Bajirao Mastani is the latest attempt by a revisionist agenda of corporate India to highlight any non-Muslim figures in the history of India. Before recent times, the fact remains that the glory of India has always been under Muslim rule for over the last 1000 years - from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal empire.Yet the Indian media only highlights Akbar (and to some extent Shah Jahan) because Akbar was the least Muslim of the lot. He founded his own religion (Dil Ilahi) and married a Rajput princess. He is the one glorified today in India and the rest of these Muslim rulers - who led India to heights that she hasn't reached even today - are forgotten. Some are actually vilified - such as Aurangzeb - with allegations against him debunked by many historians yet repeated all the time by those with a Hindutva agenda.
Instead, we are taught about the greatness of a man Bajirao, a petty man who managed to carve a little country for himself when the Mughal empire was in decline, and who actually hastened the decline leading to the acceleration of British control over all of India. Similarly they highlight the story of another loser called Maha Rana Pratap, who sniped at the Mughals from the sides and again gave the British an opening they wanted. Meanwhile, real heroes who faught against the British such as Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan - no movies are made about them because they happen to be Muslim.
The inconvenient fact remains that for the vast majority of Indians, going from Muslim rule to British rule was merely a change of masters (and the British were the far cruel masters). Only the Muslims were affected as they used to be in power, so they fought for freedom. Not until the War of Independence (or the Indian Mutiny) did the rest of India join them. Gandhi was a much flawed man whose tactics did not win India independence - it was the guerrilla attacks by many others (such as Bhagat Singh and Master ji) and the pressure of American diplomacy amongst other factors that caused it. Gandhi did not even want independence; he wanted India to be made into a dominion. Yet today he is the father of a nation.
Instead, we are taught about the greatness of a man Bajirao, a petty man who managed to carve a little country for himself when the Mughal empire was in decline, and who actually hastened the decline leading to the acceleration of British control over all of India. Similarly they highlight the story of another loser called Maha Rana Pratap, who sniped at the Mughals from the sides and again gave the British an opening they wanted. Meanwhile, real heroes who faught against the British such as Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan - no movies are made about them because they happen to be Muslim.
The inconvenient fact remains that for the vast majority of Indians, going from Muslim rule to British rule was merely a change of masters (and the British were the far cruel masters). Only the Muslims were affected as they used to be in power, so they fought for freedom. Not until the War of Independence (or the Indian Mutiny) did the rest of India join them. Gandhi was a much flawed man whose tactics did not win India independence - it was the guerrilla attacks by many others (such as Bhagat Singh and Master ji) and the pressure of American diplomacy amongst other factors that caused it. Gandhi did not even want independence; he wanted India to be made into a dominion. Yet today he is the father of a nation.
4 comments:
Reading is perhaps not your forte (except Quran).
First improve the standard of education of BD so that you guys make anything other than jeans/tshirts for Macy's and Walmart.
=============================
Will Durant (RSS agent), the famous historian summed it up like this:
"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."
Koenraad Elst (RSS Vice President), the german historian writes in "Negation in India"
The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on."
Oh now Indians have to learn about Islamic rule from Bangla Desis. That is strange, given that BD can't even agree with their former master (West Pakistan) on the genocide of 1971 and accuse each other of authoring revisionist history.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/142229342?access_key=key-ut0sci2uvq8926h80xk&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
Please read the above and educate yourself about the Islamic rule in India and compare it with the British Rule.
Aha BTW, In 250+ yrs British rule gave india modern education system, railways etc. The 1000 of islamic rule could not show one example of great universities. Khilji burn the greatest univ of that era, the Nalanda univ (Buddhist).
Is it any surprise that the aversion towards education is seen even today in Pak and BD.
Sitting in Toronto its convenient to talk about Indian cinema. Eh?
Post a Comment