Therefore, certain attempts made by some ultra-Marxist historians to justify and even whitewash tyrannical emperors of the medieval India may be tactical for purposes of popular secularism but totally unwarranted. Aurangzeb's misdeeds need not be given a face-lift…
Seshadri, K. Indian Politics, Then and Now: Essays in Historical Perspective. Pragatee Prakashan. p. 5.
Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned.
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Circular, 1989. Quoted in Arun Shourie - Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud, HarperCollins, 1998. Also quoted: in Lal, K. S. (1992). The legacy of Muslim rule in India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. Chapter 8. Quoted in Rosser, Yvette In Saha, S. C. (2004). Religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world: Critical social and political issues, p 273. Quoted in Rao, R. N. (2001). Coalition conundrum: The BJP's trials, tribulations, and triumphs. also in Y.Rosser, Islamisation of Pakistani Social Studies Textbooks, 2003. p 17.
Concerning the treatment of the medieval period, Hindu nationalists accused secular historians of being lenient towards Muslim rulers when describing their actions in India and ignoring the violence they perpetrated such as the destruction of temples and forced conversions. Hindu nationalists accused the secularists of negationism because the latter ignored Muslim brutality and the resultant Hindu deaths. Yet, Hindu nationalists are not the only ones to think that the secular historians’ avoidance of mentioning conflicts between religious communities is problematic.
The Construction of History and Nationalism in India: Textbooks, Controversies and Politics, Sylvie Guichard
