This thread is created for articles of Dr Mubarak Ali with the name; Past Present, published in Dawn weekly. He often discusses Mughal era and Muslim rule over sub-continent therefore it might help aspirants in Pakistan Affairs and Indo-Pak History.


Mubarak Ali

Throughout the Muslim rule in the subcontinent, from the Sultanate period to the Mughal rule, the views of the ulema contradicted those of the rulers. Despite state policies being in contradiction to religion according to the ulema, the rulers did not permit them to interfere with the state.

During Akbar’s rule, the ulema disapproved of his policy of sulh-i-kul or peace with all. When Mullah Mohammed Yazdi issued a fatwa, several disgruntled nobles and the ulema rebelled against Akbar who dealt with it in a diplomatic manner. He cancelled the maddad-i-ma’ash jagirs belonging to the ulema, only to reallocate them after interviewing the ulema and confirming their loyalty. He also appointed bureaucrats to supervise their conduct, so that in case of misconduct they could be reprimanded. He then continued with his policy undeterred.

During the reign of Jahangir, a religious scholar, Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624) wanted to convince Jahangir to change Akbar’s policy towards non-Muslims. He tried to influence the nobles to help fulfil his ambitions and wrote letters to them, expressing his fanatical ideas.

In a letter to Shaikh Farid, a devout Muslim who had supported Jahangir’s succession to the throne against his eldest son Khusrau, Sirhindi wrote that Islam was in critical condition, and insisted that as a man of faith, it was Shaikh Farid’s responsibility to take action to revive the glory of Islam. In the same letter he expressed his pleasure on the assassination of Guru Arjan Dev, the fifth Sikh Guru, regarding it an admirable step. He further explained that the government should adopt a policy to humiliate Hindus and that the imposition of jizya rightly kept the infidels in a state of subordination. According to Sirhindi, this was the right time to convince the emperor to eliminate un-Islamic practices which had become a part of the Muslim culture and to eliminate the influence of the infidels. He appealed to Shaikh Farid to play a role in reviving the purity of Islam. If no action was taken and idolatry continued to flourish, the emperor and his nobles would be responsible for damaging the cause of Islam by not creating a consciousness about sharia among the Muslims.

He wrote another letter to Aziz Khan Kuka, Akbar’s foster brother and opposed Akbar’s religious views. In the war of succession, Sirhindi supported Prince Khusrau against Jahangir, yet retained an important position at the court. In his letter, Sirhindi lamented that the forces of Islam were becoming weaker and at this juncture, his contribution would help annihilate irreligious practices and innovations which were influencing the Muslims. He also said that Islam could only be purified by reverting to its original teachings.

Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi wanted to destroy Akbar’s diplomatic relations with the Hindus. In one of his letters addressed to Lala Beg, he expressed his views that sacrifice of the cow was an Islamic rite.

However, the majority of the ulema and people remained estranged from his movement. Jahangir continued with Akbar’s policy and was a great admirer of his father. In Tuzk-i-Jahangiri, he praised Akbar’s wisdom and sagacity.

Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi was not popular among the Muslims because of his extremist religious views. When Jahangir summoned him to his court, he found him arrogant and rude and did not hesitate to send him to the fort of Gwalior for a brief period of imprisonment.

During the emergence of communalisn in the 1930s, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi was resurrected by some ulema and projected as the champion of Islam. In Pakistani historiography, I.H. Qureshi and S.M. Ikram eulogised him as the defender of Islam and the man who saved it and protected it from the heretical views of Akbar.

Writers of history textbooks portrayed the same image. As a result, Akbar and his policy of sulh-i-kul, multi-cultural unity and secularism were condemned while Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi’s orthodoxy and religious extremism were appreciated. Sadly, his anti-Hindu, and anti-Shia views are also accepted without criticism, totally negating their dire impact on society today. Today, Pakistani society is paying a heavy price for these misdemeanours.

Mubarak Ali

During the Sultanate period, the issue of Hindu-Muslim relations generated a controversy between the Muslim rulers and the ulema. Following the model of the Arab rule in Sindh, the ulema held Hindus at par with the Jews and the Christians as the ‘people of the Book’. They were regarded as Zimmis who paid jizya. After the Mongols invaded Central Asia, some ulema arrived to settle in India and critical of this policy, they discussed among themselves the options to make amendments to it.

Ziauddin Barani, (1285–1357) a Muslim historian and political thinker, in his book Sana-i-Muhammadi discussed the ulema’s view in detail. He highlighted that the Hindus were not people of the book but infidels and pagans as they did not have a divine book nor prophets to guide them. So he believed they should be regarded differently from the Jews and the Christians.

The ulema met Sultan Iltutmish to convince him that the policy of the Muslim state was against Islamic law. They suggested that as the Hindus were not people of the book, they should either be converted to Islam, or killed in case of denial. They further argued that in a Muslim state, infidels must not be allowed to live respectably but should be humiliated and insulted. They wanted the sultan to adopt a policy of coercion towards them and express his anger and displeasure in the presence of the Hindus. When they finished, their conversation, the sultan asked his wazir Nizamul Mulk Junaidi, to respond to the arguments of the ulema. The wazir told him that the argument of the ulema about the Hindus was correct as according to the Sharia, they should either be converted or be killed because they were enemies of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Junaidi pointed out that the Muslims were in minority, while the Hindus formed the majority in the subcontinent. He feared that they would unite and revolt against the policy of coercion which would make it difficult for the Muslims to maintain their hold on the subcontinent. So until the sultanate consolidated and became powerful, a harsh policy towards the Hindus was not advisable. After hearing this, the ulema requested the sultan to not allow Hindus to be appointed to high posts, to reside in Muslim localities or to freely perform their religious rituals.

In his book Fatawa-i-Jahandari, Ziauddin Barani revised the question that if a Muslim ruler with political power, wealth and resources tolerates religious practices of the non-Muslims and fails to prevent their influence, how would Islamic teachings be propagated and paganism eliminated.

During the period of Iltutmish, Nuruddin Mubarak Ghaznavi, a religious scholar criticised the Muslim rulers for failing to take any action against the infidels because of their majority. He argued that they should be treated with contempt and not be permitted to worship idols openly. They urged the sultan to crush the Brahmins, who were the root cause of idol worship. According to Ghaznavi, the sultan should crush the Brahmins, preserve the Islamic spirit and not extend them any favours or concessions. He also requested that the sultan should expel all philosophers from state institutions and appoint only pious and devout religious people on high posts.

While the rulers patiently listened to the exhortations of the ulema, they still did not allow interference in state affairs. They made no attempt to impose the Sharia and continued to follow a policy which suited the interest of the state

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Mubarak Ali


Muslim society in the subcontinent comprised mainly three influential elements; the rulers, the ulema or religious scholars, and Sufi saints. The three maintained different points of view regarding state law, religion and the local Hindu population.

When the Muslim rulers consolidated their political power in India, they formulated their state policy based on practicality. Realising that they could not rule the Hindu majority by coercive means, they decided to adopt a policy of reconciliation. At this juncture, there was a conflict between Sharia and politics but religion was kept apart from state law.

The rulers were basically conquerors and only focused on extending their empire with little or no interest in preaching religion to people, or in converting them to Islam. They wanted to extract as much wealth as possible and to enjoy their power. For the establishment of their rule, they crushed rebellions led by the Muslims or Hindus alike. Their wars against Hindu rulers were not fought over religion but purely for political motives.

As they did not observe religious practice in their daily life, their interest was not to implement religious law. In order to adopt a policy which would help consolidate their power, they would go to the extent of violating religion. After succeeding to the throne, the rulers issued their own rules and regulations.

The views of the ulema and the jurists differed from those of the rulers. They wanted the rulers to follow the Sharia and abolish all rules and regulations that were contradictory to religion. They were hostile towards the Hindus and considered them infidels and enemies of Islam. They were not in favour of any conciliatory policy towards non-Muslims. The ulema wanted to be a part of government, assert their authority and have a share in the power of the state so that they could implement their religious agenda. The rulers respected the ulema but never allowed any interference from them in state affairs.

The Sufi saints represented the third point of view. There is a general misconception that the Sufis promoted peace and harmony among people of all religions. Some of them were the jihadis or holy warrior Sufis who prayed for the victory of Muslim rulers against the Hindus. However, the majority of the Sufis remained aloof from politics. People of all religions would visit their khanqah to seek solutions to their problems. The Sufi saints remained within the domain of Islam and did not deviate from its basic teachings. They tolerated the Hindus and after their death, their shrines would become a centre of peace for people of all religions.

Besides the Sufis, the Bhagti movement also created harmony among the believers of different religions and helped alleviate prejudice. Both the Sufis and the Bhagti leaders prevented any friction between the Muslim rulers and the Hindus by inculcating in the latter a sense of loyalty, obedience and passivity.

Once the Muslim population settled in the subcontinent, they gradually adopted the existing Hindu culture and tradition. The Hindus who were converted to Islam retained their cultural practices and integrated these into the Muslim society despite the ulema’s condemnation of Hindu customs. When the Mughals invaded India, the Hindus and Muslims were united and regarded the Mughals as aggressors. Together they fought the battles of Panipat (1526) and Khanwa (1527) against the Mughals. In the earlier period of their rule, the Mughal rulers mistrusted the Hindus and excluded them from powerful appointments. Later, when Akbar introduced new policies, the inclusion of Hindus in his administration consolidated the Mughal Empire.

But the fact remains that throughout the rule of the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals, the ulema were not allowed to interfere in state matters by keeping religion and state separate. Both the Muslims and Hindus were equally treated as subjects by the Muslim rulers and no special concessions or privileges were extended to the Muslims.

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Mubarak Ali

The arrival of Muslims in India took place in three phases. They first arrived and settled in the coastal towns of South India as traders. They were welcomed by the rulers who gained from their commercial activities. As traders, they were peaceful people and maintained friendly relations with the local population by integrating into the local culture and traditions, learning local languages and marrying local women. Gradually, they became Indian. As they adopted the Indian culture, they disconnected their past affiliation and emotionally attached themselves to their adopted homeland. There was no contempt for the Indian culture and no yearning to revisit the past.

Even today, the South Indian Muslims are tolerant towards other religions and believe in multicultural values.

In Sindh, the Arabs arrived as conquerors, defeated the local ruler and occupied the country. As conquerors, their interest was to extract as many resources as possible from the vanquished country and convert the people to Islam. Politically, Sindh first became a part of the Umayyad and then the Abbasid Empires. It lost its independence and was ruled by the appointed governors of the Arab Caliphs. In this process, Sindh became disconnected from the subcontinent. The local non-Muslim population or the Zimmis were required to pay jizya or poll tax and were treated as second-rate subjects.

The impact of the Arab conquest is deep-rooted in the Sindhi society. Even today, Muslims of Arab descent or origin such as Sayyids, Qureshis, Ansaris and Abbasis are an elite class which enjoys a higher social status. Proud of their Arab origin, they refer to Sindh as Bab-ul-Islam or the gateway to Islam.

In North India, the Turks arrived as conquerors and fought bloody battles with the Rajput rulers who resisted them, creating a gulf between the conquerors and the defeated. The Turk rulers were not interested in converting people to Islam and focused on military intervention. Early invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghori swept away wealth from the subcontinent to Ghazna. In 1206, when Qutbuddin Aibak became the ruler, India disconnected its relations with Ghazna.

The Sultans of Delhi ruled over India ruthlessly. They were prejudiced and did not allow other ethnic groups to share power. When the Lodhis became rulers, they replaced the Turkish supremacy with the Afghan hegemony while the Turkish elite class was swapped by the Afghans.

Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi in the Battle of Panipat in 1526. In Tuzk-i-Babri, Babur undermines the Indian culture while reminiscing about the climate and fruits of his homeland. He wished to be buried in Kabul instead of the hot climate of India. The character of the Mughal rule was changed by his grandson Akbar who Indianised the empire by cultivating egalitarian relations with Hindus.

During the Mughal reign, the Iranians continued to arrive at the Mughal court so foreign influence flourished. Persian being their mother tongue, they were welcomed and appointed at high posts without much competition. The Iranians were arrogant people and had a condescending attitude for the way the Indians spoke and wrote the Persian language. Shaikh Ali Hazin (d.1766) who arrived in India in the later Mughal period poured scorned on the Persian literary works of the Indians.

The linguistic imperialism created a sense of inferiority among Indians while language created a gulf between the ruling classes and the common people. They always looked up to the Iranians for approval of their language but the Iranians refused to accept it as part of their literature. The tragic result was that after the fall of the Mughal Empire, Persian literature created by Indian writers disappeared.

After the arrival of the British, English became the official language. The Indian elite learnt it and became a part of the ruling class. Those who composed English poetry and wrote short stories and novels in English perhaps suffered a fate similar to the Persian writers who wasted their creativity on foreign language and lost their work without a trace.

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Mubarak Ali


Even after 200 years, the French Revolution continues to fascinate societies where people are deprived of their fundamental rights and basic needs, like education and health. It may horrify the rich and privileged who consume wealth without sharing with others.

The revolution remains a unique event in history. It was spontaneous and not led by a specific leadership. Leaders of the revolution who emerged from time to time were killed by rival forces.

Robespierre and Danton were guillotined on the charges of betraying the revolution. Political parties such as Jacobins, Girondists, and the Club of the Cordeliers played an important role by providing different ideologies to the agenda of the revolution.

The revolution passed through several stages. The first phase was moderate but turned violent when the king made an attempt to flee from France and the European powers united to invade and restore the ancient regime.

The revolution created an enthusiasm, a spirit and energy among the common people who marched to the battlefield singing Marseilles, the national song of the revolution, defeated European armies and saved the revolution.

The revolution not only annihilated the old system and its institutions which protected and preserved the aristocracy and their privileges, but also introduced new ideas like nationalism, socialism, feminism, democracy, and its institutions which played an important role in the history of Europe. The idea of change inspired the underprivileged social class.

The revolution was interrupted by Napolean who orchestrated a coup in 1799, declaring himself as consul. He fully utilised the energies of the people charged by the revolution and led the French army to conquer Europe, later assuming the title of emperor. His ambitions ultimately led to disaster and in 1815, in the battle of Waterloo, he was defeated and exiled to St. Helena.

The Quadruple Alliance was a treaty signed in Paris in 1815 by Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia. They assembled at the Congress of Vienna to create a post-Napoleonic Europe. The Congress of Vienna was partial towards France and simply restored the old boundaries and Louis XVIII to the throne. It imposed no reparations. This was done because the allies desired a stable, prosperous France that would not threaten them with revolution or invasion.

The people of France refused to accept absolute monarchy. By now they had experienced how to organise themselves to resist the corrupt system. In 1830, the people revolted against the king and this was the end of the dynasty of Bourbon which was replaced by July monarchy of Louis Philippe. The change did not satisfy the people. The outcome of their dissatisfaction was the revolution of 1848.

This time Paris, Berlin, Vienna and other European cities became the centers of the revolution. The people demanded fundamental rights and constitutional monarchy. Revolutionary sentiments were expressed by barricading the streets of Paris. As a result, elections were held and Napoleon III, the nephew of Napoleon won the post of president in 1948 but he soon declared himself the emperor.

To prevent any revolutionary attempts in future, he reconstructed the city of Paris with wide roads and thoroughfares in order to facilitate the army to be able to chase demonstrators who would hide in the narrow lanes and streets. He also had the dead body of Napoleon brought from St Helena to be ceremoniously buried in Paris. He was defeated by the Prussian army in 1870.

The crushing and humiliating defeat again created a revolutionary spirit among the citizens of Paris. They organised the commune to replace the old political system. The Communards of Paris established their authority and revived the revolution. This threatened Europe, terrifying the conservative powers with the outcome of radical change. Since they did not want to repeat the saga of the revolution in 1789, they mercilessly crushed the Commune. Over 20,000 people were slaughtered to overpower the revolutionary forces.

Karl Marx critically examined the French Revolution and argued that the bourgeoisie being unaware of history committed the mistake of impeding the revolution.

The revolution opened the gates of change but created a bitter conflict between the conservatives and revolutionary forces. The conservative powers gradually lost control and paved the way for liberal and democratic elements.

Revolutionary ideas gradually changed the political, social and economic structure of the European society. Taking the experiences of the struggle and resistance in Europe as an example, we can change our society to abolish feudalism and tribal leadership, to promote religious tolerance and to grant fundamental rights to common people. But it requires an enlightened and visionary leadership. Is there any hope for such a leadership?

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Mubarak Ali

Every year we celebrate Independence Day with fervour and official ceremonies including military parade and state banquet. Titles and awards are bestowed upon military and civilian persons for their meritorious services and performances. Generally, it is believed that we got independence from colonialism after the British departed. We became free in our homeland from slavery and subordination by foreign powers.

There is no doubt that the country became independent and the era of colonialism ended. But the question remains — who really got freedom? The common people, feudal lords, tribal leaders, bureaucrats, military officers or political leaders and the business community? The reality is that the common people still suffer as slaves and are not free. Those who got freedom are the privileged and ruling classes.

During the British period, the feudal lords were supervised and controlled by the British officers. They acted as the most loyal group who supported the colonial government with money and manpower.

However, the British government evolved a system to control them. If a feudal lord disobeyed or violated rules and regulations, his seat in the darbar of the commissioner or the governor was lost. It meant a reduction in his status and the displeasure of the government. The disgrace lowered his position in the eyes of his contemporaries as well as his own people. The feudals would immediately apologise so that their status could be restored. It was common practice for government officials to keep them waiting for hours before a meeting. Those loyal to the British were awarded titles and granted privileges which raised their social status. David Page in Prelude to Partition and Sara Ansari in Sufi Saints and State Power have discussed in detail the imperial control system over the feudals.

In the early period, the Indians were appointed only on lower posts in bureaucracy. Slowly, more posts would be reserved for Indians, especially for those who passed the competitive examinations. However, their conduct was supervised by British high officials and they had to observe special rules and regulations reserved for bureaucracy which suited the interests of the colonial government. Same was the case with the army as the higher ranks gradually opened for Indians.

When the government allowed political parties to be formed, the leaders had to adhere to a strict political framework. It was only during the struggle for freedom that they actually had the opportunity to act freely.

There are two different views regarding independence. The British claimed that they shifted power peacefully but the people of the subcontinent argued that they won their freedom after significant struggle.

So who were the real beneficiaries of independence? The feudal lords previously under British control were now without a supervisor who would watch and check their conduct. They became free to treat the peasants as they liked. They could imprison, flog and even kill them without being punished. They could not be challenged, were above the law and masters of their landed property. The police and government administration came under their control which by violating the law, they could use for personal interests. Their power increased when they joined political parties and became winning candidates as their captive voters elected them for the national and provincial assemblies. Similarly, tribal leaders became sole spokesmen for their tribes.

Both groups emerged as most powerful and influential on the political scene of Pakistan as they now enjoyed privileges that were denied to them during the colonial period.

The military was no more under the control of British officials and high posts now opened up for Pakistanis. Ayub Khan admitted in his memoirs that in the British army, at the most he could have been promoted to the post of a brigadier. But in Pakistan he became field marshal.

Bureaucrats emerged as the most privileged group in the country. They enjoyed unlimited power by appointments on high positions during martial law as well as in democracy.

The business community was free to hoard commodities, increase prices and earn unlimited profits as well as to evade taxes and become the wealthiest section of the society.

Politicians who assumed power used it for personal gains, accumulated wealth, established dynasty rule and retired after plundering state resources.

After independence, the status of the common people changed from being subjects to citizens but they remain unprivileged. Politicians treated them merely as voters and once the elections were over, they were forgotten. If the masses demonstrated for their rights, they were crushed by law enforcement agencies. They are still voiceless, helpless and denied a role in the development of society.

It is an illusion that the people of Pakistan got freedom, and that independence day should be celebrated by hoisting the flag and listening to patriotic songs. Sadly, independence has failed to give the common people freedom, dignity and respect.

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

When the empire crumbled

Mubarak Ali

When the Mughal empire disintegrated, the provincial governors took advantage of the weakening central authority, became independent. Others also adopted royal titles.

With the collapse of authority, robbers, bandits and thugs became encouraged to plunder caravan processions passing through unprotected cities, towns and villages. Amid chaos, the common people hoped that a leader would emerge, come forward and protect them from marauders wandering freely from one place to another.

After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal empire was involved in continuous wars of succession, which divided the nobility and erased the political structure.

Anarchy led to rebellions by the disgruntled nobility who wished to access high offices in order to loot and plunder state resources. The result was a decline of moral values which plunged the whole society into disarray and turmoil.

Under these circumstances, Shah Waliullah raised his voice against the course of decline and suggested measures for revival of Muslim power in the subcontinent. His main concern was to improve the political, social and economic condition of the Muslims, while disregarding other communities who also confronted the same situation and needed support and guidance to survive. Failing to produce capable rulers to control state affairs and to ably administer the political and economic system, the Mughal Empire finally lost its energy and vitality. The decline reached a point where reformation seemed impossible.

In his narrow-minded approach, Waliullah believed that he was sent by God to save and lead the Muslims of India. He claimed to have dreamt that he was appointed by the divine authority to guide the Muslims. As a self-proclaimed leader of the Muslims, his major concern was to unite the Muslim community which was in a state of chaos and disorder. In order to achieve his goals, he decided to win over the nobility and implement reforms with their help. He firmly believed that only the Muslims were capable of ruling India and that if the Hindus were desirous of power, they would have to convert to Islam.

According to Waliullah, this was what had happened with the Turks who had accepted Islam after becoming rulers. He believed that Islam was a universal religion and therefore, all other religions should be eliminated and Islam imposed on everyone as the true faith. Waliullah exhorted the followers of Judaism and Christianity to adopt Islam and any refusal was regarded as an unpardonable denial of God.

To revive Muslim power in India, Waliullah decided to take a strong step against the Marathas, Sikhs, and the Jats. However, he failed to understand that it was not possible to recruit an army which purely consisted of Muslims, since the society consisted of many religions, communities, sects and ethnicities intermingled and inseparable from each other.

He wrote letters to Najib-ud-Daulah and Ahmad Shah Abdali, advising that Muslim property should not be looted by the army. In one letter he warned Ahmad Shah Abdali to watch out for some Hindus in his service whoappeared loyal to him but were actually insincere to Abdali’s cause. In his letters, he advised that Muslim soldiers could not fight against Muslim rulers as God would check their movement and prevent any action which could be harmful to Islam.

Waliullah believed that the main reason for the decline of the Muslims was that they shared their business, social and political affairs with non-Muslims.

Shah Waliullah did not realise the fact that the Hindus served in the army, the revenue and other government departments and the Muslim rulers relied on their services for running the state administration which the Muslim community alone could not have managed. His suggestion to exclude the Hindus and their welfare antagonised the two communities.

When the Muslim nobles did not respond to his appeal, he called upon Ahmad Shah Abdali to help materialise his scheme. He urged Abdali that it was his religious duty to help and save the Muslims when the Marathas attacked them. Consequently, the Marathas were defeated in the third battle of Panipat in 1762. It failed to revive the Mughal power in the subcontinent but helped the East India Company to gain power as Shah Waliullah had overlooked the growing influence of the British in the subcontinent.

According to Shah Waliullah, the subcontinent was not the real homeland for the Muslims and that they were mere strangers. He introduced the idea among the Muslims of India that they should embrace Arab culture and language and that God would help them to get out of the subcontinent.

Sadly, the ulema of the subcontinent led the Muslim community towards separation rather then integration with other communities.

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Alexander, the great?

Mubarak Ali

Alexander, the King of Macedonia and conqueror of the Persian Empire (356–323 BC ) has fascinated historians, novelists and film makers, who spent their creativity, time and money to project him as a great hero. Why have historians invariably created a great image of a conqueror and placed him on a high pedestal?

Sometimes a conqueror becomes a hero because of the nation’s quest for an idol to worship. On the other hand, racism can make a hero out of an invader who defeats or crushes inferior races. At times religion idealises a victor who fought for the glory of his faith.

In the same way perhaps, Alexander qualifies for his historic fame and glory. It depends on the various interpretations of historians who wish to create an infallible image and make him a great hero. For the Greeks, he is a national hero. The racist and cosmopolitan who believe in a multicultural and multi-religious society regard him as racially superior.

Historians writing about the greatness of conquerors attribute to them diverse qualities. The conqueror would be like a military general, perfect in the art of warfare, innovative in tactic and victorious in wars with his faultless strategy. They do not tire of praising his bravery, boldness and courage displayed in the battlefield as a skilful warrior. However, there is no condemnation of killing, bloodshed and its impact on the life of those families who lost their loved ones, belongings and homes. Neither is there disapproval of the slaughter of civilians, enslavement of women and children, burning of cities, and the plundering and looting of war booty. There is no comment on how the title of ‘great’ was earned and what price did the common people pay for victories of these conquerors.

Traditional historians regard Alexander as one of the greatest generals, who built a vast empire after achieving military success. The question remains as to why he invaded the Persian Empire? He became a great emperor by conquering and occupying land on which he had no claim. A study of his life and career shows that he was somewhat deluded about his greatness, and was perhaps an alcoholic and a megalomaniac. He traced his ancestry to Achilles and Hercules, the Greek heroes, based on which he claimed divinity.

After his conquest of Egypt, he assumed the title of pharaoh, who was regarded no less than a god by the Egyptians. He was determined to model his life on that of the glorious Achilles. It is said that while marching towards Persia to fight a battle, Alexander paid homage to Achilles by visiting his tomb in Troy and running up to it to lay a wreath. When the Persians were defeated, he occupied the cities and burned Persepolis, imitating the Greeks burning the city of Troy.

Alexander’s alcoholic and megalomaniac nature became evident when he killed his childhood friend Cleitus in a drunken brawl.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1039824/pas...nder-the-great

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

Folly The Kings

Mubarak Ali

Despite decades of exhaustive research, the Egyptian civilisation remains an enduring fascination for archaeologists, historians, linguists, scientists, architects, engineers and artists. Visitors to Egypt are as entranced by the pyramids and mummies as they are with the achievements, technological skills and the medical knowledge of the Egyptians.

Based on the belief that they would be resurrected in the next world, the pharaohs wanted their bodies mummified after death. Being powerful, resourceful and wealthy, they wanted everything for their comfort and needs to be buried along with them.

The process of mummification was performed by skillful professionals who, with the passage of time, perfected the technique to an art form. In the early period, also known as the Old Kingdom, the pharaohs were simply buried in a pit of sand. Later, the Egyptians developed the technique of building pyramids. It is said that the pyramid of Khufu, one of the wonders of the ancient world, was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers.

The pharaohs engaged artists to decorate the walls of their tombs, calligraphers to write prayers and passages from The Book of the Dead, which carried instructions about how to go to the next world. Sculptors made statues of the dead rulers; artisans prepared jewellery, wooden and golden coffins.

The pharaohs wanted everything that they might need in the next world to be buried with them, which amounted to nothing less than a treasure of wealth. Naturally where there is wealth there are (grave) robbers, giving rise to security concerns. For this reason, pyramids and tombs were built in a way that the wealth and mummies of the pharaohs could remain safe and untampered with.

This obsession with resurrection was a disaster for the Egyptian economy, as the wealth which could be spent on the welfare of the common people was buried for the benefit of rulers who supposedly needed it in the next world. As the news of this buried treasure spread, villagers began to settle around the pyramids and the royal tomb. Despite all security measures, they managed to pilfer from the buried treasure. Where there’s a will, there is indeed a way.

It is interesting to observe that the common people were robbed of their wealth by the powerful and coercive pharaohs, while in turn robbers took away wealth from the buried pharaohs.

Eventually, the squandering of economic resources led to a social and political crisis. By the end of the Middle Kingdom, a peasants’ rebellion broke out.

Desperate and disillusioned by the rulers, they not only plundered the royal tombs but, in their fury, also disfigured the mummies and threw them out of the tombs. The rebellion was crushed with severity but the rulers learnt a lesson that the mummies of their predecessors were not safe despite all protective measures. The rulers made attempts to repair the disfigured mummies and buried them in secret tombs in the Valley of Kings.

The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed another group of robbers — European and American archaeologists searching for antiquities to be sold in the West.

Equipped with modern technology and skills, the ‘secret’ sites of the royal tombs were no longer hidden to them. They took advantage of the political chaos in Egypt which, at the time, was controlled by different European powers and the natives had no power or authority to check any foreign interference in their internal affairs. The result was that these archaeologists took away what they fancied and sold it to antique dealers and museums.

In one of these archeological expeditions, Howard Carter discovered the famous tomb of Tutan Khaman. When it was opened, they found the treasure intact with a golden chariot, furniture, ornaments, jewellery and other precious items — most of which is displayed in European and American museums.

The mighty pharaohs lay no more in their golden coffins, but were displayed in glass boxes in various museums where visitors can see them to satisfy their curiosity. If they resurrected, they would neither have the royal grandeur, nor their treasures with them. They would be surprised to find themselves reduced to becoming just like the common man that they stole from in the first place.

http://dawn.com/news/1041423/past-pr...y-of-the-kings

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha

True or False?

Mubarak Ali

The distortion or politicisation of history may constitute the denial of historical crimes. It is also sometimes called negationism. We need to understand why historians distort history? Is it because of their ideological affiliation or because they are assigned the task of history-writing by political or religious authorities to promote their ideals?

In ancient and medieval times, historians were employed by the rulers to write the history of their dynasties. They were given certain guidelines to follow according to which they would omit events and situations which could reflect badly on the ruler and his policies.

In ancient Egypt, history writing was controlled by the rulers. Historians could not write about the defeat of Egyptian armies. This is why Pharaohs like Thutmose III and Rameses II were always portrayed victorious in the battlefield by historians of that time.

Following the same pattern of editing, there is also no information available about the Jews in Egypt and their exodus. Predecessors’ names would be obliterated by successors who did not like them. Likewise, Akhenaton, the heretic Pharaoh also fell victim to this policy. Their names were not only deleted from history books but also obliterated from their tombs and temples that they built.

Historical facts also become altered when historians narrate speeches made by historical people. The Greek historian Thucydides includes long speeches in his historical narratives and according to some modern historians, these speeches are his own creation.

The Greek historian, Herodotus provided graphic and heartrending details of the battle of Thermopolis. One wonders how he captured such minute details. It seemed as though he was there in person. Modern critics of Herodotus argue that the whole description is a creation of his vivid imagination as neither he was there, nor was any Greek who survived to tell him the story of the battlefield.

The practice of distortion continues from the ancient to modern times. In the present day and age, historians who believe in a certain ideology may twist historical facts on the pretext of national interest.

During Stalin’s reign, the names of all those individuals who he did not like were excluded from history books, which were strictly censored by the state. Stalin ordered the writing of a new book called A Short History of the USSR which had to be used in schools. The way subjects were taught was laid down by the government — especially where Stalin’s part in the 1917 Revolution, and his own image was glorified while his relationship with Lenin was overplayed.

‘Heretic’ philosophers, thinkers, and writers met the same kind of fate in most ancient societies. For instance, in India, the Charvak philosophers were rejected by their contemporaries for the element of skepticism in their philosophy. Their writings disappeared and what we know about their philosophy is from the critical views of their opponents who quoted passages from their writing in order to reject them. Modern researchers are making efforts to reconstruct their philosophy based on this material.

The narration of history of the subcontinent is inclined towards the Congress and the Muslim League — the two parties which are credited most for their monumental role in fighting for freedom from the colonial powers.

Other political groups like the Ghadr party, an organisation founded by Punjabi Indians, in the United States and Canada with the aim to liberate the subcontinent from the British rule have been ignored.

In writing the historical accounts of the Sultanate period, Ziauddin Barani projected and legitimised his own ideas through speeches made by credible and reliable historical figures.

Another method of distortion is the misinterpretation of events. For example, some historians eulogise Mahmud of Ghazni as a holy warrior when in fact, like most conquerors, he was an invader whose interest was to plunder the vanquished.

In writing alternate history or revision of history, an attempt is made to try and retrieve lost information in order to restore a dignified place to those who have been ignored by state historians.

Sometimes it becomes difficult for historians to separate history from faith and hence it loses its validity and facts disappear, while history constructed by the believers becomes legitimate. Historians may use concise language to describe an event whereby it loses its meaning and is reduced to just a piece of information. Distorted history creates false consciousness and fails to teach any lessons. Even worse, it may well teach the wrong ones.

http://dawn.com/news/1044593/past-present-true-or-false

__________________
Hasti-e-Haq k ma'eni jo mera dil samjha
Apni hasti ko ek andaisha-e-batil samjha