01-07-2007, 11:02 PM
From Deccan Chronicle, 7 Jan., 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Honouring Godse
By Akhilesh Mithal
According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the English word âhistoryâ has its origin in Greek, relates to knowing by inquiry and means âA relation of incidents (in later times only of those professedly true)â. The Hindustani or Indian word Itihaas means âThus it wasâ.
Bald, factual statements appear to be what is required of history and of Itihaas. This makes history, taught in the classrooms of schools, dull and uninspiring and the subject, unpalatable. The raw material is to blame. The majority of characters who people the political stage of any era are boring and uninteresting.
In our own country, for every Chandragupta Maurya, Babar or Ranjit Singh, there are dozens of nincompoops like Rafiusshaan, Rafiurdarjat and Kharak Singh. The average ruler being below average, and usually what is called saadharan or ordinary, makes him incapable of holding of attention. This is perhaps the reason why Indian chroniclers made well above life-size heroes of the characters they chose to portray and ignored the rest. This helped make chronicles like that rendered in English as âTodâs Annals interesting although it earned Indians the title of people without a sense of history.â
The Presidents and Prime Ministers of today, whether Indian or the USA and Britain, are no better. They can hardly be said to be even entertaining characters â leave alone spell binding â nowhere near fascinating enough to hold the attention of listeners who need amusement, entertainment and education. Even the most erudite scholarly and versatile of them all (whether Indian or foreign) Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, who nearly became the head of a Muthth, made no impact with either his deeds, actions, conversation, speeches or writings. His portfolios were amongst the most important and his oeuvre includes a non-bestselling novel. His inaction when the RSS brought down the Babari Masjid is an indelible black mark on the secular claims of the Congress.
<b>The early chronicles of mankind, and this includes India, were written by poets who wove magic, mystery and other such dramatic elements into their texts in order to make their subject interesting. The kind of âhistoryâ we favour today was not written in earlier times. The questions that arise are: âWhen did Indians start writing what we mean by âhistoryâ or Itihaas? Which text or book can claim to be the very first narrative written so as to fulfil the requirements which help a work acquire the title of âhistoryâ?â</b>
Perhaps, and in honour of the 150th anniversary of 1857 which falls this year, we should stake the claim of the<b> Marathi work Maaza Pravaas: 1857 Bandachi Hakikat or My Travels written in 1877, edited in 1884 and published only in 1907. The work could not be published in the lifetime of author Vishnubhatt Godse because it had eyewitness and contemporary accounts and description of the events of 1857, 1858 and the delineation of characters playing a prominent role such as Nanasaheb Dhondhopant Peshwa, Maharani Lakshmibai of Jhansi and Tantya Tope.</b>
As 1857 represented a major failure of British rule in India and spelt doom of its perpetrator, <b>the English wanted East India Company either to be totally forgotten or only remembered as a tale of Oriental/Asiatic/Indian double dealing/betr-ayal and British steadfastness, resilience, bravery, dedication to honour and other such sterling virtues which were the monopoly of the ruling race.</b>
Maazaa Pravaas attracted little attention in the period 1907-1947 as the British were still in power and the iron fist was seen in all its stark nakedness as late as 1942 when thousands of unarmed Indians were mowed down in the streets of cities and towns of India to crush the non-violent Quit India movement. The Congress was the only nationalist force pressing for Independence while the rightist Hindus of the Mahasabha, the Rastriya Swayamsewak Sangh and their counterparts amongst the Muslims, the Muslim League and the Khaksaars aided and abetted by the Communist Party of India, were trying to prolong the stay of the British in India. The writing of the history of 1857 would have drawn the attention and incurred the wrath of the British rulers.
The power of Godseâs descriptions however caused an amateur historian/researcher of Maratha history, Dattatreya Balawant Parasnis, to write a book on Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi. His claim that the book was based upon an account he had received from an old dependent of the slain ruler has been examined and found incorrect. Godseâs account of the Rani has been established as the source of information of this work published in 1894. This biography provided details of the daily life of the Rani, her exercise routine, her long baths, her horsemanship and her prowess in the battlefield.
<b>V.D. Savarkar was influenced by the Raniâs heroic life and her revolt against the British and the book he wrote on 1857 were the outcome. In 2007, the 150th anniversary of 1857, we should honour Vishnubhat Godse</b> for his seminal work by writing a fresh account of the uprising and dedicating it to this unusual karmakandi Brahmin <b>who could write as âmodernâ a history as any of his contemporary writers anywhere in the world.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Honouring Godse
By Akhilesh Mithal
According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the English word âhistoryâ has its origin in Greek, relates to knowing by inquiry and means âA relation of incidents (in later times only of those professedly true)â. The Hindustani or Indian word Itihaas means âThus it wasâ.
Bald, factual statements appear to be what is required of history and of Itihaas. This makes history, taught in the classrooms of schools, dull and uninspiring and the subject, unpalatable. The raw material is to blame. The majority of characters who people the political stage of any era are boring and uninteresting.
In our own country, for every Chandragupta Maurya, Babar or Ranjit Singh, there are dozens of nincompoops like Rafiusshaan, Rafiurdarjat and Kharak Singh. The average ruler being below average, and usually what is called saadharan or ordinary, makes him incapable of holding of attention. This is perhaps the reason why Indian chroniclers made well above life-size heroes of the characters they chose to portray and ignored the rest. This helped make chronicles like that rendered in English as âTodâs Annals interesting although it earned Indians the title of people without a sense of history.â
The Presidents and Prime Ministers of today, whether Indian or the USA and Britain, are no better. They can hardly be said to be even entertaining characters â leave alone spell binding â nowhere near fascinating enough to hold the attention of listeners who need amusement, entertainment and education. Even the most erudite scholarly and versatile of them all (whether Indian or foreign) Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, who nearly became the head of a Muthth, made no impact with either his deeds, actions, conversation, speeches or writings. His portfolios were amongst the most important and his oeuvre includes a non-bestselling novel. His inaction when the RSS brought down the Babari Masjid is an indelible black mark on the secular claims of the Congress.
<b>The early chronicles of mankind, and this includes India, were written by poets who wove magic, mystery and other such dramatic elements into their texts in order to make their subject interesting. The kind of âhistoryâ we favour today was not written in earlier times. The questions that arise are: âWhen did Indians start writing what we mean by âhistoryâ or Itihaas? Which text or book can claim to be the very first narrative written so as to fulfil the requirements which help a work acquire the title of âhistoryâ?â</b>
Perhaps, and in honour of the 150th anniversary of 1857 which falls this year, we should stake the claim of the<b> Marathi work Maaza Pravaas: 1857 Bandachi Hakikat or My Travels written in 1877, edited in 1884 and published only in 1907. The work could not be published in the lifetime of author Vishnubhatt Godse because it had eyewitness and contemporary accounts and description of the events of 1857, 1858 and the delineation of characters playing a prominent role such as Nanasaheb Dhondhopant Peshwa, Maharani Lakshmibai of Jhansi and Tantya Tope.</b>
As 1857 represented a major failure of British rule in India and spelt doom of its perpetrator, <b>the English wanted East India Company either to be totally forgotten or only remembered as a tale of Oriental/Asiatic/Indian double dealing/betr-ayal and British steadfastness, resilience, bravery, dedication to honour and other such sterling virtues which were the monopoly of the ruling race.</b>
Maazaa Pravaas attracted little attention in the period 1907-1947 as the British were still in power and the iron fist was seen in all its stark nakedness as late as 1942 when thousands of unarmed Indians were mowed down in the streets of cities and towns of India to crush the non-violent Quit India movement. The Congress was the only nationalist force pressing for Independence while the rightist Hindus of the Mahasabha, the Rastriya Swayamsewak Sangh and their counterparts amongst the Muslims, the Muslim League and the Khaksaars aided and abetted by the Communist Party of India, were trying to prolong the stay of the British in India. The writing of the history of 1857 would have drawn the attention and incurred the wrath of the British rulers.
The power of Godseâs descriptions however caused an amateur historian/researcher of Maratha history, Dattatreya Balawant Parasnis, to write a book on Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi. His claim that the book was based upon an account he had received from an old dependent of the slain ruler has been examined and found incorrect. Godseâs account of the Rani has been established as the source of information of this work published in 1894. This biography provided details of the daily life of the Rani, her exercise routine, her long baths, her horsemanship and her prowess in the battlefield.
<b>V.D. Savarkar was influenced by the Raniâs heroic life and her revolt against the British and the book he wrote on 1857 were the outcome. In 2007, the 150th anniversary of 1857, we should honour Vishnubhat Godse</b> for his seminal work by writing a fresh account of the uprising and dedicating it to this unusual karmakandi Brahmin <b>who could write as âmodernâ a history as any of his contemporary writers anywhere in the world.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->