One of the paradoxes while many readers of history may have noticed is the subliminal belief among most Indians that the Ghaznavis, Ghurids and the Mughals were foreigners even though they belonged to areas corresponding to the northern ranges, which mythologically and historically had formed a part of the Indian civilization and which supposedly, still figures in the Undivided India dream of the Hindu Nationalists. If the Hindu Nationalists so strongly believe that the land in between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and the Indus was very much India, how could people belonging to those regions and a little beyond be foreigners, that too, in perpetuity? This particularly when we don’t necessarily see Kushanas, the Sakas and the Hunas as foreign invaders once they established their rule in the country?
Probably, this is the reason, why most ‘eminent’ historians of the pink variety took it upon themselves to declare in sanctimonious tones that while the British were certainly foreigners, the Muslim Invaders, weren’t.
The reality certainly lies somewhere in between! The concepts of ‘Us’ and ‘Others’ are not static but evolve with time. When population expands, we may not know or be personally related to all who stay with us. We take recourse to external symbols and practices to identify those who are like us. And these symbols could be clothes, (fabric, color and style), ornaments, food habits, language and religious rituals
The traits of Territorialism and clannishness are present in most mammalian creatures, humans being no exception. Hence, it is of little wonder that since the dawn of civilization, tribes have identified the human race as comprising of two groups, ‘Us’ and ‘Others’. Defining ‘Us’ was relatively easy to begin with – people associated with familial links formed the initial ‘Us’ and with growth of population, expanded to include those sharing similar food habits, language, religion and culture. Defining ‘Others’ was as simple – anyone not falling within the category of ‘Us’ belonged to ‘Others’ – treated with suspicion and quite often, hostility. Probably, it was a primal fear, of being overwhelmed by the ‘Other’ and losing access to one’s resources or a simpler fear of loss of limb or life or a more sophisticated dislike of cultural poverty of the outsider – almost all civilizations had had very clearly defined groups of people who were not ‘Us’. For the Chinese, all races beyond the middle kingdom (which had to expand continuously to include the frontier people), were the barbarians, while for the Ancient Indians, people inhabiting lands beyond the Northern ranges were ‘impure’. Even within, those who did not fall under the pale of the much maligned Varnashram Dharma, became the dasas, mostly living beyond the pale of regular Vedic and post Vedic civilization. In ancient Greece, slaves were clearly demarcated from the citizens and stayed in separate quarters while in Islamic societies, a better solution existed, force the vanquished to embrace Islam so that the question of the ‘Others’ is taken care of in toto! On a more serious note, it will be rare to come across any such instance of history where the victor race, particularly when not sharing a common cultural heritage with the vanquished, has treated the vanquished as ‘We’. So, while today, we may see Iran as a belligerent Islamic Nation, we cannot lose sight of the fact the Islam of Iran is Persian and not Arabic and that this ancient civilization became important only when the Persians overthrew the Arabs to establish Persian rule, though Islamic in nature.
Looking at India, we have a strange situation where very clearly, the ‘Uttarpath’ land neighbourly to ancient seat of Vedic civilization in Punjab became forbidden territory by the later Vedic Period. Likewise, its people, in spite of the others’ acceptance of their beauty, wealth and perfectness of Sanskrit, spoken by them, had begun getting seen as the fallen Aryas, a land where Varnashram Dharma was no longer followed. Things changed with advent of the Mauryas and close association with the Gangetic civilizations ensured that the land and the people were seen as Bharatiya. But even here, the people of northern ranges were seen as being different to other Indians, like today we see a Tamilian as seen as being different to a Kashmiri.
Whatever difference there was, got accentuated with the advent of Islam in those regions. The first important central Asian, who invaded these parts of India, was Subuktgin, belonging to the lands around Samarkand, not really an extension of Asian India. He established his reign in Ghazni and his notorious / illustrious son Mahmud, the iconoclast plunderer, raided deep into the Indian mainland. Since Mahmud and the later invader, Ghori were based out of Afghanistan, can it be said that at least Ghori, since he was partially of the Afghan stock, was an Indian and that his invasion was not a foreign invasion?
The tricky question of ‘Us’ versus ‘Others’ begs answering here. For the animal world, identifying the ‘Other’ is easy, for the human beings, this is where we begin to acknowledge that culture at times, becomes more critical than birth in identifying the ‘Others’
The ancient invaders, Kushanas, Sakyas and the Hunas certainly did not belong to those lands which formed a part of ancient India. However, very soon they adopted the culture of the country which they had invaded and became assimilated among ‘Us’. On the other hand, people inhabiting the Northern ranges moved furthest away from the Hindu culture with Adoption of Islam and more importantly, looking westwards (Persia and Arabia) and Northwards (Central Asia) rather than to the East for spiritual and cultural inspiration.
Interestingly, while the Ghurids were seen as despicable mlecchas, the Islamic rule in India for over 3 centuries resulted in a scenario where the Suris were not seen as outsiders and in fact the battles against Babur in which the Afghans fought hand-in-hand with the Rajputs were seen as struggles against a foreign invader, a usurper who had conquered Kabul but did not belong to the historical Indian lands. Why was that? Is it because the Afghans had made peace with the Hindus, because Kabul and Zabul still had some Hindu influence or more importantly, the prospect of a ruler from Central Asia, related to the Mongols and the Turks made the Hindus feel that the Afghans were at least ethnic cousins? Or was it simply because 3 centuries of Turko Afghan rule had made Hindus indifferent to their distinct practices.
That begs another question. If three centuries of Islamic rule in the early millennium had sort of assimilated Afghani Muslims, why was the Mughal rule seen as foreign till the nether years of that empire? After all, the Mughal ruled only those areas which were historically Indian and in spite of all of Babur’s lamentations and pining for the cold lands, delicious fruits, beautiful gardens and luscious men, Babur died in the country he so hated and none of the later Mughals too succeeded in transcending the Indian boundaries. Probably the rule was foreign till the very last as the Mughals looked to Persia for inspiration and ruled as rulers over the ruled race. The court language, the administration system, the festivals, the jurisprudence, all were lifted from Persia and the Mughal emperors styled them after their Persian counterparts. Seems familiar with the British rule, doesn’t it?
In our effort to be politically correct, we miss out that the concept of ‘Us’ vs ‘Others’ is relative and the key to this segregation is the strongest identity the people have. We do not miss out on saying that all humans are not alike but at the same time fail to appreciate that when ranged against other families of the same tribe / clan, a family assumes a uniform identity different from the rest of its ilk. Likewise, a state may have different regions, a language different dialects, but in a Nation, a state has a singular identify, against other languages, all dialects merge their identity with the mother language. Likewise, people may cry themselves hoarse claiming that Muslims are not a monolith and that they have numerous castes and sub-castes, but so what? For Muslims belonging to the ummah, their identify subsumes all other identities. Some erroneously claim that Bangladesh was a negation of the concept of a Muslim identity? How is that so? Bangladesh remained Islamic and never expressed a desire to merge with India. There are 49 Muslim countries in the world today and a Shia Iran hates what the Wahabbi Arabia stands for. That does not mean that these nations do not share a singular Islamic identity. Their scriptures have made them see as one people, irrespective of their race and Nationality. The Han Chinese see themselves as one people and so even Taiwan does not have a world view which is different from that of mainland China
For the Hindus, fortunately or unfortunately, their identity as religionists have been subordinate to their identity as a caste, the feeling. Very clearly, how we see ourselves and others is a result of both our primal instincts and conditioning. In a larger group, we search for similarities to perceive ourselves as more powerful against the others and in smaller groups, stress on differences to place ourselves apart from the others.
