India’s history is a tapestry of cultural brilliance, political ambition, and military conquest, often accompanied by acts of violence that shaped its trajectory. This article delves into the reported cruelties of the Marathas in Bengal (1742–1751), the Chola dynasty’s conquests (9th–13th centuries), the Hephthalite Huns’ invasions (5th–6th centuries), and Mughal emperor Akbar’s actions during the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568), including the key Mughal commanders involved. It also examines the efforts of Delhi Sultans in repelling Mongol invasions in the 13th–14th centuries and addresses the association of individuals with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the context of recent NCERT textbook revisions. The RSS, a Hindu nationalist organization, is not registered and does not offer formal membership, so affiliations are ideological or associative. This analysis aims to provide a balanced, nuanced, and critical perspective, grounded in historical sources, while avoiding modern biases or oversimplifications.
Table of Contents
1. Maratha Invasions of Bengal (1742–1751): Economic Plunder and Social Upheaval
The Maratha invasions of Bengal, spanning 1742 to 1751, were a series of raids led by Raghuji Bhonsle of the Nagpur-based Bhonsle Marathas, targeting the Bengal Subah (modern-day Bengal, Bihar, and parts of Odisha). Known as “Bargi” incursions in Bengali folklore, these raids left a legacy of economic devastation and social trauma, challenging the Marathas’ image as liberators of Hindu India from Mughal rule.
Nature of the Violence
The Maratha raids were characterized by systematic plunder and widespread atrocities, as documented in contemporary sources like Gangaram’s Maharashtra Purana, Dutch and British East India Company records, and court chronicles from Bengal. The Marathas targeted Bengal’s prosperous economy, particularly its textile and agricultural sectors, which were among the most lucrative in the 18th-century Indian subcontinent. Villages were ransacked, with merchants, weavers, and farmers bearing the brunt of the violence. Gangaram’s vivid account describes Maratha forces demanding money and resorting to brutal tactics when refused, including filling victims’ nostrils with water, drowning them in rivers, or burning homes and religious sites, such as temples and Vishnu-mandapas. Civilians, including Brahmins, Vaishnavas, women, and children, were massacred, with estimates suggesting up to 400,000 deaths over the decade-long raids. Baneswar Vidyalankar, a courtier of the Raja of Burdwan, likened the Marathas to a “local cataclysm,” accusing them of killing pregnant women, infants, and the poor without mercy.
The economic impact was profound. Bengal’s silk and cotton industries, critical to its wealth, were disrupted as weavers and cultivators fled or were killed. Mulberry plantations, essential for sericulture, were destroyed, leading to famines and long-term economic decline. The raids also destabilized urban centers like Murshidabad and Dhaka, forcing the Nawab to divert resources to defense rather than governance.
Historical Context
The Maratha invasions were driven by a combination of political opportunism and economic ambition. The Mughal Empire, under which Bengal was a semi-autonomous province, was weakening after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707. The Bengal Subah, ruled by Nawab Alivardi Khan, was a wealthy but vulnerable target due to internal factionalism, particularly after the ousting of Nawab Sarfaraz Khan in 1740. Sarfaraz’s allies invited Maratha intervention, providing Raghuji Bhonsle a pretext to invade. The Marathas sought to extract tribute (chauth) and expand their influence, exploiting Bengal’s lack of centralized defense.
While some Bengali literary works, such as Bharatchandra’s Annadamangal, initially framed the Marathas as Hindu liberators opposing Mughal oppression, this narrative quickly eroded. The Marathas’ indiscriminate violence alienated local populations, regardless of religion, as both Hindu and Muslim communities suffered. The raids culminated in 1751 when Alivardi Khan ceded Odisha to the Marathas, securing a tenuous peace.
Critical Perspective
The Maratha invasions challenge the romanticized view of the Maratha Confederacy as champions of Hindu resurgence. Their actions in Bengal were driven by imperial ambition and economic gain, not religious ideology. The scale of violence, while devastating, was not unique—similar tactics were employed by Mughal, Afghan, and other regional powers. However, the Marathas’ failure to establish governance in Bengal and their focus on plunder distinguish their raids from more structured conquests. Modern narratives, particularly in NCERT’s revised textbooks, emphasize Maratha resistance to Mughals but downplay their atrocities in Bengal, highlighting the need for a balanced historical account.
2. Chola Conquests (9th–13th Centuries): Martial Glory and Destruction
The Chola dynasty, one of South India’s most powerful empires, dominated the Indian subcontinent and beyond from the 9th to 13th centuries. Under rulers like Rajaraja Chola I (r. 985–1014) and Rajendra Chola I (r. 1012–1044), the Cholas expanded their influence through military campaigns across South India, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, leaving a legacy of cultural achievements and significant violence.
Nature of the Violence
The Cholas’ conquests were marked by aggressive military campaigns aimed at subduing rival kingdoms and securing trade routes. In South India, Rajaraja Chola I defeated the Cheras, Pandyas, and Western Chalukyas, often sacking their capitals and temples to weaken political and economic structures. The Tanjai Periya Kovil inscription at the Brihadeeswara Temple in Thanjavur boasts of the wealth plundered from these campaigns, including gold, jewels, and sacred artifacts. Cities like Madurai (Pandya capital) and Kalyani (Chalukya capital) faced destruction, with temples looted to assert Chola dominance.
The invasion of Sri Lanka around 993 CE was particularly destructive. Rajaraja’s forces captured the northern part of the island, sacking Anuradhapura, the ancient Sinhalese capital. Buddhist monasteries, a cornerstone of Sri Lankan culture, were looted, and their treasures were transported to Chola territories. The campaign displaced local populations and disrupted the island’s political order, establishing Chola rule over parts of Sri Lanka for nearly a century.
Rajendra Chola I extended the Chola reach to Southeast Asia with his naval expedition against the Srivijaya Empire (modern-day Indonesia and Malaysia) in 1025 CE. Targeting key ports like Kedah and Palembang, the Cholas plundered wealth and asserted control over maritime trade routes in the Indian Ocean. While the campaign was a testament to Chola naval prowess, it caused significant economic disruption for Srivijaya’s coastal communities.
Historical Context
The Cholas’ conquests were driven by economic and political motives. Control over Indian Ocean trade, particularly in spices, textiles, and gems, was central to their empire-building. Their campaigns in South India aimed to consolidate power over rival Tamil and Deccan kingdoms, while the Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian expeditions secured strategic trade hubs. Unlike later invasions with religious undertones, the Cholas’ violence was framed within the Kshatriya ethos of conquest and dharma, not as a Hindu crusade against non-Hindus. Their destruction of Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka, for instance, targeted wealth rather than religion.
Critical Perspective
The Cholas are celebrated for their architectural marvels, such as the Brihadeeswara Temple, and their contributions to Tamil literature, art, and administration. However, their military campaigns reveal a pattern of violence typical of medieval empires, comparable to their contemporaries like the Rashtrakutas or Pallavas. Modern narratives, particularly in Tamil Nadu, glorify the Cholas as cultural icons but often overlook the human cost of their conquests. The NCERT’s revised textbooks briefly mention Chola achievements but omit their destructive campaigns, reflecting a selective focus on cultural legacy over martial aggression.
3. Hephthalite Huns in India (5th–6th Centuries): Nomadic Incursions
The Hephthalite (White) Huns, a nomadic group from Central Asia, invaded northern India in the 5th–6th centuries, targeting the Gupta Empire during its decline. Led by figures like Toramana and Mihirakula, their incursions left a trail of destruction but were ultimately contained.
Nature of the Violence
Toramana (r. early 6th century) established control over regions like Malwa, Punjab, and parts of Gujarat, imposing tribute and plundering cities. His campaigns disrupted Gupta trade networks and weakened urban centers like Ujjain. His son, Mihirakula (r. 515–540 CE), is notorious for his brutality. Ancient texts, including Kalhana’s Rajataranginiand accounts by Chinese traveler Xuanzang, describe Mihirakula as a tyrant who massacred populations, razed Buddhist monasteries, and persecuted monks. In Kashmir and Gandhara, he reportedly killed thousands, targeting Buddhist centers like Taxila, a hub of learning and commerce. His actions triggered famines and displacement, exacerbating the Gupta Empire’s decline.
Historical Context
The Huns’ invasions were driven by their nomadic lifestyle, which relied on plunder and tribute rather than permanent settlement. The Gupta Empire, weakened by internal strife and succession disputes, was an inviting target. Unlike later Muslim invasions, the Huns’ attacks lacked a religious agenda, focusing on wealth accumulation. Mihirakula’s targeting of Buddhist institutions likely reflected their status as repositories of wealth, though some sources suggest personal animosity toward Buddhism.
The Huns’ dominance was short-lived. Around 528 CE, Indian rulers, including Yasodharman of Malwa and the Maukharis, defeated Mihirakula, confining him to Kashmir. His eventual expulsion marked the end of significant Hun presence in India.
Critical Perspective
The Huns’ invasions accelerated the Gupta Empire’s collapse and weakened Buddhist institutions, paving the way for later invasions. Their violence, while severe, was not unique among nomadic groups like the Scythians or Kushans. The portrayal of Mihirakula as a singularly cruel figure in Buddhist sources may reflect sectarian bias, as Hindu texts like the Rajatarangini also condemn him. Modern histories, including NCERT textbooks, briefly mention the Huns but focus on their role in Gupta decline, often overlooking the broader social impact.
4. Akbar and the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568): Mughal Conquest and Brutality
The Siege of Chittorgarh (October 1567–February 1568) was a defining moment in Mughal emperor Akbar’s campaign to consolidate power in northern India. Chittorgarh, the capital of Mewar’s Sisodia Rajputs, was a symbol of resistance against Mughal domination.
Nature of the Violence
Akbar’s army, approximately 40,000 strong and equipped with cannons, muskets, and siege equipment, laid siege to Chittorgarh, defended by 8,000 Rajput warriors under Jaimal Rathore. The fort’s formidable defenses, including 30-foot-thick walls, prolonged the siege for four months. The Mughals suffered heavy losses, with around 200 soldiers killed daily due to Rajput sorties and defensive fire. Akbar employed innovative tactics, such as constructing sabats(covered trenches) and mining the walls, to breach the fort.
On February 22, 1568, after Jaimal’s death—possibly by Akbar’s own musket—the fort fell. Akbar ordered a general massacre, with estimates of 20,000–30,000 civilians killed, including women and children. Many were enslaved, and the city was looted. Rajput women performed jauhar (mass self-immolation) to avoid capture, and the men donned saffron robes for a final sortie, dying in battle. Akbar declared the conquest a “Jihad” against “infidels” in his victory letter, framing it as a triumph of Islam over Hindu resistance.
Mughal Commanders
The Mughal forces were led by Akbar, with key commanders including:
- Husain Quli Khan: Oversaw siege operations and coordinated assaults.
- Asaf Khan: Managed logistics, including sappers who constructed mines and trenches.
- Adham Khan: Akbar’s foster brother, participated in the final assault.
- Other Nobles: Mughal cavalry and artillery units, including loyalists of former regent Bairam Khan, played critical roles.
Historical Context
Chittorgarh’s strategic location and symbolic importance as a Rajput stronghold made it a priority for Akbar, who sought to subdue Mewar’s Rana Udai Singh II. The massacre was likely intended to send a message to other Rajput states, though it failed to fully quell Mewar’s resistance, as Rana Pratap continued the fight. Akbar’s declaration of “Jihad” contrasts with his later policies of religious tolerance, such as abolishing jizya (poll tax on non-Muslims) and promoting sulh-i-kul (universal tolerance), suggesting a pragmatic use of religious rhetoric to rally his troops.
Critical Perspective
Akbar’s reign is often celebrated for its inclusivity, but the Chittorgarh massacre reveals a brutal facet of his early conquests. The NCERT’s revised Class 8 textbook describes his rule as a “blend of brutality and tolerance,” acknowledging the massacre alongside his later reforms, such as translating Hindu epics into Persian. The “Jihad” framing was likely a political tool, not a reflection of consistent religious policy. The massacre’s scale, while horrific, was not unique in medieval warfare, as Rajput and other Indian rulers also employed similar tactics. The event underscores the complexities of empire-building, where violence and diplomacy coexisted.
5. Stopping the Mongols: Delhi Sultans’ Defense of India
The Mongols, under Genghis Khan and his successors, posed a significant threat to India in the 13th–14th centuries. Their invasions were repelled by the Delhi Sultans, preventing large-scale conquest.
Key Figures and Events
- Iltutmish (r. 1211–1236): As a Mamluk Sultan, Iltutmish faced Genghis Khan’s pursuit of the Khwarazmian prince Jalaluddin to the Indus River in 1221. He avoided direct confrontation, using diplomacy and strategic neutrality to protect Delhi from Mongol wrath.
- Alauddin Khilji (r. 1296–1316): Khilji faced multiple Mongol invasions between 1297 and 1308, led by commanders like Qutlugh Khwaja and Kebek. His general, Zafar Khan, defeated the Mongols at the Battle of Jalandhar (1298). Khilji’s military reforms, including a standing army and fortified defenses around Delhi, repelled attacks at Amroha (1305) and Ravi (1306). The Mongols suffered heavy losses, deterring further incursions.
- Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (r. 1320–1325): Tughlaq’s campaigns secured the northwestern frontier, limiting Mongol raids to Punjab.
Historical Context
The Mongols’ invasions were driven by their expansionist agenda, seeking tribute and plunder across Asia. India’s Delhi Sultans, with their fortified cities and professional armies, presented a formidable barrier. Geographical factors, such as the Himalayas and Indus River, also hindered Mongol advances. The Mongols’ focus on Persia, China, and Central Asia reduced their sustained interest in India, allowing the Sultans to confine raids to border regions.
Critical Perspective
The Delhi Sultans’ success in repelling the Mongols was a significant achievement, preserving India’s political and cultural landscape. However, their defense was rooted in their own imperial ambitions, as they sought to consolidate power over northern India. The narrative of Muslim rulers protecting India contrasts with their own conquests, which involved violence against Hindu populations. Modern accounts, including NCERT textbooks, emphasize the Sultans’ military prowess but often overlook the broader context of their rule.
6. RSS and NCERT: Controversies Surrounding Textbook Revisions
The NCERT’s revised Class 8 Social Science textbook, Exploring Society: India and Beyond (released July 2025), has sparked debate over its portrayal of historical events, particularly Mughal violence and Maratha/Sikh resistance. Critics allege influence from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organization. As the RSS is not a registered entity and does not offer formal membership, affiliations are ideological or based on association with its activities or leadership.
Individuals Associated
- Michel Danino: A French-born Indian historian, Danino heads NCERT’s Curricular Area Group for Social Science. His works, such as The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati, emphasize India’s ancient Hindu heritage, aligning with RSS-promoted narratives. While no direct evidence ties him to the RSS, his involvement in the revisions and his ideological alignment have drawn scrutiny. Danino defends the textbook, arguing it corrects historical biases without demonizing any group.
- Dinesh Saklani: As NCERT director, Saklani oversees curriculum development. Critics associate him with RSS-aligned narratives due to the textbook’s content, but no evidence confirms direct RSS involvement. Saklani emphasizes the revisions’ aim to foster critical thinking and historical accuracy.
- Other Contributors: The textbook was developed by a committee of historians and educators, but specific RSS affiliations are not documented in available sources. The lack of transparency about committee members fuels speculation about ideological influence.
Context of the Revisions
The revised textbook highlights Mughal atrocities, such as Akbar’s Chittorgarh massacre, while celebrating Maratha and Sikh resistance to Mughal rule. It includes a section on “darker periods in history” and a “no-blame” footnote, aiming to contextualize violence without assigning modern responsibility. However, the brief mention of Maratha violence in Bengal compared to detailed accounts of Mughal actions has led to accusations of selective emphasis. Critics argue that the revisions reflect a BJP-RSS agenda to portray Mughals as oppressors and Hindu rulers as liberators, aligning with Hindu nationalist ideology. Supporters, including Danino and Saklani, claim the changes address a Nehruvian bias that sanitized Mughal history while ignoring Hindu resistance.
Critical Perspective
The absence of formal RSS membership complicates claims of direct influence. Instead, the revisions reflect ideological alignment with the BJP’s cultural nationalism, under which NCERT operates. The inclusion of Maratha atrocities in Bengal, though less prominent, suggests an attempt at balance. However, the emphasis on Mughal violence risks skewing historical understanding, particularly for young students. The controversy underscores broader debates over India’s historical narrative, where competing ideologies—secular, nationalist, and regional—shape educational content. A balanced approach requires acknowledging violence across all groups while fostering critical engagement with primary sources.
Conclusion
The histories of the Marathas, Cholas, Huns, and Mughals reveal the complexities of empire-building in India, where violence was a common tool of conquest. The Maratha raids in Bengal, driven by economic motives, devastated a prosperous region, challenging their heroic image. The Cholas’ conquests, while culturally significant, involved destruction akin to their rivals. The Huns’ brief but brutal incursions weakened the Gupta Empire, though Indian resistance limited their impact. Akbar’s Chittorgarh siege exemplifies the duality of his reign—brutal conquest followed by inclusive governance. The Delhi Sultans’ defense against the Mongols protected India but served their own imperial goals.
The NCERT revisions, potentially shaped by RSS-aligned ideologies, attempt to reframe these events, emphasizing Mughal violence and Hindu resistance. While the inclusion of a “no-blame” footnote and Maratha atrocities suggests balance, the selective focus raises concerns about ideological bias. Understanding these events requires a nuanced approach, recognizing the political, economic, and cultural contexts of violence while avoiding modern agendas. By engaging critically with history, we can foster a more inclusive and accurate narrative for future generations.
Sources:
- Maratha invasions: Gangaram’s Maharashtra Purana, Dutch/British East India Company records, Bengali chronicles.
- Chola conquests: Chola inscriptions, Tamil literary sources, Sri Lankan chronicles.
- Huns: Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, Xuanzang’s travel accounts.
- Chittorgarh: Mughal chronicles (Akbarnama), Rajput records, contemporary Persian sources.
- Mongols: Delhi Sultanate histories, Persian chronicles.
- NCERT-RSS: News reports (e.g., The Hindu, Indian Express), NCERT statements, academic analyses.