What's new

Assam violence death toll rises to 21, shoot-at-sight order issued

Not true.

He and the Mongols were called the scourge of God in the Islamic world. I am sure he is not a beloved figure in China as well.

The Mughals, having been of the same Tartar blood (from Timur) were savages but not as savage as at the time of Chengiz.

In China, Persia and much of Central Asia, they wiped out complete populations the effect of which are still there today.

No reason for us to justify these acts.

Aren't all conquerors throughout the ages behaved same? Had Europeans in North America and conquistadors in South America been different?

Also number deaths caused by Chengiz is calculated by extrapolation, what would have been Central Asian population minus what is Central Asian population now.

Chengiz's reason was simple and basic, if do not let anyone alive, there won't be any probable enemy alive. It was brutal but working.

By the way Timur wasn't related to Chengiz, he, as well as Babur was turk.
 
Your opinion, not shared by most people in the old Mysore state where Tipu Sultan is still hugely respected.

As the saying goes " One man's terrorist is other man's freedom fighter'. For the people of Mysore he may be a great leader but for people of Malabar region he was a barbaric invader.
 
Caste became a political issue in the state of UP only in the early eighties when Mandal commission report for 33% reservations of the OBCs came out .Thats when leaders like Lalu Yadav , Mulayam singh etc started agitation and came to power on the promise of implementing the Mandal commision report .Otherwise UP was Congress Bastion till late eighties when Mulayam Singh became CM of UP for the first time in 1989.

Wrong assumption . The reverse is actually true.

To curb the growing effect Mandal politics seen in the late 80s and bring together different hindu castes under the banner of Hindutwa ,Lk Advani started the Ram janmabhoomi movement after Rajiv Gandhi gave him the perfect opportunity by open the site at Ram janmabhoomi ,Ayodhya in order to placate agiated Hindu sentiment after he played rank communal appsement of muslims in the Shahbanu case and BJP came to power in UP in 1993 . It faltered due inner party rivalries when its biggest leader Kalyan Singh was sidelined by AB Bajpayee.

Really? You got your history all backwards. V.P. Singh used the Mandal report to help undercut the BJP's Hindutva plank after the BJP had won some 88 seats. The BJP then upped the ante with rath yatra. Your reference to Mulayam Singh becoming Chief Minister in 1989 fails to note that he was CM when he was a part of VP.Singh's Janata Dal. Only much later in 1992 did he create the Samajwadi party. The dates of the Mandal agitation will quickly remind you when that happened.

As for the rest of your post imagining that India was a tranquil sea of peace, it's simply bad history. Atrocities against lower castes were routine and there were plenty of violence between Shavaites & Vishnavaites & is well documented.

A small snippet on the same:.

"In particular, orders of warrior-sadhu Shiva-worshippers, such as the Dasnamis and the Gosains, gradually grew to develop a tradition of armed conflict with similar orders among Vishnu-worshippers such as the Bairagis. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries most such conflicts resulted in favour of the Shaivites, such as was the case of the Shaivite-Vaishnavite armed battles at the Kumbh Mela at Hardwar in 1640 and in 1760 as well as at the Kumbh Mela at Nasik in 1789. Numerous attacks by Shaivite Gosain and Dasnami warriors on Vaishnavite Bairagi strongholds are reported in the records in the seventeenth century, including the Dasnami capture of Ayodhya from the Vaishnavites in 1699. Gosain power seems to have continued to be consolidated over the Vaishnavite warrior-sadhu orders throughout most of the eighteenth century, and it was only at the Kumbh Mela at Hardwar in 1796 that they suffered a humiliating military defeat at the hands of a new entrant on the political scene, the Sikhs.

Yet, armed conflict between the Vaishnavite and Shaivite sadhu orders persisted even after this, so much so that in 1813 the Peshwas had to make separate bathing areas for the two orders lest they should fight each other. At the Kumbh Mela at Ujjain in 1826, a combined army of Vaishnavite warrior-sadhus and Maratha soldiers inflicted a harsh military defeat on the Shaivite sadhus, and ended up plundering their temples and monasteries. Later, while the British put an end to the regular bouts of violence between the warrior-sadhus Shaivites and Vaishnavites, they made separate arrangements for both orders at the Kumbh Melas at Allahabad and Hardwar to prevent bloodshed over which sadhu order should have precedence in bathing in the Ganga."
 
The point is the interpretation must be left to the reader and not the historian. It is intellectually dishonest on the part of the historian to leave out certain uncomfortable truths that dont 'fit the frame'. The job of the historian must be to strictly present the events and it must be the prerogative of the reader to draw his own conclusions from that.

EDIT: Regarding the "norms of the time", it might have been the norms in central asia or in the deserts of Arabia, but was not so in India where even in war, strict dharma was followed.

I'm sure the event is described in any book which covered Akbar's life in detail, however it may not have been of enough significance to have a place in school books. Also school kids are not mature enough to make their own opinion based on how events were laid out.
 
I'm sure the event is described in any book which covered Akbar's life in detail, however it may not have been of enough significance to have a place in school books. Also school kids are not mature enough to make their own opinion based on how events were laid out.

That is precisely the point. Every single episode that they have dredged out has been reported somewhere, none of it is folk history. Every single episode has been taken from a book, maybe several books, or references. And then they have the gall to say that the information retrieved is not available in any history book!

The heavens preserve us.
 
Joe Sir, Bangalore - For pages the discussion is about how the RSS and right wing hindutva prescription is not good for India vs the arguments from Bhairava, Vinod and other members on the contrary. My question is this - Are the secular forces failing India? The topic on hand is a classic case. If so, I would like to find out what is that alternate solution available from your viewpoint.
 
I'm sure the event is described in any book which covered Akbar's life in detail, however it may not have been of enough significance to have a place in school books. Also school kids are not mature enough to make their own opinion based on how events were laid out.

Forget about Akbar. Why did I learn about a different map of Kashmir at the school and later came in for a rude shock?
 
@Bang Galore,

Shavite-Vaishnavite conflicts ceased to exist long before even the British left India. They were few and far in between to even record them as a significant threat.

I'm sure the event is described in any book which covered Akbar's life in detail, however it may not have been of enough significance to have a place in school books. Also school kids are not mature enough to make their own opinion based on how events were laid out.

Who decides it is not significant and on what basis ? This is what I called "varnished" history. And that we choose to sweep under the carpet, rather than squarely face such uncomfortable truths only betray the insecurity lurking beneath us.

My question is this - Are the secular forces failing India?

I consider myself as one who feels betrayed by the Indian version of secularism - and I'm sure there are much more who think like me.

A relevant article - Short-cut to secularism
 
I'm sure the event is described in any book which covered Akbar's life in detail, however it may not have been of enough significance to have a place in school books. Also school kids are not mature enough to make their own opinion based on how events were laid out.

Then why teach them a biased form of history as most of the knowledge of history for an average Indian are from the school history text books upto 10th grade.
 
Joe Sir, Bangalore - For pages the discussion is about how the RSS and right wing hindutva prescription is not good for India vs the arguments from Bhairava, Vinod and other members on the contrary. My question is this - Are the secular forces failing India? The topic on hand is a classic case. If so, I would like to find out what is that alternate solution available from your viewpoint.

My take is that with the total intellectual and political bankruptcy of the Communist left, there is a void, and liberals are not sufficient in number to fill that gap. Nor are they active enough politically to mobilize the masses.

On the present problem, I see it as another nail in the coffin of the Gandhi-Congress alternative to the Two Nation Theory, what might be termed the Unity in Diversity model. Now we have a situation where both models used for visualizing our future nation state have failed.

In India, we have to acknowledge the issue of each of us owning multiple identities. These are successive in nature, and once one identity is addressed, and its needs for recognition are met, we need to cope with the next.

Take the case of a man who is Hindu, Bengali and Dalit, and poor. His immediate, primary identification is likely to be Hindu, if that is felt to be threatened. Once that is protected, he stops using that identity unless he reverts to it in a moment of crisis. Until then, however, his next identity is Bengali, and his ethno-linguistic identity takes over. He is defensive about Biharis, for instance, or Oriyas, at the labouring classes level, or about Marwaris, perhaps Punjabis, at a business community level.

In the villages, however, he is not directly confronted with this challenge, so he shifts to his Dalit level, or his poor level, and he takes a stand whereby whichever identity faces the greatest threat is the identity on top.

In the city and in towns, he is directly confronted, but is wholly unable to cope with the challenge, and is prey to populist ethno-linguist demagogues like Mamata Bannerjee. It will take time to penetrate beyond that level.

Finally, when all else is done, he faces his dilemma on the gender front. Actually women face this dilemma earlier, as their gender identity is always the most threatened identity.

The point of this elaborate explanation is to convey my personal reading of the situation, that it is not a secular issue at all. It is an issue of our failure to cope with the identity demands of the tribes and of tribals. The failure in central India has led directly to the so-called Maoist problem, which is not a Maoist problem at all; it is a tribal problem, and the tribals are flocking to the Maoist cause simply because the apparatus of state has let them down. The failure in the north east has led to the development of a number of tiny rebellions, as a number of small tribes have taken to arms against being flooded by caste Hindus from the plains. The Naga and Mizo rebellions were the biggest of this kind, and that India has been able to bring them under control shows that solutions are possible.

The present troubles are plainsmen against tribals, not Muslims against Hindus or Animists or Christian. It is just that the communal composition of that area is far more Muslim than in other parts.

Having said that, clearly successive Congress governments in Assam have behaved in a criminally irresponsible manner by behaving with leniency towards unofficial migrants from Bangladesh, who have added to the older Bengali Muslim population. At this level, they were still operating at the level of religious identity, and were opposed at the ethno-linguistic level, Ahom versus Bengali, by the AAGSP and the AASU. When the anti-migration agitation broke out, the Congress was caught flat-footed and thought matters could be resolved by resolving the competition between religious identities. Naturally, they failed, since the Ahom had moved on. They have failed again, in failing to recognize and address the plainsman-tribal divide, and that is what is at the root of these problems today.

Has there been a failure of secular India?

No.

These are not problems related to religion, these are problems related to a wholly different thing, the question of the future of the tribes. Until we address the problems of the tribals, we cannot get a resolution of this clash.
 
Forget about Akbar. Why did I learn about a different map of Kashmir at the school and later came in for a rude shock?

Good one..I also learnt that India borders Afghanisthan in the west at school.
 
Forget about Akbar. Why did I learn about a different map of Kashmir at the school and later came in for a rude shock?

Not sure about your school book, but I remember it was clearly mentioned that xx amount of land in Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan in the version I read, so it was not so much of a shock to me.
 
Then why teach them a biased form of history as most of the knowledge of history for an average Indian are from the school history text books upto 10th grade.

Where is the bias? Even a standard college text concentrates on the political importance of a king, not his religious importance.

If you are recommending that textbooks for schools contain long inventories of the damage inflicted by successive kings and convert those inventories into communally divided issues, do you expect anything other than children who grow up thinking that what a Muslim king did a thousand years ago represents Muslim thinking today? Or would you wait for them to mature and grow before telling them more detail?

The Pakistanis had the same choice, made the wrong decision, and are going through the toxic aftermath. Is that what you want for us?
 
@Bang Galore,

Shavite-Vaishnavite conflicts ceased to exist long before even the British left India. They were few and far in between to even record them as a significant threat.



Who decides it is not significant and on what basis ? This is what I called "varnished" history. And that we choose to sweep under the carpet, rather than squarely face such uncomfortable truths only betray the insecurity lurking beneath us.



I consider myself as one who feels betrayed by the Indian version of secularism - and I'm sure there are much more who think like me.

A relevant article - Short-cut to secularism

Eminent historians who have earned their salt, if you were an eminent historian and provided well enough reason why this minor event in Akbar life deserves so much emphasis as to appear in two pages that was reserved for Akbar in school book, then it would have been included.
 
Aren't all conquerors throughout the ages behaved same? Had Europeans in North America and conquistadors in South America been different?

Also number deaths caused by Chengiz is calculated by extrapolation, what would have been Central Asian population minus what is Central Asian population now.

Chengiz's reason was simple and basic, if do not let anyone alive, there won't be any probable enemy alive. It was brutal but working.

By the way Timur wasn't related to Chengiz, he, as well as Babur was turk.

"The age" is a bad excuse to look over the barbarity. It was an extraordinarily barbaric period but the actors involved made it so.

Now, we can't go back and blame the "age" to overlook the deeds of the "actors".

And yes, we may not have first hand info of how many millions he killed, there is no doubt that it was massive.

I understand Chengiz's motivations (to whatever degree it is possible). I am glad his genocides didn't occur in India.

Timur claimed inheritance from Genghis. Babur from both Timur and Chengiz (mother from Chengiz's side).

Eminent historians who have earned their salt, if you were an eminent historian and provided well enough reason why this minor event in Akbar life deserves so much emphasis as to appear in two pages that was reserved for Akbar in school book, then it would have been included.

I think there is no question that India went largely with the British version of Indian history.

And that version of history had its own motivations.

Nehru and the Marxist historians have created a version of Indian history and Indian identity based on their political outlook. Nowhere else in the world does any nation allow its identity to be defined by outsiders or their self loathing cronies the way it has happened in India.
 
Back
Top Bottom