMuslims. Ofcourse,thosewithabadconsciencegooutoftheirwaytoblurthisdistinction.Marxistsinsiston disregardingorblurringthedistinctioneitherbecausetheywanttoblackenallreligion,orbecause theyareinleaguewithMuslimfanatics. Amongthosewholiketosaythat"allareequallyguilty",wealsofindtheChristianmissionaries. Theytoohaveahistoryofpersecutionsandtempledestructionstocoverup,notonlyinEuropeand America,butinIndiaaswell.ThePortugueseorganizedabranchoftheInquisitioninGoa,andthey practisedconversionbyforceonalargescale.TheFrenchandBritishmissionarieswerelessbrutal, oftenresortingtosubversiontacticsandinducementbymeansofmaterialadvantagesforconverts, buttheytoohavearecordoftempledestructionsinIndia.Hundredsofchurchescontainrubbleof theHindutempleswhichtheyreplaced.Wemaylookabitmorecloselyintoonecasewhichsumsit allup:theSaintThomaschurchonMylaporebeachinMadras. AccordingtoChristianleadersinIndia,theapostleThomascametoIndiain52AD,foundedthe SyrianChristianchurch,andwaskilledbythefanaticalBrahminsin72AD.Nearthesiteofhis martyrdom,theSaintThomaschurchwasbuilt.InfactthisapostlenevercametoIndia,andthe ChristiancommunityinSouthIndiawasfoundedbyamerchantThomasCananeusin345AD(a namewhichreadilyexplainstheThomaslegend).Heled400refugeeswhofledpersecutionin PersiaandweregivenasylumbytheHinduauthorities.InCatholicuniversitiesinEurope,themyth oftheapostleThomasgoingtoIndiaisnolongertaughtashistory,butinIndiaitisstillconsidered useful.EvenmanyvocalsecularistswhoattacktheHindusforrelyingonmythintheAyodhya affair,offhandprofesstheirbeliefintheThomasmyth.TheimportantpointisthatThomascanbe upheldasamartyrandtheBrahminsdecriedasfanatics.

Inreality,themissionarieswereverydisgruntledthatthesedamnedHindusrefusedtogivethem martyrs(whosebloodiswelcomedastheseedofthefaith),sotheyhadtoinventone.Moreover,the churchwhichtheyclaimcommemoratesSaintThomas'martyrdomatthehandsofHindu fanaticism,isinfactamonumentofHindumartyrdomatthehandsofChristianfanaticism:itisa forciblereplacementoftwoimportantHindutemples(JainandShaiva),whoseexistencewas insupportabletoChristianmissionaries.Nooneknowshowmanypriestsandworshipperswere killedwhentheChristiansoldierscametoremovethecurseofPaganismfromMylaporebeach. Hinduismdoesn'tpractisemartyrmongering,butifatallwehavetospeakofmartyrsinthis context,thetitlegoestotheseShivaworshippersandnottotheapostleThomas. So,applyingtheoldmaximthat"attackisthebestdefence",thespokesmenofintolerantcreeds falselyaccusethetolerantHindusofthesameintolerance.WhilenobodyclaimsthatHinduismis withoutfaults,orthatHindusocietyhasneverbroughtforthfanaticalindividuals,itisaplainliethat Hinduismhasrecordoffanaticismsimilar(howeverremotely)tothatofthethreeworldconquerors: Christianity,IslamandMrxism.

2.8GENERALCHARACTERISTICSOFISLAM NEGATIONISM
Indiahasitsownfullfledgedbrandofnegationism:amovementtodenythelargescaleandlong termcrimesagainsthumanitycommittedbyIslam.ThismovementisledbyIslamicapologistsand Marxistacademics,andfollowedbyallthepoliticians,journalistsandintellectualswhocall themselvessecularists.IncontrasttotheEuropeannegationismregardingtheNaziactsofgenocide, butsimilartotheTurkishnegationismregardingtheArmeniangenocide,theIndiannegationism regardingtheterriblerecordofIslamisfullysupportedbytheestablishment.Ithasnearlyfull controlofthemediaanddictatesallstateandgovernmentparlanceconcerningthecommunal problem(moreproperlytobecalledtheIslamproblem). Itstechniquesareessentiallythesameasthoseofnegationistselsewhere: 1. Headondenial:Thecrassestformofnegationismisobviouslythesimpledenialofthefacts. Thisismostlydoneintheformofgeneralclaims,suchas:"Islamistolerant","Islamic Spainwasamodelofmulticulturalharmony","theantiJewishhatredwasunknownamong MuslimsuntilZionismandantiSemitismtogetherenteredtheMuslimworldfromEurope". SinceitisrarethataspecificcrimeofIslamisbroughttothepublic'snotice,thereislittle occasiontocomeoutanddenyspecificcrimes.ExceptionsaretheArmeniangenocide, officiallydeniedinTurkeyandtheentireMuslimworld,andthetempledestructionsin India,whichhavebeenhighlightedintheAyodhyadebatebutflatlydeniedbySyed Shahanuddin,SushilSrivastavaandmanyotherproBabripolemists. TheRushdieaffairwastheoccasionfornegationismonagrandscale.Therehappenstobe anunambiguousanswertothequestion:"IsitIslamictokillthosewhovoicecriticismofthe Prophet?"Accordingtothemediaandmostexperts,theanswerwasdefinitely:no. AccordingtothebasictraditionsofIslam,itwas:yes.Mohammedaswellashisimmediate successorshavekilledcritics,bothinformalexecutionsandinnighttimestabbings.In Islamiclaw,theProphet'sexampleisvalidprecedent.Atmosttherecouldbesome quarrelingovertheprocedure:somejuriststhoughtthatRushdieshouldfirstbekidnappedto anIslamiccountryandgivenachancetorecantbeforeanIslamiccourt,thoughthe ayatollahshaveruledthatnoamountofremorsecansaveRushdie.Ifhestandsbyhisbook, eventhesocalledmoderatesthinkhemustbekilled.Islamiclawpunishesbothapostasyand

insultstotheProphetwiththedeathpenalty:twicethereisnoescapeforRushdie.Inthe Muslimworld,severalpublicationshaverestatedtheclearcutIslamicprovisionsforcases likeRushdie'sincludingAhaanatiRasoolkiSazaa("PunishmentforInsultingtheProphet") byJNUProf.MaulanaMohsinUdmaniNadwi,andMuqaddasiAyat("TheSacredVerses") byMaulanaMajidAliKhan,bothpublishedbytheIslamicResearchFoundation,Delhi.Yet, theoutsidepublicwastoldbymanyexpertsthatkillingRushdieisunislamic. Flatdenialwillworkverywellifyourgriponthepressandeducationmediaissufficient. Otherwise,thereisadangerofbeingshownupasthenegationistonereallyis.Inthatcase,a numberofsoftertechniquesareavailable. 2. Ignoringthefacts:Thispassivenegationismiscertainlythesafestandthemostpopular.The mediaandtextbookwriterssimplykeepthevastcorpusofinconvenienttestimonyoutofthe readers'view. 3. Minimizingthefacts:IftheinconvenientfactispointedoutthatnumerousMuslim chroniclershavereportedagivenmassacreofunbelieversthemselves,onecanpositapriori thattheymusthaveexaggeratedtoflattertheirpatron'smartialvanityasifitisnot significantenoughthatMuslimrulersfeltflatteredbybeingdescribedasmassmurderersof infidels. ApartfromminimizingtheabsolutesizeofIslamiccrimes,thereisthepopulartechniqueof relativeminimizing:makethefactslooksmallerbycomparingthemwithother,carefully selectedfacts.Thus,onecansaythat"allreligionsareintolerant",whichsoundsplausibleto manythoughitispatentlyfalse:intheRomanEmpireonlythosesectswerepersecuted whichhadpoliticalambitions(Jewswhentheyfoughtforindependence,Christiansbecause theysoughttotakeovertheEmpireandoutlawallotherreligions,astheyeffectivelydid), whiletheothersenjoyedthestatusofreligiolicita;similarlywiththePersianEmpireand manyotherstatesandcultures. AnoftinvokedcounterweightforthechargesheetagainstIslam,isthefanaticismrecordof Christianity.itisindeedwellknownthatChristianityhasbeenguiltyofnumeroustemple destructionsandpersecutions.Butthereasonforthisfanaticismisfoundinthecommon theologicalfoundationofbothreligions:exclusivistpropheticmonotheism.Thecaseagainst ChristianityisatonceacaseagainstIslam.Moreover,inspiteofitstheologicallymotivated tendencytointolerance,Christianityhashadtogothroughtheexperienceof"liveandlet live"becauseinitsformativeperiod,itwasbutoneofthenumeroussectsinthepluralist Romanempire. Islamneverhadthisexperience,andinordertobringoutitsfullpotentialoffanaticism, ChristianityhasneededtheinfluenceofIslamonafewoccasions.Thus,itisnocoincidence thatCharlemagne,whodefeatedtheSaxonsbyforce,wasthegrandsonofCharlesMartel, whodefeatedtheIslamicarmyinPoitiers;nocoincidenceeitherthattheTeutonicknights whoforciblyconvertedtheBalts,wereveteransoftheCrusades,i.e.thecampaigntoliberate PalestinefromIslam;norisitacoincidencethattheSpanishInquisitionemergedina countrythathadneededcenturiestoshakeoffIslamicoppression.Finally,Christianityis,by andlarge,facingthefactsofitownhistory,thoughitsisstillstrugglingwiththeneedtoown uptheresponsibilityforthesefacts. AnevenmoregeneralwayofdrowningIslamicfanaticisminrelativistcomparisons,isto pointoutthatafterall,everyimperialismhasbeenlessthangentle.Thatmaywellbetrue, butthen,wearenotsettingupcultsfortheGenghisKhansofthisworld.Areligionshould contributetoman'stranscendinghisnaturaldefectslikegreedandcruelty,andnotsanction andglorifythem.

4. Whitewashing:Whenonecannotconceal,denyorminimizethefacts,onecanstillcalimthat oncloseranalysis,,theyarenotasbadastheyseem.Onecancallrightwhatisobviously wrong.Thiscangoveryfar,e.g.inhisbiographyofMohammed,MaximeRodinson declaredunashamedlythattheexterminationoftheMedineseJewsbyMohammedwas doubtlesslythebestsolution.InnumerouspopularintroductionstoIslam,thefactthatIslam imposesthedeathpenaltyonapostates(inmodernterminology:thatIslamopposesfreedom ofreligioninthemostradicalmanner)isacknowledged;butthenitisexplainedthat"since Islamwasatwarwiththepolytheists,apostasyequalledtreasonanddesertion,something whichisstillpunishedwithdeathinoursecularsociety".Allright,butthepointisprecisely thatIslamchosetobeatwarwiththetraditionalreligionofArabia,asalsowithallother religions,andthatithasmadethisstateofwarintoapermanentfeatureofitslawsystem. 5. Playingupunrepresentativefacts:Apopulartacticinnegationismconsistsinfindinga positivebutuncharacteristicevent,andhighlightingitwhilekeepingtheoverallpictureout ofthepublic'sview.Forinstance,adocumentisfoundinwhichChristianswhosesonhas forciblybeeninductedintheOttomanJanissaryarmy,expresspridebecausetheirsonhas madeitmadeittohighofficewithinthisarmy.Thefactthatthesepeoplemanagetoseethe brightsideoftheirson'sabduction,isthenusedtoprovethatnonmuslimswerequitehappy underMuslimrule,andtoconcealthefactthatthedevshirme,theforcibleconversionand abductionofonefifthoftheChristianchildrenbytheOttomanauthorities,constituteda constantandformidableterrorbewailedinhundredsofheartrendingsongsandstories. Foranotherexample,negationistsalwaysmentionncasesofcollaborationbynonMuslims (ManSinghwiththeMoghuls,etc.)tosuggestthattheseweretreatedaspartnersandequals andthatMuslimrulewasquitebenevolent;wheninfacteveryhistoryofanoccupation,even themostcruelone,isalsothehistoryofacollaboration.Ashasbeenpointedout,theNazis employedJewishguardsintheWarsawghetto,disprovetheNazioppressionoftheJews. 6. Denyingthemotive:Negationistssometimesacceptthefacts,butdisclaimtheirhero's responsibilityforthem.Thus,MohammedHabibtriedtoexonerateIslambyascribingtothe Islamicinvadersalternativemotives:Turkishbarbarity,greed,theneedtoputdown conspiraciesbrewingintemples.Inreality,thoserulerswhohadsecularreasonstoavoidan alloutconfrontationwiththeunbelievers,wereoftenreprimandedbytheirclericalcourtiers forneglectingtheirIslamicduty.Thesameclericswereneverundulyworriedoverpossible secularmotivesinaruler'smindaslongasthesepromptedhimtoactionagainstthe unbelievers.Atanyrate,thefactthatIslamcouldbeusedroutinelytojustifyplunderand enslavement(unlike,say,Buddhism),isstillsignificantenough. 7. Smokescreen:Anothercommontacticconsistsinblurringtheproblembyquestioningthe verytermsofthedebate:"Islamdoesnotexist,fortherearemanyIslams,withbig differencesbetweencountriesetc."Itwouldindeedbehardtocriticizesomethingthatisso illdefined.ButthesimplefactisthatIslamdoesexist:itisthedoctrinecontainedinthe Quran,normativeforallMuslims,andintheHadis,normativeatleastforallSunni Muslims.Therearedifferencesbetweenthelawschoolsconcerningminorpoints,andof coursethereareconsiderabledifferencesintheextenttowhichMuslimsareeffectively faithfultoislamicdoctrine,andcorrespondingly,theextenttowhichtheymixitwithun islamicelements. 8. Blamingfringephenomena:WhenfacedwithhardfactsofIslamicfanaticism,negationists oftenblamethemonsomefringetendency,nowpopularlyknownasfundamentalism.Thisis saidtobetheproductofpostcolonialfrustration,basicallyforeigntogenuineIslam.In reality,fundamentalistslikeMaulanaMaudoodiandAyatollahKhomeiniknewtheirQuran betterthantheselfdeludingsecularistswhobrandthemasbadMuslims.Whatiscalled

fundamentalismisinfacttheoriginalIslam,asisprovenbythefactthatfundamentalists haveexistedsincelongbeforecolonialism,e.g.the13thcenturytheologianIbnTaimiya, whoisstillalighthousefortoday'sMaudoodis,Turabis,MadanisandKhomeinis.When AyatollahKhomeinideclaredthatthegoalofIslamistheconquestofallnonMuslim countries,thiswasmerelyareformulationofMohammed'slongtermstrategyandofthe QuranicassurancethatGodhaspromisedtheentireworldtoIslam.Inthecaseof communism,onecanshifttheblamefromMarxtoLeninandStalin,butIslamicterrorism hasstartedwithMohammedhimself. 9. Argumentsadhominem:Ifdenyingtheevidenceisnottenable,onecanalwaysdistortitby meansofselectivequotingandimputingmotivestotheoriginalauthorsofthesource material;ormanipulatingquotationstomakethemsaytheoppositeoftheoverallpicture whichtheoriginalauthorhaspresented.Focusallattentiononafewrealorimaginedflaws inafewselectedpieces,andactasiftheentirecorpusofevidencehasbeenrendered untrustworthy.Toextendtheallegeduntrustworthinessofonepieceofevidencetotheentire corpusofevidence,itisnecessarytocreatesuspicionagainstthosewhopresentthe evidence:theimplicationisthattheyhaveaplanofhistoryfalisification,thatthisplanhas beenexposedinthecaseofthisonepieceofevidence,butthatitisonlylogicalthatsuch motivatedhistoryfalsifiersarealsobehindtheconcoctionoftherestoftheallegedevidence. Ifthediscussionofinconvenientevidencecannotbeprevented,disperseitbyraisingother issues,suchasthehumanimperfectionswhicheveryvictimofcrimesagainsthumanity inevitabllyhas(JewishharshnessagainstthePalestinians,Hinduuntouchability);describe thedemandforthetruthasaploytojustifyandcoveruptheseimperfections.Ifthefacts havetobefacedatall,thenblamethevictim.Ifpeopleignoreorrefuteyourdistorted versionofhistory,accusethemofdistortionandpoliticalabuseofhistory.Slanderscholars whosetestimonyisinconvenient;imputepoliticalorothermotivestotheminordertopull theattentionawayfromthehardevidencetheypresent. 10.Slogans:Finally,alldiscussioncanbesabotagedwiththesimpletechniqueofshouting slogans:prejudice,myth,"racism/communalism".Takethestrugglefromthecommon battlefieldofargumentsintotheopponent'scamp:hisselfesteemasamemberofthe civilizedcompanythatabhorsuglythingslikeprejudiceandcommunalism.Afterall,attack isthebestdefence. Aftersumminguptheformsofnegationism,wehavetolookintoitscauses.Thefollowingfactors cometomind: 1. OrientalismandIslamology:AfterthemedievalChristianpamphletsagainst"Mohammed theimpostor",notmuchhasbeenpublishedthematizingtheideologicalandfactualcrimes ofIslam.Bookson,say,"slaveryinIslam"areextremelyrare:therawinformationthatcould fillsuchapublicationwillhavetobefoundinmoregeneralpublications,inwhichIslamis onlyreferredtoinpassing,oftenwithouttheauthor'srealizingtheimplicationsforan evaluationofIslam.Itisoftensaid(whenintroducing"refutationsofprejudice")thatpeople alwaysassociateIslamwithintolerance;butfindingabookspecificallydevotedtothe subjectofIslamicintolerancewillbeharder.HowmanymillionshavebeenkilledbyIslam simplybecausetheywerenonMuslims?Nobodyhasyettabulatedthefiguresavailableto prepareageneralestimate.WecanonlynoticethatcriticalresearchofIslamisnotexactly encouraged,andthatthereisanincreasingtendencytoselfcensorshipregardingIslam criticism.Inpart,thisisduetomuchdelayedreactionagainstthelongabandonedChristian polemicalappraoch. NowthatIslamicStudiesdepartmentsinEuropeareincreasinglymannedbyMuslimsand

sponsoredbyIslamicfoundationsandstates,ashasbeenthecaseinIndiaforlong,the climateforcriticalstudiesofIslamisonlyworsening.Whencomparingthefirst(preWorld War2)editionoftheEncyclopaediaofIslam(Leiden,Netherlands)withthenewedition,it isstrikinghowcriticalobservationshavebeenironedout.Buteveninthepast,Islamhas enjoyedaratherfavourabletreatmentinacademiccircles.Thus,aboutIslamicslaverythe prominentDutchIslamologistC.SnouckHurgronjewrotein1887(i.e.thirtyyearsafterthe Americanshadwagedawartoimposetheabolitionofslaveryintheirsouthernstates,and someseventyyearsafteritsabolitioninthecolonies):"Formostslavestheirabductionwas ablessing...Theythemselvesareconvictedthatitistheirenslavementthathasforthefirst timemadethemhuman." ThepoliticalcontextofthegrowthphaseofIslamologyprovidesapartoftheexplanation. MaturecolonialismwasnotwagingwaragainstIslam,butsoughtthecooperationofthe establishedsocialforcesinthecolonizedpopulations.TheBritishcooperationwiththe IndianMuslimsiswellknown;itisepitomizedbythefoundingin1906oftheMuslim League,whichsoughtto"inculcateloyaltytotheBritishEmpireintheIndianMuslims".In FrenchWestAfrica,inthesameperiod,Islamwasacceptedasafactorofsocialstability, andGeneralLyauteypursuedadreamofaFrancoIslamicsynthesiscultureinAlgeria.In the1930s,inthelastEuropeanattemptatfreshcolonization,theItalianFascistsactively supportedthespreadofIslamintheHornofAfrica.Butalreadysince1853thecolonial powershadbeensupportingtheCaliphateagainstaChristianpower,CzaristRussia,esp.in theCrimeanWar(amistakenwarifevertherewasone),andthishadstronglycontributedto climateofbenevolencetowardstheMuslimculture. 2. Churchpolicy:ChristianityhasforcenturieswagedalivelypolemicagainstIslam,with RaimundusLullusasprobablythemostremarkableexponent.Recently,thiscriticismhas subsided.Worse,polemicalworksbyclericshavebeenwithdrawnorkeptunpublished(such as,earlythiscenture,FatherHenriLammens'paperarguingthatMohammed'srevelations wereapsychopathologicalphenomenon).OnereasonisthattheChurchisawareofthe similaritybetweenJesus'andMohammed'smissions,sothatacriticismofthefoundations ofIslammaybackfireonChristianity.ThesecondreasonisthefearthatChristiansinthe MuslimworldwouldhavetopayforevenideologicalattackonIslam(thatiswhyChurch polemistssavetheirsharpestwordsforharmlessreligionslikeHinduism).Thisfearalso motivatesotherChurchpolicies,suchasthenonrecognitionofthestateofIsrael. Meanwhile,thefaceoftheChurchhaschanged.Asmallbutsignificanteventinthewakeof theSecondVaticanCouncilwasthedeletionfromtheSaints'calendarofOurLadyofthe RedemptionofSlaves,whosefeastwason24September.IntheMiddleAges,therewasa specialclericalorderandawholefundraisingnetworkdevotedtotheredemption("buying back")ofChristianslavesheldinBarbary.Untilthe19thcentury,coastalvillagesinItaly hadwatchtowerstoalarmthepeoplewhenashipoftheslavecatchingBarbaresepirateswas insight.TheterrorofIslamicslaverywasapermanentfeatureofChristianhistoryfromthe 7thtillthe19thcentury,butnowtheChurchisworkinghardtoerasethismemory. Today,itspastorsarethemostferventpleadersfortherightsofIslam.MuslimsinEuropeare forthemasubstituteforthedisappearingparishmembers.SeparateChristianinstitutions, whoseresonofexistenceisbeingquestioned,findanewlegitimacyinthefactthatIslamin itsturnisalsoopeningseparateschools,charitiesandevenpoliticalparties.Islamhas becomeasisterreligionregularlypraisedasareligionofpeace. 3. Anticolonialism:Oneoftheideologicalguidelinesofanticolonialismwas:"Ofthe (ex)colonized,nothingbutgoodmustbesaid."Therefore,mentioningthecolonialismand massslaverypractisedbytheMuslimshadbecomeundesirable.

AddtothisgeneraltaboothewarningthatIslamcriticismeffectivelyimpliessupportto Israel,describedbyMaximeRodinsonasa"colonialsettlerstate".Ifoneacknowledgesthat IslamhasalwaysoppressedtheJews,oneacceptsthatIsraelwasanecessaryrefugeforthe JewsfleeingnotonlytheEuropeanbutalsotheIslamicvarietyofantiJudaisms.Letusnot forgetthatdecolonizationwasfollowedimmediatelybyreneweddiscriminationofand attacksontheJewishandChristianminorities,andthatthoseJewswhocouldgetouthave promptlyfledtoIsrael(orFrance,inthecaseofAlgeria).Itisnocoincidencethatthese SephardicJewsaremostlysupportersofthehardlinersinIsrael. 4. Theenemy'senemyisafriend:ManypeoplebroughtupasChristians,orasnominalHindus, neveroutgrowtheirpubescentrevoltagainsttheirparents'religion,andtherefore automaticallysympathizewitheveryrivaloropponentofthereligiontheyhavecometo despise.BecauseIslamposesthemostformidablethreat,theylikeitalot. 5. Leftism:Inthiscentury,Islamhascometobeadvertisedasanaturallyleftist"religionof equality".ThislinehasbeendevelopedbyMuslimapoligistssuchasMohammedHabib,and theyhaveeventakenitasarationalizationoftheirrationalclaimthatMohammedwasthe "lastProphet":afterall,asthe"prophetofequality",hehadbroughttheultimatemessage uponwhichnoimprovementispossible.SirMohammedIqbal,oneofthefathersof Pakistan,hadclaimedthat"IslamequalsCommunismplusAllah".TheIranianAyatollahs, bycontrast,andmostofthevocalMuslimsaftertheSovietIslamicwarinAfghanistan,have restatedtheorthodoxpositionthatCommunismisunIslamic,notonlybecauseofits atheismbutalsobecauseofitsrejectionoffreeentreprise;thecurrentclaimisthatIslam providesa"betterformofequality"thanCommunism. EvenwhileCommunistswereslaughteredinIslamicIran,andevenwhilepoliticalanalysts classifytheIslamistmovementsas"extremerightist",mostleftistshavekeptoncultivating somesympathyforIslam.DuringtheLebanesecivilwar,theyfedusnewsstoriesabout "leftistMuslims,rightistChristians","Islamoprogressive,christianoreactionnaire". NegationisminIndiaispractisedwiththemostprowessbyhistoriansandwriterswhoare underthespellofMarxism.LeninhadwantedtousetheMuslimsagainsttheFrenchand Britishcolonialists,butwhatwasatacticalallianceforLeninbecamealoveaffairforthe IndianCommunists.However,itwouldbewrongtoexpectthatthecollapseofSoviet CommunismandtheinevitabledeclineofCommunisminIndiawillautomaticallyleadto thedissolutionofnegationism.Ithasbecomeabiasandathoughthabitformanypeople whohaveonlyvaguelybeeninfluencedbyMarxism.Childrenmostlysurvivetheirparents, andcertainformsofnegationismmaysurviveIndianMarxismforsometime,unlessa seriouseffortismadetoexposeitonagrandscale. 6. Rightisttraditionalism:ThereisalsoarightistsympathyforIslam.Anobviouspointof agreementisofcourseantiJudaism.Asubtlerbasisforsympathyisthesocalled traditionalistcurrent,whichwasrepresentedbytheconvertsReneGuenonandFrithjof Schuon,andstillhasafollowing:ithasbeenidealizingIslamandesp.Sufismasthe preserveroftheageoldphilosophiapernnisagainstmodernity.InRussia,someSlavophile antiWesterngroupsnowseekanalliancewithIslamagainsttheimpendingAmericanization oftheirsociety.IntheU.S.,ChristianfundamentalistsandIslamicorganizationsare increasinglycreatingcommonplatformstospeakoutagainsttrendsofmoraldecay (abortion,pornography,etc.).Someofthesephenomenaoftraditionalistalliancebuilding arequiterespectable,buttheyareneverthelessconducivetoIslamnegationism. 7. Hinducowardice:EvenamongsocalledmilitantHindus,thereisashamefuleagernessto praiseIslamanddenyitscriminalrecord.E.g.,duringtheAyodhyamovement,manyHindu

leadershavebeenpleadingthattheMuslimsshouldrenouncetheRamJanmabhoomisite because"geunineIslamisagainsttempledemolition",sothatamosquestandingona demolishedtempleisnotinconformitywithIslamiclaw.Thiswas,ofcourse,blatantly untrue:Islamicscriptureandhistoryprovethatdestroyingallexpressionsofunbeliefand idolatryisadutyandanhonourforMuslims.Thedoctrinesthathaveledtothetemple destructionsincludingtheoneonRamJanmabhoomi,arestillbeingtaughtinallIslamic schools. Apartfrombeinguntruthful,thisHinduappealto"geunineIslam'stolerance"wasalsobad debatingtactics:ifyousaythattempledemolitionwasstandardIslamicpractice,andthat whathadhappenedinAyodhyawasmerelythelocalapplicationofthegeneralrule,theonus isontheBabriadvocatestoprovethattheBabriMasjidwasanexception;butifyousaythat theBabriMasjidwasanexceptiontotheruleofIslamictolerance,theonusisonyouto provethatinthiscase,anexceptionalanduncharacteristicincidenthadtakenplace.Itwas alsobadbargainingtactics:ifyousaythattheBabriMasjidwasmerelyoneamong thousands,thenrenouncingthisonenonmosquewouldsoundlikeaverylowpriceforthe MuslimstobuytheHindus'goodwill;butifyousaythattheBabriMasjidwasan exceptionalcase,aninsignificantincidentamidthemanybigproblemsthrownupbyhistory, youlookpettybydemandingtherestorationofthisonesite.Short,Hinduleaderswere damagingtheirownpositionbydenyinghistoryandavoidingIslamcriticism. Onecouldunderstandpeopletellinglieswhenitservestheirowninterest;butpeoplewho telllieswhenitisthetruththatwouldservetheirinterest,reallydeservetobekickedaround. Thistrulystrangeandmasochisticbehaviourcanonlybeunderstoodifwekeepinmindthat Hindusocietyisaterorizedsociety.DuringtheMuslimperiod,allthosewhostoodupand spokeoutagainstIslamwereeliminated;andunderNehruvianrule,theyweresidelinedand abused.TheoppressedHindusstartedlickingthebootthatkickedthem,andthishasbecome ahabitwhichintheirslumbertheyhavenotyetidentifiedandstopped. 8. LiberalIslam:IntheIslamicworld,itisunwisetoattackIslamheadon.Yet,sometimes peopleinthosecountriesfeeltheneedtoopposeIslamicphenomenaandcampaigns,suchas thewitchhuntonunIslamicculturalremnants,violenceonthenonMuslims,extreme formsofgenderinequality.Inordertohaveachance,thesepeoplehavetouseIslamic language:"Mohammedwasactuallyagainstpolygamy","violenceagainstothersisin conflictwiththetolerancewhichMohammedhastaughtus","respectforotherculturesis partofIslamictradition".Inordertopresstheirhumanistpoint,theyhavetoformally identifywithIslamandlieaboutitscontents. ManyMuslimshavestartedtobelievetheirownrhetoric.Ifyoupointouttothemthatthe Quranteachesintoleranceandwaragainsttheunbelieversinthemostexplicitterms,many ofthemwillsincerelyprotest,andnotknowwhattosaywhenyoushowthemtheQuranic passagesconcerned.ThereisnoreasontodoubtthattheMoroccanmauthoressFatima MernissigenuinelybelievesinherownargumentthattheQuranicinstructionsonhowto organizeyourpolygamoushouseholdaretobereadasanabolitionofpolygamy(albeitin veiledterms,becauseAllah,thesameAllahAlmightywhowentstraightagainstthe prevalentcustomsofidolatryandpluralism,hadtobecarefulnottooffendthespiritofthe times).ManynominalMuslimshaveoutgrownIslamicvaluesanddevelopedacommitment tomodernvalues,buttheirsentimentalattachmenttothereligionimbibedintheirchildhood preventsthemfromformallybreakingwithIslamandmakesthempaintarosypictureofit. AmongMuslimspokesmen,isiscertainlynotthefundamentalistswhoarethemostactive proponentsofnegationism.ItisliberalslikeAsgharAliEngineerwhodenythatIslam ordainswarontheinfidels.ItisthosewhoareacclaimedbyHindusasbeinggood"secular"

Muslims,likeSaeedNaqvi,whogoasfarastodenythatthePartitionofIndiawasbrought aboutbyMuslims.AnIslamthatwantstobesecular,cannotbutbedishonestanduntrueto itself.Unfortunately,atolerantIslamisacontradiction,andatolerantpastforIslamto buttressthepositionofliberalMuslims,isalie. 9. MuslimsdifferingfromIslam:ManypeoplehaveaMuslimneighbourwhoisafineman,and fromthisempiricalfacttheyconclude:Islamcannotbeallthatbadconsideringourfriend Mustapha.Thisoneempiricalfactgivesthematremendousresistanceagainstall informationaboutIslamicintolerance.Peopleusuallyreducetheworldtotheirownsphere ofexperience,andgeneralhistoricalfactsofIslamicfanaticismarenotallowedtodisturbthe privateexperienceofgoodneighbourlyrelations. ManynominalMuslimshaveretainedfromtheirQuranclassesonlysomevaguegeneralities aboutmorality,andtheynormallygobytheirownconscienceandsensibilitywithoutever developingthedoctrinallyprescribedhostilitytowardsnonMuslims.Thesegoodpeoplebut hadMuslimscanignorebutnotchangeIslamicdoctrine.TheycannotpreventtheQuranic messageofhatredfrominfectingatleastsomeofthemoresesceptibleamongtheirbrethren. TherehavecertainlybeensituationswheresaneMuslimshavecalmeddowntheirmore riotousbrethren,andsuchindividualsdomakearealdifference.Weshouldnotmakethe IslamicmistakeofjudgingpeoplesimplybytheirbelongingornotbelongingtotheMuslim community,ratherthanbytheirhumanqualities.Butthefactremainsthatthepresenceofa doctrineofintoleranceastheofficialandidentitydefiningideologyofacommunity,exerts aconstantpressuretendingtowardsseparatismandconfrontation.Thealleviatingpresence ofthehumanistfactorevenwithintheMuslimcommunityshouldnotbeusedtodenythe ominouspresenceofIslamicfactor. "Thosewhodenyhistoryareboundtorepeatit":thatiswhatmanycriticsofHolocaustnegationism allege.Thisseemsslightlyexaggerated,thoughitisofcoursethewellwishersofNazismwho practisenegationism.InthecaseofIslam,itisequallytruethatnegationismispractisedbythe wellwishersofthatsamedoctrinewhichhasledtothecrimesagainsthumanityunder consideration.WhileNazismissimplytoostainedtogetasecondchance,Islamiscertainlyina positiontoforceunbelieversintothezimmistatus(asishappeningindozensofMuslimcountriesin varyingdegrees),andeventowagenewjihads,thistimewithweaponsofmassdestruction.Those whoaretryingtoclosepeople'seyestothisdangerbydistortingorconcealingthehistoricalrecord ofIslamareeffectiveaccomplicesintheinjusticeanddestructionwhichIslamissuretocause beforethetimeofitsdissolutioncomes.Therefore,Iconsideritadutyofallintellectualstoexpose anddenouncethephenomenonofnegationismwheneveritispractised.

CHAPTERTWONEGATIONISMIN INDIA
ThenegationismregardingtheNazicrimeshasbeentheobjectofmuchpublicdiscussion.Turkish negationismabouttheArmeniangenocidehasreceivedsomeattention.Lesswellknownisthat Indiahasitsownbrandofnegationism. Sinceabout1920anefforthasbeengoingoninIndiatorewritehistoryandtodenythemillennium longattackofIslamonHinduism.Today,mostpoliticiansandEnglishwritingintellectualsinIndia willgooutoftheirwaytocondemnanypublicreferencetothislongandpainfulconflictinthe strongestterms.Theywillgotoanylengthtocreatetheillusionofahistoryofcommunalamity betweenHindusandMuslims.

2.1HINDUVS.MUSLIM
MakingpeoplebelieveinahistoryofHinduMuslimamityisnotaneasytask:thenumberof victimsofthepersecutionsofHindusbyMuslimsiseasilyofthesameorderofmagnitudeasthatof theNaziexterminationpolicy,thoughnoonehasyetmadetheeffortoftabulatingthereported massacresandproposingareasonableestimateofhowmanymillionsexactlymusthavediedinthe courseoftheIslamiccampaignagainstHinduism(suchresearchistaboo).Ontopofthesethereisa similarnumberofabductionsanddeportationstoharemsandslavemarkets,aswellascenturiesof politicaloppressionandculturaldestruction. TheAmericanhistorianWillDurantsummedituplikethis:"TheIslamicconquestofIndiais probablythebloodieststoryinhistory.Itisadiscouragingtale,foritsevidentmoralisthat civilizationisapreciousgood,whosedelicatecomplexoforderandfreedom,cultureandpeace, canatanymomentbeoverthrownbybarbariansinvadingfromwithoutormultiplyingwithin." Onlyoffandondidthispersecutionhavetheintensityofagenocide,butitwassustainedmuch longerandspreadoutmuchwidergeographicallythantheNazimassacre.WhereastheGermans includingmostmembersoftheNaziparty,werehorrifiedattheNazicrimesagainsthumanity withinafewyears,theMuslims,forwhomGottmituns(Godwithus)wasnotasloganbuta religiouscertainty,managedtokeepagoodconscienceforcenturies.Wewillencountersimilarities aswellasdifferencesbetweenNaziandIslamiccrimesagainsthumanity,butthemoststriking differenceisdefinitelythepersistencewithwhichIslamicpersecutionshavecontinuedfor14 centuries.Thisisbecauseithadmorespine,amorepowerfulpsychologicalgriponitsadherents thanNazism. TheideologicalfoundationoftheIslamiccampaignwassimilartotheNaziideology.TheMuslium invaders(aswecanreadinnumerousdocumentswhichtheyleftus,fromtheQuranandtheHadith onwards)distinguishedbetweenthreekindsofpeople:firstofalltheMuslims,theHerrenvolk (masternation)towhichAllahhadpromisedtheworld;secondlytheJewsandChristians,who couldliveonunderMuslimrulebutonlyasthirdclasscitizens,justliketheSlavicUntermenschen (inferiorpeople)inHitler'splannedneworder,thirdlythespeciestobeeliminated,therealPagans whohadtodisappearfromthefaceoftheearth. DifferentfromHitler'svictims,thenoncombatantsamongtheunbelieversoftengotachancetoopt forconversionratherthandeath.WhatMohammed(imitatedbyhissuccessors)wanted,washis recognitionasGod'sfinalprophet,sohepreferredpeopletoliveandgivehimthisrecognition(by pronouncingtheIslamiccreed,i.e.converting),andonlythosewhorefusedhimthisrecognition weretobekilled.Still,conversionoftencametoolatetosavedefeatedPagansfromslavery.Atthis point,MohammeddeservescomparisonwithStalin:unlikeHitler,hekilledpeoplenotfortheirrace butfortheiropinions.Butonecanhardlysaythattheonetotalitarianismisbetterthantheother. TheBlitzkriegoftheMuslimarmiesinthefirstdecadesafterthebirthoftheirreligionhadsuch enduringresultspreciselybecausethePaganpopulationsinWestandCentralAsiahadnochoice (exceptdeath)buttoconvert.Whatevertheconverts'ownresentment,theirchildrengrewupas Muslimsandgraduallyidentifiedwiththisreligion.Withinafewgenerationstheinitialresistance againsttheseforcibleconverionswasforgotten,andtheseareasbecameheidenfrei(freefrom Pagans,cfr.judenfrei).InIndiaitdidn'tgolikethat,becausetheMuslimsneededfivecenturiesof attemptsatinvasionbeforetheycouldcatchholdoflargepartsofIndia,andeventhenthey encounteredendlessresistance,sothattheyoftenhadtosettleforacompromise. TheMuslimconquests,downtothe16thcentury,werefortheHindusapurestruggleoflifeand

death.Entirecitieswereburntdownandthepopulationsmassacred,withhundredsofthousands killedineverycampaign,andsimilarnumbersdeportedasslaves.Everynewinvadermade(often literally)hishillsofHindusskulls.Thus,theconquestofAfghanistanintheyear1000wasfollowed bytheannihilationoftheHindupopulation;theregionisstillcalledtheHinduKush,i.e.Hindu slaughter.TheBahmanisultans(13471480)incentralIndiamadeitaruletokill100,000captives inasingleday,andmanymoreonotheroccasions.TheconquestoftheVijayanagarempirein1564 leftthecapitalpluslargeareasofKarnatakadepopulated.Andsoon. AsacontributiontoresearchonthequantityoftheIslamiccrimesagainsthumanity,wemay mentionProf.K.S.Lal'sestimatesaboutthepopulationfiguresinmedievalIndia(GrowthofMuslim PopulationinIndia).Accordingtohiscalculations,theIndian(subcontinent)populationdecreased by80millionbetween1000(conquestofAfghanistan)and1525(endofDelhiSultanate).More researchisneededbeforewecansettleforaquantitativelyaccurateevaluationofMuslimrulein India,butatleastweknowforsurethatthetermcrimeagainsthumanityisnotexaggerated. ButtheIndianPaganswerefartoonumerousandneverfullysurrendered.Whatsomecallthe MuslimperiodinIndianhistory,wasinrealityacontinuouswarofoccupiersagainstresisters,in whichtheMuslimrulerswerefinallydefeatedinthe18thcentury.AgainsttheserebelliousPagans theMuslimrulerspreferredtoavoidtotalconfrontation,andtoacceptthecompromisewhichthe(in Indiadominant)HanifiteschoolofIslamiclawmadepossible.AloneamongthefourIslamiclaw schools,theschoolofHanifagaveMuslimrulerstherightnottoofferthePagansthesolechoice betweendeathandconversion,buttoallowthemtolerationaszimmis(protectedones)livingunder 20humiliatingconditions,andtocollectthejizya(tolerationtax)fromthem.Normallythezimmi statuswasonlyopentoJewsandChristians(andeventhatconcessionwascondemnedbyjuristsof theHanbaliteschoollikelbnTaymiya),whichexplainswhythesecommunitieshavesurvivedin Muslimcountrieswhilemostotherreligionshavenot.Ontheseconditionssomeofthehigher Hinducastescouldbefoundwillingtocollaborate,sothatamoreorlessstablepolitycouldbeset up.Eventhen,thecollaborationoftheRajputswiththeMoghulrulers,oroftheKayasthaswiththe Nawabdynasty,onebecameasmootharrangementwhenenlightenedrulerslikeAkbar(whom orthodoxMuslimsconsideranapostate)cancelledthesehumiliatingconditionsandthejizyatax. ItisbecauseofHanifitelawthatmanyMuslimrulersinIndiaconsideredthemselvesexemptedfrom thedutytocontinuethegenocideontheHindus(selfexemptionforwhichtheywerepersistently reprimandedbytheirmullahs).Moreover,theTurkishandAfghaninvadersalsofoughteachother, sotheyoftenhadtoallythemselveswithaccursedunbelieversagainstfellowMuslims.Afterthe conquests,IslamicoccupationgraduallylostitscharacterofatotalcampaigntodestroythePagans. ManyMuslimrulerspreferredtoenjoytherevenuefromstableandprosperouskingdoms,andwere contenttoextractthejizyatax,andtolimittheirconversionefforttomaterialincentivesandsupport tothemissionarycampaignsofsufisandmullahs(infact,forlesszealousrulers,thejizyawasan incentivetodiscourageconversions,asthesewouldmeanalossofrevenue).TheMoghuldynasty (from1526onwards)ineffectlimiteditsambitiontoenjoyingthezimmasystem,similartothe treatmentofJewsandChristiansintheOttomanempire.Muslimviolencewouldthenceforthbe limitedtosomeslavetaking,crushingthenumerousrebellions,destructionoftemplesandkillingor humiliationofBrahmins,andoccasionalactsofterrorbysmallbandsofraiders.Aleftoverfrom thisperiodistheNorthIndiancustomofcelebratingweddingsatmidnight:thiswasasafety measureagainsttheIslamicsportofbridecatching. ThelastjihadagainsttheHindusbeforethefullestablishmentofBritishrulewaswagedbyTipu Sultanattheendofthe18thcentury.Intherebellionof1857,theneardefunctMuslimdynasties (Moghuls,Nawabs)triedtocurryfavourwiththeirHindusubjectsandneighbours,inorderto launchajointefforttoreestablishtheirrule.Forinstance,theNawabpromisedtogivetheHindus theRamJanmabhoomi/BabriMasjidsiteback,inanefforttoquenchtheirantiMuslimanimosity

andredirecttheirattentiontowardsthenewcommonenemyfromBritain.Thisistheonlyinstance inmodernhistorywhenMuslimsofferedconcessionstotheHindus;afterthat,alltheconcessions madeforthesakeofcommunalharmonywereaonewaytrafficfromHindutoMuslim. AftertheBritishhadcrushedtherebellionof1857,theIndianMuslimsfellintoastateof depression,increasingbackwardnessduetotheirrefusalofBritisheducation,andnostalgiaforthe past.WhiletheHinduelitestooktoWesternnotionslikesecularnationalism,theMuslimsremained lockedupintheircommunalseparateness.AssoonastheBritishdrewthemintothepolitical process(foundingofMuslimLeaguein1906)inordertousethemasacounterweightagainstthe IndianNationalCongress,theyimmediatelymadeheavyandhurtfuldemandsontheHindus,such astheunlimitedrighttoslaughtercows,andtheystartedworkingforpoliticalseparation.Firstthey obtainedseparateelectorateswhereMuslimcandidateswouldonlyhavetopleaseMuslimvoters, andlatertheywouldsucceedinseparatingaMuslimstatefromIndia. Bythetwenties,theytooktotheunscrupleduseofmusclepowerinabigway,creatingstreetriots andoutrightpogroms.IfHindusretaliatedinkind,itwasawelcomehelpininstillingtheseparate communalidentityintotheordinaryMuslim,whowouldhavepreferredtocoexistwithhisHindu neighboursinpeace.Bycreatingriotsandprovokingrelatiatoryviolence,theMuslimLeague managedtoswingthevastmajorityoftheMuslimelectoratetowardssupportingitsdemandforthe partitionofIndia.Theroughly600,000victimsoftheviolenceaccompanyingthePartitionwerethe pricewhichtheMuslimLeaguewaswillingtopayforitsIslamicstateofPakistan.Whileevery HinduandMuslimwhotookpartintheviolenceisresponsibleforhisownexcesses,theoverall responsibilityforthismassslaughterliessquarelywiththeMuslimleadership. Afterindependence,theIslamicpersecutionofHindushascontinuedindifferentdegreesof intensity,inPakistan,BanglaDeshandKashmir(aswellasheavydiscriminationinMalaysia).This isnottheplacefordetailingthesefacts,whichtheinternationalmediahavebeenignoring completely.WhatmaycutshortalldenialsofthiscontinuedpesteringofHindusinMuslimstates, aretheresultingmigrationfigures:in1948,Hindusformed23%ofthepopulationofBanglaDesh (thenEastPakistan),in1971thefigurewasdownto15%,andtodayitstandsatabout8%.No journalistorhumanrightsbodygoesintoasktheminorityHindusfortheiropinionaboutthe treatmenttheygetfromtheMuslimauthoritiesandpopulations;buttheyvotewiththeirfeet. Inthefirstmonthsof1990,theentireHindupopulation(about2lakhs)wasforciblydrivenfromthe KashmirValley,whichusedtobeadvertisedasashowpieceofcommunalharmony.Muslim newspapersandmosqueloudspeakershadwarnedtheHindustoleavethevalleyorfacebullets. AftertheIslamicconquestofKabulinApril1992,50,000HindushadtofleeAfghanistan(withthe Indiangovernmentunwillingtoextendhelp,andInderKumarGujraldenyingthattheexpulsionof Indianshadacommunalmotive).ThepogromsinPakistanandBangladeshafterthedemolitionof theBabriMasjidleft50,000HindushomelessinBangladeshandtriggeredanotherwaveofrefugees frombothcountriestowardsIndia.InPakistan,245Hindutemplesweredemolished,inBangladesh asimilarnumberwasattacked,andeveninEnglandsometemplesweresetonfirebyMuslimmobs. Andthenwehaven'tevenmentionedtherecurrentattacksonHinduprocessionsandonpolice stations. ItwillnowbeevidentthattheHindupsychehasverylittlesympathyforIslam.Doingsomething aboutthiswasthechiefmotivefornegationism.

2.2NEGATIONISMANDTHEINDIANNATIONAL CONGRESS
Thepoliticalcontextofthefristattemptsatnegationismwaschieflytheattemptofthe independencemovement,ledbytheIndianNationalCongress,toeliminateallfactorsofdisunity betweenHindusandMuslims.ItwasthetimeoftheKhilafatmovement(191923),theagitationof IndianMuslimsagainsttheBritishtakeoveroftheIslamicsacredplacesfromthedeceased Ottomanempire.ThekhilafatistsdemandedtherestorationoftheOttomancaliph'sauthorityover thesacredplaces.CongresssawinthistheoccasiontoenlisttheMuslimsinthenationalfreedom struggleagainstthesameBritishimperialists. Thiswasamiscalculation:thekhilafatmovementintensifiedtheIslamicsenseofcommunal identity(thereforetherejectionofIndiannationalism),andaddedconsiderablytoMuslim separatismandthePakistanideology.Butbefore1923,whentheTurksthemselvesabolishedthe caliphatesothatthemovementlostitsraisond'etre(andgottransmutedintopogromsagainstthe Hindus),therewasgreatexpectationinCongresscircles.Therefore,Congresspeoplewerewilling togotoanylengthtoironoutthedifferencesbetweenHindusandMuslims,includingtheinvention ofcenturiesofcommunalamity. Atthattime,theCongresslederswerenotyetactivelyinvolvedintherewritingofhistory.They weresatisfiedtoquietlyignorethetruehistoryofHinduMuslimrelations.Afterthecommunal riotsofKanpurin1931,aCongressreportadvisedtheeliminationofthemutualenemyimageby changingthecontentsofthehistorybooks. Thenextgenerationofpoliticalleaders,especiallytheleftwingthatwastogaincontrolof Congressinthethirties,andcompletecontrolinthefifties,wouldprofessnegationismvery explicitly.Theradicalhumanist(i.e.bourgeoisMarxist)M.N.RoywrotethatIslamhadfulfilleda historicmissionofequalityandabolitionofdiscrimination,andthatforthis,Islamhadbeen welcomedintoIndiabythelowercastes.Ifatallanyviolencehadoccurred,itwasasamatterof justifiedclassstrugglebytheprogressiveforcesagainstthereactionaryforces,meaningthefedual Hinduuppercastes. Thisisamodernmythspringingfromanincorrectandmuchtoogrimpictureofthecastesystem,a backprojectionofmodernideasofclassstruggle,andanuncriticalswallowingofcontemporary Islamicapologetics,whichhasincorporatedsomevoguishsocialistvalues.Thereisnorecord anywhereoflowcastepeoplewelcomingtheMuslimsasliberators.Justlikeintheirhomeland,the Muslimgeneralshadnothingbutcontemptforthecommonpeople,andallthemoresobecause thesewereidolaters.TheymadenodistinctionbetweenrichPagansandpoorPagans:intheQuran, Allahhadpromisedthesamefatetoallidolaters. Bycontrast,thereisplentyoftestimonythatthesecommonpeopleroseinrevolt,notagainsttheir highcastecoreligionists,butagainsttheMuslimrulers.Andnotonlyagainstheavynewtaxes (50%ofthelandrevenueforAlauddinKhilji,whomthenegationistshailastheprecursorof socialism)andlandexpropriations,butespeciallyagainsttherapeandabductionofwomenand childrenandthedestructionoftheiridols,actswhichhavebeenrecordedwithsomuchgleebythe Muslimchroniclers,withoutanywherementioningaseparatetreatmentofHindurichandHindu poor,uppercasteKafirorlowcasteKafir.Evenwhensomeofthehighcastepeoplestarted collaborating,thecommonpeoplegavetheinvadersnorest,attackingthemfromhidingplacesin theforests.TheconversionoflowcastepeopleonlybeganwhenMuslimrulersweresafelyinpower andinapositiontorewardandencourageconversionbymeansoftaxdiscrimination,legal discrimination(winthedisputewithyourneighbourifyouconvert),handingoutpoststoconverts, andsimplecoercion.Nevertheless,themythwhichM.N.Royspread,hasgainedwidecurrency.

ThebestknownpropounderofnegationismwascertainlyJawarharlalNehru.Hewasrather illiterateconcerningIndiancultureandhistory,sohisadmirersmayinvokeforhimthebenefitof doubt.Atanyrate,hiswritingscontainsomecrudecasesofglorificationofMuslimtyrantsand concealmentordenialoftheircrimes.WitnesshisassessmentofMahmudGhaznavi,who, accordingtohischroniclerUtbi,sangthepraiseofthetemplecomplexatMathuraandthen immediatelyproceededtodestroyit.Nehruwrites:"BuildinginterestedMahmud,andhewasmuch impressedbythecityofMathuranearDelhi".Aboutthishewrote:"Therearehereathousand edificesasfirmasthefaithofthefaithful;norisitlikelythatthiscityhasattaineditspresent conditionbutattheexpenseofmanymillionsofdinars,norcouldsuchanotherbeconstructed underaperiodof200years."Andthatisall:NehrudescribedthedestroyerofMathuraasan admirerofMathura,apparentlywithoutnoticingthegorysarcasminGhaznavi'seulogy. Moreover,NehrudeniedthatMahmudhadcommittedhisactsofdestructionoutofanyreligious motive:"Mahmudwasnotareligiousman.HewasaMohammedan,butthatwasjustbytheway. Hewasinthefirstplaceasoldier,andabrilliantsoldier."ThatMahmudwasdefinitelyareligious man,andthathehadreligiousmotivesforhiscampaignsagainsttheHindus,isquiteclearfrom Utbi'scontemporarychronicle.EverynightMahmudcopiedfromtheQuranforthebenefitofhis soul.Heriskedhislifeseveraltimesforthesakeofdestroyinganddesecratingtemplesinwhich therewasnothingtoplunder,justtoterrorizeandhumiliatethePagans.Inhiscampaigns,henever neglectedtoinvoketheappropriateQuranverses.InveneratingMahmudasapiousheroofIslam, IndianMuslimsarequitefaithfultohistory:unlikeNehru,theordinaryMuslimrefusestopractise negationism. WithNehru,negationmismbecametheofficiallineoftheIndianNationalCongress,andafter IndependencealsooftheIndianstateandgovernment.

2.3THEALIGARHSCHOOL
AsecondfactorinthegenesisofnegationismwasthepenetrationofWesternideasamongapartof theMuslimelite,andespeciallythe(inEuropenewlyemerged)positivevaluationoftolerance.The Islamicelitewasconcentratedaroundtwoeducationalinstitutes,spearheadsofthetraditionalandof the(superficially)westernizingtrendsamongIndianMuslims.Onewasthetheologicalacademyat Deoband,theothertheBritishorientedAligarhMuslimuniversity. TheDeobandschoolwas(andis)orthodoxIslamic,andrejectedmodernvalueslikenationalism anddemocracy.ItsimplyobservedthatIndiahadoncebeenaDarulIslam(houseofIslam),and thatthereforeithadtobebroughtbackunderMuslimcontrol.Thefactthatthemajorityofthe populationconsistedofnonMuslimswasnotimportant:inthemedievalMuslimempiresthe Muslimshadnotbeeninamajorityeither,andmoreover,demographyandconversioncouldyet transformtheMuslimminorityintoamajority. AmongthescionsoftheDeobandschoolwefindMaulanaMaudoodi,thechiefideologueof modernfundamentalism.HeopposedthePakistanschemeanddemandedtheIslamizationofallof BritishIndia.Afterindependence,hesettledinPakistanandagitatedforthefullIslamizationofthe (stilltooBritish)polity.Shortlybeforehisdeathin1979,hisdemandswerelargelymetwhen generalZialaunchedhisIslamizationpolicy. OutsiderswillbesurprisedtofindthatthesameschoolofwhichMaudoodiwasafaithful spokesman,alsobroughtforthMaulanaAbulKalamAzad,whowasCongresspresidentforseveral termsandwhowastobecomeministerofEducationinfreeIndia.Understandablybutunjustifiably, AzadhasoftenbeendescribedasasmoderateandnationalistMuslim:herejectedthePartitionof

IndiaandthefoundationofPakistan,notbecauseherejectedtheideaofaMuslimstate,butbecause hewantedallofIndiatobecomeaMuslimstateintime. WheninthefortiesthePartitionseemedunavoidable,AzadpatronizedproposalstopreserveIndia's unity,stipulatingthathalfofallmembersofparliamentandofthegovernmenthadtobeMuslims (then24%ofthepopulation),withtheotherhalftobedividedbetweenHindus,Ambedkarites, Christians,andtherest.Short,astateinwhichMuslimswouldruleandnonMuslimswouldbe secondclasscitizenselectorallyandpolitically.TheCabinetMissionPlan,proposedbytheBritish astheultimatesopfortheMuslimLeague,equallypromisedaneffectiveparitybetweenMuslims andnonMuslimsattheCentralGovernmentlevelandavetorightfortheMuslimminority.Without Gandhiji'sandotherCongressleaders'knowing,CongresspresidentAzadassuredtheBritish negotiatorsthathewouldgettheplanacceptedbytheCongress.Whenhewascaughtintheactof lyingtotheMahatmaabouttheplanandhisassurance,helostsomecreditevenamongthenaive Hinduswhoconsideredhimamoderate.ButheretainedhispositionoftrustinNehru'scabinet,and continuedhisworkfortheultimatetransformationofIndiaintoaMuslimState. MaulanaAzad'spleasforHinduMuslimcooperationhadanesotericmeaning,clearenoughfor MuslimsbutinvisibleforwilfullygulliblenonMuslimslikehiscolleaguesintheCongress leadership.AzaddeclaredthatHinduMuslimcooperationwasincompleteconformitywiththe Prophet'svision,for"MohammedhadalsomadeatreatywiththeJewsofMadina".Hecertainly had,butthepracticalimpactofthistreatywasthatwithinafewyears,twoofthethreeJewishclans inMedinahadbenchasedaway,andthethirdclanhadbeenmassacredtothelastman(thesecond clanhadonlybeensavedbytheinterventionofotherMedineseleaders,forMohammedhadwanted tokillthemtoo).MaulanaAzadcouldmentionMohammed'streatywiththeJewsasamodelfor HinduMuslimcooperationonlybecausehewasconfidentthatfewHinduswereawareoftheend ofthestory,andthatbetterinformedHindushonouredakindoftaboooncriticismofIslamandits Prophet. ThisparenthesisaboutMaulanaAzadmayhelpclearupsomeillusionswhichHindusand WesternersfondlyentertainaboutthepossibilityofIslamicmoderacy.TheDeobandschoolwasas fundamentalistinitsAzadfaceasitwasinitsMaudoodiheart,anditsspokesmenhadnoproblems withthehorrorsofIslamichistory,nordidtheymakeattemptstorewriteit.ThatMuslimshad persecutedandmassacredHindus,countedasthefulfilmentofAllah'ssalvationplantotransform thewholeworldintoaDarulIslam.AsMohammedIqbalwrote:"AlllandbelongstotheMuslims, becauseitbelongstotheirGod."(Iqbalwould,however,endupintheAligarhcamp,cfr.infra) MaulanaAzadsharedthisviewofhistory.HecondemnedMoghulemperorAkbar'stolerantruleas thenearsuicideofIndianIslam,andpraisedfanaticslikethetheologianAhmadSirhindi,who throughhisoppositiontoAkbar'stolerancehadbroughttheMoghuldynastybackontherighttrack ofHindpersecution. UnliketheDeobandschool,theAligarhschooltriedtoreconcileIslamwithmodernculture.It understoodtheprinciplesofdemocracyandmajorityrule,andrecognizedthatamoderndemocracy wouldbeincompatiblewiththetransformationofIndiaintoanIslamicstateaslongasMuslims onlyformedaminority.Thetacticaloppositionagainstthedisadvantageoussystemofdemocracy wasunderpinnedideologicallybyMohammedIqbal,whocriticizeditasasysteminwhichheads arecountedbutnotweighed.ButIqbalunderstoodthatdemocracywasthewaveofthenearfuture, and,togetherwithmoremodernandsincerelydemocracymindedpeopleintheMuslim intelligentsia,hefacedthelogicalconsequencethattheMuslimshadtogiveuptheambitionof gainingcontroloverallofIndiaimmediately.Insteadtheyshouldcreateaseparatestateoutofthe MuslimmajorityareasofIndia:Pakistan.TheidealofPakistanwaslaunchedbyIqbalin1930,and in1940itbecametheofficialpoliticalgoaloftheMuslimLeague.AligarhMuslimUniversityhas oftenbeendescribedasthecradleofPakistan.

Fromtheirbetterknowledgeofandappreciationformodernculture,theAligarhthinkersaccepted themodernvalueofreligioustolerance.Nottotheextentthattheywouldbewillingtocoexistwith theHindusinasinglepostcolonialstate,butatleasttothisextentthattheywantedtodosomething abouttheimgeofintolerancewhichIslamhadcometocarry.Around1920Aligarhhistorian MohammedHabiblaunchedagrandprojecttorewritethehistoryoftheIndianreligiousconflict. Themainpointsofhisversionofhistoryarethefollowing. Firstly,itwasnotallthatserious.OnecannotfailtonoticethattheIslamicchroniclers(including somerulerswhowrotetheirownchronicles,likeTeimurandBabar)havedescribedtheslaughterof Hindus,theabductionoftheirwomenandchildren,andthedestructionoftheirplacesofworship mostgleefully.But,accordingtoHabib,theseweremerelyexaggerationsbycourtpoetsoutto pleasetheirpatrons.OnewonderswhatitsaysaboutIslamicrulersthattheyfeltflatteredbythe bloodydetailswhichtheMuslimschroniclersofHindupersecutionshaveleftus.Atanyrate,Habib hasnevermanagedtounderpinthisconvenienthypothesiswithasinglefact. Secondly,thatpercentageofatrocitiesonHinduswhichHabibwaspreparedtoadmitashistorical, isnottobeattributedtotheimpactofIslam,buttootherfactors.SometimesIslamwasusedasa justificationpostfactum,butthiswasdeceptive.Inrealityeconomicmotiveswereatwork.The HindusamassedalltheirwealthintemplesandthereforeMuslimarmiesplunderedthesetemples. Thirdly,accordingtoHabibtherewasalsoaracialfactor:theseMuslimsweremostlyTurks,savage ridersfromthesteppeswhowouldneedseveralcenturiesbeforegettingcivilizedbythewholesome influenceofIslam.TheirinbornbarbaritycannotbeattributedtothedoctrinesofIslam. Finally,theviolenceoftheIslamicwarriorswasofminorimportanceintheestablishmentofIslam inIndia.Whathappenedwasnotsomuchaconquest,butashiftinpublicopinion:whentheurban workingclassheardofIslamandrealizeditnowhadachoicebetweenHindulaw(smrti)and Muslimlaw(shariat),itchosethelatter. MohammedHabib'sexciseinhistoryrewritingcannotstandthetestofhistoricalcriticismonany score.WecandemonstratethiswiththeexampleofSultanMahmudGhaznavi(9971030),already mentioned,whocarriedoutanumberofdevastatingraidsinSindh,GujratandPunjab.This GhaznaviwasaTurk,certainly,butinmanyrespectshewasnotabarbarian:hepatronizedartsand literature(includingthegreatPersianpoetFirdausi,whowouldendupintroublebecausehispatron suspectedhimofapostasy,andthePersianbutArabicwritinghistorianAlbiruni)andwasafine calligraphisthimself.TheundeniablebarbarityofhisantiHinducampaignscannotbeattributedto hisethnicstock.HismassacresandactsofdestructionweremerelyareplayofwhattheArab MohammedbinQasimhadwroughtinSindhin71215.Hedidn'tcareformaterialgain:heleftrich mosquesuntouched,butpoorHindutemplesmetthesamefateathishandsastherichertemples. HeturneddownaHinduoffertogivebackafamousidolinexchangeforahugeransom:"Iprefer toappearonJudgementDayasanidolbreakerratherthananidolseller."Theoneexplanation thatcoversalltherelevantfacts,isthathewasdriventohisbarbarousactsbyhisideological allegiancetoIslam. ThereisnorecordofhisbeingwelcomedbyurbanartisansasaliberatorfromtheoppressiveHindu socialsystem.Onthecontrary,hiscompanionAlbirunitestifieshowalltheHindushadan inveterateaversionforallMuslims. Anotherruler,FiruzShahTughlaq(135188),personallyconfirmsthatthedescructionofPagan templeswasdoneoutofpiety,notoutofgreed:"TheHindushadacceptedthezimmistatusandthe concomitantjizyataxinexchangeforsafety.Butnowtheybuiltidoltemplesinthecity,indefiance oftheProphet'slawwhichforbidssuchtemples.UnderdivineleadershipIdestroyedthese buildings,andkilledtheleadersofidolatry,andthecommonfollowersreceivedphysical chastisement,untilthisabominationhadbeenbannedcompletely."WhenFiruzheardthataPagan

festivalwasgoingon,hereactedforcefully:"Myreligiousfeelingsexhortedmetofinishoffthis scandal,thisinsulttoIslam.OnthedayofthefestivalIwenttheremyself,Iorderedtheexecutionof theleadersandpractitionersofthisabomination...Idestroyedtheiridoltemplesandbuiltmosques intheirplaces." ThecontentionthatHindusstoredtheirrichesintemplesiscompletelypluckedoutofthinair (thoughsomeoftherichertemplescontainedgoldenstatues,whichweretempleproperty):itisone amongmanyadhochypotheseswhichmakeHabib'stheoryamethodologicallyindefensible construction.Infact,Habibisproclainingagrandconspiracytheory:allthehundredsofIslamic authorswhodeclaredunanimouslythatwhattheyreportedwasawarofIslamagainstInfidelity, wouldallhavecoordinatedonesinglefakescenariotodeceiveus. ThisisnottosaythattheentirereportwhichtheMuslimchroniclershaveleftus,shouldbe acceptedatfacevalue.Forinstance,writerslikeGhaznavi'scontemporaryUtbigivetheimpression thattheraidson,andultimateconquestofHindustanwereawalkover.Closerstudyofallthe sourcematerialshowsthattheMuslimarmieshadaverytoughtimeinIndia.FromMuslim chroniclesoneonlygetsafaintglimpseoftheintensitywithwhichtheHinduskeptonoffering resistance,andoftheprecariousnessoftheMuslimgriponHindistanthroughtheMuslimperiod. TheMuslimchroniclershavenotbeencaughtintheactoflyingveryoften,butsomeofthemdistort theproportionsofvictoryanddefeatabit.Thisisquitecommonamongpartisanhistorians everywhere,andamodernhistorianknowshowtotakesuchminordistortionsintoaccount.The unanimousandentirelycoherenttestimonythatthewarsinHindustanwerereligiouswarsof MuslimsagainstKafirsisadifferentmatteraltogether:denyingthistestimonyisnotamatterof smalladjustments,butofreplacingthewellattestedhistoricalfactswiththeirdiametricalopposite. Habibtriedtoabsolvetheideology(Islam)oftheundeniablefactsofpersecutionandmassacreof thePagansbyblamingindividuals(theMuslims).Thesourceshoweverpointtotheoppositestateof affairs:MuslimfanaticsweremerelyfaithfulexecutorsofQuranicinjunctions.NottheMuslimsare guilty,butIslam.

2.4NEGATIONISMRAMPANT:THEMARXISTS
TheAligarhschoolhasbeenemulatedonalargescale.SoonitstorchwastakenoverbyMarxist historians,whowerebuildingareputationforunscrupledhistoryrewritinginaccordancewiththe partyline. Inthiscontext,oneshouldknowthatthereisastrangealliancebetweentheIndianCommunist partiesandtheMuslimfanatics.InthefortiestheCommunistsgaveintellectualmuscleandpolitical supporttotheMuslimLeague'splantopartitionIndiaandcreateanIslamicstate.After independence,theysuccessfullycombined(withthetacitsupportofPrimeministerNehru)to sabotagetheimplementationoftheconstitutionalprovisionthatHindibeadoptedasnational language,andtoforceIndiaintotheSovietArabfrontagainstIsrael.Eversince,thiscollaboration hascontinuedtotheirmutualadvantageasexemplifiedbytheircommonfronttodefendtheBabri Masjid,thatsymbolofIslamicfanaticism.UnderNehru'sruletheseMarxistsacquiredcontrolof mostoftheeducationalandresearchinstitutesandpolicies. Moreover,theyhadanenormousmentalimpactontheCongressapparatus:eventhosewho formallyrejectedtheSovietsystem,thoughtcompletelyinMarxistcategories.Theyaccepted,for instance,thatreligiousconflictscanbereducedtoeconomicandclasscontradictions.Theyalso adoptedMarxistterminology,sothattheyalwaysrefertoconsciousHindusasthecommunalforces orelements(Marxismdehumanizespeopletoimpersonalpawns,orforces,inthehandsofgod

History).TheMarxisthistorianshadthefieldalltothemselves,andtheysettoworkto decommunalizeIndianhistorywriting,i.e.toerasetheimportanceofIslamasafactorofconflict. InCommunalismandtheWritingofindianHistory,RomilaThapar,HarbansMukhiaandBipan Chandra,professorsatJawaharlalNehryUniversity(JNU,theMeccaofsecularismand negationism)inDelhi,writethattheinterpretationofmedievalwarsasreligiousconflictsisinfact abackprojectionofcontemporaryreligiousconflictartificiallycreatedforpoliticalpurposes.In BipanChandra'sfamousformula,communalismisnotadinosaur,itisastrictlymodern phenomenon.Theyexplicitlydenythatbeforethemodernperiodthereexistedsuchathingas HinduidentityorMuslimidentity.ConflictscouldnothavebeenbetweenHindusandMuslims, onlybetweenrulersorclasseswhoincidentallyalsobelongedtoonereligiouscommunityorthe other.Theypointtotheconflictswithinthecommunitiesandtoalliancesacrosscommunity boundaries. ItisofcourseafactthatsomeHinduscollaboratedwiththeMuslimrulers,butthatalsocountedfor theBritishcolonialrulers,whoareforthatnolessconsideredasforeignoppressors.Forthatmatter, intheJewishghettoinWarsawtheNazisemployedJewishguards,intheirsearchforabsconding JewstheyemployedJewishinformers,andintheirpolicyofdeportationtheyevensoughttheco operationoftheZionistmovement:noneofthiscandisproveNaziJewishenmity.Itisalsoafact thattheMuslimrulerssometimesmadewaramongeachother,butthatwasequallytruefor Portuguese,FrenchandBritishcolonizers,whofoughtsomewarsonIndianterritory:theywerejust asmuchpartofasinglecolonialmovementwithacommoncolonialideology,andallthebrandsof colonialismwereequallytheenemiesoftheindianfreedommovement.Eveninthehistoryofthe Crusades,thatparadigmofreligiouswar,wehearalotofbattlesbetweenoneChristianMuslim coalitionandanother:thesedonotfalsifytheoverallcharacterizationoftheCrusadesasawar betweenChristiansandMuslims(triggeredbythedestructionofChristianchurchesbyMuslims). AfterpostulatingthatconflictsbetweenHindusandMuslimsassuchwerenonexistentbeforethe modernperiod,thenegationistsarefacedwiththeneedtoexplainhowthistypeofconflictwas bornaftercenturiesofamisunderstoodnonexistence.TheMarxistexplanationisaconspiracy theory:theseparatecommunalidentityofHindusandMuslimsisaninventionoftheslyBritish colonialists.Theycarriedonadivideandrulepolicy,andthereforetheyincitedthecommunal separateness.Astheexampleparexcellence,prof.R.S.Sharmamentionsthe19thcentury8 volumeworkbyElliottandDowson,TheHistoryofIndiaasToldbyitsownHistorians.Thiswork doesindeedpaintaverygrimpictureofMuslimhordeswhoattackthePaganswithmerciless cruelty.ButthispicturewasnotaconcoctionbytheBritishhistorians:asthetitleoftheirworksays, theyhaditallfromindigenoushistoriographers,mostofthemMuslims. Yet,thenegationistbeliefthattheBritishnewlycreatedtheHinduMuslimdividehasbecomean articleoffaithwitheveryoneinIndiawhocallshimselfasecularist.Itbecameacentralpartofthe negationistargumentinthedebateovertheRamJanmabhoomi/BabriMasjidissue.Timeandagain, thenegationisthistorians(includingBipanChandra,K.N.Panikkar,S.Gopal,RomilaThapar, HarbansMukhia,IrfanHabib,R.S.Sharma,GyanendraPandey,SushilSrivastava,AsgharAli Engineer,aswellastheIslamicpoliticianSyedShahabuddin)haveassertedthatthetradition accordingtowhichtheBabrimosqueforciblyreplacedaHindutemple,isnothingbutamyth purposelycreatedinthe19thcentury.Toexplainthepopularityofthemythevenamonglocal Muslimwritersinthe19thcentury,mostofthemsayitwasadeliberateBritishconcoction,spread intheinterestofthedivideandrulepolicy.Theyaffirmthisconspiracyscenariowithoutanyhow citing,fromthecopiousarchiveswhichtheBritishadministrationinIndiahasleftbehind,anykind ofpositiveindicationfortheirconvenienthypothesisletalonetherigorousproofonwhicha serioushistorianwouldbasehisassertions,especiallyinsuchcontroversialquestions. TheyhavekeptontakingthisstandevenafterfivedocumentsbylocalMuslimsoutsidetheBritish

sphereinthe19thcentury,twodocumentsbyMuslimofficialsfromtheearly18thcentury,andtwo documentsbyEuropeantravellersfromthe18thand17thcentury,aswellastheextantrevenue records,allconfirmingthetempledestructionscenario,werebroughttothepublic'snoticein1990. Intheirpamphletsandbooks,thenegationistssimplykeptonignoringmostorallofthisevidence, defiantlydisregardinghistoricalfactaswellasacademicdeontology. ConcerningtheAyodhyadebate,itisworthrecallingthatthenegationistshavealsoresortedto anothertacticsofamiliartoourEuropeannegationists,andtoalldefendersofuntenablepositions: personalattacksontheiropponents,inordertopullthepublic'sattentionawayfromtheavailable evidence.InDecember1990,theleadingJNUhistoriansandseveralalliedscholars,followedbythe herdofsecularistpenpushersintheIndianpress,havetriedtoraisesuspicionsagainstthe professinalhonestyofProf.B.B.LalandDr.S.P.Gupta,thearchaeologistswhohaveunearthed evidencefortheexistenceofaHindutempleattheBabriMasjidsite.Rebuttalsbythesetwoanda numberofotherarchaelogistshaereceivedcoverageinthesecularistpress. InFebruary1991,IrfanHabibgivehisinfamousspeechtotheAligarhMuslimUniversityhistorians, inwhichhemadepersonalattacksonthescholarswhotookpartinthegovernmentsponsored debateonAyodhyaindefenceoftheHinduclaim,andonProf.B.B.Lal.Inthiscase,theweekly Sundaydidpublishalengthyreplybythedeputysuperintendingarchaeologistofthe ArchaeologicalSurveyofIndia,A.K.Sinha.Thecontentsofthisreplyareveryrelevant,butitisa bittechnical(i.e.notadaptedtothemediumofaweeklyforthegeneralpublic)andwrittenin clumsyEnglish,whichgivesapooroverallimpression. Actually,IspeculatethattheSundayeditormaywellhaveselecteditforpublicationprecisely becauseoftheseflaws.Thepracticeiswellknowninthetreatmentofletterstotheeditor:those defendingthewrongviewpointonlygetpublishediftheyaresomewhatfunnyorotherwise harmless.Icannotbesureaboutthisparticularcase,butitisageneralfactthatfromtheirpower positions,thenegationistsuseeverymeansattheirdisposaltocreateanegativeimagefortheHindu opponentsofIslamicimperialism,includingtheselectivehighlightingofthemostclumsyandleast convincingformulationsoftheHinduviewpoint. InhisBabriMasjidRamJanmabhoomiControversy,theIslamicapologistAliAsgharEngineerhas alsoselectedafewincompleteandlessconvincingstatementsoftheHinduposition,inorderto createasemblanceofwillingnesstoheartheHinduviewpointwhileatthesametimedenyingthe Hindusideanypublicityforitsstrongestarguments.Hehaskeptthemostdecisivepiecesof evidenceentirelyoutofthereaders'view,buthascoveredthisdeliberatedistortionofthepicture behindasemblanceofevenhandedness.InAnatomyofaConfrontation,theJNUhistoriansdonot evenmentionthepowerfulargumentationbyProf.A.R.Khan,whileProf.HarshNarainandMr. A.K.Chatterjee'spresentationauthentictestimonies(inIndianExpress,republishedbyVoiceof IndiainHinduTemples,WhathappenedtoThemandinHistoryvs.Casuistry)areonlymentioned butnotdetailedanddiscussed,letalonerefuted;butclumsyRSSpamphletsandimprovised statementsbyBJPoratorsarequotedandanalyzedatlength. TheconcludingparagraphofA.K.Sinha'srebuttaltoIrfanHabib'sspeechpointsoutthe contradictionbetweentheearlierworkofevenMarxisthistoriansaboutancientIndia(inwhichthey treattheepicsassourcesofhistory,notmerefable)andtheirrecentBabripoliticizedstand:"Today, eventakingthenameofMahabharataandRamayanaisconsideredasantinationalandcommunal bythecommunistleaders,BabriMasjidActionCommitteehistoriansandthepseudosecularists. Whatdotheyproposetodowithallthathasbeenpublishedsofarin[this]contextbytheMarxists themselves,notablyD.D.Kosambi,R.S.Sharma,RomilaThapar,K.M.Shrimali,D.N.Jhaand others?IhavebeenthinkingaboutthebehaviousofourMarxistfriendsandhistorians,their unprovokedslandercampaignagainstmanycolleagues,hurlingabusesandconvictinganyoneand everyoneevenbeforethechargescouldbeframedandproved.Theirlatesttargetis[so]sobreand

highlyrespectedapersonasprof.B.B.Lal,whohasallhislife(nowheisnearing70)never involvedhimselfinpettypoliticsorinthegroupism[whichis]sofavouriteasportamongtheso calledMarxistintellectualsofthiscountry.Butthen[slander]isawellpractisedartamongthe Marxists." AnothertrickwhichastudentofHolocaustnegationismwillreadilyrecognizeintheproBabri campaignoftheIndiannegationists,isthattrulydaringformofamnipulation:selectivelyquotingan authoritytomakehimsaytheoppositeofhisownconsideredopinion.WhentheJNUhistorians startedslanderingProf.B.B.LalasaturncoathiredbytheVHP,thiswasapanicreactionaftertheir earliertactichadbeenexposed(thoughonlyinIndianExpress,butthenegationistfrontwillnot tolerateevenoneholeinthecordonofinformationcontrol).Untilthen,theyhadbeenusingB.B. Lal'sfametosuporttheirownpositionthattheBabriMasjidhadnotreplacedatemple. IntheirpamphletThePoliticalAbuseofHistory,theJNUhistorianshadquotedfromabrief summary,publishedbytheArchaeologicalSurveyofIndiain1980,ofProf.B.B.Lal'sreportonhis excavationsinAyodhyaandotherRamayanasites.Theyknewthisreportperfectlywell,fortheyhad gleefullyquoteditsfindingthattheexcavationsjustneartheBabriMasjidhadnotyieldedany remainspredatingthe9thcenturyBC.Butthentheyhadgoneontostatethattherewasno archeologicalindicationforapreMasjidtempleonthatcontroversialsiteatall,evenwhenthe samereporthadcursorilymentionedtheremainsofabuildingdatedtothe11thcenturyAD.Later on,theyhavequotedthesamesummaryassayingthatthelaterperiodwasdevoidofanyinterest, suggestingthatnothingofanyimportancedatingfromthemedievalperiodhadbeenfound. Infact,thisremarkonlyprovesthattheASIsummarizersawnoreasontogive(orsawreasonsnot togive)detailsabouttheuninterestingbutnonethelessexistingmedievalfindings.Butinautumn 1990,someofthesedetailshavebeenmadepublicandtheyturnedouttobeofdecisiveimportance intheRamJanmabhoomidebate.Prof.K.N.Panikkar(inAnatomyofaConfrontation)suggeststhat, iftheserelevantdetailswerenotrecentlythoughtuptosuitthetheoriesoftheRSS,theymusthave beendeliberatelyconcealedatthattime(lateseventies)bytheASIsummarizer.Thelatter possibilitymeansthatnegationistsareactiveintheASIpublishingsection,editingarchaeological reportstosuitthenegationistcampaign.TheimpliedallegationissoseriousthatK.N.Panikkar expectsthereadertoassumetheotheralternative,viz.anRSSconcoction.Buthemaywellhavehit thenailonitsheadwithhissuggestionthatnegationistsintheASIaredoingexactlythesamething thattheyaredoinginallIndianinstitutionsandmedia:misusingtheirpositionstodistort information. Atanyrate,thedetailsofthefullreportweregiveninarticlesbyDr.S.P.GuptaandbyProf.B.B. Lalhimself(andindependentlybyotherarchaeologistsintalksandletterstoIndianExpress)inlate 1990.Thepillarbasesofan11thcenturybuilding,alignedtotheBabriMasjidwalls,were presentedbyProf.B.B.LalandDr.S.P.GuptainseparatefilmedinterviewswiththeBBC.There couldbenodoubtaboutitanymore:Prof.B.B.Lalhadarrivedataconclusionoppositetotheone ascribedtohimbyanumberofMarxisthistorians(notonlyfromJNU). ThatiswhyisearlyDecember1990severalofthemostvocalMarxisthistorianssuddenlytookto slanderandaccusedProf.B.B.LalofhavingchangedhisopinioninordertosuittheVHP'spolitical needs.NowthattheycouldnolongeruseProf.Lal'sreputationfortheirownends,theydecidedto tryanddestroyit.InthecaseofDr.S.P.Gupta,theyhavenottakenbacktheirridiculousallegation thathehadfalselyclaimedparticipationintheRamayanasitesexcavations.Butwithabignamelike B.B.Lal,animpeccableacademicofworldfame,theyhadtobecareful,becauseslanderagainst himmightsomehowbackfire.Thatiswhytheyhavenorpressedthepoint,andwhyanumberof MarxisthistoriansandotherparticipantsintheAyodhyadebatehavequitelyrevertedtotheearlier tacticofselectivelyquotingfromtheASIsummaryofProf.B.B.Lal'sreport,andactingasifthe greatarchaeologisthassupportedandevenproventheirownposition.Asthepresshadgiven

minimumcoveragetoB.B.LalandS.P.Gupta'srevelations,manypeoplewouldnotsuspectthe truth. Anothertrickfromthenegationists'bookthathasbeenverymuchinevidenceduringtheAyodhya debate,consistsinfocusingallattentiononthepiecesofevidencegivenbythosewhoupheldthe historicaltruth,,andtryingtofindfaultwiththemasvalidevidence.Thus,atthepressconference (19Dec.1992)whereDr.S.P.Guptaandotherhistorianspresentedphotographsofaninscription foundduringthedemolitionoftheBabriMasjid,whichprovedoncemorethatatemplehadstood onthesite,andthatitwasspecificallyabirthplacetemplefor"VishnuHariwhodefeatedBaliand thetenheadedking[Ravana]",somejournalistsheckledthespeakerswithremarksthat"becauseof thedemolition,theinscriptionwasnotinsituandthereforenotvalidasevidence",andsimilarfeats ofpettyfaultfinding. Afewdayslater,agroupof70archaeologistsandhistorians,mostlynameswhohadnottakena prominentroleinthisdebatesofar,broughtshameonthemselvesbypronouncingjudgementonthis pieceofevidencewithoutevenseeing,letalonestudyingit.Theydemandednotthatthe governmentlookintothisnewevidence,aswouldbeproperforrepresentativesofthescientific spirit,butthatittracedownfromwhichmuseumtheplantedevidencehadbeenstolenandbrought toAyodhya.Indoinghistoryfalsification,itisbesttoremainontheattack,andtoputthebonafide historiansonthedefensivebyaccusingthemfirst. Afterdozensofpiecesofevidencefortheforciblereplacementoftemplewithmosquescenariohad beengiven,theBabrinegationistshadnevercomeupwithasinglepieceofcounterevidence(i.e. positiveevidenceforanalternativescenario);theycouldnotdobetterthankeepsilentoverthemost strikingevidence,andotherwisescreamatthetopoftheirvoicethatevidenceAdidnotcount, evidenceBwasnotvalid,evidenceCwasflawed,evidenceDwasfabricated.In1992alone,inthe clearingoperationsneartheJanmabhoomisiteinJune,duringseveralvisitsofexperts,andduring thedemolitionon6December,morethan200piecesofarchaeologicalevidenceforthepreexistent Vaishnavatemplehadbeenfound,butthese70scholarspreferredtodisregardallthem.Thistime, thesuggestionwasthatinthemiddleofthekarseva,theinscriptionhadbeenplantedthere.You couldjustaswelljointheHolocaustnegationistsandsaythatthegaschambersfoundin1945had beenaHollywoodmiseenscene.Pickingatasingletestimonyasifthewholecasedependsonit hasbeenafavouritetechniqueofthenegationiststodistractattentionfromthelargerpicture,to makepeopleforgetthatevenifthisonepieceofevidencewereflawed,thiswouldnotinvalidatethe generalconclusionsbuiltonawholecorpusofevidence. AfinalpointofsimilaritybetweentheMarxistinvolvementintheBabriMasjidcaseandthe techniquesofHolocaustnegationismisthefactthattherewasaBabriMasjiddebateinthefirst place.Indeed,postulatingdoubtandtheneedforadebateisthefirststepofdenial.Thetradition thattheBabriMasjidhadforciblyreplacedatemplewasfirmlyestablishedadsupportedbysources otherwiseacceptedasauthoritative;whenitwaschallenged,thiswasnotonthebasisofnewfound materialwhichjustifiedareexaminationofthehistoricalposition.Thecorrectprocedurewould havebeenthatthedeniersoftheestablishedviewcomeupwithsomepositiveevidencefortheir innovativeposition:untilthen,therewassimplynoreasonforadebate.Instead,theystarted demandingthattheothersidegiveproofofwhathadbeenknownallalong,andforcedadebateon somethingthatwasreallyamatterofconsensus.Subsequently,insteadofenteringthering, attackingorcounteringtheiropponents'casewithpositiveevidenceoftheirown,thechallengersset themselvesupasjudgesoftheotherside'sargumentation.Thisisindeedreminiscentofthe negationistInstituteforHistoricalReviewannouncingaprizeforwhomevercouldprovethatthe Holocausthadtakenplace. ThereisyetanothertrickfromthenegationistarsenalwhichhasbeentriedinIndia:findawitness fromthevictims'camptotestifytotheaggressor'sinnocence.Ofcoursetherearenotwitnesses

aroundwholivedthroughAurangzeb'sterror,buttherearemanywholivedthroughthehorrorsof Partition.Itisnobody'scasethatthekillingswichJinnahconsideredafairpriceforhisMuslim state,nevertookplace.Butthenegationistshavespentalotofeffortonprovingthenextbestthing: thattheguiltwasspreadeventlyamongHindusandMuslims. TheCommunistnovelistBhishmaSahnihasusedthenovelTamastopointtheHindusasthe villainsinthePartitionviolence.TheinterestingthingisthatBhishmaSahni'sownfamilywas amongtheHindurefugeeshoundedoutorPakistan.HisantiHindubias,comingfromamanwho wouldhavemorereasonforanantiMuslimanimus,isagiftfromheavenfortheHindubaiters. MarxistProfessorBipanChandraparadesasimilarcharacterinhispaper:CommunalismtheWay Out(publishedtogetherwithtwolecturesbyKJhushwantSinghas:ManyFacesofCommunalism). OneofhisstudentshadsurvivedtheterrorofPartitioninRawalpindi,losing7familymembers. BudhedidnothaveanyanimusagainsttheMuslims,forhesaid:"VeryearlyIrealizedthatmy parentshadnotbeenkilledbytheMuslims,theyhadbeenkiledbycommunalism."Comingfroma victimofMuslimviolence,thisisexcellentmaterialforthosewhowanttoapportionequalblameto HindusndMuslims. Ofcourse,BipanChandra'sstudentwasright.ThecauseofPartitionandofitsaccompanying violencewasnottheMuslims,butcommunalism,i.e.thebeliefthatpeoplewithacommonreligion formaseparatesocialandpoliticalentity.ThisbeliefisnotfosteredbyHinduism,butitiscentralto IslameversinceMohammedfoundedhisfirstIslamicstateinMedina.ItistruethatsomeHindu groups(mostconspicuouslytheSikhs)haverecentlyadoptedsomeIslamicelements,includingthe communalistbeliefthatareligiousgroupformsaseparatenationentitledtoaseparatestate.Butthe sourceofthiscommunalistpoisoninIndiaisandremainsIslam.Therefore,BipanChandra'sstudent hasinfactsaid:"MyfamilywasnotkilledbytheMuslims,butbyIslam." ItisadifferentmatterthatMuslimsarethemostlikelycarriersoftheIslamicdiseasecalled communalism,andthattheyhadmassivelyvotedforthecommnalistprojectofcreatingaseparate Muslimstate.TheculpritwasIslam,andconcerningthepositionsoftheMuslimsinthelightofthe fanaticalnatureofIslam,IwouldquoteBipanChandra'sownsimileforunderstandingthe differencebetweencommunalismanditsadherents:whenapatientsuffersfromaterribledisease, youdon'tkillhim,butcurehim.ThevictimsofIslamicindoctrinationshouldnotbethetargetof Hindurevenge,astheywereinlargenumbersin1947.Don'tkillthepatient,killthedisease. RemoveIslamfromtheMuslims'mindsthrougheducationandIndia'scommunalproblemwillbeas goodassolved. AtthispointwemaytakeasecondlookattheMarxistposition,mentionedabove,thattheHindu communityisarecentinvention.TheobservationswhichIjustmadeconcerningtheIslamic provenanceofcommunalismmightseemtoconfirmthattherewasnoHinducommunalidentity. However,theauthenticsourcesfromthemedievalperiodareunanimousaboutthesharprealization ofaseparatecommunalidentityasMuslimsandasHindus,overwhelminglyontheMuslimside, butalsoontheHinduside.WeknowforinstancethatShivaji,whoturnedthetideoftheMuslim offensiveinthelate17thcenture,wasaconsciouspartisanofanallHinduliberationwaragainst Muslimrule(HinduPadPadashahi).ThesamecountsforRanaPratapandmanyotherHindu leaders,andtherecannotbeanydoubtthattheVijayanagarempirewasconsciousofitsroleasthe lastfortressofHinducivilization. ItistruethatsomeHindukingsattackedneighbouringHindustatesinthebackwhenthesewere attackedbytheMusliminvaders.TheywereatfirstnotawarethattheseIslamicnewcomerswerea commonenemy,motivatedbyhatredagainstallnonMuslims;buttheirlackofinsightintothe characterofIslaminnowaydisprovestheirawarenessofacommonHinduidentity.Thefactthat theywereacutelyawareoftheirinternalpoliticalrivalries,doesnotexcludethattheywereawareof amorefundamentalcommonidentity,whichwasnotatstakeintheseinternecinefeuds,butwhich

theydefendedtogetheroncetheyrealizedthatitwasthetargetofthisnewkindofideologically motivatedaggressor,Islam.Brothersareawarethattheyhavealotincommon,andthisisnot disprovenbythefactthat,whenlefttothemselves,theyalsoquarrelwitheachother. IfatallsomeHindushadatfirstonlybeenconsciousoftheirowncasteorsectratherthanofthe Hinducommonwealth,theMuslimpersecutionsofallHinduswithoutdistinctioncertainlymade themawareoftheircommonidentityandinterest.So,iftheMarxistsperforcewanttodenythe commoncultureandvaluesystemunderlyingthediversityoftheHinducommonwealth,thenlet themapplysomeoftheirowndialecticsinstead."ItisintheircommonstruggleaginsttheIslamic aggressors,thatthedisparatesectionsofthenativeIndiansocietyhaveforgedtheircommon identityasHindus":Idonotagreewiththisstatementwhichpositsanegativeandreactivebasisfor acommonHinduidentity,butitmustbeacceptedifonelaboursundertheassumptionthatthere neverhadbeenapositivecommonidentitybefore.ItisunreasonabletoexpecttheIndianPagansto belumpedtogetherasHindusforcenturiesonend,tobeuniformlymadethetargetofone neverendingaggressionbyIslam,tobesubjectedtothesamehumiliationsandthesamejizyatax, andyetnotbecomeconsciousofacommoninterest.Thiscommoninterestwouldthengiveriseto unifyingculturalsuperstructure.ThatishowthesustainedanduniformIslamicattackonallIndia PaganswouldinevitablyhavegivenrisetoatleastameasureofcommonHinduidentityifthishad notpreviouslyexisted. InhisCommunalHistoryandRama'sAyodhya(1990),theMarxistProfessorR.S.Sharmaargues thatthemedievalHindusdidnotseetheMuslimsasadistinctreligiousentity,butasanethnic group,theTurks.Hisproof:theGahadvaladynastyleviedataxcalledTurushkadanda,taxfinancing thewareffortagainsttheTurks.ButthisdoesnotprovewhatSharmathinksitproves. TheMuslimscalledthePagansofIndiasometimesKafirs,unbelievers,i.e.areligiousdesignation; butoftentheycalledthemHindusinhabitantsofHindustan,i.e.anethnicgeographicaldesignation (fromHind,thePersianequivalentofSindh).Andtheygavereligiouscontentstothisgeographical term,whichithaskepttilltoday:soitiscorrectthattheHindusneverdefinedthemselvesas Hindus,asthiswasthePersianandlatertheMuslimtermfortheIndianPagansadheringto SanatanaDharma.Butthatwasonlyaterminologicalmatter,thefundamentalreligiousunityofthe SanatanaDharmiswasjustasmuchafact.Similarly,theHinduscalledthesenewcomersTurks,but thisdoesnotexcluderecognitionoftheirreligiousspecificity.Onthecontrary,evenTeimurthe Terrible,whomadeitabsolutelyclearinhismemoirsthathecametoIndiatowageareligiouswar againstthePagans,andwhofreedtheMuslimcaptivesfromaconqueredcitybeforeputtingthe Hinduremaindertothesword,referredtohisownforcesastheTurks.Conversely,theHindus describeasthetypicalTurkishbehaviouspatternthatwhichisenjoinedbyIslam. WhileitistruethattheHindushavebeenmuchtooslow(tilltoday)instudyingthereligious foundationofthebarbaricbehaviouswhichtheyexperiencedatthehandsoftheTurushkas,atleast theysoonfoundoutthatfortheseinvadersreligionwastheprofessedmotiveoftheirinhuman behavious.Prof.Sharma'spieceofevidence,theinstitutionofaTurushkandana,doeshoweverprove veryclearlythattheIslamicthreatwasextraordinary:thenormalarmedforcesandwarcreditswere notsufficienttodealwiththisthreatwhichwasinaclassbyitself. Theoriginalsourcematerialleavesusinnodoubtthatconflictsofteneruptedonpurelyreligious grounds,evenagainstthepoliticalandeconomicalinterestsofthecontendingparties.The negationists'tacticthereforeconsistsinkeepingthisoriginaltestimonyoutofview.Agoodexample isProf.GyanendraPandey'srecentbook,TheConstructionofCommunalisminColonialNorth India.Asthetitleclearlysays,Pandeyassertsthatcommunalism(theHinduMuslimconflict)had beenconstructedbytheBritishforcolonialpurposesanmdoutofcolonialprejuidices,waslater interiorizedbyIndianslookingfornew,politicallyprofitableformsoforganizationinmodern colonialsociety.ThisislikesayingthatantiJudaismisaconstructionofmoderncapitaliststo

dividetheworkingclass(thestandardMarxistexplanationforallkindsofracism),whileconcealing thecopiousmedievaltestimonyofantiJudaismonundeniablynoncapitalistgrounds.Prof.Pandey effectivelydeniesamillenniumfuloftestimoniestoIslamicpersecutionoftheIndian(Hindu) Kafirs. Anotherexampleisprof.K.N.Panikkar'sworkontheMoplahrebellion,,,apofgromagainstthe HindusbytheMalabar(Kerala)Muslimsinthemarginofthekhilafatmovementin1921(official deathtoll2,339).PanikkartakestheorthodoxMarxistpositionthatthiswasnotacommunalbuta classconflict,notbetweenHindusandMuslimsbutbetweenworkerswhohappenedtobeMuslims andlandlordswhohappenedtobeHindus.Inrealitythecommunalcharacterofthemassacrewas soevidentthatevenMahatmaGandhirecognizeditasterribleblowforhisidealofHinduMuslim unity.Itisquitepossiblethattheoccasionwasusedtosettlescoreswithlandlordsandmoney lenders(thatstereotypeofantiHinduaswellasofantiJewishsloganeering),butthemullahs exhortedtheirflocktoattackallHindus,andaddedinsomanywordsthatnotonlythelandlordsbut alltheHindusweretheirenemies.ThepoisonofIslamicfanaticismissuchthatitturnsanykindof conflictintoanattackonthenonMuslims. MoreMarxistwisdomweencounterinRomilaThapar'stheory(inhercontributiontoS.Gopal's bookontheAyodhyaaffair,AnatomyofaConfrontation)thatthecurrentHindumovementwantsto uniteallHindus,notbecausetheHindusfeelbesiegedbyhostileforces,notbecausetheyhavea memoryofcenturiesofjihad,butbecause"amonolithicreligionismorecompatiblewith capitalism"(toborrowtheformulationofareviewer).ShethinksthatthepoliticalHindumovement ismerelyaconcoctionbyHinducapitalists,orinherownwords"partoftheattempttoredefine Hinduismasanideologyformodernizationbythemiddleclass",inwhich"modernizationisseen aslinkedtothegrowthofcapitalism".Shereadsthemindbehindthecapitalistconspiracytoreform Hinduismthus:"CapitalismisoftenbelievedtothriveamongSemiticreligionssuchasChristianity andIslam.TheargumentwouldthenrunthatifcapitalismistosucceedinIndia,thenHinduism wouldalsohavetobemouldedinaSemiticform". ItisalwaysinterestingtoseehowCommunistspresupposethesuperiorityofHinduismby denouncingHindumilitancyasthesemiticizationorislamizationofHinduism.Butthepointisthat thepoliticalmobilizationofHindusocietyundertheincreasingpressureofhostileforcesis explainedawayasmerelyacamouflageofeconomicforces.Onesmilesaboutsuchsimplistic subjectionofunwillingfactsofMarxistdogma.Especiallybecausesuchanalyseswerestillbeing madein1991,andarestillbeingmadetoday:inIndiaithasnotyetdawnedonthedominant intelligentsiathatMarxismhasfailednotonlyasapoliticalandeconomicalsystem,butalsoasa socialogicalmodelofexplanation.Onthecontrary,IndianMarxistsevenmanagetomakeforeign correspondentsfornonMarxistmediaswallowtheiranalysis,e.g.aftertheBabriMasjid demolition,eventheconservativeFrankfurterAllgemeineSeitungexplainedHindufundamentalism inthesamesocioeconomicalterms,completewithurbantraderswhoarelookingforanidentity etc. Incidentally,RomilaThaparisrightinobservingthatcertainHindurevivalistsaetryingto"find parallelswiththeSemiticreligionsasiftheseparallelsarenecessaryforthefutureofHinduism" (thoughherattempttoforcetheRamJanmabhoomimovementintothismould,withRamabeing turnedintoaprophetandtheRamayanaintothesolerevealedScriptureetc.,iscompletely unfoundedandanotherpatheticcaseoftryingtoforceunwillingfactsintoapreconceived scheme).Shesoundslikefavouringarenewedemphasison"thefactthatthereligiousexperienceof IndiancivilizationandofreligioussectswhicharebunchedtogetherunderthelabelofHinduare distinctivelydifferentfromthatoftheSemitic". ItistruethatsomeHindurevivalistmovementshavetriedtoredefineHinduismintermsborrowed frommonotheism,withrudimentsofnotionslikeaninfallibleScripture(backtotheVedas:the

AryaSamaj),iconoclasticmonotheism(AryaSamaj,AkalineoSikhs),oramonolithichierarchic organization(theRSS).Butthereasonforthisdevelopmentcannotwithanystretchofthe imaginationbededucedfromtheexigenciesofcapitalism.Anhonestanalysisofthistendencyin HinduismtoimitatetheChristianIslamicmodelwilldemonstratethatapsychologyoftactical imitationasawayofselfdefenceagainsttheseaggressiveSemiticreligionswasatwork.The tendencycannotpossiblybereducedtothesocioeconomicalcategoriesdeartoMarxism,but springsfromtheterrorwhichIslam(notfedualismorcapitalism,butIslam)hadstruckintheHindu mind,andwhichwassubsequentlyfortifiedwithanintellectualdimensionbytheChristian missionarypropagandaagainstprimitivepolytheism.ThoseHinduswhowerewagingthestruggle forsurvivalagainsttheIslamicandChristianonslaughthavecometoresembletheirenemiesabit, andhaveinteriorizedalotoftheaggressors'contemptfortypicalHinduthings,suchasidol worship,doctrinalpluralism,socialdecentralization.ItisforHindusocietytoreflectonwhether thisimitationwastherightcourse,andwhetherithasnotbeenselfdefeatinginsomerespects. Atanyrate,theveryexistenceofthispsychologicalneedamongsomemilitantHindustoimitatethe propheticmonotheisticreligionsisasymptomofanalreadyoldpolarizationbetweenHinduism andaggressivemonotheism,especiallyIslam.BipanChandra'schronologyofcommunalismasa 20thcenturyphenomenoncannotexplainthecommunalpolarizationofwhichSikhismandthe AryaSamajweremanifestations.Thesecanonlybeunderstoodfromthecenturiesoifactive hostilitybetweenIslamandHinduism.Shivajiwasnotaheraldofcapitalism,noraproductof Britishdivideandrulepolicy,butaparticipantinanongoingwarbetweenHinducivilizationand Islamicaggression. Sincethe1950sthehistorymarketisbeingfloodedwithpublicationsconveyingthenegationist versiontoagreaterorlesserextent.ThepublicisfednegationistTVserialslikeTheSwordofTipu Sultan,anexerciseinwhitewashingthearchfanaticlastMuslimruler.Mostgeneralreadersand manyseriousstudentsonlygettoknowaboutIndianhistorythroughnegationistglasses.InIndia, thenegationistshavemanagedwhatEuropeannegationistscanonlydreamof:turnthetableson honesthistoriansandmarginalizethem.Peoplewhohavespecializedinadaptinghistorytothe partyline,arelecturingothersaboutthepoliticalabuseofhistory.Bycontrast,geuninehistorians whohaverefusedtotamperwiththerecordofIslam(likeJadunathSarkar,R.C.Majumdar,K.S. Lal)areheldusasexamplesofcommunalisthistorywritingintextbookswhicharerequiredreading inallhistorydepartmentsinIndia. Butthenegationistsarenotsatisfiedwithseeingtheirownversionofthefactsbeingrepeatedin moreandmorebooksandpapers.Theyalsowanttopreventotherversionsfromreachingthe public.Therefore,in1982theNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTrainingissueda directivefortherewritingofschoolbooks.Amongotherthings,itstipulatedthat:"Characterization ofthemedievalperiodasatimeofconflictbetweenHindusandMuslimsisforbidden."Under Marxistpressure,negationismhasbecomeIndia'sofficialpolicy. NowthatMarxismisnolongerthefashionoftheday,itisveryeasytoexposetheshameless dishonestyofmanyvocalMarxistintellectuals.Itistimetogothroughtherecordandseewhatthey havesaidaboutthe"economicsuccesses"oftheSovietUnion,theenthusiasmoftheChinesepeople fortheGreatLeapForwardandtheCulturalRevolution,abouttheCommunistinvolvementin crimeslikeKatyn,andabouttheliesputoutbytheCIAsponsoreddissidentsandcampsurvivors. TheirIslamnegationismisbyfarnottheirfirstsystematicfalsificationofachapterofhistory. WhentheMarxistsstartlecturingHindusabouttoleranceandtherespectforBarbar'smosque,itis easytoputthemonthedefensivebyaskingwhathappenedtochurches,mosquesandtempleswhen Maotookover.Communistregimes'treatmentofreligionhasbeensimilartoIslam'streatmentof infidelity.Eitherreligiouspeoplehadthezimmistatus,i.e.theyweresufferedtoexistbutatthecost ofcareerprospects,benefitofsocialormaterialbenefits,alwaysunderthewatchfuleyeofpolice

informers,andofcoursewithouttherighttoconvertortoobjecttostateatheism'sconversion efforts(accordingtothechineseConstitution,thereisarighttopractisereligionandarightto practiseandpropageteatheism);ortheyweresimplypersecuted,theirreligiouseducationforbidden (intheSovietUnion,manypeoplehavespentyearsinjailfortransportingBiblesorteaching Hebrew),theirplacesofworshipdemolishedorexpropriatedforsecularuse.Communismand Islamaretrulycomradesinintolerance. CertainlysomestatementscanbedugupofIndianCommunistsdefendingtheCulturalRevolution inwhichsomanythousandsofplacesofworshipweredestroyedandtheirpersonnelbrutalizedor killed.WhentheKhumarRougewereinpower,lessthat1,000ofthe65,000Buddhistmonks managedtosurvive:whatdidtheIndianMarxists(cardcarryingandother)saythen?Thebigger partoftheMarxists'successwasintheiraggressiveness:aslongastheyremainedontheoffensive, everyonetriedtoliveuptothenormstheyprescribed.Nowitistimetoputthemtoscrutiny.

2.5FOREIGNSUPPORTFORINDIANNEGATIONISM
Someforeignauthors,influencedbyIndiancolleagues,havealsoaddedabigdoseofnegationism totheirworkonIndianhistory.Forinstance,PercivalSpear,coauthor(withRomilaThapar)ofthe PenguinHistoryofIndia,writes:"Aurangzeb'ssupposedintoleranceislittlemorethanahostile legendbasedonisolatedactssuchastheerectionofamosqueonatemplesiteinBenares." ThisisarepetitionofthethesisdefendedbyZahiruddinFarukiinhis"Aurangzebandhistimes" (1935),recentlytakenupagainbyS.N.M.AbdiinIllustratedWeeklyofIndia(5/12/1992),who claimsthatAurangzebwasnotantiHindu,andthattheMa'asiriAlamgiri(madeavailabletothe publicbytheRoyalSocietyofBengalandtranslatedbyJadunathSarkar),whichlistsAurangzeb's templedestroyingactivitiesfromdaytoday,isaforgery.FarukiandAbdicountonthepublic's limitedzealforcheckingthesources,whentheyfalselyclaimthat"apartfromtheMa'asiri Alamgiri,thereisnootherreferencetotheorderforthedestructionoftemples",andthatwedonot hearofanyprotestwhichlargescaletempledestructionwouldhavecaused. AbdithinkshecangetawaywithclaimingasevidenceastoneslaballegedlyseenbyFarukiinthe GyanvapimosqueinBenares,mentioningadate(1659)thatdoesnottallywiththetraditionaldate (1669)oftheforciblereplacementoftheKashiVishvanathtemplewiththismosque;evenwhile admittingthat"theslabseenbyFarukihasdisappearedmysteriously,alongwithanother significantpieceofevidence".Withoutblinking,hethencitesatheorythattheGyanvapimosque alreadyexistedunderAkbar,i.e.acenturybeforeeitherofthetwodates.Further,hequotesas authorityalocalagitatorwhoclaims:"MyresearchrevealsthataBuddhistviharawasdemolished tomakewayforatemple,whichwassubsequentlypulleddownandtheGyanvapimosque constructedonitssite."Thefirstclaim,inspiteofflauntingthepretentioustermresearch,inaplain lie;thesecondisofcoursetruebutcontradictsthecasewhichMr.Abdiisbuildingup.Suchisthe qualityoftheargumentforAurangzeb'stoleranceandHindufriendliness. Whatarethefacts?InBeneras(Varanasi),Aurangzeb(16581707)didnotjustbuildanisolated mosqueonadestroyedtemple.Heorderedalltemplesdestroyed,amongthemtheKashi Vishvanath,oneofthemostsacredplacesofHinduism,andhadmosquesbuiltonanumberof clearedtemplesites.AllotherHindusacredplaceswithinhisreachequallysuffereddestruction, withmosquesbuiltonthem;amongthem,Krishna'sbirthtempleinMathura,therebuiltSomnath templeonthecoastofGujrat,theVishnutemplereplacedwiththeAlamgirmosquenow overlookingBenares,theTretakaThakurtempleinAyodhya.Thenumberoftemplesdestroyedby Aurangzebiscountedin4,ifnotin5figures.Accordingtotheofficialcourtchronicle,Aurangzeb

"orderedallprovincialgovernorstodestroyallschoolsandtemplesofthePagansandtomakea completeendtoallPaganteachingsandpractices".Thechroniclesumsupthedestructionslike this:"HasanAliKhancameandsaidthat172templesintheareahadbeendestroyed...Hismajesty wenttoChittor,and63templesweredestroyed...AbuTarab,appointedtodestroytheidoltemples ofAmber,reportedthat66templeshadbeenrazedtotheground". Inquiteanumberofcases,inscriptionsonmosquesandlocaltraditiondoconfirmthatAurangzeb builttheminforciblereplacementoftemples(someoftheseinscriptionshavebeenquotedin SitaramGoel:HinduTemples,vol.2,alongwithanumberofindependentwrittenaccounts). Aurangzeb'sreignwsmarkedbyneverendingunrestandrebellions,causedbyhisantiHindu policies,whichincludedthereimpositionofthejizyaandotherzimmarules,andindeedthe demolitionoftemples. Aurangzebdidnotstopatrazingtemples:theiruserstoowerelevelled.Therewerenotjustthe classicalmassacresofthousandsofresisters,Brahmins,Sikhs.Whatgivesamorepointedproofof Aurangzeb'sfanaticism,istheexecutionofspecificindividualsforspecificreasonofintolerance.To namethebestknownones:Aurangzeb'sbrotherDaraShikohwasexecutedbecauseofapostasy(i.e. takinganinterestinHinduphilosophy),andtheSikhguruTeghBahadurwasbeheadedbecauseof hisobjectingtoAurangzeb'spolicyofforcibleconversionsingeneral,andinparticularforrefusing tobecomeaMuslimhimself.Short,PercivalSpear'sstatementthatAurangzeb'sfanaticismisbuta hostilelegend,isamostseriouscaseofnegationism. Anexampleofalessblatant(i.e.moresubtle)formofnegationisminWesternhistoriesofIndia,is theIndiaentryintheEncyclopaediaBrittannica.ItschapterontheSultanateperiod(whichwas muchmorebloodythaneventheMoghulperiod)doesnotmentionanypersecutionsandmassacres ofHindusbyMuslims,exceptthatFiruzShahTughlaq"madelargelyunsuccessfulattemptsto converthisHindusubjectsandsometimespersecutedthem".Thearticleeffectivelyobeysthe negationistdirectivethat"characterizationofthemedievalperiodasatimeofHinduMuslim conflictisforbidden". Italsocontainsblissfulnonsenseaboutcommunalamityinplaceswheretheoriginalsourcesonly mentionenmity.Thus,itsaysthatBahmanisultanTajuddinFiruzextractedtributepaymentsandthe handoftheking'sdaughterfromtheHindubastionVijayanagaraftertwomilitarycampaigns,and thatthisresultedin"theestablishmentofanapparentlyamicablerelationshipbetweenthetwo rulers".JawaharlalNehruconsideredtheinductionofHinduwomeninMuslimharemsasthecradle ofcompositeculture(hiseuphemismforHinduhumiliation),butitisworseifeventhevenerable Encyclopediaconsidersthetermsofdebateasasignoffriendship.Atanyrate,thearticlegoeson toobservenaivelythatpeacelastedonlyfortenyears,whenVijaynagarforcesinflictedacrushing defeatonFiruz.Inthiscase,themorecircumspectformofnegationismisatwork:keepingthe inconvenientfactsoutofthereaders'view,andmanipulatingtheterminology. AnAmericanhistorian'sbookisintroducedthus:"Inthisbook[PublicArenasandtheEmergence ofCommunalisminNorthIndia],SandraFreitagexaminesoneofthecentralproblemsofmodern Indianhistory,theHinduMuslimconflict,withnewandprovocativeinsight.Shechallengeslong standinginterpretationsbydefiningthisconflictasadevelopingsocialprocessgroups,notsimply HinduorMuslim,inhighlyspecificlocalcontextsboundtogetherinachanginginstitutional order." Thissophisticatedverbiagecannotconcealthatthebook'sapproachismerelythestandardsecularist versionpropagatedbyIndianestablishmenthistorianssincedecades.Thereisnothingnewand provocativeaboutabookthatclaimstoexplaincommunalismwithouttouchingonitssinglemost importantdeterminant,viz.thedoctrinelaiddowninIslamicscripture,andthatblurstheclearcut processofIndia'scommunalizationbyIslamwiththehelpofscapegoatslikecolonialism.

ItisnotentirelycleartowhatextentsuchWesternauthorsareconsciousaccomplicesinthe intellectualcrimeofnegationism,andtowhatextenttheyarejustgulliblecopiersoftheversion giventothembyEnglishspeakingIndians.InthecaseofahistorianinvitedbyPenguintowritea HistoryofIndia,itishardtobelievethathedidn'tknowbetter. AnothercaseofmalafidereportingisformerTimecorrespondentEdwardDesmond'slengthy reviewofJNUProfessofS.Gopal'sAnatomyofaConfrontationintheNewYorkReviewofBooks. IknowthatMr.DesmondhadgonethroughthebooksstatingtheHinducaseonAyodhya;hehad talkedtobothMr.SitaramGoelandmyself(bytelephone);heknewabouthardevidenceforthe templethatwasforciblyreplacedbytheBabriMasjid,includingProf.B.B.Lal'sfilmed presentationofthearcharologicalevidence.Andyet,likeProf.Gopal,hestrictlykeepsthelidon theHinducase,doesnotmentiontheextensivedocumentaryevidence,andcurtlydismissesthe archaeologicalevidenceasbogus.Here,thepsychologyatworkisapparentlythatofstatus consciousness:youwouldn'texpectaseniorcorrespondentofabigAmericanmagazinetoprefer thecompanyofmarginalproHinduwriterstothatofprestigiousStalinistprofessorsofIndia's Harvard,wouldyou? Ontheotherhand,inthedaytodayreportingonthecommunalsituationinIndia,thereisalotof bonafidecopyingoftheantiHinduviewsdominantintheIndianEnglishlanguagepress.Atypical mixedcaseofsomecomplicityandsomegullibilitywastheTVdocumentaryaboutHindu fundamentalismmadebyBBCcorrespondentBrianBarron,andboradcaseintheweekofthefirst roundoftheLokSabhaelectionsinMay1991.BrianBarronisanotherwisemeritoriousjournalist, witnesshisrevelationsinOctober1991aboutthemassacreofthousandsofBuddhistmonksinthe earlyyearsofcommunistruleinMongolia.ButhisprogrammeabouttheHindumovementwas secondrateandbiased.Forastart,itcontainedsomefactualmistakes(likeamapmeanttoshowthe trailofHinduleaderL.K.Advani'sprocessioninsupportoftheRamJanmabhoomicause,which drewalineunrelatedtotheactualtrail,apartfromplacingDelhiontheGangariver),exemplifying thecarelessnesswhichWesterncorrespondentscanaffordwhenitcomestoIndiareporting. BarronsaidthatIndiahadalreadybeenpartitionedbecauseofreligion.Infact,Indiahasbeen partitionedbecauseofIslam,againstthewillofotherreligions,andthisseeminglysmallinaccuracy isanoldtricktodistributetheguiltofIslaminpartitioningIndiaoverallreligionsequally.Barron madenoattempttoseemimpartial,andintroducedBJPleaderL.K.Advaniasademagogue.He askedAdvani'sdeclaredenemyV.P.SinghwhetherAdvaniwasnotmerelyputtingahumanemask onfanaticism.Easy,thatwayV.P.Singhonlyhadtosayyes.Hefailedtotaketheopportunityto questionV.P.SinghabouthispoliticalmarriagewiththeMuslimfundamentalistleaderImam Bukhari,whilethatwasacaseofaHindupromotingfundamentalismaswell.HeletSwami Agnivesh,aMarxistinochrerobe,accusetheBJPofmixingreligionandpolitics,butneglectedto informtheviewersthatSwamiAgniveshhashimselfcombiningmonkhoodwithbeingaJanataDal candidateintheLokSabhaelections. WhenBarronaskedAdvaniwhyhehadallowedsomuchbloodshedonhisprocession(therathyatra ofOctober1990),whereasinfacttherehadbeennoriotsallalongthepathofhismonthlong journey,Advanicorrectlysaid:"Youaretakeninbyadisinformationcampaign."Aserious journalistwouldhaveinquireddeeperwhenhissources,withwhichthequalityofhisworkstands orfalls,arequestionedsopointedly.WhenasadhusaidthatMuslimsrefusetorespectHindusand thatHindusarelegallydiscriminatedagainst,Barrondidnotinquirewhatthesediscriminations were.Likeallwesternreporters,hehasreportedonHindufundamentalismwithoutaskingeven oncewhythismovementhasemerged,insteadrelayingtheMarxistlinethatitisallacamouflage forclass(c.q.caste)interests,anartificialcreationforpettypoliticalgain. Barroninterviewedprof.RomilaThapar,whoaccusedtheHindumovementofaimingatasystemin whichsomecommunitieswouldbesecondclasscitizenslivinginconstantfearfortheirlives.From

aspokeswomanofMarxism,whichhasheldentirepopulationsinconstantfearandoppression,and whichhaskillednumerousmillionsof"contrarevolutionaryelements"(tousethecriminalizing, dehumanizingMarxistterm),theallegationsoundsrathershameless.Buttheviewerswerenottold whereRomilaThaparstands,theywereledtobelievethatthiswasaneutralobserverwhohadbeen askedforanobjectiveexplanation.ThesamethinghashappenedanumberoftimesinbothTime MagazineandNewsweek:BipanChandra,RomilaThaparandtheircomradesgetquotedasifthey arenonpartisanauthorities.ThoughantiCommunistintheirgeneralreporting,whenitcomesto India,thesepapers(unknowingly?)presenttheMarxists'viewpointasobjectiveindepth backgroundinformation. Onlytenyearsago,theLeftorientedmediainmanyWesterncountriesfreelyattackedthereally existingcapitalismandalsoconjuredupallkindsoffantasticCIAandneofascistconspiracies,but scrupulouslyshieldedthereallyexistingsocialismfromcriticism.Similarly,BrianBarrongave Prof.ThaparthechancetosayherthingaboutunprovensinisterplansimputedtotheHindu movement,butscrupulouslyrefrainedfrompointingoutthatMissThapar'spictureofatheocratic societyinwhichminoritiesaresecondclasscitizenslivinginmortalfear,isalreadyrealllyexisting intheneighbouringIslamicrepublicofPakistanandinmanyMuslimstates(and,mutatismutandis inCommunistcountries). Thesedays,reportingonthecommunalinsituationinIndiaconsistsinhighlightingthesplinterin theHindueyeandconcealingthebeamintheMuslimeye.Atthetimeofthe1991LokSabha elections,theGermanleftleaningweeklyDerSpiegelsummarizedthecommunalriotsin independentIndiaasfollows:"Since1947,Indianstatisticianshavecounted11,000riotswith 12,000Muslimvictims."Hinduvictimsarenotevenmentioned,asifyouwerereadinga fundamentalistpaperlikeMuslimIndiaorRadiance. TheAyodhyaconflictoffersagoodexamplesoftheabsurdstandardsappliedbyreporters.AHindu sacredsite,backinuseasaHindutemple(since1949with,since1986withoutrestrictions)after centuriesofMuslimoccupation,isclaimedbyMuslimleaders,whoalsoinsistoncontinuingthe occupationoftwoothersacredsitesinMathuraandKashi(andnumerousothersiteswhichthe Hinduleadersarenotevenclaimingback).Claimingtherighttooccupyothercommunities'sacred sites:ifthisisnotfanatical,Idon'tknowwhatis.Yet,thewholeworldpressisonethesideofthe Muslims,anddecriesaHinduplantobuildpropertemplearchitectureontheRamJanmabhoomi siteinAyodhyaasfanatical.Thesearenotjustdoublestandards,butinvertedstandards. TheveryfactthatMuslimsinIndialoudlycomplainabouttheirsituation(e.g.abouttheirlow educationallevel,whichis100%thefaultoftheirownmullahs),provesthattheyarerelativelywell off:asIhavehadtheoccasiontoobserve,HinduvisitorsorrefugeesfromPakistanoftendonot daretospeakofthehorribleconditionsinwhichtheyareforcedtoliveunderMuslimrule,because theyfearfortheirrelatives,andbecausetheconstantterrorhasconditionedthemnevertoraiseany objectionsagainsttheMuslimmasterrace.InsidetheseMuslimstates,theremainingHindusare evenmorecarefulnevertodispleasetheMuslimmasters.Forunthinkingjournalists,theirsilenceis proofthatalliswellfortheminoritiesinMuslimstates,andsotheyprefertolistentothevocal malcontentswhoairtheMuslimgrievancesintolerantIndia.Whoevershoutsloudest,willgetour correspondents'attention,ifonlybecauseIndiareportingismostlyofaverylowprofessional quality. AnexampleoftheslantedimpressionwhichtheNehruvianestablishmentcreatesaboutHindu Muslimrelations,concernstheinternationallyhighlightedmartyrdomoftheFlemishJesuitFather Rasschaert,nearRanchiin1964.FatherRasschaert'ssisterwasafriendofmymother's,soasachild Ihaveoftenheardthedetailsofthestory.Thepartwhicheverybodyknows,isthatMuslimshad fledintoamosque,whereHinduswantedtopursuethem,whenFatherRasschaertintervenedto pacifythecrowd,butwaskilledbytheHinduswhosubsequentlymassacredtheMuslims.

Butthestartofthestory,neverhighlightedandsometimesnotevenmentionedinthecontemporary newspaperreports(muchlessinlaterreferences),wasthattheHindusintheareahadbeenangered bythesightofmutilatedHinduswhohadbeenbroughtbytrainfromEastPakistan,wheretheyhad atleastsurvivedthemassacreswhichmanymorehadnot.Asalways,Hinduviolencewasa retaliationagainstMuslimviolence.NomissionaryhassteppedintodefendtheHindusofPakistan, infactnomissionarywasaround,asmissionshaveaveyhardtimeinPakistan.Themissionsin Islamiccountriesfindtheirconvertsharassedandevenkilledbytheirownfamilies,theirschools andchurchesattackedonallkindsofpretexts,theirgraduatesnotgivenjobs.So,themissionary centresprefertodirecttheirenergiestomorehospitablecountrieslikeIndia.Thefactthata missionarywaskilledbyaHinduwhiledefendingtheMuslims,andnottheotherwayround,proves inthefirstplacethatCatholicpriestscanfunctioninIndia,muchmorethaninPakistan.Acloser scrutinyofthisoneincidenceofHindufanaticismrevealsabackgroundofmuchmoresystematic andinstitutionalizedMuslimfanaticism. Thereisathirdaspecttothestory,whichisnevermentionedatall.ItisthattheHindusinRanchi weredesperateabouttheirgovernment'sunwillingnesstodefendtheHindusinPakistan.Oneofthe chiefculpritsbehindthemassacrewasPrimeMinisterJawaharlalNehru,thepatronofsecularism, whousedFatherRasschaert'sdeathasyetanotheroccasiontoparadehisconcernfortheminorities inIndia,andtoputHindusinthedock.Hehimself(andtheentiresecularistestablishmenttill today)renegedonhisdutytodefendtheHindussurvivingintheIslamicstatewhichhehadhelped tocreate.ByeffectivelycondoningthepersecutionofHindusinPakistan,hewasalsoresponsible fortheretalitoryHinduviolence.Buttheinternationalpresshasneverthoughtthematterthrough, andconfineditsreportingonFatherRasschaert'sdeathtocondemningtheHindufanatics,weeping fortheMuslimvictims,andpraisingNehruasthevoiceofsanityamidthereligiousmadness. ThewayourjournalistsareledbythenosetowardsreportingMuslimgrievancesandignoring grievancesofHinduminorities(andridiculingtheveryrealgrievancesofeventheHindumajority inIndia),isreminiscentofthesneakingbiasinallnonrightistmediainWesternEuropeaboutthe LeftrightconflictbeforetheGorbachovera.TheyallcompliedwithMarxistimposedterminology likedictatorPinochetbutpresidentCeaucescu,orrightistrebelsbutleftistresistance.Criticismof theWestwasavailableinplenty,andgivenwidecoverage,butthemutedpopulationsoftheSoviet blocwerenotheard,andlittleeffortwasmadetogoinandhearthem.Thosewhosupportedthe causeoffreedomintheSovietblocwereriduclued.Worse,whenin1968theRussianphysicist SakharovhadareportaboutmassivehumanrightsviolationsintheUSSRpublished,leading intellectualsactuallydeniedtheexistenceof"thatsocalledRussianphysicistinventedbythe reactionaryforcestoslanderthegloriousachievementsofsocialismintheUSSR".Yes,sonoxious wastheintellectualatmosphereintheheydayofMarxism.Inthosedaysitwas"bettertobewrong with[communist]Sartrethantoberightwith[anticommunist]Aron". WhenglasnostmadeclearjusthowstrongtheSovietblocpopulations'disgustwithcommunalism reallywas,Westernintellectualsandsocialistpartiesseemedsincerelysurprised.Theythemselves hadsooftenpleadedthatlifeintheSovietsystemwasnotreallyworsethaninthe"socalledfree" West.Thepresshadnevergivenusanadequatepicture,notbytellingoutrightlies,butbyignoring themutedvoiceswhichthecommunistdictatorswantedustoignore.Atanyrate,ifthereusedtobe farmoredemonstrationsinthestreetsoftheWestthanintheSovietbloc,diditprovethattherewas lessdiscontentinthelatter?Wenowknowbetter:therewasmoreprotestintheWestthaninthe SovietblocbecausetherewasmorefreedomandlessfearintheWest,andinspiteofdeeper discontentintheSovietbloc.Thereisnoexcuseformakingthesamemistakeinourreportingon thesituationoftheminoritiesinIndiaandinMuslimcountries. Withoutreallynoticing,theWesternpresshasbecomethemouthpieceoftheMarxistMuslim alliancewhichdictatespoliticalparlanceinIndia.Iassumeonlyafewfrontlinejournalistsare

consciousparticipantsintheongoingdisinformationcampaign.BrianBarron,forone,has demonstratedtowhatextenthehasinteriorizedtheantiHindubiasofhisIndianspokespersons, withaverylittlebuttrulyunpardonablepieceofdisinformation.Reportingonthemillionstrong demonstrationfortheRamJanmabhoomitemple(Delhi,4April1991),heshowedamonkcarrying asaffroncolouredflagwithawhiteswstika.Andforthelessperceptiveviewers,headdedinso manywordsthattheHindumovementcarriedtheswastika.Ofcourseheknewthesetwothings:(1) mostWesternviewersknowtheswastikaonlyasthesymbolofNazism;(2)mostIndiansknowthe swastikaonlyastheirownageoldsymbolofgoodfortune(swasti=wellbeing).Hemusthave knownperfectlywellthathewasmakingtheWesternviewersreadamessagewhichtheHindu demonstratorsneversent,viz.thattheHindumovementlinksupwithNazism.Regardlessofthe moralqualityofsuchdistortivereporting,itgoestoshowtowhatextentthenegationistfactionin theIndianmediahasmanagedtopicturetheHindusasthebadguysintheeyesoftheworld. AfewmoreexamplesofhowWesternIndiawatchersswallowIndiansecularistdisinformation.The proRamJanmabhoomidemonstrationinDelhion4April1991wasnotreportedin99%ofthe Westernpapersandelectronicnewschannels.Ihaveinquiredamongjournalistsaboutwhatthey hadreceivedontheirtelexesconcerningthelargesteverdemonstrationinthebiggestdemocracyin theworld.Itturnedoutthatthesehadmentioned3lakhdemonstrators(wheneventhegovernment controlledpolicehadgiventheestimateof8lakh),andnotmadetheobjectofthedemonstration clearatall.TheIndiansourceshaddeliberatelyblurredandminimizedtheinformation,sothatthe Westernmediahad,ingoodfaith,notdeemeditworthmentioning.IfsixweekslaterBrianBarron reportedthenumberasmorethanamilliondemonstrators,itwasnottocorrectthisearlierlapse, butbecauseofadifferentpsychology.Hisaimwasnottodenytheimportanceandmagnitudeofthe Hindumovementwhichhedetestssomuch,butonthecontrarytomakeitintoatitillatingly gruesomedinosaur:theTVconsumershaveheardenoughaboutMuslimfundamentalism,soifyou wanttogettheminterestedinanewbrandoffundamentalism,youhavetomakeitextrabigand colourful. AnotherexampleisthenewsconcerningtheIndianattitudetothesecondGulfWarinearly1991. TheDelhicorrespondentfortheFlemishradiostationBRTNsaidthattheIndianpopulationwason thesideofSaddam,againsttheAngloAmericanforces(andtheirSaudiemployers).Thatisjust whattheTimesofindiaeditorialhadsaidafewdaysearlier.Infact,theIndianpeoplewasnoton Saddam'ssideatall.TheHindushadalwayscheeredforIsraelinitswarswiththeArabs,andnow theywereallforthedefeatofthisArabHitlerwhohadannouncedhewould"burnhalfofIsrael withchemicalweapons".TheMuslimsupportforSaddam'sjihadagainsttheCrusaderswasnot exactlymassiveeither.Firstly,millionsofIndianMuslimspersonallysufferedwhentheyortheir reltiveslosttheirjobsinIraqandKuwaitasaresultofSaddam'sannexationofKuwait.Secondly, mostMuslimleadersarefinancedbytheArabmonarchies(includingKuwait),andtheysidedwith theirpaymasters,eitheropenlyorbytheirquietrefusaltosupportSaddam.Theonlyoneswho supportedSaddamwerethehardcoreoftheNehruvianestablishment(whoforcedtheChandra ShekhargovernmenttostopallowingAmericanwarplanestolandinBombay),andthecommunists withtheirvisceralantiAmericanism.Astrikeimposedonthecommunistswiththeirvisceralanti Americanism.AstrikeimposedontheCalcuttadockersbytheCommunisttradeunionwasabout theonlysignofIndiansupportforSaddam,butourcorrespondentplayeditupasmerelyone exampleofanationwidemovement.Ihopeitwasingoodfaithonhispart,butfortheTimesof Indiatherecannotbesuchabenefitofthedoubt. ForeigncorrespondentsinDelhishouldrealizethattheIndianmediaandacademiaareentirely untrustworthywhenitcomestoreportingontheHinduMuslimconflict.Whenyoureportthetruth aboutthedemocraticoppositioninChinaorTibet,youdon'tcopythePeople'sDaily.Whenyou wanttoknowthetruthabouttheKurdishfreedomstruggle,youdon'ttrusttheIraqistaeradio.So, whenyouwanttounderstandtheHindubacklash,youdon'tbelievestrictlypartisansourceslikethe

TimesofIndia,orpartylinehistorianslikethosefromJNUorAMU. IfaMr.VijaySinghwritesinLeMondeDiplomatiqueanarticlefullofsecularistinvectivetitled: HinduFundamentalism,aMenaceforIndia,itissimplythereflectionofavestedinterestin blackeningHinduism,thoughitissoldasanindepthcommentbyafirsthandobserver.Itso happensthatthearticleispartlyanunacknowledgedquotationfromtheintroductorychapterofthe book"UnderstandingtheMuslimMind"byRajmohanGandhi,apartypoliticianofImanBukhari's favouriteJanataDal(nicknamedJinnahDal).IfinanotherissueofthesameprestigiousFrench monthly,Mrs.FrancineR.Frankelmouthsallthewornoutsecularistslogansagainstwhatshecalls the"ViolentOffensiveofHinduExtremists",itmerelyprovesherincapabilityofreadingherIndian sourceswiththedistancebefittingpartisanpamphlets.ItisquiteashamefulmatterthatWestern mediahaveswallowedandreproducedmanysimilarmotivateddistortion. Theextremeignoranceandgullibilityoftheforeignpressprovidesthenegationistswithastrategic cover.MostEnglishknowingIndiansbelievethattheWesternintelligentsiaismoreobjectiveand competent,andtheykeeponbelievingthisevenindomainswheretheWestiscompletelyignorant andincomponent.Sothenegationistsfeelsupportedinthebackbyanoutsideworldwhichtheycan manipulatebutwhichmanyinIndiastillconsiderasastandardoftruth.IftheHinduleadershiphad takenthetroubleofstudyingthementaldeterminantsofIndia'spoliticalconfiguration,itwould haveblownthiscoverawaybyspreadingfirsthandinformationtotheforeignmedia,andeducating themabouttheStalinistIslamicgripontheIndianestablishment. InGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates,theantiHinduandproMuslimbiasinIndiareportingcan partlybeexplainedbythepoliticaltilttowardsPakistan(nowwaningbecauseofPakistan'snuclear ambitions).Thus,theprestigiousBritishweeklyTheEconomisthas,inapredictablynegative articleaboutnationalismandseparatism,heldupthecreationofPakistanasanundisputably justifiedcaseofseparatism(smallwonderthatBritishMuslimsareimitatingtheirIndianMuslim grandfathersanddemandingaseparate"nonterritorialstateofBritishMuslims",justifiableon exactlythesamegrounds).AmoreuniversalreasonisthattheynevergettoknowtheHindu viewpointfromcompetentandeloquentspokesmen:firstly,thesehavepracticallynoaccesstothe nationalEnglishlanguagepress,whichWesterncorrespondentsinDelhifaithfullycopybecause theyaretoolazytoseekoutnewsforthemselves;secondly,theHindusthemselveshavenotyet suifficientlyrealizedtheimportanceofpublicrelations. ThemostimportantreasonisprobablythepoliticalatmosphereinEuropewhichdemandsthatfor thesakeofantiracismandmulticulturalism,Islamasthemostconspicuousandassertiveguest cultureinEuropegetspaintedinrosycolours.TheresultofthisimperativenottoexposeMuslim fanaticismisthatevenavowedlyChristianpapersintheWestkeepsilentabouttheongoing persecutionofChristianpapersandotherminoritiesintheMiddleEast.Christianscherishthe illusionofadialoguewithIslam,sotheywillnotoffendtheirMuslimpartnersbyraising incovenientissueslikethestatusofreligiousminoritiesinMuslimcountries.Now,iftheWestdoes notstandupforitspersecutedChristianbrethren,howmuchlesswillitbebotheredaboutthe idolatrousHindus. Andso,WesternIndiawatchersgoonlickingthebootsoftheaggressor,andkeepontwisting contemporarynewsinthemedia,andtoalesserextentevenhistoricalfactsinacademic publications,totheadvantageoftheMuslimside.TheyhavenotinventedtheIndianbrandof negationism,buttheyareamplifyingandfortifyingit.

2.6BANNINGINCONVENIENTBOOKS
AconsequenceofthenegationistorientationoftheIndianstate'sreligiouspolicy,isthereadinessto banbookscriticalofIslamattheslightestsuggestionbysomemullahorMuslimpolitician.Itis symptomaticthatIndiawasthefirstcountrytobanSalmanRushdie'sTheSatanicVerses,atthe insistenceofSyedShahabuddin,MP(inexchange,withsomeotherconcessions,forhiscallingoffa marchonAyodhya).Amongotherbannedbooks,wemaymentionedpamphletlikebutnonetheless truthfulbookslikeColinMaine's"TheDeadhandofIslam"orA.Ghosh's"TheKoranandthe Kafir",whichlistwhattheQuranhasinstorefortheunbelievers;butalsomoreprestigiousbooks likeR.M.Eaton's"SufisofBijapur",whichdebunksthemythoftheSufisasbringersofatolerant Islam(infacttheywerenotonlyfanaticalpreachersagainstidolatry,butalsospiesandsometimes mercenaries). InMarch1991,RamSwarup'sbook"UnderstandingIslamthroughHadis"wasbanned,afterthe Hindiversionhadalreadybeenbannedin1990.Thishappenedaftertwocommitteessetupbythe Delhiadministrationhadscreenedthebookandfounditunobjectionable,andafterthejudgehad dismissedthepleaforprosecutionofitspublisher,underthepressureofMuslimdemonstrations. ThisbookisafaithfulsummaryoftheSahihalMuslim,oneofthetwomostauthoritativeHadis collections(actsoftheProphet).AccordingtothefundamentalistpartyJamaatiIslamithebook contained"distortionandslander",andasanexampleofthisslanderousdistortion,itmentionsthis passage:"MohammedsawZaynabinhalfnakedcondition,andhefellinlovewithher".Withthis revelation,thefundamentalistsmanagedtogetsomeagitationgoing,andthebookwasbanned. TheinterestingthingisthatthequotedpassagecomesstraightfromtheoriginalHadis,andisnota slanderousdistortionatall.Theagitationagainstthebookrevealsanimportantfactaboutthe Muslimcommunity:theordinaryMuslimdoesnotknowthecontentsofQuranandHadis,and projectsonMohammedhisownmoralideals,whichhelargelyshareswithhisnonMuslimfellow men.BecauseofhisattachmenttothementalimageofamorallyperfectMohammed,heisshocked whenhegetsconfrontedwiththehistoricalMohammed.Amongthemanyhistoricalactsof MohammedishisarrangingthehandovertohimselfofZaynab,thebeautifulwifeofhissdopted son.ThefactthatarevelationfromAllahcametolegitimizethemarriagebetweenMohammedand Zaynab(whichwasabreachofthetribalincesttaboo),becametheclassicillustrationoftheview thattheQuranisnothingbuttheselfinterestedproductofMohammed'sownmind. ThisignoranceaboutthehistoricalMohammed,bothamongthecommonMuslimsandamongthe Hindus,ispreciselywhatthebannedbookwantedtodosomethingabout,inkeepingwiththe IndianConstitution'sinjuctionto"developthescientifictemper".ButtheNehruvianestablishment (whichincludestheCongressPartyanditsJanataDaloffshoot)hasnolikingforfreeresearchinto thecontentsofIslamicdoctrineandhistory,andinspiteofloudslogansaboutsecularism,the administrationgaveintotheMuslimfanatics.Noneofthesocalledsecularistintelectualshas botheredtoprotestagainstthisobscurantistactofcensorship. Theofficialmotivationforthisbanningofmeritortiousbooksisthattheyhavebeenwrittenwith theintentionofinsultingareligionorincitingcommunalconflict(art.153Aamdart.295Aofthe IndianPenalCode).Undersection95oftheCriminalProcedureCode,theexecutivepowermust takeactionagainstitsinitialusers.For,accordingtosome,thereisabokwhichfulfilsthe descriptiongiveninthePenalCode,eventoafargreaterextentthanthealreadybannedbook;but whichisrecitedandinvestedwithsupremeauthorityinstatesubsidizedschoolsandinprayer housesineverytownandvillageofindia.ThisobjectionablebookisknownastheQuran. In1984acitizenofIndia,H.K.Chakraborty,filedapetitionwiththeWestBengalstategovernment tobantheQuran.Headdedalistof37Quranverseswhich"preachcruelty,inciteviolenceand disturbpublicpeace"(tousetheterminologyofthePenalCode),17verseswhich"promote,on

groundsofreligion,feelingsofenmity,hatredandillwillbetweendifferentcommunitiesinIndia", and31verseswhich"insultotherreligionsasalsothereligiousbeliefsofothercommunities". Indeed,evenaftersubtractingsomeverseswhichcouldberegardedaslegitimatepolemics(esp. againsttheChristianbeliefinIncarnation),thereareabout60passagesintheQuranthatformulate adoctrineofdemonizationofnonMuslims,andofhatredandwaragainstthem.IftheIndianlaws prohibitcommunalhatepropatganda,Mr.ChakrabortywasrightinconsideringtheQuranasan excellentcandidateforbanning.Butevenafterreminderletters,theWestBengalauthoritiesgaveno response. Atthisstage,Mr.ChakrabortymetChandmalChopra,anadherentoftheextremelynonviolentJain sect,whohadtakenupthestudyoftheQuraninordertounderstandtheplightoftheHindusin Bangladesh,whoaregraduallybeingchasedfromtheirancestralhomelandbytheMuslims.In1985 ChandmalChoprafiledapetitionwiththeCalcuttahighCourt,askingforabanontheQuran.He addedalistwithreprehensibleversesfromtheQuran:29passagesfromtheQuran(1to8versesin length)thatinciteviolenceagainstunbelievers,15whichpromoteenmity,26whichinsultother religions. Sometypicalexamplesare:"MohammedinAllah'sapostle.Thosewhofollowhimaremercilessfor theunbelieversbutkindtoeachother."(Q.48:29)"Makewaronthemuntilidolatrydoesnotexist anylongerandAllah'sreligionreignsuniversally."(Q.8:39,also2:193)"Webreakwithyou;hatred andenmitywillreignbnetweenusuntilyebelieveinAllahhalone."(Q.60.4)"TheJewsand ChristiansandthePaganswillburnforeverinthefireofhell.Theyarethevilestofallcreatures." (Q.98:51)TherearedozensofQuranverseslikethiswhichintheirunanimitycannotbedismissed as"isolated,mistranslated"littleaccidents"quotedoutofcontext". ChandmalChoprastatedinhiswritpetition:"ThecitedpassagesintheQuran...arouseinMuslims theworstsectarianpassionsandreligiousfanaticism,whichhasmanifesteditselfinmurders, massacres,plunder,arson,rapeanddestructionordesecrationofsacredplacesbothinhistorical andinthecontemporaryperiod,notonlyinIndiabutinlargepartsoftheworld." ThepetitioncreatedalotoffuroreinCalcuttaandabroad.Muslimscreatedstreetriots.The governmentintervenedandputheavypressureonthejudicialprocess.Thesecretservicewasputto worktofindpossibleobjectionablebiographicaldataofthepetitioner.Thecourtusedsomedirty trickstodisturbtheperitioner'scase,likechangingdatesandchangingtheobjectofasessionto whichthepetitionerhadbeensummoned,duringthesamesessionitself,withapparent foreknowldegeofthegovernment'scounsel. BoththeauthoritiesandthecourtviolatedthesecularbasisoftheIndianConstitutionbyusingas justificationfortheirpolicyc.q.judgementastatementofreligiousbelief.TheMarxistWestBengal governmentstatedinitsaffidavit:"TheQurancontainsthewordsofGodAlmightyrevealedtoHis lastProphetMohammed...AstheHolyQuranisaDivineBook,noearthlypowercansitin judgementonit,andnocourtoflawhasjurisdictiontoadjudicateit." Thejudgedismissedthepetitiononthisground:"BanningorforfeitureoftheQuran...would amounttoabolitionoftheMuslimreligionitself."Indeed,theverytextwhichpreacheswaragainst theunbelieversisthecoretextofIslam,soabolitionofIslamichatepropagandaamountsto abolitionofIslamitself.IslamwithouthatredisnotIslam.Thejudgefurtherobserved:"Thisbook isnotprejudicialtothemaintenanceofharmonybetweenreligions.BecauseoftheQurannopublic tranquillityhasbeendisturbeduptonow..."aresoundingstatementofnegationism. Thisverdictwasonlywhatthepetitionerexpected:becauseofpoliticalpressure,anantiQuran verdictwassimplyunthinkable,andmoreover,thePenalCodekeepsscripturesandclassicsoutside itsownpurview.Thepetitionerhasmadeitclearthatheconsidersbookbanningcounterproductive, andthatthecontroversialpetitionwasmeanttodirectpublicattentitontowardstheQuran'scontents:

peopleshouldreadit,becauseIndiancitizenshavearighttoknowwhytheircountryisplagued withneverendingreligiousriots. WhenChandmalChoprahadthedocumentsofthelegaldisputepublished,theadministration decidedtoprosecutehimandhispublisheronthebasisoftheverysamePenalCodearticleswhich hehadinvokedtorequestabanontheQuran.Thecaseisstillpending. BesideH.K.Chakraborty'sandChandmalChopra'spetitions,athirdtextwhichpointedatthe Quranasasourceofreligiousviolence,wasaposterpublishedinDelhi(1986)byI.S.Sharmaand RajkumarArya,prominentmembersoftheHinduMahasabha,asmallpoliticalpartymoreextreme thantheBJP.Thepostercarriedthetitle:"Whydoriotsbreakoutinthiscountry?"Itshowed24 Quranverses,suchas:"Fighttheunbelieversinyoursurroundings,andletthemfindharshnessin you"(Q.9:123),and:"Killtheunbelieverswhereveryefindthem,,captureandbesiegethemand preparethemeverykindofambush"(Q.9.5). Bothpublisherswerearrestedonthebasisofarts.153Aand295A.However,theywereacquitted. Thejudgedruledthattheyhadmadea"faircriticism",for:"WithallduerespecttotheholyQuran, anattentiveperusaloftheversesshowsthattheseareindeedharmfulandpreachviolenceandhave thepotentialtocauseconflictsbetweentheMuslimsandtheothers."Anappealagainstthecourt rulingisstillpending. ThiscriticismoftheQuranpullsthecarpetfromunderthenegationists'feet.Theenmitybetween MuslimsandPagansisclearlynotabackprojectionfromcontemporaryartificiallycreatedreligio politicaltensions.NeitherisitaconflictwhichdevelopedhistoricallylongafterMohammedand whichcanbereducedtosocioeconomicalfactors.Thisenmityis,onthecontrary,presentinthe verycoreofIslamicdoctrine. WiththisinformationaboutQuranicdoctrine,wefindthatthenegationistthesisisnotonly contradictedbyamassivebodyofauthenticevidence;itisalsohighlyimplausibleinitself.For,the thesisthatIslaminIndiawasnotsystematically(proportionatelytoitspossibilitiesingiven situations)inconflictwithotherreligions,claimsinfactthatIslaminIndiadeviatedfromitsown principles,andbehavedcompletelyuncharacteristicallyforcenturiesonend.Itismethodologically moreusualtoprovisionallyassumeaconsistentandprobablebahaviour(viz.thatadherentsofa Godgivencalltowaragainsttheunbelieverseffectivelymakewarontheunbelievers,andthata religionwhichpersecutedotherreligionseverywhereelse,didthesameinIndia),andonlygivethis upifpositiveevidenceforalessplausibleandmoreinconsistentcoursehasbeenfound.Butwhat positiveevidencethereis,pointsintheoppositedirection:alonglistofMusliminvadersandrulers faithfullyputtheQuranicinjuctionsintopractice. TheproblemofbookbanningandcensorshiponIslamcriticismiscompoundedbytherelated problemofselfcensorship.Thus,wheninlate1992,thefamouscolumnistArunShouriewantedto publishacollectionofhiscolumnsonIslamicfundamentalism,esp.theRushdieandAyodhya affairs(IndianControversies),thepublisherwithdrewatthelastmoment,afraidofadministrativeor physicalreprisals,andtheprinteralsobackedout.Earlier,Shouriehadbeenluckytofindonepaper willingtopublishthesecolumns,formostIndiannewspapersstrictlykeepthelidonIslamcriticism. Hindusocietyisaterrorizedsociety. Afinalaspectoftheban(sometimeslegal,mostlyimposedbysecularistconvention)oncriticismof IslamisthatitisthereinstitutionofanoldIslamicrule.WhentheChristiansinSyriainthefirst centuryofIslamwereforcedtosubmit,theyhadtosignalonglistofpromisestotheirIslamic overlords.Thesecomprisedthewellknownconditionsimposedonthezimmis,butalsosomeextra ones,including"nottoteachourchildrentheQuran".LikeMohammed,hissuccessorsfoundit hardtocounterthenumerousobjectionstothecontradictionsandunethicalinjuctionsintheQuran, whichperceptiveinfidelskeptonraising.ItwaslogicalthattheyprohibitedthestudyoftheQuran

bynonMuslims,inordertopreemptivelydisarmfutureantiIslamicpolemists.Thisbanbythe theocraticcaliphateonunfriendlyinspectionoftheQuranisnowreinstitutedinIndiainthename ofsecularism.

2.7THENEGATIONISTS'SECONDFRONT
NotsatisfiedwithdenyingthecrimesofIslam,thenegationistshaverecentlymadeabigeffortto spreadthenotionthatHinduismitselfisguiltyofjustthesamethingsofwhichitaccusesIslam. Remember,HolocaustnegationistsalwaysallegeandhighlightIsraeliinjusticeagainstthe Palestinians:ifyouprovethatthevictimisnotsoinnocent,itwillultimatelybecomequestionable thathewasavictimatall.IfeverthedenialofMuslimfanaticismhastobegivenup,asecondline ofdefence(orcounterattack)willbeready:accusingHinduismofasimilarfanaticism. Forexample,intheIndianmediayouregularlycomeacrossthecontentionthat"theHindus destroyedNalandaBuddhistuniversity".Thisisaplainlie:underseveralHindudynasties,Nalanda flourishedandwasthebiggestuniversityintheworldforcenturies;itwasdestroyedbytheMuslim invaderBakhtiarKhiljiin1200.Butifyourepeatalieoftenenough,itgainscurrency,andnow manyIndianshavecometobelievethatBuddhismhadbeenreplacedbyHinduismasIndia'schief religioninamostviolentmanner. Inreality,BuddhismhadalwaysbeenaminorityreligioninIndia,confinedtonoblesandtraders; beforeitsdisappearancearound1200AD,ithadbeenpartlyreabsorbedbymainstreamHinduism; otherwiseitcoexistedpeacefullywithotherHindusects,oftensharingthesametemple complexes.ThehistoricalallegationsofviolentconflictsbetweenmainstreamHinduismand Buddhismcanbecountedononehand.ItisnotBrahminicalonslaughtbutIslamthatchased BuddhismfromIndia. InCentralAsia,IslamhadwipedoutBuddhismtogetherwithNestorianism,Zoroastrianism, Manicheism,andwhateverotherreligionitencountered.ThePersianwordforidolisbut,from Buddha,becausetheBuddhistswiththeirBuddhastatuswereconsideredastheidolworshippers parexcellence.TheBuddhistsdrewthewrathofeveryMuslimbutshikan(idolbreaker),even wheretheyhadnotofferedresistanceaganinsttheMuslimarmiesbecauseoftheirdoctrineofnon violence.AsareminderoftheBuddhistpastofCentralAsia,thecitynameBukharaisnothingbuta corruptionofvihara,i.e.aBuddhistmonastery;otherIndiannamesincludeSamarkhandand Takshakhand,i.e.Tashkent.InIndia,Buddhismwasamucheasiertargetthanothersectsand traditions,becauseitwascompletelycentralizedaroundthemonasteries.Oncethemonsteries destroyedandthemonkskilled,theBuddhistcommunityhadlostitsbackboneandwashelpless beforethepressuretoconverttoIslam(ashappenedonalargescaleinEastBengal). AhandfulofnegationisthistorianshavetriedtosubstantiatetheallegationsagainstHinduismand sparednoefforttocolectinstancesofHindusactsofpersectution.Wewilltakealookatthemhere. ItwouldtakeawholevolumetosumupAurangzeb'scareerasaniconoclastandpersecutor,butthe Hindurecordofpersecutionwillnottakeusmorethanafewpages. Tomyknowledge,alltheallegedcasesofintraHindupersecutionhavebeensummedupin "CommunalHistoryandRama'sAyodhyabyprof.R.S.Sharma,thechapterinCommunalismand theWritingofIndianHistory"contributedbyprof.HarbansMukhia,andmostexplicitlyCultural TransactionsandEarlyIndiabyProf.RomilaThapar.AccordingtoRomilaThapar,"theinsistence onthetraditionofreligioustoleranceandnonviolenceascharacteristicofHinduism...isnotborne outbyhistoricalevidence".Giventheirstrongmotivation,weneednotassumethattheyhave overlookedincidentsthatcouldbeusefulforthecasetheyaremaking.

Thetwobestknowncases,involvingPushyamitraShungaandShashank,cannotwithstand historicalcriticism.Thenoncontemporarystory(whichsurfacesmorethanthreecenturiesafterthe facts)aboutPushyamitra'sofferingmoneyfortheheadsofmonksisrenderedimprobablebyfirm historicalfactsofhisallowingandpatronizingmonasteriesandBuddhistuniversitiesinhis domains.AfterAshoka'slavishsponsorshipofBuddhism,itisperfectlypossiblethatBuddhist institutionsfellonslightlyhardertimesundertheShungas,butpersecutionisstillanothermatter. ThefamoushistorianofBuddhismEtienneLamottehasobserved:"Tojudgefromthedocuments, Pushyamitramustbeacquittedthroughlackofproof."Theonlyreasontosustainthesuspicion againstPushyamitra,onceithasbeenlevelled,isthat"wherethereissmoke,theremustbefire" butthatpieceofreceivedwisdomispresupposedineveryactofslanderaswell. HsuanTsang'sstoryfromhearsayaboutShashank'sdevastatingamonasteryinBihar,killingthe monksanddestroyingBuddhistrelics,onlyafewyearsbeforeHsuanTsang'sownarrival,is contradictedbyotherelementsinhisownreport.Thus,accordingtotheChinesepilgrim,Shashank threwastonewiththeBuddha'sfootprintintotheriver,butitwasreturnedthroughamiracle;and hefelledthebodhitreebutasaplingfromitwasreplantedwhichmiraculouslygrewintoabigtree overnight.So,thefactofthematterwasthatthestoneandthetreewerestillthereinfullglory.In bothcases,thepresenceofthefootprintstoneandthefullygrownbodhitreecontradictHusan Tsang'sallegations,butheexplainsthecontradictionawaybypostulatingmiracles(which everywherehaveawayofmushroomingaroundrelics,toaddtotheirauraofdivinepower).Ifwe donotacceptmiracles,weconcludethatthebodhitreewhichHusanTsangsaw,andwhichwastoo bigtohavebeenarecentlyreplantedsapling,cannothavebeenfelledbyShashank. HsuanTsangisnotoriousforhisexaggerationsandhisinsertionsofmiraclestories,andhehadto explaintoChina,whereBuddhismwasreadhingitspeak,whyitwasdeclininginIndia.Itseems safertobaseourjudgementonthefactthatinhisdescriptionofBuddhistlifeintheGangabasin, nothingshowstheeffectsofrecentpersecutions.Infact,HsuanTsanghimselfgivesacluetothe realreasonofpreIslamicBuddhistdecline,bydescribinghowmanyBuddhistmonasterieshad fallenintodisuse,esp.inareasoflawlessnessandweakgovernment,indicatingthatthestrengthof Buddhismwasindirectproportiontostateprotectionandpatronage.UnlikeBrahminism,which couldsustainitselfagainstheavyodds,thefortunatesofBuddhistmonasticism(evenmorethan thoseoftheChristianabbeysinearlymedievalEurope)weredependentuponroyalfavours,asunder Ashoka,theChineseearlyT'angdynasty,andtherulersofTibetandseveralSoutheastAsian countries. Athirdstory,abouta12thcenturykingHarshaofKashmir,isapparentlytruebuthasnothingtodo withreligiouspersecution:heplunderedHindutemplesofallsectsincludingBuddhism,inhisown kingdom,withoutbotheringtodesecratethemortheirkeepersapartfromlucrativeplunder.Itisthe onegeuninecaseofarulerplunderingnotoutofreligiousmotivesbutforthegold.Thereisno knowncaseofaMuslimmarauderwhomerelystolefromtempleswithoutbotheringtoexplicity desecratethem,muchlessofaMuslimrulerwhoplunderedthesanctuariesofhisownreligion. Moreover,Kalhana'shistorybookRajataranginirelatesthisstorywiththecomment:"Promotedby theTurksinhisemploy,hebehavedlikeaTurk."ThisHarshaemployedTurkishmercenaries(which hissuccessorswouldregret,fortheyspiedandultimatelygrabbedpower),andtheseMuslims alreadyhadafirmreputationofplunderingtempleswithagoodconscience. NumberfouristheattackbytheParamarakingSubhataverman(11931210)onGujrat,inwhich"a largenumberofJaintemplesinDabhoiandCambay"wereplundered(not"destroyed"or "desecrated").HarbansMukhiacitesthisasproofthat"manyHindurulersdidthesame[asthe Muslims,i.e.destroy]withtemplesinenemyterritorylongbeforetheMuslimshademergedasa politicalchallengetothesekingdoms."However,itiswellknownthatwhenSubhatavarman accededtothethrone,theMuslimshadmorethanemerged:NorthIndiawasbeingravagedby

MohammedGhori'sdecisivecampaignofconquest.AsaproofthatHindusoutsidetheIslamic sphereofinfluencepractisedpersecution,thisincidentwillnotdo.Onthecontrary,ifthereportis correct,thenthebackgroundmaywellbesimilartotheattestedcaseofHarshaofKashmir:inspired bytheTurks,hebehavedlikeaTurk. AnothercaseistherecurrentconflictsbetweentheShaivaandtheVaishnavarenunciatesin Ayodhya.Prof.R.S.Sharmaquotesadescriptionfrom1804,whichtalksof"soldierstaking pleasureinbattle","misery","greatfear"and"shelterinsecretplaces",butnodeathtollisgiven, infactnokillingismentionedinsomanywords.Butprof.Sharmaconcludesnonetheless:"The passagegivenaboveissufficienttoexposethemythoftolerancepractisedbymedievalHindu religiousleaders." HindutraditionacknowledgesthatarivalrybetweenShaivasandVaishnavasdisturbedlifein Ayodhya:itwasthecontextinwhichTulsidasdecidedtowritetheRamcharitmanas.Inorderto emphasizethesuperficialanderroneouscharacteroftheconflictbetweenthefollowersofShivaand thoseofVishnu(andhisincarnationRama),TulsidasmadeShivathestorytellerofhisRama biography.ShivaandVishnuareone,anddevoteeswhodon'tunderstandthis,well,theyhaveto learnit.ThereisnosimilarrecordofanyIslamicauthoritywhohassaidthatShivaandAllahare one,norRamandRahim,norKashiandKaaba.Allthis"onenessofallreligions"rhetoricisa strictlyHinduprojectionoftheonenessofthedifferentHindugodsandtraditionsonajuxtaposition ofradicallyincompatiblenotionsfromIslamandHinduism.WhereastheoppositionbetweenRam andRahim,betweenKashiandKaaba,ledtoendlesspersecutionsandaPartition,suchthingshave nothappenedbetweenShaivasandVaishnavas.AllthatProf.Sharmacanshow,isariotwhichwas notbiggerthanthosewhichtakeplacebetweendrunkenfootballfans. AswemightexpectfromMarxistswhoseektomouldratherthaninformpublicopinion,thislisting ofevidencehasbeendonewithsomeediting.Thus,RomilaThaparwritesthat"theShaivitesaint JnanaSambandarisattributedwithhavingconvertedthePandyarulerfromJainismtoShaivism, whereuponitissaidthat8,000Jainaswereimpaledbytheking".Sheomitsthatthisking,Arikesari ParankusaMaravarman,isalsodescribedashavingfirstpersecutedShaivas;thatSambandar vanquishedtheJainasnotinbattlebutindebate(uponwhichthekingconvertedfromJainismto Shaivism);andthathehadescapedJainaattemptstokillhim.UnliketheMuslimpersecutions,this ShaivaJainaconflictwasclearlynotaonewayaffair.ForthesakeofblackeningHinduism,the BuddhistsandJainshadtobedepictedashaplessvictims,andtheirshareintheintraHindu violencehadtobeconcealed. Itisevenamatterofdebatewhetherthispersecutionhasoccurredatall:theHinduswerenever carefulhistorians,andlikeHsuanTsangtheymixedlegendandhistoricalfact,sothatthemodern historiancanonlyaccepttheirtestimonyifhefindssupportiveoutside(epigraphicaland archaeological)evidence.UnliketheconscientiousMuslimchroniclesorKalhana'sRajatarangini, thisstoryaboutSambandarcomesintheformofalocallegendwithatmostahistoricalcore. NilkanthShastri,inhisunchallengedHistoryofSouthIndia,writesaboutit:"This,however,islittle morethananunpleasantlegendandcannotbetreatedashistory."Iadmitthatthissoundslike PercivalSpear'sstatementthatAurangzeb'spersecutionsare"littlemorethanhostilelegend". However,Mr.Spear'scontentionisamplydisprovenbyalotofcontemporarydocumentsincluding theroyalorderstokillPagansanddestroyPaganinstitutions,aswellasbyeyewitnessaccounts; suchevidencehasnotbeenofferedatallinthecaseofJnanaSambandar. Warnedbythisunmistakablecaseofdistortionofevidence,wetaketherestofthelistcumgrano salis.Butatleast,thenextincidentisreportedbytwoseeminglyindependentsources:the persecutionofBuddhistsbytheHunakingMihirakulainKashmir.RomilaThaparherselfadmits thatHsuanTsang'saccountabout"thedestructionof1.600Buddhiststupasandsangharamasand thekillingofthousandsofmonksandlayfollowers"soundsexaggerated,butshehasfaithin

Kalhana'smoredetailedversionwhichmentions"killinginnocentpeoplebythehundreds". ButHsuanTsanggivesaninterestingdetailwhichdoesnotsoundlikeafairytaleandmaywellbe historical.Mihirakula,"wishingtoapplyhisleisuretothestudyofBuddhism",askedtheBuddhist sanghatoappointateacherforhim.Butnoneofthemoreaccomplishedmonkswaswilling,sothey appointedamonkwhohadtherankofaservant.Thekingfoundthisprocedureinsulting,and orderedthedestructionoftheBuddhistchurchinhiskingdom.ThiskingwasnotantiBuddhist,was openmindedandtookasincereinterestinBuddhism.Butonceaking'segoishurt,hecanget violent,regardlessofhisreligion.Thatisregrettable,butitissomethingelsethanreligious fanaticism. WhenacommanderintheserviceoftheBuddhistemperorAshokawasangeredbytheBuddhist monks'refusaltoletthekingmeddleintheiraffairs,hehad500ofthemkilled.Themassacrehad nothingtodowithreligiousintolerance,merelywithhurtpride,andtheMarxisthistorianshave donewellnottoputitintheirlist.Forthesamereason,Mihirakula'srageagainsttheimpolite monkscannotbeequatedwiththereligiouslymotivatedpersecutionsbytheMuslimrulers.There wasneveraMuslimkingwhoinvitedPaganscholarstoinstructhiminthePagandoctrines,theway MihirakulaaskedforaBuddhistteacher.Theonlyexceptionstothisruleweretheapostateemperor Akbar,whowasvehementlycriticizedforitbytheMuslimclergy,andDaraShikoh,whowas executedforapostasybyhisbrotherAurangzeb. AnotherincidentofintraHindupersecutionquotedfromKalhana'sRajatarangini,is"anearlier persecutionofBuddhistsinKashmirandthewilfuldestructionofavihara,againbyaShaivite king".Thereisaninterestinglittletailpiecetothisincident:"Butonthisoccasionthekingrepented andbuiltanewmonasteryfortheBuddhistmonks".Thisprovesthatasubstantialnumber,ifnotall, ofthemonkshadsurvivedthepersecution.Butmoreimportantly,ithighlightssomething completelyunknowninthelonghistoryofIslamicfanaticism:remorse.ThisShaivitekingknewat heartthatintolerancewaswrong,andwhenhehadregainedhisselfcontrol,hemadeupforhis misdeed.SuchathinghasneverbeendonebyMohammed,orbyGhaznaviorAurangzeb.Ifany proofwasnededfortheradicaldifferencebetweenthesystematicpersecutionsbytheMuslimsand therareabberationintoisolatedactsofintolerancebyHindus,Prof.RomilaThaparhasjustgivenit. Thenextcase:"TheJainatemplesofKarnatakawentthroughatraumaticexperienceatthehands theLingayatsorVirashaivasintheearlysecondmillenniumAD".Ifalltheysufferedwastrauma theywerewelloffincomparisonwiththethousandsoftemplesdestroyedbytheMuslimsinthe sameperiod.Afteratimeofpeacefulcoexistence,whichRomilaThaparacknowledges,"oneofthe templeswasconvertedintoaShivatemple.AtHubli,thetempleofthefiveJinaswasconvertedinto apanchalingeshwaraShaivitetemple,thefivelingasreplacingthefiveJinasinthesancta.Some otherJainatemplesmetthesamefate." Tobesure,conversionsofthetempleshaveindeedhappened,andthepanchalingeshwaratemple maywellbeacaseinpoint.Yet,thatdoesnotprovetherewaspersecution.Whenrivallingsects enteredpublicdebate,theyoftenputinhighwagers,esp.thepromisetoconverttobewinner'ssect. Insuchacase,thetempleorashramwastakenalongintothenewsect.Here,itcouldwellbesucha caseofpeacefulhandover:afterall,thetempleswerenotdestroyed.Againstthis,Prof.Thapar informsus:"AninscriptionatAblurinDharwareulogizesattacksonJainatemplesasretaliation foroppositiontoShaiviteworship." Herewemayhaveanothercaseofdistoringevidencebymeansofselectivequoting.Theinscription ofwhichProf.Thaparsummarizesaselectedpart,saysfirstofallthatthedisputearosebecausethe JainstriedtopreventaShaivafromworshippinghisownidol.ItfurtherrelatesthattheJainsalso promisedtothrowoutJinaandworshipShivaiftheShivadevoteeperformedamiracle,butwhen themiraclewasproduced,theydidnotfulfiltheirpromise.Intheensuingquarrel,theJinaidolwas

brokenbytheShaivas.ThemostsignificantelementisthattheJainkingBijjaladecidedinfavourof theShaivaswhenthematterwasbroughtbeforehim.HedismissedtheJainsandshoweredfavours ontheShaivas. Again,inthisstorytheconflictisnotaonewayaffairatall.Weneednotacceptthestoryatface value,asitisoneofthosesectarianmiraclestories(withthemessage:"Mysaintisholierthanthy saint")whichaboundinthetraditionssurroundingmostplacesofpilgrimage,betheyChristian, SufiorHindu.Dr.Fleet,whohaseditedandtranslatedthisinscriptionalongwithfourothersfound atthesameplace,givessummariesoftwoLingayatPuranasandtheJainBijjalacharitra,and observesthatthestoryinthisinscriptionfindsnosupportintheliterarytraditionsofthetwosects. Bijjala'sowninscriptiondated1162ADdiscoveredatManagolialsodoesnotsupportthestory.The factthattheinscriptionunderconsiderationdoesnotbearadateoradefinitereferencetothereign ofaking,doesnothelpitscredibilityeither.Anddoauthenticinscriptionsdealinmiracles? Itisobviousthataninscriptionofthisquality,ifithadbeencitedinsupportoftheHinduclaimto theBabriMasjidRamJanmabhoomisite,wouldhavebeendismissedbytheMarxisthistoriansas ridiculousandtotallygroundless.Theywouldnotviewitasaseriousobstacletotheirforegone conclusionthatthereisabsolutelydefinitelynoindicationwhatsoveratallthataHindutemplewas forciblyreplacedwithamosque.Butinthiscase,weareaskedtoseeitasevidencethatShaivas attackedJaintemples,andthatHindutoleranceisamyth. UnlikethepartylinehistoriansofJNU,Idonotthinkthathistoriansworkingwithconflicting testimoniesareinapositiontomakeapodicticstatementsanddefinitiveconclusions,,soIwillnot completelydismissthisinscriptionasfantasy.ItispossiblethattheJainashadindeedfallenonhard times,andIdonotdisposeofmaterialthatwouldrefuteProf.Thapar'scontentionthat"inthe fourteenthcenturytheharassmentofJainaswassoacutethattheyhadtoappealforprotectionto therulingpoweratVijayanagar".Still,insize,duration,intensityanddegreeofideological motivation,thisconflictdoesnotatallcomparewiththeterrorwroughtbyIslam.Incidentally,the rulingpoweratVijayanagar,whoseprotectiontheJainssought,wasofcourseaHindupower. FromDr.Fleet'sstudyofthesesources,itseemsthattheShaivaswhoweresohostiletotheJains, belongedtotheVeerashaivaorLingayatsect.Andindeed,Prof.Thapar'snextpieceofevidenceis that"inscriptionsofthesixteenthcenturyfromtheSrisailamareaofAndhraPradeshrecordthe pridetakenbyVeerashaivasinbeheadingShvetambaraJains".Now,theVeerashaivaswereananti casteandantiBrahminicalsect.Astheseareconsideredgoodqualities,negationistshavetriedto linkthemtotheinfluenceofMuslimmissionaries("bringingthemessageofequalityand brotherhood"),whowereindeedveryacvtiveonIndia'sWestcoast,whereandwhenthe Veerashaivadoctrinewasdeveloped.LetusassumetherewasindeedMusliminfluenceonthe Veerashaivasect.Inthatcase,thenegationistsshouldacknowledgethattheVeerashaivas'occasional actsofintolerancemayequallybeduetotheinfluenceofIslam.AtanyrateBrahminismcannotbe heldguiltyofanymisdeedscommittedbythisantiBrahminicalsect. Finally,"inGujrat,JainismflourishedduringthereignofKumarapala,buthissuccessor[i.e. Ajayapala]persecutedtheJainasanddestroyedtheirtemples".In"TheHistoryandCultureofthe IndianPeople",editedbyR.C.Majumdar,wereadaboutthis:"TheJainchroniclesallegethat AjayapalawasapersecutoroftheJains,thathedemolishedJaintemples,mercilesslyexecutedthe JainscholarRamachandra,andkilledAmbada,aministerofKumarapala,inanencounter."Here, theallegedcrimeisrelatedbythevictims,notbytheaggressors.Itispossiblethattheyexaggerated, butIseenoreasontobelievethattheysimplyinventedthestory.So,letusagreethatsometemples weredestroyedandatleastoneprominentJainkilledbyHinduaggressors.Afterall,thefanaticism displayedsystematicallybyIslamhasnotcomefallingoutofthesky,itexistsinhumannatureand mayoccasionallypopupincontextsoftension;thedifferenceisthatHinduactsoffanaticismwere occasionalandtookplaceinspiteofthedoctrine,whileIslamicfanaticismwassystematicand

merelyanapplicationofthedoctrine. TheMarxistscholarswhohavecollectedthismaterial,haveomittedfromtheirpresentationsthe followingcasesofintraHindupersecution.TheMahavamshasaysthattheBuddhistking Vattagamini(2917BC)destroyedaJainviharaonthesamesite.IntheShravanaBelagolaepitaph ofMallishena,theJainteacherAklankasaysthatafterasuccessfuldebatewithBuddhists,hebroke aBuddhastatuewithhisownfoot.TherearesomemoreinstancesofJainBuddhistconflict,but suichmaterialdidnotfitinwiththedesignsofthenegationists.Theyhavethispettheoryof JainismandBuddhismasrevoltsagainstBrahminicaltyranny,subsequentlycrushedoutbythe Brahminicalreaction.Infact,theminorinstancesofintraHinduviolenceweredistributedroughly proportionatelybetweenBrahminical,Buddhist,Jainaandothersects. AmongtheabovementionedreportsofconflictbetweenthedifferenttraditionswithintheSanatana Dharmacommonwealth,severalareprobablyunfounded,andseveralexaggerated.Butaswehave nofirmevidenceforthisplausiblehypothesisyet,letusassumefornowthatallthesereportsare simplycorrectandaccurate.Letusmoreoverassumethatasimilarnumberofsimilarcaseshas goneunrecordedorunnoticedbytheMarxisthistorians.Then,asasumtotal,westilldonothave thenumberofvictimsthatTeimurmadeinasingleday.Thenwestilldonothavethenumberof templedemolitionsthatAurangzebwroughtonhisown.Thenwestilldonothavetheamountof glorificationoftempledestructionthatwefindinanyofthediariesofMuslimconquerorslikeBabr orFiruzShahTughlaqorTeimur,oranyoftheirchroniclers.ThefanaticismrecordofHinduism throughoutmillenniaisdwarfedbytherecordofasingleGhaznavi,GhoriorAurangzeband becomescompletelynegligeablewhencomparedwiththetotalrecordofIslamicdestructionand massacreinIndia.Moreover,apropercomparisonofthefanaticismrecordofHinducivilization wouldnotbewithIndianIslam,whichrepresentsafarsmallernumberofpeople,butwiththeentire MuslimworldfromtheProphet(peacebeuponhim)onwards. Prof.RomilaThaparwrites:"Thedesiretoportraytoleranceandnonviolenceastheeternalvalues oftheHindutraditionhasledtothepushingasideofsuchevidence."Whatevidence?Thesefew disputablecaseswillnotdotoprovethat"Hindutoleranceisamyth".Hinduscanaffordtofacethis evidencesqarely.AfinaljudgementonwhetherHinduismistolerantornotshujldnotdependona fewinstancesselectedandeditedtofittheproconceivedpicture,butonanoverviewofthewhole ofHinduhistory.ThelargerpatternsofHinduhistoryleavenodoubtthattheimpressioncunningly createdbythenegationistsisfalse. ManyforeigngroupsofpeoplepersecutedfortheirreligioncametoseekregugeinIndia.TheParsis havethrived.TheheterodoxSyrianChristianshavelivedinpeaceuntilthePortuguesecameto enlistthemintheirefforttochristianizeIndia.TheJewshaveexpressedtheirgratitudewhenthey leftforIsraelbecauseIndiawastheonlycountrywheretheirmemorieswerenotofpersecutionbut offriendlycoexistence.EventheMoplahMuslimswereacceptedwithoutanyquestionsasked.All thesegroupswerenotmerelytolerated,butreceivedlandandmaterialsupportforbuildingplacesof worship. Whatshouldreallyclinchtheissue,isthetoleranttreatmentwhichtheMuslimsreceivedaftertheir reignofterrorhadbeenoverthrownandreplacedwithHindurashtraslikethoseoftheMarathas, Sikhs,RajputsandJats.TheHinduscouldhaveemulatedthepolicyoftheSpanishChristiansafter theReconquista,andgiventheMuslimsthechoicebetweenconversionandemigration.Withthe benefitofhindsight,wecansaythattheywouldhavesavedmanylivesandIndia'sunitybydoing so,butforcingpeopletoconvertwasnotinconformitywiththeirtraditions. WhennegationistsareconfrontedwiththeevidenceofpersecutionsbyIslam,theyaresureto mentionafewcaseswhereMuslimrulerspatronizedthebuildingofHindutemples.Insomecases thisisdeceitful:intheJNUhistorians'pamphlet"ThePoliticalAbuseofHistory",theymention

threesuchcases,butoncloserinspectiontwoofthemdonotconcernMuslimrulers,buttheir Hinduministers(inhisrebuttal,Prof.A.R.Khancalledthis"notonlyconcealmentofevidencebut alsodistortionofevidence").Butallright,afewMuslimrulershavemadegiftstoHindu institutions.ThenegationistsinsistthatthesefewgiftsmakeupforthesystematicIslamic persecutions.Bycontrast,theirblatantlyunequalstandardsdonotallowthemtoacceptthe systematicpatronageoftheinstitutionsofBuddhistsandJainsbyHindukingsthroughtheagesas compensationforthefewisolatedandaberrantcasesofreligiousconflict. Inordertoundersandtheproblemofreligiousintolerance,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetween twotypesofconflictbetweenreligions.Thefirstoneistheordinaryconflictbetweentwogroupsof people,whomayderivetheiridentityfromtheirnationality,languagefamilystock,economic interests,socialclass,orallegiancetoafootballteam:anytwopeopleorgroupsofpeoplecanpicka quarrel.Therefore,tworeligiouscommunitiescanhaveaconflictofinterestaswell,andbehavejust likeanykindofgroupinconflictsituation.Bydefinition,everycommunitycanrunintothiskindof conflict(thoughsomemayremainnonviolentthroughoutbecauseoftheirdoctrine).Butthiskind ofconflictistemporary,dependentonanaccidentalstateofaffairsandalwaysgravitatesbackto normal. Thesecondkindofreligiousconflictisnotaccidental,butisaconsequenceofthedoctrinesto whichthecommunityadheres.Thisisthecaseonlywithahandfulofreligions(includingthe Marxistquasireligion),distinguishedbytheirexclusivismandtheirambitionforconquest.Islam hasbeenthemostconsistentindenyingotherstherighttoexistoratleasttofreelypractisetheir religion.Itsconflictswithotherreligionsaremerelythematerializationofitsdoctrines. Thisdiscinctionbetweenreligiousconflictasanaccidentoraberration,andreligiousconflictasthe directoutcomeoffanaticaldoctrinesinherentinareligion,isfundamentaltoanunderstandingof theproblem.Inthefirstcase,actsoffanaticismarecommittedinspiteofthedoctrine.TheVedas saythat"thewisecalltheOnebymanynames",andexhortusto"letgoodthoughtscometousfrom everywhere";intheBhagavadGitaKrishnaassurestheadherentsofallreligionsthat"thosewho praywithdevotiontoanygod,itistoMethattheypray".Differencesinreligionareconsidered superficialandunimportant,thereforereligioustoleranceisthenorm,andintolerancecannotbe morethananaberration.Butinthesecondcase,actsoffanaticismaresanctionedbythedoctrine, andareboundtohappenonasubstantialscaleaslongasthedoctrineistakenseroiously."Enmity andhatredwillreignbetweenusuntilyebelieveinAllahalone"saystheQuran,anditisonly logicalthatenmityandhatredhaveindeedreignedbetweenMuslimsandnonMuslims. Ofcourse,thosewithabadconsciencegooutoftheirwaytoblurthisdistinction.Marxistsinsiston disregardingorblurringthedistinctioneitherbecausetheywanttoblackenallreligion,orbecause theyareinleaguewithMuslimfanatics. Amongthosewholiketosaythat"allareequallyguilty",wealsofindtheChristianmissionaries. Theytoohaveahistoryofpersecutionsandtempledestructionstocoverup,notonlyinEuropeand America,butinIndiaaswell.ThePortugueseorganizedabranchoftheInquisitioninGoa,andthey practisedconversionbyforceonalargescale.TheFrenchandBritishmissionarieswerelessbrutal, oftenresortingtosubversiontacticsandinducementbymeansofmaterialadvantagesforconverts, buttheytoohavearecordoftempledestructionsinIndia.Hundredsofchurchescontainrubbleof theHindutempleswhichtheyreplaced.Wemaylookabitmorecloselyintoonecasewhichsumsit allup:theSaintThomaschurchonMylaporebeachinMadras. AccordingtoChristianleadersinIndia,theapostleThomascametoIndiain52AD,foundedthe SyrianChristianchurch,andwaskilledbythefanaticalBrahminsin72AD.Nearthesiteofhis martyrdom,theSaintThomaschurchwasbuilt.InfactthisapostlenevercametoIndia,andthe ChristiancommunityinSouthIndiawasfoundedbyamerchantThomasCananeusin345AD(a

namewhichreadilyexplainstheThomaslegend).Heled400refugeeswhofledpersecutionin PersiaandweregivenasylumbytheHinduauthorities.InCatholicuniversitiesinEurope,themyth oftheapostleThomasgoingtoIndiaisnolongertaughtashistory,butinIndiaitisstillconsidered useful.EvenmanyvocalsecularistswhoattacktheHindusforrelyingonmythintheAyodhya affair,offhandprofesstheirbeliefintheThomasmyth.TheimportantpointisthatThomascanbe upheldasamartyrandtheBrahminsdecriedasfanatics. Inreality,themissionarieswereverydisgruntledthatthesedamnedHindusrefusedtogivethem martyrs(whosebloodiswelcomedastheseedofthefaith),sotheyhadtoinventone.Moreover,the churchwhichtheyclaimcommemoratesSaintThomas'martyrdomatthehandsofHindu fanaticism,isinfactamonumentofHindumartyrdomatthehandsofChristianfanaticism:itisa forciblereplacementoftwoimportantHindutemples(JainandShaiva),whoseexistencewas insupportabletoChristianmissionaries.Nooneknowshowmanypriestsandworshipperswere killedwhentheChristiansoldierscametoremovethecurseofPaganismfromMylaporebeach. Hinduismdoesn'tpractisemartyrmongering,butifatallwehavetospeakofmartyrsinthis context,thetitlegoestotheseShivaworshippersandnottotheapostleThomas. So,applyingtheoldmaximthat"attackisthebestdefence",thespokesmenofintolerantcreeds falselyaccusethetolerantHindusofthesameintolerance.WhilenobodyclaimsthatHinduismis withoutfaults,orthatHindusocietyhasneverbroughtforthfanaticalindividuals,itisaplainliethat Hinduismhasrecordoffanaticismsimilar(howeverremotely)tothatofthethreeworldconquerors: Christianity,IslamandMrxism.

2.8GENERALCHARACTERISTICSOFISLAM NEGATIONISM
Indiahasitsownfullfledgedbrandofnegationism:amovementtodenythelargescaleandlong termcrimesagainsthumanitycommittedbyIslam.ThismovementisledbyIslamicapologistsand Marxistacademics,andfollowedbyallthepoliticians,journalistsandintellectualswhocall themselvessecularists.IncontrasttotheEuropeannegationismregardingtheNaziactsofgenocide, butsimilartotheTurkishnegationismregardingtheArmeniangenocide,theIndiannegationism regardingtheterriblerecordofIslamisfullysupportedbytheestablishment.Ithasnearlyfull controlofthemediaanddictatesallstateandgovernmentparlanceconcerningthecommunal problem(moreproperlytobecalledtheIslamproblem). Itstechniquesareessentiallythesameasthoseofnegationistselsewhere: 1. Headondenial:Thecrassestformofnegationismisobviouslythesimpledenialofthefacts. Thisismostlydoneintheformofgeneralclaims,suchas:"Islamistolerant","Islamic Spainwasamodelofmulticulturalharmony","theantiJewishhatredwasunknownamong MuslimsuntilZionismandantiSemitismtogetherenteredtheMuslimworldfromEurope". SinceitisrarethataspecificcrimeofIslamisbroughttothepublic'snotice,thereislittle occasiontocomeoutanddenyspecificcrimes.ExceptionsaretheArmeniangenocide, officiallydeniedinTurkeyandtheentireMuslimworld,andthetempledestructionsin India,whichhavebeenhighlightedintheAyodhyadebatebutflatlydeniedbySyed Shahanuddin,SushilSrivastavaandmanyotherproBabripolemists. TheRushdieaffairwastheoccasionfornegationismonagrandscale.Therehappenstobe anunambiguousanswertothequestion:"IsitIslamictokillthosewhovoicecriticismofthe Prophet?"Accordingtothemediaandmostexperts,theanswerwasdefinitely:no.

AccordingtothebasictraditionsofIslam,itwas:yes.Mohammedaswellashisimmediate successorshavekilledcritics,bothinformalexecutionsandinnighttimestabbings.In Islamiclaw,theProphet'sexampleisvalidprecedent.Atmosttherecouldbesome quarrelingovertheprocedure:somejuriststhoughtthatRushdieshouldfirstbekidnappedto anIslamiccountryandgivenachancetorecantbeforeanIslamiccourt,thoughthe ayatollahshaveruledthatnoamountofremorsecansaveRushdie.Ifhestandsbyhisbook, eventhesocalledmoderatesthinkhemustbekilled.Islamiclawpunishesbothapostasyand insultstotheProphetwiththedeathpenalty:twicethereisnoescapeforRushdie.Inthe Muslimworld,severalpublicationshaverestatedtheclearcutIslamicprovisionsforcases likeRushdie'sincludingAhaanatiRasoolkiSazaa("PunishmentforInsultingtheProphet") byJNUProf.MaulanaMohsinUdmaniNadwi,andMuqaddasiAyat("TheSacredVerses") byMaulanaMajidAliKhan,bothpublishedbytheIslamicResearchFoundation,Delhi.Yet, theoutsidepublicwastoldbymanyexpertsthatkillingRushdieisunislamic. Flatdenialwillworkverywellifyourgriponthepressandeducationmediaissufficient. Otherwise,thereisadangerofbeingshownupasthenegationistonereallyis.Inthatcase,a numberofsoftertechniquesareavailable. 2. Ignoringthefacts:Thispassivenegationismiscertainlythesafestandthemostpopular.The mediaandtextbookwriterssimplykeepthevastcorpusofinconvenienttestimonyoutofthe readers'view. 3. Minimizingthefacts:IftheinconvenientfactispointedoutthatnumerousMuslim chroniclershavereportedagivenmassacreofunbelieversthemselves,onecanpositapriori thattheymusthaveexaggeratedtoflattertheirpatron'smartialvanityasifitisnot significantenoughthatMuslimrulersfeltflatteredbybeingdescribedasmassmurderersof infidels. ApartfromminimizingtheabsolutesizeofIslamiccrimes,thereisthepopulartechniqueof relativeminimizing:makethefactslooksmallerbycomparingthemwithother,carefully selectedfacts.Thus,onecansaythat"allreligionsareintolerant",whichsoundsplausibleto manythoughitispatentlyfalse:intheRomanEmpireonlythosesectswerepersecuted whichhadpoliticalambitions(Jewswhentheyfoughtforindependence,Christiansbecause theysoughttotakeovertheEmpireandoutlawallotherreligions,astheyeffectivelydid), whiletheothersenjoyedthestatusofreligiolicita;similarlywiththePersianEmpireand manyotherstatesandcultures. AnoftinvokedcounterweightforthechargesheetagainstIslam,isthefanaticismrecordof Christianity.itisindeedwellknownthatChristianityhasbeenguiltyofnumeroustemple destructionsandpersecutions.Butthereasonforthisfanaticismisfoundinthecommon theologicalfoundationofbothreligions:exclusivistpropheticmonotheism.Thecaseagainst ChristianityisatonceacaseagainstIslam.Moreover,inspiteofitstheologicallymotivated tendencytointolerance,Christianityhashadtogothroughtheexperienceof"liveandlet live"becauseinitsformativeperiod,itwasbutoneofthenumeroussectsinthepluralist Romanempire. Islamneverhadthisexperience,andinordertobringoutitsfullpotentialoffanaticism, ChristianityhasneededtheinfluenceofIslamonafewoccasions.Thus,itisnocoincidence thatCharlemagne,whodefeatedtheSaxonsbyforce,wasthegrandsonofCharlesMartel, whodefeatedtheIslamicarmyinPoitiers;nocoincidenceeitherthattheTeutonicknights whoforciblyconvertedtheBalts,wereveteransoftheCrusades,i.e.thecampaigntoliberate PalestinefromIslam;norisitacoincidencethattheSpanishInquisitionemergedina countrythathadneededcenturiestoshakeoffIslamicoppression.Finally,Christianityis,by

andlarge,facingthefactsofitownhistory,thoughitsisstillstrugglingwiththeneedtoown uptheresponsibilityforthesefacts. AnevenmoregeneralwayofdrowningIslamicfanaticisminrelativistcomparisons,isto pointoutthatafterall,everyimperialismhasbeenlessthangentle.Thatmaywellbetrue, butthen,wearenotsettingupcultsfortheGenghisKhansofthisworld.Areligionshould contributetoman'stranscendinghisnaturaldefectslikegreedandcruelty,andnotsanction andglorifythem. 4. Whitewashing:Whenonecannotconceal,denyorminimizethefacts,onecanstillcalimthat oncloseranalysis,,theyarenotasbadastheyseem.Onecancallrightwhatisobviously wrong.Thiscangoveryfar,e.g.inhisbiographyofMohammed,MaximeRodinson declaredunashamedlythattheexterminationoftheMedineseJewsbyMohammedwas doubtlesslythebestsolution.InnumerouspopularintroductionstoIslam,thefactthatIslam imposesthedeathpenaltyonapostates(inmodernterminology:thatIslamopposesfreedom ofreligioninthemostradicalmanner)isacknowledged;butthenitisexplainedthat"since Islamwasatwarwiththepolytheists,apostasyequalledtreasonanddesertion,something whichisstillpunishedwithdeathinoursecularsociety".Allright,butthepointisprecisely thatIslamchosetobeatwarwiththetraditionalreligionofArabia,asalsowithallother religions,andthatithasmadethisstateofwarintoapermanentfeatureofitslawsystem. 5. Playingupunrepresentativefacts:Apopulartacticinnegationismconsistsinfindinga positivebutuncharacteristicevent,andhighlightingitwhilekeepingtheoverallpictureout ofthepublic'sview.Forinstance,adocumentisfoundinwhichChristianswhosesonhas forciblybeeninductedintheOttomanJanissaryarmy,expresspridebecausetheirsonhas madeitmadeittohighofficewithinthisarmy.Thefactthatthesepeoplemanagetoseethe brightsideoftheirson'sabduction,isthenusedtoprovethatnonmuslimswerequitehappy underMuslimrule,andtoconcealthefactthatthedevshirme,theforcibleconversionand abductionofonefifthoftheChristianchildrenbytheOttomanauthorities,constituteda constantandformidableterrorbewailedinhundredsofheartrendingsongsandstories. Foranotherexample,negationistsalwaysmentionncasesofcollaborationbynonMuslims (ManSinghwiththeMoghuls,etc.)tosuggestthattheseweretreatedaspartnersandequals andthatMuslimrulewasquitebenevolent;wheninfacteveryhistoryofanoccupation,even themostcruelone,isalsothehistoryofacollaboration.Ashasbeenpointedout,theNazis employedJewishguardsintheWarsawghetto,disprovetheNazioppressionoftheJews. 6. Denyingthemotive:Negationistssometimesacceptthefacts,butdisclaimtheirhero's responsibilityforthem.Thus,MohammedHabibtriedtoexonerateIslambyascribingtothe Islamicinvadersalternativemotives:Turkishbarbarity,greed,theneedtoputdown conspiraciesbrewingintemples.Inreality,thoserulerswhohadsecularreasonstoavoidan alloutconfrontationwiththeunbelievers,wereoftenreprimandedbytheirclericalcourtiers forneglectingtheirIslamicduty.Thesameclericswereneverundulyworriedoverpossible secularmotivesinaruler'smindaslongasthesepromptedhimtoactionagainstthe unbelievers.Atanyrate,thefactthatIslamcouldbeusedroutinelytojustifyplunderand enslavement(unlike,say,Buddhism),isstillsignificantenough. 7. Smokescreen:Anothercommontacticconsistsinblurringtheproblembyquestioningthe verytermsofthedebate:"Islamdoesnotexist,fortherearemanyIslams,withbig differencesbetweencountriesetc."Itwouldindeedbehardtocriticizesomethingthatisso illdefined.ButthesimplefactisthatIslamdoesexist:itisthedoctrinecontainedinthe Quran,normativeforallMuslims,andintheHadis,normativeatleastforallSunni Muslims.Therearedifferencesbetweenthelawschoolsconcerningminorpoints,andof

coursethereareconsiderabledifferencesintheextenttowhichMuslimsareeffectively faithfultoislamicdoctrine,andcorrespondingly,theextenttowhichtheymixitwithun islamicelements. 8. Blamingfringephenomena:WhenfacedwithhardfactsofIslamicfanaticism,negationists oftenblamethemonsomefringetendency,nowpopularlyknownasfundamentalism.Thisis saidtobetheproductofpostcolonialfrustration,basicallyforeigntogenuineIslam.In reality,fundamentalistslikeMaulanaMaudoodiandAyatollahKhomeiniknewtheirQuran betterthantheselfdeludingsecularistswhobrandthemasbadMuslims.Whatiscalled fundamentalismisinfacttheoriginalIslam,asisprovenbythefactthatfundamentalists haveexistedsincelongbeforecolonialism,e.g.the13thcenturytheologianIbnTaimiya, whoisstillalighthousefortoday'sMaudoodis,Turabis,MadanisandKhomeinis.When AyatollahKhomeinideclaredthatthegoalofIslamistheconquestofallnonMuslim countries,thiswasmerelyareformulationofMohammed'slongtermstrategyandofthe QuranicassurancethatGodhaspromisedtheentireworldtoIslam.Inthecaseof communism,onecanshifttheblamefromMarxtoLeninandStalin,butIslamicterrorism hasstartedwithMohammedhimself. 9. Argumentsadhominem:Ifdenyingtheevidenceisnottenable,onecanalwaysdistortitby meansofselectivequotingandimputingmotivestotheoriginalauthorsofthesource material;ormanipulatingquotationstomakethemsaytheoppositeoftheoverallpicture whichtheoriginalauthorhaspresented.Focusallattentiononafewrealorimaginedflaws inafewselectedpieces,andactasiftheentirecorpusofevidencehasbeenrendered untrustworthy.Toextendtheallegeduntrustworthinessofonepieceofevidencetotheentire corpusofevidence,itisnecessarytocreatesuspicionagainstthosewhopresentthe evidence:theimplicationisthattheyhaveaplanofhistoryfalisification,thatthisplanhas beenexposedinthecaseofthisonepieceofevidence,butthatitisonlylogicalthatsuch motivatedhistoryfalsifiersarealsobehindtheconcoctionoftherestoftheallegedevidence. Ifthediscussionofinconvenientevidencecannotbeprevented,disperseitbyraisingother issues,suchasthehumanimperfectionswhicheveryvictimofcrimesagainsthumanity inevitabllyhas(JewishharshnessagainstthePalestinians,Hinduuntouchability);describe thedemandforthetruthasaploytojustifyandcoveruptheseimperfections.Ifthefacts havetobefacedatall,thenblamethevictim.Ifpeopleignoreorrefuteyourdistorted versionofhistory,accusethemofdistortionandpoliticalabuseofhistory.Slanderscholars whosetestimonyisinconvenient;imputepoliticalorothermotivestotheminordertopull theattentionawayfromthehardevidencetheypresent. 10.Slogans:Finally,alldiscussioncanbesabotagedwiththesimpletechniqueofshouting slogans:prejudice,myth,"racism/communalism".Takethestrugglefromthecommon battlefieldofargumentsintotheopponent'scamp:hisselfesteemasamemberofthe civilizedcompanythatabhorsuglythingslikeprejudiceandcommunalism.Afterall,attack isthebestdefence. Aftersumminguptheformsofnegationism,wehavetolookintoitscauses.Thefollowingfactors cometomind: 1. OrientalismandIslamology:AfterthemedievalChristianpamphletsagainst"Mohammed theimpostor",notmuchhasbeenpublishedthematizingtheideologicalandfactualcrimes ofIslam.Bookson,say,"slaveryinIslam"areextremelyrare:therawinformationthatcould fillsuchapublicationwillhavetobefoundinmoregeneralpublications,inwhichIslamis onlyreferredtoinpassing,oftenwithouttheauthor'srealizingtheimplicationsforan evaluationofIslam.Itisoftensaid(whenintroducing"refutationsofprejudice")thatpeople

alwaysassociateIslamwithintolerance;butfindingabookspecificallydevotedtothe subjectofIslamicintolerancewillbeharder.HowmanymillionshavebeenkilledbyIslam simplybecausetheywerenonMuslims?Nobodyhasyettabulatedthefiguresavailableto prepareageneralestimate.WecanonlynoticethatcriticalresearchofIslamisnotexactly encouraged,andthatthereisanincreasingtendencytoselfcensorshipregardingIslam criticism.Inpart,thisisduetomuchdelayedreactionagainstthelongabandonedChristian polemicalappraoch. NowthatIslamicStudiesdepartmentsinEuropeareincreasinglymannedbyMuslimsand sponsoredbyIslamicfoundationsandstates,ashasbeenthecaseinIndiaforlong,the climateforcriticalstudiesofIslamisonlyworsening.Whencomparingthefirst(preWorld War2)editionoftheEncyclopaediaofIslam(Leiden,Netherlands)withthenewedition,it isstrikinghowcriticalobservationshavebeenironedout.Buteveninthepast,Islamhas enjoyedaratherfavourabletreatmentinacademiccircles.Thus,aboutIslamicslaverythe prominentDutchIslamologistC.SnouckHurgronjewrotein1887(i.e.thirtyyearsafterthe Americanshadwagedawartoimposetheabolitionofslaveryintheirsouthernstates,and someseventyyearsafteritsabolitioninthecolonies):"Formostslavestheirabductionwas ablessing...Theythemselvesareconvictedthatitistheirenslavementthathasforthefirst timemadethemhuman." ThepoliticalcontextofthegrowthphaseofIslamologyprovidesapartoftheexplanation. MaturecolonialismwasnotwagingwaragainstIslam,butsoughtthecooperationofthe establishedsocialforcesinthecolonizedpopulations.TheBritishcooperationwiththe IndianMuslimsiswellknown;itisepitomizedbythefoundingin1906oftheMuslim League,whichsoughtto"inculcateloyaltytotheBritishEmpireintheIndianMuslims".In FrenchWestAfrica,inthesameperiod,Islamwasacceptedasafactorofsocialstability, andGeneralLyauteypursuedadreamofaFrancoIslamicsynthesiscultureinAlgeria.In the1930s,inthelastEuropeanattemptatfreshcolonization,theItalianFascistsactively supportedthespreadofIslamintheHornofAfrica.Butalreadysince1853thecolonial powershadbeensupportingtheCaliphateagainstaChristianpower,CzaristRussia,esp.in theCrimeanWar(amistakenwarifevertherewasone),andthishadstronglycontributedto climateofbenevolencetowardstheMuslimculture. 2. Churchpolicy:ChristianityhasforcenturieswagedalivelypolemicagainstIslam,with RaimundusLullusasprobablythemostremarkableexponent.Recently,thiscriticismhas subsided.Worse,polemicalworksbyclericshavebeenwithdrawnorkeptunpublished(such as,earlythiscenture,FatherHenriLammens'paperarguingthatMohammed'srevelations wereapsychopathologicalphenomenon).OnereasonisthattheChurchisawareofthe similaritybetweenJesus'andMohammed'smissions,sothatacriticismofthefoundations ofIslammaybackfireonChristianity.ThesecondreasonisthefearthatChristiansinthe MuslimworldwouldhavetopayforevenideologicalattackonIslam(thatiswhyChurch polemistssavetheirsharpestwordsforharmlessreligionslikeHinduism).Thisfearalso motivatesotherChurchpolicies,suchasthenonrecognitionofthestateofIsrael. Meanwhile,thefaceoftheChurchhaschanged.Asmallbutsignificanteventinthewakeof theSecondVaticanCouncilwasthedeletionfromtheSaints'calendarofOurLadyofthe RedemptionofSlaves,whosefeastwason24September.IntheMiddleAges,therewasa specialclericalorderandawholefundraisingnetworkdevotedtotheredemption("buying back")ofChristianslavesheldinBarbary.Untilthe19thcentury,coastalvillagesinItaly hadwatchtowerstoalarmthepeoplewhenashipoftheslavecatchingBarbaresepirateswas insight.TheterrorofIslamicslaverywasapermanentfeatureofChristianhistoryfromthe 7thtillthe19thcentury,butnowtheChurchisworkinghardtoerasethismemory.

Today,itspastorsarethemostferventpleadersfortherightsofIslam.MuslimsinEuropeare forthemasubstituteforthedisappearingparishmembers.SeparateChristianinstitutions, whoseresonofexistenceisbeingquestioned,findanewlegitimacyinthefactthatIslamin itsturnisalsoopeningseparateschools,charitiesandevenpoliticalparties.Islamhas becomeasisterreligionregularlypraisedasareligionofpeace. 3. Anticolonialism:Oneoftheideologicalguidelinesofanticolonialismwas:"Ofthe (ex)colonized,nothingbutgoodmustbesaid."Therefore,mentioningthecolonialismand massslaverypractisedbytheMuslimshadbecomeundesirable. AddtothisgeneraltaboothewarningthatIslamcriticismeffectivelyimpliessupportto Israel,describedbyMaximeRodinsonasa"colonialsettlerstate".Ifoneacknowledgesthat IslamhasalwaysoppressedtheJews,oneacceptsthatIsraelwasanecessaryrefugeforthe JewsfleeingnotonlytheEuropeanbutalsotheIslamicvarietyofantiJudaisms.Letusnot forgetthatdecolonizationwasfollowedimmediatelybyreneweddiscriminationofand attacksontheJewishandChristianminorities,andthatthoseJewswhocouldgetouthave promptlyfledtoIsrael(orFrance,inthecaseofAlgeria).Itisnocoincidencethatthese SephardicJewsaremostlysupportersofthehardlinersinIsrael. 4. Theenemy'senemyisafriend:ManypeoplebroughtupasChristians,orasnominalHindus, neveroutgrowtheirpubescentrevoltagainsttheirparents'religion,andtherefore automaticallysympathizewitheveryrivaloropponentofthereligiontheyhavecometo despise.BecauseIslamposesthemostformidablethreat,theylikeitalot. 5. Leftism:Inthiscentury,Islamhascometobeadvertisedasanaturallyleftist"religionof equality".ThislinehasbeendevelopedbyMuslimapoligistssuchasMohammedHabib,and theyhaveeventakenitasarationalizationoftheirrationalclaimthatMohammedwasthe "lastProphet":afterall,asthe"prophetofequality",hehadbroughttheultimatemessage uponwhichnoimprovementispossible.SirMohammedIqbal,oneofthefathersof Pakistan,hadclaimedthat"IslamequalsCommunismplusAllah".TheIranianAyatollahs, bycontrast,andmostofthevocalMuslimsaftertheSovietIslamicwarinAfghanistan,have restatedtheorthodoxpositionthatCommunismisunIslamic,notonlybecauseofits atheismbutalsobecauseofitsrejectionoffreeentreprise;thecurrentclaimisthatIslam providesa"betterformofequality"thanCommunism. EvenwhileCommunistswereslaughteredinIslamicIran,andevenwhilepoliticalanalysts classifytheIslamistmovementsas"extremerightist",mostleftistshavekeptoncultivating somesympathyforIslam.DuringtheLebanesecivilwar,theyfedusnewsstoriesabout "leftistMuslims,rightistChristians","Islamoprogressive,christianoreactionnaire". NegationisminIndiaispractisedwiththemostprowessbyhistoriansandwriterswhoare underthespellofMarxism.LeninhadwantedtousetheMuslimsagainsttheFrenchand Britishcolonialists,butwhatwasatacticalallianceforLeninbecamealoveaffairforthe IndianCommunists.However,itwouldbewrongtoexpectthatthecollapseofSoviet CommunismandtheinevitabledeclineofCommunisminIndiawillautomaticallyleadto thedissolutionofnegationism.Ithasbecomeabiasandathoughthabitformanypeople whohaveonlyvaguelybeeninfluencedbyMarxism.Childrenmostlysurvivetheirparents, andcertainformsofnegationismmaysurviveIndianMarxismforsometime,unlessa seriouseffortismadetoexposeitonagrandscale. 6. Rightisttraditionalism:ThereisalsoarightistsympathyforIslam.Anobviouspointof agreementisofcourseantiJudaism.Asubtlerbasisforsympathyisthesocalled traditionalistcurrent,whichwasrepresentedbytheconvertsReneGuenonandFrithjof Schuon,andstillhasafollowing:ithasbeenidealizingIslamandesp.Sufismasthe

preserveroftheageoldphilosophiapernnisagainstmodernity.InRussia,someSlavophile antiWesterngroupsnowseekanalliancewithIslamagainsttheimpendingAmericanization oftheirsociety.IntheU.S.,ChristianfundamentalistsandIslamicorganizationsare increasinglycreatingcommonplatformstospeakoutagainsttrendsofmoraldecay (abortion,pornography,etc.).Someofthesephenomenaoftraditionalistalliancebuilding arequiterespectable,buttheyareneverthelessconducivetoIslamnegationism. 7. Hinducowardice:EvenamongsocalledmilitantHindus,thereisashamefuleagernessto praiseIslamanddenyitscriminalrecord.E.g.,duringtheAyodhyamovement,manyHindu leadershavebeenpleadingthattheMuslimsshouldrenouncetheRamJanmabhoomisite because"geunineIslamisagainsttempledemolition",sothatamosquestandingona demolishedtempleisnotinconformitywithIslamiclaw.Thiswas,ofcourse,blatantly untrue:Islamicscriptureandhistoryprovethatdestroyingallexpressionsofunbeliefand idolatryisadutyandanhonourforMuslims.Thedoctrinesthathaveledtothetemple destructionsincludingtheoneonRamJanmabhoomi,arestillbeingtaughtinallIslamic schools. Apartfrombeinguntruthful,thisHinduappealto"geunineIslam'stolerance"wasalsobad debatingtactics:ifyousaythattempledemolitionwasstandardIslamicpractice,andthat whathadhappenedinAyodhyawasmerelythelocalapplicationofthegeneralrule,theonus isontheBabriadvocatestoprovethattheBabriMasjidwasanexception;butifyousaythat theBabriMasjidwasanexceptiontotheruleofIslamictolerance,theonusisonyouto provethatinthiscase,anexceptionalanduncharacteristicincidenthadtakenplace.Itwas alsobadbargainingtactics:ifyousaythattheBabriMasjidwasmerelyoneamong thousands,thenrenouncingthisonenonmosquewouldsoundlikeaverylowpriceforthe MuslimstobuytheHindus'goodwill;butifyousaythattheBabriMasjidwasan exceptionalcase,aninsignificantincidentamidthemanybigproblemsthrownupbyhistory, youlookpettybydemandingtherestorationofthisonesite.Short,Hinduleaderswere damagingtheirownpositionbydenyinghistoryandavoidingIslamcriticism. Onecouldunderstandpeopletellinglieswhenitservestheirowninterest;butpeoplewho telllieswhenitisthetruththatwouldservetheirinterest,reallydeservetobekickedaround. Thistrulystrangeandmasochisticbehaviourcanonlybeunderstoodifwekeepinmindthat Hindusocietyisaterorizedsociety.DuringtheMuslimperiod,allthosewhostoodupand spokeoutagainstIslamwereeliminated;andunderNehruvianrule,theyweresidelinedand abused.TheoppressedHindusstartedlickingthebootthatkickedthem,andthishasbecome ahabitwhichintheirslumbertheyhavenotyetidentifiedandstopped. 8. LiberalIslam:IntheIslamicworld,itisunwisetoattackIslamheadon.Yet,sometimes peopleinthosecountriesfeeltheneedtoopposeIslamicphenomenaandcampaigns,suchas thewitchhuntonunIslamicculturalremnants,violenceonthenonMuslims,extreme formsofgenderinequality.Inordertohaveachance,thesepeoplehavetouseIslamic language:"Mohammedwasactuallyagainstpolygamy","violenceagainstothersisin conflictwiththetolerancewhichMohammedhastaughtus","respectforotherculturesis partofIslamictradition".Inordertopresstheirhumanistpoint,theyhavetoformally identifywithIslamandlieaboutitscontents. ManyMuslimshavestartedtobelievetheirownrhetoric.Ifyoupointouttothemthatthe Quranteachesintoleranceandwaragainsttheunbelieversinthemostexplicitterms,many ofthemwillsincerelyprotest,andnotknowwhattosaywhenyoushowthemtheQuranic passagesconcerned.ThereisnoreasontodoubtthattheMoroccanmauthoressFatima MernissigenuinelybelievesinherownargumentthattheQuranicinstructionsonhowto organizeyourpolygamoushouseholdaretobereadasanabolitionofpolygamy(albeitin

veiledterms,becauseAllah,thesameAllahAlmightywhowentstraightagainstthe prevalentcustomsofidolatryandpluralism,hadtobecarefulnottooffendthespiritofthe times).ManynominalMuslimshaveoutgrownIslamicvaluesanddevelopedacommitment tomodernvalues,buttheirsentimentalattachmenttothereligionimbibedintheirchildhood preventsthemfromformallybreakingwithIslamandmakesthempaintarosypictureofit. AmongMuslimspokesmen,isiscertainlynotthefundamentalistswhoarethemostactive proponentsofnegationism.ItisliberalslikeAsgharAliEngineerwhodenythatIslam ordainswarontheinfidels.ItisthosewhoareacclaimedbyHindusasbeinggood"secular" Muslims,likeSaeedNaqvi,whogoasfarastodenythatthePartitionofIndiawasbrought aboutbyMuslims.AnIslamthatwantstobesecular,cannotbutbedishonestanduntrueto itself.Unfortunately,atolerantIslamisacontradiction,andatolerantpastforIslamto buttressthepositionofliberalMuslims,isalie. 9. MuslimsdifferingfromIslam:ManypeoplehaveaMuslimneighbourwhoisafineman,and fromthisempiricalfacttheyconclude:Islamcannotbeallthatbadconsideringourfriend Mustapha.Thisoneempiricalfactgivesthematremendousresistanceagainstall informationaboutIslamicintolerance.Peopleusuallyreducetheworldtotheirownsphere ofexperience,andgeneralhistoricalfactsofIslamicfanaticismarenotallowedtodisturbthe privateexperienceofgoodneighbourlyrelations. ManynominalMuslimshaveretainedfromtheirQuranclassesonlysomevaguegeneralities aboutmorality,andtheynormallygobytheirownconscienceandsensibilitywithoutever developingthedoctrinallyprescribedhostilitytowardsnonMuslims.Thesegoodpeoplebut hadMuslimscanignorebutnotchangeIslamicdoctrine.TheycannotpreventtheQuranic messageofhatredfrominfectingatleastsomeofthemoresesceptibleamongtheirbrethren. TherehavecertainlybeensituationswheresaneMuslimshavecalmeddowntheirmore riotousbrethren,andsuchindividualsdomakearealdifference.Weshouldnotmakethe IslamicmistakeofjudgingpeoplesimplybytheirbelongingornotbelongingtotheMuslim community,ratherthanbytheirhumanqualities.Butthefactremainsthatthepresenceofa doctrineofintoleranceastheofficialandidentitydefiningideologyofacommunity,exerts aconstantpressuretendingtowardsseparatismandconfrontation.Thealleviatingpresence ofthehumanistfactorevenwithintheMuslimcommunityshouldnotbeusedtodenythe ominouspresenceofIslamicfactor. "Thosewhodenyhistoryareboundtorepeatit":thatiswhatmanycriticsofHolocaustnegationism allege.Thisseemsslightlyexaggerated,thoughitisofcoursethewellwishersofNazismwho practisenegationism.InthecaseofIslam,itisequallytruethatnegationismispractisedbythe wellwishersofthatsamedoctrinewhichhasledtothecrimesagainsthumanityunder consideration.WhileNazismissimplytoostainedtogetasecondchance,Islamiscertainlyina positiontoforceunbelieversintothezimmistatus(asishappeningindozensofMuslimcountriesin varyingdegrees),andeventowagenewjihads,thistimewithweaponsofmassdestruction.Those whoaretryingtoclosepeople'seyestothisdangerbydistortingorconcealingthehistoricalrecord ofIslamareeffectiveaccomplicesintheinjusticeanddestructionwhichIslamissuretocause beforethetimeofitsdissolutioncomes.Therefore,Iconsideritadutyofallintellectualstoexpose anddenouncethephenomenonofnegationismwheneveritispractised.

CHAPTERTHREEEXPOSINGANDREFUTING NEGATIONISM
Negationismandhistorydistortionrequirealargescaleeffortandaverystronggriponthemedia ofinformationandeducation.Assoonasthegriploosens,atleastthemostblatantofthe negationistconcoctionsareboundtobeexposed,anditspropoundersloseallcredibility.In1988, theschoolsintheSovietUniondecidedtosuspendthehistoryexamsbecause"thehistorybooksare fullofliesanyway".ThegreatliesanddistortionsofSoviethistoriographyarenowitemsinthe galleryofridicule.

3.1ENTERVOICEOFINDIA
JustliketheRussianshavethrownSoviethistoriographyintothedustbin,Indiannegationismwill alsobethrownoutinthenearfuture.Thenewlypublishedsecondvolumeof"Hindutemples,what happenedtothem",bytheIndianhistorianSitaramGoes(1921),isamortalblowinthefaceof negationism.Andtherearemorereasonsforcallingthebookamilestone. Theauthoris,togetherwithhisfriend,thelinguistandphilosopherRamSwarup(1920),theleading lightoftheintellectualrearmamentofthebatteredanddespondentHindusociety.Bornin1921ina poorfamily(thoughbelongingtothemerchangAgrawalcaste)inHaryana,hetookanM.A.in historyinDelhiUniversity,winningprizesandscholarshipsalongtheway.Inhisyouthhewasa Gandhianactivist,organizingintercastedinnersandparticipatingintheFreedomMovement.Inthe forties,whentheGandhiansthemselvesweredriftingtotheLeftandadoptingsocialistrhetoric,he decidedtooptfortheoriginalratherthantheimitation,andjoinedtheCommunistParty.Withina fewyears,heleftthePartyindisgust,andparticipatedinRamSwarup'santicommunist organizationinCalcutta,thenasnowthecentreofIndiancommunism. Inthefiftieshepublishedanumberofbooksexposingtheliesthatformedthebackboneof communistpropaganda.Forinstance,in"Whomshallwebelieve?",hecomparedtheeconomic figuresinofficialRussianandChinesepublicationswiththepropagandaputoutbytheCommunist PartyofIndiaanditsfellowtravellers,anddemonstratedtheutterlydeceitfulnatureofwhatever creditibilitycommunismhadacquired.Asthecoverofhisnewestpublicationproudlyproclaims, "thenumerousstudiespublishedbythemovementinthefiftiesexistincoldprintinmanylibraries andcanbeconsultedforfindingouthowthemovementanticipatedbymanyyearstherecent revelationsaboutcommunistregimes". AnaspectofhistoryyettobestudiedishowsuchanticommunistmovementsintheThirdWorld werenotatallhelped(inspiteofallallegationsofCIAinnvolvement)butratheropposedby Westerninterestgroupswhoseunderstandingofcommunistideologyandstrategy,andofmany otherpoliticalissues,wasjusttoolimitedandblunt.Thecritiqueofcommunismformulatedby theseIndianthinkerswasoftenintellectuallysuperiortomostofwhathasbeenproducedby EuropeanandAmericananticommunistsintheColdWarperiod. ShortlybeforetheChineseinvasion(1962),whichpinprickedtheballoonofprimeminister JawaharlalNehru'svaingloriousbrainchildren,theNonAlignedMovementandtheIndianChinese friendshipasanaxisofAsianstability,SitaramGoelpublishedacritiqueofNehru'spolicyof friendshipwithcommunism,"InDefenceofComradeKrishnaMenon".Init,hedebunkedthe currentfashionofattributingIndia'scommunistleaningforeinpolicytoministerKrishnaMenon, anddemonstratedthatNehruhimselfhadbeenaconsistentcommunistsympathizereversincehis visittotheSovietUbnionin1927.Nehruhadstucktohiscommunistsyumpathiesevenwhenthe

communistsinsultedhimasprimeministerwiththeirunbridledswearology:heusedtolicktheboot thatkickedhim.Nehru'sabsoluterefusaltosupporttheTibetansevenatthediplomaticlevelwhen theywereoverrunbytheChinesearmy,cannotjustbeattributedtocircumstancesortheinfluence ofcollaborators:hishandoverofTibettocommunistChinawasquiteconsistentwithhisown politicalconvictions. EventhoughSitaramGoel'sstandwasvindicatedbytheChineseinvasion,thebookaboutNehru costhimhisjobinastateaffliatedcompany.Hewentintobusinesshimselfandsetupacompanyof bookimportandexport.Initsmargin,,helaterstartedthenonprofitpublishinghouseVoiceof India.ItsaimistodefendHinduismbyplacingbeforethepubliccorrectinformationaboutthe situationofHinducultureandsociety,andaboutthenature,motivesandstrategiesofitsenemies. For,asthetitleofhisbook"Hindusocietyundersiege"(1981)indicates,Hindusocietyhasbeen sufferingasustainedattackfromIslamsincethe7thcentury,fromChristianitysincethe15th century,andthiscenturyalsofromMarxism.Theavowedobjectiveofeachofthesethreeworld conqueringmovements,withtheirmassiveresources,isthereplacementofHinduismbytheirown ideology,orineffect:thedestructionofHinduism.Thisconcernisnotatallparanoid(as spokesmenoftheseaggressorswouldsay),eveniftheconversionsquadsareremarkably unsuccessfulinIndia.ConsiderthesituationinAfrica:in1900,50%ofallAfricanspractisedPagan religions;today,ChristianandIslamicmissionarieshavereducedthisnumbertolessthan10%.That isthekindofthreatHinduismisupagainst.Sofar,thebiggestsuccessoftheseaggressorsisatthe levelofthought:manyHindushaveinteriorizedthedepreciationofHinducultureandsocietywhich theirenemieshavebeenfeedingthemfromtherelativepowerpositionswhichtheyhavehadinthe pastorareenjoyingtoday.Standinguptothechallengethrownbythesemortalenemies,Voiceof IndiaworksfortheintellectualmobilizationofHindusociety. TheimportanceofSitaramGoel'sandRamSwarup'sworkcanhardlybeoverestimated.Thereis nodoubtthatfuturetextbooksoncomparativereligionaswellasthoseonIndianpoliticaland intellectualhistorywilldevotecrucialchapterstotheiranalysis.Therarethefirsttogiveafirst handPaganreplytotheversionsofhistoryand"scienceofreligion"imposedbythemonotheist worldconquerors,bothatthelevelofhistoricalfact(e.g.SitaramGoel's"HistoryofHindu ChristianEncounters")andoffundamentaldoctrine(e.g.RamSwarup's"Hinduismvisavis ChristianityandIslam"),bothintermsofthespecificHinduexperience(e.g.SitaramGoel's "HinduSocietyunderSiege")andofamoregeneralizedtheoryofreligionfreefromprophetic monotheisticbias(e.g.RamSwarup's"TheWordasRevelation:NamesofGods",aground breakingstatementofPagandoctrine). Theirlongtermintellectualimportanceisthattheyhavecontributedimmenselytobreakingthe spellofallkindsofmonotheistprejudicesandmisrepresentationsofPaganismingeneral,Hinduism inparticular.Theyhavedonesoinanexplicitmanner,addressingthepolemicalpositionstakenby theworldconquerorssquarely,notmerelyeulogizingthequalitiesofUpanishadicthoughtandother Hinduachievements(astoomanyHindurevivalistsdo). VoiceofIndia'sshortertermpoliticalimportanceconsistsinitsbreakingthroughtheweak apologetictakenbytheestablishedHindumovement.Thismovement,includingtheBharatiya JanataPartywhichwon24%ofthevoteinthe1991elections,wastesquiteabitofitsenergyon provingitssecularcredentialsanditsharmlessnessforMuslimsandotherminorities, unsuccessfullytryingtoacquireanewsecularidentityandmeanwhileunderminingitsnatural Hinduidentity.ItisstillplayingbytherulesimposedbytheMarxistMuslimalliance.Voiceof Indiachangestherulesbydebunkingthepremisesofsecularistdisocurse(veryexplicitlyinSitaram Goel's"PerversionofIndia'sPoliticalParlance")andexposingtheimperialistdesignswhichare currentlystealingamarchbehindthesmokescreenofsecularism.

3.2INTELLECTUALDEFENCEOFHINDUISM
Facedwiththeattackfromtheworldconquerors,Hindushassofarfailedtoputupanintelligent defence.ThisshouldalreadybeclearfromtheextremelynegativeimageoftheHindurevivalist movementwhichtheEnglishlanguagepresshascreated,andagainstwhichthismovementitselfhas beenquitehelpless.TheorganizationsclaimingtoworkforthewelfareanddefenceofHindu society,havenotmanagedtogiveanintellectualdimensiontotheirwork,andhaveneglectedthe fieldofideologicaldevelopmentandofbroadcastingtheirviewpointsthroughthemedia. ThereisanIndiawideHinduorganization,theRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS,"National VolunteerCorps"),whichisdevotedtocharacterbuildingthephysicaltraining,toculturalactivities, andtogivinganorganizationalbackbonetoHindusociety.TheerstwhileJanSanghandnowthe BharatiyaJanataParty(BJP)arepoliticalpartiesaffiliatedwiththisRSSmovement.Thedegreeto whichHinduismisonthedefensivecanbeinferredfromthefactthatthesemilitantHindu organizationsdonotevendaretocallthemselvesHindus,butgohidingbehindneutraltermslike "national"and"Indian". ThebasicpoliticalidologyoftheRSSiscalledintegralhumanism,developedbyDeendayal Upadhaya(d.1967)onthebasisofancientHindusocialphilosophy.Thetermmeansthattheworld shouldbeorganizedinsuchawaythateachofthefourgoals(purusharthas)ofhumanlifeisgiven itsdue:Hindutraditionenumeratestheseaskama(erotics,pleasure),artha(gain,success),dharma (duty,worldorder),moksha(spiritualliberation).Itisahumanisminthesensethathumanvalues, notdivinerevelation,formabasisofitsprogramme(thosewhosaythattheBJPaimsatcreatinga "Hindutheocraticstate",merelydisplaytheirignorance).AsanintegralistHindualternativetothe reductionistideologies(socialism,,liberalism,nationalism),integralhumanismdeserves comparisonwithChristiandemocracyinEurope.Inspiteofalltheswearwordshurledatthe RSS/BJP,theirideologyisquiteunexceptionable.Infact,afterthefallofMarxism,therenewed excessofnationalism,andtheobviouslimitationsofliberalismbeyondtheeconomicsphers,itis clearthathumanitynowneedsanideologywhichcanonlybesomekindof"integralhumanism". WhiletheideologicalstartingpointoftheseHindumovementsisperfectlyacceptable,itisstriking thatthereisnothinktanktodevelopthisseedintoasuccessfulpracticalanalysisofconcrete politicalproblems.WhereasMarxisthavepublishednumerousanalysesabouteverysocial,political andculturaltopic,theintellectualoutputoftheRSSmovementisminimal.Mostofitspamphlets andmanifestoescontainalotofpuffeduppatriotismandwailingoverthePartitionoftheHindu motherland,butlittlepenetratinganalysisthatcouldbethebasisforimaginativepoliciesanda realisticstrategy. TheintellectualfailureoftheHindumovementismoststrikinginitsdealingwiththeonegreatsore inmedievalaswellcontemporaryHinduhistory:theMuslimproblem.Youhearsomuchaboutthe HinduMuslimconflict,thatyouwouldexpecttofindagreatdealofintellectualeffortinanalyzing thenatureofthisproblemasaprerequisitetoanyworkablesolution.Infact,thereisnosuch analysisbyanyleaderoftheorganizedHindumovement,exceptinaveryconciseandelementary form,e.g.byprof.BalrajMadhok(erstwhileJanSanghleaderwhofelloutwiththepartyprecisely because,apartfrompersonalconflicts,heopposeditsincreasingopportunismandlackofHindu consciousness).TheyallcomplainalotthatMuslimhavedestroyedtemplesandsplitthe Motherland,thatMuslimsstartriots,thatHindusarepersecutedinMuslimstates,butnotoneof themdarestoaskwhybelieversinIslamexhibitthisunpleasantbehaviour. MostHinduleadersexpresslyrefusetosearchIslamicdoctrineforareasonfortheobservedfactof Muslimfanaticism.RSSleaderGuruGolwalkaroncesaid:"Islamisagreatreligion.Mohammed wasagreatprophet.ButtheMuslimsarebigfools."Thisisnotlogical,fortheonethingthatunites the(otherwisediverse)communityofMuslimsistheircommonbeliefinIslam:ifanywrongis

attributedto"theMuslims"assuch,itmustbesituatedintheircommonbeliefsystem. IntheAyodhyadispute,timeandagaintheBJPleadershaveappealedtotheMuslimstorelinquish allclaimstothesupposedbirthplaceoftheHindugodRama,arguingthatdestroyingtemplesis againstthetenetsofIslam,andthattheQuranprohibitstheuseofamosquebuiltondisputedland. Infact,whateverIslamdecreesagainstbuildingmosquesondisputedproperty,canonlyconcern disputeswithintheMuslimcommunity(oritstemporaryalliesunderatreaty).Itisperfectlylawful, andestablishedbytheProphetthroughhisownexample,todestroyPaganestablishmentsand replacethemwithmosques.ButtheBJPleadersdreamofdealingwithatolerantIslam,andthey appealtotheMuslimstorememberthetolerancetaughtbyMohammedasmuchasbyanyother prophet.PerhapsthisisthetypicallyHinduattitudewhichgenerouslytriestoseethebestinevery one;perhapsitisignoranceorcowardiceorwilfulselfdeception;perhapsitisthepsychological effectofcenturiesofterror,whichmakeithardforHindustoevencriticizetheirterrorizer.Atany rate,thetolerantIslamofwhichtheBJPleadersspeak,doesnotexist. Therefore,SitaramGoelisrathercriticalofthecurrentAyodhyamovement.Intheforewordtothe newlypublishedsecondvolumeofhisbook"HinduTemples,WhatHappenedtoThem",hewrites: "ThemovementfortherestorationofHindutempleshasgotboggeddownaroundtheRama JanmabhoomiatAyodhya.Themoreimportantquestion,viz.whyHindutemplesmetthefatethey didatthehandsofIslamicinvaders,hasnotbeenevenwhispered.Hinduleadershaveendorsedthe MuslimpropagandistsinproclaimingthatIslamdoesnotpermittheconstructionofmosquesat sitesoccupiedearlierbyotherpeople'splacesofworship...TheIslamofwhichHinduleadersare talkingexistsneitherintheQurannorintheSunnahoftheProphet.Itishopedthatthisvolumewill helpinclearingtheconfusion.Nomovementwhichshunsorshiesawayfromtruthislikelyto succeed.Strategiesbasedonselfdeceptionstanddefeatedattheverystart." Somewhatsurprisingly,theestablishedHinduorganizationsshowverylittleinterestinVoiceof India'swork.Apparentlytheyarementallytooslacktoseetheimportanceoffosteringadeveloped Hinduviewpointamongtheirownactivists.Theyprefertoinvestinlotsofphysicallocomotion,and tovoicetheprevalentselfpityconcerningtheinjusticeatthehandsoftheMuslimsandthe seculariststate.Whattheyshoulddoinstead,istochangetheconceptualframeworkofIndian politics,andtoreeducatetheircadresandthepublicandfreethemfromthementalgripofthe pervertedpoliticalparlanceimposedbytheMuslimMarxistcombine.Thatwilldoalotmorefor overthrowingsecularistdepotismandIndia'svassalagetoIslamicimperialism,thanallthe rathyatrasandpadyatrasandkarsevascombined. TheideologicalhelplessnessofpoliticalHinduscomesoutimmediatelywhenyouquestionthem aboutMahatmaGandhi.TheassessmentofGandhia'ssignificanceforHindusociety,andthefactof hismurderbyaHindu,areembarassingtopicswithwhichHindubaitersarehavingalotoffun. Invariably,theycalltheRSS(withits"family"ofaffiliatedorganizationsincludingtheBJP)the "murderersoftheMahatma".AsCraigBaxter(inhis1971bookJanaSangh)hasremarked,this allegationisindefinaceofthejudicialverdictintheMahatmamurdertrial.Nonetheless,Baxter noticesthatGandhi'smurderhasbeen"amillstonearoundtheneck"ofthepoliticalHindu movementandespeciallytheRSS.ItistruethattheRSShadprofessedaverynegativeopinionof theMahatma'sfailedpolicyof"HinduMuslimunity",whichopinionwasalsoNathuramGodse's motiveforthemurder. AccordingtoBalrajMadhok,themurderwas"averyunHinduact"whichsavedtheMahatma from"thedustbinofhistory"towhichhewasheadingafterthecreationofPakistancrownedthe victoryofIslamicseparatismoverGandhi'sHinduvisionoftranssectarianunity.Thereistruthin prof.Madhok'sassessment,butonlyifwelimitGandhi'spoliticstohisquestof"HinduMuslim unity".VoiceofIndiaistheonlythinktankwhichhasproducedastraightforward,sincereand satisfactoryanalysisofMahatmaGandhi'slifeanddeathfromtheHinduviewpointwithout

reducingGandhi'ssignificancetohisstandonasingleissue. AsauthenticGandhiansRamSwarup(authorofGandhianeconomics)andSitaramGoelcan addresstheissuewithanundisurbedconscience.TheyareawareofGandhi'sunconditional commitmenttothewellbeingofHindusociety,andtheyhaveputGandhi'sdefeatinthestruggle againstPartitioninaproperperspective.ThechapteronMahatmaGandhiinSitaramGoel's PerversionofIndia'sPoliticalParlanceshouldberequiredreadingforanyonewhotriesto understandIndia's"communalproblem".ItisapowerfulrebuttalbothtoNathuramGodse's justificationforthemurderoftheMahatma,andtothenumerousattemptstousetheMahatmaasa secularistargumentagainsttheHinducause.Verybrieflythisiswhatitsays. FirstofalltheIslamicandCommunistlobbieswhocurrentlyinvoketheMahatma'snametoblacken Hinduism,hadnousefortheMahatmawhilehewasalive.Theyattackedhiminthecrassest language,thwartedhispoliciesandopposedhimtoothandnail.Onthisissueasonmanyothers,the secularistfrontdisplaystheugliestdishonesty.ItwastheHinduswhoreveredhim,andifthe IslamicCommunistcombineconsidertheuseoftheMshatma'snameprofitable,itisbecausethe publicmainlyconsistsofHinduswhostillrevereoratleastrespecthim. TheMahatma'sfirstandforemostloyaltywastowardsHindusociety.Ifhecriticizedit,itwasforits ownupliftment,toforceitoutofitsinertia,rejuvenateandreawakenit.Hewasaproudand combativeHindu. TheMahatma'sdefenceofHinduismagainsttheclaimandallegationslevelledbyChristianityand bycolonialismwasveryclearandunwavering.Sowashisoppositiontotheseedsofseparatism whichhostileforcestriedtosowwithinHindusociety,viatheTamils,theHarijans,theSikhs.Inthe Freedomstruggleitwashisstrategythatmanagedtoinvolvethemasses.UnliketheHindu Mahasabha,whichchampionedreligionbutthoughtandworkedinstrictlypoliticalterms(borrowed fromWesternsecularnationalism)theMahatmaunderstoodthattheHindumassescouldonlybe wonoverbyadeeplyreligiousappeal.Theethicaldimensionofpoliticswhichheemphasized, regainedforHinduismagoodnamethroughouttheworld,andisstillhighlyrelevant(seeArun Shouie'sbook"IndividualsInstitutionsProcesses"forsomepracticallessons).Therefore,itis nothingshortofmorbidtoremembertheMahatmaonlyastheleaderwhofailedtostopIslamic separatism,asNathuramGodsedid,andasaminoritywithintheHindumovementstilldoes. Ontheotherhand,"itmustbeadmittedthatthefailurewhichtheMahatmametvisavisthe Muslimswastrulyofstartlingproportions".ItisafactthathispolicytowardsMuslimshadalways beenoneofappeasementatthecostofHindusociety.Butnothinghadhelpedandwithevery concessiontheMuslimscontinuedtogrowmorehostile:"Theremustbesomethingveryhardinthe heartofIslamthatevenamanofanoceanicgoodwilllikeMahatmaGandhifailedtomoveit". ThefailuretopreventPartitioncanonlybeattributedtotheMahatmafortheperiod(andtothe extent)thathedictatedCongresspolicy.ThepoliticalcoursewhichhadledtoPartition,hadbeen startedbeforehisarrivalontheIndianscene.Andwhenhewasatthehelm,mostCongressleaders hadequallyapprovedofdecisionswhichwecannowrecognizeasstepsontheroadtoPartition.For instance,the1916LucknowPactbetweenCongressandtheMuslimLeague,whichlegitimizedthe privileges(separateelectorates,onethirdrepresentationintheCentralAssembly)thattheLeague hadobtainedfromtheBritish,wassignedbyLokamanyaTilak,anunquestionablystaunchHindu. Theinvolvementinthekhilafatmovement,thatgiantboostforMuslimseparatism,wasacceptednot onlybytheNehrus,whosesupportforIslamiccauseswasalwaysaforegoneconclusion,butalsoby suchHindustalwartsasLalaLajpatRai,BipinChandraPal,andPanditMadanMohanMalaviya. ItistruethattheMahatmahasmadeanumberofsentimentalandflatlyuntruestatementsabout Islam,suchas:"Islamisanoblefaith."HedeniedthattheQuranpreachedintolerance,evenwhen hismultireligiousprayersessionsmusthavegivenhimampleopportunitytoinformhimselfofthe

numerousQuranicinjunctionsto,andexpressionsof,intoleranceandhatred.Butthisstubborn blindnessbeforethegrimfactsaboutIslam,whichaccordstheauraofanavatartoMohammed,the sancityofaScripturetotheQuran,etc.havebeenpractisedforalongtimebeforetheriseofthe Mahatma,andarestillbeingpractisedbyagreatmanyHindus,includingsadhus,intellectualsand politicians.HinduismhasalwaysseenIslamthroughtheeyesofitsownspirituality,andprojected itsownqualitiesontothisradicallydifferentideology. TheMahatmahadatleastacknowledgedthetypicalbehaviourpatternofIslam("Inmyexperience theaverageMuslimisabully,theaverageHinduacoward"),sohewasnotanegationist.Buthe failedtotraceIslamicfanaticismtoitssource,viz.theQuranandtheexampleoftheProphet. Instead,heinventedgoodnaturedbutfatallyflawedexplanations("Islamisstillaveryyoung religion"),whichignoredordeniedthespecialcharacterofIslam.Thehabitofexplainingawaythe unpleasantfactsabouttheIslamproblemisstillverymuchalive,evenincirclesdubbedasHindu communalistandantiMuslim. ThefailureoftheMahatmabeforeIslamicaggressionwasthefailureofHindusociety.Sitaram GoelstronglyrejectsNathuramGodse'sallegationthattheMahatmawasthechiefculpritforthe Partition:"ItishighlydoubtfulifHindusocietywouldhavebeenabletopreventPartitionevenif therehadbeennoMahatmaGandhi.Ontheotherhand,thereisampleevidencethatHindusociety wouldhavefailedinanycase." GandhihaspropoundedthefollowingviewswhichareinstarkcontrastwiththoseoftheNehruvian establishment: Indiaisonenation.Itisnot,asselfglorifyingBritonsandNehruviansthought,"anationin themaking".IthasacommonculturecalledSanatanaDharma("eternalvaluesystem", Hindusim),andtheadherencetothiscommonheritagetranwscendsthebordersbetween languageareasandotherdivisionswhichelsewherewoulddefineanation. Hinduismisinnowayinferiortootherreligionsandideologies.Onthecontrary:"Whatever ofsubstanceiscontainedinanyotherreligionisalwaystobefoundinHinduism,andwhat isnotcontainedinitisinsubstantialorunnecessary." Politicalachievementslikeindependence,nationalunityandsocialtransformationcanonly bebasedonareligiousandculturalawakeningofHindusociety. TheseareviewpointswhichthepoliticalHindumovementshares,anditshouldemphasizethat secularism'sclaimsontheMahatmaareentirelyfalse.IntheIndiancontextofsycophancy,itis importanttohavereveredpersonalitiesonyourside,andtoquotetheirinfalliblestatements.So,in thestrugglefortheMahatma'sheritage,theNehruviantraitorstohismessageofHinduself confidencehaveinvestedalotinmisrepresentingtheMahatmaasasecularist.ButifHindusociety callstheirbluffandhonestlyexamineshiswork,itwillexposethestarkoppositionbetweenGandhi andNehru,betweenpatriotsandfellowtravellers,betweenpractitionersofHindutoleranceand bootlickersofIslamicimperialism.HindusshouldclaimtheMahatmabackfromthosewhocall themselvesGandhians,butwhokilltheMahatmaasecondtimebyemulatingthoseveryHindu baiters(e.g.themissionaries)whosawintheMahatmatheirmostdangerousopponent. SitaramGoel'sconslusionputstheMahatmainthecentreoftheHindurevival:"Theonelessonwe learnfromtheFreedommovementasawholeisthatareligiousandculturalawakeninginHindu societyhastoprecedepoliticalawakening.ThelanguageofIndiannationalismhastobethe languageofSanatanaDharmabeforeitcanchallengeanddefeatthevariouslanguagesof imperialism.ThemoreclearlyHindusocietyseestheuniversaltruthsofHinduspiritualityand culture,themorereadilywillitrejectpoliticalideologiesmasqueradingasreligionorpromisinga paradiseonthisearth.MahatmaGandhistandssquarelywithMaharshiDayanand,Bankim

Chandra,SwamiVivekananda,LokamanyaTilakandSriAurobindoindevelopingthelanguageof Indiannationalism.HismistakeaboutIslamdoesnotdiminishthelustreofthatlanguagewhichhe spokewithfullfaithandconfidence.Onthecontrary,hismistakecarriesamessageofitsown." ThemessagepresentintheMahatma'sfailurevisavisIslam,isthatHindusocietywillonly developinpeaceandindignityifitremovesIslam.Noamountofgoodwilliscapableofchanging Islamictheologyanditsinherentpolicicalambitionofworldconquest.Butthisisaconclusionfrom whichtheHinduorganizationsarestillshyingaway.itisquiteunthinkablethatoneoftheirleaders wouldsay:"Islamisahostileanddestructiveideology.Wewillnotmakeanyconcessiontoit,and weworkforitsdissolution."Imaginetheshrieksandhowlsinthesecularistsmediaincaseofsucha clearrejectionofIslam'spretences,andyouwillunderstandwhyHinduleadersshyawayfromit. Butletthenpauseandthink:isnotbravingthepandemoniumofsecularistindignationpreferableto (self)censoringthetruthaboutHindusociety'smortalenemy? TheEuropeanhumanists(deistsaswellasatheists)whoattackedthepowerpositionofChristianity, wereveryclearabouttheirobjective:Ecrasezl'Infame!("crushtheinfamousone"i.e.theChurch). ManyliberalandsocialistpartieswereveryoutspokenintheirrejectionoftheChristianreligion, theopiumofthemasses(notethattheywerehardlyawarethatreligioncouldbesomethingbetter thantheirrationalbeliefsystemsofpropheticmonotheism).Tilltoday,theCommunistsarevery unambiguousabouttheircondemnationofallreligionasanobscurantistsuperstition,andabout theirdeterminationtoultimatelyliberatethepeoplefromthestragleholdofreligion(unlikeHindu criticsofIslam,theCommunistsunderstandremovingareligionasaphysicaleliminationofatleast itsordainedmembers,astheyhaveamplyprovenonBuddhistsinMongolia,,Cambodia,etc.Even whenantiChristiansocialistsorliberalshaveenteredcoalitionswithChristiandemocrats,they nevermadeitanoccasiontorenouncetheirfundamentalrejectionofChristianity.Evenwhen CommunistssetupjointfrontsforpeaceoragainstimperialismalongwithChristianusefulidiots (touseLenin'sterm)theydidnotchangetheirofficialline.SotheHindumovementwouldnotdo anythingextraordinaryifitstatesclearlythatitrejectsandcondemnsIslamasamistakenbelief systemandadestructiveideology. TheRSSBJPhavebeentryingtobeMuslimfriendly,andtheyareproudtotellyouthattheyhave someMuslimsintheirownranks,eveninleadingpositions.Thismakesitdifficultforthemto criticizeIslam.AMuslimcommunalistleaderhassaidthatthepresenceofMuslimsinany organizationisalwaysuseful,asiteffectivelydisarmsthatorganizationinthestruggleagainst Islam.EventhemostHindufriendlyMuslimsintheBJPisstillaTrojanhorse,notbecausehe choosestoassumethatrole,butbecausehissurroundingsimmediatelychangetheirlanguageand behaviouronetheymeetaMuslim.ItseemsthatnoHindu(especiallywithanypoliticalambitionin theNehruvianfremework)darestocriticizeIslaminthepresenceofMuslims. ThisisnottosaythataHindumindedpoliticalpartyshouldrefuseMuslimsasmembers.Onthe contrary,itshoulddefinitelycontinuetoprovethattheIslamicestablishmenthasnomonopolyon thecommonMuslims'loyalty,andthatmanyAlisandFatimasrefusetobeheldonaleashbythe BukharisandShahabuddins.However,itshouldnotcompromiseonitsHinduperspective,andit shouldacknowledgethatIslamispresentlyHindusociety'sworstenemy.Perhapsitcanuseamore diplomaticlanguageinpassingjudgementonIslam,butthereshouldbenocompromiseabout contents.AftertheambiguityabouttheHindumovement'sopinionofIslamhasbeencleared, MuslimbornIndiansshouldbeattractednotwithreassuringeulogiestothenoblefaithofIslam, butwithapositiveandnonsectarianprogrammeofIntegralHumanism,embodyingthebestof HindusocialphilosophywithouthammeringtoomuchonnametagslikeHindu.IntheGandhian perspectivewhichVoiceofIndiahasbeenactualizing,SanatanaDharmaisnotabanner,buta practicalwayofrealizingtheintrinsicgoalsofindividualandsociety.Itscentralvirtueissatya, truthfulness.

ForVoiceofIndia,asforMahatmaGandhi,truthisasmuchaninstrumentasagoal:"Inthisfight formen'sminds,outonlyweaponisTruth.Truthmustbetold,asmuchaboutHindusocietyand cultureasaboutthealienideoligieswhichhavebeenonthewarpathsincethedaysofforeign dominationovertheHinduhomeland."PoliticalleaderswhoclaimtheconfidenceofHindusociety woulddowelltotakesomeinspirationfromthis,andtorethinktheirambiguousattituderegarding Islam.NotfacingthetruthaboutIslamwasacostlymistakeinGandhi'stime.WithIslam's increasingstrengthandselfconfidence,itmayprovetobeadeadlymistakeinthenearfuture.

3.3WHATHAPPENEDTOTHEHINDUTEMPLES?
Inallthelandsitconquered,Islamhasreplacedindigenousplacesofworshipmosques.InIran, therearenoancientZoroastrianorManicheanshrinesleft.InCentralAsia,therearenoBuddhist templesleft.Similarly,inIndia(exceptthefarSouthwhereIslamhardlypenetrated)thereare practicallynoHindutemplesthathavesurvivedtheMuslimperiod.Buttherearethousandsof mosquesbuiltonthefoundationsofHindutemples,oftenwiththedebrisofthoseverytemples. ThesearchaeologicalremainsaremutewitnessestothelongandrepetitivestoryofIslamic iconoclasm. Thefirstvolumeofthe"HinduTemples"booksubtitted"APreliminarySurvey",waspublishedin thespringof1990andplayedanimportantroleinthepoliticaldebateoverthecontroversialRama tempelinAyodhya.Itcontainsacompetentlypresentedlistofabout2000mosquesinIndiathat haveforciblyreplacedHindutemples.Thislistisnotcomplete,anddoesnotconcernPakistanand othercountrieswheretempleshavebeenviolentlyreplacedwithmosques.Moreover,thenumberof templesofwhichmaterialhasbeenusedinthese2000mosquesfarexceeds2000.Forthesingle QuwwatulIslammosqueinDelhi,asaninscriptionattheentranceproudlyproclaims27Hindu templeshadbeendestroyed.These2000areonlythetipofaniceberg. Thisfirstvolumealsocontainsalistofover200templesdestroyedinBandgladeshinNovember 1989underpretextofprotestagainsttheShilanyas(layingofthefirststone)ceremonyofthe prospectiveRamatempleinAyodhya.Muslimshaveraisedahueandcryoverthedemolitionofthe BabriMasjid(whichtheyhadnotusedsincedecades),butfewoutsidersseemtorealizethat destructionofthereligiousplacesofminoritiesisaroutineaffairinIslamicstates. ThebookalsocontainsarticlesbyRamSwarup,JayDubashi,Prof.HarshNarain,andthefamous journalistArunShourie.RamSwarup,likeeditorSitaramGoel,tracesthefactsofIslamic intoleranceandiconoclasmtotheexclusivisttheologyoftheQuranandtheSunnah(tradition).He alsodealswiththeroleofMarxismisrecentnegationistefforts:"Marxistshavetakentorewriting Indianhistoryonalargescaleandithasmeantitssystematicfalsification...TheMarxists' contemptforIndia,particularlytheIndiaofreligion,cultureandphilosophy,isdeepand theoreticallyfortified.Itexceedsthecontemptevershownbythemostdiehardimperialists...Marx ruledoutselfruleforIndiaaltogetherandinthismattergavehernochoice...Marxismidealizes oldimperialismsandpreparesapeopleforanewone.Itsmovingpowerisdeeprootedself alienationanditsgreatestallyisculturalandspiritualilliteracy...NotruehistoryofIndiais possiblewithoutcounteringtheirphilosophy,ideasandinfluence." JayDubashi,aneconomistaffiliatedwiththeBharatiyaJanataParty,linksthelayingofthefirst stonefortheplannedRamJanmabhoomitempleinAyodhyawiththetearingdownoftheBerlin Wall,whichhappenedontheverysameday:"WhileatemplewasgoingupinAyodhya,a Communisttemplewasbeingdemolished5,000milesawayinEurope...Thetwoevents...markthe endofthepostNehrueraandthebeginningofatrulynationalerainIndiaontheonehand,and

the...beginningofatrulydemocraticerainEuropeontheother.HistoryhasrejectedNehruinIndia andalsooverthrownCommunisminEurope."Reductionistsystemswhichseemanonlyasproducer orconsumerofmaterialgoods,areout.Thementalhorizonclearsupandpreparesfortheeraofan integralhumanismcontinuouswiththeageoldspiritualvisionofSanatanaDharma. HarshNarain,ahistorianwhohastaughtatbothAligarhMuslimUniversityandBenarasHindu University,presentsfourpiecesoftestimonyforthelocaltraditionthattheBabriMasjidhad replacedaRamaTemple,allwritteninthe19thcenturybylocalMuslimsoutsidethesphereof Britishinfluence.Oneofthesetestimoniesnarrowlyescapedoblivion:itwaspartofamanuscript thatwasrecentlypublishedasabookbyaMuslimfoundation,whichdecidedtoomitthechapter containingtheinconvenienttestimony.Fortunately,adescendantoftheauthorhadthecontroversial chapterpublishedseparately. AsimilarstoryistoldingreaterdetailbyArunShourie(sackedin1990asIndianExpresseditor afterexposingV.P.Singh'sdealwithsecularistslikeimamBukhari)aboutyetanotherpieceof MuslimtestimonyforthepreexistenceofaRamatempleattheBabriMasjidsite.Abook mentioningthistraditionhadbeenpublishedintemporenonsuspecto,butrecentlyeffortshadbeen madetogetbackallthecopiesfromplaceswhereunbelieversmightgetaccesstoit. Noneofthenegationisthistorians,andnoneofthesocalledsecularistsatlarge,hasspentoneword ofcommentontheseattemptstotamperwiththehistoricalAyodhyarecord.Theycondoneanything thatmayweakentheHinducaseintheAyodhyadebate.Whateverthemistakescommittedbythe HinduAyodhyamovementontheground,attheintellectuallevelitisastrugglefortruthand honesty,againstattempts(somepetty,somehighhanded)tofalsifyhistory.Ontheotherhand,the standtakenbyleadingnegationisthistoriansinthisdebatewilbestudiedinthefutureasaclassicin latterdayMarxisthistoryfalsification. InNovember1990therehadbeenproposalsinthenationalparliamentandinthestateparliamentof UttarPradeshtobanthisfirstvolumeof"HinduTemples:WhatHappenedtoThem".Thisstepwas nottaken,possiblybecausenegationiststhoughtthebanwouldbecounterproductivebydrawing attentiontothelistofdisputablemosques.Noneofthenegationisthistorianshascomeforwardwith areplyorwiththeannouncementthatamistakehasbeendiscoveredinMr.Goel'slistof monumentsofIslamicfanaticism.ManiniChatterjee,reviewerforTheTelegraph,coulddonomore thancallingita"verybadbook".Verybadforthenegationists,indeed. ThesecondvolumeofSitaramGoel'sbook,subtitled"TheIslamicEvidence",andpublishedinMay 1991,takesusalotfartherinitsrevelationsofthegrimfactsoftheIslamiccampaigntodestroy Hinduism.Italsocontainssomeheadonattacksonnegationism.Bywayofintroduction,itdealsin greatdetailwiththecontroversiesoverKrishna'sbirthplacetempleinMathuraandthe RudramahalayatemplecomplexinSidhpur,bothforciblyreplacedwithIslamicstructuresand exposedthenegationists'machinationstodistortorconcealthefacts.ThechapterFromtheHorse's Mouthgives174pagesfullofquotationsfromMuslimdocumentsthatdescribeandglofifythe destructionofHindutemplesveryexplicitly.Itisonlyananthology,andthealreadyveryimpressive materialcollectedinthischapterisagainonlythetipofaniceberg. Ifthisbookgetsthepublicityitdeserves,negationisthistorianswillfinditdifficulttoshowtheir facesinpublic.Theystandexposed,andonlytheircontroloverthemediacansavetheirreputation bycensoringthiscritiqueoftheircareerlongeffortsathistoryfalsification. Inappendix,thebookcontainsaquestionnaireforthenegationisthistoriansconcerningtheirsecond front:allegationsthatHinduismhasdemolishedorstolenmanyBuddhistand"Animist"shrines.As wehaveseeninch.2.7.,thenegationistsgoonspreadingthestorythattheHinduhadpersecutedand destroyedBuddhism.Now,SitaramGoelchallengesthenegationisthistorianstocomeforwardand present,amongotherthings:

 alistofHindutemplesthathaveforciblyreplacedBuddhist(orJainoranimist)temples; alistofepigraphsrecordingsuchtempledestructions; alistofliterarysourcesdecribingthesetempledestructions; alistofinjunctionsto,andglorificationsof,thedestructionofnonHindutemplesinHindu scriptures; alistofknownhistoricalBuddhist(Jain,animist)templeswhicharenowmissingdueto Hinduiconoclasm. Ofcourse,thenegationisthistorianshavenotreactedsofar.Perhapsthereplyhasalreadybeen givenimplicitlyintheirearlierpublications?Aswehaveseeninch.2.7.,thenegationistbooksand articlesinwhichthisallegationagainstHinduismismade,trybutfailtogivetheanswerstoMr. Goel'squestions,viz.theevidencerequiredtosubstantiatetheallegation.Itmaybehardtobelieve forfollowersoficonoclasticreligionsandideologies,butnonfanaticalreligionsdoexist,andsome ofthemhavecoexistedformillenniawithonlymarginalmomentsoffriction.

3.4FACETOFACEWITHMOHAMMED'SMODEL BEHAVIOUR
Themostimportantpartofthesecondvolumeisthe145pagechapterabouttheIslamictheology oficonoclasm(i.e.thedestructionofwhatotherpeopleconsidersacredobjectsorbuildings).Here, thespotlightismovedfromIndiatoArabia.TheIslamicdestructionsinIndiawerenothingbuta longdrawnoutreplyofProphetMohammed'sownexemplarypractice,whichinturnisonlyan applicationofQuranicinjunctions. OneofthegreatfoundingmomentsofIslamwasthecapturingoftheKaaba,thesanctuaryin Mecca.Withtheirownhands,MohammedandhissoninlawAlismashedtopiecesall360idols. Afterthat,MohammedsentpatrolstoallthepopulationcentresofArabiatosmashtheidolsandto destroyorconvertthetemples(mostlypolytheistbutalsoincludingaChristianchurch).Sincethe QuranandtheProphet'smodelbehaviourcountasnormative,wemustrecotgnizethatthe desecrationanddestructionofotherpeople'ssanctuariesisanintrinsiccomponentofIslam,nota lateraccidentaloutgrowth. TheDomeontheRockandtheAlAqsamosquehavealsobeenbuiltonasacredplacestolenfrom others:theJewishTempleMount.True,underByzantineruletheJewscouldnotrebuildtheir Temple,butstillthesiteremainedmostsacredtothem.Nonetheless(orrather,preciselyforthe reason),Mohammed'ssuccessorstookitfromthem,inordertoaffirmMohammed'sclaimtobeing thefinalfulfilmentoftheAbrahamicprophetictradition.SimilarlythecathedralofDamascus,of Cordova(bothcathedralshadthemselvesreplacedPagantemples)andofmanyotherplaceswere takenfromtheChristians,aswouldalsohappen8centurieslatertotheAyaSophiaof constantinople.ThetakeoveroftheseJewishandChristianplacesofworshopshouldmoreoverbe seenagainstthebackgroundoftherelativetolerancewhichthesetwocommunitiesstillenjoyed underIslamicrule:ifthistolerancecouldnotpreventthetakeoverofimportantplacesofworship, howmuchlesschancedidanPagantemplehave. Inparenthesis,weshoulddrawattentiontotheflimsyrationalizationswhichIslamhasproducedto justifytheoccupationofthemostsacredplacesofotherreligions.IntheAyodhyaconflict,the MuslimsidehasoftensaidthattheHindusmustfirstproduceproofthatRamawasindeedbornon thespotwhichHindusclaimashisbirthsite.Ifhistoricalproofistheprerequisitebrforeasacred

sitecanberecognizedandaccordedrespect,thenMuslimswillhavetogiveupboththeKaabaand theTempleMount.OftheKaaba,whichMohammedtookfromtheArabPagans,theyclaimthatit wasbuildbyAdamandrebuiltbyAbraham(factssuppressedintheOldTestamentbyaJewish conspiracytodistortGod'sword),andlaterstolenbythePagans.OftheTempleMount,whichthey tookfromtheJewsinordertoaffirmMohammed'sstatusasthesealofthelineageofJewish prophets,theyclaimthatitwasMohammed'slandingsiteinhisnightjourneythroughheavenona wingedhorse.Theseridiculousclaimscanhardlybeconsideredashistoricallyproven. SitaramGoelanalyzestherelationbetweentheProphetandtheunbelievers.AsaHindu,i.e.asa Pagan,heisespeciallyinterestedintheviewpointoftheArabpolytheists.Thatisonethingwhich makesthisbookamilestoneinthescienceofreligion.Untilnow,thestudyofIslamhasbeeneither apartofChristianapologetics,whichapplaudedMohammed'sdestructionofidolatryevenwhile denouncinghisclaimsofprophethoodasimposture;oritwaspartoftherecentefforttocreatea "betterunderstanding"ofIslam,whichineffecttendstomeantheapriorisuppressionofall criticismofMohammedasbeingmereprejudice.Here,aPaganstandsuptoreconstructthePagan viewpoint. ThatitisaHinduwhoshoulddirectourattentiontotheviewpointoftheArabPagans,isnormal. Hinduismisalmosttheonlypolytheistculturetosurvivetilltoday,andtheattitudeoftheMuslims towardsArabandIndianPaganswasessentiallythesame.InpreIslamicdays,therewerenotonly intensetradecontactsbetweenIndianandArabPagans,butalsoakindofpilgrimageexchange.The HindusvisitingArabiapayedtheirrespectstotheArabsanctuaries,andconsideredtheblackstone intheKaabaasashivalingam,aphallusofShiva(asWesternorientaliststranslateit).TheArabs,in turn,wenttoprayintheSomnathtempleinGujrat.TheMuslimsbelievedthattheidolsofthe PagangoddessesAlLatandManat(ofSatanicVersesfame)hadbeentransferredtoSomnath,and thisisonereasonwhyMahmudGhaznaviandotherMuslimsriskedtheirlivesinconductingraids deepintoHinduterritoryinordertodestroytheSomnathtemple. WithintheframeworkofthecurrentunprejudicedapproachtoIslam,multiculturalistdogooders copyalltheIslamicaccusationsagainstthePagans,apartywhichisn'tthereanymoretogiveits ownversionofthefacts.TheysaythatPaganismnolongersatisfiedtheArabs,sothatthey welcomedIslam;thattheProphetidentifiedwiththepoorandwaswelcomedbythemasaliberator fromtheoppressivePaganelite;thattheMuslimswerethevictimsofpersecutionbyPaganfanatics, sothattheirfightagainstthePaganswasmerelydefensive;thatthepositionofwomeninIslam "maynotbeideal,butatleastagreatstepforwardscomparedtothepreIslamicperiod";thatthe PagansonlyopposedMohammedbecausetheyfearedfortheirunrighteouspowerpositionsandfor thedishonestincomefromthesuperstitiouspilgrimagetotheKaabaidols.Similarthingshvebeen saidbythenegationistsabouttheadventofIslaminIndia,demonstrablywrongly. InnumerousEuropeanworksonIslam,theIslamicnegativejudgementontheArabPagansis adoptedlock,stockandbarrel.OnlyMohammed'srelationwithJewsandChristianscomesinfora bitofpolitecriticism.Ofcourse,ifonsomeoccasionsMohammedwastoleranttowardsJewsand Christians,itwasbecausehehadborrowedfromthemthemonotheismwhichhewantedtoimpose onhisownpeople,andbecausehehadexpectedthemtorecognizehim,induecourse,asaProphet oftheirowntradition.ForthePaganstherewasnomercyatall(exceptinonepromisingmomentof weakness,thesocalledSatanicVersesinwhichheaccordedameasureofrespecttothreePagan goddesses).Thosewholiketofightagainstinterculturalprejudicesandmisconceptions,should accordposthumousrestorationofhonourtothedestroyedcultureoftheArabPagans,whoseown testimonyhasbeenobliteratedthoughitcanbeglimpsedindirectlythroughsomepassagesin IslamicScripture.SerioushistoriographywouldstartbynoticingthattheIslamicreportsonthe Pagansarethehighlycolouredversionoftheirmortalenemy. TheIslamicstatementsabouttheunbelievers,intheoriginalHadisaswellas(infact,evenmore

strongly)inmodernapologetics,serveasimilarpurposeastheantiSemiticNazifilmThedirty JewSuss,ortheforgedProtocolsoftheEldersofZion.Theyservetojustifytheannihilationofa religionandthesubjectionofanation(Mohammedconceivedofhiscommunityasanation).While thecoreoftheIslamicversionofislam'searlyhistoryisofcoursehistorical,,thereisnodoubtthat,, ontopofthehighlypartisanviewpointexpressedintheQuran,,alotofmotivateddistortionhas creptinduringthetwocenturiesbetweenthefactsandtheeditionoftheHadis. Forinstance,thecontentionmadeintheHadiththattheMuslimsinMecca(beforeMohammedset uphisstateinMedina)weresubjectedtopersecution,isnotborneoutbythemorereliable informationintheQuran(finalizedafewyearsafterMohammed'sdeath).TheQurangivesalotof detailsaboutthePagans'reactiontoMohammed'sperformance,whatquestionsandargumentsthey confrontedhimwith;butpersecutiondoesnotfigureinit.Anyhintsatconfrontationdatefromthe timewhenMohammed,alreadyestablishedastheleaderofMedina,hadlaunchedhiscaravanraids andfinallyhisopenwarfareagainsttheMeccansandotherunbelievers. EventheIslamictraditionsleaveusinnodoubtastowhowstheaggressor.inIbnIshaq'sorthodox biographyofMohammed,wereadthatthefirstbloodinIslamichistoryflowedwhenaMeccan happenedtowitnesstheprayersessionofthenewsect,laughed,andgotbeatenup(theveryactof laughingisstillfrowneduponinIslamictheology).Onefineday,Mohammedannouncedtothe MeccansintheKaaba:"BytheOneWhoholdsmylifeinHishand,Ibringyouslaughter."Without provocation,heandhiscomradesusedtodisturbthePaganfestivalsandinsulttheMeccanreligion. ThePagansweredefinitelynotintolerant:theyallowedChristiansandJewstoliveamongstthem,in spiteofthepersecutionsbyJewishandChristianleadersonlyafewdecadesearlier.Itwas Mohammedwhorejectedany"liveandletlive"agreement,mostexplicitlywhenthisproposalwas madetohimaroundhisuncleAbuTalib'sdeathbed.ThesimpletonswhoclaimthattheQuranic verse:"Toyouyourreligion,tomemyreligion"(Q.109:6),isastatementoftolerance,shouldknow thatthisisliterallytheproposalmadetohimaroundAbuTalib'sdeathbedbytheArabPagans,and thatheturneditdown,demandingthattheyembraceIslam,nothingless.TheQuranicversesimply means:Iwillhavenothingtodowithyou,thereisnocompromisepossiblebetweenyourreligion andmine.TheIndiansecularistswhohavedreamedupthenotionofcompositecultureuniting IslamicandnativeIndianelements,shouldrememberthataccordingtoeveryMuslimwhostandsby theQuran,suchsynthesisofIslamicandnonIslamicelementsisimpermissibleandawatered downactofapostasy. MohammeddidnottoleratetheMeccans'rejectionofhisclaimtoprophethood,andthreatenedall nonbelieversinhisclaimwithhellfire.IfthecivilizedandtolerantMeccansdidn'ttoleratehis intolerantrantingsforever,itisquiteunderstandable;butstilltheirpatiencewasalotbiggerthan Islamicapologeticswantsustobelieve.Itisonlylogicalforareligionwhichpreacheswar,to developacultofmartyrdom(unknowninBuddhismandTaoism,amongothers);theHadis traditionistshaveblamedthewholeconflictonthedestroyedPagansocietyofMecca,andattributed atouchofheroicmartyrologytotheearlyMuslims.ButthefactthatitisthePaganandnotthe Muslimversionwhichhasbeenobliterated,isastrongcluetowhowasaggressorandwhowas victim. SitaramGoelisoneofthefirsthistorianstokeeptheproperdistancefromthepartisanMuslim version.HesummarizeswhatwemayknowobjectivelyaboutthePagancultureandthe complexitiesofitsreligion,throughinscriptions,preIslamicliterarydocuments(Greek,Roman, Mesopotamian),andindirectlythroughIslamicscripture.Theyhadapantheoncomparabletothat oftheancientGreeksorHindus,embodyingmetaphysical,cosmologicalandethicalnotions.On thisbasisMr.GoelrejectsthenowclassicaldescriptionoftheArabPagansas"quarellingrabble addictedtoidolworship",andconcludes:"ItisnothingshortofslanderoustosaythatpreIslamic Arabswerebarbariansdevoidofreligionandculture,unlesswemeanbyreligionandculturewhat

theMuslimtheologiansmean." TheArabPaganshaveonlymadethemistakeofbeingdefeated,but"thefactthattheyfailedto understandthewaysofMohammedandcouldnotmatchhismailedfistinthefinalround,should notbeheldagainstthem.Itwasneitherthefirstnorthelasttimethatademocraticsociety succumbedinthefaceofdeterminedgangsterism.WeknowhowLenin,HitlerandMaoTsetung succeededinourowntimes." AmodernmythspreadbyIslamicapologistsandespeciallybyWesternfriendsofIslam,isthatthe Meccansdidnotreallycarefortheirreligion,andonlyopposedMohammedbecauseoffinancial calculationsconcerningtherevenueoftheannualpilgrimagetotheKaaba.Forinstance,inthe introductiontoProf.J.H.Kramers'sDutchtranslationoftheQuran,weread:"InMohammed'stime thereligiousaspectoftheHajifestivalhadbeenlost,ithadbecomeabigmarket,morefitfordoing businessthanfordevotiontothegods...TheArabreligionwasaprimitivepolytheism,poorinreal religiosity..." However,itisafactthattheMeccans'revenueincreasedimmenselyaftertheKaabahadbeen transformedintoanIslamicplaceofpilgrimage,anfaftertheentryintotheMuslimfoldgavethem therighttoshareinthebootyofraidsandconquests:theygainedenormouslybyconverting,atleast politicallyandmaterially.MorepertientforthehistorianisthefactthattheIslamicsources themselvesdon'tbotheraboutattributingsuchmaterialisticmotivestotheMeccans,andmerely holditagainstthemthattheyareidolatersandrefusetorecognizeMohammed'sprophethood.At most,accusationsofinjusticeandhoardingrichesareaddedtoblackenthem,buttheobjectofthe Islamiccampaignagainstthemisnottochangetheirsocioeconomiclife(althoughthiswould inevitablybeinfluencedbytheendlessinflowofbootyandlaterbytheimperialsizeandstructure oftheIslamicstate),buttochangethereligion. ThecrudeallegationofmaterialisticmotivescanbeturnedaroundagainstMohammed,onfirmer grounds.TheMeccansweretraders,andmaybesomewereevenusurers,asmodernapologetics claims.ButMohammedwasworse:heorganized80raidsonpeacefulcaravans,andled26ofthem inperson.HehadAllahrevealthatbootyfromraidsonPagansandconquestofPaganlandswas lawful(Q.8.69),andthatonefifthofthebooth(includingslaves)wastheProphet'sown.Ifno fightinghadoccurred,allofthebootybelongedtoAllahandHisProphet. IntheclassicofMarxistnegationism,CommunalisminModernIndia,Prof.BipanChandra describeshow"Hinducommunalists"spreadthemythoftheinherentlyintolerantcharacterofIslam, andquotesasprimeexampletheHinduMahasabhaleaderSwatantryaveerSavarker,whowrotein 1923:"Religionisamightymotiveforce.Soisrapine.Butwherereligioningoadedonbyrapine andrapineservesasahandmaidtoreligion,thepropellingforcethatisgeneratedbythesetogether isonlyequalledbytheprofundityofhumanmiseryanddevastationtheyleavebehindthemintheir march.HeavenandHellmakingacommoncasesuchweretheforces,overwhelminglyfurious, thattookIndiabysurprisethedaythatMahmudGhaznavicrossedtheIndusandinvadedher."Of course,BipanChandradoesn'tevenattempttoargueagainstthecontentsofthisstatement,hetakes itasaxiomathatsuchviewsarenothingbutinventionsofacommunalistfalseconsciousness. WhateverwemaythinkofSavarkar'spooliticalviews,hisbriefanalysisofthenatureandimpactof islamisimpeccable.ItisnotonlyborneoutbythecareerofIslaminIndia,butalsoindetail,bythe QuranandHadith.TheyhavenoroomfordoubtaboutMohammed'sownunhesitatinginitiativein linkingreligionwithrapine. Tojustifyhisshareofthebooty,Mohammeddecreedthathisownrevenue,bothfrombootyand fromthecharitytax(zakat)whichallMuslimshadtopay,wastobeusedforcharity.Herewehave anotheritemfromtheapologist'stoolkit:thenotionthatMohammedbroughtthepracticeofcharity totheselfishandgreedyPagans.Infact,thezakatwasoriginallyaPaganpracticeonanindividual

basis,whichwasnationalizedbyMohammed'sIslamicstate.Asforitscaritativepurposes:the HadithcollectionstellusmoreabouttheIslamicrevenuebeingusedtobuyarmsandhorses,for newandbiggerraids,thanabooutcharityintheusualsense.Infact,theQuranicdecree(9.60)that thisincomebeusedintheserviceofAllahand"forwinningoverthehearts[toIslam]",meansin plainlanguage:fortheHolyWar,andasamaterialincentiveforloyaltytoIslam.So,allthe resourceswhichbecameavailabletotheMuslimstatethroughwhatevermeans,weretobeusedto strengthenandexpandthisstate;charitytokeepthepoorhappywasoneelementinthispolicy,but reallyaminorone.Theendjustifiedthemeans,andwarcoffersofMedinaaswellasthe enthusiasmoftheIslamicsoldierswerereplenishedwithaconstantinfolowofbooty.Thosewho perforcewanttoreducetheconflictbetweenPagansandMuslimstocaseofcrudegreed,hadbetter thrownthestoneinMohammed'sdirection. TherealreasonwhytheMeccansrejectedMohammed'sprophecies,canbeinferredveryclearly fromtheQuran.Itwasnotforanymaterialisticreason,becauseatthattimeespeciallyafterthe creationofthefirstIslamicstateinMedina,joiningMohammedwastheshortroadtowealthand slaveownership.Therealreasons,whichtheMeccansthemselvesformulatedindiscussionwith Mohammed,werethefollowing. Firstly,theywereattachedtotheirancestralreligion.Thisisnotstupidobscurantism,butavery sensibleconsequenceofthebasicpremisethatreligionisconcernedwitheternaltruths.Giveme thatoldtimereligion:itwasgoodformyancestors,itisgoodenoughforme.TheMeccansfelta sinceredisgustwhenMohammedconsignedtheirancestors,includinghisownmothertothefireof hellbecauseoftheirhavinglivedinthepreMohammedan"eraofignorance"(jahiliya).Thesplitof historyintohellboundpeoplewhohadnotbeenfollowersofMohammed,andheavenbound Mohammedans,wasjusttoopuerile(andegocentriconMohammed'spart)tobetakenseriousbya grownuphumanbeings. Secondly,theMeccansmadeacleardiagnosisofsomeonewhohearsvoicesandthinksheisGod's ownspokesman.AnumberoftimesofQurandictateswhatMohammedhastoanswerwhenthe Paganssayheispossessed.Inmodernterminology,thePagansthoughthewasmentallyderanged. ThatisnotaprejudicefrommedievalpolemicsIslam,buttheperceptionofnumerouscontemporary eyewitnesses.Moreover,theorthodoxbiographyandthetraditionsalsogivesomeinvoluntary indicationsforaneuromentaldisorder:asachildMohammedhadbeenthrownontheground generaltimes(byGod),totheworryofhisguardians;whenreceivingrevelationshebecameall chillyandfoamedatthemouth;hisfirstrevelationsfrightenedhimintenselyandhehimself wonderedwhetherhewasbecomingcrazy(thesoothingimpactofhabitandofhiscompassionate wifeKhadijareassuredhim).TheMeccans'inferencethatMohammedwasmerelyhallucinating, whethercorrectornot,wasatanyratenotfarfetched,nornecessarilydishonest. WhenthemostauthenticsourceskeeponsayingthattheMeccansopposedMohammedbecause theydidn'tbelievehimandbecausetheyrefusedtogiveuptheirtimetestedreligionfortherailings ofamadpoet,itismethodologicallyquiteindefensibletoignorethisandtoreplaceitwiththe gratuitouscontentionthattheydefendedtheirreligiononlyoutoffalsematerialisticmotives. ImaginebeinginthesamesituationastheMeccans:someonewalksintoyourhouseuninvitedlyand tellyyouthathehasaprivatetelephonelinewithGodthatheisthelastonetoenjoythisprivilege, thathecnintercedeforyouonJudgementDay,thatyouhavetosmashtopieceswhatyoucherish most,andthatyouwillburnforeverinhellifyoudon'tbelievehim.Wouldyouneedanybase motivestoshowhimthedoor?

3.5THENATUREOFISLAM
WhileMohammedenthusiasticallyassumedhisroleofGod'sspokesmanbecauseofapeculiar psychologicalcondition,thetheologywhichheespousedandwhichwasdevelopedindetailbylater generationsofMuslimsclerics,waslargelyacontinuationoftheoldermonotheismoftheJewsand Christians.Fromthem,MohammedhadpickedupanumberofBiblestoriesandtheologicalnotions includingprophethood.AlargepartoftheOldTestamentisdevotedtothestruggleagainst polytheismandidolatry.Mosesorderedthesternestmeasuresagainstthesealternativestohisown cultofYahweh,andsuccessiveprophetswouldemploythefoulestlanguageandsometimesthemost treacherousmeanstoannihilategodpluralism. InadvancedChristianapologetics,thestrugglebetweentheOneGodandthemanygodsis portrayedasastrugglebetweentheproperreligiousvenerationoftheDivineandthefalsereligious treatmentofnonreligiousobjectslikemoney,status,enjoyment,powerandotherworldlythings. Butthatisnotatallwhattheprophets'fierceandsometimesbloodystruggleagainstidolworship wasabout.Thetwocontenderswerenotethicallydifferent,andamongtheTenCommandments, onlythefirstandsecond(noothergods,noimagesofsentientbeings)wereapointofdifference betweenPagansandmonotheists.Theywerenottheviolentvs.thepeaceful,orthelewdvs.the chaste(intheprophets'tirades,fornicationmeansidolatry)orthegoodvs.thebad,orthereligious vs.theirreligious.ThePaganshadaculture,acodeofethics,areligioncompletewithrituals, festivalsmysticalpracticesanddoctrines;atbest,themonotheistshadthesamethings,butunderthe aegisofadifferentGod,thejealousandvindictiveYahweh/Allah.WhatMosescouldnottolerate abouttheGoldenCalf,wasnotthatitwasmadeofgold(asmodernmoralisticChristiansthink),for itwasonlynaturalthatpeoplewantedtosacrificesomeoftheirrichestoglorifywhattheyconsider mostsacred,viz.thegodtheyworship.TheHornedgodworshippedbythePagansinMoses' followingwasnotintolerablebecausehisstatuewasmadeofgod,butbecausehewasanalternative toYahweh. Inhischapteronthedoctrineoficonoclasm,SitaramGoeltracesthisdoctrinetoitsOldTestament sources,andlistsalltheinstancesofverbalandphysicalviolenceagainstidolatry.Thisstorymight makedefendersofIslamsay:"SeewhateveryousayaboutIslam,JudaismandChristianityaren't anybetter."ThatistrueifyouconsideranearlierstageoftheJewishandChristianreligions.Butit isahopefulsignthatthesetworeligionshavecomealongwaysincethearchfanaticMoses.The Jewshavenothadastateformanycenturies,andtheyhavedevelopedasocialoutlookofliveand letlive.Theyneverhadadoctrineofworldconquestanyway,andhadlimitedtheirambitiontothe PromisedLand.InpresentdayIsrael,theJewishauthoritiesrespectandprotectthereligiousrights andpilgrimageplacesofChristians,MuslimsandBahais.Judaismisonereligionthathasactually grown,maturedoverthecenturies.ForChristianity,thedaysofpersecutingPagansandhereticsare notthatfarbehindusyetandmorecivilizedformsoffanaticismarestillthere.Butatleastthe principleofreligiousfreedomhasbeenconcededbytheSecondVaticanCouncil,andtheeffortto enteradialoguewithotherreligionsisnotentirelyaneyewash. Thelastfewcentureies,astronghumanizationhastakenplacewithinChrisitianity.Forinstance, aftercondoningtheinstitutionofslaveryofabout18centuries,Christianhaveabolishedslaveryin theirdomains.Themotivewasnotoutsidepressurealone,butalsoethicalconsidertionsdeveloped byChristialclericsantthinkerssincetheRenaissance.AsthecaseofWilliamWilberforceshows, abolitionofslaverycouldevengohandwithChristianfanaticism.BycontrastIslamiccountries haveonlyabolishedslaveryunderpressurefromWesternculture.Evenafterthat,slaveryhas continuedtobepractisedoccasionallyincountrieslikeSudanandMauretania. TheIslamicdoctrineofslaverywascloselylinkedwithitsdoctrineoftheinescapablestruggle betweenbelieversandunbelievers:aPagancouldnotownaMuslimslave,butaMuslimcouldof

courseownaPaganslave,andPaganswereroutinelysoldintoslaveryiftheyhadthemisfortuneof beingcapturedbyMuslims.WherefromtheEuropeanfolklorecharacterofSaintNicolas'associate, theMoorBlackPete,whoputsnaughtychildreninhisbagtocarrythemoffandbeatthemwithhis rod.AndwherefromtheAfrikaans(SouthAfrican)wordkaffer,negro,originallyblackslave,from Arabickafir,Pagan.IncontemporaryIslamicapologeticsforAfricanandBlackAmerican consumption,Islamisportrayedasantislavery.Thatisyetanotherinstanceofnegationism. AnotherexampleofthedifferencebetweenIslamandChristianityisthefactthatamongthe ChristianmissionarieswhoaccompaniedtheConquistadoresintheNewWorld,thereweresome whoexpressedpityandregretwhentheydescribedthesadplightofthenativeAmericans.There weresomewhotriedtosavethenatives'livesandfreedom(thoughnottheirreligion).Inthe numerouschroniclesoftheMuslimconquestsandruleinIndia,therearetomyknowldegenosuch considerations.Atleastagermofauniversalethicsandauniversalhumanfellowfeeling, transcendingthefrontiersbetweenreligiouscommunities,waspresentinChristianity,eveniffora verylongtimeitwasobscuredbymonotheisticandecclesiasticexclusivism("outsidetheChurch noslavation").InIslam,thisglimpseofuniversalismisconfinedtoafewoftheearlyheterodox Sufis,whowereconsideredhereticsbyauthoritativeguardiansofIslam.Atanyrate,theirworksare onlyreadbyafewintellectualamateurs,buttheofficialdoctrinesarehammeredintochildren's mindsinIslamicschoolstheworldover.AnoccasionaltolerantMuslimdoesnothavethepowerto overruleandabrogatetheQuran.NotoneIslamicschoolintheworldteachesthatAllah's declarationsofwarontheunbelieversstandabrogated.ThecleavageofhumanityintoMuslimsand nonMuslimsissofundamentalofIslamicdoctrine,thatitisveryhardtoevenimaginethe transformationofIslamintoatolerantreligion. ChristianityhasabroaderbasisthanjusttheMoseslineofintolerantmonotheism,ithas incorporatedelementsfromPagansourcessuchasGreekphilosophy,andsoitcandisownsome partsofitshistorywithouthavingtodisownitsveryidentityanddissolveitself.Judaismhas developedapluralistcultureofdebateandinterpretation,embodiedintheTalmud,whichmakesit temperamentallyaversetothefanaticismcharacteristicoftheworldconqueringreligions.But IslamisboundupverycloselywiththetextoftheQuranandthepersonalityofMohammed.It cannotdisownthesewithoutdissolvingitself.Islamisbyitsowndescriptiona"seamlessgarment": pulloutonethreadandthewholefabriccomesapart.Sincefanaticismandpersecutionofnon MuslimsareanintrinsicandstronglyemphasizedteachingoftheQuran,thereisnohopeof witnessingtheemergenceofagenuinelytolerantIslam. SitaramGoel'ssharpcriticismofIslamcaninnowaybeexplainedasanexpressionofantiArab racism(whichwouldbethestandardreplytosuchcriticisminEurope).Firstofall,equatingIslam criticismwithantiArabracismisatypicallyeurocentricallegation,becauseoutsideEuropethe oppositionbetweenMuslimandnonMuslimseldomhasaracialdimension.Moreover,Islam(and moregenerallymonothieism)hadbeenaforeignandeccentricfadtotheArabs,andwasforcibly imposedonthembyMohammed.AsSitaramGoelexplains,theArabswerethefirsttoberobbedof theirculturebyIslam.LikethePersians,Egyptiansandmanyothersafterthem,theywererobbedof theirhistory,whichwascondemnedasanageofdarknessandreplacedbyafakeancestryinvolving IsmaelandAbraham. EventhelargescalecrimesagainsthumanitywhichtheArabsweretocommitduringtheIslamic BlitzkriegunderMohammedandhisimmediatesuccessors,shouldnotbeheldagainsttheArabs, butagainstIslam:"NorshouldtheimageofwhattheArabsbecameaftertheywereforcedintothe foldofIslambeconfusedwithwhattheywerebefore...ForitwasIslamwhichbrutalizedtheArabs andturnedthemintobloodthirstybanditswhospreadfireandsword,farandwide.Inthemajority ofmankind,thebaserdrivesofhumannatureareneverfarfromthethreshold.Islambroughtthem totheforeinthecaseofthemajorityofArabs."CriticizingIslamisnotanattackonnationsor

individuals,butitisanideologicalcritique,aswellasapsychologicalcritiqueofwhatiscalled prophethood.Insteadofaccusing"theMuslims"ofthenumerouscrimeswhichtheircommunityhas undeniablycommitted,thiscritiqueabsolvesmanyMuslimbornindividualsofthisguilt,by placingitsquarelywhereitbelongs:inthedoctrineofIslamastheideologicalmotivationforthese actsoffanaticism. InEuropethereisnoVoltaireanymorewhowoulddaretogiveoneofhisworksthetitle"Mahomet oulefanatisme"("Mohammedorfanaticism",aplaycriticizingreligiousfanaticism,showing Mohammedmurderingoneofhiscritics).EventheRushdieaffairhasnotsentEuropean intellectualssearchingIslamicScriptureandinformingthepublicthatMohammedhimselfhad orderedthemurderofpoetswhohadcriticizedhim,thussettingtheexampleforKhomeini's"death sentence"onRushdie.ThereisnoSchopenhaueranymorewhodarestospeakopenlyofthecontrast betweenthehumanephilosophiesofSouthandEastAsiaandthebarbaricfanaticismtaughtand practisedbyMohammed. EuropeanintelectualsobserveataboooncriticismofIslam.Iamsurethisisonlytemporary,butat leastitisdefinitelythecasetoday.ThiscriticismofIslam,makinguseofallthemethodological processwhichthescienceofhistoryhasmadeintheWest,mustnowapparentlybedoneinIndia.A powerfulleadinthisendeavourhasbeengivenbySitaramGoel. AfterdebunkingthepiousclaimswhichIslamicapologists,Indian"secularists"andWestern "multiculturalists"(whodonotrealizethatIslamhassystematicallydestroyedpluralistculturesand istheveryantithesisofmulticulturalcoexistence)aremakingforIslam,intellectualsshould prepareforthenextimportanttask:helpingtheMuslimmassesontheirwayintoahumanistworld culture,i.e.outofthementalandsocialshacklesofIslam.WehavetoeducatetheMuslimmasses ontheirwayintoahumanistworldculture,i.e.outofthementalandsocialshacklesofIslam.We havetoeducatetheMuslimmasses,andfranklymakethemawareofthechoicetheyhave:staying inoroptingoutofareligionofbackwardnessandfanaticism.Weshouldnothavethefieldof informationaboutIslamtotheobscurantistmullahsandthenegationisthistoryfalsifiers.Thisis morethanapropagandatask,becauseitinvolvesunderstandingtheuniversalvalueswhichcommon MuslimsidentifywithIslam,andpreservingthemwhileeliminatingthedistinctiveexclusivismand fanaticismofIslam. Islamisnotaninbornqualityofacommunityofpeople,whichhastobeacceptedasan unchangeableelementwhichwehavetolearntolivewith.TheMuslimsarejusthumanbeings, descendantsofpeoplewhoweremostlyconvertedtoIslamunderpressure(rangingfrommaterial incentivestoachoiceatswordpoint),andthereisnoreasontobelievethattheyareimmunetothe influenceofrationalthoughtandhumanistculture.ButstraightforwardcriticismofIslamislikelyto infuriatetheIslamicclericsandmanycommonMuslims.Alotofintelligencewillbeneededto dissolvethementalgripofIslaminagentleway. Theeasypartistobehonestwithourselves,andstoptheseattemptstopaintIslaminrosycolours. Itisthedutyofallthosewhocomeincontactwithnegationism,toexposethisintellectualcrime. Weneednotpinpeopledownontheappallingrecordofthereligiontheywereborninto,andwe mayforgiveeverything,butwrongdoingscanonlybeforgivenoncetheyarerecognizedassuch. Therefore,thereisnovirtueinconcealinganddenyingthecrimesagainsthumanitywhichIslamhas committedsystematicallyinIndiaandelsewhere.Forsocialharmony,itisfarbettertofacethe truth. Ofcourse,ultimatelyitisfortheMuslimsthemselvestoseetheshortcomingsoftheirreligion,and reviseitsuitablysothatitpermitsthemtoliveatpeacewithnonMuslims.NocritiqueofIslam fromtheoutsidecanbeasubstituiteforacritiquefromwithintheMuslimfold.Butsolongas Muslimsarehelddownbydespotictheocraciesorfrightenedbyfiercefundamentalism,andcannot

speakfreely,peoplefromtheoutsidehavetospeakfreely,peoplefromtheoutsidehavetospeakfor them.ThehistoryofhowChristiantheocracyandCommunisttotalitarianismgotshakeninthelong run,showstheway.Inbothcases,itwasacritiquefromtheoutsidewhichprovedapowerful catalyticagent.Voicesofreasonandhumanismhaveawayofpenetratingthethickesttheological wallsandthestrongestironcurtains. Inthiscontext,Hindusareinauniqueposition.TheyhavebeenvictimsofIslamicimperialismand intoleranceformorethanthirteencenturies.TheyknowitintheirboneswhatIslamhasdoneto theirancienthomeland,theirsociety,theirculture,andwhatithassofarstoodfor.Theyhaveonly tostopcomplainingabouttheMuslimbehaviourpattern,andtracethatpatterntoitssourceinthe Islamicscripture:thentheywillacquireaninitiativewhichtheyhaveneverhadintheirlong encounterwithIslam.OncetheyeducatethemselvesaboutthetruecharacterofIslam,theywillbe inapositiontoeducatetheirMuslimcountrymen,onmostofwhomIslamsitsratherlightly.Itneed notbeacompaignforShuddhi,ithastobeonlyabattleforliberatingMuslimsfromthe strangleholdofaclosedcreed.

CHAPTERFOURREPLYTOSOMEQUESTIONSAND CRITICISMS
Afterthepublicationoffirsteditionofthisbook,andofarticlescontainingsomeofitsideas,Ihave receivedsomecommentstowhichIwillreplyhere.

4.1BOTHSIDESOFTHESTORY
"YouhavebeentoomuchinfluencedbytheseHindusamongwhomyoulivedinBenaresandDelhi. Youhaven'theardtheothersideofthestory." "Theothersideofthestory"isnotatallunknowntome:ithasbeentheobjectofmyrather lengthycriticismallthroughthisessay.Itisthepeoplewhohavebeentakeninbytherosy pictureofIslam,whoknowonlyonesideofthestory.Whentheygettohearthissideaswell, itturnsoutthattheyjustdon'twanttohearit.Afterall,theprospectofhavingtodealwithan increasinglynumerousandincreasinglyaggressivecommunityunderthespellofIslamisabit frightening.WewouldallprefertoliveinaworldwithoutthethreatofIslamicfanaticism,but weshouldnotdeludeourselvesthatwearealreadylivinginsuchatolerantanddangerfree world. HaveIstartedseeingthissideofthestorybecauseIwas"influenced"?Asamatteroffact,I havespentmyfirstseasoninIndiainBenaras,thecentreofHinduorthodoxy,withoug hearingthe"Hindufundamentalist"viewpointatall.Manypeoplewhowouldlaterbevery forthcomingwithinsideinformationandwithstrongopinions,wereatfirstcarefulnotto annoythisforeignerwithviewpointswhichtheythoughthewouldnotunderstand.Itisonly whenIhaddiscoveredtheHinduviewpointformyself,andedpressedmygeneralsympathy withit,thatmyspokesmenatBenarasHinduUniversitywouldlaytheircardsonthetable. The"secularist"viewpointis(was)sodominantthatculturedpeopledidnotwantWesterners toassociatethemwiththeHinducause. Itisasomewhatmisdirectedcriticism,toarguethatsomneonesayssomethingbecausehehas beeninfluencedbysomeoneelse.Imputingmotivesor"influences"areanadhominen argumentwhichcanneverreplaceanadremcriticism;itisalwaysdonepreciselyto compensatefortheabsenceofsuchpropercriticism.IrefertoArunShourie'sbook "Individuals,Institutions,Processes",foradiscussionofthebadhabitofgivingpeoplealabel ("thatNaxalite","thatRSSman",tonameafewwhichhehimselfhascarried)andthenacting asiftheirviewshavebeenrefutedbythelabel.Thislabellingismentallaziness.Ideasshould bejudgedbymerit,notbycasteprovenance. Asimilarattempttodismissmyconclusionswithoutdealingwiththem,canbefoundin SarvapalliGopal'sintroductiontohisbookabouttheAyodhyissue,"Anatomyofa Confrontation".Hisentirebookdoesnotcontainanyreplytothemainargumentsgiveinmy book"RamJanmabhoomivs.BabriMasjid",argumentswhichhavealsobeenbroughtupby IndianparticipantsinvariousinstancesoftheAyodhyadebate.Instead,Prof.Gopalthinkshe canclinchtheissuebycallingme"aCatholicpractitionerofpolemics"who"fightsthe

CrusadesalloveragainonIndiansoil".ForCommunists,swearwordsaretenapenny,soI granttheaugustpractitionerofswearologythiscomparativelymildexerciseinhiswornout oldgame. Moreinterestingishiscomment,apparentlymeanttojustifyhisignoringmyarguments,that "itisdifficulttotakeseriousanathorwhodrawshishistoricalecidencefromnewspaper reportsandspeaksofthecenturieswhentherewereMuslimrulersinIndiaasabloodsoaked catastrophe".Forascientist,theplacewherefindingsarepublished,orthenameofthe author,oranyothersocialcircumstancesoftheirpublication,areofabsolutelyno consequencetothecorrectnessoftheircontents.Onlyforpartylinehistorianslikethoseof JNU,,whocountmoreonpowerpositionsthanonfactstoconvincepeople,theargumentof authorityisallimportant.So,ifinmybookIhavechosentoanalyzeatlength(andpartly repeat)theargumentsgiveninthecourseofadebateconductedontheopinionpageofthe IndianExpress,thisdoesnotinanywaydiminishthevalueofthesearguments.Icannothelp itthatanumberofthedocuments,factsandinsightspresentedbypeoplelikeProf.A.R. Khan,Prof.HarshNarainandMr.A.K.Chatterjee,havebeenignoredinnicelypublished booksbyprestigiousauthorsliketheJNUhistorians,Prof.R.S.SharmaandMr.A.A. Engineer.SoIprefergenuinefactspublishedtocheappapertothedistortionsontheshiny paperofProf.Gopal'sownbook. Isithardtotakeseriouslysomeonewhoconsidersthe"Muslimperiod"abloodsoaked catastrophe?ThatdependssolelyonwhethertheMuslimperiodwasindeedabloodsoaked catastrophe.EuropeannegationistsapplaudHitler'sreignanddenyitshorrors.Indian negationistseulogizeIslamicruleanddenyitsmillionfoldmurdersandthecatastropheit wroughtinIndiancultural,politicalandreligiouslife.Inbothcases,theauthenticrecordstell adifferentstory.Thatisnodoubtwhythenegationistsrefuseto"takeseriously"thenumerous authenticrecordsofthemassivedestructionwroughtbyIslam. AndwhilewearedealingwiththenegationistreactiontomyfirstbookabouttheIslam probleminIndia,therewasalsoareviewinTheTelegraphbyManiniChatterjee.Shethought thatmy"verybadbook"wasmarredbymiserablytentativeterminology,like"maybe"and "possibly".Inthecaseofpartylinehistorywriting,thatwouldindeedbeagrave shortcoming.Oncethepartyhasdecidedonwhathistoryshouldlooklike,ahistorianisno longersupposedtoconfrontconflictingtestimonies,tocalculateprobablities,tomake allowancefortheuncertaintiesinherentinmosthistoricalresearch.ThatiswhytheMarxist participantsintheAyodhyadebatehavealwaysbeensococksureintheirstatements:forthem therecanbenodoubtwhatsoever,andnoamountofinconvenienttestimonyisgoingtoshake themoutoftheabsolutecertainlyoftheirforegoneconslusions. Incidentally,Mrs.Chatterjeefindsmywriting"suspiciouslysimilar"instyleandcontentsto thattotheessayistsinthefirstvolumeof"HinduTemples,WhatHappenedtoThem".Never mind,theisnotthefirstonewhosuspectsthatIdon'texistandthatKoenraadElstisonlya pennameforsome"Hinducommunalist"writer.Letmetakethisopportunitytoconfirmthat Iexist.Mrs.ChatterjeeshouldknowthatitisindeedquitepossibleforanonHinduto independentlyarriveatthesameconclusionsasaccomplishedHinduintellectualslikeHarsh Narain,RamSwarup,SitaramGoel,JayDubashiandArunShourie.Iftheinformationflow fromIndiatotheoutsideworldwasnotsocompletelyinnegationisthands,manymore Westernscholarswouldhavecomeoutwithsimilarviews. ThisisnottheplaceforrepeatingtheAyodhyadebate,soforthefullpresentationofevidence

fortheAyodhyatemple,submittedbytheVHPscholarsbymehavebeenincorporated),Irefer totheVoiceofIndiapublication"Historyvs.Casuistry".The"evidence"submittedbythe BMACwillbehardertocomeby,asitwasnotexactlyfitforpublication. Alastwordaboutthis"influence"allegation,whichwasalsolevelledagainstmebyacollegue whenIdidn'tdisplayanykneejerkreactionofindignationafterthedemolitionoftheBabri Masjid.Myposition,thataHindusacredplaceshouldsimplybelefttotheHindus,willbe sharedanyunbiasedperson:itisanaturalinsightnotneedingany"influencing",toapprovea community'srighttoitsowntraditionalsacredplaces.Thatismerelythesimpleview,whicha childcanunderstand.Theoppositeistrueofthe"secularist"view,viz.thattheHindushadno righttotransformthearchitectureattheirownsacredplace,andthattheMuslimsdohave rightsovertheRamJanmabhoomiwhichtheywouldneverconcede(norbeaskedtoconcede) toanyoneinthecaseof,say,Mecca.Thatviewisbasedondoublestandardswhichareonly acceptabletopeoplewhohaveundergonesome"reeducation",someideological conditioningor"influencing".

4.2MUSLIMSVS.ISLAM
"ButIknowsomeMuslims,andtheyarenotfanaticalatall." And:"ButI'vebeentoTurkey,andpeoplethereareveryfriendlyandhospitable,andtheyhave nothingtodowithfundamentalism.YouconfusethemassofMuslimswiththesmallminorityof fanatics."And:"Butinindonesia,Islamisverydifferent.Youconfusethewarhungrymentalityof WestAsiawiththeessenceofIslam,whichisveryopen." Metoo,IknowsomeMuslimswhoarenotfanaticalatall.AndIhavehadquiteagoodtime inMuslimcountries,startingwithPakistan.ButthishasnotconvincedmethatIslamisa benevolentandtolerantreligion. WeneednottraveltoIslamiccountriestoseehowdecentpeoplewhosemembershipofthe Muslimcommunityoffendsnoone,cansuddenlyturnfanaticalwhenIslamisatstake.All theseIslamicdemonstratorsinourstreets,whodemandedRushdie'sdeath,andwhotold interviewersinsomanywords:"Hemustdie,wewillkillthisSatan",weremostlyverynice peoplewhenyoutalktothemintheircoffeehouses.WhentheJapaneseRushdietranslator waskilled(summer1991),spokesmenoftheJapaneseMuslimcommunitysaid:"Whoever haskilledhim,whetherMuslimornonMuslim,atanyrateitwashisdeservedpunishment ordainedbyAllah."(Japanesepublicopinionhasreactedverysharplyagainstthisstatement ofmoral,ifnotactual,complicityinthemurder)Yet,IhadneverheardofJapaneseMuslims behavinginalesscivicmannerthantheircompatriots.Verynicepeoplecanturnviciousonce astrongbeliefisatstake,especiallytheselfrighteousbelieffosteredbyIslam. ItisobviouslytruethatmanypeopleinMuslimcountrieshavegoodqualities.Incountriesyet unspoiledbyconsumerism,itisnormalforpeopletobefriendlyandhospitable,theydon't needIslamforthat.Fornomadicpeoples,liketheTurksuntilafewcenturiesago,hospitality wasavitalnecessity,andthistraditionhasremainedevenafterconversiontoIslam.Infact,as nomadictraditionswerestronglypresentinMohammed'sownculturalsurroundings, hospitalityisindeedhighlyvaluedinIslam:notbecauseAllahdecreedit,butbecause Mohammedhadneverknownotherwise.FriendlinessandhospitalityowenothingtoIslam,

butarehumanvaluescherishedbymostcultures. Thismerelyprovestheobvious:thathumanbeingscontinuetobehumanevenafter conversiontoIslam.Peoplecontinuetocherishcertainvaluesregardlessofthedoctrines taughtbythereligioninwhichtheyfindthemselves.Ontopofthat,theIslamicdoctrineitself hasadoptedcertainpositivepreIslamicvalues,andcontinuestoinstiltheminitsyoung generations.Thisisnotacomparativemeritvisavisotherreligiousandethicalsystems,but itmaybevaluableincomparisonwiththemoraldisorientationwhichbefallsevermore youngstersinthebigcities.ThatiswhyAmericanpolicymakershavesomeappreciationfor theroleofislamininnercityBlackcommunities.Inthemodernworld,thealternativeforthe parentalreligionismostlynotanotherreligion,butnihilismandmorelanarchy.Anyreligion willdotogiveanewsenseofdirectiontolostsouls,provideditselementarymoralcodeis emphasized,ratherthanitssterileanddivisivepointsoftheology. Onthenegativesidetoo,Islamisnotforeigntohumannature.Thenegativevalueswhich Islamexplicitlypromote:(selfrighteousness,narrowmindedness,greedforbooty,disrespect forotherspeople'sartisticandreligioustreasures),arealldefectswhichmayemergeinany humanbeing.MuslimsmaybelievethatIslamwasbroughtfromheaven,butIamconvinced thatitwasproducedbyahumanbeing,andthatallitspositiveandnegativequalitiesare expressionsofhumannature.ThepointisthatIslamgivescertainnegativetendencies systematicsupportwhenevertheyarepractisedinrelationtononmuslimpeople,institutions orvalues.TheevilpresentingeneralhumannatureissharpenedandlegitimizedbyIslam,and directedagainsttheunbelieversinMohammed'sclaimsatprophethood.Thislegitimationof eviltendenciesisanoriginalcontributionofIslam(evenifitdrewsomeinspirationfromthe BiblicalYahweh).ItcannotbeascribedtoMohammed'spreIslamicculturalmilieu. Mostreligions,regardlessoftheirmetaphysicalandritualdifferences,agreeonanumberof ethicalvalues:selfcontrol,harmonywithourfellowmen,truthfulness,etc.Islamhasadopted someelementsofthisuniversalheritage.OrdinaryMuslimswillpointtotheseuniversal virtueswhendefendingtheclaimthatIslamstandsforimportantethicalvalues.ButIslamhas alsoelevatedtotherankofreligiousdutyanumberofattitudesandbehaviourpatternswhich aretheveryoppositeofthisworldwideehticalconsensus. WhateverourjudgementofthetheIslamicdoctrine,itshouldbeclearlydistinguishedfrom ourattitudetowardsMuslimpeople.IguessmostMuslimswillnotbetoohappywhenyou say:"Ihavenothingagainstyou,Ionlyobjecttoyourreligion."Yet,evenifitis psychologicallyratherdelicatetotakethisposition,itisnonethelesthecorrectposition. Peoplecannothelpitthattheyhavebeenbornintothecommunitythatpledgesallegianceto Islam.Theycannothelpitthattheyhavebeenmadetodevelopanemotionalattachmentto thatarchfanaticalbooktheQuran,andtoitsauthorMohammed.Moreover,manyofthem havefollowedtheirmorehumanefeelings,andretainedfromtheirreligiousindocrtrination onlysomeuniversalethicalrulesandsomecommonlifewisdom,quietlyputtingthemore fanaticalpartsofIslamicteachingaside.TheireffectivereligionisstrictlynotIslam,buta selectionofthesanerandmorehumaneelementswhichMohammed'sfollowershadpreserved oradoptedfromuniversalreligion. ButwhateverthehumanqualitiesofthepeopleinTurkey,itisundeniablethatasubstantial numberofthesecommonMuslims(bothTurkishandKurdish)hastakenpartinterroizingthe Christians(inKurdistanalsoYezidi)minorities.Evenwhenthesecularstatefoundedby MustafaKemalAtaturkaccordedprotectiontotheChristians(andrestoredsomehistorical

churchestothem),thecommonpeoplekeptonharassingtheminorities. BeforeWorldWarI,Christiansformedasubstantialpercentageofthepopulationofwhatis nowcalledTurkey(ifmyinformationiscorrect,theyevenformedthemajorityinthecapital cityIstambul).In191518,theArmeniansweremassacred.In1922,whenGreecehadtriedto liberatetheterritorieswithGreekpopulationsonTurkey'sWestCoast,alltheGreekswere killedordrivenout.Sincethen,thepressureonnotonlytheremainingArmeniansandGreek Orthodox,butaloontheChaldaeanandAssyrianChristiansintheSouthEast,hascontinued. EthnicclashesbetweenMuslimKurdsandMuslimsTurkshaveoftenendedinamassacreof thereligiousminorities.Bynow,theChristiansformlessthan1%ofTurkey'spopulation. ManythousandshavefledtoEuropeancountries,andthoseremaininginTurkeyhavemoved totherelativesafetyofthemetropolisIstambul.Whenquestioned,theyareoftentooashamed ortooafraidtotelltheirstory.Butultimately,thetruthcomesout,andtheconclusionis:"We hadnochoicebuttogoaway." AnintriguingaspectoftheIslamicterroragainsttheChristiansinTurkeyisthatithasnot stoppedwiththestate'ssecularization.Inthekhilafatperiod,Islamwassafelyinpower,and fromthatpositionitcouldshowgenerosityandensurethe"protection"whichtheIslamicstate owesitszimmiminorities(exceptwhenthecaliphhimselfdeclaredajihadagainstaspecified people).Butthisgenerosityandprotectionshouldnotbeexaggerated:atleastintheBalkan partoftheOttamanempire,Christianslivedinconstantfear.Theywerethetargetofnever endingterror,intheformofabductionsofgirlsandboysandallkindsofharassment.Itis suchharassmentatthelocalandpopularlevelwhichhascontinuedinthelastdecadesand reachedthefarthestcornersofthecountry.Thisprocesshasalsobeenhelpedbythefactthat increasedpopulationpressureandbetterroadsandtransporthaveendedthevirtualisolation inwhichmanyChristiancommunitiesinthemountainsusedtolive.Oncethecontactwiththe Muslimsbecamemoreintense,troublefollowed.Protectivemeasuresbythesecular governmentfailedtocontrolthehostilityatthepopularlevel. Itisalwayseasytoblamethestateandthemeninuniform.ButIslamicterroressentiallydoes notemanatefromuniformsandstatepower,butfromabeliefsystemwhicheventheordinary peoplehavebeenfed.ThatiswhyalotofIslamicterrornevergetsrecordedbyhumanrights organizationslikeAmnestyInternational.AChristianPakastanifriendcomplainedtomethat Amnestyhadnotspokenoutagainstthereligiouspersecutionsinhishomeland,evenwhen theseareagrimandundeniablereality.Thefactisthatmuchofthispersecutionand discriminationisnotorderedbythestate(thetypeofculpritwithwhichAmnestyisfamiliar), butisaspontaneousattituideamongsectionsoftheMuslimpopulation,eggedonbynothing excepttheomnipresentIslamicdoctrine. AsforIndonesia,letusnotefirstofallthatitisanonsecularandnonIslamicstate.It requiresitscitizenstobe"monotheists",buttheycanchooseforthemselveswhetherthey worshipAllah,Jesus,GaneshaorBuddha,regardlessoftheverydifferentstatuswhichthese divinecharactershavefortheirrespectivefollowers.ManyMuslimsareunhappythatthe majorityreligionispreventedfrommakingitsmarkonthepolity(afrustrationwhichmany HindusinIndiawillunderstand,inspiteofthesharpdifferencewhichwouldexistbetweena pluralistHinduRashtraandanoppressiveIslamicstate).Truetotype,someMuslimsadvocate theseparationandislamizationoftheirheartland,theislandAceh,whileothersareworking fortheislamizationoftheentirecountry. ThefactthatIslamsitslightlyonmostMuslimsinIndonesia,hasnotpreventedahardcoreto

displaythepatentedbehaviourpatternofIslam.InIrianJaya(WestNewGuinea),thePapua tribalsareoverrunbyimmigrantMuslimsfromJava.Manyofthemhavealreadybeen convertedbyforceorsocialpressure.InexPortugueseEastTimor,whichIndonesiahas annexedagainsttheUnitedNations'will,massacresofChristiansorAnimistnativesby Muslimimmigrantsandsoldiershavehappenedonalargescale.InBali,theHindusarenot exactlypersecuted,butMuslimimmigrantsfromJavahaveacquiredthepositionsofpower. BythestandardswhichIndianMuslimsusetomeasure"discriminationagainstthe minorities",theHindusofBalicouldclaimthattheyarediscriminatedagainst.Nevertheless, thesituationinmostofIndonesiastillseemstobemuchbetterthaninBangladesh(letalone Pakistan),andthecommunitieslivetogetherratherpeacefully.Butithastakentoughrulersto upholdthisrelativelystablepluralism. TheimpactofIslamicdoctrineonMuslimpopulationsisnotuniforminintensity.Many MuslimsignoretheQuranicinjunctionstohostility.SomenonMuslimsdon'tneedtheQuran fordevelopingselfrighteousnessandintolerance.Butthisdoesn'tprovethatIslamdoesn't makeadifference.Somepeoplegetdrunkandyetdrivetheircarssafely,othersdon'tdrinkbut arenonethelessadangerontheroad;neitherofthesespecialcasescandisprovethegeneral correlationbetweendrunkendrivingandtrafficaccidents.

4.3IMMIGRANTSANDMUSLIMS
"ButyourcriticismofIslamwillcontributetotheincreasinganimosityinEuropeagainstMuslim immigrants.Youplayintothehandofxenophobicandracistpoliticians." OfcourseIhavenothingtodowithracismandxenophobia,andIhavemylifestorytoprove it.GiventhedemocraticslumpinEurope,Iamconvincedthatameasuredandcarefully monitoredimmigrationisnecessary.Myhometownishosttopeoplefromeverycountry,andI havealotofforeignfriends,mostlyIndianandChinese.So,Iamnotatallagainst immigrants,andIhavepersonallyhelpedsometointegrateortogetnaturalizedascitizensof mycountry.ButmycriticismofIslamstands:Islamisintrinsicallyseparatistandhostileto neighbourcommunities. Thepositionofthe"xenophobicandracistpoliticians"inEuropeisjusttheopposite.They areagainstimmigration,butmostofthemprofesstohavenothingagainstIslam.Theysaythat Islamisquiteallright,aslongasitremainsinIslamiccountries.TheywantMuslimsoutof Europe,notbecausetheythinkislamisbadinitself,butbecausetheyconsideritsoforeignto ourcultureandvaluesystemthatMuslimpeoplecannoteverbeintegratedinoursociety. Moreover,thereallyracistelementsamongthemaremostlyalsoantiJewishandconsequently insympathywiththeArabs.TheleaderoftheFrenchantiimmigrantpartyFrontNational, JeanMarieLePen,hadpleadedagainstFrenchparticipationinthewaragainstSaddam Hussain,andhasonthewholebeencultivatinggoodrelationswiththeArabworld.Hethinks thisisnecessaryinordertomakeacivilizeddealwiththesourcecountriesofmostFrench immigrants,tomakethemtaketheseimmigrantsback.Finally,hardrightisthadalwaysfelt moreathomewithstraightforward,regimentedIslamthanforinstancewiththe"haggling Jewishmoneylenders"ortheanarchic,unfathomablepolytheistsinthecolonies:insub SaharanAfrica,thecolonialpowersusedtoactivelysupportthespreadofIslam.

Other"xenophobicandracistpoliticians"dospeakoutagainstIslam,buttheydon'tgotothe rootoftheproblem.Theyliketopointatsomebarbaricpointsofislam(publiclashings, amputation,purdah)merelytoimpressonthepublicthattheMuslimareabarbariclotwith whomitisbestnottocoexist.TheyhaveaverystaticviewofIslam,byassumingthatitis somehowtheunalterable"nativeculture"oftheTurkishandNorthAfricanpopulations.In reality,thosepopulationshavebeenluredorforcedintoIslam,andtheymayalsogrowoutof it.ItiswellworthrepeatingthatadistinctionmustbemadebetweenMuslimsandIslam, betweenthedoctrineandthepeoplewhohavebeenfedthedoctrine.Somepeopleintheanti immigrantlobbyhaveattacked"theMuslims",butnotoneamongthemhasattackedIslamas adoctrine. IfweputacriticismofIslaminthecontextofthemodernworld'sneedtodevelopwaysofco existencebetweendifferentcommunities,andspecificallythesituationofMuslimimmigrants inEurope,letusdistinguishfirstbetweenafewcommonlyusedtermsandconcepts. Racismmeansthebeliefthatthereisaqualitativeinequalitybetweenhumanbeingsonthe basisoftheirrespectiverace.Thiswaspresentinarelativelymildforminthepaternalistic theoryofthe"whiteman'sburden",thedutyofsuperiorwhitestoberesponsibleguardiansof theinferiorraces,whoare"halfdevilandhalfchild"(bothexpressionsareRudyard Kipling's).RacismwaspresentinamuchmorestridentforminNazism,whichtaughtthat thereweremasterraces,inferiorraces,andalsodoomedraceswhichhadtobeexterminated. Thishardracismwasamaterialistictheory,whichtriedtoreducetheperceivedmoraland culturaldifferencesbetweenpeopletobiologicalfactors.Thus,theJewswerenotdefinedasa religiouscommunity,butasa"race",andevenconvertingtoanotherreligioncouldnotalter yourgeneticJewishness.SuchracetheoriesarequitemarginalinthepresentEuropean politicalcontext.Mostpoliticalpartieswhicharecalled"racist"bytheiropponentsdonot subscribetoatheoryofracialinequality(eventhoughcitizenswhoprivatelycherishsuch racistconvictionsusuallyvoteforthem). ThepresentwaveofantiimmigrantfeelingsinEuropeshouldmoreproperlybecalled xenophobia.Xenophobiaisnotracism,asitisnotbasedonbiologicalbutoncultural differences.Itisoftenunderstoodas"hatredagainstoutsiders",andinthatcaseIslamitselfis anintensecaseofxenophobia.ButintheEuropeancontext,itistheliteralmeaningthat applies:"fearofoutsiders".ThepsychologythatiscatchingonineverwidercirclesinEurope today,isthattheimmigrantsareathreattooursafetyandprosperity,notbecauseoftheirskin colourbutbecauseoftheirculturalnonassimilation.Antiimmigrantcampaignerscontend thatculturalassimilationbecomedifficultoncetheimmigrantsarenumerousenoughtoform islandsofforeigncultureinoursociety.Suchislandswouldthenconstituteathreattoour socialfabric.InthecaseofMuslims,itissuspectedthattheynotonlyhavelittlemotivationto assimilate(asaconsequenceoftheirlargequantity),butharbourapositiveintentionnotto assimilate. Muslimsarenotarace,andmuchlessisIslamarace.AcriticismofIslamhasnothingtodo withantiArabracism.ManyArabsarenotMuslims.TheChristiansArabsareheavily persecuted(asMgr.Teissier,bishopofAlgiers,recentlycametotestifyinLeuven,something whichhesignificantlyrefrainsfromdoinginwriting),andwhenevertheyseenootheroption thantofleetheMuslimworld,IthinkEuropehasthedutytowelcomethesenonMuslim Arabswithoutreservation(justlikeIndiashouldwelcomeallHindurefugees,justlike GermanyacceptsallEastEuropenGermans,andjustlikeIsraelhaswelcomedtheJewsof EthoipiaandRussia).Ontheotherhand,manyfanaticalMuslimsarenotArabsorTurksor

Persians,butEuropeans.EuropeanconvertstoIslamliketotellinterviewersthat"Islamisall aboutpeaceandbrotherhood".Whatthismeansinpracticebecameclearwhenoneofthe mostfamousconverts,singerCatStevensaliasYusufIslam,wasaskedforhisopinionabout theRushdieaffair.Hesaid:"IfIseeRushdie,I'llkillhim."Fanaticismisnotaracial characteristic,butanideologicalpositionfosteredbyimbibingtheQuran. IfcriticismofIslamisracism,thenwhataboutcriticismofChristianity?Idon'tbelieve anyoneisreadytocallVoltaireandotherEuropeanfreethinkersracists.Voltairecriticized ChristiandoctrineandthepoweroftheCatholicChurch,butnoonehasaccusedhimof racismagainsttheChristiancommunity.ItsohappensthatthesameVoltariewasequally criticalofIslam,whichheconsideredthefanaticalreligionparexcellence.In"Mahometoule fanatisme",atheatreplaywrittenindefenceofthevalueofreligioustolerance,heuses Mohammedasmodelcaseofrelgiousfanaticism.Again,noonehasaccusedentertainedthe idea,hewouldhavehadtoacknowledgethatVoltaire'sexplicitadmirationforotherexotic cultures,likeIndiaandespeciallyChina,madehimimmuneagainstanysuspicionsof "racism"orxenophobia. Thetruthisthatthecryof"racism"hasbecomeafavouritewayoforphanedCommuniststo recapturetheinitiativeandcontinuetheiroldgameofputtingpeopleagainstthewall,for volleysofswearologyifnotbullets.Thus,inmycountrythereisan"antiracistforum"called Charta`91,inwhichwefindbackmostFlemistMarxists.Thenameisobviouslymodelledon Charta`77,thedissidentforuminCzechoslovakiaagainsttheCommunistregime(which forumincludedtheplaywrightandlaterpresidentVaclavHavel).TheCharta`91peoplehave theeffronterytotryandcapitalizeonthemoralprestigeofCharta`77,whilemanyofthem werepersonallysupportersoftheveryregimethatusedtosentCharta`77peopletojail.They aretheverypeoplewhousedtocastaspersionsonthedissidents,whoridiculedanti CommunistvoicesintheWest,andwholedmovementsofwhichwenowofficiallyknowthat theyweresponsoredbyMoscow(Iremembershruggingoffmyfather'sremarksabout Moscow'sinvolvementintheprodisarmamentdemonstrationIwsgoingto;buthewasright). FortheseexposedGulagcollaborators,antiracismistheonlywaytoremainontheoffensive andtopreemptacriticallookintotheirownrecord. Asapractisednonracist,Ifeelfreetoignoretheinsistentselfadvertisementoforganized "antiracism".TheracistattacksonforeignersinEuropeareamostseriousproblem,butthere isnoneedfor"allyingwithStalintofightHitler"now:wehavetogetbothoutoftheway. Secondly,"antiracism"and"multiculturalism"(cfr.theIndiancreedof"compositeculture") areaneasycoverforIslamicpropagandistsandtheirfellowtravellerstopreemptallcriticism ofIslam.Theytakeheartfromsomeaccomplishedfactsofconfusionbetweenracialand relgiousissues,suchasthefollowing.Recently,aBritishemployerwantedtohireworkersbut madeitclearthathewouldnotemployMuslims,withreferencetotheplightofSalman Rushdie,whosecondemnationtoalifeundergroundhasbeensupportedbymostvocal MuslimsinBritain.AproMuslimorganizationfiledaplaintcharginghimwithracial discrimination.ThejudgeruledthatexcludingMuslimsisnotadirectactofracism,as Muslimsarenotarace;butthatitwasnonethelessanindirectactofracism,asmostMuslims areeffectivelynonEuropean.Hethoughtthatacompleteacquittalinthiscasewouldclearthe wayforattemptsatracialdiscriminationunderthecoverofexcludingthenonracialcategory ofMuslims,soheimposedatokenpenalty. InmanyEuropeancountriesracismisanoffencepunishablebylaw,soIexpectthatthe

allegationofracismwillbetriedinthenearfutureasawayofprohibitingcriticismofIslam. Atthelevelofpublicdebate,thereisalreadystrongpressuretendingtowadsaninformal prohibitionofIslamcriticism.Butitwon'twork. Europehasbuiltupastrongtraditionoffreespeechandfreedomofpublication,andIslamic attemptstotamperwiththatfreedomwillonlysharpentheawarenessthatnoconcessionscan bemadetothesenewformsoffanaticismandcensorship.Moreover,thegeneralpublicand manypoliticalcommentatorsandpoliticiansarevaguelyawareoftheintrinsicfanaticismof Islam.Inthenews,thewordIslamismoreoftenthannotmentionedinacontextofterrorism, sothepiousclaimsthatislamistolerantandpeacefulatheartareregardedwithhealthy skepticism. WhatreallygivesIslamanincurablybadname,isitstreatmentofwomen.Noamountof apologeticscanconvincemodernpeoplethatitisrighttospendarapedwomantojailifshe cannotbringthefourmalewitnesseswhichtheshariatrequires,andtosentenceher,aftera longtimeincustody,topublicfloggingforcommittingadulteryorforfalselyaccusingagood Muslimofrape.Thesaidsentenceonlycomesasamatterofclemency,andsometimesthe strictpenaltyisgiven:stoningtodeath.SuchthingshappeninPakistan(where60%ofthe womenbroughttotrialforsexoffencesarecasesof"unproven"plaintsofrape,accordingtoa PakistanilawyerquotedinTheEconomist)andotherIslamicstates,andtheworldknowsit. WehaveseenontelevisionhowwomeninAlgeriademonstratedagainsttheattemptsto transformthecountryintoanislamicrepublic,andhowtheywereattackedbyfundamentalist counterdemonstrators.NooneisfooledifsomeIslamicapologistexplainshowIslamhas meantaliberationofwomen.Thewomen'smovementwillcontribuitealottoIslam's undoing. Mostnonspecialistobserversarebroadlyawareoftheretrogradeandbarbariccharcterof Islam.Nonetheless,governmentswaverwhentheyareconfrontedwithIslamicthreatsand blackmail.MargaretThatcherhasstoodbySalmanRushdie,inspiteofthelatter'sinvective againsther(bothbeforeandafterthefatwa).ButJohnMajorprohibitedamanifestationto "celebrate"SalmanRushdie's1,000thdayinhiding,inordernottodisturbthenegotiations overhostagesinLebanon.TheorganizersoftheBooksFairinFrunkfurthadinvitedthe Iranianstatepublishinghousetoparticipate,justwhentheJapaneseRushdietranslatorhad beenmurdered,anditwasonlyafterstrongprotestfromtheGermanWritersAssociationthat theinvitationwaswithdrawn. TheFrenchgovernmentacceptedacompromiseontheissueofgirlswearingachadorin school,whichMuslimsclaimedasavictory(accordingtoKalimSiddiqui,speakingatthe6th EuropeanMuslimConferenceinGenk,April1992,aveiledwoman"carriestheflagofIslam: shemakesastatementthatEuropeancivilizationisunacceptabletous,thatitisadisease,a pestilenceonmankind").InNovember1991,itsackedJeanClaudeBarreau,atopcivilservant whohadwritenthatIslamhasbeenadestructiveandregressivereligion.Muslimsprotested thathisbookcontained"simplisticopinions"aboutIslam,andobtainedthatthegovernment destanceditselffromhisviewsbysackinghim.ItisunthinkablethataFrenchgovernment wouldsackacivilservantforwritingagainstChristianity,butIslamhasalreadywrestedthe privilegeofimmunityfromcriticism.Incidentally,theFrenchgovernment'sbehaviour disprovestheIndianbeliefthatMuslimappeasementisaconsequenceofthedesiretowin overthe"Muslimvotebank":fewMuslimsinFrancewerevoters,andthesocialist government'shandwasnotforcedbyvotepolitics,butbyamentality.

InaninterviewwiththeleadingFrenchnewspaperLeFigaro,JeanClaudeBarreauexplains: "ThisshowstowhatextentthatwhichIhadfeltinadvancewastrue:Islamisataboowhich youcannotdefyunpunishedly.Today,thereissomethingverydisturbingforthefoundationsof ourRepublic,viz.forsecularism...ItispossibleforatopcivilservanttodoubtChrist's divinitywithoutcreatingaripple,butitisimpossibleforhimtospeakofProphet Mohammed...[Ihavebeenhitby]notalaw,butacollectiveandalmostunanymously observedtaboo.ThistabooisnottypicalfortheLeft...Ihavefoundoutthatthereisofcourse aLeftistproIslamismlinkedwiththepostcolonialcomplex,butalsoaRightistpro Islamism...TherehasbeenstrongpressurefromIslamicembassies.Thatthispressureexists, showstowhatextentcertainIslamiccirclesareincapableoflisteningtocriticism.Butthere aredissidentsintheIslamicworldwhomwearenotatallhelpingwithourattitude." Tothequestionwhetherdemocracywaslackinginaggressiveness,hereplied:"Rather,it lackscourage...Mybook,itisnothingbuttherightofintellectualintervention.Butbecauseit concernsIslam,itisdeemedinsupportable.Therearedoublestandardsatwork."He compareswithsimilartopics:"ThisbookisnotmorescandalousthanthosewhichIhave publishedaboutChristianity,aboutIsrael,orabouttheartofgovernment.IreaslizedIwas touchingonataboo,butIdidn'tknowitwasthatstrong." Muslimsarealreadyaconsiderablepressuregroup,butwhatreallyweakensthepositionof EuropeangovernmentsbeforeIslamicarroganceistheproIslamicrhetoricofasmallbut noisysectionofmediapeopleandleftistpoliticalcircles.Someofthesefellowtravellersof Islamarewellintendingbutinconsistentsofties:theyhavenotrenouncedtheiryoungdays' habitofmockingChristianobscurantistcustomsandirrationalbeliefs,andyettheyare defending(oraskingusto"understand")similarthingsinIslam.Somearehusbandsof Muslimwomenwhoseparents,followingMuslimlaw,insistedontheirsoninlaw's conversion:liketheancestorsofmanyMuslimfanatics,theythinkthisconversionisa superficialthingwithoutanyconsequences,butalreadytheyfeelcompelledtodefendIslamic causes.OthersareMarxistswhohaveshiftedtheirfocusfromantiFascistthroughantiracist andproimmigrant,toproMuslim. Theinfluenceofthesefellowtravellerswillprobablybeblownawaysoon.Theirgriponthe publicarenaisweakcomparedtothatofindia'ssecularists,andistotallydependentonthe public'smodestsenseofincompetenceregardingIslamandonitsconcomitantcarenotto makerashandunfairjudgements.AssoonasthefactsconcerningIslambecomemorewell known,notasageneralfeelingbutasanauthoritativeopinionequippedwithdetailsof Islamicscriptureandhistory,thegameofislam'spublicrelationsoffensivewillbeover.But untilthen,thisvocalsectionmakesitdifficualtospeakoutfreelyaboutthenatureofIslam, anditputspsychologicalpressureongovernmentsandpoliceforces,whichpreventsan effectivepolicyagainstIslamicarrogance.Today,therearenotmanyintellectualsinEurope whosaythetruthaboutIslamicfanaticism,partlyoutofignorance,partlyforfearofnegative presscoverage.Thosewhodo,likeJohnLaffin(TheDaggerofIslam),aregivenlittle publicity,ordenouncedasprejudicedalarmists. In1990,aPakistanilivinginHollandpublishedabook,DeOndergangvanNederland("The DownfalloftheNetherlands"),aboutthemistakenMuslimpolicyofhishostcountry.he statedthatHollandwasspendingitslaudabletoleranceonthewrongpeople:itgivesallthe facilitiestoagrowingIslamicestablishmentinitsimmigrantcommunities.After demonstratingtheintolerantbehaviourofMuslimsworldwide,hepredictsthat"thenaiveand mindlessDutch"arefeedingapoisonousbabywhichinafewdecadeswilldevourthemand

replacetheirtolerantandpluralistsocietywithanIslamicrepublic.Unfortunately,hetoo treats"theMuslims"asastaticentity,andheidealizestheEuropeansinsteadofseeingthat ourleveloftoleranceistheresultofahistoricalprocesswhichtheMuslimscanandshould alsogothrough(discardingtheirMuslimnessontheway,likeEuropelargelydiscarded Christianity).BecausehetookhisownassessmentofIslamseriously,andwiththeRushdie affairstillverymuchintheair,hedidnotwanttomakehisnameknown,sohewroteunder thepseudonymMohammedRasool. Thereactionofthepresswasmostinteresting.Theleftistpresshadnothingbutscornforhis message,andconcentratedonthemoresensationaleffortoffindingoutthewriter'sidentity. AtfirsttheywereverysurethatithadtobesomefascistracistDutchmantryingtosound moreconvincingbyadoptinganexoticpseudonym.ButMohammedRasoolgaveinterviews, wearingamaskthatshowedenoughofhisfacetoprovethathewasnotanativeEuropean. Interviewerstriedtosnatchhisforeigners'passporttofindouthisname,buthewasfaster. Finally,afteralotofdetectivework,theydidfindouthisrealname,andmadeitpublic.If everMohammedRasoolgetskilled,thesemindlessleftistaretoblame. Tobesure,hehasnotbeenkilledyet.HehasnotcriticizedtheProphethimself,andthefair nameofMohammediswhatMuslimsaremostparticularabout.CriticizingtheMuslim communityorthedoctrineofIslamislessdramatic(RushdiehadnotcriticizedIslam,buthad mockedtheProphet).AsthePersianproverbsays:youcanmakejokesaboutGod,butbe carefulwithMohammed.Secondly,theMuslimcommunitiesincontinentalEuropekeepa lowprofile,inconformitywiththeirSaudisponsors'policyofpenetratingEuropegently(as opposedtotheIranianapproach).Finally,thisMohammedRasoolwasanunknownfellowin asmalllanguagearea,notaprizewinningEnglishwriter.Sotherewasnofatwatokillthis DutchPakistaniwarneragainsttheIslamicthreat. Butdoesthatprovetheopinionexpressedbythemoresympatheticrightwingcommentators, thatRasoolmayhaveapointbutthathehasexaggeratedthedangerofIslaminHolland?At themoment,HollandhasoneofthelowestpercentagesofMuslimsintheEuropean Community,andtheyarenotmakingmuchtrouble(exceptthattheytooktothestreetsto demandRushdie'sdeath).Butthatmaychangefast:theirbirthrateisveryhigh,anda continuedinpouringfromNorthAfricaisjustaboutinevitable.Astheirnumbersgoup,the Muslims'attitudemaychangetoo.Akeenawarenessofpowerequationsmaybeatwork: whentheyaresmallandweak,theyarewiseenoughnottobetootroublesome,butwhenthey becomestrong,theirdemandsgoonincreasing;thatatanyrateistheIndianexperience. Policymakersshouldconsidermorethanonlythemostoptimisticprognosis. ItismathematicallycertainthatIslamwillultimatelydisappear.Anartificialbeliefsystem imposedbyforcecanonlysurvivebymeansofacontinuedindoctrination.Relaxthat,and Islamwillwitherawayfast.Withthemodernmediaandtheunprecedentedpaceofprogress, culturalcircumstancescanemerge(notbyaconspiracy,butbythelawsofthemarketand similarnaturaldevelopments)thatwillmakeIslamlooklikeastrangeantiquityeventothose broughtupasMuslims.So,Islamwillcertainlygo.Butthequestioniswhatitcanstilldoin themeantime. IntheSovietUnion,severaljihadsareonthecards.KazakhstanmaysoonbecomeanIslamic republic,andithasanadvancednucleararsenal.Thepresident(choseninanelectionfrom whichRussianswereexcluded)oftheMuslimChechenIngooshrepublichasdeclaredthatin ordertoobtainindependence,hispeoplewilluseterroristattacksagainstRussiantargets

includingnuclearfacilities.HehasbeenarmingseveralMuslimseparatismsinthenorthern CaucasusandeffectivelysupportingtheseparatistviolenceinAbkhasia.Iran,Iraqand Pakistanarebuildingtheirnuclearstrikecapability.Morethanever,Pakistanwillbethe frontlineofanimpressiveblockofIslamicstateswithnuclearteeth.Indiawillnodoubtbethe primetarget,Russiawilldefinitelysuffer,butEuropetoomaybeputintroublebyanIslamic upsurgefromtheinside.Wesimplycannotperdictwhateffectanexpectedinternational conflictinthenameofIslamwillhaveonaEuropeanMuslimcommunitythatwillhave becomemuchmorenumerousandwellorganized.