It’s a heartwarming tale—if only it had an ounce of historical truth.
The Historical Reality
Queen Karnavati did indeed face an existential threat from Bahadur Shah, and she did seek help from various quarters. However, there is no credible historical record to support the claim that she ever sent a rakhi to Humayun. The timeline simply doesn’t add up. When Karnavati was defending her kingdom, Humayun was preoccupied with his own challenges, including his struggle against Sher Shah Suri. By the time Humayun was in a position to help, the fort of Chittorgarh had already fallen, and Karnavati had committed jauhar, choosing death over dishonor at the hands of the invaders.
So where did this tale come from? It appears to be a later invention, designed to promote a narrative of unity between Hindus and Muslims. It is a kind of medieval-era ‘secularism’ that liberals are so fond of celebrating. The problem is, it’s a narrative built on quicksand.
Abhijit Iyer Mitra Takes on Liberal Nonsense
Speaking of quicksand, enter Abhijit Iyer Mitra, with his brilliant satire that skewers the absurdity of these invented historical narratives. According to Iyer Mitra, if you believe the liberals, Rakhi was actually invented by Mohammad Qasim in 715 AD. This is just before his execution. Apparently, the Hindu women of Sindh, who Qasim had “liberated” from the clutches of evil Brahminism, were so moved by his impending martyrdom that they tied threads around his wrists in a tearful display of affection. And from the place of his execution, Ar Raqqa, emerged the festival of Rakhi—though in its original form, it was called “Jashn-e-Raqqai.”
FYI #Rakhi was invented by Mohammad Qasim in 715AD. Just before his death at the hands of Sulaiman Abd Al Malik. The Lakhs of Hindu women he had liberated from the clutches of evil brahminism in Sindh cried when they saw him being led for his execution at Ar Raqqa. So they tied…
— Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (@Iyervval) August 19, 2024
But it doesn’t stop there. Iyer Mitra continues, tongue firmly in cheek, noting how the revered Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi took it upon himself to revive the spirit of Rakhi as a symbol of secularism and tolerance. This, he did, according to our esteemed satirist, exactly 1,300 years after the death of Qasim. However, modern-day India, with its “fascistic Hindu supremacist government,” decided to erase this glorious history, transforming “Band-E-Raqqa” into the communal festival of “Raksha Bandhan”. A classic case of historical revisionism if ever there was one!
Iyer Mitra’s satire isn’t just a critique of these ahistorical narratives. It’s a scathing indictment of the liberal tendency to invent and glorify myths in the name of secularism, no matter how absurd they may be.
The Danger of Celebrating Myths Over History Abhijit Iyer Mitra
The Karnavati-Humayun myth persists not because it is true, but because it serves a particular narrative. It offers a comforting, if fictional, example of Hindu-Muslim unity that some find necessary to promote a vision of India as a land of eternal secular harmony. But in doing so, it distorts the past. It presents a sanitized version of history that leaves out the uncomfortable truths.
True history is often inconvenient. It doesn’t always fit neatly into the narratives we want to tell. By promoting myths like that of Karnavati and Humayun, we risk replacing the complex reality of the past with a simplistic fiction that serves modern political agendas.
Celebrating Raksha Bandhan with Integrity
Raksha Bandhan is a beautiful festival that doesn’t need fabricated stories to enhance its significance. The essence of the festival—celebrating the bond of protection between brothers and sisters—transcends any one story or historical figure. Instead of relying on myths, let’s honor the festival for what it truly represents.
As Abhijit Iyer Mitra brilliantly illustrates, the attempt to reinvent history to fit modern ideologies is both absurd and dangerous. This Raksha Bandhan, let’s celebrate with an understanding rooted in truth. Not in fanciful stories designed to promote a version of secularism that never existed.
