There is a
deliberate plan of rewriting history, edit the history of past according to
their views, and making genealogies, one does not understand of whom and why.
All this is done under a definite plan to saffronise history. They have been
waiting to do so for ages. They have now got the chance and are in a hurry to
do so. Some how I do not like the word “saffronisation”. Saffron robes were
donned by the warriors and brave people when they decided to give the last
battle known as Sakas, and give up their lives. The colour which is presently
used by them is “Bhagwa” which is associated with those who hide the truth and
their sins. Anyway coming back to rewriting history, I would like to mention
that History is never rewritten. Historians with great repute with great effort
and labour assimilates the facts, then they analyze them by taking the social, economical
and political situations of that particular period, and puts them in a
chronological order in a language which can be read and understood by all.
Professor Sir George Clark, in his introduction to Cambridge Modern History, writes;
“They {historians} consider that knowledge of the past has come down through
one or more human minds, has been ’processed’ by them, and therefore can not consist
of elemental and, impersonal atoms which nothing can alter…The exploration
seems to be endless, and some impatient scholars, take refuge in scepticism, or
at least in the doctrine that, since all historians judgment involve persons
and points of view, one is as good as another and there is no ‘objective’ historical
truth. {The new Cambridge Modern History {1957} int; pp. xxiv-xxv}
From the
local newspapers I have come to know that the Rajasthan Government has decided
to institute an academy which will make genealogies of different people of
India and of the world. As far as I know this is the first time that such an
academy is being instituted NOT ONLY IN India but probably in the World. While
the three Akademies of Literature, Music-dance-theatre, and of Painting are till
date not been constituted. This clearly shows the interest and welfare of art
and culture the government has. One wonders as to what is the purpose of
Akademi of Genealogies. As far as I understand this is the effort to prove that
all humans in the World are Hindus. This
is to give legitimacy to the slogan of Hindutatva. In a seminar at the
University of Rajasthan I had the opportunity of hearing a hardcore
representative of Hindutava. He very proudly acclaimed that he with his team traveled all over the World and found to their
delight that all the inhabitants of the different countries at one time were
Hindus. He did not explain as how they came to this conclusion. Now they have
decided that with the help of the genealogies of the different non Hindu communities
of India and people of foreign countries, they will come to the conclusion that
the World belongs to the Hindus. To confirm it they will even take the help of
DNA.I suspected then and now the plan has been unfolded that this is the effort
to prove that all the people of the World are Hindus. This is a very old agenda
when in the meetings, the map of the World was displayed in which each country
was shown as belonging to the Hindus. Argentina was shown as belonging to
Arjun. I warned them that to prove by DNA might cost them very dear, as it is
very possible that the DNA of Changez Khan might match with theirs.
I wonder as
how will they proceed. It is a fact that several Rajputs converted themselves
to Islam. They are known as Kayamkhani, Memons etc. There is no need to have
their genealogies to prove that they were hindus as they claim to be
descendants of one sect or the other. In ancient times in marriages both Hindu
and Islam traditions were followed. The most important question is that if they
do gharwapsi, then would the other rajputs marry their daughters or give their
daughters to their sons. If not, then the
process of bringing them back to their fold not only fails but will
create a very serious social problems. They will be left alone in wilderness.
Many Rajputs
converted themselves as Jains. Would they like to perform gharwapsi? Personally
I feel that they would not. They are happy where they are. So the only persons
left are the Indian Christians and of course Muslims. It is very wrong to think
that all muslims in India are converts. There are many families which are pure
muslims who came to India several years back but they have maintained their
ancient identity, and would not like to change because of social and political
reasons. The main idea and purpose to make Akademi of making genealogies is to
convert the muslims in a large manner for political advantage. This will at one
time or the other will create many social problems. The families which will be
reconverted in the name of gharwapsi, will end as victim of catch 22 situation,
as they will not be accepted by other communities and will be forced to live a
miserable life.
One danger
that a historian faces are the here say stories which in the local language are
known as “Dant-katha” These are the stories which either the writers, poets of
the court in order to eulogies their kings make false stories, or made up by
the people themselves and orally transmitted over many years. These do become a
part of the oral history, and create a lot of confusion. Most unfortunately
many who have scant knowledge of history use them in making films or T.V. serials,
and politicians fan the emotions of the people to fulfill their sinister
purpose. .This is what is being done by a section of politicians. Let us take
the story of Prithiviraj Chauhan being arrested, taken to Afghanistan, blinded
and then with help of the poet shoots an arrow and kills the king. This is a
grossly fabricated story by Chand Bardia
in his work “Prithiviraj-Raso” First of all Chand Bardia was not a contemporary
of Prithiviraj and Prithiviraj-Raso was written many years later which has been
accepted by many eminent historians. Secondly Nayanchand Suri in his “Hammir
Mahakavya” has written that Prithiviraj was sleeping having enjoyed the
previous night and when Muhammad Ghauri attacked in the early hours of the
night the battle was almost over when Prithiviraj came on the battle field. He
fled from the battle field when defeat was evident. He was arrested and
imprisoned at Sirsi, and later beheaded.{Hammir Mahakavya; Nainchand Suri. P.14,15
} Ghauri handed over the rule of Ajmer to Govindraj son of Prithiviraj, who was
the founder of the dynasty of the rulers of Ranthambhor. The story of
Prithiviraj Raso is strictly accepted by all that today it has become difficult
to accept the true fact. It is said that one person went to Afghanistan,
unearthed the grave of Prithiviraj and brought out the carcass of him. Who and
why any one will make a grave of a
disbeliever of Islam. It is a sacrilegious act. But the story is so deep rooted
that many and more so the fanatics will not accept the truth.
Many persons
overlook the fact that the royal families of Chittaur and Amber were very
closely related. The story of the
meeting of Maharana Pratap and Raja Man Singh as presented, that Maharana
Pratap rebuked Man Singh that as the Bharmal had given his daughter to a muslim
refused to eat with him in the same thali. Raja Man Singh took this as a great
insult and that was one of reasons for the battle of Haldighati. This according
to the rajput customs could not have taken place, as Prithiraj, the ruler of Amber was married to
the daughter of Rana Raimal of Chittaur. She was the sister of Rana Sanga and
it was because of this, that Prithviraj fought in the battle Khanua where he
and Sanga were seriously wounded. According to this relation Pratap was uncle
of Man Singh, and Harka bai who was married to Akbar was sister Udai Singh and
aunt of Pratap. Not having food in the same thali is an atrociously false
story, made up by the state chroniclers. When Rana Pratap fled from the battle
and some wanted to capture him, Man Singh did not allow them to do so. He
performed his duty to fight and yet saved the Maharana and the house of
Sisodias from an inglorious end, for which he had to suffer the wrath of
Emperor Akbar.
To say that
Akbar was an outsider is a notorious statement. Akbar was born in India, lived
in India, was the Emperor of India and he died in India. In every respect he
was an Indian. It was he who gave us the Ganga-Jamani culture which today is
the strongest foundation of our nation. He was responsible for giving the
revenue system which even the British could not alter, and it prevails even
today with very few changes. He had Ramayan and Mahabharat translated and
illustrated with miniature paintings. He respected all religions. Gave audience
to the Jain munis and on auspices days of Hindu would fast. He used to apply
Tilak on his forehead. He met the leaders of all religions and tried to find a
new religion Din-I Ilahi. Among nine gems there were some Hindus. He was a
patron of music, and patronized Tansen. Who was responsible for creating
several rags, Rag Deepak, Miyan ki Todi, Miyan ki Malhar etc. As a ruler and
personally he was a great person, and yet
the present Rajasthan Government has given the orders that from now
Akbar should not be taught in the school and instead of him Maharana Pratap
should be taught. It does not know that Akbar can be taught by taking his religious
policy, his composite culture, and most important his revenue policy, but
Maharana Pratap can not be taught without the battle of Haldighati and Akbar. It
is indeed very paradoxical that Maharana Pratap and Prithiviraj Chauhan who
fled from the battlefield are worshipped as National heroes, but Hammir of
Ranthambhor and Achaldas Kheechie of Gagrun
who fought till the last and gave up their lives defending their forts, are mere forgotten heroes.
Akbar is
hated by some just because he gave India the composite or Ganga-Jamani culture
which has over the centuries has become the strong foundation of the Nation,
and is most or impossible to break, to their dismay.
Undoubtedly
Laxmibai of Jhansi fought against the British in 1857, when she strongly protested
that she will not give up her Jhansi. She gave up her life but could not save
Jhansi and failed not to declare her son as the Raja of Jhansi. At the same
time in 1857,there was yet another person Begum Hazrat Mahal who fought for the
Nation, opposed the British government and proclaimed her son Birjis Qadr as
the Nawab of Awadh and was the only one out of 530 Indian Princes who issued a
Proclamation against the Proclamation of Queen Victoria., dissecting it
paragraph by paragraph., and showed that no independence could be placed on any
of the promises contained in it. I give the text below.
“In the
proclamation it is written that the Christian religion is true, but no other
creed will suffer oppression, and that the laws will be observed towards all.
What has the administration of justice to do with the truth or falsehood of a
religion? That religion true which acknowledges one God and knows no other. Where
there are three Gods in a religion, neither Mussalmans or Hindus, nay ,not even
Jews, Sun worshippers or fire worshippers, can believe in to be true. To eat
pigs and drink wine, to bite greased cartridges, and mix pigs fat with flavor
and sweatmeats, to destroy Hindu and Mussalman temples on pretence of making
roads to build churches, to send clergymen into the streets and alley to preach
the Christian religion to institute English schools, and pay people a monthly
stipend for learning the English sciences, while the places of worship of
Hindus and Mussalmans are to this day entirely neglected, with all this, how
can the people believe that religion will not be interfered with? The rebellion
began with religion, and for it millions of men have been killed. Let not our
subjects be deceived; thousands were deprived of their religion in the North,
West, and thousands were hanged rather than abandon their religion.”May I ask
why she is not mentioned as a true nationalist?
There has
been a deliberate attempt on the part of RSS and VHP since their inception to rewrite
history and show to the World that Indian culture, and mythology is the oldest
in the world. This has been the main agenda for all these years and now they have the opportunity. In order
to show they are taking the History way back
and are propagating that Mahabharat took place 6000 years before Christ.
In fact Mahabharat was a feudal battle in which beside Kaurav and, Pandav,
several other dynasties took part. In Puranas, Natya Shatra, and Ancient
History of India the scholars have come to the conclusion that the two
Dynasties, Surya and Chandra emerged after the great floods. The date of the great
flood has been accepted as that of 3000 B.C. when Manu Vaivastava became the
first King at Ayodhya and his nine sons established different dynasties all
over India. Almost all the dynasties which are mentioned in Mahabharat belong
to either Surya dynasty or Chandra dynasty. Krishna belongs to the Chandra
Vansh or dynasty, and he is much below in the line of succession.
B.B.Lal in
his book “Historicity of the Mahabharata” considering the dates as given by K.
P. Jayaswal as 1424 B.C., A.S.Altekar
as1400 B.C., F. E. Pargiter as 950 B.C., and H.C.Raychaudhury as 90th
century, and taking the help of Literature, Art and Archaeology, has placed the
date of Mahabharat as 900 B.C.
Some of
these hardcore pundits even declare that Alexander, the Greek hero, never came
to India, and he has falsely been named as Sikandar. It is a blatantly false
statement to confuse the people. Most probably these persons are not aware that
many famous Greek historians have written about India of that time. Do they
mean that the authentic detailed description of India which historians like Appianus,
Strabo, Megasthenes, Arrian, Herodotus have written is all false? How will
these people glorify Chandragupt for his victory over Selucus, if Alexander
never came to India? What about the famous scene of Alexander meeting Porus.
One can not and should not talk about history with the blinkers on. To my mind
falsify the recorded history of a nation is anti-national.
Aurangzeb is
one who is most vehemently been attacked for his actions against Hindus and
destroying the temples. All actions of those who are in power are motivated by
politics. For example the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992,the Mazar of the
sufi saint in Ahmedabad, in 2002, and several temples in Jaipur in present
times. But there is another facet of his character. He donated large sums of
money to ancient and important temples in Varanasi, Ujjain, and other places.
Farmans are available which supply very
solid evidence. Beside all these one of his act will baffle many of those who
paint him as anti-Hindu to suit their narrow thinking.
When
Shivaji’s grand-son as a prison was sent to the court of Aurangzeb, he with
great respect and love he kept the young boy in his royal apartments. Appointed
Jahanara Begum as his tutor, and gave instructions that he should be taught
Marathi his mother tongue along with Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit etc. and gave
him the name of Sahu. When he became of marriageable age he was married to the
daughters of the two most distinguished Maratha Mansabdars, Jadhav of Sindkheir
and Sindia of Kunneirheir. He granted the districts Akalkote, Indapur, Sopa and
Neywassa in jaghir, presented “Bhawani” the personal sword of Shivaji, applied
the tilak by his own hand and declared him the Raja of Satara. Will any one
today be kind to the son of his biggest enemy. Should those who abuse Aurangzeb
for his anti Hindu stand, not offer gratitude to Aurangzeb for his magnanimous
act. {History of The Marattas; James Grant Duff Vol 1, p.298-299}
Writing
History is an on going process. It
depends on the source material which becomes available from time to time, which
is interpreted by scholars who see them by different visions, with different
interpretations. This is one reason why a writing of one historian differs with
the other. But it is very wrong to decry any writing and pass a fatwa that
history written by certain historians, or the western historians is completely
wrong or is coloured. History of India or the history of any part of the World
is different because of interpretation and analysis. Differences of opinion
between historians has existed over many centuries. They were openly discussed
and taken in a sporting spirit. But in the recent times they have emerged with
strong conviction, and malicious intention.
Before they
set out to make changes they must take other scholars in confidence as to what
and how are they going to make changes. We are being ruled under democratically
elected government and we must follow the rules and regulations honestly, sincerely,
justly. I would very much like to know as to what are the changes are supposed
to be made in the writings of James Tod in his work “Annals and Antiquities of
Rajasthan”, “Rasmala” of A. K .Forbes, ”History of Mahrattas” of James Grant
Duff,” History of the Sikhs” of Joseph Davey Cunningham, “History of Kathiawad”
of Wilberforce Bell, “History of Sind” of Richard Burton,” The Political
History of India” of John Malcolm,” The Comprehensive History of India”
Beveridge, “A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sunnuds” compiled by C.
U. Aitchison, H.A.R.Gibb’s important work “ Ibn Battuta; travels in Asia and
Africa” Edward C.Sachau’s Alberuni’s India, The Early History of India by
Vincent A Smith. “ The History of Aryan Rule in India”by E.B.Havell. They are
just a few names. And of course we can not afford to overlook the work of those
historians who have translated several monumental works, just to name a few,
John Briggs who translated “History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in
India” James Bird “Medieval Gujarat” “ The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri” Alexander Rogers
& Henry Beveridge, Babur-Nama by Annette Susannah Beveridge. There are
hundreds of many who have handsomely contributed to the History and Culture of
India.
I wonder
what changes would they will like to make in the 50 volumes which were
translated under the guidance of Max Muller by very eminent scholars. The
series is known as The Sacred Books of the East. Even the eighteen Puranas were
translated by several Englishmen, among them F.E.Pargiter has written the
brilliant introduction to the Markandya Purana, and it was Pargiter who was one
of the first who introduced to the Indian readers about the Dynasties of the ancient
rulers of India. The series of eight volumes known by the name as “The History
of India As Told By Its Own Historians” is a collection of historical work
written by several authors in oriental languages, collected by H. M. Elliot and
edited by Prof John Dowson. It is a very important work on the Muhammadan
period. Similarly K. M .Munshi the founder of Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan in 1945 with the help of very eminent historians
brought out Ten volumes under the title of “ The History and Culture of the
Indian People”. It could be said that it was the first attempt to bring history
of the people of India after independence. Later the People’s Publishing House
in collaboration with the Indian History Congress published twelve volumes
under the title of “A Comprehensive History of India.”The Editorial Board and
several contributors consisted of very eminent historians. May I ask a simple
question? Has any one of them read any of these books. If so, then please come
out boldly where, what and how would you like to make changes. Deceiving the
Nation by irresponsible statements is nothing else, but ANTI_NATIONA
24 March
2016.
-RANBIR SINH.
DUNDLOD
HOUSE
HAWA SARAK
JAIPUR{RAJASTHAN}
No comments:
Post a Comment