Categories
Historical Figures

Chandra Shekhar Azad : The Immortal Revolutionary

Early Life

Chandra Shekhar Azad was born on 23 July 1906 in Jujhautiya Brahmins family of Pandit Sitaram Tiwari and Jagrani Devi in the bhabara (of jhabua District)|madhy Pradesh. He spent his childhood in the village Bhabhra when his father was serving in the erstwhile estate of Alirajpur

He got the natural training of a hardy and rough life along with the Bhils who inhabited the wild region. From his Bhil friends, early in life, be learnt wrestling and swimming. He also became more skilled with the bow and arrow. He learnt to throw the Bhala or Javelin, to shoot straight, to ride and use the sword, in all of which he became proficient.

From his childhood, he remained a devotee of Hanuman throughout his life, and had a very strong Pehelwan(wrestler)-like body.

He was even called Bhimsen or Bhim Dada later. After the early education in Jhabua, he was sent to the Sanskrit Pathashala at Varanasi, where a near relative of the family, probably maternal uncle was then living. He returned home after a few months and he was admitted in the local school at Alirajpur. Again his father sent him to Benares for the boy exhibited a strange waywardness.

This time he remained there and studied properly. On the whole, he was an average student. Political Initiation From the very outset, he had a deep aversion for study which was of no real but to simply churn out quill drivers or babus for the use of the British Raj in India. His stay at Benares however had a salutary effect upon his life, for he came in contact with many young men and ideas.

The atmosphere was such that he got the opportunity of studying many things, especially the unhappy events which were then happening in the country. Bit by bit, his mind was being drawn to the political situation of the country. Young Chandra Shekhar was fascinated by and drawn to the great national upsurge of the non-violent, non-cooperation movement of 1920-21 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

It is during this time, when the Jallianwala Baag massacre by British Army took place in Amritsar where hunderds (at least 2000) unarmed, peaceful and unwarned civilians were fired upon. This event had a profound effect on Indian national movement and inspired several young Indians, like Azad, into political movement for liberation. The young mind of Chandrashekhar was wax to receive and marble to retain.

From Chandrashekhar Tewari to Chandrashekhar ‘Azad’

To protest the massacre and demanding the liberation, various popular activities sprouted up throughout the country. While participating in one of these movements, Chandra Shekhar was arrested when he was just 16 years of age.

He was brought to court. The Magistrate asked him, “What is your name? Where do you live? What is your father’s name?” His answers were going to become very famous. He gave his name as ‘Azad’, his father’s name as ‘Swatantra’ and his place of dwelling as ‘prison cell’. Astonished was the Magistrate at these straight and bold answers. Azad was sentenced to fifteen canes. He was beaten very severely. At every beat, his body turned blue and red and blood oozed out freely. Azad was highly honored by the citizens and profusely garlanded when he came out from jail. His photos appeared in the Press with streamlined captions. From here on, he would be known far and wide as ‘Azad’, forever.

After this incident, Shri Provesh, the chief organiser of the Revolutionary Party in India, sought him and persuaded him to join it. Azad proved to be a restless worker. He issued secretly and silently, many leaflets and bulletins to drive away the misconceptions entertained by the people of the country. He proved a master propagandist. In physical strength, none equaled him and he was called Bhim Dada. Other eminent members of the party working along with Azad were Shri Yogesh Chatterji, Shri Sachin Sanyal and Shri Rabindranath Kar. Men in the party learned all the arts of modern warfare. The main problem was finance. Finances! From where could the money be had? This was the major issue before the party. To ask openly was impossible and to obtain it secretly was a much more difficult task.

Kakori Case 

The leaders of the party toured extensively in the land and collected a lot of money but it proved inadequate for the purposes of the contemplated actions. The leaders of the party sought the help of Azad. A secret commission was called and it decides in favour of dacoity of Government treasure. Verily it was a verdict and the men of the party started preparations for committing it somewhere. Result was the famous Kakori Case. Kakori is a railway station near Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh. The idea of the Kakori train robbery was conceived in the mind of Ram Prasad Bismil, while travelling by train from Shahjahanpur to Lucknow. At every station he noticed moneybags being taken into the guard�s van and being dropped into an iron safe. At Lucknow, he observed some loop holes in the special security arrangements. This was the beginning of the famous train dacoity at Kakori.

As per the plan, on August 9, 1925 members successfully looted the No. 8 Down Train from Shahjahanpur to Lucknow by stopping it at a predetermined location and holding the British soldiers at gun point. Just 10 young men had done this difficult job because of their courage, discipline, above all, love for the country. They had written a memorable chapter in the history of India’s fight for freedom. These revolutionaries were Ramaprasad Bismil, Rajendra Lahiri, Thakur Roshan Singh, Sachindra Bakshi, Chadrasekhar Azad, Keshab Chakravarty, Banwari Lal, Mukundi Lal, Mammathnath Gupta and Ashfaqulla Khan.

After this event, the Government let loose a period of repression, search and arrests in the country. Many revolutionaries were arrested. After deliberations of 18 months, the court awarded punishments. Four of the members – Ramaprasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla Khan, Rajendra Lahiri and Roshan Singh were sentenced to death; the others were given life sentences. Sad was the outcome of this whole operation for it lost its best and powerful men in the scramble. However Azad remained at large, never to be captured by British, and to continue doing the revolutionary struggle. During the next phase of the struggle he menored a whole team of revolutionaries to shake the British Raj

Untired Revolutionary Organizer

Azad disguised as a Sadhu, came to Jhansi and from there via Khandwa came to Indore. For a few days he went to his birthplace Alirajpur but did not stay there for long. Again he came back to Indore and after staying there in disguise for sometime, he left Indore. For some time, he also remained hidden in a hanuman temple as a priest.

Taking a circuitous he traveled across the trackless jungle of the Vindhya valleys on foot. This was the hardest period in his life and he had to undergo many hardships. The sun scorched him by day and the cold chilled him by night.

He was often at a loss to obtain food for himself.

He at last reached Kanpur where the headquarters of Hindustan Socialist Republican Army was set up, which Azad had to re-organize. This was the first task to fill the vacuum of leadership with capable youth.

At this time, he came in contact with the ablest and devoted men who wanted to overthrow the British Government by armed revolution. Incidentally, he met at Kanpur, Shri Bhagat Singh, Shri Rajguru and Shri Batukeshar Dutta.

The henchmen of the British Government were on the track of Azad. When a secret conference was being held between these men in a private lodging, the police all of a sudden rushed to the scene. A regular scuffle ensued and a party member named Shri Shukla met the assault single handed and was killed on the spot. Others, however, very skillfully managed to escape. Azad had in mind to teach a lesson to the intruders and on this particular occasion, he felt an overwhelming temptation to shoot but was held back.

Convocation of all the revolutionary leaders from different provinces of India was held in Delhi in September, 1928, near the old fort. Leaders from all over India took a serious review of the political situation in the country and decided on a course of action. Policy of “One for One” was decided in the terminology of the revolutionary organizations. Then, all of them departed to their respective provinces. It is rather difficult to know about the resolutions of meeting now.

Avenging the killing of Lala Lajpatrai

Hardly, had the leaders time to arrange their regional teams in order, than a serious situation arose in the country. Lala Lajpatrai, the ‘Lion of Punjab’ led a strong protest against the Simon commission in Lahore. The police with inhuman brutality charged the leaders with lathis.

Lalaji was struck. It proved a deadly blow and later lies succumbed to his injuries. While dying he said, “The blows I got are but the death-knells of the British Empire in India”.

No sooner did Azad hear of this dastardly crime, then he turned black with rage. He rushed to Lahore and conferred there with his friends. Suitable action to avenge the insult was planned. It seemed to Azad that even his life would be too small a price to pay for the action. Selecting a few of his trusted followers, he explained to them the plan of his action and gave necessary instructions.

As previously arranged, this operation was directed by Chandrashekhar Azad, Rajguru, Bhagat Singh and Jaigopal. All these chiefs remained in hiding behind the Police Office in Lahore.

As soon as Scott and Saunders came out, a volley of bullets struck them. Saunders was killed and Scott saved himself. Thus, Lalaji’s death was avenged.

Martyrdom

Once again, Azad was never captured. Vigilant police of the British rule in India were on the look out for Azad. All attempts to catch him proved fruitless. There are numerous stories related to Azad�s hide and seek with British Raj during these days. He was an expert in using camouflage, which he used on various occasions. His stories of escaping the British police became the talk of common household. Police were bewildered and tired.

At long last came the fateful day. On February 27, 1931 Azad was hiding in Alfred Park of Prayag, Allahabad in Utar Pradesh, waiting for a colleague for a secret meeting. Police had the clue and a successful net was drawn around the park.

There are some unconfirmed and somewhat controversial accounts of one of his comrades having been a traitor and police spy.

Anyways, police laid down a cordon with a troop of 80 sepoys to surround the Alfred Park and started fire. He only had a short range pistol with him and limited bullets. For quite sometime he held them at bay single-handedly with a small pistol and few cartridges.

Fighting back bravely, he used the bullets to only target the british sepoys. In the end, Left with only one bullet, he fired it at his own temple and lived up to his resolve that he would never be arrested at the hands of British. He used to fondly recite a Hindi sher, probably his only poetic composition:

‘Dushman ki goliyon ka hum samna karenge,
Azad hee rahein hain, Azad hee rahenge’
“(Will face the enemies bullets’ Will remain free, Will Remain Free’)

 



( Chandra Shekhar Azad sacrifices his life from the movie Bhagat Singh)


(2255)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Legendary Battles

1758 : Battle of Attock

As the dreaded Afghan leader Ahmed Shah Abdali left India with his hitherto undefeated armies he left his Indian provinces (comprising of Western Punjab and the hill areas of modern Pakistan) under his son and future king of the Durrani Empire, Timur Shah guided by his able lieutenant, Sardar Khan.

 Strong Afghani forces were stationed to prevent the collapse of his new found territory and the shattered remnants of the Mughals swore loyalty and a hefty tribute to him each year. Certainly the formidable and defiant Jat power of Bharatpur under Suraj Mal remained undefeated and the Rajput states untouched by Ahmed Shah but the canny Pathan leader was able to unite the disparate and fanatical hill men of his country into a formidable and ruthless force which left terror and destruction in its wake.

From the south however came his greatest rival – the Marathas – Under the inspirational leadership of the Brahmin warrior – Baji Rao (1720-1740) the Marathas shattered the shell of the Mughal Empire and under his son Baaji Baji Rao (1740- 1761) the Marathas secured the ‘Chauth’ of all of Hindustan and fulfilled the prophecy of their legendary king Shivaji the Great (1657 – 1680) that the Marathas would rule from the Himalayas to the southern tip of India- from ‘Attock to Cattock’

In 1757 a vast force under the leadership of the Peshwas brother Raghunath Rao and the warlords of the Holkar and Sindhia families poured their waves of relentless light cavalry into northern India. The Afghan garrison in Delhi was utterly defeated and converging lines of Marathas began the invasion of Punjab and chased the Afghans to where Timur Shah was enclosed in Lahore – After defeating the Afghans and destroying their base in Sarhind with the assistance of local bands they marched to Amritsar, where they assisted in the cleansing of the Sikh holy site of the Golden Temple after expelling the Pathans who had desecrated the shrine.

The frantic Timur Shah calling for help from his father attempted to defend the city of Lahore only to have it fall before the Marathas (it is said that the gates of Somnath stolen by Mamhud Ghazni 800 years before were recovered at this time by Mahadji Sindhia to once again adorn the entrance of a grand Hindu Temple)

The retreating Afghans were chased over the Indus River into the home territories of their Pathan brethren. The city of Peshawar fell before the Sindhia contingent of the Maratha Empire and finally after the elapsing of 700 years a Hindu army once again stood at the gates of India. A desperate stand was made by the retreating Afghans at the fort of Attock only to fall after a month long siege – the saffron flag – Bhagwa Jhanda flew over the proud Pathan landscape to the chagrin of the locals to find the pagan Hindus once again returning and proving their ability to endure and emerge over the most fanatical and relentless hatred.  The peak of the Maratha Empire was reached and reaches out today as an example of the eternal battle to preserve civilisation and culture in the face of implacable hatred.

(5319)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Analysis

The Worlds Longest ‘Unknown’ War

That audacious armada of the religion of Hijaz –
Whose insignia reached every corner of the world
Which learnt no obstruction from any fear
Which felt no hesitation in Persian Gulf or faltered in the Red Sea
Which valiantly crossed all the seven oceans
Oh, drowned was that armada (of Islam), when it reached the mouth of Ganga!

–  Mawlana Khwaja Altaf  Husain

 

It’s argued that if the Muslim conquerors had practised such systematic, extensive, and continued terror against Hindus and Hinduism as has been recorded by the Muslim historians of medieval India, Hindus could not have survived as an overwhelming majority at the end of the long spell of Muslim rule.

The logic here is purely deductive (formal). Suppose a person is subjected to a murderous assault, but he survives because he fights back. Deductively it can be concluded that the person never suffered a murderous assault because otherwise he could not have been alive! But this conclusion has little relevance to the facts of the case.

My question, therefore, is: Did Hindus survive as a majority in their own homeland because the Islamic invaders did not employ sufficient force to kill or convert them, or because, though defeated again and again by the superior military skill of the invaders, Hindu princes did not give up resistance and came back again and again to reconquer their lost kingdoms, to fight yet another battle, yet another day, till the barbarians were brought to book?

Before I answer this question, I should like to warn against a very widely prevalent though a very perverse version of Indian history. In this popular version, Indian history has been reduced to a history of foreign invaders who were able to enter India from time to time – the so-called Aryans, the Iranians, the Greeks, the Parthians, the Scythians, the Kushanas, the Hunas, the Arabs, the Turks, the Pathans, the Mughals, the Persians, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, and the British. The one impression which this version of Indian history leaves, is that India has always been a no-man’s land which any armed bandit could come and occupy at any time, and that Hindus have always been a ‘meek mob’ which has always bowed before every ‘superior’ race.

Muslims in India and elsewhere have been led to believe by the mullahs and Muslim historians that the conquest of India by Islam started with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 AD, was resumed by Mahmud Ghaznavi in 1000 AD, and completed by Muhammad Ghuri when he defeated the Chauhans of Ajmer and the Gahadvads of Kanauj in the last decade of the 12th century. Muslims of India in particular have been persuaded to look back with pride on those six centuries, if not more, when India was ruled by Muslim emperors. In this make-belief, the British rulers are treated as temporary intruders who cheated Islam of its Indian empire for a hundred years. So also the ‘Hindu Banias’, who succeeded the British in 1947 AD. Muslims are harangued every day, in every mosque and madrasah, not to rest till they reconquer the rest of India which, they are told, rightfully belongs to Islam.

The academic historians also agree that India was ruled by Muslim monarchs from the last decade of the 12th century to the end of the 18th. The standard textbooks of history, therefore, narrate medieval Indian history in terms of a number of Muslim imperial dynasties ruling from Delhi – the Mamluks (Slaves), the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids, the Lodis, the Surs, the Mughals. The provincial Muslim dynasties with their seats at Srinagar, Lahore, Multan, Thatta, Ahmedabad, Mandu, Burhanpur, Daulatabad, Gulbarga, Bidar, Golconda, Bijapur, Madurai, Gaur, Jaunpur, and Lucknow fill the gaps during periods of imperial decline.

It is natural that in this version of medieval Indian history the recurring Hindu resistance to Islamic invaders, imperial as well as provincial, looks like a series of sporadic revolts occasioned by some minor grievances of purely local character, or led by some petty upstarts for purely personal gain. The repeated Rajput resurgence in Rajasthan, Bundelkhand and the Ganga-Yamuna Doab; the renewed assertion of independence by Hindu princes at Devagiri, Warrangal, Dvarasamudra and Madurai; the rise of the Vijayanagara Empire; the farflung fight offered by the Marathas; and the mighty movement of the Sikhs in the Punjab – all these then get readily fitted into the framework of a farflung and enduring Muslim empire. And the Hindu heroes who led this resistance for several centuries get reduced to ridiculous rebels who disturbed public peace at intervals but who were always put down.

But this version of medieval Indian history is, at its best, only an interpretation based on preconceived premises and propped up by a highly selective summarisation, or even invention, of facts. There is ample room for another interpretation based on more adequate premises, and borne out by a far better systematisation of known facts.

What are the facts? Do they bear out the interpretation that India was fully and finally conquered by Islam, and that the Muslim empire in India was a finished fabric before the British stole it for themselves by fraudulent means?

 

MUSLIM INVASIONS WERE NO WALK-OVER
The so-called conquest of Sindh first.

Having tried a naval invasion of India through Thana, Broach, and Debal from 634 to 637 AD, the Arabs tried the land route on the north-west during AD 650-711. But the Khyber Pass was blocked by the Hindu princes of Kabul and Zabul who inflicted many defeats on the Arabs, and forced them to sign treaties of non-aggression. The Bolan pass was blocked by the Jats of Kikan. AI Biladuri writes in his Futûh-ul-Buldãn: ‘At the end of 38 H. or the beginning of 39 H. (659 A.D.) in the Khilafat of Ali”Harras’ went with the sanction of the Khalif to the same frontier’ He and those who were with him, saving a few, were slain in the land of Kikan in the year 42 H. (662 A.D.). In the year 44 H. (664 A.D) and in the days of Khalif Muawiya, Muhallab made war on the same frontier’ The enemy opposed him and killed him and his followers’ Muawiya sent Abdullah’ to the frontier of Hind. He fought in Kikan and captured booty’ He stayed near the Khalif some time and then returned to Kikan, when the Turks (Hindus) called their forces together and slew him.,

Next, the Arabs tried the third land route, via Makran. Al Biladuri continues: ‘In the reign of the same Muawiya, Chief Ziyad appointed Sinan’ He proceeded to the frontier and having subdued Makran and its cities by force, he stayed there’ Ziyad then appointed Rashid’ He proceeded to Makran but he was slain fighting against the Meds (Hindus)’ Abbad, son of Ziyad then made war on the frontier of Hind by way of Seistan. He fought the inhabitants’ but many Musulmans perished’ Ziyad next appointed Al Manzar. Sinan had taken it but its inhabitants had been guilty of defection’ He (Al Manzar) died there’ When Hajjaj’ was governor of Iraq, Said’ was appointed to Makran and its frontiers. He was opposed and slain there. Hajjaj then appointed Mujja’ to the frontier’ Mujja died in Makran after being there a year’ Then Hajjaj sent Ubaidullah’ against Debal. Ubaidullah being killed, Hajjaj wrote to Budail’ directing him to proceed to Debal’ the enemy surrounded and killed him. Afterwards, Hajjaj during the Khilafat of Walid, appointed Mohammad, son of Qasim’ to command on the Sindhian frontier.’ That was in 712 AD.

Now compare this Arab record on the frontiers of India with their record elsewhere. Within eight years of the Prophet’s death, they had conquered Persia, Syria, and Egypt. By 650 AD, they had advanced upto the Oxus and the Hindu Kush. Between 640 and 709 AD they had reduced the whole of North Africa. They had conquered Spain in 711 AD. But it took them 70 long years to secure their first foothold on the soil of India. No historian worth his salt should have the cheek to say that the Hindus have always been an easy game for invaders.

Muhammad bin Qasim succeeded in occupying some cities of Sindh. His successors led some raids towards the Punjab, Rajasthan, and Saurashtra. But they were soon defeated, and driven back. The Arab historians admit that ‘a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found’. By the middle of the 8th century they controlled only the highly garrisoned cities of Multan and Mansurah. Their plight in Multan is described by AI Kazwin in Asr-ul-Bilãd in the following words: ‘The infidels have a large temple there, and a great idol’ The houses of the servants and devotees are around the temple, and there are no idol worshippers in Multan besides those who dwell in those precincts’ The ruler of Multan does not abolish this idol because he takes the large offerings which are brought to it’ When the Indians make an attack upon the town, the Muslims bring out the idol, and when the infidels see it about to be broken or burnt, they retire.’ (emphasis added). So much for Islamic monotheism of the Arabs and their military might. They, the world-conquerors, failed to accomplish anything in India except a short-lived raid.

It was some two hundred years later, in 963 AD, that Alptigin the Turk was successful in seizing Ghazni, the capital of Zabul. It was his successor Subuktigin who seized Kabul from the Hindu Shahiyas shortly before he died in 997 AD. His son, Mahmud Ghaznavi, led many expeditions into India between 1000 and 1027 AD. The details of his destructive frenzy are too well-known to be repeated. What concerns us here is the facile supposition made by historians in general that Mahmud was not so much interested in establishing an empire in India as in demolishing temples, plundering treasures, capturing slaves, and killing the kãfirs. This supposition does not square with his seizure of the Punjab west of the Ravi, and the whole of Sindh. The conclusion is unavoidable that though Mahmud went far into the heartland of Hindustan and won many victories, he had to beat a hasty retreat every time in the face of Hindu counterattacks. This point is proved by the peril in which he was placed by the Jats of the Punjab during his return from Somnath in 1026 AD.

The same Jats and the Gakkhars gave no end of trouble to the Muslim occupants of Sindh and the Punjab after Mahmud was dead. Another 150 years were to pass before another Islamic invader planned a conquest of India. This was Muhammad Ghuri. His first attempt towards Gujarat in 1178 AD met with disaster at the hands of the Chaulukyas, and he barely escaped with his life. And he was carried half-dead from the battlefield of Tarain in 1191 AD. It was only in 1192 AD that he won his first victory against Hindus by resorting to a mean stratagem which the chivalrous Rajputs failed to see through.


THE TURKISH EMPIRE WAS TEMPORARY


Muhammad Ghuri conquered the Punjab, Sindh, Delhi, and the Doab upto Kanauj. His general Qutbuddin Aibak extended the conquest to Ajmer and Ranthambhor in Rajasthan, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Mahoba and Khajuraho in Bundelkhand, and Katehar and Badaun beyond the Ganges. His raid into Gujarat was a failure in the final round though he succeeded in sacking and plundering Anahilwar Patan. Meanwhile, Bakhtyar Khalji had conquered Bihar and Bengal north and west of the Hooghly. He suffered a disastrous defeat when he tried to advance into Assam.

But by the time Muhammad Ghuri was assassinated by the Gakkhars in 1206 AD, and Aibak assumed power over the former’s domain in India, Kalinjar had been reconquered by the Chandellas, Ranthambhor had renounced vassalage to Delhi, Gwalior had been reoccupied by the Pratihars, the Doab was up in arms under the Gahadvad prince Harishchandra, and the Katehar Rajputs had reasserted their independence beyond the Ganges. The Yadavbhatti Rajputs around Alwar had cut off the imperial road to Ajmer. Aibak was not able to reconquer any of these areas before he died in 1210 AD.

Aibak’s successor, Iltutmish, succeeded in retaking Ranthambhor and Gwalior, and in widening his base around Ajmer. But he suffered several defeats at the hands of the Guhilots of Nagda, the Chauhans of Bundi, the Paramars of Malwa, and the Chandellas of Bundelkhand. Beyond the Ganges, the Katehar Rajputs had consolidated their hold which the Sultan could not shake. The Doab was still offering a very stiff resistance. His grip on Ajmer had also started slipping by the time he died in 1236 AD.

The Sultanate suffered a steep decline during the reigns of Razia, Bahrain, Masud, and Mahmud of the Shamsi dynasty founded by Iltutmish, though its dissolution was prevented by Balban who wielded effective power from 1246 AD onwards. The Muslim position in Bengal was seriously threatened by Hindu Orissa. Another Muslim invasion of Assam ended in yet another disaster in which the Muslim general lost his life and a whole Muslim army was annihilated, Hindu chieftains now started battering the Muslim garrison towns in Bihar. Near Delhi, the Chandellas advanced up to Mathura. The Rajputs from Alwar made raids as far as Hansi, and became a terror for Muslims even in the environs of Delhi. Balban’s successes against this rising tide of Hindu recovery were marginal. He suffered several setbacks. The Sultanate was once more reduced to rump around Delhi when Balban died in 1289 AD.

Dr. R.C. Majumdar has summed up the situation so far in the following words: ‘India south of the Vindhyas was under Hindu rule in the 13th century. Even in North India during the same century, there were powerful kingdoms not yet subjected to Muslim rule, or still fighting for their independence’ Even in that part of India which acknowledged the Muslim rule, there was continual defiance and heroic resistance by large or small bands of Hindus in many quarters, so that successive Muslim rulers had to send well-equipped military expeditions, again and again, against the same region’ As a matter of fact, the Muslim authority in Northern India, throughout the 13th century, was tantamount to a military occupation of a large number of important centres without any effective occupation, far less a systematic administration of the country at large.’

Jalaluddin Khalji failed to reconquer any land which had been lost by Muslims during the earlier reign. Alauddin was far more successful. His generals, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan, were able to conquer Gujarat in 1298 AD. But they were beaten back from Ranthambhor which Alauddin could reduce only in 1301 AD. His conquest of Chittor in 1303 AD was short-lived as the Sisodias retook it soon after his death in 1316 AD. So was his conquest of Jalor in Rajasthan. His own as well Malik Kafur’s expeditions against Devagiri in Maharashtra, Warrangal in Andhra Pradesh, Dvarasamudra in Karnataka, and Madurai in Tamil Nadu, were nothing more than raids because Hindu princes reasserted their independence in all these capitals soon after the invaders left. And the Khalji empire collapsed as soon as Alauddin died in 1316 AD. Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq had to intervene in 1320 AD to save the remnants from being taken over by Hindus from Gujarat who had been nominally converted to Islam.

Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq was successful in conquering south and east Bengal.  But he could not completely subdue Tirhut in Bihar. His son Jauna Khan suffered defeat in 1321 AD when he tried to reconquer Warrangal, and had to mount another attack in 1323 AD before he could reduce it.  But by 1326 AD Prataparudra was back in power. In 1324 AD Jauna Khan had been beaten back from the borders of Orissa. He was more successful when he came to power as Muhammad Tughlaq. He consolidated his hold over Devagiri, conquered the small kingdom of Kampili on the Tungbhadra, and forced Dvarasamudra to pay tribute to the imperial authority of Delhi. Madurai also came to be included in his empire. He transferred his capital to Devagiri in order to keep a close watch on Hindu resurrection in the South, and for establishing another centre of Islamic power in India. But at the very start of his reign he had been defeated by Maharana Hammir of Mewar, taken prisoner, and released only after he ceded all claims to Ajmer, Ranthambhor and Nagaur, besides payment of 50 lakhs of rupees as indemnity. And his empire south of the Vindhyas was lost to Delhi in his own life-time, and Delhi’s hold over large areas even in the North disappeared soon after his death in 1351 AD.

Firuz Shah Tughlaq was able to keep together the rump for some time. His expedition to Orissa was nothing more than a successful raid. And he had to lead annual expeditions against the Katehar Rajputs north of the Ganges. Ms successors could not keep even the rump in the north. It broke down completely after Timur’s invasion in 1399 AD. Meanwhile, the great Vijayanagara Empire had consolidated Hindu power south of the Krishna. Rajasthan was ruled by defiant Rajput princes led by Mewar. Orissa had fully recovered from the devastation of Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s raid.

The Sayyids who succeeded the Tughlaqs were hardly an imperial dynasty when they started in 1414 AD. Their hold did not extend beyond Etawah (U.P.) in the east, and Mewat (Haryana) in the south. Khizr Khan tried to restore the empire in the north but without success. Mubarak Shah was able to recover the Punjab and Multan before the Sayyids were supplanted by the Lodis in 1451 AD.

Bahlol Lodi reduced the Muslim principality of Jaunpur in 1457 AD. But Sikandar Lodi failed to subdue Gwalior, Rajasthan, and Baghelkhand. He removed his capital to Agra in order to plan a conquest of Malwa and Rajasthan. But it bore no fruit. The Lodi ’empire’ more or less broke down under Ibrahim Lodi. By this time, Mewar under Rana Sanga had emerged as the strongest state in North India. Orissa stood its ground against Muslim Bengal to its north and the Bahmanis to its south. The power of Vijayanagara attained its acme under Krishnadevaraya (1505-1530 AD).

The situation during the 14th and the 15th centuries has been summed up by Dr. R.C. Majumdar in the following words: ‘The Khalji empire rose and fell during the brief period of twenty years (A.D 1300-1320). The empire of Muhammed bin Tughlaq’ broke up within a decade of his accession (A.D. 1325), and before another decade was over, the Turkish empire passed away for ever’ Thus barring two every short-lived empires under the Khaljis and Muhammad bin Tughlaq’ there was no Turkish empire in India. This state of things continued for nearly two centuries and a half till the Mughals established a stable and durable empire in the second half of the sixteenth century A.D.’

 

MUGHAL EMPIRE: A JOINT VENTURE
 

Babur won some renowned victories but hardly established an empire. Humayun lost to Sher Shah Sur, and failed to win back most of what Babur had won. Sher Shah added Ranthambhor and Ajmer to his empire in north India. But the fierce fight he faced in Marwar made him confess that he had almost lost an empire for a handful of millet. His rule lasted only for a brief span of five years (1540-1545 AD). The Sur ’empire’ became a shambles soon after, so much so that the Hindu general Himu was able to crown himself as Hemachandra Vikramaditya at Delhi in 1556 AD.

The Mughal empire founded by Akbar in 1556 AD proved more stable, and endured for 150 years. It also expanded in all directions till by the end of the 17th century it covered almost the whole of India except the extreme south. But the credit for Mughal success must go largely to Akbar’s recognition of power realities, and reconciliation with the Rajputs by suspension of several tenets of a typically Islamic state. It was the Rajput generals and soldiers who won many of the victories for which the Mughals took credit. The Rajput states in Rajasthan and Bundelkhand were vassals of the Mughal emperor only in name. For all practical purposes, they were allies of the Mughals who had to keep them in good humour. And Mewar kept aloft the flag of Hindu defiance throughout the period of effective Mughal rule.

The Mughal empire started breaking up very fast when Aurangzeb reversed Akbar’s policy of accommodating the Hindus, and tried to re-establish a truly Islamic state based on terror, and oppression of the ‘non-believers’. Rajasthan and Bundelkhand reasserted their independence during his life-time. So did the Jats around Bharatpur and Mathura. The Marathas dug Aurangzeb’s grave when they made imperial seats such as Ahmadnagar and Aurangabad unsafe in spite of large Mughal garrisons, and invaded imperial territory as far as Khandesh and Gujarat. This Hindu resurgence shattered the Mughal empire within two decades of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 AD.

 

THE PROVINCIAL MUSLIM PRINCIPALITIES
 

Amongst the provincial Muslim principalities established by rebels and adventurers after the break-up of the Tughlaq empire, those of Bengal, Malwa, Gujarat, and the Bahmanis were notable. Hindu Orissa battled against Bengal till both of them were taken over by the Mughals. The Sisodias of Mewar engaged Gujarat and Malwa, and almost overcame them in the reign of Rana Sanga. Gujarat recovered for a short time only to be taken over by the Mughals. The Vijayanagara Empire contained the Bahmanis from southward expansion in a fierce struggle spread over more than two centuries, in which fortunes on both sides waxed and waned. The destruction of the metropolis at Vijayanagara did not lead to the destruction of the Vijayanagara Empire. It barred the path of Bijapur for another seventy years. Meanwhile, the Marathas had come to control large parts of South India as nominal vassals of Ahmadnagar and Bijapur even before Shivaji appeared on the scene. And they were soon to deliver death blows to the remnants of the Bahmani empire which the Mughals hastened to incorporate in their own empire.

 

THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE
“Let us transcend the barren Deccan and conquer central India. The Mughals have become weak, insolent, womanizers and opium-addicts. The accumulated wealth of centuries in the vaults of the north, can be ours. It is time to drive from the holy land of Bharatvarsha the outcastes and the barbarians. Let us throw them back over the Himalayas, back to where they came from. The saffron flag must fly from the Krishna to the Indus. Hindustan is ours”. Peshwa Bajirao 1st

Reviewed as a whole, the period between the last decade of the 12th century and the first quarter of the 18th – the period which is supposed to be the period of Muslim empire in India – is nothing more than a period of long-drawn-out war between Hindu freedom fighters and the Muslim invaders. The Hindus lost many battles, and retreated again and again. But they recovered every time, and resumed the struggle so that eventually the enemy was worn out, defeated, and dispersed in the final round which started with the rise of Shivaji.

As we read the history of medieval India we find that only a few Hindu princes made an abject surrender before the proved superiority of Muslim arms. Muslim historians cite innumerable instances of how Hindus burnt or killed their womenfolk, and then died fighting to the last man. There were many instances of Muslims being defeated decisively by Hindu heroism. Many of the so-called Muslim conquests were mere raids which succeeded initially but the impact of which did not last for long. The account which Assam, Rajasthan, Bundelkhand, Orissa, Telingana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and the Punjab gave of themselves in successive waves of resistance and recovery, has not many parallels in human history.

It is, therefore, a travesty of truth to say that Islam enjoyed an empire in India for six centuries. What happened really was that Islam struggled for six centuries to conquer India for good, but failed in the final round in the face of stiff and continued Hindu resistance. Hali was not at all wrong when he mourned that the invincible armada of Hijaz which had swept over so many seas and rivers met its watery grave in the Ganges. Iqbal also wrote his Shikwah in sorrowful remembrance of the same failure. In fact, there is no dearth of Muslim poets and politicians who weep over the defeat of Islam in India in the past, and who look forward to a reconquest of India in the future. Hindus have survived as a majority in their motherland not because Islam spared any effort to conquer and convert them but because Islamic brutality met more than its equal in Hindu tenacity for freedom.

Nor is it anywhere near the truth to say that the British empire in India replaced an earlier Muslim empire. The effective political power in India had already passed into the hands of the Marathas, the Jats, and the Sikhs when the British started playing their imperialist game. The Muslim principalities in Bengal, Avadh, South India, Sindh, and the Punjab were no match for the Hindu might that had resurged. The Mughal emperor at Delhi by that time presented a pitiful picture of utter helplessness. The custodians of Islam in India were repeatedly inviting Ahmad Shah Abdali from across the border to come and rescue Islam from the abyss into which it had fallen.

By Sita Ram Goel

Also Read

 

The Myth of “1000 Years of Hindu Slavery”

What if India had turned Islamic ?

 

(8954)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Historical Figures

Venkatapati Deva Raya – the Great Savior of Southern India

Disastrous two decades post Talikota

The most common opinion among the people and historians has been that post the disaster at Talikota, Vijayanagara had fallen into a period of misfortune facing defeats after defeats – losing territory gradually. They either defended their borders or lost territories. The famed aggression seen from the days of Saluva Narasimha to the last days of Aliya Rama Raya had deserted the empire completely. The truth is much different.

It is indeed true that the period from 1565 to 1585 was nothing but two decades of misfortune and ignomy. Tirumala Raya, who lost one of his eyes and his eldest son at the talikot.a battle, tried to re-establish the Hindu rule at Vijayanagara but had to abandon the city for good by 1567 when he transferred the capital to Penukonda – due to constant attacks from the Mohammedan rulers of Bijapur and Golkonda. By the time he left the throne to his son, Sri Ranga Raya, he had faced several invasions in the northern parts of his empire – wherein he lost Adoni, Turkal, Dharwad and Bankapur to Adil Shah of Bijapur. While he was able to drive back the Mohammedan forces which invested Penukonda, he was not able to recapture any of the territories lost to the enemies. His transfer of capital to Penukonda effectively ended any attempt to regain Raichur doab for the empire. Portuguese compelled the nayaks of the western coast to pay tribute to them by using the opportunity of a weak empire. This further alienated the nayaks from the emperor as the emperor was not able to help his nayaks – as he was facing constant attacks on his northern borders from Mohammedan neighbors.

Sri Ranga Raya’s fortunes turned to the worse year after year. Though initially, he was able to regain the forts lost to Golkonda – his inscription of 1576 mentions that he conquered Vinukonda and Kondavidu which must have been captured by Golkonda army sometime prior to this. Nayak rulers of the western Kanarese districts accepted the suzerainty of Adil Shah. In 1575, when Adil Shah invested Penukonda, Sri Ranga Raya was able to repulse the Bijapur army with the help of his vassal, Hande chief of Bukkarayasamudram. But in the following year, when he tried to check the expedition of Adil Shah towards Penukonda, he was imprisoned alive by the Bijapur army leading to a rout of the Hindu army and had to be ransomed back for a huge sum. Hande, the vassal who helped him in the previous year, defected to Adil Shah thinking that the Hindu empire was due to set very soon and the days numbered. In a period of 11 years, twice the Hindu rulers were captured by the Sultans. After Talikota, the empire lost all possessions to the north of Tungabhadra while after the second defeat, they lost all possessions to the north of Penukonda. The following year, we see another invasion of Penukonda by Adil Shah. But this time, Jaggadevaraya, the son in law of the emperor, killed two of the four Bijapur generals leading the attack and drove back the Mohammedans with huge losses. Some terrirory seems to have been regained back but not all the lost lands were reconquered. The empire was continuously on a backfoot. The rebellion and treachery of the nayaks post Talikota also contributed to the weakness of the empire.

Post 1579, Qutb Shah of Golkonda dispatched his troops against the empire capturing Vinukonda, Kondavidu, Bellamkonda and Udayagiri. Golkonda army, led by a traitorous Brahmin general named Murari Rao captured Ahobilam and sent the ruby encrusted image of Vishnu to the Sultan. This was one place where Sri Ranga Raya was able to decisively defeat the Mohammedans later. Srivan Satakopa Svami, pontiff of Ahobila math during that time, conveyed to the king that Vishnu appeared in his dreams and asked the two generals Venkataraju and Tirumalaraju to lead the armies of the empire against the occupying forces and reestablish his worship at Ahobilam. The emperor dispatched these two generals against the Golkonda forces entrenched in Ahobilam. They achieved a signal victory against the Mohammedans and captured Murari Rao alive (who was left alive due to his being a Brahmana – in our eyes, he was no Brahmana and was fit for the most torturous death possible).

The eastern Telugu region was lost to Golconda while the north western Kanarese and parts of western Telugu region was lost to Adil Shah. Sri Ranga Raya was able to quell the rebellion of his vassals on the Southern and western coasts. Later towards the end of his rule, he regained Ahobilam but the empire had indeed effectively lost most of the possessions to the north of Penukonda when he breathed his last during 1585-86. The annual jihads which were stopped by Krishna Deva Raya were resumed by the Sultans post Talikota. That the sultans gained a decisive upperhand is established by this. His brother, Venkatapati Raya, during his viceroyalty at Chandragiri, managed an expedition to Lanka and gained tribute from there (this action of Venkatapati during one of the most turbulent periods of the empire seem to indicate a reversal of fortunes for the better which shall occur during Venkatapati’s reign).

Ascension of Venkatapati Deva Raya

It was at this juncture that Venkatapati Deva Raya (generally called Venkatapati Raya by historians) adorned the throne of Vijayanagara at Penukonda. He was the youngest of the four sons of Tirumala and gained the throne after the death of Sri Ranga. Though there were sons to another one of his elder brothers (Rama of Sri Rangapatnam) – who had perhaps a better claim to the throne – the Brahmins, generals and ministers of the court preferred to raise Venkatapati to the throne as he was considered the fittest man to rule the empire at such a critical moment. The empire appeared to be tottering everywhere and seemed to be nearing its death in a few years. Most major vassals had become non-cooperative and were trying to become independent. These nayaks had lost the vision for Hindu unity and were destroying the very foundation of the empire for their selfishness.

Venkatapati Deva Raya was crowned by his royal preceptor Lakshmi Kumara Tathacharya, who was 13-14 years of age at the time, as Srimad Rajadhiraja Paramesvara Sri Vira Pratapa Sri Vira Venkatapati Deva Maharaja. Despite popular beliefs, Vijayanagara had not folded so easily post Talikota. While the two decades post Talikota was indeed a period of disaster for the empire, a complete reversal of fortunes occurred during the reign of Venkatapati Raya. He is one of the three monarchs whose life size statues are found in the precincts of Tirumala Venkatesavara svami mandira. The other two being Krishna Deva Raya and his brother, Achyuta Deva Raya. We shall now look at his conquests and accomplishments.

Invasion of Golconda territories

He began his reign with an invasion of the dominions conquered by Golkonda during the reign of his elder brother. Qutb Shah sent a vast army against Venkatapati, driving him back to Penukonda and invested it. Venkatapati sent ambassadors to Qutb shah asking for a peaceful settlement and after this submission, Qutb Shah left Penukonda – happy that his newly conquered lands will remain with them. But Venkatapati proved to be a mastermind in strategy and tactics. Within three days he filled the Penukonda fort with required materials to withstand a long siege and on the fourth days, 30 thousand musketeers under Jaggadevaraya entered the fort to strengthen the defense. Matla Anantaraju, who later was called the right hand of the emperor, also participated in the defense of the fort. Where the fort was almost defenseless a few days ago, it became almost impregnable. Raghunatha Nayaka, prince of Tanjore Nayaks, also arrived to Penukonda with the Tanjore army. The Sultan understood his mistake and returned to commence the siege once again but it was of no use. Raghunatha Nayaka, Matla Anantaraju and Jaggadevaraya inflicted crushing defeats on the Golkonda forces forcing the latter to raise the siege and retreat.

Pennar Massacre

On the banks of Pennar, Venkatapati led the troops in person. He ambushed the Golkonda forces in the waters of Pennar, killing 50000 Muslims and dyeing the river red. This grand victory of Venkatapati broke the back of the Qutb Shah forces. For the first time since Talikota, Hindu forces had decisively crushed the invading marauders. The fear which had earlier engulfed the hearts of the Sultans during the reigns of Krishna Deva and Aliya Rama Raya came to re-occupy the place once again. Post this crushing defeat, Venkatapati chased the remnants of Qutb Shah’s forces till the banks of Krishna. Prince Muhammad Shah is shown as having lost a battle every other day while on this disastrous retreat. The vassals who ruled to the south of Krishna revolted against the Qutb shah and joined the cause of Vijayanagara. Golconda forces were also involved in defending their kingdom against the Mughal Prince Murad in the north, This split worked in favor of Venkatapati even more.

Annihilation of Qutb Shah’s forces – regaining territories lost

Qutb shah tried to recover from this disaster by sending an able general Amin-ul-Mulk to defend the possessions to the south of Krishna. While Amin-ul-Mulk managed to put down the revolts to some extent, it was very temporary ; as within a year, Venkatapati had successfully forced the Muslims forces to retire beyond Krishna. While Muslim chronicles state that he did not recapture Kondavidu, a careful study of the texts show that it is a lie. The Muslim chronicles state that when Venkatapati attacked Kondavidu, he became alarmed on seeing the Golkonda reinforcements and sued for peace. But the fact that he put the Muslim general to death and had even reached Kassimkota (north of Vishakapatnam), whose ruler Mukunda Raja, defected to Vijayanagara shows that he not only managed to reduce Kondavidu but even cross Krishna along the coast and conquered coastal lands upto Kassimkota and Palkonda ( i.e) almost the entire coastal region of current day Andhra Pradesh came under his control.

Defeat of Adil Shah

Adil Shah attacked the Kanarese districts and besieged Penukonda. But it seems Venkata convinced a Hindu general of Bijapur to defect and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Bijapur army forcing the Sultan to flee to his capital. It appears that during this retreat Venkata managed to recapture some territory from Bijapur as well – we come across a renewed invasion in western Kanarese districts where the nayaks who had earlier accepted suzerainty of Adil Shah rebelled against the Sultan and joined Venkata’s army in conquering Bankapur and adjoining areas (lost in the reign of Tirumala Raya). Venkatapati Deva Raya ruled from 1586 to 1614. We do not find any Muslim invasion of his dominions post 1595. He achieved what Krishna Deva Raya achieved – putting an end to the annual jihads. Where Krishna Raya had a strong empire bequeathed to him and built upon the edifice further; Venkatapati was handed a weak empire whose vassals were not even cooperating with the sovereign. In such a tenuous situation, he managed to turn the tables on the Mohammedan neighbors of the north.

Consolidation of the empire

The later portion of his reign was spent in subjugating the vassals. He forced the Nayaks of Madurai and Jinji to accept his suzerainty. When Lingama Nayaka of Vellore revolted, he dispossessed Lingama of his fort and moved his own capital to Vellore. Till his death in 1614, he ensured that the empire remained intact and strong. The empire broke up only due to unfettered internecine struggle which began after his death leading to the Nayaks once again declaring independence – thus, disunity leading to defeat.

Where the empire was on way to disintegration and complete destruction before 1600, Venkatapati turned around the fortune of the empire singlehandedly. The importance of his reign in the defense of Hindu culture in Southern India has been greatly underestimated, nay even forgotten. The importance of strong Hindu rulers has not been understood either. The presence of Jaswant Singh stopped the hands of Aurangzeb from indulging in open anti-Hindu activities in northern India. Though a vassal, Jaswant was seen as a strong Hindu ruler and it was feared that Hindus might band together under his banner if they were persecuted. This prevented Aurangzeb from imposing Jiziya and destroying temples till the death of Jaswant. Upon the death of Jaswant, the tyrant is known to have thanked the rakshasa the Mohammedan’s worship as the creator for the death of this Hindu ruler. It was the arrival of a resurgent Maratha power in the Deccan which saved the holy land from being swamped by the unmatta-s.

Savior of Southern India

In the case of Southern India, the destruction of Vijayanagara would have made the field open for the Sultans to indulge in complete eradication of dharma and its institutions. Had the empire been destroyed before 1600, the Sultans would have got a period of 5 decades before any prominent Hindu power arose in the region (Marathas under Shivaji). Rather, the long reign of Venkatapati put an end to this possibility. Vijayanagara’s destructions was postponed by 4 decades due to his strong reign. The ultimate destruction happened in late 1630s and 1640s. By the time Vijayanagara reached its sunset in the 1640’s, Chattrapati Shivaji had begun his rise among the Marathas while his father began to exercise great power in his jagir of Bengaluru. A new fountain of Hindu power was established around the same time, thus saving the Hindus from a period of absolute tyranny which would have otherwise been inflicted upon them. Venkatapati Raya was indeed the savior of Southern India. One of those rare gems whose value has been wrongly assessed by most of us.

Stronger Pratap of the South

Where Rana Pratapa Simha declined to bow his head before any Mohammedan, Venkatapati had made a similar statement in South. During the early 1600’s, an ambassador from Akbar visited Venkatapati at his durbar in Chandragiri. It was suspected that the visit was more to spy on the empire rather than being a diplomatic visit. It was expected that Akbar would conquer the Deccan Sultanates and force Vijayanagara to submit to him. To which Venkatapati supposedly stated “I will not kiss the feet of a Mohammedan”. He was preparing for a war against Akbar rather than even think about accepting the suzerainty of some Mohammedan ruler – however powerful he might be. We end with this note on the indomitable spirit of this last great emperor – perhaps even the greatest emperor of Vijayanagara. Where Pratap is now popular among the Hindus, this stronger Pratap of Southern India (who ruled a vast empire and kept the Mohammedan Sultans at bay – whose title also includes Pratap) has been forgotten by the masses.

by

(2847)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Analysis Legendary Battles

The Forgotten Heroes: Hindu soldiers in the First World War

The narration of First World War is that war was predominantly European and was fought exclusively by Europeans. This is quite a long way departure from the truth. Today, while few would remember that Indian Corps won 13,000 medals and 12 Victoria Crosses in the First World War, Hindus’ contribution in the war is altogether undermined.[1] The apathy towards an important footnote in contemporary history is mind boggling.

Hindus largely perceived as weak, not great soldiers, and yet they had been involved in fighting wars for other than themselves. Among the first foreign forces were Hindus to fight for British on Western front.[2]

While the plans for centenary commemorations of the First World War undergo this week, today’s generation know virtually nothing about the sacrifices of those who laid their lives in the war.

At the onset of the war itself it was abundantly clear to allies that additional troops from India were necessary to fight in North Africa, Europe and the Middle East.[3]

indian troops in first world war france

Indian soldiers in First World War.

It was the war India had supported British by all means – Political, military and economic. At a time when majority of Indians were suffering from abject poverty, they gifted 100 million pounds for war. The support was in expectation of British’s sensitive hearing towards plea for Indian independence, which post war British were in no hurry to fulfil.[4]

vintage photoIndian reinforcements who fought at Givenchy in December 1914 - first world war

Indian soldiers in First World War.

Indian army comprised men of diverse faiths. The role of Hindus in the First World War is by and large expunged from the history books.  Merely a cursory gaze at the figures reveals startling fact – In total 1,338, 620 Hindus participated in the war. This number exceeds the total number of army personnel from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa by 178,000[5].

Hindu soldiers were involved in the lands as diverse as Palestine, France, Syria and Mesopotamia. A school of thought says it was the Hindu army which changed the course of the war by turning German soldiers at Marne.Thousands of Hindu soldiers lost their lives and no hero’s welcome awaited the survivors, such was their fate.

indian-infantry-digging-trenches-prepared-against-gas-attack

indian-infantry-digging-trenches-prepared-against-gas-attack

The war graves in France and Belgium are grim reminder of largely anonymous Hindu soldiers. One of them was Mir Dast, Victoria Cross holder, British highest award of gallantry. He was the officer of 57th Rifles of the Indian Army, who came under vicious gas attack by Germans in April 1915. As he held his defence against the army, without a gas mask, he managed to save lives of eight officers.[6]

Lying in the hospital bed at Brighton, England, he wrote to his family that he was twice wounded, once in the hand and second from gas.

indian-infantry-digging-trenches

indian-infantry-digging-trenches

Traces of Hindu participation are fragmented by the fact that only a limited record of correspondence exist between Hindu soldiers and their families. The reason being most Hindu soldiers were illiterate. They would have one of the literate ones among them write the letter. The letter would then be read out to British officer as part of censorship procedure to restrict passing of militarily sensitive information to the enemy before being dispatched off to the recipient’s village.

These letters and diaries are the source of information on the anguish felt by the soldiers about the war. The soldiers talk about guns, poisonous gas, destruction, yearning of family. Hindu soldiers would often refer to great Hindu war epic Mahabharata and compare the war of good versus evil to the current one. One of the soldiers wrote that having witnessed the current war, end of the world seems near and all that was written in Mahabharata and Ramayana appears to be true to him.[7]

Extracts of these letters could be sourced from summaries prepared at the time of censoring of letters. The digital versions of the summaries are available at Europeana and British Library.

The war could also be remembered for the caste discrimination faced by Hindu soldiers. British insisted on maintaining the fault lines of caste system. Recruitment in the army was carried on the assumption that some races were martial races. Majority of army men were sourced from North and Northwest India.[8]

pav6large

Indian soldier in the Royal Pavilion, Brighton, England. 1914-18

The caste system was practiced by British even in the hospitals where Hindu soldiers were treated.  Royal Pavilion Hospital in Brighton, where the wounded soldiers were treated, ensured the hospital wards were segregated on caste lines. The so called ‘untouchables’ were employed as support staffs.[9]

According to Richard Smith, lecturer at Goldsmith College, University of London, and author of Jamaican Volunteers in the First World War, discrimination faced by the volunteers in the army worked as catalyst for them to join the movements for independence in their respective countries.[10]

Chatri (which means Umbrella in English), is the only memorial of significance to honour the contribution of Hindu and Sikh soldiers. The monument is on the Downs, near Patcham in Brighton.  It was unveiled by the Prince of Wales on 21st February 1921. [11] It is a cremation site for fifty three Hindus and Sikhs soldiers.

In 2010, their names were inscribed in stones on the site. It is truly disappointing is that it has taken over a century after their deaths that Commonwealth War Graves Commission to inscribe the names of the martyrs. [12]

download

The Chattri

Hindus sepoys were one of the highest numbers of volunteers as combatants and non-combatants. This is an aspect of history that cannot be disregarded anymore. Without them the freedom Europe enjoyed would not have been possible. It’s high time they are bestowed the honour they deserve for gallantly sacrificing their lives.

Courtesy

[1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/india_and_world_war_one.htm

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/special-report-the-centenary-of-wwi–tommies-and-tariqs-fought-side-by-side-8669758.html

[3] http://www.black-history.org.uk/pavilionindian.asp

[4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/World-War-I-the-India-story-retold/articleshow/30081903.cms

[5] http://www.hinduwisdom.info/European_Imperialism18.htm

[6] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/special-report-the-centenary-of-wwi–tommies-and-tariqs-fought-side-by-side-8669758.html

[7] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/21/found-translation-indias-first-world-war

[8] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/21/found-translation-indias-first-world-war

[9] http://www.sikhmuseum.com/brighton/doctor/pavilion/caste.html

[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/special-report-the-centenary-of-wwi–tommies-and-tariqs-fought-side-by-side-8669758.html

[11] http://www.chattri.org/

[12] http://www.historytoday.com/rosie-llewellyn-jones/memory-india%E2%80%99s-fallen

(2853)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Academic Negationism

Romila Thapar mistakes Hindu impotent rage for a pro-Hindu power equation

According to retired history professor Romila Thapar, “academics must question more” (The Hindu, October 27, 2014). She was delivering the third Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture, eloquently titled: “To Question or not to Question: That is the Question”. The problem addressed by her was that “academics and experts shied away from questioning the powers of the day”. So, she “urge[d] intellectuals to resist assault on liberal thought”. In particular, she “asked a full house of Delhi’s intelligentsia on Sunday why changes in syllabi and objections to books were not being challenged”.

She was, hopefully, misinformed. (I shudder to think of the alternative explanation for this obvious untruth.) The recent changes in syllabi and objections to books by pro-Hindu activists, both phenomena being summed up in the single name of Dina Nath Batra, have met with plenty of vocal objections and petitions in protest, signed by leading scholars in India and abroad. I myself have signed two such petitions. At the European Indology conference in Zürich, July 2014, we were all given a petition to sign in support of Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: an Alternative History, which Batra’s judicial challenge had forced the publishers to withdraw. The general opinion among educated people, widely expressed, was to condemn all attempts at book-banning.

Selective indignation

To be sure, the intellectuals’ indignation was selective. There have indeed been cases where they have failed to come out in defence of besieged authors. No such storms of protest are raised when Muslims or Christians have books banned, or even when they assault the writers. Thus, several such assaults happened on the author and publisher of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, yet at its annual conference, the prestigious and agenda-setting American Academy of Religion hosted a panel where every single participant, including the speakers from the audience, supported the Muslim objections to the cartoons.

This trahison des clercs (“betrayal by the intellectuals”) is aptly explained by Thapar herself: “There are more academics in existence than ever before but most prefer not to confront authority even if it debars the path of free thinking. Is this because they wish to pursue knowledge undisturbed or because they are ready to discard knowledge, should authority require them to do so?”

The point is that the intellectual’s selective indignation shows very well where real authority lies. Threats of violence are, of course, highly respected. The day Hindus start assaulting writers they don’t like, you will see eminent historians like herself turning silent about Hindu censorship, or even taking up its defence — for that is what actually happens in the case of Islamic threats. Even more pervasive is the effect of threats to their careers. You will be in trouble if you utter any “Islamophobic” criticism of Islamic censorship, but you will earn praise if you challenge even proper judicial action against any anti-Hindu publications. This, then, safely predicts the differential behaviour of most intellectuals vis-à-vis free speech.

Box-type religions

A wholly different point is that she shows her partisan affiliation by adopting a secularized Christian framework when talking about Indian schools of thought. According to the newspaper report, “tracing the lineage of the modern public intellectual to Shramanic philosophers of ancient India, Prof. Thapar said the non-Brahminical thinkers of ancient India were branded as Nastikas or non-believers”.The division in Astika and Nastika already had different meanings at the time (not even exhausted by the two main ones: Vedic vs. non-Vedic, theistic vs. non-theistic), and did not coincide with the division in Brahmana vs. Shramana. Ancient Indian thought was never divided in box-type orthodoxies on the pattern of Christians vs. Muslims or Catholics vs. Protestants. It is only a Western projection, borrowed as somehow more prestigious by the Indian “secularists”, that imposes this categorization on the Indian landscape of ideas. Buddhist thinkers were never treated as dissenters, and even less so when Buddhism was politically in the ascendant.

She added an interesting image:

“I am reminded of the present day where if you don’t accept what Hindutva teaches, you’re all branded together as Marxists.”

The heavy-handed Marxist predominance in Indian academe is a historical fact of which she herself is a product as well as an icon, but now the notion is a bit dated. Today, many opportunists have shifted their loyalty to more fashionable new trends dictated by American universities, such as postmodernism, postcolonialism, multiculturalism, feminism and the more native contribution of subalternism. It is true that many Hindutva votaries are not up-to-date with the latest academic fashions, frozen as these outsiders are in old slogans. At any rate, the vibrant interaction of ancient India’s intellectual landscape, where free debate flourished, was nothing like the modern situation where her own school has locked out the Hindu voice and the latter has reactively demonized her.

Power equation

In her view, “public intellectuals, playing a discernible role, are needed for such explorations as also to articulate the traditions of rational thought in our intellectual heritage. This is currently being systematically eroded.” True, many intellectuals are not guided by what is true or “rational”, but only by what company they land up in if they get associated with a particular viewpoint. Numerous persons in academe and the media have loudly sung the anti-Hindu or “secular” tune when that was fashionable. Depending on how close their institutional position is to the new Narendra Modi government, you interestingly see many of them reposition themselves as somehow always having been pro-Hindu.

As she aptly said: “It is not that we are bereft of people who can think autonomously and ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming?”

But the power equation is such that the comforts of conforming still lead most to the anti-Hindu side. The opportunists changing sides are still a minority, the anti-Hindu discourse remains the dominant one. The best proof is that the ruling BJP, supposedly a Hindu party, is still acting out the worldview of the “secularists”. They are not actively challenging it or changing the intellectual power equation. It is perhaps fortunate for the Hindu side that the “secularists” have denounced it for so long as a Hindu party, for that is what makes the opportunists turn superficially pro-Hindu now.

So far, the ruling party is not repeating Murli Manohar Joshi’s attempt (ca. 2002) to rewrite the officially recommended history textbooks. That adventure ended in a demonstration of Hindu incompetence, a complete reversal once the “secularists” were back in power, and a strong reaffirmation of their intellectual predominance. Even though the BJP is back in power now, it still hesitates to challenge their conceptual framework.

Moral authority

According to the newspaper: “Prof. Thapar stressed that intellectuals were especially needed to speak out against the denial of civil rights and the events of genocide.” Yes, the genocide accompanying the birth of Pakistan and later of Bangladesh are two events that should not be forgotten, eventhough her own school has tried to whitewash, minimize or obscure them. The largest religious massacre of independent India’s history, that of the Sikhs by the Congress “secularists” in 1984, also comes in for closer scrutiny and for a demythologizing analysis about the true nature of Congress dynasticism.On a smaller scale, Hindus have also misbehaved, either out of smugness or out of desperation, and that too deserves study; except that it has already been made the object of publications so many times while the former subjects remain orphans.

The eminent historian is quoted as observing: “The combination of drawing upon wide professional respect, together with concern for society can sometimes establish the moral authority of a person and ensure public support.” Indeed, the impartisan nature of proper academic research would confer the moral authority to intervene, sparingly, in ongoing public debates. It is therefore a pity that so many scholars of her own school have squandered this moral authority by being so brazenly partisan.

No reaction?

Finally, she reiterated her main point, namely “the ease with which books are banned and pulped or demands made that they be burned and syllabi changed under religious and political pressure or the intervention of the state. Why do such actions provoke so little reaction from academics, professionals and others among us who are interested in the outcome of these actions? The obvious answer is the fear of the instigators — who are persons with the backing of political authority.”

Again, Prof. Thapar was misinformed. When Batra and other Hindus put publishers under pressure to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s book or AK Ramanujan’s Three Hundred Ramayanas, the publishers buckled under the fear of the Hindu public’s purchasing power. Apart from ideological factors, entrepreneurs also have to take into account the purely commercial aspect of a controversy. In this case, they took into account the only power that Hindus have: their numbers. But the Hindu instigators did not inspire “fear”, and definitely did not have “the backing of political authority”.

It is strange how fast people can forget. Modi has only very recently come to power. At the time of the Ramanujan and Doniger controversies, Congress was safely in power. If the publishers were in awe of any powers-that-be, it was of the Congress “secularists”.

More fundamentally, changes in government do not necessarily entail changes in the dominant intellectual framework. The accession to power (or rather, to office) of a nominally Hindu party does not mean that the ideological power equation has changed. In spite of the lip-service paid to Hindu self-respect by a few fashion-conscious opportunists, anti-Hindu “secularism” still rules the roost. Even now it furnishes the set of assumptions that most intellectuals, and even most ruling BJP politicians, go by.

(1502)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
latest News

Panvel man lights up Raigad Fort, faces case

NAVI MUMBAI: He couldn’t bear that the final resting place of Chhatrapati Shivaji was in gloom as the country celebrated the festival of lights. Once Vishnu Gavali, a Panvel-based social worker, found out that electricity bills had not been paid for the historic Raigad Fort, he forked out Rs 31,410 himself to restore the power supply.

His reward: Threats of action from the very officials who are perhaps at fault for the lights going out in Shivaji’s ex-capital near Mahad.

Gavali, not to be cowed down, has asked officials and even Devendra Fadnavis, who is likely to become chief minister soon, to probe why the lights had gone out and fix responsibility. “I was shocked to learn that one of the most important forts of Maharashtra did not have power for the last 10 days even as all of us celebrated Diwali. I found out that ASI had not paid four power bills.”

For Gavali’s generosity, the Archaeological Survey of India, tasked with maintaining 300 monuments in the state, including the fort, is mulling legal action against him for interfering in its work. “How can a private resident pay the government bills of ASI? I will have to inquire about this and take action against this man (Gavali),” said Jitendra Nath, the superintending archaeologist of ASI (Mumbai Circle), when TOI contacted him.

“If the ASI wants to take legal action against me, they are welcome to do so. I wasted no time in paying the bills as this fort is the pride of the state and the entire nation. I have also asked state government officials, the Raigad district collectorate and the CM-in-waiting Devendra Fadnavis to probe and take strong action against all those responsible for the power cut at this famous fort which also houses the ‘samadhi’ of Chhatrapati Shivaji,” said Gavali.

“This is not really an issue, I have been informed lights were there at the fort. It is likely that during the monsoons, some of the lights may have stopped working. I will have to officially find out about this matter at Raigad,” the ASI official said.

“I have asked the zilla parishad officials and the power company to restore the halogen lights set up at Raigad Fort. We are inquiring how the power was cut to the fort,” said Raigad collector Sumant Bhange.

(2090)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Legendary Battles

Battle of Somnath : Symbol of Unbroken Faith

Amidst the thundering roar of projectiles and arrows an old man stood silently – behind him the sacred temple of Somnath was in ruins with hordes of Turk horsemen riding over the dead bodies of the custodians of the holy shrine. Their desperate attempts at defending the temple against the fanatical iconoclasm of the Muslim attackers saw thousands prostrate themselves before the sacred murti and rushing out sword in hand giving their lives in a desperate attempt to save the temple from desecration.
 
The aged 90 year old Rana Ghogna assembled his clansmen to defend the temple – from around thousands answered the call to face the ruthless Mahmud of Ghazni whose armies had raged from India to Iraq in devastating raids. The kingdoms of Central Asia and Persian fell before the armies of Mahmud as they poured in relentless waves into modern day Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and finally towards India.

The aged Rajput warrior stood for ten hours against the endless waves of cavalry launched against him and his men – the undaunted Rana whose fame was spread across the Kathiawar region of Gujarat stood firm against the Turks resolved to give his life rather than tamely surrender the Somnath Temple to the hordes from Central Asia who had mercilessly destroyed countless churches, Zoroastrian fire temples and Buddhist monasteries.
 
The wily Ghaznavi, well aware that his lightning and unexpected raid to the Holy Shrine had caught the attention of his dreaded foe Raja Bhoja knew he had limited time before the Hindu forces racing towards Somnath would encircle and perhaps destroy him.

The veteran Rana stood as long as he had strength to defend the temple – Holding his battle axe the veteran of a thousand combats stood firm striking down his enemies until the ground to his left and right were littered with the bodies of his foe until eventually he fell under a wave of arrows.

Amidst a deluge of blood and dead and dying Hindu and Muslims warriors The temple was destroyed and the holy murti was unceremoniously carted off to Ghazi as a symbol of the victory of the ‘faithful’ The famed silver gates taken as well to different parts of the Ghaznavid Empire..

The efforts and sacrifices made to save the temple were never forgotten. The energy and zeal of Raja Bhoja rebuilt the temple. A further invasion of India by the Salur Ghazanvi in 1033 CE was caught by Raja Bhoja and Raja Sukhdev and in the Battle of Bharaich the pride of the nascent Muslim Empire in South Asia was humbled as over 100,000 of the until then undefeated Ghaznavi warriors were slain and the tide of attack stemmed for a further 150 years.

The temple rose and fell and rose again through the turbulent middle ages of South Asia as the Muslims and Hindus fought each other and sometimes in unison to rule the subcontinent. Thousands of temples were destroyed in a land traditionally known for its tolerance. The once mighty edifice of Buddhism was wiped out from the land of its origin and other groups like the Jains were reduced to an insignificant minority.

The Hindus resisted however and by the late 17th Century a huge wave of revolts and risings convulsed the country which eventually utterly destroyed the Muslim kingdoms in India – a movement which was only stopped by the sudden and treacherous  encroachments of the rising British Empire.
 
By 1782 the Maratha warlord Mahadji Sindhia – the kingmaker of India had emerged as the most powerful force in Northern India. His unmatched military skill and determination had allowed him to stamp and defeat the last vestiges of Mughal and Afghan power in India. Four of his brothers were martyred in the struggle of the Marathas against the Afghans in a time of tumultuous change.

By 1782 one of the sons of the dreaded Afghan king Ahmed Shah Abdali known as Mahmud Shah was in control of the vast city of Lahore. Sindhia however after establishing his power at Delhi with the backing of the Maratha legions of cavalry attached towards the Afghans- After a bitter engagement the Afghans withdrew and leaving countless of their dead and wounded behind them fled towards their distant mountain homes.

In their terror the Afghans failed to take with them the prized symbols of their perceived victories. The remnants of the famed original Somnath Temple were scattered across South Asia- Some had been taken by the hordes of plunderers under Mahmud Ghaznavi and he himself had taken the famed gates as a memorial to his kingdom.

The pious Maratha warrior located and took the famous silver gates of Somnath taken seven centuries earlier. Sindhia reverentially removed the gates from the clutches of the Afghan plunderers and in a great procession to be returned to their rightful place within the holy precincts.

Some have alleged that the Hindus have no sense of history but to a critical observer and reader of this turbulent period of Indian history cannot but fail to see the unending efforts to preserve and fight to rectify the historical wrongs inflicted on the collective psyche of the Hindu peoples of the subcontinent.

The victories won over the until then undefeated Arabs in the eighth century were followed by the invasions of the Ghaznavaids and their subsequent defeat in the Battle of Bhariach in 1033.

Further breakthroughs in the thirteenth century culminated in the fall of Chhittor in 1303 CE amidst a series of wars and bloodletting scarce seen in human history as the victory of the Islamic invaders now seemed complete. But just as the famed temples of India rose and fell – only to rise and fall again and again so the fortunes and spirit of the Hindus continued to rise after each setback . By the mid 1300-s the major and new Hindu kingdoms rose again as did the ancient schools of learning and teachings best represented in the teachings of the Bhakti movement.

The Somnath temple fell again only to rise again and again and was never forgotten. After the dawn of independence in 1947 the temple was once again reconstructed as a symbol of hope. Somnath has became a symbol of the undying spirit and energy of Dharma and the unrelenting spirit never to bow before the forces of fascist monotheism and hatred.The ongoing plight of the pagan Yazidis at the hands of the ISIS (Islamic State) jihadis in Iraq and Syria is a grim reminder of a thousand such attacks in the Indian subcontinent and that liberty and freedom have been bought at a terrible cost and sustained only through the ingrained truths contained within the fabric of Dharma.

(9949)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
latest News

Jeremy Irons joins Dev Patel film The Man Who Knew Infinity

The British actor will star in the biopic of Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, to be played by Dev Patel.

Ramanujan conducted his mathematical research alone and without formal training, yet made extraordinary contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series and continued fractions. This man had one of the best mathematical minds of all time.In 1913, a twenty-five-year-old Indian clerk with no formal education wrote a letter to G.H. Hardy, then widely acknowledged as the premier English mathematician of his time. Srinivasa Ramanujan begged Hardy’s opinion regarding several ideas he had about numbers. Hardy realized that the letter was a work of genius.Thus began one of the most productive and unusual scientific collaborations in history, that of an English don and an impoverished Hindu genius whose like has never been seen again. Hardy arranged for Ramanujan to sail for England, leaving behind his wife and other in Madras. Ramanujan’s isolation from his family and the intensity of his work eventually took their toll, and within seven years of leaving India he was dead. For Hardy the collaboration with Ramanujan was “the one truly romantic incident of my life.”

Robert Kanigel’s achievement is not simply to make Ramanujan’s science accessible, but to show the pleasure, the excitement, and the love of numbers that inspired it. Here is a life and a life’s work that resound a century later.
A mathematical genius who ascribed his brilliance to a personal relationship with a Hindu Goddess. He saw the divine in the dance of numbers. 

The inexhaustible Ramanujan was an observant Hindu, adept at dream interpretation and astrology. His work was marked by bold leaps and gut feelings. Growing up he had learned to worship Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion – Hindu Goddess of creativity.  In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.

Ramanujan could never explain to G H Hardy how he arrived at his deep insights in mathematical terms; but he did say many of his discoveries came to him in dreams, from the goddess Namakkal, and that he had a morning ritual of awakening and writing them down.

He was intensely religious. He often united mathematics and spirituality together. He felt, for example, that zero represented Absolute Reality, and that infinity represented the many manifestations of that Reality. Ramanujan felt that each mathematical discovery was a step closer to understanding the spiritual universe. He once told a friend, “An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.”

While growing up, he lived the life of a traditional Brahmin with his forehead shaved and wearing a topknot. He often prayed to his family Deity, the Goddess Namagiri of Namakkal, and followed Her advice. Namakkal is also called as “Namagiri”. He pilgrimaged all over Tamil Nadu. He quoted the Vedas, interpreted dreams and was regarded by his friends to be a mystic. Throughout his life, Ramanujan worshiped at the Sarangapani Vishnu temple in Kumbakonam.

Srinivasa Ramanujan was a brilliant mathematician, who helped pave the way towards today’s digital age, but died of malnutrition and illness in 1920, aged just 32.

The film, which is being directed by Matt Brown, is based on Robert Kanigel’s biography.

Film Shooting at Cambridge

Dev Patel is Srinivasa Ramanujan

Dev Patel & Jeremy Irons at Trinity College in Cambridge

Ramanujan, Trinity College Cambridge

 

(2162)

Facebook Comments Box
Categories
Academic Negationism

Looney Marxist Historian Attacks Arun Shourie

D.N. Jha’s “Reply to Arun Shourie”, dated 3 July 2014, was published in shorter form as “Grist to the reactionary mill”, Indian Express, 9 July 2014. It starts as follows: “I was amused to read ‘How History Was Made Up At Nalanda’ [28 June 2014, the Indian Express:] by Arun Shourie, who has dished out ignorance masquerading as knowledge – reason enough to have pity on him and sympathy for his readers!”

Shourie had charged him with fudging evidence to distort the historical narrative of the destruction of the ancient Nalanda-mahavihar. Jha therefore considered it necessary to “rebut his allegations and set the record straight instead of ignoring his balderdash”. Note the unscholarly language, and this at his advanced age. We are dealing with a verbal street-fighter who has been given a post as an academic. Further down, we see him belittling his opponent, typical for the nouveau riche who thinks the world of his own status. When Shourie doubts miracle-tales as historical sources, Jha does not justify his own use of the same, but plays up his academic status: “Acceptance or rejection of this kind of source criticism is welcome if it comes from a professional historian but not from someone who flirts with history as Shourie does.”

Misdirection

The article is, as usual in secularist polemics, an exercise in misdirection. Beating around the issues of history, Jha draws the reader’s attention away from those by indulging in nit-picking: “My presentation at the Indian History Congress, to which Shourie refers, was in 2006 and not 2004 as stated by Shourie. It was not devoted to the destruction of ancient Nalanda per se – his account misleads readers and pulls the wool over their eyes.” His entire presentation may have contained material for several more articles, but here Shourie has focused on one daring lie of Jha’s in the course of that presentation, viz. the claim that the disappearance of Nalanda University was due to Hindus rather than Muslims.

Jha: “It was in fact focused on the antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, for which I drew on different kinds of evidence including myths and traditions.” At least he has the merit of pointing to a rhetoric that, that force of repetition from high pedestals, has by now almost become an established fact, viz. that Hindus themselves did to Buddhists what they allege Muslims did to them. Hindus have let this lie fester for decades, and at their own peril.

Jha: “In this context I cited the tradition recorded in the 18th century Tibetan text, Pag-sam-jon-zang by Sumpa Khan-Po Yece Pal Jor, mentioned by BNS Yadava in his Society and Culture in Northern India in the Twelfth Century — with due acknowledgement, although in his pettiness Shourie is quick to discover plagiarism on my part! (I may add that ‘Hindu fanatics’ are not my words but Yadav’s, which is why they are in quotes. How sad that one has to point this out to a winner of the Magsaysay Award!)” Jha did mention Yadava as his source in general, but his quoted phrase “Hindu fanatics” was such that it gave the reader the impression of being from the Tibetan original. Either way, both he and Yadava are plainly wrong when they use the anachronistic term “Hindu fanatics”, because the source text only calls them “beggars”. There is no indication at all that they acted out of fanaticism; instead, it is explicitly mentioned that they were angry at being mistreated by some Buddhist monks.

The crux of Shourie’s argument is that Jha, too lazy to go to the original source, merely quotes Yadava as an authority but omits to mention that Yadava himself considers the source untrustworthy. That is clearly dishonesty, and Jha has been caught in the act of committing it. Yet, in this article, Jha nowhere addresses the allegation that he himself has been dishonest, a central point of the article he claims to reply to. He even repeats the same trick: invoking Yadava as authoritative support for the Tibetan fairy-tale.

Jha: “In his conceit Shourie is disdainful and dismissive of the Tibetan tradition, which has certain elements of miracle in it, as recorded in the text.” Correction: he is only dismissive of the use a Marxist historian makes of the. In the Ayodhya affair, Marxists, and secularists in general, dismissed the Hindu side’s claim (which was not even miracle-mongering, just tradition-based) as “irrational”. And that claim was also based on documentary and archaeological evidence, whereas this Tibetan tale stands alone, is from five hundred years after the fact, and is contradicted by other evidence.

Jha: “Here is the relevant extract from Sumpa’s work cited by Shourie: ‘While a religious sermon was being delivered in the temple that he [Kakut Siddha] had erected at Nalanda, a few young monks threw washing water at two Tirthika beggars. (The Buddhists used to designate the Hindus by the term Tirthika). The beggars, being angry, set fire on the three shrines of Dharmaganja, the Buddhist University of Nalanda, viz. — Ratna Sagara, Ratna Ranjaka including the nine-storeyed temple called Ratnodadhi which contained the library of sacred books’ (p.92). Shourie questions how the two beggars could go from building to building to ‘burn down the entire, huge, scattered complex’.”

Shourie is perfectly right to question the verisimilitude of this story. At any rate, Nalanda University comprised more than these three buildings. Whether this Tibetan miracle-tale is true or not, it does at any rate not pertain to the wholesale destruction of Nalanda, though that destruction did take place. The whole university was flattened by fire (as archaeology can confirm), not just three shrines but the teaching and living quarters as well. If anyone could be tricked by the Tibetan tale into thinking that it pertained to this wholesale destruction rather than narrating some small incident, at least it should not be a historian.

Brahmin-Buddhist antagonism

Jha: “Look at another passage (abridged by me in the following paragraph) from the History of Buddhism in India written by another Tibetan monk and scholar, Taranatha, in the 17th century: ‘During the consecration of the of the temple built by Kakutsiddha at Nalendra [Nalanda] ‘the young naughty sramanas threw slops at the two tirthika beggars and kept them pressed inside door panels and set ferocious dogs on them’. Angered by this, one of them went on arranging for their livelihood and the other sat in a deep pit and “engaged himself in surya sadhana” [solar worship], first for nine years and then for three more years and having thus “acquired mantrasiddhi” he “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around” which “immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire” which consumed all the eighty-four temples and the scriptures some of which, however, were saved by water flowing from an upper floor of the nine storey Ratnodadhi temple. (History of Buddhism in India, English tr. Lama Chimpa & Alka Chattopadhyaya, pp.141-42).
If we look at the two narratives closely they are similar. The role of the Tirthikas and their miraculous fire causing a conflagration are common to both.”

Clearly, the two miracle-tales have a common source. A polemicist would boast that he has no less than two sources available, but a genuine historian would soberly realize that he can draw only on a single source, centuries removed from the events it claims to narrate.

Jha: “Admittedly, one does not have to take the miracles seriously, but it is not justified to ignore their importance as part of traditions which gain in strength over time and become part of the collective memory of a community.” Notice the very different tune he is singing compared to the Ayodhya controversy. Back then, the whole mission of the “eminent historians” was to debunk the temple destruction scenario which they conceived as merely “part of traditions which gain in strength over time and become part of the collective memory of a community”. Here a sheer miracle story is not debunked, but on the contrary invoked as a decisive historical source.

Jha: “Nor is it desirable or defensible to disregard the long standing antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, which may have given rise to the Tibetan tradition and nurtured it until the 18th century or even later. It is in the context of this Buddhist- Tirthika animosity that the account of Sumpa assumes importance; it also makes sense because it jibes with Taranatha’s evidence. Further, neither Sumpa nor Taranatha ever came to India. This should mean that the idea of Brahminical hostility to the religion of the Buddha travelled to Tibet fairly early, became part of its Buddhist tradition, and found expression in 17th-18th century Tibetan writings.”

Another explanation for this Tibetan tradition of hostility could be that they heard how Buddhism had been mistreated in India by the Muslim invaders, and concluded that “Indians” or “Hindus” (the two terms were not yet distinct) had done it. Even today, when the communication distance to the West is far smaller than to Tibet back then, numerous Westerners who hear about something wrong in India assume it must have been the doing of Hinduism. But if the Tibetans really thought that Hindus had been anti-Buddhist to the point of destroying major Buddhist shrines, they were simply misinformed. A historian should not merely quote sources, he should also ask himself how pertinent those sources are, and especially whether they are trustworthy. The question of truth, though central to the Indian Republic’s official motto, goes unconsidered too often.

At any rate, there was no “long-standing antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists”, if only because most Buddhist writers were born Brahmins themselves and partook of Brahminical culture. Buddhist institutions in India flourished under Hindu rule for 16 centuries, otherwise there would have been nothing of them left for the Muslim invaders to destroy. By contrast, when Islam appears on the scene, Buddhism disappears, and not on account of two Tirthika beggars. Cases of polemic between Buddhists and Brahmins may be cited, as also between different Brahminical schools and different Buddhist sects, but they were only the normal exercise of freedom of opinion. They cannot be equated to the Islamic destruction of Buddhism in Central and South Asia.

Marxism

Jha: “Acceptance of the two Tibetan traditions, the one referred to by me has been given credence not only by Yadava (whom Shourie, in his ignorance, dubs a Marxist!) but also by a number of other Indian scholars like R K Mookerji (Education in Ancient India), Sukumar Dutt (Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India), S C Vidyabhushana (Medieval School of Indian Logic), Buddha Prakash (Aspects of Indian History and Civilization), and many others. They were all polymaths of unimpeachable academic honesty and integrity. They had nothing to do, even remotely, with Marxism: which is, to Shourie in his bull avatar, a red rag.”

Marxism is no longer what it used to be; its fall in the Soviet Union and decline in China are making themselves felt even in India at last. Some erstwhile Marxists do not like to be described as Marxist anymore. In the 1990s, Romila Thapar was mentioned in Tom Bottomore’s Dictionary of Marxism as a representative of Marxist history-writing without any discussion, but today she avoids the label “Marxist”. They may be telling one more lie here, this time about their own label, but some of them may genuinely have outgrown Marxism. I leave it to Jha and Shourie, and first of all to Yadava, to decide which description of Yadava is the correct one. But Marxism has conditioned the Indian history discourse, even through many who would reject the “Marxist” label for themselves. It will take time to undo its influence.

Worse is that here again, Jha repeats his lie. Yadava has explicitly written that the said Tibetan tradition is “doubtful”, but once more Jha cites him in its support. He insists on proving Shourie’s allegation right.

Odantpuri

Jha: “Now juxtapose the Tibetan tradition with the contemporary account in the Tabaqat–i-Nasiri of Minhaj-i-Siraj, which Shourie not only misinterprets but also blows out of proportion. Although its testimony has no bearing on my argument about Brahmanical intolerance, a word needs to be said about it so as to expose Shourie’s “false knowledge” – which, as G B Shaw said, is ‘more dangerous than ignorance’. The famous passage from this text reads exactly as follows:

“He [Bakhtiyar Khalji] used to carry his depredations into those parts and that country until he organized an attack upon the fortified city of Bihar. Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that he advanced to the gateway of the fortress of Bihar with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and suddenly attacked the place. There were two brothers of Farghanah, men of learning, [Nizamu-ud-Din and Samsam-ud-Din] in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar, and the author of this book [Minhajuddin] met with at Lakhnawati in the year 641 H and this account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers among that band of holy warriors when they reached the gateway of the fortress and began the attack at which time Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar, by the force of his intrepidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the place, and they captured the fortress and acquired great booty. The greater number of inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven; and they were all slain. There were a great number of books there; and, when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books; but the whole of the Hindus were killed. On becoming acquainted (with the contents of the books), it was found that the whole of that fortress and the city was a college, and in the Hindui tongue, they call a college Bihar” (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, tr. H G Raverty, Calcutta, vol 1, 1881, pp.551-52).

“The above account mentions the fortress of Bihar as the target of Bakhtiyar’s attack. The fortified monastery which Bakhtiyar captured was ‘known as Audand-Bihar or Odandapura-vihara’ (Odantapuri in Biharsharif, then known simply as Bihar). This is the view of many historians but, most importantly, of Jadunath Sarkar, the high priest of communal historiography in India (History of Bengal, vol. 2, Dacca, 1948, pp.3-4). Minhaj does not refer to Nalanda at all: he merely speaks of the ransacking of the ‘fortress of Bihar’ (hisar-i-Bihar). But how can Shourie be satisfied unless Bakhtiyar is shown to have sacked Nalanda? Since Bakhtiyar was leading plundering expeditions in the region of Magadha, Shourie thinks that Nalanda must have been destroyed by him – and, magically, he finds ’evidence’ in an account which does not even speak of the place. Thus an important historical testimony becomes the victim of his anti-Muslim prejudice.”

I remember Sita Ram Goel himself pointing out to me that this passage is about Odantpuri, not Nalanda. So Shourie may have misidentified the institution here. But of course, a description of the Islamic sacking of Odantpuri implies nothing about other places not mentioned. Would the motives that led to the destruction of Odantpuri not have applied to Nalanda as well. We have it from the horse’s mouth, and now also from Jha, that the Islamic invaders sacked Odantpuri and killed every single inmate. We learn elsewhere that in the same military campaign (end of the 12th century), a thousand temples in Varanasi and many more religious institutions at other places were destroyed. Would it then, even without appeal to other sources, be so strange to assume that they did the same to other institutions, which were left unmentioned but nonetheless disappeared?  Would that not be far more likely than Jha’s contrived hypothesis that, after sixteen centuries of allowing Buddhism to flourish, Brahmins in their very hour of need suddenly turned against Nalanda?

Islam destroyed Nalanda

Jha becomes distinctly unpleasant when he starts throwing around allegations: “In his zeal, [Shourie] fudges and concocts historical evidence and ignores the fact that Bakhtiyar did not go to Nalanda from Bihar (Biharsharif). Instead, he proceeded to Nadia in Bengal through the hills and jungles of the region of Jharkhand, which, incidentally, finds first mention in an inscription of AD 1295 (Comprehensive History of India, vol. IV, pt. I, p.601). I may add that his whole book, Eminent Historians, from which the article under reference is excerpted, abounds in instances of his cavalier attitude to historical evidence.”

Notice the rhetorical sleight of hand: Shourie the non-historian has made only one mistake of historical fact, and yet Jha multiplies his invective as if it were a habit. By contrast, Jha the history professor has repeatedly been caught in distortions and manipulations in this debate alone, yet he reckons he can get away with those.

But then Jha admits the very thing which secularists, and partly he himself, had set out to deny: “It is neither possible nor necessary to deny that the Islamic invaders conquered parts of Bihar and Bengal and destroyed the famous universities in the region.” So, next time the Vishva Hindu Parishad starts a temple reclamation campaign, it can cite Jha in support.

Jha: “But any one associating Bakhtiyar Khalji with the destruction and burning of the university of Nalanda would be guilty of gross academic dishonesty. Certainly week-end historians like Shourie are always free to falsify historical data, but this has nothing to do with serious history, which is always true to evidence.”

History may be true to the evidence, but Jha with his hair-brained reliance on a much later foreign testimony isn’t. Circumstantial evidence certainly still points to Bakhtiyar Khilji as the culprit, since we don’t know of another commander at that time and in that area. Not every event on his campaign was recorded. As all genuine historians know: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But even his name makes little difference for the larger debate that motivated Jha to his distortions. Numerous holy warriors of Islam displayed the same behaviour as Bakhtiyar Khilji because they had the same motive: the doctrine of Islam with its hatred of Pagans and their institutions. In spite of so much denial and so many distortions, secularists cannot alter that historical fact. Islam had the motive and the chance. Hinduism had the chance for sixteen centuries to destroy the Buddhist institutions but showed no interest because it lacked the motive. Islam, by contrast, appeared on the scene and immediately Buddhism disappeared. Islam is guilty.

Book-banning

http://www.indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/b.jpegJha’s final word: “Shourie had raised a huge controversy by publishing his scandalous and slanderous Eminent Historians in 1998 during the NDA regime and now, after sixteen years, he has issued its second edition, from which the article under reference has been excerpted. He appears and reappears in the historian’s avatar when the BJP comes to power and does all he can to please his masters. His view of the past is no different from that of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and their numerous outfits, consisting of riff-raff and goons who burn books that do not endorse their views, who vandalize art objects which they label blasphemous, who present a distorted view of Indian history, and who nurture a culture of intolerance. These elements demanded my arrest when my book on beef-eating was published, and they censured James Laine when his book on Shivaji came out. It is not unlikely that Shourie functions in cahoots with people like Dina Nath Batra, who targeted A K Ramanujan’s essay emphasizing the diversity of the Ramayana tradition; Wendy Doniger’s writings, which provided an alternative view of Hinduism; Megha Kumar’s work on communalism and sexual violence in Ahmedabad since 1969; and Sekhar Bandopadhyaya’s textbook on modern India, which regrettably does not eulogise the RSS. Arun Shourie seems to have inaugurated a fresh round of battle by fudging, falsifying and fabricating historical evidence and providing grist to Batra’s mill.”

Jha seems to suggest that publishing these allegations (which he doesn’t refute) was only safe with the NDA in power. Apparently the UPA would have done the Eminent Historians’ bidding and arrested Shourie for slander. Then again, maybe as an intellectual Jha found it below his dignity to appeal to the authorities, and preferred the proper medium of a debate. In that case, we would like to see his refutation.

The rest of his final allegation is an exercise in guilt by association. This is beneath the standards of an intellectual but proper for a political polemicist. We have already pointed that the allegation of “fudging, falsifying” etc., repeated here, is unjustified and applies more to Jha himself. Then he associates Shourie with the VHP-RSS penchant for banning books. In reality, Shourie as a crusader for civil rights and probity in public life has always been on the side of free and frank debate. The RSS, by contrast, is a lot more like Jha himself: never addressing issues but grandstanding on extraneous factors: status and the perceived interests of secularism in Jha’s case, patriotic indignation in the case of the RSS. He supposes that is is “not unlikely that Shourie functions in cahoots with people like Dina Nath Batra”: this is worse than empty speculation, as it is easy to verify that Shourie was not involved in these recent book-banning operations. Indeed, Jha himself has been targeted, so he knows from experience that those who persecuted him comprised Batra but not Shourie.

To sum up: like any stage magician, Jha indulges in misdirection. While he himself has been caught in the act of misquoting his source (Yadava), and repeats this act of dishonesty in this very article, he tries to offset his embarrassment by a flight forward, viz. heaping imaginary allegations and plain swearwords upon his critic.

Hindu passivity

But he will largely get away with it, and secularists will go on quoting his speech at the Indian History Congress as an argument of authority for their truly daring thesis that “not Muslims but Hindus destroyed Nalanda University” and that this was but an instance of the long-standing hostility between Brahmins and Buddhists. Since the record is not being set straight from any powerful forum, it may even become part of the received wisdom.

At the end of 1990, Sita Ram Goel and myself visited the VHP headquarters at RK Puram, Delhi. To some of their bigwigs (names available), I argued passionately that since they had been forced to make a historical case for their Ayodhya demand, and for other reasons too, they badly needed to invest in serious history-writing, rather than relying on either the output furnished by their enemies or the caricatures produced by incompetent Hindus of the PN Oak variety. Wise old Goel just smiled, knowing already what the effect of my enthusiastic plea would be. One VHP leader concluded the conversation by assuring me: “We will think about your suggestion”— the polite way of saying: “Drop dead.” As we left, Goel said: “You could just as well have talked to my wall.” The Sangh Parivar was determined not to invest in chicken but only in eggs; not to involve itself in building a Hindu worldview but to continue focusing on empty locomotion.

Today, 24 years later, no Hindu force has invested anything at all in rectifying India’s history. In about 2002, HRM Minister MM Joshi had the history textbooks rewritten, only to prove for all to see the incompetence of most people he picked for the job. (Notice, Prof. Jha, that Arun Shourie was not involved in this operation either.) The secularists had no problem in overruling this reform, and no Hindu force deigned to address the question: “What have we done wrong?” They only went on wailing about the daring injustice perpetrated by the secularists without ever wondering what they themselves could have done or could still do. Hindu moneybags who like to show off their commitment to Hinduism, finance large temple-building projects or sponsor their declared enemies, but never think of financing the research that Hindu society badly needs. And so, bad but highly-placed historians like DN Jha can go on rubbishing Hindu history.

(1901)

Facebook Comments Box