In recent years, growing space has been given in publications in India and the Indian diaspora to what is sometimes called the “Holocaust” directed against Hindus by Muslims during and following the conquest of large parts of India.
What can be said with certainty is that a vast number of Hindus, a figure of at least a few million, were murdered by Muslims when they invaded the Indian sub-continent, colonised vast swathes of the fragmented region, sought to impose their will on the conquered people, and tyrannised non-Muslims into converting to Islam, especially if they were not “people of the book” such as Jews or Christians. Beside the millions of Hindus who were murdered, sometimes in horrifically imaginative ways, Hindu houses of worship were destroyed, thousands of Hindu women and children were raped, and thousands of Hindu women and children were kidnapped. Kidnapped Hindu women were forcibly married to Muslims or exploited as sex slaves, and kidnapped Hindu children were raised as Muslims. Contemporary or near-contemporary accounts tell of whole towns and cities where their inhabitants were slaughtered and of thousands of prisoners of war put to the sword, and Muslims boasted in writing of times when the blood of “infidels” flowed so freely that rivers and streams turned red. There is no escaping the fact that Hindu suffering under Muslim rule was often of the most bestial kind imaginable, so much so that Muslim rule amounted to one long crime against humanity for most of the time Muslims dominated large parts of the Indian sub-continent.
But it was not only Hindus who suffered when Muslim rule extended over large parts of modern-day India; Sikhs suffered regular persecution and massacre at the hands of Muslims, so much so that it became necessary for Guru Gobind Singh to encourage Sikhs to develop their martial skills to a very high level, skills they refined to such a degree that they soon became known as warrior-saints.
The Sikhs speak of two ghallughara in particular, the Lesser Ghallughara of 1746 and the Greater Ghallughara of 1762. The term “ghallughara” is usually translated to mean “massacre or holocaust”. The 1746 events appear to have led to the death of a few thousand Sikhs, but the 1762 events led to the murder of about 30,000 men, women and children. These figures seem quite small when set against the murder of Hindus over a much greater length of time, but it is estimated that, in the 1750s, there were only about 100,000 Sikhs altogether, so almost a third of all Sikhs may have lost their lives in 1762.
It would be fair to say that, long after the events described above, Hindus and Sikhs co-opted the Greek word “holocaust” to describe the dreadful crimes against humanity that their forebears suffered. They probably co-opted the word to ensure that people in the West understood that they suffered mass murders in the past not dissimilar to that suffered by the Jewish people during world war two. However, the term “holocaust” has, for perfectly understandable reasons, become inextricably linked with the attempted destruction of the Jewish people during world war two and it is therefore correct to look for an alternative term to describe what happened to the Hindus and Sikhs under Muslim rule. Myself, I would incline toward the term “genocide” even though the term was not applied to the mass murder of people for ethnic or religious reasons until Raphael Lemkin first used it in 1944 in a book that helped to shape the content of the Genocide Convention of 1948. Genocide has a very precise meaning in international law and, based on its meaning, an excellent case can be made that Muslim persecution of Hindus and Sikhs in India amounted to the attempted destruction of the whole or part of a people, this being an essential “component” of genocide.
I am aware that there are some Hindu and Sikh writers who, like me, are reluctant to use the term “holocaust” to describe these terrible events, even though they, like me, realise that a vast number of people were murdered, in the case of the Hindus, over a very long period of time. Some of their reluctance derives from the fact that among the people most enthusiastic about publicising the so-called “Hindu Holocaust” are Hindu nationalists. Many Hindu nationalists are keen to foster hostility between Hindus and Muslims. They are also convinced that non-Indian/non-Hindu influences on the sub-continent are detrimental to the well-being of the Hindu masses. With the BJP now in power in Delhi, the Hindu nationalists feel that their time has come. Some Hindu nationalists have already directed their hatred of non-Indian/non-Hindu influences against India’s very peaceful Christian minority.
This is how I signed off a long exchange of emails with two Sikhs about the matters above:
Very wise words, Nirmal. As you know, I share your concern when the term “holocaust” is applied to the persecution and massacre of Hindus by Muslims in the past, although there can be little doubt that, over a very long period of time, millions died. A focus on the “Hindu Holocaust” can easily be exploited to fuel Hindu nationalism, which has already shown itself to be worryingly intolerant of non-Hindus of many persuasions. Research about mass murders in the past is important and necessary (and mass murders perpetrated by Muslims in the past probably reinforce the notion that there has always been something deeply troubling about mainstream Islam, especially mainstream Sunni Islam, since it burst out of Arabia in the 7th century CE. Note, for example, how quickly Christian communities in North Africa fell into decline and then, with the exception of the Copts in Egypt, disappeared altogether, and how the same rapid “disappearance” afflicted Christian communities in vast swathes of central Asia), but such knowledge and understanding can be used by those who have bad intentions to persecute people today, even though people today have nothing to do with the crimes of the past.
However, what you say confirms in my mind that, until we address the crimes of the past, we cannot hope to avoid similar crimes in the present or future. This is more than merely remembering the crimes of the past; this is facing history and ourselves and admitting that our forebears often committed shameful crimes against humanity. Stalemates and mutual incomprehension prevail when we bury our heads in the sand, and, by failing to face history and ourselves, we risk re-enacting the mistakes of the past. Witness, for example, the endless cycle of tragic but futile violence in the Middle East, violence that has effectively destroyed for at least a generation one of the region’s most interesting and beautiful nation states, Syria, and the tragic but futile violence that makes it increasingly difficult for the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to an agreement acceptable to everyone concerned. For Palestinians, the situation in 2015 is, if anything, worse than it was when their problems began big-time with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. But everyone associated with the conflict has lost sight of the problems that existed in 1948, problems that have led to 67 years of regional instability, conflict and needless suffering.
God/the Divine/the Supreme Being is great? Not so, otherwise He/She/It would have brought people to their senses many years ago. Correction. He/she/it would have brought people to their senses many millennia ago.