India’s historical narrative is a contested terrain, shaped by selective remembering and deliberate omissions. The marginalization of India’s Buddhist past and the disproportionate focus on premodern Islamic rulers have contributed to a skewed historical imagination that underpins the rise of Hindutva politics.
This article examines how Orientalist frameworks and selective historiography have distorted India’s pluralistic heritage, fueling divisive ideologies, and proposes a path toward a more inclusive historical reckoning.
The Erasure of Buddhist India
Buddhism, which flourished in India for over a millennium, represents one of the subcontinent’s most transformative intellectual and cultural contributions. From the Mauryan emperor Ashoka’s patronage to the establishment of universities like Nalanda and Vikramashila, Buddhism shaped India’s philosophical, artistic, and social landscape. Yet, its historical significance is often relegated to the margins of mainstream narratives.
Colonial Orientalist scholarship played a pivotal role in this erasure. British historians, steeped in a Brahmanical lens, prioritized Vedic and Sanskritic traditions as the “authentic” core of Indian civilization. Buddhism, with its egalitarian ethos and critique of caste, was framed as a fleeting reformist movement or an offshoot of Hinduism, downplaying its distinct identity and global influence. This marginalization was compounded by the colonial rediscovery of Buddhist sites, often credited to European archaeologists, which disconnected modern India from its Buddhist heritage.
Post-independence, Indian historiography, shaped by nationalist agendas, further sidelined Buddhism. The emphasis on a Hindu-centric “golden age” under Gupta rulers overshadowed the Buddhist contributions of earlier eras. This selective memory erased the subcontinent’s role as a global hub of Buddhist learning and its influence across Asia, from Sri Lanka to Southeast Asia and China.
Selective Remembering of Islamic Rule
Parallel to the marginalization of Buddhist history is the selective portrayal of India’s premodern Islamic rulers. The Mughal and Delhi Sultanate periods are often reduced to a narrative of conquest, religious conflict, and cultural imposition. While acts of iconoclasm and political violence by some rulers are undeniable, the broader contributions of Islamic polities—syncretic art, architecture, literature, and governance—are frequently understated in popular discourse.Colonial historians, driven by a “divide and rule” agenda, framed Islamic rule as an alien imposition on a Hindu civilization, sowing seeds of communal antagonism.
This narrative was internalized by early nationalist historians, who romanticized pre-Islamic India as a Hindu utopia disrupted by Muslim invaders. Such portrayals obscure the fluidity of premodern identities, where religious boundaries were porous, and cultural synthesis was common, as seen in the Bhakti and Sufi movements or the cosmopolitan courts of Akbar and Ibrahim Adil Shah II.This selective memory has been weaponized by Hindutva ideology, which constructs a monolithic “Hindu” identity perpetually under siege by “Muslim” aggressors. The focus on temple destruction or isolated instances of religious persecution ignores the coexistence, interfaith dialogue, and economic prosperity that characterized much of the medieval period.
By essentializing Islamic rule as antagonistic, Hindutva narratives erase the subcontinent’s syncretic traditions, fostering a politics of resentment and exclusion.The Rise of Hindutva’s Historical ImaginationHindutva, as an ideological project, thrives on a revisionist history that imagines India as an eternal Hindu nation disrupted by external forces. The marginalization of Buddhist history aligns with this vision by diminishing a tradition that challenged caste hierarchies and embraced universalism—ideas at odds with Hindutva’s Brahmanical underpinnings.
Similarly, the selective vilification of Islamic rulers constructs a binary of Hindu victimhood versus Muslim aggression, justifying contemporary Islamophobia and cultural majoritarianism.This historical imagination is not merely academic; it has tangible consequences. The rewriting of textbooks, the glorification of Hindu kings like Shivaji as anti-Muslim warriors, and the erasure of syncretic figures like Kabir or Guru Nanak from public memory fuel communal polarization. Archaeological projects, such as those at Ayodhya or Kashi, are framed as “reclaiming” Hindu glory, reinforcing a narrative of historical revenge rather than coexistence.Hindutva’s reliance on Orientalist tropes—whether the fetishization of Vedic purity or the demonization of Islamic rule—reveals its paradoxical dependence on colonial frameworks.
By internalizing a Eurocentric view of India as a land of eternal spirituality (Hindu) disrupted by barbaric invasions (Muslim), Hindutva perpetuates a distorted historiography that undermines India’s pluralistic ethos.
A Path Forward: Reclaiming a Pluralistic History
To counter the distortions of Hindutva’s historical imagination, India must embrace a historiography that is inclusive, critical, and grounded in evidence. This requires several steps:Reviving Buddhist Heritage: Public education and cultural initiatives should highlight India’s Buddhist past, emphasizing its contributions to global thought and its challenge to social hierarchies.
Restoring sites like Nalanda and promoting Buddhist studies can reconnect India with its cosmopolitan history, fostering pride in a shared, pluralistic legacy.Recontextualizing Islamic Rule: Historians and educators must foreground the syncretic and collaborative aspects of medieval India, from Mughal patronage of Sanskrit texts to the flourishing of regional languages under Deccan sultanates. By presenting a nuanced view of Islamic polities, narratives of perpetual conflict can be dismantled.Decolonizing Historiography: Indian academia must move beyond Orientalist frameworks, prioritizing subaltern voices—Dalit, Adivasi, and non-elite perspectives—that challenge Brahmanical and communal narratives.
Engaging with global scholarship on South Asia can provide fresh insights into India’s interconnected past.Public History and Dialogue: Museums, media, and public spaces should promote stories of cultural synthesis, such as the Indo-Islamic architecture of Fatehpur Sikri or the shared devotional traditions of Bhakti and Sufism.
Interfaith dialogues and community-driven history projects can counter divisive narratives at the grassroots level.Critical Education: School curricula should emphasize critical thinking and historical complexity, encouraging students to question monolithic narratives. Teaching the diversity of India’s religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions can nurture a generation resistant to polarizing ideologies.
Conclusion
The marginalization of Buddhist history and the selective memory of Islamic rule have created a historical vacuum that Hindutva has exploited to construct a divisive narrative. By reclaiming India’s pluralistic past—its Buddhist universalism, its syncretic medieval traditions, and its interwoven cultural threads—India can challenge the politics of exclusion. A reimagined historiography, rooted in inclusivity and critical inquiry, is not just an academic exercise; it is a moral imperative to heal a fractured present and build a future where diversity is celebrated, not haunted by the ghosts of selective memory.
