Harbans Mukhia’s Khilji & the Image of Muslims in Indian

History
thequint.com/voices/blogs/harbans-mukhias-alauddin-khilji-padmaavat-muslims-in-history

February 3, 2018

Every time a Muslim political figure from subcontinental history is brought into the spotlight
by academia or Bollywood, the debate on the character of the Muslim ruler gets new life in
Indian society.

The right wing starts its venomous propaganda about the ‘barbaric’ nature of Muslim rulers
based on myths and legends. Then they are often followed by the liberals who want to
portray Muslim rulers either as un-Islamic and civilised or Islamic and regressive.

The less ‘Islamic’ a ruler is, the more he can be celebrated by the liberals. Currently,
Alauddin Khilji, one of the most successful commanders in subcontinental history, is under
the spotlight because of ‘Padmaavat’, a movie based on a later legend.

1/7
Khilji’s depiction in this movie conforms to the Hindu right-wing model of a barbaric Muslim
monarch, despite the fact that it has ostensibly hurt Hindu sentiments on other fronts,
besides offending feminists as well.

Also Read

Muslims in the Movies: The Good, the Bad, and the Khilji

This right-wing assault has mobilised historians to once again write on Muslim monarchs,
and refute the popular narratives against them. Harbans Mukhia, in an article titled ‘Alauddin
Khalji, a Sultan Who Did Not Care About Prophet Muhammad and Shariat’, discusses Khilji’s
attitude towards Islam.

Refuting the ‘Padmavati’ thesis, Mukhia says: “While we know a great deal of
Alauddin’s personality and life, chasing women was not one of his passions”.

He presents Khilji as a ‘civilised/non-religious’ man rather than Bhansali’s ‘Muslim/barbarian’.

However, in his enthusiasm to portray Khilji as a ‘secular’ leader, Mukhia has done precisely
what Bhansali is doing: Reducing the man to a caricature, and reducing his understanding of
Islam to one unsubstantiated legend.

Normally, such an article should not bother a student of history. There are many publications
writing fantastic theories about Muslims, and it is beyond our capacity to counter every such
piece. However, Mukhia is a respected historian, hence the ‘good’ Muslim narrative from his
side is sophisticated and requires critical reading.

2/7
Also Read

Good Rajputs, Evil Khilji: Sorry Bhansali, ‘Padmaavat’ is Divisive

Why Mukhia Said What He Did

In this article, there are two evidences that are presented in reference to Khilji’s attitude
towards Islam. Firstly the issue of Shariat:

...once Alauddin called his theologian to his presence and told him what he had been
doing and each time asked him whether this was in accordance with the shariat and
each time, the brave Qazi said: “No Your Majesty, what you are doing is completely
violative of the shariat’s injunctions.” Irritated, the Sultan declared he did what he
thought was in the best interest of the state and was not bothered whether his acts
conformed to or defied the shariat.

The second is a legend in which Khilji asks the kotwal of Delhi:

...whether he could also found a new religion just like Muhammad had done; for, in his
view Muhammad had founded Islam with the help of his four trusted companions and
had become immortal in history; he too after having created a vast empire and with not
much left to do felt like launching a new religion, for he too was blessed with four very
trusted companions.

Also Read

3/7
‘Padmaavat’: Ranveer Singh’s Khilji vs. Om Puri’s Khilji

Not Enough Evidence

The evidence above fails to support Mukhia’s thesis.

Firstly, most Muslim monarchs have undermined the various codifications of Sharia, despite
opposition from clergy.
Jehangir is famous for being a heavy drunkard, for having imprisoned Sheikh Sihrindi who
called prostration in front of emperor un-Islamic, etc. Yet the heading ‘Jehangir did not care
about the Prophet’ is not appropriate for an article about Jehangir’s liberal understanding of
Islam.

For not only did he famously reinstate Islam as the state religion, his memoirs also refer
repeatedly to God’s support in his favour and his royal library gathered commentaries on the
Quran as well as biographies of the Prophet.

Hence, a title like Mukhia’s would reflect the ideological moorings of the writer rather than
any real understanding of the emperor’s mind. Besides, such narratives simplify the complex
nature of Islamic jurisprudence, and the competing theorisation of law which people
generalise in the name of Shariah.

Also Read

‘Padmaavat’, Alauddin Khilji and Tales of Savagery

4/7
Deconstructing the Second Evidence
The second evidence is also highly dubious. It is quoted from Ziauddin Barani’s account,
written almost half a century later, and has been repeated by many chroniclers.

Scholars have questioned its veracity, as Banarsi Prasad Saksena does in his essay on
Khilji. He terms it as a rumour, which was ‘carelessly copied from’ Barani by medieval and
modern historians. Saxena argues that Khilji intended to get rid of Zafar Khan, one of the
four friends mentioned in the legend, not found a new religion with his help.

He also argues that although Khilji did not frequent Friday congregations and took ‘no
interest in the ulama or their opponents’, he declared himself “a Muslim and a born Muslim”
and believed in the sanctity of his contemporary Nizamuddin Aulia. Saxena further reminds
us:

Barani is never tired of telling us, “Alauddin never associated with Muslim ulama, and
his faith in Islam was firm like the faith of the illiterate and the ignorant.” How could
such a man think of establishing a new creed?... Barani is our only authority for this
baseless gossip.

Hence, this legend attempts to represent Khilji as an ignorant individual who dares to reduce
the Prophet’s project to the mere existence of four companions.

This legend appears to be a propaganda piece against Khilji from the clerical side, who were
unhappy about his violations of Shariah. It intends to mock Khilji for his grandiose plans.

5/7
We can compare this to Jehangir’s case, as Sihrindi’s arrest is dramatised in legends and
much is made of his rejection and clever manoeuvres to avoid prostrating when brought in
front of Jehangir. As is clear from the nuanced narrative in Jehangir’s memoirs, taking these
legends literally or at face value is an ideological stand, and methodologically unsound.
There are contrasting narratives from Khilji’s time also – for instance, chronicler Wassaf
attributes many of Sultan’s campaigns to his ‘Islamic’ zeal. If we consider this to be an
exaggeration, there can be no basis to believe the other legend.

Khilji’s reign is 20 years long, and his attitude towards Islam has been reduced to one
legend by Mukhia. In addition, a provocative title has been added, that Khilji “did not
care about the Prophet”.

Such a charge would be difficult to maintain even against Akbar, who arguably started a new
religion. Akbar sought to understand the various faiths, and emulated Muhammad in Din i
Ilahi. It cannot be said that he “didn’t care about the Prophet”, unless one has solid evidence.
The reading of sources in the article does not hold up to critical scrutiny, and in addition, the
dubious reading doesn’t warrant the title by any stretch of the imagination.

Skewed Narratives and Misplaced Identities

But this narrative is not new – it has been the style of reading into Muslim history for some
time now. It was pioneered by nationalist historians of the Congress era, who have been
aided by many mainstream historians as well. Like the glorification of Akbar, individuals who
had apparently rejected Islam are presented as heroes in textbooks.

The clearer the rejection, the more progressive they are in the eyes of these historians.
Akbar is the primary example of this style, which has resulted in a skewed understanding of
Mughal history and the figure of a villainous Aurangzeb. This preference for an ideological
understanding of history has led many scholars to equate anti-religion as progressive, and
celebrate any hint of protest against ‘Islam’, ignoring the internal debates among those who
called themselves Muslims.

For all practical purposes, a Muslim is a believer as long as he or she identifies as one, and
there is no undisputable evidence that either Khilji or Akbar stopped identifying as Muslims.
The narrative of ‘progress’ against religion, and this superimposition of modern ‘secularism’
onto the pre-modern has been around for decades.

It is ubiquitous in mainstream leftist narratives, however it has taken more sinister shape in
the liberal and nationalist discourses. In the current context, it helps in denigrating religious
and political figures of the minority, and lauding those who rejected Islam in favour of
‘secularism’. Congress’ representation of itself and India as ‘secular’ is also reaffirmed by
such crooked readings.

6/7
(The author is a Computer Science graduate from IIT Bombay. He is currently pursuing PhD
at Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own.
The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our
journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)

Published: 03 Feb 2018, 9:11 AM IST

Stay Updated

Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.

Join over 120,000 subscribers!

7/7