 "Distortions, doublespeak and jizya: Whitewashing history, weaponising academia")
In the contemporary academic climate of Bharat, there has been a fast—and easy—way to success, whether on university panels, prime-time news shows, or within elite publishing circles. And it is not through rigorous research or balanced inquiry, but through ideological conformity to a post-colonial, Left-‘liberal’ consensus. This consensus views Bharat’s civilisational heritage with suspicion, dismisses native resistance to invaders, and negationises historical atrocities—especially those committed in the name of Islam.
Ruchika Sharma, a Delhi-based self-proclaimed historian and YouTuber, has recently emerged as the most visible face opposing the NCERT’s ‘revision’ of history textbooks. Much like Audrey Truschke on the global stage—who tried to rehabilitate Aurangzeb as a misunderstood ruler—Sharma has gained sudden national prominence by dismissing historical Islamic violence, trivialising religiously motivated atrocities like jizya, and drawing false moral equivalences between native Hindu dynasties and foreign Islamic invaders.
Manufacturing Outrage
The trigger for Sharma’s recent media storm was her vocal opposition to the NCERT’s revisions, particularly its explanation of jizya—a tax historically imposed on non-Muslims under Islamic rule. Sharma seemed outraged by the idea that jizya was used to pressure Hindus into conversion, branding the claim a “baseless myth”. She even announced plans to file a Right to Information (RTI) request to challenge the educational content.
Her stance is remarkable—not because it is new and ground-breaking, but because it’s fictitious and fabricated. The Quran itself, in Surah At-Tawbah (9:29), mandates: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
This verse is not obscure; it is widely cited by classical Islamic jurists—including Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, and Al-Shafi’i—as the foundational directive for the imposition of jizya. Importantly, the condition that the payer must feel “subdued” was not metaphorical. In theology, jizya only lapses on death or on acceptance of Islam.
Seized by the Collar
Medieval Muslim scholars such as Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Mulla Ahmad, and Shah Waliullah left little room for ambiguity. Sirhindi wrote: “The real purpose of levying the jizya is to humiliate the non-Muslims… to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well or live in grandeur… and thus remain terrified and trembling.”
Impact Shorts
More ShortsWestern scholars echoed the same. NP Aghnides, an authority on Islamic finance, wrote in Muhammadan Theories of Finance: “…the main object in levying the (jizya) tax is the subjection of the infidels to humiliation… the Zimmi is seized by the collar and vigorously shaken and pulled about in order to show him his degradation.”
Mirat-i-Ahmadi, a history of Gujarat written by Ali Mohammed Khan, an imperial dewan at Ahmedabad, clearly explains how jizya should be collected: “The collector of jizya should collect it from a zimmi in this manner: A zimmi should himself come to pay it. He should come on foot. The collector should sit while the zimmi should stand. The collector should place his hand over the hand of the zimmi saying, ‘I take jizya, oh! Zimmi.’ It should not be accepted when sent indirectly through his deputy…”
Rulers like Firoz Shah Tughlaq and Aurangzeb openly used jizya to coerce conversions. In Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, for instance, Tughlaq recounts: “I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet… Every day Hindus presented themselves and were exonerated from the jizya upon converting.” Similarly, European traveller Niccolao Manucci observed of Aurangzeb: “Many Hindus who were unable to pay jizya turned Muhammadan to obtain relief from the insults of the collectors… Aurangzeb rejoices.”
Still, Sharma sees nothing religious or discriminatory about jizya.
Inventing False Equivalences
The Leftist defence of jizya isn’t an aberration. It’s part of a larger pattern—a tendency to defend Islamist violence and vandalism, or, when indefensible, to dilute it through strained comparisons with Hindu rulers. This explains why some Leftist historians have made a career out of inventing the idea of an intolerant Hindu king—one who would destroy not only rival temples but also Buddhist viharas—based on dubious records and selective interpretation.
Yes, Hindu kings went to war, and yes, violence was committed. But such acts were primarily political, directed against rival powers—not against entire religious communities as a matter of religious doctrine. By contrast, Islamic invaders and rulers—from Muhammad bin Qasim onwards—targeted Hindu religious institutions systematically and ideologically. Temple destruction was not a collateral consequence of war; it was often its central goal, sanctioned by theology and justified by the Islamic concept of kufr.
Sharma’s narrative fits neatly into the dominant woke-Leftist framework that dominates humanities and social sciences departments across Bharat and the West, including in the capitalist United States.
This worldview rests on four pillars: Downplaying Islamic imperialism; exaggerating caste-based, gender-based oppression within Hinduism; framing Bharat’s civilisational resurgence as majoritarianism; and, treating any historical correction as “saffronisation”.
In this paradigm, those who defend Akbar, dismiss Hindu grievances, or mock textbook revisions are instantly celebrated as “moderate voices of reason”. Meanwhile, those who point to inconvenient truths—like the religious basis of jizya or the genocide at Chittorgarh—are labelled “communal”, “majoritarian”, or “unacademic”.
Conclusion
History is not mythology. It is not a tool to validate fashionable Leftist-wokeist ideologies, serve electoral agendas, or push secular façades. Nor should it be weaponised to shame an entire civilisation into silence.
Ruchika Sharma has every right to file RTIs. But it is astonishing that she remains unaware of the overwhelming evidence already available—in the Quran, in Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, in the writings of Sirhindi, and in the policies of Aurangzeb and Firoz Tughlaq. Perhaps she is too blinded by ideology to see the truth. (This is not surprising given her adulation for Wendy Doniger and her book, The Hindu—a book so perversely biased that if a Hindu had written The Muslim with a similar tone, it would be instantly branded Islamophobic.) Or, perhaps she simply doesn’t know the truth—which then raises serious questions about her credentials as a ‘historian’.
Whatever the case, the time has come to free history from the suffocating hangover of the Leftist-wokeist cocktail. Real academic integrity lies not in defending invaders or denying civilisational trauma, but in projecting history as it is—unflinchingly, honestly, and fairly. Only then can one build a genuinely inclusive and truthful national narrative.
The writer is the author of the book, ‘Eminent Distorians: Twists and Truths in Bharat’s History’, published early this year by BluOne Ink publications. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
