The author says that some important chapters are missing in the study of Indian history, while some anamolies have crept
into other chapters.
The author says that the Aryans were not a race, and that their supposed migration and spread over parts of Asia appears to be lacking in perspective.
In Sanskrit, Arya means a noble or one of noble stock. It is both a title, and a form of address. Similar to “Sir” in english, Arya was the accepted form of address to gentlemen of stature. It has no relationship whatsoever with colour (skin colour) or ethnicity. Perhaps the confusion arose because in ancient times India used to be referred to by its inhabitants as Aryavarta, or land of the Aryans. Loosely translated, it means land of the civilized people.
According to Indian tradition, the Vedas are of great antiquity and they were transmitted from generation to generation through oral recitation. The Rig Veda predates both the Ramayana (circa 6,000 B.C.) and the Mahabharata (circa 3,100 B.C.). The topography of northern India is quite different from the description contained in the Rig Veda. In those days, the Saraswati River used to flow into the sea.
Sanskrit was the
language of the Vedas, Sanskrit was the language of the Arya. Many scholars maintain that the “Indo-Germanic” tongues derive from some other parent language. They presume that language no longer exists. The author asks what was that language? In what part of the world was it spoken? If it is argued that European languages derive from Latin, and Indian / Persian languages are derived from Sanskrit, why do we use the term “Indo-Germanic” in the first place?
There is a long list of
monuments which historians have accepted to be outwardly muslim (that is inscribed with islamic calligraphy), though of Hindu origin. These include the Saraswati Kanthabharana in Dhar, the Lingamahalaya temple in Siddhapur, Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, Vigraharaj Vishaldeo seminary in Ajmer, and the Kutub Minar at Delhi. The Somnath temple too was used as a mosque until India gained independence. (What to speak of Indian monuments, even the shrine at Mecca was a temple containing 360 idols before it was stormed and converted.)
This brings us to the central point of the author’s thesis – whenever the name of a muslim ruler is found attached to a Hindu monument, the muslim ruler should be regarded as its conqueror and destroyer, and not as its builder. (The extent of muslim architecture consisted in inscribing the monuments with islamic calligraphy to lay claim to them for future generations.)
The author says that the issue of ownership should not be confused with construction.
The prevailing practice in those days was for muslim invaders to lay claim to extant monuments, to be used as their tombs (mausoleums) or as mosques, thus stamping their authority over the local populace. It is an abiding irony that there are no Hindu monuments left in northern India (south and east India were beyond the sway of the muslim invaders), whereas ancient India was renowned both for its architecture and its array of skilled artisans. Where have all the monuments gone?!
The history of the muslim era in India has been described as an “impudent and interested fraud”. The muslim chroniclers of those times were abject flatterers of the mediaeval muslim court. It should be remembered that they enjoyed the patronage of the ruling muslim elite. Their primary objective was to glorify the image of their sovereign. Whatever historical material they contain is only incidental, and should be treated with the utmost caution. If these accounts are studied objectively, it may even be found necessary to re-write much of India’s mediaeval history!
The mediaeval period of muslim rule was one in which hindus were murdered, massacred and persecuted, their properties confiscated, and justice was denied. In sum, the hindus were treated as second class citiens in their own land. India was a land where dancing, painting, music, poetry and sculpture were always held in high regard, but even these fine arts were degraded and devalued with the coming of muslim rule.
One suspects that the author’s purpose in writing this book is to bring out the truth about those times, and the harmful effect it had upon the psyche of its people and the heritage of the nation.