Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

Amansandhu,

You`ve lying about me and abusing me because I don`t accept your view on Ambedkar and Gandhi- and because I called Arun Shourie what a lot of Indians call him- a Hindu nationalist with an agenda...

This is your tolerance and democracy.

re: garments in ancient India
This is from the pages of the book `Ancient Indian Costume` by Roshan Alkazi.
Url:http://www.4to40.com/discoverindia/index.asp?article=discoverindia_mauryansungaperiod
Excerpt:
(Costume
Men and women continued to wear three unstitched garments, as in Vedic times. The main garment was the antariya of white cotton, linen or flowered muslin, sometimes embroidered in gold and precious stones. For men, it was an unstitched length of cloth draped around the hips and between the legs in the kachcha style, extending from the waist to the calf or ankles or worn even shorter by peasants and commoners. The antariya was secured at the waist by a sash or kayabandh, often tied in a looped knot at the center front of the waist. The kayabandh could be simple sash, vethaka; one with drum-headed knot at the ends, muraja; a very elaborate band of embroidery, flat and ribbon-shaped, pattika; or a many-stringed one, kalabuka. The third item of clothing called uttariya was another length of material, usually fine cotton, very rarely silk, which was utilized as a long scarf to drape the top half of the body.

The uttariya was worn in several ways to suit the comforts of the wearer: very elegantly by those at court, who drape it on both shoulders or one shoulder, or diagonally across the chest and casually knotted at the waist, or it could even be worn loosely across the back and supported by the elbows or wrist, and in many other ways according to the whims of the weather. But for the labourer and the craftsman, it was more a practical garment to be tied around the head as protection from sun, or tightly around the waist leaving the hands free for work, or again as a towel to mop the face when sweating. Its uses were endless for the poor sections of the society and for them it would be made of coarse cotton.

Women tied their antariya in different ways. Originally opaque, it later became more and more transparent. A simple small antariya or strip of cloth, langoti was attached to the kayabandh at the center front, and then passed between the legs and tucked in at the back. A longer version of the antariya was the knee-length one, being first wrapped around and secured at the waist, the longer end then pleated and tucked in at the front, and the shorter end finally drawn between the legs, Kachcha style, and tucked in at the waist at the back. Another version, the lehnga style, was a length of cloth wrapped around the hips tightly to form a tabular type of skirt. This was not drawn between the legs in the kachcha style.

The uttariyas of upper-class women were generally of thin material decorated with elaborated borders and quite often worn as a head covering. Their kayabandhs were very similar to those of the men. In addition, they sometimes wore a patka, a decorative piece of cloth attached to the kayabandh in front by tucking in one end at the waist. The patka was made from plaited wool or cotton, twisted yarn or leather, and at times it was also woven.

Although, footwear is often mentioned in Vedic literature there is no sculptural evidence for this period, except in the case of soldiers who wear the Persian boot. It may be because shoes could not be taken inside a stupa or Buddhist temple, that they were not depicted on the sculptures on stupas.)
(Military Costume
Sewn garments which had been used by the Persian soldiers were sometimes utilized for military dress by the Mauryans. This consisted of a sleeved tunic with cross straps across the chest to carry the quiver, and a leather belt with sword. The lower garment was more often the Indian antariya rather than the Persian trousers. The headgear was usually the turban or headband, whereas the Persians had worn the pointed cap. The mixture of foreign and indigenous garments is interesting as it shows one of the early phases of evolution in the costumes of Indians. This came about in the colder north, where the Persian garments were more suitable, climatically and functionally, in case of soldiers. Although, coats of mail are mentioned in the Arthshastra there is no visual evidence of it in this period.)
(Textiles and Dyes
Weaving of fine and coarse varieties of cloth was well established. Cotton, silk, wool, linen and jute fabrics were readily available. Furs and the better varieties of wool and silk like tussar, called kausheya like Eri or Muga silk of Assam, yellowish in its natural color but when bleached called patrona, were used. Kaseyyaka (High quality cotton or silk) and the bright red woolen blankets of Gandhara were worth a small fortune each. A rain proof woolen cloth was available in Nepal. Resist dyeing and hand printing in a pattern on cloth has been mentioned by Greek visitors to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, as is the Indian glazed cotton cloth which was in common use by 400 BC. Material similar to the khinkhwab (which is the interweaving of silk and gold or silver wires beautiful floral pattern) was in great demand and even exported to Babylon long before the Mauryas.

Cotton, wool and a fabric called karpasa were available in the north in both coarse and fine varieties. There were also fine muslins often embroidered in purple and gold and transparent like later-day material which came to be called shabnam (morning dew). The coarse varieties were used by the populace. Woolen cloth, avika, from the sheep’s wool was either pure white (bleached) or dyed pure red, rose, or black. Blankets or kambala were either made by completing the edges with borders or braids, or woven wool strips were joined together. The process of felting (pressing the fibers together, instead of weaving) was also making known. All varieties of wool were available, coarse for making head-dresses, trappings and blankets for richer class.)
Sridhar

re:#160 by tahmed32
It may be worthwhile for you to reflect over what happened to all that glorious art and architectural splendour that u claim muslims introduced into India.
You may want to read the book ``The wonder that was India`` by A.L. Basham. A very well researched book written in the 1950s. I happen to have that book. Ancient India comes out as a rich place with a rich culture, art, architecture, dance foms. Much of that was lost in the North India due to some muslims whose idea of propagating faith was to destroy everything that they did not like (much like Taliban destroying Bamiyan Buddha).
Much of prejudice that people like you harbor today (having been raised in a highly indoctrinated climate of Pak during early days) would go away if you were to only do some serious reading. Read about ancient India from what Will Durant has to say in his History of Civilizations or what Arnold Toynbee had to say.
I am not saying muslim conquests did not enrich India. Taj Mahal is a constant reminder that it did but it certainly did not bring in anything substantially new like clothes etc that u seem to think happened.
AS far as garments worn by ancient Indians, this is what Basham has to say:
(The garments worn from Vedic times onwards did not fundamentally differ from those of the modern Indian. Like most ancient peoples living in hot climates Indians usually wore lengths of cloth, draped around the body and over the shoulders, and fastened with a belt and pins. The lower garment (paridhãna, vasana) was usually such a cloth, fastened round the waist with a belt or string (mekhalã, raŚanã); and the upper garment (uttarcya) was another such length, draped shawl-wise over the shoulders. The latter garment was often discarded in the home, or in hot weather, especially by the lower orders. A third garment (prãVãra) was also worn, draped like a mantle or cloak, in the cold season.

This was the general garb of both sexes, as it is today, and varied only in the size and pattern of the cloths and in the manner of wearing them. Sometimes the lower garment was of very small proportions, or a mere loincloth (pl. LXXV), but the lower garments of the rich often reached almost to the feet. In early sculpture the lower garment is depicted as elaborately pleated in front, and held with a long girdle, the end of which hung down in front of the garment between the legs (pl. XXVIa). In some sculptures the girdle appears to have been the end of the cloth itself, which might also be thrown over the shoulders in the manner of the present day sãRc. Sometimes the end of the cloth was drawn between the legs and fastened at the back in the manner of the dhotc.

Though all these garments were unstitched the art of sewing was not unknown, and women are often depicted wearing jackets or bodices (colaka, kañcuka) (pl. LXXXI). With the invasions of the śakas and Kuṣāṇas from Central Asia trousers were introduced, and were in vogue among the ruling classes at least until Gupta times, for the Gupta kings are often shown on their coins as wearing trousers ( fig. xxiv, p. 381 ). Kuṣāṇna kings are shown on their coins, and in the remarkable headless statue of Kaniṣka (pls. XXXb, LXXXIIIe), wearing long quilted coats and quilted trousers and boots of typically Central Asian type, which must have been as uncomfortable in a temperature of over one hundred degrees as the thick European clothing worn by the pioneers of the East India Company. The wearing of shirts and trousers seems to have been quite common in medieval Kashmcir and the North-West. In medieval South India goddesses and queens were often depicted as wearing what seem to be light close-fitting trousers. The cloth used for all these garments varied from wool, worn in the Northern winters, to diaphanous silks and muslins, which showed the limbs of the wearer. The paintings of Ajantā and Bāgh show that they were often dyed or otherwise patterned with gay stripes and checks.

In most parts of India footwear was primarily used to protect the feet against the scorching earth of the Indian summer, but in the Himālayas felt boots of Central Asian pattern were worn.

On their heads men usually wore turbans, which were fastened in many elaborate patterns (pl. XXIIIe). In early times, at least on festive occasions, women wore large and complicated headdresses of a type not seen nowadays, but by the Gupta period they are usually depicted either bare-headed, or wearing head-veils or simple tiaralike headdresses.)
As far as architecture is concerned, much of it has been swept away by the tide of time and by muslim conquests which destroyed many fine temples in the North. Marvellous architecture survives in the South and is a testimony to a great past.
Sridhar

dost-mittar #on irreconciliability

Let me explain my #175 with an example.
The other day I read somewhere that in the medieval times, a variety of exaggerated stylized facial expressions were introduced into the Odissi dance style- why? because so many women were carried off by Muslim invaders that boys had to do the female parts and hence had to have exaggerated gestures and expressions to be convincing.

1. Now that is just a factoid, true or false. It doesn`t anger me just by itself simply because I happen to be a Hindu (A). It is just history. Similarly a Muslim (B) hearing it is not likely to feel any sense of triumph about this simply because he happens to be a Muslim. It is just history.

2. But then suppose there comes along an ideologically committed guy (C) holding a flag for Muslim invaders who celebrates the kidnappings who says `Hindus did not have any culture before Muslims arrived`, then I will express disagreement.

He(the guy C) may also say `well dancing is not culture it is prostitution and anyway you guys didn`t have proper clothes even so forget about aethetics and Hinduism is all cr_p anyway`. I might express disagreement to that too. Then dost-mittar might say `look how different and irreconcilable is the historical perspective of Hindus and Muslims`.

3. Similarly an ideologically committed guy (D) holding a flag for the invaded might come along and used the above factoid to start saying things about Islam being all cr_p and about the Muslim B. Then Muslim B might disagree. Then dost-mittar might say `look how different and irreconcilable is the historical perspective of Hindus and Muslims`.

4. How right would dost-mittar be about irreconciliability? Refer 1. A`s and B`s views are not irreconcilable. C`s and D`s are. Most views on this board which were rebutting this article were A and B types, IMO. C `s and D`s are active in politics so they have a head start on A and B, agreed. There is a marxist viewpoint E which is most confusing of all because it denies anything ever happened.

amanasandhu #196 ``maybe Guru Nanak was influenced by Islam``
If even this is a ``maybe`` then clearly you need to read up a bit more on sikhism.

dm #189 Thanks for clarifying where you stand on this. And so before discussing what I consider to be the more substantive issues, let me respond to the questions you raise.

``Where does it say in quran that you must change your name from Ramesh to Rehmatuallah when you become a Muslim, and yet this is what happens?``. Agreed. Clearly there was no religious requirement for this change as you correctly note, but it seems to have been a common practice not restricted to India but across the islamic world - Mohammed Ghori, who basically heralded the start of muslim rule in northern india that was to last for centuries, was born 1162, so clearly he was himself just a few generations removed from some pre-islamic ancestor. Being a turk, clearly that ancestor adopted what was an Arab name (Muhammed).

Look at the christian world, and you will find a similar practice, with the names of middle eastern personalities (David, Mary, and so forth) being adopted by europeans and still used across the western world.

So, what`s the big deal here? Why do I see so many Indians coming to chowk making it appear that there is something wrong for a muslim to have a muslim name (including you now)?? And were the inhabitants of India forever hindus?? As I was saying earlier, there wasnt even a hindu identity.

``Where does it say that you must switch from eating daal-roti to beef when you become a Muslim, and yet this is what happens?`` This makes no sense. I am a muslim and eat vegetarian most of the time for dietary reasons. Again, whats the big deal?? Why are you making an issue out of something as trivial as food and names.

``Where does it say that you should change from one type of clothes and cap to another and yet this is what happened (not any more because everyone has switched to pants!)? ``
Actaully in pakistan people dont wear pants as much as in India. But again, what`s the big deal? Are you going to legislate food, names AND clothes as well before saying that anything a muslim writes about the history of India is biased towards muslims??

``Where does it say that you should switch your script when you convert to Islam and yet this is what happened?``
Last time i checked, the Quran was written in a non-hindi script. What is the big deal with the hindi script?? Thanks to the internet, all these scripts are going by the wayside anyway.


``It means that when you convert to Islam, you run the risk that your grandson would lay the philosophical foundation of dividing your country or lead the fight to actually divide it. ``

When was India united?? If anything, the foundations for a united India were laid by muslims (sher shah, who undercut the traditional system of essentially separate kingdoms by introducing district administration, and Akbar who then consolidated this) themselves!! But then, I have a muslim name, eat hamburgers sometimes, like to dress in a shalwar kameez in Pakistan, carry the hated Pakistani nationality, have read the quran in non-indian scripts - so of course any facts I bring to your attention are not worthy of further thought. :-)

But seriously, how can one have a reasonable discussion if instead of focussing on WHAT is being said you are focussed on WHO is saying them. No wonder chowk discussions never rise beyond such trivialities.

#194 by ranjit on January 8, 2006 2:45pm PT

{...India should pursue the peace process with Pakistan. Even if we have a lukewarm peace with Pakistan, we will get the necessary breathing space (without sabre rattling/jihadi attacks etc) for strong synergies to develop between hindus and muslims in India. }

We should do nothing of the sort. The synergy that you talk about between North Indians and South Indians is too brittle. Today it is there; tomorrow it would not be there. Balkanization of India still remains a possibility and what we should do is to keep Pakistan as an adversarial state forever just to reap more and more benefit out of unity. In many ways Bangladesh becoming ungrateful anti-India country is blessing in disguise because it also feeds synergy which unites east-west synergy and at the same time strengthening north-south synergy.

If Muslims of India want to join in great Indian Juggernaut they are welcome. They were always welcome. As for support from across border for jihad, it is really Pakistan`s problem. The hindu-muslim devide is far too wide. So, regardless of whether there will ever be any perception on the part Indian Muslims that they are part of India, Pakistan should curb support for jihad. They know it. They know that it in their interest to do that. We on the other hand should immerse ourselves in carrying forward the task of making a united India on the basis of Constitution of India.

Ref bbabu #195

[Nope. Point was that very few Muslims name their kids Aurangzeb. I am not sure if there is a sub-conscious reason for it. In fact I would not be surprised if there are no Indian Muslims with the name Aurangzeb.]

I have worked with a guy named Aurangzeb -- of all the places, in Fremont, CA.

[No hindu would name their kids as Ravana, Duroyodhana etc.]

This merely means that you have not wandered into the reality-distortion field known as Tamil Nadu. For a while, the Masanamuthus and Sangilikkaruppans (and Soysauces) of Tamil Nadu were so taken up with the Aryan-Dravidian Divide that they used to pay a person named E. V. Ramsawamy Naicker to select a name for their kids. This person, who was of course named for Lord Rama, used denounce Rama as an Aryan invader of the South and laud Ravana as the True Defender of the Dravidians. He used to name kids Ravana and similar Puranic names, completely forgetting that Ravana was supposedly a brahmin on account of his being the son of a sage (rishi). In fact, my sister had a classmate named Surpanakha!

Today of course it is all Senthamizh Sevan or Anbarasan (Love King).

Man, I would just LOVE to meet a honest-to-goodness Masanamuthu!

Ref dost-mittar #183

[And yes, I do believe that stitching was introduced to India after Muslim conquest:-) ]

You should check out the website that demands the assertion of Sakha rule over Punjab and Northern India. Those guys claim that the invading Sakhas brought the needle to India and the idea of stitched cloth. About 1000 years before the camel jockeys arrived.

Listen up, guys. What our resident Mullah wants you to acknowledge is that Hindus did not know the meaning of the word cloth, that they had no architecture, they had no art, they had no music, they had no culture until the benign and peaceful people of Arabia showed up on our shores, introduced us to the peaceful religion called Islam and we all converted (all except me because I am one of those uppercastemen who is lording it over the Dalits and you guys because you are too stupid to understand the greatness of Islam) to Islam and have been prospering so well because of the blessings of Allah... so much so that Al;lah has given only Indian Muslims a subsidy for the Haj.

If the Hindus had no architecture, there could not have been a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya or a temple to Krishna at Mathura. Thus, the entire issue of Ram Janma Bhoomi becomes a figment of the imagination of the RSS. Simple solution to a complex problem!

Now do you understand why the Muslims say Islam has the answer to all problems?

I fail to understand why we are so stuck up with this king or that emperor whether he is Hindu / Muslim??... Neither of them supported democracy (they might not even know about democracy / human rights /etc..etc.. )

Atleast right now in India we have democracy / people`s rule.. Who cares what the kings did 1000 years ago?. I felt very happy exercising my voting rights for the first time and throwing out a tyrant in my state (Jaya in 96 elections). Though she is back I respect it as again a reinforcement of people`s wish.. And would like to maintain the idea of people electing and having a say in who rules and if possible even become a leader on their own... It feels good..

Let`s learn factual history (the correct version) and learn from the mistakes so as not to repeat them.. History is NOT really black and white, you can find various Hindu rulers co-operating with Muslim sultans and Muslims attacking Muslims, Hindus attacking Hindus etc.. etc.. It is true, a few fanatic Muslims destroyed Hindu temples, we can`t blame them it is the core of the belief in their ``cult``. Afterall Mohammed destroyed the ``idols`` in Mecca.. Taliban destroys Bamian Buddhas. If people with the same mentality capture power in Pakistan, they`d do the same towards others..

There is a high risk that the same thing can happen in India too. Luckily not many know what Hinduism is, (.. :-) ..) It is more of a collection of ancient rituals/traditions etc.. formed by alliances between different cults/gods/forms of worship.. In Tamilnadu, the famous god is ``Lord Muruga`` who was worshipped by many folks.. He was probably co-opted as a son of ``Lord Shiva`` and brother of ``Lord Vinayaka``.. In Kanchipuram you have majestic 1000 year old temples whose worshippers are great rivals (Shaivites and Vaishnavites..). Even now, they don`t have mutual contacts.. it is better to somehow form relations and live peacefully.. A strategy would be to co-opt Allah as an imageless god, who doesn`t like siblings.. and add that god to Hinduism too.. Just my 2 cents.. :-))

HP #25

`` The article is informative and provides some knowledge about Maratha and Shivaji...I had read about him but did not know a whole lot but now I know and many like me on this site would know more about the hindu society and how it operates.

Every society has its good and bad areas and only people with insecurities try and not look at the bad areas of their society and culture.

So what if shivaji was almost a criminal and barbarian. He played a role in Indian history and there is no need to always eulogizes him.

Articles like this should be encouraged so people would know more about India and its history. Contrarian point of view is always good. ``

Genghiz Khan is a savage to most of the world. He is hero in Mongolia. I think Timur is a similar figure in one of the Central Asian Republics.

Tahmed,
Sihkism is a monotheist religion like Islam, maybe Guru Nanak was influenced by Islam, I will ask him if Iever meet him. Hindus believe that god comes in different avatars. Islam`s egalitarianism is self contradictory, all mankind is equal/non-believers are kaffirs.
As for the salwaar kameez it is not an Islamic costume, its from Central Asia and it predates Islam. Neither was stiching of clothes an Islamic invention.

tahmed32 #140

`` bbabu: Lots of germans have the name Heidler (from which Hitler is derived, Heidler being his mother`s maiden name). His father`s name was Shicklgruber, btw. ``

I have not meet a German named Hitler.

`` As for muslim names, do you have a problem with muslim names? Where precisely does it hurt when you hear a muslim name?? ``

Nope. Point was that very few Muslims name their kids Aurangzeb. I am not sure if there is a sub-conscious reason for it. In fact I would not be surprised if there are no Indian Muslims with the name Aurangzeb. No hindu would name their kids as Ravana, Duroyodhana etc.

Re:dost-mittar#189

You wrote,``Islam in India is much more than a change in faith, it means a substantial change in identity.``

You are right from a historical context because hinduism and islam represent different ways of life. Besides the differences in the belief system, there are obvious distinguising features like eating beef, wearing certain types of clothes, urdu script etc. Having said that, there is one aspect that you are overlooking - identities are never static. Identities keep evolving over time depending on socio-economic situations.

To give you an example, consider north indians and south indians. After 1947, there were very sharp differences in identity between north indians and south indians including major differences in food habits, language, culture, clothes, matrimonial alliances, sense of nationalism etc. I would submit that the north-south divide was far wider than any hindu-muslim divide. Yet look how times have changed. Today north indians enjoy idli-dosa in a routine manner, south indians dont make a big deal about hindi, inter-marriages are very routine. In fact, no one really cares anymore if you are north indian or south indian. I have been to parties in the US where everyone else except myself was a tamilian and they had Daler Mehdi playing in the background. Who could envision such a scene 50 years back?

Taking it one step further, I would say that today everywhere in India, our identity is converging towards one composite identity. This composite is a mix of food habits, mix of ethnicities via matrimonial alliances, mix of cultural influences etc. All this is happening naturally without any force because people find it valuable to converge in this direction. The more cosmopolitan you are, better your chances of getting good jobs, opening more options for yourself, having a better career and improving your condition. In other words, synergy is happening out of econimic self-interest. In the past before 1947, synergy was minimal or non-existent because there was no value in pursuing synergy.

There is no rational reason that this phenomenon will not encompass muslims. In fact, it is already doing so. I think we can all sense that the element of ``separateness`` that one felt about muslims, even in the eighties, has diminished significantly. At that time, they were automatically viewed as Pakistan supporters, who are disloyal to India, who hate hindus etc. Now it is rare to hear anyone say that automatically about all muslims. In fact, people want muslims to succeed in India - just see the pride Indians feel about Premji. The amount of intermarriages is low but is no longer so taboo that you will have communal riots if it occurs.

In fact, I would say, that one major reason the hindu-muslim divide in India has not bridged even further is because of Indo-Pak hostilities. That hostility has slowed down the natural process of synergy between the two communities in India for obvious psychological reasons. Thats why I think India should pursue the peace process with Pakistan. Even if we have a lukewarm peace with Pakistan, we will get the necessary breathing space (without sabre rattling/jihadi attacks etc) for strong synergies to develop between hindus and muslims in India. That in itself is certainly worth it. Of course, if the equation truly changes with Pakistan, then it could really change our landscape in the subcontinent.

dost-mittar #191
Many posters don`t fit your description, pl. take a closer look.