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.
2 comments:
Your true religion seems to be superficiality. All these points you raise really melt away in terms of facts. I can't stand uninformed criticism from the right, the left, the traditionalists, the progressives - anyone. Why is Akbar not Indian enough? Because, he did not Indianize enough. He did Indianize much, much more than his predecessors or successors, and that is why he was accepted to the extent he was. You don't even have to be born in India or any particular place to "belong" there. What matters is how much you absorb the culture and participate in it. What you stand for. Kipling and Gen. Dyer were born in India - so, immigrants by your definition. But, what did they think of India, and do to Indians and India? There are only 2 ways invasions go. The invaders entirely replace the earlier culture - which might well die out or survive in pockets, like happened to the American Indians who were pushed into their reservations. Or, the invaders assimilate into the existing culture to such an extent, that with the blended culture emerging, they eventually become sons of the soil. One example are the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. They went native, spoke Greek mainly but remained within Egyptian culture, venerating for example, not the Hellenistic pantheon, but, the more ancient Egyptian one. Every example you give, can be broken down this way. The conclusions you have a predilection for, do not follow from the facts you present. This is the problem with modern Indian liberal thought. It is not true liberalism. It's ill-founded, and has for its primary messengers the worst unlearned academic mafia. Which makes it easy for the more extremist on the right to dismiss progressivism per se - the thought itself than the flawed messengers. And those of you, who draw from this already poisoned well of liberal thought, only perpetuate ill worth. You guys fall for the act. Take TMK. He is no messiah of the underprivileged striving 24/7 for their uplift in the ghettos. He could have done that by giving away his inherited wealth and living among the fishing hamlets at the Adyar estuary, in a mud-hut. No, he merely wants to be a shock-jock, the Howard Stern of Carnatic music. Do you think he has a full understanding of Carnatic music history to even claim the things he does, or hold up any cause? Take yourself. Somewhere you say you are moved by Vedic chanting. This is because of 2 reasons: a) It's an automatic neurocognition effect. Certain plainchants do have that effect on the human brain. Similar effects come from Gregorian plainchants. Buddhist chanting, though the content is not as elaborately constructed as Vedic verses are, has an effect too. b) You do not understand what's being chanted word-for-word. If you did and were parsing it as you were going along, it will neurologically fire different areas of the brain, and not produce the immersion effect that you experience. This "Different regions of the brain do different things" phenomenon is why Beethoven wrote possibly his finest music after losing his hearing. It was enough for him to read the music, and he did not need to listen to it, to know how it sounds. He was not composing by-ear. You see, you need to know something well, before forming deep-set opinions, or you are only a bigot like anyone else.
What you are questioning here, is the human need to adopt social identities, and hold fast to them: "my culture", "my nation" etc. Why don't we extend your question further? Why do you expect your wife to be faithful to you, or your grandson to love you? Did not those expectations come a social identity and a social order you learned? Why are you not questioning them too? If we must adopt a truly meritocratic approach, should it not only matter to you, when your grandson is old enough to think for himself, and by conviction, agrees with your values and ideas, and likes you as a person, for your mind? Why do you care for unreasoned love in a family context, but question it with the society at large? And is it not too soon for you to love your grandson? He may not in the end turn out the way you like. Shouldn't you, if so much a creature of reason, be guarded? You see, you are cherry-picking where to apply reason. You want to unlearn learned social identities for society at large, but keep them for the family setting. Why? Double standards, much? If you must question, you must question everywhere. There are only 2 fully `defensible social states: total anarchy and a platonic utopia. But that is not how the real-world is organized. So, what is the justification for your being happy with certain social identities and questioning others? Do as I say, not as I do?
Post a Comment