Criticism no 5:
"...You have withstood the shocks of centuries simply because you took great care of it, you sacrificed everything else for it. Your forefathers underwent everything boldly, even death itself, but preserved their religion. Temple after temple was broken down by the foreigner conquerers, but no sooner had the wave passed than the spire of the temple rose up again. Some of these old temples of southern India and those like Somnath of Gujarat will teach you volumes of wisdom, will give you a keener insight into the history of the race than any amount of books. Mark how these temples bear the marks of a hundred attacks and a hundred regenerations, continually destroyed and continually springing up out of the ruins, rejuvenated and strong as ever! That is the national mind, that is the national life-current. Follow it and it leads to glory. Give it up and you die; death will be the only result, annihilation the only effect, the moment you step beyond that life-current. (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda Vol III:289)
Response:
This doesent seem like Experience attributed to Swamiji, rather a Copy-Paste from the History books written by Britishers for their Divide and Rule policy!
What is the Truth ?
The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus 'had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them'? Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with 'Muhammedans', generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.
Thus history was 'originally compiled by European writers' whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.
Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they 'should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened'.
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the 'division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage', and that he expected 'some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material'.
'We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other,' the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), 'and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.'
In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande* said: 'Thus under a definite policy the Indian history books text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval [i.e. Muslim] period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors [between Hindus and Muslims] in social, political and economic life.'
Therefore, Dr Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a 'fact' that looked odd to him, he would try to check and verify rather than adopt it uncritically.
He came across a history text-book taught in the Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad which claimed that 'three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam'. The author was a very famous scholar, Dr Har Prashad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Calcutta University. (Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99), is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battlefield, fighting the British.)
Was it true?
Dr Pande wrote immediately to the author and asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text-book. After several reminders, Dr Shastri replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore Gazetteer. So Dr Pande requested the Mysore University vice chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr Shastri's statement from the Gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the Gazetteer. Srikantia wrote to say that the Gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof Srikantia added that both the prime minister and the commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins. He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants from the Sultan's treasury.
It transpired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles' History of Mysore which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen Victoria's library. Yet Dr Shastri's book was being used as a high school history text-book in seven Indian states, Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. So he sent his entire correspondence about the book to the vice chancellor of Calcutta University, Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary. Sir Ashutosh promptly ordered Shashtri's book out of the course. Yet years later, in 1972, Dr Pande was surprised to discover the same suicide story was still being taught as 'history' in junior high schools in Uttar Pradesh. The lie had found currency as a fact of history.
The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a 'fundamentalist' too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb's fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
For Dr Pande this was a 'new image of Aurangzeb'; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any farman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got farmans from several principal Hindu and jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These farmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship.
Dr Pande's research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. 'While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.
'Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
'When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'
The Rajas demanded salutary action, and 'Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant [head priest] be arrested and punished'. (B N Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987)
The inhumanity did not lie in the Indian nature, but the nature had fallen victim to the evil heritage of colonial history. Few realised how 1000 years of their history had been stolen from them. Many tended to buy the fake and doctored version handed down to them as part of their colonial heritage. Some even saw a little political advantage in this trade. Dr Pande heard a leading Hindu Mahasabha politician and religious leader, Mahant Digvijaynath, telling an election meeting that it is written in the Qur'an that killing a Hindu was an act of goodness (thawab). Dr Pande called upon the Mahant (High Priest) and told him that he had read the Qur'an a few times but didn't find such a statement in it, and he had, therefore, brought with him several English, Urdu and Hindi translations of the Qur'an; so would he kindly point to him where exactly did the statement occur in the Qur'an?
Isn't it written there? said the Mahant. I haven't found it; if you have, please tell me, replied Dr Pande. Then what does it say? It speaks about love and brotherhood, about the oneness of mankind. What's jihad then? What is jizyah? How then India got partitioned? The Mahant went on asking, and Dr Pande kept on explaining, hoping the Mahant would correct himself. However, the Mahant's ideas were fixed, in prejudice and in ignorance.
I would have asked the same Question to Swami Vivekananda, if he was alive today!
Dr Pande was, however, just one individual. That made his work all the more important, not just from the Muslim but from the point of view of the entire country. India's deconstructed history is like a time bomb; unless it is defused, India cannot survive in one piece. Not for very long.
Bishambhar Nath Pande* born on 23 December 1906 in the Madhya Pradesh of Umreth; member UP Legislative Assembly (1952-53); member UP Legislative Council (1972-74); twice member of the upper house, Rajya Sabha (1976 and 1982); Governor of Orissa state (1983-88); recipient of the highest national award Padma Shri (1976); author of several books, including The Spirit of India and The Concise History of Congress; died in New Delhi, 1 June 1998.
Courtesy: Impact International, London, Vol 28, July 1998, Copyright © 1998, All Rights Reserved.
Why Did Muslim and Hindu Rulers Destroy Temples?
The VHP instigates Hindus by charging that Muslim rulers tried to force Islam on Hindus and demolished temples as part of their religious oppression. Yes some Muslim rulers did destroy temples in the process of wars. But these were not religious wars. Every Muslim ruler had some Hindus commanding top positions in their armies, and similarly Hindu rulers had some Muslims in similar positions. What the VHP deliberately hides is that the main motive behind the destruction of temples was not religion by plunder. And that such plunder was carried out not only by Muslim rulers, but even by Hindu rulers who looted their own Gods. For example, Prof. Harbans Mukhia tells us, "Many Hindu rulers also did the same (demolish) with temples in enemy territory long before the Muslims had emerged as a political challenge to these kingdoms. Subhatavarman, the Parmar ruler (1193 -1210 A.D.), attacked Gujrat and plundered a large number of Jain temples at Dabhoi and Cambay. Harsha, a ruler of Kashmir, plundered all the temples in his own kingdom, barring four, in order to replenish his treasury, and not a word of protest was uttered. And when he needed still more money and enhanced the amount of tribute due from his subordinate feudal lords, he was dragged down the streets of Srinagar and done to death."
Do the VHP leaders have the courage to tell this history to the masses? Do they also condemn Hindu rules like Subhatavarman and Harsha along with Babar?
Where Will the Destruction of Other's Shrines Take Us?
Indian history is replete with examples of the conversion of shrines. Not just mandirs converted into masjids, or churches, but even Buddhist temples have been converted into Hindu temples. Even though Shaivaites and Vaishnavaites are both Hindus, there are a number of examples where Shiva temples have been forcibly converted into Vaishnavaite temples and vice-versa. Now what if the Shaivaites and Vaishnavaites, both Hindus, follow the VHPs reasoning and start demolishing each others temples in order on restore them to the original status? Will it unite the Hindus or will it lead to disintegration - we would like to ask the VHP, the self-proclaimed unifying force within Hinduism? Nationalist it claims to be, but can its logic lead to anything else but breaking the country?
Courtesy: Bharatiyda Janwadi Aghadi, 254 Ambedkar Nagar, MIDC Road No8, Andheri (E), Bombay 400093, India. Pamphlet (1990). Abridged and compiled by IIFA.
Extended reading:
TRUTH BEHIND TALES OF TEMPLE DESTRUCTION
TRUTH BEHIND TALES OF TEMPLE DESTRUCTION
Author: Richard M. Eaton,
Publisher: Hope India, Gurgaon (hope_india@indiatimes.com)
Year: 2004 Pages: 101 Price: Rs.225 ISBN: 81-7871-027-7
http://irfi.org/articles/articles_451_500/truth_behind_tales.htmEaton thus seeks to dismiss the notion that various Muslim rulers in India wantonly engaged in destroying Hindu temples, allegedly driven by a 'theology of iconoclasm'. Such a picture, he insists, cannot, sustained by evidence from original sources from the early thirteenth century onwards. Had instances of temple desecration been driven by a 'theology of iconoclasm', he argues, this would have 'committed Muslims in India to destroying all temples everywhere, including ordinary village temples, as opposed to the highly selective operation that seems actually to have taken place'. In contrast, Eaton's meticulous research leads him to believe that 'the original data associate instances of temple desecration with the annexation of newly conquered territories held by enemy kings whose domains lay on the path of moving military frontiers. Temple desecration also occurred when Hindu patrons of prominent temples committed acts of treason or disloyalty to the Indo-Muslim states they served'. Otherwise, he notes, 'temples lying within Indo-Muslim sovereign domains, viewed normally as protected state property, were left unmolested'.
Peace!
No comments:
Post a Comment