India has now been free for nearly seven decades. Despite these years, the colonial mindset is, alas, very much with us. Its twin causes are, a skewed history and an abandoned mother tongue. These have to be addressed.

We still live with the spectre of the alleged trauma caused to the Hindu psyche by the sack of the सोमनाथ Somanatha temple by Mahmoud of Ghazni on 25 December 1025. This has assumed the role of an ulcer and continues to exist as ‘the tale of the never ending wrong’. The political outcome is that the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh which had no role in achieving freedom managed come to power in the Centre. It continues to rule some of the states of the Indian Union.

Of these states, Gujarat, the state where सोमनाथ Somanatha is located, has become the most communalised of all. Gujarati Hindus, whether they support RSS like Narendra Modi or Indian National Congress (a party avowing secularism as a fundamental faith), believe that the sack of Somanatha is and has been a suppurating ulcer since its occurrence nearly a thousand years ago.

This is a patent falsehood spread by the British. As Pakistan is also ‘Made in Great Britain’, Indians need to know their history without the British shading of ideas which helped their ‘Divide and Rule’ policy.

“Ghaznavi Gate, allegedly from Somanatha, now stored at the Agra Fort

It is true that chroniclers of the Turkic Sultans had, in the pursuit of bounty from the rulers, written exaggerated accounts of the sanctity of this seaside shrine. In these accounts, Somanatha was put at par with the holy Ka’abaa. But Veerawal in Gujarat was never as sacred as Banaras, Mathura, Kanchi or Kumbakonam. Even more important is that we remember that the most popular version of Islam, practised in pre-colonial India, was Sufiism and the sulh-i-kul  ‘peace with all’ principle. Propagated by the 16th century Mughal Emperor, Akbar, it was a manifestation of this belief.

The 18th century was one of great change. Year 1707 A.D. was witness to the death of Awrungzeyb Aalamgeer. He had hacked his way to the throne by wading through the blood of his brothers, Dara Shikoh and Muraad Bukhsh. Besides fratricide, he had deposed his father Shah Jahan in 1658 and kept him confined to the Red Fort Agra until his death in 1666. Awrungzeyb ruled for nearly 50 years and his last letters reveal that he died broken in spirit.

The battle for succession that followed Awrungzeyb’s death saw his sons Aazam and Kaam Bukhsh die of wounds suffered in battle. The haemorrhage caused by repeated battles for succession weakened the Mughal empire.

The great and seemingly everlasting freedom from invasions through the Suleiman Range on the North West was shattered when Tahmasp Quli Khan aka Nadir Shah invaded India in 1739 and inflicted a crushing blow on Muhammad Shah, Mughal Emperor since 1715. After this calamitous defeat here were regular invasions by his general Ahmad Shah Abdali. Abdali gathered so much treasure that he renamed his tribe. He abandoned the surname, Abdali, and assumed ‘Durraanee’ (meaning, the pearl) as the tribal title.

The Mughal empire was now vulnerable to internal revolts and Dillee was plundered by Marathas, Jats and Sikhs. We are indebted to the poet Mir Taqi ‘Mir’ मीर तक़ी ‘मीर’ for a detailed account of the trials and tribulations suffered by the heartland of the empire. He was born in 1712 and lived to the ripe old age of 90 years and was witness to all that transpired.

How सोमनाथ Somanatha was seen by the Muslim elite in the 18th century can be judged from a verse of Mir Taqi ‘Mir’. He says: उसके फ़रोग़े हुस्न से झमके है सब में नूर/ शमए हरम हो या के दिया सोमनाथ का (Usakay faroagheiy husn seiy jhamakay heiy sub meiyn noor / Shamaaeiy hurrumm hoa yaa kay diyaa somanath kaa.) ‘It is the same Divine Light which illuminates the candle burning in the holy Ka’ abaa as well the oil lamp of Somanatha.’

Chroniclers of the Turkic Sultans had, in the pursuit of bounty from the rulers, written exaggerated accounts of the sanctity of Somanatha, the seaside shrine, putting it at par with the Holy Ka’abaa.

While the equal status accorded to the holy Ka’ba and Somanatha might be incorrect, the fact that both are treated at par shows the spirit of the times. No wonder that the sepoys of the Bengal Army of the East India Company who rose against their white masters sought out the 82-years-old Mughal emperor as their leader, although they were mostly high caste Hindus (31% Brahmin and 34% Rajput). ‘Zafar’ (like his father Akbar II) had no experience of battle.

 

As shown by Romila Thapar in her Early India and detailed in her study of Somanatha, the alleged trauma suffered by Hindus at the sack of Somanatha was played up by the British to cover up their defeat and failure in Afghanistan. Somanatha had no effect in the early 19th century despite British attempts to play it up.

It was after the failure of 1857, when the Mughal Emperor was dethroned and the British Crown took charge that education passed into non-Indian hands. The division of Indian history into ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ periods enabled the foreign rulers to represent Mahmoud of Ghazni as a Muslim jihadist and his actions were projected as being inspired by religious ideals and not as those caused by greed.

Most wars are fought for gold, women and land ज़र ज़न ज़मीन (zur, zunn and zameen) and not for any ideal. When Amir Timur fought the Sultan of Turkey both rulers were Muslim and each called himself Seif ul Islam (the Sword of Islam). This shows how hollow the claims of allegedly ‘religious’ wars usually are.