Infinity
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Harpoon,
But Most of Nairs in Kerala consume BEEF
BEEF FRY and POROTA is common dish in Kerala
Making a Secular Hero, Out of Communal Tipu Sultan
- Thread starter luckyyy
- Start date
Harpoon,
But Most of Nairs in Kerala consume BEEF
BEEF FRY and POROTA is common dish in Kerala
Infinity
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I think you should read it KERALA
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
May be it was prohibited during that times. Society changes with time .I am a Nair myself(Though I don't try it to mention it) and either me or my family eat beef, but I cannot say the same for some of my relatives.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
That's because the original article called Tipu Sultan a traitor because he asked the French for help. Netaji did something similar & is certainly not called a traitor.
True, Tipu Sultan is not remembered fondly in Kerala but it is also true that he is remembered much better in the old Mysore state. That fact cannot simply be brushed aside. Also if Tipu Sultan was a religious bigot, he would have done many of his atrocities in his kingdom itself which doesn't seem to have been the case. There isn't an enormous Muslim population (which seems to be your benchmark) in the old Mysore area as also in Coorg another place mentioned in the article. He remains a hero for many Indians because he fought the British & died bravely fighting them. Didn't see the author calling all of those who aligned themselves with the British against Tipu Sultan as traitors (if there was the same yardstick). Pretty clear that the author belongs to a particular viewpoint of history where all Muslim rulers are considered evil & events in history which suits them are highlighted while those that don't are conveniently brushed under the carpet.
Manas
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,059
- Reaction score
- -5
GUEST ARTICLE
Tipu Sultan: Coming to terms with the past
M V KAMATH
Early in 1990, the BJP, it will be remembered, sought a court injunction to prevent the screening in India of a television serial entitled 'The Sword of Tipu Sultan' based on a novel first published in the mid-70s authored by Bhagwan S Gidwani. A case was made out that Tipu was not secular as was generally believed and doesn't deserve to be an icon. Once again Tipu is in the news with Karnataka's Minister of Higher Education, D H Shankaramurthy questioning Tipu's Kannada credentials, considering that he used Persian, and not Kannada as the language of administration.
Once again a fierce controversy has been raised. And the liberal, secular Hindu intellectual has demanded the dismissal of Shankaramurthy, with the leader of the Janata Dal (secular) H D Deve Gowda screaming that he will not allow the secularism of the JD(S) Karnataka government being polluted. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. The deep tragedy is not the secular standing of a Tipu Sultan, an Aurangazeb or a Ghazni Mohammad but the refusal of both Hindus and Muslims to come to terms with India's past.
Let us face it: for almost a millennium, give or take a couple of hundred years, India has been ruled in different parts of the country, but in one continuous stream, by Islamic conquerors and their successors, which has caused a deep psychological scab in the Hindu psyche that starts bleeding at the slightest provocation. Our liberal secularists have always failed to understand that. Primarily they refuse to face up to the past, which only worsens matters. To seem to be secular, the Hindu liberal needs to stand by Muslim kings and nawabs, like Romilla Thapar being apologetic about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Ghazni Mohammad. It is a mind-set that is hard to understand.
In the North, especially, Rajput rulers would give their daughters in marriage to the Mughal rulers to buy security, which was clever, but demeaning as a tactic. Indeed, in Tipu's large zenana were, in addition to purchased slaves from such places as Istanbul and Georgia, two sisters of the Raja of Coorg and a niece of none other than Purnaiya, who was Tipu's Diwan. It is a little known fact. But par for the course.
We are talking of feudal times. Like many rulers, Hindu or Muslim, Tipu had his faults which are invariably glossed over by our secularists. Tipu was enigmatic, to say the least. A Karnataka MLC, Prof B K Chandrashekar is reported to have said that Shankaramurthy need to know history. Indeed everyone should, including Chandrashekar himself. One can recommend to him two excellent books, one written by Praxy Fernandes, a South Kanara Roman Catholic (and a former IAS officer, 1947 cadre) entitled 'The Tigers of Mysore' and another written by an Australian scholar, Kate Brittlebank, entitled 'Tipu Sultan's Search For Legitimacy', with the sub-title 'Islam and Kingship In A Hindu Domain'. Both are brilliantly researched and are as objective as one can expect. Both give high marks to Tipu for his religious tolerance, for his respect for all religions, for his reverence to the head of the Shringeri Mutt, recounting how Tipu sent a silver palanquin and a pair of silver chauris to the Sarada Temple.
This must be compared to reports in the Mysore Archaeological Survey quoted by Brittlebank that at least three Hindu temples within his realm had been destroyed by Tipu: the Harihareshwar Temple at Harihar which was 'apparently plundered and part of it converted into a mosque', the Varahswami Temple in Seringapatam and the Odakaraya Temple in Hospet is said to have been destroyed'. Does that mean that Tipu was a Muslim fanatic? Hardly. Praxy Fernandes mentions Christians who were close to Tipu, like Father Joachim Miranda, who was a personal friend of Hyder Ali, Fr Francis Xavier, a parish priest, a mysterious Kanara Roman Catholic who apparently became the chief of Tipu's royal household and a Salvador Pinto who was employed as Tipu's personal munshi and who was reported to have wielded a great influence on the Sultan. But none of them could prevent Tipu from uprooting between 60,000 to 100,000 Catholics from Kanara for their alleged support to the British, and dragging them to Seringapatam, to be imprisoned in dungeons. Hundreds are reported to have died on route. The trouble is that Tipu, like any coin, was two-faced. One face, defended strongly by the secularists, was that of a benevolent ruler who, in the language currently in use, was a model of sarva dharma samabhava.
The other, uglier face, is that of a tyrant who could treat his enemies ruthlessly by 'whipping, the cutting off of limbs, ears and noses, as well as castration, forcible circumcision and hanging'. That is feudal rule. There was much that was detestable about Tipu. According to Brittlebank 'in the Sultan's own Dominions, his confidential servant, Raja Khan, had free access into the private apartment of any of his subjects, and could carry away any of the women, without them daring to make any opposition'. What a nice Kannadiga! Just as detestable was Tipu's mode of giving gifts to his subordinates such as 'widows or cast-off wives and concubines' as if they were commodities and not human beings. Not a pleasant thought though our liberals no doubt will say that Tipu was only helping helpless women.
Tipu detested the Nairs of Kerala and especially their practice of polyandry. The Nairs refused to be brow beaten by Tipu whereupon he embarked on a jihadi, and as Fernandes writes 'several thousand of captured Nairs were circumcised and admitted to Islam'. Admitted indeed. Fernandes writes, tongue firmly in cheek that the 'martyrdom of Nairs was not intended to be a religious persecution but a political punishment and a drive towards social reform! Ha, ha! Social reform? A man who keeps a zenana? Who gave the right to Tipu to reform Nair ethos? Like the Nairs, the Coorgis were also punished, about 70,000 of them converted to Islam.
One can only say anything about Tipu and still be correct. The truth is that Tipu was a feudal figure whose word was law. And he had many faces, kind, tolerant, benign, patriotic, examples of which are abundantly described by Fernandes and Brittlebank, but there was another Tipu who not only blatantly chose Persian as the State language, but chose to figure Caliphs, saints and Imams on his coinage, as did the British in a following era who enforced English. One supposes that Tipu can be forgiven. Tipu was a parvenu ruler of a predominantly Hindu Kingdom. He appointed Hindus to high positions just as the British did when they took over India, but for that reason, should we forget Jallianwala Bagh? His army was predominantly Muslim. Of course he fought the British, but who wouldn't when one's rule is in danger? His only other option was to succumb to the British like so many princes did elsewhere in India to their shame.
He declined to submit, for which all credit to him. But criticising him is not being anti-Muslim as our secularists make out. He had his shortcomings, many of them too glaring to be ignored. The point is that both Hindus and Muslims have to come to terms with their past, seeing history in the context of time. And our secularists must realise that when they try to defend the indefensible, they only raise the angst of a long-suffering Hindu population with memories of a thousand years of harsh Muslim rule.
Tipu Sultan: Coming to terms with the past
M V KAMATH
Early in 1990, the BJP, it will be remembered, sought a court injunction to prevent the screening in India of a television serial entitled 'The Sword of Tipu Sultan' based on a novel first published in the mid-70s authored by Bhagwan S Gidwani. A case was made out that Tipu was not secular as was generally believed and doesn't deserve to be an icon. Once again Tipu is in the news with Karnataka's Minister of Higher Education, D H Shankaramurthy questioning Tipu's Kannada credentials, considering that he used Persian, and not Kannada as the language of administration.
Once again a fierce controversy has been raised. And the liberal, secular Hindu intellectual has demanded the dismissal of Shankaramurthy, with the leader of the Janata Dal (secular) H D Deve Gowda screaming that he will not allow the secularism of the JD(S) Karnataka government being polluted. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. The deep tragedy is not the secular standing of a Tipu Sultan, an Aurangazeb or a Ghazni Mohammad but the refusal of both Hindus and Muslims to come to terms with India's past.
Let us face it: for almost a millennium, give or take a couple of hundred years, India has been ruled in different parts of the country, but in one continuous stream, by Islamic conquerors and their successors, which has caused a deep psychological scab in the Hindu psyche that starts bleeding at the slightest provocation. Our liberal secularists have always failed to understand that. Primarily they refuse to face up to the past, which only worsens matters. To seem to be secular, the Hindu liberal needs to stand by Muslim kings and nawabs, like Romilla Thapar being apologetic about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Ghazni Mohammad. It is a mind-set that is hard to understand.
In the North, especially, Rajput rulers would give their daughters in marriage to the Mughal rulers to buy security, which was clever, but demeaning as a tactic. Indeed, in Tipu's large zenana were, in addition to purchased slaves from such places as Istanbul and Georgia, two sisters of the Raja of Coorg and a niece of none other than Purnaiya, who was Tipu's Diwan. It is a little known fact. But par for the course.
We are talking of feudal times. Like many rulers, Hindu or Muslim, Tipu had his faults which are invariably glossed over by our secularists. Tipu was enigmatic, to say the least. A Karnataka MLC, Prof B K Chandrashekar is reported to have said that Shankaramurthy need to know history. Indeed everyone should, including Chandrashekar himself. One can recommend to him two excellent books, one written by Praxy Fernandes, a South Kanara Roman Catholic (and a former IAS officer, 1947 cadre) entitled 'The Tigers of Mysore' and another written by an Australian scholar, Kate Brittlebank, entitled 'Tipu Sultan's Search For Legitimacy', with the sub-title 'Islam and Kingship In A Hindu Domain'. Both are brilliantly researched and are as objective as one can expect. Both give high marks to Tipu for his religious tolerance, for his respect for all religions, for his reverence to the head of the Shringeri Mutt, recounting how Tipu sent a silver palanquin and a pair of silver chauris to the Sarada Temple.
This must be compared to reports in the Mysore Archaeological Survey quoted by Brittlebank that at least three Hindu temples within his realm had been destroyed by Tipu: the Harihareshwar Temple at Harihar which was 'apparently plundered and part of it converted into a mosque', the Varahswami Temple in Seringapatam and the Odakaraya Temple in Hospet is said to have been destroyed'. Does that mean that Tipu was a Muslim fanatic? Hardly. Praxy Fernandes mentions Christians who were close to Tipu, like Father Joachim Miranda, who was a personal friend of Hyder Ali, Fr Francis Xavier, a parish priest, a mysterious Kanara Roman Catholic who apparently became the chief of Tipu's royal household and a Salvador Pinto who was employed as Tipu's personal munshi and who was reported to have wielded a great influence on the Sultan. But none of them could prevent Tipu from uprooting between 60,000 to 100,000 Catholics from Kanara for their alleged support to the British, and dragging them to Seringapatam, to be imprisoned in dungeons. Hundreds are reported to have died on route. The trouble is that Tipu, like any coin, was two-faced. One face, defended strongly by the secularists, was that of a benevolent ruler who, in the language currently in use, was a model of sarva dharma samabhava.
The other, uglier face, is that of a tyrant who could treat his enemies ruthlessly by 'whipping, the cutting off of limbs, ears and noses, as well as castration, forcible circumcision and hanging'. That is feudal rule. There was much that was detestable about Tipu. According to Brittlebank 'in the Sultan's own Dominions, his confidential servant, Raja Khan, had free access into the private apartment of any of his subjects, and could carry away any of the women, without them daring to make any opposition'. What a nice Kannadiga! Just as detestable was Tipu's mode of giving gifts to his subordinates such as 'widows or cast-off wives and concubines' as if they were commodities and not human beings. Not a pleasant thought though our liberals no doubt will say that Tipu was only helping helpless women.
Tipu detested the Nairs of Kerala and especially their practice of polyandry. The Nairs refused to be brow beaten by Tipu whereupon he embarked on a jihadi, and as Fernandes writes 'several thousand of captured Nairs were circumcised and admitted to Islam'. Admitted indeed. Fernandes writes, tongue firmly in cheek that the 'martyrdom of Nairs was not intended to be a religious persecution but a political punishment and a drive towards social reform! Ha, ha! Social reform? A man who keeps a zenana? Who gave the right to Tipu to reform Nair ethos? Like the Nairs, the Coorgis were also punished, about 70,000 of them converted to Islam.
One can only say anything about Tipu and still be correct. The truth is that Tipu was a feudal figure whose word was law. And he had many faces, kind, tolerant, benign, patriotic, examples of which are abundantly described by Fernandes and Brittlebank, but there was another Tipu who not only blatantly chose Persian as the State language, but chose to figure Caliphs, saints and Imams on his coinage, as did the British in a following era who enforced English. One supposes that Tipu can be forgiven. Tipu was a parvenu ruler of a predominantly Hindu Kingdom. He appointed Hindus to high positions just as the British did when they took over India, but for that reason, should we forget Jallianwala Bagh? His army was predominantly Muslim. Of course he fought the British, but who wouldn't when one's rule is in danger? His only other option was to succumb to the British like so many princes did elsewhere in India to their shame.
He declined to submit, for which all credit to him. But criticising him is not being anti-Muslim as our secularists make out. He had his shortcomings, many of them too glaring to be ignored. The point is that both Hindus and Muslims have to come to terms with their past, seeing history in the context of time. And our secularists must realise that when they try to defend the indefensible, they only raise the angst of a long-suffering Hindu population with memories of a thousand years of harsh Muslim rule.
You sure about that fool......in your part of the world you have folks who vote for illerate dumbassess. Wake up kid
luckyyy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,337
- Reaction score
- -1
where you read you history ?
isn't it there is a clear difference between asking a country to invade india which tipu did...
on other side Netaji never did anything like that , he just seek help in the form of recoganising this govt as a a govt in exile and Netaji never asks to bring other counties shoulders to contributes into INA , the volentiers in INA was all indians ...
with your half cooked knowledge , do not try to deframe a bravest and the most visionery man in india history ( Netaji ) ..
KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The only small difference being Tipu was a king of a princely state who was fighting the British to preserve his kingdom without any nationalistic fervor or as an Indian while Netaji was doing exactlythat. He was fighting the British for the independence of India as an Indian.
Have you heard of the proverb - a single drop of poison is enough to poison the entire cask of milk ? The moment he indulged in atrocities against HIndus in Kerala he lost the "secular" tag that is being associated with him. Pretty clear isnt it ? or does a ruler have to do atrocities in particular areas to be labelled a bigot ?
Also answering your point about his treatment of Hindus in Mysore, it may have been the Akbar type of tolerance - tolerance not out of any particular respect towards the Hindus but because of its political nature.Meaning the overwhelming majority of Mysore were Hindus and you need to prevent discontent among them at any cost to stabilise his rule.
Not all, but pretty much the most.
Actually the author himself is bringing up the other part of the Tipu saga that has been conveniently white washed by the so-called secular historians and a version of the history that we dont learn in our history books which we ought to have. So your accusations should actually be towards the "secular" historians and not towards the author.
KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Muslims and Xtians constitute roughly 45% of the Kerala Population and the Hindus rest.
Australia is one of the most peaceful places on earth. Yet generations before they butchered millions of Aborigines. So your point being ?
humanfirst
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,018
- Reaction score
- 1
I can understand why there was mass conversions in malabar and why there wasn't such thing in tipus own state..Of all the converts a vast majority were lower casts who were not even considered humans by the rulers/feudal elites.Their women were not allowed to cover their breasts(tipu was the one who ended that law in malabar),there was no wages nor justice to them.Can anyone believe now that we had laws like any lower cast person who happen to hear vedas being chanted should be punished by pouring molten lead through their ears?And people wonder why they didn't convert back!ages nor justice to them.Can anyone believe now that we had laws like any lower cast person who happen to hear vedas being chanted should be punished by pouring molten lead through their ears?And people wonder why they didn't convert back!
luckyyy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,337
- Reaction score
- -1
money speeks for itself..
mysore was a rich city and people can pay the religious tax which the malabar won't...
KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Do people actually believe in this ****-and-bull stories ? And how does mass-killing Hindus and forcefully converting the rest address the issue ?
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Dude almost all women as well as men in Kerala belonging to all castes were walking around topless during that period (In Thailand even in 1940s ladies went around topless). Even the saree blouse is considered a Victorian invention. Until that time women just used saree to cover their breasts. Nadar Christian women under the influence of Missionaries first secured their right to cover their breasts through "Maaru Marakkal Samaram" in 1859 and other communities followed during the subsequent years. So your theory of Tipu Sultan covering up the breasts of women during the 1790s goes out of the window.
humanfirst
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Dude i am from nadar caste myself-the main reason for the upper cloth revolt in 1858 was that it was a punishable offence for nadars and other lower casts to cover their breast,while there was no restriction what so ever for upper cast(and much before advent saree and blouse,nair and nampoodiries along with christian women wore clothes covering their breast).Nairs were fiercely against giving the nadar women the right to cover their breast-that was why we had to revolt.
And of tipu sultan-ive heard from many muslims in malabar that their ancestors were not permitted to wear the covering cloth until the times of tipu sultan.I felt their plight similar to my cast and that was why i posted that.
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
A struggle for decent dress
Christian Nadar women got the right to cover the breasts in 1859,Ezhava women in 1865 and Nair & Namboothri women much later.
As far Muslims in Malabar , I'm not going to believe it until you post a link as Malabar Muslims have a soft corner for Tipu.
Similar threads
