.png)
Why were Hindu rulers chivalrous? They should have put fear of molestation among Muslim women: Veer Savarkar
Facts have come to light suggesting that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, revered as "Veer" (Hero) by the BJP, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as also the tallest patriot India ever had, believed that India’s Hindu rulers, including Chhatrapati Shivaji, suffered from the "suicidal" and "perverted religious idea" of showing chivalry towards Muslim women as and when they conquered Muslim rulers.
Referring to “Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History”, a senior academic with the Ashoka University has said, “Savarkar argued that Muslim women were to be treated as enemies for they ‘too played their devilish part in the harassment and molestation of Hindu women’.”
Indeed, Savarkar wrote in his book, whose English translation has been published by Savarkar Bhavan, Pune:
“The souls of those millions of aggrieved women might have perhaps said, 'Do not forget, O, your Majesty, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and O! your Excellency, Chimaji Appa, the unutterable atrocities and oppression and outrage committed on us by the Sultans and Muslim noblemen and thousands of others, big and small...
“Let those Sultans and their peers take a fright that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall be avenged on the Muslim women. Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension, that the Muslim women, too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future, Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.”
Savarkar believed, “Because of the then prevalent perverted religious ideas about chivalry to women, which ultimately proved highly detrimental to the Hindu community, neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa could do such wrong to the Muslim women.”
He underlined, “It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women which saved the Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu women. Their womanhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them.”
Savarkar opined, it was part of Muslims’ “religious duty to carry away forcibly the women of the enemy side, as if they were commonplace property, to ravish them, to pollute them and to distribute them to all and sundry, from the Sultan to the common soldier, and to absorb them completely in their fold. This was considered a noble act which increased their number.”
Underlining that Muslim women also took part in this heinous crime, Savarkar wrote, “Muslim women were taught to think it their duty to help in all possible ways, their (Hindu women’s) molestation and forcible conversion to Islam. No Muslim woman whether a Begum or a beggar, ever protested against the atrocities committed by their male compatriots…”
Saying that Muslim women were “honoured” for doing it, Savarkar said, “A Muslim woman did everything in her power to harass such captured or kidnapped Hindu women. Not only in the troubled times of war but even in the intervening periods of peace and even when they themselves lived in the Hindu kingdoms, they enticed and carried away young Hindu girls locked them up in their own houses or conveyed them to the Muslim centres in Masjids and Mosques.”
According to Savarkar, “The Muslim feminine class [fair (?) sex] was left seraphically free from any chastisement or penalty for their share of the crimes perpetrated against the Hindu woman-world, and their work of enticing and ensnaring the Hindu women and forcing them to accept Islam went on for hundreds of years unhampered and unimpeded.”
Savarkar wondered, “Did this misplaced chivalrous idea of the Hindus have any salutary effect on their Muslim foes? Were the latter ever ashamed of their sin of molesting a Hindu woman in view of this Hindu religious generosity and highmindedness? Did the Muslims ever sincerely feel thankful to the Hindus for the safe return of thousands of Muslim women to their own kith and kin?”
The only exception the “misplaced” chivalry were “the Jodhpurian Rajputs”, thought Savarkar, pointing towards how “the Rathod armies paid them (Muslims) in the same coin... Hundreds of Muslim women were converted to Hinduism and married to the Rajputs or were simply kept as concubines like the Hindu women by the Muslims before them.”
“Let those Sultans and their peers take a fright that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall be avenged on the Muslim women. Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension, that the Muslim women, too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future, Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.”
Savarkar believed, “Because of the then prevalent perverted religious ideas about chivalry to women, which ultimately proved highly detrimental to the Hindu community, neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa could do such wrong to the Muslim women.”
He underlined, “It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women which saved the Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu women. Their womanhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them.”
Savarkar opined, it was part of Muslims’ “religious duty to carry away forcibly the women of the enemy side, as if they were commonplace property, to ravish them, to pollute them and to distribute them to all and sundry, from the Sultan to the common soldier, and to absorb them completely in their fold. This was considered a noble act which increased their number.”
Underlining that Muslim women also took part in this heinous crime, Savarkar wrote, “Muslim women were taught to think it their duty to help in all possible ways, their (Hindu women’s) molestation and forcible conversion to Islam. No Muslim woman whether a Begum or a beggar, ever protested against the atrocities committed by their male compatriots…”
Saying that Muslim women were “honoured” for doing it, Savarkar said, “A Muslim woman did everything in her power to harass such captured or kidnapped Hindu women. Not only in the troubled times of war but even in the intervening periods of peace and even when they themselves lived in the Hindu kingdoms, they enticed and carried away young Hindu girls locked them up in their own houses or conveyed them to the Muslim centres in Masjids and Mosques.”
According to Savarkar, “The Muslim feminine class [fair (?) sex] was left seraphically free from any chastisement or penalty for their share of the crimes perpetrated against the Hindu woman-world, and their work of enticing and ensnaring the Hindu women and forcing them to accept Islam went on for hundreds of years unhampered and unimpeded.”
Savarkar wondered, “Did this misplaced chivalrous idea of the Hindus have any salutary effect on their Muslim foes? Were the latter ever ashamed of their sin of molesting a Hindu woman in view of this Hindu religious generosity and highmindedness? Did the Muslims ever sincerely feel thankful to the Hindus for the safe return of thousands of Muslim women to their own kith and kin?”
The only exception the “misplaced” chivalry were “the Jodhpurian Rajputs”, thought Savarkar, pointing towards how “the Rathod armies paid them (Muslims) in the same coin... Hundreds of Muslim women were converted to Hinduism and married to the Rajputs or were simply kept as concubines like the Hindu women by the Muslims before them.”
Comments