Religious Persecution in India

This is a collection of my musings on the matter of religious persecution in India. The number of instances in which the Muslims and Christians persecuted those of the other religions is numerous.
Some ‘historians’ like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib etc try to justify these actions by saying that even the Hindu kings indulged in these activities and that this was the normal situation then. Considering their statements to be true, it appears that these ‘egalitarian’ religions were also nothing short of barbarism. They do not deny that Muslims did indulge in religious persecution but claim that Hindus also normally indulged in it. Even if their claim is true, it does not condone the Muslim rulers' actions. But the real question is: did Hindus indulge in large scale religious persecution? Some local skirmishes are possible in this huge country. I do not deny that such skirmishes could have occurred. But was there any persistent religious persecution? The answer shall be formed in the following paragraphs.
Some instances of religious intolerance that I know are: King Harsha of Kashmir, Emperor Kulottunga II of Chola country and the killing of Jain monks in Pandya country. Other than these things, there can be a handful of other cases in the 1500 years of Hindu dominance. It shows a remarkably peaceful society. Certainly not a society of religious persecution. No Hindu text says that killing a non-believer brings merit and paves way for heaven (unlike what Islam guarantees for a Ghazi). The only places [very few in number - like one stanza in the Divya Prabandham - Tirumaalai (a compilation of 4000 stanzas)] where the author speaks about killing other religionists is when such a person speaks foul of the author’s religion / deity. But no one has ever cited this stanza as an authority to kill non - Vaishnavites. Not even the author has called this as an act of merit leading to moksha. This shows that even such few instances were mere statements of anguish not a call for blood (very similar to what some people feel like killing corrupt officials during times of anguish caused by them but will never indulge in manslaughter.)
Therefore, we find this comparison of systematic religious persecution employed by Muslims with a few instances (which are deviations from the normal trend) of Hindu history as totally irresponsible, unacceptable and unethical. The Hindus gave shelter to Parsis and Jews. They gave shelter to the Syrian Christians. These people were not persecuted. They were allowed to freely practice their religion. To think that such Hindus indulged in systematic religious persecution appears senseless.
Now, let us take a look at the few instances of religious persecution done by Hindus mentioned above:
1. King Harsha of Kashmir was an atheist. He was not a Hindu. Kalhana calls him ‘Turushka’. His activities were seen as very similar to that of Muslims by him. He cannot be called a Hindu in any sense.
2. The action of Kulottunga II at Chidambaram was isolated. He removed Vishnu murti from only one temple (at Chidambaram) in his entire empire. He did not indulge in large scale destruction of Vishnu temples. The temple at Chidambaram was home to both Vishnu and Shiva cult with both the deities being worshipped by their respective devotees. As one of the primary seats of Shaiva cult, Kulottunga II wanted to make the temple completely Shaivite and that is why he removed the Vishnu murti from the temple. Thus, it was merely a case of a single instance not a wholesale occurrence.
3. The third instance is that of the impaling of Jain monks in Pandya country. The story is found only in Shaiva texts. It is found that there was a debate between Jnanasambandar and the Jain monks. The Jain monks were defeated in the debate. The monks were impaled as agreed earlier that whoever loses will be impaled. Also it is found that the Tamils suffered a lot at the hands of some narrow minded Digambara Jain monks (who were non-Tamil Kalabhras). The agraharas of the Brahmins were confiscated. Some Shaiva and Vaishnava places of worship were forcibly taken over. When the new rulers converted to Shaivism, a nationalist reaction set in the society by which we see that a few Jain places of worship were converted on the plea that they were Shiva temples in the earlier period. But we can see that the Vaishnavas never indulged in such activities though they were also persecuted by the previous regime. Also, the said acts do not reflect Shaivism nor is it based on Shaiva texts but a normal nationalist reaction. [M. Arunachalam’s ‘The Kalabharas in the Pandiya Country and Their Impact on the Life and Letters There’ , University of Madras, 1979].
The Buddhists were never persecuted in Tamil Nadu as the Buddhists never hurt the Shaivites or Vaishnavites. Though both the ‘Naastika’ traditions were condemned by the ‘Saatvik’ traditions, only the Jains were persecuted and that too only in Pandya country which was due to the fact that some narrow minded Jain monks started such a persecution in the first place. Even then, it can be seen that it was not a wholesale persecution per se. Only those monks who debated with Jnanasambandar were impaled. Others were not killed. Similarly only those temples which were previously that of Shiva were forcibly occupied by the Shaivites. This is mostly a case of nationalism (Tamil vs. non-Tamil) and throwing away the yolk of forceful religious domination. This was not a case of active religious persecution started for the sake of religious persecution as the means and end of itself.
Some people try to find a Buddhist/Jain structure under every Hindu temple which is ridiculous. No Buddhist/Jain tradition ever says that Hindus indulged in large scale destruction of their temples/monasteries. Such fanciful imagination of these self proclaimed ‘historians’ give us good laughter at the time of depression. Though at times, it hurts us that people make such baseless allegations against Hinduism.
It seems that these ‘historians’ who want to degrade the ancient religion of India are unable to digest the fact that Hinduism is a tolerant religion. So they try to degrade it by making false and baseless allegations against this ancient religion.

As such, we could see that religious persecution on wholesale basis was brought to this land by the Muslim and Christian fanatics. It was never practised in India before that. The inhuman nature of these religions in that they actively encourage persecution of other religionists (non-believers) show their innate barbarism. A post giving quotes from their 'holy books' encouraging the persecution of non-believers will be given later.