Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

dost-mittar #187
``As far the substance, never mind Pakistani media, I would suggest that you sometimes visit Milligazette which is generally a faithful reflector of the general Indian Muslim viewpoint. As I indicated, there are exceptions, most of the Nehruvian historians were Hindus and there are some Muslims, even Pakistanis, who do not subscribe to India being in the dark ages before the advent of Islam; still the two communities have by and large an adversarial perspective on history.``

It is because the past has continuously been used as leverage in the present by both Hindus and Muslims. Starting from pre-independence and a demand for special political dispensations for former conquerors(I have seen this even in British comments about Muslim demands in the 1920s), to the present where a whole Ram temple movement and allied Hindutva/Islamist rhetoric has to be sent to bed before we can expect to see common ground.

I agree we should be realistic about the past and present but I will not be pessimistic about the future :).

sadna#190:

That was really stretching the points I was making, but still nothing dishonest, just honestly different viewpoints!

I was referring to the viewpoints as generally reflected on this board and not any specific person. If I were referring to you in particular, I would have referred to your posts. BTW it was not me who said that you called Aurangzeb a foreigner.

dost-mittar #187
``You still haven`t told me what was my ``extremely dishonest`` reference to you, even if you disagree with my view, as is your right. ``

OK.
1. Your general statements about Hindus` responses in this discussion:
#170
`` The Hindu perspective is one of the defeated, with those who fought outsiders and their decendants being their heroes. ``

``Hindus, on the other hand, sing praises of the achievements of the people who lived in the landmass we call India, before the Muslims invaded``


I think this is a dishonest characterisation of a number of responses here which objectively rebutted the author`s and other posters` contentions. Please be specific- in what way are my own responses in this discussion linked to `my sense of being defeated and considering Shivaji a hero for `fighting outsiders` and `to sing praises of the achievements of the people who lived ..` as you allege?


2. Your specific statement about my response in this discussion:
#173
``My perspective tends to be that of Hindus and Sikhs as well, which is perhaps why I really liked your post#9. There is no harm in admitting that we all have identities and we look at current and historical events from those perspective.``

You are implying here that #9 is a subjective `Hindu` view which has no objective merit in rebutting the authors contention of Shivaji being irreligious and dishonest. Please explain why #9 does not have any instrinsic merit unconnected to my(and your) religious identity.

tahmed32:

``Also, as I noted the above statement is uncharacteristic of you``

No, these statements are quite consistent with what I have repeatedly said previously on chowk. Islam, at least in India, has been more than a mere belief in ``La Illaha Ilallah, Mohammad Rasul Allah!``. 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? 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? 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!)? Where does it say that you should switch your script when you convert to Islam and yet this is what happened? I can go on and on. Islam in India is much more than a change in faith, it means a substantial change in identity. 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. And it was a Muslim, not a Hindu, who said that the foundation of Pakistan was laid when the first Hindu converted to Islam.

so manto u have started ur raving and ranting here also, u read only what suits your agenda, i never once said that ambedkar died in 1970. shourie has a counter view. he is not a historian but he is not stupid either. find out what his sources are. and u know what nobody really cares and i have countered all that u have written below before so u can look up my post again and i am not going to interact on this issue with u again.

sadna#184:

You still haven`t told me what was my ``extremely dishonest`` reference to you, even if you disagree with my view, as is your right.

As far the substance, never mind Pakistani media, I would suggest that you sometimes visit Milligazette which is generally a faithful reflector of the general Indian Muslim viewpoint. As I indicated, there are exceptions, most of the Nehruvian historians were Hindus and there are some Muslims, even Pakistanis, who do not subscribe to India being in the dark ages before the advent of Islam; still the two communities have by and large an adversarial perspective on history.

DM #183

This is what I was referring to in your earlier post: `` The Muslim perspective is one of the conquerors, even of those whose ancestors were the defeated ones. They take pride in the achievement of the victors and all the good things they brought and show explicit or concealed contempt for the achievement of the earlier natives. ...Those who converted to Islam did not merely change their faith, they also adopted the conquerors` names and their historical perspectives. This is not going to change, whether or not one calls it a two nation theory. `` I summarized this to read ````muslim converts forgetting their ancestral roots``, and that summary accurately reflects what you were writing.

Also, as I noted the above statement is uncharacteristic of you (although it repeats something I have often read from other Indians on chowk), and I know you have an open mind when it comes to discussing any topic.

Anyway, coming back to some of the broader questions you raise, will write a separate post later.

dost-mittar #184
Well, I reject your general statement. I believe modern Hindus and Muslims can agree on history if they share common values and if history is seen as facts not projections of ideology. Simply because in general institutions of India have failed to project history as facts does not mean Hindus and Muslims can not agree. Yes, India and Pakistan will never agree on history as Indian and Pakistani national ideologies are wholly incompatible, but I don`t consider Pakistanis and Muslims to be synonymous.

sadna:

``I am sorry but it is extremely dishonest of you or your friends to keep assigning viewpoints to me that I don`t hold.``

When did I ascribe a viewpoint to you that you don`t hold? I was merely making a general statement that there is a Hindu perspective and a Muslim perspective on history and the twain has not met at least until now.

HP, tahmed32:

I was not singling out Muslims but merely stating the fact that historical perspectives of these two groups are opposite and, perhaps, irreconcilable, and therefore should be discussed only in academic foraa. Personally, I am a great admirer of Muslim contributions to India and wrote an article on the topic on chowk which you can revisit at: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002379&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

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

tahmed32, I went through my post but did not find your quotation ``muslim converts forgetting their ancestral roots``, even though I do believe that many Muslims do tend to reject their pre-islamic identity. And while I agree that history should be factual, the facts themselves are not always narrated by disinterested observers and are narrated by people to serve an agenda.

Sadna #180, {``We shouldn`t do this projection. We should just see them as exactly as they were. Akbar did phalana A and phalana B and Aurangzeb did phalana C and phalana D, Shivaji did phalana E and phalana F. The historical contexts were phalana G, H and I respectively. Full stop. Simple as that.``}

Sadna, WOW!
I can see that you have been spending a lot of time with Manto lately. It is showing. Two successive posts with amazingly refreshing logic from you. Will you please autograph the next post? - just say ``To Salim.`` :)

#177 Sadna, {``From a striclty Hindu perspective, even Akbar does not come out as the shining example of a secular person. Sure, he accepted a Hindu wife but, in doing so, he neither broke any Islamic law nor did he do any disservice to Islam in India. He did not marry any of his female relatives with a Hindu man nor did he raise any of Jodha Bai`s children as a Hindu; he was just like thousands of other Muslim men who do their pious Islamic duty of expanding dar-ul-islam by one of the four permissible methods, namely, marriage. ``}

Sadna,
Au contraire, ma soeur! I remember reading somewhere that Akbar had Tan Sen, the famous singer, marry a Muslim girl of Brahmin origin and their descendants were Hindus. Perhaps the more informed historians (Jang Sahib and Ranjit Bhai) can shed some light on this exception. If you look at the facts, you need to consider the huge number of Hindu men who converted to Islam just to be legally married to Muslim women.

Even today, two of my female Muslim cousins in Jaipur are married to Hindu men, who are still Hindus. Of course, intermarriage among Bollywood stars has been common for quite some time.

dost-mittar #177
You are quite right. The mistake is in trying to project the modern `secular` ideals of today on to people in medieval times who had no idea that they would be subjected to such scrutiny by us 100s of years later. (It doesn`t make sense to project modern `Hindutva` or `Islamist` ideals of today on to them either. Shivaji was not a Hindutvist bigot of the modern mould nor I am sure was Aurangzeb so ignorant about and estranged from the indigenous Hindu culture as todays` Islamists).

We shouldn`t do this projection. We should just see them as exactly as they were. Akbar did phalana A and phalana B and Aurangzeb did phalana C and phalana D, Shivaji did phalana E and phalana F. The historical contexts were phalana G, H and I respectively. Full stop. Simple as that.

#175, {`` happen to think of Aurangzeb as an Indian and as a tragic figure who was less bigotted than his latter-day admirers make him out to be in their rush to make him a role model for their own world view, much like the Shiv Sena and Shivaji..``}

Sadna,
Thank you for saying that. You could have stated that a long time ago and we wouldn`t be having this agonizing rehash old debates. Your admission of Aurangzeb`s Indian indentity is a commendable reversal of your past positions. Thank you - now I know that it is going to snow at least a few inches in Karachi and Jaipur. :)

Tahmed sahib, My only question was reagarding did Indians wear any clothes before Islamic invasion or not? clearly they did. Clearly they made clothes somehow....may be it was not weaving and spining but they just said clothes be and there were clothes. All Indians here almost unaniouslyagree that stitching may be brought from Middle east. so that is not even an issue for me. Again you can call ``by Muslims`` if you believe that Stitching was introduced by Allah in one of his revelations and Arabs all of sudden invented threads and needles over night to implement his will. Clearly stitching went through a long evolution, even if it exclusively happened in Middle east.

On the account of civilizations learning from each other...I totally agree.. Indians have borrowed million things from Middle east, central asia, china and europe...so have they from India. This exchange and learning did not start all of sudden with adevent of Islam...it was already happening....my beef is with the belief that some people have that somehow the whole world was jahil before certain date in 7th century. I will call that utter arrogace.

I agree with you that muslim rulers were able able adminstrators..atleast some of them...though that does not count as just and legitimate. think about it they could not have ruled large pieces of land and people without being able administrators.

sadna:

From a striclty Hindu perspective, even Akbar does not come out as the shining example of a secular person. Sure, he accepted a Hindu wife but, in doing so, he neither broke any Islamic law nor did he do any disservice to Islam in India. He did not marry any of his female relatives with a Hindu man nor did he raise any of Jodha Bai`s children as a Hindu; he was just like thousands of other Muslim men who do their pious Islamic duty of expanding dar-ul-islam by one of the four permissible methods, namely, marriage.

But from a secular Indian perspective, he was a great and just ruler who did not follow sharia code strictly and treated his subjects fairly without discriminating between them on the basis of religion.