Some Thoughts on Our History

There are a few things about the history of our country and society, at least the way we were taught at school and which permeates the popular perception, which does not really add up logically. The more I think of it, the more dissonance it creates in my mind! One of them is classifying the medieval period, say from around 10^th century AD till the early 19^th century as falling under “Muslim Rule”, as a consequence of “Muslim Invasion”.

Specifically, the issues which have been troubling me include:

(a) Why do we paint a period of our past as "Muslim Rule". While many of the rulers during this period traced their ancestry to Arabs, Persians, Turks, Afghans, Mongols etc., each of these social groups had a different language, culture, and tradition. Each also practised their Muslim faith differently. Their "Muslim" identity was only incidental. So why the stress on only one aspect of their identity!

(b) Wouldn't it be more appropriate to classify them as "immigrants" rather than as "invaders"? Firstly, because there has been extensive trade and cultural relationships between the Indian sub-continent for centuries and there has been a steady and constant flow of people from other lands into India during this time. This interaction and enriched, on both sides, our language, culture, science, technology, mathematics etc. There are so many words in common usage which few realise are either of foreign origin. For example, kursi, kalam, darzee, la jawab, ajeeb-o-gareeb etc. In fact, the Arabs still call their numerals as “Indian” numerals and while their language is written right to left, their numeral place system follows a left to right orientation. The ultimate irony is that our very identity as a “Hindu” is based on nomenclature given by the Persians and Arabs! Secondly, nearly all such immigrants they stayed back in the sub-continent as Indians. I understand that even the much reviled Mahmud of Ghazni also minted coins with Indian / Hindu motifs. Looking at more recent history, the British came to India as traders not invaders. In our times, Indians have started taking key leadership positions in the US and Canada. Can they, by a very long shot, be referred to as invaders? 

(c) Emigration - leaving kith and kin for the unknown - for anybody at any time is always a very painful affair. As such, there need to be very strong reasons to emigrate. Primarily, self preservation or economic. On the economic front, was the migration promoted by the fact that such migrants brought in much needed and valued technical skills which for some reason was in high demand but low supply? What explains the fact that across the sub-continent, there is a preponderance of Muslim artisans in many of our traditional industries - carpet making, weaving, metal work, embroidery, bangles etc. Or that Muslim technicians are fairly widely available in the form of local TV repair man, AC technician, or motor mechanic in all each and every nook and corner of India? 

(d) Another aspect of migration is that it is seen that economic migrants are predominantly males, at least initially. This leads to the problem of them finding local women to set up families. This aspect is widely indicated in our mythology where many of our Aryan heros (think Arjun, Bhim etc.) had at least one wife who was a non-Aryan woman. Extending this argument a little further would the current Indian Muslim population primarily represent Indians who converted to Islam or the progeny of migrant men from local women? Something like our Anglo-Indian population?

I am looking for answers to these doubts and would be helpful if any of my friends / readers could throw some light on these issues.