distorted history
'Sir Vidia Gets It Badly Wrong'
William Dalrymple grants Naipaul his eminence, but challenges his jaundiced notions of Indian history
There was some surprise when Sir Vidia and Lady Naipaul turned up at the BJP office last week and gave what many in the press took to be a pre-election endorsement not just of the party but the entire Sangh parivar programme. India was indeed shining, the Nobel laureate was quoted as saying, and yes he was quite happy being "appropriated" by the BJP.

More striking was the quote attributed to Naipaul about the violent destruction of the Babri Masjid: "Ayodhya is a sort of passion," he said.
 
 
For Naipaul, the Fall of Vijayanagara is a paradigmatic wound on India's psyche. It's a theme he first developed in 'An Area of Darkness' and holds to date.
 
 
"Any passion is to be encouraged. Passion leads to creativity." For a man whose work contains many eloquent warnings of the dangers of misplaced political passions—such as the Islamic Revolution in Iran—this might appear to be a surprising volte-face. Indeed, it led one commentator in the Times to wonder if Sir Vidia was not being misquoted or at least misunderstood.

Yet the quotes, especially Sir Vidia's remarks that Babar's invasion of India "left a deep wound", are consistent with ideas Naipaul has been airing for many years now. In 1998, for example, he told The Hindu: "I think when you see so many Hindu temples of the tenth century or earlier disfigured, defaced, you realise that something terrible happened. I feel that the civilisation of that closed world was mortally wounded by those invasions.... The Old World is destroyed. That has to be understood. Ancient Hindu India was destroyed."

A few years earlier, following the destruction of the Babri Masjid, Naipaul told the Times of India: "What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening.... Only now are the people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalising of India. Because of the nature of the conquest and the nature of Hindu society, such understanding had eluded Indians before...." Such attitudes form a consistent line of thought in Naipaul's writing about India from An Area of Darkness in 1964 through to the present.

Today few would dispute Sir Vidia's status as probably the greatest living writer of Indian origin; indeed, many would go further and argue that he is the greatest living writer of English prose.
 
 
By 16 c, Hindu and Muslim states lived in creative harmony, Hindu kings wearing Islamic-inspired costumes, Bijapur's Ibrahim Adil Shahi II in rudraksha rosary.
 
 
For good reason, his views are taken very seriously. He is a writer whose fiction and non-fiction written over half a century form a body of work of great brilliance, something the Nobel committee recognised when they awarded him literature's highest honour.

His credentials as a historian are, however, much less secure, and so when Sir Vidia gets something badly wrong, it is important that these errors are challenged.

There is a celebrated opening sequence to Sir Vidia's masterpiece, India: A Wounded Civilisation. It is 1975—a full quarter century before he won the Nobel—and Naipaul is surveying the shattered ruins of Vijayanagara.

Naipaul leads the reader through the remains of the once mighty city, its 24 miles of walls winding through the "brown plateau of rock and gigantic boulders". These days, he explains, it is just "a peasant wilderness", but look carefully and you can see scattered everywhere the crumbling wreckage of former greatness: "palaces and stables, a royal bath...the leaning granite pillars of what must have been a bridge across the river". Over the bridge, there is yet more: "a long and very wide avenue, with a great statue of the bull of Shiva at one end, and at the other end a miracle: a temple that for some reason was spared destruction, is still whole, and is still used for worship".

Naipaul goes on to lament the fall of this "great centre of Hindu civilisation", "then one of the greatest (cities) in the world".
 
 
Desecration of Hindu temples did take place but it was paradoxically a continuation of the Indian tradition of sacking tutelary 'state' deities.
 
 
It was pillaged in 1565 "by an alliance of Muslim principalities—and the work of destruction took five months; some people say a year". It fell, according to Naipaul, because already the Hindu world it embodied had become backward-looking and stagnant: it had failed to develop, and in particular had failed to develop the military means to challenge the aggressive Muslim sultanates that surrounded it. Instead, Vijayanagara was "committed from the start to the preservation of a Hinduism that had already been violated, and culturally and artistically it (only) preserved and repeated; it hardly innovated.... The Hinduism Vijayanagar proclaimed had already reached a dead end".

For Naipaul, the Fall of Vijayanagara is a paradigmatic wound on the psyche of India, part of a long series of failures that he believes still bruises the country's self-confidence (or from which, according to some of his more recent statements, the country is only just now beginning to recover). The wound was created by a fatal combination of Islamic aggression and Hindu weakness—the tendency to 'retreat', to withdraw in the face of defeat.

Naipaul first developed the theme in An Area of Darkness. The great Hindu ruins of the South, he writes there, represent "the continuity and flow of Hindu India, ever shrinking". But the ruins of the North—the monuments of the Great Mughals—"speak of waste and failure". Even the Taj and the magnificent garden tombs of the Mughal emperors are to Naipaul symbols of oppression: "Europe has its monuments of sun-kings, its Louvres and Versailles. But they are part of the development of the country's spirit; they express the refining of a nation's sensibility". In contrast, the monuments of the Mughals speak only of "personal plunder, and a country with an infinite capacity for being plundered". Time has not mellowed these views: in an interview Naipaul gave to Outlook ("Christianity didn't damage India like Islam", Nov 15, 1999), Sir Vidia maintained that "the Taj is so wasteful, so decadent and in the end so cruel that it is painful to be there for very long. This is an extravagance that speaks of the blood of the people".

Not many other observers have seen the Taj Mahal—usually perceived as the world's greatest monument to love ("a tear on the face of eternity," according to Tagore, an earlier Indian Nobel laureate)—in quite such jaundiced terms; indeed it takes an unusual perversity to see one of the world's most beautiful buildings merely as a piece of cultural vandalism. Nevertheless, Naipaul's entirely negative understanding of India's Islamic history has its roots firmly in the mainstream imperial historiography of Victorian Britain.
 
 
The gentle cult of Sufism, vernacular Islamic literature find no mention in Naipaul, neither does the religious tolerance of Akbar or Dara Shikoh.
 
 


For the Muslim invasions of India tended to be seen by historians of the Raj as a long, brutal sequence of rapine and pillage, in stark contrast—so 19th century British historians liked to believe—to the law and order selflessly brought by their own 'Civilising Mission'. In this context, the Fall of Vijayanagara was written up in elegiac terms by Robert Sewell, whose 1900 book Vijayanagar: A Forgotten Empire first characterised the kingdom as "a Hindu bulwark against Muhammadan conquests", a single brave but doomed attempt at resistance to Islamic aggression. This idea was eagerly elaborated by Hindu nationalists who wrote of Vijayanagara as a Hindu state dedicated to the preservation of the traditional, peaceful and 'pure' Hindu culture of southern India.

It is a simple and seductive vision, and one that at first sight looks plausible. The problem is that such ideas rest on a set of ignorant and Islamophobic assumptions which recent scholarship has done much to undermine.

A brilliant essay published in 1996 by the respected American Sanskrit scholar, Philip B. Wagoner, was an important landmark in this process*.The essay, titled 'A Sultan Among Hindu Kings'—a reference to the title by which the Kings of Vijayanagara referred to themselves—pointed out the degree to which the elite culture of Vijayanagara was heavily Islamicised by the 16th century, its civilisation "deeply transformed through nearly two centuries of intense and creative interaction with the Islamic world".

By this period, for example, the Hindu kings of Vijayanagara appeared in public audience, not bare-chested, as had been the tradition in Hindu India, but instead dressed in quasi-Islamic court costume—the Islamic-inspired kabayi, a long-sleeved tunic derived from the Arabic qaba, and the kullayi, a conical cap derived from Perso-Turkic kulah—all part, according to Wagoner, of "their symbolic participation in the more universal culture of Islam".

Far from being the stagnant, backward-looking bastion of Hindu resistance imagined by Naipaul, Vijayanagara had in fact developed in all sorts of unexpected ways, taking on much of the administrative, tax collecting and military methods of the Muslim sultanates that surrounded it—notably stirrups, horseshoes, horse armour and a new type of saddle, all of which allowed Vijayanagara to put into the field an army of horse archers who could hold at bay the Delhi Sultanate, then the most powerful force in India.
 
 
Not for Naipaul a Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra or Nurul Hasan. It's the 'Dark Ages' history of the new NCERT books that's more to his taste.
 
 


A comprehensive survey of Vijayanagara's monuments and archaeology conducted by George Michell over the last 20 years has come to the same conclusion as Wagoner. The survey has emphasised the degree to which the buildings of 16th century Vijayanagara were inspired by the architecture of the nearby Muslim sultanates, mixing the traditional trabeate architecture of the Hindu South with the arch and dome of the Islamicate North.

Moreover, this fruitful interaction between Hindu- and Muslim-ruled states was very much a two-way traffic. Just as Hindu Vijayanagara was absorbing Islamic influences, so a similar process of hybridity was transforming the nominally Islamic sultanate of Bijapur. The landmark study of this fascinating City State is Richard Eaton's Sufis of Bijapur. The picture revealed by Eaton's work is of a city dominated by an atmosphere of heterodox intellectual enquiry, with the libraries of Bijapur swelling with esoteric texts produced on the intellectual frontier between Islam and Hinduism. One Bijapuri production of the period, for example, was the Bangab Nama, or the Book of the Pot Smoker: written by Mahmud Bahri—a sort of medieval Indian Allen Ginsberg. The book is a long panegyric to the joys of cannabis:

"Smoke your pot and be happy—
Be a dervish and put your heart at peace.
Lose your life imbibing this exhilaration."


In the course of this book, Bahri writes: "God's knowledge has no limit...and there is not just one path to him. Anyone from any community can find him." This certainly seems to have been the view of Bijapur's ruler, Ibrahim Adil Shahi II. Early in his reign, Ibrahim gave up wearing jewels and adopted instead the rudraksha rosary of the sadhu. In his songs he used highly Sanskritised language to shower equal praise upon Saraswati, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Sufi saint Gesudaraz of Gulbarga.

Perhaps the most surprising passage occurs in the 56th song where the Sultan more or less describes himself as a Hindu God: "He is robed in saffron dress, his teeth are black, the nails are red...and he loves all. Ibrahim whose father is Ganesh, whose mother is Saraswati, has a rosary of crystal round his neck...and an elephant as his vehicle." According to the art historian Mark Zebrowski, "It is hard to label Ibrahim either a Muslim or a Hindu; rather he had an aesthete's admiration for the beauty of both cultures." The same spirit also animates Bijapuri art whose nominally Islamic miniature portraits show "girls as voluptuous as the nudes of South Indian sculpture".

This creative coexistence finally fell victim, not to a concerted communal campaign by Muslim states intent on eradicating Hinduism, but instead to the shifting alliances of Deccani diplomacy. In 1558, only seven years before the Deccani sultanates turned on Vijayanagara, the Empire had been a prominent part of an alliance of mainly Muslim armies that had sacked the Sultanate of Ahmadnagar. That year, Vijayanagara's armies stabled their horses in the mosques of the plundered city, and the Emperor Rama Raya had demanded that the Sultan come to his headquarters and eat paan from his hand as the price for peace. Before this Rama Raya had allied with the same Ahmadnagar Sultan in two joint invasions of Bijapur, then with the new Sultan of Bijapur in two campaigns against Ahmadnagar. It was only in 1562, when Rama Raya plundered and seized not just districts belonging to Ahmadnagar and its ally Golconda, but also those belonging to his own ally Bijapur, that the different sultanates finally united against their unruly neighbour.

The Fall of Vijayanagara is a subject Naipaul keeps returning to: in an interview shortly after he had been awarded the Nobel prize, he talked about how the destruction of the city meant an end to its traditions: "When Vijayanagar was laid low, all the creative talent would also have been destroyed. The current has been broken." Yet there is considerable documentary and artistic evidence that the very opposite was true, and that the city's craftsmen merely transferred to the patronage of the Sultans of Bijapur where the result was a major artistic renaissance.

The remarkable fusion of styles that resulted from this rebirth can still be seen in the tomb of Ibrahim II, completed in 1626. From afar it looks uncompromisingly Islamic; yet for all its domes and arches, the closer you draw the more you realise that few Muslim buildings are so Hindu in their spirit. The usually austere walls of Islamic architecture in the Deccan here give way to a petrified scrollwork indistinguishable from Vijayanagaran decoration, the bleak black volcanic granite of Bijapur manipulated as if it were as soft as plaster, as delicate as a lace ruff. All around minars suddenly bud into bloom, walls dissolve into bundles of pillars; fantastically sculptural lotus-bud domes and cupola drums are almost suffocated by great starbursts of Indic decoration which curl down from the pendetives like pepper vines, winding their way up brackets and gripping around the cusps of archways.
Pages: 1   2
 
Daily MailPublished
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
60
Ghulam writes:

>>When one starts quoting from a notorious apostate such as Ibn Warraq, or an extreme Zionist such as Andrew Bostom, one is showing a willingness to do some mudslinging in order to put down a people. and

>>Mr Banerji, I am sure there is some truth in what you say, but quoting from extremist sources undermine the usefulness of a discourse.

I disagree with applying "guilt by association" in intellectual matters. One should focus on analysis of a particular issue, no matter who the author; for the practical reason no one gets everything right at all times. For example, Ibn Warraq's critique of Edward Said's "Orientalism" is devastatingly compelling. His apostacy simply has no relevance in judging his criticism of that particular topic. I would apply the same standard of judgment to the full spectrum from the noxious Daniel Pipes to the redoubtable Bernard Lewis.

Reserving my own judgment of what Bostom or Warraq are saying is factual, facts are facts no matter who collects them or who reports them. The only weapon against facts are more facts.
Old Mac
???, United States
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
59
"undermines" in my previous post.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
58
Mr Banerji, I am sure there is some truth in what you say, but quoting from extremist sources undermine the usefulness of a discourse.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
57
"When one starts quoting from a notorious apostate such as Ibn Warraq, or an extreme Zionist such as Andrew Bostom, one is showing a willingness to do some mudslinging in order to put down a people"

When one is willing to ignore all evidence about the horrendous Islamist tendencies over the centuries (including statistical ethnic cleansing in more recent times) - one clearly demonstrates the same desire to white-wash, as people who defend attacks on Somnath, or those who turn a blind-eye to Kashmiri ethnic cleansing of minorities in nearer times.

Ignoring the data that Bostom and many others have collected and in stead depending upon a British travel-writer with an Islamist fetish, demonstrates a dangerous lack of introspection.

No difference between this and those who ignore all the evidence against the Hindu far-right on Gujarat.
Arindam Banerji
Sunnyvale, USA
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
56
When one starts quoting from a notorious apostate such as Ibn Warraq, or an extreme Zionist such as Andrew Bostom, one is showing a willingness to do some mudslinging in order to put down a people.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
55
To date, no one diagnoses what ails India better than Sir Naipaul. That the diagnostician is a novelist is that much more remarkable. His books, "An Area of Darkness" and "A Wounded Civilization," are more profoundly incisive and illuminating than any other on India. Unfortunately, he sets out to prescribe a cure in his book, "A Million Mutinies," which is worse than the disease. He saw Shiv Sena as an island of concrete action in an ocean of passivity and inaction and meant to wave it as a flag of hope; it served as a warning flag to me. But it doesn’t detract one whit or a single iota from the brilliance of his original diagnosis.

I am as irritated, exasperated and dejected as he is at India’s failure as a country, as a society as well as a civilization. No one shares his frustration more than me that there is no thinker, no idea or no ideology that gives India an identity. But his prescription of extremist politics is hardly the answer; and his willingness to be co-opted as a poster boy for Sanghi thinking smacks of intellectual prostitution. Perhaps the old man wants to see--in his lifetime--the impact of AN ideology, ANY ideology, on an ossified society like India. What else explains his reheated, re-dux of Nietzschian irrationalism in that “Any passion is to be encouraged. Passion leads to creativity”? I see the damning nature of his comment that truthfully implicates India as “uncreative.” Perhaps he rationalizes nothing is more abhorrent than a petrified society and that anything which shakes it out of its stupor is justified. Or may be he is simply a moron in the area of political philosophy.

By contrast, his books on Islam, "Among Believers" and "Beyond Belief," show a substantial deterioration of his superb visual acuity and trenchant observations; though his ability to weave a broader narrative from the simplest of observations remained superb and his skill as an artist, though diluted, remained exceptional. There was a hurried quality to his prose. Perhaps his books on India were inspired exceptions and that he is no historian catches up with him in his books on Islam.

I never did buy into his subsequent thesis that Islam’s impact on India as an unmitigated catastrophe. If that were so obvious then he neither addressed nor explored nor developed that theme in his first two books on India. Dalrymple systematically destroys the pernicious historiography of Sanghis and correctly slaps around Naipaul’s amateurish and politicized history. Without the forced interaction with the outside world of ideas due to Islam, India would have remained even more backwards by the time Brits arrived on the scene.

Naipaul remains a special writer to me. He was the candle in whose illumination I began to think about India. Prior to him, India was merely the location of my birth. Alas, the candle has begun to fade.
Old Mac
???, United States
Oct 11, 2005 12:00 AM
54
William Darlympyle and the Bajrang Dal yahoos are two sides of the same coin - one defends Islamist terrorism and the other Hindu escapades. There is no difference between those who defend the happenings in Gujarat and those who deny/white-wash historical Islamist terrorism in India.

Theodore Dalrympyle (
http://www.city-journal...l/eon_01_20_04td.html),
writes about William Dalrympyle, as follows:

QUOTE
For some on the Left, purported bigotry against Muslims explains Islamist terror...The idea that if someone is prepared to do something truly horrible, he must have a worthy cause remains attractive to liberal intellectuals, who perhaps envy those who take up arms against the sea of troubles that is human existence.
UNQUOTE

A far more complete review of the facts, than a British travel writer can give us, is available
from Andrew Bostom's "The legacy of Jihad" - as a review see Victor Hanson's comments at
http://victorhanson.com...les/thornton090905.html


QUOTE
Given that the academic study of Islam is so politicized, we are dependent on those like Andrew Bostom who make available for us the truths necessary for understanding the nature of the conflict with Islamic terrorism. Even fiction can on occasion be more useful than corrupted scholarship: Arabel, by Alexandra Paris, is a gripping tale of just how bio-terrorism could come to America, one that takes seriously the traditional spiritual motives of the jihadists; it very well could be to the so-called war on terror what Raspail’s Camp of the Saints is to the problem of Europe’s suicide-by-immigration.

If we are to prevail in the war against Islamic jihad, we need to know the facts of history and understand the motives of our adversaries and not reduce them to our own materialist prejudices. Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad does precisely that.
UNQUOTE

The American Thinker which is a little more right wing, writes on the same issue...
QUOTE
The documentation is so profuse, much of it recorded by Muslims themselves, the reader begins to wonder why all this has been kept away from the public by Islamic scholars and academics whose job it is to inform. As the great Islamic scholar and critic Ibn Warraq (the author of Why I am Not A Muslim) asks in his brilliant Foreword: why did it take Dr. Andrew Bostom, not an Islamic scholar but a medical scientist, to bring out this monumental compilation? Where were the Orientalists, historians, Islamic scholars and other sundry academics?

The answer: Islamic correctness driven by dhimmitude.
UNQUOTE
Arindam Banerji
Sunnyvale, USA
Oct 10, 2005 12:00 AM
53
Naipaul's prejudiced and unbalanced views of Indian history were calling out for an appropriate scholarly answer. Mr William Dalrymple has provided us with a well researched and fair-minded correction to the one-sided accounts of Naipaul who, while he is a great literary figure, has no credentials as a historian.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
May 11, 2004 12:00 AM
52
In reply to the reader who referred to internecine warfare between Indian kingdoms before the Moslem invasions: Yes, battles were fought between kingdoms in ancient India. But, barring an exception or two( such as, perhaps, Kalinga) wars were never waged to wipe out, forcibly convert, colonize, culturally supress, or otherwise humiliate the opponent. Wars were more like tournaments, bloody at times, but essentially a sport of rulers and warriors, and waged with fairly humane rules. Non-combatants, women, children etc were not harmed, massacres of even combatants were ralrely, if ever carried out; there were no forced conversions to any religion or sect , and no colonization of one people by another-even at Kalinga! Interestingly, the native Indians of North and South America also had humane rules of war, before the advent of the European colonists.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
May 09, 2004 12:00 AM
51
isnt this executive editor a muslim by the name of farrouqi appointed as deputy by star agent of the the commie mullah brigade vinod mehta himself.
And pray is it realistic to expect any mullah brainwashed from birth muslim to be logical,analytical neutral and factual.Whn your brains are made bheja masala of by clerics at birth pray how can you even qualify to be considered for journalism whose purpose it is to report facts.Not propaganda, like Farokhy's politically motivated and unprecedented recent response to farokh dhondy.Unless of course the publication appointing such a man to it's ed position happenst to be outlook a congresscommie islamic pimp in disguise with congress agents posing as scribes paid by international islamists from petro dollars and ofcourse the 55 yr congress loot siphoned of from impoverished India .Is it any wonder that this nameless executive editor is resorting to uncouth censorship while it hypocritically lectures jayalitha and sangh parivar while making peace with islamic terror like their friend MF Husain did after sermonnizing to hindus about freedom in ART
and painting their goddesses nude?
n gangadas
austin, usa
May 08, 2004 12:00 AM
50
Vijay, anyone will understand that it was deity. What's the big deal about it? But the other sentence was perfectly correct. But if you stress, I would put a comma after 'line' and anohter after 'you'.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
49
Any Tom, Dick or Harry will understand that it was deity. Since it was not my sentence, I didn't find it necessary to correct that. But the other correction made by you is an infringement in my writing. By the way, are you provoking me so that you can cancel my registration?
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
48
And read
"the line that seems abusive to you was innocent in comparison"
for
"the line what seemed abusive to you was an innocent comparison"

Just making sure...
Coolagirappa!
vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
47
And read deity in place of duty?
vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
46
Read hurt in place of hurted.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
45
Good! Very good! So I used abusive and offensive language! I am quoting Willy. Ref. page 9: "...Bengali troops sought revenge on King Lalitaditya's kingdom of Kashmir by destroying the image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state duty."
I find the above line extremely offensive as it hurts the feelings of Hindus. Also the line is a blatant lie. Not only this line, there are several lines where Willy hurted my feelings. S. Anand regularly insults Hinduism. Even A. Roy abuses India. On the contrary, the line what seemed abusive to you was an innocent comparison, and not only that it was a truth. Any Hindu lady in Bangladesh or border areas will vouchsafe that. Don't compare me with the uncultured and uncouth Sonkar who seems an internal agent.

So shrug off your double standard. Be tolerant.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
44
Reference the mail below from 'Prince' - the earlier message was deleted for use of offensive language. A mail explaining the reasons was also sent out, as a matter of routine.

Registration and posting privileges have not been suspended yet, but they could be withdrawn if the problem persists.

We deleted a message from, and removed the registration and posting privileges of, 'Miss Chandramukhi Sonkar' today as earlier mail messages from us remained ignored.

We encourage debate, and dissenting views, but not offensive and abusive language. There have been persistent complaints about the policy of high level of tolerance adopted by us, but we would like to continue with it and need your cooperation in conforming to a minimum accpetable level of civility.

Please help us keep this area a lively platform for debate, discussion and dissent without any ad hominem or abusive attacks.

This area is not for discussing our editorial discretion, and all complaints and suggestions should be sent to mail@outlookindia.com.

Thank you.
Executive Editor, outlookindia.com
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
43
Day in day out, you (the Commie-Mullah brigade)preach the Sangh Parivar the lesson of tolerance. I wonder how can you while you are so intolerant! Watching your intolerant attitude, I think what they are doing is abslotutely necessary.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
42
What an autocratic attitude! Why did my last message vanish? Any valid reason for the deletion?
Willy has very wrongly painted Rama Raya. I wished to refute him. But looks like you don't have the minimun level of tolerance to read the truth.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
41
Glad to note that broadly speaking we are able to agree on a number of points. From where we started, it did not look very likely.

Thanks.

Vijay
vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
40
With regards to christians and muslims in jerusalem, if you notice, there is quite a bit of mythology involved there too. SO is the case with palestenians and israelis.

When I say 'we', I was generally referring to all hindus who are not right wing and dont fall for Sangh Parivar's cock 'n bull history. I know there are quite a few out there, and that is why in my previous post I mentioned that right wing hindus were excepted.

My point is not that there are Indians and Muslims. I regard Indians as a whole. But in a society such as ours, where the sub cultures are often very different,the internal dynamics of that society must be considered. What is good for Tamils (and I am a Tamil myself) may not be good for the Bengalis, etc. In other words, the way Tamil society turns around need not be the way Bengali society turns around. And history tells us that it was indeed so.

Now, extend the same logic to muslims. Their society must turn around itself -- and they too must account for the linguistic differences, caste discrimination etc. For example, some of the problems Muslims face are unique to them and stems from Islam itself and how a muslim society is ordered. And on top of which, they have to clean up caste discrimination, untouchability in their own society and sundry other social practices they adopted from hindus. Maybe they can learn from what Hindus did over the last 200 years. And maybe, it may even help them. My point is, they must start the process themselves. The Europeans got out of barbarism with their enligntenment. Nobody helped them out. Hindus got out because they produced Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and later a whole lot of them from Aurobindo to Periyar. All of them were required to get the hindus out of their stupor. Nobody helped us out here. The only help we ever got was when we approached someone for help and not the other way around. The muslims in India will have to do the same. They need to figure a way out to turn around. The change and more importantly, the willingness to change, must come from within. It cannot come from without. Only after that can hindus help them out. Today, the hindus cannot.

Your point about "ALL our former rulers" has already been noted in another post of mine. As I said before, you can either sanitize ALL of our history, or none of it. If you are selective about it, you are gonna get yourself tied up in knotts. As you pointed out, you MUST point out the ghastliness of ALL the rulers throughout our history. And we MUST learn from it. Then, and only then, do I believe that a future can be built.

Cubes

ps: I have not taken any of your posts personally!
qqqqqq
qqqqqq, qqqqqq
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
39
Correction to my previous post:
When I say I think you used diversionary tactics, I was talking about the statement:
" Do not bring gujurat riots, a pathetic example of Dakkani and to suggest that Islamic history in india was an excercise of "composite culture""
I never suggested that Islamic history was an excercise in composite culture. Merely that it was not unique in its intolerance. A significant difference, if I may say so.
vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
38
Nothing personal 'dude' :) I was just trying to say something through a reference to absurdity. And I take you at face value when you say that you dont condone bad things of recent past. But I am unable to place a few things about your recent post... so here is my thought:

You say that I 'we' do not hide bind the Sangh Parivar's myth. Who exactly are you talking about? Hindus in general? I ask because if you are talking about Hindus in general, then my own experience suggests otherwise.

You say that '1000 years of barbarism cannot be brushed under a carpet'. And you also agree with me that there have been instances of 'Hindu ghastliness'. Does it not follow that we should point out the ghastliness of ALL our former rulers? So why does our history books read like Discovery of India? Arundhati Roy has pointed out that 287 people have been arrested in connection with Gujarat riots. 286 are Muslims. One is a Sikh. Would'nt your suggestion make the same thing out of our History as POTA has of our society?

I was also a little upset that you should first (rightfully) point me out for diversionary tactics and then use it yourself. I would like to point out that at no point I never even suggested this anywhere. Again, following what you said, I would like to pull us both back to the original point. The point is not who did what a thousand times ago. The point is as you and I both put it, to move on.
As for repeating the mistakes of the past... I totally agree. Where did righting historical wrongs take Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem? Are we going to become a continental sized Jerusalem? Or, are we going to be a humane society comfortable with its past because of its present confidence in itself?
And finally, I am really really intrigued by your statement that "Nobody in India can help them out here". I am sure you did not intend it (just as you did not intend to suggest that you condoned Gujarat), but when I read it, it stuck me like you felt there were two kinds of people living in India. Indians and Muslims.

vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
37
I merely wish to add one more thing...

One can wilfully sanitize ALL history if one wants to. Or one can accept the ugliness of it all, learn from it and move on. I prefer the latter. Sorry. That is how I am. I do not for one moment believe that cock 'n bull version of history will help us build a future, any future. Santayana was not a fool when he wrote that those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it.

If, on the other hand, you sanitize only one portion of history, you will have to pay the consequences of it. What these consequences are, I do not know. But it seems fairly certain that Muslims are the ones that are going to be affected by it. Not the hindus. In any case, how the Muslims wish to face their history is their choice. What they wish to learn from it and how they wish to build a future is their choice. Nobody in India can help them out here. They will have to do this themselves. They will have to reach out and join the rest of the society. The society is not gonna wait for them. After all, the hindu society, for example, has a lot of reforms still left undone -- caste discrimination, untouchability etc. These societies are going to concentrate on cleaning up their own backyard and move on.
qqqqqq
qqqqqq, qqqqqq
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
36
Vijay seems to apologize for picking on "one little thing" and yet he seems to have completely missed the point of my letter. There was nothing in my letter to even SUGGEST that Gujurat riots should be tolerated or modern day muslims should pay for the sins that were committed in the medieaval period. In any case, his reply is classic diversionary tactic that is so commonly adopted -- claim that I condone a riot and start hurling a few examples of hindu ghastliness and completely get away from the original point. In any case, his letter is exactly what I want Arjumand Ara to chew upon. As Vijay rightly noted, we hindus do indeed know what many of the barbaric hindu kings have done in the past. We do not, however, hide behind Sangh Parivar's myth by claiming that our history was hunky dory, nor do we hide behind 'examples' on how hindus of various backgrounds got along (right wing hindus excepted, of course). Arjumand Ara tirade is a classic example of how one should not make an argument. My reference to muslim history immediately brings upon the claim that I condone riots. How absurd! But the sorry facts of 1000 years of barbarism cannot be brushed under a carpet, or hidden behind a riot --in gujurat or elsewhere. Spade was called a spade. Period. Accept it. Do not bring gujurat riots, a pathetic example of Dakkani and to suggest that Islamic history in india was an excercise of "composite culture". The time for such crude defenses are running out. So, before the 'dude' starts hurling examples at me, the least he can do isunderstand what I first wrote. If he really wants to use those guns, make sure they are loaded and aimed right -- for this time, he missed badly.

cubes

qqqqqq
qqqqqq, qqqqqq
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
35
>>>If Gujurat riots were pogroms, what would one call what the Muslims did for 1000 years?
I dont mean to pick on one little thing from a rather long post, but I just wonder about this statement by Cube. Is this a suggestion that what happened in Gujarat can be justified by what was done to the Hindus by Muslims 1000 years ago (assuming that is true)?
If indeed that is the implication, I propose the following steps to correct various other 'Historical Wrongs'.
Since Brahmins have oppressed everybody else for more than a 1000 years, let the harijans go ahead and kill all Brahmin men and molest all Brahmin women.
Since the Hindus violently opposed and destroyed Buddhism in India (Where are all the Stupas dude??), let us import Chinese, Thailandese, Sinhala and other peoples of Buddhist faith to come to India and destroy our temples and build Buddhist temples.
Since the bloody Tamils under the Cholas looted and plundered Bengal under the Senas, let us let loose a bus loads of Bangis in Madras to do as they please.
Since the foreigners from central asia killed a lot of indiginous Indians and then boasted about it in Rig Veda, let us allow all those who call themselves Dravidians to butcher a few of the Aryans. How else will their pride be resurrected?
Of course, this is just a sampling of a long list. As you can see, we all have a lot of work to accomplish here. So lets get cracking. Where are those guns?!!

vijay
Chennai, India
May 07, 2004 12:00 AM
34
Last Gasps Of a Fading Order:

Arjumand Ara's ranting aside, it seems fashionable these days (or atleast for the last 10 years) to blame BJP and the Sangh Parivar, and sometimes the Hindus living outside US for every expose, for every fraud and every myth of Indian History demolished by the Hindus and Historians of non-leftist/Islamic persuasion. These days, the crude defense of this repugnant edifice by the leftists from DU, JNU, AMU etc, also seem to involve the Gujurat riots. Fair enough. If Gujurat riots were pogroms, what would one call what the Muslims did for 1000 years? Never mind, Arjumand Ara or for that matter, no secularist or muslim or leftist is going to answer that. An example of Wali Dakkani here, an Akbar there will not and cannot suffice as a general theme of Indian History. If these examples are indeed true as we were taught (and there is absolutely no reason to believe that either given the mess the secularist, marxist and muslim historians have made) then, these are exceptions to the rule and not the rule itself. Arjumand Ara will not understand this point. Infact she cannot. Acknowledging this is tantamount to agreeing with "Sangh Parivar". Time is fast running out for people like Arjumand Ara. For every "defense" such as the letter posted as a reply to Mr. Dhondy's article, many more articles will come in the future. Fire fighting will no longer save them anymore. For this, hindus do not need "sangh Parivar". Muslim books written in the mediaval ages, archeaology etc are sufficient. Tarun Vijay's article was neither "foul" nor does it reek of venom and hatred against non-hindus. It just represents another case of calling a spade a spade. It merely mentions what Hindus have always known -- the utter rape and plunder and loot of a civilization at the hands of barbarians. Arjumand Ara's intemperate letter, "rebuttal" if you really want to call it that, are symtomatic of drowing people clutching at straws. They represent the last gasps of a fading order. An order, never to return again.

Cubes
qqqqqq
qqqqqq, qqqqqq
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
33
Rajendran, you often make excellent points. I believe that one should not personally abuse or attack another contributor to the forum (unless one has been attacked first) both in the interest of maintaining order on this forum, as also being a credible contributor oneself. Just a friendly suggestion.
Pradyumna
bangalore, india
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
32
I am told that 'Sufis of Bijapur' is available in India.

Whenever two different cultures co-exist side by side, there has to be some diffusion. That's normal. But in case of Hindu-Muslim mingling, it's a one-sided affair -- heavily biased in favor of the Muslim side. That's not normal.

Take the example of Indo-Saracenic architecture [en passant, there are 4 distinct types of architecture in the Vijayanagar period] in the Vijayanagar capital. In many of the buildings in the Vijayanagar capital, the Hindu elements of architecture have been substantially and effectively influenced by Muhammadan architectural features (also mentioned by Willy). But my question is where is the opposite example, not just in this case but anywhere in India in any period? There are scores of examples of converted mosques from Hindu temples. That's not comingling or beautiful intermix of culture. These were cases of pure rape. Show me one original mosque where Hindu architecture or painting of living creature was followed.
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
31
Re the mysterious message from the muddleheaded Amrita Rajan, below. Does anybody know what she is trying to say? Does she know herself? Is she justifying Nazism or what?
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
30
Re my message below concerning Arjumand Ara. I got cut off at the start of the message for some reason.

I meant to say that it is touching of Arjumand Ara to dwell on some Muslim rulers in Indian history who did patronise Hindu artistic traditions, Muslim writers who sang the praises of Krishna etc. Well done, fellows! Such intelligent Muslim assimilation into Hinduism is exactly what is needed in India: not the obdurate hatred of everything Hindu preached by most Muslim luminaries. But let Ara go a step further on the road of assimilating Hindu values. Let her acquire a grain of Hindu TOLERANCE, and admit that Islamic rulers are guilty of physical and cultural genocide against Hindus in Indian history, that this was motivated by Islamic intolernace....Such ruthless criticism of Islam is utterly necessary in order to give Muslims the incentive to reform and modernise their totalitarian faith. Hindus in the last two centuries accepted brutal criticism of their religion's crruelties. That helped Hinduism to reform. Good. Now let the Muslims take such criticism.
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
29
Re the incoherent burbler called Arjumand Ara, below. Let us all admit this at least in favour of the Hindu nationalist movement: it has FORCED the intelligent Muslims (very few of these exist, alas!) to dwell on those aspects of Indian culture where Muslims did try to fit in with Hinduism to some extent, instead of savaging its heritage as most M
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
28
The Mahatma landed in India in 1915, toured the whole of India for a year and took the political plunge in 1916. He is the man who turned the national movement into a mass movement by taking it to indias villages. The crushed masses of india, enslaved for nearly 800 years awakened with the message of Gandhi. The Gandhian methods of truth, ahimsa, thoughts on ram rajya, use of hindu symbolism, life of personal pain and sacrifice all went into the awakening of the masses and the masses in turn proclaiming Gandhi a Mahatma, a great soul.

This national movement was essentially hindu nationalism, as Gandhi had awakened the Hindus towards Independence. This mass awakening evoked a counter response, in the form of the League and Jinnah, which become the embodiment of muslim sentiment. The more the thrust of the national movement towards independence, the more shrill became the cry for Pakistan. The british were supportive of the league as it derailed the national movement. The muslims in pre-independence india gave an overwhelming support to the league fighting on the platform of pakistan, in the election of '46. The muslim murders for pakistan started in the same year. The direct action day killing around 10000 hindus in calcutta (aug 46). The murders become intense post 47 in pakistan with entire towns and cities liquited of hindus and women committing mass suicides to escape a fate worse than death. This is the undocumented genocide of the 20th century, with more than 10,00,000 hindus murdered to make way for Pakistan.

A retaliation was begining to take place in India, with the refugee influx and the rise in hindu anger from the horrifying accounts the refugees brought with them. The reprisal killings, a natural expression of hindus was developing when Gandhi intervened to stage his death defying fasts. It is this Gandhian agitation which saved ensured the survival of muslims in India. A transfer of population plan was put forward later but Nehru rejected it and allowed the muslims to stay on.

The 17 years of Nehruvian rule legitimised the muslims as citizens of india, despite their agitation for pakistan and the mass killings of hindus. The knowledge of genocide of the hindus, the scale of the murders and rapes conducted during partition is not there among young indians. The conciousness of it has been gradually and systamitacally eradicated as we learn about it only as "partition riots" where "hindus and muslims suffered equally". In the same manner the histories of the medieval period, is sought to be truncated stating that the accounts are "romanticed" and "idealised". There is no disputing the facts of assimilition, it did take place and the language Urdu is a testimony to this fact, but the presentation of facts should be objective and worked out with inquiry. The other side of the picture, the fact of destruction of hindu temples, ritual slaughters, sexual enslavement of women, the desecration of hindu holy sites like ayodhya, mathura and kashi with the full knowledge of what it meant to the hindus cannot be brushed under the carpet. The construction of a mythic "syncretic civilisation" and nonsense like "Islam enriching indian culture" would always be challenged. New historians would examine the barbarities of islam and the destruction of hindu civilization and of learning centres like taxila and nalanda. The histories constructed by the communist historians would be challenged which has thrived on the demonology of RSS/hindutva. The demonology giving strength to some academics to make statements like "India with all her traditions (which are not exclusively Hindu traditions) is strong enough to contain and embrace all the diversities of ideas, cultures and religions and will survive and progress without this sectarian, obscurantist and revivalist Hindutva of yours and your Sangh Parivar's".










Pankaj Shrivastav
bombay, india
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
27
Part1

If the book, 'Sufis of Bijapur', written by R. M. Eaton, from where William Darlymple has conveniently garbled quotes, is so great, why is it banned in India? I read that the same book debunks the myth that the Sufis were preacher of tolerant Islam. In fact they were not only fanatical against idolatry, but also spies and sometimes mercenaries.
next parts will follow later on evening or tomorrow
Prince
New Delhi, India
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
26
[Part II of the response from Arjumand Ara, Lecturer in Urdu, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi] Contd. From Part I


His themes, treatment and ideas are strikingly Indian and nearer to the Sanskrit tradition of poetry.

And above all, Wali Dakkani, the most famous Urdu poet from Deccan/Gujarat in 17th century, is essentially a poet of love and humanity, and his message of love is for all— irrespective of caste and creed. Ironically, during the riots in Gujarat two years ago, none could stop the rioters from demolishing the tomb of a poet for whom the ringlet of his beloved was the surge of Yamuna and the small black mole on her cheek a Sanyasi meditating on the banks of Yamuna. Can a poet like Wali be bracketed as Muslim or a person from an alien culture?

In short, a student of literature knows Deccan as a land where we see a perfect and harmonious blend of two cultures and a period that was very productive and rich for Art and Literature. Can this history be written off and discarded? Can the believers of the straitjacketed imaginary Hindu culture undo this composite dharohar or heritage? I am sure hatred and vengeance is not going to do any good to Sangh Parivar. Such tendencies must find a vent in the form of an enemy to take revenge upon, even if it comes from within—either in the form of caste, class, region or language. Pakistan's is the most glaring example. Having foundations of its creation on religious passion, Pakistan disintegrated on linguistic basis; and now Sunni majority is after Shias, Ahmadiyas and Qadianis with the same sectarian zeal with which Pakistan was created. Movements, like Jai Sind, on the basis of region and language are also getting stronger. Will all this end at any point of time?

Narendra Modi's replica in media, Tarun Vijay's rejoinder (5 April) also reeks the same venom and hatred against all non-Hindus—be it a contemporary Dalrymple or a Nizamuddin Chisti (sic) from the chapters of history. For him, when VS Naipaul points towards 'these areas of darkness' (disunity among Hindus), he is 'one of us', but when Dalrymple does the same he is 'no different from other white Mughals or their munshis'—because Dalrymple is a Firangi and seems to be a Christian. Tarun Vijay's foul language is reminiscent of Narendra Modi's diatribe against Sonia Gandhi.

And while talking about the 'stark truth' that 'Muslim invaders brought loot, rape, plunder and the spread of Islam in one package' (food for thought for psychologists to explore as to how a great number of people could embrace the religion of looters, plunderers and rapists), Tarun Vijay goes on with the same gusto showering praises upon Hindus who do not treat Muslims as enemy of 'our land' (surely, their Hinduism is different from that of Tarun Vijay's) where 'Rahim, Raskhan, Jayasi, Taj Bibi (sic), Ghlaib remain on the most respected pedestals of Hindu reverence' and where 'Khans are ruling Bollywood and a Muslim is our head of state.' Cheers! What a magnanimous gesture on the part of Tarun Vijay and his Parivar to let the Muslims not only survive but also rule! He seems to say that Muslims should be grateful to him for this Jaan ki Amaan—protection of life—and patronage. Mind you Mr. Tarun Vijay, India with all her traditions (which are not exclusively Hindu traditions) is strong enough to contain and embrace all the diversities of ideas, cultures and religions and will survive and progress without this sectarian, obscurantist and revivalist Hindutva of yours and your Sangh Parivar's.


[Posted on behalf of:
Arjumand Ara,
Lecturer in Urdu
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Delhi, Delhi]
Executive Editor, outlookindia.com
New Delhi, India
May 06, 2004 12:00 AM
25
[Part I of the response from Arjumand Ara, Lecturer in Urdu, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi]


The readers' response to William Dalrymple's article Sir Vidya Gets Badly Wrong (Outlook, 15 March) is more than shocking. It is ironical that while trusting the secular values of young Indians Dalrymple says, 'Thanks partly to the influence of the earlier textbooks on generations of students, there is still a widespread awareness in India on the positive aspects of medieval Islam', the response appearing in the 29 March issue of Outlook paints quite a different picture.

However, after the initial surprise, it is simple to notice from the range of readers that the present onslaught of fascism on India is not like that of yesteryears—in the garb of Hitler's Nazism—but is in disguise of a great Hindu awakening imported from US, Canada, UK and Germany-based Indians who are outsourcing Hindutva in order to protect their own identity in their host countries in the West, which otherwise is doomed to dissolve in the surge of capitalist establishments. The Hindutva voices from these countries could not sound any saner. These are the times when Sangh Parivar, with the financial support of its brethren in the West, is asserting itself and grabbing every opportunity, every space to distort history, destroy evidence and mislead common people in order to strangulate every 'other' voice. Be it VS Naipaul or those whom he considers the leaders of a 'new, historical awakening' (never mind if it results in Gujarat like pogroms!), all of them see the medieval history through their saffron glasses as dark ages, and to borrow the term from Huntington, as an era embarking clash of civilizations. Hence no amount of historical evidence and no argument which does not fit into their ideology, will satisfy them.

Even a layman who has any interest in Urdu/Hindi literature and has read a bit of History of Dakkani Urdu knows very well that the literature that flourished in the principalities of Bijapur and Golkunda is the most splendid example of intermixing of different ideas and cultures in perfect harmony. The streams of alien sufism and the nirgun and sagun bhakti become one in the Shikarnama of Gesudaraz written in fifteenth century. This was the period when in north India the bhakti streams of Jayasi, Kabir, Sur and Tulsi were getting popular, and no part of India was untouched by their message of love and humanity through bhakti.

In Deccan, Ibrahim Adil Shah II of Bijapur was a great lover of Hindustani music and his book of geets (lyrics) Nau Ras is considered as a rare book for its musical qualities. The preface of this book was written by Zahuri, a famous poet and writer of Farsi, which shows that the intermingling of Hindus and Muslims was taking place on a very fast pace and Muslim poets used to write about Krishna and Saraswati with the same zeal and devotion as they wrote about Muslim icons. Poets of Deccan derived their themes and their stories from local characters like that of Chandrabadan and Mahiyar, Madhumalti and Manohar etc. Masnavi Tutinama written by Ghawasi, a court poet of Golkunda, is based on the famous Sanskrit work Hitopdesh. This work is known for its simple treatment and lyrical qualities. Following the tradition, Quli Qutab Shah of Golkunda emerges as the first poet of Urdu with his diwan (collection of poetry) who is completely immersed in Hindustani colour, beauty, nature and environment. His themes, metaphors and symbols are mostly, rather absolutely, Indian. Basant, Diwali, Holi are his own festivals and he spiritedly participates and writes about them.

[Part I of the response posted on behalf of Arjumand Ara, Lecturer in Urdu, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi]. Contd. In Part II
Executive Editor, outlookindia.com
New Delhi, India
Apr 07, 2004 12:00 AM
24
How idiotic of Dalrymple and his mentor Eaton to assume that because Hindus often referred to Islamic invaders as "Turks" this means Islam had no role in their depredations! Or that Islam was not important as a factor of Hindu-"Turk" conflict! Truly ridiculous - like so much else of this Western aplogetics on behalf of Islamic crminals in Indian history. Because the British referred to Hitler's forces as Germans or Jerries does that mean these Germans did not repressent Nazism?
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
Apr 02, 2004 12:00 AM
23
On 24 May 2003 I interviewed William Dalrymple in Sydney and asked “You claim that the Moguls destroyed 67 temples and out of the shards built the Kutub Minar.”He said “Yes” I then said “How could that happen ? Were the warring Moguls crying out , “Careful chaps don’t destroy the bricks because we have to use them to build a tower”. I continued”And who would build it for them : the Hindus” At this, he became agitated and declared he was leaving . In Moslem chronicles of the period “ destroyed and rebuilt” is a template in relation to their architecture.as witness Elliot & Dowson’s 8 volume collection... Why Indian historians have accepted that such a magnificent tower like the Kutub Minar could be build out of shards is beyonjd me.. As an expert on Mogul architecture William-jee should go to Iraq and Afganistan and tell them how it was done.’There is plenty of shards there.


Karam Chand Ramrakha
Bineet
Sydney, Australia
Apr 02, 2004 12:00 AM
22
Ah, in “ Sir Vidia Gets It Wrong” ( Mar 15 2004) William Dalrymple, Mogul Vigilante and self-professed Knight of the that Empire at first blush appeared to me to be kind to fellow Britisher Sir Vidia Naipaul in deference to his being a British Knight of the Realm when he said Sir Vidya’s account of Mogul destruction was a “ jaundiced notions of history”. That is, until I realised that jaundice is a disease. But for me, a complete stranger , William-jee after a brief encounter reserved his choicest anti-Hindu epithet when he said to my face in a public meeting, “Yesterday for the first time in my life I walked out of an interview when I was accosted by a Hindu Nazi who said to me that the Lady of the Taj is buried on the second floor of a seven storey Hindu palace.”Challenged, William-jee, in true British grit, calmly and to that public denied that there is a second floor under the grave, that floor has a corridor and rooms on either side. Incensed, I told the meeting that if he proved me wrong I would donate Australian $10,000.00 to our Blind Society. Since then I have sent William-jee photographs and Moslem admissions of the second storey etc but William-jee again with true British grit has now decided to ignore me. It is only now that I realise that Hindu Nazi whatever it may mean is a favourite epithet of William-jee and his ilk. Revile and run ? No, William-hee, the Taj Mahal Bubble has burst.

Karam Chand Ramrakha
Bineet
Sydney, Australia
Mar 29, 2004 12:00 AM
21
How does Dalrymple explain the Jizya ? (in the context of cultural fusion)
What are his credentials as a historian ? probably the same as Irvings...
Bineet
Sydney, Australia
Mar 29, 2004 12:00 AM
20
Dalrymple is a leading apologist for the Islamic invasion of India . His eloquence masks the fact most of this psuedo intellectual history espoused by the likes of Thapar has been discredited . Like David Irving who is a holocaust denier ,Dalrymple is a denier that of the evils that Islamic Imperialism wrought upon India.
Bineet
Sydney, Australia
Mar 23, 2004 12:00 AM
19
This is very true. I have read Sir Naipaul's works on India, and there is a distinct anti-Muslim bias in his works that no one can escape. He blames Muslims for almost all miseries that have ever affected India (let alone his demonization of Islam as a religion). However when he starts contorting with the RSS, and affirms the wrong history being perpetrated by the RSS, people need to rise up and protest against this. I thank Mr. Willie Dalrymple for helping correct the wrong notions of Indian history in Indian minds.
Taha
Buffalo, USA
Mar 23, 2004 12:00 AM
18
Dalrymple seems to justify the acts of the bloodthirty Muslim imvaders in mediavel India in the guise of "cultural synthesis". The reason cited by him for the destruction of Hindu temples is equaly ridiculous. Perhaps he has not read about the origins of Islam. Didn't Prophet Mohammad himself break idols? Didn't he go on a killing spree against those who rejected his teachings?Professor K.S Lal in his book "The growth of Muslim Population in India" has stated that between 1000 AD & 1525 AD, the Hindu population had decreased by 80 million, perhaps the greatest holocaust in human history.But no wonder people like Dalrymple and Marxists would still argue that it was a wonderful case of cultural assimilation.
Nilanjan Nandi
New Delhi, India
Mar 22, 2004 12:00 AM
17
Dalrymple's piece was excellent. Like Naipaul, your readers seem to believe that a Muslim dynasty is synonymous with subjugation in the Indian context. It's not as if Hindu ruling families were paragons of self-government. "Hindu" kings also attacked other "Hindus" and, occasionally, destroyed their temples. If patronage of Brahmins and temples is to be the criterion for political benevolence, then a Muslim-ruled state like Bijapur, which was a member of the coalition that destroyed Vijayanagara, was as benign as its Hindu counterparts. Besides, the destruction of Vijayanagara was not an unprovoked act. It was the culmination of a long stand-off between Vijayanagara and the five splinter sultanates of the Bahmani kingdom, and this stand-off was largely initiated by Rama Raja of Vijayanagara in his search for regional supremacy. To reduce this conflict to a Muslim-versus-Hindu religious war makes absolutely no sense in a cultural and political environment in which all sides included Muslims as well as Hindus at practically every level of society, government, and military organization. The idea that "Hindus" and "Muslims" have always been discrete communities locked in a permanent war is a colonial idea. It served colonial interests very well, and now it serves the interests of Hindu nationalists and the severely confused (like Naipaul). In any case, the concept of a "Hindu" identity did not exist in the precolonial period, except in very limited contexts.

Satadru Sen
St. Louis, USA
Mar 17, 2004 12:00 AM
16
Re the fellow below:

Telling Hindus that their real history doesn't matter, and going to preposterous lengths to cover up the bloody sins of Islam - that is what promotes conflict. Reconciliation has to based on truth.
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
Mar 15, 2004 12:00 AM
15
Excellent analysis. I think its a perspective that many Indians need to hear. We might agree or disagree with the history. I would still prefer the learn my history through historians instead of Sadhavis or those with a biased position.

Eitherways the idea that any historic wrong can be corrected through a 'balancing act' as stated by Naipaul is dangerous. People advocating such ideas would in effect encourage more violence and less tolerance. India's greatness and strength is surely not demonstraed by setting 'historic wrongs' right through breaking mosques. We should instead try to focus our energy on creating a liberal and tolerant multi-religious identity, and not use history (correct or otherwise) to further political agendas through promoting conflict instead of reconciliation.
vikalpa
ann arbor, usa
Mar 12, 2004 12:00 AM
14
One has to be a prize idiot to swallow the Dalrymple-Eaton theory about why Muslim rulers in India made a practice of systematically destroying Hindu temples. This didn't imply any hatred for Hinduism derived from Islamic theology, you see...Oh no! Even if these rulers and their offcial chroniclers procliamed this proudly to high heaven. That was only intended to pull the wool over the eyes of Nehruite Islam-sycophant historians of the Twentieth Century. We know, don't we, how very tolerant Islam has always been, even if questinoning the claims of Mohammed has always meant courting death in Muslim-majority countries.....Our Muslim rulers in India were truly tolerant. They destroyed Hindu temples, as Dalrymple and Richard Eaton have assured as, merely to destroy the prestige of the Hindu kings who patronised them. Otherwise they would "normally" have left them alone, though - ahem! - these temples would not have been permitted to be REPAIRED!!!! What generosity, O Muslims. But somehow it never occured to these tolerant Muslim rulers to replace these Hindu temples they had to destroy for veritably "secular" reasons with new Hindu temples....No, in such situations they "impartially" decided to build - ahem! - MOSQUES.....Thanks for nothing, Eaton and Dalrymple.

And how can we fail to admire Eaton's statistical sleight of hand in order to drastically reduce estimates of the number of temples destroyed. Only 80, not tens of thousands, my Hindu pals. But how does Eaton count? By assuming that a Muslim raid on the temple town of Ujain means that 1 temple would have been destroyed, when there were hundreds there. Or that entire temple complexes with scores of individual temples should count as one temple destoyed in Eaton's modest estimate of mild, tolerant Islamic ravages.

One is amazed at the sheer contempt for the intellignece of his readers shown by Dalrymple and his mentor Eaton.

What is the point of such vulgar fabrications and sophistry? They are too easy to refute!
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
Mar 12, 2004 12:00 AM
13
Calling Minakshi Jain obscure is not only pompous but may prove to be a little premature too.Academician's relevance will be thankfully, decided by the course of history and not cleverly poised historians.
SusmitaNS
Delhi, India
Mar 12, 2004 12:00 AM
12
It's impossible to believe that the Moslem invaders of India looked at Indian monuments and said "Hmmm, the natives themselves are desecrating their buildings by removing idols, so we should do the same and even go further by demolishing them" Ridiculous!
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Mar 10, 2004 12:00 AM
11
Another glaring example of melancholy yearning by a die-hard colonial gora sahib and another clear living proof of the subservient “post colonial brown coolie news media”, which obediently published this mischievous and crass article to discredit Hindus.
These pseudo secular pessimistic fools, as usual, are expecting and praying for the worst things to happen to their make believe Hindu adversaries. To prove their point these desperate fools are now trying out the desperate remedies for their lost cause by writing and publishing crass articles to discredit India by manipulating, demeaning, and belittling the true Indian history for their dark ulterior motives.
Raj
Toronto, Canada
Mar 10, 2004 12:00 AM
10
The temptation of vilifying Naipaul and catapulting to a celebrity status despite one's limited understanding of History is irresistible!! The 'White Mughal' takes forward the propaganda of discrediting Indians for other's vandalism by reading pious motives behind heinous acts. The nefarious designs of the author are manifest in his assumption that pre-Islamic Indian kings were 'iconoclasts'.

It is outrageous to say that just 80 temples were destroyed because Historians have found proof for so many. This is akin to saying that only 1000 people lived in India before the first modern census because we have life sketches of only so many. If desecration of temples was for destroying the "sovereignty of the defeated ruler", I wonder why this never happened in wars between Muslim rulers. There is not a single reference in History that points to destruction of anything other than temple as insignia of power. Also, Eaton's reference nowhere alludes to destruction of deities or their images, it merely points to their appropriation by new political masters.
Author quoting just three Muslim figures in support of his arguments in an epoch of 500 years is enough evidence of the level of 'tolerance' in medieval India. Dara Shikoh was a seeker and we all know the end he met. Akbar on the other hand was an egoistic and vindictive king who did what suited him right. After all, he decided to float a new religion called "Din-i-Elahi" towards the end of his era.

It is a deadly mistake to see pillage and loot of ancient Indian in the light of 'circumstances' in which it occurred is a deadly mistake. I'm sure the protagonists of this line of thought would never like to view the incidents involving minorities in modern India through a similar prism. If it is scholarly to understand why invaders destroyed temples, is it not to understand why missionaries are heckled or 'pogroms' mounted. After all, resisting conversion or burning is no different from resisting foreign rule.
Rahul Malviya
Bangalore, India
Mar 09, 2004 12:00 AM
9
William's ideas written here are mature but Sir Vidiya's aren't immature too!!!!
Ashok Mathur
Delhi, India
Mar 09, 2004 12:00 AM
8
The incorrigible White Mughal defending the indefensible (Islamic barbarism).
B Bhattacharyya
Morrisville, USA
Mar 09, 2004 12:00 AM
7
Another glaring example of melancholy yearning by a die-hard colonial gora sahib and another clear living proof of the subservient “post colonial brown coolie news media”, which obediently published this mischievous and crass article to discredit Hindus.
These pseudo secular pessimistic fools, as usual, are expecting and praying for the worst things to happen to their make believe Hindu adversaries. To prove their point these desperate fools are now trying out the desperate remedies for their lost cause by writing and publishing crass articles to discredit India by manipulating, demeaning, and belittling the true Indian history for their dark ulterior motives.
Raj
Toronto, Canada
Mar 09, 2004 12:00 AM
6
It is hardly surprising that apologists of Islamic terrorism, such as William Dalrymple, should insult Meenakshi Jain, the author of the new textbook on medieval India.

Meenakshi Jain has written a detailed rebuttal of Satish Chandra's old textbook and this is available online at

http://www.bharatvani.org/SatishChandra- flawed_history.doc

One also needs to look at her reply to the 'Index of Errors' compiled by Irfan Habib. She has shown that in several instances, she has merely excerpted Irfan Habib's own textbooks, and now he is finding fault with what he himself wrote!
A brief sample of the idiocies of the 'Index of Errors' compiled by communist historians, of whom William, a descendant of Mughals himself ('a white Mughal') is so enamoured, is available at

http://www.bharatvani.org/IrfanHabib-den ial.html

What Outlook and William are indulging in is political propaganda (if not a subtle hatemongerong against Hindus), which does not stand the tests of academic rigor, though it may pass the agenda of Indian Marxists and Islamists.

Sincerely,

Vishal Agarwal
Minneapolis, USA

Vishal Agarwal
Minneapolis, USA
Mar 09, 2004 12:00 AM
5
Further to the contribution below: I have now found the two web references which interested readers should consult to read Konraad Elst's comprehensive trashing of the stupid thesis by Richard Eaton that this professional Islamo-sycophant William Dalrymple relies on:

1. From an Opinion piece by Konraad Elst in "Outlook India", 31 August 2001. Web reference; http://wwww.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=2001 0831&fname=elst&sid=1

2. article by Elst: at http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/Eaton.html
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
Mar 08, 2004 12:00 AM
4
I fnd it amazing that William Dalrymple is allowed to fill up so much space in "Outlook India" with this stupid polemic. The Editor should have pointed out to him that the argument on which he mainly relies - Richard Eaton's thesis that although Muslim rulers in India had a habit of destroying Hindu temples they did so only to destroy the prestige of Hindu rulers who patronised them, not out of Islamic hatred of Hinduism, and that Hindu rulers similarly seized idols from the temples of rival Hindu potentates -is a piece of Orwellian Doubletalk that has been comprehensively refuted in "Outlook" itself by Konraad Elst, in 2003 I think. Elst has pointed out that that though there are a few records of Hindu kings taking away the idols of deities patronised by enemy Hindu kings, as a rule the idols themselves continued to be venerated and the temples were left standing. Equating this idol-seizing practice with the ferociously systematic Muslim smashing of Hindu idols and temples, remarks Elst, is like equating a keen bibliophile who steals a book from a library with man who burns the library and the book to ashes. This is precisely the confusion Dalrymple and eaton perpetrate either to mislead or out of sheer stupidity. The Eaton-Dalrymple argument is laughable. If Muslim rulers demolished Hindu temples merely to destroy the prestige of the kings who patronised them and without any Islam-inspire bias against Hinduism itself - why did they not build Hindu temples in their places, instead of mosques? Who are you kidding, Eaton and Dalrymple?

Konraad Elst has also exposed the statistical fraud by which Eaton has hugely reduced the estimate for the number of temples smashed by Muslim rulers in India.

The most damning evidence of the incredible scale of islamic destruction of the Hindu cultural heritage is totally overlooked by Dalrymple: the fact that old and large Hindu temples are so rare in North India, the heartland of Hinduism, while many more can be found in Orissa and South India, where Islamic rule came late or was weak. What sort of "historians" can ignore such a startling discrepancy?

Amidst all his delirious celebration of how the Hindu Vijayanagar Empire had adapted some Islamic cultural traits - why not? - Dalrymple forgets to explain why its temples and other buildings were so comprehensively and painstakingly pulverized by its Muslim conquerors - the point stressed by Naipaul. To call some Islamic traits adapted by Vijayanagar rulers a proof of "intense and creative interaction with the Islamic world" is like saying that German Jews who listened to Wagner are proof that Nazism was not anti-Semitic. Notice that, as always with these "historians" who specialise in covering up the bloody sins of Islam, Dalrymple finally explains Vijayanagar's destruction on its "unruliness". Always seeing things through the tyrant's eye! Would Dalrymple have equally justified General Dyer's Amritsar Massacre as "necessary" to prevent unrest and bllodshed in Punjab? The most laughable irony is that Muslims themselves will, nearly all, treat with irony and contempt all Dalrymple's silly attempts to "prove" that Islam and Hinduism can mingle seamlessly: whereas Hindus, even RSS ones, would not object to the idea! That ought to open Dalrymple's eyes, were he not a blind Islamophile. Would Dalrymple like to argue, Eaton-style, that the destruction of the Babri Masjid had no particular anti-Islamic bias?

India badly needs truthful history books which will record the criminal devastation of Hinduism's cultural heritage by Islamic rulers. Muslims can apologise for this and we can all move on. Orwellian attempts like Dalrymple's to prove that oppression and ruin are "cultural synthesis" will only foment Hindu anger. It is the Indian equivalent of Holocaust Denial.
Rajendran Kumaran
London, UK
Mar 08, 2004 12:00 AM
3
JS Mill wrote a history of India without ever stepping into this land and being utterly incapable of reading anything in any India language. William Dalrymple while being dismissive of an obscure "college lecturer" - Meenakshi Jain - produces a JS Mill-like piece (of course much smaller in scope than Mill's). But the foolishness and pomposity is very much present. Setting right the wrongs of history is a dangerous quest and will lead to abominable acts like the one that happened at Ayodhya in December 1992. However ignoring history and fashioning a never-never-land through the use of marxist or reformed "western civilization"al principles is diabolical and intellectually dishonest.
shiva pennathur
cleveland, usa
Mar 08, 2004 12:00 AM
2
Very enriching read indeed. I also differ from Naipaul in his opinion that Muslims were more destructive to Indians than Christians. As someone said, Muslims destroyed their material wealth and the Christians, their intellect. So it is arguable who did the worst. However, William Dalrymple suffers from a similar mind-set that he accuses Naipaul of.


For a Hindu like Naipaul, Vijayanagara is a symbol of the last bastion of a heritage that was lost. That is why the Ayodhya incident is heartening for him and millions of other Hindus. A sign of redemption from the festering wound in their psyche, the bitter defeat and humiliation at the hands of the Muslims.


Dalrymple cannot sense, while he churns out evidence against Naipaul, that the Indian brand of Islam became very unique when it rubbed off against Hindu culture. By becoming the protector of Jagnath, the Mughal king was trying to conform to Hindu Raj-Dharma, because by the Hindu code of law, a king had to protect all religions equally. Where else would anyone find a Muslim Fakir—a Muslim ascetic who follows tantric practices—but in the Indian subcontinent. With the exception of few Taleban rulers like Aurengazeb, we now learn that Mughals were Muslim kings who ruled by Hindu law in a Hindu kingdom. Because, by Shariat no Muslim king could patronage a Hindu temple. Or does Dalrymple have any other credible explanation for this?


Dalrymple produces one more evidence for the pure Hindu outlook, of which Vijayanagara is a symbol for Naipaul, when he quotes that there is “no medieval Sanskrit inscription” describing any of the invaders by the name of their religion. It is because Hindus saw ‘faith’ as superficial. For instance, the first commandment of the Hindu ‘faith’ is that the truth is one and sages call it by many names. And it is impossible for a pure Hindu to sense a religious motive behind aggressive and violent action.


Dalrymple, like many Indian Marxists and nostalgic Raj lovers, also seems to favour the Eurocentric version of history which were taught to us Indians even after independence. I for one was taught in my school books that Lord Macaulay was one of the greatest rulers of modern India. Today I read real records and understand that he was the worst sort of villain in a destructive drama. After this first-hand incidence, I would rather prefer my old barber to do the history writing than believe the Marxist historians, especially those decorated internationally by the Eurocentric clubs.
George Thundiparambil
Freiburg, Germany
Mar 08, 2004 12:00 AM
1
I think William Dalrymple speaks the truth and nothing but the absolute truth. Let us give it to him for opening our eyes. After all only the Western authors an be unbiased.
Rajeev
Delhi, India
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY