You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Revisiting History must not take communal overtunes.

    Everyone is ware that the present Government under NDA wants to rewrite history which was consciously written in a particular way by Marxist historians. Our history has been long influenced by economic basis and hence the need to revise the same can be understood. But this cannot take communal overtones. Certifying some as invaders and others as protectors of Indian culture need to be prohibited. Mongols are as much Indian as Marathas. Just because Babur came from a part of India which is called Afghanisntan today does not mean he is an outsider. For me I take same pride in saying Shivaji is victorious as same of Babur battles. Akbar and Ashoka both are Emporers of repute. I must glorify Taj Mahal as and much I glorify the Magnificent Brihadishwara temple at Tanjore. In words of Great Hindu leader Tilak "For me everyone is Indian including Hindus, Muslims, British people until they live in this country and contribute to its civilization".
    Recent speech by a UP MLA to take Taj mahal away from list of tourist destination is unwarranted.
  • #612061
    History must be written as it has happened. History is nothing but old happenings. They are not created. So what happened in our long back should be written as actual based on the available information. It should not be changed as per the wishes of somebody. If I am writing an Indian History book, I should present all the available facts without any bias. I should not bring the changes as I like. As an author If I want to express my opinion, I should specifically say that this is my opinion. But unfortunately, so far our history books conveniently forgot to mention some important works and important people in the history. In that Case, it is advisable to rewrite the history books. In that case of rewriting utmost care should be taken to bring in all the facts and importance should be given all great leaders irrespective of their affiliations and religious outlook. In our existing books, some facts were conveniently avoided and no mention of some important rulers of this country. In the present revision, those mistakes should not happen. This should be the concept of rewriting
    always confident

  • #612065
    Mr. Gokul Aravindh has raised a beautiful thread which requires extensive debate. In my opening comment, I want to submit the following:-

    (a) If the narrative is communal and derogatory to some communities (Examples: All woes of Indian people were due to caste system of Hindus; One Sikh Guru was accused of theft in a Delhi history-book which had to be withdrawn later due to strong protest), the counter-narrative is bound to be 'communal'. I am not supporting this, but from common sense I can say that this is bound to happen.
    (b) What is the lasting contribution of Babur in Indian context? What has he done for Indian and its people (except bringing cannon in Indian battle-fields)?
    (c) When we read the history of Bengal for example today, the prominent places are occupied by Hussain Shah, Nusrat Shah, Aliwardi Khan. Why not Shashanka, Dharmapala, Devpala? The latters were more powerful, had bigger kingdoms and administratively much better than the former ones. Then why are they being ignored? This has been happening to the history of every part of India.
    (d) Brihadeeswarar Temple of Thanjavur was built by the Cholas 1000 years ago. The temple tower is 66 metres tall, and the "Kumbham" (the rounded dome on top) was made from a single stone that weighs approximately 80 tonnes. It should be on top of the national tourist map. The capital of Vijayanagar kingdom Humpi should be on top of India's tourist map. What did the Indian Government do to popularise these two places (again examples)? What is so special about Tajmahal? Isn't it actually a graveyard? Wasn't it built in the memory of a queen who died due to severe anaemia at the time of giving birth of her 17th child? What do the women's lib practitioners say in this regard.

    I humbly request other Members to debate with logic and not with rhetoric (addressing me as 'communal' won't stop the debate).

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #612072
    I cited the Personalities only as examples. The point I am rising is be it Babar or Shivaji, let us just try to see the issues without any other thing in mind than their actions alone. I am not going into the contributions they made per se but the way we look at them.
    Babur represented the same people who came India to get reprieve from central Asian politics. Nothing more than that.
    Let us not see why Taj Mahal was built. But its standing as symbol of Mughal culture.
    Because wars were fought because of this thinking. The thinking that some group of people are invaders must go.
    For eg. In history text books 1901-1914 we can find all German controbutions to french history being conciously avoided and degraded. It hapened vice versa. It happened in UK, Austria. The shared history of Europe was neglected. This led to WW1.
    Similarily Hitler protrayed Jews as enemies. We know the result.
    The last Mughal ruler Bahadur shah 2 though weak even at his time of arrest stood for secularism.
    We need not degrade any value. We can take pride in all our rulers. If we find fault it results in mudslinging against rulers of other communities. Hindu will find fault with muslim and vice versa. Every one is human and have done errors. Judging events of past with present values is ridiculous. This kind of history viewing has cost us 1947. Let us not repeat again. Let us not conciously create war as happened in 1914 and 1939.

  • #612075
    Whether we agree or not the history is being revisited or dug up only with the eagerness to find the antecedents of the matter which eventually connects to the religion. The best case of example before us is the Ayodhya. We all know that Ramayana has its routes in Ayodhya and when history wants to be revisited to prove the fact, there was hue and cry from the other religion which wants to claim the piece of land. What I opine that when the majority of the people opine on a matter, how can that be denied and even the courts are not interfering to settle the matter once for all and thus communal touch is going to happen when every time the history revisited.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #612080
    Nice thread, History that has happened and been recorded by humans, told and re-told by historians, taught to us by our teachers and elders and we recollect or recite history at various times, like this for instance.

    The problem is all this is done from the point of origin to the point of the recital by humans who are knowingly or unknowingly biased.

    There are many such examples. Winston Churchill, famed prime minister of England was a great leader along with Hitler during World War-II. The world knows Hitler as a tyrant and Churchill as a saviour of England.

    If you look at History without any bias we should also remember Churchill for his other contributions which include

    - He took part in raids in areas now in Pakistan and killed coloured savages (in his view)

    - He opined that deadly poisonous gases be used against rebellious Kurds, he played a crucial role in the creation of present-day Iraq.

    - He wanted Mahatma Gandhi tied and trampled by an elephant for his peaceful protests.

    - The worst was during the famine of Bengal, despite desperate pleas from the British officials themselves in India and Bengal, he refused to divert food as he felt these people breed like rabbits and hence should be left to die.

    - Under Churchill's rule Hussein Onyango Obama (Yes US ex-President Obama's grandfather) in Keyna who opposed the British, was tortured with electric shock for two years without trial. At the same time, 1,50,000 Keynians were put into detention camps.

    I'm not trying to say one is better or worse than the other. But, now, just re-think about Hitler and Churchill, do you feel both had similar views and traits (thoughts of supremacy, allowing humans ( slaves) to be tortured, put in camps and gassed or killed) - deep aversion or hatred for the coloured people whom they referred to as slaves.

    I think it is important to see history as a set of facts and not to give any other colour to it (religion, nationalistic or communal). Unfortunately, it is easier said than done.

  • #612105
    Yesterday was the birthday of Sitaram Goel, a historian whom the Marxist historians ridicule in various ways. After extensively studying Panikkar, Romila Thapar, Shivanand Jha, Bipan Chandra, Tapan Roychowdhury and others, let us read Sitaram Goel a little bit. Let's start with 'Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them'.

    For Tajmahal, we can also read about the archaeological evidences mentioned by PN Oak .

    Are we ready to read?

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #612123
    The point is in Tamil Nadu we have a different set of history writers who proclaim Dravida Nadu and Aryan distortion of history. For eg they say how Several Jain temples in and aeound Tamil Nadu were converted to Hindu temples. They say about Gond culture destroyed by Aryan vedic culture.
    The point is what is the use of this.
    If history at some point of time some King A destroys a particular structure and raises some other structure let it be history. We cannot change whatver happened before 1947. What we have to make sure is protect structures prior to 1947 as they are. Let it be temple or mosque but now we have a particular structure and protect it.
    What is the use of demolishing. Let Lord Ram hear hymns of Profet Mohammed. He will not get angry. In fact he will be happy that people love him by different means.
    We have always people from Central Asia coming and settling here and have did many things. Why this singling out of Mongols and Turks.
    Suppose place A had a temple. It was destroyed and a Mosque was built. All this must be studied as history as they have happened prior to 1947. Why demolish now?

  • #612126
    "Suppose place A had a temple. It was destroyed and a Mosque was built. All this must be studied as history as they have happened prior to 1947. Why demolish now?"-As far as I know, many temples have been desecrated and demolished in a place called Kashmir since 1987 to 1992. Everyday many temples are being demolished a country named Bangladesh. It is continuing in Pakistan, Afghanistan (Asha Mai Temple).

    And what about 1947? Where is it written that destruction of Hindu temples were permitted till 1947?

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #612132
    What I am saying is until 1947 we were not having a rule based on Ideals we represent. We cannot correct history or rectify histort now. Whatever happened before 1947 must be taken at face value and kept as it is. It is good for every community. We need not care about Bangladesh or Pakistan. Let them decide it. Regarding Kashmir yeah if things has happened then we must condemn them.
    Their destruction was niether permitted not prohibited. During those times rule of mighty was there. But now we hava rule based on positive Secularism, Democracy, Rule by people of the land, etc.

  • Sign In to post your comments