They can’t lecture Hindus about “hate” simply because they refuse to erase history.
Acknowledging what happened is not communalism, denying it is intellectual cowardice.
Every civilisation has wounds. Ours survived because we gave invades back, not because we pretended nothing happened.
Speaking about the destruction of temples, imposition of jizya, forced conversions recorded in Persian— Arabic chronicles themselves is not “hating another religion.”
If quoting the Baburnama, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, Futuh-us-Salatin, Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, or Ain-i-Akbari becomes “hate,” then by that logic even the chroniclers who wrote them were hateful.
This argument is not about Muslims today unless they wish to replicate deeds of Aurangzeb or praise them.
It’s about centuries of invasions that happened.
Erasing the past is amnesia disguised as virtue.
The fashionable claim that “Hinduism survived invasions thanks to peaceful Bhakti so stop talking about history” is textbook cherry-picking.
Bhakti saints were compassionate (for many reasons), but never blind.
Kabir tore into Islamic ritualism too.
He says:
“Mullah bawla hua, katha kare Qurān;
Masjid chadh kar bolta, kaun suney pukār?”
(Kabir Granthavali, Sabda 76)
Then is it not “hate?”
He directly criticises empty loud ritual:
“Mullah kahe Allah ek hai, par jhagṛa kare din-raat.”
Kabir never pretended everything was peaceful.
He confronted injustice wherever he saw.
Guru Nanak, in the Babur Bani (SGGS, Ang 360–363), condemns Babur’s invasion:
“Babar vāni phiri, jotak kare pukār.”
“Modesty and honour of women were trampled under the boots of Babur’s men.”
Is Guru Nanak “hating Islam”?
Or simply refusing to lie about what he witnessed?
Eknath, Tukaram, Chaitanya, Meerabai, Ravidas; all lived in an age shaped by Islamic polities. Their works repeatedly mention oppression, humiliation, or forced conversions when they happened. They did not sugarcoat their time.
Bhakti gave emotional oxygen to a civilisation that was being politically crushed.
That’s why it flourished during the Sultanate & Timurid centuries.
But Bhakti was never an invitation to:
A) ignore invasions,
B) romanticise violence,
C) or pretend history was a flower garden.
Bhakti protected the soul of a civilisation.
It didn’t erase the blows on its body.
You do not build harmony by lying about the past.
You build it by acknowledging everything , the good, the bad, and the brutal, and then choosing wisdom over vengeance.
Hindus speaking about:
A) Somnath’s destruction,
B) Kashi’s repeated temple demolitions,
C) the atrocities at Chittor,
D)the forced conversions under Sikandar Butshikan,
E) the massacres at Mathura recorded in Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi,
F)the jizya revived under Aurangzeb…
…is not “hate.”
These events are written in Persian chronicles, not WhatsApp forwards.
You can’t tell people that recounting their own history is “hooliganism.”
Pluralism isn’t built on gaslighting.
It’s built on acknowledging wounds without inflicting new ones.
Bhakti saints criticised all.
They didn’t cancel history.
They confronted it.
If they could speak without fear, why shouldn’t we?
Remembering is not hatred.
Forgetting is not peace.
And truth is not communal.
Hinduism survived due to violent armed resistance.
Shivaji tore open Afzal Khan’s guts, didn’t sing Ishwar Allah tere nam.
Despite the resistance, Hindus have been wiped out in Afghanistan, most of Pakistan, Kashmir, ongoing erasure in Bangladesh.
With “secular” whitewash.