Thread by @AudreyTruschke

The below tweet is steaming pile of Hindutva nonsense. I haven't done this in a while, but let's unpack, shall we?

#history #India #SouthAsia #Hindutva #propaganda

First of all sources -- Those making this ahistorical statement are not historians. Both men are Hindu Right ideologues, and the individual to whom the statement is attributed is a plagiarist and Savarkar sycophant.

What are they claiming and how does it hold up to scrutiny?

There seems to be a claim of a single Islamic conquest of India. That's wrong.

Real story -- There were many Indo-Muslim dynasties who ruled parts of South Asia over the centuries. Some came from outside the subcontinent, and others did not. Nobody ever conquered all of India.

I think we're talking here about early political conquests, because of the mention of Nalanda.

Here "Khalji" is said to have sacked Nalanda. Khalji is a dynastic name, so this would be a bit like saying "Tudor" or "Mughal" did something. Which Tudor? Which Mughal?

I'm guessing (because some of us know both real South Asian history and Hindutva mythology pretty darn well) that he means Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, a general who conducted raids and other military activities in Bihar in the late 12th–early 13th centuries.

Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar hit various Buddhists sites, although there isn't especially strong or clear evidence that he sacked Nalanda specifically (a Buddhist monastery and site of elite learning).

I go into the evidence on this point here: static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd8d19…

In any case, if Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar did hit Nalanda, it recovered.

Nalanda operated as a monastery and place of learning for decades afterwards, even attracting visitors from Tibet in the 1230s (one visiting monk wrote about it).

So much for a decimation narrative.

Now, we have some numbers -- 80 million killed. That's ahistorical on several grounds.

We don't have population numbers for premodernity.

Reasonable estimates probably wouldn't even put that many people on the subcontinent c. 1200 CE.

A few things to say about such a number...

First of all, it is designed to shock modern people.

Consider that estimates for the death toll of WW2, the bloodiest war in human history, are usually 50–60 million. So, this is 20+ million more.

It is a number legible as outrageous to us today, without a historical basis.

Consider also the allegation that Muslim kings were somehow unusually violent in premodern India. That's incorrect.

Violence was a recurrent, regular feature of premodern Indian kingship. No religious division here. "Hindu", "Muslim," etc. kings were all violent.

Also, the religious divisions make little sense, for many reasons. I'll give one here.

Hindus often fought for Muslim kings (and vice-versa). So many Mughal battles, for example, were waged by Rajputs. Is it still "Islamic" conquest if a Hindu holds the sword? It's poor framing.

What about slavery?

I don't know where 2.5 million comes from as a number. But I am clear on this -- Indian slavery far predates the advent of Indian Islam. We have clear mentions of human slavery in India going back 2,000 years...

Slavery was not specific to any one religious group in premodern India (although there was human bondage in some religious contexts... that's a story for another time).

Let's end here on the modern political reasons why Hindutva ideologues tell myths that demonize Muslims.

The purchase of Hindutva mythologies that rewrite the past is fueling their modern-day bigotry.

You need to hate people to bulldoze their homes, to strip away their citizenship, to imprison students and community leaders, to kill folks over what they eat.

Hindu nationalists enact that sort of violence every day against Indian Muslims, generally with impunity.

Even in America, we are subjected to bulldozers on the streets of New Jersey and Hindu nationalists threatening violence.

Even Hindu nationalists who are not personally violent have to live, somehow, with the knowledge of what others do in their ideology's name. They have to live with the violence embedded in Hindutva.

Projecting hate into the past--no matter how ahistorical--makes it easier.

Thanks for sticking with me folks. A short addendum --

This thread is about Hindu nationalists, not for them. I do not engage with the far right; I analyze them for others who are interested.

#Hindutva negatively impacts many around the globe. Stay safe and educate yourself.