Indian History - 2

10-28-2005, 10:28 AM

I found this interesting article in Gujarat Samachar.. Will xlate it in full if people are interested.

http://gujaratsamachar.com/gsa/20051028/gu...arat/news6.html

Basically it talks about the different calendars that were in use besides the Vikram Samvat which is what is predominantly in use these days.. In the table towards the end they give a summary of the various samvats during various periods in history.

QUOTEPeriod 3101 BC - 1

3101 - Kaliyug
2449 - Yudhishthir Samvat
544 - Buddha Nirvana Samvat
527 - Vir Nirvana Samvat
200 - Aguptayik Samvat
57 - Vikram Samvat

Period 1 - 500 AD

78 - Shak Samvat
249 - Kalchuri Samvat
318-319 - Gupta-Vallabhi Samvat
492 - Mallasan
496 - Gangeyasan

Period 501-700 AD

548 - Magisan
572 - Mavludisun
579 - Anshu Varma samvat
590 - Tripura Samvat
592 - Fasla, Vilayati, Amali San
593 - Bengali san
599 - Shahoor san
606 - Harsha san
622 - Hijri san <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' />
624 - Bhatik san
630 - Jarshosti san

701-1700 AD

824 - Kollum
831 - Bhaum kar
879 - Newari
1075 - Chalukya Vikram
1173 - Sinh Samvat
1179 - Laxmansen Samvat
1191 - VirBallal san
1199 - Balali san
1202 - Parganati san
1341 - PuduVaippu san
1510 - Kuchbihar san
1556 - Elahi san <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' />
1674 - Rajyabhishek Samvat

11-08-2005, 06:58 PM

QUOTELachit Barphukan
Â Â

In the mid 1600s the Mughal Empire was in the noontide of its glory - one of the greatest and largest empires in the world. By force and conciliation it had overrun a large part of India before their fanatical policies of religious persecution led to a series of uprisings and revolutions that brought the entire empire crashing into the dustbin of history.

The event which is regarded as the keynote defeat of Mughal armies and the beginning of the fall of the Mughal Empire was the victory of the greatest Assamese Hindu warrior, Lachit Barphukan, who defeated the Mughals in the historic battle of Saraighat in April 1672.

.....


More at http://www.shaktimarg.com/warriors/warri...harma.html

12-22-2005, 05:31 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Calendar

Look at external links too..

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/lcl.pdf

A singaporean student has written a pretty good paper on Indian calendars.

**acharya** · 12-25-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote"
The Kalakcharya- kathnaka states that their kings were known as
`Sahi'. Some of these `Sahis' were said to have been induced by a Jain
teacher to proceed to Suratta( Surastra) Vishaya ( Country) and Ujjain
in the HINDUKADESHA ( India) where they overthrew some local chiefs,
and ruled for four years until they were themselves ousted in 58 BC."

Source: Political History of India" Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, 1996
Oxford University press, New Delhi. ISBN 0 19 5643763

01-26-2006, 08:40 AM

Gurudas Saini â Samvat 1347 (1290 CE)

The Jat SarvKhap records tell us the story of the valorous warrior Gurudas Saini

In 1290 AD to 1296 AD (CE) the king Hamirdev Chauhan was in power at Ranthambor, where he had a large fort. There were many forts around Ranthambor. which protected Ranthambor.

[Ranthambor is in Rajasthan and is the location of the famous wildlife sanctuary of its name)

The task of protecting the fortress of Jahin was that a general, whose name was Gurudas. He was of the Saini Vansh. He was a warrior, an expert in the arts of war.

His horse was so well trained that he would be controlled by the thighs of his master. This hero would tie the stirrup of his horse to his saddle horn and guide his horse by his thighs. His spear, his sword, and his Khand/Khanda were his famous weapons, which he would keep with him when he rode into battle. In the battle he would blow the Toorri and the Runsingha (battle horn).

His wife was a Yadhav Ahir lady, Raj Kaur. She was also a brave warrior.
In those days the warrior and his wife would choose each other in the Svayamvar Ceremony for marriage, there was no restriction of caste. That came later is Muslim times.

Raj Kaur would also ride a horse, and support her husband in battle the lady would do her prayers and blowing her conch shell climb onto her horse. These two were successful in over seven battles. Both husband and wide would wear armour.

Many famous warriors acknowledge the steel of Gurudas and came to him to learn the art of battle. Guru Dash was about 45 years old, his wife was about 37 years old, and they had one son m, Rajbal, who at time was 14 years and seven months old.

That year Jajaludin Khilji attacked Jahin with an army of 42,000 troops, to remove this thorn from his path. He camped with his army eight miles from Jahin.

Gurudas has only 7,000 men at his command.

Gurudas and his wife took 3,500 chosen warriors and at three oâclock at night attacked the Khilji camp, and cut a large part of it to pieces. The rest ran off.

Jalaludin did not know that the General of his enemy was such a great warrior. He then sent reinforcements of another 22,000 troops.

When this new army advanced towards the fort, Gurudas Saini stopped them in a narrow canyon. The battle carried on for six days and four nights. The Khilji army lost its courage and retreated to a new position. The new battle carried on for 42 days.

To use a local expression, Guru â ne dushman ko nakonh Chane chabaye- the enemy was force to eat gram( chana) with his noseâ

Hamirdev sent another 7,000 troops to reinforce Gurudas.

The valorous Gurudas, made a flanking move of 21 miles to the enemyâs rear, and attacked the 22,000 strong Khilji army. This caused a panic in the Khilji troops.

Gurudas left 2,500 troops with his wife and son, in front of the enemy, and with the rest using guerilla tactics drove the enemy away.

One writer of that time, Hariprakash, writes that the great warrior Saini fought the Khiljis for 90 days and drove them off. Many leaders/generals of the Khiljis perished in these battles.

THE TRAITORS.

Yet our country had not shortage of traitors. The cooks and Pujaris of the kitchen conspired with the Khilji leaders and laced the food of the three Saini families with a drug. which left them sluggish and unable to function.

The Khiljis advanced with a force of 28,000.

Even so the hero Saini came out of the fought and took to battle. As the day warmed they fell unconscious. He could not help guide his army and was martyred. Hamir Dev sent another 12,000 fresh troops, and the Khiljis broke and ran away.

In Samvat 1359(12 91 CE) his son Rajbal also was martyred on the battlefield.

The praise of these warriors was written by a contemporary of the times â Minhas

This Saini family was from the Haryana province (old Haryana- that could be anywhere from the Sutlej to Western U.P), and held a high position in the court of raja Hamir Dev.

An account of Gurudas is found in another âhistory of Rajasthan âon page 177, but that is a small account.

One Muslim Pathan was a friend of Gurudas, and fought alongside Gurudas. On his death he resided with his son Rajbal, and looked after him. He also was martyred fighting alongside Rajbal. This good example of the Heroism, nationalism, and patriotism of the Pathans. The Pathans are men of their word.

When the traitors came to be known to Hamirdev, they ran away, joined the Khiji and converted to Muslim. However Rajbal, before he was killed had them captured. Their faces were blackened, they were made to ride donkeys in their villages, and finally they were killed and their bodies were fed to carrion.

.

Bharatvarsh · 01-26-2006, 09:05 AM

QUOTEThe praise of these warriors was written by a contemporary of the times â Minhas

This Saini family was from the Haryana province (old Haryana- that could be anywhere from the Sutlej to Western U.P), and held a high position in the court of raja Hamir Dev.

An account of Gurudas is found in another âhistory of Rajasthan âon page 177, but that is a small account. 
Raviji, interesting information, I know that Sarv Khap records have been ignored and have not been translated into English but who possesses them right now and are the manuscripts rotting away or is something being done to preserve them and what are the languages in which most of these manuscripts are written in and what period do they cover?

Also who is the author of "History of Rajasthan" and any more references (in English) where I can find more info about Gurudas Saini.

01-26-2006, 10:37 AM

QUOTEYet our country had not shortage of traitors. The cooks and Pujaris of the kitchen conspired with the Khilji leaders and laced the food of the three Saini families with a drug. which left them sluggish and unable to function.


Hint: "cooks and Pujaris" = Brahmanas.

Overall this is a good post.

But whenever I read stories of valiant Indian heroes fighting Islam, their defeat in battle is explained as being caused by traitors.

Why not be fair and give credit to the Moslem army. The credit for victory belongs to them.

Why attempt to whitewash history?

01-26-2006, 11:01 AM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Jan 26 2006, 10:37 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
But whenever I read stories of valiant Indian heroes fighting Islam, their defeat in battle is explained as being caused by traitors.

</div>

true... even the impregnable devagiri (daulatabad) fort was ultimately captured thanks to a rat/traitor.

crook-ery and lack of spine has been the bane of india....our corrupt politicians are just keeping the ancient flag flying high.

the land called india deserves better people.

ramana · 01-26-2006, 12:17 PM

Dont know how accurate it is but it talks of Arab invasion of Sindh.
Truth about Dahir Sen

**acharya** · 01-27-2006, 12:38 AM

Truth about Dahir Sen

THE PROPHET of Islam had known Sindh and Hind. One of his wives was named Hind, and he used to say of her: ``May Allah bless this Hind and the country after which she is named!'' When he learned that Yemen had been occupied by foreigners, his immediate question was whether it had been occupied by the Sindhis or the Abyssinians.

Many Indian Jats used to reside in Arabia. One of them had cured Ayesha, Mohammed's youngest wife, of an ailment induced through witchcraft practised by her maid-servant.

The Jats used to part their hair in the middle --- and Mohammed liked it so well that he adopted that hair style. The Sindhi Jats' thick-soled shoes became famous in Arabia as `jutti'. Many of us still know it as Joota. In Sindhi it is still called jutti.

Arab traders had long reported that in Hindustan ``the rivers are pearls, the mountains are rubies, and the trees are perfume.''

Indeed the Arabs and the Sindhis --- and other west coast Indians --- knew each other very well. According to Arab belief, Adam and Eve lived in India and India was heaven, Janatnishan. They marvelled at the peacocks and the elephants, the camphor and the sandalwood of India The religion of the Arabs before Islam was very much like Hinduism, pantheistic. When the Arabs captured Sicily in 53 H, they got hold of the local gold idols, which they then sold to the king of Sindh.

When Islam exploded in the face of the world, and spread out in all directions, it was inevitable that it should hit India too. The tragedy is that India at this time was not in good shape. Northern India was in disarray after Harsha. And Sindh was ruled by a controversial dynasty.

Rai Sahasi, the king of Sindh, was the brother of the king of Chittor- He was childless. His wife Suhandi fell in love with the Brahmin minister, Chach. When Sahasi died, Suhandi had all the claimants to the throne liquidated. She then married Chach. The people were shocked.

But Chach proved a successful ruler. He annexed Multan and fixed the frontier of Sindh with Kashmir by planting the deodar of Sindh and the poplar of Kashmir and then letting their branches intertwine. He had similarly planted palm trees to mark the frontier with Iran. That was certainly more beautiful than the cement pillars of modem boundaries.

Chach and Suhandi had two sons, Dahir and Daharsiah. Chach also had a daughter, Bai, by another wife. Dahir ruled upper Sindh at Alor and Daharsiah ruled lower Sind at Brahmanabad, near modern Nawabshah. When Bai came of age, the court astrologer predicted that she would never go out of the Alor fort and that her husband would become the ruler of Sindh and Hind. Thereupon the minister, Budhiman (the wise one) --- but who in this case proved quite buddhiheen (unwise) --- begged of Dahir to marry his half-sister and save himself and the kingdom. Dahir was as scandalised by the suggestion as anybody else. But on second thoughts he agreed to marry Bai symbolically. He did this by presenting her a ring, placing his sword in her lap and covering her head with his scarf. Because of Dahir ``marrying'' his half-sister, though only symbolically, the word Dahiri came to mean in Sindhi, ``a silly fool''.

But be it said in defence of Dahir that marriages between half- brothers and half-sisters and between cousins were not unknown in ancient royal history. The Pharoahs of Egypt and the old Shahinshahs of Iran invariably married their half-sisters or cousin-sisters --- on the ground that anything less than a royal princess would not be good enough for a real prince; and marriage into other royal families could lead to rivalries between brothers- in-law. And Bai was only a half-sister of Dahir.

However, Dahir's marriage with Bai scandalized the people and divided them. This was the situation in Sindh during the mortal Arab challenge. The remarkable thing is that Sindh resisted as well as it did.

When an Arab chief asked a Sindhi trader about Sindh, the latter told him: ``There is too little water. The fruit is useless. The thieves steal with impunity. A small army will get annihilated. A large army will starve to death.'' The Arab saw in this reply a Sindhi patriotic effort to discourage Arab invasion. However, the Arabs who had already tasted blood --- and spread from Iran to Morocco --- were not easily dissuaded. On the basis of modern researches, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad in his Humanity at Death's Door and Maulana Nadvi in his Indo-Arab Relations, write that between 638 and 711 A.D., the Arabs launched as many as fifteen attacks against Sindh by land and by sea. And it was only the last by Mohammed Bin Qasim in 711 that succeeded.

Chachnama, the most authentic and almost contemporary account of Arab invasions of Sindh reports that as early as 638 A.D. Khalifa Umar sent Mughairah to launch a naval attack against Sindh, but it was repulsed on the Indian side. The Chachnama Iists six more major attempts by land and/or by sea during the next 80 years, led by Hakam, Abdullah, Rashid, Munzir, Sinan, and Bazil, but they were all repulsed and the invading commanders killed.

Khalifa Usman was so upset by the Arab defeats in Sindh during his term that he forbade any more attempts on Sindh, on the ground that ``its water is dirty, its soil stony, and its fruit poisonous.''

It is interesting how a land of ``musk and pearls'' can suddenly become ``dirty and stony'', when there is no way to sack it. The Sindh grapes became sour! It reminds one of the contrasting Muslim view of the Hindus before and after partition. Before partition, the Hindus were ``dhoti-wearing cowards, drinking daal and munching papad''. But, after partition, when the Hindus showed that they could hit back real hard, they became ``terrible fiends''!

However, the itch for war and the bug for booty had bitten the Arab soul. And so Khalifa Ali also sent an expedition. But they returned disheartened when Ali died. The next Khalifa, Muawiyah, had sent a big land army with provisions enough not to need to light any fire in the camp. But the Sindh army gave them hell and their commander Abdullah had raised the piteous cry before he fell dead: ``Oh children of the Prophet's companions, do not turn your faces from the infidels so that your faith may remain free from any flaw and you may acquire the honour of freedom''. However, the Arabs had decided to run away and live, if only in Makran --- rather than fight on and die, just to go to heaven.

The next major invasion was led by ``Sinan, son of Salmah'', who had been blessed on his birth by Mohammed himself. Sinan now even saw in a dream, Mohammed bless his adventure. But neither the blessings on birth nor the benediction from the other world, availed him when the Sindhis killed him at Budhiya.

Governor Ziyad then appointed Munzir, son of Harud, son of Bazhar, in A.D. 680 to go and get Sindh. However, as he got up in the court, his robe was caught in a piece of wood and torn, Abdullah, the governor of Iraq, took this as a bad omen and wailed: Munzir will never return from this journey and will die.'' And that was exactly what happened.

At this stage, Hajjaj, a notorious pervert and tyrant, was appointed governor of Iraq. And it was directly his charge to conquer Sindh. An Arab leader Alafi with 500 men had fled from his terror to Sindh and Dahir had given him asylum. Hajjaj also claimed that the Sindhi pirates had looted some Arab ships coming from Lanka. He made these two incidents a new excuse to go to war against Sindh. Khalifa Walid gave reluctant permission. Hajjaj sent Bazil with a large army, but he was worsted by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir, and killed. Hajjaj now threatened ``not to leave a single kafir alive up to the frontiers of China''. And on the basis of his astrologers' predictions, he appointed Mohammed Bin Qasim, his nephew and son-in-law, as the new invader of Sindh. So, astrologers were heeded not only by Dahirs but also by Hajjajs!

However, Khalifa Walid was in no mood for another bloody attempt on Sindh. He wrote to Hajjaj: ``The people (of that country) are cunning and the country itself is very distant. It will cost us very large sums of money to provide a sufficient number of men and arms and instruments of war. This affair will be a source of great anxiety, and so we must put it off; for every time the army goes (on such an expedition) vast numbers of Muslims are killed. So think no more of such a design.'' But Hajjaj invoked the ``honour of Islam''and vowed to ``spend the wealth of the whole of Iraq'' to ``avenge the death of Bazil''.

On an ``auspicious day'' in A.D. 711 --- fixed by astrologers --- Mohammed Bin Qasim started for Sindh at the head of the Iraqi, Syrian, and other Arab soldiers of fortune. His horses and camels were given coats of mail to look like lions and elephants, respectively!

When the Arab army besieged Debal (meaning ``Deval'' or ``Devalaya'', `place of god' temple) the battle raged for ten days even though it was not a major town of Sindh like Alor, Sehwan Nerunkot (Hyderabad), or Brahmanabad. The fortified temple fell when a frightened Brahmin crept out and told the Arabs to knock off the tall flagpole flying the huge red flag, to demoralise the defenders. At this stage, Jahin Budh, the incharge of Debal, surrendered. Carnage followed. And so did general collapse.

At a time when the Arabs were short of both food and fodder, Bhandarkan Samani, the man incharge of Nerunkot, surrendered that town. The Samanis or Shamans --- the Buddhist counterparts of Brahmins --- took the line that, as Buddhists, they were men of peace and not interested in who ruled the country. They would not let Bachehra, the governor of Sehwan, to continue the defence of the town after one week. At a time when the Arabs did not know how to cross the Sindhu, one Mokah, the son of Besayeh, a princeling, made boats and provisions available in return for crown and estate. The astrologers now began to predict the ``inevitable victory of the Arabs''. But Dahir still continued to be over-confident. Contrary to the Arab Alafi's advice, he allowed the Arabs to cross the river to be able to fight, ``lest it be imagined by them that we are in perplexity and have become very weak and powerless.''

As the battle raged between the Sindhis and the Arabs, Ubaid, a lieutenant of Alafi, went over to the Arabs and told them of Dahir's plans. Even so, the Sindhi army fought so well that, says the Chachnama, on the eleventh and last day, ``the army of Islam became irresolute and their lines were broken up in great confusion. It was generally believed that the Arabs were defeated, and put to flight.''

Mohammed Bin Qasim was then ``so perplexed that he called out for water''. At this stage traitor Mokah with his men arrived on the scene and joined the Arab forces. Simultaneously a cry went up that the princesses in the Sindhi army had been cornered. This led to confusion. Dahir was heard by the Arabs shouting something like ``nisi man, nisi man'', (meaning ``here I am, here I am'') -so as to tell his men not to lose heart. But then a fiery arrow hit Dahir's howdah and set it on fire. Soon after, another arrow pierced his heart. And then all was over. It was on the evening of Thursday the 16 June A.D. 712. After fifteen attempts by nine Khalifas over a period of seventy-four years (638-712 A.D.) the Arabs had conquered Sindh. It was one of the saddest days in Indian history.

Dahir's wife Ladi was captured. In the Arab camp she tried to act as a shock-absorber between the invaders and the local people. Dahir's ``wife'' Bai committed suttee to escape the hands of ``these chandals (untouchables) and cow-eaters''. Resistance continued.

But the Muslim problem had been created in lndia with the very first conversion to Islam in Debal. This man was promptly named Maulana Islami and sent, with a Syrian noble, to deliver a message to Dahir. The Chachnama reports that when the two entered Dahir's court. the Syrian bowed low to salute, but the new Muslim refused to bow or to salute. Dahir recognised him and asked him why he was not observing the court etiquette, and the latter said that with his change of religion his loyalty now was to ``the king of Islam''. Change of religion had resulted in change of nationality! The Pakistani mentality had born.

When Dahir's severed head was presented to Hajjaj, a courtier sang: ``we have conquered Sindh after enormous trouble.... Betrayed is Dahir by Mohammed Bin Qasim's masterly strategy. Rejoice, the evil doers are disgraced. Their wealth has been brought away . . . They are now solitary and brittle as eggs and their women, fair and fragrant as musk-deer, are now asleep in our harems.''

Why did it all happen?

The basic point, of course, is that no country can always be on top of the world . There are cycles in the fortunes of a people. And Sindh was not exactly in good shape at the time. The great Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsiang, who visited Sindh in A.D. 641, exactly seventy years before, did not find things too good. He wrote:

``There are several hundred Sangh aramas, (resting places) occupied by about 10,000 priests.... There are about thirty Deva temples, in which sectaries of various kinds congregate. The king is of the Sudra (Sho-tu-lo) caste. He is by nature honest and sincere, and he reverences the law of Buddha.... By the side of the river Sindhu along the flat marshy lowlands there are several hundreds of thousands of families settled. They are of an unfeeling and hasty temper, and are given to blood- shed only. They give themselves exclusively to tending cattle.... Men and women, both cut their hair short.''

Although the ruler at the time was Chach, a Brahmin, Hiuen Tsiang describes him as a Sudra (Sho-tu-lo) either because he had come to the throne in an irregular manner, or because he was ruling a rough border area, off the Indian mainstream. Some scholars interpret Sho-tu-lo not as Sudra but as ``Kshudrak'' an ancient republic in central Sindh. Still others think that Sho-tu-lo does not mean Sudra at all, that it stands for 'Shrotriya'' Brahmins. The king was a Brahmin but there were too many Buddhists, making for social dissonance. The social tensions showed in hasty temper and bloodshed. Many of the Buddhists were traders who preferred peace to resistance.

Apart from this general decline, there were specific reasons.

One reason no doubt was the controversies surrounding the royal family. Another was the failure of Dahir to prevent --- and punish --- cowardice and treason in the local camp. Yet another was the dubious position of many Buddhists, who conveniently camouflaged their cowardice as desire for peace, even though Dahir had placed them in important positions. But a much bigger reason was the explosive nature of Islam which had combined one Allah and one Prophet with the single-minded devotion to murder and loot and rape. It is no wonder that the Arabs who had overrun Iran in A.D. 641 in spite of Sindhi help --- and entered even far-away Spain in A.D. 711, should roll up Sindh in A.D. 712.

The north Indian kingdom of Kanauj could have helped --- as the Franks did help Spain --- but after the death of Harsha in A.D. 647, it was too weak to help itself, much less others. Sindh fought and fell alone.

The official history of Sindh published in ten volumes in Pakistan makes interesting reading on the subject. According to Dr. Mumtaz Hussain Pathan, the reasons adduced by the Arabs for the invasion were all false. He thinks that the story of the loot of Arab ships by the Sindhi pirates is ``a fabrication''. He adds: ``That the Arab prisoners were recovered from Debal after the Arab conquest is another fabrication, not supported by historical evidence and contrary to the facts recorded in contemporary sources. He thinks the real reasons were two --- loot, and the necessity of keeping the in-fighting Arabs occupied elsewhere. ``In order to meet the financial deficiency, al-Hajjaj; ventured on new designs of lucrative nature, to fill in the coffers of the State. The main purpose of these attacks may also have been actuated by political reasons, with the sole intention of diverting the energies of the Arabs to new enterprises, rather than fighting . among themselves.'' Dr. Pathan has no doubt that it was a case of aggression, pure and simple. ``The conquest of Sindh was included in the pre-planned programme of Hajjaj, for which some flimsy grounds were needed.'' Indeed Hajjaj had asked his men to advance to the frontiers of China!

Dr. Khan also thinks that ``the Alafis who had taken shelter in Sindh as fugitives, too, seem to have acted as secret agents for the Arab viceroy. Although they posed to be the enemies of Hajjaj, yet they communicated news of strategic importance to the Arabs and instigated them to make an attack on Sindh.''

Dr. Khan also blames the Buddhist Shamanis who betrayed the trust placed in them by Dahir. He says that while some classes suffered inequality under Dahir's rule, their lot grew much worse under the Arab rule. Earlier, the common people were forbidden to wear silks or ride horses. Now the Arabs additionally ordered them not to cover their heads, and to walk barefoot in Arab presence Also, the Buddhists were ordered to entertain any Arab --- soldier, trader or adventurer --- for at least three days. In many cases the Arab guests succeeded in eloping with the wives and daughters of their hosts.'' The Arabs let hell loose on Sindh Even those who embraced lslam to save their skin found themselves called mawalis (clients) and charged jeziya (head tax) like any Hindus. And so most of them promptly returned to their ancestral faith. The Deval Smriti was enunciated to facilitate the shuddhikaran (re-conversion) of the forced converts, on performance of certain purificatory rites. No wonder even for the Sindhi Muslims today, Dahir Sen is hero, and Mohammed Bin Qasim, a villain.

Within two years of the Arab invasion, the Arab influence was confined to Debal and the surrounding coastline. Dahir's son Jaisiah had become a Muslim to survive --- only to become Hindu again to survive with honour. The Arabs thereupon sent a huge army twentyfive years later under the leadership of Salim. In the titanic battle that raged on the Sindh-Rajasthan border, Jaisiah, assisted by his mother Ladi, and the redoubtable Bappa Rawal of Chittor (A.D. 739-753),and blessed by Hirat Swami, worsted the Arabs. A treaty of peace was signed only when Salim surrendered all equipment, gave his daughter Maiya in marriage to Bappa Rawal, and vowed that the Arabs would never again attack India. It is significant that in the succeeding centuries the Arabs never again attacked India.

However, more than heroes, the period of Arab conquest of Sindh had its heroines --- Surya Devi and Parimal Devi, the daughters of Dahir. Mohammed Bin Qasim had sent them to Khalifa Walid in Baghdad for his harem. The Khalifa, reports the Chachnama, was ``charmed with their perfect beauty'' and their ``blood-sucking blandishments''. However, the two princesses said to the Khalifa that Qasim had already violated their chastity. The Khalifa flew into a rage. He ordered that Mohammed Bin Qasim be killed and his body brought to him in a bullock's hide. When the orders were duly executed, the princesses revealed that they had cooked up the violation story only to avenge ``the ruination of the king of Sindh and Hind and desolation of the kingdom of our fathers and grandfathers''. The enraged Khalifa ordered them tortured to death and had their torn bodies thrown into the river Tigris. The defeat of Sindh had been partly avenged.

In Sindh the very first thing the Arabs did was to convert the Debal temple into a prison. Soon, however, all Sindh became an Arab prison. The loot of Sindh enriched the Arab lands. Twenty thousand Sindhis were sold in slavery, mostly as cooks and cashiers. Here they specially popularized the Sindhi rice porridge bhatt (Sanskrit Bhakt, Hindi bhaat, rice). Others captivated the Arab hearts with their sweet singing, to the accompaniment of the ektara and the cymbals. Many other Sindhis became trusted accountants in Arab business houses. A Sindhi accountant became a guarantee of business success. Several Sindhi vaids (native physicians) became famous in West Asia. One of them, Manik, cured Khalifa Harun al-Rashid, when the local and Greek physicians had given up hope. On another occasion Manik revived the Khalifa's dear cousin Ibrahim, after he had been declared dead by the physicians. Many Hindu arts and sciences began to flow from Sindh into the Arab lands. Hindu astronomy, medicine, and mathematics reached Europe through the Arab hands. To this day, the numerals 1,2,3,.... are known in Arabic as Hindsa. The Panchatantra stories of wisdom were translated into Arabic as Kalilah wa Dimnah.

Even the Arabic script came from India --- centuries before the Arab invasion of Sindh. According to experts, sixteen of the twenty-two basic Arabic characters are directly traceable to the Brahmi lipi of Ashoka's days. They look very different only because they came to be written from right to left in the style of ``Kharoshthi'' (in the manner of ``asses' lips''). Dr. Pathan notes: ``Even the Arabic script, which is supposed to have been -borrowed from the Nabataeans, was greatly influenced by the Hindu Nagari script.''

Under the Hindu influence, the great Syrian poet Abdul Alaal-Maorri became a Hindu and went vegetarian. Al-Hallaj visited Sindh, cried ``anal-Haqq'' (Aham Brahm Asmi --- I am the Truth) and was crucified. There even was an Arab-Sindhi romance. Luai was a descendant of Mohammed. He and his wife Hind had a son, Asim. The family settled down in Samarra in Sindh. Here Hind repaired the local Hindu temple. Asim fell in love with Sita, the daughter of the temple priest. But Luai would not consent to Asim becoming Hindu --- and the priest would not agree to Sita becoming Muslim. At last Hind took the two to Saniyya (now Sann, the native village of the prominent Sindh leader G.M.Syed). There they were married while keeping their respective religions. When Sita died, Asim immolated himself on her funeral pyre!

But otherwise the relations between the Sindhis and the Arabs were none too good. In Sindh, the Arabs lived in isolated colonies, particularly in Mansurah, the twin-city of Brahmanabad, while the people went their own way under the local chiefs. The Sindhis viewed the iniquities of Baghdad with horror. To this day, in the Sindhi language, ``Baghdad'' means the ``limit of tyranny''. Mahmud Ghazni's invasion of Sindh put an end to the rump of the Arab governors of Sindh, and thereby helped the local Rajput dynasty of the Soomras to came up. Today there is no trace of the 300-year-long Arab adventurc in India. The twin-cities of Brahmanabad and Mansurah, now known only as Brahmanabad, were so completely destroyed that according to Richardson, archaeologist, ``even twenty barrels of gunpowder under each house would not destroy it so completely.''

As for Arab influence on Sindhi character, Dr. Pathan is quite sarcastic. He writes in the year of grace, 1978: ``A Sindhi is an embodiment of Arab mentality. Arrogant in leisure time,. he is equally timid and cannot withstand force. Like an Arab, he takes pleasure in having as many wives as he can and maintains sexual relations with a number of women called surets (concubines). Like the Ghazwah practice of the Arabs, women are stolen away.... Woman, therefore, is the root cause of crime and bloodshed in Sindh''. He adds: ``In psychological traits, a Sindhi is a brother of an Arab, being vindictive and full of deceit at all times. Like a true Arab, he is a cunning hypocrite and matchless intriguer.'' Dr. Pathan even goes so far as to say that ``Quraishi'' --- the family name of Mohammed --- in Arabic means ``a sea monster'', ``a profiteer''.

Professor Humayun Kabir had said that while the Government of India supported the Arabs against the Israelis, the people of India favoured the Israelis against the Arabs. The reason, he. said, was the Arab invasion of Sindh twelve hundred years ago. He was quite right. The race memory has neither forgotten nor forgiven the Arab invasion. Even the Sindhi Muslims share this Indian resentment of the Arab aggression of long ago. Today they honour ``Dahir Sen of Sindhudesh'' --- and look upon Mohammed Bin Qasim as an invader.

G.M. Syed, the ``Grand Old Man'' of Sindh, and the moving spirit behind the ``Independent Sindh'' movement, is ecstatic about the bravery and statesmanship of Dahir. According to him, Dahir had even offered asylum to Hussain, the grandson of Mohammed --- married to a Sindhi girl --- who was being persecuted at home. He was on his way to Sindh when he was intercepted at Karbala in Iraq --- and killed most cruelly. The Sindhis weep for lmam Hussain --- and they weep for Raja Dahir Sen.

01-28-2006, 06:59 PM

QUOTERe-writing history
Jayanth Jacob in Kolkata Newsline, Jan. 28, 2006

Kolkata, January 27: THE Indian History Congress, which kicks off at the Visva Bharati University in Shantiniketan tomorrow, is making an attempt to re-write its own history by giving voice to the young and the new. So, old favourites have been left out in favour of the new, and younger, crop of historians and intellectuals.

''There are many historains to be heard. In the discipline of history, new voices and interpretations Â <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /> are emerging from different parts of the world. We want to give them a platform to be heard,'' confirmed Ganapati Subbiya, convenor of the conference and a professor of history at Visva Bharati.

''Old historains have their importance. But also important are the fresh minds in history with a fresh perspective,'' he added.

So, except for Irfan Habib who will be present, others like Romila Thapar, Sumit Sarkar and Mushirul Hasan have not been invited to the meet which concluded on January 30.

Incidentally, this is the 66th session of the Indian History Congress. And since it is Akbar's 400th death anniversary, special focus will be on the Mughal emperor and the evolution of composite culture in India.

Apart from Indian historians, delegates from Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and England are taking part in the conference. In total, about 1,200 participants are expected to attend the meet.

''This is Akbar's 400th death anniversary. So the History Congress will have a special session on Akbar, evaluating the legacy and contribution of the Mughal emperor,'' informed Subbiya.

About 700 papers will be presented during the conference, which will have five sessions. Apart from the history of different periods, there will be a session on archaeology as well.

Since the meet is being held at Visva Bharati University, a special session is being organised on Rabindranath Tagore.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory...sid=167271

Bharatvarsh · 02-14-2006, 11:17 PM

QUOTEGurudas Saini â Samvat 1347 (1290 CE)
Gurudas Saini is also mentioned in Muslim accounts of that time apprently, from an old article:
QUOTEThen they attacked the city of Jhain, when Rana Hammira reacted and sent his successful commander, called "Gurdan Saini" (by the Moslems). He proceeded with a force of elite Rajput force mainly of infantry fighters to aid the governor of Jhain to parry the Moslem assault. While the Rajputs had a good fighting force the main problem in this conflict was the reliance on infantry against an entirely horse borne Turkish force. They formed a formation and waited for the cavalry charge but the Turks first only kept shooting poisoned and fire-tipped arrows by rapidly moving. This made the Hindu long bow archer, despite his far great bow-draw fairly useless. Qutlugh Tegin then made a sudden charge at the Rajput center and slew Saini after a pitched battle. The Hindus shaken by fall of their commander fell into disarray, as the governer of Jhain fled to the Ranthambhor fort, and were defeated by the Moslems.

http://manollasa.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_m...sa_archive.html

Bharatvarsh · 02-22-2006, 12:51 AM

QUOTEFIFTEENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN.
Outbreak of the SatnÃ¡mÃsâalso called MondÃhs.*
[Text, p. 114.] It is cause for wonder that a gang of bloody, miserable rebels, goldsmiths, carpenters, sweepers, tanners, and other ignoble beings, braggarts and fools of all descriptions, should become so puffed up with vain-glory as to cast themselves headlong into the pit of self-destruction. This is how it came to pass. A malignant set of people, inhabitants of MewÃ¡t, collected suddenly as white ants spring from the ground, or locusts descend from the skies. It is affirmed that these people considered themselves immortal; seventy lives was the reward promised to every one of them who fell in action. A body of about 5000 had collected in the neighbourhood of NÃ¡rnaul, and were in open rebellion. Cities and districts were plundered. TÃ¡hir KhÃ¡n FaujdÃ¡r, considering himself not strong enough to oppose them, repaired to the presence. The King resolved to exterminate the insurgents. Accordingly, on the 26th of ZÃ-l ka'da, an order was issued that Ra'd-andÃ¡z KhÃ¡n should proceed with his artillery, HÃ¡mid KhÃ¡n with the guards and 500 of the horsemen belonging to Saiyid MurtazÃ¡ KhÃ¡n, his father, and YahyÃ¡ KhÃ¡n RÃºmÃ, NajÃb KhÃ¡n, RÃºmÃ KhÃ¡n, KamÃ¡lu-d dÃn, son of Diler KhÃ¡n, Purdil, son of FÃroz KhÃ¡n MewÃ¡tÃ, and IsfandyÃ¡r, bakhshÃ to Prince Muhammad Akbar, with their own troops, to effect the destruction of the unbelievers. The royal forces marched to the encounter; the insurgents showed a bold front, and, although totally unprovided with the implements of war, made good use of what arms they had. They fought with all the valour of former rebels whose deeds are recorded in history, and the people of Hind have called this battle MahÃ¡-bhÃ¡rat , on account of the great slaughter of elephants on that trying day. The heroes of IslÃ¡m charged with impetuosity, and crimsoned their sabres with the blood of these desperate men. The struggle was terrible. Conspicuous above all were Ra'd-andÃ¡z KhÃ¡n, HÃ¡mid KhÃ¡n, and YahyÃ¡ KhÃ¡n. Many of the Moslims were slain or wounded. At length the enemy broke and fled, but were pursued with great slaughter. Few indeed escaped with their lives; a complete victory crowned the efforts of the royal commandersâand those regions were cleansed of the presence of the foul unbelievers. The triumphant ghÃ¡zÃs, permitted to kiss the threshold, were rendered proud by the praises of their King. The title of ShujÃ¡'at KhÃ¡n was conferred on Ra'd-andÃ¡z, with the rank of 3000 and 2000 horse.

[Text, p. 170.] On the 19th RabÃ'u-l Ã¡khir, 1089 A.H., a report from ShafÃ'a KhÃ¡n, dÃwÃ¡n of Bengal, made known that the AmÃru-l umarÃ¡ had appropriated one kror and thirty-two lacs of rupees above his yearly salary. A claim against the amÃr was accordingly ordered to be entered.


From "Alamgir-Nama" in "history of india as told by ..." by Elliott and Dwson

ramana · (This post was last modified: 03-28-2006, 06:51 AM by acharya.)

Deccan Chronicle, 26 March 2006
QUOTEHow weak are the powerful

Itihaas by Akhilesh Mithal

W ealth and power are heady intoxicants. Men and women who possess wealth and power are prone to suffer madness. When the 1975 Emergency was declared by Indira Gandhi âSatteeâ (the journalist Satinder Singh) quoted an Urdu verse:

Jinkoa hoa jaataa heiy andaazeiy
khudaaee paiydaa,
Humney Deiykhaa heiy who but
toard diyeiy jaateiy heiyn
(The ones deluded into believing that they are God Almighty have to, like the icons of the Kaâaba, suffer destruction.)

Urdu is not known in the White House and the President of the USA and his coterie are unlikely to be warned of the predicament they are in today. Perhaps a lesson from 17th century Indian history will help. As India has been larger than life right until the entry of European businesses and their âcompaniesâ its rulers could easily get deluded. The feeling of omnipotence and Godhood is seen to occur fairly frequently in Indiaâs history.

Alauddeen Khilji (1290-1310) made his mark by conquering the fort of Deogir and looting the accumulated treasure of twenty-five generations of Yadava rulers. He then assassinated the reigning Sultan, his uncle/father-in-law, Jajaaluddin Firoz Khilji, and won adherents by broadcasting star shaped ingots of gold from gigantic catapults called manjaaniks at each stage in the journey all the way from Kara Manikpur (Pratabgarh) in East to the capital Dillee. He assumed the title âSikandar-as-saaneeâ â the equal to or second Alexander in his inscriptions and coins. According to a near contemporary historian, Zia-ud-deen-Barani, Alauddeen wanted to establish a new religion with himself as its prophet/God and was dissuaded by his nobles with some considerable difficulty.

India continued to be the richest country in the world and the desired destination for men of ambition and enterprise up until the 18th century. The Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (1628-1658) was the richest and most powerful monarch on earth. 

He looked upon himself as Zillay Ilaahee (shadow of God upon earth). The cathedral or congregational (jaâama) mosque he designed to tower above his new city in Dillee, called Shahjahaanaabaad, was named Masjideyjahaannumaa or the mosque of the manifest world. 

The allusion to the unseen mosque in heaven in which all Muslims believe was obvious to all. Just as the Jaama Masjid of Shahjahaanaabaad, Dillee, was the shadow on earth of the unseen mosque of heaven so also was the Emperor Shihaabuddeen Muhammad Shah Jahan Saahibey Qiraan Saanee the Zilley Ilaahee or âshadow of God upon earthâ. And representative of Allah, the unseen ruler of heaven.

{Quasi/shadow Caliph. Interesting insight.}

This pomp and pageantry bombast and bluster was put to test on March 26, 1644, when Begum Jahanara, eldest child from Shah Jahanâs marriage with Arjumand Bano Begum, Mumtaaz Mahal, got severely burnt as a result of her gossamer muslin oarhnee stole/scarf catching fire from a floor lamp lighting the palace. Shah Jahan immediately came down to earth. The daily ritual of holding court and dispensing justice like King Solomon was all but abandoned. Purses of gold were kept under the pillow of the ailing princess and the contents distributed to the destitute in order that their prayers help in the recovery. The Holy Quran was recited from beginning to end without interruption, and prayers offered round-the-clock near the sick bed of Jahanara by learned scholars and divines. Rewards amounting to a kingâs ransom and more were offered for anyone who would reduce the suffering and cure the princess of the damage caused by the extensive burns.

Jahanara recovered and Shah Jahan reverted to his Imperial destiny. In September 1657, fate struck again. It was the Emperor himself who fell ill this time. {Note 100 years before Battle of Plasey and rise of East India Company}Due to an obstruction in the bladder Shah Jahan passed no water for seven days. The resulting accumulation of undesirable elements caused loss of consciousness. The news soon reached the princes, Sultan Shuja in Bengal, Awrungzeyb in Deccan, and Murad Bukhsh in Gujarat. Rebellion raised its ugly head and failed to subside with the recovery of the Emperor.

The generals of the empire, the Amber Raja Jaisimha and the Marwar Raja Jaswantsimha, were sent out to block the rebel princes. Although Jaisimha won against Shah Shuja in Bengal, the defeat of Jaswantsimha at Dharmat from the combined forces of Murad Bukhsh and Awrungzeyb proved disastrous.

The fate of Shah Jahan was sealed when the eldest prince, Dara Shukoh, suffered defeat at Samugarh at the hands of Awrungzeyb and Murad Bukhsh. Shah Jahan was deposed and imprisoned in the palace fort of Agra where he died in 1666 (eight years later). The body was hurriedly interred in the mausoleum that Shah Jahan had created for his favourite wife, Mumtaz Mahal (d 1631). The cenotaph of Shah Jahan is the only element which is out of place in the whole noble structure. Such was the fate of the man who thought he was the âshadow of God upon the earthâ. Power wielders beware!


So in other words the rise of Aurangazeb sowed the seeds of destruction of the Mughals. He was a reactionary person and there was wide spread disaffection to his rein. His wars impoverished the treasury and made the Empire weak. His successors could not hold the center strong and led to centrifugal forces that the English exploited.

06-10-2006, 04:46 PM

QUOTEWas There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst

"The Partition Holocaust": the term is frequently used in Hindu pamphlets concerning Islam and the birth of its modern political embodiment in the Subcontinent, the state of Pakistan. Is such language warranted, or is it a ridicule-inviting exaggeration?

To give an idea of the context of this question, we must note that the term "genocide" is used very loosely these days. One of the charges by a Spanish judge against Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet, so as to get him extradited from Great Britain in autumn 1998, was "genocide". This was his way of making Pinochet internationally accountable for having killed a few Spanish citizens: alleging a crime serious enough to overrule normal constraints based on diplomatic immunity and national sovereignty. Yet, whatever Pinochet's crimes, it is simply ridiculous to charge that he ever intended to exterminate the Spanish nation. In the current competition for victim status, all kinds of interest groups are blatantly overbidding in order to get their piece of the entitlement to attention and solidarity.

The Nazi Holocaust killed the majority of European Jewry (an estimated 5.1 million according to Raul Hilberg, 5.27 million according to the Munich-based Institut fÃ¼r Zeitgeschichte) and about 30% of the Jewish people worldwide. How many victim groups can say as much? The Partition pogroms killed hardly 0.3% of the Hindus, and though it annihilated the Hindu presence in all the provinces of Pakistan except for parts of Sindh and East Bengal, it did so mostly by putting the Hindus to flight (at least seven million) rather than by killing them (probably half a million). Likewise, the ethnic cleansing of a quarter million Hindus from Kashmir in 1990 followed the strategy of "killing one to expel a hundred", which is not the same thing as killing them all; in practice, about 1,500 were killed. Partition featured some local massacres of genocidal type, with the Sikhs as the most wanted victims, but in relative as well as absolute figures, this does not match the Holocaust.

Among genocides, the Holocaust was a very special case (e.g. the attempt to carry it out in secrecy is unique), and it serves no good purpose to blur that specificity by extending the term to all genocides in general. The term "Holocaust", though first used in a genocidal sense to describe the Armenian genocide of 1915, is now in effect synonymous with the specifically Jewish experience at the hands of the Nazis in 1941-45. But does even the more general term "genocide" apply to what Hinduism suffered at the hands of Islam?

Complete genocide

"Genocide" means the intentional attempt to destroy an ethnic community, or by extension any community constituted by bonds of kinship, of common religion or ideology, of common socio-economic position, or of common race. The pure form is the complete extermination of every man, woman and child of the group. Examples include the complete extermination of the native Tasmanians and many Amerindian nations from Patagonia to Canada by European settlers in the 16th-19th century. The most notorious attempt was the Nazi "final solution of the Jewish question" in 1941-45. In April-May 1994, Hutu militias in Rwanda went about slaughtering the Tutsi minority, killing ca. 800,000, in anticipation of the conquest of their country by a Uganda-based Tutsi army. Though improvised and executed with primitive weapons, the Rwandan genocide made more victims per day than the Holocaust.

Hindus suffered such attempted extermination in East Bengal in 1971, when the Pakistani Army killed 1 to 3 million people, with Hindus as their most wanted target. This fact is strictly ignored in most writing about Hindu-Muslim relations, in spite (or rather because) of its serious implication that even the lowest estimate of the Hindu death toll in 1971 makes Hindus by far the most numerous victims of Hindu-Muslim violence in the post-colonial period. It is significant that no serious count or religion-wise breakdown of the death toll has been attempted: the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ruling classes all agree that this would feed Hindu grievances against Muslims.

Nandan Vyas ("Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan", Young India, January 1995) has argued convincingly that the number of Hindu victims in the 1971 genocide was approximately 2.4 million, or about 80%. In comparing the population figures for 1961 and 1971, and taking the observed natural growth rhythm into account, Vyas finds that the Hindu population has remained stable at 9.5 million when it should have increased to nearly 13 million (13.23 million if the same growth rhythm were assumed for Hindus as for Muslims). Of the missing 3.5 million people (if not more), 1.1 million can be explained: it is the number of Hindu refugees settled in India prior to the genocide. The Hindu refugees at the time of the genocide, about 8 million, all went back after the ordeal, partly because the Indian government forced them to it, partly because the new state of Bangladesh was conceived as a secular state; the trickle of Hindu refugees into India only resumed in 1974, when the first steps towards islamization of the polity were taken. This leaves 2.4 million missing Hindus to be explained. Taking into account a number of Hindu children born to refugees in India rather than in Bangladesh, and a possible settlement of 1971 refugees in India, it is fair to estimate the disappeared Hindus at about 2 million.

While India-watchers wax indignant about communal riots in India killing up to 20,000 people since 1948, allegedly in a proportion of three Muslims to one Hindu, the best-kept secret of the post-Independence Hindu-Muslim conflict is that in the subcontinent as a whole, the overwhelming majority of the victims have been Hindus. Even apart from the 1971 genocide, "ordinary" pogroms in East Pakistan in 1950 alone killed more Hindus than the total number of riot victims in India since 1948.

Selective genocide

A second, less extreme type of genocide consists in killing a sufficient number who form the backbone of the group's collective identity, and assimilating the leaderless masses into the dominant community. This has been the Chinese policy in Tibet, killing over a million Tibetans while assimilating the survivors into Chinese culture by flooding their country with Chinese settlers. It was also Stalin's policy in eastern Poland and the Baltic states after they fell into his hands under the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, exemplified by the massacre of thousands of Polish army officers in Katyn. Stalin's policies combining murder of the elites, deportation of entire ethnic groups and ruthless oppression of the survivors was prefigured in antiquity by the Assyrians, whose deportation of the ten northern (now "lost") tribes of Israel is attested in the Bible.

During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class had been bled on the battlefield. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and Goa followed this policy in the 16th century, as can be deduced from Hindu-Portuguese treaty clauses prohibiting the Portuguese from killing Brahmins.

In antiquity, such partial genocide typically targeted the men for slaughter and the women and children for slavery or concubinage. Thus, in 416 BCE, the Athenians were angered at the Melians' reluctance to join the war against Sparta, and to set an example for other client states, Athens had Melos repopulated with Athenian colonists after killing its men and enslaving its women. Another example would be the slaughter of the Jews of Medina by Mohammed in 626 CE: after expelling two Jewish tribes, the third one, the Banu Quraiza, were exterminated: all the ca. 700 men were beheaded, while the women and children were sold into slavery, with the Prophet keeping the most beautiful woman as his concubine (she refused to marry him).

Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, "six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves". This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g. 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar's capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants). During the Partition pogroms and the East Bengali genocide, mass rape of Hindu women after the slaughter of their fathers and husbands was a frequent event.

At this point, however, we should not overlook a puzzling episode in Hindu legend which describes a similar behaviour by a Hindu conqueror: Parashurama, deified as the 6th incarnation of Vishnu, killed all the adult male Kshatriyas for several generations, until only women were left, and then had Brahmins father a new generation upon them. Just a story, or reference to a historic genocide?

Genocide in the Bible

For full-blooded genocide, however, the book to consult is the Bible, which describes cases of both partial and complete genocide. The first modest attempt was the killing by Jacob's sons of all the males in the Canaanite tribe of Shekhem, the fiancÃ© of their own sister Dina. The motive was pride of pedigree: having immigrated from the civilizational centre of Ur in Mesopotamia, Abraham's tribe refused all intermarriage with the native people of Canaan (thus, Rebecca favoured Jacob over Esau because Jacob married his nieces while Esau married local women).

Full-scale genocide was ordered by God, and executed by his faithful, during the conquest of Canaan by Moses and Joshua. In the defeated cities outside the Promised Land, they had to kill all the men but keep the women as slaves or concubines. Inside the Promised Land, by contrast, the conquerors were ordered to kill every single man, woman and child. All the Canaanites and Amalekites were killed. Here, the stated reason was that God wanted to prevent the coexistence of His people with Pagans, which would result in religious syncretism and the restoration of polytheism.

As we only have a literary record of this genocide, liberal theologians uncomfortable with a genocidal God have argued that this Canaanite genocide was only fiction. To be sure, genocide fiction exists, e.g. the Biblical story that the Egyptians had all newborn male Israelites killed is inconsistent with all other data in the Biblical narrative itself (as well as unattested in the numerous and detailed Egyptian inscriptions), and apparently only served to underpin the story of Moses' arrival in the Pharaoh's court in a basket on the river, a story modelled on the then-popular life story of Sargon of Akkad. Yet, the narrative of the conquest of Canaan is full of military detail uncommon in fiction; unlike other parts of the Bible, it is almost without any miracles, factual through and through.

And even if we suppose that the story is fictional, what would it say about the editors that they attributed genocidal intentions and injunctions to their God? If He was non-genocidal and good in reality, why turn him into a genocidal and prima facie evil Being? On balance, it is slightly more comforting to accept that the Bible editors described a genocide because they wanted to be truthful and relate real events. After all, the great and outstanding thing about the Bible narrative is its realism, its refusal to idealize its heroes. We get to see Jacob deceiving Isaac and Esau, then Laban deceiving Jacob; David's heroism and ingenuity in battle, but also his treachery in making Bathseba his own, and later his descent into senility; Salomon's palace intrigues in the war of succession along with his pearls of wisdom. Against that background, it would be inconsistent to censor the Canaanite genocide as merely a fictional interpolation.

Indirect genocide

A third type of genocide consists in preventing procreation among a targeted population. Till recently, it was US policy to promote sterilization among Native American women, even applying it secretly during postnatal care or other operations. The Tibetans too have been subjected to this treatment. In the Muslim world, male slaves were often castrated, which partly explains why Iraq has no Black population even though it once had hundreds of thousands of Black slaves. The practice also existed in India on a smaller scale, though the much-maligned Moghul emperor Aurangzeb tried to put an end to it, mainly because eunuchs brought endless corruption in the court. The hijra community is a left-over of this Islamic institution (in ancient India, harems were tended by old men or naturally napunsak/impotent men, tested by having to spend the night with a prostitute without showing signs of virile excitement).

A fourth type of genocide is when mass killing takes place unintentionally, as collateral damage of foolish policies, e.g. Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward inducing the greatest man-made mass starvation killing 20 million or more, or the British war requisitions causing the Bengal famine of 1943 killing some 3 million; or as collateral damage of other forms of oppression. Unlike the deliberate genocide of Native Americans in parts of the USA or Argentina, the death of millions of Natives in Central America after the first Spanish conquests was at least partly the unintended side-effect of the hardships of forced labour and the contact with new diseases brought by the Europeans. In contrast with Nazi and Soviet work camps, where forced labour had the dual purpose of economic profit and a slow but sure death of the inmates, there is no evidence that the Spanish wanted their Native labourers to die. After all, their replacement with African slaves required a large extra investment.

The Atlantic slave trade itself caused mass death among the transported slaves, just as in the already long-standing Arab slave trade, but it is obvious that purely for the sake of profit, the slave-traders preferred as many slaves as possible to arrive at the slave markets alive. Likewise, the Christian c.q. Islamic contempt for Pagans made them rather careless with the lives of Native Americans, Africans or Hindus, so that millions of them were killed, and yet this was not deliberate genocide. Of course they wanted to annihilate Pagan religions like Hinduism, but in principle, the missionary religions wished to convert the unbelievers, and preferred not to kill them unless this was necessary for establishing the power of the True Faith.

That is why the mass killing of Hindus by Muslims rarely took place in peacetime, but typically in the fervour immediately following military victories, e.g. the fall of the metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565 was "celebrated" with a general massacre and arson. Once Muslim power was established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than kill the Hindus, and discourage rebellion by making some sort of compromise. Not that peacetime was all that peaceful, for as Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

Though all these small acts of terror added up to a death toll of genocidal proportions, no organized genocide of the Holocaust type took place. One constraint on Muslim zeal for Holy War was the endemic inter-Muslim warfare and intrigue (no history of a royal house was bloodier than that of the Delhi Sultanate 1206-1525), another the prevalence of the Hanifite school of Islamic law in India. This is the only one among the four law schools in Sunni Islam which allows Pagans to subsist as zimmis, dis-empowered third-class citizens paying a special tax for the favour of being tolerated; the other three schools of jurisprudence ruled that Pagans, as opposed to Christians and Jews, had to be given a choice between Islam and death.

Staggering numbers also died as collateral damage of the deliberate impoverishment by Sultans like Alauddin Khilji and Jahangir. As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

Genocide by any other name

In some cases, terminological purists object to mass murder being described as "genocide", viz. when it targets groups defined by other criteria than ethnicity. Stalin's "genocide" through organized famine in Ukraine killed some 7 million people (lowest estimate is 4 million) in 1931-33, the largest-ever deliberate mass murder in peacetime, but its victims were targeted because of their economic and political positions, not because of their nationhood. Though it makes no difference to the victims, this was not strictly genocide or "nation murder", but "class murder". Likewise, the killing of perhaps two million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge was not an attempt to destroy the Cambodian nation; it was rather an attempt to "purify" the nation of its bourgeois class.

The killing of large groups of ideological dissenters is a constant in the history of the monotheistic faiths, of which Marxism has been termed a modern offshoot, starting with the killing of some polytheistic priests by Pharaoh Akhenaton and, shortly after, the treacherous killing of 3,000 worshippers of the Golden Calf by Moses (they had been encouraged to come out in the open by Moses' brother Aaron, not unlike Chairman Mao's "hundred flowers" campaign which encouraged dissenters to speak freely, all the better to eliminate them later). Mass killing accompanied the christianization of Saxony by Charlemagne (ca. 800 CE) and of East Prussia by the Teutonic Knights (13th century). In 1209-29, French Catholics massacred the heretical Cathars. Wars between Muslims and Christians, and between Catholics and Protestants, killed millions both in deliberate massacres and as collateral damage, e.g. seven million Germans in 1618-48. Though the Turkish government which ordered the killing of a million Armenians in 1915 was motivated by a mixture of purely military, secular-nationalistic and Islamic considerations, the fervour with which the local Turks and Kurds participated in the slaughter was clearly due to their Islamic conditioning of hatred against non-Muslims.

This ideological killing could be distinguished from genocide in the strict sense, because ethnicity was not the reason for the slaughter. While this caution may complicate matters for the Ukrainians or Cambodians, it does not apply to the case of Hinduism: like the Jews, the Hindus have historically been both a religion and a nation (or at least, casteists might argue, a conglomerate of nations). Attempts to kill all Hindus of a given region may legitimately be termed genocide.

For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with its occasional (though not continuous) intention to exterminate entire Hindu communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully called off since the first naval invasion in 636 CE, can without exaggeration be termed genocide. To quote Will Durant's famous line: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, New York 1972, p.459)

Hinduism's losses

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.

Note that attempts are made to deny this history. In Indian schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the testimony of the primary sources. Like Holocaust denial, this propaganda can be called negationism. The really daring negationists don't just deny the crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus themselves. Thus, it is routinely alleged that Hindus persecuted and destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by Ghori and his lieutenants.

Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, "Indian mountain", was renamed Hindu Kush, "Hindu-killer", when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia. Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each". Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.

Karma

The Hindu notion of Karma has come under fire from Christian and secularist polemicists as part of the current backlash against New Age thinking. Allegedly, the doctrine of Karma implies that the victims of the Holocaust and other massacres had deserved their fate. A naive understanding of Karma, divorced from its Hindu context, could indeed lead to such ideas. Worse, it could be said that the Jews as a nation had incurred genocidal karma by the genocide which their ancestors committed on the Canaanites. Likewise, it could be argued that the Native Americans had it coming: recent research (by Walter Neves from Brazil as well as by US scientists) has shown that in ca. 8000 BC, the Mongoloid Native American populations replaced an earlier American population closely resembling the Australian Aborigines -- the first American genocide?

More generally, if Karma explains suffering and "apparent" injustice as a profound form of justice, a way of reaping the karmic rewards of one's own actions, are we not perversely justifying every injustice? These questions should not be taken lightly. However, the Hindu understanding of reincarnation militates against the doctrine of genocidal "group karma" outlined above. An individual can incarnate in any community, even in other species, and need not be reborn among his own progeny. If Canaanites killed by the Israelites have indeed reincarnated, some may have been Nazi camp guards and others Jewish Holocaust victims. There is no reason to assume that the members of today's victim group are the reincarnated souls of the bullies of yesteryear, returning to suffer their due punishment. That is the difference between karma and genetics: karma is taken along by the individual soul, not passed on in the family line.

More fundamentally, we should outgrow this childish (and in this case, downright embarrassing) view of karma as a matter of reward and punishment. Does the killer of a million people return a million times as a murder victim to suffer the full measure of his deserved punishment? Rather, karma is a law of conservation: you are reborn with the basic pattern of desires and conditionings which characterized you when you died last time around. The concrete experiences and actions which shaped that pattern, however, are history: they only survive insofar as they have shaped your psychic karma pattern, not as a precise account of merits and demerits to be paid off by corresponding amounts of suffering and pleasure.

One lesson to be learned from genocide history pertains to Karma, the law of cause and effect, in a more down-to-earth sense: suffering genocide is the karmic reward of weakness. That is one conclusion which the Jews have drawn from their genocide experience: they created a modern and militarily strong state. Even more importantly, they helped foster an awareness of the history of their persecution among their former persecutors, the Christians, which makes it unlikely that Christians will target them again. In this respect, the Hindus have so far failed completely. With numerous Holocaust memorials already functioning, one more memorial is being built in Berlin by the heirs of the perpetrators of the Holocaust; but there is not even one memorial to the Hindu genocide, because even the victim community doesn't bother, let alone the perpetrators.

This different treatment of the past has implications for the future. Thus, Israel's nuclear programme is accepted as a matter of course, justified by the country's genuine security concerns; but when India, which has equally legitimate security concerns, conducted nuclear tests, it provoked American sanctions. If the world ignores Hindu security concerns, one of the reasons is that Hindus have never bothered to tell the world how many Hindus have been killed already.

Healing

What should Hindus say to Muslims when they consider the record of Islam in Hindu lands? It is first of all very important not to allot guilt wrongly. Notions of collective or hereditary guilt should be avoided. Today's Muslims cannot help it that other Muslims did certain things in 712 or 1565 or 1971. One thing they can do, however, is to critically reread their scripture to discern the doctrinal factors of Muslim violence against Hindus and Hinduism. Of course, even without scriptural injunction, people get violent and wage wars; if Mahmud Ghaznavi hadn't come, some of the people he killed would have died in other, non-religious conflicts. But the basic Quranic doctrine of hatred against the unbelievers has also encouraged many good-natured and pious people to take up the sword against Hindus and other Pagans, not because they couldn't control their aggressive instincts, but because they had been told that killing unbelievers was a meritorious act. Good people have perpetrated evil because religious authorities had depicted it as good.

This is material for a no-nonsense dialogue between Hindus and Muslims. But before Hindus address Muslims about this, it is imperative that they inform themselves about this painful history. Apart from unreflected grievances, Hindus have so far not developed a serious critique of Islam's doctrine and historical record. Often practising very sentimental, un-philosophical varieties of their own religion, most Hindus have very sketchy and distorted images of rival religions. Thus, they say that Mohammed was an Avatar of Vishnu, and then think that they have cleverly solved the Hindu-Muslim conflict by flattering the Prophet (in fact, it is an insult to basic Muslim beliefs, which reject divine incarnation, apart from indirectly associating the Prophet with Vishnu's incarnation as a pig). Instead of the silly sop stories which pass as conducive to secularism, Hindus should acquaint themselves with real history and real religious doctrines.

Another thing which we should not forget is that Islam is ultimately rooted in human nature. We need not believe the Muslim claim that the Quran is of divine origin; but then it is not of diabolical origin either, it is a human document. The Quran is in all respects the product of a 7th-century Arab businessman vaguely acquainted with Judeo-Christian notions of monotheism and prophetism, and the good and evil elements in it are very human. Even its negative elements appealed to human instincts, e.g. when Mohammed promised a share in the booty of the caravans he robbed, numerous Arab Pagans took the bait and joined him. The undesirable elements in Islamic doctrine stem from human nature, and can in essence be found elsewhere as well. Keeping that in mind, it should be possible to make a fair evaluation of Islam's career in India on the basis of factual history.

dhu · 06-19-2006, 01:17 PM

QUOTEUnderwater temple just off Vizag?
- By S.N.V. Sudhir

Visakhapatnam, June 18: A marine archaeologist from Andhra Pradesh strongly believes that a temple, after which Visakhapatnam has been named, lies underwater less than 2 km off the coast of the port city, and has dedicated his life to locating the edifice.

Eswara Venkata Gangadharam, professor emeritus at Andhra University, is looking for financial support of around Rs 20 lakhs from the government to send down divers to locate the temple which he believes is 200 feet under the Bay of Bengalâs waters.

He cites a list of evidence to show that the temple had existed. "The temple is referred to in a stone plaque with Tamil inscriptions which still exists in the Visakha Museum," says the only scientist who has specialised in marine archaeology in the state. "The temple is also mentioned in a British Gazette in the 18th century," he says.

According to legend, a Chola king while on his way to Benares was so enamoured by the locale that he built a shore-temple devoted to the deity Visakha, the god of valour. The temple was named Vaisakeswara.

"The Shiva temple at the Naval Coastal Battery gives a strong and positive indication of a temple in the opposite vacant land which might have submerged into the seabed due to geological changes," Prof. Gangadhar says with conviction.

He also recorded old-timers who recalled their grandparents and great-grandparents talking about the temple located on the shore opposite the Naval Coastal Battery. It is at this place that people even today have sacred baths during the auspicious days of Karteeka Maasam and on Shivaratri. The place was called Theerthapu Rallu in Kulottunga Cholapattinam, the earlier name of Visakhapatnam.

The professor says he was inspired by the efforts of Prof. S.S. Rao who found the ancient town of Dwarka under the Arabian Sea off Gujarat.The academic resigned an associate professorship in the geochemistry department at University of Malaya, Malaysia, in 1987. He worked with Prof. Rao to know more about marine archaeology during the mid-1980s when Dwarka was being excavated.

His efforts to locate the temple go back to 1987 when the Andhra University here set up the Centre for Marine Archaeology.

Expert scuba divers from the Indian Navy made two attempts in 1992 and 2003, scouring the seabed for four days each time to locate the temple.

"It at least takes two months for a team of divers to go into the sea regularly to scour one square kilometre. The equipment, too, was then insufficient... so was the money. It will take up to Rs 20 lakhs, which the government is not prepared to spend." the professor laments.

"I strongly believe that given a chance and provided with state-of-the-art technology we can certainly bring the ruins of the great temple and reconstruct it on land," he says.

http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&...&RF=DefaultMain

dhu · 06-23-2006, 04:44 AM

QUOTEChauhan: Nehru taking too much space in history

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...672536.cms
BHOPAL: Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan says that India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru can no longer remain in schools' history texts because space has to be created for other freedom fighters who have been ignored so far.

Chauhan, under attack from the opposition Congress for 'saffronisation of education', said on Thursday he had respect for Nehru but there wasn't enough space in the books.

"Jawaharlal Nehru was a mahapurush. We respect him and are not in denial of Nehru's place in Indian history. But the time has come for us to break the Congress tradition of highlighting just one family as freedom fighters," said Chauhan, who was flanked by his school education minister Narottam Mishra.

The CM said thousands of patriots had joined India's freedom movement, gone to jail, even died for Independence.

"So far, the party that ruled this country for decades advanced and emphasised only those in their league. It is not right for just one great man to be hailed, printed and taught about in schools, while thousands others whose blood brought us our freedom should be discriminated against and left as unsung heroes."

As a result, 'Chacha Nehru mujhe bana do' and Kamala Nehru will become history as far as Madhya Pradesh is concerned. These essays were part of the primary school texts.

Retaliating to Congress allegations of RSS pressure to remove Nehru from the texts, Chauhan alleged: "Take a look at the history book of CBSE Class X. Nehru's picture has been printed eight to nine times. This has been the Congress' agenda. Justice should be done to our history.

We have had other great men who deserve the same stature. In MP, we have not given sufficient representation to Chandrasekhar Azad and Tantiya Bhil, who are heroes from our state. These forgotten heroes are under our consideration."

Narottam Mishra said the Congress' allegation of removal of Nehru is wrong. "We have replaced the article on Kamala Nehru by Jawaharlal Nehru's letter to Indira Gandhi on the river Ganga. We have replaced one writing of his by another.

The state has an education committee that decides on a fresh syllabus every five years. In this change of syllabus, we have tried to accommodate other freedom fighters. And unless some old chapters are removed, new lessons cannot be added."

But angry Congress supporters are not buying the argument. On Wednesday, activists had burnt the CM's effigy, leading to a confrontation with the state police.

After Chauhan's justification on Thursday, Congress spokesman Manak Agarwal said: "We are not against other freedom fighters, but Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister and the founder of modern India. Why has he been removed?"

06-23-2006, 07:51 AM

QUOTEThe turning point 

Two-and-a-half centuries ago today, the decline of Muslim rule in
India began with the Battle of Plassey, says Prafull Goradia

The Battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757 - 249 years ago.
The East India Company forces, led by Colonel Robert Clive, had many
local allies. Uncannily, they were all Hindu, until Mir Jafar
defected in the heat of battle as an exchange for being made Nawab
of Bengal.

According to a book written in Bengali, Kolikata Ekale-o-Shekale
(published in 1905), the reason was the nawab's oppression of
Hindus. Siraj-ud-Daulah, the new nawab, who came to the throne at
the age of 27 on the death of his sagacious grandfather, Alivardi
Khan, was callous.

Being especially sacred for the Hindus, the Nabadwip area was
sensitive but Siraj-ud-Daulah could not care less. Maharaja Krishna
Chandra got his opportunity to strike back when Clive in 1756
arrived in Bengal in order to recapture Calcutta.

Krishna Chandra gave the Company his whole hearted support and was
rewarded with 12 cannons which, incidentally, were used against the
nawab at Plassey the following year.

Raja Nabakrishna Deb was another example of the support given by the
Hindu elite to the British at the time. His contact began by his
offering to teach Persian to Warren Hastings, then a young writer in
the service of the Company. His help to the Company was critical
when he provided prior information of Siraj-ud-Daulah' s plan to
attack the old fort at Calcutta.

The warning helped to save many a British life. Incidentally, the
nawab was so communally inclined that after his victory at Calcutta,
he renamed the city Alinagar.

Before counter attacking the Calcutta fort, Clive got invaluable
information about Siraj-ud-Daulah' s strength through the good
offices of Nabakrishna. The accurate assessment, too, helped Clive
to make his plan for the Battle of Plassey the following year.

Reverend James Long wrote at length about the Hindu help that
enabled the British victory at Plassey. Gobind Ram Mitra and Sobha
Ram Basack were two zamindars who were also British allies. They
were so trusted as to be appointed commissioners for distributing
the company's relief to the citizens of Calcutta, who had suffered
during Siraj-ud-Daulah' s attack on Calcutta.

The other commissioners were Ratan Sarkar, Sukhdeb Mullick, Nayan
Chand Mullick, Daya Ram Basu, Neelmani Mitra, Hare Krishna Thakur.
All were Hindus and not a single belonged to the Muslim community.

Over the last century, all these gentlemen would be accused of
treachery. During the 18th and 19th centuries, this was not so. In
those decades, Hindus were the subjects of Muslim rulers, who
treated them as zimmis (protected citizens) at best and kafirs at
worst.

The nawabs were rightly viewed as conquerors and not as fellow
citizens. Little wonder when the East India Company became
politically active in the country, it was looked upon as bringing
much needed relief from Muslim oppression.

Accepting an enemy's enemy as a friend was commonsense. The Hindu
elite saw no hope of striking back at the nawabs on their own.

Symbolic of the deliverance, Nabakrishna unveiled his palace to the
public with a Durga puja as a celebration of the victory at Plassey
with Robert Clive as the chief guest. Never before could a public
puja be celebrated as it would offend the Muslim rulers.

The notion that Hindus and Muslims were fraternal citizens and that
the British were the common enemy was the illusion thrust down our
throat by Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. Muslims did not suffer
from this fantasy and had no hesitation in dividing the country
eventually. Even today few Muslims have a conscience about Pakistan.

The Battle of Plassey was, in fact, the beginning of relief to the
Hindu civilisation after many a century. It began to dislodge the
nawabs from their thrones and make them sit on the ground as
subjects which was the Hindu fate in most parts of the country.

The Battle of Plassey was, therefore, the first battle of Hindu
deliverance from the Muslim yoke. The proof was the Indian
Renaissance that followed in the 19th century and continued
thereafter.

07-09-2006, 09:45 PM

Remote sensing can help study ancient cities
QUOTERemote sensing can help study ancient cities
Chandran Iyer in Ahmedabad | July 09, 2006 17:04 IST
An insight into 'cosmic cities' described in the Ramayana and Mahabharata can be obtained by analysing pictures sent by an IRS satellite, said P S Thakker, a senior scientist of the Indian Space Research Organisation.

These ancient cities, which existed during the time of Ramayana and Mahabharata, followed a definite pattern with temples being at the centre, then the palaces and other townships, Thakker explained.

These cosmic cities, as described in the shastras, include different shapes of settlements ranging from square, circular, triangular, rectangular, lunar shaped to swastik-shaped.

Though these sites are known to people, it is not possible to know the settlement pattern from the surface as they have been destroyed with passage of time and some have been buried. However, by looking at satellite pictures one can see things that are not visible to the naked eye, he says.

Thakker said remote sensing can play anÂ important role to corelate archeologial findings from ancient sites, which are mentioned in the scriptures of Hindu religion including the Vedas, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

"Corelating archeaological findings from the ancient historical sites acquire a new meaning when they are seen against the background of description given in the Indian scriptures" said Thakker while talking to PTI.

Thakker has worked on a project called Remote Sensing of Comsic Cities in Ancient India, studying important historical and ancient cities, which are descibed in the Hindu scriptures and corelating them with remote sensing data obtained from satellite. Some sites which he has studied include Kausambi, Ahichhatra, Lumbini, Shravasti and Nalanda.

"I have shown how remote sensing date obtained from satellite at the altitude of above 800 kms in space can be successfully used as non-destructive method to locate the archeological sites," he added.

He said close cooperation among scholars of ancient literature, anthropologists, archaeologists and remote sensing scientists can achieve a better understanding of India's past. Remote sensing data can also successfully be used for building up historical records of changes that might have taken place on the surface of the earth. The dataÂ may also be used in updating ancient atlases.

For example, Pataliputra or the present day Patna was circular in shape according to the ancient scripture Matsya Purana. This shape is confirmed by the satellite imagery.

Ancient texts mention Lumbini's settlement pattern as rectangular and this is confirmed by the remote sensing data that shows a clear rectangle.

Scriptures mention Ahichhatra (1100-1300 BC) to be triangular in shape and this is also coroborated by the data obtained by IRS, the scientist added.

He said using the remote sensing data, a scientist can prove whatever historical or geographical descriptions that have been given in the Vedas or the puranas were real or imaginary.

Thakker has specifically studied Lumbini -- the birth place of Buddha -- Ahichhatra, which was a flourishing metropolis at the end of the Mahabharata war, Kalinga Nagari and Nalanda.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 07-10-2006, 08:02 AM

For long I wished to write a brief history Sambhaji, the brother of Shivaji, his contributions to the Hindu struggle and his early death on the battlefield. What ever we know of his struggle is mainly from Sanskrit chronicles like those of Paramanand and Jayaram Pandit (Maharatta Brahmin historians and contemporaries), supplemented by bakars and Farmans of the Mohammedans. The core of the narrative here of course follows Paramanand and Jayaram's efforts.

From the reliable genealogies of the Bhosles we known that Babaji Bhosle had two sons, the elder of them Maloji Bhosle being born in 1552 CE. His younger brother was Vithoji Bhosle. Maloji Bhosle and his brother gained some prominence as a restorer of ancient rudra temples that had gone into disuse by repairing them, building tanks for them and supporting worship (gR^iShneshvara and shambhu mahAdeva; latter close to a temple built recently in Satara due to Chandrashekarendra Sarasvati, former AchArya of the Kumbhakonam maTha). Maloji had two sons Shahji and Sharifji and Vithoji eight sons all of whom fought under Shahji to resist the Mogol invasion of the Nizamshahi Sultanate. Shahji collaborated at first with the talented African slave Maliq Amber, who was sold to the Nizam Shah as a boy. The black warrior was remarkably innovative in his methods and Shahji closely observed him and learnt how to make maximum advantage of the terrain to counter numerically superior enemies with a small force. The Maliq started developing both land armies and a strong navy with fellow black slaves who had been sold to the Ahmednagar court.

Shortly, after Shahji began collaborating with Maliq Ambar, Sambhaji was born to Shahji and Jijabai, and he was named after one of their ancestral shiva temples. Shahji and Jijabai had 6 sons but of them only Sambhaji and Shivaji survived past puberty (teShAM madhye shaMbhu-shivau dvAvevAn-vaya-vardhanau - they were the middle sons). The African warrior laid a trap for the invading forces of the Mogol Padishah Jahangir and the Adil Shah who was also fighting on their side. Finally, the Mogol and Adili forces were ambushed by Amber in Bhatavadi where Shahji also entered the fight on the side of the black warrior with his brother and cousins. Paramanand's Sanskrit poem on this battle gives a detailed account of the action that took place. The spectacular feats of Shahji in the battle resulted in a rout for the Mogols and their allies. In course of time he conquered the Pune region and made it his land. This also resulted in the jealousy of the African warrior towards him and Shahji wandered away, with both him and his young son Sambhaji entering Adil Shahi court and then the Mogol court when Shah Jahan ascended the throne.

But soon after that the Mogols conquered Devagiri and pressed the Nizam Shah close to extinction. Shahji for the first time made a proto-nationalistic attempt at this point. He with his young son Sambhaji (Shivaji was just born sometime back) decided to become the protector of a puppet Nizam Shah and resist the Mogols. For about 3 years he struggled against the Mogols and the Adil with a force of about 12,000 men that he had assembled along with a renegade Brahmin fighter Murar Jagdev. Shah Jahan was at the pinnacle of his prowess, he had destroyed the Nizam Shah and defeated the Portuguese. The Mogol depredations combined with failed monsoons had triggered famines in Maharashtra depopulating many human settlements. The Mogol Padishaw pressed hard on Shahji and in the early 1630s captured his wife and the young Shivaji. However, they somehow got free after one of Jijabai's relatives bribed a relatively mild Moslem officer who had arrested them. Finally, after much fighting Shah Jahan reduced Shahji's possessions to a mere 5 forts and deputed a force to collaborate with the Adil and the Qutb to destroy Shahji and returned to Delhi. Shahji was finally starved in the siege of Mahuli and was forced to surrender to Randulla Khan, the able Jihadi of the Adil Shah.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?