There has been a tradition in history that nations distinguish themselves with others on the basis of social, cultural, or religious diffrentiations. For example, the Greeks regarded their neighbours as barbarians. The Arabs called the Iranians as ajami or deaf. The Jews consider them as the chosen people of God that is why there is no preaching and conversion in Judism.The Christians and Muslims call people of other religions as non-believers or pagans. Therefore, on the bases of these religious, cultural, and civilizational prejudices, the relations of nations take shape: they are either friendly or hostile.

Suleiman Nadvi in his book ‘Hind-Arab Relations’ divides the nations into four categories: the Muslims, people of the book, those nations who have similarities with the people of the book, and unbelievers. On the basis of these categories, he describes the social relationship that is prescribed by religion. For example, the Muslims are allowed to marry women from the people of the book, but the other two categories are neither permitted to marry their girls nor to eat their slaughtered animals.

 In their early conquests, the Muslims came into contacts with the Jews and Christians and as they were people of the book, there was no problem to conclude treaties with them. They were given the status of dhimmis and asked to pay jizya (poll tax). However, when they conquered Persia, they faced the problem: how to deal with the Zoroastrians who are not mentioned in the holy Quran? The solution was found in declaring them similar to the people of the book and deserving to enjoy the same privileges i.e. to pay jizya and have a status of dhimmi.

 With the conquest of Sindh, the Muslim found people of quite different faith. They were Buddhists and Hindus. Again the question raised how to deal with them? Muhammad b. Qasim asked Hajjab, his patron and the governor of Basra, to advise him. According to Chuchnama, Hajjaj wrote to him: “As they have made submission, and have agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing more can be properly required from them. They have taken our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch our hands upon their lives and property. Permission is given to them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden in preventing from following their own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like.” The Chuchnama further mentions that Muhammad b. Qasim  “permitted them to retain their position like the Jews, the Christians, and fire worshippers of Irak and Sham.”

The Turks and the Afghans who ruled North India followed the same model. The Hindus were treated as dhimmis and jizya was imposed in lieu of protection. The policy was criticized by the orthodox ulama from time to time but the rulers retained it notwithstanding. Though some of the Sultans, in order to please ulama, demolished temples and humiliated their Hindus subjects but generally, the policy of religious toleration was maintained.

 When Akbar succeeded to the throne he, by abandoning the model of tolerance, adopted the policy of sulh i-kul. That is to treat all his subjects equally irrespective of their religion. The model of sulh I- kul is different than toleration. In toleration the ‘other’ is regarded as unequal to the strong party. The sul-I-kul on the other hand gave all of them equal status without any discrimination. Akbar believed that followers of all religions were on the right path; therefore, they had the right to worship according to their religious customs. This policy ended any differentiation between the believers and unbelievers. When Akbar married the Rajput princess in 1563, he did not ask her bride to change her religion. She was allowed to worship in the harem according to her faith without any disturbance. Akbar also abolished pilgrimage taxes on the Hindu pilgrims and finally abolished jizya in 1564.

Abul Fazl, the close friend and advisor of Akbar, supported him in formulating the policy of sulh –i- kul. He repeatedly emphasized that the no body should be allowed to oppose those ideas that were according to the need of time. He lamented that in the past the rulers handed over the authority of religion to those who were bereft of any understanding and their only hobby was to issue fatawa or religious injunctions. These people failed to comprehend the true spirit of religion. In 1593-94, Akbar issued radical laws to give his Hindu subject full religious freedom. For example, if a converted Muslim wanted to change his religion, he was allowed to do so. Nobody was permitted to interfere in the religious affairs of others. Everybody was free to change his religion. If a Hindu woman married a Muslim, his Hindu husband had a right to take her back. Akbar also allowed the Hindus, Christians, Jews, and the Parsis to build their temples and churches.

The result of the policy of sulh I-kul was that the Hindus became a part of the Mughal Empire. They were trusted and appointed on high mansabs in the army as well as in the administration. As a result of blending the two cultures, a new dynamic and energetic culture developed which made the Mughal rule unique in the Indian history.

The model of sulh-I-kul continued successfully up to Aurangzeb.He made an attempt to reverse it and bring back the model of tolerance. That is why he imposed jizya; demolished some temples and also granted land to some to show his tolerance. Tolerance from the powerful is a blend of both coercion as well as magnanimity.

Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed the decline and downfall of the Mughals and emergence of the Marathas, the Sikhs, the Jats, and the Rohillas.This ended both the policies of toleration and sulh-I-kul. In the vacuum of political power, the ulama took the lead of the Muslim community and laid down the foundation of a third model i.e. separatism. From Shah Waliullah to Haji Shariutullah, Saiyyid Ahmad Shaheed and Shah Ismail Shaeed all exhorted the Muslims of India to purify their faith from the Hindu customs and rituals. Ismail Shaheed in his book ‘Taqwiyatul Iman’ gives details of the Hindus practices which were prevalent among the Muslims such as to shave beard, to shake hands, to embrace on the occasion of Ids, to organize the gatherings on the birthday of the holy prophet, and to put garlands on the festive occasions. All these religious movements wanted to revive Islam and deepen the religious identity. They feared that the Muslims might not be absorbed by the Hindus. Saiyyid Ahmad Shaheed made an attempt to establish an Islamic state in the NWF .His efforts failed because of his defeat at Balakot in 1831.However, the model of his Islamic state remains alive till now in the mind of the ulama. (The present efforts of the jihad groups in Pakistan could be ananlysed in this context)

After 1857, there emerged two antithetical trends in the Muslim community: separatism and the collaboration with the British. The religious school of Deoband was in favour of separatism from the Hindus and the English, revival of purity of Islam, and to create a consciousness of religious identity. On the other hand Sir Saiyyid Ahmad Khan was in favour to compromise with the changing situation and adjust accordingly. He founded the Aligarh College to educate and modernize the Muslim elite class. These two trends created two different classes in the Muslim community. Deoband catered the lower middle classes and undertook the task to protect Islam in the hostile Indian environments. The Aligrah educated elite classes made efforts to get government jobs and become a part of the establishment.

However, in the struggle for Pakistan, when the European educated elite class became the leader of the Muslim community, the ulama resented it because they regarded themselves as rightful guides and protectors of the Muslims. That’s why they opposed the idea of Pakistan. They feared that in a new country, in the presence of secular and modern educated leaders they could not get any space for their authority.

Because of these reasons that they did not take part in the struggle for Pakistan. But once it came into existence some of the leading ulama came to the newly created country to snatch leadership from the politicians and fulfill their design to make it an Islamic state. Since then, the ulama are trying to establish the Shariat and rule the country.

The rulers implemented the two models of toleration and sulh-I-kul. While the model of ‘separation’ was promoted by the ulama, the model of separation is now adopted not only by the ulama but also politicians. The legacy of separation is the major cause of not treating the religious minorities on the basis of equality. It is also a reason for not having good relations with India, as Hindus are regarded as our enemies.