The Ultimate Villains Who Remained Untouchable

Understanding What Modern History Refuses to See

Two names echo through South Asian history with unique infamy. Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Mir Jafar. Centuries separate them, yet both remain cursed in popular memory while countless bloodier rulers are forgotten. Both died natural deaths. No human hand could touch them despite universal hatred. Understanding why requires grasping what modern historiography systematically erases.

This is not just history. It’s epistemology. Different knowledge systems produce different truths. Colonial historians saw economics. Nationalist historians saw betrayal. Academic historians see politics. Popular memory sees cosmic transgression.

Each framework reveals something real. But only one explains why these two remain uniquely vilified 673 and 267 years later.

The Theological Framework

Islamic tradition makes a fundamental ontological distinction. Ordinary humans were created from clay, as described in the Quranic account of Adam’s creation. Syeds, descendants of Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and son-in-law Ali, were created from the Noor, the Divine Light of Allah. This is not about lineage or social status. It represents an ontological difference. Syeds carry divine light within them. They are fundamentally distinct from other humans at the level of creation itself. This theological concept has profound practical consequences. The most striking is absolute physical protection.

Even when a Syed commits unforgivable transgressions, their person remains untouchable. This is not a social convention that anger can override. It appears embedded in collective consciousness and behavior at a level that transcends individual will. The principle operates with mathematical consistency. A Syed cannot be physically harmed by human hands. This protection is absolute, independent of their actions, and persists even when they commit the worst crimes.

Yet cosmic justice still operates. Violating the sanctity of Syeds brings divine retribution. This manifests through disease, natural disasters, family curses, and eternal dishonor. The vessel remains protected, but consequences follow.

What constitutes the ultimate transgression? When one Syed causes the death of another Syed. This is not merely murder or political betrayal. It is the extinguishing of divine light by another vessel of that same light. It violates the most fundamental prohibition in a way that resonates across sectarian divisions and through centuries.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq

(1290-1351)

Muhammad bin Tughlaq ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1325 to 1351. Popular history remembers him as the “mad sultan” or the “wisest fool.” A ruler of great intellect whose ambitious projects consistently ended in disaster.

His failures were spectacular. In 1327, he moved the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad in present-day Maharashtra. He forced the entire population to relocate, including scholars, ulemas, Syeds, and Sheikhs. The project was catastrophic. Immense hardship, death, and economic disruption followed. He eventually moved the capital back to Delhi, but the damage was irreversible.

He introduced token copper and brass currency to replace silver. Massive counterfeiting and economic chaos followed. His military campaigns depleted the treasury. His punishments were harsh and sometimes bizarre. Ibn Battuta, the Moroccan traveler who visited his court, documented numerous instances of severe justice. A crippled man executed. A blind man dragged from Delhi to Daulatabad as punishment for refusing to relocate. Many rulers were cruel. Many made disastrous decisions. What makes Muhammad bin Tughlaq uniquely villainous is what secular history downplays. He executed a Syed Muslim.

Among those who suffered under his forced relocation were Syeds, descendants of the Prophet. When they refused or failed to comply with his orders, he had them executed or subjected to punishments that led to their deaths. This was the cosmic transgression. A Muslim ruler causing the death of those who carried the Noor of Allah.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq died in 1351 of natural causes during a military campaign in Sindh. His health deteriorated during the strenuous campaign. He passed away en route to Thatta. No wounds. No battle injuries. No human hand touched him despite being one of the most hated rulers of his time. His reign ended in complete failure. The empire was fragmenting with multiple rebellions. The treasury was depleted. His ambitious projects had collapsed. He died on campaign, far from his capital, a broken ruler. Protected from human vengeance, but not from consequences.

Mir Jafar

(1691-1765)

Four hundred years after Tughlaq’s death, another Syed committed the same cosmic crime. Mir Jafar commanded the army of Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah of Bengal. In 1757, at the Battle of Plassey, Mir Jafar conspired with the British East India Company. He coordinated with wealthy Bengali merchants, particularly Jagat Seth, and other disaffected nobles. The goal was to overthrow his ruler.

Standard historical narratives focus on economics. Jagat Seth, whose title literally means “Banker of the World,” feared losing his financial dominance under Siraj-ud-Daulah’s taxation policies. Political rivalries and court intrigues played a role. The British East India Company strategically exploited internal conflicts. Mir Jafar refused to engage his troops during the battle. Siraj-ud-Daulah was defeated. The Battle of Plassey is presented as the beginning of British colonial rule in India. A turning point where India was “lost” due to internal betrayal.What these narratives systematically obscure is simple.

Both Mir Jafar and Siraj-ud-Daulah were Syeds. Both descended from the lineage of Prophet Muhammad. Siraj-ud-Daulah’s full name was Mir Syed Jafar Ali Khan Mirza Muhammad Siraj-ud-Daulah. The “Syed” in his name indicates his descent from the Prophet. When Mir Jafar conspired to depose and ultimately caused his death, he committed not just political treason but theological crime. One Syed destroyed another vessel of divine light.

British colonial historians portrayed Siraj-ud-Daulah as cruel, tyrannical, immoral, and promiscuous. Some accounts included salacious rumors. Modern historical research has found no credible evidence for these claims. These characterizations were propaganda designed to justify British intervention. The historical consensus now presents Siraj-ud-Daulah as young, inexperienced, and sometimes impulsive. He faced significant court intrigues and growing British encroachment. His main faults were his temper and indecisiveness, not moral corruption. He was known for his close and affectionate relationship with his wife Lutfunnisa Begum.

After betraying Siraj-ud-Daulah, Mir Jafar was installed as puppet Nawab of Bengal, controlled by the British. His “reward” for betrayal was humiliation and powerlessness. His death in 1765 is theologically significant. He died of natural causes. No human hand could touch him despite universal hatred. Yet he suffered from leprosy. His body literally rotted while he lived, a physical manifestation of spiritual corruption. He was addicted to opium, unable to bear consciousness in his final days.

Divine intervention appeared in the next generation. His son Mir Miran personally ordered Siraj-ud-Daulah’s execution. Mir Miran was killed by a lightning strike. Religious tradition understands this as literal fire from heaven, direct divine judgment.

Waseem Rizvi

(2021)

The theological principle is not historical theory. It operates today. Syed Waseem Rizvi was a prominent Muslim figure from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Around 2021, he converted to Hinduism and became Jitendra Narayan Tyagi. The conversion created unprecedented uproar in the Muslim community. The response exceeded typical reactions to religious conversions. His proposed grave was destroyed by angry masses. There was communal fury of a magnitude rarely seen. The incident made national headlines for weeks.

Yet Waseem Rizvi roamed freely without any security. He never requested police protection. He expressed no fear for his life. Not a single person physically attacked him. Even in their rage, anger sufficient to destroy his grave, the violent masses could not bring themselves to raise a hand against his person. Why? Because he was a Syed. The vessel of divine light remained inviolable, even when the Syed himself had abandoned Islam.

This modern example proves the concept of Syed as carrying the Noor of Allah is not merely historical theology. It remains a living, active principle that shapes behavior in contemporary times.

The Pattern Across Seven Centuries

Three cases. 1325. 1757. 2021. Seven centuries of consistent evidence. In each case, the Syed remains physically untouchable. Muhammad bin Tughlaq died naturally despite being hated. Mir Jafar died naturally despite universal fury. Waseem Rizvi walks freely despite unprecedented communal anger. In each case where a Syed violated other Syeds, cosmic consequences followed. Tughlaq’s reign ended in failure and lonely death. Mir Jafar rotted from leprosy while his son was struck by lightning. Mir Jafar’s name remains the ultimate political insult 267 years later, while his grave is spat upon.

The theological framework explains all of this. It predicts physical protection. It predicts cosmic consequences. It explains the unique, persistent, visceral hatred across centuries.

The Secular Frameworks

Colonial historians had no interest in Islamic theological concepts. They preferred rational explanations. Economic conflicts like Jagat Seth’s wealth. Administrative failures like Tughlaq’s mismanagement. Political intrigues and court rivalries. These explanations served colonial interests. They made indigenous rulers appear incompetent, greedy, or treacherous in purely secular terms.

Post-independence nationalist historians continued the secular framework. Mir Jafar became a symbol of anti-national betrayal enabling colonialism. Muhammad bin Tughlaq became an example of administrative overreach. Both were analyzed through frameworks of nation, economy, and governance.

The religious dimension was uncomfortable for secular nationalist narratives. Building unified national identities across religious communities required avoiding theological explanations.Contemporary academic historians operate within secular scholarly frameworks. They have no methodological tools to discuss ontological differences in human creation. They feel discomfort with religious cosmology as historical explanation. They prefer materialist explanations through economics, politics, and social structures.

The result is systematic erasure. The actual meaning of these events, as understood by the people who lived through them and passed down through generations, has been removed from written history. Each secular framework reveals certain truths. Colonial historians correctly identified economic factors. Nationalist historians correctly identified the impact on colonial subjugation. Academic historians correctly analyze political dynamics.

Yet each framework struggles with basic facts. Why do specifically these two remain uniquely vilified? Why not the countless rulers who committed greater massacres, caused more political damage, or made worse administrative decisions? Why do people still spit on Mir Jafar’s grave 267 years later? Why couldn’t angry masses touch Waseem Rizvi in 2021?

Secular frameworks dismiss these as superstition or ignore them entirely. The theological framework explains them directly.

Why Only These Two?

Throughout Islamic history in South Asia, countless rulers committed atrocities. Traitors caused political damage. Administrators created suffering. Military commanders lost decisive battles. Most are forgotten. Others are remembered with nuance. Some are viewed primarily through political and military lenses. Only Mir Jafar and Muhammad bin Tughlaq remain uniquely and universally vilified across centuries, regions, and even sectarian divisions.

The answer lies in what they did. Both caused the death of Syeds. Both violated the sanctity of those created from the Noor of Allah. Both committed the cosmic transgression that resonates beyond politics, economics, or military strategy. This is not ordinary crime. Political betrayal happens constantly. Administrative failure is common. Military defeat is routine. These can be forgiven, forgotten, or recontextualized.

But extinguishing divine light? That echoes across centuries. That creates a stain that no amount of political rehabilitation can remove. That explains why the name “Mir Jafar” remains the ultimate insult in South Asian politics today, why opposition parties still call rivals “new age Mir Jafar,” why people spit on his grave while respecting Siraj-ud-Daulah’s mausoleum.

The Enduring Legacy

Today, Mir Jafar’s descendants remain physically safe. They participate in local politics in Murshidabad. Some, like Syed Reza Ali Meerza, hold positions due to social work and community engagement. They are Syeds. The protection persists. Yet they carry communal disgrace. They are treated as outcasts. The cosmic consequence of their ancestor’s crime continues through generations.

Three separate realities operate simultaneously. Physical protection based on Syed status. Social outcast status based on cosmic transgression. Ordinary political participation based on secular dynamics. These do not cancel each other out. They operate on different planes.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s name evokes a unique quality of cursed folly in popular culture. Not just incompetence. Not just cruelty. Something fundamentally wrong, fundamentally stained.

Popular memory operates through different epistemology than academic history. It preserves what elite history erases. Folk memory transmits through behavior, not books. Through visceral reactions, not rational analysis. Through patterns that persist even when the explicit theology is no longer articulated. Some crimes are not against states or economies. Some crimes are against divine light itself. Such crimes cannot be avenged by human hands, but they are never forgotten.

The Epistemological Question

This article presents a choice between knowledge systems. Not which is true, but what each can explain. The secular frameworks explain much. Economic incentives were real. Political dynamics were real. Administrative challenges were real. Colonial manipulation was real. Yet they cannot explain the persistent, visceral, centuries-long hatred of specifically these two figures.

They cannot explain why Syeds remain physically untouchable even when they commit unforgivable acts. They cannot explain the pattern across seven centuries. The theological framework explains these directly. It predicts physical inviolability. It predicts cosmic consequences. It explains why the crime against Syeds resonates differently than ordinary political crimes.

Modern secular thought struggles to accept that multiple realities coexist. Traditional Islamic cosmology has always understood this. Theological law operates on one plane. Cosmic justice on another. Human society on a third. All are real. All function simultaneously. The question is not whether you believe in the Noor of Allah.

The question is whether the theological framework explains historical patterns that secular frameworks cannot. Popular memory suggests it does. Seven centuries of consistent evidence suggests it does. The untouchability of Waseem Rizvi in 2021 suggests it does. When modern historiography removes the theological dimension, we don’t just lose religious context. We lose the actual meaning of events as understood by the people who lived them. We create sanitized narratives that explain less while claiming to explain more.

Some transgressions echo across centuries. Some crimes create stains that time cannot wash away. Understanding why requires holding multiple truths simultaneously. These men were protected because they were Syeds or ruled over them. They were cursed because they violated Syeds. They remain relevant because the transgression was cosmic, not merely political.

The ultimate villains remained untouchable. That paradox reveals more than any secular analysis can capture.

References:

Primary Islamic Sources

• Quran, multiple verses on creation of Adam from clay (Al-Hijr 15:26, As-Sajdah 32:7)
• Hadith collections on the status of Ahl al-Bayt and descendants of the Prophet
• Classical Islamic texts on the concept of Noor and spiritual lineage

Historical Primary Sources

• Ibn Battuta, Rihla (Travels), accounts of Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s court (1333-1347)
• Contemporary Persian chronicles of the Delhi Sultanate
• British East India Company records of the Battle of Plassey (1757)
• Correspondence between Robert Clive and Mir Jafar

Academic Historical Sources

• Hodivala, S.H. Studies in Indo-Muslim History
• Jackson, Peter. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History
• Sen, S.N. Historiography of the Battle of Plassey
• Marshall, P.J. Bengal: The British Bridgehead

Modern Sources

• News coverage of Waseem Rizvi/Jitendra Narayan Tyagi conversion (2021)
  • The Hindu, The Indian Express, Times of India reports
  • Coverage of grave destruction incident

Colonial and Nationalist Historiography

• Mill, James. The History of British India (1817) – colonial perspective
• Majumdar, R.C. History of Bengal – nationalist perspective
• Cambridge History of India series – academic colonial framework

Contemporary Analysis

• Eaton, Richard M. The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier
• Hardy, Peter. Historians of Medieval India
• Studies on folk memory and historical consciousness in South Asia