Will Modi put Hindutva prejudices of Central Asian invasions of India to rest?

Thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's self-styled media reach out strategies and spin his followers give on social media, many people in the country might finally be able to recognise the five Stans of Central Asia that he is visiting, along with Russia, beginning on Monday. As a researcher on Central Asia, nothing is more heartening to see, for the first time, Central Asia and Uzbekistan trending briefly on Twitter on Monday.

Wherever Modi had gone in last one year, he has reiterated an age-old "historical" connection. From Japan to China to Mongolia and beyond, it has mostly been about ancient connections, Buddhism and now increasingly, yoga. As Modi began his trip, the official statement from the Press Information Bureau (PIB) too mentioned about last two elements, while also speaking about the popularity of Bollywood films.

Central Asia or Eurasia and South Asia, comprising particularly Pakistan and north India, are geographically one stretch of land at important crossroads of the ancient Silk Route. They share not only geography but history as well. Rulers and empires in different eras have expanded both from east to west and vice versa. While the Mauryan empire from Pataliputra expanded till much of the modern day Afghanistan, also considered part of the larger Central Asia, although now it is a member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Kushana and Saka empires and the Scythians occupied much of north India from the west.

Irrespective of the flow of political power, India had been the fountainhead of religious-cultural flows with Hinduism and Buddhism spreading westward. Hinduism and later Buddhism had become an important "soft power" in the modern parlance of the term even then. In fact, it was through Central Asia that Buddhism reached Mongolia, Tibet, Kashgar and the rest of China. Bamiyan, Balkh, Kashgar - all parts of Eurasia geographically, though politically now the first two are in Afghanistan while the later in China - had emerged as important centres of Buddhism.

But particularly with Central Asia, India shares another historical linkage since the medieval period, a period that has increasingly now become controversial as the Hindutva affiliates are attempting to rewrite the history. Will Modi finally come to terms with those historical realities?

Turks and Mongols rose as nomadic confederacies who simultaneously built their own empires as they destroyed all others they could. They were not always Muslims but they followed a pattern of establishing empires that was the system of warfare at that time. Chengiz Khan, who was not a Muslim as many might confuse, but a Tengrist, rampaged through Bukhara, Samarkand and most of the Central Asian and Persian towns. His successors continued the destruction further to Baghdad and beyond.

As in the past, empires and kingdoms continued to rise and fall during the medieval period. However, the middle ages marked a clear distinction as unlike earlier, during this period Islam entered through Central Asia and Persia as a major religion and spread especially in what is now Pakistan and north India. In fact, we see a clear imprint of the Central Asian culture, religious practices, food and language on India (the reverse is also as much a reality). Even most of the Sufi saints came from the same region.

Muslim rulers who came from Persia and Central Asia ruled over most of the present day Pakistan and north India for more than 600 years, but unfortunately our collective memory is etched with reminiscences of hostility of figures like Mahmud of Ghazni who infamously attacked the Somanth temple 16 times, or Timur who pillaged Delhi like he destroyed several Central and West Asian towns, Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, and so on. In his remarkable book Tarikh Al-Hind, al-Biruni had attempted to put the hostility in the early-12th century in perspective. "...(T)he repugnance of the Hindus against foreigners increased more and more when the Muslims began to make their inroads in their country... sometimes fighting swords in hand, sometimes gaining his ends by treaties, leaving to the people their ancient belief, except in the case of those who wanted to become Muslims. All these events planted a deeply-rooted hatred in their hearts," he wrote in his book.

Once, however, Muslim rulers from the region established their sultanates here, India once again saw unique cultural effervescence in art and architecture and set new milestones from Delhi to Hyderabad. Some of the most important historical sites of tourist attractions from the Red Fort to Taj Mahal to Hyderabad's Char Minar, built during this time, were in fact a manifestation of this unique of Turco-Persian architectural style. Mughal emperors like Akbar set a new paradigm in cultural harmony with his Din-e-Ilahi, while Aurangzeb had the highest number of Hindu mansabdars (over 140 compared to only 14 during Akbar's reign), including his army general and prime minster.

Yes, many of the rulers from the region justified their expansionist policies and attempted to garner support from the clerics as well as the caliph in the name of religion and declared themselves the ghazi; but seeing these wars through a narrow prism and interpreting them as religious zeal of bigoted Muslims would be a selective reading of history, especially because many of these rulers resorted to several so called "un-Islamic" things in personal-public lives. Further, most of the Muslim rulers from Central Asia first fought among themselves and only then diverted their attention beyond, not just towards India, but also towards Baghdad and Cairo, which too were ruled by Muslim. For example, someone like Babur - a Timurid though his mother and a Mongol - was deposed from his humble state in Farghana valley by Shabayni Khan, a Mongol successor. In fact, Babur had established the Mughal empire in India after the first battle of Panipat in 1526 by defeating Delhi's Sultan Ibrahim Lodi.

Prime Minister Modi spoke of "timeless links between India and Central Asia" at the banquet in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, as he gifted his host Uzbek president Islam Karimov a "specially commissioned reproduction" of Khamsa-i-Khusrau. It is a perfect present to re-emphasise the age-old linkages as the author of this 13th century Persian masterpiece, Amir Khusrau, was born in the present Uttar Pradesh, but his father was from the present day Uzbekistan. Earlier on his maiden trip to Mongolia, Modi had gifted his host with a rare copy of Jame at-Tawarikh (Collection of Histories) authored by Rashiduddin Fazlullah Hamdani, who was the Vazir of the Mongol king Mahmud Ghazan Khan.

India has maintained very pragmatic foreign policies with Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, which many would like to term as our tormentors for centuries. However, it has not exploited this medieval era "soft power" to the hilt, in the process giving Pakistan opportunities to take advantages.

It is often said that the foreign policy of a country is the reflection of its domestic affairs. Modi likes to travel along uncharted paths and has shown grater vigour in international relations. After his maiden trip to Mongolia, he is now travelling to all the five Central Asian Republics along with Russia, emphasising on its strategic, commercial and cultural significance. If, however, he can truly come to terms with the medieval era historical realities of our erstwhile neighbours and their successors who ruled over India, it would go a long way in further strengthening our "historical ties" in the international arena and simultaneously help establishing harmony in the country too.