Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
harmony
Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst
"The Partition Holocaust": the term is frequently used in Hindu
pamphlets concerning Islam and the birth of its modern political embodiment
in the Subcontinent, the state of Pakistan. Is such language warranted, or
is it a ridicule-inviting exaggeration?
To give an idea of the context of this question, we must note
that the term "genocide" is used very loosely these days. One of the charges
by a Spanish judge against Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet, so as to get him
extradited from Great Britain in autumn 1998, was "genocide". This was his
way of making Pinochet internationally accountable for having killed a few
Spanish citizens: alleging a crime serious enough to overrule normal
constraints based on diplomatic immunity and national sovereignty. Yet,
whatever Pinochet's crimes, it is simply ridiculous to charge that he ever
intended to exterminate the Spanish nation. In the current competition for
victim status, all kinds of interest groups are blatantly overbidding in
order to get their piece of the entitlement to attention and solidarity.
The Nazi Holocaust killed the majority of European Jewry (an
estimated 5.1 million according to Raul Hilberg, 5.27 million according to
the Munich-based Institut f?r Zeitgeschichte) and about 30% of the Jewish
people worldwide. How many victim groups can say as much? The Partition
pogroms killed hardly 0.3% of the Hindus, and though it annihilated the
Hindu presence in all the provinces of Pakistan except for parts of Sindh
and East Bengal, it did so mostly by putting the Hindus to flight (at least
seven million) rather than by killing them (probably half a million).
Likewise, the ethnic cleansing of a quarter million Hindus from Kashmir in
1990 followed the strategy of "killing one to expel a hundred", which is not
the same thing as killing them all; in practice, about 1,500 were killed.
Partition featured some local massacres of genocidal type, with the Sikhs as
the most wanted victims, but in relative as well as absolute figures, this
does not match the Holocaust.
Among genocides, the Holocaust was a very special case (e.g. the
attempt to carry it out in secrecy is unique), and it serves no good purpose
to blur that specificity by extending the term to all genocides in general.
The term "Holocaust", though first used in a genocidal sense to describe the
Armenian genocide of 1915, is now in effect synonymous with the specifically
Jewish experience at the hands of the Nazis in 1941-45. But does even the
more general term "genocide" apply to what Hinduism suffered at the hands of
Islam?
Complete genocide
"Genocide" means the intentional attempt to destroy an ethnic
community, or by extension any community constituted by bonds of kinship, of
common religion or ideology, of common socio-economic position, or of common
race. The pure form is the complete extermination of every man, woman and
child of the group. Examples include the complete extermination of the
native Tasmanians and many Amerindian nations from Patagonia to Canada by
European settlers in the 16th-19th century. The most notorious attempt was
the Nazi "final solution of the Jewish question" in 1941-45. In April-May
1994, Hutu militias in Rwanda went about slaughtering the Tutsi minority,
killing ca. 800,000, in anticipation of the conquest of their country by a
Uganda-based Tutsi army. Though improvised and executed with primitive
weapons, the Rwandan genocide made more victims per day than the Holocaust.
Hindus suffered such attempted extermination in East Bengal in
1971, when the Pakistani Army killed 1 to 3 million people, with Hindus as
their most wanted target. This fact is strictly ignored in most writing
about Hindu-Muslim relations, in spite (or rather because) of its serious
implication that even the lowest estimate of the Hindu death toll in 1971
makes Hindus by far the most numerous victims of Hindu-Muslim violence in
the post-colonial period. It is significant that no serious count or
religion-wise breakdown of the death toll has been attempted: the Indian,
Pakistani and Bangladeshi ruling classes all agree that this would feed
Hindu grievances against Muslims.
Nandan Vyas ("Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan", Young India,
January 1995) has argued convincingly that the number of Hindu victims in
the 1971 genocide was approximately 2.4 million, or about 80%. In comparing
the population figures for 1961 and 1971, and taking the observed natural
growth rhythm into account, Vyas finds that the Hindu population has
remained stable at 9.5 million when it should have increased to nearly 13
million (13.23 million if the same growth rhythm were assumed for Hindus as
for Muslims). Of the missing 3.5 million people (if not more), 1.1 million
can be explained: it is the number of Hindu refugees settled in India prior
to the genocide. The Hindu refugees at the time of the genocide, about 8
million, all went back after the ordeal, partly because the Indian
government forced them to it, partly because the new state of Bangladesh was
conceived as a secular state; the trickle of Hindu refugees into India only
resumed in 1974, when the first steps towards islamization of the polity
were taken. This leaves 2.4 million missing Hindus to be explained. Taking
into account a number of Hindu children born to refugees in India rather
than in Bangladesh, and a possible settlement of 1971 refugees in India, it
is fair to estimate the disappeared Hindus at about 2 million.
While India-watchers wax indignant about communal riots in India
killing up to 20,000 people since 1948, allegedly in a proportion of three
Muslims to one Hindu, the best-kept secret of the post-Independence
Hindu-Muslim conflict is that in the subcontinent as a whole, the
overwhelming majority of the victims have been Hindus. Even apart from the
1971 genocide, "ordinary" pogroms in East Pakistan in 1950 alone killed more
Hindus than the total number of riot victims in India since 1948.
Selective genocide
A second, less extreme type of genocide consists in killing a
sufficient number who form the backbone of the group's collective identity,
and assimilating the leaderless masses into the dominant community. This has
been the Chinese policy in Tibet, killing over a million Tibetans while
assimilating the survivors into Chinese culture by flooding their country
with Chinese settlers. It was also Stalin's policy in eastern Poland and the
Baltic states after they fell into his hands under the 1939 Hitler-Stalin
Pact, exemplified by the massacre of thousands of Polish army officers in
Katyn. Stalin's policies combining murder of the elites, deportation of
entire ethnic groups and ruthless oppression of the survivors was prefigured
in antiquity by the Assyrians, whose deportation of the ten northern (now
"lost") tribes of Israel is attested in the Bible.
During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy
to single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class had
been bled on the battlefield. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and Goa
followed this policy in the 16th century, as can be deduced from
Hindu-Portuguese treaty clauses prohibiting the Portuguese from killing
Brahmins.
In antiquity, such partial genocide typically targeted the men
for slaughter and the women and children for slavery or concubinage. Thus,
in 416 BCE, the Athenians were angered at the Melians' reluctance to join
the war against Sparta, and to set an example for other client states,
Athens had Melos repopulated with Athenian colonists after killing its men
and enslaving its women. Another example would be the slaughter of the Jews
of Medina by Mohammed in 626 CE: after expelling two Jewish tribes, the
third one, the Banu Quraiza, were exterminated: all the ca. 700 men were
beheaded, while the women and children were sold into slavery, with the
Prophet keeping the most beautiful woman as his concubine (she refused to
marry him).
Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic
conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in
712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, "six thousand warriors
were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as
slaves". This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their
honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g.
8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar's capture of Chittorgarh in
1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants).
During the Partition pogroms and the East Bengali genocide, mass rape of
Hindu women after the slaughter of their fathers and husbands was a frequent
event.
At this point, however, we should not overlook a puzzling
episode in Hindu legend which describes a similar behaviour by a Hindu
conqueror: Parashurama, deified as the 6th incarnation of Vishnu, killed all
the adult male Kshatriyas for several generations, until only women were
left, and then had Brahmins father a new generation upon them. Just a story,
or reference to a historic genocide?
Genocide in the Bible
For full-blooded genocide, however, the book to consult is the
Bible, which describes cases of both partial and complete genocide. The
first modest attempt was the killing by Jacob's sons of all the males in the
Canaanite tribe of Shekhem, the fianc? of their own sister Dina. The motive
was pride of pedigree: having immigrated from the civilizational centre of
Ur in Mesopotamia, Abraham's tribe refused all intermarriage with the native
people of Canaan (thus, Rebecca favoured Jacob over Esau because Jacob
married his nieces while Esau married local women).
Full-scale genocide was ordered by God, and executed by his
faithful, during the conquest of Canaan by Moses and Joshua. In the defeated
cities outside the Promised Land, they had to kill all the men but keep the
women as slaves or concubines. Inside the Promised Land, by contrast, the
conquerors were ordered to kill every single man, woman and child. All the
Canaanites and Amalekites were killed. Here, the stated reason was that God
wanted to prevent the coexistence of His people with Pagans, which would
result in religious syncretism and the restoration of polytheism.
As we only have a literary record of this genocide, liberal
theologians uncomfortable with a genocidal God have argued that this
Canaanite genocide was only fiction. To be sure, genocide fiction exists,
e.g. the Biblical story that the Egyptians had all newborn male Israelites
killed is inconsistent with all other data in the Biblical narrative itself
(as well as unattested in the numerous and detailed Egyptian inscriptions),
and apparently only served to underpin the story of Moses' arrival in the
Pharaoh's court in a basket on the river, a story modelled on the
then-popular life story of Sargon of Akkad. Yet, the narrative of the
conquest of Canaan is full of military detail uncommon in fiction; unlike
other parts of the Bible, it is almost without any miracles, factual through
and through.
And even if we suppose that the story is fictional, what would
it say about the editors that they attributed genocidal intentions and
injunctions to their God? If He was non-genocidal and good in reality, why
turn him into a genocidal and prima facie evil Being? On balance, it is
slightly more comforting to accept that the Bible editors described a
genocide because they wanted to be truthful and relate real events. After
all, the great and outstanding thing about the Bible narrative is its
realism, its refusal to idealize its heroes. We get to see Jacob deceiving
Isaac and Esau, then Laban deceiving Jacob; David's heroism and ingenuity in
battle, but also his treachery in making Bathseba his own, and later his
descent into senility; Salomon's palace intrigues in the war of succession
along with his pearls of wisdom. Against that background, it would be
inconsistent to censor the Canaanite genocide as merely a fictional
interpolation.
Indirect genocide
A third type of genocide consists in preventing procreation
among a targeted population. Till recently, it was US policy to promote
sterilization among Native American women, even applying it secretly during
postnatal care or other operations. The Tibetans too have been subjected to
this treatment. In the Muslim world, male slaves were often castrated, which
partly explains why Iraq has no Black population even though it once had
hundreds of thousands of Black slaves. The practice also existed in India on
a smaller scale, though the much-maligned Moghul emperor Aurangzeb tried to
put an end to it, mainly because eunuchs brought endless corruption in the
court. The hijra community is a left-over of this Islamic institution (in
ancient India, harems were tended by old men or naturally napunsak/impotent
men, tested by having to spend the night with a prostitute without showing
signs of virile excitement).
A fourth type of genocide is when mass killing takes place
unintentionally, as collateral damage of foolish policies, e.g. Chairman
Mao's Great Leap Forward inducing the greatest man-made mass starvation
killing 20 million or more, or the British war requisitions causing the
Bengal famine of 1943 killing some 3 million; or as collateral damage of
other forms of oppression. Unlike the deliberate genocide of Native
Americans in parts of the USA or Argentina, the death of millions of Natives
in Central America after the first Spanish conquests was at least partly the
unintended side-effect of the hardships of forced labour and the contact
with new diseases brought by the Europeans. In contrast with Nazi and Soviet
work camps, where forced labour had the dual purpose of economic profit and
a slow but sure death of the inmates, there is no evidence that the Spanish
wanted their Native labourers to die. After all, their replacement with
African slaves required a large extra investment.
The Atlantic slave trade itself caused mass death among the
transported slaves, just as in the already long-standing Arab slave trade,
but it is obvious that purely for the sake of profit, the slave-traders
preferred as many slaves as possible to arrive at the slave markets alive.
Likewise, the Christian c.q. Islamic contempt for Pagans made them rather
careless with the lives of Native Americans, Africans or Hindus, so that
millions of them were killed, and yet this was not deliberate genocide. Of
course they wanted to annihilate Pagan religions like Hinduism, but in
principle, the missionary religions wished to convert the unbelievers, and
preferred not to kill them unless this was necessary for establishing the
power of the True Faith.
That is why the mass killing of Hindus by Muslims rarely took
place in peacetime, but typically in the fervour immediately following
military victories, e.g. the fall of the metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565
was "celebrated" with a general massacre and arson. Once Muslim power was
established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than kill
the Hindus, and discourage rebellion by making some sort of compromise. Not
that peacetime was all that peaceful, for as Fernand Braudel wrote in A
History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in
India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims
could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the
norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive
tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion
there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was
instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was
laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."
Though all these small acts of terror added up to a death toll
of genocidal proportions, no organized genocide of the Holocaust type took
place. One constraint on Muslim zeal for Holy War was the endemic
inter-Muslim warfare and intrigue (no history of a royal house was bloodier
than that of the Delhi Sultanate 1206-1525), another the prevalence of the
Hanifite school of Islamic law in India. This is the only one among the four
law schools in Sunni Islam which allows Pagans to subsist as zimmis,
dis-empowered third-class citizens paying a special tax for the favour of
being tolerated; the other three schools of jurisprudence ruled that Pagans,
as opposed to Christians and Jews, had to be given a choice between Islam
and death.
Staggering numbers also died as collateral damage of the
deliberate impoverishment by Sultans like Alauddin Khilji and Jahangir. As
Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one
catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of
killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant
counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."
Genocide by any other name
In some cases, terminological purists object to mass murder
being described as "genocide", viz. when it targets groups defined by other
criteria than ethnicity. Stalin's "genocide" through organized famine in
Ukraine killed some 7 million people (lowest estimate is 4 million) in
1931-33, the largest-ever deliberate mass murder in peacetime, but its
victims were targeted because of their economic and political positions, not
because of their nationhood. Though it makes no difference to the victims,
this was not strictly genocide or "nation murder", but "class murder".
Likewise, the killing of perhaps two million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge
was not an attempt to destroy the Cambodian nation; it was rather an attempt
to "purify" the nation of its bourgeois class.
The killing of large groups of ideological dissenters is a
constant in the history of the monotheistic faiths, of which Marxism has
been termed a modern offshoot, starting with the killing of some
polytheistic priests by Pharaoh Akhenaton and, shortly after, the
treacherous killing of 3,000 worshippers of the Golden Calf by Moses (they
had been encouraged to come out in the open by Moses' brother Aaron, not
unlike Chairman Mao's "hundred flowers" campaign which encouraged dissenters
to speak freely, all the better to eliminate them later). Mass killing
accompanied the christianization of Saxony by Charlemagne (ca. 800 CE) and
of East Prussia by the Teutonic Knights (13th century). In 1209-29, French
Catholics massacred the heretical Cathars. Wars between Muslims and
Christians, and between Catholics and Protestants, killed millions both in
deliberate massacres and as collateral damage, e.g. seven million Germans in
1618-48. Though the Turkish government which ordered the killing of a
million Armenians in 1915 was motivated by a mixture of purely military,
secular-nationalistic and Islamic considerations, the fervour with which the
local Turks and Kurds participated in the slaughter was clearly due to their
Islamic conditioning of hatred against non-Muslims.
This ideological killing could be distinguished from genocide in
the strict sense, because ethnicity was not the reason for the slaughter.
While this caution may complicate matters for the Ukrainians or Cambodians,
it does not apply to the case of Hinduism: like the Jews, the Hindus have
historically been both a religion and a nation (or at least, casteists might
argue, a conglomerate of nations). Attempts to kill all Hindus of a given
region may legitimately be termed genocide.
For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with
its occasional (though not continuous) intention to exterminate entire Hindu
communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully
called off since the first naval invasion in 636 CE, can without
exaggeration be termed genocide. To quote Will Durant's famous line: "The
Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is
a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a
precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and
peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without
or multiplying within." (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental
Heritage, New York 1972, p.459)
Hinduism's losses
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus
at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim
chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the
Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6
million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani
sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which
they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus;
and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters
took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the
actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192
ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857),
even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison.
Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50
million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate;
research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start
in right earnest.
Note that attempts are made to deny this history. In Indian
schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the
pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the
testimony of the primary sources. Like Holocaust denial, this propaganda can
be called negationism. The really daring negationists don't just deny the
crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus
themselves. Thus, it is routinely alleged that Hindus persecuted and
destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities
flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by
Ghori and his lieutenants.
Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way
of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in
Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of
hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, "Indian mountain", was renamed
Hindu Kush, "Hindu-killer", when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk
(1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to
Central Asia. Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he
recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the
Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each".
Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained
their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a
cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were
partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.
Karma
The Hindu notion of Karma has come under fire from Christian and
secularist polemicists as part of the current backlash against New Age
thinking. Allegedly, the doctrine of Karma implies that the victims of the
Holocaust and other massacres had deserved their fate. A naive understanding
of Karma, divorced from its Hindu context, could indeed lead to such ideas.
Worse, it could be said that the Jews as a nation had incurred genocidal
karma by the genocide which their ancestors committed on the Canaanites.
Likewise, it could be argued that the Native Americans had it coming: recent
research (by Walter Neves from Brazil as well as by US scientists) has shown
that in ca. 8000 BC, the Mongoloid Native American populations replaced an
earlier American population closely resembling the Australian Aborigines --
the first American genocide?
More generally, if Karma explains suffering and "apparent"
injustice as a profound form of justice, a way of reaping the karmic rewards
of one's own actions, are we not perversely justifying every injustice?
These questions should not be taken lightly. However, the Hindu
understanding of reincarnation militates against the doctrine of genocidal
"group karma" outlined above. An individual can incarnate in any community,
even in other species, and need not be reborn among his own progeny. If
Canaanites killed by the Israelites have indeed reincarnated, some may have
been Nazi camp guards and others Jewish Holocaust victims. There is no
reason to assume that the members of today's victim group are the
reincarnated souls of the bullies of yesteryear, returning to suffer their
due punishment. That is the difference between karma and genetics: karma is
taken along by the individual soul, not passed on in the family line.
More fundamentally, we should outgrow this childish (and in this
case, downright embarrassing) view of karma as a matter of reward and
punishment. Does the killer of a million people return a million times as a
murder victim to suffer the full measure of his deserved punishment? Rather,
karma is a law of conservation: you are reborn with the basic pattern of
desires and conditionings which characterized you when you died last time
around. The concrete experiences and actions which shaped that pattern,
however, are history: they only survive insofar as they have shaped your
psychic karma pattern, not as a precise account of merits and demerits to be
paid off by corresponding amounts of suffering and pleasure.
One lesson to be learned from genocide history pertains to
Karma, the law of cause and effect, in a more down-to-earth sense: suffering
genocide is the karmic reward of weakness. That is one conclusion which the
Jews have drawn from their genocide experience: they created a modern and
militarily strong state. Even more importantly, they helped foster an
awareness of the history of their persecution among their former
persecutors, the Christians, which makes it unlikely that Christians will
target them again. In this respect, the Hindus have so far failed
completely. With numerous Holocaust memorials already functioning, one more
memorial is being built in Berlin by the heirs of the perpetrators of the
Holocaust; but there is not even one memorial to the Hindu genocide, because
even the victim community doesn't bother, let alone the perpetrators.
This different treatment of the past has implications for the
future. Thus, Israel's nuclear programme is accepted as a matter of course,
justified by the country's genuine security concerns; but when India, which
has equally legitimate security concerns, conducted nuclear tests, it
provoked American sanctions. If the world ignores Hindu security concerns,
one of the reasons is that Hindus have never bothered to tell the world how
many Hindus have been killed already.
Healing
What should Hindus say to Muslims when they consider the record
of Islam in Hindu lands? It is first of all very important not to allot
guilt wrongly. Notions of collective or hereditary guilt should be avoided.
Today's Muslims cannot help it that other Muslims did certain things in 712
or 1565 or 1971. One thing they can do, however, is to critically reread
their scripture to discern the doctrinal factors of Muslim violence against
Hindus and Hinduism. Of course, even without scriptural injunction, people
get violent and wage wars; if Mahmud Ghaznavi hadn't come, some of the
people he killed would have died in other, non-religious conflicts. But the
basic Quranic doctrine of hatred against the unbelievers has also encouraged
many good-natured and pious people to take up the sword against Hindus and
other Pagans, not because they couldn't control their aggressive instincts,
but because they had been told that killing unbelievers was a meritorious
act. Good people have perpetrated evil because religious authorities had
depicted it as good.
This is material for a no-nonsense dialogue between Hindus and
Muslims. But before Hindus address Muslims about this, it is imperative that
they inform themselves about this painful history. Apart from unreflected
grievances, Hindus have so far not developed a serious critique of Islam's
doctrine and historical record. Often practising very sentimental,
un-philosophical varieties of their own religion, most Hindus have very
sketchy and distorted images of rival religions. Thus, they say that
Mohammed was an Avatar of Vishnu, and then think that they have cleverly
solved the Hindu-Muslim conflict by flattering the Prophet (in fact, it is
an insult to basic Muslim beliefs, which reject divine incarnation, apart
from indirectly associating the Prophet with Vishnu's incarnation as a pig).
Instead of the silly sop stories which pass as conducive to secularism,
Hindus should acquaint themselves with real history and real religious
doctrines.
Another thing which we should not forget is that Islam is
ultimately rooted in human nature. We need not believe the Muslim claim that
the Quran is of divine origin; but then it is not of diabolical origin
either, it is a human document. The Quran is in all respects the product of
a 7th-century Arab businessman vaguely acquainted with Judeo-Christian
notions of monotheism and prophetism, and the good and evil elements in it
are very human. Even its negative elements appealed to human instincts, e.g.
when Mohammed promised a share in the booty of the caravans he robbed,
numerous Arab Pagans took the bait and joined him. The undesirable elements
in Islamic doctrine stem from human nature, and can in essence be found
elsewhere as well. Keeping that in mind, it should be possible to make a
fair evaluation of Islam's career in India on the basis of factual history.
Koenraad Elst Home
VOD Authors
VOD Home
Aryan Invasion Debate
Ayodhya Debate
Christianity
Islamic Rule in India
Hinduism and Other Faiths
Indian Secularism, Hinduism and "Hindu Fascism"
Contemporary Politics
Miscellaneous Topics
Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society
Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam
Psychology of Prophetism - A Secular Look at the Bible
Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate
Ayodhya: The Case against the Temple
BJP vis-?-vis Hindu Resurgence
The Demographic Siege
Who is a Hindu?
Ayodhya, The Finale -- Science versus Secularism the
Excavations Debate
Books
Articles
Book Reviews
Interviews
Dutch Articles
Books
Articles
Book Reviews
Interviews
Dutch Articles
Mike Gordon
> it is a good thing islam did not have guns in old time.(snip thre crap)
They had swords.
fanabba
> � � � � � � it is a good thing islam did not have guns in old time.
>
> read more �
Islamic Havoc in Indian History
Hindu Genocide
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/57424