09-14-2005, 07:25 AM
Pioneer
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>History may be freedom </b>
Asheesh Shah
In 326 BC, Alexander, the young Macedonian king, challenged Porus and the Ambhi kingdoms across the Beas in Northwest India. Several weak Indian kings supported Alexander in his battle against valiant Porus, thus ensuring the latter's defeat.
However, with the death of Alexander in the spring of 323 BC in Babylon, Chandragupta Maurya, the king of Pataliputra, not only won back the kingdoms which were taken away by Alexander by defeating one of his generals, Seleucus Nicator, but also married the latter's daughter as a strategic decision to consolidate his position in the region. Chandragupta thus became an exemplar of Indian imperialism.
This period was followed by the reign of smaller but powerful kingdoms, engaged in fratricidal wars. It was only with the accession of Chandragupta to the throne in 320 AD, which brought India's noble magnificence to the forefront. The Guptas restored the cultural heritage and values of Hindus that allowed geniuses like Kalidas, Varahamihir, and Aryabhatt, among others, to prosper and accomplish their works.
The post-Gupta period, once again, divided the country in smaller regimes ridden with internal strife. With the invasion of Mohammed Ghazni (1007 AD), the vulnerability of the country to external forces was exposed. The suffering of Hindus at the hands of Ghazni and the subsequent destruction of temples resulted in the gradual deterioration of Indian culture, which was also noted by Al Beruni in his famous book, Tahqiq Ma-lil-Hind.
Ghazni was followed by many other invaders from the Afghan, Turkish and Mongol regions. The depravity of these regimes which indulged in largescale plunder and suppression of Hindus, forced many to convert to Islam. Then came Babar who defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the famous battle of Panipat (April 1526), and established the Mughal Empire in India. With the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughals lost their hold on the country. The biased approach of foreign rulers in favour of their religious beliefs and antipathy towards Hinduism caused many historians to refer to the period between 1000-1700 as the "dark ages" of the country.
The path to British colonial rule was cleared with the formation of the East India Company on December 31, 1600. Later, large parts of the country merged with the British Crown. The British were instrumental in bringing many new ideas to the country, giving it the services, roads, postal services, and railways.
However, by muzzling popular sentiments, they too forced slavish tendencies on Indians. As a result, pseudo-secularist intellectuals - in the best of institutions, academia, government, media, and politics - appeared, who had no faith in the country's roots, whether cultural, ethical or moral. Their only recourse was and continues to be Western ideas and symbols. Marxism is a good example of their servile mindset. The revolt against the British by Mangal Pandey partially represented the seething anger among Hindus.
The struggle for India's independence bought to fore leaders who were not part of this intellectual bankruptcy. However, the infighting among Indians once again proved to be their nemesis - ultimately leading to the division of the country and formation of Pakistan.
In the post-independence era, during 50 years of Congress's rule, many a spineless personalities became our national leaders. Servile attitude, sycophancy and crass opportunism laced with corruption took over merit. In the post-Indira Gandhi period, regional satraps flourished at the cost of national interest, thus paving the way for caste, creed, money and muscle based politics.
However, for once when it appeared that this downtrend will come to a halt with the installation of the BJP-led NDA regime at the Centre, the opportunity was wasted by some unfortunate events and lack of foresight. With the open war between the Sangh parivar and the BJP becoming a matter of public trivia, the state of affairs has reached its nadir - much to the dismay of the members and followers of the Sangh parivar. It will be an exercise in futility to pass the buck; the blame has to be shared by all, and in equal measure.
In the present scenario, there are few leaders who can bring the BJP back to its fighting spirit. Many still believe Mr LK Advani is the best bet of the Sangh, the BJP, the NDA, and the country to take this challenge, not only because of his experience, age, calibre and stature, but also because of his ability to unite people across party lines and create a formidable Hindu front.
The party needs the right blend of hardline and moderate politicians, all of whom must dissolve their differences in order to uphold the values of India's cultural unity. As the saying goes, now is the time for all good men to come to aid of the party.
In the interest of the Hindu cause that otherwise is threatened by numerous inimical forces, the saffron think tank needs to take a sabbatical - it must re-focus, revamp and reinforce its rank-and-file. The outcome of such an effort should be nothing short of a mass revolution. Till then status quo may be maintained, allowing the BJP leaders to take the challenges of the UPA Government through their own political skills and experimentations. Let there be natural progression and evolution leading to a natural change of era, rather than forced and hasty alterations that may cause irreparable damage.
It is to be hoped that future historians do not once again note the infighting among Hindus as the turning point, that failed to strengthen the country in the 21st century. History need not repeat itself - neither as a tragedy nor as a farce.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>History may be freedom </b>
Asheesh Shah
In 326 BC, Alexander, the young Macedonian king, challenged Porus and the Ambhi kingdoms across the Beas in Northwest India. Several weak Indian kings supported Alexander in his battle against valiant Porus, thus ensuring the latter's defeat.
However, with the death of Alexander in the spring of 323 BC in Babylon, Chandragupta Maurya, the king of Pataliputra, not only won back the kingdoms which were taken away by Alexander by defeating one of his generals, Seleucus Nicator, but also married the latter's daughter as a strategic decision to consolidate his position in the region. Chandragupta thus became an exemplar of Indian imperialism.
This period was followed by the reign of smaller but powerful kingdoms, engaged in fratricidal wars. It was only with the accession of Chandragupta to the throne in 320 AD, which brought India's noble magnificence to the forefront. The Guptas restored the cultural heritage and values of Hindus that allowed geniuses like Kalidas, Varahamihir, and Aryabhatt, among others, to prosper and accomplish their works.
The post-Gupta period, once again, divided the country in smaller regimes ridden with internal strife. With the invasion of Mohammed Ghazni (1007 AD), the vulnerability of the country to external forces was exposed. The suffering of Hindus at the hands of Ghazni and the subsequent destruction of temples resulted in the gradual deterioration of Indian culture, which was also noted by Al Beruni in his famous book, Tahqiq Ma-lil-Hind.
Ghazni was followed by many other invaders from the Afghan, Turkish and Mongol regions. The depravity of these regimes which indulged in largescale plunder and suppression of Hindus, forced many to convert to Islam. Then came Babar who defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the famous battle of Panipat (April 1526), and established the Mughal Empire in India. With the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughals lost their hold on the country. The biased approach of foreign rulers in favour of their religious beliefs and antipathy towards Hinduism caused many historians to refer to the period between 1000-1700 as the "dark ages" of the country.
The path to British colonial rule was cleared with the formation of the East India Company on December 31, 1600. Later, large parts of the country merged with the British Crown. The British were instrumental in bringing many new ideas to the country, giving it the services, roads, postal services, and railways.
However, by muzzling popular sentiments, they too forced slavish tendencies on Indians. As a result, pseudo-secularist intellectuals - in the best of institutions, academia, government, media, and politics - appeared, who had no faith in the country's roots, whether cultural, ethical or moral. Their only recourse was and continues to be Western ideas and symbols. Marxism is a good example of their servile mindset. The revolt against the British by Mangal Pandey partially represented the seething anger among Hindus.
The struggle for India's independence bought to fore leaders who were not part of this intellectual bankruptcy. However, the infighting among Indians once again proved to be their nemesis - ultimately leading to the division of the country and formation of Pakistan.
In the post-independence era, during 50 years of Congress's rule, many a spineless personalities became our national leaders. Servile attitude, sycophancy and crass opportunism laced with corruption took over merit. In the post-Indira Gandhi period, regional satraps flourished at the cost of national interest, thus paving the way for caste, creed, money and muscle based politics.
However, for once when it appeared that this downtrend will come to a halt with the installation of the BJP-led NDA regime at the Centre, the opportunity was wasted by some unfortunate events and lack of foresight. With the open war between the Sangh parivar and the BJP becoming a matter of public trivia, the state of affairs has reached its nadir - much to the dismay of the members and followers of the Sangh parivar. It will be an exercise in futility to pass the buck; the blame has to be shared by all, and in equal measure.
In the present scenario, there are few leaders who can bring the BJP back to its fighting spirit. Many still believe Mr LK Advani is the best bet of the Sangh, the BJP, the NDA, and the country to take this challenge, not only because of his experience, age, calibre and stature, but also because of his ability to unite people across party lines and create a formidable Hindu front.
The party needs the right blend of hardline and moderate politicians, all of whom must dissolve their differences in order to uphold the values of India's cultural unity. As the saying goes, now is the time for all good men to come to aid of the party.
In the interest of the Hindu cause that otherwise is threatened by numerous inimical forces, the saffron think tank needs to take a sabbatical - it must re-focus, revamp and reinforce its rank-and-file. The outcome of such an effort should be nothing short of a mass revolution. Till then status quo may be maintained, allowing the BJP leaders to take the challenges of the UPA Government through their own political skills and experimentations. Let there be natural progression and evolution leading to a natural change of era, rather than forced and hasty alterations that may cause irreparable damage.
It is to be hoped that future historians do not once again note the infighting among Hindus as the turning point, that failed to strengthen the country in the 21st century. History need not repeat itself - neither as a tragedy nor as a farce.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->