@EjazR - Sir, thanks for the great effort. And need I say I agree with every bit of what you mentioned.
The differences are nonetheless there. Pls allow me to achieve more consistency in my writings and bear me for next few sentenses.
I do admit GB misrule was perhaps amongst the worst that a group of people could have done on others. But it would not be just to take out our own (hindus and muslims) incompetence in managing our own affairs better, which IMO and considered opinion was because of the spectacular failure of both the muslim and hindus and other types of rajas to do fulfil their respective duties towards their respective spheres of territorial and demographic responsibility. The virus are always there but the healthy body fights those infection and wins, an ill body on the other hand is ill because it had failed to fight the infection. So before GB the biggest culprit were Mughals and even before that the Slave dynasties etc. because while they kept taking and enjoying taxes and kept claiming that they were Indians, still they failed to support the concept of India at vital moments in History. Now the rot does not stop here, even before the Muslim rajas there were Buddhist and Hindu Rajas who simply were not good enough. While we were 24% of world economy at start of Mughals period, we were 28%+ at the end of earlier non-muslim periods down from 36%+ even earlier, and by the start of GB period we were 17% or thereabout. GB just finished off the job till around 4%. The incompetence in fact continued even after the Brits left and it is only to our debit that we brought 4% down to even further 2%. 47 was merely the political freedom from GB, 91 was the freedom from our own collective stupidity. Pls also observe the moving average growth figures, we are below chinese rising slower but rising much more sure-er.
Now I do admit it is not worth it that we discuss emperors and dynasties. My point is that if we keep handing out credit where it is not due then we will keep failing to recognise our true historical genius (of course historical for both hindus and muslims). There were a few Shudra rajas also and even though i have not read much about them but extrapolation of my understanding takes me to the conclusion that they would have been no better (just some earlier day Mayawati).
The way I see it, anything to do with exclusivity will fail under the weight of its own unrealistic expectations. These sundry rajas were exclusivist and failed to train there subjects for the eventuality of Ghories, Ghaznis etc. These western invaders happened to be Muslims during those era. Later era showed that western invaders could just as well be Christens, in fact corporates too boot. On the other hand the victims were those who happened to be Hindus and more often then not the forefathers of present day muslims of the Indian Heartland.
I dont know what the present NCERT history teaches. But at the time I used to read it, most of it was about all and sundry rajas, while what we should have been taught was (and with reasoned arguements that are actually there and can be missed out only by blind men and commies):
1. That India is a land of minorities (even Brahmins, Kshtriyas, every regional identity, every linguistic identity and every religious identity are actually minorities and with same problems). Muslims of this land will have to come out and claim/seize there fair share in society instead of coming out for Palestine/sundry fatwas/few defensive patriotic marches. If a Shiv Sainik dares impute a divided loyalty on a muslim then he should not let go of the issue and treat this as a slight. Muslims would be surprised to see the bitterness against these sundry shiv sainiks amongst even the Hindu populations esp. those from UP / Bihar.
2. That caste specialization is not going to work for the society when the enemy that you need to prepare for is not even perceptible in accepted timescale and this kind of specialization is actually only a false specialization since it is based on exclusivism.
3. That Indians have been invaded from west time and again (himalayas made it impossible for any other way for a good part of history). That lands towards west were so depraved perhaps because they themselves were deprivied (explains the fact of Persian-Arab divide inpite of the presence of Ummah). Even Rana used to refer to his opponents as turki, he knew very well the ideology he was fighting. Amply supported by the shruti traditions of isolated communities like Uttarakhandis who consider Ghori a swear word as against the clear non-usage the term muslims to which they are actually better exposed then their history against Ghoris etc. Even the words ‘Pol Khol dena’ have similar significance.
4. That reason is not what westerners or for that matter now even the Chinese are going to take. Survival is a matter not of religion but of will.
5. The will was not there till 47 given the existence of 550+ states with false caste specilizations. The lay populace came into power only in 47.
6. That the fact that almost equal killings and equal refugees happened amongst both muslims and non-muslims of India, is a weakness of our society that eventually certain people even used to create two countries (which we should accept today). Juxtaposed against the fact that despite such bitter killings, a stupendous number of muslims decided to risk there lives in India then to move over. Conclusions here are self evident. So for every 1 idiot citizen of the land (Hindu or Muslim or etc.) there are 9 who are not idiots and are interested in the cooperative relations within the country because the lay population is wise enough to know, without a lefty telling him, that this cooperation is important to attain competitive ability outside India.
7. Given that rest of the regions of the subcontinent fell towards there natural centre of gravity without any worthwhile competition, implies that the present state of democracy and sarva-jan sambhav is the true state of Indian nationhood. The roots of which are in the common Muslim & Non-Muslim traditions of Sufism and Bhakti and Sikhism which is a mix of everything.
8. That unless we take special care of this freedom by making every citizen an all rounder in his/her social contribution (specialisation being limited only to profession) we are not likely to continue enjoying our concept of India.
Now your ideas regarding AZ or Mr. Jinnah are not proved. On the contrary pretty much all that the so called right wingers are saying have not been falsified at least not to my knowledge (I would be willing to change my views if you can provide such refutations). In fact I wonder if rightwingers in India have even said anything about Indian muslims populace. In fact something makes me feel that the AZ fatwas in Bikaner have never even been radio carbon dated by those who maintain a view against it. AZ was just as bad as the society of that time and of time before that allowed him to be. Had the society not allowed itself to be divided, AZ would not have been successful. While these divisions were happening Hindus were just as much a culprit as Muslims. Even your views about India – Pak war in the other thread, where you ideate that India won 48, 65 & 71 are just too simplistic. It is common sense that nobody won nothing (both Pakistani and Indian fanboys are just not seeing the reality). The war is still going on, though it is true India is gaining an upper hand finally. This war was there since as long as we can remember and will remain at least till the time, Pakistan is roundly beaten economically and its himayati is at least matched. Now this is actually possible since this land is the land of possibilities, it allows everything to happen. We obviously cannot insure against the evil but we can surely allow our good guys to better the mark set by their good guys.
Educate the commoners about there own true identity ie. of the deeprootedness of multicultural traditions instead of throwing a mythical Good AZ against bad AZ. Throw instead a good Indian population against the bad AZ ideas of rightwinger if you have to. Don’t negate the commoners’ strength. It works just fine in the continuum of time. By pitting good AZ argument against bad AZ argument the leftys are only undermining the strength of India, the strength of the masses. Enable the children of the commoners to see the link between culture and economics and defence. They are wise enough to know what is best for them. Democracy implies having faith in the common man. Carry on with it.
Rana was fighting for Hinduism because practically all his subjects were hindus and all their tormentors were muslims and Islam did not have the proportions that it later developed amongst Indians. When it comes to martial history these leftys highlight is the presence of hindus amongst AZ courtiers, what they convinently forget is that even Rana had Hakim Khan Sur in his army. Now Surs were Indians even though they were ethnic Pathans exactly because they lived and died for the people of the land. And even though a lefty sees this part of history as a threat to his ideas, the reality is these ideas are a strength for Indian society as it is the history of the resistance against the foreigners, who may have claimed to be Indian but always thought only of themselves and their treasury. The leftys are promoting a history that does not match with the ground realities. If I have to accept left history then I will have to forgo the history of north west India (around 10 Crore people) without any concommitent improvement in the Hindu-Muslim relations. What kind of history is this. The right wingers in India are actually smarter then the leftwingers. They have put in a condition for Ayodhya dispute that even an idiot knows is never going to be fulfilled. And we can have a private conversation regarding Ayodhya if you want it.
On account of some recent readings I am developing a view that these Mughals were in a terrible identity crisis but no definitive idea yet.
The differences are nonetheless there. Pls allow me to achieve more consistency in my writings and bear me for next few sentenses.
I do admit GB misrule was perhaps amongst the worst that a group of people could have done on others. But it would not be just to take out our own (hindus and muslims) incompetence in managing our own affairs better, which IMO and considered opinion was because of the spectacular failure of both the muslim and hindus and other types of rajas to do fulfil their respective duties towards their respective spheres of territorial and demographic responsibility. The virus are always there but the healthy body fights those infection and wins, an ill body on the other hand is ill because it had failed to fight the infection. So before GB the biggest culprit were Mughals and even before that the Slave dynasties etc. because while they kept taking and enjoying taxes and kept claiming that they were Indians, still they failed to support the concept of India at vital moments in History. Now the rot does not stop here, even before the Muslim rajas there were Buddhist and Hindu Rajas who simply were not good enough. While we were 24% of world economy at start of Mughals period, we were 28%+ at the end of earlier non-muslim periods down from 36%+ even earlier, and by the start of GB period we were 17% or thereabout. GB just finished off the job till around 4%. The incompetence in fact continued even after the Brits left and it is only to our debit that we brought 4% down to even further 2%. 47 was merely the political freedom from GB, 91 was the freedom from our own collective stupidity. Pls also observe the moving average growth figures, we are below chinese rising slower but rising much more sure-er.
Now I do admit it is not worth it that we discuss emperors and dynasties. My point is that if we keep handing out credit where it is not due then we will keep failing to recognise our true historical genius (of course historical for both hindus and muslims). There were a few Shudra rajas also and even though i have not read much about them but extrapolation of my understanding takes me to the conclusion that they would have been no better (just some earlier day Mayawati).
The way I see it, anything to do with exclusivity will fail under the weight of its own unrealistic expectations. These sundry rajas were exclusivist and failed to train there subjects for the eventuality of Ghories, Ghaznis etc. These western invaders happened to be Muslims during those era. Later era showed that western invaders could just as well be Christens, in fact corporates too boot. On the other hand the victims were those who happened to be Hindus and more often then not the forefathers of present day muslims of the Indian Heartland.
I dont know what the present NCERT history teaches. But at the time I used to read it, most of it was about all and sundry rajas, while what we should have been taught was (and with reasoned arguements that are actually there and can be missed out only by blind men and commies):
1. That India is a land of minorities (even Brahmins, Kshtriyas, every regional identity, every linguistic identity and every religious identity are actually minorities and with same problems). Muslims of this land will have to come out and claim/seize there fair share in society instead of coming out for Palestine/sundry fatwas/few defensive patriotic marches. If a Shiv Sainik dares impute a divided loyalty on a muslim then he should not let go of the issue and treat this as a slight. Muslims would be surprised to see the bitterness against these sundry shiv sainiks amongst even the Hindu populations esp. those from UP / Bihar.
2. That caste specialization is not going to work for the society when the enemy that you need to prepare for is not even perceptible in accepted timescale and this kind of specialization is actually only a false specialization since it is based on exclusivism.
3. That Indians have been invaded from west time and again (himalayas made it impossible for any other way for a good part of history). That lands towards west were so depraved perhaps because they themselves were deprivied (explains the fact of Persian-Arab divide inpite of the presence of Ummah). Even Rana used to refer to his opponents as turki, he knew very well the ideology he was fighting. Amply supported by the shruti traditions of isolated communities like Uttarakhandis who consider Ghori a swear word as against the clear non-usage the term muslims to which they are actually better exposed then their history against Ghoris etc. Even the words ‘Pol Khol dena’ have similar significance.
4. That reason is not what westerners or for that matter now even the Chinese are going to take. Survival is a matter not of religion but of will.
5. The will was not there till 47 given the existence of 550+ states with false caste specilizations. The lay populace came into power only in 47.
6. That the fact that almost equal killings and equal refugees happened amongst both muslims and non-muslims of India, is a weakness of our society that eventually certain people even used to create two countries (which we should accept today). Juxtaposed against the fact that despite such bitter killings, a stupendous number of muslims decided to risk there lives in India then to move over. Conclusions here are self evident. So for every 1 idiot citizen of the land (Hindu or Muslim or etc.) there are 9 who are not idiots and are interested in the cooperative relations within the country because the lay population is wise enough to know, without a lefty telling him, that this cooperation is important to attain competitive ability outside India.
7. Given that rest of the regions of the subcontinent fell towards there natural centre of gravity without any worthwhile competition, implies that the present state of democracy and sarva-jan sambhav is the true state of Indian nationhood. The roots of which are in the common Muslim & Non-Muslim traditions of Sufism and Bhakti and Sikhism which is a mix of everything.
8. That unless we take special care of this freedom by making every citizen an all rounder in his/her social contribution (specialisation being limited only to profession) we are not likely to continue enjoying our concept of India.
Now your ideas regarding AZ or Mr. Jinnah are not proved. On the contrary pretty much all that the so called right wingers are saying have not been falsified at least not to my knowledge (I would be willing to change my views if you can provide such refutations). In fact I wonder if rightwingers in India have even said anything about Indian muslims populace. In fact something makes me feel that the AZ fatwas in Bikaner have never even been radio carbon dated by those who maintain a view against it. AZ was just as bad as the society of that time and of time before that allowed him to be. Had the society not allowed itself to be divided, AZ would not have been successful. While these divisions were happening Hindus were just as much a culprit as Muslims. Even your views about India – Pak war in the other thread, where you ideate that India won 48, 65 & 71 are just too simplistic. It is common sense that nobody won nothing (both Pakistani and Indian fanboys are just not seeing the reality). The war is still going on, though it is true India is gaining an upper hand finally. This war was there since as long as we can remember and will remain at least till the time, Pakistan is roundly beaten economically and its himayati is at least matched. Now this is actually possible since this land is the land of possibilities, it allows everything to happen. We obviously cannot insure against the evil but we can surely allow our good guys to better the mark set by their good guys.
Educate the commoners about there own true identity ie. of the deeprootedness of multicultural traditions instead of throwing a mythical Good AZ against bad AZ. Throw instead a good Indian population against the bad AZ ideas of rightwinger if you have to. Don’t negate the commoners’ strength. It works just fine in the continuum of time. By pitting good AZ argument against bad AZ argument the leftys are only undermining the strength of India, the strength of the masses. Enable the children of the commoners to see the link between culture and economics and defence. They are wise enough to know what is best for them. Democracy implies having faith in the common man. Carry on with it.
Rana was fighting for Hinduism because practically all his subjects were hindus and all their tormentors were muslims and Islam did not have the proportions that it later developed amongst Indians. When it comes to martial history these leftys highlight is the presence of hindus amongst AZ courtiers, what they convinently forget is that even Rana had Hakim Khan Sur in his army. Now Surs were Indians even though they were ethnic Pathans exactly because they lived and died for the people of the land. And even though a lefty sees this part of history as a threat to his ideas, the reality is these ideas are a strength for Indian society as it is the history of the resistance against the foreigners, who may have claimed to be Indian but always thought only of themselves and their treasury. The leftys are promoting a history that does not match with the ground realities. If I have to accept left history then I will have to forgo the history of north west India (around 10 Crore people) without any concommitent improvement in the Hindu-Muslim relations. What kind of history is this. The right wingers in India are actually smarter then the leftwingers. They have put in a condition for Ayodhya dispute that even an idiot knows is never going to be fulfilled. And we can have a private conversation regarding Ayodhya if you want it.
On account of some recent readings I am developing a view that these Mughals were in a terrible identity crisis but no definitive idea yet.
