Righting the Past 2
Battle of Haldighati was fought between Rana Pratap of Mewar
and Akbar in 1575 AD. In fact it was between Rana Pratap and Raja Man Singh
leading Akbar’s forces. Man Singh defeated Rana Pratap but he escaped to fight
another day. Some have touted it as a fight for Rajput honor. Ironically both
were Rajputs. In fact most of the wars fought by Rajputs were amongst
themselves. Leaving aside that inconvenient fact , we are considered ‘
patriotic ‘ only if we feel sad and hurt by the outcome of the heroic fight by
Rana.
Why do I need to feel hurt about a battle fought for
domination ( yes, Rana was defending his territory , to that extent it is ok )
?
Recently , there were articles expounding why the
Battle of Haldighati was actually won by Rana because he was not captured.
Akbar was a third generation immigrant but why is he not
treated as Indian ?
Padmavati
She came into prominence after a Sufi poet Mullick Mohammud
Jayashi composed a long poem called Padmavat more than a century after the
event. Ratan Sen of Chittore married
Padmavati, a Sinhalese princess , although he had already a wife ( wives
) and against the wishes of first wife. The rest of the story, how Alauddin
Khilji was smitten by her beauty , how after defeating and killing Ratan Sen,
he learns on entering the fort that 16000 Rajput women led by Padmavati had committed
johar to save their honor – all are known and are considered self evidently
‘true ‘ . Many historians doubt the veracity of this as Padmavati is not even
mentioned by historians accompanying Khilji. And 16000 seemed an imagined
number.
If I doubt the story, it hurts Rajput pride. Of course no
one feels horrified that women were forced to commit suicide by burning. Should
such pride and ‘ honor ‘ have a place in our minds ?
Napoleon
There is a painting showing Napoleon consoling and helping
his soldiers who were down with plague ( ‘ Napoleon at Jaffa ‘ ). Historians
have said that Napoleon actually ordered the plague ridden soldiers be given a
fatal over dose of opium .
Napoleon had a vision of united Europe ( naturally under French
). He was a man of culture, appreciated and encouraged arts and science etc.
Also by his ‘ conquests ‘ and for the glory of France ( meaning Himself ) he
was responsible for death of millions and for suffering of many more
millions.
When we teach Napoleon, do we mention all these ?
Yes , perhaps ; if we are British or Russians but not if we
are French or even Indians ( Panchatantra lesson : enemy of enemy is a friend )
Pulikeshi and Cholas
610 – 642 AD ; 1400
years back: Chalukyas of Badami ;
Chinese scholar / traveler describes him as kind , tolerant
of religious beliefs (he was Hindu and tolerated Buddhists and Janis ) ,
efficient king. He had a big empire extending to more than half of south India
, defeated Harsh Vardhana ; He also defeated Mahendra Verma , king of Pallavas and destroyed his towns.
After a few years , Narasimhaverman ,
son of Mahendra Verma , defeated Pulikeshi and destroyed Vatapi ( Badami )
So far so good. Pulikeshi had his capital in Badami and
Pallavas had their capital in Kanchipuram. Sort of Kannada and Tamil
kings. I distinctly remember novels in Tamil glorifying Pallavas and in history books too. Pulikeshi ( ‘ veera
‘ ) is a hero in Karnataka. A girl / boy in Mysore should feel ‘ proud ‘ of
Pulikeshi and across a few kms in Tamil Nadu a Tamil boy should shout with joy
when he reads that Narasimha Verman took revenge. And if you are a person in
Madhya Pradesh you do not have to care. We need a GPS to express appropriate
feelings !
Raja Raja Chola
985 – 1014 AD : tolerant king ; patron of arts and culture ;
some even claim that he sculpted a few .
Brahdeshwara temple at Tanjore is such an architectural marvel. You feel overwhelmed by
the grandeur, beauty and the structure itself.
He expanded his empire beyond Indian borders , to Maldives,
Sri Lanka and east Asia. Invaded Anuradhapura , a capital of Srilanka for 1400
years and destroyed it. ( In 1070 AD Vijaya Bahu reclaimed it for Sinhalese). Tamil boys
and girls ( and adults too ) feel so
proud that it chokes their throat, brings tears of joy at this great event.
Sinhalese would be sad till 1070. What nonsense is it ?
Krishna Deva Raja
Telugu and Kannada people have often been on opposite sides
claiming Krishna Deva Raya was Telugu or Kannadiga. As if he cared ! Why one is
supposed to feel proud or upset with such things ?
Tippu Sultan
Called ‘ Tiger of Mysore ‘, administratively capable, paid
best wages to workers , military strategist, inventor of rockets in war , fought
British fiercely ( some say he even gave away his sons to British so that he
could fight again ), also fought with all his neighbors – Marathas, kodavas,
Kerala kings, Mysore Wodayers etc.
He gave lands to Sringeri mutt , donated money to some other
Hindu temples.
He also killed thousands mercilessly . For example, thousands of Nairs were imprisoned in Mysore and forcefully
converted , brutally assaulted. Same cruelty with Kodagu people : norms of the
times ? Not even that can be advanced in his favor as it was too brutal even
for those times. He was ruthless tyrant in many ways. So , why glorify him, why not say both aspects dispassionately . Do we need ideals like that , do we need to prefix ‘ Shaheed ‘ to his name
?
Tippu circle in our locality in Anjanapura with Urdu board is a typical example of our foolishness. It
is an area where people have no idea of history , are in fact uneducated , are
poor and influenced by some religious idiots. There are attempts to celebrate
his ‘ jayanthi ‘ and so called ‘ liberals ‘ support it. Of course RSS and BJP
oppose it. They want to mark it as a sad day.
Shivaji
He fought for his territory. Established his rule ; was
considered clever, fair and tolerant ruler . But some historian called him as
chieftain, a title some what less than a Maharaja , and people were outraged.
Later Shivaji’s descendants expanded Maratha dominance to some parts of Tamil
Nadu. Does it uplift Marathas , upset Tamils and cause no emotion in others ?
Subhash Chandra Bose
Yes he fought against British , even if it was a hopeless
cause. He was sincere, patriotic, sacrificed everything , was to the core non
communal, held women as equal. He does deserve our admiration. At the same time
why do we forget that he made terrible mistake of courting Hitler who was evil
personified. He very well knew about the atrocities of Hitler. How could he do
that ? Do we say so in our history books?
Gupta Golden Period
No one says why . It was Hindu king, empire was big , there
were many artists patronized by them. But how were people living ? Was any
thing done for them ? Were the kings fair, kind, tolerant ? Did they reduce
taxes at times of draught ? I do not know.
Sikkim King
It is part of India. A beautiful place. I can safely say
that for a vast majority of us , Sikkim does not exist. We know nothing about their history, actually
care very little. Not only because of
ignorance but also because they are not ‘us ‘.
On India being never aggressive , meaning India never
attacked others.
This I have heard several times in recent years . It is
always in contrast to ‘ Muslim ‘ invaders ‘ or British. India placed on a
morally high pedestal.
I used to accept it without thinking. Now I wonder.
1.
India as a bordered country is not of ancient
origin . It has been more of a cultural entity . Shared beliefs, customs,
prejudices, fortunes and misfortunes shaped this. If you see Mouryas, Guptas , Ashoka, Rajputs , Chalukyas , Shivaji ,
Moguls, Vijayanagar kings .. all fought for their identity, territory,
ethnicity, caste, religion but not for a concept or idea called India.
2.
So , saying India has never been an aggressor
has no meaning. You have to say Rajputs
or Chalukyas or Marathas were not aggressors. That is clearly not true.
3.
If we want to give credit we should see if Kings
who controlled a large portion of land mass in our subcontinent – such as
Ashoka, Gupta, Moguls - were aggressive
or not. This does not suit our narrative of Hindu superiority to say Moguls
never invaded other countries and hence we are proud of them.
4.
To be fair , most of the kings were clearly
satisfied with the empires they had because the land was fertile, produced
whatever needed. Generally they needed peaceful and if possible docile
neighbors. Also , going out of India most often meant that one should have
ships and sailors which was infeasible for most.
5.
Lastly and most importantly why is it we assume
that going out and killing people outside our country is more abominable as
against killing people inside the country ? Should we not detest both ?
6.
Killing in the name of any thing – caste,
religion, ethnicity, glory, language, race – should be condemned equally.
Defending oneself is different.
So, what should we do ?
We should identify what should one feel proud of in our
heritage ?
Should we identify ourselves closely with any person, event,
cruelty, exploitation, greatness of the past ?
We can not pick and choose in our past . What we want the
past to be unfortunately is not what it is .
Everyone living in the land, sharing many things like
language, ancestry, ethnicity, fortunes and misfortunes all have rights to the
heritage. One can not exclude some.
I listen to cds of Vedas though I do not understand the
language except in general terms. The cadence, beauty of the sound, and the
fact that it was recited by ‘ my ‘ ancestors long back and that it had much
more meaning to them makes it interesting. But why should this not apply to a
Muslim or a Christian in India ? They do not care, as Allah or Jesus did not
ask them.
Alternately the verses in Qur’an or Bible might mean something important to my
cousins in India. Why should this be shunned in our narrative ? ( TMK wanted to
sing songs in Carnatik music about Allah or Jesus and there were protests ! )
Should a present day British boy or girl ( from Nigeria,
Wales, Pakistan or Turkey ) feel terrible about colonialism ? Even if they are English or more so if they
are from colonized lands ?
Or an American child , if white, not be concerned about
slavery her forefathers supported or butchery of local Americans ?
Should we have ‘ my ‘ history, ‘ your history ‘ , ‘ Hindu
history’ , ‘ Muslim history ‘ , ‘ women history ‘ , ‘ white, black or brown history ‘ ? If we
have to move away from such nonsense we should not be too proud of certain
aspects of history that have more links to us personally.
Better still we should feel proud of ideas, actions, events
and personalities based on our ethical, moral , intellectual compass where ever
it might come from. I should ‘ own ‘ Newton, Shakespeare, Kalidasa, Confucius,
Bismillah Khan, MS, Aryabhata, Vedas, Mozart, Thyagaraja .
Perhaps a Buddha, a Basava, a Gandhi , a Einstein , a
Tolstoy could have done it easily. But that should be our goal and ideal.
