Communalizing History: Shivaji and Afzal Khan
Submitted by admin3 on 29 September 2009 - 9:49pm
By Ram Puniyani,
The assembly elections have been declared in Maharashtra, and with this the atmosphere is heating up politically. In this state there have been substantial number of farmer’s suicides, all over there are serious issues related to rising prices, unemployment and other problems of daily life. But it seems that some political parties in Maharashtra are not much concerned about these core issues of society and seem to be more interested in the identity issues emerging from the past. Recently (September 3rd, 2009) tension developed in Miraj, Sangli and neighboring areas during Ganesh festival. This is the major festival of the state. During the festival trouble began with the erection of an arch on the route of Ganesh Visarjan, this arch depicted the slaying of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. Anticipating trouble due to the communal polarization around Shivaji and Afzal Khan, to maintain peace, the police removed the arch. Protesting against this removal of the arch some Ganesh Mandals decided not to immerse the Ganpati idols till the arch was restored. This is what led to the violence in due course, in which one person died and five got injured.
BJP leadership condemned the Governments’ step of removing the arch. Shiv Sena leader asserted that they will put posters of Shivaji slaying Afzal Khan all over the state and stated that had Shivaji been not there all of us would have been reading Namaz! The state administration did control the situation but since by now lot of emotive appeal has been generated around Shivaji it was an easy job. Few years ago during the previous Parliamentary elections, the same parties had tried to organize the procession to demolish the tomb of Afzal Khan. Fortunately at that time it was brought to people’s notice that this tomb was built by Shivaji himself and the matters came to a rest, but not before it created lot of bad blood. The matters related to Shivaji are very sensitive in Maharashtra, the state administration has even planned to construct the statue of Shivaji in the Arabain sea, costing thousands of crores, from public exchequer, at the cost other public necessities.
As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti Muslim or worshipper of Cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxation on the poor peasants. Shivaji adopted humane policy in all the aspects of his administration, which did not base itself on the religion. In the recruitment of his soldiers and officers for army and navy, religion was no criterion and more than one third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was with Siddi Sambal, and Muslim Siddis were in navy in large numbers. Interestingly his major battles were fought against the Rajput army lead by Raja Jaisingh, who was in the administration of Aurangzeb. When Shivaji was detained at Agra forte, of the two men on whom he relied for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi. Rustom-e-Jamaan was his bodyguard.
His respect for other religions was very clear and he respected the holy seers like 'Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale', whom he gave the life pension and also he helped Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship.
During his military campaigns Shivaji had issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and Dargah's were given due protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to a Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein's Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to reach her back from the place from where she was forcibly brought in. Shivaji was in no way actuated by any hatred towards people of other religions.
As a matter of fact he had great respect for holy people of all religions. All this goes on to show the values of communal harmony which Shivaji pursued, and that his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom with maximum possible geographical area. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is travesty of truth. Neither was Afzal Khan an anti Hindu king. When Shivaji killed Afzal Khan, Afzal Khan’s secretary Krishnaji Bhasker Kulkarni attacked Shivaji with a sword.
Today communal forces are out to ‘use’ Shivaji issue, to communalize the same for their political goals. In Maharashtra, Shivaji Afzal Khan have been projected as Hindu and Muslim kings. From amongst all the possible pictures of Shivaji, why is the one related to Afzal Khan is chosen? One can also show the pictures of his Pratapgadh fort with Afzal Khans tomb in that, one can show Shivaji paying respect to the Mazar of Madari Mehtar, a Muslim prince, who helped him to escape from Agra? The very selection of this picture is to divide the communities along religious lines. Communal interpretation of History, Communal historiography has been the major tool in the arsenal of communal forces. Minorities should not react to such things and try to call for peace with all the communities all the time. Now we are witnessing this pattern of history being used to communalize the society, to create sectarian divides in society. What is needed is to overcome these communal angles, to undermine identity issues, to build the Indian nation. We need to look at historical icons, as kings ruling for power, rather then the representatives of a particular religion.
FREE REPRINTS
Unless otherwise noted, you can republish our articles for free. You just have to credit TwoCircles.net and link it back to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately. (We're licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details.). For publishing TwoCircles.net photos please contact info@twocircles.net.
Afzal Khan
Ram Puniani has written a lot to show that Shivaji was secular. He also praises Afzal Khan in ONE sentence. Was Afzal Khan secular? Did he appreciate hindu feelings? Did he respect hindu gods and women as Shivaji did? Why did he kill all his wives before he started his journey to the war against Shivaji? If you try to understand Afzal Khan, you will understand why people hate him. Because Shivaji was a HINDU, he respected MUSLIMS. How many muslim kings have shown such a respect towards hindus? If at all Akbar or some other ruler had hindu ministers, it was at the cost of their daughters or some other rishwat.
To all Shaheens/Naqqads/ TCN and Company:
I cannot come to your level of language and thinking, which is evident in your responses and the endorsements that follow them. Unfortunately I have to depend upon far more number of books than one.
The only reason I come to this site is that as rationale human beings it is our duty to check every now and then whether what we learnt and the opinions we hold are still correct or not. So we question them at different points of time under different circumstances too test their validity. Although too your credit, you people have never given me any reason to doubt my knowledge and opinion.
As for TCN, their mission is clear and methods all too convenient. What gets accepted as rational arguments at TCN are the ones which must not be questioned. Because questions are considered to be inherently irrational.
That is no surprise neither is the status of Muslims all over the world.
So please continue on your path, It does make our job far easier than we imagine.
Afzal Khan, the Great Warrior
It is wrong to show posters of Shivaji and the Great Afzal Khan fight now. It is also wrong to erect statues of Shivaji. History should not be unnecessarily be repeated for nonsense. King Afzal Khan was a great Warrior, Good personality and great strength - killed brutally by Shivaji - dirty guirilla tactics employed by Shivaji. To me Afzal Khan is Great of all time and should not be degraded unnecessarily. I am a BIG FAN of Aurangzeb and Afzal Khan.
Madshu
Shaheen- Have courage to re-evaluate history
Shaheen- Have courage to re-evaluate history, it is not rewriting history. You will agree that The history about the present KASHMIR problem as told by Indian Govt and Kashmir separatist will be different. Similarly History about TIPU as told by HINDUS of KERALA and MUSLIMS of MYSORE and even MUSLIMS of KERALA will be different. The TRAVANCORE King will justify his seeking assistance from British to prevent "plunder of his country" by TIPU assisted by FRENCH. By the way TRAVANCORE became subjugated to BRITISH after TIPU's attack as the BRITISH sought Rs 70 Lakh gold coins from Travancore for the assistance rendered for the war against TIPU thus breaking the back of that kingdom.
TIPU also paid 30Lakh gold coins to British after his defeat in MYSORE. So it was the attack of TIPU which made Travancore a vassal state of BRITISH. Now if justification is sought as to why Travancore sought assistance of BRITISH rather than allow TIPU to plunder his Kingdom, it is a joke. British has to be present in the kingdom before hand if attack of TIPU had to be defeated. TIPU was permanently crippled by the NAIR ARMY of Travancore, defeated, chased till Coimbatore forcing him to leave all his French supplied GUNS and killed within 9 years of the attack on Travancore and we are proud of it.
Nairs are a pround community
Yes, Nairs are so proud of themselves that they are above the male chauvinist ideology of male progeneration. Nowadays, almost all the Nairs are fathered by other which unfortunately includes Muslims from Karnataka and Kerala.
The historical tradition of leaving your footwear at the door of Nairs is very liberating. Do not enter the house if you find a male footwear because someone is doing what you have come for.
That is the reason, Nairs are so proud. Instead of French blood, they have Britsh in their veins.
You seem to be
You stupid person doesnt even know who respected TIPPO SULTAN was ... Go & ask the British who will describe him ...Non one on planet earth was born to kill nor any mother gave birth to a son who can face him , kill him .Its only by treachery u could defeat him orelse ....bcs of followers like u INDIA was ruled by the british (anti-national change ur attitude 7 thingking)
SULTANAT E- KHUDADAD ZINDABAD
SHER E MYSORE TIPPO SULTAN ZINDABAD
OR else French would have ruled
It is a because of "HISTORIC INCIDENTS" which occurred in Europe that British ruled India. Had FRENCH won the Anglo-French wars fought in "Europe", it could be very well that India could have ended as a French Colony, for France was also a colonising power which came to India with an aim to subjugate India. It is TIPU's mis-fortune that he sided with the losing FRENCH rather than the victorious British. So Hinstory has many interpretations.
TIPU was defeated by TRAVANCORE NAIR ARMY in 1790 and had to run away leaving all his GUNS purchased from French is also part of History. TIPU having paid 30Lakh Gold to British, having collected it from the people of MYSORE, is also recorded in History. IT IS NOT KNOWN IF TIPU WAS GIVEN SOME "CERTIFICATE BY BRITISH" FOR THE PAYMENT OF 30LAKH GOILD COINS. If you have anything please post it.
wow..what an intellectual statement
Wow..what an intellectual response to Mr Nair's post. It shows you are still wallowing in the gutter mentality of - Say-anything-against-this-person-I-will-kill-You.
Giri is giri
Please remember that after many nonsence comments Giri ایک گرا ہوا انسان ہے۔ ہمیں اس کمینے انسان پر وقت ضائع نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔ آپ سوئے کو جگا سکتے ہیں جاگتے کو نہیں۔
What courage?
The article already talks about communal historiography- you are still bent on pursuing that by talking about Hindu and Muslim versions of history, and Mysore and Kerala versions.
Secularizing History
The lamest argument one can proffer about the supposedly secular nature of any king/government is that their army had many Hindus or high ranking hindus and vice versa If we stretch it further British army had lots of Hindu/Muslim sepoys so British were not fighting against Indians. The intellectual dishonesty of these secular arguments is way too transparent. So are the claims that Tipu was fighting for India's independence or he attacked Travancore because they had allied with British.
Can someone enlighten us as to why allying with British was treachery while allying with french (as Tipu did) or Portuguese was a great patriotic act? Hyder Ali had also sought British and Portuguese help while fighting the Marathas so that was also Patriotism? In first place how did Hyder Ali become a King ? Was he son of the King? Or was it the Good Old Treachery? No, the original King was a despot and was oppressing Dalits, so Hyder Ali had to imprison him and reluctantly agreed to declare himself as the King, again on the request of oppressed Dalits.
TIpu Sultan? Another Great Nationalist? Yes of course killing and converting Hindus and Christians indeed amounts fighting for India's independence. A couple of land grants for Hindu Temples for reasons known to all is touted as his commitment to Hindu Muslim unity. But demolition of dozens of Hindu temples was fight for India's independence, must be because British were hiding in those temples and Tipu with a Heavy Heart and Choked Throat ordered the demolition of Temples and Idols as well.
What about his own letters instructing convert, Kill, Kidnap? Oh these were figment of British imagination, the letters were actually forged by British. Right!!! That is proved.
Now about Shivaji vs. Aurangzeb
We are told Shivaji erected a special mosque for Muslims, instructed his men to not maltreat Muslim women and children, to respect Koran and gave due protection to Mosques. Well and good.
So that proves that Aurangzeb was Secular. Which temple was erected by Aurangzeb? Oooh you don't know he gave grants for so many temples. Why did he demolish numerous temples and also prohibited Diwali celebrations? OoooooH Hindu queens implored him to Demolish the Kashi temple and insisted that a mosque be built. Poor Aurangzeb, he could not disappoint them so again Choked Throat and Sorrow in heart preceded demolition of temple and idol. Other temples? Well they were centers for conspiring against his kingdom or dens of immoral hindu practices. But why the Idols? Well where is it written that breaking idols is against secularism? His secularism is also proved by his various battles with Muslim chieftains but you see Muslims never used Mosques for political purpose and so Aurangzeb never had to demolish any mosque despite his secularism.
Afzal Khan demolished temples? What kind of history have you guys read? RSS? Read some Secular History.
Similarly, Wahabbi movement was for India's independence and Ali Brothers when fighting for restoration of Khilafat was actually fighting for India's independence from British. What? Go and Check the meaning of Khilafat. Gandhijee also supported but later on under pressure of rabid Hindu Hard liners dissociated from Khilafat!!
Moplah ? Refer to all the above.
What is NEXT?
Ajmal Kasab and his brave brothers launched the first battle against the ugly imperial conspiracy hatched by US along with the Zionist forces, Hindutva Hate mongers and Indian Elites!!!!!! That is why they targeted Nariman House, Taj and Oberoi as these were the centre of Zionist and Indian Elites. Their names will be written in Golden letters when the Secular History of India's 21st century battle against imperialistic - globalization is written.
What are your expectations
@ SKS Bombay,
A lot of labour but not convincing. What are your expectations? Should Muslim demolish all the mosques and flush the Qur'an off the toilets? It is all comparision as Shivaji is granted secularism for his cannon fodders being Siddis similarly the counter is put forth on same plane.
The criminal in you is recless enough not to know that the so alled 'Meareja' of Mysore still had a 'durbarr' and the govt of Karnataka spends on the 'doosera' activities. Now, those who called Tipu a secular but spend on the 'doosera' activities are hypocrtes because to the non-despot but the then eunuch ruler was unfit to rule the state. History is evidence to this effect. Haidar Ali made it a point that he is called a Sultan and not any king. If you are coward enough to take cover under the wrongs done in past, no one can sympathise with you. Past cannot be brought back and altered.
The receipie for your malady is that you try taking care of some poor people without looking into their caste, religion or language and after few days you'd realise what true human joy can be. Feeding imported dogs and weekend spending on family and not bothering about people around you makes you feel unsecure. Atleast those who attacked Bombay had committment, yes, more than the so called meritorious armed security personnel who are still fighting for more money, fourth year running after the 6th pay commission. Greed has filled your persona, that is the reason you feel other people to be alien.
Rewriting history
Dear SKS,
Perhaps you would like to ponder over these facts:
1. Secularism should ideally mean some kind of justice to each section of society irrespective of their beliefs, this was certainly present in Tipu's time, whether or not people accept it. The same was not present during British rule, so having Hindu or Muslim soldiers can at best be a criterion of secularism, but not enough proof of it.
2. As regards the Mysore-French alliance vis-a-vis the Travancore-British alliance, there remains a difference between an alliance based on mutual respect and becoming a vassal state.
Interestingly, during the 4th Anglo-Mysore war, the Marathas too sided with the British, was it to avenge the earlier attack by Hyder Ali (as noted by you)..
3. Please enlighten how it is of any importance whether or not Hyder Ali had inherited the throne or had usurped it from the Raja.
4. Sivaji's secularism is well-proven. The article above did not discuss Aurangzeb.
5. It is to Sivaji's credit that he allowed Afzal Khan's tomb in his kingdom.
6. The Wahabi movement is a misnomer. It was a movement solely led by Indian Muslims- but there is another angle to it- even before Subhash Chandra Bose, there was another Indian government in exile set up around the first WW (in collaboration with Germany and Turkey), headed by a Jat royal Mahendra Pratap- this actually came about as a result of the so-called Wahabi movement- the government functioned for a brief while from Afghan soil.
About the same Mahendra Pratap, Gandhi stated in his paper "Young India" (July 4, 1929) that "Raja Mahendra Pratap is a great patriot. For the sake of the country this nobleman has chosen exile as his lot..." Pratap was also nominated to the Nobel Prize in 1932.
While typing on the keyboard one may pass quick judgments, but it is difficult to imagine the context in which these battles took place. However, the concept of Indian nationhood and secularism was always present.
Shaheen, great comments
Giri wrote about Nair's comment as good intellectual reply but this showed us what they are upto.
Shaheen, please remember that to many Hindus and Christans who attend the hate-systems of shakas and churches, a Muslim cannot be secular even if he avoid circumcision! In other words only Hindus and Christians can be secular. One misses the real point which is being Muslim is the best form of secularism as you have inbuilt rules to that effect. In secular India the RBI does not allow interest free banking but this is truly secular. It means being anti-Muslim is secularism then how come a Muslim be secular? SK Singh and his mindset people say that Islam is consuming more and more Muslims. Now, you can maximum laugh on this foolishness. To him not following Hinduism (which in fact is not even an idelogy set aside being religion but a name given by others) is being Hindu but is it so for being Muslim. To him Muslims are good but Islam is not. Should one spend time and energy in explaining these morons what logic means.
History/Shaheen/SKS
Shaheen
I can agree that Tipu fought against British. but if you say he is secular nd considered everybody equally, aren't we stretching our imagination wild and far?
There were only two incidents of mass rape and conversion and destruction in Kerala history. One was Tipu's "Patayottam" over Malabar. Ironically, the only instance of forceful conversion of Christrians also happened at that time (demolishing the Mangalore churches). for abrief period, Calicut was named Islamabad (A Sreedhara Menon, A History of Kerala). Tipu was driven by Islam, rather than the love of a country.
British rules provided for law, order, justice; of course not freedom. When Aurangazeb collected additional tax from Hindus, would you consider it secular, just....
HyderAli's usurping is another example of the seedy ways followed by Muslim rulers and want-to-be rulers.
There was no Turkey or German connection with the "Hijra" to Afghanistan. This was the part of the "famous" Khilafet movement (which if you remeber did not ahve anything to do with india's independence. its objectives were 1) Presreve the Turkish Caliphate 2) protect Holy places in Arabia 3) Preserve the integrity of teh Ottoman enmpire (all these were the causes for Indian Muslism!).When khilafet movement started to fail; Ali brothers exorted the cause of Hijra because India was a Dar-al-Harb(land of infidels); and 20,000 plus Mulsims migrated to Afhhnistan, which was an Islamic country. Afghanistan could not take so many peopel, closed down the borders,and many died. It was not an Indian government in exile. It was an attempt by Muslims to go to Dar-al-Islam and be free of Dar-al-Harb (because India was under british, and even if british left, they felt they cannot be in a Hindu majority country!
Muslim cant be secular.... yes it is a fact
Tomy,
Muslims cant be secular because I know what the term means. Sarkozy came to India and told Manmohan Singh that there has been genocide of Christians in India. While Sikhs were agitating for the ban of turban in France. To you Crusaders, you think you have inherited the Jesus but how come you have too many WMDs, so many in numbers that nobody could call them Christian bomb as you talk about Jewish and Islamic bomb. If you are peacenicks, why are you dragging feet on disarmament while asking others not even to use the peaceful branch of it. Due this criminal discrimination you need the shield of being secular and what not. The world knows the christian USA lives by the world of God which is to bomb cities into submission by means of 'weapons of peace', the atomic bomb. Now, if one is in know of these facts, are you still there trying to convince others that you means peace. By siding with few cowards, you cannot play a USA here in India. How can you have sense of History once you do not have that of present?
Gopi
I think you got confused between the two - the Khilafat movement was a fallout of the so-called Wahabi movement, not the cause of it. The government in exile was set up before that (i.e., in between the Wahabi movement and the Khilafat agitation).
Regarding the German connection, have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedermayer-Hentig_mission
The same methodology was adopted later by the INA in collaborating with the Germans, against the British.
I am surprised you consider British rule just- is it because of some religious affinity? So you say the British rule provided law, order, justice but not freedom - isn't freedom connected to justice, or you are dealing with some sort of abstract freedom?
hey, you can cook nice
hey, you can cook nice stupid laughable theories!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are waiting for christian reconversion again back to hinduism in India!!! BTW
Ram is bringing facts in right perspective
There was nothing communal about Shivaji or Aurangzeb who relied on armed forces based on professionals where sheer merit was the criteria. If Afzal Khan dies at the hands of Marathas, they erected a tomb in his memory because he was a General. After the demise of Shivaji, his son Sambhaji was caputured and killed but this time too, Aurangzeb did same as Sambhaji was supposed to be a prince and the Emperor even adopted the youg son of Sambhaji and got him married to girl of a same stature family which was in the service of the Empire. We may selectively despise these fugures but just like the political parties fighting it out resulting in killing of many, in the historical past the top boss of the parties used to get killed. This way, those were better times as instead of the common man the top boss used to sacrifice for his standing.
One correction here Ram that it was Rustame Zamaan OR Rustam-e-Zamaan (رستم زماں) and not Rustam-e-Jamaan as you picket up. I am aghast that you did committ this mistake. May be slip of pen or keyboard. We all value your work, just keep an eye on the pollution creeping in our persona!!
India must accept interpretation of History
India must accept interpretation of History. All communities must have the courage to accept that Indian History has substantial areas of communal conflict between Hindus and Muslims and include various interpretation of same in History rather than insist that HISTORY is monolithic.
-- The capture of Chitor by Akbar was brutal- accept it openly.
-- Marathas had effectively took control of India from Attock at the foot hills of Afghanistan to Allahabad and upto Madurai down south after death of Aurangazeb.
-- In 1758 the Marathas and Sikhs captured Sirhind from Muslims, and the MUSLIMS massacred because the sons of GURU Gobind Singh were killed at Sirhind.
-- Marathas also attacked Jaipur, the RAJPUT Kingdom and the King committed suicide.
-- Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Afghan King came to India at the invitation of Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and smashed rising Maratha power in the Third battle of Panipat with the support of Muslim Nawabs of North India. Had Maratta power not been decimated at Panipat probably the British would NOT have captured India.
So the history of India is littered with Hindu-Muslim conflict and can be viewed differently by different people. Indians lack courage to accept different interpretation of History and "communal disharmony" is the prompt excuse for curtailment of such interpretations.
Mr. Anonymous, Read the
Mr. Anonymous,
Read the Article carefully. Shivaji's army was consisting muslim commanders. And Akbar/Aurangazeb army was consisting of Hindu Kinds/commanders. The Fact is all the kings were Interested in expanding/stabilising there kingdoms, be it Muslim or Hindu rulers. Its you people like the Chadiwalas always wanted to give a relgious color to conflict/war that have taken place in the pre british era.
BTW the Britishers were having technology & they were very cunning. They know the art of divide & rule. Whoever be the ruler Marathas/Mughals/Rajputs. The Britishers would have conquered. Do you know why? we Indians behave like a Crab.
Mr Anonymous, you are missing the forest for the trees!!!
Effectively what has been stated is that "history can be perceived differently by different people"- MUSLIMS, SIV SENA,HINDUS, Congress, BJP etc . To illustrate with an example
1---TIPU attacked and plundered Malabar part of KERALA ruled by the HINDU KING- ZAMORIN in 1790.
2--- Then TIPU attacked TRAVANCORE- another HINDU Kingdom in Kerala to the south of Malabar- evidently to plunder it too.
3--- The TRAVANCORE King sought the assistance of BRITISH to prevent TIPU's plunder and defeated TIPU with the assistance of BRITISH.
4--- But BRITISH demanded heavy payment from the TRAVANCORE King for assistance rendered, perpetually reducing Travancore to a subordinate state of BRITISH.
5--- Would the TRAVANCORE KING been more patriotic had he allowed the "Indian TIPU" to plunder his Kingdom with out seeking BRITISH help??????
6--- Had TIPU NOT attacked Travancore, that King would NOT have sought assistance from BRITISH and subjugated his kingdom to British perpetually. So who is the villain of the incident????
7--- TIPU was so badly defeated by the TRAVANCORE and was chased all the way to SRIRANGAPATTANAM culminating in the defeat of TIPU by British in 1792.
8--- In the treaty after defeat, The MALABAR part of Kerala was given to BRITISH by TIPU.
9-- So who assisted the BRITISH in subjugating the entire KERALA if it was NOT TIPU- that my friend is the aspect to be understood by pseudo-secularist.
Misplaced facts
Dear Mr. Nair,
Please take some history lessons before making such unscrutinized claims- the last Zamorin was defeated by Hyder Ali in 1766! Moreover, Tipu Sultan was a true son of the soil who attacked Travancore because it was in a treacherous alliance with the British.
It is true Tipu was defeated but that was due to the grand alliance the British had with Travancore as well as the Nizam.
Moreover, even after giving his sons as ransom to the British, Tipu Sultan recovered within 4 years and sought cooperation from Napoleon against the British. It is another matter that he was again betrayed by Mir Sadiq and finally gave his life on the battlefield. You can read even books by English historians attesting to the bravery of this valiant hero.
Regarding the matter of Sivaji, he was a secular king who had as many as 700 Pathan cavalry. As the author has pointed out above, the wars between Indian princes were purely for territorial gains and not based on religion.
History is different
1-- When Hyder Ali attacked in 1766, Zamorin sent his younger brother to TRAVANCORE and he himself stayed beck to fight HYDER. Many Hindu landlord families also sent their families to TRAVANCORE.
2-- When defeat was imminent, the Zamorin committed suicide along with his family by setting fire to his house rather than surrender as he would have been forcefully converted by HYDER to islam.
3-- HYDER plundered Malabar and went back to Mysore.
4-- Zamorins brother came back and became the King of Malabar after hyder left.
5-- When TIPU commenced his "plundering raid" in 1790 again Hindu landlords sent their families to Travancore. TIPU attacked TRAVANCORE demanding return of the families of Malabar Hindu Landlords and NOT because of BRITISH.
6-- TIPU did NOT attack the TRAVANCORE defenses where BRITISH were positioned but opted to attack places where TRAVANCORE NAIR ARMY was positioned and it was the NAIR ARMY who defeated TIPU.
7-- TIPU's withdrawal from TRAVANCORE after defeat by NAIR ARMY has been equated to the withdrawal of defeated NAPOLEON from RUSSIA. TIPU had to run all the way back till Coimbatore leaving behind his GUNS, never regained his power after his defeat in 1790 and had become "lame" due to injuries he suffered in the war against NAIR ARMY.
All this are not very old history and hence is elaborately described in various books written by Historians of that time.
Generic history
Mr. Nair,
Every person has a soft corner for his/her community but that should not prevent him/her from seeing the larger picture.
It is universally accepted that Tipu Sultan was a brave son of the Indian soil, who opposed the British tooth and nail, and was not unjust to any particular community.
Regarding the impartiality of the Travancore kingdom, from your point no. 6 above, can you please enlighten us why were British guns positioned in Travancore in the first place? Further if Tipu was such a lame enemy, why was he compared to Napoleon as you yourself have acknowledged?
Hyder Ali was not on a proselyting mission - he even had Hindu ministers in his government. The British themselves refer to Tipu's attack on Travancore as the Third Anglo-Mysore war, thereby indicating that Travancore had become a vassal state of the British.
I appreciate that the Nair community has contributed to the development of the country like other communities (perhaps even more so), but some things are etched in black and white, so you don't have to justify your viewpoint that history always depends on perception. Moreover, it is not a Hindu-Muslim question as the Nizam had also sided with the British, while the Marathas later joined in.
In fact the British success in colonization was based on the policy of divide and rule which relied both upon regional as well as communal divisions.
For reference sake, please see the following quotes:
1 "The reasons why Tippu was reviled are not far to seek. Englishmen were prejudiced against him because they regarded him as their most formidable rival and an inveterate enemy, and because, unlike other Indian rulers, he refused to become a tributary of the English Company. Many of the atrocities of which he has been accused were allegedly fabricated either by persons embittered and angry on account of the defeats which they had sustained at his hands, or by the prisoners of war who had suffered punishments which they thought they did not deserve. He was also misrepresented by those who were anxious to justify the wars of aggression which the Company's Government had waged against him. Moreover, his achievements were belittled and his character blackened in order that the people of Mysore might forget him and rally round the Raja, thus helping in the consolidation of the new regime"
The History of Tippu Sultan (Delhi) 1971 p368
2.Brittlebank Tipu Sultan’s search for legitimacy p10-12. On p2 she writes
“it is perhaps ironic that the aggressive Hinduism of some members of the Indian Community in the 1990s should draw upon an image of Tipu which, as we shall see, was initially constructed by the Subcontinent’s colonisers.”
generic history/Shaheen
You are right tipu fought against British, and he was brave at that.
.
But you are wrong that "he was not against any community".
his infamous "patayottam" through Malabar was a story of rape, destruction of properties and temples (and churches), and forced conversion.
He even named Calicut Islamabad. (A Sreedhara Menon, History of Kerala)
In fact he is the only one in Indian history who forcefully converted Christians also. Mangalore churches wered demolished, catholics were converted,a nd the ones refused to convert were taken to srirangapatnam jail.
Guruvayoor priests took the idol to Ambalapuzha (in Travancore) Kroshna temple because they were afraid Guruvayoor will be run over. (which he did not). Even today, there is an "empty" slot for Guruvayoorappan at Ambalapuzha and daily worship is done where they had kept the Guruvayoor idol.
Sivaji is great, shiv sena is party of idiots
Till now We had to deal only with one idiot Bal Thackeray, but now e have to deal with another MNS idiot Raj Thackeray. It is no brainer that they erected that to gain political milage.
On Sivaji, i wanted to add..He was a great devotee of Sant Tukaram and Samarth Ramdas, two great contemporary saints of his time.
Post new comment