January 2, 2001
A reader writes :-
“I have been regularly reading your column…You may permit me to say that your column is frequently unbalanced and one sided.”
The illustrations of imbalance cited are those distortions of history which cause Hindus to feel an abiding sense of injury and outrage. The origin of these notions is not ignorance but “Malice aforethought”. British historians driven by colonial concerns and anxious to justify their intrusion and excesses in India created these distortions.
Sir Henry Elliot author of “The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians” proclaimed without hesitation that his objective was to prove that the British were the very best rulers the Indians ever had. All Indian rulers had to be less than the best. Even Akbar had to be found full of faults.
Wherever possible rulers had to be condemned as cruel lascivious grasping greedy and brutal. As the British deposed the last emperor of India and the Nawabs of Arcot , Bengal and Awadh the Muslims had to come in for especially harsh treatment. The brutality of Muslim rulers to Hindu subjects became a favoured topic. To this end, isolated acts of brutality were gouged out of narratives and chronicles and highlighted to appear as occurring generally and constantly throughout the 1192-1857 period. It is this distortion which makes many Hindus feel and say that they have become independent after a thousand years.
This “Hindu” vs “Muslim” history was taught for eight generations and still continues to distort perceptions.
Many Itihaas columns addressing these vexed topics have appeared in the nearly five years of publication. The fact that they have made no impact and just not registered shows that we have failed to overcome the ‘blind spots’ These still need to be dealt with. We shall therefore take the instances of ‘imbalances’ cited in the letter up one at a time to address it in detail :-
Inter-Marriage as a means for integration. Why it was a one-way activity?
“You do not mention whether in the interests of integration any daughters of Muslim nobles were married to Hindus… It appears that the so called integration was a one sided affair. If so it is not a matter to be commended”
As the writer is, from his name, Gadgil, obviously of Maharashtra origin the story of Mastaane will illustrate the problems of the Hindu in accepting non-Hindus as wives.
Mastaanee was a highly cultivated and charming lady of Muslim origin. Her lover, patron, and common law husband was a Peshwa of the Maratthaas. When this inter-communal union was blessed by the birth of a son the Peshwa tried hard for the integration of the boy into his family. He wanted the boy to be made Brahmin. A boy becomes a Brahmin by the bestowal of a sacred thread and the whisper of a mantra into his ear. This request was refused by the Chitpaavan community to which the Peshwa belonged. The boy was denied a Hindu identity and therefore forced to “embrace” Islam and is known as Nawab Shamsher Bahadur. Admission into the “twice born” by the bestowal of a Yajnopavit or Juneiou (sacred thread) would have made him a “Peshwa” and perhaps the line would not have died out and made adoption of Dhondho Pant necessary. As is well known this adoption was not recognised by the East India Company and forced the family into revolt in 1857.
The problem was (and is for many even today in the third millennium of the Christ) one of being “soiled”, “defiled”, “contaminated” and rendered impure by the touch of another person considered “dirty”. [Jhoota] This applied to those perceived as unequal or lower in caste ranking howsoever eminent they may be in other matters.
The Hindus and the Jains belong to different religious protestations. They may, however, intermarry along caste lines. Thus in the Bania Agrawals marriages are permitted between Jains and Hindus right across the religious divide because neither party can ‘soil’ the other as both parties are from the same caste.
The Rajputs and the Mughals were both from the warrior caste. Raja Bhar Mull of Amber had greatly impressed Akbar during a visit to the Court in Delhi. The 18 year old emperor was learning his India and about war by riding an elephant in MAST or MUSST. This is a condition in which ichor flows from the temples and the elephant is quite out of control. The mountain like brute was careering in all directions and leaving a mass of destruction in its wake. All the Turaani ( Mughal/Uzbeg/Tajik/Qalmaq/Kirghiz/etc.) braves were seen turning tail and running away whenever the animal moved towards them. When this happened to the Rajputs they were unmoved except for gripping their spear and sword handles. This valour made a great impression on Akbar.
When therefore Bhar Mull offered the hand of his daughter Maanmati to Akbar the offer was accepted with joy and alacrity.
This event occurred in 1562 when Akbar was 19 years of age and had been ruler for six. He was on his way from Ajmer Sharif where he had gone on pilgrimage to the shrine of Khwaja Muinuddeen Chishti. This Sufi saint of the Chishtiyya order was held in great reverence by Hindus and Muslims alike.
The occasion was taken by Akbar to make a counter offer. Akbar said to the Rajputs :
“Our relatives live far away in Turki areas. We have to marry in families of an equally high status. You are old and high families of Hindostan. Therefore please accept matrimonial alliances with our daughters.”
The Rajputs thought over the matter and responded
“Your daughters are like chiefs for us and it will be presumptuous of us to marry them. Moreover if they came to our homes we would out of respect have to accept their religion. This is not acceptable to us. Our daughters going to your homes will present no such problem.”
[Thus] The intermarriage idea remained a one way affair.
We shall take up the other points in subsequent columns.