Recently, at an RSS press function, the Minister of State for Law and Justice, Satya Pal Singh Baghel, talked about how there are “very few tolerant Muslims”, of India’s basic structure being that of a “Hindu Rasthra” before their arrival, and of Muslims wearing a “mask of tolerance only to obtain public office”. These comments sparked a procession of memories — from my grandmother to Europe and India’s hoary past and the role that tolerance toward minorities plays in safeguarding freedom for all.
Leaving aside the problem of ahistorically looking at premodern imperial behaviour in terms of today’s politicised, modern religious and group identities — a lens which would fail to explain why Hindus and Muslims fought on the same side under Rana Sanga, Sher Shah, the Mughals, Shivaji, Lodhis, Marathas, etc. — my mind’s eye rests on my maternal grandmother. She was not an educated woman, but having grown up in pre-partition Hissar, she had a deep respect for Guru Nanak and like my mother, believed him to be a saint.
They also believed Rama and Krishna to have been prophets of God. For a religion that believes in the unseen God, this is the highest respect any anthropomorphic figure could be given. Many Muslims, right from medieval times also considered the Gita, Vedas and Upanishads to be divine books. These books, along with the Mahabharata, Ramayana, YogaVashishtha, etc, were all translated multiple times into Persian throughout the medieval period. This is how they were first discovered by Europeans. To some, this seems “intolerant”, I guess it depends on one’s perspective.
Intolerance among the many Sufi orders that walked this Subcontinent led to the concepts of hospice and Langar. The latter was introduced by the Chistis in the 12th century and remained a vegetarian meal so that people from all faiths could partake. In fact, Hammidudin Nagori became a vegetarian himself, and he was not an exception. Nizammudin at the banks of the Yamuna, with Khusro, pointed out a woman praying to the sun and said her devotion is like ours.
The Sufis long and intimate exchange with the Naths and other yogis, the syncretism of Kashmiri Sufism and Shaivism exemplified by Nund Rishi and other Muslims, the association between Abdur Rahim Khan-i-Khanan and Tulsidas, the bhajans of Ras Khan, the Telegu devotional poetry patronised by the Qutubshahis, the love for his native Gujarat in Wali Dakkani’s verse — these might all seem anti-national since they weren’t done in service of the Rashtra.
The numerous bhajans written by Shakeel Badayuni (‘Mohe panghat pe nand lal ched gayo re’), Sahir Ludhianvi and even a leaguer like Hasrat Mohani seem to have clearly been written for public office. The highest-rated bhajan in Hindi films: ‘Man tadpat hari darshan ko aaj’ was written, composed and sung by three Muslims, Shakeel, Naushad and Mohammad Rafi.
Much of the minister’s ire was directed towards the Mughals, the underlying assumption being that they were exemplars of Islam and the Muslims of today are responsible for their supposed sins. Akbar, Jahangir and Aurangzeb were evil despite each of them supporting hundreds of Hindu and Jain temples, holy men and places of pilgrimage from Mathura, Brindavan, Prayagraj, Chitrakoot and Benaras to Mount Abu, Guwahati, Kumbh and Ayodhya with land and cash grants. Their kingdoms were dotted with thousands of temples and with lakhs of holy men.
This apparently was a “mask”. So was the contentment that Jahangir derived from private conversations with Jadroop Gosain in his cave, or the extreme devotion Akbar showed to Catholics, Jains, and others, each of whom believed that he had converted to their faiths. He made land grants to the Goraknathis and their Muths, and even possibly to the Golden Temple. If one goes by the firmans of Aurangzeb, this behaviour emerged from their belief that the emperor was God’s representative on earth and thus was an emperor for all, and also that these holy men would, in turn, pray for the longevity of the empire.
This ethos among Muslim rulers existed before and after the Mughals too. The Lodhi governor of Lahore was Guru Nanak’s patron, and the Hanumanghari in Ayodhya and numerous other temples were given land grants and finances by the Nawabs of Awadh — this also happened in the Deccan, Bengal, Kashmir, etc. All of these rulers chiefly patronised Hindustani and Carnatic music which emerged in the temples.
That atrocities such as the young Akbar’s at Chittorgarh or the destruction of some temples, and a couple of dargahs, by Aurangzeb, took place is not doubted. In their view, this was a response to seditious and rebellious conduct. But this behaviour was not exclusive to Muslim rulers. Medieval Hindu rulers did the same to many temples too and to mosques. Masjids were demolished by Rana Sangha, Rana Kumbha, Sadasiva Raya of Vijaynagar, Maldeo Rathore and Ajit Singh Rathore. In fact, Jaswant Singh Rathore, under Aurangzeb destroyed mosques in Marwar. But Aurangzeb did not respond since he was a good commander. Nor was there any economic boycott, the likes of which Muslim tradesmen and menial workers face today. Even under Aurangzeb, the majority of the scribes, taxation and administrative employees were Hindus.
In contrast, Europe saw massive forced conversion and ethnic cleansing through various orders of Knights, Kings and the Catholic church on its eastern frontiers, as well as in Iberia. And then there were the wars of religion during the Reformation which killed one-third of the population of Central Europe. Iran, a Sunni-majority state was forcibly converted to Shiaism by the Safavids in a few short years. Meanwhile, India’s population remained over 75 per cent non-Muslim in 1947.
As per Richard Eaton, what conversions took place were peripheral, where imperial authority was weakest, through the Sufis. Today, India’s population is 80 per cent Hindu. Eaton states there are 80 documented cases of temple destruction in the medieval period. About 500 mosques and dargahs were destroyed in a single series of riots in Gujarat in 2002.
Among the minister’s evidence of intolerance against Akbar is that he died with “Ya Allah” on his lips. Clearly, the only kind of Muslim that is acceptable, it seems, is either an atheist like myself or someone who visits temples and behaves like a Hindu. The problem — there is nothing left to tolerate in the Other, for he has become the Self. Gandhi recognised this. As did Locke, who believed that forced belief has no value because faith is internal. Hegel said that the whole point is to be at home with one’s Self in one’s Other.
European history tells us that freedom of religion and minority rights are critical to advancing freedom for everyone. The Dutch Revolt, the English Civil War, the Protestant colonies in New England and the Wars of Religion were essentially fought for religious freedom (in the first two, taxes were an equally important issue too). It was with the tolerance extended to religious minorities after the establishment of the Dutch Republic, the Glorious Revolution in England, The Peace of Westphalia in Central Europe, the Emancipation of Jews, etc. that constitutional rights and civil liberties were advanced for all.
The presence of a different god, morality, narrative and view of reality that a minority represents by its very existence, engenders cognitive and emotional insecurity in the majority. This was usually handled by conversion, expulsion or exclusion and marginalisation. The gradual extension of tolerance and rights to the reviled religious minority resulted in an increase in tolerance and freedom for all citizens, including those of the majority.
The writer is associate professor and assistant dean, Jindal School of International Relations
