This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.92.174.70 (talk) at 14:29, 22 November 2006 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:29, 22 November 2006 by 59.92.174.70 (talk) (→Criticism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India is a book by the historian K.S. Lal published in 1992. (ISBN 81-85689-03-2). The book not only assesses the legacy of Muslim rule in India, but also describes its history.
Lal tries to give a balanced appraisal of the legacy of medieval India: "...the history of Muslim rule in India is seen through many coloured glasses. It is necessary, therefore, to take a look at the “schools” or “groups” of modern historians writing on the history of medieval India so that a balanced appraisal of the legacy of Muslim rule in India may be made."
The astronomical sciences were respected by the Muslims. The Buddhist Halaku Kahn founded the Margha observatory at Szebaijain, and Ulugh Beg built one at Samarquand. Sawai Jai Singh II of Jaipur built observatories in Delhi, Jaipur, Ujjain, Mathura and Benares.
The book also describes the achievements in music, architecture, painting, and many other areas. About the achievements in music, he writes: "It is in the domain of music in particular that the contribution of Muslims is the greatest. It is, however, difficult to claim that it is really Muslim. What they have practised since medieval times is Hindu classical music with its Guru-Shishya parampara. The gharana (school) system is the extension of this parampara or tradition. ... Political or religious barriers have failed to divide musicians and lovers of music into narrow or antagonistic camps, as the Hindu classical music remains the common legacy of both Hindus and Muslims."
On the education system in medieval India, Lal writes: "No universities were established by Muslims in medieval India. They only destroyed the existing ones at Sarnath, Vaishali, Odantapuri, Nalanda, Vikramshila etc. to which thousands of scholars from all over India and Asia used to seek admission. Thus, with the coming of Muslims, India ceased to be a centre of higher Hindu and Buddhist learning for Asians. The Muslims did not set up even Muslim institutions of higher learning. Their maktabs and madrasas catered just for repetitive, conservative and orthodox schooling. There was little original thinking, little growth of knowledge as such."
Criticism
The book was criticized by Peter Jackson in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, Third Series, Vol. 4, Part 3, November 1994, pp. 421-23. K.S. Lal wrote a rebuttal to Jackson's criticism in his book "Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India". Jackson said "His is not a work of scholarship but an exercise in propaganda, and rather crude propaganda at that".
He writes: "Those who have read Professor Lal's History of the Khaljis and Twilight of the Sultanate, both still standard works, may well approach this book with pleasurable anticipation. They will be disappointed." And then follows a list of harsh observations on selective basis. These may be taken up one after another.
1. In the words of the reviewer "what disturbs me is the way in which a markedly selective and one-sided account of India's Muslim past is pressed into service in support of his (author's) position".
2. According to the author, "Appeasement of Indian Muslims by the Congress might have been understandable prior to Partition, as a means of maximising support against the Raj; as a policy deliberately espoused by successive governments of India since 1947, it is pitifully inappropriate - and dangerous. In particular Lal deplores the government sponsored attempts to rewrite Indian history in the interests of 'minorityism' by suppressing unpalatable truths about the character of Muslim rule."
3. According to the author, "a strict watch was kept on their (the Hindus) thought and expression" and that "they could not worship their gods in public." "Some limited degree of repression may have been possible in Delhi, or in the sultan's itinerant court," writes Jackson, "it was surely impractical in provincial centres, still more so in the countryside."
4. "If Muslim rule was so iconoclastic and oppressive, how are we to account for the fierce loyalty shown to successive Delhi Sultans by their Hindu Paik guards... And what of the thousands of Hindu troops who are found serving in the armies of Hindu potentates from Mahmud of Ghazna... onwards?"
5. "The implication is that toleration of Hindu practices was always opposed by the 'Ulama'... It is clear that the 'ulama' are going to be damned whatever they did or did not do... A similar fate awaits the Sufi mashaikh (pp. 193ff)."
6. "One final example of the methods employed in this book deserves mention, namely, the failure to distinguish the conduct of Muslim rulers within India from that of their coreligionists who appeared in the subcontinent only temporarily. Of the Muslim armies in peacetime... we still await the evidence of his statement on rowdyism."
7. "Use of archaic and misleading term 'Muhammadan' is of a piece with Lal's reliance on dated secondary authorities like Sir Elliot's introduction to The History of India as told by its own Historians."
8. According to the author of the book, "Muslims still live, as they have always lived, in the Middle Ages. Islam is inherently a religion of violence; its followers... are not concerned about equality with the devotees of other faiths."
9. "One thinks of the works of Peter Hardy, of Yohannan Friedmann, and of the Aligarh school now headed by Irfan Habib. It might be inferred that these scholars are to be numbered among the 'Marxists, pseudo-secularists, progressives etc.' whom Lal denounces (p. 348). But their writings were irrelevant to his purpose. His is not a work of scholarship but an exercise in propaganda, and rather crude propaganda at that."
There is a belief that Peter Jackson's rebuttal was financed by Tableeghi Jamaath, the Wahabi Deobandi fundamentalist organisation.
Since 2001, Lal's contribution and understanding of nature of Islamic rule is better appreciated.
References
- K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India
- K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice of Muslim Rule in India