By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof
In the contemporary global discourse, Islamophobia is often operationalised through the manipulation of history. By framing the Islamic presence in various regions—particularly South Asia—as a period of perpetual conflict and “alien” imposition, communalist actors seek to delegitimise the Muslim identity. However, academic research reveals that the “communal character” of politics is a modern construct, largely manufactured during the colonial era to serve the interests of the British Raj. It is essential to distinguish between religious identity, which has existed for centuries, and communalism, which is the modern political use of that identity for sectarian mobilization. Pre-colonial conflicts, such as those between the Mughals and Marathas, were fundamentally political and dynastic rather than communal, dictated by the exigencies of empire-building rather than theology.
The First War of Independence in 1857: A Case Study in Unity
The First War of Independence in 1857 serves as the primary empirical evidence against the narrative of inherent religious antagonism. Bipan Chandra and his colleagues, in the authoritative text Freedom Struggle, document the profound unity of the period:
A pivotal factor that lent strength to the Revolt of 1857 was Hindu-Muslim unity. Complete cooperation existed between the soldiers, the people, and the leaders, just as it did between Hindus and Muslims. Bahadur Shah, a Muslim, was accepted as the Emperor by everyone who participated in the revolt. Both the Hindu and Muslim insurgents and sepoys were careful not to wound the religious sentiments of the other side. For instance, in all places where the rebellion succeeded, orders were issued banning cow slaughter in order to respect the religious sentiments of Hindus. Furthermore, there was equal representation for Hindus and Muslims at all levels of leadership. A high-ranking British official later complained: ‘This time we were unable to incite the Muhammadans against the Hindus.’ The events of 1857 clearly prove that during the medieval period and prior to 1858, the Indian people and Indian politics did not possess a fundamentally communal character (Chandra et al., p.50).
This documentation is vital for researchers because it highlights that the political legitimacy of the Mughal Emperor was not contingent upon his religion, but upon his status as a symbol of Indian sovereignty. This unity was formalised in documents like the Azamgarh Proclamation of 1857, which explicitly called for Hindus and Muslims to unite to protect their “Dharma” and “Deen” against a common colonial oppressor. The mutual respect for religious sentiments—institutionalised through the ban on cow slaughter—demonstrates a sophisticated pluralism that predates Western secular models.
The Colonial Gaze and the Victimisation of Muslims
The British response to this unity was the systematic targeting of the Muslim community, identifying them as the “primary instigators.” This period marked the beginning of state-sponsored Islamophobia in the subcontinent. Chandra notes:
“Having reached the conclusion that Muslims led the revolt and were fundamentally responsible for it, the British, after suppressing the rebellion, took revenge primarily against the Muslims. Records show that in Delhi alone, during the revolt and in the brief period immediately following it, 27,000 Muslims were sentenced to death. For years, the British viewed Muslims with a gaze of suspicion” (Chandra et al., p.112).
The execution of 27,000 Muslims in Delhi—a demographic purge documented by nationalist historians—underscores the roots of the “suspicious gaze” that persists in modern securitisation narratives. By decimating the Muslim urban elite and peasantry alike, the British ensured a socio-economic setback that would later be used to fuel communal insecurities.
Historiographical Distortions: The “Muslim Period” Myth
The intellectual infrastructure of Islamophobia was built by British historians who introduced a sectarian periodisation of Indian history. This framework was unfortunately adopted by later Indian historians, leading to the dissemination of “historical knowledge in a manner that stirred and provoked communal passions.” Chandra provides a scathing critique of this methodology:
“British historians were the first to write Indian history… Naming the ancient period as the ‘Hindu Period’ is an example of this. In the medieval period, Turk, Afghan, and Mughal dynasties ruled the country. Instead of explaining their administrative systems and merits, they were all lumped together in a single word as ‘Muslim rule,’ and that period itself was characterised as the ‘Muslim Period.’ When one hears the term ‘Muslim rule,’ doesn’t it imply that all the rulers were Muslims and all the subjects were Hindus? But the truth is that—whether they were Hindus or Muslims—the feudal lords, nobles, chieftains, and zamindars behaved toward the common people (both Hindu and Muslim) in the same manner—that is, with the same contempt and negligence…” (Chandra et al. p.117-18).
The “Muslim rule” did not mean a rule for Muslims. The Muslim masses suffered equally under feudalism. Furthermore, the myth that Islam was spread primarily by the sword is debunked by historical demographics: the heartlands of Muslim imperial power (Delhi, Agra, Lucknow) remained Hindu-majority for centuries, while the regions where Islam became the majority (East Bengal, West Punjab) were on the peripheries, where the faith was spread through Sufi syncretism and the promise of social liberation from the caste hierarchy.
The Rise of Militant Nationalism and the “Hindu Facade”
The later stages of the independence movement saw a departure from secular principles, as some leaders utilised religious symbols to mobilise the masses, inadvertently providing a “Hindu facade” to the national movement. While the primary goal of these leaders was anti-colonial resistance and not anti-Muslim sentiment, the unintended consequence was the alienation of the Muslim minority:
“Militant nationalists infused the national movement with a new vitality… However, some of their actions not only allowed communalism to rear its head again but also led to a step backward in the growth of national unity… For example, the Shivaji festivals and Ganapati festivals organized by Tilak; the approach of Aurobindo—which was tinged with mysticism and spirituality—considering India as the Mother and nationalism as religion… might not have pleased all Indians everywhere. They possessed a dominant religious colouring, and that too, a bias based on the Hindu upper-caste” (Chandra et al. p.120).
Bertrand Russell: Debunking the Myth of Intolerance
The myth of inherent Islamic intolerance is not merely a regional distortion of Indian history, but a global one, often debunked by the most rigorous of Western thinkers. The philosopher Bertrand Russell provides a rigorous academic rebuttal to these claims. In Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954), Russell addresses the “false stories” of history:
“Christian propaganda has invented stories of Mohammedan intolerance, but these are wholly false as applied to the early centuries of Islam. Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library of Alexandria… As a matter of fact, this Library was frequently destroyed and frequently re-created. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar… The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called ‘people of the Book’, provided they paid tribute. In contrast to the Christians, who persecuted not only pagans but each other, the Mohammedans were welcomed for their broadmindedness… Proficiency in science is very difficult to combine with fanaticism” (Russell, Human Society, p.217-18).
Russell’s observation provides a philosophical framework for understanding the Islamic Golden Age. It suggests that the scientific advancements of the era were not despite the faith, but a product of its then-inherent intellectual pluralism. In A History of Western Philosophy (1945), he adds:
“Christian heretics in the early days of Islam were much more kindly treated by the Mohammedans than by the orthodox Byzantine Emperors… It is not what it has become common to call ‘Western values’ that the East regards as typical of the West, for in such matters the record of the East is, if anything, better than that of the West” (Russell, History, p.347).
Swami Vivekananda: Islam as a Social Necessity
The modernization of Hinduism through figures like Swami Vivekananda provides another layer of documentation against Islamophobia. Vivekananda’s appraisal of Islam was remarkably positive. Radice documents:
“He admired Rammohan Ray’s foresight… Vivekananda’s quest was for the underlying unity of all the diversities… To him the Muslims were a race as generous and human, and at heart as Indian, as the Hindus… The distinction between them by reason of their different beliefs was subordinate to their identity as fellow countrymen” (Radice, p.289).
Vivekananda famously advocated for a “junction” of the two faiths: “For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam—Vedanta brain and Islam body—is the only hope” (Radice, p.290). Most crucially, he recognized the emancipatory power of Islam for the lower castes of India: “The Muhammadan conquest of India came as a salvation to the downtrodden, to the poor. That is why one-fifth of our people have become Muhammadans” (Radice, p.294).
Rajmohan Gandhi: The Non-Theocratic Nature of Muslim Rule
Rajmohan Gandhi argues that the Mughal state was not a theocracy, evidenced by the fact that even its opponents understood the universal nature of the ruler’s faith:
“Because it was not [a theocracy], Shivaji could, in that letter to Aurangzeb in which he defied the Emperor, speak warmly of Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjehan, and add: Well, your majesty! If you believe in the true Heavenly Book and word of God (i.e., the Quran), you will find there Rabb-ul-alamin (God of all men) and not Rabb-ul-Musalmin (God of Muslims)” (R. Gandhi, p.12).
The Intellectual Legacies of Sir Sayyid, Iqbal, and Azad:
The intellectual response of Muslims to colonial rule was marked by reform and the theology of unity. Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan famously stated: “I have frequently said that India is a beautiful bride and Hindus and Muslims are her two eyes; If one of them is lost, this beautiful bride will become ugly” (R. Gandhi, p.45).
Maulana Azad provided the definitive nationalist theology, stating that when the Prophet migrated to Medina, he prepared a covenant (the Covenant of Medina) stating that Muslims and non-Muslims would become one nation (ummah vahidah). Azad’s devotion was absolute: “No my friend, I shall give up Swaraj, but not Hindu-Muslim unity… for if Hindu-Muslim unity is lost, it will be a loss for the whole of mankind” (R. Gandhi, p.230).
Global Tributes to the Prophet Muhammad
To counter the “impure” caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad used in hate campaigns, this paper presents the scholarly appraisals of world leaders and historians:
Mahatma Gandhi: “I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days, in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle” (Young India, 1924; CWMG Vol. 25, p.127).
Jawaharlal Nehru: “They must have derived their vast energy from the dynamic and revolutionary character of their Prophet and his message of human brotherhood” (The Discovery of India, p.243).
Washington Irving: “In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity” (The Life of Mahomet, p.193).
William Montgomery Watt: “It is my hope that this study of his life may contribute to a fresh appraisal and appreciation of one of the greatest of the sons of Adam” (Muhammad at Medina, p.335).
John William Draper: “He preached a monotheism which quickly scattered to the winds the empty disputes of the Arians and Catholics… Mohammed possessed that combination of qualities which more than once has decided the fate of empires” (History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, p.244).
Hendrik van Loon: “The creed which Mohammed taught to his followers was very simple… The average Mohammedan carried his religion with him and never felt himself hemmed in by the restrictions and regulations of an established church” (The Story of Mankind, p.141).
This paper, by adhering to the rigorous documentation of Bipan Chandra, Bertrand Russell, and Rajmohan Gandhi and other luminaries, provides an unassailable archive for dispelling Islamophobia. It proves that the history of Islam is a history of social equality, scientific progress, and political synthesis. As Maulana Azad stated, the unity of Hindus and Muslims is a “noble edifice” without which the structure of India is incomplete.
Bibliography
Chandra, Bipan, et al. Svatantryasamaram [Freedom Struggle]. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1996.
Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals. New Delhi: Har-Anand, 2007.
Draper, John William. A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. London: Bell and Daldy, 1863.
Gandhi, Mahatma. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol. 25. Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1924.
Gandhi, Rajmohan. Understanding Muslim Mind. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2000.
Irving, Washington. The Life of Mahomet. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2012.
Radice, William, ed. Swami Vivekananda and the modernisation of Hinduism. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945.
Russell, Bertrand. Human Society in Ethics and Politics. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954.
Van Loon, Hendrik. The Story of Mankind. New York: Boni & Liveright, 1926.
Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 4. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2016.
Watt, William Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence.
15 Jun 2026
Source: countercurrents.org
