The news is that BJP Govt in Karnataka is blacking out Tipu Sultan from the syllabus. In these polarised times, this might be viewed as a decision, tainted and tinged with communal tones and as a black and white axiom of Hindus versus Muslims. But if you look at it dispassionately, there're cogent reasons that compel even the most disenchanted person to re-think and form an opinion based on facts. And the facts are: He (Tipu) enforced mass conversions on Kodavas (people living in Kodagu region of Karnataka); coastal Christians (Catholics in Mangaluru and Christians in Kerala) and upper castes in Tamil Nadu. Those who refused to convert into Islam were allegedly slaughtered (Source: Indian History Congress/Aravind Gowda's Tipu Sultan, a bigot or a freedom fighter)
In the most authentic book on Indian History: Indian history as told by its own historians, the historians Eliot and Dawson have accused Tipu of bigotry. But his zealotry must be viewed in a broader and enlarged context. Here, Tipu is not an ordinary person, but a so-called 'freedom fighter' and Sher-e-Mysore. So, it's imperative to analyse his acts of conversion from a ruler's perspective. Those who've studied Islam and comprehended it in its entirety, will accept the fact that not just Islam but the rulers of all three Semitic faiths in whichever part of the world they were, engaged themselves in converting people of Oriental and Eastern faiths into their (Semitic) folds. That was their cardinal religious duty towards their respective faiths. In other words, it was incumbent upon them (to convert).
Conversion is a very delicate subject. Mind you, there has never been a single cerebral or intellectual conversion in the entire history of mankind. While writing History of Sikhism, Khushwant Singh came across English historians Gooch and Collingwood in London and he put before them the issue of rulers (read Muslim rulers) converting their subjects to their faith. Gooch opined that rather than condemn the Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb and Tipu, it must be borne on mind that they were labouring under the mis(conception) of spreading god's word. They were true to the spirit of their religion.
Historically speaking, Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded Sindh in 712 AD. Before that, the sub-continent had very few Muslims, Christians and Jews. The ancestors of Indian Muslims didn't come from Arabian Peninsula or Central Asia. They were all indigenous people. French analyst Francois Gautier termed this phenomenon as Nativity in Faith. The first and foremost objective of all Muslim rulers was to proselytize the natives of the sub-continents as a grandiose plan and mission to pan-Islamise the whole world. Portuguese traders, sailors and invaders in Goa and French settlers in Chandannagar (Bengal) and Pondicherry did the same without the slightest sense of compunction because they were driven by the Church's directives and decrees.
Embracing a new faith (especially not belonging to one's own soil) is always difficult. Coaxing, cajoling and coercing are three ways employed by the rulers to crystallise their religious dreams into realities. Romila Thapar believed that Rudyard Kipling's A White Man's Burden Syndrome spilled into A Ruler's so-called (religio-spiritual) Burden to convert the people of the sub-continent. All Mughals, barring Dara Shikoh, indulged in converting people of Eastern faiths into Islam. Those who opposed, were persecuted.
Why did Akbar start a new faith, called Deen-e-Ilahi (The Faith of the Almighty)? Akbar was predominantly a Muslim, who started his religion as a stepping stone to Islam. Professor and historian Darshan Singh of Punjab University opined that it was a kind of skipping and jumping the hoops with seemingly diluted effect to first convert the courtiers to Islam and then apply that to the general people. Akbar is not seen as a bigot and called Akbar the Great. Under the appearance of a generous emperor, he too spread his faith.
Similarly, Tipu fought against English not because he was a son of the soil, he fought because he didn't want the Brits to come and spread their Christianity. His fight against the English was incidental. He was religiously yoked to his faith – Islam. He brooked no one else's intrusion. So, like all Muslim rulers, he too resorted to oppression and suppression when it came to disseminating his faith. Moreover, Islam believes in the severance of the past of new entrants from other faiths. This severance is possible only through severe persecution and from Tipu's perspective, he did what was expected of a Muslim ruler. This is known as Fear of Recantation in Faith. Semitic faiths don't want the neo-converts to have any truck with their earlier faiths. So, severe persecution is prescribed and practised by the imposers. This is religiously justified from the rulers' perspectives.
Here, my intention is not to exonerate Tipu Sultan. History chronicles his deeds mentioned in the first paragraph of this article. The point being, the measures and methods he resorted to while converting Hindus and Christians into Islam were reprehensible. He, therefore, doesn't deserve to be eulogised as a ruler with a magnanimous heart.
The writer is an advanced research scholar of Semitic languages, civilizations and cultures.
