Let us have a real talk about the latest “history lesson” from our former Vice President, Hamid Ansari. He recently suggested that Mahmud of Ghazni and the Lodhis were merely “Indian looters”. Honestly, calling Ghazni an “Indian looter” is like calling a great white shark a “local pond enthusiast” or saying a category 5 hurricane is just a “heavy breeze with a bit of an attitude problem”. It is a take so hot that it has basically evaporated any logic left in the room.
The “Local Boy” myth
First, let us address the “Indian” part of Hamid Ansari’s claim. Ghazni was not exactly hanging out at the local chai stall in Delhi, planning his next move. He was based in Afghanistan, crossing the Hindu Kush mountains seventeen times and treating the Indian subcontinent like a massive ATM that did not require a PIN.
Calling him “Indian” is like saying a guy who breaks into your house, steals your fridge and runs back across the border is your “roommate”. It is an Olympic-level stretch of the imagination. These guys were not “internal rebels”; they were conquerors who saw India as a treasure chest with a “free entry” sign that they printed themselves.
The Ansari hall of fame (Controversy edition)
This is not the first time Hamid Ansari has entered the “Wait, Did He Really Just Say That?” arena. The man has a knack for dropping opinions that make the internet collectively face-palm. Remember these gems?
- The “insecurity” narrative: After serving a decade in the second-highest office of the land, he spent his exit interview suggesting that a certain community lived in constant fear. It is a bit like winning the lottery and then complaining that the check’s ink is slightly smudged.
- The Sharia court brainstorm: He once floated the idea of Sharia courts in every district for social issues. Because, as we all know, what India really needs is more layers of legal confusion. It is the “Inception” of law—a court within a court.
- The Yoga day ghosting: He famously stayed away from the first International Yoga Day. Apparently, stretching and breathing have become intense political statements now.
Not just looting, But a “demolition derby”
Ansari calls them “looters”, which sounds almost cute, does it not? It makes it sound like they just snatched a purse and ran. But the excesses of these men go way beyond a simple bank heist. Let us look at the “achievements” Hamid Ansari is trying to sanitize:
The Somnath sledgehammer: Ghazni did not just “loot” the Somnath temple; he went on a full-blown demolition mission. He was not just after the gold; he wanted to make a point by smashing the idols and leveling the structure. That is not “looting”; that is a systematic attempt to crush the soul of a culture.
The Lodhi “renovation” Style: Sikandar Lodhi was not exactly a poster boy for religious harmony. He had a nasty habit of destroying temples in Mathura and building mosques and butcher shops right on top of them to add insult to injury. He even famously banned Hindus from shaving their heads or bathing at the sacred ghats of the Yamuna. If that is his version of being an “Indian ruler”, one would hate to see his version of an enemy.
Straight from the horse’s mouth: What the chroniclers said
If you want to know if these guys felt “Indian”, you do not need to ask Hamid Ansari; you can just read their own official historians. They were quite proud of the fact that they were not Indian.
- Al-Utbi (Ghazni’s Secretary): He did not describe a local tax collection. He wrote about a “Holy War” against “Infidels”. He described the Indian people as “the friends of Satan” and “fodder for the sword”. Does that sound like a guy describing his fellow countrymen?
- The slave trade: Al-Utbi bragged that after the battle of Kanauj, “the number of prisoners was so great that they became cheap, and many a slave could be bought for two to ten dirhams”. These were Indian locals marched back across the mountains in freezing conditions to be sold in markets in Ghazni.
- Al-Biruni’s reality check: Even the famous scholar Al-Biruni, who traveled with Ghazni, admitted that “Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country” and created a hatred for foreigners among the Hindus. He clearly distinguished between the “conquered” (Indians) and the “conqueror” (Ghazni).
The Verdict: Stop the PR makeover
History is not a buffet where you can just pick the dishes that fit your current political mood. You cannot turn an invader into a local “bad boy” just to make the narrative feel smoother. Hamid Ansari attempting to “Indianize” the loot does not change the fact that the loot left the country and the people who took it did not consider themselves “Indian” for a single second.
Maybe it is time to put the history books back on the shelf and stop trying to give 11th-century warlords a 21st-century PR makeover. Calling a sledgehammer a “renovation tool” does not make the destruction any less real.
