History as wrestling pit - RSS continues its assault on the mind
Pragya Tiwari: A medieval king reveals the true intent of Hindutva history
http://www.firstpost.com/india/in-praise-of-hemu-a-medieval-king-reveals-the-true-intent-of-hindutva-history-1749171.html
See also
'सत्यमेव जयते लेकिन सवालिया निशान के साथ' // Satyamev jayate? Does truth always triumph?
Ignorance is Strength - Freedom is Slavery - War is Peace
'I am not a spy. I am a philosopher.' 125 days in an Iranian prison by Ramin Jahanbegloo
Stalin's blue pencil: the tyrant as editor
Stalin's Discussions with representatives of the Communist Party of India, February 1951
Meenakshi Lekhi links Sonia Gandhi with Mussolini. Will the RSS/BJP finally clarify their stance on fascism and Nazism?
The RSS/BJP proudly display their contempt for historical truth. Facts & reasonable argument are dispensable. At this rate we shall soon be living in an Orwellian universe. Those who still believe in intelligible discussion may kindly read some of these links:
Modi says Assam government killing rhinos to make way for Bangladeshi immigrants
Modi says Congress committed 'sin' of partition/The Non-politics of the RSS.
“Our history has been distorted by Western, Muslim,
Communist and Secularist historians. The Western historians wanted to spread
Christianity and help England
to rule over us, the Muslims wanted to spread Islam, the Communists wanted Mao
to come to India
and turn us into atheists.” He did not say what the Secularists wanted but did
add that all of the above were mercenaries, writing falsehoods in exchange for
power, property and money.
“Stories of true patriots who fought for India have been buried so that we
don’t find out what a glorious race we are and think of ourselves as the
vanquished. We want to commemorate these patriots to boost the morale of the
young generation,” he adds. Mittal reiterates these ideas at the symposium in between
talks delivered by other panelists. But there is little by way of
commemoration.
The story of Hemu, or Hemchandra Vikramaditya, is summed up
as follows - He had humble beginnings but worked his way up, becoming
indispensible to a string of Afghan rulers until he finally established himself
on the throne of Delhi
on the 5th of October, 1556 and set up a Hindu Rashtra after hundreds of years.
We are told that he proved to be a stellar administrator in his 29 day rule.
Also that his first Ghoshana Patra (decree) banned cow slaughter and declared
that anyone practicing it would be beheaded. Further, he issued a list of
corrupt officials and took action against them, altered policy to make his
kingdom more business friendly and made new appointments.
At this point Hemu’s life story is beginning to sound
suspiciously like the ‘Myth of Narendra Modi set in Medieval
Times’. Every medieval era historian I speak with outside of ABISY tells me
that very little is known about Hemu. None of them has come across any evidence
or study that refers to the establishment of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ or Ghoshana
Patras. “If they have these decrees let them put it out. It will change the way
we understand medieval Indian history,” says Sunil Kumar, Professor of Medieval
History at Delhi University, calling the claim “astonishing” because “medieval
documents were not called ghoshana patras”. “No king in that period would have
put out a plan for intrusive governance so soon after taking control.
Consolidation was always a slow process,” he adds.
The Ghoshana Patras are not shown at the symposium but the
organizers do screen a “documentary” to prop up their claims. Curiously it
largely consists of scenes from Ashutosh Gowariker’s 2008 Hindi film, Jodhaa
Akbar. A film that was initially either banned or not released in some
Indian states after sections of the Rajput community alleged that it intends to
distort history. Regardless the young man sitting in front of me is visibly
moved when Bairam Khan (played by Yuri Suri) beheads Hemu (played by Shehzor
Ali).
This martyrdom of Hemu is what entrenches his credentials as
a desh-bhakt for ABISY. “The Hindu king led from the front in the Second Battle
of Panipat and was close to defeating the foreign army of Bairam Khan, regent
to a very young Muslim ruler Akbar, when an arrow hit him, changing the course
of India ’s
history forever. He was captured and killed and his head was taken to Kabul and exhibited,”
says Mittal. When I ask him why Akbar cannot qualify as an ‘Indian’,
Mittal gives me two reasons. One, that he always kept “dreaming of Central Asia where his forefathers had come from” and two, that
he was an “illiterate man” who “mixed alcohol and opium and consumed copious
amounts of this cocktail”.
When I remind him of Akbar’s state policy of Sulh-i-kuI
(religious tolerance) and equal patronage to all faiths that made him unpopular
with the Ulama of his time, Mittal summarily says, “his secularism was a
political maneuver, not his conviction.” I am not entirely sure what his
sources are ,but this conversation is beginning to sound more like the BJP and
its supporters’ slander campaign against political opponents – be they Rahul
Gandhi’s holidays abroad or Priyanka Gandhi “drinking too
much alcohol”- than anything we know about Akbar.
The narrative however is more problematic that that. The
concepts of nationhood, Hindutva, secularism being used to analyze this episode
from medieval times are in fact constructs of modern history. To call Hemu a
patriot would be to suggest that the idea of India as a political state existed
in 1556. “There were mentions of Hindustan in that period but it meant
different things to different people,” explains Farhat Hasan, Professor of
Medieval History at Delhi
University . “Identities
were extremely parochial— limited to caste, kin and village.” Which is also
what makes the idea of Akbar as a foreigner less than credible. “For most
people anyone outside their village would have been a foreigner,” says Hasan.
More problematic is the attempt to frame this as a story of
Hindu-Muslim conflict. “Merging of different religious, cultural and social
identities into one homogenous identity of ‘Muslim’ is a later development,”
says Bhairabi Prasad Sahu, Professor of Ancient History at Delhi University .
“There was a lot of borrowing- not conscious but liminal - from each other’s
cultural and sacred traditions so it is anachronistic to talk of Hindus and
Muslims as well-entrenched or uniform religious identities,” explains Hasan. Hasan gives several examples to illustrate this point,
including that of Premakhyan- texts in the Awadhi language written by writers
patronized by Afghan rulers that used indigenous religious mythology to explore
Sufi thought and were recited in public places. “New forms of religious
experience were being created,” he says.
“But even if one could make a case for the presence of
distinct religious identities, that does not automatically establish the
presence of religious strife. Most evidence suggests people were either
appreciative of or indifferent to belief systems different from their own,”
adds Hasan. The role of religious identity in the political sphere is similarly
complex. Where Babur’sfatehnama (declaration of victory) had
several Muslim names in the list of ‘kafirs’ (non-believers) murdered; the
Vijayanagara rulers of indigenous faith called themselves Hindu Raya Suratrana
(Sultan amongst Hindu rajas).
The much hyped destruction of places of worship was an
expression of conquest and seen in that light. “Hindu rulers did it as much as
Muslim rulers,” says Hasan. “Temples
patronized by defeated rulers were destroyed. But it is often overlooked that
Mahmud Ghazni also destroyed a mosque at Mansura, now in Western Pakistan, on
his way to Somnath,” he adds. Outside of wartime, there is evidence to suggest
most rulers, including Mughal kings—even Aurangzeb—patronized all kinds of
places of worship, even if not equally. Hemu’s own final battle is more
accurately a chapter in the extended strife between Afghans and Mughals in India . “It was
common for ‘Hindu’ chieftains to collaborate with ‘Muslim’ Sultans against
common enemies. The Sharqi Sultans of Jaunpur and the Lodis of Delhi both had
Rajput confederates in their armies as they battled with each other,” says
Kumar.
So Hemu who worked closely with Sher Shah Suri and Adil Shah
actually represented the Afghan forces in battles. His army in the battle of
Panipat is likely to have consisted of large numbers of Afghan soldiers. But
despite these complexities, the symposium on Hemu seems determined to reduce
his life to that of a Hindutvavadi nationalist.
Subramanian Swamy in his nakedly communal speech says it was
due to the struggle of people like Hemu that Muslims and Christians failed to
convert “80 percent of Hindus. That is the reason ISIS wants to come back to India . To finish
the unfinished task.”
Equally blatant are the political motives behind this
effort. “In the elections this year when just over 30 percent of this 80
percent got together see what they could accomplish. Next time more Hindus will
unite and vote,” says Swamy.
Mittal reminds us that Hemu banned cow slaughter as soon as
he came to power, but cow slaughter has not been banned in independent India .
“This is all because of Nehru.”
Nehru, who according to Swamy “listened to no one but Edwina
Mountbatten” and was determined to keep India “a junior partner of the British
commonwealth.” Jibes against Sonia Gandhi being from Italy are
thrown in with even lesser pretext.
The communalization of this chapter goes well beyond Hemu’s
life. The symposium expresses outrage over the alleged encroachment of Hemu’s
memorial in Panipat. “It is a Muslim dominated area and they have built a
dargah there. It is shameful,” says Vinayak Deshpande. The natural leap from
this is Babri Masjid (named, according to a sniggering Swamy, after a young boy
Babur was having an illicit affair with) and the Mathura temple. Swamy pledges to “resolve”
both matters. “Muslims should cooperate otherwise we have other ways,” he says.
The foremost casualty of this crusade besides the complexity
of Hemu’s story is the idea of history itself- reimagined here first as farce
and then as bigotry. Mittal says that Hemu was brave because he fought “24
battles and won 22”, which is “more than Guru Gobind Singh”. This limited idea
of ‘greatness’ and paring down of a rich, fascinating history into simplistic
tales of heroes and villains is unfortunate. As is the filling of gaps, “the
extrapolation”, as Kumar puts it “with no regard to narratives or contexts,
just a presentist politics.”
The spirit of questioning and debate that underpins the
study of history is difficult to imagine in this auditorium where every vulgar
slight made against ‘others’ is being loudly cheered with slogans of “Bharat
Mata ki jai”. To underline the impossibility of intelligent debate Swamy
tells his rapturous audience that when Karunanidhi mocked the idea that Ram
might have built Ram Setu he was taken ill and rushed to a hospital named after
Lord Ram. Naturally, Swamy visited him to rub the moral of the story in- the
gods will punish you for asking questions. What makes this position dangerous
is that the VHP, ABISY and BJP leaders on stage are determined to expand the
bully pulpit.
“There are six to twelve lines about Maharana Pratap and one
and a half lines about Shivaji in NCERT text books. These books must be
rewritten,” says Mittal. Swamy, as expected, takes it a step further. “Books
written by Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra Pal and other historians of Nehru must
be burnt in a bonfire,” he exclaims to deafening applause. The otherwise
xenophobic assembly clearly has no issues drawing from the history of Hitler’s Germany .“This is only the beginning,” says Deshpande, and for once
you can count on what he is saying. “ICHR is given Rs 20 crores from the
government. Earlier all the grants used to go to Aligarh ,
Calcutta and
JNU,” says Mittal making a highly contestable claim. “Now it must go to the
correct places.” Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, who has recently been appointed
head of the ICHR by the new government, is from ABISY.
There is no saying what these “correct places” will be or
what part of history will be rewritten next. And in the absence of common
grounds for debate there is no saying how much of it will be credible. But if
this symposium is anything to go by there is reason to worry.
In the final speech of the afternoon Bal Mukund Pandey
compares Hindus to the tiger who killed a young boy in the Delhi Zoo recently. “They
might not have hunted for many years but that does not mean they have forgotten
how to hunt,” he says. The deceased was a “mentally challenged Muslim boy. When
he was about to be eaten he did not say Allah but folded his hands in front of
the tiger,” he adds smugly. If this is how they spin the voluble present
imagine what liberties they might take with the silent past.
See also
'सत्यमेव जयते लेकिन सवालिया निशान के साथ' // Satyamev jayate? Does truth always triumph?
Ignorance is Strength - Freedom is Slavery - War is Peace
'I am not a spy. I am a philosopher.' 125 days in an Iranian prison by Ramin Jahanbegloo
"I realized that there would be no rational basis to
our discussion. These men were not trained in political theory or in law. Their
only skill was the ability to intimidate.."
Stalin's blue pencil: the tyrant as editor
Stalin's Discussions with representatives of the Communist Party of India, February 1951
Meenakshi Lekhi links Sonia Gandhi with Mussolini. Will the RSS/BJP finally clarify their stance on fascism and Nazism?
The RSS/BJP proudly display their contempt for historical truth. Facts & reasonable argument are dispensable. At this rate we shall soon be living in an Orwellian universe. Those who still believe in intelligible discussion may kindly read some of these links:
Modi says Assam government killing rhinos to make way for Bangladeshi immigrants
Modi says Congress committed 'sin' of partition/The Non-politics of the RSS.